Spectator

Montrealer Autumn Kelly marries into the royal family tomorrow, and the press’s reaction is as classy as ringette

Posted on May 16, 2008 by Douglas Bell


image for Montrealer Autumn Kelly marries into the royal family tomorrow, and the press’s reaction is as classy as ringette
Ringette: Classy

What is it about the Anglo-Canadian fascination with aristocracy that puts everyone in a flap at the first sign of pretense? When Conrad Lord Black of Crossharbour was sent down for thievery, Canadian and British papers hadn’t spilled that much ink on a single story since D-Day. And this morning arrives an e-mail from the reliably snarky Andrew Clark, The Guardian’s business correspondent in NYC. He begins in typically deadpan prose: “I am rejoicing at the new link between our two nations which will be forged at tomorrow’s royal wedding. No doubt you will be glued to the BBC World Service.”

There follows a Press Association report on the upcoming nups of Peter Phillips—11th in line of succession to the British throne—and one Autumn Kelly of Pointe Claire, Quebec. Forgive the length, but the cumulative effect of the paragraphs is particularly unsettling:

A NATION WITH DEEP AFFECTION FOR THE MONARCHY
By Tony Jones, PA Court Correspondent

Canada, the birthplace of Peter Phillips’s fiancée, has a deep affection for the British monarchy.

Autumn Kelly grew up in a nation that still has the Queen as its head of state and where many people see the Sovereign as much more than a figurehead.

The country’s ties with Britain and its monarch are unique—the Queen has even described the nation as a “home from home.”

Her influence can be found in many aspects of Canadian life, from her image appearing on the country’s 20-dollar note to the fact that legislators, police and the military all swear allegiance to her.

Over the past 50 years the Sovereign has maintained a visible and significant presence in the country.

She has visited Canada 22 times—more than any other country—and during her last tour in 2005 received a spectacular send-off that was broadcast to the nation.

Big crowds turned out to see her and the Duke of Edinburgh throughout their nine-day tour of Saskatchewan and Alberta—western provinces that, at the time, were celebrating their centenary as part of the Canadian nation.

In Calgary, on the last day of the visit, cowboys and cowgirls put on a show of western razzmatazz featuring 2,000 performers for the royal couple.

The Queen is Canada’s constitutional monarch, who acts on the advice of the country’s government ministers and is regularly briefed by the politicians.

The Sovereign personifies the state and is the personal symbol of allegiance, unity and authority for all Canadians. Elections are called and laws are promulgated in her name.

But not all Canadians, notably the French speakers of Quebec, want to keep the Queen as head of state.

And there are republicans who claim their numbers swell every time the Queen visits.

The marriage of the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall in 2005 gave the republican cause a boost, the anti-monarchists said at the time.

Yet if you speak to those Canadians who are content to swear allegiance to the Crown, the main reason for their favouring the Queen becomes clear.

Often overwhelmed by their republican neighbours in the United States, the Canadians cling to the Queen because the monarchy is the one thing the United States does not have.

Having the Queen makes Canadians different from the U.S.

Andrew then neatly captured the thought any sentient Canadian would have after reading this: “I love the tone of it… He sounds like he’s an anthropologist documenting the culture of Kalahari bushmen.”

And what do the bushmen think of it all? If we are to take our lead from today’s A3 report in The Globe and Mail, pretty much the same thing:

Laurie Dagg, whose children have been good friends with Ms. Kelly for more than 20 years, said that if anyone can handle the pressure of being in the Royal Family, it’s her.

“I couldn’t think of a nicer person for this to happen to,” Ms. Dagg said in a telephone interview from her home in Canmore, Alta.

“She was an intelligent, very classy girl.”

Ms. Dagg said Ms. Kelly excelled at sports, especially ringette.

I don’t know about you, but when I think classy, I think “ringette.”

At any rate, leave it to The Daily Telegraph to find the telling detail: “[Kelly’s] uncle, Gary Smith, owned a strip club in New Brunswick called the Platinum Dolls Show Palace. It featured such delights as a one-armed pregnant dancer nicknamed ‘the one-armed bandit.’”

As they say in Paris, France ça sufit.

• My Autumn Kelly tabloid shame [First Post]
• A crowning achievement for a Canadian sweetheart [Globe and Mail]
• Autumn Kelly, Peter Phillips’s fiancée [Daily Telegraph]
• Canadian bride, British groom and a no-frills royal wedding [Toronto Star]

Comments

Neither the author nor Toronto Life necessarily agree with the comments posted below. Editors will not correct spelling or grammar. Toronto Life reserves the right to edit or delete comments entirely. Read our full policy

You must register to post comments. Please register here.

GravityLevity2 May 16, 2008 at 3:56 p.m.

'Ms. Dagg said Ms. Kelly excelled at sports, especially ringette.

I don’t know about you, but when I think classy, I think “ringette.”'

Like Princess Anne's horseriding, but at a bourgeois level, ringette is not one of those sweaty, hard-driving, steriod-taking sports that might be construed as unfeminine and therefore as declassee for a truly respectable female. It is the sporting equivalent of the decorative, but not professional-level, "accomplishments" in language, visual arts, music that respectable and marriageable young women above the level of the working class were expected to display in the 19th century.

Casey May 16, 2008 at 4:31 p.m.

As an American, I think this marriage of the UK and Canada, aristocrat and commoner, royal family and middle class represents the happiest and loftiest of mergers between 2 apparently classy, decent and very likeable individuals. No doubt that CB is probably kicking himself and blaming Shirley oops Joanna for Alana's missing of the royal boat and BA is most likely slamming CB for the Alana faux pas.....lol.
This marriage is the stuff of dreams and fairy tales - even the lucky " Princess " is breathtakingly gorgeous and the handsome Prince so obviously profoundly in love. Best wishes to both familie, bride and groom for a long, healthy and happy marriage of true love....:-).

Fintan May 17, 2008 at 9:58 a.m.

I was just watching some of the ballyhoo about the whole thing on the BBC. Undoubtedly a pretty girl and one hopes the prince she kissed won't turn into a toad, as so often happens in those circles.

Isn't it strange, though, in this day and age, that she had to abandon her Roman Catholic religion and embrace Anglicanism? OK, Tide or Daz, who could care? But the reality is, I kid you not, that the law as it still stands in the UK means he loses his place in the line of succession if her marries a "Papist". A Jew, a Hindu, a Muslim, a Sikh or a Jain - no problem, but RC no way! True love, schlew love, but he's not prepared to give up even that slender chance of having a crown on his head one day.☺

But at least I suppose they didn't make her submit to a test by a royal gynaecologist to verify that she still had her cherry - as they did with poor Diana Spencer way back when.☹

January May 17, 2008 at 10:58 a.m.

Fintan

That's not the only example of old-fashioned ideas about religion. My nephew (RC) married a Jewish girl. He didn't want to change religions and neither did she. She wanted to get married in a Jewish ceremony and that was fine with him, but they couldn't find a Rabbi in all of Canada who was willing to marry them (because my nephew didn't want to convert). They eventually found an Anglican minister who was willing to do a ceremony that included a lot of Jewish elements. Very odd.

I married outside my religion too and we decided to have two weddings, one in each religion, and all on the same day. Thankfully we were able to do both ceremonies in the same building. It was very hectic but our guests had a great time and we started a trend for how mixed marriages were handled in my spouse's community.

Casey May 17, 2008 at 1:25 p.m.

January May 17, 2008 at 10:58 a.m.
" ....that was fine with him, but they couldn't find a Rabbi in all of Canada who was willing to marry them (because my nephew didn't want to convert).They eventually found an Anglican minister who was willing to do a ceremony that included a lot of Jewish elements. Very odd. "

Your post is strange and the futile search for a Rabbi in all of Canada is baloney. This is a ridiculous comment and conclusion from someone who clearly hasn't a clue about that which she posted. Moreover, your nephew obviously didn't search long enough, proving once again how ignorance plays a hand in a topic sbout religion. Sad...

Casey May 17, 2008 at 1:28 p.m.

Your post is strange and the futile search for a Rabbi in all of Canada is baloney = Your post is strange and the futile search for a Rabbi in all of Canada WILLING TO MARRY THEM. Sorry for ommission

Casey May 17, 2008 at 1:32 p.m.

In fact, January, I am willing to wager that your nephew probably made a half hearted attempt to locate a Rabbi.....I must emphasize again how silly your " fact " is above. Gimme a break. Your conclusion is so infuriating and dumb....*sigh*.

Barbara_in_BC May 17, 2008 at 6:05 p.m.

ANYWAY, looks like those are two happy people who've found love with each other. The tabloids have to dig for some dirt or else they wouldn't be tabloids! A fairy-tale wedding is just too mundane for them.

Casey May 17, 2008 at 7:03 p.m.

Wonderful to read that Kate Middleton stood in for the absent William and Chelsey Davy attende wedding with Harry. The British Royal Family has finally made it into the 21st, let alone the 20th, century when people marry for love. A far cry from marriages that were often arranged. ( as per Consuelo Vanderbilt Balcan - second marriage - and the Duke of Marlborough at turn of 20th century ).

January May 17, 2008 at 9:08 p.m.

Casey

It was the girls parents (who are Jewish) who looked for the Rabbi and it was the girl's parents who complained about how odd it was at the wedding. I was just giving that as a example to what Fintan said.

Why are you being so knee-jerk about an issue that has nothing whatever to do with you?

Casey May 18, 2008 at 1:59 a.m.

Casey

" It was the girls parents (who are Jewish) who looked for the Rabbi and it was the girl's parents who complained about how odd it was at the wedding. I was just giving that as a example to what Fintan said.

Why are you being so knee-jerk about an issue that has nothing whatever to do with you? " - January May 17, 2008 at 9:08 p.m.

My " knee jerk " response will always be such when I spot obvious ignorance with absolutely zero attempt to find out the truth / reality - the girl's parents, whom you claim are of the Jewish faith, either did try to locate a Rabbi to marry the couple because, if they had bothered to spend more than an hour, they most definitely would have found one. There are literally hundreds if not thousands in Canada male and female, who will perform mixed marriges. What you hoped to achieve by posting your remarks is frankly beyond me as they are not only ridiculous but appear to kind of take the Jewish Faith to task for apparently, as you imply in your post, seeming or behaving in a closed fashion with out dated precepts and old fashioned traditions. Nothing, IF you had bothered to check, is further from the truth.
If yoy had simply GOOGLED this ever evolving religion, you would have discovered how irelevant, wrong and dumb your post was and again, how in fact ignorance, as I stated, plays such a huge part in anything that references religions. Moreover and finally, I would like to know not only WHY you posted an opinion that to me, anyway, has zero to do with Fintan's remarks that preceded yours but also why you mention that it was the BRIDE'S parents who " found it odd ", etc. and are therefore cast in a silly and uniformed light. Why would the parents of bride bring this obviously prickly religious business up at their daughter's wedding anyway? Preposterous.

Casey May 18, 2008 at 2 a.m.

are of the Jewish faith, either did try = .....either DID NOT try - sorry for typo

Barbara_in_BC May 18, 2008 at 2:18 a.m.

Casey, you are misinformed:

"Finally, a Jewish marriage is, by definition, a contract between two Jews (see Ketubah). Intermarriage under Jewish law is therefore not only forbidden, but technically (legally) impossible."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interreligi...

Casey May 18, 2008 at 2:32 a.m.

Barbara_in_BC May 18, 2008 at 2:18 a.m.

Casey, you are misinformed:

"Finally, a Jewish marriage is, by definition, a contract between two Jews (see Ketubah). Intermarriage under Jewish law is therefore not only forbidden, but technically (legally) impossible."

No, Barbara_in_BC - you AND wiki are sadly misinformed. I refuse to waste my time posting what is reality vis a vis mixed marriges and Judaism. Clearly neither you, wiki and anyone who actually believes the drivel you just posted hasn't a clue about what is fact and myth or fiction or common ridiculous and misguided assumptions re Jewish mixed marriages. Try asking a Reformed Rabbi, incidentally, or don't you know about Reformed Judaism? Obviously not. Case closed.

Casey May 18, 2008 at 2:39 a.m.

Furthermore, Barbara_in_BC, in a mixed marriage the future children will ALWAYS be condidered Jewish and are considered Jewish in the eyes of the religion. If husband is Jewish, he either must convert for kids to be called Jewish.
I am officially closing this topic because I have ZERO desire to read your links and other reguritated " facts ", etc. Your blind ignorance is overpowering and infuriating.

Casey May 18, 2008 at 2:40 a.m.

Casey May 18, 2008 at 2:39 a.m.

Furthermore, Barbara_in_BC, in a mixed marriage the future children will ALWAYS be condidered Jewish IF MOTHER is Jewish. Apologies for ommission.

Barbara_in_BC May 18, 2008 at 2:43 a.m.

Calm down Casey. If the wikipedia article is wrong, go in and correct it. That's how wikipedia works.

Casey May 18, 2008 at 2:46 a.m.

If husband is Jewish = if husband is a NON JEW - again, sorry for darn typos

Casey May 18, 2008 at 6:47 a.m.

Casey May 18, 2008 at 2:39 a.m.

Furthermore, Barbara_in_BC, in a mixed marriage the future children will ALWAYS be condidered Jewish and are considered Jewish in the eyes of the religion. If husband is Jewish, he either must convert for kids to be called Jewish.

corrections -

Simply stated and amended - if mother is Jewish, kids automatically assume mother's religion, in a mixed marriage. If father is Jewish and mother is non Jew, kids will not be considerd Jewish unless mother converts to Judaism.
There are numerous Rabbis who will happily perform mixed marriages. In January's case, it appears obvious that the bride's parents, who I assume are Jewish, did not do their research, etc. That they accepted what they assumed was the status quo vis a vis mixed marriages / ceremoines, is the oddest conclusion of all. That they would introduce this essentially non quest at the wedding confirms my suspicions that someone in your families ( bride and groom ) is rather clueless about Jewish mixed marriages. THIS is the oddest notion of all, frankly.
Sorry for repeating myself, but I wanted to be clearer on this issue re Judaism.
Happy a good day or evening and ciao.

Barbara_in_BC May 18, 2008 at 12:25 p.m.

Speaking of odd, there's Casey blathering on about how Jewish people have no problem with mixed marriages. But the irony of the story above is that Anglicanism was begun so that Britain could make it's own rules, so that Henry VIII could divorce his wives rather than beheading them! Such a reason is bizarre to me, a Catholic.

jade_lee May 18, 2008 at 12:47 p.m.

I am not religious at all but it does amuse me to read these weird notions about religion.

Casey May 18, 2008 at 1:10 p.m.

Barbara_in_BC May 18, 2008 at 12:25 p.m.

" Speaking of odd, there's Casey blathering on about how Jewish people have no problem with mixed marriages. But the irony of the story above is that Anglicanism was begun so that Britain could make it's own rules, so that Henry VIII could divorce his wives rather than beheading them! Such a reason is bizarre to me, a Catholic. "

Blathering? You haven't a clue what you're talking about, do you? You are a feeble joke, Barbara_in_BC. So WHAT if you're Catholic - that and a buck might buy you a cup of coffee....yadda, yadda, yadda. Before you ( OR jade_lee ) decide to post about Judaism, please, for your own sakes, arm yourselves with correct information and log onto this site NOT as some drivel backed and self righteous no nothings. Since when is religion considered wierd in general, jade_lee and one's ( mine ) perceptions about same described also as wierd, in particular? Neither of you have said anything even remotely factual and clearly have no clue that your relgious views as well as religious tolerance leave much to be desired. ie. are rather beneath contempt.
You 2 individuals sit in front of your monitors and pontificate about errr blather. I would love to read 1) how much you know about any relions other than your own 2) just how much you DO know about Judaism...seems to me - nothing. Case now closed. Too busy here doing paperwork to bother with ignorance when I read it....lol.

Barbara_in_BC May 18, 2008 at 1:42 p.m.

Yes jade_lee, old people really tie themselves in knots over religion. I'm sure it's the last thing on the minds of the young couple getting married. I remember that when I married the son of a Protestant minister there was some tut tutting about the fact that we got married in the Catholic Church. But young couples just want to hop into bed together - who cares about religion?

Fintan May 18, 2008 at 2:01 p.m.

Barbara in BC: "But young couples just want to hop into bed together - who cares about religion?"

Exactly. As Marx said, it's just opium for the people - not that I have anything against people enjoying opium if it makes them feel better.

I am, as they say here, "on the civil register" - i.e. an officially registered atheist and my wife is nominally an Evangelical-Lutheran, but we were married by a Deputy-Mayor of Helsinki in a ceremony that lasted about five minutes. The marriage has lasted 38 years, and still going strong.

Has anyone heard what the cannibal said about ecumenism?

Answer. "These days all the missionaries taste the same."

Casey May 18, 2008 at 2:43 p.m.

Barbara_in_BC May 18, 2008 at 1:42 p.m.

" Yes jade_lee, old people really tie themselves in knots over religion. "

Tell me, where did you pick up this latest " fact "? What survey or resarch have you read that concludes with the above statement vis a vis " old people "? Or is this just your way of trying to make yourself appear informed and educated and intelligent?....lol. Are you old, Barbara_in_BC? lol

Casey May 18, 2008 at 2:52 p.m.

There ought to be a law for individuals such as Barbara_in_BC that bleeps and deletes and somehow auto prevents / stops the drivel that Barbara_in_BC expect us to swallow...lol. Perhaps posting links to everything AND the proverbial kitchen sink validates and justifies your uninformed ignorance - there will always exist some back up somewhere to show that Barbara_in_BC knows what she is talking about...lol. Too much...

Barbara_in_BC May 18, 2008 at 3:15 p.m.

Marriage: 38 years, good for you Fintan. We're coming up to 33 years this month ourselves [which makes me fairly old!]. Who says mixed marriages don't work? I guess the Britsh don't want a monarch's partner obeying the Pope rather than their spouse.

Casey May 18, 2008 at 4:44 p.m.

" Who says mixed marriages don't work? I guess the Britsh don't want a monarch's partner obeying the Pope rather than their spouse. " - Barbara_in_BC May 18, 2008 at 3:15 p.m.

Can someone please explain the above post to me? I have no clue what Barbara_in_BC is claiming herein. And no one here, anyway, stated that " mixed mariages don't work "...? Is Barbara_in_BC talking to herself?

jade_lee May 18, 2008 at 7:49 p.m.

Sadly fintan and barb in bc my marriage did not work out but I do have a wonderful son out of it and he has a great relationship with both his father and me.
I openly admit that I don't know much about religion as I am not interested in knowing. It's too weird for me.

jade_lee May 18, 2008 at 7:52 p.m.

My sense of morality comes from respecting the laws of the land, respecting the differences of others and the family and education system from which I was born into.

jade_lee May 18, 2008 at 7:54 p.m.

"when the heat gets to me I just leave the kitchen"

Casey May 18, 2008 at 8:49 p.m.

" I openly admit that I don't know much about religion as I am not interested in knowing. It's too weird for me.jade_lee " - May 18, 2008 at 12:47 p.m.

" I am not religious at all but it does amuse me to read these weird notions about religion. - jade_lee May 18, 2008 at 7:49 p.m.

If, as you state, that you know little about religion and are not interested in knowing, why then do you pass judgement on those who are interested in and who have opinions on same? At risk of repeating myself, it is fascinating that you don't appear at a loss for words when stating that religious notions are wierd - if you don't know enough and could care less about informing yourself, why would you automatically cast negative aspersions on this topic? You know, jade_lee, it is just as easy to either say nothing or something positive rather than immediately resorting to calling something you don't understand as " weird "? Same old, same old.....

Barbara_in_BC May 19, 2008 at 1:12 a.m.

Casey said to jade_lee:

"You know, jade_lee, it is just as easy to either say nothing or something positive than immediately resort to ..."

Oh.
My.
God.

This is pretty rich coming from the foul-mouthed grandma. But jade_lee is right, religion is weird. For instance, the Vatican came out last week with a declaration that it's not a sin for Catholics to believe in aliens. Now THAT'S weird. And Jews are not allowed to eat pork, which I think would make more sense if the Old Testament specified UNDERCOOKED pork. That would at least make sense.

Casey May 19, 2008 at 7:58 a.m.

Oh.
My.
God.
Barbara_in_BC May 19, 2008 at 1:12 a.m.

" This is pretty rich coming from the foul-mouthed grandma. But jade_lee is right, religion is weird. For instance, the Vatican came out last week with a declaration that it's not a sin for Catholics to believe in aliens. Now THAT'S weird. And Jews are not allowed to eat pork, which I think would make more sense if the Old Testament specified UNDERCOOKED pork. That would at least make sense. "

Uh oh! out come those darn thinly veiled racist and bigotted daggers and diatribes again. I am puzzled and not a tad confused about why, with a universe of multiple religions, you chose to focus YOUR attention upon the Jewish faith. ( along with poster January ). At least, anyway, the world doen't have to listen to and read about, almost daily, the rampant paedophilia that occurs within the hallowed halls of Roman Catholicism, perpetrated by its clerics. Before you cast aspersions upon Judaism, do an inventory of your own religion's failings ( all religions have them ).
I have told this blog several times recently that I believe that you tread a thin line between tolerance and bigotry. You continue to not only NOT disappoint me but you also prove my accusations vis a vis same. Oh! And I did some research about why Jewish people do not favour pork in their diet and apparently it is because pigs ( from which one gets pork ) are considered unclean animals. Makes perfect sense to me....

Lit_200 May 19, 2008 at 8:02 a.m.

The correct translation of Marx from the German is "Religion is the OPIATE of the masses.

Precision, precision.

Casey May 19, 2008 at 8:07 a.m.

" At least, anyway, the world doen't have to listen to and read about, almost daily, the rampant paedophilia that occurs within the hallowed halls of Roman Catholicism,perpetrated by its clerics - " Casey May 19, 2008 at 7:58 a.m.
This phrase should have been clearer so that a closet bigot like yourself truly gets what I am saying here...phrase should have mentioned in this phrase that unlike within the ranks of Roman Catholicism, one isn't forced to daily read about these horrific paedophilial abuses within the hallowed ranks of the Jewish religion - or any other religion, apparently.

Casey May 19, 2008 at 8:10 a.m.

Welcome back, Lit. We disagree on almost everything, but at least you offer intelligent repartee and do not strike me as someone even close to being a racist or bigot. Hope I am correct.

Casey May 19, 2008 at 9:04 a.m.

Lit_200 May 19, 2008 at 8:02 a.m.

" The correct translation of Marx from the German is "Religion is the OPIATE of the masses. "

I think that quotation was made by Karl Marx, in particular....? I haven't decided in my own mind, conclusively, whether or not I truly believe that this quote is correct - that , in other words, man created religion and God - God did not create man. Needless to say, I do take my religion seriously and do pray to God often....

Casey May 19, 2008 at 10:16 a.m.

God did not create man = God created man..oops..lol..sorry for typo

Barbara_in_BC May 19, 2008 at 1:34 p.m.

Lots of valuable "information: from Casey... religion is not weird but a sacred thing when pigs are unclean and pedophiles roam/Rome the churches.

Barbara_in_BC May 19, 2008 at 1:53 p.m.

"information" of course was meant.

Casey May 19, 2008 at 2:08 p.m.

Barbara_in_BC May 19, 2008 at 1:34 p.m.

" Lots of valuable "information: from Casey... religion is not weird but a sacred thing when pigs are unclean and pedophiles roam/Rome the churches. "

Re " roam / Rome ( stick to being a bigot - the attempts at creating puns reflect the fact that you really don't have anything informative, insightful or useful to say ) and paedophilia - if the shoe fits...yadda, yadda, yadda. In fact, if it looks like a bigot, thinks / types like a bigot, and reaches conclusions based upon not only faulty info but also upon preconceived notions about religions and people about which she either knows nothing or possessing of a mindset that that evokes pity, then it must BE a bigot.
Making religions the but of your pathetic and racist jokes, ( such as ignoring the fact that someone - me - just reminded you of the already proved very ugly paedophilia and other sexual abuses inherent in Roman Catholic Church vis a vis the Cleris of the Church as well as displaying total lack of respect for Judaism ), however thinly veiled they are, indicates a serious flaw in your character. I KNOW that Roman Catholicism did not teach you to be intolerant and so it makes sense, to me anyway, that you were raised by parents who taught you to hate. Racism and bigotry are founded on ignorance - you epitomize the ugliness that accompanies these terrible and sad world views.
Although I sense that the following is more than likely impossible, I wish you a productive day or evening. Ciao.

Barbara_in_BC May 19, 2008 at 3:52 p.m.

And so Casey exits, having convinced even the atheists that religion is not weird.

Barbara_in_BC May 19, 2008 at 4:14 p.m.

Logic can be applied to religion:

Priestly pedophilia is the result of not allowing Catholic priests to marry.

The Jewish (and Muslim) declaration that pigs are "unclean animals" is the result of people dying from eating undercooked pork, ie trichinosis.

Anglicanism is the national religion of England, created to avoid foreign domination. That's why the Canadian bride under discussion had to convert.

jade_lee May 19, 2008 at 5:25 p.m.

Good summary!

Casey May 19, 2008 at 6:49 p.m.

" Priestly pedophilia is the result of not allowing Catholic priests to marry. " - Barbara_in_BC May 19, 2008 at 4:14 p.m.

Notable for its absence above is a sad and clear lack of morality. To claim that Priestly ammorality herein is caused only by being forced to remain celibate is laughable in the extreme and horribly off the mark. Moreover, please explain to this board why these Priests / perps mainly prey on the young and defenseless.

" The Jewish (and Muslim) declaration that pigs are "unclean animals" is the result of people dying from eating undercooked pork, ie trichinosis. " -Barbara_in_BC May 19, 2008 at 4:14 p.m.

Please explain why other animals are indeed permitted for human consumption, such as lamb, cow, chicken, etc. I would appreciate an explanation of why pigs are singled out. Your " good summary " courtesy of jade_lee is actually ignorant, selective, biased and well, beneath contempt for its simplicity.
Both you and jade_lee are laughable in the extreme.
I find myself going down a path now of trying to figure out what makes you jokers tick....what creates that racial blind spot in otherwise reasonably intelligent human beings. Must be that perhaps you aren't smart after all but stupid posters who when they are bored, resort to all manner of complete and utter B.S.

Barbara_in_BC May 19, 2008 at 9:18 p.m.

Casey:

You are as thick as a brick. Can't read too good neither.

Casey May 19, 2008 at 11:14 p.m.

Barbara_in_BC May 19, 2008 at 9:18 p.m.

Casey:

You are as thick as a brick. Can't read too good neither.

Anyone who is clearly clueless about proper grammar ( " can't read too good neither "...lol...pathetic ) does not deserve any further reponse other than " Meh ". Oh and get a life.

leaf May 19, 2008 at 11:44 p.m.

this thread must be remembered when the best blog awards come around.
truly edifying!

jade_lee May 20, 2008 at 1:43 a.m.

lol

jade_lee May 20, 2008 at 1:58 a.m.

Yes this thread will go down as the one where Casey finally likes lit and sadly no longer wants to respect my views, it now looks like I am in her "bad book", Barb in BC, move over!

If they give out an award for desperate blogger extremist, leaf would most certainly be a runner up. I would vote for him. But you are falling behind in your extreme dislike of Barb in BC and myself as Casey now takes over that blogger role. What's up wiff dat?

Barbara_in_BC May 20, 2008 at 2:35 a.m.

Yep jade_lee, there's always room for one more.

Casey May 20, 2008 at 5:55 a.m.

jade_lee May 20, 2008 at 1:43 a.m.
jade_lee May 20, 2008 at 1:58 a.m.

Here's a suggestion, jade_lee. Since you appear to have plenty of time on your hands most notably recently to sprout B.S., maybe channel your boredom and time into trying to figure out what makes someome like yourself " tick "....lol. It appears that you have dispensed with analyzing leaf but clearly still desire an opportunity to use all that knowledge about prisons, prisoners, etc. and appear at a temporary loss for subjects. So - use what you have learned and know on what makes you tick.
I bet there's a memoire in it for you, too....LOL. Maybe it can join the doorstoppers that CB has written.
As for Barbara_in_BC - frankly after that latest post of yours in which you destroy, in one fell swoop, the English language, I suggest you go back to school....lol.

charley May 20, 2008 at 9:34 a.m.

The dietary restriction in Judaism that always interested me was the injunction against dairy and meat in the same meal. I assumed it came from possible health implications originally but a Jewish friend felt it came from the repeated exhortation in the Torah against "seething a kid in its mother's milk". Apparently this was a custom of certain enemy tribes and so to differentiate themselves from the "other" the early Jews made this a rule- then I suppose later Talmud explicators expanded it to no meat or dairy of any kind together.

Casey May 20, 2008 at 10:47 a.m.

charley May 20, 2008 at 9:34 a.m.

Although I am rushing here, I wanted to post an appreciation and thank you to you, Charley, for that interesting information. Quite fascinating and your terrific explanation, unlike Barbara_in_BC's annoying veiled suggestions at bigotry in HER " info " earlier, there is not a hint of racist explanation in your highly informative post. The lady's post about Judaism is not only incorrect / flimsy but appears in it's sensibility, to be an opportunity to spew bigotry under the guise of explanation.
Thanks again for taking the time to post your explication.

jade_lee May 20, 2008 at 11:12 a.m.

