The Queen of England is coming here
The Queen of England is coming here
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17728208/
Of course, I'm flying out of town on Friday, and I don't go to the Kentucky Derby anyway, but still, that's kind of cool. Apparently there's some huge list of rules and guidelines to follow when meeting her. It overheard my coworkers talking about it. It sounded complicated.
I don't think anybody is going to follow them.
Of course, I'm flying out of town on Friday, and I don't go to the Kentucky Derby anyway, but still, that's kind of cool. Apparently there's some huge list of rules and guidelines to follow when meeting her. It overheard my coworkers talking about it. It sounded complicated.
I don't think anybody is going to follow them.
- Alja-Markir
- Trebuchet Enthusiast
- Posts: 5699
- Joined: 04 Feb 2007, 21:03
- Location: Deep In Space
Not being born in the Commonwealth, and despite having lived in various sundry places and nations that speak English, I've never understood the concept of the Queen, or the crown even.
Okay, so a certain genetic family, due to their history of familial relation to historical monarchs of England, basically are entitled to live luxurious and fanciful lives free of almost every restriction of behavior most normal people have to obey. In exchange, they play the part of "Royalty" and act proper and respectable most of the time.
People love this family, are intrigued by them and celebrate them. They hold events and celebrations in their honor and comment on them in the course of their daily lives.
I still don't get it though. Why, aside from historical custom, are these people so special? What did they do, or do they continue to do, that excuses their opulent lifestyles? Other millionaires at least have the poor excuse that they 'earned' their lifestyles by succeeding in a Capitalist system, but what of the royal family?
It just doesn't add up to me. Forgive me if that seems rude, as I'm more confused and curious than anything. Can any Commonwealth folks shed some light on the matter for me?
~Alja-Markir~
Okay, so a certain genetic family, due to their history of familial relation to historical monarchs of England, basically are entitled to live luxurious and fanciful lives free of almost every restriction of behavior most normal people have to obey. In exchange, they play the part of "Royalty" and act proper and respectable most of the time.
People love this family, are intrigued by them and celebrate them. They hold events and celebrations in their honor and comment on them in the course of their daily lives.
I still don't get it though. Why, aside from historical custom, are these people so special? What did they do, or do they continue to do, that excuses their opulent lifestyles? Other millionaires at least have the poor excuse that they 'earned' their lifestyles by succeeding in a Capitalist system, but what of the royal family?
It just doesn't add up to me. Forgive me if that seems rude, as I'm more confused and curious than anything. Can any Commonwealth folks shed some light on the matter for me?
~Alja-Markir~
- zombine
- Posts: 732
- Joined: 26 Jan 2007, 19:42
- Location: Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
The concept of a royal family was important during feudal times, as a strong central ruler was able to best control a government. Think Stalin, Hitler or in more recent times Saddam Hussein. A strong ruler, or more importantly, as central figure, can bring the people to frenzy, keep them in check, and lead them to be more open to government action.
I believe the English royal family became a powerless figure head after the glorious revolution, after James the 2nd was "asked" to step down. At this point parliament became the true English government.
The king still held a power. He could influence. Now, imagine today that The queen told America that Iraq was a bad idea, and we should pull out. No one in America would care. Maybe no one in england would care. But the power of the nobility 80 years ago led to the ideas of the formation of Israel. The King of England said he THOUGHT a homeland for the Jewish people was a good idea, and there were mass Jewish migrations to the Palestine area.
I believe the English royal family became a powerless figure head after the glorious revolution, after James the 2nd was "asked" to step down. At this point parliament became the true English government.
The king still held a power. He could influence. Now, imagine today that The queen told America that Iraq was a bad idea, and we should pull out. No one in America would care. Maybe no one in england would care. But the power of the nobility 80 years ago led to the ideas of the formation of Israel. The King of England said he THOUGHT a homeland for the Jewish people was a good idea, and there were mass Jewish migrations to the Palestine area.
- Alja-Markir
- Trebuchet Enthusiast
- Posts: 5699
- Joined: 04 Feb 2007, 21:03
- Location: Deep In Space
Graham wrote:It's tradition.
Well put.
Further discourse though. Is there any fear that the tradtion will be abandoned as time goes on? Lots of old-fashioned things are falling to the way-side as modern culture continues to change at an insanely rapid pace. Would losing the tradition of the royal family even be considered a bad thing?
I'm most curious to hear how our fellow forumites who are from the UK itself feel about the Queen and such. Interesting stuff for me.
~Alja-Markir~
Edit - To Zombine, when I said I didn't understand the concept of the Queen or the Crown, I really shoulda said the Modern Queen and Modern Crown. I know why we used to have kings and such, of course.
- Alja-Markir
- Trebuchet Enthusiast
- Posts: 5699
- Joined: 04 Feb 2007, 21:03
- Location: Deep In Space
Yeah, as I said, I get all that.
What I don't get is the "Why" of people putting up with them. I mean, yea, it's not Canada that is paying for the lifestyle of the Royal Family, but England does. Lots of money too. And I'm certain that when the Queen visits, the Canadian and American governments front part of her bill as a polite gesture, paying for certain of her expenses, lodging perhaps, organizational fees, things like that.
But why? Why do UK folks let their tax money go to the royal family? Why do other countries treat theses non-diplomats like diplomats? Tradition is all well and good, but let's be reasonable. People are wasting resources on a bunch of useless living icons of something that no longer exists.
~Alja-Markir~
What I don't get is the "Why" of people putting up with them. I mean, yea, it's not Canada that is paying for the lifestyle of the Royal Family, but England does. Lots of money too. And I'm certain that when the Queen visits, the Canadian and American governments front part of her bill as a polite gesture, paying for certain of her expenses, lodging perhaps, organizational fees, things like that.
But why? Why do UK folks let their tax money go to the royal family? Why do other countries treat theses non-diplomats like diplomats? Tradition is all well and good, but let's be reasonable. People are wasting resources on a bunch of useless living icons of something that no longer exists.
~Alja-Markir~
- Lord Chrusher
- Can't Drink Possible Beers
- Posts: 8913
- Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 22:53
- First Video: Door to Door
- Location: In England.
Queen Elizabeth the Second is the head of state of the United Kingdom (and Canada as well as fourteen other Commonwealth Realms). When she visits other countries she is entitled having the red carpet rolled, bands, fancy dinners and lodgings just as the President of the United States is. The cost of the monarchy is roughly 37 million pounds a year which is greatly exceeded by the income from royal estates pay and the taxes the Queen pays (180+ million pounds). Much of the costs would still exist with out a monarchy as a head of state would still do foreign travel and buildings such Windsor Castle would still need to be maintained.
We are all made of star dust. However we are also made of nuclear waste.
Remember to think before you post.
- Lord Chrusher
- Can't Drink Possible Beers
- Posts: 8913
- Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 22:53
- First Video: Door to Door
- Location: In England.
See my post. The British Royal family pays for its self. Unlike the US and its billion dollar presidential elections. The White House, Camp David,flying around in Air Force One, the pensions and benefits for former presidents are not cheep either. (They still are spending over a million dollars on Clinton not to mention his security costs).
We are all made of star dust. However we are also made of nuclear waste.
Remember to think before you post.
- Alja-Markir
- Trebuchet Enthusiast
- Posts: 5699
- Joined: 04 Feb 2007, 21:03
- Location: Deep In Space
Aye, I agree. England needs some work with people like Blair, but America is probably the political shithole of the developed world, at the moment. Not in that the elections are unfair or corrupt, that's universal, but in the fact that I've seen firsthand that Americans just ignore their government and cotinue with their daily lives despite anything that happens.
A War? Outrage! A few protests! Angry letters to local newspaper editors from old ladies! Then they go and RE-ELECT the same damn representatives they already had. Hell, most of them don't even VOTE. They're so apathetic that the government in power is decided by less than a third of the eligible voters.
Living in America has always been a weird experience for me, no matter what time period I was there.
~Alja-Markir~
A War? Outrage! A few protests! Angry letters to local newspaper editors from old ladies! Then they go and RE-ELECT the same damn representatives they already had. Hell, most of them don't even VOTE. They're so apathetic that the government in power is decided by less than a third of the eligible voters.
Living in America has always been a weird experience for me, no matter what time period I was there.
~Alja-Markir~
Alja-Markir wrote:Hell, most of them don't even VOTE. They're so apathetic that the government in power is decided by less than a third of the eligible voters.
Americans know perfectly well that it doesn't matter who they vote for.
Either it's actually different in other parts of the world, or the rest of the world hasn't caught on yet - or a combination of both. But there's really no point in voting in the US. Any intelligent person's judgment is countered by the judgments of ten morons.
Idiocracy wasn't different in kind from our current condition, just in degree. See also Beggars and Choosers by Nancy Kress.
"...so he turns to me, and he says 'Why so serious?' He puts the blade in my mouth, and says 'Why so serious?
Let's put a smile on that face!'"
Let's put a smile on that face!'"
- Master Gunner
- Defending us from The Dutch!
- Posts: 19383
- Joined: 29 Oct 2006, 12:19
- First Video: How To Talk Like A Pirate
- Location: In Limbo.
Something that many people seem to overlook, is that the Monarchy does have absolute Veto power over the UK government, but it hasn't being exercised in a long time (over 50 years at least). As for the decline of the Monarchy, that may very well depend on how long Queen Elizabeth lives. According to some lines of thought, if Prince Charles were to take the throne in the next few years, he could very well single-handedly take down the Monarchy (then again, the last time I really talked about this was back when he got married again). However, if the Queen manages to live for another, say, 15 years, Charles won't be able to do much before he passes on the crown, allowing the Monarchy to survive.
- Anachronism
- Ret-con'd: Incorrect
- Posts: 170
- Joined: 08 Feb 2007, 08:41
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
- Contact:
Lavos wrote:I've seen god before.
I see...you must have misread his directions because heck's a little further down.
As for the Queen, I hadn't seen her but the monarchy, all its history, tradition, and grandeur have always fascinated me to the point that I have, say, journeyman heraldry skills. I was going to make an effort to see her in DC but I fell ill.
On American Politics - People seem to have it so good here that most have become complacent which is better (but arguably more dangerous) than being in a sucky country and being complacent with complaining about how bad it is. Refer to this memorable (for me) interview from the Daily Show: Zbigniew Brzezinski
P.S. On the subject of fake news, TheOnion.com's new videos ftw!
To LRR is human.
Anachronism wrote:Lavos wrote:I've seen god before.
I see...you must have misread his directions because heck's a little further down.
As for the Queen, I hadn't seen her but the monarchy, all its history, tradition, and grandeur have always fascinated me to the point that I have, say, journeyman heraldry skills. I was going to make an effort to see her in DC but I fell ill.
On American Politics - People seem to have it so good here that most have become complacent which is better (but arguably more dangerous) than being in a sucky country and being complacent with complaining about how bad it is. Refer to this memorable (for me) interview from the Daily Show: Brzezinski[/url]
P.S. On the subject of fake news, TheOnion.com's new videos ftw!
Needs more monarchy incest.
Also, TheOnion's awesome 'Sarcasm' news got me HOWLING.
Edit: It's here.
PSNid: Obee1
XboxLive: LastErrand
Undefeated Lord of Donuts
XboxLive: LastErrand
Undefeated Lord of Donuts
Return to “General Discussion”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests