Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Would War II. Why is Prince Philip's service in the Second World War not covered in the article, this is a serious defect in the "Early Life" section.90.240.178.233 16:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Racist Quotes

The Oxford English Dictionary defines racism as, "racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each racial group possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another racial group or racial groups"

Wikipedia's simple one-line definition is "discrimination based on a racial group"

Lets analyze a few of the Prince's remarks:

1. Seeing a shoddily installed fuse box in a high-tech Edinburgh factory, HRH remarked that it looked "like it was put in by an Indian".

Discrimination based on a racial group. The quote implies Indians are unable to produce high-quality industrial work.

2. # To a British student in Papua New Guinea: "You managed not to get eaten then?"

Discrimination based on a racial group. The quote implies Papua New Guineans are cannibals, playing into the 'island native stereotype'.

3. "If it has four legs and is not a chair, has wings and is not an aeroplane, or swims and is not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it."

Discrimination based on a racial group. The quote implies because the Chinese consume a broader varity of animals, they have no standards about food consumption.

These quotes are not "interpreted" as being racist. They are simply racist. They discriminate and otherwise draw generalized discriminatory conclusions on the basis of race alone, and clearly do so in an offensive manner. Indeed, even the citation for his remarks is for a book that is referred to as a compilation of his racist quotes, not his "interpreted as racist" quotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mft1 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am far from an apologist for racist remarks, but there is one very simple thing to remember here: NPOV. 'Racism' is a point of view (one that I happen to agree with on some of his comments; many others (such as the spear-chucking one) have been taken radically out of context). Our aim is Neutral Point of View. I will be reverting your change until you can demonstrate how putting a value judgement on his statements is NPOV. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am well-aware of what "our aim" is. Racism is "a belief or ideology that all members of each racial group possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race." The change does not pass judgment on whether what he said was right or wrong, but rather presents them as they are. By applying an objective definition to a comment, we are not violating NPOV. To say an object was installed by a certain ethnic group because of the way it was done, regardless of whether that was bad or good, is by definition putting certain characteristics specific to a race. Under your logic, we can never say that anyone is making a racist comment. Prince Phillip's quotes (some of them), are by the definition of racism, racist. It is a fact, not an opinion.

Mft1 (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think you understand. Saying that X statement is racist is a value judgment, an opinion. As loathsome as such people are, there are people who would say that X is not a racist statement, it is a matter of fact. Therefore the statement that X is racist becomes POV. I may not disagree with you in spirit, but I disagree in the context of Wikipedia. I am sympathetic to what you are trying to say, however this is not the forum. Therefore I am reverting your change--reverting it back would violate what I understand to be the spirit of the 3RR. This is, of course, leaving quite aside the fact that many of Philip's comments are taken out of context. For example, I would point you to the 'spear-chucking' comment. Look up the context and you will quickly understand how the quote has been divorced from its context and therefore how it is misleading to label it as racist. In any case, I have removed all of the comments, and put them in a more appropriate place--Wikiquotes. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 05:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do not need to be patronized. I completely understand your perspective, and I respectfully disagree that you are interpreting NPOV correctly. In the spirit of compromise, however, I have changed the wording from "interpreted as" to "regarded as". This refrains from labeling the comments directly as racist, but establishes that they are often regarded as such by others.

Mft1 (talk) 03:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You may disagree as much as you wish. Until you can show how blanket statements are NPOV, the language will stand as it is. I also find it interesting how you projected 'patronizing' onto anything I said. Also how you completely ignore that many comments are taken wildly out of context. NPOV: know it, live it, do it. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 04:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of the remarks are, by absolutely any objective definition, racist by the simple fact that they make huge, sweeping generalisations about particular groups. And racism is also, by any objective definition, ignorant. Therefore we shouldn't flinch away from labelling the comments as such simply because they have the potential to embarrass the subject. Labcoat (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

'Many', not 'most'. Blanket sweeping generalizations are a bad idea. Nothing has changed since the last time we had a go-round about this. I'll be reverting now, please don't do this again. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 08:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Prince of Canada, I am in complete agreement with the sound and logical reasoning applied to this issue by the User Mft1 in the discussion above. The labels 'racist' and 'ignorant' are factually accurate here and their inclusion is proper. You are apparently the only one objecting to their use. I also don't appreciate the vaguely threatening tone of your response to my edit. Labcoat (talk) 11:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion is not factually accurate, because you are making a blanket statement about everything the man has ever said. Just to make things easier, this is what i said 40 days ago. Nothing has changed: 'Racism' is a point of view (one that I happen to agree with on some of his comments; many others (such as the spear-chucking one) have been taken radically out of context). Our aim is Neutral Point of View. I will be reverting your change until you can demonstrate how putting a value judgement on his statements is NPOV.

Okay? Good. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 11:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any real evidence presented here that Prince Philip discriminates against people on the basis of their ethnic origin, or even that he holds stereotypical views. These "remarks" are merely jokes. There's no evidence that he actually believes all Hungarians have pot-bellies or everyone in Liverpool is a thief. I think people are being over-sensitive about a sense of humour which may not be to everyone's taste.

The three examples given above have been taken beyond a point of reasonable extrapolation by Mft1. For example, the first could be an analogy to Comboy electricians, and the second example is a joke directed against racial stereotyping in which he indicates that Western perceptions of Papua New Guinea as some sort of primitive cannibal island are ludicrous and absurd. DrKeirnan (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I don't think anyone is trying to label Prince Philip himself a racist. The point is that most of his comments are by objective definition racist in nature. Therefore, whether we interpret them as being intended seriously or otherwise is an irrelevant POV. Labcoat (talk) 09:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't judge full stop. The dictionary quotes are all very well but one would have to judge him about whether to apply the term to him or not. This is why we aren't including it. BLP is also an issue. --Cameron* 10:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You're quite correct that we don't judge. The point is that there is no judgment being made here. The comments made by Prince Philip are, by any definition, racist in their formulation. Whether the reader then regards such comments as being 'good' or 'bad', or subsequently views Prince Philip as being a 'racist', remains entirely up to them. Would you be happier if the wording was along the lines of "(the comments) have been interpreted as racist by some"? Labcoat (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I get what you are saying but negative words generally arent used unless sourced. Try adding the word "usurper" to the Oliver Cromwell article. A perfectly true fact, and verifiable but still not added...--Cameron* 17:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate the example you've used, but I think it's inappropriate here. The word 'racist' isn't being applied to the individual, but rather the nature of his comments. If someone, for instance, was notorious for a long history of homophobic or sexist remarks, would we also shy away from describing those remarks as such (in case they were perceived as being 'negative')? Labcoat (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think generally we represent the facts and let readers make their own decisions. You won't find "He was a bad man" in the Hitler article, even though he was, by most definitions, a bad man. Verifiability, not truth, is often quoted...can you find sources to prove he is a racist? --Cameron* 22:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

But there is no assertion being made against Prince Philip himself! His comments are, however, unequivocally racist. Using your example, if we were to label Hitler's ideology as being racist in nature, would you also suggest that that was unfair, since we were somehow attributing a negative value to them and that some readers may feel otherwise? Labcoat (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the remarks, none of which are in the article, are racist or considered racist would still need a source. Now I'm not sure if this is a relilable source as I can't seem to find the original AP piece. However, the Cambridge University Students' Union did say that that he makes racist remarks and it appears that Mohamed Al Fayed branded Prince Philip a "Nazi" and a "racist"... CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. All the discussion above is over this series of edits and reversions, is that correct? If so did anybody bother to read the opening section, in particular the last sentence, which is referenced to the first of my links above? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh, missed that. It'll have to go as well, per WP:NPOV. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 23:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

But it depends on Associated Press being a reliable source. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

My reading is that it depends on AP reporting on an interpretation, which is relatively verboten in these parts. Has Philip said some offensive things? Yes. Could they be considered as being racist? Yes. Can they factually be stated as being such? No. Why? Because racism--no matter how much I may agree with the interpretation! (and I do in some cases, especially the 'slitty-eyed' remark)--is a value judgement and not a statement of fact.

Fact: X was born on Y date according to Z calendar.

Opinion: X was born on Y date according to Z calendar, which makes him a very jolly fellow!

Similarly. Fact: X said Y, which has "been regarded as offensive and/or based on stereotypes"

Opinion: X said Y, which is racist.

Are we clear yet? To call something 'racist' or 'positive' or 'uplifting' or 'negative' is a value judgement, and that is not what we are here for. We are here for facts. Nothing else. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 08:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is not saying that he is racist nor that his remarks are racist but that some people find his remarks racist as reported by AP. That is allowed. So the way that it is presented in the opening is OK because the article is just reporting what has been said. However, this would need re-writing as it's not based on the source given. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 09:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally

I find the pirate outfit somewhat cheesy. Anyone want to have a better go?... It's poorly shopped as well.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.135.159 (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Having issues with "had issue"

Hmm, racking my brain for what "had issue" means... faintly remember "had children". Not sure.

So... do "royalty" articles absolutely have to use the "royalty"-mandated (if such) obscure or at least non-understandable term for "to have offspring"? ("royalty" in quotes because there's no such thing in Germany, where I live)

I'm not sure which "guideline" to invoke here (and I wouldn't anyway), but I'm pretty sure WP wants to and should be understandable for everyone, not just those who know "the lingo" (the terminology that royalty/aristocracy-buffs (feel they have to) use)

jae 09:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that having issue refers specifically to children who are eligible to hold the throne. I could easily be wrong, though. Atropos 22:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope much simpler than that. 'Issue'='(biological) children', regardless of whether they are in line to inherit anything, or even legitimate. Step-children and adopted children, however, are not 'issue'. It is the correct term used in genealogy - it's by no means restricted to royalty. Indisciplined (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"Abandoned" titles

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

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

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

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

Popular?

Is he really popular? First I've heard of ir. Can you quote and authority for this?

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

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

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

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

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

---

Another question, maybe someone can help me with. When Phillip's son Charles, Prince of Wales, ascends to the throne, while the royal house become Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg ? I know that when Queen Victoria died,the Royal house became Saxe-Coburg-Gotha as the new king was descended from Prince Albert. --Dudeness10 13:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it'll probably stay as Windsor, but it could become Mountbatten-Windsor if Charles chooses to honour his father's surname. Craigy (talk) 00:12, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

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

When Philip dies, the template {{House of Oldenburg (Glucksburg-Greece)}} will proabably be added in place of the Royal Family one, as he was a son of Prince Andrew of Greece. Craigy (talk) June 29, 2005 16:43 (UTC)

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Only just noticed this, and I agree, it dominates the article. Although I don't doubt its accuracy, I don't see that it adds value to the article. If this stays, it could be opening the floodgates for similar genealogical tables elsewhere. Deb

What do the numbers in the Ahnenreihe actually mean? Surely not generations. They make it look wrong. -- Zoe

Answer to this can be found on the Ahnenreihe page. Mintguy

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

Oh, and by the way, I've moved the page to "Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh", so I'd better put my armour on to protect myself from the inevitable attack... :) -- Oliver PEREIRA 01:16 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

---

This page now appears to be an advert for Denis Judd's book. Can we have a better image please. Mintguy

---

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

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

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

---

Can someone look at the notes - not really sure why they're duplicating...

---

HRH's Titles

"His official title" makes no sense.

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

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

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

Sources of quotes

Please provide sources for the quotes you add. While the Nigerian thing is easy to confirm ([1], for instance), I would like to know the source of the latest one, as I Googled for it with no success. -- Jao 12:38, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Style after death

After his death will he be referred by his birth name/style just as deceased Queen-Consorts are? Prince Albert, Queen Victoria's consort is listed as Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha not Prince Albert of the United Kingdom. Wouldn't Phillip then become Phillip of Greece & Denmark?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bizarre claim

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

What precisely is this supposed to mean? There are plenty of fathers of children who do not share their surname. Morwen - Talk 18:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Prince of Wales and his siblings are not illegitimate, though, and are entitled to the surname of "Mountbatten-Windsor"(I would have the name as "Windsor-Mountbatten"). Perhaps it would have been better if Prince Philip had selected "Oldcastle"(the Anglicised version of "Oldenburg") as his surname, instead of the rather morganatic surname of "Mountbatten."

I believe the quote is correct, but bear in mind the different social values and family structures at the time when this quote was made. Having children outside wedlock was taboo at the time. So for a father who lived with his children in a family unit in the 1950's, the children would have their father's name. Things are different now. Indisciplined (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Title, 1947 to 1957

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

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

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

Actually .. if you look a little further in, "In February 1957 it was announced that The Queen had granted to The Duke of Edinburgh the style and dignity of a Prince of the United Kingdom, and that in future he would be known as 'The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh'." [2] --Azkar 18:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Prince

I'm reverting the opening back to The Prince Philip. According to the London Gazette [3], "The QUEEN has been pleased to declare her will and pleasure that His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh shall henceforth be known as His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh." (italics mine) --Azkar 02:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Personal Life

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

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

FearÉIREANNFile:Irish flag.gifFile:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\^(caint) 7 July 2005 22:46 (UTC)

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

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

greek template

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

Foreign Titles

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

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

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

Well, he WAS a British citizen anyway even before renouncing his titles... Yanksta x 12:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

As was his uncle Mountbatten who was both a Serene highness and a British citizen 'until 1917'. There is no legal block on holding foreign titles and citizenship. Alci12 17:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Duke of Edinburgh

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

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

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

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

Except the 1764 title was a Dukedom of Gloucester and Edinburgh, of course, rather than a Dukedom of Edinburgh. And the term "merged" is rather misleading anyway, as it implies some form of continued existence of the title (as if the Queen holds all the titles that have merged with the Crown), which simply isn't the case. It's rather akin to a drop of water falling back into the ocean — once it's fallen back in, it's lost, there's no way of getting it back, and its existence has for all intents and purposes been terminated: you can't point somewhere and say "look, there's my drop", and taking out another drop, even one that looks exactly the same in every way, does not recreate the drop that's fallen back in. Proteus (Talk) 23:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, that may be, but the term is "merged" and we're pretty much stuck with it<g>. - Nunh-huh 01:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC) P.S. Don't mention the "and" thing to the Earl of Oxford.... - Nunh-huh 01:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Canadian Forces Decoration

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

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

I'm not sure that's really true about "minor" decorations being dropped. What about The Right Honourable Sir Edward Heath KG MBE? I think he rather liked the juxtaposition. Furthermore, to drop these decorations would be quite an affront to the other people who have them, not to mention to the Queen, who awarded them.

Well the only useful was to solve this would be to find out if the decoration was honorary or not. If it is then not using it would be normal if it's not then it's been deliberately dropped. Alci12 17:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the 2006 edition of Debrett's Correct Form and to Burkes Peerage [4], Prince Philip's official style is His Royal Highness, The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, KG, KT, OM, GBE, AC, QSO, PC. Thus while he was awarded the Canadian Forces Decoration in 1982, he certainly does not use the postnominal in general usage. That said, in such circumstances it is often customary where an award has been made by a foreign nation to use the appropriate dignities (postnominals, etc) when visiting that nation or attending official functions hosted by that nation (eg if he were to attend an official function at the Canadian High Commission in London). --AusTerrapin 16:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversial Remarks

"If it has four legs and is not a chair, has wings and is not an aeroplane, or swims and is not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it." (1986) ^^ From what I understand, this is a fairly common saying in China. I recall my tour guide in Beijing saying it. If Philip's use of the remark was not otherwise controversial, I suggest it be removed. --RealGrouchy 01:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Which part of China. Every province or municipalities have different cultures. Beijing people are not Cantonese or from Guangdong usually, unless they are there to work. To some it may feel controversial, I think leaving the remark on the article is better. --Terence Ong ^Talk 07:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much uncontroversial, as unoriginal. Obviously the Chinese have a better sense of humour than the British press. --BadSeed 23:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Duke's portrait

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

Birth Name

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

Yes, his birth certificate has Prince Philippos on it and he was baptised with that name. I imagine it was just anglicanized when he and his family left Greece. Craigy (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Biography

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

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

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

All those controversial remarks

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

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

Vandalisation

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

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

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

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

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

Farting

removed from main article:

• In 2006 Prince Philip farted in a Royal Ceremony and mischievously smiled as Prince Harry giggled.[5]

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

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

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

Affairs

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

Dexter

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

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

Date of Birth

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

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

The Prince's personal feelings

"However the knowledge that it would be eclipsed by his wife's future

role as Queen was always in his mind. "

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

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

Royal house

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

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

The House of Glücksburg is one of two cadet branches (the other is the House of Augustenborg), but the house of Oldenburg as such died out in 1863 with the death of the childless Frederick VII of Denmark. The Danish [6] and Norwegian [7] royal families refer to themselves as Glücksburgers, and Prince Christian of Glücksburg - from whom Prince Philip descends - did the same. But this is the world viewed through Danish glasses. :) I'm not sure if British tradition differs in this respect. Valentinian ^{T / C} 16:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Personal life section removed

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

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

New pic

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

Prince Consort

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

You have not dreamt it, it's from the New York Post: [8] I have no idea how well-founded it is, it sounds like something someone has deemed "possible" which then has become "plausible" and "likely" in American media... But I'm definitely not a "royal insider", so I don't know what will happen in November. It's certainly possible, of course. -- Jao 00:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Legend

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

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

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

prince philip as a god

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

Heir to Duke of Edinburgh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Middle Name?

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

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

Tom Clancy's "Patriot Games"

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

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

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

Definite article in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Titles (again...)

I think that the current Titles section is wrong, but I'm not 100% sure so thought I'd ask here first.

It appears from the official website of the Order of the Garter that he was knighted on 19th November 1947. According to the London Gazette, he was granted the style HRH by letters patent on the same day (and, it appears, subsequently to receipt of the knighthood).

I think that his titles should therefore be:

• 10 June 1921–18 March 1947: His Royal Highness Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark
• 18 March–19 November 1947: Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten RN
• 19 November–19 November 1947: Lieutenant Sir Philip Mountbatten KG, RN
• 19 November–20 November 1947: Lieutenant His Royal Highness Sir Philip Mountbatten KG, RN
• 20 November 1947–22 February 1957: His Royal Highness Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
• 22 February 1957–: His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Agreed? I'm a bit unconvinced by the ugliness of Lieutenant HRH Sir, but that would appear to be correct. Your input appreciated. ^talkGiler 13:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No complaints? Good! Then I shall be bold. ^talkGiler 08:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

None except to point out Lt HRH Sir doesn't strike me as correct either – methinks HRH outranks the other two – certainly outranks Sir, and, although Lt HRH isn't unheard-of, I should think it can be omitted ^† DBD 22:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Lieutenant is a rank, HRH is a style. Isn't Sir a style as well? If so, then Sir would not be used as HRH outranks it and Lieutenant may be included as a rank. Charles 23:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Knights are entitled to use the prefix 'Sir'. Knights when elevated to the peerage use the prefix appropriate to their rank in the peerage and drop the use of the prefix 'Sir'. Military ranks are correctly used in conjunction with the prefix of a knight or peer. Royal rank, whilst not part of the peerage, has the same relationship to knighthoods - ie, when a person attains royal rank, they adopt the prefix of that rank and drop the prefix 'Sir'. Thus in the brief window of time between Prince Philip becoming a member of the Royal Family and his creation as Duke of Edinburgh, his correct style was Lieutenant His Royal Highness Philip Mountbatten, KG, RN. It should be noted that 'style' refers to the complete description, not to specific components of the description thus 'Sir' is a prefix, KG is a postnominal, etc. Debrett's Correct Form was consulted to confirm this advice - I hope it helps shed further light on the subject. --AusTerrapin 16:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't correct, as the announcement of his ennoblement in the London Gazette shows: "The KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, bearing date the 20th instant, to confer the dignity of a Duke of the United Kingdom upon Lieutenant His Royal Highness Sir Philip Mountbatten, K.G., R.N., and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten, by the name, style and title of BARON GREENWICH, of Greenwich in the County of London, EARL OF MERIONETH, and DUKE OF EDINBURGH." Proteus (Talk) 16:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversial remarks

The section was recently changed a bit. After looking through the references I found that there was a reference to him being called Phil the Greek but the only person that I could see calling him The Hun was his mother-in-law. However, there seems to me to be no relationship between his remarks and the "Phil the Greek" nickname, which would probably be because of his birth, so I removed it. I also noticed that the sentence "His comments are often taken with a pinch of salt in the UK and as characteristic of his sense of humour." is not cited and added a fact tag. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Addition of full styles

I have restored the full styles that I previously added. Having noted WP:BRSG, I conceded that these more appropriately belong under a heading of styles rather than titles. I would be rather disappointed if these were removed en masse again as I believe they add value (error correction welcome). In particular they help identify the evolution of HRH's style over time, identify the postnominal entitlements actually adopted (eg CD has not been adopted) and help clarify the full style used in practice as opposed to the style required for WP conformity which is used elsewhere in the article. Of note British royals do use postnominals in their full style (see Debrett's Correct Form and Burke's Peerage). On the most formal occasions these would be spelled out using the full styles of the respective orders, etc. For simplicity, I have left them with postnominals as this is the most common form. For another example where this has been done on WP, refer to Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma.--AusTerrapin 15:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Are there sources citing which post-nominals he does or does not use?--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 05:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Both Debrett's Correct Form and Burke's Peerage provide the list of postnominals in day to day usage and the link above to Burke's Peerage is to his page. AusTerrapin 01:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Are the listings only for post-nominals used in the UK? I can't imagine that if they were used in Canada that "CD" would be left out or that in Papua New Guinea "GCL" would be omitted. What I'm worried about is that the current list isn't from the point of view of all countries (I'm primarily concerned about Commonwealth realms).--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 02:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

'AC' is an Australian honour and 'QSO' is a New Zealand honour. As I understand it, the list supplied (and quoted in the sources previously cited) is that which Prince Philip uses on a day to day basis. I haven't been able to discover the rationale for why post-nominals from some Commonwealth countries are used on a day to day basis and others aren't. I agree that when in Canada or in relation to Canadian matters he would add 'CD' and that a similar situation would apply in other countries that have conferred honours and decorations with a post-nominal entitlement. The full list is supplied at List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. If you are concerned about POV, then the solution would be to create separate chronological lists for each other country in which he uses a different style to that which he uses on a day to day basis, eg 'Styles used in Canada'. Alternatively, a qualifier could be added at the bottom of the existing list pointing out that this is the list of styles that were in common usage but that in selected countries, a different form may be used. It would be incorrect and misleading, however, to turn the existing list into a compilation of every post-nominal acquired from every source as they are never used in that fashion. AusTerrapin 14:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Having had a closer look at the Canadian and PNG entitlements, I suspect that the reason that 'CFD' is not used routinely is that it is a long-service award, not an order or decoration in the more usual sense. The same can't be said for 'GCL', here it is possible that as a relatively recent award (Nov 2005), the usual authoritative sources haven't caught up yet. My copy of Debrett's Correct Form is a 2006 edition, so it is quite likely that details of the PNG award to were not available when the manuscript was being prepared for publication. Burke's Peerage I am less certain of, nominally the web page is copyright 2005-07, but this may mean the last revision was 2005 in which case similar comments to above would apply. AusTerrapin 15:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

1936-1947

What happened during this period? did he serve in the war? seems an odd omission? (if it is in there it's not obvious) --Fredrick day 20:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Omission is now fixed. AusTerrapin 17:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich

Why exactly was Philip created Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich? I understand that as a Prince Consort he needed a title, but wouldn't just Duke of Edinburgh suffice? Känsterle 21:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Because higher peers are almost without exception created not only their highest peerage, but also a few lower ones, which they themselves don't use, but their eldest son and heir apparent may – for instance Viscount Linley holds that title by courtesy from his father Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon, who, besides being Earl of Snowdon is also Viscount Linley. However, in Philip's case, his heir-apparent, and his heir-apparent, already have much, much higher titles (Prince of Wales and Prince) Is that at all clear? ^† DBD 00:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I do know that high peers usually also hold lower ones that are used by the heir-apparent, but as you say yourself, this is not the case here. So why are those titles needed? Or is it just a matter of tradition? Känsterle 13:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The latter, definitely ^† DBD 16:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Affairs

Why is there nothing on all the affairs he has had. Hes been with loads of wimmin, in all the papers and that. Princess Pea Face 20:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry – "wimmin"? Tsk. ^† DBD 21:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's 'women'. GoodDay 21:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if it's been "in all the papers and that" it should be easy to find reliable sources. --John 21:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Why? Because we're an encyclopedia, not a scandal sheet. Please remember the WP:BLP applies to Royals, too. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Remarks concerning others

The distinction between insensitivity and ignorance is a very important one to make.

Describing Prince Philip’s remarks as being ‘insensitive’ clearly suggests that the comments are in themselves somehow true and that his only error is in expressing them. I don’t think anyone would seriously take issue with the fact that the majority of his remarks concerning others are, by any objective definition, ignorant of all factual accuracy.

The sentence as a whole has been drafted with a series of apologetic phrases which have no place in an encyclopaedic article. The article must not reflect our personal interpretations of an individual’s reputation or popular perception.

Saying that his remarks as ‘can come across’ as ignorant and racist etc also clearly suggests that his intention was always somehow otherwise, and that the comments merely give the impression of being ignorant to those that choose to view them that way.

Equally, the word ‘blunt’ suggests that the remarks are in themselves somehow accurate and that it is only the directness with which he expresses them that is at fault.

Based on the above, I have corrected the sentence.

Labcoat (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I made a tweak – agreeable? ^† DBD 01:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for the edit, but I’m afraid I disagree for the following reasons...

Whilst I personally agree with you that most of the remarks were likely in jest, it is not our place to impose this interpretation upon the reader. The reader must be free to draw their own conclusions.

Additionally, we must also recognise the differences between racism and prejudice. In labelling the remarks ‘prejudicial’, it suggests that Prince Philip has an ongoing problem (i.e prejudice) with those he has addressed in the remarks. By comparison, ‘racist’ indicates that many of the remarks simply centred around racial stereotypes – as indeed they do.

I appreciate that such terms may make for uncomfortable reading for those that admire or follow Prince Philip, but that in itself should not discourage us from using them – especially where such a wealth of evidence attests to their objective accuracy.

Thanks Labcoat (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

House of Mountbatten

Why were questions raised about the Royal House name during Elizabeth II' reign? These questions shouldn't be raised until after Liz's passing. The consort's name didn't matter during Mary I, Anne & Victoria's reigns? Could this be pointed out in the article? GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe it has been explianed in the article. Philip's uncle, Earl Mountbatten of Burma, raised the issue in the 1950's, and it caused a great deal of controversy. The Queen, therefore, actually issued an Order in Council to sort out the Royal Surname/future name of Royal House issue. That was an extraordinary thing to do, and I don't believe that anything similar happened in the reigns of the previous Queen's you mentioned. (That said, the Order in Council is sometimes read as being ambiguous, so maybe it didn't resolve the issues after all. See the Mountbatten-Windsor article for more information). Indisciplined (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that Liz's successor, has the right to gives his/her own proclamation & change the House name. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

One thing is the name used by a particular person or by the British government, another thing is the name used in genealogy and historiography. Male line descendants of Prince Philip will always be members of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, no matter what surnames or titles they assume. Barbro Luder (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Which languages does he speak fluently?

English, German, Greek, French, Danish?

I once saw an interview with him in perfect German, no accent at all! But he also lived in France and Greece, and was a Danish Prince.. does anybody know more about it? --79.199.13.233 (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Being almost entirely of German descent, having most of his relatives in Germany (all his sisters) and having attended school in Germany, he obviously speaks German fluently, if not natively. Barbro Luder (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth and Philip by Charles Higham and Roy Moseley tells me that his first language was English, mainly because his nanny, Nurse Roose, was English, but it was also the first language of both his parents. German and French were Philip's second languages, and he spoke Greek "not at all". There's no mention of Danish, but since neither his parents nor nanny had any close Danish associations, I'd be very surprised if there was any opportunity to learn Danish. There was certainly no need to learn Danish, because he was never going to inherit the Danish throne. But what he did learn from an early age was sign language, in order to communicate with his mother, Princess Alice of Battenberg, who was deaf from birth. What languages he may have learned in later life, I cannot say. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Diana, Princess of Wales also knew some sign language. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

REMOVING controversial remarks

I am going to remove the controversial remarks sections. Whilst I agree that it should be noted that he has made controversial remarks I dont think they should be listed on the page. It is most un-wikipedia-like. Seriously now I cant believe noone got rid of them earlier!Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia for goodness sake! If anybody thinks they are all that important perhaps they would like to add a link to wikiquote where they are all listed (and where they belong! --Camaeron (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's role is not to censor. It is to report cited facts of significance, and it is cited fact that he made those remarks. The subject has received controversy for those remarks in the news media and the public sphere, and they are therefore significant to the subject; to remove them would be POV and against Wikipedia policy. —Lowellian (reply) 16:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Controversial remarks in general. Sure Prince Philip has made some controversial remarks. Who hasn't? These remarks are, however, not his main achievement, and according to all sources, they are not overly exciting and certainly not shocking whatsoever. In my opinion, the question is not whether these remarks are significant or not, but HOW significant they are. In other words: The less significant they are, the less space they should occupy in the article. One other thing: The fact that some of his remarks are perceived as racist, is a matter of interpretation. If there is no clear indication that he really has a racist tendency beyond the fact that, as a member of high aristocracy, he is, of course, elitist, then this should not be mentioned at the beginning of the article, but, if at all, somewhere later. --Bernardoni (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually thank they should be left their, so everyone can know what kind of cold hearted, dried up raisin the guy is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBanks (talk • contribs) 10:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you read WP:NPOV. He is a person who has said some things. Where it is verifiable that those things have been said, they may be quoted in the article, without judgement; deciding the meaning of the remarks, and indeed whether or not Prince Philip is a "cold hearted, dried up raisin" is an exercise left for the reader. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to provide a point of view.

