Being British XIII

[welshdevondragon]

I know a lot of people who say that. They tend to be in their thirties onwards, but I know people my age (late teens/ early twenties) who say it as well- it's just not as common. I can't think of any other way of saying it, except maybe "what's the matter?" which isn't quite the same but still works.

[Equinox Chick]

Do British people say, "A penny for your thoughts?" I get the feeling no...

Um, it's a common enough phrase, but I really don't think I've ever used it. I might say jokingly 'A quid for your thoughts!' (a quid being a pound sterling) but it is a pretty old fashioned phrase used by Agatha Christie characters

~Carole~

[AidaLuthien]

Um, it's a common enough phrase, but I really don't think I've ever used it. I might say jokingly 'A quid for your thoughts!' (a quid being a pound sterling) but it is a pretty old fashioned phrase used by Agatha Christie characters

~Carole~

Oh! Actually that's good. I neglected to mention that the story is set in the 1930s. That's perfect then.

Edit: whoah really weird post-jumping. This should be after Carole's post and my post below...

[Sailing Girl]

I know of people who say 'a penny for your thoughts', and I use 'What's on your mind' as well. Also, 'what're you thinking about?'.

Sorry if that isn't very helpful...

EDIT: Post nargles have attacked. I'm meant to be under AidaLuthien's post. Oh, and Equinox Chick's.

[AidaLuthien]

Do British people say, "A penny for your thoughts?" I get the feeling no...

And if you don't, do you have a similar sentence? Something colloquial which just means, "what's on your mind?"

[welshdevondragon]

Just wondering, when did the phrase "come on" become common in colloquial use? I remember someone criticising an historical novel set in the 1930s because of it's use (I have no idea whether this was justified) and am wondering if it was established by the late seventies/ early eighties or whether it's more recent than that?

Thank you in advance! Alex

[Equinox Chick]

Um, what do you mean by 'come on'?

Is it a 'come on' as in a lure (usually in a sexual sense) or 'Come on!' as in you don't believe what the person is saying.

The former, I think, has been around for some time, but I'm not sure about the latter. I don;t honestly remember saying it in the eighties although I have a feeling that John MacEnroe used to pepper his Wimbledon temper tantrums with the phrase - that would be eighties.

~Carole~

[welshdevondragon]

Ach, should have been more clear. I meant "come on" both as in "hurry up" and as in "I don't believe that". So the latter was the sense the tennis player used it in?

[Equinox Chick]

Uh, McEnroe used to use 'Come on' as either a 'You gotta be kidding' type phrase or as a way to urge himself on.

Saying 'Come on' to hurry someone up is um ... normal, I think. I can't see why that way wouldn't be used pre 80's or 70's. If I could find all my old Enid Blyton books, I'd have a read through, but I don't think that meaning is particularly modern.

~Carole~

[Northumbrian]

How is the royal family in England viewed at today? Is Elizabeth II popular or would people rather to get rid of the monarchy and has it changed over time, the view? I know that Princess Diana was quite popular

That’s impossible to answer with any certainty. There are both staunch Royalists and Republicans in the UK, but the overwhelming majority are (probably) ambivalent. That may, however, only be my opinion.

This is definitely only my opinion.
The Royals are very old fashioned. The Edward/Mrs Simpson attitude in The King’s Speech prevailed even up Charles. He can’t marry her but keeping her as a mistress is okay (of course, Charles eventually did marry his mistress, and while Camilla sensibly keeps in the background she's not well liked).
The Queen has, I think, a certain amount of respect. Charles is opinionated, very traditional regarding the country and architecture but frankly, bonkers about several subjects, particularly quack medicines. He supports all sorts of quack nonsense like homeopathy.
The wedding this year may well rejuvenate the Monarchy, Charles and Diana’s wedding did. But you can already buy Royal Wedding sick bags, so reverence should not be expected from everyone. I won’t be watching it.

The monarchy has, and does, change over time. We claim to be a Constitutional Monarchy, but in fact we’re neither. We don’t have a constitution and the Crown is powerless.

Personally, because the tourists like the pomp, I’d be happy to keep a slimmed down monarchy. We need to get rid of the freeloaders (like Andrew and Fergie and Bea and Eugenie and...) but the Belgians, Danes, Dutch, Luxembourgers (okay, Luxembourg are technically a Grand-Duchy), Monégasque (a Principality), Norwegians, Spanish and Swedes manage to run (mostly) cheap and cheerful roayal families, so slimming down is possible.

Besides, what would we put on our coins and notes?

Neil

(edit) attacked by the Nargles!