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

Wow, this thread has taken on a life of it's own. I am impressed by all the knowledge of the history of the royals exhibited by forum members here. Their history is central to the history of humanity. Living in the US I am more focused/(entrained) on our own royalty: our politicians, Hollywood celebrities, and the 'mainstream media'. It strikes me that royalty in general are more exposed to attack than the common man or woman.

I find myself blaming these influencers, but also realize most of them, at least, do not know what they are doing, they are NPCs. Most are driven by self-interest, greed, desire for fame, etc. This is an STS realm after all. Evidently, most of US presidents are genetically connected to these ancient bloodlines. Since this fact has no influence on public policy - and never mentioned in the mainstream, I want to think that this is a technological vector for control... sub-rosa.

Our struggle is against forth density STS control, but also against ignorance. Laura had something like an epiphany, (an understatement), about the ignorance humanity suffers under in her book "Amazing Grace".

Well, it's all falling apart and being exposed, they don't call it the apocalypse for nothing...

session 13 March 2021:
Click to expand...

Q: (L) Anything else major?

(Chu) Anything for group members?

(L) Yeah, do we have any message for us here or our group?

A: Yes, you have a period of time in which to work while the reality is disintegrating around you, do not waste it!!! Goodbye.
Click to expand...

Note my last question carefully:
Q: Okay, "struggle out of sequence." Loss of control? The royal bloodlines lose control?
A: Only when energies build prior to completion of cycle.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I think the whole system is going to be brought low soon, raised to the ground. Evolution. Today's dinosaurs are on notice. I do experience a bit of nostalgia for what could have been - perhaps in our future ancient home.

"The Ancient City" All over again.

Apologies if my original post on this thread was a bit short-sighted and crass. Certainly I can make room in my heart for some compassion for the Queen and her husband - who has no doubt processed a millennium of reflection before this post was started.
 
I have heard about the conspiracy theories of the queen engaging in some evil acts and I will admit that I have entertained those ideas. Coming on here and seeing the research that has been done about the Queen ( which is obviously more objective) and not just some conspiracy based on nothing, I now have a different perspective and shouldn't judge without networking and doing more research!

Apart from that, Prince Philip lived a long life and may he Rest In Peace. This is another close person that the queen knew that has died and she must be going through it. She is a strong woman and I’m positive that she will push through.

Just a note, criticism that could be seen as ugly or harsh can lead to the most beautiful growth. If people did not bother or care then nothing would have been said and thus the cycle continues. Just my two cents.
 
James Burns said:
The answers you seek are in the quote in the last post. If you do not think there is anything there that needs to be apologised for then that is a reflection on you.
Click to expand...
This trick won't work here.

Not sure what world you live in, but in the one I live in, there is nothing morally objectionable about calling someone ignorant on any given topic and saying that ignorance, combined with their attitude, might suggest a lack of compatibility.
 
ScioAgapeOmnis said:
If your line of succession comes from within a family, it seems unlikely that psychopaths can show up. Sometimes sure, but psychopaths are rare in the population and have to be chosen from a large pool of candidates, kind of like resumes for a job position. If you only have 3 resumes because they come from within the same family each generation, how likely are they to be psychopaths?
Click to expand...
Good point. I had a similar thought recently, but in the opposite direction. What percentage of people make good leaders? IMO, they're pretty rare. So, what are the chances that an heir to the throne will be up to the task - not only with the character to represent his or her people, but the intelligence and skill to fight off the predations of the Machiavellians and psychopaths? Not very good. I'm reminded of one of Thomas Sowell's guiding principles in his work: there are no solutions, only trade-offs.
 
James Burns said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hhhhmmm, didn’t think I would be seeing the ‘hurtful speech' argument used here. Certainly does come across as more than a little snowflakey… Of course some language can be used to try and insult, but honest criticism...

This has been a very interesting thread. The reactions of some commenters has been very revealing and although I have not posted until now, some of my own internal reactions gave me pause.

