|
| Thread: Princess Diana |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted March 12, 2004 10:27 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 13 Jan 2005
|
Final Episode
It's all a big question to me. Diana's death, the prince, the queen, Camilla. What does it all mean? I just don't know. I have a bad feeling about this because what we are left with are two heirs to the throne. I think William and Harry loved their mother more than anyone could possibly know. But....what will they do about all this? My gut tells me this is a life-altering experience. Was it for the best or the worse that these two young men's lives have been changed? Time may tell but for the moment we do not know.
My lasting feeling about this Diana and her story is one of power. I must admit she had a lot of power and she was a woman scorned. Hell and all that you know but her son ,William, will be King one day. What does it all mean. I suppose I shall just have to wait.
Perhaps more comments will come to me at a later time about this thread but for now it seems that it might be a closing point for me. I'm left with nothing but questions....her sons....what will happen. Perhaps the Nostrodamus predictions about two brothers being torn apart is meant for them. I just don't know.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Stormrage
Known Hero
Tucker is not a duck
|
posted March 13, 2004 11:37 AM |
|
|
Diana would have survived if her stupid driver wouldn't have driven so fast, and if she would have used her seat belt.
____________
"Heed to my call, denizens of All poor countries! Viva la revolt!"
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted June 02, 2004 04:21 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 13 Jan 2005
|
Should Prince Charles Remarry With Camilla?
(copied from cnn)
LONDON, England (Reuters) -- Britain's Prince Charles should marry his lover Camilla Parker Bowles, according to the former Archbishop of Canterbury, who described the prince's previous wife, the late Princess Diana as cunning and fallible.
George Carey, the former leader of the world's 70 million Anglicans, told The Times newspaper on Wednesday that marriage was the "natural thing."
"The Christian faith is all about forgiveness," he said.
"We all make mistakes. Failure is part of the human condition and there is no doubt that there has been a strong, loving relationship, probably since they were very young, that has endured over the years.
"He is the heir to the throne and he loves her. The natural thing is that they should get married."
Charles and Diana divorced in 1996 with admissions of adultery on both sides.
Diana blamed Parker Bowles, a long-time lover of Charles, and a prying media for the break-up but Carey defended the prince, saying he had been "more sinned against than sinning" during the marriage.
"She was a very fallible lady and very angry about the relationship and yes, I do believe, on balance, that she was a little more cunning at using the media than Charles," he said.
Charles has trod a delicate public relations path over his affair with Parker Bowles since the divorce and Diana's subsequent death in a Paris car crash in 1997.
Carey said he visited Parker Bowles in secret during his time as Archbishop because he feared she was "an ogre in the eyes of the media."
"She's a very nice person. She's very bright, able, astute, tough, very pleasant company," he said.
The Church of England lifted its ban on divorced people remarrying in church in 2002 and Carey said he would be happy to see a blessing service take place, but added that he had no idea of the couple's intentions.
(copied from cnn)
This all seems very interesting to me. Why on earth wouldn't Charles decide to remarry with Camilla?
Perhaps there is some sort of royal political retribution if he does. I wonder if it might start a civil war or some sort of unrest in parliament. Might there be an unbalance of power or what?
If Prince Charles weren't a prince then one might think he would simply have married her in the first place. If he had then he would never have married Diana. There is so much that I don't know from across the atlantic ocean. *sigh*...Ah well...
Ill-Fated Passing Of The Late Princess's Mother
Apparently Diana's mother has recently passed on. I've found a few interesting articles about her life as the late Princess of Whales' mother. I can't say how complete the information is but it was educational for myself. It was interesting to find out that Diana's mother was a staunch follower of catholic beliefs. That makes for some obvious conflicts of interest between she and her daughter. The article said that she was not on speaking terms with her daughter when she died in the car crash. As if the tragedy wasn't bad enough, she lost her daughter while angry at her.
The link is here:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/03/uk.shandkydd.profile/index.html
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 04, 2004 12:03 AM |
|
|
There is almost no chance whatsoever of there being a civil war in this country over something like Charles taking the throne or otherwise. There are some people who oppose the marriage, mostly members of the church of england, though there are some in the older generations that believe that marrying Camilla is wrong because she was his adulterous affair.
Most of us here though simply don't give a monkies what Charles does or doesn't do, and I'm one of them. Whatever the sorry truth of his marriage to Dianna, he deserves a chance to try and be happy with her if he so chooses to. The problem so far until now is more one of image. As the heir to the throne, soon to be "defender of the faith" in the country, Charles could earn himself a poor image if he married against the will of the church. It would certainly upset the church, and probably damage in the eyes of the country the image of the monarchy, but to be honest it could not reach much further than that. Most simply don't care.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted June 04, 2004 01:43 AM |
|
|
Okay, most of the time, celebrity-worship really, really bores me. Personally, I couldn't care less what the British royalty is up to.
This latest scandal has caught my attention, however (one of the Beliefnet bloggers mentions it), and it is particularly incomprehensible. Isn't Diana dead? If she and Charles had remained married up to her death, wouldn't he be eligible to re-marry now? Why is he still ineligible? By Catholic standards, as I understand them, divorce is simply invalid and the couple is considered still married until one dies, which forms the basis for the no re-marriage rules. Once an (ex)partner is dead, all vows are off. I assumed most denominations prohibiting re-marriage worked the same way. What's going on here?
There would be an easy answer if Parker-Bowles is herself a divorcee, but no one has mentioned anything like that.
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 04, 2004 02:10 AM |
|
|
The problem was that the anglican church refused until recently to allow anyone who had been divorced (ever that is) to remarry inside of the church. Charles could still have married, but not within the church, which as he defends the faith of the country would have been seen as a bad thing to have done. Had they been married when Dianna died, Charles could have re-married, but since the divorce happened first, the church took a rather extreme view on it.
in 2002 (I think, recently anyway) the anglican church lifted this ban, allowing anyone to remarry in the church.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted August 31, 2004 04:40 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 5 Apr 2005
|
Has It Been So Long Ago?
Seven years? It seems like it was only yesterday when I was downloading Princess Diana screensavers. I wish I could simply walk a handful of flowers up to Kensington palace. Oh how the days flutter by whilst the sun doth set on the morrow of my eye. I shall think fondly on this day to what could have been and come what may....adieu, adieu.
God save the Queen.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 02, 2004 10:21 AM |
|
|
Quote:
nice smiley! its australia you know, not great britain. just checking!
what?! oh nice thread too
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 02, 2004 10:39 AM |
|
|
I wouldn't worry about it, Americans are always confusing australia with Britain 
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted December 18, 2004 07:34 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 18 Dec 2004
|
**Sigh**...
I've been delving into so much British history lately that my eyes might pop out of their sockets. It's really all so fascinating to me. The whole notion of Parliament and Royalty brings me to endless questioning. And on top of all that, I look at British mentality as compared to american and other nations. It is really quite different and fascinating to me.
It seems I've been spelling it wrong the whole time too. Only a single "t" for "British". I've also learned that Britain has one of the last, few remaining, intact royal families in the entire world. They've been consistently careful to preserve the bloodline. It almost seems that the royal family has drifted away from ruling and into a form of national identity. It is as if to say, "When you look upon our King or Queen, you can still see the people of ages past who made this country what it is today."
I've also learned a great deal more about how very different the British civil war was to my own american civil war. This sort of research intrigued me on the basis of the future of Iraq from present day. Countless times have I thought of the possibility for an Iraqi civil war and I've often wondered how different that might be from my own and Britain's. Some might wonder why I've taken such an interest in Britain. I believe that it was from Britain came the United States of America. I've recently been learning about a decisive George Washington Battle of the Valley Forge and I was inclined to lean toward highly world-class war-training that was not being taught in america, but Germany and Britain instead. I am also in the process of associating Britain's King Henry III beheading to a new movement coming about in the world in which royal families were being pushed aside by the will of their own people. I'm especially curious to learn about French revolution in conjunction with this. And again, why the interest in civil wars and Britain at all? Because it is all in relation to my deeper question: "British Parliament, what are it's idealogical and legislative differences to my own American Congress?"
And on top of all that research(a slight tangent really), I viewed yet another Diana program as of late.
In this latest release I was inclined to lean more towards PrivateHudson's personal stand on the kind of person she truly was. I feel as though she was a fantastic mother etc, etc, etc.....but she did in fact manipulate the media as much as they manipulated her. "Playing with fire" is what she said and I quite agree.
Now on to that slimy little voice coach/actor. I was absolutely on to him. I could tell he was quite in it for himself and his own selfish prospects. He had apparently sold his personal videos(that the butler had stolen from the palace) to a media giant here in the states. I was beginning to loath this man the more he tried explaining himself for revealing Diana's privacy without her experessed consent.
Oh and I must especially laugh at the backdrop for the program's spokesperson. She was of course standing right off the front of the famed London Bridge. That's right, the same bridge that William Wallace's(Braveheart) head was mounted by the English. But to everyone's great amusement, you can all join me in laughing that the London bridge now rests somewhere in Arizona(u.s.a.), LoL. I'm not kidding. It was actually dismantled brick by brick and re-assembled in Arizona. I'm not sure why the British let it go. It is, in fact, a very distinct piece/link to their own legacy.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted December 18, 2004 03:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I've also learned that Britain has one of the last, few remaining, intact royal families in the entire world.
IIRC the late King Hussein of Jordan once remarked that there was only 5 queens left, the Queen of Hearts, the Queen of Spades, the Queen of Diamonds, the Queen of Clubs and the Queen of England. Which was of course an exaggeration as the Dutch had a queen when he made that remark...
Quote:
I've also learned a great deal more about how very different the British civil war was to my own american civil war
English Civil war is the more correct term since at the time, only Wales and England were united in any real form. At this time only the monarchies of England and Scotland were united, not the countries. Ireland would join the union in 1801, Scotland in 1707. It's true that the fighting spilled into all four countries during the war, notably in Scotland especially, but the main beef at the time was between the King of Scotland/England and the parliment, which was only English at the time.
On this light, there was no "british" king Henry III, at no time has a Henry sat on the throne of Britain, indeed the last to rule England was Henry VIII, at the time he ruled just England and Wales. For that matter, to my knowledge Henry III was never executed but he was briefly deposed by Simon De Montfort (who called for the first parliment to be formed) before being restored by his son Edward. Edward co-incidentally would be crowned Edward I, Longshanks, Hammer of the scots, the older of the English Kings in Braveheart.
Quote:
I'm not sure why the British let it go. It is, in fact, a very distinct piece/link to their own legacy.
1) It was falling apart, it literally fulfilled the "london bridge is falling down" nursery rhyme
2) It needed replacing due to an increase in traffic flow across it. We have replaced it with newer ones since then.
3) Why would we mind selling one of the few dozen odd bridges we have crossing the Thames? We retained Tower Bridge which is the most famous and only slightly younger
4) "London" Bridge was most certainly not the same one that Wallace's head was stuck on. It was built in 1831, which is a few hundred years too late  Wallace's head was stuck on *a* london bridge, but as I said, there is and has long been many london bridges.
And I agree that the Monarchy represents what made Britain what it is today. It's history is full of Germans, Dutch, French, Scandanavians, Spaniards and god knows what else It can though trace a very loose line back to 1066 when William of Normandy defeated the Saxon king Harold and took the throne. Mind you the link between one monarch and another has often been very slim, usually to avoid a monarch with a certain religion. A good example of this would be the Jacobite wars (Bonnie Prince Charlie period for ease of thought) fought between the Stuarts and their supporters and the Hanovarians and theirs. The Stuarts were mostly Catholics from Scotland, the Hanovarians were German (initially) protestants. The stuarts were booted off the throne and replaced with a protestant Dutchman, William of Orange and his British wife to avoid Catholicism being the state religion (plus they were unpopular), and spent a century or so trying to get it back against William, his descendants and the Hanovarians. The Stuart claim to the throne of England and Scotland btw was considerably stronger than William's, and vastly stronger than George I and his descendants who made up the hanovarian dynasty. This shows the strength of feeling in England against the Stuarts. In Ireland or Scotland though support for the Stuarts was strong on a political, cultural and religious basis.
Which is another reason why we call it the "English" civil war. We've had literally dozens of civil wars of one sort or another and have a need to divide them into different names, such as the Jacobite wars, the war of the Roses, the English civil war and so on.
I applaud you though for looking further into another country's history. Applogies if this sounds harsh, it's not meant to be, just correcting some bits of what you said 
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted January 13, 2005 05:18 PM |
|
|
This Can't Be A Good Thing!
Quote:
The picture of the third in line to the throne in Nazi regalia was published on the front page of Thursday's Sun newspaper.
 http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/01/13/harry.react/index.html
I am absolutely shocked. I don't even know what to say. I almost can't believe he would do such a thing. This will undoubtedly stain his reputation for the rest of his life. I'm simply aghast, dismayed, and left speechless. I can't find the words to describe it. What would Churchill say; or his mother? How dreadfully dishonorable to himself and his own people!
I agree that he should indeed visit Auschwitz. The lad needs a good flogging with the club of common sense. I thank God he's third in line and not second. I do not envy William or his father at this time.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 13, 2005 05:43 PM |
|
|
Oh dear...
The guy went to a fancy dress party in an outfit quite common over here for such events. It's not the end of the world or a statement about what he belives, it was a costume. People are blowing this WAY out of context and proportion.
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 13, 2005 05:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Oh dear...
The guy went to a fancy dress party in an outfit quite common over here for such events. It's not the end of the world or a statement about what he belives, it was a costume. People are blowing this WAY out of context and proportion.
The only thing is, everybody else doesn't live
under a microscope like the Royals do. It really
was quite a dumb thing to do IMO.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 13, 2005 07:40 PM |
|
|
|
No-one expects intelligence from a Royal, just like I shouldn't expect the press not to overeact to every little thing the royals do.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted January 13, 2005 08:36 PM |
|
|
Well...
Being a father myself, I was looking at it through the 'Father-Son' perspective. I would be very ashamed of my son if he dressed up as a Nazi for Halloween or any other such costume party. Why couldn't he have chosen to be a werewolf, vampire, witch, frankenstein, or something of that nature? Why the swastica armband?
He made a poor choice I'd say. He needs to visit the places his mother visited and then go speak to living remnants of Aushwitz. He must come to know why Winston Churchill is so great a figure in history.
To ignore history is to repeat it methinks...
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 13, 2005 09:22 PM |
|
|
Let me put it this way, contrast the following two:
1) A French far-right politician makes comments like "Germany's occupation of France was not especially inhumane" He also suggested history books lied about the period of occupation. This barely gets a mention or discussion anywhere so far as I've seen.
2) A member of the Royal Family dresses up in a Nazi uniform for a fancy dress party were he's going as a "monster" and this is reported throughout the world, lambasted and attacked by virtually everyone like he's some sort of neo-nazi*.
Anyone but me think this is a bit silly? Yes his actions were a little unwise, but it's hardly warranting the ridiculous comments thrown at him. Harry isn't someone I like in the slightest, but he's not ignorant of the events of the holocaust. People are just blowing the whole thing out of context and accusing him of things they cannot possibly know to be true.
*You might not be, but you should hear the rubbish being spouted by some others on the news.
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 13, 2005 09:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Let me put it this way, contrast the following two:
1) A French far-right politician makes comments like "Germany's occupation of France was not especially inhumane" He also suggested history books lied about the period of occupation. This barely gets a mention or discussion anywhere so far as I've seen.
Yes its silly. People like that politician are dangerous
idiots and we hope they never gain any real power. I think
that you do understand, though, that celebrity and star power are always blown out of proportion, and so, what
Harry does matters more. The only power the Royal family
has these days is the power to be a symbol and set an example. He utterly failed in that here, and the press loves nothing better than a high and mighty maybe becoming
a high and mighty wanna-be.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 13, 2005 09:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I think
that you do understand, though, that celebrity and star power are always blown out of proportion, and so, what
Harry does matters more.
It doesn't matter to me and most people I know in the slightest what he gets up to frankly. IF it did, I don't expect him to be constantly worried if he offends someone by his dress or similar. I never have, nor ever will expect him to spend his entire life worrying about what I think about such matters.
Quote:
He utterly failed in that here, and the press loves nothing better than a high and mighty maybe becoming
a high and mighty wanna-be.
That may be so, but I still find it distasteful that the press and people concentrate so much on someone who made a silly mistake whilst ignoring a revisionist politician.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 13, 2005 09:42 PM |
|
|
I agree, its distasteful, and I'm not defending
the ethics of press, simply saying that it is so.
If you and most of the people you know don't care
about what the Royals do, its time to eliminate
the monarchy
____________
|
| |
|
|
