Posted on 02/09/2002 12:14:34 AM PST by badfreeper
Princess Margaret, the younger sister of Queen Elizabeth II, has died "peacefully in her sleep" at the age of 71. In a statement Buckingham Palace said: "The Queen, with great sadness, has asked for the following announcement to be made immediately.
"Her beloved sister, Princess Margaret, died peacefully in her sleep this morning at 6.30am in the King Edward VII Hospital."
Her children Lord Linley and Lady Sarah Chatto were at her side at the London hospital.
Princess Margaret, who has suffered several strokes in recent years, suffered a further stroke on Friday afternoon.
She developed cardiac problems during the night and was taken from Kensington Palace to the hospital at 0230GMT.
She was born Margaret Rose on 21 August, 1930, at Glamis Castle in Scotland, the ancestral home of her mother's family.
Margaret was last seen in public before Christmas at Princess Alice, the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester's 100th birthday party.
She was confined to a wheelchair and wore heavy dark glasses, her sight having been affected by a stroke. Margaret's face also appeared puffy, understood to be the effects of medication.
© MMII
As for Clinton, well he was elected by pluralities. Partly due to the fact that some "conservative" purists stayed away from the polls and did not give the opposing candidate enough votes to win. That having been said, we can at least take comfort that under our system we can at least remove the bastards after four years by going out and voting and that we have a system of checks and balances where we can inhibit any radical changes the excutive branch may try to impose, imperfect as it is.
Be glad ours is not a majoritarian parliamentary system where Tony Blair was "elected" with 42% of the popular vote and where he controls the legislative branch of government as well.
The real worry now for the Queen is the health of her mother, the Queen Mum. It was said on the news today that the Queen Mum had vowed not to die before the conclusion of the celebration of her daughter's 50th year on the throne. The Queen Mum is said to be in delicate health too and at 101 that is not suprising. I hope the ol gal lasts a good bit longer. I am not wild about the Royal Family. I find it interesting in terms of family dynamics. But any real respect for that lot I lost because of the treatment of Princess Diana. But that is a whole nuther story. Still, sympathy to the Queen..they are people and it is a family member.
One thing Princess Margaret must have done well and that is as a mother. I can't recall ever hearing any scandals about her son and daughter. Someone, despite her high life, did something right!
royal family of England are the biggest welfare recipients on the planet living off the labor of the productive classes
Actually, thanks to the crown estates ,the royal family is run at a profit for the british people.
They do contribute to the tourism of the country.
The constitutional monarchy is one of those checks and balances, and a bulwark against the kind of elective tyranny you describe.
Throughout most of the 20th century the European contribution to technology, music, art etc. has been marginal at best
This extraordinary remark which could only be made by someone who is entirely ignorant of all three of these fields.
I don't see where "other" people afforded these parasites anything. Thery took it upon themselves and imposed it on others by force of arms.
Actually, the ancestors of our current royal family were invited over to England by Parliament in 1688, as an alternative to the Stuarts.
As for an American nobility, I simply don't see it
It may have escaped your notice, but your last presidential election was between the son of an ex-president and the son of a powerful senator. The hereditary principle is like a cockroach - you can try to kill it, but it keeps popping up again.
There are plenty of things to see in merry olde England besides an old bag with a crown on her head.
But I don't miss the soggy, limp bacon!
after the 1930's, name one major technological development that originated in Europe. Consider all of our present technology and think of which was NOT originally developed in the United States.
Just not the same, those two individuals had some connections on their side. But heredetary?
Granted some people from some families may have prominence, but using your argument we would have had more than one Jefferson as president.
What prominent families did Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Carter and Clinton come from? Sorry I don't buy the heredetary principle. I also don't see any future Nixons or Reagans running for president. You're comparing apples and oranges, the similarities are superficial at best.
first stored program computer yes in the early days Europe contributed quite a bit, since the 1940's practically nada and they are still playing catchup. Computers have become practically an American monopoly. Though regretably we no longewr build them here, just design them.
the discovery of the structure of DNA? 50 50 on that one, James Watson was an American studying in Cambridge at the time.
The jet engine? The Ramjet UK 1930's, I'll grant you that one and the Germans flew the first operational one the ME 262. What have you done with it since then ?
The helicopter? Igor Sikorsky (US) (born in Russia) 1931.
Antibiotics? Though Flemming discovered pennicilin most antibiotics since then have been developed by American pharmaceutical companies.
The first satellite in space? The first man in space? Robert Goddard (US) is considered the father of modern rocketry from which all work on modern rockets emanated.
The compact disc? I will grant Philips of Netherlands that, but they haven't done much since that contribution.
Test-tube babies? OK we'll grant you that one.
Controlled nuclear fusion? Where ? Controled sustainable fusion? Sorry, but blasting hydrogen with a laser doesn't cut it.
And let's not forget, that had he stayed on the throne, the fact that he and Wallis never had kids would have landed Elizabeth on the throne anyway. However, her mother would not have been the Queen Mum.
I think the Queen Mum has always had a hatred of Wallis but to blame her for the death of her husband, who died of lung cancer, is really not to acknowledge the truth of what cost him his life. And it is sad that Princess Margaret's heavy smoking cost her her health too. I would bet she smoked out of rebellion. Someone earlier stated it had to be hard to be the "spare". They might be on to something there. Look at what has been going on with the current " spare", Harry.
I think you are right, Princess Margaret may have not had much personal happiness. I would further think that she was rebelling in her way at being under the thumb so to speak. Her sister forbade her to marry the man she loved or risk being excommunicated from the family. And just as surly as the Duke of Windsor became persona non grata, she saw the handwriting on the palace walls and knew that would be her fate too if she went against her sister's orders. Some could handle being cast away like that but perhaps Margaret could not. I don't know if I could. So here she was..and she married later and had two children and by all accounts she did a fine job raising them. I can't recall hearing of her kids being involved in public scandals or misbehaviour. So we need to give her credit for doing a better job of raising her kids than the Queen did...Still it is a sad day for the Windsor family.
Excellent point. In fact, some conspiracy-minded historians have suggested that the whole Wallis Simpson business was just a convenient pretext to force his abdication, the real reason being his unsavoury political views. You're right about it being unfair for Elizabeth to blame Wallis for her husband's early death, but that is apparently how she feels, and it's something Margaret would have had to take into account when deciding whether or not to follow the same path as her uncle.
The helicopter? Igor Sikorsky (US) (born in Russia) 1931.Sikorsky didn't get a properly controllable helicopter in the air until 1940.
Focke (germany) had one in 1937.By 1940 the germans had a 6 seater in operation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.