A couple of British videos from the youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_cWz9MrHskk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YzqfYV-6olc
Why you Canadians fall for that shit is beyond me. The English hate you.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2012, 06:12:16 PM
Why you Canadians fall for that shit is beyond me. The English hate you.
Almost no one in Canada care about the Jubilee; excepting BarristerBoy and his ilk :bowler:
I like the BBC though, and Rule Britannia is pretty rousing.
Quote from: Jacob on June 04, 2012, 06:21:43 PM
Almost no one in Canada care about the Jubilee; excepting BarristerBoy and his ilk :bowler:
Mobtown has a big celebration week this month for the War of 1812--It's a Sailabration! Dazzling Urbanite herd muggings sold separately.
Here's the link, listing all the ships visiting:
http://www.starspangled200.com/
With the
HMCS Monkton,
Iroquois,
Ville de Quebec and
Goose Bay in town, 89% of the Canadian Navy will be here.*
Brits are only sending the
Argus. What an insult. Not even a real combat ship. Oh wait, the RN doesn't have any anymore. Kudos to the Krauts, Danes and the Norwegians for sending
real ships.
*Which is pretty fucking pathetic. No wonder Neil wishes he were born in America.
I still giggle when I'm reminded the USCGC Eagle used to be the Horst Wessel
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 04, 2012, 06:37:54 PM
I still giggle when I'm reminded the USCGC Eagle used to be the Horst Wessel
We won. It's our shit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2012, 06:38:16 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 04, 2012, 06:37:54 PM
I still giggle when I'm reminded the USCGC Eagle used to be the Horst Wessel
We won. It's our shit.
Damn right.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2012, 06:12:16 PM
Why you Canadians fall for that shit is beyond me. The English hate you.
Who cares what the English think? She's our monarch.
What's wrong with a Jubilee?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2012, 06:33:21 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 04, 2012, 06:21:43 PM
Almost no one in Canada care about the Jubilee; excepting BarristerBoy and his ilk :bowler:
Mobtown has a big celebration week this month for the War of 1812--It's a Sailabration! Dazzling Urbanite herd muggings sold separately.
Here's the link, listing all the ships visiting:
http://www.starspangled200.com/
With the HMCS Monkton, Iroquois, Ville de Quebec and Goose Bay in town, 89% of the Canadian Navy will be here.*
Brits are only sending the Argus. What an insult. Not even a real combat ship. Oh wait, the RN doesn't have any anymore. Kudos to the Krauts, Danes and the Norwegians for sending real ships.
*Which is pretty fucking pathetic. No wonder Neil wishes he were born in America.
It seems we are sending the Esbern Snare:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F7%2F7e%2FEsbern_Snare_BALTOPS_2010c_cropped.JPG%2F800px-Esbern_Snare_BALTOPS_2010c_cropped.JPG&hash=666933d05d2444c811ead52d566b3e6c878e1609)
"HDMS Esbern Snare (L17) is an Absalon-class support ship, and is along with her sister ship, the HDMS Absalon, the largest combat vessel currently commissioned in the Royal Danish Navy.
The Esbern Snare is part of the first stage of a strategic realignment within the Royal Danish Navy, which is transitioning to focus on international operations, in which Absalon-class vessels will form the backbone. The ship is designed for command and support roles, with a large ro-ro deck, and is to be complemented by the Ivar Huitfeldt class frigate, a derivative of the Absalon-class designed specifically for combat operations.
The Esbern Snare was involved in the Beluga Nomination Incident, when she and the Seychelles Coast Guard patrol boat engaged in a failed rescue operation which left four or five Somali pirates and civilians dead. Later she captured a mother ship on 12 February 2011, capturing sixteen pirates and their weapons, as well as freeing two hostages held by the pirates. While patrolling on 12 May 2011 she encountered the pirated dhow NN Iran and attacked it, killing four pirates and wounding ten. Sixteen Iranian hostages were rescued and 24 pirates captured, but the dhow was in a sinking condition and had to be abandoned."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMS_Esbern_Snare_(L17)
Ah "Rule Britannia", the "America, fuck yeah" of its day.
Quote from: Tyr on June 05, 2012, 03:12:48 AM
Ah "Rule Britannia", the "America, fuck yeah" of its day.
It is pretty catchy at least.
They're doing the flyovers, and just knocked out the 60-gun salute.
I hope they do not overdo it. They have to have something left for her 70th.
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2012, 09:39:37 AM
I hope they do not overdo it. They have to have something left for her 70th.
Her years on the throne are more important than her birthdays, what what.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2012, 09:45:03 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2012, 09:39:37 AM
I hope they do not overdo it. They have to have something left for her 70th.
Her years on the throne are more important than her birthdays, what what.
I don't think 70th is a big anniversary either. If she makes it to 75 years on the throne then we'll go mad. The Flotilla will carry on to reclaim Aquitane and the flyover will keep going to bomb Agincourt.
Well, if anybody can make it to 75, she definitely can; she's got the genetics for it.
For the sake of the monarchy--as little as I care about it--I hope that you guys smarten up and totally skip Charles, and go straight to William.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 05, 2012, 09:50:14 AM
I don't think 70th is a big anniversary either. If she makes it to 75 years on the throne then we'll go mad. The Flotilla will carry on to reclaim Aquitane and the flyover will keep going to bomb Agincourt.
:lol:
:yeah:
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 05, 2012, 09:50:14 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2012, 09:45:03 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2012, 09:39:37 AM
I hope they do not overdo it. They have to have something left for her 70th.
Her years on the throne are more important than her birthdays, what what.
I don't think 70th is a big anniversary either. If she makes it to 75 years on the throne then we'll go mad. The Flotilla will carry on to reclaim Aquitane and the flyover will keep going to bomb Agincourt.
:lmfao:
Rule Britannia!
:bowler: :yeah:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2012, 09:53:13 AM
For the sake of the monarchy--as little as I care about it--I hope that you guys smarten up and totally skip Charles, and go straight to William.
I think Charles has endeared himself to people now. He'll be fine. At least in the UK, we might lose Canada and Australia :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 05, 2012, 09:58:54 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2012, 09:53:13 AM
For the sake of the monarchy--as little as I care about it--I hope that you guys smarten up and totally skip Charles, and go straight to William.
I think Charles has endeared himself to people now. He'll be fine. At least in the UK, we might lose Canada and Australia :(
Canadians hate Charles? He just needs to show up and cheer on the national Hockey team a few times. Maybe speak a little French.
I like Charles. I have heard him speak a couple times and, for a dirty aristo-pig philanderer, he seems like a guy who legitimately wants to do good in the world. Plus he seems to be utterly mediocre in intelligence and ability which is exactly what you want in a modern figure head monarch.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2012, 09:53:13 AM
Well, if anybody can make it to 75, she definitely can; she's got the genetics for it.
For the sake of the monarchy--as little as I care about it--I hope that you guys smarten up and totally skip Charles, and go straight to William.
In which case it's one redeeming feature, it's hereditary nature is lost and it becomes a polarity contest; so we then might as well move to an elected head of state/ 'Britain's Got a 'Monarch' ' .
I am pretty convinced Liz is going to outlive both Charles and William anyway.
The odds on her beating Charles are pretty good I think.
William....that's stretching it a bit probally.
For her sake I hope she hangs up the Crown at some point. The old bird has been hard at work for 60 years now - she deserves a nice retirement eventually.
I imagine she'll want to hang on at least long enough to beat out Victoria's reign and be Britain's longest-serving monarch of all time, but (after a quick google) even that's up in 4 years.
She can retire from public life, but shouldn't abdicate. Maybe Charles could be Prince Regent for a few years :hmm:
Incidentally mongers, the redeeming feature of our constitutional monarchy is that it is better than all the other systems :bowler: :D
Quote from: mongers on June 05, 2012, 10:06:50 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2012, 09:53:13 AM
Well, if anybody can make it to 75, she definitely can; she's got the genetics for it.
For the sake of the monarchy--as little as I care about it--I hope that you guys smarten up and totally skip Charles, and go straight to William.
In which case it's one redeeming feature, it's hereditary nature is lost and it becomes a polarity contest; so we then might as well move to an elected head of state/ 'Britain's Got a 'Monarch' ' .
Bah, you guys have dismissed with the direct hereditary route before under circumstances, you can do it again. As somebody who's watched Charles since he was dating that filthy courtesan whore Diana, he's been an embarrassment to the Royal Family, exceeded only by that red haired tart with the weight loss program. It's only been the last few years or so that he's shown some true regalism.
Skip Chuck, give it to Bill. The people would love that.
I also have the feelng that Charles might enjoy not being the Prince of Wales. By being the King's father he'd still have a pretty large soapbox, but would suddenly be much more free to speak out on the issues that interest him.
My God those are some dull issues.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2012, 09:53:13 AM
For the sake of the monarchy--as little as I care about it--I hope that you guys smarten up and totally skip Charles, and go straight to William.
Your homo-ness cannot be doubted anymore.
I liked this take on the modernity of these traditions:
QuoteJubilee've the hype? One hundred years of royal PR
By Roman Krznaric | Published: 4 June 2012
Over a million rain-soaked loyal subjects watched the Queen's barge and a thousand support vessels bobble along the Thames this weekend to celebrate the Diamond Jubilee. And around the country many more millions joined the festivities at street parties, country fairs, community dances and cake sales.
But now the Union Jacks have been put away, we can sit back calmly and consider the big question raised by this extraordinary spectacle: How is it possible, in a modern democratic age, that 80% of British people (I'm Australian, by the way) still support the institution of monarchy – an unelected, hereditary head of state?
The cover story of this week's New Statesman magazine attempts an answer, arguing that the Queen has presided over 'perhaps the most successful brand resurrection in public relations history'. Everything began to go wrong in 1992, the famous annus horribilis, when Charles and Diana separated, Princess Anne divorced and Fergie was caught having her toes sucked by an American. But since then the Royal Family has undergone a brilliant PR makeover: the Queen agreed to pay income tax, minor royals have been cut from the civil list, and the family's public persona is now tightly managed by a small army of communications professionals.
All of this has indeed galvanised support for the monarchy. But it is a mistake to believe that the royal reliance on a well-oiled PR machine is a modern invention. In fact, the real PR revolution took place in the nineteenth century, when the monarchy was under more serious public assault than we can ever imagine today. And we are still living with the legacy.
First, to set the picture. One of the main reasons people give for preserving the monarchy is that it is a 'great British tradition' and a time-honoured symbol of national unity. At royal weddings and anniversaries, hundreds of thousands flock to see the gilded carriage glide by, the ermine cloaks and plumed hats, the gunfire salutes and stately processions (half a million were there to watch Wills and Kate tie the knot last year). Television commentators reinforce the idea that these are ancient customs stretching back into the mists of time, with remarks like, 'all the pageantry and grandeur of a thousand-year-old tradition', 'a pageantry that has gone on for hundreds of years' and 'all the precision that comes from centuries of precedent'.
This is largely, to put it mildly, nonsense. Most of these royal ceremonies and rituals, including the latest Jubilee, are creations of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. They are what historians call 'invented traditions' – conscious efforts on the part of those in power to subtly influence our beliefs by providing a compelling but illusory sense of continuity with the past.
So why exactly did the British monarchy need to invent traditions, and how did it do so?
Few people today realise that for the first three-quarters of the nineteenth century, the monarchy was an object of public derision and something of a national joke. George IV was ridiculed for his extravagance and womanising, and his marriage to Queen Caroline was an unprecedented public scandal. When he died in 1830, The Times bequeathed him a damning editorial: 'There never was an individual less regretted by his fellow creatures than this deceased king. What eye has wept for him? What heart has heaved one throb of unmercenary sorrow?' Can you imagine a national newspaper casting such a verdict on a royal figure (even Prince Charles) now?
Moreover, despite what many people might think, Victoria's early reign distinctly lacked regal grandeur. As historian David Cannadine points out, her coronation in 1838 was an unrehearsed fiasco: the clergy lost their place in the order of service, the coronation ring didn't fit and they didn't bother singing the national anthem. From the very beginning she was criticised in the press for her political meddling and was constantly lampooned by cartoonists.
When Victoria effectively retired from public life in the 1860s, the pressures on the monarchy began mounting. With the extension of the franchise and rise of worker organisations, class consciousness was beginning to rival national allegiance. Between 1871 and 1874, eighty-four republican clubs were founded, and Prime Minister Gladstone worried about the 'stability of the throne'.
It was in this atmosphere of crisis that a concerted effort was made to shore up the monarchy, and the nation it represented. The solution? To resurrect belief in the institution of monarchy by inventing traditions. From the 1870s, writes the historian Eric Hobsbawm, 'the revival of royal ritualism was seen as a necessary counterweight to the dangers of popular democracy'.
A new era of pomp and circumstance began in 1877 when Victoria was crowned Empress of India – an invented title bestowed by Prime Minister Disraeli – associating her with the glories of the British Empire. For Victoria's Golden Jubilee celebration in 1887, colonial premiers were invited for the first time, and their troops paraded in a masterpiece of ceremonial choreography, while the clergy were fetchingly dressed up in a new wardrobe of embroidered vestments and coloured stoles. Following the festivities, the Archbishop of Canterbury noted with relief that for 'days afterwards, everyone feels that the socialist movement has had a check'. The event was considered such a success that it was repeated ten years later with even more splendour, for the Diamond Jubilee.
In 1901 Edward VII ensured that his coronation would be remembered for its romantic majesty by having a new, fabulously ornate carriage drive him back from the Abbey. He also transformed the state opening of Parliament into a full-dress ceremony, parading through the streets of London and personally reading the speech from the throne. Edward was an innovator even when dead, creating the tradition of British monarchs publicly lying-in-state: a quarter of a million people filed past his coffin in 1910.
Other changes followed, for instance in 1917, when the royal family sought to obscure its Germanic heritage by altering its name from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to the House of Windsor (a wise move given that at the time British troops were in the trenches opposite the Germans), and introduced the practice of having royal weddings in public rather than behind closed doors.
It was through such invented traditions that the Crown reasserted itself as a patriotic symbol and ensured the allegiance of the labouring classes. The achievements of this political programme are evident today in the overwhelming support for the monarchy, and the fact that there is virtually no serious public debate about a republican alternative. So next time you see people waving their Union Jacks at a jubilee ceremony, a fairy-tale royal wedding or some other lavish royal parade through London, just remember that you are witnessing the results of a brilliant PR campaign designed to mould the beliefs of whole nation.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 05, 2012, 07:17:10 PM
How is it possible, in a modern democratic age, that 80% of British people (I'm Australian, by the way) still support the institution of monarchy – an unelected, hereditary head of state?
Probably by watching our Presidential elections :blush:
Was there anything you didn't already know Sheilbh? Anyway yeah the Monarchy adapted itself to its new role as the national mascot and adjusted with new more broad based traditions to get everybody involved and feel more warm and fuzzy. Not sure why this guy sounds so bitter about it. The institution has a new job and it does it well.
I don't think he's bitter so much as admiring.
And if he is bitter it's because he's Australian :( :console:
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 05, 2012, 07:17:10 PM
Quote...(half a million were there to watch Wills and Kate tie the knot last year)...
"Wills"? Absurd as it sounds, I don't think this is a typo. I think an adult is seriously calling another adult "Wills."
Quote from: grumbler on June 06, 2012, 12:56:38 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 05, 2012, 07:17:10 PM
Quote...(half a million were there to watch Wills and Kate tie the knot last year)...
"Wills"? Absurd as it sounds, I don't think this is a typo. I think an adult is seriously calling another adult "Wills."
How about "Willis", then. As in, "Whatchoo talkin' bout"? :)
Quote from: Jacob on June 04, 2012, 06:21:43 PM
Almost no one in Canada care about the Jubilee; excepting BarristerBoy and his ilk :bowler:
that explains why my government is wasting hundreds of millions of $$ on this shit. :thumbsdown:
Those hundreds of millions should be going to beating striking Quebec students :mad:
Quote from: grumbler on June 06, 2012, 12:56:38 PM
"Wills"? Absurd as it sounds, I don't think this is a typo. I think an adult is seriously calling another adult "Wills."
Well first he is an Aussie so says silly sounding things all the time.
Secondly this is more evidence of how the Monarchy does its job: it encourages an intimacy with the people. They feel like they know the Royals personally.
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2012, 01:23:33 PM
Those hundreds of millions should be going to beating striking Quebec students :mad:
We have our own police force to do that. Though they could still give us a check, I woudln't mind.
Quote from: viper37 on June 06, 2012, 01:17:01 PMthat explains why my government is wasting hundreds of millions of $$ on this shit. :thumbsdown:
Canada is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on the jubilee?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2012, 06:33:21 PM
Kudos to the Danes for sending real ships.
Are we sending this? :huh:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.megin.dk%2FHavhingsten2.jpg&hash=c2291b5686907a2e78647be6f6f09d723e005640)
V
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 05, 2012, 07:17:10 PM
It was in this atmosphere of crisis that a concerted effort was made to shore up the monarchy, and the nation it represented. The solution? To resurrect belief in the institution of monarchy by inventing traditions. From the 1870s, writes the historian Eric Hobsbawm, 'the revival of royal ritualism was seen as a necessary counterweight to the dangers of popular democracy'.
Even in their worst days, I don't see the Brits building gallows for their Royals, like certain continentals. They're simply too polite.
I think if the Brits would ever want to eliminate their monarchs, they would simply ask them to leave.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 07, 2012, 05:55:03 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 05, 2012, 07:17:10 PM
It was in this atmosphere of crisis that a concerted effort was made to shore up the monarchy, and the nation it represented. The solution? To resurrect belief in the institution of monarchy by inventing traditions. From the 1870s, writes the historian Eric Hobsbawm, 'the revival of royal ritualism was seen as a necessary counterweight to the dangers of popular democracy'.
Even in their worst days, I don't see the Brits building gallows for their Royals, like certain continentals. They're simply too polite.
I think if the Brits would ever want to eliminate their monarchs, they would simply ask them to leave.
Well, they did chop the head off of one Charles already.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 07, 2012, 06:54:39 AM
Well, they did chop the head off of one Charles already.
I knew if any douchebag was going to bring that up, it'd be you. Let's try to keep things within the last 20 generations, shall we?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 07, 2012, 06:59:26 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 07, 2012, 06:54:39 AM
Well, they did chop the head off of one Charles already.
I knew if any douchebag was going to bring that up, it'd be you. Let's try to keep things within the last 20 generations, shall we?
2012-1649 = 363 years.
That's just 18 generations, so even by your rules it counts!
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 07, 2012, 07:05:39 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 07, 2012, 06:59:26 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 07, 2012, 06:54:39 AM
Well, they did chop the head off of one Charles already.
I knew if any douchebag was going to bring that up, it'd be you. Let's try to keep things within the last 20 generations, shall we?
2012-1649 = 363 years.
That's just 18 generations, so even by your rules it counts!
That's it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 07, 2012, 07:08:32 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 07, 2012, 07:05:39 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 07, 2012, 06:59:26 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 07, 2012, 06:54:39 AM
Well, they did chop the head off of one Charles already.
I knew if any douchebag was going to bring that up, it'd be you. Let's try to keep things within the last 20 generations, shall we?
2012-1649 = 363 years.
That's just 18 generations, so even by your rules it counts!
That's it.
Tim, Tim...... :lol:
Quote from: 11B4V on June 07, 2012, 07:12:39 AM
Tim, Tim...... :lol:
Just a 4 hour timeout. I really wish he wouldn't make me do that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 07, 2012, 07:14:27 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 07, 2012, 07:12:39 AM
Tim, Tim...... :lol:
Just a 4 hour timeout. I really wish he wouldn't make me do that.
Well, I think Tim likes it when you use the "Kamiken" technique.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 07, 2012, 06:54:39 AM
Well, they did chop the head off of one Charles already.
Yeah let me know when the Puritans are back in charge.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 07, 2012, 07:14:27 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 07, 2012, 07:12:39 AM
Tim, Tim...... :lol:
Just a 4 hour timeout. I really wish he wouldn't make me do that.
Tim's assburgers makes him a total blockhead sometimes.
LOL, thanks for reminding me. I forgot all about his ass.
There were no Brits back in 1649 anyway, it was the English who executed Charles. Though how Union with Scotland made us more polite is a great mystery of history :huh:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 07, 2012, 02:09:05 PM
There were no Brits back in 1649 anyway, it was the English who executed Charles. Though how Union with Scotland made us more polite is a great mystery of history :huh:
No less great than the mystery of why uniting with England created this developement:
Kilted Barbarians...then Union with England....suddenly the home of the GREATEST GENIUSES IN HISTORY....then just a bunch of generally depressed curmudgeons.
I think the Scots want to become independent just so they can unite with England again and see if it works a second time.