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.

Pedantic, but...

[tomtomtom]

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

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...

[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...

[masmullin]

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

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

Abolishment?

[Stuart Gibson]

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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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: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: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.

Re:Balance...

[corbettw]

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

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: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: King

[TaoPhoenix]

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

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.

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.

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

[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:Meaningless without money

[thetoadwarrior]

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