Diamond Jubilee

joseph brand

Batsy wrote: »

Just picture a tiny little terraced home in Cork, where the occupants earn a pittance. An older couple in a house that smells of must. Over the mantlepiece hangs a picture of Creaky D Higgins, the President of Ireland. Lots of other paraphernalia celebrating Ireland's Republic adorns the walls and coffee table in the 6ft squared living space.

But, whilst these people are living in squalor, their President 160 miles away in Dublin is living in a lavish palace that could put Buckingham Palace to shame, a large, extravagant building of 92 rooms set in a park that is almost 2,000 acres in size.

Yet, whilst living in this scrumptious palace, many of his people live in poverty and misery. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

Hasn't a patch on Buckingham palace. Never mind Windsor castle, Palace of Holyroodhouse, Sandringham, Balmoral, etc etc.

Our President was voted in.

The royal family are crooks and gangsters. How did they 'acquire' their vast swathes of land and all their jewels and gold?

Also, we don't have these for our President:



You can also buy Lizzie towels, posters, key-rings, coasters, toilet paper and bin bags.

who the fug

Batsy wrote: »

Just picture a tiny little terraced home in Cork, where the occupants earn a pittance. An older couple in a house that smells of must. Over the mantlepiece hangs a picture of Creaky D Higgins, the President of Ireland. Lots of other paraphernalia celebrating Ireland's Republic adorns the walls and coffee table in the 6ft squared living space.

But, whilst these people are living in squalor, their President 160 miles away in Dublin is living in a lavish palace that could put Buckingham Palace to shame, a large, extravagant building of 92 rooms set in a park that is almost 2,000 acres in size.

Yet, whilst living in this scrumptious palace, many of his people live in poverty and misery. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

Slight problem, nobody in Cork acknowledges Dublin

who the fug

joseph brand wrote: »

. How did they 'acquire' their vast swathes of land and all their jewels and gold?

.

I suppose the same way the High Kings of Ireland did

joseph brand

who the fug wrote: »

I suppose the same way the High Kings of Ireland did

They still about?

who the fug

joseph brand wrote: »

They still about?

You asked I answered

RichieC

I know three people from another site that are born and bred Brits who didn't even realise it was the Queens diamond jubilee.. yet we have an 8 page thread on an irish site, kinda funny

sarumite

Batsy wrote: »

I find it preferable having a Head of State in the position for a long time. Being in that position for a long time gives continuity and, as the person has been Head of state for so long, they become a proper national figurehead at which to rally around in times of national crisis or celebration. A president who is only in the job for five years has no time to become a proper national figurehead.

Each to our own I guess. If you are lucky enough to like your present monarch, then that's good for you. If you are aren't I suppose its a case of suck it up for the next 60 years. I like knowing that regardless of my opinion, the majority of the people who made their opinions heard wanted the current president.

But the main reason why being a monarchy is better than being a republic is because we don't have a politician as our Head of State. We, thankfully, will never be ruled by a President Sarkozy, a President Obama or a President Blair.

The above comment doesn't really make any sense when comparing Irelands republic model where the president is largely ceremonial and the UK's Constitutional Monarchy where the king or queen is largely ceremonial.

Son Of A Vidic

KeithAFC wrote: »

do you think there will be any celebrations and even political backing of this event in the Republic?

No and why would there be?

Batsy

deise go deo wrote: »

As is the leader of any world religion I suppose, but your not banging on about the rest of them, why is that?

No. The Irish only bang on about the British monarch being sectarian, no other monarch. And then they give that as one of the reasons why they do not support the British monarchy.

Yet when the sectarian Pope comes to visit you are all out on the streets in your thousands, desperate to kiss the feet of a sectarian monarch.

It's hypocrisy.

Batsy

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

This isn't a discussion about the Pope or religious organisations, we're discussing the Monarchy here. You seem to be arguing that just because the head of the Catholic Church is sectarian it's ok for the position of British Head of State to be sectarian also. Do you think this is acceptable and if so why?

The last time I checked the Pope is a monarch.

And an Absolute Monarch at that.

LordSutch

Batsy wrote: »

The last time I checked the Pope is a monarch.

And an Absolute Monarch at that.

The Pope is a Monarch! 1st time I ever heard that, then again I am not a RC.

Batsy

joseph brand wrote: »

Hasn't a patch on Buckingham palace. Never mind Windsor castle, Palace of Holyroodhouse, Sandringham, Balmoral, etc etc.

Your president still lives in a palace. So, too, do the French and American presidents. It's not only monarchies in which the Head of State lives in a grand palace.

Our President was voted in.

