Jump to content

American Princess


Jace, Extat

Recommended Posts

I am quite thoroughly disappointed by this Megan Markel business (by which I mean whenever I see an article I roll my eyes). It just sounds wrong.

Now obviously America isn't a functioning democracy and by my own admission is never going to be.

BUT. I don't like it. Americans should be overthrowing those who consider their father's name an elevation above the 'commoner', not marrying into such despicable houses.

It's nothing, and I don't actually give a shit. But seeing as how I still can't read the news without some stupid puff piece getting in my eyes, these are my thoughts. And it just seems kinda sad that as democracy in America experiences its last shuddering breaths there's one of our own kowtowing to 'royalty' in her new family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if I'm just fuzzy minded today or what, but I didn't quite understand what you meant by "those who consider their father's name an elevation above the 'commoner'. . .

Are you talking about Harry thinking his father's name is an elevation?  If so, I'm not sure he believes either way. 

I do agree that a great deal is being made here in the States about this marriage.  It's sort of amusing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Tears of Lys said:

I don't know if I'm just fuzzy minded today or what, but I didn't quite understand what you meant by "those who consider their father's name an elevation above the 'commoner'. . .

Are you talking about Harry thinking his father's name is an elevation?  If so, I'm not sure he believes either way. 

I do agree that a great deal is being made here in the States about this marriage.  It's sort of amusing.

 

The concept of 'royalty' is offensive to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say she hit the jackpot IF the British royals weren't under such a microscope all the time on both sides of the pond.  I would personally hate that level of fame, never being able to go anywhere without causing a kerfuffle. 

However, if I could marry into foreign royalty and also be kind of under the radar and I just got to go around being extremely wealthy while smoking cigars in the off-limits areas of kick ass historical palaces and manors then sign me the fuck up.  Give me the address where I surrender my American passport and be expecting it soon.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, S John said:

I would say she hit the jackpot IF the British royals weren't under such a microscope all the time on both sides of the pond.  I would personally hate that level of fame, never being able to go anywhere without causing a kerfuffle. 

However, if I could marry into foreign royalty and also be kind of under the radar and I just got to go around being extremely wealthy while smoking cigars in the off-limits areas of kick ass historical palaces and manors then sign me the fuck up.  Give me the address where I surrender my American passport and be expecting it soon.  

Trick, you're going to reeducation instead!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I blame the Hallmark channel and it's dozens of movies where an ordinary American girl gets to marry some prince from an imaginary country.

I hope they get to live happy, productive* lives together without too much media circus about them. But yeah, I've had enough of this story.

(*they are both into doing a lot of charity work, and that is cool)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Stannis Eats No Peaches said:

UMMM... ACTUALLY

 

She's not a princess, she's a duchess.

 

:leaving:

:spank:

:box:

:whip:

Take it back!!!!!!!!

JK, I've never understood Americans love of the royal family. I mean, aren't they kind of fake royals anyways? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

:spank:

:box:

:whip:

Take it back!!!!!!!!

JK, I've never understood Americans love of the royal family. I mean, aren't they kind of fake royals anyways? 

These Saxe-Coburg-Gothas are such carpetbaggers. It's all been downhill since the Tudors anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

These Saxe-Coburgs are such carpetbaggers. It's all been downhill since the Tudors anyway.

I have been dubious of any claim tn the throne since the Plantangenets. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Pony Empress Jace said:

I am quite thoroughly disappointed by this Megan Markel business (by which I mean whenever I see an article I roll my eyes). It just sounds wrong.

Now obviously America isn't a functioning democracy and by my own admission is never going to be.

BUT. I don't like it. Americans should be overthrowing those who consider their father's name an elevation above the 'commoner', not marrying into such despicable houses.

It's nothing, and I don't actually give a shit. But seeing as how I still can't read the news without some stupid puff piece getting in my eyes, these are my thoughts. And it just seems kinda sad that as democracy in America experiences its last shuddering breaths there's one of our own kowtowing to 'royalty' in her new family.

Americans are kidding themselves. They throw off all the shackles of King and Lords, and what do you get? Kennedys, Clintons, Bushes. How many people are calling for Michelle Obama to run next time round? They got rid of the regime, but not the concept, they love the idea of dynasty more than we do. 

It's funny you mention the father's name, because the Queen has decreed that her  name will be passed on, not that of her husband (which has always happened in the past, like with Victoria). See, she's practically a third wave feminist!

The paradox of monarchy is that many monarchies- Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Noway- are widely considered some of the most democratic and best run countries in the world. 

40 minutes ago, maarsen said:

I have been dubious of any claim tn the throne since the Plantangenets. 

The Plantagenets are impressive in that they gave us so many monarchs, and pretty much none of them are held in high regard, and quite rightly. They make the Targs look positively functional. My favourite is Henry the Second, who had four sons, all of whom rose in rebellion against him. Four out of four! What a bunch of absolute shits. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For all intents and purposes the monarchy doesn't do anything in any of the countries they rule.

For countries like Australia, New Zealand and Canada, all of whom have the UK monarch as their head of state, power is simply devolved into the parliaments. And the executive branch is drawn from that parliament.

Our Prime Ministers have far less executive power and far more oversight and limitations imposed upon them from the other branches of government.

I'd prefer a monarchy that's symbolic to a monarch elected every four years. Forget about the concept of royal blood for a moment and consider this: in what ways is the America President actually different to a king, in terms of their power? No one in Australia - even the Queen - can wield the power that the President can.

It's okay to be cynical about the long-outdated idea that being born of a queen makes you extra special compared to those who aren't, but it makes no difference to our day-to-day lives. On the other hand, an elected monarch who reigns supreme for four years despite not having the mandate of the majority of his citizens and flouting the rule of law - all the while immune to any prosecution - is far worse than a ceremonial monarch.

The problems with Commonwealth countries come from the legacies of monarchy, in particular offices such as governors and governor-generals. These offices hold supreme executive power. While they tend to be ceremonial, they can wield actual power and occasionally have done so.

The royal family itself is much harder to know how to approach in our modern age. The royals own massive estates of land collectively owned by the Crown, rather than any particular member of the royal family. Obviously this land was won through confiscation and conquest, and then through inheritance - which is hardly different to how most wealthy people today own vast estates. The most major difference, though, is that the royals sacrifice their incomes from these lands and the wealth goes back to the state.

That's an overall collective good to the legacies of their rule over the British Isles and more. It's not a perfect system, obviously. But it's hard to think of a single other family in the same position - owning enormous estates of land - and turning over the profit for public benefits, as well as actually paying taxes (even at all). Were the lands given back to the UK wholesale, there's no reason to think that the royal estates would go the same way as all other large wealthy estates: privatised, their finances run through offshore tax havens and no tangible public benefit ever coming from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Yukle said:

For all intents and purposes the monarchy doesn't do anything in any of the countries they rule.

For countries like Australia, New Zealand and Canada, all of whom have the UK monarch as their head of state, power is simply devolved into the parliaments. And the executive branch is drawn from that parliament.

Our Prime Ministers have far less executive power and far more oversight and limitations imposed upon them from the other branches of government.

I'd prefer a monarchy that's symbolic to a monarch elected every four years. Forget about the concept of royal blood for a moment and consider this: in what ways is the America President actually different to a king, in terms of their power? No one in Australia - even the Queen - can wield the power that the President can.

It's okay to be cynical about the long-outdated idea that being born of a queen makes you extra special compared to those who aren't, but it makes no difference to our day-to-day lives. On the other hand, an elected monarch who reigns supreme for four years despite not having the mandate of the majority of his citizens and flouting the rule of law - all the while immune to any prosecution - is far worse than a ceremonial monarch.

The problems with Commonwealth countries come from the legacies of monarchy, in particular offices such as governors and governor-generals. These offices hold supreme executive power. While they tend to be ceremonial, they can wield actual power and occasionally have done so.

The royal family itself is much harder to know how to approach in our modern age. The royals own massive estates of land collectively owned by the Crown, rather than any particular member of the royal family. Obviously this land was won through confiscation and conquest, and then through inheritance - which is hardly different to how most wealthy people today own vast estates. The most major difference, though, is that the royals sacrifice their incomes from these lands and the wealth goes back to the state.

That's an overall collective good to the legacies of their rule over the British Isles and more. It's not a perfect system, obviously. But it's hard to think of a single other family in the same position - owning enormous estates of land - and turning over the profit for public benefits, as well as actually paying taxes (even at all). Were the lands given back to the UK wholesale, there's no reason to think that the royal estates would go the same way as all other large wealthy estates: privatised, their finances run through offshore tax havens and no tangible public benefit ever coming from it.

Bah! Why you gotta go and make sense and whatnot!

Really I made the thread on a whim after seeing an article headlined 'Why Megan Markel will still have to curtsey to Kate Middleton'. That's the shit that really gets me. I don't want to say something overwrought and stupid like "I bow to no man." but I swear to fucking Darwin that I'd kick a bitch in the throat before I fucking curtsied to some inbreed loving halfwit who likes being a porcelain doll.

The bowing thing in Japan and China or whatever, that's one thing 'cause it's like a mutual respect situation in my understanding. But dipping your knee to make someone else feel powerful in their impotence? No fucking way, it's sick and degrading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Pony Empress Jace said:

Really I made the thread on a whim after seeing an article headlined 'Why Megan Markel will still have to curtsey to Kate Middleton'. That's the shit that really gets me. I don't want to say something overwrought and stupid like "I bow to no man." but I swear to fucking Darwin that I'd kick a bitch in the throat before I fucking curtsied to some inbreed loving halfwit who likes being a porcelain doll.

I genuinely lol'ed at that. Actually out loud. :D:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Yukle said:

I'd prefer a monarchy that's symbolic to a monarch elected every four years. Forget about the concept of royal blood for a moment and consider this: in what ways is the America President actually different to a king, in terms of their power? No one in Australia - even the Queen - can wield the power that the President can.

I think this is disingenuous. Whatever your political system is, power is going to be wielded by someone, in in the end. Royalty in Europe has been made ornamental, not so in, like, Saudi Arabia, but even so in the UK, the one with power comparable to the US president is the Prime Minister.

The difference between MBS and Trump, you ask? Trump is elected, and cannot stay for life, he could theoretically also be removed from power legally before the term of his mandate.

If the argument is that the real head of the state (so, the PM for UK) has necessarily less power in parliamentary monarchies than the US president (proportionally to the weight of his country), then I don't think I can agree, when I see that even with congress and senate pulling for a guy, that guy can hardly do anything, and that cunjunction does not happen often... and when it happens in other countries (say, France currently) then it's open bar, in comparison.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Errant Bard said:

I think this is disingenuous. Whatever your political system is, power is going to be wielded by someone, in in the end. Royalty in Europe has been made ornamental, not so in, like, Saudi Arabia, but even so in the UK, the one with power comparable to the US president is the Prime Minister.

The difference between MBS and Trump, you ask? Trump is elected, and cannot stay for life, he could theoretically also be removed from power legally before the term of his mandate.

If the argument is that the real head of the state (so, the PM for UK) has necessarily less power in parliamentary monarchies than the US president (proportionally to the weight of his country), then I don't think I can agree, when I see that even with congress and senate pulling for a guy, that guy can hardly do anything, and that cunjunction does not happen often... and when it happens in other countries (say, France currently) then it's open bar, in comparison.

 

Power can be wielded by many someones, not just someone. Monarchies in general, I don't like, it's more that the Commonwealth nations, for all intents and purposes, aren't monarchies in practice.

There are many problems with America's presidency. For one thing, Trump was elected by the EC, not his populace. And now that he is in power, he has extra privileges that normal citizens don't get. Including immunity from many laws. Impeachment is meant to be the means around him being criminal, unsuitable or corrupt. Trump is all three and there's nothing Americans can do about it.

Our PMs aren't immune to prosecution for their actions. And unlike the USA, ours are required to disclose all conflicts of interest by law, not by convention. Trump could never have been PM of Australia as his refusal to disclose his business interests would make him ineligible for office.

Prime Ministers don't have as much executive power as Presidents to start with, since power is also devolved into parliament. This is one of the huge issues I have with America's president: the sheer scale of the power invested in one person is enormous. Even the veto doesn't exist: there's no legal means that the Queen can exercise to refuse to give royal assent.

If a Prime Minister is unsuitable for office, or just acts against their party's morals, it's not especially hard to remove them from office. In fact, it doesn't even take a sitting of parliament, the party can do it on their own. Parliament can also do it, similar to impeachment. And if such a vote of no confidence happens, the whole parliament is liquidated so the people get to decide what happens next, not the parliament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...