![Posted by a snivelling, miserable coward Anonymous Coward](/design_picker/fa16d26efb42e6ba1052f1d387470f643c5aa18d/graphics/icons/comment/anonymous_48.png)
More like him please
A top chap with a lot of good sense. Personally I'd like to have had his pair of hands in charge recently dispensing pithy advice and commands. We'd all be the better for it.
Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, has died at the age of 99. The Queen's husband died at Windsor Castle this morning. His death was announced by Buckingham Palace at midday today. PM Boris Johnson addressed locked-down Brits from the steps of 10 Downing Street, saying: "We mourn today with Her Majesty the Queen." The …
Indeed.
I do rather suspect his outlook on life would have rather been influenced by the fact that in his formative years multiple people were trying to kill him simultaneously, and if he made a really big error he could be responsible for the deaths of a significant number of people. A sea battle probably rather sets your perspectives.
RIP
I suppose you have to mention this. Hey ho, but I for one will be keeping my TV turned off. There is precious little to watch as it is, and now it will be replaced with wall-to-wall royals. This may be nectar to some, but not to me. He was 99. That's a damned good age by anyone's standard.
Just say he's dead and move on. [I added that just to attract the downvotes. :-)]
Technically he was British, in as much as European royal in-breeding allows.
He was born in Greece, but as a rather johnny-come-lately immigrant - his grandfather was "elected" king(!) by a British/French/Russian protocol in 1863.
His mother was born in Windsor Castle, her father having given up his German titles and become the Marquess of Milford Haven.
There was much confusion as to his exact heritage when he was granted British citizenship and took the Mountbatten name prior to marrying Princess Elizabeth.
In 1972, Lord Dilhorne did some digging on behalf of Lord Mountbatten and concluded that he'd been a British subject all along, as were all descendants of Sophia of Hanover (which Philip was through his mother via Queen Victoria).
He was actually more Royal than the Queen, given that he had royal ancestry through both parents.
Usage
Some linguists argue that, given that hoi is a definite article, the phrase "the hoi polloi" is redundant, akin to saying "the the masses". Others argue that this is inconsistent with other English loanwords.[11] The word "alcohol", for instance, derives from the Arabic al-kuhl, al being an article, yet "the alcohol" is universally accepted as good grammar.[12]
'Algorithm' comes from a blokes name, being a corruption of the last name of Baghdad mathematician Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi. 'Algebra' is a medieval Latin rendition of 'al jabara,' meaning to put back together again, and came from the title of a book written by the bloke above, 'al-mukhtasar fi hisab al-jabr wa al-muqabala' meaning "the compendium on calculation by restoring and balancing."
Somewhat sadly, Torpenhow Hill doesn't actually exist.
Howewver, the rivers Avon, Ouse and Esk do.
Or Pendle Hill... "Pen" means hill. Pen Hill became Pen 'il, became Pendle ... Which became Pendle Hill, because, well, because it's British. So basically, we now have the rather imaginatively named Hill Hill Hill.
No, it does not. Here's a link to the ultimate Torpenhow Hill debunking page.
Street view suggests your link is pointing at a nice, flat field.
I write this only a few hundred metres from the Valira river, which flows down from near the Envalira pass on the Envalira mountain. Further downstream it meets another river which is also named Valira, and the two go on as "Grand Valira". Obviously.
Not far up from here is the Incles valley. It has a village in it named incles. Which is beside a river, also named Incles.
The next valley down is the Vall del Riu (the valley of the river). The river that runs down it is named Riu del Vall del Riu (river of the valley of the river). How could it be otherwise?
-A.
EW. I have never in my life considered 'the alcohol' as good grammar, unless it is written in a way to distinguish specific alcohol from another form thereof, i.e. 'the alcohol that we just used' to distinguish from the specific liquid that hadn't been.
I've always simply said 'alcohol'.
And no, it's not ok to say 'the hoi polloi'. It's 'hoi polloi', period. Fight me by the bicycle sheds, mate...
Well my dad did at 90; since his arteries were up to it. And he got a new cornea and lens a year ago - which meant he could throw his glasses away since the age of 11 when he contracted measles. And he is still alive at the age of 93.
I suppose I should apologise since he got them prematurely by your standards of complaints but I can assure you that when he recovered from his cataract opp. he was like a dog with two dicks. (and one working eye which was sufficient) Made me very jealous.
Image for the 63 year old gentleman who did the op. And not to make to fine a point of it he didn't do circumcisions but not because of his faith.
Excellent fellow.
Indeed. The NHS will happily pop people in for ops regardless of the age of said people... They don't go "ohhhh, will he last another year?"
It wasn't a heart *transplant*, it was a routine operation. And yes, I've heard of liver transplants being given to alcoholics, who then promptly proceeded to trash their new liver by continuing to drink like fish and ending up on the transplant list a second time. *THAT* I find unconscionable, not having a 99-year-and-10-month-old gentleman given a heart op to fix something in his ticker.
Yes, he died literally two months to the day he would have turned 100.
"DoE still upsetting the middle classes even after shuffling off this mortal coil...
BBC Radio 4 cancelled the final instalment of the "Book of the week" at 00:30. Replaced by a cleric giving a "Mediation". Reminded me of the days when BBC TV ended every day at about 22:30 with "The Epilogue" religious talk - a bit like R4's "Thought for the Day".
Happened with Dianna too. It's a guilt thing. They (the press) earn their reputation for being radical by shitting on them when they are alive; and apologising after their death. Keeps them happy and who else gives a shit.
Personally I thought Di was a very silly girl with her let's ban landmines campaign. The key point about mines was that they saved our forces lives. Cover them with artillery and perhaps other things and it constrains the attack vectors so we could reduce the effectiveness of Soviet vast numerical superiority (then). And if you don't then you may have no choices other than to surrender or go nuclear. (Which was always a NATO policy - we would respond to WMD with whichsoever WMD was convenient but we never forswore first use).
For some strange reason I never saw this analysis on the BBC within some zero to current date years after her unfortunate demise. Lots of conspiracy bullshit but no functional analysis.
Me I always liked Phil the Greek. Particularly admired this:
"How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the test?" Asked of a Scottish driving instructor in 1995. Source:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/prince-philip-quotes-jokes-gaffes-b1829205.html
And for those of you who may not be aware I am (by the standards of goddess Nicola a Scot.)
Anyone would think he spent much of his formative life associated with the Andrew
Hnnph.
I was working in Holland when she died. I remember waking up to BBC R4 on longwave and thinking "WTF are they on about - you'd think she was dead"...
Had a pleasant ride from Eindhoven through to Belgium on that day. I embarassingly was the slowest tomato.
It was a PITA getting back home for a couple of weekends - the country seemed to have gone mad and everybody wanted to go home. It took me ages to get through Schipol due to the queues. I'd have stayed in my flat another weekend had I realised.
I'm glad I was out ofthe country and was a bit embarassed by what looked like mass hysteria.
I was on holiday in France when Diana died. No, nowhere near Paris. Nor did I own a white Fiat Uno. I was listening to the Beeb radio a few hours after the death and all they were talking about was when the death occurred, what a wonderful person she was etc. I though "Poor old girl. Still she was getting on a bit". It took an hour or so before they mentioned her name and I realised it was not the Queen Mum they were on about.
Ironically, I flew to Paris that same morning to fly on to Chicago. Charles de Gaulle was running wall to wall coverage of the mess, same in the US on all the news channels.
The British people are odd in the sense that there are many who despise the Royal Family and slag them off at any opportunity, especially when some gutter rag comes up with dirt that puts them in not so favourable light. But woe betide you if you're foreign and do the same, they'll turn on you in a second for daring to slag off 'their Royal Family'. It's as if they have exclusive rights over the slagging off of Liz and her extended family.
At the same time, the republicans constantly harp on and on about how much the Royal Family costs, but if you look at how much the members of the Houses of Parliament have cost the country over time, I think their anger is misplaced. If the British monarchy turned into something more resembling the royal houses of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands (all of which arguably have even less to do as heads of state than the queen does), it probably still would upset them.
I find the British to be largely apathetic about the royals. My old dad referred to the queen as “the old crow bait”.
On Diana funeral day, I was in Ireland and I had put the coverage off to watch Italian Grand Prix qualifying .
Coverage this time round has been ridiculous and unnecessary, with talking heads clawing desperately for platitudes and banalities, barely knowing what to say. I’ve discovered a lot more channels down the epg. Smithsonian is excellent.
BBC put up a page for people to register complaints about the amount of coverage, then they had to pull the form because it was deluged with complaints. Their ratings absolutely tanked. Serves them right, media has been misreading the public for decades. We generally don’t give a shit.
BBC flooded with complaints over Prince Philip coverage
Couldn't agree more. One of the big benefits of moving overseas, and to a republic no less, is that we don't get forelock tugging enforced mourning periods.
I still have clients in the UK, and for one of them we have been working on a system for "operation London bridge" where government and local authority web sites are basically expected to force users via a nag screen about whichever royal has died. Would piss me off if I was trying to find out when to put my bins out and have to read irrelevant stuff like this that is already being rammed down my throat elsewhere.
But we are unique. We have a Leprechaun as a President and we hardly ever elect them (Presidents or Leprechauns). Not only that, the Irish President is even more ceremonial than the Irish High Kings were.
I think hardly anyone outside Dublin, in Ireland, worships Bono. Probably not many there either.
Why is there no crock of gold icon?
The cover of an edition of The Phoenix around the time when Mary Banotti joined the race that already had Mary McAleese featured a caption bubble "Another Bloody Mary?"
https://www.thephoenix.ie/wp-content/gallery/volume-15-1997/Volume-15-Issue-15-1997.jpg
This post has been deleted by its author
With the current king (Vajiralongkorn aka Rama X) you are correct. With his father, for whom I have the highest respect, it was a bit different. Officially he wasn't in charge, but he more than once sent the armed forces back to their barracks with a remark about how he didn't think the coup was appropriate. Significantly, there were also some occasions when he didn't make that remark.
Anonymous as I normally prefer to stay on the correct side of Thai law (it is a great holiday destination, best times used to be immediately after a coup as that brought the numbers of tourists down).
How about the radio? There I was listening to the BBR Radio 4 'World at One' news program, which seems to be entirely about HRH's death and life, so eventually I turned over to BBC Radio 3*. But my radio was broken because I got exactly the same program. So I hit the remote again, and again, and again, and then I checked: Radio 3 and Radio 4 were broadcasting the same news program about Philip's death. Cue the CD player (Sibelius, played by Leif Ove Andsnes).
Now he was an interesting chap, although admittedly did have a severe case of 'foot in mouth' disease at times, the letters he wrote to Diana P of W during the break up of her relationship with Charles were very considerate, but we do have Brexit, a deadly pandemic, global warming, riots in Belfast, warfare and starvation in Yemen, and lots of other really important things to think about (not to mention my vacuum cleaner packing up), so hopefully the news outlets will cover other important items too, eventually.
*(I'm cultured, live with it, I have to.)
The BBC has rules as to what it has to broadcast when a senior member of the Royal family dies. Programming may change for up to three days I think. Expect the usual chorus of disgust, from the usual suspects, that a reporter (or the whole organization) was insufficiently respectful in the usual places in the Press tomorrow. Perhaps a tie was the wrong colour, or a suit wasn't sober enough.
Reactions like yours do show how much of a part the BBC still plays in people's lives in the UK. Maybe it is worth defending against the defunders after all.
I recall assisting with the creation of Phillip's obituary in 1978, and at regular occasions thereafter - it was a common news studio downtime activity, updating obituaries.
As AC says above: the BBC has rules for what happens in the event of a death in the Royal Family - whether you voted for 'em or not.
Do you do what the NHS do:-
Page last reviewed: 22 January 2021
Next review due: 22 January 2024
I think there are some regimes where, if one of the top bods keeled over out of band, as it were, they would wait for the next review date before announcing it.
All very well, writing obits in the future, but suppose something happens out of chronology? How many scenarios are planned out?
"All very well, writing obits in the future, but suppose something happens out of chronology? How many scenarios are planned out?"
Obituaries for the "famous" are basically short biographies of notable events and kept as up to date as possble. Scenarios of what might happen are not usually planned out, they just work with what they know of the events of the death at the time it happens and, often, lots of speculation.
Yes. Someone 'important' dies, step one is to get the news out. Having a prepackaged item ready to play out, and a well-defined process of notification, means you can get something on air quickly while the newsroom is still running around like a headless chicken. Updating an obit is just a matter of adding the last few months on the end, and maybe cutting some of the earlier stuff out if it's no longer relevant.
That's an easy one. Harder ones have included, after September 11, 'what happens if someone crashes a jumbo jet onto Buckingham Palace during the opening of the Olympic Games' (yes, I did consider the process there) and 'what happens if a sub-dinosaur-killer rock drops onto London?' (yes, the BBC will continue to broadcast).
I was working in ILR when Diana died. The "obit alarm" was activated by IRN which basically just closed a relay... and at our end? The relay lit a flashing light and a little buzzer playing The Yellow Rose of Texas. The procedure was to "listen across" IRN and when they were ready, basically let them take over.
I seem to remember after that incident there was a lot of soul searching about who should, or should not, be on the "obit alarm" list, because at the time it was something daft like 30 people. It was pared down to half a dozen or so - HMQ, DoE, Charles, the Queen Mum and the encumbent PM from memory (1997 and Wills and Harry were just boys. I dare say William would be on the list by now, probably not Harry).
When I bothered to check this time, a couple of hours after the announcement, most ILR around here was basically playing "slow" music. Nothing upbeat, but nothing obviously mournful, and they were all playing something different. Only the usual suspects had any kind of rolling talk going on.
M.
"Just wondering since I can't quite remember where I left mine about 50 years ago"
Was talking with a new girlfriend once about where and when we'd lost our respective virginities.
After I told my story, she said "I can't exactly remember where or when it was, but I've still got the box it came in."
And yes, I am leaving so soon...
Expect the usual chorus of disgust, from the usual suspects, that a reporter (or the whole organization) was insufficiently respectful in the usual places in the Press tomorrow. Perhaps a tie was the wrong colour, or a suit wasn't sober enough.
.
Yeah, 'bout that... You should have seen how the Peeple of the American Republic flipped out over President Obama's Flag-pin
My vacuum cleaner is indeed a Dyson V11 animal. The original problem was that the trigger mechanism is no longer strong enough to depress the switch on the battery module to engage the power. The battery module is removable (take out 3 screws with a Philips small head screwdriver). I phoned them up and they sent me a replacement cyclone unit (I had to transfer the battery unit, the filter unit and the cylinder bin unit). Unfortunately the replacement cyclone unit has a loud whistle, which is basically unbearable after 5 minutes (I have tinnitus). So they are sending me another one, even though the warranty expired the day before I complained about the noise.
I am available for interviews, exclusives, Radio and TV appearances chat shows, game shows etc.*
*Terms and Conditions Apply: No TV until I've had a haircut and been seen by the dental hygienist. Exclusives are for the UK only, European or Global syndication at extra cost. No Piers Morgan under any circumstances. I will only perform vacuuming fully clothed under controlled conditions approved of by my manager**. I will not do early morning anything (what is the point of being retired if you can't have a lie-in every day?). This notice does not indicate that any contract will be signed by anyone anywhere at any time, nor does it indicate in any way any dissatisfaction with the vacuuming capabilities of Dyson or other brands of house cleaning equipment.***
**applications are now 'open'.
***Now that I come to write my own disclaimer, T's and C's etc, I begin to appreciate how tricky it is, maybe, after all, those lawyer types are actually useful, now and then.
Could be worse, living in krautland you are restricted in choice to German brand cleaners. They feature several similar facets... A small box on wheels with a tiny dirt collecting bag a cord rewind mechanism that fails just after the warranty, a stupid long donkey dick of vacuum pipe leading to a long shaft (yes all deliberate) culminating in a large fat head designed to sweep the dirt and dust away from the vacuum. The whole thing trapping itself on doorframes and furniture so it can come free just to wack the back of your ankle. Once you have wasted your time and suffered enough bruising you realise just how much space the monstrously badly thought through crap takes of the cupboard. Anyone who claim the Germans have a clue about engineering can converse with me to have the idea totally and utterly debunked. Their whole being is troublesome from toilets with shelves in them to cars you can't repair
Strange opinion, I have had a Sebo Felix for about 4 years now and don’t have any problem with it. My parents had a Sebo X4 until this year as it got to heavy for them. Nothing wrong with the cleaner itself and it was sold on eBay to another user.
That made me laugh, because my dad - who is 93 and partially sighted - told me the TV remote wasn't working this afternoon.
