For an American, weddings of British Royalty seem like a good show.
America really has nothing like a Royal wedding. Ornate carriages drawn by perfectly matched horses. All sorts of colorful uniforms with long pedigrees, including the one the groom wears. A ceremony in one of England’s ancient magnificent churches.
PG can’t think of any sort of analog in American culture. The Rose Parade with the Ohio State University marching band and a fly-over by the Blue Angels might be visually and audibly impressive, but doesn’t have the dignified weight of ages behind it.
PG sends best wishes to all visitors from Britain and hopes the long succession of royal pageantry will continue into the future and the individuals who happen to be royalty will carry it forward with dignity and grace.
PG is obviously forgetting when Superman married Lois Lane
Oh, wait until Bruce Wayne and Selina Kyle follow suit.
Probably sometime next year.
Heads will explode.
The value of the monarchy is that it prevents us from having a president. Britain doesn’t need an extra layer of politics: presidents, vice presidents, more politicians, more political reporters, more political commentators, and endless elections and campaigns.
Adding more layers of politics does not add more democracy—just more jabber. We already have a prime minister, and that’s enough. Also, the cost of a president is likely to be higher than a monarchy.
Well, I’ll keep our system, you keep yours. (Although I do envy that it is somewhat easier to fire non-performers in your country.)
I’m not sure where you got that idea, but no, it is not easier to fire non-performers. It may well be harder. The systems are so different it is difficult to make an exact comparison though.
Hasn’t the monarchy been around far longer than presidents?
Really, the worst disadvantage of the monarchy is that it gives us a prime minister with near enough unlimited dictatorial power*. All those medieval powers of absolute monarchy pretty much ended up in the hand of the prime minister.
* See the “civil contingent act 2004” for example.
The problem is party line voting, methinks.
in most parliamentary systems the seat belongs to the party, not the legislator, like in the US congressional system, where “voting your conscience” has been the tradition. Especially in the Senate which instituted the filibuster system to provide a buffer against the “tyranny of the 51%”.
Unfortunately, strict party line voting is migrating to the US system and it is not at all helpful when legislators are forced to toe the party line against their own judgement.
Somewhere along the line the career politicians have forgotten the US is a Federated Republic composed of semi-autonomous states, not a monolithic nation, and it only works when regional/minority points of view are respected, not steamrolled.
The difference between parliamentary and presidential is fading these days and growing ever smaller.
Somewhere along the line the career politicians have forgotten the US is a Federated Republic composed of semi-autonomous states, not a monolithic nation, and it only works when regional/minority points of view are respected, not steamrolled.”
Blame the 17th Amendment for that….
Pretty much.
http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_17th_amendment
“Amendment XVII (the Seventeenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution was passed by the Senate on June 12, 1911 and by the House on May 13, 1912. It was ratified on April 8, 1913 and was first put into effect for the election of 1914. It amends Article 1 Section 3 of the Constitution to provide for the direct election of Senators by the people of a state rather than their election or appointment by a state legislature, thus effectively eliminating state representation in Congress. It was passed and ratified during the Progressive Era. ”
And now they want to do away with the electoral college to finish the job and open the floodgates to unending populism.
electoral college, felix from your lips to those who have the power to do so. Seeing some of the ‘representatives’ of the electoral college, some of whom seem, well, let me be kind… unable to think clearly and inflated with their veddy veddy important sohort of votes. Yes. time for it to be gone. It’s hard to imagine how afeared the ‘founding fathers’ were of the votes of the people without putting in a dam.
Even with that buffers we’ve had our share of fools and idiots. Imagine the results without them: Huey Long, just to mention one.
The masses do not think straight, they merely feel and kneejerk, so we all get jerk-ed.
No, I do not favor removing the last buffer.
Venezuela lies down that road.
Populism is the achilles heel of all democracies and they will only endure as long as it is kept at bay.
This century we’ve had five populist campaigns for the WH. The first two failed miserably and rightly so. The second didn’t even make it through the primaries. The last three unfortunately succeeded. That is NOT a good trend, not if both parties go populist. That way lies Puerto Rico.
Mob rule is not good and it needs resisting, not encouraging.
The wisdom of crowds is most unwise.
I thought Huey Long was current man at the top’s elder brother, lol Felix
I think the people do often think straight, but also would agree that far too many can be led… for purposes of not being shunned, being proselytized since young, for membersp in the tribe, because relijun says so, etc.
I wonder sometimes if issue is not being a truthseeker, not being a thinking person with discernment, or not having thoughtful leaders for various segments of the people.
Have to agree that some are still beating chests wanting not honour for country, but fama for themselves– to be talked about . Some weird hunger that benefits no nation.
I believe I see every day rational considerations in most people. I cant say for sure. But I think those who are more considered about the better for all still outnumber those who want to drive the hogs over the edge in order to avoid what they find not to their taste in specifics or in general.
Aside from all else. November in which there is no electoral college, will be most interesting. Thanks Felix.
That can be fixed without getting rid of the monarchy. If enough people wish it.
In a previous thread, there was talk of where Harry stood in the line of succession. I am no expert, but hasn’t he removed himself from the line by marrying Meghan Markle, a divorced woman?
His great-uncle Edward abdicated the throne to marry a divorced American, because the church refused to consent to such a marriage. I am certain his grandmother knows this.
Can anyone shed any light on this?
Harry would probably love to be removed from his royal obligations but the Anglican church and royal protocol have moved on. Divorcees are no longer an issue.
Neither is her mixed heritage.
He’s still in the line of succession so none of the post-apocalyptic novels where he ends up as the last of his line and serving as a ruling King are voided.
Considering that the heir to the throne is himself a divorced man, no, it is no impediment to his being in the line of succession but at 6th in line it is highly unlikely to be an issue. There are other matters that, if it came to that, might be a far larger issue.
If he were removed form his royal obligations he’d have to give up all that nice money and all that lavish lifestyle, so I am skeptical he’d have any such desire.
Last I heard Harry and William are both wealthy on their mother’s side. The Spencers aren’t exactly paupers and Diana left them both nice 8-figure trust funds.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2162474/Prince-William-expected-inherit-10million-Dianas-estate-turns-30-today.html
They are hardly leaches living off the dole.
If they aren’t leaches living off the dole, then they should stop taking money from the public purse, but I don’t see them giving back the thirty million that their security cost for the wedding, the countless millions his security cost while he was swanning about playing soldier whilst guarded by an SAS contingent, etc. Take a look at how much the royal family (yes, the royal family is wealthy in their own ‘right’ even though most of that was originally stolen, the Spencer’s money is nothing compared to that) takes from the public purse and then try saying that with a straight face.
I wonder what Alfie Evans thought of the royal Wedding…
It’s all a matter of perspective. I can’t imagine what the final bill was for ’45’s’ ascension to the big chair. Or any ‘do’ that involves the peeps at the top of the food chain.
The American reaction to the royal wedding bemuses me, in a country which Blanches at any hint of socialism, I would think that A taxpayer funded wedding would be the exact idea that Americans would want to avoid, but I don’t know.
And it’s not as if I dis like the monarchy, I think they great for Britain’s tourist industry and it would be a shame if we lost them, I just wish they would pay for more of their own stuff, they are after all multibillionaires at this point.
* grumble grumble*
Ah but you forget: a good portion of the eastern establishment pines for an American monarchy. (Think CAMELOT. Or Obama-lot. The Adams, Roosevelt, and Bush dynasties.)
Fantasizing about the British royals is a harmless way for them to get their vicarious thrills and get it out of tbe system for a while.
The fascination with European aristos isn’t terribly new (Grace Kelly!) or limited to the political elites. The masses fantasize too, albeit a bit differently. Early in the 20th is was an object of amusement for quite a few authors.
Off the top of my head: Edgar Rice Burroughs played that in that space a lot. (There’s a reason Tarzan is a british peer.) He really rubbed it in in THE RIDER, one of his earlier works, to great effect. A fun little romcom piece of fluff.
Even today, there’s a reason Regency Romances and Galactic Empires are so popular… 😀
Also, exactly. 😀
I would think that A taxpayer funded wedding would be the exact idea that Americans would want to avoid, but I don’t know.
Avoid it? It’s not their tax money.
I’m sure any british royalists out there can contribute their opinion of the value of their monarchy.
I will merely point out that our last emperor’s inaugural rang up a bill for US$170M plus a few trillion in added national debt to be paid by somebody’s grandkids when the can reaches the end of the road.
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/Inauguration/president-obama-inauguration-cost-170-million/story?id=6665946
The current one rang up a bill for US$175M and the one before US$130M. Or one royal UK wedding less.
Of today’s events all I know is the bride is cute, a fairly decent actress (having seen her at work), and the groom an honorable soldier willing to go into harm’s way for his country and respected by his peers.
I’m hardly holding a party or even watching but I do believe there are plenty worse things being celebrated or funded by taxpayer money. My money, come to think of it.
I’m not particularly concerned by any of it.
If I’m to bring up actual concerns, there’s a dozen or so families in Texas I would be more worried about.
It’s a crappy world out there.
Exactly!
That prince ‘went in harms way’ with a huge contingent of SAS guarding him at tremendous cost.
I can understand someone in the US being more concerned about some families in Texas, but in the UK these people actually do have both huge wealth and power. I know a lot of people think they no longer have power, but they do. Well, not Harry actually, but the Queen and the Prince of Wales do, not to mention that they are a huge cost to the public purse.
thanks for the gravitas Felix: re families. You are correct. Literally thousands.
Thank God we have nothing of the sort. I am sure that ‘with dignity and grace’ they will carry on their ostentatious lifestyle as long as the public purse will fund it – to the tune of about £30 million for this particular instance. And of course, to guarantee that it has proper dignity and grace the homeless of Windsor are having their possessions seized and being swept quietly out of sight by the English police.
ETA: That 30 million pounds is in addition to the three million or so that the royal family is paying. I will give you that we all have varying definitions of dignity and grace. I don’t include obscene ostentation in my definition.
Thank God we have nothing of the sort.
Thank God the Brits provide it for the Americans who like the show. They really do it well.
Thank God, we have nothing of the sort. Yes, they will carry it on with poise and grace, spending £30 million pounds out of the public purse to fund this particular example of their ostentatious lifestyle.
You know, if the nobility and royalty disappeared from England tomorrow, there would be an immediate slew of media bankruptcies following.
People need to remember that they don’t have anything like Hollywood over there. That is our concentration of useless drones with ostentatious and scandalous lifestyles.
(Yes, their theater types are just as bad as ours – but they’re thinner on the ground.)
Along those lines:
The vintage Jaguar (loaner) that Harry drove to the reception before a billion viewers or so isn’t vintage at all, but rather a Jaguar prototype/technology demo meant to promote their upcoming all-electric SUV.
https://www.autoblog.com/2018/05/19/prince-harry-meghan-markle-electric-jaguar-royal-wedding/
That’s a pretty good bit of product placement worth ten to a hundred times the price of the car. Which can be special ordered for around $500K. Expect a few Saudi and asian billionaires to be queuing up for one.
Also of note: it is a left-hand drive car. 🙂
For comparison, super bowl ads run US$5M for 30 seconds.
Jaguar got themselves a good deal there.