The Royal Family

[kellycummings]

Ok, first thing, I know there are several British people here and I do not want to offend anyone, it is all just my American opinion so please don't take anything personally.
I was watching that show on the Diana tapes and it sorta pissed me off. I found myself not caring about her because she knew what she was getting into. She admits it very clearly. At times it just sounded like a bunch of whining. I'm sure that she was a good person, she certainly came off that way and I'm sorry that she met such an early demise. My problem is that I feel like they are telling me I'm supposed to feel sorry for her because of the life she led. I don't. She chose it. People don't feel sorry for me when I make a decision and it turns out bad.
Also, since I'm on the subject, I really gotta know, why do we, as Americans, give a shit about the royal family? I guess I can see why the British do, although I don't understand it. But why do we? Why are we always hearing about their exploits? I find it difficult to care about a group of people who live in luxury in another country.
I'm done ranting now. I certainly hope I did not offend anyone because I know that people do care about them and especially Diana. That show just sorta ticked me off.

 

[shereads]

I think everyone loves the romantic notion of royalty. Didn't we all grow up reading about princes and princesses? In the U.S., we have to make do with entertainers. It's hardly the same thing, but it's all we have.

I thought Diana was a lovely person, troubled, naive - but she married into a system that demanded a virgin bride, so she'd have to be a bit naive, wouldn't she?

I can't imagine that she truly "knew" what it would be like to live with her in-laws and to know that they didn't like her very much, but had to put up with her; and that whatever went wrong in her marriage, it could never be ended without a global scandal and probable loss of her children. It's one thing to know, intellectually, that you're about to change your life in a dramatic way, and that you will forever give up your privacy. It's another to understand what that will mean to you, emotionally. To be held in contempt at home, and to have to put on a happy face for the world every day, would be more than most young, inexperienced women could grasp.

What I admired about Diana was that she grew into a deeply compassionate person, whose charitable activities were the most challenging kind: holding and comforting the lepers of the world, whether they were people dying of AIDS in hosptital wards, or ragged, unwashed children in third world countries where a princess couldn't expect the usual comforts.

It seemed that she might have been able to have a happy ending, despite the fact that she had already outlived her fairy tale.

 

[kellycummings]

I think everyone loves the romantic notion of royalty. Didn't we all grow up reading about princes and princesses? In the U.S., we have to make do with entertainers. It's hardly the same thing, but it's all we have.

I thought Diana was a lovely person, troubled, naive - but she married into a system that demanded a virgin bride, so she'd have to be a bit naive, wouldn't she?

I can't imagine that she truly "knew" what it would be like to live with her in-laws and to know that they didn't like her very much, but had to put up with her; and that whatever went wrong in her marriage, it could never be ended without a global scandal and probable loss of her children. It's one thing to know, intellectually, that you're about to change your life in a dramatic way, and that you will forever give up your privacy. It's another to understand what that will mean to you, emotionally. To be held in contempt at home, and to have to put on a happy face for the world every day, would be more than most young, inexperienced women could grasp.

What I admired about Diana was that she grew into a deeply compassionate person, whose charitable activities were the most challenging kind: holding and comforting the lepers of the world, whether they were people dying of AIDS in hosptital wards, or ragged, unwashed children in third world countries where a princess couldn't expect the usual comforts.

It seemed that she might have been able to have a happy ending, despite the fact that she had already outlived her fairy tale.

I don't doubt that she was a good person. She did try very hard to make a difference. Maybe she didn't really know what she was getting into but listening to those tapes it sure sounded like she did. I know, you can't believe everything you see on tv and that is probably my problem with the whole thing. I felt like they shove the whole thing down my throat. I turned it off after about 20 minutes.
I guess I just get tired of hearing about it. I can understand why people want to hear about it. You're right, it's a fairy tale that we've all grown up with. I'm probably just bitter because that is all I've been seeing lately and I'm a little tired of it.

 

[shereads]

You're right, it's a fairy tale that we've all grown up with. I'm probably just bitter because that is all I've been seeing lately and I'm a little tired of it.

Don't worry. We'll have the Scott Petersen trial and the Michael Jackson trial soon enough.



Meanwhile, I'm grateful for things that take my mind off the election.

 

[kellycummings]

Don't worry. We'll have the Scott Petersen trial and the Michael Jackson trial soon enough.



Meanwhile, I'm grateful for things that take my mind off the election.

Did you hear in the news today about that kids family? As much as I'd like to belive that MJ is a pervert, I have my doubts now. No matter what I think of a person I would never want them to be wrongly accused of something like child molestation. Of course he could still be guilty but I know I have more doubts now than I did before.

As for Peterson, I can't wait for that trial. I really do try to withhold judgment on things like this but I can't help but think he's guilty as sin.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Personally, I have no great interest in the royal family but I believe they are regarded by many Americans as celebrities, like movie stars or top pro athletes. You read almost nothing about the queen or Prince Philip but a lot about Charles and his comings and goings and about his sons. I may be wrong but I think it is mostly women who follow their activities.

As for Diana, she may or may not have been a virgin when she married Charles. I believe she was only 19 at the time so it is very possible. I don't know and I also don't care but I would suppose that if she had turned out not to be a virgin, this would not have been noised around by the royals.

I also believe she became a very fine person after the wedding, partly because she was in a position to make a difference. She couldn't do anything herself but she could make a problem public in hopes that someone in authority could change things.

 

[Guest]

I have no interest in England's royals except as kitsch. I prefer royals before 1900, as history. I enjoy reading about their surreal lives and traditions, more so the imperial Russians than the British, though I love Shakespeare's English royals as characters.

Perdita

 

[kellycummings]

I have no interest in England's royals except as kitsch. I prefer royals before 1900, as history. I enjoy reading about their surreal lives and traditions, more so the imperial Russians than the British, though I love Shakespeare's English royals as characters.

Perdita

The historical royals are more interesting to me also because they were real. They had real power and what they did mattered. Today's are only symbolic and, at least in my eyes, meaningless.
The Russians were very interesting also. As were the French.
I think Shakespeares were interesting because they were so f****d up. Did they do anything that didn't end in complete disaster?

 

[shereads]

One thing is certain:

If it turns out that royals really are given authority by God, the gradual elimination of monarchies from the world is one more thing for Him to be pissed off about.

 

[Guest]

I think Shakespeares were interesting because they were so f****d up. Did they do anything that didn't end in complete disaster?

Kelly, I appreciate them because Shakespeare made them ordinary, at one level, and more real than those I'm familiar with today. There are great relationships among the kings and queens about fathers and sons, fathers and daughters, husbands and wives, lovers, siblings, bastards vs. legitimate children, etc. E.g., I am always moved by Lear's "let's away to prison" speech to Cordelia.

Perdita

 

[kellycummings]

Kelly, I appreciate them because Shakespeare made them ordinary, at one level, and more real than those I'm familiar with today. There are great relationships among the kings and queens about fathers and sons, fathers and daughters, husbands and wives, lovers, siblings, bastards vs. legitimate children, etc. E.g., I am always moved by Lear's "let's away to prison" speech to Cordelia.

Perdita

I've always seen them as seriously messed up people. Not all of them were bad but they all had some major issues. Yes, they were mostly ordinary on a certain level but when I read the plays I can't help but look at them as people in serious need of a shrink. Especially Hamlet. There was a guy who needed some couch time. Maybe a nice anti-depressant. It wasn't his fault of course but sure could have benefitted from it.
Macbeth always confused me a bit, never sure what to make of him. Lear I always looked at in a nice way.

 

[KenJames]

One thing is certain:

If it turns out that royals really are given authority by God, the gradual elimination of monarchies from the world is one more thing for Him to be pissed off about.

Perfect! You should cross-post this on the "Passion" thread to annoy Dirt Man.

[SLAP!]

Okay, I know that was tacky.

 

[shereads]

I've always seen them as seriously messed up people. Not all of them were bad but they all had some major issues. Yes, they were mostly ordinary on a certain level but when I read the plays I can't help but look at them as people in serious need of a shrink. Especially Hamlet. There was a guy who needed some couch time. Maybe a nice anti-depressant. It wasn't his fault of course but sure could have benefitted from it.
Macbeth always confused me a bit, never sure what to make of him. Lear I always looked at in a nice way.

The problems of powerful people have always been mined for entertainment. We envy their power, and seeing them vulnerable shakes up the way we think. Or we fear their power, and like seeing them brought low.

Would Hamlet have been a success if he'd been the Farmer of Denmark?

Sheep farmer, maybe. But for different reasons.



Perdita and kelly and ken, did any of you see Shakespeare in Love? I adored that movie. Particularly the little touches, like the "Stratford Upon Avon" souvenir coffee mug at Shakespeare's writing desk.