I started off on my usual line of customer-focused questioning - i.e. 'what bloody buttons have you mashed this time?' - only to discover the remote was working fine.
Then it dawned on me. He was switching between BBC channels, all of which were showing the exact same feed, and with his partial sight he didn't realise he'd changed channels even when finding one of the independents or Sky, because they were showing almost identical content.
It wasn't helped by the fact that the change to scheduled programming had not been reflected in the set-top box menu, which still indicated the previously planned programmes.
but we do have Brexit, a deadly pandemic, global warming, riots in Belfast, warfare and starvation in Yemen, and lots of other really important things to think about (not to mention my vacuum cleaner packing up), so hopefully the news outlets will cover other important items too, eventually.
They'll all still be around next week and likely won't have changed much in the meantime.
Or alternatively, directly from the BBC.
get_iplayer --get --type=radio --pid=b007zv7f --pid-recursive
HTH.
(note, the above will download every available episode - 44 as I write. If you want just one series or one episode you will need to alter the pid)
M.
I'd like to single out the BBC for outrageous over the top coverage. The same programme on three channels all day! (BBC1, BBC2, BBC NEWS) What is the point? You can only watch one programme at a time. I would cheerfully strangle whoever scheduled this massive over-reaction.
I've already complained to them; I suggest everybody else do the same.
"The BBC News web site says there is now a dedicated complaint form for that issue. Unfortunately they don't give a link - and I cannot find it anywhere on the BBC web site."
It did exist, and for a few hours was widely reported. Links are mostly gone now. Whether it was useful or just an ill-advised kneejerk response is arguable.
I actually followed the link while it worked:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/death-duke-of-edinburgh-tv-coverage/#/Notification [see note 1 below]
and decided it was pointless. It seems to have gone now, without so much as a replacement 'holding page' to say the original has been removed.
The whole sad BBC decision making process appears to have been operated by headless chickens. It's not as though this was unforeseeable after the last few weeks of health reports.
Goodness only knows what we'll get next time there's a significant death in the royal family. And there will be one before too long, one of (allegedly) far more significance than HRH The Duke of Edinburgh.
Note 1: Among the usual guff, the important bit of the complaint page was as follows, courtesy of The Wayback Machine
https://web.archive.org/web/20210409175919if_/https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/death-duke-of-edinburgh-tv-coverage/#/Notification
[quote]
Death of HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh - too much coverage on BBC TV
We're receiving complaints about too much TV coverage of the death of HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.
Please enter your email address below to register a complaint about this - we'll then send you the BBC's response as soon as it is available.
[/quote]
You couldn't actually enter text of your own choosing, so I ignored it.
Apparently the BBC took the page down on Sunday as the numbers complaining had "peaked".
According to the newspapers a BBC leak says that the number of complaints was nearly double the previous record. The leaked count is over 110,000 - mainly complaining about the excessive coverage on Friday. A few people complained that the announcers weren't wearing the right ties for the occasion. A smaller number complained that by creating the dedicated form the BBC had made it too easy for people to complain.
I wonder what the total would have reached if they had left the form up for the rest of Sunday - as more people became aware of its existence.
Apparently BBC and ITV viewing figures dropped drastically by Friday evening. A significant number of people "voting with their feet".
The coverage was over the top because the BBC didn't want to be accused of being anti-British and the dedicated complaint form was taken down because it was determined that complaining about the coverage was anti-British.
Aren't culture wars fun?
But probably not a way to run a country.
"But probably not a way to run a country."
Perceived regional/class culture is often the determinant in a country's politics.
In England it used to be crudely stereotyped as "Whippets and brass bands v ballet and opera".
An astute politician is a chameleon when trying to win votes from a specific audience outside their usual group. Drink a beer, go to church, eat a bacon butty....
It was only when I actually tried to turn on the news channel that I realised the live-TV wasn't working. For some reason my freeview-plus enabled TV couldn't even tune into broadcast telly without a network connection. In the end, I had to "watch live" through iplayer on the firetv box that it is usually tuned to and which had stolen the LAN cable. (The TV is a Lidl special Sharp androidTV that is so crap that even netflix crashes every ten minutes or so, hence it being relegated to use as a monitor only.)
Thinking about it, I'm not sure there's a TV in the house that can pick up broadcast signals..
"it's the things the BBC don't cover that annoy me *cough*savile*cough*"
There's also the Jeremy Thorpe story, and doubtless others less well known.
Material which should have been disclosed as part of the Jeremy Thorpe trial was known to the establishment (including the BBC) in the 1970s but not acknowledged in public by the BBC until a pre-prepared radio programme was broadcast in the dark corners of Radio 4 a few days after Thorpe's death in 2014.
Programme background (BBC Radio 4) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30349535
Radio Programme as broadcast on BBC Radio 4 in 2014: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04wz633
"Jeremy Thorpe, the former Liberal leader, led a life which combined major political achievements with persistent rumours of scandal, culminating in a trial for conspiracy to murder and his acquittal. But was there an establishment cover-up to protect him during his political career? Tom Mangold has been investigating, in a programme containing both new evidence and material from the 1970s that has never previously been broadcast."
Related TV Programmme (Panorama) as broadcast in 2018: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b5y97j
"In 1979, Panorama reporter Tom Mangold led an investigation into the trial of Jeremy Thorpe and others for the alleged conspiracy to kill Thorpe's former lover Norman Scott. Convinced that the former Liberal Party leader would be found guilty, a special post-trial programme was prepared. This was scrapped, however, when the jury returned its verdicts of not guilty for all defendants, and the programme has remained unseen for almost 40 years.
Edited and updated with new information about a fresh 2017 police inquiry into the case, Tom Mangold's story shows how powerful political forces tried to protect Thorpe. The programme features revealing interviews from 1979 with Norman Scott, chief prosecution witness Peter Bessell and the alleged hitman Andrew 'Gino' Newton."
The BBC TV's "A Very English Scandal" (2018) dramatised the events round that trial. Hugh Grant managed a remarkable depiction of Jeremy Thorpe - with Ben Whishaw an able foil as Norman Scott
"Stavros" is a archetypal Greek man's name. My guess is a reference to a film character - but also possibly the 1950s billionaire ship owner Stavros Niarchos.
DoE was born in Greece (Corfu). He was part of the Greek and Danish royal families before giving those titles up to marry into the British one.
That's why he was variously referred to as 'Phil the Greek' or 'Stavros' - the latter being, as someone else pointed out, an archetypal (and sometimes derogatory) generalised name for a Greek male.
Seems he got off lightly (the 'Gorilla' video).
I am always slightly bemused by the legion of people who claim to like Phil the Greek because he's outspoken and willing to say what he thinks even if it offends some people.
Because when I say I think he's a bell-end, these principles seem to suddenly disappear.
He was fairly quiet over Prince Andrew's relationship with Epstein, especially for someone who's supposed to be so outspoken and says what he thinks.
I think though, NerryTutkins, you have to remember there are people out there who's lives depend on the fact of having the Royal Family to cling on to, as if they're in the water and the only thing they have for buoyancy is an upturned lifeboat. Not considering of course, total inaction of the Royal Family over successive governments caused the boat to sink in the first place.
Not considering of course, total inaction of the Royal Family over successive governments caused the boat to sink in the first place.
I think we should consider ourselves lucky that no government has seriously fallen out with the royals since 1642. One civil war in 400 years is quite enough.
Which makes it even worse as far as I'm concerned.
The Queen, and Royal Family, are only meant to be figure heads for the country. For tourism apparently (as that seems to be the go to excuse for still having them).
Yet here we are, PtG dies, the Queen goes in to 30 days of mourning with the current 8 days where no laws can be passed. All political parties have stopped campaigning because of it.
This is supposed to be a democracy, so how can a democracy pause for the death of an unelected person who's only real job was to cut ribbons at leisure centre openings?
One? Belgium could lose three governments and still function. For a certain value of function.
Things not working and working are the order of the day. Well, chaos of the day :)
It has seven governments, of equal standing. A marvel of witlof social engineering ;)
The Queen, and Royal Family, are only meant to be figure heads for the country. For tourism apparently (as that seems to be the go to excuse for still having them).
Not even remotely true, although it's the trite excuse trotted out by republicans who don't actually understand how a constitutional Monarchy works. The Monarch is the constitutional backstop against a tyrannical parliament, just as parliament is the backstop against a tyrannical King/Queen. Since Britain is generally a reasonable and democratic society we've not needed those backstops for a few centuries, but that's what emergency powers are for, only for use in emergencies.
What would you prefer, a US-style republic that can elect someone like Trump, and where people then insist on having guns to protect themselves against a tyrannical government? Not for me, thanks.
In the meantime we make far more money out of the Royals than they cost, even without considering intangibles like tourism, so it's not like they're an inconvenience. Just ignore them if you don't like them, and hope we never need really them.
Interestingly [1], the Ministry of Defence makes an annual return to Parliament with a count of the number of persons under arms in the UK Armed Forces. Just to make sure that the Army etc. isn't being built up to be too big. As if...
[1] for certain values of 'Interesting'
> You did not elect the Queen
I did not, and personally I would rather have a monarch raised for the purpose as head-of-state-for-life, than some ambitious demagogue with a short-term approach to getting elected again (or failing that capturing the state for their own ends).
Each MP swears an oath of allegiance to the monarch on taking their seat in the House of Commons, which is why no Sinn Fein MP has ever taken their seat:
"I (name of Member) swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God."
From
https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/swearingin/
Your elected officials have to either believe in a beaded sky fairy who doesn't actually exist, OR perjur themselves by professing to believe in something they don't really believe in, before they take office?
It would seem the system is inherantly biased into only allowing deluded idiots or inveterate liars into the upper ranks of the political process.
Observation suggests it is working quite nicely. The question is, was it designed to work that way, or is it an unintended consequence?
Parliament has made some progress since the early 19th century. At that time only Anglicans could hold public office, be MPs, or go to major universities. Also you could only be legally married in an Anglican church.
The Anglican Church apparently believes it still has divine power to determine civil laws. To be fair - so does the Catholic Church. My Tory MP votes with the government line - except when he obeys the Vatican line to vote against equality human rights.
James vs his daughter Mary married to William was actually a civil war.
Then before Cromwell, there was the War of the Roses.
Before that, Stephen and Matilda.
It's a puzzle that people think there was only one Civil War. All of those were before the Act of Union with Scotland in 17?? and then with Ireland in 180?
Brexit is almost a fifth one.
Prince Philip, and his mum, certainly had his good points. Queen Elizabeth's family is nearly as German as Greek/Danish/German Philip. That's why they changed their name to Windsor.
It's a puzzle that people think there was only one Civil War
Not what I said. I said we haven't had one since 1642.
It's arguable whether the Jacobite rebellion counts as a civil war, it was more a war between England & Scotland (or their relevant supporters).
That was part III
Part I was William's march on London and capturing King James (mostly he acted like a tourist on the journey).
Part II was King James agreed Mary (his daughter) was Queen instead, but William said he and his armies were going home if he wasn't King. Then James broke his promise to be good and ran off to Ireland and proclaimed he was still King of England.
The Act of Union didn't exist.
James was defeated in Ireland with the help of Continental Catholic Armies and the Pope sent a Blessing to William, despite what the bus burning Orangemen in N.I. think about 1690.
Then because James was was King of England (and only technically Ireland) as James II, and King of Scotland as James VII the Scottish didn't recognise the dubious transfer of power to William via Mary. James became King James VII as a child when Queen Elisabeth executed Mary Queen of Scots. In fairness Elizabeth I only did it under pressure from the Privy Council, aided by stupid letters Mary wrote.
So it was a Civil War, even though William of Orange's people called it the Glorious Revolution.
Henry II was given right to rule Ireland by the Pope. Elizabeth I consolidated English control, mostly due to the Irish fighting each other. It was Cromwell that did the first serious conquering of Ireland. He wasn't a King.
It was the Acts of Union 1707, passed by both the Parliament of England and the Parliament of Scotland that formed the Kingdom of Great Britain.
It was the Acts of Union 1800, passed by both the Parliament of Great Britain and the Parliament of Ireland that formed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Both of those under duress. There was in fact never any legal basis for English rule in Ireland. They agreed in 1914 to institute Home Rule for Ireland, but WWI and the stupidity of the Easter Rising delayed it till 1921-1922.
The so called Glorious Revolution of William (Dutch) and Mary was an English Civil war mostly fought in Ireland and Scotland.
Boris seems determined to set the clock back to either before 1605 or 1216 or so.
This post has been deleted by its author
Not considering of course, total inaction of the Royal Family over successive governments caused the boat to sink in the first place.
I suspect that you don't understand the concept of a Constitutional Monarchy, and I also suspect that you don't really want to either.
What, exactly, would you have had them do?
"What, exactly, would you have had them do?"
There have been quite a few times these last few years when I would have the Queen deliver a speech to the house of commons and tell them all to quit their whinging and fighting, and get on with the jobs they were elected to do, before she executes the whole bally lot of them.
I think though, NerryTutkins, you have to remember there are people out there who's lives depend on the fact of having the Royal Family to cling on to, as if they're in the water and the only thing they have for buoyancy is an upturned lifeboat. Not considering of course, total inaction of the Royal Family over successive governments caused the boat to sink in the first place.
Winning argument.
Let's immediately replace the monarchy with a new Monarch or president if you prefer; you would of course want a prominent party politician of course since they actually want the power and PR and wouldn't at all be a bunch of divisive twats that start acting like the unlamented ex speaker of the commons did before he got his marching orders with the far greater powers of the monarch. Pick from the following list of no doubt willing candidates:- (possibly excepting the dead one)
Corbyn
Boris boi
May
Cameron
Brown
Blair
Major
Thatcher
Donald Trump (cos his family were scottish and he would surely be interested)
Or alternately let's consider if actually we'd rather keep the monarchy. Personally i'd rather dissolve parliament and have a royal commission on considering and implementing replacing it with something fit for purpose in the 21st century.
@Peter2
That is how it has been decided in Denmark, Sweden and Norway too and that is not where the British problem lies.
Sadly I think a woman working for the BBC on telly revealed the whole problem with - "the British parliamentary system is the envy of the whole world".
To have a full program devoted to HRH being a real bloke, instead of a "royal"?
It'd need to be complete with ALL the quotes, either as recorded (if available) or suitably voiced, from the one in the article ("it's my wife's effin' water...." to "just take the effin' photo") and all stops in between.
He had a LIFE, so let's CELEBRATE it!
I met and chatted with the Duke a couple of decades ago.
He knew his stuff on the subject in question each time, and despite what other people have said, I found that he listened intently before ripping your point of view apart, often based on what you had said (luckily, I was not on the receiving end). But, he always did it with humour and a smile, so I never saw anyone uncomfortable from it.
The first real environmentalist and very much a multi-culturalist (despite his much reported, iffy jokes). Fields that Charles is vey much championing.
99 is a good age... bit disappointing not to get to 100 and get a birthday card AND telegram from the wife, but hey ho.
So I'll get a beer out, drink to him and hopefully get so drunk I dont notice the nauseating coverage by a media happy to do a hatchet job on him one day and sing gushing praises the next...
As an absolute royalist I have no interest in the Windsors, though on a human level I regret his passing as I would anyone's; but it is worth pointing out the British Press has suffered a loss here in losing a favourite whipping-boy. He and his children etc. were always there for not only the sentimental glock the fawning sycophants, there for the people, deluded into imagining this was monarchy; but for the essentially republican ressentiment of the Heffers and Glenda Slaggs of both sexes always finding a reliable source of bemoanment, essentially boiled down to "Why don't people believe exactly as I do, as much as they do with benefit scroungers and the EU.
... Because he complained that it was stupid that a toilet always flushed for #2s, using far more water than was required for a #1. His intervention lead to the development of the half flush cistern, with pretty significant savings for the environment.
Thank you for volunteering to risk being shot at in WW2, and for everything else.
Obituaries on the Radio, show he was actually an amazing chap. He graduated from Naval college after less than year of study, when most people took 3 years, ands reckoned that he could have gone all the way to the top of the Royal Navy on ability had he not married Elizabeth. He personally attended the awarding of the Duke of Edinburgh gold awards ceremonies and seems to have been very active in the charities he represented.
I seem to remember he was a bit of a home computer buff in the early to mid eighties. Had an Atari 800 IIRC (or this was reported in the computer press at the time). He was very much a product of his time, and I thought his gaffes were pretty funny, not that he'd care one way or another. He seemed to spend his life not giving a fuck what other people thought or said about him and that along with his voluntary Naval service during the war were his most admirable qualities. RIP Phil.