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

[Laura]

I wonder if Laura appreciates that her Percy family are the Dukes of Northumberland and they own large tracts of land throughout England, including parcels of farm land where I live in Surrey.

Except that the Percys of Northumberland are not really Percys anymore. See here for why that is so:

Percy to Seymour. Smithson to Percy | Percy Family History

Also: Josceline Percy, 11th Earl of Northumberland - Wikipedia

I've argued the case here that my line comes down from Thomas Percy and Martha Wright of Gunpowder Plot fame.

Knight Genealogy

Thomas Percy was the son of Edward Percy and Elizabeth Waterton. Edward was a son of Jocelyn/Josceline Percy (died 1532), whose father was Henry Percy, 4th Earl of Northumberland.

However, the male line of Percys actually went extinct a lot earlier than that: Adeliza of Louvain, the widow of King Henry I (1100-1135) (Beauclerc), had a brother, Joscelin of Louvain, who married the Percy heiress and adopted the surname Percy. His descendants became the Earls of Northumberland.

 

[MJF]

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.

in fairness to Margaret Thatcher, who I was no fan of, she has always been viewed as a hate figure by the left in the same way that Richard Nixon was in the USA. As most screen writers tend to be of a left wing persuasion these days, it is inevitable that she will be depicted as a power hungry psychopath in any work of fiction. She has never been forgiven by the left in the UK for putting down the British miners strike of 1984-85 and her running down of the British manufacturing sector, replacing it with service industries, which hit the traditional blue collar working classes hard at the time. It is well known though that the Queen had a somewhat akward relationship with her.

Thatcher was much cooler on Europe than Edward Heath was and was reluctant to back further political integration as opposed to economic integration Margaret Thatcher: the critical architect of European integration | UK in a changing Europe. Hence, she was brought down by the PTB and replaced by Sir John Major who was far more Europe friendly.

I never met her although my cousin did and found her quite gracious. I would suggest that she was not as great a sociopath as Tony Blair was/is.

 

[MJF]

Except that the Percys of Northumberland are not really Percys anymore. See here for why that is so:

Percy to Seymour. Smithson to Percy | Percy Family History

Also: Josceline Percy, 11th Earl of Northumberland - Wikipedia

I've argued the case here that my line comes down from Thomas Percy and Martha Wright of Gunpowder Plot fame.

Knight Genealogy

Thomas Percy was the son of Edward Percy and Elizabeth Waterton. Edward was a son of Jocelyn/Josceline Percy (died 1532), whose father was Henry Percy, 4th Earl of Northumberland.

However, the male line of Percys actually went extinct a lot earlier than that: Adeliza of Louvain, the widow of King Henry I (1100-1135) (Beauclerc), had a brother, Joscelin of Louvain, who married the Percy heiress and adopted the surname Percy. His descendants became the Earls of Northumberland.

Thank you for the heads up. I will read with interest.

I note that the Duke of Somerset was one of those involved with facilitating the 1689 Glorious Revolution. I really think that was a huge moment in world history since it paved the way for getting rid of the Stuarts and allowed for the Hanoverians to take over the British throne through their descent from Mary Stuart, King Charles I's sister. As another poster noted, Queen Anne, the last Stuart monarch, held up the PTB forces (money power) during her reign but once she died there was no holding them back. The rest is history and has led to the world we have today. When I was taught history here in England, the Stuarts always had a bad name as if their reigns were an embarrassment.

I am descended from Charles II through my paternal grandmother via his illegitimate son the the Duke of Lennox. My father's family in Ireland were ardent Stuart supporters and fought both for Charles I and his son James II. They paid a heavy price for the Stuart defeat. It is interesting that my grandparents marriage should bring the two lines together centuries later. That being said, Charles II has a lot of descendents through his many dalliances. He wasn't known as the merry monarch for nothing.

As for the gunpowder plot that brings another strange coincidence for me. My ancestor was James I, the target of the gunpowder plot. When I was in the Boy Scouts, I had in my patrol a descendent of Guy Fawkes. It is strange to think that if his ancestor had succeeded, we would never have met. He was a chip off the old block though. One day when we were taking our large patrol tent down, I asked him to let his side down gently on the guide rope to avoid cracking the main frame. Well he couldn't be bothered and kicked the peg straight out of the ground and walked off with the tent collapsing in a heap. He did this in front of our skipper who promptly went beserk and I got the blame. So in some small way I guess the Fawkes finally got their revenge on the Stuarts.

BTW I may have a lead on Alton Towers if that reference has not been resolved yet. Where should I post it?

 

[Laura]

Thank you for the heads up. I will read with interest.

I note that the Duke of Somerset was one of those involved with facilitating the 1689 Glorious Revolution. I really think that was a huge moment in world history since it paved the way for getting rid of the Stuarts and allowed for the Hanoverians to take over the British throne through their descent from Mary Stuart, King Charles I's sister. As another poster noted, Queen Anne, the last Stuart monarch, held up the PTB forces (money power) during her reign but once she died there was no holding them back. The rest is history and has led to the world we have today. When I was taught history here in England, the Stuarts always had a bad name as if their reigns were an embarrassment.

