h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A Swede is currently looking for the nessy but he has had a spell cast on him for bad luck.

You decide ? Is there nothing more important to read that this?

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/scotland/newsid_1294000/1294056.stm

Lucinda: Poeple go to Egypt simply to look at the Pyramids, to Sacre Coeur to admire the architecture. People come to the UK not to revere our cultural instutions but to gawp at the quaintness of the Changing of the Guard and hear lurid stories at the Tower of London about the savage justice meted out by Henry VIII to members of his own family. The real issue, and certainly the one being debated here, is whether the monarchy is an appropriate institution in this day and age. We could easily jettison them and still have the tourist attractions, the pomp and circumstance, if it brings in money. Besides, I find your attempt to equate the significance of our own ridiculous sideshow with the enormity of what went on in Auschwitz a bloody sight more distasteful than ALL CAPITALS, believe me.

I wasn't equating, I was comparing - and I was pointing out that there are tourist attractions with a *far* worse pedigree than our monarchy. Most attractions are not "glorious monuments to artistic, cultural and civic vision and ... are timeless and resonant throughout the ages" - many of them are in honour of beliefs and ideals we no longer care for, and many of them are the sites of much suffering and death.

We live in a nasty world filled with large numbers of nasty people, and historically we've been nastier yet. If the monarchy *didn't* have death, destruction, and debauchery in its history I would be *very* surprised - most of us are direct descendants of a murderer somewhere down the line anyway.

Poeple who visit tourist attractions that have come to symbolise suffering and death, such as Auschwitz, do so because they identify emotionally with the victims, not the perpetrators, nor with "ideals we no longer care for". Auschwitz is not in "honour" of the Nazi party or the SS, quite the reverse. There are some who no doubt connect emotionally with the monarchy when visiting the Tower but they are almost certainly in the minority. If there is any emotion felt regarding them by tourists, I doubt very much if it leads to a sense of kinship or admiration, more a sense of wonder bordering on disbelief how a supposedly modern country could attach continuing and unquestioning importance to such an irrelevant institution.

Auschwitz falls into the "sites of much suffering and death" category, whereas Rome largely falls into the "in honour of beliefs and ideals we no longer care for" category. The pyramids fall into both. Was this unclear?

And I'm sorry, but you really need a monarchy in order to make the most use of monarchy tourist attractions. You can't have a coronation without someone to put the crown on, and few people will watch the changing of the guard unless there's someone or something to be guarded. Yes, you can make the monarchy even more symbolic - I'd be the first to be in favour of that - but getting rid of them completely will cost money, for precisely no gain that I can see whatsoever.

I'm clearly missing something - can someone please tell me what positive reasons there are to prefer a republic over a monarchy. So far I've heard that:
1) Under a monarchy I'm a "subject", and this is some how horrendous, despite the fact that everyone, everywhere, calls themselves citizens anyway - we talk about citizenship, not subjectship.
2) Monarchies are old-fashioned - which is just laughable: the UK isn't a fashion label. Oherwise we'd now be a "brown and pleasant land" because green is just *so* eighties, darling...

You don't need a monarchy to have all the tourist-attracting guff that goes with it. People celebrate Christmas without believing in either Santa Claus or Jesus (like me), mainly because they enjoy the trappings and gaiety and are quite happy to leave it at that. Simlarly you don't need to have an institutional core to all the pomp and circumstance.

The best argument against having a monarchy is that it is an offensive anachronism. It symbolises deference to class and inherited wealth, and there's no denying that. That's why people like me don't like it.

Changing the Guard: When I was in Ottawa (capital of Canada) I went to do the touristy bit at the Parliament building. While hanging around the front green, I noticed a sign advertising Changing of the Guard in half an hour. I looked around. There were a bucket load of tourists, a couple of pigeons and the odd tour guide, but no Guards. Then, at the appointed time, as if by magic, a load of Guards, in full red dress uniforms, with those big bearskin (?) hats, piled out, marched up and down to some music, a tour guy gibbered on about the ancient British ceremony, the national anthem was played and everybody naffed off. Now, what were the Guards guarding, and why did they feel the urge to "change" them? As far as I could tell they were all dossing in the same shed in the first place. Plenty of tourists came to see them though, without a hint of a Windsor sneaking behind a curtain. Not that I understand it mind.

On the 'Great' monarchs front - what about Catherine the Great, mass murderer and horese-shagger extraordinaire?

Ahh, but to a lot of tourists who are themselves from a republic, the fact that the UK still has a monarchy is part of the magic, as it were - Americans in particular, it seems. When you go to the Tower of London, you see the Crown jewels (even though I reckon they're glass; if they were real, they'd never be that accessible), and they continue to be a part of various ceremonies, not just purely historical artifacts. I think the living aspect of the monarchy draws a lot of tourist interest, particularly from overseas, since they don't see all the nitty gritty details of the British tabloid press - they've got they're own scandals...

Is it just me, or does anyone else find the fact that Lewinsky didn't wash that dress somewhat disturbing?

"... they're own scandals"? Sorry, my grammar is disintegrating, if that is indeed possible...

Maybe she's planning on using the 'seed' to clone a lot of little mini-Clintons and take over the world?

There's a B-moview waiting to happen...

Some countries don't need historical relics to attract visitors. Check out the rugged splendour of much of Africa, Australia, New Zealand and many smaller Pacific island nations. Countries defined by the real colour of the Naughties, a combination of green, brown and blue.

I would have included Canada but for Munchkin's somewhat worrying report a bit higher up. Perhaps the guard are there to repel separatist French speakers

Incidently, many of the countries mentioned above use Queen Betty as Head Of State.

But if they all had the same kind of heritage then there'd be no point in going, would there? And for that matter (started a sentence with 'and' - no matter), many of the places mentioned do rely on historical relics to a certain extent - ie. historical relics are markers, if you will, of history, and it is a history that is different to one's own that attracts one to a place. Easter island and its freaky statues, for example; Aboriginal history; Sydney Opera House (not quite historic, but a relic nonetheless); tribal costumes/craftwork/culture in many African states... they're just different historical relics, that's all.

St Emily, I think you are confusing your relics with your icons.

What I, no doubt badly, was trying to refer to in my post was the scenery and ambience. The majestic Southern Alps (NZ), lions and elephants (Africa), good beer (Australia), idyllic settings (many Pacific islands) etc.

All these places tend to have plenty of sunshine as well. Holiday-makers enjoy that. Much of the new world has not been overrun by plane loads of people on package tours. Leaving aside Africa for the moment, in the other places you can still meander around where you want, when you want, at your own pace.

as for the Irish president... she is largely ceremonial, but since Mary Robinson took the position (over 14 years ago now I think!) it has become a very important role. It's not ceremonial or political as such I don't think - more of a social role. The president often comments on social issues and supports various charitable enterprises. Both Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese have done wonderful things for the profile of the country. If you are going to have a head of state that has no real powers, that's the sort of thing you want them to do isn't it? I'm not exactly in favour of the monarchy at all, I prefer the Irish system.

-- violagirl

oh - the Irish President does have some political power (almost forgot!) as well as signing laws she can refer bills to the court if she thinks they could be against the constitution.

Violagirl, who appoints the judges to the court?

And Peter the Great too! (Not sure about the horses though!) But that's Russia, and it seems that until very recently indeed you HAD to be a mass murderer to be in charge there.

emm.... er.... it the government as far as I know, but I think there is some kind of board who meet and decide. I must have been asleep for that Legal Systems class! It's certainly not the President though. As far as I am aware the most she does is swear them in/sign the order approving them.

-- violagirl

Going back to the Egyptian slave thing - apparently, there is no historical evidence that slaves were used at all - Cecil B DeMille made it up because it looked better. Another Hollywood invention.

It is of course based on completely outmoded belief systems which we would laugh at now, but it isn't slavery.

Just read your item Liza The Freak.
You say that we get a say in what happens to us.
The last item on a recent "TODAY" programme was a discussion on just this. The experts were saying just how passive the british electorate is and that there is no institution through which the electorate can have their say at times other than election times.