The Royals

26-04-2015 09:21PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There were also plenty of first hand accounts from doctors and nurses who Saud that she would randomly turn up at hospitals and talk to patients with no hint of a journalist or photo op.

But still we somehow got to hear about it

Mind you, if I was seriously ill in hospital and a total stranger showed up to chat to me, I would not be happy at the intrusion. I've never understood it as a 'good deed'.

I've no animus towards Diana, but I don't understand the personality cult around her either. I was too young at the time to have any real feel for it anyway.

sunbeam · 26-04-2015 10:13PM

Candie wrote: »

But still we somehow got to hear about it

Mind you, if I was seriously ill in hospital and a total stranger showed up to chat to me, I would not be happy at the intrusion. I've never understood it as a 'good deed'.

I've no animus towards Diana, but I don't understand the personality cult around her either. I was too young at the time to have any real feel for it anyway.

Much of it was due to the fact that she was only 19 when she got engaged to Charles and was the first young and vaguely glamourous princess the UK had had in decades. She practically grew up in the palace and had produced the heir and the spare by the age of 23. She was a huge fashion icon-much bigger than Kate Middleton- and designers threw clothes at her. It's really strange to think that she was only four years older than Kate is now when she died.

Fratton Fred · 26-04-2015 10:23PM

Candie wrote: »

But still we somehow got to hear about it

Mind you, if I was seriously ill in hospital and a total stranger showed up to chat to me, I would not be happy at the intrusion. I've never understood it as a 'good deed'.

I've no animus towards Diana, but I don't understand the personality cult around her either. I was too young at the time to have any real feel for it anyway.

She didn't just turn up at some old persons bed whenever she felt like it, but she would make un announced visit to Great Ormond Street and the like. Most of which didn't come out until after her death.The whole pr thing started when the separation went through and the queen mother started a media smear campaign against her.

26-04-2015 11:15PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

She didn't just turn up at some old persons bed whenever she felt like it, but she would make un announced visit to Great Ormond Street and the like. Most of which didn't come out until after her death.The whole pr thing started when the separation went through and the queen mother started a media smear campaign against her.

I would have been too young to take much in before she died, but it does seem very cultish, the slavish devotion she seems to have inspired. My dad was telling me about the flowers outside KP and how the scenes of grief were reported with a religious reverence. That kind of thing makes me very uncomfortable.

After all, she was a woman born into great privilege, she married into even greater privilege, and got enormous respect for wearing nice dresses and shaking peoples hands. There isn't anything particularly saintly about a woman who is revered, cosseted, provided for from State funds, and lauded for her looks, occasionally spending an hour giving something minimal back into the society that picked up the tab for that lifestyle.

She wasn't fighting ebola with medicins sans frontieres, she wasn't digging wells with oxfam, she wasn't doing weekends at an emergency shelter, and she wasn't cleaning houses to pay the bills. The world is full of ordinary heroes, and she simply doesn't even come close to the people who are manning Simon shelters or working in refugee camps in Darfur, or even just working endless shifts in Tesco to fund their kids music lessons.

The whole Diana story lacks perspective.

exgp · 26-04-2015 11:20PM

We have Michael D, they have Elizabeth R. Get over it. If that's what they want in the UK, that's up to to them and not us.

Cold War Kid · 26-04-2015 11:22PM

The off-the-chart grief outpourings when she died... it was just bizarre. People didn't know her, she seemed like a nice woman and did sweet things (the cynic in me reckons some of this was engineered, but simultaneously I think her heart was in the right place too - I also disagree it was hypocritical of her to ask to be left alone by the paparazzi when she was just doing her day-to-day thing in private) but people were acting as if she was a close relative. It was just nuts. I remember Premiership football was cancelled that day (a Sunday), TV stations went off the air and those still broadcasting were just wall-to-wall Diana. A horrible tragedy of course, but the public grief was still, as Candie says, lacking perspective.

I was working in Tesco (Cork) at the time and there was a minute's silence for her in the store.

Fratton Fred · 26-04-2015 11:37PM

Candie wrote: »

I would have been too young to take much in before she died, but it does seem very cultish, the slavish devotion she seems to have inspired. My dad was telling me about the flowers outside KP and how the scenes of grief were reported with a religious reverence. That kind of thing makes me very uncomfortable.

