 Britain's media and politicians have apparently had plans in motion for this moment for decades. When a royal passes away, our lives are not supposed to carry on as normal, which meant at around 12.15 today, anyone watching any program on the BBC saw it interrupted by the following message. We are interrupting our normal programs to bring you an important announcement. You're watching BBC News from London. A short while ago, Buckingham Palace announced the death of his Royal Highness Prince Philip the Duke of Edinburgh. In a statement, the Palace said, It is with deep sorrow that Her Majesty the Queen announces the death of her beloved husband, His Royal Highness the Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh. His Royal Highness passed away peacefully this morning at Windsor Castle. Further announcements will be made in due course. The royal family joined with people around the world in mourning his loss. BBC Television is broadcasting this special program reporting the death of the Duke of Edinburgh. That message and that national anthem was played not just on BBC One and BBC Two, but on every single platform the BBC have. So if you listen to six music, if you're listening to one extra at about 12.15, you heard that announcement and the national anthem. Of course, I don't need to tell you the Prince Philip the Queen's husband has died at the age of 99. You heard it in that announcement there. Now, as you can imagine, it wasn't just the BBC and their various platforms that burst into action on receipt of that news. It did feel at times a little bit like living in North Korea. Every TV channel, every radio station or almost every radio station reverted to specialist coverage of the Duke's death. One of the scenes that I thought was most striking as well was that this wasn't just confined to television and radio. If you were walking around in the streets, you would have also noticed what happened. This was Piccadilly Circus today. I suppose that well, they've taken down whatever advert was there and replaced it with the news about Prince Philip. We're going to talk a bit about Prince Philip, but to be honest, from the perspective of a political analyst, I'm kind of more interested in the phenomenon of what has happened today. As I say, yes, it's incredibly sad when anyone passes away, especially if you've been married to them for over 70 years, which the Queen and Prince Philip have done. I'm sure this is very sad for the Queen, my sympathy with her. But this is one guy. For me, what's interesting here is what the state does, what the media does when a royal dies. We're going to go through some of those key moments because despite all the broadcasts having a year of practice for this moment, really, really intense plans. Often when I saw people who looked like they were about to break down in tears, I couldn't quite work out if it could have been stress because of the grandness of the event. They knew they would be going out on every TV channel or it could have been that they thought they have to look really sad. I mean, they've basically been told to look really sad, I think, or maybe they feel genuinely for Prince Philip. I don't know. Anyway, I want to show you a bit of a gaffe on sky. They the host on sky delved into the circumstances in which Prince Philip met Elizabeth. Take it back to the beginning for us, Alistair, and tell us how the young Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark met the then Princess Elizabeth. Well, they were related. They were related. So they are both the Queen and Prince Philip are great, great grandchildren of Queen Victoria, which makes them third cousins. And I'm all for live and let live. I don't have any strong opinions on third cousins. Maybe I do. I haven't really thought about it. Anyway, that wasn't the issue that I think any of the broadcasters wanted to focus on today. There was one issue that none of them could avoid, though. And I think most of the broadcasters struggled with this one, which is Philip's history, Prince Philip's history of bigoted remarks or insensitive jokes, however you want to characterize them. Now, to see how they tried to strike the balance, we can take a look at part of the BBC's pre-prepared mini film about the prince. This has been playing repeatedly today. He channeled some of his restless energy into a boisterous social life. He and a group of male friends met every week in rooms above a restaurant in London, Soho. There were long, convivial lunches, visits to nightclubs and glamorous companions. By the 1960s, Philip's life was more settled. He and the Queen had completed their family with two more children, Andrew and Edward, who joined Charles and Anne. And he had found a new role for himself. Is it the 18th or do you back now? From his office in the palace, he promoted issues in which he had a personal interest. Forty minutes to get around the world. Well, it's going to be a bit of a rush. It may leave you a little bit muddled. Yet diplomacy seemed alien to him. He urged British industry to pull its finger out and complained on American television that the royal family didn't have enough money. Inevitably, if nothing happens, we shall either have to, I don't know, we may have to move into smaller premises, we know. He blundered on a state visit to China with the Queen. He made what he thought was a private remark about slitty eyes. It was a diplomatic gaffe which dominated the headlines and added to his reputation for making misjudged remarks. Well, they called it a gaffe. You might call it something else. I mean, 1986, pulled British students during a royal visit to China. If you stay here much longer, you'll all be slitty eyed. I mean, that's just our racism, isn't it? That's not just a gaffe. Obviously, he had a very complex life. It's not just a racist, but I mean, that's quite black and white there. How have you seen this whole? I mean, it's been a massive event, hasn't it? The way that the media and all the politicians have been forced to or have willingly, again, I don't want to to presume have responded to this event. I think it's kind of surprised us the extent to which it's taken on this profile. But then look back, Princess Diana, even the Queen Mother, you know, the Queen Mother actually constitutionally didn't have a particular role. That was huge, you know, that was and that was really driven on by the BBC. Most people didn't really care. That's not to say that, you know, people shouldn't warn her passing or whatever. You go and knock yourself out. But I don't think most people, you know, thought it was this top of the agenda story. And it's a similar thing with Prince Philip. And it does speak to the role of the monarchy and the fact that, you know, it's a it's a constitutive key constitutive part of the British state. And I think, you know, people could say, oh, this is terrible, whatever. And again, I'm not I'm not minimizing that or saying, you know, obviously, my commiserations got to his family. Anybody who's lost a loved one or a member of their family, you know, knows where that comes from, obviously. But at the same time, if you were told, well, Monday, you know, we were told on April 12, things are going to go open again. Actually, that's being put back a couple of days because Prince Philip died. I think most people would say, hang on a second, that's that's a bit much. You know, they wouldn't want disruptions their life, which, of course, is what we'll be seeing with the Queen. Queen Elizabeth II, when she passes away, that's going to be this is just a dress rehearsal for that. And it's that is going to be an extraordinary few weeks. You know, there's a huge operation behind that. Massive resources, there will be, you know, regime coordinated morning. And you've said North Korea. I mean, there's no there's no other analog really around the world. So this is just a this is a foretaste of what's to come. And of course, it's sad for the family. But I think most people, if you say Prince Philip, what do they think? Like you say, the gaffes, that often means plain or bigotry. And of course, it is also important to say he was 99 years old. You know, this is a guy who was born in 1921 before the Wall Street crash, before the Great Depression, before the Cold War, Hitler hadn't even had the beer hall push. Mussolini hadn't even come to power. So I mean, it is really an entirely different world. And that, to me, sums up what what today's been about. You know, we're seeing the confrontation. And this is a contradiction and attention within the British state and more generally right between modernity and between feudalism. The monarchy is a fundamentally feudal institution. And the way we're having the state choreographed morning is they want us to mourn like we're feudal serfs. Again, that's not an exaggeration. That's that's the role here. The monarchy is meant to be, you know, she's she's the incarnation of the state. Is it if you believe in that stuff, it's a really big deal when her husband dies, when the father of the next king of England dies, when the grandfather of his successor dies. Of course, most people intuitively in the modern real world don't think like that. So they look at this kind of state coordinated stuff and think that's a bit much, isn't it? Are you right? It is a bit much. Well, it's difficult when you say most people because I got no idea. And I mean, that's why, you know, I'm not particularly noisy in these sort of like, oh, it's a disgrace that we're doing all this because, you know, maybe obviously, my sympathy goes out to the queen and his direct family. But if there are people who had no idea, you know, who'd never met Prince Philip, who are also sad, I mean, sure, you know, I want to rain on their parade. But I do have to at the same time, and this is sort of, you know, partly conflicted that I did find it quite distasteful, actually, when we're, you know, we've lived through a year of a pandemic. There were many days when over a thousand people died in a 24 hour period. You know, and again, you know, he's 99. It was often people who were at the in older age, elderly people, people's grandparents. And for none of those did we, you know, interrupt every single program on television. For none of those, we did that. So I think what I find a bit off is how this is all forced upon us. And it's not even questioned that this is more important than anything else that's happened this year, when actually in the grand scheme of things, I mean, it's not really, is it? I mean, it's important to some people. But when we've had thousands and thousands of people die for, you know, due to an unnecessary cause. And yes, the TV channels have mourned a bit, but we haven't really seen newscasters who look like they're about to burst into tears, which is what we've seen all day