Royalty Thread #7: Do They Get Frequent Flier Miles?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gazpacho

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,893
The bigger difference to me would have been with the Queen and the rest of the Royal Family. I think Diana's death really changed them.
Absolutely. I can't help but think that Kate's royal life would be miserable, if it even existed, had Diana not jolted the Royal Family into becoming more in touch with changes in society, feeling empathy, and being a kinder institution in general. I mean, Diana had to take a virginity test. Yeah that was a few decades ago, but it wasn't that long ago.

I'm not sure how things might have developed if she had lived. Assuming that Diana did have BPD, I would think that treatment options have improved. Also, she might have found satisfaction (or attention) in her charity work. I don't think she would have stayed static, any more than anyone else has.
Treatment options have improved, but getting someone with BPD to (1) get diagnosed and (2) get treatment remains difficult. Apparently, most people with BPD get better. Those who don't get better, however, tend to experience greater social dysfunction, more hospitalizations, and increased feelings of chronic emptiness (regardless of how full their lives may seem to outsiders).

Regardless of whether we assume that she had BPD, any statement of what her life would have been like in her forties and fifties is wild speculation.
As with all mental health treatments, some people can be treated more effectively than others. There are newer medications that have been effective for a larger percent of patients.

I'm not sure Diana could have been effectively treated, however. Mental illnesses were and are highly stigmatized, and I bet the stigma was particularly strong inside the Royal Family institution, which is much larger than just the family members. Given her role, would she have been able to take those medications with all their side effects (weight gain, fatigue, foggy mind, slurred speech, etc) without encountering public ridicule and criticism? Even if she could, I doubt she would have gotten better. That was about the worst environment possible for a mentally ill person. A therapeutic mental health environment involves privacy, the opportunity to express your negative feelings (crying, wanting to be alone, not wanting to go outside), and most importantly, trust. You need to trust that those around you support you, will protect your confidentiality, care about your well-being per se rather than for the sake of their own desires, their own image, or the image of the institutions they represent. You need to trust that they like the real flawed complicated you rather than the perfect public you, and they want to be with you because they like you as opposed to your status and popularity.

Diana had none of that. She had no privacy, had her trust betrayed, had a spouse and powerful in-law family that shunned and humiliated her, was bombarded with extreme opposite messages (You're the best! You're the worst! You were the best yesterday but today you're the worst and tomorrow you'll be the best again!), and was expected to always suppress her negative emotions. She could not trust anyone to keep things confidential. She could never know who was genuine, what words were genuine. She knew that as many supporters as she had, she had an equal number of haters--and neither group even knew her! She also knew that negative sensational news sells more than positive news, and when it comes to British tabloids, they follow the money.

Within the Royal Family institution, Diana spoke a different language. She was outwardly expressive and emotional whereas those around her used a secret code, honed from within over centuries, in which members say more with silence, shunning, oblique references, and backhanded compliments than with clear words.

As someone who has struggled with severe mental illness, I rue that when Diana is remembered, few people acknowledge the enormous pain she suffered from her mental illnesses. They gloss over that. She had to suffer in order for future royals to have a better experience, and she never lived to see that because it took her death to motivate those changes.

In a way, even after her death, people have chosen to ignore her cries for help.
 

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,701
Entire post
We were discussing whether she would have sought treatment and gotten better had she lived, i.e., after he divorce, rather than what would have happened earlier, while she was still married.

A person with Borderline Personality Disorder can cry for help, but unless she is willing to take some responsibility for herself and get help, there isn't much others can do. This is especially true when the disorder is undiagnosed and the people around her don't really know for sure what the problem is. And that seems to have been the case both while Diana was married and after she was divorced.
 

taf2002

Fluff up your tutu & dance away.....
Messages
23,441
Absolutely. I can't help but think that Kate's royal life would be miserable, if it even existed, had Diana not jolted the Royal Family into becoming more in touch with changes in society, feeling empathy, and being a kinder institution in general. I mean, Diana had to take a virginity test. Yeah that was a few decades ago, but it wasn't that long ago.
I only quoted your 1st paragraph because I really think it's speculation on your part to think Diana was the catalyst or even the main catalyst for change. After all, Kate is a much different person. She was not raised to be a figurehead, where your only value is public perception. Her marriage was not a morganic match, & she was clearly not a virgin or pretended to be. And William is not the wimp that Charles has always been. I do credit Diana for that.

BTW if Diana did submit to a virginity test, I blame Diana & the Spencers for that. They should have given a big F U to that idea. 1980 was not in the middle ages. If she had said no to the test what were the Windsors going to do? Test teen after teen until they found a virgin for Charles? BTW, I have always subscribed to the idea that the only man who "deserves" a virgin is a virgin himself. Otherwise he's just a hypocrite.
 

IceAlisa

discriminating and persnickety ballet aficionado
Messages
37,270
Not to divert the discussion, but why is a virgin is someone that one "deserves" vs. a sexually experienced woman?
 

PDilemma

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,650
I only quoted your 1st paragraph because I really think it's speculation on your part to think Diana was the catalyst or even the main catalyst for change. After all, Kate is a much different person. She was not raised to be a figurehead, where your only value is public perception. Her marriage was not a morganic match, & she was clearly not a virgin or pretended to be. And William is not the wimp that Charles has always been. I do credit Diana for that.

BTW if Diana did submit to a virginity test, I blame Diana & the Spencers for that. They should have given a big F U to that idea. 1980 was not in the middle ages. If she had said no to the test what were the Windsors going to do? Test teen after teen until they found a virgin for Charles? BTW, I have always subscribed to the idea that the only man who "deserves" a virgin is a virgin himself. Otherwise he's just a hypocrite.
The whole "virginity test" thing has been a persistent story for 30+ years yet there is not evidence that it actually happened. No reliable bio of Diana or any other member of the family that addresses those years has evidence to confirm that it happened or even claims that it did. No reliable source ever said it happened. The only documented discussion of her virginity was her uncle making an unfortunate statement to the press about her not having been around or some such euphemism.
 

cygnus

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,919
The whole "virginity test" thing has been a persistent story for 30+ years yet there is not evidence that it actually happened. No reliable bio of Diana or any other member of the family that addresses those years has evidence to confirm that it happened or even claims that it did. No reliable source ever said it happened. The only documented discussion of her virginity was her uncle making an unfortunate statement to the press about her not having been around or some such euphemism.
Exactly- the whole "virginity test" thing has been repeated so often it is believed to be true, but it didn't happen. (What the hell is a virginity test anyway?- the presence (or absence) of a hymen proves nothing) . Her uncle's statement was unfortunate- how much do any of OUR uncles know about our sex lives? Shudder.
 

Lorac

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,819
Not to divert the discussion, but why is a virgin is someone that one "deserves" vs. a sexually experienced woman?
I always assumed it was to ensure that there would be no 'kiss and tell' stories being sold to the tabloids re someone having known the future Queen in a carnal way (wow that sounds so Victorian doesn't it :D). The fear of photos etc. By Charles choosing (or having chosen for him) a young inexperience girl there was little chance of that. I'm fairly sure there wasn't a virginity test per say but you can be damn sure there was a fairly detailed background check done on Diana prior to the engagement and marriage.
 

PDilemma

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,650
I always assumed it was to ensure that there would be no 'kiss and tell' stories being sold to the tabloids re someone having known the future Queen in a carnal way (wow that sounds so Victorian doesn't it :D). The fear of photos etc. By Charles choosing (or having chosen for him) a young inexperience girl there was little chance of that. I'm fairly sure there wasn't a virginity test per say but you can be damn sure there was a fairly detailed background check done on Diana prior to the engagement and marriage.
The Spencers are a prominent titled family and were well know to the Queen and Prince Phillip. The family rented an estate at Sandringham from the Queen when Diana was a child and she played with Andrew and Edward. I doubt that much was done in the way of background checks. She was not a stranger to any of them by any means.
 

Lorac

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,819
The Spencers are a prominent titled family and were well know to the Queen and Prince Phillip. The family rented an estate at Sandringham from the Queen when Diana was a child and she played with Andrew and Edward. I doubt that much was done in the way of background checks. She was not a stranger to any of them by any means.
I am aware she was known to the Royal Family - probably why she was the chosen one. But I'm sure there were some checks done to ensure she hadn't had any liaisons whilst away at boarding school that could come back to haunt them after the wedding - the equivalent of a 'virginity' test :).
 

clairecloutier

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,742
So controversy is brewing that William & Kate are not working hard enough--at either their royal engagements or William's day job.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/23/is-prince-william-too-lazy-to-work.html
http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/572704/Prince-William-Duke-of-Cambridge-RAF-work-record-Kate-Middleton

What is everyone's take on this?

I'll be honest--I think they could be doing more. We know they have at least 1 nanny, plus household staff. I certainly understand them wanting to spend time with the kids, but it seems like they could easily fit in a few more royal appearances while still having a nice family life. I feel like William in particular would prefer to have as little media contact, press coverage, or publicity as possible. Which I understand on a personal level, but if you're going to enjoy the considerable perks of royalty, you do need to pay it back a little. Otherwise what is the point of having royalty at all.
 

skatesindreams

Well-Known Member
Messages
29,507
As the Queen and Prince Philip transfer some of their patronages and routine duties to others, I'm sure their assignments; and public profile will increase.
The process has already begun.

Of course, we have one more generation before they have "official" responsibilities, not given them by others.
 

AxelAnnie

Graceful men lift lovely girls in white!
Messages
11,582
Let's give these two people a break and the benefit of doubt. His life was ripped apart by his mother's insatiable craving of the limelight. Couple that with his father's hands off parenting style I applaud him for putting family first. He is trekking off to India and Burma soon. Geesh. As to Royal duties they are insanely popular.... Which must rankle his father and Camilla. I don't even know own why he has a job job. That just seems like so much nonsense.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,833
I'll be honest--I think they could be doing more. We know they have at least 1 nanny, plus household staff. I certainly understand them wanting to spend time with the kids, but it seems like they could easily fit in a few more royal appearances while still having a nice family life. I feel like William in particular would prefer to have as little media contact, press coverage, or publicity as possible. Which I understand on a personal level, but if you're going to enjoy the considerable perks of royalty, you do need to pay it back a little. Otherwise what is the point of having royalty at all.
Maybe he's wondering that very same thing.
He never asked for any of it and maybe the way things are now was/is one of his conditions. None of us has truly an idea if the perks really outweight the non-perks. I mean, they had to run the names of their children by the Queen first, for crying out loud.
As a child, I always wanted to be a princess, just like a lot of children do. Nowadays, I think I prefer being just me and being free to do whatever I want to do when I want to do it.
 

PDilemma

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,650
As the Queen and Prince Philip transfer some of their patronages and routine duties to others, I'm sure their assignments; and public profile will increase.
The process has already begun.

Of course, we have one more generation before they have "official" responsibilities, not given them by others.
I agree with this. Their duties will increase over time. A key point is that there is really no official role for William and Kate right now. He is second in line not first. As Prince of Wales, Charles has a more traditional and defined role. William on the other hand is in an odd position to be only the second in line at his age. Because of the Queen's longevity, Charles is now the oldest heir apparent to the British throne in history and William is in the unusual position of being an adult with a family while still second in line (and not second in line temporarily--his position can't be compared to Prince Andrew's prior to his birth for example). The last to be an adult and second in line was the future George V who was 35 when his father succeeded Victoria. Charles, by contrast, became heir apparent at about 3 1/2 years old.

I also think that William can't win. If he continues working, the press and some of the public will continue complaining that he is lazy for not doing enough royal duties. If he quits working, the press and some of the public will complain that he is too lazy to work a real job. He'd might as well just do what makes him happy and not mind it for the time being.
 

Spareoom

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,431
Yeah, let the dude be with his wife and kids. Soon enough, he will so busy that he won't be able to do that...might as well take advantage of it while you can. His father is almost 70 and the Queen is almost 90...realistically, he could be seeing his position promoted very soon. It also could be many years. He doesn't know, so might as well make memories and enjoy this time while it lasts.
 

Jenny

From the Bloc
Messages
20,909
Yeah, let the dude be with his wife and kids. Soon enough, he will so busy that he won't be able to do that...might as well take advantage of it while you can. His father is almost 70 and the Queen is almost 90...realistically, he could be seeing his position promoted very soon. It also could be many years. He doesn't know, so might as well make memories and enjoy this time while it lasts.
Given the high divorce rate in the family, perhaps the Queen/Charles/William/Kate all agree that a strong marriage and family will be very important for William, Kate and their children in the future. And it's not like they are not active in public life already with their charities and appearances for heaven's sake, as are all the members of the Royal Family.

Someone's always going to complain. :rolleyes:
 

Spareoom

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,431
No matter what, I think it's safe to predict that William will be King much, much younger than Charles will be...likely before all of his children are grown. That can really do a number on your family. I can see them making conscious effort to cherish the time they have because they not might have it much longer.
 

PDilemma

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,650
No matter what, I think it's safe to predict that William will be King much, much younger than Charles will be...likely before all of his children are grown. That can really do a number on your family. I can see them making conscious effort to cherish the time they have because they not might have it much longer.
I doubt it will be that soon. The Queen turns 90 this year and Phillip turns 95. If Charles has any health problems, they are not serious enough to be known. He could have the same longevity as his parents.
 

Spareoom

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,431
I dunno; I just don't get the "live long and prosper" vibe from Charles. But that's just me making a prediction; it's not based in fact or anything.
 

smurfy

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,819
The Queen is 89, Charles is 67 and William is 33.
With the Queen being 22 yrs older than Charles and William is 34 years younger than Charles- so just based on age - William would ascend the throne 12 years younger than his father if at the Charles lives to be the same age as the Queen.
Spareoom - I get what you say - to me Charles seems older than he is.
 

PDilemma

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,650
The Queen is 89, Charles is 67 and William is 33.
With the Queen being 22 yrs older than Charles and William is 34 years younger than Charles- so just based on age - William would ascend the throne 12 years younger than his father if at the Charles lives to be the same age as the Queen.
Spareoom - I get what you say - to me Charles seems older than he is.
If Charles lives to be the same age as the Queen, William will not have children at home (something specifically said by the poster I responded to) unless he has himself a very young subsequent wife by then. Catherine is actually a bit older than he is.

Charles looks relatively fit, has always been an outdoorsman and thus active, and is said to be very concerned with healthy food/nutrition. None of that indicates that he'll be dropping dead before Princess Charlotte goes to school or anything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top