14-10-2013, 10:53 AM
David Guyatt Wrote:Peter Presland Wrote:I agree David's 'Defense of the Realm Boys' attribution but pose the question 'where does that definition end and the Royal Household begin?'
I don't rule out that, say, the Duke (or more likely a senior functionary but not a blue blood) may have had a Thomas Becket moment. It's possible and we'll never know one way or the other of course. But I do sometimes look at the Royal Household and wonder about them, and think of the film the Last Emperor.
Whatever, it seems their 'blue blood' runs 'ice cold'......I don't even think a verbal Thomas Becket moment would have been needed...just a look or long set of them....and the Praetorian Guard knowing that Diana was an 'embarrassment' and a 'hindrance' to certain sang froid en bleu. [as well as the British Arms Establishment with her anti-mine and cluster-bomb campaigns; not to mention a Royal, or former one, touching AIDS victims et al. - making them all look bad while being more popular with the Public than they were.]
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass