Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
|
|
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 Regent) or the wife of a sovereign (called a Queen Consort). However Kings are only sovereigns, so that the husbands of Queens Regent 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.
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
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)
| Contents |
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 (http://www.burkes-peerage.net/Sites/Peerage/SitePages/page62-6c.asp) 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] (http://www.sptimes.com/News/061001/Columns/Royal_ruffler_Philip_.shtml), 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)
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."
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 (http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page149.asp) 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] (http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page443.asp) --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] (http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/archiveViewFrameSetup.asp?webType=0&PageDuplicate=x0%20%20%20%20%20%20&issueNumber=41009&pageNumber=0&SearchFor=prince%20philip&selMedalType=&selHonourType=), "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 (http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page413.asp), 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)