quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
…Meanwhile my wife is lying huddled in the duvet, complaining that the room's cold. It's amazing that we've managed to remain married for over 40 years, really ;-)

We share the same experience in reverse in our marriage of 40+yrs. If it should lead to divarication, I have predicted the Courts will grant the necessary verdict on the novel grounds of "thermal incompatibility".

The article of clothing that you in the UK are calling a vest and some in the US are saying we call a tank top or a "wife beater," I have always heard referred to as an "undershirt." There are undershirts with sleeves and undershirts that are sleeveless.

A tank top is a sleeveless t-shirt that is worn in the summer, more by women than men. When men wear them, they are "muscle shirts."

A vest is worn with a three-piece suit, and is what in the UK is called the waistcoat. The suit jacket is what Richard was calling the vest.

OK so you have cardigans--that is what we would call a sweater with buttons, and I believe you call what we call a sweater, a "jumper?" Whereas, we call a jumper a kind of sleeveless dress that women wear over a blouse!

Whew!

As for subjects vs. citizens--I think, Kalleh, if George W. Bush invites you to the White House for dinner, you are not supposed to refuse. In that sense, he has kingly powers over us--he wishes!

Once a few years ago when I was visiting my sister in New Zealand, I attended an 11 course New Year's dinner at the home of one of her friends. About the 10th course, when we were running out of things to drink to, with the 10th bottle of wine, I thought I was being helpful when I said, well, we can drink to the Queen.
Another person at the table, a native New Zealander who is a labor lawyer, startled me by shouting, "Bugger the Queen!" I was really shocked to find that some people in distant parts of the Commonwealth did not feel at all cheerful that they had a monarch!

I think that many Americans, women especially, like to follow the royals, and sort of romanticize their lives, even though we would not personally want to be subjects of the Queen.

Sorry if that word is offensive to her loyal subjects. I am only quoting what someone else said, and would not say it myself.

Wordmatic

quote:

I think, Kalleh, if George W. Bush invites you to the White House for dinner, you are not supposed to refuse

Sports figures often get invited to the White House and refuse to go, based on politics.

I hadn't heard of divarication before. I found it means divergence of opinion. It doesn't have anything to do with divorce, right?

quote:

I suspect the USA is similarly afflicted, and since they do everything bigger and better than we do their ambient temperatures are possibly higher than ours?

I find it just the opposite; that is, in the summer places just freeze with air conditioning. I don't understand; it's uncomfortable and costs them money.

quote:

"Bugger the Queen!" ... I am only quoting what someone else said, and would not say it myself.

Nor, being female, would you be capable of so doing.

And if His Royal Hiney Dubya asked me to dinner, I'd only accept if dinner was mountain oysters harvested from Cheney, Pearl, Wolfowitz, Rove, et al.

Asa the politically incorrect in extremis

quote:

I was really shocked to find that some people in distant parts of the Commonwealth did not feel at all cheerful that they had a monarch!

There is a strong republican movement in both Australia and New Zealand (and for that matter, the United Kingdom). But at present the Monarchists are in the majority by a comfortable margin.

It has always been the policy of the British, since the Empire began to be demolished, to accede to the wishes of the majority. Those few countries that are still British colonies are such because they have chosen thus to remain. Those who are members of the Commonwealth are such because they have chosen to remain members. If a majority in New Zealand vote to leave the Commonwealth and thus no longer to have the Queen as head of state, then I am sure there would be no argument on the part of the British Government.

Because the breakup of the British Empire happened with very little fuss or bloodhed, it's easy to forget how quickly it happened. In my own lifetime, Britain ruled the largest empire there has ever been; in just a few years it has gone - apart from a small rump of countries that want to continue to be ruled by us. That is a record that few, if any, other colonial powers can match.

I suspect that the average British citizen/subject spends very little time worrying about his/her status. As I said, they are both a citizen and a subject, and in general, don't care much.

As Richard said, there are republican movements in most if not all Commonwealth countries that would prefer to see Liz replaced as head of state by someone who has been elected. I understand they are particularly strong in Australia. When it is time for Charles to inherit there may well be some movement on this, as he is nothing like as popular as his mother, but, at present, inertia rules.

Remember, also, that many heads of state are simply figureheads; the US is unusual in having a president with executive powers.

quote:

Remember, also, that many heads of state are simply figureheads; the US is unusual in having a president with executive powers.

And the past few years must have made some wonder whether this is altogether a good thing...

Interesting to hear these explanations. Thanks. Some of the Kiwis at the table on that New Year's Day were referring to your Liz as Betty Windsor. She's likely to live forever like her mother, and Charles may be gone before she is. In that case, will the crown pass to Prince William or Princess Ann--that is, if the Republicans don't get their way first?

I'll have to agree it's not a good idea to give W any powers, executive or otherwise, but the U.S. Constitution is a fine and sturdy instrument of government, so best not to mess with it. It has withstood other storms before (though none quite so <i>stupid</i> as this one!) In just another week, our mid-term elections will be over, and Congress will pass into the control of the Democrats, almost certainly. After that, Dubya will have a much harder time pushing through his agenda and obtaining financing for his lunatic half-formed strategies. He may even be impeached, though it seems unlikely that Congress would go through that again after spending piles of political capital and millions of dollars on the Clinton impeachment, which did not win a conviction. And nothing, not even getting rid of GWB before his time, can fix the mess we've set in motion in Iraq--no matter what we do there, it will be horrific.

Wordmatic

quote:

Remember, also, that many heads of state are simply figureheads; the US is unusual in having a president with executive powers.

We in the U.S. are fortunate to live in a country in which the President doesn't get that job just because he's the son of a previous Pres-- , er, I mean, he's elected by a majority of th--

Never mind.

Neveu, I nearly choked to death laughing!

Something to consider: http://www.powells.com/tnr/review/2006_10_26

Me, too, neveu.