Gordon Brown can now be PM, old bag Windsor said so

LONDON (AP) Queen Elizabeth II confirms Gordon Brown as Britain's new prime minister.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070627/ap_on_re_eu/britain_brown

Talk about disrespectful....:eyes:...but then what should I expect from a dumb-ass colonist...

.

..

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That would be a big favor. Since we seem to have a monarchy here anyway, better a competant monarch than these fools (and, of course, better no monarchy here at all).

Elizabeth R colludes deeply with these people. Poppy Bush and she go way back. Without her, the far
right would be less effective here where so many (particularly in the south) have this dopey affection
for the Royals. Texas is especially plagued by this.

I would never have called her an "old bag" (I'm English/Irish/Scots myself), but I'd rather see that
than your insulting my entire country.

..like her or not, she has done alot of good over the years, a damn sight more than can be said for YOUR current monarch...

I didn't insult the Queen, nor would I, however the insult was toward her the person and not to the Crown.
You're the one who infers an insult to the country.

Oh, btw, I know British conversation can be a blood sport, but most of us here just speak from our hearts without
strategy in mind. We're interpreting you in the same way, thus your high-tea rebukes come off a lot nastier than
I'm sure you intend them. Just fyi.

to you?

Go right ahead ... we hate him far more than we ever could any other monarch.

..could you point that out to me because I can't see it...I insulted the disrespectful prat that started this thread...not sure when I insulted the USA though?

>but then what should I expect from a dumb-ass colonist...

My people were hillbillies. As they say amongst them, them's fightin' words. ;)

..hoping that the OP would realize how disrespectful they were being when I called them out as a 'dumb-ass colonist'...

Obviously not....

...to comprehend...

We don't do monarchy. Trifle bit archaic, don't you think?

It's important to get these small things right.

I've given up. In my tiny brain, it ain't happenin'. ;)

As I've said before, the Bolsheviks did it right.

How's that?

She is a constitutional monarch, which was once flippantly described as 'a highly paid model for a postage stamp'. She opens a lot of buildings, meets a lot of dignitaries, and it's an open question (never, I think, very satisfactorily answered) whether she and the other royals bring in more money by attracting tourists than they cost the taxpayers through their rather expensive state-supported lifestyle. But I can't see how she is even capable of enabling the American far right?

I'd be happy to point you to some books about it. It takes too much of an overview to go into it
on a forum in tiny notes.

I know the UK has, in general, a great affection for the Royals. The US has, in general, a great
affection for them, too. However, it's not always what I consider called for.

As I said, though, she is definitely a more benevolent ruler to her people than the Bubble Boy is to
my own.

But we dumb-ass colonists have just enough folk wisdom to recognize a pot calling a kettle black when we see it.

Great Britain can claim neither moral nor ethical superiority over "the colonies." Anyone who argues thus is an example of history poorly taught and shabbily absorbed.

Please, truebrit. Love ya, but watch that broad brush.

I was attempting to show by example to the OP that 'old bag windsor' was disrespectful by using a disrespectful comment in return...Maybe they didn't realize they were being disrespectful and being labelled as a 'dumb-ass colonist' would snap them back to reality...

As stated elsewhere, that does not appear to have worked.

As far as superiority is concerned, until such time as you "colonists" learn how to brew a proper cup of tea, and can learn how to make proper beer, and figure out that spending tens of millions of dollars to fully grown men to play an English schoolgirl's P.E. game and funny coloured pajamas is downright daft, we will still be just the tinsiest bit superior to you... ;-)

*ducks for cover*

but football is played on Sundays by armored men, and the Empire will never do better than Lagiunitas Maximus.

:P

Southern California "beer" there are two breweries in my home county that outshine ANYTHING produced west of Land's End....

:beer:

We're not.

So, she's earned that respect, no matter how someone might feel about the royal family.

I think it's cool that she's the last head of state that is a WWII veteran.

we sent your lobster back asses running hard, didn't we?...:rofl:

...rude if you tried? Seriously! The Queen for all her faults at least had not only the common sense, but the decency to add her support for gay equality among other things, that didn't just suit the rich and famous in the U.K. More than we can say for Mr King Wannabe who sits in the White House and his vision for the U.S. and the world, huh?

...and that isn't what I was addressing was it?

In this world there is such a thing as civility, it is just a shame that we don't see more of it here on what is meant to be something which stands for the left, not just in the U.S. but the world.

Once again, you infer with your statement that if you insulted Shrub, the people here would be
offended. We wouldn't be offended in the slightest obviously.

That said, I would quote from one of my heroes, John Adams (who was often called "obnoxious and
disliked by Loyalists):
Be not intimidated... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of
politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy,
chicanery and cowardice.

I see no benefit to any monarchy -- elected or not. But I definitely think Elizabeth R is a more benevolent
one than the Royal Governor George.

I certainly do not infer that people would be insulted if I insulted Bush*, and if you believe I am, then you are sadly mistaken.

What I am addressing is civility, period. There isn't enough of it in the world as it is, to find it lacking here is very sad to say the least.

And I said initially, the Queen might have many faults, but at least she has done the right thing and thrown her support to some really good issues the last few years. And I am a person who never liked the Queen. I just happen to respect her now, because she showed her support and encouragement for gay equality in the U.K.

Queen Elizabeth has also supported the right wing overthrow of the US, thus denying to our people the
very things she has embraced for her own people. I'm afraid a lot of people on the US left have a darker
view of the Royals than the UK does, for that reason.

I can quote John Munch, too. lol

... thus harming the poor here and conferring upon us forty years without the national health care
their subjects have enjoyed while our people (including the poor) paid the bill for their
national security.

She used to sign her letters to Reagan "Elizabeth", sent along with new pictures of her dogs. She signed her communications
to Jimmy Carter with her official seal.

She has joint Coutts bank accounts with George Bush (the elder) in the billions of dollars.

Thatcher had no sterner opponent than QEII.

NO ONE was buddies with Carter, and that was part of his problem. He wasn't even buds with Clinton.

I know a lot of American liberals have this idealistic notion about the Royal Family, but
it's far from the reality of the situation.

If you'd like some book recommendations, I'd be happy to make them.

Shall I go after the Roosevelts beause Theodore was into eugenics? A war monger?

The older generation are rather unintelligent and uneducated, well-mannered, well-meaning, dutiful people who do their best at tasks which may or may not be necessary. Except for Prince Philip who is intelligent, educated and bad-mannered. The younger generation ranges from the dutiful and unintelligent to the intelligent but dysfunctional to the unintelligent and dysfunctional. They work hard; whether their work could be better done by local officials, career diplomats or even computers is another matter. They often have more of a sense of obligation than politicians (e.g. a member of the Royal Family is much more likely to actually serve in a war than than the children of the politicians who started the war). I'm pretty indifferent to them, but I think it's better to have powerless people than powerful politicians as the symbols of state - of course, some countries have presidents as symbolic heads of state who are separate from the powerful PMs. But they haven't had much political influence for the last 100 years or so, and haven't had any political influence for the last 50 years or so.

I actually supported the republican movement here for a while but you-know-who put me right off the idea.

One of them is "Prescott Bush: Loyalty to Royalty" by Professor Malcolm Dean.
Another is "The Order of the Purple" by Saulder J. Scott, Jr. (this was an academic
doctoral thesis issued as a bound white paper). That'll get you started. I can pm
you a longer list.

I've been trying to trace the Prescott Bush book on Amazon and Abebooks with no success. The only Prescott Bush biography that I can find on Amazon is a hagiography by Mickey Herscovicz which didn't find much favour with the reviewers.

You'll have to go through a special book search service. You'll have to find it. I can only help so much.
I don't recall the publishers, but if you'll give me a couple of days to dig, I can try to PM them to you.

I wouldn't recommend reading anything about the Bushes from a major publisher. If it contains more than 25% of
truth in it, the author either has a weird habit of dying before they can promote the book or they end up on a
"no fly" list of suspected terrorists.

I am a little surprised, as there is easy access to some very hard-hitting anti-Bush writings by such people as Michael Moore, Molly Ivins, David Corn, and Jack Huberman's splendidly-titled "Bush-Hater's Handbook". Not to mention Greg Palast, and several books specifically on the Bush dynasty and its unsavoury connections, e.g. Craig Unger's "House of Bush, House of Saud" and Kevin Phillips' "American Dynasty". And even some less scholarly, more sensational books such as Tarpley's Unauthorized Biography of Bush, and Kitty Kelley's "Family". And none of the authors or publishers have ended up silenced, as far as I know.

But yes, please let me know about the book service that you're referring to, when you've checked it.

What, you mean like the ones that have published David Icke and that wacko woman who says she
carried Prince Philip's alien lizard lovechild? lol I'm talking about small run academic
presses -- social historians, etc. They aren't the prime progenitors of overheated conspiracy theory like the big presses that decorate the entrails of the big book search services.

There is a book about Ambrose Evans-Pritchard that came out from a major publisher, if that's what you need. He's not a Royal, but he's a high society suck-up and far-right wing US friend. He was the #1 UK archer against Bill Clinton. The UK anglo-saxon aristocracy and sometime neocons have stated their wish to destroy the US in fairly frank and open white papers. A.E.P. is one of them. You might also look up the "Henry Jackson society". Same group of rats. The Bush family (the entire Tory-loving right wing in the US) is very thick with them.

The Bush books you are discussing go "this far and no farther" -- as I've said, some criticism of the Bush family and their social equals is "endured". One book that told too much of the truth is titled "Fortunate Son" by J.H. Hatfield. The Bush Crime family first sued to get it withdrawn and then when not even that could staunch the book's popularity, well, Hatfield conveniently died. You can draw your own conclusions.

In fact, why not just draw your own conclusions as you prefer, if you're already cherry-picking publishers? As I say to my right-wing acquaintances who cannot believe their beloved Ronald Reagan was, at best, a mentally challenged robot and, at worst, a co-conspirator in the far-right's war against the US middle-class and poor, if you don't want to know, don't seek out the knowledge. If you need to believe the Royal Family is without sin, be my guest.

The truth will remain the truth.

That's quite a difference.

I would be prepared to believe that too many of our royals support Bush and other American righties; just not readily that they're *responsible* for the American right getting into office - this would suggest international power that they haven't got.

I am not 'cherry-picking publishers' - I only used the phrase 'major publisher' because you did. I took the term simply to mean 'readily available, or at least mentioned on book sites'. (Most books that were published in the last 20 years in English do seem to appear on Amazon or Abebooks, even if only as possibly obtainable second-hand, and even if the publishers are not extremely well-known. Therefore it seemed a bit unusual that none of the books on this topic would appear on such sites.) I was simply questioning the view that no readily-available book is seriously critical of Bush and his family. I must admit that I tend to be a little suspicious of any book that cannot be readily found on the web (and I used Google and some academic sites, not just Amazon and Abebooks), as it may not have been subjected to many fact-checks and criticisms. Then again, I am a little suspicious of most books that *can* be found on the web!

But I will look up the Evans-Pritchard book that you mention - thank you! I know who he was; and he was quite revolting (and alas, right-wing journalists *do* have political power).

Believe me, I didn't like coming to this conclusion also. My ancestry (except for being 1/5th Cherokee) is all British.
I have a deep love and appreciation for the good my mother country has done for the world and I can't adequately express
how painful it was to go from thinking Great Britain's aristocracy is our friend to realizing it was still attempting to
wipe us off the face of the earth. That said, when researchers make very clear and substantiated links between Project Kennedy to Reagan (the plan to withdraw "bad Irishman" Kennedy as a social symbol and replace him with the more Royally Correct Irishman Ronald Reagan) and the British aristocracy, and all the other incidents (including the right-wing inspired anti-civil-rights campaign
in the US while the UK suddenly flowers with pro-civil-rights laws), even the most starry-eyed academic has to recognize that
the reality is a much more complex and painful one. It's fairly clear to me -- European aristocracy put Bush and Cheney in
place to destroy the US, this very imperfect bastion of individual liberty. Bill Clinton had made us too strong and the US population could no longer be relied upon to vote for puritan banality. As I always say to my non-union friends who decry unions, even
though they are making salaries largely high because of competition from unionized companies that must pay high salaries, if
you don't think unions are necessary, just wait till they're gone.

If you think the USA sucks (and right now, so far as the government is concerned, I agree with you), just wait till we're gone.

Evans-Pritchard, unfortunately, is still a very powerful and dangerous influence. Bill Colby (former CIA chief who was brutally
murdered) warned a couple of investigative journalists away from AEP, saying he was "far too powerful for peon Americans to
investigate". Colby turned up dead not long after. Who knows why. :(

Anyway, I wish you the best in your pursuit of the truth, whatever it may be.

prefer.

I can quite imagine that Carter would have preferred an official-looking letter, and Reagan, who liked to project an aw-shucks image, a more informal-looking one.

As regards joint bank accounts with Bush Sr, I haven't heard of this, - where is this reported?

Jimmy liked his "aw shucks" stuff, too. His emblem was a golden peanut in honor of his peanut farm.

The accounts matter is fairly well-known in Bush research circles (and I don't mean the patently insane
"George is an extraterrestrial lizard warlord" crap). Bush Sr and Elizabeth are very close friends. In fact,
call US Coutts -- they'll even tell you the accounts exist. They won't tell you the amounts in them, but
the fact they exist is US public information. Actually, the Bushes and the Windsors are related, but then I'm
related to the Spencers and, well, lets say William and Harry aren't on my Christmas card list. lol

Beyond that, I can point you to some research material.

Elizabeth has no special links with American politicians of any sort. She has to host them when she came; but I know she was very cross (and even her iron self-control didn't quite stop this from coming through) when King George and his entourage stayed at one of the palaces and did an amazing amount of damage!

Insofar as one can tell what her political views are, they seem to be of a traditional noblesse-oblige moderate-Tory sort - not far right. E.g. she is known not to have liked Maggie though she was not able to do anything about her.

It's true that some of our POLITICIANS have collaborated with American right-wingers - Maggie and Ronnie; Tony and King George - to the detriment of both our countries, but I can't think of any royals who have been involved in these collaborations.

:puke:

DOWN WITH MONARCHISM!

That OP seems to have some issues with older women? I thank True Brit 71 and Foreign Correspondent for trying to bring some sense and civility into it, but this may be a lost cause. Misogyny isn't susceptible to logic.

traditionally--including in Shakespeare's time--the word "shrew" was commonly used to describe both men and women. Although I haven't looked it up, it is possible that "old bag" has a similar history. Does anyone have electronic access to a real dictionary, eg only the full second OED.

Tell me you knew that...

..as an opportune moment to be rude and disrespectful to Her Majesty as though she had a choice in the matter?

What an ass-clown...

:wtf:

That's not freedom.

(Not that we're doing so hot here, but at least we don't have to beg like slaves for our inherent right to lead our own lives.)

People who always are name calling think they're cool, I suppose. But they're just boring and childish.

I understand that you find the Queen distasteful - no arguement there but do you call your mom an old bag too?

Even Winston Churchill had to get the "old bag's" permission to form a new government.

RGB, please remind us all exactly what the current head of state of the UK has done to you or your family? Beheadings perhaps?

Is it not enough that we fought two wars with our parent nation to assure our freedom from it? How long will it be before you and those who think like you surrender your distaste for a system which no longer holds sway over the political or social life of this nation?

And on behalf of all elder women in the world, I await your apology for your crude and distasteful name-calling.

Flamebait. Reporting.

We don't exactly have a lot of room to criticize Great Britain's gvernment, considering what a super job we're doing with ours here at home.

While I reserve the right to be as disrespectful of the pResident as I wanna be, I would never be so rude as to refer to the Queen as "old bag Windsor."

Manners help us get along in society, so said my grandmother.

Bake

but I imagine the OP would refer to her as an "old bag".

she'd kick OP's ass! She was little but tough!

:rofl:

Bake

is the same age as the Queen. And she is anything but an old bag.

required reading just about everywhere. If a person denies respect to others then they cannot possibly expect respect in return.

as well. That could have saved a lot of human suffering.

or even ludicrous (as do I) but I hope you can see the difference, for example, between me walking down a street in your country and saying "Those Americans seniors certainly like to fly the Stars and Stripes in front of their houses" and me saying, "Look at those dumb old farts and their fucking flags!"

While I might say the former, I'd never say the latter, especially in the presence of Americans. Maybe you can't see the difference?

let's see now... when did the UK outlaw slavery? how about the US? and who had to fight a civil war about it?

:rofl:

And I still think her choice of husband was a huge mistake, one that her children paid for dearly.

But she has always behaved with the utmost dignity and a respect for tradition. From what little I know of her political views--which isn't a lot, since she's supposed to stay strictly apart from politics (she would never exercise her right not to grant the prime minister her permission to form a government, for example)--she has tried, despite her bred-in-the-bone natural inclinations to avoid change, to keep up with the times. And she really didn't like Margaret Thatcher. Or W.

I used to not like her simply because it's so unfair that simply by being born a person can have all this wealth and privilege and power. Well, sure--it's super unfair. But then I realized that of course it's not her fault that she was born royal. And, unlike many many other people who've been born into positions of extreme luxury and power, she has done nothing dishonorable or undignified that I can think of. She works hard--obviously her job isn't as grueling as coal mining or cleaning hotel rooms, and it's a job that a lot of people would probably enjoy having, but it is what it is, and she's totally dedicated to doing it well.

I think she's swell.

I like her too.

Even if I didn't however, I would still think the OP was a puerile punk.

The monarchy is a part of British history, culture, and national life.
It is Constitutional. The permission to form a government is ceremonial.
It's their choice and their head of state.
Boy, I love how some "liberals" seem to think it gives them more street cred or something to bash the Queen of England...awesome dude, you're a real Bolshevik now! What a rebel.

That seemed to go quite well dontcha think?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

to whatever hole he crawled out of.

That's one of the things I'm taking from that stupid post.

Actually, I sort of wish the mods would lock this thing.

would love to hear how he would refer to King George the Stupid.

Agree on the locking thing. It really is offensive.

what? A tail? OK

Actually, this is SOP with Mr. Golen.

Wake up DU, that's the important fact!

Humming the Bette Midler song from (I think) the 70s:

I stayed out late one night and you moved in.
I didn't mind 'cause of the state you were in.
May I remind you that it's been a year (or ten?) since then?

Today the landlady, she said to me,
"Your loony friend (Bush?) just made a pass at me."
Perhaps you might enjoy a cottage by the sea.

So pack your toys away....
your alibis away,
your silly lies away,
your old tie-dyes away,
your one more tries away.
You're moving out today....



"I hate to do it"
"You gotta"
"I hate to do it"
"You gotta"
"I hate to do it"
"You gotta"
"I hate to do it"
"You gotta"
"I hate to do it"
"You gotta"

Pack up you dirty looks...

You're headed that a-way.
You're moving out today.....

la la la la la la la la la.
la la la la la la la la . . .

"The reason I'm singing la la is because I'm so happy you're going.
Gosh, you've made me miserable.
I don't think I've ever been so unhappy as I've been this last year (or ten?) with you.
You are really a dirty, dirty guy. Did anybody ever tell you that?
Oh, uh, by the way, would you, uh, take off that coat you're wearing?
That's my coat you're wearing. Ah, yes. Thank you, oh. Goodbye!
Parting is such sweet sorrow . . ."

Are there no good dentists in the United Kingdom?

Is dental work not covered by the National Health Service?

Unfortunately, there are fewer NHS dentists than in the past, and even the NHS ones charge something nowadays. Blame Thatcher for that.

However, I very much doubt that the Queen has to worry about the expense of dental treatment!

If, as you say, there are some good dentists in the UK, it must be the case that few Brits avail themselves of the services offered by dentists.

It may be just my impression, but it does rather seem to me that the British people have serious dental problems.

*******QUOTE*******

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Windsor

By virtue of Queen Victoria's marriage to Prince Albert, son of Duke Ernst I of the small German duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, her descendants were members of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha with the surname of Wettin. Victoria's son Edward VII and his son George V reigned as members of this house. However, high anti-German feeling among the people during World War I prompted the Royal Family to abandon all titles held under the German crown and to change German-sounding titles and house names for English-sounding versions. On 17 July 1917, a royal proclamation by George V provided that all agnatic descendants of Queen Victoria would be members of the House of Windsor with the personal surname of Windsor. The name Windsor has a long association with English royalty through the town of Windsor and Windsor Castle.

Upon hearing that his cousin George V had changed the name of the British royal house to Windsor, German Emperor Wilhelm II remarked that he planned to see Shakespeare's play The Merry Wives of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.

********UNQUOTE*******

'Wettin' may sound funny enough, but I believe there is a certain country whose two top statesmen are called Bush and Dick!

Maybe each country gets the leaders it deserves.

As if anyone deserves to be royalty! HAH!