PDA

View Full Version : Prince Harry in NY



Gregory Tenenbaum
June 1st, 2009, 04:37 PM
This is big news across all the networks. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/may/29/prince-harry-visits-new-york)

Prince Harry (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/prince-harry) arrives in New York (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/new-york) today for a two-day rite of passage that will see him seek to dispel his playboy image and replace it with a patina of empathy in his mother's mould.
The trip, his first official engagement abroad, will take him to Ground Zero today for a meeting with families of some of the victims of 9/11, and to a memorial garden for the 67 Britons who lost their lives in the attacks. He will formally name the garden and plant a magnolia bush.


http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/martin%20rowson/2009/1/11/1231691705363/12.01.09-Martin-Rowson-on-005.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI0W254yPRk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guOlzoD7VrU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL6LI97V7bI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQpslzKB868

This was not such big news.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jan/11/monarchy-race

Its a Royal Craptacular.

If he is so enthusiastic about New York, perhaps he would consider abolishing the tradition of royal birthrights, and regard them rightly as something belonging in the 20th Century (and which died in the fires of Tokyo and Dresden, as those respective empires found out)

MidtownGuy
June 2nd, 2009, 11:17 AM
All royalty and titles should be abolished/ignored. It is the 21st century. Enough with that BS.

Alonzo-ny
June 2nd, 2009, 11:24 AM
They are just the head of state, we could have a insignificant President like, say, Germany or we could have the Royal family who bring in millions in tourism and business every year. I know which I prefer.

ZippyTheChimp
June 2nd, 2009, 11:27 AM
In his newspaper columns, Jimmy Breslin would refer to the British royals as "the world's most famous welfare family."

Alonzo-ny
June 2nd, 2009, 11:29 AM
I believe referring to the money from the public purse which goes to the Royal family? Again ignoring the fact that they bring in more than they cost many times over.

ZippyTheChimp
June 2nd, 2009, 11:33 AM
Maybe it should be a job.

Alonzo-ny
June 2nd, 2009, 11:40 AM
Could you expand on that?

lofter1
June 2nd, 2009, 11:50 AM
Do the British Royals pay taxes on all that Real Estate they hold?

If so, how much per annum?

stache
June 2nd, 2009, 12:01 PM
Their annums are taxed? :p

Alonzo-ny
June 2nd, 2009, 12:01 PM
As far as I know you only pay tax on a property if you buy it (stamp duty) or sell it (capitol gains, if it has increased in value) in this country, there is no 'real estate tax' as far as I know. I wouldnt know as I dont own any. The Queen only owns two properties privately that I know of, both of which she inherited.

Alonzo-ny
June 2nd, 2009, 12:04 PM
Crown Estate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the United Kingdom, the Crown Estate is a property portfolio owned by the Crown. Historically the possession of monarchs, it is now not the private property of the reigning monarch and cannot be sold by him/her, nor do the revenues from it belong to the monarch personally. It is managed by an independent organisation and headed by the Crown Estate Commissioners. The surplus revenue from the Estate is paid each year to HM Treasury. The Crown Estate is formally accountable to parliament, to which it makes an annual report.
The Crown Estate is one of the largest property owners in the United Kingdom with a portfolio worth over £7.33 billion, with urban properties valued at £5.38 billion, and rural holdings valued at £903 million; and an annual profit of £211 million, thus yielding 2.88% as of July 2008. The majority of the estate by value is urban, including a large number of properties in central London, but the estate also owns 272,000 acres (110,000 ha) of agricultural land and forest, more than 55% of the UK's foreshore, and retains various other traditional holdings and rights, for example Ascot racecourse and Windsor Great Park.

ZippyTheChimp
June 2nd, 2009, 12:09 PM
Could you expand on that?Maybe the qualification shouldn't be which uterus happened to be your first home.

That's not much of a resume.

Alonzo-ny
June 2nd, 2009, 12:12 PM
Its a mostly ceremonial role therefore I dont see much point in electing someone for that position. As for a resume they have been in preparation for the role all their lives, as far as I know no-one I could elect would be able to say the same.

stache
June 2nd, 2009, 12:53 PM
that I am aware of that gets elected is the Prom Queen (and King).

lofter1
June 2nd, 2009, 12:54 PM
Crown Estate


Cool deal for HRH and clan.

I guess they must pay rent for Use & Occupancy of all those big digs where they spend their time but do not own, eh?

lofter1
June 2nd, 2009, 01:06 PM
As far as I know you only pay tax on a property if you buy it (stamp duty) or sell it (capitol gains, if it has increased in value) in this country, there is no 'real estate tax' as far as I know.


You might want to let HRH know that she's don't need to pay the bloody RE Tax ... seems she could use the cash (unless her loyal subjects have adjusted the laws to fit her trying circumstances).

A Salary Fit for a Queen

TIME Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,909877,00.html)
June 14, 1971

"They're very good value. What do they cost? A penny a month, a day . . . ? You won't even be able to pee for that when decimals come in."


—The Duke of Bedford

The Duke of Bedford has been proved right. Public toilets cost a new British penny (2.4¢), but maintaining the monarchy costs each of Britain's 55 million citizens less than that a year. Still, the value of the monarchy and how much it ought to cost was the hottest issue in Britain last week.

Regal Cheek. The controversy flared after an article by Richard Crossman, minister in the former Labor government and a member of the Queen's Privy Council, appeared in the New Statesman, a left-wing weekly. Headed THE ROYAL TAX AVOIDERS, the article with uncommon bile lashed out at Queen Elizabeth for requesting an increase in the $1,140,000 royal budget* while continuing to enjoy "a complex system of tax privileges and exemptions," many never fully disclosed, on her private fortune. "One has to admire her truly regal cheek," said the New Statesman article, questioning whether Britons ought to continue to maintain "the clutch of palaces, the powdered footmen, the racing stables and polo ponies, the fleets of luxury cars, the squadrons of aircraft and helicopters, the yachts, the elaborate apparatus of consumption at its most conspicuous level."