I think people who belong to religious groups should focus more on how the various religions are more the same than different.
"God's chosen" people advocates don't ring very sincere when they claim equality among people, how could they?
As for your comment Casey about me having time on my hands or of me being bored, let me suggest to you that writing here on this blog does not take but a few minutes. Where some people go to their televisions, I go to may computer. I am also a shift worker so my waking hours are not always conventional.
Don't just limit my knowledge to prisons Casey. It turns out that this blog addresses the issue of prison often and I contribute what I know about the topic. As for your comment about Barb in BC going back to school, well if making enemies is your specialty may I suggest that you are quite good at it, I took the message you are referring to as a play on words and not error bases on ignorance.

Barbara_in_BC May 20, 2008 at 12:35 p.m.

jade_lee, Too bad the quality of posts have declined to the level of Casey's who is on high guard for traces of anti-semitism in this day and age! Talk about ridiculous. If I were Jewish I'd ask her to stop "defending" me, since there has been nothing noble about any of her sentiments.

You and I seem to be the only people with jobs on this blog, we also both avoid watching TV. So I enjoy your information which is not cliche, and has some substance.

charley May 20, 2008 at 12:53 p.m.

I have a job-unfortunately can't retire for a few years so my bank book says- but indeed I do watch too much TV.

Casey May 20, 2008 at 1:08 p.m.

jade_lee May 20, 2008 at 11:12 a.m.
" As for your comment about Barb in BC going back to school, well if making enemies is your specialty may I suggest that you are quite good at it, "

If making Barbara_in_BC an enemy of mine has indeed been a consequence herein due in no small part to my sadness and anger at her perceptions regarding Judaism and lack of sensitivity to those who are of the Jewish Faith, then I am glad because if her most recent posts reflect those made by a friend, then I would hate to read what this sad excuse for a so called " friend " would post on this blog as my enemy! Her choice of words and posts on the subject of Jewish dietary laws are appalling to me - I do not nor would I ever want this lady as a friend...ever.
I am not " on guard " for possible " anti semitism " by posters to this blog but if I were, I can assure,you, jade_lee, that Barbara_in_BC 's psts regarding same are virtually impossible to see and to ignore. This woman has clearly staked out her territory and I have responded in kind. I could not face myself in the mirror if I 1) chose to ignore her disgraceful comments 2) did not respond in some way in defense of Judaism. It makes me ill to have to put up with a woman who hasn't a blessed clue, to me anyway, of what she is talking about - which, as all anti semites can lay claim to, epitomizes good old garden variety anti semitism. Moreover, it is Barbara_in_BC who brought up this term in her most recent post - if the shoe fits......and, as I mentioned in an earlier post, if it talks like one, thinks like one, posts like one, etc., it must BE one.

Casey May 20, 2008 at 1:10 p.m.

same are virtually impossible to see = NOT to see - typo correction / sorry

Barbara_in_BC May 20, 2008 at 1:38 p.m.

Charlie, didn't know you were a working person. I also should have included Fintan, because I know he still has a job.

It's just that retired folks like Casey have decided to spend their golden years here, and once they run out of things to say they turn on fellow posters, imagining slights and insults. I call Casey a "one trick pony".

leaf May 20, 2008 at 2:18 p.m.

and you blondie are a no trick pony.
anyone who believes fickton has a job is missing some tools. missing the whole toolbox actually.

where's the creep by the way? has interpol finally gotten to him? could be...

karma karma karma thy name is leaf

JoeLowe May 20, 2008 at 2:34 p.m.

Peter & Autumn make such a handsome couple. I wish nothing but the best for them.

I got a laugh out of the last 2 paragraphs of Tony Jones' "unsettling" article.

"Often overwhelmed by their republican neighbours in the United States, the Canadians cling to the Queen because the monarchy is the one thing the United States does not have.

Having the Queen makes Canadians different from the U.S."

I'd be interested to hear Tony explain why the British cling to the monarchy.

Casey May 20, 2008 at 2:37 p.m.

Barbara_in_BC May 20, 2008 at 1:38 p.m.

Meh.....

Casey May 20, 2008 at 3:15 p.m.

Barbara_in_BC May 20, 2008 at 1:38 p.m.

