Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

[Princess of Cupertino]

I am sorry GD but I feel that in the years to come, his legacy will be quite insignificant considering the long lifetime he has had to do something of merit.

I have always thought it would be interesting to find out what some of the more obsure great-great-grandchildren of QV are doing now.  Without his marriage, I am sure D of E would have been one of those obscure great-great grandchildren.   Sorry but I cannot be convinced about this man.

With all due respect, what exactly is QEII's legacy for that matter? You have to realize the role of the monarchy/royals are dramatically different from the days of QV. Today they're revered for living dignified lives, which both QEII and DoE do, which is no small accomplishment comparing to their offsprings.

[mcdnab]

I think it is a little unfair to compare him to Albert - it was a different period and a different marriage.
Had he not married the then Princess Elizabeth then I suspect he would have had a rather good naval career and ended his life comfortably off  not rich (his family had no money at all) given his father's circumstances even after the various Greek restorations I doubt he would have returned to Greece permanantly.
The reality is that there is just less scope for a Royal to get involved in certain aspects of public life other than the merely ceremonial - which can in our ultra critical days look like they do nothing. In Britain only the reigning monarch has any vestige of actual function.
To be fair to the man he did try to do things but was thwarted by those opposed to a) change and b) him personally. In the 50's he was keen to modernise (in ways that granted look archaic perhaps today) but at every turn he faced opposition from courtiers who'd served George VI, a mother in law who's favourite phrase was "the King wouldn't have liked it!" and a wife who revered and adored her father and was trapped between a husband who wanted change and a mother who didn't see the point, added to that he had no function, a host of embarrassing relations and also faced a hostile government.
He's perhaps not the most sympathetic character to many people and he does tend to make the odd gaffe (largely made far worse in the reporting of them than they actually were) but as a consort he's made a bloody awful job bearable for himself.
I don't really think today they are expected to leave any kind of legacy.

[Terence]

Can't some of this be laid at Elizabeth's feet? Prince Albert wasn't popular during his lifetime and her courtiers certainly didn't want him involved--and he wasn't for many years. Victoria finally pushed through a role for him. Philip has never even been given the Prince Consort title that Albert received. And he has done a lot of work with the environment (UK President of the World Wildlife Fund from 1961, International President from 1986 and President Emeritus from 1996 and participating in the authorship of 7 books as well as several forewards) as well as the usual consort's role as patron of numerous organizations. He still carries out roughly 300 engagements a year--not bad for his age and health and more than any of his children except Anne. If he is unpopular--and not being from the UK I won't comment on that--it probably has more to do with his personality than with the amount of effort he's put forth.

I think GD Ella makes a good point here, Philip's role can entirely be laid at Elizabeth's feet.  I'd guess over the long period of their marriage she had enough gravitas to make him Prince Consort if she wanted to.  Perhaps on her 50th if not before, who would object by then?

That said, this was an entirely different age re: the role of a monarch.  Victoria actually had some power, that was long gone by the time E II ascended the throne.  I suspect today's Windsor's are just feeling lucky to have held on to the monarchy this far and are reluctant to rock the boat.  Now it will get really interesting after E II passes from the scene.

T

[CHRISinUSA]

Interesting points of view here.  I'm curious - what exactly do the DoE's detractors wish he had done over the past decades, that he hasn't?

Forget anything related to constitutional or governmental roles - as has been stated, he was never given the opportunity.  Also, there is no point in comparing him to Albert, Prince Consort of Victoria, since we would be comparing apples and oranges (it is a completely different era).

So, it is only fair to compare his contributions to, say, the contributions of any other recent queen consort.  Let's compare his contributions to those of his predecessor and mother-in-law - Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother.

The QM was consort from 1937 to 1952 (15 years).  According to the Official Monarchy website page on her life and duties:
-  In her first couple years as queen, she accompanied her husband on diplomatic tours of Euorpe and North America drumming up support for the war effort.
-  During the war, she visited the victims of bombings, and toured the country to build up morale.
-  After the war, she helped celebrate the victory and visited those rebuilding.
-  In 1947, she and the King undertook an extended tour of South Africa.
-   In her 50 years as a widow, she made 40 overseas visits
-  During her life, she was patron or president of 350 organizations.

The Duke of Edinburgh has been consort from 1952 until the present (57 years).
-  He is patron or president of 800 organizations
-  He has visited 141 countries
-  He has made 5,000 speeches and chaired 1,500 meetings
-  He founded the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme, in which 4 million young people in 60 countries have participated.
-  He manages 2 large private estates (Balmoral and Sandringham), quite succesfully by all accounts.
-  He is Ranger of Windsor Great Park, and participates in its operation and maintenance.

So, when you line them up, I'd say the Duke of Edinburgh is a much more accomplished consort than his late mother-in-law.

[grandduchessella]

Maybe a little reverse sexism in play? Elizabeth (the QM) is hailed for her performance in a more traditionally 'feminine' role while Albert is hailed for fulfilling more 'masculine' duties such as his role in statesmanship. Philip isn't given due for the more 'feminine' jobs of patronage, etc...and criticized for not being more involved in more political fields.

[joan_d]

I think given the circumstances of his birthright, D of E can count himself a very lucky many to have lived the lifestyle he has for the past nearly 60 years.   My parents' generation had a nickname for him which was commonly used but I haven't heard it in many a year.   "Phil the Pennyless Greek".

[grandduchessella]

I always thought the nicknames regarding his birthplace were a little rude and rather misleading since he spent the majority of his youth and young adulthood in England and, to a lesser extent, Germany. Maybe it's just the modern perception of mocking ones ethnicity as a little off-putting.

[CHRISinUSA]

I think given the circumstances of his birthright, D of E can count himself a very lucky many to have lived the lifestyle he has for the past nearly 60 years.   My parents' generation had a nickname for him which was commonly used but I haven't heard it in many a year.   "Phil the Pennyless Greek".

Joan, I've read over your recent posts about the Duke, and you seem to be quite concerned with the fact that he happened to be raised poor.  To quote you....   -  "Where would he be without having made the match of the century?" "Yes, I can see the DoE has had it really rough"  "Prince Phllip has had a free ride."  "Phil the penniless Greek", and "Given the circumstances of his birthright, DoE can count himself a very lucky man to have lived his lifestyle."

Frankly, you haven't leveled a single legitimate criticism about the Duke.  You simply object to the fact that he was foreign and poor. Your other criticism seems to be that Albert was a more involved consort, who left a larger legacy. 

Hmm, well, Albert was foreign, and as a second son, he was relatively poor himself.  He also enjoyed a lavish lifestyle due to his marriage to a wealthy, powerful Queen.  Albert had access to all of the Queen's state papers, drafted her correspondence, and saw ministers with - and without - the Queen's presence.  As Charles Greville, Clerk of the Privy Council, said, he was king to all intent and purposes.

I have little doubt that if the Duke of Edinburgh attempted even a fraction the usurping of constitutional powers that Albert did, the British monarchy would have been overthrown years ago. 

The truth is - there are many similarities between these two male consorts.  Both managed the royal estates succesfully.  Both took control over the upbringing of their children, and the modernization of the Royal Household.  Both worked tirelessly on social and charitable efforts.  Albert happened to be a bigger supporter of the arts than Phillip is, but Phillip is much more involved in military efforts than Albert was (actually Albert's forays into military affairs were quite unsuccesful and controversial at the time).

[Lucien]

I always thought the nicknames regarding his birthplace were a little rude and rather misleading since he spent the majority of his youth and young adulthood in England and, to a lesser extent, Germany. Maybe it's just the modern perception of mocking ones ethnicity as a little off-putting.

And,his role is one he had to invent himself.There was no handbook with do's and dont's for Consorts,their role was to function as an accessory.
They were/are not allowed to play any role politically,nor do anything else that can bring about a conflict of interests.Imagine that,try to balance
on that very narrow cord for over 60 years.There was a sort of Union of Consorts,Philip,Bernhard and Henrik,they all had to create their own role
under the restrictions governments issued for the past 70 years and more.Impossible to compare,and moot to a fault too.Too many have too much
of an opinion on this man.Without any base.At all.Wonder if they could have done all so much better considering circumstances.Think not.

He's just a great man,straightforward,blunt to a fault,just like I like 'm,not selling daisies for bull.And just.

[joan_d]

Regarding nicknames, GD and Chris, I certainly didn't invent D of E's.   I am merely reporting what I remember from a child growing up in the north of England immediately after the war years.   I think you will agree we are all the product of our formative years and I can tell you that growing up and trying to survive in post War England was not easy.  Thankfully the days of deference are long gone in England and I think if you asked a young person in England what their thoughts were about the D of E, there response is very likely to be "Who's he?"

I don't have a problem personally with D of E being foreign, poor or any of the others situations which were beyond his control.   What I do have a problem with is the free ride he has had courtesy of the long suffering British tax payers for the past 60 years.

Bring on the Republic !

[Grace]

It's hardly been a "free ride" has it?  Will you still be working into your late 80's, Joan?

[joan_d]

Probably if the NuLab Government's record on pensions is anything to go by and so will a lot more.

However, Grace, you surely don't class what D of E does with his time as "work" ?

[grandduchessella]

300+ engagements a year (including some overseas) at age 87-88?

[CHRISinUSA]

Regarding nicknames, GD and Chris, I certainly didn't invent D of E's.   I am merely reporting what I remember from a child growing up in the north of England immediately after the war years.   I think you will agree we are all the product of our formative years and I can tell you that growing up and trying to survive in post War England was not easy.  Thankfully the days of deference are long gone in England and I think if you asked a young person in England what their thoughts were about the D of E, there response is very likely to be "Who's he?"

I don't have a problem personally with D of E being foreign, poor or any of the others situations which were beyond his control.   What I do have a problem with is the free ride he has had courtesy of the long suffering British tax payers for the past 60 years.

Bring on the Republic !

Ahh, now I get it.  It really isn't anything in particular that the DoE has done or not done that is the problem, is it Joan?  Rather, it is the entire institution of monarchy that you object to - on grounds of too little value for the money spent?

Fair enough, although it's rather poor form to attack a tree when it's the forest you object to.

[joan_d]

I gather Chris from your non de plume that you reside in the US of A as does GD.   It is very easy to be beneficient toward the Royal Family from across the Atlantic and especially as you are both non-tax payers.   I feel that as a British Tax Payer I have more of a stake in what I think about the family Windsor than most posters on these boards.

To be honest, I am ambivalent about a Monarchy.   As my great hero George Orwell said, "It is a barrier to the cult of personality.  I would certainly not have liked a President Tony Blair - although that it what we virtually had.  No more would I have liked a President Thatcher or a President Brown.   

However, with the many privileges this family enjoy, they do have certain responsibilities and I believe the Queen has fulfilled those responsibilities over the year, albeit 99% of what she does must be mind numbingly dull.   So we are obliged at the moment to have a family who, by a fluke of birth, are entitled to immense riches.   I would like to see most of that wealth pruned down, and the same with family members.   So that is where I stand on the Republic issue - it just isn't going to happen in my lifetime but it will eventually.   

As for the D of E, I stand by what I had said.  He is a "freeloader".