PRINCE PHILIP—A Summing Up

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30811, 24 July 1965, Page 5

PRINCE PHILIP—A Summing Up

IBy EVAN WILLIAMS in the “Sydney Morning Herald.” Reprinted by arrangement.) r pHE Duke of Edinburgh has been at it again. And for various reasons all kinds of people have been at the Duke—among them 33 members of the House of Commons, the editor of “The Times,” and a good many citizens of lesser repute. It is impossible not to feel sorry for him. For whenever the Duke indulges his considerable talents as a controversialist, he exposes the dilemma of a man with firm opinions who happens to be a member of the Royal Family. There is first the outcry in the “Daily Mirror,” then the solemn debate on the constitutional right of Royalty to enter public discussion, the trail of letters from Bournemouth colonels. Now that the flare-up from the Duke’s most recent indiscretion is subsiding—with only a few sparks from the Arundel Herald Extraordinary left to fan the blaze —it is a good time to sit back and survey the damage. The Duke and the Monarchy are still intact, but is the Duke’s role in society changing? Music-Hall Jokes For one thing, it is clear that he is no longer an unassailable figure of public life. Artists these days never hesitate to caricature him, though even the most malevolent cartoonist can do little with that lean face and ascetic jaw. Jokes are fairly common. “Why does Prince Philip wear red, white and blue braces?” Answer: “To keep his trousers up” is a music hall chestnut that Spike Milligan can retail unflinchingly to the Queen, but nowadays the barbs are more topical. “Prince Philip is visiting Britain this year,” said a television comic not long ago, when the Duke returned from a tour of the Far East and Australia. And in the “New Statesman” a professional critic like Bernard Levin can express views that would not be out of place in a middle-class Sunday newspaper:

“The first thing that will have to go is Buckingham Palace. This is, in a way, a pity: because their behaviour these days is as harmless as the creatures around them I will allow. But that is just the I trouble . . . she does no harm.

I but they do, encouraging the totemistic worship that turns the flank of any kind of serious social, economic or political reform.” These are by no means popular opinions, and the Duke probably stands high in public favour. That his views on Rhodesia should have provoked such robust condemnation testifies at least to his continuing prestige. At 44, he is still formidably good-looking, still “dashing” in the way of popular housemasters or a Nigel Patrick hero. He travels more and more, he speaks almost every day, and is still—with nylon suits, monogrammed shirts and exactly tailored cuffs—unflaggingly modern. “Times” Provoked The Germans (who, we are told, admire tall men) found him irresistible during his tour in May—though of course he speaks their language fluently. And a London stationer has reported that writing pads bearing the Duke’s portraits still outsell those with the Rolling Stones. But. being a man of genuinely radical and impatient temperament (within certain limits, of course), the Duke likes to speak his mind. His comments on Rhodesia —that it would be better not to hurry a solution and risk a bloodpath—would have been “better left unsaid,” declared “The Times,” because opinion abroad might misinterpret them. “The Duke is a private person married to the Sovereign,” the paper Said haughtily, “and the scope of his publicly expressed views is limited by discretion, not by constitutional law.” Traditional View This is a traditional and proper view, and was applied last century in similar circumstances. “Who does Philip think he is—Prince Albert?” one African newspaper demanded last week during the Rhodesian fuss, and the comparison was not wholly astray. Prince Philip is not strictly styled “Prince Consort,” but he shares with Queen Victoria’s husband a relish for public controversy, an interest in science,. a passion for physical fitness, a foreign birth, and a playful contempt for the popular Press. It is doubtful, however, if Prince Albert ever described a newspaper, as Prince Philip described the “Daily Express,” as “bloody awful . . . full of lies, scandal and imagination.”

He did, however, enjoy dabbling in public affairs, despite a declaration that his duty was to sink his own individual existence in that of his wife. “I am only the husband,” he said, “and not the master of the house.” King Leopold of the Belgians held the view that the Prince Consort’s proper role was that of "the Queen’s walking dictionary for reference on any point,” And Albert, on another occasion, described his position as “peculiar and delicate.” A British historian, Robert Rhodes Jones, has reminded us this week how Albert in 1853 was suspected of proRussian sentiments an enormity comparable, in the eyes of some critics, with Philip’s affection for the Germans. Albert’s remark that “no British tailor can make a coat” was also resented, presumably in Savile Row: and to speak of the Reformation in terms of “our ancestors shaking off the yoke of a domineering priesthooii” was to court the displeasure of the clergy. Worst of all it was discovered, after the 1841 elections. that £15,000 of the Queen’s money had been spent on Whig Party expenses. Positive Speeches If Prince Philip’s interventions in public affairs have rarely been as positive as this, his speeches and remarks on topical issues have certainly grown more frequent and more forthright. Nor are they confined now to those unexceptionable sentiments on wildlife, conservation and the need for exports. More likely today that the Duke will speak on Europe or the Common Market (by implication in favour), industrial efficiency (very much in favour), or red tape (against). “You’ll wait till kingdom come if you wait for officialdom,” he told a meeting in Cornwall which appealed to him for support for some local project. All this is deplored as unconstitutional or acclaimed as sound commonsense (depending on your point of view), just as opinion has divided on the Duke’s more practical stunts, like hosing photographers at the Chelsea Flower Show.

They say he has never employed a speech-writer, though his private secretary sometimes helps with a reference, and a study of Prince Philip’s speeches shows an agreeable tendency to keep pace with fashionable idiom. In 1956, rebuking manufacturers of

shoddy goods, he urged them to “pull your socks up.” And in 1962 came his notorious advice—“pull your fingers out”—to complacent British businessmen. Years ago it was the “jump in the lake” philosophy that the Duke deplored. This month he attacked the “Im all-right-Jack society,” which, he said, was leading Britain to disaster. The increasingly apocalyptic tone of the Duke's speeches has been noted, and many remember his appeal in Sydney this year for a worldwide attack on the problems of ignorance starvation and over population. Export Drive Britain’s export drive in South America has been “slow and rather old-fashioned.” To a dairyfarmers' assembly he confessed that he never drank milk by itself. For the rest, every day comes a phase that rarely falls below good desk-calendar philosophy. “If you are not frustrated you are not working hard enough” (this to a gathering of undergraduates). “Controlling the design of goods is like trying to control honey with a fork.” And in 1960, urging Britain to forget her old hatred of Germany, he made remarks which many took as clear advice to Britain to join the Common Market, no matter how difficult it. would be to reconcile the Commonwealth. This last advice provoked not only his old rival the “Express”—“Prince Philip arouses antagonisms in whole sections of society ... a minimum of knowledge of what he is talking about” —but also induced at least one member of Parliament to rebuke him publicly. “If you have to have Monarchy let it be a democratic Monarchy," Mr Sydney i Silverman said darkly. “Democratic” obviously meant “silent.” M.P.s Protest

Predictably, Mr Silverman was one of the 33 members of Parliament who signed last week’s protest. But the Duke has had supporters in Parliament too. Sir Martin Lindsay a Tory member, tabled a motion in 1962 deploring the publication in the Press of “more than 70 adverse comments” on the Royal Family. “I try not to be rude and I hope I’m not rude,” the Duke said the other day, answering questions from schoolchildren in a radio programme. But what troubles many of his critics is that his views may be taken as

the Queen's and this was the complaint among Africans during the outcry over Rhodesia.

The Duke’s views, it is said, may be more damaging to the Monarchy than to those he criticises, but at least one can reply to him. He is a convenient target for those who would feai' to criticise the Queen herself, and for this reason, perhaps, he is a safety valve. We will certainly hear more from him. The “Express" may even get angry enough to remind its readers again that the Duke earns £40.000 a year and is the only person allowed to fly his helicopter over central London or to hold up trains while he sleeps in his Royal carriage on a siding. Will Hear More And the Duke will certainly provoke more complaints from country parsons, as he did two months ago with his public comment at. a cistern factory. “This is the biggest waste of water in the country so far. You spend half a pint and flush two gallons." A very senior spokesman for the manufacturers replied to that one. “Anything below two gallons.” he said disdainfully, “is most unhygenic.” Crossword Solution Following. is the solution to the crossword puzzle printed on another page:—Across: 1. Hodge-podge: 8, Holster; 9, Reset; 30, Acts: 11. Discreel: 13, Homers; 15, Borneo; 17, Nuthatch; 18, Asia; 21, Eerie; 22, Anatomy; 23, Distressed. Down: 2, Owlet; 3. Goth: 4. ’•Persia: 5, Director 6. Eastern; 7, Stationary; 8. Headhunter: 112, Breakers: 14, Motored; 16. Eclair. 19. Stole: 20. Pass.,