Unsurprisingly, I continue to disagree with you. The point that I was making in my post, and in the quotation from Trudeau, is that I do not believe that the state should be restricting what occurs in the “bedrooms of the nation”.
And in my view, for politicians until they put their relationships at issue directly, they are not an issue. In Canada, there has been marked disinclination in peering into politicians’ bedrooms, and I hope that this continues. From my perspective, unless for some ludicrous reason a politician stands up and espouses him/her self as the paragon of marital fidelity therefore speaking from a position of great moral superiority and seeking to effect some legislative change, I have no interest in whether he or she is, in fact, a paragon of marital fidelity.
I think we will continue to disagree on this point.
Well, Edward VII’s first name was Albert, and I believe he was known as Prince Albert Edward during his tenure as Prince of Wales. I know that Victoria wanted him to choose the name King Albert, , or at least, King Albert Edward, in honor of his father, but he preferred to be known as King Edward.
Likewise, George VI was also Prince Albert and called Bertie, like his grandfather, and only became George on his ascension to the throne. What’s funny is that he also had a younger brother named George, the Duke of Kent. (Father of the present Duke of Kent).
No-quite the opposite, in fact. She decreed that all of her descendents-at least for two or three generations should have some form of the names Victoria and/or Albert as part of their names. She wanted her son to be known as Albert, to honor his father, but he didn’t want to have to live under his shadow.
She was deeply devoted to her husband, and put up tons of shrines to his memory-becoming a little obsessive, in fact.
Another tidbit-George V wasn’t actually supposed to be King. He had an older brother, Albert Victor, who died young of influenza (probably a blessing as he was mentally slow and suspected of being a womanizer). If Victoria had felt the way you suggested, she would have thrown a fit when he was named-instead she was thrilled.
(Also interestingly enough, George’s consort, Queen Mary, had first been engaged to his brother-when he died, a year later, at his family’s suggestion, he started courting her.)
Bullying Daddy 1-2 (fav)
Austere Mummy 3-1
Darling Granny 10-1
Mouthy Sister 10-1
Weight Of Tradition 20-1
50-1 bar
Or perhaps the odium still attaching to the last King who decided he’d have the woman he loved rather than do his duty?
Not by themselves, though they sure help - dressing up in body armour to walk through a ribboned-off area that you can bet your bollocks has been passed through a sieve before she’s allowed anywhere near it, picking a fashionable disease where shaking hands with the victims is perfectly safe - and of a piece with other bizarre behaviour like sneaking off to a hospital in order to sit in mask and gown gazing soulfully at people coming out from the anaesthetic.
Elizabeth has 50 years experience of being Monarch. Under UK law, she makes no government decisions herself. There is no requirement to study or pass any test in law (or anything else).
Yes, she has regular scheduled conversations with the current Prime Minister. However I await a cite that she’s made any relevant suggestion at these meetings.
She also meets a lot of World leaders. however these are formal occasions. Any negotiations are done by political leaders and staff.
I’m sure she’s a pleasant hostess, but await evidence of any political savvy.
As for Charles learning anything, despite the very best education money could buy, he had to be allowed into University as a Royal rather than qualifying.
My point was that politicians do pass laws telling us what precisely we can do in our own bedrooms and they do parade their own family life + fidelity at election time.
It can then transpire that they break these laws themselves and the marriage is a sham.
I think we are entitled to know about their hypocrisy once they have brought the subject up.
As you know, the Telegraph is right wing. This was in answer to the earlier suggestion that the criticism was left wing.
So you think Charles should be our future Monarch, even though he lets his family talk him out of marrying the woman he loves?
(I can see Philip telling Charles to find a white upper-class woman by the way: ‘no slitty-eyes’ allowed :rolleyes: )
Odium? I personally think a ‘duty’ that doesn’t allow you to marry who you love is odious. But yes, Charles clearly wanted the adulation, the money, the courtiers etc and was prepared to f*ck Diana to get it.
You think someone should walk through an area that hasn’t been passed safe? :rolleyes:
Actually at the time Diana shook hands there was a popular belief that AIDS was spread by contact. She helped victims enormously with this gesture.
As for ‘sneaking off’, Diana chose to go to hospitals to comfort victims. Charles sneaked off to commit adultery.
Why do you hate Diana so much?
The point was that the Royals **are ** in the newspaper daily.
Sure, one anachronistic column in one newspaper. The UK isn’t a nation of dapper gents reading a freshly ironed copy of The Times over their kedgeree. Look in The Sun or The Mirror and (assuming nothing momentous has happened on Big Brother) you might find a mention of Prince Harry’s latest misdemeanour and/or girlfriend, but Her Maj might as well not exist.
(The other exception to this rule, of course, is the Daily Express’s regular Who-Killed-Diana front page :rolleyes: )
And yes, the landmine/AIDS charades were exactly what I meant when I called her attention-seeking. Attach yourself to the fashionable victimes du jour, simper for the cameras and lap up the attention, then bitch about the press when it suits you. Puh-lease. And even now, 9 years after she died, we can’t escape the tacky merchandise, approved and licensed by her money-grubbing family, advertised on the back page of every Sunday supplement.
I was under the impression the royals are expected to “adopt” a charity. I’m not a Diana fan in particular, but I thought she handled it rather well, all things considering. And I may be wrong, of course, since I don’t live in Britain, but the memorbilia I see advertised here AFAIK states that the profits go to a charitable fund.
Wow, Colophon, you really didn’t like her, did you?
It’s actually not so much her I dislike – I’m sure she had plenty of good qualities too – it’s the mindless beatification of her after her death that really grates. I was out of the country when she died (in Paris, coincidentally – and no I didn’t dislike her that much before you ask ) and when I returned to London and saw the crowds of people laying flowers and bawling in the street I honestly thought the nation had gone mad. In fact I think that event marked something of a turning point for the UK, towards a heart-on-sleeve ickiness that I can’t stand.
OK, it might be a bit irrational to pin the blame on Diana, but there you go…
Ok, that I can understand. It is often amazing to me how when someone dies, all their bad qualities just evaporate and they become angelic. It’s nauseating. I can understand “don’t speak ill of the dead” (at least where their family can hear you) but sometimes it gets taken a bit overboard.
I was 17 when Elvis died, and it freaked me right out that my mother cried. She’d never met the man!
Yes, I don’t see why on earth that makes him ineligible to succeed his mother.
With or without Philip, I doubt there was ever any likelihood whatever that the heir to the English throne would not have married a white upper-class woman.
That you think the duty odious does not detract from the odium arising from not performing it. And as Charles would surely have had adulation, money and courtiers were he ever to be King or not, I think we need not hasten to ascribe to him base motives for wishing to maintain tradition and do his duty.
Oh, and you can spell “fuck” in this forum, and my eyes are not too sensitive to read it.
All I’m saying is that it was a flashy, flamboyant attention-getting gesture that was certainly no danger to herself… and incidentally no doubt made a deal of extra trouble for those who did the sieving.
I’ll give you that, to an extent, and I’ve heard my brother-in-law say the same. All I can add is that there’s no accounting for popular failure to pay attention to an extremely well-publicised health education programme: people were being told how HIV was transmitted long before Saint Di ever touched an AIDS victim. Yet Diana-worshippers talk as though she’d bravely walked into a leper colony where angels themselves feared to tread. :rolleyes:
Now you’re being silly. Di shagged around a sight more than Charles did, and fished for sympathy about it on telly. “Yes, I was in love with him; yes, I was devoted to him…”. Comfort victims? Paint herself as a ministering angel, if you ask me.
Why do you hate the Monarchy?
I don’t hate Di, but I vehemently object to her canonization. See also Colophon’s excellent posts, above.
I was thinking of the Telegraph column actually.
Of course since the Queen never makes any decisions, it’s hard to see how she wuold be news.
But consider the publicity she gets from her annual speech, her honours list and any Commonwealth do. I think also that the older generation are fascinated by her visits, what clothes she wears and whether they get an invite to Buckingham Palace.
I think Diana picked some excellent charities.
As for bitching about the press - do you remember Charles slagging off the press on the ski-slopes, apparently unaware of the mikes picking up every word?
I can’t see why you blame Diana for her family’s antics. Why it would be like saying that Prince Charles’ father is a stupid racist, or that his grandmother was a gambling addict…
There were rumors to that effect, although none of them were ever proven. One of his friends or tutors was connected to a homosexual brothel, I believe.
But at most he was bisexual-from what I gather, he definitely liked the ladies.
glee, the royal family has a long tradition of NOT marrying for love. It has always been more valued to do one’s duty and to give up any selfish attachments to an “unsuitable” partner. (Although from what I gather, originally he did have the chance to marry Camilla before she married her ex, only he waffled on it. Or maybe I’m thinking of something else.)
As for Diana, while I do feel sorry for her, the woman should never have married Charles. She was NINETEEN when they got together, and far more in love with the whole fairy tale aspect than anything else.
Of course, not all royal marriages end in disaster-some of them ARE love matches. And some that were love matches ended up pretty badly. Just like anyone else.
Diana’s and Charles’s situation reminds me of Edward VII and Queen Alexandra. He too was the son of a long reigning, popular queen (Victoria). He too was also thought to be a ne’er do well. He was also married to a beautiful, young, popular woman, the former Princess Alexandra of Denmark. He also slept around-a hell of a lot more than Charles did. Of course, Princess Alix dealt with it a LOT better than Diana did.
And maybe it’s just me, but it seems all the lookers in the family are the ones who marry into it. Diana, Fergie, the Queen Mum (who was quite pretty in her day). Prince Phillip was very handsome when he was young.
I’m not digging up all of the quotes I’ve read from the likes of Tony Blair, Lady Thatcher, John Major, Harold MacMillan, Sir Robert Menzies, Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, John Howard, Helen Clarke, Jim Bolger etc. This Wiki reference will have to suffice. Scroll down to the “Relations wirh Ministers” heading.
) and when I returned to London and saw the crowds of people laying flowers and bawling in the street I honestly thought the nation had gone mad. In fact I think that event marked something of a turning point for the UK, towards a heart-on-sleeve ickiness that I can’t stand.