Death of Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh at 99 years of age.

[ryu]

the constant grey skies and mediocre temperatures even in Summer?

I mean, it's bearable but... never heard someone say they love it.

Me too! The British Isles are beautiful. And I was thinking that even before reading romance novels that sing the praises of the British countryside to the skies.

I also agree with @Adaryn on the love/hate relationship between the French and English people. Some of the kindest, warmest people I ever met were British.

As for the food, I will be diplomatic and say that your charms lie elsewhere.

 

[Laura]

I am wondering if some of the giving the Royals the benefit of the doubt doesn’t come from people having read so many of the romance novels. I’ve only read two books so far so it is still early for me to weigh in on but I was thinking while reading that the privileged had time to explore their feelings, probably more than the underling servant types, that allowed them to have more free time in a historical setting without automation and appliances. The upperclass perhaps bear very different sort of pressures creating very different internal perceptions beneficial or not. Always being under constant scrutiny would be difficult as can be seen in the failure of so many successful celebrities ‘who have it all’ but have no sense of how to bear that burden and live with grace and compassion.

I've observed and researched the royal family for many years. My grandparents were in the Bahamas in 1966 when the Queen visited and since my grandfather was a friend of Bahamian politician, Sir Roland Symonette (Roland Theodore Symonette - Wikipedia), they were invited to some events and came home with several mementos that I still have including some books and pamphlets. I read those when I was young and that started my interest. Around that time, I was asked to co-sponsor (christen) a ship built by Symonette and designed by my grandfather.

So, for me, this has been a long-time side interest and has nothing to do with romance novels.

Both Philip and Charles appear to have had a fixation on 'environmentalism' for much of their lives. I find that people who have a strong urge to 'save the planet' tend to be decent people but rather detached from, or uninterested in, the arguably more 'mature' cause of 'saving people'.

Actually, it appears that Philip was on the opposite side of the "environmentalism" fence. See: RIP Prince Philip, Royal Climate Skeptic

I think it worthwhile distinguishing between members of the Royal family. Certainly not everyone is the same.

However, I'd argue that in the main, they aren't "useful idiots". Prince Andrew and Prince Charles certainly 100% aren't useful idiots. They are fully cognizant of what they are doing and the main things they are involved in.

If you don't see that they are "useful idiots", I just don't know what to say.

British royalty has been at the apex of global society for centuries, including overseeing one of the greatest empires in recent history. This does not happen by accident. All these is only possible if those at the apex know precisely what they are doing and are competent at it. The proof of this is in the results, that they still maintain their position.

No, the proof that they do what they are told is what you are seeing. And that means they are useful idiots.

Whilst some of the speculation is interesting - it's frustrating to see so much back and forth in the form of judgement on whether these people are 'good' or 'evil', and whether that in some way qualifies, or disqualifies them as candidates for our compassion.

At the end of the day, do you feel it makes you a 'good' person to judge someone you don't know as evil and therefore unworthy of a moment of empathy? Or would it make you more of a 'good' person to perhaps attempt to look past someones flaws and find a moment to empathise with?

Even if every single member of the Royal family was pure evil, do you grow more from feeling spite in a moment of their potential pain, or by finding something human in their suffering?

I think I'm just saying the same thing here in different ways, which is just my frustration bubbling over. Perhaps it is also hypocritical as I confess I felt a moment of humor in some peoples comparisons of the Princes appearance to a zombie.

However taking time to think on it, and reading through the first few pages of this thread upon reflection I began to think of my own Grandfather who passed away a few years ago, someone whom I admired and loved, despite being far from perfect, and thought about how I might feel if all people focused on were his flaws and not his good moments.

Exactly. Thank you.

 

[Joe]

British royalty has been at the apex of global society for centuries, including overseeing one of the greatest empires in recent history. This does not happen by accident. All these is only possible if those at the apex know precisely what they are doing and are competent at it. The proof of this is in the results, that they still maintain their position.

For the most part, the royals during the overt British empire, like those today, played largely ceremonial roles. The real power, for a long time, has been in the hands of political types and those behind them. The British monarchy has been used by such people to provide an undue stamp of official or 'divine' authority to the rule of the political class and those behind them. That's why they protect the royals and keep close control over them.

 

[Joe]

Can we apply this for Bill Gates for example ?

Bill Gates is in a different category.

 

[Laura]

For the most part, the royals during the overt British empire, like those today, played largely ceremonial roles. The real power, for a long time, has been in the hands of political types and those behind them. The British monarchy has been used by such people to provide an undue stamp of official or 'divine' authority to the rule of the political class and those behind them. That's why they protect the royals and keep close control over them.

Exactly. In UK, as elsewhere, for a long time, it has been the politicians, the money men, and then the industrialists; you could call it the Military Industrial Complex.

The very fact that the attention has been diverted from the real controllers toward the Royal Family is evidence of how effective their propaganda has been.

There is a sad lack of historical knowledge here, I think, and that lack severely hinders a person from making objective assessments of current reality.

 

[SOTTREADER]

Okay, I'll admit I don't actually know much about the royals and have not really ever looked into them or researched them. My view is based purely on "impressions" which I'm conscious off, hence this admission. In this situation I have to trust what @Laura @Joe and others are saying as they are more into this sort of subject and of course are quite good at most things history or politics related.

In any case, interesting discussion.

 

[Deleted member 4320]

I would like to add a few words to address the problem of "good or bad person". The perception of people in terms of "good" or "bad" is subjective. The objective way of perception is perceived in terms of Service to Others and Service to Self.

Let's talk about Queen Elizabeth II. If the Queen has undertaken, for example, repeatedly struggling with herself, for example in a situation in which she required a great deal of discipline, self-control, willpower, and her motivation is/was to serve the country as a whole, as something superior to achieve objectively positive results for everyone - then it IS Service to Others.

I think the Queen is and was such a character. Not everyone has to immediately find out and share with people deep truths about the surrounding reality. The work of the soul can also be fulfilling as some important social role in the service to the Nation and facing one's own weaknesses, provoking internal friction.

As we are in the Cassiopaeans forum, I would add that Cassiopaeans have often warned against understanding things in terms of "good" and "bad" because they are subjective. Instead, they suggested a division into Service to Others and Service to Self. In order to properly perceive whether a given person serves others or oneself, one should first have adequate knowledge about a given person, their intentions, circumstances, and consequences. It comes with long-term observation, fact-gathering, and seeing from different angles.

 

[Chu]

Interesting discussion. It seems that there's a "royal" disconnect between what people think they know, and the reality of the situation. It is easy to judge, much more difficult to see nuances.

There is a docu-drama by the BBC called "The Crown", which I think is pretty good. Supposedly the Queen and some other members of the royal family have said that it's quite accurate. And believe me when I tell you that in many episodes, they are FAR from being depicted as perfect. But you see that the Queen at least has done what she always promised, in spite of it never having been her choice to be queen, and of how difficult it is to be on the spot. Even Philip's "flings" are not the only thing about him, and you also learn about his mother and his own struggles. The way Diana struggled is there too. Actually, the interesting thing is that, while the royals are depicted as normal human beings (messed up, but some with a stronger sense of loyalty and duty than others), the politicians (including psycho Margaret Thatcher) are portrayed as quite "nice". That tells you something about who the establishment is not really allowed to criticize.

 

[Scottie]

how he would like to come back as some kind of bug to infect the world, and depopulate, or some such.

For the sake of clarity. This is the quote:

I just wonder what it would be like to be reincarnated in an animal whose species had been so reduced in numbers that it was in danger of extinction. What would be its feelings toward the human species whose population explosion had denied it somewhere to exist… I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus, but that is perhaps going too far.

He was talking about animals going extinct. If he was one of those animals, how would he feel toward humans? Thus, he is tempted to ask to be reincarnated as a virus to squish humans and thereby save the animals, but maybe that's going too far - according to him.

IOW, probably the worst thing that should be taken from his statement is that he loves extinct or endangered animals more than humans. Well, what about: Help the humans, and you help the animals?

But it's a rather huge stretch to turn that quote into, "He wants to be reincarnated as a virus to wipe out humanity, ergo he's for depopulation."

This is the kind of twisting that is extremely common and which we try very hard to avoid since it only skews our understanding of the world and the people in it. It also gives us something to get worked up about, but it boils down to believing lies.

None of the above means Prince Philip was a saint, of course!

More and more lately, it seems to me that it's increasingly difficult to avoid latching onto some event in order to use it to express pent up anger, frustration, etc. Those feelings may be perfectly valid, but they should stay attached to the other events that actually caused them: Covid, lockdowns, stolen elections, social insanity, blah blah blah. Otherwise, we risk drowning in the 'hyper-feelings' that seem to drive much of the decision making in the world at large today.

+1 for watching The Crown. If it's even one third true, you still really get a feel for the severe normalcy of the people in an abnormal situation (being royalty). You also realize pretty quickly that politically, economically, and in pretty much every other way that counts in our modern world, they have little, if any, control over anything.

+10 for reading the recommended romance novels, believe it or not!

 

[SOTTREADER]

How do we explain the actions of someone like Prince Andrew? Are the accusations against him smears?

If he's guilty, how does that impact the wider royal family and the queen?

I'm looking for clarification... What do we mean when we say "useful idiots"... Do we mean they can't be held responsible for their actions or inactions in certain matters? Do we mean they don't know and so shouldn't be held to a standard of accountability?

Lastly, what do we mean when we say they are "normal people"? Everyone is surely normal to one extent or another. It's the life situation we find ourselves in and how we deal with it that usually end up defining who we are. I'd imagine they are normal in the sense that they are human, experience joy and sorrow, love and hate etc etc. I imagine they hold friendships and other meaningful human relationships, I imagine they have flaws like most / all humans do. Does this not apply to everyone on the planet? So I wonder what we mean when we say normal? It seems to imply we shouldn't hold them to a higher standard than that we would hold "normal" people who hold no position of importance in society.

Ps, can someone ask the above questions if they don't have the prerequisite historical knowledge on this family and the global situation we find ourselves in?

I'm just trying to understand this. I'm quite indifferent to the royals usually, seeing them as celebrities and I don't really engage much with celebrity culture / life. My view is only formed when it comes to matters pertaining to their influence on the (current) structure of society and their ability to affect that. In any case, it's just a view, it has no impact on them so I don't feel guilty for not supposedly caring about them to the extent of seeing them as some sort of victims caught up in a wider net. Everyone's a victim caught up in a wider net in my view. Conservatives would say this is life and you're only a victim to the extent you refuse to take action or assume responsibility. Ps, I'm quite ignorant on this. All I know is that as a member of the British public I'm entitled to a view on them should I wish to hold one. With this I mean that everyone in the UK and most outside will likely hold a view and views will not necessarily be uniform. It would be difficult for the views to be uniform even with the most dedicated PR campaign given the polarising nature of the institution when looked at from a modern perspective and also that some of the characters in it surely look to be outright criminals e.g. Andrew.

 

[dennis]

Queen Victoria saw her reign transform from ruling to a more ceremonial role where she promoted morality and values. And we have the victorian era social mores and architecture from then. I believe Gladstone was her sort of nemesis, and the anti-monarchial sentiment was called Republicanism, derived from the French Revolution.. She was the target of a least a half dozen assassination attempts that were failed by what could look like uncanny interventions.

On 29 May 1842, Victoria was riding in a carriage along The Mall, London, when John Francis aimed a pistol at her, but the gun did not fire. The assailant escaped; however the following day, Victoria drove the same route, though faster and with a greater escort, in a deliberate attempt to provoke Francis to take a second aim and catch him in the act. As expected, Francis shot at her, but he was seized by plainclothes policemen, and convicted of high treason. On 3 July, two days after Francis's death sentence was commuted to transportation for life, John William Bean also tried to fire a pistol at the Queen, but it was loaded only with paper and tobacco and had too little charge.[69] Edward Oxford felt that the attempts were encouraged by his acquittal in 1840. Bean was sentenced to 18 months in jail.[70] In a similar attack in 1849, unemployed Irishman William Hamilton fired a powder-filled pistol at Victoria's carriage as it passed along Constitution Hill, London.[71] In 1850, the Queen did sustain injury when she was assaulted by a possibly insane ex-army officer, Robert Pate. As Victoria was riding in a carriage, Pate struck her with his cane, crushing her bonnet and bruising her forehead. Both Hamilton and Pate were sentenced to seven years' transportation.[72]

Queen Victoria - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm currently reading Mary Balogh The Proposal. Romance between commoner and upper class. It's interesting because I'm half limey, my father was one of those who were "over paid, over sexed and over here."

 

[bjorb]

If he's guilty, how does that impact the wider royal family and the queen?

If your brother sleeps with prostitutes. Something he keeps he secret. What does that say about you? Or your entire family. Are they guilty to? Are you guilty? Here lies your answer.

So I wonder what we mean when we say normal? It seems to imply we shouldn't hold them to a higher standard than that we would hold "normal" people who hold no position of importance in society.

Normal in the sense that they struggle with everyday family sorrows. Some members are strong, while others are weak. They seek acceptance from each other. Are jealous of each other. Have a love-hate relationship with each other in certain respects. Try to understand each other. Hold grudges. Try to keep harmony in the family. In short, the drama and possible lessons that are present in every family.

 

[Laura]

How do we explain the actions of someone like Prince Andrew? Are the accusations against him smears?

I would suggest that Andrew is a spoiled, weak-minded and weak-willed embarrassment to his mother and father. How many families have such members? And there were/are other members of the Royal family that were/are embarrassments, greater or lesser.

