Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh/Archive 1

Ahnenreihe
I'm not sure about the Ahnenreihe, it looks a bit untidy really. Mintguy 08:37 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC)


 * Only just noticed this, and I agree, it dominates the article. Although I don't doubt its accuracy, I don't see that it adds value to the article.  If this stays, it could be opening the floodgates for similar genealogical tables elsewhere. Deb 15:51, 26 December 2002 (UTC)


 * What do the numbers in the Ahnenreihe actually mean? Surely not generations.  They make it look wrong.  -- Zoe 21:01, 26 December 2002 (UTC)


 * Answer to this can be found on the Ahnenreihe page. Mintguy 01:03, 22 January 2003 (UTC)


 * Someone else added the Ahnenreihe (q.v.), admitting that it was an experiment at the time. Since seeing it here, I've been plagued by urges to add them to other people's articles, but so far I've managed to resist. :) It might be better just to limit it to go back three generations, as that would cut its length by about half, and it might look neater with just the years and not the exact dates, as the exact dates should hopefully be in the individual articles. I rather like it, but I can see how it might start to clutter up the encyclopaedia if they start popping up everywhere, so I won't be too upset if the consensus is to get rid of it...
 * Oh, and by the way, I've moved the page to "Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh", so I'd better put my armour on to protect myself from the inevitable attack... :) -- Oliver PEREIRA 01:16 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)


 * His ancestors can be seen in this Ahnentafel: Mintguy 07:57, 12 May 2003 (UTC)


 * Oh, you old meanies. :( -- Oliver P. 09:13 May 12, 2003 (UTC)


 * I've put the ahnentafel of Prince Philip on the "Ahnentafel" page, since there's no need to waste all that hard work. I think some sort of table to show various royal personages ancestors and descendants for several generations either way might be worthwhile. john 09:48 May 12, 2003 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks for doing that. I think it's good to have a concrete example of an Ahnenreihe in that article, to illustrate the principle. (But did I really write that message above!?) As for making tables for other royal people, I think that would be useful in demonstrating the variety of ancestry that they had, and what other royal houses they were descended from, and so on. There are various proposals for table layouts at WikiProject Genealogy which look quite nice, but as far as I'm aware, none of them have been used in any real articles yet. I might get round to making some at some point... -- Oliver P. 21:42 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

Better image
This page now appears to be an advert for Denis Judd's book. Can we have a better image please. Mintguy 01:03, 22 January 2003 (UTC)

HRH's Titles
"His official title" makes no sense.

I have replaced it because it is inconsistent in using military ranks - only one military title is used and I would say that is in the wrong place (he is Admiral of the Fleet HRH The Duke of Edinburgh) or Field Marshal or Marshal of the Royal Air Force. If included his title would change depending on his uniform.

And surely he should described as Knight Grand Cross of the OBE. If have not included his place as of the Order, I take his title of honour to be GBE and treated Grand Master as a job.

There is a fairly comprehensive list of his awards etc at Burke's Peerage garryq 11:11, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not the King?
Why is Prince Phillip not the King? Nichalp 20:06, May 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * The titles of King and Queen follow different traditions. A Queen may be either a sovereign in her own right (called a Queen Regnant) or the wife of a sovereign (called a Queen Consort). However Kings are only sovereigns, so that the husbands of Queens Regnant are usually styled Prince.


 * Actually kings can be merely the husband of a sovereign eg a king consort. England hasn't had one since Mary I's husband King Philip.  It's still the rule in Spain. (Alphaboi867 03:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC))


 * William III became King Regnant after the death of his wife, Mary II, and had been co-ruler with her (actually their) reign.


 * Yeah BUT Philip was already a king (although he WAS king consort of England as well) so it wasn't a rise in status. William III was actually King Regnant when he and Mary started their joint reign - their reigns were unusual because they were both a King Regnant and Queen regnant and married. So he was never a king consort.--Jayboy2005 15:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Curious Reader: Actually ,Philip II of Spain became King of Spain in 1556 (upon his father's abdication), 2 years after his 1554 marriage to Queen Mary I of England & Ireland.


 * Just prior to his marriage to Mary I, the later Philip II of Spain was created King of Naples and Jerusalem by his father the Emperor Charles V. Penrithguy 15:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources of quotes
Please provide sources for the quotes you add. While the Nigerian thing is easy to confirm (, for instance), I would like to know the source of the latest one, as I Googled for it with no success. -- Jao 12:38, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Style after death
After his death will he be referred by his birth name/style just as deceased Queen-Consorts are? Prince Albert, Queen Victoria's consort is listed as Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha not Prince Albert of the United Kingdom. Wouldn't Phillip then become Phillip of Greece & Denmark? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.32.104.153 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 19 November 2004


 * He gave up his Greek citizenship before marrying though... I don't think he'd magically get it back.  Pakaran (ark a pan) 18:16, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * But all of the foreign queen-consorts lost their citizenship (so did Prince Albert) but they're still referenced under they're pre-maritial titles. (Alphaboi867 03:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC))


 * But does he need Greek citizenship to hold a title? If you take a look down onhe line of succession to the British throne, there is plenty of Prussian and Yugoslavian nobility floating around, and nobody holds citizenship to those countries anymore.

He is a peer in his own right. Albert, it should be noted, was never a Prince of the UK. Nor was Prince George, the other example of a male consort (who wasn't king). Prince George was Duke of Cumberland, but was never referred to as such either during his lifetime or after. Philip is known as the Duke of Edinburgh, and he holds that title in his own right, not in right of being the Queen's husband. Similarly, he is a prince of the UK in his own right, not in right of being the Queen's husband. The situation is simply not analogous. john k 04:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually Queen Victoria created Albert a Prince of the United Kingdom four days before the wedding. He was also naturalized a British subject.  He didn't want a peerage because he felt that since he was already a Duke of Saxony being say Duke of York was beneath him.  Victoria made hime Prince Consort in 1857, after 17 years of marriage.  (Alphaboi867 05:34, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC))

Well, then Albert's situation in terms of being a prince is analogous to Philip's, but neither's case is analogous to that of a Queen Consort. Both Albert and Philip held/hold their titles in their own right, not in right of being married to the queen. john k 06:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually Albert wasn't created a prince of the UK, he was granted Royal Highness before his wedding, to raise him from the lower Serene Highness rank.he was a prince in his own right (of Saxe Coburg, not of UK), UNTIL when he was created Prince Consort by Victoria/

Prince Consort
In re: the removal of the link to Prince Consort... It is my belief that there is no ambiguity to linking the word consort to the Prince consort article, as it is clearly stated that

"Current examples are Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (husband of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, although he has never been formally designated a prince consort) and Prince Henrik of Denmark (consort of Margrethe II of Denmark)."

Can someone please clarify why this is being removed when others make the link? He is by definition a Prince Consort ... (One titled prince, married to a Queen Regent). The terminology of Consort/Regent is not a 'given' title, but a term based on role in the monarchy. The individual who is the reigning monarch is the Regent, while their spouse is Consort (save the exception in re: William and Mary, where both spouses we co-Regent).

--Jon Cates 17:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He is a prince consort, but not the Prince Consort. john k 18:40, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please note that I did state he is A prince consort .. as the article Prince Consort defines the term, and states that he has never been formally designated with that title, I believe that the link should still exist.

--Jon Cates 19:40, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bizarre claim

 * This was to address the fact that the Duke was the only father in the country unable to pass his name to his children.

What precisely is this supposed to mean? There are plenty of fathers of children who do not share their surname. Morwen - Talk 18:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The Prince of Wales and his siblings are not illegitimate, though, and are entitled to the surname of "Mountbatten-Windsor"(I would have the name as "Windsor-Mountbatten"). Perhaps it would have been better if Prince Philip had selected "Oldcastle"(the Anglicised version of "Oldenburg") as his surname, instead of the rather morganatic surname of "Mountbatten."
 * I believe the quote is correct, but bear in mind the different social values and family structures at the time when this quote was made. Having children outside wedlock was taboo at the time. So for a father who lived with his children in a family unit in the 1950's, the children would have their father's name. Things are different now. Indisciplined (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Title, 1947 to 1957
Under Titles, it lists: His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (1947 onwards). I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. In 1947 he was given the style HRH, and the title Duke of Edinburgh, but he was not made a Prince. Philip was created a Prince in 1957, and that is when Queen Elizabeth II gave this title to him. I've tried to determine what his official title was during those ten years, but I'm not really sure. In 1948 a letters patent issued by King George VI referred to him as "His Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh" (note the lack of "the"). However, I can't say whether this is really accurate. He wasn't a prince at the time. I've seen it suggested that King George VI thought he was making Philip a prince, when he gave him the HRH style, and this would explain why he referred to him as such.

Anyway, the current title for "1947 onwards" is really only accurate for 1957, onwards. What we should call him between 1947 and 1957, I don't know. "His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh" would be accurate, but may confuse the reader, since he is still using that style. Perhaps someone more knowledgable about royal affairs can weigh in .. --Azkar 21:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * They do have an official web site. If you go to the Members of the Royal Family page and look at the links down the left hand side, you can see "TRH The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall" but only "HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh", so my guess is that the "The" is incorrect here. I'm not going to revert, though, because I don't want to start an edit war. OwlofDoom 07:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually .. if you look a little further in, "In February 1957 it was announced that The Queen had granted to The Duke of Edinburgh the style and dignity of a Prince of the United Kingdom, and that in future he would be known as 'The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh'." --Azkar 18:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Prince
I'm reverting the opening back to The Prince Philip. According to the London Gazette, "The QUEEN has been pleased to declare her will and pleasure that His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh shall henceforth be known as His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh." (italics mine) --Azkar 02:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * On Prince Philip's official page, it lists him as "HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh." The question is who to trust: The (actually accurate) newspaper or the official website? Matjlav 19:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I've seen a lot of variation on the official royal websites. Somewhere else on that same website, it called him "HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh."  I think whoever writes the pages use a lot of casual / common references that aren't necessarily correct.  I think the official proclomation in the Gazette, though, can be trusted to be accurate.  --Azkar 20:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The Royal website is not an infallible source, by any means. It's filled with mistakes. Proteus (Talk) 09:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Oldenburg crest
Should the crest of the Royal family of the House of Oldenburg(Glücksburg branch) be displayed on Price Phillips page? I know has reounced his titles in Denmark and Greece, but so had Queen Sophia of Spain upon her marraige to Juan Carlos. --Dudeness10 29 June 2005 17:20 (UTC)


 * When Philip dies, the template will proabably be added in place of the Royal Family one, as he was a son of Prince Andrew of Greece. Craigy [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|15px]] (talk) June 29, 2005 16:43 (UTC)


 * Then why is this crest present on Queen Sophia of Spain's page?--Dudeness10 29 June 2005 17:20 (UTC)


 * It's present on Sophia's page because she's part of that House and at present there isn't a template for the Spanish Royal Family. Regardless of whether they gave up their claims to the thrones of Greece and Denmark, they are still part of that Royal House. Craigy [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|15px]] (talk) 00:12, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Personal Life
Is this gossip really appropiate here? It appears to be claims from dubious book sources- I really doubt he was having an affair with Princess Alexandra! or a gay affair with the French PM! Astrotrain July 7, 2005 22:28 (UTC)


 * He didn't. But the rumours were dealt with in an acclaimed and much praised serious biography of Philip by Gyles Brandreth, written with the Duke's co-operation. Rumours by themselves should not be covered unless they are covered in a serious and credible publication or source. The Brandreth book is that. If those circumstances they cannot be ignored, even if they are complete garbage, as Gyles correctly concludes. If they were just some Sun rumour they would not be encyclopædic. But when they feature in a mainstream biography they are. In fact the achievement of Gyles's book was to openly and honestly explore the rumours that have surrounded the Duke, interview him about them "on the record", and offer clear evidence as just how ridiculous they are. But once Philip and Gyles go "on the record" about them, we cannot afford not to without being accused of censorship or dodging a real issue.

Fear ÉIREANN SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\(caint)  7 July 2005 22:46 (UTC)


 * OK, but it would better to mention "scandals" and "allegations" rather repeating them blindly in full by naming individuals, then denying them in the next paragraph. Astrotrain July 8, 2005 11:11 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... well the Kitty Kelley book gives not only some details of the (alleged) affairs but also quotes from her interviews with Philip's ex-security staff who explain how he was able to get away with it (namely when he sneaks off to a flat in Notting Hill and they're told to wait outside in the car for a couple of hours then they just do what they're told and don't ask questions!) Their explanation is that they are there to preserve Philip's security as Duke of Edinburgh, not his morals as the Queen's husband. Ben Finn 19:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg
Another question, maybe someone can help me with. When Phillip's son Charles, Prince of Wales, ascends to the throne, while the royal house become Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg ? I know that when Queen Victoria died,the Royal house became Saxe-Coburg-Gotha as the new king was descended from Prince Albert. --Dudeness10 13:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it'll probably stay as Windsor, but it could become Mountbatten-Windsor if Charles chooses to honour his father's surname. Craigy [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|15px]] (talk) 00:12, July 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Technically it will. It will not become Mountbatten-Windsor. Surnames are unrelated to house names. Philip isn't a Mountbatten (Battenberg) by house. Yanksta x 12:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 'Technically it will.' - technically it will what? Change?  Stay the same?? CanadianMist 18:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * On accension of Prince Charles to the throne. It will remain the House of Windsor. His surname and that of his descendents will be mountbatten-windsor. However, Prince Charles when he is sovereign is free to change the name of royal house or family name as he wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.225.132 (talk) 22:13, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

greek template
I was going around and added Template:House of Oldenburg (Glucksburg-Greece) temp to those members of Greek Royal Family who still lacked it. At Philip, I did not yet add it - but I think also it should inserted. Arrigo 07:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Foreign Titles
I think we ought to have some discussion about his Greek and Danish titles. There existed in both house rules no means by which you can renounce your status and no source has ever been given for when it occured or by what means. I think we can all assume it had everything to do with post war politics.

However elsewhere on this site peers who have no legal means to drop their titles - but don't use them - still have them metioned. At the least we ought to mention that there is a dispute as to whether the titles could be renouncedAlci12 11:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually he would have had to renounce his titles in order to become a British citizen (i believe) and adopt a surname (Mountbatten) Mac Domhnaill 23:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, he WAS a British citizen anyway even before renouncing his titles... Yanksta x 12:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As was his uncle Mountbatten who was both a Serene highness and a British citizen 'until 1917'. There is no legal block on holding foreign titles and citizenship. Alci12 17:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Duke of Edinburgh
doesn't it count for anything that someone was duke of edinburgh before the prince? true, alfred, duke of edinburgh, died way before philip was even born, but the title is not an entirely new creation!

It was. Every time a title is inherited by the Crown after its possessor dies, and then is issued later to someone else that is described as a new creation. That is standard language. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 20:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not inherited by the Crown, it just ceases to exist. The Dukedom of Edinburgh held by Prince Philip is not the same Dukedom of Edinburgh that was held by Prince Alfred, it's an entirely different peerage that simply happens to have the same name. Proteus (Talk) 23:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The term of art would be "merged" in the Crown. When the holder of a title becomes monarch (or when a monarch would otherwise inherit a title), that title is said to "merge in the Crown" and no longer exists. But that's not what happened to Alfred's Dukedom of Edinburgh: the 1866 creation became extinct when Prince Albert died in 1900 without a surviving male heir. For the record, there have been 4 creations of the title, and a total of 6 dukes: 1726 (two dukes), which merged in the Crown; 1764 (two dukes), extinct; 1866, extinct; and 1947, extant and held by Prince Philip. - Nunh-huh 23:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Except the 1764 title was a Dukedom of Gloucester and Edinburgh, of course, rather than a Dukedom of Edinburgh. And the term "merged" is rather misleading anyway, as it implies some form of continued existence of the title (as if the Queen holds all the titles that have merged with the Crown), which simply isn't the case. It's rather akin to a drop of water falling back into the ocean &mdash; once it's fallen back in, it's lost, there's no way of getting it back, and its existence has for all intents and purposes been terminated: you can't point somewhere and say "look, there's my drop", and taking out another drop, even one that looks exactly the same in every way, does not recreate the drop that's fallen back in. Proteus (Talk) 23:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, that may be, but the term is "merged" and we're pretty much stuck with it. - Nunh-huh 01:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC) P.S. Don't mention the "and" thing to the Earl of Oxford.... - Nunh-huh 01:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry guys. A loose use of words on I part. I meant merged. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 23:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Canadian Forces Decoration
I have noticed that HRH the Duke of Edinburgh does not have the title of C.D., with his other post nominal letters, however he does wear the Canadian Forces Decoration. I added it, however, is it correct? Christophe T. Stevenson


 * I don't claim to know anything about Canadian awards but I don't think it possible he would wear such an award (if he does) without it having been awarded. As to using post nominal letters, it is pretty common to drop minor award/medals letters where there are several of the highest awards.Alci12 17:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that's really true about "minor" decorations being dropped. What about The Right Honourable Sir Edward Heath KG MBE? I think he rather liked the juxtaposition. Furthermore, to drop these decorations would be quite an affront to the other people who have them, not to mention to the Queen, who awarded them.
 * Well the only useful was to solve this would be to find out if the decoration was honorary or not. If it is then not using it would be normal if it's not then it's been deliberately dropped. Alci12 17:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * According to the 2006 edition of Debrett's Correct Form and to Burkes Peerage, Prince Philip's official style is His Royal Highness, The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, KG, KT, OM, GBE, AC, QSO, PC. Thus while he was awarded the Canadian Forces Decoration in 1982, he certainly does not use the postnominal in general usage. That said, in such circumstances it is often customary where an award has been made by a foreign nation to use the appropriate dignities (postnominals, etc) when visiting that nation or attending official functions hosted by that nation (eg if he were to attend an official function at the Canadian High Commission in London). --AusTerrapin 16:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversial Remarks
"If it has four legs and is not a chair, has wings and is not an aeroplane, or swims and is not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it." (1986) ^^ From what I understand, this is a fairly common saying in China. I recall my tour guide in Beijing saying it. If Philip's use of the remark was not otherwise controversial, I suggest it be removed. --RealGrouchy 01:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Which part of China. Every province or municipalities have different cultures. Beijing people are not Cantonese or from Guangdong usually, unless they are there to work. To some it may feel controversial, I think leaving the remark on the article is better. --Terence Ong Talk 07:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not so much uncontroversial, as unoriginal. Obviously the Chinese have a better sense of humour than the British press. --BadSeed 23:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Why was the entire list of controversial remarks removed? Many of them were cited by reliable sources. I realize that the UK is the home base for wikipedia, but is all this pandering to the Saxe-Coburg-Gothe family really necessary? Why are so many Britons so reluctant to having anything controversial in the biographical article of a Royal? Have we not come further than that? Or did Phil remove the stuff himself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.149.222 (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Duke's portrait
I remember a portrait (or photograph) of the Duke liscenced under the Canadian Crown Copyright. It was on this article, but the image was therefore deleted. Does it come from the same website as the Queen's official photo or somewhere else. Could someone reupload the image again as this one may be deleted sooner or later due to copyright status? --Terence Ong Talk 07:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Birth Name
Could anyone tell me was he born Prince Philippos or Prince Philip? Mac Domhnaill 23:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, his birth certificate has Prince Philippos on it and he was baptised with that name. I imagine it was just anglicanized when he and his family left Greece. Craigy [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|15px]] (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of his name, wouldn't he have been born Philippos von Oldenburg, he being a direct line male descendent in the House of Oldenburg? I wonder why Battenberg (later Mountbatten) was chosen instead?--60.228.156.89 19:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * He wasn't born that, he was born a PRINCE, so had no surname. He chose Mountbatten upon the renouncement of his Greek titles because it was adapted from his mother's family name of Battenberg – DBD 20:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought that "Philippos" would be the anglicized version of the Greek Alphabet, and Philip the English version of Philippos, as for example Anthony is the English version of Antoine (in French) etc. IrishColonial (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Biography
Is anyone familiar with his Biography, If I Were An Animal? I saw www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/030406massculling.htm a website] that made the claim Philip was in favor of radical reduction of the population, attributing to him the quote "In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation." Has anyone read the book or know of the authenticity of this claim? --Brett day 19:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This looks like a hoax website to me. Certainly not worth repeating without concrete proof, should it exist. Ian Cairns 21:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm certain the book does exist, but is out of print. If anyone manages to find a copy, I would appreciate if they could confirm the presence or absence of the quote I mention above. --Brett day 02:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Too much detail in early life section
It seems a little unnecessary to me to list his aunts, uncles, great-grandmother, and great-great-grandmother in the Early life section. It's quite confusing to read and their respective articles have the pertinent details. 68.101.121.62 07:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)