The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #321  
Old 03-04-2009, 12:16 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Arcadia, United States
Posts: 450
Would Prince Charles's marks really not been good enough to get into Cambridge in 1967 or '68? Since the marks were a B and a c.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #322  
Old 03-04-2009, 12:26 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpusa1981 View Post
Would Prince Charles's marks really not been good enough to get into Cambridge in 1967 or '68? Since the marks were a B and a c.
He most likely wouldn't today (as a regular person, at least). That would require at least three A-levels, all with a grade of A, according to the entrance requirements on Cambridge's website.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #323  
Old 03-04-2009, 12:39 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpusa1981 View Post
Would Prince Charles's marks really not been good enough to get into Cambridge in 1967 or '68? Since the marks were a B and a c.
Absolutely not. For most people, it would have taken three or four A-levels, all at grade A or maybe with one B in the mix, as well as a slew of O levels (Charles only had six, which was pretty mediocre in general but poor for a university entrant, and there were no science subjects among them), and an S-level pass wouldn't have hurt.

I know someone with 12 good O-levels, three grade A A-levels, and one S-level pass, who didn't get into Cambridge. The notion of someone with six O-levels and two not all that great A-level passes sailing into Cambridge, ostensibly on merit, would have been pretty hard for her to swallow.
Reply With Quote
  #324  
Old 03-04-2009, 01:47 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
Quote:
Monitoring and removing what, exactly?

Any and all negative or questioning comments, the same as here.
Oh, please. All negative and questioning comments? Come off it.
Reply With Quote
  #325  
Old 03-04-2009, 03:04 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
I know someone with 12 good O-levels, three grade A A-levels, and one S-level pass, who didn't get into Cambridge. The notion of someone with six O-levels and two not all that great A-level passes sailing into Cambridge, ostensibly on merit, would have been pretty hard for her to swallow.
I can imagine that the idea that Charles got in due to his "merit" is hard to swallow for everybody. But that's how it works. The son of our former chancellor Kohl got a place at Harvard.... guess why? (and if someone doubts the source of this information I'm willing to prove to a mod that I in fact had been in a position to have knowledge about this.)
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
Reply With Quote
  #326  
Old 03-04-2009, 03:16 AM
Idriel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: around, France
Posts: 1,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
I don't think it's really new that royals are presented as doing things on their own merit when in fact they've been given a free pass round the system.
Oh, I know. I wasn't claiming that was anything new, I was just pointing out that was the point of contention.

This attitude of taking the public for idiots has to change. Just because it has been the modus operandi for decades doesn't makes it right or appropriate fot the 21st century.
As you observed, both the public and the media are nowhere near as deferential they were 30 year ago. William's gloss as Diana son has faded. Most of William's PR disasters could have been avoided with a little bit of honesty.

William also needs to stop with that 'I want to be normal' nonsense when he is liberally abusing his privileges. It just makes him look uterly hypocritical. I don't think Charles was ever guilty of that (or was he?).

I generally agree with the posts you have been making.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #327  
Old 03-04-2009, 04:50 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Idriel brilliant summation.
-------------------
Most of the downright filthy posts are removed, what you see are the watered down versions, they are not ballerinas after all!
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimebear View Post
I can understand why you may feel that way but, in reading through the links provided and seeing just what is left undeleted (vulgar and well written alike), I did not get the impression that deletion was occuring for:
Perhaps because it has been deleted.
Quote:
Any and all negative or questioning comments
Pertaining to William and Harry's unusual advancement
Quote:
That is an all encompassing and fairly shocking claim which is what originally caught my attention.
This is the original post that 'caught your attention I believe - 'The rules were manipulated to accommodate Williams personal ambitions and that along with his other deceptions is shameful. (Which is why the base mods are at full tilt monitoring and removing)! You replied with 'It is a serious charge' to state the military indulge in censorship and asked for proof that the mods were censoring posts, I gave you links to two of the forums that confirmed they do indeed censor them.
Quote:
I found that there are plenty of negative and questioning comments to be found about William, Harry and the other royals in threads that concern themselves with the incidents that we have become familiar with thanks to the newspapers and other media outlets.
Most people would then wonder why the lack of posts/threads about any of their other escapades.
Quote:
As with any moderater duty, I well believe that some comments are deleted by one mod that might not be deleted by another and also that some comments are sure to be deleted to offer legal protection against defamation and slander complaints. This would be true with any forum that tries to run with some sense of responsibility and, IMO, does not necessarily constitute a large scale censoring of negative royal opinion among military personnel.
But you are not talking about any other forum, such as this. You are talking about military forums moderated by forces personnel, who have no option but to obey the orders laid down by their OC, and from the posts that were deleted, (that I have seen), none of them were slanderous or would have been deleted on any normal forum.
Reply With Quote
  #328  
Old 03-04-2009, 04:54 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Oh, please. All negative and questioning comments? Come off it.
Well, there certainly appears to be a policy of calling questions or negative responses regarding some individuals, bullying, (which in itself could be called bullying)!
Reply With Quote
  #329  
Old 03-04-2009, 12:02 PM
kimebear's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Albany, United States
Posts: 1,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
Pertaining to William and Harry's unusual advancement
But that is the whole point. You said Any and All. I have pointed out more than once that there are several negative and questioning comments specifically concerning their unusual advancement which have been left undeleted. Some going back years in the past. It is just a fact. Period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
Most people would then wonder why the lack of posts/threads about any of their other escapades.
Not at all. After all, we don't always discuss every single thing that every royal does here and it is not hard to imagine that, with an active campaign going on, the military boards have more important things to discuss than what William and Harry are up to. I'm sure there have been many comments that were deleted for all manner of reasons, but you just cannot claim total military censorship when it is not true.
Reply With Quote
  #330  
Old 03-04-2009, 12:30 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimebear View Post
But that is the whole point. You said Any and All. I have pointed out more than once that there are several negative and questioning comments specifically concerning their unusual advancement which have been left undeleted. Some going back years in the past. It is just a fact. Period.
Censoring does take place, the moderators remove any or all offensive posts about William and Harry, on your short visit, you were unable to fnd them, so it may be a fact in your sphere but not in the real world of the military. Nor does it alter the fact, that you said "it is a serious charge to state the military indulge in censorship". Clearly they do, otherwise there would be no need to 'move the goalposts'.
Quote:
Not at all. After all, we don't always discuss every single thing that every royal does here and it is not hard to imagine that, with an active campaign going on, the military boards have more important things to discuss than what William and Harry are up to.
We don't? We discuss the length of so and so's hair, their dresses, suits, shoes, handbags, visit to the......., you mean there are things everyone has missed! The threads concerning campaigns, as I'm sure you can imagine, or perhaps not, are heavily censored, if and when service personnel consider posting on them. That is work, the Wales boys are just a passing annoyance.
Quote:
I'm sure there have been many comments that were deleted for all manner of reasons, but you just cannot claim total military censorship when it is not true.
Can you show me where I have claimed total military censorship, (apart from the removal of any or all offensive posts concerning William and Harry, which to my mind does not equate to total anything) because if you have read that into any of my posts, we clearly have a problem with speaking the same or even a similar language. Total would be every thread or post with any mention of either of these men, including those you claim praise them.

As I said, if I state that black is black, it appears you would answer with it may be black except where it is white. Lest we forget, this is the comment that you first started questioning - Which is why the base mods are at full tilt monitoring and removing.(294) You then asked "Monitoring and removing what, exactly"? (296), my reply was and remains "Any and all negative or questioning comments", If you have found negative comments about the men, they are clearly either fairly old or not seen as particularly negative, just backroom banter, not unlike the vulgar posts you commented on, (although I haven't found that many).

I couldn't help but notice that my original post (294) has an edited by kimebear note for todays date?
Reply With Quote
  #331  
Old 03-04-2009, 12:56 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
Well, there certainly appears to be a policy of calling questions or negative responses regarding some individuals, bullying, (which in itself could be called bullying)!
As far as I'm aware, there isn't such a policy, although you'd need to get confirmation from the British moderators.

Having said that, I think it's important to look at context when making claims about moderator intervention. You only have to read back through a thread like this or the Sarah Duchess of York thread to know that there are plenty of negative comments and plenty of questions where the royals are concerned, and they haven't been deleted.

As a rule, negative comments and questions about forum moderation should be dealt with in the Support and Feedback forum or via PM so they don't disrupt the flow of conversation about the thread topic. If we're talking about negative comments and questions about the royals, I'm not seeing evidence of systemic censorship.

However, especially in the York threads and the threads about William and Kate, there's increasingly been a very unpleasant tone. I know the British mods have been getting complaints about these threads from members and other mods (apparently a lot of people don't seem to realise I'm no longer a British mod so I've been cc'd on a few of them). There may well not be a clear demarcation between thoughtful criticism and outright bashing in any given post, but it isn't all that hard to tell when a whole thread has slipped across the line. And the Sarah thread slipped across that line quite some time ago. The mods have been trying to nudge it back in a low-key fashion, but several people were too engrossed in "Sarah can't do a thing right and anyway she got her toes sucked so let's poke spiteful fun at her" to notice, hence the firm intervention of a couple of weeks ago.

