The first dispute was over whether the massive coverage of his death was reasonable or disproportionate. On Friday night, viewers of Vera on the ABC were abruptly interrupted, not briefly but at great length, by an announcement of his death. Many were not amused, and subsequent debate revealed divided opinions, mirroring similar disputes in Britain over the extended coverage provided by the BBC. For some people, immediate wall-to-wall coverage was appropriate out of respect for the husband of the head of state in a constitutional monarchy, reflecting the love of the wider community for him and what he represented.

These disagreements inevitably follow the death of any celebrity, and in part that is what all members of the royal family are. Just before Philip's death the rugby league legend, Tommy Raudonikis, passed away, and that event received huge coverage, though mainly limited to the sports pages. For some observers from outside the code that coverage must have verged on overkill. Coverage of Philip's death should be put in this context of modern media.

It should also not surprise anyone who has observed the long-term attraction of British royalty for the film and television industry, and for the Australian magazine industry. The royals, including the younger royals like Harry and Meghan, are commercial winners. This commercial aspect is entangled with other elements of the coverage.

Philip's death has also encouraged other debates about the man himself. A rounded view should try to balance the positives and the negatives.

One useful perspective is to see Philip as the husband or consort of a powerful woman. As women begin to achieve more frequently their rightful place in powerful positions, this perspective has wider application. Like other modern monarchies, the British monarchy has produced several such models, including Prince Albert, husband of Queen Victoria, who was on the throne when the Commonwealth of Australia began on January 1, 1901.

Philip played the role of consort well by combining recognition of his own secondary place behind Elizabeth with an energetic life of his own. In recent times some of the wives of Australian Prime Ministers have managed to do this too, though for briefer periods of time. Philip had about 67 years to perfect the art. We have had too few husbands/partners of women prime ministers or governors-general in Australia (just two) to show how that works here.

Most descriptions of Philip have emphasised his life of service. He has fulfilled a public role alongside the monarch which involved subjugating some of his personal time to public duty.

That description should not be challenged, and he should be given credit. But it should be matched by an acknowledgment that, like all members of the royal family, he lived a life of enormous wealth and undisputed privilege. That wealth and privilege enabled him to follow his private pursuits. Not only did he accompany his wife on many royal visits, but he also travelled alone around the world, living a free-wheeling private life.

His many private interests included the environment, and he was a major contributor to the early environment movement. This included his leadership roles with the World Wildlife Fund, and, in Australia, his critical role in assisting in creating and then leading the Australian Conservation Foundation. This role involved not just positive intervention in Australian affairs in the 1960s, but the almost incredible situation of the president of an Australian lobby group combining that role with being the constitutional monarch's consort. And he played a real, if subtle, lobbying role, as Commonwealth treasurers of the day attested.

READ MORE:

His style was frank, even outrageous on occasions. That was both a virtue and a weakness. His defenders now confuse his inappropriate comments with having a sense of humour. Why not recognise that such characteristics often go together? Some Australian politicians come to mind. Instead, the culture warriors now reckon Philip was a bastion against political correctness. Give me a break.

Philip could always be counted on to be honest about Australia becoming a republic, as Malcolm Turnbull has testified. He was surprised that Australians did not take the opportunity in 1999. That comment recognised that constitutional reform in Australia is, and always will be, a matter for Australians. No one should blame the royal family, though it will do everything in its power to remain in business in the United Kingdom.

The death of Philip foreshadows other unavoidable matters. The reign of Queen Elizabeth II, not far short of 70 years, is coming to an end. If Australians really are Elizabethans rather than monarchists by nature, then constitutional change may follow. Prince Charles is 72 yet remains in waiting.

Most royal commentators are confident the Queen will not abdicate, which means that Charles may have to wait for a while longer. He may be 80 before he ascends the British throne. If Elizabeth does not step down, given that it has always been her position that she is committed for life, then she may be neglecting to follow some recent sensible examples, including several European monarchs and, in another arena, Pope Benedict XVI.

Whatever the case, Australians should prepare themselves for King Charles in the not-too-distant future. It is in that context that the next republican referendum will be held.