Prince Philip - what a man

Sometimes there are people with apparently controversial sides who, when they depart, turn out to be universally loved (sometimes parochially, sometimes globally), greatly lamented and badly missed, the controversies completely brushed aside.  David Bowie, Peter Cook, Paul Foot ...  the list goes on, and evidently includes Prince Philip.

Since it is clearly shameless obituary name-dropping week, I will give you my personal micro-story.

Prince Philip was Colonel in Chief of my army corps, in which role I met him several times as any soldier does.  We commemorate a particular anniversary every 25 years and, supportive and active as ever, he presided over the celebration that fell in the 1990s, when he would have been in his 70s.  He congratulated us all on the foregoing quarter-century, wished us well for the next occasion 25 years hence, and concluded with the words: "... but I can tell you one thing - I shan't be there to celebrate it with you!".

Well, he was - and he did. 

What a man.

ND

Prince Charles Knows His History, But ...

He may have poor control of his tongue and a shaky grasp of his constitutional position: but the heir to the throne certainly knows what he's talking about when comparing Russian actions in Ukraine with the pre-war behaviour of Germany.  In his many cross-border adventures, Adolph always liked to make sure there was a pretext - ideally a staged "border incident" of some kind - which would justify steaming in after a bit of Lebensraum.

But ...

... in letting fly with his A-level history to complete strangers, Price Charles is so far out of line it's not even worth asking the US Coastguard to find him.  If anything will see off the British Monarchy it's not Salmond or some Ozzie republican, it's the next monarch himself.  What does it take to shut him up ?

Our constitution is a grand, quirky thing.  Read this depressing essay to remind yourself what you get with a strutting politician as head of state.  But everyone needs to stick to the rules !

ND

Arise Lord Quango....

It was a valiant effort in defense of the Monarchy yesterday by BQ, but it is not going to wash with me:

No, no and no again to Consitutional Monarchy.

A nice try Bill but I am not falling for it. My argument is not about money as I entirely agree with you that the cost/benefit of Monarchy vs some sort of Presidency will probably work out better for the Monarchy.

My belief rests on the social impacts and thus, sadly, I am even for once of Mark Wadsworth's side even though I am a committed Home Owener.
The biggest issue today in the UK is social mobility. Poor people struggle to get on and one of the key reasons behind this is the built into our social structure. The people at the top are born into wealth and power and literally cannot be removed. It's a terrible incentive for the people in the Country and creates and feeds the terrible obsession with class that blights our nation.

The US simply does not have this. The Kardahsians are royalty today, for five minutes, the Clintons were too, it will be someone else next week. Also the kardashians are no marks, I think this is a good thing. They will be replaced, it is not some dynasty that will last 1000 years.
Finally, we need a president to have some power, where the Queen has none the Prime Minister is too powerful, a President could have powers to block, legitimately, unjust legislation should it ever be attempted by future extreme Governments of any colour.
Finally, to the comments, people say imagine President Blair! OK but imagine President Boris or even President Sugar. Surely more useful than someone who goes to the Races and opens the odd school. I would even vote one day for a President  Prince George, why not, as long as we can vote and he has to campaign.