Prince Philip in Toronto

[Guest Kenneth]

Prince Philip will be in Toronto on April 27 - I have heard nothing further about where and when exactly the ceremony will take place. These brief "working visits" by the members of our Royal Family usually don't get much attention, so the media's disinterest in this case is not surprising. But still for many Canadians his visit is important and we would like to know more.

[Guest American Woman]

In rain or shine, soldiers of The Third Battalion have been practicing for the upcoming Trooping of the Colours Parade in Toronto, Ontario. His Royal Highness Prince Philip, The Duke of Edinburgh will be presenting the Battalion with a new Regimental Colour at the parade. https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.456738034405260.1073741830.192286137517119&type=1


Presentation of A New Colour to the Royal Canadian Regiment 10 am. - Legislative Assembly, Queen's Park
Military Parade - 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. - Begins at Legislative Assembly and ends at Fort York

In one of the largest military parades every organized in Toronto, the Canadian Forces will honour all of those who died on our soil at the Battle of York on April 27, 1813 and the 200 years of military presence in Toronto since the war. More than 1,000 sailors and soldiers from the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian Army will march from Queen's Park down University Avenue and across Richmond Street, south on Portland Street past the War of 1812 monument and then on to the Fort York Armoury. The parade will include 13 marching bands, and a flourish of colourful ceremonial uniforms and Regimental Colours. http://www.toronto.ca/1812/events.htm

Edited April 23, 2013 by American Woman

[Guest Kenneth]

That's fantastic. Thanks for finding that.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Kenneth

[Guest American Woman]

You're welcome. Sounds like a very impressive ceremony/event!

[g_bambino]

These brief "working visits" by the members of our Royal Family usually don't get much attention, so the media's disinterest in this case is not surprising...

Not surprising at all, but still unfortunate. Some years we have quite a few tours by our Royal Family members, but only the government initiated ones get any attention. There were six royal tours in 2010, for example; but most nobody would know it. Most people think the royals only come here once every few years; in reality, some, like Prince Edward, come here at least once every year (he and his wife are so involved with Canada, they have a dedicated Canadian secretary and lady-in-waiting).

[ed.: link]

Edited April 26, 2013 by g_bambino

[Guest Kenneth]

Only in the last few hours or so have stories be posted agin about this. It looks like he'll be arriving at about 4 p.m. or so.

[Guest]

There'll be more interest once he has upset someone. It's inevitable.

[Guest American Woman]

Only in the last few hours or so have stories be posted agin about this. It looks like he'll be arriving at about 4 p.m. or so.

Sounds as if the 10:00am Presentation of A New Colour will be his only public appearance during the 24 hours that he will be in Canada.

You can watch his arrival live starting at 4:00 here: http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?playlistId=1.1254914

Edited April 26, 2013 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

There'll be more interest once he has upset someone. It's inevitable.

Actually, I don't think he's ever been considered an "interesting" Royal, has he? Media - wise.

[g_bambino]

There'll be more interest once he has upset someone. It's inevitable.

Mm... Especially in this country.

[Guest]

Actually, I don't think he's ever been considered an "interesting" Royal, has he? Media - wise.

Oh yes...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-philip-quotes-relive-65-1445185

[Guest Kenneth]

He's quite interesting to listen to if you've ever heard him interviewed - the media that focuses on he supposed gaffs has a republican agenda, and so their petty attempts to defame him are pathetic.

[guyser]

He's quite interesting to listen to if you've ever heard him interviewed - the media that focuses on he supposed gaffs has a republican agenda, and so their petty attempts to defame him are pathetic.

LOL

'Supposed gaffs' should be written as 'put foot in mouth numerous times' since not only are they documented gaffs, he continues to make them.

The man has been an ass many times, he gets forgiven and people move on.

He is a lightweight and wholly uninteresting.

[Guest Kenneth]

One of the worst attempts at trolling I've ever seen.

[guyser]

One of the worst attempts at trolling I've ever seen.

Trolling huh.

His gaffes are legion, and he has been a somewhat shady womanizer. His numerous affairs (alledged of course but pretty well known) should have tipped you off.

But hey, you can blow smoke up his kilt as much as you want. You like him.............fine , enjoy him.

[g_bambino]

The man has been an ass many times, he gets forgiven and people move on.

What makes someone an ass is, obviously, subjective. A few might be inclined to say you're an ass for calling Prince Philip an ass.

Equally, what constitutes a "gaffe" seems to be pretty open to interpretation. Getting angry at an incompetent driver is a gaffe, I suppose, to those who want it to be. Ditto for a oomplaint about Madonna's music, an expression to eschew time wasted on mixed up protocol so as to just eat, instead, or 90% of what the Mail listed in its article (though it did have to collect up 65 of these so-called gaffes; forced them to really stretch the definiion of the word way beyond its scope of meaning).

He is a lightweight and wholly uninteresting.

A distinguished naval officer. Founder of a now global award scheme that gets kids involved in activity, community, and entrepreneurship. An effective fundraiser for a number of charities. His presence constantly in demand by communities and organisations (military and civilian). Yes, quite a lightweight. You put him to shame, I'm sure.

[Guest Kenneth]

Trolling huh.

His gaffes are legion, and he has been a somewhat shady womanizer. His numerous affairs (alledged of course but pretty well known) should have tipped you off.

But hey, you can blow smoke up his kilt as much as you want. You like him.............fine , enjoy him.

Fail again. If he had "numerous affairs" and are "pretty well known" then how are they "alledged" [sic]? The fact that members of the Royal Family have affairs is hardly a shocking revelation and if you think that this is something that would devastate my prudish sensibilities, well - you're wrong. But if there is no proof of him doing so, then one cannot make the accusation and expect to be taken seriously. I fail to see how a "gaffe" is test of one's fidelity, anyway - if that was the case, then how would you like to know what I have inferred from your confused utterances?

[BubberMiley]

In 1970, the whole family was doing a walkabout in Winnipeg for the Manitoba centennial. My family was there too. Phillip looked at my 12-year-old brother and said "Do you ride?" With the accent and the context, my brother of course didn't have a clue what he had asked him and just stared back. He said it again and my brother just shrugged. Then Phillip said "You're stupid too then, eh?" and walked on.

It was kind of funny at the time.

[guyser]

What makes someone an ass is, obviously, subjective. A few might be inclined to say you're an ass for calling Prince Philip an ass.

If one is a monarchist I guess then you'd be right.

Equally, what constitutes a "gaffe" seems to be pretty open to interpretation.

I feel confident his own words have pretty much assured that designation. Not that it matters muchm, but I am a fan of the Queen and all the Royal family.

A distinguished naval officer. Founder of a now global award scheme that gets kids involved in activity, community, and entrepreneurship. An effective fundraiser for a number of charities. His presence constantly in demand by communities and organisations (military and civilian). Yes, quite a lightweight. You put him to shame, I'm sure.

I give you the distinguished naval officer part , the rest is only because he is married to the Queen.

I dont put him to shame, but I also dont spout inanities in public like he does.

[g_bambino]

I feel confident his own words have pretty much assured that designation.

As I said, it's subjective.

I give you the distinguished naval officer part , the rest is only because he is married to the Queen.

Where is the rule that he who is married to the Queen must start an international extracurricular achievement programme and volunteer his time to charity and the military?

[guyser]

As I said, it's subjective.

For the most part , yes, however when one reads all his quotes a pattern comes out. But ok, you want subjective I will leave at that.

Where is the rule that he who is married to the Queen must start an international extracurricular achievement programme and volunteer his time to charity and the military?

I bow to your better knowledge of the Monarchy for most things (well practically all since you school us weekly) however I suspect no rule exists.

He once famously said he took on patronages out of duty rather than passion .

[g_bambino]

For the most part , yes, however when one reads all his quotes a pattern comes out.

No doubt there's a pattern: dry, quick wit that, on occasion, borders on the offensive. Like I said, disparaging Madonna's music or trying to get priorities straight are not gaffes.

I suspect no rule exists.

He once famously said he took on patronages out of duty rather than passion .

No, no rule exists. As the spouse of the monarch he has no set role except as a Counselor of State when his wife is out of the UK (but, he usually goes with her, anyway). So, with his time, he does all those things, voluntarily; he doesn't have to do any, let alone so many, and still at the age of 92. That is a sense of duty. But, he doesn't take on just any charity or project that comes to him for his support, so I question your lack of passion claim.

[guyser]

No doubt there's a pattern: dry, quick wit that, on occasion, borders on the offensive. Like I said, disparaging Madonna's music or trying to get priorities straight are not gaffes.

We can go round on this, buit its my view there more than on occasion gaffes.

But, he doesn't take on just any charity or project that comes to him for his support, so I question your lack of passion claim.

Understood....so here

The duke himself has spoken of his own struggles to find a purpose within the royal family, saying he took on patronages -- including the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme he created to recognize community service -- out of duty rather than passion.

"I didn't want to be president of the World Wildlife Fund," he said in an interview in 1992. "I was asked to do it. I'd much rather have stayed in the navy, frankly."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/24/world/europe/prince-philip

[g_bambino]

I see. I think what's meant there is that he lost, far, far earlier than expected, his chance to pursue his passion, which was not the presidency of the World Wildlife Fund. So he was forced to make a choice with what life had thrown at him: live an idolotrous life in the shadow of his wife or lead by example by sucking it up and making it his duty to serve, something I think he summed up when he said "It is a complete misconception to imagine that the monarchy exists in the interests of the monarch. It doesn't. It exists in the interests of the people." He certainly didn't want to be, as he put it early in the Queen's reign, no better than a bloody amoeba. He took on projects under his own initiative: reinvigorating the National Playing Fields Association, of course creating and overseeing The Duke of Edinburgh's Award scheme, and he became patron of the Royal National Institute for the Deaf because his mother suffered from deafness, as just some examples. He must've had choice, since there's a theme of sport and the environment through his charitable work. So, no, none of it was ever his true passion, but he otherwise wasn't forced to take on the projects he did once his passion was taken away from him.

[guyser]

A rather fair take causing one to temper ones ridicule.