I think Andrew is probably a slimeball and has broken his mother's heart to boot. If the rules were fairly applied, he would be in prison. But the rules are not fairly applied and that is not the fault of his family, but rather the handlers that use his family for their own purposes.

Consider this: Paul Burrell, Princess Diana's butler, said that the Queen warned him, during a meeting soon after the death of Diana in 1997, that “There are powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge.”

I think she, and some others of them, are aware to some extent and know that they have to walk a very careful line; others are cocky and don't give a hoot, like Andrew.

If he's guilty, how does that impact the wider royal family and the queen?

See above. Do YOU know any family with a pedophile or sexual pervert among their members whose actions have hurt that family?

I'm looking for clarification... What do we mean when we say "useful idiots"... Do we mean they can't be held responsible for their actions or inactions in certain matters? Do we mean they don't know and so shouldn't be held to a standard of accountability?

No. When we say "useful idiots", we generally mean a person who is manipulatable because of their weaknesses including lack of knowledge. In some cases, they are manipulated because of lack of knowledge that almost all humans lack, such as the concepts of hyperdimensional manipulation/control. That almost can't be helped because the veil over our reality is so dense and held so firmly in place. Nevertheless, from our point of view, that veil MIGHT be lifted if the person was dedicated to searching for knowledge. But we know how costly that dedication is.

There are other "useful idiots" that are useful because they not only lack knowledge, they also lack any moral compass and are completely egotistical and self-centeredly hedonistic. That variety is VERY easily directed to not only hurt others, but ultimately to harm themselves. Prince Andrew is a case in point. I would even say that Prince Charles is another, though not quite as bad as Andrew. Prince Harry is still another.

The latter type of "useful idiots" are moral imbeciles, more or less. Yes, they should be held accountable for their greed, their selfishness, their base actions.

But keep in mind, most human beings on the planet are, to one extent or another, "useful idiots" for hyperdimensional beings with control agendas. Even yourself. Ignorance is the main method used to control humanity. People can be made to say and do all kinds of evil things when their emotions, based on their fundamental natures and shaped by their upbringing (another form of manipulation) are used to cause chaos and harm to others. A case in point is, of course, this very discussion.

Lastly, what do we mean when we say they are "normal people"? Everyone is surely normal to one extent or another. It's the life situation we find ourselves in and how we deal with it that usually end up defining who we are. I'd imagine they are normal in the sense that they are human, experience joy and sorrow, love and hate etc etc. I imagine they hold friendships and other meaningful human relationships, I imagine they have flaws like most / all humans do. Does this not apply to everyone on the planet? So I wonder what we mean when we say normal? It seems to imply we shouldn't hold them to a higher standard than that we would hold "normal" people who hold no position of importance in society.

You have well defined what we consider "normal." And consider also what I have said above about "useful idiots." You are one and so am I if I am not very diligent in seeking knowledge, and very careful in engaging with a network of other dedicated individuals.

And no, we cannot hold them to higher standards; that would not be fair. Especially when we are talking about people who really had no choice in their position in life. But isn't that true of everyone? (And here I exclude consideration of karmic pre-incarnational choices.)

But that doesn't mean that people should not be held to standards across the board. Let's just try to be fair and consider context and implications.

If you wish to hold them to higher standards, that would imply that you have some belief that they ARE different from you in some way, like "chosen by God to rule" or some such nonsense as that.

 

[SOTTREADER]

If your brother sleeps with prostitutes. Something he keeps he secret. What does that say about you? Or your entire family. Are they guilty to? Are you guilty? Here lies your answer.

Let's substitute prostitutes for underage girls which is the case for Andrew.

If my brother did that I would 100% have some very strong words with him and I'd be quite tormented as to what to do with regards reporting this especially if the situation was that of abuse.

If I was a king of a country and my brother did this, situation would go nuclear and there will be no ambiguity as to what is considered right or wrong.

If the public found out about this, I would fully expect the whole family to be held to account. In fact, my brother will probably end up in jail as a matter of rectifying the situation and showing that we are indeed held to the same standards we holds our citizens.

I'd be guilty to the extent I was a king and I let this happen under my watch but that wouldn't be enough to make me abdicate.

Added: just seen Laura's response.

 

[SOTTREADER]

From Laura

If you wish to hold them to higher standards, that would imply that you have some belief that they ARE different from you in some way, like "chosen by God to rule" or some such nonsense as that.

Yes, this is right but it wasn't entirely a conscious position I held.

Assuming you are saying we should see them as normal people, same as us? I think this may be the crux of it. I truly do see them as "royals".... Oh dear.