Hey Brits! Happy Diamond Jubilee!
- Thread starter 3113
- Start date
topace
Lit's Resident Eagle
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2012
- Posts
- 1,905
Since Canada is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, we get to celebrate the Diamond Jubilee as well!What a bitch'n summer for the UK! Diamond Jubilee *and* the Olympics!
How are you all enjoying this celebration? Is cherries jubilee in vogue on dessert menus? Wish we all could be there
Handley_Page
Draco interdum Vincit
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2007
- Posts
- 78,287
What a bitch'n summer for the UK! Diamond Jubilee *and* the Olympics!
How are you all enjoying this celebration? Is cherries jubilee in vogue on dessert menus? Wish we all could be there
Oh it's wonderful. The local pubs are having a street party for the kids and fireworks banging off all over the place. And this is rural England !
The Jubilee party is happening (I do hope She likes it; it has a good mixture of music), and it don't look like it's raining down there.
But we, further west, have had some real cold rain. . . .
Since Canada is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, we get to celebrate the Diamond Jubilee as well!
And the Maple leaf flag hangs proudly round our local pub.
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
Locally, Saturday's fireworks were great; Sunday's party was only 1,000 people because of the rain. Some deferred their parties until today and several are still partying now.
We coudn't light our official beacon this time because we didn't do the paperwork in time, so we just lit barbecues and unofficial (and illegal) fires on the beach. That avoids completing the risk assessment, paying for the required £5,000,000 of public liability insurance, and who knows who lit the fires in the dark because they are all wearing union jack face paint.
I know that one of the fires was apparently lit by a child under the age of criminal responsibility but the unidentifiable Dad was holding the torch as well.
We coudn't light our official beacon this time because we didn't do the paperwork in time, so we just lit barbecues and unofficial (and illegal) fires on the beach. That avoids completing the risk assessment, paying for the required £5,000,000 of public liability insurance, and who knows who lit the fires in the dark because they are all wearing union jack face paint.
I know that one of the fires was apparently lit by a child under the age of criminal responsibility but the unidentifiable Dad was holding the torch as well.
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
Cant imagine what Limeys got to celebrate. A large German family on the dole?
beatrice_dreams
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2009
- Posts
- 258
Not to be a downer or anything, but that's about it, really. Living here has destroyed any last vestige of romanticism I had about the royal family.
It sounds like celebrations in the rest of the Commonwealth have been a lot more fun than anything they're doing here! I'm afraid I will be just as party-pooperish when it comes to the Olympics...
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
Not exactly. The income from the Crown Estates goes to the taxpayer and then government gives some of it back.
The Royal Family pay much more in taxes than many US Corporations or wealthy individuals.
I'd rather have that than a President who costs the taxpayer far more, and is only supported by about half the voters.
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
I compared my genealogy to ELIZABETHS, and I have a better claim to the throne had Cromwell minded his own business. I'm a Stuart.
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
I have a better claim than you. I'm a Plantagenent and Wodinga (descended from the Norse God Woden).
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth is also descended from Woden, and the Greek Goddess Aphrodite/Roman Goddess Venus...
ishtat
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2004
- Posts
- 5,755
Ah, that explains why so many believe that Cromwell was the greatest ever Englishman.
sr71plt
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Posts
- 51,872
Nothing but praise for "on balance" life performance of Queen Elizabeth. She fully deserves this jubilee.
I wonder if she's planning to try to stick it out to top Queen Victoria(?) She's pretty much said she's in it to the death, but would it automatically go to Charles if she does rather than skip to the next generation as it seems she'd prefer?
I wonder if she's planning to try to stick it out to top Queen Victoria(?) She's pretty much said she's in it to the death, but would it automatically go to Charles if she does rather than skip to the next generation as it seems she'd prefer?
3113
Hello Summer!
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2005
- Posts
- 13,823
Oh, she's not going anywhere. Given how long her mum lived, she probably will beat Victoria's record. As for Charles, rules are it goes to first born son, and Lizzie gets no say in that. Of course, Charles could always abdicate if he feels he'd rather live in happy retirement than get crowned.
sr71plt
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Posts
- 51,872
Elizabeth couldn't abdicate directly in favor of Prince William while she was still alive?
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
She could abdicate, but at present her successor has to be Prince Charles. It would take an Act of Parliament to change the rules of succession.
They are proposing an Act of Parliament to change the succession from first-born son to first-born, whether son or daughter. That would only affect the children of Prince William because Charles is older than Anne.
sr71plt
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Posts
- 51,872
Hmm, I thought that had already been passed.
Does it not seem to be the general sentiment there that the crown go directly on to William? Or do people just not want to talk about it.
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
Agreed by Commonwealth but not yet implemented.
There is some support for the idea of transmission to William instead of Charles but current and proposed laws do not allow it.
topace, I defer to citizens of Commonwealth nations on this point, but isn't it rather that y'all are less interested in the Commonwealth even than Charles is? Of course, I tread warily as an outsider, who has no chicken in this fricasse.
topace
Lit's Resident Eagle
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2012
- Posts
- 1,905
Honestly, I'd be for the monarchy IF Charles could be removed from the succession - like for marrying a divorcee after getting divorced after being found out he was cheating on his wife.
His son will make a better monarch any day of the week IMHO.One of my suggestions once on my blog was to have Prince Harry become the new monarch of Canada and have us a separate head of state from the UK - screw history. Some Americans think we still aren't independant because we share a head of state with the UK and 14 other countries around the globe.
3113
Hello Summer!
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2005
- Posts
- 13,823
For or against Monarchy is not the same as for or against a king or queen
You do know that your objection is rather silly, right? The whole idea of a Monarchy is that it doesn't matter if the heir is a philanderer, an idiot, a serial killer, rogue or drunken layabout. This isn't a meritocracy where only the best qualified gets the job, nor is it a democracy where your opinion is worth shit. Monarchy is Monarchy. AKA: indentured servitude for any first born (male first born in Britain) to a ruling King or Queen. Their subjects don't get a choice, and they don't get a choice.
Meaning, it's stupid to say you'd be for the Monarchy if Charles was skipped over. You don't know what William's going to do in the next ten years. Maybe he'll do the same or worse. And you will STILL be stuck with him if he does. That's Monarchy.
So either you're FOR putting a crown on the mascot whoever that mascot is, or you're against it even if the mascot is a really great one. Because when you say you're in favor of Monarchy, you're in favor of that particular system. Not in favor of any particular King or Queen. Yes?
And does it really matter if a guy who cheated on his wife, divorced her and married a divorced woman becomes the king? What power does he have that any of that would make any difference to anything or anyone? Will it make him bad at knighting someone? Holding dinners for diplomats? Opening parliament?
So he'll be equal to Henry VIII
You do know that your objection is rather silly, right?
The whole idea of a Monarchy is that it doesn't matter if the heir is a philanderer, an idiot, a serial killer, rogue or drunken layabout. This isn't a meritocracy where only the best qualified gets the job, nor is it a democracy where your opinion is worth shit. Monarchy is Monarchy. AKA: indentured servitude for any first born (male first born in Britain) to a ruling King or Queen. Their subjects don't get a choice, and they don't get a choice. Meaning, it's stupid to say you'd be for the Monarchy if Charles was skipped over. You don't know what William's going to do in the next ten years. Maybe he'll do the same or worse. And you will STILL be stuck with him if he does. That's Monarchy.
So either you're FOR putting a crown on the mascot whoever that mascot is, or you're against it even if the mascot is a really great one. Because when you say you're in favor of Monarchy, you're in favor of that particular system. Not in favor of any particular King or Queen. Yes?
And does it really matter if a guy who cheated on his wife, divorced her and married a divorced woman becomes the king? What power does he have that any of that would make any difference to anything or anyone? Will it make him bad at knighting someone? Holding dinners for diplomats? Opening parliament?
http://www.50centloseweight.comNice work!
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
So he'll be equal to Henry VIII
You do know that your objection is rather silly, right?
Meaning, it's stupid to say you'd be for the Monarchy if Charles was skipped over. You don't know what William's going to do in the next ten years. Maybe he'll do the same or worse. And you will STILL be stuck with him if he does. That's Monarchy.
So either you're FOR putting a crown on the mascot whoever that mascot is, or you're against it even if the mascot is a really great one. Because when you say you're in favor of Monarchy, you're in favor of that particular system. Not in favor of any particular King or Queen. Yes?
And does it really matter if a guy who cheated on his wife, divorced her and married a divorced woman becomes the king? What power does he have that any of that would make any difference to anything or anyone? Will it make him bad at knighting someone? Holding dinners for diplomats? Opening parliament?
The Monarchy in England (and later in the UK) has been modified by circumstances. The last change of monarch other than by death in office was Edward VIII who had to abdicate because he wanted to stay with Wallis Simpson.
If the Edward/Wallis situation were to happen in the 21st Century, it is unlikely that the King would be forced into abdication. That crisis reflected the mores of a different generation, not even the generation of the 1930s, but that of their parents who were the influential people of the 1930s.
Would Edward have been a good King? He was a popular Prince of Wales and for his time was remarkably outspoken about rapacious employers exploiting their workers. It is known that he had Nazi sympathies, but so did many important people in the UK in the 1930s. They took Hitler as a saviour of an ailing Germany, not knowing, possibly not wanting to know, about the darker side of Nazism. Winston Churchill was one of the few people who saw the danger of Nazi German, and he was considered misguided or even deranged. As King, if the abdication hadn't happened, Edward wouldn't have been as good a Monarch as George VI but he probably would have been a reasonable holder of the role.
Previous changes of monarch have included the Regency when the King was confined and restrained while his son ran the Monarchy, the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the Civil War and the execution of a King for 'treason' - a novel idea at the time, and wars before that.
The hereditary principle has been modified by personalities and by Act of Parliament but the current heirs in line are trained from birth for their role which George VI was not. He was "the spare" who wasn't expected to be anything more than a minor royal.
The UK monarchy, even if Prince Charles is the next King, would continue to be run by people who understand what the limitations of the role are and what its strengths are. If an heir were seriously deranged, an Act of Parliament could exclude him/her from the succession...
