Prince Philip has died
royal.uk
royal.uk
Hargreaves was a yeoman aboard the destroyer HMS Wallace on which Philip, son of Prince Andrew of Greece, had been appointed first lieutenant - second-in-command - at the age of 21. In July 1943, engaged in the Allied landings in Sicily, the ship came under repeated bombardment at dead of night and its crew realised that they would probably lose their lives.
It was then Philip conjured up a plan to throw overboard a wooden raft with smoke floats that would create the illusion of debris ablaze on the water. As he hoped, the German plane was fooled into attacking the raft while the Wallace sailed to safety under cover of darkness.
Hargreaves recalled the terrifying events of that night on the website: 'It was obvious that we were the target for tonight and they would not stop until we had suffered a fatal hit. It was for all the world like being blindfolded and trying to evade an enemy whose only problem was getting his aim right. There was no doubt in anyone's mind that a direct hit was inevitable.
'There was no question but to accept that on the next run or the one after that we had little chance of survival. I had been through so much that the feeling of anger and frustration was as great as the fear I and everyone else felt.
'It was less than five minutes after the aircraft had departed and - if the previous space in time was approximately the same - we had about 20 minutes to come up with something. We couldn't steam far in that time, not even far enough to make the aircraft think we had moved.'
He continued: 'The first lieutenant [Philip] went into hurried conversation with the captain, and the next thing a wooden raft was being put together on deck. Within five minutes they launched a raft over the side - at each end was fastened a smoke float. When it hit the water the smoke floats were activated and billowing clouds of smoke interspersed with small bursts of flame gave a convincing imitation of flaming debris in the water.
'The captain ordered full ahead and we steamed away from the raft for a good five minutes and then he ordered the engines stopped. The tell-tale wake subsided and we lay there quietly in the soft darkness and cursed the stars, or at least I did. Quite some time went by until we heard aircraft engines approaching.
'The sound of the aircraft grew louder until I thought it was directly overhead and I screwed up my shoulders in anticipation of the bombs. The next thing was the scream of the bombs, but at some distance. The ruse had worked and the aircraft was bombing the raft. I suppose he was under the impression that he had hit us in his last attack and was now finishing the job.
'We lay there waiting for him to leave, which he did, and, in view of the solitary attacks so well spaced apart, we were convinced he would not return. It had been marvellously quick thinking, conveyed to a willing team and put into action as if rehearsed.'
Here's Cochrane from his autobiography [0]: "Before they had fairly renewed the chase night was rapidly setting in, and when quite dark, we lowered a ballasted cask overboard with a lantern, to induce them to believe that we had altered our course, though we held on in the same direction during the whole night. The trick was successful, for, as had been calculated, the next morning, to our great satisfaction, we saw nothing of them, and were all much relieved on finding our dollars and his Majesty’s ship once more in safety."
Patrick O'Brian modeled his Jack Aubrey character after Cochrane, in part, and the raft decoy is woven in to the novel 'Master and Commander.'
[0] Cochrane, Admiral Lord. The Autobiography of a Seaman
Things like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_sheathing gave the navy a marked advantage against it's peers.
For the 18th and much of the 19th centuries, the Royal Navy was the organisation to join if you wanted to be at the bleeding edge of adventure and exploration. A bit like NASA today, but with a military mission.
From taxi-ing Darwin all over the planet in HMS Beagle to encouraging truly accurate marine chronometers (the Harrison Watch), steam propulsion (and the maximisation of power from volume) through to research in health - 19th century equivalent of NASA is a good way to think look at it.
Tell me more. I'm four volumes in to the Aubrey-Maturin series, and will read the remaining 16, but I'm curious about, say, the top two or three non-fiction books for the interested layman.
1) The Command of the Ocean: A Naval History of Britain, 1649-1815[1] (actually book 2 but the first covers an earlier period this covers the period across the Act of Union - when England/Scotland became with Wales the United Kingdom and when the British navy went from "decent" to not just first but first by a hilarious margin - the only modern analogue that sorta fits is the US navy compared to everyone else post-WW2 up to well right now)
2) Dreadnought[2] which covers the late 19th early 20th (Birth of Queen Victoria to the start of WW1) - when the Dreadnought type-class battleship was considered the premier strategic weapon of it's day.
For the rest it's a vast field (that I've barely scratched - history is a hobby for me part of the perpetual "why is the world the way it is" fascination with everything) as always wikipedia is your friend :-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_18th%E2%80%931...
For more modern naval stuff (where modern equals ~a century ago) I can heartily recommend the https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4mftUX7apmV1vsVXZh7RTw Drachinifel - he has a way of providing information dense content in an entertaining way - his video on the technological arms race in metallurgy for ships armour for example is superb.
[1] https://www.amazon.co.uk/Command-Ocean-History-Britain-1649-...
You promised us instant messaging. All we got is colour postcards. This is the beginning of a dark age.
Most electronic messaging forms are either closed (do you have Telegram? How bout Signal? Or maybe Messenger? Snapchat? Etc.) or basically inundated with electronic spam. If I got an email claiming to be from the Queen of England I’d just think it’d be a more ballsy version of the Nigerian prince scam.
https://youtu.be/7Quyte7zN70?list=PLkX9Ba6AAK_2g3Y9Y8MdLbbcT...
I organised one for my grandparents a couple of years back. They also received a card from the Prime Minister [of New Zealand], the Leader of the Opposition, their local MP, and a couple of other random politicians and dignitaries.
It's not something that I thought about at the time, but I'm quite happy that it's something you need to apply for. It would be a bit disconcerting if the Queen had access to the birth, death, and marriage records of everybody in New Zealand.
I sent Bill Clinton an invitation to my high school graduation party, and got a letter back from the White House telling me to work hard in college.
But mailing a birth announcement to the White House is a much better idea. They send a card back to the child welcoming them to the world. You can file it away and then give it to your kid when they are an adult and tell them this is the first letter they ever got.
I believe my grandmother waited around for this, at the end. She had never been particularly interested in the monarchy, I’d thought, but when she got older and had trouble reading I noticed that among her large print gardening books were a couple on the monarchy.
she'd crafted and penned -
A letter to Philip
that she'd never send.
From reddit's resident poet, "poem_for_your_sprog": https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/mnerwn/prince_ph...
I thought The Sprog had emerged on HN
Nicely poetic approach to put the website in a sort of mourning state. Curious what changes need to be made.
Edit: Just checked some subpages and they forward to the announcement. I guess they really mean unavailable.
https://nypost.com/2021/02/27/islanders-who-call-prince-phil...
She sounds like a good candidate to me.
“One of the oarsmen taking them ashore was a chap from Tanna called Chief Jack,” former Buckingham Palace spokesman Dickie Arbiter recalled to The Post. “He thought Philip was a warrior from a long time ago who had come down from the mountains and gone off to England in search of a bride."
This part of the world has some very unique culture, particularly their takes on politics, religion and such. At first glance, it's easy to be derisive of (literal, original) cargo cults. A more nuanced view takes you to interesting questions about the unique political philosophies of people with a deep island and mariners' history.
If they were wearing suits and commenting on these same ideas in a philosophy journal, in some cases it might be brilliant outsider thinking. A lot of it relates to an assimilation of outside political cultures outwardly, but with a totally unexpected internal meta.
I think you misread "deified" (with the extra i, meaning "To worship or revere as a god"). I did too the first time
Rest In Peace
More like spending his life having the country serve him.
It's the minor royals who have it best, I think. Zara Tindall could walk down most roads in Britain and not be recognised - she gets the riches and privileges, but only a tiny fraction of the downsides experienced by her grandmother.
"In the car ride over, however, the importance of the meeting sunk in as Harry asked Meghan, "Do you know how to curtsy?" She told Oprah: "I thought genuinely that that was what happens outside. I thought that was part of the fanfare. I didn't think that's what happens inside. I said, 'But it's your grandmother.' He goes, 'It's the queen.' That was really the first moment that the penny dropped.""[0]
Per her telling of the story, we may concluded that Harry really never had a grandmother like many other people do. It seems it's always been 'formal' in the royal family. That the ideas of duty and royalty have come before family. That's not a life that I would want to live or a family I would want to have. That said, their wealth and privilege may make up for it. But it's not perfect.
[0]https://www.popsugar.com/celebrity/meghan-markle-oprah-inter...
These Royals cant spent their wealth like billionaires either. So wealth certainly isn't a thing to be worth considering. And I mean if that is all the stuff we could tell and see, imagine all the other things we dont. In a modern world, most people, even in the high middle class wouldn't want to trade what they have to what is considered to be privilege as Royal.
What would they spend it on? Fancy houses? Private transport around the world? Lavish vacations? They get all of those things for free already.
I suppose it wouldn't do for Prince Charles to buy a 200' yacht. But other than that, I'm not sure how much he, or any other royal, is suffering for not being able to spend their wealth like the rest of the 0.1%.
Spending like billionaires means political power or privately funded moonshot projects.
Perhaps they can't singlehandedly fund moonshot projects. But if that's the extent to which royals are hampered, then perhaps they have an alright deal after all, what with being born into a system where enjoy a lifestyle that would cost tens of millions to sustain for anyone else.
0. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-que...
They also have (use of) a royal train.
A 'curtsy' for your grandmother, the Queen, is a obviously a bit formal but it's not remotely irreproachable. It's literally just a form of greeting.
Japanese culture has a zillion of elements of common formality - literally entire modes of language - that are an every day occurrence.
Golden handcuffs are not actual handcuffs.
Unfortunately, Meghan seems to have captured the imagination for some reason.
Not to imply equivalence in magnitude, but people say say the same about people trapped in abusive relationships.
You stay rich, wealthy and influential and parlay your newfound celebrity into millions of dollars' worth of streaming media and book deals?
Oh no wait, sorry, they're just wealthy now but no longer obscenely wealthy. The horror.
The truth is, we may never know the psychological pressures they've endured, or will.
That could be said about literally everyone ever. So instead we look at the things that can actually be quantified, where I see nothing but net.
Robert Lacey claims that Prince Philip’s immediate response to the outcome of the 1999 republic referendum was, “What’s the matter with these people? Can’t they see what’s good for them?”
If it’s not clear to non-Australians, in the 1999 referendum we voted to keep the monarchy (though probably more through the phrasing of the question in the opinion of some)
From https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/prince-philip-duke-of-ed...*
The man was almost 100 years old, almost 30 when India and many other countries got independence from British after a long multi-decade struggle, with many many innocent dead. Frankly I see him as a wealthy old man from a very influential family who should have done better. Am I wrong that this was my first though after seeing this comment? Am I supposed to feel sorry for the royal family and their lack of "freedom"?
Yes.
Thanks Phil.
Many old people, still alive, lived a good chunk of their lives in what was a British colony then and he was the prince then too. Neither was it that far back in history, nor was it harmless :) You can be indifferent like many others and celebrate the British monarchy, but I suppose I cannot, like many others.
The point is to let go of the decades old past.
There are probably valid reason why Indian hate the Brits. But not all period and all colonisation are bad and involves oppression. And I am sure there are some good involves that people excluded for their own interest. AFAIK Modern India is united to become one because of the Brits. The Turks also at one point ruled India.
To me the reaction in the UK (for example all BBC radio stations are broadcasting the same crap news about him all day) has been way more over the top than I expected, but I can see the impact he has had on UK diplomacy over the years but it still seems highly out of proportion.
The man had a very difficult upbringing, risked his life fighting Nazis and then did his family duty for the rest of his life. He was witty and funny until the end.
Gandhi was a pedophile who slept with young boys and girls almost his entire life, and who refused 'foreign medicine' (antibiotics) on the basis of principle for his dying wife, but took 'foreign medicine' (quinine) to save his own later. At the same time, leading a major liberation movement. History is complicated.
Philip had the title of Duke of Edinburgh and the Forth Bridge is a large bridge near Edinburgh.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_London_Bridge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forth_Bridge
Edinburgh sits on the south side of the Firth of Forth:
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/be+like+painting+the+Fo...
QE is - Operation London Bridge
Usually when there are preperations for a future event to hide the markers of what it is there are code names.
Operations for preparing the necessary for the deaths of heads of state are typically named bridges.
The Queens death is (or was) Operation London Bridge.
Of course with the internet means they code words are widely known (they were also named on The Crown) - and indeed trending on twitter, which is amusing given how some documentation still says they are super secret. The information can't be easily kept underwraps now as the chance of someone scooping it on twitter increases with the number of people aware of it and the time taken, I suspect there's only a few minutes between the palace announcing it to bbc/sky/itn and the embargo time - certainly BBC didn't have enough time to get Huw Edwards in for example (he's in now)
Other bridges includ(ed)
Menai (Charles - Price of Wales, Menai Bridge is from Bangor to Anglesey)
Tay (Queen Mother, near balmoral which I think was her ancestral home)
London (Queen, London being the captial)
Forth being the bridge at Edinburgh, so makes sense for the Duke of Edinburh)
Not sure if William has one, maybe it would be the River Cam.
The specific details however aren't public knowlege, with various secrecy levels, and there are various different plans depending on the situation (what happens if the queen was on a plane that crashed for example, or what if Charles died in an avalanche in Austria), and plans of course are constantly changing (what happens if there's a massive pandemic which means people can't congregate in their millions to pay respects as they did with Diana, what happens if the news is leaked on twitter before coordinated official announcement)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens...
Of course there are exceptions! Most people are empathetic and few openly celebrate the death of a 99-year-old. But I think it's fair to say that a large percent of the community here has reason to not be overly sentimental about the passing of Prince Philip.
0. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-que...
"The Queen successfully lobbied the government to change a draft law in order to conceal her “embarrassing” private wealth from the public, according to documents discovered by the Guardian."
> They are literally net contributors on the basis of this alone.
How can you know this? Without a comprehensive and independent accounting of their donations and expenses, it's literally impossible to say whether they are "net contributors" or not.
It's nice to think that the monarchy is looking out for the people of the Commonwealth. But if that were the case, why would the Queen be lobbying--in secret!--to keep her vast wealth obscured from the public?
Last I checked it didn’t matter how one acquired something as long as one owns it. It’s really irrelevant how they came into that land.
[0] https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/en-gb/media-and-insights/ne...
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/372882/uk-royal-family-e...
The sovereign does not own it, but takes part of the profit from it to fund the royal family, and gives the rest to the treasury.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate has a good background.
Where did your assets come from? If you own land, you bought it from someone. They bought it from someone. Go far enough back in history, and you'll find the beginning of that chain starts with someone being fucked over violently. Generally, we put it down to "time immemorial" and leave it at that. But if you want to give up your assets to those they were stolen from, go right ahead.
I have always felt strongly against monarchy. Especially against the British royal family, more so as I am an Indian. They never apologized for any of the massacres (Jallianwala is just one example) or pogroms committed at their behest and in their name. I do believe they are a disgusting symbol of colonialism, racism, subjugation. It is very disturbing that a good part of the world and an entire nation validates them, bows to them officially.
But again, he was a fellow human being after all - I hope he finds peace if at all there's something after this and I hope he was at peace and content towards the end.
Re your second, you are a much more mature and compassionate person than I am about this. I am completely ambivalent about his death. He was a very old man who lived a spectacularly privileged life and had little to no worries. I care not a jot whether he found peace.
I'm fairly sure many people of more actual worth die every day with no one here giving a shit. The monarchy is a relic that really should be dismantled.
- As an infant, was evacuated from Greece with his (and his family's) life in grave danger. Spent his childhood mostly estranged from his family
- As a young man, served on a naval ship as part of the campaign to defeat fascist Germany and Japan. At least once helped save his ship's crew from a German bombing attack. Probably faced many other threats to his own life and to his comrades.
- Spent the rest of his life as an ambassador for his family and country, and counsel to his wife whose job it is to ensure the country and Commonwealth continues to function with stability and prosperity, including through political/economic crises, national emergencies, local/global cultural shifts, etc.
- Attended 22,000 official events and delivered 5000 speeches. Was an early advocate for environmentalism and animal welfare. Conceived and headed a youth development organisation for most of his public life.
- Endured family tragedies, relentless media/public scrutiny and criticism, and constant campaign against his family's wealth and role in the political system.
You may not like him. Fine. I didn't care much for him, and I don't hold a great deal of pity for him for the difficulties he and his family have faced.
But "little to no worries" is a giant leap.
If you’re looking for someone to blame, Churchill deserves some. Many Prime Ministers before him as well.
But I don’t think Philip deserves any. You call them a symbol, that’s all they are. They’re someone to point at and say “yeah that’s our country”, so no single politician can claim that mantle. As an Indian you must be aware how easy it is for a politician to claim they’re the personification of the nation (“India is Indira and Indira is India”). That cannot happen in the UK because the PM is merely a temporary caretaker appointed by the monarch. The symbolism matters.
Source: The English Constitution by Walter Bagehot (1867)
nothing new, see “religion”.
For me there's little point making people feel shame for what country they happened to be born in - we do not get to choose. However it's important that we do not forget what caused these awful atrocities and make sure that we never let them happen again.
Personally I feel that we do not learn enough about these atrocities at school in the UK, and would be happy if we focused on them more but I wouldn't want people to feel too guilty about things that could not control.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4 [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjTSgP6Lm0A
Here's a interesting tweet about how the global north is sucking dry the global south: https://twitter.com/jasonhickel/status/1377180178690940934
From 'bidirectional' above :
It should be noted that the 'staying out of politics' is
a public phenomenon. In her weekly meeting with the Prime
Minister, The Queen makes her political stance well known
(that is the entire point of the meeting).[1]
While you say:
They haven’t had a say in British policy for around 2 centuries.
Although the monarch meets the Prime Minister every week, they
cannot tell the PM what to do, unless it affects the royal
family personally. The PM listens to what they have to say but
charts their own course.
One would think her influence particularly would have gone unquestioned to a larger degree, by the PM or politicians & their constituencies in general, in that era - when the royal family enjoyed far greater popularity than it does now.
So the OP isn't too far off the mark to assume they deserve ample blame.
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 grew up at a time when the Empire was a great thing, something that helped resist the tides of Nazism. Britain could not have managed it without the colonies. And later, he became old. I’m willing to give older people the benefit of the doubt - they can’t change their minds easily.
But if his grandson can’t come to grips with it either when he becomes monarch, I won’t be making any excuses for him.
I do agree that more should be taught about the details of colonialism but the idea that British history started with Henry VIII and skipped to WW1 is nonsense.
I can say that I did Ancient Greece, Romans, Tudors, touched a little on the Spanish Armada before skipping straight to WW2.
Neither of the two schools I attended touched on Colonialism in any recognisable degree, and Slavery was more "We stopped slavery, good job england", when in reality it wasn't done from a place of morality, and instead was driven by mass slave revolts, a decline in plantations culminated by an era of overproduction by slavery, which was leading to economic decline.
When we were very young it was the tudors and earlier, then there was a little social history where we covered things like the building of canals and the invention of the spinning jenny, the industrial revolution, enclosure etc, then Cold War history IIRC. Big blank spot where colonial history might have been. You'd think it might be relevant...
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...
I feel like "The Empire was great otherwise we would all be living under Naziism" is a poor take.
It assumes that whatever features of the world existed then must have been necessary to accomplish whatever was accomplished.
Imagine the US was still a British colony, and Hitler was still defeated. It would stand to reason then, that it was because the US was still a British colony that Hitler was defeated, right?
In a made-up timeline when Britain had already voluntarily broken up the empire, we're in a very different world, once that perhaps wouldn't include Germany trying to expand its power and/or wouldn't have felt itself under threat from the surrounding pre-WWI European empires.
In fact, in some sense, there is an attempt to try to deify/lionize the PM as a royal. I don't think that it is a symptom of the failure of parliamentary democracy, rather it is a tendency among people.
Heres the opening for Patrick Freyne in the Irish Times on the British Monarchy:
"Having a monarchy next door is a little like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and has daubed their house with clown murals, displays clown dolls in each window and has an insatiable desire to hear about and discuss clown-related news stories. More specifically, for the Irish, it’s like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and, also, your grandfather was murdered by a clown."
>You call them a symbol, that’s all they are.
Yet swastikas are illegal in Germany. Symbols have meaning and the British monarchy does represent imperialism and colonialism even if it makes British people feel uncomfortable.
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/harry-and-me...
There is no such thing as a 'self made' millionaire or billionaire. They just got lucky and most of the time somebody helped them.
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 geometry" but steers clear of woo or religion. He adopts a Pythagorean perennialism and advocates for an ecological "spirituality" that is integrated with science. It contains examples from his own urban design projects. I was reeeeally surprised to find this kind of thinking coming from the Prince of Wales.
