That Time Badass Feminist Queen Elizabeth II Gave Saudi Arabia's King a Lesson in Power

[markpkessinger]

Even if one isn't a fan of the British monarchy, you gotta hand it to the old gal for this particular stunt!

[font size=5]That Time Badass Feminist Queen Elizabeth II Gave Saudi Arabia's King a Lesson in Power[/font]



Great Britain's Queen Elizabeth II is known to have a wicked sense of humor, and some mean driving skills. One day back in 1998, she deployed both spectacularly to punk Saudi Arabia's late King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz. Back then, Abdullah was a Saudi crown prince visiting Balmoral, the vast royal estate in Scotland. The Queen had offered him a tour of the grounds—here's what happened next, according to former British ambassador to Saudi Arabia Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles:

The royal Land Rovers were drawn up in front of the castle. As instructed, the Crown Prince climbed into the front seat of the Land Rover, with his interpreter in the seat behind. To his surprise, the Queen climbed into the driving seat, turned the ignition and drove off. Women are not—yet—allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, and Abdullah was not used to being driven by a woman, let alone a queen. His nervousness only increased as the queen, an Army driver in wartime, accelerated the Land Rover along the narrow Scottish estate roads, talking all the time. Through his interpreter, the Crown Prince implored the Queen to slow down and concentrate on the road ahead.

Royal custom discourages repeating what the Queen says in private, Cowper-Coles explained, but the anecdote was corroborated by Abdullah, and became, in the diplomat's words, "too funny not to repeat."

Abdullah went on to cultivate the image of a reformer as king. One thing he didn't change, despite the Queen's badass stunt: women still can't drive in Saudi Arabia.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Good for her! I respect what she did enormously!

Too bad the lesson didn't take.

[dflprincess]

2. To give the Queen her due, she was not just a driver during the war

but got her hands dirty as a mechanic as well.

[Arcadiasix]

3. She's a cast iron B****

Both of my grandmas were too.

[senseandsensibility]

5. I was always impressed by that fact myself

A mechanic in WWII? Whenever I was tempted to dismiss her as a mere figurehead, I've remembered that.

[elehhhhna]

8. her mama was more badass than she is

Which says a LOT.

[Skittles]

13. yup

she could have fled the country during WWII but she not only stayed, she was out and about after the bombings

[elehhhhna]

23. "The King belongs in Britain and the Queen belongs with the King."

Bad. Ass. Queen.

[cwydro]

45. That was her mom that said that.

The Queen Mum. Also a tough old broad.

[elehhhhna]

52. yes, we are discussing mum

[braddy]

30. That was a propaganda stunt done in the last weeks of the war.

The Queen' s entire experience consisted of six or seven weeks in 1945 where she enlisted as a Lieutenant, slept every night in Windsor castle while she attended a 3 week "driving/mechanic" course, and was promoted to Captain, all in a period of 6 to seven weeks, just as Germany was preparing to surrender.

The entire WWII experience as a military member for Princess Elizabeth seems to have consisted of about 6 or 7 weeks when she lived in Windsor Castle, enlisted as a Lieutenant, attended a personalized 3 week course, had some photos taken of her touching trucks, never left the house, was promoted to Captain and was finished with the entire charade by the 6th or 7th week.

She was never really a mechanic, nor truly serving, it was for photos and publicity.

[cwydro]

46. She was too young before 1945.

My mother is the same age, and she was 18 when the war ended.

Both she and my dad are British. They were both bombed...Dad in London, and mom in Wales.

I grew up listening to those stories.

[braddy]

47. Her age wouldn't change the facts of the charade, plus she was 18 in April of 1944.

[cwydro]

48. You can believe what you want.

That woman is tough as nails.

They were in London during the Blitz. As was my father.

They could have left, but they didn't. Her mother would not leave.

My dad had no such choice. He was the child of a bus driver and 15 when the war ended.

[braddy]

49. I'm not criticizing her, but I have an interest in the military and have researched this, it

was a show, and it has nothing to do your family either, and my father was also in the war, except as a combatant, and from the beginning until the end.

Maintaining accurate history is not a put down of her courage.

[cwydro]

50. Gotcha

My uncle fought too. He was at D-Day. He survived that, but died young of a heart attack.

My mom almost married a German POW...kind of a funny family story because my granny called him "the Nazi." Of course he wasn't a Nazi, just a soldier. Granny wouldn't let him in the house!

He won her over eventually.

[DinahMoeHum]

4. She looks mean in that photo. Don't mess with Grand-Mama.

[DeSwiss]

6. And here's how she greeted that Saudi King when he visited her:

- Yeah, I'd say she has a wicked sense of humor. With emphasis on the wicked.

K&R

[elehhhhna]

9. is that legit???? what year???

[Fearless]

11. Unfortunately fake...

Here's the real version...

[freshwest]

7. LOL! She's a tough cookie, alright. Thanks for posting this...

[MannyGoldstein]

10. Think: the Windsors serve in the military during wartime

The families of US Presidents?

LOL.

[Ilsa]

14. It's an interesting contrast, don't you think?

At least royals and titled people put on a uniform, and certainly some get close enough to the shooting to be killed or wounded. They are "knights", as much as we decry that system of exclusive birth stations

[Duppers]

16. exceptions: both FDR's and TR's sons

That's just off the top of my un-caffeinated brain this morning.

[MannyGoldstein]

21. IIRC, all of their sons served

Last edited Sun Jan 25, 2015, 11:29 AM - Edit history (1)

Many with distinction.

And at least one died.

(My original response to your post was backwards, due to my own lack of caffeination.)

[Duppers]

29. Thanks!

Ha! I do knows some of history, Sir Manny.

Thanks again for correcting your post, since it was incorrect and insulting to me.

[MannyGoldstein]

34. I feel totally stupid

I somehow thought your post claimed they didn't serve.

[Duppers]

38. goodness! No worries!

No halfway intelligent person would think you're stupid. I consider you a brilliant guy who just slipped, as we all occasionally do.

[msanthrope]

17. Beau Biden? Not to bring facts into this, Manny. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

22. Is Joe Biden now President?

I miss the papers for a few days, and see what happens?

[msanthrope]

37. Didn't you get a thread locked for berating the President

for not sending his minor girls to Iraq?

I'm pretty sure a search of your username and the names of the President's daughters will reveal this is a long-standing issue with you.

I'm proud of Beau Biden's service. Aren't you??

[MannyGoldstein]

39. No. But feel free to demonstrate otherwise.

Happy hunting.

[msanthrope]

40. Wait...it wasn't locked, but a jury decision, wasn't it? A thread you OP'd

about Malia Ann Obama and military service?

[MannyGoldstein]

41. Funny how your details are sliding, changing

Good luck.

[msanthrope]

53. Well...did you, or did you not get chidden on your last foray into

speculating about the President's minor daughter? Particularly, about military service?

[MannyGoldstein]

55. No.

I was speculating as to whether her father would encourage her to join the military once eligible, to support his various adventures. That's a very different thing than speculating as to what she wanted to do, of course.

That hide was one of a few in quick succession, all juried around three in the morning. Fascinating coincidence. In any case, changed my jury blacklist a bit and the hides stopped cold, likely coincidence as well.

[msanthrope]

56. Are you suggesting that that particular jury was wrong? nt

[Jeff Rosenzweig]

51. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025561729

[msanthrope]

54. Ah, yes. Many thanks. nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. The American way is better in two respects.

1) It does not contribute to the fetishisation of the army (although you have more than enough of that in any case).

2) There's a strong case to be made that any close relative of anyone with power should be not merely exempt from, but actively banned from, frontline military service, to avoid biasing their relatives decisions.

The obvious counterargument - that is will "stop politicians casually throwing away the lives of soldiers if one of those lives is their loved one" is nonsense. The decisions a president has to make are not "throw away lives of these soldiers, or not throw them away?", they're usually "risk the lives of this group of people, or of that group of people". And if one of those groups has your son in it and the other doesn't, it's tough on the people in the other group.

[MannyGoldstein]

25. Interesting points.

I'm not sure if there's enough data to to show a difference in outcomes one way or the other. In my post. I do think that if Bush, Cheney and/or Clinton had kids in the military or who'd be drafted, they would not have have been frothing at the mouth for our recent insane wars.

IIRC, Cheney's stance on gay marriage has been more progressive than Hillary's, certainly way more progressive than most other Republicans, perhaps because he has a daughter who's gay.

[Skittles]

12. she is indeed a tough old bird

I just wish she'd have softened it a bit for her kids

[malaise]

15. Very nice but her son still headed to Saudi Arabia to celebrate his life

and welcome the next despot in line,

[Agony]

18. all Royalty should have the decency to step aside

otherwise… Fuck 'em!

It is the 21st century.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. I disagree - I think purely ceremonial monarchy works well.

"...Tories saying it ought to be preserved because it was clever, and Radicals saying it ought to be destroyed because it was stupid, and all the time no one saw that it was right because it was stupid..." - GK Chesterton, from The Napoleon of Notting Hill


How many times have you heard the phrase "you may not respect the man, but you should show respect for his office" used to rebut criticism of Bush?

I think that having a purely symbolic head of state, with absolutely no mandate whatsoever, and a head of government who runs the country but is clearly just a glorified functionary, not a symbol of the nation, works well.

An elected president will still feel they have a mandate of some form. Even one chosen at random may claim to speak for "the common man", and idiots may take them seriously. The great virtue of a hereditary monarchy is that it deprives the head of state of any kind of popular mandate whatsoever - "you may respect the monarch, but you cannot seriously demand respect for the institution".

Also, I think it's a shame to end a millenia-old tradition, and while it's sometimes worth doing, it should be avoided when possible.

[markpkessinger]

43. All very good points

I think there is definitely something to be said for separating national identity from prevailing political trends. While I wouldn't choose a monarchy for the U.S., when it comes to the U.K., so long as the people of the U.K. (or other similar monarchy) continue to support having a monarchy, I don't see how it is anybody else's business to tell them they shouldn't.

[hfojvt]

24. that time Recursion posted the same story

and only got 20 recs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6133536

Ah well, maybe it's all in the timing, Sat night vs Sunday morning.

edit: whoops, your thread is earlier. My time stamp and schedule are just a little funky.

[leveymg]

27. Measured by real estate holdings (>6 billion acres) the Queen is ten times wealthier

than the King of Saudi Arabia (the second largest landlord in the world). Her balls are proportionally larger, if less oily. Of the world's largest landholders, almost all are hereditary monarchs, see, http://www.businessinsider.com/worlds-biggest-landowners-2011-3?op=1

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. That's only if you say she 'owns' all of Canada, Australia etc.

The 6.6 billion acres is about 10 million square miles. Total area of:
Canada: 3.9 million sq miles
Australia: 3 million sq miles
New Zealnd 0.1 million
UK: 0.1 million
etc.
So what they've done is add up the entire area of all the countries she is queen of, regardless of the owner of the land. She does not 'hold' all of that as 'real estate' in any meaningful sense, just as the American government doesn't own the land included in Ted Turner's figures, for instance.

[leveymg]

32. Tell that to Mr. McEnery

http://www.businessinsider.com/worlds-biggest-landowners-2011-3?op=1

Probably one of those Scottish national propaganda types.

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. Meh - what Business Insider, or News Statesman, were misleading about 4 years ago

has already been covered on the web (to get up to the 6.6 billion acres figure, they had to include the claims of Commonwealth governments in Antarctica, too). It's when it's brought up again here it's worth pointing out.

She is a big landowner. But in terms of land she is able to get income from, or sell, not up to Saudi king standards.

[leveymg]

36. You're probably right - the Falkland Islands not as valuable as the Eastern Province.

But, hey, make the most of that little fixer-upper of an Empire.

[AwakeAtLast]

28. I love this story!

I have always been fascinated by British history, maybe because my ancestors date back to Henry VIII. Later they separated from the church and came over here ten years after the Mayflower.

[AngryAmish]

33. Isn't there a well somewhere we could toss both of them?

[Savannahmann]

42. I've long held the Royal Family in some esteem.

Not for their birth, but for their actions. Prince Harry protected a Gay Soldier from a Homophobic attack by six other soldiers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/09/prince-harry-gay-soldier_n_3411751.html

Now, say what you will about his birth, and how a mere chance of which vagina he popped out of and all of that. He stood up and did what was right. That stands in stark contrast to other people in "leadership" positions who turned a blind eye to the behavior of troops.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/1/first_soldier_tried_in_hazing_death

There superiors participated in the hazing to death of a soldier. Harry stood up and said no. That deserves respect in my book.

Then there is William. Flying rescue helicopters into the North Sea to find people and bring them safely home is not a safe activity by any stretch of the imagination. Granted it is marginally safer than flying in combat, but for the heir to the throne it is about as risky as it was ever going to get. I'll be honest, if it was me on a Helicopter flying out into storm tossed skies to rescue some poor slob of a fisherman, you would need a hot shower and some clean clothing to get the brown out of my shorts upon our return. Yes I'm saying I'd probably shit all over myself.

So two boys, and both have had some minor embarrassments, but still no worse than any other young men in the public eye. Moral Character on the other hand is shown by their actions. These two men have shown a great deal of that moral character and have risked their lives to serve their nation.

Back to Harry for a moment. He witnessed what he believed was a War Crime, and in keeping to his beliefs, reported it to his chain of command. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/14/1223499/-Prince-Harry-witnessed-a-war-crime-in-Afghanistan#

So again, my esteem for the Royals has been mentioned before, as have my reasons. It isn't merely the position, but the behavior of the family generally speaking. Sure there are going to be scandals, and things. But just about every family is going to have those. Hell I'd hate to be judged by the actions of an Uncle and a couple of Cousins to be completely honest.

[cwydro]

44. I love her.

She's my mom's age.