The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

OG ? Options
QP
Posted: Thursday, September 27, 2018 11:00:33 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/28/2015
Posts: 423
Neurons: 6,436
Hi friends,

I watched a TV show and found this sentence:-


We have the three wise men, three barn animals, and the OG royal family, Mary, Joseph and little itty-bitty
baby Jesus.

Could you please let me know what does the word in bold stand for?

Thank

QP
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, September 27, 2018 11:36:31 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,524
Neurons: 50,593
QP wrote:
Hi friends,

I watched a TV show and found this sentence:-


We have the three wise men, three barn animals, and the OG royal family, Mary, Joseph and little itty-bitty
baby Jesus.

Could you please let me know what does the word in bold stand for?

Thank

QP


As an American, I have no idea. Perhaps one of our British friends can explain, because it sounds like it might be a reference to their Royal Family.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Andrew Schultz
Posted: Thursday, September 27, 2018 12:59:12 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/7/2015
Posts: 418
Neurons: 2,906,278
Location: Chicago, Illinois, United States
"OG" is likely short for "Original Gangster." It was first used by American rapper Ice-T as the title of his fourth album and the featured song on the album.

It's a suitable substitute for "original" since it starts with O and has G in the center and, of course, it's a bit quicker to say. It's come to mean the very first of its kind. In this case (and others) it's used ironically/for humor, since Jesus, Mary and Joseph weren't particularly violent. It's a bit more colorful than "I'm/their" the first, but it's not offensive.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=OG has definitions to back this up, though the language on some of the later definitions is a bit ... rough.

100th person on TFD to 1 million neurons.
NKM
Posted: Thursday, September 27, 2018 1:20:16 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/14/2015
Posts: 4,905
Neurons: 268,113
Location: Corinth, New York, United States
I've never heard of it, but I suppose Andrew's suggestion is as likely as any other.

ozok
Posted: Thursday, September 27, 2018 2:30:07 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 7/24/2018
Posts: 118
Neurons: 618


yer...just as likely as Own Goal.





just sayin'
Sarrriesfan
Posted: Thursday, September 27, 2018 6:43:01 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/30/2016
Posts: 1,045
Neurons: 6,715
Location: Luton, England, United Kingdom
FounDit wrote:
QP wrote:
Hi friends,

I watched a TV show and found this sentence:-


We have the three wise men, three barn animals, and the OG royal family, Mary, Joseph and little itty-bitty
baby Jesus.

Could you please let me know what does the word in bold stand for?

Thank

QP


As an American, I have no idea. Perhaps one of our British friends can explain, because it sounds like it might be a reference to their Royal Family.


I cannot think of anything that OG might refer to in relation to our Royal Family.

I lack the imagination for a witty signature.
QP
Posted: Thursday, September 27, 2018 7:00:45 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/28/2015
Posts: 423
Neurons: 6,436
Is it possible that it means Our God royal family? as the sentence said about the God.
Romany
Posted: Friday, September 28, 2018 4:18:05 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,375
Neurons: 44,771
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
QP, no, that's not right, because it simply makes no sense to use "our God" as an adjectival phrase here.

Andrew's explanation is the only one which seems likely.

The sentence seems to be about a children's Xmas play. Small children on stage often forget where they are and do some funny things.

The "royal family" here refers to Jesus, Mary and Joseph. Perhaps "Mary" smacked "Joseph", or "Joseph" pushed "Mary" out of the way, so the writer is likening that to a gang fight in a humourous way, and making a joke about these tiny little actors.

The humour lies in pretending these cute little ones are really big, bad gangsters. The contrast would have all their parents and relatives laughing.

But like any joke, in any language, when you have to explain it, it doesn't seem funny at all.
thar
Posted: Friday, September 28, 2018 5:15:58 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 17,841
Neurons: 72,341
Also, culturally, God has no connection to the British Royal Family. In the Anglo-Saxon tradition, the king was the top chieftain, the chosen ruler or the one who won the battles. For a few centuries some kings tried to promote the French idea of 'the divine right of Kings', but it never really caught on. The Royal Family is just that - people. Chosen to be nominal rulers because they are better than the alternative of a Protector (President/|Generalissimo/Chief Priest).

Since Protestants broke away from Catholics, the English monarch has been the 'head of the Church' in England. (I have no idea of the relationship with the Church of Scotland - I imagine they spurn such vulgar secular things as royal families.)
On coins, that is shown in the letters FD or FID DEF after the name of the monarch - Fidei Defensor - Defender of the Faith. But that does not imply any Godly connection. It is a duty, not a status.



Regina - |Queen
Dei Gratia - by the Grace of God
FD - Fidei Defensor - Defender of the Faith

But that is the Church of England. It is so nice and English it doesn't insist on anything, like you actually believing in God, or anything extreme like that. Just be nice and get along with each other, and leave all that violent religious stuff to the others. Have a cup of tea and a biscuit. The best way to defend the faith is to not make a big deal out of it.
(No offence, CofEers - that is meant as a compliment to your high principles and wise choice of religion!)



Some monarchs in Europe did start to believe they had some sort of 'godly' status - but that usually ended with then getting their heads chopped off. That idea is well and truly dead in Western Europe, and it never really existed in Britain at all.

A few cultures around the world do have that 'godly' status of the monarch/emperor and their family - but not in Britain.

This is a caricature puppet from a satirical TV show from a long time ago now, showing the Queen, Prince Philip and the corgis. I don't think you would get away with that in Thailand or Japan or Swaziland/eSwatini, but in Britain nothing is 'sacred' about the royal family.






Jyrkkä Jätkä
Posted: Friday, September 28, 2018 5:22:20 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 41,753
Neurons: 408,997
Location: Helsinki, Southern Finland Province, Finland
How about Omnes Gentes, Latin for All The Peoples?


In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
ozok
Posted: Friday, September 28, 2018 7:45:46 AM
Rank: Member

Joined: 7/24/2018
Posts: 118
Neurons: 618


The Royal Family not to be confused with 'The Royle Family'...one of which has been described as a kitchen sink drama.


Redacted



just sayin'
thar
Posted: Friday, September 28, 2018 7:56:26 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 17,841
Neurons: 72,341
Which joke would also not go down so well in certain places...
Whistle

The Royle Family
NKM
Posted: Friday, September 28, 2018 6:04:48 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/14/2015
Posts: 4,905
Neurons: 268,113
Location: Corinth, New York, United States
Just possibly "Old Guard"?

FounDit
Posted: Friday, September 28, 2018 9:51:57 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,524
Neurons: 50,593
Since the explanation seems to have hit a dead end, I have a question.
thar wrote:

"Chosen to be nominal rulers because they are better than the alternative of a Protector (President/|Generalissimo/Chief Priest)."

I'm struck by that word "better". Why are they better, and in what way? It's a serious question. I can't for the life of me understand the fascination people on both sides of the Atlantic have with the Royal Family. From my perspective (admittedly an extremely limited one on this topic), they appear to do nothing but soak up resources that could be better used for the country.

Any elucidation would be appreciated, and I hope this isn't found to be offensive. It isn't meant to be. I'm just trying to understand.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
thar
Posted: Saturday, September 29, 2018 1:11:11 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 17,841
Neurons: 72,341
This was writing from a historical perspective.

England had kings - some of them great, some of them awful. And some queens, including some very good ones! Saxons like Æthelstan, Alfred, Edward the Confessor; Danes, Normans, Plantagenets, Tudors, Stuarts.... then comes the Revolution. Kings are a bad thing, you need People Power. Parliament goes to war with the Royalist forces and wins - cut off his head and have a Commonwealth instead, with a commoner as our great leader - the Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell. Problem solved, right?

No, thanks, that didn't work. No leader should have that status. So when Cromwell dies, so does the Commonwealth, and the king is welcomed back as being the far more reasonable option, in a system that allows people to get on with their lives in peace without the government telling them what to do. But the kings they invited back were a little too influenced by time spent in exile in France, a little too Catholic, and a little too 'I am king so I am right' . So the people don't want to go through all that again, so instead of cutting off his head they just invite in the right sort of king, and the old king runs away.

So his daughter and her husband, a Prince from a constitutional monarchy who knows that the king is not the boss, become monarchs under a new deal - they don't get to tell anyone what to do - Parliament tells them what to do. No single person is leader. The Prime Minister is chosen by the party with the majority in Parliament (or agreed by coalition|) and the monarch is the figurehead that does the meet and greet with the dignitaries, and opens the hospitals and gets the twenty-one gun salute. No single person has any opportunity for any cult of personality, or any power that is not democratically awarded (within the limits of the democratic system).


In many ways it is the opposite of the American system, where with new elections everything changes, - not just elected politicians and the head of state but judges and sheriffs and, am I right, certain civil service posts? In Britain everything is geared towards continuity and stability. The politicians are elected, but everything else just goes on steadily in the background - the judiciary, the civil service that run things, and the royal family.

Of course there are people who are against the monarchy, for various reasons - cost, elitism, Republican idealism. But it has worked, for a long time. An apolitical head of state is a less divisive leader than a political one, in many people's opinion. The British Royal family changed their name from the German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to 'Windsor' (the town near London, where the castle is) during the First World War, to show their allegiance to their people. During WW2 the Queen at the time refused leave for a place of safety, and kept working, going out to meet the victims of bombing despite the blitz. When Buckingham Palace in London was bombed, she said she was glad because now she was sharing in the suffering of other Londoners. The royals are seen my most people as very hard-working people who do a difficult job. Constitutional monarchy has worked effectively in Britain. Many states have elected ceremonial presidents, alongside a working political Prime Minister, and that is another option, but the American system of having a single political head of state is very rare in western democracies. Britain tried that, and it went so well that the English ran away to America to get away from it! That lesson still resonates - 'nobody tells us what to do'. No Protector, no President, nobody. No single leader elected on a personal platform. Parliament has the power.

People look around, and especially at the US, and see what it is like to have a President - and that puts most people, however republican their instincts, off having a Presidential system. So that is the sentiment - the constitutional monarchy is the safe, secure option, and preferable - 'better than' - the divisive personal and political status of a President.

Foreigners are in general more interested in the Royal Family than Brits are. There are a few fanatics who are obsessed with royals, and a few hard-line republicans who want to get rid of them, but to most people they are hard-working, good people, who do a difficult job very well, and the system has proven to be stable and effective. And although they cost money, the alternative frankly probably wouldn't be much cheaper (and I don't know the economic arguments, but the tourist value is probably more than the savings you would make supporting a presidency).

But I think it is the 'cult of personality' thing that Britons find deeply distasteful. It offends the British sense of modesty and privacy. Everyone knows the royals have a tough job, and for the last 150 years, the people who have had to deal with that have stepped up and performed their duty diligently (apart from one major hiccup, but then little brother stepped up and took on the job under the toughest conditions). Britain went from being a major world Empire to a single country, took part in two major wars and several minor ones, went through revolutions in workers' rights, women's rights, socialist reforms, social upheaval... and the royals were always there, stable and unchanging.

I don't understand the whole 'Diana Mania' but neither do any of my friends, so I can't help you there. There is a bit of 'celebrity-spotting' to meeting a royal, but I am sure that is the same for presidential family, and that is just the way people are with 'famous' people. But certainly among the people I know, that seems to be the sentiment - respect for hard work; a bit of laughter at the people who take the whole 'royal' thing too seriously; and an understanding that the role of a hard-working monarch and enough members of the royal family that do their job seriously is an important apolitical leadership role - all that makes them supportive of the status quo and they see no need for any change 'for the worse'.

Wow, sorry, that got a bit long. And of course I can only speak from a personal perspective from what I know - and we tend to choose our social circle to match our own ideas, so this may not be as widespread a sentiment as I give it credit for, but it is what I see.

(no offence taken, and no offence meant by anything here about American presidency. I think everyone would admit it does have the ability to generate a bad impression at times to the international community, and I am just trying to portray people's opinions and reasoning)



I think there is a fundamental difference in people's attitudes because of what they are reacting against. America was built, and propagates, the revolutionary ideals of change and deep democracy (although like any revolutionary ideal, it is easier in theory than in practice). In reacting against colonial monarchy, it makes it very hard for you to understand its attraction. But Britain is reacting against change and extremism - the goal is stability and objective duty, and letting people alone. Like a good referee in sports, the best government is one that runs things so well they don't get noticed! So Britons find it difficult to understand the attraction of a president elected on a personal platform, with all the potential aggro and political status that comes with that. We are all the inheritors of our history!
Sarrriesfan
Posted: Saturday, September 29, 2018 1:34:13 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/30/2016
Posts: 1,045
Neurons: 6,715
Location: Luton, England, United Kingdom
Thar sometimes we need a like button,

I lack the imagination for a witty signature.
thar
Posted: Saturday, September 29, 2018 3:32:17 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 17,841
Neurons: 72,341
Thanks, Sarries.

And for anyone not familiar with English royal history, who might think that list at the beginning shows discontinuity, there has always been a level of continuity, though it sometimes strayed through some distant cousins - the current queen is a direct descendant of both William the Conqueror (great x22, or 21, somewhere around there, grand-daughter) and of Alfred the Great, King of Wessex (871-899 AD), the first to unite various English kingdoms and call himself the King of the Anglo-Saxons. Elizabeth II is his great x35 grand-daughter. And from Alfred back to Cerdic, first King of Wessex (519-534 AD), though I doubt most people know that, and certainly don't care. There is an element of defiance in that that is not admitted but I personally think is inherent in some of the English support for a constitutional monarchy - whatever s*** you throw at us, [edit - eg however many times you try to invade us] we are still bloody well here! Whistle
Romany
Posted: Saturday, September 29, 2018 4:34:34 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,375
Neurons: 44,771
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

Thar -
great - and very balanced - response up there. I, too, have often felt the need of a "like" button.

For me, it's also comforting to know that this is NOT a job anyone can apply for. Royals are taught from birth how to assume their roles and have the gravitas of the duty drummed into them. And one is certain, with no doubt in one's heart at all, that they will stand up for,die for if called upon, and never betray their united Kingdom.(Well they have a hard act to follow ever since Elizabeth's speech at Tilbury!) There's something both comforting and stabilising in that rock-solid knowledge that they epitomise Country before self.
thar
Posted: Saturday, September 29, 2018 7:39:37 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 17,841
Neurons: 72,341
Thanks, Rom.

You bring up a very interesting point, about that trust in the performance of their duty. My instinct was to say, although I didn't go into it, that England had been very lucky in the dedication of its recent monarchs. It could so easily have been so different, and the monarchy abolished by overwhelming demand.

So why? Sticking to what I would call the modern era, which influences current thinking - say Victoria onward - I hate to make simplistic conclusions but is it because of two of the longest-serving monarchs, covering such a long expanse of time, being women? More able to accept the idea of service, rather than personal gratification?
And young ones, at that, forced into roles that in different ways required immense skill - representing in turn the acquisition and loss of empire. And the Queen Mother holding the monarchy together for a troubled husband. After all, both Victoria and Elizabeth II were very young to be taking on any responsibility, let alone a monarchy. So easy to say 'sod it, I didn't sign up for this!'


Or the fact of them being long-serving, giving the appearance of continuity and stability, rather than the constant turnover you get when monarchs take up the job later in life?


It could have been so easy to walk away. To say the times have changed. How many monarchies did those wars end? I know it is different being invaded, but how many royals just ran and never made it back, from Eastern Europe and the Balkans? And those that just ran out of support - Italy, Greece, Spain - although they made a comeback.

Interesting to know why those broke but the northwestern Europeans - arguably the most egalitarian, apart from Britain, had no such problems - Norway, Nederlands, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark. Almost counter-intuitive. But maybe royals who knew their place were not enough of a threat to warrant being overthrown? Monarchy as an egalitarian solution to the problem of who a country wants as its representation! I never thought of it that way! Whistle





Yes, the royals had service drummed into them - but not always in the nicest way. I don't know any details, just vague ideas I have heard in passing, but the childhoods of some of those princes were apparently pretty horrendous, even by the parenting norms of the times. Yet they still managed to take on the job. And even Edward VIII who got such a bad press - all he did was fall in love, and follow through. Not exactly a 'bad thing' (I am ignoring some of his less impressive politics, as being part of the times).

