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

Entry: Monarchy - A806672
Author: Stuart - U199978

Comments welcomed but keep them sensible and logical please.

An interesting piece, and I like the analogy.

I am going to pick a few nits though.

Para 1 - neither Pros nor Antis should have a single apostrophe, they should either have a pair of 'quotes', or not apostrophe.

Para 2 - 'at the merest whiff of moister' - should be mosture.

Para 2 - 'it can lay' - personally I would say 'lie', but I suspect that is a matter of personal choice.

Personally I would keep the names of the metals in italics, but not the percentages.

Para 3 - Nazis does not need an apostrophe either. Incidentally I think the role Hitler achieved was 'Chancellor' but I could be wrong.

Para 6 - is a question. It would be nice to end the sentance, and indeed the entry, with a question mark.

Interesting analogy. This is not a subject I get very het up about, but you put your point across very well.

B

Thanks for the comments Ben.

You are right, Hitler was Chancellor, but I deliberately chose not to use that name and to use the more generic terms of Head of Government and Head of State so as to emphasise the difference between the two. These exist in all democratic governments, but under different names.

Beast wishes

Stuart

Pot calling the kettle black in my post, I think!

Moisture! I meant MoIsture! And a pair of 'quotes' or no apostrophe.

That will teach me not to preview.

B

Whoops! Saw your correction. Knew it was wrong, but being the gentleman that I am, did not draw attention to it but still failed to recognise my own spelling error.

Perhaps we both need a tad more coke in the rum!

Stuart

But it doesn't taste as good if you put in more coke!

Don't worry about pointing out any mistakes I make. I don't have that sort of pride.

B

Wow! This entry *really* got on my nerves!
but the reason hitler rose to power was due to a little bit in the constitution where the Chancellor could be granted emergancy powers to make all kinds of silly rules. Take out this little bit and you have no mess... ish
Oberon2001

That was a weakness in the constitution that allowed it to happen, a supposedly democratic one. He didn't change the rules to become Chancellor. But once had, he then manipulated the constitution to his own adavantage. Under the UKs constitution the Prime Minister cannot do such a thing without the approval of both the Monarch and the House of Lords. Two against one. No such retrictions for AH.

Stuart

I didn't say he changed the rules to become Chancellor... He was voted emergancy powers once he was Chancellor (due to the fire at the German Parliament building (Riechstag, I think), allegedly by Communists, but probably by Nazis). Then, he never handed them back. Ah, there's nowt as queer as folk, eh.
Oberon2001
PS, the UK doesn't have a constitution

"PS, the UK doesn't have a constitution."

Oh but it does - and a written one at that.

Its a common misconception that the UK doesnt have a constitution because it is not all written down in a single document similar to the US constituion, but its there, if you know where to look for it.

Stuart

Do you mean the Magna Carta???
The rest would just be the laws passed by Parliament, shurely?
Oberon2001

"The rest would just be the laws passed by Parliament"

Thats exactly what I mean going back to the Act of Union, the Parliment Act and the Representation of the Peoples Act and many others. All things that would appear in a single document written constitution. It may not be called a consitution but it amounts to the same thing.

If the Prime Minister wanted to give himself the same powers that Hitler did and retain some semblance of legality, he would have to amend one or more of the relevant Acts first. Probably the Parliment Act which, amonst other things, lays down what the Prime Minister can and cannot do. That would need the approval of both the House of Lords and the Monarch.

The Parliment Act of 1911 is an interesting axample. On this occasion the Monarch and the House of Commons worked together to curtain the powers of The House of Lords.

Stuart

Hi all,

i was just wandering through the AWW threads and saw this discussion that i had missed.

I remember reading the entry itself some time ago, but managed to miss the thread,

Anyway, this kind of non-EG but serious and intelligent writing is just the kind of thing some of us like to see around here, so i'm bumping this up to the top of the thread,

(partly to try to shift the big block of anti-bad-boy items down the page a little bit and get some good stuff on the main AWW page )

cya
spiff

Hi Spiff,

Thanks for that litttle plug.

You have not said which side of the fence you are on, although I suspect its not entiely on my side.



Stuart

hiya,

well, i don't really come down on one side or t'other, really.

but i'm not much of a revolutionary, so...

i also don't 'resent' the Royal Family in the way some do. No amount of money would be enough to compensate for having to be 'a royal', for me.

Hi Spiff,

I suspected that that was the case, as where the majority of the population is. This would indicate that the current status-quo is not so bad as some rampant republicans would have us believe it is.

Stuart

*waves to Stuart*
*waves to Spiff*

I confess I had forgotton this. I liked it at the time, mainly because it presents its argument cogently, and sustains the metaphor.

The main reason I am trawling through here, as both of you may know, is in an attempt to work out what makes a suitable Underguide entry.

I think this does - if the Underguide has no room for opinion pieces then it is not a true alternative to the Edited Guide, is it?

And of course CAC may like it. Or hate it. Or want to drink it with dark rum and cold coke!

So - what do other Underguiders think about this one? It would be good to start practicing our judgement skills for the UG.

Anyways, good to see you both again.

Ben

A894017 is a nice read too ...

Dunno if I would use the word 'nice'. 'Good' and 'powerful', and I certainly enjoyed reading it, but like a small plain oval biscuit? Nah!

I think they would both make good UG entries, and I am still trying to find out if my selection criteria (is it well written, is it interesting, did it hold my attention, does it argue its point well) are sound, or if I am out on a limb with the entries I like.

Thanks for posting the link to FM's entry, Dr T.

B

A nicely written piece. I used to support the Monarchy in principle. For no better reason really than that I liked the romance of it. I also used to make the argument you make as your last point and that however little power the Monarch actually has she/he must still act as some kind of curb on potential extremists. But now I think perhaps the people who are the Monarchy have lost so much respect that I question both points. The Monarchy would have to change radically to get to the point where I could respect the role without being distracted by the personalities.

I also realised when Prince Phillip came to open a new Council Office, originally and wittily named Edinburgh House, that even if it had been HM and not Pip, I couldn't have done the curtesying thing (if I was asked, which I wasn't).

I'm practising my underguiding too - I think this would make a good UG entry although I'm not qualified to comment on the constitutional and metallurigical aspects! I'm not so sure about Doctor Montague's one though. Its a strong personal opinion piece alright but I'm not convinced of the logic behind it.