|
| Thread: Princess Diana |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · NEXT» |
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted March 05, 2004 06:52 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 5 Apr 2005
|
Princess Diana
I have decided to start this discussion after the first release of her interviews on tape and video last night on national american television. Anyone with any questions or related informational trivia, please post them here so that we may all come to some sort of agreeable resting peace for this person. She has long been deceased and I think there is much that needs to be said concerning both her life and death. Let us all search for the truth as we discusss all the things about her that have either touched us as an individual or moved the world on the whole.
Last night I sat and watched in shock as a series of personal confession-type tapes were played for the entire world to hear.
As it turns out, there were many things of which I didn't have the slightest idea that were happening with her. Many of the things, I found to be disturbing, while the story told, made her look no less royal in my mind. After watching last night's documentary I came to believe that this was a woman who was as normal as any other yet the more I watched, the more I found myself in awe of her astounding character and strength. She seemed more beautiful than ever as it was revealed that she was fighting a battle against bulimia. It was very telling when I sat and listened to her account of the attempts at suicide. Apparently she felt trapped in the life of a royal. She also admitted to having a great dreadful jealousy for the woman her husband was having an affair with. She said that on her wedding day she, "looked for her" while walking down the isle.
There is so much here that I donot understand. Why wasn't her husband spending more time with her? How could a royal prince think it is ok to be unfaithful to his lawfully wedded wife? Is he not supposed to be an example for his own people? How could he simply dismiss her when she attempted to kill herself while pregnant with their child? This is an absolutely disturbing tale and what little respect I had for this Prince is now even less. I certainly hope this man is on a path of redemption for his two sons whom obviously love their mother greatly. How completely telling all this is about the life of a royal.
This is why I would much rather be a knight than a King. Service seems a much more respected role than that of being King over an entire country. A knight can bring his deeds to the table of contraversy, while a King brings a life of luxury. Oh how the royal monarchy has made of itself a droll existence. I simply do not understand the purpose of a King if such actions as these are let go by the wayside. To dismiss this behavior is to practically condone it.
Look, I'm an American and we have our own such circumstances. For example, President Bill Clinton thought he could get away with demoralizing the country with his tasteless affair. We impeached(metaphorically speaking) him and sent a message to any other would-be president that we will not tolerate such immature behavior. I think the role of a leader is not only to lead but to also set an example.
How can someone so beautiful be so troubled and tormented with the life she chose to live? I do not understand. I certainly hope this discussion brings about more information on this subject so that I can learn as much as I can and the world can finally put this in the past where it belongs. Princess Diana is nothing less than an icon for all the world to take note of; as a great and considerate Princess of which showed compassion and dignity every hour of every waking day that she lived.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
regnus_khan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
[ Peacekeeper of Equilibris ]
|
posted March 05, 2004 07:20 PM |
|
|
if it wasn't so late, it would be a perfect discussion. But I see nothing to discuss. Anyway, I saw that show too (part of it), because I have that over 1000 programs satellite TV (Al-Jazeera, American TVs etc.).
P.S. Very good post like always, Consis.
____________
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted March 06, 2004 01:13 AM |
|
|
That's the problem Concis. In a royalist society the royals pretty much get away with whatever the hell they like.
The British press used to love printing stories about sideline royalty, various dukes and duchesses, they weren't that important. But they never inquire into the life of Buckingham palace too closely.
The newspapers and TV stations all have 'royal correspondents'. On the surface this seems ok, a reporter who has access to the royal family. Until you realise that they are not hired by the newspaper/TV companies. They're ASSIGNED to them. This way the palace assures that nothing too bad leaks out.
In many ways Diana was their worst nightmare. She was too open, was constricted by the life she was forced to lead - and I do mean forced, she got saddled with the in-laws from HELL. She was criticised in the palace for wanting to bring her own children up, instead of handing them over to the royal nannies. And when she broke that news the palace was furious.
It's funny, where I come from in Ireland, anything to do with the royal family is like blasphemy, they're despised. But when Diana died there was no 'celebration' as anyone from here might have expected if Charlie had died.
In public they might have put on the mourning clothes and cried for the TV cameras, but I'm sure they were secretly relieved when she kicked it.
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted March 06, 2004 02:38 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 5 Apr 2005
|
Really?
Quote:
She was criticised in the palace for wanting to bring her own children up, instead of handing them over to the royal nannies. And when she broke that news the palace was furious.
I did not know that. That sounds terrible. One would think that a mother should rightfully be allowed to raise her own children without being criticized for it! If that is true then my opinion of the royals has just been lowered a bit more
Hmm...This all seems sour news to me. I must wonder what the British people can do about this. The people must have a say in their own royal family. Just as Buckingham Palace does not belong to the royal family, how can such an immoral web of dismissive people exist in the upper echilons of that society? One would think that the people of that country do more than simply complain about it! At this point there are two children who now have no mother thanks to such a disgraceful web! They think they can get away things like adultry! They should be looking for an exemplary role for the people they represent. This does not sit well with me.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted March 06, 2004 02:50 AM |
|
|
Ahhh, royalties...
Royal families have never been one of my favorites.
They live in luxury all the time, without ever earning it. They have money, power, glory... Why? Just because they were born that way.
For me, it's one of the worst forms of discrimination. And the worst part is you can't do nothing about it. You cannot vote them, you cannot elect them. They are like gods. (in fact, they were considered to be chosen form God in the past).
It's not fair. Why does Prince William always gets the hottest chicks, why can he go and do whatever he wants, buy whatever he wants. and in spite all this, everybody loves him.  Buaaaaaa!! *river of tears floods Svarog's room*
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted March 06, 2004 03:26 AM |
|
|
I personally get a little annoyed at the way she has been given almost Saint-like treatment from certain aspects of the press and people since she died. I think she was a very good person but deeply flawed. I'm sad she died, but I certainly didn't mourn for someone I never knew nor thought deserved it any more than my relatives that died near that time. Dianna was not flawless or perfect and frankly, some of what you have said Consis stems more from publicity than real understanding.
You have to remember that the tapes are entirely her side of the story, and whilst I despise most of the royal family and wish they were no longer part of ruling my country, these tapes cannot and probably will not portray more than one person's opinion of what happened back then. Much of what she said has to be taken with a pinch of salt given her tendency towards self publicising and self-promotion. Whilst alive she did a very good job of presenting an extremely innocent attitude which frankly isn't at all true. She did after all have affairs herself during her marriage and caused many of the rifts with the rest of the royals
The British tend to tolerate the Royals mostly because:
They bring money into the country
They have no real power, what they do have they would cause them to be thrown out of power if they exercised it against parliment's wishes
They amuse us!
Frankly, most of the older generations actually believe the royals to be "superior" and worthy of adoration. My Mother certainly does and my grandparents generation tend to also. The conservative party here also block much things aimed at reducing royal influence.
As for condoning or otherwise affairs, to be perfectly honest, I don't give a damn what the heir to the throne and his family gets up to. The marriage was entirely As Far As I'm concerned his and his wife's buisness and nothing whatsoever to do with me. I don't find either of their actions particularly tasteful, but that's their choice. If more felt as I did, the pressure on both sides of the marriage would never have been that way. I really couldn't care less what the entire lot of them get up to, because it neither affects or concerns me in the slightest. The royal family have been this way since time immemorial, we can't expect change now. For that matter it's hardly different from the scandals surrounding some of the US presidents in the past that were covered up.
As for your points on forcing the Royal family into doing things... I find this a little strange. I would be worried if the public of a country could enforce morality on a family when the public do not know the full story. Private lives IMO should remain that way. Charles and Diana made their choices in life and had to live with them. It's no place of the entire population to suddenly demand set morality of someone. Their actions will be accounted for sooner or later believe me. I personally think sometime in the next few centuries if not much sooner the British people will gradually cease their fascination with the royals and begin to move towards a republic. Events such as this will begin the movement. If the royals cease to uphold the values they should, then that to me is in some degree all the better as it will hasten the process.
Quote:
At this point there are two children who now have no mother thanks to such a disgraceful web! They think they can get away things like adultry!
Errr? Are you saying Diana's death can be directly linked to the Royal Family? I can assure you that you're way off the mark there, frankly she died in an accident triggered by a number of aspects, and if anything, those so fascinated by her private life caused half of the reasons for the accident...
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
The_Gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
|
posted March 06, 2004 06:25 AM |
|
|
|
Who impeached Clinton? You need to watch your liberal use of the word 'we' Consis.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted March 06, 2004 06:32 AM |
|
|
Clinton was impeached, Gootch, don't you remember?
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted March 06, 2004 07:36 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 6 Mar 2004
|
Please Forgive Me For Being So Inquisitive
PrivateHudson,
I'd like to ask you to please forgive me for being so inquisitive but I honestly have never truly spoken to a British citizen about their royal family. I consider this to be my golden opportunity to have so many of my questions answered. You see, these diaries are going to be an ongoing televised series. I plan to view and record each show so that I can learn as much as I can. I really know next to nothing concerning all of this as you have already pointed out. I find all this completely fascinating.
Quote:
You have to remember that the tapes are entirely her side of the story, and whilst I despise most of the royal family and wish they were no longer part of ruling my country, these tapes cannot and probably will not portray more than one person's opinion of what happened back then.
I accept and agree with this direction of thought.
Quote:
She did after all have affairs herself during her marriage and caused many of the rifts with the rest of the royals
They mentioned this during the show. They said that she never once took the opportunity to talk about her own affair.
Quote:
They have no real power, what they do have they would cause them to be thrown out of power if they exercised it against parliment's wishes
Truly? What is this power is that you speak of? What can they do? Can they declare war or sanctions or something of that nature? I have so wondered what sort of things the king or queen could do. Can they raise taxes like they once did? Please excuse my crudeness of example but perhaps they are more like an american lobbyist. Is that a more closely related assumption?
Quote:
The conservative party here also block much things aimed at reducing royal influence.
Conservatives you say? How very interesting. Coming from america, when we say "conservative" it is usually used in reference to a politically motivated person who wants to save money and is against many new reform programs that promote change on a large scale.
Quote:
For that matter it's hardly different from the scandals surrounding some of the US presidents in the past that were covered up.
Yes exactly. I am in agreement with you. I mentioned president Clinton being impeached for his immoral behavior.
Quote:
As for your points on forcing the Royal family into doing things... I find this a little strange. I would be worried if the public of a country could enforce morality on a family when the public do not know the full story. Private lives IMO should remain that way.
That is what I'm saying happened to president Clinton. He was effectively forced out of his position by the people. So, you could say that the american public enforced their morality on his family.
Quote:
Their actions will be accounted for sooner or later believe me.
I wonder how. I don't know if a king or queen can be impeached. I've only ever heard of such things as revolt or revolution(as in the french) or coup de etat. Whatever does happen I donot wish the royal family to be harmed. Remember the russian royal family? Absolutely terrible. I hope the British people judge fairly when the royal family are eventually held accountable. I hope their sentence will be a justly humane one.
Quote:
Events such as this will begin the movement. If the royals cease to uphold the values they should, then that to me is in some degree all the better as it will hasten the process.
This coming from a respected historian of the HeroesCommunity. I would tend not to dismiss your words here. Rather, I would take notes if I were them.
Quote:
Are you saying Diana's death can be directly linked to the Royal Family? I can assure you that you're way off the mark there, frankly she died in an accident triggered by a number of aspects, and if anything, those so fascinated by her private life caused half of the reasons for the accident...
