Discussion on British culture - our favourite British stuff!

[Melmoth]

The monarchy costs the UK taxpayer something around £150 million a year. Given that the Queen's wealth alone is supposedly around £300 million, I really don't know why we have to fund their overprivileged lavish lifestyles at all. It just seems like an outdated vestige of our feudal past to me.

Their needless displays of wealth, castles, posh accents and so on are definitely a bit vulgar. Still, they make us more money than we spend on them, even if you ignore tourism. They turn over the profits from their land, £200 odd million a year, in exchange for being on the civil list.

[Tank]

The Prime Minister isn't elected as the PM. There is an election and then the queen asks somebody (usually the leader of the winning party) to create a government. It's the Queen's government, not the people's government. What has happened all but once in my life is that one party (Labour, Liberal, Conservative) has won an outright majority (>50%) of the seats in the House Of Commons. So the leader of that party has been asked to form the government.  However this last election neither of the traditional parties (Labour, Conservative) got a majority so the Liberals formed a coalition with the Conservatives to oust the encombent Labour government. As the Conservatives had more seats than the Liberals the Queen asked their leader David Campbell if he could form a government, he could, so he became Prime Minister.

Tony Blair was not voted in as the head of the Labour party. The election was won by John Smith who died of a heart attack just after Labour won. Margrett Beckett took over as she was deputy and the party had an internal election to find a new leader. Which turned out to be Tony Blair.

So our head of state is the Queen, not the PM. So the Queen is constitutionally closer to a president than a PM although her actual power is theoretical as Charles the 1st discovered to his cost. Ironically the Queen is probably the best politician we have! 

[DeterminedJuliet]

Sometimes I honestly still wish the Queen had more power in Canada so that she could call Stephen Harper on his bullshit. The senate is useless over here and our current majority government think they're untouchable gods. Even with new scandals being discovered every day.

Bah 

[Ali]

And how about the way some Englishmen call women in general "love"?  I know it doesn't actually mean anything, but it's still nice to hear.

That is endearing.  At the recent conference I went to in Vegas, we had our fair share of Englishmen.  Most of them called my friends and I "Sweetheart."  I couldn't tell if they were being condescending or if it was just a British thing, but on the other hand I thought that it had a sort of Bogartesque flair to it, so I smiled pretty and let it go.

[Tank]

And how about the way some Englishmen call women in general "love"?  I know it doesn't actually mean anything, but it's still nice to hear.

That is endearing.  At the recent conference I went to in Vegas, we had our fair share of Englishmen.  Most of them called my friends and I "Sweetheart."  I couldn't tell if they were being condescending or if it was just a British thing, but on the other hand I thought that it had a sort of Bogartesque flair to it, so I smiled pretty and let it go.

The 'love' thing is a Northern expression and it isn't limited to men/woman it is completely asexual and quite acceptable man/man or woman/woman. 

[DeterminedJuliet]

And how about the way some Englishmen call women in general "love"?  I know it doesn't actually mean anything, but it's still nice to hear.

That is endearing.  At the recent conference I went to in Vegas, we had our fair share of Englishmen.  Most of them called my friends and I "Sweetheart."  I couldn't tell if they were being condescending or if it was just a British thing, but on the other hand I thought that it had a sort of Bogartesque flair to it, so I smiled pretty and let it go.

The 'love' thing is a Northern expression and it isn't limited to men/woman it is completely asexual and quite acceptable man/man or woman/woman. 

This is also big in Newfoundland. Everyone is either "love", "maid" or "b'y".

[Sweetdeath]

And how about the way some Englishmen call women in general "love"?  I know it doesn't actually mean anything, but it's still nice to hear.

That is endearing.  At the recent conference I went to in Vegas, we had our fair share of Englishmen.  Most of them called my friends and I "Sweetheart."  I couldn't tell if they were being condescending or if it was just a British thing, but on the other hand I thought that it had a sort of Bogartesque flair to it, so I smiled pretty and let it go.

The 'love' thing is a Northern expression and it isn't limited to men/woman it is completely asexual and quite acceptable man/man or woman/woman. 

This is also big in Newfoundland. Everyone is either "love", "maid" or "b'y".

Interesting

[Crow]

This is also big in Newfoundland. Everyone is either "love", "maid" or "b'y".

You got any of the others such as lar, lad, lass, lid, kiddah, mate, squire, darlin'?

[Sweetdeath]

This is also big in Newfoundland. Everyone is either "love", "maid" or "b'y".

You got any of the others such as lar, lad, lass, lid, kiddah, mate, squire, darlin'?

I love "mate" the most

[DeterminedJuliet]

This is also big in Newfoundland. Everyone is either "love", "maid" or "b'y".

You got any of the others such as lar, lad, lass, lid, kiddah, mate, squire, darlin'?

Darlin' yes, no to everything else.

Though we do have "Me Ducky", "Me Trout" and "Ye", as well. And kids are usually referred to as "youngsters".

Like anywhere, it also depends on what part of the Island you're talking about. There's the "Irish loop" in Newfoundland that has a strong Irish influence, but it also has a "French shore" where there are french sayings (or so I'm told, I've never been there).
But most of Newfoundland has a random mix of English/Irish/Fisher-folk sayings.  I always find it interesting how some UK sayings seem to have "stuck" there and others just never took hold.   

[Sandra Craft]

So our head of state is the Queen, not the PM. So the Queen is constitutionally closer to a president than a PM although her actual power is theoretical as Charles the 1st discovered to his cost. Ironically the Queen is probably the best politician we have! 

Well, yes, she's the head of the state but isn't it a largely symbolic position with the PM (however he's chosen) actually running the country? 

[Crow]

How God Made the English - I saw this program last night and thought it was pretty good, would be interesting to get some other English atheist opinions about the episode.

Here's the blurb:

The first in a three-part series in which Diarmaid MacCulloch, professor of church history at Oxford University and presenter of the award-winning BBC series A History of Christianity, explores both what it means to be English and what has shaped English identity, from the Dark Ages, through the Reformation to modern times. Professor MacCulloch identifies three broad traits commonly associated with the English - the idea that the English think they are better than others, the idea that they are a specially tolerant people and the idea that to be English, quintessentially is to be white, Anglo-Saxon and Church of England Christian. He investigates whether these stereotypes are accurate and looks at what forces have shaped English identity - secular or religious?

In this first episode, Professor MacCulloch chronicles the roots of the idea that the English think themselves better than others and duty-bound to play a leading role in world affairs. He argues that the roots of this attitude lie in a tangle of religious motives. He traces its origins to the notion of a 'chosen people' - a Biblical idea which the monk and historian, the Venerable Bede, took lock, stock and barrel from the Jewish scriptures and applied to the early English.

[OldGit]

Well, yes, she's the head of the state but isn't it a largely symbolic position with the PM (however he's chosen) actually running the country? 

Indeed, except when there's an unusual political situation, as Tank described concerning the last election.  Just suppose there were a coup or military takeover here, or an attempt by the EU to take us over.  In such a case we'd see that the Monarch could wield enormous influence in all sorts of ways.  Don't forget that our armed forces answer to her, not the government.  Right now that's just in principle, but a day might come when it would be the critical factor.

[Too Few Lions]

How God Made the English - I saw this program last night and thought it was pretty good, would be interesting to get some other English atheist opinions about the episode.

In this first episode, Professor MacCulloch chronicles the roots of the idea that the English think themselves better than others and duty-bound to play a leading role in world affairs. He argues that the roots of this attitude lie in a tangle of religious motives. He traces its origins to the notion of a 'chosen people' - a Biblical idea which the monk and historian, the Venerable Bede, took lock, stock and barrel from the Jewish scriptures and applied to the early English.

I saw the first half of it and gotta confess I thought what I saw was poor. I think many nations throughout history have seen themselves as a chosen nation or people at some point or other (the Greeks, the Romans, the French, the Germans, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, even the Americans!) there's nothing uniquely or inherently English about it. He kept pointing out the biblical motifs in the Palace of Westminster as some sort of proof of his argument, but that iconography is just what you'd expect given how religious and Christian everyone was back then. I imagine the same is true all over Europe.

[Crow]

I saw the first half of it and gotta confess I thought what I saw was poor. I think many nations throughout history have seen themselves as a chosen nation or people at some point or other (the Greeks, the Romans, the French, the Germans, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, even the Americans!) there's nothing uniquely or inherently English about it. He kept pointing out the biblical motifs in the Palace of Westminster as some sort of proof of his argument, but that iconography is just what you'd expect given how religious and Christian everyone was back then. I imagine the same is true all over Europe.

I agree it has been seen in most cultures and countries and therefore nothing different, he takes the entire program to make his point though. As its all fictitious elements that have been created to create the English identity of the "chosen people" which was encouraged by the empire and monarchy, which took until World War 1 to dispel the mythological stories that have changed along the way to create new identities, therefore he states "don't underestimate the power of mythology" and that an English identity isn't a fixed concept. Obviously it is theologically inclined as he is a theologian but makes some good points, sadly they don't really start to appear towards the end of the program but at least unlike other theologians he doesn't call for the identity to go backwards to times of yore.