Her majesty's a pretty nice girl but she doesn't have a lot to say.
December 22, 2007 5:22 PM Subscribe
"I very much hope that this new medium will make my Christmas message more personal and direct." The queen of England launches her own YouTube channel.
So I can't leave a comment on the video page?
Heh heh. I have a feeling the "personal and direct" part is a one-way street.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:29 PM on December 22, 2007
Heh heh. I have a feeling the "personal and direct" part is a one-way street.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:29 PM on December 22, 2007
If she launches her own XTube channel, please don't tell me.
posted by maudlin at 5:57 PM on December 22, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by maudlin at 5:57 PM on December 22, 2007 [2 favorites]
Shouldn't this be on OneTube.com?
posted by kcds at 6:05 PM on December 22, 2007 [5 favorites]
posted by kcds at 6:05 PM on December 22, 2007 [5 favorites]
Maybe it's my sinus infection talking, but seeing her so young and seemingly hopeful (and thinking about what the past 50 years has brought her as far as family troubles go) was rather moving.
Also, I loves me some historical footage. Thank you!
posted by chihiro at 6:05 PM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
Also, I loves me some historical footage. Thank you!
posted by chihiro at 6:05 PM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
LEAVE ELIZABETH ALONE.....LEAVE HER ALONE!!!
posted by GavinR at 6:05 PM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by GavinR at 6:05 PM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
Seeing footage like that is a large part of why I get so very pissed off when people slag good ol' Liz. A speech like that came long before the modern era of every word being massaged by a PR flack. I truly believe that she deeply loves her country, and wants whatever is best for it.
I for one will be very sad when she dies. I don't think any monarch could possibly live up to the example of grace and utter devotion she has provided.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 6:20 PM on December 22, 2007 [7 favorites]
I for one will be very sad when she dies. I don't think any monarch could possibly live up to the example of grace and utter devotion she has provided.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 6:20 PM on December 22, 2007 [7 favorites]
I for one will be very sad when she dies. I don't think any monarch could possibly live up to the example of grace and utter devotion she has provided.
as if you're impartial when it comes to queens.
sorry
posted by MikeKD at 6:25 PM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
as if you're impartial when it comes to queens.
sorry
posted by MikeKD at 6:25 PM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
I dunno, I'm feeling torn. I'm enough of a theater (er, theatre) lover to like The Royal YouTube Gesture in general, but the "garden party" clip still made me throw up in my mouth a little - particularly the part where they mention how special the parties are because the gardens are never open to the public.
How nice.
But, ok, sure, I loves me some historical footage too, and the idea of never-before-seen home movies from "keen amateur film maker" Lord Wakehurst has potential in theory at least, if not so much in practice. It'll be interesting to see what other tidbits they dig up.
posted by mediareport at 6:37 PM on December 22, 2007
How nice.
But, ok, sure, I loves me some historical footage too, and the idea of never-before-seen home movies from "keen amateur film maker" Lord Wakehurst has potential in theory at least, if not so much in practice. It'll be interesting to see what other tidbits they dig up.
posted by mediareport at 6:37 PM on December 22, 2007
Video response from ye common people of ye Three Kingdoms.
posted by Abiezer at 6:39 PM on December 22, 2007
posted by Abiezer at 6:39 PM on December 22, 2007
And in another corner of YouTube -- The Queen Haters.
posted by chips ahoy at 6:42 PM on December 22, 2007
posted by chips ahoy at 6:42 PM on December 22, 2007
So I can't leave a comment on the video page?
Yeah. First thing I thought of. Hasn't exactly embraced the spriit of "new ways of communicating with people" if it's not two-way. Since I can't say it there: "Fuck off, parasite".
posted by raygirvan at 6:48 PM on December 22, 2007
Yeah. First thing I thought of. Hasn't exactly embraced the spriit of "new ways of communicating with people" if it's not two-way. Since I can't say it there: "Fuck off, parasite".
posted by raygirvan at 6:48 PM on December 22, 2007
Oh, come on. Some of y'all are giving The Royal YouTube Channel shit for not allowing comments? YouTube comments? Please.
I'm just imagining the scene where the Queen's advisors try to explain to her why allowing YouTube comments would be a bad idea, and the Queen says impatiently, "Just show me." And then they do. It doesn't take a genius to imagine the look on her face when she realizes her advisors are right.
posted by mediareport at 7:02 PM on December 22, 2007
I'm just imagining the scene where the Queen's advisors try to explain to her why allowing YouTube comments would be a bad idea, and the Queen says impatiently, "Just show me." And then they do. It doesn't take a genius to imagine the look on her face when she realizes her advisors are right.
posted by mediareport at 7:02 PM on December 22, 2007
But you buy into the risk of negative comment if you buy into YouTube. That's the spirit of the medium. If you want a one-way vehicle for your views, stick it on your own website without a contact link. Don't imagine you're being really hip by putting it on YouTube, when the central aspect of interactivity is crippled.
posted by raygirvan at 7:37 PM on December 22, 2007
posted by raygirvan at 7:37 PM on December 22, 2007
Since I can't say it there: "Fuck off, parasite".
Classy, raygirvan, real classy. This is the woman who stays up late every night reading government documents, who has interacted with pretty much every world leader of the past half-century, and talks with the Prime Minister every week to both give and receive counsel. The Royal List (which is really the only thing I can think you mean when you mention 'parasite') provides significantly more money to the government than is provided to HM and her family. Moreover, the Royal List is comprised of properties that used to belong to the throne before they were taken away in what, 1717 or so? HM also has recently paid taxes quite voluntarily on her own income, both from the properties she holds in her own right, as well as those she holds as the Crown.
