I greatly enjoyed the Matt cartoon on the front of today's comic, with a grinning monarch imitating Usain Bolt outside Buckingham Palace. One of the more disgraceful internet sites had a cut-and-paste figure of the Queen lying in the lap of her ancestor on the Victoria memorial, waving and saying: 'Who's the ****** Daddy now?'
Lèse-majesté almost. We are a robust and vulgar nation thank goodness, with a monarchy to match. No offence will be taken, quite the contrary. She was always a pretty girl too.
Last edited by: Webmaster on Tue 6 Oct 15 at 08:59
|
Well done to her.
She saves us from having to elect a president every five years or so, and as no one in their right mind would vote in a presidential election we'd end up with a hard core of fanatics foisting a President Scargill or Beckham on us and making us a laughing stock.
|
>> we'd end up with a hard core of fanatics foisting a President Scargill or Beckham on us and making us a laughing stock.
Even if we didn't, the probability of a bad political choice is ever-present, very high in fact.
The point about a hereditary succession of Heads of State is that all of that ceases to matter. We get what we get, and if we don't like it there are, well, measures that can be taken by the, er, elected representatives of the people (God help them, or it). It's served the British well with a couple of glitches and one interruption over the centuries.
Stability mate. That's what we've got, stability. Just ask that Beowulf.
|
>> Even if we didn't, the probability of a bad political choice is ever-present, very high
>> in fact.
Mythical rubbish. Ireland? A non-political HoS role is entirely and easily achievable.
What I find sick is that she seems to be celebrating the early death of her father. That's the only reason she's passed this "milestone".
Grim.
Someone in such a position this long is simply an indication that something's wrong. Isn't that what NoFM2R tells us about the working world, with his vast knowledge and experience of the work place? It's just a "job" after all, isn't it?
|
>> What I find sick is that she seems to be celebrating the early death of
>> her father. That's the only reason she's passed this "milestone".
No celebration of her father's death at all
I think that was why she made the comment that she never sought the achievement.
I do not think she is the one who is "sick"
|
It's the system that's sick when we're celebrating something which is simply the result of an early death, followed by an incumbent never having to face an election for an important public role.
What's the big deal? Why the celebration? It's no achievement other than one of staying alive.
It's an affront to the democracy which we claim to lead the world in. We are no democracy.
|
>> I think that was why she made the comment that she never sought the achievement.
If she abdicates or we get some kind of "Regency", that claim will be shown to be thoroughly hollow.
|
>> >> I think that was why she made the comment that she never sought the
>> achievement.
>>
>> If she abdicates or we get some kind of "Regency", that claim will be shown
>> to be thoroughly hollow.
>>
She is 89 years old for pete's sake, if she does, and it's a big if, it will be down to health.
We are always going to differ on this Al, you are entitled to your opinion but it is one held by a very small minority of people in this country and you have it as a particular blind spot which prevents you having any fair viewpoint about an old lady who has, by and large conducted herself with some dignity in serving this country for a very long time.
|
I accept we're a minority, but a significant and growing one. Roughly 25% I'd say.
We're coming.
|
>> you have it as a particular blind spot which prevents you having any fair
>> viewpoint
Why is my opinion a blind spot whilst yours is an incontrovertible truth?
|
>> Why is my opinion a blind spot whilst yours is an incontrovertible truth?
>>
Your opinion is not a blind spot your opinion is a reasonable opinion with which I disagree but that doesn't matter.
The blind spot is that you seem to be unable to argue/discuss the monarchy in a rational way, Mark has already commented that
You are so amazingly bitter and resentful
about the whole thing that I can only assume that you were abused by a Queen in another life
I don't want this to get personal but just for example look at the statement you made
>> What I find sick is that she seems to be celebrating the early death of
>> her father.
I do not think anyone reasonable could find anything in the speech made by the Queen yesterday to justify that. Why would anyone "celebrate" the death of a parent.
If you think the statement was reasonable watch the bits of the speech shown on TV and tell me what she said that justifies what you said.
|
Whatever you think about my position, there's not much rational nor reasonable about defending the hereditary principle in the matter of public office. Its remnants, the monarchy and the remaining hereditary peers, should be removed on principle alone.
My guess is that she wanted to beat Victoria but probably more importantly wants to keep Charlie off the throne as long as possible, she knows he'll be the end of it all. It's amazing he wasn't part of a downfall after the Diana death - remember how popular the dear, humble, loyal servant-of-the-country Queen was then?
I didn't listen to the Queen's speech yesterday. I never do. It is of no consequence to me what she or her spin doctors think.
|
|
I'm told she doesn't read your posts either, for very similar reasons
|
|
What a silly thing to say. I'd be staggered she'd even heard of them, let alone expressed an opinion either way.
|
>> Whatever you think about my position, there's not much rational nor reasonable about
>> defending the hereditary principle in the matter of public office. Its remnants, the monarchy
>> and the remaining hereditary peers, should be removed on principle alone
rational view - it works, why change it?
"on principle" in this sort of debate is a "just because" type of answer. , an opinion, as I have said, a minority opinion
>>
>> My guess is that she wanted to beat Victoria but probably more importantly wants to
>> keep Charlie off the throne as long as possible, she knows he'll be the end
>> of it all.
Where do you get that from, apart from your own imagination. Show me just one piece of evidence if you want to claim that as rational or reasonabel
>> It's amazing he wasn't part of a downfall after the Diana death
>> - remember how popular the dear, humble, loyal servant-of-the-country Queen was then?
>>
public opinion is a very fickle momentary thing, from what I remember the emotion around at that time lasted a few days and was not particularly anti monarchy, no riots demanding the immediate abdication that I can remember.
>> I didn't listen to the Queen's speech yesterday. I never do. It is of no
>> consequence to me what she or her spin doctors think.
>>
So where did the sick suggestion that she was "celebrating her father's early death" come from?
that is a very twisted assumption to make, in my opinion.
|
OK, celebrating an event precipitated solely by her father's early death. Perhaps that's a better way to put it. It's undeniable, isn't it? They're not like us, royals. The world is a different place to them. It's why they're unsuited to being our figureheads in the modern world.
>> rational view - it works
Rational view - we could do so much better. Many arguments which say it doesn't work. See Republic website for details.
|
>> OK, celebrating an event precipitated solely by her father's early death. Perhaps that's a better
>> way to put it. It's undeniable, isn't it? They're not like us, royals. The world
>> is a different place to them. It's why they're unsuited to being our figureheads in
>> the modern world.
I didn't see any undue celebration yesterday certainly nothing to provoke your comment.
"They're not like us royals" Now there's a rational, considered statement
>>
>> >> rational view - it works
>>
>> Rational view - we could do so much better. Many arguments which say it doesn't
>> work. See Republic website for details.
>>
So convince us what would be better, the majority of the population is not convinced by any of the "many arguments" As I said you are in a minority and a small one at that, do you have anything to justify your earlier 25% estimate?
|
>> So convince us what would be better, the majority of the population is not convinced
>> by any of the "many arguments" As I said you are in a minority and
>> a small one at that, do you have anything to justify your earlier 25% estimate?
>>
Not putting words in A's mouth, but the wikipedia article on this (which I just looked at) records a number of surveys in recent years putting the percentages at between about 15 and 25%.
It also sums up the arguments for and against.
Unfortunately, it's not a subject (or should that be a citizen) I give enough hoots about to wade through in detail myself, being happy with the status quo.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom
|
>> Not putting words in A's mouth, but the wikipedia article on this (which I just
>> looked at) records a number of surveys in recent years putting the percentages at between
>> about 15 and 25%.
>>
Why should these figures be any more accurate than the pre election opinion polls?
If 10 - 15 million people really wanted something there would be more sign of it.
I do not think most people really care one way or the other,
|
Who said anything has to be more accurate than a pre-election poll to have any validity?
Of course we don't know exactly until we're asked properly. That's the whole point. 25% was just a feeling I get from the world - AC seems to think it's nearer 50%, you think it's nearer 0%.
There are plenty of signs if you look. Even the royally brainwashed BBC gave quite extensive coverage to Graham Smith and his organisation's arguments yesterday.
|
>>What I find sick is that she seems to be celebrating the early death of her father.
Really? Because that level of rationality wouldn't reflect well on the rest of your thoughts.
|
Well I don't see your logic there NF but in all seriousness I'd be interested in your thoughts on jobs for life in relation to this matter. I recall you saying that someone in a job for more than a certain amount of time was always a bad thing and people should be moved on frequently. Does that not apply to the Head of State? Is it another case of special pleading for the role? Is this length of tenure in the role not in and of itself an indication that something is wrong?
What does the management consultant in you think?
|
>>Well I don't see your logic there NF
You are saying that it is sick that she is celebrating her Father's death. That's just silly. Utterly ridiculous.
