Queen agrees to meet IRA Commander

Craig B said:
He's Deputy First Minister of one of the parts of the United Kingdom. She meets him in the course of her public duties. What she wants to do, she has the good sense to conceal. In public she does what the Prime Minister "advises" her to do, and quite right too, just as she reads what is put in front of her in her Speech to Parliament.
Click to expand...

She is not an automation that merely does as she is told - at least not according to various statements by ex-PMs in their various memoirs and books.

And I think there is a difference in this instance as this is meeting one of the men who was involved in the murder of her husband's uncle (and the uncle was really her husband's surrogate parent for many years and was very close to the pair of them). There is I would suspect for most of us a world of difference between the personal and generic in such circumstances. I might be willing to meet a murderer. (And as typing I've just realised I have!) but I would not be willing to meet the murderer of one of my close relatives.
 
Darat said:
She is not an automation that merely does as she is told - at least not according to various statements by ex-PMs in their various memoirs and books.

And I think there is a difference in this instance as this is meeting one of the men who was involved in the murder of her husband's uncle ... I would not be willing to meet the murderer of one of my close relatives.
Click to expand...
The provisional IRA statement on the Mountbatten murder, along with, it must be remembered, two entirely innocent teenagers, was utterly outrageous:
The IRA claim responsibility for the execution of Lord Louis Mountbatten. This operation is one of the discriminate ways we can bring to the attention of the English people the continuing occupation of our country.
Click to expand...
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Mountbatten,_1st_Earl_Mountbatten_of_Burma for this, and also for even more cynical and atrocious remarks attributed to Gerry Adams.
What the IRA did to him is what Mountbatten had been doing all his life to other people; and with his war record I don't think he could have objected to dying in what was clearly a war situation. He knew the danger involved in coming to this country. In my opinion, the IRA achieved its objective: people started paying attention to what was happening in Ireland.
Click to expand...
Now, I am a supporter of a united Ireland, and have no regard whatever for Louis Mountbatten, but acts and statements of this order can never further any just cause. As stated in the 1916 Proclamation of the Irish Republic:
... we pray that no one who serves that cause will dishonour it by cowardice, inhumanity, or rapine. In this supreme hour the Irish nation must, by its valour and discipline and by the readiness of its children to sacrifice themselves for the common good, prove itself worthy of the august destiny to which it is called.
Click to expand...
Blowing up an old man and two teenagers on holiday falls below these lofty aspirations.

However, outrages were committed on all sides, and if peace is to be made, the memory of these must not be allowed to prevent the process, just as was wisely decided in South Africa. I'm sure that many people who sign peace treaties do so at the same table as others who ordered attacks on non-combatants, or were responsible for the death of their relatives.

So the queen is either right, or has been correctly advised, to proceed with this meeting. Reasons for personal revulsion exist on both sides, and will only very slowly be conquered.
 
Craig B said:
...snip...

However, outrages were committed on all sides, and if peace is to be made, the memory of these must not be allowed to prevent the process, ...snip...

So the queen is either right, or has been correctly advised, to proceed with this meeting. Reasons for personal revulsion exist on both sides, and will only very slowly be conquered.
Click to expand...

Totally agree which is why I said in my opening post "good for her"!
 
She obviously has no choice about this; it is neither good on her nor bad on her to be forced to meet smirking terrorists.

Still, it probably beats meeting Tony Blair or David Cameron.
 
Craig B said:
He's Deputy First Minister of one of the parts of the United Kingdom. She meets him in the course of her public duties. What she wants to do, she has the good sense to conceal. In public she does what the Prime Minister "advises" her to do, and quite right too, just as she reads what is put in front of her in her Speech to Parliament.
Click to expand...

You really think it's as simple as the PM tells her to do something and she does it, regardless? I'm well aware that she stays in line with what the government says in public and all that, but if she told them privately that she was unwilling to meet this guy, it would be a foolish PM indeed who tried to force her into it.
 
Seismosaurus said:
You really think it's as simple as the PM tells her to do something and she does it, regardless? I'm well aware that she stays in line with what the government says in public and all that, but if she told them privately that she was unwilling to meet this guy, it would be a foolish PM indeed who tried to force her into it.
Click to expand...
How do you know anything of this kind happened? My understanding is that the Queen defers, as she ought to, to the "advice" given to her by the Prime Minister, as regards her public duties. If you think she has resisted this advice in this case, please give me your source of information, and let me know also how her resistance was overcome.
 
I don't think Seismosaurus is suggesting that she resisted advice in this case - I'd have assumed that the opposite would be true, if anything.

One thing I am sure of is that if she ever did object to meeting someone - or even refuse to meet them - against the wishes of her PM we'd never hear about it in any because it would be diplomatic suicide for the country and political suicide for the PM.
 
richardm said:
I don't think Seismosaurus is suggesting that she resisted advice in this case - I'd have assumed that the opposite would be true, if anything.

One thing I am sure of is that if she ever did object to meeting someone - or even refuse to meet them - against the wishes of her PM we'd never hear about it in any because it would be diplomatic suicide for the country and political suicide for the PM.
Click to expand...
If they started that stuff, monarchs would cease to be of any use within the current constitutional settlement, and they would soon be dispensed with.
 
True, but remember that the Monarch has a weekly meeting with the PM; it is entirely confidential and no notes are ever taken. What we do know about it is that, by all accounts, this is much more an exchange of views than the PM telling her what her diary is going to look like. So I genuinely do think that if the Queen had very strong reservations about meeting anyone then she'd air them and they would be given consideration.

She has, after all, been to Northern Ireland on numerous occasions before and never had to meet the man.
 
I agree with those who argue that Liz has her own opinions...but they are in the past. Sorry, I'm not trying to do a slam against old folks but she is 86 and even with a bazillion pounds, at this point in your life you are frail, you are scared, you have no choice but to have others take care of you; and yes make decisions on your behalf.

As for the point in question...my mother was from Belfast, my dad was a Dub. I'm conflicted.
 
Last edited:
Alt+F4 said:
I agree with those who argue that Liz has her own opinions...but they are in the past. Sorry, I'm not trying to do a slam against old folks but she is 86 and even with a bazillion pounds, at this point in your life you are frail, you are scared, you have no choice but to have others take care of you; and yes make decisions on your behalf.

As for the point in question...my mother was from Belfast, my dad was a Dub. I'm conflicted.
Click to expand...

No need to be conflicted about it. Those of my family from the border areas took no side in the squabble and are just happy that it is pretty much over. I know that that is still a fairly optimistic take but things are certainly better now than they were.
 
Alt+F4 said:
I agree with those who argue that Liz has her own opinions...but they are in the past. Sorry, I'm not trying to do a slam against old folks but she is 86 and even with a bazillion pounds, at this point in your life you are frail, you are scared, you have no choice but to have others take care of you; and yes make decisions on your behalf.
Click to expand...

You don't know a whole lot of old people, do you?
 
Alt+F4 said:
I agree with those who argue that Liz has her own opinions...but they are in the past. Sorry, I'm not trying to do a slam against old folks but she is 86 and even with a bazillion pounds, at this point in your life you are frail, you are scared, you have no choice but to have others take care of you; and yes make decisions on your behalf.
As for the point in question...my mother was from Belfast, my dad was a Dub. I'm conflicted.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. That can be a result of ageing but not for everyone and the evidence is quite clear that she is as unfrail as an 80+ person can be. Plus in her case this is a woman who has always been looked after in a way that most of us cannot even being to contemplate and indeed would find horrendous so there is no change for her in what care she receives simply because of her age.

I do suggest you read the memoirs of Thatcher, Major and a couple of other ex-PMs, and you will see that the Queen does have opinions, she does express them to PMs and make suggestions to the PM (and the government) and she does exercise quite a bit of control on what she does and when she does it. Ever notice how many of her official engagements and tours happen to coincide with race meetings in the country she is visiting....

In a matter like this it flies against the evidence we have that she would not have a huge amount of control and input as to whether she would shake the hand of one of her cousin's murderers.
 
Darat said:
I do suggest you read the memoirs of Thatcher, Major and a couple of other ex-PMs, and you will see that the Queen does have opinions...
Click to expand...

I never said she didn't have opinions, and keep in mind that Thatcher left office in 1990, Major in 1997. It's now mid 2012....think about it.
 
angrysoba said:
No need to be conflicted about it. Those of my family from the border areas took no side in the squabble and are just happy that it is pretty much over. I know that that is still a fairly optimistic take but things are certainly better now than they were.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that it is mostly over now, and yes, an optimistic approach is the best way to proceed. I guess my feelings of conflict come from a 1970s childhood where "The Troubles" were never discussed but were always in the background. It's now a new generation for Ireland and I'm very happy for that. :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom