Why Brits are better than Yanks

[bonsaiherb]

Back to the lighter topic of Yanks and Brits.

Although we have a King Obama (with many other given names) we are still not as obsessed with the ‘Royals’ as the English seem to be. According to the British press, “Prince Charles does not want to be like his mother.” As I read it she does not want to be like him either. Queen Elizabeth has been on the throne this long for a good reason. He's assuming he'll live long enough to be king. She’s still gambling on another to years and as I remember her mother lived to be 101. So longevity is something in that bloodline.

Will there be a King Charles III? How absurd. The first 2 Charles were Stuarts and one of them ended up executed. so I assume he would have to pick one of his other names. He'll be an Edward or George like the others in his family. Most Americans look with disfavor with the King George memories.
Sometimes I feel sorry for "Prince" Charles as he has been waiting for an awful long time, and most of the Public would prefer William, his son. It can be argued that he has nothing more than the lifetime guarantee of wealth and privilege that the Royals enjoy. Nevertheless, we have many in the US aristocracy who were born into a lifetime of wealth as well and some became political dynasties.

I personally like the idea of bringing back the pagan ritual of sacrificing the king after a year (hey stretch it to four) then fertilize the Fields with his blood. This should be down with Presidents as well.

An aside: I am a collector of Silver Coins and so far have avoided all Canadian or British coins because of the homely Queen Elizabeth face. Horseface, King Charles will do nothing to change that. Give me a Silver Eagle, Panda or Australian Koala any day. YANKS WIN! in the coin competition!

Returning to horsefaces, will Camilla be recognized as a Queen? Or would she would be the Kings consort? Considering their long affair while he was married to Diana this would be appropriate. Much prefer William and Kate! Boy that must burn.
Getting political again. Prince George THIS guy is far worse than Obama. When he found out he couldn't be divorced and be king, she conveniently had an accident. The Royal family did not seem to shed many tears.
Then he married the whorse he'd been cheating on the dead ex-wife with for years. I think he should do the honorable thing and hand the scepter over William.

IMO The Yanks win this one as well. We tend to get rid of Royalty every eight years of even in four. Mind you we also try to kill them off every now and then.

[Cardinal Fang]

Will there be a King Charles III? How absurd. The first 2 Charles were Stuarts and one of them ended up executed. so I assume he would have to pick one of his other names. He'll be an Edward or George like the others in his family. Most Americans look with disfavor with the King George memories.

Charlie boy has already announced that if he ascends to the throne he'll be a George. I hope if he makes it he'll remember that the monarch is supposed to be totally neutral in politics, so he'll butt out - just like he doesn't do now.

Returning to horsefaces, will Camilla be recognized as a Queen? Or would she would be the Kings consort? Considering their long affair while he was married to Diana this would be appropriate. Much prefer William and Kate! Boy that must burn.

Camilla would be a consort - only those of royal blood would become a queen if they were married to a king (see Prince Phillip - he's not King Phillip)

Getting political again. Prince George THIS guy is far worse than Obama. When he found out he couldn't be divorced and be king, she conveniently had an accident. The Royal family did not seem to shed many tears.
Then he married the whorse he'd been cheating on the dead ex-wife with for years.

Unfortunately for that conspiracy theory, the crash was caused by a combination of speeding to evade paparazzi and the driver drinking too much alcohol. And don't forget that Diana confessed to committing adultery during her marriage as well, with Major James Hewitt. So she can't be called squeaky clean either - and BTW he was divorced and still in line to ascend the throne.

And finally question - is the current almost herditary nature of the Presidency any better than the UK system? A Bush, followed by a Clinton, followed by a Bush. Should have been followed by another Clinton, but Obama ruined that one. Next time, will likely be another Clinton increasingly looking like facing off against yet another Bush.

At least out heriditary head of state is constitutionally bound to be apolitical - and hence the police and military swear allegiance to something removed from politics. Can the same be true of the US where the C-in-C is a politician?

CF

[gronank]

Unfortunately for that conspiracy theory, the crash was caused by a combination of speeding to evade paparazzi and the driver drinking too much alcohol.

Eloquently expressed by Mitchell and Webb, (I'll throw in the one about the moon landing because it is just that good)

[bonsaiherb]

Why Yanks are better than Brits.

Cardinal Fang wrote:

At least out hereditary head of state is constitutionally bound to be apolitical - and hence the police and military swear allegiance to something removed from politics. Can the same be true of the US where the C-in-C is a politician?

Ah, I have to agree with many of your points. Never did hear of his renaming himself to King George though. UUGH. Still have a few King George coins though. Guess you ceded the coin comparison issue. As for him being a more neutral or laid back monarch, that is to be seen. I also doubt that Queen Elizabeth was asleep at the switch during many of your political upheavals. She had to deal with some powerful Prime Ministers post Churchill to Thatcher and beyond.

I am sure she put in her two pence worth upon occasion! Blair to Cameron who knows? BTW is not the latter a Scottish name? Guess she missed Churchill, but then came Eden and a whole bunch of wankers. John Majors to Gorden Brown who sold off your gold reserve.

Guess she did stay out of the Parliamentary fray. To your loss, I might add.

Returning to America, we need to work to stop the Oligarchy that is rapidly consuming the working class. We have already lost our democracy. Gore Vidal said many years ago that the US was in effect a one-party state. A monolithic party with two wings. Coming from the elite, he should know!

http://sweetgeodes.com/senft/?page_id=3348



BTW, the Scottish attempt to secede totally shows how corporate banks, media, businesses and the overwhelming power of England continues to dominate your so called U.K. The Queen must have been so relieved to have continued use of her Feudal and Victorian fantasy world at Balmoral Castle.

Nope, the YANKS have not had anything like that since the Rockefeller, DuPont era. We now have the VERY NEW Internet tycoons like the Zuckerman's, Bezos and Gates. Financially speaking, watch out for the Chinese and the Alibaba's yet to come.

Europe's time with the Swiss trolls, the Rothschild s and Monarchies including the Dutch is beginning to fade ... fade and fade away.

[Cardinal Fang]

Interesting article related to the earlier poverty/ food bank derail earlier - bonsaiherb, you might find this up your street.

The City that eliminated poverty, then nearly forgot about it

Basically, it's about a city in Manitoba who ran a trial in the 1970s whereby all residents were guaranteed a minimum income. Monthly checks were delivered to the poorest - no strings attached. The study was to see if doing such a thing would kill people’s motivation to work. It didn’t. Instead they found that there was better nutrition, healthcare, kids stayed in school (so better life propects), and people improved their own prospects by using that extra cash for training and the like. The study was ended when a Conservative Government was elected.

Some Conservatives are coming out in favour of reintroducing the scheme, as it could (ironically) save the welfare budget millions of dollars. The current Canadian welfare system means that you have to be basically destitute to get any help, and once you recieve it, you stay destitute as people have no means to absorb setbacks in income or unexpected costs, and can’t afford to move to where jobs might be or upgrade their skills. Stopping people getting in that state in the first place would cost less than picking up the pieces afterwards.

CF

[gronank]

It shouldn't be forgotten that Britain has fought twice as many wars on drugs as the US. Of course, Britain sided with the drugs.