Isn't it a bit absurd to declare symbolism will be their downfall in describing an event where you have zero idea of what the symbolism actually means? It's not like they're parading some goat skull about or anything.
I posted the same video. It's just the changing of the long guard. It doesn't just happen at Buckingham, it's a whole thing. And youtube-mc-clickbait-title guy got everyone in a tizzy.
Yea, and considering that at this point the UK royal family is pretty much purely symbolic, it's not surprising that they and anyone associated with them are steeped in symbolism. If they didn't employ symbolism, they'd basically be no different from any other random family.
And as you insinuate, there is nothing inherently wrong with symbolism. It ultimately depends on what is being symbolized.
The British Monarch represents "the Crown". The Crown is the body of law built up in British history. The Monarch represents the Crown, and is subject to the Crown. To fulfill that role, the Monarch must make certain oaths to uphold the crown.
They are a symbol of the Crown, but are subject to the Crown. The Crown is the sovereignty established through law.
Since the Magna Carta, it was established that monarchs are subject to law, and cannot designate law willy-nilly according to their own whim. This principle was tested at the time of the English Revolution, and reinforced. (The Monarch lost his head.)
Purely symbolic? No. They have great power and wealth. But under law, they are subject to the Law, which is what is embodied in "The Crown".
The Parliament serves the Crown. The Crown is the sovereign Law that governs the United Kingdom. The symbol of that Crown, aka the Law, is the Monarch.
The Monarch is subject to the law, but also represents the law. So Parliament reporting to the Monarch is part of the Parliament reporting to the representative of the Crown.
This (I think) is something that so many people simply ignore or are ignorant of. What is the position of the Monarch under British Law? What is the position of the parliament?
The Parliament is (under law) meant to represent the People. All are subject to the Law, aka the Crown: the monarch, the parliament, the people.
(Putting aside the issue of corruption - pretty much ALL governance systems have been infiltrated and corrupted):
The monarch and their immediate family undertake various official, ceremonial, diplomatic and representational duties. The monarchy is constitutional, meaning that, although formally the monarch still has authority over the government—which is known as "His/Her Majesty's Government"— this power may only be used according to laws enacted in Parliament and within constraints of convention and precedent.
Note that the British common law became the foundation for the US constitution (which codifies common law). The very reason that the United States was formed and how they justified the revolution was that the British monarch was acting "unlawfully".
How much goes on behind the scenes, and what levels of power and wealth the Monarch actually wields, that may well be debatable. But from the viewpoint of law, they too are bound by law, and in the British system, only Parliament (representatives of the people, supposedly) can make statues and laws.
Exactly the Royals hold a lot of power, especially in the House of Lords. America has Congress and Senate. Each of them being people that are voted in.
But n Britain our Senate (Lords) were all selected by the Monarch, so when a law is passed from Parliament to Lords (congress to senate) to get passed as a law it goes into the Monarchs 'Yes' men jurisdiction.
Meaning the monarch still has somewhat absolute control. If a Lord does not do what he wants he can simply remove them.
"goat skull". Good one. I see what you did there... 😉
But you have a point. We need more resources that teach the symbolism. And I'm not talking about the "official" symbolism, but what things really mean.
With all due respect, and at the risk of catching a ban, I don't believe disagreeing with someone who happens to be a mod falls under the category of giving them grief.
I 100% understand how people arguing with mods about things related to the mod doing their jobs is worthy of a ban or reprimand.
But being a mod shouldn't mean that no one can disagree with their opinion on topics such as this without being in fear of getting banned.
Being a mod doesn't make someone's opinions infallible. I think there should be a clear line drawn between a mod expressing their opinion on a subject like any other Anon, and a mod being in mod mode when they're dealing with something that requires them to do their job as a mod.
It’s “how” the tone is done. I was not questioning the question. But since you seem to need an excessive detailed explanation; thank you for attempting to correct a Mod, where NO Correction or Intervention was needed Anon. Please mind your own business period. And that is a clear warning.
Ok, Devil's avocado here. (And Brent, you know I respect our mods highly.)
Here's the quote:
Isn't it a bit absurd to declare symbolism will be their downfall in describing an event where you have zero idea of what the symbolism actually means? It's not like they're parading some goat skull about or anything.
I think a lot of us will probably fail to see how there is anything untoward in the tone here (I do). Maybe in the assertion.... ie..e "you posted an absurd subject line" but the tone seems perfectly fine to me.
If you can clarify or expound on this, that would be great.
That said, offgridguy came back and responded well to your admonition, so that's a win, either way.
I apologize for the tone, I'm having a difficult time watching what is happening to this Country I love, and that probably slipped in to what was an attempt to convey that the particular symbolism in use had no obvious meaning to me and I was hoping for someone better informed to explain what the entity/affiliation/significance of it was. I gather from some other comments I am not the only one confused by it.
Isn't it a bit absurd to declare symbolism will be their downfall in describing an event where you have zero idea of what the symbolism actually means? It's not like they're parading some goat skull about or anything.
Fucking thank you, yes. It's literally absurd to look at a freeze-frame of some pomp bullshit and get all woo woo with it.
we're not looking at just a freeze frame. We're watching the video it came from, which is nearly four minutes long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfwWG7eIzu4
I posted the same video. It's just the changing of the long guard. It doesn't just happen at Buckingham, it's a whole thing. And youtube-mc-clickbait-title guy got everyone in a tizzy.
