America welcomes the Queen (but struggles to lay the red carpet)

[Pangloss]

Well...truth is some people are better than others. So what? Doesn't bother me one bit to acknowledge that. Takes nothing from me.

How, exactly, is the queen one iota better than anyone else?

Pangloss

 

[Libra Girl]

For sure. The whole idea of monarchy in this day and age is ludicrous. She's a very dedicated and hard-working woman as an individual, but the entire system she embraces is archaic.

Amen!

 

[Blackleaf]

Sure - Queen Hippity-Hop.

Actually I'd have her stay at home, give away all her inherited wealth and get a job.

Pangloss

The Queen has got a job - her job is the Head of State of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which means, at the age of 81, she works a hell of a lot harder than most other 81 year olds. By the time you're 81 you'll probably be sleeping most of the day. You certainly won't be working as hard as the Queen is.

Do you expect her to have two jobs at once? It's like asking Bush to have another job apart from being America's Head of State.

 

[Blackleaf]

Amen!

You obviously conveniently ignore my very good point that Republics date back to antiquity, with Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece being Republics, and Greek philospher Plato writing books about them, proving that Republics are just as, or more, "antiquated" than Monarchies are.

Do you ignore it because you can't argue with it?

If Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome were Republics how is it that Republics aren't as "antiquated" as Monarchies? Republics are so old that they were around for centuries when Jesus was born.

 

[thomaska]

What do you expect from the American military.

These are the same guys that put on the Canadian flag upside down when they paraded their honor guard when Toronto won the World Series two years in a row.

These are the guys that decided to kill four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan just because they felt like it; I think the pilot got the medal of honor for that one.

Do you wonder why Canada never joined the Americans in Iraq?

The American military what can you say they are just following tradition and lets leave it at that.

The British Military should be more than familiar to red carpet..seeing as how they groveled on it in Tehran for Ahmadinejad and the rest of the world to see.

 

[Blackleaf]

The British Military should be more than familiar to red carpet..seeing as how they groveled on it in Tehran for Ahmadinejad and the rest of the world to see.

At least we didn't pay the hostage-takers (like the French or Italians) - or make any deals with them - to take our hostages out. We got our hostages back and we are still in Iraq, which is what the Iranians didn't want.

We didn't grovel to the Iranians because we didn't give them anything they wanted (such as taking troops out of Iraq). The only thing the hostages did give them was fake apologies which, seeing as they were threatened with being beheaded or shot if they didn't apologise, was probably a wise idea - for the hostages and the Iranians.

 

[Phil B]

The British Military should be more than familiar to red carpet..seeing as how they groveled on it in Tehran for Ahmadinejad and the rest of the world to see.

Sometimes publically embarrassing yourself is better and easier than the alternatives.

 

[jwv]

The Queen has got a job - her job is the Head of State of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which means, at the age of 81, she works a hell of a lot harder than most other 81 year olds. By the time you're 81 you'll probably be sleeping most of the day. You certainly won't be working as hard as the Queen is.

Do you expect her to have two jobs at once? It's like asking Bush to have another job apart from being America's Head of State.

Typical Brit attitude, which to us in Canada should manifest itself to how un-essential the monarchy is to a modern democratic country such as ours. She is not just the Queen of Great Britain, but the average Brit could care less about that fact. So, in essence, we in Canada pay lip-service to a monarchy that has no touch with us at all. even our Brit neighbours do not think of us when proclaiming her as Head of State.

There is a strong movement in Australia to dump the monarchy. One wonders when our own people will smarten up.

Look, she's a nice lady, it's a lovely tradition, and all that, but it is just not for us in Canada.

The tax dollars of ours used to support this archaic system is an insult to a free people. And before one of you pops up to suggest we don't pay the monarchy..you're fooling yourself. the Gov-General and her huge staff, and the Lt.-Gov's and their staffs are paid for directly out of your pocket.

 

[I think not]

The fact is that Britain's Head of State is admired throughout the world

Maybe in your own little world. :lol:

 

[Phil B]

Maybe in your own little world. :lol:

In comparison to your "revered" leader, I'd think he has the upper hand in that argument;-)

 

[Dexter Sinister]

America welcomes the Queen

The world's most powerful Head of State arrives in the US for her first visit since 1991...

The world's most powerful head of state? I thought that was George Bush, by a wide margin. The British monarch has very little real power, which is all that makes such a hereditary, undemocratic, archaic position tolerable. And don't give me any nonsense about republics being older. Hereditary royalty is one of the oldest institutions on the planet; being a constitutional monarch rather than an absolute monarch makes not one whit of difference to me. I hope I never have to meet her or any of her descendants. I'd give every protocol officer fainting spells. I won't bow to anyone who doesn't have to bow to me. I'd treat her with respect, she's earned that, but deference? No. No way.

 

[Blackleaf]

So, in essence, we in Canada pay lip-service to a monarchy that has no touch with us at all.

Don't talk rubbish. Outside Britain, Canada is the Queen's favourite country. She's visited Canada more times than any other country.

There is a strong movement in Australia to dump the monarchy.

Although the the Republican movement in Australia always fails. The last time the Aussies had a referendum they voted to keep the Monarchy rather than revert to a Republic.

Look, she's a nice lady, it's a lovely tradition, and all that, but it is just not for us in Canada.

Then explain these recent poll results:

On your opinion, on June 2 2002, should Canada celebrate the 50th anniversary of Queen Elizabeth Ii's accession to the Throne in a special way?

YES - 50%
NO - 46%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSAL - 3%
-------------

Do you, yes or no, want Canada to maintain the monarchy?

YES - 50%
NO - 43%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSAL - 7%
------------

It's strange how, in countries such as Canada, Australia and Britain (where only a tiny 9% of the population want to become a Republic) the Republican movement keeps failing miserably.


http://aolsearch.aol.co.uk/aol/search?query=Canadians are for the Monarchy&invocationType=sb_uk

The tax dollars of ours used to support this archaic system is an insult to a free people.

No, it isn't. Because under a Republic the taxpayer will be paying MORE for a system which, as I've said hundreds of times, is equally, if not more, archaic.

Are you trying to say that the Republican system, used by Rome and Ancient Greece, is recent, modern and not ancient?

Do you also think that your President will be as well-loved around the world as the Queen is?

Wherever the American president goes he is always heckled and abused.

When the US Head of State visits Britain, he is always abused and has demonstrators protesting the Iraq War. But whenever OUR Head of State goes to the US, she has thousands of well-wishers.

But even in a country as SUPPOSEDLY anti-royalist as the United States she is met with thousands of adoring well-wishers. When she arrived in Richmond, Virginia, there were so many people waiting to see her that their names had to be picked out of a lottery to stop there being overcrowding.

She went to the races in Kentucky and there were female racegoers evend ressing up as the Queen, and many said they were happy to be in the same place as royalty, saying it's a "once-in-a-lifetime experience."

As a republic, your Head of State will NEVER be as highly-regarded as our monarch.

 

[Blackleaf]

The world's most powerful head of state? I thought that was George Bush, by a wide margin.

No. The British monarch is the most powerful Head of State in the world, although she hardly ever uses most of the powers that she is capable of using.

She is presently the world's only monarch who is simultaneously Head of State of more than one independent nation. In legal theory she is the most powerful head of state in the world, although in practice she personally exercises very little political executive power.

Elizabeth also holds the positions of Head of the Commonwealth, Lord High Admiral, Supreme Governor of the Church of England (styled Defender of the Faith), Lord of Mann (her title as ruler of the Isle of Man, the British dependent territory in the irish sea), and Paramount Chief of Fiji. Following tradition, she is also styled Duke of Lancaster and Duke of Normandy. She is also Commander-in-Chief of the Armed forces of many of her Realms.

Her ancestry includes a wide range of European and even Middle Eastern and other Asian Royal Houses.[4]

wikipedia.org

 

[Blackleaf]

The Queen, a big fan of horse racing, has fulfilled a lifetime ambition: to go to the Kentucky Derby, probably America's equivalent of Britain's Grand National.


US horse racing is slightly different from the British horse racing that the monarch is used to: Americans races run anti-clockwise rather than clockwise and are usually run on dirt tracks rather than grass.

I don't know if it's true yet, but the Q!ueen's horse may have won the race.
----------------------------------


Americans don wacky hats to greet Queen at races

By GWYNETH REES
5th May 2007
Daily Mail


It's was evidently not Royal Ascot.

But the Queen can't have failed to notice the extravagant head-gear of many Americans who greeted her at the Kentucky Derby.

Fans of the monarch and the racing donned extraordinary hats in a bid to emulate the British style.
Among some of the most bizarre outfits were a straw boater with mounted horse on top and a roof-tip hat, equipped with two turrets.

Kentucky Derby: An array of hats



Locals in Louiseville, Kentucky, were clearly looking forward to catching a glimpse of the monarch, who attended her first Kentucky Derby today.

"Queen Elizabeth is certainly the most prestigious guest we've entertained in the modern-day history of the Kentucky Derby," track President Steve Sexton said.

The Derby is the first leg of thoroughbred racing's Triple Crown.

Although it is a first for the queen, an avid horse enthusiast, it would not be a first for British royalty: Princess Margaret, the queen's sister, attended the race in 1974.

Race goers Colonel Bob Thompson, dressed as Colonel Sanders, and Judy Gindy, dressed as the Queen, arrive at the Kentucky Derby.
----------------------

The Queen also viewed the Derby trophy which has an upside down horse shoe on the front. Jay Ferguson, trophy keeper, said: "She said 'It keeps the luck in' and that's right."



The chance of seeing a royal wave was enough to spur Kevin Gore and his mother, Sandy, to drive hundreds of miles from Michigan to attend the Derby.

"Just to be in the same place as royalty, that's a chance most people don't get," Gore said.
The queen and her husband, Prince Philip, are visiting the Derby as part of their six-day trip to the U.S.

They began their visit in Virginia and will also go to Washington, D.C. to attend a state dinner with President George Bush.

The royal couple arrived in Kentucky late Friday afternoon, touching down in Lexington, 70 miles (115 kilometers) east of Louisville.

Officials did not release details about the queen's itinerary, listing the Kentucky Derby as her only public event. On previous visits to Kentucky - the last in 1991 - she stayed at Lane's End. Farish is providing the queen's tickets to the race.

At the Kentucky Derby, a number of Churchill Downs workers took etiquette lessons to prepare for the queen's visit and the lead chef planned a sumptuous meal featuring a variety of Kentucky ingredients.

During her visit to Virginia, the queen visited Jamestown, the site of America's first permanent English settlement for its 400th anniversary.

She also met with students and faculty from Virginia Tech, the university where a gunman killed 32 people and then himself last month.


The Queen's trip to Kentucky Derby

The Queen visited Kentucky today as past of her six-day trip to America. She has already visited Virginia Tech, where the student shooting took place last month. She is also due to meet President Bush.
©PA
----------------

----------------

--------------

--------------

-
--------------

--------------

-------------

-------------

--------------

dailymail.co.uk

 

[Blackleaf]

Her Majesty seen in new light for Leibovitz portrait

By POLLY DUNBAR
6th May 2007
Daily Mail


It's an unusually dark, dramatic and foreboding image of the Queen - and while Annie Leibovitz's new portrait certainly challenges viewers to see the Monarch in a new light, it may also leave them wondering: "Has she been signed up by Scottish Widows?'

The photograph was taken at Buckingham Palace in March and has been released to mark the current Royal visit to America.

Celebrity photographer Miss Leibovitz created the image by digitally superimposing her picture of the Queen against the moody backdrop of the Palace lake and ominous black clouds.

The effect is eerily reminiscent of pictures from Scottish Widows' well known ad campaign.

It is the second official portrait to be unveiled in a week by Miss Leibovitz, who is best known for magazine portraits - including one of a naked John Lennon hugging Yoko Ono hours before his death.

Her previous image showed the Queen sitting, gazing wistfully out of an open window. It was inspired by a similar photograph Cecil Beaton took of her mother.

The Queen is due to meet President Bush in Washington tomorrow.


Some Daily Mail readers love the new portrait - others say it is "spooky"



This new portrait of the Queen in black is so dismal that it reminds me of the portraits taken of Queen Victoria and they were so drab and dismal. Annie Leibovitz definitely chose the wrong color to photograph the Queen. Black is so drab, dark and dismal looking. Surely the Queen would have looked so much more cheerful in any color other than black.

- Malcolm Perry, USA

------------------

I liked the other picture, but this one looks like something from Harry Potter!

- Anon, Dorset UK

-------------------

I really love it! It reminds me of the famous American painting by Emanuel Gottlieb Leutze (1816-1868 ) "George Washington Crossing The Delaware".

- Jr, Austin, Texas

-----------------

I belive this photograph shows her Majesty surrounded by tempestuous clouds representing the turbulent and dark times we live in. Photographs do not just have to show someone happy and smiling all the time. They should also be used to capture mood, emotion, fear, pain and anger. I think this photograph succeeds as a piece of art.

- Ian, Lincoln

---------------

She looks fat to me. Hardly flattering. The darkened background is a little eerie! Not a good likeness and not a portrait to enjoy! 1 out of 10!

- Wendyg, Auckland, New Zealand



dailymail.co.uk

 

[I think not]

In comparison to your "revered" leader, I'd think he has the upper hand in that argument;-)

My leader isn't revered.

He is also temporary.

Let's see what you have to say when Prince Charles takes the seat.

 

[Curiosity]

I think the weather got to the aged couple - they seemed redfaced and so tired after the race was over and your comedy show aimed at American headgear was noted and scoffed at .... as you intended eh?

I also saw plenty of crazy creations women were sporting - much in the same fashion as the Queen was wearing only they probably used last year's beach hat and plopped some flowers from Michael's on top - being the kinda of slapdash do it yourself crowd so don't have many exotic examples of headwear for the blazing sun in Churchill Downs. They made exception in homage to the Queen and the U.K. fashion for the formal racing season with all its traditional pomp, splendor and ceremony.

If we are nitpicking Blackbeard - Phillip spent most of his down time in a chair yawning in the face of what he probably thought the most boring woman who was stuck with him - trying to entertain him - and QE sat like she had been dosed with Valium a half hour before....

What a rousing couple but they are in their doddering dotage I'll give them that..... If that's bloody Rule Britannia .... I'll tip my teacup and move along....

As a final point - I rather liked the good ole boy jockey who did his winner's circle by hugging everyone and their horse, speechless from the lifelasting triumph of the moment .... that was the most important guy in the place... he and his horse.

A fantastic performance - after the heartbreak of losing Barbaro which left many racing fans in the gloom when that beautiful creature went down.

I can't believe people still make a fuss over a windblown red carpet - get over yourselves.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

No. The British monarch is the most powerful Head of State in the world, although she hardly ever uses most of the powers that she is capable of using.

As you quoted from Wikipedia: "In legal theory she is the most powerful head of state in the world, although in practice she personally exercises very little political executive power." Don't you understand what that means? In legal theory, for instance, she's the Queen of Canada, appoints a Governor-General, who in turn selects a cabinet to form the executive of this country's national government. As a practical reality, both she and Canada's Governor-General are rubber stamps most of the time, it's really the Prime Minister who makes those selections and who's running things. The Crown doesn't exercise the powers it's theoretically legally capable of exercising because it can't, not because it chooses not to, except in very unusual and particular circumstances, which have arisen only once in Canada's history. You said it yourself. It's the difference between an absolute and a constitutional monarchy. The powers of the Crown have been largely delegated to elected officials as a matter of constitutional law, custom, and long practice. In reality, the Crown does not have the powers you and Wikipedia claim for it, and any monarch who tried to exercise them would face a revolt.

 

[Blackleaf]

and your comedy show aimed at American headgear was noted and scoffed at .... as you intended eh?

No. The Americans were copying the crazy headgear worn by racegoers at Royal Ascot.

I think the weather got to the aged couple

I'm not sure about that. We've been having better weather than the eastern United States in recent weeks. Whilst we've been basking in glorious such and hot weather, with people packing the beaches, parts of the eastern US has been covered in snow.

 

[Blackleaf]

The Crown doesn't exercise the powers it's theoretically legally capable of exercising because it can't

The Queen CAN exercise whatever powers she wishes. She can, if she felt like it, sack the entire government of Canada, or the government of any other foreign country of which she is Head of State. Not even Bush has that power.

She can, if she wants, declare war and, as the leader of the entire Canadian military, send Canadian soldiers off to war if she desires.

An Absolute Monarchy entails that a Monarch can do whatever they want WITHOUT the consent of Parliament - which is why Parliament went to war with the King in 1642.

A Constitional Monarchy means that the monarchy always needs consent by the elected government to perform certain powers. BUT, in rare cases, the Queen CAN exercise her powers WITHOUT the consent of Parliament.

But the fact that a British Monarch CAN exercise these powers - such as sacking the government of a foreign country such as Canada and calling a general election - means that the British monarch is the most powerful Head of State in the world.
-----------------------------

The Royal Prerogative

While prerogative powers were originally exercised by the monarch acting alone, and do not require parliamentary consent, they are now always exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister or the Cabinet, who is then accountable for the decision to Parliament.

There may be situations in which the monarch could choose to exercise the Royal Prerogative without the advice of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. Such situations are extremely rare, and could only occur in emergencies. In most liberal-democratic constitutional monarchies, such actions would precipitate a constitutional crisis.

Not all constitutional monarchs have royal prerogative that can be exercised independently however. For example, the King of Sweden and the Emperor of Japan have specific government duties that cannot be exercised with any degree of individual discretion, no matter what the circumstance.

In the Kingdom of England (up to 1707), the Kingdom of Great Britain (1707–1800) and the United Kingdom (since 1801), the Royal Prerogative historically was one of the central features of the realm's governance. Today, most prerogative powers are directly exercised by ministers, such as the powers to "regulate the Civil Service, issue passports and grant honors, all without any need for approval from Parliament". Some prerogative powers are exercised nominally by the monarch, but on the advice of Prime Minister and Cabinet of the United Kingdom, who advise the monarch as to when to use them. Some key areas of British system of government are still carried out by means of the Royal Prerogative, but its usage has been diminishing as functions are progressively made statutory.

Contrary to widespread belief, the Royal Prerogative is not constitutionally unlimited.

While the sovereign has the right to publish new law, it is a form of reserve power not constitutionally used. (Her Majesty, as Head of State of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms, has the right to use the Royal Prerogative over any nation where she is Head of State.) In the Case of Proclamations (1611) during the reign of King James I, English common law courts judges emphatically asserted that they possessed the right to determine the limits of the Royal Prerogative. Since the Glorious Revolution (1688), which brought co-monarchs Queen Mary II and King William III to power, this judicial interpretation has not been challenged by the Crown.

No new prerogative powers can be created; BBC v Johns (1965). However, existing prerogatives such as the power of "Declaring War and Making Peace" can be modified to cover new situations, as seen in ex p Northumbria Police Authority (1989), which saw this prerogative evolved to include the ability to "keep the peace" and hence allow the Home Secretary to equip his forces with plastic baton rounds and CS gas.

Furthermore, where a discretionary prerogative power is justiciable, its exercise can be challenged by judicial review on the same grounds as that of discretionary powers vested in the executive by statute. This is elucidated by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister of State for Civil Service (1965)

Among the powers possessed by the monarch in the United Kingdom under the Royal Prerogative are:

• The appointment and dismissal of ministers;
• The dissolution of parliament and the calling of elections;
• Clemency and pardon;
• The award of dignities and honors;
• The declaration of war;
• The declaration of an emergency;
• The grant of Charters of Incorporation;
• The minting of coinage;
• The issue and revocation of passports;
• The expulsion of a foreign national from the United Kingdom;
• The creation of new common law courts;
• The creation of new universities;
• The appointment of bishops and archbishops in the Church of England;
• The printing of the authorized Church of England version of the Bible;
• The publication of all statutes, legislative instruments and Orders-in-Council; existing and new
• The exercise of jurisdiction over numerous Royal foundations of all kinds;
• The appointment of Royal Commissions and Officers for any purposes.
• The choice of the numbering of monarchs (See MacCormick v. Lord Advocate)

Among the more esoteric royal prerogatives are:

• The power to order a subject not to leave the realm;
• Crown ownership of wild unmarked white swans swimming in open and common waters[1]
• Crown ownership of royal fish, meaning sturgeons, dolphins, porpoises and whales.[2][3]

It is remarkable that whereas historically Parliament has been the bastion of the subject against oppression under the Royal prerogative, in modern times the residual Royal Prerogative may conversely provide some protection against an oppressive government (which practically controls Parliament). Thus it has been suggested that Royal Assent might properly be delayed or withheld where legislation is found, after passing both Houses of Parliament, to be illegal under international or European Law.

wikipedia.org