I'd hardly say it's below her position to endorse a war effort. George VI and his wife (he had a speech impediment after all) endorsed WWII and were admired for it. It has come to be expected as part of the British monarch's role as head of state, symbolic though that role may be.
BTW, I'm not endorsing the war and occupation myself. (In fact, I'm not even necessarily saying that the expectation of the Queen is a good thing.) I'm glad Saddam Hussein is gone but there were ulterior motives, the ill-conceived occupation appears to be disintegrating, there are no WMD, fabrications are surfacing, international terrorism has actually been helped, etc. etc. I'm glad Canada stayed out of that mess.
Besides (as I recall), a lot of her address was merely sympathetic to the hardship endured by soldiers--which cannot be disputed. And she recognized volunteers, which I thought was a nice touch even if the organizations operated in the UK alone.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
momijizukamori
Well, going by historical precedent...
Date: 2004-01-01 11:41 pm (UTC)BTW, I'm not endorsing the war and occupation myself. (In fact, I'm not even necessarily saying that the expectation of the Queen is a good thing.) I'm glad Saddam Hussein is gone but there were ulterior motives, the ill-conceived occupation appears to be disintegrating, there are no WMD, fabrications are surfacing, international terrorism has actually been helped, etc. etc. I'm glad Canada stayed out of that mess.
Besides (as I recall), a lot of her address was merely sympathetic to the hardship endured by soldiers--which cannot be disputed. And she recognized volunteers, which I thought was a nice touch even if the organizations operated in the UK alone.