Pr Diana inquest - how 'royal' forces are tripping themselves up
banana
Breton wrote:
> za...@aol.com wrote:
> > banana wrote:
> > > 1) Princess Diana was not a member of the 'royal' family when she
> > > died.
> >
> >
> > Pardon me, but even though Diana wasn't born royal wouldn't being the
> > mother of a future king automatically bestow the royal status on her?
> > Just curious. Thanks.
>
>
> No. Diana acquired Royal status upon her marriage to the Prince of
> Wales (in the UK women take their rank and style from their husbands).
> Therefore, upon her divorce the Royal status no longer applied.
> However, the Queen did announce (and this is mentioned in the Butler
> Sloss decision of last week) that Diana would continue to be considered
> as a member of the RF. Presumable this recognized her position as the
> mother of the Princes.
Princess Diana was removed from membership of the 'royal' family after
she and her husband got divorced (and they got divorced on the orders
of the 'queen' following the 'Panorama' interview).
>From then on she was not HRH and she was not a member of the 'royal'
family. The 'queen' even ordered that her name be removed from the
Church of England's 'Book of Common Prayer'.
(For those who don't already know, members of the Church of England
regularly 'pray' for members of the 'royal' family).
The idea that she was a member of the 'royal' family when she died was
first seriously put out in 2007.
The reasons are
1) to depict that family as properly having something to do with her
affairs,
and, more particularly 2) to cover up the meaning of coroner John
Burton's disgraceful action in transferring jurisdiction to himself as
the 'queen's' coroner.
I don't doubt that he got his orders from the 'royal' family in 1997.
As I keep saying, different 'rules' apply in the 'UK' where the 'royal'
family are involved. A high enough official can always be found to say
'fuck the rules on this occasion'.
What should be asked is this: WHY WAS CORONER JOHN BURTON EVEN TALKING
TO THE 'ROYAL' FAMILY IN THE MATTER OF WHAT WAS TO BE DONE WITH THE
BODY OF SOMEONE WHO DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT FAMILY?
On how many other occasions have coroners asked hated ex-in-laws for
info as to what's going to happen to a body? Can anyone even find a
single example?
And please, don't anyone go on about the 'royal' princes. They were
under the age of majority, and they had no say in the matter of where
she would or would not be buried. No role in organising the funeral
whatsoever. People under the age of 18 can't even engage a funeral
director, because the funeral director couldn't guarantee getting paid.
Is anyone else noticing that the 'royal' public relations stunts are
becoming increasingly idiotic?
I mean:
- saying that the issues are too difficult for a jury!
- saying she was in the 'royal' family when she died!
- publishing a letter from her sons saying 'get the inquest over with
quickly'!
- saying that since Surrey hasn't got any big rooms available, the Dodi
Fayed inquest will be transferred to the jurisdiction of the 'queen's'
coroner!
- 'discovering' handwritten notes from John Burton, 10 years after the
event, but which curiously weren't available to the Department of
Constitutional Affairs last summer, saying he thought the body would go
to Windsor
They are bound to trip themselves up even more.
banana
Mel Rowing
banana wrote:
> Princess Diana was removed from membership of the 'royal' family after
> she and her husband got divorced (and they got divorced on the orders
> of the 'queen' following the 'Panorama' interview).
>
> >From then on she was not HRH and she was not a member of the 'royal'
> family. The 'queen' even ordered that her name be removed from the
> Church of England's 'Book of Common Prayer'.
>
> (For those who don't already know, members of the Church of England
> regularly 'pray' for members of the 'royal' family).
No banana you're lying!
The names of the Royal Family do not appear in the Book of Common
Prayer nor do we 'regularly pray' for individual members.
We do pray for the sovereign.
These responses
[Priest] O Lord, shew thy mercy upon us.
All And grant us thy salvation.
[Priest] O Lord, save the Queen.
All And mercifully hear us when we call upon thee.
[Priest] Endue thy ministers with righteousness.
All And make thy chosen people joyful.
[Priest] O Lord, save thy people.
All And bless thine inheritance.
[Priest] Give peace in our time, O Lord.
All Because there is none other that fighteth for us,
but only thou, O God.
[Priest] O God, make clean our hearts within us.
All And take not thy Holy Spirit from us.
http://daily.commonworship.com/daily.cgi?tomorrow_ep=1&book=bcp
are taken from Evening Prayer.
The responses from Morning Prayer are identical
Don Aitken
<mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote:
But that isn't the BCP - it's a nasty cheap modern imitation. For the
BCP, see http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Variations.htm which
gives all the variations in the "state prayers". Since 2002, the Duke
of Edinburgh and the Prince of Wales are the ones prayed for by name.
According to that site, the Princess of Wales was there until the year
of her death.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Boed...@isp.com
banana wrote:
> Breton wrote:
> > za...@aol.com wrote:
> > > banana wrote:
> > > > 1) Princess Diana was not a member of the 'royal' family when she
> > > > died.
Shouldn't that be "princess" Diana?
> > >
> > >
> > > Pardon me, but even though Diana wasn't born royal wouldn't being the
> > > mother of a future king automatically bestow the royal status on her?
> > > Just curious. Thanks.
> >
> >
> > No. Diana acquired Royal status upon her marriage to the Prince of
> > Wales (in the UK women take their rank and style from their husbands).
> > Therefore, upon her divorce the Royal status no longer applied.
> > However, the Queen did announce (and this is mentioned in the Butler
> > Sloss decision of last week) that Diana would continue to be considered
> > as a member of the RF. Presumable this recognized her position as the
> > mother of the Princes.
>
> Princess Diana
"Princess" Diana surely.
snip rest of his drivel. Your obsession with this dead
woman has been going on far too long. There are people
who can help you with this problem if only you will ask for it.
BTW It's The Queen., not "queen". you silly old sod.
> They are bound to trip themselves up even more.
And poor old bolshie Bananas is simply going gaga waiting for
it to happen.
>
> banana
And getting more bananas by the minute.
Mel Rowing
Don Aitken wrote:
> >http://daily.commonworship.com/daily.cgi?tomorrow_ep=1&book=bcp
> >
> >are taken from Evening Prayer.
> >
> >The responses from Morning Prayer are identical
>
> But that isn't the BCP - it's a nasty cheap modern imitation. For the
> BCP, see http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Variations.htm which
> gives all the variations in the "state prayers". Since 2002, the Duke
> of Edinburgh and the Prince of Wales are the ones prayed for by name.
> According to that site, the Princess of Wales was there until the year
> of her death.
The version you refer to is of course the 1662 version. Without doubt
this is still used in some churches and it was certainly used in my
church duirng my youth as a chorister. As such I had recited these
services so many times I still know them by heart.
It doesn't really matter in this context since your "cheap modern
imitation" does make provision for the state prayers though they would
appear to be discretionary and read:
Almighty and everlasting God,
we are taught by thy holy Word,
that the hearts of kings are in thy rule and governance,
and that thou dost dispose and turn them
as it seemeth best to thy godly wisdom:
we humbly beseech thee so to dispose and govern the heart of
Elizabeth thy Servant, our Queen and Governor,
that, in all her thoughts, words, and works,
she may ever seek thy honour and glory,
and study to preserve thy people committed to her charge,
in wealth, peace, and godliness:
grant this, O merciful Father, for thy dear Son's sake,
Jesus Christ our Lord.
All Amen
and
Almighty God, the fountain of all goodness,
we humbly beseech thee to bless,
Philip Duke of Edinburgh, Charles Prince of Wales,
and all the Royal Family.
Endue them with thy Holy Spirit;
enrich them with thy heavenly grace;
prosper them with all happiness;
and bring them to thine everlasting kingdom;
through Jesus Christ our Lord.
All Amen
banana
OK well what Church of England book is it that lists members of the
'royal' family, a list from which Princess Diana's name was removed.
This was widely reported. There was a journalist who investigated who
took the decision. He met lots of brick walls but he eventually found
that the answer was that it was a personal decision of the 'queen'. If
it's not the 'Book of Common Prayer', it must be some other book.
banana
banana
banana wrote:
> Mel Rowing wrote:
> > banana wrote:
<snip>
> OK well what Church of England book is it that lists members of the
> 'royal' family, a list from which Princess Diana's name was removed.
> This was widely reported. There was a journalist who investigated who
> took the decision. He met lots of brick walls but he eventually found
> that the answer was that it was a personal decision of the 'queen'. If
> it's not the 'Book of Common Prayer', it must be some other book.
>From what Mel says, it appears to be the 'state prayers'. I assume
these are in the 'Book of Common Prayer', but maybe they are somewhere
else. Doubtless he will clarify.
The'state prayers' currently mention the 'queen', her husband, and
eldest son, by name, and the rest of the 'royal' family in one lump.
Princess Diana was mentioned by name too, until her name was removed by
order of the 'queen'.
There was discussion about including the 'duchess' of Cornwall by name
too (but not under her married name of Camilla
Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg!), but it was decided not to,
and that she would be covered under the words "all of the royal
family".
Princess Diana's name was removed.
banana
Mel Rowing
> banana wrote:
> > Mel Rowing wrote:
> > > banana wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > OK well what Church of England book is it that lists members of the
> > 'royal' family, a list from which Princess Diana's name was removed.
> > This was widely reported. There was a journalist who investigated who
> > took the decision. He met lots of brick walls but he eventually found
> > that the answer was that it was a personal decision of the 'queen'. If
> > it's not the 'Book of Common Prayer', it must be some other book.
>
> >From what Mel says, it appears to be the 'state prayers'. I assume
> these are in the 'Book of Common Prayer', but maybe they are somewhere
> else. Doubtless he will clarify.
>
> The'state prayers' currently mention the 'queen', her husband, and
> eldest son, by name, and the rest of the 'royal' family in one lump.
> Princess Diana was mentioned by name too, until her name was removed by
> order of the 'queen'.
The Book or Common Prayer owes its origins as far as I can ascertain to
Archbishop Cranmer. There were several early revisions the last one
being 1662. It would appear that since the CoE is the established
Church that any revision (as opposed to amendment) requires the
approval in Parliament. The last serious attempt failed in 1929.
I can assure anyone that in my chorister days ca. 1948-52 the 1662
version was still in very common use in churches throughout the
kingdom. It was a red immitation leather book with the words "Common
Prayer" inscribed at the top of the spine. Some members of the
congregation carried their own. Those that didn't were dutifully handed
a copy together with an accompanying copy of "Hymns Ancient & Modern"
by, as far as I know, every verger in the land who, just as dutifully,
accepted them again as the congregation left.
Since then (I am no longer a communicant of the CoE) it would appear
that different texts have been pressed into use. However, these texts
apparently draw heavily if not entirely upon the 1662 version of BoCP
differing only through an update of the language into more modern
English.
There is no other text other than the Holy Bible (read from a lectern)
that is in regular use in the CoE.
The prayers of state are in fact collects. Going back through the years
it would appear as though those members of the Royal Family
specifically mentioned in these would appear to follow a protocol:
The sovereign.
The sovereign's consort
The dowager sovereign consort.
The sovereign's heir
The sovereign's heir's consort (if any)
The rest are bundled together as "the rest of the Royal Family"
So of course, inclusion is dependent upon protocol and not Her
Majesty's preference. Diana Princess of Wales would certainly have been
included after her marriage to Charles. Our friend Don was right in
saying that Diana was formally removed from the state prayers in 2002.
I rather fancy individual priests would have removed her approximately
5 years earlier immediately, after her death that is. Simple logic
dictates no other course. There was no Princess of Wales and still
isn't.
> There was discussion about including the 'duchess' of Cornwall by name
> too (but not under her married name of Camilla
> Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg!), but it was decided not to,
> and that she would be covered under the words "all of the royal
> family".
The difficulty here is with the Church. Whilst the Church can bless
the marriage between Charles and Camilla just as it can bless any
relationship it cannot sanctify it. Camilla may well be married to
Charles, nobody can deny that but the couple have not undergone the
rites of Holy Matrimony and nor can they do so long as Camilla's
original husband survives.
Further difficulties will emerge over the place of Camilla in Charles'
coronation. I rather fancy her place will be more subdued than
precedent suggests.
This brings us to the question of the composition of the Royal Family.
The notion of Royal Family is far more embracing than the Queen's
immediate family. Its complicated but as I understand it the notion
relates to the lineage of succession to the throne. The title
Prince/Princess is automatically conferred upon the issue of the
sovereign and his/her male children. The equivalent titles are acquired
by consorts on the occasion of their marriage as is the courtesy HRH
which as the term suggests denotes those at the top of that lineage. In
addition, each sovereign's son is granted a dukedom. This will be
passed down the line of succession through the system of primogeniture
until the holder dies without male issue when it becomes extinct.
Note that these titles are not honours handed out for services
rendered. They are royal titles always in the total gift of the
sovereign and initially exclusive to his/her immediate family. In the
absence of Lord St John Fawksley who might contradict me, I would
suggest that the holders of all Dukedoms, Princes and Princesses plus
their immediate families may claim to be members of the Royal family.
I think I am right in asserting that once conferred holders of these
titles are never stripped of them no matter what they have been alleged
to have done. Historically some of these holders have gone to the tower
and had their heads chopped off but they kept their titles right to the
end and, indeed passed them on.
Wikipedia is of little help in stating that there is no formal or legal
definition
> Princess Diana's name was removed.
Yes but nearly 5 years after she was dead and her name for reasons of
circumstance had been ipso facto removed anyway. It would have been
ridiculous not to remove it.
BTW when I stated that the CoE only prays for the sovereign my mind was
on the responses which in my capacity as choirboy I repeated hundreds
of times. I had forgotten the collects just before the sermon which of
course the priest simply recites.
I therefore apologise for any suggestion that you were lying.
Breton
> There was discussion about including the 'duchess' of Cornwall by name
> too (but not under her married name of Camilla
> Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg!),
Camilla's married name is Windsor.
> Princess Diana's name was removed.
Correct; but it was removed in 1997 when she was divorced from Prince
Charles. At the time the Queen announced that, notwithstanding the
divorce, Diana would be "considered" a member of the Royal Family
(presumably this recognized that as the mother of the small Princes,
she would necessarily have some ongoing connection with the RF.
Notwithstanding that she was removed, the form of prayer includes
"....and all other members of the Royal Family". So considering that
the Queen's edict as mentioned, I think it can be assumed that these
prayers would have continued to include Diana even though she was, as
required by protocol, no longer mentioned specifically.
It has long been the practice of the Church of England to pray for the
Sovereign and other senior RF members in the "state" prayers. You may
be interested in the following web site which lists at any given point
since 1662, who those RF members were who were to be prayed for "by
name". Go to the foot of the site and you will find that Diana was duly
added in 1981 as Princess of Wales, and removed in 1997. There is a
church procedure under which decisions are made as to who gets to be
named in the prayers. I remember reading once how this worked but I am
pretty sure that the Queen personally doesn't get involved in it.
Breton
David Martel
Is there a difference between family and Royal Family? You seem to use
the two interchangeably but that may not be correct. The Princess was the
mother of two Royal Princes and so she was family but she was not a member
of the Royal Family due to the divorce agreements.
Dave M.
Me
alleged to live in America after a daring escape and fraud aranged by the
brits and has had a nose job and has an american boy friend now.
It has also been alleged that there was another well looked after daughter
by a coloured man. She is a lovely curly haired dark skinned and happy
child.
Mr William was dissapointed to find out the truth.
He is hyperviolent but usually kills in the time honours way of kings - by
deceit.
Diana acted to discredit royalty when she found out the truth of their evil
ways.
Diana's neice, another lovely red head, is in agreement. She is Williams
cousin.
I deny I have special knowlege.
"David Martel" <mart...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:05urh.12093$w91...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
None are royal but they were not illigitmate.
>
> Dave M.
>
Boed...@isp.com
banana wrote:
> banana wrote:
> > Mel Rowing wrote:
> > > banana wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > OK well what Church of England book is it that lists members of the
> > 'royal' family, a list from which Princess Diana's
"Princess Diana.
name was removed.
> > This was widely reported. There was a journalist who investigated who
> > took the decision. He met lots of brick walls but he eventually found
> > that the answer was that it was a personal decision of the 'queen'.
The Queen.
If it's not the 'Book of Common Prayer', it must be some other book.
>
> >From what Mel says, it appears to be the 'state prayers'. I assume
> these are in the 'Book of Common Prayer', but maybe they are somewhere
> else. Doubtless he will clarify.
>
> The'state prayers' currently mention the 'queen',
Queen.
her husband, and eldest son, by name, and the rest of the 'royal'
family in one lump.
> Princess Diana
"Princess" Diana.
was mentioned by name too, until her name was removed by
> order of the 'queen'.
Queen.
>
> There was discussion about including the 'duchess'
Duchess.
of Cornwall by name
> too (but not under her married name of Camilla
> Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg!),
Her last name is "Windsor".
but it was decided not to, and that she would be covered under the
words "all of the royal
> family".
>
> Princess Diana's
"Princess" Diana.
name was removed.
>
> banana
Don't you mean "bananas". You are a brick short of a load like all
loony lefties.
Breton
Breton wrote:
> You may
> be interested in the following web site which lists at any given point
> since 1662, who those RF members were who were to be prayed for "by
> name". Go to the foot of the site and you will find that Diana was duly
> added in 1981 as Princess of Wales, and removed in 1997.
Sorry, I forgot to include the link to the site:
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Variations.htm
Breton
thom...@nyc.rr.com
Breton wrote:
> Breton wrote:
>as Princess of Wales, and removed in 1997.
>
>
> Breton
This thread is distinctly odd.
Her Majesty's actions concerning the Prayer for the Royal Family were
taken ON ADVICE from the Archbishop of Canterbury of the time (as has
been clarified). For those who don't know the meaning of the term "on
advice" kindly look it up.
A very clear statement was made at the time of the divorce by
Buckingham Palace concerning the position of Diana, Princess of Wales
vis a vis the entity commonly called "the Royal Family". It also
covered her future attendance at State events. (Some of the Queen
character's words in The Queen movie- "she's not even HRH" etc.- were
preposterous IMO)
And just to remind, HM The Queen did not "strip" the woman of the style
and qualification of Royal Highness. She (D.) agreed to relinquish
them as part of her divorce settlement. Following this it was formally
announced that henceforth all divorced wives of males with HRH would
automatically "lose" this.
Any person may [or may not] pray for whomever he/she wishes. However,
the official prayers of the established Church of England are another
matter. I understand that individual clergy of the C of E DID
occasionally mention the late Diana, Princess of Wales in public
prayers (before her death); that was their own personal decision.
I wonder why (as I think I've said before) anyone would refer to the
legally recognized Head of State of the United Kingdom as 'queen'. If
she is merely Mrs Betty Mountbatten, why would anybody care about any
of it?
Thomas