• 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

sazerac

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
3,082
Reaction score
744
Location
New Orleans
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
White House Seeks a Proper Invitation for the Queen - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com

June 1, 2009, 4:10 pm

The Obama administration is working with their French counterparts to make sure that Britain’s Queen Elizabeth — reportedly miffed, according to the British Press, at not being invited to the D-Day anniversary festivities in Normandy this weekend — gets a formal invitation.

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said on Monday that President Obama thinks the queen should be present at the event on Saturday. “We are working with those involved to see if we can make that happen,” Mr. Gibbs said.

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
 
Last edited:
I saw this...

I'm not really sure if this is the French being their usual asshats(they are known for that) or if it was a brain fart on the part of the people who formed the invitations to not note that the Queen is the head of state in the UK not the PM.

ATM barring any other information I'm going to suspect its simply a mistake.
 
I saw this...

I'm not really sure if this is the French being their usual asshats(they are known for that) or if it was a brain fart on the part of the people who formed the invitations to not note that the Queen is the head of state in the UK not the PM.

ATM barring any other information I'm going to suspect its simply a mistake.

Probably just usual asshats. I wouldn't put it past them
How petty, she was actually there unlike many of the other head of states that will be attending

A French government source said: 'There were never any plans to invite members of the British Royal Family, although an invitation has been extended to Gordon Brown after he said he wanted to come.
'He will, of course, be concentrating on the British commemorations, away from the American beaches, as is appropriate. This is very much a Franco-American occasion.

Yeah, invite the idiot who runs Government instead of our actual head of state
 
Last edited:
Wait a minute. She was Queen of Canada, too. So she DID send more troops to Normandy than anybody.

The failure to invite the Queen - who is head of state of both Britain and Canada - will be seen as an insult to the memory of the 17,556 British and 5,316 Canadian troops who died to free France and are buried there.

Yep, head of state of both Canada and Britain.
Not to mention it was her father, who authorized the operation if i remember
 
Last edited:
I was in Portsmouth for a Normandy commemoration back in about 91 I think. Was a cool thing.
 
Probably just usual asshats. I wouldn't put it past them
How petty, she was actually there unlike many of the other head of states that will be attending



Yeah, invite the idiot who runs Government instead of our actual head of state

The Queen and the gov't should invite Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou and Henri, Comte de Paris, Duc de France to dinner and such and put on full ceremonial show. Welcome them like heads of state, or at least one, and see how the French like that.:2razz:
 
I am always amazed at the strength of the reaction that British people have surrounding their queen. We have nothing at all like it here, and it really is amazing.
 
I am always amazed at the strength of the reaction that British people have surrounding their queen. We have nothing at all like it here, and it really is amazing.

She is our head of state, and has been a wonderful one at that. One of the best, she is what makes the Monarch relevant for me.
 
I am always amazed at the strength of the reaction that British people have surrounding their queen. We have nothing at all like it here, and it really is amazing.

She is a great women and also a symbol. A symbol of our history, institutions and culture.
 
If Obama thought he caught hell just flyin' to NYC with America's First Lady, just wait until FOXNEWS launches into him for flying and tending to the needs of England's First Lady.

Sparks are gonna fly!
:rofl
 
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.
 
She is a great women and also a symbol. A symbol of our history, institutions and culture.

Exactly, i couldn't express it better than that
She represents a time of Britain that is for all sense and purposes is gone, she is that reassuring figure that never changes. You know the Queen will be there no matter how much the Government or country ****s up

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.

I am disgusted the head of Government will be going when our head of state refused.
If he had any backbone, he'd refuse to attend and leave the French to deal with "Franco-American" ties
 
Last edited:
Exactly, i couldn't express it better than that
She represents a time of Britain that is for all sense and purposes is gone, she is that reassuring figure that never changes. You know the Queen will be there no matter how much the Government or country ****s up

She walks in the footsteps of her namesake.
 
Laila and Wessexman, I did not mean to question your reaction, or that I found it at all negative, just that it fascinates me. It really is kinda awesome that you have something a national symbol you take such pride in.
 
Laila and Wessexman, I did not mean to question your reaction, or that I found it at all negative, just that it fascinates me. It really is kinda awesome that you have something a national symbol you take such pride in.
Well I don't know about Laila, but I'm something of a traditionalist(if often a curious kind.) and the monarchy is just one of the British institutions I prize. I could give just as glowing a support for the CoE and its established place as well.
 
Laila and Wessexman, I did not mean to question your reaction, or that I found it at all negative, just that it fascinates me. It really is kinda awesome that you have something a national symbol you take such pride in.

We know you weren't questioning, we were just trying to explain why we have such a strong reaction with the Queen.

She made a vow when she was coronated at her young age.
"I declare before you all that my whole life whither in be long or short shall be devoted to your service and to the service to the service of our great Imperial family. God help me to make good my vow. God bless all of you who are willing to share it"

And she has done that for decades now.
 
Well I don't know about Laila, but I'm something of a traditionalist(if often a curious kind.) and the monarchy is just one of the British institutions I prize. I could give just as glowing a support for the CoE and its established place as well.

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
 
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

I don't know about you but it goes deeper than the Queen herself to the institution itself for me. Perhaps Charles will not be anywhere near his mother but I would still support him as much, or almost as much at least.
 
I don't know about you but it goes deeper than the Queen herself to the institution itself. Perhaps Charles will not be anywhere near his mother but I would still support him as much, or almost as much at least.

I can't support Charles, i do not think he would do the Monarch justice. Especially after the Queen never missing a beat or putting a step out of line.

I think for the sake of the Monarch and its continuation, Charles should abdicate.
 
I can't support Charles, i do not think he would do the Monarch justice. Especially after the Queen never missing a beat or putting a step out of line.

I think for the sake of the Monarch and its continuation, Charles should abdicate.

Firstly Charles is nowhere near as bad as all that. He even has some interesting views on organic farming and the environment. Secondly abdication would not help the institution which is built around hereditary succession. He is likely to be our monarch and if one has respect for the institution, as opposed to simply an individual who has occupied the throne, then one should support Charles.

We don't have to support everyone no matter what they do, James II looked likely to subvert our church and gov't and his removal, largely his own fault, was perhaps justified(perhaps it was not quite but this perhaps is not the time to get into such discussions.) but I see little to indicate Charles is anywhere near such a monarch.
 
I can't support Charles, i do not think he would do the Monarch justice. Especially after the Queen never missing a beat or putting a step out of line.

I think for the sake of the Monarch and its continuation, Charles should abdicate.

Firstly Charles is nowhere near as bad as all that. He even has some interesting views on organic farming and the environment. Secondly abdication would not help the institution which is built around hereditary succession. He is likely to be our monarch and if one has respect for the institution, as opposed to simply an individual who has occupied the throne, then one should support Charles.

We don't have to support everyone no matter what they do, James II looked likely to subvert our church and gov't and his removal, largely his own fault, was perhaps justified(perhaps it was not quite but this perhaps is not the time to get into such discussions.) but I see little to indicate Charles is anywhere near such a monarch.
 
Well the first article I read about this said it was Brittan. But what ev.

Big deal, really.

Wait a minute. She was Queen of Canada, too. So she DID send more troops to Normandy than anybody.

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.
 
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.

They were still the Monarch's subjects. The monarch didn't make many decisions anyway, so it is a bit pointless talking about who was in charge of them.
 
Back
Top Bottom