During the course of his 99-year life, Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, grew infamous for his one too many inappropriate remarks. In the wake of his demise from natural causes on April 9, though, the longest-serving royal consort was remembered by some for his “funny” and “informal” personality that, in the words of British Prime Minister (PM) Boris Johnson, “inspired the lives of countless young people”. In fact, by and large, the coverage of his death has centred around his royal status and of the British royal family in general.
However, this characterisation of Prince Philip overlooks that his offhand remarks were often grounded in racism, sexism, and ignorance, and an embodiment of what is considered to be a bygone era of colonialism. The Prince’s many distasteful and often callous public “gaffes” not only indicate the enduring presence and impact of a colonial mindset within the British royal family but through the upbeat coverage of his death also reveal the implicit acquiescence of the public to these harmful beliefs and attitudes.
This draws into question how the royal family can right the wrongs of the past when its members still hold and publicly declare such views, particularly when the leaders of former colonies have failed to adequately call out this behaviour and when the general public seems more interested in the romanticisation of the fairy tale lifestyles of the royals. Ultimately, Prince Philip’s death has once again lead to the question of whether the royal family is immune to the consequences of its behaviour and its seemingly perpetual and unflinching commitment to the colonial era.
The Prince’s long record of problematic behaviour were on display on several occasions during his royal engagements. During a visit to China in 1986, the royal quipped, “If it has four legs and is not a chair, has wings and is not an aeroplane, or swims and is not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it.” In the mid-1990s, the Prince once again broke royal conduct of being publicly apolitical. Following a shooting at Dunblane Primary School in Scotland that left 16 dead, he infamously argued on BBC Radio: “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?”. During the 1981 recession, he said, “Everybody was saying we must have more leisure. Now they are complaining they are unemployed.” Likewise, after accepting a small gift from a local woman in Kenya, he joked, “You are a woman, aren’t you?”.Yet, all these remarks and the several more he made during the course of his life have conveniently been sugarcoated by media and public figures as “gaffes” and as his “unique contribution” to British humour.
Hamid Dabashi, the Hagop Kevorkian Professor of Iranian Studies and Comparative Literature at the Columbia University, called the Prince’s racism “a public secret”. In an article for Al Jazeera in 2017, he accused the BBC of being part of the problem by attempting to camouflage the royal consort’s “vintage racist utterances” as “memorable one-liners that can make some people chuckle and others cringe”.” The author further argues that the Prince’s bigotry “is now considered rude and vulgar, old-fashioned and outmoded, presumed classed and pointed at the lower social strata.” However, “The precious advantage of Prince Philip is that he is a royal from the heart of British (and European) aristocracy. He tells it as he sees it fit.”
What is more unsettling is that, following the Prince’s passing, several former colonies who the Prince’s military helped plunder until a few decades ago, were quick to put out official statements lauding the royal consort’s “distinguished” military career, his benevolence in the service of his community, and his contributions to the United Kingdom (UK), the Commonwealth, and beyond. For instance, Australian PM Scott Morrison released a lengthy statement which said that the Prince “embodied a...generation that defied tyranny, that won a peace, and built a liberal world order that protects and favours freedom,” and will be remembered for “his candour, and a unique and forceful and authentic personality.” He goes on to say,“ Your Majesty, (we) say to you as a Commonwealth, let us also now be your strength and stay, as you continue to endure, as you continue to serve so loyally and so faithfully, as you have done over so many generations. She has been there for us over such a long time. Let us be there now for you, Your Majesty, and allow us to send our love to you... I am sure her Prince would join me in saying: God save our gracious Queen. Long live our noble Queen. God save our Queen.”
Australia is not alone in this almost subservient worship of the Crown. Former British colonies like India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the United States (US), and New Zealand have also extended their most “sincere condolences” to the Queen over the loss of “a wise elder”. Admittedly, the interdependent nature of international relations is such that these countries perhaps had no choice but to put out a statement on the Prince’s death. However, it is telling that they did not choose more value-neutral words that convey their condolences but stop short of outright praise.
The Pacific island nation of Vanuatu is in fact in the midst of its official mourning period for the Prince, who is a spiritual god-like figure in the former British colony and where a Prince Philip Movement once gathered thousands of followers. Celebrations by followers of the movement include performing a ritualistic dance, holding a procession, displaying Prince Philip memorabilia, and drinking kava. According to anthropologist Kirk Huffman, royal delusion in this former British colony goes to the extent that some tribesmen of the island nation believe that the Prince “left the island, in his original spiritual form, to find a powerful wife overseas.”
Joining the former colonies in their sorrow, unsurprisingly, are former imperial powers like Germany and France, who saluted the Prince’s “extraordinary devotion, his sense of duty, his courage, his volunteer-work, and his brilliant mind, all of which have contributed to the continued influence of the British monarchy throughout the world.” This is problematic when the same former imperialists have time and again vowed to make reparations to their former colonies through financial aid, deeper political engagement, and symbolic gestures, but have often refused to issue official apologies for their past humanitarian blunders.
For example, Algerians have demanded France to “acknowledge and apologise” for the “discriminatory practices and crimes” committed during its 132 years of colonial rule, but, in January, French President Emanuel Macron said that France will issue “no repentance nor apologies” for its past abuses. Instead, he said he would make it up to Algeria by taking part in “symbolic acts” such as remembrance days, which are apparently intended to promote reconciliation. This refusal to tender a formal apology has also been observed in Belgium and Germany. Similarly, the UK has also ignored all calls by former colonies to apologise for its crimes against humanity carried out during its colonial history.
This arguably demonstrates how former imperialists’ minimal efforts to right the wrongs of the past are driven more by public pressure and evolving opinions on the colonial era than their own regret or remorse for their actions. Moreover, it illustrates how positive media coverage and subservience to the Crown by former colonies only further encourage this behaviour and further minimise the chance of a formal apology or reparations.
Ultimately, the eulogistic characterisation of Prince Philip by the media and heads of state is borne out of the general public’s fascination with royalty, which has essentially constructed a wall of affection that has deflected any criticism of the British royal family. For instance, despite Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s tell-all interview with Oprah Winfrey, which has been described as “the most serious crisis for the royal family since the death of Diana”, their revelations of racism within the British monarchy did little to dent the reputation of the royals.
This is substantiated by a recent survey conducted by market and consumer research firm YouGov, which concluded that the popularity ratings of Prince Harry fell by 15 points in the UK after the interview with Oprah was aired. The survey also found that only three in ten people hold a positive view of Meghan, while 58% harbour a negative opinion. Likewise, another poll found that support for the monarchy as a whole remains largely unchanged, with 63% backing the institution, once more illustrating the British royal family’s virtual immunity to criticism.
Given the prevalence of these favourable opinions of the royal family, it is not entirely surprising to see the solemn coverage of Prince Philip’s death or the deferential stance taken by former colonies and imperial powers, all of which continues to give the British monarchy a free pass for its past crimes that evidently continue to guide its present and future. Excusing the Prince’s “indiscretions” by describing him as a man of his times allows for these beliefs to continue to thrive in the present, which ultimately has a cascading effect on public discourse and our ability to hold the Royals accountable and force them to truly reckon with their past and offer reparations, even if it is only in the form of an elusive official apology.
Reactions to Prince Philip’s Death Illustrate the Royal Family’s Immunity to Criticism
While the late Prince has been accused of being openly racist and sexist, media coverage and statements by heads of state have eulogised his contributions, essentially ignoring his indiscretions.
April 20, 2021
SOURCE: FIONA HANSON/PA