Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Lead

Should we go with "Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh" or "The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh" in the article's lead. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

As I said at Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh/Archive 6#The use of "The Prince Philip" in article opening, per MOS:HONORIFIC, "The" should not be included at the start of the article. Furthermore, no other biography as far as I'm aware would ever call him "The Prince Philip", except when listing his full style and titles, including all the fancy appendages, which is done at List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. His official site introduces him without the "The". DrKay (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
In agreement. We should exclude "The". GoodDay (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Concurring: Use of "The" is a correct style for use at the Court of St. James's, not for English Wiikipedia. FactStraight (talk) 05:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Isn't the use of "The" in combination with "Prince" exclusively for the children of a monarch? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Usually, yes, but for some reason they made an exception in his case. See Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh/Archive 6#Title. DrKay (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I see. Thank you! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The "some reason" would likely be because he's the spouse of a monarch and the highest ranked man in Britain. Psunshine87 (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Use of "The" in combination with "Prince" is, by British custom, exclusively reserved for the children of a monarch in the Commonwealth Realms and, uniquely, for Prince Philip: I have never seen anything like Elizabeth II's request to that effect (it was not stated in the Letters Patent or in a press release, but in the unofficial explanation given to the press when the LP were announced on 22 February 1957) in any other monarchy. It is often extended in Wiki articles to the children of monarchs of some other countries (it is not done, e.g., for the children of the kings of Lesotho, Saudi Arabia, Swaziland or of Thailand), but that is apparently because the UK tends to be treated by editors of English Wikipedia as if it were the monarchy par excellence. To the British, it is entirely appropriate that Elizabeth II's husband be The Prince Philip. Why should that be so elsewhere? FactStraight (talk) 03:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

A few months ago (if I recall correctly), this article intro & those of the other current princes & princesses of the British royal family, had use The. I didn't agree with it then & don't agree with its usage now. The decider for me is common usage. GoodDay (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Why not King

Shouldn't he be King since he's married to Elizabeth? StjJackson (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

He isn't king. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
A king's wife is a queen; a queen's husband is not (automatically) a king. In patriarchal societies, a man is considered superior to his wife, and thus the king is superior to the queen. Since that is not desirable when the monarch is female, a queen's husband is usually only a prince. Interestingly (and somewhat sadly for the women's rights movement, imho), this will apparently be the case even in Spain, where husbands of queens have always been kings, since the new constitution explicitly states that the queen regnant's husband should be titled prince. Surtsicna (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I was a bit short in my previous comment but Surtsicna explains it very well. It's grown out of tradition. Some of which we may not be comfortable with in this day and age, but it (the patronymic stuff) is (or has been) very long standing and is part of the history of our and many cultures. As the monarchy itself is. Perhaps that's why we tend to keep some (but not all) patriarchal and patronymic traditions we associate with history and monarchy in place. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

NYT

"Elizabeth's Fiance Now an Anglican Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES. LONDON, Oct. 3-Lieut, Philip Mountbatten, Princess Elizabeth's fiance, was recently received into the Church of England by the Archbishop of Canterbury." [1] Collect (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

As indicated by the new material in the article, he was raised Anglican. His mother was Anglican until 1928, the year he moved to England to be educated at British schools and live with his Anglican grandparents and uncle. He continued to practise as an Anglican throughout his naval training, the war and after. He also visits Scotland at least once a year, where he worships with the Church of Scotland. He doesn't convert to Presbyterianism each time he crosses the border and then re-convert to Episcopalianism on his return to England. He'd have to have converted one way or another over a hundred times if he did so. Terms like conversion are inappropriate when his religious practise has been unchanged throughout his lifetime. DrKay (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
However, he officially became an Anglican by being received in to the Church of England, after having been a baptized member of the Greek Orthodox Church. Therefore, by being received as an Anglican, he cut ties with his Eastern Orthodox religion. So, although he hadn't been practicing as a Greek Orthodox since childhood, he technically is a convert. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Per policy, "categories regarding religious beliefs should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question". He does not self-identify as a convert if he was raised as and "always" regarded himself as an Anglican. DrKay (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
His mother was not an Anglican before her marriage into the Greek Royal Family. She was Lutheran. Her parents also were not Anglican, but Lutheran, as German royals. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Rubbish. She was confirmed as an Anglican at 16. Making up obviously disprovable rubbish doesn't help your case. DrKay (talk) 08:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
According to her article (which apparently is rubbish), she was raised Lutheran in accordance to her German house, and later confirmed in the Anglican faith at the age of sixteen. She was still married in Lutheran and Eastern Orthodox ceremonies, and then converted to Greek Orthodoxy in 1928, founding a religious order of Orthodox nuns (Christian Sisterhood of Martha and Mary) toward the end of her life after she was released from a mental health institution. Philip was born in 1921, so only 7 years before his mother's conversion, where he was still baptized as a member (as is procedure) of the Greek Orthodox faith, as it is the religion of the Greek royal family. Yes, he began to attend Anglican services while in England, but for the majority of his youth, his mother was Orthodox, not Anglican. And in her childhood, she was Lutheran. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 9:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
We can read the article for ourselves. It doesn't say that she was raised Lutheran. Her parents worshipped, and were buried, at St Mildred's Church, Whippingham. You are placing too much emphasis on your own original interpretation and placing people into strict denominational categories with which they do not themselves identify. DrKay (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Not true, her baptism and marriage were in the Lutheran Church (Evangelical Church of Germany) as a member of an upper German royal house (all are either Lutheran or Catholic, with the exception of the later Hanovers, where part of the branch became Anglican). The princess' father did become Anglican when he Anglicized himself and became a British peer. But to say that Philip's mother was (always) Anglican, or that she raised him Anglican, is false. She was only Anglican for the first six or seven years of his life. I'm not arguing for any categories, strict or not. I am simply stating that in a legal sense, Philip's mother was Lutheran, then Anglican, then Greek Orthodox and that Philip was Greek Orthodox and then Anglican. I do not argue that much of his upbringing, being in England, was probably surrounded by the rituals and practises of the Church of England. But his mother, at most of that time was a practising Orthodox Christian. He was influenced into the Anglican faith most likely by maternal relatives and, considering he had said he always felt that he were Anglican, I believe it is safe to say his Orthodox upbringing ended not far after infancy. I believe how the infobox states his religion [Church of England (bapt. Greek Orthodox)] is appropriate. No religious categories are necessary with the exception of British Anglicans. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi folks - just to say - there is no evidence he renounced his royal titles when he accepted British citizenship. I also understand that anyone in the line of succession is legally british anyway but nevertheless he did 'receive' citizenship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.60.80.114 (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Birth Name

Wasn't he born as Philippos and not "Philip?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by AloysiusZimmerfloss (talk • contribs) 15:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

He was christened as Philippos in the Greek Orthodox Church, but I do not know if Philippos was his legal name at birth. -- User:Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2016

No ForeverMe (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

health

What is his health like in 2016? The pictures of him at public engagements the last few months look like he's a walking corpse; and I say that as an enormous fan of the Duke. At 95, is he actually slowing down and reducing his duties or not? What health problems does he currently suffer from? 98.10.165.90 (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Good he doesn't suffer from any health problems ForeverMe (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

He clearly has some sort of bladder or prostate problem, as healthy people do not require multiple hospitalizations for bladder infections. He clearly has some sort of coronary problem, as he has been taking medication for a heart condition since the early-1990s and had to have angioplasty and coronary stenting done. While it's no longer a significant operation, even for someone 90 years of age, to say he doesn't have any is contradictory on the face of it. I mean, what problems have developed since these operations? I repeat, he's 95, he looks like a walking corpse. Please don't get touchy. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 May 2017

Died: 5/3/2017 Place: Buckingham Palace, England 2601:405:4301:1F92:2CFE:B3F9:BAAA:EDBE (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

We're not doing anything until something official happens.©Geni (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 May 2017

Add: Died: 4 May 2017 aged 96 2600:8806:100:D290:3D5D:827E:8F33:685E (talk) 02:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

We're not doing anything until something official happens.©Geni (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 May 2017

Prince Phillip, Duke Of Edinburgh, Dead At 95 Yehuda94 (talk) 03:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Unconfirmed. JeanPassepartout (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I am seeing this online, too, but not on the BBC. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Prince Philip not dead, says Buckingham Palace JeanPassepartout (talk) 04:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
It's an emergency meeting so it is possible he is just suddenly ill. I wonder who started this? Vanguard10 (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Come on folks, you know the rules. He is alive until reliable sources say otherwise. No death by Wikipedia here, please.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
And reliable sources have said it's nothing to do with Prince Philip.[2] JeanPassepartout (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 May 2017

Please add Template:pp-full to the article, and when doing so, please provide an edit summary that provides the rationale for protection. pbp 04:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

hospitalisation

He's been hospitalised once again at King Edward VII Hospital for an infection relating to an underlying condition. He missed the State Opening of Parliament and Royal Ascot. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

This is true but has WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM issues at the moment. We had a stampede of edits saying that he was dead on the basis of Internet rumours back in May, but the article doesn't need to give a blow by blow account of his health.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

wealth

Where did Philip accumulate 28 million pounds? According to every book I've read, when his father died, he left him two battered suitcases with some clothes, cuff links, an ivory shave brush and a signet ring. His mother was a Greek Orthodox nun who took a vow of poverty. His wife inherited the private properties of the monarchy, the Duchy of Lancaster income, etc. not him. He never worked once he married her. The governmental income he received went directly to pay his staff, not for him to accumulate. So where did it come from? 98.10.165.90 (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

This is rather vaguely cited to "Oldroyd, Rachel (14 October 2001) "Royal Rich Report", Mail on Sunday" and doesn't give any further details. Estimates of the wealth of the British royal family are often wildly speculative, and I'm not sure if this meets Wikipedia's standard of reliable sourcing. Something like the The World's Billionaires by Forbes or the Sunday Times Rich List might be OK, but otherwise I'm tempted to remove this from the article. Celebrity Net Worth gives a figure of $30 million, but this definitely isn't a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm glad we're in agreement. I've read it many times before but never thought about it until recently, when I thought "Where did he get all this money from? He came from nothing." 98.10.165.90 (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

premature death section

Is it necessary to add the bits about the premature obituaries? Numerous celebrities, royals and other people of public note have had false obituaries published. There was an enormous breach of the BBC's pre written obituaries in 2003 or 2004. I don't think a couple of references is particularly noteworthy enough to be mentioned. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed and removed. There was a storm in a teacup in May 2017 when some people thought that he had died, but it has problems with WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Ancestry Issue

The sentence "In 1993, through mitochondrial DNA analysis of a sample of Prince Philip's blood, British scientists were able to confirm the identity of the remains of several members of Empress Alexandra of Russia's family, more than seventy years after their 1918 massacre by the Bolsheviks.[130]" in the ancestry section seems highly out of place—it makes much more sense to include it in the article Execution of the Romanov family than here. Does anyone mind if I remove it? ]] 174.20.227.55 (talk) 06:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

It does seem a bit out of place and it doesn't say how they were related. A simplified explanation, with less of the DNA detail, might be better? When I open the ancestry tree box it's not clear to in which branch the Romanovs were. Also the paper in Nature Genetics mentions a second living relative, so it's a bit misleading to suggest it was just a single sample from Philip? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I've added the relationship, which is described in the citation. I think it's quite interesting personally. Also, with my addition the detail about the maternal relationship links in with what is shown in the table. Celia Homeford (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Celia, I think that's a real improvement. That's so much clearer. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Missing recent events

The media is reporting that a certain church service is "the third event that Philip has missed recently". But hasn't he retired? How can a retired person be said to have "missed" events that he was not expected to attend in the first place? Isn't attending events the exception rather than the rule for him, and shouldn't the media be noting any rare attendances rather than the very much more common non-attendances we were told to expect? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I wholly agree. Who knows, he'll be accused of missing a hip next. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
He was originally scheduled to attend the 2018 Maundy Thursday service but pulled out.[5] This news article also mentions the other two events where he pulled out. Since he is officially retired, he cannot "miss" events, but said at the time that he would continue to attend some events.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Religion

As husband of the head of the Church of England, is Philip not required to an Anglican ? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Supplementary question: why is this page added in three different "Religion" Categories? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Which three categories? I don't think there's any restriction on the consort's religion, now. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Can't you see them? I certainly can. I guess associated with the use of the banner template for "WikiProject Religion|class=B|importance=low |Interfaith=yes |InterfaithImp=low"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I thought you meant on the article itself. Yes, all the talk page categories are generated through the banners. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok, so why exactly is Philip significant to WikiProject Religion? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I think it's because of that dubious 'worshipped in Vanuatu' story, which crops up occasionally in the press. There aren't really any rules for these WikiProjects. I think if it isn't relevant, you can just remove the banner. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah yes, of course, the Prince Philip Movement I have no strong view on that. As far the infobox is concerned, I was wondering if you could explain why “Protestantism (previously Greek Orthodox)” is preferable to “Anglican (previously Greek Orthodox)” or even “Protestantism (previously Eastern Orthodox)”. If we use “Orthodox”, shouldn’t we just also use “Protestant”, etc? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Or don't bother. It seems, from Dr Kay's deletion, that it has been previously discussed. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Renouncement of his Danish and Greek titles

Is it possible, that s.o. explains why he had to renounce his former royal titles as Prince of Denmark and Greece. I understand why he had to change his family name, because it is German (von Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg - surely not acceptable for the British Government so short after WW II) I understand either that he couldn't become a British subject with foreign titles - but couldn't a British princess marry a Danish and Greek Prince, as it was usually in former times? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.1.228.240 (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Reports of death

It seems that this article, published 2 hours ago, may be to blame. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Dead Again, starring Prince Philip. It hasn't happened for a few months, things were too quiet.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I blame the Nip in the air and the Chink in the curtains. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

parliamentary annunity

Does the Duke still receive the Parliamentary annuity of 359,000 GBP to fund public duties when he no longer carries them out? 98.10.165.90 (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Should his date of birth be listed as May 28?

Greece still used the Julian calendar at the time. AFAIK, the original Julian date May 28 is still his legal date of birth. The footnote can say that it equals June 10 on the Gregorian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:86:400:1D54:85C7:5D8D:D5CC:6762 (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

All the other dates are Gregorian: they should be consistent throughout the article. Readers also expect all dates to be Gregorian. DrKay (talk) 06:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Agree. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Agree. Might be useful to add a footnote about the use of the Julian calendar in Greece, especially if that is the "legal" date of birth. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
There's one already. DrKay (talk) 10:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Ah yes, so there is. Even less argument for change then, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Crash

Apparently it's a miracle. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

But at least he isn't dead once again. The article should avoid adding too much detail about the crash per WP:RECENTISM.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes indeed. Thanks to good sturdy British engineering. None of your cheap slitty-eyed rubbish. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Allan Warren portrait

@DrKay: Re [6], it's not the only such portrait; there's one by Cecil Beaton of him posing next to the Queen in 1953. Firebrace (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

That's very low resolution (only 500 pixels) and shows more of the queen's train that it does of his face. The Allan Warren portrait is 3000 pixels and focuses on his face. DrKay (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Don’t use source from the Far-Left media like the Guardian

It’s unreliable and biased — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.108.106.153 (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Prince Philip has not said sorry for car crash, injured woman claims is from the Guardian and used as a cite, but is actually based on the front page story in the Sunday Mirror on 20 January 2019. Many news outlets have repeated what the Mirror said, including BBC News. They both do the proper thing, which is to point out that the original source is the Sunday Mirror. It is lazy and potentially dangerous to repeat material from elsewhere without attributing it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Nonsense. The Guardian is a reputable publication. Surtsicna (talk) 09:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The Guardian is one of the few decent British newspapers, the others being the Times/Sunday Times and Financial Times. The Telegraph and Independent are only half decent. The rest aren't worth the paper they're written on... Firebrace (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Hardline Tories can take comfort from the fact it was also reported by the Daily Fail: "Emma Fairweather wiped away tears as she said she felt 'lucky to be alive..." Interestingly, the report also says this: "But after passing an eye test he was back behind the wheel of a new Land Rover, just 48 hours after the dramatic crash." It's reported that the eye test was carried out by the police, so I assume it was the standard number plate reading test. This was also in the original Mirror report and I wonder if it should be mentioned. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't know about you, but if I were involved in a car crash that was potentially subject to an insurance claim or a police inquiry, I hope I would express concern for the other driver's well-being but try to avoid any hint of admitting liability. I am sure that is the standard recommended advise by those in the know, even though it is easier said than done in the heat of the moment. From what I have read that is exactly what the duke has done. Surtsicna, information being published in a reliable source does not automatically make it reliable information. It all depends on how it is reported. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I did not say it was. Surtsicna (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, as Dr Kay pointed out, an apology is likely to be taken as an admission of liability (unless you live in Canada). If the Sunday Mirror is not a reliable source, we might have to remove quite a lot of this? Although given the level of scrutiny here, I doubt any of it can be questioned for accuracy. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
We are not removing any of it. Secondary reliable sources, like the Guardian and the BBC, have deemed the Sunday Mirror interview to be genuine. If it's good enough for the, it's good enough for Wikipedia. Firebrace (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The Automobile Association says "Don't apologise or admit responsibility for the accident until you're completely aware of what happened – this can protect you from liability if it wasn't your fault."[7] This is standard legal advice and helps to explain why the Duke didn't give a grovelling "I'm sorry" apology.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
And now Brenda unbelted.... or Brenda fully belted. Have these papz got nothing better to do?? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm surprised the AA would use the word "accident" given that a car crash is never an accident; it's always someone's fault. Firebrace (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah yes, even when it's Uber self-driving car. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
And? Is this relevant for a BLP? The Queen used a front-seat seatbelt - and did not use one as a rear-seat passenger. So what? Many autos beep if those in front do net wear belts, and do not beep for passengers in the rear seat. All of this is pretty much irrelevant to any BLP, where the topic is of exceedingly marginal interest. WP:NOTNEWS should apply here. Collect (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Note: Use of an argumentative "but" and a claim that the Prince was somehow incoherent implicitly are violative of WP:BLP. Also the make of the other car is of minimal encyclopedic value AFAICT. Collect (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Apologies for any misplaced sarcasm. As if UK tabloids ever set the agenda for news, eh?Martinevans123 (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@Collect: You have changed "crash" to "accident" and removed the word "injured" from "the driver and a passenger were injured and taken to hospital". I think it's clear where your loyalties lie, and it's not with Wikipedia. Firebrace (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The header says "accident" and as we have no photos of the Kia, I am unsure as to whether the word "crash" adds anything at all. And I suspect most folks would understand that, in general, folks who are not injured at all are not generally taken to hospital. And the exact location of the accident is celebrity trivia. My goal is short declarative statements of fact - and if you find them too short, sorry. No "loyalties" are involved on my part, other than to follow normal WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and other policies which are not negotiable. Collect (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
People are taken to hospital all the time with shock, to be checked over, etc. I think it's worth mentioning that the passenger broke her wrist. Firebrace (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
A witness reported that Philip was bleeding. But you've carefully removed that bit? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The fact that the other vehicle was a Kia also seems like a basic, and a balancing, fact. Not sure why that's also been removed. Just because there are no pictures of it in the press? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
There are photographs, and the peasant's Kia is a lot smaller than the Duke's Land Rover. I suspect that could be why that particular detail has gone walkabout... Firebrace (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm. If it had been a fuel tanker the outcome might have been a little different? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
"And the exact location of the accident is celebrity trivia." I'd say it was one of the most basic facts in any road collision. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Use of "accident." The claim that car crashes are "never an accident" is absurd, alas, as the word "accident" means "unintended" and the claim that Philip intended the crash is not supported by any sources. "Accident" is not the same as "nobody's fault" though many are not anyone's "fault." And "going to a hospital" means, to most people that one had a reason to go to the hospital and adding in "bleeding" adds nothing unless you love "celebrity gossip details" in your news. By the way, Kia makes a number of different models, and "size of car" is pretty useless as a parenthetical aside in an encyclopedia article. Collect (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

It will have been recorded as a Road Traffic Collision (RTC) by the police. They don't use the word accident any more... Firebrace (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Injured We now say that the people in the other car were "injured" but I can not find any actual description of such "injuries." We mention the Prince had blood on his hand - which seems to be a rather trivial detail, indeed. But I guess we are doomed to be the "Red Top" of encyclopedias. Collect (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Kia makes small cars. None as a big or as sturdy as a Freelander? Why give and link the make of Philip's car and not also the other driver's? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The Telegraph (not a red-top): Prince Philip crash: passenger who broke wrist claims police haven't asked her for statement four days on. Firebrace (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I think a broken wrist is "an injury", no? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
https://www.kia.com/us/en/vehicle small cars, sedans, EVs, hybrids, SUVs … Nope -- "Kia" does not mean "tiny car" at all. I do not think the make and model of Philip's car is all that important either, but the "Kia" was given as a parenthetical comment in the first place. As the Kia was travelling at least 50mph, and had 450 feet in which to reduce speed according to the newspaper, it should have been able to brake to a minimal speed in 450 feet. As Philip's car overturned, and was clearly not travelling at any high speed, I suspect that the Kia was either not braking at all, or had started at a velocity well in excess of the claimed 50 mph. (50 mph to full stop is under 175 feet, and the Kia was clearly well over 40 mph to cause the Land Rover to overturn). 80 mph has a 400 foot stopping distance - and the damage to the Land Rover strongly implies the Kia was travelling nearer that speed than to 50. YMMMV. https://www.thecarconnection.com/overview/kia_k900_2018 By the way, a "broken wrist" is often considered "minor" and is often caused by using one's hand to "brace" before an accident when one is not using seat belts. Collect (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The Kia had right of way. Firebrace (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
As far as I know, that's a picture of the back end of the Kia. And I don't see why it should have been in parentheses. I'm not sure we can actually claim that the Kia was traveling nearly 80 mph based on the evidence to hand. I think that's the job of the police. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
We cannot make any claim ourselves as to speed, but the stretch of road appears to be known for fatal crashes, and has a proposal to reduce its speed limit already in the works. Generally speaking, a car making a sharp turn is likely to be moving at a lower speed than a car on a straightaway, as a matter of principle. The second car on the embankment is a Kia, and shows no "rear end damage" and appears to be one of the Kia SUV types with the single windshield wiper for the rear window, not used on Kia sedans at all. This indicates that the Kia struck the side of the Land Rover. Collect (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
No, and we can't claim that the driver of the Kia was breaking the law, can we? As Firebrace said, the Kia had right of way. Who's ever suggested anything about "rear end damage" to the Kia? The Daily Telegraph says it was a Kia Carens, which is a "compact MPV". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I think that some of the material in the article was wandering off into WP:RECENTISM. Unless the Duke is charged over this incident, a blow by blow account of it and the seatbelt issue is excessive. It's enough to mention the accident briefly.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I'll have you know Philip never hit anyone! But I tend to agree. I think we just have to assume he was wearing his seat belt at the time of the crash. don't we? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
And showed deep concern by asking the other driver if she was all right. What a hero... Firebrace (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Kia Carens (Kia Rondo in much of the world) [8] vehicle for up to 7 passengers is not a "compact car" in the sense of the "really small cars" sometimes found. With taxes, it appears to run over US$30,000 in the UK. Not a cheapie car. The "seatbelt issue" where no substantive injury occurred is pretty much superfluous. Weight is over 1500 kg, or on the order of 3,300+ lbs. Well over, say, a Honda Civic which is a more typical compact. My Kia weighs about 3,500 lbs. Collect (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations on your non-tiny car. I'm not sure where your Top Gear analysis is taking us. I'm just suggesting the car model is named and linked in the article, just like the other one is. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC) p.s. if you feel strongly enough about the description in the opening sentence of Kia Carens, I suggest you correct it.
Good research. But it doesn't change the fact that a vehicle pulling out onto a main road is supposed to give way to traffic, whatever speed it's doing. Firebrace (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
.... and however small (or big) it is. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
And where a driver has 450 feet to slow down - I rather think the speed at time of collision should have been well below 50 mph. But this is a matter for investigation, and, pending that, Wikipedia should use the stated facts conservatively, likely more conservatively than tabloids of the red top ilk. My point remains that we should not use any judgmental language in this BLP Collect (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Exactly what "judgmental language" were you thinking off? The make of the other car? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps stuff like "Less than 48 hours after the crash, the prince was photographed driving on a public road near the estate, not wearing a seat belt, which is illegal for drivers in the UK in most circumstances. " certainly appears to make a judgment, and verges on saying Philip acted illegally. YMMV, I suppose. Collect (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I see. As far as I am concerned, yes Philip certainly did act illegally. But the police can act with discretion, of course. I'd agree with you, however that this could be omitted from the article. Why is the make and model of the other car omitted? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
You know that far more people read the red-tops, other newspapers, and the BBC, who all discussed Philip's non-wearing of a seat belt without any apparent fear of the sky falling in, than read this dry-as-a-bone Wikipedia article... right? In the end, whether it's included here or not, makes no difference to the public perception of the Duke of Edinburgh. I hope you do know that... Firebrace (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh/2019 Prince Philip Road Accident and Licence Surrender

I have moved the AfD-deleted article on the accident and its aftermath to Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh/2019 Prince Philip Road Accident and Licence Surrender, in the event that anyone would like to incorporate a portion of the contents into the appropriate section of this article. bd2412 T 01:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The separate article about the crash is currently deleted and should not be recreated as there was a clear consensus that it failed WP:NOTNEWS. The paragraph in this article covering the crash is quite ample.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
User:BD2412. The consensus of the discussion is clearly delete, not move to a draft space and merge. DrKay (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
The material has not been moved to a draft space; it has basically been archived, since it is now merely on a talk page. Nor has it been merged anywhere; it has simply been preserved in case anyone thinks it makes sense to add any part of it to this article. Different editors may reasonably disagree as to whether the coverage currently in the article is sufficiently "ample". bd2412 T 13:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Surname (Mountbatten) / Churchill / “strong personal antipathy to Lord Mountbatten”??

As I understand it, Mountbatten is usually said to have been a *protegé* of Churchill - who appointed him Viceroy of India because a decisive and charismatic man was needed with a record of producing results fast. Is it thought tht the two then fell out? (perhaps as a result of the Partition disaster?)

I’m very aware tht the relevant remark in the article, tht “Churchill's strong personal antipathy to Lord Mountbatten, whom he considered a dangerous and subversive rival who had lost India, may have contributed”, is not footnoted with a source-citation.

- SquisherDa (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Mountbatten was appointed by Attlee. I've removed the unsourced sentence. DrKay (talk) 08:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hospital

Is it necessary to put this piece of info? He's on his death bed as we speak. He is ill.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.127.32.138 (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-23/queen-attends-church-service-as-prince-philip-in-hospital/11822470
The sourcing does not say that he is on his death bed. He has been taken to hospital "for treatment of a pre-existing condition" which Buckingham Palace hasn't specified. Even the tabloids don't seem to know exactly what the problem is, and they would not be suitable sources anyway. WP:NOTNEWS would usually apply here, but Prince Philip is such a senior British royal that any health problem or hospital stay would be notable. The article is currently semi-protected to prevent reports of his death which are greatly exaggerated.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020

90.248.81.149 (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

He should be age 99

The age will automatically update when it is June 10 UTC. RudolfRed (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

Change age from 98 to 99 90.254.180.230 (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: For the same reason as the above request. See {{birth date and age}}. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 00:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2020

Add to end of first paragraph "and the murderer of Princess Diana." 86.159.35.204 (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Succession rights are not titles

Regarding the note "The Danish Act of Succession 1953 removed the succession rights of his branch of the family in Denmark,[1] while Philip had renounced these titles prior to his marriage to Princess Elizabeth in November 1947":

The second part doesn't make any sense, because the succession rights are not "titles". You can have succession rights without having any titles, even in the UK. Furthermore, while his succession rights in Denmark were demonstrably, verifiably removed by the 1953 Act of Succession, there is no evidence that he ever renounced anything under Danish law in a manner which has any legal relevance in Denmark. While he may have stopped using the titles to which he was legally entitled, that didn't have any legal effect in Denmark and certainly didn't remove his succession rights. In Denmark titles and succession rights are legal matters, and his right to succession was explicitly removed by an act of parliament in 1953. A private person, even a minor member of the royal family, cannot make his own laws regarding succession. In Denmark he was in the line of succession until 1953 when the Danish parliament removed that right, and whether he chose to use the princely title to which he is entitled as a birthright has no bearing on that.

I assume it would also be the case from the perspective of British law that Prince Louis of Cambridge wouldn't be able to move to Denmark and unilaterally issue a press release in Danish that renounced his British titles and his place in the Succession to the British throne, which, as I understand it, is also governed by various acts of parliament? Even minor titles in the UK (such as "baron") cannot be renounced unilaterally by merely issuing a press release in Denmark, there are certain legal procedures in the UK in place, and until the 1960s, the UK refused to recognise it when holders of such minor British titles wanted to get rid of them. They can't expect Denmark to recognise it if Danish subjects who had moved to the UK were to take the law into their own hands regarding constitutional matters in Denmark that parliament has sole authority over (such as the Succession) either. --Petter Jakobsen (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Tågholt, Knud (1963). Det glücksburgske kongehus, fra Christian IX til prinsesse Margrethe: Den danske kongeslægt gennem hundrede år, 1863-1963. Aros. p. 6.

House in the lead

An editor insists on removing his house from the lead, bizarrely claiming it is "arcana trivia". His royal house, the current senior branch of the House of Oldenburg, Europe's most prominent royal house, is no such thing. However, the lead is indeed rife with arcana trivia, such as obscure titles "earl of Merionath and baron Greenwich" that we should indeed consider removing from the lead (who refers to him as baron Greenwich? who have heard of these obscure, arcane titles? and why on earth should "baron Greenwich" be more prominent than his royal house?). The lead also mentions his mother's (far less prominent) family, highlighting how bizarre it is to remove the prominent royal house he was born into that is a thousand times more prominent than a minor noble family from Hesse that never ruled in any country – unlike the Oldenburgs who ruled in numerous countries since the middle ages. Why should we mention the minor noble family on his mother's side but not the prominent royal house on his father's side?

It seems to be entirely normal in biographies on royals to mention their house in the lead section. The links to the Danish and Greek royal families aren't sufficient because 1) it is not one article 2) they aren't synonymous with the House of Glücksburg; over time different houses have been on those thrones, and as the Danish article points out not all members of that family are descended patrilineally from the House of Glücksburg, that article prominently discusses the Laborde de Monpezat family too, that Philip doesn't belong to. The main article on the family itself is House of Glücksburg. --Petter Jakobsen (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Philip's connection to the Mountbatten family is obviously important to his story. The lead should be structured with due weight. The lead is a summary of the most important things in his life not yours. DrKay (talk) 07:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Prince Philip was born as a royal prince of the House of Glücksburg that ruled in multiple countries at the time of his birth. Why do you think his mother's minor, non-ruling and far less prominent family should be mentioned explicitly in the lead, but not the prominent thousand-year old royal house on his father's side that ruled in three kingdoms when he was born, in other words the family membership that provided him with a princely title and a constitutional role in two kingdoms in the first place?? Why do you think an obscure arcane title like "baron Greenwich" that nobody uses (not even himself, usually) and few have heard of, and that has no history to speak of, should be mentioned but not his royal house? The lead is a summary of the most important things in his life not yours. Perhaps the minor and obscure title "baron Greenwich" is important locally to British people who live in Greenwich, but it's not important to the world or to his biography.
If his royal house is removed, then we should also remove his mother's (much less prominent) house from the lead, and arcane trivia such as " Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich" and the trivial fact that he was given permission locally in the UK to use the style to which he had been entitled automatically since birth. That can be mentioned below, but there is no need to highlight such a technicality in the lead (it didn't grant him any status he didn't already have), or these highly obscure titles that have never been his primary titles, unlike his original princely title or the duke title he currently uses. --Petter Jakobsen (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

leading picture

hello! personally, i think the current profile photograph is a bit unsuitable, since prince phillip's eyes are half-closed. i suggest: File:Prince Phillip looking at City Hall, November 2008 cropped.jpg , or File:Prince Phillip of Edinburgh.jpg . thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miadaisies (talk • contribs) 23:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2020

Add {{pp-semi}} 119.237.237.206 (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Technically {{pp-blp}}, but  Done. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2021

Change year of birth to 1921 2A02:C7F:9A4F:0:98B4:B2E7:F8B1:6823 (talk) 08:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It already says this, unless there is an error somewhere that I've missed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
There was a vandal edit here but it didn't last long.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
But did you know he was dead? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2021

Prince Philip passed away on 20th February 2021. Datboi231 (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Wait until confirmed. This isn't the first time he's died on Twitter. User:GKFXtalk 22:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Or on Wikipedia:)--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
This shows precisely why this page is semi-protected. Rubbish like this being spread around with no evidence whatsoever to back it up. Wikieditor123000 (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2021

dead 87.121.72.235 (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Still not confirmed to be dead. Unfortunate week for him though, dying twice. PotentPotables (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead

@User:Andesitic Hi! Please stop reverting changes and please discuss the issue on the talk page.

There is nothing amiss with the original lead-in if you're going by MOS:LEAD. Rule of the thumb is not universal applicable - for instancxe,see WP:FA Elizabeth II. Please describe and explain the changes you wish to make. Thank you. --Bettydaisies (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Rigid writing formulas are pedestrian WP:MISSSNODGRASSism. EEng 06:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
This is insane. You are seriously arguing that you think it is better for an article to start with an isolated sentence instead of a coherent paragraph? Before I list all the problems with this, I want to be sure of your position. Andesitic (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
start with an isolated sentence instead of a coherent paragraph? – Take it up with Virginia Woolf [9]. And a sentence fragment.. EEng 16:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Didn't she get indeffed for making too many waves? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Bettydaisies and EEng. Some encyclopedia articles don't even start with a sentence: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Philip-duke-of-Edinburgh. The opening paragraph here is inline with MOS:OPEN and looks fine as it is. The opening paragraph in the other version was too long and the paragraphing didn't make much sense. A better structure for the lead of a wikipedia biography is of 4 paragraphs: opener setting out the topic and why the person is notable, second paragraph on early life and development of career, third paragraph on career highlights, and final paragraph on death, legacy and records. That's the rough structure we've got now. DrKay (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Some encyclopedia articles don't even start with a sentence – But here's to hoping Donald Trump's article ends with one. EEng 16:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Turns out Andesitic's a WP:LTA. Surprise! EEng 18:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding additional info in the "Early Life" section.

Hello,

I have some additional info that I would like to post in the "Early Life" section. In this current section, the god-father & god-mother are missing. I have proof of this, in this specific website: https://web.archive.org/web/20110806125845/http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/christenings.htm#Christenings Thanks in advance!

Kind regards,

SailorGuy117SailorGuy117 (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Given the fact that Prince Philip is a living person, you will most certainly need a better source for this. Volteer1 (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021

The date of death is not displayed correctly in the info box. BUFU1610 (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Fixed now.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021 (2)

Prince Phillip died 9th April 2021 92.15.26.252 (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes that is what the article says. If Google hasn't updated, contact them. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021 (3)

died: 9 april 2021 2A02:C7F:40DB:F200:293A:719D:CFF9:4678 (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Already done Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021 (4)

He passed away today. On April 9th, 2021 2600:387:C:6E19:0:0:0:3 (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Already done Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 11:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021 (5)

Prince Philip has died (actually this time). 2001:8003:E070:3600:BCD1:297C:90EF:2C66 (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Already done Joseph2302 (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021 (6)

Death :- 09 April 2021 VaddeAravind (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Already done Joseph2302 (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021 (7)

DEATH DATE: April 4, 2021 Kathryn Eva (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliable source for this. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, [10] clearly states it as "this morning". Joseph2302 (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021 (8)

He's died 2A02:C7F:CE68:9600:C8B3:DBE4:1144:ECD7 (talk) 11:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Already done Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021 (9)

Buckingham Palace confirmed his death stating His Royal Highness passed away peacefully this morning at Windsor Castle Yomamaisladygaga (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Already done Please read the previous 8 edit requests before making another one. Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021

Edit the information, as prince philip has now passed away Yunus haqum (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

This information is already included in the article. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

please remove pronographic picture

early life section! 2A02:2455:CDA:C500:2873:94AC:675B:7795 (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Immediate indefinite and eternal ban of User:Supercopter is required. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021 (5)

Some vile person has uploaded an offensive image to the Duke of Edinburgh’s page. Please remove asap 92.23.59.164 (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Already done The images should have been removed now, and the protection of the page has been increased. Terasail[✉] 19:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021 (3)

The infobox needs to be edited so that the spaces in the Branch and Rank is removed (otherwise it is interpreted as a monospaced text, like this: 

| module      = {{Infobox military person
 | embed         = yes
 | allegiance    = {{flag|United Kingdom}}
<!-- Do not add spaces before bullets! -->
 | branch        = {{plainlist|
* {{navy|United Kingdom}}
* {{army|United Kingdom}}
* {{air force|United Kingdom}}
 }}
 | serviceyears  = 1939–1952 <br />(active service)
<!-- Do not add spaces before bullets! -->
 | rank          = {{plainlist|
* [[Admiral of the Fleet (Royal Navy)|Admiral of the Fleet]]
* [[Field marshal (United Kingdom)|Field Marshal]]
* [[Marshal of the Royal Air Force]]
* [[Captain General Royal Marines]]
* [[Commander (Royal Navy)|Commander]] (active service)
 }}

49.147.25.235 (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done, but not by me, it was User:EdNg07 Unbeatable101 (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 Request withdrawn: already corrected by others. 49.147.25.235 (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021 (2)

Change Prince Philip received a Parliamentary annuity (of £359,000 since 1990[fn 4]) that serves to meet official expenses in carrying out public duties. The annuity was unaffected by the reform of royal finances under the Sovereign Grant Act 2011.[60][61] Any part of the allowance that was not used to meet official expenditure was liable for tax. In practice, the entire allowance was used to fund his official duties.[62] To Prince Philip received a Parliamentary annuity (of £359,000 since 1990[fn 4]) that served to meet official expenses in carrying out public duties. The annuity was unaffected by the reform of royal finances under the Sovereign Grant Act 2011.[60][61] Any part of the allowance that was not used to meet official expenditure was liable for tax. In practice, the entire allowance was used to fund his official duties.[62] Collinanderson (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe I may have formatted this incorrectly and apologize what I'm requesting is "that serves to meet official" be changed to "that served to meet official" I hope this helped if I had done it incorrectly Collinanderson (talk) 13:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Change of Sentence

For the Spouse section, could you change it to (m. 1947; died 2021) Schamin82729 (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I just reverted an edit that did this here, since I thought it suggested that her Majesty the Queen (rather than Philip) had died. I reverted it kind of hastily but wasn't 100% sure. Is this protocol? Local Variable (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
You were correct. It should stay as is. DrKay (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @DrKay: and, while I'm at it, sorry about the earlier edit conflict. I was about to re-add your change but you beat me to it. Local Variable (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hilariously poorly written article

I mean the first sentence states:

Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (born Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark;[1] 10 June 1921[fn 1] – 9 April 2021), was a member of the British royal family as the husband of Elizabeth II.

I don't even know where to begin with the sheer crappiness in that statement. Take it this way:

The RMS Titanic sank after hitting an iceberg because it was a ship that floated on water.

It's banal and tautologically stupid, he married the future Queen and became a member of the British royal family; it doesn't need explaining. The first line should say something like:

Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, was the consort of Queen Elizabeth II, the current head of state of the United Kingdom. - with the appropriate inline links.

Then the rest of the intro explains in context the meaning of that statement, it doesn't need to written like the synopsis to the TV series The Crown. The current intro has the quality of a third-rate high school essay. It's appalling. Instead of blocking editing, maybe articles might improve if they were actually written by grown ups.81.141.32.74 (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it's fine. And appropriate for grown ups. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Please update the article, His Royal Highness has died?!

Should we be grateful or worried that people are creating new accounts to request changes which have already been attended to? (See the recently archived posts, if it's not immediately obvious to what I am referring.) Pelagic ( messages ) – (23:35 Fri 09, AEDT) 12:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not causing any harm (besides blocking a talk page, which archiving can resolve), and we can only hope they stick around to improve other articles. Net positive, probably, as is wont with any RD of note. Kingsif (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Pelagic I guess Google Knowledge Graph hadn't updated, and because some of the text is taken from Wikipedia, the Knowledge Graph has a Wikipedia link, so people tend to come to Wikipedia to complain about it (even though it's Google's fault). Looks like Google have added the date of death now, so hopefully fewer people will complain here.
I'm still impressed people manage to create an account to change it themselves, then get told their account is too new to make edits, then find out how to make edit requests, all without noticing the actual WP article is updated. Kingsif (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, when you put it that way, it seems quite remarkable ! The blinding big "current death" template isn't very noticeable on mobile, but the opening sentence does have a death date and is in past tense. Requests seem to have slowed now, so perhaps an artifact of Google's panel as suggested. Pelagic ( messages ) – (00:13 Sat 10, AEDT) 13:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021

Notes

Following his marriage to Princess Elizabeth until 1949, Prince Philip's arms featured a differenced version of the royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom, derived from his ancestor Princess Alice.[175] Unlike the arms used by other members of the royal family, the Duke's arms no longer features the royal arms of the United Kingdom, as he was granted new arms by King George VI in 1949. However, they do feature elements representing Greece and Denmark, from which he is descended in the male line; the Mountbatten family arms, from which he is descended in the female line; and the City of Edinburgh.

should be changed to

Notes

Following his marriage to Princess Elizabeth until 1949, Prince Philip's arms featured a differenced version of the royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom, derived from his ancestor Princess Alice.[175] Unlike the arms used by other members of the royal family, the Duke's arms no longer featured the royal arms of the United Kingdom, as he was granted new arms by King George VI in 1949. However, they did feature elements representing Greece and Denmark, from which he was descended in the male line; the Mountbatten family arms, from which he was descended in the female line; and the City of Edinburgh.

This would change features, do feature, he is, he is, to past tense due to his recent death G2ac13 (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Partly  Done (is -> was), however the arms themsselves have not changed with his death, so I have not changed that. Black Kite (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021 (4)

Remove “active service” from “Commander (Royal Navy)” under Rank. Enixxbox (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Appears to be correct as it is. DrKay (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Remove the inappropriate picture under Prince Philip’s page!!!!

2601:581:C300:A7A0:848F:5C48:5C39:E427 (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Done, but we may need to download local copies of the images if commons doesn't get on top of things. DrKay (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to have missed all the fun. The only image I have seen is of a house in Corfu. Hence my revert and deletion. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Commons has already locked one, I'm guessing that is the one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Issue...?

I'm probably missing something, but why is section 10 called Issue? EdNg07 (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopaedic name for sprogs. Routinely used in genealogical works of reference, particularly those pertaining to the aristocracy such as Debrett's Peerage e.g [11] Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
[mass noun] formal or Law: children of one's own: the earl died without male issue.
Just a fancy name for children usually used with the royals Unbeatable101 (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Unbeatable101 is accurate in his definition. I would add a second definition of issue, "In the law of trusts and estates, the lineal descendants of an individual." While "issue" is technically the correct term, it is not one commonly known outside of the legal world. I would propose that the word be changed to "lineage" or "ancestry" as these are more commonly understood terms. Jurisdicta (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Those terms refer to ancestors not descendants. DrKay (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
DrKay, I appreciate your contribution, but the term "issue" is a confusing one. What ideas do you have? Jurisdicta (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
It's unfortunate it confuses you, but it is a commonplace and correct term. The only correct one to completely cover the information (direct descendants of a noble line), in fact. Kingsif (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
It's a very commonly used term in our articles about British royalty. Random sample of other articles: Queen Victoria, George III, James VI and I all have similarly named sections. It's the correct word to use - if readers don't know what it means, they will probably figure it out when they see what is contained within the section. If they're still confused, they can easily check the meaning - it's the first entry listed at the disambiguation page Issue. GirthSummit (blether) 16:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Jurisdicta, it's a shame you have an issue with this. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
My background is in the legal field and I am familiar with the term "issue". However, best practices is to use non-confusing terms that most people understand. I believe the word "issue" is inherently confusing to the masses, and Wikipedia is written for the masses. This whole discussion began because EdNg07 asked the relevant question "...but why is section 10 called Issue?" I get that "issue" is correctly used, but articles should be clear and easy to understand for all readers. Relying upon terms (though correct in their meaning) that are not commonplace do not lend to Wikipedia being easy to read and understand. My contention was merely a suggestion and if not supported, that is ok as it is just my opinion. I respect your views Martinevans123 and Girth Summit and appreciate the background added by Girth Summit. I was trying to suggest a different term that would not be confusing to the global community of Wikipedia. Jurisdicta (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia also strives to use the correct terms in its articles. With regards to offspring the word "issue" is the correct term. I see no need at all to change the use of this word. Literally hundreds of wikipedia pages with regards to royals use the term to denote their children. It should thus be applied uniformly over all those pages. Changing this single page (which I don't believe to be necessary) would lose that uniformity -- fdewaele, 9 April 2021, 19:38 CET.
Perhaps your legal background is making you assume you have some special knowledge? "Issue" is commonplace, dude, not just legal jargon. Kingsif (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit protection

Can someone please look to restrict editing on this page please? It seems as though we're likely to see a lot of trolls, given the news that the Prince has died today. I would, but I'm not sure how. Thanks! 2A02:C7F:A6BB:300:3435:5B62:EDA2:90BC (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is already semi-protected, meaning that accounts that are not confirmed cannot edit this article. Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 Not done... yet. There's been a bit of vandalism—we might want short-term ECP if that continues, but I'd prefer to leave it on semi for now. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The amount of vandalism has suddenly leapt up in the last few minutes, so I have increased the protection level. DrKay (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Good choice. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I would probably say that after the news starts to die down this page can probably return back to semi-protection. Jeuno (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Infobox title

The infobox mentions him as "Consort of the British monarch", but his wife is also the Queen of Commonwealth realms like Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Therefore, his correct title should be "Consort of the monarch of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms", as his wife is "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms".