I suppose. Isn't their some sort of investigation going on as we speak of this? I would look forward to the results of such an investigation as it could shed some light on the matter.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Wiseman
Known Hero
|
|
posted March 06, 2004 08:11 AM |
|
|
"Ahhh, royalties...
Royal families have never been one of my favorites.
They live in luxury all the time, without ever earning it. They have money, power, glory... Why? Just because they were born that way.
For me, it's one of the worst forms of discrimination. And the worst part is you can't do nothing about it. You cannot vote them, you cannot elect them. They are like gods. (in fact, they were considered to be chosen form God in the past).
It's not fair. Why does Prince William always gets the hottest chicks, why can he go and do whatever he wants, buy whatever he wants. and in spite all this, everybody loves him. Buaaaaaa!! *river of tears floods Svarog's room*
"
Actually the worst part is that some of the people ,like
PH said, almost worship them.Now I think I`ll go and listen
to some music...
*runs off and plays Sex Pistols - God SaveThe Queen*
|
|
BURCUSH
Known Hero
Blood Captain of the Vampires
|
|
posted March 06, 2004 09:13 AM |
|
|
Royal families are representative for every country. Let's not forget that the republic is a french "game".
Plus there is a symbol in every royal family.... a simbol of duty, a symbol of respect for your own country.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted March 06, 2004 11:38 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Truly? What is this power is that you speak of? What can they do? Can they declare war or sanctions or something of that nature? I have so wondered what sort of things the king or queen could do. Can they raise taxes like they once did? Please excuse my crudeness of example but perhaps they are more like an american lobbyist. Is that a more closely related assumption?
Well basically speaking the Queen (or king in future, you get the theory I'm sure) is head of the Armed forces of the country who are required to swear an oath of alliegance to her/him. In effect the Monarch has the right to control and order the army in time of conflict. The Monarch also has the power to call and dismiss parliment, something not used for centuries. Whenever a person is elected in the country, they are required to go to ask permission of the Monarch to form a government, who can refuse should they so wish. The government of the day technically are considered to be ruling on behalf of the monarch who gives them her/his permission and sanction to do so. There's some other things that I forget, but they're the main two in terms of affecting the country.
They have no real power over the taxes of the country, but they have power should they desire to use it. Only actually if they did use it against Parliment, there would in effect be a mini civil war between the two as parliment would garner support from the populace whereas the monarchy would have some considerable support from the military of the country, much of whom are pro-monarchy in nature.
Quote:
Conservatives you say? How very interesting. Coming from america, when we say "conservative" it is usually used in reference to a politically motivated person who wants to save money and is against many new reform programs that promote change on a large scale.
*DING* Almost right on the nail  Conservatives are the right wing of British politics, against most change, they opposed for example devolution (parliments for the regions) and reform of the house of lords. They're also known as Tories and are a party much older than Labour. They tend towards the trends you mention also.
Quote:
Yes exactly. I am in agreement with you. I mentioned president Clinton being impeached for his immoral behavior.
But that is merely one example against the backdrop of Kennedy and Roosevelt and many others known to have escaped questioning about their affairs. IMO Clinton was only impeached because he was found out to have lied, the feeling of anger at his affairs was not sufficient to impeach him.
Quote:
That is what I'm saying happened to president Clinton. He was effectively forced out of his position by the people. So, you could say that the american public enforced their morality on his family.
Actually he remained to the end of the 2nd term did he not? Therefore hardly "forced out" as he could never serve again! I still disagree that a state should interfere and enforce a moral standpoint against a person though in such a case. What Clinton and Charles, Diana and Kennedy did is a matter for them and their families alone. Clinton lying to your people was the killer punch really, not the affair itself.
Quote:
I wonder how. I don't know if a king or queen can be impeached. I've only ever heard of such things as revolt or revolution(as in the french) or coup de etat. Whatever does happen I donot wish the royal family to be harmed. Remember the russian royal family? Absolutely terrible. I hope the British people judge fairly when the royal family are eventually held accountable. I hope their sentence will be a justly humane one.
I strongly suspect they may be forced to abdicate their position sooner or later, be it voluntarily or otherwise. I have no wish to see them dead, just not involved in the process of government and influencing our country.
Quote:
I suppose. Isn't their some sort of investigation going on as we speak of this? I would look forward to the results of such an investigation as it could shed some light on the matter
There is indeed. Some of the theories so far are:
A) British intelligence (working to the Queen) were ordered to kill her before she married a muslim in case he influenced the future king William. This is Al Fayed's (Dodi's father, head of Harods, generally an idiot) pet theory and centers around some loose accusations that MI6 had a senior operative in Paris on the day who Al Fayed claims organised the "assasination". Links to a mysterious white car that appeared in the tunnel where the crash occurred and caused Henri Paul (Ritz head of security, driver of the car Diana died in) to crash. Car was never traced properly.
B) The paparazzi and press are to blame: Commonly held theory amongst Diana supporters who say they hounded her. Centers around blaming the Paparazzi for chasing Henri Paul at high speed on motorbike across Paris, a claim which says that had they not he wouldn't have crashed. However, Paul was 3 times over the legal limit, it's entirely likely that he could have crashed anyway.
Trouble is it ignores that she herself was a public personality and exploited the media wherever she could. It also ignores that if the public didn't bother to buy papers and magazines containing such pictures in the first place, the press and paparazzi wouldn't hound celebrities in such a way. Smacks of the public scrabbling round for a scapegoat to avoid the fact that most of them contributed to the reasons she was being followed.
C) It was just a bad accident. Henri Paul was taking medication and drinking a popular french alcholic drink known not to smell on the breath. He drove too fast and a longer, more dangerous route (the tunnel were it happened was one where numerous fatal crashes happen every year) to avoid the Paparazzi. The white car driver didn't want the shame of causing her death.
Coincidentally, the Paparazzi man following the car saw the crash and stopped. He then proceeded to say in hearings taken later that he thought someone else called the emergency services, took photos of Diana et all, and then left. Trouble was no-one had called the emergency services, and an emergency call-out doctor happened past the scene and called them sometime later. The pictures taken were never published, nor has the doctor, who spoke with Diana ever said what her last words were.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
posted March 07, 2004 01:56 AM |
|
|
Wow, I never even imagined the royals had such an enormous power. Lucky us, they never decide to use it.
On the other point, Charles + Camilla, and why the hell not?
If he is so desperately in love with her (which he clearly is, by throwing away a woman like Diana and "doing the nasty" with "woman" like Camilla), why not let the man enjoy himself?
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted March 07, 2004 09:13 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 5 Apr 2005
|
Absolutely Fascinating
Quote:
Well basically speaking the Queen (or king in future, you get the theory I'm sure) is head of the Armed forces of the country who are required to swear an oath of alliegance to her/him. In effect the Monarch has the right to control and order the army in time of conflict.
That gives me pause for some serious questions to pose. You see, here is my thinking about this particular piece of information you have given me. If it is true that the King or Queen is head of the armed forces then it causes me to wonder how so? In America our armed forces are ultimately lead by the President but he cannot take any action or use any military force without the approval of our Congress. He does ofcourse have certain emergency allowances such as a few thousand troops when he sees fit but he cannot keep them deployed for an extended period without approval from our Congress. Even though the President is the Commander and Chief of our armed forces he is still advised by his top generals. Just as any leader our president must know when to give control of the military to the generals and when to command them to hold at bay. If your monarch is the head of your armed forces then why do we see your prime minister leading the charge for your military? Is the monarchy more of a historical symbol to swear allegiance to or does he/she actually command certain battles? If the King or Queen does command certain battles I must then wonder how extensive their education of military strategies is. Are they at the level of Phd, master, or simply bachelor of science when concerning military strategy? I would think that if they were commanding an army then the people would want a qualified individual in charge as opposed to someone who might feel forced into the job having been born of it.
