Death of Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh at 99 years of age.

[mkrnhr]

I think there are several levels through which such an event can be viewed. One of these views zooms in on the human. A woman, because queen or not queen, that's who she is, has lost her husband. If one cannot see that through all the titles, even if one doesn't know the queen personally, it could be infered that it must a difficult time to go through.
I've met a few a people from England who didn't like the political structure of their government, but they almost always add that "the monarchy is symbolic" without explaining further. The royal family is a symbol of the family for a nation, maybe as an incarnated model to be emulated subconsciously. In the best of cases the traits of character of the monarch, like resiliency, courage, decorum, honor, etc. are admired. There is also the fact that prominent monarchs mark their era. It seems that with all the changes going on all around, the departure of the queen, which is preceded by the departure of her husband/consort, will mark the end of an era as well. The values that the queen represents or try to represent will certainly be replaced by the values of the farce that is the royal family after her. Or equivalent to that, because family is distasful to the overlords, the royal family as a "symbol" will become secular or disappear altogether.
In any case, it certainly is not healthy for the soul to be consumed by hatred.

 

[genero81]

There is a high chance that both of you do not know why I was placed on moderation.

We are both moderators who were (among others) involved in the decision.

Before you tell me to improve my behavior or name : attitude, sincerity, respect and willingness you can maybe go through all my posts and see where and if I was behaving on inappropriate way and write me about that.

No one is going to take the time to explain exactly what you should do or how you should do it. There are forum guidelines that can give you the general expectations.

Is this insulting on some way ?

Not the point.

 

[MJF]

Ain't that the truth! Raising my hand here. There's really something about British monarchy that, as a French, I find fascinating. But I'm very partial to England. I love the countryside, the history, the language, the culture, the eccentricity of the English. The French and English are so different, and yet we've had that love/hate relationship and we've been "enmeshed" with each other for so long, like an old couple. And I think we do have a kind of nostalgia for royalty. Maybe that's why we love to read about the British royal family.

Love that pic: Queen Elizabeth giggles as she walks past Prince Philip, who is dressed in uniform at Buckingham Palace.

View attachment 44356

I find it refreshing to hear a French person say this. I have spent quite a bit of time in France over the years and have enjoyed a lot of French hospitality. I also worked for a French bank and loved the friendly rivalry particularly when the two countries played each other at Football or Rugby. I should add that I come from an old French Norman family. I remember driving though France with my parents once and we came across a village with my family name. I remember my mother saying to my father, whilst laughing at him, that she thought she had married an Irishman not a "frog" (an English colloquialism for a Frenchman).

I have spent time with French royalists and I know they would love to ressurect the monarchy if they could. Some still cling to the legend of the 'Great Henri' who, like King Arthur (the once and future British King), will come to save France at its moment of greatest peril.

I once visited the Orlean family chapel where many members of the Orlean family are interred. The young guide who showed us around was very knowledgeable and had the poshest French accent I have ever heard. He was the ultimate in BCBG. The funny thing was that he may not have taken too kindly to my brother and if he had known we were descended from the illegitimate daughter of Duke Louis Philippe d'Orléans who, as revolutionary, voted for the death sentence to be passed on his cousin King Louis XVI.

My late father was one of the soldiers who stood guard at the Queen's marriage to Prince Phillip. He subseqently met him in the 1950's when he visited my father's workplace. He showed a genuine interest in what people were doing and asked my father questions about his role. My father recalled that he was as happy to meet and talk with the ordinary workers and ancillary staff as he was with the senior managers. I guess this came from his time in the Royal Navy, which was his second love after the Queen. He was very much a no nonsense person and spoke his mind as military officers tend to.

The best line I ever heard about the Duke was when he was flying back to the UK with his daughter. The captain of the aircraft invited Phillip to the cockpit to look around, which he was happy to do. The captain then asked him if Princess Anne might be interested in visiting the cockpit. Prince Phillip cooly replied "unless it eats hay and farts, she won't be interested" (for non-British members, Princess Anne is a very accomplished equestrian/horse rider).

 

[Alreadyin4thDensity Love]

We are both moderators who were (among others) involved in the decision.

Okay than, and I will correct myself as well, there was a chance maybe not high chance but a chance. Anyway I do not mind too much that I am on moderation as long as I do not wait whole day or days before my post is approved. Also I would like not to go off topic anymore, even this maybe too much.

 

[MJF]

I think there are several levels through which such an event can be viewed. One of these views zooms in on the human. A woman, because queen or not queen, that's who she is, has lost her husband. If one cannot see that through all the titles, even if one doesn't know the queen personally, it could be infered that it must a difficult time to go through.
I've met a few a people from England who didn't like the political structure of their government, but they almost always add that "the monarchy is symbolic" without explaining further. The royal family is a symbol of the family for a nation, maybe as an incarnated model to be emulated subconsciously. In the best of cases the traits of character of the monarch, like resiliency, courage, decorum, honor, etc. are admired. There is also the fact that prominent monarchs mark their era. It seems that with all the changes going on all around, the departure of the queen, which is preceded by the departure of her husband/consort, will mark the end of an era as well. The values that the queen represents or try to represent will certainly be replaced by the values of the farce that is the royal family after her. Or equivalent to that, because family is distasful to the overlords, the royal family as a "symbol" will become secular or disappear altogether.
In any case, it certainly is not healthy for the soul to be consumed by hatred.

Well governments may fall and prime ministers may come and go but the monarch is always there and provides the constitutional glue that helps to keep the nation together. To emphasise this point, when the Queen eventually dies, a herald will announce "the Queen is dead long live the King". I believe that Prince William and his young family are very popular here in England and in the British Commonwealth too and will make a good king. When and if Prince Charles (who is 72) comes to the throne, like his great great grandfather, Edward VII, I don't think he will reign for long.

 

[Joan]

Puleeze, given his machinations and manipulations behind the scenes, that are not openly acknowledged, his preference for eugenics, his openly boasted, how he would like to come back as some kind of bug to infect the world, and depopulate, or some such. Why on earth would I want to have any kind of sorrow for his demise.
I only hope he doesn't show up again in the near future,

 

[KristinLynne]

KristinLynne I read that book over 20 years ago when I was in high school. I bought it shortly after Diana's death because I really liked the princess. I think it was this one but I'm not 100% sure: The Housekeeper's Diary. The author didn't have an entirely favourable opinion of Diana due to the way she sometimes treated her staff and Charles was described positively, as a good father that the media unfairly painted as a cold-hearted one. I remember the tone of the book as something a committed royalist who sees the society through a lens of class divisions would write. For a Polish teenager it was a completely alien worldview and I did wonder if her manner of perceiving the world tilted the way she saw the dynamics within the royal family towards being more forgiving towards Charles and less towards Diana.

That said, I don't know how accurate the author's testimonial was. I only ever managed to get some "verification" for that small story about the queen I quoted above that my friend assessed as very likely.

Thank you so much!

 

[bjorb]

Puleeze, given his machinations and manipulations behind the scenes, that are not openly acknowledged, his preference for eugenics, his openly boasted, how he would like to come back as some kind of bug to infect the world, and depopulate, or some such. Why on earth would I want to have any kind of sorrow for his demise.
I only hope he doesn't show up again in the near future,

Did you read the entire thread? If not, I advise you to do so. I don't think you regret it. Many lessons to be learned here!

 

[Joan]

Thanks for the advice, will take your recommendation.

 

[Jones]

It will be interesting to keep an eye on what goes on from here. The Monarch is considered by the Anglicans as God's representative on earth as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. This idea forms part of the basis of some area's of law. In particular the laws of usufruct. Under the laws of usufruct the creator of something is considered it's naked owner - God created the earth, so God is the naked owner and the rest of us have usufructory interest. Usufruct meaning the user of the fruits. So in Commonwealth countries, the crown holds the land on Gods behalf. If Charles agrees with Schwab, and he becomes the King, then I reckon that this will help usher in WEF goals. Or Charles might have to distance himself from WEF agenda if he takes the same coronation oath as QEII and is faithful to it. The Monarch, in a constitutional monarchy, is supposed to remain politically neutral. I wonder if the Queen held off on retiring because she didn't think Charles was up to the task? If the Monarchy continues, I'd prefer to see William as king.

Edited to attach Harvard Study Guide on Usufruct for those that are interested.

 

[bjorb]

Same with Covid, many world leaders blindy believe and follow the advice of their intelligence agencies and other advisors. Not knowing that these are corrupt. And even these individuals are kept in the dark. While they probably believe they know how the world operates. Do they not!

Made a mistake. In the end, it should say, They do not! Big difference.

I wonder if the Queen held off on retiring because she didn't think Charles was up to the task? If the Monarchy continues, I'd prefer to see William as king.

British Monarchs reign till their death? Or not perse? I also prefer William, he is the only worthy successor in my eyes.

I am under no illusion that royal houses are going to make big revelations in the near future. But in this time where traditional values are fading, I hope that they can act as positive role models in this. I mean, the media openly promotes promiscuity, infidelity, and even pedophilia. Everything sacred is attacked. Anything unnatural is normalized.

 

[whitecoast]

Both Philip and Charles appear to have had a fixation on 'environmentalism' for much of their lives. I find that people who have a strong urge to 'save the planet' tend to be decent people but rather detached from, or uninterested in, the arguably more 'mature' cause of 'saving people'.

This is an interesting point, for someone whose politics had a heavy environmental bent for most of my formative years. It's easy and uncomplicated to love nature, trees, and furry critters because of the unpretentious innocence of them all. With people there's a lot more baggage, since we see them through our own expectations and projections of how they "ought" to behave; often times these expectations exist without having any real sense of empathy for the type of life and challenges and temptations others may confront in their ordinary existence. Even a life as alien as that as a royal is still plagued with all the pedestrian emotions surrounding duty, individual weaknesses, private wishes of the self, and the complicated web of human relationships and interdependencies.

In spite of all that mess people are charged as a matter of duty to make the most of it, and, darn it, even to perhaps love one another in the process. As a rule you cannot really ever "save people" (only they can do that for themselves) the second best thing you can do is love them. But this must be done consciously and be based on a real relationally, versus the extremely abstract and theoretical love of garden variety progressives, where they claim to love "humanity" but have the utmost trouble seeing things from another person's perspective, especially if the other has different values. The end result of this kind of "love" is western oligarchs and neoliberals manufacturing dependency in their populations and the silly performative caring/struggle sessions on social media related to the marginal group du jour.

 

[Jones]

British Monarchs reign till their death? Or not perse?

Yeah, generally they do. Queen Elizabeth holds a record for length of reign though and it would be understandable if she decided to retire at her age. I don't know how much she can bear without Phillip, so she may retire from official duties.

I was just reading the Regency Acts. I had an idea that parliament could influence the appointment of monarch and that those appointments don't necessarily have to strictly follow the line of succession where next in line cannot fulfil the duties of a Monarch due to illness, other incapacity or being below the age of 18 upon ascension to the throne and a regent with reduced powers and responsibilities can be put in place. The first of these Acts were passed in parliament in 1811 when King George III was suffering from mental illness. So parliament can form a commission to appoint a regent if a Monarch is deemed not fit for duty. If that's the case, the next in line of succession is appointed Regent.

Here's an interesting thing though, historically Regency Acts had sunset clauses - they were written to deal with a specific circumstance and a specific Monarch and after the situation resolved and a functioning Monarch could return to duties or died, the Regency Act written for that circumstance was rescinded.

In 1937 a permanent Regency Act was passed. It was amended in 1957 to allow for Prince Phillip, who was not in line of succession, to become Regent if anything happened to the Queen and their children were not yet 18 years of age! Sounds like a defensive move.

 

[bjorb]

I am under no illusion that royal houses are going to make big revelations in the near future. But in this time where traditional values are fading, I hope that they can act as positive role models in this. I mean, the media openly promotes promiscuity, infidelity, and even pedophilia. Everything sacred is attacked. Anything unnatural is normalized.

I mean, I think it also helps a lot of people if we start believing (and understanding) in real love/romance/loyalty again. It also keeps people sane. Especially in these times. Royal families (chosen supposedly by God), princes and princesses, royal weddings, and so on. There is something esoteric about it. Something divine perhaps. For a lot of people at least, it helps if others lead by example, to give direction and guidance in life.

 

[JEEP]

It appears the British public are determined to honor Prince Philip's passing, Covid restrictions notwithstanding:

Mounted police move in to hold back mourners for Prince Philip as hundreds descend on Buckingham Palace - after No10 asks public not to gather or lay flowers due to Covid threat and Royal aides remove death notice from gates​

• Police officers moved in to control crowds of mourners who have gathered at Buckingham Palace gates today
• Cabinet Office has asked mourners not to gather outside royal residences and 'avoid meeting in large groups'
• Hundreds of tributes have already piled-up outside palace gates, including Buckingham and Windsor, today
• It comes after it was announced that Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, had died this morning, at age of 99

Today Downing Street asked mourners not to gather or lay flowers outside royal residences for the much-loved Duke due to the risk of Covid.

Hundreds of floral tributes have already piled-up at palace gates, including Buckingham, Windsor and Balmoral, following the announcement of Prince Philip's death earlier today.

An online book of condolence is now available on the royal website for those who wish to send a personal message of condolence, the royal family's Twitter account announced.

It added: 'During the current public health situation, Books of Condolence will not be available for the public to sign.

'The Royal Family ask that members of the public consider making a donation to a charity instead of leaving floral tributes in memory of The Duke.

'Those who wish to make a donation as a tribute to His Royal Highness are encouraged to give to a charity of their choosing or one of the charities or organisations which The Duke of Edinburgh supported in his public duties.'

Meanwhile a brief bulletin traditionally used to notify the public of key royal events such as births and deaths was taken down prematurely from the gates of Buckingham Palace due to Covid.

Huge crowds were today seen gathered outside Buckingham Palace as a lifelong supporter of the Royal Family laid a floral tribute

I would think this great outpouring of love should do much to comfort their equally loved Queen in her hour of sorrow.

A woman adds flowers to the tributes at the railings at the front of Buckingham Palace today, as dozens of mourners are seen gathering in the background

Not only Buckingham Palace, but all the Royal residences are being graced with bouquets of sympathy:

Officers were also seen guarding the front of Windsor Castle earlier today, where flowers were also left in memory of Prince Philip

Crowds also gathered outside the royal residence of Sandringham, where flowers were laid in memory of Prince Philip today

Mourners have today been laying flowers at Buckingham palace, Sandringham, Balmoral and Windsor Castle.

His funeral will be a small family service at St George's Chapel in the grounds of Windsor Castle before the duke is buried in Frogmore Gardens, where Queen Victoria and Prince Albert were laid to rest.

The date has not been set officially, but sources claim it could be on Saturday, April 17.

FULL STORY

Prince Philip waves as he arrives back at Windsor Castle after leaving King Edward VII's Hospital in London on March 16, 2021

The above makes me think that Prince Phillip perhaps had developed a more kindly view of the human population than his earlier quoted virus sentiments conveyed. He may have been sincerely touched that his British subjects actually cared about his well being and continued health. Public sympathy concerning Harry and Megan probably played a part as well.

For most of us, Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip have been a prominent fixture throughout our entire lives even if not British. It is a loss for us all in that respect and speculation as to whether or not they were what they were presented to be should not harden hearts to the point that sympathy and empathy are withheld. I was not fond of Prince Philip (the virus quote a big part of that) and I believe he was an instrument for the forces bringing about the Great Reset. More on that below.

Last year, PBS ran several episodes documenting the Royal Family that provided many insights into what happened over the years and how events played out. Elizabeth's father wasn't meant to be King, but his brother's abdication changed that which also ensured that Elizabeth would be Queen one day as well. That day came much sooner than she expected, but she made the commitment to do her duty to the best of her ability. These episodes might be available on Netflix - worth the watch.

Both Philip and Charles appear to have had a fixation on 'environmentalism' for much of their lives. I find that people who have a strong urge to 'save the planet' tend to be decent people but rather detached from, or uninterested in, the arguably more 'mature' cause of 'saving people'.

What Philip and Charles espoused and promoted is Agenda 21/2030 - the preference for animals/nature above that of humans.

H.R.H. Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, in 1961 became president of the British National Appeal, the first national organization in the World Wildlife Fund family.

Be it WWF, WEF, WHO, etc. - we know what these organizations were really formed for and what their true agenda is. It's possible the Princes believed they were advocating for a greater good rather than the eventual enslavement of all mankind/depopulation of the planet.

As the world is currently being driven to the ground I personally see these people, including the royals as being at the forefront of this. For example, Prince Charles is HEAVILY involved with the "Great Reset" agenda amongst other things.

I just can't bring myself to not holding them to a certain level of accountability for what's going on in British society and the wider global community.

Their ignorance makes them useful as mascots for dark agendas. But this does not make them evil perse. Many of them are just useful idiots.

Again, it is unknown what Prince Philip's and other Royals' true motives are unless some very damning evidence surfaces sometime soon or in the near future. I surely hope that Elizabeth is who she has led us all to believe she is. I do compare them to the Bushes, a family I have nothing but contempt for. They, I believe, were more than useful idiots.