Charlie Farley

[Ms NTL]

In defence of Charlie, as head of CofE, he ain't Dalai Lama sucking kid's tongues...

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Paul

She was in it because she was returning to the apartment of Dodi Fayed (her apparent lover).

She died because she wasnt wearing a seat belt, when the car she was in (driven by a drunken driver, at twice the speed limit) crashed into a pillar, while apparently being persued by members of the press.

While I dont particularly care for Charles, blaming him for something he had nothing to do with is utter nonsense.

Charles is indirectly responsible for Diana's death for the reasons I have provided.

---------- Post added at 18:59 ---------- Previous post was at 18:57 ----------

Originally Posted by Ms NTL

In defence of Charlie, as head of CofE, he ain't Dalai Lama sucking kid's tongues...

That's hardly a defence for Charlie! Anyway, cut some slack for the Dalai Lama.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Chris

Much depends on exactly how it’s framed during the coronation service next week. If we are presented with a multi-faith act of worship then we have been left with a meaningless muddle that won’t be true to the confession of any religion represented there. I would be surprised if any senior Muslim or Sikh invited to the coronation would be happy with that, even if some of the liberal twits in the Church of England hierarchy are.

For what it’s worth, I know Archbishop Justin to be an evangelical and while he will be keen to allow the reality of multicultural Britain to be demonstrated I do not believe he will allow the impression that the service is one in which all gods are recognised and invoked.

‘Defender of Faith’ could be an intellectually muddled attempt to construct a single understanding of faith and deity out of all major religions, and actually I suspect that in his youth that’s probably where Charles was leaning. Today, however, I suspect it will be presented to us as a part of a constitutional responsibility to the freedom and wellbeing of all people regardless of their beliefs.

The title of Defender of The Faith was bestowed on Henry VII for his defence of the Catholic Church against the trreat of Martin Luther. The title has been passed down to every monarch since. It has nothing to do with tolerance of other religions and certainly nothing to do with the CoE.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Charles is indirectly responsible for Diana's death for the reasons I have provided.

---------- Post added at 18:59 ---------- Previous post was at 18:57 ----------



That's hardly a defence for Charlie! Anyway, cut some slack for the Dalai Lama.

Well then we (the public) are also indirectly responsible because if nobody gave a toss about them the press would have had no reason to be chasing them. I doubt Charles spends much of his time reading the gutter press so we must be more responsible than he was?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

…. and she wouldn’t have been in that car if Charley hadn’t been stiffing her all those years. Hence my use of the word “indirectly”.

So not what Jaymoss said then, mind you considering you said religion was the most common cause of wars earlier in the thread I shouldn't be to surprised

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

Well then we (the public) are also indirectly responsible because if nobody gave a toss about them the press would have had no reason to be chasing them. I doubt Charles spends much of his time reading the gutter press so we must be more responsible than he was?

I think what Seph is driving at is that if Charles had not slept with his original girlfriend after marrying Diana, had paid attention to his wife's needs, etc. i.e. done his "duty" as it were, Diana would not have been in that car with or without a seatbelt.

It is ironic as I thought that the Windsor's were big on "duty" ...

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

I think what Seph is driving at is that if Charles had not slept with his original girlfriend after marrying Diana, had paid attention to his wife's needs, etc. i.e. done his "duty" as it were, Diana would not have been in that car with or without a seatbelt.

It is ironic as I thought that the Windsor's were big on "duty" ...

Exactamundo.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

I think what Seph is driving at is that if Charles had not slept with his original girlfriend after marrying Diana, had paid attention to his wife's needs, etc. i.e. done his "duty" as it were, Diana would not have been in that car with or without a seatbelt.

It is ironic as I thought that the Windsor's were big on "duty" ...

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Exactamundo.

But if the press were not feeding the public obsession, and they were obsessed with her way before any infidelity so to me that's just a red herring.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

But if the press were not feeding the public obsession, and they were obsessed with her way before any infidelity so to me that's just a red herring.

No, in all probability, she would not have left Charles if he was a caring husband so she would not have been in that tunnel in Paris.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

But if the press were not feeding the public obsession, and they were obsessed with her way before any infidelity so to me that's just a red herring.

The press and the public are second order noise. Charlie Farley is the principal whose cynical infidelity led to Diana's divorce and eventual death.

Originally Posted by ianch99

No, in all probability, she would not have left Charles if he was a caring husband so she would not have been in that tunnel in Paris.

Although it was duty that caused him to seek out and marry a ‘suitable’ bride from a noble family, rather than the society divorcee he wanted to marry …

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

Although it was duty that caused him to seek out and marry a ‘suitable’ bride from a noble family, rather than the society divorcee he wanted to marry …

Poor, innocent Diana. Duped by that horrible man.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Poor, innocent Diana. Duped by that horrible man.

I genuinely have no idea how far she was aware of what was going on at the time they met and got engaged. Presumably she talked about it in one of the interviews she gave later in her life. I’d be curious to know.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

Although it was duty that caused him to seek out and marry a ‘suitable’ bride from a noble family, rather than the society divorcee he wanted to marry …

Yes, duty to find the bride but not to be the dutiful husband. Not exactly aligned with the official royal playbook i.e. personal wishes are subordinate to the requirements of the "job".

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Poor, innocent Diana. Duped by that horrible man.

Duped by the courtiers you mean.Both were victims of the plotting and planning of the court.Also how much meddling came from Mountbatten and the Duke of Edinburgh?