The conclusions you reach - with just about everything posted on this blog - truthfully do not merit or dignify comment but I simply felt compelled to say something besides a complete " blow off " in response to your latest " gem ".
That you feel no qualms about 1) demonstrating your racism and bigotry, albeit disguised 2) claiming to have some sort of err insider info on what I do with my life, etc. is well, just plain sad. I could care less what you post about me because I look at who is posting this B.S. - lol. If I worked as say, a car jockey or valet parker or as some pathetic telemarketer, it would be a loftier and more responsible and rewarding job than what YOU do, sitting at a computer, day in and day out, as some gofer apparently in some college in the boondocks, that such job requires zero education or smarts or productivity that you would not be logging onto a blog / website at all hours of the day and night - I do not for a second believe that Bell's blog is the only one you sit on.
I am laughing as I post this because you are obviously some lost character who more than likely logs onto this site because you are basically ignored at home by your family and at least here, you get to experience some interaction and validation that you are alive....lol. In this sense, you are very much like leaf - lonely, bored, craving any social relationship you clearly do not have offline. I feel sorry for you and hope that your family and co workers and boss(s) ultimately learn how you spend your days and nights and that they make some effort to acknowledge your presence. I believe that you secure validation and existence via internet blog posting - this is how you know that you are that proverbial tree in the forest....if it falls and you don't hear it....lol.
If you are so desperate for companionship, perhaps someone like jade_lee can provide it - I doubt that you have any friends ofline, sadly. Like leaf, rules of engagement and terms of endearment for you can be negative too - just like leaf, any attention will surfice....lol.

jade_lee May 20, 2008 at 3:24 p.m.

Yeah empire loyalists are different from those who don't respect the crown's authority. It's no different from other social movements, groups of people clinging to the same collection of ideas. I think they conducted a poll asking Canadians in the 21 century if they feel loyal to the british queen and the results suggested we respect the tradition as part of Canadian history but we really could care less about the position the queen holds in our society, it's just not important to our Canadian identity anymore.

jade_lee May 20, 2008 at 3:28 p.m.

could not care less.....
that's for jean

Barbara_in_BC May 20, 2008 at 3:31 p.m.

Right jade_lee, our Canadian identity rests more on the balance of power held by French and English political leaders. Seems like we have an unwritten rule that our Prime Ministers are alternately French-Canadian and English-Canadian. This is what makes us different from Americans, not the monarchy thing.

Barbara_in_BC May 20, 2008 at 3:34 p.m.

jade_lee has corrected "could care less" to "couldn't care less". That is one grammatical mistake that always makes me cringe when I read it.

jade_lee May 20, 2008 at 3:37 p.m.

I usually don't sweat the small stuff...lol

Barbara_in_BC May 20, 2008 at 3:58 p.m.

Good for you jade_lee. There's enough serious stuff in life to sweat about!

Casey May 20, 2008 at 5:40 p.m.

Barbara_in_BC May 20, 2008 at 3:31 p.m.

Huh? English - French / French / English and not the Monarchy distinguishes us? I am sure that the Latinos in the US will be insulted to read this newest claim by you....LOL. God help us all...and she couldn't umm care less or is that COUlD care less? Whatever.....

Barbara_in_BC May 20, 2008 at 7:33 p.m.

Casey: Let me know the name of a Latino American President...

Casey May 20, 2008 at 7:48 p.m.

Barbara_in_BC May 20, 2008 at 7:33 p.m.

Renaldo Reaganissimo.....

Jeanne May 20, 2008 at 8:33 p.m.

I (a Canadian) admit to shamefacedly following this most recent wedding with some enthusiasm. I can't explain the English Canadian loyalty and fascination with the "royals." Maybe it's because they seem so unlike us and so like us, at the same time. Good luck and good wishes to Peter and Autumn. If they respect each other and remain flexible toward each other, they may have like Fintan, B. in BC, and me, a marriage that endures (29 years for me this coming Friday).

Casey, I say in all sincerity that I have read all the posts, and I never saw in any of those by B. in BC or jade_lee, at any time going back for a year or so, any hint of bigotry or anti-semitism. These people are not your enemies, as I am not.

I must say, I did like the photos of the hats at the wedding. Beatrice and Eugenie had very Po Mo hats, in my opinion. That is, they wore silly hats that made you laugh at the idea that women had to wear hats to the wedding at all.

Barbara_in_BC May 20, 2008 at 8:44 p.m.

Jeanne said:

"I can't explain the English Canadian loyalty and fascination with the "royals."

I don't feel that it's weird or even embarrassing, considering the American obsession with celebrities. These people are rich notables, and aren't we curious about that? It even explains why we were riveted to the Conrad Black saga.

Barbara_in_BC May 20, 2008 at 8:46 p.m.

I'm glad Casey made an attempt at humour, that was a surprise. Who knew there was a sense of humour in there?

Casey May 20, 2008 at 9:04 p.m.

Jeanne May 20, 2008 at 8:33 p.m.
" Casey, I say in all sincerity that I have read all the posts, and I never saw in any of those by B. in BC or jade_lee, at any time going back for a year or so, any hint of bigotry or anti-semitism. These people are not your enemies, as I am not. "

Thanks for post and maybe I HAVE been too sensitive. I am always willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt. Incidentally, I love celeb watching, especially the Royals, take it all in with a grain of salt and am damn happy that I am neither...:-). I cherish my privacy and independence and self sufficiency and would wither and dies if I were deprived of same.
Barbara_in_BC - I appreciate the post about my err humour and although I am no Jay Leno or Conan, I try and have a go at it from time to time...lol. I thought you might have a laugh..

Barbara_in_BC May 21, 2008 at 12:11 a.m.

Well, I did find your remark funny Casey. I guess we share a few things in common.

Post a comment

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment: