Remove My Crown??!!

[Joie DeVive]

Or George Washington, perhaps.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

 

[BegintheBeguine]

I was thinking Napoleon cape, George Washington hair. If I had a crown, I'd wear it as often as I may. Or a Pope hat. I have a matador or whatever hat, maybe I'll wear that tonight.

 

[MrNewportCustom]

From the website.

The moment Annie Leibovitz [sic] asked the Queen to remove her crown
​

Royal robes need a crown. The Queen was right to be upset at Leibowit's request. The "Vampire/Napoleonic" photo was a different part of the shoot, if not a different day.


Lee
________________________________

"You don't spit into the wind. You don't pull the mask of the Lone Ranger and you don't mess around with Jim" Or ask the queen to remove her crown, either.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

And i was right, it is a tiara!

bk

 

[Foofoogal]

If I had a crown, I'd wear it as often as I may.

Really, she is the Queen. She didn't buy her crown or tiara at wallyworld. I hate the George Washington photo. Makes her look like she is trying to be God or something.
I am sure once upon a time Annie would of been very happy to just be snubbed. The Queen could of had her head cut off I am sure.
I do think she is usually a great photographer though.
I think Americans may be more dazzled by the whole royalty bit though and maybe British are more jaded on this.
I recently went to Canada and found a highway with signs just showing the crown and was excited.
Here in Texas it doesn't take much. lol

 

[MrNewportCustom]

And i was right, it is a tiara!

bk

I thought tiaras were frontal and used clips or combs (or other apparatus) on the sides, whereas crowns encircle the head.


Lee
_________________________

Just guessing. I'm not a jewelery/royalty expert.

 

[Shaul-Ike Cohen]

I thought tiaras were frontal and used clips or combs (or other apparatus) on the sides, whereas crowns encircle the head.

Not necessarily. You're right that both tiara - unless you mean the papal dingus - and diadem are usually used for non-closed crowns, but they don't have to.

 

[dhermann1]

"Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown".

It's the "Queen Mary's Girls of Great Britain and Ireland Tiara".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland_Tiara
The Queen has an awful lot of headgear. When she opens Parliament she wears a crown that could break your neck.
I haven't seen the video, but I'll bet it never got all that personal.

 

[MrNewportCustom]

Shaul-Ike and dhermann. Thank you for clarifying that for me. I did not know.


Lee

 

[Edward]

Still seems strange to see the Mail carrying stories that appear to show the monarchy in a bad light, but I think that's predominantly a post September 1 1997 thing!

FWIW, the Crown went nuts about these reports and claimed that the footage had been recut to make it look that way, demanded an apology. Some sort of mumbling was issued, though last I heard Buck House is now furious cause the documentary is to go ahead with footage intact.

mindful of the "no politics" rule, I'll not comment on the monarchy further.

 

[Harp]

mindful of the "no politics" rule, I'll not comment on the monarchy further.

The British Monarchy is more an issue of constitutional law than a mere
political matter, so comment freely, old boy.

 

[Edward]

The British Monarchy is more an issue of constitutional law than a mere
political matter, so comment freely, old boy.

Oh, believe me, it's all politics where I come from.

Let's just say I lean to the view that the US got it right - authority arising from the people, upwards, and head of state elected on grounds of merit (in theory anyhow!) rather than authority flowing down from an hereditary figurehead. Citizens, not subjects and all that. Maybe I'm just a radical - I doubt McCarthy and I would have seen eye to eye anyhow. lol

 

[RIOT]

Oh man! Lucky for her the Queen did not mutter the words.. "OFF WITH HER HEAD!" soon after that stare. Whew!

 

[Story]

. . . that the BBC had misrepresented the whole situation. They have issued an apology.bk

Qu'elle surprise, considering that the Royal Navy booted those clowns' feeds off of their ships and the BBC has even castigated themselves for biased reporting.

......they'd probably like the US back as well. Then they could teach those uppity colonials a bit of deference.

MOLON LABE, pal.

 

[panamag8or]

Oh, believe me, it's all politics where I come from.

Let's just say I lean to the view that the US got it right - authority arising from the people, upwards, and head of state elected on grounds of merit (in theory anyhow!) rather than authority flowing down from an hereditary figurehead. Citizens, not subjects and all that. Maybe I'm just a radical - I doubt McCarthy and I would have seen eye to eye anyhow. lol

I won't pretend to know more than a Brit, but don't you elect your lawmakers? I thought the powers of the Royal Family had been effectively neutered, and were largely ceremonial, while Parliament actually goes about the legislating.

 

[Matt Deckard]

Well... She could have recovered herself with the media had she said off with her head.

 

[Edward]

I won't pretend to know more than a Brit,

hee hee.... where I come from, evne being labelled a "Brit" is an issue.

but don't you elect your lawmakers? I thought the powers of the Royal Family had been effectively neutered, and were largely ceremonial, while Parliament actually goes about the legislating.

Yes and no. Predominantly, and in the popular conception, the monarchy is nothing but a figurehead. There are a number of crown powers that still exist, and while they are de facto exercised by the prime minister, an elected figure, there is no accountability to parliament for their use, which can therefore be quite arbitrary. For instance, Thatcher used crown powers to ban trade unions from Goverment Communications Headquarters, as well as to dissolve the original Greater London Council (a democratically elected body, and one which was constantly dominated by the Labour party, her political opponents). Until very recently the right to declare war was a crown power - Blair's taking a vote on Iraq in the Commons was not a legal necessity, but brought about as a result of the immense unpopularity of that venture. Technically he would have been able to declare war even had he lost that vote. I believe that this is one particular power that Brown's constitutional reforms is giving over to parliament, though.

Parliament now drafts all legislation (with all sorts of moves being made over the years to render Parliament more representative of the people - for example, the 1911 Parliament Act which removed the (then wholly hereditary) Lords' right to an absolute veto on any Bill), although it cannot become valid law until signed into the statute book by the sitting monarch - the Royal Assent thus being granted to the laws being made. Technically, the Queen could render any Bill passed by both Houses meaningless and invalid law simply by refusing to sign them - though I can't see this happening any time soon. By convention, the Queen signs everything Parliament passes -she could refuse, though that would probably be considered to be giving huge ammunition to opponents of the monarchy. The whole language of Parliament, the State opening of Parliament, all itsd symbolism is of the elected government acting on behalf of the reigning monarch, and all authority flowing down from the Crown. All elected MPs in order to take their seat in the House are obliged to swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown - AFAIK, Congress has something simliar, but it is to the people of the United States, reflecting the bottom-up authority structure there as opposed to the English / British top-down constitutional arrangement?

For a lot of folks this is mere window dressing, and unimiportant. There are others who have no problem with the monarchy provided all crown powers are given over to parliament and rendered accountable. Personally I would still have deep rooted objections to a monarchy which I am expected to treat as inherently my betters by simple dint of birth. Here, however, it all gets into a matter of ideals and personal values as much as any logical argument, and really becomes political, so I'll not get into that. In any case, I can't see the monarchy going any time soon. The arguments rage all the time about it in some quarters, but it's really becoming less and less a matter of idealism. Or, at least, I don't think it is idealism retaining the Crown, nor if it is ever removed will it be idealism that removes it. My grandparents generation, the WW2 generation, really, would still I think be predominantly in favour of the monarchy, but in more recent years the default position has been apathy more than anything for most folks. The popularity of the institution took a long term hit in many cases due to the perceived "ill-treatment" of Diana, though that seems to me more focussed on personalities than the monarchy per se, so might change over time again. There's always a dispute regarding the financial cost, with the benefit-to-tourism-and-industry case being made by way of return. Seems too nebulous to call one way or the other with great certainty to me, and in any case that would still leave the idealistic debate.