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

[Scottie]

There's a meme doing the rounds with some words that Prince Phillip supposedly said in 1988.

Niall posted this on FB:

Here's the full "I wish to reincarnate as a virus to wipe out humanity" quote from Prince Philip, in context:

"I just wonder what it would be like to be reincarnated in an animal whose species had been so reduced in numbers that it was in danger of extinction. What would be its feelings toward the human species whose population explosion had denied it somewhere to exist… I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus, but that is perhaps going too far."

 

[SOTTREADER]

That said, I am suspicious about a few, especially those that operate in areas that are the most exposed to ponerisation. Cancer Research is a good example. Why haven't they researched IV vitamin C or any other alternative cures that have been reported to help? I follow a person on twitter who was told there was no chance for him to survive his brain tumour but through his own research he cured it with the ketogenic diet. I saw him reply to Cancer Research whenever they tweeted such harmful posts as (I paraphrase) "there is no evidence that there is any link between diet and cancer so you shouldn't change your diet when you're diagnosed to avoid making it worse". I replied that they were called 'Cancer Research; then how about if they 'research' that link to see if it's there? No reply. And they deleted a few of my replies to their tweets too. I suspect they get good money from big pharma and those guys seem to say to charities they sponsor what they say to laboratories that test their products: do not contradict the narrative what helps us make money or we will take our funding elsewhere.

Just to add to the above. I think there's something to be said about the connection of charities to NGOs and the role these have in empire building. More often than not, these are the Trojan horses that the PTB use to create colour revolutions amongst other things in target countries.

So I think there's also this to consider when we look at the whole picture.

Ps, let's not forget the father of all charitable intentions... Bill Gates!

 

[Ant22]

Just to add to the above. I think there's something to be said about the connection of charities to NGOs and the role these have in empire building. More often than not, these are the Trojan horses that the PTB use to create colour revolutions amongst other things in target countries.

So I think there's also this to consider when we look at the whole picture.

Charities were mentioned in this thread by Laura in the context of the British royals' patronage of them and I think you have expanded the context a little too much here. But I guess that may have been prompted by my own post that deviated from the main point. I think it would be safe to bet that none of the charities members of the royal family are patrons of have ever been used as a trojan horse for a colour revolution. People like Soros and Gates set up fake charities to cover up their nasty actions under a disguise of philanthropy but this has nothing to do with the royal family. And I don't think it's true that charities are used to create colour revolutions and destabilise other countries "more often than not".

As with everything else, there's the good, the bad, and the context that determines which one's which. And I think that charities supported by the royals and those created by Gates or Soros are completely different contexts.

 

[Alreadyin4thDensity Love]

You keep hanging around so I will assume you want to know. What you wrote above is an example of what's at issue. You imply not so subtly, that the issue is with the person perceiving you and not yourself.

But how do you know that ? And what if that is not true ?

 

[SOTTREADER]

As with everything else, there's the good, the bad, and the context that determines which one's which.

Yup, this was the point I was trying to make. Thanks!

Getting back on topic, apparently a charity having a Royal Patron doesn't actually do much to its revenue stream.

Royal patronages of charities don’t seem to help charities much

___________________________ A note about Royal charity patronages re the passing of HM Queen Elizabeth II: HM Queen had ~600 patronages. They were not all charities: many were parts of the military…

giving-evidence.com

In short, we found that charities should not seek or retain Royal patronages expecting that they will help much.

74% of charities with Royal patrons did not get any public engagements with them last year. We could not find any evidence that Royal patrons increase a charity’s revenue (there were no other outcomes that we could analyse), nor that Royalty increases generosity more broadly. Giving Evidence takes no view on the value of the Royal family generally.

Later on

Royal charity patronages also raise a question of public expenditure. The Royal family costs the taxpayer – on the sole estimate we found which includes the cost of their security – £345m per year. If we take public engagements to indicate their workload, 26% of their work is for their patronee charities: equivalent to around £90m per year. If that produces no discernible benefit, it may not be good value for money. On the other hand, if Royals do help patronee charities, it is legitimate to question the process and criteria by which that publicly-funded benefit is distributed, which are currently not clear.

Ps, they are patrons to over 2000 charities.

Anyways, going off topic now!

 

[Joe]

Interesting to be called ignorant by someone who I respected so much.

Do you expect all the people you respect to tell you are very smart when you are being ignorant?

 

[Ant22]

Getting back on topic, apparently a charity having a Royal Patron doesn't actually do much to its revenue stream.

It would be rather hard for the royals to engage with all charities that have them as patrons every year. The queen herself is a patron of well over 500 charitable organisations, if she wanted to dedicate a day to each of them it would take her over one and a half years of doing just that. What about other duties?

The source you quoted also said that charities linked better staff morale to having a royal patron and I think most people who have worked in leadership or management positions will tell you how very important that is. Not everything is about money. And whether royal patronage brings money to the charities or not it is still a fact that they do require the royals' time. If this wasn't the case the queen wouldn't have made the decision to downside the list of the charities she supported due to her declining health and age. This conversation is about the royals' character and not the effectiveness of their fundraising. Even if it doesn't bring in money they are still committed to that work.

 

[Joe]

I am wondering if some of the giving the Royals the benefit of the doubt doesn’t come from people having read so many of the romance novels.

Maybe a bit, but we're generally less inclined to see the world is a black and white 'us vs them' mode for a while now. Claiming that the royals are somehow hooked into some consciously evil circles is mostly imagination. There's no evidence for it, and anyone with a decent idea of how the world actually works understands that that kind of oversimplification is a rather childish perspective.

 

[Joe]

If we're going to be realistic about this topic, then not only should we look askance at the rather silly conspiratorial claims about the British royal family, but we should also be realistic about what the Queen's feelings on the death of her husband might be. None of us know what kind of relationship they had, there are credible claims about of his 'dalliances' and while that may have been seen as 'normal' at a certain point in time, it undoubtedly doesn't make for a truly loving relationship. Whatever the case, I tend to view the royals, behind the charade, as rather normal people, with normal people problems. The extent of the love lost by the Queen as a result of his death is, I'd say, dependent on the extent to which Philip (or the Queen) were loving people, to each other and to others.

 

[Joe]

or that I should be careful about things I write ?

Good idea.

 

[Ant22]

I once told a friend who works at one of their locations about something I read in a book written by a former employee of one of the royal properties. Apparently a member of staff once had a bit too much to drink and he fell asleep in one of the staff areas. The queen saw him sleeping and discretely approached another member of staff saying that such-and-such seemed to be feeling unwell and maybe someone should go help him. No drama and no harsh consequences resulted from this. The friend said that it did sound like something the queen would do.

Do you happen to remember the name of that book?

KristinLynne I read that book over 20 years ago when I was in high school. I bought it shortly after Diana's death because I really liked the princess. I think it was this one but I'm not 100% sure: The Housekeeper's Diary. The author didn't have an entirely favourable opinion of Diana due to the way she sometimes treated her staff and Charles was described positively, as a good father that the media unfairly painted as a cold-hearted one. I remember the tone of the book as something a committed royalist who sees the society through a lens of class divisions would write. For a Polish teenager it was a completely alien worldview and I did wonder if her manner of perceiving the world tilted the way she saw the dynamics within the royal family towards being more forgiving towards Charles and less towards Diana.

That said, I don't know how accurate the author's testimonial was. I only ever managed to get some "verification" for that small story about the queen I quoted above that my friend assessed as very likely.

 

[Adaryn]

But human nature is funny (peculiar); in France, they killed off most of their nobility and royals, but they are the most avid royal watchers in the world.

Ain't that the truth! Raising my hand here. There's really something about British monarchy that, as a French, I find fascinating. But I'm very partial to England. I love the countryside, the history, the language, the culture, the eccentricity of the English. The French and English are so different, and yet we've had that love/hate relationship and we've been "enmeshed" with each other for so long, like an old couple. And I think we do have a kind of nostalgia for royalty. Maybe that's why we love to read about the British royal family.

Love that pic: Queen Elizabeth giggles as she walks past Prince Philip, who is dressed in uniform at Buckingham Palace.

 

[Joe]

Niall posted this on FB:
Here's the full "I wish to reincarnate as a virus to wipe out humanity" quote from Prince Philip, in context:

"I just wonder what it would be like to be reincarnated in an animal whose species had been so reduced in numbers that it was in danger of extinction. What would be its feelings toward the human species whose population explosion had denied it somewhere to exist… I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus, but that is perhaps going too far."

Both Philip and Charles appear to have had a fixation on 'environmentalism' for much of their lives. I find that people who have a strong urge to 'save the planet' tend to be decent people but rather detached from, or uninterested in, the arguably more 'mature' cause of 'saving people'.

 

[SOTTREADER]

But I'm very partial to England. I love the countryside, the history, the language, the culture, the eccentricity of the English.

You left out the weather and the food

 

[Adaryn]

You left out the weather and the food

But I love English weather and (some) English food!