Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

The importance of the British Monarchy to America and its people.

Gibbs Hog Heaven

By Gibbs Hog Heaven
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

Harwich Hog

Harwich Hog

Posted
Posted

It's not delusion. It's having a good grasp and awareness of world affairs. It's as much to do with the diminishing influence of the US as it is about the Queen.

I'm not suggesting she could waltz into Tehran and take an Israelic delegation with her and cure all ills but a Royal visit to Pakistan is going to have a far greater effect on the region that Obama turning up on Air Force One.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Harwich Hog

Harwich Hog

Posted
Posted

I don't mean to seem like a troll, but can you provide a specific example within the last 30 years? Last time I recall a European monarch having any influence was when the king of Spain talked the military out of staging a coup.

I think it's a combination of things. She is apolitical and is therefore not portrayed as pushing an agenda, even thought there might be - which carries a lot of weight. It's also a lot to do with the frequency of her visits. A President will probably visit each of his allies at least once during their administration. It dilutes the impact.

You don't come across like a troll btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gibbs Hog Heaven

Gibbs Hog Heaven

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The Queens been on the throne for 6 decades. Think about that. 6 decades of impeccable diplomacy and representation of Britain and the Commenwealth around the World and all the relationships she's built up with some o the most powerful men on the planet. America has had 12 Presidents in that time alone. With what, 4 years leadership? 8 if their lucky plus a little more World contact if they served in an International capacity prior. Considerably less time than 6 decades worth of relationship building.

The PM and the government serve the Crown. Parliament can't begin session without the Queen opening it. And she has the power to dissolve a Government. Every bill that gets passed must be signed off by her before it becomes official. The PM meets with her every week to discuss HER government.

She may be apolitical to all intents and purposes, but Queen Elizabeth II is a very politically savvy lady and an exceptional diplomat who is loved and admired the World over.

I'm not privy to high level Royal affairs R-t so I can't talk in specifics. (You're not coming across as a troll BTW. I appreciate the interest and sensible discussion.). But the power and influence she welds without having actual political power per se is immense on the World stage.

Royal visits are of immense importance and not just for the sight seeing.

Hail.

*Edit* I just looked it up and she's visited 116 different Country's on 261 official State visits through her reign. That's a heck of a lot of contact building not including visits from foreign leaders to her and 'phone calls/ banquets etc. She also speaks fluent French for one and doesn't require an interpreter which goes down real well in the many French speaking Country's around the globe as you can well imagine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Harwich Hog

Harwich Hog

Posted
Posted

If the Queen and Royal Family are so powerful, they do the world a great disservice to not do more to make it a better place.

You see that's where there's a distinction to made between influence and power.

Anyway - this is has gone off-topic. I don't think there is too much disputing the Queen's effect over the Commonwealth, at least. What about America? There's more to it than political. How about cultural impact?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Corcaigh

Corcaigh

Posted
Posted

In many countries elected Presidents fulfill a largely ceremonial role politically but have tremendous value in the role of influencer, ambassador and world statesman (think Nelson Mandella or Mary Robinson as two examples), without any ludicrous blood right based on inheritance and not merit.

You'd be better served by ditching the social hierarchy, the snobbery and the braying toffs and having an elected head of state. Royalty doesn't determine influence, the person does.

The Queen seems like a decent woman, but many of her family clearly are not. The idea that an ignorant, anti-intellectual, anti-scientific piece of **** like Charles had a strong chance of reaching the position of head of state simply because of the good fortune of the timing of his being born to Elizabeth Windsor is just idiotic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kindred

Kindred

Posted
Posted

lol GHH, if the publicity and attention isnt centered around America/Americans, some folks are just going to either not care, or be resentful.  The popularity of the royal family is simple.  They're exotic.  Royalty is romantic (every girl dreams of being a princess, finding a prince, etc). And it's a little bit of a real life fairy tale.

 

In this one area, America(ns) feel some fandom for "stars" in another country.  An unusual situation for Americans, but hardly unusual in other countries whose kid's often worship a lot of American things/people.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dfitzo53

dfitzo53

Posted
Posted

Side note, but I'm amazed that it's somehow commonplace to call the British royalty by their first names.


I get that some news outlets (read: gossip sites) have different standards, but in news coverage on NPR no less the anchors were referring to them as "Kate" and "William".  I don't personally care, but they would never call President Obama "Barrack".  They clearly wouldn't use Queen Elizabeth's name without her title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hubbs

Hubbs

Posted
Posted

I understand why many people, especially my fellow Americans, have a disdain for one special family being born into such enormous wealth and influence through nothing more than an accident of history. I certainly wouldn't want to have any sort of official royalty here, and I think that perhaps the most amazing—and most overlooked, judging from the history classes taught in our high schools—thing George Washington ever did was to turn down Congress's offer to make him King of the United States after the Revolution. It's interesting to see the public polls done from time to time in Britain about doing away with the monarchy, however. I believe the Brits have pretty consistently supported the Crown to the tune of numbers in the mid-80s. Now, obviously that support has a lot to do with the modern role of the Queen/eventual King being a figurehead and not interfering in politics, but the Brits certainly love the tradition, and we Americans can watch from the other side of the pond while still having the luxury of electing the most powerful person in the world every four years.

 

(By the way, not sure I agree with the "waning influence of the US" comment made earlier. I don't think our influence will wane anytime soon. Europe's gonna be a basket case for the foreseeable future, and is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. China's in the same position that Japan was in the mid-1980s—a couple decades from now, everybody's going to look back on the predictions that it would take over the world with the same amusement that we now feel when we look back on the predictions that Japan was gonna take over the world back then. Just spend a few minutes Googling "China" and "hard landing," and look up some rumors that its economy might actually be contracting right now while you're at it. Hell, China's new premier flat-out said that its "official" economic numbers are completely made up a few years ago. So everyone pat yourselves on the back: America might be a mess, but the rest of the world is more of a mess, and that's not gonna change for a long while. U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Commander PK

Commander PK

Posted
Posted

I've always felt a strong bond with Great Britain, and one day I hope to visit.  My direct family line has been traced back as far as 1450, and the Welsh account of the Battle of Bosworth Field has an ancestor as the Welsh halberdier who killed Richard the III.  Several of my ancestors were Knights.  I love British history and tradition.  Had religious intolerance and Anglicanism not pushed Roman Catholics out of the country, it's very likely we would still be in England.  With that said, the Maryland progenitor of my family line sailed across the Atlantic at least twice to try to escape the persecution, and his failure to take the oath of supremacy ended up with his shipped back to England and eventual execution.

 

England will always be the mother country.  I think many Americans of English descent feel a strong connection with her, which includes the British throne.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gibbs Hog Heaven

Gibbs Hog Heaven

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I think the British/American bond stems from the World Wars. The king and queen are **** compared to that. We speak the same language, and our cultures are intertwined by music. The king and queen could go poof and we'd still be friends.

We doubtless would. (Unless a dictator that didn't like the US took power. Something Royalty safeguards us against somewhat.).

But the key point is Britains standing and power would vastly diminish over time her worth to America would be nothing compared to what it is with the Monarchy.

It's a complex system full of ttaditions and neurnces hard to understand but they really do underpin everything.

Good discussion and differing POV in this thread that's appreciated to read from a different perspective.

Hail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CrabR

CrabR

Posted
Posted

They are not inportant to me. infarct i am sick of hearing about Kate and the baby. When she went into the hospital and again after the baby was born that was ll on the news channels. I tune into Cnn at 5 to see what is going on in Mid East and all they talk about is the Royal couple and their nameless kid

 

CNN said the American people cannot get enough of it, to that I respond no! its just you cram it down our throats. I would rather hear about the middle east that hear about Kate in labor.

 

End of rant now back to CNN so I can hear about William changing the baby's diapers

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shiv

Shiv

Posted
Posted

The monarchy is of absolutely no importance to me.  I don't care that a new one was born.  I did really like that movie though, "The Kings Speech".  

 

There are things about british culture I do like.  I like their comedies ranging from Monty Python to The Inbetweeners.  The only thing I don't like about ENgland is the food.  I stayed there for a couple weeks and I have to say, worst food ever.  EVER.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ixcuincle

ixcuincle

Posted
Posted

Inbetweeners is damn hilarious. That was some good British comedy. Fresh Meat is also good too. 

 

People just post all the episodes on Youtube so you can watch there. 

 

Anyway I love the royals but they are across the pond, so to speak. I am just curious what is with their full names, the baby's full name contains 6 letters. "George Alexander Louis Blue Ivy North"  :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bang

Bang

Posted
Posted

I admit to a bit of English fascination. but not with the royals, which is strange. i like a lot of the culture, the history, the people and their accents and mannerisms.. ilove the music,, my ever changing favorites list is always dominated by british artists. My roots are English on my dad's side.

I just never got the big ta-da about the royal family.. likely because since my lifetime they've been largely nothing but a figurehead.. they do their good and are good ambassadors for their various causes, but i never understood the passion for them. I've nothing against them.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...