sava PE ,Romenia-Sava Ileana, Arad, Județul Arad, Roménia-Sava, Russie, Sankt-Peterburg, Saint-Pétersbourg, Kupchinskaya
http://gabrielrachitasu.wordpress.com/page/2/
Monumentul Eroilor
MONUMENTUL EROILOR de pe Muntele Mãgura
Monumentul Eroilor
MONUMENTUL EROILOR de pe Muntele Mãgura
Lucrãrile pentru ridicarea acestui impunãtor edificiu au fost fãcute de cãtre soldatii veterani, ramasi în viatã dupã aprigele lupte de la Oituz-Cosna-Ciresoaia. Fondurile necesare pentru aceastã constructie au fost adunate prin subscriptie publicã de cãtre Mihai Teodoru, initiatorul acestui proiect, sprijinit de arhitectul Constantin Ciogolea, fiu al orasului stabilit la Bucuresti. Monumentul Eroilor cuprinde un parter si douã etaje, legate printr-o scarã interioarã circularã, are o înãltime de 22 m si este în întregime ridicat din piatrã cioplitã si formã de obuz.
Pânã la începutul celui de-al Doilea Rãzboi Mondial, era pãzit zi si noapte de ostasii din garnizoana orasului. Dupã rãzboi, Monumentul a fost lãsat în paraginã, dar între anii 1972-1974, el va fi renovat si deschis ca muzeu.
La parter existã o placã comemorativã depusã pe mormântul eroului necunoscut, descoperit în transeele încã vizibile de la Cosna, cu un text emotionant: Ostasi ce ati cãzut pentru tarã, Viteji ai credintei, soldati, Oriunde în morminte voi stati, Vã fie tãrâna usoarã!
(Eroilor cãzuti în rãzboiul 1916-1919).
ichelle Obama
http://thehouseoffabulous.blogspot.fr/2008/08/michelle-obama.html
Tyra Banks portrays Michelle Obama in Harper's Bazaar.
http://article.wn.com/view/2014/03/29/Raiders_Retain_Pat_Sims_Oakland_Raiders/
Visiter Roumanie : Tourisme à Roumanie, Europe - TripAdvisor.fr
Infos pratiques et touristiques : Roumanie (ro). Grâce à ce carnet de voyage
Roumanie (ro) proposé par Salaün Holidays, vous saurez l'essentiel sur le pays
Telegraph.co.uk
Thursday 09 January 2014
Only the Queen understands the true value of the Commonwealth
There may be distrust from Left and Right, but Her Majesty’s record is unmatched
It is a constitutional fact that the prime minister must approve everything that the Queen does or says in public. Once a year, however, the monarch is allowed off the leash. Her Christmas Day message is written without input from Downing Street.
This is because she delivers the annual broadcast as Head of the Commonwealth rather than head of state. This year’s was a case in point. The reference to the birth of Prince George made newspaper headlines in London, but the monarch devoted more time to next year’s Commonwealth games, and last month’s controversial Commonwealth meeting in Sri Lanka.
Ed Miliband had called for Britain to boycott the Sri Lankan summit, while David Cameron used the occasion for some grandstanding about human rights. Her Majesty simply remarked that “like any family, there can be differences of opinion. But however strongly they’re expressed, they are held within the common bond of friendship and shared experiences.”
This kind of mystical language – how can Britain have a “family” connection with Sri Lanka? – is unfathomable to most Britons. So is the Commonwealth itself, which was created in 1949, three years before Elizabeth II ascended the throne. It was launched as the British empire was being dismantled, but almost nobody had a clear idea about what it was for.
The only person who did was the Queen. The Commonwealth as it exists today is to a great extent her personal creation. Probably it would no longer exist without her. Arguably it is the most remarkable achievement of her long reign. Crucially, she did not build the organisation in her capacity as British monarch. That would have been impossible, as few, if any, Commonwealth countries would have joined. Her contribution was made as Head of the Commonwealth, and therefore mainly without reference to Britain.
As a superbly researched new book, Monarchy and the End of Empireby Professor Philip Murphy (OUP), demonstrates, again and again the Queen’s duties as Head of the Commonwealth have placed her in conflict with her prime ministers. Professor Murphy suggests that her sensitivity to the views of Commonwealth countries was part of the reason for her concern about the 1956 invasion of Suez.
Martin Charteris, her assistant private secretary at the time, speculated that she may have said to Anthony Eden, her prime minister: “Are you sure you are being wise?” According to another report, she recommended to Eden that he consult the Labour leader Hugh Gaitskell. Three years later she took the unusual step of authorising a cable of congratulation to Harold Macmillan, indicating “that the Queen was very interested and much impressed”, after he made his famous “wind of change” speech in South Africa, which indicated rapid withdrawal from empire.
Fifteen years later she became embroiled in a bruising clash with Edward Heath, who announced the resumption of arms sales to South Africa after he won the 1970 general election. This caused anger in many Commonwealth nations, leading Heath to advise the Queen not to attend the 1971 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM). The Queen very reluctantly accepted this advice.
However, she was determined not to let the same thing happen again. Two years later, the British government was again opposed to her attendance at the CHOGM. The Queen went anyway, having taken the advice not of Edward Heath but of the Canadian prime minister, Pierre Trudeau. Eventually Heath was shamed into attending as well.
The Labour government that took over in 1974 was much better disposed towards the Commonwealth than the Tories were. However, matters deteriorated with the arrival of Margaret Thatcher. The problem, once again, was South Africa. The Queen was profoundly disturbed by Mrs Thatcher’s opposition to sanctions. Crucially, Her Majesty’s concern was not as British monarch, who is barred from holding views that oppose or undermine the government of the day, rather as head of the Commonwealth.
This deep tension between the Queen’s role as constitutional monarch and her entirely separate duty as Head of the Commonwealth is fascinating. It suggests that the conventional wisdom, described in school text books, that the monarch can never play more than a symbolic role, is wrong. While constitutionally passive in Britain, as head of the Commonwealth the Queen has sometimes played a dynamic part in shaping the course of events
Professor Murphy describes how she persuaded the Ghanaian president, Jerry Rawlings, to stand down at the end of his term, rather than rip up the constitution. He also shows how she used her personal influence to clear the decks for the peace negotiations that led to Zimbabwe’s independence. She held individual audiences with Commonwealth leaders in which, according to the body’s secretary-general, Sonny Ramphal, she knew “who had got what political scandal raging. She’d know the family side of things, if there were deaths of children in the family. She’d know about the economy, she’d know about elections coming up. They felt they were talking to a friend who cared about the country.”
Her Majesty’s role as Head of the Commonwealth has been widely distrusted in Britain. On the far Left, the organisation is regarded as an imperial relic. This view was shared on the Right. Enoch Powell regarded the Commonwealth as a “relic of a bygone system” and a “gigantic farce”. Powell especially disliked the Commonwealth’s multi-culturalism: “We cannot say, 'We will have African standards in Africa, Asian standards in Asia and perhaps British standards here at home.’ ”
Meanwhile the Foreign and Commonwealth Office regarded the Commonwealth as a nuisance. It actively sought to dissuade newly emerging African nations from taking the Queen as their head of state, urging them to become republics instead. This attitude persists today. Despite the promise of William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, to “put the C back into the FCO”, his Foreign Office continues to treat the Commonwealth with indifference bordering on contempt.
In an insult to the Queen, visiting ministers from Commonwealth countries, for example, are routinely cold-shouldered by the FCO, which essentially cherishes only Britain’s relationships with Europe, the US and (increasingly) China.
The Cameron Government seems to take the Powellite view that the Commonwealth is pointless and that the Queen should stick to being a constitutional monarch. Those who disagree, like the foreign office minister Lord Howell and Africa minister Henry Bellingham, tend to get sacked.
Was Powell right? Professor Murphy’s book – by a country mile the most important and well-informed to have been written about the contemporary British monarchy – suggests that the Queen might know a thing or two after all. Look at her record: against Suez; in favour of Macmillan; against arms sales to South Africa; for sanctions against apartheid. A personal record of wise but deft interventions in foreign affairs. She is pro-British, but does not think that means being slavishly European or Atlanticist. She understands the relevance of ancient history to modern foreign policy. She knows a multitude of world leaders. Here’s a thought: could it be that the Queen, and the Commonwealth she heads, is a far greater foreign policy asset to Britain than all recent foreign secretaries and prime ministers put together?
Follow Peter Oborne on Twitter @OborneTweets
The Associated Press Published Wednesday, January 8, 2014 11:01AM EST
This is an undated handout photo released by Sutton PR of the painting by Ralph Heimans entitled 'The Coronation Theatre, Westminster Abbey: A Portrait of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, 2012 '. (AP / Ralph Heimans / Colin White/Max C/PA)
Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/u-k-activist-found-guilty-of-defacing-queen-s-portrait-1.1628957#ixzz2puDh5zDf
Published Wednesday, January 8, 2014 11:01AM EST
LONDON -- A fathers' rights activist has been found guilty of spraying purple paint across a portrait of Queen Elizabeth II in Westminster Abbey.
Forty-two-year-old Tim Haries told jurors he defaced the royal portrait with the word "help" to highlight what he described as the "social catastrophe" of fathers being denied access to their children.
Haries, who was dressed in a Superman suit, is a member of Fathers4Justice, a group that has carried out a series of stunts in support of the right of divorced fathers to see their families.
Many members, Harries included, claim British courts have unfairly prevented them from spending time with their children.
Southwark Crown Court found Haries guilty of criminal damage. In a statement released after the verdict, Haries says he accepts the verdict.