So why did the British monarchy survive as nearly all their cousins fell? OK, History, yes - the Civil War had already taught them the lesson that the Kaiser and Archduke and Tsar learnt the hard way. They were trying to be reformers, but they ran out of time. But monarchy in Europe in general was on its way out. Why not Britain. It would be natural, with the growth of ideas about labour, and equality - in with the new - housing, welfare state, NHS, Education Act, out with the old - [the House of Lords - on the cusp] and the monarchy. Why? Inertia? Inherent conservatism? Or a big Sod You to Hitler, Napoleon, Spain, France, Rome...

And what about when that changes - there is going to be a fairly rapid turnover soon, with Charles not being young. And lots of males to come - in a way easier to attack than a female, and maybe, however well-trained and dutiful they are, not as willing to put up with the bullshit that comes with the job. Maybe it will become a more Anglo-Saxon system of who wants the job, rather than who gets it by being next in line. Interesting to see where that ends up, or if it eventually loses the reasons that keep it going. Think
thar
Posted: Saturday, September 29, 2018 11:35:02 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 17,841
Neurons: 72,341
Jyrkkä Jätkä wrote:
How about Omnes Gentes, Latin for All The Peoples?


Away with you, you Papist. I smell incense. How dare you say that in Latin!

Did Martin Luther die in vain? Whistle


117 O praise the Lord, all ye nations: praise him, all ye people.
For his merciful kindness is great toward us: and the truth of the Lord endureth for ever. Praise ye the Lord.


(That is an Icelandic pun, so I don't expect anyone to get it. And it is a very bad one, anyway.
In Icelandic that passage is

117 Lofið Drottin, allar þjóðir, vegsamið hann, allir lýðir,
því að miskunn hans er voldug yfir oss, og trúfesti Drottins varir að eilífu. Halelúja.




Icelandic - lýður (“people”)
Old English - lēode
Scots - lede
German - Leute
Luther - liut (“people”) +‎ heri (“army”)


I guess the pun loses something in translation. Whistle )



Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Sunday, September 30, 2018 9:08:36 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 30,133
Neurons: 176,593
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Great, thar.

Yes - the kings who tried to really be boss really didn't make it too well - sometimes it took a couple of generations, but slowly a better system grew back.

The Saxon kings were very much like the American president in a way.
There was a council of elders (Senate, sort of) and an elected king. If an eldest prince was a bad ruler and tried to inherit the kingdom, he would tend to have an accident or something. And, yes, they had very effective queens too.

William, as conqueror, was a bit tough, though he did stabilise things. By the time his second son took over things were going well - Henry provided sane laws (still tough by today's standards, but relatively sane).

The real 'nuts' (my apologies to those who may disagree) were the Stewarts.

Quote:
"The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth; for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself are called gods. . .
"Kings are justly called gods, for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power upon earth: for if you will consider the attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a king. God hath power to create or destroy, make or unmake at his pleasure, to give life or send death, to judge all and to be judged nor accountable to none; to raise low things and to make high things low at his pleasure, and to God are both souls and body due. And the like power have kings: they make and unmake their subjects, they have power of raising and casting down, of life and of death, judges over all their subjects and in all causes and yet accountable to none but God only."
James VI of Scotland, James I of England - Works (1609)

Within about forty years, after James's son became king and after odd rebellions in Scotland and some parts of England, the Civil War broke out in earnest - though even that was really between Parliament and the king - most British people were not involved at all, though quite a few (relatively) got out of the way and emigrated to the colonies.

Then we ended up with no king - but a 'Protector' - and things rapidly went downhill. The people really felt the difference, with a leader who was trained as a general, rather than as a statesman.
So that didn't last long, and a new king was asked to take over (James's grandson). Neither he nor his son ruled well, being more interested in their own pleasures than in the good of the country so . . .
They went - and a better 'breed' was brought in by Parliament.

Still not really democratic, but over the years it settled out with a few 'glitches'.
By the early 1700s, the Prime Minister was head of government though the monarch had a lot more power than the modern ones.

The Scots are generally (as far as I see) rather similar to the English in this respect.

A few are Jacobites - thinking Scotland should be ruled by the descendants of Charles Stewart from before the reign shifted over to the House of Orange.
Most are happy with the way things are (Scottish independence would really make little difference on this. We would have a King/Queen of England and the same person would be the King/Queen of Scotland, not the King/Queen of the United Kingdom - but the Parliaments would be entirely separate.)
Then, a few are totally anti-royal, not seeing the benefits and how (I believe) a royal family is cheaper than any alternative.




Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
thar
Posted: Sunday, September 30, 2018 10:14:01 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 17,841
Neurons: 72,341
Well, if given the choice, who's to say they wouldn't chose to stay monarchs of just Scotland and dump the English throne?
Which is more comfortable? A better work-life balance? Balmoral, Glamis and Edinburgh? Better than Windsor and Buck House. If it was up to the Queen I get the feeling she would prefer Scotland, although Charles is more the other end of the country. Maybe once Cornwall's independence movement gathers pace, he can take that as an independent Duchy. Liechtenstein-by-the-Sea. He had bad schooldays in Scotland, but did pop over to his gran's on weekends and apparently loved it there, so maybe he would choose Scotland too!

The Queen would miss Sandringham, but they could keep that as a holiday home abroad. Whistle
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, September 30, 2018 2:14:05 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,257
Neurons: 47,467
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Thar, Romany, and Drago - many like buttons would be pushed. The history is very enlightening.

Every so often you hear of a few Canadians who want to get rid of the Queen in Canada too but I have never heard a better argument for the keeping of the Constitutional Monarchy in rebuttal. (May I steal it? ) Thar wrote: "...An apolitical head of state is a less divisive leader than a political one...But Britain is reacting against change and extremism - the goal is stability and objective duty, and letting people alone. Like a good referee in sports, the best government is one that runs things so well they don't get noticed!" (I once voted to return a govt for that very reason. An era long gone, I'm afraid.)

I checked to see how many world absolute monarchies and constitutional monarchies there are and was surprised at the number.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_monarchies

The fact that the major countries of the islands have come to be able to mostly coexist in spite of major differences is fairly impressive. Drago, you say Scottish independence would not change much. Are they considering it or always considering it? It did seem that May got the Irish border solved re Brexit but maybe not? It seems the British govt is in a difficult position right now.

Elitism is the slur directed at merit by mediocrity. -Sydney J. Harris, journalist (14 Sep 1917-1986)
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, September 30, 2018 2:20:17 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,257
Neurons: 47,467
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Queen Elizabeth gets a raise this year in Britain, but "Alan Reid, Keeper of the Privy Purse, said the newly released accounts show that the royal family costs each taxpayer about 65 pence per year, representing the cost of a first-class stamp...The royals spend the money from the grant on official expenditure such as staff costs, travel and property maintenance."

As Thar mentioned, tourism more than makes up for their cost.

"Canada’s constitutional monarchy costs each Canadian $1.53 a year, less than a small coffee at Tim Hortons. That includes the Governor General, the 10 provincial lieutenant-governors, their official residences, staff, administration, travel, security and even office supplies. That’s way under the Senate ($2.38 per capita) and the House of Commons ($11.76). Heck, it’s just a bit more than the cost of the Library of Parliament ($1.16 per (sic) capital)."

I didn't look too hard but didn't see an annual figure per person for the US presidency to include travel, Air Force One, security, family security, staff, administration, residences, and office supplies. Add whatever it costs for whatever they give past presidents.

Elitism is the slur directed at merit by mediocrity. -Sydney J. Harris, journalist (14 Sep 1917-1986)
thar
Posted: Sunday, September 30, 2018 5:41:52 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 17,841
Neurons: 72,341
The problem is the US system is not comparable because of the lack of ceremonial vs political leader. Most places can separate the cost of the monarch, Governor, Lord Lieutenant, President, from the cost of the Prime Minister.
Also the simple logistics of it - the political leader is far too busy doing political stuff to be meeting and greeting. While the PM can talk the hard talk, the monarch can go around soothing feathers and admiring the performances (although Philip has rather a reputation on the foreign visit front).


>>>>>

I think it is a misconception from places unaccustomed to monarchy that the royals live off the people. In fact, the sentiment is closer to being owned by the people. Rather like sewer unblockers - 'someone has to do it, but I am glad it isn't me'. But Rom alluded to it, and I have felt it in other monarchies - a sense of possession.

An example. Denmark has a monarch, currently Queen Margrethe II. During WW2 it was King Christian X. (as in the tenth, not Malcolm X Whistle )

He was an old-school authoritarian monarch, in the worst tradition of Danish monarchy. He had got into political trouble in 1920 - he managed to survive the reform that reduced his powers, but it would seem the monarchy was on its way out. And yet he ended up a symbol of resistance and national pride. That is what a monarchy can do, if you are lucky, that a term-elected leader can't.

Quote:

His character as a ruler has been described as authoritarian and he strongly stressed the importance of royal dignity and power. His reluctance to embrace democracy resulted in the Easter Crisis of 1920, in which he dismissed the democratically elected cabinet with which he disagreed, and instated one of his own choosing. This was nominally his right in accordance with the constitution, but facing the risk of the monarchy being overthrown he was forced to accept democratic control of the state and the role as a nominal constitutional monarch.

During the German Occupation of Denmark, Christian become a popular symbol of resistance to German occupation, particularly because of the symbolic value of the fact that he rode every day through the streets of Copenhagen unaccompanied by guards. He also became the subject of a persistent urban legend according to which, during Nazi occupation, he donned the Star of David in solidarity with the Danish Jews. Danish Jews were not forced to wear the Star of David. However, the legend likely stems from a 1942 British report that claimed he threatened to don the star if this was forced upon Danish Jews.


Anyway - Nazi Germany invaded Denmark. Being flat and open, it was pretty much indefensible and fell very quickly. But unlike some of the other countries Germany invaded, where they wanted resources such as coal and iron and oil, what they needed from Denmark was food. So the Danes made a deal that they would supply the German war machine with its food, if in return Denmark and particularly its Jews were left alone. That worked for a time - the government and the King stayed on.

With time, the resistance became more effective, and the Germans retaliated by taking more direct control, and the order came to round up all the Jews. That is background. The apocryphal story goes that when the Germans demanded that Danish Jews be forced to wear a yellow Star of David, King Kristján threatened to wear one as well. That is actually not true as that was never proposed in Denmark. But the fact that the story was assigned to the king was the important bit. It was the status as a monarch that was important. That sort of imagery is a projection of what ordinary people want to see, and gives them the courage to do very brave things in horrific circumstances:

Quote:
On October 1, 1943, Nazi leader Adolf Hitler ordered Danish Jews to be arrested and deported. Despite great personal risk,[citation needed] the Danish resistance movement, with the assistance of many ordinary Danish citizens, managed to evacuate 7,220 of Denmark's 7,800 Jews, plus 686 non-Jewish spouses, by sea to nearby neutral Sweden.[1]

The rescue allowed the vast majority of Denmark's Jewish population to avoid capture by the Nazis and is considered to be one of the largest actions of collective resistance to aggression in the countries occupied by Nazi Germany. As a result of the rescue, and the following Danish intercession on behalf of the 464 Danish Jews who were captured and deported to the Theresienstadt transit camp in Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, over 99% of Denmark's Jewish population survived the Holocaust.[1]


Quote:
On September 28, 1943, Duckwitz leaked word of the plans for the operation against Denmark's Jews to Hans Hedtoft, chairman of the Danish Social Democratic Party. Hedtoft contacted the Danish Resistance Movement and the head of the Jewish community, C.B. Henriques, who in turn alerted the acting chief rabbi, Dr. Marcus Melchior. At the early morning services, on September 29, the day prior to the Rosh Hashanah services, Jews were warned by Rabbi Melchior of the planned German action and urged to go into hiding immediately and to spread the word to all their Jewish friends and relatives.

The early phases of the rescue were improvised. When Danish civil servants at several levels in different ministries learned of the German plan to round up all Danish Jews, they independently pursued various measures to find the Jews and hide them. Some simply contacted friends and asked them to go through telephone books and warn those with Jewish-sounding names to go into hiding. Most Jews hid for several days or weeks, uncertain of their fate.

The Jews were smuggled and transported out of Denmark over the Øresund strait from Zealand to Sweden – a passage of varying time depending on the specific route and the weather, but averaging under an hour on the choppy winter sea. Some were transported in large fishing boats of up to 20 tons, but others were carried to freedom in rowboats or kayaks. The ketch Albatros was one of the ships used to smuggle Jews to Sweden. Some refugees were smuggled inside freight rail cars on the regular ferries between Denmark and Sweden, this route being suited for the very young or old who were too weak to endure a rough sea passage. Danish Resistance Movement operatives had broken into empty freight cars sealed by the Germans after inspection, helped refugees onto the cars, and then resealed the cars with forged or stolen German seals to forestall further inspection.


During the first days of the rescue action, Jews moved into the many fishing harbors on the Danish coast to await passage, but officers of the Gestapo became suspicious of activity around harbors (and on the night of October 6, about 80 Jews were caught hiding in the loft of the church at Gilleleje, their hiding place having been betrayed by a Danish girl who was in love with a German soldier).[13] Subsequent rescues had to take place from isolated points along the coast. While waiting their turn, the Jews took refuge in the woods and in cottages away from the coast, out of sight of the Gestapo.


That is the sort of time when you need a figurehead that belongs to you - something that is the property of the nation. And a monarch, if they have the right attributes to start with, is eminently suited to that role. If he doesn't exist, you have to invent him!

>>>>>>
But in the British context, Cromwell is far more interesting. Why didn't the revolution take? Where did a passionate parliamentarian, fighting for the rights of the people, go so wrong that those same people invited back the king, and when that didn't work tried it again - so keen to get a stable royal back on the throne and wipe away that massive mistake of republicanism. Calling it the interregnum like it was some blip in the continuum. Very odd. The man should be a national hero, but as much as people may respect his intentions, nobody seems to has any good feelings towards him. (And I am not talking about Ireland here, or Scotland - not the genocidal bits).

Quote:
Cromwell has also viscerally divided thinkers in the past. He is variously a fanatical regicide and the father of English democracy and tolerance. David Hume dubbed him the "most frantic enthusiast... most dangerous of hypocrites... who was enabled after multiplied deceits to cover, under a tempest of passion, all his crooked schemes and profound artifices". He has even been called the father of European fascism.

But admirers like Thomas Carlyle painted him as a hero in the battle between good and evil – a man who restored morality in an age dominated by expediency and compromise, who pressed a new political equality and a religious toleration which even extended to readmitting the Jews to England 350 years after they had all been expelled.



Hope123
Posted: Sunday, September 30, 2018 8:08:04 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,257
Neurons: 47,467
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Interesting Thar. Keep going?

I always kind of liked Prince Philip. Even if he does have foot and mouth disease, at least he is honest.

One thing always bothered me - rumours that he slept around. Does anybody know if the rumours are true? I don't see how he could with a beautiful, smart, loyal, courageous wife who is Queen of many countries to boot. And who adores him. As Paul Newman is supposed to have famously said, "Why go out for hamburg when you have steak at home".

Elitism is the slur directed at merit by mediocrity. -Sydney J. Harris, journalist (14 Sep 1917-1986)
thar
Posted: Monday, October 1, 2018 2:11:56 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 17,841
Neurons: 72,341
I've never heard that (I'm not actually much into the royals, so I wouldn't know) but I guess as well as any personal attributes he is a product of his time and status, and maybe even of growing up displaced in exile. I do seem to remember seeing a photo once of him as a young man in the Royal Navy, and he did cut quite a dash. Whistle
Romany
Posted: Monday, October 1, 2018 3:42:38 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,375
Neurons: 44,771
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

Hope - yes, Philip was quite the ladies man and also only escaped getting caught up in the Profumo scandal by a whisker. The marriage was on the rocks pretty much at one stage - which is why, after having had Charles and Anne, they suddenly had another two kids some years later.

Did you never watch the movie that came out a couple of years ago and was all about Elizabeth & Philip?
thar
Posted: Monday, October 1, 2018 6:53:42 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 17,841
Neurons: 72,341
Is the UK the only country that ever had a revolution that put a king on the throne? Whistle

Quote:
The Glorious Revolution, also called the Revolution of 1688, was the overthrow of King James II of England (James VII of Scotland) by a union of English Parliamentarians with the Dutch stadtholder William III, Prince of Orange, who was James's nephew and son-in-law.


Quote:
The major importance of the Glorious Revolution was to destroy any chance that England would have an absolute monarchy like that of France. Instead, the Glorious Revolution ensured that England would have a constitutional monarchy in which Parliament had the majority of the power.


England in its own way has been rebelling against certain things just as much as any republic does - it is just rebelling against both absolute monarchy and against the bad experience of being a republic.
Watching what happened in France didn't help the republican cause much, either. Terrible disruption to people's travel plans and lots of bad hair days.
Whistle


Also, what a consummate piece of marketing and spin. William was a very ambitious man, a prince without a principality who eventually managed to get the position of stadtholder within a republic. But he wanted to be king of a major country, and fight to defend Protestantism, so he basically invaded a foreign country and ousted the king. Yet that goes down in the history of that country as The Glorious Revolution. Kudos to the public relations managers of the constitutional monarchy!
Romany
Posted: Monday, October 1, 2018 7:42:45 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,375
Neurons: 44,771
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Thar - interesting take on William; rather a novel approach to discuss The Glorious R with no reference to Mary too? She was his co-Regnant after all, because it was she, as James' daughter, who had the legitimate claim.

But, regardless of that: - I think that the people, by then, wouldn't have cared too much which branch of the intricately-related Family - just as long as he wasn't a grossly indecent, uncouth and unhygenic lout who intimately fondled his favourites in public, And who, being gay, would never provide another heir.

The way I see it is more:- It was We who approached Them, after all. Well, really Her. But she came as a package deal so we got him too.

Edited to add: - Besides which, he couldn't rule alone until she herself died - so it would have had to have been a bit of a gamble - and a bloody long wait - for him to rule alone. He might have predeceased her.
thar
Posted: Monday, October 1, 2018 7:57:17 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 17,841
Neurons: 72,341
Correct - that should have read 'to put a monarch on the throne'.
My mistake!
I don't think he was too fussed how it happened. So long as he was king, he didn't mind being a co-ruler. ANd of course he needed her, like you said, for the legitimacy of the claim. He didn't really have much of a claim in his own right, but having the king's daughter reign as queen in her own right solved that problem very nicely thankyou. Whistle

Yes, it was negotiated and he was invited, but he was an ambitious man who came with an army and chanced his arm that the people would support him and not try to repel his invasion. Yes? (I am not that well-versed on that part of history)
Maybe some of the people who negotiated the Glorious Revolution should have been around now to solve Brexit, instead of all the posturing and threats. Whistle
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Monday, October 1, 2018 8:50:25 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 30,133
Neurons: 176,593
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Hope123 wrote:
The fact that the major countries of the islands have come to be able to mostly coexist in spite of major differences is fairly impressive. Drago, you say Scottish independence would not change much. Are they considering it or always considering it? It did seem that May got the Irish border solved re Brexit but maybe not? It seems the British govt is in a difficult position right now.

Somehow it came about that there was no (or relatively little) fighting between the countries once they joined.
I think that comes down to (very much) just a couple of really good negotiators each generation.
There have always been "kill 'em all" rebels and terrorists - even from Cromwell's day, there were English who wanted to just kill all Irishmen and move in - and there were Irish who wanted to kill all English invaders. Same with Scotland, Wales, Cornwall - maybe even the Isle of Man (Eire, Alba, Cymru, Kernow and Ellan Vannin) - see, even their real names have been taken away!

But there was always someone at hand who was a moderating influence.

Even James VI - when he wasn't playing at being God - did a fairly good job of the takeover - the normal English person didn't even realise that their centuries-old enemy (the Scot) was being invited to move in and take over! So he became "James I of England and James VI of Scotland".
He was never "King James of the UK". Parliaments were separate - they were still independent countries. No-one said out loud that Scotland had taken over.

That is what I meant when I said that independence would not make much difference
- from the viewpoint of royalty, the name would change from "Queen Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other realms and territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith" to "Queen Elizabeth I of Scotland" and "Queen Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland and of her other realms and territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith."
- from the viewpoint of government, the change would be enormous.
Consider the fact that in Scotland, there are NO conservative MPs. A few thousand people from the whole population of the country voted Conservative - but who's the Prime Minister? - a conservative.
Also consider that there are 59 Scottish MPs and 590 English ones. Any ruling with 99.99% support from the people of Scotland would simply be wiped out among the English vote. This is not democracy, by any definition.

Independence is going to happen - it's inevitable. Hopefully by the time it happens someone at the top will realise that leaving the UK, only to become even more dependent under a "United States of Europe" government, is not an advance. Scots would have LESS say in their own future then (my opinion).

I really have no idea what's happening with the English Government and the EU - it's a total mess.
I'm just waiting to see the split happen - then we can see what trade agreements turn up.
Germany's not going to stop exporting to England. Countries which need medicines made in the UK are not going to say "Ah, no, we'd rather all die than buy medicine from England."
There was (before the EU political union) a trade group called the EEC (European Economic Community) and another a bit earlier called EFTA (European Free Trade Association) - just free trade with no government interference. Worked fine!



Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Romany
Posted: Monday, October 1, 2018 9:02:24 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,375
Neurons: 44,771
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Thar,

I was in my 2nd year reading Lit.hist before I came across mention of The Glorious Revolution in some other context. I asked my tutor how I'd possibly got that far without hearing about a big revolution in 1688 and he said neither had he!

We both knew and had studied (well he rather more than I!) the 17thC - and so the monarchical changes - but it wasn't referred to as any sort of "revolution" either in the books we read, nor in the texts of the times. I'm not sure what that says: - different outlooks between History people and Literature people?

(Now I vaguely remember some reason behind William bringing his Household Cavalry all dolled up in full battle rig, and how it was interpreted in some quarters - but don't have time to look it out at the moment. Perhaps you've come across it?)

So, really, I meant that your post was "interesting". Because I had never seen either William - or the co-Regency - in the light in which you presented it.

So it may have been seen as a Revolution to some of the politicians of the day, but none of the sources I ever came across reflect this. It doesn't seem to have caused too many ripples amongst the people themselves. (They did, however, continue to allude to James. Not a popular chap at all.)
thar
Posted: Monday, October 1, 2018 9:13:36 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 17,841
Neurons: 72,341
OK, yes, I see what you mean. I meant the same thing, really. To other countries, The Revolution is probably the biggest political upheaval they ever had, the foundation of their government, and even if it failed, or only lasted for a certain number of years, it resonates to this day. US, Russia, Iran, France, Haiti, Mexico, I guess, although I don't know.

But in Britain, like you say, nobody knows about it until it comes up randomly. An incident in history, less interesting than many others, and certainly less famous. That is what is so interesting. Such an English way to do it - so politely, with as little fuss as possible, then forget all about it and get on with things. I guess that was what I was trying to express with the idea of having a 'revolution' to install a monarch. It is just the wrong way round from what a 'revolution' is. The real revolution was Cromwell, of course, but that gets written off as a civil war, an interregnum, an experiment in extremism, a blip. Everything is geared to the idea of [firmly Protestant] constitutional monarchy, and even the word 'revolution' somehow gets subverted into that version of history.

That is what is so funny about it.


edit
I just did a search for 'William of Orange troops when he landed' and got loads on Ireland and the Battle of the Boyne, and nothing on England!

From a portrait in the Maritime Museum

Quote:
The portrait dominates an image showing William's landing in Torbay on 5 November 1688 with 14,000 troops for the invasion of England. In the background is the Anglo-Dutch fleet, with ships on the far left at anchor flying the Dutch flag. Boats with men are coming ashore near Brixham and horses are swimming ashore onto the shelving beach, having been put over the sides of the ships to land this way.


Quote:
James had then already converted to Roman Catholicism, which produced a series of political crises after he succeeded to the throne as James II on the death of his elder brother, Charles II, in 1685. These eventually led to a cabal of powerful English Protestant figures inviting William to usurp the British throne, based on the right of succession of his wife, Mary. Although initially unwilling to do so, the threat to the Protestant Netherlands from Louis XIV of France provided a strong incentive for William to accept. He thereby secured Britain as a close ally, rather than as a divided neighbour at best through James's French sympathies.

In 1688 he agreed and on 5 November landed unopposed at Brixham, Torbay. He was welcomed in south-west England - which had suffered the retribution of James's 'Bloody Assize' following the defeat of the Duke of Monmouth's rebellion at Sedgemoor, Somerset, in 1685 - and was only briefly resisted by a few of James's Irish Catholic troops at Reading, west of London. These were routed when the citizens of Reading also turned on them and William arrived at St James's, London, on 18 December 1688. On James II's flight (which he abetted) William refused to accept the throne by right of conquest.

On his assumption of executive power he and Princess Mary were made jointly king and queen by declaration of right, drawn up by committee of the Convention Parliament, and were crowned on 11 April 1689. It is the only example in modern British history of a joint monarchy, in which William took precedence when in England and Mary (d. 1694) ruled in her own superior right by birth during his frequent absence in the Netherlands. Although William was never personally popular, his reign became symbolic of the Protestant succession, the revolutionary Act of Settlement of 1701 and resistance to French domination in Europe.


You Go, Reading. Bastions of the Revolution. Be proud. Whistle

Even in the history of Reading, the 'Revolution' barely merits a mention.

Quote:
By 1525, Reading was the largest town in Berkshire, and tax returns show that Reading was the 10th largest town in England when measured by taxable wealth. By 1611, it had a population of over 5000 and had grown rich on its trade in cloth, as instanced by the fortune made by local merchant John Kendrick.[12] [15]

Reading played an important role during the English Civil War. Despite its fortifications, it had a Royalist garrison imposed on it in 1642. The subsequent Siege of Reading by Parliamentary forces succeeded in April 1643.[16] The town's cloth trade was especially badly damaged, and the town's economy did not fully recover until the 20th century.[10][17]

Reading played a significant role during the Revolution of 1688: the second Battle of Reading was the only substantial military action of the campaign.[10][18]
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Monday, October 1, 2018 9:37:42 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 30,133
Neurons: 176,593
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
I think that it was a revolution of Parliament (and some nobles) against the king, then the same bunch of people against Cromwell, then against another king - what did that matter really to a costermonger down in Covent Garden? or a miner up in Newcastle?

I think, as thar mentioned, as long as the governments 'did their own thing' and left the people to live as they always had, everyone was happy.
Even the Civil War as I said before - it only really involved a very small part of the population.
It was only when Cromwell started interfering in people's lives and what they could do on Sunday and this sort of thing that 'The People' started to take notice - and even then only to the point of doing a bit of demonstrating and complaining.
When Parliament's solution was Charles & James, who still tried to act as God for every person, the rumblings started again till Parliament took notice - then people waited for the 'toffs' to settle down to a new level (William & Mary).

On a national level, it was not a revolution with fighting in the streets and lynchings and all the usual accoutrements of a revolution.


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.