As a regular reader of The Guardian, for which you may thank Steve Bell, I am often perplexed by British politics. Some things I understand, like parliamentary democracy, which I wish we had here. Other things, like the unwritten constitution, frankly baffle me. And some times, the slow but sure divergence between British English and American English leaves me flummoxed, as when a headline proclaimed, “Tories angered by yobs’ defiance of Asbos,” which required me to corner an English friend to explain what “yobs” and “Asbos” were.
Perhaps our British friends are similarly confused by features of American politics, so I thought I would try starting a weekly transatlantic Q&A session so we can satisfy our curiosity about each other. So let’s begin with the first installment of WTF: US-UK.
To start off with my own question, I have been following the story of Prince Charles and his court battle to keep his journals private. There seems to be a great deal of consternation that the prince expressed political opinions, and in particular, that he expressed political opinions in letters to government ministers.
So WTF? Why does anyone care that Charles writes letters to ministers? Hasn’t the monarchy essentially been reduced to a powerless tourist attraction, albeit one with strong tendencies to embarrassing behavior? From over here, it seems as if Charles writing to one minister or another is about as significant as Richard Gere writing letters to the President on behalf of Tibet. Obviously, it is a bigger deal than that from the British point-of-view, so I was hoping someone could clue me in on this one.
The Monarch is supposed to be above politics and has a role in advising the Prime Minister during the weekly “audiences”. They get briefings from the various ministries which are delivered in traditionally red-leather covered mini-suitcases (hence “red boxes”) These will include copies of Acts that have received “Royal Assent” under a delegated procedure, the most important still being agreed in Privvy Council. She also signs off the appointment of certain senior Civil Service posts like Ambassadors or Governors-General (and incidentally High Court Judges) who represent her when carrying out their office. That last bit is why the murder of a High Court judge while they were overseeing a case would be prosecuted as High Treason. As Governor of the Church of England she also appoints Bishops and Archbishops. Two or three names are submitted by a selection committee in order of preference and the Monarch does have the right to decide between them or ask for more names.
It would certainly be a constitutional crisis if the Monarch refused to agree Roayl Assent. There are, as I indicated, certain powers that are the “Royal Perogative”, the most notable being the declaration of war, that are actually used by the Government or appointed civil servants. The Monarch does however have to agree the dissolusion of Parliament and the calling of a General Election. The normal convention is that he or she would do this on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. The one possible exception is if there were a hung Parliament (ie no overall majority) and the PM was unable to get any legislation through. Rather than agreeing another election he or she could ask the leader of the next largest party to form an administration. This “honest broker” role may well be important if we get elections by a proportional method.
Sorry for the long preable but to get back to Charles, his role is “monarch in training” and therefore does have the right to get the briefings and approach ministers with any concerns. These should however be in private to avoid getting involved in party politics. The last PoW (you know, the one who abdicated to marry the American who stuck cocaine up him) got into similar trouble during the depression when he toured areas of high unemployment and deprivation and remarked “something must be done”. If memory serves, the Prime Minister at the time was Asquith who told him that if he wished to become a constitutional monarch, he must first be a constitutional Prince of Wales. None of this of course stops him expressing views on architecture, organic farming or conservation in general as these are not party political.
Incidentally, the really common misconception among many people, including Britons, is that it is necessary him to be crowned to become King (probably George VIII) when his mother dies. There is no such thing as an inter-regnum as he will be king immediately. The official announcement of Elizabeth’s death will end with the formula “The Queen is dead, Long live the King”. Similarly the most important part of the Coronation is not the crowning but the annointing with holy oils that preceeds it.
Finally (!!) for those who have not the benefit of your friend’s advice, “Yobs” are uncouth, misbehaving (usually young) people – the nearest American translation would be “punks”. “ASBO” is an acronym for “Anti-Social Behaviour Order” which is a Blair “respekt” invention. The nearest US equavalent is a restraining order but these are slightly wider in that they would stop somebody from carrying out activities that are annoying or disrupting other people. They could be a last resort against people who persistently play loud music deliberately to disrupt their neighbours or to stop continuous criminal behaviour. A yob who regularly shoplifted from a local high street might be banned from entering a number of roads – they would breach the order if they entered this exclusion area.
Sounds as if the Monarch is a rubber-stamp for the elected government most of the time. Has Elizabeth ever had any significant clashes with elected officials?
One interesting cultural difference that you post points out is that it is far more common for the British to use acronmyns and names for various bodies or things than in the US. Your example has ASBOs but I am also thinking of other aspects where they are used in everyday life or politics. About the only example in US politics I am aware of are the SCOTUS and POTUS.
The usage that first made me think of this is in radio and television station names where I am always struck by radio stations in the US normally using their official four letter identifier and the locality – something like WXYZ Boston or whatever whereas in the UK they most often use names as in “Smash Hits” or “BBC Asian Network”. With BBC radio the “BBC” designator is usually dropped so Radio (s) 1 to 7 are understood to be from the Beeb. That by the way is such a common reference that their new young children’s channel is called “CBeebies”. Note by the way that there is another difference, the British have TV channels as opposed to the US TV stations. A UK “station” would be the building originating the programme.
One interesting difference is the US use of “lazer” without realising that it is an acronymn and should have an S (as in Light Amplitude by the Stimulation of Electronic Radiation)
The thing I have always found confusing about the British use of acronyms, at least in the Guardian, is that except for unpronounceable acronyms like PM and MP, only the first letter is capitalized. In the US, we write NATO in all-caps, but I see it written Nato in UK papers. Likewise, I’d have been halfway to understanding what an Asbo was if it had been written ASBO. Instead, I initially thought it was an unfamiliar slang term, perhaps involving asbestos or asthmatics. Those wicked yobs and their respiratory problems! 😉
SCOTUS and POTUS are pretty much exclusive to political circles; I doubt most Americans would recognize them unless they were political junkies. Most people would just say “the Supreme Court” and “the President”, with it being assumed that the supreme court in question was the federal one unless a state supreme court was explicitly identified.
The convention of identifying radio stations by their four-letter call sign is mandated by federal law. Stations are required to identify themselves by call sign and frequency at specified intervals. (Originally, the call signs were three letters, and there is still at least one station, WSM in Nashville, Tennessee, which still has a three-letter call sign.)
“Lazer”, as far as I know, is a trademark, as in Lazer Tag. Laser with an “s” is the correct usage in the US.
Is the “programme” spelling used in the UK when referring to computer programs as well?
I used to say, we don’t really speak the same language, it just sounds the same.
It seems that despite the ubiquity of American media, the dialects are still steadily diverging. I find it much easier to understand British newspaper articles from 1906 than from 2006. In some ways, it seems as if British English has become the more dynamic of the two while American English has become the more conservative dialect.
Another thing that strikes me as interesting about all of the major English dialects is that now that Greek and Latin are no longer widely taught, the language seems to have fallen back on its Germanic roots by composing neologisms through compound words.