I'm bored...let's play. [Archive]

irishgrl

02-03-2006, 11:12 AM

I always thought it was Geldof. :shrug:

So, are you going to tell us why?

Kelly :)

I think you hit on his dastardly scheme, to trick us with spellings in number one and a technicality for number three. Im not sure why number two is relevant. unless its because of the old rumor from playing a certain song backwards

Bob Geldoff
Paul McCartney (who as we all know is DEAD!)
Diana was only called Princess Diana in America, not in Britain. Theres some sort of technicality regarding her title, she was known officially as the Princess of Wales, I believe, but not the Princess of England (as the wife of the Prince). Im not really up on all of the ins and outs of Royalty, maybe Pip can come up with the official reason.

Neb-Maat-Re

02-05-2006, 08:01 PM

I think you hit on his dastardly scheme, to trick us with spellings in number one and a technicality for number three. Im not sure why number two is relevant. unless its because of the old rumor from playing a certain song backwards

Bob Geldoff
Paul McCartney (who as we all know is DEAD!)
Diana was only called Princess Diana in America, not in Britain. Theres some sort of technicality regarding her title, she was known officially as the Princess of Wales, I believe, but not the Princess of England (as the wife of the Prince). Im not really up on all of the ins and outs of Royalty, maybe Pip can come up with the official reason.

OK, so apart from my misspelling of Geldof, I would have thought an Irishgirl would have gotten No 1. And No 3 is on the right track.

SomeKindaMother

02-06-2006, 02:58 PM

Princess of England? She was known as Princess Diana by the media and public world wide, her official title as wife to the Prince of Wales was HRH The Princess of Wales. Once that was removed due to divorce she was reverted back to The Lady Diana, her courtesy title from her family of birth.

Incidently, I'm not a monarchist.

Hi Lux!!!! :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

Anyway, do we have to keep guessing or will you tell us and move on to the next brain buster?

Kelly :)

irishgrl

02-07-2006, 12:08 AM

OK, so apart from my misspelling of Geldof, I would have thought an Irishgirl would have gotten No 1. And No 3 is on the right track.

I confess, Im not a huge fan of Geldoff, other than the fact he organized some huge rock concert for charity awhile back, thus, I dont know why you say he doesnt (or never did) exist, unless Bob Geldoff is a moniker, and he actually has a "real" name, in much the same way Engelbert Humperdink (sp?) has a "real" name.....but then, since so many celebrities adopt new names, why would you choose him particularly? (if that is the reason).

by the way, Kelly, where is Lux' original post? How clever of you to trap it before she could fade into the ether again...

bretonbanquet

02-07-2006, 08:11 AM

irishgrl

02-07-2006, 09:28 AM

Bob Geldof can't be a sir because he's not British, he's Irish.

And Lux was right about the Princess of Wales, even if his post was mysteriously deleted. Prince Charles' new wife Camilla is actually the current Princess of Wales, but everyone conveniently forgets that, and she is known as the Duchess of Cornwall, which of course was a title also "enjoyed" by Diana.

And Paul McCartney's first name is actually James - does that count?

hey! I got the "Princess" part right too!
I didnt know Geldoff was Irish--that explains the hint about my being an "Irish Person" and Paul McCartney's first name is James? Who'd a thunk it....now: explain something to me--why cant an Irish person be knighted? Doesnt the Crown assert sovreignty over Ireland? isnt that what all the fuss is about over there? Britain includes Ireland as a subject country, so why cant an Irish person be knighted? Any info would be appreciated...

bretonbanquet

02-07-2006, 09:43 AM

Doesnt the Crown assert sovreignty over Ireland? isnt that what all the fuss is about over there? Britain includes Ireland as a subject country, so why cant an Irish person be knighted? Any info would be appreciated...

Southern Ireland, i.e. the Republic of Ireland is totally independent from the UK, and that's where Geldof comes from. Hell, they even use the euro :laugh:

Northern Ireland, well that's a different matter - it's still part of the UK and not part of the Republic of Ireland. THAT's what all the fuss is about.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/63/Ireland-Capitals.PNG/300px-Ireland-Capitals.PNG

SomeKindaMother

02-07-2006, 09:54 AM

by the way, Kelly, where is Lux' original post? How clever of you to trap it before she could fade into the ether again...

I'm afraid I cannot take any credit for being clever. (BIG suprise there, huh?) I just really like Lux. :thumbsup:

Kelly :)

SomeKindaMother

02-07-2006, 09:58 AM

irishgrl

02-07-2006, 10:10 AM

Aha. Mary, you were almost there, weren't you? Thanks breton, because this was starting to bug me. Shame on me for trying to give up too soon. I don't have patience. Damn ADD!

Kelly :)
I got one out of three. I failed.

Bretonbanquet, I know Ireland is divided, Ive read the history...I didnt know which part of Ireland Geldoff came from. As for the rest of Ireland being independent, I say YAY. I look forward to the day when both Scotland and Ireland are free.

bretonbanquet

02-07-2006, 10:23 AM

I got one out of three. I failed.

Bretonbanquet, I know Ireland is divided, Ive read the history...I didnt know which part of Ireland Geldoff came from. As for the rest of Ireland being independent, I say YAY. I look forward to the day when both Scotland and Ireland are free.

It's a valid point to make though, that lots of people in Northern Ireland don't want to be independent from the UK - that's where the troubles arise from, the disagreement among Northern Irish people.

As for Scotland, most people there don't want to be independent. Or "free"!! You make it sound like the Soviet Union or something :laugh:

strandinthewind

02-07-2006, 10:52 AM

Well, the Scots were joing with Britan when the royal lines were fused (actually twice) - the frist by Henry VII's sister Margaret who married James IV of Scotland and then James VI (Marg.'s heir) became King of James I of England when Queen Elizabeth I died. So, while there certainly was fighting around that time and even after, the rule of Scotland is far more legitimate than the rule of Ireland, which essentially took place when in 1541 Henry VIII declared himself king of Ireland.

Food for thought.

http://www.royalhouseofstewart.org.uk/kings.htm

bretonbanquet

02-07-2006, 11:36 AM

strandinthewind

02-07-2006, 01:25 PM

Many a valid point has been made with regard to history and the status of the constituent parts of the UK, but it counts for almost nothing when we talk today of devolution / independence for Scotland, Wales etc. People just aren't interested.

Oh I agree and was just noting the history, which I find interesting. And, in many ways I think the current attitude is a good thing. Also, in many ways, I think if the Irish just accepted it it would be a good thing as well from a violence point of view. But, I understand why no one would like "foreign" rule.

irishgrl

02-07-2006, 01:53 PM

I seem to recall there were PLENTY of Scots who felt their throne was being usurped from Prince Charlie, and the Highlanders were all but wiped out defending him. I also recall that the wearing of the plaids was outlawed for a long while and the speaking of gaelic. Im not as informed about Scottish history as I am about Irish, but everything Ive read shows that there was a definite resistance to English rule and everything it represented. Do the battles of Bannockburn (a great victory against the English) or Culloden Moor (a disaster for the Scots) ring any bells? Of course I remember there was an English Queen on the throne, but if I recall, she was more palatable to the Scotts because she was Catholic, and Henry separated himself from the Catholic Church, thus the tension between Mary and Elizabeth. If things are different now, so be it.

By the way, much of my attitude re: Scotland I learned from my step-dad, a direct descendant of Robert the Bruce. He's been to the family castle. He has all the regalia and whatnot...I guess I just have a philosophical affinity for the Highlanders and their interests. So sue me.

irishgrl

02-07-2006, 01:57 PM

Oh I agree and was just noting the history, which I find interesting. And, in many ways I think the current attitude is a good thing. Also, in many ways, I think if the Irish just accepted it it would be a good thing as well from a violence point of view. But, I understand why no one would like "foreign" rule.
Jason, the Irish have no real representation. I understand their gripe completely!

bretonbanquet

02-07-2006, 02:10 PM

I seem to recall there were PLENTY of Scots who felt their throne was being usurped from Prince Charlie, and the Highlanders were all but wiped out defending him. I also recall that the wearing of the plaids was outlawed for a long while and the speaking of gaelic. Im not as informed about Scottish history as I am about Irish, but everything Ive read shows that there was a definite resistance to English rule and everything it represented. If things are different now, so be it.