Laura’s direct response put my back up for a few minutes but I quickly thought over why that would be the case and in doing so realised how useful it was. A sudden shock that got me thinking about my own emotional reaction to the language used.

I spent many years at best suspicious of the Royal Family. Reading through all their controversies and dark aspects will do that (although, thankfully I avoided most of the really out there stuff). But, as others have pointed out, this is a family in full public view all the time and what family does not have it’s darker aspects and characters?

Looking more at the characters involved as real people, humans, should give us some empathetic insight into their situation. My own father died 18 months ago. He and my mother were married for over 40 years. My mother has dealt extremely well with the situation (especially considering the past year) but her loss is still there and she often tells me of small things that bring it right back to the fore.

When talking the other day about visiting my father on one of his ships (merchant seaman) we were trying to remember a small detail about a cabin I stayed in. She told me that the thought came into her head that ‘I could ask dad when he comes in’ as she would have done before. I also occasionally get the thought ‘oh, I could ask dad about that’ if I need advice for something.

It is this kind of level I think of when someone has lost somebody. Of course the Queens’ and extended royal families situation is different but we can surely connect on this level and empathise with some ones loss. Had another member of my family done something terrible or been associated with others who had, would my mother be unworthy of any sympathy because she had tried to keep the family together to the best of her ability and given her specific situation?

I think we very often see public figures, whoever they are, as characters rather than people and despite our research often forget that there are humans involved with many of the same feelings and issues as the rest of us. For those who wish to keep us fighting each other and failing to empathise with other human beings, this is exactly what they want.

Just an example of my thinking that resulted from one direct response informing someone that they are incorrect and then wondering why I felt ‘off’ about it, and this was a story that at first barely registered with me!

On another note, the history and knowledge being shared here is wonderful, reminding me of many things I have not looked into for far too long. Thanks to all who have contributed on the subject.
 
Approaching Infinity said:
Good point. I had a similar thought recently, but in the opposite direction. What percentage of people make good leaders? IMO, they're pretty rare. So, what are the chances that an heir to the throne will be up to the task - not only with the character to represent his or her people, but the intelligence and skill to fight off the predations of the Machiavellians and psychopaths? Not very good. I'm reminded of one of Thomas Sowell's guiding principles in his work: there are no solutions, only trade-offs.
Click to expand...

I think that having hereditary rulers is a very bad idea because psychopaths CAN pop up frequently in the line because usually, the founder of a line is an imperialistic power grabber.

A king with significant powers that is VOTED in and can be expelled if he behaves egregiously, is probably a better idea.
 
Last edited:
Just found this great article with some wonderful pictures of the young Phillip and a young Queen Elizabeth.

One particular picture amuses me and that is the one of Princess Elizabeth inspecting a guard of honour. My father was in the Irish Guards in 1945 and had the honour of being inspected by Princess Elizabeth. He told me that she found one fellow soldier with a button undone and reported it to the accompanying officer. The poor fellow got a day in the guardhouse for this indiscretion.
 
Last edited:
Laura said:
A king with significant powers that is VOTED in and can be expelled if he behave egregiously, is probably a better idea.
Click to expand...
I don't know all the details of the recent constitutional changes in Russia, but it seems like they keep making changes so Putin can remain in power for as long as he wants to. Maybe that's the direction they're headed?

Another other good thing about voting in a king (or president or whatever you want to call the position) is that the person would theoretically need to prove that they are a good leader in order to get elected, so they would most likely be old enough to know something about the world. That would prevent situations where the ruler dies and their very young successor is thrust into power and manipulated by the evil Prime Minister type pulling the strings in the shadows.

Also if the person was elected "for life" or until they retire or are expelled it would put an end to the election cycle. Seems like it could be a good thing if the person wasn't always playing politics with their reelection in mind.
 
Séamas said:
I don't know all the details of the recent constitutional changes in Russia, but it seems like they keep making changes so Putin can remain in power for as long as he wants to. Maybe that's the direction they're headed?

Another other good thing about voting in a king (or president or whatever you want to call the position) is that the person would theoretically need to prove that they are a good leader in order to get elected, so they would most likely be old enough to know something about the world. That would prevent situations where the ruler dies and their very young successor is thrust into power and manipulated by the evil Prime Minister type pulling the strings in the shadows.

Also if the person was elected "for life" or until they retire or are expelled it would put an end to the election cycle. Seems like it could be a good thing if the person wasn't always playing politics with their reelection in mind.
Click to expand...
I think the Malaysians have something like an elected King or a rotating kingship. I can't recall exactly at the moment.

Although the point Laura makes about the dangers of psychopaths recurring with an hereditary monarchy is well made, consitutional monarchs have fairly limited powers and the danger of psychopaths coming to power these days lies more with the elected prime ministers than monarchs. We have had a few of those in recent years here in the UK. The one good thing about the system is that you can see well in advance what you are going to get. That can't be said of elected presidents. How many American voters can be happy to have a senile old man as head of state, who probably doesn't know what day of the week it is? I don't mean this in an offensive way, as I view Biden's election as a tragedy for the USA but that, unfortunately, is the current reality there.

I note that a lot of the hostility towards monarchy seems to have come from people who live in Eastern Europe where an elected president is the norm. I guess it is what you are used to. Monarchies must seem quaint and anachronistic to those living in republics. However, in the UK it has worked surprisingy well down the years (say from Queen Victoria onwards) and that is coming from someone who is by no means a fervent royalist. The monarchy is by and large liked here. If you don't believe me then go to an England football match (if you are brave enough) and watch our odious football yobs sing 'God Save the Queen'. They hammer it out (usually off key) before trying to hammer the opposing fans. I also tend to follow the view that if it isn't broke, don't fix it. It would be interesting to garner the views of Australian, Canadian and New Zealand members of the Forum, as the Queen is still head of state in those countries too.

If and when foreign tourists are allowed to visit our shores again then please don't make the mistake of attacking the monarchy. The English are by nature a fairly laid back, reserved people who are in the main pretty undemonstrative. But you will find that will not be the case if you attack the monarch. An attack on the monarchy will be viewed as an attack on the country and will draw a swift response even from little old ladies serving you tea.
 
Joe said:
Do you have a link for this?
Click to expand...
I think Deckard means this incident from 2017:


For some reason it's not coming up directly on YouTube on my end, only when I search for it on Yandex. The child looks pretty grown up to me, but it could have been a teenager. Or Deckard was referring to a different incident. Given that the media hasn't spared Andrew in the Epstein drama I'm surprised that video didn't get more publicity.

Added: I found a few articles questioning the authenticity of the recording and pointing out it was a different building. Here's an example (in Russian): Фейк: Побег голого мужчины из Букингемского дворца — Офтоп на TJ
 
Last edited:
Ant22 said:
I think Deckard means this incident from 2017:


For some reason it's not coming up directly on YouTube on my end, only when I search for it on Yandex. The child looks pretty grown up to me, but it could have been a teenager. Or Deckard was referring to a different incident. Given that the media hasn't spared Andrew in the Epstein drama I'm surprised that video didn't get more publicity.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that's the incident he's talking about and it was actually from 2015.

It was a staged event for a tv show:

www.eonline.com

Viral Video of Naked Man Escaping From Buckingham Palace Revealed to Be Launch of D-Throned Tabloid for E!'s The Royals! - E! Online

The cheeky fellow was not at the British palace
www.eonline.com www.eonline.com

people.com

Buckingham Palace: Naked Man Escapes in Hoax Viral Video

The mysterious clip has already reached over 700,000 views
people.com people.com

He's another version that's still on YT (notice the super dramatic title):

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom