Queen (Earth, America, point of view, God, Adam)

[Terrywoodenpic]

That he should still be seeing Camilla - and wear a gift of hers to the wedding was a bit much for me

.

Camilla was his first love who he had wished to marry.
I am glad that at last he has found and married his true love.

I expect most English members will disagree with me, but I saw the marriage as a simple trade in Charle's finding a charismatic baby-making machine.

It was simply an arranged marriage... and a mistake...they went their separate ways.

If he had not been a Royal he could have married Camilla first off...and perhaps he should have anyway.

The way I look at it now, the Royal family costs an absolute fortune "to keep in the style to which they are accustomed", and the ceremonies and pageantry would pay off a third world's debts in no time.

It only costs a fortune for all the pageantry... they would be quite happy to forgo this ...It is required of them by the state.

All states involve their leaders in pageantry... and it costs big time

As far as I am concerned, the British royal family should follow the example of other European countries, and just be "ordinary" though recognised as monarchy. i guess it is mainly the money spent on them that sickens me, when i see a need for that money elsewhere.

I am sure they agree with you... nowadays the state only supports the queen and her immediate family... excluding Charles and Camilla who are supported by Charles.

All minor royalty support themselves or, from the Queens private taxable income.

I am sure they would prefer to have their lands back and support them selves.

Poor dear, according to http://www.forbes.com/people/2001/06/26/0626queens.html she is worth a measly "relative pauper's sum of $420 million. "

That would not even get her on a rich list... nowadays you need at least a billion dollars.... No football clubs for her...

poor her..........and she received Child benefit (Paid to all mothers of Children in the U.K) - destined to help parents cope with the bringing up of their kids.........

No she was entitled to it by law, the same as every one else in the country... but like most well off people she never went to the post office to draw it.
Think what the press would make of that.

It is a known fact that the Royal families of various European Countries have "genetic defects" because historically, they were "Bred from pure stock" (just like animals, inbreeding only heightens physical or mental defects. The reason they were in - bred was to keep the peace, between nations.

The royal families lineage is well known... new blood was introduced somewhere every generation.

Think how many people marry first cousins... let alone second. In breading is still common amongst many countries leading citizens; and where ever family fortunes are involved it stops money and lands going out of the family.

Our royal family has been pretty good in this respect.

all the queens children have married commoners.

[Shadow Wolf]

If someone can tell me if it's historically accurate, I might watch it just to see what happened, because the movie has no other appeal for me.
I do remember Diana's death was a bid deal in the State's, but I don't remember anything about the Queen being mentioned. I also very young when it happened, and what I know about Diana's life I recently learned from the History channel.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Terrywoodenpic

.

Camilla was his first love who he had wished to marry.
I am glad that at last he has found and married his true love.

It was simply an arranged marriage... and a mistake...they went their separate ways.

If he had not been a Royal he could have married Camilla first off...and perhaps he should have anyway.


It only costs a fortune for all the pageantry... they would be quite happy to forgo this ...It is required of them by the state.

All states involve their leaders in pageantry... and it costs big time




I am sure they agree with you... nowadays the state only supports the queen and her immediate family... excluding Charles and Camilla who are supported by Charles.

All minor royalty support themselves or, from the Queens private taxable income.

I am sure they would prefer to have their lands back and support them selves.

That would not even get her on a rich list... nowadays you need at least a billion dollars.... No football clubs for her...




No she was entitled to it by law, the same as every one else in the country... but like most well off people she never went to the post office to draw it.
Think what the press would make of that.



The royal families lineage is well known... new blood was introduced somewhere every generation.

Think how many people marry first cousins... let alone second. In breading is still common amongst many countries leading citizens; and where ever family fortunes are involved it stops money and lands going out of the family.

Our royal family has been pretty good in this respect.

all the queens children have married commoners.

You make good points to which the Christian part of me must concede that I am biased....in an unChristian manner.

I am aware that most of this stems from my inability to seperate my emotional feelings towars Diana. I will go on to try and see thing differently; it is difficult to shake off the mantle of prejudice.

[Terrywoodenpic]

Originally Posted by Luke Wolf

If someone can tell me if it's historically accurate, I might watch it just to see what happened, because the movie has no other appeal for me.
I do remember Diana's death was a bid deal in the State's, but I don't remember anything about the Queen being mentioned. I also very young when it happened, and what I know about Diana's life I recently learned from the History channel.

I have not seen it... but then I do not watch Biopics any more.

I lived through her whole pre-marriage .. marriage. and divorce "HYPE."
I could never take to her, Right from the start Her body language, when with Charles, showed there was almost no connection.

A shy person like Charles would been hard pressed to handle it. She was involved with a number of boy friends from the start, it is little wonder Charles returned to Camilla.

The film can not possibly be accurate as it was garnered from news stories. not interviews with the main players.

the press always Hyped up Diana, why I don't understand. because with out her publicists she had very little to offer.

Those that like the film do so for the highly believable acting not the accuracy, as the details are simply not Known.

As far as the Queen goes.. how many mothers are that interested in the fortunes of their sons ex-wives... particularly when so much acrimony was involved.

The national out pouring of grief at her death was more akin to the reaction to Elvis Presley's death. than to real life. Totally over the top.

[darkpenguin]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Has anyone else seen this yet? I just got back from seeing it. It's nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture and is about Queen Elizabeth's response to Princess Diana's death. I really enjoyed it and would be interested in discussing it with others who have seen it.

The movie was awesome, a really great insight into the workings of the royals.
I think the queen came across as a real person far from what us brits usualy think of her, I loved the scene where her car broke down and her relationship with the stag was heart warming.
I think it was a daring time to set the movie in but it came across quite well.
I'm just glad that it was well received 'across the pond' as it was here, maybe even more so.

[darkpenguin]

Originally Posted by Terrywoodenpic

I have not seen it... but then I do not watch Biopics any more.

I lived through her whole pre-marriage .. marriage. and divorce "HYPE."
I could never take to her, Right from the start Her body language, when with Charles, showed there was almost no connection.

A shy person like Charles would been hard pressed to handle it. She was involved with a number of boy friends from the start, it is little wonder Charles returned to Camilla.

The film can not possibly be accurate as it was garnered from news stories. not interviews with the main players.

the press always Hyped up Diana, why I don't understand. because with out her publicists she had very little to offer.

Those that like the film do so for the highly believable acting not the accuracy, as the details are simply not Known.

As far as the Queen goes.. how many mothers are that interested in the fortunes of their sons ex-wives... particularly when so much acrimony was involved.

The national out pouring of grief at her death was more akin to the reaction to Elvis Presley's death. than to real life. Totally over the top.

I'm sorry are you thinking of the same woman?
I'm guessing the amazing work that she did for charity is lost on you and if anyone didn't deserve to be in that relationship it was Charles, he was never good enough for her and she was too good to be a royal!
But hey as I said you must be thinking of a different Diana!

[Terrywoodenpic]

Originally Posted by darkpenguin

I'm sorry are you thinking of the same woman?
I'm guessing the amazing work that she did for charity is lost on you and if anyone didn't deserve to be in that relationship it was Charles, he was never good enough for her and she was too good to be a royal!
But hey as I said you must be thinking of a different Diana!

She did no more for charity than many many people... She just got more publicity for it.

Her family had close relationships with the royal families of England for centuries. Ok she had Barbara Cartland as a grand mother to live down, and also the adventures of her own mother.
I was never fooled by the little girl next door image... it was only because of her background of coming from the Peerage That she was chosen for Charles..

That She did not fit in was only to plain to see, the newspapers made a meal of it.

She was successfully sold to a very wide audience...Yourself included