The Queen versus Gordon Brown

[Gary Compton]

I just watched the Queen say she was deeply moved about our Boy's lost in Afghanistan.

Well Gordon Brown, equally moved wrote all the families a letter of condolence even though his secretaries couldnt get his spelling right.

I was just wondering if the Queen has wrote to the families as the sons and daughters of the berieved had given their lives to Queen and Country?

I've never read if she has and if she has'nt it would be a disgrace considering all the idiots who've received Knighthoods and MBE's in the New Years Honours list!!

[Sparrow]

Things aren't much different in the States.
I think families get a form letter signed by the President.

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

Yes, the president personally signs condolence letters here, but over across the Atlantic, remember, it's the prime minister with all the political power, so it really makes sense to me that it's not the queen that signs the letters. When was the last time the royal family had any actual front political power? They might influence things behind the scenes with their wealth, but it's the prime minister that gets up in the morning, so to speak.

[High Eight]

Originally Posted by gary compton

Well Gordon Brown, equally moved wrote all the families a letter of condolence even though his secretaries couldnt get his spelling right.

It had NOTHING to do with his secretaries. Gordon Brown wrote the letters personally - and as the man is partially sighted, I'm not surprised that they were a bit scruffy. Hardly his fault, though. It's just a pity that someone with an agenda decided to contact a paper with an agenda.

I don't like Brown (though he lacks the malignacy of Blair) but in this case I'm on his side.

[High Eight]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

a form letter signed by the President.

Or in Bush's case an X.

[Gary Compton]

Originally Posted by High Eight

It had NOTHING to do with his secretaries. Gordon Brown wrote the letters personally - and as the man is partially sighted, I'm not surprised that they were a bit scruffy. Hardly his fault, though. It's just a pity that someone with an agenda decided to contact a paper with an agenda.

I don't like Brown (though he lacks the malignacy of Blair) but in this case I'm on his side.

I dont agree, when you're PM I would imagine all your letters get a once over by your people. After all you are human (allegedly) but the thought was there!

However the Queen has sent no letters. I dont buy into the idea that she's defunct of political clout. These brave men and women give their lives for Queen and country. If I was the Monarch, there isnt a politician in the land (bearing in mind they've been feasting on the trough of taxpayers money for God knows how long) that would stop me writing.

She's stuck her head in the sands of Balmoral I'm afraid. Bring on Charles!

[Gary Compton]

Originally Posted by High Eight

Or in Bush's case an X.

Nearly as good as my joke here

Keep trying, you'll get me eventually!!

[High Eight]

Originally Posted by gary compton

I dont agree, when you're PM I would imagine all your letters get a once over by your people. After all you are human (allegedly) but the thought was there!

Not according to his office - he did it all himself. More than Blair ever did.

Originally Posted by gary compton

However the Queen has sent no letters. I dont buy into the idea that she's defunct of political clout. These brave men and women give their lives for Queen and country. If I was the Monarch, there isnt a politician in the land (bearing in mind they've been feasting on the trough of taxpayers money for God knows how long) that would stop me writing.

She's stuck her head in the sands of Balmoral I'm afraid. Bring on Charles!

She didn't start the war and it is not her responsibility. Writing to families of those killed would imply it was, though. Best she stays out of it, to be honest.

[Gary Compton]

Okay 1-0 to you High Eight on Brown (Watch the tyres on your push bike I hate loosing!)

I hear what your saying on the Queen but they gave their lives for Queen and country. I reckon the families would appreciate a letter from her Majesty

[Winters_Sorrow]

Depends if they're republicans at heart or not I suppose. I wonder if Harry had shoddy kit and drove in poorly armoured personnel carriers? Just wonderin'

Oh and p.s. Charles will be a disaster as King. Clue's in the name

[dreamhunter]

Originally Posted by gary compton

I dont agree, when you're PM I would imagine all your letters get a once over by your people. After all you are human (allegedly) but the thought was there!

However the Queen has sent no letters. I dont buy into the idea that she's defunct of political clout. These brave men and women give their lives for Queen and country. If I was the Monarch, there isnt a politician in the land (bearing in mind they've been feasting on the trough of taxpayers money for God knows how long) that would stop me writing.

She's stuck her head in the sands of Balmoral I'm afraid. Bring on Charles!

I have to agree with High Eight here. The Queen is the Head of State. Whereas the decision to go to war was made, essentially, by the Head of Government, wasn't it?

So, it wouldn't make sense for her to be the one soothing someone's grief brought about by a decision made by someone else.

It's different for the US, since the Head of State and the Head of Government is one and the same person.

Must be tough for Gordon, having to comfort folks aggrieved by the decision of his predecessor, something which Brown himself was vehemently against.

[pyan]

Originally Posted by Winters_Sorrow

Oh and p.s. Charles will be a disaster as King. Clue's in the name

There were reports a few years ago that he may become George VII instead, precisely because of the connotations.

But the official line is

a choice would not be made until the coronation and the report was "idle speculation"

BBC NEWS | UK | Charles 'considers name change'

[The Judge]

Originally Posted by Winters_Sorrow

Oh and p.s. Charles will be a disaster as King. Clue's in the name

I don't think Charles II's reign was a disaster. And those things which went wrong could be attributed to his lack of power rather than the reverse. The Earl of Rochester produced an 'epitaph' (before Charles had died):

'Here lies our sovereign lord the King
Whose promise none relies on;
He never said a foolish thing,
Nor ever did a wise one.'

To which Charles replied that this was true, since his words were his own but his actions were those of his ministers. Something which I imagine HMQ repeats to herself on a daily basis.

J

[Clansman]

Have to agree with the Judge. Charles II was, in most respects, quite an able King. He was instrumental in pushing the intelligentsia of England and Scotland (prior to the two becoming Great Britain) to embrace the sciences, which served, in large part, as one of the cornerstones of the foundation of the Industrial Revolution. I believe he founded the Royal Society, but I could be off on that.

So, what would be so bad about a Charles III? To bad his personal life was hung out on the international clothes line for everyone to chortle over. I'm not sure any of us would have a great public image if our closets were cleaned out in front of the world. Just proof that a monarch is human, really.

And I agree completely with his views on architecture.

[High Eight]

Originally Posted by Clansman

Have to agree with the Judge. Charles II was, in most respects, quite an able King. He was instrumental in pushing the intelligentsia of England and Scotland (prior to the two becoming Great Britain) to embrace the sciences, which served, in large part, as one of the cornerstones of the foundation of the Industrial Revolution. I believe he founded the Royal Society, but I could be off on that.

So, what would be so bad about a Charles III? To bad his personal life was hung out on the international clothes line for everyone to chortle over. I'm not sure any of us would have a great public image if our closets were cleaned out in front of the world. Just proof that a monarch is human, really.

And I agree completely with his views on architecture.

I think the name change is more due to Charles' admiration of George VI than any dislike of the connotations of his own name.

Despite all the jokes about the longevity of his mother, I don't think that Charles is all that desperate to be King anyway. I get the impression that he would be quite happy to be a minor, eccentric country squire shuffling about the huge library of a grand house out in the sticks somewhere and occasionally putting on his tweed, going out and blowing away small woodland animals with a 12-bore.