Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

[Alexander1917]

Wasn't this 1 pound for every taxpayer in the UK???

I think the RF did more and see much more of the land, is more useful than a president (wehich also carrys only a representative job)........

[Lucien]

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".

As a so called well infrmed brit you should know that the Monarchy costs each and every Brit 89 pence,a Year.El Cheapo!
Now.if you feel that is too much,then perhaps it's an idea to quite the gin and dubonnets dear.

On the other hand,the revenues distilled from the Monarchy,and the millions of tourists visiting annually,run in the multi millions of GBP.
Something hardly expected with nuckleheads like Blair or Brown for president.How perfectly boring.

[Alexander1917]

but Blair and Brown has power.. look at our "mouse" köhler... I prefer much a monarchy....with pomp and glitter

[grandduchessella]

I gather Chris from your non de plume that you reside in the US of A as does GD.   

Exactly as I stated when I indicated I wouldn't judge his popularity, not being a UK citizen. (Though I certainly don't complain when the many non-US citizens on the forum make free with their opinions on our public figures--I don't throw their status up as rendering them unfit for any opinion.) I don't judge people's overall perceptions of him. My debate has been whether or not it's accurate to say he's done nothing or would've amounted to nothing in his life.

[Douglas]

I have to agree with Lucien.  The monarchy is worth millions in tourists dollars. 

Oh, BTW, I'm getting lots of private emails on another topic.  They state that, yes, the Queen wears wigs and has for decades.

[Grace]

Anyone can say they get "lots" of private emails, Douglas.  If all these people agree with you, they can post publicly in support of your odd ideas about the Queen and wigs.  I'm not holding my breath...

[RichC]

Regard the Duke of Edinburgh's attitude toward his Russian relatives, I read in a Globe and Mail profile of Philip that he strongly objected when the British government proposed the idea of him and the Queen making a goodwill visit to the Soviet Union in the 1960s. The Duke's response reportedly was "The bastards murdered half my family"

Prince Philip made a private visit to Moscow and Kiev in 1973.  Although it was a private visit, Soviet President Nikolai Podgorny showed the Prince around the Kremlin.  In regard to the Romanov's the President reportedly said, "We got rid of them, you know."  Prince Philip reportedly replied "They were my relatives, you know."

And in 1994 when Prince Philip and the Queen made a state visit to Russia (the first by a British monarch since 1908) Prince Philip told the Daily Telegraph, "...but 1 don't look at this as a family occasion.... You can't condemn a whole nation for what a few extremists do or did..."

One last bit of trivia; in 1956 Nikita Khrushchev visited London (the first trip to Western Europe by a Soviet leader) and had lunch with the Queen and Prince Philip in Buckingham Palace.  Shortly before he met the Queen, Khrushchev was standing in some room in the palace that was dominated by a portrait of King George V.  Khrushchev mistook it for a portrait of Nicholas II and commented on it.  Oops.  A courtier corrected him on the mistake and no more was said of the "unpleasant" matter.

[Greenowl]

As I stated in an earlier post on this topic, I think Prince Philip has done a splendid job, which must have been far from easy for a man with such a strong personality as his, and I for one admire him very much and enjoy some of his little remarks...at least he speaks his mind. I do not know what understanding was reached between the Queen and Prince Philip in the matter of their marriage, nor do I want to know. As far as I am concerned, that is a private matter and should remain so. Perhaps I am old-fashioned and hypocritical in this regard, but I really applaud their tact and discretion over the years. I agree that he probably handled Charles and Edward in the wrong way, but I really believe that he was acting in what he considered were their best interests. I seem to remember that he was asked about his role as a parent in an interview (I'm afraid I cannot quote the source...but perhaps someone else may have read the same interview, if so, please confirm!!) and his response was something like "I did my best". What more can one ask?

What I fail to understand is how anyone could describe him as having a free ride or being a free loader...surely that would apply to whoever married the then Princess Elisabeth? What was she expected to do...remain single? And what exactly should he have done in his role as husband of the Queen? Please explain!!! It seems most unfair to compare him to Prince Albert, who lived in a very different day and age. I consider that Prince Philip has been great value for money, unlike many members of the younger generations of the royal family (i.e. his children and their spouses and his grandchildren).

I am familiar with the "Phil the Greek" nickname, but I never heard the "pennyless" bit before....that is a new one for me!

Cheers,
GREENOWL

[alixaannencova]

I am rather fond of the perception I have of Prince Philip.... exactly because of his foot in mouth gaffes! This 'free loader' label is hardly fair! I totally agree with Greenowl about his mistakes with Charles and Edward, but there is no manual on being the perfect parent is there?

I personally think that apart from the suspected misbehaviour of the fifties, with those rumours about what he got up to on the Britannia during that extended solo trip and those 'lovely' gels and Princess Alexandra etc...blah...blah, Prince Philip appears to have proven a wonderfully supportive husband to the Queen. Although they are acutely private, I have no doubt that the Queen remains in love with her husband. I recall thinking how poignant and lovely it was when they made that return visit to Malta. What I am trying to say is that it appears that the Queen thinks her husband is good enough...and he hasn't turned out to be monster or anything, so I think he is OK! It is interesting to note that during the break down of the Wales' marriage, Diana maintained for a time at least, what appears to have been affectionate and cordial relations with her father-in-law, which may also cast the Duke in a favourable light!

The Duke of Edinburgh Awards Scheme is about the only legacy he will leave behind that has any real impact!

OK so he didn't brainstorm and come up with 'A Great Exhibition' project like Prince Albert, but nor has Prince Philip been detrimental to the Royal Family in ways other former members have!

[mcdnab]

without wishing to attack anyone's views or opinions i would like to make a few points:
Firstly with or without the monarchy Britains tourism income would be the same - Versailles, Shonbrunn or The Hermitage don't attract any less visitors because they happen to be situated within Republics.
Secondly arguably Europe's most stable nations of the last three hundred years are all constitutional or parliamentary monarchies.
Thirdly the cost to the UK of its monarchy is not high even if you include the hidden figures covering security, and the maintenance of the occupied Royal Palaces (in effect Kensington Palace, Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle. (the other Royal residences in use being fairly recent and privately owned by the Queen - Balmoral and Sandringham). An executive presidency as in France or the US would probably cost us tax payers the same or more whilst a figurehead presidency such as in Ireland or in Germany would probably be slightly less expensive.
Fourthly great privilege certainly great wealth debatable - the Queen does have a considerable fortune but given that following any abolition much of her fortune would be regarded as state property and that many of her assets she is not free to dispose of she is not by any means the richest Britain. Nor given her public position can she even live in a way that many of her wealthier subjects can.
Fifthly:Philip may have made mistakes in some of his public comments over the years and as a father he might have made different choices - but to be fair to the man i prefer George VI's view that given his appalling childhood he'd turned out okay and made the best of a bad situation.
Sixthly: I dislike intensely some of the xenophobia that creeps into everyday discussions of our Royal family - it would be absolutely unacceptable to decribe a second generation immigrant to this country in the way that many people decry the royal family as german - the Queen's last ancestors to be born outside the United Kingdom are her great grandmother Alexandra of Denmark and her great grandfather Franz of Teck both of whom spent the bulk of their adult life in the UK.
Seventhly Most of those individuals who favour a republic only have a vague idea of what that would mean in effect and would probably be the first to complain about what the politicians came up with. If as many complain its about providing an equal society then they are living in cloud cuckoo land - no society is truly equal - most republics have some form of elite whether its about individual wealth or belonging to a certain political party.
Eighth Whilst the monarchy has many faults largely that has more to do with those that surround it, by an increasingly intrusive press (that most of us commoners would find untenable) and by an increasingly purient public. On one hand we want value for money, on the other we want a bit of glamour and pomp and circumstance. but then we want to see the Queen doing the weekly shop on her bike at M & S whilst still turning up in her 80's to gladhand some of the countries dullest and uninteresting individuals - God help the woman and her family!

[alixaannencova]

Oooooh...Mcdnab.....I would hate to tread on you tail! Just kidding.....!

Anyway...Bravo.....Jolly well put...all of your comments.....and I should also like to add that elitism is alive and well in plenty of Republics.....we only have to look at the vast amounts of absolutely filthy lucre thrown around during elections to see just how 'loudly' money talks in some Republics! In other Republics including that one over the Channel, Presidential 'fingers in tills' are also a problem aren't they!...One doesn't seem to have such problems in dear old Blighty though... thank goodness!!!!

Oooops.... I have gone off thread in my enthusiasm to applaud your sentiments!!! I still like Philip though! He even speaks better English than some immigration and Passport officers I have come across too!!

[RoyalWatcher]

Oh, BTW, I'm getting lots of private emails on another topic.  They state that, yes, the Queen wears wigs and has for decades.

Love it, Douglas, LOL ! ! !

[joan_d]

Some interesting and valid opinions on this thread, which of course we are all entitled to.

The one spurious argument that is trotted out when anyone deems to criticise the cost of the Royal Family is that it only costs each subject 66p or whatever and that the Royal Family bring in the tourist $.   PLEASE - let's have a better informed debate about them than this.   As one poster has said, does France or Italy have any less tourists than the UK event though they are Republics.  Also it doesn't really do the RF any favours by putting them on the level of some tourist sideshow - the equivalent of the "living" Madam Tussands !

[Eddie_uk]

Joan i'm suprised you are not more up in arms about these awful cabinet ministers, that compared to the RF, do nothing, hardly ever attend the commons, have multiple homes and claim expensives for everything (even a bath plug)!! That we the tax payer fund. And most of them claim to be socialists!!!! Talk about hypocrites!!!

The Duke's done a great job, and continues to do so to this day (at nearly 90!!!). The Royal Family put the Great in Great Britain & long may they reign over us!!

[Vecchiolarry]

Hi,

Joan -
I agree France and Italy have just as many tourists going to their palaces etc as Britain.
But -
Britain has one thing even more tourist inducing - - pomp & circumstance when the "living Tussaud models" appear and in coach ceremonies go to their Parliament openings, weddings, thanksgiving services and even funerals.

If and when Charles' coronation occurs, there will probably be an influx of tourists.  I well remember The Queen's coronation and although I only saw it on TV, I was quite thrilled to be "a part of it", so to speak....

My thoughts on Philip are that he's OK and we could have done a lot worse.
I'm with Toots when she says I kind of like his gaffs and mostly they're truths really;  but just not politically correct.  And, I'm the most un-politically correct person I know!!!

Viva Philip!!!

Larry