@Alan Clark2 in Liverpool I didn't mean right for Charles, I meant a suitable person from an upper class family, a virgin, member of the Church of England, whatever made her acceptable to be welcomed into the royal family at the time. In the past planned marriages to someone considered suitable for the country was the tradition for the future king. I don't think it's a good thing nowadays.
Dordogne and Norfolk. Clay in Dordogne, sandy in Norfolk.
If a person is head of an organisation - hospital, school, business, university or whatever - they are special. If they are head of state then they are very special. As such I am perfectly at ease respecting and acclaiming them.
As @Dovefromabove mentioned, the influence of the Queen Mother at the time should not be underestimated. Her Edwardian upbringing, the events of the abdication and the effect on her husband, plus the influence she had on Prince Charles all played a part. Diana's grandmother Lady Fermoy was a contemporary of the QM. Her daughter (Diana's mother) left her husband and children and was ostracised by society. Her husband gained custody of the children. With the QM having a friend with a virginal grandaughter with no "past " (unlike Camilla), and her more than likely putting pressure on Charles saying how suitable she was, l can see how the whole thing played out.
Fortunately the mistakes were learned and William didn't rush into anything. I think l'm right in saying he went out with Catherine for nearly ten years. My opinion is that they are first and foremost best friends and understand each other inside out. I don't think that can be faked. Charles and Diana certainly couldn't.
If a person is head of an organisation - hospital, school, business, university or whatever - they are special. If they are head of state then they are very special. As such I am perfectly at ease respecting and acclaiming them.
normally the person who heads an organisation has got there on merit, not just having the right parents, so no, NOT special, just lucky.
If a person is head of an organisation - hospital, school, business, university or whatever - they are special. If they are head of state then they are very special. As such I am perfectly at ease respecting and acclaiming them.
normally the person who heads an organisation has got there on merit, not just having the right parents, so no, NOT special, just lucky.
But in a way, the head of state is a role, not a person ... that's why all that's needed is for the person in that role to play the part in accordance with the constitution and tradition. What matters is that the person has been taught and understands the role. We respect and owe allegiance to that person because they are the representation and embodiment of our country and in doing so we are respecting and declaring allegiance to our country ... not a person per se. That's why the seamlessness of the succession is so important ... it's not about who it is ... it's about the fact that they exist.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
I'm not sure special is the right word, but people are attracted to 'celebrity'... Film stars, footballers, artists, nobility, business giants..become known and looked at in a different way. I suppose that is to be expected when they're in front of your face all the time.
Don't you think this is just an extension of that? No person is more 'special' than you or me (maybe with talents in different areas - although I'm still looking for mine) - but it always appears to come hard to 'fans' when their favoured celebrities are shown to have normal human flaws.
'...The way some people are talking on here, most of the human race are guilty of terrible crimes....'
This is just personal opinion isn't it? If you're talking adultery, it was illegal until the 19th century wasn't it, so it's no surprise that it still rankles with some people. And we all saw how Boris's lack of integrity and lying had such an impact. OK he hoodwinked a bigger audience, but it's still the same issue isn't it?
I'm not sure I follow the law (or the concept) of adultery though - if both parties, still being in a relationship, openly acknowledge that the relationship is over, then I'm not sure that seeing adultery in one of the partners starting another relationship before paperwork has been completed is in any way shape or form adultery.
yes and no. What I'm saying is that it was seen as a major issue - so major as to be illegal. So it's not surprising that the same underlying (pun intended) issue still rankles. IE at the base of adultery is a potential deceit - the was wrong before and still is.
I would hate to be head of state. I don't think they are lucky, they aren't free. I would rather switch my heating off than have to get up early to talk to, and be charming to, a load of people I don't know while being closely followed by a load of journalists. The Queen once had to eat a sheep's eyeball and pretend she enjoyed it - yuk. But then I suppose many people have to go to jobs they don't like.
Dordogne and Norfolk. Clay in Dordogne, sandy in Norfolk.
Posts
Her Edwardian upbringing, the events of the abdication and the effect on her husband, plus the influence she had on Prince Charles all played a part.
Diana's grandmother Lady Fermoy was a contemporary of the QM. Her daughter (Diana's mother) left her husband and children and was ostracised by society. Her husband gained custody of the children.
With the QM having a friend with a virginal grandaughter with no "past " (unlike Camilla), and her more than likely putting pressure on Charles saying how suitable she was, l can see how the whole thing played out.
Fortunately the mistakes were learned and William didn't rush into anything. I think l'm right in saying he went out with Catherine for nearly ten years.
My opinion is that they are first and foremost best friends and understand each other inside out.
I don't think that can be faked. Charles and Diana certainly couldn't.
We respect and owe allegiance to that person because they are the representation and embodiment of our country and in doing so we are respecting and declaring allegiance to our country ... not a person per se. That's why the seamlessness of the succession is so important ... it's not about who it is ... it's about the fact that they exist.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.