Amazon Cloud adds support for Apple's iOS; UK Queen orders an iPad

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 83
    ecphorizerecphorizer Posts: 533member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I?m not aware of other UK queens. Could you post a link to a detailed list?



    That sentence confused me as well but it reads, "...Queen Elizabeth II isn't only the queen of the UK..." - she's not only the Queen of the UK. I also read it as she's not the only Queen.
  • Reply 62 of 83
    ecphorizerecphorizer Posts: 533member
    [deleted. Somehow got double-posted]
  • Reply 63 of 83
    ecphorizerecphorizer Posts: 533member
    I know it's a typo below but to think of George the Fifth as George the Vee-One at the beginning of WWII gave me the giggles. Good old G VI R and his daughter E II R.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lorraine View Post


    King George V1 and Queen Elizabeth. {before her death, known as Queen Mother}



    PS: For bonus points and without using the evil Google, what is the Royals' last name? Mountbatten? Windsor? Wales? Plantagenet?
  • Reply 64 of 83
    orlandoorlando Posts: 601member
    Amazon needs to make iPad and iPhone formatted webpages for the cloud player. Ideally there'd be a proper native app just like Android but there is no way Apple will allow that unless they get their 30% on song purchases.
  • Reply 65 of 83
    swissmac2swissmac2 Posts: 216member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ecphorizer View Post


    I know it's a typo below but to think of George the Fifth as George the Vee-One at the beginning of WWII gave me the giggles. Good old G VI R and his daughter E II R.







    PS: For bonus points and without using the evil Google, what is the Royals' last name? Mountbatten? Windsor? Wales? Plantagenet?



    Legally, it's Windsor as the family name was changed during the First World War from Saxe-Coburg which they considered to be too German sounding (it came from Queen Victoria's husband, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg. Even before then it was German because it stemmed from the surname of George 1, the Elector of Hanover (also known as Mad George) who's government decided to give up on a certain colony but I can't remember the surname (and I didn't look anything up on Google).



    However, the current Queen married Prince Philip of Greece, part of the Battenberg dynasty that held many Heads of State all over Europe, including the King of Greece. However, when the Battenbergs came to the UK, they changed their name to Mountbatten to make their name less German too thus proving that you can have your cake and eat it too.



    To confuse things even more, when Prince William joined the Army, he was known as 'William Wales' and not Windsor. This of course was a reference to the fact that he is the son of the Prince of Wales. Since he got married of course he is now known as the Duke of Cambridge, but I get lost in the reason why that ranks higher than his other title of Prince.



    When the Queen signs anything, she never uses her surname AFAIK but instead signs "Elizabeth R", the R being short for 'Regina' or Queen in Latin.



    As for Queen Elizabeth's father, George VI (the sixth, not the fifth) he would have been George R (with R being short for Rex, Latin for King.



    HTH!
  • Reply 66 of 83
    successsuccess Posts: 1,039member
    Once she finds out it won't play Flash she'll throw it in the trash.
  • Reply 67 of 83
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by res1233 View Post


    What they don't mention was that the iPod given to her was filled with the president's speeches. What else would she want to listen to, right?



    The reason they don't mention it is because IT'S TOTALLY UNTRUE, despite people claiming it all the time.



    The gift iPod contained photos and videos of the Queen's 2007 visit to the US, plus 40 songs from Broadway musicals such as "South Pacific", "West Side Story" and "My Fair Lady". Look it up.
  • Reply 68 of 83
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post


    Titles of Nobility are null and void in the United States -- we fought a revolution for a reason.





    "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person

    holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of

    the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind

    whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.



    Section 10

    No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters

    of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but

    gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder,

    ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any

    Title of Nobility
    .

    "



    The Constitution does not say that titles of nobility are null and void; it just says that neither the US nor any state shall grant one.
  • Reply 69 of 83
    The concept of Royalty is repellent to me.



    Seeing Meredith Vieira, as an American, buy into this rubbish is worse.
  • Reply 70 of 83
    charlesecharlese Posts: 3member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SwissMac2 View Post


    L

    However, the current Queen married Prince Philip of Greece, part of the Battenberg dynasty that held many Heads of State all over Europe, including the King of Greece. However, when the Battenbergs came to the UK, they changed their name to Mountbatten to make their name less German too thus proving that you can have your cake and eat it too.



    HTH!



    Obviously in this case it was a Battenburg cake...
  • Reply 71 of 83
    charlesecharlese Posts: 3member
    Is it true that the queen persuaded Steve to add the royal wave as a gesture?
  • Reply 72 of 83
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Yea! Down with the monarchy! VIVE LA REVOLUTION!



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post


    Titles of Nobility are null and void in the United States -- we fought a revolution for a reason.



    "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person

    holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of

    the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind

    whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.



    Section 10

    No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters

    of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but

    gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder,

    ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any

    Title of Nobility
    .

    "



  • Reply 73 of 83
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Vandelay Industries View Post


    The concept of Royalty is repellent to me...



    It doth seed fury in me at times... But I don't want to hate just for hatin's sake.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ecphorizer View Post


    That sentence confused me as well but it reads, "...Queen Elizabeth II isn't only the queen of the UK..." - she's not only the Queen of the UK. I also read it as she's not the only Queen.



    She isn't just the Queen of the UK, she's also in charge of Australia. In Australia, Prime Minister < Governor General < Queen. Mostly symbolic nowadays. But there you go, if you've ever wondered why Australia is formally called "The Commonwealth of Australia" not "Republic of Australia".



    She's also the Queen of New Zealand, and the Queen of Canada.
  • Reply 74 of 83
    swissmac2swissmac2 Posts: 216member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post


    It doth seed fury in me at times... But I don't want to hate just for hatin's sake.







    She isn't just the Queen of the UK, she's also in charge of Australia. In Australia, Prime Minister < Governor General < Queen. Mostly symbolic nowadays. But there you go, if you've ever wondered why Australia is formally called "The Commonwealth of Australia" not "Republic of Australia".



    She's also the Queen of New Zealand, and the Queen of Canada.



    To all the US readers who are a little confused, the Queen is not analogous to your President - she has no political power at all - except one. She can force a new election, but this has never been done in the UK (England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland) AFAIK, but it did happen a few years back in Australia.



    All power is vested in the Prime Minister (Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair etc) who is elected. In the UK political power rests with the Lower House known as the House of Commons (your House of Representatives) and the Prime Minister is the leader of the Party with the largest number of seats - he's not elected by the people to be Prime Minister, but by members of his own political party.



    The Upper House aka the House of Lords (like your Senate) contains all the Hereditary Lords, and those appointed to the House for services to that or this industry (but mostly because they have donated I expect to one or other political party, or given them publicity support. The House of Lords has very limited powers. It can amend legislation by adding a paragraph here or there, but if they do the House of Commons can still reject it.



    Members of the House of Lords include Professors, Bishops, Dukes, and ex-Politicians, Judges and figures from industry. Many of them are very knowledgable about the subjects new laws are supposed to cover, and frequently help make the laws better because of their mostly non-political expertise and knowledge. Just yesterday there was a discussion about whether Government money should continue to support a charity involved in IVF work and research, and one of the speakers was a Professor who is a practicing Dr in the field itself (but not part of the Charity).



    So, the Queen has to sign every law that is passed, but cannot create or abolish laws herself. She is loved because she is benign politically, and talks to all the people without any political aims in mind.
  • Reply 75 of 83
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lorraine View Post


    I will be 82 yrs in July. I don't find the IPad heavy either.

    We worked for a living, well I did and I know Her Majesty is a very active woman with dogs and horses, and still works as Queen of England and the Commonwealth.



    I'm sure she worries about her family like any other mother, grandmother or great grandmother would.



    She also has the Commonwealth to deal with. It isn't an easy job to be Queen.



    I saw her just after she became Queen with Prince Philip. I was about 20 ft. away from her as she rode by in an open convertible, in Montreal. She was such a beautiful young woman.

    She looked so tiny. I saw her father and mother on their visit to Canada in 1939. King George V1 and Queen Elizabeth. {before her death, known as Queen Mother}



    "CANADA" is a country that belongs to the "Commonwealth." I was born in Montreal, QC.,

    Canada. My parents were born in England.

    -Lorraine



    Welcome!



    I watched a show (on A&E maybe?) years ago about the Queen, and they showed her Coronation at length, and what struck me was just how young she looked. I wonder what was going through her head.



    And Canada is a beautiful country. I've only been to Ontario and Quebec, but I plan on a trip to the West next year.
  • Reply 76 of 83
    ecphorizerecphorizer Posts: 533member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SwissMac2 View Post


    Legally, it's Windsor as the family name was changed during the First World War from Saxe-Coburg which they considered to be too German sounding (it came from Queen Victoria's husband, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg. Even before then it was German because it stemmed from the surname of George 1, the Elector of Hanover (also known as Mad George) who's government decided to give up on a certain colony but I can't remember the surname (and I didn't look anything up on Google).



    However, the current Queen married Prince Philip of Greece, part of the Battenberg dynasty that held many Heads of State all over Europe, including the King of Greece. However, when the Battenbergs came to the UK, they changed their name to Mountbatten to make their name less German too thus proving that you can have your cake and eat it too.



    To confuse things even more, when Prince William joined the Army, he was known as 'William Wales' and not Windsor. This of course was a reference to the fact that he is the son of the Prince of Wales. Since he got married of course he is now known as the Duke of Cambridge, but I get lost in the reason why that ranks higher than his other title of Prince.



    When the Queen signs anything, she never uses her surname AFAIK but instead signs "Elizabeth R", the R being short for 'Regina' or Queen in Latin.



    As for Queen Elizabeth's father, George VI (the sixth, not the fifth) he would have been George R (with R being short for Rex, Latin for King.



    HTH!



    Thanks for the very interesting background. Over the years I'd heard different last names but I'm going with what you've described.



    On the red mailboxes over there you'll see the names of the monarch in power at the time the mailbox was installed, thus many many E II R (for Elizabeth the 2nd Regina*), some G VI R (for George the 6th Rex), and I even spotted one V R (For Victoria Regina - being the first means you don't have to use the roman numeral I).



    *I have a big issue with the pronunciation of "regina." Here in the states we learned it as reh-GENE-uh whereas in the UK I kept hearing it pronounced so that it rhymed with vagina**, giving me uncontrollable giggles whenever someone would mention Elizabeth Regina.



    **I can't describe how awful I think the neologism "ginormous" sounds, or imagery evoked by hearing it. But then that's just me.
  • Reply 77 of 83
    The gig in Hyde Park was amazing!



    What? What?
  • Reply 78 of 83
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,947member
    I just don't think the affairs of a figurehead family are significant. For the most part, I don't care what gadgets celebrities have either.
  • Reply 79 of 83
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    I just don't think the affairs of a figurehead family are significant. For the most part, I don't care what gadgets celebrities have either.



    I put them in the same category as Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton and other American famous-for-being-famous celebrities.
  • Reply 80 of 83
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,275member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    I just don't think the affairs of a figurehead family are significant. For the most part, I don't care what gadgets celebrities have either.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I put them in the same category as Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton and other American famous-for-being-famous celebrities.



    Apparently, you are in a rather small minority. A lot of money is made upon the certainty that a huge number of people are interested in celebrities, royal and common. I used to decry this myself. But I have come to believe that there is a deep-seated need in humans to elevate the status of some of their kind, and then to use them as a source of fascination. Rather like a human zoo, these symbols are placed on permanent display. Fortunately we have evolved to the point where these people no longer have the power of life and death over us, merely privileges and wealth that most of us will never experience.



    Humans need stories. Every culture and society from the beginning of time had a favored form: drama, novels, film. I think celebrity is a creature of the electronic communication age--a form of storytelling that is expressed through tabloid media. Cheer the heroes, hiss the villains. We enjoy the lives we might have lived through vicarious pleasure.
Sign In or Register to comment.