PDA

View Full Version : Right Royal Satire... "Whats in a Coat of Arms?"



tomasocarthaigh
20-04-2011, 11:09 AM
YouTube - Whats in a Coat of Arms? William and Kates Royal Wedding 2011

The United Kingdoms royal wedding this year of Kate Middleton and Prince William is all over the news, and I cant help but feel cynical about it. For one thing, its liable to go the way of Charles and Diana's, and the now Princess Catherine liable to be used, abused and discarded.

In these times of recession, watching will be a people whose poverty beit from unemployment, addition or both the newlyweds cannot comprehend, which in my view shows the hypocracy of the whole Royal Family apart from the for-now-happy couple.

Needless to say, Im a republican, even if being Irish its not my country to be thinking about!!!

C. Flower
20-04-2011, 11:13 AM
YouTube - Whats in a Coat of Arms? William and Kates Royal Wedding 2011 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODyV8ffdC4c)

The United Kingdoms royal wedding this year of Kate Middleton and Prince William is all over the news, and I cant help but feel cynical about it. For one thing, its liable to go the way of Charles and Diana's, and the now Princess Catherine liable to be used, abused and discarded.

In these times of recession, watching will be a people whose poverty beit from unemployment, addition or both the newlyweds cannot comprehend, which in my view shows the hypocracy of the whole Royal Family apart from the for-now-happy couple.

Needless to say, Im a republican, even if being Irish its not my country to be thinking about!!!

YouTube - Whats in a Coat of Arms? William and Kates Royal Wedding 2011

tomasocarthaigh
20-04-2011, 11:14 AM
Thanks... I think I got it to work as well!!!!

Captain Con O'Sullivan
20-04-2011, 11:39 AM
I was reading a story on that hastily arranged coat of arms (arranged by Middleton's parents 'Doors to Manual' and her husband by commissioning the college of heralds for the job).

This is going to raise eyebrows across the arsecrockery as it is a particularly gauche thing to do- the Middletons are commoners and the suggestion that the two families' coats of arms will be 'merged' after the wedding will be a non-starter I'd say.

They aren't short of chutzpah though it has to be said the Middleton in-laws ... they'll be put back in their place soon enough after the wedding though;)

Holly
20-04-2011, 11:46 AM
Kate Middleton's only job from now on will be to provide a heir to the English throne and not to embarrass the royal family.
Nick Clegg says that "in this day and age" not to allow a first-born girl to be next in line to the throne before a younger brother is an "anachronism" and he kept a straight face too.

Captain Con O'Sullivan
20-04-2011, 12:03 PM
The whole idea of monarchy is an anachronism in this day and age. The British are the only ones who can decide whether a British monarchy is suitable or not and its an awkward one because it is only a semi-political one because the monarchy there is now a cultural or heritage debate rather than constitutional.

Working in the UK as I do whenever the subject comes up and opinions around the table sought I usually take the diplomatic route and say 'I feel that is more of a cultural issue which should be decided by British people and as I didn't grow up with a monarchy it would be better as a guest worker if I left such debates to the British'. That usually goes down very well and excuses me from getting into an argument where my views might be regarded as an attack on the cultural institutions of a country which has always been good to me.

Middleton of course in the long sweep of history is a bit of fresh blood and her role is as brood mare really when all the folderol and frocks are safely in the wardrobe. I heard a straw poll among young women in Oxford Street today on the wedding and royal marriage in general and it was surprising how many young women were able to see past the glitz and made comments such as 'not envying marrying into that family'.

Close to Tower of London stuff at times. I suppose it has to do with a widely held perception that the Royal family is a bit of a curse and tied in with some unpleasant connotatons dating back to the Diana affair(s).

Andrew and Sarah Ferguson haven't done much for the brand either- she's barking mental in my opinion and Andrew is hanging around the international version of dockside taverns of course.

Strangely enough the one Royal who is gaining ground heavily in the respect stakes is Princess Anne who used to have horrendous press at one time. A hard case who hates the tabloid media she seems to have shouldered an awful lot of the appearance, meet n'greet and openings of events- the day to day stuff. She's way out in front in terms of public engagements and rumour has it even has developed something of a sense of humour- albeit of the distinctly Hanoverian school.

Phil the Greek is a good laugh though and a bit of an uncontrollable rogue. The only one in any way intellectual was Princess Margaret who was more than a bit rogueish but had the wit to hold her own with writers and some fairly heavy intellectually weaponed people.

antiestablishmentarian
20-04-2011, 01:29 PM
Captain Con, the Crown still retains significant constitutional powers, which means the question of succession is more than a cultural one, it is politically important too. The monarch has personal discretion to appoint the Commonwealth Governors General in countries such as NZ, Australia etc. This Governor General however still has the power to override the democratically elected parliaments of those countries and depose governments, as happened to Gough Whitlam in Australia in the 1970s when he was kicked out by the then Governor General. Prince William, when he's eventually king, will continue to exercise those powers vested in him, and as such he could some day have a profound political effect on the Commonwealth polities.

Captain Con O'Sullivan
20-04-2011, 01:37 PM
True legally and technically. I recall the Australian affair or rather reading about it. The chances of that happening are remote in the future as it opened up a debate in a number of commonwealth countries that the royalists didn't like at all.

I suspect both Australia and Canada will leave the Commonwealth within ten years and that will lead to a general collapse in the Commonwealth concept.

I recall an Irish lad (Philip ?Barrington? ) who worked as an editor for the Sunday Times Rich List supplement who maintained steadfastly at a conference that the Queen was the richest woman on earth because she effectively owned Canada and Australia.

The thing is I disagreed with him because ownership conveys the ability to dispose of an item and clearly she can't do that or there is no-one with the money to pay her for them. Also she is a caretaker albeit one with a fabulous employment contract and I don't expect to see her join the Distributive worker's union anytime soon.

It would be suicidal to the Commonwealth for a Governor General to attempt to pull another Canberra stunt and I think they know it.

Entropy alone decrees that even if the current legalities are completely ignored then the Commonwealth is still doomed in my opinion.

Holly
21-04-2011, 09:17 AM
The Australians and New Zealanders are enthralled with Prince William since his visit down under because, although he is one of their betters, he acting like a real human being. They deserve to have the English monarch as their head of state.

tomasocarthaigh
21-04-2011, 04:16 PM
Heres the words for anyone interested...

Oak trees are common around the Middleton family's Berkshire home village of Bucklebury, reputedly since Nelson's colleague Admiral Collingwood passed that way after Trafalgar, scattering acorns so that the Royal Navy should never be short of ships' timber.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_yeus37pL-9E/TON3lds830I/AAAAAAAABMY/cOpSXaW5Fj0/s1600/Prince-William-Kate-Middleton-Engagement-Ring.jpg

Acorns proud, planted by hand
So that never short of oak may be
The Empire of whom Collingwood was proud
Thinking it last forever maybe
It was not to be, and now these two
A commoner princess swept by his charms
To be joined in a union maybe as weak
As his parents: a new drawn coat of arms

With union colours and Collinwoods acorns
So that England never be short of oak
Now they took all Ireland's, a world looks on
And media provides a glossy cloak
A royal pageant, celebration a show
As history by the second is carved
And watching somewhere a drug addicts child
Its parents strung out, the baby half starved

Such is reality, such is progress
Democracy is the systems name
Some have too little, others too much
Like ages past, it is the same...

C. Flower
05-06-2017, 10:48 PM
Autobiographer Roy Strong says that the Queen Mother was competely racist.

http://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/uknews/royal-diarist-reveals-he-hid-queen-mothers-racism-because-it-was-too-awful/ar-BBC0IpL?li=BBr5HCU&ocid=mailsignout

It's a family thing. When the BBC put out the first ever "fly on the wall" reality TV show of the British Royals, they were shown cracking racist 'monkey' and similar jokes about various non-white heads of state they had been burdened with meeting.

pluralist
05-06-2017, 11:29 PM
Autobiographer Roy Strong says that the Queen Mother was competely racist.

http://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/uknews/royal-diarist-reveals-he-hid-queen-mothers-racism-because-it-was-too-awful/ar-BBC0IpL?li=BBr5HCU&ocid=mailsignout

It's a family thing.

I doubt that. The 'racism' expressed in those statements would hardly be unusual for people of that generation.

C. Flower
06-06-2017, 05:58 AM
I doubt that. The 'racism' expressed in those statements would hardly be unusual for people of that generation.

Not unusual, but certainly not the norm. Strong clearly thought it was remarkable. Laughing at the "funny black people" may have lightened the weary royal load, but was racist. The British armed forces are deeply racist - an imperial army - and the Royal family inextricably linked with them. "Rag heads" being the favoured term for muslims.