I was listening to movie director Stephen Frears being interviewed yesterday, when he stated, "I am a subject, not a citizen." Is this the official UK line of reasoning? Are you not British citizens despite having a monarchy?

I don't know what the legal definition might be, but I consider myself a subject and a citizen. I am a subject of HM Queen Elizabeth II and a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I am also a citizen of London and of Greenwich (which is part of London).

Arnie is quite correct. The two things aren't mutually exclusive and most people who consider themselves to be British citizens would also aceept that they are subjects of the Queen.

There's no oath or pledge for normal citizens, but I believe that you have to pledge allegiance to the monarch if you wish to serve in the armed forces and the police, although I'm not certain, never having done either.

quote:

"I am a subject, not a citizen."

Would Canadians and Australians be subjects and not citizens?

Maybe this is another British/American thing: I would consider myself a US citizen but a resident of California and San Francisco.

quote:

Would Canadians and Australians be subjects and not citizens?

They are subjects of the Queen, and citizens of Canada or Australia.

It seems so archaic to me to be considered a subject. What does that mean exactly? Is there any responsibility involved with it?

Well Kalleh, if you are subject to the Queen's rule, then you are her subject. So, if the Queen says "jump" and you say "how high", you are her subject. Personally, if the Queen told me to do something, I could very well say no, so I'm not her subject.

Egad! That's the kind of attitude that led to a war in the colonies. 'Tis treason. Send him to the tower!

In politics - subject- is too old word and I think no body ues it now literally even the Queen I don't think she look at her people as subjects. In addition subject it's always with negative side in politics.

What about you, Meshal? You live in a monarchy too! Are you a citizen of Saudi Arabia, or a subject of your king, or both?

I don't see what the difference is between being the "subject" of the queen or of Tony Blair or George Bush or whatever. Is there a different responsibility?

quote:

I don't see what the difference is between being the "subject" of the queen or of Tony Blair or George Bush or whatever. Is there a different responsibility?

Only the Monarch has subjects; neither Tony Blair nor George Bush have that privilege - although I am sure that they would each like to be the king of their respective countries.

Of course, our own Monarch has very little power although she commands massive respect. In theory she could order any one of her subjects to do anything; in practice she would probably ask just ask, as would anyone else, and I feel sure that few would refuse her.

Although anti-monarchists get a fair amount of press, they are still in the minority. Speaking for myself I would far sooner be subject of our Queen than a simply a citizen of, say, France.

Well Asa The king -who has absolute power- tlak with us as citizens but deals with us as subjects. I perfer to be a citizen of Saudi Arabia. and if the king told me to do something, I'd say No. Just to be different

quote:

I would far sooner be subject of our Queen than a simply a citizen of, say, France.

I imagine that was what Stephen Frears was trying to say.

quote:

I don't see what the difference is between being the "subject" of the queen or of Tony Blair or George Bush

Kalleh, unless you are a member of the armed forces or an employee of the executive branch, there is nothing which compels you to obey any order George Bush gives you. If the Queen commands, and you are her subject, you must obey. Of course, things are trickier than that. The president can issue an "Executive Order", a very broad thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

Essentially, this gives the president the power to do almost anything he wants, including the Japanese internment campls in WWII, and the Kosovo War during Clinton's term. The latter was followed by an authorizing resolution from Congress, but it was not necessary. This does seem ripe for abuse, and seems to blur the line between president and dictator. Congress can overturn such an order, as can the courts, but this is very sticky constitutional ground.

quote:

there is nothing which compels you to obey any order George Bush gives you.

Oh...thank you! No more taxes for me!

Seriously, what would happen if the Queen were to order Richard, let's say, to only drink Budweiser for the rest of his life...and he didn't follow the order?

It would be "Off with Budweiser's head!"

quote:

Seriously, what would happen if the Queen were to order Richard, let's say, to only drink Budweiser for the rest of his life...and he didn't follow the order?

That would be treason, and I could be imprisoned in the Tower.

Mind you, the Queen wouldn't ever do that; she's not a beer-drinker herself, buy her mum drank, and her son drinks, Young's ales. I doubt that Dudweiser is allowed on Royal premises.

Most of the dictionary entries for citizen and subject which I looked at seem to stress that both subjects and citizens are owe allegiance or loyalty to their ruler or goverment. From an etymological POV, the words are interesting. Citizen originally just mean a "person from the/a city" (French, Latin); while subject means literally "that which is thrown under", sub "under" + jacio "to throw". Object, OTOH (and pace Pearce), is "that which is thrown against". Another near synonym is national which is from the Latin root for "to be born". Calling somebody a subject seems to have slightly pejorative connotations for some, while citizen has same for others.

quote:

That would be treason, and I could be imprisoned in the Tower.

I suspect the operative word there is "could." It doesn't happen, though, right?

Interesting, zmj. The 2 etymologies say it all.

If my memory serves me, the last person to be imprisoned in the Tower was Rudolph Hess.

I have been waiting to see how this thread evolved.
Surprise, surprise. I am very happy to be one of the Queen's subjects and feel privileged to have been born in a generally fair-minded, decent and liberal country. Of our many faults, we have become in recent years, far too soft in our dealings with that minority of native Brits and immigrants who seek to disrupt, destroy or parasitise the British way of life. Others of varied colour and religion from many countries have enormously widened and enhanced our culture and lifestyle.
So for those destructive elements, bring back the tower of London and all that implied!

Pearce, you must understand that those of us who live in the U.S. don't have the experience of being "subjects", so it's hard to relate to. It isn't that we're critical of those of you who enjoy being "subjects."

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Pearce, you must understand that those of us who live in the U.S. don't have the experience of being "subjects", so it's hard to relate to. It isn't that we're critical of those of you who enjoy being "subjects."

I do understand your disadvantaged state as republicans and consequent agnosia for privileged subjects of a monarchy. It's all an accident of birth.

Indeed. And had it not been for that unfortunate misunderstanding in Boston (colonial Boston, that is, not the original Boston, Lincs.) some years ago, you would still be the loyal subjects of her Gracious Majesty

You guys remind me of a British Airways ad campaign of the late seventies featuring Christopher Morley in a bowler hat with Big Ben looming in the background. The caption read "Come Home! All is forgiven!"

I had a tee shirt during the Bicentennial celebrations here in the States that read: "200 Years Is Enough: Reunite with the British Crown". I spent 4 July 1976 in Scotland at the southern end of Loch Ness.

quote:

"Come Home! All is forgiven!"

I wouldn't necessarily go so far as that...

quote:

you must understand that those of us who live in the U.S. don't have the experience of being "subjects", so it's hard to relate to.

Well, I think it's just adorable that they still have kings and queens and princesses and knights and castles. Personally I think they should bring back ogres and dragons, too. That would be awesome!

quote:

you would still be the loyal subjects of her Gracious Majesty

I live in California, so I, like residents of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Utah and Texas, would be loyal subject of His Majesty Juan Carlos.

Since, I, too, live in California, I like to consider myself the subject of His Imperial Majesty Emperor Norton I. His being deceased hasn't harmed his status of being Emperor of these United States and Protector of Mexico any. As for the house of Mountbatten-Windsor, Windsor, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Hanover, Guelph, Este, or whatever it's calling itself these days. All true British subjects know that the throne of the United Kingdom has been vacant since the House of Stuart was tossed out by some German upstart cousins. Henry IX was the last real monarch and he died childless in 1807. On his death Henry willed the crown to his nearest blood relative, Charles Emmanuel IV of Savoy. The current heir-general of the House of Stuart is Francis II, Duke of Bavaria, of the House of Wittelsbach. You can see a gallery of portraits of the Jacobite Succession here.

quote:

Originally posted by neveu:

I live in California, so I, like residents of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Utah and Texas, would be loyal subject of His Majesty Juan Carlos.

I doubt it. Mexico's had more revolting people in it - uhhh, revolutionaries - than a dog has fleas, and, thanks to the likes of Zapata, Juarez, et al, the Spanish, French, and Austrian claims to the Mexican throne have all been rebuffed. Chances are the nutty idea of "Manifest Destiny," the notion that we in the USA could usurp any land we wanted to on this continent, would have pushed Mexican rule out anyway.

Now, s for HRM King Norton, him I could get behind! :-)

When I was in Williamsburg last spring, I heard a lot about how mean the British were to the poor colonials here. It's no wonder they dumped all the tea in the harbor.

[I do like to start things, don't I? ]

I love that caption, neveu!

quote:

I had a tee shirt during the Bicentennial celebrations

Really, a "tee shirt"? I think the American usage is typically "t-shirt".

a "tee shirt"?

I always thought it was an acceptable variant: yes, seems so. I think the British call it a vest anyway.

[Fixed typo.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,

quote:

Originally posted by zmjezhd:
I think the British call it a vest anywway.

No we call it a T-shirt. A vest is something else entirely. It is a slevless, low necked undergarment worn underneath a regular shirt in cold conditions.

It is a slevless, low necked undergarment worn underneath a regular shirt in cold conditions.

Ah, yes, I see. What Americans call a tank top, or, less politcally correctly, a wifebeater.

Or even less politically correct, a "Dago-T". People who appear on the TV show "Cops" tend to wear these.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:

quote:

"Come Home! All is forgiven!"

I wouldn't necessarily go so far as that...

No. And nor would I.

No. And nor would I.

That's OK. We forgive youse.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Richard English:

quote:
"Come Home! All is forgiven!"


I wouldn't necessarily go so far as that...



No. And nor would I.

Oh, come on. You're not still steamed about the John Malcolm thing, are you? It's been over and done with for years.

quote:

Originally posted by zmjezhd:
It is a slevless, low necked undergarment worn underneath a regular shirt in cold conditions.

Ah, yes, I see. What Americans call a tank top, or, less politcally correctly, a wifebeater.

That's right, and as the article you link goes on to say what we call a tank top is a knitted sleeveless pullover worn over the shirt (but only by people who wish to appear terminally unfashionable).

what we call a tank top is a knitted sleeveless pullover worn over the shirt

Whch is what we call a sweater vest.

So, Bob, do you wear other vests? Like an outer vest that's worn in the cold? Or a vest with a suit?

I suspect that Pearce and Richard would get along quite well.

zmj, I hadn't heard that term "wifebeater." Yikes! I wonder if there is an equivalent "husbandbeater" term.

"Wifebeater" refers to the t-shirts typically worn by rednecks. They're usually devoid of sleeves and liberally dirt, grease, and beer-stained. While some women do beat their husbands, there's no official dress code among them. However, if you want to start a fashion trend AND Shufitz will stand for it...

quote:

So, Bob, do you wear other vests? Like an outer vest that's worn in the cold? Or a vest with a suit?

The garment you refer to as a "vest with a suit" is here known as a "waistcoat". As Bob says, the only use for the term here is for the undergarment worn by some under their shirts.

As person of high metabolic rate I find I never need one - most of the time I am too hot.

quote:

Like an outer vest that's worn in the cold?

I suppose that might describe a cardigan. If it were worn over the suit it would be an overcoat or just coat. If it were fairly short it would be described as a jacket.

Men's two-piece suits are composed of the trousers (your pants) and the jacket or coat (your vest). Three-piece suits have a waistcoat in addition.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
As person of high metabolic rate I find I never need one - most of the time I am too hot.

Richard, it's not your "high" metabolic rate, it's the near universal ambient tropical heating in shops and offices, and many private homes that is so intolerable and also a massive waste of energy. 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?

quote:

Richard, it's not your "high" metabolic rate,

I agree with you about the frequent overheating in public places, but I can assure you that I do have a high metabolic rate. I know this because I have always been skinny and hot - even back in the 1940s when there was little overheating of premises, private or public.

If I have a large meal before bedtime my internal furnace fires up and I lie there uncovered and sweltering as the excess food is burnt off. 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 ;-)

quote:

I wonder if there is an equivalent "husbandbeater" term.

quote:

While some women do beat their husbands, there's no official dress code among them.

<tongue in cheek>
I think women who beat their husbands are generally referred to as Dominatrixes . . . and they do, indeed, seem to have a dress code, although I'll refrain from including a link for the sake of propriety. </tongue in cheek> <blush> Oh wait, here is one link that is generally amusing as well as informative.

In London these ladies (and others with similar kinds of services) advertise in public telephone boxes. Indeed, now that just about everyone has a mobile (cellphone) this seems now to be the only remaining raison d'etre for public telephone boxes.

If I were BT I'd try to sell the space rather than pay lots of cash to cleaners whose futile task it is to try to remove these advertisements.