Good for the French, I hope they tell her to have a big glass of shut the fuck up

[RB TexLa]

D-Day snub from France for Queen Elizabeth



LONDON, May 28 (UPI) -- Queen Elizabeth II will not attend the 65th anniversary of the D-Day invasion in France, even if France extends an invitation, Buckingham Palace said.

The queen was not on the initial invitation list and palace officials say even if France issues a belated invitation to next week's ceremony in Normandy, no member of the royal family will be able to attend, The Daily Mail reported Thursday.

The government of French President Nicolas Sarkozy this week described the event as "very much a Franco-American occasion," which will be attended by U.S. President Barack Obama. The French said the commemoration would be centered on Utah and Omaha beaches, taken by U.S. troops.




http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/05/28/D-Day-snub-from-France-for-Queen-Elizabeth/UPI-33441243569303/

[uppityperson]

1. It is more a Brown/Queen issue than French/Queen issue

I read about this yesterday and the problem is between Gordon Brown and the Queen. Brown is going, but something between him and the Queen got her snubbed.

Even if she got an official invitation, "no member of the royal family" would be able to attend?

[HamdenRice]

8. I recently saw "The Queen". If it's realistic and if she treats Brown the way she treated Blair ...

I can see why he wouldn't want shit to do with her.

[JuniperLea]

120. Regardless of personal feelings...

Both have a duty to uphold.

[11 Bravo]

2. Disagree. I think she should have been invited.

[Captain Hilts]

3. She's actually a WWII vet and should be there. She did her bit, as did the UK. Sarkozy is an idiot

So is the OP.

[Neecy]

4. totally agree

[Ganja Ninja]

5. Yeah I don't understand this at all.

It's and insult to the UK. And what about Canada and the rest of the commonwealth countries?

[Captain Hilts]

6. Exactly. If Liz isn't there, then no one from the US, Canada, etc. should go.

[Retrograde]

11. Gold, Sword and Juno were UK operations

just down the coast from the other beaches: the British played a major role in D-Day, M. Sarkozy.

[LostinVA]

26. Yup -- the Brits and Commonwaealth soldiers

[joeybee12]

7. Oh yeah, Sarkozy is an idiot...

...how did they ever lect this twit? Was the election stolen, like it was here in 2000?

[Occam Bandage]

22. No, he beat Royal fair and square. nt

[LeftishBrit]

85. No, he actually did win

Segolene Royal (for whom I'd have voted if I were French) was unfortunately an inept candidate.

[LostinVA]

10. Yup

[11 Bravo]

13. Correct. She was actually serving in the military during the Blitz.

[Captain Hilts]

30. I think she joined just after the Blitz. She was pretty young. But, yes, the Windsors

stood and took it in the chin. The Buck House did get bombed.

[Gold Metal Flake]

44. The OP does not drink with the Queen.

Not even if invited.

[LostinVA]

79. I almost wrote that!

:lol:

[tammywammy]

55. Agreed! n/t

[WeDidIt]

57. +1 n/t

[emilyg]

81. Agree 100%.

[GCP]

124. +1

It wasn't just US soldiers who died on D Day - Uk and Canadians were there too, although you wouldn't know it sometimes over here :grr:

[Captain Hilts]

129. The beaches the US troops hit were tougher and had higher casualty rates. I think the Dutch were

there also. And Poles.

[Captain Hilts]

29. Actually, Phil saw a good amount of combat. Phil should come along with Liz. nt

[LostinVA]

9. The invasion was staged in England, and she's a WWII vet -- very bad snub

[Neecy]

12. Not to mention....

That without the UK and Commonwealth holding out alone from 1940 to late 1941, the liberation of France would have been greatly delayed, if it happened at all.

[LostinVA]

25. All of her family served in some way, too

And, much credit is rightfully given to Her Majesty's parents for keeping up morale in London, and for refusing to flee Britain.

This is a very odd slight, to me.

[Captain Hilts]

32. Yes, the Buck House got bombed. Was a target. Phil saw a lot of combat. nt

[WolverineDG]

54. "now I can look the people of the East End in the eye"

quote attributed to the Queen Mother after Buckingham Palace got bombed.

personally, I think it's kinda cool that the queen of england is a grease monkey & can (or could) take a transmission apart & put it back together again.

dg

[Captain Hilts]

60. I know, isn't that awesome. Seeing the film - not the photograph - of her demonstrating

her skills to her dad and how very pleased he looks is really sweet.

[Captain Hilts]

100. And she likes to drive her old Defender herself. Remember how she drove herself

in a station wagon to a polo match the day before Chuck and Di got married and Nancy Reagan came all dressed up in finery and a motorcade. Boy, was I embarrassed.

Besides, think about it, Liz has been sleeping next to a red phone since 1952. That's a long time.

Here she is checking out the Jaguar station wagon:

?v=0

[WolverineDG]

121. I think she would be awesome on Top Gear nt

[vanbean]

35. The invasion was staged in France.

[LostinVA]

37. No it wasn't -- it was executed in France

[Captain Hilts]

41. Thank you for setting that straight.

FDR: Thanks old girl!
WSC: Well, er, yes, thank you.
ER: Everybody say 'cheeeeeese'!
FDR: Cheeeeese!
WSC: Wha...?

[LostinVA]

77. European History and English Lit major

And major WWII buff.

[LostinVA]

82. No, it was staged in England and executed in France

I think the Nazis would have sussed it out if the invasion staging was actually done where the invasion occurred.

[Raskolnik]

89. Not to mention the fact that an invasion OF France would have been a bit superfluous if we

were already able to stage an invasion IN France.

[BolivarianHero]

14. Very undiplomatic...

And this comes from someone who thinks Chavez had the better end of his exchange with Juan Carlos.

[JVS]

15. I think the British are right to feel insulted. They took part on D-day too.

[YOY]

17. As did the Canadians.

n.t.

[WolverineDG]

58. and Dunkirk

lots of Brits got left behind in France after Dunkirk.

dg

[JVS]

63. Dunkirk is nothing to be proud of, and certainly nothing to brag to the French about.

It's would be like me saying "You remember that time that the big bully next door charged into your house and I got the fuck out of there ASAP?"

[Raskolnik]

84. That is a rather poor interpretation, in my opinion.

Characterizing the Brits as abandoning the French in their time of need is rather far-fetched, I believe.

The BEF was certainly overmatched in 1940, but without the improvisation and sacrifice of many at Dunkirk, the war likely could have gone very differently.

And the British had every opportunity to get the fuck out of the war following Dunkirk, and it would not have been unreasonable for them to do so. But, they stuck it out, and gave the U.S. time to get its shit together.

[JVS]

93. I consider your interpretation to be poor and based on the mythologizing of events

Read Paul Fussel's "Wartime" it talks about how the British spun a defeat into some kind of moral victory.
Look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France


Allied forces were not overmatched by German forces with the exception of aircraft, concerning which the French had complained about a reluctance on the part of the British to commit a large portion of their aircraft, and instead holding them in England where they could not participate in the battle. French misgivings about UK commitment to the defense of France were confirmed when the Brits fled, and this flight did not require improvisation and sacrifice, it was made possible by Goering meddling with the German army's advance by telling them that he wanted them to leave the Brits alone to make a display of his airforce's lethality. This gave them time to get away. Having bungled their way off the continent the british decided to claim bravery on their own part and blame the french for being surrendering cowards, two myths that live on to this day. For the rest of the war such a mythology was accepted because it was simply more expedient to allow the British high command to paint itself in a good light than subject them to criticism, especially because France was a done deal.

[LanternWaste]

98. What would have happened had the Brits not evacuated Dunkirk?

What do you think would have been the most likely outcome had the Brits not evacuated Dunkirk?

Think carefully...

[JVS]

101. What would have happened had the brits not fucked up badly enough that the evacuation was needed?

A successful disengagement does not make a victory. You didn't see the Soviets celebrating their southern retreat to the Volga as a massive triumph.

Like I said, Dunkirk is nothing to brag about.

[Raskolnik]

107. No, the Soviet's retreat to the interior wasn't a "victory," but being able to evacuate enormous

industrial capacity beyond the reach of the Germans, which in short order be put back into operation to supply the war effort, is both impressive and enormously important to the outcome of the war.

[LanternWaste]

108. One more time...

One more time... what do you think would have been the likely outcome had the Brits been unsuccessful in their evacuation?




