Camilla

Germanshepherdsmum

So what’s your answer nadateturbe? As Annie says, food banks have been around for a long time. Don’t just say higher benefits and higher living wage - how much more tax are you prepared to pay?

Then prices go up even more.
It's Catch 22.

I do think all children should have a free, nourishing, proper school dinner without means testing the family.
Yes, I'd pay a bit more tax for that.

To true Foxygloves.

If some choose to call it that.....

So what’s your answer nadateturbe? As Annie says, food banks have been around for a long time. Don’t just say higher benefits and higher living wage - how much more tax are you prepared to pay?

I agree with Mollygo and GSM - but of course how much more attractive is the virtue signalling and wringing of hands?

And we still need them, disgraceful.

The first food bank opened in 2000

GSM Will the extra money generated benefit those using food banks?

Vintagenonna

My mind is on the food banks struggling to feed the poorest while the bill for this mounts up and up.

At least the roman emperors gave bread along with circuses.

Are you volunteering on Monday vintagenonna?
It sounds like a really good idea and the hope is more people will enjoy it and continue.

www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/food-charities-big-help-out-volunteers-coronation-b1078284.html

No GSM I don’t think they would, any more than they would if we stopped having a monarchy. The rich would still be rich, with the knowledge of how to protect their riches rather than hand them over.
The same way that no one on GN is ever likely to give up something they’ve inherited or bought because they can afford to buy / have it regardless of the poverty of others.

And how are people using food banks disadvantaged by the coronation? It’s predicted to bring upwards of £2bn into the economy. Hospitality is predicted to benefit by £1bn. Do you seriously think that people using food banks would benefit if the coronation didn’t happen?

My mind is on the food banks struggling to feed the poorest while the bill for this mounts up and up.

At least the roman emperors gave bread along with circuses.

Who said they were

Anniebach

Megan was in her 30’s divorced and living with someone, Kate
was a teenage university student

Teenage Uni students are not always virgins

LondonMzFitz - I’m watching with a friend, she’s a republican also a historian. The historical significance means we can settle down and watch the kings horses and men, comment on the clothes and hats and generally indulge superficiality.m there will be cake and I may join your toast to diana

You think she shoul push ahead ?

Anniebach

Megan was in her 30’s divorced and living with someone, Kate
was a teenage university student

I don't understand the point you are trying to make here.

From what I know, Meghan wasn't living with someone when she met Harry.
In her 30's - Yes.
Divorced - Yes.
Living with someone? They were, as I understand it, both single when they met.

Kate and William were living together at University aged, what, 21? - shared a flat with 2 friends, so press reports say.

I said she looked like a 1950s housewife the way she trailed after William. She does. Her smile makes me think of Stepford Wives-it's scary.
No idea about her morals.

Yes you criticised Kate, called her a 1950’s housewife

Kate was 29 when she married William. Meghan 36 when she married Harry. But as I said one is criticised the other lauded for their different lifestyles. Women involved with the RF are still spoken about in derogatory terms if they don't meet particular standards

Megan was in her 30’s divorced and living with someone, Kate
was a teenage university student

Isn't the whole point that that is how women are still spoken about in connection with the RF? And those standards still apply. Hate to bring her in but the comments made about Meghan and her life before Harry are sometimes much worse. Contrast that with Kate who was always waiting for William and so is greatly approved of.

I too think it's not acceptable to talk about women in their way. We wouldn't do it with men.

Koalama

As a royalist but also a princess Diana fan, I'm struggling, I can't stand to see camilla crowned queen, I don't want to watch, it's making me less of a royalist, I wish he'd just pass it on to William and Kate

... back to the original post. I completely get this. I love the pomp and pageantry, there were several posts on Twitter yesterday showing the bands rehearsals through the streets of Westminster at night, the skirl of bagpipes, just thrilling, and the promise of frocks and flowers for Saturday ...

But - I cannot warm to KC, and I heartily dislike QCC. I dread the close-up's of the pair grinning from my TV, it's making me twitchy just thinking about it.

Yes, it's a Diana thing, she was of my peer group, just a few days older than my now ex-husband.

And a Queen thing - I believe The Queen earned my respect. KC - nope. QCC - absolutely not.

Lots of media trying to whip up excitement, but I think this particular couple, together with the financial crisis so many are experiencing, are hitting an off note for some. Ermine and pearls and foodbanks and strikes, Oh My.

I'm going to be a surly curmudgeon and watch and not enjoy. Well, except for the bands. And the flyover. And the frocks. And I'll probably be really petty and drink a toast to Diana.

But this obsession with marrying a virgin was very much in place up to the mid -20th century, when one was warned about the dire consequences of becoming 'that sort of girl'; its importance has subsequently declined, due in large part to vastly improved birth control. It really doesn't seem to matter now, and makes little difference to whether marriages succeed or fail.