this has to be a troll....

oh wait

>>443102

Didn't take long.

>Phince Philip dien on 9th April 2021.[8] The Prince Philp movement is expected to go into a month of mouring. This will include fasting, drinking tea and casual dolphin rape. Prnce Charles will replace him as their living spirital leader.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip_Movement

It took Nicholas Witchell 28 minutes to get on BBC News.

Slightly disappointing, I had assumed that he'd be on 24/7 standby.

Has anyone blamed Meghan yet?

>>443107

She did him in with her WAP.

Natural causes? Nothing to get excited about.

Switch the radio on. It's all sad music only on every radio station. I thought they were only going to do that for the Queen.

>>443106
Probably rubbed one out to calm his nerves.

>>443110
Damn, they even got Shaun fucking Keaveny. This country, I can't stand this bollocks.

>>443102
Good night sweet prince

Very sad. The line in the BBC article on outliving nearly everyone who knew him reminded me of my grandmother saying the same thing in her 90s when, seeing the end, she told us that there's nobody to invite to the funeral.

Will we get a special bank holiday?

>>443116
>Brits will not get a bank holiday on the day of Prince Philip's funeral but the country has entered a period of mourning.
>The UK has entered a national period of mourning which will last until the day of the funeral, when people will still be expected to go to work.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/brits-given-public-holiday-day-23883710

Christ almighty, I might be a republican, but if this is how mental the country goes when some elderly do-nothing racist drops dead then I think I was the Queen to live forever.

>>443118

Now, now. A bit more respect on this day of mourning.

>>443118
Yeah but he was a funny racist. If it's homorous and not malicious then it's alright.

Everyone's a little bit racist.

We had a sweepstake on at work over when he was going to go. He's taken that long I don't remember who had April.

>>443121

https://deathlist.net/

I guess he had been a hot pick for some time.



Not sure I want to see Betty White go.

They're still on about it on the radio. I'm just glad he didn't die during Line of Duty.

>>443123
He was very obviously H. I'll bet he even sent Fayed a finger out of the freezer when he stepped out of line.

>>443124
There's four H's now, or something.

>>443123

It'll be non-stop Prince Philip until 6am.

40 kilowatt sound system, lightshow and lasers, tight but polite security, tickets available from all good outlets.

>>443125
Right, but we've already seen three of them. It makes sense why they can't seem to touch him. Everyone knows that if you cross him he'll put you in a pillar in Paris.

>>443127
He's a real pillar filler of the community.

Now, were they close enough that this will somehow jolt her out of her immortality?

Are there any pictures of Phil and DMX in the same room?

>>443130
Well now I'm confused. First they insisted he wasn't dead, now they are saying he is dead. It's like that Friends episode.

Radio 1 is only playing downtempo instrumental music to avoid the slightest possibility of causing offence. It's basically turned into Chill lo-fi beats to grieve to.

>>443132
Radio 2 is similar. It's either Elgar or David Gray.

>>443132

I bet they haven't played this like they did when Princess Di died:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koDsG8bXuKY

This is insane! I feel like I'm living in Soviet Union, except at least those cunts had a government that built fucking houses.

>>443134
24 years on and I can still feel the annoyance I had when they cancelled Dennis the Menace because of Diana's death.

>>443135
Prepare for the patriotism angle to be ramped up, and keep an eye on the news stories in the background, Boris will use this and it's going to be dragged out for some time.

>>443135
I've felt the same today too - the BBC is acting weird.

I've had BBC1 on all afternoon and evening while working on a Power Point presentation. It's been a bit repetitive over the hours, but I guess at some point, there is only a finite number of things you can report besides the actual fact that he has died.

>>443140
You are allowed to turn over.

>>443141
I'm not so sure anymore.

It's not that hard to remain ignorant if you want to, lads. If I hadn't come on here today I wouldn't even have found out.

>>443134
I guess they can't have Dead Flag Blues by Godspeed You Black Emperor, because it has the word "Dead" in the title. Although the special sadness playlist at my work had lots of sad songs about broken hearts. I used the presence of these songs to infer that this is not what Prince Philip died of.

>>443141

Every single BBC station was broadcasting the same eulogising of him earlier today, it really felt like we were in North Korea or something.

I know you lads hate Spotify but as far as I can tell they haven't interrupted my day with the 'breaking news' that a 99 year old greek has died.

Do people really give that much of a fuck about Prince Philip?

>>443148
I, for one, don't even own a spotify.

>>443120
I get the feeling he wasn't exactly an Women's Institute man, but just settled into his ways in the 1920s and never changed.

>>443143
Is it though? They've just binned BBC4 completely. Can't have people watching old episodes of Top of the Pops after a ninety-nine year old died at home, in bed of natural causes.

>>443155

Looks like Dave isn't bothered. And that's what counts.


They're even going to show Insert Name Here tomorrow night. My favourite!

>>443137
>keep an eye on the news stories in the background, Boris will use this and it's going to be dragged out for some time.

>>443155
I am most peeved about BBC4. I'm not entirely sure why canning it is necessary. It's the only BBC channel I watch FFS.

Yeah okay, this is a lovely photo of them both.

>>443163
Shut up, you muppet.

The extent of my interest runs to having a laugh at anyone who feigns interest, positive or negative. As if it matters or affects anyone at all.

>>443157
How can they make Indy 5 when there's only 3 Indy films?

>>443174
The site I see that on seems to portray it (and, apparently, some automated tweets that went out after his death but were subsequently deleted) as being huge blunders. Good on them, the more they blow inconsequential bullshit out of proportion the stupider they look.

>>443175
Labour leaking this to sabotage themselves is a blunder. It's also bad optics at a time when they're getting flak for taking the piss out of the flag or whatever that drama is.

>>443174
I used to like Guido, but I wish they stuck to doing the type of journalism that no one else is doing rather than this type of petty shite.

>>443176
It's nothing.
What is something is whatever the fuck Rishi and Cameron have been doing.

>>443177>>443177
I still get the feeling sometimes Guido is a massive joke that it's audience don't get.

>>443179
He tries to be anti-establishment as hinted at by his use of guy fawkes as a mascot but in reality he spends most of his time pumping out "LABUR HATE ARE CUNTRY" propaganda. Is that what you mean?
It worked for him when labour was in power but since 2010 it's just been a death spiral into tabloid level nonsense.

>>443176
Why would someone leak this? That was my first thought when I heard this, why the fuck would you bother doing this? Are there actual Tory infiltrators in the party or is that wishful thinking on my part so I don't have to admit that my entire political outlook is tethered to the thickest, most self-serving, pack of fucking morons ever to grace British politics?

>>443181

I think active mid-level people in labour are probably the kind who want to 'expose' the corruption in the system so badly they don't even think about the consequences.

They confuse disruption with 'making a difference'.

>>443181
Is it worth including the possibility there wasn't much political meaning behind it at all and that some people just enjoy drama and chaos?
I'm not sure if that's the most likely possibility, or if i'm lying to myself because I find the idea of everyone being a clown more comforting than the idea of everyone being a clown.

Very shrude tactic to die now. Popular opinion has been turning on the royal family. This should head that off.

(A good day to you Sir!)

>>443185

>Popular opinion has been turning on the royal family

Somebody unfoundedly pulling the race card on them isn't the same as "popular opinion turning".

I never liked Meghan, from day one. And really not at all because she's African-American, to use the most neutral term possible, but because she has no respect for the institution that is the Royal Family in this country. I can understand that somebody who grew up in Murrika is ambivalent at best towards concepts like monarchy or nobility. But if you are, then maybe it's not a good idea to get married to an actual prince (and not one from a Disney movie) in the first place.

>>443186
>because she has no respect for the institution that is the Royal Family in this country
Why should anyone? Frankly it's an embarrassment that they haven't all been quietly retired from public life.

>>443187

Near-enough two out of three Britons want to keep the Monarchy. Pretty much the only ones who have taken a noteworthy hit in popularity are Harry and Meghan themselves.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/03/12/public-opinion-harry-and-meghan-falls-new-low-afte

>>443188

Near-enough two out of three Britons are of below average IQ, what's your point?

>>443189

>Near-enough two out of three Britons are of below average IQ

You leave me no doubt.

>>443186
Is it bad of me that I don't care for the royals at all but I have a knee-jerk distaste for marrying in an American? When you tell me that Catholics can't be royals I'm discomforted, but were you to propose we ban Americans I'd be quite for it.
I know it'll probably sound like some kind of racist dogwhistle, but it's nothing like that. Well, it's quite prejudiced against Americans, obviously - but it's nothing racial. The royal family are the head of a massive multiethnic commonwealth and I'd be all for them marrying in a way that more accurately reflects that commonwealth's makeup - but that sort of makes me more steadfast in my view: You've got an entire commonwealth of wonderful people out there and you married a yank? Edward VIII had to abdicate for that...

