Discussion»Questions»Celebrities» Can you imagine doing the same job for 65 years? Queen Elizabeth has. Of course she has a lotta perks and no other skills. Right?
C'mon, Day. You know those things are mere hobbies. Owning half of Cornwall and then flogging a conservation statement bag at an elevated cost is not a skill.
Hmm well on this we disagree.. conservation and environmentalism are a way of life more than a hobby and Prince CHarles has put his money where his mouth is on his environmental concerns.. he's written books and papers he didn't need to do any of these things..
Indeed, Day, the efforts of certain Windsors in conservation protection have been commendable. But as Mr Lago says there is a glaring hypocrisy that undercuts this.
Prior the passing of the act banning fox hunting, Charles had written to the Labour Prime Minister stating 'If the government ever gets around to banning foxhunting, I might as well leave this country and spend the rest of my life skiing.'
Three years ago his sons were in Spain hunting wild boar, stag and partridge just days before William backed Prince Charles in a campaign to stop the killing of endangered wildlife such as elephants. In 2004 one of them was pictured posing next to a dead buffalo he had shot in South America.
Or is it a question of some wild animals being dispensable than others.
But do you not think that this typifies the attitude of the privileged classes - you can rescue rhinos and elephants in Africa but kill at will anything you want if you're rich?
The message is inconsistent at best and archane and self-serving at worst, no?
Weeeelllllllllllllllllllllllll Lucia and Lago, I take your point and no one suggested CHarles is perfect.. but, as an almost nearly would've been but for a nasty injury, conservationist myself, I do happen to know that conservationists very often, will favour one species over another.. for example to save a bird that is critically endangered they will sometimes *control* or remove competing species or species that prey on the particular bird. Another example closer to home, they will often kill/remove fish species that are non-native in order to protect native fish and the same is true the world over.. sometimes drastic measures are needed in conservation... I personally am wholly against fox hunting for sport and any blood sports, foxes do NOT need their numbers controlled... nor do boars, buffalo etc.. barbaric as it is they are often bred specifically for blood sports as are pheasants etc..I don't agree with that... At the same time I am aware that there are certain arguments re dear in the highlands etc. where they say that the numbers have to be controlled in order to protect balance in the eco system and also to ensure that the remaining herd do not starve from exhausting the available resources..
So I half agree with you but my thinking is that your main problem is with wealth and privilege rather than conservationists who have to kill other animals in order to conserve others... and that, I am afraid is an issue way wider than Prince Charles and the royals.. there are many rich people everywhere... and the same injustices exist worldwide... it's not like removing the Royals will really make a difference or that other rich people are any better.
I understand implicitly the arguments in favour of wildlife management as you describe it, but it's not relevent in this context. We are indeed talking about sport for the privileged, sport pure and simple. You can't be suggesting that big game hunting expeditions or, as you say yourself, fox hunting jollies have anything to do with wildlife management or conservation concerns. Of course not. But to say 'well of it's not them it will be some other lot' is sort of skirting the issue. Come the revolution I'm guessing you won't be on my side. )
I think Charles is a piece of crap. Him and his mistress "wife"! He was very unkind to Princess Diana. He is a jerk. I don't care what good deeds he does now. He can never make up for his betrayal of her. Thank you for your reply DdbTD and Happy Tuesday to thee ! :)
Rosie my treasure, you know you are my favouritest person on here cos I love your questions and would be lost without you but.... on this we disagree :P
Re his mistress.. yes that's true, but no more than any other married person who has an affair.. it's not right but it happens...he's only human too.. he loved her but was unable to marry her then and so he tried to do his duty and found another wife.. we are not robots, we can try to ignore our feelings, and surely he did try.. but it rarely works....
I adored Diana, most people did.. but she was no saint, and more to the point she and Charles were unsuited... it happens...people up and down both our countries marry people who they are unsuited to.. he was under a pressure none of us have.. he tried... he failed.. he was human..
My biggest argument of all...is bigger than you and I... I don't think he did right by DIana we agree on that.. but... the BIGGEST point of all is.. that his KIDS have forgiven him.. so really you and I have no right not to forgive what his kids have been able to forgive.. it makes us look mean... if they can forgive so should we.. let's face it... if she had lived she would have moved on... she was moving on.. it's not as if she was some heartbroken person who died... she had probably forgiven him... so should we.. these things happen....
and at the end of the day.. he's a person.. like us.. he loved someone he could not, at that point be with, he married for duty, he tried to make a go of it, Diana, much as we love her was no saint when it came to marriage and being able to comply with the very vast expectations of being in that situation and the marriage fell apart.. yes he shouldn't have sought comfort elsewhere, we don't know for sure he did.. but many would and do...at the time divorce was a route he tried to avoid, because of his position... they split... it's likely that had Diana not died CHarles would have married Camilla anyway.. he loves her and to be fair anyone can see they are way more suited than Charles and Di ever were... it's just a sad situation
But as I say not for us to forgive or not.. I never condoned what he did, I had tremendous sympathy for Diana, but they wouldnt have lasted anyway... All I said was that I respect his stance on environmentalism, and that even though he doesn'thave to speak out he does.. and I respect his position re Trump - Charles greets dignitaries full stop.. he disagrees with lots but he acts according to his position and expectations.. so it's not on for the Trumpeteers to say he cannot meet them
What are your skills pearl? What can you do for an employer? What have you been trained for, educated for and studied for? No one will hire you if you are unable to do the job they need done. What are your strengths? What do you enjoy doing? Thank you for your reply and Happy Tuesday! :)
Excuse me Tom, I really wasn't at all sure to what you were referring there. WHo does this impersonation you refer to? The Queen? If so then of course we know that she is older than him by 20 years or so, she has never met him, and is the Queen of England and a fair few other countries too, with all the history and protocol that engenders... soo logically she would be unlikely to need to impersonate him.. In terms of personality, role, and duty the two are as far apart as one could possibly get.. she behaves always in a dignified manner very much aware of her position, he behaves like an uncouth, playground bully with a very big mouth, who has NO awareness of his position and duty to his people...so quite the opposite in every way.. Like the Queen or not, one must admit that she never behaves in an outrageous or embarassing way.. Trump does so 5 times before even his first coffee.. Unless you were not referring to the Queen? In which case I confess I am lost.
Benedict Arnold 