And to you also Anon. I’m pretty sure CatsFive knows his shit Anon. Tread carefully on going grieftastic.
Except royal procedure? Here is the original video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfwWG7eIzu4&t=2s Flag is draped to protect from rain. They parade right into the changing of the guard.
CatsFive is not infallible. A lot of good stuff usually but sometimes the cat posts - and stickies - sauce less flatbread
"flatbread"
kek
Grieftastic kek
Yea, and considering that at this point the UK royal family is pretty much purely symbolic, it's not surprising that they and anyone associated with them are steeped in symbolism. If they didn't employ symbolism, they'd basically be no different from any other random family.
And as you insinuate, there is nothing inherently wrong with symbolism. It ultimately depends on what is being symbolized.
Many of us belive that they are not purely symbolic.
Their has been much research on this years ago. Maybe someone has the DD.
The British Monarch represents "the Crown". The Crown is the body of law built up in British history. The Monarch represents the Crown, and is subject to the Crown. To fulfill that role, the Monarch must make certain oaths to uphold the crown.
They are a symbol of the Crown, but are subject to the Crown. The Crown is the sovereignty established through law.
Since the Magna Carta, it was established that monarchs are subject to law, and cannot designate law willy-nilly according to their own whim. This principle was tested at the time of the English Revolution, and reinforced. (The Monarch lost his head.)
Purely symbolic? No. They have great power and wealth. But under law, they are subject to the Law, which is what is embodied in "The Crown".
The crown is the money masters and the royal turds serve them.
If they were symbolic, the PM wouldn't have to go to the palace with a report once a week.
Parliament belongs to the Monarchy.
Er, wrong.
The Parliament serves the Crown. The Crown is the sovereign Law that governs the United Kingdom. The symbol of that Crown, aka the Law, is the Monarch.
The Monarch is subject to the law, but also represents the law. So Parliament reporting to the Monarch is part of the Parliament reporting to the representative of the Crown.
This (I think) is something that so many people simply ignore or are ignorant of. What is the position of the Monarch under British Law? What is the position of the parliament?
The Parliament is (under law) meant to represent the People. All are subject to the Law, aka the Crown: the monarch, the parliament, the people.
(Putting aside the issue of corruption - pretty much ALL governance systems have been infiltrated and corrupted):
Note that the British common law became the foundation for the US constitution (which codifies common law). The very reason that the United States was formed and how they justified the revolution was that the British monarch was acting "unlawfully".
How much goes on behind the scenes, and what levels of power and wealth the Monarch actually wields, that may well be debatable. But from the viewpoint of law, they too are bound by law, and in the British system, only Parliament (representatives of the people, supposedly) can make statues and laws.
Exactly the Royals hold a lot of power, especially in the House of Lords. America has Congress and Senate. Each of them being people that are voted in.
But n Britain our Senate (Lords) were all selected by the Monarch, so when a law is passed from Parliament to Lords (congress to senate) to get passed as a law it goes into the Monarchs 'Yes' men jurisdiction.
Meaning the monarch still has somewhat absolute control. If a Lord does not do what he wants he can simply remove them.
Parliament is a Royal Palace as as such is not ruled by the laws of the land, they can do and say what they like inside its boundaries.
But they do have dungeons and are allowed to torture people.
"goat skull". Good one. I see what you did there... 😉
But you have a point. We need more resources that teach the symbolism. And I'm not talking about the "official" symbolism, but what things really mean.
updoogle for anon handle
That goat skull comment made me laugh.
I’m pretty sure CatsFive knows his shit Anon. Tread carefully on going grieftastic.
With all due respect, and at the risk of catching a ban, I don't believe disagreeing with someone who happens to be a mod falls under the category of giving them grief.
I 100% understand how people arguing with mods about things related to the mod doing their jobs is worthy of a ban or reprimand.
But being a mod shouldn't mean that no one can disagree with their opinion on topics such as this without being in fear of getting banned.
Being a mod doesn't make someone's opinions infallible. I think there should be a clear line drawn between a mod expressing their opinion on a subject like any other Anon, and a mod being in mod mode when they're dealing with something that requires them to do their job as a mod.
It’s “how” the tone is done. I was not questioning the question. But since you seem to need an excessive detailed explanation; thank you for attempting to correct a Mod, where NO Correction or Intervention was needed Anon. Please mind your own business period. And that is a clear warning.
Ok, Devil's avocado here. (And Brent, you know I respect our mods highly.)
Here's the quote:
I think a lot of us will probably fail to see how there is anything untoward in the tone here (I do). Maybe in the assertion.... ie..e "you posted an absurd subject line" but the tone seems perfectly fine to me.
If you can clarify or expound on this, that would be great.
That said, offgridguy came back and responded well to your admonition, so that's a win, either way.
Note: Thank you Mods.
I apologize for the tone, I'm having a difficult time watching what is happening to this Country I love, and that probably slipped in to what was an attempt to convey that the particular symbolism in use had no obvious meaning to me and I was hoping for someone better informed to explain what the entity/affiliation/significance of it was. I gather from some other comments I am not the only one confused by it.
No worries. I just wanted to “check” the tone.