The Gender Mirror - pretty interesting way to approach modern issues - invert them! It certainly makes you think…
Feminism is bad for your health. This is from last year. Gah.
And, unrelated - uk teenagers may have to, among other things, pledge allegiance to the queen. Um - no. It’s a rather mixed article actually…
Some laughs :
The style and content of the events should be “re-energised”, perhaps with a rendition by schoolchildren of the pop song We Are The World, last year’s report said.
(Seriously, I laughed a LOT…just picture the teenagers you know in the UK. Now picture them singing We Are The World while declaring their joy to be a British citizen and their love of the Queen. Please.)
Some ideas that are almost good:
Lord Goldsmith has also hinted at updating the national anthem by removing verses which are rarely performed.
I’d just change it altogether though, tbh. It doesn’t reflect England properly and it is such a tuneless piece of crap.
Some realism:
People born and raised in this country are often far too cynical about being British and it seems to be a national pastime to put down British institutions and our way of life.
Aaaand…some SHOCK:
It has been reported that laws, such as sleeping with the wife of the heir to the throne, which carries life imprisonment, would be scrapped or reformed because they are regarded as outdated.
What, outdated?? You mean, like, life imprisonment for adultery isn’t still the norm? And heirs to the throne don’t have to be married? Or men? Never. *Sigh*
And on that note - adieu!
16 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 11, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Jacob Ward
If I’m elected then adultery will be an imprisonable offence. Back to the age of Augustus
I daren’t follow that link…why is feminism bad for your health?
March 11, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Caitlin
Oh, because it promotes equality and that makes people disabled. Obviously.
It’s not a dangerous link, although it IS from the Independent…
The age of Augustus? Hahahano.
March 11, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Matt Gates
Pledge allegiance to the queen? Screw that, i’m a citizen not a subject!
March 11, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Caitlin
It’s so damned STUPID!!!! Especially when so many people in England don’t even want a monarchy…*sighs*
March 11, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Jacob Ward
It’s quite popular actually, though evidently not round here. I’d swear allegiance to the crown if I were joining the army, but I don’t think it’s appropriate elsewhere.
Why is equality disabling?
March 11, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Caitlin
Read the link. I can’t remember, don’t think it said. Oh wait, it may have said that it’s cos it emasculates men and women aren’t used to it. Yeah.
It’s probably about 50/50 when it comes to people supporting the monarchy. But most of our friends are pretty anti, as well you know Jakey =]
And hey, should we ever trust the logic of someone that says ‘I don’t believe in God, but I DO believe in the divine right of kings’??
March 11, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Jacob Ward
I was drunk
I guess I just get myself into the mindset of the monarch being God’s anointed to better understand the 16th century as I spend so much time there.
I think monarchy can be a unifying factor. In general we are proud of the fact that we have this institution and it works far better than any other country’s so we are right to. I don’t really see your problem with it. Each taxpayer pays about 50p towards the monarchy so it’s hardly a financial burden unlike Northern Rock, which could cost us £250 each. The constitutional benefits I’ve already outlined.
I don’t think I’ll ever convert you to liking the monarchy, but I hope you’ll see that its abolition would be detrimental to our nation.
Heh, just saw a clip of Gordon Brown from 15 years ago, lol.
March 12, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Caitlin
Yes, you were indeed. Tres amusant. Spend so much time there? Hehehehe yeah, sure Jakey.
The monarchy is not democratic, it’s not egalitarian, it promotes a hereditary system rather than people gaining power being based on ability/intelligence, the list goes on. Hell, head over to Republic and see what they have to say - I don’t agree with ALL of it but it’s pretty good at explaining why the monarchy isn’t great.
LINK ONE
LINK TWO
It’s certainly interesting anyway =]
March 12, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Jacob Ward
I’d rather not, I’d probably throw up. As I’ve previously pointed out, having a monarch as head of state rather than a president means there’s no power of veto and other such undemocratic features of the American system, to take an example of a country which seems to think itself so democratic. Such as a supreme court which 8 years ago forbade a recount in Florida and thus guaranteed Bush became president for the sole reason that the members of said court were all mates with his dad. This can’t happen in Britain, and regardless of the outdated nature of monarchy I think it is a worthy price to pay to have a true democracy. The Queen has no power, she is purely a figurehead, and I for one would prefer to rally round a figurehead so rooted in our national history than one who changes every five minutes and is constantly immersed in scandal.
I do spend a lot of time in the sixteenth century in that I read a lot of books about it and to understand that world, which is so different from our own, one has to get oneself in the mindset of someone from the sixteenth century.
Tax on alcohol goes up by 6% above inflation on Sunday, so I’d better make the most of it
March 12, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Caitlin
Oh, such a negative view of the world. Not everyone is like Bush, and they failed to uphold democracy in the recount issue. But if that happened over being a prime minister here, what would be the difference? If, as you say, the queen has no power? Why do we need her?
Also, having a monarch as head of state does not preserve democracy but undermine it by promoting hereditary power, and ‘natural’ hierarchy - why should we look up to the royal family? Why can’t we behave normally in their presence? Especially if they ‘have no power’?
According to Republic (oh you’re gonna hate me for this), however, the Queen DOES have power. Undeservedly so.
“Because we don’t have a written constitution we don’t really know just how much power the monarchy has, and we can only guess under what circumstances it has been and would be used. We know that the last three monarchs have all used their power to choose who should be Prime Minister, and we know that every week the Queen meets with Tony Blair to discuss matters of government. We also know that immense swathes of power rest with the Queen but are exercised by the Prime Minister - including the power to declare war without the approval of Parliament. Replacing the monarchy with an elected Head of State would give us the opportunity to define what powers we would like such an office to have, to plan how we would like these powers to be exercised, and to apportion them with checks and safeguards. And, if the British people wanted their elected Head of State to have very limited power or no power at all, then that is what would happen.”
Hey ho. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Out of interest, have you read any books about women in the 16th century? I have one about women in the 17th century, if you were interested. I haven’t read all of it (only the relevant stuff for my POS) but it’s intriguing stuff.
March 12, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Jacob Ward
She doesn’t have any power. That’s merely a theoretical point to create fear. We don’t have a supreme court with such power; our equivalent is parliament, which is elected by us and has no power around elections because it is dissolved. We also don’t have such autocratic figures as governors who can disenfranchise swathes of the population because they would likely vote against their party.
Now it’s your turn to hate me…while I advocate equality of gender today, I recognise that in the period I study such an idea was regarded as ludicrous. Literacy rates were far far lower for women and feminism didn’t exist in a broadly rural society, whose primary concerns were whether or not they would be able to feed themselves for the next year, how many of their children would die and whether they’d catch the plague. Amongst the commons I study men and women indiscriminately; being a religious historian it is necessary to do so as what I want to know about is religious trends. Women are particularly useful to my school of history, which sees the surprising survivalism of Catholicism throughout the period. Women, with the lower literacy rates I alluded to earlier, were more conservative and particularly suspicious of the new, bibliocentric religion. I don’t see any point in just studying women or men. In order to understand what PEOPLE thought and did, one must study indiscriminately. However, the political and legal elite was solely comprised of men, except where this was made impossibly by the rule of a female monarch, and as it was these men who directed policy, it is foolish not to pay attention to them. When studying the past, it is always a mistake to superimpose the values of today on it, hence my comment about getting myself into the mindset of the sixteenth century. Few people questioned their positions in society and this is equally true of both sexes. It’s unfortunate, but true. I don’t believe in selective history to prove a point, so I couldn’t read a book like ‘who cooked the last supper?’. I reject the idea that historians pay no attention to the role of women, it is simply that their role was less important in the arena which has traditionally be regarded as being the most important. Revisionism has shifted that focus to the commons, but it is in terms of individual contribution to ideology etc that we must judge the social elite and as women were not admitted to either university or most schools, it is hard to claim a lack of bias while concentrating solely on women in this arena.
I merely aim to promote an indiscriminate outlook on the past.
March 12, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Caitlin
An indiscriminate outlook that claims that women’s role was less important than men’s in the 16th century? Nice.
I reckon reading Who Cooked the Last Supper would be good for you. Women have done so much, achieved so much, and it’s all swept under the carpet. Most of the ‘important’ men you study were no doubt married, and the women in their lives would have affected their views and actions. Equally, there are and were women that broke through the boundaries that are supposedly biological destiny, we just don’t hear all that much about the brilliant (and not so brilliant) women of the past because they don’t fit into the ‘important’ arena.
Doesn’t that bother you? Not even a little bit? That the ‘arena’ considered ‘traditionally’ as the most important is totally male?
Or does the significance of HIStory pass you by?
*Sigh*
March 12, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Jacob Ward
As I pointed out at dinner (so other observers who weren’t present don’t think I’m a even more of a tit) my school of history challenges the traditional focus on the political elite, looking rather at what PEOPLE (be they male or female) thought. Hence indiscriminate observation of the past.
Something you might be interested to learn (since you seem rather fond of using HIStory) the word came from the Greek historie (historia in Latin), both of which are feminine nouns
I think secretly we agree, but where would be the fun in admitting to that?
March 12, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Caitlin
Hmm, I think there are elements we agree on.
I use HIStory to emphasise the focus that has been put upon men when studying history, be it consciously or otherwise. While the origin of the word is interesting, my dear Jakey, it is the modern idea of history that I take issue with. Although according to you that’s changing - good.
I must to bed now, I am exhausted. It’s all that loitering on Brighton’s many dark and dingy streets that did it…
March 12, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Jacob Ward
Oh my god I just found out that Brian Sewell lost his virginity aged 20 TO A 60 YEAR OLD GRANDMOTHER!!!
I feel sick.
March 13, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Jacob Ward
Something I thought of after I’d gone to bed last night; have you read anything about Catherine Parr, Henry VIII’s last wife? I think you’d find her interesting. She effectively ran the country while he was off warring in France. One of the few times a woman was actually allowed a role in government and she excelled at it. She was not of course given a place on the regency council that ruled on behalf of Edward VI, but she’s an interesting figure nonetheless. Her integrity does become somewhat suspect later on though, when her next husband (as it was thought detrimental to the health of the foetus to have intercourse with a pregnant woman) started making night-time incursions into Elizabeth Tudor’s bedroom and she joined him :S
Just a thought.