Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Not News: Couple gets married. News: Wedding gets crashed. Fark: By the Queen of England   (dailymail.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Cool, Manchester Evening News, Duke of Edinburgh, Westminster Abbey, Prince Philip, Icing on the Cake, Manchester City Council, Salford the Queen  
•       •       •

22593 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Mar 2012 at 1:47 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



164 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-03-24 05:01:59 PM  
I admit, I giggled. What a sweet story.
 
2012-03-24 05:42:06 PM  

balisane: I admit, I giggled. What a sweet story.


balisane: I admit, I giggled. What a sweet story.


The Queen is cool - and a very nice lady. I admire her even more now.
 
2012-03-24 07:19:09 PM  
To the Queen!

/ No, not Elton John.
 
2012-03-24 08:07:22 PM  
That's awesome. I really, REALLY dig her hats.
 
2012-03-24 09:19:32 PM  
Blurry pics or it didn't happen.
 
2012-03-24 09:20:44 PM  
Prince Philip must be losing it. He didn't crack any prima-nocte jokes.
 
2012-03-24 09:48:53 PM  
I'm like many Americans in thinking that having actual "royalty" in the 21st century is way outdated.... but that was still pretty cool.
 
2012-03-24 09:51:15 PM  
The Queen is awesome.
 
2012-03-24 10:17:49 PM  
Did they hire the Bigfoot photographer to do the wedding?
 
2012-03-24 10:18:41 PM  
"I'm just here for free booze and pussy!"
 
2012-03-24 10:43:32 PM  

LordOfThePings: Blurry pics or it didn't happen.


Yeah, I really hope these were just cell pics someone quickly took and sent the paper, vice the official pictures. I would ring the photographer's neck for screwing up something like that!
 
2012-03-24 11:00:13 PM  
They'll be telling that story long after their divorce.
 
2012-03-24 11:02:57 PM  

GAT_00: Did they hire the Bigfoot photographer to do the wedding?


this a note-to-self to funny vote this comment in the morning...
 
2012-03-24 11:04:31 PM  

dletter: I'm like many Americans in thinking that having actual "royalty" in the 21st century is way outdated.... but that was still pretty cool.


Actually, I'm OK with royalty as it's defined in Britain. The monarch's job is to be consulted, to advise, to encourage and occasionally to warn. In this way, you hae a person who understands the nation and politics, but isn;t actually involved in them. She can advise, but she can't decree. I think that's a good idea.
 
2012-03-24 11:09:13 PM  
And that's why we fought the Revolutionary War!!!

We fought for the right to not have the Monarchy pop into our weddings! And so we could have Bear Arms!
 
2012-03-25 12:45:04 AM  
power play.........
 
2012-03-25 12:58:45 AM  
usportt.com

The other queen of England
 
2012-03-25 01:09:22 AM  
It's good to be the Queen.
 
2012-03-25 01:29:27 AM  

dletter: I'm like many Americans in thinking that having actual "royalty" in the 21st century is way outdated.... but that was still pretty cool.


I'm pretty sure we had a problem with it in the 18th century.
 
2012-03-25 01:50:49 AM  
How awesome is that?
 
2012-03-25 01:50:52 AM  
The Queen, what an attention whore!
 
2012-03-25 01:51:32 AM  
Joke's on them. It's really just Scott Thompson bored and hungry looking for free food.

i1127.photobucket.com
 
2012-03-25 01:51:38 AM  
Uh-oh Granny's off her meds and got a little confused.
D'awww. That was sweet. She's welcome to crash my we...divo....aw hell, she's welcomed to crash anything.
 
2012-03-25 01:51:59 AM  
www.wearysloth.com

I would have fallen to the ground in awe.
 
2012-03-25 01:52:08 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: dletter: I'm like many Americans in thinking that having actual "royalty" in the 21st century is way outdated.... but that was still pretty cool.

Actually, I'm OK with royalty as it's defined in Britain. The monarch's job is to be consulted, to advise, to encourage and occasionally to warn. In this way, you hae a person who understands the nation and politics, but isn;t actually involved in them. She can advise, but she can't decree. I think that's a good idea.



I'm with you - God save the Queen.
 
2012-03-25 01:54:04 AM  
Hey whats up guys
images.fandango.com
 
2012-03-25 01:55:31 AM  
Crashed?

When they discovered who it was Mr Canning, jokingly wrote to Buckingham Palace to invite the them to the celebration, but had received a reply politely declining the offer.

That doesn't sound like crashing.
 
2012-03-25 01:56:28 AM  
What is appropriate decorum when an American woman meets the Queen? I'd be tempted to try and curtsy, but I'm guessing that's a no no.
 
2012-03-25 01:56:53 AM  

Mentat: I'm pretty sure we had a problem with it in the 18th century.


No, we had a problem with shouldering our fair share of the cost of Empire and obeying the same rules every other British citizen had to obey. And some FFs toyed with the idea of a monarchy, just a limited one. If you want to look at the guy who had the raging hate-boner for monarchy, look straight at Thomas Paine - it wasn't the Americans, but an English tax collector/lingerie maker
 
2012-03-25 01:57:36 AM  
God save the Queen!

Well done, well done indeed.
 
2012-03-25 01:58:20 AM  
I like the Queen, but then again, she's not my Queen so I can afford to. I think it would be really neat to have her crash any party I was attending.

//Yes, I typed neat.
 
2012-03-25 02:00:49 AM  

gadian: What is appropriate decorum when an American woman meets the Queen? I'd be tempted to try and curtsy, but I'm guessing that's a no no.


A curtsy is appropriate. For men, a bow, from the neck only.

If you were to engage her in conversation, when greeting, address her as Your Majesty initially, and after that... simply ma'am is sufficient.
 
2012-03-25 02:01:20 AM  
Came for a Wedding Crashers movie poster shop

/I don't even know you any more.
 
2012-03-25 02:01:21 AM  
Yeah, something else distracted me from the page.

i.dailymail.co.uk (new window)

/Sleep.
 
2012-03-25 02:03:12 AM  
i.dailymail.co.uk

I hope they didn't pay upfront for the wedding photographer.
 
2012-03-25 02:03:36 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: dletter: I'm like many Americans in thinking that having actual "royalty" in the 21st century is way outdated.... but that was still pretty cool.

Actually, I'm OK with royalty as it's defined in Britain. The monarch's job is to be consulted, to advise, to encourage and occasionally to warn. In this way, you hae a person who understands the nation and politics, but isn;t actually involved in them. She can advise, but she can't decree. I think that's a good idea.


Then again, there's also the fact that the monarchy only exists because they are funded by the taxpayers. . .

/had a British roommate who felt strongly that the monarchy should end because of the financial drain.
//we watched a whole 5 or 6 hour-long documentary series on the Royal Family that just happened to be on TV; having her there was kind of like an interactive director's commentary.
 
2012-03-25 02:05:17 AM  

SN1987a goes boom: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x685]

I hope they didn't pay upfront for the wedding photographer.


Nowadays every bloke with a camera thinks himself/herself a photographer. Some are good, a few a really good, most are decent, and a few are terrible.
 
2012-03-25 02:08:14 AM  
Maybe the Queen needed to recharge Mum-Ra by letting him nibble on their souls a little
 
2012-03-25 02:09:50 AM  

phalamir: No, we had a problem with shouldering our fair share of the cost of Empire and obeying the same rules every other British citizen had to obey.


If by fair share you mean selling our resources to England at a discount and buying the manufactured goods back at a markup and not even being given representation in Parliament, then sure.
 
2012-03-25 02:09:55 AM  
John is a distant relative of mine.

/getting a kick etc
//csb
 
2012-03-25 02:11:03 AM  

CygnusDarius: Nowadays every bloke with a camera

cellphone thinks himself/herself a photographer. Some are good, a few a really good, most are decent, and a few are terrible.
 
2012-03-25 02:12:16 AM  
Wedding crashed by the Queen, eh. That's nice and all, but I think we can top that.

www.jeremyclarksonsucks.com
 
Xoc
2012-03-25 02:13:05 AM  
According to this video, getting rid of the royals will actually cost England money.
 
2012-03-25 02:14:29 AM  
A .3MP camera takes better photos than the ones in the article, leading me to the conclusion that the "Queen" is a man in drag who calls himself "The Queen."
 
2012-03-25 02:16:16 AM  

TheHopeDiamond: How awesome is that?


Very farking awesome
 
2012-03-25 02:19:00 AM  

Shadow Blasko: gadian: What is appropriate decorum when an American woman meets the Queen? I'd be tempted to try and curtsy, but I'm guessing that's a no no.

A curtsy is appropriate. For men, a bow, from the neck only.

If you were to engage her in conversation, when greeting, address her as Your Majesty initially, and after that... simply ma'am is sufficient.


American woman do not need to the queen. The queen knows this and does not expect it from Americans.
 
2012-03-25 02:23:10 AM  
The Queen is getting in a little prima nocta, eh? Good for her.
 
2012-03-25 02:24:03 AM  

turbidum: Then again, there's also the fact that the monarchy only exists because they are funded by the taxpayers.


The Queen pays in about 4 times what she receives from the Exchequer. Making the monarch a normal citizen would make her disposable income go through the roof.

Crown Lands (what the monarch directly owns in the same way you own your property). Profits go straight to the Exchequer. Exchequer keeps ~80%. Parliament then tells the Exchequer what to give her to live. Then she gets her money. Under the same system, your paycheck would go directly to the IRS, and then Congress would yearly decide what you were allowed to receive as a refund. Oh, and about 2/3 of what she receives is required to go to Parliamentarily-directed upkeep of buildings deemed national/cultural treasures; so, after the IRS sends you the refund, they also tell you that you have to pay for the upkeep of the street in front of your house. When you work it out, she effectively pays a 93% income tax rate (in absolute terms, not marginal). Her cost to each British taxpayer is negative £3. BTW none of this is based on any "tourism effect", but actual personal income
 
2012-03-25 02:24:29 AM  

Mentat: phalamir: No, we had a problem with shouldering our fair share of the cost of Empire and obeying the same rules every other British citizen had to obey.

If by fair share you mean selling our resources to England at a discount and buying the manufactured goods back at a markup and not even being given representation in Parliament, then sure.


It's 200 hundred years later and we're still having the same farking argument.

/for farks sake
//the more things change...
 
2012-03-25 02:24:41 AM  

borg: Shadow Blasko: gadian: What is appropriate decorum when an American woman meets the Queen? I'd be tempted to try and curtsy, but I'm guessing that's a no no.

A curtsy is appropriate. For men, a bow, from the neck only.

If you were to engage her in conversation, when greeting, address her as Your Majesty initially, and after that... simply ma'am is sufficient.

American woman do not need to the queen. The queen knows this and does not expect it from Americans.


She may not expect it, but wouldn't it be considered respectful? I mean, she may not be our Queen, but she is royalty.
 
2012-03-25 02:26:04 AM  

turbidum: Then again, there's also the fact that the monarchy only exists because they are funded by the taxpayers. . .

/had a British roommate who felt strongly that the monarchy should end because of the financial drain.


Yes however they aren't worthless. The Monarchy forms the backbone of Britain's diplomatic corps. They do diplomacy like, well, no one else. Every country has a whole bunch of pomp and circumstance surrounding diplomacy and the Monarchy is just really good at it. It is confusing to some because in the US, the Chief of State and the Head of Government are the same person, the President. However in the UK they are not. The Chief of State is the Monarch and is a figurehead. That isn't worthless though.

I'm not saying it couldn't be done somewhat cheaper but anybody who looks at the Monarchy and says "We could get rid of all of that," hasn't looked at international politics much.

As a simple example: The Queen's Guards are the equivalent to the Marines on Presidential Guard Duty. They are basically ceremonial infantry (though of course highly trained and capable of fighting if necessary) who are there for the benefit of diplomacy. Sharp looking people in uniform to open doors for the diplomats and that kind of thing. If there was no Queen, they wouldn't go away. They'd probably get a name change and maybe a uniform change, but they'd still be used for the same reason.
 
2012-03-25 02:26:53 AM  

turbidum: Benevolent Misanthrope: dletter: I'm like many Americans in thinking that having actual "royalty" in the 21st century is way outdated.... but that was still pretty cool.

Actually, I'm OK with royalty as it's defined in Britain. The monarch's job is to be consulted, to advise, to encourage and occasionally to warn. In this way, you hae a person who understands the nation and politics, but isn;t actually involved in them. She can advise, but she can't decree. I think that's a good idea.

Then again, there's also the fact that the monarchy only exists because they are funded by the taxpayers. . .

/had a British roommate who felt strongly that the monarchy should end because of the financial drain.
//we watched a whole 5 or 6 hour-long documentary series on the Royal Family that just happened to be on TV; having her there was kind of like an interactive director's commentary.


Does she think the president of the United States is a volunteer or something?

/all government officials are paid by taxpayers.
 
2012-03-25 02:30:45 AM  

DeadMouseTails: borg: Shadow Blasko: gadian: What is appropriate decorum when an American woman meets the Queen? I'd be tempted to try and curtsy, but I'm guessing that's a no no.

A curtsy is appropriate. For men, a bow, from the neck only.

If you were to engage her in conversation, when greeting, address her as Your Majesty initially, and after that... simply ma'am is sufficient.

American woman do not need to the queen. The queen knows this and does not expect it from Americans.

She may not expect it, but wouldn't it be considered respectful? I mean, she may not be our Queen, but she is royalty.


From her website:

"The Queen meets thousands of people each year in the UK and overseas. Before meeting Her Majesty, many people ask how they should behave. The simple answer is that there are no obligatory codes of behaviour - just courtesy.

However, many people wish to observe the traditional forms of greeting.

For men this is a neck bow (from the head only) whilst women do a small curtsy. Other people prefer simply to shake hands in the usual way.

On presentation to The Queen, the correct formal address is 'Your Majesty' and subsequently 'Ma'am'. "

Link (new window)

/it's actually a really neat website with lots of fascinating info!
 
2012-03-25 02:32:09 AM  

DeadMouseTails: I like the Queen, but then again, she's not my Queen so I can afford to. I think it would be really neat to have her crash any party I was attending.

//Yes, I typed neat.



Ditto.
 
2012-03-25 02:33:43 AM  

dletter: I'm like many Americans in thinking that having actual "royalty" in the 21st century is way outdated.... but that was still pretty cool.


No, we just elect our "royalty" over here...or deities...
 
2012-03-25 02:39:24 AM  

DeadMouseTails: borg: Shadow Blasko: gadian: What is appropriate decorum when an American woman meets the Queen? I'd be tempted to try and curtsy, but I'm guessing that's a no no.

A curtsy is appropriate. For men, a bow, from the neck only.

If you were to engage her in conversation, when greeting, address her as Your Majesty initially, and after that... simply ma'am is sufficient.

American woman do not need to the queen. The queen knows this and does not expect it from Americans.

She may not expect it, but wouldn't it be considered respectful? I mean, she may not be our Queen, but she is royalty.


First it's made up royalty & official US State Department diplomacy protocol says treat them like a head of state but don't bow or curtsy. Some say it's covered in Article I, Section 9 of the constitution.
 
2012-03-25 02:39:39 AM  
And she did The Chicken Dance and a jello shot...AND caught the garter belt.
 
2012-03-25 02:40:40 AM  

Mentat: phalamir: No, we had a problem with shouldering our fair share of the cost of Empire and obeying the same rules every other British citizen had to obey.

If by fair share you mean selling our resources to England at a discount and buying the manufactured goods back at a markup and not even being given representation in Parliament, then sure.


You do realize that that was how mercantilism worked, right? And the colonists had exactly the same representation in Parliament as any Londoner - you might not like how they did it, but the British were not treating the Americans any different than any other British subject post-7-Years-War. Before that, the British were coddling the Americans egregiously. Pre-7-Years-War; the Brits had been spoiling the Americans through salutary neglect, and the colonists were biatching because they were not allowed to break the rules anymore. But even for all their complaints about what was happening - even after Lexington, Concord, and Boston - virtually no American was actually seriously calling for getting rid of the monarch or breaking with Britain. In fact, the Olive Branch Petition of July 1775 was basically a sloppy knob-polishing of George III. Sans Paine going full retard in Common Sense, it is quite probable that the colonies might have been ended up being granted something close to Dominion status - and would probably have taken it. The colonists were protesting what they felt was unfair treatment (though only unfair in comparison to pre-63, when they were the ones getting unfair benefits), but they were basically trying to work to stay in the British Empire before Paine came along, not jettison it.
 
2012-03-25 02:45:49 AM  

phalamir: turbidum: Then again, there's also the fact that the monarchy only exists because they are funded by the taxpayers.

The Queen pays in about 4 times what she receives from the Exchequer. Making the monarch a normal citizen would make her disposable income go through the roof.

Crown Lands (what the monarch directly owns in the same way you own your property). Profits go straight to the Exchequer. Exchequer keeps ~80%. Parliament then tells the Exchequer what to give her to live. Then she gets her money. Under the same system, your paycheck would go directly to the IRS, and then Congress would yearly decide what you were allowed to receive as a refund. Oh, and about 2/3 of what she receives is required to go to Parliamentarily-directed upkeep of buildings deemed national/cultural treasures; so, after the IRS sends you the refund, they also tell you that you have to pay for the upkeep of the street in front of your house. When you work it out, she effectively pays a 93% income tax rate (in absolute terms, not marginal). Her cost to each British taxpayer is negative £3. BTW none of this is based on any "tourism effect", but actual personal income


And 78% of that is her annual big foofy hat expenses.
 
2012-03-25 02:49:57 AM  
All of these posts and not one pic of Kate Middleton?

/shame on you guys
 
2012-03-25 02:50:10 AM  
Her Majesty's a pretty nice girl.

If I were in a position such as her's I would be doing shiat like that all the time. Sure, it would drive the security teams a bit nuts but damn it would be a blast.
 
2012-03-25 02:50:12 AM  

borg: American woman do not need to the queen. The queen knows this and does not expect it from Americans.


It is called courtesy and respect. Proper forms should be respected.
 
2012-03-25 02:59:19 AM  

phalamir: turbidum: Then again, there's also the fact that the monarchy only exists because they are funded by the taxpayers.

The Queen pays in about 4 times what she receives from the Exchequer. Making the monarch a normal citizen would make her disposable income go through the roof.

Crown Lands (what the monarch directly owns in the same way you own your property). Profits go straight to the Exchequer. Exchequer keeps ~80%. Parliament then tells the Exchequer what to give her to live. Then she gets her money. Under the same system, your paycheck would go directly to the IRS, and then Congress would yearly decide what you were allowed to receive as a refund. Oh, and about 2/3 of what she receives is required to go to Parliamentarily-directed upkeep of buildings deemed national/cultural treasures; so, after the IRS sends you the refund, they also tell you that you have to pay for the upkeep of the street in front of your house. When you work it out, she effectively pays a 93% income tax rate (in absolute terms, not marginal). Her cost to each British taxpayer is negative £3. BTW none of this is based on any "tourism effect", but actual personal income


Interesting. Though I'm guessing all of this assumes that all property held by the queen belongs to her and the Royal Family and not the citizens of Britain. I think my friend felt otherwise.
 
2012-03-25 03:01:31 AM  

turbidum: Interesting. Though I'm guessing all of this assumes that all property held by the queen belongs to her and the Royal Family and not the citizens of Britain. I think my friend felt otherwise.


What is your friend proposing, that they confiscate all the Queen's lands? What a pinko.
 
2012-03-25 03:10:19 AM  

cuzsis: "The Queen meets thousands of people each year in the UK and overseas. Before meeting Her Majesty, many people ask how they should behave. The simple answer is that there are no obligatory codes of behaviour - just courtesy.

However, many people wish to observe the traditional forms of greeting.

For men this is a neck bow (from the head only) whilst women do a small curtsy. Other people prefer simply to shake hands in the usual way.

On presentation to The Queen, the correct formal address is 'Your Majesty' and subsequently 'Ma'am'. "


Isn't that exactly what I said?

I'm not a monarchist, but I play one on weekends, and I know my protocol.
 
2012-03-25 03:15:08 AM  
A right good sheila the Queen is, not a bit stuck up.
 
2012-03-25 03:16:26 AM  

turbidum: phalamir: turbidum: Then again, there's also the fact that the monarchy only exists because they are funded by the taxpayers.

The Queen pays in about 4 times what she receives from the Exchequer. Making the monarch a normal citizen would make her disposable income go through the roof.

Crown Lands (what the monarch directly owns in the same way you own your property). Profits go straight to the Exchequer. Exchequer keeps ~80%. Parliament then tells the Exchequer what to give her to live. Then she gets her money. Under the same system, your paycheck would go directly to the IRS, and then Congress would yearly decide what you were allowed to receive as a refund. Oh, and about 2/3 of what she receives is required to go to Parliamentarily-directed upkeep of buildings deemed national/cultural treasures; so, after the IRS sends you the refund, they also tell you that you have to pay for the upkeep of the street in front of your house. When you work it out, she effectively pays a 93% income tax rate (in absolute terms, not marginal). Her cost to each British taxpayer is negative £3. BTW none of this is based on any "tourism effect", but actual personal income

Interesting. Though I'm guessing all of this assumes that all property held by the queen belongs to her and the Royal Family and not the citizens of Britain. I think my friend felt otherwise.


Legally, your friend was wrong. The lands are property of the Crown. If you abolish the monarchy, the ownership reverts to the heir of the original donor who put it in trust. Which would be Elizabeth Windsor. She would be, shall we say, obscenely wealthy. And she wouldn't have to share a cent, wouldn't have to allow in a single tourist... If it were me, I would shut everything down out of spite. No, you can't use Buckingham Palace for your state dinner. Rent a room at some hotel. I'm sorry, but after all, this is the private residence of a private citizen, remember?
 
2012-03-25 03:32:35 AM  

cptjeff: Legally, your friend was wrong. The lands are property of the Crown. If you abolish the monarchy, the ownership reverts to the heir of the original donor who put it in trust. Which would be Elizabeth Windsor. She would be, shall we say, obscenely wealthy. And she wouldn't have to share a cent, wouldn't have to allow in a single tourist... If it were me, I would shut everything down out of spite. No, you can't use Buckingham Palace for your state dinner. Rent a room at some hotel. I'm sorry, but after all, this is the private residence of a private citizen, remember?


lol, I'd love to see that. She'd be so polite about it, too.

And I think my friend knew that (she's a bright cookie). If it were to happen, though, I can't imagine the Royal Family wouldn't give a large portion of their property (land and otherwise) to the government/citizens.

I don't think it'll happen any time soon, though. With the arrival of Kate Middleton to the scene, there's a fresh excitement in the air. William done chose good., both for himself and for the Crown.
 
2012-03-25 03:33:40 AM  
That's pretty awesome!
 
2012-03-25 03:59:12 AM  

SN1987a goes boom: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x685]

I hope they didn't pay upfront for the wedding photographer.


No farking shiat!

Here's my camera as a kid

www.100megsfree.com

My parents bought a house in the historical district and this was one of the things (complete with flash attachment) that I found stashed under some shelves in the attic. After a good cleaning and finding the right film, off I went. Took pretty good photos, altho I didn't like looking straight down into it to see forward to shoot.
But, considering it was the ONLY way for me to have a camera (parents only had 13 cars.. so no way they could possibly buy something like a camera, bike or tennis shoes for me), I had no choice to be happy with it... and it took photos 1000x times better than that shown in the article.

/actually surprised they wrote the article, I wouldn't believe that was her from those so-called photos. Could have been Hulk Hogan in a dress for all we know
 
2012-03-25 04:07:44 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: balisane: I admit, I giggled. What a sweet story.

balisane: I admit, I giggled. What a sweet story.

The Queen is cool - and a very nice lady. I admire her even more now.


The queen is a useless parasite who sponges millions from people who actually earn their living, and in return, she contributes nothing.

And it is slack-jawed, drooling morons like yourself, openly admitting to admiring this worthless sack of shiat, who enable her to continue to be the boil on the ass of society that she is.

fark you, sweaty betty. Seriously. Get a job.
 
2012-03-25 04:28:57 AM  

TheMega: SN1987a goes boom: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x685]

I hope they didn't pay upfront for the wedding photographer.

No farking shiat!

Here's my camera as a kid

[www.100megsfree.com image 262x262]

My parents bought a house in the historical district and this was one of the things (complete with flash attachment) that I found stashed under some shelves in the attic. After a good cleaning and finding the right film, off I went. Took pretty good photos, altho I didn't like looking straight down into it to see forward to shoot.
But, considering it was the ONLY way for me to have a camera (parents only had 13 cars.. so no way they could possibly buy something like a camera, bike or tennis shoes for me), I had no choice to be happy with it... and it took photos 1000x times better than that shown in the article.

/actually surprised they wrote the article, I wouldn't believe that was her from those so-called photos. Could have been Hulk Hogan in a dress for all we know


I found an old camera several years ago that my grandparents used. It was one of those old movie cameras that you actually had to crank to use. I wish I would've kept track of it though, might be worth something to a mueseum in a few years.
 
2012-03-25 04:44:17 AM  
I don't think the Queen takes herself as seriously as some people think. But when there's a call to duty, like Nazis knocking on the gates of civilization and demanding to be let in, you can count on her to be the first one there to tell them to pound sand.
 
2012-03-25 04:45:22 AM  

Ivan Tudor C McHock: Benevolent Misanthrope: balisane: I admit, I giggled. What a sweet story.

balisane: I admit, I giggled. What a sweet story.

The Queen is cool - and a very nice lady. I admire her even more now.

The queen is a useless parasite who sponges millions from people who actually earn their living, and in return, she contributes nothing.

And it is slack-jawed, drooling morons like yourself, openly admitting to admiring this worthless sack of shiat, who enable her to continue to be the boil on the ass of society that she is.

fark you, sweaty betty. Seriously. Get a job.


Aww. Somebody needs a big fat sweaty hug.
 
2012-03-25 05:14:24 AM  

DeadMouseTails: borg: Shadow Blasko: gadian: What is appropriate decorum when an American woman meets the Queen? I'd be tempted to try and curtsy, but I'm guessing that's a no no.

A curtsy is appropriate. For men, a bow, from the neck only.

If you were to engage her in conversation, when greeting, address her as Your Majesty initially, and after that... simply ma'am is sufficient.

American woman do not need to the queen. The queen knows this and does not expect it from Americans.

She may not expect it, but wouldn't it be considered respectful? I mean, she may not be our Queen, but she is royalty.


We had a bit of a violent discusion that included not expressing fealty to the monarch of England anymore in the 18th century.

That is what a bow/curtsy is: an expression of fealty.
 
2012-03-25 05:18:02 AM  

phalamir: Mentat: phalamir: No, we had a problem with shouldering our fair share of the cost of Empire and obeying the same rules every other British citizen had to obey.

If by fair share you mean selling our resources to England at a discount and buying the manufactured goods back at a markup and not even being given representation in Parliament, then sure.

You do realize that that was how mercantilism worked, right? And the colonists had exactly the same representation in Parliament as any Londoner - you might not like how they did it, but the British were not treating the Americans any different than any other British subject post-7-Years-War. Before that, the British were coddling the Americans egregiously. Pre-7-Years-War; the Brits had been spoiling the Americans through salutary neglect, and the colonists were biatching because they were not allowed to break the rules anymore. But even for all their complaints about what was happening - even after Lexington, Concord, and Boston - virtually no American was actually seriously calling for getting rid of the monarch or breaking with Britain. In fact, the Olive Branch Petition of July 1775 was basically a sloppy knob-polishing of George III. Sans Paine going full retard in Common Sense, it is quite probable that the colonies might have been ended up being granted something close to Dominion status - and would probably have taken it. The colonists were protesting what they felt was unfair treatment (though only unfair in comparison to pre-63, when they were the ones getting unfair benefits), but they were basically trying to work to stay in the British Empire before Paine came along, not jettison it.


You might want to read Barbara Tuchman's "March of Folly." She has a slightly different take on it.
 
2012-03-25 05:21:41 AM  
...and if you think the entire Revolutionary movement in the U.S. was due to the pamlets of one man, you seriously need to read some actual history.
 
2012-03-25 05:25:38 AM  

KiplingKat872: phalamir: Mentat: phalamir: No, we had a problem with shouldering our fair share of the cost of Empire and obeying the same rules every other British citizen had to obey.

If by fair share you mean selling our resources to England at a discount and buying the manufactured goods back at a markup and not even being given representation in Parliament, then sure.

You do realize that that was how mercantilism worked, right? And the colonists had exactly the same representation in Parliament as any Londoner - you might not like how they did it, but the British were not treating the Americans any different than any other British subject post-7-Years-War. Before that, the British were coddling the Americans egregiously. Pre-7-Years-War; the Brits had been spoiling the Americans through salutary neglect, and the colonists were biatching because they were not allowed to break the rules anymore. But even for all their complaints about what was happening - even after Lexington, Concord, and Boston - virtually no American was actually seriously calling for getting rid of the monarch or breaking with Britain. In fact, the Olive Branch Petition of July 1775 was basically a sloppy knob-polishing of George III. Sans Paine going full retard in Common Sense, it is quite probable that the colonies might have been ended up being granted something close to Dominion status - and would probably have taken it. The colonists were protesting what they felt was unfair treatment (though only unfair in comparison to pre-63, when they were the ones getting unfair benefits), but they were basically trying to work to stay in the British Empire before Paine came along, not jettison it.

You might want to read Barbara Tuchman's "March of Folly." She has a slightly different take on it.


And you can start by looking up the Burning of Falmouth.

"No one wanted to break with Britain..." my arse.
 
2012-03-25 05:36:32 AM  

themeaningoflifeisnot: They'll be telling that story long after their divorce.


I don't know. They're not spring chickens. The groom is 48 and the bride looks to be in her late 30s, at least. They're not starry-eyed kids - I think marriages have a better chance of going the distance when the partners are more mature. Wish them the best.
 
2012-03-25 06:23:58 AM  
s7.postimage.org
 
2012-03-25 06:50:47 AM  
That was seriously cool on all levels.
 
2012-03-25 06:50:55 AM  

KiplingKat872: DeadMouseTails: borg: Shadow Blasko: gadian: What is appropriate decorum when an American woman meets the Queen? I'd be tempted to try and curtsy, but I'm guessing that's a no no.

A curtsy is appropriate. For men, a bow, from the neck only.

If you were to engage her in conversation, when greeting, address her as Your Majesty initially, and after that... simply ma'am is sufficient.

American woman do not need to the queen. The queen knows this and does not expect it from Americans.

She may not expect it, but wouldn't it be considered respectful? I mean, she may not be our Queen, but she is royalty.

We had a bit of a violent discusion that included not expressing fealty to the monarch of England anymore in the 18th century.

That is what a bow/curtsy is: an expression of fealty.


A bow/curtesy is not and never was an expression of fealty. Otherwise monarchs wouldn't let their subjects bow/curtsey to foreign monarchs, which has never been the case.
 
2012-03-25 07:20:35 AM  
Good on the Queen.

...actually, makes me wonder how the US had developed had we gone with something similar to how the UK now runs itself - parliamentary democracy with a hereditary head of state.
 
2012-03-25 07:51:44 AM  
That's kinda cool. I'm a yank, but I can appreciate what the various royal families of Europe have done in modern times.

But what the heck kind of atrocious device snapped those photos? I don't think you could find a worse camera. Or did somebody deliberately downsample the results?
 
2012-03-25 08:01:28 AM  
I thought we were an autonomous collective.
 
2012-03-25 08:03:34 AM  

Summercat: Good on the Queen.

...actually, makes me wonder how the US had developed had we gone with something similar to how the UK now runs itself - parliamentary democracy with a hereditary head of state.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-03-25 08:04:11 AM  
Good to see the Anti-Monarchists are out in force., if nothing else it gives the Chavs someone to look down on.
 
2012-03-25 08:16:04 AM  
All these centuries, and they're still compin' it.
 
2012-03-25 08:17:07 AM  
This was absolutely delightful. I cannot think of an instance where Queen Elizabeth has ever been less than perfectly graceful and the epitome of British pride, strength, and tradition. Fer Chrissakes, she worked in the farking motor pool during the war, turning wrenches and delivering vehicles- hardly a cush job suited for a princess.

If a country is to have a monarchy, I do not believe you could possibly hope for a better Queen. Regardless of her station in life, I admire her for WHO she is, not necessarily WHAT she is.
 
2012-03-25 09:02:13 AM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Summercat: Good on the Queen.

...actually, makes me wonder how the US had developed had we gone with something similar to how the UK now runs itself - parliamentary democracy with a hereditary head of state.


For the record, I giggled out loud.
 
2012-03-25 09:22:09 AM  
i.dailymail.co.uk

Dibs on the maid of honor.
 
2012-03-25 09:35:30 AM  
If you don't like monarchs talk to the French or the Russians about how to deal with them, otherwise STFU and GBTW
 
2012-03-25 10:11:56 AM  

DeadMouseTails: She may not expect it, but wouldn't it be considered respectful? I mean, she may not be our Queen, but she is royalty.


Respectful to her, perhaps, but disrespectful to those who died in order to keep us from having to bow to George III.
 
2012-03-25 10:14:17 AM  

turbidum: And I think my friend knew that (she's a bright cookie). If it were to happen, though, I can't imagine the Royal Family wouldn't give a large portion of their property (land and otherwise) to the government/citizens.


She would, but it would be the non-revenue producing properties with insane costs of upkeep she doesn't want or need.
 
2012-03-25 10:32:04 AM  
I would comment on the revolution comment but I'm descended form the wrong side in the war. The first person in america on my family was a Hessian solider. Well he was from Brunswick but the word hessian is used for all.
 
2012-03-25 10:34:27 AM  

KiplingKat872: We had a bit of a violent discusion that included not expressing fealty to the monarch of England anymore in the 18th century


Then came the pledge of allegiance
 
2012-03-25 10:40:54 AM  

dletter: I'm like many Americans in thinking that having actual "royalty" in the 21st century is way outdated.... but that was still pretty cool.


She's like a mascot. Put her in a furry costume with a giant scepter and send her out to entertain the hooligans at Manchester United games.

/except for the whole richer-than-God thing
 
2012-03-25 10:45:17 AM  

sendbillmoney: DeadMouseTails: She may not expect it, but wouldn't it be considered respectful? I mean, she may not be our Queen, but she is royalty.

Respectful to her, perhaps, but disrespectful to those who died in order to keep us from having to bow to George III.


Biggest mistake you lot ever made. How's that whole governing yourselves thing going thesedays? Couldn't run a piss-up in a brewery, honestly. I've never seen politics resemble the special olympics more closely.
 
2012-03-25 10:55:33 AM  

phalamir: You do realize that that was how mercantilism worked, right?


Yeah, I kind of did realize that's how mercantilism works, considering I practically defined the word in my post. I'm sorry I didn't explicitly put the word in there to serve as a guidepost for you, I guess I expected more from you. But anyway, saying that America wasn't treated any differently than other colonies in a mercantilist system is a moot point since every colony gets screwed in a mercantilist system. America wanted to trade their goods freely, they wanted to be able to manufacture their own goods, and they wanted a chance to represent themselves either in Parliament or on their own.
 
2012-03-25 11:12:30 AM  

Ivan Tudor C McHock: The queen is a useless parasite who sponges millions from people who actually earn their living, and in return, she contributes nothing.


Errr, about that....

The existence of the Royal family actually creates a POSITIVE cash flow for the UK. (new window)
 
2012-03-25 11:28:33 AM  

sycraft:
As a simple example: The Queen's Guards are the equivalent to the Marines on Presidential Guard Duty. They are basically ceremonial infantry (though of course highly trained and capable of fighting if necessary) who are there for the benefit of diplomacy. Sharp looking people in uniform to open doors for the diplomats and that kind of thing. If there was no Queen, they wouldn't go away. They'd probably get a name change and maybe a uniform change, but they'd still be used for the same reason.


All the soldiers who guard the queen spend half their time fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. They do some tours there and some tours wearing the fancy costumes outside Buck House. They are front line soldiers.
 
2012-03-25 11:29:22 AM  

Ace of Swords: KiplingKat872: DeadMouseTails: borg: Shadow Blasko: gadian: What is appropriate decorum when an American woman meets the Queen? I'd be tempted to try and curtsy, but I'm guessing that's a no no.

A curtsy is appropriate. For men, a bow, from the neck only.

If you were to engage her in conversation, when greeting, address her as Your Majesty initially, and after that... simply ma'am is sufficient.

American woman do not need to the queen. The queen knows this and does not expect it from Americans.

She may not expect it, but wouldn't it be considered respectful? I mean, she may not be our Queen, but she is royalty.

We had a bit of a violent discusion that included not expressing fealty to the monarch of England anymore in the 18th century.

That is what a bow/curtsy is: an expression of fealty.

A bow/curtesy is not and never was an expression of fealty. Otherwise monarchs wouldn't let their subjects bow/curtsey to foreign monarchs, which has never been the case.


All the histories I am looking up say the bow/curtsy is a gesture of inferiority. And what do you think a bow is but exposing your neck, putting yourself in a completely vulnerable, position to a ruler?
 
2012-03-25 11:31:17 AM  

shArkh: sendbillmoney: DeadMouseTails: She may not expect it, but wouldn't it be considered respectful? I mean, she may not be our Queen, but she is royalty.

Respectful to her, perhaps, but disrespectful to those who died in order to keep us from having to bow to George III.

Biggest mistake you lot ever made. How's that whole governing yourselves thing going thesedays? Couldn't run a piss-up in a brewery, honestly. I've never seen politics resemble the special olympics more closely.


Like you all are doing better right now...
 
2012-03-25 11:35:21 AM  

Slartibartfaster: KiplingKat872: We had a bit of a violent discusion that included not expressing fealty to the monarch of England anymore in the 18th century

Then came the pledge of allegiance


In which we pledge alligiance to the nation, not the president or any governing body.

Though don't get me started on the "under god..." amendment to it.
 
2012-03-25 11:39:27 AM  
I don't have a problem with the Queen. The office she fulfills obviously works for the U.K. and she seems like a very cool person (so was her Dad). What does bother me is watching Americans fall all over themselves for the Royals as if they were British subjects.
 
2012-03-25 11:39:28 AM  
Never upstage the bride!
 
2012-03-25 12:00:39 PM  

KiplingKat872: In which we pledge alligiance to the nation, not the president or any governing body


al·le·giance [uh-lee-juhns]
noun
1.
the loyalty of a citizen to his or her government or of a subject to his or her sovereign.

Root word = liege

liege adj \ˈlēj\

Definition of LIEGE

1
a : having the right to feudal allegiance or service

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-03-25 12:06:19 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: dletter: I'm like many Americans in thinking that having actual "royalty" in the 21st century is way outdated.... but that was still pretty cool.

Actually, I'm OK with royalty as it's defined in Britain. The monarch's job is to be consulted, to advise, to encourage and occasionally to warn. In this way, you hae a person who understands the nation and politics, but isn;t actually involved in them. She can advise, but she can't decree. I think that's a good idea.


SN1987a goes boom: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x685]

I hope they didn't pay upfront for the wedding photographer.



So that is her, and not some professional body double (I had a sad when I saw a chick who professionally doubled as Britney Spears at events in the early 2000s, she was happy about it, and the little kids who got her autographs were happy about it, but I'd have felt gyped if come to find out the prized autograph I got was from a double and not the real thing)?
 
2012-03-25 12:08:37 PM  

KiplingKat872: All the histories I am looking up say the bow/curtsy is a gesture of inferiority. And what do you think a bow is but exposing your neck, putting yourself in a completely vulnerable, position to a ruler?


Okay, maybe back then, but in the modern age it's a sign of respect. Bows are not unique to one culture.

You're also backtracking from your assertion of it being a gesture of fealty. Now you're saying it's a gesture of inferiority. Which is it?

Also, if you're saying it's a gesture of inferiority, do you believe that was what Obama intended/showed when he bowed to the Saudi King?
 
2012-03-25 12:11:00 PM  
Yeah, but the story left out that the Queen showed up to claim her right of 'Prima Nocte.' Poor groom.
 
2012-03-25 12:26:06 PM  

KiplingKat872: Ace of Swords: KiplingKat872: DeadMouseTails: borg: Shadow Blasko: gadian: What is appropriate decorum when an American woman meets the Queen? I'd be tempted to try and curtsy, but I'm guessing that's a no no.

A curtsy is appropriate. For men, a bow, from the neck only.

If you were to engage her in conversation, when greeting, address her as Your Majesty initially, and after that... simply ma'am is sufficient.

American woman do not need to the queen. The queen knows this and does not expect it from Americans.

She may not expect it, but wouldn't it be considered respectful? I mean, she may not be our Queen, but she is royalty.

We had a bit of a violent discusion that included not expressing fealty to the monarch of England anymore in the 18th century.

That is what a bow/curtsy is: an expression of fealty.

A bow/curtesy is not and never was an expression of fealty. Otherwise monarchs wouldn't let their subjects bow/curtsey to foreign monarchs, which has never been the case.

All the histories I am looking up say the bow/curtsy is a gesture of inferiority. And what do you think a bow is but exposing your neck, putting yourself in a completely vulnerable, position to a ruler?


Have you ever heard the expression "When in Rome, do as the Romans do?" Well, if I was visiting England, and happened to find myself invited to an event that a member of the BRF was attending, when they passed me, I'd curtsy. Why? Because that's the polite thing to do. It's also what everyone else there would be doing, and I wouldn't want to look like the ugly American who has no manners, thus contributing to the overall impression people have my country and the people who live in it.

Another good example would be my boyfriend and I's good friend Patrick. He's from Sydney. He comes to visit a few times a year, and one time we took him to a hockey game, as he'd never been to an NHL match before. When our national anthem started playing, he stood up along with everyone else, did the hand-over-the-heart thing, and though he didn't know all the words, followed along as best he could. Why? He'd look like a dick just sitting there. It's not his national anthem (though Advance, Australia Fair is waaaaaaaay better than ours), it's not his country, but he did what everyone else was doing not to appear rude or impolite.

When in Rome, you see.
 
2012-03-25 12:26:52 PM  

turbidum: KiplingKat872: All the histories I am looking up say the bow/curtsy is a gesture of inferiority. And what do you think a bow is but exposing your neck, putting yourself in a completely vulnerable, position to a ruler?

Okay, maybe back then, but in the modern age it's a sign of respect. Bows are not unique to one culture.

You're also backtracking from your assertion of it being a gesture of fealty. Now you're saying it's a gesture of inferiority. Which is it?

Also, if you're saying it's a gesture of inferiority, do you believe that was what Obama intended/showed when he bowed to the Saudi King?


Same thing in this context. Physical gestures of fealty come from the fuedal system in which vassals publically demonstrated that they were inferior to/ruled by the monarch. They would kneel/bow, gesturing that they submitted themselves to the monarch's will, and then the King would allow them to rise and give them the kiss of peace which was a gesture that he would not harm them.
 
2012-03-25 12:31:50 PM  

Coco LaFemme: KiplingKat872: Ace of Swords: KiplingKat872: DeadMouseTails: borg: Shadow Blasko: gadian: What is appropriate decorum when an American woman meets the Queen? I'd be tempted to try and curtsy, but I'm guessing that's a no no.

A curtsy is appropriate. For men, a bow, from the neck only.

If you were to engage her in conversation, when greeting, address her as Your Majesty initially, and after that... simply ma'am is sufficient.

American woman do not need to the queen. The queen knows this and does not expect it from Americans.

She may not expect it, but wouldn't it be considered respectful? I mean, she may not be our Queen, but she is royalty.

We had a bit of a violent discusion that included not expressing fealty to the monarch of England anymore in the 18th century.

That is what a bow/curtsy is: an expression of fealty.

A bow/curtesy is not and never was an expression of fealty. Otherwise monarchs wouldn't let their subjects bow/curtsey to foreign monarchs, which has never been the case.

All the histories I am looking up say the bow/curtsy is a gesture of inferiority. And what do you think a bow is but exposing your neck, putting yourself in a completely vulnerable, position to a ruler?

Have you ever heard the expression "When in Rome, do as the Romans do?" Well, if I was visiting England, and happened to find myself invited to an event that a member of the BRF was attending, when they passed me, I'd curtsy. Why? Because that's the polite thing to do. It's also what everyone else there would be doing, and I wouldn't want to look like the ugly American who has no manners, thus contributing to the overall impression people have my country and the people who live in it.

Another good example would be my boyfriend and I's good friend Patrick. He's from Sydney. He comes to visit a few times a year, and one time we took him to a hockey game, as he'd never been to an NHL match before. When our national anthem started playing, he stood up along with everyone else, did the hand-over-the-heart thing, and though he didn't know all the words, followed along as best he could. Why? He'd look like a dick just sitting there. It's not his national anthem (though Advance, Australia Fair is waaaaaaaay better than ours), it's not his country, but he did what everyone else was doing not to appear rude or impolite.

When in Rome, you see.


So why don't you just move there and become a British subject?

It is entirely possible to be courteous to a monarch without pretending to be British. Use their formal address ("Your Majesty...") and shake their hand, following their lead as you would the President.

But I find Americans who are basically pretending to be British around the Royals to be silly at best.
 
2012-03-25 12:36:16 PM  

Coco LaFemme: KiplingKat872: Ace of Swords: KiplingKat872: DeadMouseTails: borg: Shadow Blasko: gadian: What is appropriate decorum when an American woman meets the Queen? I'd be tempted to try and curtsy, but I'm guessing that's a no no.

A curtsy is appropriate. For men, a bow, from the neck only.

If you were to engage her in conversation, when greeting, address her as Your Majesty initially, and after that... simply ma'am is sufficient.

American woman do not need to the queen. The queen knows this and does not expect it from Americans.

She may not expect it, but wouldn't it be considered respectful? I mean, she may not be our Queen, but she is royalty.

We had a bit of a violent discusion that included not expressing fealty to the monarch of England anymore in the 18th century.

That is what a bow/curtsy is: an expression of fealty.

A bow/curtesy is not and never was an expression of fealty. Otherwise monarchs wouldn't let their subjects bow/curtsey to foreign monarchs, which has never been the case.

All the histories I am looking up say the bow/curtsy is a gesture of inferiority. And what do you think a bow is but exposing your neck, putting yourself in a completely vulnerable, position to a ruler?

Have you ever heard the expression "When in Rome, do as the Romans do?" Well, if I was visiting England, and happened to find myself invited to an event that a member of the BRF was attending, when they passed me, I'd curtsy. Why? Because that's the polite thing to do. It's also what everyone else there would be doing, and I wouldn't want to look like the ugly American who has no manners, thus contributing to the overall impression people have my country and the people who live in it.

Another good example would be my boyfriend and I's good friend Patrick. He's from Sydney. He comes to visit a few times a year, and one time we took him to a hockey game, as he'd never been to an NHL match before. When our national anthem started playing, he stood up along with everyone else, did the hand-over-the-heart thing, and though he didn't know all the words, followed along as best he could. Why? He'd look like a dick just sitting there. It's not his national anthem (though Advance, Australia Fair is waaaaaaaay better than ours), it's not his country, but he did what everyone else was doing not to appear rude or impolite.

When in Rome, you see.


Oh, and your BF is just as silly for forsaking his nationality out of wanting to fit in.

Moo.

It is respectful to stand during other countries' national athems. Beyond that, you're making a weird statement that your natuonality depends on the company you are in.
 
2012-03-25 12:38:08 PM  
Sorry, your friend Patrick. Either way, he went overboard.
 
2012-03-25 12:39:49 PM  

KiplingKat872: So why don't you just move there and become a British subject?


That is about as retarded as you can get.

I stand for your national anthem.
I use two hands to hand my business card to japanese clients.
I keep my mouth shut when Im in a church.

It is polite.

// Do Americans REALLY believe brits are subject to the crown in any meaningful way ?
/ I felt WAY more subjugated by US corporations when I had the misfortune of living in America.
 
2012-03-25 12:47:44 PM  

KiplingKat872: turbidum: KiplingKat872: All the histories I am looking up say the bow/curtsy is a gesture of inferiority. And what do you think a bow is but exposing your neck, putting yourself in a completely vulnerable, position to a ruler?

Okay, maybe back then, but in the modern age it's a sign of respect. Bows are not unique to one culture.

You're also backtracking from your assertion of it being a gesture of fealty. Now you're saying it's a gesture of inferiority. Which is it?

Also, if you're saying it's a gesture of inferiority, do you believe that was what Obama intended/showed when he bowed to the Saudi King?

Same thing in this context. Physical gestures of fealty come from the fuedal system in which vassals publically demonstrated that they were inferior to/ruled by the monarch. They would kneel/bow, gesturing that they submitted themselves to the monarch's will, and then the King would allow them to rise and give them the kiss of peace which was a gesture that he would not harm them.


From wikipedia:

In Taiwan, China, and Vietnam, shaking hands or a slight bow have become more popular than a full bow. However, bowing is not reserved only for greetings. Bowing is a gesture of respect. Different bows are used for apologies and gratitude, to express different emotions, humility, sincerity, remorse, or deference, and in various traditional arts and religious ceremonies. Bowing has been a way to show respect to people for a long time in East Asia.

. . .

Bows also replace speaking under certain circumstances. For example, when encountering again a person to whom one has already spoken that day, a silent bow replaces such phrases as "hello" or "hi."


Please let everyone in East Asia know that since their customs developed from feudalism, they are outdated.

/things develop over time, dude. you somehow seem to think we live in a syncretistic time bubble.
 
2012-03-25 12:50:34 PM  

Slartibartfaster:
// Do Americans REALLY believe brits are subject to the crown in any meaningful way ?


Yep, a lot do. Then again, a lot of Americans couldn't tell you what a parliament is other than a cigarette.
 
2012-03-25 12:58:08 PM  

Slartibartfaster: KiplingKat872: So why don't you just move there and become a British subject?

That is about as retarded as you can get.

I stand for your national anthem.
I use two hands to hand my business card to japanese clients.
I keep my mouth shut when Im in a church.

It is polite.

// Do Americans REALLY believe brits are subject to the crown in any meaningful way ?
/ I felt WAY more subjugated by US corporations when I had the misfortune of living in America.


But we are not talking about Asia, are we.

Though a figurehead she is still the head of your government, your national anthem is not "God Save England," it's "God Save the Queen." I believe the oath your members of the military make involves the Queen and she is protected by them. And would you really claim to not be her subject to her face?

Politically she has little power, but as the death of Lady Di showed, the Queen and the Royals are an integral part of Britains cultural landscape.
 
2012-03-25 12:59:04 PM  
Why don't I move to England? Because I don't want to. Also, I don't fly, and it's a fair distance on a boat. I don't know anyone in England, I have no family there, I have a job here, and I doubt my boyfriend would want to relocate to the other side of the Atlantic. I have plenty of reasons for not wanting to move to England. I also don't think dropping a curtsy to the Queen, should I have the good fortune to meet her, is equivalent to "pretending to be British." Pretending to be British would be whatever the fark Madonna and Gwyneth Paltrow are doing. Curtsying for half a second and saying "Your Majesty" is showing respect to someone's position, the same as shaking Obama's hand and saying "Mr. President" does as well.

You need to lighten up. You're taking this shiat way too seriously.
 
2012-03-25 12:59:23 PM  

turbidum: KiplingKat872: turbidum: KiplingKat872: All the histories I am looking up say the bow/curtsy is a gesture of inferiority. And what do you think a bow is but exposing your neck, putting yourself in a completely vulnerable, position to a ruler?

Okay, maybe back then, but in the modern age it's a sign of respect. Bows are not unique to one culture.

You're also backtracking from your assertion of it being a gesture of fealty. Now you're saying it's a gesture of inferiority. Which is it?

Also, if you're saying it's a gesture of inferiority, do you believe that was what Obama intended/showed when he bowed to the Saudi King?

Same thing in this context. Physical gestures of fealty come from the fuedal system in which vassals publically demonstrated that they were inferior to/ruled by the monarch. They would kneel/bow, gesturing that they submitted themselves to the monarch's will, and then the King would allow them to rise and give them the kiss of peace which was a gesture that he would not harm them.

From wikipedia:

In Taiwan, China, and Vietnam, shaking hands or a slight bow have become more popular than a full bow. However, bowing is not reserved only for greetings. Bowing is a gesture of respect. Different bows are used for apologies and gratitude, to express different emotions, humility, sincerity, remorse, or deference, and in various traditional arts and religious ceremonies. Bowing has been a way to show respect to people for a long time in East Asia.

. . .

Bows also replace speaking under certain circumstances. For example, when encountering again a person to whom one has already spoken that day, a silent bow replaces such phrases as "hello" or "hi."


Please let everyone in East Asia know that since their customs developed from feudalism, they are outdated.

/things develop over time, dude. you somehow seem to think we live in a syncretistic time bubble.


Again, we are not talking about Asia.

But keep moving those goalposts.
 
2012-03-25 01:04:43 PM  

Coco LaFemme: Why don't I move to England? Because I don't want to. Also, I don't fly, and it's a fair distance on a boat. I don't know anyone in England, I have no family there, I have a job here, and I doubt my boyfriend would want to relocate to the other side of the Atlantic. I have plenty of reasons for not wanting to move to England. I also don't think dropping a curtsy to the Queen, should I have the good fortune to meet her, is equivalent to "pretending to be British." Pretending to be British would be whatever the fark Madonna and Gwyneth Paltrow are doing. Curtsying for half a second and saying "Your Majesty" is showing respect to someone's position, the same as shaking Obama's hand and saying "Mr. President" does as well.

You need to lighten up. You're taking this shiat way too seriously.


My family has been here since 1635, and yes I know which ancestors fought and which died to make me an American as my mothers family has been Army ever since then.

I'm an American. No hyphen, no conditional. American.

So yeah. I take it seriously, and my family would be pretty irked if they watched me drop a curtsy to the monarch of another nation.

I can be polite without giving up my American identity.
 
2012-03-25 01:07:13 PM  

Slartibartfaster: KiplingKat872: So why don't you just move there and become a British subject?

That is about as retarded as you can get.

I stand for your national anthem.
I use two hands to hand my business card to japanese clients.
I keep my mouth shut when Im in a church.

It is polite.

// Do Americans REALLY believe brits are subject to the crown in any meaningful way ?
/ I felt WAY more subjugated by US corporations when I had the misfortune of living in America.


And BTW, slight dishonesty there when you know coporations shape your political landscape almost as much as ours
 
2012-03-25 01:08:37 PM  

Slartibartfaster: KiplingKat872: So why don't you just move there and become a British subject?

That is about as retarded as you can get.

I stand for your national anthem.
I use two hands to hand my business card to japanese clients.
I keep my mouth shut when Im in a church.

It is polite.

// Do Americans REALLY believe brits are subject to the crown in any meaningful way ?
/ I felt WAY more subjugated by US corporations when I had the misfortune of living in America.


In fact, you all kind of created that political monkey on our backs.

East India Tea Company anyone?
 
2012-03-25 01:14:46 PM  

KiplingKat872: Again, we are not talking about Asia.

But keep moving those goalposts.


I started with my goalposts firmly in the "we are a global culture" zone.
 
2012-03-25 01:15:20 PM  
Look, if an American wants to bow/cursty (bob) to the Monarch of the U.K. that's their choice. But even according to the official etiquette posted, it is not required/expected and yeah some Americans are going to look at you a little funny when you do.
 
2012-03-25 01:15:54 PM  

Coco LaFemme: Why don't I move to England? Because I don't want to. Also, I don't fly, and it's a fair distance on a boat. I don't know anyone in England, I have no family there, I have a job here, and I doubt my boyfriend would want to relocate to the other side of the Atlantic. I have plenty of reasons for not wanting to move to England. I also don't think dropping a curtsy to the Queen, should I have the good fortune to meet her, is equivalent to "pretending to be British." Pretending to be British would be whatever the fark Madonna and Gwyneth Paltrow are doing. Curtsying for half a second and saying "Your Majesty" is showing respect to someone's position, the same as shaking Obama's hand and saying "Mr. President" does as well.

You need to lighten up. You're taking this shiat way too seriously.


If I ever meet the president, I'll call him Mr. President, because he earned the title. I suspect that if I ever meet royalty in a formal situation (which is even less likely than meeting the president of the US) I'll use something to the effect of Your Majesty, or whatever it look like is the right thing. It's formal manners, and while I don't really have any, I can still try to fake it.

I will not bow unless the other person is going to bow the same to me. Whatever someone else might believe, I am their equal. We both were born crying into mess and blood. We both eat and shiat. We'll both die. It's not being anti-royalty for me, it's being for humanity. For me, bowing is where I draw the line, and I don't a real good reason for it, but there it is.

/Actually, I wasn't born crying, but that's because I apparently wasn't breathing.
 
2012-03-25 01:18:51 PM  

KiplingKat872: Look, if an American wants to bow/cursty (bob) to the Monarch of the U.K. that's their choice. But even according to the official etiquette posted, it is not required/expected and yeah some Americans are going to look at you a little funny when you do.


That's a much more reasoned, rational response than whatever you were posting before.
 
2012-03-25 01:19:24 PM  

turbidum: KiplingKat872: Again, we are not talking about Asia.

But keep moving those goalposts.

I started with my goalposts firmly in the "we are a global culture" zone.


Well, as an athropology major, and someone who has traveled, I can tell you that the idea that we are a single monolithic global culture and that all gestures mean the same things in Asia and Europe is a complete load of shiat.

I mean in a "Holy Fark, did you really just say that" level of shiat.
 
2012-03-25 01:22:31 PM  

I May Be Crazy But...: Coco LaFemme: Why don't I move to England? Because I don't want to. Also, I don't fly, and it's a fair distance on a boat. I don't know anyone in England, I have no family there, I have a job here, and I doubt my boyfriend would want to relocate to the other side of the Atlantic. I have plenty of reasons for not wanting to move to England. I also don't think dropping a curtsy to the Queen, should I have the good fortune to meet her, is equivalent to "pretending to be British." Pretending to be British would be whatever the fark Madonna and Gwyneth Paltrow are doing. Curtsying for half a second and saying "Your Majesty" is showing respect to someone's position, the same as shaking Obama's hand and saying "Mr. President" does as well.

You need to lighten up. You're taking this shiat way too seriously.

If I ever meet the president, I'll call him Mr. President, because he earned the title. I suspect that if I ever meet royalty in a formal situation (which is even less likely than meeting the president of the US) I'll use something to the effect of Your Majesty, or whatever it look like is the right thing. It's formal manners, and while I don't really have any, I can still try to fake it.

I will not bow unless the other person is going to bow the same to me. Whatever someone else might believe, I am their equal. We both were born crying into mess and blood. We both eat and shiat. We'll both die. It's not being anti-royalty for me, it's being for humanity. For me, bowing is where I draw the line, and I don't a real good reason for it, but there it is.

/Actually, I wasn't born crying, but that's because I apparently wasn't breathing.


Well said.
 
2012-03-25 01:29:16 PM  

KiplingKat872: Coco LaFemme: Why don't I move to England? Because I don't want to. Also, I don't fly, and it's a fair distance on a boat. I don't know anyone in England, I have no family there, I have a job here, and I doubt my boyfriend would want to relocate to the other side of the Atlantic. I have plenty of reasons for not wanting to move to England. I also don't think dropping a curtsy to the Queen, should I have the good fortune to meet her, is equivalent to "pretending to be British." Pretending to be British would be whatever the fark Madonna and Gwyneth Paltrow are doing. Curtsying for half a second and saying "Your Majesty" is showing respect to someone's position, the same as shaking Obama's hand and saying "Mr. President" does as well.

You need to lighten up. You're taking this shiat way too seriously.

My family has been here since 1635, and yes I know which ancestors fought and which died to make me an American as my mothers family has been Army ever since then.

I'm an American. No hyphen, no conditional. American.

So yeah. I take it seriously, and my family would be pretty irked if they watched me drop a curtsy to the monarch of another nation.

I can be polite without giving up my American identity.


"Sir, The United States of America have appointed me their Minister Plenipotentiary to your Majesty . . . It is in Obedience to their express Commands that I have the Honor to assure your Majesty of their unanimous Disposition and Desire to cultivate the most friendly and liberal Intercourse between your Majesty's Subjects and their Citizens . . . The appointment of a Minister from the United States to your Majesty's Court, will form an Epocha in the History of England & of America. I think myself more fortunate than all my fellow Citizens in having the distinguished Honor to be the first to stand in your Majesty's royal Presence in a diplomatic Character . . ."

- John Adams, on meeting with King George III, June 2, 1785. Before saying this he bowed three times.

With all due respect to your super-american family, not bowing is more shameful to our legacy.
 
2012-03-25 01:30:52 PM  
Did Brian May and Roger Taylor crash the reception and join the band?
 
2012-03-25 01:31:57 PM  

KiplingKat872: turbidum: KiplingKat872: Again, we are not talking about Asia.

But keep moving those goalposts.

I started with my goalposts firmly in the "we are a global culture" zone.

Well, as an athropology major, and someone who has traveled, I can tell you that the idea that we are a single monolithic global culture and that all gestures mean the same things in Asia and Europe is a complete load of shiat.

I mean in a "Holy Fark, did you really just say that" level of shiat.


Did I ever say our global culture is monolithic? No.

Do we have an increasingly global culture compared to 30 years ago? Yes.
 
2012-03-25 01:35:09 PM  

KiplingKat872: turbidum: KiplingKat872: Again, we are not talking about Asia.

But keep moving those goalposts.

I started with my goalposts firmly in the "we are a global culture" zone.

Well, as an athropology major, and someone who has traveled, I can tell you that the idea that we are a single monolithic global culture and that all gestures mean the same things in Asia and Europe is a complete load of shiat.

I mean in a "Holy Fark, did you really just say that" level of shiat.


Also, you must have been a pretty shiatty anthropology major if you don't think that their are commonalities across cultures. No one is being so reductive as to say a bow means the same in every context, but no one except you is saying that the meaning of a gesture is inextricably bound by context (tied to, yes, but not bound).
 
2012-03-25 01:41:53 PM  

Darth Macho: KiplingKat872: Coco LaFemme: Why don't I move to England? Because I don't want to. Also, I don't fly, and it's a fair distance on a boat. I don't know anyone in England, I have no family there, I have a job here, and I doubt my boyfriend would want to relocate to the other side of the Atlantic. I have plenty of reasons for not wanting to move to England. I also don't think dropping a curtsy to the Queen, should I have the good fortune to meet her, is equivalent to "pretending to be British." Pretending to be British would be whatever the fark Madonna and Gwyneth Paltrow are doing. Curtsying for half a second and saying "Your Majesty" is showing respect to someone's position, the same as shaking Obama's hand and saying "Mr. President" does as well.

You need to lighten up. You're taking this shiat way too seriously.

My family has been here since 1635, and yes I know which ancestors fought and which died to make me an American as my mothers family has been Army ever since then.

I'm an American. No hyphen, no conditional. American.

So yeah. I take it seriously, and my family would be pretty irked if they watched me drop a curtsy to the monarch of another nation.

I can be polite without giving up my American identity.

"Sir, The United States of America have appointed me their Minister Plenipotentiary to your Majesty . . . It is in Obedience to their express Commands that I have the Honor to assure your Majesty of their unanimous Disposition and Desire to cultivate the most friendly and liberal Intercourse between your Majesty's Subjects and their Citizens . . . The appointment of a Minister from the United States to your Majesty's Court, will form an Epocha in the History of England & of America. I think myself more fortunate than all my fellow Citizens in having the distinguished Honor to be the first to stand in your Majesty's royal Presence in a diplomatic Character . . ."

- John Adams, on meeting with King George III, June 2, 1785. Before saying this he bowed three times.

With all due respect to your super-american family, not bowing is more shameful to our legacy.


B.S. One founding father kissing arse because he knew Britian still had the might to waltz over and take the country back if they could just get their shiat together.

One out off all the presidents we have had that have met monarchs without bowing, meeting them as equals.

I would like it if my nation were more subject you the U.N. and international law, but not the ruler if another nation.

Or do you like the idea of the President of the U.S. acting subservient to the monarch of another nation.
 
2012-03-25 01:46:28 PM  

turbidum: KiplingKat872: turbidum: KiplingKat872: Again, we are not talking about Asia.

But keep moving those goalposts.

I started with my goalposts firmly in the "we are a global culture" zone.

Well, as an athropology major, and someone who has traveled, I can tell you that the idea that we are a single monolithic global culture and that all gestures mean the same things in Asia and Europe is a complete load of shiat.

I mean in a "Holy Fark, did you really just say that" level of shiat.

Also, you must have been a pretty shiatty anthropology major if you don't think that their are commonalities across cultures. No one is being so reductive as to say a bow means the same in every context, but no one except you is saying that the meaning of a gesture is inextricably bound by context (tied to, yes, but not bound).


Read my post carefully. "All gedstures mean the same things"

So prove it.

I say that bowing in Europe comes from Fuedalism and gestures of fealty

You say it comes from the same thing Asia *now*: respect.

Go look up the history of bowing and etiquette in Asia.
 
2012-03-25 01:48:23 PM  

KiplingKat872: B.S. One founding father kissing arse because he knew Britian still had the might to waltz over and take the country back if they could just get their shiat together.

One out off all the presidents we have had that have met monarchs without bowing, meeting them as equals.

I would like it if my nation were more subject you the U.N. and international law, but not the ruler if another nation.

Or do you like the idea of the President of the U.S. acting subservient to the monarch of another nation.


Did... did you just call John Adams a pussy? How the hell did you go from 'My family fought the Redcoats' to 'The Founding Fathers were cowards'?
 
2012-03-25 01:50:01 PM  

sendbillmoney: DeadMouseTails: She may not expect it, but wouldn't it be considered respectful? I mean, she may not be our Queen, but she is royalty.

Respectful to her, perhaps, but disrespectful to those who died in order to keep us from having to bow to George III.


I see, so the fact that they've been strong allies of ours for, how many years is it now, at least 50, counts for nothing. I should spit in the woman's face and show no respect to her? We still trying Germans for war crimes than? We had a war, we won our independence, that gives me the right to show respect to someone who hasn't done anything to me to make me disrespect her. She's a head of state, her position dictates a certain amount of courtesy, whether you like it or not. No wonder most of the world dislikes us.
 
2012-03-25 01:51:45 PM  

KiplingKat872: Read my post carefully. "All gedstures mean the same things"

So prove it.

I say that bowing in Europe comes from Fuedalism and gestures of fealty

You say it comes from the same thing Asia *now*: respect.

Go look up the history of bowing and etiquette in Asia.


Your assertion seemed to be that because the European bow came from feudalism (please spell it right if you're going to keep on using the word), that that was all it meant. Clearly, bows in Asia come from the same source: feudalism. The point I was making is that it has developed since then and has developed new meanings.

Like I said before, you seem to think we live in a syncretistic time bubble.
 
2012-03-25 01:53:24 PM  
Actually, nevermind. I'm not dealing with someone who claims that a gesture means/has the same historical conotations across two continents (and note that bows are exchanged between everyone at all levels of Japanese society, where the British only bow to the Royals who do not have to bow back) because "we live in a global culture" and then sidesteps that by claiming that was not what they meant. I don't have time to deal woth that level of intellectual dishonesty today.
 
2012-03-25 01:59:00 PM  

DeadMouseTails: sendbillmoney: DeadMouseTails: She may not expect it, but wouldn't it be considered respectful? I mean, she may not be our Queen, but she is royalty.

Respectful to her, perhaps, but disrespectful to those who died in order to keep us from having to bow to George III.

I see, so the fact that they've been strong allies of ours for, how many years is it now, at least 50, counts for nothing. I should spit in the woman's face and show no respect to her? We still trying Germans for war crimes than? We had a war, we won our independence, that gives me the right to show respect to someone who hasn't done anything to me to make me disrespect her. She's a head of state, her position dictates a certain amount of courtesy, whether you like it or not. No wonder most of the world dislikes us.


