History > 2007 > UK > Monarchy (II)

NYT        July 14, 2007

Keeping Up With the Windsors        NYT        15.7.2007

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/business/yourmoney/15windsor.html

Keeping Up With the Windsors

July 15, 2007
The New York Times
By GRAHAM BOWLEY

London

ON a recent morning, royal courtiers, brows furrowed, escorted a reporter to the top of Buckingham Palace to point out some troubling disrepair: cracks scarring part of the palace’s yellow, chalky facade, where a shoebox-sized chunk of stone had toppled from the roof, narrowly missing Princess Anne’s car, and myriad tiles needing replacement. Alas, the House of Windsor, just like any other family down the street, is also struggling with a leaky roof.

At an earlier news conference, Queen Elizabeth II’s accountant, Sir Alan Reid, Keeper of the Privy Purse, pleaded with the British government for an extra £1 million a year, or about $2 million, to help fix the Windsors’ roof. “The annual cost per person in the country of funding the head of state amounts to 62 pence,” he said, somewhat apologetically. “There is good evidence that we continue to pursue value for money in running the royal household.”

In the modern pantheon of billion-dollar fortunes, the queen falls well behind modern Midases like Bill Gates. In Britain, members of an entrepreneurial elite like Richard Branson, J. K. Rowling and the steel magnate Lakshmi N. Mittal have all amassed purses weightier than hers. (The Sunday Times Rich List, for example, estimates Ms. Rowling’s fortune at about $1.1 billion, while it values the queen’s at a mere $650 million. Even so, few fortunes generate the kind of fascination as that of the Windsors. While other royal families in northern Europe came out of two world wars as more stripped-down, commonplace figures who rode bicycles in the streets and readily mingled in daily affairs, the British monarchy retained most of its distance, pomp and pageantry.

“What is different about Britain, its particular accident, is that it was a winner in the wars and, unlike other European states, it kept its monarchy and kept its residual state of glory and stature, this carapace of splendor,” said Linda Colley, a history professor at Princeton. “They have not yet become neutered.”

But in the post-Diana era, the Windsors are clearly more fretful of being neutered not only politically — through the queen, at least, they still wield a bit of constitutional influence in Britain — but possibly financially as well. As their relationship has been tested with the British public, alternately contentious and fawning, the Windsors have felt compelled to offer historically unheard-of peeks at the financial and entrepreneurial underpinnings of their fortune.

Each year for the last seven, the family’s financial advisers have held a cozy briefing with a small clutch of reporters at Buckingham Palace, all in the name of financial transparency. The briefing includes details about how they spend their annual government allowance for public duties and upkeep of the royal residences, as well as some details about their personal wealth. The goal of the affair is to make the Windsors more accessible — and, observers say, to allow them to better protect their fortune. Longtime critics of royal privilege, however, argue that greater transparency has also led many people to wonder exactly how much of the family’s fortune is truly its own.

“There is a lot of blurring of the edges about what is actually theirs,” said Ian Davidson, a Labor member of Parliament. “What does the concept of holding in trust for the nation actually mean? There does not seem to be a register of the works they own. They have modernized, but they are still not as open and as transparent as we would wish. They don’t pay tax in the way they should.”

The Windsors’ representatives dismiss such chatter as it arises, but they also now find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to field questions about one of the world’s most secretive family businesses.

During the recent round of royal financial debriefings, Prince Charles’ private secretary, Sir Michael Peat, a straight-backed accountant who has been one of the chief advocates for transparency in the Windsor household, tried to explain to reporters assembled in St. James’s Palace just why the prince’s spending on official business had risen to about $20 million this year, from $18 million in 2006.(All dollar figures are based on Friday’s exchange rates.)

“He has been very busy,” Mr. Peat noted, before cataloging a flurry of overseas visits. “He really does care about this country and everyone in it.”

Then Mr. Peat pointed out that the prince, who has emerged as among the more entrepreneurial of the Windsors, has converted his Range Rover and Jaguar to run on used cooking oil. “He works tirelessly to make a difference for the better and do what he can to ensure that the country is a harmonious and civilized place in which to live.”

MOST estimates of the private wealth of Queen Elizabeth II place her among the five richest monarchs in the world. She is poorer than the oil-rich kings of Saudi Arabia and Brunei, but is roughly as wealthy as other moneyed royals of Europe, including Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands and Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein, according to Philip Dröge, author of a book on the Dutch royal family.

The Dutch royal family does not disclose its net worth. The family, however, has stakes in Royal Dutch/Shell and the Dutch bank ABN Amro, according to Mr. Dröge. A few years ago, the family disputed reports that it was worth $2.5 billion, suggesting instead that the figure was probably a couple of hundred million dollars. Liechtenstein’s royal family has a trust that manages its assets; it owns the LGT banking group and RiceTec, a Texas company that develops hybrid rice.

A precise valuation of Queen Elizabeth’s assets is difficult because she is secretive about her personal holdings. It is also complicated by a blurring of lines between her personal wealth and assets — including her palaces, paintings and jewels — that are held in trust for the British public.

If only the queen’s personal assets are taken into account, she is worth several hundred million dollars, according to the Sunday Times Rich List and people familiar with her finances who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. But if all royal possessions are added to the mix, her wealth runs into the billions. Yet even then, hurdles remain: What is the value of the Crown Jewels, for example? Or the many Leonardo da Vinci drawings she holds in trust in the Royal Collection? The queen’s private property primarily includes two homes and estates, Balmoral in Scotland (50,000 acres) and Sandringham in eastern England (21,000 acres), and, on a smaller scale, such things as her prized stamp collection. She also has a private investment portfolio of undisclosed size.

At the other end of the spectrum is a collection of assets called the Crown Estate. This includes farms, a racetrack and property in London, like the Israeli embassy, and is valued at more than $14.2 billion, according to its annual accounts. Those properties originally belonged to the monarchy, but King George III, who took the throne in 1760, handed over management to the state, with all income from the properties flowing into public coffers. In return, he and all of his successors have received an annual payment from the government; the Crown Estate is now run from offices just off Regent Street, one of central London’s prime shopping boulevards (a street that the Crown Estate also owns).

The queen and Prince Charles also own lands and properties traditionally passed down to the monarch and heir to finance private expenditures: the Duchy of Lancaster belongs to the queen, and the Duchy of Cornwall to the prince.

The Duchy of Lancaster has a value of $693 million, according to its accounts for the fiscal year ended March 2006, up from $449 million in fiscal 2002, and generated a net operating income of $22 million. It includes land in northern England, and the Savoy Estate, a patch of offices and shops between the Strand and the Thames in London. The Duchy of Cornwall, 135,000 acres located mainly in southwest England, was valued in March 2007 at about $1.2 billion, up from $835 million in 2003. Britain’s government also pays an annual allowance to the queen and her husband, Prince Philip, for their public work. In the year ended in March 2007, they received $26 million, according to the queen’s most recent annual review of income and expenditures. The royals also receive public subsidies for palace maintenance, public relations and travel costs, which together amounted to about $42 million in the year ended in March. Other government agencies directly paid them about $8 million over the same period for other costs.

All these figures began getting more public attention as pressure for a more open monarchy increased from the 1960s to the 1980s. Media scrutiny, particularly from aggressive tabloids, opened a window onto what critics described as lives of unearned wealth and privilege. The unraveling of several royal marriages in the 1990s — particularly that of Prince Charles and Princess Diana — further dulled the aura of respect surrounding the Windsors.

“The monarchy was part of the set of institutions of privilege at a time when there was a general appetite for opening up,” said Peter Kellner, president of YouGov, a British polling organization. “They were revealed as people that seemed to deserve being less deferential to. As a result they have had to make a number of concessions.”

After a fire ravaged Windsor Castle in 1992 — and the government announced that it would pay tens of millions of pounds to repair rooms closed to the public — there was an uproar. The queen responded by opening Buckingham Palace for the first time to the public and charging entrance fees there and at Windsor to help pay for the repairs.

In 1993, the queen and Prince Charles ended another anomaly when they said they would pay tax for the first time. In 2001, in a major step toward transparency, the queen began to publish annual accounts of her official expenditures. The prince followed in 2003. In the report for the year through March 2006, the prince disclosed for the first time the tax he paid: about $6.7 million. In the next year, he paid $6.9 million in taxes. The queen refuses to publish the amount she pays, citing privacy — though providing ammunition to critics who contend that the Windsors have still not disclosed enough about their finances.

Speaking recently to reporters in the Breakfast Room in Buckingham Palace, Mr. Reid, the Keeper of the Privy Purse, answered questions about whether the Windsors were spending excessively on train travel. The family has a special royal train for journeys within Britain, but a January train trip between Philadelphia and New York by Prince Charles and his wife, Camilla, had cost the country $7,863.

Nonetheless, Mr. Reid said, the British people were still getting a bargain. “The total cost of the monarchy is now 7 percent lower in real terms than it was in 2001,” he said. “The reduction in the amount of head-of-state expenditure reflects the continuous attention the royal household pays to obtaining the best value for money in all areas of expenditure. ”

THE queen has agreed in recent years to downsize the network of royals that receive annual state handouts — now, only she and Prince Philip are subsidized. To bridge the funding gap, the queen makes contributions from her own funds to support other royals, including her daughter, Princess Anne, and two of her three sons, Prince Andrew and Prince Edward.

There is, of course, another way for the royals to get income: work. But, beyond charity work, the Windsors have found the job market tough going. Prince Andrew has a government role as a special trade ambassador, while Prince Edward’s wife, Sophie, ran a public relations company until accusations that she was exploiting royal contacts for private gain forced her to retire.

OF all the royals, Prince Charles has probably fared worst in terms of public opinion since Princess Diana’s death in 1997. But he has fought back, partly by trying to focus public attention on his philanthropic work. He has 18 well-regarded charities and he calls himself a “charitable entrepreneur.”

He has modernized the Duchy of Cornwall estate, a once sleepy organization that relied on rental income from farms, by turning to property development. He built a new town, Poundbury, on duchy land, where he has tested his ideas about architecture, the environment and town planning. The prince earned about $31 million in the last financial year, before taxes, from the duchy, up from about $20 million four years earlier.

In 1992, Prince Charles started an organic food business called Duchy Originals that uses some ingredients grown on his land. Duchy Originals earned a profit of more than $2 million on revenue of $108 million in the year ended in March 2007, according to the prince’s annual report. The funds support such charitable works as the Prince’s Trust, an organization that helps underprivileged teenagers and young adults.

The prince says a large part of his profits finances his charities and his official work, but he also uses the profits to support Prince William and Prince Harry, who also earn salaries as officers in the British army. (The two young princes are due to inherit money from their mother’s estate; before her death, Princess Diana won a divorce settlement that would be worth about $35 million at the current exchange rate.) Even the entrepreneurial activities of Prince Charles have managed to inflame his critics, largely because of burgeoning profits from the ventures. Two years ago, a Parliament committee investigated for the first time the running of the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster. A subsequent report said the prince and the queen should submit to more precise outside auditing and raised questions about why they did not pay corporate or capital gains taxes. The Windsors have declined to comply with those recommendations; their representatives say that the duchies are private trusts and that the Windsors already pay income tax on them.

Supporters of Prince Charles dispute the notion that the Windsors are still under siege. Julia Hobsbawm, a public relations expert and trustee of one of Prince Charles’s charities, says that anti-monarchy opinion may be strong among some commentators in the British media but that it is not widely shared. She says that Prince William and Prince Harry have grown up to become strong assets for the royals, role models with whom younger Britons identify. “They liked the fact that Harry wanted to serve his country in Iraq,” she said. (Because of heightened security threats to Prince Harry and members of his unit, the British military decided not to send the prince to Iraq.)

Still, taxes remain a sore point between the monarchy and its critics. When the queen dies, for example, the next monarch will pay no inheritance tax on her private wealth, as long as she leaves it to that heir. And some critics wonder what Prince Charles plans to do with the royal assets if he becomes king.

Although the Crown Estate, which surpasses $14 billion, has virtually passed into government hands, it retains links to the monarchy, and every new monarch must agree again to George III’s deal with the state.

“Charles has made remarks about wanting to take it back,” said Kevin Cahill, the author of “Who Owns Britain,” a survey of land ownership. But he and others close to the palace say that any attempt by the prince to reclaim the Crown Estate would probably prompt overwhelming public opposition.

And until the British decide that they want someone other than a monarch as head of state, the Windsors will retain access to the public purse — even to fix their leaky roofs.

“There is no push now for a president as head of state; people have looked at the alternative and they think that too much is controlled by party politics,” said Vernon Bogdanor, a professor of government at Oxford University. “They don’t want that. The role is to represent the country to itself, and this is becoming particularly important” now that “we have become a multicultural society.”

Indeed, a television poll taken in Britain this past spring suggested that Queen Elizabeth remains as popular as ever in her home country. But while anti-monarchy sentiment appears to have waned, it still exists in some quarters — particularly when it comes to financial matters. Outside the gates of Buckingham Palace on the day of the publication of the queen’s accounts, 20 people waved placards declaring “A Right Royal Rip Off.”

“They cost much more than they say, and they don’t actually do anything,” said Graham Smith, one of the activists, as he stared up at the palace walls. “People keep pushing for more from the royals, but they give it only grudgingly. We ought to be a republic.”

Keeping Up With the Windsors, NYT, 15.7.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/business/yourmoney/15windsor.html

BBC apologises to Queen

over claim she threw a tantrum

during photo-shoot

· Corporation seeks to repair damaged relations
· Clips misrepresented sequence of events

Friday July 13, 2007
The Guardian
Owen Gibson, media correspondent


It had seemed like an unprecedented royal temper tantrum, but by the time it was splashed across the papers on the Queen's breakfast table it had become the subject of what tabloid editors would call a classic "reverse ferret".

The BBC was yesterday forced to issue a grovelling apology to the Queen after admitting it had "misrepresented" a sequence in which she appeared to lose her temper with the American photographer Annie Leibovitz.

The footage, a trailer for a fly-on-the-wall documentary, made headline news around the world after it showed Leibovitz apparently asking the Queen to remove her crown because it was too "dressy".

The Queen was shown saying: "Less dressy? What do you think this is?"

In the next shot, the Queen was shown apparently storming out of the room, with a footman following behind, as she complained: "I'm not changing anything. I've done enough dressing like this, thank you very much."

But the BBC yesterday issued an apology over the sequence, shown to journalists as part of a preview of the new BBC autumn season, as it desperately sought to repair the damage with Buckingham Palace and the photographer, who is known for her celebrity portraits.

It later admitted that the footage, put together by producer RDF for internal use, was not intended to be seen by the public or the press and was shown in error.

"This was an important photo-shoot prior to the Queen's visit to the United States.

"In this trailer there is a sequence that implies that the Queen left a sitting prematurely. This was not the case and the actual sequence of events was misrepresented," it said in a statement. "The BBC would like to apologise to both the Queen and Annie Leibovitz for any upset this may have caused."

The director general, Mark Thompson, later ordered a review into how the mistake was made.

The BBC Trust, which replaced the old board of governors, has asked Mr Thompson to provide a full explanation by next week.

Disproving the notion that all publicity is necessarily good, the BBC was frantically apologising yesterday and asking newspapers not to reprint the pictures amid fears the episode could harm relations with the palace.

The BBC is traditionally the natural home not only for big state occasions but for events like the golden jubilee celebrations and the recent Concert for Diana.

Yesterday's back-pedalling, with the BBC saying the clips "were not intended to provide a full picture of what actually happened or of what will be shown in the final programme", was sharply at odds with the impression given at the launch.

BBC1 controller Peter Fincham, who has not seen the finished programme, told reporters that Leibovitz "gets it slightly wrong" and "the Queen loses it a bit and walks out in a huff". Mr Fincham, who the BBC said used the clip "in good faith", later added that overall the Queen was seen smiling a lot and would "come over very well indeed".

The incident will also be an embarrassment for the producer, RDF Media, after it spent months painstakingly gaining the trust of the royal family and their inner circle to make the behind-the-scenes documentary, which follows a year in the working life of the Queen. The film follows preparations for her 80th birthday and state visits to the US and the Baltic states.

There could yet be more serious ramifications for the corporation, with some insiders fretting that it could damage viewer trust, already eroded by a series of scandals in recent months, including the Blue Peter phone-in incident which was punished with an unprecedented £50,000 fine from Ofcom.

Yesterday, BBC executives wrote to senior staff telling them to own up to any instances in which audiences had been misled since January 2005.

"As a matter of top priority I would now like to ask you to consult both your records and your colleagues to identify any further programmes where you feel there may be a risk that in some way audiences could have been misled," said the internal email, signed by the director of vision, Jana Bennett, and other senior executives.

They were told to raise concerns "however sketchy" by next Monday, with Mr Thompson due to update staff on the matter next week.

    BBC apologises to Queen over claim she threw a tantrum during photo-shoot, G, 13.7.2007, http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,2125390,00.html

The monarch, the queen of celebrity

photography and a very royal flounce

Thursday July 12, 2007
Guardian
Owen Gibson, media correspondent


The Queen, as we know, has survived a great many hardships in her 55-year reign including war, the loss of the royal yacht and more anni horribiles than she might care to remember. But a recent encounter with the celebrity photographer Annie Leibovitz was more than she could endure according to a new fly-on-the-wall documentary.

Leibovitz, famed for her celebrity portraits, was photographing the Queen for a series of official pictures to commemorate her trip to Washington in May when she inadvertently annoyed her by suggesting a more informal pose.

"Maybe try it without the crown? Less dressy, because the garter robe is so extraordinary?" suggested the photographer.

"Less dressy? What do you think this is?" exclaimed a clearly disgruntled monarch.

Flouncing out, with a footman skipping to keep up as he held her robes, she complained: "I'm not changing anything. I've done enough dressing like this, thank you very much."

The rare glimpse behind the public facade is just one of several candid moments in the BBC1 documentary A Year with the Queen, which will be screened in the autumn. Made by the team from independent producer RDF that filmed an earlier documentary on Windsor Castle, it follows the working life of the Queen and her staff as they go about their official engagements.

The crew accompanied the Queen on royal tours to the Baltic and the US, where George Bush tells the camera she has "a certain twinkle in her eye", and on a series of domestic engagements.

