British views on royalty?

Chat about anything not covered in these forums, but keep it civil!

Post » Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:56 pm

As a US citizen I've often wondered how folks in the UK feel about the royal family, and in particular all the hullabaloo that surrounds something like the royal wedding.

From what I know of the British political system (and that's admittedly not much), the royal family is pretty much not involved at all except in a ritualistic sense, yes? So from what I can see they're pretty much just a bunch of celebrities-by-birth.

Here in the US we have very mixed views on celebrity. On one side we have the tabloid-reading mouth breathers who get off on any and all celebrity gossip (including your royal family), and on the other we have the folks who just don't give a crap about any of that nonsense (if you can guess where I stand you win a cookie :P).

I can only imagine it's a bit of a similar situation over there in regards to your average, everyday celebrities. But the royal family is a bit of a unique specimen. Are they just another group of celebrities? Or do they instill a sense of patriotism? Are they beloved by all, or does a portion of the citizenry see them as archaic and unnecessary? Are they a model for other citizens to follow or just a nostalgic throwback to a bygone age?


Also including these because I thought they were funny (both are shots from the royal wedding):

My sentiments exactly, little girl...


Evolution at work: The larger and more ornate her antlers, the more likely she is to attract a mate.
Moderator
B
5
S
2
G
6
Posts: 4,348
Reputation: 10,971

Post » Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:59 pm

[quote:21dmdpdo]Evolution at work: The larger and more ornate her antlers, the more likely she is to attract a mate[/quote:21dmdpdo]

Lmao :lol: :lol:
Thats a good one.
B
22
S
3
G
6
Posts: 1,356
Reputation: 7,141

Post » Fri Apr 29, 2011 8:33 pm

Although living here, I'm not British so I probably can't speak on their behalf. Still, it's nice to have a day off for everyone to celebrate =]
"Construct 4 lets YOU make advanced games! (maybe)" Construct Classic - Examples Kit
B
86
S
28
G
13
Posts: 2,092
Reputation: 15,009

Post » Fri Apr 29, 2011 8:35 pm

[quote="Jayjay":1ehjhaxd]Still, it's nice to have a [u:1ehjhaxd]day off[/u:1ehjhaxd] for everyone to celebrate =][/quote:1ehjhaxd]


Boom! Answer found!
B
13
S
6
G
6
Posts: 144
Reputation: 3,106

Post » Fri Apr 29, 2011 9:08 pm

[quote:1st4gcho]Evolution at work: The larger and more ornate her antlers, the more likely she is to attract a mate.[/quote:1st4gcho]

Was going to say that's a nice rack, but it looks more like a door knocker to me.
Course there's another double entendre in there somewhere.
Image Image
B
161
S
48
G
90
Posts: 7,347
Reputation: 66,749

Post » Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:40 pm

That thing on her head. What is that I don't even
B
25
S
3
G
6
Posts: 1,197
Reputation: 5,620

Post » Fri Apr 29, 2011 11:16 pm

Welsh first, and British second.
I'm obviously proud to be Welsh, as most people should be about their birth country, and despite our unique 4 Countries in a Country setup, I'm still (for the main part) proud to be British.

The royal family isn't a reason.
I have no interest in anything they say or do, and the build-up to this wedding has been excruciating.
Our media seems to think that everyone is interested in them. :roll:

And you're right.
They're nothing more than a bunch of pampered celebrities.

Yawn!... :lol:

Krush.
B
2
S
2
G
3
Posts: 406
Reputation: 2,062

Post » Fri Apr 29, 2011 11:29 pm

My mum (hear me out) says they're basically an extension to the foreign office. They do a lot of diplomatic work and PR stuff overseas. Guess from that point of view it's not all bad...
Scirra Founder
B
359
S
214
G
72
Posts: 22,946
Reputation: 178,528

Post » Sat Apr 30, 2011 2:06 am

I'm not British, but I live in Britain. 5 years moved from Poland which was under cominists regime for around 5 decades ( which was shit btw) so i'm not veery attached to Royal Family and for me they are more like subjetcs of observation, but not interest. So I'm probably on the same boat as you deadeye. Hawever I've got loads of British mates so I've got some opinion on how they percive Royall Family. Some of them just lough, and say that's Britain is still a mediviel country, some others are proud of it and pumping their egos, and some don't care at all. I personly agree with Ashleys mom, however: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtUH2YSFlVU

Have I won a cookie? :)

And the 'Evolution at work' is just brilliant. Would love to see this being spoken live by monthy python or allan partrige :)

Edit@ but you have to admit that the new princess is FIT as HELL XD
My professional Royalty Free Music at Scirra Assets Store
--------------------------------
Specs: i5 2500, 16gb of ram, gtx 770, win 7, Focusrite Scarlett 8i6, Mackie mr8mk2, Alesis 320, browsing the net on chrome.
B
71
S
19
G
19
Posts: 1,919
Reputation: 16,910

Post » Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:54 am

On another forum I go to, this question kinda popped up, and since one smart Aussie political/legal obsessed guy answered it so well, I think I'll just post it for your perusal:

[quote:3l4rkmvw]
The British Monarchy is a curious institution, as it exists in the Commonwealth nations that still have her Majesty as Queen. Strictly speaking, your statement [that the Queen holds no real power in England] is flat wrong. The Queen holds immense official power and exercises it on a daily basis.

I'll discuss the British version first.

Britain has a governmental rule called Parliamentary Sovereignty. This means that it is not the people who have ultimate power, but Parliament. Since Parliament is elected, that means essentially that the people decide who makes up their Parliament, but the Parliament is the one in control.

The Queen is a part of Parliament. She is the font of all executive power in the United Kingdom. She has and holds terrifying powers of criminal sanction, administrative decision, justice, (The Queen cannot be charged with a criminal offence, as criminal sanctions are HER laws), war, and other prerogatives of Kings stretching back to William the Conqueror.

This is embodied in a concept called "The Crown." It's not so important for England and Wales but it gets messy in Australia, which is why it's called "The Crown" and not "The Queen."

"The Crown," along with "The Lords" (Who hold their power from the Magna Carta) and "The Commons" (Not Commoners, but the regions of England) make up the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In order for any law or any executive power to be exercised, PARLIAMENT must agree. That means for the Queen to exercise any power she holds as "The Crown," she has to get Parliament's permission.

Since it is an inviolate rule of the British body politic that the Government is the group of people who control the House of Commons, combined with the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty, means that, in essence, The Queen holds total executive power in the United Kingdom but cannot exercise it without the approval of the democratically elected representatives in the Commons.

Why do they do things like this? So Prime Ministers don't get ideas that they can, themselves, usurp executive power for the sake of some idea that they've been "popularly mandated" to do so. David Cameron can't do whatever the hell he likes, but he's not restricted by a constitution in the way Pres. Obama is; he's restricted by the fact that as First Lord of the Treasury he has no right and no powers to do anything other than through Parliament. He officially has no powers. Neither can her Majesty, because she needs Parliament's permission to do anything. That's why she appears powerless. Because we, the people, elect our Parliamentary Representatives, who are the legislature, and are the only people who allow the executive (The Queen) to exercise her executive powers, it just so happens that we "tap into" the power of the Queen and use her executive powers through our elected legislators in Parliament whenever we want to do anything executive.

Australia and Canada have slightly different situations, because in Australia and Canada, the Queen gave her "The Crown" powers to the Governors-General, and further, split the executive and legislative powers of the British Parliament amongst a Federal and "provincial" Parliaments in each country. As a result the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia can't pass certain laws because they don't have "The Crown" power to do so because the Queen didn't give the Federal Government those powers. The States hold those.

In my personal opinion it's the best liberal constitutional system in the world- supreme power is vaguely rested in a person who cannot use those powers without the people's consent. And they're not written down like in the Constitution; each time the executive wants to do something, it has to ask Parliament, because they don't have a right to do ANYTHING otherwise. You know how Obama can make Presidential decrees or directives? Direct the forces of the United States without Congressional Approval? Make Recess Appointments? Doesn't have to answer to anybody except every 4 years?

Yeah, Queen can't do that. She has the power to do it, but she needs Parliamentary approval for each individual action because she has no powers she can unilaterally exercise.[/quote:3l4rkmvw]
Check out my VGM on my soundcloud page!
Video-Game Music: E.C.2151
B
7
S
2
G
2
Posts: 193
Reputation: 1,561

Next

Return to Open Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests