Poll: Royal Engagement

[Brian8bit]

I think the picture answers your question really.

No it doesn't. It's her walking down a dirt road beside a mine field. Now if she was walking through it with a metal detector... like the men and women are doing out in Afghanistan at the minute.

She was never in any danger when doing her mine bit. In fact, I think the only Royals who've ever been in any danger (however slight) are those that have actually served in the armed forces and seen combat.

Which is a damn sight more than any of our most recent slimy politicians or their kids have ever done. You think El President Blair would let his kid go to the front line of an illegal war he started? Hell no.

 

[Tefal]

will she be queen or some other title?

like the current queens husband isn't the king.

 

[Minxy]

And there are people you will never hear about who do tireless work for various charities.

Agreed! Unsung heros.

I don't mind famous faces using their names/reputations to increase awareness for charities but the whole "peoples princess" thing irritates me a bit.

 

[Amp34]

In December the Queen will be visiting an RAF base and a school according to her official engagements.

Amongst other things. I think she averages about 2-3 engagements a day. I'd hate her job, spending most of my time being driven to random places, making speeches and being on her best behaviour all day... She probably works more hours than you and she's way past retirement age....

I think the picture answers your question really.

Prove she's not in danger? Well the signs warning her not to step off the safe path would normally be the giveaway... Are you red/green colourblind and can't see them? Or not realise that they mark the edge of the safe/danger zone. At the time of the photo she is in no more danger than someone walking along a cliff path, which millions of people in the UK do yearly...

Having said that she did do a lot of stuff for good causes, doesn't mean she was a nice person to know. I could see her as a motivated, driven, slightly self centred person who had a great knack of manipulation. That would make her a bit of a ***** to know but great as a front for charity work (lots of positive media attention).

On a similar note, have a look up Mother Teresa, another dead woman who was/is idolised for her kindness, when in fact she could be far from it.

 

[lcg]

will she be queen or some other title?

like the current queens husband isn't the king.

She'll be Queen consort.

 

[Amp34]

I don't recall the queen walking in areas where land mines were present, please correct me if I am wrong.

Probably when she was younger (in a similar situation to that photo at least). You also need to remember the queen was a radio(?) operator during the second world war and the entire royal family stayed in Buckingham palace throughout the Blitz, staying there rather than moving to somewhere safer (which was requested by the government).

 

[^TANK^]

Prove she's not in danger? Well the signs warning her not to step off the safe path would normally be the giveaway... Are you red/green colourblind and can't see them? Or not realise that they mark the edge of the safe/danger zone.

No need to be a rude obnoxious ****.

What if she accidentally fell to her right over the non existent safety barrier? I think she may be in danger then!

 

[Danthus]

Do you honestly think that was a likely scenario?

 

[^TANK^]

Agreed! Unsung hero's.

I don't mind famous faces using their names/reputations to increase awareness for charities but the whole "peoples princess" thing irritates me a bit.

I completely agree with what you're saying I just don't think her memory should be **** on as she done more good than harm, no one is perfect, I just considered Diana more human than the rest of the royal family thats all.

 

[atpbx]

Too many choices for the people who dont care, it splits the vote, this poll so far shows the overwhelming majority dont give a flying ****.

 

[^TANK^]

Do you honestly think that was a likely scenario?

What have you done in comparison to her numerous involvement with charity work?

 

[Parsifal]

There's no reason to hate the monarchy other than jealousy.

 

[^TANK^]

Too many choices for the people who dont care, it splits the vote, this poll so far shows the overwhelming majority dont give a flying ****.

I cared about Pancake.

 

[Amp34]

No need to be a rude obnoxious ****.

What if she accidentally fell to her right over the non existent safety barrier? I think she may be in danger then!

I wasn't being one... Just wondering how you didn't realise she was in a safe zone.

Yes she could trip and fall the couple of foot into an area that may or may not have mines, and be unlucky enough to fall onto one of the widely dispersed mines (it's not like films, they aren't littered every foot, there's probaby only half a dozen in 100 square metres!) then she could be in trouble... But then, the bit you nicely cut I see, one of the millions that walk that far from an unbarriered cliff edge could trip as well, and would be far more likely to die. Millions of families do that for pleasure, which shows how unlikely that actually is.

TBH that's a perfect example of how some things seem risky. You're more likely to die in a car crash than a plane crash, but more people are afraid of planes. You're more likely to die from falling over a cliff yet stick a couple of red signs a similar distance away and it looks far more dangerous.

 

[Amp34]

I completely agree with what you're saying I just don't think her memory should be **** on as she done more good than harm, no one is perfect, I just considered Diana more human than the rest of the royal family thats all.

Ahh! It'll be those rose tinted glasses, why you can't see the signs! (That was a joke ).

I guess it depends on what your makeup is but not everything is black and white, you can admire what someone did, even if you think they were a right **** in person.

no one has problems with the fact Churchill was a womanising chavanist, chain smoking Alcaholic, yet we all admire what he achieved.

The world isn't all black and white, it's full of shades of grey.

 

[semi-pro waster]

In December the Queen will be visiting an RAF base and a school according to her official engagements.

I don't know, some people complain about when the Queen is just going around cutting ribbons and yet in months where she doesn't do it so much complain she isn't doing it enough - you'd think they'd be happy but no. Really, I expect if you give some people the moon on a stick it'll be the wrong kind of stick, it should be made of poplar rather than ash or something...

More seriously, that's not the extent of her duties though or do you consider it's only a duty if there's an official notice to say it is being done? Diplomacy or her work with her elected government don't necessarily get posted up as official engagements, nor I'm sure some of her charity work for the ~600 charities she is patron of but that doesn't mean the work isn't being done. I'm not a huge fan of the Monarchy in general but that doesn't mean they don't deserve a measure of respect, especially where they are doing a good job.

 

[No1newts]

There's no reason to hate the monarchy other than jealousy.

This is true.

I'm not dancing in the streets about the news, nor do I particularly care about the royals on a day to day basis but I respect the tradition they are and the benefit they bring to the country. People hate them merely because it is "cool" to do so or simple jealousy of how well off they are. They do a lot for charity and for the global image of this pretty average country. Most other countries with royalty, holland being the country I know most about having friends there, love their royal families and actively support them. I find it sad, yet unsurprising of the country today that our attitude is so poor to the royals.

Good on them and all the best to, probably, our future king and queen.

 

[Danthus]

There's no reason to hate the monarchy other than jealousy.

That isn't true though, you do not have to hate something just because you disagree with it.

None of them have earned the various positions they hold, look back through the history books and their eligibility is even more questionable.

 

[Brian8bit]

None of them have earned the various positions they hold, look back through the history books and their eligibility is even more questionable.

Elaborate?

 

[doofer]

I don't know, some people complain about when the Queen is just going around cutting ribbons and yet in months where she doesn't do it so much complain she isn't doing it enough - you'd think they'd be happy but no. Really, I expect if you give some people the moon on a stick it'll be the wrong kind of stick, it should be made of poplar rather than ash or something...

More seriously, that's not the extent of her duties though or do you consider it's only a duty if there's an official notice to say it is being done? Diplomacy or her work with her elected government don't necessarily get posted up as official engagements, nor I'm sure some of her charity work for the ~600 charities she is patron of but that doesn't mean the work isn't being done. I'm not a huge fan of the Monarchy in general but that doesn't mean they don't deserve a measure of respect, especially where they are doing a good job.

Well, according to Mark Bolland who was Deputy Private Secretary to the Prince of Wales 1997-2002 and was Prince Charles' Press Officer and will know a bit more than anyone blindly speculating how hard the Royals actually 'work' said:

The Windsors are very good at working three days a week, five months of a year and making it look as though they work hard