Prince Willie free!

[Kev H]

Plenty of people abstain from voting for reasons other than ignorance and that is important to the state of a "democracy", but it would only be a valid explanation of the trends if the average citizen were well-informed about the issues faced by the nation. They are not. The public does not know what it wants, it thinks it knows what it wants, only to find that it is horrified by the cost and consequences of what it wants. It wants the moon and so politicians promise it. To borrow a quote from a learned curmudgeon (who happened to be from Maryland), "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

The fact of the matter remains that in a nation in which the choice of the head of state is left to the mob, the head of state will be inclined to resemble the mob. Of course one does not get to choice from amongst the ideal candidates (but then, ideal according to whom?), nonetheless, the winner of an election is nothing more than the individual who appeals most to the most common prejudices. Whether that be an election to Congress, the Presidency, Parliament, the Diet, the National Assembly, or whatever the choice of body or position.

The only thing I can't agree with is your implication that the US is a mobocracy (if that was your intention)--I have yet to see how any of this refutes anything I actually said in regards to your assessment of "you asked for Bush, so weep in your incompetence."

So, while it would be amusing to delve further into your silly opinions/misconceptions, I am finding it increasingly difficult to type (my furry child is spawled across my lap and one arm). Perhaps later when I am even more bored.

 

[oggbashan]

But if they weren;t the monarchy any more then what claim would they have to that land? Surely the land belongs not to them as *individuals*, but to them as the *monarchy* - as representatives of the British nation. If they gave up their "job" then wouldn;t they have to give up their pay and perks?
x
V

There are the Crown Estates, which belong to the Crown, the monarchy as you put it, and the Queen's private lands which are hers personally. The Crown Estates are on loan to the Government in exchange for the Civil List (which pays the expenses of the monarchy) and tax concessions. The Crown Estates bring in more money than the cost of the Civil List. The Queen's private estates and property are nothing to do with the Crown.

The Duchy of Cornwall is the private property of Prince Charles. He also PAYS the government.

The Queen and the Royal Family gives the government more money each year than it gets back. The arguments about the Civil List are mere political posturing. The UK's monarchy costs the UK taxpayer NOTHING and actually subsidises the rest of us. I'm sure many US citizens would like a President that subsidises taxpayers instead of costing money every time he appears.

Og

 

[Vermilion]

There are the Crown Estates, which belong to the Crown, the monarchy as you put it, and the Queen's private lands which are hers personally. The Crown Estates are on loan to the Government in exchange for the Civil List (which pays the expenses of the monarchy) and tax concessions. The Crown Estates bring in more money than the cost of the Civil List. The Queen's private estates and property are nothing to do with the Crown.

The Duchy of Cornwall is the private property of Prince Charles. He also PAYS the government.

The Queen and the Royal Family gives the government more money each year than it gets back. The arguments about the Civil List are mere political posturing. The UK's monarchy costs the UK taxpayer NOTHING and actually subsidises the rest of us. I'm sure many US citizens would like a President that subsidises taxpayers instead of costing money every time he appears.

Og

Thanks for clearing that up
I personally like having a monarchy and think they're good for the country, but I just feel so damn sorry for them as people being subjected to that kind of crap.
x
V

 

[Equinoxe]

The only thing I can't agree with is your implication that the US is a mobocracy (if that was your intention)--I have yet to see how any of this refutes anything I actually said in regards to your assessment of "you asked for Bush, so weep in your incompetence."

So, while it would be amusing to delve further into your silly opinions/misconceptions, I am finding it increasingly difficult to type (my furry child is spawled across my lap and one arm). Perhaps later when I am even more bored.

Don't condescend to me, I'll beat you at that game.

The US is not a complete mobocracy, by virtue of the existence of the Electoral College, the structure of the Senate, and perhaps most notably the court system (now, I suppose it is an open question amongst Americans whether or not the courts are better than a mobocracy). Nonetheless, the government defers to the mob and at the same time the mob to the government (a symbiosis). This is also true of Western Europe, although to a lesser extent (the United States tends to have more elected positions than most other nations, for instance).

I'm not saying that people should "weep for their incompetence" (although they should!), I am suggesting that one cannot conveniently disassociate the current United States government from the system of government of the United States, simply because they like one and not the other. None of that is to say that one can't criticise the President or oppose his actions, but you can't shirk responsibility for the results of a system that you support because you don't like a specific outcome. When you choose a course of action, you choose its consequences, whether you like them or not. If you support the basic principles of government of the United States, if you support the idea of Federal Republic and all that entails, then you are in part responsible for the current President and cannot disown him—even if you didn't vote for him. Insomuch as the people of the United States support their system of governance, they got what they asked for.

 

[Vermilion]

Only on this forum could a frivolous comment about Prince William becoming single turn into a political argument over American democracy...
x
V

 

[Equinoxe]

Only on this forum could a frivolous comment about Prince William becoming single turn into a political argument over American democracy...
x
V

I wouldn't characterise it as an argument.

Besides, it could happen elsewhere, although it would have a different tone to it.

 

[3113]

you can't shirk responsibility for the results of a system that you support because you don't like a specific outcome. When you choose a course of action, you choose its consequences, whether you like them or not. If you support the basic principles of government of the United States, if you support the idea of Federal Republic and all that entails, then you are in part responsible for the current President and cannot disown him—even if you didn't vote for him. Insomuch as the people of the United States support their system of governance, they got what they asked for.

No, we didn't get what we asked for in this case. Or don't you recall that it was left up to the Supreme Court to decide if Bush or Gore won? And that there was a lot of unresolved argument over whether there was tampering with the voting? And that doesn't even get into the electorial college.

To suggest that the U.S. is a true Democracy where the people *actually* get the man they vote for is pretty silly. The Electorial College alone--and now the Supreme Court--has made that pretty well null and void. It's no such thing.

All of which is irrelevant in a comparison with the British Monarchy as the Monarchy currently weilds almost NONE of the powers of the U.S. president. You give all THOSE powers to the Prime Minister WHO YOU ELECT just as we do.

There is no equilivant to the British Monarchy in the U.S. My mockery of Pres. Bush trying to be a monarch was just that, and it's foolish of you to take it seriously. But if we're going to compare this, then I'd say that the British Monarchy is the cruelist and most sadistic practice I can imagine, forcing a family to give birth to kids who have no choice but to forever to be in the media glare, and do a job they have no choice in, and be on stict behavior 24/7. And brutally criticized if they step out of line even one iota.

I'd do away with the Monarchy NOT for the sake of England--which uses it very effectively as tourist attraction and built in ambassador/ ribbion-cutter, but rather, for the sake of those forced to do the job *simply* because they were born to it, not because it is their choice or calling.

 

[oggbashan]

...
All of which is irrelevant in a comparison with the British Monarchy as the Monarchy currently weilds almost NONE of the powers of the U.S. president. You give all THOSE powers to the Prime Minister WHO YOU ELECT just as we do.

...

No. We don't elect a Prime Minister like you elect a President. The Prime Minister is appointed by a political party who wins a general election of all the eligible citizens of the UK. We don't have primaries and electoral colleges. The party with the most seats in the House of Commons chooses the Prime Minister. (And can sack them - as the Conservatives sacked Mrs Thatcher).

There is no equilivant to the British Monarchy in the U.S. My mockery of Pres. Bush trying to be a monarch was just that, and it's foolish of you to take it seriously. But if we're going to compare this, then I'd say that the British Monarchy is the cruelist and most sadistic practice I can imagine, forcing a family to give birth to kids who have no choice but to forever to be in the media glare, and do a job they have no choice in, and be on stict behavior 24/7. And brutally criticized if they step out of line even one iota.

I'd do away with the Monarchy NOT for the sake of England--which uses it very effectively as tourist attraction and built in ambassador/ ribbion-cutter, but rather, for the sake of those forced to do the job *simply* because they were born to it, not because it is their choice or calling.

