February 17, 2005

• While he was with a group from the British Deaf Association who were standing near a band, he pointed to the musicians and said: "Deaf? If you are near there, no wonder you are deaf." *snort* Obviously there's a very good reason Her Highness didn't make Philip her royal consort. As Duke of Edinburgh all he has to do is tolerate the Scots, and he doesn't even do that well.
• Dear God, if you indeed exist and are logged in to Monkeyfilter, please know that although I try not to be a violent or vindictive man, if You could arrange it so that some freak natural disaster were to strike the wedding of Charles and Camilla sweeping away the entire Royal Family I will sing Your mighty praises for all eternity.
• Eugenics, animal-torturing, anti-Semitism and cosmetic surgery. That's what made Britain Great, and if we all remembered that a bit more often we'd still have an Empire!
• "If Harry had worn a hammer and sickle, nobody would have got excited. Even though the hammer and sickle stands for Stalin and gulag and pogrom and devastation. The press has a different sensibility because of its ownership structure." You see, she was doing so well there, raising an interesting point about our inconsistent reactions to historically sensitive material - a thought provoking and complex topic indeed - but then she sort of lost me when she said that the media is run by Jews. (he says from the confort of his workplace, a Jewish-owned newspaper...)
• I don't know. I'm just suprised the countries that have them keep the royalty around. It can't be that divine right to rule thing anymore, can it? They just seem like remnants of a time when you had two classes, the aristocrats and everybody else. I know that some people are still Royalists, I just can't imagine why. I mean clearly democracy isn't perfect, but a Queen? It's possible I can't understand it because it's a cultural thing, the whole Rebellion. It just sits wrong that somebody is my better because of blood/breeding. Of course if the shoe were on the other foot maybe it wouldn't be quite so bothersome. Over here the myth is that you can start from nothing and become the leader. I guess as a question to the British and others, do you ever feel like the top spots on the ladder are taken? Like there is a place you can't reach because you weren't born with the right blood? Abiezer_Coppe: Wouldn't they just move down the line of succession? Some guy in a pub becomes the new King.
• Pez - well obviously I was being a bit facetious. I'd far rather we voted to become a republic in a refendum or whatever and the royals became private citizens like Pu Yi did in China. But now you mention it, I wonder if the British monarchy would survive a succession crisis? I think we keep it partly through inertia and if we had to go casting round the continent for descendants of Victoria then it might be seen as too much of a stretch in the modern world and decided it would be better just to forget the whole charade.
• Oh and BTW I agree with your point about the pernicious nature of the hereditary principle - it's the main basis of my dislike for the monarchy. Tom Paine was very good on royalty.
• How much do these hemophiliacs cost you a year? I mean, they're essentially on the dole by birthright, right? And you Brits just remember this shit the next time you're making fun of our moron-in-chief. I mean, granted, we selected him and you were stuck with them by an accident of birth, but you seem to have just as many smug, snobbish retards cavorting around in positions of notoriety...
• I thought they were kept around as a tourist attraction. (HHOS)
• immlass - yes, technically they make a profit for the country. They cost far less than they bring in, and provide endless opportunity for mirth. Still, I bet you couldn't find more than ten people in the country who have any clue who Princess Michael is, or how she's related to the Queen, or who would recognise her in the street. The regard for the Royalty is a bit like regard for 1980s synthpop. It's fiercely defended by a few, fiercely hated by a few, and totally ignored by the rest.
• They have no actual power, so they're harmless. If the press would ignore the wackier ones, there wouldn't be an issue at all, But that won't happen, since the public has a pathological desire to read and talk about them...for evidence, I give you this post.
• yes, technically they make a profit for the country I'm not sure you can back that up, all the figures for 'what they bring in' tend to include tourists who go to what are currently royal palaces and other sites of historical interest linked to royalty. Getting rid of the royals doesn't imply that we would have to knock all of these down, and that they would suddenly cease to be of interest to tourists. There are plenty of other places in London for tourists to spend money anyway. It's not like there's been a tourist boycott of Paris for the last 200 years. I guess as a question to the British and others, do you ever feel like the top spots on the ladder are taken? Like there is a place you can't reach because you weren't born with the right blood? There's not really a lot of power associated with the Royal family, my point of view is that its bollocks to be subsidising these parasites whilst having to put up with the crap about 'the work they do for this country'. It's the immense privilege that's objectional really. On the political side there's a probably a lot more access for people who aren't born rich to serious political power, but I'm not sure we've yet to have a Prime Minister who hasn't been to Oxbridge and I'm not sure how many (if any) have been to other than private schools.
• but without royals, how would we know how to behave?
• Lame question: Is her name really Michael, and she's married to a guy named Michael, or do people just refer to her that way because she's known by her husband's name? See? Told ya it was lame.
• meredithea, that confused me too.
• She has stopped using her own title and name, which is Baroness Marie-Christine von Reibnitz. Perhaps it's not so surprising. Her father, Baron Gunther von Reibnitz, was a Nazi party member and an honorary member of the SS.
• It doesn't matter who fills the slots, some of us like living in a monarchist country. It's part of our history, and it's a damn stable form of government. I don't give a rats ass about what they do in their private lives - their purpose is to be a sovereign ruler who is above politics, a focus for power less volatile than a president would be. Having seen the alternatives around the world (presidents taking over as dictators in the third world, two party systems splitting everything all binary in the states), I'm really happy with what we have.
• Put me down as a fierce defender. Actually I'm kind of annoyed right now. Insulting the Monarchy isn't like insulting George Bush (who is a politician, and thus fair game). Insulting the Monarchy is like insulting the American Flag, or any other symbol of state which is above politics. Feel free to disagree with the national system, or whatever, but please can we have a little more respect, and less name-calling, about other people's Important National Symbols.
• Jb, there are republics that have non-executive presidents. Finland and Iceland, for example. There will be no despot from either of those countries. Democracy comes in a wide variety of forms, most of which are more people-empowering than keeping the royals in their zoo.
• Dreadnought, I am a Brit, and I will call the loonies names. I'm not insulting you personally. (Unless your real name is Philip, and you live in SW1.) But to get this back on topic, can you tell us why you are a monarchist? And can you provide a rational, rather than an emotional reason?
• I can't say that abolition of the monarchy is very high on my list of prioroities for changes I'd like to see in Britain, but certainly given a choice I'd rather be a citizen than a subject as my passport tells me I currently am. Why the need for a head of state at all? In many ways that's just a hang-over from the days when nations like the US and France were emerging from the European political tradition and couldn't escape from the notion that you need one figurehead at the top. Things like international negotiations could be handled by whoever was currently holding the relevant brief. As for the notion of stability, I'd put that the other way round - we have had a more stable political settlement in Britain and so we didn't fall into the extremes some other European nations did in the early 20th century. After all, the Romanovs didn't keep the Bolsheviks out of power, Italy was a monarchy when it fell to fascism and so was Spain (can't remember the situation in Germany). All power to the commune and the people's tribunes comrades!
• I guess as a question to the British and others, do you ever feel like the top spots on the ladder are taken? Yes and no. Yes, in that there is a lot of social inequality in Britain, and the odds are heavily stacked against the poor and underprivileged. No, in that this doesn't have much to do with the Royal Family. Abolishing the monarchy, and turning Britain into a republic, would not go far towards abolishing social inequality. Raising the higher rate of income tax, and introducing a genuinely comprehensive system of education, would go a great deal further. I once met a very intelligent American PhD student who questioned me very closely about the role of the monarchy in British society. "If you met the Queen, you'd have to kneel down to her, right? And if she said to you, 'give me all your money', you'd have to give her all your money, right? And if she said to you, 'take this gun and shoot yourself', you'd have to shoot yourself, right?" I tried to explain that this wasn't really the way things worked in Britain, but I don't think he was convinced. As for Princess Michael of Kent .. in my experience, the people who really loathe her are the diehard monarchists, because they perceive her as a "stuck-up foreigner" who lowers the tone of the "real" Royal Family. All nonsense of course, but it makes the point that attitudes to the Royal Family are a good deal more complex than you might think. It isn't just a simple division between conservative supporters and radical opponents of the Royal Family. In many ways, the proposal to abolish the monarchy is not particularly radical at all -- and a Marxist might well say that it was a classic ruse to distract public attention away from where the real power and influence lies.
