Shocking new revelations about Diana's secret love!
December 7, 2004 5:11 AM Subscribe
This post was deleted for the following reason: meh
There's something that disturbs me about the Cult of Diana.
Yes, she was a young girl who ended up in a world she couldn't quite handle, and yes she did all sorts of wonderful charity work, and her death was unutterably tragic.
But she cheated on her husband for ages. He cheated on her too-- but there isn't the same sort of reverence for him, and he's almost certainly never going to ascend the throne.
I say this as someone who quite likes the Royal Family, and also quite admires Diana in many ways. It's just something that's never mentioned, and that bugs me.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 5:17 AM on December 7, 2004
Yes, she was a young girl who ended up in a world she couldn't quite handle, and yes she did all sorts of wonderful charity work, and her death was unutterably tragic.
But she cheated on her husband for ages. He cheated on her too-- but there isn't the same sort of reverence for him, and he's almost certainly never going to ascend the throne.
I say this as someone who quite likes the Royal Family, and also quite admires Diana in many ways. It's just something that's never mentioned, and that bugs me.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 5:17 AM on December 7, 2004
I wonder if a time will ever come when I stop hearing about this rich, dead dullard....
posted by influx at 5:21 AM on December 7, 2004
posted by influx at 5:21 AM on December 7, 2004
he's almost certainly never going to ascend the throne.
Wow - who told you that? The Mail on Sunday? Nice opinion, which will almost certainly never prove true. Unless Diana bumps him off from beyond the grave...she had special powers, that girl. Uncanny.
BTW, thanks for the newsfilter and the chance to chat.
posted by dash_slot- at 5:23 AM on December 7, 2004
Wow - who told you that? The Mail on Sunday? Nice opinion, which will almost certainly never prove true. Unless Diana bumps him off from beyond the grave...she had special powers, that girl. Uncanny.
BTW, thanks for the newsfilter and the chance to chat.
posted by dash_slot- at 5:23 AM on December 7, 2004
I hate this whole beatification of Diana thing. We're supposed to take this kind of paranoid ramblings seriously?
he's almost certainly never going to ascend the throne.
When I read a biography on Queen Victoria, I saw some definite parallels between then and now - the Republican arguments that the monarchy was anachronistic, the mutters that her son was too dissipated to make a good king - and, as it happened, he ascended the throne, and was an excellent king who took his job very seriously.
I believe we're going to see a repeat.
posted by orange swan at 5:30 AM on December 7, 2004
he's almost certainly never going to ascend the throne.
When I read a biography on Queen Victoria, I saw some definite parallels between then and now - the Republican arguments that the monarchy was anachronistic, the mutters that her son was too dissipated to make a good king - and, as it happened, he ascended the throne, and was an excellent king who took his job very seriously.
I believe we're going to see a repeat.
posted by orange swan at 5:30 AM on December 7, 2004
What with the whole Camilla thing hanging over Charles' head, it could be a rather sticky situation.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 5:33 AM on December 7, 2004
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 5:33 AM on December 7, 2004
Come The Revolution, Crowned Heads Gonna Roll.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 5:36 AM on December 7, 2004
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 5:36 AM on December 7, 2004
Charles is just going to ignore the tabloid stuff and do his job, the way the royals have always done.
posted by orange swan at 5:41 AM on December 7, 2004
posted by orange swan at 5:41 AM on December 7, 2004
I'm an ignernt American. What exactly do the British Royalty do? I guess I sort of assumed they lolled about being bluebloods. [sure this could go to AskMe, but I don't want to, so there.]
posted by sciurus at 5:46 AM on December 7, 2004
posted by sciurus at 5:46 AM on December 7, 2004
sciurus, check out this site for everything* you could possibly want to know about the Royal Family.
*well, everything except the juicy bits.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 5:52 AM on December 7, 2004
*well, everything except the juicy bits.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 5:52 AM on December 7, 2004
I'm an English person, and the only person I know who cares about our monarchy at all, or considers them in any way relevant or indeed of any interest whatsoever, is my SO's mother. She also dislikes foreigners, and refuses to believe in molecules as they are unnatural.
posted by chrid at 5:54 AM on December 7, 2004
posted by chrid at 5:54 AM on December 7, 2004
dirtynumbangelboy: I'll check out that link when it doesn't spit out a 500 error on me. Thanks.
posted by sciurus at 5:57 AM on December 7, 2004
posted by sciurus at 5:57 AM on December 7, 2004
His job??
I'm anxious for a definition on that one, too.
Didn't Charles recently scold those in his Kingdom who have difficulty accepting their station in life? Doesn't he realize he's blessed with skills some of us don't have in that department?
Also, I wonder what he made of these photos.
posted by Paddle to Sea at 6:03 AM on December 7, 2004
I'm anxious for a definition on that one, too.
Didn't Charles recently scold those in his Kingdom who have difficulty accepting their station in life? Doesn't he realize he's blessed with skills some of us don't have in that department?
Also, I wonder what he made of these photos.
posted by Paddle to Sea at 6:03 AM on December 7, 2004
I'm an ignernt American. What exactly do the British Royalty do?
I'm a well informed Brit and I haven't the least bloody idea. The best argument I've heard for not having them put against a wall and shot is that they're beneficial to the tourist industry. It's nice, in a way, that isolated pockets of the country should benefit in this way but I've yet to hear an explanation for why in a free market economy I, under threat of the Queen's justice, should be compelled to invest in tourism.
When the dividends start paying out, back-dated to the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, I may change my mind.
posted by vbfg at 6:05 AM on December 7, 2004
I'm a well informed Brit and I haven't the least bloody idea. The best argument I've heard for not having them put against a wall and shot is that they're beneficial to the tourist industry. It's nice, in a way, that isolated pockets of the country should benefit in this way but I've yet to hear an explanation for why in a free market economy I, under threat of the Queen's justice, should be compelled to invest in tourism.
When the dividends start paying out, back-dated to the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, I may change my mind.
posted by vbfg at 6:05 AM on December 7, 2004
hrrm, that's odd, sciurus.
Try again.
Ah... i didn't include the 'www' in the first one. Silly webmaster.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 6:07 AM on December 7, 2004
Try again.
Ah... i didn't include the 'www' in the first one. Silly webmaster.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 6:07 AM on December 7, 2004
Didn't Charles recently scold those in his Kingdom who have difficulty accepting their station in life? Doesn't he realize he's blessed with skills some of us don't have in that department?
Nope. He said that treating everyone the same under a uniform education system was misguided. The government's education system reflects the same principles but isn't due to get a crown stuck on its head. I'm less inclined to have it hung by the neck until dead either.
posted by vbfg at 6:10 AM on December 7, 2004
Nope. He said that treating everyone the same under a uniform education system was misguided. The government's education system reflects the same principles but isn't due to get a crown stuck on its head. I'm less inclined to have it hung by the neck until dead either.
posted by vbfg at 6:10 AM on December 7, 2004
She'd dead. She's buried. Get over it already. And quite honestly, who the fuck cares who she was shagging? It's not as though any hypothetical offspring had any chance of getting on the throne at that point.
posted by NeonSurge at 6:23 AM on December 7, 2004
posted by NeonSurge at 6:23 AM on December 7, 2004
The best argument I've heard for not having them put against a wall and shot is that they're beneficial to the tourist industry.
The best response to that I've heard is "Yes, that's why tourists never visit Paris or New York." (Said by an English comedian whose name escapes me. )
The only really good defense of the monarchy I've heard is from a friend of mine who describes himself as "a Marxist monarchist." His argument is that, in the US, the symbolic head-of-state is the same as the political head-of-state, and if you criticize the President in his role as policy maker, you risk being accused of criticizing America itself. In the UK, by contrast, the PM makes policy, and the Queen symbolizes the country. As a result, you are free to criticize Tony Blair without fear of being called "un-British."
posted by yankeefog at 6:24 AM on December 7, 2004
The best response to that I've heard is "Yes, that's why tourists never visit Paris or New York." (Said by an English comedian whose name escapes me. )
The only really good defense of the monarchy I've heard is from a friend of mine who describes himself as "a Marxist monarchist." His argument is that, in the US, the symbolic head-of-state is the same as the political head-of-state, and if you criticize the President in his role as policy maker, you risk being accused of criticizing America itself. In the UK, by contrast, the PM makes policy, and the Queen symbolizes the country. As a result, you are free to criticize Tony Blair without fear of being called "un-British."
posted by yankeefog at 6:24 AM on December 7, 2004
Ahh, working now. If there weren't so many symbolic events to attend being monarch would be quite the life. If you aren't the monarch and still in the Royal Family then your job is basically a sinecure. I guess that isn't much different than any other extremely wealthy family. Except this family is state-supported.
on preview, good point yankeefog.
posted by sciurus at 6:29 AM on December 7, 2004
on preview, good point yankeefog.
posted by sciurus at 6:29 AM on December 7, 2004
I am withholding comment on this until Prince Philip, the only member of the family worth listening to, weighs in on this.
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:35 AM on December 7, 2004
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:35 AM on December 7, 2004
Does anybody besides me find the fact that a "Royal Family" still exists to be far more bizarre than any thing this bunch of over-pampered inbred decadents might actually do?
I mean, look at any of our lives under a microscope and none of us would look good, so that dosen't bother me as much as the fact that these people think they have "special blood" and live in unearned opulence.
posted by jonmc at 6:43 AM on December 7, 2004
I mean, look at any of our lives under a microscope and none of us would look good, so that dosen't bother me as much as the fact that these people think they have "special blood" and live in unearned opulence.
posted by jonmc at 6:43 AM on December 7, 2004
yankeefog: There's no reson you can't have an elected head of state as well as an elected political leader. France and Germany both use such a model.
posted by biffa at 6:47 AM on December 7, 2004
posted by biffa at 6:47 AM on December 7, 2004
Yes, the Royal Family is an anachronism. But they're part of tradition, and history, and are pretty much entirely harmless.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 6:49 AM on December 7, 2004
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 6:49 AM on December 7, 2004
« Older Drunken Shoutouts | Lies, Damn lies, and everything looks like a nail Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by sourbrew at 5:13 AM on December 7, 2004