How would the US President behave if you just called him Joe to his face?
I can bet the US press would collectively lose their shit at the lack of respect.
It’s the same thing. No matter what you think of the monarchy, having a little respect for a Head of State is considered the done thing.
I heard that he might have even orchestrated the massacre by taking advantage of Dipendra’s possible mental illness.
I have no sympathy for Andrew here, but more importantly I want to thank you for not photoshopping his teeth over his eyes. One set of those teeth was quite enough, thank you!
Unlike the last guy, he would handle it with grace.
It would be lauded by certain segments of the “press.”
Hey now, how hard is it to honor an old queen’s preferred pronouns?
No, it is really not. The whole point of American politics is that the president is just an average Joe, chosen temporarily for the job.
Hopefully the best average Joe, but still just a federal employee with no claim to the position other than that most of the people… well, most voters, or, well, the most electoral college electors…Sorry, I’ve lost the thread
I really hope this involved him having to turn up at the palace in full uniform(s) and his mother ritually ripping off all his epaulettes, braid and insignia, one by one.
They would need to be washed first, of course.
More likely that he was great chums with Thatcher, who had a track record of sheltering people of Saville’s predilections, just look at the Wikipedia entry for her PPS Peter Morrison.
Sure, the title of “President” was chosen to downplay the role, but there’s always been a weird push to deify them by some. Why do they keep the title after they’re out of office?
This president? He’d probably roll with it. The former president would pitch a fit and try and have you arrested.
It wouldn’t be the first time he’s defended a pedophile
The one that really hurts is no longer being Lord High Protector and Adjunct Sentinel of Potherswitch-on-Kent, with its traditional stipend of 3p a year and the services of a goat named Ronald.
Not done because it was the right thing to do, but because the P.R. fallout has crossed a critical mass threshold, and the royal “we” must distance “our royal selves” from said fallout…
If the queen et al truly believed in his innocence, why not wait until after he loses in court before taking action? On the other hand, if they believed the allegations all along, why has it taken until now for them to act? Why the sudden change of heart? Or is this more like a “suspended pending investigation” and if he wins he’ll be back in the good graces of “her grace”, with all the magical titles re-attached?
(Being generous, I suppose new evidence could have been privately provided or discovered that would make the reasons behind decision clearer, but then a press release saying that – without necessarily going into the specifics would seem in order. Something as generic as “In light of new evidence, the queen bee has reconsidered the matter of bla-bla-blah and has concluded, that under the circumstances, bla-bla-blah…”)
I suspect this is less to do with his innocence (or otherwise), and more with the fact that he is now almost certainly going to have to settle or go to trial: until this week there was still the possibility that the lawsuit would be thrown out.
You know, that’s a really good question.
The answer is that we accord the respect of the highest title someone has achieved in their life for perpetuity, so ‘President’ is just one more example of that custom, but you make a good point that perhaps we should symbolically democratize the title by using it only for the person then in office.
Isn’t that sort of done by reserving use of the title alone, without name, for the current incumbent? E.g. Obama may still be President Obama, but “the President” can only mean Biden (at the time of writing, and assuming a US context).
My point exactly: The P.R. fallout has become considerably worse, now that it’s looking like simply being “royal” isn’t enough to keep one out of hot water. So, best to cut ties, than be tainted by association – or by appearing to ignore the situation.
Was watching a bunch of Gresham College lectures, when I was surprised by this. The speaker forthrightly believes that the world might have been a better place, if only Charles III had been able to uproot those upstart pretenders from Hannover. Still, an interesting lecture.
