moot — deprived of practical significance : made abstract or purely academic
Posted on 02/09/2002 12:14:34 AM PST by badfreeper
moot — deprived of practical significance : made abstract or purely academic
For such a fun loving girl in her early years and the devotion she showed the throne in her mature years, I am sorry she had such an undignified ending. To have the cameras glaring at you when you are suffering from a succession of illnesses, must have been difficult. She has finally been released from those binds.
I hope her family can find comfort in their memories of her.
I'm not a fan of Royals and for that matter, I'm also not
a fan of the Bush family. Furthermore, my line is as
British as they come for over 7 generations in America.
But even so, I have to speak up about this bit of illogic.
Two, maybe three, Bush generations and you are willing
to make a comparison with the Royal Lineage of the
British Isles? Even if we include Prescot Bush as a
prominent Senator and Ambassador to "The Court of
St. James", I can't imagine any sane person willing to
agree with that comparison.
Note: This doesn't include the Saxons or the Danes,
or even the Roman Emperors before that, or for that
matter the Tribal Chieftain - Kings before the Romans.
Perhaps you forget:
"England"
839 , AEthelwulf, King of England
858 , AEthelbald, King of England
860 , AEthelbert, King of England
866 , AEthelred I, King of England
900 , Edward the Elder, King of England
924 , AElfweard, King of England
924 , AEthelstan, King of England
939 , Edmund I the Elder, King of England
946 , Eadred, King of England
956 , Edwy (EAdwig) the Fair, King of England
973 , Edgar the Peaceful, King of England
975 , Edward (St.) the Martyr, King of England
978 , AEthelred II the Unready, King of England
1016 , Edmund II Ironside, King of England
1016 Sveynsson, Canute II the Great, King of England & Denmark
1037 , Harold I Harefoot, King of England
1040 Cnutsson, Hardicanute of Denmark, King of England
1042 , Edward (St.) the Confessor, King of England
1066 , William I the Conqueror, King of England
1066 Godwineson, Harold II, King of England
1066 Atheling, Edgar, King of England
1087 , William II Rufus, King of England
1100 , Henry I Beauclerc, King of England
1122 , Adeliza of Louvain, Queen of England
1135 , Stephen, King of England
1141 , Matilda the Empress, Queen of England
1148 de Montmorency, Hervey, Constable of England
1154 FitzEmpress, Henry II Curtmantle, King of England
1170 , Henry the Young King, King of England
1172 Capet, Margaret of France, Queen Consort of England
1189 , Richard I Coeur de Lion, King of England
1199 , John I Lackland, King of England
1200 Taillefer, Isabella of Angoulême, Queen of England
1216 , Henry III, King of England
1274 , Edward I (Longshanks), King of England
1308 , Edward II of Caernarvon, King of England
1327 , Edward III, King of England
1377 , Richard II, King of England
1399 Plantagenet, Henry IV, King of England
1413 Plantegenet, Henry V, King of England
1429 Plantagenet, Henry VI, King of England
1461 Plantagenet, Edward IV, King of England
1483 Plantagenet, Richard III, King of England
1483 Plantagenet, Edward V, King of England
1485 Tudor, Henry VII, King of England
1509 Tudor, Henry VIII, King of England
1547 Tudor, Edward VI, King of England
1553 Grey, Jane, Queen of England
1553 Tudor, Mary I, Queen of England
1558 Tudor, Elizabeth I, Queen of England
0 , Arthur, King of Britain
1603 Stuart, James I, King of Britain
1626 Stuart, Charles I, King of Britain
1661 Stuart, Charles II, King of Britain
1685 Stuart, James II, King of Britain
1689 Stuart, William III of Orange, King of Britain
1689 Stuart, Mary II, Queen of Britain
1702 Stuart, Anne, Queen of Britain
1714 Hanover, George I Louis, King of Britain
1727 Hanover, George II Augustus, King of Britain
1761 Hanover, George III William Frederick, King of Britain
1821 Hanover, George IV Augusta Frederick, King of Britain
1831 Hanover, William IV Henry, King of Britain
1838 Hanover, Victoria, Queen of Britain
1902 Wettin, Edward VII, King of Britain
1911 von Teck, Mary (May), Queen of Britain
1911 Windsor, George V, King of Britain
1936 Windsor, Edward VIII, King of Britain
1937 Bowes-Lyon, Elizabeth Angela Marguerite, Queen of Britain
1937 Windsor, George VI (Albert), King of Britain
1953 Windsor, Elizabeth II Alexandra Mary, Queen of Britain
"Scotland"
0 Mauduit, Roger, Chamberlain of Scotland
0 Stewart, Walter, HighSteward of Scotland 6
0 Stewart, Alexander, High Steward of Scotland
0 de Berkeley, Walter, Chamberlain of Scotland
0 , Biolan of Scotland, King in Scotland
0 FitzWalter, Alan, High Steward of Scotland
0 , Edward of Scotland, Constable of Scotland
834 , Alpin of Kintyre, King of Scotland
839 MacAlpin, Kenneth I of Scotland, King of Scotland
859 , Donald I of Scotland, King of Scotland
863 , Constantine II of Alba, King of Scotland
877 , Aedh (Ethus) Swift-Foot of Scotland, King of Scotland
878 , Eocha (Giric) of Scotland, King of Scotland
900 , Constantine III of Scotland, King of Scotland
943 , Malcolm I of Alba, King of Scotland
954 , Indulf of Scotland, King of Scotland
962 , Dubh of Scotland, King of Scotland
967 , Cuilean (Colin) of Scotland, King of Scotland
971 , Kenneth II of Alba, King of Scotland
995 , Constantine IV of Scotland, King of Scotland
997 , Kenneth III of Scotland, King of Scotland
1005 , Malcolm II of Alba, King of Scotland
1034 , Duncan I the Gracious of Scotland, King of Scotland
1040 , Macbeth (Maelbeatha) of Scotland, King of Scotland
1057 , Lulach "the Fool" of Scotland, King of Scotland
1058 , Malcolm III Caennmor of Scotland, King of Scotland
1093 , Donald III Bane of Scotland, King of Scotland
1094 , Duncan II of Scotland, King of Scotland
1094 , Edmund I of Scotland, King of Scotland
1097 , Edgar of Scotland, King of Scotland
1107 , Alexander I the Fierce of Scotland, King of Scotland
1124 , David I the Saint of Scotland, King of Scotland
1153 , Malcolm IV the Maiden of Scotland, King of Scotland
1160 Fitzalan, Walter, Steward of Scotland 1st
1165 , William I the Lion of Scotland, King of Scotland
1214 , Alexander II of Scotland, King of Scotland
1230 FitzAlan, Walter, High Steward of Scotland
1249 , Alexander III the Glorius of Scotland, King of Scotland
1283 Stewart, James, High Steward of Scotland5
1286 Eiriksdottir, Margaret Maid of Norway, Queen of Scotland
1292 Balliol, John, of Scotland, King of Scotland
1306 Bruce, Robert I, of Scotland, King of Scotland
1331 Bruce, David II, of Scotland, King of Scotland
1332 Balliol, Edward, of Scotland, King of Scotland
1371 Stuart, Robert II of Scotland, King of Scotland
1390 Stuart, Robert III (John) of Scotland, King of Scotland
1424 Stuart, James I of Scotland, King of Scotland
1437 Stuart, James II of Scotland, King of Scotland
1460 Stuart, James III of Scotland, King of Scotland
1488 Stuart, James IV of Scotland, King of Scotland
1497 Lundie, Robert, Treasurer of Scotland
1513 Stuart, James V of Scotland, King of Scotland
1543 Stuart, Mary "Queen of Scots", Queen of Scotland
They seemed to be down to earth people as
far as they could be with the responsibilities
of keeping up the royal image to honor
their people and nation.
I do hope you weren't trying to actually get some sympathy for these thieving old coots because you failed terribly...
No, not at all. I had only hoped to show a comparison between the grace and dignity of Princess Margaret and the Queen Mother, and the lack of it, amongst the boorish scum who crawl out from under their rocks at a time like this.
Thanks for your help with that.
I don't think being "royal" means be anything like it used to be. It appears to me being a royal is simply being a living icon or symbol of the state you are officially born into. Kinda like being a living, breathing Uncle Sam your entire life. It could be fun. And it could suck. You lead a sheltered and secure life but since you are a public symbol, your life will be scrutinzed at every turn. The public loves you and hates you at the same time. I don't think being a royal is as fun as it sounds. Plain, unassuming royals, I'm guessing, lead very pleasant, private lives that don't intrude on anyone else's. I'd take harmless, randy, and embarrassing royals over the grasping King and Queen Klintoon any day.
You've never engaged in that great American pastime called Square Dancing? :D "Bow to yer partner! Bow to yer corner!..."
The succession has not been continuous through the same family, but, rather, shared within an ever-widening circle of families. Take the current Royals, for example. Strictly speaking, arent't they of the house of Mountbatten ( née von Battenberg)? And before that, the house of Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha (or Wettin, as your list states). The male English line of Hannover (or Braunschweig-Lüneburg) died out with Queen Victoria's father. And even that is not really "English." It has been suggested that Richard III was the last native English monarch, having been succeeded by Welshmen, Scots, and Germans. The monarchs of England, since Bosworth Field, have been the highest paid family of Gastarbeiter in history.
So there is no strict continuity of rulers, although the Crown's property holdings do not change. It would not be entirely incorrect to view the English monarch as the semi-hereditary CEO of a corporation; every now and then the "Board of Directors" (Parliament and the aristocracy) changes CEOs, sometimes by force, sometimes by ballot. If people have no problem with a large privately-owned company passing from father to son, then they should have no problem with monarchy.
But, getting back to Arkle's point . . . we have a ruling class in the United States and it is just about as fluid as the ruling class in more traditional societies. The wealth is inherited and passed from hand to hand within the ethereal realm of what Paul Fussell calles the "Out of Sight Rich." The plum corporate positions are passed around through "networking," which -- as a word -- is not nearly as disreputable as nepotism, or favouritism, although there is no difference in fact. Every job search book or article on résumés will tell you it's not how good your credentials are ("What" you know) but how effectively you can network ("Who" you know).
This does not differ in any substantial way from hereditary aristocracy, although the perceived necessity to lie about it creates a certain dysfunction in society, with the rampant hypocrisy of "self-made men" of which Josiah Bounderby in Dickens' Hard Times is a good literary example. And, much more dangerous, we must pretend that the people we elect to high office are the best qualified, and that they -- in turn -- select the best qualified for membership in their government. And, after they are elected, we must maintain this fiction and we must earnestly believe that these exceptionally meritorious individuals will NOT continue to engage in nepotism and favouritism (from which they benefitted on their way to the top). So we are SHOCKED ! when it is revealed that foreign policy or immigration policy are influenced by consideration of what is good for those in power and their friends and family.
It is a reality of the human condition that we will want to be of benefit to our relatives and friends. Monarchy and aristocracy bring this relationship out into the open, where everyone can deal with it honestly. "Democracy", on the other hand, lies about this natural phenomenon and makes believe it does not exist. The suppression of a natural urge leads to a re-appearance of that urge in a mutated and unhealthy form, hence the societal neurosis.
Free speech is great!
A woman of grace and charm, who spent her life in service to others, dies. And a few reptiles, using the anonimity of the Internet, use that as an opportunity to throw some muck. What's driving them is envy of their betters.
There's only One I worship, and He's no 'mere human being.'
But your self-description's accurate.
1/4 gin
1/4 Cointreau
1/4 calvados
1/4 lemon juice
a dash of Grenadine
Shake over ice and strain.
The Queen Mother has told aides she is determined to attend her daughter Princess Margaret's funeral, it is reported.
Doctors are concerned the 101-year-old Royal Matriarch may not be strong enough to make the journey from Norfolk to Windsor on Friday.
It is hoped she will be able to leave the Queen's Sandringham estate on Wednesday and have time to recover from the trip before the funeral.
Prince Charles has vowed to be at his grandmother's side as she bids farewell to her daughter, the Sun reports.
No decision on whether she will be at St George's Chapel on Friday afternoon will be made until the last minute.
Earlier she said private prayers for her younger daughter at Sandringham.
It was the Queen who broke the news of Margaret's death to the Queen Mother, who has been ill since Christmas with a persistent, chesty cold.
Although shattered by the death of her daughter, the elderly Royal is thought to be coping with the bereavement.
So there is no strict continuity of rulers.....If people have no problem with a large privately-owned company passing from father to son, then they should have no problem with monarchy.
First, there was direct succession by supposed divine right
up to the point where there was no direct issue and then the
nearest noble with the most pressing claim was chosen,
or in the alternate way a usurper forced himself into power.
As I look at the list of Presidents of the USA, I see two Adams
two Harrison, two Roosevelt and two Bush, and of course
each of the two were related (roosevelts distantly), but not in
direct succession. There were also two Johnsons that didn't
appear to be directly related at all. This is hardly comparable
to the direct succession of monarchs. The disingenuous
comparison between a government leader and a privately
owned company president to justify your claim lacks logic.
Governments, if they feel it necessary, use lethal force to
achieve their goals. Companies and Corporations do not
(ITT not withstanding). I have no problem with a private
company being handed from farther to son ad infinitum.
It's their business what they do with the proceeds of their
efforts. They don't force me to pay taxes to them or purchase
their product. I do have a problem with "Joe" saying, "God
said that he is my ruler and OH, by the way, so is his family
in perpetuity". That really gets my knickers in a twist!
We have a ruling class in the United States and it is just about as fluid as the ruling class in more traditional societies. The wealth is inherited and passed from hand to hand within the ethereal realm of what Paul Fussell calles the "Out of Sight Rich." The plum corporate positions are passed around through "networking," which -- as a word -- is not nearly as disreputable as nepotism, or favouritism, although there is no difference in fact. Every job search book or article on résumés will tell you it's not how good your credentials are ("What" you know) but how effectively you can network ("Who" you know).
As I implied the segues from the government sector to the
private sector as if they are equivalent are not valid. Wealth
alone is fine. Wealth turned to political power is wrong.
Therefore the only fair solution to this dilemma is to always
keep the government as weak as possible. The worst
thing to do would be to give up and accept that the "Out of
Sight Rich" will always control things so we might as well let
them appoint an emperor.
And, much more dangerous, we must pretend that the people we elect to high office are the best qualified, and that they -- in turn -- select the best qualified for membership in their government.
FR is proof that we don't accept this premise. Clinton and
Congress had more dysfunctional morons in the government
than the British Isles could hold. The only ones pretending
are the Republicrats and Demicans that they are not turning
our government as socialist as Britain and the EU.
Goetz, I thought your personal profile was very interesting:
Ideology: Christian monarchist (a political pre-Rafaelite)
Default Affiliation: Conservative Republican
Does that mean that you would be willing to risk a potentially
evil emperor in hope of a benevolent king?
To separate wealth from political power is not possible. Wealth purchases political power.
We do not have a direct father-to-son presidential succession, but exactly how much power actually resides in the presidency? It is always the case that "special interests" pull the strings, and those special interests are, for the most part, dynastic and hereditary. Some American dynasties I can think of, just off the top of my head: Roosevelt, Astor, duPont. Perhaps in a century, Clinton and Kennedy will be numbered among America's "old money."
Now, of course, unlike in the days of the Robber Barons, the identities of the movers and shakers is camouflaged through membership in faceless boards of directors, and the pressures applied to our elected officials are exerted through "corporate" donations.
It is also naïve to say that these private sector powers do not use force. They can and will, whenever they deem it necessary, but it will not be done by the goons of ABC Corporation. It will be done by the government. This was very overt a century ago, with the U.S.' armed interventions in South American affairs, the depostiion of the Emperor of Brasil, and the conquest of Hawaii. It is perhaps less obvious now, although we are entitled to be suspicious about the commercial reasons for the attack on Serbia.
You say that America's ruling class does not use armed force in America itself, and that is something that sets it apart from European aristocracy. If you will consult the historical record you will see that the last use of force by the aristocracy in England was in the 1640's; in Germany it was in the 1530's. But in America, it was the non-aristocratic industrial ruling class that called in the government troops to do its dirty work in the 1930's, machinegunning recalcitrant workers. Of course, TECHNICALLY, the plutocrats' hands were clean. But why bother buying politicians, if they can't crack a few skulls to keep the mills running?
On a more subtle level, what was NAFTA but a means of depriving a substantial number of American citizens of their means of support in order to improve the profit margins of our rulers' corporations? And this ISN'T tyranny? This ISN'T plutocratic oligarchy? I can think of NO example of Europe's hereditary aristocracy ever betraying their own people the way the rulers of America have betrayed the American working man.
I do not intend to argue the virtues of monarchy here. I wish merely to point out that Americans who get on their soapbox to condemn the English for their hereditary aristocracy and monarchy are, either intentionally or unintentionally, blind to the fact that we also have hereditary privelege in this country. And no, it is not "harmless." It has run up its own body counts, both here and abroad. And it is even now in the process of selling our this country in the name of improved profit margins.
We are in no position to look down on England's quaint monarchy when a much more sinister group holds the reins of power in our own country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.