benefit shakeup for the royals

FTBFun

As you can't be arsed to use Google it seems:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh#Naval_service

ninky_2

FTBFun wrote: »

As you can't be arsed to use Google it seems:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh#Naval_service

nothing in there that shows he did anything to fight the germans / nazis. you might as well say churchill was a communist because the uk and stalinist russia were both fighting hitler's germany.

bendix

Once again, ninky lets a valid opinion of hers be ruined by dogmatic hyperbole.

There's no need to argue with ninky to make her views seem ridiculous; she does such a good job of that herself.

FTBFun

ninky wrote: »

nothing in there that shows he did anything to fight the germans / nazis. you might as well say churchill was a communist because the uk and stalinist russia were both fighting hitler's germany.

Seriously?

Well he was Mentioned in Dispatches at the Battle of Crete, which involved - you guessed it - Nazi Germany and its facist ally Italy.

There is also reference to him working on convoy duty, the main beligerent there being of course the Nazi U-boat fleet.

I would appreciate you actually reading the link properly next time.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

Once again, ninky let's a valid opinion of hers be ruined by dogmatic hyperbole.

There's no need to argue with ninky to make her views seem ridiculous; she does such a good job of that herself.

aren't you in hong kong yet?

bendix

ninky wrote: »

nothing in there that shows he did anything to fight the germans / nazis. you might as well say churchill was a communist because the uk and stalinist russia were both fighting hitler's germany.

That's a truly pathetic argument. Shame on you ninky.

ninky_2

FTBFun wrote: »

Seriously?

Well he was Mentioned in Dispatches at the Battle of Crete, which involved - you guessed it - Nazi Germany and its facist ally Italy.

There is also reference to him working on convoy duty, the main beligerent there being of course the Nazi U-boat fleet.

I would appreciate you actually reading the link properly next time.

yada yada.

godwin's law 2 a link to the daily mail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-379036/Prince-Philip-pictured-Nazi-funeral.html

hard to know where anti-semitism ends and "jealousy of jewish success" begins really isn't it....

bendix

I'm beginning to doubt your intelligence ninky, which is a shame. You're obviously bright, but your blinkered approach to looking only at things that support your preconceived notions is, frankly, the opposite of intelligence.

Even you must agree that the funeral in question was that of a family member. It was not a nazi funeral. It was the funeral of a family member, and there were some people in nazi uniforms in attendance, hardly surprising given it was in Germany in 1937.

Like I said before, you do more to make a mockery of your opinions than anyone else could.

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

i believe philip spent some of ww2 in the pacific but what exactly did he do to fight the germans?

some who fought in ''the war'' never saw a German. They were faced with other enemy in the second World War. While I personally do not sit comfortably with baying on a bout ''heroes'' it seems harsh to write off people in other areas of war effort.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

I'm beginning to doubt your intelligence ninky, which is a shame. You're obviously bright, but your blinkered approach to looking only at things that support your preconceived notions is, frankly, the opposite of intelligence.

Even you must agree that the funeral in question was that of a family member. It was not a nazi funeral. It was the funeral of a family member, and there were some people in nazi uniforms in attendance, hardly surprising given it was in Germany in 1937.

Like I said before, you do more to make a mockery of your opinions than anyone else could.

a fair point but you could equally say of philip's role in the navy that he wasn't there on priniciple but rather as a result of historical circumstance.

it's true we tend to put emphasis on the role of the individual when it is social structures and wider movements that really drive history.

i know i've been sidetracked into discussing the merits (or otherwise) of royal individuals (in response to the attack on blair as in individual). however it's really the structure of monarchy i have truck with.