SubJeff on 8/1/2010 at 15:54
I'll tell you at least two things the Royals give us; tourism and diplomacy. The diplomacy is an interesting and subtle one because the Queen visiting, let's say Mozambique, isn't the same as Gordon Brown visiting. For him it'd be in your face political, but for her there is a lot of pomp and ceremony and lots of fluff. But behind it all she'll be there for a reason, and that reason will usually be in the interests of GB.
Another thing they give us is a standard to aspire to. No you reactionary bile tongues, not as people, but by having Royal Approval on all sorts of things. You may personally not give a crap but certain bodies do not have the same prestige or legitimacy without Royal approval/a Royal Charter. And you know what? That Royal approval is held in hella respect in other countries too.
And this is what the honours list is about. Without it you'd have what, A Lifetime Achievement trophy for Patrick Stuart? No mofos, he is now a Knight of the Realm and which do you think he would prefer? Worthy of note is the fact that Knighthoods are not as easily open to non-Brits as they are to Brits, giving them a bit of an extra shiny appeal.
And SD tags ftw. I wonder when the Angry Celtic Horde will materialise to persecute him.
sh0ck3r on 8/1/2010 at 22:26
Tourism, sure. Diplomacy? It’s fitting that you use Mozambique as a recipient of Her Majesty’s Grace — ever notice that the balance of Commonwealth nations, the real breadth of feudal Anglosaxony, are African and tiny tropical countries? Maybe they unroll the red carpet for her, but does her presence influence policy? Maybe in Barbados, probably not in India. Definitely not in Europe. Also, it’s fitting that when Sassenach lectures Caliban on his rage he invariably peppers his remarks with “horde,” “simian” or “knuckledragger.”
Zygoptera on 8/1/2010 at 23:04
I suspect the enthusiasm for republicanism wanes in Britain (and here) every time people think about the alternatives- President Tony Blair/ Margaret Thatcher/ John Major/ Neil Kinnock/ Peter Mandelson is hardly going to fill anyone with joy, and the better case scenario of Screaming Lord Such (RIP)/ Susan Boyle/ Jade Goody is hardly better. It'd just be the new equivalent of kicking an embarrassing semi past it political figure to Europe or the HoL, or of giving them a ambassadorial post here, with all the power remaining where it is now.
And there are very big advantages in having a strongly apolitical Head of State.
Brian The Dog on 8/1/2010 at 23:24
One other useful thing about the monarchy is when the government wants to improve cultural relations with other countries without making a political statement. If you have someone who is both head of state and head of government then it it still looks political when they do Head of State visits.
Part of me thinks that we shouldn't have an elected monarch since (a) they would inevitably become political through canvasing to get the job (the monarchy and the civil service weren't implicated in the various scandals that ocurred recently for instance) , and (b) (at the risk of sounding elitist) there are some things that you shoudn't leave to a majority decision because it would just become a personality thing where that isn't needed. Brain surgery, launching spaceprobes, diplomatic relations, representing Britain to other countries in a non-political way - all these require lots of training that the average "Joe in the street" doesn't get.
For the record, Knighthoods are given to people who have made a big contribution to the UK and who are not interested in politics. Those who are interested in politics are made a Lord and then get to critique the bills passed by the Commons. Thus a knighthood is (I think) the highest honour available to Sir Patrick as an actor, and so many congratulations to him :thumb:
SubJeff on 8/1/2010 at 23:39
Quote Posted by sh0ck3r
ever notice that the balance of Commonwealth nations, the real breadth of feudal Anglosaxony, are African and tiny tropical countries?
wow wat a coincidence who'd a though eh?
What the other 2 said, especially Zygopt's last line.
PeeperStorm on 9/1/2010 at 03:18
Quote Posted by sh0ck3r
The most eloquent defense for the monarch -- she's effectively useless so we should all embrace her.
A national leader who has almost no power to fuck things up? We need one over here, stat!
sh0ck3r on 9/1/2010 at 17:49
A nation can have a symbolic head of state without monarchy; and while the queen doesn’t speculate on water taxes, she does provide the moral impetus for young men and women to fight in Iraq, undermining the notion of disinterest. Also, the equation of Elizabeth II with a brain surgeon fails; we don’t enlist surgeons from “hereditary families”: if your intelligence and training are sufficient you can do it regardless of origin. Elizabeth II, by the way, has about the education of a goat.
As for monarchy as an honors system, a “celebration of the past” on the island of Britain, fine, put your white gloves on and chant invocations to God about the salvation of a crusty deity, sure.
But the British monarchy is also in Canada where I live, and it is an imposition: a vehicle for “anti-America” so dull and unpopular that is leaves a cultural vacuum to be filled by Americanization; a barrier behind which timid leaders hide, through cowardly, twat-like prorogations (as in Canada now) or the deference to a “higher power”; and the general stifling of national self-determination in favor of a special interest group.
Sure, people defend monarchy under the agreeably mute Elizabeth II, but will their tolerance hold steady under three or so decades of Charles?
SubJeff on 9/1/2010 at 20:11
Charles will be fine, good even. At least he speaks up about issues that concern him.
Zygoptera on 9/1/2010 at 22:18
Quote Posted by sh0ck3r
..and while the queen doesn’t speculate on water taxes, she does provide the moral impetus for young men and women to fight in Iraq, undermining the notion of disinterest.
She "encourages" people to join the armed forces only, which in any state with decent separation of civil and military authority is an entirely apolitical act.
What they are ordered to do once enlisted is, commensurately,
entirely the responsibility of the elected government who ultimately command them.
SD on 9/1/2010 at 23:00
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Charles will be fine, good even. At least he speaks up about issues that concern him.
Yeah, and it's not his fucking business to do so.
If he wants to be a politician, he can renounce his claim to the throne.
