7
   

The Queen DEAD ;-; ! What will happen to England ?

 
 
revelette1
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Sep, 2022 10:23 am
@izzythepush,
Well, I'll just say in this time, I don't buy your negativity concerning her and leave it at that.
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Sep, 2022 10:35 am
@revelette1,
You were the one who brought her up.
revelette1
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Sep, 2022 10:40 am
@izzythepush,
I merely asked a question to Frank, who in fact brought her up.
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Sep, 2022 11:09 am
@revelette1,
Yes he did, I'm sorry.

Over here certain tabloid papers bang on about Diana like she was some sort of saint.

And they do it again and again every anniversary.

I'm sick of hearing about her.
coluber2001
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Sep, 2022 01:06 pm
I think the King's role is mostly mostly symbolic, and his pro-environment attitude and interest in natural history may influence the attitude of the people, hopefully, at least.



revelette1
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Sep, 2022 04:59 pm
@izzythepush,
It true when people die, people tend to forget the bad things with deceased. I do it with my mom, the longer it is since she died, the more saintly she gets to the point she wouldn't even recognize herself.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2022 05:06 am
@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:

You thought well of King Charles 111 in the days of Diana?


I did, indeed. It was my opinion he was unfairly getting the short end of the stick, worldwide.
revelette1
 
  0  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2022 10:58 am
@Frank Apisa,
Ok, guess I'll let this go as either one of us wouldn't really argue from a secure point of view, more subjective so to speak. Kind of like an eye of a beholder kind of thing.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2022 02:05 am
@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:

Ok, guess I'll let this go as either one of us wouldn't really argue from a secure point of view, more subjective so to speak. Kind of like an eye of a beholder kind of thing.


I agree, Rev. I understand people who think that Diana was "right" and Charles "wrong." I think the situation more nuanced than that.

I certainly am willing to share more of my feelings on the issue if you want.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2022 08:32 am
I think it was rank to enter a marriage with a very young girl knowing you don’t love her, and knowing you are devoted to another woman. Charles was a bit stuck, with family pressuring him to make an heir, but the whole thing started with a cruel premise.

I’d rather he’d selected her, and then the family sat down with her, secured a superfragilistic NDA, offered her the deal, and let her decide. At least she’d have had a choice.

Later, tho, she exacted a few degrees of revenge.

But, Camilla takes all.
revelette1
 
  0  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2022 09:33 am
@Frank Apisa,
Not really. To be flat dead honest, knowing I am going to be post stoned for saying it, the whole royal family reminds me of a some kind of never ending reality show with a kind of "he said, she said" vibe to it all.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2022 09:42 am
@coluber2001,
He has alluded to a promise that he’ll back off his political views. I wonder if he can.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  0  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2022 09:52 am
@Lash,
Royal matches (and those of the powerful, ie dukes, counts, earls, etc) were historically political - any love was accidental. Their practice of only marrying other royals, among other restrictions (no divorcees, e.g.) also limited their choices. Look at the Hapsburgs for a fine example. Uncle marrying niece, etc. The Queen married Philip, who I believe was her 3rd cousin. Love was usually NOT a consideration, and the Queen (and all who preceded her) treated their children as pawns. Then Diana came along and changed all that. First divorce in the royals if we don't count Henry VIII. Despite both Charles' and Diana's great unhappiness, the Queen, and supposedly The Firm, were adamantly against their divorce. But, they eventually gave in. Diana also changed the way royals mothered their children. She took them with her on royal visits and was a very active and involved mother. She was also the first to give personal interviews on tv.

This is an over-simplication, of course, but seeing her only as a mother, I think she set a fine precedent. Even now William and Kate are arguing about sending George to boarding school. Things are changing and The Firm has to keep up. I think the monarchy is pretty much dead, as it should be. They are glorifying a by-gone era. Britain no longer rules a great deal of the world. It needs to get out of all their Commonwealth countries and deal with their own problems, which are a very real concern.

How the UK is going to survive, economically at the very least, without the EU is questionable.
Walter Hinteler
 
  0  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2022 10:50 am
@Mame,
Mame wrote:
The Queen married Philip, who I believe was her 3rd cousin.
Philip was related to Queen Elizabeth on both his paternal and maternal sides as a third cousin.
For this reason, he was also in line to the throne of the United Kingdom, but far behind his children. Queen Victoria was both the great-great-grandmother of Prince Philip and that of his wife Queen Elizabeth.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2022 11:01 am
@Walter Hinteler,
But, Elizabeth chose Philip because she was in love with him, such as she understood the term. The family was not happy with her choice, but she persevered.