After all, she was a woman born into great privilege, she married into even greater privilege, and got enormous respect for wearing nice dresses and shaking peoples hands. There isn't anything particularly saintly about a woman who is revered, cosseted, provided for from State funds, and lauded for her looks, occasionally spending an hour giving something minimal back into the society that picked up the tab for that lifestyle.

She wasn't fighting ebola with medicins sans frontieres, she wasn't digging wells with oxfam, she wasn't doing weekends at an emergency shelter, and she wasn't cleaning houses to pay the bills. The world is full of ordinary heroes, and she simply doesn't even come close to the people who are manning Simon shelters or working in refugee camps in Darfur, or even just working endless shifts in Tesco to fund their kids music lessons.

The whole Diana story lacks perspective.

you need to read up on her.

At a time when half the world was convinced you could contract HIV by touching someone, she was photographed holding hands with an HIV patient and spoke out about the myths about the disease.

When the campaign to ban land mines was struggling to get traction, she was filmed walking through a minefield in Angola and talking with children who had lost limbs to forgotten mines long after a conflict had ended.

Yes, she was born in to a privileged family and she wore designer dresses, but she used her fame and power to make a difference.

Honestly, read up on what Nelson Mandela said about her work with children affected by AIDS, or how her name was used when the Ottawa treaty was being ratified.

26-04-2015 11:52PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

you need to read up on her.

At a time when half the world was convinced you could contract HIV by touching someone, she was photographed holding hands with an HIV patient and spoke out about the myths about the disease.

When the campaign to ban land mines was struggling to get traction, she was filmed walking through a minefield in Angola and talking with children who had lost limbs to forgotten mines long after a conflict had ended.

Yes, she was born in to a privileged family and she wore designer dresses, but she used her fame and power to make a difference.

Honestly, read up on what Nelson Mandela said about her work with children affected by AIDS, or how her name was used when the Ottawa treaty was being ratified.

Fred, you misunderstand me. I know she did a good job of raising awareness etc, but crucially it was at minimal cost to herself. It doesn't compare, say, to people who live in refugee camps to provide aid to displaced people. She went home to a palace for goodness' sake, and by all accounts she wasn't always lacking a self-serving motive.

I don't dispute she tried to make a difference, I just think that she wasn't doing nearly enough to validate the perception of her as saintly. There are others who do far more, at infinitely greater cost to themselves and their families, and that those are the people who most deserve our respect and admiration. The one's who don't travel to Angola by private jet and stay in presidential suites. Her personal contribution was minimal, and only garnered attention because of her fame. It cost her very little in personal terms and gained her much in PR.

I'm a Brit myself, but I think the elevation of a person like Diana above a person like Kailash Satyarthi or any number of others, is utterly disproportionate, and sycophantic hyperbole lauding her a saint who did work of international importance completely undermines what I or any right thinking person should consider to be true heroism.

Son Of A Vidic · 27-04-2015 12:03AM

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I was sired by an O'Connor and bore by an O'Neill. Irish Royalty on both sides, One day we'll take Ulster and the seat of the High King at Tara back.

My clan were great allies of the O'Neills and were first in if someone needed a slap. So if you need any clearing out done on your way to Tara, send me a pm.

Fratton Fred · 27-04-2015 12:05AM

Candie wrote: »

Fred, you misunderstand me. I know she did a good job of raising awareness etc, but crucially it was at minimal cost to herself. It doesn't compare, say, to people who live in refugee camps to provide aid to displaced people. She went home to a palace for goodness' sake, and by all accounts she wasn't always lacking a self-serving motive.

I don't dispute she tried to make a difference, I just think that she wasn't doing nearly enough to validate the perception of her as saintly. There are others who do far more, at infinitely greater cost to themselves and their families, and that those are the people who most deserve our respect and admiration. The one's who don't travel to Angola by private jet and stay in presidential suites. Her personal contribution was minimal, and only garnered attention because of her fame. It cost her very little in personal terms and gained her much in PR.

I'm a Brit myself, but I think the elevation of a person like Diana above a person like Kailash Satyarthi or any number of others, is utterly disproportionate, and sycophantic hyperbole lauding her a saint who did work of international importance completely undermines what I or any right thinking person should consider to be true heroism.

That's life though. Why does a blood sucking estate agent earn more than a nurse?

the saintly thing was OTT maybe, but she did do a lot of good. She also took on the royal machine and not only won, but changed the royals and the way they operate.

The Diabolical Monocle · 27-04-2015 12:46AM

I'd like to see Aus and Canada drop them.

Was going to start a thread on it one time. Maybe still will in politics section some day

I think at least one of Canada or Aus will drop the monarchy when the queen kicks it.

King Charles as head of state will push the numbers over the line.

27-04-2015 10:28AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That's life though. Why does a blood sucking estate agent earn more than a nurse?

The point is nobody thinks an estate agent does works of greater importance than a nurse, whereas Diana's contribution is acclaimed over and above much more worthy, humble, and hard working people who have achieved far more in easing the human condition, and for much less personal gain.

Diana is portrayed as having been saintly and giving, when in real terms her giving cost her nothing in personal discomfort, financial loss or personal relationships, and gained her much in sycophantic adoration, column inches and ego reinforcement. Sure she did some good, there's no denying that, but the acclaim is all out of proportion to the deeds.

Fratton Fred · 27-04-2015 11:36AM

Candie wrote: »

The point is nobody thinks an estate agent does works of greater importance than a nurse, whereas Diana's contribution is acclaimed over and above much more worthy, humble, and hard working people who have achieved far more in easing the human condition, and for much less personal gain.

Diana is portrayed as having been saintly and giving, when in real terms her giving cost her nothing in personal discomfort, financial loss or personal relationships, and gained her much in sycophantic adoration, column inches and ego reinforcement. Sure she did some good, there's no denying that, but the acclaim is all out of proportion to the deeds.

That's life unfortunately.

There are many unsung heroes in this world, but that doesn't the ones that do get praised are undeserving.

smurgen · 27-04-2015 11:40AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That's life unfortunately.

There are many unsung heroes in this world, but that doesn't the ones that do get praised are undeserving.

the royals are not heros

Fratton Fred · 27-04-2015 11:48AM

smurgen wrote: »

the royals are not heros

that's a very broad statement.

kfallon · 27-04-2015 12:53PM

Cold War Kid wrote: »

It was just nuts. I remember Premiership football was cancelled that day (a Sunday), TV stations went off the air and those still broadcasting were just wall-to-wall Diana. A horrible tragedy of course, but the public grief was still, as Candie says, lacking perspective.

Liverpool v Newcastle cancelled that Sunday
Old Firm game cancelled the night after
TV was just all about her, one of the most boring days of my life!

She was no hero or saint!

27-04-2015 01:26PM

murpho999 wrote: »

I don't worry about that or monarchies that much but I just like our system over elitist monarchies.

The fact that Scandanavian countries (and Holland) have monarchies suggests they aren't really 'elitist' by definition. Those are some of the most liberal and egalitarian countries in the world.

It's none of my business, but I am encouraged to see so many people who have an issue with inherited wealth, land and privilege.

Are we going to do something about that in Ireland?

27-04-2015 01:29PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Are we going to do something about that in Ireland?

The only objection I would hold greater than people inheriting vast wealth would be to people being told how they may dispose of their own money.

27-04-2015 01:45PM

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

I'd like to see Aus and Canada drop them.

Was going to start a thread on it one time. Maybe still will in politics section some day

I think at least one of Canada or Aus will drop the monarchy when the queen kicks it.

King Charles as head of state will push the numbers over the line.

I read a piece a few months ago about how in Canada an oath to the Queen is required by people wishing to become Canadian citizens, but is not required by people who were born citizens.. seemed pretty odd to me. It was appealed against and the courts refused to change it

ScumLord · 27-04-2015 02:01PM

Deleted User wrote: »

It's none of my business, but I am encouraged to see so many people who have an issue with inherited wealth, land and privilege.

Are we going to do something about that in Ireland?

While everyone is at the funeral we can raid their houses and bank accounts and take all the deceased stuff. The Dáil could do with some new furnishings and the state can make much better use of their money. The government have money on whether the bottomless pit they throw our money into is actually bottomless, so the money is going to good use.

