|
Post by Zandrovia on Apr 29, 2011 2:30:48 GMT 10
All of the current, and rather disturbing, obsession with the “royal” wedding in Britain has brought to my attention how drastically lower the standards are today than they were at the time of Princess Diana. Has anyone else noticed that? I realize it is a lame duck monarchy, but still, what happened to proper etiquette and decorum?
Can anyone more familiar with the British crown explain to me how a commoner, of shall we say questionable virtue, can be Queen?
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Apr 29, 2011 6:17:13 GMT 10
The same way a boy of 'questionable virtue' can be king: by being born in the right place, at the right time, to the right parents.
There was never much 'virtue' associated with the British (or any other) hereditary monarchy.
The impression that there is is merely the residue of the comparatively prudish Victorian age.
For centuries before that a great many monarchs and their spawn were, to put it bluntly, dissolute reprobates.
|
|
|
Post by sogoln on Apr 29, 2011 9:15:40 GMT 10
I used to consider that there was only one proper place for a crowned head: at the end of a spear, but of course I was born French...
|
|
|
Post by Zandrovia on Apr 29, 2011 10:06:56 GMT 10
The same way a boy of 'questionable virtue' can be king: by being born in the right place, at the right time, to the right parents. There was never much 'virtue' associated with the British (or any other) hereditary monarchy. The impression that there is is merely the residue of the comparatively prudish Victorian age. For centuries before that a great many monarchs and their spawn were, to put it bluntly, dissolute reprobates. Well yes, indeed, Henry VIII certainly comes to mind there, not that I consider him to have been the rightful crown, of course, he did end up beheading a number of my ancesotrs, so I could be somewhat biased. However, the future queen being untitled as well as unvirtous, was neither born in the right place or time, so why have the standards dropped so low in such a short period of time is a question I find most curious at the moment. I just find it odd that he is marrying a commoner and no one seems to even notice.
|
|
|
Post by Zandrovia on Apr 29, 2011 10:08:44 GMT 10
I used to consider that there was only one proper place for a crowned head: at the end of a spear, but of course I was born French... Personally, I believe that the only legitimate form of government is a monarchy.
|
|
|
Post by sogoln on Apr 29, 2011 16:35:18 GMT 10
Personally, I believe that the only legitimate form of government is a monarchy. That's funny for the leader of a Socialist republic! Do you mean government by the grand-grand-grand-...-grand-children of a medieval wild bunch's alpha-male or the use of ermine-coated puppets to distract citizens from their actual responsibilities and make them believe that they belong to some nationalist conceptual group while the true leaders are quietly dealing with the real world for their own and sole benefit? ;D
|
|
|
Post by papapodjov on Apr 29, 2011 19:10:58 GMT 10
I used to consider that there was only one proper place for a crowned head: at the end of a spear, but of course I was born French... LOL, Top notch! The monarchy is I think a unifier in the divided nation that is the UK, or at least used as a unifying tool. I don't know if this could be argued also for the Commonwealth? I think others might comment on that. I'm also not sure that William marrying a 'commoner' is really a big deal. At the end of the day these people are.... people. Marrying Princess Stroganoff from some defunct Hungarian dynasty for international relation purposes is an old fashioned way of seeing things... maybe done 150 years ago. But wasn't the Queen Mother a 'commoner', and didn't some Prince marry a divorcee and abdicate his crown, though this wouldn't happen now... I'm not interested in the British monarchy so forgive my lack of facts, but in terms of how people see them, i think things are changing. I think they are seen as necessary (tourism, trade, pomp and decorative nonsense for foreign dignitaries ... and most importantly a major part of Brand Britain, Cool Britannia and other BS), but keeping them aloof and removed from their 'subjects' will only undermine them in the long term, so making them more 'real' by attending a good but accessible uni in Scotland, getting them relatively normal jobs in the armed forces, and getting them to talk to the press in informal and chatty ways keeps them relevant in the publics eye... the appearance of normality is the key... Incidentally I have a major difficulty with the term 'citizen' within the UK. They now do 'citizenship' classes in school, but UK citizens are in fact 'subjects'... Subjectivity classes anyone?
|
|
|
Post by Eoin Ursüm on Apr 30, 2011 1:27:23 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by papapodjov on Apr 30, 2011 2:04:41 GMT 10
That's quite interesting... and i stand corrected.... but i thought this odd... "British subjects, other than by those who obtained their status by virtue of a connection to the Republic of Ireland prior to 1949, automatically lose their British subject status on acquiring any other nationality, including British citizenship, under section 35 of the British Nationality Act 1981." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationality_law_and_the_Republic_of_IrelandA curious breed.... Irish citizens, yet british subjects... on application thanks
|
|
Peter
Administrator
Posts: 219
|
Post by Peter on Apr 30, 2011 6:17:41 GMT 10
1. There is no caste system in the UK; compared to other European monarchies, British monarchy has been always known for having a reasonable system of social mobility (i.e. you may ascend on the social ladder if you work hard / accomplish exceptional success in your field / are on the right place in the right time. And it is right. 2. The world will always be evolving and no one can change it. Constitutional monarchy is about careful evolution within the limits of common sense, not about rigidness for the sake of tradition. Only in this way can it be meaningful for a society. From this point of view, I believe the British royal family does quite well. I say this as a conservative and a monarchist. Footnote: A "monarchist" as a leader of a "socialist republic"?
|
|
|
Post by Zandrovia on May 2, 2011 12:59:49 GMT 10
Our official title was changed to the Kingdom of Zandrovia quite some time ago. We are indeed a monarchy, and a theocratic one at that.
I do need to update that pesky sig file.
|
|