I have a feeling a few monarchists might disagree.

Oh, I'm no monarchist but the snub or flub is still really a major one. Including because not only is she the only current world leader who was an alive during WWII but she actually served - she drove an ambulance in London or something like that, during the war. and it wasn't just window dressing, from what I understand (esp as London was being bombed regularly). So she's technically a WWII vet.

I decided to go to Wikipedia to see what the facts were. Here's what they say: "She joined the Women's Auxiliary Territorial Service, as No. 230873 Second Subaltern Elizabeth Windsor. She trained as a driver and mechanic, drove a military truck, and rose to the rank of Junior Commander. She is, at present, "the only living head of state who served in uniform during World War II".

Silk there must be thousands of WWII vets alive, at the least. If they all got personal invites, then yes, Liz should have been included on the list, despite the baggage she would bring to the affair.

But I'm assuming they did not get them, right?

The so-called Windsors have been living off the public there for centuries, and have earned nothing more than any other citizen. They should be treated like the "subjects" they are.

I'm just not sure that this event is the best time to lodge a symbolic protest against QEII and the monarchy. I think it is a distraction from the solemnity of the occasion, and a distraction from the memory of the sacrifices that were made in Normandy.

Anyway, I figure that it's up to the British people to decide whether or not they want to continue this tradition. The monarchy is distinctly un-American, but then, so is England.

But, I respect your opinion and I'll rate you anyway!

Please, if "chiseled out of her royal amour" is a typo, let it stay. I beg you.

Well, but - until the monarchy is abolished THEY don't have a lot of choice.
If you think the monarchy should be abolished, say it. If you think the Queen of England, who was called to service by birth and did an admirable job during WWII, should not be considered a head of state who had some influence during that war, well, I don't get your point.

If France - or any other country, or you - were complaining about the monarchy, there would be an argument for and against.
I don't think you can speak for the relatives of the deceased British soldiers buried in France and say they would not want their head of state to represent them in memoriam.
I'm not a huge fan of monarchies, but I really disagree that Queen Elizabeth should be the target of any animosity, and I do think she should be respected for the position she holds and her service to her country.

Her entire family is definitely worthy of intense debate re: service. Maybe she should be the last, great monarch.

Bravo!! I, too, am appalled by the continued existence of an archaic institution such as the British monarchy, but I think it's only a tourist attraction at this point.

The idea that I would be expected to bow to the Queen is absurd to me, nor would I ever do it! Why? Because of blood lines? If this woman could wave her hand and instantly make pristine all polluted water and air on this planet, you bet I'd bow down! But to bow to an imperialistic monarchy that butchered and pillaged its way across the world throughout the last how many hundreds of years is obscene to me!! How many Indians did the Brits kill while they ruled India? Thirty million? And then there's Africa, Australia, New Zealand where indigenous peoples have yet to recover full rights, or even have decent jobs or housing, etc.

stacey,

thanks. damn, i'm bad with typos. i meant an r in there. fixed.

Aim, I am saying it.

It's a resilient institution, which continues a hundred years after it should have been put to rest, and other countries such as ours are help foster its continued existence. (We refuse to "recognize" lots of governments and heads of state. Why should we recognize the Windsors? Much less bow and so forth?)

I applaud efforts of refusal.

The Brits are sending the head of their government, Tony Blair. I see that as no slap at the British veterans. This is the democratically elected leader of their country attending.

Farrington

The Head of the State in the UK is the Queen. The Head of Government is the PM. The Head of State should have been the one invited to the celebrations.
If the French invited the leader of the House of Representatives Speaker Pelosi, and snubbed the President, all hell would have broken loose.

This was an appalling oversight. Like most Canadians I have a mixed viewpoint of the monarchy, but as long as she remains the UK's Head of State she deserves to be treated that way.

The British have the right to choose whomever they want as Head of State and other countries should respect that choice.

Farrington' s my last name. I still have family that would literally hit you over the head with something if you make disparaging remarks about the Queen. Thank God most of them still live across the pond. Years ago I did stand up on a live show for the BBC...I made a mistake of talking about how hard it must be for Prince William and Harry to lick the back of stamps that had their grandmother on them... “you know that’s got to have an odd taste”. Oh brother...I can't tell you how many years later this has been and I still get crap about that comment. It's not that most brits agree with the Monarchy...it's always been the source of humor and jabs...but they do give immense respect to the Queen. And they take that very serious.

Sorry Dave...don't know why it only posted my name the first time I tried to add a comment.

The British have the right to choose whomever they want as Head of State and other countries should respect that choice.

There are lots of countries where we don't respect their choices, or recognize their gov'ts/heads.

And I certainly don't respect the heads of state of many countries of the twentieth century. God, there are some villains on that list.

Luckily, the so-called Windsors (what's the real name, Saxe-Colberg-Gothat? I'm a bad speller) no longer have the power to be the villains they once were, but that family has a brutal history to answer for. Of all people to bow down to. Ugh.

The fact is she did serve in WWII, both she and her sister remained in London during the blitz when they could have easily sought refuge in the country. Their frequent radio broadcasts served as inspiration and hope to a citizenry who were in desperate need of both.

While I oppose the institution of monarchy on principle, in the end it is really not for us to pass judgement on, and without the continued support of the British people it would undoubtedly have passed into oblivion decades ago.

And the British Head of Government ceased to be Tony Blair along time ago. It's Gordon Brown.

Oy.

There are lots of countries where we don't respect their choices, or recognize their gov'ts/heads.

Really? Leaders who serve by the will of their subjects? Who?

Thank you, Amy. That's exactly how I feel.

By blood pressure literally rises at the sight or sound of that family. This is not some intellectual exercise for me, I get really angry. The carnage in their wake.

I despise them and the system they embody.

---

Meanwhile, Farrington, that gave me a good chuckle. Thanks for that.

Seriously, my blood is surging right now, and I needed that to lighten my mood.

Only a handful of things in the world really get me fuming, but modern monarchies are one of them.

Glenn:

It's the same in Canada. People have mixed feeling about the monarchy as an institution and whether Canada's Head of State should be someone who doesn't live here but most have tremendous love and affection for the Queen. She has done a magnificent job serving the people of the Commonwealth over the past 50+ years.

I suspect that Canada will become a republic after she passes away, but until then, she's on the money and I still see her picture in peoples' homes.

What I don't understand the hostility towards the monarchy specifically when there are many with unearned wealth and privilege in the world who aren't even targeted. Some of them do nothing to help the common people and leech much more than the Queen Elizabeth ever did.

i'm with you on this one, dave. the british monarchy is a ridiculous concept in this modern world, one i've never understood.

Thanks for the reminder, DC. As a nation, we have a pathetic grasp of what our history is all about. The founding fathers would rather have gone to the gallows than acknowledge royalty.
Shortly after our Revolution, the Frogs took disdain for the aristocracy to a whole new level of expression. That anniversary comes up July 14.

"Frenchies"? I suspect you have a lot more in common with the Royal family than you realize.

She was the head of state at the time Britain led the invasion of Normandy. The decision to not include her wasn't an intentional protest again the monarchy, it was an insult of negligence to the families of the people who fought. I don't give a crap about monarchy. I give less of a crap about your thoughts on the monarchy. I care about the families of British veterans who should be the center of attention at this event. And who would understandably feel slighted.

And spare me the stuff about your Irish heritage. My grandmother was a Catholic from Ulster who came over on a boat when she was 18 and never saw her family again. She was the only person I ever knew in my life to use the word "Frenchie." But, still, I'm sure she would find your rant as tasteless and self-indulgent as I do.

We completely don't recognize other heads of states because, what? She's the Queen of England; there have been many arguments made about the efficiency and validity of the monarchy. I tend to agree it's obsolete, but you just stuck your tongue out and then tried to justify your argument with "well, there are other heads of states we ignore".
Sure! That doesn't mean anything towards whether or not the Queen of England should be a respected and honored guest at D-Day events.

I grew up half of my teenage years in Scotland, where hating the royal family is a sport. Besides having a crush on Prince Andrew at some invaluable teenage girl time in my life, where I loved indescriminately and alone, I have bno sense of loyalty to the royalty. In fact, given my background, I might even think they should go away forever.
But not at a commeroration for D-Day.
It's a bad place to put valid sentiments. let people grieve - protest the monarchy in other ways.
Hey, my dad was there, on a mine sweeper, serving in Her Majesty's Royal Navy. D-Day.
He lived. (he died 20 years ago, but he survived D-Day.)
My uncle is buried in France.

And in the interests of accurate reporting. It's the veterans who are upset
, not The Queen.

And isn't it a bit odd to quote Thomas Jefferson about the equality of man, given that was against women's suffrage, thought blacks were inferior to whites "in the endowments both of body and mind" and a slaveowner who only freed them on his deathbed?

And in the interests of accurate reporting. It's the veterans who are upset
, not The Queen.

how are those mutually exclusive?

i cited the NY Times as my source on the queen "fuming"--their word. lots of other news orgs have reported the same. if you want to challenge their reporting, go ahead, but someone else being angry as well doesn't refute it.

juliet, i'm also fine with the fact that you "don't give a crap about monarchy"--or "give less of a crap about your thoughts on the monarchy." but that's what this post happens to be about.

you think the discussion should be about vets. go ahead, have that discussion. there's room for more than one idea to be discussed.

---

dan,

of course there's huge irony in the fact that Tom J called for equality for all people, but wasn't prepared to really see it apply to all people. the idea is still there, and luckily we continue getting closer to figuring that out. i'm not about to throw out that great idea, or the extraordinary words or the incredible document because those people in that time were did not have the vision to go far enough.

The NYTimes article is over a week old. That story has been long debuned. And there's not much in there of substance about monarchies. You have weird obsession with a old woman. I just think you've picked a bad time to indulge it.

Otoh,

Because the UK has both a monarch and an elected government they think and feel about them differently. They may (some of them) revere the monarchy, but the populace in the UK is not afraid of their government officials and will tell them off in public.

Not so here. In the States, WE are afraid of the government, when it should be the other way around. Current events demonstrate just how little congress, the WH, and all the rest, really care about what we think... even when we supposedly deliver a mandate.

I'm not suggesting that we need a monarchy... just somewhere else besides government for that kind of fawning to be distributed.

Show us where it's be debuned Juliet.

It's a repulsive institution I have an obsession about.

I think this woman is more interesting to discuss than your grandmother you dragged in for no discernible reason, aside from her using the term Frenchie.

I'm on the cusp of claiming my birthright to British citizenship for various and sundry reasons and you've given me quite the dilemma to ponder. Any chance her majesty could be like the "ceremonial" commingling of church and state any American citizen should find abhorrent? I agree with you about monarchism and the sorry history of empire and now am sorely conflicted.

Ouch. Nabbed on a typo.

I read your NYTimes article that claims the Queen is upset and supports it with no other evidence other than the Royal Family hasn't issued a statement claiming otherwise.

Now go read my article that includes the Royal family's official statement that they have no hard feelings towards France and that they are content to stay home.

If you want, I can send you articles about Veterans who will be boycotting the event because they feel snubbed.

D-Day should be a story about people who fought. It's not a time to trash the person they believe represents them. I would think as someone who makes a living off of honoring historical moments, you would be more sensitive to that.

But hey if you want to keep trashing my typos. Bring it on!

I read your NYTimes article that claims the Queen is upset and supports it with no other evidence other than the Royal Family hasn't issued a statement claiming otherwise.

Sorry, Juliet, that's not factually accurate. Nor is it a fair characterization of the Times piece. It cited numerous Brit papers, and then added, "Pointedly, Buckingham Palace did not deny the reports."

Anyone familiar with how the White House, Buckingham Palace, etc. work, is that they typically communicate their true feelings this way. They also make their feelings clear to reporters in lots of other ways. That may not satisfy you, but it is very different than your characterization.

If the NY Times came to this conclusion, based on its reporting--and so did a great number of other news sources I googled, I'm afraid I believe them over you.

You cite B Palace's official statements as conveying the Queen's true feelings? LOL.

Why on earth would I want you to send more links about vets feeling snubbed. I get that, and said so long above. Do you really see logic in the fact that if they feel snubbed Lizzie must not?

Really, it's kind of a red herring, anyway. My point is that the monarchy SHOULD be snubbed--not the actuality of how that woman took it. (Who's obsessing over that woman now?)

D Day is and should be primarily a story about people who fought. I don't, however, buy into the idea that if something else is discussed--like the freaking monarchy--that somehow devalues D Day, and we all need to keep our mouths shut about tangential issues.

I find that line of reasoning odd.

ok, lets look at the REAL facts if we are to assume we are telling the world how they should behave.

1. The D day is primarily about the commemoration of an event long before you were able to make any comment about anything, with or without factual presentation. It is seen to be important because this is the last occassion many of the verterans will be alive to attend.


2. It is on that bases that the person you assume to be able to talk down to has a major right to be present, along with every other veteran. (No, it has nothing to do with whether we should have a monarch or a president!)


3. Who is this Tony Blair that you assume to hold an office in the UK? Once again, if we are to attempt to be offensive to other people, would it not be helpful to learn the historical facts, as well as the present political situation in other countries.


4. Presuming Tony Blair was the Prime Minister of the UK, which he is not, it is notable that he does not hold that office because of being voted in by the general public. He is appointed by the monarch, who may appoint him if he should be the leader of the largest political party and often does, but is not obliged to. The present Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, was never even elected to be leader of his party!.


5. Bearing in mind item 1, why should some inexperienced person expect to be specially invited just because they are politicians with no knowledge of what it was all about. Barak Obama was never alive during the second World War. The French President was not only not born at that time, but according to some reports SOME of his family who were alive were thought to be collaborators with the NAZI's.


6. It has been noted that the French President who is not enjoying the best of popularity at the moment is looking to the photo call opportunity of being with a new American President enjoying his "honeymoon period". Thats some reason to drop of the list one person who acually knew what the world war was really all about!


Dave, I do not see much in your bio that suggests that you have any qualifications to speak on the matter, and your comments indicate you do not know the situation as it is today nor what the situation was historically. Whatever may be your political situation, your post written in ignorance has in one stroke offended the Allied veterans of the second world war of all participating countries, irrespective of whether they be monarchists or republicans!!!

I'm not a monarchist but I'm pretty sure she and her family deserve some respect for "looking the East End in the face" during WWII.

I wish I was invited. I'm glad my awesome president will be there and I hope my uncle and my father are honored along with everyone else who sacrificed.
I'm sure my uncle would like the Queen to be there, since she was the Queen when he died in 1943.
Seriously, why spend your intellect and your great compassion on something that really has nothing to do with you?

Dave, I accept that you don't get it.

But don't talk down to me. I know as much about how government press releases work as you do. And I certainly never meant to imply they were statements of anyone true feelings. The New York Times piece was a filler piece based on reports, as it states, from tabloids. My point is that it's old, stale news.

I find you trying to cobble together an argument for the veracity of that article not very convincing. And kind of a sad statement on the state of contemporary journalism.

But, whatever, rant away about "Liz" and "The Frenchies" if that's what gets your blood boiling.

I guess as obsessions go, I find it odd.

I thought Juliet's "ouch" was directed at me for finding that delicious one I regret you edited. (Yes, Virginia, we all are human.) I respect your opinion as well as the right to express that opinion at a forum provided for us for no other reason than that the free exchange of opinions is what's sorely lacking in the parts of the world we probably will never go to. I will retreat to my own blog shortly (nobody's called me "shortly" since seventh grade) and post what's been on my mind lately. It's not a put-down of anybody (I hope) but David, your passions have made me think. For that I will be eternally grateful. (Well, almost eternally.)

Juliet,

I accept that you don't get it, too. And I won't talk down to you if you show me the same. You entered this discussion with a comment calling my writing crap, a rant, tasteless and self-indulgent--and saying to spare you the stuff about my Irish heritage which I had not mentioned. You didn't refute my arguments, just called me a bunch of names.

And you keep insisting that my entire rant is based on the NYT reporting which you find wanting, and also "stale." Whether or not Liz got mad about this has nothing to do with my argument--let me restate it: the monarchy is an abhorrent institution, and I applaud measures to undermine it (intentional or not).

I really don't get the point about old, stale, news, though. D Day is tomorrow. I just heard about it this morning. So I'm not watching all my TV news religiously, and didn't hear about it until the day before the event. I'm sure that makes me less cool or edgy than some bloggers, but I don't get how I have no business talking about something if I wasn't as timely as you'd like.

Thanks, Stacey. Glad to have you hear, and glad to have made you think.

BTW, sorry for the slip of the tongue on Tony Blair as current PM.

Dave for the record. I don't think your writing is crap. I don't equate calling this piece insensitive and self indulgent with "name calling."

And this has nothing to do with being a "cool blogger" if such a thing exists.

This has to do with my being Canadian. And in Canada we make a massive huge deal about D-Day and there are many, many official rituals honoring veterans. That is the one and probably only thing the British monarch is really good for. They put on a really good show for the men who are going to die soon. And the vets take this very, very seriously. As they should.

So maybe to me this piece feels more ill timed than it does to you. Maybe we're just having a bit of a cultural difference.

The Irish stuff is a holdover from a comment you made the last time somebody wrote a piece about the repugnant constitutional monarchy. I believe your comment was about the origins of your hatred for the monarchy being rooted in the British treatment of the Irish. Believe me I get that.

But I thought that piece was off too. It implied the Queen was a racist, when in fact all reports seem to suggest that she adores the Obamas. And Obama was the first one to complain about the Queen not being invited to Normandy. At least that's what they reported up in Canada.

I, agree, I should probably have left the Irish grandmother out of it, until you actually brought your Irishness up. (But admit it. You would have if I hadn't!)

I'm not a supporter of Constitutional monarchies. I imagine in time they will be replaced. But stable parliamentary systems have to have a titular head of state, whether it's a constitutional monarch, or some sort diplomatic figure that people elect. These people have to spend a lot of money being diplomats. It's their job, whether we like it or not. And they will always take flack for this.

But as a symbol she means a lot to a bunch of very old people who will be soon be dead. So, yeah, you got to know it feels like senior citizen bashing to me.

Okay senior citizen bashing it too strong. What I guess you don't understand is that for British and Canadian vets, this woman has been at every important D-Day celebration that's ever occurred in over half a century. This slight signals an end this memorial event for them. Now it's about Sarkozy and Obama. And I find that a genuine source of sadness, not a reason for a rant.

Juliet,

Thanks for the dispassionate response. I greatly appreciate it.

I understand why you take the D Day thing seriously. I'm not sure how my post undermines that. Is it not so much my post in isolation, but that you've had a week of the snub getting dragged into this and effectively changing the subject too much of the time? (And then my post was one more aggravation in that annoying list or something?) That, I could see. Or am I missing it, still?

I honestly have not been paying much attention to the coverage, so I don't know. I saw it on the Today Show this morning, and yes, that institution is a hot button for me, so I chimed in.

I kind of feel I can talk about what I want at any time, but if there has already been ad museum on a subject, I can see how that would affect the situation.

It never occurred to me that this might come off as senior-bashing. I looked back at the post, and I still don't. I said at the bottom of the original post that I didn't agree with any snub to the British people or the vets. I tried to peel off one aspect and address just that.)

Oh, my Irish heritage in the other post. I was wondering how you knew that, other than my name. Yes, I definitely did say that, but hopefully I was making the point that while this made it personal, and fueled my anger, I like to think that dispassionately I would feel it anyway. I have lived in the Middle East and visited lots of former Brit colonies, and read a lot of history. I was really trying to give full disclosure, and cop to my subjectivity on the issue.

I can't remember all of what I wrote in the other post, but I know I don't believe liz is a racist. Her royal predecessors and fellow Windsors have done some horrible things non-British, though that wasn't necessarily racist either. Celts, Indians, Arabs--they seem to have been willing to subjugate a lot of different people, regardless of race.

I'm not sure what I said where there might have been an implication of racism. I'd have to see it to discuss intelligently.

What I guess you don't understand is that for British and Canadian vets, this woman has been at every important D-Day celebration that's ever occurred in over half a century. This slight signals an end this memorial event for them. Now it's about Sarkozy and Obama. And I find that a genuine source of sadness . . .

Ah, OK. Now I AM starting to understand.

No, I had not known or thought about that. I do get that. Hmmmm. Passing of the torch kind of thing. I get that.

I'll think about that. I would have definitely been more deferential about those feelings had I known about them. I understand that it's important for them, and she's a link to it.

The problem for me is that she's a link to a lot of things, good and bad. Let me state that, actually: The Brits have done a lot of good in this world. I have lived and worked (for a summer) in Blackpool, England, and found it and most of my friends there delightful.

There is good and bad in the country, it's history and even in the royal family. I don't believe they are the cousins of Darth Vader.

I do believe that on balance, the monarchy is a horrible institution--in Britian and out--and should have been expunged from this world years ago. That's my bottom line, and the starting point for my reaction to anything involving that institution or that family.

I guess I'm torn by this: there is a long tradition of the queen and D Day, and a lot of other long traditions, but that can be and is justification to keep this institution going in perpetuity. The sooner we cut the cord and get the monarchy out of these traditions, the better for this world in the long run. That's my view. That's what I'm expressing here. I'm not expecting it to happen tomorrow, but I do think that every year it goes on, the family gets embedded in new traditions, and at some point it has to stop.

I would also hope that Juliet you could be sad about the passing of the torch, and I could be gleeful about the dent in the monarchy, without those two things needing to be in competition--so long as we both understand why the other person is seeing it from a very different angle.

I by the way, I am a veteran myself. I served in the U.S. Army infantry. I am a fierce defender of vets. In this case, I put my disgust for the monarchy ahead of that. You all can chose other priorities.

Sorry, I should have elaborated on which post you commented on. It was some guys post about The Queen and Untouchables, or something. I didn't mean to imply you were racist (although if you ever come to Montreal, never the word "frenchie." And I have insider knowledge that Prince Philip is s anti-french. I'm sure that was the real origin of the story. But I still think she should have been invited.)

I guess we all have our hot button topics. And please feel free to rant about The Queen as much as you want. I'll try and separate it from the veterans. Or wait a few hours before I comment.

ah, ok, more insight.

i was a bit perplexed by the apparent anger about my use of "frenchie," but there was way too much flying around, so i didn't dwell on it.

i take it that's a derogatory term, at least in some locales? i beg your pardon if i used an ethnic slur out of ignorance. i have no beef with the french, in general, and didn't intend to slur them.

i've heard it used a lot, without malice, and it doesn't seem to have anything inherently nasty about it. come to think of it, i don't enough french people at the moment to even know. we don't have many in these parts (denver). i've lived a lot of other places, but it's been awhile.

are their any other names for the french to use that aren't disparaging, other than french? (i'm thinking they might not like "frogs.")

Okay, more hot button deconstruction. In Montreal the only people who use the word "Frenchie" are old anglo immigrants who use it with as much condescension as they can. I think old Brits still use it when they want to insult the French in general. But here it's even more loaded, since at the time it was used, most of the working class was French. So it's a way of diminishing them.

I have a friend who won a major British book award and ended up being invited to a private audience with the Queen. At some point Prince Phillip leaned over to him and said with distaste "Montreal. A lot of Frenchies there." So, yeah, I found it a little ironic in a rant against monarchy.

So we just stick with The French for people from France. Quebecois for french speakers from Quebec (don't call them French-Canadians). French Canadians for those in the rest of Canada.

Colonialization is very complicated, especially in two official languages.

Dave,be glad that you didn't have to grow up in Australia,where we were constantly reminded of the 'motherland' and the monarchy.
In ou cinema's,before the program started,we had to stand up and listen to that tiresome dirge "God save the queen".
%$^&*.
By the way,what is she reading?
The menu?

Quaint is a semi-derogatory word here, but it's high praise in England. The Brits do get credit, though, for giving us John Wycliffe, known as the Morningstar of the Reformation. Seven centuries ago, he began to call into question not only the Divine Right of Kings, but the Divine Right of the Pope.

For his insolence, the Pope had his bones dug up and burned half-a-century after he died. I suspect he would be very surprised to learn England still has a monarchy.

Wycliffe's influence can be seen in Locke and Mill and in the Founders assertion of the Divine Rights of all men "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights."

I also think its a laugh that the first person to rule both Scotland and England was King James -- a Scot. Funny also, that King James hired a bunch of church guys to write a translation of the Bible that reinforced the notion of the Divine Right of Kings since that was starting to take a beating from Jean Calvin and others with their Geneva Bible.

Right now, you're probably asking yourself, what the hell is with Tom and all this history rant? My point is that these things change very slowly, and when they don't, you're likely to end up like the French who lost their own revolution.

That helps explain why even those who suffer under a regime are reluctant to change it -- just as we witnessed here in 2004. Add the pomp and circumstance and a thousand years or so of tradition, and you understand why the British still tolerate their monarchy even tho it long ago outlived its usefulness other than for ceremonial purposes.

The case in question clearly represents a ceremonial purpose, and the Queen should have been invited. But never underestimate the bitter and too often petty competitiveness between the English and the French. Add the monumental (and monumentally undeserved) ego of Sarkosy, and you have this fine mess.

Juliet is absolutely right about one thing -- it's a shame the old soldiers have to suffer such a slight to satisfy the ego of a preening twit who suffers from a Napoleon complex.

She has every right to be there -- as the UK's head of state, and as a veteran. France's behavior is nothing to be proud of and I'm kind of shocked that this is being used as some kind of anti-monarchist platform when it's a diplomatic fumble. But it's typical of right-wing Sarkozy's complete lack of class and essential dim-wittedness.

If you don't like the monarchy, that's your business. But this is a pretty poor what of rationalizing it.

should read "way of rationalizing"

I'm also pretty stunned that anyone would think "Frenchie" wasn't derogatory, no matter what country they were from. This seems like another example of an American who knows precious little about world events and politics, let alone diplomatic subtleties, weighing in on a subject and pretending to be the authority. And I think it's "ad nauseum," not "ad museum."

Ah, American arrogance at it's finest. Why is it that people like you think they know what's best for other countries?

Peter, I've never heard God Save The Queen played in a cinema.

"I honestly have not been paying much attention to the coverage, so I don't know." With respect, Dave, your post already suggests that you have not been paying too much attention before posting.

"BTW, sorry for the slip of the tongue on Tony Blair as current PM." Was it also a slip of the tongue to offend so many veterans of the second world war. (I am also aware that veterans is interpretted in different ways in different parts of the world. Which war or campaign were you fighting in?)

Pleae do not take offence that people use this post to mention concerns about your attitude to the Veterans. YOU were the person who started the post using the veterans event to rant about the royal family. If you had been paying attention, which you admit you were not, you would realise that this is about what the veterans wanted, a head of state who served during the second world war. Veterans are in Normandy sporting badges with the Queens face on. When journalists ask why, they respond that she is the only head of state who has understanding of how they feel, and what they experienced. As such, it was an insult against them, the veterans of the 2nd WW.

Presumably you agree with democracy, the Veterans overwhelmingly wanted her there as THEIR representative, not YOURS!!! Yet, it appears the "royal decree" of "King " Dave Cullen is more important to you than the fact that you have chosen to side with those who have offended those who were to make the greatest sacrifice possible even for you.


I am sorry if that appears to be a bit sarcastic, but frankly I am shocked that anyone should hide behinf the skirts of anti royalty at a time such as this to cause such offenc who died at Normandy. Even worse, having seen the offence presented to you in these comments, if it was that you wrote in ignorance, you appear to show no remorse. Indeed, you even have the arrogance to suggest that it is the fault of everyone else in abusing your post, which is clearly about D day and the ignoring of the Veterans wishes.