So you have a Head of State that you want and the British have a Head of State that they want (except the British aren't daft enough to hold elections for a ceremonial Head of State with few powers). So what's the problem?

The difference between Ireland's Head of State and Britain's Head of State is that Ireland's Head of State deliberately set out to live in a grand palace and lord it over the people. That is something he set out to do. Whereas Britain's Head of State did NOT deliberately set out to live in a grand palace and lord it over the people. She only found herself in that position due to an accident of birth and the country's laws of succession to the throne. I know which one of those two I would prefer to have.

The royal family are crooks and gangsters.

No, they aren't.

How did they 'acquire' their vast swathes of land and all their jewels and gold?

The Queen lives in Buckingham Palace because she's the Queen, just as your president lives in a palce because he's the president.

Also, we don't have these for our President:

You can also buy Lizzie towels, posters, key-rings, coasters, toilet paper and bin bags.

Oh dear. You can buy mugs with the Queen on it? How terrible.

But don't be fooled into thinking that monarchs are the only Heads of State whose faces appear on that kind of paraphernalia.

Batsy

RichieC wrote: »

I know three people from another site that are born and bred Brits who didn't even realise it was the Queens diamond jubilee

Although some people, as those three, are just so ignorant of current events it just takes the breath away.

They must never read papers, use the internet or watch the news.

Batsy

sarumite wrote: »

I like knowing that regardless of my opinion, the majority of the people who made their opinions heard wanted the current president.

And it won't be long until your president, like ALL presidents, becomes unpopular and the target of parody.

Whereas our Queen will continue to be immensely popular.

PeadarCo

Batsy wrote: »

And it won't be long until your president, like ALL presidents, becomes unpopular and the target of parody.

Whereas our Queen will continue to be immensely popular.

What about our last president so popular nobody was able to run against her for her second term.

To be fair given the role and powers of the Queen in the UK and President in Ireland you would have to do something very stupid to become unpopular. Its not like you have to make any serious decisions to make for the Queen especially and in Ireland in only exceptional cases. I'd imagine if the Queen had to make any proper decisions she would enevitably like all politicans become unpopular at some point. Lucky for her she doesn't have to make decisions that will directly affect peoples lives so can't annoy people.

sarumite

Batsy wrote: »

So you have a Head of State that you want and the British have a Head of State that they want (except the British aren't daft enough to hold elections for a ceremonial Head of State with few powers). So what's the problem?

I know plenty of British people who are opposed to monarchy. It's also a little bit of a guess to say the British have a head of state they want since they have never actually been asked whether they want her or not. From my time living in the UK most people I met liked her as a person, although many expressed mixed feeling about the monarchy as an institution.

sarumite

Batsy wrote: »

And it won't be long until your president, like ALL presidents, becomes unpopular and the target of parody.

I suppose your are choosing to simply ignore the last 20 odd years when you say this?

oppenheimer1

This has been an interesting thread so far. There are actually a small number of monarchists in Ireland and organize themselves under some name which escapes me. They have been the subject of other threads before though. There is also a Unionist mens club in the Portobello area in Dublin afaik. Therefore there will be a few people in Ireland celebrating the diamond jubilee, but not many. I would estimate that their number would be less than 100.


This thread though has been fascinating in terms of the few monarchists we have here defending the institution. A truly modern nation should have no place for such institutions as they are the exclusive preserve of a wealthy elite who have done nothing to merit their position. The class structures in the UK are truly stifling and despite such a broad population the same secondary schools and two universities keep popping up at the top of government and civil service. A state sponsored old boys club.

We are though coming to an interesting juncture in the history of the UK. Decades of refusing to look at the constitutional questions has now taken its toll. Elizabeth II, a popular queen is coming to the end of her reign. She will be replaced by Charles, already widely disliked. There is some hope for them though as William is popular. If the monarchy is to survive, it will need to undergo a massive transformation and become a lot like the monarchies of northern europe.

The break-up of the UK, with the possible independence of Scotland is another issue which could massively reshape the political and constitutional landscape. It would probably be the death knell for the current NI arrangement and 25 years of rule for the tories in England. That said there will be a major loss of influence for the UK both in the EU (with the loss of ability to steer the EU in its direction it may well choose to leave) and on the world stage. The UN security council seat would go and the special relationship would be dead. Its hard to see where the monarchy would fit into this kind of new Disunited Kingdom. A poorer rapidly ageing and tiring of austerity England may look on with envy on the wealth the crown estate has kept for itself.

Finally one poster said that Elizabeth reigns with the consent of the people. I don't recall the people ever being asked.

Chuck Stone

LordSutch wrote: »

There has always been a tradition of affection for the Monarchy here in Ireland, QEII being the latest in a long line of Monarchs who have been very welcome here, the recent visit by Her Majesty QEII is proof that the fondness 'for her in particular' still exists in abundance in the ROI.

People who are enthusiastic about things tend to skew the perception of exactly how many people care about what it is they are enthusiastic for.

I'd imagine the vast majority of people here couldn't give a toss about Liz Windsor and co. I'd also imagine many of the people who turned out for the visit of Mrs Windsor would be the type of people who'd queue up to pet the dog of a celebrity.

I am sure the North will embrace the Queen's Diamond Jubilee with gusto in June of this year,

Again, I think your sweeping statements are ill thought out. A considerable section of the population of the north will not give a toss about the celebration of Liz Windsor and co and the decadent idea of being born into privilege.

The section of the population who will celebrate Mrs Windsor's whatyamacallit with gusto are people who will do so because it underscores their disdain for all things Irish. These people who will celebrate with 'gusto' tend to celebrate everything that makes them not Irish which is quite sad really and indicative of a dearth of culture in my estimation.

Fratton Fred

Ii

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

This has been an interesting thread so far. There are actually a small number of monarchists in Ireland and organize themselves under some name which escapes me. They have been the subject of other threads before though. There is also a Unionist mens club in the Portobello area in Dublin afaik. Therefore there will be a few people in Ireland celebrating the diamond jubilee, but not many. I would estimate that their number would be less than 100.


This thread though has been fascinating in terms of the few monarchists we have here defending the institution. A truly modern nation should have no place for such institutions as they are the exclusive preserve of a wealthy elite who have done nothing to merit their position. The class structures in the UK are truly stifling and despite such a broad population the same secondary schools and two universities keep popping up at the top of government and civil service. A state sponsored old boys club.

We are though coming to an interesting juncture in the history of the UK. Decades of refusing to look at the constitutional questions has now taken its toll. Elizabeth II, a popular queen is coming to the end of her reign. She will be replaced by Charles, already widely disliked. There is some hope for them though as William is popular. If the monarchy is to survive, it will need to undergo a massive transformation and become a lot like the monarchies of northern europe.

The break-up of the UK, with the possible independence of Scotland is another issue which could massively reshape the political and constitutional landscape. It would probably be the death knell for the current NI arrangement and 25 years of rule for the tories in England. That said there will be a major loss of influence for the UK both in the EU (with the loss of ability to steer the EU in its direction it may well choose to leave) and on the world stage. The UN security council seat would go and the special relationship would be dead. Its hard to see where the monarchy would fit into this kind of new Disunited Kingdom. A poorer rapidly ageing and tiring of austerity England may look on with envy on the wealth the crown estate has kept for itself.

Finally one poster said that Elizabeth reigns with the consent of the people. I don't recall the people ever being asked.

You should get a blog.

There is a republican party in the UK, its core principle is the removal of the monarchy. It is a very small not very popular party. Therefore the people have a choice and very clearly choose in favour of keeping the status quo.

The UK may break up, but so far the main party in that, the SNP have quite clearly stated they are not a republican party.

Quite wtf the UK's position in the EU or UN has to do with a thread on monarchy I fail to see. Unless you are just using the thread as an excuse to rant, in which case I refer to my opening statement.

junder

Chuck Stone wrote: »

LordSutch wrote: »

There has always been a tradition of affection for the Monarchy here in Ireland, QEII being the latest in a long line of Monarchs who have been very welcome here, the recent visit by Her Majesty QEII is proof that the fondness 'for her in particular' still exists in abundance in the ROI.

People who are enthusiastic about things tend to skew the perception of exactly how many people care about what it is they are enthusiastic for.

I'd imagine the vast majority of people here couldn't give a toss about Liz Windsor and co. I'd also imagine many of the people who turned out for the visit of Mrs Windsor would be the type of people who'd queue up to pet the dog of a celebrity.

I am sure the North will embrace the Queen's Diamond Jubilee with gusto in June of this year,

Again, I think your sweeping statements are ill thought out. A considerable section of the population of the north will not give a toss about the celebration of Liz Windsor and co and the decadent idea of being born into privilege.

The section of the population who will celebrate Mrs Windsor's whatyamacallit with gusto are people who will do so because it underscores their disdain for all things Irish. These people who will celebrate with 'gusto' tend to celebrate everything that makes them not Irish which is quite sad really and indicative of a dearth of culture in my estimation.

Biggest mistake often made by republicans / nationalists is to see our culture as merely a reaction against theirs, ironically the same could be said about thier culture since Irish republicanism / nationalism politics was formed as reaction against unionism or as it more trendily liked to be referred to 'British rule' either way I will be of course celebrating the jubilee and the furthest going from my mind will be 'Irish nationalist / republican politics' not because i am Intentionally trying to be offensive, just got more important things to worry about, mainly enjoying the day and celebrating my idenity

meglome

junder wrote: »

Biggest mistake often made by republicans / nationalists is to see our culture as merely a reaction against theirs,

Genuinely not trying to offend you but I spend quite a bit of time in Northern Ireland and it strikes me as this is exactly what it often is.

junder

meglome wrote: »

junder wrote: »

Biggest mistake often made by republicans / nationalists is to see our culture as merely a reaction against theirs,

Genuinely not trying to offend you but I spend quite a bit of time in Northern Ireland and it strikes me as this is exactly what it often is.

Well to put things into perspective my flute band is 130 years old and last band meeting nobody mentioned home rule

meglome

junder wrote: »

Well to put things into perspective my flute band is 130 years old and last band meeting nobody mentioned home rule

only at the last meeting?

KeithAFC

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Ii

You should get a blog.

There is a republican party in the UK, its core principle is the removal of the monarchy. It is a very small not very popular party. Therefore the people have a choice and very clearly choose in favour of keeping the status quo.

The UK may break up, but so far the main party in that, the SNP have quite clearly stated they are not a republican party.

Quite wtf the UK's position in the EU or UN has to do with a thread on monarchy I fail to see. Unless you are just using the thread as an excuse to rant, in which case I refer to my opening statement.

Yep. If people in the UK didn't want a monarch, they could easily get rid of it. A revolution if you like but that isn't the case. If anything, people actually favour it and positively advertise it.

All you have to do is look at the Royal Wedding.

MadsL

KeithAFC wrote: »

Yep. If people in the UK didn't want a monarch, they could easily get rid of it. A revolution if you like but that isn't the case. If anything, people actually favour it and positively advertise it.

All you have to do is look at the Royal Wedding.

Closely followed by the Royal Divorce. Sells papers I guess.

Reekwind

KeithAFC wrote: »

Yep. If people in the UK didn't want a monarch, they could easily get rid of it. A revolution if you like but that isn't the case. If anything, people actually favour it and positively advertise it

I was shocked when I moved to London and witnessed the constant monarchist propaganda: not a week (or a day!) goes by without the royal family appearing in the Metro doing sport or visiting a school/hospital for charity. This is the image that is constantly being sold to the public by the British establishment - at the heart of which the monarchy lies - and it is no wonder that the likes of Republic cannot compete with this. So talking about popularity is a bit disingenuous given the amount of resources spent on cultivating this

The Wedding and the Jubilee are massively choreographed media events for this very reason. And always have been

junder

Reekwind wrote: »

KeithAFC wrote: »

Yep. If people in the UK didn't want a monarch, they could easily get rid of it. A revolution if you like but that isn't the case. If anything, people actually favour it and positively advertise it

I was shocked when I moved to London and witnessed the constant monarchist propaganda: not a week (or a day!) goes by without the royal family appearing in the Metro doing sport or visiting a school/hospital for charity. This is the image that is constantly being sold to the public by the British establishment - at the heart of which the monarchy lies - and it is no wonder that the likes of Republic cannot compete with this. So talking about popularity is a bit disingenuous given the amount of resources spent on cultivating this

The Wedding and the Jubilee are massively choreographed media events for this very reason. And always have been

Your easily shocked then, must of grown up without a tv and lived cut of from everybody else to have missed the amount of media time spent on the cult of celebrity, kind of makes the time spent on the monarchy pail into insignificance

Reekwind

I shouldn't have been surprised by the gluttonous scale of royal coverage in the English media because lots of time is given over to other celebrities...? Is that right or do you want to reformulate your thoughts into a more coherent form?

junder

Reekwind wrote: »

I shouldn't have been surprised by the gluttonous scale of royal coverage in the English media because lots of time is given over to other celebrities...? Is that right or do you want to reformulate your thoughts into a more coherent form?

No I stand by what I said, 'da royals' unless there is a event like a wedding are generally only given I few seconds on the news doing some walk about or whatever while every day tons of magazine space, tv coverage is given over to so called celebrities. More people in the uk know what Jordan had for breakfast then anything about the royal family. Even when it did come to the recent wedding people seemed more fixated with pippas bum then the actual wedding

Chuck Stone

junder wrote: »

either way I will be of course celebrating the jubilee and the furthest going from my mind will be 'Irish nationalist / republican politics' not because i am Intentionally trying to be offensive, just got more important things to worry about, mainly enjoying the day and celebrating my idenity

What exactly is there to celebrate about Liz Windsor and her crowd?

