What a star-crossed life! Aren't you glad to have been born 'a commoner'?

It's the end of an era, and will be even more so when the queen dies. It will be interesting to see what changes will occur at that time, whether Charles or William will be the monarch. I'm sure the plans are already in place for a transition when the time comes.

stacey, so far I've never read anything but that Prince Charles will be next on the throne, according to the laws of succession. Many people might prefer William, but I don't believe that will happen until Charles's reign is over.

Given Prince Charles's age, 72, it would not be surprising that plans are in place for the next two successions.

They had a long marriage and Prince Phillip was quite the handsome man in his youth. Condolences to the queen.

He was quite fortunate to have lived to such a ripe old age, mostly in good health. Viewed from afar, he's been puzzling at times and either because of his secondary status (relative to the monarch) or his nature, or both, he's never had the public visibility or apparent affinity for same as others in his family. Spouses of monarchs in other European countries seem to lead lives with more public activity and contact than he ever did but I could be wrong about that. That could also be that the British (really English) monarchy has maintained more distance from the public and aloofness than those in other countries.

I'm sad for the queen too. Phillip was her wild side and advisor and the person who who helped bring normalcy to her unique life.

I've read speculation that the Queen may step down in the next year. I think the title of King would go to Charles. I don't see him stepping aside for several years. Queen Elizabeth was only 25 when she became queen. She was very young and maybe didn't get to be the parent she would have wanted to be because of her royal duties. I think they want to allow William some time to enjoy family life with his children if they can. Prince Charles may have inherited some pretty good genes. He could possibly be King for close to thirty years.

the British (really English) monarchy has maintained more distance from the public and aloofness than those in other countries

Actually the Windsors are known for undertaking an effort to sell themselves to the public that began some time ago. With for instance Edward and the Queen Mother having won the hearts of many during the Blitz by making numerous in person (and on camera) appearances at bombed sites and rubbing elbows there.

"This is why back in the 1930's it was seen by Parliament necessary for Edward VIII to relinquish the throne before his coronation took place, else the country and 'Empire' would be stuck with him."

I know nothing about this otherwise but Wikipedia tells a different tale. It says that Edward VIII became King upon the death of his father. He presided at the State Opening of Parliament in 1936. He was King for just shy of 11 months, when he decided to abdicate as one of three choices given him by the Prime Minister.

Any clarification would be appreciated insofar as this link to the Wikipedia piece is concerned:

Edward VIII

Yes, Elmer, Edward automatically became King on the death of his Father but it is at the Coronation where the binding oath is taken by the sovereign plus the anointing, blessing and consecration that marks out a 'path' for the King or Queen for the rest of their life.

Couple of points.

Edward VIII acceded but abdicated before his coronation. So that statement is correct.

It was King George VI, the queen’s father, who toured with the Queen Mother during the war, not Edward. He’d already gone.

And as vee_new said, the D of E was very high profile here and in the commonwealth with a public schedule as heavy as the Queen’s.

Thanks and condolences on your nation's loss.

I saw a report this morning saying that the BBC has received some number of complaints from people who believe that its coverage of Prince Philip's death has been excessive. Just how many complaints were received wasn't disclosed.

I'd be curious to learn from any UK-based folks whether they view such complaints as being valid or not.

Yes it was George of course - typing "Edward" was a mistake.

In this country, a rapper's death got more press than Phillip's which I found mindblowing.

lily, you should know by now that there's little "news" in the news. American media outlets follow popular culture and sensational stories - murders, fires, car accidents, court trials, entertainment industry people, salacious stories about people in the public eye, etc. Broadcast network "news" shows are more focused on providing entertainment than on news because the general public isn't really interested in hard news.

If you want "news", you need look to sources other than TV and radio.

I’m not in the UK, but our morning newspaper today had no less than six full pages, including the front page about Prince Philip. I found the articles interesting.

"Never at a loss for pithy words" - so descriptive, love it. I bet he kept his wife on her toes and smiling with his turn of a phrase.

Oh yes blfenton!

I remember him visiting Calgary and being given a white Smithbilt hat and his remark.

“The Duke, upon receiving it, remarked that he could perhaps use it to carry 10 gallons of water, or as a flower pot.“

He made me laugh 😆

Elmer, there was certainly much coverage of the Duke's life on TV, radio and in the press (most of it obviously prepared many months ago) but then he had lived a very long and interesting life. There will always be people who complain, as there were those who found fault with him during his lifetime and nitpicked when he made what they considered to be 'inappropriate' off the cuff remarks.

I am no great Royal Watcher but found this interesting BBC article which helps to illustrate how his character was formed.

Vee

Philip's Early Years

There and elsewhere there will always be people who complain about their favorite things being preempted. Here during our active tornado season with several of them hitting in the immediate area people were complaining because the information was not necessary.

Commercial news sources exist to sell ads. So stories are chosen that it is thought will get and keep their target market looking.

It's the same thing here - all the chatter on the forums is to the host site just a way to build content intended to serve as a means to attract viewers to what it has to sell.

I think the BBC was the one hit with the most complaints in the UK, and they're not commercial. They wiped out regular programming on both main channels to carry coverage of the Duke's death, and people couldn't get their fix of football or East Enders. Here in Oz, there's been extensive coverage but not to the exclusion of the sacred gods of sports and reality tv.

"I think the BBC was the one hit with the most complaints in the UK, and they're not commercial."

We could have read different articles but the one I read said this is precisely the reason why the BBC got complaints. BECAUSE the BBC is mostly taxpayer funded, people consider themselves more than just normal viewers but also financial supporters who should have a say in programming choices. Some number thought the coverage of Prince Philip's death to be excessive and so complained about it.

My comment was in response to the one immediately above. And my point was that the BBC didn't provide that level of coverage as click bait for its commercial interests.

I skipped over the preceding comment but found your words missing the point. Also, as an FYI, the BBC doesn't broadcast live regular league football matches so their programming choice in favor of Prince Philip coverage isn't depriving anyone of football.

Is the trite internet term "click bait" ever used for TV ratings and commercial viewership as you've used it?

Another point .... the BBC isn’t even partially funded through taxation. FWIW, ITV, the main commercial broadcaster, also scrapped their normal schedule. Viewing figures for both broadcasters plummeted on Friday, a reflection of the minimal importance attached to the royals by many Brits. Once the Queen’s gone I suspect this kind of palaver will not be repeated.

Rather charmingly, the BBC set up a dedicated line and an online form for complaints to itself, about itself.

BBC is NOT taxpayer funder. Chief source of funding is through the licensing fee. If you own a TV (or even stream from say, Amazon, on another device) in the UK, you have to pay a license fee even if you never watch BBC.

From the horse's mouth: https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-51376255

A very funny man, tricking his wife, saying "Good Morning, Ma'am" as she passed by.

"Chief source of funding is through the licensing fee."

I'm sorry you don't seem to understand this. Let's try a parallel:

We'll pass a new law in your state. Instead of fees for TVs, we'll impose a license fee on cars. A governmental agency will send you a bill every year to pay your fee, so long as you own that car.

A fee imposed by law is a tax. People who pay it are taxpayers.

That's how the British TV license works. I've paid such a fee in Europe myself and believe me, citizens view it as a tax no different than any other. Most European countries have such taxes. Some used to have such taxes for radios too, even in cars, which was payable annually in addition to the license fee (tax) on cars. It funds national "public" broadcast stations in most places.

I can't speak for how taxes are gathered elsewhere, but in the UK 'tax' is a compulsory contribution to state revenue levied by the Government. The BBC licence fee does NOT go the Government, but to the BBC. No governmental agencies are involved. The BBC is not an arm of the UK Govt. but an independent corporation.

The insurance mandate in the US sure feels like a tax, can be paid like a tax, but it’s not necessarily paid to the government so it’s not a tax.

vee, there may be differences in how terms are used on each side of the Atlantic but a charge imposed by law is a tax over here. As I mentioned, I lived in Continental Europe where a annual license fee was imposed as with the BBC fee. The license fee was debated by and set by that country's parliament, and while the proceeds went to the broadcasting entities, it was a tax all the same. Imposed by law, mandatory and failure to pay it was violation under the law. Isn't that description applicable to the BBC license fee?

I’ve never met a single person who regards the as a tax. People moan about the cost but I do not believe they confuse it with a tax. It is not collected by a government agency. It is collected by the BBC and unlike taxes you don’t have to pay it if you don’t use the service. I have always had topay taxes for roads, schools, hospitals, the military etc. For many years I did not pay a TV license becayse I You might just as well refer to your gym membership as a tax. That’s a fee imposed by law In so far as if you don’t pay you don't get the service. I don’t know which bit of

‘Europe‘ you paid such a fee but one size does not fit all. Each country is different.

Also, just to clarify ci-lantros comment you do not need a TV license to watch Netflix, Amazon etc unless you are watching a live stream.

"I’ve never met a single person who regards the as a tax."

As I said, I don't doubt that the term has different connotations in different English speaking countries.

A charge imposed by law is a tax. Too many examples to cite. How about the central London congestion fee? I'd consider that to be a tax, how about you?

Jasdip -- that is a lovely and sweet photo, one I had never seen before. Thanks for posting it. It certainly shows the true relationship between them. You can see her "reaction" very well, and I suspect that incident brought warmth and sunshine to her day. A man who can make you smile unexpectedly is an excellent choice, and a fortunate one, to be your life's companion. In their younger days, he used to chase her through the hallways of the palace, she giggling, I understand. Another lovely image...

The London congestion charge is more like a toll. You only pay it if you use it. I started to say a tax is different, but then sales and hotel occupancy taxes are similar, you only pay it if you use/buy the thing being taxed.

Posted with many errors. My iPad gets stuck sometimes and the only way to shift it is to post and then edit. You saw it before I’d edited.

As to the congestion fee, no it's not a tax in my book because you don’t have to pay it if you don’t go into the zone. You don’t have to eat in a restaurant either but if you do you pay. Is that a tax? People who have no children still pay for education. That’s what I’d call a tax. Fees are optional. Taxes aren’t.

"You only pay it if you use it. I started to say a tax is different, but then sales and hotel occupancy taxes are similar, you only pay it if you use/buy the thing being taxed. "

All taxes are the same, if you don't have or do what's taxed, you don't pay it. There's an excise tax on alcohol and car tires- don't buy any, you don't have to pay it. Sales taxes and VAT the same - don't buy the article, don't pay the tax. Same with vehicle taxes - don't own a vehicle, don't pay the annual tax. Just like owning or not owning a TV.

It doesn't matter but it's clear different usages (and assumptions by individuals) explain the differences. Where I was, it was colloquially called alternatively the "Broadcast Tax" or "Broadcast fee", it's the same from place to place.

Some of you need to start a new topic. THIS one is supposed to be about Prince Philip's death/life. Not a place to continue the OT subject of taxation nor tv viewing in Britain.

Please, re-route yourselves.

A picture outside of context can be quite misleading. That photograph of the Queen and PP does not capture what the current caption claims. PP wore this ceremonial dress on several occasions; the cause of the smiling was a swarm of bees.

From Snopes:

This is a genuine photograph of Prince Philip and Queen Elizabeth. However, the claim that Philip was “pranking” the queen by disguising himself as a palace guard is inaccurate.

This photograph was taken by Chris Young of The Associated Press in 2003, and shows the prince and queen shortly before a ceremonial review of the Grenadier Guards at Windsor Castle. While viewers may find Philip’s appearance bemusing, Philip wore this ceremonial dress on numerous occasions.

So if it wasn’t a prank, then what was making the queen laugh? It was the bees.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/prince-philip-prank-queen/

Aw, shucks, Zalco! There's my bubble burst. Guess I am still naive at the age of 75. Ah, well, I still like my viewpoint as expressed, even if it is a wrong interpretation of this photo!

Roxanna, I totally agree with the sentiment, those two, to me, appear to be very good together. As my mother always said, people can never know about other people's marriages, and she was talking about friends, not distant celebrities, but I believe anyway ;-)

Someone reported the other day on having followed the Queen and Prince Philip for some distance in an automobile and that she'd been laughing almost the whole time. That pleased me, for I've always thought of her as being almost entirely quite reserved.

I think she found him not only her support and stay in life, but the light and joy of her life, as well.

He visited Canada 70 times, they reported, was honorary colonel of a local army brigade, and sometimes was here to offer a prize, part of a major effort, I forget its name, to encourage widespread self development by youth.

As for government-imposed fees being a tax, when a police person stops my car, I must have a licence as a driver and as an owner which I agree to be taxes. But if I don't have the vehicle insured in regard to certain public liability issues, I'll be fined: I question calling that government imposed requirement a tax.

ole joyful

The BBC received 500,000 complaints about its wall to wall coverage of the death. That’s the most complaints it’s had in its history. That gives you some sense of the very mixed British attitudes to royalty.

Joyfulguy, I think you must be referring to the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme.

Actually, I suspect it tells you more about the British attitudes towards reality TV and soaps! ;)

Are you calling the Royal family a reality tv show :-)

Comments I've heard over the years about the monarchy and royal family from friends who are/were residents and natives of Old Blighty have been consistent with the mixed attitudes floral mentioned.