Did Sarah Palin believe the Queen is in charge of the British Military?

[California Girl]

As an interesting aside... earlier I sprinted out to grab a quick lunch with a couple of Brit Army buddies who will be heading to Afghanistan in the next couple of days... during lunch I asked them 'So, who exactly is your Commander in Chief'. 'The Queen' they both replied. 'Not the Prime Minster?' I asked. 'No, he can send us into combat, but the Queen is our CiC. Our allegiance is to her and our country.'

Go figure.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are treating a hatchet job by some Obama water carriers as the truth about her understanding of issues? What Hollywood and rdean think of as real, and truth seem to be in opposition most of the time.

How is it a hatchet job? The movie is based on quotes from people who were in the room.

Some other people who were also in the room are saying it didn't happen the way the movie depicts. That means that somebody is lying. Personally, I prefer to believe that the movie is a hatchet job than to believe that any group of people could be so incredibly stupid as to miss the fact that Palin didn't even know who won WWII.

 

[daveman]

As an interesting aside... earlier I sprinted out to grab a quick lunch with a couple of Brit Army buddies who will be heading to Afghanistan in the next couple of days... during lunch I asked them 'So, who exactly is your Commander in Chief'. 'The Queen' they both replied. 'Not the Prime Minster?' I asked. 'No, he can send us into combat, but the Queen is our CiC. Our allegiance is to her and our country.'

Go figure.

Impossible. American liberals who have never served in the military of the UK (or the US, for that matter) have decreed that the Queen has nothing to do with the UK military.

 

[rdean]

What, precisely, is the Queen's job? There is not much she can do entirely at her own whim. Technically, she could dissolve Parliament to get rid of a Prime Minister she disliked, but it would provoke an unthinkable constitutional crisis if she tried. The great 19th-century journalist and constitutional scholar Walter Bagehot said the monarch had the prerogative "to be consulted, to encourage and to warn" the government of the day, but it is one Elizabeth II never exercises in public (unlike her opinionated son Charles). Yet she still derives power from her twin roles as head of state — the one who opens and dissolves Parliament, makes splashy visits abroad and hosts dinners for foreign leaders — and head of nation, a focus for British unity and identity, rewarder of excellence, a visible oasis of continuity in an accelerating world, even as Prime Ministers (she's had 10) come and go. A clutch of other symbolic roles — Head of the Commonwealth, Supreme Governor of the Church of England, chief of the armed forces — reinforce a peculiar kind of omnipresence in public life.

What Does the Queen Do? - TIME

 

[Liability]

What, precisely, is the Queen's job? There is not much she can do entirely at her own whim. Technically, she could dissolve Parliament to get rid of a Prime Minister she disliked, but it would provoke an unthinkable constitutional crisis if she tried. The great 19th-century journalist and constitutional scholar Walter Bagehot said the monarch had the prerogative "to be consulted, to encourage and to warn" the government of the day, but it is one Elizabeth II never exercises in public (unlike her opinionated son Charles). Yet she still derives power from her twin roles as head of state — the one who opens and dissolves Parliament, makes splashy visits abroad and hosts dinners for foreign leaders — and head of nation, a focus for British unity and identity, rewarder of excellence, a visible oasis of continuity in an accelerating world, even as Prime Ministers (she's had 10) come and go. A clutch of other symbolic roles — Head of the Commonwealth, Supreme Governor of the Church of England, chief of the armed forces — reinforce a peculiar kind of omnipresence in public life.

What Does the Queen Do? - TIME

rderp is on the verge of figuring out what everybody else already knows. A titular leader is not an actual leader.

(rderp thinks it's a reference to nipples.)

 

[ginscpy]

The USA military hassuckede raw-eggssinc eWW2

 

[rdean]

I can't believe the right wing is actually debating what the queen does. Guess that makes them "MasterDebaters".

 

[Liability]

I can't believe the right wing is actually debating what the queen does. Guess that makes them "MasterDebaters".

the right wing isn't debating any such thing, dip shit. You leftwing tools are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What, precisely, is the Queen's job? There is not much she can do entirely at her own whim. Technically, she could dissolve Parliament to get rid of a Prime Minister she disliked, but it would provoke an unthinkable constitutional crisis if she tried. The great 19th-century journalist and constitutional scholar Walter Bagehot said the monarch had the prerogative "to be consulted, to encourage and to warn" the government of the day, but it is one Elizabeth II never exercises in public (unlike her opinionated son Charles). Yet she still derives power from her twin roles as head of state — the one who opens and dissolves Parliament, makes splashy visits abroad and hosts dinners for foreign leaders — and head of nation, a focus for British unity and identity, rewarder of excellence, a visible oasis of continuity in an accelerating world, even as Prime Ministers (she's had 10) come and go. A clutch of other symbolic roles — Head of the Commonwealth, Supreme Governor of the Church of England, chief of the armed forces — reinforce a peculiar kind of omnipresence in public life.

What Does the Queen Do? - TIME

Does that mean Palin was right?

 

[philsings33ss33]

I'm watching "Game Change" and she told Woody that she would support John with his working with the "Queen".

She didn't know what the "Fed" is.

She thought Iraq attacked us on 9/11.

Is this movie for real?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>...

ZZZZZZZZZZz
Does the buckteeth messiah still think that there are 57 states? lol

 

[Colin]

I can't believe the right wing is actually debating what the queen does. Guess that makes them "MasterDebaters".

Whereas you're just a plain old wanker.

 

[Colin]

Although the Commander-in-Chief of the British Armed Forces is legally the Sovereign, under constitutional practice the Prime Minister, with the Secretary of State for Defence whom he may appoint or dismiss, holds power over the deployment and disposition of British forces, and the declaration of war. The Prime Minister can authorise, but not directly order, the use of Britain's nuclear weapons and the Prime Minister is hence a Commander-in-Chief in all but name.
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>
Which would explain why we saw Churchill, FDR, and Stalin together during WW2, but the King was not among them.

Thank you, PJ.

These Palinistas will jump through any hoop to try to excuse her ignorance.

It is curious that you keep ignoring the link that confirms that the Queen can over ride the Prime Minister in the use of HER military.

Why is that? Is it because it proves you are wrong?

Have you noticed how a worm will wriggle when it's on a hook?

 

[California Girl]

As an interesting aside... earlier I sprinted out to grab a quick lunch with a couple of Brit Army buddies who will be heading to Afghanistan in the next couple of days... during lunch I asked them 'So, who exactly is your Commander in Chief'. 'The Queen' they both replied. 'Not the Prime Minster?' I asked. 'No, he can send us into combat, but the Queen is our CiC. Our allegiance is to her and our country.'

Go figure.

Impossible. American liberals who have never served in the military of the UK (or the US, for that matter) have decreed that the Queen has nothing to do with the UK military.

I find British history really interesting... particularly the role of the monarchy through the ages. Most certainly I am not a Monarchist... and I am delighted that we are a Republic, but the British Monarchy does provide their country with a Head of State that remains constant... above the political fray... and the Queen is, in my opinion, a truly remarkable woman. She has devoted her life to the service of her nation. Sure, she is a wealthy woman... but the price of that wealth is that she has never had a life of her own. A high price to pay. She is 86 years old and works incredibly hard for her country. I only hope that her son makes as good a King has she has been a Queen. I doubt it.

Seems to me that most Americans have absolutely no idea of the role of the Monarchy... they just rant about it.

 

[California Girl]

Thank you, PJ.

These Palinistas will jump through any hoop to try to excuse her ignorance.

It is curious that you keep ignoring the link that confirms that the Queen can over ride the Prime Minister in the use of HER military.

Why is that? Is it because it proves you are wrong?

Have you noticed how a worm will wriggle when it's on a hook?

Yea. I just don't get why certain posters will keep trying to 'prove' they're right, when they are wrong. When it comes to understanding this issue, you'd think that they would seek input from those who actually understand the British Military and Monarchy.... but no.

 

[Colin]

The USA military hassuckede raw-eggssinc eWW2

Drunk in charge of a keyboard again ginsoak?

 

[California Girl]

So y'all know..... 3 Yorks (3rd Battalion of the Yorkshire Regiment) are heading out to Afghanistan imminently. Pray for their safe return. They're local to me... they're barracked in Warminster, not far from me.

This Regiment recently lost 6 of their colleagues... on March 6. Brave boys.

 

[daveman]

As an interesting aside... earlier I sprinted out to grab a quick lunch with a couple of Brit Army buddies who will be heading to Afghanistan in the next couple of days... during lunch I asked them 'So, who exactly is your Commander in Chief'. 'The Queen' they both replied. 'Not the Prime Minster?' I asked. 'No, he can send us into combat, but the Queen is our CiC. Our allegiance is to her and our country.'

Go figure.

Impossible. American liberals who have never served in the military of the UK (or the US, for that matter) have decreed that the Queen has nothing to do with the UK military.

I find British history really interesting... particularly the role of the monarchy through the ages. Most certainly I am not a Monarchist... and I am delighted that we are a Republic, but the British Monarchy does provide their country with a Head of State that remains constant... above the political fray... and the Queen is, in my opinion, a truly remarkable woman. She has devoted her life to the service of her nation. Sure, she is a wealthy woman... but the price of that wealth is that she has never had a life of her own. A high price to pay. She is 86 years old and works incredibly hard for her country. I only hope that her son makes as good a King has she has been a Queen. I doubt it.

Seems to me that most Americans have absolutely no idea of the role of the Monarchy... they just rant about it.

But when liberals rant about something of which they haven't the first clue, it's authoritative.

Just ask 'em.

 

[Truthmatters]

Palin is a know nothing fool

 

[California Girl]

Impossible. American liberals who have never served in the military of the UK (or the US, for that matter) have decreed that the Queen has nothing to do with the UK military.

I find British history really interesting... particularly the role of the monarchy through the ages. Most certainly I am not a Monarchist... and I am delighted that we are a Republic, but the British Monarchy does provide their country with a Head of State that remains constant... above the political fray... and the Queen is, in my opinion, a truly remarkable woman. She has devoted her life to the service of her nation. Sure, she is a wealthy woman... but the price of that wealth is that she has never had a life of her own. A high price to pay. She is 86 years old and works incredibly hard for her country. I only hope that her son makes as good a King has she has been a Queen. I doubt it.

Seems to me that most Americans have absolutely no idea of the role of the Monarchy... they just rant about it.

But when liberals rant about something of which they haven't the first clue, it's authoritative.

Just ask 'em.

Does appear to be the case.... although I figure some of them understand it - of course, they avoid this thread like the plague.

 

[California Girl]

Palin is a know nothing fool

And yet... she was right about the Queen being the Commander in Chief of the British Military. Go figure.