The Royal Wedding

ANDY wrote:

Lane Coutell wrote:Sorry for the sexist observation there.

I wouldn't tell the women over at this board to 'Calm down, sit down and listen to the doctor' if I were you ...

LOL, how on earth do you follow British news so closely?

Captain Hi-Top wrote:

Lane Coutell wrote:Errrm, as head of state of the United Kingdom. Good grief, keep up man.

What does she do as the head of state? What decisions does she make? What qualifies her to make the decisions she makes?

She does lots as head of state. I suggest you look at her diary if you want to get an idea.

What decisions? Well a fair few probaly, such as whether she wants the crusts cut off of her sandwiches, but other than that she makes very few important decisions. Which, as I said earlier, is kind of the point. I would be horrified if she had any sort of power over the running of this country. I believe in democracy, despite it's many faults.

What qualifies her? Well here lies the problem. As I said, I have big problems with the notion of being born into being head of state. I mean, we could replace her with a politican who fancies a big payday who does everything the queen currently does... ie very little. And funnily enough, I think the Queen is very much qualified for her position. She has been Queen since 1950 something. She has seen a lot and spoken in detail with many many past Prime Ministers. Not that that is a defence of the current situation, I just happen to think that on this occasion we found a good egg.

ANDY wrote:
As I said before: the French president and his household is more expensive that the British Queen and her legion - even pro capita.
It's probably a complicated matter, but I don't think we should take for granted that it saves money.

And of course, that is also not considering the fact that the Royal family brings in rather big bucks through tourism. Who the fuck cares about the French President?

Lane Coutell wrote:She does lots as head of state. I suggest you look at her diary if you want to get an idea.

What decisions? Well a fair few probaly, such as whether she wants the crusts cut off of her sandwiches, but other than that she makes very few important decisions. Which, as I said earlier, is kind of the point. I would be horrified if she had any sort of power over the running of this country. I believe in democracy, despite it's many faults.

What qualifies her? Well here lies the problem. As I said, I have big problems with the notion of being born into being head of state. I mean, we could replace her with a politican who fancies a big payday who does everything the queen currently does... ie very little. And funnily enough, I think the Queen is very much qualified for her position. She has been Queen since 1950 something. She has seen a lot and spoken in detail with many many past Prime Ministers. Not that that is a defence of the current situation, I just happen to think that on this occasion we found a good egg.

So let's recap:
* The Queen is completely ceremonial
* She does a "good job"
* Her job is nothing, which she is very good at

Captain Hi-Top wrote:

So let's recap:
* The Queen is completely ceremonial
* She does a "good job"
* Her job is nothing, which she is very good at

I'm presuming you are being somewhat sarcastic , but in general, yes you have it spot on.

Lane Coutell wrote:I'm presuming you are being somewhat sarcastic , but in general, yes you have it spot on.

So why, when I asked "what job?", did you pretend as if she actually had one?

pinhedz wrote:There is a bit of a problem here--if it's not a divine right, what kind of a right is it? Has anyone explained, post-Charles I, why the royals have the status they have, and why it is inherited through blood lines?

Guacamayo would probably call it "Magic"- see thread in the Science section.

Sociologists would probably indicate a (quite absurd) degree of self-identification in the relationship between subject and the prince and his bride.

As I state above, the thing is ridiculous but it works because people are ridiculous.

If you're looking for an entirely rationalist constitution, look no further than that of the old Soviet Union...and we all know how long that lasted and what freedom it gave its universally merry people.

pinhedz wrote:

eddie wrote:If you're looking for an entirely rationalist constitution, look no further than that of the old Soviet Union...

That system was irrational--and totalitarian.

Well, yes...that was my point.

Captain Hi-Top wrote:

Lane Coutell wrote:I'm presuming you are being somewhat sarcastic , but in general, yes you have it spot on.

So why, when I asked "what job?", did you pretend as if she actually had one?

What do you mean pretend? I didn't pretend anything. The Queen clearly has a job, she is a busy gal, even at 85 or whatever age she is. She is the ceremonial head of state. Here in the UK we keep head of state seperate from our Government. I'm aware the US has executive presidencies, but there are more than one way to skin a cat. Some do not believe they should be the same. Republican states have problems too. A good example of a monarchy working well against a Republic is the role Juan Carlos played in cementing Spain as as a parliamentary democracy after the death of Franco. No doubt guacamayo knows a great deal more about that than I do.

If I really wanted to stir the pot, I could also look at other instances of where the lack of a monarch created trouble--Hitler took power as Fuhrer by assuming power of both Chancellor and President. I suspect he'd have still taken power, but not unconditionally, if there was a monarch. Okay, no, let's not go there. (isn't there a word for whenever message forum threads result in discussing Hitler?)

ANDY wrote:

eddie wrote:
the thing is ridiciculous but it works because people are ridiculous.

That's a brilliiant way of putting it, Eddie.

Agreed.

Lane Coutell wrote:The Queen clearly has a job, she is a busy gal, even at 85 or whatever age she is.

Give me a fucking break. My grandfather is 91 and does more strenuous tasks every day than the Queen has ever done in her entire fucking lifetime, and he is a veteran of World War II. Those people deserve respect. The Queen does not.

Captain Hi-Top wrote:

Lane Coutell wrote:The Queen clearly has a job, she is a busy gal, even at 85 or whatever age she is.

Give me a fucking break. My grandfather is 91 and does more strenuous tasks every day than the Queen has ever done in her entire fucking lifetime, and he is a veteran of World War II. Those people deserve respect. The Queen does not.

Okay, just so I can keep up, your issue is now that she is lazy, spoilt or what? I agree that she is spoilt, but she is the Queen, what do you expect?

She clearly is a busy lady. She is always visiting places and having to meet gormless people who want to shake her hand. You also shouldn't underestimate her importance as a diplomatic servant. Only later this year she is to visit the Republic of Ireland. This is to be the first state visit to the Irish Republic by a British monarch. Kind of a big deal. A major deal? No, she should never be a major deal when it comes to such important matters, but she is playing her part in increasingly the close relationship between Britain and Ireland... One, which I am sure you are aware, isn't always rosey.

Lane Coutell wrote:Okay, just so I can keep up, your issue is now that she is lazy, spoilt or what? I agree that she is spoilt, but she is the Queen, what do you expect?

I have issue with everything about her entire existence. Why should you assume I only have one issue with your bullshit monarch?

ANDY wrote:I find it rather odd to see someone living in a republic reacting so emotionally to the existence of monarchy, while on the other hand (almost) all people living in a monarchy here have stated that they aren't royalists at all but really just don't mind it that much either.

Ha, yes a very good and valid obersvation.

Although I have some sympathy. I can only imagine that a lot of US news stations are full of coverage of a wedding that has little to do with them, maybe throw in a couple of interviews of over-the-top crying Americans saying this is a great day, just how God intended it to be, etc.... I imagine it would be easy to get frustrated.

ANDY wrote:I find it rather odd to see someone living in a republic reacting so emotionally to the existence of monarchy

You find it odd that someone living in a republic that was created in defiance of monarchy and everything monarchs stood for is reacting emotionally to the existence of monarchy?

Captain Hi-Top wrote:

Lane Coutell wrote:Okay, just so I can keep up, your issue is now that she is lazy, spoilt or what? I agree that she is spoilt, but she is the Queen, what do you expect?

I have issue with everything about her entire existence. Why should you assume I only have one issue with your bullshit monarch?

No system is perfect. I mean, who would I prefer as a head of state...... Queen Elizabeth II or President George Bush Jr?

Lane Coutell wrote:

Captain Hi-Top wrote:

Lane Coutell wrote:Okay, just so I can keep up, your issue is now that she is lazy, spoilt or what? I agree that she is spoilt, but she is the Queen, what do you expect?

I have issue with everything about her entire existence. Why should you assume I only have one issue with your bullshit monarch?

No system is perfect. I mean, who would I prefer as a head of state...... Queen Elizabeth II or President George Bush Jr?

Well "head of state" to you means "the person that waves and people and shakes hands," so I guess it doesn't actually matter either way, does it?

The Queen never did anything to you, don't be so ridiculous. You know nothing of what she does and the huge amount of pride and affection people have for her. Look down upon them if you want, but it's the truth and there's nothing wrong with people feeling that way.

ANDY wrote:

Captain Hi-Top wrote:
You find it odd that someone living in a republic that was created in defiance of monarchy and everything monarchs stood for is reacting emotionally to the existence of monarchy?

Absolutely.
You call yourself the land of the free, but you're not even able to free yourself from burdens that, ... em, don't burden you.

LaRue wrote:The Queen never did anything to you

Yes, I should never speak out against anyone who hasn't personally and directly wronged me. Hitler never did anything to me either, I guess I should stop thinking so low of him...after all, he made lots of people happy! I'm sure he had great dresses as well.

Captain Hi-Top wrote:

ANDY wrote:

Captain Hi-Top wrote:
You find it odd that someone living in a republic that was created in defiance of monarchy and everything monarchs stood for is reacting emotionally to the existence of monarchy?

Absolutely.
You call yourself the land of the free, but you're not even able to free yourself from burdens that, ... em, don't burden you.

LaRue wrote:The Queen never did anything to you

Yes, I should never speak out against anyone who hasn't personally and directly wronged me. Hitler never did anything to me either, I guess I should stop thinking so low of him...after all, he made lots of people happy! I'm sure he had great dresses as well.

Hitler was the reason for the murder of over 11 million people and something like 50 million (?) died in WWII. The comparision is somewhat lame. Especially considering my rather cheeky example earlier on about how a Monarch could possibly have reigned in Hitler's powers.

ANDY wrote:Apparently you live in a nation in which people are driven to tears of joy when a bunch of adult men walk onto a stage dressed as Roman soldiers in very silly clothes to tell the audience that they get 2 free tickets to a Celine Dion concert in Vegas.

What's wrong with that? What's wrong with tears of joy? You too manly to cry at free concert tickets?


edit: no, no, you must just be mad that Oprah earned her wealth and fame by becoming the best in her field (unlike the Queen) and is very generous with her money

Celine Dion and Oprah have given more to the world than any living member of the british royal family.

And are they really young? They both look like they're in their 40's even though they're decades younger than that.

And surely you see a difference in someone crying tears of joy because someone they don't know shared something with them, and someone crying tears of joy because someone they don't know used their money to throw an extravagant party that they weren't invited to.

^

Knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing (as Oscar Wilde put it).

I think the main talking points of this discussion have been covered.

Bowing out of the Trollfest.

Cheerio!

eddie wrote:

I think the main talking points of this discussion have been covered.

Agreed. That's enough from me too. Good thread though.

I look forward to ISN's input.