Maestro on the 2009 D-Day ceremonies
D-Day ceremonies 6 June 2009
While royal engagements should be severely cut back as explained in Point 3 of the Manifesto, our Head of State should certainly attend the most important ceremonies and events in our national life.
It is difficult to overestimate the importance of the ceremonies commemorating the 65th anniversary of the D-Day Landings held in Normandy on Saturday 6 June this year. France was represented by the President of France, the USA by the President of the USA, and Britain by a discredited Prime Minister (who in his speech referred to Omaha Beach as Obama Beach!) and a subordinate royal i.e. the son of the Head of State.
Why was the Queen not present? What is the point of the Queen if she does not attend overwhelmingly important events like this one?
It has been suggested that this year’s ceremonies were originally intended to be low-key affairs compared with the 50th- & 60th-anniversary ceremonies: they might have been envisaged just as a Franco-American event to give President Obama the opportunity to visit the Normandy beaches which he missed on his last visit to Europe. After a flurry of Franco-British diplomatic activity in the run-up to June 6 – and a statement by President Obama that he would like to see the Queen attend the ceremony – ‘the Palace’ announced that the Prince of Wales would be attending on the invitation of President Sarkozy.
Why could the Queen not attend? Did she have a more important engagement for that day? Or was she or ‘the Palace’ too proud to change her plans at short notice? Or was she perhaps considered too old to make the journey to Normandy?
Many British people will remember that the Queen served in uniform during World War 2 with the women's Auxiliary Territorial Service and will realise that British D-Day survivors who risked their lives on the beaches and attended the ceremonies this year are now, like the Queen, in their 80s. This was one of the last major anniversaries which they and the Queen were able to attend.
Such a historic moment was not the time for the Queen or ‘the Palace’ to be nursing a grievance about a possible French snub – and, indeed, ‘the Palace’ actually denied that the Queen was offended: "We would like to reiterate that we have never expressed any sense of anger or frustration at all, and are content with all the arrangements that are planned," a spokeswoman said. Nor was it the time to let amour-propre get in the way of making arrangements at short notice.
This was an important international occasion when Britain absolutely needed to be represented by its Head of State.
- Maestro's blog
- Login or register to post comments
D-Day & the Queen
The Queen did have an 'important' engagement on Saturday 6 June: while the D-Day ceremonies were taking place in Normandy she was enjoying a day out at the races i.e. the Epsom Derby meeting. Why should she forego this for an international event involving merely Presidents Obama and Sarkozy and the opportunity to meet D-Day veterans?
The British government should have told her that she was required to represent her country in France. That’s what the Queen’s for, isn’t it? Instead of maintaining Britain’s dignity and honour at an event of great historical significance for our country, the Queen was off watching the gee-gees and hobnobbing with high society at Epsom. So much for her sense of duty.
D-Day
I agree with Maestro on D-Day. Neither President Obama nor President Sarkozy sent his daughter or son to the D-Day ceremonies in Normandy. Why send a boy to do a grown Queen's job?
The Large Royal Family
Why should Prince Charles, Princess Anne, Prince Andrew, Prince Edward, Old Uncle Tom Cobley and All carry out ‘public engagements’ in loco parentis? Do other nations have large squads of parasitical presidential or royal relatives touring their countries and the world in luxury and with 24/7 bodyguards at taxpayers’ expense? It’s daft, and it’s a waste of resources.
Charles's medals
At this year’s D-Day ceremonies in Normandy President Obama, Prime Minister Brown, President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Harper were all wearing dark suits and no medals, while Prince Charles wore a blue suit with a chest full of medals.
As far as I am aware, Charles has never been awarded medals for war service and has never served in wartime. It was insensitive to appear at the D-Day 65th anniversary ceremonies sporting medals that have no relevance to the sacrifices and sufferings of those who fought on the beaches and in very many cases lost their lives there.
The glaring contrast in appearance between the Presidents/Prime Ministers and Charles suggests that despite his years of ‘training’ for his mother’s job the prince still has a lot to learn about handling big occasions.
It also looked very odd that the USA, France and Canada were each represented by one person, while Britain for some reason had two representatives - one of whom was standing in for his mum!
War medals worn by brave men
Many British D-Day veterans at the June 6 ceremonies this year were bitterly disappointed to find their country represented by Gordon Brown and Prince Charles.
Mr Brown was even booed by some veterans.
Charles chatted to veterans who were wearing medals they had won for valour, courage, and devotion to duty in the face of enemy fire. One veteran said: 'We wear our medals in tribute to the men who never lived to receive theirs.'
Charles himself wore six medals: the Queen's Service Order medal (New Zealand), Queen's Coronation medal, Queen's Silver Jubilee medal, Queen's Golden Jubilee medal, Canadian forces decoration, NZ commemorative medal. These mostly civilian medals would have been better left at home.
It would have been altogether more fitting if Mr Brown and Charles had stayed away and left the job to a professional i.e. the Queen.