This isn't an anti monarchy thread or anything, so don’t turn this into one please.

How did the Duke of Edinburgh get this rack of medals?
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40692000/jpg/_40692042_vj_crowd_paindex203.jpg

Did he serve in WWII? Was he some kind of war hero? Or did he get them because he was 'doing' the queen?

Just found this ... http://www.debretts.co.uk/royal_connections/prince_philip.html .. it says his Decorations are: KG (1947), KT (1952), OM (1968 ), GBE (mil 1953), PC (1951, Canada 1957).

He looks like he's got a lot more than that on his chest. Has he nicked 'em from some old soldier asleep in his wheel chair?

He married the Queen! :o :D

StarSparkle

One might be "Grand Cordon, the National Order of the Leopard"!

http://www.regiments.org/biography/royals/1921phil.htm#titles

Its the same point as how did prince edward get all the medals he had on his jacket when they were all stood together on the balcony the other week. I mean c'mon, we all know that he's too much of a wuss to be in any sort of position to earn a medal!

e-bays a wonderful thing isn't it!

Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex

British Empire/Commonwealth Orders and Awards:
1977.06.11 Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal
1989.03.10 CVO
1990 New Zealand 1990 Commemoration Medal
2003.06.02 KCVO
2003.06.02 Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal

I think he got them for services to the Queen

Isn't one of them for the Duke of Edinbr's Award scheme?

One of them is from Elizabeth Duke.



He's just like muttley innee?

They came with the costume rental! :hihi:

Prehaps they were awarded for his fantastic ability to put his foot in his mouth whenever he meets leaders from other countrys :hihi:

I'm sure I saw Harry wearing a couple of medals at the VE celebrations back in May as well - how long has he been in the Army - since January?!?

You need to remember that medals aren't just given for bravery. Being related to the Queen does seem to be a bit of a pre-requisite to get them though.

Originally posted by Chicago
They came with the costume rental! :hihi:

Most plausible reason yet!

Originally posted by banesmabes
I'm sure I saw Harry wearing a couple of medals at the VE celebrations back in May as well - how long has he been in the Army - since January?!?

Queens Jubilee Medals - not military awards.

Oh. Prince Harry .... maybe the Iron Cross!:D

When I was in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary I asked my boss an old and bold Supply Officer about medals for the uniform he said 'just pop down to Joe Feneck (military tailors in Plymouth) and ask him to sew on a yard and a half of assorted' It was funny at the time.....

as little as I care for the royal family (just call me a republican !lol)

the truth of the matter is that the duke of edinburgh, as well as having origins in the greek royal family, was actually a high ranking royal-naval officer, who saw active service in the second world war, in command of a ship. IIRC, two of the ships he was in command of, were sunk.

PT

Originally posted by Plain Talker
the duke of edinburgh...was actually a high ranking royal-naval officer, who saw active service in the second world war, in command of a ship. IIRC, two of the ships he was in command of, were sunk.

Wow! They'll award medals for owt these days ;)

Follow this link to find out the real reason why he deserves all those medals.. :-

Prince Philip The Greek! (http://www.rocknroll.f9.co.uk/advice/princephillipthegreek.html)

Originally posted by Plain Talker
as little as I care for the royal family (just call me a republican !lol)

the truth of the matter is that the duke of edinburgh, as well as having origins in the greek royal family, was actually a high ranking royal-naval officer, who saw active service in the second world war, in command of a ship. IIRC, two of the ships he was in command of, were sunk.

PT

Rather like Lord Mountbatten, who also commanded ships which were sunk (largely due to his own recklessness and incompetence). In fact, Mountbatten made a hash of everything he was put in charge of during (and indeed after) WW2. Had he been of plebian stock, he probably would have struggled to achieve any responsible position.

One of the reasons why the German armed forces during the world wars were so good was that they recognised and promoted talent. Conversely, the British armed forces were riven with class prejudice, with the result that virtually any plummy voiced moron with the right background and connections stood a good chance of promotion to high military rank (Field Marshall Douglas Haig was probably the worst example of this, but there are many others).

Originally posted by serapis
This isn't an anti monarchy thread or anything, so don’t turn this into one please.

How did the Duke of Edinburgh get this rack of medals?
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40692000/jpg/_40692042_vj_crowd_paindex203.jpg

Did he serve in WWII? Was he some kind of war hero? Or did he get them because he was 'doing' the queen?

I'm gald you raised this question because my mum and me have always asked the same thing. They never see active service to gain them. They are so protected when they do visit any country at war. I can think of people who do dersrve medals who never get a mention, and animals in active service.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
(Field Marshall Douglas Haig was probably the worst example of this, but there are many others).

You mean, 'Douggie' of Blackadder fame?!

Seen sweeping all the toy soldiers into the dustpan after ordering the Great (Final) Push? Says it all really.

StarSparkle

Originally posted by StarSparkle
You mean, 'Douggie' of Blackadder fame?!

Seen sweeping all the toy soldiers into the dustpan after ordering the Great (Final) Push? Says it all really.

StarSparkle

StarSparkle,

Yes, that's the one. A remarkably accurate portrayal, by most accounts. The 'real' Douggie was reported as saying after the War that he thought that the machine gun was an over-rated weapon (i.e. after hundreds of thousands of troops had been mown down by machine gun bullets) and that there was still a good place for the cavalry in modern warfare. During the war, there is no recorded instance of him ever having been to the frontline to observe the results of his orders at first hand - another similairity with the Blackadder Douggie. The real Douggie rose to the top through connections and string pulling.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
StarSparkle,

Yes, that's the one. A remarkably accurate portrayal, by most accounts. The 'real' Douggie was reported as saying after the War that he thought that the machine gun was an over-rated weapon (i.e. after hundreds of thousands of troops had been mown down by machine gun bullets) and that there was still a good place for the cavalry in modern warfare. During the war, there is no recorded instance of him ever having been to the frontline to observe the results of his orders at first hand - another similairity with the Blackadder Douggie. The real Douggie rose to the top through connections and string pulling.

I cannot understand how we didn't have an almighty revolution in this country during/following World War I. Completely defeats me - the more I learn about WWI, the less I understand it all. :(

How could people let themselves be misused like that? Mown down in their thousands?

StarSparkle

Originally posted by StarSparkle
I cannot understand how we didn't have an almighty revolution
You did. It wasn't a coup d'etat though.
But a lot of things changed because of it.

Originally posted by StarSparkle
I cannot understand how we didn't have an almighty revolution in this country during/following World War I. Completely defeats me - the more I learn about WWI, the less I understand it all. :(

How could people let themselves be misused like that? Mown down in their thousands?

StarSparkle

Indeed. I think there were several reasons why it was allowed to happen. Firstly, the ordinary soldiers put their faith in the officers (i.e. due largely to class deference). Secondly, the officers were mostly poorly trained and were basing their strategies and tactics on out-dated field manuals which took no account of advances in modern weaponry (in particular the lethality of the machine gun). Haig for example continued to believe in the effectiveness of the mass charge throughout the war, and in the policy of attrition (i.e. killing more of the enemy than they killed of you, regardless of the numbers involved). In other words, he was fighting a 19th century war in a 20th century context. Thirdly, the death penalty was in force throughout WW1 for desertion and other offences. Haig for example sanctioned death warrants throughout the war, notably after the disaster of the Somme when he was looking for scapegoats.

Most people know of the outcome of the battle of the Somme in 1916. But I think in some ways an even better example of what i have written about above was the battle of Loos, when wave after wave of British troops were mown down by German machine gunners. The troops did what their officers told them and that was it. Alan Clarke wrote quite a good book on this disaster. Lions led by Donkeys indeed.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
You did. It wasn't a coup d'etat though.
But a lot of things changed because of it.

Explain, Phan?

What I can't understand is why didn't people just refuse to fight - all that happened is that they got mown down anyway.

I wasn't really talking about a coup d'etat as such - why wasn't there rioting in the streets over what was going on, like there was in Russia, for example? The British just seemed to take it all on the chin.

I know the government had to send tanks into Glasgow to deal with unrest, but what about the rest of the country? :confused:

StarSparkle

One example: WWI brought about much greater class mobility. With the sheer numbers of dead in the fields of flanders, barrow boys and miners were getting field commisions and becoming officers. if they were lucky enough to survive and return to blighty, they returned as officer class not working class, and the opportunities for them were greatly expanded.

Also with the sheer imbalance of the sexes, because so many young men had been killed, universal suffrage had to be hastened because there were so many women working skilled and professional jobs. The advent of WWII furthered this trend.

lots of little revolutions everywhere.

It's hard to have a war, and remain unaffected by it.

Originally posted by serapis
Did he serve in WWII? Was he some kind of war hero? Or did he get them because he was 'doing' the queen?

To paraphrase Steve Bell

"makes one proud to be greco-german"

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
One example: WWI brought about much greater class mobility. With the sheer numbers of dead in the fields of flanders, barrow boys and miners were getting field commisions and becoming officers. if they were lucky enough to survive and return to blighty, they returned as officer class not working class, and the opportunities for them were greatly expanded.

Also with the sheer imbalance of the sexes, because so many young men had been killed, universal suffrage had to be hastened because there were so many women working skilled and professional jobs. The advent of WWII furthered this trend.

lots of little revolutions everywhere.

It's hard to have a war, and remain unaffected by it.

Interesting point about the class mobility.

But still - every major war brings about (social) change of some kind.

WWI in Europe was a war of almost unimaginable proportions - the world had seen nothing like it before - the total devastation, the sheer volume of the dead. The cream (and more) of Europe's young men completely wiped out. You could almost say Generational Genocide.

The psychological wound to Britain's remaining population - I can't even begin to think how massive that must have been.

Why was there not a massive revolution? Were people just too damaged, too much in shock? I don't know.....

StarSparkle

The world wars did indeed set in train major socio-political changes. For example, WW1 played a major role in the (partial) emancipation of women in this country. On the other hand, the working classes never got the 'homes fit for heroes' they were promised and were treated just as badly after WW1 as they had been before. But it also gave a big boost to the rise of the Labour party. WW2 played a big role in the emergence of the welfare state as we know it and also led to a qualitiative change in the nature and extent of state intervention in industry. It also played a big role in the emergence of the civil rights movement in the US. Furthermore, it led to the demise of the European empres. In addition, both world wars led to rapid technological changes which had major socio-economic implications. There was never any prospect of a Bolshevik type revolution in Britain. The British are much too level headed and sensible to allow themselves to fall prey to political fanatics.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
There was never any prospect of a Bolshevik type revolution in Britain. The British are much too level headed and sensible to allow themselves to fall prey to political fanatics.

The Red Clydesiders, Lord Chaverly?

As I said above, the government was forced to send in tanks to a major British city - Glasgow - to quell revolution.

Why didn't it happen elsewhere? Or did it?

I am genuinely puzzled.

StarSparkle

Originally posted by StarSparkle
The Red Clydesiders, Lord Chaverly?

As I said above, the government was forced to send in tanks to a major British city - Glasgow - to quell revolution.

Why didn't it happen elsewhere? Or did it?

I am genuinely puzzled.

StarSparkle

I think at the time there was indeed a fear of revolution in the UK, as a result of the Bolshevik revolution. This fear was apparent at various times thoughout the 1920s (notably during the General Strike of 1926). But I personally believe tihs fear was over-stated and misplaced. The British working classes wanted improvements in their situation, and wanted their genuine grievances addressed, but within the framework of the exisiting political system (i.e. reform, not revolution). This is why the communist party never achieved much electoral success. There were indeed pockets of 'revolutionary unrest' such as in the Clyde shipyards) but these never looked likely to spread to the rest of the country.

Back to topic,who gave him this?
1982 CD****
And what group was it ?