Like I said, I’m intrigued. Could we possibly sell you Queen Elizabeth? Maybe?
Tsarina Alexandra and her daughters, the Grand Dutchesses Marie, Olga, Tatainia and Anastasia Romanov (I may have gotten those wrong, Guin will almost certainly correct me) spent most of WWI in field hospitals nursing. As did much of the Russian aristocracy. They were, of course, wonderously paid back for this compassion by being hounded, exiled or killed not too much later.
I believe Kaiser Wilhelm’s family was also very involved in the hospitals in WWI.
Princess Elizabeth (now Queen Elizabeth) and Princess Margeret did a lot of hospital work during the Blitz as I recall - how much of it was PR work I don’t know - I do know that it wasn’t perceived as mere PR work.
Elizabeth and Margaret were a bit young to be fair, although Liz did some work with the ATS as the war ended. My mum can remember this radio broadcast, from 1940. The Queen’s accent has changed a lot over the years, but my mum listened to this broadcast as a child and that has coloured her opinion about monarchy. If we ever get invaded, my tiny mum will be there with her rolling-pin, and me, my dad, and my wee brother will be standing beside her.
I was under the impression that the taxes paid by the royal family and their contribution from their personal income to the treasury more than made up for the funding they get from public coffers. Is that wrong?
Isn’t it approved by Parliament, like any other public expenditure?
I gotta tell you – this really made my day. If someone had said this to me when I was 14, it would have sent me into orbit!
I believe that they were “paid back” for the actions of their family prior to and during the war, and for the actions of their supporters, who were conducting a civil war to restore that family’s misrule. They were fortunate that there were no priest entrails handy. Honestly, if you’re going to call yourself royalty you can’t be too surprised to find yourself against a wall.
I don’t think so, thanks. Don’t get me wrong. I greatly admire your Queen. As traditional monarchs go, she’s better than a lot. But she carries too much socialist baggage. A libertarian monarch must understand that her ONLY duty is to secure the rights and property of those she governs.
The queen carries too much socialist baggage? How does that work, then? 
I’m not sure that she does much in the way of securing rights and property either.
Yep. As for hands on, they did indeed assist in operations, including amputations and various other graphic and intense care. They became full-fledged Red Cross nurses.
Dangerosa, it was actually only the two eldest. Maria and Anastasia were considered too young. To be fair, Olga did have a nervous breakdown at one point and was bumped down to less traumatic cases.
Alexanda’s sister, Elizabeth, had married one of Nicholas’s uncles. After he was killed in a terrorist attack, she took vows and founded her own order of nuns. Her order was devoted to humanitarian work for the poor. She became a nurse as well.
(And yes, I own up to exaggerating. I’m not saying Diana didn’t do jackshit, just that she wasn’t the end-all and be-all of royal humanitarians.)
saoirse, perhaps their parents, but the four young girls and the Tsarevich, who was only about thirteen, was certainly overkill (no pun intended). They killed Anastasia’s dog, for crissakes.
Back on topic-I believe Marie of Roumania had a hospital and did a lot of work as well. As did Queen Mary of Great Britain, and her daughter, also called Mary.
And let’s not forget the Serbian royals, who literally were on the battlefields of WWI.
I think that adequately answers your question, Una.
And Lib, Elizabeth is mostly a figurehead and diplomat. She doesn’t have jackshit to do with libertarianism, or socialism, or whatever. THAT is the Prime Minister’s, as well as Parliament’s job.
Well, that’s the whole problem with royalty. With power comes reponsibility. That is why political power should not be inheritable.
And a case can be made that Nicholas was “well intentioned, but incredibly naive and had bad advisors.” He tried despritely to pull his country forward, but change did not happen fast enough for the people on the far left. And he would have gone into exile (and probably would have really gone into exile and just dropped the whole Tsar thing). Nicholas was no Stalin.
Heirditary governments suck, because it means that you often get a guy who’d rather be on his boat then running the country, doesn’t have the talent for it (or even the talent for picking the right people to do it), but has an obligation to do it anyway.
From the OP’s article:
If this is true, that’s an incredibly stupid thing to say. If I want some beer, go to the store, and am killed in a robbery, did I bring about my own death? Only in the most tenuous sense. This is why lawyers have the concept of Proximate Cause. Otherwise anyone who left their house in the morning and died due to accident or crime would have brought about their own deaths. In no way can anyone say with a straight face that Diana brought about her own death by going to Paris.
Add this to the “devious moron” oxymoron, and someone’s a moron. I just don’t think it’s Diana.
As far as Diana goes in general, I don’t really give a shit about her, but she did seem to be someone who grew and tried to use her position to do some good. Her work with AIDS patients was pretty admirable, IMO. Compared to Paris Hilton, she’s a goddam saint. As far as her taste in music goes, what fucking difference does that make? Who cares if she likes Wham?
I do understand British dopers resentment in having to pay taxes to support the royals. Is there a movement to phase this out?
So–Diana didn’t have a handy war in which to “prove herself.” All those Empresses, Queens & Princesses did their great deeds in wars (mostly The Great War) brought about, partly, by their husbands & brothers.
Marie of Edinburgh (& Romania) knew how to play the game. She did her dynastic duty–at least the first two of her children were fathered by the King. But staying with the despised fellow was far more interesting than an unseemly divorce.
And Marie definitely knew about usingher image for public relations.
My real problem (as a British doper though no longer a doper in Britain) was not the money aspect, but the effect on society/the political structure. Social deference and forelock tugging, combined with the sovereign powers of the monarchy being essentially granted to the Prime Minister is not a good thing, IMHO.
I understand that and agree with you. But the system is hardly Diana’s fault.
What the hell brought that on? If you’re going to keep butting in, get caught up. Struan asked me a specific hypothetical question, which I answered. I know that Queen Elizabeth is the UK’s Head of State. I know (at least as much as you do, by the sound of it) what her job is. Oh yeah, and get off my lawn! 
[…sigh…] Yes, obviously I know that, which is why I contrasted her with a libertarian monarch. Jesus.
In other words, a case of “never attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance.”
He would have made a good constitutional monarch, rather than an absolute ruler.
saoirse, that doesn’t excuse murdering four innocent young women, a thirteen-year-old boy, a DOG, and several servants, including a chef and a doctor, all because they happen to be there.
Bridget Burke, that’s so obviously not what I meant. I was saying that others have done more.
(And how could anyone NOT love Marie of Roumania?)
sigh My point, AGAIN, is that Diana is not the first, nor the last member of royalty to do humanitarian work, nor is she necessarily the best one. It’s a long tradition.
Wait a minute. Jesus is a what now?
That’s right. I said Jesus is the Queen of England. Isn’t that plain to everyone?