Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Diana; The People's Princess remembered
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929 		  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Diana; The People's Princess remembered
    Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 14:55
People really need to learn a little respect.


I wasn't being disrespectful, QueenCleopatra- I was stating my views in a completely constructive way. There was not hint of disrespect. Just because I question the monarchy, that doesn't mean that I'm being risrespectful to them personally as human beings. Yes, what happened was a tragedy, nothing less, but you can't expect everyone to have the same feeling towards her as you do (I for one don't). I see it as a person's unfortunate accident, not a monarch's. I don't view her as a beacon towards broken homes and failed marriages. The fact that she was a monarch and had family problems does not set her out as an example.
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457 		  Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 21:44
Many other royal thrones of Europe have gone yet the British throne has remained, in itself is an awe-inspiring feat in age where so many question the symbols of authority. The throne has had few close calls at times but the image is still there and still captures world attention.
 
Whether Diana chose to marry Charles by chance or choice I don't know. Even that was a brave move for a woman has to be prepared to lose one way of life and live by another. She had that air of royalty about her all the time. Even if she denied her image there it was in every photo and many of them were not flattering. Charles does not have the same image of being a royal leader, whereas his parents do and dare I say it, his sons, or better yet, Diana's sons.

Diana herself said she could imagine Charles being a country squire but not a king. Everybody was prepared to accept her for she carried a royal aura, a media campaign to boost her image was not needed. I mean does Camilla look the same or evoke the same feelings? I doubt it.

Diana led a troubled life, but as an honest person in a people's world she lit a candle in dark places, to shine before all. She could have her sorrows yet rise above  the ordinary life and make us look with more respect to those who can make the world a better place to be.
elenos
Back to Top
QueenCleopatra View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 03-Apr-2006
Location: Ireland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 292 		  Quote QueenCleopatra Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jul-2007 at 16:57
I think people misinterpretting what I'm saying here, what my intent is.
 
I am not saying Diana is an inspiration because she was a Princess. I'm not paying her tribute because she was Royalty.
 
I am saying that she deserves to be remembered for all the good works she did and all the support she gave to the old, the sick, the poor etc and how dedicated she was to her various charities. All this in the face of a turbulant and difficult personal life.
 
I never ever suggested her royal status was what made her so important and loved.
Her Royal Highness , lady of the Two Lands, High Priestess of Thebes, Beloved of Isis , Cleopatra , Oueen of the Nile
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457 		  Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jul-2007 at 21:46
I agree Queen Cleopatra. Her royal marriage may have made her famous but Diana touched us in many different ways. If she had of being something else rather than a princess she would have been the same lovely person who could walk a straight line in a crooked world.
elenos
Back to Top
QueenCleopatra View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 03-Apr-2006
Location: Ireland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 292 		  Quote QueenCleopatra Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jul-2007 at 18:03
Exactly! I don't care that she was a Princess. I think she deserves to be remembered as a warm caring woman with a heart of gold. Her being royalty is secondary to that.
Her Royal Highness , lady of the Two Lands, High Priestess of Thebes, Beloved of Isis , Cleopatra , Oueen of the Nile
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929 		  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jul-2007 at 18:31

Ah! Good- I thought that this was because of her title and heritage. But in this context - yes I agree.
Back to Top
Penelope View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Alia Atreides

Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042 		  Quote Penelope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jul-2007 at 00:19

Sorry to go a bit off topic, but i have a quick question.

 
Is it true that the British monarchy is extremely expensive to maintain? Just curious.
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457 		  Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jul-2007 at 22:28
There was a wonderful speech by Dame Margaret Thatcher where she gave very amusing comparisons between the cost of of American democracy and British monarchy. The British system was only a fraction of the American.
elenos
Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Suspended

Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551 		  Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2007 at 05:00
Originally posted by Penelope

Sorry to go a bit off topic, but i have a quick question.

 
Is it true that the British monarchy is extremely expensive to maintain? Just curious.
 
 
Read this article, Penelope, it pretty much sums it up.
 
 
 
 
 
Edit: Oh, I forgot that the total given above excludes security costs, so this link breaks down exactly where the money is spent. Security almost doubles the total.
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by Dolphin - 31-Jul-2007 at 05:04
Back to Top
Penelope View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Alia Atreides

Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042 		  Quote Penelope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2007 at 23:14
Dolphin, thankyou. I really appreciate your help.
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929 		  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Aug-2007 at 16:24

Yes, Elenos, but it's proportional - America is much larger than the UK (really?) and naturally, their GDP is larger than ours - the monarchy costs a huge amount of money (about 80p per British citizen per annum) to maintain, and for no purpose. Please look at this site - it'll clear up the delusion for you- http://www.republic.org.uk/

...And also, please, can nobody here use the pathetic excuse that "it helps tourism" because statistically, it doesn't and that's usually what monarchists use when they have not got a good hand left (they were never dealt anything much in the first place!). The truth is, many monarchists that I know are reluctant to discuss it because they haven't got a shread of evidence to suggest a valid reason why they should exist. This blatant, blind pride in an institution that serves no reason to divide our people, take a large proportion of our wealth, keep a remnant of the British empire alive and kicking, lays ridiculous claims, insults military heroism, devalues meritocracy in our society and has screwed up (yes, I can see it from their point of view, the monarchs are not "happy" in their position and many of them are screwed up and have various issues) a succession of innocent human beings by the intense public pressure that is offloaded onto them. Also, did you know that offically, we Britons are offically known as "subjects" and not "citizens"? Did you also know that the monarchy break the UN declaration of human rights?

