[QUOTE=Saint Cad]
So let’s say a charismatic monarch wanted to flex their political muscle. Nothing dictatorial, just refusing to give Royal Assent on a couple of bills…
[/QUOTE]
A thread I started on that very topic: Should the Queen veto a bill sometime, just to show she still can? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board
[QUOTE=Lust4Life]
As to your unflattering opinion of the U.K. you wouldn’t be of Irish extraction perchance?
[/QUOTE]
Close, in a sense; I’m English.
Thanks for playing.
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
Absolute rubbish, the sort of nonsense spouted by the English simply to make themselve still feel important.
[/quote]
British. Amazing how it’s always the English when talking about some terrible happenstance, otherwise it’s the British 
And still feel important? We’re one of the world’s biggest economies, a banking centre, a nuclear power, second only in annual military spending to the US, an intellectual and cultural powerhouse (take a look at the number of Nobel prizes won in e.g. medicine by British subjects, for example). Not to toot our own horn, or anything 
When the likes of China implode in the next century due to its rapid, unsustainable growth and endemic corruption, get back to us. We’ll still be here, us and our queen. 
When the two heads of state are linked by a phone line, and both close allies, what’s the point of sending your best diplomat?
Dominic : Calm down matey, don’t rise to the bait.
You know that they’re just jealous of us, innit?
Heh, all in jest, hence the smilies 
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Close, in a sense; I’m English.
Thanks for playing.
[/QUOTE]
Well of course you are,just like all the other millions of English people living in Orlando and who have unfortunately lost their English accent and who seem to know very little about their native country.
Gor Blimey Guv.wheres me bowler hat and pinstripe suit?
And now I’m afraid I’ll have to leave you to play with yourself.
[QUOTE=Dominic Mulligan]
British.
And still feel important? We’re one of the world’s biggest economies, a banking center, a nuclear power, second only in annual military spending to the US, an intellectual and cultural powerhouse (take a look at the number of Nobel prizes won in e.g. medicine by British subjects, for example). Not to toot our own horn, or anything
When the likes of China implode in the next century due to its rapid, unsustainable growth and endemic corruption, get back to us. We’ll still be here, us and our queen.
[/QUOTE]
Well to honest Dominic I may well have been overly modest about our achievements,a nation the size of a postage stamp that went on to rule the largest empire on Earth in history and that achievment alone will probably never ever be equalled by any nation in the future not even by our American cousins.
Our language is the most widely spoken one on the planet(and yes I haven’t forgotten Mandarin but that tends to be spoken in only one country)for business,trade and even international air traffic control amongst other things.
When we look at the nations that nottoobright the well known Englishman was raving about,China,exporter of shoddily made toxic tat to the world whatever the cost to the enviroment in pollution,whatever the cost in human life by mining accidents or mercury poisoning,forcing their own people to work in sweat shops for starvation wages (and dont expect to live too long if you protest against the government or the local party officials who have stolen your farm)
And that other paragon of power Russia that nottoobright admires so heartily where the organised crime makes the American Mafia look like Robin Hood and his merry men,where political opponents are murdered and opposition parties are effectively gagged,where the ex KGB thug Putin rattles his sabres at every opportunity just so that Russia can get noticed and taken seriously,but he doesn’t seem to understand that the civilised world consider his nation in the same light that respectable citizens consider the immature neighborhood bully boy.
Looking at that we haven’t done too badly.
It takes more then a nation to be large and chockfull of resources to make it a great nation,as opposed to a great big nation.
[QUOTE=Cunctator]
As I’ve noted before to this assertion, there is plenty of evidence, provided by practically every PM who has served her and appreciated the depth of her political and constitutional experience and the soundness of her advice.
[/QUOTE]
Obviously, since the voters generally like the idea of a Monarchy, there is a lot to be gained by politicians saying how much they enjoy meeting with the Queen.
If you could give a cite for **any idea ** HM has ever come up with, that would be appreciated. 
[QUOTE=Lust4Life]
I dont suppose that your antipathy to the Windsors could be just a teensy weensy bit prejudiced by your conviction that Diana was an angel incarnate in spite of all the revelations that have come from many different sources that maybe she wasn’t ?
Though interestingly enough all the allegations about her dreadful treatment by the Windsors have been found to originate with her in spite of her instructing the journalists she met privately in Kensington restaraunts to publish her fairy stories as information supplied by "Friends of Diana?
Giving her little stories a spurious air of both authenticity and impartiality when read in the following days tabloids.
A little bit similar to the anonymus phone call from an “ordinary member of the public
" late one night to inform the press that Saint Diana was making a” secret " visit to all the sweet little Kiddywinks in the Great Ormond street hospital.
What a charming little story that would have been if only it hadn’t of been spoiled by the Press recognising her mobile phone number.
I dont know about her being the "Princess of Hearts"but she was most certainly the Princess of Many Faces.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think much of Diana, apart from the fact that she shook hands with an AIDS victim and supported a land mine clearance program.
She certainly knew how to organise publicity for herself. However she was treated badly by her husband.
My antipathy to the Royal family is based on the facts, e.g. :
How does one commit adultery before marriage? 
[QUOTE=Siam Sam]
How does one commit adultery before marriage? 
[/QUOTE]
Camilla was married.
[QUOTE=Struan]
Camilla was married.
[/QUOTE]
Then she committed adultery, not Prince Charles. Until he was married, that is.
[QUOTE=Siam Sam]
Then she committed adultery, not Prince Charles. Until he was married, that is.
[/QUOTE]
That varies by jurisdiction.
[QUOTE=Siam Sam]
Then she committed adultery, not Prince Charles. Until he was married, that is.
[/QUOTE]
Let’s put it like this.
He fell in love with Camilla. But if he’s married her, he might have lost his Royal privileges (including the money).
So he married Diana, but carried on sleeping with Camilla, even when they were both married.
I couldn’t give much of a a f*ck ( ) who people normally sleep with (except they should respect their partners), but I detest politicians who claim ‘family values’ and Royals (who should set an example for the fortune we pay them, or get a job).
[QUOTE=glee]
I couldn’t give much of a a f*ck ( ) who people normally sleep with (except they should respect their partners), but I detest politicians who claim ‘family values’ and Royals (who should set an example for the fortune we pay them, or get a job).
[/QUOTE]
I agree with you about hypocritical politicians, but I can’t hold the Royal family to that same standard - they’re no better than they ought to be in matters sexual.
I was looking around to find out what the legalities of adultery were up here and it turns out that nowadays its only used as grounds for divorce, but older laws seem to be still around…
Perhaps when next Charles and Camilla visit Balmoral we could get them shipped off to Pitcairn or South Georgia…
[QUOTE=Struan]
Perhaps when next Charles and Camilla visit Balmoral we could get them shipped off to Pitcairn or South Georgia…
[/QUOTE]
Just what have the inhabitants done to deserve that being inflicted on them
[QUOTE=Siam Sam]
How does one commit adultery before marriage?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Siam Sam]
Then she committed adultery, not Prince Charles. Until he was married, that is.
[/QUOTE]
It takes two (or more) to tango. If Prince Charles was not married, but his sexual partner was married, then both would have committed adultry. Have a look at s. 49 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, and for a historical persepective, dig about on the pre-1857 common law action of Criminal Conversation in which the cuckold could sue the adulterer who had the affair with with cuckold’s spouse.
[QUOTE=glee]
I don’t think much of Diana, apart from the fact that she shook hands with an AIDS victim and supported a land mine clearance program.
She certainly knew how to organise publicity for herself. However she was treated badly by her husband.
My antipathy to the Royal family is based on the facts, e.g. :
To answer your points,Dianas embracing of mine clearance and aids charities might well have been motivated by a genuine sense of compassion,though reportedly she had never expressed the slightest interest in the topics before ,even to her closest friends or it could have been a part of her longstanding campaign to try to embarass the British political establishment.
Judging by her previous habitual lying and character assasination against those who had in her eyes comitted real or imaginary slights against her I am more inclined to believe the latter,but that is only my personal opinion.
As to being badly treated by Charlie,in the first place it was a dynastic marriage,he was originally destined to marry her older sister as delegated by the politicos but she revealed herself as a loose cannon so lost the opportunity.
Diana put herself forward in her place although she’d only met Charlie once before when she was about fourteen.
I can imagine a girl falling in love with Brad Pitt or Orlando Bloom without having met them before but I’m sorry I cant visualise it with Charlie.
As to adultery Charlie was ordered to stay away from Camilla after the marriage and did so,whereas Diana,not the brightest of sparks sneaked out of Kensington Palace literally weeks after the wedding one night when she was under the impression that her bodyguards were asleep(they weren’t) and drove to an apartment in Sloane square owned by an unidentified bachelor and stayed there all night with the lights out before sneeking back into kensington palace before the staff got up.
Of course she could have been playing cards all night in the dark.
Her B.Gs stayed outside the flat all night and followed her back to the palace.
It is on record in the police log and the radio log.
When informed that her "Little indiscretion "was known about she became very much more cunning in her attempts to throw off her police protection.
Later on she allegedly committed adultery with Hewitt,Carling,a BBC reporter,old uncle tom cobbley and all.
Its a wonder that Charlie held back for so long before going back to the woman he loved after the increasingly more blatent affairs of Diana.
As to paying taxes for one they have been voluntarily handing over their very extensive revenues from the Crown Estates (which are their personal property,not the property of the government or the taxpayers)in return for the Queens allowance (so that we actually make money from the Windsors.)
And it seems to be an exercise in futility their handing money to the Beauracrucy merely for it to be handed back to them.
The Queen mum was an old lady who enjoyed a flutter on the ponys,hardly a gambling addiction.
Margaret was a loathsome woman who I genuinlly couldnt stand ,she was so far up her own arse she could see what she had for breakfast.
[QUOTE=Usram]
Amid all the wild claims that have been thrown about in this thread of late, I would like to know more about this one. I’m not necessarily saying it’s incorrect, I just wish to know more. US ambassadors to Britain are expected to personally pay towards the cost of buttering up the Brits? It’s considered a second-rate posting? This is totally news to me.
[/QUOTE]
Now now, I didn’t say a “second-rate posting.” But yes, it is well known here that the Ambassador to the Court of St. James is often picked in large measure for his/her ability to show up in style. It didn’t always used to be true, of course. In our early years, the position was one of the highest postings available. Note that the names of five future presidents are included. However, as time passed, and the relationship between the two countries became more certainly secured towards a relatively benign common viewpoint, the posting began to be given to people who were not diplomats, but, rather were well-to-do supporters of the President.
Witness within the last 50 years the following appointments:
William Crowe (former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who after retiring and becoming active on several corporate boards, was rewarded with the post by President Clinton, whom he had supported during the election)
And, of course, our current ambassador, Robert Tuttle, hardly your career diplomat.
Are there exceptions? Yes, on occasion. President George Herbet Walker Bush named two career diplomats to the post, Henry Catto and Raymond Seitz. I think this was a reflection of the fact that that president had himself been an ambassador (to the U.N.) and an administration official, and had some strong beliefs about having capable people in ambassadorships. Sadly, this trend was repudiated by both President Clinton and President Bush the Younger.
[QUOTE=Dominic Mulligan]
British. Amazing how it’s always the English when talking about some terrible happenstance, otherwise it’s the British
[/QUOTE]
Um, I chose “English” on purpose. I’m quite well aware of the differences; I’m a bit of an Anglophile myself, which those who know me well on the Board would know. But the concept of the English Empire as still important is hardly a notion that would be embraced by the Scots, the North Irish, or the Welsh. All that we’re so grand stuff is English at its heart and soul. So the sort of silliness that has been espoused by Lust4Life, most of which is clearly undeserving of much attention at all, isn’t “British” but “English,” in my opinion.