Patterico's Pontifications

4/28/2011

The Royal Wedding Is Stupid

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:06 pm

That is all.

UPDATE: I meant the hoopla.

115 Responses to “The Royal Wedding Is Stupid”

  1. At least Kate and Harry are hot and hotter.

    But camilla is part horse part human.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  2. I am going to be up at 4:00 a.m. in curlers wearing a pink robe eating bon bons and watching the wedding. Who asked for your opinion!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  3. this is what they do… the minute one of them poofter royals is born with actual talent and ambition the whole royal taco stand will have to fold

    happyfeet (760ba3)

  4. but there was nobody as stupid as this poofter boy’s mama – Diana had no clue whatsoever what she was doing when she married poor goofy inbred Chuck

    I don’t think the woman had more than six functional brain cells.

    happyfeet (760ba3)

  5. Well with the budget cuts, the riots, the crazy Salafi, one day of something uplifting won’t be so bad, I know they’ve been on this jag for two weeks now,

    narciso (79ddc3)

  6. Yes, the Royals are so stupid that we superior Americans spend all our time following Charlie Sheen and the Kardashians.

    Arizona Bob (aa856e)

  7. yeah but we don’t have to call Charlie Sheen your highness and keep a straight face like those pitiful Brit humpers have to do when they talk to the royal trailer trash

    happyfeet (760ba3)

  8. Stupid? You mean that they should just keep shacking up as they’ve been doing till now?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  9. Um, that’s because most of them have actual class. (Not Charles.)

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  10. Run Kate, run!

    Bart998 (9b576e)

  11. I’ll take Her Majesty over Obama any day.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  12. What happens if Charlie Sheen and Chuckie manboobs from lgf sow up?

    Methinks the participants will be distracted by his manboobs.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  13. I’ll take Her Majesty over Obama any day.

    Not to so consistently disagree with you, lately, but I disagree. Obama is dramatically classier than any king or queen in world history. Yes, Obama is a bad president, but he won an election before he started breaking his promises and violating the constitution. His doing so goes beyond what is just, but he is categorically more legitimate. Anyone who claims authority over other men, by virtue of their royal dynasty, is low.

    If they had any class at all, they would renounce the concept, and get jobs. Will Obama insist he has power over you and me if he loses the next election? No, he won’t. Because even though he’s a tremendous douche, he’s an American, and we’re better than that.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  14. Dustin, say what you will, but the Brits, across the board, like and respect their Queen a lot better than we Yanks across the board like our current Prezzident.

    elissa (da296f)

  15. Don’t worry folks… The wedding is in the EARLY A.M., and so it will all soon be over…

    After the several days of recap and commentary.

    And the couple of days worth of stuff in a week.

    And in a month.

    And the next month…

    And at the 6 month mark…

    And the 2 weeks of recap and commentary and file-footage and profiles of everyone involved at the one-year anniversary…

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  16. Don’t worry when Kate Middleton is revealed to be cheating on him with Camilla the Horse maybe we won’t have to hear about the damn thing.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  17. Obama is dramatically classier than any king or queen in world history.

    Are you watching a different Obama than we are?

    “The police acted stupidly.”

    “Paul Ryan is not serious.”

    Sending an iPod with HIS OWN SPEECHES to The Queen, and DVDs that were region 1 encoded (and thus not playable on a british DVD player). Returning gifts they had sent. Snubbing their PM. Twice.

    Seriously, why WOULD they invite the guy?

    Can you imagine what he’s give Will and Kate for gifts? Signed copies of his book, I bet you money.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  18. Dustin, Her Majesty reigns because Parliament hired her ancestor, German George. Should Parliament ever decide to fire her, she’d be gone. How’s that different from the Electoral College hiring Obama? And the fact is that for all her reputed lefty views, she’s a good person, a brave person, and someone who’s held the dignity of the Crown above politics through difficult times. Whereas Obama is scum who comes from scum and will return to scum.

    Americans have tried mingling the dignity of the Head of State with the person of a politician, but it’s been a collossal failure. Even Reagan couldn’t really pull it off; those of us who loved his politics were free to loved him too, but those who hated his politics couldn’t very well set that aside. And few other presidents have even come close. If it were possible to bring the mystique and dignity of the monarchy back to the USA it would be a good idea, but I don’t think it is possible; dreams are fragile things.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  19. Dustin, say what you will, but the Brits, across the board, like and respect their Queen a lot better than we Yanks across the board like our current Prezzident.

    Comment by elissa

    I’m sure that’s true, elissa. The fact she could win an election doesn’t change the fact she did not. I know, I know, her powers are weak and seldom used. But as bad as our president is, I won’t just sit here and see him compared negatively to someone who doesn’t even stand for an election. He is categorically better. Liz isn’t fit to shine President Obama’s shoes. And I say that recognizing that Britain is our friend, and that Obama has acted particularly lousy towards that friend. I don’t have anything nice to say about him other than the most general comment about the nature of republican government.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  20. He scammed his way through an election, using the lowest of tactics. How does that make him a better person?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  21. I am worried that someone is sockpuppeting our regular Dustin. Obama’s counterpart is the British Prime minister–not the ceremonial queen.

    elissa (da296f)

  22. Her Majesty reigns because Parliament hired her ancestor, German George. Should Parliament ever decide to fire her, she’d be gone. How’s that different from the Electoral College hiring Obama?

    I got a vote in the 2008 election, Milhouse.

    Americans have tried mingling the dignity of the Head of State with the person of a politician, but it’s been a collossal failure. […] If it were possible to bring the mystique and dignity of the monarchy back to the USA it would be a good idea

    He’s a president. that term was selected because it is not regal at all. He just runs the administration of the government. Sure, we’ve made a mess of things. Sure, there’s plenty of examples of how it’s not perfect.

    That you compare the US Presidency to the Queen of England, because you think in the most asinine sense the british have a democratic say in the matter, is … not reasonable.

