If he does get re-incarnated, let's hope he doesn't get his wish to 'return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation.'
Prince Philip has died
251–260 of 553 posts
Re: Prince Philip has died
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
An interesting perspective I've heard is that she should have been more political in a few extreme cases. She is the head of state and her actual job should be to bring left and right together in the very controversial, almost unsolvable issues, and get them sorted out. She should really be like a couples therapist for political leaders. She never did this. She always stayed out of politics.
The Queen holds a weekly audience with the Prime Minister. It's unlikely they make chitchat about the weather. The monarch also vets laws while they're being drafted and can make suggestions for changes if they affect their interests. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette... The Queen isn't just the head of the armed forces - they swear an oath of loyalty directly to the Monarch, not to the peo…
You don't even need to go into secret meetings. In her public speeches at parliament she interferes and sets a direction for her government (it's hers, not ours). Like calling for more and continued austerity amid the crisis, I don't call that being apolitical (also the irony of calling for austerity from a golden throne shouldn't be lost oje anyone).
Re: Prince Philip has died
#253Sixty five years as the husband of the head of state of a G7, nuclear armed nation, that brought the world Thatcherite individualism and the first cracks in the EU. Philip, like it or not, wielded influence and power beyond his constitutional station. One doesn’t have to like him, but one should respect him.
I do not, under any circumstances, "gotta hand it to him".
Re: Prince Philip has died
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, it was Charles I, it was done with an Axe, and then there was a complicated tooing and froing for a long while until about 1918 when universal suffrage finally came in.
> about 1918 when universal suffrage finally came in. It was 1928.
Yes, 1918 allowed some women to vote -- over 30, and property owners (or married to such). In 1918 all men over 21 could vote.
1928 equalised it to everyone over 21
Re: Prince Philip has died
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Queen isn't just the head of the armed forces - they swear an oath of loyalty directly to the Monarch... Interestingly (to me, anyways) is the oath is made directly to Queen Elizabeth by name, not to the crown in general. And isn't made by officers in the Royal Navy, because the navy wasn't created by act of Parliament, but by royal prerogative, so their fealty is assumed.
That's very the definition of a regent: no institution is above it. The current Queen of England _is_ the crown. They are one and the same.
Liz isn't the Crown. This principle was established long ago when one of her predecessors was tried, found guilty, and executed, for treason. It would obviously be impossible for the Crown to commit treason, but the monarch is just a person, and people do crimes.
Also far from no institution being "above" it the Parliament is sovereign and so it can, and has, dissolved the monarchy entirely if it wants to. The reason the UK has a monarchy today is that parliament decided it didn't like it better without one (puritans suck, basically they hate fun, if you're American you may have noticed this already)
Re: Prince Philip has died
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
An interesting perspective I've heard is that she should have been more political in a few extreme cases. She is the head of state and her actual job should be to bring left and right together in the very controversial, almost unsolvable issues, and get them sorted out. She should really be like a couples therapist for political leaders. She never did this. She always stayed out of politics.
The Queen holds a weekly audience with the Prime Minister. It's unlikely they make chitchat about the weather. The monarch also vets laws while they're being drafted and can make suggestions for changes if they affect their interests. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette... The Queen isn't just the head of the armed forces - they swear an oath of loyalty directly to the Monarch, not to the peo…
The monarch can certainly make suggestions regarding laws but so can any of the 600+ members of parliament and indeed countless other people in power while Prime Ministers have strong personalities and minds of their own.
As to her riches, we might note that unlike some of the very richest people on the planet the Queen has no power and seemingly no inclination to use her wealth as a powerful tool to censor publicly expressed views. It's certainly arguable that in an ideal society, a monarchy is an anachronism but that's hardly the situation we're in. Presidential systems are not without their critics.
Seems to be an open question as to whether the 'centuries of experience in internal diplomacy, impression management, and PR' (of the monarchy) are working to their advantage. The word antiquated is perjorative but it can also refer to a protocol that prevails via adaptation. The Brits will see and decide for themselves if it does.
Re: Prince Philip has died
#25799 years of tax subsidies, he surely had a good life without many regrets. It's beyond my comprehension why humans still keep these hereditary regimes, constitutional or absolutist, alive
PR. At least that's the message that's conveyed in Sweden. (and according to those messages, perhaps even studies(?), it apparently pays off in spades, at least in Sweden)
Re: Prince Philip has died
#25899 years of tax subsidies, he surely had a good life without many regrets. It's beyond my comprehension why humans still keep these hereditary regimes, constitutional or absolutist, alive
It served a purpose once. Constitutional monarchy was peaceful way to move from brutal inherited caste system into democracy.
Imagine the same path today. Kim Dynasty in North Korea could turn into constitutional hood ornaments gradually. Or Chinese Communist party would become the House of Lords. 100 years from now people wold admire them just like they do royals now.
Re: Prince Philip has died
#259Because Prince Charles is heir to the throne (and has been portrayed more negatively in the news media than any other living person), some in the HN community may be surprised to know that he wrote a book on philosophy . https://www.amazon.com/Harmony-New-Way-Looking-World/dp/0061... I found the book to be astonishingly good. It takes a design approach to Platonism and western esotericism. It goes deep into "sacred g…
Extremely famous people frequently "author" books, usually with ghostwriters. Charles' book is credit to him "with" two other people (Tony Juniper and Ian Skelly who, I suspect, did most of the heavy lifting. Charles has for years been sympathetic to all sorts of woo, such as "alternative" medicine; his book was met with broad criticism for its cherry-picking of scientific findings to support his environmental agenda…
I don't think there is such a thing as 'alternative medicine'. There is medicine, and there is not-medicine. Just like there is treatment and there is not-treatment.
Calling things 'alternative' puts them on the same level, which they are not.
Re: Prince Philip has died
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, did he say something about the atrocities then? In a very public role as the moral backbone of the nation? Did he apologize? I missed that.
By no means am I defending colonialism, least of all the British Empire in India. I’m an Indian, FWIW. I see two main obstacles to this apology. 1. Teaching kids history. Currently British kids learn all about Henry VIII’s wives ... and then it’s straight to the World Wars. It’s hard to tell a nation of 70 million people to reckon with their past when they know nothing about it. 2. Philip himself was quite old. He gr…
Recent history in England is taught only really in Key Stage 3 and there is a lot to cover...
It is mandated that pupils learn about "ideas, political power, industry and empire: Britain, 1745-1901" [1]. Some examples schools can choose are the transatlantic slave trade, the American civil war, Ireland and Home Rule and the development of the British Empire with a depth study (for example, of India).
For 20th century history, only learning about the Holocaust is actually mandated. But Indian independence and end of Empire can be chosen by schools and is quite a common choice.
Kids are learning about these things. Maybe not as much as they could be and likely with some bias, but it's not true that it jumps from Henry VIII's wives to world wars.
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curricul...