queen of hearts

Last week the New York Times had an article titled, "Diana's Legacy:  A Reshaped Monarchy."


some Reader Comments:


Picasso    MidAtlantic
----------- After all these years the media is still cashing in on Diana.  Let her rest in peace.








Abby    Tucson
----------------- I had a student who identified this woman's story with his mother's untimely death.  I think this goes way beyond media making money, this is timeless.




Luis    Panama
---------- Completely agree.  It is about time we let this story end and forget about it.




Sequel    Boston
--------------- This dynasty made a comparable error a couple hundred years earlier when a highly unpopular Prince of Wales wasn't permitted to divorce his highly popular wife, whom he despised.  He locked the doors of Westminster Abbey to prevent her from attending his coronation as George IV, a humiliation that triggered her death a few days later.


The king forbade the funeral procession from passing through central London, but massive crowds hijacked it and did so anyway.  Soldiers fired on them.


The only thing that prevented the death of the monarchy was the fact that the King and Queen had left a daughter who was beloved by the public, and she was next in line to the throne.




Ann Herrick    Boston
----------- My apologies for a pedantic moment but George IV was from the House of Hanover while Elizabeth II, et al, are of the House of Windsor and so, not related.




Ted Dwyser    New York, NY
--------------- Actually, they are quite directly related.  Elizabeth II is the 5X great granddaughter of George III, who was also the father of George IV.


The "house" name changed from "Hanover" to Saxe Coburg Gotha" when Victoria married her cousin Albert, and then to "Windsor" with the strike of a pen when George V decided during WWI that "Windsor" sounded more English than "Saxe Coburg Gotha." 


Via one branch or the other, Elizabeth's ancestry can be traced all the way back to Alfred the Great and beyond.




Joe Blow    Kentucky
------------ Other than a tourist attraction, the Monarchy is a waste of the taxpayers' money, and a disgraceful example for the young of Britain.





John    Michigan
------------ The cost of the Royal Family to the British taxpayer is miniscule compared to the tourist dollars that come into Britain because of the Royal Family.


Karen    Sonoma
------------------- The idea that a reigning monarchy attracts tourist dollars doesn't hold up when you consider that Versailles is the most visited palace in Europe, and the Forbidden City in Beijing the most visited in the world. 


Within Britain, the Tower of London -- which hasn't been used as a royal residence since Tudor times -- gets far more visitors than places where the Queen actually resides (2,894,698 in 2013 versus Windsor Castle's 1,327,976 and Buckingham Palace's 567,613).




David    Hebron, Connecticut
-------------- Well, as it is their tax payers' money I guess it is best left to them to decide whether it is a waste or not, and you'll find that for all their moaning, there are few republicans in Britain (or even Australia or New Zealand) and that is for a very practical reason.


It is worth remembering that British monarchs reign but they don't rule.  The UK is a Constitutional Monarchy which means that Parliament rules, and as Parliament is elected by the people (with somewhat fairer constituency boundaries than exist in the US) they truly rule themselves.


The monarchy is an elegant mechanism for separating the role of Head of State and all its trappings from the political arena.  The Monarch is non-political - so you solve the problem of the ceremonial leader of the country being someone you voted against be it Obama or Trump.  And its net cost is negligible.




Samantha    Los Angeles
------------ This article overstates Diana's importance.  The Royal family had become extremely mindful of public opinion many decades previously after the abdication of Edward VII. 


However the palace thought the key to keeping on [the public's] right side was by scrupulously following royal protocol.  Diana's death showed them that these protocols were outdated.  They immediately adapted and survived (again).




Sherr29    New Jersey
-------------- Edward VIII abdicated, not Edward VII who reigned after Queen Victoria and before his son George V.




Anne    London
----------- I never get tired of reading about Diana or seeing pictures of her, however many times I've seen them in the past. 


She was beautiful and glamorous, a modern princess stuck in a bad soap opera. 


I admired her independence, her charity work and the loving, normal way she raised her sons. 


I wish she would have lived because I think she would have done great things.  She had star presence and made us care about the things she cared about.  I miss her.





-30-