Jump to content

The Royal Family Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

I read all the court transcripts of the Inquest into the death of Diana, 11 years after the actual death (?) and all I can say is that they gave a markedly different picture of Diana's death to the one being peddled in the popular press.

The verdict was 'Unlawful killing.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Box11 said:

Regarding Diana and Dodi they were very high profile clients....

 

No driver or bodyguard worth their salt would ever be drunk or take a drink while on duty !!!...

 

I have a good friend who has been a bodyguard for business men,comedians and a certain MP....

 

He stated that he would never dream of having a drink of alcohol while Doing his duty it’s just not done so I find it very bizarre that someone looking after them would !!!....

 

There is a term:

 

“Dark Arts”...

 

There are many people who believe that’s what was used on that very unfortunate night !!!!...

 

Whether I believe in this is another question which I chose not to answer....

 

 

Of course 

56 minutes ago, Anna B said:

I read all the court transcripts of the Inquest into the death of Diana, 11 years after the actual death (?) and all I can say is that they gave a markedly different picture of Diana's death to the one being peddled in the popular press.

The verdict was 'Unlawful killing.'

By a drunk driver 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
4 hours ago, hackey lad said:

By a drunk driver 

From the 2007 inquest:

 

 

Quote

3 THE JURY FOREMAN: The deceased is Diana, Princess of Wales.
24 The cause of death is chest injury, laceration within
25 the left pulmonary vein and the immediate adjacent

1 portion of the left atrium of the heart.
2 Diana, Princess of Wales, died La Pitie-Salpetriere
3 Hospital in Paris at around 4 am on 31st August 1997 as
4 a result of a motor crash which occurred in the Alma
5 Underpass in Paris on 31st August 1997 at around
6 12.22 am. The crash was caused or contributed to by
7 the speed and manner of driving of the Mercedes,
8 the speed and manner of driving of the following
9 vehicles [the paparazzi]
, the impairment of the judgment of the driver
10 of the Mercedes through alcohol
. Nine of us are agreed
11 on those points, sir.
12 In addition, the death of the deceased was caused or
13 contributed to by the fact that the deceased was not
14 wearing a seat-belt, the fact that the Mercedes struck
15 the pillar in the Alma Tunnel
, rather than colliding
16 with something else, and we are unanimously agreed on
17 that.

Drunk driver unable to control the car.  Collision and impact injuries.  No seat belt.  Manslaughter charges against the paparazzi had been dropped five years earlier,  and they were acquitted of invasion of privacy for taking photographs of the crash. 

 

Even Mohamed Al-Fayed accepted the verdict soon after it was announced.  

 

Looking forward to hearing more about how Prince Philip orchestrated it all, though, from our resident conspiracy theorist loons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

38,412 Cute Old Lady Stock Photos, Pictures & Royalty-Free Images - iStock

 

 

HM The Queen Tests Positive For Covid, Buckingham Palace Announces –  Deadline

 

Two old ladies. Apparently one is majestic. Spot the difference... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, blackydog said:

 

 

 

HM The Queen Tests Positive For Covid, Buckingham Palace Announces –  Deadline

 

 Spot the difference... 

 

See the source image

 

One's been well respected around the World for the last 70 years.

T'other's nearly 70 and wants to destroy it.

 

Long live the Monarchy 

 

Edited by Rockers rule
-
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still trying to figure out the asymetric feelings of the common folk towards Royalty.

 

Some say they abhor the privilege of the elite, but Di was brought up as the untouched "prize" of the Earl Spencer family, perfect and tailor made to marry a Prince of the realm.

 

She was revered by the people as a combination of Joan of Arc and Mother Teresa.

 

It was amost a religon.

 

But she went the same way as Jacqui Kennedy, wife of the late JFK, the closest persona they had to Royalty in the U.S.

 

Jackie got off with an old Greek shipping tycoon, who had her fresh Waldorf salad flown to their yatcht in the Meditarranean every day from the kitchen of the famous New York Hotel.

 

A life of privilege far above the peons.

 

Diane was untouched, but also spoiled and immature. The poor girl had no idea what marriage to Charles was like before she married him.

 

She rebelled, like all growing kids do, and longed for a more private, more normal life, and who can blame her.

 

But Mother Teresa she was not!

 

Just now, Rockers rule said:

 

See the source image

 

One's been well respected around the World for the last 70 years.

T'other's nearly 70 and wants to destroy it.

 

Long live the Monarchy 

 

They were both born when their countries had Empires.

 

Now both see their Empires fading away!

 

Sad!   :)

 

Edited by trastrick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, trastrick said:

I'm still trying to figure out the asymetric feelings of the common folk towards Royalty.

 

Some say they abhor the privilege of the elite, but Di was brought up as the untouched "prize" of the Earl Spencer family, perfect and tailor made to marry a Prince of the realm.

 

She was revered by the people as a combination of Joan of Arc and Mother Teresa.

 

It was amost a religon.

 

But she went the same way as Jacqui Kennedy, wife of the late JFK, the closest persona they had to Royalty in the U.S.

 

Jackie got off with an old Greek shipping tycoon, who had her fresh Waldorf salad flown to their yatcht in the Meditarranean every day from the kitchen of the famous New York Hotel.

 

A life of privilege far above the peons.

 

Diane was untouched, but also spoiled and immature. The poor girl had no idea what marriage to Charles was like before she married him.

 

She rebelled, like all growing kids do, and longed for a more private, more normal life, and who can blame her.

 

But Mother Teresa she was not!

 

They were both born when their countries had Empires.

 

Now both see their Empires fading away!

 

Sad!   :)

 

"I'm still trying to figure out the asymetric feelings of the common folk towards Royalty."

 

You can have my feelings. I think I'm common but then where is the line drawn?

I despise them as the head of the horrible perceived class system.

I despise them for their greed and arrogance.

I disagree with someone being born into a job / role, especially head of state.

I don't like hypocrites ( prince Charles - climate ).

I don't understand why people fawn over them and stand out in the rain waving a little flag.

I despise being referred to as one of their subjects, I am not. If, in the very slim chance I came near to ANY of them, I would treat them exactly as I would treat anyone else.

 

They are just human, like you and me. If they were born into a normal life, I suspect they would be very unremarkable.

None of them are majestic. It is a stupid description. Covering someone in jewellery to make them look special is just laughable. 

I despise them because they are secretive and sly, and get exemptions from the rules we have to follow, to conceal their behaviour.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, trastrick said:

 

They were both born when their countries had Empires.

 

Now both see their Empires fading away!

 

Sad!   :)

 

Blowing in the wind.

 

See the source image

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, trastrick said:

I'm still trying to figure out the asymetric feelings of the common folk towards Royalty.

 

Some say they abhor the privilege of the elite, but Di was brought up as the untouched "prize" of the Earl Spencer family, perfect and tailor made to marry a Prince of the realm.

 

She was revered by the people as a combination of Joan of Arc and Mother Teresa.

 

It was amost a religon.

Those who worship at the shrine of Saint Diana were never republicans in the first place.

 

Quote

But Mother Teresa she was not!

You might want to check on the controversies surrounding Mother Theresa before using her as an example of virtuousness.

 

Quote

They were both born when their countries had Empires.

 

Now both see their Empires fading away!

 

Sad!   :)

Only one of them has accepted it with good grace.

 

Empires fading away isn't sad. People's response to it can be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, altus said:

Those who worship at the shrine of Saint Diana were never republicans in the first place.

 

You might want to check on the controversies surrounding Mother Theresa before using her as an example of virtuousness.

 

Only one of them has accepted it with good grace.

 

Empires fading away isn't sad. People's response to it can be.

No comment on Jean d' Arc? And didn't you guys burn her at the stake?

 

I hear she was prone to seeing things.

 

The search for the perfect human being to look up to, and tell them how to run their lives, is a Holy Grail for some.

 

But the only thing out there is just flawed human beings.

 

I ran with the "elite", "privileged", and "experts" when I was hired by them as a Management Consultant. You'd be surpised how flawed they were!

 

I stopped my life from being controlled by them, years ago!  :)

 

Very liberating, but a tad "risky".

 

Always puts me in the minority in crowds.

 

Wouldn't have it any other way.

 

Stay safe!

 

 

Edited by trastrick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, blackydog said:

"I'm still trying to figure out the asymetric feelings of the common folk towards Royalty."

 

You can have my feelings. I think I'm common but then where is the line drawn?

I despise them as the head of the horrible perceived class system.

I despise them for their greed and arrogance.

I disagree with someone being born into a job / role, especially head of state.

I don't like hypocrites ( prince Charles - climate ).

I don't understand why people fawn over them and stand out in the rain waving a little flag.

I despise being referred to as one of their subjects, I am not. If, in the very slim chance I came near to ANY of them, I would treat them exactly as I would treat anyone else.

 

They are just human, like you and me. If they were born into a normal life, I suspect they would be very unremarkable.

None of them are majestic. It is a stupid description. Covering someone in jewellery to make them look special is just laughable. 

I despise them because they are secretive and sly, and get exemptions from the rules we have to follow, to conceal their behaviour.

 

 

I'm not "like you and me", pal.

 

I have no time for hate and despising folks I have no respect for. They wouldn't have the time of day for you.

 

It's not a productive way to go through life, IMHO

 

But live and let live, is my motto!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, trastrick said:

me - They are just human, like you and me.

you - I'm  not "like you and me", pal.

 

I have no time for hate and despising folks I have no respect for. They wouldn't have the time of day for you.

 

It's not a productive way to go through life, IMHO

 

But live and let live, is my motto!

 

 

Oh sorry, you're not human. Forgive me, easy mistake to make. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.