tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2141372262111342844.post7391581966532335733..comments2024-03-27T21:18:33.034+00:00Comments on Fabled Lands: The real-life game of thronesDave Morrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14468228790874490693noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2141372262111342844.post-89942708530537575362011-05-02T20:20:55.018+01:002011-05-02T20:20:55.018+01:00That'd still be a job that a certain kind of p...That'd still be a job that a certain kind of person will want to run for, though, and I'd like to see fewer jobs for politicians, not more. But that isn't really the point. We have a system, it's not broken, so why fix it?Dave Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14468228790874490693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2141372262111342844.post-8019927018029172662011-05-02T19:01:19.729+01:002011-05-02T19:01:19.729+01:00There are plenty of countries that have presidents...There are plenty of countries that have presidents who are "non-political, non-executive heads of state whose only interest is in maintaining the status quo". We tend to assume that presidents must be executives like those of the US or France, but other models are more appropriate for the UK. If we think of the role of UK president as a sort of 'lifetime national treasure' -- which QEII clearly fits, but Prince Charles clearly doesn't -- you can see how it might be made to work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2141372262111342844.post-41888619586139748802011-05-01T08:53:03.751+01:002011-05-01T08:53:03.751+01:00http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk2vaZ76-68http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk2vaZ76-68mundialecterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10204293820750293401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2141372262111342844.post-90995862575130144392011-04-30T18:20:43.122+01:002011-04-30T18:20:43.122+01:00Arthur returned a while ago. He's running a he...Arthur returned a while ago. He's running a hedge fund now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2141372262111342844.post-55971339874703845512011-04-30T15:38:27.286+01:002011-04-30T15:38:27.286+01:00Charlie Boorman I believe also played the lead in ...Charlie Boorman I believe also played the lead in his dad's movie The Emerald Forest. (I could imdb that but I'm just going to put it out there and let my memory fend for itself.)<br /><br />I didn't actually watch the royal wedding, being at heart a republican - though I'm not one of those tiresome fanatics who would string effigies of the royal couple from a lamp post and claim it's street theater. For the reasons you give, Paul, I think it's logical to keep the monarchy; they act as a unifying embodiment of the nation in a way somebody like Sarkozy is never going to.<br /><br />It does annoy me when Charles says something like, "I'd like to be Defender of Faiths, not Defender of the Faith" because that's not his effing decision to make. He has a constitutional role to play. My private opinion of the man is that he's a complete twit, and the one thing we need of him is to do his job - part of which is voicing no political or constitutional opinions whatsoever. If he can't stick that, he can always rule himself out of the succession.<br /><br />When Arthur returns it'll be a different matter, of course!Dave Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14468228790874490693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2141372262111342844.post-20045442665988259442011-04-30T12:39:58.957+01:002011-04-30T12:39:58.957+01:00I have a lot of time for certain members of the Br...I have a lot of time for certain members of the British monarchy, and in particular Queen Elizabeth II. It's interesting that this blog post has an image from the film 'Excalibur', with its overall conceit that 'the king and the land are one,' or words to that effect. This is perhaps stating the case too strongly for Queen Elizabeth II. But nonetheless, as she is, I think, for the majority of British citizens the only monarch they've ever known, she has come to be very intrinsically linked to the concept of British identity; she very much embodies, for many, some part of the idea of 'Britishness' itself. And she has filled this role with dignity - or aloofness, depending on your perspective. Not an easy task, given that she's the first to occupy the throne during a technological explosion of radio/television/internet, and the consequent non-stop scrutiny that these various media facilitate. Other royals have fared less well, and embarrassed themselves - and perhaps, the country - as a result. One example might be a television company owned by Prince Andrew being the ONLY company to break the agreed media taboo intended to allow Prince William a degree of privacy at university. And didn't ex-royal Sarah Ferguson once release a pop video, before she became Oprah Winfrey with a funny accent?<br /><br />Prince Philip, of course, is just an unstoppable media gaffe machine. But, strangely, the sheer entertainment value of his unthinking, uncaring, outspoken bigotry gives him a free pass. How much can we criticise him, really? He's a man from a deeply chauvinistic social class, and era, and professional background, who will forever be overshadowed by his more important wife. I'm prepared to cut the old fella a break - and, in fairness, I can't think of anybody still alive who represents pre-1950 England more effectively than he does. <br /><br />(My favourite Prince Philip quote was to a blind man with a guide dog, in front of a room full of journalists: 'You know, I believe anorexics also have dogs to help them eat, now!')<br /><br />Thinking of yesterday's royal wedding – and, let's be honest, that's what this post is all about – neither the lavishness of the occasion, nor the behaviour of its participants, bothered me in particular. It was the journalists who annoyed me. I'll skip over the mediocrity of the coverage, and the desperation for days to find any notable angle to cover a non-news story, and lunge straight at the fact that at least two news channels had lip-readers on their staff to dissect every morcel of dialogue that might be spoken. This level of media intrusion is just shocking, and reprehensible. It's no great surprise that both aristrocracy and politicians have to so carefully choreograph their every word and movement, resulting in an ultimately sterile, and utterly boring, governing class. <br /><br />Though the decision of France, my adopted home country, to guillotine its aristrocracy has not, in the long term, resulted in any sort of clearout of the country's over-moneyed skunks. Sarkozy is still blowing the taxpayers' money on things like private jets ('Sarko 1,' if you can believe that), and generally acting like some sort of billionaire hobgoblin. Preferential treatment and nepotism continue to abound – Sarkozy's own 22-year-old son very nearly seized control of a major development project in Paris's La Defense business zone; this was only prevented by the highly commendable French tendency to very publically raise a hue and cry at any sort of public inequality.<br /><br />Sigh.<br /><br />Oh well. Back to discussions of ogres and magic and things like that.<br /><br />(PS: 'Excalibur' fact of the day – the boy who played young Mortdredd was Charlie Boorman, who grew up to make lots of world-traversing motorcycle documentaries with Ewan McGregor.)Paul (aka 'bittermind')https://www.blogger.com/profile/09934330084176111674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2141372262111342844.post-81540124092168743232011-04-29T14:46:43.588+01:002011-04-29T14:46:43.588+01:00I agree, Olivier. At the time of the French Revolu...I agree, Olivier. At the time of the French Revolution, the pressure that had built up in society was created by the enormous gap (social as well as economic) between the classes. Britain (well, England) having had its revolution 140 years earlier had by that time a more egalitarian society. I mean that there was still quite a gulf between rich and poor, but some of the steam had been released. Eg see Misson de Valbourg's account of his time in England, or various mid-18th century French aristocrats' shock at finding they were expected to mix with the hoi polloi on London's pavements.<br /><br />Now we have a world with a degree of global inequality that is just as great as French society at the time of the Revolution. And we in the West are just as complacent as those sheltered aristocrats were. I was amazed to see that 60% of Pakistanis believe that the USA is a bigger threat than the Taliban http://econ.st/fMPr8O which just goes to show how the West is resented for its wealth and privilege.<br /><br />Yet if the world's wealth was (somehow) redistributed equally tomorrow, it would only take a few decades before we had new concentrations of rich and poor. There are no solutions, only the temporary release of pressure - usually in a catastrophic form. Just as depressing as the injustice is the thought of how many would be very eager to drive people into the tumbrils all over again.Dave Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14468228790874490693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2141372262111342844.post-71732313205919231882011-04-29T13:52:59.575+01:002011-04-29T13:52:59.575+01:00Bonjour Dave !
(c'est très bien de citer "...Bonjour Dave !<br />(c'est très bien de citer "Ridicule", un film excellent !)<br />In my opinion, in our democratic western societies, having a monarchy or a republic is rather a question of historical circumstances. "What if", if Cromwell (of whom you are a fervent admirer ;-)) could have founded a lasting Republic in Britain... "What if" if Napoleon the III had not stupidly declared war to Prussia....<br />Looking at events right now in France, Britain and some other countries, I see that the gap is not between "republicans" or "monarchists", but rather between people who have money, and those who have not, those who have friends in high places and those who have not, and sometimes those who look beautiful and those who do not...<br />The rest is quite irrelevant, except as to whether a Monarchy or a Republic can better suppress this growing feeling of injustice within the society. <br />(Finally this is the same question as in FL1 : shall we support the new régime, or fight for the former monarchy ? ;-))<br /><br />Oliviermundialecterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10204293820750293401noreply@blogger.com