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
Thanks for the post of stuff from your mythos.
Not really relevant at this point, though
Not to you obviously. Too bad.
No, you're not the only one. I agree with the above remarks
And I am sorry for Princess Margaret's death, as are most here, regardless of their views on the monarchy.
You're welcome, amigo.
'Hispanic Cheese.'
Tee hee. :)
"...the new pressures thrust upon the couple were only exacerbated by the outbreak of World War II. Despite strong advice that the Queen and the two princesses should leave London for Canada, the Queen refused to go. “The Princesses cannot go without me. I cannot go without the King. And the King will never leave,” she said as she resolved to remain at Buckingham Palace. Instead she learned to shoot a revolver, practising her aim in the Palace gardens.
After air raids, the King and Queen – she dressed in the finest satin and furs – would visit the scene of devastation and offer consolation to those who had lost their homes. It was only after Buckingham Palace was bombed, however, that the Queen felt she could really relate to the people of London. “I’m glad we’ve been bombed. It makes me feel I can look the East End in the face,” she famously said."
http://www.royalreport.com/profileqmother.html
Bingo! I knew I wasn't the only one who felt that way. RIP Margaret- you should have married the one you loved regardless of what others said.
How is it that you are so bright, but got it wrong, and needed my correction, about the crown holding power, by force? Could you be wrong, about some of your other assertions? About your brightness? "Concent" is spelled "consent", by the way.
If you want things to go your way, it should be a prime interest to persuade all people (including lowly sheep-people) of the benefits of your way. One persuasive technique is to not call them by derisive names, like "sheep."
I was briefed about the bacon before I came over. Also the organ meats ;)
Princess Margaret is being said that she was the Princess Diana of the 50s and 60s. I bet Diana did more good than Margaret. No one other than Diana had the personal touch with children, the old and the sick that none of the other members of that household had or ever will have.
"I was briefed about the bacon before I came over. Also the organ meats ;)"
haha I miss the cheese and onion pies that were sold near my house. yum Actually, I liked all the little pies, including the "organ meats". I do NOT miss the beef. I do NOT miss the wild tasting chicken. :( Oh, but our butcher had the most beautiful pork I've ever seen. And the cream that we could whip with a fork. I think my husband lived on pork, strawberries and cream while we were there. He REALLY hated the beef and chicken!
There is a problem here, and you may see it. I dilate presently. (No, that does not mean I'm going into labor!)
Europe went from a nomadic, tribal social system through a feudal one to a monarchic one. It was of course, survival of the fittest and dominance of the strongest. I think that the climate and geography of Europe was an important factor in these developments, and set the stage for the age of enlightenment and the industrial revolution.
Late in the middle ages, the nobility started to impose limits on the actions of royalty. England apparently led the way. It was of course a rocky road with many detours, but after the tumultuous events of the 17th and 18th centuries in England, she managed democratic (N.B: small d) reforms resulting in a Parliamentary Monarchy.
This was one of the influences on the American Founding Fathers (the parliamentary part, of course) and also for many other European monarchies. Indeed, those which survive today all have Parliaments in the ascendancy and an essentially ceremonial Royalty.
Unfortunately, a virulent strain of the democratic impulse originated in the 19th century and slowly metastatized throughout the western world: Socialism, Marxism, and Communism. In the 20th century we have witnessed the course of these pathologies, but it is well to remember that they were (and to some extent still are) fueled by the engine of the force of the peoples' will, however grossly manipulated: democracy (medium sized d this time).
My point is this.
The vestiges of Royalty that exist today in Britain and elsewhere generally harken back to a time that saw Western Civilization at its peak--the establishment of more-or-less workable representative government. Of course, like every human institution, one must expect it to be riddled with waste, confusion, and abuse.
Now consider the other strain of political/social evolution that has been operative throughout the 20th century: Socialist collectivism. Communism in Russia, Fabian Socialism in Britain, and their kindred spirits in American media and academe. And consider the Continent, where the best of representative government has been tainted not only with the authoritarian impulses of their Royal past, but also the collectivist impulses of the supposedly democratic movements of the 20th century. It is telling that so many of the dominant parties in modern day Europe have the word "Social" or "Socialist" in their names.
If these are the choices for the West, who could blame someone for upholding the tradition of a Parliamentary Monarchy against the alternative: non-monarchical Parliamentary forms where Socialists and Communists play such a big role--even into the 21st centry.
I hopped on the tube once every couple of weeks and went to the commissary at West Ruislip for the majority of my grocery shopping (much cheaper than the local shops). Since I didn't have a car, I just filled my seabag with canned goods and groceries and lugged it home. Other than a squashed box of Lucky Charms from time to time, it worked just fine. Most of the locals shopped every day for groceries at the Sainsburys and the greengrocers down the road.
I pretty much lived on bangers and mash and egg and chips at a little cafe down the road from my flat (also where I discovered that brown sauce that I mentioned in a previous post). There was also a Chinese takeout place on Finchley Road that made the best (and only) Peking duck I have ever tasted - I ate enough duck to grow pinfeathers and now never want to see another duck.
I never could get into lamb (and there were several Greek places that did it with pita bread on Finchley Road) - it always tasted gamy to me.
"I find the whole concept of a parasitic class of people called the nobility to be an anachronism whose time passed a long time ago."How are the nobility parasitic? They pay taxes. In fact, in Great Britain, their tax level is so extortionate that most of the great families have had to give up houses and property that had been theirs for centuries. If anything, I'd say that the English nobility have been victims of just the kind of class warfare that you espouse -- graduated confiscatory taxation.
That staunch republicans as many Americans should be, I find it incredible that there is any admiration for a parasitic family whose relationship to the populace is to sponge off the people.H.M.'s revenues are largely from her land holdings, which were inherited. Are you saying that people should not have a right to benefit from inherited wealth? If that is your opinion, I must assume that you are either a registered Democrat or a Socialist.
They produce absolutely nothing nor contribute anything to civilization.The history of European art and culture is the history of the European aristocracy. They, as a class, were the only ones with the wealth and cultivation to patronise art. Virtually everything of beauty that had been developed in Europe over the last thousand years we owe to the patronage of princes.
Further proof that Europeans still have a long way to go before they join the modern world.Ah, the modern world! America in the twenty-first century as the pinnacle of all that is good and beautiful! Modern American culture is an example of what happens when art is subject to the law of supply and demand in an environment without aristocracy, where people with absolutely no aesthetic discernment have a disproportionate amount of disposable income. Aristocratic patronage gave us Bach, Handel, Michelangelo, Moliere. "The People" have given us rap music, $200 sneakers, Britney Spears, professional wrestling, monster truck rallies, Jerry Springer, and a President named Clinton.
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.