British Royal/Celebrity Wedding

[August1991]

I think that I am reiterating many of AW's points.

It still has nothing to do with relegating people to a social class, such as "commoner." We don't have that here, regardless of what some's personal beliefs may be, which quite clearly has been my point. And there is a big difference, whether you recognize it or not. And I'll add that "race" and "social standing based on ancestry" are also two different things.

This objection to social class is not peculiar to Americans, but Americans certainly take it seriously.

In protocol, most heads of states/presidents are referred to as "His/Her Excellency" or "His/Her Royal Highness" etc. and then there are various terms/titles down to the generic "The Honourable" which is used for just about anybody.

The US President is always referred to as "The Honorable".

The British Queen and the French president do not travel with passports. (A British passport is ostensibly signed by the Queen and asks foreigners to let her subjects pass without hindrance. It would be odd for to sign a paper asking foreigners to allow herself travel.)

US presidents have passports like any other US citizen and they obtain visas to enter foreign countries just as all Americans must do. (Admittedly, US presidents travel with a diplomatic passport that other than colour is identical to a regular passport.)

----

I am on record as a republican and I would prefer that Canada became the Federal Republic of Canada. I won't delve further into the differences between a republican Canada and a Canada with constitutional monarchy, or how the "non-common" status of the British Royalty has an effect on the rest of society.

Rather, this thread seems to have missed something more strange about this wedding. The members of the British royal family and their various shenanigans, including this wedding, have entered the world of celebrity. They are now mere entertainment.

[g_bambino]

They are now mere entertainment.

Except for that whole constitutional bit, that is.

[g_bambino]

As for the Monarchy - yeah, they have their kooky rules about the Royal family being the head of the Anglican Church and all that which gets in the way of having a Catholic sit on the throne.

It doesn't prevent a Muslim or a Sikh from becoming monarch, though. The Act of Settlement is specific about Catholics only, and that stems from the disputes between Catholics and Protestants that took place in England through much of the 17th century. After parliament ran James II out of town and put William and Mary on the throne as co-sovereigns, the Act of Settlement was passed to ensure a meddlesome Catholic monarch like James would never again reign over the country. It made sense then, but seems quite irrelevant today and I'd be happy to see it gone (the only issue being whether or not its acceptable to have a head of state who owes allegiance to another head of state).

You seem to imply in your post, however, that the anti-Catholic rule was initiated and has been upheld ever since at the monarch's insistence; a perception I've frequently heard expressed when this subject comes up. It's false, though. As I've already alluded to, the rule is within an act of parliament, a law written and voted on by parliamentarians at the beginning of the 18th century and which has been allowed by their successors to continue to exist. Likewise, the Queen cannot do away with it until she has the consent of her parliaments, at least 16 of them.

[-]

Edited May 1, 2011 by g_bambino

[bush_cheney2004]

....Rather, this thread seems to have missed something more strange about this wedding. The members of the British royal family and their various shenanigans, including this wedding, have entered the world of celebrity. They are now mere entertainment.

Alas, this has been true for some time. The royals are probably the original "celebrities", made more so by pop culture and mass media. As for exclusion and social class, it was pointed out to me many years ago that British aristocracy used etiquette to enforce a pecking order, while the Americans preferred simple manners to bridge the social divide and make others comfortable.

[msj]

It still has nothing to do with relegating people to a social class, such as "commoner." We don't have that here, regardless of what some's personal beliefs may be, which quite clearly has been my point. And there is a big difference, whether you recognize it or not. And I'll add that "race" and "social standing based on ancestry" are also two different things.

AW, I'm just going to agree to disagree with the stuff you have written (and for which I have snipped).

It's almost post-tax season (Monday is last day!) so I'm too tired to discuss anything coherently and without being really cranky (ok, crankier than usual).

As for "commoner" - well, I believe it was an American who uttered the phrase "only the little people pay taxes...." But, maybe that was her "Jewish" roots or some such thing....

[msj]

Accountants get 71? WTF? If I were class-concious, I'd rather be a purple-skinned, homeless, Catholic rather than be an accountant. The only occupation less prestigious and more lower class than being an accountant is being a dentist. (I don't care how much money they make. It's not enough compensation for the sheer drudgery.)

Yes, yes August. Now there's a good girl.

Us accountants gladly fit in amongst the common folk but, sorry to disappoint, dentists rate an 80 to our 71. But we're higher than pest control workers (26).

Years ago my wife served a table of dentists. They all fought over the 1 bottle of wine. There were 7 of them.....

[Guest American Woman]

As for exclusion and social class, it was pointed out to me many years ago that British aristocracy used etiquette to enforce a pecking order, while the Americans preferred simple manners to bridge the social divide and make others comfortable.

I like it.

[Guest American Woman]

I am on record as a republican and I would prefer that Canada became the Federal Republic of Canada.

I would feel the same way.

Rather, this thread seems to have missed something more strange about this wedding. The members of the British royal family and their various shenanigans, including this wedding, have entered the world of celebrity. They are now mere entertainment.

I think it's been this way for awhile, and I think the Queen is very aware of it and it's been a thorn in her side. I can understand it must be difficult for her to try to preserve the old standards as with each generation it becomes more of a side show than anything else. In the end, though, I think it's kind of a sign that the days of royalty (and commoners) are over.

[msj]

I would feel the same way.

I think it's been this way for awhile, and I think the Queen is very aware of it and it's been a thorn in her side. I can understand it must be difficult for her to try to preserve the old standards as with each generation it becomes more of a side show than anything else. In the end, though, I think it's kind of a sign that the days of royalty (and commoners) are over.

I largely agree too:

I would like to see Canada move away from the monarchy.

The royals have been a sideshow for a longtime.

However, I think the distinction between royalty, celebrity, and commoners is different rather than over.

[Smallc]

I largely agree too:

I would like to see Canada move away from the monarchy.

It's not that I really care that much for royalty, but, what's the point. Unless we're going to change to a presidential (blah) or semi-presidential(me like) system, there's no point in changing. Around the world, whether there is a monarch or a president at the head, parliamentary democracies operate in very similar ways. There is a head of state with rarely used independent power, and a head of government that advises that head of state on how to use their power day to day. It would be a bunch of work for absolutely nothing. The difference between Governor General David Jonhston and President david Johnston would be pretty much non existent.

[g_bambino]

Rosie DiManno (whom I generally admire) summed up my own feelings rather well in her piece in the Star today:

Monarchy is our common denominator... [C]onstitutional monarchy may be an anachronism but the symbolism and ceremony still have traction. I appreciate having a sovereign above the fray of politics (and never so much as during a federal election). Let them keep the perks, if not the power.

The monarchy is in good hands

People have been predicting the demise of our monarchy for hundreds of years. It' has, though, survived regicide, revolution, wars, and smear campaigns, and it will likewise endure the Me Generation. The monarchy's flexibility has been its key to survival and there's no reason to say it won't continue as such into the future.

[msj]

It's not that I really care that much for royalty, but, what's the point. Unless we're going to change to a presidential (blah) or semi-presidential(me like) system, there's no point in changing. Around the world, whether there is a monarch or a president at the head, parliamentary democracies operate in very similar ways. There is a head of state with rarely used independent power, and a head of government that advises that head of state on how to use their power day to day. It would be a bunch of work for absolutely nothing. The difference between Governor General David Jonhston and President david Johnston would be pretty much non existent.

I also agree with this too.

If it happens it happens and we move away to something else.

If it doesn't then we keep the system we have which isn't too bad (unless Harper gets a majority in which case it will be terrible ).

[g_bambino]

The difference between Governor General David Jonhston and President david Johnston would be pretty much non existent.

Except for the fact that he'd have to answer ultimately to the party rather than the monarch, that is.

On the surface of it, there's little difference between a parliamentary republic and a parliamentary monarchy; in each, the president and the sovereign serve the same purpose. However, in the former, the head of state carries more political baggage; regardless of whether elected by parliament or by popular vote, he will always be a politician. Not only does that make the office divisive (the president alienates that percentage of the population who didn't vote for him or don't support his party), it also diminishes the impartiality we expect from the head of state in a Westminster system. This introduces the potential for cohabitation, wherein the president and prime minister are at political odds but both claim to have the democratic right to impose their personal preference.

The semi-presidential system is better than the presidential one, I agree. But, it's still not one I appreciate all that much, and certianly not one I envision for a country as big and diverse as Canada. India and Italy are both parliamentary republics. In the former, Neelam Sanjiva Reddy was put forward as the presidential candidate by the Congress Party, but, as he was a political rival of the prime minister, Indira Ghandi, she sought the support from other parties and rammed her own candidate, Varahagiri Venkata Giri, through the parliament. Giri was nothing but a yes-man to Ghandi, while in office. In the latter, only just five years ago, Silvio Berlusconi, who was then the outgoing prime minister, publicly rejected Giorgio Napolitano, the presidential candidate put forward by the incoming coalition headed by Romano Prodi, on the grounds that Napolitano was of a political mind opposite to Berlusconi's own. Berlusconi is now Napolitano's prime minister and chief executive advisor.

These political conflicts and interventions would not go over well in Canada, I imagine, especially when we throw in the thorny issues of language and ethnicity that are ever-present in this country.

[c/e]

Edited May 1, 2011 by g_bambino

[Smallc]

I'm not really advocating to a change of our system of government, just to be clear.

[jbg]

As for "commoner" - well, I believe it was an American who uttered the phrase "only the little people pay taxes...." But, maybe that was her "Jewish" roots or some such thing....

That post is beyond despicable. To attribute the views of Leona Helmsley, known as the "Qeen of Mean" to Judaism is revolting.

[msj]

That post is beyond despicable. To attribute the views of Leona Helmsley, known as the "Qeen of Mean" to Judaism is revolting.

Are you going to deny that some people don't do this? And some people didn't do this when it happened?

Are you that naive?

[scouterjim]

I didn't watch anything to do with the whole crapola. I care less for the monarchy than I do for dirty underwear.

[Black Dog]

Well there you go then. You and you alone are know something that goes on in the United States that is so well hidden as not to ever be mentioned/referred to. Thanks for the education! Now if you could tell me what those social classes are, I'd be very grateful.

Ah the power of myth.

[Bob]

Clearly msj is completely out-of-touch with America on the issue of the "birther" movement. It has nothing to with Obama's skin colour, and everything to do with his early years and ambiguous background (unusual familial situation, to put it lightly...). If the same people who tried to make moves to change the legal requirement in the USA for the President to be American-born were now trying to attack Obama's ambiguous origins, you'd be closer to almost having a point.

If Obama was completely white-skinned and has a completely Anglo-name, there would still be attacks against him from certain people because of his early years. End of story.

[Bob]

It's really embarassing that so many Canadians are like g_bambino, in thinking that Amrerica is some racist country where someone's race or ethnicity relegates to them to against? if there's any "class system" that exists in the USA, it's the ordinary distinction people have based on education/success. For example, I grew up in a wealthy-ish neighbourbood in Canada which was very diverse in terms of ethnicities and races, just like many places in the USA. As far as the ignorant description of Hollywood from someone who has probably never been there, or at least has no friend or family or any personal connection to the area, I can assure you black people in Hollywood probably have more in common with white people in Hollywood than they do with blacks in Compton, just as whites in Compton probably have more in common with blacks in Compton than they do with whites in Hollywood. The irony of course being that g_bambino is the real racist by implying that achievement for black people (and other unmentioned ethnicities and races) in the USA is somehow limited by some non-existent racist barrier. Lastly, although not explicitly stated, it would appear that this idiocy is also suggesting that racism can only manifest itself in one direction - from white people against others, as if white people can't be victimized by racism in innumerable contexts.

[g_bambino]

It's really embarassing that so many Canadians are like g_bambino, in thinking that Amrerica is some racist country where someone's race or ethnicity relegates to them to against? if there's any "class system" that exists in the USA, it's the ordinary distinction people have based on education/success.

Oh, please. Of course it's more complicated than either you or I can get into in a post on a message forum. But, even from my simplified summary, it's a huge stretch to claim I even insinuated the US is a "racist country". In fact, it's quite evident from my inclusion of the words "parts of" that I wasn't talking about the country in its entirety; as though slavery or segregation were still an official policy. That said, I don't think it's too outrageous to point out that there are obvious links between race and ethnicity and education and success. It's also verifiable that there is a not insignificant number of Americans who don't hide their displeasure with the fact that the current president has attained a position and stature above what a person of his particular shade of skin colour should.

But, we're deviating from the point, which is that, contrary to AW's assertions, the US is not free from class heirarchy and divisions, despite being a republic. It would seem, at least, that you don't disagree with that.

[+]

Edited May 2, 2011 by g_bambino

[Guest American Woman]

Ah the power of myth.

Since no one else has been able to do it, perhaps you could explain this preordained social class system that exists in the United States? I'll wait patiently for your response.

[GostHacked]

Since no one else has been able to do it, perhaps you could explain this preordained social class system that exists in the United States? I'll wait patiently for your response.

It's the same that live in most countries. The poor, the middle class and the rich. One should not need to point out the obvious differences among those social classes.

[Guest American Woman]

It's the same that live in most countries. The poor, the middle class and the rich. One should not need to point out the obvious differences among those social classes.

And one is preordained by their ancestry to these classes? And will remain in that class, as will their children, because of their ancestry?

One should not need to point out the obvious difference between economic classes, which one is not preordained to and one has control over, and social classes determined solely by ancestry, which one does not have control over. Kate is a "commoner" and that is that. Based on her ancestry. I'll ask again. What class in the US is comparable to that?

[GostHacked]

And one is preordained by their ancestry to these classes? And will remain in that class, as will their children, because of their ancestry?

One should not need to point out the obvious difference between economic classes, which one is not preordained to and one has control over, and social classes determined solely by ancestry, which one does not have control over. Kate is a "commoner" and that is that. Based on her ancestry. I'll ask again. What class in the US is comparable to that?

Your ecomonic status (I beleive) determines your social status.