Obama meets Queen Elizabeth today - amidst "Death to Capitalism" protests

[MarkLondon]

That is not counting the queen who represents herself in government. She is, in fact, a branch unto herself for no other reason than accident of birth. How many Brits can summon the PM to their house for a nice chat?

Well I'm glad we have someone to give them a reality-check now and again.

 

[dong20]

Recommended, but not abolished.

Yes, they're not abolished but arguably effectively so.

We certainly do. Every society has something approaching a class system, however ours is not incorporated into government nor based on heredity. Our upper house is elected, not appointed (although it used to be), and nobody gains a right to sit in it solely upon accident of birth. Despite general perceptions, not everyone in the Senate (and certainly not the House) is rich, privileged, or comes from old money names.

That's true on official level, but there are political 'familes' where advantage is gained or advancement assisted by bloodline, I'm sure you'd agree. Certainly, it's not written into the constitution, but it's no less real for the omission. Very few retained a right to sit in the Lords based on birth - just over 10%. I think it's a right that should be abolished.

The manorial rights business, if you recall, turned into a bonanza for some barons when the North Sea oil was discovered as manors bordering the North Sea had the right to claim mineral rights out to the extent of territorial waters. Some barons were very ruthless. Their private constables monitored everyone for the slightest infraction (particularly tourists) and their private courts regularly collected all kinds of lucrative fines. Some erected tolls, and others demanded ancient rent payments from tenants. It was a hell of a deal if your manor had working farms, fishing, or villages in leasehold.

I don't recall such events personally - at least not specific instances, perhaps you could provide citations or details of such incidents? You will (I assume) know Scotland was 'Royally' duped by Westminster over the true value of North Sea Oil, possibly at the cost of independence.

There was I believe legislation passed in the 1960s (the Contintental Shelf Act 1964 (amended 1987) that, inter alia, sought to address Crown ownership of and rights to exploit seabed/mineral resources in the North Sea.

The vesting in the Crown of the seabed under territorial waters has been argued at least as far back as the mid 16th Century and re-affirmed a number of times since. While not related to North Sea Oil, perhaps of relevance here:

" ... the seabed within the territorial limit and the foreshore are ... the property of the Crown (except in so far as the Crown may have made grants of the foreshore to individuals) as part of the realm and are held by the Crown for the defence of the realm and for the benefit of its subjects."

Crown Estate Commissioners v Fairlie Yacht Slip Ltd, 1977.

Crown ownership is based in Royal Preogative, not fuedal tenure, and such any manorial claims as were made would be spurious. Not that it wouldn't a few chancing their arm of course.

As of right now, there are 759 hereditary peers, 92 of which have right to sit in Lords. That means that 759 people have a 12% quorum in a house of government.

Well, there are 741 members of the House, so those 92 hereditary peers allowed to remain represent 12.5%, 75 of whom were elected by their party. I'm not sure what you're implying with respect to a quorum (I mean I know what it means but I don't see the relevence).

There is nothing remotely proportional about that kind of representation compared to the Commons where one MP represents millions.

Millions?? ... no. But Rubi has already handled that one.

If that isn't privilege for merely being born with a title, I don't know what is.

Yes it is a privilege of birth. I'm not in denial here but you are (IMO) trying paint a picture with which I am in only partial agreement.

How many Brits can summon the PM to their house for a nice chat?

Indeed, and how many Americans can summon any other member of Government, or military round for a chat, nice or otherwise ... or perhaps I'm missing the point.

I suspect that every person has said that since the days of Hammurabi.

Nice chap, nice line in tablets. :wink:

Too bad. They've got a government endorsed and recognized title. They're aristocrats whether you want them to be or not. See what I mean?

Really???...duh! :tongue:

I'm not disputing that it's irritating when morons are appointed to a position of authority. It's certainly more irritating than electing them, at least then there's hope. In saying what I did, I was making a joke ... or at least trying.

It's different because the government holds some people to have higher social rank than others and gives them disproportional representation in that government along with a few perks (like titles and arms). In one case (the Duke of Atholl) that "perk" is to raise and maintain the only private army in Europe (which he does)!

Disproportiate how, they each get only one vote, same as any other politician. Do they form a sort of elite club, to be sure but in acting as special interests they're little different for their analogues in say the US - in practical terms that is.

back to Scotland again (although the Duke is English).

As for the Duke of Atholl's private army (the Atholl Highlanders). Well if you want to call a 100 strong purely ceremonial regiment that has never seen action (although some of its members did) and primary claims to fame are; acting as bodyguard to Victoria and being the only private army in Europe, an army ... go ahead.

BTE, The current (11th) Duke of Atholl, wasn't granted the right to 'raise' the army as a 'perk', he voluntarily took on the role as leader following the death of his predecessor in 1996. A nice toy to play with, but hardly much more than a quaint curiosity - like owning one's own theme park, perhaps?

Short of storming the Palace of Westminster, I'm not sure how it could afford him disproprtionate representation in a house of Government, given that the Duke doesn't sit in the Lords.

The American legal system, and system of representation in the states, is completely flat. That's not to say that some families wield more influence than others or that everyone is fair to everyone else, but it does say that everyone gets an even playing field when it comes to the chunk of government representation they get. Rather than 92 Senators saying, "We were born to the office so we get to stay here," those 92 seats are filled by elected representatives. Some may be from powerful families, others (like Obama's) are very middle class or even poor.

Yes, and I believe I addressed that earlier. I'm still not quite sure how you rationalise these 92 having any more influence on Government, after discounting your distaste for how they acheived their position to wield it that is - which I agree.

But only to the other members. At no point does our government recognize or endorse or allow these people any peculiar grace or emolument simply by virtue of their membership in their society. That's a key and important difference.

It's certainly a difference. Of how importance that is, is a matter of perspective, I'd say.

But then I also have to consider that there are still monarchs out there who are true despots (Mswati anyone?) and still have the power to condemn to death, jail indefinitely, or pluck virginal girls from their families at a whim. The problem with the entire system is that it's the luck of the draw. You might get a great king and a good aristocracy, or you could pull a real asshole who only seeks to collect power for selfish reasons. Given that the risk is the welfare of a nation and with no existing mechanism to remove a bad monarch, I'd say that the risk is too great.

Quite true, although in my comments I have been thinking solely in European context, there are without doubt some despots out there. That said, there are a few elected regimes out there that fit that label pretty well.

All I can say is that while my primary desire is for an honest, accountable, transparent and entirely elected Government - if I had to choose, I'll take a 'benevolent' constitutional monarchy over an presidential style republic.

Of course either could change their nature, and one could at least aim to evict an oppressive government through the ballot box. But of course, unseating an upopular monarch isn't without precedent either. So IMO, it's not a right or wrong, better or worse situation - as the results of a couple of hundred years of manipulation on both sides of the pond (and perhaps a rather a few more hundred this side) demonstrate.

I suspect we agree on the key principals, but I don't entirely agree with your interpretation and real significance of some of the details. But then my perspective is perhaps a little different. An interesting exchange of views nonetheless, and one refreshingly free from polarised mud slinging and vitriol as typically pervades the Libs v Cons playarea. :biggrin1:

 

[midlifebear]

Regardless of the taliban and 'Mericuh rants, my favorite photo in yesterday's La Nación (Argentina's "conservative" daily newspaper) was a side view of a smiling Liz (bit top heavy, who knew she is a double D?) with Michelle's left hand firmly pressed against Liz's back while bending down and talking into Liz's right ear. The caption could have easily been, "Aunt Michelle helping great Aunt Liz to the family Thanks Giving dining table." Liz didn't seem at all surprised or annoyed to have some nice, attractive younger lady firmly embrace her back and point her in the right direction. Of course, I'm certain the Royal Watchers are still Twittering one another at such an obvious scandal.

The same edition had many photos of President Cristina Kirchner obviously separated by a couple of meters from the "boyze" club of Brazil's Lula de Silva huddled with a couple of his European buddies as they waited for their seating/standing assignments for the official G-20 photo. And are you aware there are two official G-20 photos? One has Brown sitting left of center on the front row (Obama standing several miles above him on the second row) and a second photo with Liz (sans Brown) sitting directly in the middle of the front row with all the attendees, grinning broadly and clutching a beaded handbag. I think she was having too much fun (or had drank too much monarchy joy juice). God bless her.

Guess which one will be the Royal Christmas card photo?

 

[faceking]

Capitalism should be outlawed. Republicans too.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Capitalism should be outlawed. Republicans too.

"When I taught you to say that, I wanted you to mean it." *
- Faye Dunaway, "Mommie Dearest" (1981)

* OK, so it's a little off. Sue me, Joan!!

 

[AUS-WA]

He shouldn't have. The protocol is that Americans bow to nobody unless the bow is expected to be returned (as in Japan). Bowing to the monarch of the UK is the biggest no-no as it dishonors our fallen war dead. The queen understands this because it is not to she whom the president is bowing, but the crown she represents. It's like the old military saying, "You salute the rank, not the man (or woman)."

Michelle hugging the queen was equally inappropriate.

Imperialism much?

 

[Elmer Gantry]

Remember how much trouble Paul Keating got into when he, erm, "handled" Queen Lizzy?

 

[dong20]

Remember how much trouble Paul Keating got into when he, erm, "handled" Queen Lizzy?

Yes, although there's a somewhat different expectation applicable in his case though, don't you think?

Also, I'd say social positions in respect of the Monarchy have shifted somewhat since then, in both the UK and Australia.

 

[2322]

Here's an interesting piece from the Washington Times about Obama's non-bow to the Saudi King. The article discusses American protocol in such matters. The White House denies that Obama bowed at all, claiming he merely stooped to greet the rather diminutive king so as to greet him face to face.

 

[superbot]

Here's an interesting piece from the Washington Times about Obama's non-bow to the Saudi King. The article discusses American protocol in such matters. The White House denies that Obama bowed at all, claiming he merely stooped to greet the rather diminutive king so as to greet him face to face.

It is ironical that the ghastly Cherie Blair did EXACTLY the same thing.Would NEVER 'bob' to her own Monarch,but was practically horizontal when the Saudi King came to town....But she's gone and they're still here,Hey Ho!!

 

[swordfishME]

Well Obama better be practising his bow- He is meeting the King of Jordan on the 21st at the White House