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

[JEEP]

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.

Yep - the vid in the article said exactly that but with less obvious words. It may have been the PBS documentary that I recall this tidbit that Charles loved Camilla but was discouraged from proposing (as noted in the vid "Because Camilla had seriously dated other men"-"You didn't want a past that hung around" and Andrew was coerced into proposing to Camilla > perhaps to ensure Charles would not marry her?) and so left for his military service - how shocked he was when he came back to find Camilla had married Andrew! He had left her flapping in the wind so she got on with her life. But, as you say, he never stopped loving her. I suppose they did have something of a fairytale ending. Although one wonders if he will ever be King, Camilla will never hold the title of Queen:

Before the couple wed in a civil ceremony at Windsor Guildhall, Clarence House announced, "It is intended that Mrs Parker Bowles should use the title HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne." However, the customary title for the wife of a reigning king is, in fact, queen consort. At the time, Slate described "princess consort" as "a new title created just for Camilla, because crowning her as queen would create PR problems for the royals."

Although there's been some confusion through the years about whether that will remain Camilla's future title, Clarence House confirmed in a statement in March 2020. "The intention is for the duchess to be known as princess consort when the prince accedes to the throne," a spokesperson for the royal couple told The Times. “This was announced at the time of the marriage and there has been absolutely no change at all.”

Wow - so much drama!

 

[Ursus Minor]

Many thanks to all of you for turning what was primarily an obituary thread into a lesson of history, especially the history of the British monarchy. It was fun to read and learn.

I'm getting the impression that there must have been a hidden hand in rapidly disposing of nearly all monarchies in continental Europe after World War I and II.

Russia (1917), Austro-Hungary (1918), Germany (1918), Serbia (1921), Turkey (1922), Spain (1931) and the second wave Yugoslavia (1945), Bulgaria (1946), Italy (1946), Romania (1947) and finally Greece (1973).
[Monarchy re-established in Spain 1975].

While many years ago I would have thought that there had been an air of progress and democracy sweeping through the continent (and in some ways it probably had) forces beyond our perception may just have reorganized Europe to their advantage, not least by scheming and supporting two world wars.

 

[Harmony99]

This thread is really an eye opener. With so so much stuff on me plate i still had to sit and follow this thread.
I have recently learned that Prince Phillip may now be surprise of the out pouring love from the British people. He seems to have also done a lot for the Aussies over the years and is highly respected there. So at times we cannot just make willy nilly statement in ignorance.
Its very Sad to say, but i was also deep in darkness due mainly to useful idiots like David Ike and other you tube detractors. Hopefully later i will squeeze out some time to acquire additional information on the Royal family.

 

[MJF]

Yep - the vid in the article said exactly that but with less obvious words. It may have been the PBS documentary that I recall this tidbit that Charles loved Camilla but was discouraged from proposing (as noted in the vid "Because Camilla had seriously dated other men"-"You didn't want a past that hung around" and Andrew was coerced into proposing to Camilla > perhaps to ensure Charles would not marry her?) and so left for his military service - how shocked he was when he came back to find Camilla had married Andrew! He had left her flapping in the wind so she got on with her life. But, as you say, he never stopped loving her. I suppose they did have something of a fairytale ending. Although one wonders if he will ever be King, Camilla will never hold the title of Queen:

Wow - so much drama!

Well it is worth remembering that the Queen's uncle (Edward VIII) was forced to abdicate because he wished to marry a divorced woman, Wallace Simpson. Yet that is precisely what Prince Charles has done. In a civil sense this would not matter so much but, as King, he will become the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and be required to uphold the Church's teachings as Defender of the Faith, where that Church is still opposed to divorce and remarriage wthin the Church. Bit tricky that one. He doesn't have the luxury of King Henry VIII who solved the problem by simply chopping off one wife's head in order to marry the next.

 

[MJF]

Many thanks to all of you for turning what was primarily an obituary thread into a lesson of history, especially the history of the British monarchy. It was fun to read and learn.

I'm getting the impression that there must have been a hidden hand in rapidly disposing of nearly all monarchies in continental Europe after World War I and II.

Russia (1917), Austro-Hungary (1918), Germany (1918), Serbia (1921), Turkey (1922), Spain (1931) and the second wave Yugoslavia (1945), Bulgaria (1946), Italy (1946), Romania (1947) and finally Greece (1973).
[Monarchy re-established in Spain 1975].

While many years ago I would have thought that there had been an air of progress and democracy sweeping through the continent (and in some ways it probably had) forces beyond our perception may just have reorganized Europe to their advantage, not least by scheming and supporting two world wars.

Well Adam Weishaupt's Illuminati held that their mission was to overthrow thrones and alters and that is what they have done.

 

[Charade]

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.​

You’re descriptions had me visiting those places in my imagination.

The funniest part was that at the age of 11, I said I’d go to England if we also visited Ireland. What? Why? They humored me. The first week we stayed in Dublin and took day trips to Connemara in a jaunting cart, kissed the Blarney Stone, and visited Newgrange. Oh those spiral stones intrigued me. I have always loved Irish, Scottish and English folk ballads. My grandmother would talk about running away to be gypsies. I think she and I may have been that in another life. I am in wonder to this day to have felt, at that age, so drawn to somewhere so far from my daily world.

 

[JEEP]

(Edward VIII) was forced to abdicate because he wished to marry a divorced woman, Wallace Simpson. Yet that is precisely what Prince Charles has done.

In the vid I previously posted, although a divorced Prince Charles could still become King, he couldn't remarry and remain heir - otherwise, he would risk losing the throne. The Church changed the rules in 2002. His 2005 marriage to Camilla (a divorced woman/Royal) was blessed by the Church. And so far, they are living happily ever after.

Also found these "opinions" from here:

While there are some similarities one could draw between Camilla and Wallis, they are really only similar if one looks at Charles and Camilla using history’s eyes and morals.

Divorce itself is extremely common place these days, and Charles himself is technically not a Divorcee anymore, he’s a Widow. Further, both the Church and Government have “grown” with the times and given that not only was it extremely unlikely that Charles and Camilla would have children, but had been specifically pointed out that if they did, such Children would NOT be in line for the Throne, it really just comes down to more of a “who cares?” if they marry.

Lastly, MOST Royal Marriages are handled (believe it or not!) by Law. Specifically, (at that time) the Royal Marriages Act 1772, which was followed to the letter when Charles and Camilla were married. Further, the Church clearly had no objections as not only was there a “Blessing Ceremony” after the civil wedding, but Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury publicly stated “These arrangements have my strong support and are consistent with Church of England guidelines concerning remarriage which the Prince of Wales fully accepts as a committed Anglican and as prospective Supreme Governor of the Church of England.”

and

There is no rule that says that the monarch (or someone who is heir to the throne) can’t divorce or marry a divorced woman.

Edward VIII did not abdicate because he wanted to marry a divorced woman. He was ill-suited to be monarch and did not want to be monarch. The marriage was simply the excuse he used for the public. It is true that there was pressure on him to not marry a twice-divorced woman who was Catholic (the latter could have been remedied by Wallis Simpson converting to the Church of England) but the far greater problem was his (and her) Nazi sympathies.

It is true that the Church of England opposed marriage to a divorced person whose former spouse was still living and that presented a problem insofar as Edward VIII was head of the Church of England. But that was also not insurmountable. The crown was stronger than the church and the church would have caved. In any event, being monarch and being head of the Church of England are two separate issues. The Church of England has no control over who is monarch.

Since the abdication of Edward VIII, the Church of England has relaxed its opposition to divorce. You may be unaware that the Church of England held a ceremony to bless Charles’ marriage to Camilla. They will have no problem with Charles becoming head of the Church of England when he becomes king. And he will become both.

 

[Chu]

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.

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.

Exactly so. And it seems to me that David Icke is a tool (useful idiot) of said COINTELPRO. His utterly absurd depiction of the royal family as shape-shifting, baby-eating lizards is not just absurd for this reality, it gives the research into UFOs, aliens, and abductions a very bad taint.

This explanation makes me wonder about the people who have reacted so strongly in this thread. Maybe there is something as a "secondary useful idiot"? Like those who take as the gospel what David Icke says, for example. They aren't actively spreading any disinfo like he does, but believing it does something to the way they align to lies&truth. The same applies to all of us if we aren't diligent, networking, learning as much as we can, etc.

And, this may have an effect of condemning/messing up even more with the target of these beliefs based on lies. I imagine that right now, the queen is getting a lot of sympathy, but also a lot of "bad vibes" from people who hate her and her family just because of ignorance or due to having bought a lie. It's quite sad, because those who pretend to have the higher moral ground may in fact be harming someone unfairly, if only very indirectly. We don't quite understand the power of thought and such, but it sure can be very draining and hurtful to be treated like a baby-eating lizard and all that nonsense. OSIT. Hopefully there is a balance in such things, but I often think of Putin, for example, and all the nonsense spoken about him by people who probably don't have a quarter of his integrity.

 

[MJF]

In the vid I previously posted, although a divorced Prince Charles could still become King, he couldn't remarry and remain heir - otherwise, he would risk losing the throne. The Church changed the rules in 2002. His 2005 marriage to Camilla (a divorced woman/Royal) was blessed by the Church. And so far, they are living happily ever after.

Also found these "opinions" from here:

and

I take your point about the blessing by the Church but a blessing is not the same as entering into the sacrament of marriage. Please note that I am not an Anglican. However, where you state "Since the abdication of Edward VIII, the Church of England has relaxed its opposition to divorce.", I would add that the Church of England has just about dropped its opposition to nearly everything it once stood for. I don't wish to offend any Anglicans who may read this but most people today in England view the Church as a very liberal institution. That was not the case in 1938 where divorce was still very much frowned on by society in general. Getting divorced was a black mark on your character and could count against you in some circles including the Church. If this was the 1930's, I would suggest that Prince Charles, like his uncle before him, would be forced to abandon his right to succeed to the throne in order to live with Camilla. But as you correctly point out, times have changed.

 

[James Burns]

Depends on the intent and reasons behind what was said. You did make some ignorant comments based on hearsay and you got called on it. It happens sometimes and things will be said here that might rub you the wrong way, but part of the Work that we do is gaining some control over our emotions and feelings surrounding what was said instead of splitting and throwing a tantrum. Ironically, you are holding Laura to almost superhuman and unreasonable standards of behaviour and decorum, the way that the entire British people and Western World holds the Queen and the Royal Family and because she hasn't met your expectations as to what YOU want and how you think she should respond to you, you've basically written her and her entire body of work off?? Very fickle.

Added: Basically, what I'm trying to say is that maybe, just maybe your emotional response to what she said to you has triggered you in some way and that your perceptions and feelings about it, although valid in their own right, are also disproportionate and 'overblown' to some extent. i.e. it wasn't an attack against you even though you see it that way. Sometimes taking a step back and settling yourself down first then coming back to this is probably a good way of dealing with how you feel if you decide to respond again. Sometimes a clear head helps us to see things a little more clearly.

Hurtful speech like this should not be tolerated by anyone no matter who it comes from. Laura should apologise. I do not think she will and this will reduce her stature in many people's eyes. Blaming the victim for the sins of the aggressor is also not very helpful no matter how high in your esteem that aggressor may be. Do not lie to yourself.

 

[Chu]

Hurtful speech like this should not be tolerated by anyone no matter who it comes from. Laura should apologise. I do not think she will and this will reduce her stature in many people's eyes. Blaming the victim for the sins of the aggressor is also not very helpful no matter how high in your esteem that aggressor may be. Do not lie to yourself.

What, in your estimation, should she apologize for? What "sin" are you referring to? Have you read the whole thread yet? I don't know how familiar you are with our forum, since you post so little. But Laura has no trouble apologizing when needed. In this case, I fail to see why she should. Just because she told someone that his/her posts reflected ignorance? Or because they didn't seem to fit in on our forum? That's a bit snowflakey, wouldn't you say?

 

[Potatoes and Tomatoes]

Hurtful speech like this should not be tolerated by anyone no matter who it comes from. Laura should apologise. I do not think she will and this will reduce her stature in many people's eyes. Blaming the victim for the sins of the aggressor is also not very helpful no matter how high in your esteem that aggressor may be. Do not lie to yourself.

I think you've missed the point entirely.

 

[James Burns]

I think you've missed the point entirely.

The post and hurtful speech I am referring to is given below: (Hope this makes things clearer.)

Aquarian1962 said:
Hi Laura

I'm just curious, do you think the Queen is a good person? I certainly don't, nor was Phillip. What of the story of their trip to the Indian school in Canada, taking children on a picnic, and those children never seen again? There were witnesses to their disappearance. I think the royal family is very dark

Yes, I think that the Queen is a good person within the parameters of her knowledge and experience. You are entitled to your opinion, however, in my opinion, your opinion exhibits an abyss of ignorance.

There's a lot of lies and BS out there in the world; it takes time and patience to sort it out. With your attitude and knowledge level, perhaps this is not the forum for you?

 

[Chu]

The post and hurtful speech I am referring to is given below: (Hope this makes things clearer.)

I repeat my questions above.

 

[bjorb]

Apparently, it is a sin to make it clear to someone in a very ordinary way that they are totally wrong.