Just a random question...

[Poker_Babe]

Nothing to do with camming or anything.... I've been really interested in the history of the monarchy lately and learning a lot of new things... Anyways, I was just wondering, does anyone else find it weird that Princess Diana’s first trip over seas to represent the Queen, was to the funeral of Princess Grace (Kelly) of Monaco… who also died in a car crash while in France???

 

[Zoomer]

Are we supposed to answer randomly, or seriously?
She (Grace Kelly) had a stroke whilst driving, causing her accident.
Diana died as her driver, employed by Mohamed Al Fayed, was drunk and driving at high speeds in Paris, and she didn't wear a seat belt (I think the French coroner concluded that if she had been wearing a seat belt, she'd have lived).

One was a tragic accident (Grace Kelly), the other was idiocy.
Two Princesses dying in car crashes? Shit happens... that shit happens to tens of thousands everyday around the world.

 

[CallMeWilliam]

Are we supposed to answer randomly, or seriously?
She (Grace Kelly) had a stroke whilst driving, causing her accident.
Diana died as her driver, employed by Mohamed Al Fayed, was drunk and driving at high speeds in Paris, and she didn't wear a seat belt (I think the French coroner concluded that if she had been wearing a seat belt, she'd have lived).

One was a tragic accident (Grace Kelly), the other was idiocy.
Two Princesses dying in car crashes? Shit happens... that shit happens to tens of thousands everyday around the world.

Diana died as her driver, employed by Mohamed Al Fayed, was drunk and driving at high speeds in Paris being chased by paparazzi...

Without context is would seem to regular people as idiocy...

 

[morment]

Are we supposed to answer randomly, or seriously?
She (Grace Kelly) had a stroke whilst driving, causing her accident.
Diana died as her driver, employed by Mohamed Al Fayed, was drunk and driving at high speeds in Paris, and she didn't wear a seat belt (I think the French coroner concluded that if she had been wearing a seat belt, she'd have lived).

One was a tragic accident (Grace Kelly), the other was idiocy.
Two Princesses dying in car crashes? Shit happens... that shit happens to tens of thousands everyday around the world.

Diana died as her driver, employed by Mohamed Al Fayed, was drunk and driving at high speeds in Paris being chased by paparazzi...

Without context is would seem to regular people as idiocy...

Even with the context the fact that he was driving while drunk is idiotic enough don't you think?

 

[Red7227]

European royal families are amazingly inbred. About 25 years ago when they were disproving a claim by a woman that she was Anastasia, one of the daughters of Czar Nicolas II (he and his whole family were murdered by the bolsheviks in 1917 during the Russian Revolution) they took blood from Prince Phillip for a DNA test. Prince Phillip is the husband of Queen Elisabeth II


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Phi ... _Edinburgh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_II_of_Russia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_V

This is a picture of King George V on the Right and Czar Nicolas II taken in 1913.

 

[Poker_Babe]

Here's something I found interesting.

 

[sweetiebatman]

My fovorite piece of standup, and its about the reaction to the Death of Diana! Stick with it, its worth it!

 

[Zoomer]

Are we supposed to answer randomly, or seriously?
She (Grace Kelly) had a stroke whilst driving, causing her accident.
Diana died as her driver, employed by Mohamed Al Fayed, was drunk and driving at high speeds in Paris, and she didn't wear a seat belt (I think the French coroner concluded that if she had been wearing a seat belt, she'd have lived).

One was a tragic accident (Grace Kelly), the other was idiocy.
Two Princesses dying in car crashes? Shit happens... that shit happens to tens of thousands everyday around the world.

Diana died as her driver, employed by Mohamed Al Fayed, was drunk and driving at high speeds in Paris being chased by paparazzi...

Without context is would seem to regular people as idiocy...

Yes, it is compelling - if you do not drive at 120mph to avoid a photo being taken of you, you will die! - so do everything humanly possible to escape. It is true :roll:

"Escaping the Paparazzi" by driving at high speeds is idiocy. Whilst I don't condone paparazzi behaviour, the blame must fall entirely upon the driver and occupants. There are laws regarding speed limits (ignored), laws regarding alcohol and driving (ignored) and laws regarding seat belts (ignored). They weren't forced to make those decisions or behave like that whatsoever. It was their choice. It was a very stupid choice.

Being photographed was a daily event for her, and whilst the paparazzi are invasive and ignore privacy - the actions which resulted in death are on the driver and occupants alone. They could have driven slower, safer and with a sober driver and just been photographed. It was idiocy to do what happened.


As for Royal Families being "inbred" - it helps to look at what Royal Families were used for. Marrying your children off to other powerful Royal Families is diplomacy - forging alliances and relations between nations. Most won't have had nearly any say in whom they marry, they're paired off for the greater good of their nation - effectively arranged marriages. Blood lines will therefore cross at various points in time, with the Habsburgs being perhaps the most prominent

 

[Red7227]

Being photographed was a daily event for her, and whilst the paparazzi are invasive and ignore privacy - the actions which resulted in death are on the driver and occupants alone. They could have driven slower, safer and with a sober driver and just been photographed. It was idiocy to do what happened.

I've always thought that is why tinted windows were invented.

 

[CallMeWilliam]

Even with the context the fact that he was driving while drunk is idiotic enough don't you think?

Yes I do and I also believe that if a drunk driver kills someone they should receive the death penalty.

I was referring to the context of why he was driving dangerously; no paparazzi = no speeding plain and simple.

 

[CallMeWilliam]

"Escaping the Paparazzi" by driving at high speeds is idiocy.

Have you have never experienced someone following you around at all hours of the day documenting your every breath with photos then seeing them in a public forum, invading your privacy by sneaking onto your property, constantly showing up at places you go, talking to neighbours’ about your daily routine, bothering your friends and family and having the authorities say "there is nothing we can do about it"?

Oh yes and this goes on for 7 days a week 365 days a year.

So until then you have no clue what all that does to a person and what "idiotic" things they will do to get a sense of peace for just 30 minutes of the day without worrying about it.

:twocents-02cents:

 

[SoTxBob]

Perhaps a bit harsh, but I've always been in favor of macing those that refuse to leave me alone. Also watched a guy spray some protectant oil like LPS3 on some news hounds that kept sticking cameras in his face. Worked quite well. The stuff is a bitch to get off of glass. To me its simple, you assault me with your cameras and don't leave me alone when asked, there will be a point that there will be a reaction.
Those of us that don't have the "celebrity" status can not fathom the feeling of intrusion that they go through. At least Calif is considering some stricter pap laws so hopefully other places will follow in kind.

 

[mynameisbob84]

My fovorite piece of standup, and its about the reaction to the Death of Diana! Stick with it, its worth it!

Ah fookin love Stewart Lee :-D He's still the only stand up comedian I've bothered to see live (and he was by far the best!).

 

[Zoomer]

Oh yes and this goes on for 7 days a week 365 days a year.

So until then you have no clue what all that does to a person and what "idiotic" things they will do to get a sense of peace for just 30 minutes of the day without worrying about it.

:twocents-02cents:

But there are thousands of people who do live their lives followed by photographers and being pictured every day - yet they're not all dying in car crashes.

But back to the original topic... a coincidence doesn't mean a link.

 

[Alexandra Cole]

Ah fookin love Stewart Lee :-D He's still the only stand up comedian I've bothered to see live (and he was by far the best!).

Stewart Lee's great. Marc Maron did a really interesting interview with him a while back. (Here's the podcast YouTube-ified: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLED15011DB5A5AC2F.)

 

[Poker_Babe]

But back to the original topic... a coincidence doesn't mean a link.

I actually wasn't trying to say that their deaths were linked. I was just commenting on it being an eerie coincidence.
But, I am of the opinion that Diana was most likely murdered on orders from the queen. Has anyone seen the movie The Queen, with Helen Mirren? That movie pretty much vilifies Diana. It just sickened me to see how this movie tried to portray her as some shameless ungrateful spoiled brat. I mean really??? Diana??? Come on, she hung out with saints, literally...

That movie almost seems like "damage control" to me.

And why did it take an hour and 43 minutes for Princess Diana's ambulance to leave for the hospital? What about the note that she wrote to her butler saying that Charles was planing to have her killed by making it look like a car accident?
Just saying.

 

[Nordling]

lol Mother Teresa was no Saint. She was kind of awful in a lot of ways, although most of it didn't come out until after her death. There was a push for sainthood right after she died but when it came out that she had intimated to some of her underlings that she was a quasi-atheist, the road to sainthood kind of dried up.

Not that that reflects on the Princess of course. I figure she was a very nice lady but out of her element. Yeah, the queen may have disapproved of a lot of Diana's activities but I seriously doubt any of it was to the level of conspiracy to murder. Hell, if the queen was that horrid, you'd think she'd have had Charles murdered just for his goofy ears.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2003/10/mommie_dearest.html

 

[Poker_Babe]

lol Mother Teresa was no Saint. She was kind of awful in a lot of ways, although most of it didn't come out until after her death. There was a push for sainthood right after she died but when it came out that she had intimated to some of her underlings that she was a quasi-atheist, the road to sainthood kind of dried up.

Not that that reflects on the Princess of course. I figure she was a very nice lady but out of her element. Yeah, the queen may have disapproved of a lot of Diana's activities but I seriously doubt any of it was to the level of conspiracy to murder. Hell, if the queen was that horrid, you'd think she'd have had Charles murdered just for his goofy ears.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2003/10/mommie_dearest.html

I thought that mother Theresa was made a saint??? If not, my mistake. I really haven't done any research on Theresa to tell you the truth.

But, I am of the opinion that Diana was most likely murdered on orders from the queen.

Also, I should actually rephrase this statement. I believe that she was most likely murdered on orders from someone in the royal family. There is definitely evidence to be suspicious if nothing else. Not to mention motive, at least on Charles' part. He wouldn't be able to get married to Camilla and still remain an heir to the thrown unless Diana was dead. And let us not forget, Diana did say that Charles was planning her murder by making it look like a car accident. And we really can't deny that if the Queen wanted to have someone assassinated, it's well within her means of power to do so. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts, absolutely!

Here's a list of all the countries she currently has power over:
Antigua and Barbuda
Australia
The Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Canada
Grenada
Jamaica
New Zealand
Papua New Guinea
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Solomon Islands
Tuvalu
United Kingdom

 

[Nordling]

Yeah, it's been 15 years now, and so far Mother Teresa has only been beatified...which is like the first step.

Are you sure Charles couldn't remarry if he and Diana divorced? After all, wasn't that why Henry VIII started the Church of England in the first place?

 

[Poker_Babe]

He can divorce, but he can't remarry unless Diana was dead. That's why Elizabeth II's uncle Edward (who was the King) abdicated, because he wanted to remarry. Therefore making his brother the new King, and Elizabeth heir to the thrown.

 

[Nordling]

He can divorce, but he can't remarry unless Diana was dead. That's why Elizabeth II's uncle Edward (who was the King) abdicated, because he wanted to remarry. Therefore making his brother the new King, and Elizabeth heir to the thrown.

True, he abdicated because of the scandal of marrying a divorced commoner (and American!), Wallis Simpson. But it wasn't a legal matter so much as just about all the royals AND the public were wagging their united fingers at him, so rather than cause any more turmoil, he abdicated.

 

[Poker_Babe]

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that it was a legality as well. I just can't quite remember the source. I'm thinking it may have been wikipedia but I'm not 100% certain on that.

Oh, and Henry VIII started the Church of England because the Pope wouldn't grant him an annulment. So he made himself Head of the Church of England and granted himself the annulment by saying that he and Katherine of Aragon where never legally married in the first place.
His supposed proof was the fact that she never gave birth to a son. Henry said this was God's way of showing that He was angry with him for marrying his older brother's widow.

 

[Poker_Babe]

Oh and if anyone is interested...
Here's a couple of links to more things related to the Monarchy:

My Monarch History blog on tumblr

My Youtube playlist of Monarch related videos

 

[Nordling]

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that it was a legality as well. I just can't quite remember the source. I'm thinking it may have been wikipedia but I'm not 100% certain on that.

Oh, and Henry VIII started the Church of England because the Pope wouldn't grant him an annulment. So he made himself Head of the Church of England and granted himself the annulment by saying that he and Katherine of Aragon where never legally married in the first place.
His supposed proof was the fact that she never gave birth to a son. Henry said this was God's way of showing that He was angry with him for marrying his older brother's widow.

Well, they did worry about a "constitutional crisis" even though Britain doesn't have an official constitution like the US. Primarily the problem with Wallis Simpson was the fact that she herself had TWO, living, ex-husbands. The whole thing was just too much for the conservative old royals. lol

Yeah, but really, the whole concept of annulment is just semantics. I call an annulment, when it's a legal entity a "True Divorce." lol Kind of a "True Private." Honestly, I don't claim to understand the British monarchy, strikes me that it's laws within laws and laws for one class and not another and all very confusing.

But back to the conspiracy theory? Even though Diana may have been out of favor, having her as the mother of future kings and living, had to be preferred to Charles marrying a woman who all the royals seemed to dislike...well, if the tabloids were to be believed. I just can't see where enough gain would be made by murdering Diana to justify it--even if we concede that the Queen and her inner circle are pure evil, which I doubt.

 

[Teagan]

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that it was a legality as well. I just can't quite remember the source. I'm thinking it may have been wikipedia but I'm not 100% certain on that.

Oh, and Henry VIII started the Church of England because the Pope wouldn't grant him an annulment. So he made himself Head of the Church of England and granted himself the annulment by saying that he and Katherine of Aragon where never legally married in the first place.
His supposed proof was the fact that she never gave birth to a son. Henry said this was God's way of showing that He was angry with him for marrying his older brother's widow.

He could legally remarry anyone he wanted. But as far as being a royal and remarrying a divorcee it couldnt be done at the time. Had he of not left willingly he would have been pushed out. And he didnt want to shame himself and his family in taking it that far.

Youre right about Henry starting the new Church for the sake of getting an annulment to marry Anne. His basis however was that the marriage to Katherine wasnt true as she had been misrepresented as far as still being a virgin even after being married to his own brother. (Yup Henry married her after his brother did and then died. He had no choice however.) His claim was she did have sex and was no longer virginal so therefore the marriage should be forgiven and dissolved.
As far as all the places the Queen rules over thats not really true. Yes shes the reigning Monarch however she has no real power. England saw to that long ago. Royals now are just basically Museum pieces to be brought out and looked at really. I will say though if she wanted someone dead she could do it probably. With her connections it is possible.
As far as why it took so long for the ambulance to leave its been very explained and in pictures as well the traffic was horrendous. They got to her and were working on her at the scene. But it was pretty much to late already. They packed her up while still attempting anything but couldnt go anywhere really. Photogs and people were every where. It was a Princess there. There was already no hurry though as she was already dead. But they dont pronounce you till youre at a hospital anyway.

 

[Poker_Babe]

Youre right about Henry starting the new Church for the sake of getting an annulment to marry Anne. His basis however was that the marriage to Katherine wasnt true as she had been misrepresented as far as still being a virgin even after being married to his own brother. (Yup Henry married her after his brother did and then died. He had no choice however.) His claim was she did have sex and was no longer virginal so therefore the marriage should be forgiven and dissolved

That's correct, and the supposed proof that Katherine wasn't a virgin, therefore making God unhappy with their relationship, was that he never had a son with her (that lived). She actually did give birth to some sons, but they either died right after birth or were still born.

 

[Zoomer]

Anyone could get anyone whacked.... it just requires money and someone with zero morals.

The Queen really does have no power per se, only in a ceremonial role in reality.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Queen ... ament.aspx

However, it is much more fun to think she's a kick ass old granny who takes no shit, and definitely no prisoners.

In reality, she's an 86 year old lady who isn't allowed to retire or take it easy. Instead, for the good of the nation, she works more days per year than I do, travels the breadth of the world (given her age this is remarkable) and meets and greets people all over. All the time she must remain polite, cordial and without tantrums.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ge-84.html
(disclaimer, I think the Daily Mail is a vile paper).

She doesn't get to live life whatsoever, not truly - her days are planned out and she dutifully attends - with her doting husband at her side. Of course, I hope she thoroughly enjoys what she does, but at 86 I think I'd personally be wishing to slow down somewhat

I honestly don't believe she had anything to do with (nor would wish) Diana's death, and definitely not Prince Philip - nor would he have stood by whilst anyone did. He's portrayed badly by the media, but he's got a wit which is often misrepresented to make him seem stupid, out of touch, or a buffoon. He's making light hearted comments - just like my Grandfather did.

Diana was no saint, she wasn't evil by any stretch of the imagination, but she had many affairs and manipulated the media beautifully. Gifted at PR. Having said that, she also used her position and media coverage to do great good - bringing awareness to areas and plights that were, at the time, wholly ignored by everyone.

 

[DahliaDee]

Here's a list of all the countries she currently has power over:
Antigua and Barbuda
Australia
The Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Canada
Grenada
Jamaica
New Zealand
Papua New Guinea
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Solomon Islands
Tuvalu
United Kingdom

Actually, as someone mentioned, the queen has NO power over Canada. We're a free country and even our own government doesn't have much control over us, lol.
But the queen means pretty much jack shit to us - she's just the old bat on our money.

 

[Teagan]

I agree Zoomer. Id want to retire at some point and if youre royal that never happens. You work till you die. I actually dont look up to them in any way, i pity them. Most did not ask for it and are born in, but yet they still have to live that life of always bein proper and if they make a mistake they pay dearly for it for years.