His Royal Highness got to the Russian Far East by a private plane, which, although fast, did not fly long distances. The Duke of Edinburgh refueled in the Arab Emirates, then stopped in Japan and flew from there to Khabarovsk. He piloted the aircraft himself, even though he was sitting in the co-pilot's seat.
Hardly anyone wants to meet a Siberian tiger in its natural habitat one-on-one. It is better to admire this rare natural wonder from some safe place. But it turned out to be different about Prince Philip. In Khabarovsk, he wanted to visit the taiga and see the tiger, or at least traces of it. The closest point was Bolshekhetsirsky Reserve (40 kilometers from Khabarovsk), and there he went.
"According to my colleagues, the Prince was immediately impressed by the nature, just after setting foot on the land of the Far Eastern taiga. He was surprised by almost everything. The abundance and diversity of trees, especially the coniferous forest, with its Korean pines, spruces, fir trees... He was surprised that there is still snow in March, but the Lemon and Peacock Eye butterflies are already flying, and there are no mosquitoes yet. He was amazed even by the crystal-white snow," the head of the reserve told.
"He was taken to the Sosninsky cordon, named after a mountain stream of the same name. So Philip walked about five kilometers uphill. He was almost 76 years old at the time, but was still in great physical shape, so he overtook the group and came to the cordon first. Our inspectors were there, cooking pasta with canned meat on the fire, a-la Navy-style. They did not speak English, and he did not speak Russian. But, as the guys told me later, they invited him to the "table", and the Prince agreed without hesitation. He also drank tea from the iron mug, and everything was all right," the head of the reserve continued. "When the inspectors found out it was the husband of the Queen of England, they were shocked."
After the walk, he spent the night in a hotel in the village of Bychikha in the most ordinary single room of economy class and left a thank-you note and his autograph for the hotel.
According to eyewitness accounts, Philip was a true aristocrat, and his behavior was impeccable. "He turned out to be a man of absolutely no pretensions, our staff remained in complete admiration of him, and Philip said that he had never seen such a nature anywhere," the head of the reserve concluded.
Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (born Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark, 1921-2021), husband of Queen Elizabeth II, was descended, on his maternal side, from a German-Polish couple, who met while on service to the Russian Imperial Family. His mother Princess Alice of Battenberg (1885-1969) was a niece to Empress Alexandra Feodorovna of Russia and a second cousin to Emperor Nicholas II. On the side of his father, Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark (1882-1944), he was a descendant of the Romanovs – Nicholas I of Russia was a grandfather to Philip’s grandmother.
Metropolitan Iilarion, head of the Moscow Patriarchate's Department for External Church Relations, expressed condolences over the death of Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, and told about his connection to Orthodoxy. "All in all we talked for about an hour. He was vividly interested in the revival of the Church in Russia and other countries of the canonical presence of the Russian Orthodox Church, he asked about the life of Orthodox monasteries, parishes, and spiritual educational institutions. With great warmth he recalled his visits to Holy Mount Athos. He told me about his Orthodox roots and his family ties to the Russian royal house."
According to a press release issued by Buckingham Palace, Prince Philip personally selected the hymns, Bible passages and music to be played during the memorial service. The service evoked Prince Philip's heritage with the singing of the Russian Kontakion Of The Departed, a funeral hymn in the Russian and Greek Orthodox churches.
On Saturday I went into town at around the same time the funeral was happening and people were merrily living without a care in the world, as if no one had died.
I also think that there is a post by the C's about Souls not reincarnating anymore into the Royal Family, so I don't really feel sad for his passing.
Interesting that Socrates in Plato’s Republic concluded his argument with the ideal society run by philosopher kings. Not by succession exactly, although a class of philosophers who’d likely come from the same gene pool - so not too dissimilar. There’s also mentions of better and worse constitutions too. It’s a compelling argument for such a long time ago. Perhaps one striking gap is no consideration of psychopathy or any comparable concept. So while a society is predominantly top-down / centralised governance, psychopaths will surely be attracted to it, no matter how noble the constitution. A type of bottom-up governance could better mitigate that risk because there’s less concentration of power. From a world view, multipolar sovereign nations seems less risky on this front too than global governance. The negative consequences of this so-called NWO or at least global coordination looks clear with the COVID-19 situation.I think we need institution that will uphold constitution. For example I said we need a police that will have only duty (I did not say only duty but I meant that) to implement constitution and oversee it's implementation (maybe oversee army and secret service as well) and if someone with political position even propose police hour or mask mandate or prohibition of work for some people or mandatory vaccination they should be immediately removed from political position and never again allow him to work for the country in politics. So two police forces one for constitution and one for regular things.
Of course everyone should have right to propose everything he wants if he/she is not in a politics and they should continue to work in their place, but only removed if they are in politics. And even if they would propose something like mandatory vaccination for everyone that would tell a lot about them and people would probably not elect them anyway, so they may not be so big threat.
I maybe went too far, everyone should be free to discuss everything he/she wants or propose even if they are in politics but we should say in constitution that every politician can not implement police hours, mandatory wearing of anything, mandatory vaccination and so on WITHOUT VOTING FIRSTLY IN THE PARLIMANT, but everyone who proposes that in the parliament and puts on voting should be immediately removed from office and BANNED from politics for the period of 5 years let's say.
This is probably much better and I am proud that I came to this conclusion.
We can have a state media which will only oversee implementation of constitution and remind people with historical examples what happens when DICTATORSHIP PREVAILS.
And we do not need court to tell us or make decision to remove a person who wants to diminish human rights, that is already written in the constitution so POLICE just carries their duty. Of course that should be proven so no innocent person gets punishment, and he should also be able to make complaint.
And I do not think that 6 months is too much, I think it is okay. Because what government really does ? They are managing taxes and deciding what do do with the money they have collected from taxes. In many cases they are just managers of the money they receive from the people. Or implementing some ridiculous policies like tax on property, mask mandate, police hour, prohibition of work, also deciding how much money to give the military budget, what you can grow in your own garden and like that.
Okay maybe they can be even 2 years if they do not mid to be under camera 24/7 so people can watch them on television and be sure in every moment what kind of person they elected. Like I said if someone is not ready to sacrifice their privacy for the people they do not have to be in the politics, country with 67 millions of people can find some who are ready to sacrifice for the nation.
Could you post that quote here ninas? I don’t recall anything like that being said in a session and having searched through the transcripts just now I couldn't see such information shared there. It would be useful to check the context in which it was said.
PRINCE Harry was barely acknowledged by certain members of his family at Prince Philip’s funeral - including Princess Anne, Prince Edward and Sophie Wessex, it is claimed.
It has been reported that the Duke of Sussex, 36, has faced a “great deal of frostiness" since returning to the UK for his late grandad’s funeral on Saturday.
It is thought that tensions are still running high in the aftermath of Harry and Meghan Markle’s bombshell interview with Oprah Winfrey.
A source told the Daily Mail: "There is a deep sense of protection towards the Queen and resentment towards Harry. There is little sympathy for him after what he and Meghan said on Oprah.
“They [the royals] are still very upset. They are putting on a united front for the Queen. They all think he has behaved appallingly.”
Harry's Covid restrictions:The brothers were separated by Peter, the son of Princess Anne, as they walked into the service on Saturday afternoon. The decision meant that the brothers were 12ft apart due to Covid social distancing guidelines. However, the funeral on Saturday saw Peter hang back slightly to allow the brothers to walk ahead at the same pace.
They moved slowly with the regimented family group towards the chapel. Harry then stood behind William as they stood in the chapel as the coffin was gently put down. But later in the day Harry was seen talking with William and the Duchess of Cambridge as the group left the moving funeral.
Prince Harry returned to the UK last week to attend the funeral of Prince Philip, who dedicated his life to standing by the Queen's side.
William has previously called his wife the "peacemaker" between the brothers - and Kate stepped back to allow the pair to speak. The brothers walked together for several minutes, moments after watching their grandfather's coffin lowered into the vault in emotional scenes at St George's Chapel.
After filing out of the service, they bowed to the Queen as she was driven away in her Bentley, before Harry and Kate struck up a conversation. As the mourners left the chapel, William was then seen hanging back to let Harry and Kate catch up to him. The princes strode side by side, with Kate on Harry's right - with all three talking to each other. Harry and William then walked slightly ahead of the Duchess and looked deep in conversation, glancing at each other while they chatted.
Harry was believed to have returned to Frogmore Cottage after reuniting with William at their grandfather's funeral.
The Duke of Sussex is expected to continue to self isolate after stepping out of his ten day quarantine period for the service at St George's Chapel in Windsor.
