I have no doubt that you have all been following this news story with great interest and celebrating 8)
If you are not UK based I'm curious to know how this story has been covered, if at all, in your own county and your views on it. Also open to UK residents for their comments of course.
Meaning 3 generations of out of work royals to support.
Chris Addison tweeted on the subject:
"A woman entirely financially dependent on the State has chosen to have a baby. The Daily Mail must be furious."
I'm sick of all these "Royal Celebrations". Babies are born all the time. People get married all the time. :P
Thank god Finland isn't a Kingdom. It's enough to endure our current pompous president.
Quote from: The new erato on July 23, 2013, 01:31:32 AM
Chris Addison tweeted on the subject:
"A woman entirely financially dependent on the State has chosen to have a baby. The Daily Mail must be furious."
;D
Quote from: 71 dB on July 23, 2013, 01:33:33 AM
I'm sick of all these "Royal Celebrations". Babies are born all the time. People get married all the time. :P
Thank god Finland isn't a Kingdom. It's enough to endure our current pompous president.
Pompous? Really?
Excellent, I see that the celebrations are in full swing in Scandinavia. ;D (on a separate note I'm looking forward to seeing Helsinki and Stockholm for the first time over the next couple of weeks).
Quote from: North Star on July 23, 2013, 01:40:24 AM
;DPompous? Really?
Yes. That's not even uncommon among presidents, is it?
There were two choices: a pompous right-winger or a green gay. Finns chose the pompous right-winger. ::)
Quote from: vandermolen on July 23, 2013, 01:43:07 AM
Excellent, I see that the celebrations are in full swing in Scandinavia. ;D (on a separate note I'm looking forward to seeing Helsinki and Stockholm for the first time over the next couple of weeks).
I don't speak for all Finns, just for myself. Some Finns are extremely interested about these things.
Hopefully the weather will be nice when you are in Helsinki. The last week or so was rainy and cold but the weather is getting better now.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 23, 2013, 01:50:22 AM
I don't speak for all Finns, just for myself. Some Finns are extremely interested about these things.
Hopefully the weather will be nice when you are in Helsinki. The last week or so was rainy and cold but the weather is getting better now.
Thank you! That is really helpful. There has been a heat wave in the UK, and I was wondering what the temperatures are likely to be in Helsinki and Stockholm.
It's what I have found on my main news' website:
(http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/royal-baby-meme-lion-king.jpg)
I like this:
(http://www.hifisentralen.no/forumet/attachments/off-topic-hja-rnet/208744d1374531070-en-konge-er-fa-dt-ska-l-1002331_1396916430526573_1051879177_n.jpg)
Quote from: Daimonion on July 23, 2013, 02:28:16 AM
It's what I have found on my main news' website:
I imagined something similar will be done, when the day comes to reveal the baby from the balcony. ;D (Do they generally do that?)
Quote from: vandermolen on July 23, 2013, 02:04:16 AM
Thank you! That is really helpful. There has been a heat wave in the UK, and I was wondering what the temperatures are likely to be in Helsinki and Stockholm.
Between +20°C and +25°C.
Quote from: Daimonion on July 23, 2013, 02:28:16 AM
It's what I have found on my main news' website:
(http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/royal-baby-meme-lion-king.jpg)
Excellent! I like this.
I predict the name will be Phillip Charles William Spencer or Phillip Charles William Louie.
Didn't we discover the remains of Richard III, the body in the car park ;)
We could use another King Dick
Quote from: RebLem on July 23, 2013, 03:55:53 AM
I predict the name will be Phillip Charles William Spencer or Phillip Charles William Louie.
Quite likely!
What is this "UK" you speak of?
Upper Kennebec.
Quote from: vandermolen on July 23, 2013, 01:27:55 AM
If you are not UK based I'm curious to know how this story has been covered, if at all, in your own county and your views on it.
Here in the U.S., the royal baby is by far the big news event of the last couple of days. It's nice to have some good news for a change.
The folks who are bitching about all the coverage are the jealous types.
Quote from: Sammy on July 23, 2013, 11:38:10 AM
The folks who are bitching about all the coverage are the jealous types.
No, they're the bitching types.
Quote from: Sammy on July 23, 2013, 11:38:10 AM
Here in the U.S., the royal baby is by far the big news event of the last couple of days. It's nice to have some good news for a change.
The folks who are bitching about all the coverage are the jealous types.
Thanks Sammy,
I am surprised by the extent of the overseas coverage of this story. In fact the British media and press have made a story of it themselves, with clips from ABC News and similar scenes from the world's media. Although not a fanatical royalist I agree that it has made a welcome change from the usual leading news stories.
Here in the U.S. we have much more interesting and uplifting things to think about--the new tattoo on Beyonce's ass, Justin Bieber's new girlfriend, the Kardashian harpies have gained 100 lbs...
bread and circuses
Quote from: sanantonio on July 23, 2013, 12:43:58 PM
Has a name been announced?
Not yet despite M N Dave's suggestion. 8)
I'll weigh in here, and leave in a hurry :), I personally don't care one bit about the 'Royal Family' and never understood the fascination or need for them. They live, breath, and put on their pants one leg at a time like I do. The only difference here is the UK supports them and they continue to give them their hard-earned money just so Prince Henry can go off to Vegas and party like a rock star. I say make these people get real jobs and stop living in some kind of fantasy world. They're human beings like all of us.
Quote from: sanantonio on July 23, 2013, 12:43:58 PM
Has a name been announced?
My guess is he'll be named after some swishy, inbred, murderous royal from his family tree.
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 23, 2013, 03:46:02 PM
I'll weigh in here, and leave in a hurry :), I personally don't care one bit about the 'Royal Family' and never understood the fascination or need for them. They live, breath, and put on their pants one leg at a time like I do. The only difference here is the UK supports them and they continue to give them their hard-earned money just so Prince Henry can go off to Vegas and party like a rock star. I say make these people get real jobs and stop living in some kind of fantasy world. They're human beings like all of us.
Fair enough John and no need to 'leave in a hurry' :) I was just curious to hear people's views. I am not a great royalist but, on balance, I like the idea of a non-political Head of State and I guess it brings in the tourists (my mother was once asked by a tourist if the Queen appeared on the balcony of Buckingham Palace every day at a particular time - like a cuckoo clock!) But I see the other side too - anachronistic waste of tax payer's money etc.
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 23, 2013, 03:46:02 PM
, and put on their pants one leg at a time like I do.
Actually they don't. They have people putting them on them (called dressers I believe).
HRH the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinbugh stopped wearing trousers a while ago.
He went all mechanical.
(http://community.qlikview.com/servlet/JiveServlet/showImage/38-2728-20695/Wallace+and+the+wrong+trousers.jpg)
Gents, I realize this topic engenders (perhaps unexpectedly) strong feelings, but let's keep it civil, please. Thank you.
--Bruce
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 23, 2013, 03:46:02 PMThe only difference here is the UK supports them and they continue to give them their hard-earned money just so Prince Henry can go off to Vegas and party like a rock star. I say make these people get real jobs
In fact, Prince Harry has a real job. He's in the military, serving since 2005, including two combat tours in Afghanistan as an Apache co-pilot/gunner. He's recently qualified to be an Apache commander. I don't blame the guy for blowing off a little steam in Vegas. As a veteran I understand completely.
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on July 24, 2013, 04:05:14 AM
In fact, Prince Harry has a real job. He's in the military, serving since 2005, including two combat tours in Afghanistan as an Apache co-pilot/gunner. He's recently qualified to be an Apache commander. I don't blame the guy for blowing off a little steam in Vegas. As a veteran I understand completely.
Sarge
Indeed, and this wrinkle in the conversation illustrates how the Royals can come in for harsh remark, simply by having a "regular bloke" side.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on July 24, 2013, 04:05:14 AM
In fact, Prince Harry has a real job. He's in the military, serving since 2005, including two combat tours in Afghanistan as an Apache co-pilot/gunner. He's recently qualified to be an Apache commander. I don't blame the guy for blowing off a little steam in Vegas. As a veteran I understand completely.
Sarge
...and he's going for a third spell again soon.
Prince William also works in the Army btw (Air Rescue Unit in Anglesey I believe ?).
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on July 24, 2013, 04:05:14 AM
In fact, Prince Harry has a real job. He's in the military, serving since 2005, including two combat tours in Afghanistan as an Apache co-pilot/gunner. He's recently qualified to be an Apache commander. I don't blame the guy for blowing off a little steam in Vegas. As a veteran I understand completely.
Quote from: Papy Oli on July 24, 2013, 04:48:00 AM
...and he's going for a third spell again soon.
Prince William also works in the Army btw (Air Rescue Unit in Anglesey I believe ?).
You forgot to mention that the Prince of Wales markets his own line of organic biscuits.
It does seem incongruous that the birth of this baby is considered more newsworthy than the fact that 500 prisoners were broken out of prison by al Qaeda in Iraq. But we must have our entertainment.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on July 24, 2013, 04:05:14 AM
In fact, Prince Harry has a real job. He's in the military, serving since 2005, including two combat tours in Afghanistan as an Apache co-pilot/gunner. He's recently qualified to be an Apache commander. I don't blame the guy for blowing off a little steam in Vegas. As a veteran I understand completely.
Sarge
But can a 'normal' army officer at his level (in the UK, say) afford to blow steam off in Vegas, in the way he did, with nary a concern? (I'm referring to the expenses alone, nothing else.)
The royal family is all BS. This article is right.
http://gawker.com/imprison-the-royal-family-and-abolish-the-monarchy-867576501
Quote from: The Six on July 24, 2013, 09:29:11 AM
The royal family is all BS. This article is right.
http://gawker.com/imprison-the-royal-family-and-abolish-the-monarchy-867576501
My thoughts exactly. I particularly liked this:
Quote
It is akin to taxing the American public to support the Kardashian family.
Maybe instead of having babies, they should take a page from the Tibetans and look for reincarnations. One person instead of a whole clan. More cost effective.
Quote from: sanantonio on July 23, 2013, 12:43:58 PM
Has a name been announced?
George Alexander Louis, announced about 30 mins. ago - to be known as Prince George of Cambridge.
:)
Quote from: douglasofdorset on July 24, 2013, 10:08:41 AM
George Alexander Louis, announced about 30 mins. ago - to be known as Prince George of Cambridge.
:)
I was pulling for Havergal.
Quote from: springrite on July 24, 2013, 10:14:23 AM
I was pulling for Havergal.
My top picks were Bubba, Wilberforce, and Adolf.
Quote from: Brian on July 24, 2013, 10:39:06 AM
My top picks were Bubba, Wilberforce, and Adolf.
Don't forget Billy Bob (as opposed to William Robert)
Quote from: springrite on July 24, 2013, 10:42:05 AM
Don't forget Billy Bob (as opposed to William Robert)
Yes, but Lexi Loui ain't bad.
Gurn St. Blanston
Quote from: The Six on July 24, 2013, 09:29:11 AMThe royal family is all BS. This article is right.
Crimes against humanity? Charles' paintings aren't
that bad.
Certainly no worse than Sir Paul McCartney's.
But can he rock?
Quote from: The new erato on July 24, 2013, 11:13:53 AMBut can he rock?
I assume you refer to kidney stones, in which case both HRH and Sir Paul can rock.
George Paul John Ringo
Quote from: AnthonyAthletic on July 23, 2013, 04:03:59 AM
We could use another King Dick
Yes, well we will have one when the current incumbent pops her parasitic clogs. Not that I am bitter, you understand.
I am working on my King Edward 'postage stamp' look, by the way.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on July 24, 2013, 04:05:14 AM
In fact, Prince Harry has a real job. He's in the military, serving since 2005, including two combat tours in Afghanistan as an Apache co-pilot/gunner. He's recently qualified to be an Apache commander. I don't blame the guy for blowing off a little steam in Vegas. As a veteran I understand completely.
Sarge
I knew Prince Henry was in the military. The question I'm curious about is who funded his trip to Vegas? Did he pay for the trip with his own military pay that he rightfully earned or did the UK taxpayers pay for it?
Jason Alexanders, aka George Louis Costanza, thinks the prince may be named after him.
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 24, 2013, 05:49:39 PM
I knew Prince Henry was in the military. The question I'm curious about is who funded his trip to Vegas? Did he pay for the trip with his own military pay that he rightfully earned or did the UK taxpayers pay for it?
Taxpayers pay for the security around the royal family wherever they may go (this includes Harry). But other costs were not paid by taxpayers. In this case, the hotel he stayed at waived the costs of his stay, but usually payment would come from the royal family's income, which is not insignificant. His military pay is miniscule compared to that.
Of course the royal family's income is a result of the favors bestowed upon them by the British population through centuries.
I was watching the news yesterday, and the inevitable story about the new baby, and royal family life, came up. There was the whole baby going to someplace other than a castle or palace so soon, which is of course very important. The story also included the news that William's Mother-In-Law apparently dotes on William. Really? I found such a revelation surprising. I would have thought standard etiquette under such circumstances would be to badger the young man.
Quote from: The new erato on July 24, 2013, 11:14:40 PM
Of course the royal family's income is a result of the favors bestowed upon them by the British population through centuries.
It those days the Royals worked for a living, hitting each other in the head with maces, etc...
Quote from: vandermolen on July 23, 2013, 01:27:55 AM
I have no doubt that you have all been following this news story with great interest and celebrating 8)
If you are not UK based I'm curious to know how this story has been covered, if at all, in your own county and your views on it. Also open to UK residents for their comments of course.
I'm in London and I've been following the reporting on French media. There was an episode of C'est dans l'air last night which was devoted to it -- C'est dans l'air is a very long nightly programme dedicated to a single topic, with a panel of experts, often academics, and short purpose made documentaries. And I've heard it discussed regularly on France Info and France Culture -- both radio channels.
The bottom line seems to be that the French media are jealous of the fact that the Brits have a royal family. They seem to see it as a source of reassurance to us Brits, some bit of stability that we can hold on to in a turbulent world. The future's unclear economically and politically, but the royal family is our Rock of Ages, as I use to sing at school. One academic commented last night that the royal family is the opium of the people, but his perceptive point wasn't taken up.
And they're concerned that the media will respect the private of The Prince of Cambridge. The French have a very different attitude towards the private life of public figures than the British, though that's changing -- Max Clifford works in France now (he speaks excellent French)
That, and the fact that they're intrigued by the protocol.
I'm anti-royal. But even I, hard nosed me, was thrilled by some of this coverage. Most of all, the crier. Where did they get that cockney John Bull look alike from? I want a hat like that(http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/DxvlqGn0bFPP0uAauMuRlQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Y2g9ODY1O2NyPTE7Y3c9MTE4MjtkeD0wO2R5PTA7Zmk9dWxjcm9wO2g9NDYyO3E9ODU7dz02MzA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_uk/News/apimages.com/17126510.jpg).
Quote from: Mandryka on July 25, 2013, 06:45:49 AM
I'm in London and I've been following the reporting on French media. There was an episode of C'est dans l'air last night which was devoted to it -- C'est dans l'air is a very long nightly programme dedicated to a single topic, with a panel of experts, often academics, and short purpose made documentaries. And I've heard it discussed regularly on France Info and France Culture -- both radio channels.
The bottom line seems to be that the French media are jealous of the fact that the Brits have a royal family. They seem to see it as a source of reassurance to us Brits, some bit of stability that we can hold on to in a turbulent world. The future's unclear economically and politically, but the royal family is our Rock of Ages, as I use to sing at school. One academic commented last night that the royal family is the opium of the people, but his perceptive point wasn't taken up.
And they're concerned that the media will respect the private of The Prince of Cambridge. The French have a very different attitude towards the private life of public figures than the British, though that's changing -- Max Clifford works in France now (he speaks excellent French)
That, and the fact that they're intrigued by the protocol.
I'm anti-royal. But even I, hard nosed me, was thrilled by some of this coverage. Most of all, the crier. Where did they get that cockney John Bull look alike from? I want a hat like that(http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/DxvlqGn0bFPP0uAauMuRlQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Y2g9ODY1O2NyPTE7Y3c9MTE4MjtkeD0wO2R5PTA7Zmk9dWxjcm9wO2g9NDYyO3E9ODU7dz02MzA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_uk/News/apimages.com/17126510.jpg).
Interesting post - thanks.
I noticed that one British member of the public interviewed about the naming of the royal baby pointed out that 'Louis sounds a bit French' with evident disapproval.
Quote from: Mandryka on July 25, 2013, 06:45:49 AM
(http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/DxvlqGn0bFPP0uAauMuRlQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Y2g9ODY1O2NyPTE7Y3c9MTE4MjtkeD0wO2R5PTA7Zmk9dWxjcm9wO2g9NDYyO3E9ODU7dz02MzA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_uk/News/apimages.com/17126510.jpg).
"I was not invited, I just crashed the party," he told Yahoo. I got out of my cab and I stood in front of the steps, because I didn't think I would be allowed on them, and did my bit. It was great. It was a great atmosphere, it's like the Olympics."
Read this on AOL, although he is a Town Crier....he just turned up without an invite. Imagine all those Snipers and SAS milling around the crowd and in buildings thinking, yeah he's cool...take the bead off him ;D
Great uniform. I'd wear it.Quote from: vandermolen on July 25, 2013, 07:00:19 AM
I noticed that one British member of the public interviewed about the naming of the royal baby pointed out that 'Louis sounds a bit French' with evident disapproval.
I wondered if such a comment was not borderline-inevitable. And in the US, of course, a fringe, xenophobic comment would almost inevitably be captured by some half-wit newshound. Sorry that he seems to be spending time over by you folks.
By the way, my intention is that this thread will run at least until 'King George VIII' (as I suspect he will be) ascends to the throne in about 70 years time. I will be renaming it 'Royal Toddler'' 'Royal Adolescent' etc in due course, as it is clear that the GMG Forum is full of overt and closet royalists. 8)
Quote from: vandermolen on July 25, 2013, 07:09:32 AM
By the way, my intention is that this thread will run at least until 'King George VIII' (as I suspect he will be) ascends to the throne in about 70 years time. I will be renaming it 'Royal Toddler'' 'Royal Adolescent' etc in due course, as it is clear that the GMG Forum is full of overt and closet royalists. 8)
Don't forget "Royal Pain in the Ass"
Quote from: vandermolen on July 25, 2013, 07:09:32 AMit is clear that the GMG Forum is full of overt and closet royalists. 8)
Well, there is at least one overt royalist: myself. God save Georgie Lexie Louie, grand-nephew (or is it grand-grand?...! of HM King Michael I of Romania! ;D
Kimi, Papa didn't mean it like that....
Quote from: springrite on July 25, 2013, 07:14:05 AM
Don't forget "Royal Pain in the Ass"
Excellent point but
Karl is right too. ;)
Quote from: Florestan on July 25, 2013, 07:38:02 AM
Well, there is at least one overt royalist: myself. God save Georgie Lexie Louie, grand-nephew (or is it grand-grand?...! of HM King Michael I of Romania! ;D
Delighted to see Romanian connection to Royal Babyfest.
Quote from: vandermolen date=1374764419
I noticed that one British member of the public interviewed about the naming of the royal baby pointed out that 'Louis sounds a bit French' with evident disapproval.
It may be superfluous to point out, but 'Louis' is of course the name of Lord Mountbatten (originally 'Battenberg', after the cake), uncle of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, and often described as Prince Charles' 'mentor'. He was conspicuously brave (on our side!) in WW2, and continued to be an important member of the Royal Family until he was blown up in 1979 by the Provisional IRA.
Quote from: douglasofdorset on July 25, 2013, 11:36:34 AM
It may be superfluous to point out, but 'Louis' is of course the name of Lord Mountbatten (originally 'Battenburg', after the cake), uncle of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, and often described as Prince Charles' 'mentor'. He was conspicuously brave (on our side!) in WW2, and continued to be an important member of the Royal Family until he was blown up in 1979 by the Provisional IRA.
Oh yes, I have no doubt that this is the rationale behind the name. I recall the assassination of Mountbatten very clearly.
Quote from: douglasofdorset on July 25, 2013, 11:36:34 AM
It may be superfluous to point out, but 'Louis' is of course the name of Lord Mountbatten (originally 'Battenburg', after the cake), uncle of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, and often described as Prince Charles' 'mentor'. He was conspicuously brave (on our side!) in WW2, and continued to be an important member of the Royal Family until he was blown up in 1979 by the Provisional IRA.
Not at all superfluous to us here in the US; I had no notion.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 25, 2013, 11:54:17 AM
Not at all superfluous to us here in the US; I had no notion.
I knew it but had clean forgotten about the connection. Lord Mountbatten was apparently an important figure in Prince Charles's life, almost a father figure by some of the accounts I've read. Modern historians seem to be revising their opinion of Mountbatten in WWII rather downward, as someone with outrageous and implausible ideas (he was responsible, IIRC, for the suggestion that air craft carriers be made out of ice, for service in a possible invasion of Norway, on the theory that they would be less suspectible to torpedoes and such, and not melt in Artic waters. A model was tested in a bathtub with almost fatal results to some of the onlookers because of a ricocheting bullet.) The revisionists view him as a person who had a great talent for self promotion, and being around when Britons needed someone to act heroically, although most of his heroics involved having a ship sunk under him. His finest hour was not WWII, but his role as last viceroy and first governor general of India, when he was handed a nearly impossible job and probably did as good as anyone could have done in the circumstance. Had he not done was well as he did, Indian independence would have been a greater mess than it turned out to be.
If Charles had input into the name, then "George" might be both a tribute to this baby's great great grandfather (George VI) and to the last king of the thirteen American colonies (George III).
By my count, unless one of them picks a different name on accession or doesn't end up on the throne at all, the presumptive future kings will be Charles III, William V, and George VII.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 25, 2013, 11:54:17 AM
Not at all superfluous to us here in the US; I had no notion.
Actually, to a lot of us in the US, it is superfluous. :(
[runs away]
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 25, 2013, 01:58:05 PM
I knew it but had clean forgotten about the connection. Lord Mountbatten was apparently an important figure in Prince Charles's life, almost a father figure by some of the accounts I've read. Modern historians seem to be revising their opinion of Mountbatten in WWII rather downward, as someone with outrageous and implausible ideas (he was responsible, IIRC, for the suggestion that air craft carriers be made out of ice, for service in a possible invasion of Norway, on the theory that they would be less suspectible to torpedoes and such, and not melt in Artic waters. A model was tested in a bathtub with almost fatal results to some of the onlookers because of a ricocheting bullet.) The revisionists view him as a person who had a great talent for self promotion, and being around when Britons needed someone to act heroically, although most of his heroics involved having a ship sunk under him. His finest hour was not WWII, but his role as last viceroy and first governor general of India, when he was handed a nearly impossible job and probably did as good as anyone could have done in the circumstance. Had he not done was well as he did, Indian independence would have been a greater mess than it turned out to be.
If Charles had input into the name, then "George" might be both a tribute to this baby's great great grandfather (George VI) and to the last king of the thirteen American colonies (George III).
By my count, unless one of them picks a different name on accession or doesn't end up on the throne at all, the presumptive future kings will be Charles III, William V, and George VII.
I think that Mountbatten's wife had an affair with Nehru.
I suspect that Charles will take the title George VII, William will be William V and the baby prince will be George VIII. The first Charles had his head chopped off and the second one was chasing a bluebottle round the palace whilst the Dutch were threatening to invade, so the name Charles does not have happy associations for the Royal Family.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 25, 2013, 01:58:05 PM
Had he not done was well as he did, Indian independence would have been a greater mess than it turned out to be.
Worse than a continuing standoff between two impoverished nuclear powers with tenuous control over their arsenals?
Quote from: vandermolen on July 25, 2013, 02:38:48 PM
I think that Mountbatten's wife had an affair with Nehru.
General view is that Mountbatten knew and condoned. In fact, he may have come close to shoving them into bed together, just to make sure Nehru stayed friendly.
Quote
I suspect that Charles will take the title George VII, William will be William V and the baby prince will be George VIII. The first Charles had his head chopped off and the second one was chasing a bluebottle round the palace whilst the Dutch were threatening to invade, so the name Charles does not have happy associations for the Royal Family.
Charles I and Charles II must have better images among Americans than English, I'm guessing. We tend to think of Charles II as the guy who let people celebrate Christmas again, let women become actresses, trotted around cheering on the fire brigades during the Great Fire and had plenty of fun with plenty of mistresses. The CryptoCatholic French pensioner who wanted to rule as autocrat but was usually afraid to face down Parliament side of him is not well known, perhaps. But he was actually (in terms of final result) the most successful of the early Stuarts--his policies didn't get knocked to pieces by reality as happened to James I, and he died on his throne and in his bed, unlike his father and brother. Had James II been content to follow his policies there's a good chance that the Glorious Revolution would never have happened. Unlike all the other Stuarts, Charles II knew how limited his powers were in reality, and was not afraid to lie, steal and cheat to get what he wanted. (There's even a theory that he was behind Captain Blood's theft of some of the Crown Jewels--in that theory, he was trying to keep people from knowing how deeply in debt he was, and that some of the Crown Jewels were actually in pawn at the time of the theft.)
Quote from: MishaK on July 25, 2013, 02:39:18 PM
Worse than a continuing standoff between two impoverished nuclear powers with tenuous control over their arsenals?
Worse in that the massacres, riots, killings and floods of refugees that accompany ethnic cleansing, and which accompanied the partition between India and Pakistan, as Hindus fled to India from what is now Pakistan, and Moslems fled to Pakistan from what is now India, would have been even worse than they were--which was bad enough, I don't remember the figures, but I think the number of dead was in the six figure range, and the number of refugees in the eight or nine figure range.
No doubt Navneeth can speak better on this point than either of us.
Quote from: The new erato on July 24, 2013, 09:43:41 PM
Jason Alexanders, aka George Louis Costanza, thinks the prince may be named after him.
Corrected. :)
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 25, 2013, 06:42:07 PM
General view is that Mountbatten knew and condoned. In fact, he may have come close to shoving them into bed together, just to make sure Nehru stayed friendly.
Charles I and Charles II must have better images among Americans than English, I'm guessing. We tend to think of Charles II as the guy who let people celebrate Christmas again, let women become actresses, trotted around cheering on the fire brigades during the Great Fire and had plenty of fun with plenty of mistresses. The CryptoCatholic French pensioner who wanted to rule as autocrat but was usually afraid to face down Parliament side of him is not well known, perhaps. But he was actually (in terms of final result) the most successful of the early Stuarts--his policies didn't get knocked to pieces by reality as happened to James I, and he died on his throne and in his bed, unlike his father and brother. Had James II been content to follow his policies there's a good chance that the Glorious Revolution would never have happened. Unlike all the other Stuarts, Charles II knew how limited his powers were in reality, and was not afraid to lie, steal and cheat to get what he wanted. (There's even a theory that he was behind Captain Blood's theft of some of the Crown Jewels--in that theory, he was trying to keep people from knowing how deeply in debt he was, and that some of the Crown Jewels were actually in pawn at the time of the theft.)
You are right about Charles II, I was being too flippant.
Quote from: vandermolen on July 25, 2013, 11:14:05 AM
Delighted to see Romanian connection to Royal Babyfest.
HM Kng Michael (Mihai) I of Romania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_I_of_Romania) is a great-great-grandson of Queen Victoria through both of his parents, and a third cousin of Queen Elizabeth II. He is the last surviving monarch from the Interbellum and one of only two surviving heads of state from World War II, the other being Simeon II of Bulgaria.
I really don't understand all this hatred against, and bashing of, monarchy and monarchs, especially when it comes from people who are not citizens of a monarchic country...
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2013, 05:48:18 AM
I really don't understand all this hatred against, and bashing of, monarchy and monarchs, especially when it comes from people who are not citizens of a monarchic country...
What's there not to understand about disdain for the adulation of people who have ammassed great wealth and power through no merit or hard work of their own, instead inheriting such wealth and power derived from the rent seeking behavior of their (usually brutal) forebears? Why should any state in the 21st century continue to publicly subsidize this pageantry?
Quote from: MishaK on July 26, 2013, 05:53:25 AM
Why should any state in the 21st century continue to publicly subsidize this pageantry?
Because that's the will of the majority of their citizens? Something called democracy...
With all due respect, you are a US-citizen (though not US-born). Your concern about Great Britain being a monarchy is somehow misplaced, don't you think?
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2013, 06:05:04 AMWith all due respect, you are a US-citizen (though not US-born). Your concern about Great Britain being a monarchy is somehow misplaced, don't you think?
Then from now on you will only comment on events that occur in Romania?
Quote from: Scarpia on July 26, 2013, 06:07:28 AM
Then from now on you will only comment on events that occur in Romania?
Have you ever read my comments about what constitutional arrangement the US of A, or any other country in the world, should have? If the citizens of Great Britain, or Norway, or Spain or [you name any monrachy you want] want to live in a monarchy, then so be it. It's their business, not yours. ;D
Quote from: MishaK on July 26, 2013, 05:53:25 AM
What's there not to understand about disdain for the adulation of people who have ammassed great wealth and power through no merit or hard work of their own, instead inheriting such wealth and power derived from the rent seeking behavior of their (usually brutal) forebears? Why should any state in the 21st century continue to publicly subsidize this pageantry?
Let's set aside for the moment any rhetorically tendentious phrasing of the question. Why should it continue? Pride in the nation's history, a people's sense of themselves. I am by disposition inclined to resist iconoclasm; it is in part that Yankee sense of don't tear a fence down until you know why it was put up.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 26, 2013, 06:19:26 AM
Pride in the nation's history, a people's sense of themselves. I am by disposition inclined to resist iconoclasm; it is in part that Yankee sense of don't tear a fence down until you know why it was put up.
(*pounds the table*).
Surgically done,
Karl! :D
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2013, 06:05:04 AM
Because that's the will of the majority of their citizens? Something called democracy...
Quote from: karlhenning on July 26, 2013, 06:19:26 AM
Why should it continue? Pride in the nation's history, a people's sense of themselves. I am by disposition inclined to resist iconoclasm; it is in part that Yankee sense of don't tear a fence down until you know why it was put up.
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2013, 06:11:31 AM
If the citizens of Great Britain, or Norway, or Spain or [you name any monrachy you want] want to live in a monarchy, then so be it. It's their business, not yours. ;D
I'm in principle fine with that. But all those who on the one hand want to claim that it is their democratic right to choose to live in an undemocratic structure should not be surprised if I then use my democratic right to free speech to mock their ludiucrously incongruous ideas of self-governance and wasteful allocation of finite public resources.
See, if democracy is in and of itself an ideal to be upheld (which you both implicitly assume), then exercising democratic rights for undemocratic ends should rightfully be at least criticized, if not sanctioned, for the sake of preserving the right which these proponents use to advocate for a system that undercuts that very right. It's quite silly.
Of course, I have no quarrel at all with there being more than one opinion brought forward. A voice of dissent, though, benefits more from sound argument than from a tone of mockery. One is inarguably free to mock; mockery of itself may not command any particular respect. I think that is one reason why certain artifacts of pop culture, whose "criticism" of religion is little more than mockery of religion, do not age particularly well, for instance.
The problem with the argument that the majority of UK citizens support a constitutional monarchy, is that it cannot be asserted in good conscience. As a UK citizen, I can assure you that it is neither a democratic choice to perpetuate the current system, nor even close to being uniformly popular. It is a hugely inequitable and immovable reality with which some are happy and others oppose vehemently.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 26, 2013, 06:57:09 AM
Of course, I have no quarrel at all with there being more than one opinion brought forward. A voice of dissent, though, benefits more from sound argument than from a tone of mockery. One is inarguably free to mock; mockery of itself may not command any particular respect. I think that is one reason why certain artifacts of pop culture, whose "criticism" of religion is little more than mockery of religion, do not age particularly well, for instance.
Out of this, you get defensive about religion again? We get it, if you label a belief a 'religion' no one is allowed to make fun of it.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 26, 2013, 07:12:33 AM
Out of this, you get defensive about religion again? We get it, if you label a belief a 'religion' no one is allowed to make fun of it.
I think his point was more that a constructive argument carries more weight and longevity than mockery or insults.
But what do I know?
Quote from: Scarpia on July 26, 2013, 07:12:33 AM
Out of this, you get defensive about religion again? We get it, if you label a belief a 'religion' no one is allowed to make fun of it.
Where was I defensive?
Quote from: karlhenning on July 26, 2013, 06:57:09 AM
Of course, I have no quarrel at all with there being more than one opinion brought forward. A voice of dissent, though, benefits more from sound argument than from a tone of mockery. One is inarguably free to mock; mockery of itself may not command any particular respect. I think that is one reason why certain artifacts of pop culture, whose "criticism" of religion is little more than mockery of religion, do not age particularly well, for instance.
I would have to echo Scarpia here. Also, mockery, satire, irony are all well known, well used and very often quite effective methods of exposing the emperor's lack of clothes. Indeed many examples of the art of satire have survived the ages quite well (while the subjects of their mockery went down in ignominy). Do yourself a favor, though, and don't just group all practitioners of those methods together as if the use of that method had anything to do with the merits of their disparate arguments on diverse matters. It's like saying we're all guilty of each others' sinse because we all happen to breathe oxygen.
Quote from: pencils on July 26, 2013, 07:16:43 AM
I think his point was more that a constructive argument carries more weight and longevity than mockery or insults.
Nowhere did I insult anyone.
Quote from: pencils on July 26, 2013, 07:08:16 AM
The problem with the argument that the majority of UK citizens support a constitutional monarchy, is that it cannot be asserted in good conscience. As a UK citizen, I can assure you that it is neither a democratic choice to perpetuate the current system, nor even close to being uniformly popular. It is a hugely inequitable and immovable reality with which some are happy and others oppose vehemently.
Thanks for your post! Even here from the States, I see it as something of a tangle.
Quote from: MishaK on July 26, 2013, 07:19:30 AM
I would have to echo Scarpia here.
Then I put the question to you: Where was I defensive?
Quote from: karlhenning on July 26, 2013, 07:21:12 AM
Then I put the question to you: Where was I defensive?
Approximately here:
Quote from: karlhenning on July 26, 2013, 06:57:09 AM
Of course, I have no quarrel at all with there being more than one opinion brought forward. A voice of dissent, though, benefits more from sound argument than from a tone of mockery. One is inarguably free to mock; mockery of itself may not command any particular respect. I think that is one reason why certain artifacts of pop culture, whose "criticism" of religion is little more than mockery of religion, do not age particularly well, for instance.
Hard not to read it that way, since you gratuitously brought up a subject that wasn't the target of any ridicule and then associated me with the likes of whateverhisnamethedudewhowritesabouttheSpaghettiMonster.
Quote from: MishaK on July 26, 2013, 07:19:30 AM
Nowhere did I insult anyone.
Not suggesting that you did. I meant as a general principle :)
Quote from: MishaK on July 26, 2013, 07:24:35 AMHard not to read it that way, since you gratuitously brought up a subject that wasn't the target of any ridicule and then associated me with the likes of whateverhisnamethedudewhowritesabouttheSpaghettiMonster.
Quite so.
Quote from: MishaK on July 26, 2013, 07:24:35 AM
Approximately here:
Hard not to read it that way, since you gratuitously brought up a subject that wasn't the target of any ridicule and then associated me with the likes of whateverhisnamethedudewhowritesabouttheSpaghettiMonster.
I think you may be the defensive party here. I apologize if you took my remarks as pointed to yourself.
Mockery, and the recorder, are both famously easy to play, but not everyone is an artist.
If you have an argument against monarchy which is not mere mockery, I should be most interested to hear it.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 26, 2013, 07:31:31 AM
If you have an argument against monarchy which is not mere mockery, I should be most interested to hear it.[/font]
I refer you back to this:
Quote from: MishaK on July 26, 2013, 06:50:14 AM
See, if democracy is in and of itself an ideal to be upheld (which you both implicitly assume), then exercising democratic rights for undemocratic ends should rightfully be at least criticized, if not sanctioned, for the sake of preserving the right which these proponents use to advocate for a system that undercuts that very right.
I think an hereditary approach to the governing of a nation is pretty obviously incommensurate with a democratic way of thinking and that is why so many deride it. I think that argument is pretty obvious and not in any way insulting.
Thank you both, incidentally, for acceding that I was not in any way defensive.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 26, 2013, 07:31:31 AMIf you have an argument against monarchy which is not mere mockery, I should be most interested to hear it.[/font]
Apparently you haven't had your coffee yet:
Quote from: MishaKWhat's there not to understand about disdain for the adulation of people who have ammassed great wealth and power through no merit or hard work of their own, instead inheriting such wealth and power derived from the rent seeking behavior of their (usually brutal) forebears? Why should any state in the 21st century continue to publicly subsidize this pageantry?
Quote from: The new erato on July 26, 2013, 07:34:51 AM
I think an hereditary approach to the governing of a nation is pretty obviously incommensurate with a democratic way of thinking and that is why so many deride it. I think that argument is pretty obvious and not in any way insulting.
Well, in the case of a "constitutional monarchy" as in the UK, where the Queen doesn't even have any constitutional powers, it's even more absurd: why should the citizens of a democratic state divert significant resources to pure ceremonial pageantry enacted by a hereditary clicque that accomplishes nothing productive (or at least nothing approaching a break-even point on the financial investment)?
Quote from: The new erato on July 26, 2013, 07:34:51 AM
I think an hereditary approach to the governing of a nation is pretty obviously incommensurate with a democratic way of thinking....
Yes, I see that point. OTOH, England/Great Britain is the famous example of democratic processes and institutions being raised within (at first) a monarchy. I don't think we can really make the argument that the two worlds do not mix, when we have an old example where they have in fact mixed for centuries.
If the point is that my digressive illustration regarding religion was an irrelevance, I see it (though I do not completely agree). To perceive me as somehow "defensive" thereby was on odd fallacy.
Of course, this is a forum on the Internet. Odd fallacies are in some measure the norm.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 26, 2013, 07:38:41 AM
Yes, I see that point. OTOH, England/Great Britain is the famous example of democratic processes and institutions being raised within (at first) a monarchy. I don't think we can really make the argument that the two worlds do not mix, when we have an old example where they have in fact mixed for centuries.
Yes, there is a good argument to be made for a more gradual and peaceful transition of state power from the crown to the people, as happened in England, as opposed to the more bloody type of overthrow, as happened in France. But that was a debate for the 18th and 19th century. How does that, in the 21st century, justify indefinitely continuing public subsidizing of a large royal family and their landholdings when they no longer have *any* meaningful function within the democratic state, having ceded all of them long ago?
Quote from: karlhenning on July 26, 2013, 07:45:01 AM
If the point is that my digressive illustration regarding religion was an irrelevance, I see it (though I do not completely agree). To perceive me as somehow "defensive" thereby was on odd fallacy.
Of course, this is a forum on the Internet. Odd fallacies are in some measure the norm.
As I said before, it was hard not to read your non sequitur as you still having a sore spot from a prior debate and trying to indirectly air some grievance.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 26, 2013, 07:38:41 AM
Yes, I see that point. OTOH, England/Great Britain is the famous example of democratic processes and institutions being raised within (at first) a monarchy. I don't think we can really make the argument that the two worlds do not mix, when we have an old example where they have in fact mixed for centuries.
If I take a glass containing oil floating on water and vigorously stir it the oil and water will appear to mix. (This is called an emulsion.) That doesn't change the fact that water and oil are immiscible. After a few minutes the two liquids will separate again and you will find the oil floating on the water. The fact that it took a finite time for democracy to abolish the powers of the Monachy in England does not imply any compatibility between the two forms of government.
Quote from: MishaK on July 26, 2013, 07:46:50 AM
How does that, in the 21st century, justify indefinitely continuing public subsidizing of a large royal family and their landholdings when they no longer have *any* meaningful function within the democratic state, having ceded all of them long ago?
I think many people live vicariously through them, strange as it may seem.
Quote from: The new erato on July 26, 2013, 07:50:11 AM
I think many people live vicariously through them, strange as it may seem.
And many people likewise live through movie, TV, sports and pop celebrities. But we don't publicly subsidize those. As one article linked here earlier put it , it's like the US subsidizing the Kardashians.
Quote from: MishaK on July 26, 2013, 07:55:39 AM
And many people likewise live through movie, TV, sports and pop celebrities. But we don't publicly subsidize those. As one article linked here earlier put it , it's like the US subsidizing the Kardashians.
I don't condone it, but I see it as the most plausible theory for this strange phenomenon surviving. Also there are other reasons; eg in Norway, quite a young nation really, the rift with Sweden in 1905 was strongly linked to us getting our own king, also what happened under WW2 has sustained the support for the monarchy. Also; they are much more likeable then many other monarchs, and far from filthy rich. Doesn't make it less anachronistic of course.
Quote from: The new erato on July 26, 2013, 07:50:11 AM
I think many people live vicariously through them, strange as it may seem.
It evidently allows some segment of the population of the UK to sustain the fantasy that England is a great power in the world, rather than a small, economically insignificant nation with rather bad weather and with one big city in which the great powers of the world exchange their money. The US has the Kardashians, it is true, but at least American pseudo-Royalty can be discarded and replaced when they get tedious.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 26, 2013, 08:03:46 AM
It evidently allows some segment of the population of the UK to sustain the fantasy that England is a great power in the world,
Obviously a part of the explanation for the situation in England, nostalgia for things past, perceived as better than today.
Quote from: The new erato on July 26, 2013, 08:03:39 AM
I don't condone it, but I see it as the most plausible theory for this strange phenomenon surviving. Also there are other reasons; eg in Norway, quite a young nation really, the rift with Sweden in 1905 was strongly linked to us getting our own king, also what happened under WW2 has sustained the support for the monarchy. Also; they are much more likeable then many other monarchs, and far from filthy rich. Doesn't make it less anachronistic of course.
Oh, sure. It's the whole panem et circenses thing. But it's precisely that which one would hope the free markeplace of ideas of a democracy would work to abolish sooner rather than later.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 26, 2013, 08:03:46 AM
It evidently allows some segment of the population of the UK to sustain the fantasy that England is a great power in the world, rather than a small, economically insignificant nation with rather bad weather and with one big city in which the great powers of the world exchange their money.
Ha. Interesting perspective. Completely accurate, not at all insulting, and nothing like the sort of stereotypical American comment that folk in Europe come to expect from some inside the World's Great Superpower.
Quote from: pencils on July 26, 2013, 08:14:09 AM
Ha. Interesting perspective. Completely accurate, not at all insulting, and nothing like the sort of stereotypical American comment that folk in Europe come to expect from some inside the World's Great Superpower.
Do I detect a hint of mockery? :)
Quote from: Scarpia on July 26, 2013, 08:20:08 AM
Do I detect a hint of mockery? :)
Mockery? Not mockery. Sarcasm.
Quote from: pencils on July 26, 2013, 08:22:57 AM
Mockery? Not mockery. Sarcasm.
Or unbiased third party observation. :P
Quote from: The new erato on July 26, 2013, 07:50:11 AM
I think many people live vicariously through them, strange as it may seem.
Well, think of the bizarre global attachment to the late Princess of Wales. (Oh, maybe that's an argument against continuing the monarchy . . . .)
And just imagine how close the French were to having Dominique Strauss-Kahn as president!
It would have been a done deed, if the Shade of Jerry Lewis hadn't appeared to them in a telethon . . . .
Quote from: Scarpia on July 26, 2013, 08:03:46 AM
It evidently allows some segment of the population of the UK to sustain the fantasy that England is a great power in the world, rather than a small, economically insignificant nation with rather bad weather and with one big city in which the great powers of the world exchange their money. The US has the Kardashians, it is true, but at least American pseudo-Royalty can be discarded and replaced when they get tedious.
I doubt whether many people here still think we're a great power notwithstanding the monarchy. Interestingly Britain became more self-consciously 'Imperial' when she started to decline as a great power at the end of the 19th Century. All the royal processional stuff tends to date from then - a kind of reaction formation I guess to the fear of decline.
Quote from: pencils on July 26, 2013, 08:22:57 AM
Mockery? Not mockery. Sarcasm.
Be my guest. We in the US will learn the same bitter lesson, since it is evident that the era in which the US is the dominant economic force in the world is coming to a close.
What was it Ricky Gervais said, "I'm not from these parts. I'm from a little place called England - we used to run the world before you lot."
Quote from: MishaK on July 26, 2013, 06:50:14 AM
I'm in principle fine with that. But all those who on the one hand want to claim that it is their democratic right to choose to live in an undemocratic structure should not be surprised if I then use my democratic right to free speech to mock their ludiucrously incongruous ideas of self-governance and wasteful allocation of finite public resources.
You can of course mock anything you want. But (1) mockery is no reasoning and (2) I'm absolutely sure your mockery makes the royal British family tremble for their fate... ;D
Quote
See, if democracy is in and of itself an ideal to be upheld (which you both implicitly assume), then exercising democratic rights for undemocratic ends should rightfully be at least criticized, if not sanctioned, for the sake of preserving the right which these proponents use to advocate for a system that undercuts that very right. It's quite silly.
What's really silly is seeing a citizen of a country criticizing the constitutional system of a foreign country. What harm has the British monarchy done to you, or your family, or your ancestors, pray tell? You are of Serbian origin, born in Germany and currently living in US; why the British constitutional arrangement should be of any concern to you is beyond me. ;D
Attention, Britons! We here in the US will solve your monarchy problem for you.
You're welcome.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 26, 2013, 08:03:46 AM
It evidently allows some segment of the population of the UK to sustain the fantasy that England is a great power in the world, rather than a small, economically insignificant nation with rather bad weather and with one big city in which the great powers of the world exchange their money. The US has the Kardashians, it is true, but at least American pseudo-Royalty can be discarded and replaced when they get tedious.
...being replaced by other pseudos who are equallly trashy and tawdry. At least in the British version, one has a constant cast of characters whom one can keep jeering at.
I suspect the current lot make sure to manage their money and public allowances in a comparatively frugal manner. When I visited Balmoral on my "if this is Tuesday, it must be Belgium" type of package tour, one of the chief wonders of the place (going by how proud the tour guide was of them) were the vegetable gardens, a not very large (albeit large for a kitchen garden) expanse devoted to growing the veggies consumed throughout the year by monarch and domestic staff.
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2013, 10:32:24 AM
What's really silly is seeing a citizen of a country criticizing the constitutional system of a foreign country. What harm has the British monarchy done to you, or your family, or your ancestors, pray tell? You are of Serbian origin, born in Germany and currently living in US; why the British constitutional arrangement should be of any concern to you is beyond me. ;D
I refer you, inter alia, to this:
Quote from: pencils on July 26, 2013, 07:08:16 AM
The problem with the argument that the majority of UK citizens support a constitutional monarchy, is that it cannot be asserted in good conscience. As a UK citizen, I can assure you that it is neither a democratic choice to perpetuate the current system, nor even close to being uniformly popular. It is a hugely inequitable and immovable reality with which some are happy and others oppose vehemently.
It is everyone's business as a democratic citizen of the world and as a sentient human being to look across the globe, analyze, compare and, if warranted, criticize all systems of government, so that we all, in whichever country we may live, can find the best, most just, fair, secure and prosperous way to live together within our own societies. I do not need to be a citizen of, nor do I need to have been personally harmed by, a given country to have standing to criticize its system of government. It's called free speech. Apparently another essential democratic concept, you have trouble with.
Quote from: pencils on July 26, 2013, 07:08:16 AM
As a UK citizen, I can assure you that it is neither a democratic choice to perpetuate the current system, nor even close to being uniformly popular. It is a hugely inequitable and immovable reality with which some are happy and others oppose vehemently.
That's fair enough. But I am not aware of any significant British republican party nor have I read any report of British mass movements asking for the abolition of the monarchy. I suspect, then, that those who are "happy with" outnumber those who "oppose vehemently". If I'm wrong please correct me.
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2013, 10:45:30 AM
That's fair enough. But I am not aware of any significant British republican party nor have I read any report of British mass movements asking for the abolition of the monarchy. I suspect, then, that those who are "happy with" outnumber those who "oppose vehemently". If I'm wrong please correct me.
Even if it were a majority preference, when the issue is a constitutional matter, the rights of the minority are of paramount concern. And it is very much everyone's business to criticize a completely wasteful and useless diversion of public resources from the taxpayers to a very small unproductive hereditary elite.
Every country can use a mascot. No?
Well, some are less expensive than others. Then again, how do you hold the loosely organized British Commonwealth without a monarch, huh?
Quote from: MishaK on July 26, 2013, 10:43:59 AM
It is everyone's business as a democratic citizen of the world and as a sentient human being to look across the globe, analyze, compare and, if warranted, criticize all systems of government, so that we all, in whichever country we may live, can find the best, most just, fair, secure and prosperous way to live together within our own societies.
You're shooting yourself in the foot: (1) is the British society your own? Hardly; (2) as long as it's obvious you haven't found that "best, most just, fair, secure and prosperous way" for your own society, it's somehow preposterous to make recommendations for other societies... ;D ;D
Quote
I do not need to be a citizen of, nor do I need to have been personally harmed by, a given country to have standing to criticize its system of government. It's called free speech.
Free speech is a great thing, meaningful speech still greater...
Quote from: MishaK on July 26, 2013, 10:49:54 AM
it is very much everyone's business to criticize a completely wasteful and useless diversion of public resources from the taxpayers to a very small unproductive hereditary elite.
That's how you see the matter. That's not how the Britons see the matter, apparently.
Really, don't you see the ridicule of MishaK of GMG crusading against The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? ;D
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2013, 10:45:30 AM
That's fair enough. But I am not aware of any significant British republican party nor have I read any report of British mass movements asking for the abolition of the monarchy. I suspect, then, that those who are "happy with" outnumber those who "oppose vehemently". If I'm wrong please correct me.
You are wrong. Consider yourself corrected! And on probation!! :) :)
Seriously, the people as a whole do support it, but it is not that simple. As usual, positions differ among different parties (or wings within them). It also differs among different age groups (with the young less supportive). But it is also subject to change as events come and go (with the death of Diana being, for example, a negative PR event for them in most ways). Anyway, here is an article on it with some poll numbers (after the wedding stuff): http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/24/monarchy-still-relevant-say-britons (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/24/monarchy-still-relevant-say-britons). So you are more right than wrong really as the people do more broadly support than oppose.
Quote from: MishaK on July 26, 2013, 10:49:54 AM
Even if it were a majority preference, when the issue is a constitutional matter, the rights of the minority are of paramount concern.
Do you imply that the rights of the monarchical minority of the US (http://monarchistamerica.webs.com/aboutus.htm) are of paramount concern to you? ;D
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2013, 10:32:24 AM
You are of Serbian origin, born in Germany and currently living in US; why the British constitutional arrangement should be of any concern to you is beyond me. ;D
And there's that Romanian who seems to get worked up about the opinion held by some guy in the US. Small world, huh? ;D
Quote from: Opus106 on July 26, 2013, 11:05:31 AM
And there's that Romanian who seems to get worked up about the opinion held by some guy in the US. Small world, huh? ;D
Quite so. :D
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2013, 10:55:01 AM
You're shooting yourself in the foot: (1) is the British society your own? Hardly; (2) as long as it's obvious you haven't found that "best, most just, fair, secure and prosperous way" for your own society, it's somehow preposterous to make recommendations for other societies... ;D ;D
You're having reading comprehension issues. You highlighted the wrong bits of my quote. Let's try again.
Quote from: MishaK on July 26, 2013, 10:43:59 AM
It is everyone's business as a democratic citizen of the world and as a sentient human being to look across the globe, analyze, compare and, if warranted, criticize all systems of government, so that we all, in whichever country we may live, can find the best, most just, fair, secure and prosperous way to live together within our own societies. I do not need to be a citizen of, nor do I need to have been personally harmed by, a given country to have standing to criticize its system of government. It's called free speech. Apparently another essential democratic concept, you have trouble with.
In other words, study the world to find the best solutions for the society that you can affect. That's the point of political science and comparative politics, really.
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2013, 10:58:08 AM
That's how you see the matter. That's not how the Britons see the matter, apparently.
You seem to think you're a spokesman for the Britons? I suppose since you don't care about the democratic legitimacy of monarchs, it doesn't matter that you have no democratic legitimacy as their spokesperson either. I refer you to this:
Quote from: mc ukrneal on July 26, 2013, 11:02:57 AM
You are wrong. Consider yourself corrected! And on probation!! :) :)
Seriously, the people as a whole do support it, but it is not that simple. As usual, positions differ among different parties (or wings within them). It also differs among different age groups (with the young less supportive). But it is also subject to change as events come and go (with the death of Diana being, for example, a negative PR event for them in most ways). Anyway, here is an article on it with some poll numbers (after the wedding stuff): http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/24/monarchy-still-relevant-say-britons (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/24/monarchy-still-relevant-say-britons). So you are more right than wrong really as the people do more broadly support than oppose.
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2013, 11:03:47 AM
Do you imply that the rights of the monarchical minority of the US (http://monarchistamerica.webs.com/aboutus.htm) are of paramount concern to you? ;D
Once again, you have reading comprehension issues. No one is infringing on the US monarchists' constitutional democratic rights. They don't have a right to impose a non-democratic system on the rest of us. Whereas republicans in the UK have every right to object to a diversion of resources to a non-democratic enterprise in which they have no say. Does this distinction really escape you?
Quote from: Opus106 on July 26, 2013, 11:05:31 AM
And there's that Romanian who seems to get worked up about the opinion held by some guy in the US. Small world, huh? ;D
And who seems to think he needs to ride to the rescue of British monarchy. ::)
Here is a more recent article with poll data: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/24/queen-diamond-jubilee-record-support (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/24/queen-diamond-jubilee-record-support)
Quote from: MishaK on July 26, 2013, 11:10:20 AM
study the world to find the best solutions for the society that you can affect. That's the point of political science and comparative politics, really.
The Latin American countries after gaining independence from Spain studied the world and came to the conclusion that the US system is the best, so they adopted it --- and it resulted in almost 150 years of endless civil wars and
pronunciamentos. ;D
Quote
You seem to think you're a spokesman for the Britons? I suppose since you don't care about the democratic legitimacy of monarchs, it doesn't matter that you have no democratic legitimacy as their spokesperson either. I refer you to this:
In support of your stance you refer me to a post which concludes that I'm more right than wrong --- and you accuse me of having reading comprehensions... Your ridicule is greater with every post you write. ;D
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2013, 10:58:08 AM
That's how you see the matter. That's not how the Britons see the matter, apparently.
Really, don't you see the ridicule of MishaK of GMG crusading against The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? ;D
MishaK's "mockery" was really a reasoned criticism of the institution of Monarchy and its implementation in the UK and elsewhere. It was not a "crusade," nor was there any implication that the British Royals were "in fear" as you wrote above. Ironically, your mockery is simply a mean-spirited cackling, lacking in any substance. The suggestion that he has no right to criticize the institution because he did not directly suffer under it is absurd. Did Ronald Reagan have no right to go to Berlin and say "Mr. Gorbechov, tear down this wall"?
The British Monarchy, when it actually wielded power, was a despotic regime that maintained power through brutal violence, which propagated human slavery throughout its empire and which subjugated or annihilated indigenous populations in its colonies. To hold up the pathetic vestiges of this system as some sort of noble puppet show is an insult to human dignity, in my opinion.
Cool, Britannia!QuoteBritain would be worse off without the monarchy say 69% of respondents, while of 22% say the country would be better off. This 47-point royalist margin is the largest chalked up on any of the 12 occasions since 1997 on which ICM has previously asked the question.
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2013, 11:18:50 AM
The Latin American countries after gaining independence from Spain studied the world and came to the conclusion that the US system is the best, so they adopted it --- and it resulted in almost 150 years of endless civil wars and pronunciamentos. ;D
they still haven't managed to suss out how we skipped the junta and Generalissimo stages . . . .
Quote from: mc ukrneal on July 26, 2013, 11:11:51 AM
Here is a more recent article with poll data: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/24/queen-diamond-jubilee-record-support (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/24/queen-diamond-jubilee-record-support)
Britain would be worse off without the monarchy say 69% of respondents, while of 22% say the country would be better off. This 47-point royalist margin is the largest chalked up on any of the 12 occasions since 1997 on which ICM has previously asked the question.I rest my case.
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2013, 11:18:50 AM
The Latin American countries after gaining independence from Spain studied the world and came to the conclusion that the US system is the best, so they adopted it --- and it resulted in almost 150 years of endless civil wars and pronunciamentos. ;D
Not ONE country in Latin America has "the US system". Unless you're painting with extremely broad brushstrokes, in which case the UK as well has the "US system". You might have also paused to notice that there are a few Latin American countries that did not "gain independence from Spain".
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2013, 11:18:50 AM
In support of your stance you refer me to a post which concludes that I'm more right than wrong --- and you accuse me of having reading comprehensions... Your ridicule is greater with every post you write. ;D
You claimed (1) that I claimed that Britain was "my" society, which I didn't; and (2) claimed that in order to have any standing to critcize any system of government I must have personally established the perfect system of government in my society myself. If the latter isn't the most idiotic justification to muzzle all dissidents in all societies and all systems of government, I haven't seen a better one. You're getting a little emotional here and aren't reading what people are actually saying.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 26, 2013, 11:19:50 AM
The British Monarchy, when it actually wielded power, was a [...] regime that [...] propagated human slavery throughout its empire and which subjugated or annihilated indigenous populations [...]. [/b]
Exactly so did the US "democracy" in the 19th century. ;D
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2013, 11:20:43 AM
Britain would be worse off without the monarchy say 69% of respondents, while of 22% say the country would be better off. This 47-point royalist margin is the largest chalked up on any of the 12 occasions since 1997 on which ICM has previously asked the question.
I rest my case.
You do realize that I nowhere claimed that there wasn't popular support for the monarchy in the UK, right? What was your case?
Quote from: MishaK on July 26, 2013, 11:27:01 AM
You do realize that I nowhere claimed that there wasn't popular support for the monarchy in the UK, right? What was your case?
My case was clearly stated and exactly that: that the British monarchy has significant popular support. Speaking of reading comprehension issues... ;D
Quote from: MishaK on July 26, 2013, 11:25:25 AM
Not ONE country in Latin America has "the US system".
By 'US system' I mean a presidential republic in which the president is both head of state and head of government and holds extensive powers. Last time I checked, ALL Latin American countries had that system.
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2013, 11:31:28 AM
My case was clearly stated and exactly that: that the British monarchy has significant popular support. Speaking of reading comprehension issues... ;D
You've been fighting me as if I had ever claimed otherwise.
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2013, 11:36:51 AM
By 'US system' I mean a presidential republic in which the president is both head of state and head of government and holds extensive powers. Last time I checked, ALL Latin American countries had that system.
The US system is not "a presidential republic in which the president is both head of state and head of government and holds extensive powers." To the contrary, it is a federal constitutional democracy in which the federal executive has very limited powers, tightly circumscribed by the constitution and checked and balanced by the judiciary, the legislature and the rights and powers of the individual federal states. Latin American countries come in a wide variety of more or less constitutional arrangements, likewise more or less demorcatic (some indeed quasi-monarchic and hereditary, viz. Cuba). To lump them all together in one pot (together with the US - the archenemy of many of those!) is to betray an absurd level of ignorance and arrogance.
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2013, 10:45:30 AM
That's fair enough. But I am not aware of any significant British republican party nor have I read any report of British mass movements asking for the abolition of the monarchy. I suspect, then, that those who are "happy with" outnumber those who "oppose vehemently". If I'm wrong please correct me.
Didn't realise that this was still going on :D
I am happy to perhaps bring another perspective. There is a British mentality that lives with the status quo. The last significant grass roots revolt in these islands was The Great Revolt of 1381 (discounting the brief flirtation with Republicanism under Cromwell, which was less grass roots). In the Romantic era when Europe was chopping its way through the crowned heads in revolution, we were refining afternoon tea and thinking about inventing cricket. Since then, we are basically indifferent and live with the monarchy, and you are right to suggest that those who oppose vehemently are smaller in number than those who are not necessarily happy in an active sense, but indolently content.
Ultimately? We are apathetic.
Quote from: pencils on July 26, 2013, 03:18:45 PM
Didn't realise that this was still going on :D
I am happy to perhaps bring another perspective. There is a British mentality that lives with the status quo. The last significant grass roots revolt in these islands was The Great Revolt of 1381 (discounting the brief flirtation with Republicanism under Cromwell, which was less grass roots). In the Romantic era when Europe was chopping its way through the crowned heads in revolution, we were refining afternoon tea and thinking about inventing cricket. Since then, we are basically indifferent and live with the monarchy, and you are right to suggest that those who oppose vehemently are smaller in number than those who are not necessarily happy in an active sense, but indolently content.
Ultimately? We are apathetic.
What about the Chartist movement? The British elites certainly seemed to think that was not an inconsiderable threat to the status quo (cf. Peterloo).
Apropos of the political theory side of the question, here's a limited defense of the monarchy from a Brit expat who is now an American libertarian
http://reason.com/archives/2013/07/25/the-benefits-of-monarchy
summarizing quote
QuoteI admit that I don't like many things about the British monarchy, an institution I absolved all allegiance to when I became an American citizen. The pomp and circumstance is irritating, and the seemingly blind observance of tradition many British royalists demonstrate is at times disturbingly cultish. In fact, I would not count myself as a royalist, and would support the U.K. undergoing some rather significant constitutional reforms that would change the role of the head of state. Despite its flaws the fact remains that an unelected head of state provides a check on political power that keeps politicians comparatively humble, something America's founding documents, some of the most brilliant pieces of political theory in history, have not been able to achieve.
*
Quote from: MishaK on July 26, 2013, 11:44:36 AM
The US system is not "a presidential republic in which the president is both head of state and head of government and holds extensive powers." To the contrary, it is a federal constitutional democracy in which the federal executive has very limited powers
Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt and George W. Bush would be rolling on the floor laughing their asses out loud if they read your post.
Quote from: MishaK on July 26, 2013, 11:44:36 AM
an absurd level of ignorance and arrogance.
That coming from the GMG smart-ass-in-residence... You really made my day. :D
Quote from: Florestan on July 27, 2013, 06:14:39 AM
That coming from the GMG smart-ass-in-residence... You really made my day. :D
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 26, 2013, 06:02:20 PM
What about the Chartist movement? The British elites certainly seemed to think that was not an inconsiderable threat to the status quo (cf. Peterloo).
summarizing quote
Agreed. Chartism was a groundswell movement, but lacking the ultimate revolutionary bite which either 1381 or Cromwell offered in potentially removing crowned heads, I think.
Either way, I won't be buying any Royal Baby souvenirs any time soon, despite the fact that the British Monarchy actually does generate a significant national income.
Quote from: Florestan on July 27, 2013, 06:11:32 AMAbraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt and George W. Bush would be rolling on the floor laughing their asses out loud if they read your post.
No, they'd agree completely. All three wanted even more power than they had (
all presidents do), and all three were hampered by their opponents. Even the mighty FDR became politically weaker the longer he was in office. The war was great for him, because he got to act with complete freedom in executing the war. But he could not do a thing about some domestic political and social issues (eg, race related issues), and he knew it. Lincoln was under pressure from the Radical Republicans to do more than he wanted, and constantly at odds with the Northern Democrats. Suspending habeus corpus was a great abuse of power, sure, but even so he never achieved European-style dictatorial power. Bush, well, despite his reputation as a doofus under the control of Cheney, he knew how to get the Democrats to vote for some of what he wanted, at least in the first term, though his second term was a bust from a policy perspective. Presidential power, outside the realm of using the military overseas, is limited, and in the second term, it withers away. This arises primarily from one thing, of course: it is Congress that controls the purse.
Here's an article that talks about Scottish independence and the monarchy as well: http://news.yahoo.com/britains-newest-royal-heir-stirs-scottish-independence-debate-163937360.html (http://news.yahoo.com/britains-newest-royal-heir-stirs-scottish-independence-debate-163937360.html)
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 26, 2013, 06:02:20 PM
Despite its flaws the fact remains that an unelected head of state provides a check on political power that keeps politicians comparatively humble, something America's founding documents, some of the most brilliant pieces of political theory in history, have not been able to achieve.
Query whether that's because of the crown or because of the fact that England has a lot less power these days and needs to tread more carefully due to its colonial legacy.
Quote from: Florestan on July 27, 2013, 06:11:32 AM
Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt and George W. Bush would be rolling on the floor laughing their asses out loud if they read your post.
You are completely missing my point because you primarily focus on wartime presidents. Yes, as commander in chief the president has considerable powers (though still limited as Todd points out), and as president of the most powerful country those powers are not insignificant. But you forget that by the terms of the constitution, the federal government only has authority over foreign affaris, taxation and interstate commerce. Compared to almost every other government on earth, democratic or otherwise, that is a laughably limited scope (it's a joke, really, compared to the nearly unchecked and unlimited power of many of the South American heads of state with which you were comparing the US presidency). And that is the reason why to many outsiders the US government often seems rather inept in domestic affairs, because most outsiders don't realize how limited those powers are. And even then, as Todd points out, the president is constrained by the courts and the legislature.
Quote from: MishaK on July 29, 2013, 06:55:42 AM
Query whether that's because of the crown or because of the fact that England has a lot less power these days and needs to tread more carefully due to its colonial legacy.
Mind you, that quote was from the original article. The author's main point was that keeping the roles of head of state and head of government apart created at least a slight limitation on the powers of government, and at least some stability. Our head of state and head of government changes every four or eight years, depending on election results. The British head of state changes only at (usually) long intervals even though the head of government changes at every election (in theory), and there are some things which remain the same in the British system that don't in the US system. Moreover the British crown does have some (limited and as time goes on the limits keep growing) power to check the powers of the head of state--the most and almost only important one is the power to actually choose the person who will be the incoming prime minister--it's almost a rubber stamp operation nowadays, of course, but not completely, and if the prospective prime minister was a truly obnoxious person who didn't have a powerful political base, the monarch might feel justified in picking someone else, and facing down the inevitable constitutional crisis--or at least telling the assembled politicos to go away and come back with someone better.
And it's not so much that a non elected head of state keeps politicians humble so much as it limits their arrogance in office. No matter how high they rise, there's always someone above them.
Of course, dividing head of state and head of government into two people is not a sure fire remedy. Both France and Israel have an elected head of state who is different from the elected head of government, and still manage to have a messed up political system.
Jeffrey,
I'm aware of all that. I just don't think that has anything to do with monarchy per se. Look for instance at Germany, where the office of the federal president is likewise almost purely ceremonial and also consists of mostly rubber-stamping legislation. There it has happened that the legislature wanted to do something obnoxious and the president put his foot down and refused to sign, sending them back to the drawing board. But you don't need a subsidized hereditary luxury caste to achieve that result. ;)
Oh, so this is why people are still talking about the royal baby.
Quote from: Todd on July 28, 2013, 08:56:27 AM
No, they'd agree completely. All three wanted even more power than they had (all presidents do), and all three were hampered by their opponents. Even the mighty FDR became politically weaker the longer he was in office. The war was great for him, because he got to act with complete freedom in executing the war. But he could not do a thing about some domestic political and social issues (eg, race related issues), and he knew it. Lincoln was under pressure from the Radical Republicans to do more than he wanted, and constantly at odds with the Northern Democrats. Suspending habeus corpus was a great abuse of power, sure, but even so he never achieved European-style dictatorial power. Bush, well, despite his reputation as a doofus under the control of Cheney, he knew how to get the Democrats to vote for some of what he wanted, at least in the first term, though his second term was a bust from a policy perspective. Presidential power, outside the realm of using the military overseas, is limited, and in the second term, it withers away. This arises primarily from one thing, of course: it is Congress that controls the purse.
Quote from: MishaK on July 29, 2013, 06:55:42 AM
You are completely missing my point because you primarily focus on wartime presidents. Yes, as commander in chief the president has considerable powers (though still limited as Todd points out), and as president of the most powerful country those powers are not insignificant. But you forget that by the terms of the constitution, the federal government only has authority over foreign affaris, taxation and interstate commerce. Compared to almost every other government on earth, democratic or otherwise, that is a laughably limited scope (it's a joke, really, compared to the nearly unchecked and unlimited power of many of the South American heads of state with which you were comparing the US presidency). And that is the reason why to many outsiders the US government often seems rather inept in domestic affairs, because most outsiders don't realize how limited those powers are. And even then, as Todd points out, the president is constrained by the courts and the legislature.
Gentlemen,
Upon reading your posts one would think that the President of the USA is
only slightly less ceremonial and more powerful than the Queen of England...
But what do I know? You are US citizens and I am not, so I trust you completely and stand corrected.
But then again, I can't help asking: if this is so, then what was all the fuss about Obama's election? Putting aside his inauguration ceremony, which in terms of pomp and popular adulation far surpassed any similar royal ceremony in Europe (recently The Netherlands and Belgium witnessed a change of the monarch but I defy you to find any similarity with Obama's "presidential crowning"), from your comments two things can be inferred with certainty: (1) that Barack Obama was a shameless liar. Change we can believe in! Really? According to you, gentlemen, effecting any of the changes he campaigned for is well without the scope of his powers, so he knowingly promised to do things he knew only too well he could not do; (2) those who enthusiastically voted for him on account of those presumable changes were complete ignoramuses, because they didn't even know how the constitution of their own country operates and that their president is essentially powerless to effect any change except in what concerns foreign affairs, taxation and interstate commerce --- things that rule out completely any Obamacare plan...
Quote from: MishaK on July 29, 2013, 08:30:42 AM
I'm aware of all that. I just don't think that has anything to do with monarchy per se. Look for instance at Germany, where the office of the federal president is likewise almost purely ceremonial and also consists of mostly rubber-stamping legislation. There it has happened that the legislature wanted to do something obnoxious and the president put his foot down and refused to sign, sending them back to the drawing board. But you don't need a subsidized hereditary luxury caste to achieve that result. ;)
What you ignore, either unwillingly or on purpose, is that not every country is Germany and that what works wonders somewhere might spell disaster elsewhere. Spain's attempt of 1874-75 to implement a cantonal system like that which Switzerland knew peacefully for 600 years ended in a bloody failure: civil war(s) and revolution(s) taking place simultaneously; only the
manu militari restoration of monarchy saved the country from complete disintegration. If you think that
there is one, single, universal, political system suited for each and every country under the sun, suit yourself: the reality gives you a big lie.
EDIT: Is this guy a lunatic, yes or no?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/lew-rockwell/down-with-the-presidency/ (http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/lew-rockwell/down-with-the-presidency/)
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2013, 08:26:43 AM
Gentlemen,
Upon reading your posts one would think that the President of the USA is only slightly less ceremonial and more powerful than the Queen of England...
Something in that; and the Fathers would be appalled.
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2013, 08:26:43 AMUpon reading your posts one would think that the President of the USA is only slightly less ceremonial and more powerful than the Queen of England...
A rather nonsensical, hyperbolic response, I'd say. I mean, come on, I even mentioned Lincoln's suspense of habeus corpus. I was replying to your prior rather nonsensical, hyperbolic post that the three leaders you mentioned would laugh at the idea that they are hemmed in. They would not.
Quote from: Todd on July 31, 2013, 09:31:47 AM
A rather nonsensical, hyperbolic response, I'd say. I mean, come on, I even mentioned Lincoln's suspense of habeus corpus. I was replying to your prior rather nonsensical, hyperbolic post that the three leaders you mentioned would laugh at the idea that they are hemmed in. They would not.
Interestingly enough, you chose to reply to a hyperbole but you ignored the factual part of my comment... ;D
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2013, 09:41:51 AMInterestingly enough, you chose to reply to a hyperbole but you ignored the factual part of my comment...
You mean the partly factual part? Of course Obama was and is a shameless liar. He's a politician, and he was running for office. Presidents do not have the power to change much of anything by simply issuing orders and giving pretty speeches, and while they can and do influence legislation, what Congress ultimately passes is quite often substantially different from what presidents advocate, which is an good thing.
I'm not quite sure what ACA has to do with anything as SCOTUS settled the issue as to its constitutionality - for even legislation pushed hard by presidents can be struck down here, and that happens on occasion. In this case, it stood, though the Obama Administration is backing off the initial timelines in enforcement, in part because presidents (and Congress) are, in fact, powerless to make great institutional changes on a whim, and the changes that will be wrought by ACA are very far reaching. Knowing bureaucratic inertia, which exists in the private and public spheres equally, and which is germane here, parts of the law will simply fade away and some will be enforced and some enforced vigorously, and some will be changed by practice to be something other than was originally intended. If the president was as powerful as you assert, the legislation would have been rammed through in the first hundred days, and enforcement would have began within a year. But Obama did not have FDR's congressional support (thank goodness!), and even FDR's programs started being scaled back and struck down only a few years in. Presidents, even war presidents, have limited power.
Quote from: Todd on July 31, 2013, 09:31:47 AM
A rather nonsensical, hyperbolic response, I'd say. I mean, come on, I even mentioned Lincoln's suspense of habeus corpus. I was replying to your prior rather nonsensical, hyperbolic post that the three leaders you mentioned would laugh at the idea that they are hemmed in. They would not.
Prince Charles is listening to your voicemails!
Quote from: Todd on July 31, 2013, 09:58:45 AM
Of course Obama was and is a shameless liar.
Thanks for confirming my opinion. :D
QuotePresidents do not have the power to change much of anything by simply issuing orders and giving pretty speeches, and while they can and do influence legislation, what Congress ultimately passes is quite often substantially different from what presidents advocate, which is an good thing.
A good thing it is, I agree. What do you think, though, about Rockwell's article? Is there any truth in it, or just hyperbole? :D
Quote from: Brian on July 31, 2013, 10:03:33 AMPrince Charles is listening to your voicemails!
Better stop speaking in a mock Cockney accent, then. I don't want HRH to come and give me a good shellacking.
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2013, 10:03:51 AMThanks for confirming my opinion.
I'll make a bold prediction: The next President of the United States of America will be a shameless liar.
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2013, 10:03:51 AMA good thing it is, I agree. What do you think, though, about Rockwell's article? Is there any truth in it, or just hyperbole?
It's hyperbole, start to finish. (I only made it through a few paragraphs.) I have no problem with social libertarian thinking, and more traditional non-interventionist foreign policy thinking, but potboiler speeches don't really do much for me.
Quote from: Todd on July 31, 2013, 10:13:00 AM
I'll make a bold prediction: The next President of the United States of America will be a shameless liar.
I concur. So will be the next President of Romania. :D
Quote
It's hyperbole, start to finish. (I only made it through a few paragraphs.) I have no problem with social libertarian thinking, and more traditional non-interventionist foreign policy thinking, but potboiler speeches don't really do much for me.
Thanks again, duly noted.
What about the Obama "coronation" as opposed to the virtually unnoticed transition from Beatrix to Willem Alexander (The Netherlands), and from Albert to Philippe (Belgium)?
The Royal Baby should be ashamed of all the trouble his birth is causing...
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2013, 10:26:45 AMWhat about the Obama "coronation" as opposed to the virtually unnoticed transition from Beatrix to Willem Alexander (The Netherlands), and from Albert to Philippe (Belgium)?
Presidential inaugurations have been overdone from time-to-time - even the one Populist President, Jackson, had a big one - though now it seems a permanent fixture. Obama's was a grand old party, and a handy way to pay back some political allies, supporters, and fund raisers. But even Obama is finding out that second terms are very unkind.
Quote from: springrite on July 31, 2013, 10:30:26 AM
The Royal Baby should be ashamed of all the trouble his birth is causing...
What trouble? The transition of the royal power in the UK will be as smooth as it ever was in the last 200 years. Occasional GMG skirmishes can hardly qualify as such... ;D :D ;D
Quote from: Todd on July 31, 2013, 10:31:59 AM
Presidential inaugurations have been overdone from time-to-time - even the one Populist President, Jackson, had a big one - though now it seems a permanent fixture. Obama's was a grand old party, and a handy way to pay back some political allies, supporters, and fund raisers.
The difference between him and a contemporary European monarch being?... (Aside from the fact that a contemporary European monarch
doesn't need to pay back any political allies, supporters and fund raisers) ;D ;D ;D
Quote
But even Obama is finding out that second terms are very unkind.
A US President might have a second term, but a Queen / King of UK surely won't... ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Todd on July 31, 2013, 10:31:59 AMObama's was a grand old party
A knife-twisting double-entendre.
Quote from: Brian on July 31, 2013, 10:42:28 AM
A knife-twisting double-entendre.
You beat me to it.
Superbly done, Todd! :D
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2013, 10:40:11 AMThe difference between him and a contemporary European monarch being?...
1.) He was elected.
2.) He will be gone in January 2017.
Quote from: Todd on July 31, 2013, 10:46:47 AM
1.) He was elected.
Big deal! ;D
Quote
2.) He will be gone in January 2017.
To be replaced with another of the same stock. ;D
No substantial difference, save that the Queen of England is not a shameless liar... ;D
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2013, 10:51:48 AMBig deal!
Now you get it.
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2013, 10:51:48 AMNo substantial difference, save that the Queen of England is not a shameless liar...
I'm not so sure.
Quote from: Todd on July 31, 2013, 10:52:51 AM
Now you get it.
There are two ways of looking at the question:
1. Who is to exercise the power? Well, those whom the majority of the voters gets elected.
2. No matter who exercise the power (if it be president or queen/king is all a matter of tradition and history), it is to be limited.
Needless to say, I subscribe to the 2nd one. I'd rather be living under a powerless monarch than under a powerless US President. ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2013, 08:26:43 AM
EDIT: Is this guy a lunatic, yes or no?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/lew-rockwell/down-with-the-presidency/ (http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/lew-rockwell/down-with-the-presidency/)
No, he's not a lunatic, but he is on the extreme side. For all of our history, there has been a constant national dialogue concerning the appropriate level of Government power and control. At one extreme is the libertarian belief that Government should be as small and inconsequential as possible; progressives believe that Government needs to be involved in all significant facets of our lives. Of course, most folks are in favor of some kind of mid-point on the spectrum.
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2013, 11:04:41 AMNeedless to say, I subscribe to the 2nd one. I'd rather be living under a powerless monarch than under a powerless US President.
They are not
powerless, they have limited power. For instance, Obama can order murder-by-drone in any number of countries at will. Very few people have the power to do that. He cannot, however, order a change to the menu of the Congressional Cafeteria.
Quote from: Todd on July 31, 2013, 11:08:51 AM
They are not powerless, they have limited power.
Yes, but an European monarch is much more limited than a US President... ;D
Quote
For instance, Obama can order murder-by-drone in any number of countries at will. Very few people have the power to do that. He cannot, however, order a change to the menu of the Congressional Cafeteria.
He he... ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Sammy on July 31, 2013, 11:07:21 AM
No, he's not a lunatic, but he is on the extreme side. For all of our history, there has been a constant national dialogue concerning the appropriate level of Government power and control. At one extreme is the libertarian belief that Government should be as small and inconsequential as possible; progressives believe that Government needs to be involved in all significant facets of our lives. Of course, most folks are in favor of some kind of mid-point on the spectrum.
I'm aware of that much, for sure. I just ask: is a British, or Dutch, or Belgian, or Swedish or Spanish or [whatever European monarchy] citizen less free than a US or French or German or Italian citizen?
You keep coming back for more punishment, Florestan?
Let's try to dissect this...
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2013, 08:26:43 AM
Upon reading your posts one would think that the President of the USA is only slightly less ceremonial and more powerful than the Queen of England...
False dilemma. There are more options other than just the two extremes of absolute power and purely ceremonial post. If you'd read the preceding posts in this thread more carefully, this should have been apparent to you.
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2013, 08:26:43 AM
But then again, I can't help asking: if this is so, then what was all the fuss about Obama's election? Putting aside his inauguration ceremony, which in terms of pomp and popular adulation far surpassed any similar royal ceremony in Europe (recently The Netherlands and Belgium witnessed a change of the monarch but I defy you to find any similarity with Obama's "presidential crowning"), from your comments two things can be inferred with certainty: (1) that Barack Obama was a shameless liar. Change we can believe in! Really? According to you, gentlemen, effecting any of the changes he campaigned for is well without the scope of his powers, so he knowingly promised to do things he knew only too well he could not do; (2) those who enthusiastically voted for him on account of those presumable changes were complete ignoramuses, because they didn't even know how the constitution of their own country operates and that their president is essentially powerless to effect any change except in what concerns foreign affairs, taxation and interstate commerce --- things that rule out completely any Obamacare plan...
Non sequitur. The pomp and circumstance with which a country celebrates or doesn't celebrate an inauguration has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual amount of power wielded by that office (in fact, in some cases you might argue there is some over-compensation going on). Obamacare has been upheld by the SupCt and the flipside of the taxation power is the power to spend that tax money. Sorry if that wasn't obvious from my earlier post. I didn't realize this needed elaboration. Not sure what other aspect of his campaign platform you seem to think was beyond the powers of the office. You may want to look up what interstate commerce and the tax and spend powers really refer to, historically and as elaborated by SupCt precedents. I never argued that the US president is powerless. Just that he doesn't have anywhere near the power of some of the quasi-absolutist heads of state in Latin America with which you previously grouped him together. Most nation states, democratic or otherwise, are not federal systems like the US, where the federal government has only limited power. You have to stop thinking in dichotomies of opposite extremes. The world doesn't work that way. All you accomplish by doing that is to turn what should be a civil conversation into a shouting match.
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2013, 08:26:43 AM
What you ignore, either unwillingly or on purpose, is that not every country is Germany and that what works wonders somewhere might spell disaster elsewhere. Spain's attempt of 1874-75 to implement a cantonal system like that which Switzerland knew peacefully for 600 years ended in a bloody failure: civil war(s) and revolution(s) taking place simultaneously; only the manu militari restoration of monarchy saved the country from complete disintegration. If you think that there is one, single, universal, political system suited for each and every country under the sun, suit yourself: the reality gives you a big lie.
This is an incoherent ramble. Firstly, I cited Germany as an example of a ceremonial post with similar ceremonial powers as a constitutional monarch to show that monarchy in and of itself has nothing to do with the desirable effect of having one more additional check on legilsative power, which was cited in support of the monarchy in the post I quoted. Why that should "spell disaster" elsewhere is beyond me and cannot be ascertained from your "argument". Other countries have ceremonial presidents too, not just Germany. I don't see, e.g., Ireland having a civil war because of that. What your discussion of cantonal systems has to with anything escapes me too. It's also not very coherent, as within your own argument you undermine yourself, as you suggest that the failure in Spain was not caused by the nature of the cantonal system itself but by its botched "impement[ation]". I don't know where you think I suggested even remotely that I believe in a one-size-fits-all solution for anything. Pretty much everything I've written in this thread has to the contrary been a (nearly futile) attempt to parse your overbroad grouping of people and phenomena into extremes and show nuance instead.
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2013, 11:04:41 AM
There are two ways of looking at the question:
There are many more ways of looking at things than just two.
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2013, 11:18:21 AM
I'm aware of that much, for sure. I just ask: is a British, or Dutch, or Belgian, or Swedish or Spanish or [whatever European monarchy] citizen less free than a US or French or German or Italian citizen?
The argument never was about freedom, but whether the waste of resources on a royal family makes any sense and has any place in a democratic society. A purely ceremonial position by nature doesn't really affect anyone's freedom, so the question is a bit of a red herring. The point is rather that the very limited utility of such a powerless position is in no proportion to the outlandish costs of maintaining the institution of constitutional monarchy.
Quote from: MishaK on July 31, 2013, 11:53:16 AM
You keep coming back for more punishment, Florestan?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever.
Quote
The argument never was about freedom, but whether the waste of resources on a royal family makes any sense and has any place in a democratic society. A purely ceremonial position by nature doesn't really affect anyone's freedom, so the question is a bit of a red herring. The point is rather that the very limited utility of such a powerless position is in no proportion to the outlandish costs of maintaining the institution of constitutional monarchy.
You keep ranting about "waste of resources" as if it were your money, when actually not a single cent of yours goes to the royal British family. But I concede your caring about other people's money is deeply moving.
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2013, 12:35:28 AM
You keep ranting about "waste of resources" as if it were your money, when actually not a single cent of yours goes to the royal British family. But I concede your caring about other people's money is deeply moving.
That argument cuts the other way too.....easy to be a fan if you don't pay. In which case only the British can discuss their monarchy. But it's not the money that is MY main objection to a monarchy; the French have no royal family but I still guess they spend their share on pomp and circumstance.
Quote from: The new erato on August 01, 2013, 12:43:23 AM
That argument cuts the other way too.....easy to be a fan if you don't pay.
I assure you that I pay for the republic more than my grand-parents ever paid for the monarchy.
Quote
In which case only the British can discuss their monarchy.
Exactly. It's no business of anyone else, just as Norway's monarchy or abolition thereof is the exclusive business of your people.
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2013, 02:18:48 AM
Exactly. It's no business of anyone else, just as Norway's monarchy or abolition thereof is the exclusive business of your people.
Seems pretty extreme that nobody outside Britain can vent an opinion. Without the outside world having an opinion (resulting in pressure) on Eastern European communism, you would probably still be stuck with Ceausescu as his removal was dependent on the whole system crumbling...
Quote from: The new erato on August 01, 2013, 02:28:04 AM
Seems pretty extreme that nobody outside Britain can vent an opinion.
I don't object to venting opinions, I object to the argument used: waste of resources. If the British people want to waste their resources that way, who are we to oppose them? That's all.
If I may ask: is there any significant republican party or popular feeling in Norway? Just curious.
Quote
Without the outside world having an opinion (resulting in pressure) on Eastern European communism, you would probably still be stuck with Ceausescu as his removal was dependent on the whole system crumbling...
We were stuck with Ceausescu until the very last days of Communism, as he was the last European Communist dictator to fall. If it were for the opinion of the outside world to remove him, we'd still have him (the outside world took a very negative opinion of Communism for 70 years; this "pressure" didn't hinder the Communists to fully enjoy their power and mock the outside world big time). His downfall was the work of several secret services, the Romanian one included.
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2013, 03:44:12 AM
If I may ask: is there any significant republican party or popular feeling in Norway? Just curious.
The public is somewhat divided, but he monarchy has far from the public display and wealth of the British, and also far less of a history. I realize that every country need some pomp and circumstance whatever constitution, and I'm happy that in Norway it is within very reasonable limits.
Quote from: The new erato on August 01, 2013, 03:48:32 AM
The public is somewhat divided, but he monarchy has far from the public display and wealth of the British, and also far less of a history. I realize that every country need some pomp and circumstance whatever constitution, and I'm happy that in Norway it is within very reasonable limits.
Thanks.
Quote from: The new erato on August 01, 2013, 12:43:23 AM
That argument cuts the other way too.....easy to be a fan if you don't pay.
Bingo!
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2013, 02:18:48 AM
I assure you that I pay for the republic more than my grand-parents ever paid for the monarchy.
Adjusted for inflation and net of public services received? I doubt that.
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2013, 03:44:12 AM
I don't object to venting opinions, I object to the argument used: waste of resources. If the British people want to waste their resources that way, who are we to oppose them? That's all.
We were stuck with Ceausescu until the very last days of Communism, as he was the last European Communist dictator to fall. If it were for the opinion of the outside world to remove him, we'd still have him (the outside world took a very negative opinion of Communism for 70 years; this "pressure" didn't hinder the Communists to fully enjoy their power and mock the outside world big time). His downfall was the work of several secret services, the Romanian one included.
These are some very weird arguments here. Firstly, with my "opinion" I in no way seek to tell the Brits or anyone what to do with their country. I take interest in different political systems out of scientific curiosoty as a former political scientist, if you will. That said, any country's population would be very silly to ignore the observations of outsiders, who with a bit of distance and perspective often have valuable insights that you can't see when you're to close to the problem. I can observe the waste of resources as much as I will, it is up to the Brits as to whether they want to act on that. That doesn't invalidate my view or make it irrelevant.
As to Ceaucescu, you know very well that his ascent and fall had nothing whatsoever to do with "opinion" of any kind, but with whether or not a nuclear Soviet Union was there to prop him up. Also, arguably Ramiz Alia of Albania was the last Communist dictator to fall, not Ceaucescu.
Quote from: MishaK on August 01, 2013, 05:58:47 AM
As to Ceaucescu, you know very well that his ascent and fall had nothing whatsoever to do with "opinion" of any kind, but with whether or not a nuclear Soviet Union was there to prop him up. Also, arguably Ramiz Alia of Albania was the last Communist dictator to fall, not Ceaucescu.
You obviously know nothing about Ceaușescu, not even the proper spelling of his name.
Even since his ascension to power he was a pain in the ass for the Soviets.
He neutralized the influence of the pro-Soviet old guard oi the Party (a move already began by his predecessor Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej).
He ordered and supervised the creation of a specific anti-KGB division of the Romanian secret service, which operated with remarkable success in discovering and neutralizing KGB overt and closet agents.
He visited China and established close friendship and cooperation ties with that arch-enemy of the USSR within the Communist camp.
In what was arguably his finest hour, he refused to join the Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia, Romania being the only Warsaw Pact country which did not take part in it (consequently Romania was the
bête noire of the alliance for as long as it lasted) ; more, in a speech delivered to a huge crowd in Bucharest he denounced the invasion in no uncertain terms and extolled the right of each country to independence and sovereignty. All that after he traveled to Prague only a week before the invasion to declare his support for Dubček.
Internationally, due to a set of cleverly calculated moves (of the utmost importance being the recognition of, and establishing diplomatic ties with, Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany --- the first Communist country to do so, much to the ire of the Soviets), he was hailed by the Western world as a liberal reformer. He rubbed shoulders with Nixon (the first US president ever to visit a Communist country, Romania), Carter, de Gaulle (who awarded him the Legion of Honor), Giscard d'Estaing, Moshe Dayan and Hirohito, among others; Queen Elizabeth II took him for a ride in her royal carriage and made him Honorary Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath --- annulled after 1989); In his finest years, from Washington to London to Paris to Bonn he was widely regarded as a sincere and reliable partner, if not quite ally, of the West.
So the reality is exactly the opposite of what you believe it to be: far from propping him up, the Soviets would have been only too eager and happy to get rid of him, but their options in this respect were severely limited: a
coup within the Party was inconceivable, since he was in absolute control of the top echelon, and he was shrewd enough not to give them any reason for a downright military invasion.
And now there is another Royal Baby due and this time of particular interest ( 8)) to our trans-Atlantic friends.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45861683
Don't say that I don't keep you informed of important developments.
;D
My wife this morning: « I knew it !!! »
Me: « What? »
Wife: « Meghan is pregnant! »
Me: « How did you know ? »
Wife: « She wore a COAT at the wedding !! »
Me: « uhhh? »
Wife: « Don't you understand ? She was hiding it ! »
Me: « Why hide it and make it official a week later ? That's crazy. »
Wife: « No, that's royal protocol. She couldn't upstage Beatrice, you silly! ».
Secrets of women... ???
Quote from: André on October 15, 2018, 08:10:47 AM
My wife this morning: « I knew it !!! »
Me: « What? »
Wife: « Meghan is pregnant! »
Me: « How did you know ? »
Wife: « She wore a COAT at the wedding !! »
Me: « uhhh? »
Wife: « Don't you understand ? She was hiding it ! »
Me: « Why hide it and make it official a week later ? That's crazy. »
Wife: « No, that's royal protocol. She couldn't upstage Beatrice, you silly! ».
Secrets of women... ???
Brilliant Andre!
;D
100% true, I swear ;). My wife was moved to check the pics of the wedding because the princess bears the same first name :D.
Quote from: André on October 15, 2018, 01:17:53 PM
100% true, I swear ;). My wife was moved to check the pics of the wedding because the princess bears the same first name :D.
Oh yes, of course. I was quite forgetting that and it is quite an unusual name these days, although it may become more popular now.
:)