Saturday, 10 April 2021

Duke of Edinburgh Died Peacefully

 The Queen's husband has died, peacefully in his sleep.  He had a long and full life, just short of a century-long by a couple of months.  Well done, Sir, may you rest in peace.


But WHY was it necessary to have the BBC TV broadcast hours of exactly the same details of his life on BOTH channels?  The ITV also did virtually the same, all day and night.  Why?  He was of the Royal Family, yes, but he wasn't the King.  He was a nice enough fellow and did his job well, generally speaking, but that was about it, in my honest opinion.


I was 17 when King George VI died in 1952.  That radio announcement came as a real shock to me then.  Quite hard to take in on that day. It was almost as though my own father had passed away!  It shook me so badly at the time, having so many memories of the King during the war, the way the family stayed with us during that terrible time.  I was deeply saddened.


Yesterday's news had nothing like the 1952 news.  I suppose we were all expecting it after seeing how ill Prince Philip looked on his final journey home by car a few days ago.  Yes, it's always sad when somebody dies, but at his advanced age it's not unusual.


So, condolences to the Royal Family, especially the Queen, life goes on.  Except for the radio and television people. They grab these "breaking news" announcements and treat them as though the end of the world has come.


Give me strength!

10 comments:

PhilipH said...

Bang goes my knighthood, MBE, OBE, etc.

DUTA said...

Great post, Philip!
First let me convey my sincere condolences to the Queen and the British nation.
May the soul of prince Philip rest in peace!

Perhaps famous people should leave a letter asking the Media, that upon their death, the nation should not be deprived of its routine.

PhilipH said...

Thanks Duta, you are most welcome. I think you might be perfectly correct in saying that. The main TV channels have had a bad reaction to their OTT coverage and lost out to minor channels yesterday. The BBC considered having a dedicated complaint channel yesterday!

Snowbrush said...

I give him a lot of credit, what with being a proud man who had an old-school mentality, yet was expected to kneel before his wife on one occasion and walk behind her on every occasion. I mostly remember the queen as standing in a succession of tropical environments, wearing large colorful hats and holding humongous handbags as she watched one native dance or another in some far-flung corner of what was then the British Empire (I could understand the necessity of giving up much of that Empire, but it's a damn shame about Hong Kong). Her queenly function now exists of what exactly? I find it hard to interpret her refusal to turn things over to Charles as other than a reflection on her estimation of Charles. Peggy disagrees (saying that it's the queen's right to rule for however long she pleases), but, of course, Charles never was popular anyway even before he did some things that resulted in him being widely disliked.

"l would not be too surprised if dear old Prince Philip were responsible for the query about the skin colour of the baby."

I have no sense as to whether the comment was racist or not, it being natural enough to wonder about all manner of things that might affect a baby's success and happiness, both for better or worse. This means that a comment which could be interpreted as rank racism could also be interpreted as an indication of love and concern. I also don't know if Markle reported the comment in a way that was fair to the person who made it. I do know that to report it while refusing to name the source served to put the entire royal family under suspicion of racism, which might have been her intention.

About media coverage, I learned of his death from BBC television. I then put on my headphone radio and went out to do housework. Three hours passed before I heard a word about him dying from America's public radio stations. I have no idea why this was so, but it certainly seemed extraordinary that every newscast was "Covid as usual."

PhilipH said...

Hi Snowy.
"Her queenly function now exists of what exactly?" Hmm... tapping the sword on the shoulder of somebody being knighted perhaps. Giving her signature, (the royal assent) to Acts of Parliament, reading these Acts in Parliament and similar such requirements under the British Monarchical system. All very archaic and pretty pointless in my opinion. Would it be better to have an elected head of state? I am not sure. It seems wrong that a person is automatically elevated to such high office simply by an accident of birth. The House of Lords was an area of this form of hierarchy, much weeding out was done in the 1990s. I think it should be done away with entirely now. It's undemocratic and very expensive. Politicians put forward those people they decide should be elevated to the "upper House", often because that person has supported the government of the day - often by way of donations to the party.

I think it's time to think hard about our system before the Queen steps down. I've read that she may step down on her 95th birthday. That would then put Prince Charles, the new Duke of Edinburgh, as King. Hmm ... Camilla as Queen? Oh no, surely not. Let's get sorted and updated asap.




Snowbrush said...

"Giving her signature, (the royal assent) to Acts of Parliament, reading these Acts in Parliament and similar such requirements under the British Monarchical system."
Might I assume that she has no veto power, and is required to sign acts regardless of how strongly she might oppose them?

"It seems wrong that a person is automatically elevated to such high office simply by an accident of birth."
Or, for that matter, to becoming filthy rich by accident of birth.

"It's undemocratic and very expensive."
It is my understanding that, at taxpayer expense, your queen is among the world's richest women, and I have wondered how the British public feels about that. I suppose that, on the bright-side, having hereditary monarchs gives a personal face--or, perhaps, an anchor--to your government that America, with its ever changing line-up, lacks.
"Politicians put forward those people they decide should be elevated to the "upper House", often because that person has supported the government of the day - often by way of donations to the party."
Maybe you know that there is no limit to how much money a candidate here can collect for campaign purposes, and that a great deal of that money is "Dark Money" in the sense that it's untraceable. This means that it's impossible to verify whom or what a candidate might be selling-out to. Also, America's Supreme Court decided several years ago that immense corporations have the same free speech rights as actual people, so to limit their political contributions would--in the eyes of the court--limit their freedom of speech. This means that it's nearly impossible here for a candidate to win election without the financial backing of big business.

"I think it's time to think hard about our system before the Queen steps down."
That would seem like a good time to do it. I've wondered if her determination to hang-on to office means that she doesn't think that Charles is suited to the job.
"...Camilla as Queen?"

When Philip was married to the queen, he was designated Prince Philip, so wouldn't Camilla, by the same logic, be Princess Camilla? Was the former impossible because a king is said to outrank a queen?

I enjoy discussing such things with you because your system is a bit hard for me to understand, America's history and, I suppose, it's mentality being so different. Maybe you know that George Washington was offered a kingship but declined.

PhilipH said...

As Churchill once opined:

"No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Whether we continue with our monarchy or not I doubt that I'll be around if the system is changed to a republic. The gang at the top will do what they do best, i.e. take care of themselves and wish the rest of us 'good luck'.

I'm fed up with the lot of them.

Winifred said...

Oh so true! The posh boys at the top will always serve themsleves well. That hasn't changed over the centuries!

Just wish we could skip past Chalie & Camilla to Wiliam & Kate, they would certainly be more popular!

PhilipH said...

Thanks for popping in Winifred. I'm sure the majority of people would agree with you.

Ankit Ron said...

you have a good knowledge of Cricket you Can play daily online ,live cricket games,
cricket online games, best cricket games, play cricket online, cricket game online at best cricket games app for android phones to win real
cash and amount to instant approve in your bank or Paytm wallet.
play cricket online