Posted on 06/01/2009 7:08:03 PM PDT by cakid1
I’m a hopeless anglophile and recognize the good fortune for all of us they once ruled the world to a degree.
of the inevitable and relatively speaking if someone was to spread Western culture to the undiscovered world they were the best choice and did a better job than the others who tried....the proof is in the pudding rather obviously
as for the crown....i like tradition and England has a rich one....the last real monarch of England fairly unencumbered by the commons was Henry VIII.....Charles II was different
She is still the only head of state in the world to have served in WWII. Even if it was only for a minute it would still be true, her husband however being older and male served longer and saw action.
Doubt that cuts it with you since you seem to have your own axe to grind, but there we are.
She didn't serve she performed a controlled, managed, publicity stunt, do you really believe that she was ever, during those short weeks and the photo shoots not Princess Elizabeth, daughter of the King, going through a propaganda exercise?
I am a history buff and am aware of our history and the great leadership we have been blessed with. I was taking a jab at the current CIC due to his involvement in the matter. He could be a surprise, but I don't think he would be especially inspiring during a 9/11 style attack...or an extended campaign like the Blitz. And here is to hoping we don't have to find out.
I'm no Royal “groupie”. However, there is no doubt that they did their part to keep spirits up during WWII. I have several British friends that survived WWII, and they seem to have a great deal of respect for the royal family during that period of time. Was it contrived? Maybe. Did it work? Evidently. I believe Hitler referred to the Queen Mum as “The most dangerous woman in Europe.” because she was so effective in raising morale. The family must have been doing something right.
I still find it sad that their was no invitation extended personally to the lady for the commeration of this event. Queen Elizabeth lived it..Sarkozy and Barry weren't even born. To me it is further evidence of a younger generation disregarding the contributions of the older generation for a matter that should be a tribute...not a political event or photo op.
She took the oath and served in the forces during WWII, it doesn’t matter if she spent every single second of that time in front of a camera, behind the wheel of a truck or on top of a palace with a flagpole up her ass. It was WWII and she served, and is the only remaining head of state to have done so and is married to someone who not only served but saw action.
Its somewhat amusing that you are getting so worked up about it 65 years later, but each to his / her own.
No she didn’t serve, never once was she actually under control of the military as a soldier, it was always an artificial story and she was never a true enlistee, it was a totally managed and controlled stunt measured by weeks, not an enlistment.
It is amusing though that 65 years later you are still trying to promote the war time propaganda efforts as facts, do you still think that Hitler chewed carpet and danced a jig, or that Patton was leading the First United States Army Group into combat?
Thats not actually true she attended the same course as other ATS members, and she was as much a member while under that instruction as anyone else on that course. You also are once again wilfully ignoring Prince Phillip who volunteered and saw action on a cruiser in the Med. That doesn’t fit into the anti-monarchy thing you have going on though.
She still saw service, as much as her peers of that intake in WWII, doesn’t matter if it was a week or a day.
Her family also sat out the Blitz when they had the option not to, unlike many other privilged people who put their children on ships bound for the US and Canada. That doesn’t help you either though does it ?
They can’t even do the re-enactment of the battle of Trafalgar because the French lose every time.
The point is that she was THERE and there are getting to be precious few left that were, that carry the living memory with them. She should have been invited.
Her children served in the military too, as have their grandchildren.
Post of the Day!
She lived in Windsor castle, daily lunched with officers and neither one of us knows much the “same” the rest of her hours were for the simultaneously titled Princess, Lieutenant, and Colonel during those weeks, it is a fantasy man, not reality.
I’m not interested in other people, I was only correcting the military myths about the Queen.
I don’t think that the King of England seriously considered fleeing England for some bombings, especially when his empire was crumbling in cries of freedom and even in Great Britain there was rebellion from people craving their freedom from that Empire. Do you think that he seriously considered moving to North America or anywhere else? The better question is, do you seriously think that he was at any great risk as the King of England from those raids, especially after 1941?
I don’t understand your obsession with foreign Royalty and their shenanigans from 65 years ago, hell how do you think they pull off this scam.
I think that she or somebody from Britain should be there too.
The dining arrangments of 1944 are important ! The people must know !
She still served in WWII, as much as her peers who took the same course as her, and her husband who is as much a useless royal as she is saw action. Its something thats very hard for you to accept. Her family still shared the same risks as anyone in London during the blitz, and their residence was indeed hit on more than one occasion.
That is silly, she didn’t have any “peers” and what you label her “peers” were actually in the military, they didn’t just attend a day time class for a few weeks and then retire as a Princess Captain having never left Windsor Castle for even an overnight stay, they were in the military before the class, during the class, and after the class, and their contracts ended when their enlistment was up and after serving those enlistments where ever they were assigned.
Surely you don’t think that the King of England with White House type security and personal bomb shelters and personal military assets was equally at risk with the humble peasants in high rise walk ups in London and elsewhere and not even a father at home.
Do you think that a lot of commoners would feel that their child would have been perfectly safe if she lived with the King of the British Empire, inside of his personal defense bubble?
By the way you said 1944, you know that she only started that daytime class during March of 1945, the formal surrender of Germany was signed just a few weeks later on May 8th 1945, the war was over before this little charade was implemented.
No, not really, the war didn’t end in May 1945. History isn’t your strong point.
Furthermore the royal family served admirably in their role throughout the war, bringing the people together and providing example and leadership. They ended the war with a considerably improved relationship with the people, having shared the same personal risks as the general population.
You are an odd guy read post 76 again.
The royal family person for person was probably the family that contributed the most to the war effort, from sharing the same risks as the families back home to their numerous visits to troops in various locations.
I’m not interested in the “Royal Family” but I do hope that I have educated you about the weeks of the Princesses propaganda exercise and cleared up some of the myths about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.