England’s Prince Philip a.k.a. The Duke of Edinborough is notoriously politically incorrect. He has been known to “cheerily call the Chinese slitty-eyed and the Hungarians pot-bellied”. He once greeted the berobed Nigerian secretary general of the Commonwealth with the words: “You look as if you’re ready for bed”. He is hilariously funny in other words and, I sense (I don’t know how) that at heart he is not an evil person. Not really. He’s probably just more isolated than would seem possible. Anyway, Duke of Edinborough Awards are given by the press in Britain to anyone who becomes known for similar public statements. Are there any deserving Americans? Have any famous or not so famous Americans been responsible for Prince Philip-type faux pas?
Two words: Dr. Laura.
Well, people who spell Edinburgh “Edinborough” aren’t likely to be up for a real D of E award any time soon.
The official D of E award isn’t an award given out to people to people by the Press, it’s a well-known (here)scheme whereby young people undertake several tasks to earn their Bronze, Silver or Gold D of E award. The tasks have four sections: community (I volunteered in a charity shop for three months), physical (I was a gymnast), Learning (I did a training course in something or other) and the Expedition. For Bronze, the expedition was a weekend hike covering a certain number of miles (I think it was only 14 or something) with a big ole pack on your back and you’re observed (discreetly) and judged on orienteering skills, survival skills, that sort of thing. For the Gold award, it’s a proper expedition to climb big mountains in Tibet, or similar.
Anyway, thousands of young British people do their D of E awards every year through schools and universities. It’s pretty fun.
Incidently, I know someone who was personally insulted by the Duke, bless his insanely outdated tiny little mind. A deaf woman by the name of Eva Jackson who was told, while standing next to a steel band, “No wonder you’re deaf with all this noise!”. Not particularly offensive, granted, but thoughtless nonetheless.
We, *being the great monarchy supporters that we are, or something ;)) have the same award in Australia too. 'Cept it has “in Australia” appended to it.
I believe we also have the awards still, here in NZ. People who get them are quite proud, actually, G.Nome.
You can also sign up for the Duke of Edinburgh awards here in Canada… The age goes rom 14-25 if I recall correctly. I keep meaning to sign up but I never eem to get to where I can sign up when I havethe registration mone.
There are other awards to be won in NZ. You can win one by turning someone’s life into abject garbage. I know a few people with those. I know how proud they are. New Zealanders are, on average, really proud. Aren’t they, Mr Wolfie?
?
My School has the highest number of DoE awards by any organisation. :o
The Duke of Edinburgh is a stupid bigot (though his scheme is excellent).
The Queen Mother owes millions in gambling debts.
The Prince of Wales (heir to the throne) is an adulterer.
Ah, the joys of Monarchy!
Hey, Fran, get used to it… 'Nomer’s got an interesting posting style, and it’s a bit baffling at first, but once you get used to it, she’s really okay.
Thank you Spoofe. You don’t think I need counselling then? For making Ice Wolf my personal scapegoat I don’t think I need counselling. But for what I said about my school reunion and the stuff about margarine that time…? It’s not fair. People get it for less.
Yeah. As an American I laugh at any country that considers an adulterer to be fit for the position of head of state. Ha!
As for the Queen Mum’s gambling debts, I’d wager she’s good for the money if she sold off her castle in Scotland, which I believe she personally owns outright.
Personally, I find it amusing that people seem to think that the crrent royals are failing to live up to the high moral standards set by their predecessors. Have these people ever read a history book?
-
The difference from America is that Prince Charles automatically inherits. If you’re going to have a dynasty, shouldn’t fidelity be a qualification?
-
Firstly the bank isn’t asking for its money, as it would from a commoner.
Secondly you should see the reverence most newpapers award her. Us taxpayers also hand over a lot of money to her - to subsidise a gambling habit?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by waterj2 *
**
I never knew anyone to say anything similar about Princess Diana when she was alive. A lot of British commentators saw her (and still do) as over-privileged and indulgent and they used to make her cry because of it. But her family is theoretically richer than the royal family so criticisms of Princess Diana’s use of the “public purse” for expensive cosmetics and high colonics seem nonsensical to me. I can’t see how public money was ever necessary.
Charles being an adulterer? Do you realize that’s pretty tame compared to most of his ancestors? Edward VII, aka Edward the Caressor? Sheesh-Charles is really pretty boring.
Everyone keeps talking about the declining behavior of the royal family. Hardly-they’ve ALWAYS acted like this.
[QUOTE]
- The difference from America is that Prince Charles automatically inherits. If you’re going to have a dynasty, shouldn’t fidelity be a qualification?
[quote]
No. I don’t see why someone should have any additional requirements placed on their marriage just because they inherited a cool job, especially if the marriage in question is arranged by others for political reasons. Likewise, I don’t see it as unreasonable to expect someone who aspires to a position of prestige and great public trust to actually honor the oath they swore on their wedding day.
Well, if the bank doesn’t care about its debts, I see no reason to. And US taxpayers probably spend more to subsidize gambling habits through Social Security and SSI. Go to any casino in this country, and there’s bound to be busloads of retirees there spending my goddam payroll tax. Stop by any convenience store and see who plays the lottery.
G. Nome, who are you talking about? I don’t think anyone in Britain’s family is even close to the Royal Family in terms of wealth. Certainly not the Spencers, who I believe rather needed the influx of wealth that the marriage brought them.
The Spencers have always been among the richest families in Britain and have even been known to lend money to reigning monarchs as you may discover by reading something like this:
http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/Garden/4865/diana6.html
Anyway, quite ordinary women use expensive cosmetics without being seen as over-indulgent hedonists. You can buy Clinique and Estee Lauder in any mall anywhere in the world.
From the searchable 2001 Rich List as published by The Sunday Times:
I believe you’re wrong about Earl Spencer, G. Nome. He’s nowhere near as rich as the Queen. Admittedly, GBP 96 million is hardly small change either. Also, a lot of people are richer than the Queen is. Here’s this years top ten.
My issue is whether Princess Diana ever used public money to buy cosmetics. She was accused of that but why? You can buy an awful lot of Turnaround cream for 96 million pounds. Tapping into pensioners’ hearing aid funds shouldn’t really be necessary. However, if she did do that I would probably welcome the disillusionment. It would balance the disillusionment I feel about Prince Charles who was once the best of people but who is no longer.
The disillusionment has nothing to do with whether money was spent on cosmetics or not. It’s all about public money being used to fund a wealthy aristocratic family that is well-capable of sustaining itself, or at least of generating its own income. I am happy for the royal family to exist, so long as it is formally recognised that they have no political powers and do not receive public funds for who they are (I mind less about public funds being used to contribute to the upkeep of certain royal buildings).
Additionally (and tangentially) Princess Diana was as clever a manipulator of public opinion as any other royal. She certainly suffered a rough time at the hands of the rest of the royal family, but by the mid-1990s she was well-versed in the art of spin doctoring. The brazen attempt at garnering sympathy in her marital difficulties with Charles (also no angel, lest you think I’m taking sides) in her “exclusive interview” with Panorama’s Martin Bashir (1995? 1996?) and her eventual involvement in similar affairs doesn’t make her the martyr some have painted her out to be.