I understand that in this thread there's a different issue, because there do seem to be serious and fully legitimate questions about abuse of privilege and coverups and so on. However, the point here is that some people are saying that this is just how it is with royals and others are claiming that it's specific to William and are using that opinion as a springboard to "William is a pathetic disgrace" comments which seem to be beginning to dominate the thread, to the detriment of the discussion itself. I think the issue of whether the current abuse of privilege is ongoing or is unique to William may be a case where people will just have to agree to disagree, but I must say I can't see any evidence where posts advancing the latter opinon have been removed.

The moderation team across the whole forum (not just the British threads) is trying to avoid having threads turn into platforms to unleash venom about controversial royals, ex-royals, and associates of royals. There are other forums on royalty where spite is consistently passed off as wit. Most outsiders reading those threads can tell that this is a transparent excuse for vicious piling on, and the atmosphere in those forums has a lot in common with playground bullying. That isn't the sort of atmosphere we're striving for here.

The above are all general points and not directed to your posts, but I'm going to make a personal observation here which of course you can feel free to disagree with. I think that if someone had been talking about Camilla in the same tones that certain people have been using to talk about Sarah, you wouldn't be so fast to refer to them as "interesting" posters who it would be a shame to lose from the conversations. It's very easy, and I know it's just human nature and I'm as guilty as anyone, to see things through the filter of one's personal preferences. However, the moderators do have to try and provide as level a playing field as possible, while of course acknowledging that when certain royals behave like idiots, it's perfectly appropriate for people to call them on it. Up to a point, of course.
Reply With Quote
  #332  
Old 03-04-2009, 01:05 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
I couldn't help but notice that my original post (294) has an edited by kimebear note for todays date?
I'm asking you to take my word for this.

People on the mod and admin teams can see edits for (I think) 90 days after they've been made. I checked that post and the change Kimebear made was in the quoted material (from post 293) posted by her, not by you.

The original read

or what kind of dresses her grandaughters where

and the changed version read

or what kind of dresses her grandaughters wear

That's the only change I could see between the two versions.

Post 293 was also edited by Kimebear, to make the same change.
Reply With Quote
  #333  
Old 03-04-2009, 01:19 PM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post

The above are all general points and not directed to your posts, but I'm going to make a personal observation here which of course you can feel free to disagree with. I think that if someone had been talking about Camilla in the same tones that certain people have been using to talk about Sarah, you wouldn't be so fast to refer to them as "interesting" posters who it would be a shame to lose from the conversations. It's very easy, and I know it's just human nature and I'm as guilty as anyone, to see things through the filter of one's personal preferences. However, the moderators do have to try and provide as level a playing field as possible, while of course acknowledging that when certain royals behave like idiots, it's perfectly appropriate for people to call them on it. Up to a point, of course.
Elspeth, Skydragon did not say that it "would be a shame to loose from the conversation." But I recall somebody wrote that (it was probably Menarue - who already left the forums or so she wrote to me via PM)) and now that I looked for this post it is gone - at least I didn't find any with this wording in it. Plus the posting by Skydragon has been edited by kimebear and there as well I seem to recall that Skydragon wrote more than what is left there. It just doesn't seem right that of two people involved in a heavy discussion one can and does edit the other's posts. This gives me personally a very uneasy feeling and I wish the mods could look again at what actually happened in these two threads and what is left of the original messages and what is gone.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
Reply With Quote
  #334  
Old 03-04-2009, 01:21 PM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
I'm asking you to take my word for this.

People on the mod and admin teams can see edits for (I think) 90 days after they've been made. I checked that post and the change Kimebear made was in the quoted material (from post 293) posted by her, not by you.

The original read

or what kind of dresses her grandaughters where

and the changed version read

or what kind of dresses her grandaughters wear

That's the only change I could see between the two versions.

Post 293 was also edited by Kimebear, to make the same change.
I'm quite willing to take your word for it and if I'm wrong, please feel free to remove this post but I seem to recall that Skydragon paralleled the censorship activity on the base forums with some work of mods here? Am I wrong?
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
Reply With Quote
  #335  
Old 03-04-2009, 01:24 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945

Thank you for your calm and measured reply. With regard to nasty posts about Camilla would be unacceptable, whereas comments about Sarah are, it happens on a regular basis and appear to be ignored. However I accepted some time ago, a style that one person likes would be revolting to another, even the comments about a 61 year old having wrinkles are laughable when you imagine how some 30 - 50 year olds might look, (and I most certainly do not mean you). With regard to the posters who have apparently left, we did not all agree on every royal, but some of the information and discussions were thought provoking.

Years ago, very few people would have questioned the 'right' of a member of the royal family to be awarded everything they asked for, the big difference is, IMO, that it was never fully confirmed and much more reverence was shown. Now people expect them to stick to the rules and most people do not like being mislead. As Idriel, Duke of Marmalade and I have said, we know they are going to be awarded the positions without too much effort but at least be honest about it. If you read the comments section in any of the papers, very few are impressed by such favouritism and apparent deception from someone who expects to become our future monarch.
---------------
Who would have thought a simple reference to what the busy little mods (one of them a relative) get up to on some of the military forums would have caused so many posts.
Reply With Quote
  #336  
Old 03-04-2009, 01:28 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
I'm asking you to take my word for this.
I have no problem taking your word on it at all, I had no idea what had been altered, perhaps it might be possible to revert to the old system where the reason for the alteration is given.
Reply With Quote
  #337  
Old 03-04-2009, 01:35 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
The system where people give reasons is still live; I'm sure Kimebear will be happy to go and add the reason.
Reply With Quote
  #338  
Old 03-04-2009, 01:44 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post

Thank you for your calm and measured reply. With regard to nasty posts about Camilla would be unacceptable, whereas comments about Sarah are, it happens on a regular basis and appear to be ignored. However I accepted some time ago, a style that one person likes would be revolting to another, even the comments about a 61 year old having wrinkles are laughable when you imagine how some 30 - 50 year olds might look, (and I most certainly do not mean you). With regard to the posters who have apparently left, we did not all agree on every royal, but some of the information and discussions were thought provoking.
It's much easier to be calm and measured as an ex-mod, let me tell you...

But from my perspective I'm seeing criticism of both Sarah and Camilla that's been left in the thread and also that's been deleted. I'm not seeing biased moderator treatment here, but an attempt to maintain civility without overdoing the censorship in both cases.

Quote:
Years ago, very few people would have questioned the 'right' of a member of the royal family to be awarded everything they asked for, the big difference is, IMO, that it was never fully confirmed and much more reverence was shown. Now people expect them to stick to the rules and most people do not like being mislead. As Idriel, Duke of Marmalade and I have said, we know they are going to be awarded the positions without too much effort but at least be honest about it. If you read the comments section in any of the papers, very few are impressed by such favouritism and apparent deception from someone who expects to become our future monarch.
I understand what you're saying, and I think this is a very interesting question and one that feeds directly into the whole discussion about the future of the monarchy. Might even be worth its own thread. But when the thread is also being used to say what a waste of space William is, the personal stuff tends to dominate.

Quote:
Who would have thought a simple reference to what the busy little mods (one of them a relative) get up to on some of the military forums would have caused so many posts.
Erm, it wasn't the simple reference that got people's attention, it was the "and this is how it's done here too" aside.
Reply With Quote
  #339  
Old 03-04-2009, 01:47 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
I'm quite willing to take your word for it and if I'm wrong, please feel free to remove this post but I seem to recall that Skydragon paralleled the censorship activity on the base forums with some work of mods here? Am I wrong?
Yes, she did, but in the particular case I'm asking her to take my word for, there wasn't censorship, there was a simple correction of a typo.
Reply With Quote
  #340  
Old 03-04-2009, 01:49 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
But when the thread is also being used to say what a waste of space William is, the personal stuff tends to dominate.
Contrary to the impression some seem to have, I do not consider either William or Harry a waste of space, just in need of training by myself or Mr S!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Erm, it wasn't the simple reference that got people's attention, it was the "and this is how it's done here too" aside.
I perhaps got a little carried away, a moment! Sorry.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
chelsy davy, kate middleton, paparazzi, prince harry, prince william, tabloid press


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Haakon and ex Girlfriends sm1939 Crown Prince Haakon, Crown Princess Mette-Marit and Family 57 11-12-2015 08:11 PM
Prince Felipe's Ex-Girlfriends Lorraine King Felipe VI, Queen Letizia and Family 278 03-18-2015 07:03 AM
William, Harry and their Scottish Identity rob2008 Prince Harry and Prince William 24 08-02-2011 11:37 PM
Did the press "marry off" all Princes to their current girlfriends? EmmieLou General Royal Discussion Archive 6 07-04-2006 04:16 PM




Popular Tags
best outfit birthday carl gustaf catherine chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown princess mary crown princess victoria current events denmark duchess of cambridge gala dress duke of edinburgh fashion poll general news hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia iñaki urdangarín king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia liechtenstein love monarchy monarchy versus republic news november november 2016 october 2016 picture of the week pieter van vollenhoven prince alexander prince carl philip prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince nicholas prince oscar princess alexandra of luxembourg princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess of asturias princess sofia princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen silvia state visit stephanie sweden swedish royal family victoria visit to canada



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:11 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises