The wit and wisdom of Prince Philip

Post Reply New Topic

Prince Philip gets a bad rap. In my opinion, these quotes reveal he has a sharper mind than he's given credit for.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/ ... nce-philip

Compiled by John Hind The Observer, Sunday 21 June 2009

On age

We shall all be old one day - provided, of course, we can avoid being slaughtered on the roads or beaten up by some hooligan in a peace demonstration (1970)

To a blind woman with a guide dog

Do you know they have eating dogs for the anorexic now? (2002)

To his wife after her coronation

Where did you get that hat? (1953)

On turning 80

I'm not sure I recommend it. It's not so much the age, but trying to survive the celebrations (2001)

Arriving to open a youth centre in Brighton

Who are you burying today? (2007)

Meeting Nigeria's president, who was in robes

You look like you are ready for bed (1956)

To Russell Brand, about the woman next to him in a royal variety show line-up

She's got all the right stuff in all the right places (2007)

On Number 10's idea for Diana's funeral

F*** off - we are talking about two boys who have lost their mother (1997)

Told by Elton John of his gold Aston Martin

Oh, it's you that owns that ghastly car - we often see it when driving to Windsor Castle (2001)

To president Kenyatta during Kenya's independence, as the Union Jack was lowered

Are you sure you want to go ahead with this, old chap? (1963)

On death

In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation (1988)

To the General Dental Council

Dentopedalogy is the science of opening your mouth and putting your foot in it. I have been practising it for years (1960)

...

Told by president Obama of meetings already that day with the Chinese, Russians, Brown and Cameron

Can you tell the difference between them? (2009)

To a fashion writer at a world wildlife fund gathering

You're not wearing mink knickers, are you? (1993)

Winston Churchill's long lost twin brother...

That quote about turning 80 really made me laugh.

I can't remember any member of the Royal Family ever saying anything remotely profound.

Which is interesting because they could probably hire speechwriters to come up with good one liners.

Their very (very!) distant ancestors got where they were not because of brainpower but because they killed off all the challengers to their positions. So, they knew how to raise an army, and they knew how to inspire that army to kill people. Those skills are no longer needed. Prince Harry might have made a good soldier, but the Royal Army didn't want to send him to Afghanistan and then have to explain why the third in line for the throne died in a roadside bombing. Wills is getting army training, but it's more a formality than anything else-NOBODY is suggesting he lead troops into battle.

Once upon a time, the king made important policy decisions, until Queen Victoria decided she didn't want to. So the current English system evolved, with a unicameral legislature (the House of Lords is mainly window dressing) that makes all the decisions. The peerage seems to mainly exist for pomp and circumstance.

Actually, I think that Queen Elizabeth is fairly intelligent, but she has a Calvin Coolidge like philosophy-Coolidge was the president who once said that if you don't say anything you won't be called upon to repeat it, so everybody thought he was stupid, when he was translating Dante's Inferno into English from the original Italian because he wanted something to occupy his time. Philip isn't even English or even German, he's Greek or something, but he's spent most of his life in England. Greece no longer has a monarchy, which goes to show you how smart the Greek royals must have been.

Three of the four kids seem to have inherited Philip's dim bulb, maybe Prince Edward is a little smarter. Wills is more Diana's child, Harry is just bonkers, but Andrew's daughters seem to have inherited Grandmum's intelligence, at least they're smart enough to stay out of the Daily Mail.

Agreed with Henriksson, those brits are a bit odd for europeans, but they sure have a way with words sometimes, it's astounding.

This was just like when Jade Goody, Jo O'Meara and Danielle Lloyd bullied Shilpa Shetty.

That's not true - not all members of the Royal Family are a bit dull, just for the recent 300 years.

In the case of the UK that's not really true. The current family is on the throne because of the Act of Settlement 1701, which excluded anyone is a Catholic or is married with a Catholic from the Royal Succession. This excluded not just the House of Stuart, but also Members of the French Royal Family (in all about 70 persons) and invested the royal succession with the nearest Protestant relative, Sophia of Hanover. She died a few month prior Queen Anne, the last Stuart on the British/English throne, and so her son, George, Elector Duke of Brunswick/Hanover, became King George I.

Interestingly: The English dynasty, how was most successful in killing other Royals, the Tudors, had a remarkable record of obviously very intelligent monarchs. Henry VII, Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I were of remarkable intelligence (and in the case of the two later ones very well educated). The only candidate of the Tudor monarchs, which could be suspected of being a bit "thick", Queen Mary I ("the Bloody" or "the Catholic") was on her mother's side from the House of Aragon and a niece of Joanna of Castile (also called "Joanna the Mad", because she suffered from a madness, likely a severe form of schizophrenia) and therefore had a genetic risk.

---

BTW: Whilst other dynasties just killed fellows relatives by murder or on the battle field, the Tudors developed a nearly perfect system of judicial murder in which the killing is done "according to law".

Quite so. Queen Elizabeth I was a corker! Her speech to the troops at Tilsbury is a true classic. She had her dad's chutzpah and her mother's intelligence. King Henry VIII never knew quite how well he wrought.

Now I have an unrelated question: given the expense of having the monarchy, a useless bunch why haven't the Brits decided to chuck the monarchy and take the last step to becoming a genuine republic. They almost did it under Cromwell. If Cromwell and his friends were not such party poopers, England would have become a republic in the 17th century.

ruveyn

1) We like the ceremony

2) Someone has to be "officially" in-charge of the nation, we'd rather have a monarch than *shudders* a politician.

3) Its a net gain to our economy

What? just look at this one:

A masterpiece of dry wit combined with political commentry (can't tell the diffrence between left wing and right wing anymore)



Maybe, but British monarchs arn't supposed to favor any political party, I always thought she just went above the call of duty to true political neutrality.

I've always wondered about this. Why?

The real reason, and also the reason why the UK has no written constitution, is that the monarch is just to convenient for the politicians. The Royal Prerogatives, just think about the law making and treaty ratifying competences of the Privy Council, would be abolished in the case of a republic, even in the case of an written constitution.

In the current system the Prime Minister does control, formally via the Privy Council, the Royal Prerogatives and via his majority the House of Commons. The Lord Chancellor, how recommends the appointment of judges to the Monarch, is also a Minister of the Crown.

Compared with e.g. the power vested in the German Federal Chancellor, the current British system is close to a temporary dictatorship.

So that you know whose head to chop off when you have a revolution? Random chopping is frowned upon.

That is certainly true.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxmBp23W6nc[/youtube]

An there are states which do not have a formal "head of state": In Switzerland the "Head of State" (and in the same time the government) is a committee of seven "Federal Councillors" forming the "Federal Council". This council elects for a councillor for one year as "President of the Council", but this president is not a formal "Head of State". The Most Serene Republic of San Marino elects twice a year for the period of a half year two "Captains Regent" (Capitani Reggenti) which can act only together as head of state.

As seen states can work quite well with a formal head of state. In other states, even republics, the head of state is reduced to a mere ceremonial role, like in Germany, where the Federal President does only has some powers to make a decision with a limited time span in the case that the government looses its majority in lower house and parliament is in not the position to reform a new government. In this case the president can either keep the government and will allow the government to pass laws only the approval of the Upper House or call for a general election. In almost any other situation the German president is just the nice guy how signs the laws and gives speeches.

Last edited by Dussel on 25 Jun 2009, 10:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Phil's a funny guy.

Did you know they later brought out one on Prince Charles, called "The wit and wisdom of Prince Charles". It was empty... just blank pages. ha.