JapanForum.com - Uk Royal Wedding.

JapanForum.com (https://www.japanforum.com/forum/)

- General Discussion (https://www.japanforum.com/forum/general-discussion/)

- - Uk Royal Wedding. (https://www.japanforum.com/forum/general-discussion/37118-uk-royal-wedding.html)

re the paparazzi-- well certain newspapers of course and those who read them.

I never bought any of the tabloids-------

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobinMask (Post 863804)

What happened to Diana was a true tragedy, and she was a wondeful woman. That said, I don't think what happened to her will happen to Kate . . . Diana didn't really act as a royal should and when she came out to the world about her eating disorders and things it - obviously - gave the press a lot to go on and use, because for a royal to speak so openly and personally is very inappropriate, the royals value their privacy and so to go onto national/worldwide TV and confess such private things . . . it was like she was asking for attention in a way. What she did was fantastic in allowing people with disorders like she had in finding confidence and seeking help, but at the same time - as a royal - she shouldn't have been coming out with such things.

It wasn't just that, either. I think the divorce was also a huge issue that caused her to be hounded, because - again - it just isn't "done", or at least it isn't expected, and then the accusations of affairs and her new "lover" and so forth . . . Yes, the paparazzi were a major cause of her death, but who fed them and constantly interacted with them and gave them reason to follow her?

Kate - so far - seems a very mature woman who is highly familiar with royal protocol, and the fact that she didn't go running to the press when she broke up with William speaks volumes about her character. I think, so long as she continues in this vein, she'll escape all that Diana went through, mainly because she'll make far better and more informed choices.

My my. Diana was far from a wonderful woman. She was a woman who slept around because her husband slept around. They were as bad as each other. She was lovely to the press, and got sympathy from the press. That was all. Harry isn't even Charles' son for god sake.

She tried to play the Royal family, and ending up at the bottom of a car wreck because of it.

I have doubts about Kate, mainly because I can't imagine her marrying William for love. She might have an inkling of love for him, but the prestige and the ability to become the next Queen is too much to push aside for anyone.

She's beautiful, I'll give her that. But of her thoughts and goals, I'm not sure.

I went into London on the day because I had heard there were going to be protests, and my curiosity piqued, I went to watch. There was real potential for chaos that day, and I wanted to watch to happen and unfold.

Unfortunately, people didn't show up, and my entertainment for the day was dashed to pieces. Luckily though, watching the throng of people follow each other like sheep took over as the next piece of entertainment. Extraordinary how the general public of the UK can be oblivious to most things. It's cute.

[quote=RobinMask;863928]

Quote:

I have to begin by asking what the proof is that Harry isn't Charles' son? I mean if it's true, fair enough, but rumours can be damaging - and are somewhat cruel - unless there's evidence, whether that person is royalty or not.

Pure evidence is unlikely with the Royal family. It's the royal family. Rumors, and physical evidence is all we have.

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/images/charlesharry.jpg

Just have a look at that. James Hewitt was with Diana at the time Harry was conceived. Harry looks more like Hewitt than Charles, has hair colour more like Hewitt's than Charles, and doesn't have a receding hairline (weak argument, but it's there.) Now have a look at Prince William and compare him to Harry and Charles. William and Harry look nothing alike.

Quote:

Anyway, I can understand your points. My view that Diana was 'wonderful' was more for what she did for the charities. I mean everyone makes mistakes - insofar as the affairs went - and I can't/won't justify those, but despite everything she always tried to help people in any way that she could. It's so rare for royals and celebrities and the rich to help the people, I can't name very many that actively try to help those who are worse off than they are, but I always admired her for her charity work and desire to help others. I also liked how she wasn't so class conscious or snobby, she treated and talked to everyone politely and respectfully, she seemed to treat everyone as an equal and not a 'subject'. She had an unhappy marraige, she may have had affairs, but - despite everything - she always looked out for other people.

Diana was disliked by the Royal family. All she had, were the people and media. I have little love for her, and think she used to media to try and get Britain on her side because of it. I have little love for the Royal family as a whole, mind you.

What someone acts likes, and thinks are two different things tbh.

Quote:

As for Kate . . . I think there is some love there. When they broke up she could have made millions selling her story to the press, she could have even had a bidding war, and yet she stayed loyal to him and kept quiet, and I don't think that kind of dedication/loyalty stems from greed, I think it's a genuine love, whether platonic or romantic, because anyone else would have taken the money and ran.

You make a good point, but I know I would just keep quiet if it meant I was to be a prince instead. Giving up a lesser greed for a bigger greed is something that can be easily accomplished.

Plus, she could sell her story later anyways.

Quote:

I actually pity the royals and upper classes, I don't think anyone with any sense or sanity would choose the 'prestige' or 'ability to become queen', not unless they were extremely naive and not all that bright. There's no freedom with being a monarch or royalty. Kate won't be able to work, won't be able to travel freely, won't be able to speak openly on certain matters, won't be able to wear certain things . . . her entire life for the remainder of this marraige is going to be trapped inside a palace being told what to do and where to go and when to do it. Her whole schedule is arranged for her, and - to me - that loss of freedom isn't worth all the money and jewels in the world. She'd either have to be extremely materialistic and shallow, or be very much in love. She's essentially sacrificed her entire life for William.

Bah, you will excuse me when I say this, but that's the talk of someone who isn't in the situation. I can assure you, 95% of the people that are given the chance, would take it.

I know I would.

just to go to london hoping for protests-- etc.

We have already had too many of those especially when certain others are bent on just smashing everything within reach--

We have protesters down in Brighton and they are a flaming nuisance-- causing mayhem and ruining genuine holiday seekers visit.

I know what people say about Harry-- but he has the stance and build of Prince Philip-- also his temperament. Its so easy to make aspersions but we do not actually know the truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogsbody70 (Post 863932)

We will never know the truth about the Royal family. Even Diana's death is a rumor still. Yet, it's obvious. Blindingly obvious.

Temperament and stance comes from growing up in different surroundings. They are not genetic. He has the same build as Hewitt, but he has more of Hewitt's looks than Charles'. Not to mention, the Royal family threatened Hewitt into warping the timeline he was with Diana, so as to seem Harry was conceived after their affair.

Protesters do cause mayhem and what not, but that's why it is interesting and piqued my curiosity. Chaos piques my interest. Especially on such a day as the Royal wedding, which was funded by our taxes.

children tend to resemble gr parents more than their immediate parents.

I feel certain that Harry takes after his gr father Philip.

SALVANAS

Bah, you will excuse me when I say this, but that's the talk of someone who isn't in the situation. I can assure you, 95% of the people that are given the chance, would take it.

I know I would.[/]

for goodness sake what on earth are you talking about. 95% of people would want to join the royalty-- How do you know that?

I wouldn't want their lives for all the tea in China. Money is not everything.

I disagree about temperament and stance also-- apart from having had lessons in deportment-- which anyone could have-- its hard to be someone you are not physically.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogsbody70 (Post 863940)

for goodness sake what on earth are you talking about. 95% of people would want to join the royalty-- How do you know that?

I wouldn't want their lives for all the tea in China. Money is not everything.

I disagree about temperament and stance also-- apart from having had lessons in deportment-- which anyone could have-- its hard to be someone you are not physically.

All one requires to do to see evidence of my claims, is to look at the royal wedding, and how people react to the Royal Family. People dress up like them, the women especially, mimicking their fashion and trying to look more upper class than they are. These people, if given a chance, would do it.

Not to mention, greed is a hard thing to over-look. We are human after all, it is built into all of us.

So you are telling me that the way someone stands, and temperament, is genetic?

My friend, I would have to say you are wrong there. It is not genetic. It might be that people can't change it, but that doesn't say that he is Charles' son anymore. Grandparents or no, it's still incorrect. Since it's not a genetic thing. So your argument for him being Charles' son because is his temperament and the way he stands, is invalid.

Edit: You'll have to excuse the quotations, it's getting muddled a bit.