Talk:Prince Andrew, Duke of York/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

R&A

"This is not without controversy and the Duke has been criticised for using the Queen's Flight for transport to various golfing functions."

My memory was that the R&A said they paid for the cost of the flights Alci12 13:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

Despite showing coding that says "Prince Andrew, Duke of York", the article saves as "The Gay Prince Andrew, Duke of Pork" with references throughout. How do we fix that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.143.208 (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Surname

All the descendants of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, have a different surname (Mountbatten-Windsor) to the Royal Family name (Windsor). Source: Buckingham Palace Press Office when checking info for the page on Anne, Princess Royal

Yeah, that is mentioned in the article, House of Windsor.


Not all, actually, some. The Press Office is improvising; the 1960 Order-in-Council "my descendants, other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attributes of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess, and female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name Mountbatten-Windsor" excludes descendants that carry the titular dignity of Prince or Princess. (emphasis added). Because the Order-in-Council is so poorly drafted, the surnames of the current British Princes and Princesses is disputed: some say it should be Windsor, though various officials (but not the Royal Family) have used "Mountbatten-Windsor" for some of them. (They all sign with no surname). -- Someone else 02:50, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Someone else is correct - see here http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page3379.asp I have updated the page and those of other HRH's who Wikipedia has as Mountbatten-Windsors. In fact I think the only Mountbatten-Windsor who exists is Lady Louise, daughter of TRH The Earl and Countess of Wessex Ham21 22:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The Prince of Wales, The Princess Royal, The Duke of York and The Earl of Wessex have all signed their wedding registry as 'Mountbatten-Windsor.'

I would also point out that legally The Lady Louise Windsor remains HRH Princess of the United Kingdom of the UK of GB and Northern Ireland. Making a statement that says she will be known as Lady Louise does not alter the Warrants and LPs that govern royal titles.

In any case, it is not uncommon for those with hyphenated names to use only the last as a common surname. I would cite the admirable Sir Winston Churchill who is actually Sir Winston Spencer-Churchill.

And also, me. DBD 22:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to make a note that according to the GRO both Princess Beatrice and her sister were registered with the surname 'Windsor' while Lady Louise was registered 'Mountbatten-Windsor.' Neither Prince William nor Prince Harry were registered with a surname. -- Queen Brandissima

Traditional Scottish Titles

'As second son of the Sovereign, Prince Andrew is also traditionally entitled to the Scottish peerages of Earl of Ross and Lord Ardmanach; however, these titles have not been conferred for some centuries.' From the article.

I doubt that these peerages can be counted as traditional--if we are to believe Wiki, the younger sons of the Scottish monarchs were created Dukes of Ross only twice, in 1481 and 1514. Mapple 10:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

No one has ever been "traditionally entitled" to a peerage anyway. The only peerages which are automatic are those held by the eldest son of the Sovereign (Cornwall, Rothesay, Carrick, etc.), and they are held by virtue of specific provisions in their original creations, not due to "tradition". And no one is very likely to be created Earl of Ross at the moment, since the Irish Earl of Rosse would likely make quite a bit of fuss. I've removed the statement from the article. Proteus (Talk) 14:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

"eight independent states"

The introduction includes this sentence: "At the time of his birth, he was second in the line of succession to the thrones of eight independent states;". "Eight independent states" links to the article "Commonwealth realm", which explains that the Commonwealth consists of 16 realms. It may well be that the Duke is in the succession to only eight of the sixteen. (I don't know.) But in any case, I suggest revising this to clarify.Omc (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what needs clarified; at the time of Andrew's birth, there were only eight Commonwealth realms. Today there are 16. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I only count seven independent states - the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Ceylon, and Ghana. Nigeria became independent in 1960, but several months after Andrew's birth (by which time Ghana had become a republic). What is the eighth? john k (talk) 04:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
You're quite right about Nigeria. The number should therefore be seven. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Look at List of members of the Commonwealth of Nations#Dissolved members for the Federation of Malaya. "The Federation achieved independence within the Commonwealth of Nations on 31 August 1957." That may be the missing one. However, it does not appear in the List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II#Former so it may not be that either. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 06:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Andrew would never have been in the line of succession for the Federation of Malaya. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Malaya was never a commonwealth realm, and Elizabeth II was never its head of state. john k (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg

References to the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg are being added to multiple articles related to the Royal Family of the Commonwealth realms, and yet, not one reliable source has been provided. I yesterday began a discussion about this at Talk:House of Windsor#House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. Input there by interested parties would be appreciated. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Income

Should we not have a section that says where he gets his money from? Myrvin (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. But what you put in the article as being his income actually isn't; it's a grant from the Queen to cover the costs he incurs in the performance of his official duties as a representative of the monarch. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
If the Sunday Times says it's personal income, then, unless you have a better citation, it is personal income. I am putting the edit back. Myrvin (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there is a better citation: [1]. I don't know when the media became the ultimate authority on facts. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
See my addition for the payment for his public role inn 2007. I shall of course check out your citation.There is nothing wrong with quoting the media. Myrvin (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
There is when they're wrong. (BTW- please indent properly and use citation templates for your refs.) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Please can we agree on a different heading if you do not like Income? My figures are correct - according to your reference - so what are his payments called if they are not income? Myrvin (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Why agree on a heading when none is needed? The finances are related to his official duties and there isn't enough information on them to require a separate section. The £249,000 agrees with what's shown on the British monarchy website (though the latter affirms that the sum isn't Andrew's "income"). What I don't understand is the £436,000 figure; where is that coming from? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah - now this is a discussion! I'm happy to look for where the ST got its £436k figure, but, strictly, it's their quote not mine. Maybe it's expenses. I looked at the page to see how much PA was being paid - you probably know that he's in the news at the moment. I found nothing. I usually work on the assumption that if I want to know something and it's not in Wikipedia, then I find it out and put it in. I have never had my good faith edits so quickly removed. Are you against ANY mention of what money he gets? I disagree that a grant (if it is a grant) is not income. It may not be subject to income tax, but it's still income. Myrvin (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
PS Your site actually calls it a payment, not a grant - it's still income.Myrvin (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Call it what yas will, it comes from the taxpayers. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Repaid four times over by the income from the Crown Estate. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Where does the Crown Estate get its income? GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
It generates it's own. There's an article on it: Crown Estate. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
There better not be any counterfeiting involed? Anyways, in agreement with not having 'income' as a seperate section. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Is this enough indents? I suggest you read that article GoodDay, it says "The Crown Estate has never been the private property of the reigning monarch and therefore cannot be sold by him/her, nor do the revenues from it belong to the monarch personally." Also, "On George III's accession he surrendered the income from the Crown lands to Parliament in return for a fixed civil list payment and the income retained from the Duchy of Lancaster." So it belongs to the country. The article doesn't mention Prince A., nor the queen. I can't see where PA's pot comes from, other than from the queen. Myrvin (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
So then the Crown Estate's money comes from the taxpayers. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
No. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I thought s/he'd say that. Myrvin (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Who are you referring to? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Myrvin, I imagine Andrew has personal income from investments. The £249,000 he receives from the Queen certainly doesn't seem to be enough to carry out his official duties and pay for his private life. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
@MIESIANIACAL. I see that the money has been put back - good show! The citation for the £438k is the Sunday Times article. I'll add it.
I never took it out again after you restored it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
So you didn't. The Telegraph piece today (cited in the article) says: "The Duke, who receives £249,000 in a parliamentary annuity that is reimbursed from the Queen's private funds." Which isn't quite what the article says. Myrvin (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Citations needed banner

New to this page, so forgive me if I overstep any bounds. The banner states that the article need additional citations, but it already has quite a few (especially for any contentious statements) and I don't see any in-line tags for particular statements needing citations. So I suggest that some in-line tags of problematic statements are provided otherwise I see no reason why the banner cannot be removed. Thoughts? Famousdog (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. There are plenty of statements without sources, but we don’t generally have to provide sources for things like ‘In 1986, Prince Andrew married Sarah Ferguson; the couple's marriage and subsequent divorce attracted a high level of media coverage’. There may, or may not be, specific statements present which would benefit from citations, but (as you say) the way to deal with any of those is (ideally) to find a solid source, or (next best) to tag the statement itself with {{cn}}. You may be new to the page, but certainly you have the hang of the system—no bounds were overstepped in making your edit! Ian Spackman (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The use of "The Prince Andrew" in article opening

I am arguing that the short form of a British royal prince or princess in the opening of the article should include the "The" where applicable, as in "The Princess Anne." I argue that this is distinctive and meaningful as indicated on the British Monarchy's website. I would not, however, include HRH in the opening as this would be like using "Miss" which is not consistent with Wikipedia style. The use of "The" indicates that the prince is a child of the monarch.

The use of "The" is not simply an honorific.

It is unwise to split discussions across multiple pages. Please direct all discussion to Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh#The use of "The Prince Philip" in article opening. DrKay (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Prince Andrew's Medals

Does Anyone know why Prince Andrew has not Received the Long Service and Good Conduct Medal as he seems to have Actively served the Required 18 years?

In fact the Same Question can be asked of the Duke of Kent and Prince Michael of Kent

If Anyone knows why Royal Family Members Seemingly Don't Have This Medal I'd Like to know

Thanks Michael Drew (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment about military service

I find "It was in November 1978 that Prince Andrew would join the Royal Navy the following year, ..."

I'm not quite sure what this means. Does it mean it was DETERMINED that he'd join the Royal Navy the following year? If it's something like that, a word needs to be added there, but I don't know enough about the situation to edit it in there myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Children/second spouse of Prince Andrew

Who is "Alexandra, Countess of York", listed as his second wife m. 2004, and "Prince Tristan of York" and "Prince Carys of York" listed in the Infobox? As of this article in 2007, it stated that Prince Andrew did not remarry. http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Prince-Andrew-sad-over-marriage-failure/2007/11/17/1194767004378.html Is there any citation about these supposed family members? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.33.208.179 (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

A challenge.

Find and cite the quote from Andrew's famous media gaffe where he admitted flying as an Exocet decoy during the Falklands conflict. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 23:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've deleted it. That can't be true, it has to be a joke. If it is true you better have damn good sources about it. --Nyxxxx 21:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is whats wrong with wikipedia. There are plenty of references for. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1463979.stm

And Wikipedia itself even has an article on ship defences mentioning this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.189.112 (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph claims it has flight logs

Flight logs could prove prince Andrew was in the same places as Virginia Roberts when she alleges they had sex, see Prince Andrew under renewed pressure to speak about 'sex abuse' claims after flight logs emerge. Is the Daily Torygraph a good enough source? Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Be bold in future. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 09:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Prince Andrew, Duke of York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 16:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Prince Andrew, Duke of York. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 21:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Topless Model

What? No mention of his relationship with Koo Stark, topless model? What about his predeliction for practical jokes? This article's pretty thin on the person, rather than the position.

--TresRoque 12:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I question the statement that:

Following his return from the Falklands War and until his marriage to Sarah Ferguson, Prince Andrew dated actress Koo Stark.

Had their relationship not finished before Andrew announced his engagement to Fergusson? It potentially implies he continued to see Stark up to wedding eve.Cloptonson (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Ribbons worn

Photos of Prince Andrew wearing ribbons can be found here. He does not wear a ribbon for the Order of the Garter as it is not customary to wear a ribbon for this order. He also does not wear the ribbons for the Sasketchawan Centennary, nor foreign (non-Commonwealth) awards. Of note, he wears the shorter row at the bottom in accordance with the RN custom for wearing ribbons on shirts. AusTerrapin (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the ribbons; the "as worn in the UK" part was problematic, since it sets an arbitrary limit on the scope of the information. Unless we're to have the different arrangements as worn in different countries. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the Garter ribbon (again?) - previous discussion is completely right that it is never worn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmb (talk • contribs) 10:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Lord High Commissioner to the GA of the C of Scot.

"For May 2007 only, Andrew became entitled to be called (albeit academically) His Grace." Two things. First, in "for May 2007 only" the word "only" implies some exception, but isn't it the case that the General Assembly lasts about a week, so every LHC "only" has the title for week? And second, why "albeit academically"? The article on the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland says, regarding Princess Anne, "When the Princess Royal was appointed in 1996, she was styled as "Her Grace" for the duration rather than her normal dynastic style "Her Royal Highness" because the Lord High Commissioner is ranked higher in the order of precedence." So it's not "academic", but a matter of protocol.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

British succession or not.

See discussion at Charles, Prince of Wales, in relation to this article's intro. GoodDay (talk) 03:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Prince Andrew, Duke of York. 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) 04:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prince Andrew, Duke of York. 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) 10:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Why "Duke of York" in 1986?

Was the dukedom a wedding gift from his mother? --2607:FEA8:D5DF:FEF6:9995:35A:3713:2FAB (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes. And why York? Because since the 15th century, this particular dukedom has - when available and not already granted - usually been given to the second son of the monarch. Which Andrew is. -- fdewaele, 10 August 2019, 19:08 CET.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2019

The page states that "Roberts claimed that the Duke was among men, including "a former prime minister" and Alan Dershowitz, who had sex with her while she was a teenager. She alleged Epstein paid her £10,000 to have sex with the Duke.[40]"

Source 40 is this: 

"Prince Andrew 'sex abuse victim' Virginia Roberts 'was introduced to the Queen'". The Daily Telegraph. London. 5 January 2015. Retrieved 9 July 2019.

This Telegraph article does not mention Alan Dershowitz or the "former prime minister" allegations. These can be found in other sources which should be added. I would suggest this artile from the Time Magazine: https://time.com/5651186/jeffrey-epstein-investigation-co-conspirators/ MsomiMzungu (talk) 10:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Footnote added. DrKay (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

re-add what was there since 19 April 2016

Please re-add to:

"Epstein friendship and sex abuse allegations"

The Duke and Roberts were also photographed together with the Duke's arm round Roberts' waist.[1]

  1. ^ "The Independent". Archived from the original on 23 July 2015. Retrieved 19 April 2016.

87.170.201.126 (talk) 08:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

This was removed by User:Bangalamania with an edit summary citing Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material. Please get consensus for your suggested change before making an edit request. DrKay (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Looking at it now, I think I was probably hasty removing that as synthesis. re-added to the page. --Bangalamania (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2019

Mentions of being a POS Pedo. Thanks, I donate. AriGold30862 (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I am assuming POS pedo means possible pedophile and not point of sale pedophile, because if you mean the latter, I'll have to blank the comment per WP:BLP. The accusations are in the article already. DrKay (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
AriGold30862 Whether you donate or not has no bearing on anything here, as donations go to the Foundation, not editors here. You can donate or not, it is up to you. 331dot (talk) 07:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

On connection with Giuffre, Epstein and Maxwell

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/20/prince-andrew-abuser-claims-virginia-giuffre-tv-interview — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BA:984A:F200:0:0:0:8EA (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Please edit this into the opening bit. 213.57.121.62 (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2019

When exactly will you bring up the multiple sexual assault allegations? 187.57.158.59 (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Since about five years ago, when they were added to the article. See the section entitled "sex abuse allegations". DrKay (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Change the verb "are"

Because Epstein is dead now, change the verb "are" in: "he and Epstein are suing the lawyers representing Roberts."

ChicagoLarry (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The interview

Shouldn't we also mention that this interview has damaged his reputation even more? The reception has been so far negative. We have included some parts of his statements and if we were to remain unbiased we should also mention that he was criticized by almost all of the journalists and the media. Keivan.fTalk 00:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Since no one objected my proposal, I went ahead and included a brief sentence on the negative reactions the interview received. Keivan.fTalk 02:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Very easily justified. The degree of negative comment in the press has been overwhelming and profound. Many sources are saying that the whole exercise was very ill-advised. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Should we add the "recent event" tag because the interview is making headlines and causing a lot of controversy Gracey72 (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Not convinced. The interview was broadcast at 9pm on Saturday by the BBC and activity here seems to be tailing off - only four edits so far today. The article has protection anyway? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

N-word in The Guardian's woodpile

Re this revert: the current source, The Guardian says this: "He claims the prince responded: “Well, if you’ll pardon the expression, that really is the [N-word] in the woodpile.” Surely a different source will be required if we want to repeat the word nigger? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Surely by that logic we shouldn't be linking to the articles nigger and nigger in the woodpile either? Anyway there are some more sources, [2] and [3] might also be used to add more to the section (Jacqui Smith has come forward with some more recollections...) – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I quite agree. Not without sources which have that word. Those you have found would be useful additions, except that The Daily Telegraph has "n----- in the woodpile" and The Times needs a subscription.Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The Queen has not been seen sweating in public

Is this really appropriate per WP:UNDUE? And "...one 1983 study which linked adrenaline overdose to anhidrosis in horses."? Perhaps a footnote would be better for this level of detail? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Update on the honorary fellowship the Duke held at Hughes Hall, Cambridge.

The Duke has resigned his honorary fellowship from Hughes Hall in the University Cambridge with immediate effect from 23 November 2019, perhaps someone can edit the appropriate sentence to include this information (or delete the sentence entirely as being obsolete).

Yes someone could, if there was a good source for that claim. Perhaps you have one. But the fact that "he was elected to an Honorary Fellowship at Hughes Hall in the University of Cambridge on 1 May 2018" is a sourced fact and should remain so. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
This piece, dated 22 November, just says: "A Hughes Hall spokesperson has since told Varsity that the Governing Body will be reviewing Prince Andrew’s position, which he has held since May 2018, next Wednesday 27th November." Martinevans123 (talk) 13:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

"Awesome interviewee" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Awesome interviewee. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. --Joshualouie711talk 21:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: The discussion appears to be archived. History Lunatic (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)History Lunatic

Didn't go to university

I cannot think why Sampajanna thinks it necessary to state that Andrew did not go to university. If you list the A-level qualifications and then say he went on to naval college, it is entirely redundant to mention university. You may as well add that he did not go to art college, or he did not join the police. Valetude (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Valetude The following current entry is self-explanatory ... He left Gordonstoun in July two years later with A-Levels in English, History, Economics and Political Science. Instead of enrolling at university like his older brother, Andrew entered the Britannia Royal Naval College at Dartmouth.Sampajanna (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I read that the first time. It still seems just as irrelevant. Why is it notable that he did not do the same thing as his brother? It so happens that my brother was at Cambridge with Prince Charles. But my CV doesn't say 'Not Cambridge'. Valetude (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Obviously not. It should say 'Not Harvard'. EEng 02:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Fergie went to Weight Watchers. Does that count at all? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree. Anne didn't go to university either, neither did the Queen or Prince Philip, or indeed most royals up until that time. Not going would seem to be the norm rather than the exception, at least for this generation. 'Like his elder sister, Andrew didn't go to university' is also self-explanatory, but that doesn't mean it deserves to be included in the article. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
After watching that interview, I'm guessing he never went to charm school either. But tend to agree, no real need to say he didn't go. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Some interesting viewpoints have been expressed here. What Princess Anne (as elder sister) or an unrelated brother of somebody else did hardly impacts the line of accession to the British throne at that time. Andrew was second in line after his older brother Charles. If it is generally felt that there is no need to mention university with regard to Andrew, then so be it. Sampajanna (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

There might be reliable sources stating that, despite being second in line to the throne, Andrew did not go to university. If so, it can be argued that the information is relevant. If not, I agree with others. Surtsicna (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Fair comment, Surtsicna. I had a quick look and mainly came up with reports on somewhat questionable activities of Prince Andrew. Otherwise, there is a Wikipedia page, Education of the British royal family, that states Prince Charles entered Trinity College, Cambridge in 1967, where he read history, archaeology and anthropology and graduated with a 2:2 degree in 1970. This was the first time in history that a British monarch or heir to the throne had completed a university degree. Also, Prince Andrew, Duke of York attended Gordonstoun. He had no formal education beyond that, but completed a Royal Navy commissioning course at Britannia Royal Naval College and other courses during a military career Apparently, younger brother Prince Edward received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Jesus College, Cambridge in 1986.
From the same Wikipedia article, the next generation down (Charles' sons) - William attended university in Scotland. Although younger brother Prince Harry also graduated from Eton; Harry does not have a university degree but completed ten months of officer commissioning training at Royal Military Academy Sandhurst.Sampajanna (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Sampajanna, for highlighting another mention that is just as irrelevant and worthy of deletion. Valetude (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Valetude ~ Your belated opinion is noted. However, this matter seems to have been resolved 18 days ago when Celia Homeford edited the article accordingly. Sampajanna (talk) 10:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Epstein allegations - section length

This is *absurdly* long. Really. Far, far, far longer than the section on his marriage to Sarah Ferguson. Some serious trimming is needed. Can we agree? Boscaswell talk 10:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree about the proportion. But it's certain that many more developments will be coming out in the next few months, and we'll have to wait to edit-down the full story into the appropriate length. Valetude (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
We don't "have to wait" at all. If Wikipedia is a fulfilling the role of a news website about living people, it should aim to have balanced coverage both before, during and after the period of months or years where accusations are made but not yet resolved. MPS1992 (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
The length, less than 15% of the article, is entirely appropriate, and it would not be appropriate or meaningful to reduce its length. From a global perspective, it's his main claim to fame, and the only reason he gets coverage outside of the UK. Most Americans wouldn't even know who he was were it not for his involvement in the Epstein affair. It's an issue (not just a single event, but something that has been going on for years) of clearly pivotal importance to his standing as a public figure, at home and abroad. Also, it's perfectly normal for a section about a key part of someone's public life to be longer than a section on their marriage. --Tataral (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
MPS1992, Boscaswell, Valetude, Tataral, The length is considerable. I question the logic that the Prince Andrew and Epstein connection should reside within "Personal life." It certainly seems to be an enduring public issue for the subject and Buckingham Palace, one that has completely altered his stated role with the monarchy. I considered making a new section titled "Controversy" but opted for "Media image" instead as this is a section already present in Prince Charles' wikipedia bio. Wondering what the consensus is for keeping the "Friendship with Epstein" and related content inside the Personal life section? Do others support or oppose moving it to a new section? (section title - to be determined). I support moving it to its own section. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Agree entirely, Cedar. Separate topic, separate section. Valetude (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Cedar777 I agree with your suggestion that the allegations should have their own section.
Tataral you wrote “...(it’s) the only reason he gets coverage outside of the UK. Most Americans wouldn't even know who he was were it not for his involvement...” Hey, guess what, there are other places on this planet which are outside of the UK that aren’t the USA! Yes, really! ;-) Just because the American media (that you’ve seen) have never reported anything about him other than the allegations doesn’t mean that it’s the only thing of note about his life. This is an article about the life of Prince Andrew, not an article about the allegations regarding Epstein and a Prince Andrew. What is there needs to be proportionate! As Valetude, MPS1992 and Cedar777 all seem to agree. I should also point out that his marriage to Sarah Ferguson was far from being ‘run of the mill’ - even though it was apparently not reported in the States (by any media you saw). There were a lot of front page splashes about it in the UK. Boscaswell talk 06:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I read a wide variety of newspapers, Belgian, French, British, American, German, typically in that order. It's quite clear that globally he is mainly associated with the Epstein affair, and that his involvement had a defining effect on his standing as a public figure (leading him to "get fired"). What are his accomplishments or activities outside of the Epstein affair, that have been widely reported globally? I can't think of any. --Tataral (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Globally he is definitely mainly associated with the Epstein affair in the last two years. As for long term discussion in reliable sources, it barely even figures, yet. It will, eventually. No-one is saying that the allegations should be excluded from the article, just that they should be given due weight. MPS1992 (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and I argue that the current state of the article is perfectly appropriate, and 15% of the article devoted to the most important event in his life as a public figure is in no way undue, and that there is no need to drastically reduce that section. --Tataral (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Warrant for his arrest.

IF he comes back to the states do to his non compliance with the FBI requested interview. A warrant for his arrest could be sealed and the second he steps off the plane he would be jailed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.95.120 (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Epstein in lead

While the Epstein scandal should be mentioned in the lead, placing it in the first paragraph as it currently is seems to add undue weight. SecretName101 (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Parallelism

The sentence "Their marriage, separation, and divorce in 1996 attracted much media coverage" suggests that they were married, separated and divorced in 1996. Suggest a change that clarifies (and is a parallel construction):

Their marriage in 1986, separation in 1992, and divorce in 1996 attracted much media coverage.[1]

Drosophilaphd (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Their marriage year is given in the sentence before, so only the year of separation is necessary. DrKay (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
It should be re-written, however. The current version is quite confusing. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a22780142/prince-andrew-sarah-ferguson-relationship-timeline/

CSECTION

I have placed {{Criticism section}} on this article because I believe the section title "Other controversies" compromises the articles NPOV. Article structure has a large effect on NPOV. The section could be divided up and restructured into sections titled "Public profile" and "Diplomatic duties". Other options also exist. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. I think the material incorporated into that section cannot necessarily be divided up and included in other parts. It is also well-sourced and the language is not necessarily harsh. That’s why I changed the title to a more neutral phrase that probably sounds better. Keivan.fTalk 18:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

"Randy Andy"

Perhaps some readers will find this comment offensive, but I'm frankly surprised to see an article about Prince Andrew that does not even mention - let alone account for - his commonly used nickname (which implied sexual promiscuity) in his native country. Avoiding this suggests to me undue deference to royalty - but, having grown up in Britain, I admit I'm a fervent anti-monarchist.80.60.103.23 (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I have heard this nickname, but I'm not sure it's all that common, and there are BLP issues. I'm not a monarchist either. PatGallacher (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I think "Air Miles Andy" is more common ;-) Famousdog (c) 12:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I think they could both be creations of tabloid journalism rather than in widespread use, a bit like Glaswegians supposedly calling the subway the Clockwork Orange. PatGallacher (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
@Keivan.f: Cross-reference your "Media nickname" talk in November 2020 (further down this page) Sampajanna (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Media nickname

@Sampajanna: Hello. I just realized that you had reverted my edit regarding a nickname that has been used by the media to refer to him. So instead of edit warring over it I decided to take it to the talk page. I think including a very common nickname with which he has been associated for a long time is not a breach of neutral point of view as long as the sentence is worded correctly I guess. An example would be his wife who was "unflatteringly" called the Duchess of Pork due to her weight. We are saying what the media has been calling him after all; we are not implying that he's necessarily "randy". Perhaps including an adverb like unflatteringly would make the whole thing sound better? What do you think? Keivan.fTalk 18:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: WP:BLP Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity. WP:NPOV Besides, 1981 is forty years ago. Otherwise, there are edits (neutralising the context, especially in relation to Jeffrey Epstein) since the one you refer to. I notice that Administrator @DrKay: has just edited something nearby (Sarah Ferguson). Perhaps, DrKay may care to comment on any perceived need to include a media nickname for Andrew. Sampajanna (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, other people’s inputs are necessary. It seems that we need a consensus. Keivan.fTalk 19:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Keivan.f: Cross-reference "Randy Andy" talk a few years ago (further up this page) Sampajanna (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • While the removed material[4] was credited to The Guardian, The Guardian article attributes the nickname to The Daily Mail. The edit immediately preceding the introduction of that material was a removal of content solely because it was credited to The Daily Mail.[5] I'd be inclined to leave it out as a transient tabloid gimmick, unless it can be shown that the nickname had extensive use or is frequently mentioned in more reliable sources. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Sexual abuse allegations

Does the article give undue weight to the issue? PatGallacher (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

No. The fallout from Andrew's relationship with Epstein had previously led him to leave the UK Trade Envoy post, his most high profile role since leaving the Navy, and the public allegations are a new and serious continuation of this arc. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
That's all true. But, the connection only affirms there's no need for a separate section and there's a way to cover all the above without heaps of detail, such as what other unnamed and named people were named and what that named person said about someone's allegations against the Duke and what the someone said in retort to what the named person said about the someone's allegations against the Duke. Right now, it's bordering on TMZ style. It can be more concise. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 Comment: It is not bordering on TMZ, it has become a travesty of Wikipedia BLP process. One editor is hellbent on restoring and pushing this epic excrement of bad encyclopedia content, totally oblivious to BLP concerns. I removed the entire section, as it was clearly slandering the subject of this BLP with proximity and context, and no due weight of anything solid. The editor in question reverted, and the section is no better now, a few days later, and if anything, it is even less encyclopedic and is simply over the top tabloid treatment all by itself. I will not edit here anymore, but I call on experienced Wikipedia graybeards to scrutinize this debacle and restore this BLP to Wikipedia standards. Soap's accurate summary has not been rebuffed at all by the tabloidizers (see below). --Mareklug talk 19:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone know the official name of this court case in Florida? It might be worth giving it its own article, as it could raise important issues on top of the alleged involvement of Prince Andrew. PatGallacher (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The article is missing and should include the third (and final) accusation by Virginia Roberts of ‘sex acts’ with Prince Andrew. The encounter allegedly took place on the US Virgin Isles and should be included for completeness (the same sources apply), and because Virginia Roberts was under the age of legal consent during the alleged encounter - the age of consent is 18, according to Wikipedia - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States#United_States_Virgin_Islands. The article currently states that Virginia Roberts was above the age of legal consent for the two listed encounters - “she was 17[85] (which is above the age of consent in the United Kingdom),[86] and again in New York (where the age of consent is 17)”, and gives the false impression that this is true for the all the alleged encounters.

This reminds me of the gang-rape allegations against president George W Bush saying that, while governor of Texas, he and a group of other men gang-raped a woman in Texas. The mainstream media and even most independent media completely ignored the story, as did Wikipedia. I think the only difference here is that at least a few mainstream news outlets are giving attention to the story, but seemingly only because it involves Prince Andrew. There's no mention of this incident on our Alan Dershowitz article, for example, nor has there ever been, despite Dershowitz having been involved much more directly. I would say that unless the accusations are proven true we should not even mention them except possibly on our page about Epstein. —Soap— 21:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Noting that as of Jan 7 there is a mention on the Dershowitz article, but wasn';t when I wrote the above. —Soap— 16:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not mean ignoring the elephant in the room. PatGallacher (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Allegations should only be omitted from the article if they cannot be reliably sourced, this is clearly not the case here. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:PUBLICFIGURE says that "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article" and then goes on to say that "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out". WP:BLPGOSSIP requires that we not repeat gossip from unreliable sources. If the sources documenting these allegations are considered reliable enough, we should probably include them; so then it comes down to whether we decide the sources are reliable or not (as it seems they are at least multiple). Are they? ekips39 16:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Naming Jane Doe 3

JD3's name has been published in Stuff.co.nz, The Independent UK, and other UK, Australia, and New Zealand media. But not in any American media. So how should Wikipedia handle this issue, following policies like BLP and RS? Arbor to SJ (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

And Reuters has even published JD3's name, attributing it to Buckingham Palace. Arbor to SJ (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Oops, I just overlooked this and WP:BOLDly removed her name. I just looked up many sources (NYT, BBC, Boston Globe, WSJ, Reuters, and AP (published on AOL)) which each withheld her name, and I wanted to err on the side of respect for privacy, per WP:AVOIDVICTIM. That policy does not suggest removing their name—that was just a reflex not to be bolder than the RS consensus—but it does advocate extreme caution and delicacy, and I submit that in this case that means respecting the level of privacy Ms. Doe has chosen and my sources above (except Reuters, evidently) have consented to. FourViolas (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
That Reuters article mentions that "[p]eople making a criminal complaint of rape in England have a legal right to anonymity unless they choose to waive it." I haven't seen a RS suggest that Ms. Doe has waived this right, so I say do as Reuters says, not as they do. FourViolas (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Both she and her father have given newspaper interviews and she claims to be writing a book about her experiences, which she presumably wants to be publicised. There is no criminal complaint of rape. DrKay (talk) 08:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
As this is an article about a British subject would it not be more apt to use 'alleged victim' or 'woman'? The terms 'John and Jane Doe' are never used in British media.Gareth E Kegg (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC) It looks fine, actually. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
All right, I guess the interviews probably constitute a waiver of anonymity (not that I'm qualified to determine that, or if Ms. Doe in fact has such a right), and a more recent BBC story includes "...Virginia Roberts, known in court as Jane Doe #3...", which is good enough for me. Gareth E Kegg, the name comes from the Florida, USA court filing in question, in case you were wondering. FourViolas (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Peter Nygard

I’d like to suggest an edit. In addition to Prince Andrew having ties to Jeffrey Epstein, reports and also come out that he has ties with Peter Nygard. Peter Nygard Is an ex-fashion designer and executive, currently in prison in Canada (Redacted) with the details very similar to that of Jeffrey Epstein. (Redacted) Prince Andrew is reported to have had a friendship with Peter Nygard and has also reportedly spent time at Nygard’s Bahamas residence, where Nygard regularly charged over $10,000 a night For his “guest” to stay Hundibundi (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hundibundi, unless you have some very solid sources, to back up your claims about Peter Nygard, I'm not sure your comment should even appear here. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
It’s being reported and alleged by several news organizations. Seeing how this is sexual abuse ALLEGATIONS section, such widely reported allegations should be included, no? The section is for allegations and not actual criminal charges. The reports regarding Jeffrey Epstein at this point are still only allegations, just like the allegations regarding Peter Nygard. Hundibundi (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
As I said, you really need to provide some clear sources here, or this discussion is likely to get removed as WP:FORUM. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I am aware they are only allegations and there is no allegation of impropriety by prince Andrew at Peter Nygard’s Bahamas residence at the moment. However, prior to the allegations Against the duke of York in regards to Epstein, we only had the fact that prince Andrew was friends with Epstein prior to a victim statement. We do know at the moment that prince Andrew was friends with Peter Nygard’s and it is confirmed that he has visited Nygard’s Bahamas residence, which is the residence that Nygard is being charged with operating as a brothel (Redacted) . Hundibundi (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Sure, what kind of sources would you like? I can provide several news Articles regarding this, all of which I am sure are properly sourced Hundibundi (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Anything that passes WP:RS is usually acceptable. You said "reports and also come out that he has ties with Peter Nygard." Where are these reports? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Are you seen my sources? I am trying to post the sources but they don’t seem to be posting. This message is just a test Hundibundi (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Is there a particular format that it needs to be for me to submit my sources? My last comment showed up but I just tried submitting another web source and it didn’t come up Hundibundi (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9152781/amp/Disgraced-fashion-mogul-Peter-Nygards-SON-helping-police-investigate-alleged-sex-crimes.html Hundibundi (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I figured it out, the domain was too complex and too long

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/amp/entry/prince-andrew-peter-nygard_ca_5fda4465c5b6aa861e5af74e/ http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/800-women-questioned-sex-abuse-23253630.amp http://nypost.com/2020/02/15/prince-andrew-linked-to-fashion-tycoon-accused-of-raping-teens/amp/ http://theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/15/fashion-executive-accused-in-lawsuit-reportedly-hosted-prince-andrew-at-bahamas-estate Hundibundi (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. So that first one was this article, which just says this: "His Caribbean parties, meanwhile, tended to attract a better class of A-lister. Past visitors to the island property had ranged from ... not to mention Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson, who were photographed there in the early 2000s on an innocuous family holiday." But we can't use the Daily Mail as per WP:DAILYMAIL. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I completely understand that the daily mail is questionable at best. One still needs to source where the photo comes from and whether it is factually the duke of York but does resemble him. Hundibundi (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Here’s another source. My apologies I am new to this so I wasn’t sure what was and wasn’t permitted for source material. I realize my New York post source is I’m not eligible http://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2020/02/15/prince-andrewalleged-have-stayed-tycoon-peter-nygard-has-accused/amp/ Hundibundi (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-andrew-and-daughters-welcomed-at-peter-nygards-retreat-ps5q7kg2b Hundibundi (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm against including this. At the moment there's just a photo of Nygard and the Yorks, who stayed as a family at his estate. There are no actual allegations against the duke. I have no doubt you could easily find photographs of Nygard with a whole bunch of minor celebrities, who were at his estate at one time or another but the allegations are against him only. DrKay (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm redacting some of the above, not with regard to Andrew but the allegations against Nygard. I can find nothing at the moment to show that he's been convicted of sex crimes, and so, we cannot say anywhere on wikipedia, including talk pages, that he has been. DrKay (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course, I understand. If this helps any in regard to Nygard, I have source material for The accusations against him Including video evidence and witness testimony. If it’s of no use for you, you can disregard or remove it https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5884704 Hundibundi (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Titles and Styles

Under this section the article states "He is known by his secondary titles of Earl of Inverness in Inverness and Baron Killyleagh in Killyleagh." Admittedly, the source cited stated it exactly this way, though Prince Andrew's current page on this site no longer includes this statement. But surely he is known as Earl of Inverness in Scotland, not solely in Inverness? And similarly, sure he is known as Baron Killyleagh in Ireland, not solely in Killyleagh? This is the way subsidiary titles are applied to other royals such as Prince Charles, Prince William, etc. I have not found a direct source stating it exactly this way, but did find support sources such as https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-38303563, where he is on a visit to Scotland and is referred to as the Earl of Inverness. Does anyone find a source that states it directly? Discussion? History Lunatic (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)History Lunatic

Actually, if you went up to most people in Scotland and mentioned the Earl of Inverness most of them would not know who you were on about. He is usually known as Prince Andrew, or less commonly the Duke of York. I don't mind mentioning his subsiduary titles, but let's avoid this fiction. PatGallacher (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree in practice, just as I'm sure it's a rare thing for Charles to be addressed as Duke of Rothesay. The point is that Scottish titles and Irish titles surely do not apply to a single city. History Lunatic (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)History Lunatic
I think there's a strong argument for removing it on the basis that there is only one citation for it, and that is a dead link. The article should be a summary of the most salient points and shouldn't try to include everything ever written about him. This would seem to fall under the bar for inclusion. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
The BBC story linked is "Prince Andrew in visit to Inverness" which doesn't say anything about the use of "Earl of Inverness" outside Inverness. The Court Circular shows that Andrew is only listed as "Earl of Inverness" when at functions in Inverness-shire and "Baron Killyleagh" when in Killyleagh. The practice of using different more specific Scottish titles in the whole of Scotland is a more recent thing due to a desire to strengthen the Royal Family's support there. (However they don't seem to use Northern Irish titles in the same way except when in the place named.) Andrew was given the titles in the mid 1980s when this was less of a concern and so was already established as "the Duke of York" when this came up.
The heir to the throne now uses "Duke of Rothesay" in Scotland (although what people he meets and the media call him is another matter) but I question whether this has always been the case for him and his predecessors or if it was a largely forgotten title and "Prince of Wales" was more commonly used. Certainly there hasn't been any attempt to remove "Duchess of Rothesay" from Camilla in the same way as "Princess of Wales" that suggests Diana was never really known by that title in Scotland. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2021

Add the internal links in for the Middle East Association and the countries that follow. Thebanjoseph (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Those countries are generally well-known? We have no article for Middle East Association. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Adrenaline overdose typically causes excessive sweating?

Not sure how this affects the article, but surely the sweating during adrenaline overdose occurs *while the overdose is taking place* (in Andrew's case while he was under fire). Then his defense during the newsnight interview would have been, not that Ms. Roberts' presence caused excessive adrenaline later too; rather it would have been that the excessive adrenaline during combat had somehow burned out various receptors making it difficult to sweat under normal circumstances.

Not sure what to do about this, but it sounds like the Times journalist phoned up doctors and asked, "Does excessive adrenaline suppress sweating," and they said 'no.' If so that would be dismal and misleading journalism. Andrew wasn't trying to explicitly claim that he was experiencing adrenaline overdoses while dancing, his claim was the opposite.

I don't have any knowledge or opinion about Andrew, but I find it inappropriate and even maybe annoying that an illogical refutation (albeit of a weak and questionabld defense) is deemed notable enough to include here. We can do better.Createangelos (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Assume you are referring to this passage:
"Several doctors" told The Times they did not believe this explanation, as adrenaline overdose typically causes excessive sweating in humans.[1]
Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Whipple, Tom (18 November 2019). "Why can't Prince Andrew sweat? The answer is anhidrosis". The Times. Retrieved 20 November 2019.
Yes, Note that I must be approaching senility as I made the identical comment twice forgetting I'd made it the first time. Thanks to the careful editor who merged my comments. The article is behind a paywall and I don't exactly remember it anymore, but someone should check if doctors said anything like "I disbelieve this explanation" or "I disbelieve that sweating stimulated by adrenaline could cause suppressed sweating later". I worry that otherwise the Times article is like saying "Joe says he can hardly hear the TV because he experienced an explosion of TNT in battle, but we contacted explosive experts say an explosion of TNT is 50 decibels above undetectable and very easily audible." Then it would be wrong to say the experts deny "this explanation" because all they are denying is that he couldn't hear the TNT.Createangelos (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks to Martinevans123 for sorting this out for me... it really is nitpicky because not related to the sense of the article, but was bothering me a lot for some ocd like reason.Createangelos (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
FWIW [6] Yes it is a feasible explanation and there may be a genetic component, famously the Queen is noted for not appearing to sweat in conditions that would melt ordinary people [7]. WCMemail 13:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

No, it is NOT a feasible explanation. Adrenaline bursts cause profuse sweating! The reference via Science Mediacentre mentioned above referred to a skin condition in HORSES not HUMANS, specifically "Equine anhidrosis: a review of pathophysiologic mechanisms." Warner A, Mayhew IG. Vet Res Commun. 1983 Sep;6(4):249-64.

The condition occurs in humans, however the Queen does not suffer from this disease. She is calm and collected. Anhidrosis is a serious medical ailment, and it is not temporary. According to James Hamblin, M.D., a lecturer at Yale School of Public Health,

the condition of not producing sweat, anhidrosis, is extremely undesirable. The function is vitally important as a way to cool the body and prevent heat stroke. It is a rather serious disease... It is a sign of significant dysfunction of the nervous system—a rare genetic condition...
Anhidrosis is not consistent with the account Prince Andrew gave during the [BBC] interview: “Because I had suffered what I would describe as an overdose of adrenaline in the Falklands War when I was shot at and I simply—it was almost impossible for me to sweat...″

Dr. Hamblin's conclusion is that

A temporary inability to sweat would defy medical precedent.

Source is The Atlantic, Prince Andrew Says He Once Did Not Sweat--Is That Possible?, 18 November 2019, subheading The Man Who Did Not Sweat:In an effort to prove that he did not sexually assault a 17-year-old in the 1990s, Prince Andrew offered a bizarre medical explanation. I don't know how to incorporate that in the article. I will try to find an additional source.--FeralOink (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Createangelos makes a good point about context in his comments. Prince Andrew states that he could not be culpable due to his inability to sweat. This is explicitly what he said in the BBC interview, and what Dr. Hamblin quotes and responds to in The Atlantic article:

In among the oddest details to focus on challenging, Prince Andrew contested Giuffre’s claim that, while she and the prince were allegedly dancing at a London nightclub, he was sweaty.

Emily Maitlis: She was very specific about that night. She described dancing with you. Prince Andrew: No. Maitlis: And you profusely sweating, and that she went on to have a bath possibly.

Andrew: There’s a slight problem with the sweating, because I have a peculiar medical condition, which is that I don’t sweat, or I didn’t sweat at the time, and that was—was it—yes, I didn’t sweat at the time—

That is Andrew's explanation for why he couldn't be guilty:

“Because I had suffered what I would describe as an overdose of adrenaline in the Falklands War when I was shot at, and I simply—it was almost impossible for me to sweat. And it’s only because I have done a number of things in the recent past that I am starting to be able to do that again. So I’m afraid to say that there’s a medical condition that says that I didn’t do it.”

I don't know how or when this should be mentioned in the article.--FeralOink (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Why not simply append a sentence to the second paragraph of the "Newsnight" section stipulating that profuse sweating from adrenaline is not known to cause either permanent or temporary later inability to sweat? We could reasonably go further, I think, and add that no form of anhidrosis is known to be reversable or merely temporary and that anhidrosis over the entire body is known to result only from significant brain damage and is (aside from the other consequences of the brain damage) known to be very dangerous. TheScotch (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Order of content

I feel as if the "military service" section is too high up in the article. It isn't what he is known for, and seems ridiculous for it to come above "personal life". Not to mention having early life and personal life next to each over makes for an easier article to read.

I have moved it to down near "activities" as these seem to be similar in content. Feel free to discuss Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 06:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Biographies are usually chronological. DrKay (talk) 07:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree with DrKay. He was born, then educated, then served in the military, got married, and finally got involved in sexual abuse scandals. He also did some charitable and political activities in between. Keivan.fTalk 07:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

We need to distinguish the leading three paragraphs (as the article is currently constituted) from the remainder of the article (following the table of contents). Information in the remainder of the article can reasonably be arranged chronologically, but if Andrew's military record is to be mentioned at all in the first three paragraphs (and I'm not convinced it should be), then it should be mentioned last. I'm sorry to report that this is not currently the case, and the effect is to make the article appear propagandistic. TheScotch (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for Page Protection

In light of the recent incidents and the imminent controversy surrounding the Duke of York as the Virginia Giuffre case proceeds, it would be advisable to protect the page in order to maintain decorum and neutrality. Td 078 (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Td 078 the page has been protected since 2019? If you think it needs higher protection, this can be done at WP:RPP. Solipsism 101 (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

No longer prince

Subject sums it up 136.55.39.7 (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I believe he is still a Prince. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Dubious in regard to relevance

Please consider removing from the article: "Keogh was accused of inappropriately touching a female employee in 2015 in his previous job at Coutts, an allegation which he denied. It resulted in an internal investigation that led to him quitting under pressure and later suing for unfair dismissal." 89.8.150.104 (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, that indicates Andrew's lack of judgement since he was friends with two convicted sex offenders and his banker is facing allegations of sexual abuse. Keivan.fTalk 18:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Was it just the bold bits you don't like? I'm not sure we'd be left with anything that would make grammatical sense. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
The quote makes little sense in regard to relevance to the title of the section (in an article about Duke/prince Andy). Coatracking, maybe. Vanity mention of Keogh? Probably not. 89.8.82.25 (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 January 2022

Remove the title Prince Andrew, Duke of York or refer to him as former Prince and then his ordinary full name. He's a regular citizen with no special privileges whatsoever now.[1] Lmharding (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done - per the source you cited, he lost his "military titles and [the] use of HRH", not his title as "prince" or "Duke of York". In fact, the BBC source refers to him as "Prince Andrew" and "the Duke of York" (or "the duke") throughout the article. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, not The Artist Formerly Known As Prince Andrew. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59987935

Removal of honorary military appointments.

The way it is cited sounds as if all of his honorary military appointments have been revoked, but the sources cited only mentioned the revoking of his UK honorary military appointments. Perhaps it should be changed to clarify this? 142.232.219.206 (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

According to Sky News, he is also relinquishing all of his listed Canadian and New Zealand honorary roles. Perhaps that article could be cited as a source for that removal for clarity.
In addition, the now-updated BBC article indicates that Andrew "will retain his service rank of Vice-Admiral", so this article may need to be edited to reflect that if it hasn't already. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I have added a quote to the supporting source in the "Naval ranks" sub-section. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Title

He has returned his titles to the Queen, so should the title of the article be modified. --Egeymi (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I think WP:COMMONNAME will remain Prince Andrew. But does he now use a surname? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. --Egeymi (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

His title is still in place. Only his honorary military appointments and patronages have been removed. He still remains at this time HRH The Duke of York. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowwallpaper3 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

according to bbc he cannot be called "HRH" anymore, at least not officially https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59987935

That's not what the BBC said. It's that he will stop using it in an official capacity, not that it cannot be used in an official capacity Hdbbfj (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, "officially" he cannot be called that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:7865:D600:4CD7:772A:23DC:6ECF (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Please note how I said "at least not officially", regardless the definition and wording is somewhat vague. I personally interpret the meaning as that he cannot use "HRH" on things like official documents. However my opinion doesn't reflect what is stated, but there isnt really a definitive answer regardless,

Edit of name and such.

It has been announced that he is no longer part of the military and he has been removed from his position of Duke of York, so could somebody edit it?

Thank you.

 Not done: Per the reliable sources cited in the article, he's been stripped of his honorary military titles and his "royal highness" style. (He also has not actually been in the military since 2001, so saying he's no longer part of the military isn't accurate.) He also continues to retain his title of Duke of York. Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Separate article for lawsuit

The section detailing his allegations of sex abuse is incredibly lengthly, and the lawsuit has garnered extensive coverage within the media, in my opinion, enough to warrant its own article. Should Prince Andrew, Duke of York#Civil lawsuit be turned into its own page (entitled Virginia Giruffre v. Prince Andrew, Duke of York, etc)?--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the allegations and repercussions are taking up much more space now, compared to the lawsuit itself. An alternative would be "Prince Andrew, Duke of York sexual abuse allegation" (similar to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation or Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations). A sufficient summary can be kept on this page and all the details can be transferred onto the new article. Keivan.fTalk 15:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
No objections to either proposal. Can't wait for the video-link appearance from Belmarsh Royal Lodge. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
The time to make a separate article will be very soon, I believe. I concur that that would make sense, with a title as you have suggested.--FeralOink (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the section on the lawsuit is getting overwhelmingly heavy and with a trial on the horizon I guess it would be more reasonable to transfer all the detailed info into a separate page and keep a summary of them here, similar to the article on his accuser. Though I guess we should wait and see how much information will actually be made available to us in the coming weeks because the depositions could potentially be sealed. Keivan.fTalk 06:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Separate paragraph needed. No proof that loss of titles is related to the New York court case

Current version:

Andrew has been accused of child sexual abuse by Virginia Giuffre, who alleges he initiated a sexual encounter with her knowing that she was a minor who was sex trafficked by American financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.[2] Following intense negative reaction to a BBC television interview in November 2019 responding to Giuffre's allegation ...

On 13 January 2022, his military affiliations and royal patronages were returned to the Queen and it was announced that he will defend the lawsuit as a "private citizen".[7]

---

The previous version had these 2 paragraphs in the lede as one paragraph. This is WRONG. There is no proof that these were returned as punishment. Until then, they are separate incidents, should be separate paragraph, even if we strongly suspect they are related. Charliestalnaker (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Charliestalnaker: The statement from Buckingham Palace reads:

With The Queen's approval and agreement, The Duke of York’s military affiliations and Royal patronages have been returned to The Queen. The Duke of York will continue not to undertake any public duties and is defending this case as a private citizen.

So the civil lawsuit has been directly mentioned in the announcement that stripped him of his titles. Keivan.fTalk 18:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
The two are linked in the the Palace's announcement. The whole announcement: With The Queen's approval and agreement, The Duke of York’s military affiliations and Royal patronages have been returned to The Queen. The Duke of York will continue not to undertake any public duties and is defending this case as a private citizen.[8] Solipsism 101 (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

There's no link? LOL So the queen stripped him of his titles just for the fun of it? Is this a joke? 2600:1700:BC01:9B0:544F:E012:2320:EFE4 (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that the removal wasnt related to the scandal? Be reasonable lol! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Googleguy007 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Personal aide-de-camp

After this edit, I have been feeling the need to ask about Andrew and his nephew Harry's position as personal aide-de-camp. It's true that both have been stripped of honorary military affiliations for different reasons, however, they both retain their military or naval ranks as former servicemen. The announcements made about Andrew or Harry do not mention this role being removed and neither do other secondary sources. Has anyone been able to find any relevant info? Keivan.fTalk 19:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prince_Andrew,_Duke_of_York/Archive_1&oldid=1137098023"