# Left Out of D-Day Events, Queen Elizabeth Is Fuming



## Big Don (May 28, 2009)

* Left Out of D-Day Events, Queen Elizabeth Is Fuming *

  By JOHN F. BURNSMay 28, 2009
The New York Times EXCERPT:


            LONDON  Queen Elizabeth is not amused. 
 Indeed, she is decidedly displeased, angry even, that she was not invited to join President Obama and Frances president, Nicolas Sarkozy, next week at commemorations of the 65th anniversary of the D-Day landings in Normandy, according to reports published in Britains mass-circulation tabloid newspapers on Wednesday. Pointedly, Buckingham Palace did not deny the reports.
 The queen, who is 83, is the only living head of state who served in uniform during World War II. As Elizabeth Windsor, service number 230873, she volunteered as a subaltern in the Womens Auxiliary Territorial Service, training as a driver and a mechanic. Eventually, she drove military trucks in support roles in England. 
 While serving, she met the supreme Allied commander for the D-Day landings, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, and developed a fondness for him, according to several biographies. This prompted Queen Elizabeth, who was crowned in June 1953, to say in later years that he was the American president with whom she felt most at ease.
 But on June 6, when Mr. Obama and Mr. Sarkozy attend commemorations at the iconic locations associated with the American D-Day assault  Utah Beach, the town of Ste.-Mère-Église, where the first United States paratroopers landed, and the American war cemetery at Colleville-sur-Mer  the highest-ranking British representative will be Prime Minister Gordon Brown.  His main role will be at ceremonies at the town of Arromanches, near the beaches where British troops landed.
END EXCERPT
This is a surprising slap in the face to one of our staunchest allies.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 28, 2009)

I agree.


----------



## shesulsa (May 28, 2009)

What the hell is going on? Who is his ****ed-up relations coordinator?  Do you guys think he's doing this on purpose or he's just ill-advised as hell?

Bowing to muslim leaders ... ignoring the queen ... what the ****????


----------



## Tez3 (May 28, 2009)

Well, I guess it's what you expect from the French but it would have been good if the American president had perhaps said he wouldn't come unless the Queen did.
Gordon Brown is a prat so no good looking there either.


----------



## Big Don (May 28, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> What the hell is going on? Who is his ****ed-up relations coordinator?  Do you guys think he's doing this on purpose or he's just ill-advised as hell?
> 
> Bowing to muslim leaders ... ignoring the queen ... what the ****????


I doubt he set out to slap the queen, but, he didn't care when she got slapped...


----------



## Big Don (May 28, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Well, I guess it's what you expect from the French but it would have been good if the American president had perhaps said he wouldn't come unless the Queen did.
> Gordon Brown is a prat so no good looking there either.


We Americans don't have the history with the French that the UK does.
A gentleman would have insisted she were involved, not just attending, involved.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 28, 2009)

Once you excuse. When a pattern shows, then you get angry.  Seems he's letting the Brits know how insignificant he thinks their support is. This will bite him, and us, in the *** in the future.


----------



## arnisador (May 28, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> ignoring the queen



A U.K. rep. should've been invited--say, the PM. Ignoring the Queen? If a country still has a heritable form of government in 2009, I'm OK with ignoring that.


----------



## CoryKS (May 28, 2009)

It was clear in the weeks leading up to the election that the British people were, on the whole, fairly enthusiastic about the prospect of having Barack Obama win the election.

Cheers, Britain!  I hope you are enjoying the new president as much as I am.


----------



## Tez3 (May 28, 2009)

People think the queen is literally just a figurehead but she actually wields great influence right throughout the world. She's a consummate diplomate and a very astute politician so I think things may get interesting in the world of diplomacy. 
She carries great weight in places too such as Pakistan and India as well as in Saudi Arabia, she doesn't just chat racehorses with the the Saudi Royal family, trade etc is dicussed. A lot of Asia also listens to her, Singapore of course is in the Commonwealth. She also has relatives everywhere lol, if there's a royal family in the country they are related to her.
The Queen is reknown for her knowledge and her skills in patching up arguments etc between countries is actually legendary. A good person to have onside.


----------



## Tez3 (May 28, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> It was clear in the weeks leading up to the election that the British people were, on the whole, fairly enthusiastic about the prospect of having Barack Obama win the election.
> 
> Cheers, Britain! I hope you are enjoying the new president as much as I am.


 
We blame the French, their invitation, their country. It would have been nice if he says something but it's not down to him.


----------



## CoryKS (May 28, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> We blame the French, their invitation, their country. It would have been nice if he says something but it's not down to him.


 
Yeah, good point. He may not have even known who was on the invitation list. FTFA, they invited the Prime Minister, so it looks like more of a personal affront rather than a national one. Weird, but like you said - French.

Then there's this:


> The French have said officially that they regard the commemorations in the American sector of the landings as &#8220;primarily a Franco-American ceremony,&#8221;


 
LOL!  History FAIL.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 28, 2009)

I wonder, when Obama leaves, will the French line the streets, shouting for him to hurry up and leave, make rude gestures, and hurl insults, like they did when our liberating troops left?


----------



## Tez3 (May 28, 2009)

arnisador said:


> A U.K. rep. should've been invited--say, the PM. Ignoring the Queen? If a country still has a heritable form of government in 2009, I'm OK with ignoring that.


 
the Queen is not the government, shes the head of state. There's no power in that but as I said she has a huge amount of influence...experience too as shes been in the loop for most of the worlds events since 1953.


----------



## Big Don (May 28, 2009)

Is this the nuanced foreign policy we were told would raise our status in the world?


----------



## Sukerkin (May 28, 2009)

Aye. The only problem is the definition of 'nuance' that is being used appears to be a synonym of 'cock up'.

Mind you, as *Tez* says, it's probably not the doing of Obama and his diplomatically inept cohorts this time.

I shall say no more on the matter as otherwise I shall start ranting on about "The French" (TM) in a fashion that would bring shame upon my head (blame my paternal Grandfather (or more accurately his experiences during the war) for that) .


----------



## celtic_crippler (May 28, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I agree.


 
Me too.  



shesulsa said:


> What the hell is going on? Who is his ****ed-up relations coordinator? Do you guys think he's doing this on purpose or he's just ill-advised as hell?
> 
> Bowing to muslim leaders ... ignoring the queen ... what the ****????


 
What do you expect? I mean, he gave her a DVD as a gift for cryin' out loud. Even if it's not Obama's or his diplomat's fault, they should have addressed the issue. It would have been the proper thing to do. 

Queen Elizabeth demands a great deal of respect. She was out in the thick of it during WWII. I don't blame her for feeling slighted. As an American I'm extremely embarassed.


----------



## CoryKS (May 28, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> What do you expect? I mean, he gave her a DVD as a gift for cryin' out loud. Even if it's not Obama's or his diplomat's fault, they should have addressed the issue. It would have been the proper thing to do.


 
That was Gordon Brown that he gave the DVDs.  For the queen, he spared no expense and bought her an iPod.  :rofl:


----------



## arnisador (May 28, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> the Queen is not the government, shes the head of state. There's no power in that



The monarch retains a number of powers, including appointing PMs, granting honours (necessary now for new members of the house of Lords, and some knighthoods are by discretion), dissolving Parliament (which could actually involve some individual discretion by the monarch if the Parliament was hung, e.g. 1974) plus, formally, a laundry list of "Royal Perogative" powers actually exercised by the govt. Many of the restrictions on the sovereign's powers are by convention and might require an act of Parliament to circumvent if the monarch tried to exercise actual control.

As a matter of law, the Royal Assent is still requried for laws. It hasn't been refused for centuries, but that's still the law. A populist monarch might get away with exercising some more of his or her tehoretical power.


----------



## CuongNhuka (May 28, 2009)

arnisador said:


> A U.K. rep. should've been invited--say, the PM. Ignoring the Queen? If a country still has a heritable form of government in 2009, I'm OK with ignoring that.


 
Quoted for truth.


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 28, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> It was clear in the weeks leading up to the election that the British people were, on the whole, fairly enthusiastic about the prospect of having Barack Obama win the election.
> 
> Cheers, Britain! I hope you are enjoying the new president as much as I am.


 
What does this have to do with the Queen being ignored?


----------



## elder999 (May 28, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> What does this have to do with the Queen being ignored?


 

By, apparently, the French, no less.......


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 28, 2009)

CuongNhuka said:


> Quoted for truth.


 
You obviously know nothing about Britain. The Queen has been a pivotal political figure in Britain for over fifty years and is loved by the population as a whole. She is a truly great leader, who served in WW2 as a military truck driver/mechanic and an ambulance driver during the London blitz.

On the whole, she is revered for her work ethic and love she has expressed to both her people and country. Britain would be the worse for losing her.


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 28, 2009)

elder999 said:


> By, apparently, the French, no less.......


 
Yes the French. Barack Obama has nothing to do with this mess. This is all Sarkozy. My point was, what does Britain's love for Obama have to do with the Queen being disrespected by Sarkozy?

I personally think Obama should go as a mark of respect to those who lost or risked their life for freedom in  Normandy. I also think on this occasion, Sarkozy is a pillock.


----------



## CuongNhuka (May 28, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> You obviously know nothing about Britain. The Queen has been a pivotal political figure in Britain for over fifty years and is loved by the population as a whole. She is a truly great leader, who served in WW2 as a military truck driver/mechanic and an ambulance driver during the London blitz.
> 
> On the whole, she is revered for her work ethic and love she has expressed to both her people and country. Britain would be the worse for losing her.


 
I like that you argue with _me,_ not the guy who orginally stated what I quoted, or against what I was agreeing with. Which, by the way, is that a Government figure who was put in place by BIRTHRIGHT is nothing I care about. If I was the Pres. I'd have invited her to be polite, but I wouldn't care about her. The PM is (or should be) the real head of the British Government. I also have this irrational hatred of the House of Lords. 

Lets also forget that the only person we're talking about getting screwed over is the Queen of England. Were Rep.s from any of these Countrys present: Poland, Australia, New Zealand, French Morroco, Newfoundland, Nepal, South Africa, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Denmark, Belguim, Luxemburg, The Netherlands, Greece, Yugoslavia, Soviet Union, Tannu Tuva, Mongolia, Panama, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Haiti, Hondorus, Nicaragua, China, The Philippine Commonwealth, Guatemala, Cuba, Mexico, Brazil, Ethiopia, Iraq, Bolivia, Columbia, IRAN, Liberia, Peru, Italy (after Mussolini was arrested North Italy was German Occupied, and South joined the Allies), Romania, Bulgaria, San Marino, Albania, Bahawalpur, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay, Venezuela, Turkey, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Suadi Arabia, Argentina, or Chile? Nope. 
Now, I know that only the US, UK, France, Canada, and Norway actually partcipated, but many of the other countrys created additional fronts for the Germans/Italians that made it so there were less troops to actually fight against. Not to mention, They also divided German attention allowing us to actually win the War. If not, then D-Day was a classic example of a well prepared invasion against a heavily fortified beach head, and nothing more.


----------



## arnisador (May 28, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> You obviously know nothing about Britain. The Queen has been a pivotal political figure in Britain for over fifty years and is loved by the population as a whole. She is a truly great leader, who served in WW2 as a military truck driver/mechanic and an ambulance driver during the London blitz.
> 
> On the whole, she is revered for her work ethic and love she has expressed to both her people and country. Britain would be the worse for losing her.



I don't doubt any of this.

That doesn't mean that selecting a person for this job by lineage, modified by gender and birth order (and religion if you're Roman Catholic), makes any sense. Britain would be the worse for losing lots of people who worked for its betterment. It's great that luck put a good person in this job who rose to the challenges. That doesn't change the silliness of selecting children at birth to govern countries (even if most of what they do is pro forma).


----------



## Tez3 (May 29, 2009)

arnisador said:


> I don't doubt any of this.
> 
> That doesn't mean that selecting a person for this job by lineage, modified by gender and birth order (and religion if you're Roman Catholic), makes any sense. Britain would be the worse for losing lots of people who worked for its betterment. It's great that luck put a good person in this job who rose to the challenges. That doesn't change the silliness of selecting children at birth to govern countries (even if most of what they do is pro forma).


 

Considering the royal family is probably one of the most disfunctional families in the UK I doubt it could be called luck lol! for all the money and so called priveleges they have there's few who would change places with them.


----------



## Tez3 (May 29, 2009)

CuongNhuka said:


> I like that you argue with _me,_ not the guy who orginally stated what I quoted, or against what I was agreeing with. Which, by the way, is that a Government figure who was put in place by BIRTHRIGHT is nothing I care about. If I was the Pres. I'd have invited her to be polite, but I wouldn't care about her. The PM is (or should be) the real head of the British Government. I also have this irrational hatred of the House of Lords.
> 
> Lets also forget that the only person we're talking about getting screwed over is the Queen of England. Were Rep.s from any of these Countrys present: Poland, Australia, New Zealand, French Morroco, Newfoundland, Nepal, South Africa, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Denmark, Belguim, Luxemburg, The Netherlands, Greece, Yugoslavia, Soviet Union, Tannu Tuva, Mongolia, Panama, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Haiti, Hondorus, Nicaragua, China, The Philippine Commonwealth, Guatemala, Cuba, Mexico, Brazil, Ethiopia, Iraq, Bolivia, Columbia, IRAN, Liberia, Peru, Italy (after Mussolini was arrested North Italy was German Occupied, and South joined the Allies), Romania, Bulgaria, San Marino, Albania, Bahawalpur, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay, Venezuela, Turkey, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Suadi Arabia, Argentina, or Chile? Nope.
> Now, I know that only the US, UK, France, Canada, and Norway actually partcipated, but many of the other countrys created additional fronts for the Germans/Italians that made it so there were less troops to actually fight against. Not to mention, They also divided German attention allowing us to actually win the War. If not, then D-Day was a classic example of a well prepared invasion against a heavily fortified beach head, and nothing more.


 

Well inviting the Queen would have meant that all the Commonwealth countries would have also be represented by her as she is head of the Commonwealth, Gordon Brown is the Prime Minister of the UK and only represents the UK. The Commonwealth troops contributed greatly to the D Day landings.


----------



## Archangel M (May 29, 2009)

As one of the few surviving VIP's of WWII she should have been invited..Our President should have used some persuasive power to see that she was.

Talk about ungrateful. How many Brits died liberating that country???


----------



## Tez3 (May 29, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> As one of the few surviving VIP's of WWII she should have been invited..Our President should have used some persuasive power to see that she was.
> 
> Talk about ungrateful. How many Brits died liberating that country???


 

I think the problem may be that the French government prefers to forget about that, the old thing about having to be grateful makes you hate the person you are grateful to. Obama's people may have not factored that in as it's something that isn't easy to believe at first glance.
It would give the president some goodwill around the world if he persuaded the French not to be their churlish selves and invite the Queen. I'm pretty sure she's not upset on her behalf, it will be for all the British and Commonwealth troops she will represent she's be angry for. Brown  represents the government, the Queen represents the people.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 29, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> As one of the few surviving VIP's of WWII she should have been invited..Our President should have used some persuasive power to see that she was.


 
That would have been (will be?) a good diplomatic thing to do.



Archangel M said:


> Talk about ungrateful. How many Brits died liberating that country???


 
Twice!

Maybe it's because they're our (bad) neighbours but it is not for nothing that The French have the reputation they do.  Mind you, the French people that I've actually known reckon that they catch a bad rep from the behaviour of the Parisians :shrug:.

However, de Gaulle made a lasting negative impression all on his own when hiding under our wing.  Care to guess how many 'Free' French took part in the D-Day landings or what they achieved?  I know of one battalion of commando's, who insisted on landing first on the beaches (to spite the English with them in my opinion) and paid the price.


----------



## Tez3 (May 29, 2009)

I do know that in the South of France they are very much grateful for the help of the Allies. On August 15th ( when they were liberated) every year in Port Grimaud, Saint Tropez and other places along the bay of St Tropez they hold an open air memorial service where the national anthems are played and flags are flown of America and Great Britain. It's quite moving actually, the Legion D'Etranger usually represent France, there's usually World War 2 re-enactment (?) enthuisiasts there dressed as American and British soldies complete with genuine vehicles such as jeeps etc. There's usually a fly past by the French Air Force as well if theres no forest fires and the airways needed for the fire planes.
There was a lot of resistance fighters in that area and many were caught, tortured and killed by the Butcher of Lyon, Klaus Barbie. Feelings, as they do in small tight knit communities still run deep.
But, if you ask these people, they will tell you they aren't really French, they are Provencal and very proud of it.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 29, 2009)

Klaus Barbie, there's a chilling name from the past .


----------



## Big Don (May 29, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Brown  represents the government, the Queen represents the people.


Great way of putting it and an outstanding turn of phrase.


----------



## jim777 (May 29, 2009)

Obama should be embarrassed, and this should be fixed; it's a disgrace that the Queen wasn't invited. That said, it isn't Obama's country, and it isn't up to his staff to make the guest lists. He deserves some criticism nonetheless, but the French should step up here.


----------



## CuongNhuka (May 29, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Well inviting the Queen would have meant that all the Commonwealth countries would have also be represented by her as she is head of the Commonwealth, Gordon Brown is the Prime Minister of the UK and only represents the UK. The Commonwealth troops contributed greatly to the D Day landings.


 
Norway is part of the Commonwealth?:erg:

Also, If I was the PM of Canada, and I was invited to something because the Queen of England was, and she suppossedly represents me, I'd be a little PO'd. Infact, in that scenario, Canada would be invading England.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 29, 2009)

I couldn't quite untangle what you were trying to say there, *Cuong*.  What *Tez* said is quite true and I fail to see how that gets turned into somehow being an insult to the Premier of Canada?


----------



## Tez3 (May 29, 2009)

CuongNhuka said:


> Norway is part of the Commonwealth?:erg:
> 
> Also, If I was the PM of Canada, and I was invited to something because the Queen of England was, and she suppossedly represents me, I'd be a little PO'd. Infact, in that scenario, Canada would be invading England.


 
Norway? where did that come from?

She isn't the Queen of England, her title is _'Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'_

As well as being the Queen and head of state in the UK is also the Queen of the following countries

Antigua & Barbuda
Australia
The Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
CANADA
Grenada ( did you realise that the Queen is the head of state there when America invaded it?)
Jamaica
New Zealand
PNG
St Kitts & Nevis
St Lucia
St Vincent & Grenadines
Solomon Islands
Tuvalu

She is also Head of the Commonwealth 
http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Internal/142227/members/

The Prime Minister of Canada would be in the same position as Gordon Brown he would represent his government, his ( and our) Queen would represent the people of Canada so there could hardly be any invasion could there?


----------



## CuongNhuka (May 29, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> I couldn't quite untangle what you were trying to say there, *Cuong*. What *Tez* said is quite true and I fail to see how that gets turned into somehow being an insult to the Premier of Canada?


 
She said that because the Queen represents the people of all the countrys in the Commonwealth, she can be present at function to represent the people of the Commonwealth. I was trying to explain that the leaders of those countrys might be a little PO'd because someone else could be present instead, who is not even a citizen.



Tez3 said:


> Norway? where did that come from?


 
They participated in D-Day as well. They weren't invited either. No one is crying about that.



Tez3 said:


> She isn't the Queen of England, her title is _'Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'_


 
She's a political figure who became the Head of State on the grounds of birthright. I don't care. You have to understand, I believe in Democracy. Non-Democracy (like an inherited position) is evil to me.



Tez3 said:


> As well as being the Queen and head of state in the UK is also the Queen of the following countries
> 
> Antigua & Barbuda
> Australia
> ...


 
Yah, but how much power does she actually have in any of those countrys? How much power does she have in England? Symbolic, compared to some real authority.



Tez3 said:


> She is also Head of the Commonwealth
> http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Internal/142227/members/
> 
> The Prime Minister of Canada would be in the same position as Gordon Brown he would represent his government, his ( and our) Queen would represent the people of Canada so there could hardly be any invasion could there?


 
Yes, I'm aware. The invasion thing was me trying to explain that you'd be pretty PO'd if you (as head of state) weren't present at some international function, because there was someone there who could represent you instead, even though that person is not even really a citizen. Oh, and there could be an invasion, it's just it would be called a Coup, a revolution, or a Civil War.


----------



## mook jong man (May 29, 2009)

I could be wrong but I think the Queen has the power to sack the Australian government if she wants to .

 I think the way it works is that the Governor General in Australia tells the Queen that the government is crap and the Queen says yeah no worries get rid of em or something like that anyway.


----------



## Tez3 (May 29, 2009)

What having a constitutional monarchy means is that it stops any government taking over and becoming a dictatorship. The Armed Forces, the police and the Civil Service all swear allegiance to the Queen not the government so cannot be forced to obey any orders from a government intent on becoming the only governing body. She defends democracy in this country and probably all around the world. As I said she wields great influence behind the scenes and there well have been more wars and skirmishes than there has been without her diplomacy.  

Who says no one is upset about Norway not being invited, you don't know how I or others feel about it!

The Canadians are free to decide they don't want the Queen to be head of state or their queen anymore. I think though being their queen does actually make her a citizen lol!

In some of those countries she literally has the power of life and death, some of the countries she is queen of, still have the death penalty and appealing to her is the last place a condemned person can go.

Why do you insist on saying England, you will upset all the other citizens of the UK if you carry on.


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 29, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> What having a constitutional monarchy means is that it stops any government taking over and becoming a dictatorship. The Armed Forces, the police and the Civil Service all swear allegiance to the Queen not the government so cannot be forced to obey any orders from a government intent on becoming the only governing body. She defends democracy in this country and probably all around the world. As I said she wields great influence behind the scenes and there well have been more wars and skirmishes than there has been without her diplomacy.
> quote]
> 
> Damn! You beat me to it Tez. Although I don't think I could have posted it more eloquently.
> ...


----------



## Tez3 (May 29, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> Tez3 said:
> 
> 
> > What having a constitutional monarchy means is that it stops any government taking over and becoming a dictatorship. The Armed Forces, the police and the Civil Service all swear allegiance to the Queen not the government so cannot be forced to obey any orders from a government intent on becoming the only governing body. She defends democracy in this country and probably all around the world. As I said she wields great influence behind the scenes and there well have been more wars and skirmishes than there has been without her diplomacy.
> ...


----------



## Empty Hands (May 29, 2009)

One of the downsides of swearing an oath of allegiance to one unaccountable person is that the person in question might decide to do something with it.  You've all been spoiled.  A person of great character has been your monarch for 50 years now, most of you remember none other.  She will be replaced one day however, and by someone you have no control over.  Indeed, by an accident of birth.  What happens when you someday get someone in there with the character of a Dick Cheney, who might decide to take a crack at abusing their powers?  It's not like you can vote them out.  Then, they can take advantage of all those personal oaths of allegiance by the police, judiciary, and armed forces, and see if they can do something with them.  Where are the checks?  How does this system support democracy then?  How can _any _system support democracy when it relies on one single individual, put in place by birth order rather than the will of the people, is unaccountable to them, and to whom the institutions of power swear personal allegiance?  The entire thought is absurd.

I wouldn't rely too much on the good feelings of the commonwealth, either.  Republicanism (not the American kind) is on a rising tide.  The last referendum on forming a Republic in Australia in 1999 was only defeated 55-45.  I expect that those numbers will continue to change all over the commonwealth, and at an expanding rate, once someone with the great character of Elizabeth is no longer on the throne.


----------



## Archangel M (May 29, 2009)

Politics aside. While France may not "be Obamas country"..he always has the option of saying "I will not attend" if the Queen is going to be snubbed....


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 29, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Politics aside. While France may not "be Obamas country"..he always has the option of saying "I will not attend" if the Queen is going to be snubbed....


 

Oh come now, His ego would never permit him to deprive the world of himself.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 29, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> What having a constitutional monarchy means is that it stops any government taking over and becoming a dictatorship. The Armed Forces, the police and the Civil Service all swear allegiance to the Queen not the government so cannot be forced to obey any orders from a government intent on becoming the only governing body. She defends democracy in this country and probably all around the world. As I said she wields great influence behind the scenes and there well have been more wars and skirmishes than there has been without her diplomacy.
> 
> Who says no one is upset about Norway not being invited, you don't know how I or others feel about it!
> 
> ...


 

It's the Marine thing, he's forgotten how to quit.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 29, 2009)

I recall that a while back we had a discourse about the nature of the monarchy and the checks and balances that keep the wheel rolling.

Ah, here it is:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=65436

What has gone wrong of late is that the 'chief executives' of the government in power have been doing the same thing that the President in the USA has been doing i.e. sneakily gathering in power to their hands.  That needs to be stopped before the whole system goes somewhat more wobbily than we normally like.

Hopefully, if people have any more comments not related to the OP but related to this subject instead, then they can post in that old thread - we don't mind zombies as long as they behave themselves .


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 29, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> How does this system support democracy then?
> quote]
> 
> How does the US system support democracy? Answer this question and your own question will also be answered.


----------



## CuongNhuka (May 29, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> It's the Marine thing, he's forgotten how to quit.


 
No, it's a Marine thing: I hate any form of government with inherited roles. I don't care how bloody good she is! If it's not Democracy or Meritocracy, I want nothing to do with it!


----------



## Big Don (May 29, 2009)

CuongNhuka said:


> No, it's a Marine thing: I hate any form of government with inherited roles. I don't care how bloody good she is! If it's not Democracy or Meritocracy, I want nothing to do with it!


A meritocracy, Peter?


----------



## Tez3 (May 30, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> One of the downsides of swearing an oath of allegiance to one unaccountable person is that the person in question might decide to do something with it. You've all been spoiled. A person of great character has been your monarch for 50 years now, most of you remember none other. She will be replaced one day however, and by someone you have no control over. Indeed, by an accident of birth. What happens when you someday get someone in there with the character of a Dick Cheney, who might decide to take a crack at abusing their powers? It's not like you can vote them out. Then, they can take advantage of all those personal oaths of allegiance by the police, judiciary, and armed forces, and see if they can do something with them. Where are the checks? How does this system support democracy then? How can _any _system support democracy when it relies on one single individual, put in place by birth order rather than the will of the people, is unaccountable to them, and to whom the institutions of power swear personal allegiance? The entire thought is absurd.
> 
> I wouldn't rely too much on the good feelings of the commonwealth, either. Republicanism (not the American kind) is on a rising tide. The last referendum on forming a Republic in Australia in 1999 was only defeated 55-45. I expect that those numbers will continue to change all over the commonwealth, and at an expanding rate, once someone with the great character of Elizabeth is no longer on the throne.


 


The monarch is there to make sure the government doesn't take over, the government is there to make sure the monarch doesn't take over, it's all checks and balances.
As I said it was a few _thousand _years in the making and I'm not getting at Americans with their couple of hundred years but trust me it works. I think it's maybe one of those things you have to be here to appreciate as it probably looks odd to outsiders not used to the system.

Queen Elizabeth the second is not the only monarch you know that we've had lol! We've had a very very long line of them, some bad some very good. there's still a good many people who remember her father and of course the Queen Mother. A good many still remember the queen's uncle and her grandfather. The system has worked since the Restoration in 1660 so it's a bit longer than fifty years.


----------



## Tez3 (May 30, 2009)

CuongNhuka said:


> No, it's a Marine thing: I hate any form of government with inherited roles. I don't care how bloody good she is! If it's not Democracy or Meritocracy, I want nothing to do with it!


 
But the thing is....you do have nothing to do with it lol!
It's not your government or monarchy, we don't criticise the way you run your country (oh and we could, trust me!) so why get so upset about the way we run ours?


----------



## mook jong man (May 30, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> I wouldn't rely too much on the good feelings of the commonwealth, either. Republicanism (not the American kind) is on a rising tide. The last referendum on forming a Republic in Australia in 1999 was only defeated 55-45. I expect that those numbers will continue to change all over the commonwealth, and at an expanding rate, once someone with the great character of Elizabeth is no longer on the throne.


 
Yeah , when was that ?
10 years ago and we haven't had another one since , which umm sort of tells you that we like it the way it is .

Most people here love the Queen , and they absolutely adored the Queen Mum . We even like Prince Charles because he went to school here which makes him part Aussie in our book even if he does look like a Volkswagen with its doors open .

 The Queen sends birthday cards here to old people , gives out Knighthoods . You grow up feeling like you know her , her pictures are up on the wall in school , scout halls , government buildings , she's everywhere.

 At Christmas time you watch the Queens Christmas message on telly , when they come out here for a visit its a big deal , thousands and thousands of people line the streets to see her . 

When anything bad happens here she is the first one on the phone to ring the Prime Minister and offer her condolences . Australians trust that woman , more than what we trust our own politicians.

Well if someone gets in there that we don't like , then we will have to cross that bridge when we come to it. But don't hold your breath waiting for Australia to become a republic because most people like it the way it is.
 Besides we've got other stuff to worry about like a drought , unemployment and all the rest of it .

God save the Queen.


