Slashdot Mirror
Terry Pratchett Knighted
ackthpt writes "Headlines have been popping up on Google News: 'Terry Pratchett declared himself "flabbergasted" to receive a knighthood as he led a group of writers, actors and performers honoured today.' The Discworld author and stalwart adversary of Alzheimers Disease has been a member of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) for Services to Literature since 1998. He will be entering the new year as Knight Commander. Well done and Oook, Sir Terry."
I'm sorry - I've never heard of him.
he became a vampire?
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Congratulations Sir Terry, a well deserved honour.
It's a shame he won't remember it soon :-(
Another way to write it would be.
Since 1998 he has been a member of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) for Services to Literature.
get it now?
I think we can agree that Terry Pratchett has earned an honour of one kind or another.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Yet it doesn't stop you coming over in large numbers to hang around outside Buckingham Palace taking photos of the Changing of the Guard.
Technically, the members are designated MBE, it's the officers that are OBE. He got himself promoted.
Congratulations! I'm glad to see that you didn't settle for a new dartboard, even if Detritus does ruin them.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Absolutely.
The amount of film shot on those days before digital cameras must have been astounding.
Anyway, I was there on October 2nd this year, and while there, the Queen's Guard band played a Star Wars medley (including the Cantina music!) John Williams might be an O.B.E. by now too (heck, John Barry is), except he's American.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Dope. It's a couple stories down from this one.
Just a little FYI. Sorry if we republican (small r) Americans find the whole royalty thing anachronistic, not to mention flying in the face of the concepts of equality and consent of the governed. Who really does care what these inbred people think?
There are many monarchies in Europe, most are stable, democratic countries where individual rights are very well protected... There is nothing anachronistic about keeping traditions...
I've never been a huge fan of the French
What kind of dumb remark is that?
considering what i've seen in the south, who the fuck are you to call any country inbred??
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
The Queen, Knights, etc. have no power more than their cash assets can bring to bear. So shut the fuck up.
Yes, keeping around government-supported, government-entwined birthright positions and riches is what equality is all about. And not only that, but there's something inherently magical about the queen that she, or the people she delegates these matters to, get the power to suddenly make someone "special" enough that they deserve a special title. Is it just me, or does the left sometimes slobber over authority as much as the right tends to do?
Last time I checked, J.K. Rowling had a vagina.
Anonymous Coward
Known mostly for his fantastic Discworld series - around 36 books - his work has brought joy and laughter to millions of people. Anyone who can create a characters as diverse as DEATH, who likes cats to our beloved Wizzard, Librarian and 'men' in the Watch.
If you have not tried his books, do yourself a favour. (Ok, I have to be honest the first one I tried was not my favourite, but after my second one I was hooked!)
Ook!
Bugrit, millennium hand an' shrimp
I'd have thought sergeant-at-arms would have been a better title :D
His books have been a delight, guards guards was always a favorite along with interesting times along with a plethora of his other discworld titles (You don't get the chance to say plethora often these days :P) I'm not liking the latest serial ones as well as I'd have liked, "wintersmith" and "making money" I found not to be as good as the books they are sequels to. I guess it's a feeling of he might no longer be writing to please himself and is perhaps wrongly trying to please some market-group as well, I'm guessing his childrens award is having an effect.
He's made me think, smile and even chuckle, and that's the good thing about his books.
Dear sir,
You should be modded down as OFF TOPIC more than anything else. The flame bait (which I'm taking, you can see) was very weak, and calling you a troll would, in one sense be appropriate because this is Discworld's author after all, but highly inappropriate considering that Terry Pratchett was (A) Funny and (B) Coherent.
Thanking you,
With (few, if any) regards,
Anonymous C Oward.
Yes but, she's bestowing honors on people who contribute to society. Say what you need to about the outdated notion of royalty but I wish America had someone official to hand out awards for generating culture. We have halls of fame and parades but they're reserved for athletes and soldiers, the most useless occupations ever invented.
You post would be modded a troll because it is a troll. If Britain wants to have a monarch, who are you to tell them they shouldn't be able to have one?
I've been to England several times and the Queen is very popular there. Heck, a few centuries back the country brought back the monarchy after being a republic for a few decades, so the situation is obviously one that's right for them.
Aside from the democratic questions, I can see the appeal, I really wouldn't want a corrupt political swine like Bush awarding me an honor like this!
True, but it's called tradition. I do agree that the cult around the British royal family, and other royal families around Europe, still has ludicrous proportions, though many Britons think the Queen's just a boring old bat, stuck in the 1940s. But then again there is a similar cult and a large amount of unnecessary pomp around the US president and military. All that needs to be scaled back.
Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
You checked her vagina?!
Why should any governing body, or something affiliated with a governing body, decide for people what moral causes are worth awarding shiny medals and titles for, instead of simply popular consensus? Why is that not good enough? Perhaps we should have President Bush award medals to anti-abortion groups, for "fighting for the sanctity of life", or anti-gay groups, "fighting for the sanctity of marriage?" Or for culture, how about giving Mel Gibson a medal for Passion of the Christ? Or, is it only OK when you agree with the cause or media?
And why does ANYONE need to hand out trinkets for these accomplishments? The honor, the REASON behind these awards are given almost always after such reasoning is evident to most people. Trophies and titles do not make peoples actions more or less great.
You know what? You want someone handing out blue ribbons so badly, why not you do it? What? You mean nobody cares about what you think? Well, why should I care about what the government thinks, or the queen, for that matter?
In all honesty, I find the idea of a society where everyone is so equal that they can't even be told "hey, you've written some really good books, well done" an appalling idea. I'll keep my birthright based head of state, or even some guy a moistened bint threw a scimitar at over that.
Everything was in order, just in case you were wondering.
Anonymous Coward
Actually, the Queen has a whole lot of power in the UK. She has for example the power to say "oi, parliament, fuck off, I'm in charge now". It's only through choice that she delegates power to democracy, not through any lack of power.
Having said that, a large riot would tear her limb from limb if she ever tried that.
Why not, we all know she's a dirty old woman anyway: http://bash.org/?111338
Why is the QUEEN so special that she can give people special titles?
You're correct of course. Another way of looking at it, though, is that this whole thing is not about the queen of England at all; it's about honouring Terry Pratchett.
You sound like a hick.
Here's the thing about hicks and sci-fi. You guys last like 10 minutes. You make a couple 'rah rah america' or 'that guys skin is different' comments, wave a beer bottle or a gun around and then you get shot or crushed by something.
When will you guys ever learn to just shut up and smile and talk shit after everyone else is gone?
"Britain" is not a monolithic entity. Many people there also think the royalty should be abolished, and as far as I'm concerned, everyone who doesn't agree with the presence of the royal family is being leeched upon. I don't care about your shallow excuses of democracy, democracy can justify anything so long as the mob agrees to it.
You might as well state that because Bush won the election, that Europeans shouldn't criticize our elections! Sorry, but that's not how it works, I'll criticize my government, I'll criticize your government, and I'll let other people do the same. Governments are not the people, and your flag does not represent you or who you are.
Agreed the queen is a rich relic from a bygone age, but as she is the head of state her giving out honours makes sense. Politically the queen is toothless and doesn't even choose who she gives honours to. Changing the UK's traditional system would be more of a statement than leaving it in place, and since the royals do pull in a lot of tourists and their money, what's the point in changing it?
Where does all this US loathing of the French come from? Perhaps you should send back the statue of liberty to teach them a lesson.
We've always had a reputation for hating the French but I've never seen the foaming at the mouth loathing shown by quite a few Americans, despite the UK having been involved in quite a few wars against the French. Including a little spat that ended in 1776.
Tradition is something that holds us back from progress. Mindless repetition of things done for the sake of doing what was done before. Instead of wasting time and energy avoiding stepping on cracks so we don't break our mother's backs, let's just get on with the show and not waste time, eh?
And yes, I agree with your assessment of the unnecessary "pomp", as you put it, over our president and military. And especially our president-to-be, I'm particularly frightened of his cult status, although he's obviously better than Bush.
titles have an associated meaning to them, typically, you could call yourself MindlessAutomata ruler of the ants! and nobody would give two hoots, to be given a title from the british monarch means something.
Maybe not to you, but it isn't a typically easy thing to get, and most people would agree it takes some level of skill/achievement.
You seem to be under the impression that being a monarch would be an easy job, I propose it would not, to be a horrible monarch may be easy, but being the example of manners and and grace 24/7 while going about your business would not be an easy job.
As for 'pointless traditions' what do you think culture is?, I know the points I have raised to not delve into the more meaningful aspects of it all, but it's 8pm new years eve here, so I'll return and post a more detailed comment later perhaps.
This is pretty much all that is left of her power. These days a monarch is nothing more than a figurehead who dances for the public. Not a job I'd want.
The man is one of the best authors ever to have graced the earth.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
The monarchy is sort of like the 2nd amendment; if things just get totally and completely screwed up beyond any hope of repair, The 2nd amendment, and the Monarchy, are the built-in reset switches.
And, just like the 2nd amendment, a bunch of idiots don't realize what a blessing it is that they have that reset switch.
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
Although I don't have a problem with constitutional monarchy, with a bit more power than the British do. It seems to me there's some merits when you have a decent Royal line that needs to think on a much longer scale than election cycles
I'd say more, but my guild is raiding.
Yeah, but she's damn wealthy to boot. Where'd she get that money? Through hard work or her family's toil and labor? HAH! I wish I were royalty for the sole purpose of being the one person who could abolish it.
I'm not opposing people being told they did a good job--you made that up because you don't have an argument. No, what I said is that the queen isn't (or shouldn't be) any more special as you or I, and her awards SHOULDN'T be treated as though they are.
When you view the queen's honors as being worth more than your own, when the queen has her position due to birth and not due to personal ability or bravery or somesuch, then you devalue yourself and inflate the worth of someone who hasn't earned it.
... need I say more? nudge nudge wink wink
Yours,
Sir "Big" Lancealot
One doesn't have anything to do with the other. There's nothing wrong with praising people for their achievements, yet there's no need for a monarch to do it.
In fact, being praised only by a monarch is rather sad for an author. The true test of success is if the readers praise him, and go out of their way to let him know. The queen is just one reader among millions (and that's assuming she actually read his work - if not, then her honouring him is just plain silly) .
In which case they will make her a Dame eventually. Not that she is as deserving as Terry mind but if she works at it for another 15 - 20 years she might get it.
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
I just read this and a big smile spread across my face. I've been a fan of Pratchett's books for many years now (mid 1980s I think) and it's surprising how well he is known around the world. Isn't he something like he sells the third most books of any British author? His work is fantastic, though sometimes slated by critics - undeservedly IMHO because his books can be so original and funny and still be insightful.
Just as an example, when a very close relative of mine was undergoing major high-risk surgery, the only way I could pass the time other than biting my nails was by reading one of his books.
Congrats Sir Terry! And thank you very much for all your work.
bang goes my karma... again...
Hmmm.. That should make her a Damsel me thinks, for a Dame is a lady Lord.
Now I'm gender confused for what a Lady knight should be termed.
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
I think you may be missing the point- the entire thing is antiquated and out of date - to single out the queen on issues of giving Knighthoods (rode any flashing white chargers of late?) or Orders of the British Empire (what Empire would that be then?) is like complaining that there are hazelnuts on your peanut butter and brazil nut ice cream. The whole thing is nuts and removing one of them won't make it less so.
Nothing is really so special about Her Majesty. You can award people titles too if you wish.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Really? That's knightable? Sir JK Rowling? Sir Alan Dean Foster?
JK Rowling also has an OBE, from 2001.
The king doesn't have power to abolish his seat. The most you could do was abdicate, after which a successor would be found according to a well-defined modified primogeniture succession order. No approval from you would be needed for the coronation -- in fact, you would be in no position to approve or disapprove, having abdicated.
Why is the QUEEN so special that she can give people special titles?
Simple, really. She's got the specialest title. Ergo, she may dispense with special titles as she pleases.
>needs to think on a much longer scale than election cycles
Which is also a large chunk of the reason we have (had) a House of Lords. Blair and his vile mob did their best to wreck all that though and rip out a perfectly functional line of sanity that allowed him to shove through laws that would never have got passed otherwise. Of course, he used his usual campaign of disinformation and whipping up a frenzy of stupidity in large swathes of the people via the Daily Mail etc.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
You are an idiot. You have no idea what you're talking about. The only statement I can be arsed to refute properly is that the Queen doesn't decide who she gives honours to in the same way as she doesn't decide what's in her speech or at the opening of parliament. She is a tradition. I know Americans have a problem with the concept.
Yes, but why are other people treating "Her Majesty"'s (why are you addressing her as if SHE'S so special?!) awards as if they mean anything more than your own?
Its still better than being modded down on /. And a complement is better than a insult.
A monarch is a person who's been educated from birth, and has had plenty of time to think about role, responsibility and necessary education.
They also have tenure of a sorts, which means they can afford to take a long view - most major shifts in a country don't really start to take effect for years anyway.
It's not actually much worse than the current perversions of a democracy that various other countries seem to run - a 4 yearly popularity contest where you're trying to buy the maximum number of voters with a minimal amount of investment. It's about as much a question of birthright as a monarchy is too - your 'average working man' rarely has enough money to afford the luxury of spending years campaigning and polticiking, and dropping large amounts of cash on the political campaign. (OK, so they can sell out to someone rich and get funding as a result but that's not much different).
*shrug*. The reason a monarchy _still_ works quite well, is because you still typically have an elected government, but you have a person who's a representative of the country's interest in the long term as well.
Bill Gates est un grand homme qui a fait beaucoup de grandes choses, mais tous et a changé la face de la grande entreprise. Dites ce que vous les produits de Microsoft, mais M. Gates est une classe. En outre, ce n'est pas pertinente pour le sujet traité. Mai-vous de toujours marcher sur le sable chaud.
Read a bit of history damn it! Their families fought wars of conquest and won. Then they created empires with massive economic, social and industrial might That's how they got the money. It's called 'Old Money' and lots of the rich=titled people in the Old World have lots of it floating about.
And to see who owned who, check out the flag of the British East India company and compare it the to Stars and Stripes.
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
Simple, she's better than you are. What have you done for the world, or the UK?
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I, for one, welcome our new fantastic overlords.
Congrats, Sir Terry!
Why should any governing body, or something affiliated with a governing body, decide for people what moral causes are worth awarding shiny medals and titles for, instead of simply popular consensus? Why is that not good enough? Perhaps we should have President Bush award medals to anti-abortion groups, for "fighting for the sanctity of life", or anti-gay groups, "fighting for the sanctity of marriage?"
Each sitting U.S. president has the opportunity to hand out awards that are the closest thing America has to knighthoods -- Presidential pardons. Arise, Sir Lewis of Libby!
But French or UK bashing, that's a troll. Got it.
considering what i've seen in the south, who the fuck are you to call any country inbred??
The difference being, 1) Most people from the US South are not, in fact inbred; 2) Inbred trash are looked down upon in the US, not placed into a higher ruling caste.
Why do we even have a moderation system here? It really is off-putting to see how people abuse it.
Most notable to be honoured is the Scot Sir Chris Hoy - triple Olympic medal winning, World Champion and all round good egg.
And I've been overtaken by him on the track at Meadowbank many many years ago...
-- NSY - SY OOT - Doric signs on local shop doors.
The man is one of the best authors ever to have graced the earth.
Ummmm... wow. I mean, I know his paperback genre fiction appeals to geeks and all -- I get a little tickle when I read Edgar Rice Burroughs, myself -- but seriously??
Breakfast served all day!
Really? That's knightable? Sir JK Rowling? Sir Alan Dean Foster?
Are you kidding? JK Rowling will get made Queen at least.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
--soldiers, the most useless occupations ever invented.
From a top-down view of the world, yes they are useless. But not from the point of view of any individual nation.
Inheritance like any regular person would. Even if you went back a few hundred years and completely removed royalty it is very likely that her family would still be considerably well off.
Well, why should I care about what the government thinks, or the queen, for that matter?
Well, why do you care? You seem to be getting very angry over something that apparently doesn't matter to you at all. Nobody is forcing to care.
To answer your other points - firstly, if you're so concerned with the monarchy 'leeching off the state', conveniently ignoring the benefits they bring to the country in terms of tourism, diplomatic relationships and the income from their holdings (which is fully taxable, you may note), please send me your address and I will send you the sixty-six pence it costs per citizen per year to keep the monarchy going. I am glad of it, even if you are not.
Secondly, last time the electorate was polled, about 80% of the British said keep the monarchy, so unfortunately your views are still very much in the minority. If you want to live in a country without a monarchy, I suggest you go find one.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Hmmm.. That should make her a Damsel me thinks, for a Dame is a lady Lord. Now I'm gender confused for what a Lady knight should be termed.
No, a Dame is the female equivalent to knight. The female equivalent to a Lord is Lady.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
Yeah. Seriously. I judge authors based on how much I enjoy reading their books. He rates very highly for me.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
She's the head of state. But she doesn't choose those on the honour roll: there is a lengthy nomination process (which is how so many local councillors wind up with small honours). You can nominate anyone for an honour; the paperwork is extensive and putting together a case is hard work.
Err. I think you mean "only subjects of the 16 Commonwealth Realms". HM is the Queen of the UK, yes, but she's also the Queen of fifteen other countries, including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and the Honours system extends there too (in a variety of different ways).
Anyway, no one "has" to call anyone anything; it is merely a sign of respect. Respect is generally a good idea, though in these individualist times people evidently feel that deference is beneath them. Note especially the practice of using the correct clerical form in the United States, something which is rather rare in the UK now, and exceptionally so for non-Anglican clerics.
Hey, at least if you have an idiot as the head of the state, at least said idiot was born into it, so you don't have to suffer through the collective self-blaming for having elected him. Or her. Or it, in case of tentacles.
Whatever Mr Vimes may say, kings are useful in that regard. They are born into it, so fuck'em and get on with your life.
Besides, revolutions are more... interesting than elections.
Ignore this signature. By order.
Having said that, a large riot would tear her limb from limb if she ever tried that.
Oddly enough that didn't happen in Australia in 1975. Her local deputy took the blame.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Hmmm. Well, no offense to Mr. Pratchett -- he's written a lot of books and they've been very popular and I know a lot of people enjoy them, so I'm sure the honor is well deserved -- but I, for one, could never read more than one or two before moving on to something else. It seems to me there's a whole universe of letters out there waiting to be read, rather than just revisiting the same thing over and over again. But I guess it's no worse than TV.
Breakfast served all day!
Where does all this US loathing of the French come from?
Their refusal to play ball.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
You know, that singer guy? From the 70s?
Breakfast served all day!
I see your point, however, I find that the variation in charachters and viewpoint is enough.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
It seems that the British Empire used to award knighthoods to people who actually did something - social reformers, military heroes, literary giants, and so on. These days, they give it out to pop singers, movie set designers, and funny book writers. It would be nice for the award to have some other meaning than "you sure sold a lot of books!" It seems to be sort of like the Oscars or Emmys...more like a popularity contest than an award of any genuine merit.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I voted for the republic here in Australia in 1999, and I will do the same the next time it comes to a vote.
But I don't care what the British do. People who want to winge about the Monarchy in Britain should say the same about Holland, Sweeden, etc.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
He doesn't need to wear the tights, feathers, and shiny breastplate now does he?
So earning a personal fortune of forty million pounds sterling is not reward enough?
Nearly all of the "honours" (note the british spelling!) announced are, in fact, decided by the Government, and simply announced by the Queen. Therefore it is not what the Queen thinks, it's what the democratically elected government thinks. End of.
The Queen doesn't choose who gets the honours, the government does.
We do, if I remember right It's the Presidential Medal of the Arts or some such - too tired to look it up. It's just that it generally takes place, and is covered in a one paragraph story on the Presidential Press release, and gets released as a short wire story, which no one picks up
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
Actually she doesn't. The supremacy of parliament and law are enshrined in our constutution.
OTOH she is the head of the army - they swear alliegance to her not the government - so she could order them to bring down an opressive government, if they wouldn't allow themselves to be dismissed.
Took him how many years to get recongnised?
Wouldve been better to just ride a bike or swim fast or kick a ball, that way you get knighted in this fucking stupid country by the time youre 30 and called a "hero" - wankers
Perhaps you should send back the statue of liberty to teach them a lesson.
Not just that, but US-Americans also always seem to forget that there were quite a number of nations supporting them in the revolutionary war. France sure did (as did Germany, for example) - and if it hadn't been for those foreign armies, the USA would still be a British colony these days.
That's not to say those nations only helped the emerging USA out of niceness, but they did help, and it was crucial help, too.
Why US-Americans always forget that is really beyond me.
One does not get knighted for doing the exact same thing as his or her predecessors.
Tradition can be great for some things, and not-so-great for others.
Most Brits are very happy with the current arrangement, where the royal family play a strong role in the cultural development of the nation, while having a relatively minor role in the government.
"Tradition is bad, progress is good" is a terrible philosophy to live by. Don't fix what isn't broken!
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Actually, Britain doesn't have a constitution, so you're talking out of your ass.
Because being knighted by some alcoholic bum on the corner named Steve means fuck all, you amazing twit.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Technically, the members are designated MBE, it's the officers that are OBE. He got himself promoted.
Actually IIRC Knighthoods get the postnomials KBE Wikipedia confuses things a bit more...
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
The man is one of the best authors ever to have graced the earth.
Ummmm... wow. I mean, I know his paperback genre fiction appeals to geeks and all -- I get a little tickle when I read Edgar Rice Burroughs, myself -- but seriously??
By sales, certainly. But it depends whether you want to define "best" as "popular" or "good quality writing". The latter is subjective.
That why they are coined as:
MBE - My Bloody Effort
OBE - Others Bloody Effort
I don't know where I read this, but I once heard an excellent explanation of why pomp and ceremony is important: It's important because our primitive mammal brains forget things. All sorts of ordinary, day to day things. We forget almost everything, really -- very little sticks. To make something stick in someone's mind as "this mattered", it has to be not-ordinary. Pomp and ceremony achieves this very effectively.
This is why many important transitions, events, and rewards in our life are often a ceremony. Think of marriage or graduation.
And hey, the method works! It even made Slashdot's readers notice. You noticed. And you might even remember that Terry Pratchett contributed to the world of literature, and it matters.
A sad day when a bigoted comment like this is modded up. The American south is home to most of America's black population, and a slur against them is merely a reflection of your [and moderators] tiny-minded ignorance and fear.
When they shoot at light entertainment TV personalities I think that they can be called inbred. Though I note that note of the (self proclaimed) "hicks" in that episode were black.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
been a member of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) for Services to Literature since 1998
He is indeed an OBE, being an Officer of the Order. The designation "Member" of the Order (MBE) is the more junior accolade.
That you would even bring that up shows a suspicious sensitivity. The whole inbred hillbilly thing is a well known stereotype, whereas 'a slur against the south is a slur against blacks' isn't.
They'd all be speaking German if it weren't for us, and they actively screwed us when we needed them. That's why there is hate.
Yes, you did a great job of halting your supplies of oil and machinery to the Germans, once France was thoroughly overrun. That's a great trick for boosting sales, that - sell stuff to one side, let them invade their neighbours, and then attack them so you can grab it all back, plus a few other things too.
I know you get taught in school that America won the Second World War without any help from anyone else, but perhaps you could read some actual history books, with real factual history in them?
Just because we don't write it down on a piece of paper and put it in a museum doesn't mean we don't have one.
Yes it does. It's just scattered all over the place in many documents unlike the US one.
Just think: 50% of all people are below average.
Britain does not have constitution in the sense of a single document, but in effect the constitution is passages, sentences and laws spread out across thousands of documents.
Breed
So athletes shouldn't be honored then? After all, they have only been able to get their gold medals thanks to being born with a good physique (training aside, you still need to be born with natural physical talent).
Similarly, Einstein and other prominent scientists shouldn't be honored, they didn't "earn" their smart brains, did they? Obviously, anyone from a good family shouldn't be honored, their success has inevitably been helped by their happening to be born into loving & caring families.
A few years down this route and what do you know, you've got a new Pol Pot in charge killing off anyone who achieves success if they're not of the right background.
Britain's Queen has achieved something (something history shows is very difficult): she's kept her house in order and not done anything unpopular enough to sway public support against her. As long as she has public support, who she chooses to honor will no doubt matter to the British people.
I *think* you're calling us British folks who don't like the monarchy's powers a bunch of idiots... your right to do so I suppose (back to this in a minute) but I think the US 2nd amendment is rather different from the UK's monarchical power structure.
2nd amendment - created by the people and can be used by the people within the law.
Monarchy - bunch of unelected hereditary rulers from outside who have the final say. Cue Monty Python music - I didn't vote for them to be in charge, did you? Changing or getting rid of them definitely doesn't happen within the law, it's called treason. Death penalty for that was only abolished in 1998.
In the USA they had a revolution 200 years or so back because they didn't like unelected hereditary leaders from outside telling them what to do.
Personally I think we'd be better having the monarchy as figureheads for the tourists and to impress visiting presidents but removing them from the legal processes. Unelected monarchs (even those who don't claim the divine right of kings) seem a bit archaic these days. Having somebody that you have to bow down to and obey simply on the grounds that his mum or dad was in charge - no thank you.
If the current Queen of England could have been Speaker of the House, rather than merely a figurehead leader, we might have been better off all around the world. You think *she* would have let Dick Cheney and Bush talk her into sending troops to Iraq? Or let the market run wild with the housing credit nuttiness? Not that feisty old lady.
The latest princes of England are some of the luckiest men in the world, partly because they failed to inherit their father's looks, but mostly they have one of the coolest grandmothers in history, a font of knowledge and experience I hope they learn from and listen to for many years to come. Can you imagine learning from and studying the work of a woman that cool who's been a reigning monarch of the western world for that long?
As sad as it would be for her, I just hope she outlives her wife-betraying, green-lifestyle dilettante of a son.
If your not british, kindly keep your foul language out of it.
More than one universe. L-Space theory shows that there are 10 to the power of N possible books, where N is the number of possible universes. This is why there is never enough shelf space.
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
No she doesn't................."Constitutional monarchy is another key principle, summed up in the maxim that "the Queen reigns, but she does not rule" and the often-quoted saying that the monarch acts only on the advice of his or her ministers. This principle can be traced back to the Restoration, and was most famously articulated by the Victorian writer Walter Bagehot. On very rare occasions, the monarch does play an active role in politics: for example, in deciding which party leader to ask to form a government when an election has produced a hung Parliament, as in February 1974."
But enough about the Bush family...
(Republicans with a big R may substitute the Kennedys or the Clintons at no extra charge!)
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The UK doesn't have a written constitution, but it does nonetheless have a means of administration prescribed by parliament - a constitution.
Some laws are held to be 'constitutional'. The Bill of Rights 1688 for example (on which the American Constitution was partially based if I recall correctly), which limits the power of the monarchy. The Human Rights Act 1998 is another example.
It is of course possible for parliament to abolish any one of these laws - and I believe the same is the case in America, although a special majority of some sort is required to ammend the constitution. Beyond that somewhat technical difference, it's a similar system.
By convention, the Queen is said to have the right to be consulted, the right to advise, and the right to warn. Technically she has a right to veto legislation, but this last occurred in 1709 and if she attempted it today, I suspect there would be a constitutional crisis leading either to a general election or a referendum on the monarchy.
As it happens, the current monarch is noted for having been reasonably good at her job. She has experience of eleven Prime Ministers and the events of half a century - whether or not you agree with her constitutional position, she is currently an extremely useful resource to the government.
Tomorrow, I may eat another house plant
you, Sir, are just as moronic as you are an Anonymous Coward.
Thankfully, the rest of the thinking world can feel happy for the honours bestowed upon Sir Terry.
~men are from earth. women are from earth. deal with it.~
Objectively, he's also very good. His handling of multiple cultures is excellent, his political satire is brilliant, his ability to link human themes such as sexism, aging, outrage at injustice, poverty, fondness of pets, bureaucracy, and courage into plots that are fun for both children and sophisticated adults who appreciate more of the subtlety is amazing. His characters are very human, often very warm, and he successfully captures the attitudes of both heroes and villains.
'Jingo' should have been required reading for the Bush Administration before the recent mid-easter mess, just as 'Making Money' should have been required reading for the loan officers of the USA before the housing credit crunch. The man captures important themes about all sorts of aspects of life.
I'll be bringing in the new year with The Rite Of Ashkente drink in his honor:
1 1/2 oz. Vodka (Peach flavoured)
1 1/2 oz. Southern Comfort
1/2 oz. Sloe Gin
6 oz. Orange Juice
Mixing Instruction
Heres one for all the terry Pratchett fans:- Blend with ice and serve in chilled highball glass. Garnish with an orange slice.
Although younger wizards have discovered that the drink may be made with a shot of vodka and orange juice.
Service to the Arts has always been a valid category for honours to be awarded. Note that it's not enough to write a lot of books yourself (or songs, or paint a bunch of pictures, etc); it's also necessary to actively inspire and help others.
It also reflects a solid career in doing so, not merely a flash-in-the-pan fad star.
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
We could call it the National Medal of Arts and award to people who are "...are deserving of special recognition by reason of their outstanding contributions to the excellence, growth, support and availability of the arts in the United States."
BTW Stan Lee was one of the winners this year.
However probably the most know are the Kennedy Center Honors which while not given by the nation are well known because they show up on TV whenever they happen.
Seriously, a lot of times that this sort of ugly bigotry gets expressed is just a socially acceptable way of expressing racism - southern USA is about 40% black, so you get to tar a lot of people with the same brush.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
> I, for one, could never read more than one or two before moving on to something else
You're not alone. I read one, thought it was great, really inventive. Quite amusing etc. Then I read a second and found it was the first one with a slightly different plot. Thought that may be an aberation and tried another - same thing. I gave up at that point. I'm very happy he's been knighted etc and I know a lot of people get a lot of pleasure from his books but he's not for me. Blasphemous as it sounds, I feel the same way about Douglas Adams. A great idea recycled to death.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
perfectly functional line of sanity
?
Unfortunately Mr Pratchett may well end up in such a state of perfect functionality in the hopefully-not-too-soon future!
The UK is a constitutional monarchy, which basically means that the queen has no real power.
The list of people who get "honours" is draw up by the government (with bi-partisan input from all the political parties and non-political parts of the civil service, and from the general public). A knighthood is no different to the Congressional Medal of Honour, or the Legion of Honour in France, we just kept the old titles which have existed for centuries.
The Queen is really just there as a ceremonial figurehead. For example, every year there is the "Queens Speech" at the opening of Parliament, at which the Queen sets out the legislation to be debated in that year, but the whole thing is written by the Prime Minister.
Personally I'm a republican (small r) and would happily see the back of them, because they are an anachronism and a bunch of landed gentry, but to think that the Queen has any real power (that she could actually exercise without causing a constitutional crisis) is just incorrect.
The current setup is the ultimate result of the second (or third depending on which ones you count) English Civil War, during which Charles I was executed and we briefly became a republic, and is probably why we still have a monarchy at all. With the restoration of Charles II, the power of the monarch became largely symbolic and ultimately subservient to the will of Parliament, with the unwritten understanding that a monarch who tried to control things would probably be the last.
Paul
Paul Leader
>My personal hate comes from their overt ratfucking of America during the leadup to the Iraq war /helped/ in WW2 (didn't win it, try the Russians and sundry other allied forces which were sorta, you know, involved) that The French should have gone along with an illegal invasion of a sovereign state? Mmm, interesting.
So you think jut because you
>And don't even get me started on Jacque Chirac.
Yeah, I'll give you that one.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
I voted for the republic too, because I personally feel that we should have an Australian head of state. However, if the Queen decided to pass the throne of King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Defender of the Faith to William and the King of Australia to Harry (and he then moved down here to live), I would have no problems with that. Harry's children would be Australian, and as for Harry himself - well, it's not like there aren't a lot of other poms around the place. ;)
New Zealand can have Beatrice.
(The Monarchy of Australia is a separate office to the Monarchy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as is the Monarchy of New Zealand and the Monarchy of Canada - not to mention the 13 other monarchies in the Commonwealth).
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
Oops, that should have been the "Congressional Gold Medal", which is for Civilians, while the Medal of Honour is for service people.
Of course, a Knighthood is more in line with the Congressional Silver Medal (first recipient was Chuck Yeager apparantly), the Gold Medal being very rarely awarded.
Paul Leader
You do realize that it was a rhetorical question, right? They're (the royal family) rich by undeserved money.
I've had numerous discussions (ironically, most of the Brits I've talked to more personally about the royal family thinks they're a bunch of leeches) with this and I hear how the queen would be some magical spokesperson for the people when everything goes sour--she would be the person "the people" would rally behind. At the same time, they then state she doesn't have any real power. What?
I know she is mostly around for ceremony. The point is, however, is that she has a position and pulpit undeserved, and that countries and governments should not be in the business of honoring people because of what goddamn family they are born into. Even worse that they should give out "honors" and worse still people think they mean anything!
And why is the POTUS so special that he can award the various Presidential Medals, or Congress so special that it can award the various congerssional medals?
Almost every country has some kind of honours system, the British system just has rather more levels to it than most.
Paul
Paul Leader
How does a disapproval of a heriditary dictatorship have anything to do with tourist sites? I totally fail to see any correlation whatsoever with abhorring a concept like a "king" and taking photos of a staged tourist attraction. This is +5?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I was born into a noble family where I can hunt foxes all day and have other people shine my shoes. Because I don't need to maintain a real job, I can easily rally behind various charities all the while getting the same glory that a real philanthropist (one who worked for their money) gets.
That's my grand contribution to humankind.
Oh, wait.
(The Monarchy of Australia is a separate office to the Monarchy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as is the Monarchy of New Zealand and the Monarchy of Canada
Which makes me wonder how inheritance works. I believe there is an act of parliament in the UK which defines the rules for picking the next monarch when the current one dies. Are there parallel acts in NZ and Australia? What would happen if somebody forgot to import changes from upstream? We really could finish up with a different monarch from the rest of the Commonwealth.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Well, why do you care? You seem to be getting very angry over something that apparently doesn't matter to you at all. Nobody is forcing to care.
I'm not gay, I'm not black, I don't belong to any persecuted religious groups... I guess I just don't have the moral turpitude to just shut up and keep my mouth closed when I see some sort of injustice done in the world.
To answer your other points - firstly, if you're so concerned with the monarchy 'leeching off the state', conveniently ignoring the benefits they bring to the country in terms of tourism, diplomatic relationships and the income from their holdings (which is fully taxable, you may note), please send me your address and I will send you the sixty-six pence it costs per citizen per year to keep the monarchy going. I am glad of it, even if you are not.
Since "diplomatic relationships" is rather silly as the real dealings are done by people like the prime minister (wait, I thought the queen was only a ceremonial figurehead? What gives? Can't have your cake and eat it...) and taxing their holdings is obviously you scrambling for an excuse, I guess it leaves you with only tourism. Is that what the British spirit is all about? Treating families as if they're special because they bring in tourists to snap pictures and think they're special because the specialness of this magical family somehow rubbed off on them like fairy dust?
Secondly, last time the electorate was polled, about 80% of the British said keep the monarchy, so unfortunately your views are still very much in the minority. If you want to live in a country without a monarchy, I suggest you go find one.
That's always the most pathetic excuse anyone can give, "because might makes right" or "democracy says so". I gave up on the popularity contest before high school, why are you still clinging on to it? In the USA, the recent vote against homosexual marriage in California was an injustice, despite it being a democratically-produced one. The will of the people is nothing if their will is malice, bigotry, ignorance, or even plain stupidity.
Genetics is the area of biological study concerned with heredity and with the variations between organisms that result from it.
A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Also, I guess more than half of slashdot needs to shut their mouths when they hear about the police state Britain is becoming, what with all the invasions of privacy and cameras and all. But, who am I to complain over the actions of a democratically elected government...?
Why do you call the President of the USA "the President"? Because that's his/her title.
The POTUS is to be addressed "Mr/Mrs President", the Queen of England is to be address "Your Majesty".
There's a difference between "being broken" and "being an unnecessary usage of time and resources." Much like how organisms lose organs or features that, over time, become more and more useless, so too I think people are best served by removing the cruft from their lives.
Maybe we could instead have a Senate, and sell seats in it. Imagine the revenue it would bring in.
Bill Gates.
Excuse me, I meant Sir Bill Gates.
Just a little FYI. Sorry if we republican (small r) Americans find the whole royalty thing anachronistic, not to mention flying in the face of the concepts of equality and consent of the governed.
Bah. Speak for yourself, peon. I'm a direct descendant of William I, King of England in 1066. :-P
My blog
That's why we have medals. The Presidential Medal of Freedom is given to people who have enriched America through their works. Yeah it's a bit political, but Fred Rogers, Frank Sinatra and a mess of other folks.
And what, pray, is the difference between these and the honour that Terry received, in the end?
Sure, one's called "medal of FREEDOM", while the other includes KNIGHT-hood, but in the end, they're both awards given out by the head of state in recognition of certain services.
It's not a constitution if any government can randomly fuck about with it. Parliament can change or abolish any law they want, that's not how a constitution works. Changing the US constitution would require all sorts of governing body's to agree, changing ours just requires Gordon Brown running a three-line whip.
I like Prachett.
His lute/loot joke (you know the one) has me giggling still.
Not because it is good - it is terrible - but because it makes a pearl from dross.
His alzheimers is the very bugger.
But as soon as he gets a "knighthood" from the old county, you are pawing and slathering over him like little children.
You are either egalitarian iconoclasts or you are not (and to his credit, I suspect Pratchett is. Which makes him one up on you.)
America - the idea of "America" - far more precious than the absurd Bush tainted thing you have become - ain't what it used to be.
You have no pride.
Find Japanese addresses in English on Google Maps Japan: http://diddlefinger.com/
And why does being knighted by the human equivalent of an appendix (the queen) mean anything other than fuck all? You've just begged the question on why Steve is a "lesser" person, why his "knighting" means anything less than the queen's--or is this some sort of British idea of eugenics I am unfamiliar with?
Why should the Queen, or any of us, give a shit what you think of our honours system?
I suppose if you're ever offered a knighthood you could just turn it down, although I very much doubt you would.
...not to mention flying in the face of the concepts of equality and consent of the governed.
The monarchy is actually here with the consent of the people in Britain. The key events are the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, the Glorious Revolution and the Act of Settlement.
These established in British constitutional law that the monarch rules only with the consent of Parliament, and that the line of succession is chosen by Parliament, which is elected by we, the people of Britain.
In terms of caring what they think, the royals have tended to stay out of politics in our country after we chopped off one of their heads for getting too much into it. The American Revolution occurred more or less because they hadn't the wit to extend that lesson elsewhere and the British electorate of the time was entirely made of arrogant aristocrats.
To compare the peers and the crown in 1776 and 2008 is ignorant.
Oh, and FYI, I'm republican (small r) too.
All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
You do realize that the reason why Americans simply call the president "The President" and not "Your Highness" was largely to avoid the associations with monarchy, right?
The queen is called "Queen". "Your Majesty" has an obvious, undeserved connotation.
The reason that John Kerr took the blame is that he acted completely by himself (which he had the authority to do). He wasn't acting as the Queen's representative - in fact, he took a number of steps to prevent Whitlam from "ante-ing up" and bring the Queen in directly, and violated a policy of non-intervention that the Queen had directed him to follow.
Note that Kerr couldn't dismiss Parliament on his own accord; that power is reserved for the Queen. All Kerr could do was dismiss the Prime Minister and appoint another - one who would request the dismissal. He appointed Fraser, Fraser arranges for the supply legislation (the Budget, essentially) to go through, informs everyone he's PM, then disappears. The House of Representatives declared no-confidence in him (which would have made it impossible for Fraser to request the dissolution of Parliament), but then Kerr refused to be told about the no confidence motion until he had signed off the budget and then accepted Fraser's request (made _after_ the no-confidence motion).
Kerr deliberately involved himself in the politics of the day, not least due to a personal animosity towards Whitlam (who, frankly, wasn't the nicest of politicians around). If Kerr had wanted to avoid the situation, he could have arranged an alternative without having to put Fraser in as a dummy PM. The Queen, furthermore, had already made her position clear to Kerr - to pursue a policy of non-intervention. Failing that, he could have made it clear it wasn't about job security (Kerr pointed out repeatedly that he didn't warn Whitlam, because Whitlam could have asked the Queen to sack him) by tendering his own resignation, to take affect once the special elections were over and a new government sworn in.
The '75 dismissal needed to happen. Whitlam deserved to lose the subsequent election, particularly because of how bad his campaign was. I would argue that the Liberal and National Coalition didn't deserve morally to win - their obstructionist tactics of the previous three years had caused the crisis in the first place - but Whitlam took what should have been an ironclad victory and pissed it away by allowing himself, and the rest of the ALP, to wallow in rage and vengeance.
Interestingly enough, the Coalition still plays by this handbook - for the first half of this year (when they controlled the Senate), they played the same nasty obstructionist tactics. Tactics that were never practised by the ALP when the Coalition was in power (to be fair, the Democrats had the balance of power during that period, so the ALP didn't have a chance).
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
Come on MindlessAutomata. Seriosuly. You seem to have latched onto this subject to promote your own agenda. I can see from your comments that you're passionate about the monarchy in England (negatively). I respect that. That is your opinion, and you have every right to that.
I don't want to get into the whole monarchy debate thing, because I think it's off-topic. The topic is Terry Pratchett. Whether it's the queen, or the sultan, or the president of the usa, or the lion king, or linus torvalds, or cleopatera bestowing the honor is beside the point.
Now you're trying to bring a third set of strawman arguments into the picture instead of just saying whether Pratchett deserves to be honored or not.
Both a smart brain and a good physique are nothing unless you train them. You can be highly gifted but still fail miserably because you did not study your physics stuff or were too lazy to do some training now and then.
A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
Um, no - you're the one talking out of your ass. Britain has a constitution - it's just not codified into a single document. Instead, it's spread out of a number of other statues, starting with the Magna Carta and working down through history.
Constitutional law in the UK gets complicated, but it's very real.
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
How does a disapproval of a heriditary dictatorship have anything to do with tourist sites?
Oh please, the monarchy is there as a constitutional placeholder and a rubber stamp, nothing more. If you think the 'Liz is presiding over a 'hereditary dictatorship' then you truly are ignorant, regardless of how abhorrent a concept the monarchy is.
(And as I've said before in this thread, I am a small r republican Brit).
All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
a +1 Funny/Sad mod. I've never seen a better place to put it.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Let me join the chorus of congratulations - if any author deserves it, it's him. He is one of the very few who has mastered the art of writing books that are not only funny, but deep and serious at the same time. In fact, I can't really think of any other author that comes close. I can keep re-reading his books again and again; I often go looking for new books, mostly SciFi or fantasy, and mostly go home empty-handed; and then in desparation I return once more to one of TPs books, certain that this time I will be tired of it - but it hasn't happened yet. I think his greatest strength is that his books are not actually funny - the stories are very serious, but written with a lot of humour.
As for the Alzheimer's - it would seem that there is hope of an actual cure in the not too distant future. I really hope he will benefit from the progress of this research.
The Queen has the power to move up, down, left, right or diagonally, and knights have the power to jump over other pieces. Checkmate to you too!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Actually, Britain has a constitution, so I'm talking out of my ass.
There, fixed that for you.
All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
Having said that, a large riot would tear her limb from limb if she ever tried that.
Well, the last time in the England it provoked a vicious civil war that spilled over into Ireland and Scotland and resulted in the beheading of the asshat in charge at the time. Hopefully we'll be marginally more civilised next time.
All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
I think he was talking about the royal family. Calling them inbred is not exactly controversial.
You can be sure it's genuine, and not at all based on whim. Like another guy in another branch of this thread already said: The Queen hands out the knighthoods, but the guys/girls picked out for the knighthoods are chosen by the government, not the Queen.
Saying "she does it" and "it's sad to be praised by the status quo/those in power" is little more than being petty. The Queen (really the government) only praises those who made "substantial contributions to the country('s cultural or whatever) life".
Anyway, the "better" the literature you write is, the smaller the (contemporary) audience will be, (even though it will have a much longer history than more popular titles) so why do you feel that "writers should depend on praise given by (living) readers only"?
They'd all be speaking German if it weren't for us,
Actually, the whole of Europe would probably be speaking Russian, but don't let historical facts get in the way of your anti-french tirade.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
Not to harp too strongly on this, but reading Rowling, or Tolkien, actually doesn't do much. Reading Pratchett exposes people to all kinds of religious, philosophical, psychological and sociological ideas. He actually manages, not only to make political correctness and liberal tolerance funny, but also attractive. Just compare his ueber-policeman, Vimes, to Jack Bauer, and you see what I mean. Although they're both cardboard, Vimes has depth. He is a middle aged man who has accidentally married into high society and learns to adapt to it, even as marriage to a woman who understands powerful men opens opportunities to him he would otherwise not have had.
Another thing about Pratchett which may reflect his collaborationism: he can view his characters from outside. For instance, Vimes appears in books in which he is not the central character, and then we see him quite differently. Even minor characters do this: we see Cheery Littlebottom as a dwarf coming out as a woman in a gender-averse society, with all the conflicts that causes, but in another book we see her from outside the police force just as another faceless instance of authority. It's depth like this that justifies a knighthood.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Bah. Speak for yourself, peon. I'm a direct descendant of William I, King of England in 1066. :-P
You do realise that being a direct descendant of the Normans makes you French... ;p
PS. Unlike one of the posts above I'm British, and therefore have earned the right to make fun of them.
Wars lasting more than a century with a nation grants that type of right.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
It seems that the British Empire used to award knighthoods to people who actually did something - social reformers, military heroes, literary giants, and so on. These days, they give it out to pop singers, movie set designers, and funny book writers.
You're looking at this the wrong way. Terry Pratchett would be the ideal knight to defend the monarchy from, say, another dragon attack.
OMG what kind of dipshit would call a parliamentary monarchy a dictatorship? I rest my case.
You just got troll'd!
Second, he has made his attitude quite clear as regards honours in his books. They're fine so long as they are earned. His Prince Charles character goes from jester to king. Vimes goes from the gutter to a dukedom - but you have to earn the right to call him "mister". Witches get paid in the "solid coin of respect"; Magrat goes from witch to Queen but the witches think she has settled for second best. Obviously you should not read too much into what a writer says in his books, but Pratchett's take is very consistent.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
You mean, that Iraq war which was started to find weapons of mass destruction that never existed, and were known by the US government not to exist?
Got to point out that the French supported the invasion of Afghanistan, which was a legitimate response to 9/11. Invading Iraq was merely Bush and Cheney's way of beating their chest.
I personally think that the French only tried to claim the moral middle ground; it just looked high from where the US was looking.
As for 600,000 people: I call bullshit. The US lost 416,800 total in WWII, of which 183,588 were in the European theatre. By contrast the Soviet Union - who were responsible for the fall of the Third Reich - lost over 10 million, nearly all in Europe. The US/British invasion was timed to take advantage of weakened defences due to the fighting in the Eastern front, and had the goal, not of freeing Europe, but of stopping Russia. Without the US, the French would be speaking, well, French (the USSR never forced their satellite nations to adopt Russian), but would have been aligned with the USSR. Wait, that's how they spent the 70s anyway!
Want to bring World War I into the picture as well? Then add another 116,708 - more than half of which died from the flu due to poor sanitation in US training camps (both in the US and in Europe). Total number of US deaths that could be attributed to "saving France": 300,296 - about half the figure you named. I'm sorry about your grandfather and all; my own grandfather flew with the Australian volunteers in the RAF. But get your figures straight. By contrast, the Commonwealth nations (Great Britain and related countries) lost over 1.7 million between WWI and WWI, most in the European conflict.
Excluding the US civil war, the US military has claimed 447,137 combat deaths since the start of the War of Independence - well short of your 600,000 total.
(figures sourced from wikipedia)
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
Any head of state can do that. All countries have titles and medals for those kinds of accomplishments. As for "equality", it's the fucking head of state, you can have an issue with how they're chosen, but you can't whine about equality.
You just got troll'd!
Sir Pterry isn't a Knight Commander (which is a title within various British Orders), but a Knight Bachelor (which is a title outside the Order system). Formally, there are no initials he can add to his name as a Knight Bachelor, but many add Kt. So he could be styled "Sir Terry Pratchett, OBE" (Officer of the Order of the British Empire), but not "Sir Terry Pratchet, KBE" (Knight Commander...).
And why does being knighted by the human equivalent of an appendix (the queen) mean anything other than fuck all?
Because she represents the State (note: the honours list actually drawn up by the government), Steve OTOH represents himself. Being recognised by your country means more to most people than having a alcoholic bum compliment you.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
Or to put it correctly he has been an Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE)
Officers are one up on members (who are MBEs), there are also Commanders (CBEs) above Officers and below Knights but CBEs are rarely given to those from the world of the arts.
If this were really happening, what would you think?
But if some watery tart lobbed a scimitar at you, you'd be able to call yourself Emperor (at least until they put you away).
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
Actually, IIRC he already had an MBE, so this Knighthood is an "upgrade". If you look, most sports stars get OBEs or MBEs unless they've actually won something of note (world cup or Olympic God medals etc).
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
Actually, Britain doesn't have a constitution, so you're talking out of your ass.
There's scholarly disagreement about this. As usual it really depends on the definition of "constitution".
As others have noted, there is no single document headed "Constitution of the United Kingdom", so if your definition requires that, then you're stuck.
However, there are some things that would normally be in the constitution (like who gets to be Prime Minister) that aren't actually written down at all. It's tradition, but not a requirement, that the leader of the majority party is the Prime Minister.
More interestingly, some, like F.F. Ridley IIRC, think that constitutional laws must be distinct from other laws in that they are more difficult to change. This is not formally the case in the UK, except that extreme messing with the fundamental make-up of the state will be met by resistance at all levels (not least, in the courts which could just refuse to apply anything too extreme).
Some EU laws do have a special modification process, in that to revoke them, it would be necessary to leave the EU entirely.
There is also, according to Ridley, no reference to a pouvoir constituent, a constitution-forming body that gives authority to the constitution, which is necessary to the existence of a constitution.
The most general definition is that a constitution regulates the relationship between the state and the citizen. Of course, that can be interpreted as broadly or as narrowly as you fancy. After all, the provision of public flower displays is part of the citizen-state relationship.
There's quite a lot of debate, hence the saying that the UK has a one-line constitution (from Vernon Bogdanor, I think):
"What the Queen in Parliament enacts is law."
Changing of the guard is more ordered and civilized than just about any government function in the USA. If we take enough pictures, we might learn eventually.
Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
Sorry, we're fresh out of Senate seats. But help yourself to a peerage, allegedly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_for_Honours
Although I understand French and your comment was not trollish at all you should write in English, really :)
May the source be with you!
That's basically it. I don't know about the rest of the Commonwealth, but Australia inherited the laws of succession from the UK when we federalised in 1901. This is an act of Parliament that could be changed.
The Australian constitution proclaims us as a monarchy (originally to King George VII and his successors; now Queen Elizabeth and hers). The method of succession is up to the Federal Government, which is why we can legally become a republic in the first place. Expect more debate about this when Queen Liz does step down and we actually have to vote (in Parliament, anyway) on her successor.
Personally, I'd rather a republic (with long terms of office for the head-of-state - like 10-20 years), but if we have to have a monarch, I want an Australian monarch, who lives in Canberra.
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
Well then perhaps you might simply says he's one of the best authors you've read.
No, Parliament can not just change or abolish any law they want. For example: one of the big questions about Britain entering the EU fully is about if the government has the constitutional right to do so. UK courts have shot down Acts of Parliament as being unconstitutional before as well.
The boundaries are vague and not well-defined (hence why constitutional law is such a big area in the UK), but they are very real.
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
That's the definition of a "King". And way to totally ignore my other point about the tourist site, and run away with the "rest my case" nonsense.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Not to mention the Americans turning up late for World War II which started in 1939, not 1941. America didn't rush to protect Europe, it got involved because it was attacked by Japan. (FWIW, they were late for World War I as well. Don't know the excuse for that one)
OK, maybe I'm missing something - how does writing funny books actively inspire and help others?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I fairness, most people's reaction to Jeremy Clarkson is to reach for a gun.
For WWI, America got involved for no particular reason that anyone could think of. Crucial to U.S. participation was the massive domestic propaganda campaign executed by the Committee on Public Information overseen by George Creel. The campaign included tens of thousands of government-selected community leaders giving brief carefully scripted pro-war speeches at thousands of public gatherings. Along with other branches of government and private vigilante groups like the American Protective League, it also included the general repression and harassment of people either opposed to American entry into the war or of German heritage.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I've never been to the south but I have seen enough stereotypes in books and films to know that he obviously wasn't referring to the black population.
I think the difference was that the people elected one head of state whereas the other was born into it.
A constitutional monarchy is a form of constitutional government, wherein either an elected or hereditary monarch is the head of state, unlike in an absolute monarchy, wherein the king or the queen is the sole source of political power, as he or she is not legally bound by the constitution.
Ezekiel 23:20
mais tous et a changé
Hein? Un "et" de plus, n'est-ce pas?
I'm not gay, I'm not black, I don't belong to any persecuted religious groups... I guess I just don't have the moral turpitude to just shut up and keep my mouth closed when I see some sort of injustice done in the world.
So you do care, then. Why say you don't? As for injustice, I find that a hilariously overblown perspective on the whole shebang. As a gay person it's actually pretty offensive to compare the struggle for equal rights for us to having an unelected Head of State that, according to you, does nothing but leech off the public anyway and has no real effectual power. Thanks for comparing your fight to get rid of something you consider useless to our fight for basic human rights.
Since "diplomatic relationships" is rather silly as the real dealings are done by people like the prime minister (wait, I thought the queen was only a ceremonial figurehead? What gives? Can't have your cake and eat it...)
You don't understand how diplomacy actually works, do you? It's not like Civilization - you don't just go up to a world leader, say "I want to be your friend, here's 5 gold per turn", then everything is signed and sealed. It's not all about 2 guys sitting in a room talking about whether to swap sheep for cows. Building international relations takes a lot of work, way beyond governments all the way to the every day man in the street.
If you're confused as to what the Royal Family do, I suggest you do some research, starting with this excerpt from Wiki:
"Members of the Royal Family engage in hundreds of public engagements yearly, throughout the United Kingdom, as formally recorded in the Court Circular, to honour, encourage and learn about the achievements or endeavors of individuals, institutions and enterprises in a variety of areas of life. As representatives of the Queen, they often also join the nation in commemorating historical events, holidays, celebratory and tragic occurrences, and may also sponsor or participate in numerous charitable, cultural and social activities. Their travels abroad on behalf of the UK (called State Visits when the sovereign officially meets with other heads of state) draw public attention to amicable relations within and between the Commonwealth and other nations, to British goods and trade, and to Britain as a historical, vacation, and tourist destination."
Apparently this is worthless to you, however. There's no pleasing some people.
Is that what the British spirit is all about? Treating families as if they're special because they bring in tourists to snap pictures and think they're special because the specialness of this magical family somehow rubbed off on them like fairy dust?
You were the one saying that the Royal Family leech off the British taxpayer, I merely demonstrated that they bring in far more wealth than is expended on them, both financially and in terms of foreign relations. Your sarcasm is palpable but completely misplaced.
That's always the most pathetic excuse anyone can give, "because might makes right" or "democracy says so".
What is 'right'? Is 'right' what you consider to be right or my interpretation? What I am trying to cram into your skull is that you live in a society where the majority of people think that having a Royal Family and treating them as you would a king or queen is morally right (or at least not morally wrong), and you have to live with that. If you don't want to live with that, your choices are convince people to change their minds or get the fuck out. The same goes for Prop 8 and California. I completely agree that it's not right, but that's the way that we feel, not how everyone does. Feel free to have your principles, but don't expect anything to change just because you and a smattering of others don't feel the same way as everyone else.
What you are doing is neither of those things. You're just bitching to everyone that'll listen about how unfair the whole thing is and how you think it's not right without giving people any reason whatsoever to change their minds. If you're lucky, that'll get you 2 minutes of someone's time and then a kick up the arse.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Someone above has written about a world of literature out there. I've read (more than once) Trollope, Powell, Proust, along with all the usual stuff including the Russians in translation and the easier French and German classics, and I find it possible to appreciate them all. On the other hand, I couldn't get into Rowling.
DNA, there I agree with you. I read the books with pleasure but they are comparatively froth. Good froth, but not arise sir Douglas froth even had he not died young.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
I think there's definitely an argument for monarchy. I mean, a person born into and raised to lead a country could do a lot better than the absolute tits we've got...
Of course we humans are a fickle race and so not all would be good, so that's where it all falls apart really. Maybe if we could engineer the perfect leader, but nah, probably never going to happen, we'll just continue with a majority of idiotic but charismatic people in power.
Ezekiel 23:20
It's interesting how republics like the USA form their own family dynasties, possibly in the absence of an "official" one. Look at some of the senior/well known political clans. Political families (like the Kennedys or the Bushes) are almost unknown in UK politics.
And Americans love the British monarchy. Whenever it was announced that Prince William would be going to the University of St Andrews, the university was beseiged by applications from American teenage women (source), presumably all wanting to marry a likely future king.
The UK doesn't have a written constitution, but it does nonetheless have a means of administration prescribed by parliament - a constitution.
I think this is an oft-repeated misconception. The UK's constitution is written. It's just not all written in one convenient place.
... so don't expect a long soliloquy when he come to get you, just a couple feet of cold sharp steel!
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
I thought the Magna Carta was the granddaddy of constitution?
Generally however the UK "constitution" is spread throughout statute and common law (judicial precident and equity). I am starting to think there should be a short, principles-based addition however, since lately we have been relying on the House of Lords more than I am comfortable with.
There also is/will be the European Constitution. However they call it a "treaty". When it was called a "constitution" it required voter approval, which wasn't going to happen, so they renamed it:
Which sounds a lot like fodder for a Pratchett footnote.
OK, maybe I'm missing something - how does writing funny books actively inspire and help others?
You'd be amazed. A friend of mine has two kids (teenage boys) who had no interest in books before I introduced them to Pratchett. Now they read much more, and have whole worlds available to them that they didn't before.
I like Pratchett's work a lot, but my real appreciation for it comes from seeing how it works as a gateway drug for people who might otherwise never walk through the doors of the imagination. That's worth alittle acknowledgement, isn't it?
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Having said that, a large riot would tear her limb from limb if she ever tried that.
Specifically, the mob would be made up of Parliament members...
Last night I played a blank tape at full volume. The mime next door went nuts.
The will of the people is nothing if their will is malice, bigotry, ignorance, or even plain stupidity.
And, of course, it should be you who determines what is malice, bigotry etc? Or would you say something even more idiotic, like, such malice, bigotry etc will be obvious to anyone who can think clearly? Now that we've established that you believe that everyone should submit to your personal moral compass, all you need to do now is get a large enough army of followers and you can go about imposing your will (thus "fixing" all instances of malice, bigotry, etc that you can find).
Or maybe you haven't really given much thought into the complexities and difficulties of creating the "best possible" societal/governmental structure. I recommend for your future perusal (if you really care) Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan , Jean-Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract , John Locke's Second Treatise , and Marx and Engels' Communist Manifesto . These are, of course, just a sample primer for the not-so-simple world of political philosophy. If instead of spending ~$30 and hours of enjoyable and interesting reading, you'd rather just rant and rave about how stupid people are, with the overt implication that you could "fix" things if you were in power, go right on ahead, and I apologize for the distraction I've caused.
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
I can see from other comments you've made that you're not British.
As such, I'm not going to bother arguing further because you're not even in the same cultural mindset, let alone the same country.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Neither the Senate nor the House can abolish or amend any aspect of the Constitution. They require the consent of the States to do so.
Basically, you need a supermajority (2/3) of both the Senate and the House to merely send the thing to the States, and you need 3/4 of the States to sign off as well.
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
There are lots of things in it which are horribly outdated and completely irrelevant to todays society (it was after all, designed for medieval peasantry). As such, it would be impossible to make it legally binding.
The law lords do have an active knowledge of it though and they do take it into account. One of the biggest obstacles to the increase in maximum detention time without being charged was actually the Magna Carta. Hopefully it's strong enough in their minds so that when it gets to them, they shoot it down.
Right, but it's not like HMQ actually compiles the new years honours list, it's compiled in Number 10 (i.e. by the officials of the head of government) anyway.
FGD 135
In England if you are an amazing author you get Knighted and recognition of your entire nation.
In the United States you get lawsuits.
I just love it when people write in french without knowing French... What did you use, Babelfish?
Bah.
Where does all this US loathing of the French come from?
Their ingratitude for WWII, wherein we lost 600,000 men liberating their country, including my grandfather. Then we defended them throughout the Cold War with our Pershing missiles.
And they have never forgiven us for it. My personal hate comes from their overt ratfucking of America during the leadup to the Iraq war to defend their sweetheart oil contracts with Saddam and his oil-for-palaces program. The French went so far as to sell Saddam weapons mere weeks before the invasion. And to think, they try to condescendingly assert the moral high-ground in the Iraq War.
They'd all be speaking German if it weren't for us, and they actively screwed us when we needed them. That's why there is hate.
And don't even get me started on Jacque Chirac.
Including a little spat that ended in 1776.
Yes, and the French lost what, 20 men in that spat 232 years ago? In a war to help defeat their historical enemy? Not exactly 600,000 men against the Nazis.
Oh you mean like how the Red Army lost over 15 million against the Nazis only to march on Berlin? I believe the historical consensus is that the war would have gone on for longer, but that Germany would have eventually lost.
Thanks for being a catalyst? Get real, all of the allies lost a lot in that war.
While I don't think we should remove the 2nd amendment, I don't think it's the safety switch that major proponents make it out to be. I've heard the argument, "the 2nd amendment is there to defend the other amendments." How come the people don't take to arms when the first or fourth amendments are trampled on? How come the patriot act didn't cause the people to take arms? It's probably just the general apathy of people. Perhaps people would have done that in the past... though the Alien and Sedition acts didn't seem to be sufficient for people to take arms.
So? Lots of people post on this forum without knowing English...
That's the definition of a "King".
No it bloody well isn't, you blithering twit. Supreme ruler doesn't mean dictator. Your loss if you can't grasp the nuance, which is totalitarianism. And I don't care about the rest of your comment lol.
You just got troll'd!
Having seen that episode, the presenters on Top Gear (a show I love to watch) did everything in their power to antagonize the people in Alabama. Even so, it would not surprise me if the incidents listed were actually done at the request of someone from Top Gear rather than as an angry reaction. The overall behavior more closely fits that of British stereotypes of people from Alabama than that of anyone from Alabama I have ever met.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
That's always the most pathetic excuse anyone can give, "because might makes right" or "democracy says so". I gave up on the popularity contest before high school, why are you still clinging on to it?
Really? You did seem to be quite happy about the idea of 'popular consensus' in your previous post.
Sir Pterrence, if you're an aged AFP graduate.
Is AFP still going strong?
I remember dialing up, grabbing as many articles as I could before my parents noticed I was using the phone, and reading/replying late into the night, then posting them the next morning.
You're not alone. I read one, thought it was great, really inventive. Quite amusing etc. Then I read a second and found it was the first one with a slightly different plot.
Then you need to try a few more. I agree that a lot of his books, particularly the early ones are quite "samey"... and I find that in particular the Rincewind / Wizard books are a bit repetitious, but you need to find other series of his and try them to give the guy a fair shake.
Even though most of his books are billed as "Discworld" books, there are in fact a number of sub-series within the overall series that are extremely different, and just provide other viewpoints on this rich and wonderful world he's created. My personal favourites happen to be the Guards books (starting with Guards! Guards!) and the History Monks books, but other friends of mine enjoy the Witches series more. There are also a few stand-alone novels that are excellent, of which I really enjoy Small Gods. Some people consider Mort a standalone, but it's really the first of the "Death Series". There are plenty of crossover stories as well that take elements that span two or more of the series, but in all honesty if all you've read are the Wizards books then you're reading what I feel are the weakest of the series.
His stand-alone non-Discworld books are also excellent... my first copy of Good Omens pretty much fell apart is was read and re-read so many times, and though that was a collaboration with Neil Gaiman it's obviously his humour that shines in that book.
Yes, I'm a fan of Terry Pratchett, and I'm glad to see his works being recognized, I stopped reading him for a few years because life got in the way (and lack of time)... now I'm catching up thanks to Audible.com, an iPod and the stereo in my car... now on Monstrous Regiment, another excellent stand-alone book :)
She doesn't need to outlive him. She just needs to publicly declare that "he shall not be king", and it'd pass to William instead. It'd be a pretty big thing for a while, but if she was tricky about it and said it was because of his age (remember, Charles really is getting on a bit), that might just work.
Well, perhaps its due to the fact that the French are assholes? I visited France, immediately following 9/11 (before we invaded Afghanistan, even), and I think the NICEST thing somebody said was that "we deserved it". And it's not like I was even TALKING about it. People would just bring it up when they found out I was American (Sorry, I don't have a French accent. I speak the language pretty poorly, I've been told). Oh wait, that's my fault too, right?
The US was effectively (if not entirely legally) at war with Germany from September 1941, when the USN was ordered to fight the German navy. Note that the early British policy, under Chamberlain, was to avoid asking the US for assistance.
As for WWI, that was the last of the European dynastic wars, and it really didn't matter all that much how it turned out. Nobody was interested in spreading genocidal totalitarianism. The US had no particular relationship with any European power, and no obligation to fight for any of them.
If you Brits really wanted the US to support Britain in whatever wars Britain got into, well, you should have thought of that in the early 1770s.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Hah. I doubt you could last 1 day in the job. Being monarch is a serious full on job - if you just think they sit around all day leading lives of leisure, you're seriously mistaken. I think good ol' Lizzy handles herself with amazing grace and dignity, even after all of these years. (Charles is a bit of a worry, but he's old anyway, so I say bring on William once our dear old Queen finally passes on)
Does this put him in Twerp's Peerage?
The Queen as an individual is not special. However, in her office as the Sovereign, she is the head of the British State and in that capacity, hands out awards. In fact, except for a few specific awards, she doesn't even decide who gets it. There's nothing special about her otherwise, not in the old sense of being an absolute monarch with Divine Right. Divine Right ended (and started) with the Stuarts and they had a good record of either having their head chopped off, or having to go live in exile.
The big deal with the Queen is that she didn't have to interview for her job, she got it because of who her Dad was. However, there's plenty of corporations in the world that the chairman is the brat of the previous chairman too. In her case, she's done a pretty good job.
"Leeched upon" how? The royals pay taxes, are useful, and bring in a shedload of money from tourists who flock to Buckingham Palace to watch the Grenadiers march around. If there was enough call to abolish the monarchy, the ball would be rolling. As it is, a tiny percentage of folks want that, and that's not enough.
The prospect of King Charles is another matter. The Prince of Wales is quite widely considered to be a bit of a prat. That's the moment at which the question of a Republic might be raised.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
And after a thousand years, so is probably half the English and French speaking world.
In all honesty, I find the idea of a society where everyone is so equal that they can't even be told "hey, you've written some really good books, well done" an appalling idea. I'll keep my birthright based head of state, or even some guy a moistened bint threw a scimitar at over that.
True. In all honesty, who in the hell ever said we're all equal? There is a clear hierarchy amongst the human population. That hierarchy varies in categories, but you get the picture.
The UK does have a constitution but its isn't nicely laid out and harped about like the American one. I remember some BBC documentary on it where a historian got very irrate when it was claimed that Britain doesn't have one. Most people consider the Magna Carta the first part of the Brittish Constitution (as well as Australia's if that Australian Parlimentary exhibit was correct) with the Bill of Human Rights beings the latest part of legislation which is a part of it.
Hazy memory tells me that politicians/historians consider the Brittish COnstitution to span the last 1000 years with around 1200 pages to it.
Personnally I think its a good thing since we don't have people shouting about their "constitutional rights". Hearing about the *abuses of the Bill of Human Rights irratates me. Having an small poorly defined document open for abuse would be horrific.
*Such abuses include mandating a TV, playstation, etc.. for Inmates, people on benifits requiring Satalite TV, mobile phones, etc.. and several crinimals getting off because of it.
Someone forgot to tune into "Kennedy Center Honors" last night, apparently.
Oddly, I feel the reverse. Actors, movie writers, directors, etc., are the most useless occupations ever invented, to my mind, and certainly the most self-important. That my sister was in "the business" has nothing to do with it, of course. :-)
Anyway, there are lots of other Halls Of Fame, but (except for the Rock'n Roll HoF) no one who is not in, or possibly in at some time in the future, tends to care. Did you know that Einstein was in the Inventor's Hall Of Fame? Do you care? I certainly never did, figuring being known for writing the Theory Of General Relativity a good enough honor in itself. Likewise, do you know who is Poet Laureate of the USA, and do you care?
Pfft. You are just being pedantic (no, I'm not new here), what I was saying was my opinion on the matter, and was simply another way of saying that.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
Yep, they were all Rincewind ones I'd tried. I'll give some of your suggestions a go, thanks. /. needs some sort of email option for this sort of msg unless I've missed it)
(Methinks
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
Let's see if I have this right, in the UK you have a constitution, but no one knows exactly what is in it until the courts say so. Is that right?
That doesn't sound like a constitution, that sounds like the courts telling the rest of the government what they can do.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Do you traditionally post on Slashdot?
By convention, the Queen is said to have the right to be consulted, the right to advise, and the right to warn. Technically she has a right to veto legislation, but this last occurred in 1709 and if she attempted it today, I suspect there would be a constitutional crisis leading either to a general election or a referendum on the monarchy.
Pratchett himself has a good go at the idea of constitutional monarchy in one of the Lancre books where he says (more or less: I haven't the book to hand) that King Verence was in theory an absolute monarch, always provided he never asked his people to do something that they didn't wish to do.
That just about sums up the actual power that our Brenda has.
In act, there is only one honour that is the personal gift of the monarch, and that is the Order of Companion of Honour (C.H.), which is limited to just 66 living members from the Commonwealth. In addition there are at present three honorary members from non-commonwealth countries.
Well, if you're at all interested in email, it's the same as my user name at the same domain where my homepage is hosted :)
And you're welcome. :)
It's a lot like how people turn their heads to look at car accidents when driving by.
I don't really see the connection to the rest of your comment, but yes, people do slobber over authority. Always have, most likely always will.
That said, I don't see the British make-believe monarchy as a threat to equality, or anything really. If the taxpayers want to continue to indulge in this eloborate play, why not?
Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
This is very similar to the Kennedy Center Honors in the US, though that is only for performing arts.
Mr William Henry Gates III. KBE.
He's not a member of the commonwealth, he doesn't get to call himself 'sir'. Well, I mean, he can call himself 'sir' if he likes, but he's no more entitled to do that than you or I would be. Like Screaming Lord Such; you can style your name however you like, but it won't stop people from thinking that you're mad if you try to use that to give yourself a title that you don't have.
Shall I break out a new bag of troll feed?
FGD 135
Au contraire
FGD 135
Actually that's not right. The New Years Honours list has been drawn up by the political party that's in government for decades and not the Queen at all. This was what caused the "Cash for peerages" scandal a few years back. It was long known that honours went to the i) media-popular as in the over-weight of sports stars in today's list and ii) the correlated worthy-achievers who just happened to be on the same side of the political spectrum as the government in power when they get their honours. Liz II might get an input but it is pretty minor.
> FWIW, they were late for World War I as well. Don't know the excuse for that one
Zimmermann Telegram. Countries tend to dislike it when another country starts discussing how to dismember the first, especially with a third country. Fortunately for Mexico, no one was crazy enough to respond to the German offer, if it was ever formally presented.
Lacking that provocation, no one would have cared if you Europeans exterminated each other in WWI (well, we would have cared, but no enough to do more than pray for our particular relatives to survive, whichever side they were, or that our particular hated enemy all died, in the case of Irish-Americans).
OTOH, what was the reason that you Europeans were fighting WWI? Someone didn't like that Austria took it poorly when a Serbian group assassinated the heir to the throne? BTW, it turns out that the Serbian group actually WAS supported by the Serbian Government, as the Austrians charged (without any evidence, at the time)(obviously, the Serbian Government didn't think that (translate-into-serbian "Al Quaida") group would do THAT). So, Britain and France were fighting to support the right to murder Austrians without consequences?
> Not to mention the Americans turning up late for World War II which started in 1939, not 1941.
Don't tell the Chinese that. Their phase started in 1931 with the invasion of Manchuria, and was certainly going strong during the Rape Of Nanking in 1937, and I didn't notice any European countries doing anything but making strong diplomatic protests about the Japanese in the League Of Nations, until the Japanese took your Asian possessions.
No, if you went back before Prince Albert (Queen Victoria's husband), they would be almost broke. He was something of a genius investor, especially in real estate. The family is supposedly worth about $7 billion (US billion, of course)(unaudited, equally of course) today, mostly from London real estate. They do NOT own Buckingham Palace, BTW; that is "royal" property, thus owned by the government for her use.
when your government's been around for more than a thousand years, see if your constitution's as inflexible.
More confusing than that. A female Lord is a Baroness. A 'Sir' Knight's wife is 'Lady' Knight. But a 'Dame's' husband is not a 'Sir'.
... we lost 600,000 men liberating their country, including my grandfather.
Oooohhh, your grandfather -- so very much more important than anyone else's grandfather. Oooohhh.
Ahhh, yes -- the ungrateful bastards -- taking the lessons of democracy to heart like that. Imagine -- disagreeing with the most intelligent man in the world, the grand and estimable President of the United States. You learned well your lesson of "dissent equals disloyalty" at his knee. Or was it you on your knees in front of him?
And don't even get me started on Jacque Chirac.
OK, I won't. You're so full of shit I don't think I could bear any more of it.
You're likely one of those silly ponces who insisted on calling the crispy treats which were actually invented in Belgium "freedom fries". (If you were so offended, in your ignorance, why the fuck didn't you just quit eating them altogether?)
They may not have lost a lot of people in our revolution, but they showed up at the right time; otherwise you'd still be one of HRM's loyal subjects.
Remember, those who don't know history are forever condemned to make fools of themselves by spouting statements showing their ignorance of it.
You are right the New Year honours come from the government (although the opposition is also allowed some input), the Queen does the birthday honours list although it does take input from the govt, it tends to be a bit less of the "gong for the supporter of/donor to the party" type of thing.
See my journal, I write things there
Actually that is what I like JKR for. Her books are far from wonderful, but she can draw new readers in. Pratchett does that but also delivers at the adult level.
See my journal, I write things there
Not really but she has the power to call an election.
See my journal, I write things there
And my intention was not to offend andy British people, quite the contrary, I have tre greatest respect for them. However, regarding the Queen, I mean c'mon, she's been doing this since 1952. I think it is high time she retires and lets her son run the show for a while. I don't know, but I actually like Prince Charlie. There is something tragic about him.
Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
The army follows the orders of the Ministry of Defence. It is extremely difficult for them not to because the JCS are part of the MOD. Some forces are not part of the regular army such as the Honourable Artillery Company. They have a specific royal charter but they are fully integrated into the army command structure.
See my journal, I write things there
that's ONE definition of King - and one that hasn't been valid in England for hundreds of years.
Even in the 1700s, it wasn't a King you were fighting, it was an elected parliament.
PS. Unlike one of the posts above I'm British, and therefore have earned the right to make fun of them.
You haven't "earned" ass. This crap about, "I can mock $whatever because I'm one of them" is a wagonload of horseshit. Mockery is mockery. It's completely stupid to think that being $something gives you special privilege to mock it.
Do you have any idea how ridiculous it makes people look when they say, "Yo, nigga -- who dat nigga?", then get pissed off when whitey says it? Try setting a good example for your kids. Let them know that disparaging _anyone_ is unacceptable. Until you respect yourself, why the fuck should I respect you?
P.S. For anyone who wants to object on the basis of "Those are fightin' words", be aware that the "fightin' words" defense has not been upheld in a US court case since 1942, in New Hampshire v. Chaplinsky, despite many attempts at using it.
Lords and Ladies? Just don't say their real name!
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to find some iron.
Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
Pratchett does that but also delivers at the adult level.
Yeah, I just finished my first Pratchett juvenile, A Hat Full of Sky, and it was fantastic.
Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Westminster_1931#Implications_for_succession_to_the_throne All the parliaments of the commonwealth have to agree to changing the succession of the crown.
This is why Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom had to agree to Edward VIII abdicating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Actually I think that in a case where HRH had the overwhelming support of the people she could exercise her power. Think of a very unpopular government refusing to step down. The Queen could and should fire the government and call new elections no matter what parliament says.
The key is that she has to have the support of the people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
I was alas too young to vote in 99, but would gladly vote in favour of the monarchy the next time it comes to a vote.
But I do think that as the generations go by, and more people forget or just don't care to learn our past, the higher the percentage of people will vote for a republic. It will eventually win.
Possibly because it's the very last resort. While some of us still have something resembling 1st & 4th amendment rights, we can use the 1st to bitch, and bitch loudly.
It's not until after the 4th is completely gone, and it's obvious the 1st is on it's death bed, that it will be time for the 2nd.
Of course, it'll probably be too late for the 2nd by then, since everyone with a gun will be declared "Paranoid" or otherwise unfit for wanting to own a gun.
The timing is sort of tricky.
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
That's my definition of a "King".
FTFY
Sorry if we republican (small r) Americans find the whole royalty thing anachronistic, not to mention flying in the face of the concepts of equality and consent of the governed. Who really does care what these inbred people think?
so, your comment reflects the mindset of republican americans (small brains) about royalty?
no wonder the rest of the world thinks you're a bunch of idiots
the medal of freedom?
don't those come for free with an order of freedom fries?
Not exactly French, as the modern French sort of gradually took over the former Norman continental holdings. Hence the English claim to the French throne, rather than having the reverse.
I'm Irish, so all I can say about the French is that they let us down badly a number of times when we tried to get them to invade us to get rid of the British.
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
That's probably true. More than likely, the US would only collapse under a natural disaster or economic disaster. What's pretty amusing is that the far left and the far right both want to clamp down on the bill of rights... just different parts.
Why do you write in French? Just curious.
Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
Reread my post, you totally missed what I wrote. I said I've earned the right to mock the French because I'm British, the reason being that we are traditional enemies, and that friendly banter between the two countries is better than another hundred years war.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
The courts interpret the laws that have been passed by parliament, this includes those costitutional laws that set out the boundaries referred to by RodgerDodger.
I believe that the American courts are allowed to interpret the constitution and decide whether the government is allowed to do something or not. To put it in your somewhat disingenuous tone: the USA has a written constitution, but no-one knows what it means until the courts tell them.
Tomorrow, I may eat another house plant
I totally fail to see any correlation whatsoever with abhorring a concept like a "king" and taking photos of a staged tourist attraction.
What you either hilariously miss, or risibly omit for convenience, is that the tourist attraction is the royal residence. Essentially, the site only is a tourist attraction because of the morarchist association; and whilst, subtracting that, it may still have some lesser tourist value as a grand scale piece of historical architecture, even this was only possible because of the rampant inequality of the system giving that "heriditary dictatorship" the means and power to build it.
If you can't see that claiming to "abhor" monarchy for it's inegalitarianism and then flying 3000 miles to fawn over the material and symbolic manifestation of this system and it's inequality requires a little cognitive dissonance, well...
Although the Spanish _love_ their king for turning them from a dictatorship into a constitutional monarchy in the 70s.
It's
Speaking some from personal experience...
I've known a lot of "fringe" people; through various weird and strange circumstances, I've had "in's" with groups that are...exclusive. it's a lifelong thing that seems to just happen to me, ever since I was around 14. I'm a Agnostic Pagan, believe in equal rights for every arguably human being on the planet, Pro-choice, etc. If you didn't know me you might even call me a liberal, except that I'm not. I guess the main thing is that I don't insist that my way of thinking is the only way of thinking. And I'm a Gun Nut; that always helps.
To cut a long story short, I've been a "mascot" of sorts with a splinter group of Satan's Slaves, who thought the rest of the club was punks for joining the Angels; I did continuing tech support and drank beer & ate pizza with a group of Hard-Core Nation of Islam guys in the early 90's (I'm blond, green eyes, pale), I've been a participant in Special Forces "unofficial" exploits, and worked with both Klan and Extremist Militia types. And other stuff i can't mention.
Anyway, here is the bottom line; They almost ALL love the Constitution; The Islam guys probably the least, but some of them did. The problem is that a lot of them think that the Constitution shouldn't apply to everyone.
When there were war protesters being pelted with rotten eggs at a university in Ohio right after 9/11, the Kentucky Militia sent a delegation to offer them discrete, plainclothes security, because their rights were being trampled on; they offered plainclothes security because some of the protesters were black, and they didn't think they would go for it otherwise because of the racist connotations the militia's have developed (KY Militia had Black Members).
Some of the most hard core, scary, damn-he's-gonna-start-looking-for-bell-towers types I've met, however, have been Constitutionalists. And they have to be getting madder, and madder, with every passing second.
Posted with no Kama bonus, because this is just a long-winded reply.
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
Off the top of my head:
Tim Berners-Lee
Elton John
paul mccartney
and now Sir Terry Pratchet!!
This is very, very cool. It's a shame Douglas adams didn't get one..
You do realise that being a direct descendant of the Normans makes you French... ;p
Do you realize that the british royalty are mostly of German descent? They only changed their name to Windsor when the Teutonicity of the family name became an embarrassment because of an ongoing war.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Windsor:
Queen Victoria was married to Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha - son of Duke Ernst I of the small German duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Her descendants were also members of the ducal family of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, a minor branch of the thousand year old House of Wettin. Victoria's son, Edward VII, and, in turn, his son, George V, reigned as members of this house.
However, high anti-German sentiment amongst the people of the British Empire during World War I prompted the King and his family to abandon all titles held under the German Crown, and to change German sounding titles and house names to English sounding versions. Hence, on 17 July 1917, a Royal Proclamation issued by George V provided that he and all his agnatic descendants would be members of the House of Windsor,....
-----
So basically you have a bunch of Krauts hiding behind a name change. Like they say -- Germans: at your feet or at your throat.
Funny, it's just like the way Anderson Consulting became ACcenture -- how fucking clever -- retain the AC at the beginning and we can fool them all again.
There's a difference between "being broken" and "being an unnecessary usage of time and resources."
Not really. Substitute "waste" for "usage".
If something is sucking up time and resources which can be put to far better use, that's brokenness.
How much money is pissed away each year just for feeding, grooming and other care for "The Queen's Corgis". How can the bitch let that much be spent on a pack of dogs, then ride around London looking into the faces of homeless families -- oops -- her loyal homeless subjects?
If that's not enough for anyone to choke on, apply the same standard to her horses.
In my own country all these titles have no validity whatsoever.
When Mr Pratchet visits there he will be addressed as Mr Pratchet (in English), nobody will address him as Sir.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
That does not make them wise.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The satirical Magazine, "Jueves", was fined for publishing a cartoon of the Prince and his wife having sex as social commentary to the benefit system for families with children.
This is just for starters, I am sure we can find such succulent tidbits about different European families without any problems.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Those people have no democratic legitimacy whatsoever, they had even less before Blair tinkered with it.
How can somebody advocate that in a democracy, somebody unelected and whose position of influence comes from patronage, should have any role telling us which laws should govern us.
It is a travesty and a mentality only exhibited in countries where people have been brainwashed to believe there are people that deserve to be better by virtue of their parentage.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Athletes, scientists and many other people with some natural talent have to work their socks off and probe themselves on their chosen disciplines.
Monarchs do nothing of the kind, and they don't need to, their position assured by being born in the correct family at the right time.
The mentality of subservience, which only remains in very few places with the distasteful institution of a monarchy, is an anachronism which will be seen with embarrassment by our children and grandchildren.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And Fermat have proof of a little theorem, but did not write it neither.
Which in practice meant we had nothing.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Honestly, you are really demanding far too much from friendship.
The two idiots that supported your adventurism, Blair and Aznar, are now retired and generally reviled as failed politicians.
The French saw through Bush's bullshit and decided to let him on his own.
BTW, the French have being helping in Afghanistan, as do the Germans and others that opposed Iraq.
Perhaps your country should listen more to those friends that do not always agree with you.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
More like 25% or thereabouts.
Look it up.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.