Printable View
Can anyone explain why he married Diana given that he was having an affair with Camilla? I don't mean that he shouldn't have had the affair-although it would not be my choice to marry someone who could do that-more that that sort of behavior seems to go with that kind of power or wealth-and whoever he married probably should have been a little more savvy to that.
And at least he made the executions run on time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
I think it is possible to concede that the long term constitutional repercussions of the Civil War were a Good Thing, and simultaneously to believe that Cromwell was a Bad Man. I mean, come on - a religiously fuelled control-freak backed up by a partisan army - how often does that lead to truth, liberty and gin-and-tonics for all?
Also, you have to wonder what would have happened without Cromwell. Republican revolution? Nothing? Who knows, but I'd be willing to bet that whatever the catalyst, the outcome would have been much the same - to wit, two-legged pigs in charge, and celebrity weddings every few years.
As Emil has previously indicated, the Prince of Wales married Diana because Buckingham said it was time, and if memory serves, sources claimed there was significant anxiety that Charles was going to create a scandal with a divorced mistress. I grant that Edward lived in extraordinary times and Charles is not the replica of his great uncle, but the establishment wanted to avoid any comparison, only to create another set of follies.Quote:
Originally Posted by qimissung
I know very little about kid Willie, but it seems he is aware of his father's mistakes, presents a more assured public image, and won't give Fleet Street a field day just yet.
Yes, I'll give it a shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by qimissung
He was a relatively weak but well-intentioned man, crushed by a lifetime of brainwashing into believing that personal feelings are valueless, public image is paramount and that the sustenance of the monarchy is all that matters. His parents, his advisors and the history of his own family made it impossible for him to marry Camilla, and he was put under huge pressure to marry Diana, who was young, quite stupid, utterly naive and very photogenic. He knew he didn't want to do it and that it would make him unhappy, and everyone else knew it too, but no one, including Charles, thought that the future king's happiness was relevant. Neither, incidentally, was Diana's - though it seems unlikely that they considered her sufficiently evolved to be capable of emotions.
And that, in the end, is why I'm not generally in favour of the monarchy. I don't mind the money they cost, or the constitution they represent, or the privilege in which they live. I just don't like what the Royal Family does to the people in it.
I think it's probable that anyone in power can be disliked - particulary where war or revolution are involved - Tony Blair's an example. They certainly have to make decisions that make them hated - Ireland for Cromwell. I think there's certainly bad press concerning Cromwell stemming from the restoration, but I agree that doesn't make him good, just like the monarchs. To be part of the overthrow of the Monarchy, I think they would all have needed a strong religious background that opposed the prevailing Divine Right of Kings idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
As for civil war without him - I thought he was involved in developing the New Model Army - but that might just be my schoolboy history perceptions. He did have a key role in the battles though.
But don't you think the whole Parliamentary episode was given a spin when history was taught? I remember Blue Peter going on about some Cavalier - the one with the dog - Rupert was it?, and how brave he was etc. They didn't mention losing a key battle because his cavalry went on to loot the baggage train of the Roundheads after routing a section of the army.
I think she was eligible in that she fit the requirements of being a Princess Qimi. There was a limited choice, and she had the criteria. I think the question of why she married him - a decade her senior - has to be asked also.Quote:
Originally Posted by qimissung
Yeah - but I'm pretty sure I've seen Blue Peter do a pro-Cromwell thing too. I don't think you can expect Blue Peter to be consistent. I mean, one day they're all for saving energy by turning your computer off and the next they're turning on the Christmas lights in Oxford Street. Hypocrites. Hanging's too good for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
No one can get in Edward's head, but I am interested in the dialectic surrounding him as a public figure because it is nearly a contradiction in terms. I can use Michael Jackson as a rough illustration of what I mean: He starts out as the cute Motown kid in white bell bottoms presented as part of a nuclear singing black family. He resurfaces with Thriller and virtually invents M-TV, and then he transforms himself into a pariah, not really black anymore, not white, not masculine, not feminine, and yet still the most globally recognized musical figure who eludes any definitive understanding. The same can be said of Edward on a lesser scale.Quote:
Originally Posted by jocky
Mark: This is not a thread about Crowell and the Reformation's excesses; you can create your own thread on the topic.
But image the alternative........Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
Who would you want as Head of State? Imagine who would want to be Head of State - it doesn't really bear thinking about. And we'd have to have Presidential Elections - no, thank you, all the same, I think I'd rather maintain the present system.
Yes, miss. Sorry, miss. It was Paul who started it, miss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
The abdication has been discussed ad nauseum ever since it took place and, as this thread shows, it invariably develops into a discussion on the relevance of the monarchy but, in relation to the coming wedding, you may be right about it being a lower keyed affair than the Charles/Dianna ceremony. On that occasion, the media were practically frothing at the mouth in it's coverage of the event and I had given up on newspapers until it was over. But of course, it wasn't over until the crash in which Dianna was killed, because the ludicrous shenanigans of their relationship were THE staple news item from Charles's first reported meeting with Diana until her death and the funeral, which must rank among the most maudlin ceremonies ever. I don't pay much attention to royalty but it would appear that William is being presented as a decent Hooray Henry type and his fiancee as a clean cut no-nonsense young lady quite different from the publicity seeking Dianna.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Incidentally, I find myself in the unaccustomed position of being as one with Brian Bean on this wedding thing. I've arranged to be on a beach three thousand miles away when the entire country goes confetti-happy.
I'm with you chaps - though 'll be in jolly old England.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
I think it was my fault the divergence. It's just the ebb and flow of conversation.
BBC radio reported this morning that Prince William and Kate Middleton have been 'flipping pancakes' in Northern Ireland. Things are obviously getting into their stride.
Watch this space.
They certainly sound rather dull compared to Edward the eigth's circle judging by this extract from Google:
Known as “Baba” to her father’s Indian servants, and to her friends ever after, she was a remarkable woman. She was said to be lovely, if somewhat imperious like her father. Although romanced by royals, she married Edward Dudley “Fruity” Metcalfe, the best friend of Edward VIII, the king who left his throne and became the Duke of Windsor so that he could marry Wallis Warfield Simpson, a twice-divorced American. Not one to desert a friend, Fruity served as the Duke’s Best Man at his wedding in exile. (In 1940, Fruity was rewarded for his loyalty by being abandoned when the Duke and Duchess fled Paris, and left to find his own way home as the German army advanced.)
Fruity Metcalfe? You couldn't make it up.
I am not so sure about that Brian. Evelyn Waugh's depiction of the Aristocracy in 'Brideshead Revisited' does seem to represent a snapshot of the dying embers of upper class eccentricity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller