Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: joylyn

Of course he was not offended - he’s not “royal.” But “royalty” can say and do as it pleases without protocol advisors worrying that it will offend a “commoner.” And “royalty” takes offense at the slightes provocation - just to “prove” an unearned, unwarranted superioirty. You should have seen the disapproving look on the Queen’s face when Nancy Pelosi made the gigantic faux pas of extending her hand in greeting - and again when Pres. Bush misspoke while reading his speech. O’Reilly has a body language expert analyze the Queen’s facial expressions and such on both these occasions. I know the Queen thinks she’s all that and a bag of chips (or is it crisps) but to me she is just a mere mortal, just another human being. And neither Nancy Pelosi nor Pres. Bush did anything to warrant her “disapproval.”


98 posted on 05/12/2007 10:45:16 AM PDT by theothercheek ("Unless we stand for something, we shall fall for anything." - U.S. Senate Chaplain Peter Marshall)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies ]


To: theothercheek

The simple fact is that the leading figures of a Republic, even a secondary figure like Pelosi but particularly the President , are on an equal footing with the Queen. Let me add one thing: In social terms the Royal family are parvenus compared with some of the other noble families of England, or of Europe. In the latter case, I am thinking of the Hapsburgs. Otto von Hapsburg
is (was?) the superior of any Windsor socially or intellectually.


99 posted on 05/12/2007 10:56:08 AM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson