Talk:Death and funeral of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Reactions/international reactions
Hi there, I feel it might be helpful to propose a split of the reactions area of the article? The article is quite long at the moment and I imagine a split to a new International reactions to the death and funeral of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh or Reactions to the death and funeral of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh might be useful, similar to International reactions to the death of Muammar Gaddafi? Fixing26 (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I would be in support of such a split, although consensus is needed. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The article is not that long, it's better to have reactions here Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is considerably large, I think that we should split the page as a result of that Fixing26 (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to start a split proposal below to come to a consensus. Fixing26 (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Splitting proposal
I propose that we split #Reactions to a new article named to Reactions to the death of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. The page is considerably large and the international reactions area especially could be expanded upon to include full comments from each nation, politicians, individuals etc. Fixing26 (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't really have an opinion on the matter (I mean if people want to split it to expand on the existing content, that seems reasonable if the expanded material is large enough). But the size of the article's readable prose alone wouldn't justify a page move based off WP:SIZERULE (the article's readable prose totals to 40 kB from 6804 words, which the MoS considers a reasonably sized article). Leventio (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above. We can revisit this if the article swells in size. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: If there is a consensus to split, then I would suggest splitting the article into two articles: Death of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and Funeral of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (like there are Death of Diana, Princess of Wales and Funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales). The reactions to his death can be covered in more detail in the article Death of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and the funeral service and aftermath can be covered in greater detail at Funeral of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Peter Ormond (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Tbh, I think that splitting the article into two is a good idea, one covering the death itself along with the reactions, and another covering the full details of the planning of and execution of the funeral, as stated above me. Ilikefeeshlol1234321 (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not really that large to cause a concern and is of readable size, however, it is possible to break it down to two articles as Peter Ormond said, one covering the death and the reactions, and the other covering the funeral and plans, but I would strongly oppose the inclusion of detailed comments by politicians, heads of nations, and religious figures. It's very trivial, unnecessary, and even against our guidelines to some extent to include messages of condolence from people, and it has no precedent whatsoever, neither for royalty (see Death and state funeral of George VI, Death and funeral of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, Death of Diana, Princess of Wales, etc.) nor non-royalty (see Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher, Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan, etc.). Keivan.f  Talk 05:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC) – additional note: As some other users pointed out, the prose is of readable size, and since the article about the previous royal consort covers the death and funeral within the same page, I think it’s even better to keep it the way it is for the sake of consistency as there’s no justification for a split based on size. Thus, I also oppose the proposal.  Keivan.f  Talk 20:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with splitting into two: one for the death (including reactions), and one for the funeral (including planning for it, and the effect of Covid-19 on the plans). Mike Marchmont (talk) 09:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I support splitting into an article on the death and another on the funeral, per . There is enough content on this page for a split to be viable. Andysmith248 (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * support one page for the death and one page for the funeral Yeungkahchun (talk) 07:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Peter Osmond's suggestion of splitting into death and funeral articles, respectively. Fixing26's proposal is a viable alternative also. Sean Stephens (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Peter Ormond this article is way too long --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose any split the article is 6851 words of readable prose or 40 kB, a size at which "Length alone does not justify division" according to WP:Article size. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * STRONGLY OPPOSE Agree with c|Buidhe|c. There is no need to separate these article and there is not enough content for two separate articles. Michael-Moates (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There would be hardly any content left for two pages, and why go back and forth between the articles when you can have it all on one page, it is not that long. If you look at the footnotes and references, they comprise half of the article --Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Ilikefeeshlol1234321. -- BonsMans1 (talk•contributions), 06:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I've changed my mind. As mentioned above, I was previously in agreement with the proposal. But having read all the arguments for and against, I now oppose it. Mike Marchmont (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Condensing reactions
Is there support for condensing the Reactions section? The preceding thread shows that a significant number of editors find it too large. I do not see why every tiny gesture and any leader's words should be reported. Businesses on Malta flowing flags at half-mast; "some locals in Mumbai" saying nice things about him; the number of times a bell was rung in Canada, and officiants and guests at every memorial service in the world; all that who-said-what about the books of condolences; who wrote what on social media, and so on, does not strike me as indispensable encyclopedic material. Surtsicna (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Whatever happens to the split, Iagree with condensing the reactions. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree. I have trimmed out the locals. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This makes sense. We could perhaps keep the reactions of the Royal Family and certain other UK individuals and institutions (Prime Minister; devolved parliaments), but in a shortened form. For the others, perhaps a series of bullet points, one for each country or person. If we did all that, it would reduce or eliminate the need to split the reactions into a separate article. Mike Marchmont (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That would still be too much, if you ask me. My idea is to simply state that condolences came from around the Commonwealth and other countries, such as X and Y, or something to that effect. Anything more than that and the article resembles a book of condolences more than an encyclopedic article. Surtsicna (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I've done some condensing and more will follow. There was a lot of bloat. Surtsicna (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

The precise number of gun salutes has been restored. Is it not enough for an encyclopedia to say that gun salutes took place across the Commonwealth, and why? Surtsicna (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Tense in captions
Shouldn't this be consistent across all images? "Flags flying" vs "flags were flown", etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Leonora, Countess of Lichfield
Why isn't she listed with the relatives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.234.153.115 (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * They ceased to be related when she divorced Patrick Anson, 5th Earl of Lichfield. 2601:241:300:B610:ED52:DF0B:132B:F755 (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

That answer is not wrong but also not the whole truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.238.94.153 (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Prince Phillip Died From Old Age....
While obvious, two months less than 100 years of age, it is, indeed, plausible that Phillip died from one of the many vicissitudes of aging. However, a Death Certificate will usually confirm that a person, of his age, died of "Natural Causes."

On a Death Certificate, you will read: "Immediate Cause Of Death" & "Underlying Cause Of Death." Phillip's physician got around this by writing that Cause-of-death was old age. Hence, Elizabeth, The Queen, also, died of one of the vicissitudes of aging at 96.

Games are played to provide Mystique and allow the Realm to believe that each and both slipped away - happily ever after! Spenser - The Unknown (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)