The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Diana emotional revolutionary? Queen Elizabeth emotional wasteland? > Comments

Diana emotional revolutionary? Queen Elizabeth emotional wasteland? : Comments

By Helen Pringle, published 10/6/2005

Helen Pringle argues Queen Elizabeth is one of the few upholders of the value of reticence in public life and should be admired.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
One day there may be a plethora of books written about the present Queen of England, (probably when she is deceased). But something that may be overlooked is the fact that no 2 Commonwealth countries have ever been at war with each other, which in these times would be a definite plus. Maybe more countries should actually join the Commonwealth, and I’m particularly thinking of one country that has bombed about 20 other countries since the end of WW2.

So the rather traditional, and sometimes remote Queen Elizabeth may have achieved more than many people will give her credit for.

As far as being an “emotional revolutionary ” I would think Dianne was, but not always in a positive way. She had overly unrealistic and overly romantic notions about being a princess and becomeing a member of the royal family. She had her picture in more magazines than most people have had hot meals, and obviously played up to the press whenever possible. She hardly ever spoke a word, and I don’t know what she was ever involved in, other than having her picture taken while watching other people remove land mines. She eventually took everything she could from Prince Charles, and then ran around the country with all and sundry, which was not being a particularly good role model for her 2 sons
Posted by Timkins, Friday, 10 June 2005 11:08:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nice piece Helen.

The Queen is roughly that same age as my mother, through whom I can detect a number of the cultural groundings that may also have had a significant influence on the young Elizabeth. The most obvious of these is that she was a teenager at the outbreak of WWII, of itself a seriously life-changing experience. Six of their most emotionally formative years spent in fear of their life and the future of their country certainly had its impact on my parents, as I am sure it similarly affected the Queen.

She would also have closely observed her parents, who bore a tremendous responsibility - not for the conduct of the war itself, but as behavioural role models for their people. Their was little room in those years for heart-on-the-sleeve emotionalism, and a high value was placed on self-control.

It is hardly surprising that she has very different emotional standards from non-contemporaries, who are nonetheless happy to judge her through the lens of their own conflict-free, post-Woodstock life experiences.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 10 June 2005 12:12:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Helen

Thank your for an interesting, refreshing and balanced article. For me, there was validity in everything that you had to say. And you even demonstrated your "balance" by declaring what you do know and do not know.

I saw the Queen when I was a youngster at the Williamtown RAAF Base. She was pretty, gentle, and smiling - such were my memories as a "baby boomer"!

I am not a Royalist - nor am I a Republican. Having said that, I watched the second episode of "The Queen's Castle" on Wednesday night. I found the whole thing quite fascinating - even though the masses of wealth made my stomach churn. How people can live steeped in such rigid tradition and wealth is beyond me. But then, the Queen and Princess Diana would not be able to comprehend the paucity of my childhood in monetary terms - or the richness of my childhood grounded in the notion of a loving and struggling extended post WWII family.

I have no doubt that your article will re-ignite the Royalist/Republican debate - and that's probably a good thing given the current national and international climate in Australia.

My gut feeling is that both women were/are sad and angry with their respective husbands.

Cheers
Posted by kalweb, Friday, 10 June 2005 6:14:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kalweb,
Oh, I don’t think the husbands have much to do with it. As mentioned previously, there has never been a war between two Commonwealth countries, and considering the diversity and number of these countries, it is unlikely that this is coincidental. It is probably because of the influence of the Queen, and perhaps the Westminster system.

However the influence of the Queen has not been so effective with many of the women in her life, including Princess Margaret, Princess Anne, Princess Diana, the Duchess of York, and probably people like Margaret Thatcher. Why the Queen has not been able to more positively influence these women remains something of a mystery.
Posted by Timkins, Friday, 10 June 2005 11:04:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins - you always have something interesting to say. I hadn't thought of the point that you are making. I wonder if anyone else has [thought of it I mean]?

Cheers
Kay
PS: one of your few posts without rats 'n stats! (just joking!)
Posted by kalweb, Saturday, 11 June 2005 6:02:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, good point Timkins, she has hardly been a role model for any of the women surrounding her. And I would hate to have been Prince Charles or Di or Fergie or Margs. A formidable woman. It's better to be a Corgi or a steaming horse's neck. The fact is, she is a woman of great wealth and power thanks to a bastardry of birth but she has as much to do with running this country as my next door neighbour's dog (who isn't a corgi) As to whether she sheds a tear over Di, Madge or all the dead people in the royal family to try and make her human.... we all cry in private and I'm sure she does. That doesn't make her different. If she does, she;s human. I've always figured she was human, but doesn't deserve my curtsey. Beneath the bequeaths, the bequests and the adding to the obscene wealth, I'll save my curtseys for the likes of someone like Mandela.
Posted by Di, Saturday, 11 June 2005 8:36:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I just have to post my favourite Queen Lizzie joke here. Heritis -

The Australian Prime Minister, John Howard was in England meeting the Queen at Balmoral. They were discussing Australia and Howard's plans for the future.

Howard asked the queen if it was possible to turn Australia into a Kingdom to increase its force in the world market. The Queen replied, "One needs a King for a Kingdom and you are most certainly not a King."

He then asks if it is possible to turn Australia into an Empire. The Queen replies, "For an Empire one needs an Emperor you are most certainly not an Emperor."

Howard thinks for a moment and then asks if it is possible to turn Australia into a principality. The Queen replies, "For a principality one needs a Prince and you Mr. Howard are certainly not a prince."

The Queen adds further, "Without meaning to be rude Mr. Howard I think Australia should remain as a country."
Posted by Rainier, Saturday, 11 June 2005 8:54:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rainier,
Don’t quite understand the joke. Personally I can’t see why Australia should not become a republic, but I can see good reasons why Australia should be in the Commonwealth, because of the lack of conflict between the Commonwealth countries (which combined have about 30% of the world’s population).

This must be one of the greatest diplomatic successes in the modern world, in contrast to one other non-Commonwealth country that was once closely associated with Britain, but now spends more on its armed forces then the next 26 countries combined, and has bombed more countries than most people can remember.

I attribute this lack of conflict between the Commonwealth countries to the influence of the Queen and the Westminster system. As a part of this the Queen would not be able to display much bias (or emotion) towards any one country within the Commonwealth, but treat all Commonwealth countries on an equal footing. Some others in the royal family have done almost nothing for others, although they have been in the press on innumerable occasions, but normally reporting on their own (and often traumatic) personal lives, and not much else.

However what is your opinion for the reasons for this lack of conflict between the Commonwealth countries, and could it be extended to other countries.
Posted by Timkins, Sunday, 12 June 2005 7:46:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins, I appreciate your honesty at admitting you don't get rainier's joke. I'll provide a hint

C yoU Next Tuesday (please let this one by Graham)

As for the queen - wouldn't want her job or her money.

Another interesting article Helen - keep 'em coming.

Cheers dears
Posted by Ringtail, Sunday, 12 June 2005 1:43:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Umm, is it not allowed to create a new post? And does a user have to comment on a particular article?
Posted by freja, Sunday, 12 June 2005 5:17:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ringtail,
I’m fully aware of Rainier’s joke. There is a whole series of them, but I’m more interested in how the Commonwealth countries have avoided conflict (between each other at least). In this regard, the Commonwealth of countries have been much more successful than say the UN, or even the EU.

The Queen has been a primary facilitator and diplomat within the Commonwealth, and as an academic, Rainier could more fully analyse the Queen’s role and the methods she has used, and provide an opinion, instead of providing rather old jokes about it
Posted by Timkins, Sunday, 12 June 2005 8:22:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Queen has certainly been a stabilising influence in the nations of the Commonwealth, as her position is not appointment by popular opinion. Popular opinion would probably have preferred Diana.

Appointments by popular opinion displease half the population who do not prefer the elected President eg George Bush USA. A head of state that does not fire the emotions with passions of support, or passions of displeasure for being on the opposite side of politics will give a more stable system of Government. I am not sure how we could have a better system than we already have under the sovereign head of Australia, representing the interests of all people independent of politics against despotic rulers and opressive laws.
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 12 June 2005 9:10:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Apologies, but this thread brings to mind yet another joke, which quite appropriately involves (at least in some versions) that arch royalist and late knight of the realm, Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen (at least in the version that I originally heard, in NQ in the early 80s).

Without going into too much detail, the joke ends with Joh (or substitute any other Country Party MP of the day) saying to an audience:

"I'm a Country Member"

To which a wag in the crowd responds:

"Yeah, we remember!".
Posted by garra, Sunday, 12 June 2005 9:36:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Garra,

I think the wit was Gough Whitlam.

Freja,

Yes, you do have to comment on the articles - it's like a blog. We will have a free-posting bulletin board sometime, when we can find the time to programme it. Thanks for your input, and I hope as the site develops it will meet all your needs and then some.
Posted by GrahamY, Sunday, 12 June 2005 9:58:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Graham - you are of course correct. I had always thought that Gough's inclusion in the yarn was apocryphal, but it certainly accords with my memory. Ah, the good old days...
Posted by garra, Monday, 13 June 2005 8:27:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins, the queen isn't exactly known for her sense of humour either.
;-)
Posted by Ringtail, Monday, 13 June 2005 11:06:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In defence of Her Majesty - according to photographs taken last year by the Daily Mirror spy, she eats alone with a 2-bar heater and her cornflakes in Tupperware on the table. She is reliable and diligent. The jewels are not hers. She must be very lonely.
The Real Enemy in that family was Mountbatten. He plonked Philip onto Elizabeth at her most impressionable, and he was solely responsible for preventing Charles from being with Camilla back at the start of their love. What a hypocrite to insist Charles had to have a pure girl instead of Camilla. Mountbatten and his wife both 'put themselves about' most royally in the loose sex stakes.
I am sure our Queen has deep passion, and privately with her late sister, there was a great deal of joking and singing. Give her a break.
Posted by Brownie, Monday, 13 June 2005 6:49:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brownie, just had to take my tiara off and wipe the tears from my eyes with my jewel encrusted kleenex. another dysfunctional family that aren't happy with stuffing up only their own lives. Two much inbreeding with the mad Germanic branch of the family is no excuse for her to prefer Tupperware over Royal Doulton. I suppose the gilt on the carriages is Dulux Spray "Gold sheen"? let's free up some of the obscene wealth stashed in the vaults back to the people. Loved the jokes by the way. What IS the value of reticence as a way of life by the way? Only to let us plebs know what "annus horribilus" actually meant? When we all knew she'd had a bummer of a year!
Posted by Di, Monday, 13 June 2005 7:09:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok, Ok, so in these times of rampant neo-conservatism and neo-liberal economic policies, the Queen of Australia appears as a nice old lady. Well, no doubt she is, but all this stuff about Commonwealth countries not fighting is a bit surreal. Perhaps that is because generally speaking they are too busy forming alliances to fight some non-Commonwealth country.

I agree that as far as the royals are concerned, the Queen is the pick of the bunch. The rest seem to me, from a distance, to be basket cases. Nevertheless, if she was a really good role model, she could order the Australian government to give the Aboriginal people their land back (held in her name) and advise the Governer-General to apologize on her behalf, for the misery caused to these people in the name of her family.
Posted by machiavelli, Tuesday, 14 June 2005 12:23:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am not sure if ex commonwealth countries fighting each other counts. India v Pakistan. Or whether wars in Empire phase counts.Or whether it pure superstitious behaviour to attribute lack of war to membership of commonwealth or perhaps an accident of geography
Posted by Richard, Tuesday, 14 June 2005 12:19:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I always find it amusing when someone suggests that we should become a republic because the royal family is so rich. If we had to elect a president, no doubt we would end up with some dirt-poor battler like George W. Bush.

At the rate it is going, the Commonwealth is well on its way to irrelevance. Any group that takes years to decide whether or not Mugabe is a dictator is clearly in trouble.

I would, however, like to see the core Commonwealth countries moving closer together. I find it rather bizarre that the UK blunders along in its clearly dysfunctional relationship with the EU instead of working with countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand that share its basic culture, values and institutions - and (just for added convenience) a monarch .
Posted by Ian, Tuesday, 14 June 2005 1:17:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a pity that the Queen has dignity--undignified people such as the late Princess of Wales are so much easier to get rid of--George IV certainly found that to be the case.
Posted by JB1, Tuesday, 14 June 2005 7:25:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ian, i hardly think George Dubya comes from trailer park trash (he's hardly a po' lil' old white boy) We're not comparing monarchists with capitalist. No system is perfect, neither is the queen, or any African "democratically elected" president. Or Bush for that matter. It ain't the individual, it's the system. My bugbear is that if one is born to the manor, one has no choice but to push the system for one's own good and survival.

Comparing the Queen and Diana is not the issue. She wasn't about to change things other than her own life. The monarchy was (and still is) bigger than her. I think it's all about what is relevant in the 21st century. There are more options than if we are not a monarchy, we must therefore be a dictatorship or an American suburb. The Westminster system has some good things that Aust should retain, but also tweak, but to take this family along for the freebies is just beyond me. What do they do well except scandal and corgis?
Posted by Di, Tuesday, 14 June 2005 8:41:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Di, I think Ian was being sardonic / ironic - we all know about the Texas wealth of the family of the former head of the CIA.
I get so irritated with that chant 'the Queen is NOT Australian'.
If you want an Australian Head of State it has to be Pat O'Shane over Petro Georgio; Aden Ridgeway over Carlo Carli. I am still humming the melody of 'we are one, we ar Australian.." that VERY COSTLY campaign to make us embrace allcomers, but apparently not Her Maj. I think malcolm Turnbull and his ilk should be charged with treason.
Posted by Brownie, Tuesday, 14 June 2005 9:08:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Brownie, for the sardonic check. Re heads of Australia, there are a few that I think should be on a platter. But considering your wish list, we may as well go King Edward Maguire or Crown Prince Shanus Warnus (now that he has a head of hair fit for a crown thanks to Advanced Hair Studio) How about Queen Kylie or Princess Nicole. No Idea would lurve that. Please tell me you're not contemplating Prince Phone Rusty Crowe!
Posted by Di, Tuesday, 14 June 2005 9:31:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Diana... emotional revolutionary. HAHAHHAHAHA

Methinks Diana was

1. chained to the fairytale of the cindarella complex when she married a prince with a long history of womanising, thinking that it would all be peaches and cream, glass slippers and carriages
2. a self pitying fool who had no concept of personal accountability
3. a great media manipulator with her pouting face and puppy dog eyes
4. a fool who played the media that turned around an bit her on her bulemic bum
5. a naval gazing fool who spent her days validating her weak victim mentality
6. immature and self serving twit who couldn't let go of a royal title and priviledge AFTER she divorced the royal family who enabled that title.
7. an ineffectual aristocrat, not quite of the arm chair variety, but more of the podium parading, fashionable charity, picture opportunity, empty nobilitity of raising awarness type.

All in all, she was no Queen of England. The Queen has composure, integrity, humility and above all else exudes STRENGTH of character. She is not a sloppy publicity addicted emotional manipulator.
Posted by trade215, Thursday, 16 June 2005 11:02:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poor Diana, married off like a brood mare at 19 to a much older man who never loved her but married her out of duty because she was the only virgin he'd met he could imagine having sex with. No wonder she was emotional and immature, what other chance did she have?
She was just a good looking, rather ordinary young woman who made the most of the awful situation her parents and family (her brother-in-law is one of the top aides in the Palace) cynically pushed her into.
But to return to the Queen (who I agree is admirable) and her ancestor Queen Victoria who she was compared to in this excellent article. Queen Victoria actually had much more in common with Diana. Far from being unemotional, Queen Vic was obsessed with her husband Albert to the extent that, when he died, she plunged herself and the court into ostentatious mourning that did not end until she died, almost 40 years later. Queen Victoria only appears reticent because of the lack of mass media during her reign. Queen Elizabeth actually is reticent, and dignified and, to my mind, sad.
Posted by enaj, Wednesday, 22 June 2005 3:38:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting post Enaj and comparison. Having seen Mrs Brown with the awesome combo of Billy Connolly and Judi Dench, where Queen Vic transferred her love onto Mr Brown as a substitute for her dead hubby, yes, very Diana in its obsessive emotion. The lack of media let her get away with it re the outside world but not the upstairs/downstairs world where gossip really does reign. (let's face it, they're the ones selling the stories these days, otherwise why would you be a nanny to Posh and Beck?) I find the whole family these days, rather sad, Lizzie doesn't score any points with me whether she's eating her dinner out of Tupperware or lavishly living it up a'la dear departed Princess Margaret. At least Madge had some good times to take to her grave.
Posted by Di, Thursday, 23 June 2005 10:32:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hey guys,
very interesting reading here. cool opinions.

im from the UK and have specific views of the monarchy and the Queen and Diana, i was just wondering have your views changed after the recent OScar winning film "The Queen" what did you think about diana and the queen? whether the way they were portrayed, (mainly the queen) was exactly the way you imagine them to be in real real life?
Posted by Indian_Queen, Friday, 20 April 2007 6:43:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy