Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Popular?

Is he really popular? First I've heard of ir. Can you quote and authority for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.106.209 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 12 May 2006

To the unsigned question above. I would think the opposite would be true. Especially taking into accounthis complaining about having to do his duties at opening ceremonies etc. Also his racist outbursts. Snowbound 03:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, amongst most of the people I know, we view him with a kind of love-to-hate attitude you reserve for that one crazy old great-uncle who, it's quite certain, comes out with half of the insane, cranky and thoroughly off-the-wall stuff he does semi-deliberatly, but manages to be totally loved n spite (or because) of it. I refuse to believe he's as dumb as he appears. My suspicion is he plays that up. Still wouldn't trade him for the world. Maybe that's something we need. The guy who we can look at and go "as long as you aren't as weird as him, you're fine." --81.174.244.104 06:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything "love-to-hate" about him. Everyone I know thinks he is a racist, bigotted, spoilt and utterly unpleasant person. I think it is something we absolutely do NOT need.195.172.15.93 15:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

To be fair - he is in his 80's and has done a sight more than the rest of the Royals. Whereas his kids have either dropped out of the military or just not bothered (with exception of Andrew) and spunge off the state he has served as a ships CO during wartime and has seen plenty of combat. He is also the product of a different age where his "racist outbursts" as you call them were commom talk - incase you didn't know the Royals aren't really kept up to date on todays "equality laws" which in themselves are pretty racist towards the majority. Whenever I have visited one of my ancient relatives in hospital I have myself been shocked by the language used by old people - but have got used to it around them. I have heard black nurses be called "wogs" and "geurillas" to their faces by elderly white patients and white nurses called "vanilla" and "whitey" by elderly black people. People that old had no restrictions in those days so why should they now that they are dying? He may be the monarch but he is the same as any other oldie - exactly the same as the queen is according to the public. He has stood by the queen all their lives - unlike Charles or the other one and does do a great deal for charity. His health is also slowly degrading - I'd like to see you at the age of 80something stand up for hours to give speeches and open things etc. True - the queen mother was 100 and was still doing these things but usually appeared in hospital every other week because of it. My advice - lay off him. I have read the list of "racist" comments and I have to say - being someone that dislikes racism there doesn't seem to be alot of controversy in any of them. The "slitty eyes" comment was made over 20 years ago when China was not particulalry trusted by the UK, the comment about the fat kid wanting to be an astonaught was just incredibly funny and truthful, the Scottish booze joke was one that is used quite often by all types of people and doesn't imply that scottish people are all lazy drunken layabouts (I'm scottish) - and the "aren't you descended from pirates" comment is most accurate for people in that part of the world that can trace their ancestry back that far. As for the Romanian Orphan comment - Eastern Europe must hold the world record for number of Civil Wars and people leaving the country and their kids behind to suffer and die and the Lockerbie comment is jsut silly - What else can you say to someone in that situation but bring up something bad that has happened to you also - like his home being destroyed? In my opinion there are controversial comments and pure racism and comments that people look to far into and twist and take offence where none is mean in spite or offence. a fact too common these days - if he refered to various races as "subhuman" or used very offensive language then I'd understand but people are just being too touchy and are probably people who want to get rid of the monarchy so are looking for any excuse they can find. Pagren - 16/11/2006

All those controversial remarks

The list of controversial remarks contains a whole bunch which are either undocumented attributions or quite probably just made up. It could probably use trimming down a lot to those with at least some documentation, rather than "Hey, some bloke I know says that someone he once met was told that Prince Philip once said [...]" - he's as popular as Winston Churchill for randomly attributing things to. --Mike 04:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Tbh this is true of many quotes on wiki, they are hard to substanciate even if they may be true. Alci12 15:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalisation

This page has been significantly vandalised. It claims he's the MP for Charles Kennedy's constituency, that he runs the country and various other bizarre things. I'm going to reinstate an older version or edit out the wierdness. craigTheBrit 12:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

So Mohammed Fayed's found out about Wikipedia then.(AndrewAnorak (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC))

Oh, it's been done. Good thing too, I didn't know how :D. craigTheBrit 12:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You chaps are patently not British, nor are you Royalist. Shame on you. Furthermore, you have no sense of humour and/or grip on reality. I despair for the youth of the United Kingdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subloodyperb (talk • contribs)

Stop acting the ass, Sub. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 13:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)}

Farting

removed from main article:

In 2006 Prince Philip farted in a Royal Ceremony and mischievously smiled as Prince Harry giggled.[1]

-Taco325i 06:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

WHY REMOVE THIS? IT IS TRUE AND HAD THE PUBLIC IN STITCHES ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

It seems the reason that it was removed is that ANY CONTROVERSIAL SENTENCES for ANY royal are removed by some pandering royalists at wikipedia. Has the UK still not come far enough and modernized enough that we still need to be slavish to Royals? What is the use of an encyclopedia if anything slightly controversial about any royal is removed? This is not the Palace PR site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.149.222 (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate notes

Can someone look at the notes - not really sure why they're duplicating... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregmcdougall (talk • contribs) 22:46, 28 August 2006

Affairs

Exactly what does this quote really mean? "I am the type who enjoys loyal company at Balmoral, if you catch my drift". Catch my drift??? Mowens35 18:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Dexter

I believe that the usage of the word "dexter" and punctuation of the sentence about the coat of arms is incorrect. Does anyone agree?--Filll 14:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Reversed Alci12 12:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Date of Birth

He was born 10 June 1921, according to the Gregorian Calendar. However, at that time, Greece was still using the Julian calendar. It did not convert to the Gregorian until 1 March 1923. Shouldn't there be some reference to the fact that, while 10 June is the correct Gregorian date, his birth records will show 28 May, and why? JackofOz 01:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No response, so I've been bold and added a suitable note to his birth date. -- JackofOz 07:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The Prince's personal feelings

However the knowledge that it would be eclipsed by his wife's future role as Queen was always in his mind.

I'd love to see a citation/substantiation for this one.. .. I'm removing it in 24 hours...

Actually, I seem to remember reading that Philip once made the comment that he was the only man in the country who wasn't allowed to pass his surname (Mountbatten) onto his children, which is why the Queen stated in 1960 that her descendants would bear the name "Mountbatten-Windsor". I don't recall where I read it nor do I know the cite so I won't change the article to reflect this, but the fact that Philip did make the comment seems to show that he is aware of his unusual status (beneath that of his wife). He must also notice that her throne is a bit bigger than fancier than his in the throne room. Just a little aside. RockStarSheister (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Royal house

Why is the infobox piped from the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg to "House of Oldenburg"? The two houses are not the same and the his native Greek family considers itself to be Glücksburgers like the royal houses of Denmark and Norway. It would seem more correct to change the house to "House of Glücksburg" but does anybody know how he refers to himself? Valentinian ^{T / C} 08:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that SHSG is a cadet branch of the House of Oldenburg... If you're sure and that's not the case, then do please be bold and correct it. DBD 11:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The House of Glücksburg is one of two cadet branches (the other is the House of Augustenborg), but the house of Oldenburg as such died out in 1863 with the death of the childless Frederick VII of Denmark. The Danish [2] and Norwegian [3] royal families refer to themselves as Glücksburgers, and Prince Christian of Glücksburg - from whom Prince Philip descends - did the same. But this is the world viewed through Danish glasses. :) I'm not sure if British tradition differs in this respect. Valentinian ^{T / C} 16:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"House of Oldenburg" is the name used for the whole agnatic line, which also includes the families of the former Emperors of Russia and Grand Dukes of Oldenburg. The House of Augustenburg, btw, is extinct. john k 16:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. In that case the English way of styling royalty must differ from the Scandinavian. You are quite right, the Augustenborg line is extinct (the least said about them, the better). Valentinian ^{T / C} 17:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal life section removed

This section contained a large number of unsourced allegations about affairs, homosexuality and illegitimate children, and I've removed it accordingly. It did contain one semi-sourced paragraph but that also made references to the earlier allegations as well. I've removed it all per WP:BLP, but obviously I've no objections if an improved sourced version is put back in its place. I also removed [[Image:Duke and Bush.jpg|thumb|250px|Prince Philip and the [[President of the United States]]]] as it was in the same section and I couldn't find anywhere convenient to put it instead, so I'm mentioning it here so someone knows to put it back. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the pic, call it collateral damage. you were right to remove the BLP vio stuff, SqueakBox 17:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

New pic

Excelelnt work, SqueakBox 21:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Prince Consort

Have I dreamt this?: Queen Elizabeth II is to bestow the title 'prince consort' on Philip, at their 60th wedding anniversary (November 1947). GoodDay 22:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You have not dreamt it, it's from the New York Post: [4] I have no idea how well-founded it is, it sounds like something someone has deemed "possible" which then has become "plausible" and "likely" in American media... But I'm definitely not a "royal insider", so I don't know what will happen in November. It's certainly possible, of course. -- Jao 00:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I really wonder what the source of the NY Post's information is. Google seems to have no other references to it, except this, which refers to the NY Post article, but doesn’t advance the matter. This reveals an interesting series of communications on the subject in 1954 and 1955, involving the then UK Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill. JackofOz 00:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Legend

Prince Philip is a legend. I think in amongst all the quotes of supposedly offensive remarks I think it should be noted that at least he speaks his mind truthfully which is a breath of fresh air compared to most public figures these days who try to "dress up" everything and only say whatever they think they "should say" (to get votes or whatever) rather than what they truly believe.

Hear, hear! DBD 13:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If you have a citation, you can add this to the article. PS- also add fact, he's not being an elected official, gives him freedom to speak his mind with no worries of consequences. In otherwords, his salary (paid for, by British taxpayers) is in no danger of being abolshed. GoodDay 20:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Abandoned" titles

This should be discussed more clearly. Does he still possess them? Has he simply given up using them? Needs more precision. --208.68.26.71 14:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion in the news group alt.talk.royalty, he still seems to posses but not just use the Greek titles.222.147.177.92 05:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Philip only ever gave up the use of the titles Prince of Greece and Prince of Denmark and the Greek style of Royal Highness and the Danish style of Highness. There are also other titles which he has but does not use, such as Heir of Norway, Duke of Schleswig and of Holstein, etc. Charles 10:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

He may still be a prince of denmark with style of highness as the danish constitution doesn't provide for relinquishing danish style and titles. It also does not required danish princes to be danish citizens. Its very a technical piont but it would considering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.225.132 (talk) 22:10, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

prince philip as a god

http://www.news.vu/en/news/InternationalMediaCoverage/060618-Vanuatu-tourism-Jon-Frum.shtml 82.11.195.211 11:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Heir to Duke of Edinburgh

I removed from box "successor" and suc-type "Heir-Apparent" = Prince Charles in the light of a section of the Duke of Edinburgh article i.e. Duke of Edinburgh#Future Dukes which indicates that Edward might be the next Duke of Edinburgh, Philip's "successor" in other words. Besides, Charles is heir to the throne and a casual glance at Charles being "Heir-Apparent" might lead to the false impression that Philip and Elizabeth are King and Queen and Charles is their heir.
User:Brenont 06:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Prince Edward cannot succeed to the current creation of the Dukedom unless the Prince of Wales, Prince William, Prince Harry, and the Duke of York predecease him, all without any male heirs. The Dukedom will be recreated for Edward after the death of both the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, at which time it will have merged with the crown. If the Duke of Edinburgh died today, Prince Charles would become the 2nd Duke of Edinburgh.--Ibagli (Talk) 21:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand by the Court Circular, in giving HRH Prince Edward the Title "Earl of Wessex" was so that his father's title would come to him after his father's death. This would mean that Prince Edward would become Duke of Edinburgh and not The Prince of Wales or The Duke of York IrishColonial (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Almost. Presuming that both Philip and Elizabeth predecease Charles, the title will become merged in the Crown. In theory, that would mean no one else could ever hold the title again, except for the Sovereign; Charles would inherit, and William after him, and so on. It would simply be one of the (seemingly endless) titles that have disappeared through inheritance by the Sovereign. Rumour has it, though, that they are going to break with tradition and have Edward created D of E upon his father's death. I find that very peculiar. I understand why, of course, but it flies in the face of hundreds of years of tradition and precedence; Charles will inherit the title. He cannot hold a peerage from himself, but that would likewise suggest he also could not disclaim a peerage that he cannot hold. If Edward becomes D of E it would have to be an entirely new creation of the title, but I'm very, very unclear on how exactly that would work, since the title would still be (very technically) in existence.

Oh, and Edward would never ever become Prince of Wales. That title is held exclusively for the eldest son of the Sovereign (though part of me hopes that Wills has a daughter first, and in the fullness of time creates her Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, etc all in her own right, and pushes Parliament to move to strict primogeniture as opposed to male-preference primogeniture).PrinceOfCanada (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Peerages inherited by the British sovereign do merge into the Crown at the moment of inheritance. But there is nothing in British law or tradition that forbids the title from being re-conferred on someone else thereafter. The tradition is merely that once a geographical designation is used in a peerage for a royal, henceforth it is only used in peerages conferred upon royalty (as loosely defined). But such peerages may be and certainly have been re-granted: George V was hereditary Duke of York (as well as Prince of Wales) when he became king in 1911. He re-conferred that dukedom on his second son, who later became George VI. And after the Dukes of Cambridge went extinct, the title "Marquess of Cambridge" was given to one of his female-line descendants in 1917, in lieu of the foreign title, "Prince of Teck".

"Princess of Wales" could only be conferred upon William's future daughter after inheritance of the Crown is changed from male-preference primogeniture by Parliament: although the princedom of Wales must be re-created for every new heir-apparent, each grant is restricted by patent to the heir-male of the sovereign (who need not be the eldest son of the sovereign, but usually is). No point in changing the patent without changing the rules of succession first -- confusion would ensue.

Finally, the Earl of Wessex need not wait until both his parents are dead to obtain a dukedom of Edinburgh: A duplicate dukedom (with a difference, such as "Duke of Edinburgh and Wessex" or "Duke of Edinburgh ," (comma moved from where it was in the previous letters patent -- any differentiation in titulature will do) could be conferred on Edward today, or on Philip -- with a remainder to Edward this time instead of to Charles. Charles would then inherit the original dukedom, but as Prince of Wales he would never use it, and it would cease to exist when he succeeds to the throne. Yet from Philip's death, Edward would be known by the new dukedom. That's what was done with the dukedom of Fife for the elder daughter of the Princess Royal in 1905. The more mundane way to do it would be to wait until both Philip and Elizabeth II are dead, and leave it to Charles to create a new dukedom of Edinburgh for his brother. But then the Queen will never see her younger son bear her husband's title. Also, several assumptions would still have to hold true in the future: will the law and/or government still permit creation of new dukedoms? Will Edward still want it? And/or will Charles still be inclined to give it to his younger brother?: Better to get it done now, while Philip's alive and the commitment to get it to Edward is fresh FactStraight (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. However.. Letters Patent can always be amended, no? So Wills (if he had a daughter) could just issue a new LP and confer the Principality upon her. (And, actually.. even if they didn't move to strict primogeniture, that could be pretty neat; she gets Wales, younger brother gets the UK & Commonwealth.) PrinceOfCanada (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I just needed to pont out that the succession law will not have to change in order to give Prince William's daughter the Princedom of Wales. If Prince William has a daughter and dies before his father (who is either already King or dead), then Prince William's daughter would be the heiress apparent as the only child of the deceased eldest son. Surtsicna (talk) 11:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually no. She would be heiress presumptive (and then apparent, upon his death), and she would be a Princess of Wales, not The Princess of Wales, unless--as pointed out above--the Letters Patent (re)creating the title are written for a female. The Princedom of Wales is not heritable. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 11:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That's what I said: she would be the heiress apparent if her father, the King's eldest son, predeceases her grandfather the King. She would thus be the first in line of succession and no matter how many uncles she has/gets, she would still be the heiress apparent since her father was the eldest son. I know that the Princedom is not heritable and that she would have to be created [the] Princess of Wales by her grandfather, but the Princedom is limited to the heir apparent, not male heir apparent. Surtsicna (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

And you're still wrong, I'm afraid. The title of Prince of Wales is reserved solely for male heirs; 'Princess of Wales' can only ever be the wife of the heir. While they are not always correct, the royal website may assist you in this. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 00:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"While they are not always correct" indeed — from taht very page "The title 'Prince of Wales' may be possessed only by the eldest son of a Sovereign." George III anyone? Sigh. DBD 02:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Says who? The Royal Website? I'm sure the Queen feels bound by that... The fact that only men have ever been created Prince of Wales does not mean a woman couldn't in the future. There is no law saying who can and cannot be given that title, only convention, which the Sovereign is legally free to depart from at any time. So there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why a female heir apparent could not be created Princess of Wales. Proteus (Talk) 14:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Middle Name?

Does anyone know for sure whether when Prince Philippos (as he was originally called) was christened or on his birth certificate, did he have a middle name? Usually Greek Orthodox people always have their father's first name as their middle name, so was he named/christened Prince Philippos Andreas?

Yes, as the article says. But he didn't include "Andrew" when he changed his name on assuming British citizenship. DBD 15:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Tom Clancy's "Patriot Games"

Isn't the fictional prince in Tom Clancy's Patriot Games supposed to represent Prince Philip? 76.211.194.19 22:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Prince Charles and Lady Di, back before they started seeing other people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.196.231.33 (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I always assumed it was Lord Mountbatten, SqueakBox 22:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Definite article in the lead

Message duplicated from my talk page in response to the edit summary of my revert

Ok, but then according to the discussion at Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh#The Prince (which doesn't really look like a consensus) the opening should be "His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh". CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

First, no, there wasn't much discussion, so we can't really speak of a consensus. Still, the last word was that "The" is correct and since then no objections have been raised against this interpretation. If there is indeed a content dispute here, then we might as well give either version in the lead and a footnote that discusses the incertainty of the inclusion of "The"; I would be happy with that. As for the HRH analogy: yes, that would be very logical (the best way to start would certainly be simply "His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh"), but for some reason WP:MOSBIO#Honorific prefixes explicitly forbids opening the article with those words. It doesn't say anything about "The", though, so I think we should stick with what's correct there. -- Jao 14:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I went an re-read the MOS. Then I looked at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Victoria of the United Kingdom and Albert, Prince Consort. So after looking at those plus this article I could easily get the impression that Albert, Prince Consort and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh are more important people than their wives. Both of the males include titles in the article name and the opening, while neither of the females do. This article starts out "The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh", Albert, Prince Consort starts out Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, while neither of the females titles are mentioned in the start. So based on that I would agree that the "The" should be included but this article should be moved to Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth would we move the article?! DBD 22:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is "the" doing here? "The Prince Firstname" is a form used for sons of a monarch. The Duke of Edinburgh is the grandson of a King of Greece (who renounced his Greek titles), and a prince of the United Kingdom by decree. I can't imagine where he'd get a "the Prince" from. john k 04:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess it was up to the Queen to decide whether he'd get a "the" or not. The source for its inclusion was a proclamation in the London Gazette, which now seems to be unavailable. Shouldn't it be possible to find the actual wording of the 1957 Letters Patent? Of course, it might eschew the matter altogether, but I think that if there's no mention of "the" in the actual Letters Patent, then we're safe to assume he shouldn't have a "the". -- Jao 08:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

To DBD, take a look at Category:English and British princes, it's a mess. All the people listed there should be at "Prince name" or "name ..." not a mixture of the two. Also if you look at the sub-categories of Category:British monarchs you can see that other than Lady Jane Grey and King Arthur they all appear to be at "name of ..." rather than "Queen ..." or "King ...".

Unfortunately, the link in "the prince" section above isn't working but I'm sure that the Queen did name him "His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh", but that means to me that "The" is an honorific the same way that "His Royal Highness" is. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here goes. All of our prince articles (since the Hanoverian accession, when the prince/ss rules were first imported) are at Prince X... except for those with substantive princely titles, like "Prince of Wales" – HRH The Prince of Wales is at Charles, Prince of Wales, because there is no need for a Prince before Charles, because his princeliness is evident from his title, whereas HRH The Earl of Wessex is at Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, because his title is an earldom.

As for monarchs, all those since the Norman conquest are at X # of Y, except Lady Jane Grey, whose status as monarch is disputed, and, since she is never known as "Jane of England", but as "Lady Jane Grey", that's where she is.

And, actually, "The Prince" is a substantive title, just like "Prince", except "The Prince" is a higher honour, usually only for sons of the sovereign.

I hope you're clear now DBD 13:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)