 

[KenJames]

Perdita and kelly and ken, did any of you see Shakespeare in Love? I adored that movie. Particularly the little touches, like the "Stratford Upon Avon" souvenir coffee mug at Shakespeare's writing desk.

I'm afraid I missed "Shakespeare in Love." I really need to rent the DVD, since I've enjoyed all of Tom Stoppard's other work.

 

[shereads]

I'm afraid I missed "Shakespeare in Love." I really need to rent the DVD, since I've enjoyed all of Tom Stoppard's other work.

Oh do! Rent it now, this minute, so we can talk about the movie. Dame Judy Densch (spelling?) does a wonderful turn as Elizabeth I.

 

[Guest]

ella, I liked Sh're in Love for the Shakespeare. The screenplay was excellent and all the leads though I just don't 'get' Paltrow. Judy Dench is brilliant in anything, I adore her and wish I were related to her. I loved Antony Sher as Will's shrink-type and Imelda Staunton as the nurse (love her in anything too). P.

 

[snooper]

... I can't imagine that she truly "knew" what it would be like to live with her in-laws and to know that they didn't like her very much, but had to put up with her; and that whatever went wrong in her marriage, it could never be ended without a global scandal and probable loss of her children. ...

Please do not forget that she was the daughter of an Earl and moved all her life in royal circles. She had known Charles for six years when they married, so if she claims she didn't know about Camilla, then she was either very stupid or lying.

However, in her defence I quote the words of her father, the late Earl Spencer, interviewed on the day of her wedding.
"Many members of my family have given their lives for this country, and my daughter is giving her life to the service of her country today."

She knew exactly what she was in for. It was the way she behaved that incurred the wrath of her mother-in-law, especially her breaching of the eleventh commandment, "Thou shalt not get caught".

 

[SensualCealy]

My two cents worth

I appreciate what HRH (even though she was stripped) Diana tried to do for the Monarchy. I also tend to love Sarah Duchess of York. Their modern day twist on the monarchy is what it needed to bring it into the 21st century.

Knowing their lives dont revolve around designer gowns and the "right" hat shows they are real people with real issues. Diana with her bulemia (sp) and Fergie with her weight issues, only shows that the years prevous were filled with hidden secrets. If I remember correctly wasnt there someone in the family that was a cross dresser?

The only ones I feel for now are HRH William and HRH Henry, they would have truly profited having their mother be with them as they grew towards adult hood. I think, if only Diana could have been treated with respect and given the help she needed without hiding it she would have been a wonderful asset to the monarchy. Im still hoping that Sarah and HRH Andrew, whom still live in the same house, will once again be an item when the old lady dies.

From my limited reading of Shakespere I can tell they were ROYALY screwed up back then too, but with modern technology, TV , computers and the media all together, it has become more widly known of their indiscressions.

If I were to make a comparison with the US and Royalty Id say take a look at Princess Grace and Queen Nor or Jordan, both US born and raised. Even if they dont hold royal possitions in the US they should be held with respect as most of us ( Canada) do the Winsors ( the Royal family).

I so agree that Elizabeth I and Shakespere in Love are the best two movies I own! Dame Judy Dench is awesome. The only other movie Id add is Quills, a truly twisted movie but shows their perception of what happened in that era.

Now on this note, I would say if the Monarchy was eliminated tomorrow it wouldnt be a great loss, however to have had that history for so many hundreds of years is something I will always hold on to.

Cealy

 

[Guest]

 

[NoJo]

Well, as a Brit born and inbred, I feel comfortable bashing royalty. I think the thing about Diana is that she was very stupid. Just didn't have it in the brain department:

The upper-class character "Tim Nice-But-Dim" was popular in a comedy show here, basically making fun of upper-class twits (Bertie Wooster was the best, though). Di was exactly that, I think: Nice but Dim. And hell, I'd marry Prince Charles if he asked me.

When Di was murdered/died/switched cars or whatever really happened in that tunnel, I felt terrible becuase I really didn't care. I was too embarrased to say this in case I was treated as an unfeeling bastard.

But to my relief it turned out a lot of people also didn't care all that much: A lot of us did mourn for her though, and much of the country enjoyed (if that's the right word) a day of communal sadness the day of her funeral.

 

[English Lady]

I just wish they'd let the poor Girl be.....but more so for her family and especially her sons. Imagine how horrid it must be for Harry and William to see all this crap on the telly and in the newspapers. I slept on the couch last night (bloody abcess is really giving me gip) and when the news came on this morning i must have heard the bit about these Diana tapes over and over....even hearing voice clips of her saying she fell down stairs on purpose whilst carrying William. No son (or daughter) should have to dodge that kind of insensitive shite.

 

[oggbashan]

This thread seems to be about the Diana tapes instead of about the "Royal Family".

As far as I am concerned anything about HRH The Princess Of Wales is history and is only news because the media want it to be news.

HRH The Queen, her consort and her heir have spent their lives working for the UK and the Commonwealth. The Princess of Wales did many good things not just for the UK but for causes beyond it. If she had been a Mrs Smith from Wimbledon no one would be interested in what she did or didn't do.

I am grateful for the limited influence The Queen has on our Government institutions. She is our Head of State, and Head of the Armed Forces, the Police, the Civil Service etc, all of whom work in her name and not in that of a politician. That provides continuity and is immune from election campaigns, campaign funding raising, favours needing repayment etc.

The Queen has a role in our Constitution. No other member of the Royal Family has any defined official role. Yet most of them work for our benefit and deserve the thanks of the population.

The Royal Family as soap opera is a media creation. Little more than one hundred years ago the Prince of Wales' mistresses were common knowledge but were not seen to detract from his role as eventual King. Edward VIII would have had no problems if Wallis Simpson had been his mistress - but he wanted to marry her. At that time marrying a divorced woman was virtually impossible and certainly impossible for the Head of the Anglican Church.

Bring back the days when a King's Mistress could tell an angry crowd "Peace, dear people - I am the Protestant Whore" and get an honour guard of rioters.

Og

 

[NoJo]

This thread seems to be about the Diana tapes instead of about the "Royal Family".

As far as I am concerned anything about HRH The Princess Of Wales is history and is only news because the media want it to be news.

HRH The Queen, her consort and her heir have spent their lives working for the UK and the Commonwealth. The Princess of Wales did many good things not just for the UK but for causes beyond it. If she had been a Mrs Smith from Wimbledon no one would be interested in what she did or didn't do.

I am grateful for the limited influence The Queen has on our Government institutions. She is our Head of State, and Head of the Armed Forces, the Police, the Civil Service etc, all of whom work in her name and not in that of a politician. That provides continuity and is immune from election campaigns, campaign funding raising, favours needing repayment etc.

The Queen has a role in our Constitution. No other member of the Royal Family has any defined official role. Yet most of them work for our benefit and deserve the thanks of the population.

The Royal Family as soap opera is a media creation. Little more than one hundred years ago the Prince of Wales' mistresses were common knowledge but were not seen to detract from his role as eventual King. Edward VIII would have had no problems if Wallis Simpson had been his mistress - but he wanted to marry her. At that time marrying a divorced woman was virtually impossible and certainly impossible for the Head of the Anglican Church.

Bring back the days when a King's Mistress could tell an angry crowd "Peace, dear people - I am the Protestant Whore" and get an honour guard of rioters.

Og

I'm curious about your liberal use of Capitals, there, og, particularly "King's Mistress". Are you adhering to some anachronistic rules of etiquette?

 

[Boxlicker101]

I just wish they'd let the poor Girl be.....but more so for her family and especially her sons. Imagine how horrid it must be for Harry and William to see all this crap on the telly and in the newspapers. I slept on the couch last night (bloody abcess is really giving me gip) and when the news came on this morning i must have heard the bit about these Diana tapes over and over....even hearing voice clips of her saying she fell down stairs on purpose whilst carrying William. No son (or daughter) should have to dodge that kind of insensitive shite.

I have to agree with what you say and with what Og says in the post after yours. I never read gossip columns of any kind, about entrtainers or royalty or any other kind of celebrity. If somebody does something outstanding, making a movie, starring in a game, appointing someone, that is newsworthy. Fucking somebody is not.

 

[gauchecritic]

For me, Diana's only naivety lay in her belief that she could 'manage' the press better than the Monarch.

A virgin marriage? Highly unlikely. Why do you suppose that even physical sign of virginity is removed by being of the 'horsey' set before any attempt is made at making a bride 'comfortable' for her husband?

Or am I just naive to believe all the stories? Royal virgin brides? Pshaw and tish.

I'm really glad that there is someone else that can believe MJ to be innocent until proven guilty.

If that's what you do to your 'Superstars' what would you do to Royalty?

Tabloid/TV justice. Who'd have thought?

Gauche