Question for our friends from Great Britain
-
We dutch have also a great queen, and after our queen Beatrix, we get king Willem Alexander former counciller of the IOC.
But from my history lesson at school
i learn that the Great Britain people had sufferd under the queens Elisabeth 2, Mary and then Elisabeth. -
@al hart said:
We just watched another movie about another great queen.
After each movie, we have to check out Wikipedia and re-work the line of Kings and Queens in the 1800s and 1900s. (This should be easy because two women ruled almost half of those years).
So here is the question: Do you all just remember who was who for the past 200 years, or do you have to look it up all the time too?
--
Regarding U.S. Presidents: I remember #1, #16 and everyone for the past 60 years, but I can never remember where the other fit in without looking it up.
200 years is not too bad - we have had far fewer monarchs than you have had presidents!
-
Id certainly have to consult wikipedia for anything over 57 years
(and i only know the current ones been in for 57 years because she was coronated in the same year as the first ascent of everest.) -
You can work backwards some key knowing historical events, who was related to whom, who usurped whom, what the architectural style was called [often names after a monarch or a dynasty - e.g. Tudor] etc etc - however, you do have to have some basic historical knowledge and good general knowledge too...
We number our duplicated kings/queens - so you know that King George II came before George III - that also helps !
Confusion also that Kings marry queens but they don't count in the lists, but queens marry 'consorts' - except for queen Mary who married a relative William of Orange and then they became joint monarchs 'William and Mary'
Fortunately there are also plenty of crib charts around
It's starts to get really messy the further back you go - e.g. The first king Henry was succeeded by Stephen [de Blois] in 1154, but who succeeded him ??? It was actually Henry II - but who needs to remember that ??? Also some monarchs come and go very quickly, like Lady Jane Grey 1553 July 10-19: she was quickly beheaded for treason: she wasn't the next in line but part of a plot to overthrow the status quo !!!Incidentally, here's a classic trick question:
To the nearest century [e.g. 14th - so there's a wide margin of error allowed], when did Elizabeth Tudor [the daughter of Henry VIII] become Queen Elizabeth I of England ?
Answer; wipe over this 'white' text below to reveal it...
The 20th - until the present queen became 'Elizabeth II' Elizabeth Tudor was called 'Queen Elizabeth', but after 1952 when the present queens father died all of the history books were rewritten to change her title to 'Queen Elizabeth I'...
...
-
@remus said:
... coronated ...
Do we do such things in GB?
**"Girt about the spire with a row of tubercles or spines."
-
Personally I would rather see the British Monarch disposed of, got rid of. They are a massive expense, and waste of British tax-payers money (and at the moment, the average British tax payer is screwed). As for that prince charles bloke, he should be stripped from his authority immediately. Several important building and architectural proposals across Britain have been scrapped because of charles, with his backward and highly conservative opinions, being allowed air.
I know some of you Americans have rosy views of britain's monarchy, but they just aren't as 'romantic', or awe-inspiring, as you make them out to be.
-
tfdesign,
I agree with you, we in the Netherlands are also very disapointed about the costs of our royal family.
The whole country has no pay rise because off the crisis, but the royal do have a raise of costs for more than 20%.Our Willem Alexander (like your Charles) buyed and builed two houses in the world (Argentina and Afrika) and lots of more expending things. And when some journalist made a picture from our royal family he immidiatly must come to court.
These people are not from this world, and should work for there money, and know there are for the people. And not the people for them
-
@chrisglasier said:
@remus said:
... coronated ...
Do we do such things in GB?
**"Girt about the spire with a row of tubercles or spines."A 'corona' is a circle of ornament - usually a 'crown', or garland, placed on the head.
A 'corona' can also be the decorated part of a cornice molding, a candelabra suspended below a ceiling vault that holds lighted tapers, the top part of the head or of a tooth, a lighting affect seen around astronomical bodies etc etc.
So to 'coronate' is to make into a 'crown' [or to make 'crown-like']
So to add a circlet of ornament to something that is thereby rendered 'crown-like' is to 'coronate' it.
So in modern English the queen wasn't 'coronated' but rather, 'crowned'.
The 'coronation' is the even where a 'corona' was used and a 'crown' is now used...
So generally speaking a monarch is now 'crowned' at a 'coronation'.
However, in fairness an older use of 'to coronate' is 'to invest with regal power or to enthrone'... or simply the adjective 'coronated' meant wearing or having a 'crown'...
So to be picky the queen WAS 'coronated', BUT more simply put, she was 'crowned' [but then 'crowned' also means hit over the head in common parlance !!!]
The general rule is "always use an Anglo-Saxon word when it will do"***... so then it should be 'crowned' not 'coronated' - however, since the occasion is as about as 'posh' as it can get, and on these occasions the English seem to prefer the fancier sounding 'French' words [this harks back almost a thousand years to the Norman-French overlords], it's commonly called a 'coronation' [Old-French coroner, Latin cornare] rather than a 'crowning' [which is also perfectly acceptable Anglo-Saxon alternative]... The coronation is in fact the 'whole event', whereas the act of crowning is just that part where the big bit of jewelry is plonked onto the head ?
So it's better to say, '...*fk the monarchy...', than to say, '...depose the monarchy...' ???
-
@tfdesign said:
Personally I would rather see the British Monarch disposed of, got rid of. They are a massive expense, and waste of British tax-payers money (and at the moment, the average British tax payer is screwed). As for that prince charles bloke, he should be stripped from his authority immediately. Several important building and architectural proposals across Britain have been scrapped because of charles, with his backward and highly conservative opinions, being allowed air.
I know some of you Americans have rosy views of britain's monarchy, but they just aren't as 'romantic', or awe-inspiring, as you make them out to be.
Somehow I prefer the Queen as Head of State to President Brown...
-
@chrisjk said:
Somehow I prefer the Queen as Head of State to President Brown...
Why?
I'm not a big fan of any current politician, but why replace them with that old dragon?
-
I agree the phrases
President Cameron
President Brown
President Blair
President Thatcher
each fill me ever increasing dread.
Strangely 'President Churchill' doesn't seem so bad in the perspective of history BUT 'President Cromwell' [or Lord Protector (of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland) Cromwell to give him his actual title] seems quite awful - but that was back in our Puritan-Taliban days - that are not so long ago and thereby worrying that things can swing so dramatically...
I think there is lots wrong with the UK's monarchy but 'better the devil you know that the devil you don't...'.
We currently have a relatively benign monarch - if that were to change - as with King Charles, then I'm sure a republic would be on the cards again...
But let's not forget that the Prime Minister [or the First Lord of the Treasury as he is also known in his dual role (and was solely known as until as recently as 5 December 1905) - indeed 10 Downing Street is actually the FLofT's house and technically NOT the Prime Minister's home at all] - is already the UK's de facto 'president' for day to day purposes - however, he/she does not have 'ultimate' constitutional power - unlike say in France where the President does and his appointed prime-minister is his lackey... An American President is all but effectively chosen from a list of two people - so hardly a wide range there either ?All weird stuff - if the UK were to change over to a Presidential system I'm sure many of us'd soon be longing for the 'good old days' when we had a monarch - just as happened after Cromwell died and his son proved useless - when parliament actually asked the beheaded king's son to return and become the king again, in the Restoration - and that was when monarchs were really crap...
-
Interesting replies.
Yes - those queens (and perhaps Kings) of the past 200 years are fascinating to us Yanks. (Plus the older ones - after reading Wolf Hall I watched the movies and mini-series's on Henry VIII) But we do wonder if you get tired of having to support them.
On the other hand we support 100 senators who can't seem to find a way to do anything.