• Insulting the Monarchy is like insulting the American Flag, or any other symbol of state which is above politics. You mean it's fundamental to free speech? It's all very well to compare them with national symbols but the fact is that they're living human beings who have chosen to take the position they have, expect a huge amount of deference (Charles would insist that early girlfriends called him sir), have huge priveleges, are supremely wealthy and still come with their hands out to the exchequer.
• They don't have a choice on who they are (it's accident of birth, except for the marry-ins), they pay for their deference with the burden of the public eye (not something I would ever want), and if they weren't the monarchy, they would still be stinking rich, and do a hell of a lot less for it (I am WAY more pissed off at inequality in the US, which is considerably higher. And no, the top jobs are NOT open to all americans, only middle aged white males who attended the Ivy League). If the Royal Family were to quit out of desperation, I would totally understand, but there is no real reason to complain. Do they cost more than a US president, and all the former presidents who continue to have federally funded security? Frankly, for Canadians, the Queen is a very cheap head of state. The occasional visit, a card on her birthday, and we get a cute face on our coins, and my grandmother gets to be awed by a letter on her 50th anniversary. The non-emotional, non-traditional reasons would be about the stability of government. Sure, there are many republics that work, but also many constitutional monarchies, including my own lovely one. Why fix what ain't broke?
• Ahh, yes. The ownership structures of the papers. Boy, was I ever glad when the Comrades over at the Times heeded the call of our glorious Jewish Trotskyite master, Rupert Murdoch, to give Prince Twatface a good kicking. I'm inclined to feel the only thing the Bolsheviks got right was how to treat royalty. There are honourable exceptions, though. Juan Carlos of Spain has been a staunch proponent and defender of Spanish democracy once Franco popped his clogs, and the Danish royal family were genuine heros of WWII, helping to shelter Jews from the Nazis.
• biffa - Entirely offtopic, but Churchill didn't go to university. John Major left school at 16. But, yes, of the 42 Prime Ministers who did go to uni, 40 of them attended Oxford or Cambridge. I wouldn't say that was the result of privilege as such, more that the same sort of intellectual ambition that would drive you into UK politics would also drive you towards Oxford. (or Cambridge, if you could stand it. What a dump.) The same, in reverse, for Hemel Hempstead Polytechnic. But that's a markedly different thing than being born into the position. How many American Presidents or Almost-Presidents-But-For-A-Bullets have been related to previous incumbents? and let's not start on the Senate At least the British monarchy has no power whatsoever and provide a fine line in gossip.
• Italy was a monarchy when it fell to fascism and so was Spain Er, no, Spain was a republic at the time. It had become a republic in 1931, and the Civil War started in 1936. But of course, monarchists were very overwhelmingly on Franco's side. Juan Carlos' father, the then heir apparent, even volunteered to fight, and Franco was happy enough to appropriate all the symbols of the Spanish monarchy, while playing the different branches of the royal family against each other. The result was that Spain, for almost forty years was that most rare of animals: a kingdom without a king...
• It is actually possible, though unusual, to have a republic in the Commonwealth of Nations (chimed the pedant): see India -

  The issue of republican status within the Commonwealth was only resolved in 1950 when it was agreed according to a formula proposed by Canadian Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent that India should remain a Commonwealth member despite adopting her present republican constitution. This decision, set out in the London Declaration, provided for members to accept the British monarch as Head of the Commonwealth regardless of their domestic constitutional arrangements, and is now considered by many to be the start of the modern Commonwealth.

  Personally, the sooner we dispose of this bunch of freeloading PR nightmares the better. Even devoid of real power (which they have been since the Glorious Revolution of 1688)led to the creation of the first Bill of Rights, establishing the supremacy of Parliament over the King, these interlopers are welcome to a one-on-one with me anytime. Seeing as that's how they acquired their massive wealth in the first place, the lying, stealing, half-educated bastards.
• But to get this back on topic, can you tell us why you are a monarchist? And can you provide a rational, rather than an emotional reason? Beacause I don't want my head of state to be a politician. Politicians are MUCH bigger scumbags than royals.
• ...symbol of state which is above politics. I don't know if we have those over here. I don't think anything is above politics. That's the point really. Nothing gets to be sacrosanct. However, I didn't mean to be insulting to the monarchy. It's just a fascinating/bothersome concept for me, and I apologize if it seemed like I was attacking your history/culture. On the other hand, I don't know how to talk about the monarchy without talking about the issues I see with it.
• I knew when I made those dodgy historical claims without checking I'd get something wrong. Still, I reckon the basic point stands that a monarchy isn't a guarantee of stability in and of itself. Pez, feel free to attack all you like - the royals aren't the history and culture I identify with, and republicanism and anti-royalism has a long tradition in the UK too. Still can't see why you need an individual head of state at all.
• Boil 'em in oil, I say.
• Actually, I was more noticing dash_slot's claim that 1688 saw the end of royal power, and thinking, hmmm, certainly a curtailing, but not an end (not when William was so personally influential, and the monarch retained complete control over war and international affairs)...the modern monarchy is more a creation of the nineteenth, even twentieth century.
• Hold on, you're harranguing the heredity of our senate? Don't you have House of Lords? And you'd much rather have someone unanswerable to the public at the top than someone who you can oust if you want? I mean, I know you're all hip, cynical Brits or whatever, but Christ, I prefer at least the illusion that we can kick the bums out. And as far as insulting your halfwits-what-reign, well, we fought a war to do that and won. You can insult our flag all you like (I will say that the Union Jack is pretty smashing as design goes), and it makes no nevermind. But hey, have fun with your Nazi princes and princesses... (We'll do fine with the scions of Nazi supporters like Bush and Kennedy...)
• Being an ex-pat, I cherish a lingering affection for the royals, if only for the continuity of their bloodline and treasures they provide. I'd like to trace myself back to Alfred the Great as well. It's glory is more in it's perpetuation, than the fact of it's existence as such. The queen's abject shyness in public and incredible powers of mimicry are legendary. What baffles me is that any culture that is content with it's adulation of media celebrities, will cast aspersions on other parallel forms of behaviour, that have been entrenched for centuries. Most of all I respect the embracement of Prince Harry by the royals, regardless of his being so obviously genetic blow-by from Diana and Hewitt. If he acts less than should be desired, then so what? The biggest test would be if he ever came up for the throne. There goes the blood-line.
• Harry looks too much like Prince Edward to be Hewitt's son. Yes, sometimes I read the women's gossip mags. For the crosswords.
• js: I know many Americans are stupid about history and stuff, but before you start bring up that "we kicked out the King and you didn't" shit that the dumber folk on your continent so love, you really ought to remember the brits were executing monarch that stepped outta line long beore anyone in the colonies had the nads to say boo to a goose. The Brits to just fine on keeping the royals in line. If the royal family ever forget that, the plebs point at a picture of Charles I.
• Rogerd - when I did that regicide post a while back I tried to find a link to a quote I'd read from some old 18th c. Scottish radical explaining why he kept a portrait of Oliver Cromwell. It was a broad Scots version of 'He reminded kings they had a joint in their neck'.
