So, my understanding is that the 'royals' are a bunch of in-breds.

[laststeamtrain]

Big ears, weak chins, when they shake your hand it feels like they handed you a fish, weird faraway look in their eyes, goofy smiles.

And there's a special protocol when you meet them?

I'd think the protocol would be to keep an eye on them in case they get irrationally violent all of a sudden.

Didn't we have some could of dust up with these people around 1776? Got rid of all that bowing & scraping jive?

[biopowertoday]

1. DU makes Democrats look stupid with those type comments (and

yes there are these type comments). Leave this muck to the repugs!

[ddeclue]

51. PLEASE I BEG OF YOU NO MORE POSTS TO THIS THREAD - LET IT DIE LET IT SINK

[laststeamtrain]

56. You are the king of monarchical democrats. You don't exist. You can't exist.

In answer to your begging I say, "No".

Thus I refute you.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. The Queen's also the head of state. And there's a thing called "diplomacy."

Being diplomatic with the queen does not mean Obama is in fact one of her subjects.

In the same way that this:



does not actually mean Obama is a secret muslin terrist.

Yet there are some very dumb people who still get upset anyways.

[mitchum]

3. That's why they look like hillbillies in expensive clothes

[madokie]

35. Hillbillies

huh :shrug:

[mitchum]

38. Well, did you take offense as a crumpet-sucking Limey or a cracker peckerwood?

C'mon, ya gotta give me more than that.
You overly sensitive white people can be so vague in your rage at times.

[datasuspect]

74. that's "son of the soil" to you, blackguard!

[Occam Bandage]

4. I'm fairly certain that we fought the Revolutionary war to abolish international protocol, yes.

That's why George Washington famously noogied the French ambassador upon hearing news of the signing of the Treaty of Paris. And who can forget the stirring symbolism of the 21-middle-finger salutes with which America traditionally greets visiting dignitaries?

[truebrit71]

5. .

:eyes:

[supernova]

6. Actually, by all accounts Liz II is

a very sweet old lady who was not supposed to be monarch, but who has nonetheless done the best by her country as far as she as been able. And she's very up to day, replacing light bulbs in her castles with CL bulbs, even and keeping up with the grandkids by text and email. Apparently she loves the 'net like the rest of us.

She's the Head of State of our oldest, dearest ally and best friends, as such she does deserve our respect.

Philip, OTOH. :yoiks:

[EFerrari]

22. Wasn't France our oldest dearest ally until BushCo?

[supernova]

23. France are our BFFs

I consider the UK more like family.

[Baby Snooks]

49. Apparently the White House no longer believes in protocol...

Michelle Obama's "hug" no doubt has left most people in Great Britain aghast. You just don't do that. But after her last visit here with all the violations of protocol by the Bushes I suppose she expected the worst and apparently isn't going to be disappointed.

At least Michelle Obama hasn't called her "Elizabeth." Yet. Only her family and close friends are allowed to do so. And only in private. In public they address her simply as "ma'am" out of respect - I forget all the rules but I believe if she addresses a "commoner" a third time, at that point they are allowed to address her as "ma'am" but few reach the third time.

That said I guess if she survived George W Bush she can survive anything.

It was her father who was not supposed to be monarch. And her mother never forgave the Duchess of Windsor for it. When the Duke of Windsor died, HM allowed the Duchess of Windsor to stay at Buckingham Palace after the funeral to finally meet her family so to speak. Everyone came to the palace to meet her. Everyone except the Queen Mum. Who of course had already met her. And vowed never to speak to her again. And didn't.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

7. I'd guess you don't understand much. n/t

[cali]

8. Why do you care?

And Americans are under no obligation to bow and scrape to the Queen. For that matter, neither is anyone else. Nothing dreadful will happen to you if you breach protocol.

[anigbrowl]

9. BACK THE FUCK UP - is this an Internet Tough Guy I see here? Woah!

[Ikonoklast]

10. FTB.

Here are my sentiments as far as 'royalty' are concerned:

[Bicoastal]

54. Yeah, cuz look how great the French Revolution turned out...

...most people are ignorant of the fact that post-Robespierre and post-Napoleon, France was once again ruled by titled kings until 1848, and by an autocratic monarch (Napoleon's nephew) until 1870.

I'm no fan of monarchies and a huge supporter of Democracy worldwide, but geez, the guillotine is an AWFUL symbol for democracy; not only is it gruesome, but it didn't really solve anything in the long run.

[JackRiddler]

57. It turned out great, 200 years down the line.

Human progress has been a very mixed affair, but looking back today the Revolution was a gateway to something better. And the French aren't chopping heads or executing anyone today, but thanks to that tradition they're very rambunctious on the streets and it produces excellent results for them as a people, comparatively speaking. Higher wages, better standard of living, more vacation time, and much better relative protection against the predations of international banking plunder, as we are seeing (France being one of the best-insulated countries from the financial crisis). Hope they also learn to stop being imperialist and racist. And here's hoping for similar upheavals in the US - I'm more for 1968 than 1789, I assure you.

[Bicoastal]

60. But what was REALLY gained by beheading the entire Royal family?

Absolutely nothing. They easily could have been exiled or even imprisoned, but instead the French chose the guillotine. It was barbaric, and it produced so much sympathy for the surviving members of the royal family that when Napoleon lost power, many were happy to have the ancien regime back in charge...at least for a time.

Their 19th century was so turbulent--I would never trade ours for theirs. Coups and numerous revolutions may seem like "democracy in action," but they have the nasty side effect of producing a heck of a lot of collateral damage.

[JackRiddler]

62. No, the French royals could not have been exiled.

The royals were captured in an attempt to get out of the country, where they intended to lead the European monarchist powers' equivalent of the French contras. Exile was exactly what they wanted, so that they could return at the head of a foreign army and kill all their enemies. Now I don't support execution, ever, let's be clear, but after that they were a huge danger long as they breathed.

I'm sorry, but your comment compels a question: What do you actually know about the history of the Revolution? French aristocrats in exile spearheaded a concerted attack on the country by foreign powers (led by Austria) in the years after the constitutional monarchy was established. This preceded and prompted what became the Jacobin terror. It also reaped the foreign powers defeat at the hands of the better-mobilized French. These things are just not simple, and acquire dynamics that no one person or group chooses.

And I'm not advocating trading the 19th century for this one, nor do I support physically impossible initiatives of any kind. I neither advocate nor condemn that distant world, or any given part of it. We should learn from all history, and not succumb to cliche renderings (like the common idea that all democracy is mob rule, so elite control and authoritarianism are necessary).

[Bicoastal]

63. I guess I was mixing up the Romanovs and the Bourbons.

For some reason, I thought thought the King's entire family was guillotined, which isn't true. His son died in jail; his daughter was permitted to leave France, eventually returned, and died in the 1850's. The King's sister was executed, and it sort of remains unclear as to whether she was guilty of the crimes she was accused of. But I'll concede the point.

I'll also concede you seem to know more about the era. And I will freely admit that, in this case, exiling the Royal Family was out of the question; some monarchs WERE exiled, especially in the 20th century, and never made it back to power. Could Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette have been imprisoned for life? Was killing the Royals really the only option for the First French Republic to survive ? And what bugs me is that there are always, always, ALWAYS plenty of people who do not deserve to die even by the standards of their executioners. The Romanov execution, you must admit, was complete and utter overkill.

Our founders were lucky--they were an ocean away from our erstwhile monarch, and George Washington had the utter decency to not grab more power for himself, even when it was all but handed to him. Sure, we had our Revolution and plenty of blood was spilled, but when all is said and done, we actually had one of the smoothest transitions from monarchy to president in the history of the modern world. 220 years with the same constitution, the same republican government, and no coups to speak of (unless you count 2000) is a record we can all be proud of.

[sharp_stick]

11. Classy, really classy

This is the kind of shit I thought I'd left with the pukes, didn't expect to see that here.

Either that your your one of those GREEN PAPIST SON'S OF BI..... whew, ancestry almost got away from me there. ;-)

[azmouse]

12. I guess this is why we are called 'Ugly Americans'...

Tacky and tasteless and not funny at all...

[malaise]

16. Lots of folks across the globe detest royalty

Many are not American. There is no place for royalty in democracies. Enough of that crap.

[azmouse]

21. I guess this is just the latest issue to get panties in a wad over....

Royalty has been around for a long time. I don't see any reason to bad mouth people who haven't done anything to you.

[cali]

27. Isn't that up to the people of countries where there are

constitutional monarchies? Seems that folks in Denmark, Belgium, Japan and other countries don't hate royalty- much as you're projecting that on them.

[Baby Snooks]

50. She is more a symbol than a queen...

She actually has a "common side" to her as her mother did which has endeared her to the people. I forget how it is set up but most of her income goes to the government and she is in essence given an "allowance" to run everything with. I read somewhere that some years she has to "add to the pot" and does so willingly rather than expect the taxpayers to pick up the shortfall.

While Parliament "rules" Great Britain, the monarch still has some power. The monarch has the right to "overrule" Parliament and in essence "dismiss" it and call for new elections - the monarch alone defends the Constitution. There was great concern over the EU Constitution. In the end, she would have prevailed.

No one knows what Parliament may do when she dies. Most expect it will attempt to remove the monarch from all but a "ceremonial" position. And probably will succeed. The rest of the royals are a little too royal but also a little too common - the scandals knocked everyone off their pedestals finally. Everyone but her.

She actually is "out and about" a lot especially when the family is at Sandringham or Balmoral Castle and a lot of people don't recognize her at first. Shopkeepers love her. As do the "villagers." Her children are a different story. Princess Anne in particular.

She really is the last of the royals in a way. And may be the last of Great Britain as we know it.

[Jersey Devil]

13. We are not pleased by your comment

E. Regina

[RB TexLa]

14. The president this morning said that Americans "value what the queen stands for"

Yeah, like we value a big piece of shit. :puke:

[Orsino]

33. Backing the hell away from political power in favor of democracy?

That's cool by me. I don't mind monarchs who know they're just figureheads, and who confine themselves to good works and inspiration.

[malaise]

15. As a victim of British imperialism for way longer than you

I'll never understand the fascination with the royals. I started bashing the queen before I was four.

[edbermac]

17. Oh yeah, let's handle the royals like Lenin did.

:sarcasm:

[snake in the grass]

25. That would be a start.

They are nothing but thieves and plunderers whose ancestors happened to have bigger militias. I can appreciate protocol but, otherwise, I wouldn't give this scum the time of day.

[Bicoastal]

55. Um, Lenin had the royals--even the youngest children--AND their servants shot and dismembered.

But that's the sort of thing you find "messy but necessary," eh?

Fucking ghouls.

[snake in the grass]

65. Yeah, that's exactly what I said except...

...you forgot the part about eating the children afterwards. A plump royal toddler would make a fine roast.

[Bicoastal]

66. Sarcasm received loud and clear. I just happen to think approving of Lenin's treatment of the

Romanovs is maybe not the most tasteful OR liberal way to express your disapproval of the monarchical system vis-a-vis democracy.

I think it's callous and frighteningly ignorant, frankly.

[snake in the grass]

67. Ok, here you go.

I am not really for killing them (I oppose the death penalty even for the most heinous criminals like we had in the previous administration). Sorry you didn't recognize the hyperbole. However, I stand by my statement that they are nothing but glorified thieves and plunderers, whose present existential relationships to their respective states is not unlike that of the parasite to its host.

[mitchum]

73. Actually, killiing all of the Romanov parasites denotes wisdom, not ignorance

Killing the entire "royal" line prevents later attempts to return an "heir" to his or her
"rightful place"

[mitchum]

40. A most excellent suggestion for dealing with hereditary parasites

[TahitiNut]

45. Agreed.

:thumbsup:

[WI_DEM]

18. She has also met every US president since Truman (except LBJ) and meets weekly

with the Prime Minister to go over what is happening in her government. Yes, she is a head of state, but it's still considered her government.

[RB TexLa]

19. LBJ's stock just went up here.

[progdonkey]

20. two things...

First, no, they're not "in-breds." The Queen and Prince Philip are second cousins, once removed through Christian IX of Denmark and third cousins through Queen Victoria (she's a great-great grandmother to both). Yes, that's closer than most educated and mobile people are to their spouses, but it's hardly being inbred.

Second, why should any American give a fuck? Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of State of the United Kingdom, which has been our closest ally for nearly 200 years. Yes, we broke from them in 1776 and hostilities continued through the War of 1812, but that was, again, almost 200 years ago. Furthermore, she's not only the head of state of the United Kingdom, but also of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. Do you want Obama to insult those countries too by refusing to treat Elizabeth with due respect? Should Obama spit in the face of King Juan Carlos of Spain as well, because he's a "royal" and many Americans come from the former Spanish colony of Mexico?

[closeupready]

28. "closest ally for nearly 200 years"? WTF. Does that include when they burnt down the White House?

Respectfully call us an 'experiment'?

[progdonkey]

29. yes, considering they did that in 1814...

Which is why I said nearly 200 years. :eyes:

And the "experiment" line is something that American historians use as well: "the Great American Experiment." Modern representative democracy as practiced in the United States since the Declaration and the Constitution is only a little over 200 years old, after thousands of years of monarchy, dictatorship, feudalism, etc. Viewed in the scope of tens of thousands of years of world history, the United States really is an "experiment." We may be going 200 for 200 so far, but don't pretend that that's anywhere near the norm for history. That's what makes the United States so special, too, though.

By the way, Thomas Jefferson (that anti-American bastard) called it the American Experiment as well.

[AngryAmish]

72. Why do we care? Because every free person should detest royalty

Get off of your knees and be responsible for your own life.

[sinkingfeeling]

24. Your ignorance is certainly showing on this day for fools.

[Mojambo]

26. Royalty blows. n/t

[laststeamtrain]

30. So, I've flushed out a new form of oxymoron: the pro-monarchical democrat.

Who knew?

Thanks for straightening me out. I think I'll pass though. Obvious contradictions are so... well, obvious.

Wait...is this part of being a 'new' democrat?

:crazy:

[mitchum]

41. Unfortunately, Anglophilia can strike Yahoos across the political spectrum

Fuck those crumpet sucking twits

[TexasObserver]

61. Yes. Be progressive, but do remember to curtsy!

I suppose the rabid royalty fans should not surprise us. We have the "screw that 16 year old who got eaten by a tiger, he should have been more careful" contingent. We have the "don't you dare about that former Nazi called the Pope" contingent. We have the "the death penalty is too good for Bernie Madoff" contingent.

They just don't make progressives like they used to.

[noamnety]

31. Ugh (part II)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8308189#8308191

[Orsino]

32. The truth is even uglier.

They believe that some people should be born into wealth and power, and that only particularly good-looking commoners should be tapped for membership in their exclusive club.

Stereotyping and ridiculing their appearance trivializes the true threat of royalism.

[TahitiNut]

47. Yup. But we've been "Disneyfied"

Brainwashed ... from 'Cinderella' to 'The Prince & Me.' Appalling.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

58. But, "Momma"

"We can't go mixing around with the commoners..."

It's spring cleaning time in 'Royal Oaks'.

[ddeclue]

34. Gratuitous flame bait and tacky...

:(

[HCE SuiGeneris]

59. You're a tool.

[bridgit]

36. -33

[MasonJar]

37. What a totally uncalled for and stupid post!

[Maru Kitteh]

39. I had a some could of dust up once.

But somehow, you make it sound even stupididider.

[Stinky The Clown]

42. "Big ears, weak chins .........."

This guy's a royal, too?

See how well he hides his ears under the 80s haircut?

[TripleKatPad]

43. Sorry, but my 7th-grade-humor-muscle atrophied

when I was 15. I am 16+ now.

[flvegan]

44. Look, Kansas City's baseball program isn't the best, but

there's no need for name-calling.

[spoony]

46. lol

Best response :)

[anonymous171]

48. There is nothing more American than hating on the British. nt

[leftofthedial]

52. Aren't the bushes descended from Yurpian royalty?

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mr. Hyde]

64. I don't care for royalty either but our British friends seem to like their queen

so I would be as polite as possible to her too.

[mr blur]

68. Well I wish she wasn't there but I don't dislike her -

I don't even know the woman.

Still, if it came to a choice between the Windsor royal family and the Bush royal family...

[LeftishBrit]

69. I'm no royalist and would prefer a 'figurehead' president as head of state..

but if one must have hereditary monarchs, I'd rather have Lizzie than Mad King George.

This isn't 1776 any more, and we're not enemies. And I'm very glad to see a good and intelligent President like Barack Obama visiting my country, instead of the aforesaid Mad King.

[RB TexLa]

71. Not everyone in America is descendant of people who have been here since the 1700's, many of us have

plenty of other reasons for hatred of your people.

[Cid_B]

70. Something about the royals...

brings out some really scummy behavior in people. Not in the "They are the chosen ones" sense but in the "It's indecent to make fun of entire families with emphasis on the elderly" sense. Disgusting.