Diana Spenser might be happily alive somewhere had Elizabeth allowed her son to do the same.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/09/queen-elizabeth-prince-philip-love-that-lasted-seven-decades

(Sorry. Not in response to Walter—just general to the thread.)
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  0  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2022 11:19 am
@Mame,
Mame wrote:
Royal matches (and those of the powerful, ie dukes, counts, earls, etc) were historically political - any love was accidental. /quote]That has always been the case.

And the connections of the German and English high nobility are nothing new either: Eadgyth (Edith of England), a member of the House of Wessex, was a German queen from 936, by her marriage to King Otto.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2022 11:21 am
@Mame,
Apologies for poor parsing. My comments are designated by Quote. 🤓

Mame wrote:

Royal matches (and those of the powerful, ie dukes, counts, earls, etc) were historically political - any love was accidental. Their practice of only marrying other royals, among other restrictions (no divorcees, e.g.) also limited their choices. Look at the Hapsburgs for a fine example. Uncle marrying niece, etc. The Queen married Philip, who I believe was her 3rd cousin. Love was usually NOT a consideration, and the Queen (and all who preceded her) treated their children as pawns.

Quote:
I linked a researched article that details Elizabeth’s headstrong campaign to pick the man who turned her on. Love was THE consideration with E&P, but I am aware that in most cases—whether royalty or just great wealth, even in America—marriage often implies a willingness to overlook extramarital activities.


Then Diana came along and changed all that. First divorce in the royals if we don't count Henry VIII.

Quote:
Or Mrs. Wallace’s introduction of the term…


Despite both Charles' and Diana's great unhappiness, the Queen, and supposedly The Firm, were adamantly against their divorce. But, they eventually gave in. Diana also changed the way royals mothered their children. She took them with her on royal visits and was a very active and involved mother. She was also the first to give personal interviews on tv.

Quote:
Although Elizabeth brought TV into the monarchy decades earlier with her televised coronation and candid family videos.


This is an over-simplication, of course, but seeing her only as a mother, I think she set a fine precedent.

Quote:
She did send them off to boarding school.


Things are changing and The Firm has to keep up. I think the monarchy is pretty much dead, as it should be. They are glorifying a by-gone era. Britain no longer rules a great deal of the world. It needs to get out of all their Commonwealth countries and deal with their own problems, which are a very real concern.

Quote:
I was amazed and happy that Markle was seemingly welcomed without hesitation into the royal family—before it went notably sideways. Of course, the PW still has to wear stockings when her legs are out. A lot of the antiquated rules were based on the personal preferences of QEII. Perhaps many of these rules will be updated by KCIII. But I feel the same way you do about the viability of the institution into the future.

Mame
 
  0  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2022 11:45 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

Or Mrs. Wallace’s introduction of the term…


Yes, but Edward had to abdicate because of her divorced state, ergo it was not permitted.

Lash wrote:
Although Elizabeth brought TV into the monarchy decades earlier with her televised coronation and candid family videos.


Yes, but no one had given a personal interview.

Lash wrote:
She did send them off to boarding school.


Of course - she had to... it was a tradition. Charles was sent to his father's school in Scotland where he was bullied mercilessly. Nobody cared. Again, he was just a pawn in the end game.

Lash wrote:
I was amazed and happy that Markle was seemingly welcomed without hesitation into the royal family—before it went notably sideways. Of course, the PW still has to wear stockings when her legs are out. A lot of the antiquated rules were based on the personal preferences of QEII. Perhaps many of these rules will be updated by KCIII. But I feel the same way you do about the viability of the institution into the future.


Well, Meghan wasn't marrying a future king so it didn't matter quite so much. He was considered the "spare" until William had offspring.

0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2022 12:06 pm
Enjoyed exchanging opinions and details, offering additional context.

Prince Philip’s television interview was the first.

https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/anniversaries/may/prince-philip-interview/

He was quite a suave modernist—about some things.


0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2022 06:18 pm
Something I’d never heard of.

Vigil of the Princes. For the first time in history, a female is taking part.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/vigil-of-the-princes-queen-funeral-b2164718.html?amp
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/04/2024 at 02:44:32