Crossman's lèse-majesté evoked a swift and stormy—but divided—response. The Daily Mirror polled its readers, then announced that they had given "a resounding 'no' to the Queen's pay claim." From Manchester a reader wrote: "If we can't afford free milk for our kiddies, we can't afford any increase to a very wealthy family." But Conservative M.P. Sir Stephen McAdden introduced a motion in the Commons deploring the New Statesman article. The Times editorially tut-tutted Grossman's "gratuitously offensive manner." The difficulty is that the royal budget, as presently constituted, is no longer able to support the Crown in the style to which it and its subjects have become accustomed. Of the overall $1,140,000 allotted annually, $444,000 goes for household salaries (319 full-time employees ranging from footmen to curators in the Royal Collections); $292,320 for household expenses (five royal palaces—Buckingham, Windsor, St. James's, Kensington and Holyrood-house—plus royal receptions and garden parties); $31,680 for the Royal Bounty, a fund from which the Queen contributes to charity; plus a $144,000 Privy Purse or salary from which she pays her personal expenses.

Wealthy Woman.

The Queen did not propose how much the increase should be, but she did offer to forgo her $144,000 Privy Purse in exchange for help on other royal expenses. The matter was discreetly referred to a 17-member Select Committee in the House of Commons. The Crossman article raised the question of just how rich the Queen of England is. Though Crossman "conservatively estimated" her fortune at $120 million, no one really knows, and many place it much higher. Surely she is the wealthiest woman in Britain, and in all likelihood one of the half-dozen wealthiest in the world.

A substantial chunk of her riches lies in the Duchy of Lancaster, a 50,000-acre, dairy-rich collection of commercial properties that has belonged to sovereigns since 1399. The Duchy, on which the Queen pays property taxes but not income tax, produced a net income in 1969 of more than $500,000. In addition, the Queen receives revenues from investments, inheritances and farming at Balmoral and Sandringham castles (the only two residences whose expenses the Queen meets from her private funds), and a string of race horses.

The Queen's pay increase is likely to come as much by farther lifting of expenses from her shoulders as by increasing her allowance. In recent years, the government has assumed the cost of royal tours, upkeep of the royal train, and the Queen's postal bills, as well as about $100,000 of the annual cost of state entertainment. Prince Philip, who receives a taxable annual stipend of $96,000, has recently induced the Treasury to pick up the laundry and cleaning bills he runs up on state business. He has not yet had to give up polo or move his family into smaller premises, as he jestingly threatened a couple of years ago on NBC's Meet the Press when he said that the family was "going into the red."

To judge from the outcry that followed the New Statesman's article, Britons will continue to insist on picking up the tab for their monarchy. Crossman himself said: "I am strongly pro-monarchy. The Queen is good at her job—she is better value for the money than the Church of England—and should get the rate for it." Better that, he went on, than "a Copenhagen monarchy cycling around the streets."

-The 1971 U.S. presidential budget, by comparison, is estimated at $11,344,000. This includes a taxable $200,000 for presidential salary, $50,000 (also taxable) for official expenses, $8,336,000 for salaries and expenses of some 500 White House staffers, $1,258,000 for operation of the White House and a special projects fund of $1,500,000.

Copyright © 2009 Time Inc. All rights reserved.

Alonzo-ny
June 2nd, 2009, 01:16 PM
The surplus revenue from the Estate is paid each year to HM Treasury.


The Crown Estate is one of the largest property owners in the United Kingdom with an annual profit of £211 million.

The 200+ million isnt good enough for you? Wouldnt want to rent from you.

Check out this link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_List

It basically explains that the income to HM Treasury from the Crown estate more than covers what the Queen costs the tax payer (Civil list)

MidtownGuy
June 2nd, 2009, 03:56 PM
All of the financial issues aside, it's the very concept of "royalty" that's repulsive and creepy...the idea of "royal blood" in this modern age. I think it contradicts enlightened values and sends the wrong message, that some are born better than others- deserving of special honors and privileges merely by virtue of "lineage".

The brouhaha that ensued because Michele Obama dared to touch the old sea hag was just ridiculous.

stache
June 2nd, 2009, 04:00 PM
The sea hag touched her first!

Fabrizio
June 2nd, 2009, 04:26 PM
it's the very concept of "royalty" that's repulsive and creepy...the idea of "royal blood" in this modern age. I think it contradicts enlightened values and sends the wrong message, that some are born better than others-

Besides G.Britain, Belgium, Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Denmark are all Kingdoms. (Their actual names are "The Kingdom of Sweden", "the Kingdom of Belgium" etc.)

These are modern, enlightened, socially advanced countries ... and their "subjects" have a social-safety net that is guaranteed at birth.

"born better than others" indeed.

Ironic isn't it that "The Kingdom of Sweden" a constitutional monarchy, ranks first in the world in The Economist's Democracy Index.


--

Alonzo-ny
June 2nd, 2009, 04:39 PM
4 Monarchies in the top 5.

stache
June 2nd, 2009, 04:56 PM
Countries with royalty -



Al-Abbasi Nobel Family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Abbasi_Nobel_Family)
Belgian Royal Family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_monarchy)
Royal Family of Bhutan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Wangchuck)
British Royal Family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Royal_Family)
Qatari Royal Family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Thani)
Bahraini Royal Family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Khalifa)
Canadian Royal Family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada#Canadian_Royal_Family)
Danish Royal Family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Royal_Family)
Dutch Royal Family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Royal_Family)
Jamaican Royal Family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaican_Royal_Family) (House of Windsor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Windsor)) - 'Nuff said! -
Japanese Imperial Family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_House_of_Japan#Current_members_of_the_Imp erial_Family)
Princely Family of Liechtenstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princely_Family_of_Liechtenstein)
Grand Ducal Family of Luxembourg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Ducal_Family_of_Luxembourg)



Kingitanga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingitanga) - The Maori King Movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maori_King_Movement)
Monegasque Princely Family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monegasque_Princely_Family)
Norwegian Royal Family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Royal_Family)
Spanish Royal Family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Royal_Family)
Swedish Royal Family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Royal_Family)
Princely Family of Schwarzenberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princely_Family_of_Schwarzenberg) (mediatised)
Saudi Royal Family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Royal_Family)
Thai Royal Family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_Royal_Family)
Zulu Royal Family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zulu_Royal_Family)
House of Tupou (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Tongan_Monarchs)

ZippyTheChimp
June 2nd, 2009, 05:01 PM
the old sea hagSorry, but I have to take a breather.

Fabrizio
June 2nd, 2009, 05:02 PM
^There are many more countries than that "with Royalty".

And please note that there is a difference between countries with royal families and countries with reigning monarchies.

MidtownGuy
June 2nd, 2009, 06:47 PM
These are modern, enlightened, socially advanced countries ... and their "subjects" have a social-safety net that is guaranteed at birth.

"born better than others" indeed.So? Democracy index, social safety nets, blah blah blah. As I said, the idea of royal blood is BS.

lofter1
June 2nd, 2009, 07:49 PM
... there is a difference between countries with royal families and countries with reigning monarchies.

Italy, while no longer ruled by a monarchy, has more Royals (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x516A7UdQN0) than they know what to do with :cool:

A good place to delve into the plusses and minuses of passing leadership down through the blood might be found HERE (http://www.archive.org/stream/mentalmoralhered00wood)

stache
June 2nd, 2009, 08:03 PM
Deposed monarchy only counts to themselves.

RandySavage
June 2nd, 2009, 09:08 PM
I, for one, am very pleased that Britain's monarchy is still prominent.

I am interested in history and military tradition, and there's something about British imperial history that I find particularly fascinating: the regimental system, Pax Britannica; the "imperial century"; Admiral Nelson's navy; "the sun never sets...", etc. The size and power of Britain less than a century ago was incredible - the largest empire in the history of the world - 14,000,000 sq. miles under dominion. America and New York have closely intertwined histories with Great Britain.

So I appreciate today's monarchy and the traditions, places and activities that come with it: the castles, estates, silver-helmeted dragoons, Queen's Own Highlanders bagpiping at the Edinburgh Tatoo. All that pomp and pageantry is fascinating, cool and romantic. If the Royal Family were abolished, you'd have a lot less of it.

Also, Prince Charles uses his money and influence to do a lot of good for UK architecture, urban planning and environment.

Alonzo-ny
June 3rd, 2009, 04:49 AM
Anyone who thinks that the US is free of people who think they are better than everyone else by virtue of their name/ breeding/ social status is sadly mistaken.

Gregory Tenenbaum
June 3rd, 2009, 05:32 AM
Would you take a bullet ie join the Army

for

1. The Queen

or

2. Your nation state.

Different things, see?

Besides, its all nonsense.

This guy should be the King of England. (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/aussie-mike-the-true-king-of-england/2005/09/10/1125772732666.html) Do you see him getting upset?

Thats the difference. I actually think that Charles has this worked out, is more comfortable with himself and is rather cool about the whole thing compared with some of the others.

Gregory Tenenbaum
June 3rd, 2009, 05:41 AM
Britains Real Monarch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0o7vD4uHsU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-dH7cAUU8I&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmBqc75L45g&feature=channel_page

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cXA3R1rvJI&feature=channel_page

Ninjahedge
June 3rd, 2009, 10:23 AM
Anyone who thinks that the US is free of people who think they are better than everyone else by virtue of their name/ breeding/ social status is sadly mistaken.

It's just a question of whether or not that is nationallly embraced and sanctified.

I think what MTG is getting on about is that this is an example of extreme pomp and circumstance that serves very little purpose in general.

I do not see it causing much of a kerfuffle, not compared to the Englisg MP skimming so much money away to pay for their own private expenses, but still it looks to be a needless, albeit comparitively small expense on behalf of the English people.

Alonzo-ny
June 3rd, 2009, 10:39 AM
Side note: Ninja second time you've done it, its Britain and British not England and English. It very American to refer to Britain as England but Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people are part of this country too.

As for the pomp British people enjoy it for the most part. The most recent survey I remember was 75% in favour of the Monarchy and only 15%~ for a republic. Its part of our identity and for that reason people go out in droves at any state occasion.

Fabrizio
June 3rd, 2009, 10:46 AM
"Extreme pomp" is also very asthetically beautiful. And the European Monarchies do it so well. My personal favorite though, is the Vatican in full gear.

By comparison, you guys have the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade.

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7CT7mejyss&feature=fvst

Gregory Tenenbaum
June 3rd, 2009, 10:49 AM
Hapsburgs did it the best. Check out the crypts in Vienna.

stache
June 3rd, 2009, 01:13 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYzRL9YIswQ

Ninjahedge
June 3rd, 2009, 01:39 PM
Side note: Ninja second time you've done it, its Britain and British not England and English. It very American to refer to Britain as England but Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people are part of this country too.

I really don't care.

Really.


As for the pomp British people enjoy it for the most part. The most recent survey I remember was 75% in favour of the Monarchy and only 15%~ for a republic. Its part of our identity and for that reason people go out in droves at any state occasion.

I kow. I am not saying that they aren't. But there are many people in the world that favor silly pompous thnigs.

All you have to to is watch Prime Time in the US or reat the tabloids to realize this. People, in general, are stupid. Stupid people, in general, will support stupid things.

So if paying a few million a year to have this kid romp around at parties wearing a Nazi Costume and play Polo (another quintessentially useless endeavor) in the US, fine. It still serves no other purpose than the expensive entertainment of a brain-dead idological society that fixates on figureheads in the hopes that this somehow reflects some sort of fairy-tale fantasy of mythological "Regality".


Again, this is not isolated to just the English, Scottish, Irish, British, French, Italian, Indian, Swahilli, or South Philidelphans. This is a general human trait to idolize and fantasize, even if it actually costs you money to do so.

Ninjahedge
June 3rd, 2009, 01:41 PM
"Extreme pomp" is also very asthetically beautiful. And the European Monarchies do it so well. My personal favorite though, is the Vatican in full gear.

Beautifully useless.


By comparison, you guys have the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade.

I liked that when I was 10. I have not watched it since.

But whatever.

scumonkey
June 3rd, 2009, 01:43 PM
-Fellini rules!
For a moment, I thought I was watching a preview for season 2 of RuPaul's Drag Race! :D

Fabrizio
June 3rd, 2009, 01:49 PM
I liked that when I was 10. I have not watched it since.




I'd immagine you more of a Tournament-of-Roses Parade kind a guy.

Ninjahedge
June 3rd, 2009, 02:43 PM
I'd immagine you more of a Tournament-of-Roses Parade kind a guy.

Flower power?

I think not, therefore I am not.

ZippyTheChimp
June 3rd, 2009, 03:47 PM
Ironic that it is the UK, and not France, that maintains the silly anachronism of a royal family. England placed restrictions on its monarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_carta) hundreds of years before the French lopped off the head (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_revolution) of Louis XVI, and the immediate result of that was another absolute ruler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_French_Empire).


Besides G.Britain, Belgium, Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Denmark are all Kingdoms. (Their actual names are "The Kingdom of Sweden", "the Kingdom of Belgium" etc.)Please Fabrizio. No one gives a rat's ass about Belgium's King Albert (is that where that joke started?), or homogeneous Norway. The UK is four countries, its royal family is well known internationally, and it projects itself as an international center.

Maybe this thread should be referenced with this one. (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18358&page=5) I remember in some other thread you stated something to the effect that the US had gone through a long period of racial turmoil, but Europe was relatively new to diversity.

Well, time to jumpstart into the 21st century, as MTG said:
All of the financial issues aside, it's the very concept of "royalty" that's repulsive and creepy...the idea of "royal blood" in this modern age. I think it contradicts enlightened values and sends the wrong message, that some are born better than others- deserving of special honors and privileges merely by virtue of "lineage".


"Extreme pomp" is also very asthetically beautiful. And the European Monarchies do it so well.Yes, but what is it they're doing so well? What does a young Brit, who's parents emigrated from Egypt, think when he sees Liz and the rest of the Windsors - that no matter what, he'll never own the country?

Time to put Albert back in the can, and the whole lot on a museum shelf.

Alonzo-ny
June 3rd, 2009, 03:52 PM
While your points may be valid Zippy, you're looking at this from an American perspective so its not surprising that you are not a fan.

The people in these countries support their monarchies, so they will stay until opinion changes.

ZippyTheChimp
June 3rd, 2009, 03:59 PM
My perspective has less to do with being an American, and more to do with not being a European.

Alonzo-ny
June 3rd, 2009, 04:01 PM
Or just being from a republic and one that has never had a monarchy. I do understand all the points put across against monarchies but I just see more positives for the country.

londonlawyer
June 3rd, 2009, 04:09 PM
My English friends are split evenly in supporting or despising the royals. My conservative friends support them, and the liberals do not.

I like them. Prince Charles, and William and Harry, support good causes.

Personally, after Prince William marries Kate Middleton, I think that she should run the country. In fact, I'd like for her to run America too after Obama's second term.

http://thebosh.com/upload/2008/05/15/kate_middleton_decides_not_to_attend_is_peter_phil lips_wedding/Kate-Middleton.jpg

Gregory Tenenbaum
June 3rd, 2009, 04:11 PM
I read with amusement one reader's comment on the Guardian website that Harry would be a good candidate for the Met. (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21210) ;)

Gregory Tenenbaum
June 3rd, 2009, 04:24 PM
Or just being from a republic and one that has never had a monarchy.

Right, because the US Eastern States were never English colonies right? Is there something that wrong with the education system in England that you would say that?

No written constitution, no real Bill of Rights, not even a decent FOI system. Its ironic that the coming of the EU overlords has meant an injection of rights into England that never before existed.

The only benefit the system has is that it is a safety valve in times of dramatic political crisis, such as the advent of a brutal nazi dictator. Under a quite narrow view of her powers, never really exercised, the Queen could then try to remove such a government. I tend to think the people would do that themselves were there such a problem.

Gregory Tenenbaum
June 3rd, 2009, 04:28 PM
Personally, after Prince William marries Kate Middleton, I think that she should run the country. In fact, I'd like for her to run America too after Obama's second term.

What, into the ground? I think after Percival's effort at Singapore nobody has much faith in your leaders being able to run anything, except a POIE and SORCE shop at a soccer match.

Alonzo-ny
June 3rd, 2009, 04:32 PM
Right, because the US Eastern States were never English colonies right? Is there something that wrong with the education system in England that you would say that?



Most people here have been discussing this in a civil manner, cant you do the same?

I was in mind of the times when the country was governed on its own shores, ie pre-colonial and post revolution. There was no 'american' home grown monarchy, just the imported version.

Gregory Tenenbaum
June 3rd, 2009, 04:44 PM
I corrected you and deservedly so.

There was a great tradition of the presence of the English monarchy in the US colonies, and a lot of it remains today, such as state governors, states which are "commonwealths", and continental mercenaries in the WOI (seen by many at the time as an extension of a European civil wars).

The biggest influence you can see today is in the state and federal bills of rights, such as freedom from searches and seizure, rights to property, specific rights to silence etc. That all came as a response to the acts of the Crown and its servants.

Is that something not taught in schools in England? I wonder why?

Alonzo-ny
June 3rd, 2009, 04:50 PM
I was referring to the fact that America has never had a native monarchy and you had to insult how I have been educated.

I have never mentioned anything to imply I do or do not understand the structure of the US government and its origins.

If you want to insult me, PM me and keep the off topic rubbish off the boards.

Gregory Tenenbaum
June 3rd, 2009, 04:55 PM
It was practically founded by a monarchies, in its modern form, and fought over and bought by a succession of others. You clearly do lack a sound understanding of English history and the origins of the US.

Blaming me for your lack of understanding of history isn't going to change what happened.

How about telling us something of Harry. Would you take a bullet ie join the Army to keep him in finery?

Alonzo-ny
June 3rd, 2009, 04:58 PM
Practically founded by foreign monarchies.

You received a PM from a moderator telling you to keep the insults off the boards. If you want to insult me do it by PM.

Gregory Tenenbaum
June 3rd, 2009, 05:04 PM
Thank you for your penetrating wisdom. It never ceases to amaze me how the feeble minded regard a correction or robust debate as fighting words, insult or abuse.

You stated that it was a country that never had a monarchy. All 13 colonies or so had the British Monarchy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteen_Colonies) Just who in the world wrote your history textbook in year 8? This guy? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JPvGPMXF8Q)

Carry on.

Ninjahedge
June 3rd, 2009, 05:06 PM
Or just being from a republic and one that has never had a monarchy. I do understand all the points put across against monarchies but I just see more positives for the country.

And somehow accept the dichotomy of a country that not only rejected, but embraced its Monarchy?

THAT is the weirdest part.

"We're free, Your Highness"

>wark<

Ninjahedge
June 3rd, 2009, 05:08 PM
Practically founded by foreign monarchies.

You received a PM from a moderator telling you to keep the insults off the boards. If you want to insult me do it by PM.


You still read any of his posts that have to do with England?

You probably stop to look at roadkill.

Shame on you!!!!!

Gregory Tenenbaum
June 3rd, 2009, 05:11 PM
Theres nothing funnier than an Englishman on the internet.

OI
CARNT
HELP
MESELF
ROIGHT?

Was that an authentic accent?

Fabrizio
June 3rd, 2009, 05:36 PM
Please Fabrizio. No one gives a rat's ass about Belgium's King Albert (is that where that joke started?), or homogeneous Norway. The UK is four countries, its royal family is well known internationally, and it projects itself as an international center.

Zip: I don't know if I quite get your point. But anyway, besides the Brits, in Europe people really do mostly love and admire their Royal families: Queen Beatrix and Juan Carlos are especially popular as is Akihito in Japan. These people might not be known in the US...they probably don't make the pages of People magazine... but the world does not revolve around what Americans think.



Yes, but what is it they're doing so well? What does a young Brit, who's parents emigrated from Egypt, think when he sees Liz and the rest of the Windsors - that no matter what, he'll never own the country?

Well, considering that Egypt is 90% Muslim and the population is 99% Egyptian... that young Brit whose parents emigrated from Egypt probably has more chance to become Prime Minister of England than a non-Egyptian could in Egypt.

ZippyTheChimp
June 4th, 2009, 09:09 AM
Zip: I don't know if I quite get your point. But anyway, besides the Brits, in Europe people really do mostly love and admire their Royal familiesYes, you missed my point. What people?


as is Akihito in Japan.Another homogeneous society.


but the world does not revolve around what Americans think.The point isn't what Americans think, but what the "people" other than those you refer to might think.


that young Brit whose parents emigrated from Egypt probably has more chance to become Prime Minister of England than a non-Egyptian could in Egypt.An even more absurd connection than the one you made between monarchies and the democracy index.

I correct myself. You get my point

Fabrizio
June 4th, 2009, 10:16 AM
Zip: ^ re: "An even more absurd connection than the one you made between monarchies and the democracy index."

My comment was in respose to this...Midtown wrote:


it's the very concept of "royalty" that's repulsive and creepy...the idea of "royal blood" in this modern age. I think it contradicts enlightened values and sends the wrong message, that some are born better than others- deserving of special honors and privileges merely by virtue of "lineage".

I responded: Ironic isn't it that "The Kingdom of Sweden" a constitutional monarchy, ranks first in the world in The Economist's Democracy Index.

Alonzo noted that actually in the economist rating, 4 out of 5 of the top rated democracies are constiturional Monarchies.

So despite that contridiction of "enlightened values"... despite "the wrong message, that some are born better than others..." etc, ...these countries do pretty well in the Democracy department...

Again: Oh the irony of it all...

----




The point isn't what Americans think, but what the "people" other than those you refer to might think.

Are you saying that immigrants think poorly of King Gustav or Juan Carlos or Elizabeth? Or that their presence makes them feel not a part of society?

Honestly, I've never heard such sentiment about Europe's Royal families by it's immigrants. Have you?

Aren't there long traditions and celebrations in America that immigrants embrace and take part in... or simply live along side with?

----

Some statistics on Europe's "homogeneous" society:

"Switzerland has the highest immigrant population of any European country with more than one and a half million residents, as 23% of its 7.5 million residents are foreign-born. Countries in which immigrants form between 10% and 20% of the population are: Latvia (19%), Estonia (15%), Austria (15%), Ukraine (15%), Croatia (15%), Ireland (14%), Moldova (13%), Germany (12%), Sweden (12%), Belarus (12%), Italy (11,9%),Spain (11%), France (10%) and the Netherlands (10%).[1]"

"Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Belgium, Russia, Greece, Portugal, Slovenia and the United Kingdom each have a proportion of immigrants between 5% and 10% of the total population."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Europe

I don't know how this is compiled... by what critera... but the results are interesting to say the least:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant_population

--

ZippyTheChimp
June 4th, 2009, 11:00 AM
I responded: Ironic isn't it that "The Kingdom of Sweden" a constitutional monarchy, ranks first in the world in The Economist's Democracy Index.What's ironic about it, unless you're trying to make some sort of connection. MTG said nothing about the lack of democracy in Sweden.


So despite that contridiction of "enlightened values"... despite that "wrong message"... these countries do pretty well in the "enlightenment" and "priveleges" department.

Again, what people are you talking about.
----


Are you saying that immigrants think poorly of King Gustav or Juan Carlos or Elizabeth? Or that their presence makes them feel not a part of society?I again refer you to the EU racism thread - and the sending of wrong messages.


Aren't there long traditions and celebrations in America that immigrants embrace and take part in?Why does it seem that when we discuss problems in America, we can stick to the subject; but as soon as a few of Europe's warts are revealed, some Europeans get defensive, and have to resort to the worn out "But in America..."


Some statistics on Europe's "homogeneous" society:Who besides you brought up anything about Europe's homogeneous society. But on that subject, wasn't it you that said Europe is new to diversity? So which is it?

At any rate, the high level of immigration into Europe goes to my point about monarchies.

MidtownGuy
June 4th, 2009, 11:05 AM
Fabrizio wrote:
So despite that contridiction of "enlightened values"... despite that "wrong message"... these countries do pretty well in the "enlightenment" and "priveleges" department.

Again: Oh the irony of it allYes, and I still stand by every word of what I wrote. Anyway, you could just chalk it up as another one of those "mystery and contradictions" you were rattling about in a certain other thread.

Fabrizio
June 4th, 2009, 11:10 AM
Zippy: Sorry but perhaps I'm dense... what can I say?

re: homgenous societies was brought up by you re: Japan "another homogenoues society" Why did you include the word "another". What were you refering to?

---

"The Kingdom of Sweden" a constitutional monarchy + the fact that "monarchies-contradict-enlightened-values-and-send-the-wrong-message-that-some-are-born-better-than-others"..... and yet "Sweden ranks first in the world in The Economist's Democracy rating"

Oh the irony.

I see the connection ...and feel that my comment was an interesting and appropriate observation.

---

MidtownGuy
June 4th, 2009, 11:13 AM
Why does it seem that when we discuss problems in America, we can stick to the subject; but as soon as a few of Europe's warts are revealed, some Europeans get defensive, and have to resort to the worn out "But in America..."

Exactly. :D He does it every single time, like a reflex.

Alonzo-ny
June 4th, 2009, 11:15 AM
or homogeneous Norway.

Fabs points are easy to understand.

stache
June 4th, 2009, 11:16 AM
He's a tired act.

Fabrizio
June 4th, 2009, 11:19 AM
Immigration is a universal... the levels that it is reaching in Europe is a new phenomena... so any discussion of will use the US and it's long history with immigration as a reference... as a comparison.

My doing so is logical.

ZippyTheChimp
June 4th, 2009, 11:25 AM
re: homgenous societies was brought up by you re: Japan "another homogenoues society" Why did you include the word "another". What were you refering to?Why the sudden rash of typos? Something to do with warts?

"Another" was in reference to Norway in the "rat's ass" response to your listing of monarchies. I discounted all the monarchies as secondary to the UK. Japan's racism sometimes borders on the ridiculous. (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25422301-663,00.html)

BTW: I never get tired of your posts, Fab. But sometimes it seems like hit your head on a low doorway.

Fabrizio
June 4th, 2009, 11:32 AM
Typos: I'm working its daytime and not late evening where I have time...and these are not one line "gee I like that building posts." Sorry for the typos.

---

BTW: I never get tired of your posts, Fab. But sometimes it seems like hit your head on a low doorway.

Again: I stand by all my posts here on this subject (except for my uninformed post about Italy fingerprinting).

""Another" was in reference to Norway"

Great... and so I posted the line "Some statistics on Europe's "homogeneous" society:" With no further comment. Whats the problem?

Something to do with warts?

ZippyTheChimp
June 4th, 2009, 11:58 AM
""Another" was in reference to Norway"Well yes, and there was a point to it.


Great... and so I posted the line "Some statistics on Europe's "homogeneous" society:" With no further comment. Whats the problem?OK, so this was just miscellaneous rambling.

Maybe we need an emoticon for these disjointed factoids.

Fabrizio
June 4th, 2009, 12:09 PM
BTW: you might want to check out the following post:



BTW: I never get tired of your posts, Fab. But sometimes it seems like hit your head on a low doorway.

You left out the word "you" ... it should read "But sometimes it seems like you hit your head on a low doorway."

----

We were discussing monarchies. The first person to bring up the word emmigration (immigrants) was you. You also brought up the word homogenous societies.

So I posted statistics about immigration in Europe (separated from my post with a line by the way.)

I think it was logical and not at all disjointed... and gave background for the discussion and the turn it had taken.

Are those warts, by any chance, anal?

--

londonlawyer
June 4th, 2009, 12:30 PM
The lovely Lady Zara Phillips prompts me to proclaim: "Long live the Royal Family!"

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_02/DirtyZaraL_468x649.jpg

When Britain first, at heaven's command,
Aro-o-o-ose from out the a-a-a-zure main,
Arose, arose, arose from out the a-azure main,
This was the charter, the charter of the land,
And guardian A-a-angels sang this strain:



Rule Britannia!
Britannia rule the waves
Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.
Rule Britannia!
Britannia rule the waves.
Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

http://littlelakeview.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/english-flag.gif

stache
June 4th, 2009, 12:36 PM
Looks like nobody threw their jacket over the puddle!

Gregory Tenenbaum
June 4th, 2009, 12:38 PM
English People

The Biggest Joke of White Humanity



http://www.nzetc.org/etexts/WH2-1Epi/WH2-1Epi-f013a%28h280%29.jpg

Since 1942

Do not click here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KdtgoSCXpU)

londonlawyer
June 4th, 2009, 12:47 PM
Tenenbaum: Are you French?

Gregory Tenenbaum
June 4th, 2009, 12:51 PM
Not one bit.

London Lawyer, would you take a bullet, ie join the Army

for this guy?

http://jeanettes-celebrity-corner.com/wp-content/photos/Prince_Harry_RADAR.JPG

londonlawyer
June 4th, 2009, 01:00 PM
No. But I would have for his mum!

Gregory Tenenbaum
June 4th, 2009, 02:04 PM
You mean Di? (http://www.londonnet.co.uk/ln/guide/themes/diana_lovers.html)

She was a great mate of this gentleman. (http://njmg.typepad.com/ervolino/images/2008/03/02/prince_harry_james_hewitt_20050413.jpg)

Yes?

ZippyTheChimp
June 4th, 2009, 02:09 PM
The first person to bring up the word emmigration (immigrants) was you. You also brought up the word homogenous societies.I already explained my use of homogeneous; go back and refresh your memory.

You posted:
Some statistics on Europe's "homogeneous" society:
Was this a counter to my post, or just another factoid? Since I first used the word homogeneous, I assumed the former. My reply was:
Who besides you brought up anything about Europe's homogeneous societyThe boldface was for your benefit.


So I posted statistics about immigration in Europe (separated from my post with a line by the way.)

I think it was logical and not at all disjointedI assume that every post has meaning to a discussion unless told otherwise. My original response to your statistics was that I thought they supported my position.

When you later said...
Great... and so I posted the line "Some statistics on Europe's "homogeneous" society:" With no further comment. Whats the problem?"With no further comment" means what - that it should just be taken as true statistics, no further response required? Or, if as you say, it's "not at all disjointed," then it distorts what I said about a homogeneous NORWAY. So my response was
OK, so this was just miscellaneous rambling.

Maybe we need an emoticon for these disjointed factoids. A bit of sarcasm.

Fabrizio
June 4th, 2009, 05:49 PM
^ I think the only way I'm going to understand all of this is if you draw a diagram.

In the meantime: IMHO the Monarchies of Europe are cool and put on a good show, ok, so they're high maintenance ...but they're a big tourism draw and worth every penny, they're loved by their "subjects"... and occasionally you get a truly delicious wack job like a Lady Di or a Princess Stephanie of Monaco (my personal favorite) to fill the gossip pages of magazines even enjoyed by Filipino Cleaning Ladies.

Europeans seem able to deal with the "wrong message" they send quite well... they just don't seem to mind that their "Enlightened Values" are being contradicted by a Princess Beatrix Wilhelmina Armgard of the Netherlands, of Orange-Nassau and of Lippe-Biesterfeld.

At least as far as I know.

--

ablarc
June 4th, 2009, 07:45 PM
^ Fabrizio, you remind me of myself.

Now that everyone has adopted our populo-rebellious attitudes of thirty years ago, there's nothing left for an old contrarian but to embrace monarchy...

londonlawyer
June 4th, 2009, 08:14 PM
The bizarre monarchy is the Thai one. Thais, overall, are quite poor, and yet they have god-like reverence for their royal family.

stache
June 4th, 2009, 09:55 PM
If they say anything bad about their king or make fun of him, they can be thrown in jail.

londonlawyer
June 4th, 2009, 10:01 PM
Correct.

When I went to Thailand, all of my guidebooks warned -- in no uncertain terms -- against disparaging the royal family, as it would be perceived as highly offensive.

It's quite sad too because the royals don't seem to concerned about the average person. They supported the ouster of Thaksin and all politicians linked to him despite the fact that poor Thais (i.e., most of the population) supported him.

ZippyTheChimp
June 4th, 2009, 10:03 PM
How do they manage?

http://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2006/09/king_bhumibol_adulyadej.jpg

londonlawyer
June 4th, 2009, 10:55 PM
He does look like quite a wanker.

Fabrizio
June 5th, 2009, 03:29 AM
^ Fabrizio, you remind me of myself.

Now that everyone has adopted our populo-rebellious attitudes of thirty years ago, there's nothing left for an old contrarian but to embrace monarchy...

Well, you know, they all come around... it's Sir Paul McCartney, Sir Elton John, Sir Mick Jagger.... Vivienne Westwood is a Dame and Bono is a "Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British"....

Still rebellous after all these years...contradicting "Enlightened Values" and "sending the wrong message" to British born Egyptians and Filipino housekeepers everywhere.

Gregory Tenenbaum
June 5th, 2009, 03:41 AM
In the future, people are going to look back at those titles and think, "what were they thinking?"

stache
June 5th, 2009, 05:18 AM
Bowie is the only one with the good taste to decline knighthood.

Alonzo-ny
June 5th, 2009, 05:42 AM
Only good taste if you dont support the monarchy, even though its the government who does the nominating. Luckily plenty of people do.

Most people are incredibly honoured to receive one of the Queens Honours, I don't really know of an equivalent system where ordinary people are acknowledged by their country/ government.

ZippyTheChimp
June 5th, 2009, 06:58 AM
Bowie is the only one with the good taste to decline knighthood.Jousting should be a requirement.

stache
June 5th, 2009, 08:04 AM
Maybe combined with a drag pageant!

Fabrizio
June 5th, 2009, 08:14 AM
And then there are royal a$$holes :


He's a tired act.

...and you dear, are a tired queen.

--

Alonzo-ny
June 5th, 2009, 08:24 AM
A sheep farmer getting recognised for his hard work by his head of state, wonderful. He is humble and very happy. Does he think he is better than everyone else because he is now a Sir? I dont think so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2_eblhk2AA

stache
June 5th, 2009, 08:58 AM
[QUOTE



...and you dear, are a tired queen.

--[/QUOTE]

Takes one ta know one, DEAR -

ZippyTheChimp
June 5th, 2009, 09:09 AM
Stache, Fabrizio:

You're headed down a bad road.

Gregory Tenenbaum
June 8th, 2009, 01:36 PM
A sheep farmer getting recognised for his hard work by his head of state, wonderful. He is humble and very happy. Does he think he is better than everyone else because he is now a Sir? I dont think so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2_eblhk2AA

Does he realize that despite his good work, in keeping people fed or woolen mills/exports of wool busy (whatever his sheep are), that he is always going to be "lower" than the Queen?

I thought a bearded dude who took on the Roman Army once said that all men are equal?

Fabrizio
June 8th, 2009, 02:29 PM
But certainly a sheep farmer, of all people, as read "Animal Farm":

"All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others"

Gregory Tenenbaum
June 16th, 2009, 10:04 AM
Perhaps the sheep farmer can teach the Queen's staff a thing or two about manners.

In the future, everyone is going to laugh at the fact they were conned for so long. In tribal prehistoric Europe, there probably was a good reason for am hereditary chief. Not so today.

London palace guard attacks student

Published: Jan. 23, 2009 at 4:52 PM

A Colombian tourist said a guard at London's St. James's Palace attacked him for mimicking his marching style.

Nick Ibarra, 23, who is studying at England's Oxford University, said the guard turned to him after noticing the student matching his marching steps, The Daily Mail reported Friday.

"I felt this huge hand on my collar and managed to avoid a boot up the backside but he was growling-like a bear," Ibarra said. "I was worried because he had a bayonet on his gun and didn't want that going somewhere painful. He pushed me away with the gun and I just ran for it."

The incident was caught on tape by Suzanne Cadosch, a friend of Ibarra.

"You often see people pulling faces at the guards and marching along with them but obviously this soldier didn't find it funny," she said. "In hindsight I can understand the soldier losing his cool but it was very frightening."

A colleague of a guard, a member of the 1st Battalion of the Scots Guards of the Guards Division, said the sentry "will be in hot water for losing his cool when he should have ignored it."

The guard is not supposed to leave his post except in cases involving a threat to a member of the royal family.

A Ministry of Defense spokesman said officials will attempt to identify the guard and "speak to him about his behavior."

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/01/23/London-palace-guard-attacks-student/UPI-58761232747528/

Gregory Tenenbaum
June 16th, 2009, 10:06 AM
What utter nonsense it all is. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDPK1kPWj1E&)

ZippyTheChimp
June 16th, 2009, 10:14 AM
http://blog.boxee.tv/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/nurse_jackie.png

Fabrizio
June 16th, 2009, 10:31 AM
^Can I borrow that for another thread?

ZippyTheChimp
June 16th, 2009, 10:42 AM
^
Not for where I think you're going with it.

Fabrizio
June 16th, 2009, 10:48 AM
Uh... I was going to use it in response to this:

http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=287899&postcount=137

I swear.

ZippyTheChimp
June 16th, 2009, 10:56 AM
It's not mine, so go ahead.

Gregory Tenenbaum
June 23rd, 2009, 08:37 AM
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/05/31/article-1189814-0526807B000005DC-631_468x424.jpg

OI wish HE WOZ moi doir loider.

http://www.vibesnetwork.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/prince-harry-grope.jpg

Gregory Tenenbaum
June 25th, 2009, 05:27 AM
Bowie is the only one with the good taste to decline knighthood.

Wasnt aware of that.

Kudos to you Bowie.

From Tenenbaum.

MidtownGuy
June 25th, 2009, 11:38 AM
Yeah, Bowie rocks. The heck with monarchy and titles.

ZippyTheChimp
June 25th, 2009, 11:44 AM
I didn't have wealth or title, but when I was that age, I didn't have to get a woman totally ripped for some boobie.

stache
June 25th, 2009, 01:07 PM
Yes but it always helps! :D

londonlawyer
June 25th, 2009, 01:12 PM
http://www.vibesnetwork.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/prince-harry-grope.jpg

He seems quite funny.

Alonzo-ny
June 25th, 2009, 01:13 PM
I dont think those two could be any faker, and I dont mean the Princes

Ninjahedge
June 25th, 2009, 02:04 PM
OMG a 20-something year old guy is horny for hot chicks.



I guess this would be OK if he were Italian? ;)

londonlawyer
June 25th, 2009, 02:21 PM
I dont think those two could be any faker, and I dont mean the Princes

I agree, but they're magnificent! (.)(.)

ZippyTheChimp
June 26th, 2009, 07:55 AM
Yes but it always helps! :DLaw of diminishing returns. ;)

Gregory Tenenbaum
April 14th, 2010, 06:32 PM
Correct answer Zip.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/07/09/prince_harry_wideweb__470x365,0.jpg

ZippyTheChimp
June 26th, 2010, 10:20 AM
Prince Harry called a sharp shooter
at West Point

BY Erica Pearson AND Samuel Goldsmith
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

Saturday, June 26th 2010, 4:00 AM


http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2010/06/26/alg_prince_harry.jpg
Rachman/AP

Prince Harry started his three-day visit to New York with a bang yesterday at West Point, where the camouflage-clad lieutenant shot target practice with American cadets.

Before heading to Manhattan, Harry, third in line to the British throne, landed at the military academy by helicopter.

He hopped in the back of a Humvee and went straight to the firing range for live-ammo exercises.

The red-headed royal, 25, who has settled down after some youthful hijinks and served in Afghanistan in 2008, fired an M4 rifle alongside cadets at popup, silhouette targets as far as 300 meters away.

"He clearly knows what he's doing," said Col. Casey Haskins, an academy instructor. "He clearly knows how to shoot. He clearly knows how to move."

"He seems like a really down-to-earth guy," said Cadet Kristen Griest of Orange, Conn.

From West Point, Harry traveled down the Hudson to the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum.

The prince - who said it was "a bit of a 'pinch yourself' moment" to stand on the Intrepid's flight deck - spoke about the long military ties between the U.S. and the UK.

"American and British forces have fought shoulder-to-shoulder for 100 years," he said, adding that the countries should forge stronger links between their veterans.

"We in Britain can learn from the American culture of charity, and from the great pioneering work in the fields of care, prosthetics and rehabilitation," he said.

Harry will throw the first pitch at the Mets game against the Minnesota Twins today. Tomorrow, he'll visit with wounded vets in Central Park and attend the Veuve Clicquot Polo Classic on Governors Island.

epearson@nydailynews.com