...Despite any other arguments that people have to the contrary, nepotism is awful and fundamentally, you shouldn't be given that amount of prestige and be made the head of state because of the WOMB THAT YOU CAME FROM!

Also, just another feather in a republican's hat-


TOURISM

The argument that the monarchy brings in tourism revenue is not only irrelevant to a debate about our constitution, it is also untrue. There is not a single bit of evidence to back this up. Of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only one royal residence makes it, Windsor Castle at number 17 (beaten comfortably by Windsor Legoland, in at number 7). Royal residences account for less than 1% of total tourist revenue. Indeed, the success of the Tower of London (number 6 in the list) suggests that tourism would benefit if Buckingham Palace and Windsor castle were vacated by the Windsor family.

The British tourist industry is successful and robust - castles and palaces would remain a part of our heritage regardless of whether or not we have a monarchy (look at Versaille). Other attractions, such as the London Eye, Trafalgar Square, the west end, Bath, Stonehenge, Britain's beautiful countryside and so on, will continue to attract tourists in the same numbers as they do today.

Professor Philip Hall

So please, before you say anything else, people, don't even attempt an argument with Anti-monarchists - I respect the rights of people to question (you can see this from various posts in this forum), but with Anti-monarchists, it's a little bit futile.

Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457 		  Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Aug-2007 at 21:54
So you are anti-monarchist and you don't want people to argue with you because its futile. Right! And you send us to crap sites that have nothing to do with history where it says "what we believe". Right! If you want to debate this subject and use the comrade rhetoric then why not start a thread of your own? Alright? It seems you will have support if you call this thread "Why I'm against Royalty" But remember to include other royal families other that British. You are calling for the whole system to be ended. That is what you are looking for isn't it?
elenos
Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Suspended

Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551 		  Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2007 at 04:50
Aster, in many ways I agree with you, but I think you are so convinced you are right that the tone of your message suffers...Monarchy in Britain is, in a practical sense, useless, but the fact remains that the Brits like having the Queen and the Princes and the drama it all entails. Take some half baked survey of young, under-priviledged people on the street and you'll be told that the royal family should be abolished, but go nationwide and include all generations, and you'll find that they are still wanted and still loved by the country. It's like having a personal soap opera to tune into every day. I personally think that the family should not have the life they have because of their lineage and not their ability, but I cant see them going away too soon either.
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929 		  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2007 at 05:18
Elenos, I'm not "looking" for anything - If people like and want the monarchy, that's their buisness. I'm not one to want to stop their personal beliefs and as long as this democratic country wants the monarchy, that's fine by me! As far as I see it, in a rich MEDC country where the meritocratic views we hold dear teach us that to be sucessful in life, we have to work, it is a farce and hypocritical to believe the inherantly backward and fundamentally oppressive belief of "good breeding".
 
It's like having a personal soap opera
 
That's as maybe, but most soap operas shouldn't cost millions in public funds which could be better diverted to more hospitals, schools etc, have their members forced to be on them part of it and a soap operation where its fans are forced to be labeled "subjects" and one which undermines democracy.
 
nothing to do with history
 
Thanks for reminding me- history's prooved my point in any case, and that site has got more political philosophy and logic on it, which in this case is more important to the debate of the subject to the history, which in any case is so obviously wrong.
 
The reason that I'm not including other royal and aristocratic familes is because in most other countries, they know their place, they dont cost as much and they dont have the same holier than thou attitude as the monarchy in the UK.
 
Also, as artists and historians, I'm extremely suprised that you haven't considered this fact- lets say you go to the BM or the national gallery, you are astounded that so many artifacts and painting are for the public's viewing. So surely the royal family who one of the largest portrait collections in the entire country could be more "public loving" than people claim they are by making these collections permanently available to the public.
 
Look guys- If you're monarchists, I don't care, that's your right and perogative- but I also have the right to reserve my democratic-socialist and anti-monarchist views. I don't think that the death of Diana was anything worse or better because she was a monarch - it was a tragic thing for anyone, and I respect that.
 
I want anyone to argue with my points- it would be most rewarding - but the points that pretty much all British monarchists put towards the monarchy are just so historically, political and finanically false that until someone can come up with a good argument, I just can't be convinced. Secondly, I'm not a die-hard anti-monarchist - I'm open to the concept, just not convinced.
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457 		  Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2007 at 06:03

To dismiss the institution of royalty is to ignore the history of the world. Royalty goes back to way back to the Stone Age where every group had a leader of the people no matter who the people were and whatever their country. However, could the gift of leadership shown by a great leader of one period be passed down from father to son, mother to daughter? The study of history tells us that it came to be thought of that way, having leadership qualities was all in the bloodline. The only exception I know about was the Celts who elected kings and queens depending upon their performance, but they lived a rural style of life without ever building cities.

 We think of kings and queens as rulers over great cities and countries where the aim is to expand the borders of their own people around the globe. But not anymore, all that is old hat now. Monarchy, whether in Britain, Holland or Thailand continues with the worlds first ideas about leadership in a modern way. People become emotionally attached to the image they have of their royalty and this has worked since time began. Everyone with an axe to grind wants to have a go at attacking that image. Here is my challenge, I have never yet came across anyone that can leave aside their discontents and emotional arguments to discuss the history of the subject in an intelligent way.

elenos
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929 		  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2007 at 07:24

Elenos, leadership doesn't come down through a bloodline - a good historian like you should know that and I'm suprised that you even said that comment. Monarchs are people in a certain situation- they are all different and their individual style of ruling all comes down to their training and their own personality. The Hapsburgers technocally weren't "better" at ruling the Holy Roman empire than anyone else- they had been in that position for years, they had numerous advisors and were each given a great deal of experience about their duties as they grew up. Monarchy isn't a "natural meritocracy", as your logic would seem to imply - sometime along the line, there was a chance of faith into which someone could step and take up the crown - any institution that's based on nepotism is based solidy on chance and doesn't ensure any more "better" rulers than a meritocratic system.

Dismissing a political system is not dismissing history - that logic is completely ridiculous and has not basis to work from - by that logic, if we dismiss something from history and don't use it in our everyday lives, then we are dismissing the history of the world - that's just plain ridiculous. Also, you are equating royalty to leadership - Royalty is a heritage based nepotism kind of leadership - there are many other kinds of leadership.

Frankly, there is no genetic basis for what you are suggesting that leadership comes down through which womb that you were born from - there are far more great leaders in history who came from non-royal families who still did a brilliant job. There is no such thing as "good breeding" and although some traits from your forebears are inherited from your family's gene pool, there's so much mutation that it's just not plausable to base an entire system on that fact. Winston Churchill's relatives, for example, wouldn't logically "inherit" his characteristics and abilities because of their relation to him (which is more or less what you are suggesting) and any traits that there are will have been diluted slowly over time.
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457 		  Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2007 at 08:17
Aster said; "Elenos, leadership doesn't come down through a bloodline - a good historian like you should know that and I'm suprised that you even said that comment."

You just cannot give up going on the attack even if I didn't say that. What I was saying, take careful note please, is that people have developed this type of belief over time and it has been lasting. Admit it! I'm not for one side or the other, but you don't seem to understand that, not having to talk about what you believe in to get you point across.

I must congratulate you  on the rest of post, except I have seen good breeding and bad. Breeding is often found in the national ideas and whole civilizations have been built upon them. There are other factors like the getting of good education etc. However, it is up to you to say what you think in ways that actually admit history has happened, all we can do as intelligent historians is to find the reasons why or I would not be on this board. If you want to waste time taking about what could or should be then I'm not interested in any way, shape or form. I am only interested in finding the history behind the subject

elenos
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929 		  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2007 at 09:37
Yes, of course this belief has been long lasting - it's obvious because if it wasn't there, then the monarchy wouldn't be there. If people want to follow that belief and follow the monarchy, fine for them but I don't have to.
 
Also, I haven't been "wasting time" by your definition, and if you view a constructive debate as such, then that's a tad worrying (nothing personal).
 
I too am interested about the history behind this, but it would a monolithic task, because there are more monarchs as there are historical dates.


Edited by Aster Thrax Eupator - 02-Aug-2007 at 09:39
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457 		  Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2007 at 10:42

We all tend to waste our time on something or other, but if I am talking apples and you are talking pears we are wasting each others time. A constructive debate is where everybody can learn, which may sound obvious, but I get a worried about some on this board, not you of course. Once they get started then nothing in the world can stop them charging around with all the subtly of a wounded rhinoceros.

So far as the historical (apart from emotional) idea of royalty, the good of the kingdom rests in their welfare, the Fisher King syndrome is the oldest idea in the book, and even mentioned in the first book The Epic of Gilgamesh I suppose you know all that? In ancient Egypt if the Pharaoh did not get up to bless the dawn then the sun would fail to rise. It can be argued this was not so much religious but practical, can you see how?  
elenos
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929 		  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2007 at 15:46
Yes, but those pseudo-religious interpreations of monarchy (divine right and so on...) no longer have a practical and realistic place in our scientific society. They may have been a sociological neccesity to the feeling of comfort and security of those people in Gilgamesh's time, but frankly, the other systems of government around today show that the monarchy are not "neccesary" for a state to prosper.

If you want, we can resume this conversation over PM, start a new thread in a more relevant board or perhaps agree to disagree. In any case, Elenos, it's good to speak to a knowledgeable gentleman about such things rather than having someone give typical monarchist arguments.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.047 seconds.