Will Charles Ever Reign? part 4

[cde]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

Dear Chrissy57,
As for your opinion about Princess Diana, de mortius nil nisi bene which means "Say nothing but good about the dead" (to please Elspeth).....

Why are you afraid to hold her up to scrutiny? If Diana was so wonderful then it shouldn't be a problem should it?

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

Dear Chrissy57,
No one is going to prevent him from ascending the throne. He will be just another symbol of traditions.
As for your opinion about Princess Diana, de mortius nil nisi bene which means "Say nothing but good about the dead" (to please Elspeth).....

I actually believe that we should always tell the truth.

That can mean saying bad things about the dead because the dead person did bad things.

If we only say good things about the dead then we often can't speak the truth and surely you don't advocate that we can't tell the truth do you?

Diana did many good things but she also did many bad things. According to your beliefs we can only talk about her charity work and her role as a mother and not about her adultery, her lies, her manipulation of the press etc

That would make for a whitewash of a very human person and it is her human qualities that have made people admire, love, dislike and even hate her throughout the last 26 years.

[Al_bina]

Dear Jo of Palatine,
I do not like Prince Charles as a person because he was not a man enough to insist on marrying a lady he truly loved and loves. He used the approach “both the wolves have eaten much and the sheep have not been touched”. This proved fatal for his marriage.
I may seem naïve, but believe that fate of each human being is governed by something supernatural to a certain degree. Apart from various theories related to the tragic accident that took Princess Diana’s life, it still amazes me that she passed away before Prince Charles married LOVE OF HIS LIFE.
So it might be fair to say that there is a probability that he will not become a King.
Sometimes even the wildest dreams may come true….

[Elspeth]

Al bina, on this forum we don't require that people speak only good things about dead people (or live people); criticism is acceptable as long as it's expressed thoughtfully and considerately. We don't, however, allow posts in languages other than English.

[Al_bina]

Dear cde,
I am not a fan of Princess Diana, I like her fashion style to a certain extent. I do apologize to those members of this forum from the Northern America and certain European countries, who consider my words as reluctance to accept flaws of the Princess. However, it is viewed as ill-bred in my country and my house to subject the dead to critisism, even if "it is expressed thoughtfully and considerately" (Elspeth, 2007).
It felt that my request to tone down opinions about Princess Diana bespeaks lack of my upbringing...
Summing the said up, I would like to close these debates as they have nothing to do with whether Prince Charles will reign or not.

[Al_bina]

Dear Chrissy57,
I have already expressed my final opinion about this sujbect.
When hurt and anguished, ladies tend to do strange things. For example, Medea killed her own children in revenge. So the bottom line is that almost nothing can stop Prince Charles to be a King of the UK... Let him be the King , who can not make real decisions and/or influence anything at the state level ...

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

Dear Chrissy57,
I have already expressed my final opinion about this sujbect.
When hurt and anguished, ladies tend to do strange things. For example, Medea killed her own children in revenge. So the bottom line is that almost nothing can stop Prince Charles to be a King of the UK... Let him be the King , who can not make real decisions and/or influence anything at the state level ...

I would have liked to know your answer to the question I asked you - do you believe that we should tell the truth about people or only tell the truth when that person is alive?

Charles has made real decisions throughout his life.

He has influenced things at state level (I assume you mean the government and/or official policy) already so why would that change when he becomes king.

The British monarch works quietly and not in your face anyway and Charles has shown himself able to do that.

He made one wrong decision - a 'real' decision at that mind you - to marry the wrong woman.

Why do you believe that making one wrong 'real' decision should cost a man the job for which he has been trained all his life by a person many people describe as one of the best at the job?

It seems rather tough to me to deny someone something because of one wrong decision - I have made many more than that - maybe I should do my job as I make wrong decisions in my job but noone has suggested that I shouldn't be able to continue with my job but you are saying that Charles shouldn't be able to do the job he was born to do and has been trained to do because of one bad decision to do with the job - choosing the right wife (which fortunately he now has by his side).

[scooter]

Originally Posted by chrissy57

He made one wrong decision - a 'real' decision at that mind you - to marry the wrong woman.

Not so much the wrong woman, but that he was in love then and now with another woman. It's pretty had to make any marriage work if one partner is secretly, or not so secretly, in love with someone else. I have also read many, many times that Charles was wearing Camilla's cufflinks when he stood in front of the altar that day in July 1981 and that he spent the night before the wedding with Camilla. How does any 19 year old bride deal with that?

But Charles certainly had the opportunity to marry Camilla the first time around and for what ever reason didn't. I have read several theories why he didn't. What do you all think is the reason? Certainly heart ache for all parties involved would have been avoided.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by scooter

Not so much the wrong woman, but that he was in love then and now with another woman.

Well if Camilla is the 'right' woman for Charles, I think its safe to say that Diana was the 'wrong' woman for Charles regardless of whether Charles was in love with another woman when he married Diana.

Camilla and Diana are completely different in appearance, outlook, manner, values, interests. Charles would indeed be an amazing man if he could be sexually and emotionally attracted to both Diana and Camilla but I believe it is humanly impossible for one man.

[Al_bina]

Chrissy57,
I strongly believe that the dead should be left alone. The truth, whatever you have meant by this concept, should be told to those who are still in this world. I think our opinions reflect difference in the cultural backgrounds.
I wish I lived in the UK and knew better about influence Prince Charles or any other member of the British Royal family has got at the state level. From my standpoint, the British king/queen “is holding the now largely ceremonial position of head of state” (Wikipedia, n.d.). How will the life of usual inhabitants of the British Isles change, if the royalty disappears tomorrow due to some magic, let us say?
I like the British Royal family for their speech accent and the Ascot race.
I hope I have adequately replied to your questions.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

I strongly believe that the dead should be left alone. The truth, whatever you have meant by this concept, should be told to those who are still in this world. I think such our opinions might reflect difference in the cultural backgrounds.
I wish I lived in the UK and knew better about influence Prince Charles or any other member of the British Royal family has got at the state level. From my standpoint, the British king/queen “is holding the now largely ceremonial position of head of state” (Wikipedia, n.d.). How will the life of usual inhabitants of the British Isles change, if the royalty disappears tomorrow due to some magic, let us say?
I like the British Royal family for their speech accent and the Ascot race.
I hope I have adequately replied to your questions.

Hi Al_bina, for me the truth is the truth and as the 'bad' things are revealed, it would be wrong to try to cover them up, whether the person concerned is alive or dead. It would be wrong, IMO, to present someone as having done no wrong when all the evidence says they had.

How would lives change in the UK, I don't know, I have never even considered it, but as our traditions and ideals are destroyed, it feels as if a piece of Britain is being murdered, a little at a time. I believe many would mourn the loss of our monarchy. Some of course would revel in it, but I think they are only a very small minority. Part of what makes many of us feel British would be lost forever, lets hope it never happens.

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

Chrissy57,
I strongly believe that the dead should be left alone. The truth, whatever you have meant by this concept, should be told to those who are still in this world. I think our opinions reflect difference in the cultural backgrounds.
I wish I lived in the UK and knew better about influence Prince Charles or any other member of the British Royal family has got at the state level. From my standpoint, the British king/queen “is holding the now largely ceremonial position of head of state” (Wikipedia, n.d.). How will the life of usual inhabitants of the British Isles change, if the royalty disappears tomorrow due to some magic, let us say?
I like the British Royal family for their speech accent and the Ascot race.
I hope I have adequately replied to your questions.

As I am a History teacher I certainly can't leave the dead alone. I would be out of a job, as would the many thousands of people who are historians and archaeologists as we deal with the dead as the essential part of our working lives. In the history courses that I teach for the HSC here in NSW (the end of schooling exam similar to the A-levels in England) I have to spend 25% of the course teaching about a specific personality. At some time in the future I would expect Diana to actually be on that syllabus - many students actually research her life in either the Year 11 course or the Year 12 Extension course as it is - but you would have us not teach any of these people as they are all dead. Please justify your reasons for wanting us to not study history.

At least now I understand your viewpoint. Hopefully you can see mine, as it relates very much to what I find important and worthwhile - the study of events, people etc from the past and the different interpretations of these events and people's actions - the very essence of history and therefore the very essence of my job.

[Avalon]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

Chrissy57,
I strongly believe that the dead should be left alone. The truth, whatever you have meant by this concept, should be told to those who are still in this world. I think our opinions reflect difference in the cultural backgrounds.
I wish I lived in the UK and knew better about influence Prince Charles or any other member of the British Royal family has got at the state level. From my standpoint, the British king/queen “is holding the now largely ceremonial position of head of state” (Wikipedia, n.d.). How will the life of usual inhabitants of the British Isles change, if the royalty disappears tomorrow due to some magic, let us say?
I like the British Royal family for their speech accent and the Ascot race.
I hope I have adequately replied to your questions.

That's interesting. I think we should try more not to speak ill of people, who are alive. Our words can hurt them, unlike those, who are dead.
I'm not saying bashing death is acceptable, but surely if you speak the truth about living people, it is just as fine to speak the truth of the dead people.

[Al_bina]

Chrissy 57,
I have been delighted to learn that we have understood each other. You have a very noble and difficult profession of teaching others to discern reasons/ causes that underlie any historical event, scrutinize facts, and deduce an inference.
I wish you every success in such challenging job.

[ysbel]

What is the practice of Kazakhstan, Al bina? Do people refrain from speaking of the dead at all or do they refrain from speaking only ill of the dead.

In the West its generally considered ill mannered to speak ill of the dead right after they die - its considered poor taste for the grieving family to have to hear such things so soon after the death when they are going through funeral arrangements. But after some time passes-a few years, then it is considered acceptable to speak ill of the dead as long as what is said is truthful.

[Al_bina]

Dear members of the Forum from different parts of the world,
It strikes me to learn that I have raised such a topical question.
In Kazakhstan and other Central Asian countries people avoid to discuss the dead partly due to cultural traditions and partly due to superstitions (I know it may look peculiar). There are annual commemoration parties held by the family members, which are viewed as an appropriate place and time to remember good or bad deeds of the dead. Still family members do not engage into scrupulous examination, remembering the rule “Say nothing but good about the dead”.
I am not sure how it is done in Armenia. The post-Soviet territories have undergone major changes and excavated many new traditions from the past.
However, I do admit that flaws and virtues of any public figure are magnified many times and subjected to value judgments. Given the above, Princess of Diana did use the approach “All is fair in love and war” like any other average woman would do in her situation. However, the heat of the battle with the British Royal family and Price Charles adversely affected her perception of consequences that her deeds might have in the future. She should have taken a couple of lessons on how to deal with mistresses from the royal ladies of the Gulf countries.
Finally, the topic covering the ways to discuss the dead has nothing to do with the theme of this thread. My final opinion of the subject matter is as follows. Yes, Prince Charles is very likely to become the next King of the UK. The most loyal fans of Princess Diana can do nothing EFFECTIVE to prevent him from ascending the throne.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

Dear members of the Forum from different parts of the world,
It strikes me to learn that I have raised such a topical question.
In Kazakhstan and other Central Asian countries people avoid to discuss the dead partly due to cultural traditions and partly due to superstitions (I know it may look peculiar). There are annual commemoration parties held by the family members, which are viewed as an appropriate place and time to remember good or bad deeds of the dead. Still family members do not engage into scrupulous examination, remembering the rule “Say nothing but good about the dead”.
I am not sure how it is done in Armenia. The post-Soviet territories have undergone major changes and excavated many new traditions from the past.
However, I do admit that flaws and virtues of any public figure are magnified many times and subjected to value judgments. Given the above, Princess of Diana did use the approach “All is fair in love and war” like any other average woman would do in her situation. However, the heat of the battle with the British Royal family and Price Charles adversely affected her perception of consequences that her deeds might have in the future. She should have taken a couple of lessons on how to deal with mistresses from the royal ladies of the Gulf countries.
Finally, the topic covering the ways to discuss the dead has nothing to do with the theme of this thread. My final opinion of the subject matter is as follows. Yes, Prince Charles is very likely to become the next King of the UK. The most loyal fans of Princess Diana can do nothing EFFECTIVE to prevent him from ascending the throne.

Thanks for explaining Al_bina. I always find it interesting to read about different customs in different parts of the world.

Its interesting that you say an average woman would have done what Diana has done and taken the motto of "All is fair in love and war" I wouldn't say that any of my friends would have taken that motto, they just tended to drop the jerks once they had been betrayed and moved on.

Cheers.

[Elspeth]

They can do nothing legal, at any rate. A deranged partisan with a gun or a bomb could do any amount of damage.

[love_cc]

Charles and Camilla did not spend the night before the wedding together. It was a myth. Andrew PB, Charles's velet, Lady Susan Hussay disputed it because Charles stayed with her until very late then went to his bedroom. And about the cuff-links, it was probably very painful for Diana but she had to get over it because Charles was her husband and she should have never expressed her distrust in him even she had doubts and avoided have rows with him at all.It was the frequent rows and the fights really destoyed their marriage and their incompatiblity caused their unhappiness.

It was almost impossible for Charles to marry Camilla at the first place. It would not happen. She lacked the essential conditions to be a princess:virgin, sweet, young,beautiful, titled, and deep-rooted family connections with the BRF and approvals from Queen Mother and Lord Mountbatten.No one had expected Charles and Camilla's affairs turned out like this not even themselves.Diana was too possessive toward Charles and she simply cannot accept the fact that Camilla was Charles' best friend who cannot be replaced in his life and Charles needs Camilla's constant support in his life. The problem is always there because Charles needs sustainable and devoted support for him which Diana was unable to provide for him because she needed it as well.

[scooter]

Originally Posted by love_cc

Charles and Camilla did not spend the night before the wedding together. It was a myth. Andrew PB, Charles's velet, Lady Susan Hussay disputed it because Charles stayed with her until very late then went to his bedroom. And about the cuff-links, it was probably very painful for Diana but she had to get over it because Charles was her husband and she should have never expressed her distrust in him even she had doubts and avoided have rows with him at all.It was the frequent rows and the fights really destoyed their marriage and their incompatiblity caused their unhappiness.

It was almost impossible for Charles to marry Camilla at the first place. It would not happen. She lacked the essential conditions to be a princess:virgin, sweet, young,beautiful, titled, and deep-rooted family connections with the BRF and approvals from Queen Mother and Lord Mountbatten.No one had expected Charles and Camilla's affairs turned out like this not even themselves.Diana was too possessive toward Charles and she simply cannot accept the fact that Camilla was Charles' best friend who cannot be replaced in his life and Charles needs Camilla's constant support in his life. The problem is always there because Charles needs sustainable and devoted support for him which Diana was unable to provide for him because she needed it as well.

So, she should have just gotten over it and 'trusted her husband and never expressed doubts and caused a fight'? I think that is expecting more than humanly possible from any wife. As far as Camilla being Charles' 'best friend' I dont think best friend was the issue. There are certain 'services' not normally contained in the 'best friend' brief which were plainly in evidence. If you are really suggesting that 'the rows' were not directly related to this issue I think you should go back and read a lot of the books/articles from the era. You cannot seperate one from the other. Remember in physics every action has a direct and opposite reaction.

Look, I'm not a partisan of one or any side of this triangle/square/pentagon, but it REALLY annoys me when one side or the other tries to rewrite/whitewash history. If Camilla was the non negotiable love of his life, then lets not pretend that everything was hunky-dory until D 'spontaniously lost her mind'. Quie honestly, If you read Dimblebly's authorized biography of Prince Charles, he is quoted as saying that he was not in love with Diana at the time of the marriage and was simply marrying an 'appropriate girl to bear children'. Pesonally, in that situation, I would have 'spontaniously lost my mind' too.

As far as Camilla's not being eligable to be the princess bride in the 70's, why do you think that the things that made her ineligable at the time are now ok to make her the duchess bride? I think he should have married her the 1st time when he had a chance.But, since he didn't, and he was still in love with Camilla when he married the princess bride, let's not cast the blame on the other people in the situation, whether Diana or the courtiers who 'wouldn't let Charles marry Camilla' the first time through. Charles was a grown man (I think 34) when he married Diana. Old enough to know his own mind, dont you think?