Bunny who?

Why? Who? What's this blog about? It's about MEEEE!

Being a Widow

My experience of dealing with grief as a widow


About Jane's brain tumour journey: Astrocytoma.co.uk

03 October 2003

What matters more: The lie or the truth?

A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes - Mark Twain

Interesting debate in The Netherlands at the moment. One of the Princes is engaged to a civilian girl, Mabel Wisse Smit. It turns out that Mabel knew Holland's best known gangster, Klaas Bruinsma, who was assasinated on the street in Amsterdam in 1991. Knowing someone is not a crime, she might after all not have knows who Bruinsma really was and she was a young girl back then.

She denies publicly that she knew him. When people start coming forward with stories of the two together, she admits having met him 'once or twice' but that she broke off all contact when she found out who and what he was.

Would that deny her the right to the throne? (she will marry the prince who is second in line)
Then a reporter tracks down a guy in Chilli who supposedly was the bodyguard of Bruinsma. He says, on TV, that Mabel was the gangster's lover and that they spent many nights together until the day Bruinsma got shot. The bodyguard says Mabel witnessed the people on the boat practising their shooting on beercans and that she was there all the time.
Mabel subsequently admits she did indeed spend a few nights on Bruinsma's boat but that there was no romance.
So, Mabel Wisse Smit gets into more and more trouble, especially since she keeps changing her statements.

Now the question is: what is more damaging? That she had a relationship with a topcriminal or that she lied about it now? What makes her more unfit to join the Royal Family? The fact that she is a liar or the fact that she, if it is true, was a ganster's moll?

Ethics......personally I believe the liying about her past makes her more unfit than that past itself. If she comes clean about it, then it might turn out she did indeed not know about the antics of her lover. How can she be blamed for what she did not know? However, she can be held accountable for the twisting and turning she has done in the recent days. So, as far as I am concerned, she is unfit to be a queen, no matter what her past really is.

And the poor poor prince.......for years he has been accused of being gay and now he found someone and she is a ganster's lass. Chances are parliament will not approve of her and that means he will have to choose between Mabel and his chances for the throne. These are interesting times for the Dutch Monarchy.

Last year, the first son of the Queen married the daughter of a member of the Argentinian junta.

Mabel denies she was 'a gangster's moll'


Post a Comment