It wasn't that long ago he recovered from an infection [1]. And I remember reading he is only a few more months from 100 years old!. Spending his life serving the country.
Rest In Peace
Rest In Peace
The man was almost 100 years old, almost 30 when India and many other countries got independence from British after a long multi-decade struggle, with many many innocent dead. Frankly I see him as a wealthy old man from a very influential family who should have done better. Am I wrong that this was my first though after seeing this comment? Am I supposed to feel sorry for the royal family and their lack of "freedom"?
Yes.
Thanks Phil.
Many old people, still alive, lived a good chunk of their lives in what was a British colony then and he was the prince then too. Neither was it that far back in history, nor was it harmless :) You can be indifferent like many others and celebrate the British monarchy, but I suppose I cannot, like many others.
The point is to let go of the decades old past.
There are probably valid reason why Indian hate the Brits. But not all period and all colonisation are bad and involves oppression. And I am sure there are some good involves that people excluded for their own interest. AFAIK Modern India is united to become one because of the Brits. The Turks also at one point ruled India.
To me the reaction in the UK (for example all BBC radio stations are broadcasting the same crap news about him all day) has been way more over the top than I expected, but I can see the impact he has had on UK diplomacy over the years but it still seems highly out of proportion.
The man had a very difficult upbringing, risked his life fighting Nazis and then did his family duty for the rest of his life. He was witty and funny until the end.
Gandhi was a pedophile who slept with young boys and girls almost his entire life, and who refused 'foreign medicine' (antibiotics) on the basis of principle for his dying wife, but took 'foreign medicine' (quinine) to save his own later. At the same time, leading a major liberation movement. History is complicated.
More like spending his life having the country serve him.
It's the minor royals who have it best, I think. Zara Tindall could walk down most roads in Britain and not be recognised - she gets the riches and privileges, but only a tiny fraction of the downsides experienced by her grandmother.
"In the car ride over, however, the importance of the meeting sunk in as Harry asked Meghan, "Do you know how to curtsy?" She told Oprah: "I thought genuinely that that was what happens outside. I thought that was part of the fanfare. I didn't think that's what happens inside. I said, 'But it's your grandmother.' He goes, 'It's the queen.' That was really the first moment that the penny dropped.""[0]
Per her telling of the story, we may concluded that Harry really never had a grandmother like many other people do. It seems it's always been 'formal' in the royal family. That the ideas of duty and royalty have come before family. That's not a life that I would want to live or a family I would want to have. That said, their wealth and privilege may make up for it. But it's not perfect.
[0]https://www.popsugar.com/celebrity/meghan-markle-oprah-inter...
These Royals cant spent their wealth like billionaires either. So wealth certainly isn't a thing to be worth considering. And I mean if that is all the stuff we could tell and see, imagine all the other things we dont. In a modern world, most people, even in the high middle class wouldn't want to trade what they have to what is considered to be privilege as Royal.
What would they spend it on? Fancy houses? Private transport around the world? Lavish vacations? They get all of those things for free already.
I suppose it wouldn't do for Prince Charles to buy a 200' yacht. But other than that, I'm not sure how much he, or any other royal, is suffering for not being able to spend their wealth like the rest of the 0.1%.
Spending like billionaires means political power or privately funded moonshot projects.
Perhaps they can't singlehandedly fund moonshot projects. But if that's the extent to which royals are hampered, then perhaps they have an alright deal after all, what with being born into a system where enjoy a lifestyle that would cost tens of millions to sustain for anyone else.
0. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-que...
They also have (use of) a royal train.
A 'curtsy' for your grandmother, the Queen, is a obviously a bit formal but it's not remotely irreproachable. It's literally just a form of greeting.
Japanese culture has a zillion of elements of common formality - literally entire modes of language - that are an every day occurrence.
Golden handcuffs are not actual handcuffs.
Unfortunately, Meghan seems to have captured the imagination for some reason.
Not to imply equivalence in magnitude, but people say say the same about people trapped in abusive relationships.
You stay rich, wealthy and influential and parlay your newfound celebrity into millions of dollars' worth of streaming media and book deals?
Oh no wait, sorry, they're just wealthy now but no longer obscenely wealthy. The horror.
The truth is, we may never know the psychological pressures they've endured, or will.
That could be said about literally everyone ever. So instead we look at the things that can actually be quantified, where I see nothing but net.
Robert Lacey claims that Prince Philip’s immediate response to the outcome of the 1999 republic referendum was, “What’s the matter with these people? Can’t they see what’s good for them?”
If it’s not clear to non-Australians, in the 1999 referendum we voted to keep the monarchy (though probably more through the phrasing of the question in the opinion of some)
From https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/prince-philip-duke-of-ed...*