today. It's just to me, I find it very, very odd. If anything, the comparative age of people that are dying from COVID-19 has been a reason to diminish their deaths. You've seen this time after time, oh, they would have died anyway. Yes, it's 120,000 deaths. But actually, if you look at it as, you know, years lost, it's close to about 30,000 deaths, you know. Wait. So on one hand, you're saying that actually older people dying prematurely isn't so important. Now this guy is 99 years old. Oh, my God, turn off all the TV channels for the next six hours. You're entirely right. It speaks to a fundamental hypocrisy, which, of course, is the only answer is all life is hugely sacred. It should be taken incredibly seriously. And people should mourn, obviously, if somebody they know is passed away. But yeah, there is a strange dissonance here, isn't there? Of the minimisation of certain people dying. I'm not saying by the BBC or whatever, but we all know those voices. Julia Hartley-Brure and Dan, what's his name? Michael, help me out from the mail on Sunday. Dan, no, not Dan Watson, him as well. Dan Wharton in the comments, Dan Hodges, Labour Troll. That's it. My apologies. Because his different names was Mum, so I thought, what's the name? These people were making a concerted effort to sort of minimise casualties as a result of fatalities, rather, as a result of COVID-19. And it stands in stark contrast. Yeah, I don't get any pleasure from from gleefully talking about the passing away of Prince Philip. I've never met the guy. I personally find it quite strange. You know, I'll be honest, I was happy when Margaret Thatcher died because her entire political project was about destroying half of the country. But it's different for somebody who went into a role they never really chose. So I have no personal malice to him, Michael, but I think it's such an important thing that you said there. It really does show that, you know, not all life and death is treated equally. It just isn't, you know, and that's the that's the that's the myth that we try and console ourselves with. It's just simply not true. This guy was 99 years old, you know, like you say. The only I suppose the only time actually know what, Michael, the only time somebody has died and it was during COVID was Captain Topp, where it did take on a sort of a sense of this is national mourning. But again, it's because that person symbolized something, right? And I mean, maybe you have some thoughts on that. Well, he wasn't born into it, right? I mean, again, it was a little bit arbitrary, but he had at least, you know, he'd earned his status as a bit of a national hero, whereas Prince Philip was, I mean, married into it. And now we all have to essentially pretend that he worked his way into it. Again, it's it's like you're saying it's we have to sort of acknowledge and celebrate his feudal status as if he has given so much to us. And that is a sort of feudal ethic where you have to say, oh, our Lord, we are here because of them. And it's like, where is the achievement? I don't really get it, which is the same. I'm not going to be on the street shouting Prince Philip achieved nothing because it's not, you know, it's not really the time. But whilst we're being forced to sort of mourn this as if it's more important than any other death, I just I find it distasteful. Returning to that thing I said at the start about how you've got effectively two sort of conflicting ideologies, you know, as a feudal monarch or a feudal monarch's husband or children, you don't need to work hard. It's not meritocratic. But of course, you know, the prevailing ideology since since the 1950s, arguably the modern ideology of the second Elizabethan age has been about, you know, if you work hard, you get what you want. And, you know, an ethos of public service. And this was something which was conscientiously kind of aspired to buy the royal household after the 1950s, you know, after Elizabeth II takes the throne, because they understood that, you know, what we can't just carry on as usual, you know, playing cards and having a great time. We have to we have to cultivate this sense that actually we're doing this in the public interest. Of course, it's nonsense. Of course, it is complete nonsense. The country would be perfectly fine with an elected head of state or actually with no head of state at all. One might argue or purely ceremonial president like in Italy or in Ireland or in Germany, of course, but in order to perpetuate consent for this institution, we need to hear all this garbage. And this is garbage, but how hardworking it was and how influential he was. And when he changed, he was a regular aristocrat who married a woman who purely by coincidence, because her uncle, you know, abdicated the throne becomes the Queen of England. That's it. You know, he wasn't he wasn't a remarkable man. He was a normal aristocrat who wanted to enjoy life and consequences turned out in such a way that, you know, actually he turned out to be an historically important person in so much as he's the he's the father of the future King of England. But again, there is nothing, you know, incredible about him or, you know, world changing or epoch defining, you know, Britain, Britain tries to persuade itself. It's so understated and so, you know, stiff up a lip. And then you just hear constant superlatives about everything and everybody. Where does it come from?