April 21, 2006
Happy Birthday, Your Majesty!
Elizabeth II turns 80 years old today. Here is a website celebrating the occassion.
I must say that I feel extremely sorry for HM. She's a thoroughly good woman, bless her, and a thoroughly good Queen, but she's lived long enough to see the monarchy reach the verge of collapse, thanks mostly to the imbecile machinations of her offspring, who have managed to transmogrify the House of Windsor in the public eye from Royalty into mere celebrity. She certainly deserves a good deal better than that.
But that's a rant for another day. In the meantime, congratulations and many happy returns!
Long live the Queen!
Posted by Robert at April 21, 2006 08:21 AM | TrackBackLong live the Queen, indeed!
While I agree that some pity is warranted, I do feel that she (and the Sr. Hiltons, etc.) probably had a hand in making their own bed. Whether it's the wreck of the monarchy or the hotel chain their family sweat to create - at the end of the day, being rich/famous/powerful doesn't exempt you from parenting.
Posted by: beth at April 21, 2006 10:13 AMYou're probably right, although that also leads to the question of how much Prince Phillip has to do with the way the kids turned out.
Posted by: Robbo the LB at April 21, 2006 12:19 PMThe Prince had about as much to do with that as did the Queen, which is to say nothing, becuase they both turned the kids over to a nanny. Back in QE's childhood, there was enough of a societal fence up to keep the kids in line with their elders' expectations despite absent parents, but the 60s destroyed that. The Royals aren't going to suddenly give up polo for hands on parenting, though.
Posted by: John at April 21, 2006 12:24 PMI blame the media. Edward VI (?) had many mistresses, including Lilly Langtree, and there wasn't the media feeding frenzy that there is today. Different societal expectations I guess. And while I do have some sympathy for the Windors, I am very glad we parted ways awhile back.
Posted by: rbj at April 21, 2006 01:05 PMShe hasn't had it as rough as George III, though. Or Charles I, for that matter.
Posted by: dillene at April 21, 2006 01:26 PMWell done!
http://rzmgeaxq.com/dnra/ymip.html | http://ipkmvjwj.com/fmjf/yyan.html