Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh/Archive 6

DNA
What is his YDNA and is it true that his DNA does not match his sister? СЛУЖБА (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Službo, click here and find out what YDNA is. His YDNA can't match his sister's YDNA because his sister cannot have YDNA. His DNA must match his sister's DNA otherwise she wouldn't be his sister. Perhaps I misunderstood your question? Surtsicna (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know what YDNA is. Also, you are right that mtDNA, X-chromosomes and autosomal markers of real brother and sister should closely match. However, I've read some articles stating that his DNA (it was not stated which one) did not match his sister Princess Sophie. This is what I'm tryig to find out. Those were two separate questions. In other words:
 * - What is his YDNA? (I already found out it has not been released)
 * - What DNA did not match his sister Princess Sophie and did it really not match? СЛУЖБА (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is going to go nowhere, whatever. Unless and until a reliable source comments on his DNA and its implications, we are not here in the business of original research or synthesising multiple sources to reach a conclusion. I suggest that if this thread is to be taken seriously, it should make serious proposals as to including verifiable information into the article, or cease, as this is not a blog or debating forum. Rodhull  andemu  00:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There are lots of reliable sources about his mtDNA. It is haplogroup H and it matches Empress Alexandra of Russia and her children. This should be included in the article.


 * Comparisons with his sister is another issue. I've read some articles (I don't know if they should be considered reliable or unreliable) that his DNA (it was not stated which one) did not match Princess Sophie. There was no reference from where this info was taken and I was unable to find it on the Internet as well. СЛУЖБА (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Title
Prince Philip is not styled  The Prince Philip he is only styled Prince Philip, Duke of Edingurgh without the prefix The. The prefix The is only oficially used by the child of the monarch. Examples: The Prince Charles, The Prince Andrew, The Prince Edward and The Princess Anne. British princes or princesses are created by Royal Letter Patent. People like Prince Philip DO NOT hold the prefix The because he is not the son of the monarch. Please check the official webpage of the British Royal Family, he is styled overthere as: Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheDukeofEdinburgh/TheDukeofEdinburgh.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.1.177.233 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ordinarily, this is true but a special case is made for him: see Duke of Edinburgh and Royal Announcement. DrKiernan (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I have changed parts of this section because the grammar was not proper and there may have been typing errors, I am quite sure that Prince Philip is the Duke of Edinburgh and not the Duke of Edingurgh.

Please take this up with me if you do not agree. And the above link seems to be correct.

In the London Gazette of February 22, 1957, the following section appeared: Whitehall, February 22, 1957. The Queen has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm bearing date 22nd February, 1957, to give and grant unto His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, K.G., K.T., G.B.E., the style and titular dignity of a Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. And also: 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.

So Prince Philip should be known as HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich, KG (Knight of the Garter), KT (Knight of the Thistle), OM (Order of Merit), GBE (Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire), AC (Companion of the Order of Australia), QSO (Companion of The Queen’s Service Order), PC (Privy Counsellor) &c. --JHvW (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"Issue"?
Interesting word to use to refer to his children and descendants (their descendants). Might it be a little archaic? 24.181.223.34 (talk) 09:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a commonly used term in genealogy. I don't think it's archaic, though perhaps it's not the most common usage.   Will Beback    talk    23:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not archaic, it's technical terminology. john k (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That may be, but Wikipedia:Writing better articles says "Avoid using jargon whenever possible". Here it's possible - just write descendants. This is an article with very broad appeal. Why use discipline-specific jargon when a perfectly good common-use synonym is available? I see no answer, unless one is a genealogy nerd keen to push his interest on others... but I'm sure that's not the case...
 * "Descendants" does not mean the same thing. His grandchildren are also his descendants.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  07:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And in matters of inheritance, issue includes them. —Tamfang (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Prince Philip Medal
How come there is no mention of this award (Prince Philip Medal) in the article? Snappy (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been split off into List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. DrKiernan (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Born on dining table
Princes are not usually born on dining tables. Apparently, Philip was. Shouldn't that be mentioned in the article? The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we have a source for the usual birth places of princes? ;) My understanding is that royal births have often occurred outside of maternity wards. At a residence, the choices would be a bed or a table. A dining table is certainly a step up from a kitchen table. It seems kind of trivial to me.   Will Beback    talk    21:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Giving birth on a dining table might be notable for the mother. Definitely not notable for the baby.  Dolphin  ( t ) 11:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Full name / birth name
Though I could see why hiding these things might be "proper," I added them here because I came looking for them and was not served. I really don't want to enter a debate about propriety and the habits of royals, but I do think this is important information to have on hand and I believe it is well-sourced content and properly formatted. jk (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you are the one who added his "full name", but let me tell you that Greek Royals had NEVER used a surname while on the throne. Now they use "De Grecia" as their surname, as the former King Constantine II stated that their family does not have a last time and he has refused to be known as Constantine Glucksburg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.172.188.22 (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's all agree this is a contentious issue. I am the one who added more details about his name. Be sure to check the page history. I researched that information and found one authoritative source. But it is also an interesting and complex issue that an encyclopedia should be able to present clearly. Let's figure this out and present the most accurate story. InfoBox content and format on this page is proscribed here: Template:Infobox_British_Royalty jk (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the birth surname of Prince Philip and the Greek Royal Family, it is Oldenburg, the words Glucksburg and Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg has been wrongly used as a surname, the two lines connected with this name are Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg and Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg now extinct, they are both collateral lines of the House of Oldenburg both lines represent the lands which where held by the Ducal Houses in question not their surname thus the true surname is just Oldenburg for Denmark, Greece, Norway and Prince Philip, a perfect example of this is the wrongly assumed surname of the British Royal Family being that of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha the true and real surname was and is Wettin this is the surname of all members of the Ducal Ernestin lines and Royal Albertine lines of the Houses of Saxony, surnames may differ from the House name depending on the formal usage but whether or not Governments or in fact the Royal Family in question use the correct name, by name changes or decrees being issued by the aforementioned, the family surname stays the same until male lineage alters the surname by right of succession, for further example when the Prince of Wales becames King his correct and true surname will be Oldenburg by right of his father Prince Philip not Windsor or Mountbatten or Battenburg or Saxe-Coburg-Gotha or Glucksburg or Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg but just Oldenburg it does not matter whether one changes or in fact alters ones name, their true surname can only be changed by male lineage succession Johnkennedy58 (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Post-nominal letters
According to WP:MOSBIO Post-nominal letters (not academic degrees) has to be included when they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization with which the subject has been closely associated. There is no guideline that describes to omit this rule for princes and royals. However my edit is reverted. I think my edit is correct and is entirely according the guiding rule WP:INITIAL. This guideline is very clear and final: post-nominal letters has to be included.

The revert on the other hand does not have a legitimate basis and is done merely on basis of a personal point of view. This revert is not supported by WP:INITIAL or any other specific WP guideline concerning post-nominal letters in biographies.

Could someone show me an other valid WP guideline that descibes the omission of post-nominal letters for royal princes, and which supports thereby the revert? If not, I regard my edit as the valid one, and after 7 days I will put back the post-nominal letters as is the common and ruling style in biographies. Diodecimus (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Guidelines are not laws, we make exceptions when they produce bad results; on this occasion I agree with the other editor that the long string of initials is out of place in the lead. There are other places in the article (e.g. in the section on titles and styles) where this information could be put.--Kotniski (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Views on over-population
What about his neo-malthusianistic genocidal opinion, particualarly one infamous sentence that he had given in an interview for Deutsche Presse Agentur in 1988: "If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." One might find this a notable "feature" of this gentleman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.12.91.242 (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not a forum. Such words as "infamous" and "genocidal" ("genocidal" it would be had he offered to wipe out human population or any specific fraction of it COMPLETELY) are unacceptable here.


 * Long live Prince Philip! СЛУЖБА (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Bearing in mind our policy on biographies, this would need incontrovertible sourcing, however, his gaffes concerning "foreigners" are quite well-known. Rodhull  andemu  22:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Arms
The arms described in the "notes" and "previous versions" sections are different. One says Alice's arms were in the first quarter only; the other says Alice's arms were used on their own. DrKiernan (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi DrKiernan, the statement in the “previous versions” is directly quoted from Boutell’s. As such, the correct 1st (shield) version is; “Greece surmounted by an inescutcheon of the arms of Denmark; and over all in the first quarter the (Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom) arms of Princess Alice.” This, in itself, contradicted the existing “notes” statement, ”Unlike the arms used by other members of the Royal Family, the Duke's arms do not feature the shield of the royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom - as men are not entitled to bear the arms of their wives.”


 * Boutell’s gives no explanation; as to whether Philip used these Royal Arms on their own, before 1947, &/or only on the 1st (shield) version from 1947-1949. Boutell doesn’t state these 1st version arms were created, or used before, or after Philips marriage to Princess Elizabeth, (albeit significantly used during their sons birth), as no exact date is given. Also, that “men are not entitled to bear the arms of their wives” - was the official reason for the revisions. Whether Philip used the Royal Arms on their own, or overall, on top of the escutcheon in the 1st quarter, is a secondary consideration to that he factually used the arms themselves!


 * You are correct on the Dexter/Sinister supporters, my mistake, good catch. Regards Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm still a little unclear. Are you saying that the material in the sentence "Unlike the arms used by other members of the Royal Family, the Duke's arms do not feature the shield of the royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom - as men are not entitled to bear the arms of their wives." is unsourced? If so, I think it should be cut. DrKiernan (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I’m not exactly clear on these matters either (is anyone?). The existing reason “men not entitled to bear the arms of wives,” may be sourced and factually correct but without delving into historic/heraldic marshalling &c, and without referenced opinion from someone, I cannot adjudge this as relevant, or not. However, it cannot be stated as referenced &/or applicable to these specific (1947-1949 &/or post 1949) circumstances.
 * I am now writing a separate ‘Arms-section’, relevant to these heraldic circumstances, as I think the CoA infobox should only contain heraldic details of both of these Arms, (without the Alice-arms image) and the “notes” section should only contain the fact that there were “two different arms”. Stephen2nd (talk) 00:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

A little off topic but... Arms added as described, the arms of Princess Alice (his maternal grandmother) is borne as an inescutcheon of pretence, There are several examples on the internet of these arms. First example: Arms used prior to appointment to the order of the Garter: Example 1 Second example arms used after marriage on a painting as a knight of the Danish Order of the Elephant (in which my version is based): Example 2. Sodacan (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Sodacan, would you mind clarifying a few details for the article?


 * An Escutcheon of Pretence is a shield containing the arms of an heiress, placed in the centre of her husband's arms instead of being impaled with them.


 * Their engagement was publically announced on 10th July 1947. On 1st November 1947: The new coat of arms that has been created for Philip as fiancé of Princess Elizabeth was the (1st example). The exterior (not interior) ornamentation was subject to alteration in the event of a title or order being conferred. Before he became consort, the Duke was appointed to the Order of the Elephant on 16 November 1947, (2nd example; now?) Order of the Garter on 19 November 1947, (2nd example; now?) The day preceding his wedding, King George VI bestowed the style His Royal Highness on Philip, pre-wedding on 20 November 1947, he was made the Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth, and Baron Greenwich. (2nd example; now?). This second example was used after the marriage (2nd example; now?). Also, are there any more references to these versions, or to why this (early) version was dropped?

PS. I’m creating two new articles on “Royal Labels;” with the usual valuable assistance of Tamfang. (1st nearly complete) User:Stephen2nd/Royal Labels of the United Kingdom & (2nd recently started) User:Stephen2nd/Royal Labels of England. Your heraldic knowledge, as exampled in our Royal Supporters of England would be most welcomed. Regards Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The definition you gave of an Escutcheon of Pretence is correct, however the evidence in the arms itself alludes to the principle: the blazon was probably an effort to distinguished Prince Philip's own arms to those of his family in Greece (since continental royal heraldry often do not have marks of cadency), by putting an inescutcheon of his mother's family's arm in the position of honour (1st quarter), especially since the family have played such a large and important part in his life. This is of course conjecture and should not in anyway be in the article without proper sources. Anyway the arms was "considered unsatisfactory" (Pinces, The Royal Heraldry of England, 1974, page 280) by people (doesn't say who) and a new coat of arms was issued in 1949.


 * The Order of the Elephant version was probably painted after his marriage as it reflected his position as a Royal Highness (but not yet an actual Prince) and a Knight of the Garter, as well his elevation to the Dukedom of Edinburgh.


 * And of course I will try and help all I can with your new articles! Sodacan (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Exile from Greece?
The article mentioned that his family was exiled from Greece, and I was wondering why... Isn't this somewhat important? --Fonkety ponk (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is explained in detail in the Early life section. DrKiernan (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Record holder
This article must be the record holder in terms of number of categories. Some of them don't even exist. Jolanak (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Gaffes
i believe there should be a section on the number of gaffes he has made in public, i will add this soon if no-one can reasonably objectRagingbullfrog (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are two paragraphs on them already and a list was already moved to wikiquote as the result of a previous discussion.
 * The problem with expanding the current coverage is that there is a danger of it becoming a trivia section, which repeats information that is more appropriately placed elsewhere and just collates a miscellaneous list of quotes without providing a balancing opinion or encyclopedic context.
 * One reason the current coverage has remained in the article without demur is because it includes Philip's denial and excuses, and is properly integrated into the article body. DrKiernan (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

ethnicity
From his father's side, he stems from the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Gluecksburg, a sideline of the House of Oldenburg, from his mother's side from the House of Battenberg, a sideline of the House of Hessia. Even though the English media seem to dislike the fact, he thoroughly stems from the Germans' ancient nobility. This should be mentioned clearly in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.143.55.135 (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You're showing a lot of strong POV in those last two sentences. I'm wondering exactly what it is you want added, where, (and why?) HiLo48 (talk) 08:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Not POV but the facts here especially for you:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Genealogy_of_the_British_Royal_Family http://userweb.port.ac.uk/~joyce1/abinitio/whygerm1.html http://gh.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/4/457.extract http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/647693.stm https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Anti-German_sentiment and too many more to mention. Neither the Greek public nor the Danish public sees him as one of their own. As they say in some Anglo-Saxon areas of the world, the cat born in the cow stable will not become a cow ;) Converting the name from Battenberg to Windsor does not change anything besides a name either. Being a straight line descendant of the Holy Elisabeth von Thueringen (Thuringia) through his mother Alice von Battenberg does not make him more un-German, either. In fact, he is liked in Germany for his unconventional behaviour. Germanophobia is the word, still alive and well in much of the British press, as spearheaded by "The Sun". And seemingly on the English language Wikipedia, too. Why not admit that he is of German ethnicity, whichever passport(s) he carries nowadays. These facts are spared out in the article completely, seemingly because of anti German resentments. I am sure I do not have to tell you that *that* is POV by the Wikipedia standards. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.143.55.135 (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The second and third sentences of your initial post contain very strong expression of your OPINION on some matters, about the English media and what SHOULD be in the article. (That's a POV approach to discussion.) But anyway, you stuff overall reads like a bit of a rant. You won't convince others of anything by asking THEM to look up stuff. It's up to YOU to present your case. As I said earlier, I'm wondering exactly what it is you want added, and where. HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the scholarly comment. I am just interested in the documentation, Wikipedia-style, of the complete and correct story, Sir/Madam Teacher. Feel free to decide yourself what some of the English media behave like, or don't, just as you please, as the behavior of some of the English media is not part of this article. If you think my "stuff overall reads like a bit of a rant", so be it for your pleasure. Feel free to enjoy. The facts about the Royal Family are there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.143.53.45 (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * And that's exactly where they will stay unless you tell us "exactly what it is you want added, and where". HiLo48 (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your friendly understanding, my dear yelling Teacheress, even though I thought this kind of page is not for personal kissie-huggies, as I read somewhere. Did I not make it clear and obvious what I wanted (oh, sorry for my very own scholarly wish) to be included in the article, i.e. the German roots of the mentioned English one which are highly neglected in the article? I somehow doubt I met the level of your abilities to understand? But, nevermind. A screenshot will be my permanent and valuable reminder of this subterrestrial communication on a Wikipedia talk page. I shall go out for a beer or a few more to celebrate the Royal Wedding of a family I like very much now. Have fun and enjoy the night, my dearesse.

Background
I have removed this bad section because it has multiple problems of original research, poor grammar, unclear points, disputed POV statements made without clarification or qualification and poor quality sources which present one side only. For example, when someone goes through and corrects obvious mistakes like the spelling of "sovereign" and then the original editor comes back and changes it back to "souvereign" I think it fairly obvious that something is wrong with the material and section. DrKiernan (talk) 07:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You actually flooded a brief section with no less than a dozen tags and comments indicating you hadn't even read what the text text said, and indicating a lack of even the most basic knowledge of Danish/Schleswig-Holstein/House of Oldenburg history ("If it was held by the King of Denmark, then it was in Denmark"). The information is uncontroversial, it's already largely found in more detail in other relevant articles, and it's necessary to establish the context of his background. He didn't just come from nowhere, he didn't just "happen" to be a prince of Greece and Denmark. I recognize that the Kelley source appears somewhat problematic. Garn Svend (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not as ignorant as you think. Schleswig wasn't in Germany until after George I was made King of Greece. Christian IX was born in Gottorp, which is in Northern Schleswig: part of Denmark at the time not the Holy Roman Empire or the German Confederation. This is just one of many problems with the section, hence the large number of tags. DrKiernan (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The Duchy of Schleswig was a Danish fief, but not part of Denmark proper (cf da:Hertugdømmerne). Denmark first tried to integrate Schleswig with Denmark in 1848. The two duchies were essentially separate states in personal union with Denmark (hence not "in Denmark"), administered separately from Denmark. The house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg/Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Beck was based in areas in both duchies. Garn Svend (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Danish royal family
Someone removed him being born a member of the Danish royal family. He was born a prince of Denmark and as such a member of the extended royal family, albeit a junior branch. There is no such thing as a "courtesy title" in Denmark. In Denmark, there are titles, or not titles. Someone who is the (legitimate) son of a prince is automatically a prince, by virtue of his agnatic descent (except for the cases of people losing their princely titles due to unequal marriage). Garn Svend (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Tense
Why is the Controversy written in past tense? Prince Philip "is" not "was" unless he's been replaced with a robot while no-one was looking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.1.94 (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Photo
seeing as how the man is still alive, does anyone have a photo of him that is less than 20 years old? ViniTheHat (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to agree. I think File:Prince Phillip looking at City Hall, November 2008 cropped .jpg would be better for the top of the page, as this is only from 2008. I assume there might be some PD images of him from Obama's visit to the palace this year? Bob talk 18:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I totally disagree. The portrait image is clearly superior in quality. DrKiernan (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The portrait may be superior in quality but it's not up to date. That's what the discussion is about in the first place! --Krawunsel (talk) 08:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm replying to Bob's suggestion.
 * The convention, for dead people at least, is to use the best portrait for the infobox. I looked around for a guideline but there's nothing to say that the lead image should be the most recent available in the case of living people. I definitely think the article should include images from his entire life, but I would prefer the lead image to be the posed portrait, even if it shows him at 70 rather than 90, because it is clearly of better quality. DrKiernan (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * pic is simply outdated. plain and clear.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.154.0.250 (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Current photo is more than satisfactory, easily recognisable. However it does make me wonder the motives behind the above.....Twobells (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 99.60.184.133, 12 June 2011
Please change the text below. I believe that it provides an interesting and striking contrast for a man who has lived a life of influence and splendor.

Original Text: Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark was born at Villa Mon Repos on the Greek island of Corfu on 10 June 1921, the only son and fifth and final child of Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark and Princess Alice of Battenberg.

New Text: Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark was born on a kitchen table at Villa Mon Repos on the Greek island of Corfu on 10 June 1921, the only son and fifth and final child of Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark and Princess Alice of Battenberg.

Reference: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110610/ts_afp/britainroyalsphilipbirthday

99.60.184.133 (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh/Archive 6. DrKiernan (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Controversy
THAT's the best content that could be proposed for a controversy section? Why even bother?Twobells (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Greek
Is he ashamed of his Greek heritage? This is a base on a comment made by an user in the talk archive about his supposed renewed interest in the Greek Orthodox Church. I know he renounced all his titles and his religion when he married to make himself more acceptable to the British people. But was it also because he was ashamed about his Greek heritage. PS don't mention that he is also German.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt it; I suspect he just doesn't feel any connection to it. DrKiernan (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

In a book I read he said that he has no connection to Greece. He was born there, but was forced to move when he was about a year old and lived in France and Germany until he was a teenager. Also while his father was the son of King George I of Greece he was not actually Greek. George was German and Danish and his wife Olga was mostly German with a little bit of Russian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.127.106 (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

HMS Loch Killisport
I thought Prince Philip was an Officer on the HMS Loch Killisport an the end of 1945 bringing surviving POW's from Java to Singapore ??? We were on that ship then too.

Can somebody confirm Prince Philip served on HMS Loch Killisport ??

Glemmens1940 (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC) GLemmens1940

The use of "The Prince Philip" in article opening
As per the British Monarchy website - http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheDukeofEdinburgh/Stylesandtitles.aspx Prince Phillip's style is "HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh."

I am arguing that the short form of a British royal prince in the opening of the article should include the "The" where applicable, as in "The Prince Phillip." I argue that this is distinctive and meaningful as indicated on the British Monarchy's website. I would not, however, include HRH in the opening as this would be like using "Mr." which is not consistent with Wikipedia style. The use of "The" indicates that the prince is a child of the monarch. Although Philip is not a child of a British Monarch, the Queen specifically granted Philip the use of the "The" in letters patent of 1957 which made The Duke of Edinburgh, The Prince Phillip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesReyes (talk • contribs)


 * The very page to which you have linked above starts "Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh". If it's good enough for his official site, it is good enough for us. Per MOS:HONORIFIC, "The" should not be included at the start of the article.
 * It is obvious that as you are from Colorado, and the reverting IP geolocates to Colorado, that you and the IP are the same person. I think it poor practice for you to edit as if you are two different editors during an "edit-war" and for you to attempt to force your opinion by failing to adhere to the WP:BRD cycle. DrKiernan (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Prince of Greece
Maybe the people of Greece would like to a King Philip! They are fed up with the corrupt moral of the politicans. Maxian D-C (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Later life section
Given that the Duke of Edinburgh is still alive, perhaps the title "Later Life" is not accurate, since to me it implies that he no longer lives. Also would it be fair for someone authorized to remove that he carries out "over 300 public engagements" and "the most of any royal", because according to the Princess Royal's page, SHE carries out over 700 engagements a year, "the most of any royal". And given that he has stepped down from several of his patronages and more prominent roles, isn't it likely that he will carry out far fewer than 300 engagements this year? The media has reported that many of his upcoming engagements in February and March will be taken over by his children. 74.69.127.200 (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Companion of the Order of Australia
There’s a discussion @ Talk:Order of Australia concerning whether Philip’s AC is a substantive or honorary award. On the face of it, it seems to be substantive, yet this flies in the face of the rules of the Order, which stipulate that to be awarded a substantive appointment, one must be an Australian citizen, which Philip is not (despite his claims of Canadian citizenship by virtue of being married to the Queen, a claim with which the Canadian government disagrees, and they ought to know).

For Prince Charles the Prince of Wales to be created a substantive Knight of the Order of Australia, it was necessary for the Queen to issue special Letters Patent amending the Constitution of the Order. Had she not done that, Charles's knighthood would have been honorary. Philip is no more an Australian citizen than his son is, yet no special arrangements seem to have been entered into to accommodate him as a substantive Companion of the Order.

Does anyone know how this situation came about; and exactly what the status of his Companionship of the Order of Australia is?

Why have the Canadian authorities held the line and offered Philip only honorary appointment to the Order of Canada, which he declined, when the Australian authorities appear to have capitulated (my OR)? And why have rules, if they can appear to be so easily ignored (again my OR)?

There has to be more to the "Prince Philip AC" story - what is it? -- Jack of Oz  [your turn]  09:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a point of order: Philip has never claimed to be a Canadian citizen; by law, he clearly is not. He has apparently to have said only that, as the consort of the Queen of Canada, he's not a foreigner, which is what the Order of Canada advisory board implied he was when offering him only an honorary appointment, as is done for foreigners of Canada. The Canadian government and military don't regard members of the Royal Family as foreigners, though, at the same time, also not as citizens.
 * I am unaware of what the constitution of the Order of Australia says about the appointment of citizens versus non-citizens. As far as I know, however, Philip's appointment to that order was substantive. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Just read Talk:Order of Australia, where the links to the Constitution of the Order are provided. They spell out the rules in black and white.  Those who are not Australian citizens are honorary members of the order.  Prince Philip is not an Australian citizen.  It therefore follows that his AC must have been honorary.  But nowhere is this made explicit, and the impression therefore given is that it was substantive, an impression you share.  But how could it have been substantive without some change to the Constitution, as happened with Prince Charles's knighthood?  I feel constrained to make any change to the article saying it's an honorary AC, without a source to that effect.  Conversely, if the rules have been tweaked to allow a substantive award to a non-citizen, where's the evidence? --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  21:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Exelent job. He is a great man. (Demetrius from Greece) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.74.140.188 (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The monarch is the font of all honour and if she decided that Prince Philip qualifies, then that is that. Acorn897 (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Issue
hi,

I believe that Prince Charles and Princess Anne should have prince/ss before their names, otherwise we would be styling them as a former member of royalty. E.g Sarah, Duchess of York would of originally been princess Andrew, Duchess of York but now she's styled Sarah(name), Duchess of York(title) like a divorced member. Thanks .--Chip123456 (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sarah never had the title of princess conferred due to changes in the sizing of the Royal Family. In the case of Diana, she was never "Princess Diana" for that she would have to have been born to it. She was Diana, Princess of Wales. Similarly the Duchess of Cornwall is not titled, Princess Camilla. Acorn897 (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Excessive Archiving?
It's not much of a talk page is it? Surely the criterium for archiving should be when the talk page gets too long, not when posts reach a certain age. This 30 day 'rule' may cause some users to conclude that archiving is now being used to bury controversial Prince Philip talk topics like alleged racism and affairs, as I note these topics disappeared from the article itself along time ago. Perhaps we will have to wait until WP:BLP no longer applies... (compare the barely substantiated gossip in the article on Queen Victoria's mother Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld)1812ahill (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

'GREAT GREAT GREAT GRANDPARENT IN QUEEN VICTORIA'
The Queen and Prince Philip are both great, great grandchildren of Queen Victoria ... not three times 'great' as written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.97.252 (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Now corrected, thanks for the heads-up (see Royal descendants of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX for the family tree). Tonywalton Talk 22:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Continual POV reversions of his birthname
Prince Philip's birthname was clearly Philippos - he was christened as such in Corfu. The latest reversion uses the official british royal family website as its primary source, which obviously thinks it has a vested interest in anglicising his original name ( which is fairly silly and unecessary). This change should be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.27.170 (talk • contribs)
 * This isn't a neutrality or bias issue. The sources say Philip. His mother was British and St George's Church was built for the British garrison, so a British spelling is not unexpected. DrKiernan (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No, his mother wasn't British, that's ridiculous. She was a Greek and Danish subject, of German family background born to two 100% German parents, and had in fact no English background whatsoever. If I am vacationing in France, and happen to have a baby there, who later moves to Greece adopting Greek citizenship, that child isn't French, neither by citizenship nor by ancestry. Josh Gorand (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Obviously it's correct that his birth name is Philippos. Philip is merely a translation into English, not the original name. On the other hand, Philip would also be a common Danish and German version of the Greek name Philippos, so he was probably referred to as Philip from birth too in Denmark as a Prince of Denmark holding the style of Highness. But his membership in the Greek royal family is more important, as he was born in Greece to the main line of the Royal family there and was only a member of a very junior branch of the Danish royal family, didn't live in Denmark and doesn't even speak Danish. Josh Gorand (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, his mother was a British subject born to two British subjects. Her father was a naturalised British subject from the age of 14, while her mother was born in Britain to a British mother. DrKiernan (talk) 04:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, both his parents were Greek subjects at the time of his birth. Greek, not British. None of his parents had any English ancestry whatsoever, but were 100% German. Whether his Greek citizen German ancestry mother had previously, before his birth, held a British citizenship (in addition to that of her native country, the Grand Duchy of Hesse) is irrelevant. Prince Philip was born in Greece to Greek citizens, that's the citizenship part, and to parents of more or less exclusively German ethnicity, that's the ethnicity part. Josh Gorand (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Alice of Battenberg's mother, Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine (let me reiterate: of Hesse) was German, both as a member of the royal family of a German state and by ethnicity. Not British in any way. Her mother wasn't British at all, but was born to a German father and a German-origined mother who had no British ancestry whatsoever. The fact that the German-origined, native German speaker Victoria (who was also born a Princess of the Kingdom of Hanover) was Empress of India doesn't make her "Indian" either, that's ridiculous. Josh Gorand (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Victoria Mountbatten was the British-born wife of a naturalised Briton who was also a British peer. Her mother and grandmother were both born in Britain. Queen Victoria was not a native German speaker and both her father and her grandfather were born in Britain. In fact, her grandfather spent his entire life without exception in Southern England within 100 miles of London. If the title "Empress of India" does not make you Indian, then the title "Princess of Hesse" does not make you Hessian. (Nor, I admit, does the title "Marchioness of Milford Haven" make you Welsh.) You are not going to get consensus to bias the article by either introducing prejudice or removing balance. DrKiernan (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The only one biasing the article and pushing your very odd interpretation of reality is you, and you will not get any consensus. I welcome you to read up at least a little on the issues you are taking part in a discussion of. Queen Victoria spoke nothing but German until the age of three. Her mother was a native German speaker too. She had no English blood whatsoever, she was merely born in England to an exclusively German family, or what would nowadays be described in terms similar to those used for Pakistani immigrant families. She was a member from birth of the royal family of a German state, the Kingdom of Hanover, and hence its subject. Queen Victoria is at best comparable to Sayeeda Warsi, Baroness Warsi; noone would claim her to be of English ancestry or English-origined. Similarly would noone claim Victoria to be of Indian origin merely because she ruled that country. In the case of Prince Philip, his family background is more or less exclusively German, all his sisters married Germans, he was brought up in that country, and almost every single of his ancestors were Germans. His main ties were to Greece, Denmark and Germany, and any relation to Britain was tangential at best. Josh Gorand (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that I consistently oppose national biases and centrism in articles and elsewhere, and abusing the lead section to highlight one who one of his 16 great-great-grandparents were while ommitting his equally important paternal grandfather is absurd and unencyclopedic, especially as that particular sentence was concerning his own house and his paternal grandfather, a reigning king, was a member of that house. Among his great-great-grandparents, Victoria is no more important than e.g. Nicholas I of Russia. Also, Philip doesn't have any British "ancestry" as you claim, in terms of ancestry he hardly has anything but German ancestry and some very distant Russian. Josh Gorand (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're wrong again. Elizabeth Longford and Cecil Woodham-Smith say in their biographies of Queen Victoria that she only spoke English at home. She was taught German in formal lessons as an older girl. Victoria herself wrote that she was forbidden to speak German outside of the classroom.
 * Philip was not brought up in Germany. His maternal grandparents were British. You are ill-informed and prejudiced. DrKiernan (talk) 06:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You are certainly ill informed. Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark lived with his sisters in Germany and attended a German school for parts of his childhood. He spent time in several other countries too. His maternal grandparents were Germans living in England, just like Baroness Warsi was born to a Pakistani immigrant family. His maternal grandmother was both a member of a German royal family and spent her entire childhood in Germany and married in Germany, so she wasn't British in any other way than moving there and living there as an adult. I have been living in London too for professional reasons, but claiming I'm British for that reason would be ridiculous. His maternal grandfather is described as a "German prince" in his article, not British, was born in what was then considered Germany and in principle no different from a Pakistani immigrant to Britain today. Josh Gorand (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Being "ethnically English" is a crock anyway. There's no such thing, certainly not to the point where you can talk about "English blood" being distinct from "German blood."  The kind of arguments people make to claim that the British royal family is not British would be considered outrageously racist if made in any other context. john k (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Racism is only relevant to the discussion when explaining why some people are trying to deny the national background of the royal family, i.e. racist/nationalist sentiment during the First World War. For almost the entire time Prince Philip's German grandfather spent in the UK, noone denied he was German, probably noone denied it during his lifetime at all. In most cases, people have no problems with the fact that someone living in a country can a different national background, e.g. be a Russian-born person or a person of Russian family background living in the UK, or a person of Pakistani background. Josh Gorand (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No one's denying Philip's "national background". You've thus far failed to persuade folks here that your desired change would accurately reflect his background and appropriately assign it due weight. Please continue to discuss the matter here until consensus for your desired changes is achieved, rather than unilaterally editing the article absent such consensus. FactStraight (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia. Understand that editing on Wikipedia is not pre-censored, especially not by yourself, and that this discussion doesn't concern any particular content dispute. Also, do not remove sourced and relevant contents without reason. Josh Gorand (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The edits to this page section and to the article, as explained in the summaries, reflect a consensus that Philip's German ancestry not be emphasized in the lede. Yet you continue to re-insert that emphasis, violating 3RR to do so, despite being repeatedly asked to obtain consensus here before attempting such edits again and despite being warned of the danger of violating 3RR to do so. Please desist disruptive edits, and work here toward consensus. FactStraight (talk) 11:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You continue to make nonsensical claims about a discussion unrelated to various edits you and only you oppose for unclear reasons. Please refrain from disruptive editing and edit warring that you have initiated. Josh Gorand (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've read through this discussion and it really is both ridiculous and amusing. It is a completely hopeless argument to get into the old chestnut of the British Royal Family being 'German' and not 'British' or 'English'. Please remember people that in the context being 'English' the English were originally a Germanic race from Northern Germany (ironically not far from Hanover) and the English language itself has it's roots deeply embedded in the early German language. By inviting the Electress of Hanover and her descendants to the British throne the British Government played a very neat trick in not only preserving the Protestant Ascendancy in Great Britain but had reverted to a German bloodstock that was essentially more 'English' than anything that had gone before since the demise of the House of Wessex in 1066. Within the context of the discussion it would be best to remember the basic realities that 'Germany' is ethnically, linguistically and historically our cousins and to say otherwise is ridiculous. Certainly the suggestion that Queen Victoria was not British is even more ridiculous, really Josh Gorand you will not achieve consensus by coming out with complete rubbish like that.Ds1994 (talk) 08:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The 'primary source' is a biased one  for very obvious and understandable reasons. The proof that this is untrue is in the title taken by the current  son of the exiled king constantine of greece   ;  prince philippos of greece and denmark. This is the same name and title that Philip was born with as heir to the Greek throne then, and no amount of wishful thinking will change the procession of names and titles taken by the family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.27.170 (talk • contribs)
 * The sources are clear. DrKiernan (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

photo
Perhaps a more current photo of the Duke is in order. He is 91. The current photo on his page shows him as a much younger man. It does not do any service to give the impression he looks like a 71 year old; he is not, and I'm sure even he would agree. The Queen, Prince of Wales, Princess of Wales (Camilla), William and Catherine all have more recent photographs on their pages; the Queen's consort deserves the same. 74.69.126.89 (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh/Archive 6 for similar discussion. DrKiernan (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Battenberg/Mountbatten
I think there needs to be some explanation of Mountbatten. Currently, there's a switch between Battenberg and Mountbatten that is never explained. At one point in the article it says his mother's family are the Battenbergs, and then elsewhere it says they're the Mountbattens. DrKiernan (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, you are the one removing the initial explanation of the name Battenberg/Mountbatten and even the link to the Battenberg family, while the article goes on about his grandfather's naval career in a very nationalist out of context portrayal of the whole issue. If Philip had not taken the name Mountbatten, an explanation of his grandfather's name would not be necessary here. As he took that name, the name should be explained. Mary of Teck also opposed this being the name of the royal house in the 1950s because of the Battenberg family's morganatic background. Josh Gorand (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You removed the explanation of the name. But this looks like it was a misunderstanding or mistake on your part. I only undid your edits introducing the Battenberg family because FactStraight disagreed with them, and per WP:BRD rather than revert him you should have gone to discussion. I think everyone is agreed that there should be some explanation of the name; the question is over what shape that explanation should take.
 * On the career, the naval career is related to Philip's own career choice, so I think it should be mentioned, but I'm happy to trim out words like "distinguished". DrKiernan (talk) 11:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * FactStraight's edit-warring is obviously both disruptive and unjustified. There is no reason not to have a link to the Battenberg family when discussing—the Battenberg family. The user in question needs to familiarise himself with how things work here, specifically with the fact that he doesn't get to pre-censor work on articles. He offers as a rationale for his edit-warring now an agenda to remove Prince Philip's "German ancestry", such POV pushing will obviously be reverted. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The early life section currently includes this description of his grandfather


 * Shortly after Philip's birth, his maternal grandfather, Prince Louis of Battenberg then known as Louis Mountbatten, Marquess of Milford Haven, died in London. Louis was a naturalised British citizen, who, after a career in the Royal Navy, had renounced his German titles and adopted the surname Mountbatten during the First World War.

