Diana 20 years

[mistermack]

We are told they bring in more money to the country than we spend on them. Plus there are a large number of foolish people in this country who think our Queen is wonderful.

We are told lots of things. And lots of them turn out to be untrue.
This is one that I've never believed. France does ok without any royals. But if they were there, they would be spinning the same old line.
You can have plenty of pomp and ceremony without royals. After all, it's all made-up stuff.

[Rum]

I'm not sure what France has to do with it. Their's were bumped off after all.

But as you say - you pays your money and takes your choice.

"Recent research valued the Monarchy’s latest contribution to the economy at £1.155bn, but counter-research claims the Royals cost the tax payer £344m"

From:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 91277.html

[mistermack]

Just a comparable country that does ok without royals.
The true costs of the monarchy are never fully totted up, and the so-called benefits are imaginary, as they have to be, as nobody knows what the result of having none would be.

Windsor Castle would be a good money-spinner, and Balmoral could make money too. And the Duchy of Cornwall is awash with money.
I don't think we'd lose out if we gave them the chop.

[devogue]

...she was far darker, more vindictive and dangerous than he ever was.

You have just managed to do what I regarded as impossible: kindle my interest in Diana, so I'd like you to provide some relevant, credible and freely accessible reading material. Thank you in advance.

By the eminent journalist Nicholas Wapshott:

https://www.google.co.nz/amp/www.newswe ... ml%3famp=1

Penny Junor:

https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&sourc ... 7SG-buaMgQ

From the first link I get

"Diana set out on a reckless course of vengeance"

"a wily intelligence"

"Her love affair ... were designed to humiliate a powerful state institution"

"Diana assumes that most of the audience has swallowed the fiction that the princess was an innocent party..."

"Far from hating being hounded by the paparazzi, she constantly tipped them off about where she would be."

At least the last bit is a testable claim. Pity it was not tested. The rest of the article gets no better in providing actual evidence supporting the view that she was far darker and vindictive than Charles. And no wonder. You confused a film review with investigative reportage.

The second link goes to a Daily Mail article reviewing a book serialised in the Daily Mail. Got evidence to support the assertion that the kindy teacher was "an unsatisfactory and manipulative mother, prone to tantrums, self-indulgence and jealousy"? Let's see now.

"she sacked nanny Barbara Barnes when William was four because she envied their strong bond"

"Diana was reluctant to warn William, then 13, about her infamous Panorama interview in 1995."

"Diana was unwittingly recreating the tension of her own childhood."

And so fucking on.

You are manifestly incapable of providing evidence for your presumably considered opinion that the princess was "far darker, more vindictive and dangerous", and my interest in her has vanished now that it has become obvious that talk about her seems to be limited to scuttlebutt and wild flights of fancy. So, let's just forget the issue. I apologise for asking. Well, perhaps not apologise, but in retrospect I am definitely sorry I asked.

Some of your Facebook friends might be interested in your considered opinion regarding the princess though. Gossip about royalty is a perennial favourite among the hoi polloi.

I understand that you don't like or respect the answer I gave to your question, and you are perfectly entitled to dissect and discredit it. Perhaps you are right that I should be more critical about the details in this case, and that I should go away and source better evidence. That's how civilised debate should work, and if we're lucky at the end of the discussion one or both of us will learn something.

However, your wildly angry, sneering response instantly puts paid to all of that because I have no intention of engaging with someone so keen to let loose. It's actually quite shocking - the intensity of your anger straight off the bat in what should be a rather mild discussion should worry you.

[Jason]

If you lot do away with your monarchy wouldn't they just move the throne to Canada or Australia? It would take major international cooperation to do away with that institution.

[mistermack]

If you lot do away with your monarchy wouldn't they just move the throne to Canada or Australia? It would take major international cooperation to do away with that institution.

Depends what you mean by "did away with".

[Scott1328]

If you lot do away with your monarchy wouldn't they just move the throne to Canada or Australia? It would take major international cooperation to do away with that institution.

Depends what you mean by "did away with".

The French method was loads of fun.

[JimC]

The whole issue of the royals, either in Britain or Oz, is a matter of supreme indifference to me.

[Svartalf]

they'll change their minds in a hurry when and if charlie becomes Charles III... kings by that name have a curse in this country...

[Scot Dutchy]

Jug Ears will never be king. Cant have a 100 A Day as queen.
Di was chosen by the Greek and Queen Mum along with that damn novelist Barbara Cartland, probably after a bout of GT's and fags.

[Brian Peacock]

I can't see Charlieboy taking the throne, but then again the House of Windsor are kind of sticklers for tradition aren't then. Charlie just doesn't have the respect among 'the people'. His lads are OK - they're a bit more 'down the the kids' in a Posh-and-Becks kind of way. Charlie though is classic, typical, class-A, dim-but-nice...

[Hermit]

I understand that you don't like or respect the answer I gave to your question, and you are perfectly entitled to dissect and discredit it. Perhaps you are right that I should be more critical about the details in this case, and that I should go away and source better evidence. That's how civilised debate should work, and if we're lucky at the end of the discussion one or both of us will learn something.

However, your wildly angry, sneering response instantly puts paid to all of that because I have no intention of engaging with someone so keen to let loose. It's actually quite shocking - the intensity of your anger straight off the bat in what should be a rather mild discussion should worry you.

My anger was roused because you decided to grace this forum with your return by starting a thread about Facebook. You complained about "screaming in a vacuum, writing a considered opinion that encourages a considered response only to get 16 likes and fuck all else", so I expected a considered opinion from you. When you opined that "[Diana] was far darker, more vindictive and dangerous than he [Charles] ever was", I enquired what consideration that was based on. It was a sincere question. You came up with two links that proffered nothing about Diana except gossip and speculation. I was hoping to learn something, but you were too lazy to come to the party. And now you play the injured forum member instead of either providing evidence you considered or simply owning up to the fact that you have posted an unconsidered opinion.

I'll happily apologise for my angry reply when you give me a compelling reason why I should.

[Svartalf]

Jug Ears will never be king. Cant have a 100 A Day as queen.
Di was chosen by the Greek and Queen Mum along with that damn novelist Barbara Cartland, probably after a bout of GT's and fags.

If he were anything like a reasonable person, I'd agree that he'll enjoy a quiet retirement as duke of Cornwall and hand the hot potato to willie... but he's a king size arsehole and will insist on taking the throne, even if mum exceeds her own mum in longevity.

[pErvinalia]

I understand that you don't like or respect the answer I gave to your question, and you are perfectly entitled to dissect and discredit it. Perhaps you are right that I should be more critical about the details in this case, and that I should go away and source better evidence. That's how civilised debate should work, and if we're lucky at the end of the discussion one or both of us will learn something.

However, your wildly angry, sneering response instantly puts paid to all of that because I have no intention of engaging with someone so keen to let loose. It's actually quite shocking - the intensity of your anger straight off the bat in what should be a rather mild discussion should worry you.

My anger was roused because you decided to grace this forum with your return by starting a thread about Facebook. You complained about "screaming in a vacuum, writing a considered opinion that encourages a considered response only to get 16 likes and fuck all else", so I expected a considered opinion from you. When you opined that "[Diana] was far darker, more vindictive and dangerous than he [Charles] ever was", I enquired what consideration that was based on. It was a sincere question. You came up with two links that proffered nothing about Diana except gossip and speculation. I was hoping to learn something, but you were too lazy to come to the party. And now you play the injured forum member instead of either providing evidence you considered or simply owning up to the fact that you have posted an unconsidered opinion.

I'll happily apologise for my angry reply when you give me a compelling reason why I should.

Dev hasn't flounced in a while (not since the last time). He could be due..

[mistermack]

you have posted an unconsidered opinion.