toldailytopic: The Royal wedding are you interested in it? How about the idea of a ro

[Samstarrett]

The waving of our flag is viewed differently here in the UK than in the USA. It is often associated with nationalist movements and a nauseating unquestioning patriotism.

We're not remotely as patriotic as many Americans are.

Wait a minute. I want to make sure I understand this correctly. Are you saying that it is considered in poor taste to be overly patriotic in the UK? Is it so considered among the populace at large, or only within certain groups?

 

[MrRadish]

How is that in bad taste?

OK. Firstly, it's fairly obvious that a fair number of people are being 'patriotic' for no reason beyond the fact that it's temporarily fashionable to act that way.

Secondly, patriotism is intrinsically somewhat repulsive as it implies some sort of unquestioning fealty to one's place of birth for no better reason that it being one's place of birth.

Thirdly, blue, white and red clash.

 

[Skavau]

Wait a minute. I want to make sure I understand this correctly. Are you saying that it is considered in poor taste to be overly patriotic in the UK? Is it so considered among the populace at large, or only within certain groups?

Yeah, you deck your house out with the flag of England and the Union Jack and people will look at you funny. It does come across to many as slightly nauseating with undertones of "For king and country...". It doesn't help that movements such as the National Front, English Defence League and British National Party all sport the Union Jack or the English flag either but there it is. We hold different attitudes regarding it than Americans do.

I think the possible exception is the Scots, as the spamming of their flag is associated with movements to gain independence from the UK.

 

[Quincy]

Monarchy is fascinating. :idunno:

Why is that? Seriously, I really don't understand why so many Americans are fascinated by monarchs.

 

[Quincy]

OK. Firstly, it's fairly obvious that a fair number of people are being 'patriotic' for no reason beyond the fact that it's temporarily fashionable to act that way.

Secondly, patriotism is intrinsically somewhat repulsive as it implies some sort of unquestioning fealty to one's place of birth for no better reason that it being one's place of birth.

Thirdly, blue, white and red clash.

If I may ask you a question or few Mr Rad, why do countries in the UK still pay taxes to these monarchs? They haven't really been involved in state matters for quite some time now right? The best answer I've heard is that they are still culturally relevant. How is that?

 

[Samstarrett]

OK. Firstly, it's fairly obvious that a fair number of people are being 'patriotic' for no reason beyond the fact that it's temporarily fashionable to act that way.

That's fair.

Secondly, patriotism is intrinsically somewhat repulsive as it implies some sort of unquestioning fealty to one's place of birth for no better reason that it being one's place of birth.

I couldn't disagree more. Do you feel the same way about an affectionate loyalty for one's family?

Thirdly, blue, white and red clash.

If you really wanted to ruffle my American feathers, you should have put those colors in a different order.

 

[Samstarrett]

Yeah, you deck your house out with the flag of England and the Union Jack and people will look at you funny. It does come across to many as slightly nauseating with undertones of "For king and country...". It doesn't help that movements such as the National Front, English Defence League and British National Party all sport the Union Jack or the English flag either but there it is. We hold different attitudes regarding it than Americans do.

I think the possible exception is the Scots, as the spamming of their flag is associated with movements to gain independence from the UK.

Well, I'm all for 'For King and Country...', but there you go. :idunno:

 

[Samstarrett]

Why is that? Seriously, I really don't understand why so many Americans are fascinated by monarchs.

"Monarchy can easily be debunked, but watch the faces, mark well the debunkers. These are the men whose taproot in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach–men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire mere equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honor a king, they honor millionaires, athletes or film stars instead–even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food, and it will gobble poison."

--C.S. Lewis

 

[Skavau]

I couldn't disagree more. Do you feel the same way about an affectionate loyalty for one's family?

The affection a person feels towards their family should not be replicated towards the state.

With the exception of our proud sitcom tradition and specific movies, I don't find myself close at all to the prevailing mainstream culture of the country.

 

[Skavau]

If I may ask you a question or few Mr Rad, why do countries in the UK still pay taxes to these monarchs? They haven't really been involved in state matters for quite some time now right? The best answer I've heard is that they are still culturally relevant. How is that?

They need taxes to be sustained and they're culturally relevant in the sense that they are an attraction for tourists and are still webbed into our political and religious spectrum (The Queen is the head of the state and the head of the church as well as opening every session of parliament).

 

[Samstarrett]

The affection a person feels towards their family should not be replicated towards the state.

State ≠ Country, and a monarchy is as much an embodiment of the latter as an arm of the former, more so in a country like yours where the monarchy is purely symbolic.

 

[Skavau]

State ≠ Country, and a monarchy is as much an embodiment of the latter as an arm of the former, more so in a country like yours where the monarchy is purely symbolic.

Well it says so much about my current disconnect then that I don't see any need to consider 'country' and 'state' differently.

 

[Samstarrett]

Well it says so much about my current disconnect then that I don't see any need to consider 'country' and 'state' differently.

Yikes.

 

[MrRadish]

If I may ask you a question or few Mr Rad, why do countries in the UK still pay taxes to these monarchs? They haven't really been involved in state matters for quite some time now right? The best answer I've heard is that they are still culturally relevant. How is that?

The only practical explanation for continuing to pay the Royal Family that I've seen is their positive impact on the tourist trade. The palaces, trooping of the colour etc tend to bring in lots of people like Samstarrett who find monarchy interesting. I'm not entirely sure it's worth it, mind you.

I couldn't disagree more. Do you feel the same way about an affectionate loyalty for one's family?

I like most members of my family, sure. For similar reasons that I like other people I've grown up alongside. I'd definitely side against one of them if they were in the wrong about something, though, and I'm certainly not proud to be a member. Glad, sure. Proud, no.

If you really wanted to ruffle my American feathers, you should have put those colors in a different order.

Yet another facet of patriotism that bewilders me...

ADDENDUM: Oh, and I agree with Skavau except insofar as I'd add 'culture' and 'geography' to 'state' as factors that define a country.

 

[Samstarrett]

I like most members of my family, sure. For similar reasons that I like other people I've grown up alongside. I'd definitely side against one of them if they were in the wrong about something, though, and I'm certainly not proud to be a member. Glad, sure. Proud, no.

Do you define loyalty as siding with someone when he's in the wrong? If so, would not any and all loyalty be bad?

 

[Quincy]

"Monarchy can easily be debunked, but watch the faces, mark well the debunkers. These are the men whose taproot in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach–men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire mere equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honor a king, they honor millionaires, athletes or film stars instead–even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food, and it will gobble poison."

--C.S. Lewis

Yea, that is a pretty bleak view he has. Do you really think everyone's purpose is to worship something?

 

[MrRadish]

Do you define loyalty as siding with someone when he's in the wrong? If so, would not any and all loyalty be bad?

Loyalty doesn't necessarily entail siding with someone in the wrong, but what it does imply is that one is committed to them in some way and that that commitment is an end in itself, which isn't good when it relates to a country. I see no reason why one should be committed to one's country in the first place, and even if one does happen to be favourably disposed toward it it should be because of some quality it - its state, culture or at a push geography - actually possesses. I fail to see why it being the place of one's birth should make any odds.

 

[Quincy]

The only practical explanation for continuing to pay the Royal Family that I've seen is their positive impact on the tourist trade. The palaces, trooping of the colour etc tend to bring in lots of people like Samstarrett who find monarchy interesting. I'm not entirely it's worth it, mind you.

Yea, I'd agree. Turn the palace into a museum and put some wax models in it. It'll work just as well :chuckle: .

 

[Sherman]

toldailytopic: The Royal wedding are you interested in it? How about the idea of a royal family in general?

:yawn: No offense to those on the other side of the Pond, but grist for the gossip rags bores me to tears.

 

[MrRadish]

Yea, I'd agree. Turn the palace into a museum and put some wax models in it. It'll work just as well :chuckle: .

Already got one of those, unfortunately...!