Sir Patrick Stewart

david.emery was one of a few folks who noted that Patrick Stewart can now be referred to as Sir Captain as he will be knighted by the Queen. This should bring balance to any future X-Men movies.

Comments

I now dub thee night

[assemblerex]

"Make it so"
Though we both know it's because he and the Queen both roll with the Earl Grey posse.

Re:I now dub thee night

[jo42]

night

In English We spell it with a 'K', so "I now dub thee Knight" is correct (but We don't pronounce the "K" -- go figure).

Re:I now dub thee night

[Tellarin]

...and when I read that, I thought of the Borg queen... Humm... :)

Re:I now dub thee night

[Anonymous Coward]

Kniggit!

Re:I now dub thee night

[Anonymous Coward]

Make it Sir.

Re:I now dub thee night

[derGoldstein]

In English We spell it with a 'K', so "I now dub thee Knight" is correct (but We don't pronounce the "K" -- go figure).

Who are you to say what he was dubbed? Maybe he was dubbed "Night", it may be a new designation or rank. Obviously someone may be also dubbed "Day", but there also may be "Dawn" and "Dusk", as in: "His Grace, the Dawn of Westminster".

I think this is a positive turn of events. Knights are getting old, and there are too many of them around. It's also no fun "dubbing" if the only thing you're ever realistically going to dub someone is "Knight".
I congratulate Sir Patrick Stewart, Night!

Re:I now dub thee night

[derGoldstein]

The Borg Queen only dubs people as "Drone". She can also use a proxy to do so, as seen here.

Here's Sir Patrick Stewart being "Droned"

Re:I now dub thee night

[Anonymous Coward]

But in France, we pronounce ze "K", you silly English k-nigghh-itt, with your stupid knees bent running about. Log out, or I shall taunt you second time!

Re:I now dub thee night

[Anonymous Coward]

The silent "K" in knight and knee is a remnant from a time when they were pronounced.

Re:I now dub thee night

[u38cg]

We used to. In Aberdeenshire, anyone speaking a really strong Doric will still pronounce it exactly as written (and any other kword, like knife).

Pedantic, but...

[tomtomtom]

The correct order to put the two in would be "Captain Sir", not "Sir Captain"

Re:Pedantic, but...

[mark0]

Indeed. As in, Captain Sir Richard Francis Burton

Re:Pedantic, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Moot point for this. They are knighting Picard, so I don't think you use "Sir" with the character.

Re:Pedantic, but...

[tverbeek]

And to be further pedantic, he's not really a captain, so "Captain Sir" isn't actually appropriate. Appropriate forms of address would also include "Sir Patrick", and "Sir Patrick Stewart", but not "Sir Stewart".

Re:Pedantic, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

And certainly not "Idiot" or "You captain!"

Re:Pedantic, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

or Big Sur Ca

Re:Pedantic, but...

[maxume]

What about "Yo, Dude!"?

I mean, I haven't recognized the crown yet, so I'm not sure why I should worry about the things the Queen says and does.

Re:Pedantic, but...

[Mercano]

Yes sir, Captain Sir, sir.

Re:Pedantic, but...

[xaxa]

I think I'd call him Patrick.

I was severely reprimanded by an Australian and a New Zealander for not watching the Queen's Speech on Christmas Day. But then, Kiwis and Aussies are much more patriotic than Brits.

Re:Pedantic, but...

[masmullin]

here is a crown. next time you see one, you can recognize it.

http://www.kidprintables.com/coloring/fantasy/crown.gif

Re:Pedantic, but...

[cashman73]

Actually, on this ship, you are to refer to me as "Idiot", not "You Captain!"

Re:Pedantic, but...

[Trails]

I heard he likes P-Stiddy

Re:Pedantic, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Blasphemy!

Re:Pedantic, but...

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

We've made a Major breakthrough!

Re:Pedantic, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

he's not really a captain

YES.

HE.

IS.

Re:Pedantic, but...

[tdelaney]

Don't know where you got that idea from. In Australia we seem to be roughly 50/50 split among monarchists and those who don't want the British queen as our head of state. Probably not enough to pass a referendum (requires a majority in a majority of states) and the idea of a referendum was scuppered 10 years ago because it didn't have bipartisan support. Here we are 10 years later, and we've got another rabid monarchist/extreme conservative leading the "liberal" party (Tony Abbot aka "slime").

IMO it's in no way "patriotic" to listen to a speech from from someone who is almost entirely uninterested in this country, and whose speech almost certainly didn't mention this country (and if it did, did so in the context of the commonwealth). But I wouldn't know, as I'm an Australian who didn't listen to the speech (and nor did anyone else in my immediate family/circle of friends).

Re:Pedantic, but...

[Locke2005]

Actually, I believe the correct form is "Sir bald-headed British Shakespearian actor playing a French Captain".

Re:Pedantic, but...

[Ihmhi]

Keep up with the puns and I'll start using Corporal punishment.

Re:Pedantic, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't know where you got that idea from. In Australia we seem to be roughly 50/50 split among monarchists and those who don't want the British queen as our head of state.

You do realise that "monarchists" and "those who don't want the British queen as our head of state" isn't an exclusive set? Why don't you have your own king and/or queen? Sounds like win/win to me.

Re:Pedantic, but...

[bickerdyke]

I'll have to report that to General Failure

Re:Pedantic, but...

[xaxa]

Most of the Australians I meet have moved here (London), so they're probably not representative of Australians as a whole.

I've just looked up what the Queen said (here). You might be surprised to see that she spoke only of the Commonwealth.

In the last year I've shared a flat with two Australians, and I've sometimes been surprised how conservative they are, but I'm still deciding whether that's because they're Australian or because of their rich parents etc.

Re:Pedantic, but...

[aqk]

Keep up with the puns and I'll start using Corporal punishment.

Keep up with the threats, sweetheart- you're managing to arouse my Private Parts!

Balance...

[davcorp]

This should bring balance to any future X-Men movies..... .... and to the Universe! Congratulations Sir Stewart ;)

Re:Balance...

[corbettw]

It's SIr Patrick, you use the last name when someone is a peer.

Re:Balance...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's SIr Patrick, you use the last name when someone is a peer.

And you read a comma splice when the writer is a boor.

Re:Balance...

[Xtifr]

It's SIr Patrick, you use the last name when someone is a peer.

Really? I'm not usually that formal when that I happens. I tend to say things like "hey, buddy, quit that! That's gross! Go find a public restroom!"

Re:Balance...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll remember that if I run into him in the loo.

Re:Balance...

[jaa101]

A knighthood is not a peerage. To be an (English) peer one must be a Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount or Baron. Obviously a peerage is a much bigger deal than a knighthood.

Re:Balance...

[Anonymous Coward]

hahahahahahaha

Re:Balance...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pfft, I doubt very much he seeds torrents.

Re:Balance...

[corbettw]

And Patrick is not his last name, so I'm not sure what your point was...

Typo, I know

[assemblerex]

I went to catholic school, so give a man some slack.

Abolishment?

[Stuart Gibson]

And people ask what the point of having the monarchy around is.

Re:Abolishment?

[blahplusplus]

"And people ask what the point of having the monarchy around is."

Considering the state of the world, I don't think some people would mind trying having temporarily having a king to kick the asshats out of government. Some days I think we should just give absolute power to one man temporarily so he can get fire and get rid of people who are not doing their jobs.

Re:Abolishment?

[TheRaven64]

I'm not sure what your point is, given that the queen just rubber stamps the honours list; it's prepared by the Prime Minister. As to the point of the monarch, I thought she was there to veto insane government legislation, but when she signed RIPA I realised that she was just a waste of taxpayers' money.

Re:Abolishment?

[arnodf]

he certainly deserved it

Re:Abolishment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck getting that absolute power back though.

Unless you want to go the Singapore way, which is a legit path, so long as you acknowledge that's where you want to go.

Re:Abolishment?

[Jurily]

Considering the state of the world, I don't think some people would mind trying having temporarily having a king to kick the asshats out of government.

Personally, I think we should get rid of the notion that everyone is qualified to vote. It may have worked back when the whole country was ten thousand people, everyone knew you, and your words actually meant something, but that's obviously not the case with 300 million people.

Just think about it: there was nobody better suited to lead a country, than Clinton, Bush or Obama? And how the hell did Bush get reelected?

Re:Abolishment?

[pjt33]

I thought she was there to veto insane government legislation

That's the nuclear option. She can do it once, and then there will be a drastic constitutional reform to ensure she doesn't do it again.

Re:Abolishment?

[selven]

Just break up the US into states, and then further. Groups above about 150 people are unsustainable anyway.

Re:Abolishment?

[tophermeyer]

Considering the state of the world, I don't think some people would mind trying having temporarily having a king to kick the asshats out of government.

Personally, I think we should get rid of the notion that everyone is qualified to vote. It may have worked back when the whole country was ten thousand people, everyone knew you, and your words actually meant something, but that's obviously not the case with 300 million people.

Just think about it: there was nobody better suited to lead a country, than Clinton, Bush or Obama? And how the hell did Bush get reelected?

Perhaps Citizenship and the right to vote can be secured through some form of Federal service. I'm sure I saw that is some horrendous film based on a classic sci-fi text somewhere...

Re:Abolishment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course you always have that pesky problem that shows up time and time again in history where the guy with absolute power is an asshat himself. The best kind of government is the ineffective kind, be content. ;)

Re:Abolishment?

[jcr]

I think we should get rid of the notion that everyone is qualified to vote

I think we should shoot anyone who seeks to deprive any of his fellow citizens of the franchise.

-jcr

Re:Abolishment?

[Aeros]

agreed

Re:Abolishment?

[JustOK]

So, if you shoot someone, you are also depriving them of their franchise, which means...

Re:Abolishment?

[dkleinsc]

Actually, a major reason the Brits keep the monarchy around is that it makes about as much in tourism as it costs them. It's not just silly tradition.

That and you can give people cool titles, which by contrast the US Constitution strictly forbids.

Re:Abolishment?

[hazem]

Dammit, by the circular firing-squad nature of this discussion, it's clearly a scheme hatched by The Left. Nobody can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like the Democrats.

Re:Abolishment?

[cmiller173]

If I only had mod points...

Ask not what your country can do for you

Neither ask what you can do for your country

Ask instead, what can I do to keep my country from "doing" to me.

Re:Abolishment?

[mdwh2]

Yes, I wonder what the point of the monarchy is. If you want to give me 30 million quid a year, I'll rubber stamp your honours list. Hell, I'd do it for 10 million.

Re:Abolishment?

[TheRaven64]

Other than demonstrating that you are willing to kill people for holding an opinion, did you intend to provide some argument to back up that assertion? We used to have the quaint idea that rights came with responsibilities. The right to vote should come with the responsibility to be informed of the issues on which you are voting. I would have no problem with requiring that people who exercise their right to vote also demonstrate in some way that they are going to make an informed decision (irrespective of whether it's the same decision that I would have made).

Re:Abolishment?

[mdwh2]

That's all well and good until the king has views that you don't agree with. And sure, some people might want the Government asshats kicked out, but some people might not. And then people might not agree on who are the asshats in the first place. So how do we decide? Maybe we could, I dunno, have a vote for it? But then why do you need the king?

Government asshats are easier to vote out than a king asshat...

And it's irrelevant to the UK monarchy, as in practice she has no political power. OTOH, we do have the house of lords as a 2nd unelected house. So the usual argument that we'd be left with the elected politicians having absolute power is wrong, on two counts. Just because someone is against the monarchy doesn't mean that they oppose having a second unelected house.

Re:Abolishment?

[grumling]

Actually when the country was founded, only land-owning white men had the right to vote. It wasn't until the suffrage movement and eventually elimination of the Jim Crow laws (along with 6 amendments to the constitution) in the late 19th and early 20th century that everyone over 18 got the right to vote.

Re:Abolishment?

[LanMan04]

Perhaps Citizenship and the right to vote can be secured through some form of Federal service. I'm sure I saw that is some horrendous film based on a classic sci-fi text somewhere...

Oh, come now, that film was GREAT! Satire in its highest form. Skewers jingoists quite nicely.

Do you like RoboCop? I put both those movies in the same category.

Re:Abolishment?

[xaxa]

Just think about it: there was nobody better suited to lead a country

I don't want a leader*. I prefer representatives. Leaders tell people what to do, representatives get told.

*Unfortunately the EU just gained a president.

Re:Abolishment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, considering the general public doesn't elect the President in the US, your argument that 300 million people voting doesn't really hold water. Maybe you meant that the Electoral College should be disqualified to vote.

Re:Abolishment?

[blahplusplus]

"That's all well and good until the king has views that you don't agree with."

This is the whole point of being only temporary, i.e. the whole purpose is to give absolute power to one person on the condition that he is able to fire people, and not fear for his job/finances/life/etc. This is why you only give it to "one person" for a limited time and any deviation from doing simple said tasks disqualifies you.

Re:Abolishment?

[Tellarin]

While I liked the intention of your joke on the Dems, left it is only left if to the left of the center. Being to the left or extreme right, but still very right, does not qualify. :-P

Re:Abolishment?

[georgemoot]

Considering the state of the world, I don't think some people would mind trying having temporarily having a king to kick the asshats out of government. Some days I think we should just give absolute power to one man temporarily so he can get fire and get rid of people who are not doing their jobs.

They tried that once. His name was Julius Caesar. They had to assassinate him to get him to give up the power.

Re:Abolishment?

[m.ducharme]

Or maybe you're just a pedantic ass.

Re:Abolishment?

[rockout]

I think it was quite clear that he was satirizing the OP that said we shouldn't let everyone vote, since shooting (killing) the person who holds that opinion would clearly take away their ability to vote.

Re:Abolishment?

[SpeZek]

The point of the monarchy is that you have a check for politicians. The Queen has been in the government for her whole life; she served in the second world war, watched how the economy works throughout the ages, and knows politics inside and out (having dealt with a dozen PM's in her life, of differing views), but doesn't subscribe to any one political party. She's neutral -- she's, ironically, the real voice of the people in gov't, not just the voice of the majority party, in a perfect system.

Re:Abolishment?

[blahplusplus]

"Personally, I think we should get rid of the notion that everyone is qualified to vote"

And I think we should get rid of the notion of voting entirely, I think we should run the nation not quite as a business but an oraganization like structure based on performance and problem solving.

Re:Abolishment?

[Chris Mattern]

Personally, I think we should get rid of the notion that everyone is qualified to vote. It may have worked back when the whole country was ten thousand people, everyone knew you, and your words actually meant something, but that's obviously not the case with 300 million people.

Actually, the notion that everyone is qualified to vote is relatively recent. Aside from extending the franchise to women and enfranchising freed blacks and such, there used to be qualification ostensibly more closely related to one's qualifications to vote: try googling on the terms "poll tax", "literacy test", "pauper's oath" and "property requirement". It's only been for the past fifty or sixty years that just anybody of age can walk into a polling booth and vote. One problem with setting qualifications for voting is that the qualifying process is so easy to manipulate. Ironically, it was the literacy test, the one you might think was the best measure of qualifications to be an informed voter, that was infamous for the worst manipulations to prevent blacks from voting. Another problem is the ethical question of whether it's fair to deprive people in possession of their basic faculties of a vote in how their own affairs will be conducted, regardless of their qualifications. I can certainly see the attractions of maintaining some minimum qualification to vote, but I can also see that the arguments don't all run one way.

Re:Abolishment?

[etyam]

The EU already had a president. Now we get a president who keeps the job for longer than 6 months. He still is without any real power, unfortunately.

Re:Abolishment?

[DesScorp]

"Personally, I think we should get rid of the notion that everyone is qualified to vote."

You're going to be ripped all to hell for saying that, but you're not the only one thinking it. I've seen that topic come up from both the left and right. Heinlein had his ideas that citizenship was something that should be earned, and I can see some merit to that. I certainly don't think most Americans appreciate their citizenship or take it seriously. And it's not like America, the world's oldest continuous democratic republic, hasn't had ideas on the limits of suffrage either. The Founders basically thought those who owned the country should run it... property owners... because they'd care more about it than someone who owned nothing and had nothing to lose. At the very least I'm open to reversing the 17th Amendment, as the direct election of Senators only resulted in them becoming Congressmen with longer terms. After the health care debate in the Senate, where votes were literally bought with hundreds of millions of tax dollars, it's pretty apparent that they're just as prone to sell themselves as any member of the House.

I'm not going to support pulling suffrage for anyone, but I've gotten to the point to where I no longer pester people about "doing their patriotic duty" and voting. If they don't give a damn about the elections, I leave well enough alone now. I've come to the conclusion that if you don't care enough to find out about candidates and investigate their positions on the issues, then it's probably best that you don't vote anyway. If you really don't care, do your country a favor and stay home on election day, and leave it to those that give a damn.

Re:Abolishment?

[neoform]

So, for the sake of tourism, the Monarch is the head of state.. and commander in chief? I see.

Re:Abolishment?

[mdwh2]

Okay, so we get a king to fire politicians - how is it chosen which ones he fires? And what happens after that - we hold another election, and the same people might get elected anyway?

It might be an interesting idea to allow the people to somehow force a bielection or even general election - but you still don't need a king to do that. Our democracy may have flaws, but the MPs do leave when the rules say they have to - there hasn't been any occasion where people have refused to leave office, and therefore I don't see why a "king" is needed, or how that would make any difference.

If this king is only doing exactly what he is told to, and has no powers to do anything else, then what difference does it make? It's just a rubber-stamp monarch (a bit like what we have now, anyway).

Re:Abolishment?

[AmberBlackCat]

Health care, ACTA, and the DMCA are three things that immediately come to mind, when I think of cases in which we would have been way better off if everybody got a vote. Only allowing certain people to vote, will only work for you if the people who agree with you are the ones who get to vote. I think a better idea would be if people only got to vote on matters concerning themselves. For instance, if the Patriot Act only applied to people who voted for it.

Re:Abolishment?

[steelfood]

Yeah, you know those people like their Mickey D's and their fried chicken.

Re:Abolishment?

[trapnest]

et tu?

Re:Abolishment?

[blahplusplus]

"Okay, so we get a king to fire politicians - how is it chosen which ones he fires?"

By using the evidence, and financing giving people from the public as much leave as necesary, IMHO I would involve people in such matters an make it an open and public affair (no closed door meetings, etc ,etc).

Re:Abolishment?

[mdwh2]

What do you mean by "check"? Certainly not a veto - the moment she vetoed any legislation, would be the end of her power to veto. And even if she happened to veto a law I also didn't want, I would be very wary of one person having that power. What happens when she vetos a law I do want?

We already have a much better veto system, as I said here - the House of Lords serves as an unelected house that provides a check. Improvements could be made, sure, but focusing the veto system on a single person chosen through birth is not one of them.

If you don't mean a veto, then what check do you mean?

She's neutral -- she's, ironically, the real voice of the people in gov't

So because she doesn't say anything, that makes her the real voice? That's a lot of use!

I don't see she's anymore neutral than many citizens who also either have no views or keep their views to themselves.

Also note that just because she might not endorse one political party doesn't mean she is neutral in her views (e.g., she gets primetime opportunity to give her views on political and other issues, particularly on religion, in the Christmas speech). And other members of the royal family also use their position to give opinions on political matters (e.g., http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/hunting/Prince--Ill-leave-Britain.2363203.jp ).

Please don't tell me the Queen is neutral when she's sitting on primetime national TV on Christmas Day telling us of the virtues of faith - including people of all faiths, whilst ignoring agnostics and atheists (and this is also a political issue in the UK right now, when you consider issues of things like "Faith schools").

Re:Abolishment?

[mdwh2]

I'm still unclear - does the king make the final decisions (based on "evidence")? Or is it decided by the people, and the king does what the result of the vote or whatever tells him?

Re:Abolishment?

[blahplusplus]

It's involved:

1) We give someone (only person) the power to get rid of people who we've discovered are corrupt or we know are entrenched and ant out of power
2) We start paying regular people and give them seats in government to learn and observe (think of it like an internship or learning on the job)

I think the whole problem is society becomes too specialized and people become disconnected from government because it is so enormously time consuming to learn the ropes so that we should pay a group of citizens and "hire" them (everyone has bills, etc) to monitor the government from the inside but they have special investigative powers that can be initiated by the public - i.e. if things havee gotten then the can enact immunity so there can't be anything "classified" these people have the power to get access to things that should be transparent (that are not currently).

I think our whole notion of what government should be has become corrupted and because things are so time consuming and it's a fully time job we need to employ regular people from different walks of life who are passionate about the future of their society, we have to instill responsibility and civic work ethic in people to stand up and demand transparency if it is not given.

The citizens would be able to revoke the right of the person with absolute power when certain conditions are met, and if that person does anything that disqualifies him of such power, with the public having absolute veto power if such bad extenuating circumstances.

But I really doubt they would if we just paid ourselves to be able to do our civic duty and be given the time off (from the regular job world) to learn to understand and work some of the ropes of government ourselves.

Re:Abolishment?

[Thing 1]

In addition to the satire angle pointed out by the other responder, there's also the disenfranchisement angle: could the "test of means to vote" be slanted towards white males? (It has happened in the past.)

Re:Abolishment?

[mdwh2]

Well sure, I just don't think that this has anything to do with the pros or cons of monarchies, since the "person who is appointed to tell the people to get out of office" doesn't have to be a "king" - what you call him or her is just a label. This system also isn't how the UK, or any monarchy in existence, functions AFAIK.

Also the difficulties of this system are not the final point of kicking them out - as I say, generally politicians in western democracies have followed the rules of when they must give up their power, the difficulty is in deciding what those rules are.

Even in non-monarchies such as the US, politicians have to leave when they are voted out, or otherwise follow the legal rules.

revoke the right of the person with absolute power when certain conditions are met

Right, so by your own argument, the "king" has to give up his power if he oversteps the mark, so if that can be done without needing an extra "person to boot out the king", why can't it be done for the politicians? Why don't the public boot out the politicians if they break certain agreed rules - no "king" needed?

I think our whole notion of what government should be has become corrupted and because things are so time consuming and it's a fully time job we need to employ regular people from different walks of life who are passionate about the future of their society

How is that different to what we have now? How would these "regular people" be chosen?

Re:Abolishment?

[fast turtle]

And it's irrelevant to the UK monarchy, as in practice she has no political power.

You're an idiot if you think the Monarchy doesn't have any political power. It has plenty though it sees no reason to be flagarant in excersising that power unlike some Lords and the poor blokes in the Commons who have to stand for office.

An author who has a damn good understanding of Political power in a Monarchy that I sugest you read is David Webber and his Honor Harrington Series. Very astute description of the constraints placed on a constitutional monarchy in books such as "Flag in Exile" and "War of Honor". So don't ever discount the power of the throne even though it looks weak. It's more along the lines of a sleeping giant or dragon (depending on your mythical beliefs) and yes the crown has many ways of indicating it's displeasure to the nobles of the realm.

Re:Abolishment?

[Jedi Alec]

Heck, I liked Showgirls for the same reason.

I don't recall the movie the GP is referencing actually touching the whole citizenship business though, but it's been a while since I last saw it.

Re:Abolishment?

[maroberts]

The Queen actually gives about £200 million each year to the UK in the form of profits from Crown Estates. We "generously" give her £30 mill back :-) So cough up £200 mill a year and we'll happily give to a £30 mill living allowance :-)

Re:Abolishment?

[masmullin]

since its circular, so it must be a plot of the round pi lovers. theyve been determined to kill us all since we all agreed that pi are square.

Re:Abolishment?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you Brits should entrust your big red button to a crazy old lady. Makes us look bad when we are trying to strongarm Iran to forgo nukes because then they would be entrusting their big red button to a crazy old man.

What? Nevermind us, we are talking about you.

Re:Abolishment?

[derGoldstein]

Or when she's really pissed, she can "Off" people's heads.
Obviously, in Britain, "pissed" means drunk. She wouldn't order somebody's head off just because she was angry. I think.

Re:Abolishment?

[blahplusplus]

"How is that different to what we have now? How would these "regular people" be chosen?"

I believe in appliny for the jobs (i.e. anyone can apply) but people selecting the people themselves, and then qualifying as if for a job. Based on general knowledge of civics, history, etc, their performance, and ethical tests. i.e. they can't be morons. They should have sound head on their shoulders. Then their interviews, etc would be posted publically. Ideally I'd also pay a group of people in which ANYONE can come and observe these other people doing their job (they are paid specifically to watch/do nothing, have free time).

That way no one really feels "left out" but their is no perfect government.

I mean compared to what we have now what do you think of what I've said? Do you really think the people we elect are qualified with all the bullshit that continues to happen?

I believe that there are superior kinds of people and they are completely immune to corrupting influences of power, all your questions are based on your own paranoia and lack of judgement.

The real issue is most human beings are of mediocre judgment of what needs to be done and character.

People do not have universal access to being able to see reality and solve problems in it, this is our major malfunction as a species. We need people with big imaginations and be able to see or think things no one has thought yet.

"The task is not so much to see what no one yet has seen, but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everyone sees" Arthur Schopenhauer

Re:Abolishment?

[thetoadwarrior]

Good luck when Sarah Palin is elected and turns the US in the next Somalia.

Re:Abolishment?

[LandDolphin]

How does the reform come about if she refuses to sign it?

Re:Abolishment?

[thetoadwarrior]

Everyone should have the option to vote but you should have to pass a test before you can use it.

Just look how close we were to seeing Hillary being president and we're not out of the woods yet. Sarah Palin might get in there and start spitting out stupid laws as well as stupid babies.

Re:Abolishment?

[derGoldstein]

the Monarch is the head of state.. and commander in chief?

It's more than that, the Monarch is the Sovereign.
From Wikipedia:
"An important factor of sovereignty is its degree of absoluteness. A sovereign power has absolute sovereignty if it has the unlimited right to control everything and every kind of activity in its territory. This means that it is not restricted by a constitution, by the laws of its predecessors, or by custom, and no areas of law or behavior are reserved as being outside its control."

That's far more than "Head of State" and "Commander in Chief".

Re:Abolishment?

[thetoadwarrior]

Those people aren't necessarily the problem. The problem is the people who think they have researched things well by watching Fox News and Glenn Beck.

Some who doesn't care could probably be swayed either way with a good argument. Where as the brainwashed won't change their mind no matter what.

Re:Abolishment?

[LandDolphin]

not quite as a business

Glad you put the "Not quite as" in there. Because every company I've owrked for it's the "who you know" that get promoted before the "what you know". And usually the "what you know" get stuck in a position because they do it well and the company would suffer if they moved up, but the "know nothing" can move up the chain without them being missed in their current position.

Re:Abolishment?

[derGoldstein]

This has been disproved by Twittter, the Wikipedia article isn't up to date. The new number is the number of people following ashton kutcher.

Re:Abolishment?

[citizenr]

I think we should get rid of the notion that everyone is qualified to vote

I think we should shoot anyone who seeks to deprive any of his fellow citizens of the franchise.

-jcr

You think, but you dont do it you SHEEP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_File

Re:Abolishment?

[ckaminski]

"Service *IS* Citizenship"... don't you recall Johnny telling off his father "I want to be a Citizen!"

Dude, hand in your geek card...

Re:Abolishment?

[ckaminski]

In a world where we can count 300+ million votes and elect a president, I think we can directly execute laws as well. Once per year we all get in a room with our friends and cast our votes for 10 or 20 new laws. Period.

End the whole representative democracy bullshit.

Re:Abolishment?

[moosesocks]

Although most Americans balk at it, RIPA isn't particularly out of character for the British government. The UK government has done a decent job of upholding civil liberties while appeasing the public's demand for a nanny state.

The Queen's veto power is reserved for profoundly insane pieces of legislation (ie. invading Poland and initiating a genocide). The Queen uses her power sparingly, theoretically making the public far more likely to support her, should she ever choose to invoke this privilege. It is literally a last resort.

Re:Abolishment?

[ckaminski]

Except the people loved Caesar, no? It was the senate who feared him... fear of losing their power.

Or did I misunderstand HBO's Rome? :-)

Re:Abolishment?

[hairyfeet]

Great flicks but I find it funny how you can put out a flick with an underlying message and so many will see the action but not the message. I remember seeing an interview on HBO when Blue Thunder came out with the director of the movie.

He said " I made Blue Thunder to show how inherently dangerous placing that much power in law enforcement's hands would be. Here is a weapon that can spy on you without ever being heard, see through walls, and could destroy a city block with the amount of firepower it was carrying, and what happened? After the movie came out my phone rang off the hook from SWAT units and police forces all over the country, all asking the same thing: How much do you want for Blue Thunder? To them it was a 2 hour tech demo."

So I always thought it was funny how many could see a movie like that with an underlying message and not actually get it. It makes me wonder if some group that makes drones and other robots for the military haven't been brought into some general's office and been handed a picture of a T-800 and been asked "How much would it cost for you to give me one of those?"

Re:Abolishment?

[Rigrig]

How exactly does this work? I'm pretty sure if I was king and had the power to veto insane government legislation, every law to take that power away from me would sound pretty 'insane'.

Also, ./ needs a '-1. too lazy too look up stuff him/her/itself' moderation.

Re:Abolishment?

[mjwx]

I think we should shoot anyone who seeks to deprive any of his fellow citizens of the franchise.

I think we should try and hang anyone who thinks we should arbitrarily shoot anyone.

Sorry, you have a good point but everyone deserves a fair trial by their peers, regardless of their accused crimes.

Re:Abolishment?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we should completely do away with the election process. It's no longer about the best candidate. It's about the best financed candidate. He with the deepest pockets wins.

Senators, Representatives and even Presidents should be selected like jury duty.

We're bound to get some real characters and idiots in there, but this way, we might actually get a good one once in a while.

The current process guarantees that we get a politician. By definition, the worst possible person for any job.

Re:Abolishment?

[phoenix321]

Nah, just make sure that votes and taxes paid are somehow correlated.

Every adult one vote and then another one for every ten thousand dollars worth of taxes paid personally (companies and such don't count).

This will end pork barrelling and welfare queening at the same time and brings back a decent perspective on what the state should and should not do and what he can and cannot pay.

If you live on welfare: tough luck, but we don't let you vote up your own welfare checks paid for someone else.
If you pay low taxes: nice, because you make decent profits then.
If you pay high taxes: also nice, because you can make a difference in the next election.

Here in Europe, we have massive welfare budgets, high deficits because of that (think of a third(!) of the entire annual budget!) and also a high number of welfare recipients that now form a sizeable voting block.

Think of it:
1. Welfare recipients always vote for more welfare.
2. A democratic state where every person has an equal vote must comply with that and raise welfare.
3. In such a state, parties that promote lower welfare lose the elections, parties that promote higher welfare will win.
4. Higher welfare means
    a) higher taxes, decreasing the amount of money the taxpayers can spend on other things.
    b) higher deficits, decreasing the amount of money the state can spend on other things.
5. Less spending on "other things" diminishes the economy.
6. Diminished economy means job losses.
7. People without jobs become welfare recipients.
8. rinse, repeat

A similar effect is routinely seen when parliament members vote on their annual allowances and the results are spectacular, but their impacts are fortunately limited because the number of representatives is fixed and there's only so much cash they can take home without being tarred and feathered.

But the group of welfare recipients can grow indefinitely. I would never expect them to be more rational and selfless than the members of parliament, so having them vote on their own pay is a runaway cascade of fiscal dynamite.

Re:Abolishment?

[phoenix321]

Imagine half of your constituency is on state welfare and consistently voting for more welfare and higher taxes, because they never pay any. No party can win by promoting lower welfare and the parties that promote higher welfare will march from victory to victory. Higher taxes drive more and more taxpayers out of their jobs, putting them on welfare. After a year or two on welfare, they will vote on higher welfare, too, repeating the process.

How on earth would you fix this without bankrupting the state, facing instant insurrections in all major cities or derailing the whole system?

Oh, and the most profitable tax payers are continually leaving the country to a neighboring state with lower taxes, as their skills or wealth usually enables them to change countries much easier than everyone else.

Re:Abolishment?

[pjt33]

Probably a quiet cough and a mention of the name Cromwell.

Re:Abolishment?

[tyrione]

Considering the state of the world, I don't think some people would mind trying having temporarily having a king to kick the asshats out of government.

Personally, I think we should get rid of the notion that everyone is qualified to vote. It may have worked back when the whole country was ten thousand people, everyone knew you, and your words actually meant something, but that's obviously not the case with 300 million people.

Just think about it: there was nobody better suited to lead a country, than Clinton, Bush or Obama? And how the hell did Bush get reelected?

Take it easy there Mr. Paul.

Re:Abolishment?

[Tenebrarum]

That's the nuclear option. She can do it once, and then there will be a drastic constitutional reform to ensure she doesn't do it again.

...and I for one will take to the streets with a Union Jack and proclaim "God save the Queen!". Now, this Digital Britain malarkey....

Re:Abolishment?

[VJ42]

It's more than that, the Monarch is the Sovereign.

That's not true any more, Parliament is sovereign, and has been since we beheaded Charles the first.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty#United_Kingdom

Re:Abolishment?

[internic]

We used to have the quaint idea that rights came with responsibilities. The right to vote should come with the responsibility to be informed of the issues on which you are voting.

Many people in the US had the idea that people, "...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," to quote the declaration of independence. Under this view, rights are inherent by natural law, not earned. It isn't that people afforded the ability to vote because they deserve it but rather that natural law gives them the right to liberty and the only way a government may (morally) exert power on them is by their consent.

While people do use the phrase, "with rights come responsibilities," it probably makes more sense to say that privileges come with responsibilities. Under the above view, rights are not given by man and, therefore, can't have any conditions imposed by man. Whether you accept that view exactly (and it definitely has problems), I think it's fair to say that generally rights are supposed to be inherent and vital, while privileges are granted by others conditionally, and that's what separates the two. Generally the only grounds for depriving someone of a right is if it would infringe upon the rights of another.

I would have no problem with requiring that people who exercise their right to vote also demonstrate in some way that they are going to make an informed decision...

We used to have literacy tests to vote in the US. The consensus view is that they were mostly used to keep minorities from voting, so since then it's not been a very popular idea here among anyone who knows history. The flaw is probably much more general, though; if people in power write the test that determines who can vote, and the vote determines who is in power, then you have created a positive feedback loop. This feedback will tend to make the system unstable and drive it toward some extreme point, at which point either it will say there (to the disadvantage of many in society) or there will be some major social upheaval (such as a civil war, riots, etc.) that will bring the system back into balance.

I think it's important to bear in mind what Winston Churchill said, that, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." Democracy doesn't necessarily always (or even often) produce the best solutions to problems. It's chief merit is that it is relatively stable. It usually keeps things from getting too bad for any particular group, so it removes the need for the assassinations, coups, civil wars, and so on that are common under other forms of Government. Adding in voting tests would likely undo this main benefit.

Re:Abolishment?

[Xtifr]

Parliament is sovereign

But surely the Monarch is still the head of the Church?

Re:Abolishment?

[VJ42]

Parliament is sovereign

But surely the Monarch is still the head of the Church?

Yes, she's head of the Church of England and "Defender of the faith" (both titles go back to the 1500s & Henry VII).

Re:Abolishment?

[GasparGMSwordsman]

So, if you shoot someone, you are also depriving them of their franchise, which means...

No, he would be depriving them of their life, not their liberty.

Some of us believe the order of importance is, "liberty, life and the pursuit of happiness." So dieing would be more acceptable than loss of liberty.

Re:Abolishment?

[Hatta]

Personally, I think we should get rid of the notion that everyone is qualified to vote.

That's an attractive idea, but who gets to decide who isn't qualified to vote? How do you ensure that they are qualified?

Re:Abolishment?

[DNS-and-BIND]

"Referenda are pure gambling. There is no guarantee of a positive outcome, unfortunately."
-- Danish Parliament Member Charlotte Antonsen

Re:Abolishment?

[LordofEntropy]

Pi aren't square. Cornbread are square. Pi are round!

Re:Abolishment?

[JustOK]

unless your name is Jesus, Bernie or starts with Zombie, most people don't have much liberty once life has been removed.

Re:Abolishment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Forbids? Don't tell all those Czars!

Re:Abolishment?

[paulmac84]

I know a place that would suit you to the ground:

"Ankh-Morpork had dallied with many forms of government and had ended up with that form of democracy known as One Man, One Vote. The Patrician was the Man; he had the Vote."

Re:Abolishment?

[Locke2005]

The reason we abolished monarchy is that sometimes the king IS the asshat. Give temporary "absolute power" to someone, and his first act will most likely be to extend the period of time that he is in power for.

Re:Abolishment?

[neoform]

All in the name of Tourism, no doubt. ;)

Re:Abolishment?

[Locke2005]

Well, the Queen has been known to throw really bitchin' parties, for those times when you absolutely, positively, have to impress the shit out of visiting foreign dignitaries. Which is why the US doesn't have a monarch, we pretty much don't give a shit who we impress or piss off.

Re:Abolishment?

[Anonymous Coward]

> the direct election of Senators only resulted in them becoming Congressmen with longer terms

It resulted in the Senate representing geographical regions and the House representing proportional population, such that no bill can pass without being palatable to both sets. The wisdom of this is still evident every time we see a bill fly through one body and stall in the other. If we'd only had one method of representation, the other aspect would be powerless.

The Old Way was pretty bad: Senators appointed by their State Governor - and the State Governor elected by State laws which could be much more restrictive than Federal voter eligibility laws. You can easily get self-fulfilling political dynasties that way, and then we're left with a small insular group having equal voice to the entire rest of the population. Not as bad as the 2-to-1 of the old pre-revolutionary French Estates, but still bad. Even Rome, the original source of the word "Senate", had trouble with that kind of setup and was forced to adapt by shifting power to a more openly-elected body...

Re:Abolishment?

[Luke has no name]

I believe pure democracy is a terrible form of government; for it has all the same tendencies toward tyrannical government as any other form, while fooling the people into thinking true revolution isn't necessary.

Re:Abolishment?

[Erbo]

No, it's not "Service is citizenship," it's "Service guarantees citizenship."

Would you like to know more?

Re:Abolishment?

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

So who gets to decide what should be on that test? From the Wikipedia entry, I think it's under consideration whether or not such a test would be a violation of the 24th Amendment.

Re:Abolishment?

[BluBrick]

Of course you're depriving them of their franchise if you deprive them of their life. I mean, if they're dead, they can't vote, can they? Oh wait...

Re:Abolishment?

[caspy7]

So, if you shoot someone, you are also depriving them of their franchise, which means...

...unless you shoot them in the leg.

Re:Abolishment?

[jcr]

if you shoot someone, you are also depriving them of their franchise

Not in Chicago...

-jcr

Re:Abolishment?

[jcr]

I think we should try and hang anyone who thinks we should arbitrarily shoot anyone.

Who said anything about shooting anyone arbitrarily?

-jcr

Re:Abolishment?

[thetoadwarrior]

I would make it a test of US history, government and law.

We probably wouldn't have to do this if more importance was put on this in school and school in general wasn't something you more or less floated through just so you can go to uni.

Re:Abolishment?

[jonadab]

> And how the hell did Bush get reelected?

The other option was John Kerry. Weren't you paying attention?

Re:Abolishment?

[jonadab]

> Sorry, you have a good point but everyone deserves a fair trial

No, actually, many of them don't.

But they are afforded* a fair trial, irrespective of what they deserve, because it's better for society that way.

Criminals, at least in most cases, don't deserve anything of the kind, but we give it to them anyway, partly because not everyone who goes to trial is a criminal, but mostly because it provides an important check against certain categories of systematic government abuse. If criminals could be punished without a trial, pretty soon we'd have the sort of government we don't want. Avoiding this is significantly more important, for society as a whole, than giving criminals the summary punishment many of them deserve.

* The actual wording in the sixth amendment is that the accused shall "enjoy" the right, but it's an alternate usage of the word "enjoy", referring not to the derivation of pleasure but to the receipt of a benefit -- i.e., the accused shall receive the benefit of a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed and so on and so forth. There is nothing in there about what the accused _deserves_, because that's not the point.

Re:Abolishment?

[blahplusplus]

But one man's utopia is another man's tyranny, tyrrany is perceived, not actual in many cases.

Re:Abolishment?

[mjwx]

No, actually, many of them don't.

And you are to decide who does or does not deserve a fair trial?

If we deny the right of a fair trial to the worst of us we may as well deny that to the best of us as all it will take is the right accusation to destroy innocent people. Unfortunately the same laws that protect scumbags protect innocent people, unto the law everyone must be equal. My own nation is a poster child of what happens when public emotion is permitted to influence justice, remember Lindsey.

Criminals, at least in most cases, don't deserve anything of the kind,

No, you are wrong here. A criminal is not a criminal until they have been convicted. Until they have been convicted by a court of law they are the accused, not the guilty. You seem to have passed judgement before any evidence has been presented. This kind of arbitrary judgement and execution is exactly the point I was making in the first place.

The actual wording

Because a word written 200 years ago means the same thing as it is does now. Many words used by my father did not carry the same definition 25 years as they do now.

If a person is evidently guilty then their trial will reflect this, if not then they deserve the opportunity to defend themselves, either way a trial is needed. If we start declaring people "unworthy" of a fair trial and all the opportunities given by a modern democratic justice system then you may as well kiss goodbye to all the other freedoms you "enjoy" as then you are only a simple accusation away from being imprisoned or executed.

Re:Abolishment?

[Mr. Slippery]

Personally, I think we should get rid of the notion that everyone is qualified to vote.

Absolutely. How do I know that not everyone is qualified to vote? Why, some people vote differently than me. Since I am always correct[*], this demonstrates their inadequacy to hold the franchise. So you can just go ahead and give me the authority to purge the voter roles.

I mean, if you can't trust me to set the standards as to who is qualified to vote, whom can you trust?

([*] My opinions are definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.)

Re:Abolishment?

[u38cg]

The real point of democracy is not choosing your government, it's about having the power to dismiss the last one.

Re:Abolishment?

[u38cg]

No. Freedom includes the freedom to be ignorant.

Re:Abolishment?

[u38cg]

Arguing for a voter test on the grounds that otherwise someone you don't like may be elected is a very good argument against your case.

Re:Abolishment?

[MrResistor]

My ex-wife is a cop, and I don't find that surprising at all. We were married before she went through the academy, and I swear at some point they surgically removed the part of her brain that comprehends the value of civil liberties. Any time I mentioned them she looked at me like I was an alien speaking gibberish.

Re:Abolishment?

[BoothbyTCD]

Bravo.

Re:Abolishment?

[jonadab]

> And you are to decide who does or does not deserve a
> fair trial? If we deny the right of a fair trial

I didn't say anything about denying anyone a trial. On the contrary, I specifically said that we give them a fair trial whether they deserve it or not, better it's for society that way. The right to a trial protects the citizenry from certain kinds of systematic government abuses abuses that might otherwise arise.

> A criminal is not a criminal until they have been convicted.

The word you are looking for is "convict".

A "criminal" is a person who has committed a crime. The act of doing so makes them a criminal, by definition, whether or not anyone else ever finds out about it, and totally irrespective of whether they are ever brought to justice. You may notice that the words "crime" and "criminal" contain some of the same letters. This is not a coincidence.

> > The actual wording
> Because a word written 200 years ago means
> the same thing as it is does now.

Now you're just trolling. You couldn't even quote the rest of my sentence, because it would have obviated your point.

Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

When's Shatner getting knighted?

Re:Obligatory

[lorg]

Never. So I guess this will finally put the debate to an end; final verdict is in ... Picard > Kirk. ... I know ... Wishful thinking ...

Re:Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

with the freezing rain and snow and cold in the UK these days, it might be soon.

Re:Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

Kirk is Canadian isn't he? Canada is part of the Commonwealth, the Queen is head of the Commonwealth. A tenuous link to allow ol' fat-boy to achieve a gong, or queenie doing it just to fuel Trek wars.

Re:Obligatory

[yincrash]

not a british citizen

Re:Obligatory

[Stormwatch]

Picard gets a knighthood, neat... but Kirk gets his name in a computer game , which is much cooler.

Re:Obligatory

[TheRaven64]

Neither is Bill Gates, but he was knighted. Patrick Stewart, however, almost certainly didn't get his award for being on Star Trek. He was a member of the RSC for a long time before he was Piccard and his recent performance of Hamlet was sold out over its entire run a long time before it started, and was also televised by the BBC on Christmas day.

Re:Obligatory

[TempeTerra]

For those in the UK, it is available on BBC iPlayer until January 2. linky.

Re:Obligatory

[Ma8thew]

Bill Gates was not knighted, he was given an honorary knighthood (so he is not entitled to use Sir in front of his name).

Re:Obligatory

[dave420]

It's a lot less tenuous than that - Elizabeth II is the Queen of Canada.

Re:Obligatory

[A beautiful mind]

Actually, Patrick Stewart got the knighthood for the voiceover work in Oblivion. Without that hundreds of thousands of people would have gone crazy listening to "stop right there, criminal scum!".

Re:Obligatory

[JustOK]

pour l'instant

Re:Obligatory

[JustOK]

Hamlet? Couldn't he get a job with something newer?

Re:Obligatory

[magpie]

erm he was born in Yorkshire so he is a subject of the queen, once a subject of the queen/king always a subject. You can take any other nationality you like but your still a subject

Re:Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

pour l'instant

yes, I would like you to pour some instant coffee... thanks frenchie... how's the fur trapping business going?

Re:Obligatory

[master_p]

But for us common folks, Picard was his most interesting work.

Re:Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

OBE not KBE. At least he was not GNOMEd.

Re:Obligatory

[JustOK]

pulling skin from bone. That's right, we're separating.

Re:Obligatory

[Low Ranked Craig]

I thought it was for the Alphabet Song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjNKyoRudOQ

Re:Obligatory

[masmullin]

Sir Billy of Shat!

Re:Obligatory

[thetoadwarrior]

Foreigners can receive a title from the Queen but they can't use the the title Sir or they hold less weight. I can't remember the specifics but they can be award a title.

Re:Obligatory

[bazorg]

here is a more detailed explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KBE

Re:Obligatory

[wd5gnr]

There's no comparison. All science fiction is a mirror on the time it was written. Imagine writing a SciFi novel in 1890 where the characters worry about what cell phone plan to use and if they should have cable or DSL for twitter and hulu. No one would understand it. So all these future people (and blue aliens on Avatar) are really humans of their author's time. Star Trek has the disadvantage of spanning 30+ years. So Kirk was the prototypical 60's guy. Kick a**, take names, and get it done. I realized this on one of the very early STNG episodes. I think it is the one where they meet the Ferengi (or however you spell it) the first time. Situation: There is an unknown enemy craft in a hostile position hovering off the starboard bow. What does Picard do? What any 90's guy would do. He calls a meeting. No kidding. "Everyone to the reaaadddy room" (hard to type an accent). The second string takes up the bridge and they hold and honest to goodness corporate style meeting that Dilbert would have been at home in. Of course, I'm a Kirk fan but I'm also a child of the 60s and don't have much patience for meetings (current day job notwithstanding).

Re:Obligatory

[itsdapead]

and his recent performance of Hamlet was sold out over its entire run a long time before it started, and was also televised by the BBC on Christmas day.

Was that the thing that went on for hours and seemed to consist of The Doctor* and Capt. Picard standing up and quoting a lot of lines and episode titles from Star Trek and Babylon 5?

(OK, I'm being silly - but if you want a good cultural drinking game, watch Hamlet and down a shot every time you recognise something from a SF show...)

(*As in Doctor Who, but if I called him "Doctor Who" I'd risk starting a pedantry cascade...)

Re:Obligatory

[aqk]

Even though Shatner (if he still has Canadian citizenship) is a British SUBJECT - the Queen is also the Queen of Canada, the government of Canada does absolutely NOT permit its citizens to accept knighthoods.
Ask Lord Conrad Black.
Oh... Sorry- is he still a Lord? In any event, he is no longer a Canadian citizen.

And no longer has the benefit of that evil Canadian "socialized" medicine.
But then, he has the benefit of the medicare provided by the US prison system, which is probably better than what most US citizens can afford.
But I digress...

Re:Obligatory

[aqk]

Who? Shatner?
Having been born in Canada, he is indeed a British SUBJECT, providing he has still kept his Canadian citizenship.

I....

[buanzo]

... welcome our new Sir Borg! We love you patrick.

I think I've seen this episode before!

[Scr3wFace]

"I've just been paid a visit by Q. She wants to do something nice for me." Qpid.

Re:I think I've seen this episode before!

[Anonymous Coward]

hahaha! #1 reply

Re:I think I've seen this episode before!

[Erbo]

To which Riker gives the single most appropriate answer you could possibly give to that statement:

"I'll alert the crew."

It would be Captain Sir Jean-Luc

[ed]

Earned Rank comes first

Re:It would be Captain Sir Jean-Luc

[skiman1979]

I hate to break it to you, but Captain Jean-Luc Picard is not real. He is a fictional character on a TV show played by Patrick Stewart.

Re:It would be Captain Sir Jean-Luc

[itsdapead]

Except Jean-Luc Picard is (a) ficticious and, worse still (b) French so he wouldn't be allowed to use the title anyway...

(Obviously, France has annexed Yorkshire by the time of Star Trek...)

More pedantic, but...

[varn_ix]

...technically, OBE does not admit an individual into knighthood automatically, only KBE and GBE do.

Re:More pedantic, but...

[jrumney]

He was awarded an OBE in 2001. Today's knighthood was the real thing.

X-men

[heffrey]

I seriously doubt the knighthood was anything to do with the vacuous X-men/Trek work. Much more likely to be related to his work on the stage. I recently saw him in Waiting for Godot (alongside Sir Ian McKellen) and he was magnificent even though I've not got much time for that particular play.

Re:X-men

[Anonymous Coward]

... we all know it's for his outstanding work on American Dad.

Re:X-men

[digitalhermit]

"...I've not got much time for that particular play."

Wait around until the end.. It's quite a surprise.

Re:X-men

[MORB]

Nope. I think he got knighted for his outstanding rendition of the facepalm.

Re:X-men

[Rolgar]

As the father of 2, I was going to guess it was for Bambi II. ;)

What British born international celebrity of 20 years doesn't eventually get knighted?

Re:X-men

[Don_dumb]

I also saw Waiting For Godot earlier this year.
I can safely say that I will never see a cast as great as that in my life. They pushed Simon Callow (no small actor) to third billing and this was outside of London.
It was a joy to behold, McKellen and Stewart had a brilliant chemistry. If Ian deserves a knighthood for simply acting (I know he had done a lot of gays rights campaigning to add to that) then Patrick is as deserving an actor.

Although I must admit that his work in ST:TNG should count towards the honour of his career. He was probably the first actor to really show that it didn't have to be costume drama for masterful acting in popular television, and this lead to good actors getting leading roles in prime-time shows. As a sibling poster OpenGLFan points out, it was clear that at times the writers and producers were simply writing episodes to show his skill off.
For selling the RSC and British acting to the world he deserves his Knighthood.

PS - if in the future he does an Ibsen play, see it. I also saw him magnificently lead in The Master Builder.

Re:X-men

[tyrione]

As the father of 2, I was going to guess it was for Bambi II. ;)

What British born international celebrity of 20 years doesn't eventually get knighted?

Brian May of Queen, for one.

Re:X-men

[iamthelaw]

Hopeless to explain jokes, I think, but all the poster meant is that he starred in the movies alongside Sir Ian McKellen -- the balance alluded to is that both the good guy and the bad guy would be knights rather than just the one.

Re:X-men

[Anonymous Coward]

what luck !
I agree completely about Godot, but to see those two do anything would be a treat !

Re:X-men

[hack slash]

I love his character on American Dad and I suspect he does too because it's so outrageous and different from any character he's ever played before.

Re:X-men

[evilviper]

I seriously doubt the knighthood was anything to do with the vacuous X-men/Trek work.

Being a world-famous British subject, while not an utter embarrassment, is all that is required for Knighthood today. See: Sir Elton John

I seriously doubt his theatre experience would have merited a knighthood, without his world-wide fame brought about by Star Trek: TNG.

Re:X-men

[aqk]

...even though I've not got much time for that particular play

That's OK, Vladimir or Estrogen can lend you some of theirs...

Then Obama should knight William Shatner

[NotSoHeavyD3]

Since everybody knows Kirk is much better than Picard.

Re:Then Obama should knight William Shatner

[skiman1979]

I'd have to disagree. I think Picard was a great captain. Kirk had this annoying... habit of... pausing... for... effectiveness repeatedly,... but his... pauses were... not... very effective... IMHO. Other than that, Kirk was ok I guess :)

Re:Then Obama should knight William Shatner

[Aeros]

Nothing for Archer?

Re:Then Obama should knight William Shatner

[DJRumpy]

And yet we're still talking about him 40 years later, he'd doing commercials, stand-up, and he's a pop icon.

Somehow I doubt Picard will attain such a status ;)

Re:Then Obama should knight William Shatner

[Anonymous Coward]

Who?

Re:Then Obama should knight William Shatner

[m.ducharme]

He seems to have dropped the pregnant pauses though. I think in Star Trek he was more a victim of bad directing than a bad actor.

Re:Then Obama should knight William Shatner

[emandres]

Well, that would work, except for one problem. Bill Shatner's Canadian.

Re:Then Obama should knight William Shatner

[Bigbutt]

Shatner's Canadian so he can be knighted by the Queen as well.

[John]

Re:Then Obama should knight William Shatner

[Anonymous Coward]

"Has Been" was a great song too.

Re:Then Obama should knight William Shatner

[Anonymous Coward]

That would require a "Quantum Leap" in American Politics to allow a president to knight someone :)

Re:Then Obama should knight William Shatner

[thetoadwarrior]

And, as an owner of The Transformed Man, I can safely say that Shatner's Shakespeare is much more entertaining than Picard's renditions.

One problem with the US paying tribute to Shatner (if they could give him a title) is that he's Canadian so, if it were a similar system to the UK, he could only have a lesser title and not the title truly worthy of Shatner.

Re:Then Obama should knight William Shatner

[Hurricane78]

You mean like a primitive caveman-style-fighting everything-fucking bonobo chimpanzee is much better than a real leader with class and culture? ^^

Re:Then Obama should knight William Shatner

[Anonymous Coward]

You're forgetting that Shatner is Canadian - if he were to be the equivalent of knighted (i.e., receive the Order of Canada) it would be done by the Governor General in the name of the Queen...

Re:Then Obama should knight William Shatner

[aqk]

You're forgetting that the government of Canada (including the Governer-General) does NOT permit this "knighthood" nonsense.
Ask Conrad Black -if you can find him.

Re:Surprised

[Scr3wFace]

Am I the only one surprised to learn that he's *not* gay? Seriously, I don't mean that as a troll, I honestly always assumed he was until I read about his wife.

Blasphemy! One to beam down.

Old news is old

[Anonymous Coward]

david.emery is definitely NOT one of the few who noticed. It was already published yesterday in the biggest swedish tabloid "Aftonbladet". Old news is old. However congrats to Patrick Stewart. He is one of my favourite actors, and probably one the best actors at all.

Re:Old news is old

[david.emery]

You're just jealous you didn't send it into Slashdot... ;-)

But to my surprise, CNN.com had the story, where the British Daily Mail (dailymail.co.uk) website didn't have any mention of it when I sent this in last night.

At that point it was reasonable to assume this was still 'breaking news' and worthy of reporting to this community.

Re:Old news is old

[VJ42]

You're just jealous you didn't send it into Slashdot... ;-)

But to my surprise, CNN.com had the story, where the British Daily Mail (dailymail.co.uk) website didn't have any mention of it when I sent this in last night.

At that point it was reasonable to assume this was still 'breaking news' and worthy of reporting to this community.

As the list of New years honours is only officially published today (31st December), none of the British media ever bother to try and get a 'scoop' on it as otherwise it shows that the person awarded it leaked the fact. I found out about this a few days ago: http://trekmovie.com/2009/12/18/patrick-stewart-to-be-knighted/ it seems he or his agent leaked it to paramount, and the Americans published it. The British media like to speculate, but tend not to break the trust of the recipients or the government. One of the few instances left where they wait for the official report rather than the inevitably leaked trails.

er what?

[Anonymous Coward]

/. says Sir Captain

and the article says Sir Patrick

but wouldn't it go by his last name?

Sir Stewart?

Re:er what?

[pjt33]

No. Knights are always Sir + first name.

Re:er what?

[JustOK]

what about Sir Loin of Beef, doc?

Re:er what?

[Anonymous Coward]

what about Sir Loin of Beef, doc?

Upstarts and rogues. Never heard of them.

Re:Surprised

[daninspokane]

The thought never crossed my mind... and I am not being sarcastic. I've heard people debate it and argue it but I never even considered it. It's Picard for God's sakes. More on topic - do Knights actually hold any government sway or what? If the British Empire were to collapse and the world dive in to chaos, could we have Picard as our last line of defense? Say the whole cabinent were to be assassinated... could we vote Jean Luc in to save us?

As a 49 year old feminist grandmother

[Anonymous Coward]

I was surprised when I read an article about Stewart saying that space exploration isn't a good idea right now because of starving children in Africa. I mean seriously, judging by that logic Albert bloody Einstein should've beaten his work desk into a primitive farming tool, given up physics and dedicated his life to working a rice paddy to help feed some orphans. But that's just my opinion as a 49 year old feminist grandmother.

Re:As a 49 year old feminist grandmother

[egcagrac0]

You know, NASA's budget request for 2010 is $10.1 billion for space stuff ("Space Operations" and "Exploration", by my read - see page 4).

The world could probably be a better place by spending a billion of that (like, oh, 10%) on rice and handing it out in Africa, and exploring space just a little slower.

(Note to people who are calculating that that's only a million tons of rice, and that won't go real far across a billion people for a year - it's a start, and the people who survive another year probably won't mind not dying.)

Re:As a 49 year old feminist grandmother

[Anonymous Coward]

The world could probably be a better place by spending a billion of that (like, oh, 10%) on rice and handing it out in Africa, and exploring space just a little slower.

And there's your problem right there.

Re:As a 49 year old feminist grandmother

[egcagrac0]

What, you want people to perform a song and dance for it? Sell it at subsidized rates?

Really, Coward, how much conscience does it take to say "Gee, we've been to the moon, we've sent probes into deep space, we've remotely explored Mars, let's maybe see what we can learn by not having kids starve to death."

Maybe quadrotriticale would be a better foodstuff, but rice is pretty ubiquitous at the moment.

Re:As a 49 year old feminist grandmother

[rantingkitten]

First, we have more than enough food to feed the masses right now. There's no need to spend more. They're not starving because there's some shortage; they're starving because of distribution problems. It also doesn't help that we can't just waltz in and give food to the people -- we give it to their governments, who are often corrupt, and hoarde it for themselves or sell it.

Second, giving them more food sounds like a great idea, but it also leads to population growth in an area that can't sustain even the population they currently have.

Re:As a 49 year old feminist grandmother

[mjwx]

You see, the problem is not providing enough food, we have more then enough food to provide aid to Africa's needy. The issue is getting it there, the warlords in those areas dont take kindly to foreign aid agencies fattening up their recruiting populations and spreading subversive thought.

We have more then enough food to go around the problem with famine is that we cant get it to where it is needed, we tried throwing money at the problem but the warlords took the money and the food and told us to fuck off. NASA and space exploration on the other hand provided us with real tangible benefits that have been shared throughout the world. Where would we be today if it weren't for the many polymers developed for the space program, or the microprocessors? Space exploration has many benefits, they just aren't obvious to trolls such as yourself.

So

[Daimanta]

does that mean he can now compete in jousting tournaments?

Re:So

[Anonymous Coward]

He already did. Watch Excalibur; he is the lone knight who gives support to the boy king at the beginning of the movie.

Re:Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

sleeve of wizard

Nasty flashback when he's knighted

[hellfire]

Patrick will approach the queen during the ceremony, then suddenly have a fit as he sees the spotlights around him and scream "THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!!"

Re:Nasty flashback when he's knighted

[Anonymous Coward]

"THERE ARE FOUR KNIGHTS!!"

Because at a knighting (?) ceremony the Queen will probably be flanked by Sir Elton John, Sir Paul McCartney, Sir Ian McKellen, and Sir Sean Connery?

Re:Nasty flashback when he's knighted

[Lars T.]

As Stewart kneels down to get knighted:
The Queen: Are you offering yourself to us?
Steward: Offering myself...? That's it, I remember now! It wasn't enough that you knight me... I had to give myself freely to the United Kingdom. To you!
Queen: You flatter yourself! I've overseen the knighting of countless millions. You were no different!

elrous0

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one surprised to learn that I'm *not* gay? Seriously, I don't mean that as a troll, I honestly always assumed I was until I noticed I was masturbating to hetero porn!

Re:elrous0

[elrous0]

Well how else do you explain the fact that I love the TV show "Glee"?

Lifeforce!

[Anonymous Coward]

Awwright! He finally gets recognition for that ever-lasting impression he made in Lifeforce!

Re:Lifeforce!

[bobwoodard]

You mean it wasn't for Dune?

Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

What is a dude to do for her to rim him then?

Re: King

[TaoPhoenix]

We did. His name was Cheney, and he kicked everyone but the asshats out of government.

Sir Phil

[Anonymous Coward]

All hail Sir Phil Mcracken!

Men in Tights

[DarkBlackFox]

Only fitting after he knighted Robin Hood. "Kneel, Robin of Loxley. And arise, Sir Robin of Loxley."

Story pic

[Anonymous Coward]

that's not a very flattering picture of patrick.

Great actor

[Antiocheian]

I'm not a Star Trek fan (I've only watched a few episodes of the original and nothing else), but I really like Stewart's works. For example I enjoyed his "Christmas Carol" much more than any other Christmas Carol (and there are several out there) as well as Henry II in The Lion in Winter. Actually I have to watch that movie again now that I think about it.

Re:Great actor

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a Star Trek fan (I've only watched a few episodes of the original and nothing else)

Then you have not watched star trek!

Re:Great actor

[rah1420]

Amen to A Christmas Carol. I had recorded it when it was on TNT originally in 1999, but set it aside and never watched it. About two weeks ago I picked it up and me and my family watched it. We loved it, even the four year old and the 2 year old. They rendered their opinion of Scrooge as "He's a grumpy old man who doesn't like Christmas."

I liked it so much I ordered the DVD from Amazon so I wouldn't have to put up with the commercials. Of course, the kids found the "Muppet Christmas Carol" so now it's tough to watch anything but that; but it's okay, I like Michael Caine too.

Re:Great actor

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen to A Christmas Carol. I had recorded it when it was on TNT originally in 1999, but set it aside and never watched it.

Oh.

You are talking about the movie. Oddly enough, the one man stage presentation that he did before the movie is _much_ more impressive. Having Stewart voice all the characters and provide all the drama makes it clear how good he is.

Also, The richest part of Dickens' story is all the description, which Stuart delivers masterfully in the stage presentation, and which is totally lost in the movie.

Re:Great actor

[Hurricane78]

Who enjoys Christmas Carols? The only Christmas Carol I could enjoy would be a hooker with an extra-dirty fantasy. ^^

Oh, and now a quote from the best Christmas movie ever:

“Fuck me Santa! Fuck me Santa! Fuck me Santa! Fuck me Santa!” XD

Re:Great actor

[Anonymous Coward]

I've only watched a few episodes of the original and nothing else

I don't usually aspire to represent the voice of the thousands of us geeks here on Slashdot. That said, please indulge me the liberty of speaking for all of us when I tell you to leave this website and never come back.

You, sir, are not a geek, but some vile impostor pretending to be a geek. You must surrender your geek-card immediately.

Who turned down the standards for getting a geek-card anyway??? I thought you had to have seen at least all of TOS, and at least 50% of TNG before you could even sign up for geek membership...

Re:Great actor

[Erbo]

I was lucky enough to see Stewart do his one-man show of "A Christmas Carol" (at Campbell Hall, UCSB), so, when TNT announced their new version starring him as Ebenezer Scrooge, I knew he could pull it off brilliantly. Of course, he did.

And there was a nice TNG echo of that in the teaser of one episode, where Data plays Scrooge on the holodeck, and Picard critiques his performance.

Re:Great actor

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding me? I thought it was the worst version of A Christmas Carol ever. It was like Patrick Stewart was still playing in role for Picard FFS. Maybe it's just that I've seen the version with Albert Finney and Alec Guinness too many times but I really thought the Patrick Stewart version was bad.

Re:Surprised

[voss]

Considering stewart has been divorced twice and dated and married ladies hes worked with. I doubt it.

Well Deserved

[Sponge Bath]

I always enjoyed it when he ran around to that funny music and Benny Hill slapped him on his bald head.

In related news

[gmuslera]

Peter Jackson was knighted too this days, in Middle Eart... i mean, New Zealand.

Vacuous Star Trek? Not Stewart.

[OpenGLFan]

I know this will sound like hopeless fanboyism, but Stewart was no slouch in ST:TNG, and he didn't just phone it in. I can't think of many other actors who could have pulled off "There Are Four Lights", or the episode where he lived an entire life in another planet and learned to play the flute (can't remember the name.) After a few seasons, the writers realized just how good "that Shakespeare guy" was, and they wrote some demanding episodes for Stewart.

Watch the first season, just watching Picard: it's a textbook example of how a talented actor can take a largely untried cast and some occasionally shaky writing and forge a solid character.

Re:Surprised

[TheRaven64]

do Knights actually hold any government sway

Not as a result of being a knight. I'm not sure what the statistics are now, but in the '80s at least 50% of them were senior civil servants, and so held a lot of influence via their jobs, but the title of knight is purely honorary. This is a Knight Bachelor, not a chivalric knight, meaning that it does not come with the right (and responsibility) of defence of the realm.

Life peerages, which are two steps up the honours system, carry with them a seat in the House of Lords and so are lifetime appointments to the legislature (you also get something like £200 and good food for any day when you happen to drop in to Parliament - the House of Lords also has a much better wine cellar than the Commons).

WHEN SHE KNIGHTED SIR ELTON ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Lancelot was turning in his grave, saying, what have we become, a band of merry fairies?

No, no, I like the Captain, just not that way, and before _Rock of the Westies_.

Re:WHEN SHE KNIGHTED SIR ELTON ...

[BobNET]

Lancelot was turning in his grave, saying, what have we become, a band of merry fairies?

And Galahad said "bet you're gay!"

Sir Picard

[Anonymous Coward]

Captain Picard knighted by Q

Re:Surprised

[bill_mcgonigle]

Am I the only one surprised to learn that he's *not* gay?

Probably not, but it's OK if you are. Stewart was named the "sexiest man alive" at one point, so wishful thinking can be forgiven.

He did play a gay man in a bad movie once.

Diplomacy

[Sycraft-fu]

The Queen is a first class diplomat, which is her function as Chief of State. Britain is like many nations in that the Chief of State and the Head of Government are not the same person, as they are in the US. There the Head of Government is the Prime Minister and that is where the executive power resides. The Chief of State is a seperate person, the monarch in this case, and is basically a figurehead. She meets with diplomats and gives them, literally, the royal treatment. Works rather well.

Not saying there's anything wrong with the US system of unifying the Chief of State and Head of Government in to a single President, just that it isn't how the whole world does it. Britain is not the only country with the division.

Also tradition has its place in human affairs. It is important to who we are as a people, and helps give us a sense of purpose, and something to look to in difficult times.

Re:Diplomacy

[misexistentialist]

Works well until a weak or immoral person inherits the office. Though I suppose elections would probably produce candidates at least as bad, and since the office is unimportant the figurehead could be ignored until dead.

Re:Diplomacy

[Anonymous Coward]

I went to a back ally massage parlour on christmas day, and they gave me the "royal treatment." are you telling me that the queen also provides a similar service? I guess thats why they call her "Head of State."

Re:Diplomacy

[moosesocks]

This role hasn't always strictly fallen on the President. For one, the past several presidents have delegated most of these responsibilities to the Secretary of State -- Hillary Clinton has been one of the most active diplomats in American history.

The first lady and vice president have also, on occasion, played strong diplomatic roles depending on the administration.

I'd also concur with this view of the Queen. She has been invaluable to the prestige and perception of the British government over the past half-century.

Re:Diplomacy

[Sycraft-fu]

Of course there are subordinates to help in the matter, as there are in all governments. In other governments the Secretary of State might be called the Foreign Minister. However, the President is always a chief diplomat of sorts simply be virtue of being the Chief of State. I'm not saying either system is better or worse, just that you can see the virtue in a system where you have a governmental figurehead who's job it is to be the chief diplomat and representative of the country.

Re:Diplomacy

[Ian.Waring]

FWIW, the Queen has the Executive Power. She can choose to dissolve Parliament anytime she chooses. If a Primeminister wants it dissolved, then it's a quick trip down the Mall to ask her permission first.

Re:Diplomacy

[Blakey Rat]

That would be all good and fine is she were elected (or appointed by somebody who was elected.) But the fact that the office is HEREDITARY is what Americans object to.

Fundamental to our philosophy, all men are created equal. You don't *get* to be wealthy and important just because you're an ancestor of someone clever enough to convince the populace that God appointed them to lead.

If the queen were elected to that office, I don't think anybody would object or call to abolish the position.

Re:Diplomacy

[StreetStealth]

They should look to the US, where we haven't even the slightest trace of multigenerational political dynasties.

Re:Diplomacy

[Blakey Rat]

Ah yes, the obligatory "the US is just as bad!" response. Thanks for filling this vital role of expanding the level of bullshit on the Internet, StreetStealth.

Re:Surprised

[oracleofbargth]

Until about 50 years ago, it would have made him eligible to be elected to the House of Lords in the British Parliament, but now that is reserved only for most hereditary titles.

Stage acting

[sxmjmae]

He is a spectacular stage actor.

I had seen him long ago and remember how good his was then.

His talent was opening door for him long before Star Trek. But TV series launched him as a very recognizable actor. I am sure he would have been noticed with out Star Trek but it did help is Career and maybe got him knight a few years early.

Correction: it earns considerably MORE...

[EWAdams]

... than it costs. The monarchy is cheap when you think of the vast sums that are paid for such things as preparing for the Olympics.

The world needs one last country that still does the pomp and ceremony of imperialism, and the UK is the one.

I think the legislation that the Queen should have the right to veto is anything that affects the British constitution itself, such as modifications to the role of the Lords without their consent, or modifications to her own role. Like the US President, her job should be to preserve, protect, and defend the British constitution.

Re:Correction: it earns considerably MORE...

[biglig2]

I always say to people who complain about how much the Queen costs, exactly how much do they think President Blair and his First Lady would cost?

Re:Correction: it earns considerably MORE...

[u38cg]

Not to mention she pays four or five times more in tax than she receives back from the government.

Re:Correction: it earns considerably MORE...

[Anonymous Coward]

Considerably less than the entire royal list - a ridiculous 41.5 million pounds. Especially if we took back the lands of 'the crown' (ie the state) to pay for it (estimated income of around 140m per year). As a comparison: The Irish president costs around 1.1 million and Germany's premier (a country of comparable size, economic standing etc, if we're lucky) around 10 million.

The royal family are an affront to our dignity as human beings, and a drain on our economy. Begone.

Re:Vacuous Star Trek? Not Stewart.

[bds1986]

the episode where he lived an entire life in another planet and learned to play the flute (can't remember the name.)

"The Inner Light" was the episode you're looking for. Wikipedia has a complete list in case you weren't already aware:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek_TNG_episodes

My personal favourite was "Darmok", the one where he's abducted and trapped on a planet with an alien he can't communicate with. I won't spoil it for you in case you haven't seen it, but it's a truly moving performance by Stewart IMHO.

She should adopt him and make him KING!

[MarkvW]

Charles and his kids are not very impressive material. Why not bring some new blood into the family, Liz? The Windsors are all about acting like monarchy, anyway! Bring in a real actor!

Re: King

[ArsonSmith]

...and to fill the void we got more, bigger, more powerful asshats in now.

Meaningless without money

[microbox]

Actually, a major reason the Brits keep the monarchy around is that it makes about as much in tourism as it costs them. It's not just silly tradition.

Life would be so meaningless without money, eh?

Re:Meaningless without money

[thetoadwarrior]

Money isn't everything but life sure as hell sucks when you don't have any. Ask the homeless.

Re:Meaningless without money

[evilviper]

Life only sucks without money when you live somewhere that EVERYTHING requires money like the US.

Ask any poor Mexican subsistence farmers with a huge family how they're doing with practically no money to their name...

Shatner is Canadian

[microbox]

Surely you mean Stephen Harper. (shudders.)

Re:Surprised

[Chris Mattern]

Um, no. Mere knighthood never got you into the House of Lords--that requires a title of nobility. Heredity titles are in fact being *evicted* from the House of Lords as an outdated relic: the movement is to turn the House of Lords over to the so-called "life lords"--those who were given a title for actually achieving something and will not pass their title on to their heirs.

From an American Point of View

[Xaedalus]

The Queen is a lot more powerful than most people seem to believe. Yes, she is a ceremonial monarch, but her assent (correct me if I'm wrong) is required to convene Parliament in Canada, Australia, and the UK. She is the Defender of the Kingdom, the head of the Anglican Church, and all the UK, Canadian, and Australian armed forces ceremoniously answer to her. Also, she does possess that veto power, but I suspect that if she ever had to use it, there would not be a Constitutional reform movement because most likely the situation would have been so dire that her subjects would agree with her actions, and therefore guarantee no reprisal from any Parliament. She is the Queen of Canada, Australia, and the UK, and she holds the allegiance of millions. If the UK parliament were ever to screw up so badly that it loses the absolute faith of its constituents, then I could see how the monarchy could reassert itself as an applicable executive branch of government.

Perhaps it's like Captain Carrot - a king should remain hidden in the background, coming forward only when needed. I can certainly imagine that if worst came to worst, the British Empire would reunite under Elizabeth's banner, or that of William (couldn't even begin to see that with Charles)

Re:From an American Point of View

[Anonymous Coward]

She is the Queen of Canada, Australia, and the UK

...New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis.

An interesting point is that as she's queen independently in each of the realms, theoretically even if the UK abolished the monarchy she could just up and settle somewhere else retaining all the other territories.

Re:From an American Point of View

[derGoldstein]

Perhaps it's like Captain Carrot - a king should remain hidden in the background

That's Captain Ironfoundersson to you, Lance-Constable!

Re:From an American Point of View

[MonsterTrimble]

Yes, she is a ceremonial monarch, but her assent (correct me if I'm wrong) is required to convene Parliament in Canada, Australia, and the UK. She is the Defender of the Kingdom, the head of the Anglican Church, and all the UK, Canadian, and Australian armed forces ceremoniously answer to her. Also, she does possess that veto power, but I suspect that if she ever had to use it, there would not be a Constitutional reform movement because most likely the situation would have been so dire that her subjects would agree with her actions, and therefore guarantee no reprisal from any Parliament.

If the queen ever tried to veto anything passed here, I would be one of the first ready to sack Rideau Hall - and I LIKE the constitutional monarchy. And I think a lot of people feel the same way.

Re:From an American Point of View

[fridaynightsmoke]

... all the UK, Canadian, and Australian armed forces ceremoniously answer to her.

Incidentally, I have been asking British troops (currently serving and former) now and then whether, in the event of conflicting orders, they would obey the orders of the Queen, or those from parliament/government/elected representatives.

Every single time, without any of them hesitating at all, the answer comes back "The Queen".

Of course, if that theory was ever really tested, I doubt that I'd want to be around to see the result...

Re:From an American Point of View

[hitmark]

i think that the a monarchy allows for a sense of stability while politicians come and go. Especially if they are able to remain somewhat outside of the day to day politics. But then i'm norwegian, and our short times as a modern constitutional monarchy have shown such things as a king using public transport when there was a oil crisis, and the crown prince and princess going to public school.

Re:From an American Point of View

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Every single time, without any of them hesitating at all, the answer comes back "The Queen".

I suspect that's because she hardly makes any public decisions at all. It's easy to believe that her silence belies competence and wisdom, but she just as easily might be a nincompoop, and worthless in the clutch. What are her stances on any of the controversial issues in the UK? Without knowing her opinion, it's easy to believe that she agrees with you. However, if forced to reveal her stances, you might find that she doesn't agree with you nearly as much as you'd like.

Re:From an American Point of View

[Xaedalus]

I'd argue that it depends on what the Queen (or the King) is trying to veto. There is no guarantee that your Parliament will retain the will of the people - much like we've seen here in the States. There have been occasions in history where small, determined political minorities have gained control of governments because of the vast inaction/disinterest/apathy of the majority and have gone on to do horrible things despite the protests of segments of their population. If that were to ever happen to the UK, I'd say at that point you'd be thrilled that there is a check-and-balance in the form of the monarch and the royal veto.

I suspect there may come a day when England will be glad they have a monarch, and not just for ceremonial purposes. There's an awful lot of power that comes with that crown - there just hasn't been any need for it to show itself in the last hundred years

Re:From an American Point of View

[Xaedalus]

I don't believe that's true of Elizabeth. Charles... maybe, but not his sons William or Henry. From what little I know, Elizabeth's a very formidable politician. She learned from Churchill himself, and I'm sure has passed on her savvy and expertise to Charles (who has shown he's not worthy of it) and to William and Henry (both of whom I think have absorbed their lessons far better). I can see how the armies of the Queen would support her against the parliament should Parliament ever truly screw things up.

Re:From an American Point of View

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not surprising considering they've all sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Crown.

Re:From an American Point of View

[Anonymous Coward]

It can try, and it'll be swinging from the lamp-posts by dawn. Don't kid yourself, they're a symbol, and a symbol alone. Any attempt to wield any of their ceremonial powers and they're dead. We keep them around because they're useful, but don't think for a minute that we wouldn't hang them the moment they try to subvert democracy. We may have traditions and even pay lip-service to their historical role, but we won't for one moment tolerate an attempt to steal power from an elected government.

I'd rally around the banner of William or Elizabeth long enough to stick a knife in their back. No more hereditary rule. No more 'I was born better than you'. Never again.

Peter Jackson, too...

[dr00g911]

Curious how Patrick Stewart got a mention here, but Peter Jackson slipped under the radar:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/local/3199875/Peter-Jackson-says-knighthood-a-tribute-to-parents

Re:Peter Jackson, too...

[masmullin]

We all got confused by Peter Jackson's visual appearance and thought that the queen knighted "Animal the Muppet"

you have failed

[Anonymous Coward]

failed meme is failed. you failed is failed.

If that was the case

[maroberts]

Mathilda May would be a countess by now :-)

In Sir Patrick's honour, enjoy these ST treats!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm happy to hear Patrick Stewart will be knighted, he is a truly amazing actor! In his honour, enjoy these ST treats, it' ST, but not as we know it:

Star Trek TNG - Outtakes Volume II by Day Job Orchestra

Star Trek TNG and TOS - Outtakes Volume I by Day Job Orchestra (Warning: also appearing: Khaaaan!)

Captain Picard's favourite TV show

Star Trek TNG cast swearing

Star Trek TNG - Data Krupa by Day Job Orchestra

Star Trek TNG - Acid by Day Job Orchestra

Star Trek TNG - Non trequitur by Day Job Orchestra

Star Trek TNG - Soup kitchen by Day Job Orchestra

Star Trek TNG - The sexed generation

Patrick Stewart's reaction to the new Star Trek movie

Star Trek TNG - Jonathan Frakes' reaction to Patrick Stewart being knighted

Sir Patrick, thank you for so many precious moments, we're looking forward to many more, may you live long and prosper!

*humming* We're gonna party like... it's your birthday...

We're gonna sip Bacardi like... it's your birthday...

Not for TNG

[lurker412]

It might come as a surprise to many here that Stewart was (and remains) a fine stage actor in the best British tradition. But on /. I suppose you could say he was hoist with his own Picard.

Re:Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

he is polite and well spoken, which in America is sort of shorthand for gay, but it turns out there are exceptions....
lol

Re:Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

shut up fag

ROTFL! MOD PARENT UP!

[SlashCrunchPop]

That's a great compilation, thanks for sharing!

Re:Vacuous Star Trek? Not Stewart.

[rumkee]

flute episode The Inner Light

Ok, then a 2 step plan

[NotSoHeavyD3]

First give him a new birth certificate indicating he was actually born in New York City. (Or Philly.) Then Obama can knight him.

Re:Ok, then a 2 step plan

[emandres]

OR, we could adamantly claim he was born in the US despite overwhelming evidence that it was in Canada and go ahead and knight him anyway.

The Queen...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all coming together now...

I for one, welcome our new overlord, Sir Locutus!

Heads of state

[aaronrp]

Of course, lots of parliamentary-style governments do this with a non-heriditary head of state. For example, Ireland, Germany, and India all have presidents who are heads of state, while their prime ministers are the heads of government.

I can understand why the UK keeps the tradition of the monarchy, and why Canada, with its less than successful history of constitutional amendment, does. I don't really understand why the other Commonwealth Realms keep the monarchy, though. Queen of Australia? (Queen in Right of Tasmania?) Queen of Belize?

New Zealand abolished knighthoods under one government and re-established them this year under another one.

(Note that Commonwealth *Realms* are those that kept the monarchy; there are also many republics in the Commonwealth, such as India.)

Re:Vacuous Star Trek? Not Stewart.

[Anonymous Coward]

Inner Light. That was one of my favorite episodes of any Trek.

X-Men

[seeker_1us]

This should bring balance to any future X-Men movies.

You mean they won't be all about Wolverine anymore?

Extras

[duppyconqueror]

His role was hi-larious: "I've seen everything, I've seen it all." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fg_cwI1Xj4M

Re:Surprised

[VJ42]

The thought never crossed my mind... and I am not being sarcastic. I've heard people debate it and argue it but I never even considered it. It's Picard for God's sakes. More on topic - do Knights actually hold any government sway or what? If the British Empire were to collapse and the world dive in to chaos, could we have Picard as our last line of defense? Say the whole cabinent were to be assassinated... could we vote Jean Luc in to save us?

Not really, it does get technically get him a place in the order of precedence, so if enough people were to be killed he could become King, but he's low enough down that theses are probably thousands above him.

Excalibur!

[Slur]

Will this be like the knight's competition scene where the armored not-yet-Sir Patrick gets a slap in the face with a juniper branch before trying to pull the sword from the stone?

Appropriate American award

[daemonenwind]

Since the USA does not grant titles or patents of nobility, the appropriate award would be the Presidential Medal of Freedom. This can be, and sometimes is, granted to non-citizens, such as Tony Blair, Pope John Paul II, and Mother Theresa. (I don't know any examples of foreign entertainment-types offhand, but it is applicable)

No respect from Riker

[syousef]

And to be further pedantic, he's not really a captain, so "Captain Sir" isn't actually appropriate. Appropriate forms of address would also include "Sir Patrick", and "Sir Patrick Stewart", but not "Sir Stewart".

Riker still calls him "that old fucker that won't give up the chair"

Re:No respect from Riker

[tverbeek]

Riker? You mean the one that Picard calls "that turgid willy with the mid-life-crisis beard who won't take his own command and get the hell off my ship"?

I beg to differ

[Eightbitgnosis]

Oh yes he is a Captain. The finest captain

I'm getting old.

[jocknerd]

When I saw this about Patrick Stewart, I didn't even think about him in X-Men. I still think of him as Captn. Picard in Star Trek:TNG. And Scrooge to a lesser extent.

Re:Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one surprised to learn that he's *not* gay? Seriously, I don't mean that as a troll, I honestly always assumed he was until I read about his wife.

Blasphemy! One to beam down.

This is good.... haha

By Neruos

[Anonymous Coward]

Not everyone should be allowed to vote and as such is shown in the current system. Humans, mainly Americans need to understand that not everyone is equal. A large amount of the public is on average, an idiot. Most western governments take note on the fact. Hence the slander actions that all of them go through to win votes. Anyone who says, everyone should be allow a vote either is an idiot or understands this ploy and doesn't want the current systems to change.

Mod me whatever, but fact is fact, take your personal opinion out of it.

Brits keep saying this.

[jotaeleemeese]

But I have never met anybody that comes to Britain specifically to see the Queen palaces only.

Just so you know.

[jotaeleemeese]

Being a British Citizen does not mean you pledge allegiance to the Queen.

This is specially true of people that take British citizenship, you have the option not to swear allegiance if you don't wish to do so.

That is not the point

[jotaeleemeese]

The point is to accept the rule of somebody only because her ancestry.

In a democracy that is a monumental contradiction, but most people in the UK are too uninterested in politics to care .

Dream on.

[jotaeleemeese]

Her only substantive speech is parroted, word by word, as mandated by the Prime Minister of the day.

The Queen has no democratic mandate of any kind, just by that simple fact she can't never claim to be the voice of the people.

The naivety of some British people is touching.

Re:Dream on.

[SpeZek]

You assume I'm British.

Well, I'm not. I'm Canadian. And I see the effects of the Queens' decisions (albeit, through a representative) directly.

You are joking.

[jotaeleemeese]

It gives me a sense of injustice: it is simply not correct in a democracy that there are people that are entitled privileges and honours in accordance to who their ancestors are.

Also the Queen is not a diplomat. The UK has a well defined diplomatic corps and the Queen can't go around doing any diplomatic duties (which are negotiating with other nations about collaboration).

The Queen is a decorative figure, if you think that attending a party given by the Queen has any effect in international diplomatic relationships you are more uninformed and naive that you reasonably should.