November 28, 2014, 12:14:31 AM

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 ... 10
1
My goodness, Daily Mail.. it's like you deliberately write headlines and news stories to obscure the facts.

"Tickets to event at Metropolitan Museum of Art will cost 64,000 for a table" Tables, it's revealed in a caption later, seat 10.

So a single ticket is, in fact, 6400, not 64000. Or, at current exchange rates, $10,000.

Well thanx for that, talk about a false headline. Can u post that in the DM comments just to push people off their high horses thinking these 2 garner so much attention. It seems that the $10000 is the standard for these dinners.
2
Was this a survey given to teenagers? William himself hasnt changed the world and his wife has done even less than him. And Diana doesn't deserve to be there either unless she is # 50. I dont believe Elizabeth II is a great world changer, living so long isn't something that puts u in the category of Margaret Thatcher; but Elizabeth I greatly changed the world and history. She runs circles around Diana and doesn't even acknowledge Kate. This list makes me a little ashamed to be female.
3
Well it has been a concern with the Imperial Family of Japan as not all of the Emperor's brothers and cousins were able to have children. More importantly  until Prince Hishato was born there were no boys born to anyone in the family after Prince Ashkino.

IMO if one of the heirs to throne had an illness or accident that could possibly affect their fertility, I do believe some discreet testing would have been performed.
but it wouldn't prove anyting. You can be fertile and not necessarily have children.  Of course nowadays there are techniques which can help if there are issues, but I don't believe that the British RF has ever done any of this "gynaecological testing" that has been alleged with Diana. Of course Charles wanted children, that is usualy expected in a royal marriage...
4
Utterly Ridiculous. She's above existentialist philosopher, political activist and social theorist Simone de Beauvoir (known for her 1949 treatise The Second Sex).  smh.
5
Coffee Klatch / Re: Happy Thanksgiving to Everyone in the US!
« Last post by TLLK on November 27, 2014, 10:37:22 PM »
Thank you Limabeany!!!!! The mad dash to get the family, food items and more packed  for the two hour trip to the San Diego area has begun!!!! We'll be eating today around  5pm and speaking to out of state family when we can. Please, please let the traffic gods smile upon us.

BTW President Obama has performed the traditional turkey pardon so this year's honorary birds Mac and Cheese will be headed off to a petting zoo or Mt. Vernon instead of the White House kitchen.  :thumbsup:
6
You're welcome, TLLK. :)
7
Curryong, those women should be added on the list too. They are important and deserve a lot of recognition.
8
Whatever your views on Diana, it's hard to defend that placement. 

Elizabeth I ruled for 45 years, bringing stability to the country after immense upheaval in the prior decades, solidifying the protestant church's position in England, presided over one of England's greatest military victories (against the Spanish), was notable among English monarchs of the time for her consultation and cooperation with government, and did all of that in a time when women were far less equal than they are today.  More than 400 years later, she remains a very well known figure in England and abroad, which speaks to how important and unique she was in her time.

Elizabeth II will in all likelihood become the longest reigning monarch in English history next year, presided over decolonization of much of the British empire, reshaped the monarchy for the modern age, has consulted with the British government on an enormous range of issues (including, early in her reign, actually appointing Prime Ministers on more than one occasion), and has been at the centre of a ton of important diplomatic efforts (as a recent example, her work to heal rifts with Ireland and particularly in relation to Northern Ireland/the IRA). 

Diana of course did some important and meaningful work in, for example, combating prejudice against HIV and drawing attention to landmines.  But I don't think it can seriously be claimed that she was more important or had a bigger impact than either of the Elizabeths, or a host of other women for that matter.

(As an aside:  I love this topic/discussion, but I second the suggestion to move it to a general board as this is no longer really about Kate.)
9
I didn't know that - I always thought it was a theory started by some obscure critics. Thanks for that correction and info, Adrienne and Macrobug!!  :cheer:
10
The whole thing is a JOKE Di before the two Elizabeths really?
Not everybody shares your views on Diana.
Pages: [1] 2 ... 10

Royal Insight Forum is not responsible for the content of external sites