Meeting Royalty in Europe

Robert writes:

My princess friend knows that people are interested in royalty. What
would she say about these posts? I don't know for sure but I think she
would think it's funny that no one believed me. She's smart enough to
understand all of this. She might be mad that I'm spending too much
time here.

Why don't you pick up the phone and ask her, instead of speculating, and
then report back to us?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) writes:

Possibly because of them?

Those eyebrows were part of what prevented me from ever finding her
attractive. They looked bad enough naturally, but make-up often
deliberately exaggerated them.

Actually, she looked a lot like my mom.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) writes:

Interesting observation! Does a "princess" cease to be such, when she
marries?

If she marries an heir to the throne, she becomes queen when he becomes
king, as I recall. In fact, I think she also becomes queen if she
marries a king, but I'm not sure. I know that the rule does not apply
in reverse, which is why the queen of England is still married to a
prince (a "prince consort").

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Arwel Parry writes:

A business suit will do, though lots turn up in morning suits and hats.

What is a morning suit?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) writes:

Oops! That lets you out, Mix (I imagine the DO enforce a "dress code"
there).

I wouldn't want to attend a party that would exclude me (or anyone else)
on the basis of dress.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Robert writes:

I was then invited to his house and met his beautiful wife
and was asked if I wanted to meet Senator Kennedy whose
office was close by. I couldn't believe it. We didn't go
but went to an Indian resturant where I showed more of my
youthful ignorance. I've learned. What can I tell you.

That you haven't yet shed your youthful indiscretion.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

wrote in message
...
In article ,
nightjar@insert my surname here.uk.com (nightjar) wrote:


"Robert" wrote in message
m...
...
Oh, yea? Then why is royal watching so popular with the masses.

It is popular enough to sell newspapers at the low end of the market in
the
UK, but then so are football, scandal, government sleaze and women with
naked breasts.

Indeed. I haven't counted column inches, but ISTM the British royals who
get the most coverage in the UK press are Prince William (young,
good-looking, glamorous, rich) and Princess Diana (all the above plus dead
in what people call "tragic circumstances").

They're both much more discussed than the Queen (head of state but
quiet, sensible and uncontroversial). So in a sense the royals who are
attentively watched are so because of the characteristics they share with
celebrities in general, not because of their royal-ness per se.

I think there is a great deal of truth in that observation.

Colin Bignell

Robert writes:

But I do have these contacts and I realize that
that it's sounds unbelievable.

It doesn't sound unbelievable at all. A great many people are very
close to billionaires, royalty, and so on, but usually do not pursue the
contacts that would have the former drinking tea in the parlors of the
latter. It is really true that most of us are separated from so-called
celebrities by only a few degrees of separation, and so those of us who
worship them can come to know them if that be our goal.

What concerns me more is your lack of discretion. Each tale is a bit
more fabulous than its predecessor, and, as I expected, you eventually
named names when the stories alone failed to impress. If you are making
things up, it doesn't matter, but if you are not, it's very indiscreet.

I am curious that my sincerity has not come shinning
through my posts, because what I say is true.

Sincerity is impossible to assess on USENET.

I see now I made my own luck.

Probably. See above.

It's not my targe but I'm just going to push forward until I get
it. Success treads on the heals of every right effort.

Yes. See above. I'm not sure I see the attraction of tea with royals
or handshakes with Senator Kennedy, but it's clear that these are very
important to you.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) writes:

Judging from your frequent mistakes in spelling, one can only conclude
that your billionaire "friend" is a "self-made man" and his business
such that a proper education is not a requirement.

In the United States, most wealthy people are self-made, although that
is becoming less and less true with the continuing polarization of
wealth.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Robert writes:

No, the name "Mxmanic" is so close to indentifying my princess friend.
It's staring you in the face but unless you know the who's who's of
world royalty you probably won't know who it is. What was princess
Diana's nickname? Di? That's why I thought you were messing with me. I
don't know who your Mxmanic is but I know who mine is!

You seem to be seeing a royal under every Louis XIV chair.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.