    The monarch, the queen of celebrity photography and a very royal flounce, G, 12.7.2007, http://arts.guardian.co.uk/art/photography/story/0,,2124337,00.html

1.15pm

Royal couple expecting second child

Monday July 2, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
James Sturcke and agencies


Prince Edward and his wife, Sophie, are expecting a baby in December, Buckingham Palace announced today.
It will be the second child for the 43-year-old earl and the Countess of Wessex. Their daughter, Louise, was born by emergency caesarean a month early in November 2003.

The Queen and members of both families were "delighted" with the news, a Buckingham Palace statement said. The baby will be the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh's eighth grandchild.

A palace spokeswoman said: "The earl and the countess are both thrilled and excited. The countess will continue with engagements as normal and take doctors' advice."

Today, the countess, 42, was carrying out royal duties at the Royal Agricultural Society of England's royal show in Stoneleigh Park, Warwickshire.

Buckingham Palace refused to comment on whether the pregnancy was the result of IVF treatment.

In November 2003, while eight months pregnant with Louise, the countess was taken to Frimley Park hospital in Surrey after falling ill at her home in nearby Bagshot Park. The couple's daughter was born hours later weighing just 2.1kg (4lb 9oz), and was transferred to a neonatal unit at St George's hospital in south London.

PR woman Sophie Rhys-Jones married Prince Edward at St George's Chapel in Windsor in June 1999. They first met at a tennis event in the summer of 1993. The couple decided not to style their daughter "Her Royal Highness" and she is instead known as Lady Louise.

    Royal couple expecting second child, G, 2.7.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,,2116749,00.html

Olympics thwart

Queen's £1m plea

to stop palace crumbling

· Games take priority over royal hardship claim
· Royal family costs us each 62p a year, figures show

Friday June 29, 2007
Guardian
Stephen Bates

Buckingham Palace officials yesterday claimed that the Queen needs an extra £1m from the government to stop bits dropping off the palace's crumbling facade. But they have been told by ministers that they are unlikely to get the money because of the amounts being set aside to fund the 2012 Olympics.

The officials warned that the state of the stonework in the palace's inner courtyard, built in the mid-19th century from Caen stone and since preserved with 19 layers of paint, is now so bad that 20 pieces have dropped off, one narrowly missing Princess Anne's parked car.

The upkeep of Buckingham Palace, along with Windsor Castle, Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh and a number of other palaces, falls to the government as they are classed as occupied royal palaces, as opposed to the monarch's private homes at Balmoral and Sandringham. Officials insisted that the annual property budget of £14.5m, originally fixed in 1991, represented a 69% real-terms reduction over the period.

A senior official said: "The frustration is because we feel we have managed the situation extremely well for a long number of years and we are paying the price for that efficiency. The government has the Olympics to run and we understand that, but we feel we are asking for a very small sum. We may have to close certain aspects of the building."

The claim of hardship came as the palace issued the annual accounts for the royal family's spending of its public funds, once again insisting that it offered excellent value for money and was working hard to restrain its expenditure.

The Queen's accountant, Sir Alan Reid, the keeper of the privy purse, claimed that the monarchy's cost to public funds had actually declined in the last financial year, by 0.3% to £37.3 m.

Whereas in previous years the cost has been compared to loaves of bread and pints of milk, Sir Alan yesterday asserted that the royal family cost each person in the country 62p a year, the price of two first class stamps. He said this was lower than the cost of any other crowned head in Europe. Sir Alan said: "I could ask the Queen to sit in Buckingham Palace in the dark, but we need to balance [expenditure] with fulfilling her responsibilities."

The figures released yesterday account for the £12.2m civil list - up by £1m on the year before - provided to meet the staffing and running expenses of the official household, parliamentary annuities of £400,000 paid to the Duke of Edinburgh for his official duties, grants in aid of £20.6m to cover property costs, communications and royal travel expenses - an increase of £300,000, and £4.1m in direct grants to pay for state visits, the administration of honours, and equerries and orderlies.

Since 1991, when closer public accountability was introduced and the royal budget was the current equivalent of £95.6m, the report claims there has been a reduction of 61%.

What is not included in the accounts is the cost of security, including policing and the guards at the official palaces, which some estimates have placed at £100m a year. It was claimed that giving even a rough figure would give terrorists a clue to the level of protection afforded to members of the royal family. The report does disclose, however, that £180,000 was spent protecting the household from requests under freedom of information legislation, from which it is anyway exempt.

It was explained that the sum was spent reminding government departments of the exemption if they were minded to release details of communications with the household: "It's for keeping the door closed," an official explained.

The Queen was said to be doing her best to prove her green credentials, and indeed to have been a convert to environmental concerns ever since the Duke of Edinburgh became president of the World Wildlife Fund in 1981. This year the household is even extending the use of a borehole originally excavated in the garden of Buckingham Palace in 2002 in order to cool Her Majesty's wine cellars. "The Queen thinks green a lot of the time," it was said.

Royal travel 2006-7, £5.6m (previous year, £5.5m)

Use of 32 Squadron reduced because planes are in operational use in Middle East, resulting in an increase of £109,000 in charter costs. Royal family does not use internal scheduled flights on trips in US due to security concerns. These included a £53,000 trip for Duke of York, travelling New York-Texas-New York.

Other trips included £269,000 for Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall to travel to Pakistan, including internal flights; £345,710 for prince and duchess to visit Middle East.

Royal train used for 11 official journeys, at a cost of £700,000. These included a £19,271 trip for Queen and duke to Brighton.

Organisations benefiting from royal garden parties are asked to contribute at cost prices: budget per guest up from £7 to £17 - fewer items, but larger portions.

    Olympics thwart Queen's £1m plea to stop palace crumbling, G, 29.6.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,,2114474,00.html

‘The Queen’ Got It Wrong:

No Hands Are Kissed

June 27, 2007
The New York Times
By ALAN COWELL

LONDON, June 27 — It had been so often foretold as to seem an anticlimax. But finally — and not quite as in the movie starring Helen Mirren — Gordon Brown got his “Queen moment” today when he took over from Tony Blair as prime minister of Britain.

By long tradition and constitutional custom, both men paid visits to Queen Elizabeth II at Buckingham Palace, where the gold and blue royal standard fluttered aloft to signify that the monarch was, in fact, in residence. (The red, white and blue Union Jack flies in its place when she is not).

For the Queen, there was, perhaps, a hint of déjà vu: Mr. Brown is the 11th prime minister to hold office since her reign began in 1952. And, as with all the others, the details of the encounter were kept secret — save for one assertion from Buckingham Palace: the movie “The Queen” got it wrong.

Technically, the moment when the Queen first greets a new prime minister is called “Kissing Hands” — and that’s what happened in the movie, when Mr. Blair, played by the actor Michael Sheen, physically knelt to kiss the hand of the monarch, played by Ms. Mirren, as he took office in 1997.

But a spokesperson for Buckingham Palace said shortly before Mr. Brown’s encounter today that “there will be no kneeling or kissing of hands — that is not something that has happened in modern-day politics.”

The Court Circular, the official bulletin of the royal family’s activities, “will record that ‘the Prime Minister Kissed Hands on Appointment,’ ” the royal website, www.royal.gov.uk, says. “This is not literally the case.

“In fact, the actual kissing of hands will take place later, in Council,” the website continues, referring to the Privy Council, the time-honored assembly of the Queen and her close advisors, including cabinet ministers.

Except that these days, there is no actual hand-kissing then, either. “It’s just a meeting,” the spokesperson said, citing royal rules to insist on anonymity.

The encounter at the palace is the beginning of regular weekly meetings between the Queen and the Prime Minister, reflecting the constitutional arrangement by which the monarch, as head of state, may undertake such formal acts as the dissolution of parliament.

“After a general election, the appointment of a Prime Minister is also the prerogative of the Sovereign,” the royal website says. In this case, of course, there has been no general election; after Mr. Blair announced his resignation, Mr. Brown became leader of the ruling Labor Party in an uncontested vote of party members. Still, Mr. Brown fits the regal requirements for the job.

“In appointing a Prime Minister,” the royal website says, “the Sovereign is guided by constitutional conventions. The main requirement is to find someone who can command the confidence of the House of Commons.”

The ceremony and pageantry is largely invisible to the bulk of the people, and the tradition surrounding the weekly audiences with the Queen seems at odds with the ethos of a political era driven by the motors of spin and selective leaks.

The weekly audiences, “as with all communications between the Queen and her Government, remain strictly confidential,” the royal website says. “Having expressed her views, The Queen abides by the advice of her ministers.”

    ‘The Queen’ Got It Wrong: No Hands Are Kissed, NYT, 27.6.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/27/world/europe/27cnd-queen.html

7pm update

Prince Harry will not serve in Iraq

General Sir Richard Dannatt's full statement

Wednesday May 16, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Peter Walker and agencies

Prince Harry will not be sent for military duty in Iraq because of the excessive risks it would bring to him and his squadron, the head of the army said today.

"I have decided that Prince Harry will not deploy as a troop leader with his squadron," General Sir Richard Dannatt told reporters.

Sir Richard said he had travelled to Iraq in the past week, learning of "a number of specific threats - some reported and some not reported - which relate directly to Prince Harry as an individual".

"These threats expose not only him, but also those around him, to a degree of risk that I now deem unacceptable," he added.

"Now that I have decided that he will not be deploying with his troop, the risks faced by his battle group are no different to those faced by any other battle group or other of our servicemen in Iraq."

Sir Richard said the widespread media reporting of Harry's proposed deployment had been a "contributing factor" to his decision, calling it "something that I wish to avoid in future".

The army head, who praised the prince's "undoubted talent" as a troop leader, refused to say Harry would never be deployed on active service to a war zone in the future. "I'm not ruling anything in, I'm not ruling anything out," he added.

Today's news came only two weeks after he had said the 22-year-old prince would travel to Iraq with his Blues and Royals comrades. It is likely to dismay Harry, who had made it plain that he wanted to see active service.

Some reports suggested he would quit the army if he was not allowed to serve abroad in a war zone. However, Clarence House today said he would not be leaving the military.

"Prince Harry is very disappointed that he will not be able to go to Iraq with his troops on this deployment as he had hoped," a statement said.

"He fully understands and accepts Gen Dannatt's difficult decision and remains committed to his army career. Prince Harry's thoughts are with his troop and the rest of the battle group in Iraq."

The Conservative MP Desmond Swayne, a former Territorial Army officer in Iraq, said the decision had some clear drawbacks.

"This has very unfortunate consequences in that it creates the impression of ... a victory for the insurgents," he told BBC Radio 4's PM programme. "It's clearly got to be a blow to morale if a member of the royal family, a genuine member of the armed forces, a serving officer, a real soldier, is treated as if he's too precious to be sacrificed or put in harm's way."

There had been widespread speculation that Harry's position as third in line to the throne could make him too attractive a target for insurgent groups, endangering him and his comrades.

Those fears were heightened after 12 British personnel were killed by insurgents or rogue Shia militia in southern Iraq last month - the worst British monthly death toll since the US-led invasion of Iraq four years ago.

Had he gone to Iraq, Harry would have led a troop of soldiers on reconnaissance missions in Scimitar armoured vehicles, exposing him to the risk of roadside bombings, ambush and kidnap attempts.

He would have been the first member of the royal to serve in a war zone since his uncle, Prince Andrew, served in the Falklands 25 years ago.

Harry began his army career at Sandhurst, where he spent 44 weeks training to be an officer, and then completed further training as a troop leader for the Blues and Royals, part of the Household Cavalry.

In his statement, Sir Richard said he had asked the prince's commanding officer to "continue to develop [his] professional career in the army".

    Prince Harry will not serve in Iraq, G, 16.5.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2081006,00.html

General Sir Richard Dannatt's statement

Wednesday May 16, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

Over the last few weeks, I have made a particular point of saying that I would keep under constant review my decision to deploy Prince Harry to Iraq with his troop.

As with any military operation, circumstances do change and therefore so should decisions, if necessary.

I have decided today that Prince Harry will not deploy as a troop leader with his squadron. I have come to this final decision following a further and wide round of consultation, including a visit to Iraq by myself at the end of last week.

There have been a number of specific threats - some reported and some not reported - which relate directly to Prince Harry as an individual. These threats expose not only him but also those around him to a degree of risk that I now deem unacceptable.

Now that I have decided that he will not be deploying with his troop, the risks faced by his battle group are no different to those faced by any other battle group or other of our servicemen in Iraq.

I have to add that a contributing factor to this increase in threats to Prince Harry has been the widespread knowledge and discussion of his deployment. It is a fact that this close scrutiny has exacerbated the situation, and this is something that I wish to avoid in future.

Let me also make quite clear that, as a professional soldier, Prince Harry will be extremely disappointed. He has proved himself, both at Sandhurst and in command of his troop during their training.

I commend him for his determination and his undoubted talent - and I do not say that lightly. His soldiers will miss his leadership in Iraq, although I know his commanding officer will provide a highly capable substitute troop leader.

In conclusion, two further points: first, I have asked Prince Harry's commanding officer to continue to develop [his] professional career in the army, but I am not prepared to speculate - either now or in the future - on what Prince Harry might be doing over the next few weeks and months.

Second, I pay tribute once again to the excellence and commitment of all our servicemen deployed around the world and I thank them, and their families, for the way that they are doing their duty in the best traditions of the armed forces.

    General Sir Richard Dannatt's statement, G, 16.5.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2081082,00.html

General: Prince Harry Won't Go to Iraq

May 16, 2007
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 1:24 p.m. ET
The New York Times

LONDON (AP) -- Britain's Prince Harry will not be sent with his unit to Iraq, Britain's top general said Wednesday, citing specific threats to the third in line to the throne and the risks to his fellow soldiers.

Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt, the army chief of staff who recently traveled to Iraq, said the changing situation on the ground exposed the prince to too much danger. Media scrutiny of Harry's potential deployment exacerbated the situation, he said.

''There have been a number of specific threats, some reported and some not reported, that relate directly to Prince Harry as an individual,'' Dannatt said. ''These threats exposed him and those around him to a degree of risk I considered unacceptable.''

Clarence House, the office of Harry's father, Prince Charles, issued a statement declaring Harry's disappointment that ''he will not be able to go to Iraq with his troop deployment as he had hoped.''

''He fully understands Gen. Dannatt's difficult decision and remains committed to his army career,'' the statement said. ''Prince Harry's thoughts are with the rest of the battle group in Iraq.

The Defense Ministry had long said the decision would be kept under review amid concerns for the security of Harry, a second lieutenant, and other soldiers serving with him. The 22-year-old prince is a tank commander trained to lead a 12-man team in four armored reconnaissance vehicles.

The move comes as Britain is preparing to hand over much of its security responsibilities to Iraqi security forces, concentrating troops at Basra Palace and Basra Air Base.

Insurgent groups looking to target Cornet Wales -- as his rank is called in the Blues and Royals regiment -- would have had a concentrated area in which to look for him.

Defense officials had previously said Harry could be kept out of situations where his presence could jeopardize his comrades. There had been speculation he would have been shadowed by bodyguards.

''A contributing factor to this increase in threat to Prince Harry has been the widespread knowledge and discussion of his possible deployment,'' Dannatt said.

Harry would have been the first member of the British royal family to serve in a war zone since his uncle, Prince Andrew, flew as a helicopter pilot in the Falklands conflict with Argentina in 1982.

There have been reported threats by Iraqi insurgents to kill or kidnap the prince, including claims his photograph had been widely circulated among militants.

The younger son of Charles and the late Princess Diana, Harry has been a frequent face on the front of Britain's tabloid newspapers, which have constantly covered his party-going lifestyle at glitzy London nightclubs.

Harry would have been the first member of the British royal family to serve in a war zone since his uncle, Prince Andrew, flew as a helicopter pilot in the Falklands conflict with Argentina in 1982.

There have been reported threats by Iraqi insurgents to kill or kidnap the prince, including claims his photograph had been widely circulated among militants.

The younger son of the late Princess Diana, Harry has been a frequent face on the front of Britain's tabloid newspapers, which have constantly covered his party-going lifestyle at glitzy London nightclubs.

Dannatt paid tribute to Harry in his statement, describing him has a professional soldier whose presence will be missed in Iraq.

''I commend him for his determination and his undoubted talent, and I don't say that lightly,'' Dannatt said. ''His soldiers will miss his leadership in Iraq, although I know his commanding officer will provide a highly capable substitute troop leader.''

    General: Prince Harry Won't Go to Iraq, NYT, 16.5.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Britain-Prince-Harry.html

10.15am

Queen teases Bush over verbal gaffe

Wednesday May 9, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies

Queen Elizabeth ended her US trip last night with a rare public show of humour, gently teasing President George Bush for his verbal slip-up that added 200 years to her age.

During an official welcome ceremony on the White House lawn on Monday, Mr Bush stumbled over a line in his speech, initially saying the Queen had helped celebrate the US bicentennial in 1776, rather than 1976.

Realising his mistake, he winked broadly at the monarch before turning back to the assembled dignitaries to say: "She gave me a look that only a mother could give a child."

At a formal dinner last night at the British ambassador's residence in Washington, the Queen opened her speech with a toast to the US president.

Grinning playfully, she began: "I wondered whether I should start this toast by saying, 'When I was here in 1776...'" The guests, including Mr Bush, erupted in laughter.

In his own speech, the president responded: "Your Majesty, I can't top that one."

Away from the mutual ribbing, and on the day devolved government returned to Northern Ireland, the Queen thanked Mr Bush for previous US efforts in helping to bring peace to the region.

A few hours after the dinner, the 81-year-old monarch and Prince Philip flew home to Britain, ending the first state visit to the US for 16 years.

The six-day east coast tour also saw the Queen attend the Kentucky Derby and meet survivors of the Virginia Tech gun massacre.

Queen teases Bush over verbal gaffe, G, 9.5.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,,2075557,00.html

Dinner for the Queen

Has British Touches

Tuesday May 8, 2007
6:31 AM
By JENNIFER LOVEN
Associated Press Writer
The Guardian

WASHINGTON (AP) - Washington turned out adoring schoolchildren and ladies in hats for Queen Elizabeth II's visit. The White House, too, laid on special touches at President Bush's first-ever white-tie state dinner to honor America's closest ally and make the queen feel welcome.

The centuries-old vermeil flatware and candelabras came from a London silversmith. A made-of-sugar replica of the queen's 1953 coronation rose graced the cake. English farmhouse cheeses accompanied the salad course.

And the traditional ``special guest'' invited only at the last minute was sure to be of interest to an avid horse enthusiast such as the queen: Calvin Borel, the jockey who rode Street Sense to victory in the Kentucky Derby this weekend with the royals in attendance.

``It's just like winning the Kentucky Derby - it might even be better,'' Borel said as he arrived for the dinner.

On the other hand, there was the president suggesting Queen Elizabeth was over 230 years old.

The president's slip of the tongue during morning welcoming speeches was inadvertent, of course, and quickly smoothed over with humor. But it wasn't exactly the flawless effort Bush had hoped would erase memories of the ``talking hat'' episode during the queen's last U.S. visit. (In 1991, during Bush's father's administration, a too-tall lectern left the audience able to see only the queen's hat behind microphones.)

The queen, a sprightly 81, gave an embarrassed Bush a gracious nod after he suggested she had celebrated the United States' founding in 1776. He meant to say she had attended 1976 bicentennial festivities.

``She gave me a look that only a mother could give a child,'' the president quipped, earning a reserved chuckle from his guest.

Laura Bush made her own minor calendar mistake. She flubbed the year that she and her husband attended the state dinner hosted by President George H.W. Bush in honor of the queen, saying it was in 1993.

The president and the queen took markedly different approaches to their formal remarks during a South Lawn arrival ceremony attended by thousands.

Bush focused on the partnership between the United States and Britain in Iraq and against terrorism. In just four minutes, he mentioned ``freedom'' and ``liberty'' seven times. ``Your majesty, I appreciate your leadership during these times of danger and decision,'' he said.

By contrast, the queen said her fifth journey to the United States over 50 years was an occasion to ``step back from our current preoccupations.''

In the leaders' toasts at dinner, they took opposite tacks. Bush praised her for a reign that has ``deepened our friendship and strengthened our alliance,'' while the British monarch talked of the threat of terror, problems like climate change and the likelihood of occasional disagreement between allies.

``Ours is a partnership always to be reckoned with in the defense of freedom and the spread of prosperity,'' she said.

Earlier gaffes aside, the day had the White House at its freshly painted best and inspired excitement inside and outside its gates.

Under lampposts adorned with the two countries' flags, throngs hoping for a rare glimpse of royalty lined Pennsylvania Avenue for much of the day. Hats of all shapes bobbed down downtown streets in unusually high numbers.

Mrs. Bush insisted at midday that the president was enthusiastic about wearing white tie and tails - though admittedly after being persuaded by his wife and secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, to elevate the dinner to that exalted level in the first place.

``We thought if we ever were going to have a white-tie dinner, this was going to be it,'' Mrs. Bush said.

Presidential spokesman Tony Snow disputed any notion that the royal visit was a welcome break for a White House burdened by low approval ratings and acrimonious tussles with congressional Democrats over the Iraq war.

``There's a lot of other activity going on,'' he said tersely.

The queen and her husband, Prince Philip, were treated to a trumpet fanfare, a 21-gun salute and a parade by the Old Guard Fife and Drum Corps at a morning arrival ceremony attended by thousands of guests. From there, the Bushes and the royals repaired to a very exclusive lunch, with only the two countries' ambassadors and a few family members.

The leaders and their spouses then mingled briefly on the street with dozens of British and American schoolchildren. Bush, in the unusual position of playing second fiddle, followed while the queen accepted bouquets of flowers and signed autographs.

Surrounded by a full honor cordon, the first couple greeted the royals on the North Portico for the fifth state dinner of the Bush presidency. Mrs. Bush helped the queen from her car, and advance coordination kept the ladies' attire from clashing.

Mrs. Bush wore an aqua creation by Oscar de la Renta with rhinestones, silver beading and a bolero jacket, while the queen had a cream gown with a sparkling bodice, a blue sash, long white gloves and a diamond tiara.

Among the 134 guests in the State Dining Room decked out in white and gold were scores of diplomats, businessmen and members of Congress. Other than Indianapolis Colts quarterback Peyton Manning and golfer Arnold Palmer, the celebrity quotient was low.

A number of top Bush fundraisers made the cut. Some were so-called Rangers, who raised over $200,000 for Bush's 2004 re-election campaign, including automotive executive James Click, investor Brad Freeman and former Enron president Richard Kinder. Former Commerce Secretary Donald Evans, who ran Bush's campaign fundraising in 2000, was also in attendance.

The menu and entertainment were designed as a showcase of America's best: spring pea soup with U.S. caviar, Dover sole almondine, spring lamb with chanterelle sauce and local vegetables and an arugula, mustard greens and romaine salad, said executive chef Cristeta Comerford.

Virtuoso Itzhak Perlman was playing violin after the meal.

But after all the excitement and hundreds of hours of preparation, Mrs. Bush suggested that this white-tie affair could not only be their first - but last. She called the dinner, somewhat wistfully, ``the most elegant and most formal that we'll host.''

Associated Press writer Ben Feller contributed to this report.

Dinner for the Queen Has British Touches, G, 8.5.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6616457,00.html?gusrc=ticker-103704

The unexpected appearance

of the truth in Jamestown


Last time the Queen visited, 50 years ago,
the ugly side of colonialism's legacy
was easily hidden.

Today, that is impossible

Tuesday May 8, 2007
The Guardian
Benjamin Woolley

The Queen took a tour of Jamestown, Virginia, on Friday as part of the commemorations of its 400th anniversary. The site of England's first permanent colony in North America, recently uncovered in a series of spectacular archaeological excavations, is of huge historical importance. It is the reason the US is an English-speaking nation, with Anglo-Saxon legal, commercial and political institutions. However, the Queen will be not be present for the anniversary itself, which falls this weekend. The reason is a prior commitment that necessitated her presence in the US a week early: the Kentucky Derby, held last Saturday.

The Queen's desire to escape to the safety of the world of horse racing is understandable. Compared to a punt even on a rank outsider, commemorating the arrival of a motley crew of 100 or so English renegades and outcasts on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay in 1607 has proved to be fraught with risk. Not only is there the solemn complication of the campus shootings at nearby Virginia Tech, but there is the small matter of Jamestown being the birthplace of African slavery, Native American genocide and the global tobacco trade, as well as of North American democracy and free enterprise.

When she went to Virginia 50 years ago, there were no such issues to worry about. It was her first visit to the US as Queen (and only the second by a reigning British monarch since the American Revolution, her father's in 1939 being the first), and she received a welcome even more rapturous than Helen Mirren's at the Oscars. At a time when the cold war was at its most intense - with Sputnik, launched by the USSR days before her arrival, circling threateningly overhead - her presence cemented the theme of the 350th anniversary: the celebration of Anglo-Saxon values, or the role of "English-speaking peoples in guarding the basic rights of men", as Thomas Stanley, Virginia's governor, put it.

The visit was a triumph. For some, it was a model of how national anniversaries should be marked, in a robustly patriotic mood, free of moral relativism and political correctness. But that, of course, was achieved by ruthlessly excising complicating or compromising factors. The scene had been set some weeks before the Queen's arrival. At a commemorative dinner hosted by Governor Stanley in Virginia's state capital, Richmond, seven of the "distinguished sons and daughters of the Old Dominion" invited to attend found themselves unceremoniously excluded when it was discovered they were black. Meanwhile, in Jamestown the festivities got under way without a Native American in sight, the only hint being a white drama teacher from a local school dressed as Pocahontas.

Fifty years on, the picture is very different. When the Queen arrived in Richmond on Thursday, she could barely move for Native Americans, meeting representatives of each of Virginia's eight tribes, before moving on to make a speech in which she endorsed "the 'melting pot' metaphor" as capturing "one of the great strengths" of the modern US.

As for the anniversary of Jamestown itself, the word celebration has been banned. Instead we have "America's Anniversary Weekend", in the hope that what sounds like a wholesome family outing will create the right melting pot mood. James Earl Jones has duly been invited to perform, Chaka Kahn to sing, and the Richmond Indigenous Gourd Orchestra (who grow their own instruments) to play.

Meanwhile, the darker, more complex dimensions of the Jamestown story have if anything flourished. The way the colonists treated Native Americans, the importing of Angolans pirated from Portuguese slave ships, the exploitation of the land to grow tobacco, the chronic infighting that nearly destroyed the settlement in its first months - these have become potent elements in attempts to make sense of the combination of high principles and base motives that are such a feature of American history - no more so than the country's recent history of engagement with the Middle East.

As a result, a theme that is not usually much in evidence around the time of national anniversaries has made an unexpected appearance in Virginia: history. There has been an outpouring of books (to which I have contributed), films and articles about those first English settlers. The result has been a profound shift of understanding - unseating, at least for the moment, those pious latecomers the Pilgrim Fathers (the Mayflower arrived in North America 13 years after the Jamestown settlers) from their privileged perch. Despite its faults - perhaps because of them - Jamestown has, at last, emerged as the birthplace of America.

· Benjamin Woolley is the author of Savage Kingdom: Virginia and the Founding of English America Savagekingdom.org

    The unexpected appearance of the truth in Jamestown, G, 8.5.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2074509,00.html

President muddles his dates

in welcoming Queen

Tuesday May 8, 2007
Guardian
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington


On a morning that should by rights have been frozen in time as a moment of pure pageantry, with military marching bands, pipers trucked out in tricorn hats and powdered wigs, and visiting royalty, one can count on George Bush.
The president yesterday once again demonstrated his gift for the gaffe, injecting an unintended sense of levity into the White House welcome for the Queen.

In his speech on the south lawn of the White House, he noted that the Queen had made repeated visits to the US during her reign, including celebrations to mark the country's 200th anniversary. "The American people are proud to welcome Your Majesty back to the United States, a nation you've come to know very well," Bush said. "After all, you've dined with 10 US presidents. You helped our nation celebrate its bicentennial in 17 - in 1976."

As the laughter rippled through the crowd of 7,000 invited guests corralled behind red, white and blue bunting, Mr Bush tried to make light of his slip.

He shot a quick look at the Queen, and said: "You gave me a look that only a mother could give a child."

But by then, Mr Bush's discomfort with the pageantry that a royal visit entails was an open secret. His wife, Laura Bush, told ABC television yesterday morning that she and the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, had to use all their persuasive powers to coax him into a white tie for the state banquet scheduled later yesterday.

It was to be the first white-tie event of his administration. "I don't know how thrilled he was about this - but, of course, when you're hosting the Queen of England, of course you want to have it be white tie," Mrs Bush said. "This is the perfect occasion for it - and he was a very good sport."

However, that sense of sportsmanship was not very evident at the White House yesterday morning when Mr Bush appeared to treat the visit by the Queen like that of any world leader, launching into a boiler plate address on the war on terror.

He praised Britain's historic contributions such as the Magna Carta in equal measure to its contribution in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Today our two nations are defending liberty against tyranny and terror. We're resisting those who murder the innocent to advance a hateful ideology, whether they kill in New York or London or Kabul or Baghdad," he said.

Mr Bush went on to pay tribute to the monarch's personal contribution in the war on terror. "Your Majesty, I appreciate your leadership during these times of danger and decision," the president said. "You've spoken out against extremism and terror. You've encouraged religious tolerance and reconciliation. You have honored those returning from battle and comforted the families of the fallen."

It was impossible to see the Queen's reaction from beneath her black and white hat, but the tone of her brief comments were in sharp contrast to those from Mr Bush. "A state visit provides us with a brief opportunity to step back from our current preoccupations to reflect on the very essence of our relationship," the Queen said.

"It is the moment to take stock of our present friendship, rightly taking pleasure from its strengths while never taking these for granted. And it is the time to look forward, jointly renewing our commitment to a more prosperous, safer and freer world."

With a wave from the portico of the White House, the Queen and Mr Bush then retreated inside the White House for a lunch of baby sea bass followed by raspberry meringue, and chocolate sorbet. But the focus was really on the state banquet later. The White House reportedly has been agog with preparations for the event, at which some 134 invited guests will dine on gold-trimmed china, and hear a performance from the violin virtuoso, Itzhak Perlman.

Mrs Bush has been ebulliant about the prospect. For Mr Bush, however, it's a different story. He likes to dine on Tex-Mex food and be in bed by 10pm.

Yesterday morning's remark was not his first slip in front of the Queen. When she visited the White House in 1991 during his father's presidency, he said he was the black sheep of the Bush family. He then asked: "Who's yours?"

The Queen did not reply. That awkward moment may well have been weighing on his mind in the run-up to last night's encounter.

    President muddles his dates in welcoming Queen, G, 8.5.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,,2074400,00.html

Bush and Queen

Celebrate Common Values

May 7, 2007
The New York Times
By DAVID STOUT

WASHINGTON, May 7 — President Bush welcomed Queen Elizabeth II to the White House today with remarks that celebrated the values that have bound the United States and Britain across the Atlantic and across the centuries.

“Our two nations hold fundamental values in common,” Mr. Bush said. “We honor our traditions and our shared history. We recognize that the strongest societies respect the rights and dignity of the individual. We understand and accept the burdens of global leadership, and we have built our special relationship on the surest foundations: our deep and abiding love of liberty.”

“Today our two nations are defending liberty against tyranny and terror,” Mr. Bush said on the White House South Lawn amid Stars and Stripes and Union Jacks. “We’re resisting those who murder the innocent to advance a hateful ideology, whether they kill in New York or London or Kabul or Baghdad. American and British forces are staying on the offense against the extremists and terrorists.”

Queen Elizabeth, nearing the end of her fifth visit to the former colonies, said she and her husband, Prince Philip, were happy to be at the White House again.

“A state visit provides us with a brief opportunity to step back from our current preoccupations to reflect on the very essence of our relationship,” she said. “It gives us a chance to look back at how the stories of our two countries have been inextricably woven together. It is a moment to take stock of our present friendship, rightly taking pleasure from its strengths, while never taking these for granted. And it is a time to look forward, jointly renewing our commitment to a more prosperous, safer and freer world.”

On Tuesday, the queen is to visit the World War II memorial on the National Mall. (Coincidentally, the royal couple’s visit to the White House came on the 62nd anniversary of the German surrender that ended the war in Europe.)

Mr. Bush set a relaxed tone to the White House gathering, albeit unintentionally. “You helped our nation celebrate its bicentennial in 17 — in 1976,” he said as laughter broke out. A moment later, Mr. Bush said the queen had flashed him a look “that only a mother could give a child.” That line brought more laughter.

The queen and Prince Philip are ending a trip that included a stop in Jamestown to mark the 400th anniversary of the colony’s founding and attendance at the Kentucky Derby on Saturday. This evening, they will be honored at a state dinner at the White House. Before that, they were to attend a garden party at the home of the British ambassador, David Manning.

“I particularly look forward in the next two days to seeing at first hand something of how the cutting edge of science and technology can take us to the next phases of discovery and exploration in human endeavor,” the queen said, alluding to her plans to visit the space agency’s Goddard Space Flight Center on Tuesday.

On Tuesday evening, the royal couple is to dine with President Bush and First Lady Laura Bush at the British Embassy on Massachusetts Avenue in the final event of what could be their final visit to the United States. The Queen has just turned 81, while her husband will be 86 next month.

    Bush and Queen Celebrate Common Values, NYT, 7.5.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/07/washington/07cnd-queen.html?hp

Bush nearly places Queen Elizabeth

in 18th century

Mon May 7, 2007
12:25PM EDT
Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush, no stranger to the occasional verbal misstep, nearly placed Queen Elizabeth II in the 18th century on Monday in welcoming her to the White House on a state visit.

Britain's queen and Prince Philip were treated to a formal arrival ceremony on the White House South Lawn, complete with a marching fife-and-drum corps.

Trumpets heralded the arrival of the dignitaries. The U.S. Air Force Band played national anthems before 7,000 invited guests on a sunny spring day.

Both Bush and the queen addressed the crowd as the royal family approached the end of a six-day U.S. visit that included ceremonies marking the 400th anniversary of the British settlement in Jamestown, Virginia, and the Kentucky Derby.

Bush noted the queen's long history of dealing with successive American governments, just barely stopping himself before dating her to 1776, the year the 13 British colonies declared their independence from Britain.

Elizabeth has occupied the British throne for 55 years and is 81.

"The American people are proud to welcome your majesty back to the United States, a nation you've come to know very well. After all you've dined with 10 U.S. presidents. You've helped our nation celebrate its bicentennial in 17 -- in 1976," Bush said.

Bush looked at the queen sheepishly. She peered back at him from beneath her black and white hat.

"She gave me a look that only a mother could give a child," Bush said as the crowd burst into laughter.

Taking the podium, the queen quickly swung into her prepared speech, hailing the closeness of U.S.-British relations.

"It is the moment to take stock of our present friendship, rightly taking pleasure from its strengths while never taking these for granted," she said. "And it is the time to look forward, jointly renewing our commitment to a more prosperous, safer and freer world."

Bush and his wife, Laura, were to play host to the queen at both White House luncheon and a formal white-tie state dinner on Monday night.

    Bush nearly places Queen Elizabeth in 18th century, R, 7.5.2007, http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0733397220070507

Bush Welcomes

Queen Elizabeth II

to White House

May 7, 2007
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 12:16 p.m. ET
The New York Times

WASHINGTON (AP) -- With trumpet fanfare and a 21-gun salute, President Bush welcomed Queen Elizabeth II to the White House on Monday as thousands of invited guests crowded the South Lawn for a glimpse of the British monarch.

The audience laughed aloud at a verbal slip by Bush when he said the queen had dined with 10 U.S. presidents and had helped the United States ''celebrate its bicentennial in 17 ... .'' Bush caught himself and corrected the date to 1976.''

Bush joked that the queen just ''gave me a look that only a mother could give a child.''

In his remarks, Bush said the United States and Britain, allies in Iraq and Afghanistan, were standing together in the war against terrorism.

''Our work has been hard,'' the president said. ''The fruits of our work have been difficult for many to see. Yet our work remains the surest path to peace. Your majesty, I appreciate your leadership during these times of danger and decision.''

The queen noted that it was her fifth visit to the United States. ''It is a moment to take stock of our present friendship, rightly taking pleasure from its strengths while never taking these for granted,'' she said.

''And it is the time to look forward, jointly renewing our commitment to a more prosperous, safer and freer world,'' she added.

Bush and his wife, Laura, were waiting on the driveway on a near-perfect spring day as the queen and her husband, Prince Philip, arrived by limousine. The two couples briefly shook hands before moving on to the formal welcome.

A brilliantly blue sky framed the colorful ceremony where red, white and blue bunting was draped over the fencelines on the South Lawn. The United States Air Force Band led a grand military procession onto the lawn.

The ceremony included a parade by the Old Guard Fife and Drum Corps dressed in black tricorn hats, white wigs, waistcoats, colonial coveralls, and red regimental coats. Their uniforms are patterned after those worn by the musicians of Gen. George Washington's Continental Army.

It was a day of high pomp and pageantry from a president known for his informality. It also was an uplifting event for a White House at a time when Bush's approval rate has dropped near all-time lows and he battles a Democratic Congress over funding for an unpopular Iraq war.

In honor of the queen, Bush agreed to host the first white-tie dinner of his presidency, with entertainment by violin virtuoso Itzhak Perlman.

''We did sort of have to convince him a little bit'' to opt for the white-tie dinner, Mrs. Bush said of her and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's efforts to talk Bush into hosting the most formal dinner the White House can offer.

The White House said 7,000 guests were invited to the arrival ceremony. They included American and British delegations, British Embassy staff, state dinner guests, members of Congress, Cabinet members, White House staff and their guests, State Department staff, and students.

On Monday night, 134 guests will return in white tie and tails for the state dinner among 13 damask-clothed tables set with gold-trimmed ivory china and gilded silver candelabras.

''We're very excited to host Her Majesty,'' Mrs. Bush said Monday morning on ABC's ''Good Morning America.''

''We had the opportunity to be here the last time she was here for a state dinner (hosted by the first President Bush in 1991) ... and we're so thrilled to have the chance to host her and to show her the strong affection the American people have for the British,'' she said.

It will be the Bushes' fifth state dinner in six years, but the first in white tie. The White House said the president was happy to return hospitality to the queen, who hosted the Bushes at a white-tie state banquet in November 2003 during an official visit to Britain.

The visit to Washington comes at the tail end of a six-day trip, the Queen's fifth to the United States in 50 years but her first since 1991, when Bush's father was president. The royal couple arrived Sunday night at Andrews Air Force Base before spending the night at Blair House, the president's guest house.

In between the White House events Monday, the royal couple plan to attend a garden party at the British ambassador's residence.

On Tuesday, the queen will join Laura Bush in a tour of Children's National Medical Center. She also plans to plant a tree at the British ambassador's residence and visit NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center and the National World War II Memorial. On Tuesday night she's to have dinner with the Bushes at the British embassy before returning to London.

The royal couple kept a low profile Sunday, with no official events after attending the Kentucky Derby Saturday. They began their six-day trip to the United States in Virginia. The queen addressed the state's General Assembly and visited Jamestown, which is observing the 400th anniversary of the founding of the first permanent English settlement in the Americas.

    Bush Welcomes Queen Elizabeth II to White House, NYT, 7.5.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Royal-Visit.html?hp

Kentucky Derby,

Queen Elizabeth draw festive crowd

Sat May 5, 2007
7:44PM EDT
Reuters
By Andrea Hopkins

LOUISVILLE, Ky (Reuters) - Spectators in seersucker and straw hats crowded into the Kentucky Derby on Saturday in hopes of picking the winning horse and perhaps glimpsing one of the biggest race fans of all -- Britain's Queen Elizabeth.

The Southern charm of Churchill Downs took on a bit of a British accent in honor of the first visit by the queen, who watched along with thousands of race fans as Kentucky-bred favorite Street Sense won the 133rd "Run for the Roses."

Royal admirers entwined a string of Union Jacks along the flowered paddock near the racetrack's entrance, and the monarch's visit added excitement to what is the first leg of the Triple Crown of thoroughbred racing.

The queen, wearing a lime green wool coat with a matching silk dress and lime green hat with fuchsia trim, arrived with husband Prince Philip a little more than two hours before the late afternoon race.

The monarch was given a round of applause as she entered a private suite accompanied by Will Farish, a former ambassador to Britain.

Erica Fencil, a college student from San Diego, was surprised to find herself in the same suite as the queen.

"It's unbelievable," Fencil said. "I can't believe I'm in the same room with her."

Fans in shorts and flip-flops mingled with ladies in rose-adorned hats and men in summer suits as crowds packed the storied racetrack.

Many mixed a fondness for racing with an eagerness to see the British monarch, who arrived in the United States on Thursday for a six-day trip that will include a visit to the White House after her stop at Churchill Downs.

"I'm a bit of a race fan, and I'm from the UK myself," said David Gilliland, 27, wearing a huge Union Jack as a cape as he wandered near the paddock. "With the Derby and the queen all in one place, it was too good of a combination to resist."

Americans were just as eager to spot Her Majesty.

"We'll certainly try to see her, we're determined," said Laura Smith, 40, of New Jersey, sipping a Kir Royale champagne cocktail with friend Sue Woodard, 38, from Minnesota.

Woodard said shopping for the Derby was as much of an adventure as attending the race itself. Both chose elaborate hats -- Woodard in black-and-white linen, Smith in pink straw -- for the event, and confessed they were still learning how to wager as the day's 12 races went along.

"For the Derby itself, we're going to put $5 on each horse so we can say we won," Woodard said with a laugh.

Kentucky-bred Street Sense became the first Breeders' Cup Juvenile champion to win the Run for the Roses. Hard Spun came in second, while Curlin placed third in the field of 20 three-year-olds.

Organizers hoped some 155,000 fans would attend the Derby, despite threatened rain, including celebrity singers Jewel and Kid Rock, actors Raquel Welch and Wesley Snipes and sports stars Michael Jordan and Peyton Manning.

"My favorite horse is Imawildandcrazyguy, because I feel like I'm a wild and crazy guy, so he's a kindred spirit," said David Beddell, 26, an engineer who traveled from Cleveland with friends for his first Derby. Beddell, in cargo shorts, green T-shirt and flip-flops, eschewed the Derby's popular mint julep cocktail in favor of a glass of draft beer.

"I'll sample all the various beverages, but I feel beer is the best economic value at $6 -- it's a long day," Beddell said.

    Kentucky Derby, Queen Elizabeth draw festive crowd, R, 5.5.2007, http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0528586820070505

Queen's Jamestown tour

evokes history, memories

Sat May 5, 2007
12:34AM EDT
Reuters
By Caren Bohan

WILLIAMSBURG, Virginia (Reuters) - Greeted by hundreds of admirers and bouquets of flowers, Britain's Queen Elizabeth II strolled past thatched-roof houses in historic Jamestown on Friday in a visit that evoked both the U.S. colonial past and the early years of her own reign.

The British monarch's visit marked the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown by English settlers who sailed for five months across the Atlantic in search of gold and silver.

Despite travails including a scarcity of food and clean water, the colonists established the first permanent British settlement in North America and named it after King James I.

The queen, wearing a teal coat and matching hat, was joined by Vice President Dick Cheney as she toured houses and a church created as replicas of buildings from 1607 settlement. The queen also viewed rusted armor and other original items at an archeological site.

For some Virginians old enough to have been in the area in 1957, the excitement around the visit brought a sense of deja vu. Queen Elizabeth, then a young mother who had assumed the throne just five years earlier, came to Jamestown for its 350th anniversary as well.

"Everyone thought she was so beautiful and charming," said Sarah Watkins Williams, who was 12 at the time. But she added, "I think it's even more exciting to see her this time."

Williams, 62, and Hugh DeSemper, 80, watched on Thursday evening as a horse-drawn carriage took the queen through the historic area of Williamsburg, Virginia. Both saw her go by in a similar procession when the queen was just 31.

But one difference they noticed was the much higher level of security.

While many of the events 50 years ago were open to the public, the queen's audiences this time have been much more restricted -- a limitation that annoyed some tourists who hoped to see Queen Elizabeth in person.

NATIVE AMERICANS AND SLAVES

Organizers also tried this time to put much more emphasis on the contributions -- and suffering -- of Native Americans and black people brought to Virginia as slaves to work in what later became a thriving tobacco industry for the state.

In a speech to the Virginia General Assembly, the queen acknowledged this change, paying tribute to the "melting pot" she said is one of America's strengths.

Bob Buettner, 55, and his wife and daughter did not get to see the carriage ride despite waiting for two hours.

"We kept asking people when she was going to arrive but no one would give us a straight answer. I think because of security they were so secretive about it," said Buettner.

In addition to Cheney and retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Jamestown visit included volunteers for the settlement's historic society and several reporters.

Virginia held a lottery to pick members of the public who could join the queen on her walk around the state capitol building in Richmond on Thursday, although people were allowed to sit on the lawn on blankets and watch from afar.

Many were not deterred by the tight security and long waits, including 11-year-old Tristan Terrell, who was visiting Williamsburg on a tour organized by her school in Alabama.

"She's got a million outfits," Terrell said, adding it was "really cool" that Queen Elizabeth had traveled so far.

The school group was on its way to try to see the queen at the Williamsburg Governor's Palace, a reconstruction of a colonial-era building where Thomas Jefferson once lived.

The queen said later said she was moved by the Jamestown archeological site that allowed her to imagine "something of the experience of those early settlers when they first made landfall on the James River."

    Queen's Jamestown tour evokes history, memories, R, 5.5.2007, http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0442953620070505

FACTBOX:

Jamestown,

first English settlement in America

Fri May 4, 2007
2:53PM EDT
Reuters

(Reuters) - Britain's Queen Elizabeth II on Friday marked the 400th anniversary of the arrival of three ships bearing 400 settlers at Jamestown Peninsula, in what is now the U.S. state of Virginia, on May 14, 1607.

They created the first successful English settlement in the New World after previous attempts failed.

Here are five facts about Jamestown:

* The area at the time was inhabited by Tsenacomoco Indians, who lived in villages of a few hundred people surrounded by cornfields and fallow land.

* With Indians farming the best land, the colonists moved into a marshy, mosquito-ridden site with no fresh water, naming their village after the English monarch, King James 1. Half of them died within four months, many from typhoid and dysentery. By January 1608, the colony had dwindled to 38 people.

* Despite some new arrivals, the survivors were hit by a harsh winter in 1610 and may have returned home that year but for the arrival of fresh supplies and more colonists.

* While native Virginians grew a little tobacco, the English preferred higher quality Caribbean tobacco. John Rolfe brought Caribbean tobacco seeds to Jamestown and began cultivating it there in 1612.

* Tensions persisted with the Indians, some of it over land that was being overcultivated, especially with tobacco. But in 1614 Rolfe married Pocahontas, the daughter of the Tsenacomoco chief, Powhatan, easing the situation. Jamestown remained the capital of Virginia throughout the 17th century but fell into decay when the capital was moved to Williamsburg in 1698.

Sources: Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities, National Geographic.

    FACTBOX: Jamestown, first English settlement in America, R, 4.5.2007, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0444701420070504

Queen Elizabeth Tours Jamestown

May 4, 2007
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 1:38 p.m. ET
The New York Times

JAMESTOWN, Va. (AP) -- Queen Elizabeth II strolled Friday through a replica of a fortress built four centuries ago at what would become America's first permanent English settlement, then saw remains of the actual structure.

The queen, flanked by Vice President Dick Cheney and Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, strolled through Jamestown's tourist village of thatch-roofed buildings to commemorate the settlement's 400th anniversary.

In his welcoming remarks, Cheney noted the queen's last visit to Jamestown 50 years ago.

''Half a century has done nothing to diminish the respect and affection this country holds for you. We receive you again today in that same spirit,'' Cheney told the queen in a welcoming speech.

The queen did not speak.

She was greeted by retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who said American law derived from Great Britain ''is the great and lasting achievement we celebrate today.''

Large crowds waited amid tight security to see the queen, lining her path through Jamestown Settlement.

''I got lucky. Everyone in the world knows Queen Elizabeth II. She's come so far and I just wanted to see her,'' said Carol Rideout, a retired scientist.

The queen toured a replica of an armory, and she smiled as she touched a gloved hand to a 17th century breastplate. She walked to the James River, where replicas of the three ships that the settlers arrived in were docked. A cannon was fired from one of the ships in tribute to her.

Later, at Historic Jamestowne, she toured the archaeological museum and the excavation of the north bulwark of the 1607 James Fort.

During her 1957 visit to the same grounds, she was told that the site of the original three-sided palisade had been consumed by the adjacent James River. Excavation of the site began in 1994, and the fort was discovered in 1996.

She was shown excavation trays containing chess pieces, iron knives, copper baubles and the discarded claws of crabs that had been a meal for the settlers.

Later, the queen was scheduled to visit the College of William and Mary before heading to Louisville, Ky., to watch Saturday's Kentucky Derby. She's also expected to visit Washington, D.C., and attend a state dinner with President Bush before leaving on Tuesday.

On Thursday, she addressed the Virginia General Assembly, where she praised the cultural changes that have occurred since her last visit. Then, the anniversary was an all-white affair in a state with a government in open defiance of a 1954 Supreme Court order to desegregate public schools.

She also mentioned the April 16 shootings at Virginia Tech, where a gunman killed 32 people and then himself. Afterward, she met briefly with students and faculty from Virginia Tech, including three who were wounded. She also met with 100-year-old Oliver W. Hill, a civil rights attorney whose litigation helped bring about that 1954 desegregation decision.

Then the queen was off to Virginia's restored 18th-century capital. She arrived in Colonial Williamsburg and waved a gloved hand at the several thousand people who lined Duke of Gloucester Street despite a drizzle to watch the carriage take her past homes, stores and taverns to her hotel.

------

Associated Press Writers Bob Lewis and Larry O'Dell in Richmond contributed to this report.

------

On the Net:

Queen's visit to Virginia: http://www.governor.virginia.gov/Queen

Jamestown 2007: http://www.Americas400thAnniversary.com

    Queen Elizabeth Tours Jamestown, NYT, 4.5.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Royal-Visit.html?hp

Queen, Cheney tour Jamestown

3.5.2007
USA Today
By Maria Puente

JAMESTOWN, Va. — The first Englishmen to come here did not receive a warm reception; the local Indians were not exactly thrilled to see them.

Four hundred years later, it was all smiles when Queen Elizabeth II arrived Friday for a nostalgic return to the first permanent English settlement in the Americas and the first place she visited in America as sovereign.

Delight was the order of the day. She was "delighted" to be here, on the second day of her six-day visit. Vice President Dick Cheney led a hoard of dignitaries who were "delighted" that she and husband Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, had come to help commemorate the 400th anniversary of the settlement, 50 years after her first visit for the 350th anniversary.

Hundreds of people — invited VIPs and ordinary tourists — seemed delighted, too, as they watched the queen tour the archaeological remains of historic Jamestown and the nearby re-creation of the settlement named for her remote ancestor, King James I. She also lunched at Colonial Williamsburg, with the likes of David Rockefeller and former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, and visited the College of William and Mary (two of her predecessor sovereigns).

She watched a costumed mini-history pageant, toured a church and a guardhouse at the settlement, examined a 17th-century breastplate, peered at dirt-sorting trays of artifacts excavated at the site and saw replicas of the three ships that brought the English adventurers to the New World.

During the day, she wore two different, if similar, outfits of colorful coats over silk dresses with matching hats and gloves. She smiled a lot. She waved.

The few times she spoke, such as for a toast at the luncheon, she reiterated her other reason for being here, on her fifth official visit to the USA since ascending the throne in 1952: to reinforce already strong British-American ties.

Jamestown, the queen said, is a symbol of the "the deep and enduring friendship" between the two countries. "And on a personal note, my visits to Jamestown and Williamsburg, separated by 50 years, symbolize for me the warmth and welcome Prince Philip and I have always received during our many visits to the United States over the years."

In her toast, she expressed some nostalgia about her return. "Some of the most vivid memories of the early years of my reign are from that first visit here in 1957," she said.

The queen's visit is her fifth to the USA since taking the throne in 1952.

She indicated she was fascinated by what she saw at the two Jamestowns and impressed with new educational facilities at both sites. She was "moved by the poignancy of walking around the archaeological site where the original fort once stood."

Mostly, people were moved by the queen, a master of pleasantries. During a reception at the rebuilt 1722 Governor's Palace at Colonial Williamsburg, she was introduced to Mary Humelsine, widow of a former president of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation who had been present during the queen's 1957 visit.

"So we've met before?" Humelsine reported the queen said to her. Humelsine was thrilled nonetheless.

She was not the only person there who had met the queen in 1957. Lou Ethel Nelson Trickett, 81, was working in the Indian village at Jamestown Settlement, making cornmeal as part of the living history exhibit when the queen and the duke visited. "She asked me if I ate the cornmeal. When I said no, she smiled softly and walked away," said Trickett, who was dressed in buckskins for her role in the mini-history of Jamestown pageant.

At the College of William and Mary, where the queen met with students in the Great Hall, she chatted with Evan Young of San Antonio, Texas, a Marshall scholar of British constitutional history whose thesis was on the royal veto, last used by Queen Anne. He gestured at the portrait of Queen Anne above the mantle. "She indicated she knew just what I was talking about. Her eyes, there was a smile," said Young.

Earlier, while watching a demonstration of sail stitching on the quay, where the ship replicas are moored, she got a short briefing by historical re-enactor Josiah Freitus, 75, who explained the system of indentured servitude and apprenticeship that trained young men how to make sails. The queen listened without saying anything.

When the cannon on one of the ships, the Susan Constant, saluted her four times with huge booms, onlookers laughed and cheered. The queen was heard to say, "It's quite a noise."

The queen and the duke left for Kentucky in the afternoon, for a private visit with horse-raising friends and her first-ever visit — she's a horse-racing aficionado — to the Kentucky Derby Saturday. She'll attend a state dinner at the White House on Monday.

Virginia, which spent about $11 million on the queen's visit, has been preparing for months. Nearly 20,000 people entered a lottery for 108 spots on Richmond's Capitol Square, where the queen strolled on her walkabout.

Thousands more gathered on the lawn around the square to await her arrival and watch her on giant screens.

"It's part of the psyche of Virginia. They're drawn to the British and the British royal family," said Wilford Kale, 62, a retired journalist, former state employee and self-described Anglophile. "It's the heritage. Virginia was the most English of the colonies."

In addition to the speech, she toured the governor's mansion, met in the Capitol with a group of students to talk about Virginia history and greeted 100-year-old civil rights leader Oliver Hill.

Queen, Cheney tour Jamestown, UT, 3.5.2007, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-05-03-queen-visits-va_N.htm