Washington File

I'm surprised that you publish comments such as those of the semi-literate Leonard, Toronto. When he says "like there's a higher degree", one presumes he means "as if there were a higher degree", when he says "properness", I think he means "propriety" and when he writes "Phillip" it seems he's not very good at reading either, or he would know that the name is "Philip". Heaven preserve us from such pernicious reverse snobbery as this person demonstrates.

President Carter stands head and shoulders above recent US presidents and is a good and honorable man. He has the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the special interests and plainly call a spade a spade. His comments on Iraq, Tony Blair and the suffering of the Palestinians are right on the money. Unfortunately in today's polarized society in America and Britain, stratified by special interests and ethnic political lobbies, it is increasingly problematic to state the truth. Congratulations President Carter and please keep on giving us the benefit of your moral leadership.

Leonard, are you referring to the queen's comment "Thank you for inviting Prince Philip and me to visit your country"? If so, she's perfectly correct. You don't say "Thank you for inviting I", you say "Thank you for inviting me," and the same applies if you put "so-and-so and" between the verb and the direct object "me."

It's not the queen's English that needs work, it's yours. Try to keep up!

'Tis well known that King George's command of the English language is similar to that of his Hanoverian namesakes. 'Tis less well known in North America that the Fragmented Queendom is breaking up into its constituent parts and that the monarchy will disappear with it. Long live the English Republic!

I really hate the queen coming to North America with her snooty British nose in the air, like there's a higher degree of "properness" or something. As far as I am concerned, if the Queen never comes back to North America then we will all save wasted tax dollars!

Oh, and for the record, Her Majesty's english needs a little work..."It's Price Phillip and I" and not "Prince Phillip and Me!".

So take that - back the England and stay there!

I grew up when the Queen was a teenager, during WW2, and she was being groomed to become the apolitical head of the Commonwealth. She was diligent in working as an auto mechanic and showed no aversion to getting her hands dirty in manual labour then and later on her farm. I don't recall that Bush has worked his own "ranch."

The Queen is as human as any of us and I expect that the main reason she accepted the invitation was that the Kentucky Derby was tossed in as a special incentive to get her to stand beside Bush. I don't think that incentive would get me in a photo-op with him, but I'm not as horse-crazy as she is.

Damn! alot of you guys in Canada are begining to sound British. Soon you will turn into UK with all its problems.

Chris's first comment is the sanest one in this thread. The rest is just people venting their favourite hang-up whether it be the monarchy, Bush, Americans, Torontonians or the fact that others don't think like they do. If you disagree with something or someone then get out and do something about it but do it intelligently and rationally. No one ever changed someone's mind by calling them a Boob except perhaps when they were in Grade Three.

I agree with Bob Mitton. The queen came to visit the USA according to the invitation from Mr. Bush as she had mentioned in her speech. Bush wanted to proof he is still a non isolated president. The Queen could not say no like the king of Saudi Arabia.

I am totally mystified. Why would the Queen come the USA when George Bush is the president. He is a boob and a dumb ignoramous and she had nothing to gain and no point to make by her visit. It was clear that she hated every moment. Look at her face when seated beside Dick Cheney...looks like she didn't like the notion of being next to a war ciminal!

The monarchy has a definite political purpose, one that is not focused on by the media which is too busy watching all the flashy ceremonies or playing the celebrity angle: it is a failsafe against tyranny. You might find that odd, but it is the truth - a last resort sort of thing, in case an elected leader uses their political power to turn completely despotic, and there is no other recourse to rescue the nation. Our armed forces actual, *final* commander-in-chief is our monarch, but quite rightly keeps out of partisan politics. The Royals are not politicians, nor CEO's, nor celebrities - so aside from their fail-safe function, they are also a link to national identity, to history and heritage (and I don't mean ethnic heritage). For those that complain, let me ask you - the last time the people of this country (or any other in the Commonwealth) were screwed over, was it the royals who did it, or an elected politician? Yeah - thought so, argument over.
Anyways, one last note: I support Prince Charles becoming king, I do think he gets slagged unfairly, particularly by the "Diana Cultists" out there who just can't get over it. Oh, he's not a glamourous celeb like her - so what? It's not a beauty contest.

I find it unbelievable that so many Canadians would not only defend but lavish praise on the Saxe-Coburg Gotha (i.e. "royal") family. With such sterling representatives as Leopold II of Belgium (who conservatively murdered 8 million Congolese in forced labor camps extracting ivory and rubber) Edward VIII (the Nazi sympathizer who was eventually forced to abdicate the throne) and Prince Phillip (who happily maintains he would like to be reincarnated as a deadly virus "in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation") how anyone could bow down in front of these people staggers me. And why, after all these centuries of progress in understanding, would anyone willingly prostrate themselves in front of an inbred family who have no reason to be in power at all?

If the Monarchy has gone after Queen Elizabeth; who will be our Head of State? The same to Australia, New Zealand, The Commonwealth etc…? Is it the Prime Minister of England? Or they would create the position of the Head of State of England and the Commonwealth?
The position of the Queen is 100% political. It is very important to us the Canadians more than any body else. Our existence as a country is only secured by the continuation of the British Monarchy along with its’ agreements since the War of Independence of the USA.
The moment those agreements vanish; our Canada would be annexed by our neighbours in the south.
God save the Queen, Charles And William.

If I was leader, the focus of the speech would entirely be about the Queen, her long standing service to nation, commonwealth and the long standing relationship of the nations without any mention of terrorism, or anything negative and follow her lead, and most certainly I would not wink nor cut jokes...something I am sure Bush had no clue about....I think his media handlers really dropped the ball on this one, but then again...what else is new. Everything in the United States is breaking down and is totally malfunctioning thanks to these people.

Anyway, I love Americans, they are awesome friends and awesome family, it's just the legislated ineptitude that really revolts me and seeing how that is filtering down into Canada is something that I think every Canadian should be alarmed at. If the last few years have taught me anything, you just cannot trust a Neo-Con in any other capacity other than knowing that whatever it is they do, they will always lie, cheat and steal anything they can in order to promote their own selfish agenda and maintain any degree of power.

That's the way I see it.

After watching the footage of her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II to the US, all I have to say is President Bush is an embarrassment to the United States. I am truly embarrassed for the citizens of the United States to have such an idiot on the world stage. On one hand you have a nearly illiterate buffoon that referees to himself as "The Commander Guy" and on the other, you have his minions doing everything they can to rip off and steal from the US people, economy and world as is the case with Paul Wolfowitz and the World Bank.

I think it really goes to show that Bush is most certainly out of his red neck and classless element when by hosting the Queen, it was the first white tie affair hosted at the White House. From what I heard, the speech he gave following the Queen could be summed up by "911, terrorists, 911, terror, terror, terror, Yur a gud Kween, 9-11, 911, terrorism, etc..." When I sat and listened to the speech, I was mortified and truly embarrassed that this idiot was speaking for the United States at an event where "The Commander Guy" was most certainly ill equipped to handle. His lack of possessing any degree of knowledge, sincerity, leadership or otherwise is a staggering commentary on what Conservatives truly are; classless, visionless, hardened pessimists and cynics that are ill-equipped to handle, deal, lead, manage or govern any form of administration, department, party (Political, frat or birthday) and I just have to ask how much longer is the world really going to sit and tolerate the manifestation of a walking, talking malapropism in Bush, Harper and the rest of these neo-cons?

As a Canadian citizen of 20 years plus,also a British citizen (dual passport) and a former R.A.F. officer, I have sworn allegiance to both the late King and the present Queen. The latter yet again on becoming a Canadian. My view is that after the Queen goes there should be renouncement of the throne from Charles,and William should take over. Unless this happens there is doubt for the future. The retinue of "hangers on" that surround royalty have no place in modern life though. We do not want the class structure here, and it is irerelevant now there. Both multicultural societies require adaptation.

