I wonder how this will affect the queen.

RIP Prince Philip

Harry and Meghan are on the way to the UK? They probably will be accused of stressing him out with that interview.

Does anyone know, why when they were exiled from Greece, they didn’t go to Denmark, if also Danish royalty?

I would highly recommend The Crown on Netflix in order to revamp the basic knowledge :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cr...s)?wprov=sfti1

FTFY.

"By March 1947, Philip had abandoned his Greek and Danish royal titles"

Tom

The Queen on her husband:

The Queen, in a speech to celebrate their golden wedding anniversary in 1997, paid a moving tribute.

“He is someone who doesn’t take easily to compliments,” she said.

“But he has, quite simply, been my strength and stay all these years, and I, and his whole family, and this and many other countries, owe him a debt greater than he would ever claim, or we shall ever know.”

That's quite a beautiful sentiment.

I would highly recommend _not_ watching some over-dramatised semi-fictional bullshit. There have been a number of documentaries about him and his family on the beeb and elsewhere over the last year or two, which will be much more informative, accurate and trustworthy.

Bravo Tom ! Must be the Canadian In you

I think the title was largely historic, the two branches of the family having been quite separate since the mid 19th century.

For a somewhat tongue-in-cheek life story, this is quite amusing.

That’s rather a very subjective opinion, as according to reviews, the series is based on true story, however it may not be always historically very accurate.

https://decider.com/2020/11/16/is-th...her-own-words/

Totally ignorant.

The Monarchy really does not have any say in the politics of the U.K. any more.

For example, people with hereditary peerages are no longer allowed to serve in the House of Lords (which basically only has the power to delay the passing of bills so more thought can be applied).

The members of the house of commons, where the real decisions are made, are directly elected by the people.

There's more to it than that but a country with a parliamentary democracy is pretty democratic compared with many others.

HRH RIP.

Fox & Friends are already onto it:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1829096.html

A Fox & Friends host linked Prince Harry and Meghan Markle to the death of Prince Philip just minutes after the announcement by Buckingham Palace, saying their recent public comments had “evidently” added to the 99-year-old’s “stress”.

Hm, no, not that I can see from the wiki.

"2010–present
The Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition agreed, after the 2010 general election, to outline clearly a provision for a wholly or mainly elected second chamber, elected by proportional representation. These proposals sparked a debate on 29 June 2010. As an interim measure, appointment of new peers would reflect the shares of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election.

Detailed proposals for Lords reform, including a draft House of Lords Reform Bill, were published on 17 May 2011. These included a 300-member hybrid house, of whom 80% would be elected. A further 20% would be appointed, and reserve space would be included for some Church of England archbishops and bishops. Under the proposals, members would also serve single non-renewable terms of 15 years. Former MPs would be allowed to stand for election to the Upper House, but members of the Upper House would not be immediately allowed to become MPs.

The details of the proposal were:[37]

The upper chamber shall continue to be known as the House of Lords for legislative purposes.
The reformed House of Lords should have 300 members of whom 240 are "Elected Members" and 60 appointed "Independent Members". Up to 12 Church of England archbishops and bishops may sit in the house as ex officio "Lords Spiritual".
Elected Members will serve a single, non-renewable term of 15 years.
Elections to the reformed Lords should take place at the same time as elections to the House of Commons.
Elected Members should be elected using the Single Transferable Vote system of proportional representation.
Twenty Independent Members (a third) shall take their seats within the reformed house at the same time as elected members do so, and for the same 15-year term.
Independent Members will be appointed by the Queen after being proposed by the Prime Minister acting on advice of an Appointments Commission.
There will no longer be a link between the peerage system and membership of the upper house.
The current powers of the House of Lords would not change and the House of Commons shall retain its status as the primary House of Parliament.
The proposals were considered by a Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform made up of both MPs and Peers, which issued its final report on 23 April 2012, making the following suggestions:[citation needed]

The reformed House of Lords should have 450 members.
Party groupings, including the Crossbenchers, should choose which of their members are retained in the transition period, with the percentage of members allotted to each group based on their share of the peers with high attendance during a given period.
Up to 12 Lords Spiritual should be retained in a reformed House of Lords.
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg introduced the House of Lords Reform Bill 2012 on 27 June 2012[38] which built on proposals published on 17 May 2011.[39] However, this Bill was abandoned[40] by the Government on 6 August 2012, following opposition from within the Conservative Party."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_...eform_Act_2014

Really?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...private-wealth

Imagine if it was Prince Philip who made that "racist" remark.

Edit: According to internet sources, Philip and the Queen did not make that remark.

I carefully used the phrase, "The Monarchy really does not have any say in the politics of the U.K. any more.".

Your link is to something that occurred fifty years ago.

Any link as to recently released fifty YO info has absolutely no bearing today?

Sounds to me like you obviously watched it!

Of course, its also a dramatisation, but it is very entertaining in my opinion.

I would highly _actually_ recommend it.

I never wrote that.

I do not believe that such a law amendment would be allowed to be passed today.

If you don't think that much has changed in Europe, or indeed the world in fifty years then it may be prudent to remember that only twenty years before that, Stalin was still in power in the Soviet Union and only a few years before that, the Germans had their concentration camps...