Slashdot Mirror
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.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
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.
"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.
It's SIr Patrick, you use the last name when someone is a peer.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
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.
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.
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)
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
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?"
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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...
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).
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.