Should Camilla attend the memorial service for Diana?

[BeatrixFan]

BeatrixFan:
We want the RF to be these holier than thou people who never put a foot wrong but then we criticise them for not being human enough. They show a human side and they're not being royal enough. They honestly can't win.

Kimebear:
Or do these words only apply to Charles and Camilla in your opinion?

Notice, I said 'we' referring to those who demand the Royal Family be more human. I didn't actually include myself in that.

So basically, you would rather see William and Harry marry without love as long as it's to the right pedigree, keep mistresses on the side, start a new religion when they don't agree with the rules of the C of E, kill any wife that falls out of favor, have no involvement in the upbringing of their children, claim other countries as theirs just because they brought a flag, demand sexual favors from any bride on their wedding night, and then Harry should poison William and kill any children William may have had and then hide them in the tower, taking the crown for himself?

What the commoners don't see, the crown gets away with and so it's always been. Edward VII had many mistresses but the public didn't know about them. And did they need to? Some were extremely respectable members of society who could make up a foursome for bridge and step in when the Queen didn't want to play. Mistresses don't have to be a bad thing you know, again, it's a question of knowing one's place. As for involvement with children, nannies brought up the current Queen and didn't do such a bad job. Claiming countries - well, we can't exactly go back to that can we? I'll admit times have changed but there's no reason we should descend into total anarchy is there? Some things don't need to be constantly explain and justified. As I say, what the commoners dont see.

 

[kimebear]

What the commoners don't see, the crown gets away with and so it's always been. Edward VII had many mistresses but the public didn't know about them. And did they need to? Some were extremely respectable members of society who could make up a foursome for bridge and step in when the Queen didn't want to play. Mistresses don't have to be a bad thing you know, again, it's a question of knowing one's place. As for involvement with children, nannies brought up the current Queen and didn't do such a bad job. Claiming countries - well, we can't exactly go back to that can we? I'll admit times have changed but there's no reason we should descend into total anarchy is there? Some things don't need to be constantly explain and justified. As I say, what the commoners dont see.

You know, for all of our disagreeing on this thread, I do agree with you on this one. Which is why I feel for the boys. In this day and age the only way they are not going to get caught doing common things is if they stay locked up in the castle. Their privacy is not respected anymore. I also think that if their grandmother, who is the epitome of grace and duty and their father, who was raised in a more proper time, took more of a firm hand in guiding them in their official lives, they would make less mistakes. It is these two who are allowing them to live more common lives.

 

[Elspeth]

What the commoners don't see, the crown gets away with and so it's always been.

That also seems to be the attitude in republics, and it's widely believed that it got us into the current war in the Middle East. It depends on how much you want to be manipulated by cynical and hypocritical leaders.

And the lack of transparency cuts both ways - if the public had known what was going on with Edward VIII and Mrs Simpson, his popularity might have been enough for him to marry her and remain King. At least it wouldn't have just been a case of a few people deciding what they wanted and going ahead without consultation.

A hundred years ago most of the people lived pretty wretched lives because the government wasn't accountable to the people. Our "betters" are as likely to take advantage of their positions as anyone else.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Oh yes and I agree, our betters do take advantage but that's the priveledge of being better surely? For example, those in high places during the war who got hold of extra rations - it's a perk of the position and people knew it went on but any confirmation of it in the press would have created an atmosphere of anger and resentment. Whereas, in other areas, letting people know that the King and Queen were going without during WWII gave the public a special respect for them. As you say, transparency goes both ways.

A hundred years ago most of the people lived pretty wretched lives because the government wasn't accountable to the people.

But we built an Empire all the same. We ruled the world all the same. We were great, all the same. Not everyone can live a lovely life and it's the haves and the have nots. The difference between today and yesterday is that yesterday, the haves gave a little to the have nots, the have nots knew that one couldn't become a have over night and everyone scrubbed along together. Today, the have nots feel that they're owed and have the automatic right to be a have which they want now, right this minute. And it doesn't work like that and I think this is the basis of the problem you know, everyone forgetting their place and not being able to accept their station and all it entails. Royals didn't live real lives and they made great sacrifices but they had great wealth and power as compensation - and they had a sense of duty too. Now that's gone and everyone is struggling to find new stations. In a way, I suppose it was the war that did it.

 

[kimebear]

And the lack of transparency cuts both ways - if the public had known what was going on with Edward VIII and Mrs Simpson, his popularity might have been enough for him to marry her and remain King. At least it wouldn't have just been a case of a few people deciding what they wanted and going ahead without consultation.

That would have saved the image of the monarchy a bit of bruising.

 

[Elspeth]

But we built an Empire all the same. We ruled the world all the same. We were great, all the same. Not everyone can live a lovely life and it's the haves and the have nots. The difference between today and yesterday is that yesterday, the haves gave a little to the have nots, the have nots knew that one couldn't become a have over night and everyone scrubbed along together.

And in most countries it ended in revolution. Including countries where the people were by and large kept ignorant about the excesses of the extremely wealthy.

 

[BeatrixFan]

But you can always stop revolution if you have a strong leader and a strong army. Which the countries suffering revolutions rarely had.

 

[kimebear]

Yes by all means keep your subjects downtrodden. Why doesn't William just re-enslave India while he is at it.

 

[BeatrixFan]

It'd give him something to do other than waste time on memorial services that upset everyone.

 

[Elspeth]

But you can always stop revolution if you have a strong leader and a strong army.

I see. And this is the sort of society you think we should be striving for? A monarch ruling by divine right, not accountable to anyone, and the people expected to be content with being "have nots" because the alternative would involve being obliterated by the army?

There are a few countries like that nowadays, and interestingly enough, they're lurking near the bottom of the UN Human Development Index whereas constitutional monarchies make up a majority of the top 20.

 

[AuroraB]

"After all, the reason why previous royals looked less like celebrities was that they more or less controlled the press."

The press did not cross the line between public and private life. A few American examples: 1) Gen Ike Eisenhower's liason with his driver while he was stationed in Europe. At one point he planned to divorce his wife, but the Republic party wanted his to run for President. His affair was not made public until after his death. 2) Even President Kennedy's bed hopping was not common knowledge until after his death. Rumors, yes. Accounts of his escapades were not published coast to coast.
Todays tabloids publish rumors as if they are known facts, but include cute little phrases regarding their sources, i.e. palace insiders, friends of the couple.

 

[BeatrixFan]

And this is the sort of society you think we should be striving for?

My dear, I never claimed to be Nelson Mandela you know. We all have our ideal societies and I'm sure that just as my ideal is looked down upon by others, they're alternative is looked down on those who see my way as much more productive. However, with the world as it is, I doubt I shall ever see my ideal in place and so the do-gooders get their way. Unless there's a huge shift and people in Britain come to their senses and get a bit of order and discipline back into our lives.

 

[Madame Royale]

Me? Imperialist? I had a cousin Evelyn.

Cousin or not..lol.. yes, I refer to you

 

[kimebear]

My dear, I never claimed to be Nelson Mandela you know. We all have our ideal societies and I'm sure that just as my ideal is looked down upon by others, they're alternative is looked down on those who see my way as much more productive. However, with the world as it is, I doubt I shall ever see my ideal in place and so the do-gooders get their way. Unless there's a huge shift and people in Britain come to their senses and get a bit of order and discipline back into our lives.

Well dear, since your ideal is to live like a subject of Queen Mary, let's see what she would have made of todays issues had she been in QEII's place.

After catching Alice Keppel's great granddaughter trying on the Delhi Durbar tiara in the mirror at Balmoral, Queen Mary frog marched Camilla back to the royal mistresses stable faster than you could say "We are not amused". Charles would have then married Camilla in the '70s, relinquished his position as heir to the throne, taken the title of Duke of Highgrove and have been exiled to New Zealand as Governor General where they would have raised roses and organic children. They would live on a solar powered estate with an in-law apartment for Osama Bin Laden who came by on the weekends to talk philosphy over a pot of tea and a box containing a 50 ct. ruby necklace for Milla.

The heir to the throne would be Prince Andrew. Much would have been made of his wedding to Lady Diana Spencer. However the papers would never mention the fact that the Duchess of York was left despondant over the long absences from Andrew due to his long hours on the golf course, nor would they mention that she had tried to cut her wrists by scraping them half heartedly on the propeller blade of his Falkland Islands helicopter. She has recently given birth to twins with the thickest IQs ever born into the royal family.

Princess Anne would have been forced into an arranged marriage, after being told to close her eyes and think of England. She is currently in smile therapy.

There is also a rumor of a fourth child, Prince Edward, and gossip mongers insist that he is being held against his will at Wood Farm where he studies drama.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I'm sure Camilla wouldn't have minded staying as a mistress though. So let's assume that all stays hidden, Charles inherits the throne, Diana has her gentlemen callers, Charles has Camilla and nobody is any the wiser. Or, Charles and Camilla marry and Andrew is heir. Ok, what's so bad about that?? Beatrice would make a good Queen as long as she's kept away from that ghastly mother of hers who could be reigned in by someone of Queen Mary's dominance I'm sure. As for Anne, I dont see much wrong with Anne. Edward - well, the 'theatrical' rumours surrounding him are no different to those surrounding Queen Mary's son George. I really don't see the problem.

 

[Al_bina]

kimebear,
Your writing style is vivid. You have done an excellent job in portraying the situation of the British Royal family with Queen Mary as the matriarch. My compliments !!!!

 

[kimebear]

Of course I did forget to mention that while doing all of this, Queen Mary looked fabulous.

 

[pinkie40]

I'm sure Camilla wouldn't have minded staying as a mistress though. So let's assume that all stays hidden, Charles inherits the throne, Diana has her gentlemen callers, Charles has Camilla and nobody is any the wiser. Or, Charles and Camilla marry and Andrew is heir. Ok, what's so bad about that?? Beatrice would make a good Queen as long as she's kept away from that ghastly mother of hers who could be reigned in by someone of Queen Mary's dominance I'm sure. As for Anne, I dont see much wrong with Anne. Edward - well, the 'theatrical' rumours surrounding him are no different to those surrounding Queen Mary's son George. I really don't see the problem.

Diana might have had (After all, she loved being a mum the most) a slew of very interesting looking children..all of them with properly proportioned ears.

 

[BeatrixFan]

all of them with properly proportioned ears.

And a very strange pre-occupation with being called by their first names and treated like paupers instead of Princes. Which is where I believe we started. I do so like it when things complete.

 

[TheTruth]

I'm sure Camilla wouldn't have minded staying as a mistress though. So let's assume that all stays hidden, Charles inherits the throne, Diana has her gentlemen callers, Charles has Camilla and nobody is any the wiser. Or, Charles and Camilla marry and Andrew is heir. Ok, what's so bad about that?? Beatrice would make a good Queen as long as she's kept away from that ghastly mother of hers who could be reigned in by someone of Queen Mary's dominance I'm sure. As for Anne, I dont see much wrong with Anne. Edward - well, the 'theatrical' rumours surrounding him are no different to those surrounding Queen Mary's son George. I really don't see the problem.

I agree that it was much easier for Camilla to be his mistress. If Diana had been brought up like the Queen, she wouldn't have cared or at least pretend to don't care and this story would never have been made public. Camilla was alright because she had no duties to accomplish for the crown since she had no royal status, didn't had to produce an heir, etc. I believe she would have liked to stay this way, she didn't ask anything from Charles, she didn't want him to express his love for her to anyone, she knew she had him for herself since the marriage with Diana was a total fiasco. But I understand their wish to marry, it had to be official and their lovestory wouldn't be considered as an "affair" anymore.

 

[Skydragon]

We're not bound to the declaration of independance COUNTESS. We're not American, we British have built our country on different principles and indeed, a belief in birth right that can ultimately lead to one man being born above another. That's the British way, that's why we're discussing the British Royal Family - because we dont believe that all men are equal.

Oh BeatrixFan, I do love you. Of course we are not all born equal. Think of it this way.
Family A have a huge estate, plenty of cash, liquid assets and investments. They can afford to feed their children good nutritious meals (preferably organic ) Clothe them in the best clothes, shoes that fit and coats for the weather, provide a warm and safe environment, with paid help (nannies, housekeepers) to ensure their welfare.

Family B are living on benefits, struggle to buy clothes from the charity shop, fit immaterial. Can barely afford food, certainly can't afford the extra school trips to broaden their childrens education, can't afford heating, left to roam the streets because the parents either don't care or have given up.

Out of these two families, which child is going to do better at school and in the workplace. Who is going to be seen as the success?

Money speaks, whatever country you are from and from money comes power.

I know I am going to get screamed at but IMO Diana's desire to make the boys be normal has unfortunately caused them to be too celebrity like/ less royal.

You are so right and if they are only seen as celebrities, then they will fall from favour very quickly with their need to be in the limelight. If they can't see the need to behave as royals, then the monarchy might as well give up.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Oh BeatrixFan, I do love you.

I love you too ducky. Now lend me 500 quid.

 

[love_cc]

I'm sure Camilla wouldn't have minded staying as a mistress though. So let's assume that all stays hidden, Charles inherits the throne, Diana has her gentlemen callers, Charles has Camilla and nobody is any the wiser. Or, Charles and Camilla marry and Andrew is heir. Ok, what's so bad about that?? Beatrice would make a good Queen as long as she's kept away from that ghastly mother of hers who could be reigned in by someone of Queen Mary's dominance I'm sure. As for Anne, I dont see much wrong with Anne. Edward - well, the 'theatrical' rumours surrounding him are no different to those surrounding Queen Mary's son George. I really don't see the problem.

I just wonder how can the public seem to never have the idea of a dynastic marriage between Charles and Diana across the mind? He is a crown prince marriage and Diana was from a top-shelf family after all. Her sister dated him before and there are three sisters in the family and it is natural for the younger one to keep the family tradition. After all, John Kennedy became the presidency candidate because his brother died and all the hopes were placed on him. I just find the words in the wedding service were too much for me why should he use "the fair tale came true" since he already know where Charles's heart was. I have never watch the service and I will never watch it. I guess all these key figures did want to cheer people up because of the depressed mood affected by the economic crisis in 1981.

 

[bbb]

i know this is off topic (delete away) but it was such a refreshing change from the chasing your tail discussion on this tread for (what seems like forever) to a lively debate of commonors and beatrixfan channelling queen victoria, it's just toooooo fun. it's made my morning (i've thrown in my 2 cents in bold words) gosh i love this board

True, The Declaration of Indapendance is of no value to those not under it's jurisdiction, but we musn't start throwing rocks at glass houses, sweetness. (throw away, our bill of rights was overthrown just recently)

BeatrixFan:
We want the RF to be these holier than thou people who never put a foot wrong but then we criticise them for not being human enough. They show a human side and they're not being royal enough. They honestly can't win.(sad but true)

What the commoners don't see, the crown gets away with and so it's always been. (it's that way in our republic too! i swear we could get better leaders just picking names out of a phone book every 4 years. at least with a royal family, hopefully their sense of duty rules the day- not ego or greed)

Elspeth Quote:
That also seems to be the attitude in republics, and it's widely believed that it got us into the current war in the Middle East. It depends on how much you want to be manipulated by cynical and hypocritical leaders (truer words were never spoken)

BeatrixFan Quote:
My dear, I never claimed to be Nelson Mandela you know. rofl:) (oh my i do love you too ) We all have our ideal societies and I'm sure that just as my ideal is looked down upon by others, they're alternative is looked down on those who see my way as much more productive. However, with the world as it is, I doubt I shall ever see my ideal in place and so the do-gooders get their way. Unless there's a huge shift and people in Britain come to their senses and get a bit of order and discipline back into our lives. (not just your country friend, not just your county)

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

I have never watch the service and I will never watch it. I guess all these key figures did want to cheer people up because of the depressed mood affected by the economic crisis in 1981.

The 1981 royal "wedding" was more circus than wedding. It was a PR spectacle (not unlike this whole memorial service I suppose) as much but maybe a bit less for the disillusioned working-class as for the awestruck international press. You could hardly see the emaciated bride under that ridiculous "Cinderella" gown. Lord Spencer, who recently had a stroke, made a painstaking journey up the aisle (whether it was more painful for him or more painful for people watching him is hard to say).
I have a hope that the royal family will never do a wedding like that again. I very much admired the Wessex wedding and the wedding (or rather blessing service) of Charles and Camilla. I hope that future royal weddings, even for Prince William and Prince Harry, will be more like these than the 20th century spectacles like 1981 and 1947.

 

[sirhon11234]

Andrew and Fergie's wedding was alot like Charles and Diana's.

 

[pinkie40]

The 1981 royal "wedding" was more circus than wedding. It was a PR spectacle (not unlike this whole memorial service I suppose) as much but maybe a bit less for the disillusioned working-class as for the awestruck international press. You could hardly see the emaciated bride under that ridiculous "Cinderella" gown. Lord Spencer, who recently had a stroke, made a painstaking journey up the aisle (whether it was more painful for him or more painful for people watching him is hard to say).
I have a hope that the royal family will never do a wedding like that again. I very much admired the Wessex wedding and the wedding (or rather blessing service) of Charles and Camilla. I hope that future royal weddings, even for Prince William and Prince Harry, will be more like these than the 20th century spectacles like 1981 and 1947.

It's actually quite painful for me to watch the 1981 wedding because of all the telling body language ... We're much more astute with all those episodes of CSI under our belts.

The Wessex wedding with its "Fanfare for Sophie" was truly moving and special, despite the landing jets at nearby Heathrow.

I thought Camilla was a vision of mature loveliness in her "Highgrove Blue" gown....nervous, humble and in love (whatever that means!). The blessing service was unique in almost all merits from its music to Mr. Bean in the congregation.

 

[COUNTESS]

Well, after reading Beatrix Fan and Skydragon, I know democracy is dead in England. We are all created equally, actually, most the same way, some through invitro fertilization, so that puts a kink in the chain. It means all should have an equal chance. Many born without money, have succeeded because of their many, special talents, that they were able to utilize, because it doesn't matter to whom you were born. But, obviously, in Britain it does. Bill Gates quit college, came from humble background, compared to your RF and turned the world on its ear. We wouldn't be doing this now if not for him and those who have come after. Michael Dell built his first PC's in his garage. Jonas Salk, President Clinton, Sargeant York, Eisenhower, Colin Powell, Madelein Albright or there is just a huge list of great acommplisments, not just American, that could go on all day. The people whom you think are your "betters", in my book are even the good enoughs.

 

[Aquarela]

Countess

men are all equal to God. we are his children and our final jugdement will be under his name.

but our society is composed by leaders and people. you can't compare them. socially Kings and Queens are upon you and me. they don't belong to a higher social class. God gave them power to rule, and they should reign the best they can because they have a lot of responsibilities (much more than you or me).
what's wrong with stiffness? what is bad about it? i like arrogants, self-importance and stiff royals. it doesn't mean they are rude, ignorant or criminals... it just means they know what's their place.

thanks

 

[sirhon11234]

Well, after reading Beatrix Fan and Skydragon, I know democracy is dead in England. We are all created equally, actually, most the same way, some through invitro fertilization, so that puts a kink in the chain. It means all should have an equal chance. Many born without money, have succeeded because of their many, special talents, that they were able to utilize, because it doesn't matter to whom you were born. But, obviously, in Britain it does. Bill Gates quit college, came from humble background, compared to your RF and turned the world on its ear. We wouldn't be doing this now if not for him and those who have come after. Michael Dell built his first PC's in his garage. Jonas Salk, President Clinton, Sargeant York, Eisenhower, Colin Powell, Madelein Albright or there is just a huge list of great acommplisments, not just American, that could go on all day. The people whom you think are your "betters", in my book are even the good enoughs.

Theres also Oprah she was born into a poor family and look at her now she's one of the most richest women in the world.