----------



## Tez3 (May 30, 2009)

Countries who have the monachy as their head of state are free at any time to become republics and either stay in the Commonwealth or not, entirely up to the people. It's a choice *they* make not Britain.
Personally I would be happier and again I'm not getting at America, if we held to the Commonwealth ties and strengthened them rather than become America's poodle as Blair wanted with Bush. I think a lot of people feel this way here. We have far more in common with Oz, NZ, Canada etc than we do with America tbh much as we like Americans as cousins we should stick with our brothers first.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 30, 2009)

Good points all round ladies and gentlemen but we are drifting far off the beam of the OP at this juncture.

I just wanted to say, as I don't think I have in this thread yet (to avoid a gratuitous outburst of Frog bashing on my part) that I personally feel slighted by this 'slip' of the French.  It seems they're still spitting on us all these decades after Dunkirk.

They dishonour our Queen, by direct inference all the troops that served on D-Day, my grandfather and, by inheritance, me.

I wont hold my breath for an apology.


----------



## Big Don (May 30, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> They dishonour our Queen, by direct inference all the troops that served on D-Day, my grandfather and, by inheritance, me.
> 
> I wont hold my breath for an apology.


I wholeheartedly encourage you to ask for one. The address is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue...


----------



## Tez3 (May 30, 2009)

Big Don said:


> I wholeheartedly encourage you to ask for one. The address is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue...


 
Do they answer letters? I know Buck House does, the Queen's letter are answered by her Ladies in Waiting and she reads as many as she can.


----------



## elder999 (May 30, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Do they answer letters? I know Buck House does, the Queen's letter are answered by her Ladies in Waiting and she reads as many as she can.


 

Yes, they (White House staff, rarely the Pres. himself) answer _some_ letters, and, since Obama's big on the using the INternet, they'll answer some emails sent to (surprise!) *president@whitehouse.net.*



			
				Big Don said:
			
		

> I wholeheartedly encourage you to ask for one. The address is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue...


 
Of course, while the White House might be seen as some as displaying a lack of tact or diplomacy in accepting the invitation from France, he'd certainly have been seen as lacking tact or diplomacy for refusing it. In additions, the British PM has been invited, and *he's* the head of state, or, at least, the state's elected representative. 

I mean, what exactly should the White House apologize _for?_ Accepting the invitation? The_ French_ deciding to snub the Queen? 

_Honestly_.


----------



## Tez3 (May 30, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Yes, they (White House staff, rarely the Pres. himself) answer _some_ letters, and, since Obama's big on the using the INternet, they'll answer some emails sent to (surprise!) *president@whitehouse.net.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Thats what we said, it's the French and for all we know Obama may have said something to the French and got rebuffed for his trouble, we don't know a lot of what goes on when it comes to diplomacy. Not everything is overt.
It's only reported the Queen is annoyed she hasn't actually said anything in public.


----------



## Scott T (May 30, 2009)

mook jong man said:


> Yeah , when was that ?
> 10 years ago and we haven't had another one since , which umm sort of tells you that we like it the way it is .
> 
> Most people here love the Queen , and they absolutely adored the Queen Mum . We even like Prince Charles because he went to school here which makes him part Aussie in our book even if he does look like a Volkswagen with its doors open .
> ...


Same as in Canada, and with the exception of a few dissenters who'd rather we be Americans, our feeling toward the Monarchy is the same.

BTW, loved the Charles/Volkswagen line!


----------



## Big Don (May 30, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Yes, they (White House staff, rarely the Pres. himself) answer _some_ letters, and, since Obama's big on the using the INternet, they'll answer some emails sent to (surprise!) *president@whitehouse.net.*


 Interesting.





> Of course, while the White House might be seen as some as displaying a lack of tact or diplomacy in accepting the invitation from France, he'd certainly have been seen as lacking tact or diplomacy for refusing it. In additions, the British PM has been invited, and *he's* the head of state, or, at least, the state's elected representative.


 The Queen is the Chief of state, the PM is the Head of the Government.





> I mean, what exactly should the White House apologize _for?_ Accepting the invitation? The_ French_ deciding to snub the Queen?


Not insisting the Queen be included, IMO, at least.





> _Honestly_.


sometimes...


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 30, 2009)

CuongNhuka said:


> No, it's a Marine thing: I hate any form of government with inherited roles. I don't care how bloody good she is! If it's not Democracy or Meritocracy, I want nothing to do with it!


 
The UK is both a Democracy and Meritocracy. Do you see peasants like Sir Richard Branson and Sir Alan Sugar mopping floors. No, they both worked from the ground floor up and became billionaires. So why then is the UK not a meritocracy?


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 30, 2009)

elder999 said:


> In additions, the British PM has been invited, and *he's* the head of state, or, at least, the state's elected representative.


 
Wrong, the Queen IS the Head of State by the grace of God and the will of the people. You are correct she was not elected, but the people of the UK and Commonwealth are free to dispand the Monarchy at any time. By the way Gordon Brown will be removed long before the Monarchy by the same people who could remove Her Majesty, the people of the UK.

Was Gordon Brown elected to the position of PM by the people of the UK? I thought he was appointed after Blair left office.


----------



## Tez3 (May 30, 2009)

Gordon Brown was elected as a Member of Parliament, his fellow Labour MPs elected as Prime Minister, we didn't.
At the rate MPs are being exposed and not standing for re election we will have a whole load of new people in come the next election including we hope Gordon.


----------



## elder999 (May 30, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> Wrong, the Queen IS the Head of State by the grace of God and the will of the people. You are correct she was not elected, but the people of the UK and Commonwealth are free to dispand the Monarchy at any time. By the way Gordon Brown will be removed long before the Monarchy by the same people who could remove Her Majesty, the people of the UK.
> 
> Was Gordon Brown elected to the position of PM by the people of the UK? I thought he was appointed after Blair left office.


 

I don't care that the Queen wasn't elected or not. All I know is that when Bush wanted your country's help in Iraq, he didn't turn to the Queen, he went to Blair.

And Gordon Brown was _elected_-whether by the people or their representatives in Parliament is hardly relevant to _me_, or, apparently, to the French. :lol:

Lastly, the distinction between the "head of state" and "head of government" is duly noted, though one that escapes many of us that don't live under some sort of monarchy. Please note again, that when Bush turned to your _state_ for assistance it was the PM he approached, not the Queen. Please also note that in our country, as in France, the head of state and the head of the government are the same person....and it's France's party.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 30, 2009)

A bit sharp there, *Elder*. Could I ask why?


----------



## elder999 (May 30, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> A bit sharp there, *Elder*. Could I ask why?


 

_I don't care for being confused with someone else_. I don't care one way or the other that you have a monarchy. I've made no judgements in that regard. I don't care that the "Queen isn't elected." It seems to me that that's _why_ she's "the Queen," and not the PM I don't care about the merits of your system of government vs. ours-it's hardly relevant. I don't care to split hairs about whether your PM is elected by the people, or by other Members of Paliament-seems to me he's *still* your _*state's*_ "elected representative," or "head of state." I'm sorry _your_ Queen wasn't invited to _France's_ celebration-bit rude of the French, I think, but-again, not our problem.


----------



## Tez3 (May 30, 2009)

elder999 said:


> I don't care that the Queen wasn't elected or not. All I know is that when Bush wanted your country's help in Iraq, he didn't turn to the Queen, he went to Blair.
> 
> And Gordon Brown was _elected_-whether by the people or their representatives in Parliament is hardly relevant to _me_, or, apparently, to the French. :lol:
> 
> Lastly, the distinction between the "head of state" and "head of government is duly noted. Please note again, that when Bush turned to your _state_ for assistance it was the PM he approached, not the Queen. Please also note that in our country, as in France, the head of state and the head of the government are the same person....and it's France's party.


 

First of all technically we don't have a Prime Minister, Tony Blair was, as Gordon Brown is 'The First Lord of the Treasury'.

This country cannot enter a war without the Queen's permission, thats the legal fact. It can enter a conflict but not a war. The Queen can refuse that permission if she feels it's in the best interest of the country, she's supposed to remain neutral in politics but she can if she felt strongly enough, disagree with any of her ministers advice or policies.

If she took such action the government would be obliged to resign and call an election to allow the country to decide. This hasn't happened yet in this country but in 1975 in Australia the government was dismissed and another put in until elections were called.

Tony Blair only had the right to put troops in any hostile situation for three months then he had to get the permission of not only the Queen but Parliament, not the government but Parliament.

It could be said that Blair pushed Bush into war by providing false intel so who was manipulating whom?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 30, 2009)

Can we all blame Jimmy Carter for it all, and share some cold beverages maybe?


----------



## Tez3 (May 30, 2009)

elder999 said:


> _I don't care for being confused with someone else_. I don't care one way or the other that you have a monarchy. I've made no judgements in that regard. I don't care that the "Queen isn't elected." It seems to me that that's _why_ she's "the Queen," and not the PM I don't care about the merits of your system of government vs. ours-it's hardly relevant. I don't care to split hairs about whether your PM is elected by the people, or by other Members of Paliament-seems to me he's *still* your _*state's*_ "elected representative," or "head of state." I'm sorry _your_ Queen wasn't invited to _France's_ celebration-bit rude of the French, I think, but-again, not our problem.


 

If you read the posts the Brits have been saying it's France's fault not America's and this thread was introduced by an American not us. We are just correcting what some Americans think is the procedures in our country as one person not you, seems to be quite angry about how we conduct  our business.


----------



## elder999 (May 30, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> If you read the posts the Brits have been saying it's France's fault not America's and this thread was introduced by an American not us. We are just correcting what some Americans think is the procedures in our country as one person not you, seems to be quite angry about how we conduct our business.


 

I'm pretty angry with how *our* country conducts business. For decades we supported ruthless fascist dictators in the name of fighting "the spread of Communism," something that ultimately did itself in. We didn't care how the Samoza's did business-of course, that's before Cuong was born. We didn't care how the Shah of Iran did business, and that really worked out well for us, didn't it?  People talk about Obama and "hope and change," but nothing's really changed, except citizens of the U.S. continue to get distracted and altogether blindered by _non-issues_ like another country snubbing the Queen of yet _another_ country, as though they've never gone to a party at the house of a friend who hadn't invited another mutual friend, while, in the very meantime, the agenda of the people who *really* run things continues unimpeded, just as it has for _*all of my life.*_


----------



## arnisador (May 30, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Please also note that in our country, as in France, the head of state and the head of the government are the same person



_J'accuse, monsieur!_

President of France: Head of State
Prime Minister of France: Head of Government*



Tez3 said:


> We are just correcting what some Americans think is the procedures in our country as one person not you, seems to be quite angry about how we conduct  our business.



You're free to conduct your business as you wish. It's just that it's very odd to select one's Head of State at birth. You're using a system from the 800s in the 2000s. There have been improvements since then!


(*In fact the semi-presidential system used in France means that some of this authority can sometimes be exercised by the President also, so the division is less clear-cut than in some other systems.)


----------



## Carol (May 30, 2009)

France.  We come from France.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 30, 2009)

Personally I think the guys with the perfect system can comment on the other guys imperfect systems. Until they show up, I think everyone else needs to realize that we use the system that works best for us at the moment.  "we" of course refers to any country, except the perfect ones. 

Contrary to the locals opinion, that's not Quebec either.


----------



## Carol (May 30, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Contrary to the locals opinion, that's not Quebec either.



I'll let you be the one to tell that to the Quebecois, Bob.  Ima not touchin' that one. :lol:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 30, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> I'll let you be the one to tell that to the Quebecois, Bob.  Ima not touchin' that one. :lol:


Already have.


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 30, 2009)

elder999 said:


> _I don't care for being confused with someone else_. I don't care one way or the other that you have a monarchy. I've made no judgements in that regard. I don't care that the "Queen isn't elected." It seems to me that that's _why_ she's "the Queen," and not the PM I don't care about the merits of your system of government vs. ours-it's hardly relevant. I don't care to split hairs about whether your PM is elected by the people, or by other Members of Paliament-seems to me he's *still* your _*state's*_ "elected representative," or "head of state." I'm sorry _your_ Queen wasn't invited to _France's_ celebration-bit rude of the French, I think, but-again, not our problem.


 
If you don't care, why comment? It seems by your tone that you do indeed care.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 30, 2009)

Am I missing something here? Or are some posts invisible to me? Or some meanings that I'm too obtuse to see?

I just wonder as all of a sudden the heat level seems to have gone up in here and I can't figure out why?

For the record, yes, we're insulted (well I am at least); yes, it's those Frenchies fault (as it usually is); no, we don't really blame you Yanks for it but if you could stop pretending you're the saviours of the world and Gods divine gift to politics it'd be a help.

Anyone have a problem with any of that, then take it up with me - I've got big enough problems in my life that a few hot posts aren't going to make that much of a difference.

Otherwise, if we could go back to pretending that we're rational and level headed, I'd be most grateful.


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 30, 2009)

elder999 said:


> I'm pretty angry with how *our* country conducts business. For decades we supported ruthless fascist dictators in the name of fighting "the spread of Communism," something that ultimately did itself in. We didn't care how the Samoza's did business-of course, that's before Cuong was born. We didn't care how the Shah of Iran did business, and that really worked out well for us, didn't it? People talk about Obama and "hope and change," but nothing's really changed, except citizens of the U.S. continue to get distracted and altogether blindered by _non-issues_ like another country snubbing the Queen of yet _another_ country, as though they've never gone to a party at the house of a friend who hadn't invited another mutual friend, while, in the very meantime, the agenda of the people who *really* run things continues unimpeded, just as it has for _*all of my life.*_


If you're angry about the way your country does business, I'm sure Her Majesty will allow you into the Commonwealth, so that she and her advisors can correct things. Just ask her nicely. :rofl:


----------



## Archangel M (May 30, 2009)

Britain seems to have done fairly well in the grand view of history with the system they have IMO. Yeah they may have some checkered incidents over the course of time but when you have thousands of years of history who wouldnt? We only have hundreds and look at the controversy we have been involved in....


----------



## elder999 (May 30, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> For the record, yes, we're insulted (well I am at least); yes, it's those Frenchies fault (as it usually is); no, we don't really blame you Yanks for it but if *you could stop pretending you're the saviours of the world and Gods divine gift to politics it'd be a help.*


 

Don't, haven't and won't. 


_Pretend_, that is....:lol:


----------



## Sukerkin (May 30, 2009)

That's a dangerous thing to do to a man with a mouthful of a gorgeous South African chenin blanc/colombar wine :lol:.

Still, my monitor needed a clean .


----------



## elder999 (May 30, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> If you're angry about the way your country does business, I'm sure Her Majesty will allow you into the Commonwealth, so that she and her advisors can correct things. Just ask her nicely. :rofl:


 
Seems that would be spitting on the graves of our ancestors, who went to such lengths _to throw her family out of here._ :lfao:


----------



## Empty Hands (May 30, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> Empty Hands said:
> 
> 
> > How does this system support democracy then?
> ...


----------



## Sukerkin (May 30, 2009)

Well, the French did at least, *Elder* ... anyone seeing a pattern here ?


----------



## elder999 (May 30, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Well, the French did at least, *Elder* ... anyone seeing a pattern here ?


 

And that's true-back when all the "freedom fries"  nonsense was going on, I pointed out that, while Bush was right that America had no closer ally than Great Britain, we have no older friend than France.


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 30, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Seems that would be spitting on the graves of our ancestors, who went to such lengths _to throw her family out of here._ :lfao:


I'm sure with Her Majesty being 'Defender of the Faith' you could relate the prodical son parable and she would then CONSIDER letting you back in the fold.


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 30, 2009)

elder999 said:


> And that's true-back when all the "freedom fries" nonsense was going on


 
Exactly, they have never been french fries or freedom fries. THEY ARE CHIPS. Just call them by their real name and we won't have any problems.


----------



## CuongNhuka (May 30, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> But the thing is....you do have nothing to do with it lol!
> It's not your government or monarchy, we don't criticise the way you run your country (oh and we could, trust me!) so why get so upset about the way we run ours?


 
Well, _you _have critized the US gov. And just because I don't live there doens't mean I'm not allowed to tell you just how much I hate you Monarchy. But don't worry - I hate all Monarchy, it's not just you.


----------



## elder999 (May 30, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> Exactly, they have never been french fries or freedom fries. THEY ARE CHIPS. Just call them by their real name and we won't have any problems.


 

"_Pomme frites_," actually. CHIPS are almost another thing altogether. Over here, though, they have almost  always been "french fries," though there have been variations.


----------



## Tez3 (May 30, 2009)

CuongNhuka said:


> Well, _you _have critized the US gov. And just because I don't live there doens't mean I'm not allowed to tell you just how much I hate you Monarchy. But don't worry - I hate all Monarchy, it's not just you.


 

Show me on this thread where I criticised the American government?

This thread was started sole as a means by an American to blame Obama for something that wasn't his fault and it's turned into a Brit bashing thread, nice one.


----------



## Archangel M (May 31, 2009)

I dont understand ANY of this US v UK stuff....IMO we have far more in common than we do differences. The UK and their Commonwealths ALL have been friends to the US for many years and while I love my own country I wouldnt hesitate to live in any of them if I had to move somewhere else..


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 31, 2009)

CuongNhuka said:


> Well, _you _have critized the US gov. And just because I don't live there doens't mean I'm not allowed to tell you just how much I hate you Monarchy. But don't worry - I hate all Monarchy, it's not just you.


Past threads have had posts that have been critical of the US government. The ironic thing is that you have been critical along with your countrymen. That's ok though, because criticism has been directed to policy and certain people in certain administrations. 

No one here however has said that the system of government in the US is *evil. *No one has said that they *hate* the US system of government. You have said this about the political system in the UK. If you feel that way then I suggest that you stay away from the UK, just don't go there. In fact just stay away from the Commonwealth. You obviously have no respect for the people who choose to live under such a system.Yes that's right mate it is a choice.You've heard from an Ozzie, a Canadian and three Brits who are all happy to have Her Majesty as a Head Shed. I don't think you understand how treaured she is to people of the Commonwealth.

You see by dismissing the Queen you make a fool out of every public servant of the UK. Every Soldier, Royal Marine, Naval Seaman, Airman, Police Officer, Member of Parliament, Judge, QC and goverment Minister swear an oath to the reigning Monarch, to the Head of State, which just happens to be Her Royal Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II.

This thread was about the Queen being disrespected by Sarkozy and you turn it into a hate fest, targeting the Queen of all people. You don't seem to realise haow pissed that makes us Brits. For all intents and purposes you could be saying the same about my mother as far as I'm concerned. You'd be supprised to know how many more Brits feel the same way.


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 31, 2009)

elder999 said:


> "_Pomme frites_," actually. CHIPS are almost another thing altogether. Over here, though, they have almost always been "french fries," though there have been variations.


 
Give me chunky "steak fries" any day of the week. French fries have always seemed rather greasy, soft and tasteless.....Wait, I've just realised why they are called FRENCH fries. :rofl:


----------



## Archangel M (May 31, 2009)

We all know that opinions on ANY topic may vary widely, but all you Brits should know (if you dont already) that there is a LARGE "Royal Family Fanclub" in the US too. Visits draw crowds. My wife had a veritable shrine to Princess Diana back when they got married.


----------



## mook jong man (May 31, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> Give me chunky "steak fries" any day of the week. French fries have always seemed rather greasy, soft and tasteless.....Wait, I've just realised why they are called FRENCH fries. :rofl:


 
Over here French Fries are those crappy things you get in McDonalds .
Chips on the other hand are a gastronomic delight lovingly hand crafted and cooked by the old Greek bloke and his missus that own the Fish and Chip shop down the road .

Nothing better than Fish and Chips with salt and vinegar or slathered in tomato sauce when you've been at the beach all day body surfing . 
Its fair dinkum bloody beeeewdiful mate .


----------



## Sukerkin (May 31, 2009)

*YL* beat me to the point (me still being in Blighty I had to go to bed at some time ) when he said that something that may be a little obscure to our trans-atlantic friends is that the Monarchy over here attracts a much stronger sense of loyalty (if not indeed love (in the biblical _agape_ sense)) than merely being a pivotal part of a system of government.

Some here do not feel that way, that is so, largely because they are ignorant of what the Crown actually does and only see the sillyness and indiscretions that every now and then occur. 

Many here do value the Royal Family, however and, especially at times like now, when our elected government has been caught with its collective hands in the till, we feel truly blessed that the Queen is there to be the steadying force that stops the whole anthill collapsing in a chaotic mess.

As I hinted at above, it stems from a trust in a bond between monarch and people that has eased into place over the centuries as the Crown began to function much more in our interests than it's own (with the creation of parliamentary democracy). 

Just because that mutual agreement is not written down in a Constitution doesn't mean that it doesn't exist and even educated, agnostic, cynics like me still give our fealty to the Queen (possibly, in part, because she does not demand it of us).

Some are proposing that as a step in the current crisis of confidence we need to get ourselves a written constitution but I'm not certain that that is such a good idea. In many ways, tradition is a stronger guiding hand than legal phraseology. Write the 'rules' down and people will find ways around them. "It's just not done" has been responsible for keeping more people in authority on track than almost anything else I reckon .

Anyhow, I'm wandering off beam with that. All I wanted to get across is that many of her subjects feel much more strongly about our Queen than perhaps others realise.


----------



## Tez3 (May 31, 2009)

Just back after working 12 hour day shift, nice weather again though! the Queen is my boss so I have to be nice about her lol. Actually I don't, that's one of the nice things about being a Brit. 
Personally I have never criticised the American way of government or how it does things, I do ask a lot of questions though as I wish to understand better how it's run. I may criticise an individual such as a politician/government minister etc who has in my opinion either damaged my country or interfered in someway as in the CIA interfering with elections etc but I don't express opinions about your laws, the right to bear arms, the death penalty etc subjects which I feel strongly about _when it concerns my country but not yours._ People have in the past felt they could speak for me here but never have they been right. 

I only express an opinion about an American governmental issue if it's a foreign policy that affects me. American policies on Iraq and Afghanistan affect me directly as we are tightly involved together in these situations so yes I will comment. I won't however say your presidential system or the way you elect your officials is evil or wrong, I wouldn't dream of being so insulting. 

Tbh I have little idea of how you run things other than the presidential elections which feature widely here in the media. I often however offer an opinion on how we do things here not because we do it better ( or worse lol) but because understanding each other is the way forward I believe and to do that we should share information on our customs,laws, traditions etc. It's educational. . . . and friendly.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 31, 2009)

I rather like the Queen.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 1, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I won't however say your presidential system or the way you elect your officials is evil or wrong, I wouldn't dream of being so insulting.



Go ahead.  Some Americans will agree, some will disagree, but very few will say you shouldn't speak up because you live somewhere else.  In all the discussions here about American politics, I have *never *seen that argument leveled against a foreigner who criticized America.  The criticism was dealt with on it's own terms.

So quit being so damned sensitive.  It's your government, not your family.  People elsewhere will have opinions on it, and are free to express them, and you are free to disagree.  What you are *not *free to do however is to try to shut down debate because the people debating don't live where you do.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 1, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> Go ahead. Some Americans will agree, some will disagree, but very few will say you shouldn't speak up because you live somewhere else. In all the discussions here about American politics, I have *never *seen that argument leveled against a foreigner who criticized America. The criticism was dealt with on it's own terms.
> 
> So quit being so damned sensitive. It's your government, not your family. People elsewhere will have opinions on it, and are free to express them, and you are free to disagree. What you are *not *free to do however is to try to shut down debate because the people debating don't live where you do.


 
No Brit on this forum has said that they hate the US system. Nobody has said the constitution is an archaic piece of crap. That would be disrespectful. 

Some on this forum however, have mentioned hate when it comes to the British system. It smacks of disrespect.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 1, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> No Brit on this forum has said that they hate the US system. Nobody has said the constitution is an archaic piece of crap. That would be disrespectful.
> 
> Some on this forum however, have mentioned hate when it comes to the British system. It *is the height of arrogant* disrespect.


Fixed that for you.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 1, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> Nobody has said the constitution is an archaic piece of crap. That would be disrespectful.



We have much broader freedom of speech protections here. It's OK to be disrespectful to the govt.

Selecting people for the job of Head of State based on parentage is archaic. No one said you can't do it. It's no worse than how the Dalai Lama is selected.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 2, 2009)

arnisador said:


> We have much broader freedom of speech protections here. It's OK to be disrespectful to the govt.
> 
> Selecting people for the job of Head of State based on parentage is archaic. No one said you can't do it. It's no worse than how the Dalai Lama is selected.


 
It's ok to disrespect the government also in the UK. That's just it, YOUR post has been a fair one. There has, however been one young pup on this thread who has been very disrespectful to Her Majesty and it has to be said that most Brits including myself are offended by such tripe. We take it personally, even peasants like me. Her Majesty has done much to ensure the rights and freedoms of the commonwealth and for that, my people owe her much and are protective.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 2, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Fixed that for you.


 
Thanks for the 'lookin out' mate.


----------



## Carol (Jun 2, 2009)

Ummmm....wasn't that whole issue of disagreement with the British Monarchy settled by 1789 or so?


----------



## Big Don (Jun 2, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> Thanks for the 'lookin out' mate.


First time anyone's called me "mate"
I may cry


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 2, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Ummmm....wasn't that whole issue of disagreement with the British Monarchy settled by 1789 or so?



With a redo in 1812...


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 2, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Ummmm....wasn't that whole issue of disagreement with the British Monarchy settled by 1789 or so?


 
How dare thee pooh pooh me ma'lady. Tis right that thou be thrown over my knee!!


----------



## Carol (Jun 2, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> How dare thee pooh pooh me ma'lady. Tis right that thou be thrown over my knee!!




Only if you promise to keep talking to me in that brogue....


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 2, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> With a redo in 1812...


 
You can't fault us for trying. It brings me to tears to think of the money I would have saved on lawyers and visas had we won


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 2, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Only if you promise to keep talking to me in that brogue....


 
Aye, that al do!


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 2, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> You can't fault us for trying. It brings me to tears to think of the money I would have saved on lawyers and visas had we won



But then we would be stuck with Brit television....brrrrr.....


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 2, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> But then we would be stuck with Brit television....brrrrr.....


 
Same thing; Simon Cowell, Piers Morgan and Ryan Seacrest...It's exactly the same thing.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 2, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> Same thing; Simon Cowell, Piers Morgan and Ryan Seacrest...It's exactly the same thing.



That's just our cultural influence rubbing off on you...your welcome btw.


----------



## girlbug2 (Jun 2, 2009)

I rather like the UK's Monarchy and hope that the grace of God will of the people keep it in place. The thought of Britain without a queen seems so...unBritish.

It's comforting also as a reminder that there's more than one way of having a good government on this Earth.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 2, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> That's just our cultural influence rubbing off on you...your welcome btw.


 
I am grateful. Although I do miss the days of TJ Hooker, The Fallguy and The A-Team....Americana at its best :asian:


----------



## Carol (Jun 2, 2009)

Personally I admire The Queen.  She has been a big supporter of America and the American people, and I can't think of a point in my lifetime where she has asked for anything in return.  She became a world leader (that happened to be a woman) at a time when the world was becoming smaller and media spotlights were becoming brighter, and has carried on with dignity and grace.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 2, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> But then we would be stuck with Brit television....brrrrr.....


 
I dunno: _the Avengers, Monty Python, Dr. Who, Benny Hill, Fawlty Towers_-all pretty cool....we could have used some more of that....


----------



## Scott T (Jun 2, 2009)

It looks as though Prince Charles will be attending the event. 

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/090602/world/us_france_military_dday_anniversary_britain_royal


----------



## mook jong man (Jun 2, 2009)

Scott T said:


> It looks as though Prince Charles will be attending the event.
> 
> http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/090602/world/us_france_military_dday_anniversary_britain_royal


 
How dare they not invite The Duchess of Cornwall.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 2, 2009)

:lol:

Now, now.  Let's not go looking for a fight just when Charles has found a tactful way to resolve the empasse.  

A tip of the hat to Obama for making overtures but he marred the attempt by not letting our PM know what was in the wind - thus making him look even more foolish than he needed.

Ah well.  Mr. Brown was marked for ousting the moment he took over from Blair, so there's nothing much to be done about it I guess ... just don't let the Tories back in .


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 2, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> It's ok to disrespect the government also in the UK. That's just it, YOUR post has been a fair one. There has, however been one young pup on this thread who has been very disrespectful to Her Majesty and it has to be said that most Brits including myself are offended by such tripe. We take it personally, even peasants like me. Her Majesty has done much to ensure the rights and freedoms of the commonwealth and for that, my people owe her much and are protective.


 
Count this Canuck in that group.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 4, 2009)

elder999 said:


> I dunno: _the Avengers, Monty Python, Dr. Who, Benny Hill, Fawlty Towers_-all pretty cool....we could have used some more of that....


You ain't seen nothin' yet...This was my favourite as a young kid.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1mMQtk3IUE


----------

