I saw the news today...oboy!

I saw that Prince Charles was smacked across the face with a carnation by a woman protesting against the War in Afghanistan! The police took her away. They said the Prince was not hurt!

I could almost imagine that the protester could have been tracey! ;)

Edit [It was a carnation and not a rose!]

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: skywalker ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by skywalker:
I saw the news today...oboy!

I saw that Prince Charles was smacked across the face with a rose by a woman protesting against the War in Afghanistan! The police took her away. They said the Prince was not hurt!

I could almost imagine that the protester could have been tracey! ;) <hr></blockquote>

It was Tracey, and she trod on his foot with her pointy boot as well, thus giving the purrrfect demonstration of peaceful protest in action.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by skywalker:
I saw the news today...oboy!

I saw that Prince Charles was smacked across the face with a carnation by a woman protesting against the War in Afghanistan! The police took her away. They said the Prince was not hurt!

I could almost imagine that the protester could have been tracey! ;)
<hr></blockquote>

Just curious, has the Royal Family done more than offer sympathy to the American people? I haven't seen anything about their outright support of the war in Afghanistan. I don't doubt it given the official position of the government, but I haven't seen it.

Seems PM Blair or elected officials would be the one(s) they wanted to "carnation".

Isn't the Royal Family just a figure head of the government, with no true power? (no offense intended)

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:


Just curious, has the Royal Family done more than offer sympathy to the American people? I haven't seen anything about their outright support of the war in Afghanistan. I don't doubt it given the official position of the government, but I haven't seen it.

Seems PM Blair or elected officials would be the one(s) they wanted to "carnation".

Isn't the Royal Family just a figure head of the government, with no true power? (no offense intended)<hr></blockquote>

The Royal Family are more a tourist attraction than anything else, these days!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:


The Royal Family are more a tourist attraction than anything else, these days!<hr></blockquote>

Why the negative reaction? Have the Royal's come out in favor of military action in Afghanistan?

Is it that they are the "figure heads" of government or have they actually spoken out in favor of the actions?

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:


Why the negative reaction? Have the Royal's come out in favor of military action in Afghanistan?

Is it that they are the "figure heads" of government or have they actually spoken out in favor of the actions?

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]<hr></blockquote>
It's not a negative reaction Ronn. The Royals are meant to be apolitical. They are the figurehead of the country rather than of the government. They certainly have no power - we fought a Civil War to achieve that. Lizzie has spoken out about terrorism but in reality she has to say what Tony tells her to say.

their main purposes are to be a tourist attraction and to represent the country rather than the government of the day. That way dodgy foreign politicians can be received without it seeming that Britain endorses them. Likewise foreign leaders can make a state visit to the
Queen without it looking like they are dealing with the government.

BTW the sixteen year old girl that whacked Charlie was in Latvia. She faces a prison sentence of up to 15 years for injuring a foreign dignitary.

That's just sad. A 16 year old going to prison for making a political statement that did not hurt him. She'd be 31 when she gets out. I hope the don't seriously prosecute this girl. That would be a gross injustice IMO.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:


It was Tracey, and she trod on his foot with her pointy boot as well, thus giving the purrrfect demonstration of peaceful protest in action.<hr></blockquote>

Seriously? It was Tracey?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by skywalker:
That's just sad. A 16 year old going to prison for making a political statement that did not hurt him. She'd be 31 when she gets out. I hope the don't seriously prosecute this girl. That would be a gross injustice IMO.<hr></blockquote>

Skywalker, aren't politicians, royals and public personas entitled to protection from the public - nuisance, pain, shock and murder?

If adequate deterrants were in place perhaps we'd still have John Lennon and Versace for a start. Granted it's harsh. I doubt she'll get 15 years if anything at all, but what person would attempt even a mock assault of a public figure in these times?

It's asking for trouble.

If I were Charlie I wouldn't want to have to anticipate a carnation in the eye or a pie in the face every time I met people; and if I had a problem with him, I wouldn't touch him with anything.

That said, I think the concept of a royal family and aristocracy is pretty lame. One step away from casteism... ;) :D

C'mon Donut. :D How are those ribs?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Yorick:


Skywalker, aren't politicians, royals and public personas entitled to protection from the public - nuisance, pain, shock and murder?

<hr></blockquote>

Huh. That one works both ways. I'd like some protection from creeping Blair's creeping bloody privatisation program, personally... The way it's going, by the time I'm 60, medical care will consist of a handup into the nearest dustbin, unless I happen to strike it rich, that is...