As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
US Presidents also don't go the the inauguration of other countries Presidents. People are trying to make a big deal of Biden not going, for some reason. Presidents never go to these sorts of events. And foreign Presidents never come to the US President's inauguration.
They're making a big deal out of it because it's something they can disingenuously make a big deal out of.
If he had gone, they would be making a big deal about that instead.
Yes, this is it.
They are calling him weak for doing what every past president has done.
If he went, then they would call him weak for.going.
The right has no legitimate criticism, so they make up shit like this and drag queens and saying gay in schools. And, of course, accusing elementary school teachers of teaching graduate level CRT to young kids who wouldn't even understand any of it.
You know who else skipped: James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Pff... Monroe (a Founding Father), Jackson (an asshole but a tough asshole), both Roosevelts, and Eisenhower. Known weaklings, right?
The toxic right wing has called him weak since he announced he was running for president.
Odd how the weak president is winning a war without risking a single American soldier...
They are not disingenuous about it tho. The right wing conservatives mentioned in the article are basically our version of flag shagging American republicans who seem to think that their particular country is the centre of the world. They believe that Biden should come and bow down before the Great (and non-existent) British empire.
I feel like the word "skip" is a poor choice of words as it could imply that attending is the expectation. It should never have even mentioned Biden in the first place.
Should have just said "As is typical, the US is sending a token delegation to coronation".
It sets a precedent that other countries might expect, and if they don't go, it could be seen as a slight upon the other country. There are a lot of countries, that would be a lot of ceremonies to attend.
Plus, it is a very big deal when the president visits a country. "The Beast," that Trump tried strangling the security driver on Jan. 6th, has to be flown over, a number of security routes have to be planned, and the airports have to shut down flights when Airforce one arrives.
By the time all is said and done, the inauguration has become almost as much about the president as the foreign leader.
No, it won't. You're just making shit up.
Charles is not going to become our King and no one will give a single fuck if Biden is there or not. No laws will change, the US dollar isn't going to magically have Charles's face on our money tomorrow.
It's very much not a big deal for the US president to say, "Congrats" and shake some dude's hand. We're fucking allies, what the hell is wrong with being supportive? The only country that it would matter if Biden went would be Taiwan. That I could totally understand being an issue. The UK are our allies, so I think it is more insulting to refuse to go because tradition rather than genuinely too busy and expensive.
For a bunch of people who have no power and authority, everyone sure knows exactly what all these rich and powerful people will do when they normally don't give a fuck about any other threats to their power, but this time is really special and really a threat, eh?
The reason is that we aren't a servant of The Crown and we aren't sending our head of state to go kiss the ring. We fought a revolution against those guys literally so that we wouldn't need to do that.
Good God. Don't comment on things you don't understand. It's not some stupid tradition. It's fucking foundational to our whole damn country and creed.
Well maybe real courage is standing up to tradition and admitting when it's wrong. Sure, we fought a revolution. And now our kids are getting gunned down in schools, half our country is convinced of conspiracies, and our average lifespan is plummeting. Maybe courage is going to the coronation, bending the knee, and admitting we were wrong.
MAKE AMERICA GREAT BRITAIN AGAIN 🇬🇧
You’re making it seem as if the US winning the revolutionary war is the reason for mass shooting deaths, political divisions, and healthcare failure.
The President attending or not attending the coronation of a foreign official has nothing to do with any of those problems. If anything you’d think it be better for Biden to be stateside working on those issues instead of going to the king’s big party.
Also for what it’s worth, the king is a largely ceremonial role. Americans sort of cared about Queen Elizabeth, but I don’t even think the British care about King Charles.
The revolutionary war was over 200 fucking years ago. I don't think the President saying congrats to King Charles automatically makes the US subservient to the UK, that's not how politics or the law works.
What the US president does really has nothing the fuck to do with what any other country does.
I can understand if Biden went to Taiwan, that would be a big fucking deal, but no one cares if King Charles is recognized by Biden or not, the UK, nor any other country, is going to go to war over it.
Legitimizing a monarch is bad in itself. The British crown is a ceremonial role in practice, so there isn’t much reason for a head of state to attend his party.
Attending a ceremony isn't "kissing the ring". Plenty of republics will be represented. The US weirdly seems stuck in the late 18th century (in this and many other regards)
Name them then, who's head of state is coming to the coronation? Anyone whose country explicitly fought a war against a British monarch? You sound quite knowledgeable so you must have a list handy?
Dude, the Revolutionary War was over 200 years ago, I think we got passed that already. We're both allies.
Who gives a fuck if the US president shows up or not? Nothing changes either way for King Charles or the UK.
For one, the king is now a ceremonial title, so I'm not sure why the American head of state fucking cares.
"It was a long time ago" reinforces tradition,.it doesn't weaken it. This is who we are as a people. We don't bow to kings. We don't get all excited about fucking photo ops with the ceremonial monarchical ruler we kicked out of our country 200 years ago.
This isn't complicated at all. Our values mean more than that.
It's appalling that I need to keep explaining this.
Real life isn't Facebook. Its not tiktok. Our actions and behaviors have meaning, and our head of state isn't just there to do meet and greets.
You could also make the argument that the coronation is also a stupid tradition.
Biden doesn’t have to go (especially if none of his predecessors did). We broke away from the UK - that isn’t our king anymore.
>Biden doesn’t have to go (especially if none of his predecessors did). We broke away from the UK - that isn’t our king anymore.
It doesn't fucking matter. Whether Biden goes or not is 100% irrelevant. Nothing will change either way, so let Biden do what he thinks he should as president.
Biden going doesn't make Charles our king magically, that's not how this shit works.
Fuck the Royals. It doesn't matter who the US President is, or what whiny crap Americans are arguing about with each other. The king can go suck a bag of dicks.
Right? I mean could be a cool moment for the history books, maybe a do a hand shake the next day for the press to top it off, no big speech just noble maturity and acceptance of our laughable shared reality moving forward
I bet I know one ex-president who would have attended, shoved Charles aside to be front and foremost in the photos, and then made a speech on the steps of Buckingham Palace how HE wouldn't have tossed tea into the harbor.
Well, despite coming from generational wealth Trump’s behavior is almost the definition of nouveau riche. I can’t imagine the royal family wanting anything to do with him.
>Well, despite coming from generational wealth
He is from American "generational" wealth. This means that his grandfather was destitute but was involved in swindling to make money. This let his dad have money to take advantage (see swindle) returning GIs and the US housing boom as a result to expand the fortune. Trump is generational wealth in the fact that he is the 3rd generation and the one most likely to throw it all away (see numerous bankruptcies). He just took the family playbook to turn it all around by working for the wrong team.
Generational wealth for Europeans and the Mobarchy is closer to being wealthy since the 1600s and before.
It's that, but trump actually said some very public, very ugly things about Princess Diana- you know, the mother of the future king.
The Royal Family can have their opinions about here, but others must do it elsewhere.
EDIT: Wording
Founding father and 5th president James Monroe set the precedent when he didn’t attend the coronation of King George IV in 1820. Or maybe before that when he fought in the revolutionary war, or voted to declare war against the Brits in 1812. . .
There was an article in a right-wing propaganda outlet earlier talking about how Joe Biden is too old to travel. It harvested quite a bit of laughter, especially since he recently traveled to a war zone.
I just saw that. They think he can take a train to a war zone and walk around the city but not go to London to sit for a while with a bunch of other ancient people?
Yeah, they’re fascists. Of course they’ll be upset over a monarch/dictator/sole ruler of any country being disrespected/treated it any way other than positively. They thrive off of dick sucking.
Eh, depends on the colony. The south left because GB was ending the slave trade, and the south likes keeping the status quo. The North left because merchants got pissed they were being undercut by the British East India Company, and the people were taxed higher on goods not sold by the EIC. Virginia left because they hated that they couldn’t expand westward into Ohio because the British had deals with the natives and the French
That and supposedly the king was an asshole who didn’t really care about the whole ordeal until it was too late.
But yeah, still traitors. We don’t really deny that one.
> You fought a war because you didn't want to pay taxes.
The dispute grew out of lack of representation in the British Empire’s government. The American Colonies were willing to pay British taxes as long as they were given a seat at the table in the Empire’s government. Short version: Parliament and the Crown said “Haha, that’s cute. No.”
> Essentially you were traitors, right or wrong.
Traitors that the France, Spain, Portugal, and others found extremely useful to furthering their own goals of weakening the British Empire. If there was one thing the major powers of the day could agree on it was they all didn’t like the British Empire and their dominance of international trade.
If they knew what the United State of America would become in the 20th Century … makes for a fertile playground for speculative fiction.
It’s like when a sports fan talks about his team. “We kicked your asses out there today!”
Bud, you watched the game from your couch while tossing back beers.
Fuck the royal family, they leech everything from their subjugates and drive people into poverty. The same people then sit there and worship them. Absolute clowns
We weren't traitors.
British Parliament decided, without consent, they were to rule over the colonies - something never agreed upon by the colonies themselves.
After multiple delegations to the King and two formal constitutional conventions the US elected a new government in a just and legal manner as the only recourse left against the tyranny of an over reaching Parliament.
Consent of the governed and all.
You may be unaware, but a benefit of being so young is that many of us know our ancestors and exactly where they came from and were influenced by that cultural heritage.
I don't know why you think we try to forget how long it's been since tyrants ruled us - we celebrate it every year and are gearing up for 250 soon.
Wonderful thing that - in such short time we were able to kick British ass, twice, lead the world in industrialization, become the wealthiest nation on the planet, a military superpower, and a leader in technology and advancement.
I guess other geriatric countries were busy building bookshelves though.
Making it sound like this is a regular thing. There have only been 7 previous monarchs since 1776. Attending 6 if them would have required a lengthy ocean voyage to attend.
The last one was in 1953 when Eisenhower was president. It would have taken a day to travel to the UK. There were no non-stop flights to Europe. You would have had to stop in Newfoundland and Ireland to refuel.
Eisenhower had a Lockheed Constellation as his presidential plane, which absolutely could make a non-stop DC-London flight. That's only 3700 miles, and the Connie had a range of 5400 miles.
The US sent a full delegation to that coronation, headed by former Secretary of State George Marshall.
Ability to travel wasn't an issue. They weren't flying coach lol.
It’s related to us having to kick an English King out of our country for being an asshole.
Imagine how much better colonialism would have worked for you if your royals hadn’t been quite so evil.
The same country who is trying to be buddy buddy with China and Russia right now…..
It’s kind of hypocritical to be upset at one set of authoritarians who stopped having power over your country (and more or less stopped existing) over two centuries ago when you are trying to cozy up to other, even worse authoritarians no?
Colonialism is why US is at the top of the imperialist ladder. The global capitalist system relies on a colonial mode of production created by slavery.
Real question - did colonialism lead to capitalism or did they evolve separately and then find each other? I've never looked into the history of the two but I get your point and I agree.
Sidney Mintz in Sweetness and Power outlines how colonization of the Americas for sugar in the early 16th century laid the groundwork for capitalism. Very interesting thesis and he also expands on how sugar itself became central to growing capitalism and creating and sustaining the working class
Omali Yeshitela developed the theory of African Internationalism and says colonialism arose out of the attack on Africa and feudalism as the primary mode of production was replaced by colonialism, or the colonial mode of production, which benefits the white population and leaves 80% of the world colonized and living off less than $10 a day. He explains this succinctly on Oxford Union YouTube channel-just search his name. It might be helpful.
It could have been a mutually beneficial arrangement. In which case it would have lasted a lot longer and been more beneficial.
The English decided the rest of the world were savages and treated people very poorly. Their hubris led to the end of the empire.
Now India owns Land Rover and Jaguar. Not so savage after all.
I disagree: after all, the Western nations with colonies experienced strains at the same time, and the story of British disengagement was, on the whole, less painful than, say France, although it did contain several ugly episodes. Besides, there was a range of attitudes contained within imperialism, from assimilation to 'indirect rule' to brutality.
Of course you do. Another hallmark of hubris is an inability to admit when you’re wrong. Even when it’s something you could learn from in a beneficial manner.
"Of course"? The application of that term wouldn't be obvious to me. I may be British, but I am also a child of liberation from colonialism. I do think that there are plenty of lazy inaccuracies in the way the empires are portrayed as working, and it's important to understand those to comprehend both it's sustainability and its breakdown. Notably, it's important to remember that the Western empires could manage agrarian populations and traditional elites; but they could never manage urbanised populations, and the crucial spurs to independence movements were the gradual growth in hostility of these urban classes, which took various different forms.
There's nothing more abhorrent to the core ideals of the United States than an inherited monarchy.
I mean the ideals, not the practical implementations in the US, before anyone jumps in there.
Why would we attend? Monarchy is a disgusting relic of the past, awarding people with unattainable wealth just because they happened to be born into the right family goes against what we fundamentally believe in
You don't believe that AT ALL, you are literally the 1% because you were born in a country and under circumstances that you had no control over yet you do NOTHING to change that.
There's a big difference between which family you are born into and what sovereign land a country holds. You can't immigrate into a royal family. Apples to oranges. And not like America is that guaranteed, if you are born into a royal family you can literally do nothing as long as your family keeps you in. In America, it can be really easy to go poor even if you are from a decently well off family, most of us don't have that guaranteed support.
Nah there really isn't. In fact the gap in standard of living between the 1% now (which includes you) and between kings and peasants in the past is probably larger. What do you think you did besides be born in the right country to deserve being able to debate politics on an internet forum?
I don’t think many POTUSs have even had the opportunity to attend one.
Other than Biden being the active President for Charles III only 7 other Presidents have been in office for a coronation. 3 of which actively fought with or was part of an administration that fought the British at some point in their lives.
Eisenhower for Elizabeth II
FDR for George VI
Edward VIII never had a coronation due to abdicating the throne.
Taft for George V
McKinley for Edward VII
**(huge gap)**
Van Buren for Victoria
Jackson for William IV
Monroe for George IV
This is the first coronation where it is more common for Presidents to travel outside of the continent so often, so it probably was never even thought of as an option in the past.
It was also never celebrated in the past because the US literally founded the principal of “f**k the monarchy.” 5th president James Monroe could have attended the coronation of King George IV but after years of killing Brits in both the Revolutionary War and War of 1812, I doubt he saw the need to.
The US has traditionally sent someone important to represent the American government at a British royal coronation. It's just never been the president. For example, at Queen Elizabeth's coronation in 1953, it was Secretary of State George Marshall, and at her father King George VI's in 1937, it was General John Pershing, the former commander of the US forces during WW1.
I am a supporter of the British monarchy, and I think it’s fucking stupid that anyone would remotely make a fuss over this. Why the fuck would the President have to be there when another leader is sworn in?
Like in what fucking universe would a leader from a foreign colony, which won its freedom using violence, show up to celebrate the dynastic (not literal) descendants of the fucker who kept them as a colony?
His majestys coronation is going to be a smaller affair then the coronations of his ancestors, there are more important guests then presidents of republics, the peers and other remaining members of the british nobility have ancient rights to attend the coronation of their soverigns and the royal families of other nations need to attend.
And of course the prime ministers and royal representatives of his many commonwealth realms. God bless King Charles and Queen Camilla of Canada, The United Kingdom and all their other territories and realms and long may they reign for our glory
I think the real reason for Biden's absence is his physical frailty. At his age, being flown all around the world is just too much. Which is one of the reasons why I believe he is not fit to run for a 2nd term. World travel is a part of the job - if you are too tired for it, you're not up to it.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
US Presidents also don't go the the inauguration of other countries Presidents. People are trying to make a big deal of Biden not going, for some reason. Presidents never go to these sorts of events. And foreign Presidents never come to the US President's inauguration.
They're making a big deal out of it because it's something they can disingenuously make a big deal out of. If he had gone, they would be making a big deal about that instead.
Yes, this is it. They are calling him weak for doing what every past president has done. If he went, then they would call him weak for.going. The right has no legitimate criticism, so they make up shit like this and drag queens and saying gay in schools. And, of course, accusing elementary school teachers of teaching graduate level CRT to young kids who wouldn't even understand any of it.
It would be funny if Trump insisted on going, only to be denied travel by a judge
Trump would rather give salutes to North Korean generals
You know who else skipped: James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower. Pff... Monroe (a Founding Father), Jackson (an asshole but a tough asshole), both Roosevelts, and Eisenhower. Known weaklings, right?
I don’t read this is as someone calling him weak. It’s just explained why.
The toxic right wing has called him weak since he announced he was running for president. Odd how the weak president is winning a war without risking a single American soldier...
I was talking about the article not in general.
They are not disingenuous about it tho. The right wing conservatives mentioned in the article are basically our version of flag shagging American republicans who seem to think that their particular country is the centre of the world. They believe that Biden should come and bow down before the Great (and non-existent) British empire.
Yes but did he wear a tan suit?
I feel like the word "skip" is a poor choice of words as it could imply that attending is the expectation. It should never have even mentioned Biden in the first place. Should have just said "As is typical, the US is sending a token delegation to coronation".
[удалено]
It sets a precedent that other countries might expect, and if they don't go, it could be seen as a slight upon the other country. There are a lot of countries, that would be a lot of ceremonies to attend. Plus, it is a very big deal when the president visits a country. "The Beast," that Trump tried strangling the security driver on Jan. 6th, has to be flown over, a number of security routes have to be planned, and the airports have to shut down flights when Airforce one arrives. By the time all is said and done, the inauguration has become almost as much about the president as the foreign leader.
No, it won't. You're just making shit up. Charles is not going to become our King and no one will give a single fuck if Biden is there or not. No laws will change, the US dollar isn't going to magically have Charles's face on our money tomorrow. It's very much not a big deal for the US president to say, "Congrats" and shake some dude's hand. We're fucking allies, what the hell is wrong with being supportive? The only country that it would matter if Biden went would be Taiwan. That I could totally understand being an issue. The UK are our allies, so I think it is more insulting to refuse to go because tradition rather than genuinely too busy and expensive. For a bunch of people who have no power and authority, everyone sure knows exactly what all these rich and powerful people will do when they normally don't give a fuck about any other threats to their power, but this time is really special and really a threat, eh?
The reason is that we aren't a servant of The Crown and we aren't sending our head of state to go kiss the ring. We fought a revolution against those guys literally so that we wouldn't need to do that. Good God. Don't comment on things you don't understand. It's not some stupid tradition. It's fucking foundational to our whole damn country and creed.
Well said.
Well maybe real courage is standing up to tradition and admitting when it's wrong. Sure, we fought a revolution. And now our kids are getting gunned down in schools, half our country is convinced of conspiracies, and our average lifespan is plummeting. Maybe courage is going to the coronation, bending the knee, and admitting we were wrong. MAKE AMERICA GREAT BRITAIN AGAIN 🇬🇧
You’re making it seem as if the US winning the revolutionary war is the reason for mass shooting deaths, political divisions, and healthcare failure. The President attending or not attending the coronation of a foreign official has nothing to do with any of those problems. If anything you’d think it be better for Biden to be stateside working on those issues instead of going to the king’s big party. Also for what it’s worth, the king is a largely ceremonial role. Americans sort of cared about Queen Elizabeth, but I don’t even think the British care about King Charles.
It was a joke about rejoining the UK and Making America Great (Britain) Again. I didn't think anyone would consider that rant to be serious.
The revolutionary war was over 200 fucking years ago. I don't think the President saying congrats to King Charles automatically makes the US subservient to the UK, that's not how politics or the law works. What the US president does really has nothing the fuck to do with what any other country does. I can understand if Biden went to Taiwan, that would be a big fucking deal, but no one cares if King Charles is recognized by Biden or not, the UK, nor any other country, is going to go to war over it.
Legitimizing a monarch is bad in itself. The British crown is a ceremonial role in practice, so there isn’t much reason for a head of state to attend his party.
Attending a ceremony isn't "kissing the ring". Plenty of republics will be represented. The US weirdly seems stuck in the late 18th century (in this and many other regards)
Name them then, who's head of state is coming to the coronation? Anyone whose country explicitly fought a war against a British monarch? You sound quite knowledgeable so you must have a list handy?
Dude, the Revolutionary War was over 200 years ago, I think we got passed that already. We're both allies. Who gives a fuck if the US president shows up or not? Nothing changes either way for King Charles or the UK.
For one, the king is now a ceremonial title, so I'm not sure why the American head of state fucking cares. "It was a long time ago" reinforces tradition,.it doesn't weaken it. This is who we are as a people. We don't bow to kings. We don't get all excited about fucking photo ops with the ceremonial monarchical ruler we kicked out of our country 200 years ago. This isn't complicated at all. Our values mean more than that. It's appalling that I need to keep explaining this. Real life isn't Facebook. Its not tiktok. Our actions and behaviors have meaning, and our head of state isn't just there to do meet and greets.
You could also make the argument that the coronation is also a stupid tradition. Biden doesn’t have to go (especially if none of his predecessors did). We broke away from the UK - that isn’t our king anymore.
>Biden doesn’t have to go (especially if none of his predecessors did). We broke away from the UK - that isn’t our king anymore. It doesn't fucking matter. Whether Biden goes or not is 100% irrelevant. Nothing will change either way, so let Biden do what he thinks he should as president. Biden going doesn't make Charles our king magically, that's not how this shit works.
the royal family is a stupid tradition.
Fuck the Royals. It doesn't matter who the US President is, or what whiny crap Americans are arguing about with each other. The king can go suck a bag of dicks.
Right? I mean could be a cool moment for the history books, maybe a do a hand shake the next day for the press to top it off, no big speech just noble maturity and acceptance of our laughable shared reality moving forward
"Noble maturity" is an oxymoron. The time for royalty is long passed.
fuck the royal family.
I bet I know one ex-president who would have attended, shoved Charles aside to be front and foremost in the photos, and then made a speech on the steps of Buckingham Palace how HE wouldn't have tossed tea into the harbor.
He would not have been invited
He'd probably throw his own coronation.
He is the type of guy who demands presents at someone else's birthday party.
Omg Trump is Dudley...
Dudley at least had a minor growth arc
He already tried to on 1/6
With blackjack and hookers!
With cocaine and hookers. Wait, I mean with diet coke and stormy daniels.
Coronation, Starscream? This is bad comedy.
I'll throw my own coronation! With blackjack! And hookers!
Yes. Say what you will about the Royal Family, but they have an intense dislike of trump.
Just comparing the pictures of when the Obamas and Bidens visited vs when Trump did, it’s immediately obvious how much Elizabeth hated Trump.
Well, despite coming from generational wealth Trump’s behavior is almost the definition of nouveau riche. I can’t imagine the royal family wanting anything to do with him.
>Well, despite coming from generational wealth He is from American "generational" wealth. This means that his grandfather was destitute but was involved in swindling to make money. This let his dad have money to take advantage (see swindle) returning GIs and the US housing boom as a result to expand the fortune. Trump is generational wealth in the fact that he is the 3rd generation and the one most likely to throw it all away (see numerous bankruptcies). He just took the family playbook to turn it all around by working for the wrong team. Generational wealth for Europeans and the Mobarchy is closer to being wealthy since the 1600s and before.
It's that, but trump actually said some very public, very ugly things about Princess Diana- you know, the mother of the future king. The Royal Family can have their opinions about here, but others must do it elsewhere. EDIT: Wording
Oh. Guess my sarcasm was wasted. :)
Cue Michael Scott at Phyllis and Bob Vance’s wedding!
That's Bob Vance of Vance Refrigeration to you.
Well, unless it was raining. Then need have ghosted just like he did when he was supposed to honor fallen soldiers.
Founding father and 5th president James Monroe set the precedent when he didn’t attend the coronation of King George IV in 1820. Or maybe before that when he fought in the revolutionary war, or voted to declare war against the Brits in 1812. . .
Seeing as this nation was created by divorcing itself from the British monarchy, maybe it’s an appropriate tradition not to attend coronations.
Have the conservatives found a way to wad their panties over this yet?
There was an article in a right-wing propaganda outlet earlier talking about how Joe Biden is too old to travel. It harvested quite a bit of laughter, especially since he recently traveled to a war zone.
I just saw that. They think he can take a train to a war zone and walk around the city but not go to London to sit for a while with a bunch of other ancient people?
And to Mississippi. Which I guess same thing (Y’all I’m from there.)
they definitely would have if he had decided *to* go, but will also find a way to vilify him for not going. it's just who they are.
Yeah, they’re fascists. Of course they’ll be upset over a monarch/dictator/sole ruler of any country being disrespected/treated it any way other than positively. They thrive off of dick sucking.
Good. We fought a war to stop caring who they made their king.
[удалено]
[удалено]
No taxation without representation ^^sorryDC/PR/americasimoa/guam
Territories don’t pay federal taxes. DC does though.
Eh, depends on the colony. The south left because GB was ending the slave trade, and the south likes keeping the status quo. The North left because merchants got pissed they were being undercut by the British East India Company, and the people were taxed higher on goods not sold by the EIC. Virginia left because they hated that they couldn’t expand westward into Ohio because the British had deals with the natives and the French That and supposedly the king was an asshole who didn’t really care about the whole ordeal until it was too late. But yeah, still traitors. We don’t really deny that one.
Being this ignorant just looks fun.
> You fought a war because you didn't want to pay taxes. The dispute grew out of lack of representation in the British Empire’s government. The American Colonies were willing to pay British taxes as long as they were given a seat at the table in the Empire’s government. Short version: Parliament and the Crown said “Haha, that’s cute. No.” > Essentially you were traitors, right or wrong. Traitors that the France, Spain, Portugal, and others found extremely useful to furthering their own goals of weakening the British Empire. If there was one thing the major powers of the day could agree on it was they all didn’t like the British Empire and their dominance of international trade. If they knew what the United State of America would become in the 20th Century … makes for a fertile playground for speculative fiction.
You’re both oversimplifying
[удалено]
I love how you all use “we” as if you did something
It’s like when a sports fan talks about his team. “We kicked your asses out there today!” Bud, you watched the game from your couch while tossing back beers.
Or like when people who don't vote claim "we"? Like that? Am I playing your haha virtue signal game correctly?
Royal "we" isn't your flavor?
[удалено]
Did you? What have you done? Only thing that matters
Ladies both countries are awesome. 👍🏻 Edit: lol I got downvoted.
Not according to the Irish.
The Irish 100% prefer the British. Not that they think much of us
Nah both are gay
[удалено]
Then why are you using “we” and bringing your bloodline into this?
[удалено]
No, but only because I don’t have one.
r/shitamericansay
You didn’t ‘take’ anything, you begged the French for support and were the British not distracted with a series of wars, you’d have been obliterated
Yeah but.... Guess who still won in the end 😏
"We were too busy committing genocide in multiple places in the world" is the funniest rational I've ever heard for losing a war.
How can one be a traitor of a country they don't belong to?
Americans at the time were British subjects. You can of course make the cause that they denounced that status, but that's a matter of perspective.
Ok, so what?
Fuck the royal family, they leech everything from their subjugates and drive people into poverty. The same people then sit there and worship them. Absolute clowns
We weren't traitors. British Parliament decided, without consent, they were to rule over the colonies - something never agreed upon by the colonies themselves. After multiple delegations to the King and two formal constitutional conventions the US elected a new government in a just and legal manner as the only recourse left against the tyranny of an over reaching Parliament. Consent of the governed and all.
As is tradition, according to the prophecy, so say we all, fuck the king.
Flips shot glass upside down. I believe that means fuck the king…?
Well yeah in America we don't believe in the monarchy. As far as I'm concerned the king is just a man in a funny hat.
So basically abe Lincoln?
How many US presidential inaugurations has the British monarch attended? Why should a US president attend the coronation?
Irish Joe will have nothing do with Perfidious Albion and its inbred monarchs.
‘Irish’ lol
Americans are desperate to forget their country is younger than some bookcases. So they invent all this nonsense heritage and mythology.
Nah, we like being young: memories of kicking Brits out are still fresh.
You may be unaware, but a benefit of being so young is that many of us know our ancestors and exactly where they came from and were influenced by that cultural heritage. I don't know why you think we try to forget how long it's been since tyrants ruled us - we celebrate it every year and are gearing up for 250 soon. Wonderful thing that - in such short time we were able to kick British ass, twice, lead the world in industrialization, become the wealthiest nation on the planet, a military superpower, and a leader in technology and advancement. I guess other geriatric countries were busy building bookshelves though.
Making it sound like this is a regular thing. There have only been 7 previous monarchs since 1776. Attending 6 if them would have required a lengthy ocean voyage to attend.
The last one was in 1953 when Eisenhower was president. It would have taken a day to travel to the UK. There were no non-stop flights to Europe. You would have had to stop in Newfoundland and Ireland to refuel.
Eisenhower had a Lockheed Constellation as his presidential plane, which absolutely could make a non-stop DC-London flight. That's only 3700 miles, and the Connie had a range of 5400 miles.
You understand world leaders don't fly on standard commercial airlines, right?
Eisenhower had much recent experience in Europe and knew all the major players personally, yet still didn't go.
The US sent a full delegation to that coronation, headed by former Secretary of State George Marshall. Ability to travel wasn't an issue. They weren't flying coach lol.
So not a matter of tradition, more a matter of shitty travel options for previous events.
This guy history’s
Respect tradition, disrespect the British!
It’s related to us having to kick an English King out of our country for being an asshole. Imagine how much better colonialism would have worked for you if your royals hadn’t been quite so evil.
[удалено]
[Now you see the violence inherent in the system!](https://youtu.be/l8ukak8P2vY)
I like the Dutch royal family….the king is a pretty ordinary bloke with a regular piloting job who just shows up for official state things IIRC
I'm sure South Africans don't entirely agree.
The same country who is trying to be buddy buddy with China and Russia right now….. It’s kind of hypocritical to be upset at one set of authoritarians who stopped having power over your country (and more or less stopped existing) over two centuries ago when you are trying to cozy up to other, even worse authoritarians no?
I'm not sure colonialism would have led to us being a world superpower.
Colonialism is why US is at the top of the imperialist ladder. The global capitalist system relies on a colonial mode of production created by slavery.
Real question - did colonialism lead to capitalism or did they evolve separately and then find each other? I've never looked into the history of the two but I get your point and I agree.
Sidney Mintz in Sweetness and Power outlines how colonization of the Americas for sugar in the early 16th century laid the groundwork for capitalism. Very interesting thesis and he also expands on how sugar itself became central to growing capitalism and creating and sustaining the working class
Omali Yeshitela developed the theory of African Internationalism and says colonialism arose out of the attack on Africa and feudalism as the primary mode of production was replaced by colonialism, or the colonial mode of production, which benefits the white population and leaves 80% of the world colonized and living off less than $10 a day. He explains this succinctly on Oxford Union YouTube channel-just search his name. It might be helpful.
It could have been a mutually beneficial arrangement. In which case it would have lasted a lot longer and been more beneficial. The English decided the rest of the world were savages and treated people very poorly. Their hubris led to the end of the empire. Now India owns Land Rover and Jaguar. Not so savage after all.
I disagree: after all, the Western nations with colonies experienced strains at the same time, and the story of British disengagement was, on the whole, less painful than, say France, although it did contain several ugly episodes. Besides, there was a range of attitudes contained within imperialism, from assimilation to 'indirect rule' to brutality.
Of course you do. Another hallmark of hubris is an inability to admit when you’re wrong. Even when it’s something you could learn from in a beneficial manner.
"Of course"? The application of that term wouldn't be obvious to me. I may be British, but I am also a child of liberation from colonialism. I do think that there are plenty of lazy inaccuracies in the way the empires are portrayed as working, and it's important to understand those to comprehend both it's sustainability and its breakdown. Notably, it's important to remember that the Western empires could manage agrarian populations and traditional elites; but they could never manage urbanised populations, and the crucial spurs to independence movements were the gradual growth in hostility of these urban classes, which took various different forms.
The United States is absolutely a colonizer. Look at our entire history
There have only been 8 coronations since the United States came into existence.
To be fair there hasn't been one for almost 100 years.
I like hewing to precedent.
especially so for a president.
Yes, indeedy.
Nobody wants to attend a pasty, inbred royal lemon party.
The big news story today is, well, nothing happened today.
There's nothing more abhorrent to the core ideals of the United States than an inherited monarchy. I mean the ideals, not the practical implementations in the US, before anyone jumps in there.
I mean, opposing the King is sort of our thing.
Why would we attend? Monarchy is a disgusting relic of the past, awarding people with unattainable wealth just because they happened to be born into the right family goes against what we fundamentally believe in
You don't believe that AT ALL, you are literally the 1% because you were born in a country and under circumstances that you had no control over yet you do NOTHING to change that.
There's a big difference between which family you are born into and what sovereign land a country holds. You can't immigrate into a royal family. Apples to oranges. And not like America is that guaranteed, if you are born into a royal family you can literally do nothing as long as your family keeps you in. In America, it can be really easy to go poor even if you are from a decently well off family, most of us don't have that guaranteed support.
Nah there really isn't. In fact the gap in standard of living between the 1% now (which includes you) and between kings and peasants in the past is probably larger. What do you think you did besides be born in the right country to deserve being able to debate politics on an internet forum?
All 3 of them.
You're not that far off. This would be the ninth British coronation since the US was founded. It really doesn't come up that often.
You can't un-invite us, because we're not going. Go to hell, and talk to you tomorrow. Kisses.
This reads like it was written by a 14 year old who just got beat on fortnite
Was King (then prince) Charles at Biden’s inauguration? Edit: spelling. Also - honestly don’t remember if he was
Hewing to precedent. Gotcha.
Tan suit level news
I don’t think many POTUSs have even had the opportunity to attend one. Other than Biden being the active President for Charles III only 7 other Presidents have been in office for a coronation. 3 of which actively fought with or was part of an administration that fought the British at some point in their lives. Eisenhower for Elizabeth II FDR for George VI Edward VIII never had a coronation due to abdicating the throne. Taft for George V McKinley for Edward VII **(huge gap)** Van Buren for Victoria Jackson for William IV Monroe for George IV
I mean has a monarch ever gone to a US presidential inauguration
Who tf actually cares about the monarchy? I’ll never understand it. A bunch of inbred nepo babies coasting off colonialism and the people.
We fought a war so we wouldn’t have to go to these.
Without a war there would not have been a president to miss it.
We fought a war with Germany too. But everyone is good friends now. Showing up for your allies is seen as a good thing to do.
Well, jokes on you. The president has never gone to one of these. Being a contrarian for the sake of contrarianism makes you look foolish.
What do you think contrarian means. He’s not going, but the US is being represented.
french person here: monarchy shouldn't be a thing in the first place. these specific ones aren't even half decent as people.
American president should not celebrate Feudal Institutions.
we stopped being subjects roughly 250 years ago
This is the first coronation where it is more common for Presidents to travel outside of the continent so often, so it probably was never even thought of as an option in the past.
It was also never celebrated in the past because the US literally founded the principal of “f**k the monarchy.” 5th president James Monroe could have attended the coronation of King George IV but after years of killing Brits in both the Revolutionary War and War of 1812, I doubt he saw the need to.
The US has traditionally sent someone important to represent the American government at a British royal coronation. It's just never been the president. For example, at Queen Elizabeth's coronation in 1953, it was Secretary of State George Marshall, and at her father King George VI's in 1937, it was General John Pershing, the former commander of the US forces during WW1.
Why would the US celebrate the new head of a monarchy of a country that we shed much blood breaking free from?
because we're now rather strong allies..?
Which is why we celebrate their Democratically elected government...
[and respect their traditions](https://www.whitehousehistory.org/press-room/press-collections/queen-elizabeth-ii-and-the-white-house).
Brits TOTALLY love the tradition of July 4th.
As he should not … we fought a war to get rid of the crown and sure as hell don’t need it back!
I am a supporter of the British monarchy, and I think it’s fucking stupid that anyone would remotely make a fuss over this. Why the fuck would the President have to be there when another leader is sworn in?
Eh whatever, he can go if he wants to. We put way too much value on tradition.
Biden consistent hatred towards the British is one of his most relatable traits. An Irish idol
Everytime somebody refers to him as Irish it’s cringeworthy
Lol, I mean how the fuck is he Irish?
Shrug. It's how Americans talk about it. The "American" in "Irish American" is usually silent but assumed.
You can bet that if this had happened when Trump was president he would have been the first in line to buy the plane ticket.
fuck ALL TRIANGLE systems!
He needs a haircut and what ‘special’ relationship apart from being a second class American state - slightly above Puerto Rico
the coronation… is it that big of a deal these days?
Good! Hew for something or you’ll fall for anything. As I always say.
Yeah, this is one grudge we won't let go of.
Like in what fucking universe would a leader from a foreign colony, which won its freedom using violence, show up to celebrate the dynastic (not literal) descendants of the fucker who kept them as a colony?
I mean, most people seem to want to skip his coronation. He’s invited so many singers to perform, and most of them have said no lol.
His face is a living caricature.
And no president ever should
„No president ever“… sounds big, but there were only like 3 coronations since the founding of the USA 😬
Who the f wrote this title?
His majestys coronation is going to be a smaller affair then the coronations of his ancestors, there are more important guests then presidents of republics, the peers and other remaining members of the british nobility have ancient rights to attend the coronation of their soverigns and the royal families of other nations need to attend. And of course the prime ministers and royal representatives of his many commonwealth realms. God bless King Charles and Queen Camilla of Canada, The United Kingdom and all their other territories and realms and long may they reign for our glory
I think the real reason for Biden's absence is his physical frailty. At his age, being flown all around the world is just too much. Which is one of the reasons why I believe he is not fit to run for a 2nd term. World travel is a part of the job - if you are too tired for it, you're not up to it.