From 1721 this was the Whig politician Robert Walpole, who held office for twenty-one years. Walpole chaired cabinet meetings, appointed all the other ministers, dispensed the royal patronage and packed the House of Commons with his supporters. Under Walpole, the doctrine of cabinet solidarity developed. Walpole required that no minister other than himself have private dealings with the king, and also that when the cabinet had agreed on a policy, all ministers must defend it in public, or resign. As a later prime minister, Lord Melbourne, said, "It matters not what we say, gentlemen, so long as we all say the same thing."
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): For how long did Robert Walpole serve as prime minister?
Ah, so.. twenty-one years

To put it another way, a thing or person is often seen as having a "defining essence" or a "core identity" that is unchanging, and describes what the thing or person really is. In this way of thinking, things and people are seen as fundamentally the same through time, with any changes being qualitative and secondary to their core identity (e.g. "Mark's hair has turned gray as he has gotten older, but he is still the same person"). But in Whitehead's cosmology, the only fundamentally existent things are discrete "occasions of experience" that overlap one another in time and space, and jointly make up the enduring person or thing. On the other hand, what ordinary thinking often regards as "the essence of a thing" or "the identity/core of a person" is an abstract generalization of what is regarded as that person or thing's most important or salient features across time. Identities do not define people, people define identities. Everything changes from moment to moment, and to think of anything as having an "enduring essence" misses the fact that "all things flow", though it is often a useful way of speaking.
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): What did Whitehead believe were essentially the only things that truly exist?
Ah, so.. discrete "occasions of experience" that overlap one another in time and space, and jointly make up the enduring person or thing

The inclusiveness of Weinreich's definition (above) directs attention to the totality of one's identity at a given phase in time, and assists in elucidating component aspects of one's total identity, such as one's gender identity, ethnic identity, occupational identity and so on. The definition readily applies to the young child, to the adolescent, to the young adult, and to the older adult in various phases of the life cycle. Depending on whether one is a young child or an adult at the height of one's powers, how one construes oneself as one was in the past will refer to very different salient experiential markers. Likewise, how one construes oneself as one aspires to be in the future will differ considerably according to one's age and accumulated experiences. (Weinreich & Saunderson, (eds) 2003, pp 2634).
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): How one construes oneself now and in the future differs considerably because of what 2 things?
Ah, so..
age and accumulated experiences