Blogroll Me!
Queen Elizabeth Celebrates Her 80th Birthday Today ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, whether one loves the lady or loathes her, one has to hand it to her today. She's now all of 80 years old -- and still going strong.
One might evensay murmur -- but better still, whisper -- that she's still 'working' for a living, albeit involving a much lighter workload of late. So here's wishing Her Most Britannic Royal Majesty, Queen Elizabeth 11
A Very HAPPY BIRTHDAY, Ma'am.
And many more of 'em.
And for those of oursubjects followers readers
Then there's this one providing plenty of pictures.
One might even
A Very HAPPY BIRTHDAY, Ma'am.
And many more of 'em.
And for those of our
Then there's this one providing plenty of pictures.
posted by Richard at Friday, April 21, 2006
20 Comments:
Being a Canadian, she is my constitutional Monarch too Richard, so let me join you , to wish her a jolly good birthday and a lot of adoration for her dignified and dutiful Royal persona.
May God Bless Her Majesty and the ones close to her!
While I'm no extreme royalist or monarchist I do have to say she's been the best possible monarch anyone could hope for. I wish her well. She's carried out her duties with perfection'
Btw, it's ironic that she became Queen by what could be called an accident -- caused by an American.
Mrs Simpson cost her uncle [Edward V111] his crown, and thereby it passed to Elizabeth's [fairly reluctant] father.
I wonder if she'll live as long as her mother? Was it 101 or 102?
She's some woman alright. She's seen around ten different or so British prime ministers come and go - a few, more than once. I hope she sees at least one more go -- and SOON.
Happy birthday, Ma'am!
I think she's done a sterling job, considering she didn't expect to end up Queen at all, and considering all the major events and changes that have happened in her lifetime.
Richard, Bonsoir,
Thank you for dropping by.
Well I must say that since I discovered Gert's blog, I discovered also his british bloggers buddies and commentators and I can tell you I love this glorious rebellious bunch of british bloggers.
Mes salutations à Sophie, jolie, mignonne and very much like her Grand'father.
And happy birthday to the Queen. Actually she is my Queen also because I am Lebanese by birth, French by marriage and Canadian since quite few years now.
The Queen is great. (I went to a highschool in Nova Scotia named for her mother.)
Although I'm a republican at heart (but not the Semtex deploying type), there's no denying she done a sterling job, and kept her good humour. But succession? That's more worrysome, IMHO...
She enjoys great privilege and wealth, that's true, but over the years she's always done what the United Kingdom & Commonwealth system 'demands' she do in return.
She's good value for money has always done more good for her subjects, than harm.
What prime minister, president, politician, general or whatever, past or present, could hold a candle to her? On every front -- no contest -- this lady beats them all.
And yet, contrary to the popular misconceptions of so many throughout the world, she neither holds nor is able to wield nor even able to influence any real 'power' at all.
So many Brits seem to have a strangely ambivalent view of the royals.
I visited my brother while he was living in York one July, and we had great fun blasting Bruce Springsteen music, to the chagrin of his housemates.
One of them asked us how we celebrate July 4 in the US. My brother said that we burn the queen in effigy.
Up until then, anything these guys had said about the royals had been in jest. They were punk rockers, and I hadn't thought they took the queen seriously at all.
But they were at first shocked, then disbelieving, and then, as we stuck to the "burn in effigy" story, outraged. Go figure.
Heh. I'm one of those with ambivalent views.
Like gert, I'm a republican at heart. But like most others here, I have nothing but admiration for the woman who is my Queen.
Many years ago, I was a real monarchist. I believed strongly in what I'd been taught about the strength of our monarchy laying NOT in any power it may [or may not] wield - but rathet in that/any power it denied to others.
I still believe that's a great 'idea'. Sadly, though, the years and various prime ministers & their governments have taught me differently.
The real & ONLY power lies with the unelected 'establishment'. Those with vested [monetary] interests. Prime ministers come & go. Although not as rappidly, so do monarchs. 'The Establishment' is constant.
Am I clear? Or am I rambling? Heh.
Either way, I'd much, much prefer to have Queen Elizabeth than not to have here.
As for succession - heh - I'm as unsure as gert. I'd need half a dozen of Charles before I could be certain. But even though the queen is older than me, the way she's going [like her mother before her] I doubt I'll live to see another monarch. Unless she abdicates of course -- which according to a 'reliable source' quoted by the media just a few days ago, she definitely ain't gonna do -- ever.
( Ha.) Having re-read what I've written, I doubt I am coming across clearly :^/
And ..... having reread what I've posted .... how the hell did I ever pass ANY English language exams?
Sorry about all the errors, odd words dropped/missing, etc.
My concentration increasingly comes & goes, too. But thank God the old 'comprehension' is still as good as it ever was. ;^)
Oh Richard, for Pete's sake, don't get 'hang up' on a few mistakes. I know, that to self-demolish one self is a polite and a very British tradition, but one can really overdo it.
Frankly, none of us is Shakespeare here.
Make sure, you choose an interesting subject. Reason your position, the best you can. In addition, do not hide your emotions (that can be sometimes a challenge for British). Moreover apply humor, whenever you can. Don't be shy with that writing tool, to 'spice up' your journalistic pieces. Venerable, dry English sarcasm, lascivious, 'juicy' French style humor, all have their places.
After that, sit back and enjoy as the lively debate develops among your followers.
Those who are pedantic over a few mistakes, will missing the point and you would never be able to please them completely anyway.
As good old Ben Franklin said: Fart proudly!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ultimately, a democratically elected Head of State, with no executive power (see e.g. Italy) is to be much preferred in my book.
Whilst Betty II is living proof that Parliamentary Monarchy can work, she does in the end represent that established oligarchy to which our good man Richard refers.
And succession remains a problem: if you don't like the next one, you can't get rid of them easily.
Ironically, I feel the demise of the Monarchy will lie in its own attemps to keep up with modernity. Once the Monarchy, in a hundred years or so, has become a modern, suited rather than ermined, equivalent to a non-executive presidency, what then would be the reason to keep the Monarchy alive?
That's why they hang on to the pomp and pomposity: it's not for tourism, folks.
The other possibility is that the Monarchy commits, in the future, some collosal faux-pas. Under Charlie that's a realistic prospect...
I have to agree with "anonymous." To write a column about the queen's 80th birthday and neglect to mention Israel, blackmail, and assassination...well, it's just not right, is it?
O/T Bush admits he offered Blair way out of the Iraq conflict
The Prime Minister insisted he would rather risk losing office than retreat
Gaby Hinsliff, political editor
Sunday April 23, 2006
I would like to step, if I may, in this very British debate about the Queen. Aristotlean wisdom has it that only an enlightened and good monarch can bring justice to its subjects/citizens. Aristotle viewed popular democracy as the monopoly of power by a group at the expanse of others and he doubted that a group would serve all citizens equally. However he hoped that in a democracy, enlightenment and justice might emerge in a few among the many.
My personal note is that a good monarch is a fatherly or motherly figure and Elizabeth II plays very well this role to her British citizens even if (and therefore)she was not able to play it well toward her own children.
I decide to put this poster's comment back up for all to see and make their own minds up as to said posters 'marbles'.
However, I have removed the two blogs he was pushing at the same time. Let him/her learn from this, that that's NOT how to make friends & influence people.
** Puleeze! Pass the sick bag! What is this blog all about? I was put onto it by somebody who said it was the English equivalent of xxxxxxxxxxx...Duh!
How disapointed I am. So now I know where the Mirror's Old Codgers went. Well, one of them anyway. "Gawd bless you, Maam." Yuk.
You and your respondants interpretation of events is a hundred miles off the mark. I haven't heard one mention of Israel yet and the power that that shitty little country weilds through blackmail and assasination.
This is a bit like reading the Sun. The Observer is one of the good guys indeed. Gimme a break. I'm off back to xxxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxx.com
5:05 PM **
gordo,
Yeah, how terribly remiss of Richard, eh? Think we should tell him.
mark,
Thanks for that link. I'll be there a bit later.
sophia and gert,
Well, I couldn't honestly argue with anything that either of you have said.
As bad as things have gotten - they could be worse. On the other hand, as good as some things can sometimes be - they could always be a lot bloomin' better.
Er, I think that's where I came in, isn't it? ;^]
4Lu36t The best blog you have!
Post a Comment
<< Home