Sir Patrick Stewart

I now dub thee night by assemblerex · 2009-12-31 02:00 · Score: 5, Funny

"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 by jo42 · 2009-12-31 02:59 · Score: 2, Informative

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 by derGoldstein · 2009-12-31 04:51 · Score: 2, Funny

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!

--
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.

Pedantic, but... by tomtomtom · 2009-12-31 02:00 · Score: 5, Informative

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

Re:Pedantic, but... by tverbeek · 2009-12-31 02:37 · Score: 4, Informative

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".

--
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Re:Pedantic, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-31 02:40 · Score: 3, Funny

And certainly not "Idiot" or "You captain!"
Re:Pedantic, but... by maxume · 2009-12-31 03:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Re:Pedantic, but... by Mercano · 2009-12-31 03:17 · Score: 5, Funny

Yes sir, Captain Sir, sir.

--
#include <signature.h>
Re:Pedantic, but... by masmullin · 2009-12-31 04:53 · Score: 4, Funny

here is a crown. next time you see one, you can recognize it.
http://www.kidprintables.com/coloring/fantasy/crown.gif
Re:Pedantic, but... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2009-12-31 06:41 · Score: 2, Funny

We've made a Major breakthrough!

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Pedantic, but... by tdelaney · 2009-12-31 07:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

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... by Ihmhi · 2009-12-31 16:12 · Score: 2, Funny

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

--
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Re:Pedantic, but... by bickerdyke · 2010-01-01 01:48 · Score: 2, Funny

I'll have to report that to General Failure

--
bickerdyke

Abolishment? by Stuart+Gibson · 2009-12-31 02:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

--
It's all fun and games until a 200' robot dinosaur shows up and trashes Neo-Tokyo... Again

Re:Abolishment? by TheRaven64 · 2009-12-31 02:14 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Abolishment? by Jurily · 2009-12-31 02:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

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? by pjt33 · 2009-12-31 02:36 · Score: 3, Interesting

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? by selven · 2009-12-31 02:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Just break up the US into states, and then further. Groups above about 150 people are unsustainable anyway.
Re:Abolishment? by tophermeyer · 2009-12-31 02:39 · Score: 2, Funny

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? by jcr · 2009-12-31 02:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re:Abolishment? by JustOK · 2009-12-31 02:55 · Score: 5, Funny

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

--
rewriting history since 2109
Re:Abolishment? by dkleinsc · 2009-12-31 02:57 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:Abolishment? by TheRaven64 · 2009-12-31 03:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

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).

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Abolishment? by LanMan04 · 2009-12-31 03:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Re:Abolishment? by SpeZek · 2009-12-31 03:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

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? by AmberBlackCat · 2009-12-31 04:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

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? by mdwh2 · 2009-12-31 04:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

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? by hairyfeet · 2009-12-31 05:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.
Re:Abolishment? by mjwx · 2009-12-31 05:59 · Score: 3, Funny

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.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:Abolishment? by pjt33 · 2009-12-31 06:18 · Score: 2

Probably a quiet cough and a mention of the name Cromwell.
Re:Abolishment? by internic · 2009-12-31 07:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
Re:Abolishment? by Locke2005 · 2009-12-31 10:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.

Re:Obligatory by lorg · 2009-12-31 02:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

I think I've seen this episode before! by Scr3wFace · 2009-12-31 02:06 · Score: 2, Funny

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

Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-31 02:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

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 by Stormwatch · 2009-12-31 02:16 · Score: 3, Funny

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

--
Circumcision is child abuse.

More pedantic, but... by varn_ix · 2009-12-31 02:17 · Score: 2, Informative

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

Re:More pedantic, but... by jrumney · 2009-12-31 03:31 · Score: 2, Informative

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

X-men by heffrey · 2009-12-31 02:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-31 02:35 · Score: 3, Funny

... we all know it's for his outstanding work on American Dad.
Re:X-men by MORB · 2009-12-31 03:15 · Score: 2, Funny

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

Re:Obligatory by TheRaven64 · 2009-12-31 02:19 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News

Then Obama should knight William Shatner by NotSoHeavyD3 · 2009-12-31 02:25 · Score: 3, Funny

Since everybody knows Kirk is much better than Picard.

--
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.

Re:Then Obama should knight William Shatner by skiman1979 · 2009-12-31 02:50 · Score: 3, Funny

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 :)

--
Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
Re:Then Obama should knight William Shatner by Aeros · 2009-12-31 02:52 · Score: 2, Funny

Nothing for Archer?

Re:Surprised by Scr3wFace · 2009-12-31 02:26 · Score: 5, Funny

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.

Re:Obligatory by TempeTerra · 2009-12-31 02:33 · Score: 3, Informative

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

--
.evom ton seod gis eht

Re:Balance... by corbettw · 2009-12-31 02:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

So by Daimanta · 2009-12-31 02:34 · Score: 3, Funny

does that mean he can now compete in jousting tournaments?

--
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.

Nasty flashback when he's knighted by hellfire · 2009-12-31 02:36 · Score: 5, Funny

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!!"

--

"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

Re:er what? by pjt33 · 2009-12-31 02:37 · Score: 2, Informative

No. Knights are always Sir + first name.

Re:Obligatory by Ma8thew · 2009-12-31 02:41 · Score: 4, Informative

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: King by TaoPhoenix · 2009-12-31 02:46 · Score: 5, Funny

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

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine

Great actor by Antiocheian · 2009-12-31 02:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

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 by rah1420 · 2009-12-31 03:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.

Re:Obligatory by A+beautiful+mind · 2009-12-31 02:54 · Score: 3, Funny

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!".

--
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say

Well Deserved by Sponge+Bath · 2009-12-31 03:17 · Score: 2, Funny

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

Vacuous Star Trek? Not Stewart. by OpenGLFan · 2009-12-31 03:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Diplomacy by Sycraft-fu · 2009-12-31 03:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by StreetStealth · 2009-12-31 09:12 · Score: 3, Funny

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

--
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear

Re:Lifeforce! by bobwoodard · 2009-12-31 04:02 · Score: 2, Funny

You mean it wasn't for Dune?

Re:Vacuous Star Trek? Not Stewart. by bds1986 · 2009-12-31 04:05 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Re:Obligatory by master_p · 2009-12-31 04:09 · Score: 2, Informative

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

From an American Point of View by Xaedalus · 2009-12-31 04:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Re:From an American Point of View by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-31 05:04 · Score: 2, Informative

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 by derGoldstein · 2009-12-31 05:11 · Score: 2, Informative

Perhaps it's like Captain Carrot - a king should remain hidden in the background
That's Captain Ironfoundersson to you, Lance-Constable!

--
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
Re:From an American Point of View by fridaynightsmoke · 2009-12-31 05:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

... 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...

--
This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
Re:From an American Point of View by hitmark · 2009-12-31 05:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Re:From an American Point of View by Xaedalus · 2009-12-31 06:23 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

--
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.

In Sir Patrick's honour, enjoy these ST treats! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-31 05:12 · Score: 2, Funny

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...

Re:Meaningless without money by thetoadwarrior · 2009-12-31 05:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

Re:Correction: it earns considerably MORE... by biglig2 · 2009-12-31 06:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?

--
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?

No respect from Riker by syousef · 2009-12-31 09:29 · Score: 2, Funny

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"

--
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer

Re:Balance... by jaa101 · 2009-12-31 12:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

74 of 324 comments (clear)