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

[Ina]

I feel sorrow for the Queen. First her dogs died then Prince Phillip, nevermind the Harry&Meg shenanigans, tough times. If only Minions were real.

 

[Voyageur]

The woman is a rock, an institution unto herself. She has my respect.

Elizabeth and her husband Phillip, have been a part of life in Canada since the cradle. In our schools and institutions, and on much of the legal tender (less now). It was hard not to admire her. The historical British influencers at home, much less so.

The year was 1976 when admiration grew for her - looking across to where she stood. Something about that day still holds firm, not because it was just the Queen, it was her joy (and her fear too), of seeing her daughter Anne, ride her horse. It was an odd day during the Olympic games at the cross-country event, wherein Anne was riding her horse through a difficult course section. The weather was dismal at the time, with spectators in pockets or hardly a soul in places. It was the only day I every went to view the equestrian events, and at time there was sheets of rain and wind, off and on. Not sure which round it was, however Anne came up over a rise on her horse to a fence; mud and water just as much an obstacle. Murmurs of those around identified the Queen as she stood on a little rise above a gully, with one minder holding an umbrella for her as she watched her daughter navigate the hazards. She had on her signature scarf and stood firm against the elements. Phillip must have been with her, he might have even been the minder (or gentlemen) with the umbrella - there were only a few standing there with her. However, the Queen and her daughter were the center of attention. This was no soft Her Majesty bearing the elements, and it was no Ton Ball.

You can watch Anne ride this event - look to the 33:00 min plus mark (Anne and horse had had a bad fall too), and also a view of both Phillip and the Elizabeth at their car.

As for Phillip, he did support a popular youth awards program (Duke of Edinburgh Award) once upon a time - still going on, it says:

The ‘Duke of Ed’ is a global youth leadership and empowerment framework available to young people 14-24, regardless of background or abilities. This is not a competitive program where youth compete to earn the Award. Instead it is a framework for development that is self-paced, and achievement is based on setting and completing goals that are personally challenging.

My brother had been in this program when young doing community outreach.

So I do feel sorry for her loss. She has had a comfortable life in terms of having her material needs met but it must have had its challenges and painful moments too. Her husband and children didn't spare her scandals and surprises. Just becuase she's rich and famous it doesn't mean it didn't hurt her or embarrass her that her children were troublesome. I don’t think that fame and fortune make it easier to cope with. One the contrary - she doesn't get to keep her family dirt private. The whole world gets to know about it.

One cannot imagine Elisabeth's pain that has come about after many scandals. Diana's death, whatever one might say of it. Andrew, certainly, not to mention his ex, and the grandkids at times.

Laura had made reference to those behind the scenes managing, which would be both state and royal handlers, and like Queen Anne in history (influenced in both detrimental ways and in just ways), there would not be many differences from hands behind the curtains today. However the managing business of royalty comes in all forms - control of it by a Queen likely does not happen the way one might suspect. So, it must be very tough at times (keeping her chin up and holding poise).

And yes, it easy to pick out flaws in someone like Prince Phillip, and again, he was likely handled into some positions he had taken (WWF to C02 et cetera - not that he did not have that bent), for which none of us could know what both Elizabeth II and Phillip spoke of with each other in private. They would also never reveal to the public and even those managing them, that private world of their true thoughts.

I question my characterizations of others because I am never sure if I am seeing them clearly, or if I am simply seeing what I want to see. This kind of looking takes time and practice, patience. It's more like understanding that each feeling that shows up is a hypothesis in itself, rather than a foregone conclusion, something that is just and good and right.

Again, yes, and over the years one can be lead to see and believe all manner of positions - flip flopping, and ultimately aligning to positions that one wants to see, as you said.

Here are a couple of photos of the two of them:

1961: Greeting The Kennedys
Getty Images
Throughout the years The Queen has met with an astounding 13 out of 14 sitting U.S. Presidents. Here, she and Prince Philip greet John F. Kennedy and First Lady Jackie Kennedy as they pose for the cameras at Buckingham Palace.

 

[Laura]

Allow me to just add to the pot that is stewing and bubbling: because of my overweaning interest in history, politics, psychopathology, genetics, anthropology, the paranormal, etc etc etc, I HAVE made a long and careful study of elites and their doings, and especially royal families (many of which had their beginnings with a characteropath, some even with a psychopath), so my "opinion" (more like observation) is WELL informed.

At this point in time, after all I've researched and written on those many topics, if someone comes along and says something as ignorant as what was said on the first page of this thread, I can only assume extraordinary laziness because I HAVE laid out the facts in great detail and there is no excuse for that person not to have read same before entering into discussion here. In fact, it is written in the Forum Guidelines here: https://cassiopaea.org/forum/threads/forum-guidelines.9553/ exactly what our aims are. If you aren't onboard with that, if you think this is just a social club where you can spout your opinions, then you are in the wrong bar.

There is, in fact, a thread on the topic of "Opinions" here: Opinions so do not say that you were not warned; you simply weren't doing YOUR side of the Work when you failed to do the necessary reading.

At this point in time, when we have so little time, I have neither the time nor the energy to play little social games with individuals who have managed to stay ignorant with such a wealth of material produced and made available for free to anyone with any initiative. I have worked all my life to gather this information and give it to others, often at great personal cost. So if there is no appreciation for that, if a person can't even be bothered to do one one-hundredth of the work I have done by simply reading it, then don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

[ryu]

You are joking are you not. Jimmy Saville being one of the Royals best friends. And I could name others connected to the royals who were also known pedophiles.

No I am not joking. As far as I know, we don't know if the royal family knew Jimmy Saville was a monster. Those kind of psychos are sadly clever enough to know with whom they can gloat about their "exploits".

I fully admit that I know little about the personal lives of the Royal family. But I know this: the higher you go in the hierarchical ladder, the more twisted people you'll find.
Those born in the royal family haven't chosen to climb the ladder, they were born somewhere at the top.

One has to deal with evil people to get things running. I am sure the Queen knows this, Trump and Putin surely do. All they can do is retain as much decency and humanity as they can. I doubt I would have liked Prince Philip, I don't idealize the Queen, but I cut them some slack, until proven they are child molesters or something in that vibe. FWIW.

 

[Potatoes and Tomatoes]

I have no fondness for the royals but I believe the Queen has captained her ship extraordinarily well. I'm sure her and Philip were a very effective team, and although he wouldn't have been in any great shape over the past few years, I suppose him just being there would be a comfort to her. When the Queen passes, I do wonder what direction the Royals will take?

 

[PERLOU]

Pauvre REINE, qui a perdu son prince après tout ce temps vécu ensemble dans la peine, l'amour, les difficultés...
Je suis de tout coeur avec Elle car son chagrin doit être immense...
Je suis triste de lire certains commentaires, il est plus facile de voir la paille dans l'oeil du voisin que la poutre dans le sien...
Très chère LAURA, je vous remercie infiniment de tout ce que vous nous apportez chaque jour en sagesse, connaissance et amour...
Mon attachement vous est indéfectible...

Poor QUEEN, who lost her prince after all this time lived together in sorrow, love, difficulties...
My heart goes out to her because her grief must be immense...
I am sad to read some comments, it is easier to see the mote in the eye of the neighbor than the beam in its own...
Dearest LAURA, I thank you infinitely for all that you bring to us each day in wisdom, knowledge and love...
My attachment to you is unwavering...

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

 

[loreta]

Our teachers are always very direct and at the same time their words must hit us with insights and sometimes it hurts because an insight sometimes is like a big blow on the head. There is no malice in the words of a teacher, just a truth that often hurts, other times not. All Zen tales show how the teacher is relentless with his students. We are here to learn, to question, to exchange and if it hurts, to lick our pride and move on. Let us thank the teacher who is hard on us, who claps the air with his hands when we fall asleep.

 

[Pat]

Hi aquarian1962,

You can take it as an insult, or as a criticism.

You see, many conspiracy theories surrounding the royal family are just plain silly. And I dare say intended as a lightning rod to keep people away from the real atrocities. I find it unfortunate and frustrating that people waste so much time on this.

Also, I find it inappropriate to attack people after they have died. Unless it is truly justified. If not, then I can be irritated by that. Even if their intentions are not bad. That said, it's not personal. I also have said things that weren't smart in retrospect. The best thing is to try to learn from it.

Hello, very new here myself.
My question is why all the comments are to explain Laura's answers, because it seems it needs explaining, but none to explain Aquarian1962 answer?
One is completely right to have answered the way one has and the other is completely wrong?

 

[Anamarija]

This is for offended & insulted one.
One of my main goals in life is to laugh at predator's mind in me. And this is really (from one point of view) hilarious thing. When you start to recognize his patterns you can see the same scene that is repeating all you life. One of the reason I wanted to get to know more of predator's mind is because he is so boring and feeling of choking. Don Juan have a special and funny way of dealing with predator mind in others. I love it!

The Wave Chapter 33: Introduction

Castaneda’s chapter on petty tyrants (pp. 11–30) begins with don Juan telling Carlos Castaneda that they must go for a walk to “sit down and talk”. La Gorda, another of don Juan’s students, upon overhearing that don Juan wishes to speak with Carlos in private, assumes that they are going to talk about her behind her back. Don Juan replies that she is correct, and he and Carlos leave to talk.

When alone, don Juan tells Carlos that he “told her that just to provoke her enormous self-importance. And it worked. She is furious with us. If I know her, by now she will have talked to herself long enough to have built up her confidence and her righteous indignation at having been refused and made to look like a fool. I wouldn’t be surprised if she barges in on us here, at the park bench.” He elaborates, saying, “Self-importance is our greatest enemy. Think about it – what weakens us is feeling offended by the deeds and misdeeds of our fellow men. Our self-importance requires that we spend most of our lives offended by someone.”

 

[bjorb]

Hello, very new here myself.
My question is why all the comments are to explain Laura's answers, because it seems it needs explaining, but none to explain Aquarian1962 answer?
One is completely right to have answered the way one has and the other is completely wrong?

If that is your assessment then you have not followed the discussion very well. What exactly are you referring to when you say; Aquarian1962 answer? Also, understand that we are trying to stand for objective truth here. Not to simply defend a person we hold in high regard. I'll say it again.

Many conspiracy theories surrounding the royal family are just plain silly. And I dare say intended as a lightning rod to keep people away from the real atrocities. I find it unfortunate and frustrating that people waste so much time on this.

If you think otherwise and believe that the queen is evil feel free to share the evidence.

 

[Nachtweide]

The view and interpretation is actually completely different. The sentences of Laura triggered me personally immediately and I find it very interesting for me to think about the reasons. I am currently suffering from the effects of a victim narcissist who gave the entire environment the image of a kind old lady. Highly respected in the community, church attendance on Sundays, model family. Never a shadow fell on this image. However, I personally know the real family behind the walls. Last week a daughter took her own life, tortured to the blood by the mother since childhood the whole family a social shambles with all kinds of addiction problems.
I see these families everywhere - ideal world including chaos in hiding. My personal traffic light is basically red when everything is so beautifully colored. I have respect for life achievements that bring people forward in all areas. My respect is limited when people have contributed little to the enrichment of society. My utmost respect belongs to Laura. Here I learned to think analytically with a sober mind. To eliminate my belief system and to look at things as they are. The Royals have not given my life or most people's lives a positive boost.

 

[Pat]

The view and interpretation is actually completely different. The sentences of Laura triggered me personally immediately and I find it very interesting for me to think about the reasons. I am currently suffering from the effects of a victim narcissist who gave the entire environment the image of a kind old lady. Highly respected in the community, church attendance on Sundays, model family. Never a shadow fell on this image. However, I personally know the real family behind the walls. Last week a daughter took her own life, tortured to the blood by the mother since childhood the whole family a social shambles with all kinds of addiction problems.
I see these families everywhere - ideal world including chaos in hiding. My personal traffic light is basically red when everything is so beautifully colored. I have respect for life achievements that bring people forward in all areas. My respect is limited when people have contributed little to the enrichment of society. My utmost respect belongs to Laura. Here I learned to think analytically with a sober mind. To eliminate my belief system and to look at things as they are. The Royals have not given my life or most people's lives a positive boost.

Thank you so much. That's it. Personal programming! Why did the sentence was so strongly felt, it's because I have heard it before.
I will now do peace with myself. Thank you.

 

[Jones]

Here is a youtube vid of the Queen's 1957 Christmas speech. Much younger and seemingly more full of hope.

It's a great speech for the recognition of keeping the best of traditional values while also acknowledging that we are constantly moving into a new world. At the end she reads a section of Pilgrims Progress which indicates that she had some idea of what she may be up against, but also why she would face it anyway.

There is a section in there where she says 'I cannot lead you into battle.' That has been given all sorts of interpretation amongst groups discussing constitutional matters - some say it's because she isn't a legitimate monarch, others say it's because she's a woman and only a placeholder until a male heir is coronated, etc.

However, It doesn't take too much research to find out why she might have said that. As it turns out, George II was the last English monarch to lead troops into battle. The reason? Wars had become unpopular amongst the people, it was recognised by the people back then that reasons given for entering the war were often fake and that war was not in the best interests of the British people. However, the Queen must maintain a position of neutrality, if the people choose war - even if it is based on BS reasons, she cannot intervene. Entering war is decided by the parliament, the media and the people - even if the latter are hoodwinked into it.

Statute of Westminster was passed by UK parliament in 1931 - it basically states that UK parliament cannot interfere with the govt of other British territories. In Australia, that was accepted in the 1942 Statute of Westminster Adoption Act.

Her 1953 Coronation Oath outlines the duties that she promised to fulfil.

In part:

Archbishop. Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?

Queen. I solemnly promise so to do.

So I reckon she cops a whole lot of flack, scorching criticism and vicious rumour for simply abiding by the things that she promised. And guess what, if the people wake up and decide to do something to change how their countries are governed, she will probably have to stay neutral in that too. In her shoes, I reckon I'd be relieved though.

Regardless of other idea's of Phillip, given his family background he was most probably independently wealthy - he didn't have to hang around for all the that they faced and if he didn't it wouldn't have been the first royal divorce, or the last. Additionally, Elizabeth could have abdicated at any time but she hung in there.

 

[Soluna]

I don't know how important it is to do so - but regardless of someone's true inner person, which none of us can truly know about the Queen, there is empathy to be found, even in imagining, in losing a husband, loved one or companion - especially of that many years - But I can feel compassion for her loss, and empathic pain for how I can imagine I would feel in her place, and maybe that is enough.

 

[Laura]

I don't know how important it is to do so - but regardless of someone's true inner person, which none of us can truly know about the Queen, there is empathy to be found, even in imagining, in losing a husband, loved one or companion - especially of that many years - But I can feel compassion for her loss, and empathic pain for how I can imagine I would feel in her place, and maybe that is enough.

Exactly. Here is a woman who has lived a life under extremely difficult conditions (and no wealth can compensate for that), and has lost her beloved husband after over 60 years of marriage. It seems that anyone would offer sympathy, empathy, condolences to anyone in that situation.

Yet, because of her position, and a bunch of unfounded nonsense promulgated by a nutcase, some on this forum chose to just diss her sorrow, her dreadful loss, and make nasty remarks that would suggest that she deserved to suffer.

My God! What is wrong with you people?