The Royal Wedding

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Merlin, have you ever read any of the Lord D'Arcy stories by Randall Garrett? Alternate universe with John the umpteenth on the throne. The Plantagenet dynasty continued to modern times.

An interesting point of that society is that there was never an American Revolution, no scientific successes with working thaumaturgy being the main science. The Roman Church remains firmly in the act, but there seems to have been some sort of saw-off. The rival power is the Polish Empire holding most of the east, while HBM John holds the British Empire.

The stories are police-procedural. D'Arcy is the chief investigator for the Duke of Normandy who happens to be the king's brother. Naturally he has a forensic sorcerer as a side kick.

One of the givens is that when Elanor married Richard, she brought, if effect, all of Europe with her as a dowry (initially Aquitaine). The Spanish seem to have failed as explorers, because the Duke of Mechicoe is at court in some of the episodes (because he is a sensitive). I'd better stop or this will be a gigantic spoiler, and you should read all this for yourself.

No I haven't.

There was a documentry on TV last year about the true royal family, where the Plantagenet line was traced to Michael Hastings now living in Australia. I don't normally read fiction.

My highlights.

You are missing a large, varied and colorful part of the world of books. Fiction is great for relaxation, and recreation, to say nothing of a source of entertainment par excellence.

You mean you haven't read The Hobbit? The Lord of the Rings?

Again no I haven't, and I'm not really interested. But for non-fiction I can recommend the Biography of Sadam Hussein, The history of the RNLI, and literally hundreds of books about buses and coaches(my chosen profession).

Well then, for an insight into the American character, I recommend "The Story of My Life" by Benjamin Franklin. Very interesting reading for an autobiography. You might also try "Every Day Life in Rome" by the Oxford University press, two volumes, on ordinary goings on in the Roman Republic.

One's scope needs to be wide with non-fiction as there is a plethora of material. A good novel makes a nice break. I am sure the Royal Navy Lifesaving Institute is also exciting as reading material.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes William with a baby carriage.

Everyone thinks the British Royals have it made until you stop to think what life must be like on a microscope slide.

[Meg 368]

I never thought they had it made. They have to squander whatever talents and interests they have so they can live under a microscope.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The pity of it is that Prince Charles would probably have been either a career naval officer or an architect. Anything they study when young gets sacrificed to the needs of the Firm. Some things are possible however: The Queen is one of the foremost breeders of race horses on the planet; Charles is heavily into agrarian things. William and Harry really haven't settled into anything beyond their military service just yet.

Must be hell for Charles being the oldest Prince of Wales in recent history. He has all this training to be king, but may only sit on the throne for a short time before death comes calling. If the Queen Mother is any example, the present Queen could make it to 100+. The Queen Mum was a going concern almost up to the very end. I've lived in the reigns of three British Monarchs and it looks like that is going to be my limit.

[LexusInfernus 908]

I pity most of the European royalty, seeing how they have been mostly reduced to a ceremonial role, and have far reaching constraints placed on them. In a sense, most of them have less rights that standard citizens. No amount of wealth is worth such a price.

[Meg 368]

I pity most of the European royalty, seeing how they have been mostly reduced to a ceremonial role, and have far reaching constraints placed on them. In a sense, most of them have less rights that standard citizens. No amount of wealth is worth such a price.

There is also the dreary idea that they are born to that lot in life and can't do much to change it.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

It is all in the upbringing. The children are conditioned to accept the duty.

Stop and think for a moment about what a great convenience we have in the Crown. We have a permanent head of state: solid continuity. The government is relieved of a lot of archaic ceremonial nonsense, and it is a great pacifier for the people.

Republicanism is all very well, but if you have a president instead of a king, you have the expense of electing him all the time. This is a great distraction. Look at the United States: the new campaign starts almost at the same time as the inauguration ceremonies. Very wasteful. Must cost as much as maintaining the Crown, which has its own income as well.

[LexusInfernus 908]

To be honest, I quite like having a queen as well, and I was quite saddened by the fact that the previous government stripped away some of her last powers.

[Meg 368]

and then there is the dreary idea of being subject to people who have done nothing to earn their position and get to stay in their position whether the people like what they are doing or not.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

and then there is the dreary idea of being subject to people who have done nothing to earn their position and get to stay in their position whether the people like what they are doing or not.

Wrong! The Queen earns her keep. She reads each and every government paper every day, and holds weekly discussions with the Prime Minister. She is an island of historic stability to which he can refer, and she works hard to stay in the loop. Those Red Boxes follow her where ever she goes.

Then there are all the public appearances that are made by members of the Firm. If these were not done by the royals, who would do them? Most of the royals are also heavily involved with the military helping to hold up their traditions and morale.

Don't let the outward appearances fool you. The Firm of Windsor and Co. keeps the wheels well oiled and do things that would otherwise have to be done by others who are currently employed in other fields. The load these people take on is staggering. Take a look at the royal calendar sometime.

[LexusInfernus 908]

and then there is the dreary idea of being subject to people who have done nothing to earn their position and get to stay in their position whether the people like what they are doing or not.

Sure, in an absolute monarchy that would definitely hold true. But in most countries the royals dont have much power anymore and their impact on the government is quite minimal, though I believe in some cases essential for the greater good of the nation.

For example, the Dutch queen used to have the power to appoint a 'formateur' after the elections. A formateur is someone who brings all the political parties together and starts leading the negotiations between those parties that try to form a coalition government. This is a great idea as the queen can pretty much decide who it will be as soon as the election result is in and the negotiations can start right away. Its also good because she tends to pick formateurs that have centrists views, which in my opinion is great as it keeps the far left and far right parties out of the government.

Sadly, last time the parties pretty much ignored the formateurs, formed a right wing government, and failed in a most spectacular fashion after not even two years in power I think. Right at the worst possible moment. Which is what happens when you include neo fascists in your government. Anyways, they did strip her of that power, which again worked out spectacular as after the election results it took about a week before they started negotiating.

No having a queen with a little bit of influence over the government is great imo.

[Meg 368]

Glad it works for you. If it works for everyone in the society, who am I to disagree?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, Meg, you just elected your king, and nothing much has changed. You still have the same old problems. Is the guy in the White House really just a prisoner of the system?

[Meg 368]

Well, Meg, you just elected your king, and nothing much has changed. You still have the same old problems. Is the guy in the White House really just a prisoner of the system?

A king can't be elected; they have to be born to it.

The guy in the White House chose to run. We chose to vote for him. None of it was predetermined by birth.

and he isn't a prisoner; he can quit the job at any time.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

He has more power than the average bear, too. Wouldn't it be nice if he was Prime Minister and had all the protocol fooferaw off his plate.

News media today are suggesting replacements for Hilary Clinton. I guess I missed where she announced her intention to quit.

:kitty: You don't suppose she will run in 2016 do you? :kitty:

[LexusInfernus 908]

Well, Meg, you just elected your king, and nothing much has changed. You still have the same old problems. Is the guy in the White House really just a prisoner of the system?

A king can't be elected; they have to be born to it.

The guy in the White House chose to run. We chose to vote for him. None of it was predetermined by birth.

and he isn't a prisoner; he can quit the job at any time.

Ill let you in on a little secret. Or well, its not really a secret, its just that preciously few people recognize it.

Anyways, the secret is that there is no difference between king, queen, president or prime minister and dictator. They are all democratically elected. The difference is really superficial, namely their title and the ritual around how we make their election 'official'. Dont believe me? Let me ask you this. What is the difference between your average citizen and the guy who is in charge of everything? There is no difference, you are both human. However, they listen to the guy in charge, and not to you. Why is that? Because they accept him or her as their rightful leader. But what compels them to accept him? Nothing but their own free will. All you need to get rid of a dictator or absolute monarch is to have the majority of people reject that person as their rightful leader. It is that simple.

Everything else is just superficial ritual designed around making such acceptance or rejection 'official' and to communicate it to other human beings. Democratic elections are nothing more than a ritual that communicate acceptance of one candidate over another to the majority of the people. Rebellion against a dictator is just the same, its communicating to other human beings that the guy who calls himself the leader no longer has the support of the majority and is to be removed.

[Duke87 1,070]

He has more power than the average bear, too. Wouldn't it be nice if he was Prime Minister and had all the protocol fooferaw off his plate.

Most Americans do not understand the concept of having two separate people fill the roles of head of government and head of state, despite it being the norm in much of the rest of the world. If we had that sort of system here, Barack Obama would be a figurehead with little real power and John Boehner would be actually running the show. Of course, it doesn't work that way here - Speaker of The House is a prominent position but it is nothing like being a Prime Minister.

Here in the US we separated ourselves from the British Crown back in the 18th century, and while it was controversial at the time, today no one questions that it was for the best. Some people are still paying attention, but news about the royal family is basically just another form of celebrity gossip to us and nothing more. Then again, is that view really any different in the realms of The Commonwealth? I get the impression that while some older folks still take the Crown seriously, younger generations do not and share the American view of it as a source of entertainment.

[hym 358]

Ill let you in on a little secret. Or well, its not really a secret, its just that preciously few people recognize it.

Anyways, the secret is that there is no difference between king, queen, president or prime minister and dictator. They are all democratically elected. The difference is really superficial, namely their title and the ritual around how we make their election 'official'. Dont believe me? Let me ask you this. What is the difference between your average citizen and the guy who is in charge of everything? There is no difference, you are both human. However, they listen to the guy in charge, and not to you. Why is that? Because they accept him or her as their rightful leader. But what compels them to accept him? Nothing but their own free will. All you need to get rid of a dictator or absolute monarch is to have the majority of people reject that person as their rightful leader. It is that simple.

Everything else is just superficial ritual designed around making such acceptance or rejection 'official' and to communicate it to other human beings. Democratic elections are nothing more than a ritual that communicate acceptance of one candidate over another to the majority of the people. Rebellion against a dictator is just the same, its communicating to other human beings that the guy who calls himself the leader no longer has the support of the majority and is to be removed.

Except that, short of deposition of the current monarch, the only people who are eligible for the throne are all descendants of the royal bloodline. Even if the current monarch is deposed and a new one "elected," the process merely starts itself over again.

This is one of those issues where there is a fundamental difference between typical American and European opinions. Because of the actions of the Crown towards the colonists, Americans largely came to the conclusion that no human being should be granted any type of nobility. The issue was so important that it was addressed in the Constitution. Article 1, Section 9 expressly bans the federal government from granting titles of nobility. Furthmore, no federal official is is allowed to accept a title of nobility without the consent of Congress. If that wasn't enough, Article 1, Section 10 bans the states from granting titles of nobility, and an amendment was proposed that would automatically strip any American of citizenship if he/she accepted a title of nobility without Congressional approval.

To some individuals, it might be an issue of semantics and traditions, but to others, the issue of nobility is something else entirely.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Except that, short of deposition of the current monarch, the only people who are eligible for the throne are all descendants of the royal bloodline. Even if the current monarch is deposed and a new one "elected," the process merely starts itself over again.

In which case the people again elect the king. Any leader, whatever the kind of leader, can only rule with the consent of the people, if the people do not like the leader, he looses his power. Be it through some kind of revolution or coup d'etat or because everyone simply ignores what the leader is saying or commanding.

This is one of those issues where there is a fundamental difference between typical American and European opinions. Because of the actions of the Crown towards the colonists, Americans largely came to the conclusion that no human being should be granted any type of nobility. The issue was so important that it was addressed in the Constitution. Article 1, Section 9 expressly bans the federal government from granting titles of nobility. Furthmore, no federal official is is allowed to accept a title of nobility without the consent of Congress. If that wasn't enough, Article 1, Section 10 bans the states from granting titles of nobility, and an amendment was proposed that would automatically strip any American of citizenship if he/she accepted a title of nobility without Congressional approval.

To some individuals, it might be an issue of semantics and traditions, but to others, the issue of nobility is something else entirely.

Meh, I wouldnt call it typical Euopean to support Monarchy. Countries like France traditionally dislike things like Monarchy as well. I suppose it has to do with a countries history and whether the Monarchy played a positive or negative role in it. In both the US and France there have been rather negative experiences with the monarchy. While in the Netherlands the original monarch was an important figure in our war of independence against Spain.

[Meg 368]

It makes sense that it would depend on history

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Yes. If you look at the UK you will see several changes of dynasty on the throne. The current line were invited in by Parliament to fill a vacuum over the succession of the Stuarts, who were probably crypo-Catholics in a time of rampant Protestantism. One can hardly have a Catholic at the head of the Anglican Church. Kind of asking the mice to guard the cheese.

Overall, the Europeans haven't done all that badly with or without Monarchs. The most recent restoration is Spain, and it is proving that proverb "Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown". A restoration in Italy might not be a bad idea, but I don't know if there are any heirs of Victor Emmanuel left. If you look at the history of the French Republics, you will be twisting your head quite a bit. Not all republican movements do as well as the United States.

The Russians are still having trouble getting their democracy on track. They expunged their royal line (too inbred anyway), and now seem to heading towards another dictatorship. Maybe Mr. Putin will become Czar Anatoly I.

[LexusInfernus 908]

The Russians are still having trouble getting their democracy on track. They expunged their royal line (too inbred anyway), and now seem to heading towards another dictatorship. Maybe Mr. Putin will become Czar Anatoly I.

Meh, in the case of Russia, that might not even be such a bad idea. That place needs some serious nation building, and history shows that democracies are never very good at that.

[Meg 368]

Getting back to William and Kate . . . or, more specifically, the death of a nurse at the hospital where she was being treated.

Short version: a couple of Australian DJs were goofing around and decided to call the hospital pretending to be the Queen and Prince Charles. Their accents were terrible but the nurse who answered the phone (why is a nurse answering the phone and not a receptionist?) put the call through to the ward where Kate was staying. There, another nurse gave out "confidential information" to the DJs, apparently taking them seriously. The audio of the call went viral and a few days later, the nurse who put the call through has apparently killed herself.

Yes, she made a mistake and the most of the world knew about it. I can imagine that would be difficult but I am sorry that she felt it was something she couldn't live with. Pranks can backfire and this one backfired in the worst way.

The DJs said, before her death, that they expected to be hung up on; they did not expect the call to go through. Some DJs do goofy things like this. I imagine they did not anticipate this as a possible outcome. They have since pulled their twitter account and are off the air.

The thing that gets me is that this so-called "confidential information" was something that anyone with any experience with hospitals could figure out She was currently sleeping and they were giving her fluids because she was dehydrated. So what? The hospitals I've had experience with will start a saline IV for practically any excuse at all. Uncontrolled vomiting would certainly qualify.

Yes, the hospital needs to review its procedures and no, she should not have put the call through. But, as far as I can tell, she was the only one taking it this seriously. I find this incident to be very sad.

[hym 358]

(why is a nurse answering the phone and not a receptionist?)

Best guess is that, during periods of the day with high call rates, a receptionist is available to answer calls. During periods of the day with low call volume, like the early morning, they leave it to a nurse to handle in addition to the normal responsibilities. As I remember, that is a fairly common practice among hospitals. Helps keep the costs lower.

[LexusInfernus 908]

That is indeed a very sad incident. Then again, I do not suppose the DJ's could reasonably expect the nurse to take it so badly as to take her own life over it.

Although I suppose they could have thought it through a little more. Sure, they expected to be hang up on, but they should have planned for a scenario where they did get through. And if that happened, it wouldnt be unlikely that the nurse lost her job or something like that. People get fired over smaller things. So it was rather irresponsible of these DJ's.

[astronelson 339]

The DJs have been taken off air, and the station has suspended advertising (although not before a couple of companies - Coles and Telstra - pulled their ads). Questions abound about whether any laws have been breached. It seems likely that they have - recording a conversation without prior consent is against state law in New South Wales, and broadcasting without consent is against the Australian Commercial Radio Codes of Practice.

The London Metropolitan Police have been in contact with police in New South Wales, although no indication has been made yet that they are seeking to charge the two presenters.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy says that ACMA (the Australian Communications and Media Authority) is considering fast-tracking its complaints process for this case.

More in-depth here.

This kind of thing is one of the reasons I don't like most of our radio stations down here in Australia. Quite a lot of them have a tendency towards being a home for fresh coprolite.

[hym 358]

That is indeed a very sad incident. Then again, I do not suppose the DJ's could reasonably expect the nurse to take it so badly as to take her own life over it.

Electing to commit suicide because of a mistake at work is rather extreme, but I think it does demonstrate that one could reasonably expect the prank victim to suffer negative psychological consequences. Individuals who go through the trouble of getting a career in a difficult field of work often do so because they are, to an extent, personally invested in their jobs. Consequently, they tend to take a major performance failure more seriously than normal. Case in point: A while back, a NASA engineer made a simple mistake that resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars worth of gear burning up in the Martian atmosphere. When the guy didn't show up to work the next morning, administrators figured he was having a rough time of it and just to give him a day to recompose himself. He continued to not show up for work and NASA officials grew worried that he was going to commit suicide over his mistake. At NASA's request, the local police launched a manhunt to find this guy while local television stations started running segments of NASA officials begging the guy to not do anything drastic and please come back to work. Police ultimately found him alive, but they also evidence that he was planning to commit suicide.

Point is, there are many people who genuinely care about doing their jobs properly, and something like this could be expected to cause them severe distress.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Fresh coprolite indeed. Why radio needs to be taken out behind the barn and taught a few manners. Immature children should not be allowed on air.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Point is, there are many people who genuinely care about doing their jobs properly, and something like this could be expected to cause them severe distress.

Yeah youre right, but still, is it reasonable to expect that the stress is so severe that it results in suicide? I mean, most people, even the ones who really care about their job wouldnt go this far after making a mistake.

I suppose though that causing severe stress should be enough reason to not do these kind of lame jokes, regardless of whether it results in suicide or not. Its hurting people either way.

[Meg 368]

This kind of thing is one of the reasons I don't like most of our radio stations down here in Australia. Quite a lot of them have a tendency towards being a home for fresh coprolite.

Apparently that radio station has a history of questionable phone calls.

Point is, there are many people who genuinely care about doing their jobs properly, and something like this could be expected to cause them severe distress.

I think such situations are make much worse by worldwide scrutiny and ridicule. Berating yourself in private in one thing but having the whole world laugh or criticize you is another.

In the case of the NASA engineer, he probably figured that the incident would be used as ammunition by those who want to shut the agency down.

In the case of the hospital nurse, apparently this incident occurred at a time when UK culture is very sensitive to media intrusion into people's private lives because of that phone tapping thing.

It is not uncommon for a US news report (usually about people who were lost outdoors for some reason) to end with "they are being treated for dehydration and are resting comfortably", which is really the only information that went public. But that is beside the point. She made a mistake and it became a worldwide event. People can crack under that kind of pressure.