Page 1 of 1 [ 15 posts ] 

Red Raid
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2020
Age: 17
Gender: Male
Posts: 40
Location: North Carolina, United States

11 Apr 2021, 5:04 am

I don’t quite understand the hatred for the Windsors.

I chose not to engage in an argument two days ago as Prince Phillip died. I expected and saw three reactions.

The largest reaction among people, not just on this forum, was a kind of grief and respect. People paying tributes to a man who worked for the country well into his 90s, and had served by a very well respected Queen for over 70 years. He was an old man, born in 1921. He was nearing a century old. I don’t understand why anyone expected him to be anything near politically correct. There is a caricature of him as a bigot, that I believe is inaccurate. He has always been a man of humor. Of course a man from the 1920s will make jokes that students today find offensive.

In truth, Phillip had more wisdom in his eyebrow than anyone celebrating his death has in their skull.

Of course there would be people making jokes. This I don’t take any issue with, people make jokes in all circumstances. I have recently lost people and I have joked about it. It’s what people do.

Then there are those celebrating. Whilst I personally find it difficult to comprehend celebrating the death of a 99 year old man and his mourning wife, I could understand if this man were particularly heinous. If perhaps the man was Hitler. I remember celebrating when Charles Manson died.

But this was Prince Phillip. A Windsor. A relatively minor member of what is a constitutionally very limited institution. In what world is this man’s death worth celebrating?

The family is largely self funded and widely supported by the public. The Republican movement in Britain is a pitiful whimper. Republicans exist but they are not particularly motivated as they understand the family is harmless. Republicanism is a legitimate position. I myself am not a Republican, but I can understand why one would be.

Yet a very small number of people are celebrating as though a tyrant has died.

My personal theory is that these people are ‘larpers’. They like to imagine they live in revolutionary France or Russia. That an old Tsar has died or King Louis has been beheaded.

In truth, the Crown is a part of democracy in the United Kingdom. They are an institution that among other things, is the ceremonial figure who gives somewhat of a legitimacy to the democratically elected government. Parliament is where the power is. The crown is the ceremony through which things are done.

The other roles of the institution are rather complex and ethereal. They are a part of the system that is untainted by the mud of politics. Personally, I'm not a monarchist, but you get my point.

Public servants who sacrifice a great deal. If you don’t believe that the role is challenging look at Meghan Markle. The role drove her near suicidal after a short span of time. That is what the other royals deal with too.

The Crown is not the crown of old. They do not behead and they do not oppress. They are public servants who, whilst they may dress in fine clothes and eat fine food, preform a job that is immensely stressful for the entire duration of their lives.

Prince Phillip was as good a man as they come. May he Rest In Peace and be remembered fondly.



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,791

11 Apr 2021, 5:49 am

Well, Republican support seems to have increased in the UK lately to almost 30 percent as of March 2021, although this may be temporary due to the Harry-Meghan affair:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republica ... on_polling

I'm guessing it is also becoming difficult to reconcile the public image of the British Crown with the current national and international turmoil facing the UK. It seems like the sun never rises on the British Empire, these days.

EDIT: I actually did the math on the *Danish* monarchy once.

The monarchy costs around $ 60 million annually - equivalent to $ 10 dollars for each Danish citizen - or two cups of good coffee in down-town Copenhagen. However, less than 25 percent is paid to the royal household itself, as maintenance of royal castles and buildings consumes the largest share of expenditures. These buildings (and their maintenance cost) would likely remain in public hands even if the monarchy was abolished, as they are considered part of the national heritage.

So the potential savings from abolishing the Danish monarchy would likely be more like $ 2.5 dollars per citizen, which is equivalent to one cup of mediocre coffee in down-town Copenhagen.


_________________
Omit needless words.


KT67
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,807

11 Apr 2021, 6:04 am

In truth he was a racist and people are entitled to their opinions.

Bit different if people were celebrating when Lady Di died cos she was so young.

If I live to 99 I don't care what people who disliked me in life say after my death.

Probably best to leave this to Irish diaspora in Britain and Black British and Asian British etc and butt out of it as a Yank.


_________________
Not actually a girl
He/him


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,683
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

11 Apr 2021, 9:39 am

I was wondering if/when with all these princes, when does someone get bumped up to King?


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 75,920
Location: Queens, NYC

11 Apr 2021, 9:46 am

When Queen Elizabeth II either passes away, or abdicates.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,889
Location: I'm right here

11 Apr 2021, 1:18 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
When Queen Elizabeth II either passes away, or abdicates.


That seems like a good time to reconsider abolishing the monarchy.
The last two King Charleses didn't work out so well.


_________________
politics is dumb but very important
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,549
Location: Reading, England

11 Apr 2021, 2:07 pm

TheRobotLives wrote:
I was wondering if/when with all these princes, when does someone get bumped up to King?

Kraftie's answer is correct, but doesn't explicitly say why.

There can only be one monarch. Currently that is Queen Elizabeth.

When Elizabeth dies, the heir to the throne, currently Prince Charles, will become King Charles. His wife, Camilla, will become Queen. The wife of the King is the Queen, but the husband of the Queen does not have a title. Prince Philip was granted a series of titles, including Duke of Edinburgh, upon his marriage to Elizabeth, having renounced all the titles he was born with. He was granted the title of Prince five years after Elizabeth ascended to the throne. Prince Albert (consort of Queen Victoria) went through a similar rigmarole.

It is likely that our next two monarchs will be Charles III and William V. Their consorts will be Queen Camilla and Queen Catherine. After William comes George VII, and currently he would be followed by his sister, Charlotte (who would be Charlotte I, but wouldn't usually be stylised as such during her reign as there are no previous Charlottes to distinguish her from). If George marries a woman, she would become Queen when he takes the throne. There is no protocol for if George marries a man, or Charlotte marries anyone - it would be up to them to award their spouse the title of Prince or Princess.

In other words, a male monarch's wife is the Queen, but does not hold the same position as Queen Elizabeth, who is the monarch. A female monarch's husband is not the King, with the exception of William III and Mary II, who ruled as joint monarchs until Mary's death.

Why are there so many Princes? Well, the Queen had a husband and three sons. Her oldest son has two sons, and his oldest son has two sons. The Queen has a daughter (Princess Anne, the Princess Royal) and so does Prince William (Princess Charlotte). There are other princesses, but they're not as high profile as those in the direct line. So between the birth of Prince Louis and the death of Prince Phillip, there were eight major princes and only two major princesses.

While the wives of princes are entitled to use the title "Princess", they are not entitled to use it in their own right. For example, Prince Michael's wife is called Princess Michael. This, incidentally, is a major reason why Princes are typically made Dukes or Earls upon marriage. It allows Camilla to be "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall" rather than "Princess Charles of Wales", and the same for the Duchesses of Cambridge, Sussex, and York, and the Countess of Wessex - all princesses-by-marriage, but will use their Duchess/Countess title instead.

Like with monarchs, the husband of a royal princess does not receive a title. Princess Anne's husbands have not had titles. Her current husband is Sir Timothy Laurence. "Sir" is a very prestigious title for a commoner, but it's absolutely nothing in royal terms. If there was a terrible accident and all Anne's brothers, nieces and nephews and grandnieces and grandnephews all died, Anne would become Princess of Wales, and Sir Timothy would almost certainly be given a prestigious Dukedom - probably Edinburgh (now held by Prince Charles, and due to pass to either William (if Charles dies before the Queen) or Edward (if Charles becomes King)). Anne's children did not automatically inherit titles, although the Queen has twice offered to grant them anyway and both offers were declined.

Sorry, went on a few tangents there... but basically, husbands don't inherit their wife's titles, and the children of daughters only inherit in limited circumstances. For example, the male heir to the throne is the Duke of Cornwall, but Charlotte and Anne cannot become the Duke (or Duchess) of Cornwall - if they're ever the heir to the throne, the monarch will also become the Duke of Cornwall.



VegetableMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,916
Location: Illinois

11 Apr 2021, 3:47 pm

What's not to hate? They're a bunch of parasites living off of tax payer dollars.

I think John Lydon was corrected when he suggested they should be sold off to Disneyworld.



Velorum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2020
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,137
Location: Cornwall

11 Apr 2021, 4:17 pm

I disagree in principal to individuals being allocated ceremonial roles related to the functioning of the state and any kind of influence over the running of the country on the basis of an accident of birth. It is totally illogical and reminiscent of much earlier oppressive times in my view. Even if these hereditary positions carry little real power in the modern world - they remain wrong in principal as far as Im concerned.

That being said, I do not feel any personal animosity towards the individuals in the royal family - they are just playing the hand the were dealt and know nothing else.


_________________
ICD-10 F84.5 - Autistic


Mountain Goat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,757
Location: Wales,UK Relationship: Single Interests: Trains AgeGroup: 40's FavouriteColor: Green Music: CyndiLauper Pets: Cats and Ducks

11 Apr 2021, 4:53 pm

Remember something in how Britain is run. Our government is run on behalf of the reigning monarch for the people. Our Queen has been very patient because a few TV presenters and one or two MP's actually committed treasonable acts by going against the democratic voice of the people, in which if our Queen wanted to, she could really say "Off with their heads" and it would be done, as she still has that athority, and those who go against the British government is in effect not just going against British democracy, but going against the monarch who gives the people the democratic vote. In other words, our monarch delegates her athority into our democratic hands.
Britain is different in other countries where there is no athority above ones government other then God. When Britain was said to give up its soverenty, it in effect kept up with it but it was more of a delegation, so if democracy was threatened, the reigning monarch could intervene. It is a type of back up if all else goes wrong, and it is why it is soo important that we retain our Royal family, and why we need to pray for them and support them, as they are more important for our countries security then our government is as they have the final say.

I know that our Queen has been tremendously patient with our government and our press. If I was in her position, I would probably not have so much patience and restraint.

In regards to our Queens husband who has passed away. He has a humour which is in a way similar to mine, and I loved him for it! Some of the things he said had me giggling away! He would come out with his humour for the purpose of breaking the ice and having a humourous "Dig", which was never intended to cause them offense, and those who were offended were mostly the press who as a whole have no sense of humour. If the press had a sense of humour, they would not get the job in the UK, and it has been like that for around 40 or more years. (You watch how those who have humour and laugh when something funny is said will not be in their jobs for long as it is considered "Unprofessional". What made me appreciate Prince Philip was how he purpously used his humour to expose this, and anyone who did not "Get" this clearly did not see his intelligence and could only focus on what he said (The press! :D )).
I used to think when he said something that our Queen would tell him off later or deny him some chocolate biscuits for his tea! Hehe!
He will be sadly missed.


_________________
Awaiting asessment. Neurodiverse 173/200. Neurotypical 21/200. Empathy 11/80. AQ 39.
Shutdown link: --》 Music I love: --》
Shutdown Experience similar to mine: --》


shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,033

15 Apr 2021, 3:16 pm

Dear OP, when you say Phillip worked for his country - what do you mean by work?
Since democracies an do without monarchs, his work was entertainment at best.
When you say they're self-financed ... They acquired their wealth during times in which the monarchy was actually ruling the country, unelected and unchecked.

So, they're useless super-rich entertainment figures whose job is literally to pretend they're better than the people they just claim to represent.


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,923
Location: Stendec

15 Apr 2021, 3:23 pm

I have no hatred for the Royals, only for the excessive press coverage every time one of them sneezes.


_________________
 Link to Official List of Trump's Atrocities 

45OFFICE = TRE45ON
Lock Him Up!


Aspie1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Mar 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,937
Location: United States

15 Apr 2021, 3:32 pm

Last time I cared about the British royal family was on July 3, 1776. I think they've become glorified reality show stars in recent decades, and Prince Phillip is no different.

But as a human being, may he rest in peace.


_________________
86 the 46
No aid or comfort to the enemy. No way!
The best cure for Covid is a vote for the Republican Party.


Redd_Kross
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jun 2020
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,318
Location: Derby, UK

15 Apr 2021, 6:04 pm

A dislike of Prince Phillip doesn't necessarily mean "hate for the crown" so the title here is a bit misleading.

I am sure he did have a great sense of humour. However he also had very little real responsibility (that's the Queen's job) and I think he sometimes rudely poked fun at people because he was bored, and because he could. And that strikes me as entertaining for him, but mean-spirited towards the people for whom meeting royalty was an exciting and nerve-wracking Big Deal. On the other hand he served in WW2 - despite having Nazi sisters, too - and did a lot of good work for charity, so he had some very positive traits as well.

The truth of the matter is that I had very little interest in the man. I was nothing to do with him, he was nothing to do with me - except presumably taking a very small share of my taxes every year. I feel sorry for the Queen and the rest of the royal family as they will be grieving; status doesn't really come into that, people are people, they will be upset.

What does drive me absolutely nuts is the sudden outpouring of faux grief from people who wouldn't give a s**t if their own neighbour died. It's like a huge virtue-signalling competition. If you want to pay your respects, do it privately rather than crowing about it - because all that says is, crowing was the main aim.

My Nan probably did as many good things for other people in her life, if not more. But she didn't get three days of solid TV coverage when she passed, because she wasn't born with a silver spoon in her mouth. And that, in turn, meant she never had the opportunity to make changes of national significance, or indeed to become internationally famous. So what are we actually celebrating here? His status wasn't really about how great he was, it's mainly about the family tree he was born into, and the inter-related one he married into. Nobody can help that, so I don't hate the man for something that he had no choice over, but I don't think it's any real reason to go fawning over him now he's gone, either.



MidnightRose
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 9 Feb 2021
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 226
Location: US

16 Apr 2021, 2:30 am

Red Raid wrote:

In truth, the Crown is a part of democracy in the United Kingdom. They are an institution that among other things, is the ceremonial figure who gives somewhat of a legitimacy to the democratically elected government. Parliament is where the power is. The crown is the ceremony through which things are done.

The other roles of the institution are rather complex and ethereal. They are a part of the system that is untainted by the mud of politics. Personally, I'm not a monarchist, but you get my point.



The royals are part of UK democracy in a way that a stone, if swallowed, is part of your digestive system. Even if it passes through you harmlessly, it wasn't really representative of the system or what should be in it. They play a very large ceremonial role and were not elected, therefore, not democratic. And by no means should we accept that an undemocratic institution legitimizes our democratic ones. And literal monarchs, people born as, essentially, the faces of the country, are hardly untainted by the mud of politics. If anything, politics stains them from birth, as every move they make is scrutinized by journalists, politicians, and their fellow royals.

Frankly, it would be a win-win. Anarchists like me would be happy, and they could live in peace as normal rich people instead of dealing with paparazzi all day.