Why was Prince Philip allowed to keep saying offensive things?

[SewANeedlePullingThread]

There are so many examples of Philip saying offensive things such as:

"If you stay here much longer you'll all be slitty-eyed." This was said to a group of students during a royal visit to China.

"If a cricketer, for instance, suddenly decided to go into a school and batter a lot of people to death with a cricket bat, which he could do very easily, I mean, are you going to ban cricket bats?" This was said in response to calls to ban guns after the Dunblane incident.

"It looks as if it was put in by an Indian." This was Philip talking about a fuse box in a factory.

There are so many more examples. Why was he allowed to act this way whilst representing the Royal Family? I like a laugh, I can take a joke, but he was so often just really offensive.

Leave the Duke of Edinburgh alone. Be offended by other things that affect our lives far more today please.

No, I won’t leave the racist, pervy, creepy and inappropriate man alone. We can talk about this and never let it be forgotten, whilst talking about other things that affect us too.

Why should posters leave him alone? Why do you want to stop discussion on this? You do realise that posters can talk about his appalling behaviour over decades AND have concerns about other matters. If you don’t like it, you are free to find another thread.

I knew a few things he had said over the years but this thread meant I googled and found a very long list of his awful comments. The minimising and justifying of his behaviour when his comments have been racist, inappropriate, insensitive and creepy is sadly what I’ve come to expect from so many posters on mumsnet, especially this board.

It must be exhausting, all this angst over not only events of today but things which happened ages ago, can't be changed, and really have no bearing on life now. I suppose it makes you feel important and superior, others find it simply boring.

Agreed. I can find plenty of current events/people to get cross about without getting all irate and foot-stampy about a man who died several years ago. It fits in with a certain agenda, however, and conveniently ignores the good work the man in question did over his lifetime, not to mention his distinguished military career and the support he gave the late Queen for over 73 years.

So boring but you still read and comment. Lol. 🤪

Although I think talking about events from the past is fine anyway, it has extra relevancy now to talk about behaviour of members of the royal family and how they’re held accountable, in light of the revelations about Andrew. The Royal Family is in the spotlight and due to Andrew’s behaviour people are rightly questioning things.

There is nothing stopping you discussing his achievements. I can acknowledge them but also talk about his bad behaviour too. A lot of very bad people have done some good things but we can still talk about the bad things they’ve done.

It’s not his personal behaviour that’s the issue on this thread for me. It’s the fact that so many people seem to think it was OK, excusable, normal-absolutely fine because he had a “good war” (this last one is particularly insulting to the many men of his generation who also had good wars but did not go on to be racists!) The only proper response is “Yes, he said a lot of inexcusable things- but he’s dead now. We can only hope his heirs and successors learn from him!”

History is made up mainly of dead people, Philip being one of them. He'll be in a school syllabus one day, maybe then we will be allowed to talk about his behaviour.

Discussing him here has helped my understanding of his son, Andrew. Spoiled by his mother, taking his lead from his father. And still alive and in the news.

I imagine those who find it boring aren't on this thread.

It would be a strange mindset to find it boring, be contributing to the thread, but dislike the subject matter so much you insult those who do want to talk about it.

I don't personally think what dead members of the RF have done in the past should be forgotten, good or bad. If we do deliberately ignore the bad we risk eulogising them into being greater than they were.

One person's 'doesn't suffer fools' is another person's nasty bully - especially if there's a very significant power imbalance.

Personally, I'm happy to suffer and be patient with actual fools; but arrogant people get both barrels.

What makes it even worse is that Philip knew very well that he wouldn't be arrested, even if he had unzipped it. At worst, one of his lackeys would have apologised for his 'misjudgement of the situation' and quietly moved him on.

His family ARE the law. Who was ever going to arrest him under the authority of his own wife?

I completely agree. What's the actual point in learning history at all if we just assume that, once somebody is dead, their life and influence are all old and irrelevant and has no bearing whatsoever on today.

Fair enough if it's Maureen from Newport who once said something rude about your mum's curtains in 1974 and is now long gone, I wouldn't dwell on it; but hugely influential people in public life - and supposedly representing the country - not so much.

Especially when it comes to the royals, everything about them IS their history and what they and their ancestors say and do over centuries ro mould and shape their roles and the public perception of them - that's precisely why they are where they are now.

If we had no monarchy and the Windsors came along today and suddenly told us they were going to establish themselves in the position over us all that they now occupy, we would think they were insane and consider them ridiculous fantasist figures of fun. Not for a second would we actually entertain their delusions.

@CathyorClaire Was it you who mentioned reading Norman Baker's new book? I can't find your posts about it, otherwise I'd reply to one of them!, but have started a new thread if you'd like to share any insights.

I've got books on my mind, and I've remembered that Andrew Lownie said he might be (or is he definitely?) writing his next book about Philip?

I hope he does. He will of course be subject to the same blocks he's experienced with Mountbatten and AMW.

But I imagine that a lot of people will want to read it, even though it'll be about some dead guy who did marvellous things.

The last 8 or so antiphilip comments with all their vitriol would have had you put up against a wall if Germany had won ww2. Free speech didn't exist under the NSDAP.

You can only spout such tripe because he and millions like him put their lives on the line. Argue with that.

And you are upset about a few comments from the 80s, all of which were egged up to sell papers. Time to get some perspective on the man, please.

It's great that Philip laid down his life so that other people could be sexist and racist without being summarily executed. Oh, hang on.

You keep saying this Diamond. Incessantly.
But you will not stop differing opinions to you.

As has been said before more than once, we can admire a naval record. We can also call out the sort of comments he continually made.

You just don't get it though...

Your 'right' to spout such views, calling him a racist being top of the list, is only because his generation fought for your freedom.

He made errors, yes, but any error was cancelled by his bravery and service... And being a good husband to the quuen 70+ years.

You are trying to paint him in the 'racist' category. Which is ironically a major thing he fought to protect our country from. EXTREME RACISM

what don't you get???

Golly you are right. He didn't die.

He was 2nd in command of one of His Majesty's destroyers that came under air attack from stuka dive bombers..

But he didn't die. No.

He put his life on the line so that you can continually be offended and feel important. Under the Germans, you couldn't be offended and weren't important.

Good grief. Why can't a thread be balanced? This extreme racist argument is just brainwashed tabloid rubbish.

I didn't know that heroic acts or serving in the Forces meant that everything after that was cancelled out. You can behave how you want. That's bizarre.

Perhaps we should apply that to Andrew too? He served in the Falklands War. Does he get a free pass on his behaviour since?

I didn't know that a man who fought against racism suddenly became a poster boy for it the moment he married the queen. It's ridiculous.

He couldn't 'behave how he wanted'. That's utter fiction. He was the queens husband and acted so.

You are really hanging on to a few flippant comments for dear life. Is that all you've got to tarnish this man with? Oh, and a non police investigated or court appearance car accident.

Do you think that insults/a personal attack will get you anywhere?
It won't.

Just allow others to have a different opinion to you please.

Why on earth are you so invested in defending a rather unpleasant man, rife with the intolerances, prejudice, classism and sexism of his background?