The English Royals

DONE! And keep them coming. But if you have Bombay it's what I'm most accustomed to.... either way.

Went back and read.

Yes yes I see your point. The girl was so green it was painful. But what on earth is a girl of her caliber and of her background doing without so much as a lesson in etiquette and poise doing being dragged into that skirmish?

Hell. She was a goner from the get-go.

She came into that marriage with a schoolgirl's sensibilities.

Did she mature? Yes. Was she ever really healed from her childhood? No. Do I love that she was the darling of the British and American press? Sure did. Do I think she was interesting to look at? Yes very... But I rather like Camilla and Charles ensemble. Sorry.

But that interview the P of W did toward the end with the Indian fellow (who later came to fame in the Michael Jackson business) was beyond desperate. BASHIR! That's the name. By that time she ought to have known better. She was working her press and her public like a finely tuned instrument.

But what WAS she thinking with that Fayed creature? Goodness. No wonder the Royals got pissy. He was a miscreant.

But I'll give you one thing; she set the rest on their collective arses unlike the "Americanization of Sarah Ferguson" which is beyond reprehensible to me.

How'd I do Englishman?

Agreed

That was actually painful to read.

For whom should one have more respect?

The Queen (for she is "The Queen") or Tony (I kiss your arse Mr. President) Blair.

Actually, I am rather fond of Camilla myself, I am not part of the 'point the finger brigade'...all is fair in love and war is it not? And as long as Charles is happy, then so am I...rather fond of the old beggar myself, always have been ever since we were notified that Charlie boy likes talking to his plants.

Diana was extremely green, and unsurprisingly so, as she was, lest you forget, but a teenager when she was introduced to the mighty and very very scary Royal Machine. Also, let us not forget that Charles was pressured into marrying a Virgin, which Diana, apparantely, was. He was in love with Camilla when he married Di, but as the heir to the Throne, he was in no way allowed to marry a divorced woman (think back to Edward and Wallis)...another abdication was a definite no-no. And as for Diana, being so, as you say, green, she was in no way privvy to this information.

Moving swiftly on to Fayed, here is where you unsurprisingly (not being a Brit) need some enlightenment. Dodi Al Fayed was the son of Mohammed Al Fayed, the owner of the London store Harrods...abso-fuckin-lutely HATED by the Royals and the Establishment.....Mohammed for years has been trying to gain British Citizenship...not a problem for any rich Billionairre arriving on our shores, but to this day he has applied again and again and has had no success.....now he has given up. This all began with the Tiny Rowland affair...(google it)...so when Diana started to date the son of Mohammed, this was seen as a MAJOR slap on the face of the Royal Family...call it revenge if you will....and who could blame her...hoodwinked into believing that Charlie loved her, bearing two untainted heirs to the Throne, (which Camilla bless her soul could never have provided being a tainted lady in the eyes of the Church of England...), she took her ultimate revenge....perhaps. Nonetheless, when she died early on into her affair with Dodi, fuel for conspiracy theorums were ad infinitum old boy....and unsurprisingly so.

So you see, there's a whole lot more to the story than some dim woman dating an arab.....one needs to know more than hearsay and idle fact to avoid misconceptions....ya?

A few points for you to consider.

The Queen Mum was Babe Britannia and retained a sparkle in her eye to the year she died.

Mr. El Fayed, apart from having a very small penis is Egyptian and was the sugar daddy anti-establishment figure who offered Diana the prospect of financial freedom - not lost on her.

Oh and if you ever meet Princess Anne, you may notice if you are that way inclined that she also is rather sexy - strange but true.

Yes, quite right old boy...and also....Dodi was a muslim...rather like swallowing raw sewage for the Establishment....

Enlightenment unnecessary. I know the family's history at least as much as you've cited here. You come off as too much of an apologist for Diana for me. And her tedious brother's angry pronouncement at Westminster Abbey... that and Sir Elton ... I mean really. It bordered on English kitsch.

And I have no conspiracy theories. I say simply that Diana was exhibiting once again her exceedingly poor judgment.

I think she could have managed things after a bit but she dug in her schoolgirl heels early-on and became the resident brat even into her days on her own at Kensington. She was as unstable as a three-legged chair.

Diana, had she a thoughtful brain in her head, ought to have chosen better in her playmates and that playboy Dodi Fayed (the "El" is an affectation) was nothing but a thumbing of her Spencer nose at that 'Royal Machine' you reference. Bad plan.

By that time she knew the rules and she was beginning to look as culpable as those to whom she would have assigned blame in her doe-eyed "there were three in that marriage" sentiments to Bashir. She was no one's innocent by then.

I know more than hearsay. I simply have an opinion of the late P of W to which you take exception.

As we Yanks say "it's all good".

Stronzo old boy, on no account do I apologise for anybody, that is clear for anyone who reads back in these posts...to point an accusation that is unfounded is an admission of intellectual weakness.

Apart from that, in your earlier post, you made no notion of the fact that Diana was dating the son of Mohammed Al Fayed (the 'Al' being the Anglacisation of the true birth name 'Mohamed Abdel Moneim Fayed' and the same with Dodi's name, very common to anglacise foreign names here in England...although again..you would not know this, not being a Brit)....and it is my belief, although you will undoubtedly protest, that you didn't have a clue before I made it clear to you....it is very easy to cover one's tracks is it not?

I feel that it is pointless in carrying on this discussion with you, as from your last post it seems that it will undoubtedly decay into a slanging match of which I want or feel no part....to be honest in ones postings is of absolute importance to me, you will not see me using this format as an easy way to backtrack and lie....one is not surprised that you were banned before.

Again, I desist...enough said....Chin-chin!!

Yes. But you don't get to do a final "drive-by shitting" and say the "hadn't a clue" thingy and say "chin chin". Bad form that.

I think you're right. As I've stated to you elsewhere I think we're pretty much in agreement generally about the English Royal family.

And trust me I did "have a clue" which (and I'll say only this once) was more than a trifle condescending on your part. Perhaps you need to rethink your view of all American "yahoos" before you put us all into that same compost heap of yours.

It's that very sort of sentiment which puts me in a pervasive position of having to defend my affections for Europeans generally here in the States. Please do not assume anything too readily I'd caution you.

You'll find you come across as condescending where no condescension is deserved.


Further, I'll match you European nobility person for person if you'd like to go a round or two. I know my share and I'll trust one European aristo friend's information over some English "dude" on an internet message board anyday.

That said, I've finished my drink.

Perhaps Diana was attracted to Fayed since she was one sixteenth Armenian through her mother's people... or didn't you know?

Wow. You play dirty.

A lesson for one and all about inbreeding!!!

Are you referring to the British Royal Family or your own comment?

My guess? The latter.

Hey it happens here in the states too Just look at the kennedys

I learned my civics in American public school. The understanding I got of the Royal family led me to believe that a King or Queen was potentially a dictator. Her or his power is absolute, and if her subjects live lives of freedom and dignity, it was only at her whim.

Of course, fast forward to Law School in a Commonwealth country. I learned that the monarch had forfeit many of those powers long ago, under the political pressure of modernisation. In fact, the monarch is restricted from doing anything meaningful without the instruction (called "advice") of the democratically elected parliament. There are some things which only a head of state can do--declare war, make treaties, and sign bills into law--and she can't do those things unless the elected officials tell her to.

She has a great deal less power than a President. Good thing, or bad thing?

Probably a good thing. The office of the President, beginning with Reagan, simply refused to enforce laws made by Congress (many environmental bills were simply ignored). And so-called signing statements and vetoes mean that a President has powers that are a lot more kingly than a modern monarch. Fair enough, one could argue; a president is elected, a monarch is not.

Would it be better for Britain to have a less flashy head of state (perhaps a prominent citizen appointed as an honorary position for a fixed term, like Canadian or Australian governors-general) rather than a high-maintenance, undereducated, inbred, loopy, embarassing royal clan?

I think, symbolically, yes. It wouldn't be cheaper--the government, for cultural reasons, would probably wish to maintain ceremonial pomp and circumstance. But it would show the average Briton that he was, indeed, a citizen, not a subject. And that potentially he, too, could be afforded as much respect and honour as some eighty-odd year-old horsey grandmother, presiding over a brood of middle-aged marital fuckups and rebellious grandchildren.

Quote:

Originally Posted by uncut A lesson for one and all about inbreeding!!!

Well perhaps breeding in general.

My father's family love the royals because they love horses and dogs. They have nicely kept gardens. They also have big diamonds, and good art collections. Oh, that and the Queen loves Coro. I did have to swear the Oath of Allegiance, once, on account of being in the Commonwealth. Didn't think about it too much. We generally regard them as very ordinary.

And how could I forget: they have funny hats, and employ lots of men who have nice uniforms.

It struck me reading through this that the only "royals" who have cared what Amercians thought were Diana and Camilla. That, and how populist Stronzo's views are in some parts of the world.

Anyway the other thing that came to mind (regarding Anglo Amercian perspectives) was the following story about the big bling. Liz told one version (on Parkinson from memory) which went:

"My God, that's the most vulgar thing I have ever seen. (Pause).
Can I try it on?"

According to legend, Princess Margaret spotted the 39-carat Krupp diamond on Elizabeth Taylor's finger and exclaimed, "That's the most vulgar thing I've ever seen!". The actress offered to let the stylish royal try on the bauble, one of many dazzling gifts from fifth husband, Richard Burton. Watching the Princess' eyes sparkle as she examined the jewel, the quick-witted star famously quipped: "See? It's not so vulgar now, is it?".

I suppose the parallel here is:

"My God, that great horse dong is not going anywhere near my ass, I'm not ready to die. (Pause). Do you have a condom?" *bends over*.

Human nature, huh?