I was interested yesterday to learn that Senator Bayh from Indiana (where I grew up), has decided that he would rather retire than be a meaningless pawn in a meaningless game. It makes a lot of sense, but I guess I didn't really think any senators were either smart enough, or had enough nerve, to get tired of the current situation.
Al Hart
IRender nXt from Render Plus -
The past 200 years is pretty easy, as Liz and Vicky take up well over half of that between them.
Starting in 1800, you've still got Georgie (III) much-beloved of you colonials. He ruled from just prior to the Revolutionary War until Napoleon was finally seen off.He was followed by his son, George IV (not very imaginative, the Hanovarians)
George IV didn't last very long and was succeeded by his brother Bill (IV) who lasted even less. Then you've got Victoria, who takes us all the way into the 20th century, just...followed by her son Edward VII. Both are easily remembered and fixed in time because of the eras named after them.
Teddy was gone before WWI got under way and was succeeded by his son George V...the one who's a dead ringer for his cousin, Tsar Nicholas...both of them Vicky's grandsons.
He was succeeded by his son Edward VIII...of Mrs Simpson fame...the one who abdicated after a few years and was replaced by his bro George VI...Liz's dad.
There you go...easy
-
Well .... no, I won't start - we'll keep it friendly on this forum!!
-
-
All of Europe's royal houses have an interesting family tree, considering they're all related, and have been intermarrying for generations - apparently, family reunions were the place to meet your future spouse. Elizabeth II's husband is a cousin, and Prince Charles' great-great-great grandfather (Edward VII) is his wife Camilla's great-great grandfather (from his illegitimate daughter). Given the problems they've had when marrying "commoners" perhaps Parlaiment should enact a law restricting marriage to within the family (then they might breed themselves out of existence).
Alan, Tsar Nicholas was not Queen Victoria's grandson - but his wife was her grand daughter. Nicholas and his cousin George V did share the same grandfather in the King of Denmark, though. It's all one big, happy German family (except the Swedish royal family - which is French!)
-
Well Daniel...just goes to show my memory isn't perfect.
Let's hope that Charles has the same short reign that Edward had...the last son to follow a long-reigning mother.
I doubt he'll be remembered for an innovative, less cluttered style of architecture, though...like the one that bears the name of his great grandfather.Personally, I'm undecided about the value of the royal family. Of course it's an outdated tradition, well past its sell-by date...and utterly irrelevant to the everyday lives of ordinary people. On the other hand, they do bring in the tourist dollars; and the queen does act as a figurehead...so we don't feel the need to imbue political figures with undue patriotic fervour, or fly the union flag from everything vaguely pointy.
They do have their advantages, but I'm pretty sure that will all change with a change of monarch. The new encumbents have pretty much blown all public respect with all their shenanigins. I think the future of the monarchy might all revolve around how William V performs.We really could do with a proper national anthem, too. God Save the Queen isn't technically an anthem at all; and it's usually played so slowly that it sounds like a dirge. It's not very complimentary about Scots, either. A good job most people can't remember past verse 1.
-
I'd just about have managed Vicky, Eddie and Liz, but nothing more and not the numbers!
As for Royal shennanigans - my old Dad always used to say that Phil had his moments in his younger days. And Marge! Even I can remember that scandal followed her about. Phil was just fortunate not to have the instant global media coverage that the current disgraceful mob have had to put up with.
Personally, I have switched from being a supporter of the Royals (in my younger days) to wanting some serious overhaul of the current system.
-
@alan fraser said:
I think the future of the monarchy might all revolve around how William V performs.
His full names being William Arthur Phillip Louis he'll probably call himself something other than William. How about taking the name Arthur so we can truly have a King Arthur on the throne!
-
@petercharles said:
@alan fraser said:
I think the future of the monarchy might all revolve around how William V performs.
His full names being William Arthur Phillip Louis he'll probably call himself something other than William. How about taking the name Arthur so we can truly have a King Arthur on the throne!
i agree, i think the British love his Monarchynot so sure in Spain
we are in trouble now
Advertisement