PDA

View Full Version : Just when you thought Charles couldn't mess up anything else !


TimS
8th Apr 2005, 18:47
A masterstroke - this man makes f'in up an artform ....

Prince Charles has shaken hands with Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe at the Pope's funeral.
The prince was "caught by surprise" when Mr Mugabe leaned over to greet him, Clarence House said.

Mr Mugabe sidestepped a European Union travel ban to attend the funeral service in the Vatican.

Opponents condemned his presence at the service as an insult, with one Euro MP describing it as a "flagrant breach of the EU travel ban".

(credited to BBC)

airship
8th Apr 2005, 18:51
Guv, it was an honest mistake. You know how all white people look the same to a black, well in this case, the situation was reversed... :)

(PS. Charlie, I expect the knighthood to be announced in the new year...)

tony draper
8th Apr 2005, 19:01
Why didn't we send a wetwork team? a missed oporunity if there ever was one, a few minutes work and all Zimbabwis probs would have been solved.
:suspect:

The Otter's Pocket
8th Apr 2005, 19:14
Charles is a gentleman and a human being. It was a very emotional day.
This thread is in bad taste.

The Isreali President shook hands with the leader of Syria. Is that bad?

PickyPerkins
8th Apr 2005, 19:18
Maybe there is still time?

Cheers, http://home.infionline.net/~pickyperkins/pi.gif

airship
8th Apr 2005, 19:23
So maybe things aren't so bad assad they're made out to be then... :O

PS Was it raeli the Isreally pressie?! :)

TimS
8th Apr 2005, 19:30
Otter,

I am sorry you find the thread in bad taste

What I find in bad taste is that Mugabi has been directly responsible for the deaths of thousands and the daily suffering of millions.

What I also find in bad taste is that his presence at the funeral will be used to promote his 'status' as a world leader - and even more so any photograph of him shaking hands with Charles (who should know better).

Pope John Paul was a strong and open opponent of oppressive regimes and supporter of human rights - I believe he would be very unhappy at the thought of his funeral being used to promote the interests of an evil (or possibly mad, or probably both) despot like Mugabi.

Mr D's (slightly toungue in cheek) comment gets my vote.

I am delighted to hear of the 'handshake' between the Israeli and Syrian parties - I am sure Pope John Paul would be also - if they use it promote friendship/co-operation between their nations (Mark my words - the Mugabi/Charles handshake will not be used for that purpose)

TimS

X-QUORK
8th Apr 2005, 19:52
To put this into context, the handshake happened at a moment when everyone present exchanged symbols of peace as is the Catholic tradition at mass...in this case a handshake. Charles was caught out here and if anyone is to blame it's the cheeky sod who sat Mugabi down close to Prince Charles.

amanoffewwords
8th Apr 2005, 20:24
That'd be the same one who sat Chicac next to Bush then :p

Onan the Clumsy
8th Apr 2005, 20:35
isn't god supposed to move in mysterious ways?

Loki
8th Apr 2005, 21:56
I suppose if your main job for some years is to shake hands with people, you end up on automatic. Anyway, wasn`t Jack Straw similarly caught out by Mugabe fairly recently. I would have thought though that HRH might have been briefed to avoid certain people during the proceedings.

Lost_luggage34
8th Apr 2005, 22:39
As has been pointed out - the 'clasping of hands' incident/accident, whatever you choose to call it was part of a Catholic ceremony.

I do not see the big deal. Why make something that is an intrinsic part of Catholic ceremonies a major issue ?

Yes, I agree that said person should not have been allowed to flout the EU rules and travel to Rome.

And I strongly agree with Mr. D wrt the EU making toothless rules.

But he was there so why not extend the said person that important part of the service ?

The service was for who I consider to be a truly great man. Why spoil the meaning of that service ? That my dear friends should be that, a celebration of his great acheivements and great life - end of story.

The fact that someone who was there and shouldn't have been , for many, many reasons, is rather illevevant and should be another matter & thread.

Flying Lawyer
8th Apr 2005, 23:10
TimS

Pope John Paul was indeed a strong and open opponent of oppressive regimes and supporter of human rights. He was also a true Christian man.

What do you think he would have done if he'd found himself sitting next to Mugabe at someone else's funeral and the moment came to shake hands as part of a Christian service?

Do you think he would have refused?

Lost_luggage34
9th Apr 2005, 00:02
Exactly Flying Lawyer - see my thoughts - we agree.


I also owe you an apology from a previous thred. I apologise.

LL34

tony draper
9th Apr 2005, 00:04
Didn't Mugabe pull a similar stunt on Jack Straw not long ago?

Shaggy Sheep Driver
9th Apr 2005, 00:44
For heaven's sake, guys. Give Charlie a break. Did you hear Brian Waldren's piece on R4 tonight, 20:45 after 'Any Questions'? IMHO Brian put it very well. Charles is actualy a highly intelligent and caring man in an impossible situation, hounded by a gutter press (that's most of 'em), who hate him and want blood for what their stupid brain-dead readership perceive as injustices to the 'People's Princess'.

Her miserable ghost will, as a result, cast it's long shadow over the wedding, which is a pity. Charles and Camilla would have married years ago and been blissfully happy, but that was not allowed to happen (in a similar way to the thwarting of Princess Margaret and Peter Townsend, but that was back in the uptight 50s!) .

Let them have their happy day. I, for one, will raise a glass to them.

SSD

Wedge
9th Apr 2005, 00:51
Pope John Paul was indeed a strong and open opponent of oppressive regimes and supporter of human rights.

Not much of a supporter of human rights for homosexuals; or the human rights of women to choose to have abortions; or for the human rights of people to be able to use contraceptives - leading directly to the painful and protracted deaths of millions in Africa from AIDS.

Being a 'true Christian' is hardly something to be proud of imho, given some of the the ludicrously inhumane teachings of the Catholic church.

However, he was an opponent of oppressive regimes and of various wars (the Iraq wars to name but two).

On the subject of Chuck, this was clearly an attempt by Mugabe to embarrass him, exactly as he did with Jack Straw, and is worthy of precisely zero newspaper column inches. He's had a bad run lately, I hope he has a nice day today!

chiglet
9th Apr 2005, 00:58
x-quork
"Catholic" tradition??? Surely you meant "Christian" tradition?
watp,iktch

tinpis
9th Apr 2005, 04:38
Had to share this piece the lovable old dear Phillip Adams column in Sat. Australian.


:p

THE best arguments for the monarchy don’t revolve around lofty issues of constitutionality. They concern compassion. For Britain’s royal palaces are sheltered workshops to protect the woeful Windsors, amongst some of the most vacuous and vulnerable of its citizens.

Far from keeping the plebs out, Buckingham’s high railings and palace guards are there to keep them in, safe from the harsh realities that force similarly dysfunctional families to live in cardboard boxes on London streets, where any day or cold night of the week you’ll see old ladies as worthy as Mrs Windsor wheeling their worldly goods around in supermarket trolleys.

Does history record a less distinguished, less talented family than the royals? (Sorry, Professor Flint, our royals). Have you ever heard one of them say anything interesting, let alone original or even mildly intelligent? True, Charles briefly endeared himself to Spike Milligan by confessing an enthusiasm for the Goons. But he then revealed that he regularly conversed with plants. Perhaps that’s why Spike had Eccles sing “I talk to the trees, that’s why they put me away”. While Spike was put away, on a number of occasions, Charles remained in mandatory detention with his mother.

Charles’ father frequently makes the headlines with utterances combining pomposity with bigotry. The Duke’s racism so resembles Alf Garnett’s that you’d swear Johnny Speight was his By Royal Appointment scriptwriter. But perhaps we should forgive his limited grasp of ethnicities. Though he’s been one step behind HM on a hundred royal tours of far-flung colonies, the Windsors’ palaces have been notorious for all-Anglo employment policies. The cities that surround their sheltered workshops now abound with Jamaicans and immigrants from Africa, yet after a decade of complaints and criticism, the royals still insist their staff be white.

Yes, the Windsors often have black leaders to formal dinners in honour of an outfit known, most inaccurately, as the Commonwealth. Older readers may recall the ample Queen Salote of Tonga approaching Buckingham Palace on such a grand occasion, sharing her horse-drawn carriage with the Emperor of Ethiopia. When someone asked, ‘Who’s that with the Queen?” Noël Coward notoriously replied, “Her dinner.” Imagine the Duke roaring at that one.

When the Queen Mum died at 120 (it’s easy to live that long when you’ve always had the best of everything and haven’t had to lift a finger), the twaddle about her greatness overlooked her opposition to Churchill. The greatest skeleton in the family’s closet remains the enthusiasm of some Windsors for Hitler. That’s why Edward had to go. And when many in the royal entourage wanted to cut a deal with Germany, it was the detested Churchill, backed by the working class, who resolved to fight on. And in doing so, played a major role in saving the world from Nazism.

Daughter Betty’s politics? The best that can be said for HM is that she detested Thatcher. This was, however, more personal than ideological. You couldn’t have two Queens on the same throne.

In any case, her principal interests are not political but equine and canine. Horses and corgis. She shows appalling taste in the cinema and theatre she attends, and Princess Diana once told me (scouts’ honour) that her ma-in-law’s favourite TV program was Kojak. One might have thought that royalty would show brand loyalty to Coronation Street. The princess confessed a preference for Dallas.

There was a time when England’s royalty supported the best and brightest in the arts and scholarship. The previous Elizabethan era comes to mind. But not now. Not this mob. They prefer Ascot to Oxford, corgis to Cambridge, soaps to opera. Not content to merely watch Dallas, they’ve lived it. Worse, they’ve worsted the worst excesses of Desperate bloody Housewives.

Princess Di, not too smart and not all that beautiful, became the biggest film star since the Golden Years of Hollywood, eclipsing everyone from Shirley Temple to Shirley MacLaine, her death provoking an eruption of gush and grief. Everyone went nuts – and otherwise perceptive commentators such as my British friend Beatrix Campbell wrote columns, or entire books, insisting that Diana’s martyrdom meant the end was nigh for the British monarchy. If the tumbrels didn’t roll, they’d still be out on their royal arses, HM ending up as a bag lady outside Harrods.

My insistence that Di’s death was just another evanescent celebrity event on a par with the O.J. Simpson trial provoked unprecedented wrath. But I was right. And right again to predict that the unendurable Windsors would endure. And they have. Surviving Di, they’ll survive Camilla.

Yet Australia yearns to be rid of them. If not a republic, anything.

Or anyone. Even a run-of-the-mill young Tasmanian who goes from real estate to the unreal estate of royal estate would do. After all, in this country, God help us, real estate is king. So send her victorious, happy and glorious.

As long as we unload THEM.Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12783121%5E12272,00.html)

Lost_luggage34
9th Apr 2005, 05:39
Having been on-call all night and up for the majority of it, I was hoping for a litte more informed banter.

As usual, the stanard of JB continues to degrade.

One had thought a true bloke such as Mr. D. who has exceeding standards should have put a stop to excesive frivollity

Loose rivets
9th Apr 2005, 07:25
I have it on good authority, that Charles' automatic electric hand-shake arm, was selected to ‘full auto'.

If you look closely at the pictures, you will see him fumbling frantically with his other hand for the off switch.

acbus1
9th Apr 2005, 07:55
Personal thanks to tinpis for passing on a superb (and IMHO accurate) description of "our" Royal Family. Brilliant! :ok:

I'll be keeping a copy of that! :D

Caslance
9th Apr 2005, 08:04
Just a small point of information for the EU-bashers.

The Vatican is a sovereign territory, and is neither a member of the EU nor of the UN.

Freedom of access to the Vatican for all is guaranteed by Article 19 of the Lateran Treaty of 1929 - which rather predates the EU.

If you want to blame anyone, blame Mussolini. :D

Omark44
9th Apr 2005, 08:13
Ah yes, Phillip Adams, one of the most, if not the most, reviled journalist known to man! Famous for writing sensationalist rubbish designed to stir up as many people as possible in order to sell newspapers.

acbus1
9th Apr 2005, 08:49
........you will see him fumbling frantically with his other hand for the off switch.
You can't fool us.

We all know what his other hand was fumbling frantically with. :rolleyes:

X-QUORK
9th Apr 2005, 08:56
God that really is funny, an Australian slagging off the Royal family for showing a lack of interest in culture!!

BOFH
9th Apr 2005, 09:07
Ah yes, Phillip Adams, one of the most, if not the most, reviled journalist

You left out 'clever'[0]. Editors want polarisation, and he's good at it. Look at the vitriol he spits. Church? Scum. AFL? Idiots. Middle classes? [email protected] He's like your favourite drunk at the pub.

Ah well, google his dob, calculate his BMI, and feel better.

I have shaken hands with enemies at funerals[1]. Anyone else?

BOFH
[0]And fattest.
[1] I'm sure everyone knows - "Where there's a will, there's a family".

henry crun
9th Apr 2005, 09:14
Caslance: A point occurs to me that you might know the answer to.

Is the airfield that Mugabe landed at covered by the Article 19 of the Lateran Treaty of 1929 even though it might be in the EU ?

acbus1
9th Apr 2005, 10:34
This is a superb opportunity to prevent Mugabe returning to his favourite crime scene!

Lock him up in an Italian jail........suspected terrorist.....shaking hands with dodgy blokes.......whatever.

Let him rot! :mad:

Caslance
9th Apr 2005, 15:29
Is the airfield that Mugabe landed at covered by the Article 19 of the Lateran Treaty of 1929 even though it might be in the EU ? I'm no expert on Italian law, but my understanding is that it is the destination - ie, The Vatican - that counts, rather than the port of entry.

I presume the egregious Mr Mugabe was expected to depart from the same port of entry immediately his visit to the Vatican ended.

Let him rot! Yes, and Pinochet too, acbus1. :rolleyes:

Rollingthunder
9th Apr 2005, 15:54
The Italian Gov't is obliged to not interfere with diplomats going to the Vatican.

Send Clowns
9th Apr 2005, 16:14
I find myself agreeing with Wedge, and even adding to the sentiment. Catholic opposition to contraception not only encourages the spread of AIDS - the news reports suggesting that abstinence progammes were better than condoms have been proved wrong where they have been tried - but also the overpopulation of Africa. As soon as you apply any level of modern medicine without birth control people will starve. It is not a question of whether, but when and how many. Pope John Paul II never addressed this issue, and kept a very hard line in Africa on the issue of family planing.