13 years ago today - Princess Diana was killed- Page 2

[Q]

Posted: 9/1/10 at 11:29am

My husband is a half-Brit (product of a war bride,) and we still have ties there. A cousin who plays in that arena has always referred to her as "a nasty piece of work," and says everyone he knows does, as well. I've never been able to get him to tell me why.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 9/1/10 at 2:40pm

"The way this has been achieved in thirteen short years is testament to the establishment."

I've heard it better described as an unspoken conspiracy between the British people and the monarchy.

The royal family have known since 1649 that they only continue to exist with the goodwill of their subjects. They got the message loud and clear that the British people were not happy with the farce that they had become in the 1990s. Subsequently they have come a long way (though with still some way to go) in turning that situation around.

The monarchy has always evolved: that is why it has survived. And, whilst it continues to do so, I, as an ardent monarchist, am happy to let them do just that. So, whilst I regret the death of the Princess of Wales, I don't need to sanctify her.

[Q]

Posted: 9/1/10 at 3:20pm

"I, as an ardent monarchist"

May I ask what the appeal is?

[TulitaPepsi]

Posted: 9/1/10 at 3:29pm

Alas, Windsor genes win out every time.

Of course, the sons are well on their way to being as dull and uninteresting as the rest of the Royal family.

And William won't be crowned after Charles is King. By then Diana will be an amusing social footnote.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 9/1/10 at 3:48pm

In no particular order of importance...

1) I see the separation of Head of Government and Head of State as being necessary. It can prevent the likes of what happenned in present day Zimbabwe or 1930s Germany happenning. Similarly it is good to have the Head of Government answerable to the Law: Blair can theoretically be prosecuted for war crimes.

2) The monarchy should act as a unifying influence in national life: national events in Britian are determined by births, marriages and deaths. Not by ridiculous parades of missiles. Nor by demonstrations of allegiance to inanimate objects that have no decision making capability and cannot take responsibility for their actions.

3) It is also a reminder that we cannot choose everything in life eg our parents, our siblings or our children. It is partly why I think being British often feels like being part of a family rather than part of a national purpose.

4) I detest the failure and incompetence of Britsh politicians. I would hate to see one as Head of State.

5) The British monarchy is the second oldest institution in the Western world. You don't throw something that historic away.

6) The monarchy, at its best, can encourage aspiration and decency, particularly where politicians fail so spectacularly.

One of the reasons Diana was so good at her job was because she was demonstrating to the rest of the royal family how to do some of these in a modern world.
Updated On: 9/1/10 at 03:48 PM

[Q]

Posted: 9/1/10 at 6:52pm

Scripps - thank you. Some interesting thoughts.

I couldn't help but notice the use of 'aspiration', which stood out to me because the monarchical system seems to promote the concept of pre-ordered 'station' in life.

As someone who's never dealt with a royal scenario, I just can't imagine bowing to another human being, simply because they happen to have been born differently than you. It strikes against something I hold dear - equality.

I used to tell myself that's why I never really pursued competitive tennis - I just couldn't imagine bowing as I entered Center Court. It had nothing to do with the fact that I kept losing

[Scripps2]

Posted: 9/2/10 at 3:53pm

"I just can't imagine bowing to another human being, simply because they happen to have been born differently than you."

I don't see it that way. I see a brief nod of the head as a mark of respect for the institution that guarantees my freedom and liberty. I don't see it as meaning that Elizabeth Windsor is somehow a superior human being to me. I suspect she may not either: British history has seen too many monarchs removed when they misunderstand their role.

To me it's also a minor point. I've never met the Queen, I'm not likely to and I have no desire to. So long as she does what is on the job description and does it well, then she has my respect.

[Q]

Posted: 9/2/10 at 3:56pm

Definitely puts a different spin on it, and I can see that point. I actually thought about this quite a bit last evening. It's not something I've thought a lot about, as we simply don't deal with it - but you've brought some interesting points to light. Thanks, Scripps!