The Talk: Discussion Thread

[EricMontreal22]

In my experience no Brits are upset by that fact LOL If anything I think they're amused by being perceived as the more uptight culture. (I know as a Canadian a lot of my American friends still are shocked we keep ties to the monarchy--not seeming to realize that aside from a figurehead, particularly in Canada, they play zero part anyway--it's just a historical connection. But then again few Americans know about the War of 1812 or a Canadian burning down the White House). But I think you are right about the connection to the queen giving a more major sense to others of propriety,.

[DaytimeFan]

Haha I'm glad you appreciate that I enjoy it, though I must clarify that I don't enjoy it. I LOVE it. Sharon is so shrewd and I absolutely love her for it. Sharon plays it so, so, well. There are very likely a few sides to Sharon as an authentic person, she does have her kind moments, she just shows them strategically.

Obsolete institution? The UK monarchy is a modern constitutional monarchy and carries out a very important role in the workings of the United Kingdom government, as well as the Commonwealth of Nations. The people can't "get rid" of them, an act of parliament has to be voted on, an act that the Queen herself has to sign in order for it to become law. The monarchy is an exceptionally stabilising force in the UK, not to mention the nation's best tourist attraction.

Next year, the monarch won't even cost the tax payer a pound, the new Sovereign Support Grant will provide an income for the monarch based on a percentage of revenues from the Crown Estate lands, land which the monarch holds in trust for the nation. The rest of the money goes into general government revenue.

Absolutely, the last thing the British are is upset that Americans perceive them as uptight or conservative.

The only people who are going to think that the UK is conservative because it has a monarch haven't visited the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain or Monaco either...what a load of ignorance on those people. For shame.

[Max]

If the U.K. wants to be known as a "progressive" country the world over, Parliament could indeed vote to abolish the monarchy (because public opinion would demand it), and the Queen could then sign such an act into law. (I believe you when you say that you are not upset over the perception of the British being uptight/conservative, but if others are upset, that is indeed the course to follow.) If the monarchy ceased to exist, then those government functions they carry out can be executed by others (as happens in America).

I have no problem if many British folks think they are so much more sophisticated and tolerant than Americans. At the same time, however, people in the U.K. should be accepting if many Americans see the monarchy as an "obsolete institution" that shouldn't exist in one's government. It seems as if most individuals think their culture is better, which hardly comes as a shock.

Also, unless I am mistaken, in the U.K. a criminal defendant is guilty until proven innocent. In the much more "backwards" U.S., it is the other way around. I am very surprised that the people in Britain are content with their punitive approach to criminal law.

[DaytimeFan]

You are 100% mistaken. Blatantly wrong in fact. My wife is a lawyer, trained in the UK, criminal defendants are innocent until proven guilty. Common law was founded in the UK, the very same common law that is utilized in the United States.

And how does having a monarchy make a country less progressive? Is it the democracy argument? The Queen provides royal ascent to law, she doesn't make law herself, in fact, she cannot make law, only the elected members of Parliament can. Is Canada any less progressive because it has a Queen? The same goes for Australia? What about the rest of the Commonwealth realms?

[JackPeyton]

Im shocked anyone think of Britain as more Conservative/backwards/whatever than the usa. We have such an stuck in history mind set about anything to do with the human body, sex, sexuality, esp sex education, etc..

[DaytimeFan]

Also, the monarchy is not part of the government.

There is The Sovereign, Her Majesty's Government and The Judiciary. 3 separate entities that sometimes interact.

[Max]

DaytimeFan, I appreciate the correction. Honestly, it was in both my high school and middle school history classes where I was (incorrectly) told that one is innocent until proven guilty in the U.S., while the reverse is true in the U.K.

The idea of a monarcy itself is inherently "unprogressive" (not sure if that is a word), because it furthers the divide between the rich and the poor. Progressives have long championed the idea of economic equality, where the middle class grows while the number of very wealthy and very poor shrink. However, not only does a monarchy create an elite class of the wealthy people, it goes well beyond that by creating a caste system (where certain people are born into enormous wealth while "commoners" have virtually no chance of attaining equal status).

Please correct me if I am wrong, but Wikipedia states that the Queen herself did not pay income taxes prior to 1993. In the U.S., we have long had a policy of progressive taxation. Yet, the Queen got away with paying no income taxes until less than twenty years ago. The fact that some group of elitists--who got their positions of power merely because they were lucky enough to be born into the right family--can live a completely different life than everybody else is a concept that many Americans find very offensive (especially Americans who are liberal).

[EricMontreal22]

I think you're very perceptive with your opinions--and I admit since we first disagreed abotu Sharon I've come *slightly* around to your side. I do think at heart she's a kind woman (she'd have to be to have heklped her husband so much, alone). I admit I have a hard time with personalities who seem duplicitous in different media contexts--I get it between "real life" and their media personality, but... I'll never love her, but I do find her more genuine on The Talk than on America's Got Talent where, the random times I tune in, she seems to play the Paula role, which I don't think works, and I find odd that anyone falls for.

I agree, obviously with all you say about the monarchy. I really think many Americans see it as some sort of weakness that people of the Commonwealth are in some sort of co-dependant relationship with. I know you live (have lived?) sometimes in Vancouver so understand it better than most--but as you say, anyone who has spent some time in the UK (or Canada, or Australia, or Denmark for that matter) knows it's not some archaic institution they are still partially controlled by.

[EricMontreal22]

I agree in theory it is completely non-progressive (I dunno if that's a better word). The steroetype Canada at least has of Americans is that they have no sense of history of other countries--by the same token I dated an American guy from Virginia when I lived in montreal and he was shocked when I would watch Jeopardy with him how I knew so little about the Presidents. He seemed to think it was world history (I do know--the major ones, he didn't even know who MacDonald was or who the current Prime Minister was even though he was studying there at McGill).

The thing is at this point the Monarchy is a symbol that the working class perhaps more than any other clings to, especially in the wake of some useless PMs in the UK. I don't think it really does create a further division of the classes--and in a way the monarchy are a superior example of some of the fake monarchies the US has created like the Hiltons.

Yeah and I found that as a teen pretty horrific. But she does now. And the Queen basically lives as a tourist draw who emplys millions. This is (IMHO) preferable to some American public figures who manage to dodge taxes repeatedly, apply for office and somehow convince the very people they bleed of money the most that they should have power. If this were the 80s when the UK was in a vastly different state (although Reagan-era America was party to that and help re-inforce the monarchy) I would completely agree.

[Max]

Thanks for your kind words, Eric.

[JackPeyton]

Most of us dont, and what we do know is usually some clever plays on history to vilify everyone else. Our education in America is such a joke. Its quite sad.

[EricMontreal22]

That's what friends of mine from the US have said. And it makes sense--since the fall of the British Empire, the US has taken over that position in Western culture. But I think it's had some really bad effects--and some things I've been surprised by (I DID learn how the US was built around a seperation of religion and state, which has made me confused about the way religion has controlled aspects of the US so much--I have an already mentioned ex who still insists the US is more "free" than Canada, and unfortunately Canada is becoming more like the US all the time, but crap like the Westboro Baptist Church would simply not happen here).

[JackPeyton]

Separation of Church and State is such a utter joke.

basically, it allows churchs/religions/people the freedom to prctice their religion, and thats about it. It doesnt stop religion from clouding laws, as it should. We are a christian led nation, basically, with a few minor exceptions they want overturned.

Two great docus on education in america are The Miseducation of Shelby Knox and Waiting for Superman. Both are on netflix, i think. The Shelby one, about sex ed and how it is failing, is on pbs.com too.

[DaytimeFan]

So you're contending that a constitutional monarchy, which is the system in the UK, further divides the rich and poor? Explain to me, then, why the UK has scores of billionaires who make the queen look like a pauper. Scores of people who came from nothing, like Duncan Bannatyne or Peter Jones, who went on to become unbelievably wealthy through hard graft. Explain to me how, if a caste system is created, HRH Princess Michael of Kent has to work as an interior decorator for the very "commoners" who you contend never had a shot at gaining equal status. Explain to me, then, why there is a comprehensive social safety net in place so that UK citizens don't go without food, shelter, healthcare and primary and secondary education. Explain to me, then, why the USA, a republic, has an exceptionally poorly educated population (for example, the incorrect teaching in both your middle school and high school about the presumption of innocence) who doesn't have access to free healthcare and shelter. Explain to me how year after year university graduates obtain good paying jobs at banks like the Royal Bank of Scotland, the very same bank that employs Peter Phillips, HRH Princess Anne's son.

Your statement that HM The Queen "got away with" not paying taxes is ludicrous. HM The Queen didn't pay income tax because, by law, she was not required to since, by constitutional convention, the sovereign and the heir apparent were never required to pay taxes in order to sustain the financial health of the monarchy. Is that self serving? Yes. Is it legal? Yes as parliament voted on it. The 1992 Memorandum on Royal Taxation demonstrates that HM The Queen and HRH The Prince of Wales pay tax on a voluntary basis, they are not required to by law but they do so anyway. All other members of the Royal Family have always paid income tax as they do not fall under the sovereign/heir exemption.

And if Americans find being born into the "right family" offensive, what do they make of the Trumps? The Hiltons? The Rockefellers? The Bushs? Name a successful family who made their money through their own work and they get tarred and feathered with the same brush. They're all members of the Lucky Sperm Club and to suggest that a monarchy is any different is illogical.

[Cheap21]

Oh god Cheryl Underwood is TERRIBLE! She is the worst thing the show could have done with its new lineup. She makes Sherri Shepard look like Meredith Vierra