Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

Sir Mick!


Dr. Ellwood

Recommended Posts



  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply

McCartney, although I'm quite sure he's proud of it, tends to downplay it a bit. Mick, he just doesn't seem like knighthood would go with his personality.

 

The guy who's proud of it, and openly refers to himself as "Sir" is Sir George Martin. And Martin's persona is much more "Sir"-ish than either McCartney or Jagger. Or Elton.

"Cisco Kid, was a friend of mine"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Pappadopalus:

I know he's called the great white Duke, but why has he been snubbed by the house of Stewart?

'Cause they're, uhm, dead.

 

I wouldn't feel bad for Bowie though. After all, King Sunny Ade hasn't been welcomed into the fold either. Neither were Duke Ellington or Count Basie ;):D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Most of this stuff, like the Beatles MBE awards (Member of British Empire) medals, is based on their bringing monies (& their attendant tax revenue) into the kingdom, wher it provides the financial support of the mincing princes.

 

To me it's all laughable in a way; the USA was supposed to be founded on an egalitarian basis. :P

 

I liked George Harrison's comment in the 1960s. He claimed that MBE stood for Mr Brian Epstein....a bit like Bob Marley's later claim to an interviewer asking how a RasTafarian could conscientiously own an expensive BMW.

"Hey, Mon, it mean Bob Marley & Wailers!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Geoff B.:

At least one of the 'mincing princes' put himself in harm's way in the Falklands.

So did a zillion other squaddies and nobody even remembers their names.

 

Anyway, I can't understand monarchy: if the world fought the nazis, who were insisting that they had a right to rule because of their genes... why do people support hereditary monarchies, which rule because of uhmm... their genes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Kramer Ferrington III.:

Originally posted by Geoff B.:

At least one of the 'mincing princes' put himself in harm's way in the Falklands.

So did a zillion other squaddies and nobody even remembers their names.

 

Anyway, I can't understand monarchy: if the world fought the nazis, who were insisting that they had a right to rule because of their genes... why do people support hereditary monarchies, which rule because of uhmm... their genes?

As an American, it's NOT our business.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another good example of a "Fortunate Son"---don't mistake me for being lopsided.

Personally, I think all Professional Pols should get a real job.

 

[cue Cream's "Politician" or the Byrds's "I Wanna Grow Up to be a Politician (& Take Over This beautiful Land)"]

 

Now back to laughin' at pompous rockers, OK?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[somehow double posted when I tried to edit the original before your response---no flame intended, Ell!!]

 

Another good example of a "Fortunate Son"---don't mistake me for being lopsided.

Personally, I think all Professional Pols should get a real job.

 

[cue Cream's "Politician" or the Byrds's "I Wanna Grow Up to be a Politician (& Take Over This beautiful Land)"]

 

BTW, "...the English are now & have always been our friends..."?

Hmmm...like in 1776 & 1812 ?

Maybe you're thinking of the French ?

 

All nations's rulers play a game of circumstantial alliances...but let's not bicker over side issues--- back to laughin' at pompous rockers, OK?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by d:

I'll go first...last night saw Rod the Mod Stewart on Leno rerun.

He referred to "sir" Elton as "my younger sister". :D

Oh, that's a LONG standing feud. In the seventies they used to refer to each other as "Dorothy" and some other name. I don't know what started it. Anybody?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well when you consider the fit EJ's alledged to've thrown just cause Madonna didn't agree to perform at his wedding, who says there was a reason?

 

 

BTW..."Some Other Name"...wasn't that on the Beatles "Help! LP ?

 

["...for I have got

some other name..."

with great bluesy guitar break at the end by...Sir Paul!]

Life's so circular...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Eric Iverson:

Was that "long standing feud" for real or was it just show business??

Uhmm... just friendly, I guess.

 

Here's the word straight from a proper British tabloid.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/11/02/do0210.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2003/11/02/ixop.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Kramer Ferrington III.:

why do people support hereditary monarchies, which rule because of uhmm... their genes?

Late breaking news: In England they don't rule, they're just figureheads.

Just a pinch between the geek and chum

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True dat, Bejeeber, but they are supported by the public funds & the fact that they have age-old land control.

 

Required rock star content: I wonder if Lennon, having once swiped his MBE of his auntie's mantel to mail back to the Queen, would've accepted a knighthood if offered one...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by d:

True dat, Bejeeber, but they are supported by the public funds & the fact that they have age-old land control.

 

Required rock star content: I wonder if Lennon, having once swiped his MBE of his auntie's mantel to mail back to the Queen, would've accepted a knighthood if offered one...

But the public funds are their public funds, how does pertain to us? Isn't it up to the citizens of that country to decide if they should have access to the public funds? Again it's NOT our business and who are we to judge anything they do?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Bejeeber:

Late breaking news: In England they don't rule, they're just figureheads.

They can convene and dismiss parliaments and it is the Queen that oks or vetoes the laws that have been proposed by the same parliament. AFAIK, the UK does not really have a constitution, so all power rests finally with the monarchy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by d:

True dat, Bejeeber, but they are supported by the public funds & the fact that they have age-old land control.

 

Actually, you're 'way out of date.

 

Parliament controls the Royal purse and does so quite strictly these days.

 

And they pay tax, like everyone else. Hence the Royal yacht being 'let go' a few years ago, and the close public scrutiny on just about everything else.

 

Also, they don't own huge swathes of land like they used to. Much more of the UK belongs to Chinese, nouveau riche Russians & Arabs than the Royal family.

 

Please don't think that the Windsors rampage across the land like robber barons. That's a bit of an old Hollywood idea.

 

But there are certainly *some* institutions the majority of Brits feel are worth preserving, despite the Republican views of others, and, after all, it's our country.

 

 

G.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the World will know Peace": Jimi Hendrix

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=738517&content=music

The Geoff - blame Caevan!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Kramer Ferrington III.:

Originally posted by Bejeeber:

Late breaking news: In England they don't rule, they're just figureheads.

They can convene and dismiss parliaments and it is the Queen that oks or vetoes the laws that have been proposed by the same parliament. AFAIK, the UK does not really have a constitution, so all power rests finally with the monarchy.
The last Monarch who tried to dissolve parliament unilaterally was beheaded - Charles I.

 

The fact that the monarch *is seen* to dismiss parliament and then invite someone to form a government is actually powers *allowed* by Parliament.

 

The President of France, or the USA have hugely greater powers then our monarch, these days, and if you actually examine how things work, you'll find that it is Parliament which has all the power and the monarchy actually has very, very little left.

 

(Ooops, I've just been sent to The Tower for writing that)

 

:D

 

Geoff

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the World will know Peace": Jimi Hendrix

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=738517&content=music

The Geoff - blame Caevan!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff: Ok, you're a monarchist. I am a republican.

 

Personally, I couldn't care less if royalty (in Britain, Tonga or Denmark) made their own sandwiches and worked 23 hours a day in a coal mine (and then got up before they went to bed and cleaned the bottom of the lake ;) ).

 

I dislike monarchies on principle.

 

But this is getting pointlessly (albeit pointledly) OT so I'm not going to post on this any further, unless others continue to harp on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, I agree, but just one point before I do - I'm *not* really a monarchist - I'm a socialist-oriented Scot who's criticised the royal family for years, but I can't let people post what is effectively 'mis-information' without trying to correct it.

 

Some people get pretty funny ideas.

 

Enough already!

 

Geoff

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the World will know Peace": Jimi Hendrix

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=738517&content=music

The Geoff - blame Caevan!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee, I thought when Harmony Central got the SSS forum they were required to take the Political Forum, too. ;)

 

I've tried to do my part to steer this back to rollicking lampoons at pompous rockers (even if "'Sir' doesn't seem like part of Mick's personality" as was said, none of these titles are conferred without the prior, assured acceptance of the "honoree") but I can't leave an invalid point standing.

Therefore:

Originally posted by Geoff B. (in boldface/my responses in plain font) :

...Actually, you're 'way out of date. Don't be so sure.

Nothing you've suggested changes the fact that the entire basis of the royals support comes from their long-standing dominance of the country.

Even if "Prince Rabbit Ears" sets up a salmon processing factory or what-have-you, the financial support he draws on comes from heredity & power going back hundreds of years, not from anything he, his parents or even their parents [repeat do-loop] did. If Parliament exercises greater control than a couple hundred years back, it's still the public trough they feed from.

If they now return a portion of that in taxes, so what? I'd wager they've the best accountants & certainly benefit more than someone working in that salmon factory or a Welsh miner getting chumped on a daily basis.

Of course we have the same inequities here in the USA but that doesn't obviate the situation there.[/QB]

 

Also, they don't own huge swathes of land like they used to. Much more of the UK belongs to Chinese, nouveau riche Russians & Arabs than the Royal family.

Well, that they've put much of their country in hock, again, has little to do with me being out-of-date. Surprise! The largest landowners overall in the USA are Japanese &, increasingly, Chinese moneylenders.

Why ya think all these US piliticos & corporate entities like Google are bending over backward to cater to them?

BTW, there's nothing xenophobic in my view; I just dislike anyone's exploitation of the poor/unpowerful.

 

... after all, it's our country.

 

 

G.

Well, that's true & that's OK; when Cromwell took over it was apparently just as bad as when the French had their revolution...but I wonder if the majority of British (or English) citizens aren't as dis-satisifed with the whatever genuine problems are there, just like those in the USA.

[bTW, though Ellwood & I have a cordial & even mutaually supportive attitude generally, I still wonder at his similar comment that [paraphrased] "...it's their country & they can do as they like...", given the USA's longstnding & (right or wrong's irrelevant here) current history of directly interfering with the governments of other countries...]

 

But let me make it clear, the Royals are not the worst thing going, any more than political figurheads in the USA are the worst---it's the financial power figures that generally operate behind the scenes that need to have the Flashlight shone on them.

 

Now, ahem,

Required Ribbing of Rock Royalty Section:

Watching the Martha "Jailbird" Stewart (that name again!) show this morning while munching my cornflakes, I noted that while she bemoaned David Letterman ignoring her invitation to New Years Eve party, she gleefully revealed that she'd recently spent a day with the Jagger family sailing around the Caribbean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...