The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #281  
Old 11-22-2005, 08:33 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Margrethe II
For god sake, They were all alive then! I am talking about a woman who has since ceased to live. It is wrong to slander someone who has died in such a way!! This is what a contributor did and I think it wrong.

I have made perfectly clear that I am not a hardcore Diana fan (yes, I admired her and thought alot of her) but I still recognised her faults.

The fact of the matter is that if one is willing to slander someone after they have died, they are pathetic human beings themselves!

"MII"
Hi Margrethe,

I totally agree with you that slander against the dead is something to be discouraged. Or against the living for that matter. I don't make the distinction. Its still slander.

Quote:
Slander-Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
But if someone is spreading false rumours against Diana or Charles or Camilla or anyone else, the best defense is the truth.

So if you see something false said against someone in these forums, by all means challenge it. Make the person defend what they're saying.

The statement that Diana was selfish and a narcissist is so broad its one of these statements that don't fall easily into a true or false category.

Were Diana and Charles selfish at some point? If they're like most people, probably yes.

Was she a narcissist?

Quote:
narcissism - A psychological condition characterized by self-preoccupation, lack of empathy, and unconscious deficits in self-esteem.
From her public actions, I can see some of these traits. We don't know what was going on in her head but there was an article comparing Diana with Mother Theresa shortly after they died, and it discussed Diana's-pre-occupation with self (Andrew Morton book, Panorama interview) as opposed to Mother Theresa's lack of pre-occupation with self. Mother Theresa did not like to talk about herself, period. BTW, the article was very complimentary to Diana and the writer thought that Diana's approach to life was better than Mother Theresa's.

Yes, its an interpretation, yes, it may not be 100% true, but its a long shot to say its totally false. So IMHO, it doesn't fall into the slander category.

BTW, people are still calling Charles selfish and I disagree but I don't assume its slander. Its a different interpretation of the same actions of Charles' by two people. What makes it not slander is that people are not intentionally spreading something they know is false. If they were, that would be slander and that should be condemned no matter who does it and whether the person described is living or dead.
__________________

  #282  
Old 11-23-2005, 12:04 AM
Margrethe II's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 917
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
It's also wrong to blame Charles, and Charles alone, for the failure of a marriage that failed for actions attributable to both of them, and claim he is now unfit to be King and should renounce his rights in favor of William.

He has the right to move on with his life and be happy with the woman he probably should have married in the first place, but for various reasons at the time, did not. If the Government, the Queen, the Church and the Princes felt it was time to move on, then Camilla should be accepted and given the respect she deserves (as Diana received) as the wife of the Prince of Wales.

The truth is Diana did more to bring the monarchy to its knees since the Abdication, with her incessant courting of the press and media at the expense of the royal family. She later regretted this, but the damage was done.
What on earth are you on about???

Where did I blame Charles? Where did I state that I wanted the throne to be inherited by William instead of his father?

To be perfectly honest I really dont know why you retorted this to me...

If you want facts, the fact is there were three who contributed to the crises in the royal family and the disolvement of the marriage, and to blame Diana for most of the troubles is absolutely rediculous. I never once said that Diana was not to blame or had no part in it. She was to blame as much as her husband was.

As far as I am concerned the three of them were as bad as each other and brought disgrace upon the House of Windsor (Mountbatten-Windsor for those who would protest otherwise) and the Monarchy as a modern day institution.

"MII"
__________________

  #283  
Old 11-23-2005, 12:10 AM
Margrethe II's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 917
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
Hi Margrethe, I totally agree with you that slander against the dead is something to be discouraged. Or against the living for that matter. I don't make the distinction. Its still slander.
Thankyou, ysbel.

Finally there is someone who understands what I was saying.

"MII"
  #284  
Old 11-23-2005, 12:23 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 589
People do need to see Charles, Diana and Camilla's flaws. But the death of Diana put her into an unbeatable situation. People forgot and forgave the mistakes Diana made because she died so young and she was so perfect in her image and humanity that won over their hearts. On the other hand, they would still accuse Charles and Camilla selfish and cold-blood even there are plenty good in them. People does not see the point.

Charles, Camilla and Diana are all selfish in their happiness and feelings. They want their happiness first and put the responsibility for the family and the duty for the monarchy aside. They three are too emotional people although Camilla is better at controlling her moods. It was just a big unfortune because Charles and Diana's marriage was too difficult to work out because of the huge difference in interests and similarity in characters. Both of them just the other to love more but they cannot offer more. Camilla is able to love Charles more so she has Charles and she needs Charles to secure her feelings from her failed marriage. The problem in Camilla's marriage was the first domino and I do think it has been written in the fate. Charles should have married Camilla in 1970s even it was very diffcult to achieve. They missed each other at the first place and everything went wrong afterwards. I really felt sorry for Charles and Camilla because they were not too young to meet but too difficult to be together because of all conventions.God bless them.
  #285  
Old 11-23-2005, 05:41 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Margrethe II
If you want facts, the fact is there were three who contributed to the crises in the royal family and the disolvement of the marriage, and to blame Diana for most of the troubles is absolutely rediculous.
If you want facts, you have to consider Diana's affairs with Hewitt & Gilbey at the very least, in being part of the equation and of course the book she 'helped' with.
The fact is that although some people are not totally behind Camilla becoming Queen, at the moment, (this is already changing), the majority of Brits are behind Charles becoming King.
  #286  
Old 11-23-2005, 06:27 AM
Margrethe II's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon
If you want facts, you have to consider Diana's affairs with Hewitt & Gilbey at the very least, in being part of the equation and of course the book she 'helped' with.
The fact is that although some people are not totally behind Camilla becoming Queen, at the moment, (this is already changing), the majority of Brits are behind Charles becoming King.
Firstly, Had Charles not ensued his relationship with Camilla, Diana herself would have no doubt remained faithful. Hence my statement 'There were three'. Maybe I should have put 5 after the fact?

I do not condone nor do I ignore the fact that Diana herself participated in adulterous relationships, and the fact that she, herself, leaked a sufficient amount of damaging information leading to the publication of Andrew Morton's book.

I do recall a certain 'Camilla Gate' though... And although not legally supplied to the media it nonetheless was extremely damaging towards the Princes of Wales' credibility, not to mention utterly & completely repulsive. Very bad taste (no pun intended).

Where have I said that Charles isn't being supported? Why did you tell me this? I'm sorry, but such information is worthless to me as (1) I already know it and (2) statistics and public opinion are always changing...

There is no doubt that Charles shall be the next Sovereign, and there is more than likely every possibility that Camilla shall become his Queen Consort (and yes, I am not at all fond of the idea of Camilla being granted the title Queen, even though she shall automatically assume this position upon her husbands succession), but one must take this as it comes, and if so, so be it.

Let me make it clear again...I believe Charles shall become King and I think its the way it should be. I have never disputed or said otherwise!!


"MII"

P.S. Nice signature...
  #287  
Old 11-23-2005, 07:37 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Margrethe II
Diana herself would have no doubt remained faithful.
Unlikely. It is a case of who did what first and not a subject really for this thread, IMO.

Quote:
she, herself, leaked a sufficient amount of damaging information leading to the publication of Andrew Morton's book.
She IMO totally scewed the 'information' she and her friends gave to discredit the Prince and to try to cover her 'indiscretions'.

Quote:
I do recall a certain 'Camilla Gate' though
As I recall Squidgygate
  #288  
Old 11-23-2005, 07:48 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,474
We're just going round in circles here, and nothing new is being added.
This endless tit-for-tat becomes tiresome very quickly.

Warren
British Forums Moderator
  #289  
Old 11-23-2005, 07:48 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 11,434
This is turning into the Charles/Camilla/Diana thread and not productive in my opinion. Isn't the topic...Will Charles Ever Reign?
  #290  
Old 11-23-2005, 07:54 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Margrethe II
Thankyou, ysbel.

Finally there is someone who understands what I was saying.

"MII"
My pleasure, Margrethe. This little community of royal followers is very good at routing out any baldfaced lies that get posted here and it makes it a more intelligent place for discussion.People here have a wealth of knowledge that I haven't found anywhere else.

Still, I would hate for the contributions of members here to get shut down because they say something less than positive about a royal just because the royal is dead. If they say something that is off the wall and totally unsupported and vile against a royal, then that is totally different.
  #291  
Old 11-23-2005, 08:00 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk1189
This is turning into the Charles/Camilla/Diana thread and not productive in my opinion. Isn't the topic...Will Charles Ever Reign?
Good point Zonk and Warren.

OK, let me throw out a hypothetical situation to you.

What if Charles and Diana had not been allowed to divorce and still estranged, would Charles have ascended the throne? Would Diana have been crowned Queen?

On one hand I would have said yes, because it is the laws of succession but on the other hand I remember Penny Junor giving an interview right after the separation, and she said, the monarchy could handle two separate courts for the King and Queen but it couldn't survive having two rival courts of King and Queen fighting against each other.

So, what do you think?
  #292  
Old 11-23-2005, 08:11 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 11,434
I think Charles would have been crowned King..and they would have resolved the Charles/Diana situation by either divorcing or coming to sort of reconciliation (at least publicy). Towards the end of her life...they (Charles and Diana) did reach an amicable relationship. If for no other reason than the children...they were being civil to each other.

Now if this was back in the day...Charles would have been crowned King..and Diana would be knocking on the doors. Not to be offensive cause I love Diana...but didn't this happen with George I and his queen...Caroline or Charlotte? Can't remember off hand.
  #293  
Old 11-23-2005, 08:23 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,386
It was George IV and Caroline of Brunswick. He was in the process of getting a divorce from her when he was crowned and had her locked out of the coronation. I don't think the divorce went through.

But I think that Charles and Diana were able to have a civil relationship because they were allowed the divorce. Without the divorce, Diana still would have been under the thumb of the Royal Family and protocol which she needed to get out from under. I'm not that certain that they would have been able to reach an amicable relationship without that divorce.

Charles could have waited till he became king to divorce but Kings can't just do what they want either. I think it would have been a really messy situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk1189
I think Charles would have been crowned King..and they would have resolved the Charles/Diana situation by either divorcing or coming to sort of reconciliation (at least publicy). Towards the end of her life...they (Charles and Diana) did reach an amicable relationship. If for no other reason than the children...they were being civil to each other.

Now if this was back in the day...Charles would have been crowned King..and Diana would be knocking on the doors. Not to be offensive cause I love Diana...but didn't this happen with George I and his queen...Caroline or Charlotte? Can't remember off hand.
  #294  
Old 11-23-2005, 08:34 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
What if Charles and Diana had not been allowed to divorce and still estranged, would Charles have ascended the throne? Would Diana have been crowned Queen?
Under the Act of Settlement, Charles is automatically King, so there would have been no question of his ascending the throne. Separated or not, Diana was still HRH The Princess of Wales, so she still would have been Queen Consort, at least legally.

In reality, once they achieved consent for a legal separation, divorce became inevitable and there is no way Diana would have become Queen after that.
  #295  
Old 11-23-2005, 09:40 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
there is no way Diana would have become Queen after that.
After the separation or after the divorce? John Major made a point when announcing the separation that there would be no reason why Diana would not be crowned Queen even after the separation.
  #296  
Old 11-23-2005, 09:42 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,859
Quote:
John Major made a point when announcing the separation that there would be no reason why Diana would not be crowned Queen even after the separation.
Thats ridiculous. How can you have a Queen who isn't married to a King? Can you imagine the embarrasement, the unhappiness and the problems? I suspect that was said to pacify the public, just as the Princess Consort thing is supposed to do now.
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #297  
Old 11-23-2005, 09:49 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
It was George IV and Caroline of Brunswick. He was in the process of getting a divorce from her when he was crowned and had her locked out of the coronation. I don't think the divorce went through.
Upon his coronation, the public rallied around him (before they had supported her).
  #298  
Old 11-23-2005, 09:52 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Thats ridiculous. How can you have a Queen who isn't married to a King? Can you imagine the embarrasement, the unhappiness and the problems? I suspect that was said to pacify the public, just as the Princess Consort thing is supposed to do now.
I also think that was John Majors intention.:)
  #299  
Old 11-23-2005, 09:53 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Thats ridiculous. How can you have a Queen who isn't married to a King? Can you imagine the embarrasement, the unhappiness and the problems? I suspect that was said to pacify the public, just as the Princess Consort thing is supposed to do now.
Well if they were just separated, they'd still be legally married so constitutionally I guess she would be Queen.

But the problem I think was not the separation but the rivalry between the courts of Charles and Diana. I agree with Junor, I don't think the monarchy could have survived that.

Therefore, the Queen Mum pushed for the divorce.
  #300  
Old 11-23-2005, 10:02 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
Therefore, the Queen Mum pushed for the divorce.
I understood it was the Queen who pushed for them to divorce
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
prince charles, prince of wales


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
Who Will Reign First / Next mktv2000 Royal Chit Chat 150 10-01-2013 01:28 PM
Will Charles Ever Reign? Part 5 Avalon The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 106 06-17-2009 08:02 AM
Will Charles Ever Reign? Part 4 Elspeth The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 286 02-07-2008 06:58 AM
Will Charles Ever Reign? Part 3 ysbel The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 406 08-16-2007 07:53 PM
Will Charles Ever Reign? Part 1 grecka The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 641 11-07-2005 07:22 AM




Popular Tags
affair albania ari behn ascot 2016 best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit best outfit june birthday coup d'etat crown princess mary crown princess mary evening dresses crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit eveningwear december denmark duchess of cambridge duke of cambridge earthquakes fashion poll feminism jewels king abdullah ii king carl gustaf king carl gustaf and queen silvia king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel noice norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince charles princess marie princess mary princess mary casual style princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess sofia queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen margrethe queen mathilde queen mathilde hats queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania fashion queen rania in the un queen silvia september 2016 state visit succession sweden the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats tiara


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:16 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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