British Royal Family

The British Royal Family is the group of close relatives of the monarch of the United Kingdom. The term is also commonly applied to the same group of people as the relations of the monarch in his or her role as sovereign of any of the other Commonwealth realms, thus sometimes at variance with official national terms for the family.[1] Members of the royal family belong to, or are married into, the House of Windsor, since 1917, when George V changed the name of the royal house from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.
Although in the United Kingdom there is no strict legal or formal definition of who is or is not a member of the Royal Family,[2] and different lists will include different people, those carrying the style His or Her Majesty (HM), or His or Her Royal Highness (HRH) are generally considered members, which usually results in the application of the term to the monarch, the consort of the monarch, the widowed consorts of previous monarchs, the children of the monarch, the male-line grandchildren of the monarch, and the spouses and the widowed spouses of a monarch's son and male-line grandsons.
Members and relatives of the British Royal Family historically represented the monarch in various places throughout the British Empire, sometimes for extended periods as viceroys, or for specific ceremonies or events. Today, they often perform ceremonial and social duties throughout the United Kingdom and abroad on behalf of the UK, but, aside from the monarch, have no constitutional role in the affairs of government. This is the same for the other realms of the Commonwealth, in personal union with the United Kingdom, though the family there acts on behalf of, is funded by, and represents the sovereign of that particular state, and not Britain.

Trekking in Nepal { Nepal trekking information}

The Himalaya is Sanskrit for ‘abode of snows’ and Nepal’s stretch of the Himalaya includes eight world higest Peaks over 8,000 meters, including the highest Mountain of Mt. Everest. Known to the Nepalese as Sagarmatha the world’s highest peak is the overpowering attraction which drew in Nepal’s first modern mountaineers.During the 1950s and 1960s, most of the important Nepalese peaks were conquered but just because it is no longer possible to be the first to set foot on top has certainly not diminished the attraction of Himalayan mountaineering. Climbing these giants is an adventurous sporting activity whereas 30 years ago it required huge well-sponsored expeditions.

There are 14 peaks over 8,000 meters Peaks in the world and 10 highest no less than eight are in Nepal. , although some of the peaks actually straddle borders- for example: Everest is in Nepal and China, Kanchanjungha is in Nepal and India. The height of the 14 highest peaks followed by the highest peaks in South America, North America, Africa, Russia, Antarctica, Europe, Australia and Britain can be seen in the World Mountain Heights diagram.

The Himalaya is Sanskrit for ‘abode of snows’ and Nepal’s stretch of the Himalaya includes eight world higest Peaks over 8,000 meters, including the highest Mountain of Mt. Everest. Known to the Nepalese as Sagarmatha the world’s highest peak is the overpowering attraction which drew in Nepal’s first modern mountaineers.During the 1950s and 1960s, most of the important Nepalese peaks were conquered but just because it is no longer possible to be the first to set foot on top has certainly not diminished the attraction of Himalayan mountaineering. Climbing these giants is an adventurous sporting activity whereas 30 years ago it required huge well-sponsored expeditions.

There are 14 peaks over 8,000 meters Peaks in the world and 10 highest no less than eight are in Nepal. , although some of the peaks actually straddle borders- for example: Everest is in Nepal and China, Kanchanjungha is in Nepal and India. The height of the 14 highest peaks followed by the highest peaks in South America, North America, Africa, Russia, Antarctica, Europe, Australia and Britain can be seen in the World Mountain Heights diagram.

"Nepal’s magnificent mountains can be enjoyed in three distinctly different fashions. The eeriest way is to simply look at them. This can be done by flying at them- either on regular flights or the daily tourist- season mountain flights. Alternatively, you can admire them from the various popular mountain view points such as Nagarkot or Dhulikhel near Kathmandu or Sarangkot above Pokhara. Getting to these viewpoints is covered in the appropriate chapters.

If simply looking at the mountains isn’t enough, you can get right in amongst them by trekking. Trekking is not mountain-climbing: apart from high passes on certain treks and the approach to the Everest Base Camp you are unlikely to go above 3,500 meters. Trekking, however, does provide breathtaking views.

Finally, there is real mountain-climbing and while getting to the top of an 8,000 meter peak is strictly for the professionals, there are plenty of ‘trekking peaks’ which small-scale amateur expeditions can readily attempt. This is not to say that mountaineering in Nepal can be easy- climbing mountain also called trekking Peak Climbing this high always involves an element of risk- but getting to the top of worthwhile Himalayan peak doesn’t necessarily require millionaire status or big commercial backers.

Mountaineering became a fashionable pursuit in Europe during the second half of the 1800s and having knocked off the great Alpine peaks, the much greater heights of the Himalaya were an obvious new challenge.

The incoming Obama administration shouldn't put education on the back burner

President-elect Barack Obama and his aides are sending signals that education may be on the back burner at the beginning of the new administration. He ranked it fifth among his priorities, and if it is being downplayed, that's a mistake.

We can't meaningfully address poverty or grow the economy as long as urban schools are failing. Obama talks boldly about starting new high-tech green industries, but where will the workers come from unless students reliably learn science and math?

The United States is the only country in the industrialized world where children are less likely to graduate from high school than their parents were, according to a new study by the Education Trust, an advocacy group based in Washington.

The most effective anti-poverty program we could devise for the long run would have less to do with income redistribution than with ensuring that poor kids get a first-rate education, from preschool on. One recent study found that if American students did as well as those in several Asian countries in math and science, our economy would grow 20 percent faster.

So let's break for a quiz: Quick, what's the source of America's greatness?

Is it a tradition of market-friendly capitalism? The diligence of its people? The cornucopia of natural resources? Great presidents?

No, a fair amount of evidence suggests that the crucial factor is our school system — which, for most of our history, was the best in the world but has foundered over the last few decades.
The message for Obama is that improving schools must be on the front burner.

One of the most important books of the year is "The Race Between Education and Technology," by two Harvard economists, Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz. They argue that the distinguishing feature of America for most of our history has been our global lead in education.
By the mid-1800s, most American states provided a free grade-school education to the vast majority of white children. In contrast, only 2 percent of British 14-year-olds were enrolled in school in 1870.

At the beginning of the 1900s, Americans embraced high schools, and by the 1930s, a majority of American children attended high school. In contrast, as late as 1957, only 9 percent of British 17-year-olds were enrolled in school.

Then the United States — with help from President Franklin Roosevelt — pushed for mass education at the college level, and by 1970, half of American students were attending a university, at least briefly. We were far ahead of the rest of the world.
Goldin and Katz crunch the data and conclude that America's edge in mass education was the crucial competitive advantage that allowed the United States to build wealth while reducing income inequality. For most of the 20th century, America prospered at the same time that the gap between the rich and poor diminished.

Then in the 1970s, the U.S. education system began to stagnate, with high-school graduation rates stuck at about three-quarters of all students. Probably as a result, income inequality increased again.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world invested heavily in education and caught up with, and in some cases surpassed, us.

As Fareed Zakaria notes in his terrific book, "The Post-American World," the problem with American education is not the good schools. White suburban schools still offer an excellent education, comparable to those in Singapore, which may have the best education system in the world.

Rather, the central problem is our bad schools. "Lots of kids are being left behind," Goldin said, adding: "Investing in human capital is still a very good deal. Returns are very high."
There's still a vigorous debate about how to improve education, but recent empirical research is giving us a much better sense of what works. A study by the Hamilton Project, a public-policy group at the Brookings Institution, outlines several steps to boost weak schools: end rigid requirements for teacher certification that impede hiring, make tenure more difficult to get so that ineffective teachers can be weeded out after three years on the job and award hefty bonuses to good teachers willing to teach in low-income areas.

If we want outstanding, inspiring teachers in difficult classrooms, we're going to have to pay much more — and it would be a bargain.

No family underscores the power of education more than Obama's. His father began as a goatherd in a remote village in Kenya, but his studies carried him to the University of Hawaii. And Obama himself has ridden the education escalator to the White House.
So, Mr. Obama, let's give others the chance to board the escalator that you and your father enjoyed. Let's pick up where we left off in the 1970s and mount a national campaign to make high-school graduation truly universal, and to make a college education routine.
Nicholas D. Kristof is a regular columnist for The New York Times.
2008, New York Times News Service