Your objection is not really that someone holds that job for life, your objection seems to be that the job exists at all.
You wouldn't be happier if the incumbent moved on every two years, so why bring it up? Or are you, like the "sick" comment, just grasping for anything you can throw?.
You are so amazingly bitter and resentful about the whole thing that I can only assume that you were abused by a Queen in another life.
|
>>>> Your objection is not really that someone holds that job for life, your objection seems
>> to be that the job exists at all.
Where did you get that from? The job as I see it is Head of State. If that were a position up for election every few years I'd be more than happy. Waiting for someone to die and passing it to their children is the issue I have with it.
You can keep on calling then Kings and Queens if you like, so long as they're elected and anyone non-political can stand.
Do you want to discuss this sensibly or just play the man?
She's proud of herself, obviously, with this "achievement". It has only happened because her father died young. Personally, I prefer to lay some flowers for my dad and have a little cry.
But that's not the main point and yes, it's not really pertinent to the big issue. I'd still like your management consultant's take on the job for life angle if you'd like to give it. If not, meh. It's just a discussion.
Last edited by: Alanović on Thu 10 Sep 15 at 11:02
|
> You can keep on calling then Kings and Queens if you like, so long as
>> they're elected and anyone non-political can stand.
A non politician in an election not sure a thing can exist.
>> She's proud of herself, obviously, with this "achievement". It has only happened because her father died young. Personally, I prefer to lay some flowers for my dad and have a little cry.
What a bizarre way you see things when it comes to the royals.
|
>> A non politician in an election not sure a thing can exist.
Doesn't seem like an impossible dream to me. Besides, an election is exactly that. Choose who we want. Put Prince Charles up against Tony Blair and he'd win, wouldn't he? If not, suck it up.
But the main point is that it wouldn't need to be a political role in the way it is in France or the USA. More like the Irish model would be better. If we need one at all, that is.
|
>>
>> >> A non politician in an election not sure a thing can exist.
>>
>> Doesn't seem like an impossible dream to me.
sounds it to me, like a non competitive sportsman. Doesn't make much sense to me.
|
|
sooty, the person can be a politician (it doesn't have to be though), but the role can be non-political. Just as the hereditary HoS we currently have is non-political. What's so hard to understand?
|
|
Elections are political by definition. Those standing are therefore politicians.
|
So what? Hereditary monarchs are therefore hereditary.
I prefer elected over hereditary. Call it political if you like. It makes no difference.
|
>> So what? Hereditary monarchs are therefore hereditary.
>>
>> Call it political if you like. It makes no difference.
>>
That didn't even make sense. You're arguing against your self now.
|
"A non politician in an election not sure a thing can exist."
Well, we have any number of celebs we could choose from ............ er, the mind boggles. Personally, I'd go for Carol the breakfast weather-girl.
|
>> Well, we have any number of celebs we could choose from ............ er, the mind
>> boggles. Personally, I'd go for Carol the breakfast weather-girl.
>>
An excellent choice I if I may say so, Sir. Evidently a man of a certain age. I'd prefer Mylene Klaas.
What about Ranulph Fiennes? Steve Redgrave? Richard Branson? Tim Berners-Lee? Charles Windsor? OK, I'm kidding with the last one. Pales in comparison with the others.
|
|
I still ask - "Why do we have a head of state at all?"
|
>> I can only assume that you were abused by a Queen in another life.
Oo-er missus.
|
>> What I find sick is that she seems to be celebrating the early death of
>> her father. That's the only reason she's passed this "milestone".
>>
>> Grim.
Grim? Nah - whats grim is you using that a justifiable pretence to whine (again) about the monarchy.
|
>> Grim? Nah - whats grim is you using that a justifiable pretence to whine (again)
>> about the monarchy.
>>
If it wasn't perpetually shoved in our faces by a fawning, credulous press (Witchell!! Gah! Even the Windsors hate him) and gobbled up by the blank-eyed, flag waving unwashed I'd have less opportunity to do so.
Anyway, you lot will love this little story. I really shouldn't tell you, you'll get too much pleasure out of it, but there you go, I'm kind hearted and can't resist spreading a little joy, even at my own expense. One of my children was photographed chatting with a royal at an event and it was published in Hello magazine a few months ago. My entire family is cock-a-hoop over the incident and many copies were purchased and distributed globally. Much glee and amusement for my royalist relatives, who are in no doubt as to my views on the matter. Especially those who have been personal guests to private dinners with the Prince of Wales on several occasions in past decade or so. Still, they don't hold it against me nor I against them. We're a happy crew.
There you go. Laugh it up.
|
>> What I find sick is that she seems to be celebrating the early death of
>> her father.
That is exceptionally warped.
If she'd taken over the running of her father's business on his death... and had successfully run it for 63 years, no one would ever say she was 'celebrating her father's death', any reasonable person would say she was celebrating a 63 year achievement.
Well that is exactly what this is. You don't have to like her personally or the Royal family to be able to recognise that.
Anything else is a severe form of sour grapes for some unknown reason.... and wholly unnecessary.
|
I read that as "Queen passes millstone" and I thought, no wonder she's been on the throne so long.
:}
|
Shame she didn't wear a new outfit today. I saw her at a local station nearly 2 years ago in the same outfit.
www.friendsofheatonchapelstation.co.uk/sites/default/files/17%20Queen%20Duke%20vi.jpg
I say well done to her!
Last edited by: rtj70 on Wed 9 Sep 15 at 22:47
|
>> One of the more disgraceful internet sites had
>> a cut-and-paste figure of the Queen lying in the lap of her ancestor on the
>> Victoria memorial, waving and saying: 'Who's the ****** Daddy now?'
And:
www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/celebrity/queen-wants-no-fuss-in-case-people-realise-what-a-massive-blag-it-all-is-20150909101800
Last edited by: Webmaster on Tue 6 Oct 15 at 08:59
|
|
Ultimately we are all in our jobs because someone else has died.
|
Two posters I think have wondered why we need a head of state, while others seem to imagine that any old celeb will do and that a popular one would be best.
Such childishness is almost beyond belief.
|
Such failure to spot ironing under your nose is even more beyond belief.
Lovely lovely Queens and beautiful Princesses is what is childish. Disneyland. Save it for little girls' bedtime stories.
|
>> Such failure to spot ironing under your nose is even more beyond belief.
Now there's a phrase I've not heard before. What does it mean?
|
I meant irony. I have no idea why I typed ironing. Maybe it's my repressed abuse at the hands of a Queen in a previous life (easily the most ludicrous comment ever made in the history of internet forums - how's that for hyperbole).
Although thinking about it, irony wasn't the best word. It was probably sarcasm.
|
|
I genuinely thought you meant "ironing". I even googled it. I need a rest.
|
|
Snigger. Turn up anything interesting?
|
-Turn up anything interesting?
Not much. One bloke who had hurt himself ironing his waxed nmoustache was about the best.
|
Tsk. Silly fellow.
Don't waste energy arguing with me. Just try to understand the nature of the state, and the open-ended complexity of any attempt to tinker with its rusty old machinery.
Nearly half the population thinks it has republican views like yours Alanović. If they are sincerely held, perhaps one day soon you will have your wish and we will abolish the monarchy by plebiscite. Then you can move on to something else in a slightly thinner, less amusing world, and so on until the whole thing is a boring bureaucratic mishmash, 1984-style. Not reason but clacking rationality.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Thu 10 Sep 15 at 14:41
|
|
'Spect I'll be long gorn by then, AC. Still, I enjoy making a racket about it whilst I'm here.
|
>> I enjoy making a racket about it whilst I'm here.
No harm in that.
It's easier intellectually to criticize the institution of monarchy than it is to defend it. I'm not accusing you of taking the easy option however.
|
|
Long live Queenie. My missus and I support the Monarchy. If Republicans don't like it then they don't have to live here.
|
>>. If Republicans don't like it then they don't have to live here. <<
Well done for saying what I wanted to say since the start of this post:)
Pat
|
>> If Republicans don't like it then they don't have to live here.
>>
Frankly, a rather silly response to possibly valid criticism. One could make the same reply to any comment on any of this nation's institutions.
I am not sure where I stand on the question of Republic v Monarchy. You only have to say 'President Blair' to me to make me an 'in your face' Monarchist.
However, imagine, if you will, perhaps a Monty Python sketch.:-
We have just learnt to walk upright, we have the power of speech, we are starting to come out of the cave, so we have a conference to decide how we are going to govern ourselves.
So after lots of head scratching, someone says "Eureka! I've got it. Fred over there, he has got more stones than anyone else, he must be our leader. His family, his descendants, must rule us for ever. Regardless of ability, suitability, aptitude, intelligence.
How do you think that would go down? What do you mean, you don't like it?
Well then, how about President Blair?
Or President Zero?
Or President No FM2R?
Or President AC?
President Duncan would be good, but, you know what, I think I will stick with the very flawed system that we have now.
|
Exactly, but you don't complain bitterly about the present system at every single opportunity, do you?
If someone feels so strongly, then other choices are available.
Courage and convictions spring to mind.
Pat
|
>>Queen passes milestone
Being a German, married to a Greek, she will have been sphincterally prepared to be able to do such deeds.
If fact I'm sure she could even pass a millstone.
|
>> Being a German, married to a Greek, she will have been sphincterally prepared to be able to do such deeds.
>> If fact I'm sure she could even pass a millstone.
What a charming piece of informed medical insight. I predict an order to become the new royal physician.
|
>> Long live Queenie. My missus and I support the Monarchy. If Republicans don't like it then they don't have to live here.
>>
I prefer the status quo but i think it's a good thing people try and change things they don't like rather than copping out and leaving. Many people have achieved all sorts by standing by what they believe in and changing something. I quite admire them.
|
Damn well said, sooty. I utterly resent the invitations to leave the country of my birth.
All those who have expressed that warped view should be prepared to say they stand behind the principle and execution of every institution this country has. Otherwise they too should be invited to leave.
Should Pankhurst have left Britain because she didn't like one aspect of its establishment? How would you like to live in a Britain here women don't have the vote, Pat, because everyone who didn't like some aspects of our governance upped and went elsewhere instead of arguing their case?
|
I flat out disagree with Al, I think he bangs on about it too much, and I think he's irrational on the subject.
But its his right to be so and thank goodness he does. People harping on about things that they think are wrong is what begins change. And sometimes change is needed.
How can anybody think that "leave the country if you don't like it" is a valid response or thought. Is that really the country you want, where anybody who disagrees with the system is expected to leave the country?
I struggle to explain why that is such a ridiculous stance to take.
I presume you also believe that Farage should leave? I mean, he bangs on and on about the current structure so clearly he should go.
What about all those people going on and on about how the electoral system should be changed to proportional representation? Clearly through the door right now.
Actually when you think about it, we should be able to get shot of so many people that we'll be able to take loads more immigrants, since the Country will no longer be "full". And presumably that'll be fine since when asked why they are changing countries they can say "I didn't like the system where I was so I had to leave".
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 11 Sep 15 at 10:29
|
>> I prefer the status quo
Which one? Francis Rossi or Rick Parfitt?
;)
|
I have observed that republic vs monarchy debate often turns into a heated argument!
I am in the republican camp. I think monarchy is an archaic concept. But I don't lose my sleep over it. We have many other complex issues to solve.
Often the pro-monarch group cite following arguments against which I counter argue.
1. Monarchy brings revenues via tourism.
There is no proof that tourists would not come if monarchy were not there. Many other countries which don't have monarchy attract more tourists. So, this is not a strong argument to support monarchy. Tourists rarely see the monarchs, they rather to come to see the palaces etc. which can still be tourist attractions without the monarchs.
2. What would have happened if Blair were president?
Blair was elected PM. He was no saint but people of the country elected him/his party twice. It was electorals' fault that they chose a poor leader. Also, an elected PM/president can't rule the nation for life! But a bad monarch can reign for life! So, the advantage of an elected head of state is that he/she can be removed from position after certain period of time. Also, election encourages social mobility. In theory, all of us can become prime minister (if we are able to brainwash enough people). Monarchy is affront to social mobility.
|
|
Blair won three general elections - that's one more than George W Bush and David Cameron combined.
|
>> Blair won three general elections - that's one more than George W Bush and David
>> Cameron combined.
Actually thats wrong. George W bush 2, + David Cameron 1 = 3
|
>> Actually thats wrong. George W bush 2, + David Cameron 1 = 3
Bush only won one. His 2000 victory was a fix where the actual winner, by the thickness of a hanging chad, was Gore.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 11 Sep 15 at 11:52
|
>> Bush only won one. His 2000 victory was a fix where the actual winner, by
>> the thickness of a hanging chad, was Gore.
>>
Rubbish.
Bush won:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
It may well have been very close, but he won legitimately.
|
>> It may well have been very close, but he won legitimately.
A 5-4 decision in a country where appointments to the Supreme Court are political stretches my definition of legitimately.
|
>> A 5-4 decision in a country where appointments to the Supreme Court are political stretches
>> my definition of legitimately.
>>
Oh, I see. The whole system is not legitimate, so therefore their court rulings count for nothing.
Are there any other court rulings you disagree with, or is it just the ones that you don't approve of the outcome?
|
>> Oh, I see. The whole system is not legitimate, so therefore their court rulings count
>> for nothing.
I don't approve of political appointments to the judiciary. US administrations of both stripes have sought to leave a legacy in the Supreme Court. Appointment is via Presidential nomination with consent of the Senate. Tenure is effectively for life.
It undermines the credibility of court's decisions in any number of cases this one included.
How would you feel about the UK Supreme Court if two thirds of its Members had been nominated by Tony Blair and confirmed by a Commons with a Labour majority?
|
|
I guess it all tends to level itself out in the long run. Many of the appointments have turned out to have very real mind of their own and very contrary to the views of the appointing president As once appointed they cannot be removed they are not really under political control.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Fri 11 Sep 15 at 16:38
|
>> I don't approve of political appointments to the judiciary.
Neither do I, however it's what they've got and they are a democracy... plus, there's no doubt parts of our system that they don't like.
>> US administrations of both stripes have
>> sought to leave a legacy in the Supreme Court. Appointment is via Presidential nomination with
>> consent of the Senate. Tenure is effectively for life.
Yes... and for a President to get his nomination past the senate there's a considerable amount of horse trading.. and... being an effective for life thing, when there's a vacancy to fill, the next team could easily be in power to get the chance to balance it.
>> It undermines the credibility of court's decisions in any number of cases this one included.
Potentially... however, I also think you are negating the integrity of the individual judges.
>> How would you feel about the UK Supreme Court if two thirds of its Members
>> had been nominated by Tony Blair and confirmed by a Commons with a Labour majority?
I would think it was 'p' poor.
|
|
If it had declared for Al gore 5-4 would you think the legitimacy of the whole thing still questionable.
|
Hang on a minute, you're trying to compare chalk to cheese.
The monarchy is part of this country's culture. It's right back down to our roots.
Would you want to live in a country where you so vehemently disagreed with it's culture, I wouldn't.
I wouldn't advocate changing it either, it's differences like this that make the world such a wide and interesting place.
Pat
|
That's not much of an argument Pat. France used to have a monarch, so did Germany. Neither does today but both seem civilized enough to me.
Slavery used to be part of our culture. We've lost touch with that. Is that a pity?
|
>>That's not much of an argument Pat<<
That's because I have neither the time or the inclination to argue about it.
On the other hand if I find something offensive I say so.
If I was HM it would be 'Off with his head' quick sharp.
Pat
|
|
Slavery was part of the country's culture.
|
|
I have heard that slavery was part of our culture.
|
|
You say that, but what about slavery?
|
Actually slavery was not part of English culture, at least for the past eight or nine hundred years and indeed the abolition of the slave trade and later slavery in the colonies was legally founded on the fact that slavery was not part of English culture or law.
|
Maybe so, but plenty of British citizens made hefty profits out of slavery overseas. And it's just one example among many of unsavoury attitudes that used to be part of our culture and that - in common with other civilized countries (a status for which the USA can apply once it abolishes the death penalty) - we have left behind us.
Starkey's 'Elizabeth the Silent' comment probably points out the queen's recognition that a politically discreet monarchy is the only kind that will survive in a modern nation. No doubt the bowing and similar archaisms will disappear one by one under succeeding generations.
|
>> No doubt the bowing and similar archaisms will disappear one by one under succeeding generations.
Are they archaisms? The deference is to the institution, not the individual.
|
|
Yes, but those are archaic ways of showing deference to anything or anyone. It's a while since I saw anyone curtsy in the street, but it used to happen.
|
Mark Steel. Always excellent.
All agree that her greatest achievement has been to maintain the monarchy as a force that’s both “modern and relevantâ€. You could argue – if you were a bit treasonish – that it’s not entirely modern to require everyone who meets you to bow or curtsy, and to have titles such as “Duchy of the Fiefdom of Wessex and Constable of the Reeveship of the Grand Inquisition of Middle Earthâ€.
|
Not my favourite comedian. Alwasy a bit predictable and "right on" in his humour.
Actually the Queen would be quite happy witha simple handshake.
"There are no obligatory codes of behaviour when meeting The Queen or a member of the Royal Family, but many people wish to observe the traditional forms.
For men this is a neck bow (from the head only) whilst women do a small curtsy. Other people prefer simply to shake hands in the usual way."
Form the website of the British Monarchy.
|
Queen passes milestone - Robin O'Reliant