All true, but we're mainly talking about a very very long time ago, thankfully. Things are a lot happier now, and history is not seen as a reason for uprisings or anything :) Gaelic was banned in schools for a long time, but then practically every language except English has been banned in British schools at one time or another - it's just the English pushing their weight around and they've eased up now. Non-English Britons are still fiercely proud of their heritage, but there is little real reason for kicking off a big resistance at the moment, and I speak as a Cornish/Welsh England-basher :laugh: They still think the UK would collapse without them, but we just get on with life, not expecting anything else from them.

Scots are generally not in favour of full independence, especially now (like Wales) they have their own Parliament / Assembly, which seems to have lessened any great nationalist fervour. That can always change though, of course :)

bretonbanquet

02-07-2006, 02:12 PM

Jason, the Irish have no real representation. I understand their gripe completely!

When you say things like that, you really need to say what you mean by "the Irish" :)

irishgrl

02-07-2006, 02:13 PM

All true, but we're mainly talking about a very very long time ago, thankfully. Things are a lot happier now, and history is not seen as a reason for uprisings or anything :) Gaelic was banned in schools for a long time, but then practically every language except English has been banned in British schools at one time or another - it's just the English pushing their weight around and they've eased up now. Non-English Britons are still fiercely proud of their heritage, but there is little real reason for kicking off a big resistance at the moment, and I speak as a Cornish/Welsh England-basher :laugh: They still think the UK would collapse without them, but we just get on with life, not expecting anything else from them.

Scots are generally not in favour of full independence, especially now (like Wales) they have their own Parliament / Assembly, which seems to have lessened any great nationalist fervour. That can always change though, of course :)

It would seem that a huge part of the lessening of tensions would be due, at least in part, by real representation. I think that if Ireland were given a true voice, there might be less violence...but then, I dont live there and I cant speak for those folks...its just my opinion...:wavey:

irishgrl

02-07-2006, 02:17 PM

When you say things like that, you really need to say what you mean by "the Irish" :)

wasnt the whole accord that Clinton brokered based on Irish representation in Parliament? And by "Irish Representation" I refer to the Irish that are ruled by Britain. :shrug:

I did appreciate your map, visuals always help me put things into perspective :)

bretonbanquet

02-07-2006, 02:37 PM

wasnt the whole accord that Clinton brokered based on Irish representation in Parliament? And by "Irish Representation" I refer to the Irish that are ruled by Britain. :shrug:

I did appreciate your map, visuals always help me put things into perspective :)

The Northern Irish have full representation in the British parliament, and they have had since day one as far as I know. Some of their MPs don't turn up at the House of Commons through protest, but that's their prerogative. There was a Northern Ireland Assembly, designed to evolve a form of power-sharing at a level below the British parliament (like in Scotland and Wales) and I think that's what Clinton was involved with. That left the people of Northern Ireland with a form of home rule, but it collapsed because the two factions within Northern Ireland, i.e. the Catholics and the Protestants, can't even agree on what day it is. At the moment the UK and the Republic of Ireland are trying to help the Northern Irish to set that Assembly up again, and fingers crossed, they'll sort something out ;)

The Republic of Ireland has reached the promised land, as it were; they are fully independent within the European Union. The population of the Irish Republic is about 4.2 million. Total British population is about 60 million, including England (50 million), Scotland (5 million), Wales (3 million) and Northern Ireland (1.7 million).

irishgrl

02-07-2006, 03:24 PM

The Northern Irish have full representation in the British parliament, and they have had since day one as far as I know. Some of their MPs don't turn up at the House of Commons through protest, but that's their prerogative. There was a Northern Ireland Assembly, designed to evolve a form of power-sharing at a level below the British parliament (like in Scotland and Wales) and I think that's what Clinton was involved with. That left the people of Northern Ireland with a form of home rule, but it collapsed because the two factions within Northern Ireland, i.e. the Catholics and the Protestants, can't even agree on what day it is. At the moment the UK and the Republic of Ireland are trying to help the Northern Irish to set that Assembly up again, and fingers crossed, they'll sort something out ;)

The Republic of Ireland has reached the promised land, as it were; they are fully independent within the European Union. The population of the Irish Republic is about 4.2 million. Total British population is about 60 million, including England (50 million), Scotland (5 million), Wales (3 million) and Northern Ireland (1.7 million).

Our own politics is hard enuff to keep up with, let alone another Nation's! but I am interested and I have tried to educate myself. At any rate, thank you for clarifying that particular point (I guess I was equating "home rule" with representation). I have a new question: Isnt it true that by and large, Northern Ireland is populated mostly by Protestants and the Republic is primarily Catholic? And what exactly is Sinn Fein (sp?) agitating for?
A very long time ago, I read an excellent book (Trinity) by Leon Uris that detailed the beginnings of the troubles between Ireland and Britain. Ive recently read the sequel, (Redemption) that encompasses the exodus to New Zealand and some of the early days of the IRA. Care to elaborate?

bretonbanquet

02-07-2006, 08:22 PM

Our own politics is hard enuff to keep up with, let alone another Nation's! but I am interested and I have tried to educate myself. At any rate, thank you for clarifying that particular point (I guess I was equating "home rule" with representation). I have a new question: Isnt it true that by and large, Northern Ireland is populated mostly by Protestants and the Republic is primarily Catholic? And what exactly is Sinn Fein (sp?) agitating for?
A very long time ago, I read an excellent book (Trinity) by Leon Uris that detailed the beginnings of the troubles between Ireland and Britain. Ive recently read the sequel, (Redemption) that encompasses the exodus to New Zealand and some of the early days of the IRA. Care to elaborate?

I'm certainly no expert, but I try to keep up with the situation although it is insanely complicated. Yes, Northern Ireland is mainly Protestant and most of them want to remain part of Britain. Of the Catholics, most of them want a stronger link with the Republic of Ireland, and about half want a united Ireland - but only about a quarter want to remain part of the UK. Also yes, the Republic is mainly Catholic, more than 90%.

We should remember that Northern Ireland chose to remain part of Britain when the rest of Ireland became a Republic in 1922. The present day province of Northern Ireland represents the six counties that didn't want to join the Republic. The IRA started off when the Irish Republic was set up, and Northern Ireland opted out of it - the IRA said the treaty was illegitimate. The various troubles between the different factions escalated in the 1960s, spread to the British mainland, and then we had the regular bombings and killings that took place (it seemed like every week) throughout the 70s, 80s and early 90s. Something like 3900 people were killed during this time in "The Troubles", about half of them by the IRA.

Sinn Fein is about 100 years old and it's a political organisation active both in the Republic and in Northern Ireland. It's closely associated with the IRA and they share common goals, but they both say they're totally separate. They both want a united Ireland, and beyond that I wouldn't want to comment on what they are agitating for because Northern Irish politics is just too difficult for the average person (and me) to understand properly, IMO.

The exodus to New Zealand I am not familiar with, unless it was part of the general exodus from Celtic regions to other parts of the world, of people looking for work. In my area at least, that was during the second half of the 1800s. Sorry I don't know more about that :)

irishgrl

02-07-2006, 09:24 PM

I'm certainly no expert, but I try to keep up with the situation although it is insanely complicated. Yes, Northern Ireland is mainly Protestant and most of them want to remain part of Britain. Of the Catholics, most of them want a stronger link with the Republic of Ireland, and about half want a united Ireland - but only about a quarter want to remain part of the UK. Also yes, the Republic is mainly Catholic, more than 90%.

We should remember that Northern Ireland chose to remain part of Britain when the rest of Ireland became a Republic in 1922. The present day province of Northern Ireland represents the six counties that didn't want to join the Republic. The IRA started off when the Irish Republic was set up, and Northern Ireland opted out of it - the IRA said the treaty was illegitimate. The various troubles between the different factions escalated in the 1960s, spread to the British mainland, and then we had the regular bombings and killings that took place (it seemed like every week) throughout the 70s, 80s and early 90s. Something like 3900 people were killed during this time in "The Troubles", about half of them by the IRA.

Sinn Fein is about 100 years old and it's a political organisation active both in the Republic and in Northern Ireland. It's closely associated with the IRA and they share common goals, but they both say they're totally separate. They both want a united Ireland, and beyond that I wouldn't want to comment on what they are agitating for because Northern Irish politics is just too difficult for the average person (and me) to understand properly, IMO.

