Canadians in general seem to love Arizona. Surprising, as I thought the big-ass Canadian RVs all headed to Florida in winter.
No, it’s the East-coasters who go to Florida. People west of the Mississippi (and Midwesterners) go to Arizona for the winter.
There’s an even more specific rule of thumb about where people from the North retire to in Florida. People from the Northeast (say, New York State) tend to retire (or move as an adult) to the east coast of Florida, while those from the near Midwest (say, Ohio) tend to retire (or move as an adult) to the west coast of Florida. This seems bizarrely specific, but it seems to be true. I remember noticing this when I, from northwest Ohio, went to college in Florida near where my grandmother had retired and my aunt had moved in her twenties. It’s like the people who travel to Florida via Interstate 95 didn’t leave that road and the people who travel to Florida via Interstate 75 didn’t leave that road. This isn’t absolutely the case, of course, but it’s a strong tendency:
Yes, exactly.
Semantic quibble. He was not crowned. He was called king after his daddy died, but he did not have a coronation. And he was only PoW for the earlier part of his relationship with Wallis.
True, it’s almost all Alberta and British Columbia plates. Saskatchewan and Manitoba not nearly so much but I suspect that’s because there’s hardly anyone there to drive down. Ontario is rare and I don’t remember the last Quebec plate nor any of the maritime provinces I saw.
US side, it’s all of the cold states west of the Mississippi river plus Wisconson* and Illinois (Chicagans, mostly). With all of the plains states, we quickly learned between Thanksgiving and Easter, not to go out for dinner at 5pm – you’ll be eating at 6. If you go at 6pm you’ll be eating at 6:15.
I also learned to eye a Buick with a four-pack – two men in the front and two women in the back – suspiciously until I’m safely past them.
*CostCo here carries cheese curds but only in the winter.
Not according to the universal opinion of English lawyers for hundreds of years. ‘The King never dies’ etc.
Anyway, in the specific case of Edward, the fact that he had ceased to be the heir and was now King was actually the immediate cause of the crisis. That was because his accession removed what had seemed to be the biggest obstacle in his path. He had until then been subject to the Royal Marriages Act. Either he would have had to get his father’s permission to marry, which realistically was never going to be given, or he would have had to give a year’s notice and hope that Parliament did not then use its powers under the Act to veto the marriage. All that vanished the moment his father died. As King, he could legally marry any non-Catholic he wished. It is clear that the complexities of the Royal Marriage Act meant that he had never seriously considered marrying Mrs Simpson while Prince of Wales. Once he was King, however, that was a possibility that he and everyone else could suddenly take very seriously indeed.
No, not a semantic quibble. Coronation is optional. The heir becomes monarch at the moment of the old monarch’s death. No coronation ceremony need ever happen.
Yes, otherwise there would have been a period of months when the country had no head of state.
Good point from APB about the significance of him no longer being merely the heir - I’d never considered that.
The coronation is optional, but usual. Edward never got to hear “Zadok the priest” played for him.
Point is, he was still King. Hence the need to abdicate.
I knew marriages could be harsh, but geesh … oh, you mean Prince of Wales… nevermind.
Even though no moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at him?
The point is that it is all tabloid gossip stuff, even including a conspiracy theory or two. There’s nothing in there that resembles any legitimate criticism of the woman. It just seems catty and pointless, like when you talk to the office gossip who is always looking to stir up drama.
It’s not a comment on caring about the woman, but on the quality of the information. I mean, there’s literally a conspiracy theory that she faked a pregnancy. Even if she did have a baby bump for longer, the most likely explanation would be a miscarriage, which most people would not want to talk about, and no one would hate her over.
It genuinely sounds like some people just don’t like her and are making up excuses and/or the tabloids are exploiting it for views by making up stuff.
Exactly. I might not be particularly interested in knowing about the Duchess of Sussex, but ordinary factual information wouldn’t particularly affect me.
What I was objecting to was the tabloid nonsense, rank speculation, conspiracy theories, silly so-called “violations of standards of behavior” that the Royal family itself has never commented upon, and other stuff that’s just some other people’s private business.
I believe one of the other objections to Simpson was that she was suspected of encouraging Edward’s flouting of British constitutional convention. Both she and Edward seem to have felt that the King should rule, not just reign. Note also that, at the time he announced his intention to marry her, she was not yet divorced.
It is this. It really is.
It’s a couple of things based on this:
-
This type is also seriously pro-royal (previously), and it forms as much of their make up as being anti anyone but themselves. It clashes completely with their basic nature, that the Queen is head of the country and beyond reproach. The queen is the union flag and is the head of the whites. Meghan is not up to scratch there.
-
The internet is a nutter amplification machine. These nutters are being magnified and feel safe to speak their mind nowdays. The UK media nows default to showing 1500 old brexit pensioner nutters marching to london, when ignoring 500 times that amount protesting elsewhere.
Personally, I’ve never much cared about the royals, and its just an annoyance with weddings and funerals, and I realise I’ve never actually looked at Meghan Markle. I believe she is supposed to be mixed race in some way, but I’d never be able to tell. I think a lot of people in the UK probably didn’t even notice or care.
However, the nutters do.
This Buzzfeed article reminded me of the Meghan Markle gossip in this thread – Meghan Markle And Prince Harry UK Royal Reporters Coverage Compared To Kate Middleton And Prince William
It compares tabloid headlines that hail the Duchess of Cambridge but knock the Duchess of Sussex for the same thing. There’s clearly a right-wing tabloid culture bias against Markle.
Indeed, and the strange thing is it feels completely invented by the tabloids - I just don’t see poor comments about her elsewhere. I honestly don’t understand it, aside from the fact the tabloids have never liked outsiders in the royal family.