Royal Baby

Really it's no different to people camping out for days on end for a good spot at a presidential inauguration though is it?

There's morons here that will stand in line for days just to have the privilege of getting the first "new" apple phone in the store, they stand in said line and mess with their current apple phone they got 6 months ago in the last "line". Idiocy comes in many forms.
 
Really it's no different to people camping out for days on end for a good spot at a presidential inauguration though is it?

The other difference is the Presidential inauguration is only the top headline in all the news for a day or so.

This baby has been the top story everywhere for days on end now. Even today, the headlines are in HUGE BOLD letters about how the queen met the baby.

I think the general USA news media forgot this country stopped being under the royal crown some 237 years go.
 
Haaaaaaahahahahahahaha!!!!!! Now that is funny!!!!! Boy George Alexander Louis!!!! Aaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaha!!!!
 
haha! What sex is the baby? We are not sure, your highness.

Seriously though, what bugs me is he's called George. I mean, why not Ringo?? More discrimination against drummers ...
 
ARGHHH! Not here as well.....!

I agree OP, but ironically... yeah, above^
 
They actually do hold political power. The Queen is our head of state, so if a bill is approved by both houses of parliament, it still has to be ratified by her. In theory, she could refuse to sign a bill that has been democratically debated and approved. She probably never would refuse a bill but I cannot stand the idea of one individual having that power.

It's like the ultimate veto.
 
You're forgetting that the British Royal Family or at least the idea of the Monarchy itself stretches back well over a thousand years. Although I'm a Republican in many respects, the history of the British monarchs is quite remarkable and quite a few old families (like mine) are able to trace themselves back to at least one of the royal houses and at least one monarch (I can with two, if I recall). In a sense, it is a big part of our identity as a nation.

One of the mistakes that people make when thinking about British aristocracy is that they're all wealthy. Most of them are but it's a quirk in the British class system that you don't have to be rich to be upper class - it's a lot more than that. In the same way, the role of the Royal Family is misunderstood.

They actually do hold political power. The Queen is our head of state, so if a bill is approved by both houses of parliament, it still has to be ratified by her. In theory, she could refuse to sign a bill that has been democratically debated and approved. She probably never would refuse a bill but I cannot stand the idea of one individual having that power.

Thank you for the clarification. I do realize that there's a lot of history there with royalty and it really is interesting. I just wasn't sure how much leverage the Queen still had, since there is a multi-party system in place like there is here in the States.

That's interesting what you said about not all upper class are wealthy. I never would have thought that was the case.
 
Thank you for the clarification. I do realize that there's a lot of history there with royalty and it really is interesting. I just wasn't sure how much leverage the Queen still had, since there is a multi-party system in place like there is here in the States.

That's interesting what you said about not all upper class are wealthy. I never would have thought that was the case.

Some are but it is mostly to do with inheritance and hereditary positions rather than 'wealth' per se.

For instance, if you are an hereditary Viscount (one of the hereditary titles) then your next born son will inherit that title, regardless of wealth. Traditionally, titles were given by the Monarch for service to the country - for instance, a 'Earl' is an old European title traditionally handed to somebody that has performed a great military service to the country.

The system is further complicated by the political system. A modern 'Lord' (as in 'The House of Lords' - one of the Houses of Parliament) is no longer given an hereditary title. A seat in the House of Lords was until very recently given to somebody that inherited the title from their parent automatically. Now the House of Lords is composed of those that are granted the title in their lifetime (called 'Life Peers' - usually for their expertise in a particular subject or service to the realm) and the seats are not passed down.

So, essentially there are two different forms of 'Lord' (or 'Lady'). Those that have hereditary titles and are no longer permitted to sit in the House of Lords and those that are made Lords or Ladies in their lifetime and are permitted to sit in the House of Lords. It's technically possible for an hereditary Lord or Lady to be seated in the Houses of Parliament but only if they are there by the approval criteria required to be a life peer - regardless of hereditary title.

To complicate it even further, there are six basic ranks of nobility. They are ranked titles. Baronet, Baron, Viscount, Earl, Marquess and Duke. There are female terms for each of these too, e.g. 'Duchess'. Baronets were never peers and therefore never permitted to sit in the House of Lords, with Baronet being the lowest-ranked hereditary title. Dukes are only below the monarch themselves - hence why Prince Charles is a Duke, as is Prince William.

With the titles traditionally came land, even if the individual first granted the title was from humble origins. With each ranked title came a larger plot of land - so a Marquess was traditionally the owner of a 'March' - a large plot of land. Dukes owned a 'Dukedom', except for two of the Royal Dukes, who own a 'Duchy'. Nowadays, the title merely refers to an area and not the ownership of land - except the two Duchies (Cornwall and Lancaster).

So - a lot of the aristocracy is wealthy as a result of inherited wealth from the lands they were traditionally granted but being an aristocrat is no guarantee of wealth - you may be a life peer (who are often well-paid in their previous occupation and independently wealthy but not necessarily) or your family may have gradually sold off its assets over the generations, leaving the next in line with less.

Funnily enough my Grandparents are quite good friends with a Baronet that owns a small castle near Hereford that has been passed onto him through his family. Other than the land and the title, he's a pretty ordinary (if relatively wealthy) bloke. It's entirely possible for an aristocrat to be destitute and homeless but still have the title.
 
Publicity for an antiquated vestigial branch of government in the UK.

Seems like an expensive nastalgia to me...but to each their own....
 
Is this really such a big deal? From what I can see, people are losing their minds over this.

Waiting on line for days outside the hospital? Don't these people have somewhere to be or are they all independently wealthy that they can afford not to work?

There are people like my ex sister in law and her daughter who are facinated with anything to do with the royals

When Princess Diana died,it was bedlem over there for months.

When she found out I was going to London and Paris in 2000,she lost her mind,and reminded me every day exactly what she wanted photos of.Double spaced ,typed ,all in capitols followed.

To some,the royals make rock stars look small by comparison.It's just a thing....

I don't get it,buy she dosen't get drumming either.

Steve B
 
Back
Top