Fratton Fred · 27-04-2015 02:26PM

could someone define what vast wealth is?

The Diabolical Monocle · 27-04-2015 06:49PM

riffmongous wrote: »

I read a piece a few months ago about how in Canada an oath to the Queen is required by people wishing to become Canadian citizens, but is not required by people who were born citizens.. seemed pretty odd to me. It was appealed against and the courts refused to change it

Wonder can it be done in French.

Anyway, Quebec will go pure mental if they have to have king Charles.

No amount of publicity spin can help a man who got recorded saying he wanted to be a tampon to become head of state.

They came incredibly close to leaving Canada before. Only altering the democratic process by shipping in voters stopped secession.

Lollipops23 · 27-04-2015 06:55PM

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

They came incredibly close to leaving Canada before. Only altering the democratic process by shipping in voters stopped secession.

The rest of Canada thinks Quebec is mental btw. They seem to really like being part of the Commonwealth (dunno why).

apoch632 · 27-04-2015 07:08PM

Lollipops23 wrote: »

The rest of Canada thinks Quebec is mental btw. They seem to really like being part of the Commonwealth (dunno why).

Gives them something that makes them distinctly not American

Lollipops23 · 27-04-2015 07:10PM

apoch632 wrote: »

Gives them something that makes them distinctly not American

They have plenty of things about them that make them not-American. I liken them to America's older and far more intelligent/civilised brother.

America is the roid-pumped dumbass jock younger brother.

apoch632 · 27-04-2015 07:17PM

Lollipops23 wrote: »

They have plenty of things about them that make them not-American. I liken them to America's older and far more intelligent/civilised brother.

America is the roid-pumped dumbass jock younger brother.

Aye they do, but there's a reason I used distinct.

I base it in their history of how Canada came into being, from the provinces choosing not to go with the 13 colonies that formed the US. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_to_the_inhabitants_of_Canada interesting little episode of the American revolution), the invasion in 1775, the invasion of 1812 kicking off that war, articles of confederation and so on

Canadian identity has long been tied into a sense of being British-North American hence I don't think them having regard of the monarchy is surprising

Edit - Just to add

Also a regard for the commonwealth is not surprising, the one thing that Elizabeth has been particularly good at is building up goodwill towards the commonwealth. It's been her driving mission as a monarch in a lot of ways.

Edit Edit

Not a fan of monarchies at all, entirely a republican but I can recognise reasons that people might like them

Shandashey · 27-04-2015 07:22PM

Woshy wrote: »

I've no problem with them on a personal level, they seem alright if a little dull (especially Catherine Middleton who appears to have no personality whatsoever, although she probably appears like that for privacy's sake) but I do think they are a bit of a waste of space and massively over privileged. I've no interest and the royal wedding/baby hype is just way OTT.

My husband is big into the royals, it's so weird. I had a baby four weeks before Kate last time and now I'm due a second in another four weeks so both our kids will be almost exactly the same age. My husband thinks this is wonderful. Today he said he hopes they use the same name we have picked out . Eh, no. He's mental sometimes![/QUOTE]

that is brilliant!

Zebra3 · 27-04-2015 09:18PM

riffmongous wrote: »

I read a piece a few months ago about how in Canada an oath to the Queen is required by people wishing to become Canadian citizens, but is not required by people who were born citizens.. seemed pretty odd to me. It was appealed against and the courts refused to change it

Foreigners wanting to become Canadians need to take an oath of loyalty to a foreigner. :pac:

the_monkey · 28-04-2015 12:43PM

Breaking news !!!

..woman about to have baby ....

Saralee4 · 28-04-2015 12:58PM

I remember having a conversation with two girls in work (well women) and I came in at the end of the conversation. They said they were talking about how mean the media are to Kate Middleton. They were very distraught and saying 'poor kate', 'its not fair on kate'

Turns out one of them read somewhere that some fashion person was criticizing her for wearing high street clothing like Top Shop. They said 'sure isn't she great, she doesn't care what they say, she wears topshop anyway.'

I just thought, Wow what an amazing woman! :rolleyes:

The Royals

Comments