"Oh my god, has the Duke of Edinburgh died"

"Oh my god, has the Duke of Edinburgh died" was the cry that came from Mrs NotaSheep as she got ready for work whilst listening to the Radio 4 Today programme, something that I have not done for over a month now with a resultant improvement in my blood pressure.

"No" I replied, it's his 90th birthday today (actually it's tomorrow, the 10th, but I was dozing at the time); unless he has died overnight of course"

"Thank God" Mrs NotaSheep called back, "I suppose I must really like him too, as I felt really worried and upset".


Yes I must out myself as somewhat of a fan of the Duke of Edinburgh. I find his comments, what the BBC would call 'gaffes' quite endearing.  I think he often tries to make people feel at ease by cracking wisecracks that in another age, the age in which he was born and brought up, would have been considered slightly off-colour but disarming. Of course now in our increasingly humourless, politically correct, society these comments are considered at best rude and more often racist, sexist or some other 'ist.

Whilst thinking about this post I considered how the BBC portray 'Royals' and really the only ones that were/are accorded any respect are the Queen, Diana Princess of Wales, Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge (formerly Catherine Middleton). Apart from the Queen who even the BBC have to concede is beyond reproach and the new Duchess of Cambridge who is too new to the royal family and who was in any case not herself 'royal' before marriage, the other acceptable royals are either Diana, Princess of Wales or the fruit of her loins. Each and every other royal is disparaged by the BBC whether it be by picky news coverage, snide comments on the comment programmes or 'hilarious' put downs and insults on topical news programmes and 'alternative' comedy shows. Prince Charles is portrayed mad, talking to plants and a hypocrite on green matters. Prince Andrew is portrayed as being not far from a fraudster with dodgy friends. Prince Edward used to be portrayed as a probable homosexual and idiot at business, now he's often just ridiculed for being pointless. Princess Anne is portrayed as sour-faced, frumpy and not as pretty as pretty as 'Princess Diana'. The list goes on and on via Prince Harry, Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice etc. etc. etc.

The BBC also love to report how much the royal family 'cost' us, ignoring some salient facts. Here's what I have written on this matter in the past:

'This sort of attitude is actively assisted by the reporting of such as The Guardian, The Independent and the BBC who keep reporting on the 'costs of the Royal Family. I did demolish this one-sided argument last November, here's how:

'The BBC and various anti-monarchist groups are misrepresenting the cost of the UK monarchy again and this has annoyed me. This piece repeats the familiar misrepresentation that:

'The total cost of keeping the monarchy was £38.2m during the 2009-10 financial year, a drop of 7.9% (£3.3m) on the previous year.'

This looks at just one side of the equation: the costs of the Civil List which is soon to be replaced by the awfully named "sovereign support grant". The other side that is as usual ignored is that in 1760 it was decided that the entire cost of the Civil List should be paid by Parliament in return for the monarch surrendering his hereditary revenues from the Crown Estate to Parliament for the duration of George III's reign. This agreement with some alterations is still in place today.

So how much is the The Crown Estate worth to the UK taxpayer? The last figures I saw was around £190 million a year.

So why does the BBC insist on repeating the cost of the Royal Family <£40 million a year but ignores the income forgone by them in return for the civil list of around £190 million?'

In my view most of the royal family do a good job in difficult circumstances, I have the utmost admiration for the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh - I fond their work rate and politeness rather remarkable especially bearing in mind their age and  the scrutiny they come under. Prince Charles's views on modern architecture and organic farming chime with mine, although I find his views on Islam somewhat worrying for the future Head of the Church of England and King.  Princess Anne I admire for her hard-work, 'stuff you I don't care what you think of my clothes' attitude and seeming determination to keep a hairstyle for longer than anyone I know. Prince Andrew I am not too sure about but most of the things he is criticised for I can see displayed worse by a number of former senior Labour politicians, who get much less criticism form the BBC. Prince Edward suffers from having no role; the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh produced the requisite heir and a spare and also even a daughter as well, so his role was never to be a major one.

I could go on and on but even I am tiring now. In essence, the royal family is a good thing, doesn't cost the public purse as much as the income that they have forgone and is so much better than the alternative - King Simon Cowell and/or Queen Cheryl Cole? King David Beckham and Queen Victoria Beckham? Worse of all King Tony Blair and Queen Cherie or Queen Peter.  Just because a system is not perfect it doesn't automatically mean that any alternative system will be better.


So Happy Birthday for tomorrow The Duke of Edinburgh, there's at least one household in London who wish you well.