(And the more I read of what you say, I am compelled to place less and less faith in it, so the "like I said..." routine doesn't do too much for me)





On edit: I hear quite a few vets bragging about the tenacious retreat of the Americans in the Ardennes... six of one, half a dozen of the other

[JVS]

112. If the Brits had been unsuccessful, it would have just ended up being more mess for the Red Army ...

to clean up. Even with the successful retreat, the Red Army had to do the heavy lifting and the western allies were notably absent from the fighting. So I'd guess Paris gets liberated by the Red Army in June or July of 1945

[Raskolnik]

115. With all due respect, that is rather a rather facile assessment.

Yes, the Soviets bore the brunt of the fighting and the dying throughout the war. But, had the UK not stayed in the war (which allowed the US to enter at its leisure), there is a good possibility that the outcome of the war would have looked much different than the one we know.

German defeat in the East may look inevitable from our perspective now, but we shouldn't forget that the German army came within visual range of Moscow. Had they had a dozen more divisions to throw into that battle, who knows what decisions Stalin would have had to make.

And even if the Red Army would have prevailed and "liberated" Europe eventually, do you really think the world would have been well served by having the whole of Europe under Soviet control?

[Captain Hilts]

132. 75% of all German soldiers killed, were killed by Soviet troops, I've read. Anyone else read that?

[Occam Bandage]

141. 85% of Japanese soldiers killed, were killed by Chinese soldiers.

According to the figures on Wiki, there were 2.1M Japanese military deaths in WW2, and 1.8M Japanese military deaths in China. This squares with all the figures I've read. The overwhelming proportion of Japanese war funding and manpower went to fighting the Chinese. Yet Americans--even Americans who admit the Western front was won at Stalingrad and Kursk--still more or less credit themselves for winning the war against Japan.

[Raskolnik]

105. Of course Dunkirk was not a "victory" for the British. But it sure as hell was a strategic loss for

the Germans. It seems that you blame the British for abandoning the French in 1940, but I'm not at all certain what you would have had them do. Should the British have sacrificed their entire air force and expeditionary force in the battle for France?

First, it is just ludicrous to claim that the BEF was not overmatched by the German forces. On paper there may have been parity or a slight British/French advantage in numbers (other than aircraft) but the Germans were inarguably a better fighting force at that time. Their tactics were superior, their leadership was decisive, and the made much better use of their modern equipment than the British or the French.

Second, the British decision to hold back a large portion of their aircraft was almost certainly correct. Increasing the British committment of aircraft in 1940 would not have changed the outcome of the battle, but would have left Britain scrambling to replace hundreds of planes and pilots that they desperately needed to defend Britain.

Third, no one but you is brining up the myth of French cowardice. The evacuation was indeed made possible by the German command's poor strategic decision, but the Germans were not exactly sitting on their thumbs taking in the sights while the BEF evacuated. The evacuation was only made possible by extremely fierce fighting from French forces around the pocket, in which they took huge losses.

Fourth, if you think that evacuating more than 300k soldiers, using hundreds of civilian boats ferrying back and forth across the English Channel during the course of an ongoing battle, while a significant portion of soldiers are left as a rear guard, does not involve improvisation or sacrifice, I'm not sure you have a good appreciation for what went on.

[Posteritatis]

106. +4 (nt)

[LanternWaste]

109. And without offering viable alternatives...

"It seems that you blame the British for abandoning the French in 1940,"

And without offering viable alternatives, he does both himself and his position a disservice.

[JVS]

111. There was no viable alternative to us getting out of Nam, but that doesn't make it a win.

[JVS]

113. I blame the British and the French for the fall of France in 1940. Their job was to prevent that.

They failed to do their job. You seem to be taking their failure as read and then cheering for subsequent events.

[Raskolnik]

114. Yes, there was failure followed by success.

You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that someone on this thread is seeking to whitewash the defeat of France and the BEF in 1940. No one is arguing that the British or the French won that battle, or that there were not many, many strategic and tactical mistakes made by the British and the French.

But the evacuation of Dunkirk was a hell of a thing, and if you can't recognize that I don't know what to tell you.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

133. A lot of the rear guard left behind were French

The French First Army in fact protected the British retreat into the Dunkirk pocket and many of them laid down their lives. Some of them managed to get into the pocket and about 65,000 of them were carried to Britain. There were Polish, Dutch, and Belgium troops there are well, in addition to the British and French forces. There were reports in fact of British units firing on French units that tried to board some of the small boats before all the British troops were taken off the beach. Britain did commit too few planes to the battle for France. I read a book about that period of history that provided statistical evidence that the French Air Force and ground ack-ack downed over 2,000 German planes during the battle of France. These are planes that didn't become available to the Germans for the Battle of Britain and their presence might have tured the tide. If the British had made a larger committment to destroy the Luftwaffe, it might have prevented the fall of France and it would have stopped Hitler in his tracks.

Despite the fact that I detest the British Crown, I would have invited the Queen because she's a symbol of the British people. But then Sarkozy is a little stinker in my opinion and I don't expect much from him.

[WolverineDG]

143. THANK YOU!! nt

[WolverineDG]

119. at least they were there

the US was where?

dg

[LostinVA]

140. Listening to that Nazi Lindberg give "America Firster" speeches

[CatWoman]

16. I just saw your thread that was locked

your uncalled for and over the top rhetoric remind me of those ignorant GOP fuckers who tried to rebrand french fries as freedom fries.

shrill and stupid as the day is long.

[ProfessorGAC]

19. What Cat Said!

This snub is ridiculous. The British meant as much to the liberation of France as the U.S. did. This is q preposterously stupid insult to the British.
GAC

[Captain Hilts]

33. Yeah, what CatWoman said! nt

[LostinVA]

38. Agreed

[Crabby Appleton]

46. Agreed nt

[Adelante]

73. Yes!

[YOY]

18. Not really.

n.t.

[Occam Bandage]

20. Her umbrage is valid. The Commonwealth had as great a share in D-Day as America did,

and it's nothing short of offensive for the President of America and the President of France to hold a ceremony commemorating D-Day without the Queen of Britain / Queen of Canada given an invite.

[Captain Hilts]

49. Right, we should boycott it if Michelle's pal, Lilibet is not invited.

[DS1]

21. Oh look, it's the Tower of London

...wait

[LostinVA]

27. Vichy and Petain

[Captain Hilts]

31. Better Hitler than Blum! nt

[Sequoia]

127. Stop your slouching Hitler !! Stand up straight or you'll be doing KP.

[Captain Hilts]

131. Just like a non-smoking, sexually-active vegetarian! I'm rooting for the chain-smoking,

non-sexually active, meat eaters who couldn't -FDR- or wouldn't - Churchill - dress themselves.

[Forkboy]

23. Childish petulence isn't something to be praised.

[Vickers]

24. Sarkozy is obviously a poor student of history.

That, or he's a little miffed that the British had to come to France's aid during WW2.

[Captain Hilts]

51. So's the OP. nt

[LanternWaste]

28. Five American divisions, five British, one Canadian...

Five American divisions, five British division, and one Canadian division. French contribution... one regiment. The disparity is even greater when we allow naval and air forces into the picture.

Seems to me that the Brits contributed just as much as the American. Seems to me that the Brits should be at any table commemorating the event. Seems to me that Sarkozy and Obama weren't even born yet, while Elizabeth was assisting the British military at the time it actually happened.

But then again, I base my position on historical events rather than biased revisionism.


On edit: your position does appear to beg the question: Specifically why do you believe the British should be denied a place at the commemoration of a historical event in which they played just as great a role, or more as did the other participants?

[Captain Hilts]

34. At this point, Liz and Phil represent a generation more than the royal family. nt

[JVS]

96. France did host.

[LanternWaste]

I'm afraid I do not understand...

I'm afraid I do not understand-- I never denied that the French were hosting the event...

[Mudoria]

36. The Queen as the representative of the Commonwealth deserves the right to be there

These tombstones are from Normandy, where many paid the price in full to have their Queen at any commemoration of June 6th, 1944 to remember their sacrifice.

[Captain Hilts]

50. As a representative of her generation, who actually served, she should be there. nt

[proteus_lives]

39. What a snub!

It looks like President Sarkozy (and the OP) have forgotten the Tommies who fought and died for France!

[Captain Hilts]

40. Fought and died for France...Twice. nt

[Swede]

42. Sarkozy is wrong and anyone that agrees with him on this is uninformed.

Lots of Brits and Canadians died that day.

