Topic: It's a joke from the Sun right?

[lovemunkey187]

Realistically is the footage any different to that which would've been captured in the State's if Obama was visiting a school?

[hal9g]

I find the whole "royal" family thing in Great Britain to be quite amusing.  It's like an "appendix".  It really serves no functional purpose, but it's not something that needs to be removed unless it "ruptures".  The royal family has come close to rupturing recently, but it hasn't quite happened yet.  It is likely (IMHO) that it will become irrelevant sometime in the not too distant future, but for the meantime, it is a harmless appendage, that provides a certain continuity.  There is an air of romanticism that some people seem to enjoy.

The whole thing seems fairly innocuous to me, with little impact on anyone's day-to-day life, except perhaps the royals themselves.

As far as comparisons to the President of the U.S., I don't think it's even close to being the same.

[Jimmy]

As far as comparisons to the President of the U.S., I don't think it's even close to being the same.

First reason being that he is elected (Not directly elected as it's the case here) and not nominated or there because of his ancestors.

[hal9g]

First reason being that he is elected (Not directly elected as it's the case here) and not nominated or there because of his ancestors.

Technically he/she is elected.  Practically, he/she (and their supporters) buys the job!

[Jimmy]

Yes everytime I see the election campaign in the USA I'm amazed by the lots of money spent. Here the political party get their money by two way : Direct donation by the party members (a limited annual ammount verified each year by the Auditor general of Canada office) and an ammount determined by the number of vote got in an election. Also the spending for an election is verified (a fine must be paid when a candidate spent more than what he/she was supposed to) and if a candidate don't reach a certain % of vote he/she must refund the money he/she got from the campaign to the Canadian treasury.  

In theory it means that everybody here can be elected whatever he is rich or poor. In fact at least one of my classmate when I was at the university did a campaign to be elected as a provincial deputy when he was still a student. No he wasn't elected...

Edit
Since it kind of fits here : Sebastien, Eric, Kevin and all the other Canadians members don't forget to cast your vote monday. Every votes count and we are lucky to be able to, so why don't use this privilege we have since 1846 (OK we elect our deputy since The Quebec Act of 1774, but before the etablishment of the responsible government concept in 1846 the governements didn't have any real power).

[RossRoy]

Edit
Since it kind of fits here : Sebastien, Eric, Kevin and all the other Canadians members don't forget to cast your vote monday. Every votes count and we are lucky to be able to, so why don't use this privilege we have since 1846 (OK we elect our deputy since The Quebec Act of 1774, but before the etablishment of the responsible government concept in 1846 the governements didn't have any real power).

While I do cast my vote at every election .. after all people have fought for me to have that right, the least I can do is spend the 5 minutes it takes (+ the waiting in line!) to cast my vote.

But, the more I read about the whole process and how we are governed, the less I feel inclined to actually to vote. It feels like such an exercise in futility. Especially when you live in a sector where the elected representative gets elected by landslides!

Edit:
Hmmm I just checked the 2008 election, and I was under the impression our representative here had been elected by a landslide ... but it's far from it! She won by only 0.1% (69 votes)!

Guess I got that impression because I didn't "win" my election! 

[Najemikon]

I find the whole "royal" family thing in Great Britain to be quite amusing.  It's like an "appendix".  It really serves no functional purpose, but it's not something that needs to be removed unless it "ruptures".  The royal family has come close to rupturing recently, but it hasn't quite happened yet.  It is likely (IMHO) that it will become irrelevant sometime in the not too distant future, but for the meantime, it is a harmless appendage, that provides a certain continuity.  There is an air of romanticism that some people seem to enjoy.

The whole thing seems fairly innocuous to me, with little impact on anyone's day-to-day life, except perhaps the royals themselves.

As far as comparisons to the President of the U.S., I don't think it's even close to being the same.

There has been nothing at all that could be called a rupture, Hal. When Diana divorced Charles and then died, they lost their most famous face and their strongest connection to the people, so they floundered in how they dealt with that and the emergence of the celebrity culture. They've dealt with a lot worse over the last thousand years. Actually they do serve a very functional purpose, tied into so many processes in Britain and across the Commonwealth, and that never even hiccuped. Their impact on day to day lives is huge!

People who criticise the monarchy seem to think that when the Queen steps down by whatever means and it's time for Charles to become king, he could simply not bother and they could all retreat into ignominy and call the whole silly farce off. However that doesn't recognise the huge implications for how the country is run and perceived. Parliament and the Lords would have to be essentially scrapped and started again. The Military top brass would be in tatters. And when do you start telling the millions of Christians worldwide that The Church of England is being phased out?

That's like you guys tearing up your constitution and coming up with a whole new way of doing things! This is England, this is who we are and it is ingrained into the fabric of everything we do across the world.

The real thing that people have a problem with is the amount of coverage, exposure, pomp and circumstance that surrounds the whole family and their work. So the people might one day say, we've had enough, just stay in Buckingham Palace, do your job, fight the wars, sign the papers, keep the Church moving, but keep your mouth shut. Sod off with all the silliness, please. We don't care who you marry, just make sure you do your damn job quietly.

Of course that could happen, if the people wanted it, but today has proved they (we? erm... you know what I mean!) most definitely do want all the pomp. And anyway, one of the strongest purposes of our Royalty is our image abroad. Estimated audience of the wedding is 2 billion. For the UK as a business, that's like printing money.

No way is that going to end in our lifetime because none of us want to be Belgium. 

Personally, I'd happily put with three times as much attention on the Royals rather than one single episode of Big Brother in The Celebrity Jungle Dancing On Ice for Britain's Got Talent, which will elevate a racist little cow like Jade Goody up to angelic Sainthood status. I should quickly say, it was of course very tragic what happened to Jade, but illness does not wipe out a lifetime of being obnoxious and earning wealth for literally doing sod all.

In the celebrity culture, William and Kate are worth a hundred Jades.

[hal9g]

Jon,

If it is true (and I seriously doubt it) that the government, the military and the church would fall into chaos without the Royals, then they are built on a much weaker foundation than I had ever imagined!  Image is one thing, but the practicality of life in the U.K. cannot seriously be so fragile as to disintegrate because the Royals disappear.

As far as "rupturing", I said it came close.  Not being a conspiracy theorist, but, Diana's untimely death was quite convenient for the Royal family.  It would have been interesting to see how they would have dealt with her marrying Dodi Fayed!  It may not have dealt a death blow, but I think it would have crippled it irreparably.....and the U.K. would most certainly have survived with little real impact, IMHO.

[Antares]

Realistically is the footage any different to that which would've been captured in the State's if Obama was visiting a school?

Actually, it would be much different. We don't teach our children to be subservient to anyone. Our fabric of life is woven in the belief that bloodlines and birth do not matter, but that anyone can rise to the highest strata of society and wealth through their own intelligence and abilities.

[Antares]

Is that any different than if say a Kennedy or a Rockefellar was to marry some trailer park redneck from Bunny Kill, Alabama?

So are you equating Kate Middleton to a trailer park tart? Because that is the only thing I grasp from this statement.

[Najemikon]

Jon,

If it is true (and I seriously doubt it) that the government, the military and the church would fall into chaos without the Royals, then they are built on a much weaker foundation than I had ever imagined!  Image is one thing, but the practicality of life in the U.K. cannot seriously be so fragile as to disintegrate because the Royals disappear.

As far as "rupturing", I said it came close.  Not being a conspiracy theorist, but, Diana's untimely death was quite convenient for the Royal family.  It would have been interesting to see how they would have dealt with her marrying Dodi Fayed!  It may not have dealt a death blow, but I think it would have crippled it irreparably.....and the U.K. would most certainly have survived with little real impact, IMHO.

I absolutely disagree with that. Diana was not the Saint many people assumed her to be and had she have lived, marriage to Dodi would have either damaged her reputation more then the Monarchy, or it would have been taken in the stride of everyone involved. I don't subscribe to the idea that her death was convenient for anyone. It's awful to suggest that Charles could have actually thought, "thank goodness the mother of my children is dead".   Anyway, Diana had no focused objective to bring them down, because of her kids. She wanted William and Harry to take the Monarchy forward, without losing their own identity, in the way she had been marginalised.

And you know what? She succeeded, despite her death. William has an incredible attitude and is a perfect example of Britishness. We couldn't have asked for a better ambassador. Whatever Diana would have done or not, William was always waiting in the wings and he is the real future of the Monarchy. I heard one commentator say earlier actually that today is the first day of the 21st century for the Royals, William is that important to them.

And no, not that the government etc would fall into chaos without the Royals, but the Royals are the face of the constitution. That's why I said that most people who criticise the monarchy do so because of the attention they get for the superfluous stuff, like today. If there was a decision taken to end the Monarchy and England become a Republic, it would be a very slow process to make sure everyone knows what they are doing and are fully aware of the impact, not to mention the other countries that recognise our Queen as their head of state and are very happy about it. Think about it from the religious perspective. Queen Elizabeth I invited war because she told the Pope to get stuffed (in not so many words) and formed her own Church, which is now established with the Monarchy at its head. I'm not religious, but who takes it over if we stick Liz mark II in a nursing home? CoE recognises the Queen or King as being it's head. You can't say, "we're not doing that any more". That's a Civil war method and the damage to our countries reputation and ability to deal would be irretrievable.

Interestingly I saw a link on the BBC that reports that support for the Monarchy has always hovered around 70%-75%, but that doesn't mean a quarter of us want it replaced and in fact, finding a true die hard Republican is very hard. They interviewed one group and the head was earnestly saying that we could phase them out by 2025, or even quicker. He then used the example of President Obama; how 10 years ago, it would have been reasonable to assume it could be 30 or 40 years before there was a black President, yet they did it 8.

That made my head spin. He bases some of his argument for a complete change of constitution on the fact that Americans turned out to not be as prejudiced as he assumed? Lovely. Just the kind of guy I want as our future President!

[Antares]

If it is true (and I seriously doubt it) that the government, the military and the church would fall into chaos without the Royals, then they are built on a much weaker foundation than I had ever imagined!  Image is one thing, but the practicality of life in the U.K. cannot seriously be so fragile as to disintegrate because the Royals disappear.

I have to agree with you on this one. Jon's scenario kind of reminds me of Thomas Jefferson's description of slavery, he said slavery was like holding a wolf by the ears, you don't like it, but you dare not let it go.

[Najemikon]

If it is true (and I seriously doubt it) that the government, the military and the church would fall into chaos without the Royals, then they are built on a much weaker foundation than I had ever imagined!  Image is one thing, but the practicality of life in the U.K. cannot seriously be so fragile as to disintegrate because the Royals disappear.

I have to agree with you on this one. Jon's scenario kind of reminds me of Thomas Jefferson's description of slavery, he said slavery was like holding a wolf by the ears, you don't like it, but you dare not let it go.

For crying out loud! Do you really think that you are more "Free" than I am? That I don't have the same opportunities as you do? You seem to be basing your view on the idea that you are free and I am not, but I cannot think of one tiny example how that is actually applied. The irony is, America is built on the idea that anyone can be whatever they choose, but there's absolutely nothing different to the UK in that.

Except of course, someone like Richard Nixon would have had his card marked a damn sight earlier.

And the biggest joke of all is that as I said in previous message, 70%+ of us are very happy, thank you very much, and we'll keep being happy while all you American's keep buying our Royal Wedding junk! 

[Antares]

He then used the example of President Obama; how 10 years ago, it would have been reasonable to assume it could be 30 or 40 years before there was a black President, yet they did it 8.

You want to know the reason why we have a black president? In 2008, the political climate was a perfect storm of incidentals that propelled Obama into the White House.

1. The Republicans had a candidate who chose a moron for his running mate.
2. Hillary Clinton had more people in this country who hated her, rather than liked her.
3. We were in the beginnings of the second most devastating economic crisis in our history.
4. This one's going to sound foolish, but believe me, this helped enormously...For two seasons on 24, they had a black man as the president. The show was popular, and many people who watched it felt that Obama was similar in ways to David Palmer. It just goes to show you the power of media.

[DJ Doena]

Wow, I am really surprised that this wedding actually does cause this much emotion. I lived the day in ignorant bliss.

The one thinng I'm hoping for is Alf, now that Willie and Kate are married...