 |
|

05-31-2011, 02:07 PM
|
 |
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 2,997
|
|
|
On what do you base the notion that the Windsors are/were "close personal friends" with the Reagans, if you don't mind my asking?
In any case, for President Reagan to have addressed HM the Queen that way was as inexcusable as it was for Obama. He was NOT a member of her family, but a fellow Head of State, and that was a STATE OCCASION.
Even her children do not address her that way in public.
The Gipper goofed, imo.
BTW...ALEX...your post was amazing and impressive...THANK YOU for sharing!
|

05-31-2011, 03:13 PM
|
 |
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 2,595
|
|
|
Personal knowledge.
|

05-31-2011, 03:32 PM
|
 |
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 2,997
|
|
I see...
Well, by the same standard since Alex has "personal knowledge" that HM welcomed Michelle and her children and even embraced them, I guess we can infer that she considers THEM close personal friends, too.
She doesn't normally do this.
So maybe Obama did NOT commit the faux pas we've accused him of?
The Kennedys also, since the DoE not only attended JFK's funeral but spent quite a long time alone with Jackie afterward and did not stand in the receiving line with the other visiting dignitaries.
I guess they(the Windsors) just have a thing for those American Presidents.
|

05-31-2011, 03:49 PM
|
 |
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 2,595
|
|
 Well, Alex may have "inside info" aka: personal knowledge about the visit of the president's daughters' visit with HM. I can't see any reason why HM would not have "hugged" the girls, as they are children and American children, on the whole, are raised to be touchy-feeley.
It is a big world out there and you never know who you might be communing with on a forum, a bulletin board, or a chat room. I would never presume to say Alex isn't telling the truth of any connections s/he might have.
If the RF and the Obamas have become close personals, that is none of my business. My only hope, currently, is that this will have been the Obama's last visit to Buckingham Palace.
|

05-31-2011, 04:09 PM
|
 |
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 2,997
|
|
I have to agree with your last sentence...unless the Office of Protocol is undergoing a huge shakeup/overhaul, I think there should be a ban on any and all American Presidents visiting Buckingham Palace...or even having British Royalty visit here in Washington.
Unless HM enjoys being winked at and referred to as a 235 year old woman.
My guess is that the President is not losing any sleep over this. He has hugely more important things to worry about, as do the British Royals.
|

05-31-2011, 05:55 PM
|
 |
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 2,595
|
|
|
On HM's subsequent visit, she inferred that she did enjoy Mr. Bush's gaffe. However, I don't think she was too enamoured of the "talking hat" incident.
I totally agree that Mr. Obama is not losing any sleep....
|

05-31-2011, 10:53 PM
|
 |
Courtier
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 644
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta
 Well, Alex may have "inside info" aka: personal knowledge about the visit of the president's daughters' visit with HM. I can't see any reason why HM would not have "hugged" the girls, as they are children and American children, on the whole, are raised to be touchy-feeley.
It is a big world out there and you never know who you might be communing with on a forum, a bulletin board, or a chat room. I would never presume to say Alex isn't telling the truth of any connections s/he might have.
If the RF and the Obamas have become close personals, that is none of my business. My only hope, currently, is that this will have been the Obama's last visit to Buckingham Palace.
|
I don't know Alex's sources, but since she continues to allude to having "inside" knowledge perhaps she can enlighten us as to what that is.
The Queen may hug members of her own family or very close friends, but she is the Queen and certain formalities are followed even by her family members. We are now to believe she has thrown years of protocol out the door and now hugs wives of Presidents after meeting them once before? This doesn't sound right to me.
The consideration of inviting the Obama's to the Royal wedding but due to security concerns and removing windows from BP, etc.. in order to accommodate them also doesn't make sense. No heads of state were invited since this was not a state occasion. The Obamas are not personal friends of The Queen and her family, they are not heads of state within her realm or VIP's of charities they support. And they are certainly not Royalty. The fact is there would have been zero reason to consider that invitation, even if Michelle Obama would have liked to attend. As far as security is concerned, taking windows out of BP and replacing them with for a short visit is ridiculus and insulting. If the windows are good enough for the Queen of England, they are certainly good enough for a President of any country.
|

05-31-2011, 11:24 PM
|
 |
Administrator
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 9,839
|
|
 You do realize, of course, that the Secret Service has certain requirements that they consider essential in their job of protecting the President of the United States? And that these elements are regardless of who is currently in office? And that the security of Obama and Bush has been amped as a result of the increase of terror? I am not saying that the SS has the right to ask that the windows be changed, but the protection offered pre 9/11 is not the same protection offered today.
from United States Secret Service: Frequently Asked Questions
How does the Secret Service "protect" the president?
In order to maintain a safe environment for the president and other protectees, the Secret Service calls upon other federal, state and local agencies to assist on a daily basis. The Secret Service Uniformed Division, the Metropolitan Police Department, and the U.S. Park Police patrol the streets and parks nearby the White House. The Secret Service regularly consults with experts from other agencies in utilizing the most advanced security techniques. The military supports the Secret Service through the use of Explosive Ordnance Disposal teams and communications resources. When the president travels, an advance team of Secret Service agents works with host city, state and local law enforcement, as well as public safety officials, to jointly implement the necessary security measures.
-----------------------
Also, without delving into the political persuasion of the parties involved...why is it okay to accept KittyAtlanta's personal knowledge of the relationship between the Queen and the Reagans (without any questions asked about her sources) but we need to ask Diarist (Alex) about the Queen and the Obamas? Is there some concern that he is making this up?
|

06-01-2011, 10:04 AM
|
 |
Courtier
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 644
|
|
Did I say I accepted KittyAtlantas personal knowledge of the Reagans relationship with the Queen? No I did not. In fact, I haven't commented on it at all. I have heard that Reagan and Margeret Thatcher had great respect for one another, but I know nothing about the Queen having a great friendship with them. As that was many years ago, and not part of the current discussion regarding the Obama's relationship with the Queen, I didn't feel it was necessary to comment.
I feel when anyone posts that they have "personal" knowledge or "insider" information on a subject, that they should explain what that is. I am not inclined to accept whatever anyone says as gospel truth based on the fact that they preface it with "insider" or "personal". Particularly when the context does not make sense.
Sorry!
|

06-06-2011, 06:42 PM
|
 |
Nobility
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NASINU, Fiji
Posts: 260
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23
Reagan actually called Diana "PRINCESS DAVID" which is even worse...it would have been technically correct to call her "Princess Charles" as you pointed out.
|
I don't think so. My records don't show that anywhere.
|

06-07-2011, 01:59 AM
|
 |
Serene Highness
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,165
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LOSSEAN
I don't think so. My records don't show that anywhere.
|
Well, do you take BBC to be a reliable source? Unless someone finds a video or audio recording, we can't certain.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/4396846.stm
|

06-07-2011, 02:04 PM
|
 |
Super Moderator
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,139
|
|
It can be seen at 3:18 in this video.
|

06-09-2011, 06:20 PM
|
 |
Nobility
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NASINU, Fiji
Posts: 260
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esmerelda
|
What a gaffe! Thank you Esmerelda - I nearly died laughing. But I love President Reagan - He's a great president. He is just not into flowery, fanciful speeches so obviously got caught with trying to keep to British title rules. Must have given Diana a good dose of the giggles.
|
 |
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
Recent Discussions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional Links |
|
|
|