The Queen invites you for a stroll...
May 5th, 2009, 10:32 AM
#21
Oh fer cryin' friggin out loud!
corli and PQ -- you missed the point that this thread has absolutely NOTHING to do w/ the Royal family. Nothing. It is about walking around London.
Now get back to drooling the white emulsion down your bibs and come back to rant on a thread where it might be the <i>least</i> bit relevant . . . . .
corli and PQ -- you missed the point that this thread has absolutely NOTHING to do w/ the Royal family. Nothing. It is about walking around London.
Now get back to drooling the white emulsion down your bibs and come back to rant on a thread where it might be the <i>least</i> bit relevant . . . . .
May 5th, 2009, 10:37 AM
#22
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
janisj - i already said that - why not read what i writ before commenting - i was only reacting to Corli's words of wisdom - as i said the Royal in the title was irrelevant to my comments - i was just warning Corli that such comments cause the Brits here to become apopolectic (as well as some wannabe Brits)
May 5th, 2009, 10:49 AM
#23
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find Pal's fascination with the British royal family sweet and touching. No that you've joined forces, though, you should take on the Thai or Bhutanese royal families: there's a windmill worthy of your lances.
May 5th, 2009, 11:08 AM
#24
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no fear that sooner or late the Thais and Bhutanese will cast their royals onto the dustbin of history - just like Nepal had done
Britain on the other hand seems to want to mire itself in its royal and the hint of grandeur the country once had.
I have more hope for Bhutan and Thailand to come to grips with rational thought than i have for the Brits (and wannabe Brits)
Britain on the other hand seems to want to mire itself in its royal and the hint of grandeur the country once had.
I have more hope for Bhutan and Thailand to come to grips with rational thought than i have for the Brits (and wannabe Brits)
May 5th, 2009, 11:30 AM
#25
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I have to hand it to the Brits, much calmer on hearing the truth or at least my version of it than New Yorkers(who go balistic when they get the truth about New Yawk}. Yeah, tick off a New Yawker and it's not pretty.LOL
May 5th, 2009, 12:37 PM
#27
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>Britain on the other hand seems to want to mire itself in its royal and the hint of grandeur the country once had.
<<
Every country wants to do the latter. The former is just our way of symbolising it. Others have their own ways. The mistake is to take it literally (for or against).
<<
Every country wants to do the latter. The former is just our way of symbolising it. Others have their own ways. The mistake is to take it literally (for or against).
May 6th, 2009, 02:55 AM
#28
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no fear that sooner or late the Thais and Bhutanese will cast their royals onto the dustbin of history ->>>
You've not been to Thailand I take it? The King there is probably the most revered head of state of any country in the world.
ps Prince Phillip is revered as a living God in some places (really - he is).
You've not been to Thailand I take it? The King there is probably the most revered head of state of any country in the world.
ps Prince Phillip is revered as a living God in some places (really - he is).
May 6th, 2009, 03:10 AM
#30
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't imagine he's ever paid for it (no real need).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...nt/6734469.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...nt/6734469.stm
May 6th, 2009, 03:11 AM
#31
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>schuler on May 6, 09 at 06:58 AM
"ps Prince Phillip is revered as a living God in some places (really - he is)."
In brothels?<<
If he were, he might, at nearly 90, almost deserve to be.
But he has been the object of a cargo cult:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip_Movement
"ps Prince Phillip is revered as a living God in some places (really - he is)."
In brothels?<<
If he were, he might, at nearly 90, almost deserve to be.
But he has been the object of a cargo cult:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip_Movement
May 6th, 2009, 03:35 AM
#32
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Britain on the other hand seems to want to mire itself in its royal and the hint of grandeur"...
...is possibly the dumbest anti-monarchy argument ever.
We had a monarchy when we were a province of Normandy. We had one when we were an obscure, war-ridden, appendage to Europe. We had one when we ruled more of the world than any country before or since. And we've got one now we're a modestly content, prosperous society that shares its head of state with a dozen other, mainly, prosperous countries.
The idea that the system of government of Holland, Sweden, Norway and Australia is "mired in the hint of grandeur" is almost as surreal as pretending the systems that have brought its unfortunate victims Burlusconi, Bush 1&2, Putin and Mitterand is democratic.
...is possibly the dumbest anti-monarchy argument ever.
We had a monarchy when we were a province of Normandy. We had one when we were an obscure, war-ridden, appendage to Europe. We had one when we ruled more of the world than any country before or since. And we've got one now we're a modestly content, prosperous society that shares its head of state with a dozen other, mainly, prosperous countries.
The idea that the system of government of Holland, Sweden, Norway and Australia is "mired in the hint of grandeur" is almost as surreal as pretending the systems that have brought its unfortunate victims Burlusconi, Bush 1&2, Putin and Mitterand is democratic.
May 6th, 2009, 04:15 AM
#33
I keep promising myself that I will return to London and finally see all such things that I have never seen. However, the closer it gets (in travel time), the less urgent it seems. When I feel that I can go somewhere anytime, it usually prevents me from making plans to do so. Damn!
May 6th, 2009, 04:46 AM
#34
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Britain on the other hand seems to want to mire itself in its royal and the hint of grandeur"...
The sociology of all this is rather more subtle. It's really very little to do with the actual people involved (except for various literally-minded obsessives/eccentrics on both sides of this particular argument). It's about having some sort of symbol or focus for collective celebration/commemoration/continuity. It could as well be a flag, or a stuffed penguin. It could perfectly well be chosen by political-style election or talent show phone-in. It just happens that no-one (outside the aforementioned obsessives/eccentrics) feels strongly enough to change what we have, let alone to work out the collective "narrative" into which a new arrangement would fit. Instead what we have adapts or is adapted, somewhat slowly and awkardly, to fit what is perceived to be the the collective "narrative" we happen to be telling ourselves at the moment.
The sociology of all this is rather more subtle. It's really very little to do with the actual people involved (except for various literally-minded obsessives/eccentrics on both sides of this particular argument). It's about having some sort of symbol or focus for collective celebration/commemoration/continuity. It could as well be a flag, or a stuffed penguin. It could perfectly well be chosen by political-style election or talent show phone-in. It just happens that no-one (outside the aforementioned obsessives/eccentrics) feels strongly enough to change what we have, let alone to work out the collective "narrative" into which a new arrangement would fit. Instead what we have adapts or is adapted, somewhat slowly and awkardly, to fit what is perceived to be the the collective "narrative" we happen to be telling ourselves at the moment.
May 6th, 2009, 05:31 AM
#35
I think that the next 'interesting' thing that could happen with this subject might be whenever Australia finally votes to become a republic (which I'm sure it will do sooner or later since there are so many immigrants of non-British origin there now). That could be a major wake up call in a lot of places that have never really thought about the matter seriously.
May 6th, 2009, 07:31 AM
#37
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You've not been to Thailand I take it? The King there is probably the most revered head of state of any country in the world.
Well i have been to Thailand - spent a month there - but the King of Nepal a few years back was also the most revered head of state of any country - and now he's just a regular citizen.
Nepal moves forward, Brits remain steeped in their symbol of glory days when as flanner says no country in history has ever ruled so much of the planet
And to me this is why, unlike Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Holland, etc. - micro states with relatively little glory in their histories compared to Britain have retained their royals but in diminutive stature - not all the pomp and circumstance like in England - and seriously i think Brits revel in this reminder of glory days and that is the main reason the royals remain huge celebrities and their is so much pomp and circumcision in England today.
That the queen plays ANY relevant role in a 'constitutional monarchy' is a farce - if she ever did it would be the end of the monarchy.
She is strictly IMO a ceremonial thing that brings Britain's long-gone status as the world power to mind. Nostalgia, that's it.
And that is fine, really - if a country wants to wax in such memories fine. But that does not make it any less ridiculous in any intellectual discussion of why a hereditary monarchy should exit in today's world - any rational person would come to the conclusion that such an institution is archaic and medieval.
Well i have been to Thailand - spent a month there - but the King of Nepal a few years back was also the most revered head of state of any country - and now he's just a regular citizen.
Nepal moves forward, Brits remain steeped in their symbol of glory days when as flanner says no country in history has ever ruled so much of the planet
And to me this is why, unlike Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Holland, etc. - micro states with relatively little glory in their histories compared to Britain have retained their royals but in diminutive stature - not all the pomp and circumstance like in England - and seriously i think Brits revel in this reminder of glory days and that is the main reason the royals remain huge celebrities and their is so much pomp and circumcision in England today.
That the queen plays ANY relevant role in a 'constitutional monarchy' is a farce - if she ever did it would be the end of the monarchy.
She is strictly IMO a ceremonial thing that brings Britain's long-gone status as the world power to mind. Nostalgia, that's it.
And that is fine, really - if a country wants to wax in such memories fine. But that does not make it any less ridiculous in any intellectual discussion of why a hereditary monarchy should exit in today's world - any rational person would come to the conclusion that such an institution is archaic and medieval.
May 6th, 2009, 08:01 AM
#38
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>any rational person would come to the conclusion that such an institution is archaic and medieval<<
Yes, if you were designing states on the basis of pure rationality. But they aren't, never were and never will be: every state has its illogical (to outsiders) and emotionally-based elements, many of them archaic in their own way.
>>And that is fine, really - if a country wants to wax in such memories fine.<<
Does this mean that you might find another King Charles's head now..?
>>their is so much pomp and circumcision in England today.<<
You can't blame the royals for that: that would be the unkindest cut of all.
Yes, if you were designing states on the basis of pure rationality. But they aren't, never were and never will be: every state has its illogical (to outsiders) and emotionally-based elements, many of them archaic in their own way.
>>And that is fine, really - if a country wants to wax in such memories fine.<<
Does this mean that you might find another King Charles's head now..?
>>their is so much pomp and circumcision in England today.<<
You can't blame the royals for that: that would be the unkindest cut of all.
May 6th, 2009, 08:08 AM
#39
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can't blame the royals for that: that would be the unkindest cut of all.>
so who is to blame - American (and other foreign) tourists or the businesses that thrive on their tourist expenditures?
to me that would be one very justified reason for keeping the royals - if they really did bring money in as many think. Still they could do this without the trappings of legitimacy in having legal rights as Head of State
why not just strictly a ceremonial royalty sans real power - in theory real power?
so who is to blame - American (and other foreign) tourists or the businesses that thrive on their tourist expenditures?
to me that would be one very justified reason for keeping the royals - if they really did bring money in as many think. Still they could do this without the trappings of legitimacy in having legal rights as Head of State
why not just strictly a ceremonial royalty sans real power - in theory real power?
