Hopefully not enough to matter.
Especially since it'd be pretty amusing, given the ethnic changes the Royal Family has undergone in the past. They weren't always of German descent, for instance -- nor were they always of Scottish descent, or Norman descent! An ancient Anglo-Saxon might be pretty upset at the thought of the English throne falling into the hands of a Scottish, and then a German, dynasty.
And, of course, there's nothing in particular to stop the throne from falling into the hands of a Briton of African descent just within our lifetimes. If Prince William were to marry a black woman, they may well have biracial children by the time he ascends to the throne -- and from there, his heir could easily marry another black person, producing an heir who is him/herself visibly almost completely black. Were that to happen, the Royal Family would be black within two generations!
Actually I think it would have been more radical if the queen had been of Indian/Pakistani decent, especially considering that today those people make up a far larger portion of the UK population than those of afro-carribean origin. It's a weird quirk I've noticed, the news couldn't stop going on about whether we'd ever have a black PM after Obama was elected, I thought the same then, the liklihood is we'd have an Indian PM first.
I'd argue that the issue that determines the likelihood of a member of a given group ascending to high office is not so much population size as the question of to what extent that group is discriminated against or oppressed.
To put it another way: Jewish Americans make up a much smaller percentage of the American population than African-Americans. Yet, because Jews have not historically been hated and discriminated against to anywhere near the extent African-Americans have, it seemed much more likely that we'd see a Jewish American President before an African-American President than vise versa. That we ended up with an African-American President before a Jewish American President is actually a bit of a surprise.
So I'd argue the question is, are African Britons discriminated against as much as South Asian Britons? Are they as hated or as oppressed? The group that is less oppressed, to me, seems more likely to come to high office first, irrelevant of population size.
I remember being the only one in my class (4th grade I think) who thought it more likely to see a black president in my lifetime than a woman or a non-christian. Even now I think we're more likely to see a Hispanic than a woman win the presidency. The various Asians (middle-east through far-east) are the only major racial/cultural groups that I think less likely, but only for the next 25 years or so and in large part due to religion. Atheists wont stand a chance for considerably longer.Personally I don't think a black man was the least likely choice of president, frankly I'll be more shocked and amazed when America elects an openly athiest or agnostic President. Or a gay one!
Well, what other choices were there? "Do something"?I also don't get why Liz10's options were "Forget" and "Abdicate."
I know, but anything would make as much sense as "Abdicate." How does "give up your throne" translate to anything that would happen by pressing it? Even a "Release" or even "Murder" label would make more sense.Well, what other choices were there? "Do something"?I also don't get why Liz10's options were "Forget" and "Abdicate."
I know what you mean, but I'm shot if I can think of anything else they could have had.
I know, but anything would make as much sense as "Abdicate." How does "give up your throne" translate to anything that would happen by pressing it? Even a "Release" or even "Murder" label would make more sense.Well, what other choices were there? "Do something"?I also don't get why Liz10's options were "Forget" and "Abdicate."
I know what you mean, but I'm shot if I can think of anything else they could have had.
Just kinda odd all around. Even moreso since, by pressing it (even if it was really Amy who did it), she's now no longer the queen. So...![]()
Checkmate is right about Moffatt's approach to Amy Pond - unlike Rose or Martha or Donna, Amy's been living with her initial encounter with the Doctor and its effects on her ideas and view of the word, most of her life.
One of the negative aspects of that kind of thing, in story terms, could be eventual disillusionment of some sort - it'll be interesting to see whether Moffatt goes in that direction or not.
Are these episodes shorter than the first few seasons?
This was a better "first time adventure" episode than the previous nuWho companions got, because it was more emotionally affecting as a story and dug into the relationship between the Doctor and the companion more than the previous ones - the latter, again, being largely a function of Amy already having a fairly long-term attachment to the Doctor at the opening.
It was actually, as far as I can tell, right on the money for length compared to Series 1 through 4.
It was actually, as far as I can tell, right on the money for length compared to Series 1 through 4.
It was 41 minutes long while most of Seasons 1 -4 were about 45, IIRC. So it was a few minutes short of "normal."
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.