Prince William's Visit to New Zealand & Australia - January 2010 - Page 8

Iluvbertie · #**141** 01-30-2010, 04:24 PM

The Queen was popular here when she was young and beautiful with a handsome husband.

In the 70s Charles was popular - the new young hip generation of royal and then he married and Diana was young and pretty and popular.

Now it is William.

By the time William becomes King it will be his children or even grandchildren who are popular as he will be old.

The headlines we are now seeing about William are the same ones we saw in the 70s about Charles.

scooter · #**142** 01-30-2010, 04:46 PM

I think you would find that the Queen remains popular even though she and her handsome husband are elderly. The people are all afire to see William. It's just the one in between who is less than enthusiatically received.

Mermaid1962 · #**143** 01-30-2010, 05:27 PM

I concur with this assessment, scooter. When "the one in between" was here, I didn't hear anyone mention the visit except for the news media.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooter

I think you would find that the Queen remains popular even though she and her handsome husband are elderly. The people are all afire to see William. It's just the one in between who is less than enthusiatically received.

rmay286 · #**144** 01-30-2010, 06:31 PM

I think the Queen is still popular. Even among people who don't support the monarchy, you rarely hear a bad word about the Queen. She is respected for her integrity and devotion to duty, and now even for her longevity. Because of this, I'm pretty sure that a lot of people will turn out to see the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh when they come to Canada this summer--especially since they are elderly and it might be their last visit to Canada.

scooter · #**145** 01-30-2010, 11:48 PM

And I would bet that 'The fear of H1N1' wont keep the crowds away fromQEII as they did for the one in between and the wife.

Iluvbertie · #**146** 01-31-2010, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooter

And I would bet that 'The fear of H1N1' wont keep the crowds away fromQEII as they did for the one in between and the wife.

Time of year will have a huge bearing on that idea.

At the height of the flu season, when Charles and Camilla visited Canada, it was a real fear but in the height of summer, when flu isn't such a prevalent ailment, as it was here in Australia for William and as it will be in Canada for the Queen and Philip's visit, it won't be an issue.

You can't resist always having a dig at Charles and Camilla. You find any excuse to put down Charles, a fine man who has done a brilliant job as Prince of Wales.

The crowds in Canada had to deal with the cold and the hysteria about the h1n1 flu.

Had William come here last July he would have faced the same problems as people here were talking about not going out, except on essential matters, my school was almost closed, I was forced to stay at home for over two weeks with the mildest dose of the flu I have ever had (in case it was swine flu but I wasn't tested as I wasn't in a risk category for needing hospitilisation - in a normal year I wouldn't have even gone to the doctor's but the school sent me) and the resr of the hysteria around a new strain of flu.

But lets not let the facts of time of year get in the way of your tiresome tirades against a man who married the wrong woman and has since found love with the right one.

**Warren** · #**147** 01-31-2010, 06:38 AM

Yes, the thread is about William's visit to Australia. I don't see the need to, yet again, introduce Charles into the commentary.

We also appear to have a new naming convention: in the Royal Jewels Forum Diana became, in Scooter's elegant words "the dead first wife". Charles in this thread has become equally anonymous as "the one in between" and Camilla is "the wife". As we are adults and not children we can address the subjects of our threads by their official or first names. This relentless bitterness of yours is becoming very tiresome Scooter.

rmay286 · #**148** 01-31-2010, 04:01 PM

The whole Charles and Camilla debate completely aside, I don't think the fear of H1N1 really contributed to the low public turnout during Charles and Camilla's visit. In July, H1N1 was seen as a serious threat all over the world, regardless of what hemisphere you were in or whether it was flu season or not. The virus had just recently been discovered in Mexico and no one really knew much about it. But by November, when Charles and Camilla visited Canada, many people here were catching H1N1 and recovering fine, and everyone was going about their usual routines. People were realizing that H1N1 was not much worse than "regular flu", so if people had wanted to see Charles and Camilla, I doubt H1N1 would have stopped them. Just my opinion...

But I don't think you can blame Charles' treatment of Diana or relationship with Camilla or whatever for people's interest (or lack thereof) in him. It is a contributing factor--I don't agree that most people have no interest in Charles' past history because whenever I hear people mention Charles, they also tend to mention Diana and the breakdown of their marriage. But IMO the main reason Charles is seemingly not as popular as either William or the Queen is that he is middle-aged. Middle-aged is not as exciting as young, attractive and personable (William) or elderly and enduring (the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh). I'd bet that back in the 1970s, the Queen wasn't seen as very exciting, either--probably less so than she is today.

Sereta · #**149** 01-31-2010, 04:47 PM

Something else to consider is this is William's first official overseas trip and his first time back in Australia since he was a baby so that adds to the level of excitement. And yes people tend to be more interested in youth.

Opal · #**150** 02-01-2010, 03:57 AM

Article talks about the people who helped William on his trip.

The people behind team Wills | The Daily Telegraph

RJ TAYLER · #**151** 02-01-2010, 05:08 AM

Nice to see 'the team' getting some thanks as well too. I wonder how long it will be before HRH graces our shores again?

Opal · #**152** 02-02-2010, 05:23 PM

That's an interesting read about his team. I didn't realize his private secretary Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton was also a bodyguard. Sort of like getting two for the price of one.

Sereta · #**153** 02-09-2010, 06:38 PM

And you do the same with William and Harry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

You can't resist always having a dig at Charles and Camilla. You find any excuse to put down Charles....

Here's another follow-up article regarding William's trip.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/bri...-1225822686074

Lumutqueen · #**154** 02-09-2010, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cd255

And you do the same with William and Harry.

I don't think thats true.

Wonderful after articles about Williams visit. It's nice to see that he left an impression.

Iluvbertie · #**155** 02-10-2010, 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cd255

And you do the same with William and Harry.

That is not the case at all.

I have frequently praised them and defended them but I don't fawn over them like some here who seem to think they can do no wrong.

I don't believe all the press stories.

I don't gush and say things like "I am so proud of them" - I leave those sorts of comments for my family or my students but not strangers, who live on the other side of the world and have never really had to try at anything (they have tried and succeeded but they haven't had to do so - there is a difference by the way).

Do I admire them? Not really as I have seem little to admire, as they have done so very little. Harry has served his country and I have admiration for him doing so. That he was given extra protection while there isn't his fault but if he is to truly serve then he needs to do so without that. He did go - unlike a lot of others and wants to go back and I hope he gets that opportunity as it is want he wants. Same with William - he too wants to serve and I see no reason why they can't both go and serve in Afghanistan. It isn't as if they are the Queen's only heirs afterall.

muriel · #**156** 02-10-2010, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Harry has served his country and I have admiration for him doing so. That he was given extra protection while there isn't his fault but if he is to truly serve then he needs to do so without that. He did go - unlike a lot of others and wants to go back and I hope he gets that opportunity as it is want he wants. Same with William - he too wants to serve and I see no reason why they can't both go and serve in Afghanistan. It isn't as if they are the Queen's only heirs afterall.

It is unfortunate that William and Harry do not have the opportunity to serve Queen and country in the way they would like to by serving in Afghanistan. To suggest that they be sent in to battle, and in the process endanger others serving alongside them, appears to be an own goal, IMO.

Sereta · #**157** 02-10-2010, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

I have frequently praised them and defended them...

I've never seen you praise them or say anything nice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

I don't gush and say things like "I am so proud of them" - I leave those sorts of comments for my family or my students but not strangers, who live on the other side of the world and have never really had to try at anything (they have tried and succeeded but they haven't had to do so - there is a difference by the way).

The fact that they haven't "had" to but "did" anyway is imo even more commendable. But of course you have to turn it into a criticism. Typical. I don't expect gushing but the constant negativity toward two young men that you don't even know is unnecessary. There's so much negativity in the world as it is. A little balance would be nice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Do I admire them? Not really as I have seem little to admire, as they have done so very little. Harry has served his country and I have admiration for him doing so. That he was given extra protection while there isn't his fault but if he is to truly serve then he needs to do so without that. He did go - unlike a lot of others and wants to go back and I hope he gets that opportunity as it is want he wants. Same with William - he too wants to serve and I see no reason why they can't both go and serve in Afghanistan. It isn't as if they are the Queen's only heirs afterall.

Why even bring up about Afghanistan in this thread? Ahh, but of course
you have to end your message criticizing them over something you know they can't help. Typical.

I don't care what you say or think really. People are entitled to their opinion. It just struck me as hypocritical when you criticized someone else (scooter) for doing what you do.

Iluvbertie · #**158** 02-10-2010, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cd255

I've never seen you praise them or say anything nice.

[/B]
The fact that they haven't "had" to but "did" anyway is imo even more commendable. But of course you have to turn it into a criticism. Typical. I don't expect gushing but the constant negativity toward two young men that you don't even know is unnecessary. There's so much negativity in the world as it is. A little balance would be nice.

How does saying that they did things and succeeded, despite not having to do so be a criticism?

I said that I won't and don't gush over them but even when I say something positive and that I see as a positive - they did, they succeeded, they didn't have to - you see that as a criticism.

What should I have said - isn't is 'commendable'? Well I didn't use that word but I still said that they tried and succeeded when they didn't have to try.

Quote:

Why even bring up about Afghanistan in this thread? Ahh, but of course
you have to end your message criticizing them over something you know they can't help. Typical.

I don't care what you say or think really. People are entitled to their opinion. It just struck me as hypocritical when you criticized someone else (scooter) for doing what you do.

To bring in Afghanistan was also meant as a complement as they want to serve but it isn't their fault that they can't, because they need extra protection, or might put others at extra risk.

Yes people are entitled to their opinion.

Mine is that the two young princes have done some things in their lives but have a long way to go earn the respect of the public in their own right.

I also see you as one who will see everything I right as a criticsm even when it is a complement to these two young men because you have opinion of me that I can't change - and won't bother trying.

By the way - how do you know that I don't know them, or know people who know them? Don't jump to conclusions that people here don't know people. I am not saying I do but that you have made a conclusion that might or might not be accurate.

Sereta · #**159** 02-10-2010, 07:35 PM

Then it's interesting that even when you try to write something as positive (as you claim) you still make it sound negative. Well, people can read for themselves. I have no opinion of you, only what you write. And anyone can read your history to see your negative attitude to William and Harry.

Iluvbertie · #**160** 02-10-2010, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cd255

Then it's interesting that even when you try to write something as positive (as you claim) you still make it sound negative. Well, people can read for themselves. I have no opinion of you, only what you write. And anyone can read your history to see your negative attitude to William and Harry.

Please explain how
'They didn't have to but they did try and they succeeded' is a negative - as you say it is?