Actually up until the wedding I couldent have cared either way but seeing the effect it has had on people in the local area swung me around. Way I look at it is if it gives people enjoyment and makes them happy who cares if it is based on what some consider an outdated concept or not.
The british public getting excited by booze, barbique, celebrity, and a four day weekend. Who'da thunk it.
|
Now I know you are a miserable bastard. ;-)
I'm with Kevin. I don't really care too much about the wedding, but I don't really see why everyone seems to want to have a go at the Royals. When you look at public money being pissed away, the monarchy is pretty much nowhere in the scheme of things - for example, two aircraft carriers we couldn't cancel, and probably don't need, signed up for by our wonderful outgoing elected Labour government with a price tag getting on for £10bn. For a role which is ceremonial, I think we are getting a decent bargain. Or do you just obect to the royals because they are rich?
Now I know you are a miserable bastard. ;-)
I'm with Kevin. I don't really care too much about the wedding, but I don't really see why everyone seems to want to have a go at the Royals. When you look at public money being pissed away, the monarchy is pretty much nowhere in the scheme of things - for example, two aircraft carriers we couldn't cancel, and probably don't need, signed up for by our wonderful outgoing elected Labour government with a price tag getting on for £10bn. For a role which is ceremonial, I think we are getting a decent bargain. Or do you just obect to the royals because they are rich?
Oh god no. Nothing wrong with wealth, so long as you pay your fair share to society.
No, my problem with the monarchy at its core is this. I do not wish to die a subject; if we do not have a republic by my elder years, i will be moving somewhere without royalty and seeking citizenship so that I can die freer than i was born. ;-)
Labour did a lot wrong, but they atleast didn't try to kill the NHS, sold of the forests(which would have cost money not saved it), destroy access to university education, dismantal the welfare state and slay the BBC for murdock in their first year. Oh yeah and has managed to stall the recovery, rise inflation and rise unemployment.
While the government of lead by the humanoid david cameron has done all this. Those two aircraft carriers might not be needed right now, but they are giving people jobs, they could be put to use(privatise them as a pmc and provide a subscription service to shipping using the near samarila)
|
|
<shrug>
Can't say it bothers me much. I've never met the Queen and probably never will, and anyway I have rights under law which pretty much prevent her, or anyone, abusing me as a "subject" in this realm. So as a stance it seems pretty abstract and removed from most people's experience or interest.
As someone who pays quite a lot of tax, I'm quite happy to see public expenditure coming down. Unless you fancy an unpleasant reckoning such as has happened in Ireland, Portugal and Greece, and is now beginning to hover over the US due to their failure to get to grips with their debt, something has to give. And surely spending all that money on aircraft carriers (both of them - while I blame the MoD more than Labour as such for the idiocy of the procurement contract on that, I think it still points out that there is plenty of inefficiency in the system which can be squeezed out) is not the most efficient use of state spending per job.
And the Forestry Commission (or its predecessors) was set up, I think, to provide trees for British waships and is at least as anachronistic as the monarchy - why, exactly should the UK government manage forests?
|
My wife and I happened to just come back from our long delayed honeymoon in the UK, and we happened to go see the wedding on the jumbo-tron in Leicester.
I was surprised by the turnout being somewhat small, though I assumed that most people didn't want to stand around and rather watch it on their computer screens. I guess they could have been using the day to do something else, however for the first time while we were there (15 days), the parks were not being used when we walked through them, there were very few cars out and the stores (save around the jumbo-tron) weren't that busy, which was very rare.
As someone who isn't a big fan of my monarchy (I'm Canadian), I wasn't too thrilled to be dragged along. The whole thing came down to the following:
People were happy in a patriotic way (take that as a positive or negative, your choice)
It did seem to boost London tourism quite a bit
I was told multiple times while explaining that I'm not a fan of the monarchy that they do support a lot of charities in the UK
At the end of the day, I wish them well, her bridesmaid was very attractive, my wife got a funny plate and had fun, and I got an awesome BBQ jerk chicken toastie since the line wasn't long at the really popular Toast stand.
However, while I will most likely never see a time when the monarchy gains back their power and I'm a paranoid monkey for thinking it and some other person in the Commonwealth will chastise me for saying this and explain why I'm wrong, I will never be comfortable with any one family with any small chance of being in complete control of my country based on their bloodline.
However, while I will most likely never see a time when the monarchy gains back their power and I'm a paranoid monkey for thinking it and some other person in the Commonwealth will chastise me for saying this and explain why I'm wrong, I will never be comfortable with any one family with any small chance of being in complete control of my country based on their bloodline.
There is some serious legislation that prevents the monarchy from doing anything the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement being significant.
I am not familiar with Canadian constitutional law, I assume that Canada has something similar to the Australia Act. The Australia Act effectively terminated the ability of the British Parliament or Government to make laws for Australia or its States, even at their request; and provided that any law which was previously required to be passed by the British Parliament on behalf of Australia could now be passed by Australia and its States by themselves.
The only remaining constitutional link with the United Kingdom (if it is one) is in the person of the monarch. But even that connection may not be automatic. In an important constitutional case (Sue v Hill (1999) 163 ALR 648), three justices of the High Court of Australia (the ultimate court of appeal) expressed the view that if the British Parliament were to alter the law of succession to the throne, such a change could not have any effect on the monarchy in Australia, because of the Australia Act: succession to the throne would continue in Australia according to the existing rule, unless and until that was altered in Australia. None of the other four justices in that case disagreed with this reasoning. (Because it was not strictly necessary to decide the case at hand, this is not strictly a binding judicial determination; but it is almost certainly correct given the precedent of the Abdication Crisis of 1936.)
The same case decided (and on this point the decision is binding) that the United Kingdom is a "foreign power" within the meaning of the Constitution, and therefore that holders of British citizenship are ineligible for election to the Federal Parliament (though a special "grandfathering" arrangement merely phases out the right of British citizens to vote).
To sum the above up - if we don't like the next Monarch of the United Kingdom we don't have to have them as Monarch of Australia.
As you well know, you were hardly colonised - the Scots were bribed into the Act of Union and the politicians of the day hoovered up the cash with alacrity (after a disastrous attempt at colonisation themselves emptied their own coffers). Tell me - how would an independent Scotland have coped with the collapse of both RBS and HBOS? Maybe as a Scot you don't realise that many of us in England would happily see you go, since it would be a financial bargain for us, both before and after the collapse of the banking boom.
The fact still stands that after the Union Scotland was consistently treated as if it was a colony.
The RBS collapse had it's roots in the take over of the ENGLISH NatWest bank
The HBOS collapse was a result of allowing a provincial ENGLISH building society to think it could be a bank.
Neither take over would have happened in an independent Scotland so the question is moot.
Incidentally Alex Salmond was at one time chief Economist for the RBS and thought the NatWest takeover was a bad idea.He remains the only party leader in the UK to have a formal qualification in economics.
|
|
As you well know, you were hardly colonised - the Scots were bribed into the Act of Union and the politicians of the day hoovered up the cash with alacrity (after a disastrous attempt at colonisation themselves emptied their own coffers). Tell me - how would an independent Scotland have coped with the collapse of both RBS and HBOS? Maybe as a Scot you don't realise that many of us in England would happily see you go, since it would be a financial bargain for us, both before and after the collapse of the banking boom.The fact still stands that after the Union Scotland was consistently treated as if it was a colony.
The RBS collapse had it's roots in the take over of the ENGLISH NatWest bank
The HBOS collapse was a result of allowing a provincial ENGLISH building society to think it could be a bank.
Neither take over would have happened in an independent Scotland so the question is moot.
Incidentally Alex Salmond was at one time chief Economist for the RBS and thought the NatWest takeover was a bad idea.He remains the only party leader in the UK to have a formal qualification in economics.
Well, I hate to point this out, but:
- RBS was run by Fred Goodwin, a Scot. At the time of the takeover of NatWest by RBS (and I was working for NatWest at the time) it was run by George Matthewson (I might have the name slightly wrong), another Scot. It had Scottish management at that time. Actually, the collapse of RBS was not precipitated by the takeover of NatWest (which was eleven years ago, and actually went very well from an earnings perspective, so actually Alec was wrong) but by its takeover of ABN Amro, a Dutch bank. I'm not sure why Scottish independence would have caused these things to not happen - banking cross-border mergers happen all the time, and will doubtless continue to do so despite the lack of value they create. The catapulting of RBS into the big league by the NatWest takeover would almost certainly have happened, as it would have been (and was) a symbol of Scottish financial prowess. The "arc of prosperity" was based upon inflated banking sectors in the other countries - Ireland, Iceland - that were included in it - again, not necessarily Alec's finest hour from an economic standpoint.
- HBOS is more of a moot point, but the commerical lending unit was not specifically part of Halifax. BOS management made the decision to merge with Halifax, so you can hardly pretend they had nothing to do with it. Unless the managers were so incompetent (again, moot) that they had absolutely no idea at all what was going on. In any case...
- RBS is incorporated in Scotland as far as I know, and so an independent RBS would be a massive drag for an independent Scottish government. HBOS's incorporation I am less clear on, but may well be in Scotland too. Even by itself, RBS would be a massive financial headache, requiring recapitalisation on a massive scale. It has badly impacted the UK government, which is much larger than a putative independent Scottish economy. So you would have a nasty Ireland/Iceland-style problem, especially as Edinburgh is a financial centre that used to be often feted by Scottish Nationalists (less so now). Instead, you have English taxpayers bailing out the Scots - again.
So what are we arguing about..you want rid off us and a large proportion of us want rid off you..problem solved.
The birth of arguably the most important scientist to ever live, or the naming of our languages greatest writer being less worthy of a national knees up than the marriage of a single couple of no meaningful import is a sad enditment of our country.
The majority of the population would fall asleep when contemplating the celebration of Darwin or Shakespeare. In teh end you will have 'royalty' maybe not of blue bloods but if not them then others will acquire the 'crown' and the public will go mad watching and commenting on their antics. Having people whose job is to be 'professional' royalty means you don't have to put up with quite as many amateurs many of whom will go out of their way to push political agenda's one way or another. At least the current royalty knows to keep its mouth shut (mostly) about politics.
There are other benefits to having a ceremonial figure head. The Commonwealth nations can be quite pragmatic about their laws for example because their meaning is always considered temporary. Our American cousins, on the other hand, spend a great deal of time and energy arguing about their Constitution, trying to decide what it means or once meant and whether or not what it once meant is of greater or lesser importance to the current situation.
Expanding on this cohesive nation states must have mythologies that underpin their national identity and ceremonial figure heads fill that role rather admirably while tending not to get in the way of the nations actual business.
The monarchy is bread and circuses but its not really all that problematic an example of bread and circuses and one way or another we will have bread and circuses...the population demands it.
There is some serious legislation that prevents the monarchy from doing anything the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement being significant.I am not familiar with Canadian constitutional law, I assume that Canada has something similar to the Australia Act. The Australia Act effectively terminated the ability of the British Parliament or Government to make laws for Australia or its States, even at their request; and provided that any law which was previously required to be passed by the British Parliament on behalf of Australia could now be passed by Australia and its States by themselves.
Canada does have a similar law. Interestingly enough while the Monarchy in the U.K. has no actual power in Canada the Queens representative in Canada, The Governor-General, has absolute power as her representative. There are, technically speaking, no limits, checks or balances on the Governor-Generals power in Canadian law. Technically speaking the Governor-General of Canada has powers that far outstrip the Queens powers in the U.K. since the Queen is limited by the Magna Carta and other similar laws that came into existence mainly to protect the nobility.
Oddly enough absolute power actually seems to paralyze the Governor-Generals of Canada. The recent ones have been so terrified of causing a constitutional crisis that they have completely avoided using their reserve powers even when it would be clearly reasonable. For example imposing some kind of a time limit (maybe 21 days) to how long the PM could shut parliament down for.
|
|
So what are we arguing about..you want rid off us and a large proportion of us want rid off you..problem solved.
We are arguing about the detail, rather than the overall aspiration. I think the economic case for independence isn't good, but it isn't the only argument. If the people of Scotland feel (and so far they haven't expressed this when the chips are down) that government based in London with a bit of devolution is not representative of them, I think it is legitimate for Scotland to be independent of the broader UK. However, with very bad economic conditions out there, it may not be a good decision to make economically, and many of the economic arguments required there to be easy economic conditions which no longer exist.
|
|
Actually, American currency is pretty free from "vile failure[s] elected to absolute power." We don't follow the tradition, as old as parasitic monarchy, of putting the current ruler on our money.
George Washington
Abraham Lincoln
Alexander Hamilton
Andrew Jackson
Ulysses S. Grant
Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Jefferson
Franklin D. Roosevelt
John F. Kennedy
Sacajawea
Susan B. Anthony
What, no William Henry Harrison?
This is an OUTRAGE!|
|
I think it is also worth noting that the President of the US does not have absolute power and never has had, due to the numerous checks and balances in the US constitution.
Neither does Liz 2.0....
Amusing to see her referred to like that; does that mean, when we get Charlie 3.0, his duties will be covered by the OGL?
|
|
Actually, American currency is pretty free from "vile failure[s] elected to absolute power." We don't follow the tradition, as old as parasitic monarchy, of putting the current ruler on our money.
We use to have Australian Scientists on our Currency...then the vile failures elected to absolute power ditched them for their personal 'heroes'.
Now, I'm not a big fan of all of these guys, but I do have to say that every single one of them, with the possible exception of Andrew Jackson, was cooler than Elizabeth II, even if GW raped one of Citizen Dingo's ancestors (as he's claimed in the past).
Burned the Family farm but its the same thing...
|
|
We have awesome things to celebrate, so why the monkey are we expected to get excited about two young adults from wealthy families getting married. Especially when said marriage is used as a smoke screen for a further 37% cut to the NHS. The most politically unpopular policy of a uk government since the pole tax.
Exotic dancers should contribute to the economy, like everyone else.
|
|
We have awesome things to celebrate, so why the monkey are we expected to get excited about two young adults from wealthy families getting married. Especially when said marriage is used as a smoke screen for a further 37% cut to the NHS. The most politically unpopular policy of a uk government since the pole tax.Exotic dancers should contribute to the economy, like everyone else.
Pippa (who wasnt wearing undies under that skin hugging dress at the wedding) is the naughty exotic dancer. The One Big Willy married was the serial stalker...
Neither does Liz 2.0....Amusing to see her referred to like that; does that mean, when we get Charlie 3.0, his duties will be covered by the OGL?
That makes Will... 4E? Actually, that might be an edition war worth watching.
Actually, none of the Royal Family will accede to the throne. They will all be wiped out in a tragic, electrical accident when they have a group picture of them taken. Then, the government of England will find a lost heir of the Royal Family living in America, and they will be forced to name him king...
Actually, none of the Royal Family will accede to the throne. They will all be wiped out in a tragic, electrical accident when they have a group picture of them taken. Then, the government of England will find a lost heir of the Royal Family living in America, and they will be forced to name him king...
His name will be King Ralph.....yep seen that s*@~ movie.
Actually, none of the Royal Family will accede to the throne. They will all be wiped out in a tragic, electrical accident when they have a group picture of them taken. Then, the government of England will find a lost heir of the Royal Family living in America, and they will be forced to name him king...His name will be King Ralph.....yep seen that s%$& movie.
"King Ralph" was not a s%$& movie. It was a very funny movie, and probably the best movie about the Royal Family that I have ever seen. A close second would be "The King's Speech".
"King Ralph" was not a s%$& movie. It was a very funny movie, and probably the best movie about the Royal Family that I have ever seen. A close second would be "The King's Speech".Actually, none of the Royal Family will accede to the throne. They will all be wiped out in a tragic, electrical accident when they have a group picture of them taken. Then, the government of England will find a lost heir of the Royal Family living in America, and they will be forced to name him king...His name will be King Ralph.....yep seen that s%$& movie.
For good movies about the "British Royal Family" as there are plenty of other Royal families about.
The Madness of King George springs to mind and if you want funny - Black Adder II, and Black Adder the III blow that hammy piece of s%&@ King Ralph off the stage with their least funny episodes.
John Goodman was brilliant in Barton Fink so it was not his fault King Ralph was shyte (If you have a stinker of a movie John Goodman would at least give it a friendly warmth that few other actors could).
"King Ralph" was not a s%$& movie.Never heard of it.
For your education and edification... King Ralph .
EDIT:
WARNING THIS MOVIE IS SO BAD IT MAY CAUSE IRRITABLE BOWEL SYNDROME.
For your education and edification... King Ralph ."King Ralph" was not a s%$& movie.Never heard of it.
Now I wish I had not looked...definitely a case of ignorance is bliss.
Funnily enough under the rules on regnal names Charles could legitimately accede to the throne as King Arthur.
Funnily enough under the rules on regnal names Charles could legitimately accede to the throne as King Arthur.
Say, what?
Funnily enough under the rules on regnal names Charles could legitimately accede to the throne as King Arthur.
"Just 'casue some watery tart hucks a scimitar at you is not basis for a government!"
What? Someone was going to make a Monty Python reference.
Funnily enough under the rules on regnal names Charles could legitimately accede to the throne as King Arthur."Just 'casue some watery tart hucks a scimitar at you is not basis for a government!"
What? Someone was going to make a Monty Python reference.
I thought I already had, Oh well. Spam it must be then.
Funnily enough under the rules on regnal names Charles could legitimately accede to the throne as King Arthur.Say, what?
He is allowed under the law to assume the throne using any of his given names..Charles Phillip Arthur George
...Pippa....