The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Current Events Archive (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f166/)
-   -   Princess Beatrice of York Current Events 11: June-October 2008 (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f166/princess-beatrice-of-york-current-events-11-june-october-2008-a-17440.html)

Mermaid1962 07-10-2008 05:17 PM

I don't think that her life is "futile", exactly. She seems to be a young woman trying to decide what she wants to do with her life. That's normal.:flowers:


Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarue (Post 796034)
I was trying to find something nice to say Bella as I really havenīt anything else to say about the young lady. I think she leads a very futile life but I think it is not all her fault.......I thought she looked nice in white but if she is going to enter the world of fashion it will have to be a paid way. She has absolutely no taste at the moment....


Menarue 07-10-2008 05:50 PM

Point taken Mermaid, but while she is deciding she seems to be taking one long holiday. She has stated she wants to do something linked to fashion.....that is fine but she will have to learn that. She doesnīt seem to be a natural when it comes to fashion.
Perhaps she will surprise us in the future but at the moment I have seen one too many photos of her coming out of a night club bleary eyed but she does look nice in white.

Amelia 08-04-2008 10:36 AM

Quote:

Mandrake hears that Beatrice, her sister, Princess Eugenie, and their mother, Sarah, Duchess of York, are enjoying a holiday at Sir Richard's Caribbean island, Necker.
A small piece on Beatrice's holiday plans (scroll down): Has Joseph Fiennes popped the question? - Telegraph

muriel 08-05-2008 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amelia (Post 807070)
A small piece on Beatrice's holiday plans (scroll down): Has Joseph Fiennes popped the question? - Telegraph

The keys to Necker island are not easy to obtain. I doubt if 26 year old Dave Clark will have the clout within the Virgin group to get access to the island for free. I suspect this is probably a freebie that Sarah has organised

Bella 08-05-2008 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muriel (Post 807367)
The keys to Necker island are not easy to obtain. I doubt if 26 year old Dave Clark will have the clout within the Virgin group to get access to the island for free. I suspect this is probably a freebie that Sarah has organised

Richard Branson is known to scrape and bow to royalty to the point of being pathetic. I guarantee this was his idea and his arranging to better position himself w members of the RF. It's even been rumored that it was HE (not Prince William as reported) who brought that Dave Clark (one of his employees) together with Pss B and who is keeping his eye on the whole relationship. I believe it.

muriel 08-05-2008 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bella (Post 807419)
Richard Branson is known to scrape and bow to royalty to the point of being pathetic. I guarantee this was his idea and his arranging to better position himself w members of the RF. It's even been rumored that it was HE (not Prince William as reported) who brought that Dave Clark (one of his employees) together with Pss B and who is keeping his eye on the whole relationship. I believe it.

Its interesting you are willing to "guarantee" facts you have little intimate knowledge of!!!!

Bella 08-05-2008 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muriel (Post 807428)
Its interesting you are willing to "guarantee" facts you have little intimate knowledge of!!!!

Excuse me? First off, how do you know what I know and don't know? Second, I never said it was straight fact I was voicing my own opinion.

Warren 08-05-2008 12:09 PM

Maybe Sir Richard has his eyes set on a life peerage :biggrin:, but whatever the case we should avoid speculating as to how he may or may not be influencing the relationship between Beatrice and her current boyfriend for his own purposes.

Monika_ 08-05-2008 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bella (Post 807419)
Richard Branson is known to scrape and bow to royalty to the point of being pathetic. I guarantee this was his idea and his arranging to better position himself w members of the RF. It's even been rumored that it was HE (not Prince William as reported) who brought that Dave Clark (one of his employees) together with Pss B and who is keeping his eye on the whole relationship. I believe it.

I agree. I wish I recalled where I read it, but supposedly Diana thought he was a bit much when he wanted her to wear a red outfit for an event associated with his airline. She didn't. :)

muriel 08-06-2008 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bella (Post 807430)
Excuse me? First off, how do you know what I know and don't know? Second, I never said it was straight fact I was voicing my own opinion.

We are all entitled to our opinions, and surely this is a forum to voice our views and oinions on various matters. But lets be clear, opinions are merely opinions, and cannot be "guaranteed" - only facts can! That is why is cannot "guarantee" what you know or don't!

I have no doubts that Richard Branson could well be trying his level best of ingratiate himself with the royal family for the obvious publicity it might get him.

Menarue 08-06-2008 08:04 AM

One of the advantages of internet forums is the anonymity. I think some of us would be very surprised to know who they are conversing with. Some people, to those in the know, do not know anybody, but I think that some of you should give the benefit of the doubt to others. To say categorically that some one doesnīt have intimate knowledge of a subject, in my opinion, is a little risky. This, of course, is my opinion.

MARG 08-06-2008 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarue (Post 807797)
One of the advantages of internet forums is the anonymity. I think some of us would be very surprised to know who they are conversing with. Some people, to those in the know, do not know anybody, but I think that some of you should give the benefit of the doubt to others. To say categorically that some one doesnīt have intimate knowledge of a subject, in my opinion, is a little risky. This, of course, is my opinion.

Unfortunately exactly the opposite is true, and that is why posters ask of verification or sources.

There is an increasing tendency to guarantee or state as fact, that which is not in evidence. Worse, should anyone have the temerity to take issue with such a statement, feelings get hurt and the thread gets heated.

This forum has had a fine reputation for it's ability to enable each of us participate rationally, as it provided a level playing field. Therefore if someone is privileged to have personal information then it is up to them to "put up or shut up". Endless titillating hints that "I know something that you don't know" don't count.