Quote:
The Monarch also has the power to call and dismiss parliment, something not used for centuries. Whenever a person is elected in the country, they are required to go to ask permission of the Monarch to form a government, who can refuse should they so wish. The government of the day technically are considered to be ruling on behalf of the monarch who gives them her/his permission and sanction to do so.
Fascinating, absolutely rivetting. This seems to speak of iconology to me. That is an idealogy that we americans pale in comparison to when compared to the British. I have always felt as though the English had such dignity in swearing allegiance to the thrown. I felt like you all have something to serve whereas myself only having thought of the military as a job to receive money for. I suppose it stems from my historic interest to one day become a true knight in the proper royal ceremony. I have always felt that knighthood was the ultimate statement one could make to the world as to how loyal a servant of peace they truly are. That is the way I have always looked at knight status. It is they that defend the country and the people with all that they are. It is they that love those whom they serve because that's where they arose from and they know better than anyone what their people need to be safe. A protector of the peace. You know, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani received a knighthood from your Queen for his actions on September 11th, 2001. It was a proud day for americans.
Quote:
They have no real power over the taxes of the country, but they have power should they desire to use it.
Interesting....
Quote:
Conservatives are the right wing of British politics, against most change, they opposed for example devolution (parliments for the regions) and reform of the house of lords. They're also known as Tories and are a party much older than Labour.
I did not know this. I find it interesting.
Quote:
Actually he remained to the end of the 2nd term did he not?
Well yes, he did, however because of the hearings and other such committees inacted he was effectively paralized as a president unable to cause change from that point on. He retained the job title but had little power following the start of the investigation. Some believe that is the reason for the start of our economic recession just before Bush(jr) took office.
Quote:
Trouble is it ignores that she herself was a public personality and exploited the media wherever she could.
My gut feeling tells me to disagree with this statement. I feel she was not the sort to exploit the media. She continually addresses the fear and torment from them. I donot think this theory coincides with a person who was afraid of that which she was being alleged to have exploited.
Finally, I must wonder if this whole incident with Diana's death is somehow related to some larger issue being felt by the people of your country. I wonder if this will cause the start of a chain reaction of events that will lead to such things as you described. Things like the royal family abdicating the throne. Or perhaps it is something else. Only time will tell at this point. They say history behaves like time in that it too will tell of today's events which we of today cannot see.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted March 07, 2004 02:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If your monarch is the head of your armed forces then why do we see your prime minister leading the charge for your military?
Probably because it's illegal to take the country to war without parlimentary consent. Therefore the PM has the power to declare war as such as the Royal Family are not exactly permitted to do that.
Quote:
Is the monarchy more of a historical symbol to swear allegiance to or does he/she actually command certain battles?
Well, up until about 1700 the King would normally be present at battles that mattered such as those that decided which Monarch's House would rule the country in times of indecision and so on. From then none have taken to commanding field armies, though some members of the family do involve themselves in the military from time to time, Andrew for example in the Falklands.
Quote:
If the King or Queen does command certain battles I must then wonder how extensive their education of military strategies is. Are they at the level of Phd, master, or simply bachelor of science when concerning military strategy?
Last time the monarch lead the army none of these really existed for military affairs 
Quote:
. I have always felt as though the English had such dignity in swearing allegiance to the thrown.
It does create problems amongst the republicans and the pro-Irish politicians from Northern Ireland as they refuse to see why they should though.
Quote:
Some believe that is the reason for the start of our economic recession just before Bush(jr) took office
Intruiging, by connection then it assumes that they believe that the cause of the recession was Republicans chasing down the president on a matter of relatively little importance in an attempt to drive him from power....
Quote:
My gut feeling tells me to disagree with this statement. I feel she was not the sort to exploit the media. She continually addresses the fear and torment from them. I donot think this theory coincides with a person who was afraid of that which she was being alleged to have exploited.
Read her books, look at some of the interviews she gave. For all her great work, she very much manipulated the media in her own way, some of the interviews that aired on British TV in the years surrounding her divorce were almost stage managed to ensure she came across almost saintly. Some of the media manipulation was done for a good cause eg the landmines issue and so on, but facts remain, Diana used the media to promote either herself or her causes, to then complain that the media hounded her too much is a little hypocritical.
Oh and on the issue of Knighthood, the Queen isn't directly linked to it in all manners. For example, parliment through the PM puts forward people to be knighted at set times of the year, the queen may nominate people when she likes, but rarely outside of the normal times. Most knighthoods though are more done through parliment to give the impression that somehow it's a popular decision. In reality, half the time it's just people who supported the government's party or similar. Often knighthoods go to those more well known, and not necessarily the most deserving, eg only a small number of the 1966 world cup winning side (ie the best known players) ever got knighted, the others were ignored.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted March 08, 2004 02:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I suppose it stems from my historic interest to one day become a true knight in the proper royal ceremony. I have always felt that knighthood was the ultimate statement one could make to the world as to how loyal a servant of peace they truly are. That is the way I have always looked at knight status. It is they that defend the country and the people with all that they are. It is they that love those whom they serve because that's where they arose from and they know better than anyone what their people need to be safe. A protector of the peace.
Yes. Elton John and Mick Jagger regularly rescue damsels in distress and slay dragons didn't you know
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted March 08, 2004 03:12 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 5 Apr 2005
|
British Figures Of Speech?
Last night I decided to review the show once again and I heard some strange figures of speech used by Diana. If anyone else knows what these sayings mean, please feel free to offer up the information because I'm left a bit puzzled by their meanings.
She said:
Quote:
"The children, I was demented about them."
Quote:
"I pined for him but he never rang me up."
Quote:
"We had a filthy row."
Quote:
"I was sick as a parrot."
Quote:
"Blubbing one's eyes out."
I do not mean any disrespect at all. These words and phrases seem so foreign to me. I've never heard anyone say this before. It's mostly my curiosity at work here. I was wondering if there were any things that americans say that strike other people as odd. Perhaps I could elaborate for you something we americans normally say that strikes you as odd.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted March 08, 2004 03:16 AM |
|
|
Quote:
"The children, I was demented about them."
She was worried about them, demented meaning VERY worried about them that she was nearly in a state of dementia from worry.
Quote:
"I pined for him but he never rang me up."
Pined means 'to long for'
Quote:
"We had a filthy row."
Just an all out domestic riot
Quote:
"I was sick as a parrot."
Terribly disappointed after you get your hopes up and have them dashed.
Quote:
"Blubbing one's eyes out."
Crying like a baby
quote]
Hope that helps. Can't think offhand about crazy yankee sayings, as we see them on TV alot and so get used to them in the context they're used.
And you don't strike me as someone from the dives of Detroit so I'll not ask you to explain what rappers mean when they say ANYTHING.
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
|
hamsi128
Promising
Supreme Hero
tosser tavern owner
|
|
posted March 08, 2004 08:48 AM |
|
|
here in heroescommunity we dont talk about colours white, black , purple , pink whatever... and for the princess diana it is sad to see some people post magazine-paparazzi opinions they watched on tv... let drop this to the british people , i promise there is no nuclear weapon on princess diana car when she is dead.. so nbc take great risk starting a series on tv
____________
quoting my post = bullet in your head
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted March 09, 2004 03:14 AM |
|
|
Not that great a risk, there's programmes on British TV all the damned time with a variety of opinions on her from butlers, drivers and bodyguards. I don't think too many here will care if the US does series on her too 
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
| |
|
|
