Why the fuss over "Royals"?

Laurie said:
Sorry Keesha, and others I've upset.

I rise to the fly too easily!

She did grievously wound my Royal family though, and I tend to take it personally.
Click to expand...

Your royal family?... apart from the Queen, I thought you weren't interested in the monarchy? :D...actually I know what you mean...I agree,, she did cause a lot of problems for them.. but then in a way it shook them up enough to bring them into the 21st century, and realise that they were dealing with ''real people''...

if she'd been older when she entered that marriage she would have had the ability to cope with an older and disinterested husband , but the fact was, that she was just too young, and she had no advisor, aside from her own sisters, who ultimately urged her to suck it up, , and apart from old fogey palace advisor (mainly men) .. she had no-one who could guide her

However if anyone wants to know the Real Diana and how she was raised by her warring parents without rules or regulations, and was pretty much allowed along with her siblings to demand and get anything they wanted, and with that came rampant spoiled behaviour from every one of them !!... read Lady Colin Campbell book.... '' The Real Diana'' lady Colin Campbell knew Diana personally, as well as all the royal family

Soooo...much as Diana became very Wiley as she grew older and played the RF and the Media like an old fiddle, ... she really deserved a batter start in adult life than she ultimately got....
 
Last edited:
We have two ideas here of the Royal Family, they are there
and that is all, they have very little to no power, they have
to go through the pomp and ceremony to satisfy the World
who come to accept that this is what they do.

Years ago the Americans were the largest group of tourists
who came to London, they always went to Buckingham
Palace in the hope of seeing the Queen, now it is the Chinese
and/or the Japanese.

America has lots of famous people, film stars, pop stars who
all want to be like the Royal Family, they want to be famous
and loved by all, unfortunately their fame is normally short
lived.

The Queen and her family don't sign autographs or do "Selfies",
they don't get their name on the "Walk of Fame" in Hollywood,
yet the World cannot get enough of them, even in the months
when she is either in Scotland at Barmoral, or in East Anglia
at Sandringham, or Windsor Castle, which is her home, the large
crowds are all around Buckingham Palace, the official residence.

So love them or not they are here, I wouldn't want any of their
jobs or titles, they are born into a "Military" life with not very much
choice during their whole lives, they are told where they live, what
they have to do, yes they get several houses each and lots of staff,
they also get some money, but the wealthy ones get rich "Dukedoms"
that earn them money, these are managed by others.

Enough said, I hope that this enlightens your perception of the Royal
Family, they are OK and should not be discussed with vitriol, they have
no choice because of their birth.

Mike.
 

  • Like
Reactions: Pam
Laurie said:
Sorry Keesha, and others I've upset.

I rise to the fly too easily!

She did grievously wound my Royal family though, and I tend to take it personally.
Click to expand...
YOUR Royal Family?
I’m sorry Laurie.
I did not realize it was YOUR family and that YOU were ROYAL!

Like most of the rest of the world:
I adore her for the role she played.
I adore her for the words she used.
I adore her for the lives she changed for the better
I adore her for the strength and determination she used
I adore her the grace & dignity she showed
I adore her for the LOVE she showed the world regardless of her circumstances
And I will continue to adore her regardless how you and others feel :heart:

note: but thank you for being polite and considerate about it Laurie cause I DO like you :grin:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pam
This is all very interesting about Diana. The differing opinions. As an American looking from the outside in, I will say that, for me anyway, Diane brought a spotlight on the Royals. I didn't really take much notice of them until she entered the picture. She was a media sensation from before she was even married. Good or bad, right or wrong, the world media latched on to her and never let go.
 
I don't know about the rest of you ladies here, but I played "princess" a lot as a child and was always sure that I was a Royal who had been kidnapped by gypsies, transported across the ocean, and left on the doorstep of my parents' mid-western home one dark and stormy night. I mean, how else could you explain how obviously superior *I* was to the rest of the family???

It was truly a rude awakening to find out that, indeed, I was just a peasant and actually born into this clan. Sigh. I would have loved to send a couple of them who weren't paying me the proper homage off to the Tower for an "attitude adjustment". Alas, no chance for that.

That explains my on-and-off fascination with the royal family. I love the pomp and circumstance, the tiaras, the gowns, the carriages (just think, it might have been *me* up there on the balcony if things had turned out the way I wanted them to).

Am I "obsessed" with them? Nope. But I will sit with rapt attention watching a royal wedding. And I love the Queen's accent. And I enjoy a snicker or two about the shenanigans they get up to. And the hats! Oh, the hats!
 
jujube said:
I don't know about the rest of you ladies here, but I played "princess" a lot as a child and was always sure that I was a Royal who had been kidnapped by gypsies, transported across the ocean, and left on the doorstep of my parents' mid-western home one dark and stormy night. I mean, how else could you explain how obviously superior *I* was to the rest of the family???

It was truly a rude awakening to find out that, indeed, I was just a peasant and actually born into this clan. Sigh. I would have loved to send a couple of them who weren't paying me the proper homage off to the Tower for an "attitude adjustment". Alas, no chance for that.

That explains my on-and-off fascination with the royal family. I love the pomp and circumstance, the tiaras, the gowns, the carriages (just think, it might have been *me* up there on the balcony if things had turned out the way I wanted them to).

Am I "obsessed" with them? Nope. But I will sit with rapt attention watching a royal wedding. And I love the Queen's accent. And I enjoy a snicker or two about the shenanigans they get up to. And the hats! Oh, the hats!
Click to expand...

That just about sums up the average British person's interest TBF...except we get to pay for it all..LOL... I don't mind at all..it's not much money from our taxes, ( so we're told )
 
Uptosnuff said:
This is all very interesting about Diana. The differing opinions. As an American looking from the outside in, I will say that, for me anyway, Diane brought a spotlight on the Royals. I didn't really take much notice of them until she entered the picture. She was a media sensation from before she was even married. Good or bad, right or wrong, the world media latched on to her and never let go.
Click to expand...

I'm not being facetious at all..but again, that's precisely how the average Brit looks at American politics..not a lot of interest until Donald Trump became president ... and then for good or for bad, suddenly everyone knew more about American politicians and their antics than every before.. , and watching from the outside it's a fascinating show..LOL
 
fuzzybuddy said:
Some nations still have vestiges of the Age Of Kings, by having some sort of royalty. My ex is a "Royalty Nut". She acts like she knows these people intimately, as though she just got off the phone with them. She has friends, who chatter away about the "Royals". I understand that you won't find "Royals" shopping for diapers @ 3:15 AM, at Walmart. So, they have a different life style, but I think they were conceived like the rest of us. I guess I'm puzzled by the interest of some in "Royals".
Click to expand...
It is the source of fantasy for many. A place to bring alive the dreams we had of a more organized and civil time. Most importantly it is and has been for decades the focus of most young girls who fancy themselves as Princesses. Princesses.jpg
 
Uptosnuff said:
This is all very interesting about Diana. The differing opinions. As an American looking from the outside in, I will say that, for me anyway, Diane brought a spotlight on the Royals. I didn't really take much notice of them until she entered the picture. She was a media sensation from before she was even married. Good or bad, right or wrong, the world media latched on to her and never let go.
Click to expand...

I hope I’m not being presumptuous here but I think that’s how most of the world looked at her. She was extraordinary to most leaving a positive loving impression that touched ‘almost’ everyone.
hollydolly said:
I'm not being facetious at all..but again, that's precisely how the average Brit looks at American politics..not a lot of interest until Donald Trump became president ... and then for good or for bad, suddenly everyone knew more about American politicians and their antics than every before.. , and watching from the outside it's a fascinating show..LOL
Click to expand...
Goodness I hope they don’t compare the two.
While I admit to not understanding British politics or why some disliked her, she was on the opposite spectrum to Donald Trump. It’s like comparing chalk to cheese in my opinion.
 
Be assured, despite my carping, they art my Royal family, annotated by God, and I will ever defend them, while criticising them.

When I was in school, though I doubt it is the same now, it was always taught that each and every one of us was in line to the throne.

The old adage applies - you can pick your friends but you are stuck with your family.
 
I liked Diana. I liked that she wasn't perfect. And she exuded glamour and unaffected poise. And the marriage was fake to begin with. Charles was in love with Camille. He should have been honest to begin with. No excuses for that. If he was allowed to marry Camille in the first place, and been honest with himself this whole tragedy would not have happened. But we know that Diana was chosen because she was a virgin and could be a breeding cow for the monarchy. That's my opinion and that's not up for debate. Anyone can have theirs.
 
I’m with Olivia on this. Diana was picked as livestock to ‘produce’ royal children. Period.

The world watched as she walked down the aisle in her legendary wedding gown ready to marry the man she was in love with and she was in love with him. We all watched this romance blossom as they created their family. Once she discovered he was in love with someone else , she did what any ‘self respecting’ woman would do and requested a divorce. If she was that pretentious , she would have stayed married and pretended everything was ok but she wasn’t so didn’t.

We all grieved with her when she discovered her fantasy marriage was nothing more than a pretentious ceremony, or at least most of us did. Most of us could relate to that type of betrayal minus the royalty role and being followed by paparazzi 24/7, yet she handled it all under extraordinary pressure with both style and grace.

Who could blame her for taking her role to a different level by letting her light shine brightly and being uniquely herself.
I wish I could handle that type of pressure with such tastefulness.
 
RadishRose said:
View attachment 66467

Queen Victoria and Princess Beatrice seem to resemble each other.
Click to expand...

It's the "Hapsburg Chin"....waaaay too much interbreeding went on for waaaay too many years.

I was reading about Charles II of Spain. If you look into his family line, the same woman shows up six times as his great-great-great-grandmother (there might be another great, but I can't remember). Six times. His grandmother was also his great-grandmother. And so on. It's a wonder some of them didn't show up with two heads or four arms. The pop eyes, big chin (or lack of), hemophilia and insanity was rampant through the European/Eastern European royal families. Of course, there was nothing to do for it......they had to marry another royal and everybody was related this way and that way and the other way.
 
My wife likes to show people the photo of us talking to Prince Andrew and Fergy that was taken many years ago at a dedication.
 
Diana was picked as livestock to ‘produce’ royal children. Period.

But all Royal spouses are picked either as studs or brood mares, if not primarily then at least as a major secondary.

That's why so many have been toyed with and rejected in the past, and why, until recently, Roman Catholics have been avoided like the plague.

If you don't like the rules of the game don't come out onto the field.
 
Laurie said:
Diana was picked as livestock to ‘produce’ royal children. Period.

But all Royal spouses are picked either as studs or brood mares, if not primarily then at least as a major secondary.

That's why so many have been toyed with and rejected in the past, and why, until recently, Roman Catholics have been avoided like the plague.

If you don't like the rules of the game don't come out onto the field.
Click to expand...
I can like or dislike any aspects of life I choose just like you or anybody else Laurie. I certainly don’t need ‘your’ permission and I’ll walk into any field and discuss whatever I choose, thank you.
 
Laurie said:
Diana was picked as livestock to ‘produce’ royal children. Period.

But all Royal spouses are picked either as studs or brood mares, if not primarily then at least as a major secondary.

That's why so many have been toyed with and rejected in the past, and why, until recently, Roman Catholics have been avoided like the plague.

If you don't like the rules of the game don't come out onto the field.
Click to expand...

The way you stated that Roman Catholics were avoided like the plague, makes it sound like there’s something wrong with their DNA. Wasn’t this selective process mainly due to the ‘religious’ aspect of it?
Now of course, the royals CAN marry Roman Catholics if they choose, as far as my understanding but I could be wrong. :shrug:
 
the media does it -to sell papers in the UK. AND YES IT GETS TEDIOUS !
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top