Why Do Us Irish Fawn Over The British Monarchy?

UsernameInUse

What has struck me in the last 24 hours is not the embarrassment of Philip Mountbatten, that’s nothing new of course, but the embarrassment caused by my fellow citizens. Serious people in the media and in our parliament, falling over themselves to praise the man who turns 90 today.
The problem is that the platitudes don’t fit with the evidence, Philip is not an inspiring figure and he is certainly not the “most exceptional man of his generation” as Nicholas Soames MP put it the other day. We all know that he served in the Navy during the war and for that, as with all veterans, he should be commended. But that’s not what he is being celebrated for, it is his 60-odd years as husband of the Queen that is being talked about in terms that beggar belief.


I don’t want to dwell so much on Philip himself, but it is worth quoting briefly from Johann Hari’s excellent article in today’s Independent:

Today, you are being encouraged to celebrate a man who merrily visited a genocidal dictator and used the occasion to sneer at British democracy. A man whose political interventions even prompted complaints from the far-right Enoch Powell. A man who, at the height of mass unemployment, mocked the unemployed, while complaining his own family of multi-millionaires was financially deprived. A man who has shot countless examples of endangered species – and then sought praise for his protection of wildlife.

He is not a man to admire or be inspired by. Yet the national embarrassment isn’t so much Philip, it is all those commentators and politicians falling over themselves to tell the world how marvellous this man is. They desperately look for virtue where there is none and, more seriously, in an effort to build up this ordinary man the consequence is that they pull down everyone else. To suggest he is the greatest ambassador – despite his history of causing offence – is to suggest he is better than more talented people who can truly represent us well; to say he’s a towering figure of his generation is to dismiss and belittle all the Nobel laureates, artists, politicians, architects, soldiers and campaigners from his generation who have truly excelled. Not to mention all the millions of ordinary men and women who have lived to 90, who had to do so struggling to make ends meet, dealing with recession, worries about employment and raising children, and who did so without fanfare or thanks.


So perhaps next year we can stop embarrassing ourselves and instead of celebrating people who have done little and achieved less we can spend a long weekend celebrating those who really have done great deeds. Instead of celebrating a friend of despots let’s celebrate life-long human rights activists, instead of fawning over someone who enjoys killing for sport let’s recognise the work of conservationists, rather than looking hard for virtue in one man let’s celebrate the real achievers of this country. Then we can end this national embarrassment and have something to celebrate we can really be proud of.

I came across this article having been bemused at all the fuss surrounding Prince Philips and Kate Middletons wedding just a few short weeks ago. Surely, when RTE places the event of two elitists marrying as a priority in a Republic, then things have certainly gone pear-shaped.

Needler

I don't fawn over the British Monarchy and I don't see anyone else fawning either

FruitLover

The only one I see raising a discussion of the British monarchy is you, OP.

'Us Irish' indeed... :rolleyes:

bonzodog2

UsernameInUse wrote: »

I came across this article having been bemused at all the fuss surrounding Prince Philips and Kate Middletons wedding just a few short weeks ago. Surely, when RTE places the event of two elitists marrying as a priority in a Republic, then things have certainly gone pear-shaped.

Huh ?

later12

As a republican (in the non-nationalist sense of the word) I agree with the sentiments of the article you quote. However, using a term like ''us Irish'' is about as daft as supporting a monarchy.

Who exactly are ''us Irish'' and what are we supposed to think, according to you?

Bloody Nipples

I think someone's got a chip on their shoulder.

Girls loved the royal wedding because the idea of marrying a prince is just so much Disney-esque romance.

But apart from that, there's nary a sign of any coverage of the monarchy in Irish media except when they made their first visit in the history of the state.

Fawning my ass :rolleyes:

SEPT 23 1989

Its because they are better than us OP:rolleyes:

stovelid

Because they are simply one's betters.

Rabies

UsernameInUse wrote: »

I came across this article having been bemused at all the fuss surrounding Prince Philips and Kate Middletons wedding just a few short weeks ago. Surely, when RTE places the event of two elitists marrying as a priority in a Republic, then things have certainly gone pear-shaped.

It's world news.
People don't like to live in N. Korean style bubbles any more.

Ignore the past.

Knowing what is going on in the world is good for people.
Knowing how to filter out the crap is even better.

Boring news for you is big news for others

Solair

Well, it's just British state-sponsored reality TV.

Some people get as excited over Jedward!

BengaLover

Ireland doesnt have a monarchy and the whole queen, palace, royal thing is fascinating thats why!
Thousands including Irish citizens flock to see the changing of the guard, and tour Buckingham Palace..The stories of the history of the English monarchy has been taught in schools and is therefore of interest to those who like history!

Fratton Fred

Phil the Greek is a legend, that's why.

Da Shins Kelly

Well, I don't anyways.

Dangerous Man

I don't fawn over them. They could all die tomorrow in a gross incest faeces sex orgy and I wouldn't bat an eyelid. Not an eyelid batted.

Absurdum

I dunno, I've wanked over a few of them, but never fawned.

Rants in my pants

As a member of the Prince Phillip Movement I take extreme offense at your blasphemous comments.

I hope you enjoy your day in court and €25,000 fine (for blasphemising) :rolleyes:.

Elliemental

UsernameInUse wrote: »

all the fuss surrounding Prince Philips and Kate Middletons wedding just a few short weeks ago.

Because he's old enough to be her great grandad?

Ghost Buster

later10 wrote: »

As a republican (in the non-nationalist sense of the word) I agree with the sentiments of the article you quote. However, using a term like ''us Irish'' is about as daft as supporting a monarchy.

Who exactly are ''us Irish'' and what are we supposed to think, according to you?

He means this

dr gonzo

UsernameInUse wrote: »

Prince Philips and Kate Middletons wedding

In his dreams maybe.

Back on topic though, i dont think theres been Irish fawning over the royal family since King George visited so im not sure what youre basing your outrage on. I think Ireland has finally reached a stage where it has a healthy attitude towards the British monarchy i.e neutral, we dont love them and we dont hate them, we've grown up.

In saying that, does it matter if people are interested in them?

Knasher

When somebody pulls out their baby photos you act interested because if you don't they will treat you like a prick. Exact same thing with the royal family; nobody really cares but the English fecking love them so if you act interested it will be easier to work together when they're done showing them off.

Son Of A Vidic

UsernameInUse wrote: »

I came across this article having been bemused at all the fuss surrounding Prince Philips and Kate Middletons wedding

Fuss?.....What fuss?

Chuck Stone

I'm not part of that 'Us' just as I don't want to be part of the 'we' who are being burdened with the debts of millionaire banksters and property speculators.

'We' were given no choice on the latter issue.

Dangerous Man

Absurdum wrote: »

I dunno, I've wanked over a few of them, but never fawned.

Jaysus... isn't that against Royal protocol or something?

InTheTrees

UsernameInUse wrote: »

Prince Philips and Kate Middletons wedding

That would have been a lot more interesting than the current matchup which is about as exciting as a bowl of porridge.

Absurdum

Dangerous Man wrote: »

Jaysus... isn't that against Royal protocol or something?

I hope so!

KeithAFC

Many royal fans in the Irish Republic. I think that should be supported. West Brits are entitled to those views they have.

randylonghorn

UsernameInUse wrote: »

I came across this article having been bemused at all the fuss surrounding Prince Philips and Kate Middletons wedding just a few short weeks ago.

Ah here ... don't be wishing that horny old goat on that young girl!

More seriously, I think most people (Irish, English, American, whatever) who have an interest in the British royals treat it as somewhere between Coronation St. and reality tv.

You'll probably get the odd sycophant all right, but they're few and far between.

InTheTrees wrote: »

That would have been a lot more interesting than the current matchup which is about as exciting as a bowl of porridge.

So you reckon Philip is stirring Will's porridge? :pac:

getz

Rants in my pants wrote: »

As a member of the Prince Phillip Movement I take extreme offense at your blasphemous comments.

I hope you enjoy your day in court and €25,000 fine (for blasphemising) :rolleyes:.

you cannot be found guilty in a EU court for blasphemy,as a god cannot be proved,its only a irish/religious law,

The IRgAy

Needler wrote: »

I don't fawn over the British Monarchy and I don't see anyone else fawning either

No comment.

Dionysus

UsernameInUse wrote: »

Why Do Us Irish Fawn Over The British Monarchy?

FruitLover wrote: »

The only one I see raising a discussion of the British monarchy is you, OP.

'Us Irish' indeed... :rolleyes:

later10 wrote: »

As a republican (in the non-nationalist sense of the word) I agree with the sentiments of the article you quote. However, using a term like ''us Irish'' is about as daft as supporting a monarchy.

Who exactly are ''us Irish'' and what are we supposed to think, according to you?

We Irish. (we=subject; us=object)

I'll get me coat...

Dionysus

KeithAFC wrote: »

Many royal fans in the Irish Republic.

Here we go again. And where would this "Irish Republic" be, Keith?

Come on, you've been posting on this forum from the occupied Six Counties for long enough to know the correct internationally-recognised name (Article 4) for this state, and indeed its correct internationally-recognised description. So, why do you persist in avoiding the use of either one of the correct versions?

The IRgAy

I am 100% certain that the majority of Irish people privately wish they were still in the commonwealth.

Dionysus

The IRgAy wrote: »

I am 100% certain that the majority of Irish people privately wish they were still in the commonwealth.

"We" are in the commonwealth; it began on 6 December 1922 when the wealth of this state could begin to be shared by more of the commoners than thitherto had been the situation and was no longer the preserve of people who had a right to it because of their (British) ethnic origin and (British) religious affiliation.

getz

Dionysus wrote: »

"We" are in the commonwealth; it began on 6 December 1922 when the wealth of this state could begin to be shared by more of the commoners than thitherto had been the situation and was no longer the preserve of people who had a right to it because of their (British) ethnic origin and (British) religious affiliation.

where is that ? i will have to go there

Minstrel27

UsernameInUse wrote: »

Surely, when RTE places the event of two elitists marrying as a priority in a Republic, then things have certainly gone pear-shaped.

It was just RTÉ was it? That wedding was shown around the world.

Kev_ps3

West Brits. Many have English blood, not surprising they look to their own kind.

Dionysus

getz wrote: »

where is that ? i will have to go there

Unfortunately for you, there's a basic English language test you'll have to pass to move here, getz.

Dionysus

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

West Brits. Many have English blood, not surprising they look to their own kind.

Now, Kev, the entire "blood" thing is a bit embarrassing in this day and age. There are plenty of more intelligent arguments.

getz

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

West Brits. Many have English blood, not surprising they look to their own kind.

i would be very suprised if most people in ireland have not got english blood in them,800 years of occupation, and since 1922 over 4.9 million of you has left ireland to live in the UK,so much for not wanting anything to do with britishness/and the crown

KeithAFC

Dionysus wrote: »

Here we go again. And where would this "Irish Republic" be, Keith?

Come on, you've been posting on this forum from the occupied Six Counties for long enough to know the correct internationally-recognised name (Article 4) for this state, and indeed its correct internationally-recognised description. So, why do you persist in avoiding the use of either one of the correct versions?

The Republic for the Irish people. ROI, Irish Republic etc.

Sunnyisland

Documentary looking at the men who Princess Diana had relationships with before her death.

Directors:

Peter Swain, Chris Warren
Stars:

Tim Pigott-Smith, James Hewitt and Anthony Holden




Anybody looking at this last night,;) I wasn't were you ?:p:o

Bloody Nipples

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

West Brits. Many have English blood, not surprising they look to their own kind.

How au fait are you with your own genealogy?

Minstrel27

KeithAFC wrote: »

The Republic for the Irish people. ROI, Irish Republic etc.

Ireland?

mike65

Here is the blog from whence the OP stole his wabble wousing opening gambit.

http://www.republic.org.uk/blog/?p=2089

Dionysus

KeithAFC wrote: »

The Republic for the Irish people. ROI, Irish Republic etc.

The monarchy for the English people. Britain, United Kingdom etc.

Bloody Nipples

Minstrel27 wrote: »

Ireland?

Sticks in his throat I expect.

Dionysus

getz wrote: »

i would be very suprised if most people in ireland have not got english blood in them,800 years of occupation, and since 1922 over 4.9 million of you has left ireland to live in the UK,so much for not wanting anything to do with britishness/and the crown

This is, at least, as embarrassing in its abject stupidity: what is "English blood"?

getz

Dionysus wrote: »

This is, at least, as embarrassing in its abject stupidity: what is "English blood"?

must be the same as irish blood,we keep getting told,that over 6 million people in britain were either born in ireland, or have a irish parent.

Dionysus

getz wrote: »

must be the same as irish blood,we keep getting told,that over 6 million people in britain were either born in ireland, or have a irish parent.

This makes no sense. What is "English blood"? Is it a stupid primordial nationalistic concept or does it have a basis in facts which you dislike such as the Norman invasion which, by your thinking, surely makes "English blood" "French blood" and, to use your Irish analogy, makes the French the rightful rulers of the English?

Or does all this "English blood" nonsense have very serious limitations which are solely designed to support British nationalist aims today in 2011?

Let me guess....

Eve_Dublin

I did some serious minus fawning that day....did the complete opposite to watching a royal wedding...

I watched a load of Republican funerals...backwards! (Technically a funeral is not the opposite to a wedding but you get the idea). :cool:

Ally Dick

Royal weddings are just a bit of escapism for a little while. Women love all of that stuff. I don't see the harm. I have no interest myself to be honest