My, the republicans are out in full force. It still astonishes me that many Canadians are ignorant of their nation's history, its form of government (Constitutional Monarchy), and the unique role the Canadian monarchy plays in the country.

"Who cares about the Queen?" I do. And as a 30 year-old Canadian living in the States I know many others do as well. The monarchy is, these days, one of the unique Canadian institutions that differentiates our country from the United States and many other nations. But far more importantly, the history of Canada is inextricably intertwined with the monarchy, and the contributions our past kings and queens have made to the country are innumerable and ever-lasting. And those contributions continue under our current Queen and will continue under our next monarch. Canada's form of government isn't something that is decided every couple of years . . . it is enshrined in the Constitution. So, it is high time we appreciate and support the form of government that has served us so well and which defines us as a nation. A form of government in which the head of state is apolitical and above the fray of political scandal. God Save Canada, and God Save the Queen.

So we have the meeting of an irrelevant woman from a bygone era whose relations just happen to have been fortunate enough to live on the nickel of the British citizenry for doing nothing and a silver spoon fed, D-student whose relations just happen to have been lucky enough to lurk the halls of top American power, thus, getting him an otherwise unimaginable shot at the top chair.

All a meeting like this seems to prove is that it’s not what you know so much as who you were born to.

Oh and let’s finally rid ourselves of “monarchs” on the money once the queen is gone ok? I’d take a moose, fish or even a squirrel over some far removed uber-wealthy Brit or long dead local politician anytime.

Uhm...about the Queen's visit to the US...it's the end of an era, as Henry said ..."full circle." I find it somewhat difficult to discuss the Queen and her contributions to the commonwealth without becoming sentimental and even conflicted: she's been the Queen my entire life and my family is rabidly pro monarch, but as a Canadian citizen living far removed from the direct influence of European monarchs I can't see the relevance. To me royalty is more tabloid, like Hollywood, than political: actors and actresses have more relevance in North American life than the priveleged few hodovers of an outdated and discredited European tradition. The mass hysteria over the death of the unfortunate Diana notwithstanding, the lack of crowds surrounding this visit signal a new "reality check" - yes Rob, CHECK, not CHEQUE - for Royals everywhere. The glamour is fading. The monarchy will endure however, there have been unpopular Kings before and there will be again, long after Charles has passed into history. England is drenched with the blood of those who died in the innumerable wars of the "inbreds", so much so that they won't willingly give it up now. Tradition is a powerful thing in a country as ancient as England is so don't look for Charles to miss his kick at the can just yet: the last guy who tried to abolish the monarchy ended up with his corpse dug up and his head stuck on a pike outside the gates of Westminster.

Thanks Henry for your reminder to us of the historical significance of the Queens trip. Having grown up in Britain its good to get some of the forgotten details again.
To add to a previous post by Dwayne, from Ottawa - in taxes I believe it works out to about one pound sterling contributed per person in the UK per year for the funding of the Monarchy, though that may have changed since last time I read about it- not a big price to pay for what they do positively around the world and in charities at home. Also, I think Charles is coming into his own as a forward thinker, where as in the past he was made fun of for his environmental initiatives, and Prince William will definitely keep the Monarchy alive and well.

A rare insight by Bush into his own behaviour, I think, when he said he felt like a child beside his mother, as he was observed 'skipping along'! (And, spell-checkers, I left my 'u' in behaviour on purpose - it just looks better that way!)

First, I admire the queen. In view of what she has to work with in the way of family, I think she does a pretty good job. (of being the queen) But, this idea that she must be treated in just such a way with all the bowing and scraping and don't speak to her and my God! never wink or treat her like a common human, well I think the Brits have taken that part over the top. After all this is the 21st century not the 12th.

obviously humour and wit escape reality Cheque. You must surely be joking about secretly admiring Americans..Ah I see. Your from Toronto. Enough said.

Wow I did not know so many people did not know the difference between check and cheque,..a cheque is usually involved with a financial transaction and check is...enough already..and a note to Kelly..just wondering what makes you, or others think, I am a Yank or American lover....and one more thing ..Kelly said "If there's one thing that makes a Canadian lose respect for someone it's bootlicker such as yourself." So "Bootlicking" is not in anymore....wow then how would you explain what most people do at work/in their relationships most of the time. If bootlicking makes people lose respect for someone I would say that there are not many respectable people left in Canada ..sad but it may very well be true as evidenced by the above....

Reality,
I don't think you like the queen. Neither do I. But the only thing that will make our Boob look bright is spontaneous combustion.

I'm always amused when I hear the argument about how Canada is lucky to have the US "protecting it". From who? The last time Canada was invaded was during the War of 1812 and it came from south of the border.

Both Americans and Canadians use the term "check" to describe the process of verifying the accuracy of something, as in a 'reality check'. But while Americans use "checks" to describe a written order to pay money, Canadians and the British use "cheque". There is no such thing as a "reality cheque" except perhaps in someone's attempt to be clever or ironic.

Confucius says that the beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper names.

Dear Mr. Smith, I lived in Australia for more than a year. And in my extensive travels around the world, I have met and befriended many Australians!

Australians do refer to their country as "Oz" and they do refer to themselves as "Ozzies." And they have been doing so long before the world ever heard of any TV reality show comimg out of England, made by "Pommies."

If you do not believe me, go ask an Australian!

Furthermore, The Governor General is the "Representative" of the Queen in Canada. The Governor General of Canada, therefore, does EVERYTHING, and holds EVERY title in the Queen's "stead." Nothing, and I repeat, nothing the Governor General does in her official capacity is done independantly. NOTHING!

If you don't believe me, please read our constitution!

Cheers, mate!

Reality check, your sycophantic love affair with americans dooms you to irrelevance. If there's one thing that makes a Canadian lose respect for someone it's bootlicker such as yourself.

Jeff, it's no doubt true that some, if not most, of the luster will leave the Royal Family once the Queen passes. The only way it could be regained is if someone picks up the ball and unfortunatly I don't see it in Charles' generation but there is always hope for the future although I truly believe the Monarchy is, and should be a thing of the past for Canada. We've outgrown it.

I believe the gist of the original article is that Bush is somewhat of an embarrassing buffoon not actually fit to represent the people of america at any level. That people are sending their loved ones to fight a war that this ignoramus has started is not a fair trade. Most of the ones that are fighting and dying are worth far more than he is.

It is spelled "check" in AMERICAN dictionaries. "Cheque" is the proper English spelling. (But of course, you're likely relying upon your spell-checker to give you an answer.)

By the way, it is Torontonians who secretly desire to be American. They also are too chickens**t to post their name when making pissant remarks. How typical of someone from "T dot". Their snooty behaviour explains why Canadians only truly agree about one thing: Toronto (and its denizens) suck.

Lord, how I hate having to read trollish comments like those of Mr. Wilson, folks who haven't a clue about what they're criticizing. Where to begin... Her Majesty is the Queen of Canada, not our military's "Commander in Chief." That title belongs to the Governor General, and even that is just a ceremonial position without any authority whatsoever. You as a Canadian do not pay for the Royals' so-called "extravagant lifestyle." Only the Queen and Prince Phillip keep the allowance provided to them by the BRITISH Parliament, but that same BRITISH government receives back far more in taxes from Royal properties than they give out. The Queen reimburses the British Government in full for the allowances that the rest of her family receives. They do get some of their expenses paid, just like any government employee. Prince Charles doesn't get paid by the Government; instead, he largely makes his money through commercial rental properties. He uses his own income to sponsor 16 main charities, and pays income and capital gains taxes just like everyone.
The Royals do a helluva lot more for charity than the vast majority of us. For example, Charles is actively involved in fighting health care fraud. If you had the slightest idea of the brutal schedule of duties that they keep, day in and day out, all under the critical glare of critics, well... I doubt if many of us would even put up with it.
Of course, some people refuse to be satisfied.
And by the way, while "Ozzie" may be your favourite trash TV hero, "Aussies" are our Commonwealth brethern. Duh!

Who cares about the Queen?

Note to Rob and others. It is spelled check Rob, not spelled cheque. Wonder if you do spell-check yourself....Good example of glass house syndrome....and yes the Queen and her family bring people to the good old England but I am not sure if the same people would not visit England if the Queen was not as wealthy....can anyone dispute anything that I have said..? and on being called a "Yank"...don't most Canadians secretly or openly admire Yanks, wish they were Yanks and are glad that they are protected and close to the Yanks..by the way I am not a Yank ..far from it.....after all on a good day I can put together a good sentence...

I wonder if fewer people were out to see the Queen because she's now an old woman? We'd be more likely to go out of our way to see a beautiful, young Queen. We are jaded and prejudiced in so many ways (still).

And, these days, people are much busier and perhaps more apt to settle for seeing her on TV?

The House of Windsor will not withstand Her Majesty's passing.

When she is gone, the Royal Family of Great Britain, Northern Ireland, and the Commonwealth will no longer be seen as relevant in any way, shape, nor form.

Why? In two words (Names) Charles and Camilla!

Who among us want either of them as our sovereign, let alone as our head of state and as our commander in chief of our military.

We shall witness the end of royalty "long to reign over us" in our life-times.

Sad (not in my opinion), but true.

It is no longer a matter of: Who can fill the Queen's shoes? But rather: Who cares, anymore?

It is also a matter of: Who wants to pay for Charles' and Camila's extravagant lifestyle?

Any takers out there?

In a way, it's a bit tragic, because Her Royal Highness, Queen Elizabeth II, of the House of Windsor, Sovereign of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Commonwealth, did EVERTHING right. Pretty much, anyways.

But this is the 21st century. And we, who are free-thinking, technologicaly-savy people, are subject to no-one, anymore. Jeez! Look at how we have a go at our elected servants (Deservedly so, too, eh?!!)

Nothing is sacred anymore! Because those at the top, or those who wish to be, or who one day will be, have shown themselves for the charlatains that they are. Sad, but true!

God save the Queen! Yes!

But I quite simply don't have time, nor the cash for Charley!

For all that, though, I still very much would like to see the Commonwealth survive!

My goodness, I just love those Ozzies and Kiwis, for example!

Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense!

Ah CBC readers , articulate smart and filled with common sense ( except reality check ..must be a Yank he didn't spell cheque correctly )

"Reality Check" is either a troll or a yank...they're pretty much the same thing anyway.

The Queen certainly embodies the sort of social grace and discipline you would expect from a monarch. If a disdainful glance is all President Bush got from her, he should consider himself lucky. She is someone who has seen war threaten her own homeland for real (not just in some concocted tall-tale), and stuck around to do her part; she has had a son who actually risked his own neck in war and a grandson who is about to. So compared to her, a "chickenhawk" like Bush must be a terrible let-down. You can almost imagine her thinking "My grandson is going to go fight in *this man's* war?!" Small diplomatic gaffes are probably the last thing she thinks about when considering the man, last in importance anyhow.

Thank you for such a well written article. I for one am no great fan of the monarchy but it does serve (the operative word here is serve) a much higher purpose; one of which I am in full favour. The Queen is not a political voice, and rarely has been. That is the job of the British Parliament.

Her job is to be a voice of reason. It is a job she has done exceedingly well. She has never shied away from controversy but has always addressed issues in a manner that makes the most established diplomat appear as a ruffian. It is a lesson and legacy she has tried to pass on to her children. Some have succeeded learning it and others struggle. People are people.

As a world leader, she will be remembered long after the Bushes and Blairs et al. Such is her legacy of world diplomacy and leadership. It is too bad other world leaders cant follow her example. We would all be better off for it.

The fact that people SAY the Queen THINKS the president is a boob just demonstrates the difference between someone of class like the Queen and miserable peons like us who want to pass judgment on people on the basis that they differ from us politically or theologically. If we really had enough pride in our own system (which is something we should have, considering the great country Canada is), we would, like Liz (as Bush would call her), realize that disagreeing with someone politically doesn't give us the right to disrespect that person. She comes from an aristocracy where you don't wink at the monarchy, and chances are, she disagrees with the president's foreign policy, but she has enough class to treat him like a human being.

We can debate all day about who's more intelligent, but in the end that's about personal opinion, because the worst thing this administration ever did was to polarize people. We seem incapable as a society to disagree without becoming pius about the matter - maybe Bush should have reconsidered his statement about being with or against America. He set himself up for this. Clearly, that doesn't seem to bother him, nor should it. If we can't respectfully disagree with someone, then we've lost our humanity - we should take a lesson from the queen. Whether she's smarter than the president is up for debate - the fact that she's far advanced compared to us in terms of intellect AND emotional intelligence is not.

Too many people want to slam or applaud the queen for her perception of George W. Bush and her intelligence compared to his, while completely side stepping the real issue, which is that Liz is clearly smarter in every way than we all are. Now if she could straighten out her own family....

It's so easy to attack the Queen, isn't it? As if the monarchy was still a ruling power. Reality check indeed. The only reason the British monarchy exists, ceremonially, is because it creates revenue and jobs for the public. Yes, the royals are born into lavish wealth, but the wealth generated through tourism, charity, and trade opportunity between commonwealth nations (also let's not forget the tabloids) is far greater. And what if the royals' holdings and real estate were taken form their ownership. Would their worth be given to the starving unemployed? Of course not. It would be purchased by the government and/or the ultrarich and remain unaccessable to the majority.
Now attacks upon royalty just as any other prominent public figure are justified if it is deserved by their behaviour. But, as discussed in Mr. Champ's article, that certainly isn't the case here. Get mad about something worth it!

So the Queen thinks Bush is a boob. So do lots of other people. The question is, how does the Queen handle this? Lots of people would just trash-talk, but thats not very Queenly. Instead, the Queen makes the odd subtle remark, or walks a little faster down a sidewalk. Not much to get excited about.

I'm not going to debate the relevancy of the British monarch, that's not really the point of the article.

However, as for US/UK relations, we are not examining the relationship of the US people with the UK people (which would not be well represented by Bush or arguably the Queen). Rather, we are examining the relationship between the heads of states, between the governments, which has bearing on things like the administration of the war in Iraq or on how they get along at the UN.

While in Europe on a visit, it is bracing to visit CBC.ca and to read Henry Champ on the Queen's visit to America. It is typical of Henry's work, lucid, interesting, well-written.

He does the CBC proud.

Yet another talented Manitoban astride the big world.

It is incredible that anyone would bother "examining" this visit for signs of the U.K./U.S. relationship, as if the beladen, pretentious exchanges of an anachronistic monarch and an ultraviolent buffoon are any indication of the attitudes of either of the peoples they purport to represent.

It was encouraging to read of the diminished popular interest in the Queen's visit, though.

OK lets say that Bush is a "Boob" (what ever that means) but what are the Queen's qualifications and accomplishments other than being born the Queen. In many ways Bush the Boob and the Queen have much in common, that is, having being lucky to be born to into the right family. In short, The Queen might be one of the very few people in the world that can make Bush look like an accomplished, down to earth and, might I say, bright person. OK Queen you can go back to your palace and watch unemployed people around you starve.

Although I don't profess to be a huge fan of the monarchy, I've got to admit that dear old Queenie got it right and has done so for over 50 years. Whatever opinions people may hold regarding the institution and cast of characters that constitute the monarchy, the actual Queen herself has held the post remarkably well through the good and bad times. It is a testament to how an institution should be run. George W. Bush should take note and also take a cue on how to do things properly. Sadly, proper form and savoir-faire are not in this President's lexicon. It is time for an American institutional change. 2009, anyone?

Thanks, Henry, this was a good article.

Nobody is disputing the fact that Bush is a "boob" but as far as I am concerned the fact of the matter remains....the Queen needs to lighten up just a tad.