Ahem!
November 13, 2003 2:13 AM Subscribe
Not only are the allegations untrue but the goat was not, in fact, Spanish, but Portuguese, and is currently living safely in a wildlife preserve in East Molesey.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 2:47 AM on November 13, 2003
posted by Slithy_Tove at 2:47 AM on November 13, 2003
I wondered when this story would show up here. As a UK-based Mefier, I had no intention of posting it myself, and I suppose I ought to be careful what I say here!
I of course know what the allegations are. I'm not sure whether I believe them or not, although I'm inclined towards the "not".
What is far more interesting than the allegations themselves, is the idea of gagging the media. In the past preventing the media from propagating a salacious story was a straightforward proposition. We didn't get access to foreign media, and so the allegation would never enter the public domain.
The internet has changed all that. Usually, when an injunction like this has been granted, it only lasts while the information is not generally known. The law has not yet caught up with the idea of foreign websites publishing the information. Bizarrely, even though anybody in Britain can just fire up their browser, and read about the allegations, the information is currently not considered to have entered the public domain! I suppose we're just going to have to accept that there is no chance of keeping such a story secret.
The question is, is this a good thing? UK media is still prohibited from publishing the new names of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, the killers of James Bulger. Publishing those names would surely lead to vigilante attacks, and surely cannot be in the public interest. So where do we draw the line? Do we take the American view and publish and be damned? Is there any alternative in this day and age? It's interesting to note that as far as I know, no foreign media have yet published the new names of Venables and Thompson.
posted by salmacis at 3:00 AM on November 13, 2003
I of course know what the allegations are. I'm not sure whether I believe them or not, although I'm inclined towards the "not".
What is far more interesting than the allegations themselves, is the idea of gagging the media. In the past preventing the media from propagating a salacious story was a straightforward proposition. We didn't get access to foreign media, and so the allegation would never enter the public domain.
The internet has changed all that. Usually, when an injunction like this has been granted, it only lasts while the information is not generally known. The law has not yet caught up with the idea of foreign websites publishing the information. Bizarrely, even though anybody in Britain can just fire up their browser, and read about the allegations, the information is currently not considered to have entered the public domain! I suppose we're just going to have to accept that there is no chance of keeping such a story secret.
The question is, is this a good thing? UK media is still prohibited from publishing the new names of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, the killers of James Bulger. Publishing those names would surely lead to vigilante attacks, and surely cannot be in the public interest. So where do we draw the line? Do we take the American view and publish and be damned? Is there any alternative in this day and age? It's interesting to note that as far as I know, no foreign media have yet published the new names of Venables and Thompson.
posted by salmacis at 3:00 AM on November 13, 2003
apparently there's a video featuring prince charles, shot with a weird green nightvision camera...
i tried looking on the net for more when i heard about this, but there's isn't much more info out there, at least that i could find. if someone knows where there's full lurid details, please post a link (and paris hilton too, why not?).
anyway, if this contributes to their downfall at least i won't have to explain any more to puzzled foreigners why we still have a monarchy.
oh, and afaik, gay (or anal) sex is not illegal between consenting adults. i believe the age of consent is the same for homo/heterosexual sex. however, i think there's still some odd law about not indoctrinating kids at school and a few years back now a (possibly all-male) s&m group was prosecuted for no apparent reason.
here in chile, meanwhile, there's a video of a famous rich person having apedophile parties that's making the news. along with allegations that it features the leader of one of the far-right political parties. and someone tried to blackmail the judge in charge of investigations, who has now resigned over his homosexual past (which is kind of odd, because the only openly gay person i know of round here is a judge).
posted by andrew cooke at 3:17 AM on November 13, 2003
i tried looking on the net for more when i heard about this, but there's isn't much more info out there, at least that i could find. if someone knows where there's full lurid details, please post a link (and paris hilton too, why not?).
anyway, if this contributes to their downfall at least i won't have to explain any more to puzzled foreigners why we still have a monarchy.
oh, and afaik, gay (or anal) sex is not illegal between consenting adults. i believe the age of consent is the same for homo/heterosexual sex. however, i think there's still some odd law about not indoctrinating kids at school and a few years back now a (possibly all-male) s&m group was prosecuted for no apparent reason.
here in chile, meanwhile, there's a video of a famous rich person having apedophile parties that's making the news. along with allegations that it features the leader of one of the far-right political parties. and someone tried to blackmail the judge in charge of investigations, who has now resigned over his homosexual past (which is kind of odd, because the only openly gay person i know of round here is a judge).
posted by andrew cooke at 3:17 AM on November 13, 2003
I may as well be the first person to actually say what the allegations are. I will of course be burning my Mac after posting this, and be seeking legal representation for future charges of treason.
Prince Charles regularly has a 'happy finish', as the vernacular has it, from his valet's/butler's/whatever's massages.
Shocking, ain't it? The monarchy is DOOMED.
posted by influx at 3:18 AM on November 13, 2003
Prince Charles regularly has a 'happy finish', as the vernacular has it, from his valet's/butler's/whatever's massages.
Shocking, ain't it? The monarchy is DOOMED.
posted by influx at 3:18 AM on November 13, 2003
On Tuesday, Spain's El País reported that most foreign papers—especially Spanish and Italian dailies—have been kept off English and Welsh newsstands to protect citizens from seeing the rumor in print
Aaaahh the always fresh protect the kids ! And from a Rumor ! Must be -Terrorist Rumors- the daily tabloid of the Empire of Evul !!!!
posted by elpapacito at 3:19 AM on November 13, 2003
Aaaahh the always fresh protect the kids ! And from a Rumor ! Must be -Terrorist Rumors- the daily tabloid of the Empire of Evul !!!!
posted by elpapacito at 3:19 AM on November 13, 2003
What I don't understand, is even if the allegations were true, why is this a scandal? Why should I care?
posted by salmacis at 3:21 AM on November 13, 2003
posted by salmacis at 3:21 AM on November 13, 2003
Fawcett, 40, was the "indispensable" royal aide said to have regularly squeezed the Prince of Wales's toothpaste.
from cnn
posted by andrew cooke at 3:21 AM on November 13, 2003
from cnn
posted by andrew cooke at 3:21 AM on November 13, 2003
What I don't understand, is even if the allegations were true, why is this a scandal? Why should I care?
You shouldn't care and won't care.
However, Charles's future role in Britain is King, i.e. head of state, "defender of the faith". Think about all the furor of the ordination of that homosexual priest caused a few weeks back. Now imagine these religious types if the head of the Church of England was bisexual.
Plus he allegedly helped cover up a rape, which is bad form in anyone's book.
posted by chill at 3:42 AM on November 13, 2003
You shouldn't care and won't care.
However, Charles's future role in Britain is King, i.e. head of state, "defender of the faith". Think about all the furor of the ordination of that homosexual priest caused a few weeks back. Now imagine these religious types if the head of the Church of England was bisexual.
Plus he allegedly helped cover up a rape, which is bad form in anyone's book.
posted by chill at 3:42 AM on November 13, 2003
Plus shortly after Diana found out about the rape she was killed in a car crash along with her muslim boyfriend, killing two birds with one stone, so to speak.
I also heard that he is a shape shifting lizard. I don't know what to believe anymore.
posted by chill at 3:46 AM on November 13, 2003
I also heard that he is a shape shifting lizard. I don't know what to believe anymore.
posted by chill at 3:46 AM on November 13, 2003
salmacis - on one hand (what's wrong with a little gay sex every now and then?) i agree with you, completely (and i was just thinking that i've never been in a relationship with another man that involves the kind of regular, intimate contact that must occur between a butler and his master, which might make traditional gay/straight distinctions irrelevant anyway).
on the other, the whole ambience seems so damn decadent. it's like we're reading about the sordid (the duties of the person paid to look after you include jerking you off - that seems odd whatever the sexuality; if this is more an additonal favour through friendship then i'm still uneasy with the whole master/servant relationship) lives of corrupt roman senators. and that raises my ire for three reasons. first, what's the deal with having some people so much richer than others; second what have these particular fuckheads done to deserve it; and third, to what extent is my money paying for it?
[on the scurrilous and completely unsubstantiated rumour front - did you hear that di screwed king j c of spain just to annoy charles?]
posted by andrew cooke at 3:52 AM on November 13, 2003
on the other, the whole ambience seems so damn decadent. it's like we're reading about the sordid (the duties of the person paid to look after you include jerking you off - that seems odd whatever the sexuality; if this is more an additonal favour through friendship then i'm still uneasy with the whole master/servant relationship) lives of corrupt roman senators. and that raises my ire for three reasons. first, what's the deal with having some people so much richer than others; second what have these particular fuckheads done to deserve it; and third, to what extent is my money paying for it?
[on the scurrilous and completely unsubstantiated rumour front - did you hear that di screwed king j c of spain just to annoy charles?]
posted by andrew cooke at 3:52 AM on November 13, 2003
oh, and also, how come these people are designated as my rulers? i certainly didn't ask for it.
posted by andrew cooke at 3:56 AM on November 13, 2003
posted by andrew cooke at 3:56 AM on November 13, 2003
So Charles is going to be the next Queen. I'm torn. I don't want this kind of thing to be damaging to someone. I want it to be damaging to the royal family though. Decisions, decisions...
posted by vbfg at 3:58 AM on November 13, 2003
posted by vbfg at 3:58 AM on November 13, 2003
This is all mere irrelevant frippery. What we really need to do is drag every last royal out into the middle of the Mall, and put a bullet in their inbred skulls. Nothing will change. Eastender's viewing figures might go up a little, but that's about it.
posted by influx at 4:03 AM on November 13, 2003
posted by influx at 4:03 AM on November 13, 2003
Maybe it's just because I'm American, but it'd really piss me off if I had to financially support those silly fops running around acting all crazy.
posted by ph00dz at 4:19 AM on November 13, 2003
posted by ph00dz at 4:19 AM on November 13, 2003
More gay sex among the royals, please!
posted by Hildegarde at 4:22 AM on November 13, 2003
posted by Hildegarde at 4:22 AM on November 13, 2003
Is this something that I would have to watch Eddie Izzard to know about?
posted by keli at 4:22 AM on November 13, 2003
posted by keli at 4:22 AM on November 13, 2003
I was happiest when an ITN TV reporter said:
"Prince Charles has been caught in a very compromising position."
Then later:
"He's really taking a pounding over this one."
No, really.
posted by armoured-ant at 4:50 AM on November 13, 2003
"Prince Charles has been caught in a very compromising position."
Then later:
"He's really taking a pounding over this one."
No, really.
posted by armoured-ant at 4:50 AM on November 13, 2003
Fawcett, 40, was the "indispensable" royal aide said to have regularly squeezed the Prince of Wales's toothpaste.
from cnn
OMG, CNN really did print that! lol
posted by rushmc at 4:56 AM on November 13, 2003
from cnn
OMG, CNN really did print that! lol
posted by rushmc at 4:56 AM on November 13, 2003
apparently there's a video featuring prince charles, shot with a weird green nightvision camera...
I think that you're confusing the two scandals, because the Paris Hilton sex tape is shot that way. It's mostly blazing retinas. It looks like two of the zombies from "28 Days Later" are humping. Also, she stares into the camera and poses while in flagrante dilecto, and stops the proceedings to check her ringing cell phone.
posted by Mayor Curley at 5:00 AM on November 13, 2003
I think that you're confusing the two scandals, because the Paris Hilton sex tape is shot that way. It's mostly blazing retinas. It looks like two of the zombies from "28 Days Later" are humping. Also, she stares into the camera and poses while in flagrante dilecto, and stops the proceedings to check her ringing cell phone.
posted by Mayor Curley at 5:00 AM on November 13, 2003
it was a joke...
posted by andrew cooke at 5:07 AM on November 13, 2003
posted by andrew cooke at 5:07 AM on November 13, 2003
I just wanna be the first to say that I could care less about: the kennedys, the royal family, and the hilton sisters. thank you.
posted by mcsweetie at 5:12 AM on November 13, 2003
posted by mcsweetie at 5:12 AM on November 13, 2003
influx - I'd check the brakes on your car if I were you....
posted by brettski at 5:18 AM on November 13, 2003
posted by brettski at 5:18 AM on November 13, 2003
Even P. Diddy had a right-hand man. Makes you wonder...
posted by emelenjr at 5:20 AM on November 13, 2003
posted by emelenjr at 5:20 AM on November 13, 2003
It's totally yawnarama. Plus it's given me mental images I'd very much like to erase.
posted by Summer at 5:28 AM on November 13, 2003
posted by Summer at 5:28 AM on November 13, 2003
1. Royal people/Presidents having sex (gay, blue dress or otherwise): Very bad, unmentionable, stop the floodgates or if the news gets out, for shame! Impeach the man!
Unless you're Francois Mitterand of course who maintained a mistress throughout his marriage and presidency. Both the mistress and their illegimate daughter were at his funeral, shouder to shoulder with the "real" lot. This was an open secret amongst the French press but nobody really gave a toss. Which brings us neatly back to Charlie boy...
posted by jontyjago at 5:34 AM on November 13, 2003
Unless you're Francois Mitterand of course who maintained a mistress throughout his marriage and presidency. Both the mistress and their illegimate daughter were at his funeral, shouder to shoulder with the "real" lot. This was an open secret amongst the French press but nobody really gave a toss. Which brings us neatly back to Charlie boy...
posted by jontyjago at 5:34 AM on November 13, 2003
Why is it a scandal / I don't care
I, too, love the smell of burnt paper in the morning.
posted by magullo at 5:59 AM on November 13, 2003
I, too, love the smell of burnt paper in the morning.
posted by magullo at 5:59 AM on November 13, 2003
'Maybe it's just because I'm American, but it'd really piss me off if I had to financially support those silly fops running around acting all crazy.'
There's always Iraq for you guys ;-)
Seriously tho', who is it that gives a rodent's ringpiece? It's god fodder for the press worldwide, their readers lap it up and so on it goes. I stopped buying newspapers yonks ago & avoiding the UK tabloid press is a good way of keeping sane.
posted by i_cola at 6:16 AM on November 13, 2003
There's always Iraq for you guys ;-)
Seriously tho', who is it that gives a rodent's ringpiece? It's god fodder for the press worldwide, their readers lap it up and so on it goes. I stopped buying newspapers yonks ago & avoiding the UK tabloid press is a good way of keeping sane.
posted by i_cola at 6:16 AM on November 13, 2003
Chill: Last I heard, Charles was giving up the "defender of the faith" part of the title/job. This was both to help make it possible for him to marry whom he chooses as well as a move toward a secular monarchy.
Someone mentioned having to explain why there is still a monarchy. Why? Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, and I am uncertain, but I think Sweden and Norway all still have their own monarchies. What's the big deal?
In these modern times when little power is bestowed upon monarchs, I would think the royals themselves might be the ones inclined to plead the case against it. It is they who must jump through the hoops and live their lives under close scrutiny.
We commoners get to watch in amusement as they stumble and bumble in their attempts to do the impossible feat of being perfect. Our best laughs come when we scream "FOUL!" and watch them as they accept the inhuman standard to which we hold them together with the oppressive guilt of their failure.
posted by Goofyy at 6:29 AM on November 13, 2003
Someone mentioned having to explain why there is still a monarchy. Why? Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, and I am uncertain, but I think Sweden and Norway all still have their own monarchies. What's the big deal?
In these modern times when little power is bestowed upon monarchs, I would think the royals themselves might be the ones inclined to plead the case against it. It is they who must jump through the hoops and live their lives under close scrutiny.
We commoners get to watch in amusement as they stumble and bumble in their attempts to do the impossible feat of being perfect. Our best laughs come when we scream "FOUL!" and watch them as they accept the inhuman standard to which we hold them together with the oppressive guilt of their failure.
posted by Goofyy at 6:29 AM on November 13, 2003
'Maybe it's just because I'm American, but it'd really piss me off if I had to financially support those silly fops running around acting all crazy.'
And on top of it all, we Londoners have to pay another £4 million for your boy's visit next week!
posted by brettski at 6:35 AM on November 13, 2003
And on top of it all, we Londoners have to pay another £4 million for your boy's visit next week!
posted by brettski at 6:35 AM on November 13, 2003
So how happy was the finish? Like, oral happy or manually happy? I'm just curious, though really, I ought to know better than to think about Charles "I Want To Be Your Tampon" Windsor's sexual habits. Wills, on the other hand... I'm going to hell.
posted by headspace at 6:42 AM on November 13, 2003
posted by headspace at 6:42 AM on November 13, 2003
I think "squeezing the Prince of Wales's toothpaste" wins the meme-of-the-week prize. I'd never thought of this as a euphemism for a hand job before, but come to think of it...
posted by cbrody at 6:45 AM on November 13, 2003
posted by cbrody at 6:45 AM on November 13, 2003
Chill: Last I heard, Charles was giving up the "defender of the faith" part of the title/job. This was both to help make it possible for him to marry whom he chooses as well as a move toward a secular monarchy.
Out of curiosity I did a quick Google, it seems we are both wrong. Charles intends to drop "Defender of the Faith" and use "Defender of Faith", so as to reflect the multi-cultural society that Britain has become. BBC
posted by chill at 7:06 AM on November 13, 2003
Out of curiosity I did a quick Google, it seems we are both wrong. Charles intends to drop "Defender of the Faith" and use "Defender of Faith", so as to reflect the multi-cultural society that Britain has become. BBC
posted by chill at 7:06 AM on November 13, 2003
HA HA HA!! "Happy Finish!"
posted by Quartermass at 8:08 AM on November 13, 2003
posted by Quartermass at 8:08 AM on November 13, 2003
Didn't the Guardian say that Fawcett had been "keeping his head down" since the allegations had been made?
posted by brettski at 8:20 AM on November 13, 2003
posted by brettski at 8:20 AM on November 13, 2003
hehehe.. the innuendo-punning-reporting is great!
(oh and andrew cooke, in that infamous film, Paris phone does ring: Guy says: now don't answer it
Paris: I'm just gonna see who it is... oh no, it's fucking Ken
was that the joke?)
posted by dabitch at 8:35 AM on November 13, 2003
(oh and andrew cooke, in that infamous film, Paris phone does ring: Guy says: now don't answer it
Paris: I'm just gonna see who it is... oh no, it's fucking Ken
was that the joke?)
posted by dabitch at 8:35 AM on November 13, 2003
Chill: So Britain will have a Defender of all Faiths whose toothpaste is regularly squeezed? I don't know, but this dental care business may not be so popular among some of the Faiths...
posted by nkyad at 8:45 AM on November 13, 2003
posted by nkyad at 8:45 AM on November 13, 2003
Reminds me of that David Mamet joke: The rich copulate the same way as the poor. They just take off more clothes before doing it.
posted by dobbs at 8:53 AM on November 13, 2003
posted by dobbs at 8:53 AM on November 13, 2003
"Maybe it's just because I'm American, but it'd really piss me off if I had to financially support those silly fops running around acting all crazy."
Yeah, but what are they going to do - assassinate the prez?
"[...] but I think Sweden and Norway all still have their own monarchies."
Correct. Sweden and Norway are monarchies.
And, as any european bachelor of means know, Princess Maleleine Bernadotte of Sweden is a major hottie.
posted by spazzm at 9:07 AM on November 13, 2003
Yeah, but what are they going to do - assassinate the prez?
"[...] but I think Sweden and Norway all still have their own monarchies."
Correct. Sweden and Norway are monarchies.
And, as any european bachelor of means know, Princess Maleleine Bernadotte of Sweden is a major hottie.
posted by spazzm at 9:07 AM on November 13, 2003
>'Maybe it's just because I'm American, but it'd really piss me off if I had to financially support those silly fops running around acting all crazy.'
A gent I know thinks it is a good balance to have the head of state somewhat devoid of real power, while the second in charge runs the day-to-day affairs. He thought that when his home country made the President head of state instead of Betty there was an increase in corruption.
I like the monarchy. I like Betty Windsor, I like seeing her photo when I buy something or post a letter; it's part of my national identity. I hear your arguments about the money it costs, but doubtlessly the monarchy generates tourist dollars (or pounds) and I do believe my friend's intangible corruption argument. She's adapted well to the demands on her income and taxation. And yas, as someone above said, they are held to unattainable standards, all the while publishers are waving banknotes for scandal, whether real or false. And what is the alternative? Tony Blair as head of state? Margaret Thatcher? I hope the Windsors survive intact. I'm looking forward to Will on the notes and coins.
posted by philfromhavelock at 9:48 AM on November 13, 2003
A gent I know thinks it is a good balance to have the head of state somewhat devoid of real power, while the second in charge runs the day-to-day affairs. He thought that when his home country made the President head of state instead of Betty there was an increase in corruption.
I like the monarchy. I like Betty Windsor, I like seeing her photo when I buy something or post a letter; it's part of my national identity. I hear your arguments about the money it costs, but doubtlessly the monarchy generates tourist dollars (or pounds) and I do believe my friend's intangible corruption argument. She's adapted well to the demands on her income and taxation. And yas, as someone above said, they are held to unattainable standards, all the while publishers are waving banknotes for scandal, whether real or false. And what is the alternative? Tony Blair as head of state? Margaret Thatcher? I hope the Windsors survive intact. I'm looking forward to Will on the notes and coins.
posted by philfromhavelock at 9:48 AM on November 13, 2003
but I think Sweden and Norway all still have their own monarchies.
Holland has a ruling Monarchy, Queen Beatrice whom is law, yet allows a governing body to govern the country. Sweden's King stepped down in 86(iirc) to a Prime Minister whom was assassinated. Norway was under Sweden at the beginning of the twentieth century along with Finland which both split from Sweden forming later on their own countries. Please correct my mistakes our Meta Scandinavian members.
posted by thomcatspike at 9:50 AM on November 13, 2003
Holland has a ruling Monarchy, Queen Beatrice whom is law, yet allows a governing body to govern the country. Sweden's King stepped down in 86(iirc) to a Prime Minister whom was assassinated. Norway was under Sweden at the beginning of the twentieth century along with Finland which both split from Sweden forming later on their own countries. Please correct my mistakes our Meta Scandinavian members.
posted by thomcatspike at 9:50 AM on November 13, 2003
If Charles needs someone to "squeeze his toothpaste" for him, then I think we can safely guess the answer to that age-old question, "Does the Queen wipe her own ass?"
posted by five fresh fish at 10:24 AM on November 13, 2003
posted by five fresh fish at 10:24 AM on November 13, 2003
whatever the reason, it's about time the British got out of their ridiculous and antiquated relationship with Royalty. It makes anarchy look friggin' attractive. (Anybody want to buy a used dynasty? I hear you can get one for a bottle of peppermint shnapps...)
posted by zaelic at 10:26 AM on November 13, 2003
posted by zaelic at 10:26 AM on November 13, 2003
gent I know thinks it is a good balance to have the head of state somewhat devoid of real power, while the second in charge runs the day-to-day affairs.
I think the response here is, "something something devious Cheney something something stupid Bush something."
I really don't have time to flesh this out.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 10:28 AM on November 13, 2003
I think the response here is, "something something devious Cheney something something stupid Bush something."
I really don't have time to flesh this out.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 10:28 AM on November 13, 2003
Tony Blair as head of state? Margaret Thatcher? I hope the Windsors survive intact.
I guess I don't understand the meaning of "head of state". I've always thought that the responsibility of the head of state was to be the public face of the country abroad; that it is largely a diplomatic position. If this is the case, than Tony Blair is the de facto head of state of the United Kingdom: he's the one who attends summits of world leaders, who gives the occasional speech to foreign legislatures, and who shows up for the big state dinners. Does the queen ever represent her country outside of the commonwealth?
I understand that officially, the queen is "head of state". But does officialdom matter when the real representative of the country to the rest of the world is the Prime Minister?
posted by mr_roboto at 10:30 AM on November 13, 2003
I guess I don't understand the meaning of "head of state". I've always thought that the responsibility of the head of state was to be the public face of the country abroad; that it is largely a diplomatic position. If this is the case, than Tony Blair is the de facto head of state of the United Kingdom: he's the one who attends summits of world leaders, who gives the occasional speech to foreign legislatures, and who shows up for the big state dinners. Does the queen ever represent her country outside of the commonwealth?
I understand that officially, the queen is "head of state". But does officialdom matter when the real representative of the country to the rest of the world is the Prime Minister?
posted by mr_roboto at 10:30 AM on November 13, 2003
As soon as you Americans use your right to arms and overthrow your tard of a president, we'll consider whether we want the Queen to be head of state.
Cool?
posted by Hildegarde at 10:38 AM on November 13, 2003
Cool?
posted by Hildegarde at 10:38 AM on November 13, 2003
"Sweden's King stepped down in 86..."
Oh god. Why are everyone so miserably uninformed about the state of affairs in Scandinavia?
Here's the beef, broken down real simple like:
Sweden, Norway and Denmark are constitutional hereditary monarchies. This means the head of state is the King or Queen, and the next King or Queen is the offspring of the current royal couple. The King or Queen does not have any real political power - the democratically elected ministers do. The most important minister is (surprise!) the Prime Minister.
Finland and Iceland (the two other Scandinavian countries) are republics, hence they have Presidents and no King nor Queen.
posted by spazzm at 11:01 AM on November 13, 2003
Oh god. Why are everyone so miserably uninformed about the state of affairs in Scandinavia?
Here's the beef, broken down real simple like:
Sweden, Norway and Denmark are constitutional hereditary monarchies. This means the head of state is the King or Queen, and the next King or Queen is the offspring of the current royal couple. The King or Queen does not have any real political power - the democratically elected ministers do. The most important minister is (surprise!) the Prime Minister.
Finland and Iceland (the two other Scandinavian countries) are republics, hence they have Presidents and no King nor Queen.
posted by spazzm at 11:01 AM on November 13, 2003
Wasn't King George III known for doing the horizontal bop with Lord Butte?
posted by euphorb at 11:19 AM on November 13, 2003
posted by euphorb at 11:19 AM on November 13, 2003
Until Britain is purged of the royalty in its entirety, we can never lay claim to this country being egalitarian or meritocratic. Britain is still highly stratified along class lines, and the only way to change that is to get rid of the hereditary inbreds sat in that fucking pile down in town. Fuck 'em all. This country needs a revolution.
posted by influx at 11:47 AM on November 13, 2003
posted by influx at 11:47 AM on November 13, 2003
This pisses me off--not Charles having it off with his ADC (a repellent, beefy character), but the way that USerican and Canadian news organizations have rolled over for the idiocy that is UK libel law.
Auberon Waugh, England has need of thee at this hour! My guess is that if he were alive, he would have someone in George Smith's family file a section (involuntary commitment to mental hospital) and be sure that Smith repeated his allegations in court. Then every news organization could report on Smith's making the allegations.
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:05 PM on November 13, 2003
Auberon Waugh, England has need of thee at this hour! My guess is that if he were alive, he would have someone in George Smith's family file a section (involuntary commitment to mental hospital) and be sure that Smith repeated his allegations in court. Then every news organization could report on Smith's making the allegations.
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:05 PM on November 13, 2003
This may be off-topic a bit, but can anyone tell me why most monarchies have a King or a Queen, but not both?
posted by tommasz at 12:51 PM on November 13, 2003
posted by tommasz at 12:51 PM on November 13, 2003
philfromhavelock - how the fuck does the existence of the queen make anyone who does have power less corrupt? where on earth is the logic in that? you think tony blair thinks "oh, i'm not queen, so i won't shaft the general public for my own political ends today?". WHY? the only thing i can see a powerless first-in-command doing is deflecting attention from whatever the person with the real power.
you think unaccountability is a Good Thing? you think it's better to have a bunch of people ruling over you just because they were born that way rather than someone the people have elected? give me strength, sweet lord.
oh sorry, it's your friend who's the person with the stupid ideas. riiiight....
posted by andrew cooke at 12:58 PM on November 13, 2003
you think unaccountability is a Good Thing? you think it's better to have a bunch of people ruling over you just because they were born that way rather than someone the people have elected? give me strength, sweet lord.
oh sorry, it's your friend who's the person with the stupid ideas. riiiight....
posted by andrew cooke at 12:58 PM on November 13, 2003
s/whatever//
posted by andrew cooke at 1:00 PM on November 13, 2003
posted by andrew cooke at 1:00 PM on November 13, 2003
why most monarchies have a King or a Queen, but not both?
Lots of monarchies have both Kings and Queens. Spain has King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia, Sweden has King Carl Gustav and Queen Silvia, Norway has King Harald and Queen (Red?) Sonja.
But usually only one of them is actually the reigning monarch, and the other is a "mere" consort. I suppose William and Mary might be an exception?
You tend to get a King and Queen when there's a hereditary King who's married to a Queen Consort. When the crown is inherited by a woman, she's usually a Queen Regnant and her hubby is some manner of prince or something.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:09 PM on November 13, 2003
Lots of monarchies have both Kings and Queens. Spain has King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia, Sweden has King Carl Gustav and Queen Silvia, Norway has King Harald and Queen (Red?) Sonja.
But usually only one of them is actually the reigning monarch, and the other is a "mere" consort. I suppose William and Mary might be an exception?
You tend to get a King and Queen when there's a hereditary King who's married to a Queen Consort. When the crown is inherited by a woman, she's usually a Queen Regnant and her hubby is some manner of prince or something.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:09 PM on November 13, 2003
The Daily Show had a hysterical bit on this a few nights ago - Steven Colbert and Jon Stewart both lost it on camera. It involved a banana.
The stories just keep on coming, day in and day out. And yet the public remains singularly uninformed.
Hmm, sounds familiar...
posted by gottabefunky at 2:28 PM on November 13, 2003
The stories just keep on coming, day in and day out. And yet the public remains singularly uninformed.
Hmm, sounds familiar...
posted by gottabefunky at 2:28 PM on November 13, 2003
As an Australian, I am still technically 'subject' to Betty and I guess in future to Prince Toothpaste. A carefully framed referendum made sure we kept the link.
Further to the discussion on the relative roles of a president versus a prime minister, you'll find here a quick summary of the role of the Australian Governor General, who 'represents' the Queen of Australia when she's not in the country (which, I'm glad to say, is most of the time.)
Living now in the USA, I prefer the prime minister model where the "boss politician" is at least answerable to parliament on a regular basis. I'd love to see GWB try and survive question time - especially as being found lying to parliament can lead to your dismissal. (Never happens - it's not just Clinton who can redefine "truth".) The president / governor general role should be "above" politics to represent the on-going institutions of the nation.
posted by ozjohn at 2:32 PM on November 13, 2003
Further to the discussion on the relative roles of a president versus a prime minister, you'll find here a quick summary of the role of the Australian Governor General, who 'represents' the Queen of Australia when she's not in the country (which, I'm glad to say, is most of the time.)
Living now in the USA, I prefer the prime minister model where the "boss politician" is at least answerable to parliament on a regular basis. I'd love to see GWB try and survive question time - especially as being found lying to parliament can lead to your dismissal. (Never happens - it's not just Clinton who can redefine "truth".) The president / governor general role should be "above" politics to represent the on-going institutions of the nation.
posted by ozjohn at 2:32 PM on November 13, 2003
RUO_X: I suppose William and Mary might be an exception?
I don't think so. IIRC, although Mary had the right to the throne, as James II's daughter, she was a nominal co-sovereign only. William didn't believe women had the capacity for rule, so therefore took state decisions on his own, and left the country in the hands of his ministers when he was overseas fighting everybody, which was always.
posted by Sonny Jim at 3:45 PM on November 13, 2003
I don't think so. IIRC, although Mary had the right to the throne, as James II's daughter, she was a nominal co-sovereign only. William didn't believe women had the capacity for rule, so therefore took state decisions on his own, and left the country in the hands of his ministers when he was overseas fighting everybody, which was always.
posted by Sonny Jim at 3:45 PM on November 13, 2003
William and Mary were an exception--Mary was Queen by divine right, but William insisted on being named King because he was a ruthless egomaniac.
The wives of male hereditary monarchs are called Queens, but the husbands of female hereditary monarchs aren't generally called Kings, because Kings outrank Queens. Therefore, the husband of a Queen in her own right needs to have a title (Prince Consort, Duke, etc.) that reflects his lower status (except for William, above, and that actually took quite a bit of wheeling and dealing to accomplish!)
posted by Sidhedevil at 4:57 PM on November 13, 2003
The wives of male hereditary monarchs are called Queens, but the husbands of female hereditary monarchs aren't generally called Kings, because Kings outrank Queens. Therefore, the husband of a Queen in her own right needs to have a title (Prince Consort, Duke, etc.) that reflects his lower status (except for William, above, and that actually took quite a bit of wheeling and dealing to accomplish!)
posted by Sidhedevil at 4:57 PM on November 13, 2003
andrew cooke:how the fuck does the existence of the queen make anyone who does have power less corrupt?
Maybe she can send Tony to the tower and have him beheaded. In this old countries you never know which ancient law is still in place. And then she can stop having him for tea, causing a crisis of enormous proportions.
posted by nkyad at 5:08 PM on November 13, 2003
Maybe she can send Tony to the tower and have him beheaded. In this old countries you never know which ancient law is still in place. And then she can stop having him for tea, causing a crisis of enormous proportions.
posted by nkyad at 5:08 PM on November 13, 2003
The Queen "has" Tony for teatime? Disgusting. She can do far better than that, I'm sure.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:12 PM on November 13, 2003
posted by five fresh fish at 6:12 PM on November 13, 2003
Oh god. Why are everyone so miserably uninformed about the state of affairs in Scandinavia?
I have a suggestion, and it involves toothpaste.
Anyway, I used to say back in the days of the Diana tribulations that much of the mess could have been avoided if Elizabeth II R had just lived up to the modern, egalitarian image she projected early in her reign, and let Chuck marry whoever he damn well pleaseth. Instead, Camilla was unsuitable; for reasons of DivineRight Responsibility any number of nice Catholic princesses were unsuitable, and for reasons involving Victoria's profligacy, any number of Protestant princesses were uncomfortably closely related -- leading to the Mistake, aka the Wedding of the Century. And now, to toothpaste.
Wait, does toothpaste improve on tampax?
Present-day monarchies, courtesy the ever-useful Historical Atlas of the 20th Century.
posted by dhartung at 11:16 PM on November 13, 2003
I have a suggestion, and it involves toothpaste.
Anyway, I used to say back in the days of the Diana tribulations that much of the mess could have been avoided if Elizabeth II R had just lived up to the modern, egalitarian image she projected early in her reign, and let Chuck marry whoever he damn well pleaseth. Instead, Camilla was unsuitable; for reasons of Divine
Wait, does toothpaste improve on tampax?
Present-day monarchies, courtesy the ever-useful Historical Atlas of the 20th Century.
posted by dhartung at 11:16 PM on November 13, 2003
TCS: We don't have a ruling queen. We have a constitutional monarchy too.
The Kingdom of the Netherlands is a constitutional monarchy: in other words, the monarchy is based on the constitution and the monarch's position is regulated by the constitution, certain Acts of Parliament and unwritten constitutional law.
The Dutch constitution refers to the head of state as 'the King', even when the monarch is a woman, like the present Queen Beatrix.
koninklijk huis
posted by ginz at 8:03 AM on November 14, 2003
The Kingdom of the Netherlands is a constitutional monarchy: in other words, the monarchy is based on the constitution and the monarch's position is regulated by the constitution, certain Acts of Parliament and unwritten constitutional law.
The Dutch constitution refers to the head of state as 'the King', even when the monarch is a woman, like the present Queen Beatrix.
koninklijk huis
posted by ginz at 8:03 AM on November 14, 2003
mr_roboto, point taken. I live in the Commonwealth so I have always seen Betty as Head of State ahead of Tony or Margaret or John.
And no, andrew cooke, I don't make up friends for my visits to MeFi Street. Cliche time: power corrupts and absolute power blah blah. My friend's interpretation of events that happened in his country are as valid as the opinions and interpretations you have of your country. You don't have to yell and swear, insult me and be sarcastic, suggest I have imaginary friends and call on the Lord for strength just because you think your opinions are superior to mine.
posted by philfromhavelock at 8:19 AM on November 14, 2003
And no, andrew cooke, I don't make up friends for my visits to MeFi Street. Cliche time: power corrupts and absolute power blah blah. My friend's interpretation of events that happened in his country are as valid as the opinions and interpretations you have of your country. You don't have to yell and swear, insult me and be sarcastic, suggest I have imaginary friends and call on the Lord for strength just because you think your opinions are superior to mine.
posted by philfromhavelock at 8:19 AM on November 14, 2003
ginz & spazzm , thanks for clarifying that, my friends from Scandinavian didn't always have the best translation while explaining things. Nor I either.
posted by thomcatspike at 4:51 PM on November 17, 2003
posted by thomcatspike at 4:51 PM on November 17, 2003
« Older My Name is Wendell and I'm a TiVoHolic | The Nerd Test Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by spazzm at 2:34 AM on November 13, 2003