OMG: Two young people to get married

[Halfcentaur]

It may be silly, but it's culture. Cherish the ancient tradition or come to America and free yourself from this tyranny. Kneel before the House of Bush.

 

[thatguywhojuggles]

...I love a royal wedding, the excitement, the crowds, the souvenir mugs, worrying about whether the bride's lost weight...

 

[Cuddles]

For the record, I wish the young couple well but don't think it's important, and I certainly don't think it should be the number 1 story.

I disagree. I'm very much an anti-royalist and think we should get rid of them as soon as possible. However, the fact is that until we do that, they are technically in charge of the country. That makes them fairly important people, and our future king getting married to our future queen really is exactly the kind of thing that should make the news.

 

[TraneWreck]

Shamed as an American that someone would be so rude about another country's ruling family. I certainly am not interested in turning the Kardashians (however many they are) into royalty. I don't think it's a weakness of humans to appreciate that a Constitutional Monarchy is a valid form of of government, and, in my opinion, a superior form.

By the way, the United Kingdom is a Constitutional Monarchy. According to Wikipedia:

And according to Public Affairs for Journalists, Chapter 1: The British constitution and monarchy, by James Morrison, Oxford University Press:

I thought Brits had senses of humor. Oh well. I don't think I've ever seen someone get insulted when someone criticizes their "form of government." How dare you say the Senate is broken!!! Nope, still weird.

It should also be noted that "valid" and "silly" are not mutually exclusive concepts.

And why would it be superior to fund a completely useless figurehead that serves no purpose save for maintaining a vile social hierarchy?

Britain's government would immediately improve by eliminating royals and the House of Lords.

 

[commandlinegamer]

Britain's government would immediately improve by eliminating royals and the House of Lords.

Evidence, please. The Queen has little-to-no say in day-to-day running of the country, other than the Royal Assent, which if I recall correctly is often performed by a flunkey (the Clerk of the Parliaments) anyway.

I'm no supporter of the monarchy, and would be happy to see it gone. But the palaces and other property would still be there, potentially requiring subsidy, unless you plan to let them as flats or turn them into theme parks.

As far as the Lords goes, I think the most useful thing that could be done is to turn that chamber into a house which considers legislation that affects the entire UK, and have the Commons turned into an English Assembly/Parliament, given that we have devolution for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Bills could still be scrutinized, amended, etc. at the committee stage.

 

[TraneWreck]

Evidence, please. The Queen has little-to-no say in day-to-day running of the country, other than the Royal Assent, which if I recall correctly is often performed by a flunkey (the Clerk of the Parliaments) anyway.

I believe you just made my point for me.

I'm no supporter of the monarchy, and would be happy to see it gone. But the palaces and other property would still be there, potentially requiring subsidy, unless you plan to let them as flats or turn them into theme parks.

As far as the Lords goes, I think the most useful thing that could be done is to turn that chamber into a house which considers legislation that affects the entire UK, and have the Commons turned into an English Assembly/Parliament, given that we have devolution for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Bills could still be scrutinized, amended, etc. at the committee stage.

The House of Lords, as well, is a mostly useless, ceremonial body. It's also a non-democratic institution that promotes an offensive class system.

Change the way one becomes a member of the House, and then you can change its political reach.

Of course, if you don't care about democracy, do whatever you want. I have problems with the de facto aristocracy that's formed in the United States. Russ Feingold was the only US Senator with a net worth below a million dollars and was booted out in the teabag fervor.

Inherited wealth (not inherited well-being) is a great societal ill. It's difficult to fight, and overtly promoting the importance of the useless off-spring of the wealthy should be avoided.

 

[commandlinegamer]

I suspect the following (via Twitter, @thedollsays) may be a reasonably common reaction to yesterday's news:

http://twitpic.com/37elr8

 

[TragicMonkey]

The House of Lords, as well, is a mostly useless, ceremonial body.

I thought they had some role in the judicial system? Dealing with judges or something? I dimly recall from "Rumpole" that it took a bill through the House of Lords to unseat a judge. But I could be wrong, or that might have changed.

 

[TraneWreck]

I thought they had some role in the judicial system? Dealing with judges or something? I dimly recall from "Rumpole" that it took a bill through the House of Lords to unseat a judge. But I could be wrong, or that might have changed.

The Lords currently possess no governmental power whatsoever except to delay a bill passed by the Commons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords

So I guess it is like the US Senate. Can't do anything except stop the more democratic body from getting things done.

Incidentally, I would gladly do away with both. Though we don't like to think about it, the Senate was created to placate the slave states when the nation was formed. It either needs serious reform or to be abolished.

And they actual DO something. Britain is engaging in harsh austerity measures yet maintains functionless ceremonial nonsense.

Cut programs that benefit people, keep the symbols of outdated aristocracy. Makes perfect sense.

 

[Matthew Best]

Change the way one becomes a member of the House, and then you can change its political reach.

How would you suggest the way one becomes a member of the House of Lords should be changed?

 

[TraneWreck]

How would you suggest the way one becomes a member of the House of Lords should be changed?

Make it democratic, not hereditary and not by appointment and most certainly not by ecclesiastical tradition. In essence, destroy the House of Lords.

I'm sort of surprised that people are defending aristocracy and theocracy in the modern world.

 

[Camillus]

BBCi, CNN and even Al-Jaz are informing me that, as a UK citizen, I should be delerious with joy at the announcement. Truth is I was already totally fired-up about this and have reserved a place outside Westminster Cathedral where I'll live in a tent for the next year, just so's I can witness the happy couple jog past in their carriage.

But it seems they've been shagging each other senseless for some years already, so I do hope she doesn't wear white. Can't stand hypocrisy.

If I were you I'd pitch my tent elsewhere. Westminster Cathedral, apart from being a Roman Catholic church, isn't really on the route to either Westminster Abbey or Saint Paul's.

 

[Upchurch]

I think the important question is do we get a day off work?

Is it too late for Americans to get in on some of that action, or did we burn that bridge a couple hundred years ago?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Is it too late for Americans to get in on some of that action, or did we burn that bridge a couple hundred years ago?

Geez, does every thread have to turn into an anti-TeaParty thread?

 

[Upchurch]

Geez, does every thread have to turn into an anti-TeaParty thread?

Bravo, sir. Bravo.

 

[zooterkin]

I thought Brits had senses of humor.

Not at all. We do have a sense of humour, though. Don't know what that's got to do with the post you're replying to, FattyCatty isn't a Brit, if I read the post correctly, but an American.

 

[TraneWreck]

Not at all. We do have a sense of humour, though. Don't know what that's got to do with the post you're replying to, FattyCatty isn't a Brit, if I read the post correctly, but an American.

Well, we Americans are known for our lack of reading comprehension, so that explains that.

I will say that if she's not a Brit, I find her defense of a useless, ceremonial tumor even more puzzling. Why would anyone argue in favor of the vestigial monarchy?

 

[Moon-Spinner]

And in other excruciatingly unexpected news, Fortune-Tellers are cashing in on the soon to come Royal Union...



- "yeah, like we didn't see THIS coming..."

 

[Delvo]

The Senate's existence has nothing to do with slavery in the South. The legislature would have had two chambers with or without that issue, as legislatures have since at least as long ago as the Roman Republic. The conventional division amounts to an upper class chamber and a lower class one, which in the early USA also works out as one to represent the states' governments (like the UN's representatives from different countries) and one to represent their populaces.

There could be some details about how our Senate works that were influenced by slavery, which was indeed a huge issue already before the country even existed, but not whether there would even be a Senate at all. And even for some of those details, connecting them to the debates over slavery is dubious anyway. Wanting the same number of representatives per state or different numbers according to state population is a matter of population per state, but Southern states weren't generally less populated than Northern ones. Senators originally were appointed by state governments instead of elected, but that's a matter of upper/lower class (and yes, most Southern whites were in the lower class) and the question of whether the Federal government was conceptually a single country or a place where multiple separate countries meet. And the thing about Senators being appointed rather than elected has already been changed.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Psst, thread was split. It's called "US Senate" and it's in Politics now. Sorry!