Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

inappropriate category

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

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

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

Renounced titles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Philippos Andreou

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description of controversial remarks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will respond to each of your concerns.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

controversial statements

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

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

Piped links

User:Surtsicna recently removed the piped link to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom in the infoboxes of this article and some others. The previously existing Elizabeth II format was long standing, and avoided the favouring and misleading focus on only one country. Surtsicna referred to discussions about the title of the article Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom to support the changes in question; however, the breadth of those debates did not reach beyond that article itself. While it may be argued that it is necessary to include the "of the United Kingdom" elaboration in the biographical article's title, there seems little reason to include it in locations such as here. -- Miesianiacal (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the title of this section was POV itself, I have changed it. The users of Wikipedia agreed many times that referring to HM as Queen of the United Kingdom is not POV - see discussion 1, discussion 2, discussion 3, discussion 4, discussion 5, and countless other discussions which you can find in arhives of Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. It's factually accurate and it's the title she is recognized by. Nobody argues that referring to the first King of the United Kingdom and Hanover as George III of the United Kingdom is contrary to NPOV. Charles holds the title of Prince of Wales as son of the Queen of the United Kingdom. He is not even a prince of Canada/Australia/etc. Philip is a prince of the United Kingdom, not a prince of Canada/Australia/etc. DBD and I agreed to use pipes only to avoid redundancy and there is no redundancy in this article's infobox. Surtsicna (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I won't contest your view on the previous header to this section; I made it as it was more to align with the tag in the article than anything else.

As already noted above, the discussions at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom were pertinent only to the title of that article; there was no agreement to refer to the Queen only as "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" beyond that narrow scope. Moreover, the arguments therein rested on the fact that there exists a widely affecting and inflexible policy on the naming of monarchical biographical articles that locked the title of that article as it is, whether read as being POV or not. Here, however, no such binding policy has been presented. As I mentioned already at my talk page, you supported the idea of piping links in order to avoid exactly such favouritism, so I don't see why we can't rely on our shared stance to guide us here (and other associated locations). --Miesianiacal (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

First I'd like to say that I am very neutral when it comes to UK vs. other Commonwealth realms because I am not a resident of any Commonwealth realm, nor am I connected to any of them in any possible way. Anyway, you have misunderstood the discussion again :) I supported the idea of removing pipes to avoid confusion. Why I insist on removing pipes: see Louis X of France who was also King of Navarre for example. With pipes, it would be Father: Philip IV; Mother: Joan I; Issue: Joan II, John I. Without pipes, it would be Father: Philip IV of France; Mother: Joan I of Navarre; Issue: Joan II of Navarre, John I of France. I am sure you'll agree that the latter version is more clear. If we get back to George III and his sons, you'll notice that William IV of the United Kingdom was also William (I) of Hanover - therefore, referring to him as William IV is as much POV as is referring to him as William IV of the United Kingdom. As I already said above, Charles holds the title of Prince of Wales as son of the Queen of the United Kingdom. He is not even a prince of Canada/Australia/etc. Philip is a prince of the United Kingdom, not a prince of Canada/Australia/etc, too. Furthermore, I have never seen HM referred to as "Elizabeth II of Canada" or "Elizabeth II of Australia", etc. However, if other users agree that it's better to use [[Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom|Elizabeth II]], I won't insist to do otherwise. Surtsicna (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm reading your words "Wikipedia should retain neutral point of view and treat him equally as King of the UK and King of Hanover" as meaning that in personal union circumstances, you see the direct-link format carrying with it an inherent POV that should be avoided; and I would agree with that opinion. Further, I don't see how that directive couldn't be implemented: pipe all links, or, for only those who were/are the fulcrum of a personal union, either pipe those links solely or have [Name] of various states or [Name] of multiple states. Regnal numerals can be dealt with here as they are elsewhere: James I & VI.

BTW, here a Canadian Senator, and here the Order of St. John refers to "Elizabeth II of Canada". Even her title contains the words "Elizabeth the Second... of... Canada..." But that is really neither here nor there. --Miesianiacal (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I went over the British consorts beginning with George IV's wife. The pratice has been to use their spouses full title ..of the United Kingdom. We should continue this pratice. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That "practice" has changed quite recently. Older versions of the infoboxes (from just two weeks ago) are less UK-centric. DrKiernan (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I still fail to see what the problem is with ...of the United Kingdom.... That's Elizabeth II's most recognizable title, a title which takes precedents. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" is not a title at all. Besides, Wikipedia isn't supposed to make precedence where there is none. --Miesianiacal (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay meant to say that Queen of the United Kingdom is HM's most recognizable title and it does take precedence over all the other titles, at least de facto. Surtsicna (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

We should restore it as Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom & if one wants, put disputed underneath (as is done on the Queen's children's Infoboxes). The UK is giving prominance over the others, it's simply how it is written. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree: Prince Philip is a member of the British Royal Family and he is a British prince only. He is not a prince of any other Commonwealth realm. His wife's position as Queen of the United Kingdom gives him precedence, recognizability, style, and title. I agree with GoodDay completely, though I'd restore it to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom without disputed. Surtsicna (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, I'm not sure what you're trying to say; the UK is giving prominence how? Can we not change how things are written? I also don't see how Philip's titles guide how we refer to his wife; Philip doesn't cease to be Elizabeth's husband outside of the UK, so, when listing his wife, why focus solely on the UK? Leave it alone, I say, or perhaps look at some of my suggestions above, as long as we don't contravene WP:NPOV and WP:BIAS. --Miesianiacal (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Why focus on the UK? Because he is a Prince of the United Kingdom! As I said, his wife's position as Queen of the United Kingdom gives him precedence, recognizability, style, and title. Surtsicna (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I just don't see it being necessary to hide the United Kingdom. Rightly or wrongly, Lilibet is recognized by the world, as the UK's monarch. Example: If we had it as Elizabeth II of Canada or Elizabeth II of Australia in the Infobox, there'd be more protestations then not. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is more readily accepted (but, buy all means add the under dispute thingy, if ya like). I fully understand & accept, the 16 realms are equal picture. But, the UK is often shown first or alone. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I still don't think it has been explained how Philip being a prince of the United Kingdom has anything to do with how his wife is listed in the infobox; the infobox doesn't go into detail about where he holds titles or how his wife is involved, and referring to the latter as "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" will only lead the uninitiated reader to assume he's married to a woman who is queen of one nation; which is, of course, patently false. It is exactly because of commonly held, but ill-conceived notions that WP:NPOV and WP:BIAS exist as guidelines for us to follow in writing encyclopaedic articles; otherwise, why not just call her "Queen of England", as that is what most people think of her as. --Miesianiacal (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom with a dispute tag, is sufficent. Anyways, I've seen this dispute before (UK vs 16 are equal) and it can become LAME. Ya'll can do as ya'll wish. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"Elizabeth II" is sufficient. Adding anything further leads to dispute, so it is better not to do so. DrKiernan (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's less disputable. I'm cool with it. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth II's Official website says British Monarchy. Also, her children's articles use Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom in their Infoboxes. Therefore, I've done the same here. PS: If it's reverted, I won't fight it. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That's her official website in the UK, and Wikipedia is not limited to the UK. If the other infoboxes say "...of the United Kingdom", then the bias should be removed from those locations as well. --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Pipelinked or not, her husband & children's Infoboxes should be in sync. Though again (personally), I see no problem with showing ..of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the British monarchy website can be used to justify the focus on the UK, should the Canadian monarchy website give us reason to include a focus on Canada? We could have "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and Canada", right? ;) --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced of this hideing the United Kingdom / British stuff, where possible. Anyways, I've been checking out other royal bios. There's inconsistancies on them aswell. Henrik's Infobox has his wife title pipelinked, but their children's infoboxes don't. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"Hideing" (I think you mean "hiding") implies an ill motive, GD, which does not exist; at least, not on my part. I am citing WP:NPOV and WP:BIAS guidelines in this instance, wherein we should not put undue weight on a subject to suit our personal biases, or even those of any majority (ie. we don't ever use "Elizabeth II of England"). In some cases it is appropriate to associate EIIR with one country, but no reason to do so here has really been put forward; yes, Philip derives his title from EIIR as Queen of the UK, yet, he isn't married only to her solely in her capacity as Queen of the UK; he's as much the royal consort of the Queen of Australia as he is to the Queen of Belize. Favouring one country – any country – is, to me, a gross violation of WP's neutrality policies. --Miesianiacal (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

PS- Margrethe II is queen of only one country. --Miesianiacal (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I can live with Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom being pipelinked here, as long as it's pipelinked at Charles, Anne, Andrew & Edward's Infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm all for consistency! --Miesianiacal (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What to do when we have to mention Elizabeth II among other monarchs? Should we say King Juan Carlos I of Spain, Queen Margrethe II of Denmark and Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom or King Juan Carlos I of Spain, Queen Margrethe II of Denmark and Queen Elizabeth II? The latter form would suggest either that Elizabeth II is so important that mentioning her kingdom(s) is not neccessary because everyone knows about it (which is not NPOV) or that Elizabeth II is Queen of Denmark along with Margrethe II. In either way, the latter form does not even look good. Surtsicna (talk) 09:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say that it depends on the context in which she is being mentioned; ie. what country is she representing at the time being spoken of? --Miesianiacal (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's say that she doesn't represent any country: for example, if she is mentioned as one of the royal descendants of a person. Surtsicna (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In such a case, why would it be necessary to associate her with any particular country? --Miesianiacal (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Because other monarchs (her cousins, for example) are associated with their countries. King Juan Carlos I of Spain, Queen Margrethe II of Denmark and Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is certainly more informative than King Juan Carlos, Queen Margrethe II and Queen Elizabeth II. Surtsicna (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)