Normally being a right-on lefty kind of person, I'm not sure if this is merely an eccentric view, ordinary background anti-Americanism, or a genuinely nasty prejudice which is unacceptable to hold in the modern age.
I suppose it's hard to disentangle it all. I'm not "really" prejudiced against Americans, it's more like a political position that has probably come from the same slightly mad part of my mind that gives the impression of being secretly bitter we no longer have an Empire and so easily accept that America dominates the world in general and English language culture in particular.

>>443190

Yep. Some of them even bring up voting and opinion polls as though they're relevant to the monarchy.

>>443192
Any other Duke of Sussex would be 20 points ahead

>>443186

Well judging by the tone your post I would assume if the queen started ripping the heads off commoners and drinking their blood you would still be supportive.

I suspect if princes were being exposed as peadophiles you probably still wouldn't care.

>>443189
I don't think you know what average means. 2/3 is bigger than 1/2 by mathematical proof you are thick.

>>443193

I don't fancy their chances in the World Cup after losing one of their most lucrative sponsors though, Alan. The double whammy of losing their ex-Coach must also be weighing heavy on their minds as we prepare for the new season.

>>443195

I'm really sorry mate, I completely overestimated your intelligence when I said that. Go back and read it with the understanding that "near enough" is a vague enough qualifier to make your point irrelevant.

>>443191

I think it is like being brought up in religion you leave, even when you think you have untangled yourself from it, there are underlying concepts that somehow stick about what it 'ought to be' that you seem to care about.

>>443197
>I wasn't wrong coz I used weezle words.

I want to believe I missed the nod and the wink contained in your statement, I really do. But your aggressive defence leads me to conclude you were 100% serious and are deflecting now thick lad.

>>443199

Not my weasel words, I was mockingly using the same words that you, or the lad you share your brachronic masturbatorl with, used in >>443188.

>>443200

Ah fair enough lad I didn't read the post above because I assumed it was tripe. my bad.

>>443201

One out of two is near-enough right.

>>443172 I know right. People keep telling me there's a 4th but I think they mean the young indy TV show.

Friday's Primetime (7pm-11pm) viewers compared with Friday, April 2:
BBC1: -6%
ITV: -60%
BBC2: -65%
C4: -8.5%

The most-watched TV show on the day Prince Philip died: Gogglebox at nearly 4.2m views.
So much for those going red and blue, frothing white at the mouth. They weren't interested in it either.

>>443203
I think it's to avoid confusion with Independence Day, like how Windows skipped 9.

>>443191
Americans are very culturally dominant. If you support a diverse and multicultural society, you don't want the unstoppable force to overwhelm the other cultures that are just starting to blossom in its absence.

It's kind of like how I am somewhat less of a right-on lefty, hating when people promote multiculturalism in this country because it's always, always, either Indians, laplanderstanis or Poles. I find myself thinking, "Not these buggers again." Just once, I want to meet a Venezuelan or a Kazakh or an Uzbek or a Lithuanian or a Laotian. And it feels disingenuous to be told we have everyone in the world here when really the only outsiders we meet are the ones we've all met already.

>>443204
I mean, if you're still watching at 7pm you've probably seen it already. Do you have any statistics for, say, 5pm? Or 1pm?

>>443208
No, but I'm not making an argument based on absent statistics.

>>443191

I do sympathise, as another lefty (although a relatively non-PC one) I feel almost a complete indifference about the monarchy. I don't necessarily support them but I find it a peculiar chip people have on their shoulder when they vehemently oppose it.

I've generally no strong feelings either way when I hear criticism of ot from a European or fellow Brit, but when ever a Yank starts, my mind jumps right to "Hang on, you can keep your mouth shut, prick" and I feel deeply and instinctually defensive about it.

In fact I seem to recall that's the exact moment I went off Doug Stanhope when I was younger.

>>443211
I think I remember the exact Doug Stanhope routine you're talking about. It was on some Charlie Brooker programme, wasn't it? "Hold on, your country has kings and princesses? Do you also have wizards, and elves?" It's a moronic take but I did think it was pretty funny.

Probably eight or nine years ago, David Mitchell on some panel show made another observation which I supported a lot more. "If we get rid of the Queen, we'd have to give David Cameron a palace, and I don't like that."

>>443191
>The royal family are the head of a massive multiethnic commonwealth and I'd be all for them marrying in a way that more accurately reflects that commonwealth's makeup

I'm disappointed that royals don't seem to shack up anymore. There was a time when Harry could've potentially forced his way into being the next Japanese Emperor, forged a link with the Thai monarchy, legitimised some republic's former royals or even shacked up with one of the petty royals in the Commonwealth to generate a huge local following.

But no, he married a boat whore. Was he trying to bring America into the commonwealth but only a C-lister would agree to it?

>>443191
>The royal family are the head of a massive multiethnic commonwealth and I'd be all for them marrying in a way that more accurately reflects that commonwealth's makeup
Does seem odd to single out Meghan for that when the other one married a Brit. I think?

>>443214
>If we get rid of the Queen, we'd have to give David Cameron a palace
Well, would we, though?

>The BBC has received complaints about the amount of television coverage it gave to the Duke of Edinburgh's death.

>The broadcaster suspended planned scheduling across BBC One and BBC Two to air special coverage after the duke died at Windsor Castle on Friday, aged 99. The BBC later put a dedicated form on its website to allow viewers to complain about the TV coverage. Broadcasters such as Channel 4 and ITV also adjusted schedules after the news.

>The BBC declined to comment on the number of complaints it had received about its coverage. In an earlier statement, it said there would be "special coverage across all BBC networks to mark his life of extraordinary public service", with planned scheduling suspended.

>BBC Radio 4 and Radio 5 Live also aired special programming charting Prince Philip's life, while BBC Four was paused and displayed a message directing viewers to switch over for a "major news report". As a result of the rolling news coverage on Friday, the final of Masterchef, which was due to air at 20:30 BST on BBC One, was not aired.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56703437

>>443217>>443214
I don't see why we would. I'm quite sure the head of state, assuming we even need one, could live in a, by international standards, modest house in London like the PM does. Or Chequers? Does the PM even go to Chquers anymore? I think May had some arms dealers round for dinner a few years back.

>>443220
>>443217
The problem with getting rid of the monarchy is the root and branch reform that elevates the PM to a position of embodying the nation. It would end up similar to how Americans treat their president complete with an elaborate coronation ceremony.

It's inevitable, you get rid of the Crown and quickly hit the argument that we can't possibly have the symbol of British pomp living in a townhouse infested with mice. Things only escalate from there like some kind of self-moving stairs bringing whomever is stood at the bottom to a new destination. Some may argue that they can see or can use systems maps to know where we are heading but until we complete the cycle we will not know for sure and travelling back down would take great effort. And what if we don't move in time, will we be crushed under the giant gears of this machine?

>>443220
>>443221
Look, all of this assumes the Prime Minister will assume the position of head of state. It doesn't necessarily have to be this way. For instance the Green Party's current policy is for the Speaker of the House to be the head of state.

If the head of state is meant to be a purely ceremonial role and the queen is allegedly noninterventionist it doesn’t matter who it is, the prime minister is already the head of the legislative and executive I don’t get peoples harrumph like they weren’t defacto ruling the country all along people seem to have additional imagined powers they would need over what they already do.

Stick one of the law lords in as head of state would be my alternative choice. it would be symbolic of the importance of the rule of law, and would easily be pompous enough to appease the royalists.

>>443223
>appease the royalists
Have you not been awake for past day? You can't appease these people and they're an overwhelming majority.

>>443224
Oh, are we doing that thing where if someone says they're in favour of something we pretend that means they're a frothing at the mouth zealot because there is no middle ground and everyone has to be at polar extremities?

>>443225
I'm not saying they'd strap bombs to themselves and become The Telegraph ISIS. However, there's barely any room in this country for a discussion about getting rid of the monarchy. I don't see how you wouldn't be publically pilloried for trying to force such a dicsussion. It's not an entirely British phenomenom, the Spanish had a certifable crook for a king and it doesn't seem to have caused much fuss. The powers that be are simply too deeply ingrained and most people are at best not arsed, at worst convinced a lady with a shiny hat is the only thing standing between them and the Socialist Republic of Gay Iranians in the Maghreb.

>>443221
Do you think we could give ourselves a governor general? Just pick some random civil servant and make them the queen's agent, only we don't have a queen.

It's the only type of constitution I find myself comfortable with. Presidencies are intolerable, Prime Ministers as head of state are undesirable, hereditary monarchies are objectionable, but having a local appointed as a middling civil servant who every so often goes along to have tea with dignitaries, notionally on behalf of a monarch half a planet away? I can live with that. What difference does it make if they are acting on behalf of an abolished monarchy in place of an active one?