Video: Duke of Cambridge 'Saddened' by Ukraine Plane Disaster

[SophieChloe]

What a wonderful post, HG!  :notworthy:

[HistoryGirl]

Thanks SophieChloe :) It's the truth, at the end of the day, to me, it's not about semantics or the types of duties he does. It's about the notion that even there, I just see someone who just *has* to be there. And it's also true that William owes me less than nothing...I'm not even British lol but, that is my impression of him. i know he's the heir and with that comes decorum that Harry doesn't need to have, but in Harry's words and actions I see sincerity and that to me is worth everything. 

[Limabeany]

However, to me, William never sounds sincere, no matter which words he may have used.

I think this sums things up nicely.  If you think Will is never sincere, then I'm sure anything he says will be lacking.  IMO the problem is not the words he uses in a particular situation, it's the impression you have of him generally.  It's certainly your right to have that impression, but it explains why those of us who don't have that impression are sometimes confused by what we view as nitpicking perfectly innocuous words or actions.

[mod] You may, of course, be sensitive to impressions and opinions expressed by posters, you may not, however, classify any comment or opinion as nitpicking, you may express that you disagree by explaining why or simply stating so, however, addressing posts you disagree with by making negative remarks about the poster is disrespectful. The posters who are sensitive to criticism about their favorite royal enough to classify publicly posters or opinions expressed on the forum by a poster by using such words should look within themselves and find that to those who deem a behavior unbecoming, the glowing praise and excusing of such behavior by the royal might also be hard to understand. Remember, there are two sides to every story and, it is a requirement of this forum that we are respectful of all opinions expressed and express our disagreements civilly, courteously and respectfully. If a post is confusing to you, I suggest, respectfully asking the poster to expand or explain using innocuous words... [/mod]

[Lady Adams]

You know, I was watching TV and I heard something that rang so true to me. They were describing the life of Steve Irwin (the Crocodile Hunter for those that don't know) and people discussed how insane the things that he did were and why we as an audience could be so thoroughly entertained by him even though he was doing such dangerous things that eventually lead to his death. And this reporter said that the reason was that we admire people that have such a love and dedication to their profession that they look genuinely happy to be a part of it even if it's not the most glamorous and even when it is.

Now I obviously can't speak for everyone that critiques (I use the word critique instead of hate or criticize purposefully), but for me personally that's where I can't really support Williams royal duty. That love and dedication doesn't come through to me. I don't see the enthusiasm in his eyes that was there from his mother. She was shy too so I know that it's not a personality problem which is what is commonly used to explain why Harry seems more involved than William. Idk, the genuine desire to help doesn't come across whenever he's involved and it may be my expectations being too high and if that is the case then I am willing to accept that and apologize for putting that on him. ‎

Excellent observations and analysis, History Girl. I think you're spot on. When I see CP Victoria with her daughter on engagements, I observe someone who sees, and wants to teach, that royal duties are both an obligation and unique joy. With William, I see the polar opposite. And that is, of course, fine. William can give up his titles and live as a private citizen on his trust and salary as an air pilot if he dislikes royal life so much.

There's a proverb that applies here: to whom much is given, much is expected.

[Limabeany]

There's a proverb that applies here: to whom much is given, much is expected.

Neither William nor Kate ever received that memo...  :orchid:

[Lady Adams]

^Maybe we should send it to them in a greeting card?

[Limabeany]

I don't think his reading material would include anything that could be perceived as an invitation to selflessness and/or sacrifice...

[HistoryGirl]

The saddest part is they don't seem to care at all what people think.

[Canuck]

However, to me, William never sounds sincere, no matter which words he may have used.

I think this sums things up nicely.  If you think Will is never sincere, then I'm sure anything he says will be lacking.  IMO the problem is not the words he uses in a particular situation, it's the impression you have of him generally.  It's certainly your right to have that impression, but it explains why those of us who don't have that impression are sometimes confused by what we view as nitpicking perfectly innocuous words or actions.

You may, of course, be sensitive to impressions and opinions expressed by posters, you may not, however, classify any comment or opinion as nitpicking, you may express that you disagree by explaining why or simply stating so, however, addressing posts you disagree with by making negative remarks about the poster is disrespectful. The posters who are sensitive to criticism about their favorite royal enough to classify publicly posters or opinions expressed on the forum by a poster by using such words should look within themselves and find that to those who deem a behavior unbecoming, the glowing praise and excusing of such behavior by the royal might also be hard to understand. Remember, there are two sides to every story and, it is a requirement of this forum that we are respectful of all opinions expressed and express our disagreements civilly, courteously and respectfully. If a post is confusing to you, I suggest, respectfully asking the poster to expand or explain using innocuous words...

I certainly didn't mean to suggest that anyone else's opinion was invalid or that they were required to explain or change it.  But I'm not really sure why saying that I view something as nitpicking (not that it is, just that that is my opinion) is different or worse than saying "some 'big-up' William for being just William.  One could say blowing smoke up the royal backside" as SophieChloe did, or that positive comments are "blind praise" as HistoryGirl did.   :shrug: 

[Limabeany]

[mod]William is not a poster in this forum. William is the subject of many threads in this forum. Posters or their opinions are not fair game for name calling however much you may dislike, disagree or be confused by the opinions expressed regarding William or any other subject of the threads in this forum under our community standards... Anything you would not like to be called is disrespectful. If your opinion includes name calling, then it is not respectful. Let's practice expressing our opinion without negatively classifying other posters and their opinions. [/mod]

[Jenee]

Deeply saddened is how the whole world should feel. There aren't very many words to express that. Anybody find any better words in a Thesaurus or anyplace else that express what you feel? There's a reason for those pro forma sympathy cards we send--there's no better way to say it.

Devastated
Heart broken
Disgusted
Depressed
Crestfallen
Heavy hearted
Mournful
Unhappy
Sorrowful

And I didn't need a thesaurus to come up with plenty of suitable synonyms!

[Jenee]

[admin]Please return to the topic - please take any additional off-topic comments to Private Message - thank you![/admin]

[In All I Do]

Deeply saddened is how the whole world should feel. There aren't very many words to express that. Anybody find any better words in a Thesaurus or anyplace else that express what you feel? There's a reason for those pro forma sympathy cards we send--there's no better way to say it.

Devastated
Heart broken
Disgusted
Depressed
Crestfallen
Heavy hearted
Mournful
Unhappy
Sorrowful

And I didn't need a thesaurus to come up with plenty of suitable synonyms!

Am I to believe that people would find it *more* believable that William (or any public figure, really) was devastated, depressed, or heartbroken by the loss of the flight? Frankly, I roll to disbelieve.

If he used most of those adjectives in a speech, my reaction would best be described as "pull the other one, it has bells on".

[PrincessOfPeace]

The Dutch King used the exact same phrase. I didn't realise 'deeply saddened' was such a controversial choice of words.

[Limabeany]

Just an overused and abused one...

[Jenee]

Just an overused and abused one...

Yes thank you, that's exactly my point!

[wannable]

I believe the BRF has used some but not all of those synonyms and still do; when Nelson Mandela died they were devastated, when Di died they were mournfully.

On another note, seems like Charles assessment a couple of months ago about Putin is a I told you so.

[cinrit]

The Dutch King used the exact same phrase. I didn't realise 'deeply saddened' was such a controversial choice of words. 

King Harald of Norway also used those same words.  I didn't see any discussion about how inappropriate it was when he said them.

Cindy

[DaisyMeRollin]

The Dutch King used the exact same phrase. I didn't realise 'deeply saddened' was such a controversial choice of words. 

King Harald of Norway also used those same words.  I didn't see any discussion about how inappropriate it was when he said them.

Cindy

Oh. Well, in that case, maybe we should have a comparative analysis of the cost of monarchy per capita of each and every constitutional monarchy in Europe, and whether citizens are getting a return on their investment in the context of heirs. That would require a completely different thread though.

I would, but I don't want to write up an entire "TL;DR", since we live in a snippets, soundbites, and short attention span culture thanks to the internet. (No, the irony is not lost on me while typing this out.) If there's legitimate interest, I wouldn't mind it. It seems like a worthwhile, thought provoking discussion.

Excellent observations and analysis, History Girl. I think you're spot on. When I see CP Victoria with her daughter on engagements, I observe someone who sees, and wants to teach, that royal duties are both an obligation and unique joy. With William, I see the polar opposite. And that is, of course, fine. William can give up his titles and live as a private citizen on his trust and salary as an air pilot if he dislikes royal life so much.

There's a proverb that applies here: to whom much is given, much is expected.

Succinct comparison, LA!

I find it interesting that both heir apparents are seemingly polar opposites in terms of how they contribute meaningfully. If the stories of Victoria's rejection from her father are true, they both experienced abandonment in different senses of the word. Victoria's anorexia, supposedly, was a self-induced trial provoked by her father's rejection that she had to confront and overcome. Where as William's trial (I'm not diminishing death, so everyone please dash that notion from your skulls), was met with sheltering and coddling.

[cinrit]

Oh. Well, in that case, maybe we should have a comparative analysis of the cost of monarchy per capita of each and every constitutional monarchy in Europe, and whether citizens are getting a return on their investment in the context of heirs. That would require a completely different thread though.

Does that mean I'm to understand that if William did enough of the work you deem he should be doing in order to justify the peoples' contribution to his lifestyle, then it would be okay for him to use the word "saddened"?  But if I'm to believe that, then I must also want to believe that the word isn't really the problem.

Cindy

[DaisyMeRollin]

Not even interested in the discussion on semantics and who said what (I did a double-take at myself for this weekend's thread. Wowie! I can admit fault for allowing myself to be wrangled into that song and dance.), but if we're going to bring in quotes of other figureheads around Europe while Will and Harry are working playing with ponies, sure.

[cinrit]

But his statement wasn't made while playing hockey or polo.  He was attending and speaking at an important engagement.

Cindy

[SophieChloe]

William (IMO) does not have a genuine bone in his body.  He is all take, take, and take some more. "Saddened" my arse. 

[DaisyMeRollin]

But his statement wasn't made while playing hockey or polo.  He was attending and speaking at an important engagement.

Cindy

Yes, I know.

See, now you're getting hung up on minutia instead of addressing the crux of the problem. If you're going to use quotations from the sentiments expressed by other regal figureheads around Europe as a very simplistic rebuttal, we can talk about their contributions over their lives as a collective in comparison to William, or we can go back to arguing vacuously about semantics and the degenerative qualities of "Na-na na-na boo-boo! Well, so and so said 'X'!" The point is moot.

Do you see where I'm finding fault in this excuse? It's throwing others under the bus in a very LCD way to uphold William.

[PrincessOfPeace]

But his statement wasn't made while playing hockey or polo.  He was attending and speaking at an important engagement.

Cindy

I agree. William was at an official event in Australia House the day after the disaster. I believe 27 Aussies were killed and I think it was entirely appropriate for William to make the comments he did.

Imagine the 'outrage' if he didn't?