Posted on 06/06/2009 8:27:58 PM PDT by naturalman1975
Sixty-five years after Hitler failed to make Britain’s D-Day effort a footnote in world history, France and America finally realised his dream yesterday.
As thousands of British veterans paid their final respects to the men they left behind on Normandy’s beaches, President Nicolas Sarkozy and President Barack Obama presented D-Day – the turning point of the Second World War – as a Franco-American affair
Despite months of diplomatic wrangling between London, Paris and Washington, the Queen remained absent from the official commemoration of the 65th anniversary, held at the American cemetery overlooking Omaha Beach at Colleville-sur-Mer. And Prince Charles, without the Duchess of Cornwall by his side, made only a token appearance, laying a wreath in honour of the war dead just moments before the end of the 90-minute ceremony.
Earlier in the day he had been lost for words when Ernest Townsend, 86, a Royal Artillery gunner at the Normandy landings, asked him: ‘Why isn’t your mother here?’
Mr Townsend was one of about 800 Second World War ex-servicemen who met the Prince while paying their respects at a Commonwealth cemetery in Bayeux, the final resting place of more than 4,000 Commonwealth and other soldiers.
About 5,000 family, friends and well-wishers from Britain, France and other European countries applauded as the men marched under regimental banners.
Though clearly happy to see the Prince after his 11th-hour invitation, the French government’s perceived snub to the Queen continued to anger Mr Townsend and his comrades.
‘I told him how pleased I was to see him, but I’m a plain-speaking man and I also asked why his mother wasn’t here,’ he said.
‘He just smiled at me and gave me a shrug which I took to mean, “You know why, and I know why, but I can’t say.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Battman, I believe the Queen and her high horse were not invited. It was written up recently.
Do we know why the Queen was not invited?
I heard she wasn’t invited but didn’t hear why.
I thought American conservatives generally believed constitutions should be treated with respect.
Constitutionally, the Prince of Wales is unable to criticise Her Majesty’s Government. If he did so, he’d create a major constitutional crisis - and at the moment as Britain is already teetering on the edge of such a crisis, he’d be incredibly irresponsible to do so. He can’t criticise Brown at the moment.
There’s no constitutional impediment to him criticising the leaders of foreign allied governments, but diplomatically it’s not his place to do so.
Also the Prince of Wales military service is longer than his mothers was. He didn’t serve in war, it is true, but that’s because there was no war going on at the time.
Just a final point - Her Majesty did not drive ambulances during World War II. She served in an honourable capacity, certainly, but as a truck driver, not an ambulance driver.
There’s no definitive answer to that.
Some people feel it was because Sarkozy wanted the commemoration to be a strictly American-French affair, for his own political domestic purposes. No members of the British establishment were invited until they started agitating for an invitation, and the French then started inviting only those who they were pressured to do so - initially Prime Minister Gordon Brown and only at the last minute inviting the Queen and the Royal Family.
Other people feel it was incompetence on the part of either the British government or the French or both in simply not following the correct procedures surrounding such an invitation.
Still others think it was a deliberate snub.
Some have also suggested the White House might not have wanted the British royals there.
That's a keen eye that you have there ntnychik.
Her Majesty did not drive ambulances during World War II. She served in an honourable capacity, certainly, but as a truck driver, not an ambulance driver.
Her Majesty did indeed drive an ambulance. In particular, she drove an Austen K2. See pg. 19 in the book.
Constitutionally, the Prince of Wales is unable to criticise Her Majesty’s Government.
If this is true, then I apologize.
I thought American conservatives generally believed constitutions should be treated with respect.
I do absolutely, however as I was unaware of this significant difference between our respective governments, you have my apology. Furthermore, you will notice that I did not criticize Prince Charles for being in attendance.
Unfortunately I can't access page 19 in the preview, but I believe it to be incorrect. Why? Because Her Majesty herself corrected me on this point - and believe me you do not forget being told you have made a mistake by your Queen!
OK, I have just managed to access the page through another route. I can certainly believe she learned to drive the K2 as it says at 1 Mechanical Training Centre but that was where she trained. She became a supply driver after completing training.
The Blitz occurred when then Princess Elizabeth was only 13 and 14 years old - I think there's a lot around on the web that has taken the fact she was a driver (and the book you've quoted does convince me she trained on ambulances) and have extrapolated from that as to what her role was.
By 1945 when she was 18 and had joined the ATS, there wasn't that much call for military ambulances within Britain anymore. I wonder if that was why they might have been used in the training schools.
I did notice that - and, frankly, there's no particular reason you should be familiar with the nuances of Britain's constitution (especially seeing significant parts of it are unwritten and then bits that are written are scattered through dozens of documents). It's just that as a friend of the Prince of Wales, knowing he isn't really in a position to defend himself, I often feel driven to defend him. He's a decent, honourable man - some slightly odd political beliefs (in my view) but a man dedicated to a life of service to his country and to the commonwealth.
Constitutionally, the Monarch has the power to advise and warn their Prime Minister of their concerns in private. But not in public. And the Prince of Wales must always be aware of the fact that he could become the Monarch at any instant - and Her Majesty's Government might suddenly become his own.
He can discuss policy in very careful terms, publically - but he has to choose his words very carefully. Part of the reason he has a reputation for being odd at times is because often he's only felt free to talk about issues that the government doesn't really have a policy on - fringe issues.
I read that too. The Queen has my utmost respect for her service and dedication to the troops.
Could be...the K2s were reportedly very difficult to drive.
I cannot imagine forever being under public scrutiny. It must be a terrible burden. It would have been nice for him to have married whom he wished initially, but then we never would have gotten to know Diana or her sons.
Thank you for the nice chat. This is one of my tedious sleepless nights.
If you’d read the thread instead of jerking off with yer lips you’d see I apologized and owned up to my mistake.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2266470/posts?page=36#36
Now go bother somebody who likes ya ........
Yes, it would have been nice for him in many ways - but as you say, then we wouldn't have William or Harry, and they are fine young men - with occasional indiscretions.
And I do believe that he did love Diana, and she him, and they were happy for a time. But the age difference was too much, especially as she was so young when they married and that created unrealistic expectations.
I don't feel sorry for him - partly because he wouldn't want that, partly because he has an opportunity for influence I know he feels good about. But living your entire life waiting for something to happen that you desperately do not want to happen, but knowing that until it does, you can never 'meet your destiny' - it is a real burden.
I assume he is responding to salutes by American veterans or ex-servicemen off to the side out of sight. None of the other men in that line would salute as a matter of protocol (the Prince of Wales would return a salute only if in uniform and wearing his hat, the Prime Ministers and President Sarkozy would not salute). Somewhere along the line it has become protocol for US Presidents to return salutes no matter what they are wearing, so President Obama is probably acting correctly according to protocol. The others are also doing so according to the protocols of their own countries.
Ronald Reagan did it. And after his presidency Colin Powell went to visit Reagan, and Reagan asked if he should stop saluting military people he met. Powell wrote that he considered the fact that if he said, "Yes," and anyone in the military ever found out that he had said that, his name would be mud in the military forever after, and told him to continue.
Well, that’s as least as good as most precedents for protocols, I’ve seen. I’m glad it came from somebody decent.
Just heard an amazing story yesterday from a guy at the gun club. He's an Army veteran, he happened to be in France on May Day when they were having a big Communist demonstration. He was at Napoleon's tomb at the Invalides and was standing next to an elderly Frenchman who had a chestful of medals - Croix de guerre with palm, etc. They chatted for a little while, and then the old fellow got a gleam in his eye and asked, "Will you march with an old soldier?" and went out the big double doors and into the midst of the communists, leaning on this guy's arm. He said they parted like the Red Sea for this old guy waving his cane like a sword.
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.