The Royal Wedding Drinking Game
Seeing as it hath been suggested that ye good fans of the Ultima series shouldst, if thou dost feel so inclined, partake of a social drinking game during the broadcast of the Royal Wedding tomorrow, I hereby propose that any such game observe the following rules.
But first, let us review the list of acceptable beverages, that we might discuss any needed changes thereto.
Obviously, within the various Ultima games, we hast seen portrayed various alcoholic beverages. Foremost among these are, I doth submit, the mead, ale, and wine which were the main alcoholic fare of mine own favourite Ultima title, Ultima 6. The wretched and vile Fawnish ale is blessedly unavailable for Earthly consumption. And since many of the Ultima games hath featured the practitioners of piracy as both plot elements and enemies, I hereby deem it acceptable that the pirate’s chosen imbibement — rum — canst also be considered a beverage acceptable to Ultima canon.
Bearing in mind, then, this list of four types of alcoholic beverage, it is proposed that the rules of the game be as follows:
1) Whereupon the word ‘WEDDING’ is mentioned, takest thou a sip of wine, ale, or mead. If thou art feeling a particularly potent swell of valor, taketh instead either a full glass of mead or wine, or a full flagon of ale, or a shot of rum.
2) Whereupon the word ‘DRESS’ is mentioned, taketh thou a shot of rum.
3) Whereupon the groom’s decision NOT TO WEAR A WEDDING RING (or his LACK OF A WEDDING RING) is mentioned, emptieth thou whatever beverage is in front of you and fetcheth thou another of the same kind.
4) Whereupon the deceased LADY DIANA is mentioned, taketh thou either a full glass of mead or wine, or a full flagon of ale, or a shot of rum. If thou are feeling a particularly strong swell of valor, proceedeth then to dash thy glass against any nearby hard surface, and fetcheth thou another.
5) Whereupon the bride and groom are instructed to KISS, drinketh thou a full measure of a drink different to the one thou hast been favouring during the evening.
6) Whereupon BRITAIN or the UNITED KINGDOM (or the COMMONWEALTH) is mentioned, taketh thou a shot of rum or a full flagon of ale whilst playing whichever version of Rule Britannia is thy favourite on thy stereo system, computer, or portable media player.
This list of rules is, as is the list of acceptable beverages, subject to change based on discussion and suggestion in the comments form. So be about it, good Dragons and Dragonettes; what sayest thou?
Grr… annoying media circus. Sure, as a Canadian this guy will be my head of state someday, but it still doesn’t make the British royal family anything more than annoying figureheads.
Heh…well, it is that, a circus. I’ve got something of a classicist’s affinity for the monarchy myself; I don’t think I could ever be a republican. But I will grant that the wedding thing is overblown.
Hence, a drinking game to afford it the proper amount of serious attention.
Well, it could be worse. Anyone watched The Tudors? I wouldn’t want to be anywhere near Henry VIII. One minute everything’s cool and you’re His Majesty’s loyal servant, the next, HE’S CUTTING YOU FUCKING HEAD OFF FOR NO REASON. At least the royal family is relatively harmless these days.
And for anyone who hasn’t seen it, watch Game of Thrones on HBO with the always awesome Sean Bean. Just badass… It was the first time I’d heard mention of a Dire Wolf since my days of playing AD&D. I haven’t seen anyone break out any magic yet, but there were some supernatural beasties shown briefly in episode one.
I have my own additional reasons for disliking Henry VIII, although certainly his penchant for beheading his wives (and various others)
iswas disturbing.Yeah, I’m guessing it’s the whole “Damn the Pope, I want a divorce” routine. I don’t know the actual history behind it, but at least according to the show he pretty much created (or enabled) the Protestant movement just so he could get his jollies on with Anne Boleyn.
Sounds like the kings of old. They will get whatever they want, no matter how trivial, even if it costs a million lives/souls/coins to get it. Give a childlike mind absolute power and they will wield it as a child. Half the things we consider normal these days are the result of the egregiously irresponsible wielding of power by mad men, for better or worse.
There’s a bit more too it than that; I suspect The Tudors both condenses and dramatizes events somewhat. Essentially, Henry wanted a son, but his first wife was only producing daughters, it seems. (Obviously, they hadn’t figured out the whole XX/XY thing back then…) So he wanted to divorce her and marry another woman, and the Pope would have none of that. (Something about that pesky Jesus fellow getting all sour about the idea of divorce in one Gospel or another…)
I kinda like Robin William’s take at this point, since he has Henry basically say “I’M POPE NOW!!!!!111!!!!”; Henry sets about telling the Pope to bugger off and sets in motion the practice of English monarchs lopping off the heads of Catholics for years, decades, and possibly centuries to come. Oh, and he keeps divorcing (and beheading, I think) women who fail to bear him sons. Which evidently happened a few times, though I can’t remember how many.
Protestantism sort of arrived in waves after that, with both British and Continental strains arising. But yes, in a nutshell, Anglicanism did basically start with a spat, between a king and the Pope, about the permissibility of divorce under canon law. Because the relevant king couldn’t shoot a damn Y-chromosome to save his (wife’s) life.
On a somewhat tangential, somewhat related note: if you ever get to see the King’s College Chapel in Cambridge, England, do be sure to check out the organ; it was a gift from Henry and Anne.
Actually I think you summed up the show better than I did without having seen it. I figured it took huge liberties (which it did in some cases, such as the Cardinal Wolsey being executed which didn’t actually happen), but it looks like it was more accurate than I thought with regard to the more important points.
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=King‘s+College+Chapel+organ&um=1&hl=en&biw=1599&bih=799&tbm=isch&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_sitesearch=&safe=off&as_st=y&tbs=isz:lt,islt:xga
Impressive what people can build when they’re not too busy killing each other.
Also, I think I should read this book. It’s one of my dad’s favorites, and the miniseries was pretty damn good. Here’s the lowdown:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pillars_of_the_Earth
You’ve recommended that one before. I’ll look into it; maybe I can even find it out here in Colorado.
Addendum: I may not have seen The Tudors, but I got into a bit of a debate about its historical veracity with some chick a while back, so I had to learn a bit about it as a result.
Protestant sentiment was already forming in England before Henry VIII split with Rome in the form of the Lollards and John Wycliffe’s translation of the bible into English; typically when someone learns of the Reformation, they hear of the 95 Theses, Martin Luther, and John Calvin but many times overlook earlier reformers like Wycliffe and John Hus of the Bohemian Hussites.
Also, to be fair, Catholics weren’t the only ones executed in England during this time; Henry VIII’s daughter and eventual Queen Mary I didn’t earn the nickname Bloody Mary for nothing. But even so, all these events encompass part of a larger ongoing conflict between Catholics and Protestants for almost 200 years after Luther and the traditional start date of the Reformation; several civil wars (including an English one) and the Thirty Years’ War would be instigated and fought over the issue of religion and it’s role in regards to the state.
This long history of religious warfare in Europe is one of many contributing factors, I feel, for why the traditional founding fathers of the US desired a clear separation of church and state. Sadly, we still have muckraking and mudslinging that goes on here whenever a president’s religion is brought into question when it should be a non-issue; JFK had to answer criticisms of his faith when Protestants questioned whether he’d put the interests of the US before those of Rome, and Obama still deals with people who say he’s a Muslim or just plain not Christian enough.
In any case, I watched the first half of the wedding and if I had played this drinking game, I bet I would have been drunk way before they even got close to an “I do”. But I suppose that’s always the point. 🙂
I think Tudors was pretty accurate. Luther and the whole Lutheran movement was discussed a lot, along with it being taken up by the king (after first rejecting it) based on people close to him. Of course, a lot is probably based of very sketchy history; who knows what really happened.
Anyway, I like having royalty. It’s nice to think “We have kings and queens and princesses and stuff”. It’s got that kinda childhood/romantic connection. It’s not like we (I’m Australian) are actually ruled by them anymore. If they came to Australia and got annoyed at someone and said “Off with their head”, we would just point and laugh at them. But not having royalty just seems… boring. Like something is missing.
Maybe that’s one of the US’s problems… No royalty, so they have to put politicians on pedestals, along with celebrities and rich folk. Here I wouldn’t feel weird about having a beer with the Prime Minister… apart from the fact I don’t drink beer.
That said… I actually went to watch Scream 4 while the wedding was on… Good movie.
I find I like having a head of state that is…extrinsic to Canada. I think Thepal is on to something when he observes that it humbles politicians, or at least makes them seem closer to the populace somehow. And I love the formalities and codified behaviours that characterize royalty and the interaction between the Queen and the various states she is still the titular head of. I just lap that stuff up. The King’s Speech…man, that movie was like crack for me.
And I am reliably informed that my daughter, who is just getting into being interested in Disney princesses (she’s graduating from Pooh Bear) was thrilled beyond thrilled to see a real live princess on television.
Yeah, but I had a 40 year old woman today get quite annoyed at me for showing a complete and utter disinterest in the royal wedding. She told me every woman’s greatest dream is to marry a prince. For the sake of the female gender, I REALLY hope this woman doesn’t speak for the entirety of your ambitions. 😛
Well, not every woman…but keep in mind that in Western culture, girls are typically raised on a steady diet of Disney princesses and Prince Charming stories, voluptuous (though not so much anymore) Barbies and hunky Kens. A woman like my wife might look at Kate Middleton and not wish to be an object of public scrutiny; perhaps you know other women who would do the same. But for a lot of women, the fairy tale wedding, horse drawn carriages, royal title and suchlike are the aspirational ideal. (If in the back of your mind you just wondered whether this fact was not at least a part of the reason that divorce is so damn prevalent these days, you’re probably right.)
Remember: women tend to be hypergamous; they look to “marry up” as it were. And you can’t marry much more “up” than a prince, can you?
A friend got sad because she wanted to join the drinking game but her only chance to see the wedding was via youtube and t here was no commentary 😉
And yes, surely Tudors paints an accurate picture of how events went down back then. They made sure via time machines to get it as close as possible… 😉
Haha, Dominus, you might be in the same boat as myself if I get your general flavor.
Yes, not enough sleep and passive aggressiveness comes out 😉