People who identify as British have so many more people to celebrate than a woman who has achieved absolutely nothing.

Britain has an incredible industrial heritage and has made an amazing contribution to the world through science and exploration yet people tend to celebrate those who have achieved nothing other than privilege by accident of birth.

Confusing.

MadsL

Britain has an incredible industrial heritage

+1

Now I have left Ireland, I often introduce myself as being out of the UK for the past 18 years but originally from Birmingham "where we used to make things".

I would love to see more being made of that, Fred Dibnah did huge amounts to popularise the appreciation of industrial craftmanship and heritage.

I'd recommend Channel 4's Titanic series for anyone who hasn't seen it, but I am slightly biased as my great-grandfather worked on the chains for Titanic in Netherton as shown in one of the episodes.

KeithAFC

Reekwind wrote: »

I was shocked when I moved to London and witnessed the constant monarchist propaganda: not a week (or a day!) goes by without the royal family appearing in the Metro doing sport or visiting a school/hospital for charity. This is the image that is constantly being sold to the public by the British establishment - at the heart of which the monarchy lies - and it is no wonder that the likes of Republic cannot compete with this. So talking about popularity is a bit disingenuous given the amount of resources spent on cultivating this

The Wedding and the Jubilee are massively choreographed media events for this very reason. And always have been

Like I said, this could easily change if people WANTED change. That is the key word here. The majority of people are happy with the Queen and the Monarch.

You call it propaganda but I call it being in demand. Schools, businesses and so on want to see the Queen and the Royal Family. They are in demand all over the world for visits. The facts don't lie.

Chuck Stone

MadsL wrote: »

+1

Now I have left Ireland, I often introduce myself as being out of the UK for the past 18 years but originally from Birmingham "where we used to make things".

I would love to see more being made of that, Fred Dibnah did huge amounts to popularise the appreciation of industrial craftmanship and heritage.

I'd recommend Channel 4's Titanic series for anyone who hasn't seen it, but I am slightly biased as my great-grandfather worked on the chains for Titanic in Netherton as shown in one of the episodes.

I am in awe of the industrial heritage of Britain. I love watching programs about the canals, railways and other advances in technology that came out of Britain. As I said above Britain has an unbelievable industrial heritage and yet people choose to celebrate the royal family.

Another thing. I bet many people don't know that Britain has the 2nd biggest aerospace related manufacturing industry in the world which is quite some boast considering it is up against countries like the US (No. 1 afaik) China, Russia, Japan, France and Germany.

The British have a lot to be proud of so I personally find it a bit confusing that they choose to celebrate privilege by birth.

Reekwind

KeithAFC wrote: »

Like I said, this could easily change if people WANTED change. That is the key word here. The majority of people are happy with the Queen and the Monarch.

You call it propaganda but I call it being in demand. Schools, businesses and so on want to see the Queen and the Royal Family. They are in demand all over the world for visits. The facts don't lie.

You've completely missed my point. Demand can be stimulated and what people want can be shaped. That is the very purpose of propaganda... and indeed advertising

In this case arguing that the majority of people are "happy with the Queen" has to come with the rather large disclaimer that they are being exposed to near-daily stories on how great she and her family are. Customers are not writing these articles, they are being published 'from above' by the media and state establishment. This constant 'marketing' of the royals cannot but impact people's attitude towards them... as it is intended to

Hells, if I had the same press coverage that the royal family get then you could probably convince more than few people that I should be crowned king. Now there's a thought

Batsy

Reekwind wrote: »

In this case arguing that the majority of people are "happy with the Queen" has to come with the rather large disclaimer that they are being exposed to near-daily stories on how great she and her family are. Customers are not writing these articles, they are being published 'from above' by the media and state establishment. This constant 'marketing' of the royals cannot but impact people's attitude towards them... as it is intended to

I've never read so much tosh since I last came to this thread.

Batsy

sarumite wrote: »

I know plenty of British people who are opposed to monarchy.

So? They are in a minority. The republican movement in the UK is almost non-existent.

It's also a little bit of a guess to say the British have a head of state they want since they have never actually been asked whether they want her or not.

The monarch only rules by the people's consent. If the British people ever decide they don't want her on the Throne they can always let it be known and she'll stand down.

From my time living in the UK most people I met liked her as a person, although many expressed mixed feeling about the monarchy as an institution.

I don't know where in the UK you went. If I asked anybody what would they prefer, a Queen/King or a President, almost all of them would say a Queen or King.

Just say the words "President Blair", "President Brown", "President Cameron" or "President Whatever" to any British person and you'll make them a royalist for at least the next 20 years.

The Irish get it into their heads that having a president is a good thing. Whereas a British person imagining their country being led by a president just makes their heart sink.

Batsy

Originally Posted by Reekwind
I was shocked when I moved to London and witnessed the constant monarchist propaganda: not a week (or a day!) goes by without the royal family appearing in the Metro doing sport or visiting a school/hospital for charity. This is the image that is constantly being sold to the public by the British establishment - at the heart of which the monarchy lies - and it is no wonder that the likes of Republic cannot compete with this. So talking about popularity is a bit disingenuous given the amount of resources spent on cultivating this

If I went to Ireland I would be equally as shocked by the constant republican propaganda. Not a week (or a day!) would go by without the President appearing in the newspaper doing sport or visiting a school/hospital for charity. This is the image that is constantly being sold to the public by the Irish establishment - at the heart of which the republic lies - and it is no wonder that the Irish royalists cannot compete with this. So talking about popularity is a bit disingenuous given the amount of resources spent on cultivating this.

Batsy

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Another thing. I bet many people don't know that Britain has the 2nd biggest aerospace related manufacturing industry in the world which is quite some boast considering it is up against countries like the US (No. 1 afaik) China, Russia, Japan, France and Germany.

And one of those countries, like Britain, is a constitutional monarchy, but the Irish don't bang on about it. It's only the British one they bang on about.

The British have a lot to be proud of

Yep. Like our ancient and glorious monarchy, the oldest surviving political institution in Europe. Give me the Queen over Sarkozy any day of the week.

Reekwind

Batsy wrote: »

I've never read so much tosh since I last came to this thread.

Out of curiosity, how do you expect me to respond to that? There's absolutely nothing in that that I can engage with or build on. It's a post entirely without merit

Thankfully you did eventually give me something to work with:

If I went to Ireland I would be equally as shocked by the constant republican propaganda. Not a week (or a day!) would go by without the President appearing in the newspaper doing sport or visiting a school/hospital for charity. This is the image that is constantly being sold to the public by the Irish establishment - at the heart of which the republic lies - and it is no wonder that the Irish royalists cannot compete with this. So talking about popularity is a bit disingenuous given the amount of resources spent on cultivating this.

It should be pretty clear from my the very fact that I was surprised (to give junder his semantic point) by the constant fixture of the royals in the English media that this is not common in Ireland. The President gets a fraction of the coverage that the royal family gets, never mind being inserted into situations diverse as helicopter piloting or beach volleyball

Even with that, the comparison does highlight many differences in how the heads of state are perceived. I have no idea if the office of President is widely popular, it's just not discussed in those terms. No one gets defensive about it or declares that they're an ardent advocate of our traditional head of state. Possibly because no one is telling everyone, on a near-daily basis, just how great our president is and her lovely family and isn't she a dear really

But of course your broader point is true of many countries. There are many regimes in which the media are used quite effectively to legitimise the state/government/junta. It's something that you don't really associate with Western Europe but it does happen in many parts of the world

Edit:

Yep. Like our ancient and glorious monarchy, the oldest surviving political institution in Europe. Give me the Queen over Sarkozy any day of the week

If I could then I'd give you a biscuit for this. It is the stupidest statement that I've heard all day. Why on earth would you contrast the Queen with a Frenchman who could not possibly become President of Britain? What about Obama? Or maybe Merkel? Which leader would you find an acceptable substitute? The Pope perhaps?

Actually that last one would be a good fit. What with the Church being, by some distance, "the oldest surviving political institution in Europe"

Batsy

I thought this was a nice touch from the Queen.

The Queen surprised a couple by turning up at their wedding.

The Queen was visiting the neighbouring cities of Manchester and Salford as part of her nationwide Diamond Jubilee tour at the same time that John and Frances Canning were getting married in Manchester Town Hall. The Queen also happened to be visiting the town hall at the same time the wedding was to take place. Learning of this the couple wrote a lighthearted letter to Buckingham Palace inviting her to attend their wedding - and she did.

The couple, from Prestwich, Manchester, were flabbergasted when the Queen greeted them by name. She also posed for pictures with the happy couple.

John, a big fan of the Royals, said: “The Queen asked how we were feeling, and congratulated us. Prince Philip was asking where in Italy we were going for our honeymoon. They had clearly been briefed about what we were doing.”

Whilst in Salford, the Queen visited MediaCityUK, where shows shuch as Match of the Day and Blue Peter are filmed. She met Mark Lawrenson.

Read more: http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1489358_guest-of-honour-queen-leaves-couple-stunned-after-her-majesty-accepts-wedding-invitation-at-manchester-town-hall

Batsy

Reekwind wrote: »

It should be pretty clear from my the very fact that I was surprised (to give junder his semantic point) by the constant fixture of the royals in the English media that this is not common in Ireland.

It's nothing to do with propaganda, as your bizarre theory goes. It's to do with the fact that people WANT to read about the Royals. And not just in Britain, either. Go to America and the Yanks are wild about the Royal Family.

The President gets a fraction of the coverage that the royal family gets, never mind being inserted into situations diverse as helicopter piloting or beach volleyball

Maybe Presidents are just less interesting than royals.

Edit:
If I could then I'd give you a biscuit for this. It is the stupidest statement that I've heard all day. Why on earth would you contrast the Queen with a Frenchman who could not possibly become President of Britain? What about Obama? Or maybe Merkel? Which leader would you find an acceptable substitute? The Pope perhaps?

I wouldn't say ANY president is a suitable replacement for the British monarch. Who in their right mind would want a President - or ANY politician - as Head of State? If you asked me to choose between Elizabeth II, Obama, Merkel, Sarkozy or Higgins, I would choose Elizabeth II.

Actually that last one would be a good fit. What with the Church being, by some distance, "the oldest surviving political institution in Europe"

Nope. The British Royal Family is.

Chuck Stone

Batsy wrote: »

Yep. Like our ancient and glorious monarchy, the oldest surviving political institution in Europe. Give me the Queen over Sarkozy any day of the week.

You seem quite attached to those German folk. Why don't you celebrate those British people who were the first in the world to build a passenger train?

Or how about an Iron bridge or the jet engine.

Nope. People like you celebrate privilege by birth.

Very strange.

Reekwind

Batsy wrote: »

It's nothing to do with propaganda, as your bizarre theory goes. It's to do with the fact that people WANT to read about the Royals. And not just in Britain, either. Go to America and the Yanks are wild about the Royal Family

I'm going to refer you to my above post on the role of propaganda in stimulating demand. I'm not going to repeat myself

With regards America, there's clearly a different, American, dynamic at work there. That would be they go crazy for the royals in a way that very, very few other countries do. I'd put it down to the love of glamour, which gets caught up in that very Disney-esque mentality that leads to the likes of 'renaissance fairs', but I'm not going to bother exploring that too much given its removal from the royals in Britain

Maybe Presidents are just less interesting than royals

Tell that to Obama. No, it's just that your analogy is terribly mistaken. You asserted that you would find similar press coverage in Ireland, you are wrong on that

Nope. The British Royal Family is.

I hate to do this again but that's not how this works. You don't say 'NO' and then leave it. That's not a discussion, that's you ranting and stonewalling. Try explaining your position and the logic that lies behind it next time

In this case I'll do it for you. The typically accepted first 'King of England' (although he didn't use that title) would have been Egbert in 802. Obviously there's no directly line there to Lizzie II but we'll ignore that and talk about the monarchy as an institution. So 802

By this time the Church was on Pope #96, having been founded as an institution way back in the days of Rome. But if that early history is a bit iffy for you then we can firmly date the foundation of the Papal States, which really formally confirmed the long established tradition of the Pope as a political leader, to 754. Obviously the current Vatican is, as per various treaties, a direct continuation of this

But please, I await your reasoning

Batsy

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You seem quite attached to those German folk. Why don't you celebrate those British people who were the first in the world to build a passenger train?

Or how about an Iron bridge or the jet engine.

Nope. People like you celebrate privilege by birth.

Very strange.

The last time I checked the Queen isn't the only great British person that this country celebrates. So don't act like it is.

And the way you say "people like you" makes it sound as though royalists like me are the rarity in Britain rather than the norm.

KeithAFC

Reekwind wrote: »

You've completely missed my point. Demand can be stimulated and what people want can be shaped. That is the very purpose of propaganda... and indeed advertising

In this case arguing that the majority of people are "happy with the Queen" has to come with the rather large disclaimer that they are being exposed to near-daily stories on how great she and her family are. Customers are not writing these articles, they are being published 'from above' by the media and state establishment. This constant 'marketing' of the royals cannot but impact people's attitude towards them... as it is intended to

Hells, if I had the same press coverage that the royal family get then you could probably convince more than few people that I should be crowned king. Now there's a thought

Just conspiracy nonsense. To try and claim that the British public are somehow being duped into wanting the Royal Family is just a joke and lacks any factual evidence to back it up.

Batsy

Reekwind wrote: »

With regards America, there's clearly a different, American, dynamic at work there. That would be they go crazy for the royals in a way that very, very few other countries do. I'd put it down to the love of glamour, which gets caught up in that very Disney-esque mentality that leads to the likes of 'renaissance fairs', but I'm not going to bother exploring that too much given its removal from the royals in Britain

Nah, people all over the world, including Ireland, are fascinated by the British royal family and secretly yearn that they had a glorious monarchy like ours. That was evident during last year's Royal Wedding and will also be evident in the summer during the many national events and parties that will be taking place in the summer. Billions will watch around the globe on TV.

Tell that to Obama.

If Obama had got married to Michelle whilst he was president then the marriage would in no way attract the same attention globally as Kate and Wills' wedding last year. That's because, as one famous historian put it: "Monarchies are interesting. Republics are boring."

In this case I'll do it for you. The typically accepted first 'King of England' (although he didn't use that title) would have been Egbert in 802. Obviously there's no directly line there to Lizzie II but we'll ignore that and talk about the monarchy as an institution. So 802

Yes, there is. Every English and then British monarch since Egbert has been a direct descendant of him. Queen Elizabeth II is King Ebgert's great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-granddaughter.

Of course, you would have known that had you studied the history of the British monarchy.

By this time the Church was on Pope #96, having been founded as an institution way back in the days of Rome. But if that early history is a bit iffy for you then we can firmly date the foundation of the Papal States, which really formally confirmed the long established tradition of the Pope as a political leader, to 754. Obviously the current Vatican is, as per various treaties, a direct continuation of this

But please, I await your reasoning

Google "oldest-surviving political instution in Europe" and you'll find loads of websites appear about the British monarchy. Not one appears about the Church, which I consider to be a religious institution.

Shea O'Meara

Batsy wrote: »

I thought this was a nice touch from the Queen.

The Queen surprised a couple by turning up at their wedding.

A free loader turned up for some grub, shocker!

Chuck Stone

Batsy wrote: »

The last time I checked the Queen isn't the only great British person that this country celebrates. So don't act like it is.

What exactly is it about Lizzie Windsor, or any royal, that makes her/them great?

Celebrating the perverse privileges of that woman does a disservice to the real achievements of British people who actually contributed to society and civilisation rather than being parasitic upon it.

Reekwind

KeithAFC wrote: »

Just conspiracy nonsense. To try and claim that the British public are somehow being duped into wanting the Royal Family is just a joke and lacks any factual evidence to back it up.

No, you're still missing it. I'm not suggesting that there is a shadowy cabal of courtiers trying to brainwash the entire population through select media sources and corrupted bodily fluids. That would be a conspiracy theory and worthy of dismissal

What I'm talking about is the role that the media plays in shaping popular opinion. This is hardly controversial: it is the basis that both propaganda and advertising work off. Are you going to suggest that neither of those actually work?

In this case the royals there retain a rather sizeable marketing (or PR if you will) contingent that looks to 'sell' the House of Windsor to the public. Which is perfectly understandable: politicians and corporations do exactly the same. However the unique role of the monarchy at the heart of the establishment, coupled with the constant availability of exotic content, makes them a very easy sell for newspaper editors. Putting a story out about the cost of the monarchy is a political statement that runs contrary to the establishment narrative, far easier to publish pictures of Kate playing hockey

And don't underestimate the impact of this narrative. We all know that constant negative stories can be used to demonise individuals and potentially ruin their image in the public eye, why dismiss the opposite as "conspiracy nonsense"?

Batsy wrote:

If Obama had got married to Michelle whilst he was president then the marriage would in no way attract the same attention globally as Kate and Wills' wedding last year. That's because, as one famous historian put it: "Monarchies are interesting. Republics are boring.

Are you joking? I suggest that you broaden your reading material beyond the Mail or the Telegraph. Obama is unquestionably the most famous and newsworthy man in the world. A US President's wedding would be immense news

Yes, there is. Every English and then British monarch since Egbert has been a direct descendant of him. Queen Elizabeth II is King Ebgert's great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-granddaughter.

Again, you're wrong. There might be some shared blood there somewhere (Henry I's wife spring to mind) but there is no direct descent. Any direct connection to Wessex would have been severed at William I

Google "oldest-surviving political instution in Europe" and you'll find loads of websites appear about the British monarchy. Not one appears about the Church, which I consider to be a religious institution.

Again, you're wrong. This is becoming uncomfortably common. The idea that the Vatican is simply a religious organisation is nonsense. It is, according to international law, a sovereign city state. It is recognised as an independent state by more countries than I care to count

Now if that's not enough, to describe the Papal States - that is, the body that ruled most of central Italy for around 1500 years; waged wars; maintained its own government apparatus, laws and diplomatic presence - as somehow not being a political body is absolutely absurd and, as I've suggested, entirely incorrect

You might as well argue that the English monarchy is not a political institution because its current head also happens to lead the Church of England. Absolute stupidity