Common sense would dictate discretion as the preferred option and a return to those wonderful qualifying statements . . . IMHO, IMO, I believe/guess, etc. That is at least being honest. :flowers:

Menarue 08-06-2008 09:04 AM

True, very true. I did say in my opinion :flowers:, yes, if someone does have intimate knowledge they shouldnīt say so without backing it up with, who, why and how. But you canīt expect someone to say, my first cousin, called so and so, who is the private secretary of so and so, told me that...... Books are easier to quote.
I absolutely see your point and apologise. :whistling:
I must share something that at the time amused me. A very well to do elderly lady (excuse me not publishing her name ;)) once told me seriously "I may not know someone but you can be sure that I know his/her cousin" taking into account that there is a fairly small population here I later came to the conclusion that she wasnīt exaggerating.....:flowers:

Bella 08-06-2008 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muriel (Post 807770)
We are all entitled to our opinions, and surely this is a forum to voice our views and oinions on various matters. But lets be clear, opinions are merely opinions, and cannot be "guaranteed" - only facts can! That is why is cannot "guarantee" what you know or don't!

I have no doubts that Richard Branson could well be trying his level best of ingratiate himself with the royal family for the obvious publicity it might get him.

My comment "I guarantee" is a form of expression, it's a phrase. It wasn't meant to be taken as literal fact. It has the same connotation as "I bet" etc. At least that was my usage of that phrase in this instance. I didn't think a common phrase was going to be so analyzed. So for the record then, let me change things: IT IS MY PERSONAL OPINON AND BELIEF THAT THE RUMOURS I'VE HEARD ARE TRUE THAT BRANSON IS A ROYAL BROWN NOSE AND WILL DO ANYTHING TO GET IN THE GOOD GRACES OF THE RF. Clear enough?

Bella 08-06-2008 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarue (Post 807797)
One of the advantages of internet forums is the anonymity. I think some of us would be very surprised to know who they are conversing with. Some people, to those in the know, do not know anybody, but I think that some of you should give the benefit of the doubt to others. To say categorically that some one doesnīt have intimate knowledge of a subject, in my opinion, is a little risky. This, of course, is my opinion.

You are so right. Which is why it's baffling to me that someone would have the nerve to presume what someone else knows or does not know.

Warren 08-07-2008 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bella (Post 807855)
Which is why it's baffling to me that someone would have the nerve to presume what someone else knows or does not know.

The danger is that we have had so many cases in the past where members have claimed to know certain facts or to have certain intimate knowledge where there was either no substantiation, they were plain wrong, they were being deliberately misleading, or they were spreading falsehoods.

The Member FAQ, while referring to royalty, also applies to these kinds of statements applying the same principle...

I'm a member of a royal family or a friend or associate of royalty. Why can't I talk about my inside information here?

We have no way of verifying that any of our posters are really members, or friends and associates of members, of royal or noble houses, and we've had a lot of these claims over the years. Our rule requiring verifiable sources of discussion applies in these cases. Unverified claims or statements of connections to royalty may be deleted at the discretion of the moderators.

It gets down to the choice of words. The use of "guarantee" can be interpreted differently so is best avoided when expressing a view as opposed to stating an acknowledged fact. In the current situation "guarantee" can be taken to mean knowledge, or inference of inside knowledge, when it is no more than a strongly-held personal opinion.
Communication by keyboard is one-dimensional and may lack nuance and as we have seen, the use of ambiguous terms can lead to misunderstandings.

Warren

muriel 08-07-2008 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bella (Post 807855)
You are so right. Which is why it's baffling to me that someone would have the nerve to presume what someone else knows or does not know.

Lets just work through this.

Your initial post (Post 45) suggested you were guaranteeing something "I guarantee this was his idea and his arranging to better position himself w members of the RF." You subsequently (in post 54) clarified that in fact you were not guaranteeing it (i.e., it was not based on fact) but was merely conjecture on your part. You clarified it was your presumption (similar to "you bet", as you eloquently pontificated!). So, in reality, you have quite simply clarified that your initial post 45 was based merely on your thoughts, and not facts - so why the need to question whether somebody "would have the nerve to presume what someone else knows or does not know"!

Need I say more? You are perhaps the best advocate for your case, or in reality, the lack thereof!

PS - A recent copy of the Oxford English dictionary might help!

Warren 08-07-2008 06:29 AM

Quote:

it's baffling to me that someone would have the nerve to presume what someone else knows or does not know.
I'd prefer that this particular line of discussion end here.

Before doing so I will add that TRF is a discussion forum and we would like to think the content reflects a fair degree of fact. It is quite natural that members will question the meaning or accuracy of other members' statements. Anyone who makes a post should be prepared for that post to be analysed to some degree, and questions asked as other members see fit, whether to establish accuracy or to clarify meaning.

Members are expected to respond to such questions with patience and civility. Although it may be frustrating having to explain one's position that frustration should not come through in the response. The use of all caps should be avoided as it is tantamount to shouting.

thanks,
Warren

iceflower 08-29-2008 05:38 PM

Pics 28.8.2008
 
Bea's boyfriend Dave has joined them in their holidays in Spain.
Yesterday, on August 28, Bea and Eugenie went to a tennis
match with him - when seeing the small version of the last pic
only, I had been quite sure it was Sarah, but Bea looks a lot like
her mother on it..

** Pic 1 ** Pic 2 ** Pic 3 ** Pic 4 **

sophie 08-29-2008 07:12 PM

Bea looks like she lost some weight. My god her boyfriend looks like prince Harry.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises