Prince Philip dead at 99 years of age

Sigmapolis

Minister of Economy
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 10, 2011
25,072
37,215
113
Waukee
We said **** you to the monarch 250+ years ago. Why Americans care so much boggles my mind.

Queen Kim I of the House of Kardashian begs to differ.

We're no less susceptible to celebrity -- political or otherwise -- as Americans compared to other societies.

Heck, I would argue we're more susceptible. Nothing defines American mass culture like celebrity.
 

Sigmapolis

Minister of Economy
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 10, 2011
25,072
37,215
113
Waukee
The princesses with hats totally brought this to mind.
giphy.gif


Anyone interested in a road trip to London for some funeral crashing? :oops:

Sacha Baron Cohen is the luckiest man alive.
 

BoxsterCy

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 14, 2009
43,965
40,653
113
Minnesota
Americans should only care about America things. F the rest of the world.


sarcasm

Even with you sarcasm note it still caused it got me to wonder if Hawaii can grow enough coffee beans to avoid a mainland coffee shortage. Not sure I want us having to invade Columbia and set it up as a territory or something.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: isufbcurt

ISUTex

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
May 25, 2012
8,642
8,284
113
Rural U.S.A.
And most of that is ridiculous and weird too. At least for a lot of those people they are famous doing something other than being born into some inbred family. Sure we have the Kardashians, but at least the government isn't spending tens of millions per year for their dog and pony shows.


You forgot Politicians. We do pay for their dog and pony shows.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VeloClone

k123

Well-Known Member
Sep 14, 2011
1,139
1,027
113
Iowa
Having a symbolic monarch to embody the "mysticism" of the "national spirit" (or to provide fodder for the tabloids) helps deflect that kind of romanticism away from elected officials, who are then seen more as what they are -- civil servants, magistrates in charge of administration and policy, not a personification of the nation.

The small 'r' republican in me definitely does not like such a vestigial institution as the monarchy, but it is hard to argue it does not have practical benefits for the nations that have constitutional monarchies. A lot of our problems come from our desire to invest our definitions of morality or patriotic sentimentality into legislation and administration because we have nowhere else for it to go, and trying to make the necessarily messy business of politics into Camelot...

Well, it never goes well, and it is usually fake. All-American war hero good Catholic boy JFK was supposed to be the manly avatar of a new generation, but he was really a drug addict who cheated on Jackie almost daily.

Godspeed, Prince Philip. Most of all for your service in the great and terrible WWII.

Obviously there are plenty of opinions here re: (constitutional) monarchy/republic, but seems Philip was overall a solid guy - a man of action and broad curiosity and admirable lack of fuss this article.

(FWIW I'm sympathetic to the Sigmapolis position above...some permanence w changing govmts, distinguish capital-s State vs Government, royal 'duty' to visit/support big-picture society on-the-ground organizations vs celebrity 'causes', which may belie (edit, hint at...I guess I used 'belie' incorrectly, it means more like conceal) my opinion on Harry/Meghan too)

While born to a Prince he had a rough upbringing without much stability or family support (family exiled from Greece, parents split, mom went more or less crazy...)anyway seems like he had some admirable qualities worth learning from:

...prince already and had been a brave sailor in the war, emphasising his loyalty to Britain by choosing the Royal Navy over the readily available Greek one. He was also an accomplished man: he could fish, shoot, play polo, fly and paint. He could make things with his hands. He was a keen reader...

...Hereditary systems tend to grow weak and inward-looking. Prince Philip was neither: he was mentally and physically tough. If he had not married Princess Elizabeth, he would surely have become an admiral. He wanted things to be shipshape, unfussy, practical, prepared for storms. His office worked like clockwork. He answered every letter at once. He was decisive, direct, unbedazzled by grandeur, unpompous. He knew that the modern world was a hard place for monarchy, but it held no fears for him, and he tried unsentimentally to adapt the institution to the age...

...Indeed, he was fascinated by the modern world, and more adventurous than his wife in studying it. Like Victoria’s Albert, but with a sense of humour, Prince Philip was keenly interested in what was new. He followed developments in science and technology. He had a feeling for business and was ahead of his time in his interest in the free-market theories of the Institute of Economic Affairs as early as the 1960s. Before the word ‘environment’ was invented in its modern sense, the Duke of Edinburgh was its advocate, partly through his long presidency of the World Wildlife Fund (now the World Wide Fund for Nature). Behind the gruff, practical exterior there was a reflective man. Prince Philip was interested in religion and analytical in his approach. In 1966, he founded St George’s House, Windsor – the centre for meetings between different faiths and denominations, believers and atheists, clergy and scientists. Such dialogue is taken for granted now, but when it began, it was bold....

...He was also encouraging. With a surprising gallantry that belied his reputation for abruptness, he would often tell the Queen on the way to an official engagement how beautiful she was looking. Theirs was an astonishing partnership – founded on love at first sight in her case, and sustained by deep mutual respect over three quarters of a century.
 
Last edited:

Sigmapolis

Minister of Economy
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 10, 2011
25,072
37,215
113
Waukee
(FWIW I'm sympathetic to the Sigmapolis position above...some permanence w changing govmts, distinguish capital-s State vs Government, royal 'duty' to visit/support big-picture society on-the-organizations vs celebrity 'causes', which may belie my opinion on Harry/Meghan too)

Having a noncontroversial figure (above the day-to-day bloodbath of politics) that can be a unifying personification of the Nation can be quite a practical idea. Indeed, much of the problem with American governance right now is we try to make our leading political figures... presidents, governors, judges, those in the leadership positions of legislatures... into something like that, and it just never works given the inherently divisive nature of governing.

The last American president who was more-or-less unanimously loved and respected was probably Dwight Eisenhower. Instead of having some descendent of Washington or Eisenhower (or Grant or whoever) as a symbolic monarch who stays away from politics and spends their time raising money for children's hospitals or driving racecars, leaving the politics to the politicians, we instead try to draw the same meaning from elected officials. That basically means that the personification of the Nation is always going to be hated by roughly half of the populace -- it just doesn't work that well.

This is why Harry and Meghan are controversial. They are breaking that now ancient and hoary requirement of the royal family staying aloof and neutral of the day-to-day of politics, leaving that to Parliament and the PM. I do not find it very surprising an American woman is the one leading that charge. I am not sure how much she has really contemplated the distinction above, and Americans think the point of celebrity is being heard, not being seen.

I will say one other thing in defense of European monarchs. King Juan Carlos I of Spain was the central figure who brought democracy back to Spain after decades of Franco. Not all of them are bad people or leaders...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Carlos_I#Transition

Prince Philip was cut from the same cloth. There are not many WWII veterans counted among the living, and it is sad to me when they finally depart. That generation knew hardships we can hardly even imagine.
 

VeloClone

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2010
45,817
35,209
113
Brooklyn Park, MN
As others have said, its common. To add more to it, most royals wanted to marry to the highest possible, but if your already at the top, the only other people to marry would be your equal. So a lot of the royal families, Spanish, Dutch, English, Norwegian, etc. would marry each other. Over the centauries, all of these royal families are related in some way.

There is a guy on Youtube, whose channel is called Usefulcharts, that goes in to royal family lineage. His videos picks a ruler/family dynasty and goes through their family tree. He has these huge posters you can buy of these family trees, which he uses in his videos.
Speaking of inbreeding and cross breeding these are the cross between fairies and centaurs.
 
  • Haha
  • Funny
Reactions: Acylum and SCNCY

Help Support Us

Become a patron