zoebartlett
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 12,461
Americans, Proudly Independent: Why Care About The Royals?
- Thread starter Smith1942
- Start date
SB621
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,864
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2008
- Messages
- 11,676
Bunny007
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2010
- Messages
- 281
Re: Americans, Proudly Independent: Why Care About The Royal
The royal family is pure entertainment for me and a passing interest for must people i know. It seems like you may be looking for a deeper explanation but I have none to offer. I don't think most Americans dwell on our history/relationship with England or harbor any resentment whatsoever. In fact, I doubt the average American thinks about England at all.
If you're getting hostile or aggressive responses to these types of questions in real life, you may want to re-examine your approach. If it is at all similar to your recent rant about the "English language" then I'm not surprised by the negative responses.
The royal family is pure entertainment for me and a passing interest for must people i know. It seems like you may be looking for a deeper explanation but I have none to offer. I don't think most Americans dwell on our history/relationship with England or harbor any resentment whatsoever. In fact, I doubt the average American thinks about England at all.
If you're getting hostile or aggressive responses to these types of questions in real life, you may want to re-examine your approach. If it is at all similar to your recent rant about the "English language" then I'm not surprised by the negative responses.
Re: Americans, Proudly Independent: Why Care About The Royal
I don't really ask those questions, as such. I don't really mention the RF, but because I'm British, people quite often bring it up to me, and we discuss it and generally agree that royalty's an anachronism, etc., since I'm not a royalist at all. Like me, most people here don't have a huge amount of time for it, which doesn't seem to fit with the enthusiasm of the media and on PS about it. So I was curious.
And I'm a book editor, spending my workday fiddling with the language. I'm passionate about it, and regularly go on rants about declining standards everywhere. So do my editor colleagues. There's always a lot to rant about with language. And then when I go home, people rant at me for using American terms, so I rant right back.
Seriously, it's like they're listening out for any change in the way I speak, and I get pounced on accordingly. 
They deplore my use of "gotten" but there's nothing wrong with it. It's found in Shakespeare and survives in Britain in the phrase "ill-gotten gains" - that's what I tell 'em, anyway.
I was going to say that bunnies are my favourite animals.
ETA: I wanted to add that I live in a historic part of Boston where there are guided tours with people in 18th-century costume, and the district has the Paul Revere statue, his house, the Old North Church, etc. You say that most Americans don't dwell on the English heritage, but in this area it's a bit more "in your face".
Much of my question was about the amount of media coverage of the royals in a country which is so glad to be free of all that. Because, if you think about it, you celebrated your independence from the monarchy on the Fourth of July and then gave endless media coverage to the birth of a king on the 22nd!
I don't really ask those questions, as such. I don't really mention the RF, but because I'm British, people quite often bring it up to me, and we discuss it and generally agree that royalty's an anachronism, etc., since I'm not a royalist at all. Like me, most people here don't have a huge amount of time for it, which doesn't seem to fit with the enthusiasm of the media and on PS about it. So I was curious.
And I'm a book editor, spending my workday fiddling with the language. I'm passionate about it, and regularly go on rants about declining standards everywhere. So do my editor colleagues. There's always a lot to rant about with language. And then when I go home, people rant at me for using American terms, so I rant right back.
Seriously, it's like they're listening out for any change in the way I speak, and I get pounced on accordingly. They deplore my use of "gotten" but there's nothing wrong with it. It's found in Shakespeare and survives in Britain in the phrase "ill-gotten gains" - that's what I tell 'em, anyway. I was going to say that bunnies are my favourite animals.
ETA: I wanted to add that I live in a historic part of Boston where there are guided tours with people in 18th-century costume, and the district has the Paul Revere statue, his house, the Old North Church, etc. You say that most Americans don't dwell on the English heritage, but in this area it's a bit more "in your face".
Much of my question was about the amount of media coverage of the royals in a country which is so glad to be free of all that. Because, if you think about it, you celebrated your independence from the monarchy on the Fourth of July and then gave endless media coverage to the birth of a king on the 22nd!
JewelFreak
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2009
- Messages
- 7,768
Re: Americans, Proudly Independent: Why Care About The Royal
I am with you a million percent, Smith, about declining language skills -- though "skill" is too complimentary a word for what most people now have when it comes to English. It is important. If you can't express yourself clearly, how can you think clearly? How can you convey any of your ideas? I blow my stack at what I read sometimes & others, want to burst into tears. But I do see some of the same problems in British newspapers, etc. Tenses poorly used; oh god, apostrophes with plurals, etc. (Although we use some punctuation differently here than in Britain, correct in one place but not the other.) I'm afraid it has spread.
Your mention of "gotten" being Shakespearean reminded me of a chuckle, the 1st time I went to England, right after graduating from college (university there). My traveling buddy and I stayed in a rooming house in London for a few weeks; 3 young men also lived there. As we made tea one afternoon they asked me to get the milk. I looked around the kitchen & asked, "Where is a pitcher?" Dead silence; everything stopped. All 3 guys stared blankly at me. "A what?" I thought, "What's the matter with these knuckleheads?" "PITCHER!" I said, making a pouring gesture. Suddenly they all burst into hilarious laughter. "Pitcher! I haven't heard that word since school! It's a JUG." Pitcher, they explained through guffaws, is a Shakespearean word. It really got to their collective funny-bones. Here, a jug is a storage vessel without a lip, often with a stopper of some sort. Or a big heavy ungainly pitcher.
Since then I've become aware of how our languages have developed differently. The same is true of New World Spanish vs. Spain's Spanish. It's interesting.
--- Laurie
P.S. When we visit Holland, our Dutch friends laugh at my husband's American accent when he speaks Dutch, but they say it disappears in a day or two. I don't hear it, but I'm used to how he sounds.
Ha! Good point. Funny, isn't it? Maybe Americans feel free to be interested because there's no chance of being ruled by royalty again. (We have elected our own, it seems.)Smith1942 said:
I am with you a million percent, Smith, about declining language skills -- though "skill" is too complimentary a word for what most people now have when it comes to English. It is important. If you can't express yourself clearly, how can you think clearly? How can you convey any of your ideas? I blow my stack at what I read sometimes & others, want to burst into tears. But I do see some of the same problems in British newspapers, etc. Tenses poorly used; oh god, apostrophes with plurals, etc. (Although we use some punctuation differently here than in Britain, correct in one place but not the other.) I'm afraid it has spread.
Your mention of "gotten" being Shakespearean reminded me of a chuckle, the 1st time I went to England, right after graduating from college (university there). My traveling buddy and I stayed in a rooming house in London for a few weeks; 3 young men also lived there. As we made tea one afternoon they asked me to get the milk. I looked around the kitchen & asked, "Where is a pitcher?" Dead silence; everything stopped. All 3 guys stared blankly at me. "A what?" I thought, "What's the matter with these knuckleheads?" "PITCHER!" I said, making a pouring gesture. Suddenly they all burst into hilarious laughter. "Pitcher! I haven't heard that word since school! It's a JUG." Pitcher, they explained through guffaws, is a Shakespearean word. It really got to their collective funny-bones. Here, a jug is a storage vessel without a lip, often with a stopper of some sort. Or a big heavy ungainly pitcher.
Since then I've become aware of how our languages have developed differently. The same is true of New World Spanish vs. Spain's Spanish. It's interesting.
--- Laurie
P.S. When we visit Holland, our Dutch friends laugh at my husband's American accent when he speaks Dutch, but they say it disappears in a day or two. I don't hear it, but I'm used to how he sounds.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 34,518
Re: Americans, Proudly Independent: Why Care About The Royal
Agree. When they stand in Buckingham Palace or on the balcony, and watch the crowds outside cheering, or on an ordinary day taking pictures and poking their noses through the railings, what must they think? It must surely seem surreal to be so worshipped, and a really odd feeling to be the privileged person inside looking at those who are peering in, ordinary people with ordinary lives. Diana once said, about watching those people outside go about their lives, "they don't know how lucky they are."
Have you seen this? It's not what you suggest above, but you might like it.
ETA: Forgot to post the link!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m17M_rv9Xv8
kenny|1374873865|3491030 said:
Agree. When they stand in Buckingham Palace or on the balcony, and watch the crowds outside cheering, or on an ordinary day taking pictures and poking their noses through the railings, what must they think? It must surely seem surreal to be so worshipped, and a really odd feeling to be the privileged person inside looking at those who are peering in, ordinary people with ordinary lives. Diana once said, about watching those people outside go about their lives, "they don't know how lucky they are."
Have you seen this? It's not what you suggest above, but you might like it.
ETA: Forgot to post the link!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m17M_rv9Xv8
Re: Americans, Proudly Independent: Why Care About The Royal
JewelFreak, you are right about declining standards of English in the UK and some of the papers - it's everywhere. One thing that's become widespread in some parts of the UK now is tacking the phrase "innit?" meaning "isn't it?" onto the end of every sentence even when it makes no sense. So, someone might say, "I'm going to buy some chips, innit?" Or, "I watched the royal wedding, innit?" I might have got those examples slightly wrong, but that's basically how it's used. It makes no sense whatsoever!!!! Makes me want to bang my head against a wall.
And last time I was at home getting my hair cut in England, I asked the hairdresser where she was going on holiday. Turns out she likes the Greek islands. She replied, "Well, we're probably going Melia. Last year we went Zante, so we're trying to go Melia this year." Apparently we don't need the word "to" anymore!!
Civilisation is crumbling all around us!!
Your story about the pitcher is super-interesting, because some words in modern usage in today's America are words that have long dropped out of use in the UK and which I've read mainly in literature, so it's fascinating to hear them used in real life - and some of those words can be traced back a particular geographical area of the UK, long ago. For example, when I came here I didn't know what a scallion was and then found that it's what the UK calls spring onions. I told my mum and she said that her mother, who was born in 1908 in the very northerly part of England just below Scotland, used to call them scallions.
Also, I thought that asking for the check in a restaurant was purely an American usage (UK asks for the "bill") but my mum said that the same grandmother used to ask for the check, too. She never travelled, didn't have a TV, and as far as I'm aware wasn't a cinema-goer. I'm thinking those phrases must originally come from the northern part of England.
AND - this is really fascinating - a particular American construction is found in Jane Austen, but not in modern-day Britain! So a character might describe a cake as "delightful good" instead of "delightfully good" and a modern equivalent that comes to mind is "real good" instead of "really good". But the same construction is seen in 18th and 19th century British novels - it seems that when the English came over to America all those centuries ago, certain usages were preserved over here but dropped out of use in the UK centuries ago. So there are some things I hear over here which I've only read in books, and when I hear them actually spoken over here.....it's like England's long-forgotten past is coming to life. It's so fascinating.
It's my personal theory - substantiated by absolutely nothing - that the rhotic, or hard, "r" used in America descends from the inhabitants of the West Country. The West Country is the only place in the UK, I think, that has the hard "r", whereas in most other areas people use a soft "r", like "Cah" for "car" etc. Having said that, the Irish use a hard "r" too, so maybe that where it originates.
AND - something else fascinating - you know how the Americans say "pahth" for "path" and the British say "parth"? Up north in Britain, the "a" sounds in equivalent words are the same as the American pronunciation.
So basically, I think I can hear various regional British and Irish accents in today's modern American pronunciations.
Language is like a living museum. So, so wonderful.
Anyway, I'm entitled to a good old rant now and again because the American language gave me a lump on my foot.
That lump is the reason I'm posting a lot this week.
I was visiting England to see my family, a few years ago not long after I'd moved here, and I sprained my ankle quite badly. It was soon time to return to the States. The doc at home said I must be sure to get some physiotherapy for it. I said, eagerly, yes, yes, I must do that.
So I come back here and apparently, America doesn't do physiotherapy. Not a single physiotherapist in Boston to be found. I searched and searched for physios - Yellow Pages, Google. I gave up, thinking, well, America's ahead with its medicine, maybe physio doesn't do any good. So I never had any, but my ankle healed with a lump and has always been weak - then this week I got fluid on it so have been laid up. Sprains are notorious for causing long-running problems. However, maybe physiotherapy would have helped. I'll never know, because over here it's called PHYSICAL therapy, not PHYSIO therapy! Searching for the wrong thing, concluded it mustn't exist over here and was probably not very important to my foot, if Boston didn't have it.
Do you know what, I feel like suing Webster's dictionary for my crappy ankle! If Webster hadn't decided that English needed simplifying and that he would write a brand-new dictionary that everyone would adopt, I wouldn't have a lump on my sodding foot! (Joke)
JewelFreak|1374873580|3491025 said:
JewelFreak, you are right about declining standards of English in the UK and some of the papers - it's everywhere. One thing that's become widespread in some parts of the UK now is tacking the phrase "innit?" meaning "isn't it?" onto the end of every sentence even when it makes no sense. So, someone might say, "I'm going to buy some chips, innit?" Or, "I watched the royal wedding, innit?" I might have got those examples slightly wrong, but that's basically how it's used. It makes no sense whatsoever!!!! Makes me want to bang my head against a wall.
And last time I was at home getting my hair cut in England, I asked the hairdresser where she was going on holiday. Turns out she likes the Greek islands. She replied, "Well, we're probably going Melia. Last year we went Zante, so we're trying to go Melia this year." Apparently we don't need the word "to" anymore!!
Civilisation is crumbling all around us!!
Your story about the pitcher is super-interesting, because some words in modern usage in today's America are words that have long dropped out of use in the UK and which I've read mainly in literature, so it's fascinating to hear them used in real life - and some of those words can be traced back a particular geographical area of the UK, long ago. For example, when I came here I didn't know what a scallion was and then found that it's what the UK calls spring onions. I told my mum and she said that her mother, who was born in 1908 in the very northerly part of England just below Scotland, used to call them scallions.
Also, I thought that asking for the check in a restaurant was purely an American usage (UK asks for the "bill") but my mum said that the same grandmother used to ask for the check, too. She never travelled, didn't have a TV, and as far as I'm aware wasn't a cinema-goer. I'm thinking those phrases must originally come from the northern part of England.
AND - this is really fascinating - a particular American construction is found in Jane Austen, but not in modern-day Britain! So a character might describe a cake as "delightful good" instead of "delightfully good" and a modern equivalent that comes to mind is "real good" instead of "really good". But the same construction is seen in 18th and 19th century British novels - it seems that when the English came over to America all those centuries ago, certain usages were preserved over here but dropped out of use in the UK centuries ago. So there are some things I hear over here which I've only read in books, and when I hear them actually spoken over here.....it's like England's long-forgotten past is coming to life. It's so fascinating.
It's my personal theory - substantiated by absolutely nothing - that the rhotic, or hard, "r" used in America descends from the inhabitants of the West Country. The West Country is the only place in the UK, I think, that has the hard "r", whereas in most other areas people use a soft "r", like "Cah" for "car" etc. Having said that, the Irish use a hard "r" too, so maybe that where it originates.
AND - something else fascinating - you know how the Americans say "pahth" for "path" and the British say "parth"? Up north in Britain, the "a" sounds in equivalent words are the same as the American pronunciation.
So basically, I think I can hear various regional British and Irish accents in today's modern American pronunciations.
Language is like a living museum. So, so wonderful.
Anyway, I'm entitled to a good old rant now and again because the American language gave me a lump on my foot.
That lump is the reason I'm posting a lot this week. I was visiting England to see my family, a few years ago not long after I'd moved here, and I sprained my ankle quite badly. It was soon time to return to the States. The doc at home said I must be sure to get some physiotherapy for it. I said, eagerly, yes, yes, I must do that.
So I come back here and apparently, America doesn't do physiotherapy. Not a single physiotherapist in Boston to be found. I searched and searched for physios - Yellow Pages, Google. I gave up, thinking, well, America's ahead with its medicine, maybe physio doesn't do any good. So I never had any, but my ankle healed with a lump and has always been weak - then this week I got fluid on it so have been laid up. Sprains are notorious for causing long-running problems. However, maybe physiotherapy would have helped. I'll never know, because over here it's called PHYSICAL therapy, not PHYSIO therapy! Searching for the wrong thing, concluded it mustn't exist over here and was probably not very important to my foot, if Boston didn't have it.
Do you know what, I feel like suing Webster's dictionary for my crappy ankle! If Webster hadn't decided that English needed simplifying and that he would write a brand-new dictionary that everyone would adopt, I wouldn't have a lump on my sodding foot! (Joke)
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 34,518
JewelFreak
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2009
- Messages
- 7,768
Re: Americans, Proudly Independent: Why Care About The Royal
Gosh, your poor ankle! You needed a fluent Brit friend to translate for you in Boston! I hope you're bouncing around soon.
Your theory about "r"s (can't think of a readable way to write that) is interesting. It also could be that in the 17th & early 18th centuries the hard "r" was more commonly used -- the vast majority of Irish immigration happened enough later not to have influenced pronunciation to that extent, I don't think. We do call them spring onions (green onions too), but scallions is a little more common; that's very intriguing.
Seems many British words have evolved in a more practical vein, where we've kept the old ones. Scallion vs. spring onion is one example -- spring onion describes the thing without getting fancy. Another one is "cooker," where we say stove or range (I wonder where range came from? Have to look it up). "Cooker" gets the job done without needing a dictionary to define "stove." "Flyover" too -- here it was always called a viaduct, from the Latin, but more recently just a bridge.
"Innit" has been around a long time in lower speech, hasn't it? But not with the usage you describe, ick. That would drive me crazy too. Also dropping "to." In the U.S. I HATE to hear ads saying, "Shop Walmart." "Shop our store." You shop AT a store. Another teeth-grinder for me is people who graduate university, graduate high school. You can't graduate a school unless you're listing them in some sort of order! You can graduate from one.
One thing I mourn is the loss of the plummy public-school accent in England. Heard mostly from older folks now -- even Prince William sounds like he came from middle-to-lower class central London. Diphthongs applied to vowels. I did love those pure vowels. The whole world wants to imitate the riffraff. (Don't mean to offend anyone here, just rattling on.)
How much longer before your foot is back in action? Would p.h.y.s.i.c.a.l. therapy help now? I presume not, or you would have done it.
--- Laurie
Gosh, your poor ankle! You needed a fluent Brit friend to translate for you in Boston! I hope you're bouncing around soon.
Your theory about "r"s (can't think of a readable way to write that) is interesting. It also could be that in the 17th & early 18th centuries the hard "r" was more commonly used -- the vast majority of Irish immigration happened enough later not to have influenced pronunciation to that extent, I don't think. We do call them spring onions (green onions too), but scallions is a little more common; that's very intriguing.
Seems many British words have evolved in a more practical vein, where we've kept the old ones. Scallion vs. spring onion is one example -- spring onion describes the thing without getting fancy. Another one is "cooker," where we say stove or range (I wonder where range came from? Have to look it up). "Cooker" gets the job done without needing a dictionary to define "stove." "Flyover" too -- here it was always called a viaduct, from the Latin, but more recently just a bridge.
"Innit" has been around a long time in lower speech, hasn't it? But not with the usage you describe, ick. That would drive me crazy too. Also dropping "to." In the U.S. I HATE to hear ads saying, "Shop Walmart." "Shop our store." You shop AT a store. Another teeth-grinder for me is people who graduate university, graduate high school. You can't graduate a school unless you're listing them in some sort of order! You can graduate from one.
One thing I mourn is the loss of the plummy public-school accent in England. Heard mostly from older folks now -- even Prince William sounds like he came from middle-to-lower class central London. Diphthongs applied to vowels. I did love those pure vowels. The whole world wants to imitate the riffraff. (Don't mean to offend anyone here, just rattling on.)
How much longer before your foot is back in action? Would p.h.y.s.i.c.a.l. therapy help now? I presume not, or you would have done it.
--- Laurie
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2008
- Messages
- 13,352
- Joined
- May 11, 2012
- Messages
- 9,801
Re: Americans, Proudly Independent: Why Care About The Royal
The world loved Diana "the people's princess" because she had the common touch. She was the first of the royals to have many every day issues that were publicised (as opposed to covered up) in the papers for the world to see. Marrying a man who didn't love her, a cheating husband, a fight with bulimia, insecurity over how she looked. At the time she was young, glamourous and the world claimed her as theirs. Royal have cheated and behaved badly all throughout history it was not new, it was just the way her life and indeed death became so "front page" by the media.
I don't think loving the story makes Americans less independent. They, like everyone else just like a good fairytale.... Prince meets girl at Uni, he breaks up with her, she wins him back & Kate, an ordinary middle class girl marries a real prince that lives in a real castle and gives birth to the future king. People worldwide like the story. Kate is fashionable, young, attractive and married to a Prince.
I am not sure about your media, but here in Australia every second day we have some comparison pics with Diana and William when he was a baby. She is also an enduring part of the global story. There are several generations buying into the royal story for different reasons.
The world loved Diana "the people's princess" because she had the common touch. She was the first of the royals to have many every day issues that were publicised (as opposed to covered up) in the papers for the world to see. Marrying a man who didn't love her, a cheating husband, a fight with bulimia, insecurity over how she looked. At the time she was young, glamourous and the world claimed her as theirs. Royal have cheated and behaved badly all throughout history it was not new, it was just the way her life and indeed death became so "front page" by the media.
I don't think loving the story makes Americans less independent. They, like everyone else just like a good fairytale.... Prince meets girl at Uni, he breaks up with her, she wins him back & Kate, an ordinary middle class girl marries a real prince that lives in a real castle and gives birth to the future king. People worldwide like the story. Kate is fashionable, young, attractive and married to a Prince.
I am not sure about your media, but here in Australia every second day we have some comparison pics with Diana and William when he was a baby. She is also an enduring part of the global story. There are several generations buying into the royal story for different reasons.
zoebartlett
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 12,461
LaraOnline
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2008
- Messages
- 3,365
Re: Americans, Proudly Independent: Why Care About The Royal
I've held off on this conversation, because since watching 'The Tudors' (a sexed-up show of Henry VIII's life) it's been unavoidably and profoundly clear that the aristocracy and particularly the royal family has no legitimacy whatsoever, beyond the incumbancy itself!
I've never been to the US but I've often had the sense via reality shows etc that now US 'princesses' feel they have all the money, so they also wish they had aristocracy too... A sense of being deprived of another social ladder to climb! yeeks!
But yes, The Jewels.
justginger|1374772513|3490039 said:And, well, we love gems. And wherever you find a Queen, you find some awesome gems!
PS - American culture still worships "royalty" - they're just relatively new families. The Rockefellers, the Carnegies, the Waltons, the Hiltons. All families that have grandchildren, etc who have done absolutely NOTHING to earn their families' massive amounts of wealth.
I've held off on this conversation, because since watching 'The Tudors' (a sexed-up show of Henry VIII's life) it's been unavoidably and profoundly clear that the aristocracy and particularly the royal family has no legitimacy whatsoever, beyond the incumbancy itself!
I've never been to the US but I've often had the sense via reality shows etc that now US 'princesses' feel they have all the money, so they also wish they had aristocracy too... A sense of being deprived of another social ladder to climb! yeeks!
But yes, The Jewels.
february2003bride
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 3,558
Re: Americans, Proudly Independent: Why Care About The Royal
Same here! Although I did get to watch the wedding and have watched the vows part of their wedding on youtube.
My interest in the royals and the UK in general started when I was born, quite literally. I grew up watching To The Manor Born & The Good Life reruns, Mr. Bean, Monty Python, and AbFab with my mother. My mom adored Diana and everything English. It absolutely rubbed off on me!
soxfan|1374791479|3490319 said:I'm obsessed. I freaked out because we were driving home from Florida on the day of Kate and Williams wedding and I missed it. I listened on the radio. When they brought the baby out, I got goosebumps. I've read all the Andrew Norton books, and I watched the coverage of Diana's death non-stop too...
Same here! Although I did get to watch the wedding and have watched the vows part of their wedding on youtube.
My interest in the royals and the UK in general started when I was born, quite literally. I grew up watching To The Manor Born & The Good Life reruns, Mr. Bean, Monty Python, and AbFab with my mother. My mom adored Diana and everything English. It absolutely rubbed off on me!
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,953
Re: Americans, Proudly Independent: Why Care About The Royal
I think I have been interested in the royal family since Diana. We were roughly around the same age, got married around the same time, both had our first babies in 1982. I remember getting up in the early morning to watch the wedding on a black and white 14 inch t.v.
I think we all want to believe in a fairy tale, the happily ever after. I was so sad for her when it became so awful for her. Then I was so impressed by how she treated people, and finally, so sad when she died. As her kids grew up, I so wanted them to be ok. So I guess I am interested because, for what ever reason, it is her family. That sounds a little crazy when I read it, and I can't say I have ever felt the same way about anyone else in public life. I couldn't care less about hollywood make believe stars or sports figures or politicians. Mostly, they just make me mad at their antics. But there was something about Diana.....
I think I have been interested in the royal family since Diana. We were roughly around the same age, got married around the same time, both had our first babies in 1982. I remember getting up in the early morning to watch the wedding on a black and white 14 inch t.v.
I think we all want to believe in a fairy tale, the happily ever after. I was so sad for her when it became so awful for her. Then I was so impressed by how she treated people, and finally, so sad when she died. As her kids grew up, I so wanted them to be ok. So I guess I am interested because, for what ever reason, it is her family. That sounds a little crazy when I read it, and I can't say I have ever felt the same way about anyone else in public life. I couldn't care less about hollywood make believe stars or sports figures or politicians. Mostly, they just make me mad at their antics. But there was something about Diana.....
hlmr
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 2,872
Re: Americans, Proudly Independent: Why Care About The Royal
Hi JewelFreak - yes, you're right that the hard "r" was more commonly used back then - I remember reading about that in one of Bill Bryson's books! But I had forgotten. Stove and range are marvellously old-fashioned words - makes me think of an ancient Yorkshire stone farmhouse, a la Wuthering Heights! Yes, innit has been around a long time but was used when the speaker meant to say "isn't it?" Only in the last few years has it been tacked onto the end of a lot of sentences where it makes no sense, such as "I've just taken the garbage out, innit?" Agree about William's accent - a nice touch of Estuary there! (Flat vowels.) The plummy English accent is alive and well, don't worry! I know many people with a plummy accent, but it is rare to hear the super-plummy version, which is called ERP (Elevated Received Pronunciation). I know lots of Received Pronunciation speakers - practically everyone I know including myself - but I don't know anyone who speaks with an ERP accent. My old piano teacher did, and that's the only true ERP speaker I've ever met in real life. That's basically how the Queen speaks - Elevated Received Pronunciation. E sounds become A sounds. So "taxi" becomes "texi". And the Queen actually says "orf" instead of "off"!
About the ankle, thanks for asking! After a medium or bad sprain, apparently they are never quite the same again. Oh well - such is life!
JewelFreak|1374883525|3491146 said:
Hi JewelFreak - yes, you're right that the hard "r" was more commonly used back then - I remember reading about that in one of Bill Bryson's books! But I had forgotten. Stove and range are marvellously old-fashioned words - makes me think of an ancient Yorkshire stone farmhouse, a la Wuthering Heights! Yes, innit has been around a long time but was used when the speaker meant to say "isn't it?" Only in the last few years has it been tacked onto the end of a lot of sentences where it makes no sense, such as "I've just taken the garbage out, innit?" Agree about William's accent - a nice touch of Estuary there! (Flat vowels.) The plummy English accent is alive and well, don't worry! I know many people with a plummy accent, but it is rare to hear the super-plummy version, which is called ERP (Elevated Received Pronunciation). I know lots of Received Pronunciation speakers - practically everyone I know including myself - but I don't know anyone who speaks with an ERP accent. My old piano teacher did, and that's the only true ERP speaker I've ever met in real life. That's basically how the Queen speaks - Elevated Received Pronunciation. E sounds become A sounds. So "taxi" becomes "texi". And the Queen actually says "orf" instead of "off"!
About the ankle, thanks for asking! After a medium or bad sprain, apparently they are never quite the same again. Oh well - such is life!
Re: Americans, Proudly Independent: Why Care About The Royal
I haven't watched the Tudors but I believe you in what you say! My view is that although the royals have their good points, in 2013 I would rather we were a republic. They do cost a lot. On their land are many, many hundreds of medium and large houses that they rent out - no one knows how many, but as an example recently they magicked up Anmer Hall for William and Kate, which is a mansion. In the UK, when a house is sold the buyer must pay a tax to the government, called Stamp Duty, ranging from 1% up to 7% of the purchase price. If all those houses were in private hands, they would be expected to be bought and sold every so often. Because they are owned by the royals they are never sold, so the stamp duty for all those houses never finds its way into the public purse. And businesses in Cornwall must pay a portion of their income to the Duchy of Cornwall, owned by Prince Charles. If they didn't have to, more money would be in their pockets which contributes towards spending, helping the economy. These are some of the "invisible" costs of the RF and are part of the reason I essentially support a republic, but I don't think it'll ever happen. Like I said, the Royals do a lot for charity, using their glamour to highlight some important causes, but they take a lot from the country, too - more than they give, IMHO.
But yes, the jewels.......
Also agree that America has created its own royalty - the steel tycoons, the Gilded Age, the mansions - all very romantic. As I said on another thread, I think that human beings seem to need figures to worship. In the UK we worship soccer stars as well as the RF - George Best, Gary Lineker, and most recently David Beckham and Wayne Rooney.
LaraOnline|1374893684|3491269 said:justginger|1374772513|3490039 said:And, well, we love gems. And wherever you find a Queen, you find some awesome gems!
PS - American culture still worships "royalty" - they're just relatively new families. The Rockefellers, the Carnegies, the Waltons, the Hiltons. All families that have grandchildren, etc who have done absolutely NOTHING to earn their families' massive amounts of wealth.
I've held off on this conversation, because since watching 'The Tudors' (a sexed-up show of Henry VIII's life) it's been unavoidably and profoundly clear that the aristocracy and particularly the royal family has no legitimacy whatsoever, beyond the incumbancy itself!
I've never been to the US but I've often had the sense via reality shows etc that now US 'princesses' feel they have all the money, so they also wish they had aristocracy too... A sense of being deprived of another social ladder to climb! yeeks!
But yes, The Jewels.
I haven't watched the Tudors but I believe you in what you say! My view is that although the royals have their good points, in 2013 I would rather we were a republic. They do cost a lot. On their land are many, many hundreds of medium and large houses that they rent out - no one knows how many, but as an example recently they magicked up Anmer Hall for William and Kate, which is a mansion. In the UK, when a house is sold the buyer must pay a tax to the government, called Stamp Duty, ranging from 1% up to 7% of the purchase price. If all those houses were in private hands, they would be expected to be bought and sold every so often. Because they are owned by the royals they are never sold, so the stamp duty for all those houses never finds its way into the public purse. And businesses in Cornwall must pay a portion of their income to the Duchy of Cornwall, owned by Prince Charles. If they didn't have to, more money would be in their pockets which contributes towards spending, helping the economy. These are some of the "invisible" costs of the RF and are part of the reason I essentially support a republic, but I don't think it'll ever happen. Like I said, the Royals do a lot for charity, using their glamour to highlight some important causes, but they take a lot from the country, too - more than they give, IMHO.
But yes, the jewels.......
Also agree that America has created its own royalty - the steel tycoons, the Gilded Age, the mansions - all very romantic. As I said on another thread, I think that human beings seem to need figures to worship. In the UK we worship soccer stars as well as the RF - George Best, Gary Lineker, and most recently David Beckham and Wayne Rooney.
Re: Americans, Proudly Independent: Why Care About The Royal
Arkieb, hlmr, FebBride - I agree about Diana. I really liked her and it was awful when she died. I didn't think of her as royal, as such, although of course she was - but I didn't think of her as part of the RF, because she seemed to stand so much outside it and when she wasn't treated well, she gave them what-for, very publicly. (Her book, her TV interview with Martin Bashir - "there were three of us in that marriage" - and the stories she gave to the press through friends like journalist Richard Kay.) Being married to Charles made her intensely unhappy as she detailed in her book. The book was re-issued after her death with the original transcripts of the tape recordings, and some of them are on YouTube. She was so, so unhappy. She said that when she was born she was unwanted (meant to be a boy, she said) and when she got married she was unwanted. Her life was just such a tragedy, apart from her boys, and I find it impossible not to feel empathy for her. Some people say that she had affairs too, but Charles was busy with Camilla and everybody needs love. She was very lonely, and very young - and very trapped.
Arkieb, hlmr, FebBride - I agree about Diana. I really liked her and it was awful when she died. I didn't think of her as royal, as such, although of course she was - but I didn't think of her as part of the RF, because she seemed to stand so much outside it and when she wasn't treated well, she gave them what-for, very publicly. (Her book, her TV interview with Martin Bashir - "there were three of us in that marriage" - and the stories she gave to the press through friends like journalist Richard Kay.) Being married to Charles made her intensely unhappy as she detailed in her book. The book was re-issued after her death with the original transcripts of the tape recordings, and some of them are on YouTube. She was so, so unhappy. She said that when she was born she was unwanted (meant to be a boy, she said) and when she got married she was unwanted. Her life was just such a tragedy, apart from her boys, and I find it impossible not to feel empathy for her. Some people say that she had affairs too, but Charles was busy with Camilla and everybody needs love. She was very lonely, and very young - and very trapped.
The Ultimate Guide to Men’s Wedding Bands: Metals, Fit & Finish
The Ultimate Guide to Men’s Wedding Bands: Metals, Fit & Finish - 06/27
Chipped Diamonds: Causes, Risks, and What You Should Do About It
Chipped Diamonds: Causes, Risks, and What You Should Do About It - 06/27
300x240.png)