This is the woman who has clearly learned from her late mother how to relate to her people. Her mother, upon being bombed in Buck House during the Blitz, remarked "Finally, I can look East London in the face". There is no question about HM's devotion to her duty to the people of the UK. Her job--and yes, I understand she was born into it, didn't earn it--is to serve as a living icon of the people of the UK and the Commonwealth. That is a job which she performs admirably. It is important for people to have icons and figureheads (witness our celebrity obsession, for example). Why? I don't know, but I'm sure there are reams and reams of papers devoted to the subject.
Yes, sure, the idea of the monarchy is grounded in largely outmoded ideas of privilege and received power. But I really don't think that's what it means anymore. HM's position is that of figurehead, of personification of the UK. She doesn't have real power--she cannot enact laws, she cannot affect judicial proceedings, etc etc--what she has is significance as an icon of the British (&UK, but UKish sounds awkward) persona. We--humans--need figures who are larger than life, who transport us out of the day to day minutiae. HM Queen Elizabeth II serves that purpose and then some, so have a little respect, ok?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 7:44 PM on December 22, 2007 [16 favorites]
Classy, raygirvan, real classy. This is the woman who stays up late every night reading government documents, who has interacted with pretty much every world leader of the past half-century, and talks with the Prime Minister every week to both give and receive counsel. The Royal List (which is really the only thing I can think you mean when you mention 'parasite') provides significantly more money to the government than is provided to HM and her family. Moreover, the Royal List is comprised of properties that used to belong to the throne before they were taken away in what, 1717 or so? HM also has recently paid taxes quite voluntarily on her own income, both from the properties she holds in her own right, as well as those she holds as the Crown.
This is the woman who has clearly learned from her late mother how to relate to her people. Her mother, upon being bombed in Buck House during the Blitz, remarked "Finally, I can look East London in the face". There is no question about HM's devotion to her duty to the people of the UK. Her job--and yes, I understand she was born into it, didn't earn it--is to serve as a living icon of the people of the UK and the Commonwealth. That is a job which she performs admirably. It is important for people to have icons and figureheads (witness our celebrity obsession, for example). Why? I don't know, but I'm sure there are reams and reams of papers devoted to the subject.
Yes, sure, the idea of the monarchy is grounded in largely outmoded ideas of privilege and received power. But I really don't think that's what it means anymore. HM's position is that of figurehead, of personification of the UK. She doesn't have real power--she cannot enact laws, she cannot affect judicial proceedings, etc etc--what she has is significance as an icon of the British (&UK, but UKish sounds awkward) persona. We--humans--need figures who are larger than life, who transport us out of the day to day minutiae. HM Queen Elizabeth II serves that purpose and then some, so have a little respect, ok?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 7:44 PM on December 22, 2007 [16 favorites]
Don't imagine you're being really hip by putting it on YouTube, when the central aspect of interactivity is crippled.
Ugh, I keep not previewing tonight.
I don't think it's about hip, I think it's about reaching more people.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 7:47 PM on December 22, 2007
Ugh, I keep not previewing tonight.
I don't think it's about hip, I think it's about reaching more people.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 7:47 PM on December 22, 2007
It's Interesting to hear her talk about the "commonwealth" and whatnot. Do Canadians or Australians (Not to mention Jamaicans) or spend much time thinking about their titular head of state?
But you buy into the risk of negative comment if you buy into YouTube.
Oh come on. No one pays attention to those comments, they are singularly idiotic. Follow up videos, maybe.
posted by delmoi at 7:50 PM on December 22, 2007
But you buy into the risk of negative comment if you buy into YouTube.
Oh come on. No one pays attention to those comments, they are singularly idiotic. Follow up videos, maybe.
posted by delmoi at 7:50 PM on December 22, 2007
We--humans--need figures who are larger than life, who transport us out of the day to day minutiae
We don't. That's just some chimpy biggest-alpha-ape crap that we should have long since grown out of.
HM Queen Elizabeth II serves that purpose and then some, so have a little respect, ok?
I have some personal sympathy because she was brought up in, and programmed into, a self-perpetuating hierarchy. That's as far as it goes. There is no reason to respect that hierarchy.
posted by raygirvan at 8:03 PM on December 22, 2007
We don't. That's just some chimpy biggest-alpha-ape crap that we should have long since grown out of.
HM Queen Elizabeth II serves that purpose and then some, so have a little respect, ok?
I have some personal sympathy because she was brought up in, and programmed into, a self-perpetuating hierarchy. That's as far as it goes. There is no reason to respect that hierarchy.
posted by raygirvan at 8:03 PM on December 22, 2007
Not sure what your average Jamaican thinks, delmoi, but I noticed the Jamaican Defence Force did their bit guarding Her Maj earlier this year.
posted by Abiezer at 8:06 PM on December 22, 2007
posted by Abiezer at 8:06 PM on December 22, 2007
We don't. That's just some chimpy biggest-alpha-ape crap that we should have long since grown out of.
Really. So you have absolutely nobody that you look up to? Suuuure. Nice try.
Good one on the "i'm a super-jaded Internet douchewad" act. Well done. Ten out of ten.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:09 PM on December 22, 2007
Really. So you have absolutely nobody that you look up to? Suuuure. Nice try.
Good one on the "i'm a super-jaded Internet douchewad" act. Well done. Ten out of ten.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:09 PM on December 22, 2007
dirtynumbangelboy you're a star. i don't have the ability to put pen to paper my feelings why i respect the queen, but you have nailed it.
i understand the disdain that some people might have for the monarchy, but having had personal involvement with them, albeit tenuous, i found the interaction the most chivalrous i could have possibly imagined, and that was her son, who definitley garners more criticism than most of the other 'royals'.
posted by Frasermoo at 8:14 PM on December 22, 2007
i understand the disdain that some people might have for the monarchy, but having had personal involvement with them, albeit tenuous, i found the interaction the most chivalrous i could have possibly imagined, and that was her son, who definitley garners more criticism than most of the other 'royals'.
posted by Frasermoo at 8:14 PM on December 22, 2007
It is important for people to have icons and figureheads (witness our celebrity obsession, for example).
you know what, i sat in my office in Toronto yesterday and somebody mentioned Diana. Suddenly there were a few 'guys' who called her a whore, berated her, made further comments... and I said nothing, and by the time all the posturing was over all the 'guys' calmed down and really had nothing of substance to substantiate their previous comments. All knee-jerk, all bollocks.
posted by Frasermoo at 8:23 PM on December 22, 2007
you know what, i sat in my office in Toronto yesterday and somebody mentioned Diana. Suddenly there were a few 'guys' who called her a whore, berated her, made further comments... and I said nothing, and by the time all the posturing was over all the 'guys' calmed down and really had nothing of substance to substantiate their previous comments. All knee-jerk, all bollocks.
posted by Frasermoo at 8:23 PM on December 22, 2007
So you have absolutely nobody that you look up to?
That's not what I said. I just don't subscribe to a mystical idea of "figures who are larger than life, who transport us out of the day to day minutiae" - especially not if it relates to some inbred bunch who got their status by historical accident and a lot of manipulation of the system (like all the name changes and media spin to hide their German origins).
posted by raygirvan at 8:38 PM on December 22, 2007
That's not what I said. I just don't subscribe to a mystical idea of "figures who are larger than life, who transport us out of the day to day minutiae" - especially not if it relates to some inbred bunch who got their status by historical accident and a lot of manipulation of the system (like all the name changes and media spin to hide their German origins).
posted by raygirvan at 8:38 PM on December 22, 2007
Thank you, Frasermoo.
I don't respect HM because she is my Queen and I am her subject. I respect her because she was born into a role (why do people forget that in very real terms, she has had zero choices about what to do with her life?) and she has acquitted that role admirably.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:44 PM on December 22, 2007
I don't respect HM because she is my Queen and I am her subject. I respect her because she was born into a role (why do people forget that in very real terms, she has had zero choices about what to do with her life?) and she has acquitted that role admirably.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:44 PM on December 22, 2007
Way to completely miss the point, raygirvan. Really, it takes skill to avoid understanding something the way you've just done. Kudos, my man, kudos.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:47 PM on December 22, 2007
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:47 PM on December 22, 2007
I would be an idol to emulate if I lived a life of absolute opulence whose privilege was guaranteed by the state. Indeed if any nation were to, say, offer me several palaces, a couple hundred servants, perhaps a hunting retreat or two so I could get away from it all, and an art collection to die for, I would personally see to it that I would be Anglo-Saxon (or whomever) platonic ideal of the perfect man. Free from the constraints of day to day minutiae, I would make sure that anytime I interacted with my people they would be awe struck by my chivalry.
I would even work my social calendar around several course dinners with the various heads of states, and make sure to learn all their names! I would even become fluent in the language of the most important of them. And if it would please the nation, several times a year I would wish to go to a charity (hopefully in my name or the name of someone I am close to).
Fear not, for I am a role model and would not want to interfere too much with the political machinations of the state. With modern communication, that could be rather tricky to pull of effectively. I would be more than willing to advise the leader of said state and let him take any blame. Also I would be very prudent in my use of my private jet and my yacht (which I would request to be one of the largest in the world, simply to be a symbol of the great nation).
posted by geoff. at 8:55 PM on December 22, 2007
I would even work my social calendar around several course dinners with the various heads of states, and make sure to learn all their names! I would even become fluent in the language of the most important of them. And if it would please the nation, several times a year I would wish to go to a charity (hopefully in my name or the name of someone I am close to).
Fear not, for I am a role model and would not want to interfere too much with the political machinations of the state. With modern communication, that could be rather tricky to pull of effectively. I would be more than willing to advise the leader of said state and let him take any blame. Also I would be very prudent in my use of my private jet and my yacht (which I would request to be one of the largest in the world, simply to be a symbol of the great nation).
posted by geoff. at 8:55 PM on December 22, 2007
(why do people forget that in very real terms, she has had zero choices about what to do with her life?)
Uh? Didn't George VI opt out? I mean she would have a hard time being a simple country lawyer in Louisiana, but that does not mean she absolutely had to be the monarch.
posted by geoff. at 9:00 PM on December 22, 2007
Uh? Didn't George VI opt out? I mean she would have a hard time being a simple country lawyer in Louisiana, but that does not mean she absolutely had to be the monarch.
posted by geoff. at 9:00 PM on December 22, 2007
geoff, your remarks are so far below contempt that they're actually not worth addressing. See also my comment about raygirvan missing the point, because you clearly have also.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:02 PM on December 22, 2007
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:02 PM on December 22, 2007
...she would have a hard time being a simple country lawyer in Louisiana...
True, true... now, Mississippi, on the other hand...
posted by flapjax at midnite at 9:05 PM on December 22, 2007
True, true... now, Mississippi, on the other hand...
posted by flapjax at midnite at 9:05 PM on December 22, 2007
We--humans--need figures who are larger than life, who transport us out of the day to day minutiae.
I don't think that's necessarily true at all.
HM Queen Elizabeth II serves that purpose and then some, so have a little respect, ok?
No. That's a *terrible* reason to show someone respect.
posted by mediareport at 9:13 PM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
I don't think that's necessarily true at all.
HM Queen Elizabeth II serves that purpose and then some, so have a little respect, ok?
No. That's a *terrible* reason to show someone respect.
posted by mediareport at 9:13 PM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
delmoi - Do Canadians or Australians (Not to mention Jamaicans) or spend much time thinking about their titular head of state?
Well, I remember thinking that QE2 was a real hotty from my parent's (we were Hong Kongers) jubilee memorabilia when I was 5 or 6 (and I'm not going to say anything about the Princess Di memorabilia).
As a Canadian, now, I respect QE2 as a monarch as a symbol - the fact that she has no power over the course of my country perhaps tempers my judgment of her; she can do no harm, only good - not that she's done much for/against Canada, recently.
posted by porpoise at 9:27 PM on December 22, 2007
Well, I remember thinking that QE2 was a real hotty from my parent's (we were Hong Kongers) jubilee memorabilia when I was 5 or 6 (and I'm not going to say anything about the Princess Di memorabilia).
As a Canadian, now, I respect QE2 as a monarch as a symbol - the fact that she has no power over the course of my country perhaps tempers my judgment of her; she can do no harm, only good - not that she's done much for/against Canada, recently.
posted by porpoise at 9:27 PM on December 22, 2007
Yes, mediareport, someone fulfilling their job is a really bad thing to respect them for. Sorry. I keep forgetting that American attitudes rule the world. I should be respecting her for what she wears and who she sleeps with. My bad.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:27 PM on December 22, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:27 PM on December 22, 2007 [2 favorites]
As a Canadian, now, I respect QE2 as a monarch as a symbol - the fact that she has no power over the course of my country perhaps tempers my judgment of her; she can do no harm, only good
Hey, that sound? Was a hammer hitting the nail on the head. Well said.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:32 PM on December 22, 2007
Hey, that sound? Was a hammer hitting the nail on the head. Well said.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:32 PM on December 22, 2007
I can see why the internet is too new for the US entertainment industry to understand. Only the young anti-establishment punks on the YouTubes get it.
posted by Tehanu at 9:49 PM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by Tehanu at 9:49 PM on December 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
Y'know, at 3pm on Christmas Day, when the dinner is being digested, the NBA double-header or the Capital One Holiday Celebration on Ice just isn't the same thing. You don't have to be a subscriber to Monarchy or have Dieu Et Mon Droit tattooed on your sacrum to appreciate that.
I'm not sure why the household felt the need to go with YouTube, other than for some perceived outreach to 'ver yoof', since the BBC carries the speech. Still, if it's a choice between this and BarneyCam '07, with Tony Blair reprising his role as Bush's other lapdog, I'll go with Brenda.
(And HMQ had an email account before you did, for most values of 'you'.)
posted by holgate at 11:13 PM on December 22, 2007
I'm not sure why the household felt the need to go with YouTube, other than for some perceived outreach to 'ver yoof', since the BBC carries the speech. Still, if it's a choice between this and BarneyCam '07, with Tony Blair reprising his role as Bush's other lapdog, I'll go with Brenda.
(And HMQ had an email account before you did, for most values of 'you'.)
posted by holgate at 11:13 PM on December 22, 2007
Yes, mediareport, someone fulfilling their job is a really bad thing to respect them for. Sorry. I keep forgetting that American attitudes rule the world. I should be respecting her for what she wears and who she sleeps with. My bad.
Yeah... okay. Americans find it weird that she doesn't sleep around and wear designer clothes, not because the concept of birthright monarchy is bizarre.
And it's not like the royal family doesn't have plenty of sex scandals or wears designer clothes.
posted by delmoi at 11:59 PM on December 22, 2007
Yeah... okay. Americans find it weird that she doesn't sleep around and wear designer clothes, not because the concept of birthright monarchy is bizarre.
And it's not like the royal family doesn't have plenty of sex scandals or wears designer clothes.
posted by delmoi at 11:59 PM on December 22, 2007
Wow, the sound of points sailing right over peoples' heads is deafening today, delmoi.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:08 AM on December 23, 2007
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:08 AM on December 23, 2007
In the mighty arsenal wielded by Her Royal Majesty's Internet Guards, there is no sharper weapon than huffy sarcasm, italicized.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 12:43 AM on December 23, 2007
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 12:43 AM on December 23, 2007
What's this "I very much hope" stuff? What happened to the royal We?
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 12:48 AM on December 23, 2007
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 12:48 AM on December 23, 2007
I love the Queen, mostly because if we voted for a Republic or you chaps got rid of her, we'd be forced to elect a President, and probably end up with fucking Rove McManus.
Lesser of two evils, etc.
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 12:49 AM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
Lesser of two evils, etc.
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 12:49 AM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
She embodies history and yet embraces new technology. The YouTube channel allows a global audience that no local BBC broadcast can. The choice of broadcasting the first television broadcast on a new medium 50 years later is subtle yet makes the point. Its called continuity in the history of a nation and the world, in a way, when you consider the influence and impact of hte British Empire, regardless of where you may be from and what you consider they did.
I'm neither british nor american but I can look back at the whole and see its relevance to the future.
posted by infini at 1:16 AM on December 23, 2007
I'm neither british nor american but I can look back at the whole and see its relevance to the future.
posted by infini at 1:16 AM on December 23, 2007
I guess you're not a Sex Pistols fan, dirtynumbangelboy?
posted by Roman Graves at 2:06 AM on December 23, 2007
posted by Roman Graves at 2:06 AM on December 23, 2007
Neat, she's beaten Beatrix to the punch.
Personally I think it's a disgrace that queen Beatrix meddles with national politics in the Netherlands. And that the upkeep of the palaces of the royal family lives is payed for by the citizens.
posted by jouke at 2:46 AM on December 23, 2007
Personally I think it's a disgrace that queen Beatrix meddles with national politics in the Netherlands. And that the upkeep of the palaces of the royal family lives is payed for by the citizens.
posted by jouke at 2:46 AM on December 23, 2007
Yes, yes, Americans don't get the concept of birthright royalty, and so on and so on, Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, etc etc everyone born here has the chance to be President, etc etc. Get back to me when you elect someone who's not rich, white and male, okay? Fingers crossed for '08!
And the whole Youtube comments thing? Seriously? 'Joining the conversation' is not synonymous with 'Accept wholesale, one-way trolling and abuse from every dick with a keyboard and an axe to grind'. Do you really think the Queen is going to sit and type, terribly politely - 'I'm sorry you think the duties we carry out for the country are a drain on resources wangdoodle1989, but our accounts are available for review from the National Audit Office' to every grammar-free utterly dense YouTube comment?
Now, Her Madge with a MeFi account - that'd be sweet.
posted by Happy Dave at 3:01 AM on December 23, 2007 [2 favorites]
And the whole Youtube comments thing? Seriously? 'Joining the conversation' is not synonymous with 'Accept wholesale, one-way trolling and abuse from every dick with a keyboard and an axe to grind'. Do you really think the Queen is going to sit and type, terribly politely - 'I'm sorry you think the duties we carry out for the country are a drain on resources wangdoodle1989, but our accounts are available for review from the National Audit Office' to every grammar-free utterly dense YouTube comment?
Now, Her Madge with a MeFi account - that'd be sweet.
posted by Happy Dave at 3:01 AM on December 23, 2007 [2 favorites]
The Queen is like the USA's 2nd Amendment.
We know there's as much chance of her Navy and Air Force saving the UK from totalitarianism as there is of you guys storming the Whitehouse with your semi-automatics.
But hey, it's nice to have nonetheless.
That, and if she wasn't there Thatcher would have been Head of State and I'd rather have Henry the Eighth than that whore.
posted by fullerine at 3:39 AM on December 23, 2007
We know there's as much chance of her Navy and Air Force saving the UK from totalitarianism as there is of you guys storming the Whitehouse with your semi-automatics.
But hey, it's nice to have nonetheless.
That, and if she wasn't there Thatcher would have been Head of State and I'd rather have Henry the Eighth than that whore.
posted by fullerine at 3:39 AM on December 23, 2007
Wot, no "geriatric1926"?
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 5:01 AM on December 23, 2007
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 5:01 AM on December 23, 2007
That, and if she wasn't there Thatcher would have been Head of State and I'd rather have Henry the Eighth than that whore.
I was going to say something similar, but in more polite terms. I feel about the monarchy much the same way I feel about the Church of England - i don't personally believe but the existence of these institutions stops something much worse taking their place.
posted by Summer at 5:02 AM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
I was going to say something similar, but in more polite terms. I feel about the monarchy much the same way I feel about the Church of England - i don't personally believe but the existence of these institutions stops something much worse taking their place.
posted by Summer at 5:02 AM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
Free from the constraints of day to day minutiae, I would make sure that anytime I interacted with my people they would be awe struck by my chivalry.
I'd just like to make the point that it's easy to be a facetious ass about the royal family when you're on the outside looking in. You can be a prick about "day to day minutiae" because that's your life, but if you were born royal... you wouldn't know what what day to day minutiae is. Your yacht wouldn't seem all that special to you, because hey, you've always had one. And so does everyone else you know.
And with your privilege came a huge amount of responsibility. And a complete inability to lead anything resembling a normal life. Look at the scandals surrounding Diana - I mean, the woman died surrounded by paparazzi for the love of G-d. Even more recently - the Prince and his girlfriend staged a breakup just to get a little peace from the press. When every single decision that you make is known to and dissected by the entire world, that kind of life is no easier than the one where you and your high horse criticize these people on the internet for no good reason other than you can.
On a lighter note:
I really love the Eddie Izzard bit about "G-d save the Queen? No, it should be G-d attack the Queen! G-d attack the Queen, send big dogs after her, that bite her bum..."
posted by grapefruitmoon at 5:28 AM on December 23, 2007
I'd just like to make the point that it's easy to be a facetious ass about the royal family when you're on the outside looking in. You can be a prick about "day to day minutiae" because that's your life, but if you were born royal... you wouldn't know what what day to day minutiae is. Your yacht wouldn't seem all that special to you, because hey, you've always had one. And so does everyone else you know.
And with your privilege came a huge amount of responsibility. And a complete inability to lead anything resembling a normal life. Look at the scandals surrounding Diana - I mean, the woman died surrounded by paparazzi for the love of G-d. Even more recently - the Prince and his girlfriend staged a breakup just to get a little peace from the press. When every single decision that you make is known to and dissected by the entire world, that kind of life is no easier than the one where you and your high horse criticize these people on the internet for no good reason other than you can.
On a lighter note:
I really love the Eddie Izzard bit about "G-d save the Queen? No, it should be G-d attack the Queen! G-d attack the Queen, send big dogs after her, that bite her bum..."
posted by grapefruitmoon at 5:28 AM on December 23, 2007
God save the queen
We mean it man
We love our queen
And England's dah-reaming!!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:43 AM on December 23, 2007
We mean it man
We love our queen
And England's dah-reaming!!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:43 AM on December 23, 2007
Summer: "I feel about the monarchy much the same way I feel about the Church of England - i don't personally believe but the existence of these institutions stops something much worse taking their place."
Wow. I hadn't thought of it this way before.
Parliament. Prime Minister. Royalty. The Church. England has its own checks and balances. America is supposed to have that via the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, but since one party has until recently had control of all three, the imbalance has not been checked. Democrats currently control the House, but only barely. The apple cart's been toppled and nobody's picking up the pieces.
Though portions of it are regulated by the gov't, England's news media is in some ways more free to speak its mind than America's equivalent. So their "fourth estate" is in better shape than ours, which is monopolized by conservative corporate concerns, as if Hearst's ghost possessed it.
With the so-called 'Patriot' Act and recent domestic attacks on the US Constitution, coupled with The Queen's apparent abandoment of the royal 'we', today's England appears more American in some ways than America.
That's really creepy.
posted by ZachsMind at 6:06 AM on December 23, 2007
Wow. I hadn't thought of it this way before.
Parliament. Prime Minister. Royalty. The Church. England has its own checks and balances. America is supposed to have that via the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, but since one party has until recently had control of all three, the imbalance has not been checked. Democrats currently control the House, but only barely. The apple cart's been toppled and nobody's picking up the pieces.
Though portions of it are regulated by the gov't, England's news media is in some ways more free to speak its mind than America's equivalent. So their "fourth estate" is in better shape than ours, which is monopolized by conservative corporate concerns, as if Hearst's ghost possessed it.
With the so-called 'Patriot' Act and recent domestic attacks on the US Constitution, coupled with The Queen's apparent abandoment of the royal 'we', today's England appears more American in some ways than America.
That's really creepy.
posted by ZachsMind at 6:06 AM on December 23, 2007
"This year my thoughts have been mainly with the Commonwealth..."
Every single year I watch her at Christmas... It makes my heart glow, so it does, just to be reminded I have the honour of being one of her subjects.
But seriously I still can't work how I make the effort to do it every year... stuffed filled with grub half-cut with wine... vegging out on the sofa for ten minutes of inconsequential speech. I mean it's not like the show the Bond film immediately after, any more.
But like turkey and crackers and family arguments it just wouldn't seem Christmas without the Queen's speech.
Gawd bless yah, marm!
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 6:44 AM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
Every single year I watch her at Christmas... It makes my heart glow, so it does, just to be reminded I have the honour of being one of her subjects.
But seriously I still can't work how I make the effort to do it every year... stuffed filled with grub half-cut with wine... vegging out on the sofa for ten minutes of inconsequential speech. I mean it's not like the show the Bond film immediately after, any more.
But like turkey and crackers and family arguments it just wouldn't seem Christmas without the Queen's speech.
Gawd bless yah, marm!
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 6:44 AM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
Why crap on some little old grandmother with her collection of Diana plates who wants to listen to Elizabeth on Christmas? The Royals don't cost me much, and mean something to some Canadians, so I'll put my energy into thinking about things that could make my country a better place. Elizabeth isn't hurting the country. Harper is.
When I became a Canadian citizen I had to swear allegiance to Mrs Winsor, which was unexpectedly uncomfortable. I know it's a compromise to my values, but sometimes that's a rational, adult thing.
I heartily dislike monarchists (with the exception of dirtynumangelboy, who is lovely) and have twice passed up a chance to me the Duke of Edinburgh, but monarchist league isn't a fascist organization, and right wing capitalists are actually trying to do away with the Senate and the GG.
For me Elizabeth is pleasant reminder of battles that don't need to be fought. And I am always happy to see her face when I open my wallet. Sorry to pontificate. It's something I've been thinking about as I get used to being Canadian.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 8:44 AM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
When I became a Canadian citizen I had to swear allegiance to Mrs Winsor, which was unexpectedly uncomfortable. I know it's a compromise to my values, but sometimes that's a rational, adult thing.
I heartily dislike monarchists (with the exception of dirtynumangelboy, who is lovely) and have twice passed up a chance to me the Duke of Edinburgh, but monarchist league isn't a fascist organization, and right wing capitalists are actually trying to do away with the Senate and the GG.
For me Elizabeth is pleasant reminder of battles that don't need to be fought. And I am always happy to see her face when I open my wallet. Sorry to pontificate. It's something I've been thinking about as I get used to being Canadian.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 8:44 AM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
And with your privilege came a huge amount of responsibility. And a complete inability to lead anything resembling a normal life. Look at the scandals surrounding Diana - I mean, the woman died surrounded by paparazzi for the love of G-d.
Yeah, responsibility without power must be a bitch. I wish I had the Queen's lack of power.
I was talking to a builder recently who'd worked on a new development that the Queen was coming to open. One of the rules of etiquette was that they had to build a toilet in case the queen needed to go. Nobody else was to use this toilet, and it was to be demolished after she'd been and gone, presumably so nobody else's bum could touch the same throne as that of Her Majesty.
The toilet cost several thousand to build. The Queen came and went. The toilet never got used.
I think that part of the reason that they can't lead a normal life is that they insist on preserving the mystique, the pomp and circumstance. There are a number of European monarchs that do lead something resembling a normal life, and they don't suffer the same sorts of obsessive intrusions into their privacy that HRH and the rest of her tribe of liggers gets. Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands springs to mind. Like her mother, Juliana, before her, she was often seen riding her bike around Den Haag, dropping in unannounced on people dressed just like any other Dutch citizen.
Mind you, the Dutch people still seem to see their monarchy as we see ours -- as a somewhat overpriced soap opera -- so who knows?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 8:48 AM on December 23, 2007
Yeah, responsibility without power must be a bitch. I wish I had the Queen's lack of power.
I was talking to a builder recently who'd worked on a new development that the Queen was coming to open. One of the rules of etiquette was that they had to build a toilet in case the queen needed to go. Nobody else was to use this toilet, and it was to be demolished after she'd been and gone, presumably so nobody else's bum could touch the same throne as that of Her Majesty.
The toilet cost several thousand to build. The Queen came and went. The toilet never got used.
I think that part of the reason that they can't lead a normal life is that they insist on preserving the mystique, the pomp and circumstance. There are a number of European monarchs that do lead something resembling a normal life, and they don't suffer the same sorts of obsessive intrusions into their privacy that HRH and the rest of her tribe of liggers gets. Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands springs to mind. Like her mother, Juliana, before her, she was often seen riding her bike around Den Haag, dropping in unannounced on people dressed just like any other Dutch citizen.
Mind you, the Dutch people still seem to see their monarchy as we see ours -- as a somewhat overpriced soap opera -- so who knows?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 8:48 AM on December 23, 2007
re: "born into it"
At the time of her birth, she was third in the line of succession to the throne. It wasn't until King Edward VIII abdicated and Elizabeth's father became King in 1926 (when she was ten years old) that she became the heiress presumptive. The Queen of England was thus not born into the role of future Queen.
/nitpick
posted by dabitch at 8:52 AM on December 23, 2007
At the time of her birth, she was third in the line of succession to the throne. It wasn't until King Edward VIII abdicated and Elizabeth's father became King in 1926 (when she was ten years old) that she became the heiress presumptive. The Queen of England was thus not born into the role of future Queen.
/nitpick
posted by dabitch at 8:52 AM on December 23, 2007
I don't think any monarch could possibly live up to the example of grace and utter devotion she has provided.
It would be nice if she would stop punishing Charles for daring to love someone other than who was chosen, and allow him to try.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 10:22 AM on December 23, 2007
It would be nice if she would stop punishing Charles for daring to love someone other than who was chosen, and allow him to try.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 10:22 AM on December 23, 2007
You know what? If I had to live the life Queen Elizabeth lives? Day in and day out? Fuck the opulence and the stiff upper lip and all that, I'd be so lonely, claustrophobic and miserable I'd want to kill myself. Anyone who thinks opulence and power and all of that make a person's life happy, rewarding, meaningful, etc. etc. is naive. It's convenient to buy into an "us vs. them" mindset towards the people who are supposedly more well off or better bred than we are, but the truth is never that convenient. She knows no other life, but in many, many ways being Elizabeth or a member of the royal family in general would suck royal rocks.
I'd rather be poor and free to make my own choices and mistakes than rich and living in a bubble of scrutiny, pomp and decorum.
posted by miss lynnster at 1:17 PM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
I'd rather be poor and free to make my own choices and mistakes than rich and living in a bubble of scrutiny, pomp and decorum.
posted by miss lynnster at 1:17 PM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
The toilet cost several thousand to build. The Queen came and went. The toilet never got used.
where i live, the head of state has been using the entire country and a good part of the world for his toilet
count your blessings
posted by pyramid termite at 2:12 PM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
where i live, the head of state has been using the entire country and a good part of the world for his toilet
count your blessings
posted by pyramid termite at 2:12 PM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
I like Her Majesty, and if you're just here to shit, how about wait until after Christmas?
I mean, "the holidays", or whatever the hell we must rebrand it not to offend anyone's sensibilities.
Tradition is not inherently bad. It just tends to be conservative and retrograde. The monarchy is just kind of there. And it's nice. Do you get pissed off when other people have little puppies in their houses, or art on the walls, even if you don't like either of those things?
I really liked gesamtkunstwerk's comment above, and I think the perspectives of new Canadians (or Australians, or English, or Jamaicans, or any of us) are very important on issues like these. It's a comfort. Plain and simple. And it doesn't hurt you. As remarked above, the Crown Estate makes more money than is spent on it, by a factor of 2 or 3, I seem to remember, so... get over it.
posted by blacklite at 6:38 PM on December 23, 2007
I mean, "the holidays", or whatever the hell we must rebrand it not to offend anyone's sensibilities.
Tradition is not inherently bad. It just tends to be conservative and retrograde. The monarchy is just kind of there. And it's nice. Do you get pissed off when other people have little puppies in their houses, or art on the walls, even if you don't like either of those things?
I really liked gesamtkunstwerk's comment above, and I think the perspectives of new Canadians (or Australians, or English, or Jamaicans, or any of us) are very important on issues like these. It's a comfort. Plain and simple. And it doesn't hurt you. As remarked above, the Crown Estate makes more money than is spent on it, by a factor of 2 or 3, I seem to remember, so... get over it.
posted by blacklite at 6:38 PM on December 23, 2007
Yes, mediareport, someone fulfilling their job is a really bad thing to respect them for.
In fairness, this depends on whether the job is worth respecting. Some people, given the weight of history, think that "monarch" isn't a job worth respecting.
Having toothless monarchs around isn't the worst thing in the world, especially if it means that the head of government isn't entitled to any particular respect.
That said, that royal family and the government of the UK seem to have managed the transition to modern egalitarian society worse than other European royalties, stunts like televised and internetted speeches notwithstanding. Frex, compare all the crap that's bedeviled the British royals since Whoever left to marry Whatserface to the course of the royals in Norway.
Also, the Swedish royals are teh hot.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:35 PM on December 23, 2007
In fairness, this depends on whether the job is worth respecting. Some people, given the weight of history, think that "monarch" isn't a job worth respecting.
Having toothless monarchs around isn't the worst thing in the world, especially if it means that the head of government isn't entitled to any particular respect.
That said, that royal family and the government of the UK seem to have managed the transition to modern egalitarian society worse than other European royalties, stunts like televised and internetted speeches notwithstanding. Frex, compare all the crap that's bedeviled the British royals since Whoever left to marry Whatserface to the course of the royals in Norway.
Also, the Swedish royals are teh hot.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:35 PM on December 23, 2007
And it doesn't hurt you.
Monarchical traditions are harmful in they way they are founded upon, maintain and celebrate the exploitative and oppressive belief that some people are somehow "better" than others simply by virtue of their fucking pedigree. It's classism at its most extreme and worst. And while some of you seemingly enjoy playing the part of grovely peons -- you really find it "comforting" to be somebody's subject? -- or because your ancestors were brainwashed into believing it was right and proper, many others in the world are still suffering from this anachronistic nonsense that enables other backward ideas like paternalism, serfdom and slavery.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 7:49 PM on December 23, 2007 [2 favorites]
Monarchical traditions are harmful in they way they are founded upon, maintain and celebrate the exploitative and oppressive belief that some people are somehow "better" than others simply by virtue of their fucking pedigree. It's classism at its most extreme and worst. And while some of you seemingly enjoy playing the part of grovely peons -- you really find it "comforting" to be somebody's subject? -- or because your ancestors were brainwashed into believing it was right and proper, many others in the world are still suffering from this anachronistic nonsense that enables other backward ideas like paternalism, serfdom and slavery.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 7:49 PM on December 23, 2007 [2 favorites]
so, if george does call off the next election and we have to flee somewhere, i take it we're all avoiding canada because of their eeeeeeeeeeeevil monarchical traditions?
posted by pyramid termite at 7:52 PM on December 23, 2007
posted by pyramid termite at 7:52 PM on December 23, 2007
Right, the smart ones would find somewhere with more enlightened views. Christ, even South Africa is a Republic.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 8:17 PM on December 23, 2007
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 8:17 PM on December 23, 2007
you really find it "comforting" to be somebody's subject?
you know what? yeah i do. now trot along and focus your energy away from the UK monarchy and tend to your disgraceful ballot box problems.
posted by Frasermoo at 8:55 PM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
you know what? yeah i do. now trot along and focus your energy away from the UK monarchy and tend to your disgraceful ballot box problems.
posted by Frasermoo at 8:55 PM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
What's this, a serf giving orders?
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 9:33 PM on December 23, 2007
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 9:33 PM on December 23, 2007
I think the movie, The Queen was what opened my eyes to the pressures of her life and what she had to live up to. They really show what 'duty', 'honour', 'serving your country' mean. Where else do we get a dose of that nowadays? the Spears sisters??
posted by infini at 8:09 AM on December 24, 2007
posted by infini at 8:09 AM on December 24, 2007
Christ, even South Africa is a Republic.
And it was a republic with apartheid; in fact, it became a republic to maintain apartheid. And the US was a republic with chattel slavery long after the British Empire abolished the practice. So please, keep up the talk of serfdom as you choose which millionaire will be your next president.
posted by holgate at 11:09 AM on December 24, 2007
And it was a republic with apartheid; in fact, it became a republic to maintain apartheid. And the US was a republic with chattel slavery long after the British Empire abolished the practice. So please, keep up the talk of serfdom as you choose which millionaire will be your next president.
posted by holgate at 11:09 AM on December 24, 2007
It wasn't until King Edward VIII abdicated and Elizabeth's father became King in 1926 (when she was ten years old) that she became the heiress presumptive.
/nitpick
1936
/pedantry
posted by Grangousier at 12:24 PM on December 24, 2007
/nitpick
1936
/pedantry
posted by Grangousier at 12:24 PM on December 24, 2007
the queen is dead
posted by baker dave at 5:11 PM on December 24, 2007
posted by baker dave at 5:11 PM on December 24, 2007
So please, keep up the talk of serfdom as you choose which millionaire will be your next president.
Comparing the queen to the US presidents is just dumb -- we're not talking about political leaders. (And while many presidents have been rich, many others have been poor or middle class, with Bill Clinton a good and recent example. So the US as a serfdom comment is stupid too.) The point is the monarchy is based on the same poisonous idea as slavery and apartheid -- that some people are inherently superior to others. Keeping the institution perpetuates the idea. Enjoy living under the master-subject paradigm if you like, but don't pretend it's harmless.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 8:17 PM on December 24, 2007
Comparing the queen to the US presidents is just dumb -- we're not talking about political leaders. (And while many presidents have been rich, many others have been poor or middle class, with Bill Clinton a good and recent example. So the US as a serfdom comment is stupid too.) The point is the monarchy is based on the same poisonous idea as slavery and apartheid -- that some people are inherently superior to others. Keeping the institution perpetuates the idea. Enjoy living under the master-subject paradigm if you like, but don't pretend it's harmless.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 8:17 PM on December 24, 2007
THE PARADIGM IS OPPRESSING ME OH GOD HOW CAN I EVER HAVE A HAPPY CHRISTMAS.
posted by blacklite at 1:25 PM on December 25, 2007
posted by blacklite at 1:25 PM on December 25, 2007
The Queen of Denmark uses public transportation.
posted by electroboy at 7:27 AM on December 27, 2007
posted by electroboy at 7:27 AM on December 27, 2007
The Queen of Denmark uses public transportation.
Yeah, but does she get up and offer her seat to an elderly or infirm passenger? Nooooo, I bet she just sits there, like she's the goddam queen or something, while some poor old people have to stand, their little spindly legs shaking as they grasp the straphandle with one hand and clutch their bag of Danish pastries with the other.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:38 PM on December 27, 2007
Yeah, but does she get up and offer her seat to an elderly or infirm passenger? Nooooo, I bet she just sits there, like she's the goddam queen or something, while some poor old people have to stand, their little spindly legs shaking as they grasp the straphandle with one hand and clutch their bag of Danish pastries with the other.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:38 PM on December 27, 2007
« Older I, for one, welcome our new Wii remote hacking... | Proliferation, house by house Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by R. Mutt at 5:25 PM on December 22, 2007