Her Majesty the Queen and the Prince of Wales see it as their duty to serve their country. There is the possibility that they can duck the duty if they want to. The Duke of Windsor abdicated. Her Majesty, like her father King George VI, has shown that she considers her duty far more important than her personal comfort. The Prince of Wales is equally determined to do his duty when he is required to do so.

There are many titled people in the UK who have served and continue to serve the public out of a sense of duty. The nobility suffered proportionally more losses in battle in WWI and II than the general population, and then their families suffered from death duties because the heirs had been killed. Instead of veteran's benefits, their families were taxed higher. Yet still they serve in our Armed Forces...

Og

 

[Equinoxe]

...

I didn't take your comment seriously, I made an admittedly rather smug joke in response to it, which Kev H took seriously which led to a serious discussion on the topic of the American Presidency. It was that or a joke about how if America had kept the original tyrant King George it wouldn't be in this mess. Apparently the latter would have gone over better.

Having said that, the Prime Minister isn't elected by the population of the United Kingdom (I'm not British, by the way, but I am terribly amused), he or she is technically appointed by the Crown. It is customary (and customary matters mean a great deal in the British constitution) that the chosen representative of the party having won the general election be appointed Prime Minister. Not that it matters but for the sake of clarity.

To address the serious portion of the discussion, however, without rejecting the power of the Supreme Court to decide cases like Bush v. Gore and without rejecting the validity of the Electoral College, one cannot reject that the outcome of the 2000 election is part and parcel of the American system of government. One might still disassociate themselves from responsibility therefor, but only if they maintain that while they are accepted expressions of government authority, they ought not to be. You may dislike him, you may think he is a terrible leader, but, without rejecting the system that made him President, you cannot disown him as President, even if he might make Harding look like Jefferson. Under no circumstances, though, may you reject that he is the product of the American system of government as it actually functions.


P.S. Lit just arbitrarily logged me out and I have decided to blame you all. I hope you don't mind.

 

[ChristopherMaxwell]

Look, the British parliamentary system and the Crown (mostly) work well for the UK and other Commonwealth countries. The Federal Republic instituted by the US Constitution works well for the USA, for the most part. Two different nations with different nationalities and different systems of government that are more favourable to them.

It is true that the American people can only blame themselves for the current Administration, having voted for electors pledged to the incument President George W. Bush. On the other hand, it is also true that the British people can only blame themselves for being under New Labour, having voted for Mr. Blair's party, and by logical consequence, accepted the price of doing so: Tony Blair himself as Prime Minister. I have many beefs with Mr. Blair and his New Labour, just as I do with Mr. Bush and his GOP. Iraq is only the start.

Saying that a system is inherently flawed because they produced Bush or Blair is like saying that the Weimar Republic was inherently flawed because it produced Hitler and his Third Reich. It's generalising based on one bad example, and that is hardly just or accurate.

 

[wishfulthinking]

I don't get the "another diana" thing that is being bandied?

And I must admit to my ignorance - I didn't even know some european countries had royals [except monaco, always in our tabloids for some reason] until I saw them at ascot in uk. So I wasn't completely surprised to hear one of our sheila's had married a prince in denmark or somewhere.

Anyway, who knows, Kate could be willy's Camilla.

 

[wishfulthinking]

Only on this forum could a frivolous comment about Prince William becoming single turn into a political argument over American democracy...
x
V

Yep.

I would like to add that if people are going to debate politics, get informed, get an open mind, share.

 

[ChristopherMaxwell]

Personally, I think that there is far too much made of Prince Charles and Princess Diana. Theirs was a bloody marriage that should never have happened, in my opinion. Plain and simple. Both were unfaithful, not just Prince Charles. They just didn't belong together. It was one of the last and most tragic marriages of convenience in royal history. Perhaps, hopefully, this shall wake royals up to the need to stop marrying for dynastic reasons, especially since they have stopped being relevant. You want to make an alliance by marriage- do so with the bloody commoners for a change! Not all royals can be as happy with it as the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, and the Charles/Diana marriage is a case in point.

 

[SlickTony]

Neither Hewitt nor Dodi Fayed would have been a factor if Charles had married Diana in good faith. He didn't. He and Camilla looked out a suitable Protestant virgin on whom he could beget an heir, and whom he knew wouldn't engage his emotions, and he married her quite cold-bloodedly. The affairs, along with the other stuff--the eating disorders and all--began when she came to realize this.

Part of the reason that Willie & Kate broke up was that his snotty friends dissed her family. You ask me, Kate dodged a bullet.

The best thing about marrying into the royal family is that at least nowadays they don't find a pretext for chopping your head off.

 

[Chantilyvamp]

Everytime I read the title of this thread I get an image of a willie with a piercing running off down a beach LMAO My mind is so warped and it needs a rest from school.

<end threadjack>

 

[wishfulthinking]

Everytime I read the title of this thread I get an image of a willie with a piercing running off down a beach LMAO My mind is so warped and it needs a rest from school.

<end threadjack>

Least you weren't thinking of Free Willy the whale with a piercing mooning the beach. I would have had to report you to the beastiality police.

 

[ChristopherMaxwell]

Neither Hewitt nor Dodi Fayed would have been a factor if Charles had married Diana in good faith. He didn't. He and Camilla looked out a suitable Protestant virgin on whom he could beget an heir, and whom he knew wouldn't engage his emotions, and he married her quite cold-bloodedly. The affairs, along with the other stuff--the eating disorders and all--began when she came to realize this.

Part of the reason that Willie & Kate broke up was that his snotty friends dissed her family. You ask me, Kate dodged a bullet.

The best thing about marrying into the royal family is that at least nowadays they don't find a pretext for chopping your head off.

You're assuming that he already had an affair with Camilla. We can't be sure of this. In any case, it just proves that marriages of convenience are not going to work in the age of marrying for love.

 

[Vermilion]

You're assuming that he already had an affair with Camilla. We can't be sure of this. In any case, it just proves that marriages of convenience are not going to work in the age of marrying for love.

I think it's common knowledge that Charles had a romantic attachment of some sort to Camilla in his youth, but failed to commit. She went off and got married, he then reached an age where he realised he ought to get married and sprogged up and made a quick and (as was later proved) unwise choice, possibly influenced by his family.

So far, so William...

x
V

 

[ChristopherMaxwell]

I think it's common knowledge that Charles had a romantic attachment of some sort to Camilla in his youth, but failed to commit. She went off and got married, he then reached an age where he realised he ought to get married and sprogged up and made a quick and (as was later proved) unwise choice, possibly influenced by his family.

So far, so William...

x
V

That's an interesting twist.....given her acceptance of being his mistress, what would she have felt had he taken a mistress while wed to her? I do not know. Then again, he might not have done so. There is no evidence that he resumed his affair with her until the marriage to Diana proved a failure. None that I can see, at any rate. After all, there are royals who take lovers because of loveless marriages and there are royals who simply are not faithful by nature. It's hard to say which Charles would be. We can't be sure of his private life right now, but there is no tabloid report of his cheating on Camilla now, so perhaps that answers the question. In any case, you're probably right that he made a mistake in not marrying Camilla when he was younger. It was a rare case where he could have married the woman that he loved and had the Royal Family approve of it.

It's quite possible that he could have still sown his wild oats, if that had been his desire. After all, she was content to be his mistress for a while, so what would make anyone think that she would get incensed over his having affairs as her husband. Especially if she thought that he would get tired of them. From what I have seen of Charles, that probably would have happened. Affair with Camilla aside, he (unlike me, I might add) is basically a monogamous chap. Then gain, ironically, that is probably why he didn't wed her then. He wanted to have that out of his system, so that he could be faithful to a wife. Just idle speculation on my part.

 

[Vermilion]

Then gain, ironically, that is probably why he didn't wed her then. He wanted to have that out of his system, so that he could be faithful to a wife. Just idle speculation on my part.

That was my take on the situation... then he just ended up leaving it too late.
<shrugs>
They seem happy now and I like her. She seems like a good match for him and a good royal escort (in the traditional sense) as far as royal duties go.
I look forward to there being a Queen Camilla, but I have some other reasons for that too <smirk>
x
V

 

[Kev H]

There is nothing Kingly about President Bush. He is decidedly the product of the American Republic and of "democracy"; the United States has gotten exactly what it asked for and exactly what it wanted—and if people are finding that maybe they asked for the wrong thing, well, it's a bit late for second-thoughts.

Requoted. Am I the only one who found nothing "smug joke"-ish about this? I am no don't-you-dare-bash-the-U.S.-of-A. type (and I'm sure-as-shit no Bush lover), but if you're going to attempt the US-smash, at least have enough sense to pick a legitimate beef (there's oh-so many). If you want to back down and call it a joke, fine. Ha! Great one. Mind telling another one?

 

[Equinoxe]

Requoted. Am I the only one who found nothing "smug joke"-ish about this? I am no don't-you-dare-bash-the-U.S.-of-A. type (and I'm sure-as-shit no Bush lover), but if you're going to attempt the US-smash, at least have enough sense to pick a legitimate beef (there's oh-so many). If you want to back down and call it a joke, fine. Ha! Great one. Mind telling another one?

I didn't say it was funny.

It was indubitably not the best choice of jokes, although I was and am amused by it (wherein was my point), but if you would like, I would be more than happy to explain how it was a joke. I'll even use an American dictionary for the definition of the word. However, I am going to have to politely ask that you change your tone.

 

[Kev H]

I didn't say it was funny.

It was indubitably not the best choice of jokes, although I was and am amused by it (wherein was my point), but if you would like, I would be more than happy to explain how it was a joke. I'll even use an American dictionary for the definition of the word. However, I am going to have to politely ask that you change your tone.

Request accepted; sorry about that. It's just that I'm a firm believer in responsibility--the real kind that works both ways. I.e., "credit where credit is due" as well as the less seen "my bad; will work to keep it from happening again." Deep in that philosophy (idealistic, I know) is the irritation that comes from someone blaming innocents for some perceived wrong.

I completely understand that you were amusing yourself--I do the same thing all the time. But this one just happen to get my "how fucking unfair" reaction.

Take care.

 

[Equinoxe]

Request accepted; sorry about that. It's just that I'm a firm believer in responsibility--the real kind that works both ways. I.e., "credit where credit is due" as well as the less seen "my bad; will work to keep it from happening again." Deep in that philosophy (idealistic, I know) is the irritation that comes from someone blaming innocents for some perceived wrong.

I completely understand that you were amusing yourself--I do the same thing all the time. But this one just happen to get my "how fucking unfair" reaction.

Take care.

That's quite all right, I appreciate your willingness to come to some agreement on this ill-famed dispute.

Incidentally, I too am a firm believer in responsibility, the kind that goes both ways, although clearly we have some disagreement on interpretations of that—which I must say amuses me further. However, I think this tangent has probably gone on long enough in this thread about poor heartbroken Prince William.

I don't think the joke makes sense to anyone here but me, it is overly self-referential (and hence the smug part).

Take care.

 

[ChristopherMaxwell]

That was my take on the situation... then he just ended up leaving it too late.
<shrugs>
They seem happy now and I like her. She seems like a good match for him and a good royal escort (in the traditional sense) as far as royal duties go.
I look forward to there being a Queen Camilla, but I have some other reasons for that too <smirk>
x
V

Oh, really? So, they are letting her be Queen? Neat. An improvement over the Edward VIII/Wallis Simpson days. Mind you, as it turned out, we dodged a bullet with him...the bloody fascist.