Dear Brits - doesn't it bother you to be called a "subject&#34

[Dark0ne]

For me, personally, the idea of lowering myself by exalting someone else, who bleeds the same color blood as me, for no other reason, really, than their ancestry, is abhorrent. But that's me. I get that other people don't see it that way. Again, hence the question.

 

You seem to be showing an ignorance of the situation, I'm not quite sure why as it's been explained clearly. How exactly do we lower ourselves? We owe no fealty to the monarchy. We respect them because they have proven themselves worthy of our admiration not through blood or heritage but in right, good and proper action. It's more than can be said for the majority of people in this country, and indeed the world.

 

The fact of the matter is we have a 86 year old queen and a 90 year old prince who still travel more, and still do more work than almost anyone on this world. It's amazing. If we can't admire that over a flag, a constitution, a house of parliament or a big clock tower, then my god, we have lost sight of good action over good words in this world.

 

As for the inanimate object comment....well if more of American politicians and officials would agree to honor and uphold the things WRITTEN on that piece of hemp paper then perhaps the United States would not be in the mess it is in.

 

While I agree with what you wrote above this comment Lisn, I don't agree with this. It seems to suggest we don't have that problem in our country, when we quite obviously do. Thankfully our monarchy is separate from our politics in all but tradition now, and we can continue to respect them.

 

As for the constitution; history has proven that meaning and interpretation can be twisted to suit any goal, which is true of any respected writing. The constitution is no exception.

[ginnyfizz]

Looks at the shower of (expletive deleted)that passes for politicians who like to think of themselves as big players on the stage. Yes, David Cameron, Calamity Clegg, Ed Millipede and for that matter I'm also looking across the Atlantic at you, Mr President...(and by the way, I have never recovered from you stealing our tune at your inauguration...gaaaaahhhhh!)

 

Looks at Elizabeth II, our wise and wonderful monarch who has made short work of any of her Prime Ministers who were not on top of their brief (yes, she certainly does read her Red Boxes)and gets a warm glow at the idea of being her subject. Certainly does not begin to feel like a serf or in any way persecuted.

 

Remembers that the last time her family was persecuted was when Britain got rid of our monarchy and acquired Odious Ollie (ancestors had to leg it to France...),the grinch who stole Christmas...

 

*Faints at finding herself agreeing with Tidus for once*

 

@ My very good American friends Aurelius, grannywils and Lisnpuppy;-

You know that I have expressed my admiration for the principles of the Founding Fathers and the US Constitution in general. Aurelius in particular will know, having spent much time in the UK, that though we may be laid back to the point of being horizontal (whether through natural laziness or propensity for strong liquor it is hard to tell), we do occasionally get pissed off, or rather "a little bit cross", and one thing that triggers this is when people suggest that we are oppressed in the manner of the serfs in Tsarist Russia because we are subjects. We may then make slightly off colour retorts. (We may even get violent when threatened with the Spanish Inquisition, but that's another story.

 

Now where was I, oh yes...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tN9EC3Gy6Nk

 

I love that version of God Save The Queen. It has that marvellous verse about "confound their politics, frustrate their knavish tricks..."

[Quetzlsacatanango]

 

You seem to be showing an ignorance of the situation, I'm not quite sure why as it's been explained clearly. How exactly do we lower ourselves? We owe no fealty to the monarchy. We respect them because they have proven themselves worthy of our admiration not through blood or heritage but in right, good and proper action. It's more than can be said for the majority of people in this country, and indeed the world.

 

The fact of the matter is we have a 86 year old queen and a 90 year old prince who still travel more, and still do more work than almost anyone on this world. It's amazing. If we can't admire that over a flag, a constitution, a house of parliament or a big clock tower, then my god, we have lost sight of good action over good words in this world.

 

Believe it or not, I am not trying to argue with you, I really am not.

I believe in self-determination, I am certainly not trying to tell you to ditch the monarchy. That's up to you guys.

The word "subject" inherently implies one person has a station over the other, especially when used in the context of "the queen's subjects". Now, one having station over another is not a problem in itself, it is the way of the world and the natural outcome of any meritocracy. But no matter how much great stuff she does, the queen did not become the queen through any merit of her own. She didn't work her way up to being queen, or get elected queen. She got there because she was born to the right family at the right time, and maybe due to some insider horse trading among some of the aristocracy. I'm not an expert on such things, I don't know. I'm sure she's a great old dame.

I get that the word doesn't have the same meaning for you as it does for me. I accept that but I also can't help but wonder if it's because it's what you have known your whole life and that's why it seems innoccuous. I just know it would offend me if anyone referred to me as their subject.

[Tidus44]

Yes, yes, obviously, what I posted was directly pointed at the US of A, because we all know that anything posted on any forum anywhere on the internet at any time on any subject and no matter what is said it has to be exclusively about the US of A and forbid that anyone says anything that is not specifically about the US of A.

 

Now, before certain individuals get their undershorts all in a knot, when I posted, the US of A was the furthest thing from my mind because, like the rest of the world, my thoughts and dreams and focus are not filled by and not exclusively about, the US of A 24 hours a day 7 days a week. In fact, I rarely think about that country at all because, and don’t get offended by this, but I have other things to do and think about.

 

I don’t see anything in my post that even mentions the US of A; and if Americans do swear fealty to some sleazy politician or inanimate object and that is embarrassing to them, well I guess that is their problem, but truthfully, I could care less about it and really could care less what they swear to. My response was to the question about being a “subject” under a sovereign’s rule and owing allegiance to them - not about the US of A.

 

And really, get over it – everything isn’t about the US of A.

[Quetzlsacatanango]

And really, get over it – everything isn’t about the US of A.

 

When you leave it vague you can't get bent out of shape when people don't understand what you meant.

[Dark0ne]

I get that the word doesn't have the same meaning for you as it does for me. I accept that but I also can't help but wonder if it's because it's what you have known your whole life and that's why it seems innoccuous. I just know it would offend me if anyone referred to me as their subject.

 

I think your issue is in semantics rather than founded on actual real terms. We're as much the queen's subjects as you are Obama's subjects. The difference is, we're happy to be called her "subjects" because (a) we're not her subjects in anything other than words and (b) she's a great woman. You can rest assured that if we ever got an idiot on the throne they wouldn't have a throne for much longer. Times have changed, and we're not too fussed about removing kings and queens any more because the capital G problem has been removed from monarchies.

[Lisnpuppy]

Dark0ne said:

While I agree with what you wrote above this comment Lisn, I don't agree with this. It seems to suggest we don't have that problem in our country, when we quite obviously do. Thankfully our monarchy is separate from our politics in all but tradition now, and we can continue to respect them.

 

 

This is indeed what I was trying to get at....I just did not continue my thought. You can have with your Royalty people that do not typically publicly involve themselves in politics. As such it can remain, to an extent, "unsullied" (and I am not going to get into any personal scandals here.)

 

I am well aware that Britain has more than its share of issues. However many in America...if I can only compare, forget say when a president is in power...that it is possible to support the Constitution and the Office of the President and not the person in that office.

 

Yes the Constitution, like most legal documents can be twisted or interpreted to fit any needs. However it is this very thing that also lets the basis of the country itself to continue without crumbling apart from that alone.

 

Now back to the matter at hand...again I give you all what I said earlier...there is a difference between subject and subjugated, and I do not believe most British citizens believe they are subjugated in any way.

[ginnyfizz]

 

You seem to be showing an ignorance of the situation, I'm not quite sure why as it's been explained clearly. How exactly do we lower ourselves? We owe no fealty to the monarchy. We respect them because they have proven themselves worthy of our admiration not through blood or heritage but in right, good and proper action. It's more than can be said for the majority of people in this country, and indeed the world.

 

The fact of the matter is we have a 86 year old queen and a 90 year old prince who still travel more, and still do more work than almost anyone on this world. It's amazing. If we can't admire that over a flag, a constitution, a house of parliament or a big clock tower, then my god, we have lost sight of good action over good words in this world.

 

Believe it or not, I am not trying to argue with you, I really am not.

I believe in self-determination, I am certainly not trying to tell you to ditch the monarchy. That's up to you guys.

The word "subject" inherently implies one person has a station over the other, especially when used in the context of "the queen's subjects". Now, one having station over another is not a problem in itself, it is the way of the world and the natural outcome of any meritocracy. But no matter how much great stuff she does, the queen did not become the queen through any merit of her own. She didn't work her way up to being queen, or get elected queen. She got there because she was born to the right family at the right time, and maybe due to some insider horse trading among some of the aristocracy. I'm not an expert on such things, I don't know. I'm sure she's a great old dame.

I get that the word doesn't have the same meaning for you as it does for me. I accept that but I also can't help but wonder if it's because it's what you have known your whole life and that's why it seems innoccuous. I just know it would offend me if anyone referred to me as their subject.

 

Eeeuw, then if you are not trying to start an argument, why be so patronising? (That IS the correct spelling in UK English.) Please choose your words a little more carefully (British understatement.)

And "great old dame" IS rather rude.

 

You really do seem to be under the impression that we are ignorant cowering peasants who don't know any better than to bow and scrape before a hereditary monarch. That is the kind of attitude that gets us a little cross and is totally mistaken.

 

Read my last post before this one. Some of us have formed our opinion because we know our British and World history and have had a terrible lesson to learn. Oliver Cromwell...gaaahh the fact that the horrible man has a statue in Parliament Square makes me foam at the mouth. He deposed and had the head cut off a monarch who abused his power...and then proceeded to behave so badly and dictatorially that Sir Thomas Fairfax, his ablest general, had to remind him "I recall we cut off a King's head, for less than this." My family, being Cavaliers and also recusants (Google that term), had to literally flee for their lives. 'Orrible Ollie's dreadful sadism in Ireland sowed the seeds of a bloodbath that reverberated within living memory.

 

We had soon had enough of this horror and back came The Merrie Monarch, aka randy old goat, Charles II. He was a whole lot more fun, his brother who succeeded was a bit of a disaster and we had to give him his congé, but afterwards the monarchy got their act together.

 

VIVAT!!

VIVAT REGINA ELIZABETA!!!

[Quetzlsacatanango]

I get that the word doesn't have the same meaning for you as it does for me. I accept that but I also can't help but wonder if it's because it's what you have known your whole life and that's why it seems innoccuous. I just know it would offend me if anyone referred to me as their subject.

 

I think your issue is in semantics rather than founded on actual real terms. We're as much the queen's subjects as you are Obama's subjects. The difference is, we're happy to be called her "subjects" because (a) we're not her subjects in anything other than words and (b) she's a great woman. You can rest assured that if we ever got an idiot on the throne they wouldn't have a throne for much longer. Times have changed, and we're not too fussed about removing kings and queens any more because the capital G problem has been removed from monarchies.

 

That answers my query very well, thank you. What is the capital G problem?

 

Lisnpuppy, "subject" and "subjugated" clearly have the same root, and maybe it's the paranoia in me it seems to me that once you accept that you are a subject, it makes it a little easier to accept subjugation. The Queen's subjects don't seem to agree though, I will give you that.

[Lisnpuppy]

I get that the word doesn't have the same meaning for you as it does for me. I accept that but I also can't help but wonder if it's because it's what you have known your whole life and that's why it seems innoccuous. I just know it would offend me if anyone referred to me as their subject.

 

I think your issue is in semantics rather than founded on actual real terms. We're as much the queen's subjects as you are Obama's subjects. The difference is, we're happy to be called her "subjects" because (a) we're not her subjects in anything other than words and (b) she's a great woman. You can rest assured that if we ever got an idiot on the throne they wouldn't have a throne for much longer. Times have changed, and we're not too fussed about removing kings and queens any more because the capital G problem has been removed from monarchies.

 

That answers my query very well, thank you. What is the capital G problem?

 

Lisnpuppy, "subject" and "subjugated" clearly have the same root, and maybe it's the paranoia in me it seems to me that once you accept that you are a subject, it makes it a little easier to accept subjugation. The Queen's subjects don't seem to agree though, I will give you that.

 

Words with different root become very different especially if the connotation of the word changes. And I think Dark0ne is right and semantics are your issue. A subject of the realm, for example doesn't have the same connotation of say...a subject of the Ming Dynasty. One is only bothered by BEING a subject, which is not really having the same meaning and connotations with the Brits because they are not SUBJUGATED by their Royals.