    I don’t think the fact our President is less than a monarch is a failure at all. I think that’s just peachy.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  23. Obama is dramatically classier than any king or queen in world history.

    Seriously???

    As Hitchens notes regarding the Queen,

    The British monarchy doesn’t depend entirely on glamour, as the long, long reign of Queen Elizabeth II continues to demonstrate. Her unflinching dutifulness and reliability have conferred something beyond charm upon the institution, associating it with stoicism and a certain integrity.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  24. I am worried that someone is sockpuppeting our regular Dustin. Obama’s counterpart is the British Prime minister–not the ceremonial queen.

    Comment by elissa —

    Elissa, it’s the same old dustin. I didn’t start the comparison between President Obama and liz, though. I responded to it.

    And I disagree that the Queen lacks any power other than ceremonial. Even then, I reject the entire notion of nobility. Again, Obama actually campaigned to the American people. Sure, he basically did so by conning a lot of them with promises he couldn’t or won’t keep, but that’s on us (or at least the people who voted for him).

    Obama asked you and me for support. Our votes are filtered through electors, and some disagree the idea of a presidential system, but Obama will have to run for office in a very short time, or he loses power. He has to ask us again.

    How is that similar to a Queen or King? you obviously have a practical point that the Queen doesn’t exercise her powers (such as dissolution) beyond being a fount of official honors, but even that I think is a stain. When Obama presided over awarding a Medal of Honor or other honor, that derives from the American people. Honors from nobility do not do that.

    He scammed his way through an election, using the lowest of tactics. How does that make him a better person?

    Yeah, Obama scammed his way through an election. The queen didn’t bother. She just has a title because of birth.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  25. She has a title because that’s the contract the people of the UK signed with her family; and it’s a contract they can unsign at will. They just haven’t wanted to, because they have a sense of honour, and because the Hanovers/Windsors have in turn given on the whole good service.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  26. Her unflinching dutifulness and reliability have conferred something beyond charm upon the institution, associating it with stoicism and a certain integrity.

    What integrity, Dana? Sure, something about charm and institutions… ok, but what integrity?

    I think by stoicism he means she voted present, which is obviously something I’m glad to see, as she has no legitimacy whatsoever. It would be better if she stepped down, but short of that, it’s a good thing she does nothing at all. She’s a celebrity, so her doing nothing is called stoic charm. Bleagh.

    While most people commenting here understand why Obama is a lousy president, that doesn’t change the fact he won an election. The american people considered the matter, and specifically chose Obama for this position. So the problem with Obama’s BS is mainly the voter’s failure (to vet him or consider the agenda, or to simply have conservative politics… however you want to articulate it). Obama can’t oppress us, because America picked Obama.

    Now, obviously, the Queen can hardly oppress anyone. If she tried to do anything more than be a decoration, the fraud of her title would be pointed out very quickly by the actual elected government. But as grateful as I am for that fact, she remains claiming a title over other people, in virtue of her birth, and not their specifically wanting her to have that position.

    And I think positions like that are inferior to the office of the President.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  27. And Dustin keeps ignoring the fact that the people of the UK chose the Hanovers just as surely as the people of the USA chose Obama. The fact that they did so 310 years ago, and haven’t regretted it since, is a plus, not a minus.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  28. She has a title because that’s the contract the people of the UK signed with her family; and it’s a contract they can unsign at will.

    That’s basically a myth. Royal power has come and gone with these agreements, depending on who the king is. It’s not as though there was no royalty, and the people decided they wanted one, so the elected a government that then contracted this service from a family. That’s a contrived fiction to make a monarchy appear legitimate.

    Monarchies are not legitimate.

    They just haven’t wanted to, because they have a sense of honour,

    Do you even know what honor is? The concept of nobility is manifestly unfair. It is an empty credit. No, this is dishonor.

    I don’t mean to act so incensed about it. I’m not. It’s not my country. Plenty of other countries have far, far worse examples of this problem. Iran, for example.

    But still, I would not take this “majesty” over a even a terrible US President. Bear in mind, I intend to vote against this one. That’s the point.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  29. And Dustin keeps ignoring the fact that the people of the UK chose the Hanovers just as surely as the people of the USA chose Obama.

    No, I didn’t ignore that. I responded directly to this point three times. You’re simply ignoring my argument, and reasserting your conclusion again.

    First, I said there one difference is that Obama personally asked the American people to vote for him, and will personally have to ask them again. He will not be able to rule in perpetuity. The idea that removing him and his bloodline from power would not be considered dishonorable (you actually made this argument), but rather, it is automatic. By requiring repeat elections, power entrenches less. We don’t wind up with a leader picked for us 300 years ago (and only picked in a fictitious manner).

    Second, kings have gained or lost power in Britain over the years in these ‘agreements’ you insist is equal in legitimacy to repeated American elections. The kings have a special bargaining advantage that a US Candidate for office lacks.

    Third, the entire concept of hereditary nobility is just plain wrong, so the contract you’re claiming is equivalent to American elections is with an entity that I consider invalid altogether.

    Sure, you don’t agree, but that doesn’t make your point a ‘fact’. It’s your opinion.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  30. That’s basically a myth. Royal power has come and gone with these agreements, depending on who the king is. It’s not as though there was no royalty, and the people decided they wanted one, so the elected a government that then contracted this service from a family. That’s a contrived fiction to make a monarchy appear legitimate.

    No, actually, that’s exactly what happened. Queen Anne was dying and there was no heir, so Parliament voted to hire German George. There was an actual vote. They could have hired anybody or left the post vacant; they could have established another commonwealth; but they chose him. They negotiated a contract of employment with him. They offered him a salary high enough that he agreed to their terms. At any time since then they could have voted to terminate the agreement and hire someone else, or make some other arrangement, but they haven’t done so.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  31. _____________________________________

    That is all.</i

    LOL. Aaron's posts tend to be rather lengthy, while yours, or at least this one, is rather condensed.

    Mark (411533)

  32. kings have gained or lost power in Britain over the years in these ‘agreements’ you insist is equal in legitimacy to repeated American elections.

    Examples? I’m not sure what you mean.

    The kings have a special bargaining advantage that a US Candidate for office lacks.

    Really? What would that be?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  33. ______________________________________

    Obama is dramatically classier

    Everyone has to admit he’s perfected the art of bowing like a servant or peasant before certain foreign dignitaries, namely the king of Saudi Arabia and the Emperor of Japan. Only time the guy in the Oval Office has shown some humility.

    Mark (411533)

  34. At any time since then they could have voted to terminate the agreement and hire someone else, or make some other arrangement, but they haven’t done so.

    But you claimed that it would be dishonorable to even “want” to leave the post vacant.

    And indeed, they couldn’t really leave the post vacant because there would be bloodshed. You sound familiar enough with this history of that country to know that it came after a period where a lack of a king (or one calling himself lord protector) led to bloodshed, and royalty was changing terms of these agreements based on their ability to manipulate their military power and religious bigotry.

    It is patently absurd to claim they merely hired an applicant to a job 300 years ago, and that makes a hereditary dynasty as legitimate as electing a specific person to a limited term of office.

    No, you miss the underlying point. Set this idea aside that there is a contract with a noble family to have the power to, among other things, dissolve the government and confer state honors. For that to work, you have to be born into a noble family. That step is also not legitimate.

    All people are born equal before the law. Sure, they aren’t equal in various ways, such as their capabilities, but their legal status should be the same as any other person. You’re saying one citizen born into a certain family is noble.

    Well, to be honest, you’re not really saying that. You’re skipping over that part to repeat the legal fiction that surrounds that nobility’s power.

    And that’s why we’re not seeing eye to eye.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  35. Everyone has to admit he’s perfected the art of bowing like a servant or peasant before certain foreign dignitaries, namely the king of Saudi Arabia and the Emperor of Japan. Only time the guy in the Oval Office has shown some humility.

    Just to be clear, when I say Obama is classier than a monarch, that is intended as a deep insult to monarchs.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  36. No, actually, that’s exactly what happened. Queen Anne was dying and there was no heir, so Parliament voted to hire German George.

    OK, to be completely precise I misstated some of the details. Anne wasn’t dying at the time the contract with the Hanovers was negotiated and signed; she wasn’t even queen yet. But all her children were dead and she was unlikely to have any more, so Parliament signed her replacement.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  37. But you claimed that it would be dishonorable to even “want” to leave the post vacant.

    Yes; there’s honour in fealty, something that America sorely lacks. But the power is all with Parliament, and has been since that contract was voted on in 1700.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  38. Examples? I’m not sure what you mean.

    There are a lot to pick from, but one example is are the changes made to the Magna Carta in the 1200s to restore power to a monarch, after that power was taken away. I don’t mean to imply I’m a history buff, but I thought my reference was broad and obvious. These agreements have changed over the centuries. In later times, they revolved around anti catholicism. I suspect you actually know more about this than I do (this is not a veiled insult or anything).

    The fact is that these people did not go before the public and ask to be elected. You’re surprised I’m suggesting they enjoyed advantages people like George Bush or JFK did not?

    The real sloppiness to this discussion is what Elissa said. The queen is not very powerful. I hope that she has no real power, and if she attempted to dissolve the government, she’d be kicked out of office. However, the real honor would be to point out that there is no nobility to one’s birth, and thus any ‘contract’ you’re citing that relies on that concept is a fraud.

    Again, while I do find this very interesting, I’m not particularly angry that Britain has a respect for something I think is low and wrong.

    In the context of a world with Mullahs or military dictators, this isn’t nearly so bad. Though I think it’s a little more sad because Britain ought to be an advanced republic that rejects these concepts. It truly is the greatest disappointment, from their nanny cameras to their royal trappings.

    My reason for commenting is that you said you preferred a majesty to a president. I disagree, even with this particularly crappy president.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  39. And I’m really sorry about my typos. Wow. Congrats for even trying to bear with me.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  40. OK, to be completely precise I misstated some of the details.

    Our disagreement has nothing to do with these details, so don’t worry about it.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  41. Dustin – Those bon bons are still looking at me.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  42. The 1200s?! Seriously? If you haven’t noticed, things have changed a lot since then. But the Queen’s title doesn’t derive from anything that happened in the 1200s. She may be distantly descended from the Plantagenets, but her title has only one source: the Act of Settlement, 1701, an act of Parliament that was voted on, and that can be amended or repealed at any time. That was when Parliament firmly took charge of the throne, and since then the UK’s kings and queens have reigned solely by its virtue, which is to say by Parliament’s continuing consent. There was no fraud or compulsion in the negotiation of that contract, or in the vote to implement it. And the fact that Parliament has not seen fit to change its mind in 310 years says a lot.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  43. milhouse, why do you get to rely on something that happened centuries ago as the foundation of your entire argument, but I can’t cite something that happened centuries ago merely as a freakin’ anecdote?

    Dustin (c16eca)

  44. “That is all.”

    Nice post, but I thought it was a little too wordy.

    Dave Surls (a7d545)

  45. Because anything that happened in the 1200s in England is as irrelevant as whatever happened in the 1200s in America. The Queen’s title doesn’t derive from anything that happened then. But what happened in 1700 is very relevant, because it is the entire basis of the Queen’s reign. She is Queen because Parliament took a vote in 1700, and for no other reason. And since no Parliament can bind its successors, she could be out of there at any moment, if Parliament should take it into its mind to break fealty and remove her.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  46. And the fact that Parliament has not seen fit to change its mind in 310 years says a lot.

    What does that say? Nothing. Certainly not that the queen has performed her duties in the most efficient manner possible. What duties is she even performing? Most of them are silly. Knighting singers and movie stars, or showing off a hat?

    for the most part, these functions could simply be eliminated altogether. What’s left could be performed for almost nothing. Anyone believing in limited government should want some accountability for how efficiently these services have been rendered.

    You’re so defensive. I think that speaks to why no one has the common sense to eliminate the royalty altogether. People like you actually say it would be dishonorable to do that. And lots of people fawn for the celebrity of it. So you keep saying that the fact this has remained in place for a long time is great evidence, but we live in a world where stupid things persist for a long, long time.

    Sorry, but you’re again just repeating your conclusion. And my understanding is that the act of settlement can’t be altered without unanimous consent of all the other ‘realms’. So basically you’re saying that this noble family gets to have power, forever, unless there is a unanimous agreement to change that. And this is on par with the US Presidential election in legitimacy.

    Also, as I mentioned before, you are supporting a theocratic document as legitimate. I again disagree with that.

    There was no fraud or compulsion in the negotiation of that contract, or in the vote to implement it.

    That’s completely incorrect, though, as this came following the bloodless revolution (which wasn’t bloodless) and the glorious revolution. William III had armies and won battles. Saying there is no coercion in this deal seems to be because the king agreed to limited power, but the entire thing was coerced (on both sides). This is nothing like a US Presidential election in legitimacy.

    And it doesn’t have to be. It’s not like the US Constitution was drawn up in a sterile vacuum. However, laws are different than people who hold special titles over other people. And since there is no such thing as being born into nobility, contracting with a noble dynasty is a fraud. Such a mistake is normal centuries ago, but it’s long long long past the time we stop recognizing such nobility nonsense.

    Anyhow, this assertion that there was no coercion seems radical.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  47. Dustin, I admire your republican principles, but let me tell you what I think is a solid conservative argument for the monarchy:

    * It allows Britons (as if there were very many of those anymore) to connect with over 1000 years of history of that remarkable people.

    * It provides a sense of elegance, dignity, and (yes) majesty to an era of mindlessly populist slobbery and reckless casualness. OK, maybe Prince Charles has p*ssed away a lot of that whole dignity thing.

    * It reminds us of simple notions of duty, loyalty, and service. I daresay that far more young men have charged into battle with cries of “For the King!” or “For the Queen!” than have with cries of “For the President!” or “For the Secretary General!”

    What’s more, I think that the present Monarch is a remarkable woman. Do you know that she served in the Women’s Auxillary Territorial Service during World War II, working at one time as an auto mechanic, and rose to a rank equivalent of an Army Captain? Not bad for a woman of 19 at the time. Stop and ponder for a moment that her reign dates back to the ministry of Winston Churchill. Sure, her eldest son is a dope and her husband is an ass (though I have a soft spot for him as well), but don’t try to tell me that there isn’t something inherently conservative about the British monarchy.

    JVW (b4b820)

  48. ___________________________________________

    that is intended as a deep insult to monarchs.

    Dustin, I’d say the increasingly overly liberal tilt of Britain, or namely the Euro-socialized laziness of a large percentage of its people, poses the bigger problem to such a society than whether its monarchy is proper or not. In particular, I’m referring to recent news reports about a cop in England arresting a singer of a band playing in a pub based on the complaints of a customer about a tune being sung by the performer was racist—a song, btw, that is mainstream and not customized, with its most offensive lyrics apparently being “China man.” The situation sounds so idiotic and ludicrous that one may think there’s more to the story than there really is. There isn’t.

    And another report about British intellectuals (at a university, natch) issuing a report that explains why it’s improper for people to call their household pets “pets.” Improper because such a word belittles the dignity of animals. IOW, the idiocy of the San Francisco-ization of Western culture is spreading like a big piece of crap, and is a far bigger pile than anything related to the stupid (and “stupid”) royal wedding and British Royalty.

    Finally, I suspect a percentage of people unconsciously find the publicity about a wedding in England, or anywhere else for that matter, even more of a big whoop because the concept of marriage has gotten cheaper and flimsier over the decades. IOW, just as we’ve become desensitized to bad things through the years, including acts of violence, we’ve also become desensitized to good things too.

    The viewership for the over-hyped wedding in London will be hopefully smaller than expected, if only because the idea of the British Empire is passe and because the family involved (ie, the Windsors) is merely an early version of a bad reality TV show.

    Mark (411533)

  49. What’s more, I think that the present Monarch is a remarkable woman.

    You’re totally right.

    She is a hero of WWII, and I think that’s a big reason why we haven’t seen this monarchy undone, and why I have long wished she’d be the one to undo it.

    but don’t try to tell me that there isn’t something inherently conservative about the British monarchy.

    I guess it’s just not in my software to understand. I see what you mean about tradition and respect for so many centuries of history, but … well, I won’t labor you by repeating myself. I just don’t appreciate that as justifying it.

    I think it would be awesome for the Queen to run for office, though.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  50. Dustin – consider this …

    In the current economy, the monarchy is in process of giving a significant boost to the UK economy …

    Lotsa tourist bucks/moolah is pouring into the UK as folk head for the Wedding … all over the UK, folk are selling beads and trinkets to Americans and other tourists … (an interesting reversal, wouldn’tcha say?) …

    When it comes to electoral legitimacy, do you perchance refer to the Kennedy election in 1960 ?

    The Queen is popular almost precisely because Her Majesty exhibits the qualities that the leader of a country should exhibit – the qualities that our current First Occupant exhibits by their absence from his available skillset …

    She demonstrates integrity, patience, courtesy, a quiet dignity, leadership without arrogance … while putting up with a succession of Prime Ministers, some of whom have made Harry Reid look positively statesmanlike … and manages to do so without a UK version of the TOTUS …

    Alasdair (205079)

  51. __________________________________

    the Queen to run for office

    If the British monarchy hadn’t lost most of its political power or influence through the generations — and if I lived in the UK — I would absolutely want it dumped. But it’s mainly window dressing in today’s era, sort of an English version of a Florida theme park, generating free publicity and tourism for London.

    Mark (411533)

  52. “What’s more, I think that the present Monarch is a remarkable woman.”

    No kidding. At the age of 16 she was named colonel-in-chief of the Grenadier Guards.

    It’s amazing what heights you can rise to…if your name has a “Princess” in front of it.

    Dave Surls (a7d545)

  53. When it comes to electoral legitimacy, do you perchance refer to the Kennedy election in 1960 ?

    touche.

    Let me tone my comment down a bit. Liz is a good person. I do not respect her title, or the idea she is noble, but rather think she’s a good person because of her individual merits. I’d like to see someone with those merits run for office (obviously she’s a bit old for that).

    And Obama is quite a douche. But I respect his title, because the title requires our consent (for the most part… sometimes there are serious problems with that, but I don’t argue against them being fixed or anything), and is not permanent. I don’t have to stop a presidency. It stops on its own and asks America if it may continue.

    Elissa smartly noted the Presidency is not really the counterpart to the throne, but I could just say I respect the Prime Minister, who is selected more directly and frequently, and very accountable to legislators, more than a monarch.

    folk are selling beads and trinkets to Americans and other tourists … (an interesting reversal, wouldn’tcha say?) …

    Yes, it is. I’m sure plenty of Brits are amazed at the lame nature of the culture America exports to happy british kids. So now it’s my turn, I guess.

    And let me honestly admit that is probably part of what annoys me. I think many Americans respect the idea of a noble family far too much for my comfort. But then, they elected Obama, so I’m already in a bad mood about my country’s tendencies. But I see your point. At the very least, a large number of Americans are not above revering royalty. That ticks me off a bit.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  54. No kidding. At the age of 16 she was named colonel-in-chief of the Grenadier Guards.

    It’s amazing what heights you can rise to…if your name has a “Princess” in front of it.

    Fine, fine. But if I am not mistaken the Grenadier Guards is a purely ceremonial outfit, which allows the monarch to put on a uniform and ride a horse a couple of times a year. The better measure of her service is her WWII stint in the Auxiliary Territorial Service. There she only rose to a rank equivalent to an army captain, much as her father had remained a junior officer throughout his WWI service. No pulling rank there. Say what you will about the trappings of wealth and power, but it seems like at least two generations of Windsors were pretty reliable patriots during times of crisis.

    JVW (b4b820)

  55. at least two generations of Windsors were pretty reliable patriots during times of crisis.

    Make that at least four: Andrew served in the Falklands and Harry in Afghanistan.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  56. Is Andrew Sullivan the Queen?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  57. “The better measure of her service is her WWII stint in the Auxiliary Territorial Service.”

    She took a training course in the final few months of the war, and learned how to drive a truck.

    That was about the extent of her “war service”.

    Nothing wrong with that, but it’s nothing to get all worked up about either.

    Dave Surls (a7d545)

  58. Creature worship typical Angelian Roman Catholicism idol worship. Sickening. World is heading into a major depression and total anarchy and you have normalcy bias buffoons wasting their precious time on a couple of greedy self-adulated fools be united in pagan matrimony. GET SOME WISDOM AND ACT ACCORDINGLY PEOPLE BECAUSE YOUR FOOLS YOURSELVES.
    Friedrich

    Friedrich (8fc7f9)

  59. “…united in pagan matrimony.”

    C of E, ain’t they?

    Dave Surls (a7d545)

  60. Why is anyone commenting? Patterico said “that is all”.

    Icy Texan (d5691b)

  61. Dear Friedrich,

    I will ignore perhaps the most bothersome of your errors – the use of “your” for “you’re” – and merely request that the next time you wish to speak you please attempt to use proper grammar.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  62. The normalcy bias refers to a mental state people enter when facing a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the possibility of a disaster occurring and its possible effects.

    hmmm! I like that term.

    I got some wisdom because, after all, my fools themselves.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  63. The disdain of American “conservatives” for the British monarchy – an inherently conservative institution – speaks volumes as to the nature of their “conservatism”.

    RepublicSucks (0692b1)

  64. Yes, because it was totally NOT conservatives who fought an entire f**king WAR to not have to be bothered with a f**king monarchy…

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  65. When I watch President Obama play his public games and try to appear haughty, I can see some real value in having a respected monarch being a voice of national moral authority.

    When next you see this POTUS posture, consider this ceremony this day.

    jim2 (fa4d4f)

  66. btw, seinfeld totally agrees with patrick, fwiw.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  67. There are Conservatives and Labor in Britain. They have different and conflicting philosophies of governance. Their Prime Ministers are in effect elected and regularly alternate power between the parties. Some of them have been good and some horrible.

    There are Democrats and Republicans in the USA. They have differing and very conflicting philosophies. We elect our presidents and regularly pass power between the two parties. Some of our presidents have been good and some are disasters. Sometimes things get very ugly and we forget we are a single people.

    What the Brits have in their queen, that we do not have, and I think we may be the poorer for it especially in troubled times, is a ceremonial and non- political head of state who remains constant and loyal and positive, and who is focused primarily on unifying the British people despite their personal political leanings or circumstances. Tradition and continuity are very important to families and to nations. The Queen first and foremost and always represents the nation, not the political parties. Since her role is not one of a mere politician, from above the fray she epitomizes a calm patriotism and promotes national heritage and pride. These are quite good things, I think.

    elissa (8d5780)

  68. Doesn’t matter. Let them enjoy the time they have left. Let them pretend that they still matter. Elizabeth is the last British monarch before the Islamofascist takeover.

    Chuck Roast (47faf0)

  69. Yes, because it was totally NOT conservatives who fought an entire f**king WAR to not have to be bothered with a f**king monarchy…

    Yes. Because, as we all know, the American Revolution was totally all about establishing socialism and bigger government.

    Chuck Roast (47faf0)

  70. Quite an interesting discussion between Dustin and Milhouse. But while Dustin is angered at what appears to be an American longing for the romance of the monarchy, I’m very saddened by it.

    Milhouse wrote, “Yes; there’s honour in fealty, something that America sorely lacks.”

    Fealty? To a person? Because that person was born to some other series of persons who somehow got designated more noble or of higher birth than the plebes surrounding them?

    The people I admire have fealty to noble ideas. Noble principles. Those people gain a certain sort of nobility themselves, not because of their birth, and not even always by merit. But their nobility is a reflection of the high principles for which they have sacrificed.

    When a lowly beat cop, a descendant of Irish immigrants, risks his life in service to his community it is because he believes in the value of human life. He will protect the poor just the same as the rich because they have the same value before God. He is not just doing his work to get a paycheck, or out of a sense of fealty to the Mayor, or the Governor, or the President – but to the people who elected those officers.

    Those who are in leadership, including (God forgive us) Barack Obama, are SERVING in those positions. They are not rulers. But they serve well or they serve poorly the people who chose them. And they do not deserve fealty – they deserve respect, and that is not because of their performance but because the nation itself cannot function unless we choose some leadership and give them the respect necessary for them to do their work. When they no longer serve, but seek to rule, then they forfeit that respect and need to be replaced. We have the blessing to live in a country where we can do that.

    Americans DO seem to long for a monarchy of one kind or another. Celebrities – the academic elite – the super wealthy – the talented athlete. Most of those are harmless because we give them no power to accompany the “honors” and awards. I suppose, if that’s all the Great Britain’s royal family is, then we can celebrate with them. But fealty – honor – respect? Those things are for a different category.

    Some people might be happy with the Brits today because they are happy. That’s nice. But envy them? Not a chance.

    Gesundheit (d7ea47)

  71. Pretty dress nice.

    SarahW (af7312)

  72. There are Conservatives and Labor in Britain. They have different and conflicting philosophies of governance.

    They say they do during the run-up to an election. Once in power, they actually don’t. Not on the big issues anyway. Actually, the big things have all been ceded to the EU.

    The main philosophy of the British Conservatives is “We can run the welfare state better than Labor.”

    Count de Money (516fdc)

  73. Why is it more stupid than any other wedding (many who cost so much it’s obscene)?

    I think people should always be happy about weddings unless they personally know something about one or both of the partners that would cause them not to be.

    What’s stupid is that so many Americans refused to listen to people who knew better about electing Obama.

    Linda Starr (7f850a)

  74. The disdain of American “conservatives” for the British monarchy – an inherently conservative institution – speaks volumes as to the nature of their “conservatism”.

    Comment by RepublicSucks

    While this is supposed to be some kind of insult, I don’t object.

    I stand on principle.

    Also, I’m not a conservative by the absolutely brain dead definition that poli sci professors used to insist that word meant. I, like all American conservatives, want changes to the status quo and fundamental reforms. As I’ve attempted to articulate at the heart of my philosophy: I believe in individual equality in legal treatment. Gesundheit has expressed this point of view very well, in a way I wish I had, which flips the notion of service around. Milhouse has taken pains to explain the other point of view, which I appreciate.

    In no sense do I think being opposed to abortion or wanting less spending somehow obliges me to agree with practices just because they are old. In no sense do conservatives who stand on basic classic liberalism to call for reform somehow caught in a ‘gotcha! you are a hypocrite’ trap, though I have heard that line of thought 100 times.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  75. I think many Americans respect the idea of a noble family far too much for my comfort

    On some level, this is the gist of my opposition to candidates whose primary reason for popularity is that they are related to other successful politicians. It bugs the **** out of me when a politician pops up as a candidate for president, governor, senate, whatever, and the only thing distinguishing him/her from dozens of other similarly-situated politicians is their family connection.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  76. 63. The disdain of American “conservatives” for the British monarchy – an inherently conservative institution – speaks volumes as to the nature of their “conservatism”.
    Comment by RepublicSucks — 4/29/2011 @ 3:18 am

    — “If there be any drive-by trolls present that wish to use this occasion as an excuse to sling meaningless ad homs at those across the aisle, spew now, then forever run away like the little children that you are.”

    Icy Texan (5eba0d)

  77. William III had armies and won battles.

    True.

    And he was invited into the country by Parliament, who set the terms of the invitation. He was a tool they were using to help them get rid of James II, and while I’m sure there was some coercion in the negotiations, I don’t think it was any more extensive than the coercion implicit in any negotiation when someone is looking for help from an outsider.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  78. “I can see some real value in having a respected monarch being a voice of national moral authority.”

    I dunno…

    I have a hard time looking up to the products of centuries of inbreeding.

    Dave Surls (da9e80)

  79. He was a tool they were using to help them get rid of James II,

    Yes, exactly. There was leverage in multiple directions, and a lot of this led to anti catholic laws (I’m not catholic, but that is a shame).

    I don’t think it was any more extensive than the coercion implicit in any negotiation when someone is looking for help from an outsider.

    On the contrary. They weren’t just sitting around looking to contract for a king. They were under pressure and trying to avoid one military dictatorship (James) by signing on with William (who was a much more benevolent and liberal person, if I recall correctly, though I could be wrong).

    This is not similar to a presidential election, because outside these fears, there really is barely any need for a monarchy at all. Sure, William did not get much power out of the deal, but that’s not my point.

    Let’s just assume there was no James or William. They hadn’t just been invades 20 years ago by the Dutch. There was no fear of catholic french or whoever. They just had a parliamentary system. Would they have ‘contracted’ with a family to lord over them for centuries? Of course not.

    Do I mean that William and his heirs are evil? It can be argued either way, but my point is that that society did not have this completely free choice, with the pressures of the day. Given the reaction from James’s supporters afterwards, calling this some kind of offense to God that James wasn’t their monarch, clearly this coercion to have some kind of monarch to fill the role is actually pretty strong.

    But I’m not trying to blame. I’m just pointing out that this process is not ‘just like’ the US Presidency. It’s more like how our government sometimes backs a dictator that is friendly to us.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  80. I don’t mind watching the royal wedding, although I didn’t get up at 4:00 am. It’s sort of like watching a reality show, although more elegant than, say, Jersey Shore. At least while watching it I didn’t have to think about the Dictator here at home.

    Rochf (f3fbb0)

  81. And he was invited into the country by Parliament, who set the terms of the invitation. He was a tool they were using to help them get rid of James II,

    Except that, AIUI, this “invitation” didn’t happen until after he’d already conquered England, and driven James and all his supporters, including those in Parliament, out. That’s why I don’t regard the “Glorious Revolution” as the wonderful event and birth of democracy that the USA’s founders appear to have thought it was. William and Mary were no more legitimate than any other conqueror.

    The Act of Settlement, OTOH, was exactly that: the moment when Parliament took control of the Crown. The contract was negotiated between equals, and there was no coercion on either side. Sophie had no army occupying the UK, nor was there any prospect of her ever invading the UK. And she had a comfortable enough position already, so she could have refused the deal.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  82. Is it over yet?

    The Queen has more class and dignity in her toenail clippings than Barcky could ever dream of having.

    JD (29e1cd)

  83. Rochf – just passed through your town.

    JD (b98cae)

  84. It occurs to me that some of our worst presidents had some military experience. Jimmy Carter, for example.

    So I guess I could just compare Carter, the man who hates America almost as much as Osama Bin Laden, to the royalty who also served their nation in their youth.

    When Carter’s term of office ended, he left office peacefully. And then he went around being an asshole, but still, that step right there shows he understands his place. Noble families do not. I assume (which high confidence) that Obama will leave office the second his term ends, and then go around being an asshole like Carter did. Because even that guy serves at the pleasure of the American people.

    We can lie and pretend the royal family serves at the pleasure of the British people, but without a unanimous change, from many states, in a document, they simply gain special status before the law upon birth. They never give it up.

    that’s why I’ve never heard the Queen, or her heirs, come to the British people to ask their permission to have their station. They were born with it, and that’s a fraud, because everyone should be born equal before the law. This idea that the Queen is like a President gets everyone so backwards. Waiting for unanimous change to a bigoted document, from many states, that many would call a dishonorable offense to God, is not the same as coming to the people every few years to ask permission to lead (not rule).

    Seems to me that most of Obama’s mistakes come from his excesses in his constitutional power, or his politicizing, or his dishonesty. to that end, anyone who supports monarchy are even worse than Obama, until he calls for lifetime rule for himself.

    As far as William and James goes, that is very much like Mubarak agreeing with the people of Egypt to rule because they are so afraid of the Muslim brotherhood ruling if he doesn’t take that position. He’s got the military power and support to protect them from a less benevolent dictator, and in exchange, his heirs are born with special rights.

    That’s not all that bad a move for Britain back in the day, but it’s quite an insult to the USA to claim that’s as legitimate as Obama’s presidency.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  85. William (who was a much more benevolent and liberal person, if I recall correctly, though I could be wrong).

    He wasn’t; but while James focused on bringing back the Catholic Church, which was contrary to the wishes and interests of most of the UK, William was focused on fighting the authoritarian Louis XIV of France, which was much more aligned with what the British wanted. And James was in a way the more liberal figure: he was in terms of that era the standard bearer of religious toleration–except that he wanted to do it by royal fiat instead of Parliamentary legislation, and after becoming king he move towards intolerance as a way of protecting Catholicism, but only after the Dissenters (Protestants who were outside the Established Church) rejected him. But the events of 1688 were as much the result of anti-Catholic bigotry as they were of pro-Parliamentary feeling.

    William was invited in by a select group of aristocrats, who then arranged to have the invitation confirmed by a “convention” parliament, and who then introduced the Bill of Rights and allied legislation, the aim of which was (like the Act of Settlement) to buttress the power of Parliament against the monarch and at the same time to make sure that the Catholics were kept away from all possible power. It wasn’t until after the Napoleonic wars that the anti-Catholic laws were reversed, and even that was in the face of much opposition–and the Act of Settlement remains with its anti-Catholic clauses today.

    And she had a comfortable enough position already, so she could have refused the deal.
    True, but apparently she died rather disappointed that Anne outlived her (by a few months, as it turned out), so she never got to be Queen herself.

    kishnevi (4fe729)

  86. Thanks for the details, Kishnevi.

    I find the topic to be very interesting, actually. Western governments are not that far removed from the nonsense, often devoted to religious demands, that currently dominates the dynasties of the middle east.

    I’m still chuckling that someone thought I was being sockpuppeted that I said something nice about Obama, but so long as he gives up power in 2012 or 2016, he is legitimate in a way no king or queen ever has been.

    And if he doesn’t, we have to fight him. That’s how we got rid of King George.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  87. No, it isn’t.

    In a world where we are bludgeoned every day by ugliness, it’s a relief to see something like the royal wedding and be able to say, ‘That’s nice. Good for them.’

    Cynicism does not equal sophistication in all cases.

    ed zeppelin (2d8e89)

  88. Stupid is the understatement of the year.

    JD (20075d)

  89. the royal wedding is a white people thing I think – the same white people what watch reality tv and buy collectible angel figurines and think JFK’s hoochie wife was glamorous and have a strong commitment to sparkle motion

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  90. Did someone claim that cynicism equals sophistication in even one case, much less all cases?

    JD (845308)

  91. I am cynical as all get out Mr. zeppelin and nobody has ever once accused me of being sophisticated

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  92. Cynicism is wondering what the over/under is on the impending divorce?

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  93. The Royal Wedding Is Stupid Stupendous.

    There, fixed that for ‘ya, “Yank.” Poor manners to diss the very conservative pride and thousand year traditions of a close ally and friend. ‘1066 and all that.’

    ““‘One touch of nature makes the whole world kin,’ and mil­lions will wel­come this joy­ous event as a flash of colour on the hard road we have to travel. From the bot­tom of our hearts, the good wishes and good will of the British nation flow out to the Princess and to the young sailor who are so soon to be united in the bonds of holy mat­ri­mony. That they may find true hap­pi­ness together and be guided on the paths of duty and hon­our is the prayer of all.” —WINSTON S. CHURCHILL, [Conservative,] House of Commons, October 22, 1947 (His quo­ta­tion is from Shakespeare’s Trolius and Cres­sida, 1602)…

    “Alles sal reg kom—“All will come right.” The words [Churchill] spoke sixty-four years ago at another Royal Wed­ding have stood the test of time.” -source, http://richardlangworth.com/2011/04/alles-sal-reg-kom-churchill-on-the-royal-wedding/

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  94. Good Allah, IMP. Your bibble babble somehow manages to get increasingly idiotic, defying the laws of idiocy.

    Barcky’s iPod could not be reached for comment.

    JD (109425)

  95. Conservative pride?

    Britain is a porgressive left-wing state which is about to cede to the islamocommies.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  96. Britain is a porgressive left-wing state which is about to cede to the islamocommies.

    How progressive would it be after that?

    Michael Ejercito (64388b)

  97. Comment by DCSCA — 4/29/2011 @ 4:32 pm
    You mean, Churchill who was during his Liberal (with a capital L–that was the political party then) phase helped put into place the foundations of the British welfare state?

    [He managed to cross the aisle twice in his career, first out of the Conservative party and then back in.)

    kishnevi (07cf78)

  98. _________________________________________

    that Obama will leave office the second his term ends, and then go around being an asshole like Carter did

    I saw George W Bush being interviewed by George Stephanopoulos (a member of the Clinton White House) on ABC News this past week. The interviewer tried to get some purely political statements and opinions out of Bush. But the former president had the grace and class to expressly say he’d avoid such rhetoric.

    I compare that with the big-mouth politicing and blatant partisanship that has been a ritual of both Carter and Clinton following their terms in the White House, and undoubtedly will be mimicked by Obama after he leaves office.

    Mark (411533)

  99. I swear the useful idiot for the islamocommies are dooming us.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  100. Different kind of liberal, kish:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_%28UK%29

    narciso (79ddc3)

  101. There, fixed that for ‘ya, “Yank.” Poor manners to diss the very conservative pride and thousand year traditions of a close ally and friend. ’1066 and all that.’

    Meh. I stand on principle, not tradition. Only an idiot think the people called conservatives in American politics are just dumbly worshiping tradition itself.

    btw, I certainly do not present my POV because I think it is sophisticated. I always thought that word carried an ugly connotation anyway, as I try not to be a sophist. In the most simple sense, I just think people are equal, and their government should honor them (rather than the other way around) and ask permission to exist from them. My wife let me know she thought the bride’s dress was pretty, and the hats in the crowd looked idiotic. If you’re into celebrity news, I’m glad you enjoyed this little stain on democracy.

    But I do want to note that repeatedly people have tried to shut down a logical discussion of this subject based on the notion it is dishonorable or insulting to tradition to think about it. that is defensive, and for good reason, as the tradition is stupid in today’s world.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  102. and yes the american nazi party is lefty not far-right like the crappypedia website says.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  103. I have read your blog for a long time and I generally agree with its politics. However, I didn’t realise that I was in the presence of so many people with shit for brains and poison in their hearts. How can a wedding, any wedding, be stupid?
    People can be stupid, as evidenced by the reaction of your readers, but stupid weddings, how can that be?

    G Warburton (804bcc)

  104. UPDATE: I meant the hoopla.

    Patterico (974128)

  105. it’s a stupid wedding cause of you have one inbred no account pansy marrying a stupid hoochie what is trading away her freedom for to become a royal whore who can never gain a pound without merciless excoriations, and who has doomed her future children to royal whoredom as well

    happyfeet (760ba3)

  106. Hmm. David Byrne put it best.

    Simon Jester (3033da)

  107. watch out Kate

    you might get what you’re after

    happyfeet (760ba3)

  108. colonel never go
    Britain again can’t evah
    sing Kung Fu Fighting

    ColonelHaiku (cdd0f9)

  109. funky Billy Chin
    and little Sammy Chung got
    colonel on the run

    ColonelHaiku (cdd0f9)

  110. There’s a phrase that perfectly describes Disco Stu . . .

    Anglophilic ass-kisser

    Icy Texan (37fb48)

  111. “However, I didn’t realise that I was in the presence of so many people with shit for brains and poison in their hearts.”

    Uh oh, I think we have a collector of Princess Diana figurines here.

    Dave Surls (ce9055)

  112. I’m starting to suspect DCSCA has never been to the UK. He both makes up stuff and also acts all arrogant. Jeez.

    Simon Jester (8ab3af)

  113. ‘…The two receptions will cost about $600,000, including $80,000 for two wedding cakes: a traditional white, buttercream or fruit cake, and a groom’s cake (for which Prince William reportedly requested a chocolate cookie cake), Eisinger estimates.’

    ‘”When you start breaking that down per head, it comes to a lot,” Eisinger said. “If the two cakes are divided by 600 guests, that’s $133 a slice.”‘–ABC News

    Sounds pretty stupid to me.

    You can get an 11 oz. Sara Lee pound cake for $3.29, and that ought to be plenty good enough for people who don’t even have chins.

    Dave Surls (ce9055)

  114. but daddy you said I could have a chocolate cookie cake

    I WANT MY CHOCKIT COOKIE CAKE

    I WANT MY CHOCKIT COOKIE CAKE OR THERE SHAN’T BE ANY WEDDING AT ALL!

    happyfeet (760ba3)

  115. So Kate weds Williams, who cares? How does that pay my freaking bills?

    The Emperor (2fabb9)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.0015 secs.