• Rogerd- I know that a great many British people are ignorant about history, but you might want to remember what happened to Cromwell. As a rejection of monarchy it didn't work too well, now did it? If it had, there probably wouldn't have been a Charles II (or Hobbes and "The Leviathon"). That you've gradually sucked the power out of the monarchy is good of you, but you've still got someone who's your Royal Sovereign. I'm not saying it's tyranny, just that we Americans don't have to bow in front of anyone, no matter what their bloodline.
• Rodgerd isn't British, js.
• Also, I've met the Queen. I didn't have to bow. They don't even do that at Wimbledon aynmore (although they might if she turned up...).
• Also, Cromwell shows that a republic can be just as corrupt as a kingdom.
• Also, I agree with Wolof.
• Also
• What dng said.
• Also, people don't really boil in oil. They sorta bloat, and their skins pop in all sorts of interesting places. Not that I've ever boiled anyone before. *hides skillet*
• So, is your hammer a weapon or a tenderiser?
• It's got two ends, so it all depends.
• Oh. Do the gossip magazines refer to Harry's parentage? Actually the only reference I've seen 'in print' has been on either the Guardian or the some such paper, on the net. I always had assumed as much just from looking at him as he matured. Prince Edward? Wow. Now I'm starting to really worry. Perhaps he got the red hair and freckles from Fergie.
• Cromwell's reign was a dictatorship, not a real republic... But I apologize for implying Rogerd was a Limey Bastard. /Brit baiting.
• Yeah, there's been a few rumours floating around over the past few months -- maybe longer, but Harry's in the limelight at the moment so maybe that's why I'm just noticing it now. I think it's something in his skin colouring that reminds me of Prince Edward, they both have the terminal blush going on. Heh, or better: check out Charles' and Harry's matching schnozzes.
• Cromwell's republic was a monarchy in everything but name. He had his son succeed him on his death. And as to the limitation of monarchical power, that was negotiated with the accedence of King WilliamandMary in 1689. They were not allowed to assume power without relinquishing it to the people represented in Paliament. The 1689 Bill of Rights limited monarchical power to such a degree that the monarch was reduced to the status of figurehead. And js, even though a lot of Britons are ignorant about their own history, I don't think that is any reason to gloat.
• you might want to remember what happened to Cromwell... He died of old age after ruling the country for the rest of his life? Actually, I think the monarchy may be a more potent symbol to you folks in the USA than it is to us Brits. That's one of the main reasons you all want to carry guns, isn't it - because the King said you couldn't? I suspect many or most Brits would agree that the Royal Family doesn't actually matter much one way or the other, but for some of you that would be like, sort of spitting on the Founding Fathers or something, wouldn't it? /USAN baiting
• Cromwell's reign also wasn't as bad as it was later painted if you believe Samuel Pepys in his diary in June 1667 saying how 'Everybody do now-a-days reflect upon Oliver and commend him, what brave things he did and made all the neighbour princes fear him'. If Tumble Down Dick had managed to continue the dynasty maybe you'd be defending the right of Oliver's heirs to make arses of themselves at the nation's expense. If only he'd listened to Rainborough at Putney.
• Plegmina is very naughty.
• I have more sympathy/understanding for Cromwell now, after having been in a class on the period recently. I had always thought that he had been just out for power for himself, but found out that much of the reason that he took over as Protector was that none of the alternatives would guarentee religious freedom (for just Prots, of course - it was the seventeenth century). He apparently keept trying to devolve power to some kind of council/parliament, but truth was that what he wanted (religious freedom) was not widely supported (belying the sometimes held myth that the rule of the majority automatically leads to more freedoms).
• Have you read 'God's Englishman' jb? It's one of C Hill's better efforts, focussing on different aspects of OC's life and legacy. That and Antonia Frasier's (sp?) bio left me much more sympathetic to the man.
• Also, his brain was twice the size of an average man (according to trivial pursuit).
• I think I missed an "'s" out of that sentence, somewhere...
• No, I haven't read the Hill - I think I will try it. It's very likely that the lecturer I am getting this from had read the Hill, and so I'm passing it on second hand.