It's possible he wasn't suggesting that the right thing to do is crap in your hand and fling it at her like a monkey. Just possible.

I'l admit that I don't see where the hatred for the English is from, but it takes all sorts, I guess.
 
2012-03-25 01:59:16 PM  

KiplingKat872: Actually, nevermind. I'm not dealing with someone who claims that a gesture means/has the same historical conotations across two continents (and note that bows are exchanged between everyone at all levels of Japanese society, where the British only bow to the Royals who do not have to bow back) because "we live in a global culture" and then sidesteps that by claiming that was not what they meant. I don't have time to deal woth that level of intellectual dishonesty today.


You're the intellectually dishonest one in this case. I have to run to catch a play, but I was gonna say nice talking with you since I always find discussions backed up by facts and evidence fun (if not frustrating). Instead, you reveal yourself to be a close-minded twat who values no opinions other than his/her own.

Also, the Emperor won't bow to you. Same goddamn shiat a the Queen of England. If that's not a convergent commonality that arose in two separate cultures, I don't know what is.
 
2012-03-25 02:06:22 PM  

Darth Macho: KiplingKat872: B.S. One founding father kissing arse because he knew Britian still had the might to waltz over and take the country back if they could just get their shiat together.

One out off all the presidents we have had that have met monarchs without bowing, meeting them as equals.

I would like it if my nation were more subject you the U.N. and international law, but not the ruler if another nation.

Or do you like the idea of the President of the U.S. acting subservient to the monarch of another nation.

Did... did you just call John Adams a pussy? How the hell did you go from 'My family fought the Redcoats' to 'The Founding Fathers were cowards'?


I just told you the historical and political reality of what our fledgling nation was dealing with.

We were sitting on a vast wealth of resouces, on the door step of Britain's Carribean sugar industry which by the time Napoleon steamrolled across Europe was one fifth of the British economy. And we had no Navy to speak of, small army, and weak infresturcture between states that already threatening to seceede.

One of the biggest reasons we won the Revolutionary War was the incompetance of the British Commanders (the guy Parliment actually wanted who had served in the French and Indian War refused), and the disorganized support from the British Government.

Adams knew could happen, and indeed did happen in 1812, if the British got their crap together and made a focused effort to get the colonies back.

Also we were still very dependant on England for trade.
 
2012-03-25 02:09:21 PM  

turbidum: KiplingKat872: Actually, nevermind. I'm not dealing with someone who claims that a gesture means/has the same historical conotations across two continents (and note that bows are exchanged between everyone at all levels of Japanese society, where the British only bow to the Royals who do not have to bow back) because "we live in a global culture" and then sidesteps that by claiming that was not what they meant. I don't have time to deal woth that level of intellectual dishonesty today.

You're the intellectually dishonest one in this case. I have to run to catch a play, but I was gonna say nice talking with you since I always find discussions backed up by facts and evidence fun (if not frustrating). Instead, you reveal yourself to be a close-minded twat who values no opinions other than his/her own.

Also, the Emperor won't bow to you. Same goddamn shiat a the Queen of England. If that's not a convergent commonality that arose in two separate cultures, I don't know what is.


Yeah, but you don't bow to any and every British citizen you deal with.

Close minded my arse, I just called you on your clear b.s.
 
2012-03-25 02:13:32 PM  

DeadMouseTails: sendbillmoney: DeadMouseTails: She may not expect it, but wouldn't it be considered respectful? I mean, she may not be our Queen, but she is royalty.

Respectful to her, perhaps, but disrespectful to those who died in order to keep us from having to bow to George III.

I see, so the fact that they've been strong allies of ours for, how many years is it now, at least 50, counts for nothing. I should spit in the woman's face and show no respect to her? We still trying Germans for war crimes than? We had a war, we won our independence, that gives me the right to show respect to someone who hasn't done anything to me to make me disrespect her. She's a head of state, her position dictates a certain amount of courtesy, whether you like it or not. No wonder most of the world dislikes us.


Wow, hyperbole much? Who's talking about spitting?

Everyone here has said we will address her by her proper title, but even the official court etiquette says Americans do not have to bow to her because we are not her subjects.

Deal with it.
 
2012-03-25 02:15:03 PM  

KiplingKat872: Yeah, but you don't bow to any and every British citizen you deal with.

Close minded my arse, I just called you on your clear b.s.


Did I ever say they were the same thing? No. That was a strawman you created to attack my argument (much in the same way you added "monolithic" into the phrase "global culture").

And yeah, you're close-minded if you call other people intellectually dishonest for disagreeing with you. I made up no facts, did not misconstrue anything you said, and I didn't even resort to ad hominems until you did.

Bad day to you, sir/madam.
 
2012-03-25 02:22:19 PM  

KiplingKat872: Adams knew could happen, and indeed did happen in 1812, if the British got their crap together and made a focused effort to get the colonies back.

Also we were still very dependant on England for trade.


Madness. A diplomat bowing to King George because he's afraid a constitutional monarch will send 30,000 troops across the Atlantic to invade a nation of 3 million. After failing the first time. Sure, that makes a lot more sense than a diplomat bowing to a King because it makes the United States look gracious and humble to a former enemy.

Every person is a diplomat when visiting a foreign country. The Queen doesn't sit down when the Star Spangled Banner is playing. Obama bows to the Japanese Emperor. Bush makes out with the Saudi King. If you had any respect for your country you'd see it as an act of patriotism instead of wallowing in pig-ignorant selfishness.
 
2012-03-25 02:24:42 PM  

Darth Macho: KiplingKat872: Adams knew could happen, and indeed did happen in 1812, if the British got their crap together and made a focused effort to get the colonies back.

Also we were still very dependant on England for trade.

Madness. A diplomat bowing to King George because he's afraid a constitutional monarch will send 30,000 troops across the Atlantic to invade a nation of 3 million. After failing the first time. Sure, that makes a lot more sense than a diplomat bowing to a King because it makes the United States look gracious and humble to a former enemy.

Every person is a diplomat when visiting a foreign country. The Queen doesn't sit down when the Star Spangled Banner is playing. Obama bows to the Japanese Emperor. Bush makes out with the Saudi King. If you had any respect for your country you'd see it as an act of patriotism instead of wallowing in pig-ignorant selfishness.


Nah, s/he thinks because he studied anthropology s/he can tell the rest of the world how they should act.

You'd think s/he'd notice that no one is agreeing with him/her. Must be lonely being so smart.
 
2012-03-25 02:24:43 PM  

turbidum: KiplingKat872: Yeah, but you don't bow to any and every British citizen you deal with.

Close minded my arse, I just called you on your clear b.s.

Did I ever say they were the same thing? No. That was a strawman you created to attack my argument (much in the same way you added "monolithic" into the phrase "global culture").

And yeah, you're close-minded if you call other people intellectually dishonest for disagreeing with you. I made up no facts, did not misconstrue anything you said, and I didn't even resort to ad hominems until you did.

Bad day to you, sir/madam.


Yes you did you dishonest fark. When I poinyed out the eruopean bow's origins in fuedalism, you fired back "please let everyone in East Asia know that since their customs developed from fuedalism they are outdated."

To which I answered, "We aren't talking about Asia. But keep moving those goalposts."

To which you answered, "But we live in a global culture."

If you were not saying that bows in Europe and Asia had the same origins/cultural connotations, your entire argument is a non-sequitur
 
2012-03-25 02:28:49 PM  

turbidum: Darth Macho: KiplingKat872: Adams knew could happen, and indeed did happen in 1812, if the British got their crap together and made a focused effort to get the colonies back.

Also we were still very dependant on England for trade.

Madness. A diplomat bowing to King George because he's afraid a constitutional monarch will send 30,000 troops across the Atlantic to invade a nation of 3 million. After failing the first time. Sure, that makes a lot more sense than a diplomat bowing to a King because it makes the United States look gracious and humble to a former enemy.

Every person is a diplomat when visiting a foreign country. The Queen doesn't sit down when the Star Spangled Banner is playing. Obama bows to the Japanese Emperor. Bush makes out with the Saudi King. If you had any respect for your country you'd see it as an act of patriotism instead of wallowing in pig-ignorant selfishness.

Nah, s/he thinks because he studied anthropology s/he can tell the rest of the world how they should act.

You'd think s/he'd notice that no one is agreeing with him/her. Must be lonely being so smart.


*I'm* the one telling people what to do?

All I am saying is that as an American I do not have to and will not bow to the Queen.

*YOU* are the ones insisting I must.

So who are the one dictating behavior?
 
2012-03-25 02:35:36 PM  

Darth Macho: KiplingKat872: Adams knew could happen, and indeed did happen in 1812, if the British got their crap together and made a focused effort to get the colonies back.

Also we were still very dependant on England for trade.

Madness. A diplomat bowing to King George because he's afraid a constitutional monarch will send 30,000 troops across the Atlantic to invade a nation of 3 million. After failing the first time. Sure, that makes a lot more sense than a diplomat bowing to a King because it makes the United States look gracious and humble to a former enemy.

Every person is a diplomat when visiting a foreign country. The Queen doesn't sit down when the Star Spangled Banner is playing. Obama bows to the Japanese Emperor. Bush makes out with the Saudi King. If you had any respect for your country you'd see it as an act of patriotism instead of wallowing in pig-ignorant selfishness.


I don't see it that way, and I think an American can be respectful without having to give up their American identity.

The official court etiquette posted upthread that I should adress her as "Her Majesty" but it is neither required nor expected for Americans to bow to English Royalty.

So no, I don't have to bow to her to show respect or be patriotic.

Btw-When the president bows, the Emporer bows back. Do you expect him to bow to you too, or is this a ceremonial exchange between heads of state.
 
2012-03-25 02:51:26 PM  

KiplingKat872: Darth Macho: KiplingKat872: Adams knew could happen, and indeed did happen in 1812, if the British got their crap together and made a focused effort to get the colonies back.

Also we were still very dependant on England for trade.

Madness. A diplomat bowing to King George because he's afraid a constitutional monarch will send 30,000 troops across the Atlantic to invade a nation of 3 million. After failing the first time. Sure, that makes a lot more sense than a diplomat bowing to a King because it makes the United States look gracious and humble to a former enemy.

Every person is a diplomat when visiting a foreign country. The Queen doesn't sit down when the Star Spangled Banner is playing. Obama bows to the Japanese Emperor. Bush makes out with the Saudi King. If you had any respect for your country you'd see it as an act of patriotism instead of wallowing in pig-ignorant selfishness.

I don't see it that way, and I think an American can be respectful without having to give up their American identity.

The official court etiquette posted upthread that I should adress her as "Her Majesty" but it is neither required nor expected for Americans to bow to English Royalty.

So no, I don't have to bow to her to show respect or be patriotic.

Btw-When the president bows, the Emporer bows back. Do you expect him to bow to you too, or is this a ceremonial exchange between heads of state.


If I came from a country where people greeted each other with bowing having a visiting monarch bow to me would make me feel pretty good. Like that monarch took the effort to connect with me culturally.

The modern world has citizenship laws and thus displays of deference are no longer binding oaths of fealty and subservience. When I hold a door open for a lady that does not mean I now have an obligation to court her for marriage. Similarly, bowing to a monarch doesn't mean they get to order you to clean their toilet. Mankind settled those issues a while ago.

So no, you don't *have* to bow to the Queen. It would be polite and honorable to this country if you did, but you have the freedom to insult your ancestors' sacrifices. Thankfully I'm certain you'll never be forced to endure having to meet a reigning monarch. You can stay proud on your couch.
 
2012-03-25 03:19:39 PM  

Slartibartfaster: KiplingKat872: We had a bit of a violent discusion that included not expressing fealty to the monarch of England anymore in the 18th century

Then came the pledge of allegiance


Only after our Civil War. The Pledge of Allegiance was invented basically as a loyalty oath to remind those Southerners not to try it again.
 
2012-03-25 03:49:42 PM  

KiplingKat872: Coco LaFemme: Why don't I move to England? Because I don't want to. Also, I don't fly, and it's a fair distance on a boat. I don't know anyone in England, I have no family there, I have a job here, and I doubt my boyfriend would want to relocate to the other side of the Atlantic. I have plenty of reasons for not wanting to move to England. I also don't think dropping a curtsy to the Queen, should I have the good fortune to meet her, is equivalent to "pretending to be British." Pretending to be British would be whatever the fark Madonna and Gwyneth Paltrow are doing. Curtsying for half a second and saying "Your Majesty" is showing respect to someone's position, the same as shaking Obama's hand and saying "Mr. President" does as well.

You need to lighten up. You're taking this shiat way too seriously.

My family has been here since 1635, and yes I know which ancestors fought and which died to make me an American as my mothers family has been Army ever since then.

I'm an American. No hyphen, no conditional. American.

So yeah. I take it seriously, and my family would be pretty irked if they watched me drop a curtsy to the monarch of another nation.

I can be polite without giving up my American identity.


Good for you. My family has been here since the early 20th century. You're not more American than I am. This isn't a farking contest. If my parents and I were in a receiving line to meet the Queen, and I didn't curtsy when she passed by, my mother would smack me upside the head for being a rude little snot, and I'll be 30 in June. I was raised to have manners, the same I was raised not to be disrespectful to people. I loathe George W. Bush, but if I met him, I'd shake his hand and say "Hello, Mr. President", because that's his title. To do anything else would be disrespectful not just to him, but to the office he held, which someone I do like is currently holding.

Common courtesy, manners, respect. I was raised with those three things. If you don't like that, I don't really care.


KiplingKat872:
*I'm* the one telling people what to do?

All I am saying is that as an American I do not have to and will not bow to the Queen.

*YOU* are the ones insisting I must.

So who are the one dictating behavior?


I don't think anyone is insisting you have to do anything. No one is going to appear with a gun to the back of your head. What people are saying however, is that it's generally considered a sign of good breeding (manners) to go along with what other people are doing, especially if you're in a situation where you're the only one like you there, and you'd stick out like a sore thumb otherwise. It goes back to the "When in Rome" adage I brought up earlier. If there's 100 people in the room, 99 of which are British, and the Queen walks past you, bowing quickly when other people do it isn't going to make you un-American and the scorn of your family, and if it does......they have farked up priorities. There's more important things to life than shiat like that. I'm an American, I don't want to be anything else, but I also don't think being American means my shiat doesn't stink, and that if I'm in another country, or exposed to another country's culture, I must refuse to act as the natives are acting lest I appear un-American to people.
 
2012-03-25 04:32:43 PM  

Darth Macho: If I came from a country where people greeted each other with bowing having a visiting monarch bow to me would make me feel pretty good. Like that monarch took the effort to connect with me culturally.

The modern world has citizenship laws and thus displays of deference are no longer binding oaths of fealty and subservience. When I hold a door open for a lady that does not mean I now have an obligation to court her for marriage. Similarly, bowing to a monarch doesn't mean they get to order you to clean their toilet. Mankind settled those issues a while ago.

So no, you don't *have* to bow to the Queen. It would be polite and honorable to this country if you did, but you have the freedom to insult your ancestors' sacrifices. Thankfully I'm certain you'll never be forced to endure having to meet a reigning monarch. You can stay proud on your couch.


I'm pretty sure that holding a door for someone never obligated you to marry them. But I could be wrong. Similarly, my understanding is that bowing was (and is for the English Royalty - British subject still have, if I read previous comments right) is an act of deference, but it never made you a subject of the monarch. Think of a French ambassador bowing to the British King.

The people who (I assume) are the most anal retentive about issues of protocol have said that it is not impolite for foreigners not to bow to the Queen. If you are trying to do it to fit in, or because you truly hold her in such high esteem, go ahead. But don't tell the rest of us who have a different sense of people's basic dignity that we have to do it as well. To us, it is insulting and a slap in the face of everyone who has fought or died for our right to stand up and say that we are the equal of every other person - American soldiers, revolutionary war soldier, and foreign soldiers. It's not an issue of nationality but personhood.
 
2012-03-25 04:44:45 PM  

cptjeff: turbidum: phalamir: turbidum: Then again, there's also the fact that the monarchy only exists because they are funded by the taxpayers.

The Queen pays in about 4 times what she receives from the Exchequer... ...

Legally, your friend was wrong. The lands are property of the Crown. If you abolish the monarchy, the ownership reverts to the heir of the original donor who put it in trust. Which would be Elizabeth Windsor. She would be, shall we say, obscenely wealthy. And she wouldn't have to share a cent, wouldn't have to allow in a single tourist... If it were me, I would shut everything down out of spite. No, you can't use Buckingham Palace for your state dinner. Rent a room at some hotel. I'm sorry, but after all, this is the private residence of a private citizen, remember?


Legally the friend was right. The Crown Estates are not, and never have been, the personal property of the Windsor family. From The Crown Estate Myth (new window) "The Crown Estate has always been there to provide funds for the running of the government. A long time ago the government consisted of the King and his Privy Council. To pay for the apparatus of the state, which was much simpler and cheaper back then, the Crown Estate raised revenue that went directly to the King.

In the 18th century the job of government was moving from the palace to parliament, so revenue from the Crown Estate was transferred to the Treasury. Of course that money had also been used to run the palace and fund the lives of the King and his family. So in order to ensure the King could continue to run his palace in the style to which he was accustomed the government of the day set up the Civil List, a payment to the palace by the government.

That's it. There was no personal sacrifice on the part of the monarch. There is no personal claim on the Crown Estate from the Windsor family. If we become a republic the Crown Estate will remain as it is today, perhaps with a change of name.

So it is dishonest to claim the Crown Estate revenue somehow makes the £183m bill for the monarchy OK. It doesn't."
 
2012-03-25 04:56:05 PM  

GAT_00: Did they hire the Bigfoot photographer to do the wedding?


You made me laugh out loud in the middle of a budget meeting. For shame.
 
2012-03-25 05:11:28 PM  

KiplingKat872: Darth Macho: KiplingKat872: Adams knew could happen, and indeed did happen in 1812, if the British got their crap together and made a focused effort to get the colonies back.

Also we were still very dependant on England for trade.

Madness. A diplomat bowing to King George because he's afraid a constitutional monarch will send 30,000 troops across the Atlantic to invade a nation of 3 million. After failing the first time. Sure, that makes a lot more sense than a diplomat bowing to a King because it makes the United States look gracious and humble to a former enemy.

Every person is a diplomat when visiting a foreign country. The Queen doesn't sit down when the Star Spangled Banner is playing. Obama bows to the Japanese Emperor. Bush makes out with the Saudi King. If you had any respect for your country you'd see it as an act of patriotism instead of wallowing in pig-ignorant selfishness.

I don't see it that way, and I think an American can be respectful without having to give up their American identity.

The official court etiquette posted upthread that I should adress her as "Her Majesty" but it is neither required nor expected for Americans to bow to English Royalty.

So no, I don't have to bow to her to show respect or be patriotic.

Btw-When the president bows, the Emporer bows back. Do you expect him to bow to you too, or is this a ceremonial exchange between heads of state.


Do you feel the same way about other greetings or acknowledgements which came from recognizing those of a certain station?

Just asking because, you know, ... military salutes and all.
 
2012-03-25 05:11:40 PM  

Blushing Wall Flower: GAT_00: Did they hire the Bigfoot photographer to do the wedding?

You made me laugh out loud in the middle of a budget meeting. For shame.


Should you have been reading Fark in the middle of a budget meeting??? ;)

Maybe we can all just agree to disagree at this point. I'm sorry I brought it up. To me, respecting a head of state is just courtesy, and although I now know I'm not "expected" to do anything specific to show that courtesy but be polite, I was brought up to do so. I do respect other peoples choice and right to not curtsy or bow, but stop throwing the "my ancestors died for the right not to do so". It's so far past that, and we've come such a long way with the UK, why bring it up?? Besides, I was taught as a little girl the proper way to curtsy, I'd actually like an opportunity to use it just once.
 
2012-03-25 05:19:21 PM  
Are those the best pictures they had of the occasion? WTF? It was probably some old guy in drag wanting some free crab puffs.
 
2012-03-25 10:59:57 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org

Disapproves of unannounced visits by the Queen
 
2012-03-26 04:14:17 AM  

turbidum: catch a play, but I was gonna say nice talking with you since I always find discussions backed up by facts and evidence fun (if not frustrating). Instead, you reveal yourself to be a close-minded twat who values no opinions other than his/her own.

Also, the Emperor won't bow to you. Same goddamn shiat a the Queen of England. If that's not a convergent commonality that arose in two separate cultures, I don't know what is.


That's not the first time she has done this you should see her in the rape threads.
/damn I said rape/
//like in 40lbs box of rape
///threesies
 
2012-03-26 06:33:39 AM  

Spiralmonkey:
Legally the friend was right. The Crown Estates are not, and never have been, the personal property of the Windsor family. From The Crown Estate Myth (new window) "The Crown Estate has always been there to provide funds for the running of the government. A long time ago the government consisted of the King and his Privy Council. To pay for the apparatus of the state, which was much simpler and cheaper back then, the Crown Estate raised revenue that went directly to the King.

In the 18th century the job of government was moving from the palace to parliament, so revenue from the Crown Estate was transferred to the Treasury. Of course that money had also been used to run the palace and fund the lives of the King and his family. So in order to ensure the King could continue to run his palace in the style to which he was accustomed the government of the day set up the Civil List, a payment to the palace by the government.

That's it. There was no personal sacrifice on the part of the monarch. There is no personal claim on the Crown Estate from the Windsor family. If we become a republic the Crown Estate will remain as it is today, perhaps with a change of name.

So it is dishonest to ...


You can't say "This is what would happen..." because there is no legal precedent. They also state that if the Crown took back the estate they would be bankrupted by the now far bigger cost of running the government, ignoring that even before the deal the Crown could quite happily impose and collect taxes to make up the difference.
Funny how they happily support the legitimacy of the deal (as proof of their argument) but at the same time claim it is wrong for the government to keep to its end of the deal. You can't have it both ways.... (If the royal family tried to go back on the deal they'd be the first to complain. So why would it be right for the government to go back on its side of the deal?)

The civil list works out to well under £1 a year for ever person in the UK. Even if the royal family was scrapped the country, like every other country, would have to pay for some body to carry out state functions such as state visitors, diplomatic receptions etc. How much does the US spend on those events?

Also the royal family has huge assets outside the Crown Estates. Personal property, such as Balmoral and Sandringham, art collections, the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, are all owned personally by the royal family. They could easily tell the state to sod off and refuse to do any public work and still live quite happily.
 
2012-03-26 04:19:49 PM  
Wouldn't we have all been more impressed if a Freddie Mercury-led Queen had crashed the wedding instead?
 
Displayed 164 of 164 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report