Queen Elizabeth left out of D-Day ceremonies.

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05...&scp=2&sq=queen&st=cse

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

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.

British veterans? groups demanded more backing for this year?s ceremonies on the grounds that only a handful of soldiers who fought in Normandy were likely to be alive at the 70th anniversary in 2014



I have no particular love for the Queen. But I am shocked over this. As the story points out, the next "big" anniversay, the 70th, will pretty much be devoid of vets, as the youngest would be like 88. And, it's highly likely even Elizabeth won't be there.
I suggest the Queen hold her own ceremony at the same time. Let's see who draws more veterans.


 

bbdub333

Senior member
Aug 21, 2007
684
0
0
Can't wait to hear Obama apologize for the killing of so many innocent Germans that day.
 

TruePaige

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2006
9,874
2
0
I'm kind of amused. It's not nice but it's a funny story. ;)

France got to come but not Queen Elizabeth? What the HECK?
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,002
14,402
146
Leaving Queen Elizabeth out of the ceremonies is unfair to say the least.

Of all the heads-of-state in Europe or the US, SHE is the only one who actually served...and most weren't even born yet.

I'm an American and I'm outraged at this.

(ok, maybe not outraged, but it still seems wrong as hell.)
 

ZeGermans

Banned
Dec 14, 2004
907
0
0
oh dear a relic of an oligarchy that murdered millions who's extent of service was driving trucks on the mainland isn't getting treated like one of the world's heads of state?
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Why does england even have a monarcy anymore?

tourist dollars/international image?

seems pretty messed up to me if they just flat out excluded England
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,063
45,017
136
The British PM is going to be there so it's not like England was told not to come or anything.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
I know we in the US give the queen a lot of flak sometimes, but here I think she has every right to be angry given her service. Hell, I'm pretty irked about it myself considering her part in the war effort and her position.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,002
14,402
146
Originally posted by: ZeGermans
"IN THE NAME OF THE QUEEN!" *kills hundreds of Argentinians*

Dude...no one gives a shit about the Falklands...or Argentinians.

 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: ZeGermans
"IN THE NAME OF THE QUEEN!" *kills hundreds of Argentinians*

Dude...no one gives a shit about the Falklands...or Argentinians.

Dude...no one gives a shit about what ZeGermans says. :p
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,505
3
81
If she wanted to attend the ceremonies, why didn't her government set it up? I am sure the other countries would not object to the Queen of England participating.
 

dali71

Golden Member
Oct 1, 2003
1,117
21
81
Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: ZeGermans
"IN THE NAME OF THE QUEEN!" *kills hundreds of Argentinians*

Dude...no one gives a shit about the Falklands...or Argentinians.

Dude...no one gives a shit about what ZeGermans says. :p

Exactly, it's like he's trying to challenge Phokus for the title of biggest douchebag on P&N.
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,112
1
0
Originally posted by: ZeGermans
"IN THE NAME OF THE QUEEN!" *kills hundreds of Argentinians*

The Falklands were needed for strategic sheep purposes.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Originally posted by: shiner
Originally posted by: ZeGermans
"IN THE NAME OF THE QUEEN!" *kills hundreds of Argentinians*

The Falklands were needed for strategic sheep purposes.

well, the british couldn't let the scots mate with english women, now could they?
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
I am not a fan of the Queen, or the brits either, but she is the nominal head of state of one of the main countries involved in WWII, She was personally involved, irrespective of what capacity - someone has to drive trucks in wartime - and I feel sorry that she is left out.

Reading the article it seems the main blame goes to the brits themselves - specifically their prime minister.

 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
I had seen this link on the internet today, but to per say refer to the Queen as a head of State is iffy at best. But I can't blame the Queen for feeling miffed, but its somewhat unclear whose screw up this is. The invitation for Great Britain to participate went through normal diplomatic channels, and as far as I can see, the screw up in not inviting the Queen rests with the British PM Gordon Brown.

But in terms of Obama, the onus may be on him to find some way to repair the blunder in some way. Maybe he will cede Crawford Texas back to the British. Or maybe Kennebunkport.
 

DukeN

Golden Member
Dec 12, 1999
1,422
0
76
This is pretty wrong - England was as big an ally in WW2 as any and deserves to be represented IMO.