Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Their boy Ron is an empty plastic cup that will never know pudding.

The snowflake in chief appeared visibly frustrated when questioned by a reporter about egg prices.

Welcome to day five of every-bit-as-bad-as-you-thought-it-would-be.

The rest of the comments were smacking Boebert like she was a piñata.

We’re watching the self-immolation of the leading world power on a level unprecedented in human history.

We are builders in a constant struggle with destroyers. keep building.

Take hopelessness and turn it into resilience.

Let the trolls come, and then ignore them. that’s the worst thing you can do to a troll.

The revolution will be supervised.

If ‘weird’ was the finish line, they ran through the tape and kept running.

People are weird.

Prediction: the gop will rethink its strategy of boycotting future committees.

rich, arrogant assholes who equate luck with genius

When I decide to be condescending, you won’t have to dream up a fantasy about it.

GOP baffled that ‘we don’t care if you die’ is not a winning slogan.

Dear media: perhaps we ought to let Donald Trump speak for himself!

Incompetence, fear, or corruption? why not all three?

Whatever happens next week, the fight doesn’t end.

A sufficient plurality of insane, greedy people can tank any democratic system ever devised, apparently.

… riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact

Disappointing to see gov. newsom with his finger to the wind.

Washington Post Catch and Kill, not noticeably better than the Enquirer’s.

Speaker Mike Johnson is a vile traitor to the House and the Constitution.

This is dead girl, live boy, a goat, two wetsuits and a dildo territory.  oh, and pink furry handcuffs.

You are here: Home / Foreign Affairs / We’re the flowers in the dustbin

Reader Interactions

80Comments

  1. 1.

    Warren Terra

    You must admit, she’s done a remarkably good job of being born well and remaining alive.

    Also, whether by some grace or by more careful handling, she is less embarrassing than the rest of her family. And the husband she picked is entertainingly racist, to the extent there is such a thing.

  3. 3.

    Litlebritdifrnt

    I am an unapologetic Royalist. Comes along with serving in her armed forces I think (after all we are her forces and not the governments). I have to admit that my favorites are the Princess Royal and the Duke of York. Anne because she is the head of the WRNS and I met her on many occasions during my time serving. She has an incredible memory for names and faces. Each time I met her she remembered the last time she had met me and where it was.

    Andrew I actually served with. He kept following me around, I would arrive somewhere and sure enough Andrew would follow me in about two weeks. He once promised me never to ask me to marry him so that is my claim to fame.

  4. 4.

    blahblah

    So what, are you mad just because she’s rich? At least she didn’t get that way by bankrupting American pensions.

  5. 5.

    Patricia Kayden

    Okay, have to admit that I laughed. I doubt the Queen and her son are that mean though. More fitting caption for Romneybot 2.0.

  6. 6.

    canuckistani

    The royals used to make me bitterly angry, but I’m starting to think that a constitutional monarchy is a pretty workable system. It helps break down the idea that the elected leader is the personification of the state and is above criticism.
    Also, the Queen looks more like my grandmother with each passing year.
    Also, it is fun to laugh at the poor.

  7. 7.

    beltane

    Why all the hatred for the Queen? As far as rich people go, she is much more benign than most, and at least, unlike our Galtian royalty here, her grandsons serve in the military.

  9. 9.

    Ash Can

    I just don’t understand the compulsion to dump on the Queen, and on the royal family in general. A few of them in particular may have their moments, but they’re absolutely nowhere near the class that the Koch brothers, the Romneys, the grossly overpaid professional pearl-clutcher pundits, Rush Limbaugh, etc. ad nauseum are in. Seriously, who fucking cares?

  10. 10.

    Villago Delenda Est

    @Patricia Kayden:

    Yeah, this.

    The Royal family actually has a sense of noblesse oblige

    I see no such sense surrounding Romney and his spawn. They’re far more Bourbon in nature.

    They should be dealt with as the Bourbons were dealt with.

  11. 11.

    PeakVT

    The British royals are mostly harmless, but I see no good reason for any monarchy, whether or not the position has been completely neutered. I see no good reason to have an array of lesser hereditary titles, either.

  12. 12.

    NancyDarling

    @Litlebritdifrnt: I agree with you. The old girl has played the cards she was dealt at birth pretty well for the most part. I do still hold a bit of a grudge over the Peter Townsend affair though. I was a child at the time and I remember feeling indignant that Princess Margaret was forbidden to marry him. Would her life have been different/better?

  15. 15.

    Hugely

    I think you would find that Prince Charles is a pretty enlightened dude at least what I learned from a PBS type documentary.

    I think i’d prefer the british royals to our galtian koch suckers here in America

  17. 17.

    beltane

    @PeakVT: I can understand the benefit of having a head of state who exists outside of politics, and is thus not automatically hated by approximately 50% of the population. The persistence of lesser hereditary titles is, however, a ridiculous anachronism. That said, if our own mega rich people had such titles, the average person might be less able to identify them. A lot of Americans sincerely think they’ll be millionaires one day; it would not be so easy to convince them that they will one day inherit a dukedom.

  20. 20.

    Valdivia

    even if I didn’t feel the same way, seeing that hat and that suit on the Queen is enough to make a girl want to shoot something.

  23. 23.

    Rafer Janders

    @Litlebritdifrnt:

    I am an unapologetic Royalist. Comes along with serving in her armed forces I think (after all we are her forces and not the governments).

    Curiously, while it’s the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, it’s not the Royal Army, but the British Army. It’s partly a historical anomaly from the fact that, after the overthrow of James II, the Bill of Rights of 1689 required that Parliament approve the existence of a standing army (but not a standing navy nor, understandably for the time, an air force) on a year by year basis.

  24. 24.

    Professor

    Hey people, Leave off my Monarch, will you? We love our Queen! She was the person who forced St Ronaldo Raygun to beat a hasty retreat from Grenada!

  25. 25.

    blahblah

    @ornery_curmudgeon: You know the difference between a king and head of state though, right?

    I mean, you don’t think the royal family actually does much of anything these days do you?

  26. 26.

    kindness

    I’m not a UK citizen. I’m a Yankee. My impression of the British Royal Family is much more positive than this picture though. Mittens I could see doing this. The Koch brothers, Limbaugh, and almost every elected Republican, ditto.

    So…the impact of this is lost on me. Sorry.

  27. 27.

    slag

    @canuckistani:

    It helps break down the idea that the elected leader is the personification of the state and is above criticism.

    People keep saying this. I’m unconvinced. First, I think it misconstrues our cultural concept of celebrity. Second, since when has any personification of the state been above criticism in this country? You’re only unAmerican when you criticize a Republican President. And that’s just because…shut up that’s why! It has nothing to do with being a personification of the state in any meaningful sense.

  28. 28.

    Amir Khalid

    I really don’t get the intense disapproval some Americans here have for the British Royal Family. The Windsors seem okay, as rich people go. George III was quite a few years back; and he wasn’t even of the current Saxe-Coburg and Gotha/Windsor dynasty, which began with Queen Victoria’s consort Prince Albert (the one in the can, as I think he is known in America).

    @NancyDarling: For a moment there, I thought you were saying the princess had been involved with the guy from The Who. That was a pretty weird moment for me, since that Peter Townshend (with an H) would only have been a little kid then.

  29. 29.

    NancyDarling

    @Amir Khalid: My age is showing. I may be the only reader of this blog who remembers the royal kerfuffle over the romance between the Princess and her Group Captain.

  31. 31.

    Hoodie

    The royal family is rich, but that wealth really doesn’t give them much in the way of power. For example, they can’t buy politicians like the Koch brothers or Rupert Murdoch. I guess the comfy surroundings and attention make up for it, but you often get the impression that they are slaves of their position.

  32. 32.

    Death Panel Truck

    Nice Sex Pistols reference.

    We’re also the poison in the human machine. ;)

  33. 33.

    Brachiator

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    The Royal family actually has a sense of noblesse oblige

    I’m generally skeptical about how either noble or obligated this stuff often is, but I take your point, and have no need to dump on the Royals.

    There was a PBS import show, maybe part of the Cranford stories, that had the lady of a manor providing for the farm laborers. However, she insisted that none of them could go to school, to educate themselves above their station.

    Part of the rotten bargain of noblesse oblige is that it requires that someone be in need of favor in order for an aristocrat to be able to dole them out. An essential inequality.

    Screw that.

    And coming back to the Royals, I don’t know which ditty I like the best.

    Her Majesty’s a pretty nice girl, but she hasn’t got a lot to say….
    Some day, I’m gonna make her mine, oh yeah,
    Some day I’m gonna make her mine.

    Or

    God save the Queen! She ain’t no human being!

  34. 34.

    PeakVT

    @beltane: An extra-political head of state has been useful at times in countries where democracy is not well established, but I still don’t see a good reason for having one in a long-standing democracy. I don’t think monarchies need to be removed in countries like the UK anytime soon, however. OTOH I’d certainly like the Persian Gulf monarchies to disappear.

    @blahblah: I think in the case of the UK you mean the head of government. The Queen is still the head of state.

  35. 35.

    Mnemosyne

    @blahblah:

    You know the difference between a king and head of state though, right?

    In a parliamentary system, there’s not much difference between a king and a head of state, except that the head of state is usually part of the ruling party. The US has kind of a weird system because our head of state and head of government is the same guy, but a lot of parliamentary systems have separate offices for President and Prime Minister, with the President being the person who travels around to state funerals and cuts ribbons and does all of the symbolic stuff while the Prime Minister is the person who actually runs the government. See, for example, the President of Ireland, who does NOT have the same job as the Prime Minister of Ireland.

    I just finished reading a book about Nikita Khrushchev’s visit to the US in the early 1960s and there was some debate about whether they were going to receive him as a head of government or a head of state, because the head of state gets a whole lot more hoopla. The decision was finally made to treat him as a head of state for diplomatic reasons, but there is a difference.

  36. 36.

    The Colourfield

    Fuck that bitch and her ugly horse faced brood

    They have earned nothing in life

    /obvious Irish background

  37. 37.

    Chris

    @canuckistani:

    The royals used to make me bitterly angry, but I’m starting to think that a constitutional monarchy is a pretty workable system. It helps break down the idea that the elected leader is the personification of the state and is above criticism.

    That’s possible. I’ve sometimes thought that the American tendency to idolize our founding fathers not as politicians so much as mystical prophets, and their writings not as laws but as Sacred Texts, might be considerably lessened if we had a shiny, useless, living icon like the Royal Family to carry all that worship onto.

  38. 38.

    Mnemosyne

    @PeakVT:

    OTOH I’d certainly like the Persian Gulf monarchies to disappear.

    Well, yeah, but that’s because they’re still actual monarchies, not constitutional monarchies like in Europe. The kings of the Persian Gulf still wield enormous political power and can shut down elected governments as they like. Even countries with “good” kings like Jordan are still dependent on the whims of the king.

  39. 39.

    Phoenician in a time of Romans

    @PeakVT:


    @beltane: An extra-political head of state has been useful at times in countries where democracy is not well established, but I still don’t see a good reason for having one in a long-standing democracy.

    Ahem – “Bush v Gore”.

    The polite fiction in a constitutional monarchy is that the Prime Minister is “invited” to form a government by the Queen (or Governer General), who “assents” to legislation. In theory they have the right not to assent – which, in NZ, would probably mean we’d be a Republic a week later.

    If the Bush v Gore situation had occurred in a constitutional monarchy, you would have had some authority with the mana and power to step in, state that in the interim Clinton would continue, but that a self-evidently fair and impartial method would be chosen to count the votes – as opposed to competing teams of lawyers.

  40. 40.

    Gian

    @beltane:

    in the US, it’s really the GOP who absolutely hate any president of the Democratic party, and they are less then 50% of the total population. they have to make up for it withtrying to get the majority of people not to vote.

    For the Democrats, they didn’t have the utter level of hate for Bush the elder that they had for Bush the younger, and there wasn’t much hate for Ford either. (disappointment and anger about pardons, yes, but not absolute hate) OTOH, the GOP has had a hate-on for every Democratic president since the 1800s. Wilson – Check, FDR, check, Truman, check, JFK, check, LBJ, check, Carter, check, Clinton, check, Obama, check. they have become increasingly more unhinged after Reagan, and think their party has some sort of birthright to the office.

    I still remember one line that Olberman quoted from chickenhawk republican John Wayne about JFK. “I didn’t vote for him, but he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job” (that’s a paraphrase)

    And, with all the work to deny people the right to vote, and with a government that only works for 1% of the population, I’m afraid they’re pushing for riots.

  41. 41.

    blahblah

    @Mnemosyne: That’s just great, and I do appreciate the way that you made my point for me, but I wasn’t talking about the king in a parliamentary system.

    I don’t see how anyone can get worked up about the role of royalty in the commonwealth like the guy I was replying to.

  42. 42.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Chris:

    I’ve sometimes thought that the American tendency to idolize our founding fathers not as politicians so much as mystical prophets, and their writings not as laws but as Sacred Texts, might be considerably lessened if we had a shiny, useless, living icon like the Royal Family to carry all that worship onto.

    We have all the Disney monarchies, like the Little Mermaid and The Lion King. It’s the divine right of hereditary kingship, only morphed into self-discovery.

  43. 43.

    Scott de B.

    @Litlebritdifrnt:

    I don’t think the British armed forces would actually obey the Queen instead of the elected government.

    Although it would be interesting to see a British monarch taking a stand against austerity as a way to claw back some of their power and royal prerogatives.

    If the Queen declared that since austerity was immiserating Britain she was dissolving Parliament and ruling in her own name until the crisis were past, I wonder what percentage of the British public would go along?

  45. 45.

    NCSteve

    The only thing more obnoxious than Americans who fawn and drool over the British royals are Americans who work themselves up into a high state of dudgeon about them.

    No one in this country has any feelings one way or another about the royalty of Sweden or Norway or Denmark or Spain or Belgium (Belgium still has a royal family, right? Wait, is Belgium even still a country)? We don’t even really give much of a damn about the poobahs of Monaco, Grace Kelly’s DNA notwithstanding, now that her daughters are no longer worth the attention of the scandal sheets.

    It’s their country. If they want a monarchy, they can have one. If they don’t, they can get rid of it and Charles can finally talk about politics in public, maybe stand for Parliament. No skin off my nose, either way.

    Always been a bit mystified about why Canadians or Aussies get their knickers in a bind about being monarchies, though. I mean they get all the benefits, in terms of political functionality and the odd bit of gossip, for free and don’t even have to put up with having them taking up space in their countries.

  46. 46.

    Brachiator

    @Scott de B.:

    If the Queen declared that since austerity was immiserating Britain she was dissolving Parliament and ruling in her own name until the crisis were past, I wonder what percentage of the British public would go along?

    Zerro. That the monarch invites the formation of a government when a new prime minister is elected is a useful fiction. By law, the monarch has to stay out of politics. If the Queen tried to dissovle Parliament, she would soon find herself hospitalized for an unspecified nervous condidtion.

    @Chris:

    That’s possible. I’ve sometimes thought that the American tendency to idolize our founding fathers not as politicians so much as mystical prophets, and their writings not as laws but as Sacred Texts, might be considerably lessened if we had a shiny, useless, living icon like the Royal Family to carry all that worship onto.

    Some Republicans may idolize the founders, but this is not universal. And since no single founder, or founder’s family, was responsible for any of the founding documents of the country, there would never have been a point in having a Royal Family since a single, arbitrary founder would have to have been selected to carry the load.

  47. 47.

    Gadsden Flag Burner

    All I can say on the Royals is God Bless Duchess Catherine. She and First Lady Michelle Obama are my queens of class. Love them both so much.

  48. 48.

    Roger Moore

    @Amir Khalid:

    I really don’t get the intense disapproval some Americans here have for the British Royal Family.

    I doubt that it’s a special distaste for the House of Windsor-Mountbatten. It’s more of an objection to royalty on general principle that happens to focus on the British Royal Family because they’re the ones who get the most exposure here.

  50. 50.

    Catsy

    @Roger Moore:

    I doubt that it’s a special distaste for the House of Windsor-Mountbatten. It’s more of an objection to royalty on general principle that happens to focus on the British Royal Family because they’re the ones who get the most exposure here.

    And also that minor detail about the very birth of the United States as a country beginning with having fought (and won) a war of independence against a certain British king.

    That might possibly have something to do with why many Americans are more focused on British royalty than that of other monarchies which didn’t once consider us their subjects. Just a thought.

  51. 51.

    Brachiator

    @NCSteve:

    No one in this country has any feelings one way or another about the royalty of Sweden

    Well, there was Minnie the Moocher, of course…

    Now, she had a dream about the king of Sweden,
    He gave her things that she was needin’
    He gave her a home built of gold and steel
    A platinum car with diamond-studded wheels

  52. 52.

    Violet

    @Litlebritdifrnt:
    My English family are unapologetic royalists as well. Don’t care for any of the tabloid hoopla, but support the Queen from a governmental standpoint.

    These days the royals bring in a fair amount of tourist money as people flock to see the changing of the guard and so forth. If the monarchy were eliminated, it might not be such a draw.

  56. 56.

    LanceThruster

    @Litlebritdifrnt:

    I met her on many occasions during my time serving. She has an incredible memory for names and faces. Each time I met her she remembered the last time she had met me and where it was.

    I am fascinated by this. Maurice Chevalier once said that there are differet kinds of intelligence. This is what I call “social intelligence” in that their minds work quite efficiently in regards to greasing te wheels of human interaction. I had a friend that way, where she could recall the last time we saw each other, who was there, etc., and I always marveled at her ability to do that.

  59. 59.

    jake the snake

    For an hereditary monarch, Betty is not the worst that has ever been. Prince Phillip is an asshole, however.
    Just not a fan of monarchies, or hierarchies of any kind.

  62. 62.

    Litlebritdifrnt

    @LanceThruster:

    I remember vividly the first time it happened at my next duty station. I curtseyed and said “Leading Wren Pattinson-Young Ma’am” and she said brightly “Oh you served at Seafield Park with Andrew did you not?” I was no less gobsmacked the next time it happened at a reception for a Charity in London totally unrelated to anything else.

    She is also stunning up close, (she does not photograph well) in real life she has incredible skin and the most stunning blue eyes. I got incredibly pissed off when Diana was lauded for the “mine field” photo shots when she was at her peak when Anne had been stomping around in mine fields in her wellies for donkey’s years. But she wasn’t photogenic so it didn’t count I suppose.

  63. 63.

    28 Percent

    @NCSteve: I got to the end of your first sentence and decided to agree with everything you say just because you used and spelled “dudgeon” correctly. And I would have kept it up too, had you not dragged the Belgian royals into it. My sainted aunt met the King of the Belgians once and made a rather witty pass at him (it was the beginning of a somewhat infamous year for her). She didn’t come away from it with fire opals, duchies, or even the tiniest of Titians, but it does make for a fun story to tell at parties.

  64. 64.

    28 Percent

    @NCSteve: I got to the end of your first sentence and decided to agree with everything you say just because you used and spelled “dudgeon” correctly. And I would have kept it up too, had you not dragged the Belgian royals into it. My sainted aunt met the King of the Belgians once and made a rather witty pass at him (it was the beginning of a somewhat infamous year for her). She didn’t come away from it with fire opals, duchies, or even the tiniest of Titians, but it does make for a fun story to tell at parties.

  65. 65.

    28 Percent

    @NCSteve: I got to the end of your first sentence and decided to agree with everything you say just because you used and spelled “dudgeon” correctly. And I would have kept it up too, had you not dragged the Belgian royals into it. My sainted aunt met the King of the Belgians once and made a rather witty pass at him (it was the beginning of a somewhat infamous year for her). She didn’t come away from it with fire opals, duchies, or even the tiniest of Titians, but it does make for a fun story to tell at parties.

  67. 67.

    TS

    Lot of good things about the Brits – one is that they don’t have to elect their head of State every 4 years – the cost saving is more than sufficient to cover the expenses of having a constitutional monarchy.

  68. 68.

    kevin

    I dislike the royals not for any personal thing that they did, but more for the idea that they get to be supported by the state to such an extravagant extent just for being born. You could help a lot of poor people with the money spent on them and their silly distractions.

    If they’re going to be rich, at least make it interesting. they don’t even have to worry about being deposed any more! Go back to the old days, like, I could go in, kick them out of the castle by force, and then everyone would recognize me as the king! Then I’d start to support it.

  70. 70.

    Mnemosyne

    @Violet:

    One of the things I really like about William and Kate is that they seem very conscious of the fact that their job is to do PR for their country, and that they exist to make their country look good on the world stage.

  71. 71.

    Yutsano

    @Mnemosyne: Harry will always get massive credit from me for going to Afghanistan with his unit even though the royal house wanted to intervene.

  72. 72.

    RossinDetroit

    Constitutional Monarchy isn’t a perfect form of government but we’re not going to have a perfect form of government because we’re human and we screw up. It’s a decent working compromise is all. The Brits seem to be doing fine with their arrangement so I say let them keep at it.
    Plus Liz II The Royal Boogaloo looks startling like my 95 year old grandmother who I adore.

  73. 73.

    jimbobobie

    I’m no royalist, but I think neither of these folks are the villains you make them out to be. They were born where they are and neither of them has been proactive in reactionary politics. I’d have tea with either. Better to address your venom to Prince Phillip. Now there’s a bastard.

  75. 75.

    burnspbesq

    @Valdivia:

    seeing that hat and that suit on the Queen is enough to make a girl want to shoot something.

    The queen doesn’t dress nearly as badly as some college basketball coaches. Kim Mulkey’s wardrobe is a parody of Dallas nouveau riche.

  76. 76.

    burnspbesq

    @The Colourfield:

    obvious Irish background

    Last I checked, “Irish” and “asshole” weren’t synonyms. Don’t blame it on your Irishness, ya shite.

  78. 78.

    PurpleGirl

    @Litlebritdifrnt: (Taking a chance you’re still reading the thread.)

    Would you say that one reason the Queen and her family are still liked is that they stayed in/around London during WWII; that even though they had the option of moving the princesses to a safer location, they didn’t do that. And add in the fact that Elizabeth actually worked in the war effort, in a motor pool.

  79. 79.

    Liberty60

    Like most Yanks, I don’t get worked up much over the Royals one way or the other.

    But as others have pointed out, I would rather be ruled by Elizabeth or Charles than any of our moneyed bastards.

    Or to be more blunt- I would load the tubrel carts with the CEOs of the Fortune 500 before any of the British Royal family.

Comments are closed.