> "had little to no worries"

- As an infant, was evacuated from Greece with his (and his family's) life in grave danger. Spent his childhood mostly estranged from his family

- As a young man, served on a naval ship as part of the campaign to defeat fascist Germany and Japan. At least once helped save his ship's crew from a German bombing attack. Probably faced many other threats to his own life and to his comrades.

- Spent the rest of his life as an ambassador for his family and country, and counsel to his wife whose job it is to ensure the country and Commonwealth continues to function with stability and prosperity, including through political/economic crises, national emergencies, local/global cultural shifts, etc.

- Attended 22,000 official events and delivered 5000 speeches. Was an early advocate for environmentalism and animal welfare. Conceived and headed a youth development organisation for most of his public life.

- Endured family tragedies, relentless media/public scrutiny and criticism, and constant campaign against his family's wealth and role in the political system.

You may not like him. Fine. I didn't care much for him, and I don't hold a great deal of pity for him for the difficulties he and his family have faced.

But "little to no worries" is a giant leap.

I'm not going to debate the pros and cons of a dead royal. It is indisputable that he led an incredibly privileged existence, try to think what the life of your average commoner also born in 1921 was like if you are not sure.

You brought it up and keep replying, so you've clearly got an axe to grind. Not a single person is denying he was privileged. Your implication is that a privileged life is a life of "little to no worries", which is frequently asserted by people who seek to attack the wealthy simply for being wealthy, but it is a deep misconception in most cases, and particularly so for a sovereign leader. I understand you feel it's important to express contempt for a rich person at the time of their passing, but that doesn't excuse falsehoods.

I mentioned it and got attacked, so of course I'm going to reply. Both you and "gadders" have gotten your knickers in a twist over absolutely nothing. I've already spent more time in this thread thinking or talking about Prince Philip than I have in the last 3 decades, I think that is quite enough for me - I'm out.

What might that be?

Not having any strong feelings about the birth, life or death of the royals is an extremely mild sentiment that is shared by millions in the UK and billions across the globe. If you find it shocking, offensive or vindictive then I don't think the internet is the place for you.

It's the urge to blurt it out to be controversial that is what I find childish.

The original commenter is an Indian who would have more reason than most to despise the Royal family and, frankly, the UK in general. Yet they showed genuine compassion and goodwill towards Philip. This was surprising and I thought it interesting to share that as a Brit I have nearly no feelings at all (other than my general dislike of the monarchy). This is a forum, we interact and share our opinions through these comments and what I said was pretty uncontroversial.

If you are bothered by his passing then fine, I'm sorry for your loss. But maybe trying to pick fights on HN is not the most productive way to grieve.

Trying to be edgy by talking ill of the dead isn't either.

Actually it's you being emotional and childish.

Calm down, dear.

Hardly.

Or perhaps mature and non-sycophantic to a man who mostly lived a life of privilege.

Also, it's interesting that it's you that is casting personal aspersions...

Agreed.

I'm fairly sure many people of more actual worth die every day with no one here giving a shit. The monarchy is a relic that really should be dismantled.