What the sentence completely fails to do is to mention the origin of that name, that Philip would take later in life, including providing a link to the existing article on the Battenberg family. The article should also mention the family being a morganatic branch of the House of Hesse-Darmstadt, as this was something that influenced developments following Philip's marriage, such as the opposition (from Mary of Teck) to Mountbatten becoming the name of the royal house in the 50s.

Regarding his grandfather, the portrayal here is somewhat tendentious. While it is true that he had a "career in the Royal Navy" and "adopted the surname Mountbatten", it is also true that he (famously) had to end that career due to anti-German sentiment and was perceived as German in the United Kingdom during his entire career, and that he only changed his name late in life, after ending his public career, at the urging of the King, along with other relatives and during a period of intense anti-German sentiment, "to protect his family from anti-German bias" as one source puts it, not as some sort of personal decision. This is the necessary context to understand why Battenberg became Mountbatten. Josh Gorand (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really see, as yet, why events that happened years before Philip was born are relevant to this article. I think it's reasonable to restrict the explanation of the name and his grandfather's career to the bare minimum here. We need to know that Philip's grandfather and uncle were in the Royal Navy, and we need to know that Battenberg became Mountbatten, but other than that I'm not convinced that we need to expand on the events of the First World War. I'm not saying I'm especially opposed to it if there is a broader consensus to include it, and I'm prepared to consider other, more convincing, arguments. But at present, I'm not seeing a convincing argument, or a broad consensus. DrKiernan (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If we don't need "events that happened years before Philip was born", then we can remove his grandfather's naval career that in its entirety happened "years before Philip was born" too. We can also remove material such as "Her father was the second son of King George V and Queen Mary, and her mother was the youngest daughter of Scottish aristocrat Claude Bowes-Lyon, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne" from Elizabeth II's article, as this happened years before she was born. Not having a link to the existing article on the family whose name Philip took is just plain ridiculous and unacceptable. Josh Gorand (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Mountbatten is linked in the lead (and a footnote in the infobox). There is a link to Battenberg family but it's buried in the Arms section behind a pipe. DrKiernan (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

House of Windsor category?
Should this article be in the House of Windsor category? I know that all his children are in the House of Windsor, but as far as I know he isn't. The way I understand it, wives of male members of the House of Windsor become part of the house by marriage, but husbands of female members do not. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Spock of Vulcan (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

the Duke's religion
It's not mentioned in the sidebox that he is Church of England and Greek Orthodox. It should be "prev. Greek Orthodox", since officially he's Anglican, though it's believed he's not nearly as devout as the Queen and he has made pilgrimages to Greek Orthodox churches and monasteries. 74.69.11.229 (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Duke's hospitalistion
Re the Duke's recent hospitalization: can we state yet that he will not carry out public engagements again until the fall? It was announced by the Palace this afternoon. It's notable b/c he rarely takes extended time off and up until a few years ago, carried out as many as 500 or 600 engagements a year. 67.247.142.252 (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That would be OK, if that's what the source says, except for one thing. We really must say autumn, not fall. HiLo48 (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Very well 67.247.142.252 (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Succession box
This should be the 4th creation of Duke of Edinburgh not 3rd. Once Duke of Edinburgh is created with duke of Gluocester.Chamika1990 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Berthold
I have found information that Berthold, his brother-in-law was not in active Nazi service or in any of the German armed forces during WWII. Unless you can find a source otherwise stating.Phd8511 (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Your source says he wasn't a Nazi but says nothing about his army service. Vickers is clear that he did serve in the German army until 1940. DrKiernan (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What is Vickers? Serve with what role? Christoph at least is prominent being in the Air Ministry.Phd8511 (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The source is given at the end of the sentence. DrKiernan (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

current photo's caption is wrong
The photo at the top of the page is not of the Duke in 2013, but of his 2007 visit to NASA in the States with the Queen. 74.69.9.224 (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Absolutely right. It's fixed. HiLo48 (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:British people of Greek descent
I have removed Category:British people of Greek descent as unsourced, and as far as I'm aware, untrue. Prince Philip's ancestry is, as with most European royals, somewhat diverse, but largely German in its roots. If he has any Greek ancestry, it is probably from many generations back. The 'Greek' royal family of which Philip was a part were of course imported: George I of Greece who was 'nominated' by the Great Powers, was Danish, in as much as he was anything other than a typical inbred Northern European royal... 13:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

yesss...but his father was born in Greece, thus making his father Greek. Clearly, in that respect; the Duke of Edinburgh is unquestionably of Greek descent.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

hearing aids
Is it notable that the Duke now wears bilateral hearing aids? 66.67.32.161 (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Given his age, I doubt it. And without a source it certainly isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Prince Philip's Australian knighthood