The exodus to New Zealand I am not familiar with, unless it was part of the general exodus from Celtic regions to other parts of the world, of people looking for work. In my area at least, that was during the second half of the 1800s. Sorry I don't know more about that :)
Its no surprise to me (and Im sure, no surpise to YOU) that Northern Ireland The Catholic part) wanted to be independent. Personally, from what ive read about the IRA, they have a legit beef. The exodus to New Zealand was part and parcel of the exodus because of the famine. I figured you'd know more about the New Zealand aspect because it wasnt American. I can tell you that the Irish expats here in the States have never lost their affinity with the auld sod. truly. Come St. Patrick's day, we're all Irish, yes?

irishgrl

02-07-2006, 09:35 PM

I'm certainly no expert, but I try to keep up with the situation although it is insanely complicated. Yes, Northern Ireland is mainly Protestant and most of them want to remain part of Britain. Of the Catholics, most of them want a stronger link with the Republic of Ireland, and about half want a united Ireland - but only about a quarter want to remain part of the UK. Also yes, the Republic is mainly Catholic, more than 90%.

We should remember that Northern Ireland chose to remain part of Britain when the rest of Ireland became a Republic in 1922. The present day province of Northern Ireland represents the six counties that didn't want to join the Republic. The IRA started off when the Irish Republic was set up, and Northern Ireland opted out of it - the IRA said the treaty was illegitimate. The various troubles between the different factions escalated in the 1960s, spread to the British mainland, and then we had the regular bombings and killings that took place (it seemed like every week) throughout the 70s, 80s and early 90s. Something like 3900 people were killed during this time in "The Troubles", about half of them by the IRA.

Sinn Fein is about 100 years old and it's a political organisation active both in the Republic and in Northern Ireland. It's closely associated with the IRA and they share common goals, but they both say they're totally separate. They both want a united Ireland, and beyond that I wouldn't want to comment on what they are agitating for because Northern Irish politics is just too difficult for the average person (and me) to understand properly, IMO.

The exodus to New Zealand I am not familiar with, unless it was part of the general exodus from Celtic regions to other parts of the world, of people looking for work. In my area at least, that was during the second half of the 1800s. Sorry I don't know more about that :)

There was no PLANNED exodus, the main impetus for leaving was the famine. from everything Ive seen, no Irishman/woman would leave Ireland unless it were for a dire reason. Most had a wish to come back, with $$$, and rebuild. Sadly, it was not to be. Apparently, representation was a bigger issue than you thought......

btw: Northern Ireland, as a Protestant, ENGLISH Island in a Catholic Irish stronghold, wanted to emphasize its ties with the motherland, which was seen as the military strength. I am personally shattered by the Easter Uprising massacre.

bretonbanquet

02-07-2006, 09:50 PM

Personally, from what ive read about the IRA, they have a legit beef.

Legit or not, it doesn't make it right to resort to terrorism. That's where we all lose sympathy with them, or at least where right-thinking people lose sympathy with them.

The exodus to New Zealand was part and parcel of the exodus because of the famine. I figured you'd know more about the New Zealand aspect because it wasnt American. I can tell you that the Irish expats here in the States have never lost their affinity with the auld sod. truly. Come St. Patrick's day, we're all Irish, yes?

The famine, yes, I'm with you now. I know a lot of people died and a lot of people emigrated, but I wasn't aware that New Zealand was a major destination in particular.

bretonbanquet

02-07-2006, 09:58 PM

There was no PLANNED exodus, the main impetus for leaving was the famine. from everything Ive seen, no Irishman/woman would leave Ireland unless it were for a dire reason. Most had a wish to come back, with $$$, and rebuild. Sadly, it was not to be. Apparently, representation was a bigger issue than you thought......

btw: Northern Ireland, as a Protestant, ENGLISH Island in a Catholic Irish stronghold, wanted to emphasize its ties with the motherland, which was seen as the military strength. I am personally shattered by the Easter Uprising massacre.

I wasn't suggesting it was a planned exodus. The mass emigration of people from Wales and Cornwall due to lack of work wasn't planned either - it was emigrate or starve to death. I don't see the connection between the famine and representation though. And I never said representation wasn't an issue - not sure what you mean there.

The Easter Uprising was 90 years ago - it's no good to be personally shattered by it now. I could get irate about the Cornish Rebellion massacre, but it's not relevant today. The thing to do is be aware of it and move on. And there is nothing English about Northern Ireland - it's like saying New York is Californian :confused:

bretonbanquet

02-08-2006, 07:59 AM

It never makes it right but it's also never so simple. Where do the people go from their situation of being dehumanized by the ruling power? When the British paratroopers massacred unaramed civil rights protesters they gave the Catholics no hope of fighting for justice as equal citizens and made the IRA into what it is known as. No, it doesn't make the terrorism right at all but the responsibility for those acts must be taken by the British Government who directly caused the violence which followed.

Regardless of what some people perceived to be "dehumanising" behaviour, the responsility for murderous acts must be borne by those who pull the triggers and set the bombs. The British Government can certainly bear responsiblity for Bloody Sunday and the like, but to suggest they are directly responsible for bloody acts like those at Enniskillen, Warrington and Omagh is a total insult to the dead. At Omagh 29 innocent people were killed including 13 women and 9 children - one of the women killed was pregnant with twins. That was in 1998, not 1916, or 1972.

Every terrorist has what he believes to be just cause for murdering innocent people, including Al-Qaeda terrorists. But the fact is that when a terrorist starts killing innocent people, he has descended to the lowest form of human life, regardless of any wrongs done to him in the past. And it is that simple. The only reason terrorism isn't more widespread in the world is that most people who suffer injustice are civilised enough to address it in a peaceful way, despite any perception that violence is the only course of redress.

bretonbanquet

02-08-2006, 08:00 AM

I think it's called general knowledge.

What is? :confused:

irishgrl

02-08-2006, 08:12 AM

I wasn't suggesting it was a planned exodus. The mass emigration of people from Wales and Cornwall due to lack of work wasn't planned either - it was emigrate or starve to death. I don't see the connection between the famine and representation though. And I never said representation wasn't an issue - not sure what you mean there.

The Easter Uprising was 90 years ago - it's no good to be personally shattered by it now. I could get irate about the Cornish Rebellion massacre, but it's not relevant today. The thing to do is be aware of it and move on. And there is nothing English about Northern Ireland - it's like saying New York is Californian :confused:
I appreciate your viewpoint, and I thank you for educating me.

strandinthewind

02-08-2006, 09:40 AM

Legit or not, it doesn't make it right to resort to terrorism. That's where we all lose sympathy with them, or at least where right-thinking people lose sympathy with them . . . .

Exactly. I mean I get that the goal is harder to achieve without violence, but that does not excuse the use of it as they do. I mean they kill/killed innocent people who have/had nothing to do with their cause a la the people in the WTC on 9/11.

I also think that they will never be happy unless they achieve a goal that is unobtainable and one they do not even know of. An analogy would be Israel. Does anyone really think that if the US took its support from Israel and the Palestine's took control of it, the hatred of Amercia and the West would stop there? I submit it would not. Similarly, if Ireland were set free, would it end there? I do not think so, but that is my opinion.

Note - I am not excusing the autrocities of GB - I am just noting revenge usually never quells the need for more.

Villavic

02-08-2006, 10:05 AM

Diana was only called Princess Diana in America, not in Britain. .

Completely wrong. I was in London in 1997. She was already divorced, and still alive (may). I was visiting the Royal Chariots, near Buckingham Palace, and I asked which was the one LADY Diana used for her marriage. And the guard said PRINCESS Diana has always used this chariot.. blah blah... blah...

I realized the man emphasized the word "princess", correcting me.

bretonbanquet

02-08-2006, 11:35 AM

They did address it in a peaceful way, they were gunned down. I didn't say I supported the acts of terrorism, I said that they are not fully responsible for those acts. The British Government created the force of the IRA when they murdered civil rights activists, the IRA saw a huge increase and become the power it is known as, before then it was a smaller group. They gave those fighting for their human rights no hope and in many cases sent them straight to the IRA.

Soemtime they did address it in a peaceful way, and often they didn't, obviously. Like strand said, there's no excusing the way the British government treated the Irish question in the past, but equally there is no excusing what the IRA have done. One is as bad as the other. Also one cannot equate the plight of the Irish to, for example, the plight of Soviet citizens under Stalin, or the people of Cambodia in the 70s, neither of whom spent decades blowing up innocent people - let's try to keep it in context.

If we had a united Ireland tomorrow, the possibility of further sectarian violence is a very strong one - is that a good solution?

Once you start to suggest there's an excuse for terrorism or maybe the victims brought it on themselves, you are on a very slippery slope indeed. Many in the Middle East believe that the behaviour of the US was responsible for 9/11, and they're wrong too.

strandinthewind

02-08-2006, 11:41 AM

Soemtime they did address it in a peaceful way, and often they didn't, obviously. Like strand said, there's no excusing the way the British government treated the Irish question in the past, but equally there is no excusing what the IRA have done. One is as bad as the other. Also one cannot equate the plight of the Irish to, for example, the plight of Soviet citizens under Stalin, or the people of Cambodia in the 70s, neither of whom spent decades blowing up innocent people - let's try to keep it in context.

If we had a united Ireland tomorrow, the possibility of further sectarian violence is a very strong one - is that a good solution?

Once you start to suggest there's an excuse for terrorism or maybe the victims brought it on themselves, you are on a very slippery slope indeed. Many in the Middle East believe that the behaviour of the US was responsible for 9/11, and they're wrong too.

I know and I agree. I also think that if one looks at how countries were born, it was not really through terrorism, though that may have existed as well. America was born by fighting with an Army against an Army. The same can be said for most other countries I think. In other words, attacking the govt. to overthrow it is the "legitimate" and seemingly most effective way to achieve change as opposed to killing innocent people by terrorism. Having said that, war and armies also kill innocent people and I am drawing the laine of terrorism and terrorists at the fact that an army mostly does it openly and officially. If that a fair line to draw. I think so. However, some may disagree with me, which is their right as certainly official armies have been nothing more than better organized terrorists acting under some false guise.

bretonbanquet

02-08-2006, 11:46 AM

Completely wrong. I was in London in 1997. She was already divorced, and still alive (may). I was visiting the Royal Chariots, near Buckingham Palace, and I asked which was the one LADY Diana used for her marriage. And the guard said PRINCESS Diana has always used this chariot.. blah blah... blah...

I realized the man emphasized the word "princess", correcting me.

The guard was wrong - once Diana was divorced, she was not a Princess. She was never a Princess in her own right, only by marriage. Once she was divorced from the Prince, she was no longer a Princess. She should properly have reverted to being plain old Lady Diana, as she was from birth, being the daughter of an Earl.

Even though she was styled "Diana, Princess of Wales" after her divorce, she wasn't a Princess, nor was she actually Princess of Wales. Because the Prince of Wales was no longer married, there was no de facto Princess of Wales. The current Princess of Wales, Camilla, chooses not to use that title (probably for fear of antagonising Diana fans) and styles herself Duchess of Cornwall. Diana was also Duchess of Cornwall while she was married to Charles, because he is the Duke of Cornwall. The fact that none of these people are either Welsh or Cornish is lost on the Royal Family, and just goes to show how ridiculous the whole thing is.

bretonbanquet

02-08-2006, 11:49 AM

I know and I agree. I also think that if one looks at how countries were born, it was not really through terrorism, though that may have existed as well. America was born by fighting with an Army against an Army. The same can be said for most other countries I think. In other words, attacking the govt. to overthrow it is the "legitimate" and seemingly most effective way to achieve change as opposed to killing innocent people by terrorism. Having said that, war and armies also kill innocent people and I am drawing the laine of terrorism and terrorists at the fact that an army mostly does it openly and officially. If that a fair line to draw. I think so. However, some may disagree with me, which is their right as certainly official armies have been nothing more than better organized terrorists acting under some false guise.

I think you're right, and you've also outlined how difficult it is to draw the line in these situations. Where "legitimate violence" or military force becomes terrorism is a very fine line, and one I am glad I don't have to draw.

strandinthewind

02-08-2006, 11:54 AM

I think you're right, and you've also outlined how difficult it is to draw the line in these situations. Where "legitimate violence" or military force becomes terrorism is a very fine line, and one I am glad I don't have to draw.

I mean ignoring the facts that lead to Hitler's rise (which is another can of worms) and just taking it that Hitler was a bad person who needed to be removed immediately from power, does achieving that goal justify the simultaneous killing and disfiguring of hundreds of thousands of innocent people? I think so. Then again, I was not one of them. In the end, bad people exist and it sometimes takes more than harsh words to rid the world of them. That is how it has been since the beginning of recorded history.

strandinthewind

02-08-2006, 11:55 AM

The guard was wrong - once Diana was divorced, she was not a Princess. She was never a Princess in her own right, only by marriage. Once she was divorced from the Prince, she was no longer a Princess. She should properly have reverted to being plain old Lady Diana, as she was from birth, being the daughter of an Earl.

Even though she was styled "Diana, Princess of Wales" after her divorce, she wasn't a Princess, nor was she actually Princess of Wales. Because the Prince of Wales was no longer married, there was no de facto Princess of Wales. The current Princess of Wales, Camilla, chooses not to use that title (probably for fear of antagonising Diana fans) and styles herself Duchess of Cornwall. Diana was also Duchess of Cornwall while she was married to Charles, because he is the Duke of Cornwall. The fact that none of these people are either Welsh or Cornish is lost on the Royal Family, and just goes to show how ridiculous the whole thing is.

Also, didn;t she lose the HRH - I remember reading that as a result of that loss, she should genuflect to her children, who are Royal Highnesses by birth.

bretonbanquet

02-08-2006, 12:00 PM

Also, didn;t she lose the HRH - I remember reading that as a result of that loss, she should genuflect to her children, who are Royal Highnesses by birth.

That is in fact true, although there was a certain amount of leeway given to Diana by the Royal Family because she was the mother of the heir to the throne. For example, the Crown made it clear that she was still a member of the Royal Family, when they could have excluded her altogether - I guess this was mainly done for the sake of her sons.

irishgrl

02-08-2006, 12:44 PM

That is in fact true, although there was a certain amount of leeway given to Diana by the Royal Family because she was the mother of the heir to the throne. For example, the Crown made it clear that she was still a member of the Royal Family, when they could have excluded her altogether - I guess this was mainly done for the sake of her sons.

I personally think it had more to do with her acknowledged popularity with the people

bretonbanquet

02-08-2006, 01:06 PM

I personally think it had more to do with her acknowledged popularity with the people

That too for sure, but the Royal Family was definitely anxious not to restrict contact between her and her sons.

strandinthewind

02-08-2006, 01:12 PM

That too for sure, but the Royal Family was definitely anxious not to restrict contact between her and her sons.

Well, by the same token, she was their mother :shrug: I personally think the Queen of England did not mind Diana as much as people think, but saw her as an opportunist, which she mostly was in the end IMO. I get that they set her up in that marriage, but I also think she was not as naive as most think. In the end, I tend to agree with whoever said the only one who behaved with any dignity in that matter was Camilla :eek: I did think it was a huge ceremonial gesture for Queen Elizabeth to bow her head (she bows to no one in her own country) as Diana's coffin rolled past her on the street. I think she did it out of respect for her grandchildren.

But, I am aware others see Diana as a saint who could do no wrong. I also freely acknowledge that the good she did for the world is long lasting and she was an admirable person for that.

chiliD

02-08-2006, 01:13 PM

Going back to page 1 of the thread:

"Geldof" is the correct spelling of Bob's last name. Only a single "f".

irishgrl

02-08-2006, 01:20 PM

Going back to page 1 of the thread:

"Geldof" is the correct spelling of Bob's last name. Only a single "f".

when I did a search to see how his name was spelled, it came up with 2 "f's".
so, I took that as truth. apparently a mistake.

bretonbanquet

02-08-2006, 01:39 PM

Well, by the same token, she was their mother :shrug: I personally think the Queen of England did not mind Diana as much as people think, but saw her as an opportunist, which she mostly was in the end IMO. I get that they set her up in that marriage, but I also think she was not as naive as most think. In the end, I tend to agree with whoever said the only one who behaved with any dignity in that matter was Camilla :eek: I did think it was a huge ceremonial gesture for Queen Elizabeth to bow her head (she bows to no one in her own country) as Diana's coffin rolled past her on the street. I think she did it out of respect for her grandchildren.

But, I am aware others see Diana as a saint who could do no wrong. I also freely acknowledge that the good she did for the world is long lasting and she was an admirable person for that.

There certainly was precious little dignity preserved in the matter, and yes, Camilla did stay out of it, sensibly. I think there's a lot of truth in what you say there.

Meanwhile, on the Bob Geldof front - Bob rejoices in the full name of Robert Frederick Xenon Geldof, which has to be one of the oddest damn names I know of - fancy being named after a noble gas... :laugh: