I find this hullabaloo over the "Queen" bizarre

[Reterr]

Bush has started a disastrous war based on lies.
Bush denies evolution and climate change
His response to Hurricane Katrina...well...nothing needs to be said on that head.
There is a scandal a week with this lousy administration...

Honestly, I think there are far, far worse things he has already done and probably will do, than any "insult" he could offer to some person who was born into the position of "Queen".

Actually I hope he is usual crass self with her. I don't see why she should get off any better than the rest of us. She isn't even someone who has done anything noteworthy in her own right-she was just born into a position and I don't think she is inherently superior to anyone because of her birth. This sham of royalty is just silly in this day and age :crazy:.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

1. Your squeezed a lot into your post.

MKJ

[PATRICK]

2. They trampled her garden

during one brash visit. That is enough for a little personal pique at least.

[Breeze54]

3. You already said that in the other post.

;)

[Reterr]

5. Worth repeating-If we believe that all people are born equal

then the idea of "royalty" is just bizarre.

I detest the idea of royalty.

[unkachuck]

11. me too....

....but I still think she has a fine ass....

[KurtNYC]

4. Yes! Rubs me the wrong way too

I think understand an almost childlike fascination with the idea that someone lives this perfect, entitled life. But she isn't Cinderella in a disney castle -- she is a real human being but one who is very much detached from the way that most people live. Her grandson thinks it is funny wear a Nazi uniform (!?) The Blitz, V2s, the Holocaust, etc and it is a big joke to him. These are not people who are in touch with reality.

And beyond that is the problem that we have drifted toward an imperial presidency. This is the wrong time to be romanticising monarchy.

[Reterr]

8. Very true

I was raised from usual lethargy regarding posting to post about this triviality ;) because I really despise the notion of the "birth lottery".
Have an almost visceral revulsion to it. Its bad enough that the children of the rich have so many advantages over those born poor and we romanticize institutionalized birth lotteries :shrug:?

[KurtNYC]

29. Yes and I think it perpetuates the myth that rich = happy

from the grandsons of this queen to OJ's kids to the Menendez brothers -- we see that power and the suspension of justice that often accompanies it, can create some odd and unhealthy family dynamics.

[truebrit71]

30. Sorry but you are way off base, and show your lack of understanding of the British sense of humour..

...So I guess John Cleese and the rest of the Pyhtons are evil too, because they made fun of the nazis by wearing their uniforms in some of their skits right?

[KurtNYC]

38. no I understand that angle and it isn't british per se - Mel Brooks, Hogans Heros

I get that but I would think that the prince's actions are different because he is not a professional comedian. In fact he is in a fairly serious position at a time when Britain and the US would benefit from better foreign relations.

[mr blur]

77. No, but you have to understand something

about these people. They are not bright people. Prince Harry is just your average ignorant permanent adolescent who happens to have been born into a life of great wealth and privilege. His father is a new-age whackjob, his mother was deified by the media and his grandmother is the richest woman in the world. If he wasn't who he is he'd have a hard time holding down a job at a fast-food restaurant.

Expecting intelligence and moral example from them is about as realistic as expecting it from the Bush twins.

[truebrit71]

78. Wow...what an ignorant post...

...

[SammyWinstonJack]

6. Isn't somewhere down the lineage george and his scum bag family and the

"royals" related? Inbred morons, all!
Who gives a rat'$ a$$? I certainly don't!

[Reterr]

10. Probably

Though in all fairness to the "royals" (heh not something I often say), they seem less idiotic overall than ol' stinkface.

[SammyWinstonJack]

13. stinkface!

:spray: :rofl: Well the "royal" family of England has at least class. The BFEE couldn't buy class if it were sand at the beach. :evilgrin:

[Reterr]

14. I was being nice

:evilgrin:

[sarge43]

20. Yup. One of Smirk's ancestors is Edward III

Now, here's something relating to that you might find enjoyable and possibly useful.

Edward's grandmother was a Spanish princess, Eleanor of Castile. The documentation is thin, but solid that the Spanish royals and the Moorish caliphs of medieval Spain exchanged brides. Several of these caliphs were the descendants of Fatima, daughter of Mohamed. So it is entirely possible Smirk is, too.

This is guaranteed to blow a wingnut's mind.

[Cleita]

7. I have a problem with the royalty thing too.

She's one of the richest people in the world and still does her royal "duty" to earn money from her country to pay for her lifestyle in the palaces. However, I don't think Elizabeth herself is a beast. She just does what she's expected to do by the palace organizers or those old men that Fergie and Diana called the "greys".

[hiaasenrocks]

9. Celebrity! Must have celeb news!

The Queen is as non-newsworthy and inconsequential as she is famous. She's like Paris Hilton (without the sex tape).

[Reterr]

15. But..but..but

Charles and Diane had a fairy-tail weddin...or something....
And those fine young boys...
:sarcasm:

[hiaasenrocks]

22. Oh, God. The Diana worship was disgusting, too.

These people did NOTHING to get where they are. They're either born into this or marry into it. Big f'n deal.

[spoony]

46. It's a state visit, where you get the addle-headed notion

that it's on par with a celeb holiday being covered by the tabs is a mystery to me.

[hiaasenrocks]

73. I don't solve mysteries for people.

Especially when the clues are slapping them in the face.

[nam78_two]

12. Agree on all points

:thumbsup:

[riderinthestorm]

16. I agree BUT

many find royalty irresistible.

QE2 is subsidized by the British taxpayer as some kind of token figurehead to make state visits.

Do we go along with the voters' preferences (in the UK) and proceed to recognize their wierdness or are we intolerant which means we should unceremoniously throw her on her ass back on the royal jet as soon as it lands on US soil?

* WILL insult her. Take that as a given. Also understand that the Brits have entrusted Bess to toss out insults face to face with our blivit as she sees fit. For that, I guess I'd subsidize her too.

I don't "get" the whole royalty thang either. I really don't. But obviously a huge number of Brits do. Can you tolerate their idiosyncracies or no? If it means Bess gets to throw him under the bus for them, politely and excruciatingly firmly, well then. Frightfully posh, I'd say. Good on them.

[Reterr]

19. Of course he shouldn't insult her-Point is, he shouldn't insult ANYBODY...

He is the president (well sort of).

Is it ok that he made a joke about a blind reporter?
Is it ok that he has so often been brusque with military families questioning the war?


Bush is discourteous, repulsive and crass in every situation.

He treats the British PM like his poodle and grabs the German Chancellor ....Bush will be Bush.

And given that thats how he behaves all the time, I don't care if he is like that with this person as well. It isn't like he will go out of his way to insult her. It just seems as though the attitude is she deserves better treatment even than elected officials..which is just strange imo.


I don't see why its so much worse if its THE QUEEN. Thats the crux-I don't get why this woman is spoken of with special reverence. Like "OMG...it is so much worse that he is insulting GASP THE QUEEN".

[riderinthestorm]

21. LOL! I understand. But I believe the Brits pay her A LOT of $$ to handle shitheads like **.

I know there is some press "gasping" about the FACT that * will be an ignorant jerk but I don't buy into that. Frankly she's paid a shitload of payola to put scum in their place - politely.

It's some kinda old-fashioned spanking. I hope ** has flashbacks of disapproving looks from Bar while he has dinner with the Queen.....

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

17. "Yo Queen!"

It worked on Blair.
Maybe he can give one of his trademark uncomfortable massages, like he did Germany's chancellor.

[twenty4blackbirds]

18. didn't he insult the Queen at a state dinner in his dad's presidency?

I can't find it at the mo' but I recall something about him turning up drunk at the state dinner (or sommat) and asking crass questions of the Queen.

[Venus Dog]

23. The Windsors are usurpers anyway and yes, they are in-bred with bushes

Through "Bar" dontcha know - apparently back to Henry I, but then again, the bushes claim their related to EVERYBODY of any importance. Prescott Bush was a tire salesman who married well and, I'm sure, the marriage between Poppy and Barbara was an arranged one.

As an American from Irish descent, I truly detest all this monarchy and royalty crap.:mad:

[Reterr]

26. Anecdotal-but all the Brits I personally know heartily despise the "royals"

And find the ubiquitous American fascination with them both strange and apalling. But most of them are commies anyways :7.

[spoony]

48. You now know one who doesn't. n/t

[conscious evolution]

24. Dude I totally get what you are saying.

I just spent ten minutes on another OP trying to write a responce that could adequately describe my revulsion to the idea of royalty.
I couldn't do it.
There is just so much that is wrong with the idea that I couldn't figure out where to start.
So I gave up and when I returned to the GD forum the first thing I saw was your post.

I'm glad to see I am not the only person who shivers at the thought of all this royalty poppycock.
Do you want to know why?
It perpetuates the idea of master/slave.

And I aint in to that.

[Reterr]

25. "It perpetuates the idea of master/slave"

My point exactly. I am bewildered by the posts about how they lived and acted like "regular" people. Ok I suppose better than being more obnoxious as royals, but whatever these people are actually like just the idea of royalty is so WRONG in my book.



Referring to someone as "her Majesty" ...:yoiks:

[conscious evolution]

35. I don't like that word either

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/majesty

Sorry,but no person is my supreme authority.

I am a free man.I will not bow down to a person because they just happened to be born to the right set of parents.

[liberalhistorian]

27. "Royalty poppycock", bingo!

That says it all, right there!

[conscious evolution]

31. Its a great word

Read this:http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-pop1.htm

[TahitiNut]

54. It's despicable that the heritage of such obscene repression and exploitation

... is 'celebrated' by a Disney-fied public. There's not much that distills the corruptions of class, elitism, enslavement, and greed more than 'monarchs.'

I've said it before and I'll say it again - the Bolsheviks got it right.

[conscious evolution]

57. I have to agree

For a long time I was of the opinion that they were a bunch of bloodthirst savages.However,the more I have learned of history,the more I understand why they killed the romanovs.
One thing so called royalty has is a long memory.They will spend generations trying to regain what they consider to be theirs.
Such people are dangerous,imo.

[TahitiNut]

58. That matches the evolution of my thinking, as well.

Like anyone, I was greatly influenced by the fairy tales and myths of childhood - "some day my prince will come" - and the saturation of our media and culture with the notion that the Bolsheviks were mad, rampaging murderers. (Americans are notoriously ignorant of the two-phased revolutions in Russia.) As I gain maturity and challenge such assumptions more and more, I come to realize that there's very little daylight between Vlad The Impaler, Czar Nicholas, and Queen Elizabeth Battenberg - the predations of 'inheritance' and 'entitlement' over huamn history are appalling.

[conscious evolution]

60. The fairy tales are part of

the indoctrination program.
Mold a mind at an early age and it is more likely to stay moldy.

What was it the jesuits say? 'give us the boy at six...'

[Reterr]

62. Agree completely Tahitinut

:toast:

[DetroitProle]

28. enough of this frivolity

Doesn't everyone have anything better to do on Friday night than rail against the Queen of England of all people?
This isn't the Czar of Russia. This is some a head of state and figurehead. To claim the Queen represents some sort of "slave master" is histrionic bullshit. Find a better cause.
She isn't Paris Hilton, either. She's the head of state of a nation and the Commonwealth of Nations. The Commonwealth by election, mind you.
Her powers are limited by the rule of law. She is equally subject to, not above the law, under the English Bill of Rights of 1689.
She brings in tourist dollars. She represents the continuity of English laws and government. If they didn't want her, they could abolish the institution like some Commonwealth and former colonies have. Their government is their choice. The majority of British are not in favor of abolishing the monarchy.
Monarchy or none, I don't really care. Their system of government seems to work a lot better than ours anyway. I'd prefer Parliament and votes of no-confidence than being stuck with a tyrant whose unrestrained powers would make any monarch after James II blush, that would be, of course, our own King George.
Don't like the British monarchy? Well you're in luck! You aren't a subject. Rule out crying about moving to Canada, then too, though.

[Reterr]

32. Sorry -I have a right to my opinion

Last I checked the British had plenty of ideas on the governance of parts of the world that are none of their concern (witness Iraq) and I happen to think the British monarchy is ridiculous. Merely stating an opinion-not starting a war. Since you have studied the thread so hard, I would think you would notice that most people aren't saying she is dictator who is above law etc., but merely that the very idea of monarchy is ridiculous to some of us. And lots of things generate dollars for a country-doesn't mean I have to support them all.

If the frivolity bothers you, feel free to stay out of the thread :). Are you also chastising on all the other threads about the frivolity of worrying about Bush making an ass of himself in front of *gasp* a ROYAL?

Nah I am not stopping my frivolity-I am rather pleased that many others are also nauseated by the "Queen". If you are a mod (judging by your imperious tone I thought you were) feel free to lock the thread.

[Venus Dog]

33. Spoken like a true monarchist!

:puke:

As the Queen and her enduring place in the national imagination proves, the office of head of state matters a lot: it embeds itself deep in our collective marrow. By preserving it in perpetuity for a single, pampered family we send a powerful, subliminal message to every generation of Britons. You may work hard, we say; you may be full of talent and virtue. But you will never, ever, fill the highest office of the land. Your blood is not the right blood.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,,1757958,00.html

[Reterr]

34. LOL

I was struck by the imperious tone of the response too :rofl:. So much "enough of this", "enough of that"...

"We are not amused."



Neat article btw. Thanks for posting.

[Slyder]

36. Royalty has uses

Sometimes someone above politics is helpful. The Queen is above politics and has proven herself a discrete sounding board for about ten prime ministers. While the British monarch does have theoretical power, it should only be used in very dire situations and only with great discretion once every half-millennium or so. While I suspect she has average intelligence, knowing the workings of the government of a nation for more than fifty years must have given her a certain wisdom. Spain would not be the nation it is today without Juan Carlos. He was able to set Spain on the road to democracy and back into Europe. He has been a tremendous force for good. Admittedly, not every hereditary monarch lives up to these standards. As far as I am concerned Charles I got what he deserved, and Duke of Windsor would have been a very bad king, even in a constitutional monarchy!

The Queen traces her ancestry back to Cerdic, a Saxon chieftain who came over from the Continent in the late 400s. Very likely all persons today with heritage from Britain do too. The Queen just happens to be the one history foisted this honor on. Her life cannot be an easy one. She has far less freedom than most of us. She may in theory "own" many palaces, works of art, and so forth, but they are not hers really. I understand her wealth comes from wise investing of private bequests made to the monarch in the reign of Victoria. Up until Victoria, the monarch depended on Parliament for any monies they received. And Parliament could be cheap.

Is a monarch necessary to good government? No. Britain has worked pretty well over the years with its system. I respect whatever works.

[Venus Dog]

39. I guess you have never heard of The Royal Prerogative and The Queen's Peace

These powers are certainly NOT theoretical. She can be above politics because she has NO competition (unless you want to count Diana - but that's been taken care of anyway).

Also, the British royal family maintain large banking and oil interests - wise investing, indeed!. And let's not forget that it was Great Britain that actually created what we now know as "Iraq".

Poor little Majesty, the Queen. :puke:

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. Yes, they are theoretical

Because the Royal Prerogative is wielded by the government, not the monarch:

Q: What are Royal Prerogatives?

A series of historic powers officially held by the Queen that have, in reality, been passed to politicians.

They enable decisions to be taken without the backing of, or consultation with, Parliament.
...
Q: What are the powers?

In domestic matters, the Royal Prerogative covers

* the issuing and withdrawal of passports
* the appointment and dismissal of ministers
* the appointment of Queen's Counsel
* the granting of honours
* the appointment and regulation of the civil service
* the commissioning of officers in the armed forces
* the dissolution of Parliament
* the calling of elections

In foreign affairs, it covers

* the declaration of war
* the making of treaties
* the recognition of foreign states
* the accreditation of diplomats

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4267761.stm

[Venus Dog]

51. Royal Prerogatives in UK were once excercised by the Crown acting alone

Now royal prerogatives are exercised on the ADVICE of the PM or Cabinet. There is great movement in UK to grant more power to Parliament and abolish Royal Prerogative altogether - Clare Short's Private Members Bill calls for removal of the declaration of war from the royal prerogative. Not all constitutional monarchies exercise independent royal prerogatives, but UK still retains this power to the Crown.

From the strictly formal point of view, writes AJP Taylor in his Oxford History of England 1914-45, Britain's entry into the first world war was declared "as though King George V still possessed undiminished the prerogatives of Henry VIII".

A characteristically arresting thought. But this is just the start. "At 10.30pm on August 4 1914," Taylor continues, "the king held a privy council at Buckingham Palace which was attended only by one minister and two court officials ... The cabinet played no part once it had resolved to defend the neutrality of Belgium ... Nor did the cabinet authorise the declaration of war. The parliament of the United Kingdom, though informed of events, did not give formal approval to the government's acts until it voted a credit of £100 million, without a division, on August 6."

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,,1554445,00.html

In 2003, Blair broke with tradition and offered Parliament a vote on committing troops to Iraq, although their decision was not binding.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article554368.ece

The real question to ask would be - did Blair consult the Crown in the run up to the war in Iraq? We will probably never know, but precedent says that he most likely did. If the British monarchy is just a figurehead as many believe, why will they NOT give up these powers, one of which is the King (and Queen) can do no wrong (for example the Queen cannot be prosecuted in her own courts)
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/public_administration_select_committee/pasc_19.cfm

[mr blur]

41. Sadly, you're right about this:

"The majority of British are not in favor of abolishing the monarchy."

Not yet, anyway.
But don't worry, we'll get there. And then we'll no longer be saddled with this embarrassing anachronistic collection of pampered, inbred halfwits.

[Maddy McCall]

43. Wrong. She isn't a head of state. That would be PM Tony Blair.

[spoony]

44. Um, no, you are wrong.

[Maddy McCall]

76. See post 75.

[sarge43]

49. Yes, she is a head of state.

In fact, the head of state of 16 nations. Do a Wilki search on her name.

[Reterr]

52. More the pity.nt

[terrya]

55. Exactly. Queen Elizabeth is Head of State in England and 16 other nations.

The Commonwealth.

Including Canada. The Queen is the Head of State in Canada. But there is a Governor General in Canada who acts as the Queen's agent in Canada.

If there are any Canadian DU'ers who see this and see that I may be incorrect in this, please let me know. Thanks.

[Posteritatis]

64. You're right

The Queen's the head of state in Britain and many other Commonwealth nations, though here in Canada that's through the (increasingly ceremonial) position of the governor-general. Ditto at the provincial level through the lieutenant-governors, though the one in my province at least is pretty apolitical; for the most part their 'obvious' roles are more cultural than political.

Blair, Harper, and so on are head of government, which is a distinct concept seperate from being head of state in parliamentary systems. In presidential systems like the American one, the two titles are effectively one and the same.

[Maddy McCall]

75. I meant "head of government."

I stand corrected...she is head of state, but her role is mostly ceremonious.

What I was trying to say is that Tony Blair is "head of government." In many countries, the "head of state" is not also the "head of government." Britain is one of those places.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

37. KICK. You're right n/t

nt

[Rydz777]

40. She is just part of the entertainment, like Anna Nicole n/t

[spoony]

45. I find much of this more American jingoism

Sorry, but it's true. It's annoying to be lectured that the queen enforces the idea that people aren't equal, when this country was founded on the backs of owned subordinates, and continues to operate under a pseudo-freedom that is nothing near the liberty it proclaims and is so proud of.

The sham of an American superiority complex is just silly in this day and age.

[sarge43]

50. Another thing

With a simple Act of Parliament the British banned slavery throughout the Empire, 1828 as memory serves. Whereas we Americans had to fight a ghastly civil war in order to stop treating human beings as property.

By the way, the United Kingdom still has habeas corpus -- the legal foundation of civil rights.

[conscious evolution]

59. "The sham of an American superiority complex is just silly "

Exactly right.
That is why I am a Democrat.I believe that all people are equal.

[saltpoint]

47. With just a couple small changes, your last paragraph could describe Bush.

Born into a position, wealth all around him, never any sense of responsibility or accomplishmet.

She at least reads. And is thoughtful. And has actually served others; she was an army driver, wasn't she?

Bush can't even manage that. Service is definitely not his long suit.

Helen Mirren does a terrific job in THE QUEEN, if you have a chance to see it or rent it... and the film gives a close look at both the things we usually don't care for in her, and a glimpse of some noble personhood as well.

It's worth a look.

[rosesaylavee]

56. Haven't seen that movie yet but watched

an interview Ms. Mirren prior to the Academy Awards. She stated that she was raised by a very leftist sort of family and her parents, if alive, would have been very shocked that she would agree to play that role. She had become very sympathetic to the Queen after studying the part and meeting the woman.

[saltpoint]

65. Hi, roseaylavee. Yes. Mirren was remarkable in that film. She pretty

much blew me away with that level of acting. What a talent.

She did the constricted, bloodless, formal regal angle perfectly, but there were those glimpses of a wounded human being in there, too. I hope the real Queen saw this film. I have a feeling she would have recognized herself!

[Kip Humphrey]

53. Let's see... Bush is about to lose his puppet as Tony resigns so let's divert

our attention and that of the british/american arm of the propaganda press while bucking up Britain's image in the colonies.

[Forkboy]

61. How long was Brett Hullabaloo?

Sorry,bad hockey pun...

:hide:

[lovuian]

63. She rules the World didn't you get the news...England rules

America when the Bush's are in office

[Reterr]

66. Sad ain't it.nt

[RestoreGore]

67. Isn't her kind the very people we fought to get away from 231 years ago?

How soon we forget.

[johnfunk]

68. The only queen Bush has ever been concerned with was Jeff Gannon

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

69. Just goes to show that lousy "leaders" come in cowboy boots as well as crowns.

[Subdivisions]

70. "Yer lookin' a little tense, Queenie. Let me help you with that.

I'm experenced at this."

[yurbud]

71. he insulted the queen? did he try to steal her crown?

[yurbud]

72. "yur queen a' England? well I gotcha beat. I'm queen a' America and the whole godddam world"

[Nikki Stone1]

74. I'm with you Reterr. (NT)

...