 * The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.  A summary of the conclusions reached follows.''
 * Most of the arguments presented here are to do it being related to him. However, the majority stated that, as he didn't have a say in it, and it was a decision made by someone else, the article should not include it, per WP:UNDUE and a few other quoted policies. Overall, consensus is not to include it. Mdann52 (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Should Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh include reference to the controversy around his Australian knighthood? Down Kitty (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC) No. It is relevant to Tony Abbott and to the Australian honours system; it has very little to do with Prince Philip himself, except as maybe a mention in very brief passing. republican and anti-British POV. Miesianiacal is dead-on. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Conditional Yes - only if the mention is policy compliant, reliably sourced with multiple sources (2nd & 3rd party), and the information is WP:V which includes a validation check in tertiary sources. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  00:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No
 * 1) Philip is not the subject of any criticism for accepting the honour.
 * 2) WP:UNDUE:
 * The "Honours and honorary military appointments" section makes no other specific reference to an appointment except for Philip's first. The Order of Australia does not warrant special status.
 * The amount of text dedicated to the appointment far outweighs what's used for other appointments.
 * The quotes are excessively long.
 * 3) WP:SUMMARY: The guideline speaks for itself. The information has already been moved to List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.
 * 4) WP:NPOV:
 * The amount of text dedicated to criticism of Abbot for advising the Queen to appoint Philip a Knight of the Order of Australia far outweighs what's used for the support, which is absolutely nothing.
 * The quotes were selected to push a republican and anti-British POV.-- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  01:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The coverage of this matter belongs at Tony Abbott, Order of Australia, and (possibly) where it now is, List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.
 * Yes - the criticism is from significant figures - the opposition leader and a territorial chief minister from the PM's own party, and now senior members of the PM's party and it threatens to end the PM's career. It's a significant issue and it concerns Prince Philip. To ignore it or bury it in a fork article, as Miesianical suggests, is ridiculous. Undue weight means we shouldn't have multiple paragraphs on the issue, not that we shouldn't mention it at all or include any quotes. As for NPOV, this isn't our opinion, it's the opinion of senior Australian officials, as long as it's reported objectively there's no NPOV issue and moreover, it's not just an issue of opinion, it's a full blown political crisis. See, for instance, this article: Liberals weigh up leadership options as Prime Minister Tony Abbott faces criticism. When the governing party of Australia is seriously discussing replacing the PM it's a major issue, much more so than the minor gaffes and embarrassment which are detailed elsewhere in the Prince Philip article. Down Kitty (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You say no but then you say "maybe as a mention". So which is it? Down Kitty (talk)
 * No, unless the description is significantly reduced from the extent which initiated this discussion. My objection isn't because it's critical of Philip (since a. it doesn't strike me that it is, as no one alleges that his behavior is a major cause of what ensued and b. an honour is, ipso facto an accolade, so criticism of the grounds for it deserves mention under NPOV); rather the length and depth of coverage of the objection seems, relative to other references to Philip's honours, excessive. Since another's behavior toward Philip has elicited national controversy, a sentence or two (including partial quotes) concisely describing why the honour elicited objection and indicating the impact thereof thus far, with links to articles in which greater detail is provided, suffices. Summarize and shrink, otherwise it's UNDUE for this article. (I've replied "No" to the Rfc question, then specified conditions under which I'd change to "yes", because the question as worded set too low a bar to address the issue truly under debate here which is, for most of us, how much rather than whether mention of the controversy is appropriate). FactStraight (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No because this is only a summary, and writing more on the topic would be undue, when there is another article on the topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * kind of but nowhere the amount it has now, noting Prince Philip and the Palace havent commented about the appointments controversy. IMHO it should just be something like In 2015 Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott controversially appointed Prince Philip a Knight of the Order of Australia. add a couple of references and viola thats enough the Knight of the Order of Australia article is where the appointments merits and controversy should be discussed in detail. Gnangarra 14:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you think it deserves even that much mention here? It just seems like a topic related so specifically to Australian politics and only so because of the accidental alignment of unique circumstances (his appointment as a Companion of the Order of Australia didn't attract even a peep of protest, after all). Yes, that doesn't make the controversy any less of a fact, but, it does make Philip seem wholly peripheral to it. The subject seems entirely related to the honour itself (Order of Australia and, maybe, List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh) and the person who advised the honour be granted (Tony Abbott). -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * well of course I think it deserves a mention, while the controversy maybe aimed at Tony, if people thought Prince Philip was worthy of the award this wouldnt be controversial and none of the political backlash would be occurring so yes the controversy is of significant note. Gnangarra 02:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Mmmm... But, again, it's Abbott who said (by advising the Queen to confer the honour) Philip is worthy of the appointment. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you think it's not worthy of mention even if Abbott ends up getting dumped as party leader and PM because of it? Down Kitty (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No I dont think its worthy of mention even if Tony gets dumped, as I say above the political backlash can only occur if a significant number of Australian people dont see Prince Philip as a worthy recipient. Gnangarra 02:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I may have misread the situation a little, but I don't think Philip's merit or lack thereof is really the issue. Had this award been made in the Queen's Birthday Honours in June, I think it would have attracted somewhat less criticism.  But Australia Day is meant to be all about Australians, and Philip is not of our number.  There's a long list of worthy Australians who could have been honoured this way, but Abbott chose a foreigner. That's the main issue, as I see it.  Of course, the Royal Family (Will and Kate aside) are seen as pretty irrelevant to Australia these days, and people don't think much of their ribbon-cutting and hand-shaking and speech-making activities, so this incident just added some fuel to that existing fire of disregard.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  04:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC
 * much of the argument and counter claims are merit based, nationality is secondary Gnangarra 05:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The "an Australian wasn't honoured" part of this is rooted (obviously I don't mean that in the Australian way) in many Australians thinking wrongly that Philip is a foreigner. If his actions in relation to the Order of Canada are considered (turning down an honorary appointment because such would imply he's a foreigner to Canada), he likely believes he's Australian himself. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And that begs the question: Why wasn't his AC a few years back an honorary appointment? It's never been described as such, but he is no more an Australian than he is a Canadian or a Papua New Guinean or a Jamaican or a New Zealander. Not even the Queen holds any of these citizenships, much less her husband.  He has never qualified for a substantive appointment in any level of the Order of Australia, which is why a special amendment to the Constitution of the Order was necessary for his AK (just as it was for Prince Charles in 1981).  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What I think you mean is he's no more an Australian citizen than he is a Canadian, or Papua New Guinean, or Jamaican one. Nationality is more than citizenship. As I alluded to above, he considers himself Canadian (not a foreigner to Canada), but, he's not a Canadian citizen.
 * Regardless, I know what you're talking about, but, I don't know the answer. It certainly seems that, according to the Order of Australia's constitution and in the absence of any constitutional amendment, his appointment as a Companion of that order would have to to have been honorary. However, his acceptance of that kind of honour doesn't jive with his position on honorary appointment to the Order of Canada, which he was obviously really quite persistent about (for 30 years). That's why I suspect the appointment as an AC was substantive. But, I certainly can't find any proof of it (only insinuations and statements by commentators). -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're engaging in wishful thinking at this point, which is irrelevant to what the article should say. Regardless of whether or not you think Australians should be offended by the appointment or whether it should be a controversy, the fact it it has resulted in condemnation from both sides of the political spectrum and a serious political crisis that may cost Abbott his job. To ignore this, and pretend that it has nothing to do with Prince Philip and should not be referred to at all in some sort of misguided attempt to protect him, is absurd. 147.194.16.123 (talk) 12:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Straw man argument and assumption of bad faith. But, yes, Jack and I were OT. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No. The controversy is entirely focussed on the bestower, Abbott, not the recipient.  That's where thing stand at the moment.  But read on.
 * Comment and Prediction. I have every reason to believe that this knighthood is not substantive but honorary, and when it comes to public attention that the Queen's husband has been given only an honorary knighthood by one of her realms (he not being a citizen of that realm), there will be further ridicule and controversy, possibly now involving Prince Philip.  See Talk:Order of Australia.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC) Thanks to Mies, I now have every reason to believe it was substantive.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No - The controversy is an Australian matter and not sufficiently important to mention in the main article. The current mention in List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh is appropriate and sufficient. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No per Mitch Ames. De Guerre (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I think what might make more sense at this point is removing the quotations and simply saying "the recommendation for the appointment by Prime Minister Tony Abbott was widely criticised and was followed by a challenge to Abbott's leadership." - with wording revised to "successful challenge..." or "an internal party election that removed him from office" or some such if the spill is successful. 147.194.16.123 (talk) 12:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is good language and a good follow-up plan per my "No" vote above, and changes that to a "Yes" if substantially enacted. FactStraight (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Why overdo Australian politicing here instead of the articles where that belongs? There is no suggestion that Philip is dabbling in local affairs. Whatever the outcome, the k. has been awarded and there may or may not be change of prime minister. The political rhetoric of "the challenge" and the quotes could be removed right now. Qexigator (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No, I agree with Mitch Ames. As to doing more than that: whereas it definitely has its place in the articles about the Abbott government or Abbott himself, regarding Philip it's merely a "fait divers" and thus it would be undue weight. -- fdewaele, 6 Feb. 2015, 13:32.
 * Probably not necessary as a more specific article exists over at List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. If that wasn't the case then here on Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh might make sense—however that's not the case here, and it doesn't make sense to duplicate everything (otherwise, why would there be two separate articles).  —Sladen (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes Done in a responsible and well sourced way by an experienced editor. TheMagikCow (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No Agree with Mitch Ames and others. Further up was a comment if people thought Prince Philip was worthy of the award this wouldnt be controversial: the question of his "worthiness" is not in issue; if it were, there would need to be an entire section for it, pro and con, which would be UNDUE. The controversy is exclusively a matter of ongoing internal Australian party politics and the public controversy there on whether Abbott is worthy to be prime minister, and the crass way in which he went about this. Why has the information been dumped in this article and discussed here when it should be first at Tony Abbott and/or Abbott Government and secondly by link to that from "List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh", if anywhere? Qexigator (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No I think it is sufficient to include this information in the titles and honours article and in the Order of Australia unless the controversy were to actually cause the downfall of Abbott's cabinet. I agree with Qexigator that it can be included in the articles about Tony Abbott and his cabinet if deemed relevant. Björn Knutson (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes. Summoned here by RfC bot. I can't think of any conceivable reason to exclude the one sentence currently in the article on the criticism that it has received. Frankly I believe that it is too sparse and should be fleshed out. Not mentioning it, or mentioning it in an uninformative fashion, is not neutral. Coretheapple (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: conceivable? Have a look at comments above, and reconsider. Those comments are from people who have thought about it. This affair is already blowing over and will soon be too peripheral and stale for any mention here, which has notability beyond the confines of the local politics. Qexigator (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the number of words given to the subject in this article has been greatly reduced. But, I still maintain there needn't be any mention of it here, since it already is mentioned in other, far more appropriate places. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No Absent any reason to believe he initiated it, it is much the same as a club "electing" honorary members who did nothing to seek the honor. Collect (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No The controversy has little relevance to the subject of this article, who did nothing at all incorrect in accepting the honor. TFD (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Longest-serving spouse
I'm all for raising a Happy Birthday huzzah, with wishes for many more, on the occasion of HRH's latest milestone of longevity, but... "He is the longest-serving, oldest-ever spouse of a reigning British monarch, and the longest-living male member of the British royal family." This sentence sounds odd and confusing, because it is trying to force words to carry meanings they do not usually convey. "Longest-serving consort" flows (because "consort" connotes a supportive role), whereas "longest-serving...spouse" sounds awkward. "oldest-ever male member of the British royal family" works but "longest-living male member" invites jokes about viagra-inspired endurance. Given those two observations, there is little point in squeezing in that he has also become the oldest husband or wife of a reigning British monarch -- but if one must, word it thus. FactStraight (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it might have said "spouse" because the sentence may have been written originally when he had been married longer than George III and Charlotte but not served longer than Charlotte as consort of the monarch. That's no longer the case. DrKiernan (talk) 08:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of Philip's knighthood
Why is sourced criticism of Prince Philip's Australian knighthood being removed? Comments by the Australian opposition leader and a territorial chief minister (from the PM's own party) are weighty enough to merit inclusion. Down Kitty (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The objection isn't to the criticism, but to its length relative to other references to his honours. Summarize and shrink, otherwise it's UNDUE. FactStraight (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I can't see how my edit summaries didn't make that clear to Down Kitty already. Further, it isn't a matter just of the criticism. It's also a question of why one appointment to one order is being given special mention at all; no other similar appointment--to the Order of Merit, the Order of Canada, the Order of the Garter, or the dozens of others--gets any mention, but the Order of Australia does. Why? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The difference is that those other awards generated no controversy at all. Most people were not aware of them at the time, and are probably still not.  The AK  (which in my opinion should be categorised as an honorary knighthood anyway, as substantive awards in the Order of Australia are available only to Australian citizens, which the Royal Family are certainly not, which is why the Constitution of the Order had to be amended by Letters Patent to explicitly name Prince Charles as a substantive knight in 1981, otherwise his would have been honorary too)  has generated a huge storm of controversy, aimed admittedly at Tony Abbott rather than the recipient, and may well have spelt the demise of his premiership and reignited the Australian republican debate.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC) (Note: parenthetical matter deleted.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  18:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC))
 * Then, you're saying it's a matter of Australian politics. Is the titles and honours section of Prince Philip's bio the place to get into that? He has no personal involvement in any debate; he hasn't even commented on the matter; not publicly, anyway. The subject belongs elsewhere. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I accept that. The controversy is about the sanity and good judgment (or perceived lacks thereof) of the giver, not about the recipient.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I still don't understand how Miesianiacal thinks that "balance" requires the removal of all criticism, as suggested by his edit summaries. Down Kitty (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"He has no personal involvement in any debate" - that's nonsense, Miesianiacal, for the simple reason that the Queen approved the knighthood and Philip accepted it. Down Kitty (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Abbott may end up getting sacked by his party over this. Surely, if the PM loses his job over Prince Philip that's as worthy of a mention in this article as Pacific Islanders who think he's a god? Or are we only allowed to put hagiography in this article? Down Kitty (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Balance is including support alongside criticism.
 * The section is a summary one with a prominent link to an article dedicated to the subject of Philip's titles and honours. See WP:SUMMARY.
 * "Ifs" aren't pertinent. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for Philip's knighthood may be hard to find but if you can, feel free to add it. No one is stopping you from doing so. Down Kitty (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * None of it belongs here. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not? If an honour to Phil threatens to bring down a PM, how does it not belong in this article? Down Kitty (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You've had five editors tell you why not. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  01:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're reading things into other people's comments things that are not there. Which other editors in this discussion have actually explicitly said the info should be removed? Down Kitty (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Philippos?
I've looked through the archives as best as I've been able to, but I haven't managed to get any clarity...so, a question. Why is it that Prince Phillip isn't noted as having been born Philippos? 94.255.173.237 (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Most recent previous discussion is at Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh/Archive 6. DrKay (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that is exactly what I'm talking about. The 'discussion' quickly devolves into wether or not his parents were Brits or Germans or what have you. None of it is about his name, which was, demonstrably, Philippos at christening. 94.255.173.237 (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no actual official record of his christening. I'm not doubting that it is possible to find sources that call him Philippos, because he is still called that in Greece (and Cyprus). But it is also possible to demonstrate that he was called Philip from birth. For example, the Court Circular in June 1922 calls him "Prince Philip of Greece". For virtually all royals, a single individual can be called different names, say Charles, Carlos or Karl, from birth, depending on the language of the writer/speaker rather than the birthplace of the royal. I'm concerned that providing a translation of his name in Greek gives it an importance that it doesn't really deserve. DrKay (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting changing his name throughout the article. But it might be an idea to note 'christened Philippos' or similar, no? Christened in the Greek Orthodox church, in Greece, as the Prince of Greece(at the time), what's the chance he was christened 'Phillip'? And, quite honestly, what the Court Circular called the prince in 1922, isn't really relevant. Up until the 1960s, the Court Circular reported on things that was not directly related to the British royal family, as noted in the page ABOUT the Circular, and in 1922, the only connection would have been a rather VERY distant connection through Queen Victoria, and the fact that Philip came to London to attend his grandfathers funeral. (oh, and, same as above, on different computer). 85.229.48.166 (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Richard III was christened Ricardus, but we don't write this in his article. Or that his predecessors and successors were also baptised in Latin. We should follow the sources: using them to determine what is and isn't important. If biographies written by reputable authors don't mention a thing, then it is unlikely to be sufficiently notable to be included in an article here. If biographies of Philip say he was christened Philippos, then I would agree that it should be included, but if they don't, I don't think it should be added. DrKay (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to get into the debate of whether or not Prince Philip's ancestors were British - it's irrelevant to the discussion - but I think that if you consider the fact that his maternal grandfather was a naturalized British citizen and his mother was born in Britain and grew up speaking English and German, it's very possible that he was christened 'Philip' and not 'Philippos', particularly when the sources don't seem to be saying that he was christened 'Philippos'. We have 4 working citations regarding his name, including the British monarchy's website, which all state he was born "Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark".  While they are all English sources, we are still confined to what they tell us. Psunshine87 (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)