This can be also seen in the article of the The Queen Mother where she is mentioned as "Queen consort of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions" as her husband was "King of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions".Peter Ormond (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Generally, the infobox should be simple and succinct, using recognizable terms standard in the field. DrKay (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Agree. See, for example, his unwieldy but accurate full title; would not be helpful here. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Format for place of death

If a place e.g. Windsor Castle is wiki-linked, one could argue that adding any town or city, or county, or constituent country, or sovereign nation, is strictly-speaking unnecessary? But we also have infobox template guidelines to follow. In this case "UK" seems more relevant than "England". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, I totally agree that the linked castle name provides a means to pinpoint the location precisely, but do not think a click should be required. The most concise and precise way to locate the castle in the international context is to qualify it with the name of the sovereing country in which it is located, and so as you say, I agree that "United Kingdom" (or "UK") needs to be used in addition. And yes, "England" is too parochial to be useful, especially given the likely international readership here. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I think it may partly depend on who the individual is. In this case Phillip was the consort of the Queen of the United Kingdom, not the Queen of England, of course. That's the bit about "context" for UK in the guidelines? And then we have also got the issue of historic counties, which it is sometimes useful to include. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 April 2021 (2)

The comma on the first line (after the brackets showing the date of birth and date of death) should be removed Jeswinj (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done That seems to be a closing parenthetical comma, closing the parenthetical clause 'Duke of Edinburgh (bits and bobs in brackets)'. DrKay (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm sure Prince Phillip was too much of a gentleman to ever have any "bits and bobs" in his brackets. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Request memorial images

Can anyone feel free to take photos of the public lay flowers for Prince Philip outside Buckingham Palace ?--Wpcpey (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I would think many people would feel free to do this. Provided they followed COVID-19 restrictions. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

But today still don't have related image, hope some user who live in London can have time to take the photos.--Wpcpey (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Infobox caption

@Surtsicna: I have edited the infobox caption 3 times now, per MOS:CREDITS. Please follow the link. It specifically says, "If the artist or photographer is independently notable, though, then a wikilink to the artist's biography may be appropriate, but image credits in the infobox image are discouraged, even if the artist is notable, since the infobox should only contain key facts of the article's subject, per MOS:INFOBOX." (emphasis mine). Please do not replace the link to the photographer without discussing it here first. nagualdesign 03:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

If you had to edit the caption three times, it is apparent that consensus is not on your side and you should discuss here before further editing. MOS:CREDITS says it is appropriate, and indeed names of notable photographers are frequently found in infobox captions in articles about British monarchs and consorts (see Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, King Edward VII, Queen Alexandra, Queen Victoria, and Prince Albert), not to mention that every painter is named. Please explain here why this article should be an exception. Surtsicna (talk) 08:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I have to agree with @Surtsicna: here. Consensus is in favour of the inclusion of the photographer with a link, and reverting it three times probably wasn't warranted without discussion here per WP:CYCLE. For what is worth, I slightly prefer the format 'Photograph by X, Year' similar to on Queen Victoria. I added that at one point but it has since been adjusted. I'm not too set on it. Local Variable (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, if you're going to ignore the MOS completely I don't really have anything to add. And since no one else seems particularly bothered I'll just leave you to it. nagualdesign 18:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty agnostic on whether or not it should be this way, but we should not be using "consensus" to supersede MOS. There's a relevant policy, let's follow it. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd argue that the MOS itself represents a long-established consensus, but I've got a cracked rib and been on painkillers for 2 days so haven't got the energy to fight. IMHO it definitely should not be linked in the infobox, we should follow the MOS, and that's all I have to say about it. nagualdesign 20:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
We'll be sure to spare you a thought. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Good Lord! Hope that you get better soon. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I had surgery about 10 years ago (Ravitch procedure) and I guess I slept funny a few nights ago and aggravated it. It burns like a motherfucker! Wouldn't wish a broken rib on anybody. nagualdesign 20:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I see he has an article. I do hope you feel better soon. Best wishes. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
The MOS is a guideline, not policy (I accept there isn't a huge difference, it's still a generally accepted standard). However, there's an assumption the relevant MOS is black and white, and this clearly infringes it. Yet the MOS recognises that context may make it appropriate. In a context where the identity of the photographer may be relevant, such as photographs of nobility/royalty, I say inclusion is justified. In any event, where many more editors are sticking with one wording, discussion here is of course preferable to an edit war. I note that it has been adjusted again, and is now inconsistent with the pages linked above. Local Variable (talk) 01:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

MOS is not being superseded here. MOS says that including the photographer's name may be appropriate if the photographer is notable. The photographer is notable, and this is a work of art, not something he snapped in passing. If the artist's name is not to be considered a key fact, then the infobox is best off without a caption at all. A caption saying only "Philip in 1992" is superbly pointless. Surtsicna (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I note the article has been BOLD edited again to 'Portrait' by Allen Warren, 1992. I have to say I prefer 'photograph' to portrait, as it avoids ambiguity, ie the possibility it is a painting. Local Variable (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree that might be better. Although the link to Warren allows the reader to quickly see he's not a painter. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
The picture clearly being a photograph also allows the reader to quickly see that it is a photograph :) I am fine with either word. Surtsicna (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Err, when I first saw portrait, I wasn't sure and opened up the image description page to check ... Should I be worried? Local Variable (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Well it's obviously(?) not something done by e.g. Jonathan Yeo: [12] Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Duke of Edinburgh

Since Prince Charles has now succeeded to his father's titles and now is also 2nd Duke of Edinburgh, shouldn't Prince Philipp be styled now 1st Duke of Edinburg under part Titles, styles, honours and arms?

Only if reliable sources start calling him that. Usually, numbers aren't used for royal dukes. DrKay (talk) 08:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
This is not true that is happening. Prince Edward will be the Duke of Edinburgh, but not yet. Games of the world (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The College of Arms says this:
"The Duke of Edinburgh was granted the style and title of Royal Highness on 19 November 1947; on the next day, 20 November, he was created Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich, of Greenwich in the County of London. These peerages are hereditary and on the death of His Royal Highness have passed to his eldest son, HRH The Prince of Wales."
Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I believe the current plan is for Prince Charles to hold the title until he becomes king (like the future George III did at the first creation) and then, in accordance with plans made at Prince Edward's wedding, to appoint him as the new Duke. Quite rightly, of course, I am sure this is not the top priority for the royal family right now.Mozartnut (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

41-gun salutes fired in many places in the UK to pay tribute to Prince Philip

The British armed forces and navy fired 41-gun salutes on land and sea on Saturday (10th) to pay tribute to Prince Philip who died on Friday.

Reuters reported that Prince Philip, the husband of Queen Elizabeth II, passed away peacefully in Windsor Castle on the morning of April 9 at the age of 99. The Queen of England has been in power for 69 years, and Prince Philip has always been her strong pillar.

At noon on Saturday local time, the British armed forces, including artillery units, fired funeral guns in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast, and Gibraltar to pay tribute to Prince Philip; some naval vessels were also Cannon fired at sea. Source

Is covered at Death and funeral of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2021

In the lead, the photograph of Prince Philip has been labelled as "portrait", please change it. It certainly is a photograph

 Not done "A portrait is a painting, photograph, sculpture, or other artistic representation of a person, in which the face and its expression is predominant."--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Bettydaisies, I don't disagree with you, but a photograph is a photograph while a portrait can have many meanings which is why I asked to change it.
That's true - if it's confusing to enough readers, then perhaps it should be changed. I'm curious to know other editor's thoughts on this matter.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
There was some discussion in a section above as well, so I've made the change. DrKay (talk) 06:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image

While it's standard to use the most recent and good image for the infobox when a person is alive, it is also standard to change this and depict them as they are best known after death. So the question is simple: is Philip best known looking as he does in the current 2015 image. He was very old for a very long time, but he was also in the public eye for a very long time. I think there are two realistic options, the current and the 1992 photo. Kingsif (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The 1992 portrait has always been the best choice. Surtsicna (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree. Peter Ormond (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The 1992 photo appears much more encyclopedic, so that one should be used, I think.E0126E (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Count me as one who is also in favour of the 1992 image, at least until a better - and earlier - photo becomes available for Wikipedia. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Changed to 1992 photo, with no prejudice against further discussion. Kingsif (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Wow, that is a fine photo by Allan Warren! Not too young, not too old, strong and dignified. Part of me would like to see one of His Highness in full regalia or military dress uniform, but civilian clothes have a more modern feel. Support the 1992 photo. Pelagic ( messages ) – (23:48 Fri 09, AEDT) 12:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Concurrent edit, sorry. Pelagic ( messages ) – (23:52 Fri 09, AEDT) 12:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Pretty sure the Allan Warren portrait cannot be surpassed for infobox. I would support adding No (7), if space permitted, as an illustration of his later life, as it provides a welcome informal and cheerful view. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Easily the best of the quickly-available options. Izuko (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I prefer the 2015 photo, but am willing to defer to consensus should others prefer the 1992 photo. Meeeeeeerzfu (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Candid, 2015 (1)
    Candid, 2015 (1)
  • 1992 portrait (2)
    1992 portrait (2)
  • In military regalia, side-facing, 2006 (3)
    In military regalia, side-facing, 2006 (3)
  • In military regalia, front-facing, 2006 (4)
    In military regalia, front-facing, 2006 (4)
  • In dress uniform, 2007 (5)
    In dress uniform, 2007 (5)
  • Candid, 2010 (6)
    Candid, 2010 (6)
  • Candid, 2012 (7)
    Candid, 2012 (7)

I also think the 1992 portrait (2) is the best option, but if a second image were added as Martinevans123 suggests, maybe (5) could be considered, as it is shows him both later in life and in a uniform. Tu8dl3 (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that 2 is the best option for the infobox.--Bettydaisies (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Candid, 2013
    Candid, 2013

Another option for a later life portrait, with his gaze centered in the image. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 18:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I also find the 1992 to be clearly the best of the images available on Wikipedia right now, but I'm curious regarding this portrait [[13]]. It has been used on the official social media posts regarding his death and shows him in military regalia as Pelagic suggested. I'm curious if someone is able to determine the origin and ownership of this photo to see if it may be usable for Wikipedia, as I have not been able to.AJD2002 (talk) 09:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

AJD2002 If usable I think it should be used as it shows him in full military regalia and shows him in the way a great deal of the population will remember him as, even if they may have known what he looks like in 1992 HistoricalSimon (talk) 11:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes it seems it's been widely used by, amongst others: cypgulf.org, The Guardian, Metro, jaguarlandrover.com, and of course the Daily Mail. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
It seems to be an image by Terry O'Neill, according to this licensing website. I'm not sure on the licensing, but it might not be free if its listed on such a website. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 18:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Longest-serving royal consort

The article states, in a few places, that he was the "longest-serving royal consort in British history." A number of media sources have claimed that he was the "longest-serving royal consort in history." Is this latter claim incorrect? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The Queen is the longest reigning current monarch in world history (at 69 years), and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh was married to her before she became Queen. The only monarchs with longer reigns were Louis XIV (both of his wives were married to him for shorter than the Duke was married to the Queen), Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand (his wife was married to him for 66 years), and Johann II, who did not appear to have a spouse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.24.238.58 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
So, since Philip was married for 73 years, 4 months and 20 days (excluding today), the claim is correct. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Note that he surpassed the record for "longest-serving royal consort in British history" on 17 April 2009, when he superseded the record set by Queen Charlotte, who was consort to George III for 57 years 70 days: [14]. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
In world history it would be too bold a claim to make, but he was definitely the longest serving royal consort in British history.Cloptonson (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
It might be bold. It might also be true. But in the absence of any WP:RS(s) that directly make(s) the claim, I guess the assembly of evidence to support it would be WP:OR. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Coat of arms

I think some users have noticed by now that the page numbers for the books cited in the "Arms" section are missing. I was thinking that someone with access to these books might actually be able to help solve the issue, so I'm going to list the two books' titles down here:

Keivan.fTalk 02:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Convert category

I recently added Prince Philip to the category of Eastern Orthodox converts to Anglicanism. He was formally a member of the Greek Orthodox Church, and was received to the Church of England, which by definition makes him a convert. For this reason, I think this category should be added and should remain in the article. However, DrKay (talk · contribs) obviously disagrees with me, and I invite him for a dicussion. As well as other editors too. --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

..which by definition makes him a convert smacks of OR to me. I suggest that you provide a RSS, assuming one exists, rather than attempting to apply such reasoning. nagualdesign 18:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
In that case, would Anthony Holden's book "Prince Charles" be considered a reliable source? --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Surtsicna (talk · contribs), sprinkling someone with water indeed doesn't make any difference on someone's religious beliefs, however, a religious ceremony does. Anthony Holden writes that in his childhood Prince Philip was an Eastern Orthodox who progressed from a "German Protestant" to an Anglican.

Prince Philip's tortured progress from the Greek Orthodoxy of his childhood through Salem's German Protestantism to the formal Anglicanism of his adopted life had bred a disenchantment, even a cynicism, there had been a time— though he had now in middle age reverted to Anglican orthodoxy— when he had classed himself agnostic, perhaps atheist.

— Anthony Holden: Prince Charles, Atheneum, 1979, p. 141

--Governor Sheng (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't actually say he's a convert. It says 'reverted' not converted. DrKay (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, he reverted to Anglicanism after a period of agnosticism/atheism. In his childhood, he was Greek Orthodox. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Here's another good source.

He (Prince Philip) had been brought up in the Greek Orthodox Church, become involved with German Protestantism as a teenager, and had ultimately married the Head of the Church of England.

— Davies, Nichols: "Elizabeth: Behind Palace Doors", 2000, p. 161

--Governor Sheng (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't say he converted either. What you've actually demonstrated is that even if there are sources that say he converted from one religion to another, and we haven't seen any yet, there are other sources that say other things, and therefore either all the different viewpoints have to be presented with due weight, or none of them. DrKay (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
What sources say he never converted? What we have is a statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury, who said that Prince Philip was "Anglican all of his life". That aside, the other sources and common sense say that this cannot be true in the literal sense. If he was raised as an Orthodox, then he wasn't an Anglican all of his life. What we know from sources is that Prince Philip was, at one point in his life, an 1) Orthodox Christian who became 2) a former Orthodox Christian and who, with all of his experiments in religious life, decided to become 3) a member of the Church of England. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm just going to ignore straw men. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for guidance. DrKay (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I've added that information to the article, without changing the category. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
It's a bit unfair to call that a straw man, and SYNTH isn't nearly as clear-cut in cases like this. Governor Sheng, I suggest that you read through WP:NOTSYNTH if you're looking for policy-based reasoning. For what it's worth I'd say that the references you've quoted are probably adequate for adding a cat, but then I'm not particularly au fait when it comes to categories. nagualdesign 19:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I realised that adding category isn't that simple. Especially considering Prince Philip's episode with German Protestantism during his teenage years. But thank you all for your suggestions. I'll read WP:SYNTH and other policies. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The present Archbishop's comment about Philip being 'Anglican all his life' may have been an understandable oversight as Justin Welby wasn't even born at the time his predecessor Geoffrey Fisher received Philip into the CofE in 1947. One of the problems of living as long as Philip is that your early years will only be post-event hearsay to most of those who survive you.Cloptonson (talk) 05:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Repeated

The photo is repeated. One is cropped and at the top, the other is at the bottom.180.150.113.77 (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any image glitches on desktop Firefox nor mobile Safari. Do it persist if you reload the page? Pelagic ( messages ) – (00:21 Sat 10, AEDT) 13:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
IP is right. Philip in 1992 appears in cropped form in the infobox, and in full form later on. It probably isn't necessary to have both.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The image (or one substantially similar to it) appears in uncropped form later in the article under the heading Charles and Diana. Local Variable (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
That seemed new, and though there was a significant difference due to cropping, a large image for a brief section seems unnecessary so I've simply removed the latter instance. Kingsif (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, what is new and why is his photo in an article about Diana and Charles?180.150.113.77 (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This talk page is for the Prince Philip article that has a section titled "Charles and Diana" in it. Images of Prince Philip in this article are fine where relevant. The near repeated image seems to have been removed from this article already. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh, thanks. I skimmed through and didn’t see it. Pelagic ( messages ) – (21:18 Tue 13, AEDT) 10:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 April 2021

{remove queen mother after queen elizabeth. it is not an international way of referring to the queen of England, and even many British republicans do not use this title. It is similar to referring to Adolf Hitler throughout his wiki page as Adolf Hitler the Fuhrer. Queen elizabeth is her name. adding the queen mother just makes this page sound like propaganda for the monarchy. it maakes a judgement and thus makes this page sound very impartial, while providing absolutely no new information. They can write on the page that she is referred to as the queen mother, but referring to her with his honorific throughout the page is like calling her "queen elizabeth her royal highness" which sounds ridiculous for an encyclopedia article. this is supposed to be unbiased. i propose that this edit be mad in the following section cited below: "Longevity and final years

At Trooping the Colour, 2015 In April 2009, Philip became the longest-serving British royal consort.[95] He became the oldest-ever male British royal in February 2013, and the third-longest-lived member of the British royal family (following Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, and Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother) in April 2019."

remove "the queen mother" it is redundant and is a clear expression of partiality to the monarchy} SMendel (talk) 06:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done We need to disambiguate from the other Queen Elizabeth. DrKay (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
SMendel You're perhaps confused about who this is referring to: it's Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, the now-deceased mother of the current Queen Elizabeth. This is how she is normally referred to, except when it's shortened to just 'the queen mother', she's never just called 'Queen Elizabeth', that really would confuse things! GirthSummit (blether) 07:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
It’s the commonterm throughout the commonwealth. But seriously, it’s better than "Queen Elizabeth, Sr." Pelagic ( messages ) – (21:27 Tue 13, AEDT) 10:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
And anyway, she was called Klara, not the Führer Mother. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

"Solo engagement" meaning

What does "solo public engagement" or "solo engagement" mean? A quick Google search doesn't help. Is there a wikipedia page this could link to? Is it akin to a military engagement? Xxavyer (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Normally Philip would have attended public events with the queen, but "Solo Engagement" simply means on his own, without the queen. IdreamofJeanie (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2021

In the infobox tab, the Monarch during whose reign Philip served as consort should be mentioned for greater clarity, as well as his predecessor and successor. While it is not a 'constitutional' position, it is, after all, an official position. To that end, the following additions should be made to the Consort section of the infobox.

Monarch - Elizabeth II Predecessor - Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon Successor - Vacant 138.51.112.109 (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Not done for nowWhile it's useful info to have, I don't think this is appropriate in this format. It's not included in the infoboxes of other consorts and the link already shows a list of consorts.
Unlike PM, it's not a formal office or title, more of a descriptor of whomever happens to be in the role.
Given that this would affect multiple articles, I'd suggest that discussion would be more appropriate over at Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty.
WildComet (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2021 (2)

Remove the phrase "politically incorrect" from section "Personality and Image". The phrase is not accurate and implies a right-wing bias. 2A02:C7F:8207:9600:1C07:1EC3:DD18:546E (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: That is the language used by the sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

'Born on dining table' (answer to archived question)

In answer to a talk point question now archived, I can say that there is at least one book source for this - I recall it being in one of the stories, titled 'Prince Philip's Mother' anthologised in 'A Royal Bedside Book' by the pseudonymous Helen Cathcart (actually a man, it was revealed in obituary), published in late 60s (when Princess Alice was still alive) or very early 1970s. I recall reading that account in that very book, it was also serialised in magazine 'Woman and Home'. As far as I recall at the time Philip's parents were relatively poor in the wake of the fall of the WWI era King Constantine as well as Andrew's military disgrace so the villa was not plentifully furnished. I also recall reading that medical advice had a part because Alice was nearly 40.Cloptonson (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

On 10 June 1921 she was aged 36 and three months. But the birth is not mentioned at all at Princess Alice of Battenberg. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
That sounded very interesting so I had to look it up, and it seems to be true...
"There, on 10 June 1921, by all accounts lying on a white embroidered table-cloth, she gave birth to her fifth child and only son: His Royal Highness Prince Philip of Greece"
— Liversidge, Douglas (1976) Prince Philip: First Gentleman of the Realm – page 1
"Roosie had initially been employed by Alice in 1904 for all of her children, and she was present at Philip's birth when the family doctor decreed that the most suitable place for the delivery was the dining-room table at Mon Repos. (Some say it was the kitchen table, but when you visit Mon Repos you see it has a plaque in the dining room.)
— Steward, Ingrid (2020) Prince Philip Revealed – page 26
"A local doctor effected delivery on the dining room table. He was born a Prince of Greece, sixth in line of succession to the throne."
— Fisher, Graham (1980) Consort, the Life and Times of Prince Philip – page 25
"Prince Philip of Greece was born on June 10, 1921 on the dining-room table of his parents' house, Mon Repos, an English-style villa of relatively modest proportions on the Greek island of Corfu"
— Hamilton, Alan (1985) The Royal Handbook – page 18
Firebrace (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
If these biographies are considered reliable/well sourced etc, I think it should be mentioned in the article. Bettydaisies (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I've added it to the article. It makes his life even more extraordinary. No wonder they worship him as a god in Vanuatu. Firebrace (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if 1976 was the first time this fact had been mentioned in print. And I have no reason to doubt Cloptonson's information about Cathcart and Woman & Home. But only a snippet view of Liversidge (1976) is available in GoogleBooks. As it's the first source you've found, are you able to confirm that he mentions the table as well as a table-cloth (as stories do tend to get "embroidered" don't they)? I could also well believe that it may have been the kitchen table, as that would probably have afforded much better access to water and a sink (this was the reason my own grandmother had her tonsils taken out by the local doctor, on the kitchen table, in about 1900!) A dining room is a much better place to install a plaque. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
It was mentioned a couple of times in 1971. Of course it could also be in older books that are not available on Google Books.
"At Mon Repos, Philip was delivered on the dining-room table, not for want of beds but because Alice, who was thirty-six and in a high state of nerves from other than natural and immediate causes, was thought by the doctor to stand a better chance."
— Boothroyd, Basil (1971) Prince Philip: An Informal Biography – page 143
"It was an oddly staged and difficult birth, for the local doctor was no expert gynaecologist, and the baby was delivered on an old dining room table."
— Hampshire, Arthur Cecil (1971) Royal Sailors – page 203
Firebrace (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
When I read Helen Cathcart's account, my impression was of the table being bare, it didn't mention a cloth. The book I read was a library book that I have not seen on library shelves in more recent years. Although the writer lived into the 1980s and died in his 70s (have read his obituary in one of the broadsheets) there is no wiki article under the name of Helen Cathcart at present. Glad to see confirmed my impression the birth location had been a medically advised one.Cloptonson (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I see that Hampshire (died 1983) gives an old dining room table, with no specific location. And Boothroyd coyly mentions "a high state of nerves from other than natural and immediate causes". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Old in the sense of being an antique? I could see your point if Hampshire had written "dining table", but "dining room table" suggests it was actually located in the dining room at the time of Philip's emergence... Firebrace (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it does suggest that location. But "dining room table" is a bit ambiguous. Hampshire is the only one who uses that. I guess the sourcing is perfectly adequate for the current claim anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

About "illegitimate children" statement from Chinese article

I noticed the contrast of the article and the Chinese one, about the rumors about whether the duke had illegitimate children. Well, in English one, there seems to have no such material, but for the Chinese one, there are so many references that makes the section seemingly pretty reliable, no matter it's true or not ("爱丁堡公爵菲利普亲王#风流成性"). I try to translate what it means.

根據多家媒體的報導，菲利普風流成性，曾在女王孕期出軌，僅媒體公布的情婦就有30個，還有24個私生子，最大的私生子比他和女王的長子還大兩歲[131][132][133][134][135][136][128]。與菲利普有「情感糾葛」的女性數量眾多，其中不泛長腿艷舞女郎、女星、名流，甚至連堂妹也曾與菲利普有過一段緋聞，菲利普更被媒體戲稱為「花蝴蝶」[137]。

"According to many reports form various media, Philip was a Casanova and he cheated when the queen was pregnant. From what was reported, he has 30 mistresses and 24 illegitimate children; the oldest one is two years older than the queen's eldest son.[131][132][133][134][135][136][128] The women who had "relation" with Philip are numerous, including showgirls, actresses, celebrities, and there was an affair between him and his younger cousin. Philip was called a "social butterfly" by media.[137]

And the rest is too much for scandals. Does this violate the term of use or not? - George6VI (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

That seems very doubtful, and certainly undue given all the coverage that says he was faithful. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I am still waiting if there is further replies at another talk page, because I don't think I can just remove the paragraph, because so many references are listed. Of course, you can comment in Talk:愛丁堡公爵菲利普親王, because people are discussing how to do with that part, and I tend to remove them all because the statement, in my opinion, is a defamation with rumors. - George6VI (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
A side note though, many people do believe the duke was a womanizer, and when I doubt it, they may say, "oh, it is scandal, so of course it can't be public." - George6VI (talk) 07:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Ah yes. It's not as if UK and China are in the middle of a huge political stand-off, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I am skeptical about your opinion, I think these sources may originate from the Daily Mail(this) and some other tabloids in British. And isn't it quite common that some media will try to "imply" information from someone's early charming life experience? So, I think it might just because many mass media around the world just cite these content as facts.--ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 10:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
The very fact that there are seven citations should raise the alarm. Nothing that is indisputably true requires that many citations. Surtsicna (talk) 10:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

As the corresponding article 爱丁堡公爵菲利普亲王 is currently under protection, and the article size becomes 3 times larger since the death of the duke, I hope, if interested, more English-speaking people can participate in the talk page (here). Of course it's written in Chinese (and Google translate may roughly let you get what the article reads) and I can't translate them all, but in my opinion, there do have some problems that seem to be very tricky. - George6VI (talk) 02:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Birthplace at the Palace of St. Michael and St. George?

This article published by Maltese state media is claiming that Prince Philip was born at the Palace of St. Michael and St. George in Corfu, rather than Mon Repos: https://www.tvm.com.mt/en/news/prince-philip-was-born-in-corfu-at-a-palace-with-maltese-stone-and-sculpture/ Is there any substance at all to this claim? --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

No mention of any old dining-room table or a plaque, I see. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021

I would like to put Prince Philip marriage status from 1947- to 1947-2021 since he recently died 80.6.145.158 (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

His death date is already in the infobox, and there is no need to repeat it. DrKay (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh/Archive_7&oldid=1036836821"