Bush, Queen Elizabeth toast alliance - is it really that bad?

[Stand_watie]

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0733397220070508?feedType=RSS&rpc=22

In my younger years, I used to get a little hot under the collar regarding royalty, even mere titular royalty. However upon reflection, this lady, despite the fact that she has a greater knowledge of "manners", and to exactly the same degree a lesser knowledge of real world functioning, is simply an ambassador of the British government, is she not?

Hanoi Jane or the Baldwin boys would be royally received in the halls of state of any government antagonistic to the current American administration, and would represent us much more poorly - The Queen is now here merely as a peculiarly well mannered representative of Britain's populace, shouldn't we treat her as such?

Granted we don't like the title, we don't like the heredity thing etc. But the citizens of Britain can abolish such any time they please... and they haven't. They keep their royalty on as a well-regulated mouthpiece of public policy, and I suppose as a net gain to the system regarding the tourism draw (don't tell me an actual functioning Buckingham palace isn't well worth the salaries of the royalty in terms of tourist income).

Again, with the caveat that the British populace can do away with it anytime they please, I guess I don't think that's all that bad.

(It's also possible that as she and I have aged I see in her features more of my dear ol' departed gramma, and I'm just mistaking familial affection for a genuine intellectual more' shift)

Addendum: Something I genuinely like about GW, that self deprecating humor..

Standing with the Queen on a podium, he recalled her previous state visits, but had a little problem with the dates.

You helped us celebrate our bicentennial in 1796, he said confidently, and in a split second realised his error. Er, 1976, he corrected himself, to a gale of laughter from around the lawn. The Queen, smiling broadly, gave him a knowing sideways glance.

To another outburst of hilarity from the crowd he told her: You gave me a look only a mother could give a child.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1760114.ece

[Perd Hapley]

I think you've got a good handle on it.  She's a queen, but very limited in prerogative.  She understands and accepts that.  She's no Charles I.  She probably favors Parliamentary govt. just as much as anyone else.  And, as you said, she's an ambassador, as far as foreign relations are concerned.  And a dignified one.  Nothing to be offended at. 

[Gewehr98]

Nothing to be offended at.

Unless your username happens to be Werewolf, that is... 

[mtnbkr]

I'd rather have her on our soil than the elected leaders of many other nations.

Chris

[Paddy]

Addendum: Something I genuinely like about GW, that self deprecating humor..

It's really not.  He actually thinks he's being precocious, sort of a cocky smart ass.  He's really a rube.  The POTUS should be able to rise to any occasion with dignity; this jerk's unable to do that.  He's an embarrasment.  I'm really, really sorry I voted for him (twice, no less).

[CAnnoneer]

The guy is a crude mean dunce. His only excuse is that the Goracle and Lt Kerry would probably have been worse in many respects.

Going back to the queen, royalty is only allowed to exist because it is not a threat to the parliamental rule while being a certain national symbol. The queen's job is to tread a fine line of etiquette concerning this point and others. It must be one of the tougher jobs in the world.

The visit itself is pretty meaningless, except for liberal closet-monarchists who think being British or French is cool and urbane, while being American is pedestrian and rustic. I'd have appreciated far more a visit by Blair, or his replacement, Brown.

[Stand_watie]

...Going back to the queen, royalty is only allowed to exist because it is not a threat to the parliamental rule while being a certain national symbol. The queen's job is to tread a fine line of etiquette concerning this point and others. It must be one of the tougher jobs in the world...

Even dating as far back as the 1770's (Probably our British friends, with a more specifically British history education can be more specific on dates  than that), the American revolution was as much a rebellion against the acts of Parliament as against King George.  He was better demonized by the press in the public opinion war, but couldn't have pressed the war if he hadn't had backing that, if not purely democratic, was at least pretty democratic by standards of the age.