I am descended from Charles II through my paternal grandmother via his illegitimate son the the Duke of Lennox. My father's family in Ireland were ardent Stuart supporters and fought both for Charles I and his son James II. They paid a heavy price for the Stuart defeat. It is interesting that my grandparents marriage should bring the two lines together centuries later. That being said, Charles II has a lot of descendents through his many dalliances. He wasn't known as the merry monarch for nothing.

As for the gunpowder plot that brings another strange coincidence for me. My ancestor was James I, the target of the gunpowder plot. When I was in the Boy Scouts, I had in my patrol a descendent of Guy Fawkes. It is strange to think that if his ancestor had succeeded, we would never have met. He was a chip off the old block though. One day when we were taking our large patrol tent down, I asked him to let his side down gently on the guide rope to avoid cracking the main frame. Well he couldn't be bothered and kicked the peg straight out of the ground and walked off with the tent collapsing in a heap. He did this in front of our skipper who promptly went beserk and I got the blame. So in some small way I guess the Fawkes finally got their revenge on the Stuarts.

BTW I may have a lead on Alton Towers if that reference has not been resolved yet. Where should I post it?

I actually think that the "Glorious Revolution" was the interruption of royal bloodlines the Cs mentioned.

If there is no thread entitled "Alton Towers", create one.

 

[Jdgreene]

The royals are simply yet another expression of the infinite creation. They are learning their lessons also. This deep dive in defense of them is puzzling. Whatever the truth is, I nor anyone else has the right to judge them. What's more important is the avenue we take when we deem someone less informed than ourselves. Do we exhibit contempt for such people by immediately labeling them ignorant and suggesting they get lost? I'm finding it very difficult to understand the reason to do so. However, I have been trying to comprehend free will on a deeper level and I believe this particular forum post has been an exercise in just that. No matter our level of knowledge we have the right to choose to be blunt or rude, kind or polite to anyone for any reason. We also have the right to justify our assertions any way we deem fit. It's certainly interesting to watch how that is unfolding.

 

[MJF]

I actually think that the "Glorious Revolution" was the interruption of royal bloodlines the Cs mentioned.

If there is no thread entitled "Alton Towers", create one.

I am glad to see that you came to the same conclusion. I have been re-reading the 1997 transcripts recently, focusing particularly on Sir Francis Bacon. I think he holds the key and was a major figure, if not the major figure, in the Rosicrucian movement of the 17th century. Indeed, he may well have written the Rosicrucian Manifestos as they bear some of his hallmarks.

I did a quick search on Alton Towers and could not find a thread but, if anyone is aware of one, please let me know asap, as I don't want to duplicate efforts.

 

[irjO]

I did a quick search on Alton Towers and could not find a thread but, if anyone is aware of one, please let me know asap, as I don't want to duplicate efforts.

I searched as well just to make sure and couldn’t find a dedicated thread related to this either. So a new one could be created!

 

[MJF]

I searched as well just to make sure and couldn’t find a dedicated thread related to this either. So a new one could be created!

Thanks for doing this. I will proceed to create one.

 

[MJF]

The Queen Mother (who I saw twice as a child) was the rock on which King George VI, a shy retiring man with a bad stutter, leaned on. She and her husband did immense work helping to keep British public moral up during the dark days of WW2. King George was relatively young when he died, no doubt an early death brought on by the huge strain that he had to carry during the war years. My parents were the war time generation and remember both the King and Queen Mother with great affection. The Queen Mother also provided invaluable support to her daughter when she ascended the throne at the young age of 26. However, to his credit it was Prince Phillip who helped to shape the modern monarchy that we see today in Britain.

I attach an interesting article on Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, which suggests she was a much deeper thinking woman than the public appreciated and not just a mere consort to the King and mother to the present Queen.

The New Criterion

A monthly review of the arts & intellectual life

newcriterion.com

 

[mkrnhr]

Wisdom begins with recognising one's own ignorance about a subject that hasn't been thoroughly researched. That recognition, whether arrived at alone or through the observation of someone who has researched the subject is an invitation to learn more. On the other hand, what is foolish is to reject that invitation and to continue defending unsubstantiated claims and opinions that are based on nothing more than the ramblings of bitter and resentful minds.
Absolutist claims that en entire family is "rotten to the core" (with no evidence supporting that claim) or that having sympathy towards some individuals within a family is being royalist, is not so different than the libtard's worldview that all men are X, all women are X, all blacks are X, all Jews are X, all whites are X, all cops are X, all poor people are X, all rich people are X, etc.

 

[Charade]

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.

That is very interesting. Thank you for sharing the family connection.

My interest in much that is British comes from my grandmother who was English though born in India. She was fond of the Queen. It was a bond to her heritage. She also shared her love of tea and cream and tales of elves and gypsies with me as a child. I had the privilege of accompanying her to England to visit relatives in London at the age of 11. My memories of being with her are some of my fondest childhood memories.

After reviews of “The Crown” given here, I think I will have a look at it. I’m a sucker for British shows and stories of any kind.

 

[MJF]

That is very interesting. Thank you for sharing the family connection.

My interest in much that is British comes from my grandmother who was English though born in India. She was fond of the Queen. It was a bond to her heritage. She also shared her love of tea and cream and tales of elves and gypsies with me as a child. I had the privilege of accompanying her to England to visit relatives in London at the age of 11. My memories of being with her are some of my fondest childhood memories.

After reviews of “The Crown” given here, I think I will have a look at it. I’m a sucker for British shows and stories of any kind.

Your first visit to London at the age of 11 in the company of your grandmother must have been a magical experience for you. The tales she told you remind me of a conversation I overheard once when flying back from the States to London. There was a middle aged American woman talking to a young American student who was returning to his studies in England. The lady's father had been born in Nottingham but had emigrated to the USA and married and settled there. This was her first visit to England and she was so excited. She explained how her father had filled her when young with tales of castles, knights in shining armour, damsels in distress, of Robin Hood and Maid Marion and the whole nine yards. The student tried his utmost to disabuse her of this Disney like view of the country and explained as best he could to her that England was no glorified theme park. But bless her she would have none of it and clung tenaciously to her dream. And why not.

In fact there are some castles here that could spring straight out of a film set (Leeds Castle in Kent and Warwick Castle readily come to mind). I once took an Australian friend to the City of York and walking through the Shambles (the oldest section of the city) just blew his mind. He walked off the narrow street at one point straight into a medieval courtyard that had an overhanging balcony that immediately put him in mind of the famous balcony scene in Romeo and Juliette. But this was for real and no movie set. He just stood there in amazement for a long period drinking it all in. However, it is often the ruins of old abbeys and great castles that evoke the most in me. You can really let your imagination run wild when visiting them, trying to visualise them in their heyday.​

 

[JEEP]

The trouble was that Camilla went off and married Andrew Parker Bowles first. Hence, Charles had no choice but to look around for another wife and he was not getting any younger. As for her not being of the appropirate tier, well he is married to her now! Princess Anne has married two commoners and Prince Edward is married to yet another commoner. Kate Middleton, now the Duchess of Cambridge, is also a commoner. Hence, I don't think this is as strong a factor as it was perhaps in the past.

It seems that there's a "royal" disconnect between what people think they know, and the reality of the situation.

This thread is proving to be more than a little enlightening! Certainly I and I think MJF have preconceived impressions that the following (which I presume to be accurate) completely dispels:

Why Prince Charles Didn't Marry Camilla in the First Place​

The Crown tells one version of events. Here's what really happened.

[embedded 3:13 vid spells it all out - very surprising/shocking course of events]

So maybe Prince Philip was far less of an influence in all this than I thought. How anyone can envy these Royals' lives after viewing this . . . really too sad.

I understand the appeal. The truncated understanding of monarchy Westerners today have is that it's a bad system of government because it's too much power for one man or woman. Absolute monarchism was rarely practiced though; power was shared or devolved between multiple institutions. The remaining monarchs today - in the West anyway - have no real power.

I've often heard that a benevolent dictator is the best form of governance and it would seem Putin is the closest example of this. Of course, the actual existence of an embedded hyperdimensional reality complicates that supposition.

 

[MJF]

It may come as a surprise to many but to some people Prince Phillip was treated as a god.

Prince Philip: The Vanuatu tribes mourning the death of their 'god'

As Britain grieves his death, so do some Pacific tribespeople who revere him as a spiritual figure.

www.bbc.co.uk

This is a classic example of a cargo cult with Prince Phillip as the focus.

 

[MJF]

This thread is proving to be more than a little enlightening! Certainly I and I think MJF have preconceived impressions that the following (which I presume to be accurate) completely dispels:


So maybe Prince Philip was far less of an influence in all this than I thought. How anyone can envy these Royals' lives after viewing this . . . really too sad.


I've often heard that a benevolent dictator is the best form of governance and it would seem Putin is the closest example of this. Of course, the actual existence of an embedded hyperdimensional reality complicates that supposition.

I take your point but I think it was more that Camilla had a reputation (not being a virgin) than the fact that she was a commoner that ruled her out of contention. It didn't help that Prince Charles was often out of the country on military service at the time. That would test any relationship. The trouble is Charles never stopped having feelings for Camilla even after she married. This would prove disastrous for his marriage to Princess Diane. Remember her three in the relationship quote. It was true in the past that royal princes often kept mistresses but those days are now long gone and social convention has changed.

A similar thing happened with his brother Prince Andrew who had a very close relationship with the (soft porn) American actress Koo Stark. She was deemed completely unsuitable as a royal wife. To give Stark her due though, she has never dished the dirt on Andrew even when she was hard up and the ravenous British press were prepared to offer her serious money to get her story.