toldailytopic: The Royal wedding are you interested in it? How about the idea of a ro

[red cardinal]

I've heard quite a few women say that, and I really especially don't understand it. But maybe that's just me being a dude.

It was a "dude" who designed and created and made Princess Diana's dress :chuckle:

 

[rexlunae]

I think you have to understand the culture. Many countries have royalty presiding over the people.

And there isn't one of them that wouldn't be better off without them.

And obviously England/UK loves their sovereignty which has been proved by the millions who turn out to get a glimpse of the new princess.

Surely, some people do. But I'd point out that millions turned out to get a glimpse of both Barack Obama and John McCain on the champaign trail. Does that mean that America loves both of them, or is it just true that past a certain point of celebrity, it's easy to draw a crowd?

Historically, I think it is important to the English and to the world, as its queen or king have always been viewed as newsworthy.

Well, it's going to be important to the people who care. But there's no good natural reason that it's important.

Here in America, it's not a big deal to most, but to others around the world it is.

If only that were true.

And you think it's any different in this country? With the news media and paparazzi chasing after every political figure and celebrity in every nuance of their lives???

Yes, I think it's very different here. I don't appreciate the media's never-ending quest for the next celebrity scandal, but once again, those people are important because they've achieved something noteworthy beyond being born from a certain family.

I just know you are just being sarcastic now - you need to get out more :crackup:

Yes, because clearly if I don't follow the tawdriest forms of media, I'm clearly just not in touch with reality.
lain:

And you don't think that children of celebs are not important "by birth" and hounded by the media? How about Michael Jackson's kids, just for a hint!!! :thinkude, you really need to get out more!!!

No, not really. Do you even think your examples through? Can you name one time since MJ died that his kids have made the news except directly as a result of the coverage of his death and the immediate consequences? It certainly can help to have a family member in the business, there is still such a thing as privilege, but you can't really be simply born into this kind of success.

Unless you're a Bush or a Kennedy...

It is what it is. And it is the central news story for this week, so you are gonna have to deal with it :rain:

I haven't had to deal with it any more than I've wanted to, but that's not the point. The objection is that it is unreasonable to tie the fate of a state to the personal lives of its leaders, and in this case, they've also entangled a church too. It's not fair to the state, and it's not fair to the leaders. I think the hubbub about the wedding is silly, but it's really just a symptom.

I think it's a nice escape from all the worldwide crud at the moment. In Steven Tyler's [on Idol] favorite words - it's just beautiful, man, just beautiful :first:

Couldn't you just find a nice reality TV show to follow instead? Why do the Brits have to subsidize your entertainment?

There are tons of romantics out there and "happy forever after" aficionados.

That worked out so well for Charles and Diana. :jawdrop:

Look, I consider myself a romantic too, but I have no romantic delusions about monarchy.

Give them some space :cloud9:

I don't give people a pass on doing what's right for the sake of their entertainment. If you think my objection is simply based on not wanting to see or hear anything about it, then you haven't been reading me carefully enough.

Oh pahlease ..... Are you not aware of how the ratings work in "TVland"? Have you never heard of the Nielson rating calculations?

No, I can't say that I am. I have heard of Nielson ratings, but I really don't know how accurate these predictions are likely to be.

If the Brits "jettisoned all this nonsense" then we wouldn't have weeks of news coverage highlighting the spectacular and magnificent royal weddings for all us "common folk" who rather enjoy the festivities ... :chuckle:

Or years of the coverage of the spectacular failure of the marriage either.

 

[Skavau]

And obviously England/UK loves their sovereignty which has been proved by the millions who turn out to get a glimpse of the new princess.

No, we don't. A good chunk of the youth are completely disconnected from the monarchy's relevance.

I dare you to look at the William & Kate topic on the 'Have Your Say' portion of the BBC news website. Most people are either complaining, apathetic or calling the monarchy outdated.

 

[rexlunae]

No, we don't. A good chunk of the youth are completely disconnected from the monarchy's relevance.

I dare you to look at the William & Kate topic on the 'Have Your Say' portion of the BBC news website. Most people are either complaining, apathetic or calling the monarchy outdated.

It's interesting. I've heard a few people from the UK comment that we're more interested in their monarchy in the US than they are. Seems to fit what I've seen.

 

[rexlunae]

It was a "dude" who designed and created and made Princess Diana's dress :chuckle:

Ok. That doesn't really help me understand it.

 

[Samstarrett]

Monarchs usually lose absolute powers in the face of republican movements, often giving up powers to appease the people calling for their complete removal.

So, absolute monarchs(whom I don't support) face republican movements(which I also don't support) and come to a compromise with a limited monarchy(which I do support). Point?

 

[rexlunae]

So, absolute monarchs(whom I don't support) face republican movements(which I also don't support) and come to a compromise with a limited monarchy(which I do support). Point?

The point being that monarchists tend to seek power for the monarchy, while republicans are the ones demanding that it be limited.

 

[ragTagblues]

What's so monumental about seeing some inbred transplanted Germans who don't work get hitched?

I resent that sir . . .

Their part French as well!

:chuckle:

 

[Samstarrett]

The point being that monarchists tend to seek power for the monarchy, while republicans are the ones demanding that it be limited.

Well, in our times, most Western monarchies have been weakened to the point of utter toothlessness, so of course monarchists support an increase in their power. That said, I don't think most people who believe in monarchy think that there should be no restrictions on royal authority; I certainly don't. Even some who say they favor absolute monarchy don't have quite the same definition of it that I do, calling, for example, feudal monarchies 'absolute'.

And there is a difference, too, between monarchism and royalism, the first being the advocacy of monarchy in the abstract, and the latter carrying more the connotation of supporting a particular monarch or monarchy in a particular conflict. So if I support the existence of monarchy but fight to remove a particular monarch, I am monarchist but not royalist. In our own time monarchies are under heavy attack and so the monarchists are pretty much all royalist, but it's not necessarily always so.

The point being, of course, if republicans can't get a republic, they want the king as weak as possible. But not all monarchists are absolutists.

 

[Samstarrett]

How could there be a "republican counterpart" to a monarchy, Sam?

An Arab or African republic would be the republican counterpart to an Arab or African monarchy. :duh:

And how on earth could you take the Sauds, for example, as anything to emulate?:hammer:

I don't. But they're not really any worse than the Islamic Republic of Iran. Now look at, say, Jordan. As free as the enlightened West? No, of course not. Marginally better than republics of the region? Yes.

So what does this tell us? It tells us that the lack of freedom in Islamic Arab monarchies is there not because of the monarchy, but at best in spite of it, and at worst indifferently to it.

Tell you what, you wanna see real, modern monarchism up close? Go to North Korea. That family there knows exactly what to do, and how to do it.

Yeah. 'Cause everyone knows that if you want to see how traditional monarchy works, you should look at revolutionary Socialist Democratic People's Republics.

Then you're ignorant. Sorry, that's the way it is. Anyone who examines the history of monarchial government can't help but see the consistent abuses of the system.

I could say the same thing about a democratic republic. Heck, that's inherently abusive even in the purely theoretical realm!

Again, you're missing the point of what I said. While you're well within your rights to indulge in this inane daydreaming it's pretty insulting for an American of all people to be extolling the virtues of a king.

Sorry. But frankly, America's broke, immoral, godless, and rapidly losing whatever freedoms we may have once enjoyed, less than 300 years after its founding. Democracy doesn't work.

 

[Skavau]

Yeah. 'Cause everyone knows that if you want to see how traditional monarchy works, you should look at revolutionary Socialist Democratic People's Republics.

Power is passed on through the Kim-Jong family line. You could argue it has many tendencies of a monarchy.

 

[kmoney]

Since they didn't invite me, I don't plan to go.

:mock: SOD not invited



Oh, and I don't care an ounce. lain:

 

[Samstarrett]

Power is passed on through the Kim-Jong family line. You could argue it has many tendencies of a monarchy.

It's socialist and its rhetoric is populist. You could argue it has many tendencies of a secular democratic republic in the revolutionary tradition. It's certainly nothing like the traditional Christian monarchies I promote.

 

[Nick M]

The DVR is set.

 

[Lovejoy]

What's so monumental about seeing some inbred transplanted Germans who don't work get hitched?

I hear they are not going to keep a staff of servants. So, they will be doing their own cooking, and possibly some light housework.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The DVR is set.

What for?

lain:

 

[Samstarrett]

What for?

lain:

It's going to be on real early in the morning in some parts of the US.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It's going to be on real early in the morning in some parts of the US.

I meant what program...

 

[Nick M]

I meant what program...

Hunting rabbits for sport.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Hunting rabbits for sport.

:chuckle:

Though considering how much you miss the mark I reckon it'd take you more than a program to give bunnies any major concern...

Enjoy the wedding!

I plan on other things rather than being bored to death...

:e4e: