Prank phone call

So, has-been Morrisey thinks Kate was in hospital probably for some no good reason? Will somebody please buy him a ticket for the next cruise on the Oriana?

I would not have the Queen's job despite all the privilege and money but like Greatnan says they do give pleasure to a lot of people.

I remember when I was a small child the Queen visited Bristol. A kind man lifted me onto his shoulders (this was a time a man could help a child without being looked at with suspicion) so I could see. At that time I had a mass of blonde curls and looked very like Princess Anne. The car carrying the Queen stopped right next to where I was, the Queen looked straight at me and gave a huge beaming smile - I like to think I reminded her of her daughter.

I would be unhappy with Charles as King, his treatment of Diana and his cowardice in not marrying Camilla when he first knew her don't inspire confidence. I think he should step aside and let William take over once the Queen is no longer with us. William and Harry are well liked in the country, much more than their father.

I've not been following this thread for a while but I'm rather dismayed that anyone should tell someone else to leave a forum.

If you can't stand the heat then leave the kitchen?

Reading the news today it would seem that that there may have been individuals at the hospital who might have contributed to this poor nurse's sense of shame. By staff rather than management. Unkind words can have a profound impact, can't they?

'there's one thing for sure I will not be bullied by a bunch if granny's.'

I don't think I like hearing the many highly intelligent and kind hearted members of Gransnet referred to in this way. If gillybob really views us in that way, perhaps she would happier on a different forum.

Princess Anne carries out some 500 public engagements a year - many of them must be excruciatingly boring but they do give pleasure to the people involved. Diana single-handedly changed the public perception of Aid/HIV.

I didn't like the way Diana was used by Charles. I think the Queen was most concerned to support her bereaved grandsons. She appears to have a good sense of humour and she certainly did not ask for the role.
Most people dislike the idea of the extended family (Gloucesters, Kents) getting any financial support from the UK tax payers, and I am not sure that they do any more. Wasn't the Civil List drastically pruned?
It is very difficult for any of the Queen's children to have a 'proper' job as they are seen as trading on their position to gain advantage. Viscount Linley has a successful furniture-making company, but no doubt some people use it simply because he is the Queen's nephew. Andrew served in the Falklands War and Harry has served in Afghanistan.

I think Tony Blair cynically exploited Diana's death for his own aggrandisement. Apparently he wanted some role in the Queen Mother's funeral rites - why, for heavens' sake?

The Royals did not ask for their positions and no doubt many of them would much prefer to be left alone to live an ordinary, if wealthy, life. I don't know any of them personally, but I think most of them do their best to give good service in the roles allotted to them. I would not curtsy if I met any of them, nor would I cross the street to see them pass, but I know meeting them, even fleetingly, does give a great deal of pleasure to many people.

I am not royalist, but definitely don't fancy a presidential system and doubt whether it is any cheaper! I am happy to settle for what we have - it does me no harm and brings pleasure to lots of people.

And I have a sneaking admiration for the queen - she did not choose the job and, while it has plenty of perks, it is an arduous one which she performs with a sense of duty that one can only admire, especially at her age.

phoenix Silly billy! Of course your opinion counts.

bluebell , I don't think gillybob has actually -left- , she has just left this particular thread, which in my opinion is the right thing to do.

(Not that my opinion counts for anything, before anyone says so!)

Well what has amazed me is that some people can't differentiate between a system and the people who comprise it - the queen may be lovely - it doesn't make the concept of inherited privilege lovely. Where else in our lives would we accept someone in a position because they were the born into it? And of course Charles interferes - look at that FOI request that the Govt refused about his letters and don't get me started on his influence with homeopathy - he's an idiot and the system which will make him king even more so! Supreme Governor of the C of E - yes right what a role model with his marital record. I despair!! Sorry I was AWOL gillybob (although you've left I think ) I've been working!

I have decided to move on from the thread jane . No hard feelings I promise and definitely no explanations necessary.

gillybob Gransnet does not have a 'quote' facility like some other forums do.
Cutting and pasting is simply a means of drawing attention to the parts of someone's post you are commenting on., and making yourself clear.
I intended no malice and I don't know why you seem to feel bullied.

harrigran Except for my opinions on the royals you know nothing at all about me that should warrant you referring to me as "bitter". To those I know, like, love and respect I am anything but bitter.

Also I am genuinely glad for you that you had lunch with the queen. If that is something that makes you happy. But all this bowing, scraping and courtesying to someone (just because of the family she was born into) is not for me.

Nelliemoser I thoroughly enjoyed being challenged actually whether it be in day to day life, general debate or learning something new. What I have read in some of these posts and indeed the tone, cutting and pasting of my every word, does not come across as challenging at all.

I don't have a strong opinion of the Royal Family. The concept of such privilege is to me quite odd. I do think gillybob is perfectly entitled to say whatever she feels, so is anyone else. What is bitter about not liking people who are basically bludgers. Plenty of others in the public eye have had sweeping statements made against them on GN, no one rushed into defend those people.

I'm not thrilled with the idea of Charles being king either. He strikes me as rather stupid and adept at interfering (or trying to) in politics – why else couldn't his letters to ministers and MPs be published? I've nothing personal against the royals – I don't know any of them personally – but I agree with those who think they are just, essentially, leeches. I'm happy to accept that some of them are good ambassadors for Britain – the queen in particular, and, I think, William and Kate. The rest could vanish off the face of the planet without it mattering to me one jot.

gillybob You have made some very speculative statements about what the Royal family may or may not have done in this situation without any real evidence. That is not fair to anyone,even the privileged Royal family should not be subjected to that.
If you are making such provacative and unsubstantiated statments you must expect to be challenged.

Please do not complain when your statements are being challenged by calling it bullying!

gillybob you come across as a very bitter person. I dread to think what you have experienced that makes you dislike the royal family so. I have been to lunch with the Queen and I have been to the palace and I found her to be a very warm, intelligent person.

Rather an inflammatory choice of words!

Perhaps I have maybe I haven't merlotgran.

But there's one thing for sure I will not be bullied by a bunch if granny's.

Tomorrows DMail ( I know you all hate it) but I agree with most of what Morrisey says . Note the word MOST ( before you all jump downy throat).

Goodnight all . Sleep well

You've made your point, gillybob. Give it a rest.

Perhaps jane could help us out with the whole thread Ana

Yes Ana how very perceptive of you. I was not referring to how many times Bluebell had posted . More like * what* she posted.

You say you are not a royalist . I respect that. Fine. Neither am I as I am sure you have already worked out.

Perhaps if you'd read the whole of the thread, gillybob, you would have seen that bluebell has posted several times. I'm not a royalist, by the way, but I'm not a royalist basher either.

Blimey Bluebell Where have you been hiding? I have had the wrath of the royalists all day !

merlot I too agree that we seem to have sort of meandered from the original subject, but threads so often do that. I commented about this very thing on another thread that had gone from lavatories to lentils!

It may well be that the royal family are no less or more dysfunctional than other families (I'm NOT saying that they are, or that they are not) but even their "private" lives are definitely not private. A friend of mine has just divorced her third husband, but as she is not a "celeb" or royal, it hasn't made the news!

Some people choose to put themselves and their lives in the public domain, I'm thinking especially of those who know seem only to be famous for being famous, I'm sure you can think of quite a few, but the royal family didn't choose to, and often have to put up with intrusions (eg the Kate topless photos) that would have the rest of us running to the solicitors. Plus generally speaking they do not often have the right to reply.

For the record, I'm not an ardent royalist, just someone who tries to look at things from all angles.

(Even though I did spend the first two years of my first marriage living in Windsor Castle)

crimson, Wiping a tear from your eye is hardly crying publicly. Not by today's standards at least. And we seem to have gone full circle with this thread as two people having a bit of a dig at the Royals (having a laugh at their expense) resulted in the tragedy we started off discussing. So it's alright so long as nobody gets done for treason.