Annie Leibovitz is a photographer, famed for provocative photos of celebrities, who got her start at Rolling Stone in the late-60's. Her work is like a series of semi-surrealist one-liners. In my opinion, there is no real depth to her work. Her basic technique is good enough, so periodically, she has stumbled upon a classic shot. And, I think she is given far too much credit for the occasional great photo.
The Queen is ... Well, we all know who and what the Queen is.
Watch the video here.
There is some contrvoersy over whether the Queen actually "stormed out" of the room in disgust with Leibovitz. However, clearly the Queen was , shall we say, perturbed with Leibovitz.
In a way, I can't say I blame Her Highness. I mean, listen to the way Leibovitz talks to her, so matter of factly, so directly, with no attempt at deference.
It's quite funny.
Honestly, we all know this is why America had to throw the British the hell out of our country.
:)
Look, I love the British people, and in fact, most of my family lives there, but, well, we're just different, that's all.
DEDICATED TO EXPOSING DISINFORMATION AND PROPAGANDA AND TO PROMOTING UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS - WITH SHARP ANALYSIS AND BLUNT COMMENTARY. NO ADS. NO TIP-JAR. JUST THE TRUTH.
8 comments:
According to the latest news reports, the BBC hoked up the video in order to embarrass the Queen. Evidently the video was taken when she arrived, not as she was leaving.
Typical of the Gramscian traitors who run the BBC to do whatever they can to denigrate every institution that might serve to hold Britain together in a time of war.
Yes, I alluded to that in the post.
The point of my post has nothing to do with the BBC's machinations.
Remember when Bill Clinton went off on Chris Matthews? Americans thought Clinton made himself look like a fucking idiot.
And, that's the way Americans should think.
If you ask me, Chris Matthews should have said to Bill Clinton, "Hey Buddy, you may have been President, and that does mean you are deserving of some respect, but at bottom, you are an American, and that means I am equal to you."
Punditarian, you know what I am saying is true. To argue it is a bit silly, if you ask me.
I think you are one of the best writers and thinkers in the blogsophere, but I think you a WAY off here.
Pastorius,
I have no wish to engage in controversy with you over such a minor point.
However, did you really mean this:
"Honestly, we all know this is why America had to throw the British the hell out of our country."
What is why? The petulance of a monarch? You know there was much more to it than that.
Moreover, George Washington and the other great men who led the nascent United States of America during the Revolution, and the great, anonymous men who followed them, did not "throw the British the hell out of our country." They were British. They saw themselves as British. They saw themselves as defending the traditional rights of Englishmen. After the Revolution, he very same people ran the free States as had been running the British Colonies.
One final point. The President of the United States is both the Head of State and the Head of Government. The British Monarch, however, is not the Head of Government, but only the Head of State. The reigning monarch is a symbol of British unity, and was in times past, the focal point for the patriotism of the British nation.
When a po-mo nihilist like Annie Liebovitz and socialist jihadi-sympathizers like the BBC get together to make the Monarch look foolish, they do not have the best interests of the British people in mind.
I wish you did.
Pastorius,
Here is Melanie Phillips's column on the incident (http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1586)
BBC caught with pants down
The papers this morning were full of the revelation in a BBC documentary that the Queen had had a hissy fit and stormed out of a photo-shoot with the photographer Annie Leibowitz. As the Times reported:
"The Queen offered a rare, public display of displeasure when she sat for Leibovitz, who is famed for her Vanity Fair photographs of stars such as a pregnant Demi Moore in the nude. A camera crew was invited to film the encounter for a fly-on-the-wall BBC One series, A Year with the Queen, made by the production company behind Wife Swap. The portrait was to commemorate the Queen’s spring visit to the United States.
"Leibovitz selected the white drawing room at Buckingham Palace. The Queen arrived in white fur stole, gold-embroidered evening dress, Order of the Garter robes and diamond tiara, as requested. But Leibovitz, a perfectionist who once persuaded Whoopi Goldberg to pose in a bath of milk, had a change of heart. ‘I think it will look better without the crown,’ the film shows her informing the Queen. ‘Less dressy. The garter robe is so…extraordinary.’ ‘Less dressy?’ the Queen says in response to this display of lese-majeste. ‘What do you think this is?’ The Queen is then shown walking angrily from the drawing room. ‘I’m not changing anything,’ she fumes at a flunky. ‘I’ve had enough of dressing like this, thank you very much.’"
In the context of royal etiquette and the character of the Queen herself, this was quite sensational. The Queen has never been known to storm out of any engagement. Ever. But now we learn that that this did not happen. She did not storm out of the photoshoot at all. The footage was actually filmed as the Queen made her way into the sitting - and she made her irritated comments to her lady-in-waiting before the shoot had even started. The BBC had falsified the sequence of events — at least in the video trailer it made available to the press— to make a better story.
It has now issued a grovelling apology, saying that
"the actual sequence of events was misrepresented."
The BBC’s trustees have asked the Director General Mark Thompson to explain what the hell went on here. Small wonder.The significance of this can scarcely be exaggerated. The BBC has a world-wide reputation for integrity and truth-telling. Suddenly it is revealed to be deliberately manipulating its images to dupe the public. At a stroke, the trust it engenders has been shattered. And over the Queen, of all people!
If it transposes a picture sequence like this to sex up a story about the Queen by transmitting an outright falsehood, just think what it is doing in the Middle East.
Punditarian,
You asked: "did you really mean this:
"Honestly, we all know this is why America had to throw the British the hell out of our country."
I respond: Well, of course, not exactly.
I am a humorist at heart. Sometimes, I wonder why I am invited into such quarters as this blog, which I admire greatly (as I said, I admire you).
Truth is, I periodically do write something that is rigorous.
But ok, since you asked me, I will respond. In a sense, I do believe it was because of the "royalist" mentality of England that we "had to throw the British the hell out of our country."
Yes, I said it to be provocative. Of course, we didn't actually deport British people. We, instead, wisely, beat the shit out of their military, and convinced them that they were defeated and would be better off leaving (as we ought to be doing to the Islamofascists, by the way).
I know the issue was "taxation without representation." And, even more than that, I think Americans simply knew they had a better idea.
Everything is complicated. I'm not going to bother with all the subtelties all the time.
I'll leave the liberals to fiddle with their nuance like monkeys with their tiny red penises.
I think, at least sometimes, I will simply highlight the larger ideas.
Here, the Queen is acting like a "Queen."
The word deserves to be put into quotation marks, because the whole concept of royalty deserves to be put into the dustbin of history.
I finally had time to read your second comment, Punditarian.
Dude, did you really read my post?!?!?!?
I very clearly explicated that there were problems with the BBC's report, and then I made it clear that that was not my point.
Are you, truly, going to attempt to defend the idea of "Royalty"?
It seems to me, as an American, that "Royalty" does not even deserve the respect of rational argument.
It deserves ONLY mockery.
Call me an asshole, if you will.
I am a major fucking American Asshole!
Dear Pastorius,
Forgive the delay in my reply. I have been away from the net.
I certainly don't wish to work you up any further, as your last comments indicate the extent to which you are already excited by the questions I raised.
However, it seems to me that there are two separate points to be discussed here.
The first is the reality of the present Queen's disposition, and the BBC's rather transparent attempt to make her into a laughingstock.
The second is the propriety of an hereditary monarchy.
Let's take them up in order.
Elizabeth II has reigned as the British Sovereign for over 50 years. She makes almost daily public appearances at all sorts of occasions. She makes various annual addresses to the Parliament and the British public.
In all that time, I think it is safe to say, that (in contrast to her pompous, logorrheic elder son) she has never, not once, expressed a personal or political opinion about any of the events of the day. She has never given public evidence of any fatigue, distaste, disgust, or such with any of the many onerous activities she has had to endure.
Her conduct as Sovereign has been absolutely impeccable and if I may say so, professional.
The BBC caught her off-guard in a private moment, and then sexed-up the footage to make her look even worse than she was.
Why would they do it? First of all, like you, I gather, the BBC reporters are undoubtedly republicans. They wish to see the monarchy abolished. Embarassing the Queen is one way of moving that agenda forward.
Republicanism is a legitimate agenda, let me hasten to add.
However, the BBC journalists are interested in more than mere republicanism, in my opinion. They are interested in undermining the fundamental bases of Western civilization, paving the way for a brave new socialist world, even if that unitary, regulated world means the acceptance of sharia law.
Hence I see their attack on the Queen as more than an attack on the British Monarchy, but as an attack on the very symbols of English/British nationhood. It is part and parcel of their attacks on Judaism and Christianity. The BBC journalists are trying to weaken the West ideologically, in classic Gramscian fashion, and I was trying to point that out to you.
Enough on that point.
In so far as an hereditary monarchy is concerned, of course I agree with you that it has many problems. The apparent practical advantages it may offer, in terms of the fact that the future leader of the country can be educated to be the leader of the country from a young age, are more often than not outweighed by accidents and intrigues that prevent that designated leader from assuming the throne, leaving an unprepared or unworthy intendant to take over.
That being said, a Constitutional monarchy, such as the Britannick, provides the nation with a unifying focal point in the person of a Monarch who represents the nation, allowing great political freedom in criticizing the government without at the same time criticizing the State. I think it is practically useful.
(As an aside, had G.Y. Rasputin's plans for a constitutional monarchy in the Russian Empire not been thwarted by his murder at the hands of Prince Youssopoff, Russia would be in a far better condition today than it is after nearly a century of unbridled communist tyranny.)
Finally, the hereditary monarchy of the House of David is highly recommended to us in Holy Scripture, and I would be surprised if you, as a devout Christian, did not pray for its re-establishment at the end of days.
Post a Comment