Why the big deal over 10 years since Princess Di?

Oh, is that their names. I didn't bother to research it. Now that is true love.
A King who gives up the throne for someone he loves..........sweet.

Declaring it impossible to carry out his duties "without the help and support of the woman I love," Edward became the only monarch in the history of Great Britain to voluntarily abdicate the throne.

The Duke and Duchess of Windsor, as they were henceforth known, lived for several years in the Bahamas, and spent their remaining decades in Paris.

Princess Diana didn't follow the "rules". She showed her sons how much she loved them. She talked to regular people, went out of her way to be kind and also admitted her faults and unhappiness.

They may have stripped her title but, she will ALWAYS be the People's Princess as far as I am concerned. The royal family might have felt she was an embarrassment to them but, the response to her death showed that people adored her.

Perhaps you should do a bit of research - there are plenty of books about it.

SWEET??

I gather it's more a case of -

Weak young prince, disliked by his father because of his inability to learn much more than how to write his own name, unable to "get it up" without a lot of trouble with girls (or boys) of his own circle.

Sophisticated young hermaphrodite woman marries pilot who likes to drink. They spend a bit of time apart on many occasions during which interludes she has a number of affairs, including liaisons with an Argentinian diplomat, an Italian Count - which leads to a botched abortion preventing her from conceiving again, and with a wealthy man named Simpson, for whom she divorces her husband and they then marry and go to look after his interests in England.

There she makes friends with a lady whose sister is the young prince's current mistress, and before too long our heroine steps into her shoes. Tis said that during the tenure of the Italian Count our girl spent much time in China and while there, learned many of the more exotic games played in the more hedonistic quarters of Chinese society. This, it appears, made her an integral part of the prince's circle, as he had finally met someone who could 'turn him on'.

Life goes on then suddenly, BANG, Wall Street crashes and wealthy hubby isn't all that wealthy any more, but luckily her position is safe. Also, it seems, every time the prince got his rocks off she scored another piece of expensive jewellry. Of course, the king and queen (and it seems, the parliament) are not too keen on this state of affairs. They have this silly idea that the heir to the throne should have a little more respect for the sanctity of marriage (of course they were hypocrites, but the rules did say no divorcees or mistresses still officially living with their husbands were to be admitted to the court!) They also have this funny custom of expecting the king to produce children.

Then the king dies. All of the above had been kept very quiet from the common people, but, faced with the inevitable coronation, the prince was now faced with a dilemma. Her or the crown?

He chose her, she left her husband, divorced him and married the ex-prince. She kept the jewels, they accepted titles (but she was NEVER allowed to use 'her royal highness') and a large financial allowance and went off to live a life of quiet luxury in Paris with a few visits here and there, including a famous one to their good friend Adolf.

His younger brother was then crowned king. Even more shy and insecure than his brother the new king floundered and stuttered his way through WWII and died young. His widow never forgave WS.

Thank you, Lezzles, that's more like it. Funny how facts can shed a different light on a story.

So what? He choose her and they stayed married, hopefully happy.

But it was hardly a huge sacrifice for love. They lived very comfortably for the rest of their lives off the British people's taxes, while playing court to Adolph Hitler & living pretty useless lives. I would have respected them more if they'd knocked back the royal privileges when he knocked back the crown. Now that would have been a real, principled sacrifice!

You got that right, msolga.

Love & money, not bad imo

Yeah, but they hadn't done anything to deserve it! The money was due to an accident of (his) birth & he wanted no part of the responsibilities that came with it.
Not bad? Quite the opposite. They were parasites on the British taxpayers for the whole of their lives.

and who allowed this to happen?..............the British, that is who. I don't care if they deserved it or not. I still say love & money, good for them.

Well, that's your view & not mine, TTH. We'll have to agree to differ.
But then, I'm not a believer in the idea "royalty" & that sort of privilege, simply because of an accident of birth, anyway ...
Not much in the way of merit involved, for starters! :wink:

Ah, the benefits of rose-coloured glasses...

Perhaps we should get ourselves some, Mame?

Life would definitely be simpler ... a lot less to object about!

Yes, perhaps you both should. Maybe you'd sound less miserable.


But, I can understand why one of you would be so sour on love lately.

Well, lezzles knows how to tell a great juicy, scandalous story! She got my actually interested and listening about royalty there.

Let's not forget about the scandal. Princess Di had her fair share of feeding into our desire for juicy gossip and scandal.

Even here, there are people who miss her. I don't know why, exactly, unless you had met the woman. UNLESS, and this is my take, you simply miss seeing the royals get all worked up and seeing the British public all in a fuss over their precious clinging to old-school-monarchy.

In Canada, there is some deliciousness to be had in seeing how Di made people think and question about what Royalty actually is and is not...and what purpose it actually serves.

Did she need to be a real princess to have done what she did? Does it matter?

She was human, and that is always an interesting story to reach. It was easy - at least from my vantage - to see her as a person, a real live one.

You know absolutely nothing.

A horse, a horse my kingdom for a stable relationship. Fox die. Eggs hunt.

That is fine with me to agree to differ. I didn't know someone has to DESERVE love & money. Who made that rule? Nevermind, it is a rhetorical question.

Huh? There's nothing particularly "miserable" about calling a situation the way I see it. And BTW this is hardly a view unique to Mame & me. Much has been written & many documentaries have been made about this subject. The way lezzles described the union is pretty much how many (including myself) have seen it ... for ages.

And that was not the kindest comment in the last line of your post. No need to be so personal.