Page 11 of 29 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 290
Thanks Tree233Thanks

Thread: British royals.

  1. #101
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    67,537
    Thanks
    48804

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkady View Post
    I get particularly annoyed by Americans who bow and scrape to the monarch of England, and fawn over them in exchange for honorary knighthoods. Screw that. Our ancestors fought and died to be free of that corrupt institution. It's a hideous betrayal to be obsequious to it now. If I ever had the opportunity to, say, have an audience with the queen, I'd flatly decline, because I refuse to surrender my dignity, and the dignity of my nation, to the extent needed to interact with her in the way that British protocol demands (e.g., not speaking to her unless spoken to, not turning my back to her, etc.) My ancestors fought for the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, and I'm not going to betray that notion, even just symbolically.
    As an American, I would never bow and scrape to Queen Elizabeth, but I would tell her that I'm honored to meet her and that I admire her. Also, you behave as though the Brits and the British monarchy continue to treat Americans as they did in the 1700 and 1800s. I think our founders would be glad we have such a good relationship with the UK and would expect that respect be given the monarchy for what they are and represent today. Had the monarchy been as decent and respectful to America and Americans then as they are now, we would be Brits today.
    Thanks from Leo2, Wonderer, MaryAnne and 1 others

  2. #102
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    67,537
    Thanks
    48804

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    If we had had photographs back in the day, perhaps you would care to compare photographs of our majestic George Washington with your half-mad King George III.

    That comparison, of course, would not go so well for you.

    I have some British aristocratic ancestry myself. One of my ancestors was Sir John Franklin, who was the leader of an ill-fated Arctic expedition to find the Northwest Passage, which has now become the subject of a TV horror mini-series called The Terror, based upon a rather eerie book of the same name by Colorado based author Dan Simmons. Sir John was a Rear Admiral in the British Navy, who was probably 'in over his head' as the leader of that expedition.....Shrug.
    Queen Elizabeth is no King George III and that is what many of you are missing.

  3. #103
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    30,731
    Thanks
    25876

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Babba View Post
    Queen Elizabeth is no King George III and that is what many of you are missing.
    Um, I wasn't saying she was. What I AM saying is that with a monarchy, you take your chances, obviously. You can get a decent monarch, or you can get a just plain AWFUL one, like King George III. Or like, say, Ivan the Terrible in Russia. Or Marie Antoinette in France. Why would ANY enlightened society want to roll the dice like that?!?

  4. #104
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    67,537
    Thanks
    48804

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    Um, I wasn't saying she was. What I AM saying is that with a monarchy, you take your chances, obviously. You can get a decent monarch, or you can get a just plain AWFUL one, like King George III. Or like, say, Ivan the Terrible in Russia. Or Marie Antoinette in France. Why would ANY enlightened society want to roll the dice like that?!?
    But the British monarchy doesn't have the power that King George or Ivan the Terrible or King Louis had. They fixed all that. That's why I don't understand why the current British monarchy bothers you so much. While the British monarchy and the current monarch doesn't have the power it once had it and she can still be respected.

  5. #105
    Vexatious Correspondent Leo2's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,714
    Thanks
    3545

    From
    UK/Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    If we had had photographs back in the day, perhaps you would care to compare photographs of our majestic George Washington with your half-mad King George III.

    That comparison, of course, would not go so well for you.

    I have some British aristocratic ancestry myself. One of my ancestors was Sir John Franklin, who was the leader of an ill-fated Arctic expedition to find the Northwest Passage, which has now become the subject of a TV horror mini-series called The Terror, based upon a rather eerie book of the same name by Colorado based author Dan Simmons. Sir John was a Rear Admiral in the British Navy, who was probably 'in over his head' as the leader of that expedition.....Shrug.
    You presume too much, my friend - the comparison would go perfectly well with me. George III was not insane - he was reputedly suffering from a group of disorders that result from a buildup of natural chemicals that produce porphyrin in your body. Porphyrins are essential for the function of haemoglobin a protein in your red blood cells that links to porphyrin, binds iron, and carries oxygen to your organs and tissues. High levels of porphyrins can cause significant problems.

    He was known as Farmer George and one of the most liked Monarchs of his time - having developed the common touch and an affinity to the rural working man. The ludicrous vitriol against him contained in your Declaration of Independence was an attempt to justify the high treason your founders were in the process of committing, and betrayed their own ignorance of their system of governance. It was the Prime Minister Lord North who was responsible for taxation and other matters pertaining to the colonies - the Monarch having had virtually no say in any governmental decisions since 1688 - when Parliament reigned supreme.

    And a Knight of the Realm is not part of the Peerage - it is a lifetime honour, and not passed from father to son. I, for example, am entitled to no such honours.

    As for George Washington - he is of considerable consequence to Americans (the benefactors of his treason) but without the assistance of funds, uniforms, and weapons coming from France from the very beginning (and the later full national support of the French nation,) he would be remembered as a rotting corpse winging from a Royal Naval yardarm. The French forces outnumbered the Continental Army by better than 3 to 1 at Yorktown.

  6. #106
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    36,802
    Thanks
    34335

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo2 View Post
    He was known as Farmer George and one of the most liked Monarchs of his time - having developed the common touch and an affinity to the rural working man. The ludicrous vitriol against him contained in your Declaration of Independence was an attempt to justify the high treason your founders were in the process of committing, and betrayed their own ignorance of their system of governance. It was the Prime Minister Lord North who was responsible for taxation and other matters pertaining to the colonies - the Monarch having had virtually no say in any governmental decisions since 1688 - when Parliament reigned supreme.

    I don't think that our Founders were ignorant of how the British government operated. They merely understood the political reality that their people, for the most part, hated the very idea of living under the rule of a King. The Declaration of Independence wasn't written for King George so much as it was written for those who would eventually become citizens of the USA.
    Thanks from Leo2, BigLeRoy and MaryAnne

  7. #107
    Vexatious Correspondent Leo2's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,714
    Thanks
    3545

    From
    UK/Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    Um, I wasn't saying she was. What I AM saying is that with a monarchy, you take your chances, obviously. You can get a decent monarch, or you can get a just plain AWFUL one, like King George III. Or like, say, Ivan the Terrible in Russia. Or Marie Antoinette in France. Why would ANY enlightened society want to roll the dice like that?!?
    With respect, you are overlooking the difference between Absolute Monarchy (think Saudi Arabia) and Constitutional Monarchy (think most northern European societies). Ivan the terrible, Henry VIII, and Louis XVI were examples of Absolute Monarchies - Elizabeth II and George III are not. And again with respect, could some of your Presidential choices (including the current incumbent) be really considered enlightened? All comparisons are said to be odious for a reason.
    Thanks from Babba and MaryAnne

  8. #108
    Above the FRAY Friday13's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    12,324
    Thanks
    15021

    From
    SoCal
    Quote Originally Posted by tnbskts View Post
    I just said why. It's hard to find another system where the head of state is simultaneously remotely relevant (I mean, where educated people around the world know his/her name) and separate from party politics. George Bush milked the whole Iraq War thing as a matter of patriotism for supporting it, and by extension the whole Republican response to it and to other things - conveniently managing to blur the line between his position as head of state and his position as the leader of the Republican Party and leading to a situation that was quite dangerous. When Tony Blair tried to do likewise people just laughed at him. We understand that the Prime Minister represents his party, he doesn't always represent his country. That's what the Queen is for.
    UpChuck and his Camel are next on deck (unless the queen comes to her senses and bypasses them in the succession in favor of Wills), and neither are intelligent or remotely interesting (except that he 'wanted to be her tampon'...yuck!). They are totally useless, tasteless, boring and worthless relics (IMO).

  9. #109
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    36,802
    Thanks
    34335

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo2 View Post
    With respect, you are overlooking the difference between Absolute Monarchy (think Saudi Arabia) and Constitutional Monarchy (think most northern European societies). Ivan the terrible, Henry VIII, and Louis XVI were examples of Absolute Monarchies - Elizabeth II and George III are not. And again with respect, could some of your Presidential choices (including the current incumbent) be really considered enlightened? All comparisons are said to be odious for a reason.

    Any American with two brain cells to rub together would admit that we fucked the proverbial goat when we elected our current incumbent. Still, I'll take my chances with elections over a "God appointed" genetic bloodline of heads of state.
    Thanks from BigLeRoy

  10. #110
    Above the FRAY Friday13's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    12,324
    Thanks
    15021

    From
    SoCal
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    There actually are Americans who think that God chose Donald Trump to lead America, which I find both frightening and appalling.
    Was that god Loki?

    Thanks from NightSwimmer and Arkady

Page 11 of 29 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 50
    Last Post: 10th April 2018, 02:12 PM
  2. Russian TV mocks Brit Royals
    By The Man in forum Current Events
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 15th March 2018, 03:43 AM
  3. KC Royals clubhouse hit by chickenpox
    By bajisima in forum Current Events
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2nd September 2015, 07:21 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed