Talk:Prince Edward, Duke of Kent

First comments

Is there a need for disambiguation in case someone gets around to writing an article on Queen Victoria's father? john 23:01, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There is already an article about Queen Victoria's father, Prince Edward Augustus, Duke of Kent. The article on the present Duke of Kent (the grandson of George V) is Prince Edward, Duke of Kent. I recently updated and expanded the article on Prince Edward Augustus. Jeff 9 Jan 2004.

---

Umm, there's nothing in the article about football. On what basis was this category added? john k 15:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

looks like vandalism- other Royals have been added as well Astrotrain 22:15, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

---

I think an official picture of The Duke of Kent would be usefull. Why is there not official pictures of him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonde (talk • contribs) 13:25, 4 November 2006

Definite article for people styled as children of a duke

Proteus, as far as I know, children of a duke (not eldest son, in the absence of a subsidiary title), are styled "Lord Name" without the definite article, and that the definite article is used only when referring to substantive peers.

From [1] His younger sons and all daughters are referred to as '(The) Lord John Manners/(The) Lady Diana Manners' (see earl for discussion of the definite article before 'Lord'/'Lady').

From [2]. An earl's younger son(s) is/are addressed as for a baron's son. An earl's daughter is addressed as 'Lady Jane Binks', where 'Jane' is her forename and 'Binks' her surname, whether maiden or married. The practice has revived in recent years of adding a 'The' to 'Lady' when referring to her in the third person (also to 'Lord' where he is a duke's or marquess's younger son). It emanates from Court Circles but is deprecated by some members of the College of Arms. This is on the understandable grounds that it not only encroaches on the definite article which more properly pertains to a full peer but also implicitly places in an inferior position not just the eldest son and heir of an earl, marquess or duke since he has no 'The' to his courtesy title but a Prince or Princess who is not a child of the sovereign since they too are not accorded a 'The'.

As I see it, the definite article might be used sometimes, but omitting it would be uncontroversial and unquestionably correct anyway. JSIN 09:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)-Preceding comment, signed JSIN, was posted by Messenger88 (Talk)

Debrett's Correct Form, a much more authoritative source on styles than Burke's (which is primarily a genealogical publication, and which calls Diana, Princess of Wales "Princess Diana" occasionally) recommends its use. (And, more relevantly, it's our policy to include it.) Proteus (Talk) 10:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Whose policy is "our policy"? There are quite a few articles that do not use the definite article for younger children of peers, such as Henry Manners, 8th Duke of Rutland. JSIN 10:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)-Preceding comment, signed JSIN, was posted by Messenger88 (Talk)

In the absence of objection, I am reverting to my changes. JSIN 12:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)-Preceding comment, signed JSIN, was posted by Messenger88 (Talk)

(a) There already was objection, from me. (b) If for some reason you don't think what I said before was an objection, how about this: You're wrong. Stop changing articles. Proteus (Talk) 11:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Freemasonry

I'm no expert on wikipedia but it seems to me that the Dukes role as leader of one of the UK most significant organisations (Freemasons) should be mentioned early in the Piece. He is probably best known in the UK for this role. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.84.105.230 (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

What is the definition of 'significant' in this context? Freemasonry is covered extensively in its own section; I don't think it is necessary in the lead, which is supposed to be as concise as possible. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(ps, I moved your comment into a new section to make things easier) PrinceOfCanada (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"The Duke of Kent holds the UK's most senior position - Grand Master - of the secret society of Freemasonary."

1. 'secret society' - Is this wikipedia's opinion or is it taken from Conspiracy Theorist's Monthly.
2. 'UK's most senior position' - senior in what form? I think the Prime Minister, the Queen, or the The Archbishop of Canterbury might disagree with you on this.

I think that statement should be parsed thus: In UK Freemasonry, the DoK holds the most senior position, that of Grand Master. As for 'secret society', Freemasonry does indeed meet the general definition of the term, though the prefer to refer to themselves as a 'society with secrets', rather than a 'secret society'. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 00:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

HRH The Duke of Kent while the Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England contrary to the statements set forth of being at the head of ALL Freemasonry is simply not the case.

Like any Royal Prince the Duke takes his charitable work very seriously. However it is not his soul function in the UK. He also is not the sovierigen head of Freemasonry in other nations (The United States has at least fifty different grand lodges on for each state) wich governs the fraternity as a seperate entity.

That statement is as incorrect as it is misguided and I am removing it from the "front page news" portion of the article and placing it in a more appropriate area in the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.66.76.151 (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

2nd Duke of Kent?

Excuse me for being ignorant, but isn't he "Prince Edward, 2nd Duke of Kent"? I mean, he wasn't created Duke of Kent, he inherited the title. Surtsicna (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Patrilineal descent

I've deleted this section, as it is irrelevant to the subject. This is about someone in the British royal family, where the descent is not patrilinear; so where is the relevance of a patrilinear list of ancestors from a German royal family? (It might be relevant on the page concerning Albert, Prince Consort, but not here) And most of the royal families in Europe are related to each other somewhere along the line; what would make this one particularly significant? Swanny18 (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

King of the UK?

Edward, Duke of kent should by rights be the King of the United Kingdom. His father, george, Duke of Kent was supposed to succeed following the Mrs Simpson/abdication crisis! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.152.213 (talk) 10:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think maybe George's two older brothers and their children would have had an opinion on that! The then Duke of Kent was only 5th in line of succession; check it out...Swanny18 (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

George, Elector of Hanover was only what 57th, in the Line when he succeeded. According to the article posted by you on one of your other posts, it was stated that because the Duke of Kent was the only brother with a son, as well as his character and public figure, he would have been the best choice. The idea of primogeniture went out the window centuries ago as far the British Royal Family is concerned! 41.132.229.132 (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, cognatic primogeniture has been strictly followed in the UK and Great Britain. Victoria ascended because her late father had been older than her uncles. Had the British Royal Family really abandoned primogeniture, one of her uncles would've ascended instead of a 19-year-old girl. Primogeniture is the law and ignoring the law is not that easy. Saying that the youngest brother should've ascended because he had a son is nonsense. Even in countries which follow agnatic primogeniture the eldest brother ascends whether he has a son or not. They couldn't choose Edward VIII's successor. Besides, why would've George been the best choice? It was well known that he was a drug addict who cheated on his wife with both men and women. Is that the character a British monarch should have? Surtsicna (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well known by who? And several Monarchs have been drug addicts and/or promiscuous. Likewise, you dismiss this claim because Albert was older. The point is that age has been disregarded before. In this case the older brother DID succeed, but it could just have easily not been the case. When decisions go with "law" they can be said to be because of the "law". However, in other cases, the "law" can, and has been, just as easily ignored. 41.132.229.132 (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

By historians. Other monarchs may have been drug addicts who slept around with men and women (and who were these, once again?) but that doesn't make such monarchs a good choice, should we choose. When was the law of primogeniture ignored the last time? Surtsicna (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Good work on providing sources for your allegations against His Royal Highness. Times such as 1087, 1100, 1135, 1199, 1399, 1688, 1702, 1714 spring to mind immediately. if I were to think for more than a fraction of a second, I could come up with several more. 41.132.229.132 (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This is idiotic. The original claim was that the duke of Kent is the rightful king. It's certainly true that, if the government and court had wanted to, parliament could have passed an act at the time of Edward VIII's abdication which amended the Act of Settlement so as to make the Duke of Kent king and bypass York, Gloucester, and their descendants. That didn't happen, though, so the Act of Settlement still applied, and George VI succeeded his brother in the normal way. It might have gone differently, although I think the reporting on this has tended to amplify a passing whim into some kind of grand idea. It didn't go differently however. The Act of Settlement was not amended, except to indicate that Edward VIII was no longer king. The key here isn't primogeniture, it's the Act of Settlement, which decrees male-preference primogeniture among descendants of Electress Sophia. When Edward VIII abdicates, that means his next brother York is the heir-general of Sophia. The Act of Settlement has always functioned predictably and consistently since it was enacted in 1701. john k (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is he a Prince if he's already Duke?

Sorry, it seems I got this wrong, but I thought if a Prince takes up a Dukedom, he loses the "Prince" title? -- megA (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Then what about Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Andrew, Duke of York, etc? Relevant guideline is here: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#Royals_with_a_substantive_title. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 15:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A Prince of the United Kingdom may be granted a dukedom but he remains Prince of the United Kingdom. Surtsicna (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the explanation. -- megA (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)