Another royal question

[Gypsy]

Wow Smith.

Way to be rude and blame others for your own issues. As Deb said: "Why keep that information to yourself and grumble about the stupidity of Americans rather than sharing whatever you know about the back room politics with us at the outset? "

It's called a discussion. Last time I checked you weren't a monarch. So it's acceptable to 'question' your proclamations. Forgive me if I don't accept everything you say, when it runs counter to my own research from impeachable sources, simply because you are a Brit and bow down before you. If you have more knowledge than the average citizen and consider yourself an expert then comport yourself as one and do not attack people seeking knowledge. Which is part of what I was doing. Seeking the truth and clarification. This is a FORUM, I suggest you look up the word to understand what it mean. It's not a blog. Maybe that's what you need. Someplace all about "SMITH" where you won't be questioned by the masses.

I have never had a great impression of you because you don't seem to play well with others, and frankly this just reinforces it. Which I find sad.

Goodness knows its a good thing you stay off RT. I'd hate to see how you deal with our newbies.

 

[AGBF]

Like amc, I've often wondered how Kate was schooled in the royal protocol -- how does one adjust to being a world recognized public figure, particularly when they've come from a commoner background. Thoughts?

In the beginning, one makes mistakes. I remember the young Princess of Wales turning over a silver wedding gift to look at the bottom, obviously to see if it was sterling silver. The cameras caught it, of course. She was not yet schooled in all the things one should not do, but a member of the Royal Family at age 19, would already have known better.

AGBF

 

[Smith1942]

[Weary tone] Isn't it common sense that someone who'd lived in a place for decades would know more about it than someone who hadn't? I never said you were dolts or should bow down any of the other things you said. It's just common sense that I'd know the place better than a foreigner.

However, it's quite rude where I come from for a foreigner to contradict someone so forcefully about their own country, when they person isn't right, like the title debate.

And when Deb said that thing about Anne, I knew it wasn't correct but I had to go away and do more research. As soon as I found what I was looking for, I posted it.

I'm sorry that you had to become so personal, Gypsy. Perhaps you didn't really mean it. Deb and I have managed to have a spirited debate without becoming like that. I hope everything's OK with you. Deb leaped at me once and we sorted it out; she said she was having a bad day.

Just seen your edit about RT, Gypsy. I do post on RT and I enjoy it, with my fulsome knowledge, guiding the blind towards.....Blue Nile! Generally, I say stuff like, well it looks OK to me but I hope one of our experts will chime in, as I'm not sure. Like the recent thread with Maximus Cruiser and his lost diamond, and his possible replacement with a really shallow crown angle that nevertheless came out well on the HCA. Bit of a puzzle for us amateurs.

 

[AGBF]

Deb and I have managed to have a spirited debate without becoming like that.

Deb leaped at me once and we sorted it out; she said she was having a bad day.

You were a peach to me that day, Smith. <smile>

Hugs,
Deb

 

[Smith1942]

Come on Gyps, don't be mad...give us a smile...

 

[Ally T]

Nope, no schooling in the UK to explain the in's and out's of the monarchy, least of all royal protocol, titles, entitlements or otherwise. I am 39 & have lived here all of my life with the exception of 2.5 years in New Zealand in my late 20's, but some of the info on here has been enlightening. I am intelligent, well read & interested in our monarchy, but still find some things surprising

 

[Smith1942]

Deb and I have managed to have a spirited debate without becoming like that.

Deb leaped at me once and we sorted it out; she said she was having a bad day.

You were a peach to me that day, Smith. <smile>

Hugs,
Deb

I didn't think I was, but I'm glad you felt better, anyway! Big kiss and hug to you, Debs. I'm posting so much as I've got a dodgy ankle so I'm just lying here, and not getting much sleep either so am tired. It swelled up for no reason and then I became sure I was having a system failure or something! Am trying to keep it elevated and not think about getting my affairs in order! Bit of a wimp when it comes to medical things.

 

[Gypsy]

I'm sorry that you had to become so personal, Gypsy. Perhaps you didn't really mean it. Deb and I have managed to have a spirited debate without becoming like that. I hope everything's OK with you. Deb leaped at me once and we sorted it out; she said she was having a bad day.

Nope. I'm fine. You might want to look in the mirror and your own posts for the source of the rancor. Deb is more tactful than both of us. You were the one who made it personal when you mentioned me multiple times and in at least 2 different posts implying that I was both ignorant and arrogant... and slow to understand your brilliance. So don't get "weary" on me and play the victim. You were the aggressor.

I stand by everything I said. As far as I am concerned you owe both me and Deb apologies.

As for whether or not someone who has lived somewhere is an expert on the customs of that locale? I don't find that is so. It depends on the individual. Some people can live someplace all their lives and not have accurate information, their perceptions can be skewed by what is 'common' and what is truly 'correct' and 'accurate' does not seem to penetrate their consciousness. I do not know anything about you except your posting style and some glimpses of your personality. And I have learned today that you are rude and like to blame others for your own issues instead of owning up to them and apologizing. So... i do not regard you as an expert on anything and will not do so until you have proven to be one to me.

 

[Smith1942]

I said, that your position on titles was tiresome, and it was, to me. Your position, not you. Aren't I entitled to that opinion? I thought it was OK to not agree with all points. I wasn't hiding that opinion from you, I knew you'd probably come back and read the thread, and I expect others to find my position tiresome sometimes, too.

You're being really aggressive.

 

[JewelFreak]

I hope Gypsy has a chance to chill tonight. Smith has done yeoman's work looking up tiny points & has been very informative. Disagree with her info if you wish, but pleeeeze don't get personal. It doesn't help. I'm sorry, but I don't see anything they should apologize for. Let's move on, eh? & be friends!

Re Edward's & Sophie's children, the Mail (not your usual go-to site for accurate protocol info) sums it up pretty well:

A decree made by George V in 1917 stipulated that while a son would become a prince, a daughter would not become a princess.

The king had ordered that the titles HRH and prince and princess should be restricted to the children of the sovereign, the children of the sovereign's sons, and the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

That means that Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie automatically had the title of princess at birth as Prince Andrew's daughters, but Zara Phillips did not – although her mother, Princess Anne, had already rejected titles for her children.

Prince Edward's son and daughter were similarly entitled but he and his wife Sophie chose for them to be styled as the children of an earl in order to give them a more 'normal' childhood.

They are now known as Lady Louise Windsor and James, Viscount Severn.

-- Laurie

 

[Gypsy]

I said, that your position on titles was tiresome, and it was, to me. Your position, not you. Aren't I entitled to that opinion? I thought it was OK to not agree with all points. I wasn't hiding that opinion from you, I knew you'd probably come back and read the thread, and I expect others to find my position tiresome sometimes, too.

You're being really aggressive.

I'm not just being aggressive. I AM aggressive. It is part of my personality. I can own up to that. I don't need to blame others for my own quirks.

As for why that characteristic is coming out with you... I have yet to hear an apology from you. Instead you have tried to turn around your rudeness by making it sound like *I* am having personal issues (rude). And now are justifying your comments and minimizing them, instead of just apologizing.

You did not "merely" say that my position was tiresome (which is rude on its own-- as Deb pointed out to you earlier and diplomatically). You implied that I had no right to my position, and no right to question you about yours. I have rights to both. And if you found it tiresome you did not have to reply to me. I did not address you IN ANY WAY, until AFTER you addressed me in this thread. So you engaged me. And then you complain about it.

Maybe you just don't realize how you come across? Again, sad. But not my problem. I just saw your comments in the other thread and it appears you are having problems there too. You really don't seem to understand that the point of a forum is to discuss, share opinions, DIFFERING opinions, and that when you make statements people will ask that you back them up and justify them.

 

[Smith1942]

Interesting royal info, Jewelfreak.

You never know whether to believe the Mail or not. On one hand, it's a tabloid, but on the other, Richard Kay and Geoff Levy are very close to the royals, and Kay in particular was very good friends with Diana, photographed with her on numerous occasions.

The DM has done some great investigative work in the past, too, on murder cases. I feel as if they're a serious newspaper masquerading as a tabloid!

 

[Smith1942]

I did say sorry to Deb, actually, if you read the thread back.

You seem to have quite a bad temper, Gypsy. You've jumped all over me with a complete character assassination, catastrophising my personality, saying I don't play well with others, I'm superior, I need to look in the mirror, I shouldn't talk to newbies on RT, I should write all about myself only on a blog, I'm sad, I'm rude - honestly, it's so over-the-top that it's almost comical. Can't you just calm down a bit and stop looking for as much bad as you can in my posts?

I felt I could be honest on this thread and the other that I was getting tired in general as the threads were intense, and also tired of repeating myself and explaining. I did feel able to be honest about that.

You say, "Oh yes, I'm aggressive" like that's fine. Why are you entitled to your aggressive character assessment of me, but I'm not entitled to my honesty about being fed up?

 

[kenny]

Cutest baby ever.

 

[Ella]

Ladies, you are both attacking each other. Step away from your keyboards and give it a rest please.

 

[Gypsy]

Sorry Ella. Will do. Not worth my time. I'm sorry I spent any time on it at all and caused you consternation.

 

[babs23r]

Lets just decide to get along and learn from others. Lord knows, I have learned a lot. Didn't know how ignorant I was on the Royal family since this thread appeared! We are all grown ups and pretty informed ones at that.
Peace

 

[JewelFreak]

Thank you, Ella.

The DM has done some great investigative work in the past, too, on murder cases. I feel as if they're a serious newspaper masquerading as a tabloid!

An interesting observation. I used to read it every day but got depressed with all the animal-cruelty stories & those about people doing such weird things, I wondered how reporters ever found them (if they were real). But you are right about some of their work - I still check in once a week or so. I remember Richard Kay was close to Diana. He died a bit ago, didn't he? Or am I thinking of someone else?

--- Laurie

 

[Smith1942]

I apologise to you, Gypsy. I am tired today and perhaps I could have phrased things a lot of things more tactfully. I do get frustrated sometimes, and the thread was very complex.

I hope we can still talk about different topics another time. I'll try and work on some of the things you mentioned about me. I wasn't offended beyond repair, as I appreciate a straight-shooter. Always know where you are with those!

Are we friends, or at least acquaintances, perhaps?

 

[babs23r]

Good going, Smith! I'm sure that Gypsy will answer as soon as she opens this thread.. that is , if she opens it again...

 

[Smith1942]

You know how you hear of people who meet online and they get along really, really, well, talking a lot, and they're excited to meet up, but when they do, they don't get along at all? Maybe Gypsy and I could be like that, but in reverse! I hold out hope, anyway.

 

[Smith1942]

Good going, Smith! I'm sure that Gypsy will answer as soon as she opens this thread.. that is , if she opens it again...

I'm hoping curiosity will get the better of her!

I'd kind of like to ask her why she's called Gypsy.

 

[isaku5]

Good going, Smith! I'm sure that Gypsy will answer as soon as she opens this thread.. that is , if she opens it again...

I'm hoping curiosity will get the better of her!

I'd kind of like to ask her why she's called Gypsy.

I actually know the answer to that, but I'd rather you hear it from Gypsy herself.

 

[Smith1942]

Sounds intriguing...

 

[Smith1942]

It doesn't look as if she's going to come back

I've been waiting, but I think dinner calleth me.

 

[Gypsy]

I'm a prickly pear. But you really have to work hard at getting me to hold a grudge (not that it hasn't happened but... I like to think of the people who have managed to get on that short list as special). I won't hold a grudge and I'm sure we'll rub along fine. I'm not on the boards much anymore.

I apologize for my part of the unpleasantness. I was taken by surprise because I thought we had a nice dialog yesterday and felt good about it, and then when I logged on today I felt hurt and attacked. And I don't react well to feeling attacked.

As for the moniker Gypsy. Simple answer is that I move a lot (jobs and homes). Always have it seems. I started dressing as a Gypsy for Halloween... years ago, and it fit on more than one level. When I started visiting forums on the net I tried a few different names. None felt right. This one did.

I have a job I like now though, and plan to stay here for a while. Which makes me happy. More than anything right now, I want to own a house and be able to just settle and put down roots. That's still a work a progress. So... for now, Gypsy still fits. When it doesn't... I'll change it.

 

[Smith1942]

Yay, you came back!

Gypsy is a wild and free name, to me. It's dramatic, like you! (That is meant as gentle teasing. Please don't be cross; my cardio system can't take it twice in one day! I know it was my fault before though for starting it.) Are you the sort of person that, once you're someone's friend, you're loyal to them with the ferocity of a tiger? That's kind of how I see you.

My friend, who is very spiritual, says that people come into each other's lives: "For a reason, a season or a lifetime." Maybe we came into each other's lives for a reason.

Hugs xxxxxxxx

 

[Smith1942]

Going to log off now to feed myself!

 

[Smith1942]

But before I go, Debs are you there? I wanted to apologise to you for my tired impatience and tactlessness on this thread. I hope you will forgive me xxx

 

[Gypsy]

That's an interesting question. Loyal with the Ferocity of a Tiger to friends.

Well. It depends on your definition of that I suppose.

When I consider someone my friend I am very accepting. Their quirks, etc, are part of them and I understand and appreciate that. And I do not expect them to change to suit me. Ever. I may want them to change for themselves, for their own health though.

When they ask for my advice I give them my honesty. I will tell them things they may not want to hear. And don't 'mollycoddle." Even if it means they get mad at me. But once I've said my peace... what they do with it is up to them.

I can and do disagree with things my friends say and do. And vice versa. I like to think I support them even when I disagree with them. That's loyalty to me. And I'm there for them if they fall. I have never believed that loyalty means that you agree with everything someone does.

There are lines I won't cross for my friends. And if they asked me to cross those lines I wouldn't. And I would consider even asking a breach. I don't care to be manipulated. And if I ever think a friend is manipulating me, or trying to... that's the fastest way to lose my friendship.

I won't hate someone just because one of my friends hates them or has a problem with them. I don't consider that part of being a loyal friend. I don't have to hate the same people my friends. And in fact I may be friends with someone they don't appreciate. And vice versa. And that's healthy. I also don't have to like the same people my friends do. In fact I have several good friends who have friends, in turn, that I don't care for. And that's fine too. And long as they respect the fact that I may not want to be around that person, and don't force them on me... they can like whoever they want.

I don't generally fight their battles for my friends. That's their job. And I don't ask anyone to fight mine for me. I am there if they need advice, a hug, a safe place to vent and I will even back them up if it is warranted.

Loyalty is a hard thing to define and quantify. Then adding 'ferocity of a tiger' makes it even more daunting. I certainly have never thought of myself in those terms.

Perfect is the enemy of good. I try to be a good friend. I'm not a perfect one. And my definition of "good friend" is the one that matters. I have to be loyal to myself and my beliefs. My friends understand that. That's why they are my friends.

Enjoy your meal.