|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2964 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Queen Elizabeth and the U.K.? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3268 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined:
|
But then whose voice would Attenborough himself use.....? He could use Stephen Fry's voice. Stephen Fry could use the Queen's voice. The Queen could use Stephen Hawking's. There. Solved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
But then whose voice would Attenborough himself use.....?
His own, of course. However, he would run the risk of being confused with a Stephen Hawking impersonator. Imagine the hilarity of someone at the pub telling Attenborough, "Hey, you sound just like that wheelchair chap".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Taq writes:
Or... You could combine forces and have Stephen Hawking use Attenborough's voice. That would be awesome. Stephen Hawking's intelligence.David Attenborough's voice. Stephen Fry's wit. George Best's alcohol tolerance. Joanna Lumley's legs and Patrick Moore's xylophone! I think I have created ... a monster. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2964 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
-
Tangle writes: Sort of like what happened in the American colony awhile back?
Oh yes, lots of sharp pointy things and fire. Muskets have been used I believe, but that was on foreigners so would probably be deemed inapropriate. Some blood. And shouting, lots of shouting. Then you need to find a guy from Lewes, East Sussex, to write some fine words. Preferrably using the word freedom rather too much.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Panda writes: Stephen Hawking's intelligence.David Attenborough's voice. Stephen Fry's wit. George Best's alcohol tolerance. Joanna Lumley's legs and Patrick Moore's xylophone! I think I have created ... a monster. Your unholy conglomerate gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "the royal we".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Try it yourself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUuRXchGfS0Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2964 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
I would have thought that this had come up in your political science classes. The question of a government's legitimacy and the source of every government official's authority. I wasn't really asking about the legitimacy of the monarch. Just trying to get an explanation from UK as to why they would want a "Royal" person. Seems kind of outdated. I would never be able to call another human being, Your Royal highness. What the heck is "Royal" about any monarch?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I wasn't really asking about the legitimacy of the monarch. Just trying to get an explanation from UK as to why they would want a "Royal" person. Oh, well, in that case I'm not entirely sure. Except, I guess, the Queen is a symbol. Why do Americans get all upset when people burn the flag? It's only a piece of cloth. But when things become symbolic, they become emotionally conflated with the things they symbolize.
I would never be able to call another human being, Your Royal highness. I don't think that that form of address is actually required, but if it was, you might still find it within your powers to do that if it was a choice between that and being rude to an old lady. But beside that, she does have the symbolic value I referred to. She is, albeit by mechanisms we might not entirely approve of, the British Head of State. If there are rules that say how you should behave towards her, and you break them, you are "dissing" Britain and representing your nation as uncouth. A British person who thinks that the American constitution is stupid and who would have rather voted for McCain if he had the choice should still address Obama as "Mr. President" rather than "you dumb n*****", shouldn't he? --- because to do otherwise would be taken as an affront to the whole nation, and the people who would so take it would include 99% of the people who don't want him to be President. Their personal respect for him might be at rock-bottom, but they would still demand that he should be shown proper respect as Head of State.
What the heck is "Royal" about any monarch? What? Er ... being a monarch. That makes them royal. This is true just by definition. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1534 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined:
|
I like the Queen. I am an American but have always admired the British. Pomp and circumstance, traditions, ceremony it's all interesting and entertaining to me and many Americans. I am of Scottish roots and don the kilt from time to time, I think it is important to have such links to the past. Pride in our roots is a good thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
http://nerdnirvana.org/.../queen-elizabeth-ii-presidents.jpg
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : de-hotlinked
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Boof Member (Idle past 276 days) Posts: 99 From: Australia Joined: |
Straggler writes: It's not like we are all desperately wishing that the leader of our government was also head of our state. God no! But then again I'm not keen on separate elections for this post either. Best off just appointing our most recently retired (and successful - no losers) cricket captain methinks. Edited by Boof, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: It's not like we are all desperately wishing that the leader of our government was also head of our state. Boof writes: God no! All in this thread seem to agree that having a head of state that isn't the political leader of the day is a good thing.
Boof writes: But then again I'm not keen on separate elections for this post either. That does make selection rather difficult. Unless hereditary "selection" remains in place.
Boof writes: Best off just appointing our most recently retired (and successful - no losers) cricket captain methinks. Ricky Ponting as the head of state at formal banquets and suchlike. The mind boggles!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
But then again I'm not keen on separate elections for this post either. That does make selection rather difficult. Unless hereditary "selection" remains in place. We already manage to select Lords and judges without voting them in. Though there are reforms being bandied about to make it more democratic. Selection can be done in any number of ways. It could be done on the mutual agreement of Parliament. There could be an independent committee. Or maybe some exceptional quality like making the head of state the person whose peer reviewed work has the biggest impact factor.
All in this thread seem to agree that having a head of state that isn't the political leader of the day is a good thing. The real question is, should the head of state be a lifelong position determined by birth? I can think of only one good reason why it should: A lifelong duty means one can get rather good at it. But it's hardly a guarantee of sufficient competence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2964 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes:
A British person who thinks that the American constitution is stupid and who would have rather voted for McCain if he had the choice should still address Obama as "Mr. President" rather than "you dumb n*****", shouldn't he? --- because to do otherwise would be taken as an affront to the whole nation, and the people who would so take it would include 99% of the people who don't want him to be President. Their personal respect for him might be at rock-bottom, but they would still demand that he should be shown proper respect as Head of State. The biggest difference between the American president and the queen is that the american president has earned the title, not born into it.Your republican primary thread shows how much the republicans running for the nomination respect the position. My personal opinon is that they are idiots, with Rommney being the least harmful of them. but that's off thread. Dr Adequate writes:
Er ... being a monarch. That makes them royal. This is true just by definition. I guess that't my biggest problem with any monarchary.It's a title given not earned.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024