Author Topic: The House of Windsor and The Press  (Read 24944 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ilyala

  • Guest
Re: The House of Windsor and The Press
« Reply #60 on: November 13, 2006, 07:49:02 AM »
Don't you think these people have very little to think about?

tsaria

totally off topic but this is something that has always annoyed me. i have always said it's not the actual word that counts but the way it is said. no black person gets offended if another black person calls them 'n*****', for example.

this whole african-american, italian-american etc.-american seems like a total bull to me, and i think you can use politically correct terms in an offensive way too.but that's just my opinion. and i think that the people who are making these laws referring to these things have too much time to waste.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2006, 09:18:40 AM by grandduchessella »

CHRISinUSA

  • Guest
Re: The House of Windsor and The Press
« Reply #61 on: November 13, 2006, 09:12:47 AM »
yikes, I'm not touching that one with a ten foot pole!!

Offline grandduchessella

  • Global Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 13039
  • Getting Ready to Move to Europe :D
    • View Profile
    • Facebook page
Re: The House of Windsor and The Press
« Reply #62 on: November 13, 2006, 09:20:49 AM »
I edited ilyala's post to remove the offensive word--and it is offensive to many and it must be remembered that this site is used in educational settings as well. The main point of the post remains though.

I'm with Chris about not touching this one. I will just add that many black people find the word highly offensive even when used by other members of their race.
They also serve who only stand and wait--John Milton
Come visit on Pinterest--http://pinterest.com/lawrbk/

ilyala

  • Guest
Re: The House of Windsor and The Press
« Reply #63 on: November 14, 2006, 01:43:17 AM »
I edited ilyala's post to remove the offensive word--and it is offensive to many and it must be remembered that this site is used in educational settings as well. The main point of the post remains though.

I'm with Chris about not touching this one. I will just add that many black people find the word highly offensive even when used by other members of their race.

i'm sorry if i'm offending anyone. i am in no way a racist, i am, if you want, a bit of a non-conformist about these things. but as i said, it can be very offensive to use a politically correct term if you use it on the right tone of voice. as for how offensive the n word is, i think it also depends on the tone of voice. i mean, yeah, i'm sure when a black (can i use that term?) person is using the term offensively the one that it's referring to would probably not like it. but, as a person with limited experience in the matter (i'll admit, most black people around here are not using english, most of them speak french to each other), you can use it as a joke or as a funnilly used name-calling (like i call my boyfriend a ******* a few times when we joke around...).

if you wanna restrict these names, why don't we restrict swearing, other name-callings like 'bastard' and 'jerk' (and whatever other simmilar terms), why don't we invent laws that punish the use of such words? wanna bet that in a few years time terms that were before politically correct will turn offensive? like 'black' that used to be ok is suddenly not anymore, you gotta use african-american. in a few years that won't be good enough either.

you can't restrict people from offending each other if they feel like it. and they will always find ways to do so no matter how many words you forbid and call offensive. and in the end it all comes down to the immortal shakespeare: what's in a name? it's not the word that counts it's what you do with it.

(same with issuing laws on whether to call someone ms or miss or mrs! i'll call myself dame if i feel like it. i'll even put it on my business card if i'm annoyed enough  ;D)

sorry for the off-topic, feel free to insult me in private if you object to anything i said.  ::)
« Last Edit: November 15, 2006, 02:26:41 AM by tsaria »

Offline Taren

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 483
    • View Profile
    • The Chick Manifesto
Re: The House of Windsor and The Press
« Reply #64 on: November 14, 2006, 12:54:54 PM »
Ilyala, you bring up a lot of good points with your post. I for one can't stand political correctness and think a lot could be solved if people wouldn't take everyone and everything so seriously. I remember reading a message board about a deaf character from a television show and one of the posters referrred to the character was a deaf person. Another, stating that she consdidered herself very politically correct, said instead of saying "deaf person" you should really say "person who is deaf" or something to that effect. I mean come on. It's just so nitpicky. What's wrong with having an Mrs. in front of your name? If you don't want it, style yourself as Ms. or hey you or whatever. But some people like being married and having that Mrs., so why take that away?

On another note in reference to the n word you spoke up. I'm not black, but from what I understand it's the connotation of the word and how white people traditionally used it that's the problem. With an r at the end of the word it signifies white people demeaning blacks and verbally making them animals. This country went through some horrific times in regard to civil rights and the lack thereof. I live in the south and there are still people alive who remember the lynchings and huge klan marches. And even if they weren't alive they know what happened. We all took the same history classes. For a black person to hear a white person say that word, no matter how it is intended, it says "hey, you're different than me and I could very well hurt you and just the mention of that word shows I have no respect for you". That might not be what the person means at all but that's just the legacy we get from all the slaveowners and klansmen I guess. Basically, as white people we just don't say it. It's respectful to people because you just don't call them names, plus it just sounds ignorant. Now as for the use of the word with an a at the end, which is how it is used by many black people today, many say it's them taking the word and making it their own, so that instead of dumb and lazy it means friend, buddy, etc. I know many people that don't mind white people saying THAT word, but there are still many who don't want anyone of any race using it, saying it's disrespectful and ignorant.

I hope that answers your question in regard to that word. There are many racial slurs used for different groups that are 100% unacceptable to use, but the n word will always be the strongest hate word in America because of all the violence carried out toward those that were called it. Of course some people are going to be offended by everything because they're just uptight, but some things (like race, religion, etc.) are not nitpicky little things. There's a difference between teasing someone for being a dork and teasing someone for being a different race, no matter how jokingly you do it. Basically, whatever is very important to someone, you don't tease them about. That's why some people will deck you if you tell a "your mama" joke. You don't mess with that they consider important or sacred.

ilyala

  • Guest
Re: The House of Windsor and The Press
« Reply #65 on: November 15, 2006, 12:06:10 AM »
thank you, taren, for understanding my point.

following a message from the moderators (sorry for disturbing anyone, it really is NOT my intention) i apologize for any former or future forbidden word i have or will use. i always use them with a purpose, i don't swear in everyday life (and no, i don't think the b word is swearing, or maybe i'm just getting the wrong impression), but sometimes i feel i gotta use certain terms to make a point.

with regard to these cases i am now publicly giving my approval for any moderator to replace whatever they find offensive with **** the way gdella did (but leave it so that people can understand what i said and what i meant), cause, i suppose, this is the exact spot where the fact that english is not my mother tongue shows: i don't know all the nuances of a word and unfortunatly no-one teaches you the offensive side of a language in the english courses (i personally think that's stupid, cause that causes exactly this type of mistake that happened here).

for example, i was completely unaware of the fact that the n word can be spelled with r and a at the end and that it has different meanings in those cases. i personally think they kinda sound the same so if you say it out loud, how exactly does one person know if you're being offensive or friendly? but maybe my ear is not formed enough on the english language to perceive the difference (except for the tone difference). i was indeed referring to the term black people use with each other, trying to point out that a word that is generally considerred offensive, can be used in a non-offensive way. anyway, i'm sure everyone got the point.

unfortunatly i apparently can't edit my message from yesterday so any moderator is free to do it for me. again, apologies for anyone who might have felt offended by my libertine usage of words.

Offline ChristineM

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 2882
    • View Profile
Re: The House of Windsor and The Press
« Reply #66 on: November 15, 2006, 02:24:39 AM »
Thanks Ilyala.   I did not for a moment think you would swear in everyday life.   Your use of vocabulary is far too good for that.   I understood you were making a point.   However, it is better that certain words are not used at all and this conforms to the rules of the Forum.

tsaria

Offline ChristineM

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 2882
    • View Profile
Re: The House of Windsor and The Press
« Reply #67 on: November 15, 2006, 02:27:47 AM »
Can we now, please, return to the subject of 'Why the Windsors?'

tsaria

Nadezhda_Edvardova

  • Guest
Re: The House of Windsor and The Press
« Reply #68 on: November 17, 2006, 10:53:31 AM »
I agree, let's get back to "why the Windsors?" but... not before I put in my explanation of the merits of "Ms."

1. When a married woman chooses to retain her "maiden" name, she cannot use "Mrs." as "Mrs." denotes "the wife of" and her surname doesn't match his.

2. Job discrimination.  Oftentimes, a married woman is at disadvantage in the job market, because employers may think she'll just have children and leave, or that she won't be fully committed to the job, or that she won't be willing to travel or relocate, etc., so they hire someone else...  Or an unmarried woman will be considered a bad hiring prospect because she'll just sleep with all the staff, or she's only working until she gets married, or that her mind will be on finding a husband and not on her job, etc.

Why the Windsors?  I wonder if the blame can be partially placed on Queen Victoria and Prince Albert.  They, of necessity, had to create the image of the Royal Family as the perfect Christian family, but of course nowadays it is impossible to keep that image.  The present Royal Family might like to present the image of a perfect family, but of course no one can live up to it.  Technology exposes their human foibles and sins and makes for wonderful newspaper copy!

The question is, then, why are the cameras and microphones of the world trained more on the Windsors than anyone else?  Crown Princess Mary of Denmark has all the potential to be another royal superstar like Diana was, but no one seems  to have taken the bait.  Not that I'd want them to, it would be awful for her.

Pax, N.

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: The House of Windsor and The Press
« Reply #69 on: November 19, 2006, 07:58:46 PM »
Well, people have always been interested in the Britsh Royal family, whether they were Tudors or Windsors or anything else. But, as you said, it seems that image of domesticity and morality came in Queen Victoria's time. But, I don't think that;s what made people pay attention to them. I would argue though, that what Queen Victoria did with the image of the family made them more relatable, if nothing else. They seemed an average family, but even then, wasn't that far from the truth?

ilyala

  • Guest
Re: The House of Windsor and The Press
« Reply #70 on: November 20, 2006, 12:05:13 AM »
on the other hand i think king edward 7th, that came after queen victoria, got away with an image that wasn't one of domesticity.

i read in more than one book that queen mary was held responsible for turning the royal family into something of an ideal family, of an example for the whole country. something the country started expecting from the following kings too.

on another webpage i read that maybe had prince eddy lived he would have created a more relaxed monarchy than that of his brother, leaving the windsors room to fail...

interesting what-if.

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: The House of Windsor and The Press
« Reply #71 on: November 20, 2006, 08:42:54 AM »
Well, I think you have a point about Queen Mary, but in my opinion, she soldified this image more than she ever created it. Of course Edward VII wasn't half as moral looking as his mother, but still the nation at large most likely didn't have a true image of his private life, as they would have today. So, in his time the domestic look of perfection went on. Obviously Eddy would not have had the image his brother had, but I wonder of his consort ( as she would have been) Queen Mary, would have still kept the family image of morality, etc alive? I am pretty sure she would have, although it might have been a challenge. My question is, besides during the time of George V and George VI's reigns, and into the time of his daughter, the current Queen, until her children's marriages began to create scandals, was that image of royal morality and domesticity ever as real as it seemed?

Offline grandduchessella

  • Global Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 13039
  • Getting Ready to Move to Europe :D
    • View Profile
    • Facebook page
Re: The House of Windsor and The Press
« Reply #72 on: November 20, 2006, 08:57:03 AM »
Queen Victoria and Albert certainly set the template of a model Victorian family that stood in stark contrast to the previous decades. Edward VII certainly had a racier image but he was able to get away with a lot due to personal charm. The family image wasn't completely done in either because, despite his affairs, Queen Alexandra was regarded as an exemplary mother and the children a close knit unit. George V and Queen Mary restored the 'Darby and Joan' image (as one of them commented about their rather boring, almost middle-class home life) but brought the monarchy closer to the people than Victoria or Edward VII. I don't think that a more 'relaxed' monarchy would've existed--it's almost impossible to say what kind of monarchy Eddy might have established since he died while he was just starting to find some footing and establish an identity. Plus the times helped to shape the monarchy that George V formed during all the turmoil of Irish rebellion, the first Socialist government, a World War, economic depression, etc...I think they established 'room to fail' by virtue of the fact that the monarchy was shaken but not destroyed by the Abdication of 1936--there was a tremendous amount of goodwill stored up by GV and QM and this was extended to the new King, George VI.

As for the original 'why' I think that the popularity of photography and the increased in relatively inexpensive illustrated magazines had a lot to do with it. The British monarchy was always very shrewd in presenting themselves to the public via popular images--even Queen Victoria during her widowhood had hundreds of photos of herself, individually and with her ever-expanding family, out in circulation. Queen Alexandra, with her legendary beauty and elegance, was also the focus of many, many photographs and postcards. The one of her with Louise on her back was one of the most popular images of the time. The British royal family was well-known throughout the world, even by people who would never come even close to contact with them. While other royal families were photographed, I don't think those images were shown nearly as much around the world as the British royal family.
They also serve who only stand and wait--John Milton
Come visit on Pinterest--http://pinterest.com/lawrbk/

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: The House of Windsor and The Press
« Reply #73 on: November 20, 2006, 12:23:21 PM »
Well, I think these images were something that became popular because the people depicted in them were of interest. I don't think they became popular because of the fact of images, but more because of the people depicted. I think the invention of photography was going to make any royals seem better known, and when they were as important as the British royals, they were better known, as a result, and less abstract. Britain in the 19th century was a very important country, and thus Queen Victoria and her family were well known figures. They certainly became more familiar through photos and the like, but none of them were very photogenic, etc. So, that isn't ''why the windsors?'' to me. As for Eddy, it might not have been more relaxed yes, but it would have been different. Possibly Eddy could have kept his private life private, but he would have cut a more Hanoverian figure than not, one thinks. Queen Mary might have made things look domestic and moral though  :-\ I guess I am not a real fan of Eddy.

Offline Grace

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 3126
    • View Profile
Re: The House of Windsor and The Press
« Reply #74 on: November 20, 2006, 04:26:26 PM »
That's okay, IA -- it's not obligatory on this board -- yet!  ;D  ::)

Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip were considered a "model family" in the early days when their children were young.  It was the behaviour and later the divorces of those children which tarnished this image.

In some way, I think that the children in a royal family are what keeps the public interested.  In Victoria's day, obviously without the mass reproduction of photos, the children were considerably less known than today's royals, but people like to watch children grow and develop in pictures and in articles.  By the time Bertie came to the throne, his children were well and truly grown up and, therefore, he and Alexandra did not have the same cosy domestic image of Victoria and, later, Georges V and VI.  Their children were still comparatively young when they came to the throne.  I think this is what creates the most genuine public interest in the British Royal Family.  I think that the interest in their scandals and misbehaviour is largely created by the press, the public is not always clamouring to know...