� 2001-2006 by Shiloh
�
Queen Elizabeth II is a patronizing snob. In fact, she's an ice queen. Also, Mick Jagger got a knighthood?! That blows the romantic image of knights all to heck. He admitted to a general authority of the LDS church that he was out to corrupt the youth. He's a scuzz! He makes my skin crawl.
Ok, back to the queen. True, as the heir to the throne she had to set an example and bore awesome responsibilities. But, there's setting an example and being a role model and then there's patronizing. I don't think even with the heavy responsibilities she bears, the two are synomonous. Sometime ago Kami and I watched the biography of Princess Margaret, her sister. Now, she was the kind of princess who was personable. Queen Elizabeth was never the princess her sister was. Even as a child Queen Elizabeth was patronizing, even (in my opinion) to her sister. The biography showed a clip of a radio address the two young princesses did during the last World War. Just her tone of voice was uppity, and it was obvious she looked upon her future subjects as beneath her.
Then there is the way she waves, so tight and controled, so ladylike and demure. I know I'm nitpicking, but she bothers me. I can't stand uppity people. Even though she was glad never to have inherited the throne, I think mayhap Margaret would have a more openly caring queen. Perhaps even a better one.
Giving Mick Jagger knighthood just for his music wasn't one of her finer ideas--if it was her idea. Back in the days of honor and valor men were only knighted for service to their monarchs. Either they were true to the throne or saved the royal's life or performed some other faithful service with valor. I mean, c'mon. Mick Jagger does things only to please himself. He doesn't care about the masses. He only wants to corrupt the youth, remember?
|
moon phase |
