Elizabeth Windsor's husband hospitalized

[Irish Hermit]

No it's proof of how ridiculous I find the idea of a hereditary head of state.

To try and retrieve this thread from lunacy and queen bashing, maybe you could explain why you find the idea of an hereditary head of state ridiculous.

What system do you advocate?  What countries exemplify it?

[Irish Hermit]

I bet percentage-wise royals and others of such parasitic classes .

Why do you find royals parasitic?   Does not the Queen and her immediate family play a role in British society? Does she not also bring in revenue via the tourist industry? Does she not pay taxes? 

How many of the royal family receive an income from the public purse?

[genesisone]

No it's proof of how ridiculous I find the idea of a hereditary head of state.

Just remember that regardless of how ridiculous you find the idea of a hereditary head of state to be, Queen Elizabeth is still the Queen of England.

Actually, no, she isn't. It's like saying that Barack Obama is President of North Dakota. Remember what I said a few posts back about royal titles and styles  ?

The last "Queen of England" was Anne (from 1702-1707, when England and Scotland were united as one kingdom, as opposed to two kingdoms that shared a sovereign) and she then became Queen of Great Britain (  - 1714).

You can read about Queen Elizabeth II's titles here, though, like any Wikipedia article it may have it lapses.

BTW, I do appreciate that Tallitot has taken the time and trouble to research some of HM's lesser known titles.

In fact, Tallitot is quite right that a "hereditary head of state" is ridiculous. "Head of state" is republican terminology. A hereditary sovereign, OTOH, is an entirely different matter.

Now, to get back to the OP: I pray the HRH will recover fully and that plans for Jubilee celebrations next year will not be affected by his health (or that of any other key person, of course).

[Irish Hermit]

In fact, Tallitot is quite right that a "hereditary head of state" is ridiculous. "Head of state" is republican terminology.

Tallitot is quite wrong.  Who else is the head of our state if not the Queen?   We have no problem with the terminology.  A web search will reveal that we commonly use the phrase.  For example, on http://www.royal.gov.uk/hmthequeen/hmthequeen.aspx  

- "The Queen is Head of State of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms."

[William]

No it's proof of how ridiculous I find the idea of a hereditary head of state.

What about King David and his descendants? 

[orthonorm]

No it's proof of how ridiculous I find the idea of a hereditary head of state.

What about King David and his descendants? 

Ever read that story? Like from the beginning and all that?

[Marc1152]

Here ya go. Take a lesson from our Mr. Adams:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbhzrOV2HP8

[genesisone]

In fact, Tallitot is quite right that a "hereditary head of state" is ridiculous. "Head of state" is republican terminology.

Tallitot is quite wrong.  Who else is the head of our state if not the Queen?   We have no problem with the terminology.  A web search will reveal that we commonly use the phrase.  For example, on http://www.royal.gov.uk/hmthequeen/hmthequeen.aspx  

- "The Queen is Head of State of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms."

From the same website:

The British Sovereign can be seen as having two roles: Head of State, and 'Head of the Nation'.

Yes, the Queen acts as Head of State. That is something the sovereign does.

As sovereign, the Queen ranks above a president. For example, oaths of allegiance are sworn to the Queen - but (hopefully) not to a president. Laws are enacted by the Queen; the formula at the beginning of every Canadian law begins:
"Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:...."

Passports are issued in the name of the Queen.  There is a difference between "sovereign" and "head of state".

It's the being sovereign that is hereditary. The job as "Head of State" is a responsibility of the sovereign - a distinction between the person and the job. And undoubtedly a point that is of interest only to nitpickers like me  .

[William]

No it's proof of how ridiculous I find the idea of a hereditary head of state.

What about King David and his descendants? 

Ever read that story? Like from the beginning and all that?

Yes. Are you referring to how God was initially reluctant to give the Hebrews a king?

[orthonorm]

No it's proof of how ridiculous I find the idea of a hereditary head of state.

What about King David and his descendants? 

Ever read that story? Like from the beginning and all that?

Yes. Are you referring to how God was initially reluctant to give the Hebrews a king?

Reluctant?

That's the word you are going to use?

And how well did those Kings work out?

[orthonorm]

No it's proof of how ridiculous I find the idea of a hereditary head of state.

What about King David and his descendants? 

Ever read that story? Like from the beginning and all that?

Yes. Are you referring to how God was initially reluctant to give the Hebrews a king?

And with the reluctant . . . Ain't you one of the folks around here who believes God doesn't have feelings or thoughts or actions really, like really?

And is like unknowable?

Sorry folks, this might get old, but I will hold you to your words. Since an argument can hang on a single hymn or an icon, or a clip from a Patristic writing, why not a snippet of a posting history?

Sorry William, if I have you wrong. But the name change throws me off a little. And many posters fall into the above category.

[vamrat]

I'm going to have to stand up for Talliot here.  Was he really insulting Queen Elizabeth by calling her Elizabeth Windsor?  It's her name for Pete's sake.  I respect her more than any bogtrotter has any rights to, but even I didn't find it all that crass or insulting.  I'll capitalize "His" when referring to God, or call a Bishop by his title, but is it really necessary for Christians (or Jews in this case) to call a royal by their title?  That's just silly.

[William]

No it's proof of how ridiculous I find the idea of a hereditary head of state.

What about King David and his descendants? 

Ever read that story? Like from the beginning and all that?

Yes. Are you referring to how God was initially reluctant to give the Hebrews a king?

Reluctant?

That's the word you are going to use?

Why? Did I do bad? 

And how well did those Kings work out?

Politically, the first three seemed pretty good. Morally they were all pretty bad (although David repented).

And with the reluctant . . . Ain't you one of the folks around here who believes God doesn't have feelings or thoughts or actions really, like really?

And is like unknowable?

Sorry folks, this might get old, but I will hold you to your words. Since an argument can hang on a single hymn or an icon, or a clip from a Patristic writing, why not a snippet of a posting history?

Sorry William, if I have you wrong. But the name change throws me off a little. And many posters fall into the above category.

I'm just using an anthropomorphism. 

Seriously, though, I haven't really gotten into the impassibility 'controversy' and I don't really care to. It ain't all that important to me.

[orthonorm]

No it's proof of how ridiculous I find the idea of a hereditary head of state.

What about King David and his descendants? 

Ever read that story? Like from the beginning and all that?

Yes. Are you referring to how God was initially reluctant to give the Hebrews a king?

Reluctant?

That's the word you are going to use?

Why? Did I do bad? 

And how well did those Kings work out?

Politically, the first three seemed pretty good. Morally they were all pretty bad (although David repented).

And with the reluctant . . . Ain't you one of the folks around here who believes God doesn't have feelings or thoughts or actions really, like really?

And is like unknowable?

Sorry folks, this might get old, but I will hold you to your words. Since an argument can hang on a single hymn or an icon, or a clip from a Patristic writing, why not a snippet of a posting history?

Sorry William, if I have you wrong. But the name change throws me off a little. And many posters fall into the above category.

I'm just using an anthropomorphism. 

Seriously, though, I haven't really gotten into the impassibility 'controversy' and I don't really care to. It ain't all that important to me.

You are more sane the rest of us. Pray for me.

[Tallitot]

I'm going to have to stand up for Talliot here.  Was he really insulting Queen Elizabeth by calling her Elizabeth Windsor?  It's her name for Pete's sake.  I respect her more than any bogtrotter has any rights to, but even I didn't find it all that crass or insulting.  I'll capitalize "His" when referring to God, or call a Bishop by his title, but is it really necessary for Christians (or Jews in this case) to call a royal by their title?  That's just silly.

And as I've said before it only seems to get everyone's knickers in a twist when it's Mrs. Windsor(*). No one seems to get all hinky if they see "Albert Grimaldi" or "Beatrix van Orange".



(*) or should thayt be "Winds-r"?

[PeterTheAleut]

No it's proof of how ridiculous I find the idea of a hereditary head of state.

Just remember that regardless of how ridiculous you find the idea of a hereditary head of state to be, Queen Elizabeth is still the Queen of England.

Actually, no, she isn't. It's like saying that Barack Obama is President of North Dakota.

Actually, President Obama IS the President of North Dakota, in that he is President of the United States, of which North Dakota is a member state.

[Irish Hermit]

I'm going to have to stand up for Talliot here.  Was he really insulting Queen Elizabeth by calling her Elizabeth Windsor?  It's her name for Pete's sake. 

If we referred to Misha Denysenko or Igor Kapral or Jimmy Paffhausen, Amby Mooney and Dusty Hudson .... well maybe you and Tallitot would be justified in being blind to the insult.  But civilised people keep to certain standards.... well, I imagine you see the point?

[Tallitot]

No it's proof of how ridiculous I find the idea of a hereditary head of state.

Just remember that regardless of how ridiculous you find the idea of a hereditary head of state to be, Queen Elizabeth is still the Queen of England.

Actually, no, she isn't. It's like saying that Barack Obama is President of North Dakota.

Actually, President Obama IS the President of North Dakota, in that he is President of the United States, of which North Dakota is a member state.

No, North Dakota doesn't have a president, it has a governor. The union of the 50 states (the USA) has a president.

[PeterTheAleut]

No it's proof of how ridiculous I find the idea of a hereditary head of state.

Just remember that regardless of how ridiculous you find the idea of a hereditary head of state to be, Queen Elizabeth is still the Queen of England.

Actually, no, she isn't. It's like saying that Barack Obama is President of North Dakota.

Actually, President Obama IS the President of North Dakota, in that he is President of the United States, of which North Dakota is a member state.

No, North Dakota doesn't have a president, it has a governor. The union of the 50 states (the USA) has a president.

Picky, picky, picky. If North Dakota doesn't want a President, they can secede from the Union.

[Irish Hermit]

Her Majesty The Queen's Christmas Message 2011

Check out this video on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60Eq5sXh_Lo&feature=youtube_gdata_player


Re the "parasitic" comment from Augustine... here is a comment on the video page......

I hate it when people say that the Royals are a waste of the taxpayers money. Do people even read into the facts and figures before making such comments? The Royals cost the tax payer around 40 million pounds per year. In return, the Royals give all the profits from their lands to the government, which is around 200 million pounds per year. So in effect, the Royals make the UK a profit, which means your taxes are lower than they would be without the monarchy. That's before tourist money too.

[SubdeaconDavid]

Philip Mountbatten, husband of Elizabeth Windsor was hospitalized for cardiac issues:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45779248/ns/today-today_people/#.TvUIlTU7U1I

To those of us who are subjects of Her Majesty the Queen, whether here in Australia or in New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Canada, the Falkland islands etc or even dear old Great Britain, your comments are deeply offensive, verging on traitorous. Here in Australia we Orthodox continue to pray for the Sovereign and by extension for HRH Prince Phillip.

[SubdeaconDavid]

I'm going to have to stand up for Talliot here.  Was he really insulting Queen Elizabeth by calling her Elizabeth Windsor?  It's her name for Pete's sake.

No it is NOT Her Majesty's name because it is NEVER appropriate to refer to Her Majesty using the surname Windsor.

Correct reference to Her  strictly should be in Latin:: Elizabeth II, Dei Gratia Britanniarum Regnorumque Suorum Ceterorum Regina, Consortionis Populorum Princeps, Fidei Defensor or in English: Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, 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.  of course HM has appropriate titles for Her other dominions.



Fixed quote tags  -PtA

[podkarpatska]

I'm going to have to stand up for Talliot here.  Was he really insulting Queen Elizabeth by calling her Elizabeth Windsor?  It's her name for Pete's sake.  I respect her more than any bogtrotter has any rights to, but even I didn't find it all that crass or insulting.  I'll capitalize "His" when referring to God, or call a Bishop by his title, but is it really necessary for Christians (or Jews in this case) to call a royal by their title?  That's just silly.

I don't know. i am not a royalist, i agree that a hereditary system is a vestigial left-over from older times, but... The countries which maintain royals as ceremonial heads of state made those choices. Civil norms call for one to call a Bill Smith or Jane Jones by a title if they are elected to a civil office. It is proper to call one Judge Jones or Senator Smith, even after their term of office expires (as long as they were not removed by crimes etc...)

I don't like it when my fellow citizens show disrespect for an office by not referring to their president as President Doe rather than that as 'darn jerk Doe' - an all too common occurence today - regardless of partisan affiliation.

I would be mildly offended if an unrepentant royalist "dissed" the head of state of a republic by refusing to acknowledge his or her honorific title.

We owe our British, Swedish, Japanese etc... friends the same courtesy.

[vamrat]

I'm going to have to stand up for Talliot here.  Was he really insulting Queen Elizabeth by calling her Elizabeth Windsor?  It's her name for Pete's sake.

No it is NOT Her Majesty's name because it is NEVER appropriate to refer to Her Majesty using the surname Windsor.

Correct reference to Her  strictly should be in Latin:: Elizabeth II, Dei Gratia Britanniarum Regnorumque Suorum Ceterorum Regina, Consortionis Populorum Princeps, Fidei Defensor or in English: Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, 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.  of course HM has appropriate titles for Her other dominions.



Fixed quote tags  -PtA

Well, I guess I just don't understand.  I will give respect to (our) religious leaders, Saints, and to God, but I take the "trust ye not in princes, in the sons of men" thing seriously and don't see any reason to show the same deference to a Queen, Emperor, Count, Baron, Shogun, Kniaz, or whatever as I do to God or one of His Saints.

Perhaps it's cultural as well.  I noticed in her full title a chunk of land between the St. Lawrence and the Gulf of Mexico was missing.  I would be interested to see how Irishmen from the Free State, Afrikaners, and Indians might feel on this matter.

[Marc1152]

Wasn't Prince Harry referred to as "Harry Wales" or "Cadet Wales" when he was at Sandhurst and then in the Army Tank Corp?

He didn't go by Windsor...

Very confusing.

[Cavaradossi]

I'm going to have to stand up for Talliot here.  Was he really insulting Queen Elizabeth by calling her Elizabeth Windsor?  It's her name for Pete's sake.

No it is NOT Her Majesty's name because it is NEVER appropriate to refer to Her Majesty using the surname Windsor.

Correct reference to Her  strictly should be in Latin:: Elizabeth II, Dei Gratia Britanniarum Regnorumque Suorum Ceterorum Regina, Consortionis Populorum Princeps, Fidei Defensor or in English: Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, 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.  of course HM has appropriate titles for Her other dominions.



Fixed quote tags  -PtA

Do you call her that during the liturgy?

[Irish Hermit]

I'm going to have to stand up for Talliot here.  Was he really insulting Queen Elizabeth by calling her Elizabeth Windsor?  It's her name for Pete's sake.

No it is NOT Her Majesty's name because it is NEVER appropriate to refer to Her Majesty using the surname Windsor.

Correct reference to Her  strictly should be in Latin:: Elizabeth II, Dei Gratia Britanniarum Regnorumque Suorum Ceterorum Regina, Consortionis Populorum Princeps, Fidei Defensor or in English: Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, 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.  of course HM has appropriate titles for Her other dominions.



Fixed quote tags  -PtA

Do you call her that during the liturgy?

The formula used in our parish has been "For our God-fearing Queen Elizabeth the Second and for all the Royal household....."  This came in several decades ago when the Diocese had a debate about commemorating her and it was decided to do so, following the requirement of Saint Paul to pray for our rulers.

[Schultz]

Wasn't Prince Harry referred to as "Harry Wales" or "Cadet Wales" when he was at Sandhurst and then in the Army Tank Corp?

He didn't go by Windsor...

Very confusing.

Not really once you understand how the English nobility often adopt the surname of the seat they are lord or lady of.  A quick and dirty explanation is at Yahoo Answers! : Why are Harry and William know as Wales?

As to the title of this thread, Tallitot could have knowingly avoided any and all controversy AND kept his conscience clean by titling it, "The Queen of England's husband is in hospital."  The fact that he did not choose that or some similar neutral term shows that he was being deliberately provocative and should, therefore, be able to take what the royalist types among us dish out.

Happy Christmas.

[podkarpatska]

Wasn't Prince Harry referred to as "Harry Wales" or "Cadet Wales" when he was at Sandhurst and then in the Army Tank Corp?

He didn't go by Windsor...

Very confusing.

Not really once you understand how the English nobility often adopt the surname of the seat they are lord or lady of.  A quick and dirty explanation is at Yahoo Answers! : Why are Harry and William know as Wales?

As to the title of this thread, Tallitot could have knowingly avoided any and all controversy AND kept his conscience clean by titling it, "The Queen of England's husband is in hospital."  The fact that he did not choose that or some similar neutral term shows that he was being deliberately provocative and should, therefore, be able to take what the royalist types among us dish out.

Happy Christmas.

and Boxing Day!

[Irish Hermit]

B U M P !

Tallitot, just bumping this in the hope you will find time for the questions.

No it's proof of how ridiculous I find the idea of a hereditary head of state.

To try and retrieve this thread from lunacy and queen bashing, maybe you could explain why you find the idea of an hereditary head of state ridiculous.

What system do you advocate?  What countries exemplify it?

[Irish Hermit]

Wasn't Prince Harry referred to as "Harry Wales" or "Cadet Wales" when he was at Sandhurst and then in the Army Tank Corp?

He didn't go by Windsor...

Very confusing.

Not really once you understand how the English nobility often adopt the surname of the seat they are lord or lady of.  A quick and dirty explanation is at Yahoo Answers! : Why are Harry and William know as Wales?

As to the title of this thread, Tallitot could have knowingly avoided any and all controversy AND kept his conscience clean by titling it, "The Queen of England's husband is in hospital."  The fact that he did not choose that or some similar neutral term shows that he was being deliberately provocative and should, therefore, be able to take what the royalist types among us dish out.

Happy Christmas.

Tallitot seems to want to use the illness of the Duke to make some kind of political statement.  But so far he has not given us any coherent statement.  We have no idea why a monarchy offends him.  We have no idea what political system he prefers in its stead.

[Irish Hermit]

No it's proof of how ridiculous I find the idea of a hereditary head of state.

Any thoughts on the God-King of Tibet?   Now there's a very unique way of securing a stable political succession.

[LizaSymonenko]

So, if one were against the hereditary state of royalty....what of one's own heredity?

Does not a Jew define Jewishness through their parents?  Mother's side, no?

What of the big deal made of Abraham having his own son of Sarah?  Might heredity come in to play there?

Remember, God is still in charge of who gets born when and where and into which of life's situations.

If he places a child in a royal family, He must have a plan for them there.

Who are you or I to second guess God and the choices He has made?

Besides, there will always be people who are richer than you are, have better jobs, drive better cars, have yachts, party in Monaco, etc.

We are planted where we are planted.  We are to flourish and grow as tall and strong and produce as much good fruit as we can in the soil that God has planted us in.

 

[orthonorm]

Wow. This thread is becoming a gold mine.

Tallitot can sure twist all your knickers or whatever ridiculous word you call them.

[Schultz]

for the record, I don't care if Tallitot is a bomb wielding anarchist hell bent on assassinating each and every hereditary monarch on the planet in the name of removing the concept of monarchsim.

I'm just offended by the "Who? Li'l ol' ME?!" tactics he repeatedly employs in his hit and run political statements out in the public fora. 

[LizaSymonenko]

Wow. This thread is becoming a gold mine.

Tallitot can sure twist all your knickers or whatever ridiculous word you call them.

Nothing of mine is twisted (and I won't use the word in polite company. ). 

I don't rely on any royal family.

However, I would just like to clarify the whole "heredity" issue he has.  Is it just with royalty or heredity in general?

[orthonorm]

for the record, I don't care if Tallitot is a bomb wielding anarchist hell bent on assassinating each and every hereditary monarch on the planet in the name of removing the concept of monarchsim.

I'm just offended by the "Who? Li'l ol' ME?!" tactics he repeatedly employs in his hit and run political statements out in the public fora.  

What I can't never find enough laughter in his the four(?) times over seemingly contradictory identity.

When he topped it off by eschewing the extravagance of monarchy in all its forms, it was a clincher.

Tallitot might truly be a singular creature.

[Tallitot]

for the record, I don't care if Tallitot is a bomb wielding anarchist hell bent on assassinating each and every hereditary monarch on the planet in the name of removing the concept of monarchsim.

I'm just offended by the "Who? Li'l ol' ME?!" tactics he repeatedly employs in his hit and run political statements out in the public fora.  

What I can't never find enough laughter in his the four(?) times over seemingly contradictory identity.

When he topped it off by eschewing the extravagance of monarchy in all its forms, it was a clincher.

Tallitot might truly be a singular creature.

True praise indeed, I am humbled sir.

[PeterTheAleut]

I believe in a hereditary monarchy. Jesus Christ is the Son (well, great great great ... grandson) of David and therefore heir to the throne of Israel. Not only that, He has claimed the throne of His forefathers.

[LizaSymonenko]

^ Exactly!

[SubdeaconDavid]

I'm going to have to stand up for Talliot here.  Was he really insulting Queen Elizabeth by calling her Elizabeth Windsor?  It's her name for Pete's sake.

No it is NOT Her Majesty's name because it is NEVER appropriate to refer to Her Majesty using the surname Windsor.

Correct reference to Her  strictly should be in Latin:: Elizabeth II, Dei Gratia Britanniarum Regnorumque Suorum Ceterorum Regina, Consortionis Populorum Princeps, Fidei Defensor or in English: Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, 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.  of course HM has appropriate titles for Her other dominions.



Fixed quote tags  -PtA

Do you call her that during the liturgy?

In the litanies Her Majesty is prayed for thus:

Ее Величества Королевы Елизаветы IIe

or in English as

Our Sovereign, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth

In the Great Entrance I think it is the same.

[biro]

Update: Prince Philip seems to be doing better. He made it to church today.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16376986

[Antonis]

No it's proof of how ridiculous I find the idea of a hereditary head of state.

Solomon and David do not approve.

[primuspilus]

No it's proof of how ridiculous I find the idea of a hereditary head of state.

Solomon and David do not approve.

God does too actually...something about the seed of David....hrm, I cant remember where I heard that......

PP

[Marc1152]

FYI:
The position of Head of State is purely ceremonial. They attend funerals and launch ships etc.
In many places the Head of the Government and the Head of State are two different people.

In the USA the function of Head of State and Head of the Government is combined and performed by the President and often Head of State duties are passed off to the Vice President.

So it makes no difference what so ever if the King or Queen is the Head of State, none what so ever, except that they are pretty good at it.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Non-Religious Topics (Moderator: Pravoslavbob) > Topic: Elizabeth Windsor's husband hospitalized