The Duke of Sussex arrived from the US last Sunday and is required to quarantine for ten days upon arrival. He was self isolating in Frogmore Cottage all week but was allowed to attend his grandfather's funeral on compassionate grounds. Covid rules state he must continue to self isolate, however, at "all other times".
Related to my above comment, I was surprised to come across Amazing Polly reading Political Ponerology today and discussing its context with COVID-19: A Small Number of Psychopaths Control SocietyInteresting that Socrates in Plato’s Republic concluded his argument with the ideal society run by philosopher kings. Not by succession exactly, although a class of philosophers who’d likely come from the same gene pool - so not too dissimilar. There’s also mentions of better and worse constitutions too. It’s a compelling argument for such a long time ago. Perhaps one striking gap is no consideration of psychopathy or any comparable concept. So while a society is predominantly top-down / centralised governance, psychopaths will surely be attracted to it, no matter how noble the constitution. A type of bottom-up governance could better mitigate that risk because there’s less concentration of power. From a world view, multipolar sovereign nations seems less risky on this front too than global governance. The negative consequences of this so-called NWO or at least global coordination looks clear with the COVID-19 situation.
I have a similar history. Due to my first husband I followed the "lefties", but have been thrown out of my way of thinking by an old school friend who turned up when I was about 40. I had some very difficult times because all what I had been thinking seemed to be tumbling down and I had to rearrange my way of looking at society. (The astrologers called it the Pluto-Phase). It was very helpful because it brought me back to my roots.A lot of this modern anti-Royalism should be thrown at Icke's door I think. His whole child murdering shape shifters schtick has had a residual effect on others who flirt on the fringes of conspiracy sites. I prefer to see a married couple who have stayed together for over 70 years, through thick and thin, and yes they have had their rough times.
I was once very anti-royal as a leftist in my youth, but my mother humanised them to me over conversation, explaining their appeal and what good they do for the country. To put it short my mother was a good obyvatel and I was a leftist fool, ignorant to my supposed core, lol. I owe a lot of my knowledge and being to learning from my mum and pops, actually. What was funny looking back is that I knew my attitude was a bit nasty, but I chose to overlook it because of the whole class warfare thing. reminds me of Jordan Peterson remarking of leftists that "they didn't love the working class, they just hated the rich". I stand guilty as charged, I was like that at about 21,22 years of age. I changed as I read and grew with time. I also chose to speak less and listen more over the years too, and it's worked out pretty well.
As for the Royal couple, they stayed together through extraordinary times, getting us from horse drawn carriages to the quantum age. As a former leftist I apologise for coarse attitudes of the past, and pay my respects. He'll get the respect he's due, the Brits have shown that much already.
I have a similar history. Due to my first husband I followed the "lefties", but have been thrown out of my way of thinking by an old school friend who turned up when I was about 40. I had some very difficult times because all what I had been thinking seemed to be tumbling down and I had to rearrange my way of looking at society. (The astrologers called it the Pluto-Phase). It was very helpful because it brought me back to my roots.
Oh my! That was like reading a 20 minute condensed romance novel. The parallel to the fictions are evident. Thank you for posting this.Whoops the article doesn't seem to want to load.
The URL is Prince Philip obituary: The boy who wouldn't be king
Let me know if it works.
Q: What is a free State?
A: A multitude of persons united for their common safety, convenience, and benefit; acting, together, as an individual would for his own separate interest.
Q: What is a free Government?
A: The collected or social will of such multitude.
Q: How is that will collected or obtained?
A: By each individual giving up a portion of his natural will; thereby empowering, and entrusting, one or more persons in the community to make and administer LAWS for the good of all.*
* ”The absolute rights of man, considered as a free agent, endowed with discernment to know good from evil, and with power of choosing those measures which appear to him to be the most desirable, are usually summed up in one general appellation, and denominated the natural liberty of mankind. This natural liberty consists properly in a power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless to the law of nature; being a right inherent in us by birth, and one of the gifts of God to man at his creation, when he endued him with the faculty of a free-will. But every man, when he enters into society, gives up a part of his natural liberty, as the price of so valuable a purchase; and, in consideration of receiving the advantages of mutual commerce, obliges himself to conform to those laws, which the community has thought proper to establish. And this species of legal obedience and conformity is infinitely more desirable than that wild and savage liberty which is sacrificed to obtain it. For no man, that considers a moment, would wish to retain the absolute and uncontrolled power of doing whatever he pleases; the consequence of which is, that every other man would also have the same power: and then there would be no security to individuals in any of the enjoyments of life. Political therefore, or civil liberty, which is that of a member of society, is no other than natural liberty so far restrained by human laws (and no farther) as is necessary and expedient for the general advantage of the public.” - Sir William Blackstone
Q: What are the forms by which Governments are distinguished?
A: Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy.*
*With the ancient Jews, there was a Theocracy, or an immediate Government by the Almighty; and which other nations have since pretended to.
Q: What is a Monarchial Government?
A: When the power of making and enforcing laws resides in one man.
Q: What are the benefits peculiar to a Monarchial Government?
A: It is the most powerful, speedy, and secret, being directed by the will of an individual; having nothing to check, counteract, delay, or oppose it.
Q: What is the evil attendant on a Monarchial Government?
A: The improper employment of its strength; either to the injury of individuals, or of the community, for whose good it was instituted. This is commonly termed, tyranny.
Q: What is an Aristocratic Government?
A: When the power of making and enforcing laws resides in certain select or privileged persons.
Q: What is the benefit peculiar to an Aristocratic Government?
A: Its being composed (as, at least, is always intended or supposed) of the wisest, most discreet, and substantial citizens: Having, on the one hand, the greatest abilities to govern the State, and, on the other, the greatest interest in it.
Q: What are the evils attending an Aristocratic Government?
A: It is liable to weakness, from the jarring interests and wills of its members; to a variety of tyrannies, from each having, or assuming, some greater, some lesser, degrees of personal ascendancy; and to hypocrisy, by pretending the good of the people, while it is pursuing its own aggrandizement to the injury of the community.
Q: What is a Democratic Government?
A: When the power of making and enforcing laws resides in all the free members of a State.
Q: Who do you mean by free members?
A: All the males, of age and ability; all who have a will of their own, to contribute to the social will: from which description all criminals, bond-men, idiots, and such poor persons as are actually burdensome to the community, are necessarily excluded.
Q: What are the benefits peculiar to a Democratic Government?
A: Public virtue; goodness of intention; the mutual, impartial, and general interest of the community.
Q: What are the evils attendant on a Democratic Government?
A: Want of secrecy; individuals degenerating into aristocratic principles; thence, breach of trust, jealousy, contention, anarchy, and confusion.
Q: Is the Government of our State Monarchial, Aristocratic, or Democratic?
A: It is happily compounded of all those forms?
Q: What are the benefits peculiar to such a compound?
A: It combines the power of Monarchy, with the interest and wisdom of Aristocracy, and the public virtue of Democracy.
Q: What preventative is there, that the evils usually attendant on these forms, separately, do not operate here, to the national wrong?
A: Each is a check upon the other: Neither part can make and enforce laws without the consent of the others.
Q: Is not this mixed Government peculiar to Great-Britain?
A: It is; and has, at various times, excited the wonder, the admiration, the contempt, the envy, the speculations, and the perdictions (Note – looking in the legal dictionary the closest I can find for this word is Perdida which is a synonym of ‘damages’), of politicians, in various countries.
Q: Is such a mixture generally understood to be lasting and secure?
A: TIME, the most sure and certain oracle for deciding such a question, informs us, that it has long existed: And when we consider how many Republics, Aristocracies, and Monarchies, have been annihilated, subjugated, or corrupted, since the date of our Government, we have every reason to add our expectation to our wishes, that it will long, very long, continue.
Q: Do the restraints effectually, and at all times, prevent all the Representatives from being corrupted?
A: The depravity of human nature is such, that it would be hazarding the Truth to reply in the affirmative.
Prince Philip's Will Sealed For 90 Years
Judge Andrew McFarlane made the order on Thursday, saying the will should remain sealed for 90 years. When the time comes to open it, he said it should be done in private and given consideration on if it should be published.
"I have held that, because of the constitutional position of the Sovereign, it is appropriate to have a special practice in relation to royal wills," McFarlane said in a written judgment. "There is a need to enhance the protection afforded to truly private aspects of the lives of this limited group of individuals in order to maintain the dignity of the Sovereign and close members of her family."
The late Prince Philip's will has been ordered to remain sealed so as to protect the "dignity" of Queen Elizabeth II.www.yahoo.com
Judge orders Prince Philip's will to remain sealed 90 years to protect 'dignity' of Queen Elizabeth
The late Prince Philip's will has been ordered to remain sealed so as to protect the "dignity" of Queen Elizabeth II.