• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House Seeks a Proper Invitation for the Queen

Laila said:
Yep, head of state of both Canada and Britain.
Not to mention it was her father, who authorized the operation if i remember
Click to expand...

No her father didn't authorize Operation Overlord that came from FDR and Churchill who were the real Head(s) of Sttae one was the President of the United State and the other Prime Minister of England.
 
Scorpion89 said:
No her father didn't authorize Operation Overlord that came from FDR and Churchill who were the real Head(s) of Sttae one was the President of the United State and the other Prime Minister of England.
Click to expand...

No Churchill was not our head of state. He himself would have no doubt disagreed heartily with that assertion. A minister's power technically comes from the sovereign.
 
Last edited:
Scorpion89 said:
No She Didn't neither did her mother who happen to be the Queen at the time. Yes Canadian Troops were part of the British Operation but where not under Allied Command which mean Ike was in Charge.

And yes it is a big deal when you miss-quote actual historic information.
Click to expand...

In this case it's petty and trivial and hardly relevant to the fact that the
Queen was not invited to anniversary ceremony in France.

There were more Canadian and British soldiers than American soldiers. Live with it.
 
Scorpion89 said:
No her father didn't authorize Operation Overlord that came from FDR and Churchill who were the real Head(s) of Sttae one was the President of the United State and the other Prime Minister of England.
Click to expand...

Churchill is not head of state, the PMs are the subject of her majesty. Everyone knows that.
UK's head of state is the sitting Monarch
 
Wessexman said:
If Brown had any inkling of what it means to be her majesty's Prime minister, to occupy the seat of Pitt, Disraeli and Churchill, he would refuse to attend unless the Queen is invited.
Click to expand...

He also occupies the chair of Neville Chamberlain. Just sayin'. :2wave:
 
It's a french event right? But it's up to the US to fix the invitation issue. Isn't it typical of the world to always expect the US to fix everything? And when we do, they bitch. Just watch, they'll bitch about this too.
 
American said:
It's a french event right? But it's up to the US to fix the invitation issue. Isn't it typical of the world to always expect the US to fix everything? And when we do, they bitch. Just watch, they'll bitch about this too.
Click to expand...

Don't bother.
The French want Obama for themselves and no one else lol

Hence why they sneakily waited until the last minute to invite the Queen fully aware that it takes months of planning for a Queen to visit another state because of security etc.
 
Hatuey said:
He also occupies the chair of Neville Chamberlain. Just sayin'. :2wave:
Click to expand...

What about it? That does not distract from the importance or the glory of said office. In fact as your cliched response makes clear it was an important seat. It is also the seat of Blair just as Obama's is the seat of Carter, W.H.Bush and FDR. Cliches are so uninteresting, btw mate.

I suppose someone should have told Henry VIII that when he styled himself after a Roman emperor that some of them were like Nero and Commodus, obviously that makes the office completely worthless and gloryless.:roll:
 
Last edited:
Laila said:
Yep, head of state of both Canada and Britain.
Not to mention it was her father, who authorized the operation if i remember
Click to expand...

FDR is the father of the Queen of England?

History is just amazing, isn't it?

(Oops, I'm bad, I put the old boy in his grave a year too soon....or twelve years too late, rather, if any of you caught that).
 
Last edited:
Laila said:
With the Queen still on the throne, i am a huge defender and supporter of the Monarch. The Queen being the head of state, Commander in chief and head of Church is something special and should be kept
Click to expand...

Over on this side of the Pond we have the peculiar idea that a man's religion is his business and not something the government has any business intruding on.

Also, we always figured, until this last election, that genetics and heritage is a lousy way to elect a national leader. Genetics and heritage is still a lousy way to pick national leaders, but the people that voted for The Messiah forgot this.
 
Wessexman said:
No Churchill was not our head of state. He himself would have no doubt disagreed heartily with that assertion. A minister's power technically comes from the sovereign.
Click to expand...

The American political theory is that political power comes from the people....
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Over on this side of the Pond we have the peculiar idea that a man's religion is his business and not something the government has any business intruding on.
Click to expand...

Good for you. Our traditions and heritage are different and therefore so are our institutions. We have complete religious liberty but we still feel that our traditional established church is worth protecting.
 
sazerac said:
White House Seeks a Proper Invitation for the Queen - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com



What a HUGE blunder not to invite her! The British sent more troops to Normandy than anybody. The Queen was in the military at the time. Everybody agrees the royal family showed great courage and support during the war.

We should just boycot the event if France doesn't grow up.

01caucus.queen.190.jpg
Click to expand...

I totally agree Pinky should be there !!!
 
sazerac said:
In this case it's petty and trivial and hardly relevant to the fact that the
Queen was not invited to anniversary ceremony in France.

There were more Canadian and British soldiers than American soldiers. Live with it.
Click to expand...

No not even close, Combine US Military Force on D-Day were 73,000 Ground Force of the 11,950 Aircraft involved 9950 were US Aircraft and of these over half were multi-personal aircraft. On the Sea the US N provide 2/3 of the Heavy Guns IE Battleships, the actual number is around 130,000 US Military Personal.
 
Wessexman said:
No Churchill was not our head of state. He himself would have no doubt disagreed heartily with that assertion. A minister's power technically comes from the sovereign.
Click to expand...

Yes he was in charge of the Wartime British War Councel and had the final sign off on Operation Overlord and Neptune.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
FDR is the father of the Queen of England?

History is just amazing, isn't it?

(Oops, I'm bad, I put the old boy in his grave a year too soon....or twelve years too late, rather, if any of you caught that).
Click to expand...

:doh

Have you never picked up a history book and read the Normandy affair?

As shocking as it may be for you to understand, US troops weren't the only ones there. There was more than one country present. 10 countries taking part to be exact.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Over on this side of the Pond we have the peculiar idea that a man's religion is his business and not something the government has any business intruding on.
Click to expand...

Well you keep that idea.
We will stick with what works for us.

I find that highly amusing, for such a church/state seperation. Religion sure as heck comes up alot in the political sphere often whereas in comparison to UK. Religion has never come up with political leaders or politicans. It seems we emulate the fact it is 'private business'
 
Last edited:
Laila said:
Well you keep that idea.
We will stick with what works for us.

I find that highly amusing, for such a church/state seperation. Religion sure as heck comes up alot in the political sphere alot whereas in comparison to UK. Religion has never come up with political leaders or politicans. It seems we emulate the fact it is 'private business'
Click to expand...

Like we practice what we preach. Actually, while we don't have a state religion, people are free to vote for any idiotic idea they want to. Since people are generally religious, and those who are religious tend to take it very seriously, it makes it very difficult for some one who does not claim a religion to get elected.
 
Redress said:
Like we practice what we preach. Actually, while we don't have a state religion, people are free to vote for any idiotic idea they want to. Since people are generally religious, and those who are religious tend to take it very seriously, it makes it very difficult for some one who does not claim a religion to get elected.
Click to expand...

Exactly, can you ever imagine an Atheist for a President?
Some were having fits at the possibility of a muslim getting in ...

Many people in UK have no idea what their MP's religion, i have no idea what mine is. Nor do many know where they stand on Abortion, Gay marriage, Stem cell. No one really cares. The second you leave your house, keep it down and keep it to yourself imo.
 
Laila said:
Exactly, can you ever imagine an Atheist for a President?
Some were having fits at the possibility of a muslim getting in ...

Many people in UK have no idea what their MP's religion, i have no idea what mine is. Nor do many know where they stand on Abortion, Gay marriage, Stem cell. No one really cares. The second you leave your house, keep it down and keep it to yourself imo.
Click to expand...

I so want to move over there.
 
Laila said:
I find that highly amusing, for such a church/state seperation. Religion sure as heck comes up alot in the political sphere often whereas in comparison to UK. Religion has never come up with political leaders or politicans. It seems we emulate the fact it is 'private business'
Click to expand...
Actually it has come up and should do here. It may come up less here and be more restrained but plenty of MPs and such have religious convictions that influence them. Look at Anne Widdecombe part of the traditionalist Tory wing and very much a staunch Catholic.

Seeing as the lord's spiritual still sit in the house of lords, and long may they do, your comment is rather strange. You have to remember the liberal media, elites and left-liberal politics are far from the only one's in Britain. I don't want to be completely like the US but the media-driven decline of religion in some quarter of British politics is certainly a shame in my eyes.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
Actually it has come up and should do here. It may come up less here and be more restrained but plenty of MPs and such have religious convictions that influence them. Look at Anne Widdecombe part of the traditionalist Tory wing and very much a staunch Catholic.

Seeing as the lord's spiritual still sit in the house of lords, and long may they do, your comment is rather strange. You have to remember the liberal media, elites and left-liberal politics are far from the only one's in Britain. I don't want to be completely like the US but the media-driven decline of religion in some quarter of British politics is certainly a shame in my eyes.
Click to expand...

I dislike Ann Widdecombe, for her politics naturally but in the years i've observed her she has at least been consistent.
Religion shouldn't influence a MP on his position, his/her constituents and voters should hold that influence.

If we start up the road of Politicans spouting their religious beliefs every time they try and enter office we will end up like US. I don't want our politics to emulate them. Can you imagine simple things like Stem cells suddenly being such a ridiculous controversial battle?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom