morepork wrote:
I’ll take that critique. I have no personal experience in benefiting from hereditary privileges but I’m for damn sure certain I have more experience on the ground seeing those privileges ride rough shod over those that have not. Did Phil ever take issue with stop and frisk policies, or even voice support for those women that were shut down by the Met when protesting women’s right to not being preyed on? Again, commiserations to the family, but if someone like Phil is your idea of a role model, then I suggest you get back in your time machine and soak up the 1950’s making sure you don’t get a tan that would exclude you from country club membership.
I'm not arguing he was perfect by any means, but the fact that he didn't take a stand on every single issue that was popular in his 70+ years as a public figure I personally won't be holding against him.
My last on this thread... a story from an African American White House employee, one of many many such stories that have come to light since his death...
Treating other human beings with respect is surely a basic standard we expect of everyone. Not newsworthy.
You beat me to it.
It's a nice anecdote, but should we be impressed simply because one human being treats another human being as a human being?
Digby wrote:He's both a part of the status quo, and someone who's seen and been part of a remarkable change in society.
What change Diggers? Genuinely interested. I just see a cold inbreed with an outsized adam's apple. Did he come out swinging against Saville? Confront his non-sweating son's relationship with Epstein? Serve as a patron for women's sport, or frankly assess inequality in society? Did he dissect the unfairness of tax havens of the privilege enjoyed by white males?
It doesn't matter if you think basic humanity should come as standard...it doesn't.
I don't know how many idiot bosses I've had in my time. Idiot clients, awful managers, and so on.
My sister worked at Windsor Castle and Phil was a superb boss. He always made time for every team member, no matter how low down the pecking order. You see anyone who's worked in the castle or palace staff and they have nothing but good things to say about him.
He was most definitely a flawed man with views that didn't change with the ages.
But to make it all black and white ignores the fact that so many people do not have basic humanity. They don't treat people with respect. He did.
He may also have been racist and bigoted, but there are greys in every person.
Stom wrote:It doesn't matter if you think basic humanity should come as standard...it doesn't.
I don't know how many idiot bosses I've had in my time. Idiot clients, awful managers, and so on.
My sister worked at Windsor Castle and Phil was a superb boss. He always made time for every team member, no matter how low down the pecking order. You see anyone who's worked in the castle or palace staff and they have nothing but good things to say about him.
He was most definitely a flawed man with views that didn't change with the ages.
But to make it all black and white ignores the fact that so many people do not have basic humanity. They don't treat people with respect. He did.
He may also have been racist and bigoted, but there are greys in every person.
Would you remain mates with a racist bigot just because they are pleasant to employees?
Stom wrote:It doesn't matter if you think basic humanity should come as standard...it doesn't.
I don't know how many idiot bosses I've had in my time. Idiot clients, awful managers, and so on.
My sister worked at Windsor Castle and Phil was a superb boss. He always made time for every team member, no matter how low down the pecking order. You see anyone who's worked in the castle or palace staff and they have nothing but good things to say about him.
He was most definitely a flawed man with views that didn't change with the ages.
But to make it all black and white ignores the fact that so many people do not have basic humanity. They don't treat people with respect. He did.
He may also have been racist and bigoted, but there are greys in every person.
I think we take issue most with the disproportionate extent of the eulogising. Not necessarily saying he was such a bad person aside from his generational racist and sexist comments.
One day of eulogy should have been enough, and then to move onto more important things.
Stom wrote:It doesn't matter if you think basic humanity should come as standard...it doesn't.
I don't know how many idiot bosses I've had in my time. Idiot clients, awful managers, and so on.
My sister worked at Windsor Castle and Phil was a superb boss. He always made time for every team member, no matter how low down the pecking order. You see anyone who's worked in the castle or palace staff and they have nothing but good things to say about him.
He was most definitely a flawed man with views that didn't change with the ages.
But to make it all black and white ignores the fact that so many people do not have basic humanity. They don't treat people with respect. He did.
He may also have been racist and bigoted, but there are greys in every person.
I think we take issue most with the disproportionate extent of the eulogising. Not necessarily saying he was such a bad person aside from his generational racist and sexist comments.
One day of eulogy should have been enough, and then to move onto more important things.
Digby wrote:He's both a part of the status quo, and someone who's seen and been part of a remarkable change in society.
What change Diggers? Genuinely interested. I just see a cold inbreed with an outsized adam's apple. Did he come out swinging against Saville? Confront his non-sweating son's relationship with Epstein? Serve as a patron for women's sport, or frankly assess inequality in society? Did he dissect the unfairness of tax havens of the privilege enjoyed by white males?
In 100 years you think society and within that the royal family haven't changed? Be serious.
It's something we get from 16-18 year olds, the assertion that society is stuck, that nothing ever changes, when really they mean nothing has changed in the 5 minutes they've been paying attention and now they are demanding change. I don't especially like Phil or indeed the idea of a royal family, but he's been a big part of a big change. (Also as a btw I don't even altogether mind the kids with attention deficit disorder demanding change, that does help mix things up, tiresome as it can be)
Fine he hasn't fought every battle, but is that the standard? And fine there's plenty more work to do, there normally is.
He did drive change from the world he inherited as a teen, he didn't drive much change from the world he had settled into by the age of 40 or 50. European monarchies used to function very differently, ours included
Digby wrote:He's both a part of the status quo, and someone who's seen and been part of a remarkable change in society.
What change Diggers? Genuinely interested. I just see a cold inbreed with an outsized adam's apple. Did he come out swinging against Saville? Confront his non-sweating son's relationship with Epstein? Serve as a patron for women's sport, or frankly assess inequality in society? Did he dissect the unfairness of tax havens of the privilege enjoyed by white males?
In 100 years you think society and within that the royal family haven't changed? Be serious.
It's something we get from 16-18 year olds, the assertion that society is stuck, that nothing ever changes, when really they mean nothing has changed in the 5 minutes they've been paying attention and now they are demanding change. I don't especially like Phil or indeed the idea of a royal family, but he's been a big part of a big change. (Also as a btw I don't even altogether mind the kids with attention deficit disorder demanding change, that does help mix things up, tiresome as it can be)
Fine he hasn't fought every battle, but is that the standard? And fine there's plenty more work to do, there normally is.
I don't get this "been part of", or even "a big part of" (unless you mean passively been part of, like everyone else who has lived through the last 99 years).
Are you suggesting he drove change or that he (like everyone else) lived through change?
morepork wrote:
What change Diggers? Genuinely interested. I just see a cold inbreed with an outsized adam's apple. Did he come out swinging against Saville? Confront his non-sweating son's relationship with Epstein? Serve as a patron for women's sport, or frankly assess inequality in society? Did he dissect the unfairness of tax havens of the privilege enjoyed by white males?
In 100 years you think society and within that the royal family haven't changed? Be serious.
It's something we get from 16-18 year olds, the assertion that society is stuck, that nothing ever changes, when really they mean nothing has changed in the 5 minutes they've been paying attention and now they are demanding change. I don't especially like Phil or indeed the idea of a royal family, but he's been a big part of a big change. (Also as a btw I don't even altogether mind the kids with attention deficit disorder demanding change, that does help mix things up, tiresome as it can be)
Fine he hasn't fought every battle, but is that the standard? And fine there's plenty more work to do, there normally is.
I don't get this "been part of", or even "a big part of" (unless you mean passively been part of, like everyone else who has lived through the last 99 years).
Are you suggesting he drove change or that he (like everyone else) lived through change?
I don't know about societal changes - it's kind of hard for a member of the royal family to enact them - but he definitely made big changes to the Royal family, and perhaps wanted to make many more. He was the "great revolutioniser", he wanted the royals to be far more approachable and less stuffy. He did away with the debutante ball, for instance, as well as all the TV work the family did in the early years of TV.
You have to remember that he really made the biggest changes from the 40s to 70s, not nowadays. The pace of change in society as a whole in the past 30 years has been insane, a 70 year old man could never keep up with that.
But in his youth, he was at the forefront of evolution. For the royal family, at least.
morepork wrote:
What change Diggers? Genuinely interested. I just see a cold inbreed with an outsized adam's apple. Did he come out swinging against Saville? Confront his non-sweating son's relationship with Epstein? Serve as a patron for women's sport, or frankly assess inequality in society? Did he dissect the unfairness of tax havens of the privilege enjoyed by white males?
In 100 years you think society and within that the royal family haven't changed? Be serious.
It's something we get from 16-18 year olds, the assertion that society is stuck, that nothing ever changes, when really they mean nothing has changed in the 5 minutes they've been paying attention and now they are demanding change. I don't especially like Phil or indeed the idea of a royal family, but he's been a big part of a big change. (Also as a btw I don't even altogether mind the kids with attention deficit disorder demanding change, that does help mix things up, tiresome as it can be)
Fine he hasn't fought every battle, but is that the standard? And fine there's plenty more work to do, there normally is.
I don't get this "been part of", or even "a big part of" (unless you mean passively been part of, like everyone else who has lived through the last 99 years).
Are you suggesting he drove change or that he (like everyone else) lived through change?
He'll have driven it more than most. I don't look to the royal family for any sort of lead, but plenty do. And he's stood firmly in support of a female head, and one who didn't come in long after suffrage, and that hasn't been unhelpful across society. Nor has it been unhelpful to have invited the media more into the top end of social life giving them a greater role in scrutiny. Okay the media often piss that role up the wall, but Phillip was a key person in beginning to modernise the UK royal family, even if he came to dislike much of the process himself and somewhat wished it'd never happened, how much of that is people simply tend to get more conservative as they age I don't know. In similar fashion his was a big public example of adopting a new religion, even if some might take as having had ulterior movies.
It is people that do look to the royal family for a lead of any sort that is depressing. He supported a weemin CEO and freedom of religion. Bully for Phil.
morepork wrote:It is people that do look to the royal family for a lead of any sort that is depressing. He supported a weemin CEO and freedom of religion. Bully for Phil.
I still can't believe how much anybody cares about these people. I thought this would be news for an afternoon or so, which sounds like quite a lot for such an incredibly old person finally croaking. People should at least have enough dignity to be embarrassed about fawning over the royals.
I'm sure they've all done some good stuff in their lives, and bring in a load of money via tourism or whatever, you'd really fucking hope so given the totally ludicrous cost of their lifestyles.
Digby wrote:
In 100 years you think society and within that the royal family haven't changed? Be serious.
It's something we get from 16-18 year olds, the assertion that society is stuck, that nothing ever changes, when really they mean nothing has changed in the 5 minutes they've been paying attention and now they are demanding change. I don't especially like Phil or indeed the idea of a royal family, but he's been a big part of a big change. (Also as a btw I don't even altogether mind the kids with attention deficit disorder demanding change, that does help mix things up, tiresome as it can be)
Fine he hasn't fought every battle, but is that the standard? And fine there's plenty more work to do, there normally is.
I don't get this "been part of", or even "a big part of" (unless you mean passively been part of, like everyone else who has lived through the last 99 years).
Are you suggesting he drove change or that he (like everyone else) lived through change?
I don't know about societal changes - it's kind of hard for a member of the royal family to enact them - but he definitely made big changes to the Royal family, and perhaps wanted to make many more. He was the "great revolutioniser", he wanted the royals to be far more approachable and less stuffy. He did away with the debutante ball, for instance, as well as all the TV work the family did in the early years of TV.
You have to remember that he really made the biggest changes from the 40s to 70s, not nowadays. The pace of change in society as a whole in the past 30 years has been insane, a 70 year old man could never keep up with that.
But in his youth, he was at the forefront of evolution. For the royal family, at least.
You can't say he did away with the ball. The Queen decided to stop receiving debutants in 1958. Sure Philip said the thing was 'bloody daft', but then Princess Margaret said "We had to put a stop to it. Every tart in London was getting in."
Digby wrote:
In 100 years you think society and within that the royal family haven't changed? Be serious.
It's something we get from 16-18 year olds, the assertion that society is stuck, that nothing ever changes, when really they mean nothing has changed in the 5 minutes they've been paying attention and now they are demanding change. I don't especially like Phil or indeed the idea of a royal family, but he's been a big part of a big change. (Also as a btw I don't even altogether mind the kids with attention deficit disorder demanding change, that does help mix things up, tiresome as it can be)
Fine he hasn't fought every battle, but is that the standard? And fine there's plenty more work to do, there normally is.
I don't get this "been part of", or even "a big part of" (unless you mean passively been part of, like everyone else who has lived through the last 99 years).
Are you suggesting he drove change or that he (like everyone else) lived through change?
He'll have driven it more than most. I don't look to the royal family for any sort of lead, but plenty do. And he's stood firmly in support of a female head, and one who didn't come in long after suffrage, and that hasn't been unhelpful across society. Nor has it been unhelpful to have invited the media more into the top end of social life giving them a greater role in scrutiny. Okay the media often piss that role up the wall, but Phillip was a key person in beginning to modernise the UK royal family, even if he came to dislike much of the process himself and somewhat wished it'd never happened, how much of that is people simply tend to get more conservative as they age I don't know. In similar fashion his was a big public example of adopting a new religion, even if some might take as having had ulterior movies.
Not sure his supporting a female head is a major claim. Did he have a choice? Did being married to the PM make Denis Thatcher a driver of feminism?
And I wouldn't thank him for encouraging the media obsession with the Royals.
I'm not saying he was a bad guy (considering his background, his position) but this storm of sycophancy in the media is pretty sickening for a free country.
Son of Mathonwy wrote:
I don't get this "been part of", or even "a big part of" (unless you mean passively been part of, like everyone else who has lived through the last 99 years).
Are you suggesting he drove change or that he (like everyone else) lived through change?
He'll have driven it more than most. I don't look to the royal family for any sort of lead, but plenty do. And he's stood firmly in support of a female head, and one who didn't come in long after suffrage, and that hasn't been unhelpful across society. Nor has it been unhelpful to have invited the media more into the top end of social life giving them a greater role in scrutiny. Okay the media often piss that role up the wall, but Phillip was a key person in beginning to modernise the UK royal family, even if he came to dislike much of the process himself and somewhat wished it'd never happened, how much of that is people simply tend to get more conservative as they age I don't know. In similar fashion his was a big public example of adopting a new religion, even if some might take as having had ulterior movies.
Not sure his supporting a female head is a major claim. Did he have a choice? Did being married to the PM make Denis Thatcher a driver of feminism?
And I wouldn't thank him for encouraging the media obsession with the Royals.
I'm not saying he was a bad guy (considering his background, his position) but this storm of sycophancy in the media is pretty sickening for a free country.
So ignore the coverage on him, there's no reason he should be any more relevant than say Eastenders or Love Island, it is a free country.
At least all this has given Andrew a way back into the limelight. All that messy trafficking shit is yesterday's news. To think that tax payers fund the lifestyles of these wankers.
polo shirts sure. polo, well I don't dislike it, but it wouldn't ever occur to me to take any interest in it, I don't really like any of the horse events.
and tax payers are likely to fund a head of state whatever the guise. I wouldn't have started with the idea of a royal family, and like many I think it needs some significant pruning now we do have it, but we do have it, and it does boost our soft power in some manner, and it certainly draws in tourists. it might even be quite an efficient system for a head of state in the round
Digby wrote:polo shirts sure. polo, well I don't dislike it, but it wouldn't ever occur to me to take any interest in it, I don't really like any of the horse events.
and tax payers are likely to fund a head of state whatever the guise. I wouldn't have started with the idea of a royal family, and like many I think it needs some significant pruning now we do have it, but we do have it, and it does boost our soft power in some manner, and it certainly draws in tourists. it might even be quite an efficient system for a head of state in the round
Exactly. Unless you have a head of state who is part of the executive, then a symbolic post is always going to be money for something that’s not really well defined. Symbolic presidents still cost money. And do they have the same attraction for tourists? If the monarchy didn’t exist then I wouldn’t bother creating it, but I think we have been fairly well served by a non political head of state.
The situation may change with Charles who doesn’t seem to have the same support as the Queen does.
Digby wrote:polo shirts sure. polo, well I don't dislike it, but it wouldn't ever occur to me to take any interest in it, I don't really like any of the horse events.
and tax payers are likely to fund a head of state whatever the guise. I wouldn't have started with the idea of a royal family, and like many I think it needs some significant pruning now we do have it, but we do have it, and it does boost our soft power in some manner, and it certainly draws in tourists. it might even be quite an efficient system for a head of state in the round
Would I rather have a royal family in charge or the man we call "moustache shit" as "President". Or to give him another name, Chief PM bootlicker supreme with the shittiest moustache you've ever seen.
Yeah, I know what I'd rather spend the money on...
Digby wrote:polo shirts sure. polo, well I don't dislike it, but it wouldn't ever occur to me to take any interest in it, I don't really like any of the horse events.
and tax payers are likely to fund a head of state whatever the guise. I wouldn't have started with the idea of a royal family, and like many I think it needs some significant pruning now we do have it, but we do have it, and it does boost our soft power in some manner, and it certainly draws in tourists. it might even be quite an efficient system for a head of state in the round
Would I rather have a royal family in charge or the man we call "moustache shit" as "President". Or to give him another name, Chief PM bootlicker supreme with the shittiest moustache you've ever seen.
Yeah, I know what I'd rather spend the money on...
Even with the scandals.
Well we don't have a royal family in charge. Though we do have, as we've seen with Charles, one who at times would like to influence ministers without their thoughts becoming a matter of public record, and that's inappropriate.
Ideally I'd have the Irish system, a professional head of state to handle some of the guff that's a distraction to the political leader. Although as we've seen with one recent fat orange leader some prefer the pomp and circumstance to the distraction of the politics
Digby wrote:
He'll have driven it more than most. I don't look to the royal family for any sort of lead, but plenty do. And he's stood firmly in support of a female head, and one who didn't come in long after suffrage, and that hasn't been unhelpful across society. Nor has it been unhelpful to have invited the media more into the top end of social life giving them a greater role in scrutiny. Okay the media often piss that role up the wall, but Phillip was a key person in beginning to modernise the UK royal family, even if he came to dislike much of the process himself and somewhat wished it'd never happened, how much of that is people simply tend to get more conservative as they age I don't know. In similar fashion his was a big public example of adopting a new religion, even if some might take as having had ulterior movies.
Not sure his supporting a female head is a major claim. Did he have a choice? Did being married to the PM make Denis Thatcher a driver of feminism?
And I wouldn't thank him for encouraging the media obsession with the Royals.
I'm not saying he was a bad guy (considering his background, his position) but this storm of sycophancy in the media is pretty sickening for a free country.
So ignore the coverage on him, there's no reason he should be any more relevant than say Eastenders or Love Island, it is a free country.
It was pretty difficult to avoid the coverage on Friday!
But that was an aside. My point is that the most remarkable thing about this guy was his position. There's no reason to say he did remarkable things with it.