[Captain Hilts]

Obama should not go if they're not there. nt

[smalll]

43. In other words: I don't commemorate the 65th anniversary of the D-Day invasion with YOU!

;)

[DS1]

45. I drink to that!

[JVS]

99. LOL

[AspenRose]

47. She earned her place there.

[PopSixSquish]

48. Some Numbers for You Regarding British and Commonwealth Participation

In the British and Canadian sector, 83,115 troops were landed (61,715 of them British): 24,970 on Gold Beach, 21,400 on Juno Beach, 28,845 on Sword Beach, and 7900 airborne troops.

In the airborne landings on both flanks of the beaches, 2395 aircraft and 867 gliders of the RAF and USAAF were used on D-Day.

Some 195,700 personnel were assigned to Operation Neptune: 52,889 US, 112,824 British, and 4988 from other Allied countries.

Casualties on the British beaches were roughly 1000 on Gold Beach and the same number on Sword Beach. The remainder of the British losses were amongst the airborne troops: some 600 were killed or wounded, and 600 more were missing; 100 glider pilots also became casualties. The losses of 3rd Canadian Division at Juno Beach have been given as 340 killed, 574 wounded and 47 taken prisoner.


http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/faq.htm

I think Sarkozy should learn his history or STFU...

[supernova]

52. Huge Fuck Up for Sarkozy

Bad, bad, bad, Ju Ju for France Sarco.

[Raskolnik]

53. I notice the OP has not bothered to explain why this deserves a "Good for the French" n/t

[RB TexLa]

56. Because it's an mainly American/French event. It says so in the article.

A qoute from the president.

[WolverineDG]

59. D-Day was an ALLIED event

Planned by the ALLIES--US, Great Britain, & (what was left of) France

And we came late to the party, so to speak.

dg, whose uncle was party of the "dummy" invasion of Italy, designed to draw the Nazis away from northern France, who was captured by the Nazis, threatened with execution as a "traitor to the Fatherland" because he spoke German, & spent the rest of the war in a concentration camp

[RB TexLa]

61. The event occuring next week is mainly a French/American event. Like I said it says that in

the article.

[Captain Hilts]

64. And it should not be. I hope the Prez calls in sick with 'cramps' if the others aren't invited. nt

[WolverineDG]

122. If it commemorates D-Day, it should include the Brits nt

[MiniMe]

62. From the French President

And just because Sarkozy is focusing on those 2 beaches doesn't mean there wasn't other beaches that were taken. The brits totally participated in the invasion, and lost a lot of troops there too. QEII was actually a WWII vet. So why the hostility towards the British? Obama and Sarkozy weren't even born when the invasion took place, QEII was a vet.

You called the Queen a "bitch" in another thread with the same title, except for the word bitch, and that one was locked. Yet you found it necessary to post the exact same thread without the word "bitch" in the title.

Your repeated threads about this has earned a big ignore list ranking

[LostinVA]

74. I was thinking that, too -- QEII is the only vet out of the bunch

And she's being snubbed.

[Captain Hilts]

91. Liz and Phil represent their generation more than the royal family. They should be there. nt

[Posteritatis]

102. The only reason to focus on those two beaches is to ignore the other participants

That's pretty much the long and short of it.

[Captain Hilts]

130. Correct. It's not fair to the heroism at Sword, Gold and Juno. nt

[Dreamer Tatum]

65. I think you were hoping for a little more support

Better luck next time.

[RB TexLa]

67. If people choose to side with that piece of shit, that's fine.

[Raskolnik]

68. So this really is just about pettiness for you, isn't it?

Too bad Sarkozy is choosing to mar an event like this, and shame on you for cheerleading.

[LostinVA]

75. Why is Queen Elizabeth a "piece of shit"?

[Captain Hilts]

90. I guess she wouldn't get RB TexLa tickets to the ManU-Liverpool match. nt

[LostinVA]

94. lol

[Captain Hilts]

95. OR he's related to that guy that broke into the Buck House that Liz served a drink to

and had him arrested.

[RB TexLa]

97. Why would I need to go to her to get tickets to get tickets for a Texas soccer team?

[Dreamer Tatum]

76. Oh, look! Another absolutist!

I suspect that you are more sure of everything than most people are of anything.

[proteus_lives]

104. That seems uncalled for.

What has QEII done to deserve that?

[Forkboy]

110. And there it is, the truth behind the need for the OP. Your hatred.

Which is a real piece of shit thing to base an argument on.

[GCP]

125. Stay classy, Plano

As they say in the UK - it takes one to know one.

[Raskolnik]

66. And that, in itself, is a snub. What purpose, other than pettiness, is served by excluding the Brits

from a D-Day commemoration?

[supernova]

Especially since they haven't been uninvited to this gig before

All three of us have always been at this event.

It's stupid and mean to not invite her.

Big Sarkozy Faux Pas.

[Posteritatis]

69. The president is wrong. (nt)

[Posteritatis]

70. Probably the "ebil British monarchy" schtick, I'd guess

Quite a few people here are still fighting the Revolutionary War.

[RB TexLa]

72. Just take out the words "monarchy" and "revolutionary"

There is evil in the world.

[Raskolnik]

78. Oh, those evil Brit bastards.

Damn them and their Limey ways!

[Neecy]

92. Perfidious Albion!

[Posteritatis]

80. Ah, okay; just a general-purpose bigot, then (nt)

[LanternWaste]

87. usually couched as a dogmatic insistence on historical ignorance...

"There is evil in the world...." usually couched as a dogmatic insistence on historical ignorance, bias and hubris to better validate a petulant, preconceived opinion which lacks any fundamental basis in fact.

Yes, yes indeed-- there is quite a bit of that in the world.

However, the oft-repeated question on this thread to you has yet to be answered: What is the specific and relevant historical basis that you feel denies the Brits a place at a commemorative event in which they played a greater role than the hosting country?



Or is it simply (and I find this much more likely) that you believe your own visceral and emotional reactions to a perceived slight outweigh history?

[iamthebandfanman]

71. seems silly to me. uncalled for. n/t

[LeftishBrit]

83. I think an awful lot of this is the tabloids whipping up relatively minor things to sell more papers

Last I heard, Prince Charles was going there with Gordon Brown.

[Captain Hilts]

88. The Guardian does say that Sarkozy said it's primarily a US-France affair. I wonder if that's true.

But Liz 'n' Phil should be there, as vets.

[SidDithers]

86. It's the RB TexLa Show!!!..nt

(names changed to protect the not-so-innocent)

Sid

[Greyhound]

103. I've found myself agreeing with you most of the time lately, so this has me confused.

The English played a much larger role in D-Day than the French and without the English forces it si a near certainty that the invasion would have failed. This appears to be a purposeful affront on the part of Sarkozy's administration.

So please clue me in, why "Good for the French"?

I'd also add that Sarkozy is the French Thatcher/Raygun.

[malaise]

116. Fugg Royalty

everywhere.

[Raskolnik]

117. Thank goodness that everyman Sarkozy is there to stick it to the man.

Or to stick it to the Queen, as it were.

[MiniMe]

126. I'm no fan of Royalty either

However, QEII is a WWII vet, and the brits played a large part in the invasion. Other than it was on French soil, the French didn't really play that much of a part. In fact, QEII was the only one of them who was alive during WWII. She deserves the invite in this case, I doubt the invasion would have been as successful if it wasn't for the brits. Sarkozy is wrong in this instance.

[Nye Bevan]

118. Zero recs, and deservedly so.

Queen Elizabeth is a class act. Not sure what Sarkozy was trying to achieve here but he comes across as very petty and vindictive.

[amandabeech]

123. Perhaps our President should give M. Sakozy a little call to ask for a change in the plans.

n/t

[old mark]

128. Much of France was occupied and on the other side, in some places actually

engaging allied forces in combat. Britain did nothing of the kind, suffered huge losses taking France back while the French generals argued about which one was the rightful "liberator" of France.

mark

[Stevenmarc]

134. Fish & Chips will now be Fish & Freedom Fries

[lunatica]

135. She drove a car for the military brass in WWII doing her part for the war effort

What a crappy thing for you to say.

[Captain Hilts]

137. She repaired trucks and cars also. nt

[LostinVA]

139. She was also an auto mechanic -- Private Windsor

[WolverineDG]

142. HRH Grease Monkey nt

[Canuckistanian]

136. My, my. Such hatred for the Queen

What did she ever do to you? Kick your dog? Take your last beer without asking? Spread nasty rumors about you?

She's not your queen. Why do you care what happens to her?

[Dead_Parrot]

138. Sceptre envy. nt