Bold statement.
Um, did you forget about his first wife?
I can sit and name persons more negatively treated for hours and not run out of names.
EDIT: Why is my comment collapsed? Genuine question, don't know how this works.
The UK should quickly tweak their royal succession laws, and give the crown to Edward, or Anne, while the queen is still alive.
If Charles abdicates, the line of succession dispute would be rather funny under the current succession laws.
If they too decline, line goes to their children below the age of majority, and the icky question of regency appears.
The regency in question notionally gives quite a lot of power, as the crown itself. If regency goes to the executive branch, it will throw out the last check on the Downing st. for may many thing, including the use of UK's nuclear weapons.
The monarchists were out in force, and downvoted your comment. I've upvoted it, but otherwise there's not much to do -- I think a lot of people who don't care for the monarchy probably avoiding the discussion.
Anyplace to read up on it? Obviously their ceremonies are full of masonic and other esoteric pagan ritual. THey are a pagan Germanic-druid hybrid after-all.
Freemasonry isn't pagan in any major sense. It's pretty solidly Abrahamic, and parts of it are explicitly Christian. The closest you'll get to paganism is a continuation of themes and symbolism which are shared in common between ancient cultures.
https://www.ugle.org.uk/about-us/whos-who/12-governance/155-...
Sacred Geometry is an ancient Greek concept that has nothing to do with Freemasons. Pythagoras was the most famous person to push it. It's that thing where they thought the world was made out of the Platonic solids, tried to explain the planetary orbits in terms of polygons, et cetera. It remained huge through Greece and Italy until the 1400s. The Leonardo piece "Vitruvian Man," where the guy has his arms at a couple of angles, and all the describing shapes behind him? That's Sacred Geometry. People used to think those shapes were evidence of design by God.
This was extremely common throughout Europe, especially in Christian churches and cathedrals (much like Islamic) until the late 1400s, when an Italian named Alberti wrote a book that basically pushed religious architecture forward 100 years in ability to make safe large buildings.
That book pushed for a return to circles and the cross, and most of Europe followed. However, that was also 60 years before the Anglican split, and about how long it took things to move from one end of a continent to another back then, so when it was getting to England, England decided to say that the rest of Europe was losing the beat, and stuck to the more complex Greek styled visuals
Most of Europe removed the Sacred Geometry, but England (and Italy) kept theirs. England in particular sees this as a tie to historic legitimacy; one of the things that makes Their Church Different And Better (tm). "We didn't forget the old ways" kind of thing.
Freemasonry? This isn't the Flintstones.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=891qV-7Y42w
[2] https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFoke4cads8VNAi1pbi7IkM7p...
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 but ignoring evidence against alt medicine, etc.
Calling things 'alternative' puts them on the same level, which they are not.
I'm not saying that eating a plant is ineffective, but plants don't come with dosage information for the active ingredient printed on the stem, and knowing how much of the useful (and potentially deadly) substance you're ingesting is important. Vitally important, if you're taking something like digitalis, which comes from foxglove: Get a digitalis dosage far enough wrong and it kills you.
Keep in mind that there are traditional treatments that we haven't yet isolated the cause of action or the understand the pharmacology due to it being the interaction of different compounds.
I'm not supporting traditional or alternative medicine, but I also don't think that the issue is so black and white, and treating it as such turns people away from the subject entirely.
I don't think it has to be stigmatising, but I do think that calling things by their specific name helps with everyones mindset.
Some words like 'helpful' are fine, because it does wat it says it does. But calling disparate things by the same name leaves the door open for people to mentally align those things to 'be' the same thing, which they aren't. Distinction is important, even if the differentiation isn't black-and-white. Taking some aspirine vs. drinking a nice cup of green tea can both help with a slightly sore throat, but they are not the same thing. (at the same time, I'd argue that it's better to take that nice cup of tea, take a nap, eat healthy, get to bed on time etc instead of covering the symptom with aspirine)
Turning people away from a subject in itself isn't a bad thing; if someone is swayed that easily, they should probably not be entering a world of non-repeatable non-measurable non-transferable items and activities, especially if the people involved can't be held responsible for their actions. It also isn't a pharmacology thing on its own. While pharmaceuticals can help with certain issues, it's not the core of medicine and in certain cultures it's mostly just abused to cover up symptoms instead of used to mitigate or resolve root causes.
But it's a tricky comparison. In the end we're comparing something measurable with something based on feelings and traditions. Those are generally not that reconcilable.
Willow bark to aspirin is a great example of an extremely old “traditional” treatment becoming medicine. Same with quinine for malaria, etc. Tons of real medicines originated by isolating compounds found in nature, even if the final pill form you see is purified or even synthetic. Most people are unaware or just fine with this fact. Sure there are probably many natural treatments out there that are effective (and many that aren’t, or are downright dangerous). We should do the work needed to study them scientifically, and turn the good ones into medicine. Not just promote alternative treatments indiscriminately.
If those treatments have been studied in a scientific manner, then the reconciliation, so to speak, has already happened. But, how do we define the effectiveness of treatment? In some cases, using a placebo has shown some effect, but that's because the hypothesis about the effectiveness of a proposed treatment didn't pan out.
Something that 'helps' in a measurable way with no drawbacks is a useful tool to have. It does of course not mend broken bones or suture cuts in the skin.
If they told me it would cure Alzheimer’s, I’d make a mental note to ignore their opinions in future.
“Alternative medicine” is so often snake oil, that anything calling itself that is something I hold in the same regard as Star Trek Voyager’s plot devices. Indeed, one such “alternative medicine” is what my mother used religiously to stave off old age memory problems — she got Alzheimer’s about 16 years younger than her mother, who didn’t use them.
Quick thinking has its place, but wouldn't you care why the person believes that? The anecdata about your family history isn't any more credible, if that's all we have to go by.
I think quick think should be addressed with slow think. By thinking speed I'm referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
In the absence of any surprising circumstances, no. I grew up with all the tropes — Catholicism, New Age takes on Wicca, Hinduism, anamism; homeopathy, Bach flower remedies, dowsing, runestones, horoscopes — so I’ve got decent reason to believe I already know why they might believe this hypothetical I’ve literally just made up.
The pithy joke about it is this:
"What do you call alternative medicine that works?"
"Medicine."
― Tim Minchin
Uhm, what?
He's not even the worst treated person in the British royal family, and Diana has been off of the television for decades
The Prince was largely irrelevant even on British television, let alone the rest of the world
If he was the worst treated person on TV, we'd have heard a whole lot more about his Epstein time
They really do love making victims out of their predatory world leaders, don't they?
Trump fans do this too
Unless your scope of attention is limited to the British Royal Family, I’m not sure how you come to approximately that conclusion. And even if it was, Prince Andrew easily beats him out.
And if we’re going by intensity of negative portrayal, and considering just the British media, the Duke and especially Duchess of Sussex is at least in close competition with him, too, and probabyl way ahead if we are just looking at current coverage.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/04/prince-phili...
You guys are somehow special because what? Useless social fiction from antiquity.
Which has advantages, admittedly -- far lower expenditures and a far lower rate of child-rapes among them -- a lot of the British royalists might object to a change of rulers on that basis.
There are two different typos possible here and I am undecided which one is funnier ;)
They got nothing on Gul Dukat.
They have power because they inherited it from someone that conquered it. Just like people may inherit companies and fortunes.
Besides, to a modern democrat, what could be more legitimate that receiving something from parliament?
So yeah, getting rid of the monarchy seems to have worked.
But we probably have no need to get rid of our monarchy, the family seems to be doing that job for us. When that happens, we can see whether tourist revenues go up or down :-)
It is absolutely amazing to see so many people who obviously have no skin in this particular game crawling out from under their rocks to share their strongly held beliefs about the royal family, as if the rest of us give a toss about your opinion...
Today it's seen as almost quaint and cutesy. The history of it all is anything but. The monarchy originally would have gained power like most other cases in world history where someone raised an army and took it by force. That, while not my favourite thing, is legitimate. After parliament became a thing and the monarchy was no longer running the show, what legitimacy does it have? What's the need to keep it? Who would stop anyone getting rid of it? The monarchy themselves aren't in the position to raise an army and conquer the nation again.
What it is today vs. how it originated leave me feeling like there is a big disconnect in how it's viewed. Ask anyone "should we get rid of it?", plenty say no. Ask those same people "should we get rid of parliament then and go back to monastic rule" they will say no. Ok, so you _dont_ like what it used to represent but you like what it represents now? What the heck?
Does that sentiment extend to Henry VIII?
Monarchy is not something to be celebrated.
Remarks like "useless social fiction from antiquity" come across as uninformed, provincial snobbery motivated by some kind of superficial progressive mythology. There are forms of government that are objectively bad, others that are poorly suited to time and place, but the notion that the best form of government is the democratic republic, everywhere and in all times and places, is silly.
as for celebrities and "royalty", humans are hard-wired to follow hierarchies and thus be fascinated by those at the top
My whole thing is we used to be _dominated_ by the monarchy without a choice about it. Now that we aren't, what's even the point in being _fascinated_ by it? They're at the top, but of what anymore?
The death of a royal may be of interest to nerds.
Will be interesting how it's dealt with due to covid. Will be especially interesting in Northern Ireland, which is currently inflames because of the fallout from a funeral for a republican figure which had many people attending it in breach of lockdown rules, but with no police action (which, combined with Boris's Border, has led to a narrative of "the other side {republicans} are winning")
But yes, channel 4 does look like some trashy auction show
Indeed, 12-year old me found this the worst part of Diana dying: all the cartoons in the morning were pre-empted! I was looking forward to watching Pinky & The Brain :-(
There's a reason celebrity and mainstream stories are off topic unless they present evidence of a new and interesting phenomenon that sparks intellectual curiosity - discussions tend to wallow in maudlin sentimentality, political snark or pop culture nonsense otherwise. A person's death alone, while unfortunate, doesn't meet the quality bar.
He served on British warships and almost certainly used analogue computers to do fire calculations for the big ships guns.
Maybe because in human networks monarchy is one of the major legacy operating systems?
I, for one, am glad that it has lasted this long. I've learned a bunch of new things and added a book to my reading list.
I find the many servile and naive responses here really quite pathetic. The man was evil both personally and as part of the structure of the monarchy. I understand that many simply don't know about his history, either as outsiders with a strange fascination with royalty but only at a superficial level (as many Americans confusingly are), or as part of a learned and willful ignorance required to be modern monarchist.
Jimmy Saville was a good friend of his, just as one in a myriad of examples. At least two of his sons have a reputation as of the same inclinations as Saville. This only scratches the surface.
While I hesitated to say this, as gloating over the death of even an enemy I find rather unbecoming and crude, but lets not make any mistake such people and institutions deserve no sympathy, as they have presided over horrors that would boggle the mind.
On the topic of monarchy, I'm mostly with Diderot that mankind will not be free till the last king is hung with the guts of the last priest...
Because then you wouldn't have to say allegedly.
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.
"That was when I got infected. That was when I thought: "I don't want this life: I want that one. Once I'd found a guitar to play I found a friend to help me get there," he told the Guardian.
Quoting from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/10306480/Stin...
Example: I know an engineer and process optimization (six sigma) expert who worked with a major US aerospace manufacturer that had operations in the UK. He observed that in the UK the management and much of engineering was from elite UK schools like Oxford and Cambridge, and that these people basically refused to mix with the regular shop floor folks. He had to drag these upper crust UK people kicking and screaming into donning proper gear and walking out onto the shop floor to look at shit. In the US he hasn't encountered nearly as much implicit classism, though there still is a little. The US has its own elite university system but he says it's nowhere near as powerful as in the UK and its strength diminishes (in the US) as you move West.
I can attest to the latter point. I have lived in Cincinnati, Boston, Asheville (NC), California, and now I'm back in Cincinnati. The further you get from "BosNyWash" (the Eastern Seaboard) the less often anyone ever asks where you went to school. In Boston it's the first question, and I got the sense there that if you didn't go to a top-ten school there was a ceiling for your career. In California I was never asked about where I went to school in eight years of working and living there. I've only rarely been asked in Cincinnati and NC and it's mostly about "where are you from?" than class distinction.
Edit: this is in-re a peer of the parent post but it wouldn't let me post it so here it is... thought it was interesting enough to copy/paste here.
A friend who went to Harvard in the USA once told me that the #1 thing he got from Harvard was "permission" to excel. "At Harvard they tell you you're the best, so you try to be the best." That stuck with me.
Search for research on social self-limitation. There have been some interesting experiments, like putting A students in a class and telling the teacher they're C students and vice versa. Hint: the students tend to conform to expectations.
This is part of why I am so skeptical of people who try to put too much weight on IQ and draw vast conclusions from it. IQ is a mushy psychometric number with a lot of variance within the same person, not a hard physical measurement like mass or distance. It's also why I am open to ideas like "internalization of oppression" and the idea that eliminating discriminatory rhetoric from society might help people who have been historically told they're inferior. When someone is told they're inferior, maybe they believe it and act accordingly?
Lastly I have this weird speculation that this may be a reason that psychopathic personality types often rise to great heights (if they don't end up in jail). A side effect of their antisocial nature may be that they do not self-limit. No idea how you'd test that, but I wonder about it. Same goes for some high-functioning autistic types.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
7 of the Top 10 democracies are constitutional monarchies:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#By_country
As a Canadian, I have no particular issue about getting rid of the monarchy, but anyone pushing for that will have to demonstrate that the new system will keep us in the Top 5 (or at least 10).
What exactly would be improved by removing the Crown?
They draw in crowds of tourists to the UK, and they aren’t that expensive to maintain.
Their £67m yearly grant[1] works out to about £1/year per person in the UK. That’s pretty cheap for a fantastic PR service. Yes there is probably added costs on top like police/security but overall/net they don’t feel like a massive burden on the finances. Maybe £5-10/pp in the UK? (Just me guessing!)
1. https://britishheritage.com/royals/royal-family-cost-british...
> No role in politics aside from ceremonial.
Except when it comes to defending their interests. Remember that the 'spider memos' now can't be revealed under FOI requests, for one example?
(The Guardian have been covering Queen's Consent recently which should shatter any illusions that they aren't involved in politics)
London hosts more visitors than Paris[1], although France overall hosts more visitors than the UK.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_internatio...
The city statistics include business travel. And I don't know what point you're trying to make with them.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-fea...
> Moreover, we should treat even estimates of economic activity linked to the royals with a large dash of scepticism.
> The economic boost from visits and festivities related to royal celebrations should certainly be treated with caution given these can displace economic activity as well as create it.
> In the end, the question of whether the Royal Family is worth it, or not, is probably less a financial question than a political, moral and aesthetic one.
Unless you're advocating for the abolition of capitalism as a whole... But then you should focus your criticisms on the rich in general.
She should really be like a couples therapist for political leaders.
She never did this. She always stayed out of politics.
King George VI publicly praised Chamberlain for appeasing Hitler and apparently preventing another world war. I'd be wary of making _any_ public statement of that sort as a royal with that kind of precedent.
It was 1928.
1928 equalised it to everyone over 21
Like most things, Suffrage was a scale - before 1835 most men didn't have a vote either, working men got it in 1867, 1918 all men over 21 and property holding women over 30 got the vote, in 1928 all women over 21 and in 1969 everyone over 18. In devloved areas like Scotland suffrage is even lower (16).
Unlike in the US I don't think it's ever regressed
Only for certain elections -- local and Scottish parliamentary. You still have to be 18 to vote in elections for Westminster; the same was true of European elections when they were still a thing in the UK.
She didn’t want to have to wear seatbelts on public roads passing through her property. That’s being involved in politics; it’s just the public didn’t know about it.
If this is your idea of a political issue then I strongly recommend the reading of newspapers and engagement with local institutions.
Also, I am of "the public" and I knew, due to reading Private Eye which had reported on all this repeatedly for the last 10 or more years.
Oh and maybe don't attack my character. My ideas can be vilified, but you don't know what I know or don't.
How did she do that?
While the office may have had consecutive local minima, one would be hard pushed to suggest Major, Blair or even Brown - were "downhill" from Callaghan.
Frankly I would rather have this lobbying out in the open where it can be held accountable.
She is also the only person in the world who has the experience of a weekly conversation with the last 14 prime ministers of Britain. She is the embodiment of the state’s institutional memory.
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 people or the country as a whole - she's also one of the richest people in the world, running an organisation with centuries of experience in internal diplomacy, impression management, and PR.
So it's a complete myth that the monarchy is apolitical. The monarchy is the centre around which the (antiquated) British political system revolves.
She doesn’t get to ‘vet’ laws in any meaningful way. She rubber-stamps them. The fact that the armed forces swear an oath of loyalty to the Queen is simply because she is head of state.
Nothing in your comment actually demonstrates politicality.
Queen's Consent happens before parliament votes, and details on what actions occurred (other than the number that were screened) are not known. The lack of knowledge, combined with the pattern of laws she has screened provide the space for making the inference that the Queen may have actively lobbied or modified laws for some purpose. What the purpose is (actively politically, or merely "self-serving") is unknown.
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.
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)
So when a monarch dies does everyone in the armed forces take a new oath?
I ASSuMEd the oath would more like "I swear ... to the Crown ..."
But, if the Queen is in fact the Crown (as stated by a different response), then I suppose it's a distinction without a difference.
I don't think I misrepresented it in any way.
Not that the oath is needed, obviously. If BoJo (or any other such government apparatchik) told me to do something I'd tell him to shove it; if HRH issued a lawful order, well, fair enough your Majesty, I'll see what I can do. Had lunch with her back in 2003 or thereabouts, and a free lunch is always welcome.
It's written by the Government; she reads it out. She has no part in its preparation.
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.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29200...
No, definitely not 'bring together'. It's 'stay above'.
Even 'mediating' is 'interference'.
Not sure what the support for that is in Canada.
“If you stay here much longer, you’ll all be slitty-eyed.” (to British students in China, during the 1986 state visit)
“I declare this thing open, whatever it is.” (on a visit to Canada in 1969)
“I hope he breaks his bloody neck.” (when a photographer covering a royal visit to India fell out of a tree)
“Do you still throw spears at each other?” (in Australia in 2002, talking to a successful Indigenous Australian entrepreneur)
“Where did you get that hat?” (supposedly to the Queen at her coronation)
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/04/prince-phili...
http://bytesdaily.blogspot.com/2010/05/quote-prince-philip.h...
I really should be offended by this, but... XD
It doesn't translate at all across cultures.
- I would like to go to Russia very much — although the bastards murdered half my family.
- Dontopedalogy is the science of opening your mouth and putting your foot in it, which I've practised for many years.
- You're just a silly little Whitehall [civil service] twit: you don't trust me and I don't trust you.
- I don't care what kind it is, just get me a beer.
- So you are the people tearing down the Brazilian rainforest and breeding cattle. [This was when he was a figurehead for the WWF.]
- Anyone who is concerned about his dignity would be well advised to keep away from horses.
Anyhow, it is a shame to lose an entertaining tradition. Also a shame to lose someone with such character from the royal family. Only Princess Anne has the same outspoken, blunt manner and a penchant for the odd swearword.
"[Prince Philip and the Queen] were coming down the [cable car] and we were putting on a special performance," Warren Clements recalled.
"We had royal fever so we said 'Let's go out the back and throw some boomerangs and spears and hopefully we'll get a glimpse of them as they come down'.
"They waved and we were showing off. I think Prince Philip took that in and that's why he said it.
"He's been taken out of context."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-03/prince-philip-was-not...
Simple reasons that this is an excellent idea:
1. Maintain tourist interest, as necro-monarchy is more interesting than monarchy.
2. Reduce ongoing operational costs.
3. Avoid expensive re-printing of money and any state funeral for Elizabeth (who is, clearly, going to be alive and well for all time)
4. Sidesteps any need for a formal declaration of republic, or dispute with royalists (who hopefully wouldn't be so foolish to disparage the health of the queen, who is alive and well).
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.
Compared to the braggadocio of many tinpot dictators, I can't think of any particularly immodest European royals. Outside of the countries they rule, are any other royal families even particularly famous? Would the average American or European know who the King of Spain, or the Queen of Denmark is?
But fret not, the hunting season will be back on in just a few days.
On the day of my death I would hope that, no matter how much people disagreed with me or what I represented, the fact that I was important to someone is shown some respect.
I'll pass, thank you.
I have no respect for a racist AF person: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2017/8/13/the-priceless-r...
There are other failings too; his image has been carefully managed with skilled PR.
That I am a citizen of a country that his country once subjugated might make me a little salty towards the monarchy in general.