That being said, I agree with Cameron. The section should simply redirect to Wikiquote--I can't think of any other royalty articles which have this extensive list of quotes. accordingly, I shall be bold. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have removed all the quotes, and am in the process of editing the Wikiquote page to properly cite them all. This is not POV; such quotes aren't in any other WP royalty articles, and Wikiquote is a much better repository for them anyway. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the remaining sections vaguely alluding to "bad" quotes. If any mention of quotes is to be made, it should be only of those that got significant reaction (positive or negative). Then, the full quote, date, and place should be given, and there should be a NPOV discussion of the reaction. The text wasn't anything close to that, so I removed it. Superm401 - Talk 00:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've put them back, sorry. The lifetime buildup of all of the variously funny, offensive, or merely tasteless things he has said is something of a defining characteristic of the man. The section stays, cited quotes available at Wikiquote for edification. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 01:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with PrinceOfCanada that this section is entirely essential -- not only because the Prince's gaffes have come to be recognized as characteristic of the man himself, but perhaps no less because these otherwise trivial incidents illustrate an arc of change in the context of the monarchy in British and Commonwealth culture across a span of decades since the Queen's accession. In my view, the value and accuracy of this Wikipedia article would be diminished without some reference to this difficult aspect of the Prince's biography. That said, I wonder if a small tweak isn't needed? Yes, many of his now infamous remarks were immediately construed as offensive; but I wonder if that frank admission shouldn't be balanced by mentioning that other awkward observations were seen as merely odd or off-colour or even funny. Would a citation be strictly necessary to support an additional sentence in this controversial section? --Tenmei (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a citation would be required, otherwise you are interjecting your opinion, POV, and original research. Which is kind of the Trifecta of No ;) Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 15:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Naval service in the 1940s

Twice it's mentioned in the article that Lieutenant Prince Philip served in HMS Cornwallace. There's never been such a ship in the Royal Navy. HMS Cornwallis, perhaps. There was a Cornwallis in WW2 but all my books tell me that she was part of the Royal Indian Navy. A check of the Navy Lists for the time will be helpful.

Lester May 82.35.34.83 (talk) 07:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

His biography on the Royal Family's web site says it was HMS Wallace. Proteus (Talk) 13:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

HMS Cornwallis was a Duncan class battleship (Dreadnought) sunk by a U Boat in 1917. HMS Wallace was a Shakespeare class destroyer (sometimes called Leader class) Thornycroft_type_leader and is the correct ship.GDD1000 (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Move Shield of Arms

I cannot do, but I do think his shield of arms should be moved to the top or the article.

I've looked at it and I'm afraid I don't find myself agreeing. It's part of an item which, if moved, would unbalance the article. It would also give Prince Phillip's arms precedence over the Royal coat of arms which wouldn't be proper. I think it's best left where it is.GDD1000 (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

inappropriate category

The category "Oceanic Deities" was listed on here for months and nobody seemed to notice. I just removed it.--24.218.8.95 (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, per the beliefs of the people in question, it belongs. I'll be putting it back now. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 05:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The article section "Prince Philip Movement" does cover this aspect. See Prince Philip Movement for the main article, if you are interested. --Cameron* 14:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Renounced titles

How does one renounce a title? I've heard of not using a title but usually one legally remains the holder of the title. The article doesn't cite a source. --Cameron* 15:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• The subject's uncle by marriage effectively renounced a bunch of titles when he abdicated. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Just as current monarchs can abdicate, holders of lesser titles can renounce them. Presumably there must have been some written documents by which he irrevocably renounced his Greek and Danish titles. Where those document are, and whether the public has access to them - no idea. But his renunciation is very well cited, and if it was a lie, Philip and the palace would have had something to say about it. They never denied the reports (it's probably confirmed on the Royal website, in fact), so we can safely take it he did renounce his titles. If you think about it, he would have had to. There was a (very slim) possibility that he could have acceded to either the Greek or Danish thrones, making his wife Elizabeth the Queen Consort of Greece or Denmark. That would simply never do, as it would cause her to divide her loyalties in the event of any belligerency between Britain and either of those countries. (Philip is of course in line to the UK throne in his own right, but by definition that can never happen while Elizabeth is on the throne.) So, one of them had to give up their titles, and it certainly wasn't going to be Elizabeth. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The website of the British Monarchy says "He was born Prince of Greece and Denmark in Corfu in 1921, but renounced his Royal title when he became a naturalised British subject in 1947." They seem to be insinuating Philip renounced them because he became a British citizen...which is simply not true, as there are no such requirements by either Danish nor Greek law. What I want is good hard evidence Philip signed some kind of renunciation document. As mentioned on another page: I have a friend who does not use their title, however legally they are still the holder of the title. I have never heard of such a "renunciation document". Besides, as the titles were granted by the Danish and Greek respectively, surely the renucition documents can't be British. Even Elizabeth II has no control over foreign titles. --Cameron* 07:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Methinks, in this case, Phil's Greek and Danish titles are disused — like how one can change one's name through usage. His having been said to renounce said titles, is just an announcement that he was never going to use them again, and that nor should anyone else. And I daresay that "when he became" it not so much a 'when' used in the casual sense, but in the coincidental sense — i.e. they happened at a similar time? ^† DBD 08:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It's true there are plenty of people who don't use their titles, such as the Princess of Wales, Sir Jonathan Porritt & the Earl of Ancram, who calls himself Mr Michael Ancram, even tho' Ancram isn't the family surname. This is of course different from formal renunciation of titles. You might try Burke's Peerage for a source for this statement. Cameron is correct in saying that any purported renunciation would be governed by Greek & Danish laws, not British, tho' the application in Britain is another matter. It's an offence of praemunire for a Briton to accept or use, or for a foreigner to use in Britain, foreign titles without the Queen's permission, which isn't very often granted. A common exception is military decorations from allied powers, which are often allowed, tho' the permission is still needed. There's also the question of his HRE titles as a Duke of Schleswig-Holstein & Count of Oldenburg. I don't remember those being mentioned. Peter jackson (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems I was talking out of my a*** above. Elizabeth and Philip by Charles Higham and Roy Moseley says (p. 392), in reference to an article penned by Lord Mountbatten for The Genealogist's Magazine in 1977 but published under the name of Clare Forbes Turner:

".. the piece .. had a number of errors in it, including the statement that Prince Philip relinquished his Greek royal inheritance upon becoming a British subject in WW2. In fact, the Greek law of the time did not admit of such an action, and the truth was that Philip remained an heir to the Greek throne, a detail that the Machievellian King George II had overlooked. Mountbatten urged .. Forbes Turner to state that the information about Prince Philip giving up his claim to the throne was based only on hearsay and not written evidence. There was a change of editor at the magazine in the midst of the flurry of notes. The new incumbent, Patrick Montague-Smith, insisted on certain corrections being made. He pointed out that Prince Philip was still an heir to the Greek (and Danish) throne. He might have rejected the appropriate titles, but this still did not prevent him from being 'in remainder' to the thrones. After all, there were many in line for the British throne who were not themselves British."

So, it seems to me that the royal statements that he renounced the titles are probably correct, as far as they go - he may well have signed some renunciation documents for all I know - but they fail to mention that any such renunciation has no bearing on whether he can legitimately, in theory, become King Philip I of Greece (assuming the Greek monarchy is ever re-established) or King Philip I of Denmark. If it was impossible for him to remove himself unilaterally from the Greek and Danish lines of succession (just as is the case with the British LOS, apart from becoming or marrying a Catholic), then I guess no purpose would be served by the palace drawing attention to the fact that he is still in line. But a renunciation, however empty in theory it seems to be, is still a potent symbolic and political act that they did have good reason to mention, particularly in the aftermath of WW2 and given that his family were Nazi sympathisers (his sisters were not permitted to attend his wedding for that very reason). Fascinating. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Prince Philip's renunciation is similar to those of the Battenbergs/Tecks/Gleichens in 1917. These renunciations might have no legal force in the country from which the title derives, but as the people doing the renouncing are British and nothing else then what their name is in Britain is all that matters. Opera hat (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. --Cameron* 16:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

And, as in 1917, there doesn't seem to have been any specific renunciation of the title itself - it just fell into disuse when its owner became known by another name. In Lieutenant Mountbatten's case this was as part of the naturalisation process, in 1917 this was by Royal Licence. Opera hat (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there are any non-British people in line of succession, because all descendants of Electress Sophia were naturalized by statute. Peter jackson (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly not true. That statute may have naturalised people who were alive at the time, but there are people living all over the world now, many of whom are definitely not British citizens, who are in the LOS. If they ever found themselves in the situation of suddenly acceding, I imagine they'd need to be naturalised prontissimo. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 01:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The Sophia Naturalisation Act was repealed in 1948; anyone born since that date is not covered by it. The only reason Prince Ernst of Hanover won his case was because he had been born before 1948. Opera hat (talk) 10:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Which, however, doesn't cover anyone born before 1948, which certainly includes Philip, and includes a hefty chunk of the other five thousand or so collateral descendants of Sophia. Which was kind of my point. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 17:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Peter jackson (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering: had Philip not renounced his Greek and Danish princely titles, his children, daughters-in-law and grandchildren in male line would be Princes(ses) of Greece and Denmark, right? If he did not renounce the title of Prince of Greece and Denmark but only stopped using it, could his son's child claim the title? Surtsicna (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Presumably in Greek/Danish law they could. British law forbids using foreign titles without the Sovereign's permission. Obviously the Sovereign isn't bound by this.

Another point is how far down the line of descent titles can be inherited. There are limits here. Peter jackson (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? I was always under the impression that the son of a Prince of Greece and Denmark is a Prince of Greece and Denmark, ad infinitum. I was also under the impression that this was how it works in pretty much all monarchies (the British one being an exception, obviously), but I'm not saying I can't be wrong. -- Jao (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I was under the same impression. I don't think it matters how distant descendant you are; it's only important to be male-line descendant. Surtsicna (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"limits here" meant "limits in UK". I wouldn't know about elsewhere. Peter jackson (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Philippos Andreou

Can anyone find a source stating that Philip was known as Philippos Andreou before he became a Brit? I can't find a reliable one. I inserted the name but have been reverted twice. It seems ebarassing that foreign language wikipedias have a more accurate account of a British prince than the English wikipedia (eg. the German version of the article). --Cameron* 15:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

There are, however, no citations on the German article, so not much help there.. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 15:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Imdb also list this name but they use wiki too, if I remember correctly. --Cameron* 15:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason I reverted this is because, despite him being so well known and many sources on him, there seems to be very little to actually say he has a middle name. Many reliable sources give him no middle name, and the royal website while mentioning the full names of other royals does not give him one.--UpDown (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns. I am not saying he has this middle name, I am saying he used to have the middle name. --Cameron* 16:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but my concern is that there seems very little evidence that he ever had a middle name.--UpDown (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave it for now then. But why aren't we allowed to use "The" in the lead, when Prince Charles and Princess Anne do? If this is classed as style rather than title, both should be removed. (In which case we will probably soon be renaming Her Majesty's article to Mrs Elizabeth Windsor). --Cameron* 17:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Mrs Elizabeth Windsor? She's neither divorced nor married a Windsor! Mrs Philip Mountbatten, surely! lol :P ^† DBD 20:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a reference to the Mrs Windsor incident. :P --Cameron* 10:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Damn foolish woman. "I called her that because that's her name" is patently just rubbish — if HM and HRH were both just normal commoners, she'd follow the normal rules, so she'd be Mrs Philip Mountbatten (or even Glücksburg, Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, or Greece). Tsk. Stupid people do rile me so. ^† DBD 12:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear! :) --Cameron* 12:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Higham & Moseley report (p. 73) that his birth certificate used the Julian calendar date "28 May 1921" rather than the familiar Gregorian date 10 June 1921. They don't say, but I can only presume they sighted the BC in their research. (In the foreword they acknowledge numerous unnamed individuals who, being "close to the Palace", may not be quoted directly, but "contributed a substantial portion of the previously unknown material in this book".) They make no mention of any middle name. Mind you, they also make no mention that his birth name was Philippos; they refer to him as "Philip" from day 1. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Cameron, just because other language Wikipedias have different or additional information than the English one does not necessarily mean they're more accurate than ours. I wouldn't immediately assume there's a cause for embarrassment. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to Cameron on the "The" before Prince, I do believe this should be in there. It is used on other royal articles. I understand not having HRH in the lead, but I see no harm in "The".--UpDown (talk) 09:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I just thought of something. Sons of Dukes and Marquesses, and daughters of Dukes, Marquesses and Earls, have the style "Lord/Lady X Y" as a shorthand, but it is a shortening of "The Lord/Lady X Y" — articles such as Lord Nicholas Windsor don't start with their The... ^† DBD 12:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Very true, although lists of senior peers children usually do. Scrap our guidelines, I say! I'm all for leaving styles out but titles ought to be represented in their correct form. --Cameron* 12:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Andreou is a middle name. I think it's a patronymic: Philip son of Andrew. Ask someone who speaks modern Greek. Peter jackson (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct. In Greece, Andreou would either refer to a surname or to "(son of) Andreas" (Greek for Andrew), and in this case the former option does not apply. Funnily enough, when I spotted this thread I thought someone had attributed an alternative surname to Philip, but I completely forgot about this as I was reading the comments—which referred to a middle name.

I need some holidays. Waltham, The Duke of 19:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Description of controversial remarks

The description of Prince Phillip's controversial remarks being "regarded by some as racist" have been removed from this page. The text now refers to controversial remarks that some regard as "offensive". This is an inaccurate and vague description of the issue. The edit I have made does not directly state the remarks are racist, a previously contested point. Instead, they state they have been "regarded by some as racist". This is definitively accurate, as the following three articles from major news organizations below corroborate. This was also the consensus if one refers to the first point on this discussion page, that some people have interpreted his remarks as racist.

I have also added a link to Wikiquote, the correct place for such quotes, should a reader wish to view them. This is as per WP:External Links, wherein sites that "contain netural and accurate material" but "cannot be integrated" due to excessive detail, as a listing of quotes would be.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/416297.stm

This article esablishes that the chairman of the National Assembly Against Racism regarded the controversial remark as racist.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/473867.stm

This article establishes that the controversial remarks at large may be regarded as racist.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13067691/

This article establishes that some of the controversial remarks have been branded, analagous to regarded, as "racist". Mft1 (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The use of a single adjective, however, draws an imbalaced focus on one interpretation of only some of the Duke's remarks. It's probably fine if you want to expand the detail on the matter of Philip's comments in the article, but I doubt the lead is the place to do it. --G2bambino (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact, there is already an expanded area on the matter here. --G2bambino (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand your perspective and agree with the thrust of your point.

The sentence in the lead, however, does not categorize all of Prince Phillip's controversial remarks as racist. The sentence would do that if, for example, it read: "gained the Prince a reptuation for making racist remarks", or "gained a reputation for making controversial remarks, that have been regarded as racist".

The sentence reads that "some" of Prince Phillip's "controversial remarks" have been regarded as racist. This clearly outlines that not all of Prince Phillip's controversial remarks fall under this category, and that some may have no relavence to race at all. This is why the remarks are simply described as "controversial" and not anything else. Most articles about these controversial remarks, as I have linked to above, do reference that some of them are regarded as racist. Therefore, this fact is warranted and relavent in the lead.

I have reverted the sentence accordingly. There is also no need to remove the link to the Wikiquote page, as it is relavent in accordance with WP:External Links. Mft1 (talk) 05:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I must reiterate my points: 1) the qualifier of "some" to the mention of the Duke's remarks, besides being just another weasel word, does nothing to balance the attention drawn to only one view of only some of his remarks. 2) To balance the comments, additional information needs to be added, but the lead is not the place to go into that much detail; there is alredy a part of the article that expands on his comments. To those points I will add: 3) there is already a link to Wikiquote in the article, much better formatted than the raw link you've inserted into the text; and 4) WP:BRD asks that you not revert someone else's revert of your insertion, but discuss it instead. --G2bambino (talk) 05:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I will respond to each of your concerns.

1. The use of the world "some" refers to the fact only a certain number of Prince Phillip's controversial remarks have been regarded as racist. Weasel words "seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources". The sentence in the lead does, however, attribute opinions to verifiable sources. Additionally, as you can read above, two independent news organizations corroborate that certain individuals and organizations have regarded specific comments by Prince Phillip as racist. These include students at Cambridge University, and the Chairman of the National Assembly Against Racism. Accordingly, "some" is not a weasel word in this context, as the "some" concerned are verifiable in the citation.

2. I am unsure of what you refer to when you say additional information needs to be added to "balance the comments". It is sufficiently reported in the articles above and in the citation that Prince Phillip has made remarks that some people have felt are racist. This is not interpretation or spin.

3. Should my link be poorly formatted, I would appreciate if you could polish it.

4. There has already been consensus about the wording of the lead sentence. Please refer to the first item on this discussion page. Mft1 (talk) 09:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have looked through the previous discussions on this matter, and I see no consensus on the mention of interpretations of racism in the lead. Perhaps you could point specifically to the consensus I'm apparently missing? Regardless, you still evade the two most important points here: 1) your wording focuses attention on one interpretation of some of the Duke's comments; in other words, it's a violation of NPOV policy. 2) there is already a section in the article where this topic is discussed in more detail; the lead should summarise, while detail follows. --G2bambino (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have already addressed these concerns. Please see above. Furthermore, no one else seems to have this complaint. This is not some kind of interpretation of a story, it's pretty well-documented that many people found his comments racist.

"Consensus: The article is not saying that he is racist nor that his remarks are racist but that some people find his remarks racist as reported by AP. That is allowed. So the way that it is presented in the opening is OK because the article is just reporting what has been said. However, this would need re-writing as it's not based on the source given. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 09:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)" Mft1 (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You've highlighted one person's opinion; that is not illustration of a consensus. Further, the presence of "some" does not dispel the presence of a marked display of POV towards only one interpretation of only some of Philip's remarks. --G2bambino (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with G2. Indeed I would prefer, "have been regarded as politically incorrect". --Cameron* 13:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Mft1, that was my opinion and was no way supposed to represent consensus. This is a BLP and as such things need to be done very carefully. Looking at your references. In the first one, Kumar Murshid does not say that the controversial remark is racist. In fact there is no mention of Prince Philip being racist or that his remarks are considered as such. In the second all it mentions is that the union had put forth a motion about his "racist remarks". The BBC says that he has made "...allegedly racist comments..." All you can get from that source is that 19 people voted in favour of the motion, which is not even given in full. The third source says, "Oft-quoted remarks branded inappropriate, offensive or racist..." which means at best you could say that the AP reported that some people consider his remarks racist. The link to Wikiquote is correctly located with the commons link and should not be in the opening. Please take a few minutes to read WP:BLP as this edit which does not match the source violates the policy. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 13:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

controversial statements

It seams some people do not think that prince Philips controversial statements belong in this article, however there are the only reason that most people know/care who he is. If the royalists are using the fact the condensed list is a list and unencyclopedic to keep it out, should a seperate article be dedicated to his statements along with a bit more background on each one to stop it being a list? Or is this another case of deletionists gone made and trying to limit Wikipedia to the scope of paper encyclopedia?--77.99.150.12 (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

After reading the rest of the talk page ive made the links to wikiquote more prominent but i still feal that it needs at least a subsection explaining why he is known for these remarks (possibly citing some sources of his mocking in popular culture) and that they are often seen as him just having a dated world view rather than him being particularly racist.--77.99.150.12 (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)