Jump to content

Talk:Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh

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

Earl of Wessex and Forfar

[edit]

Prince Edward is now listed as this, but does it not suggest that it is one title? The Earldom of Forfar was bestowed upon His Royal Highness in 2019, ostensibly to give him a Scottish title, and is in no way linked to the English one. 92.30.70.49 (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He has been referred to as the Earl of Wessex and Forfar in court circulars, press releases, and news reports. Falls under WP:COMMONNAME HolaQuetzalcoatl (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You beat me to it! I can see that it is now standard practice to do this, in much the same way as it was to refer to, for example, George III's second son as Duke of York and Albany as though that were one title. 92.30.70.49 (talk) 09:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Dukedom of York and Albany was a single title. See Duke of York and Albany. That is not the case with the Earldoms of Wessex and Forfar--each earldom is a separate title. Aoi (青い) (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This must be what threw me. I can now see that 'Duke of York' and 'Duke of Albany' differ from 'Duke of York and Albany'. In the case of 'Earl of Wessex and Forfar', I figure that, even when used officially, the confusion over whether this seems to constitute one title is why the debate over Prince Edward's page title continues... 92.30.70.49 (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I note that His Royal Highness continues to be referred to as simply 'Earl of Wessex' on The Royal Family's website. Should this not serve as the definitive source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.70.49 (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 September 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: move - There's a bit more support to move than to remain. UtherSRG (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex → Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex and Forfar – I think in the UK he's known simply as "prince Edward", and if we're going to start saying his titles, naming the English earldom of Wessex and not the Scottish earldom of Forfar sounds a bit disrespectul to Scotland. Alternatively, something that doesn't mention any of the 2 earldoms would also be fine. And this may become a moot point in the future if he gets given the dukedom of Edinburgh (but, of course, that would be WP:CRYSTAL). Dr. Vogel (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support We don't know if he'll ever be created Duke of Edinburgh. That's WP:CRYSTAL. At the moment he's the Earl of Wessex and Forfar, per official palace statements.[1] He has since been specifically referred to as the Earl of Wessex and Forfar when information was published on his father's funeral arrangements,[2] and in statements made by charities of which he is either a patron or trustee, such as the Duke of Edinburgh's Awards and the Seafarer's Charity.[3][4] So the title has been in use since 2019-2020 and this is a clear case of WP:NAMECHANGES. Also, per MOS:IDENTITY a person's choice of name must also be considered and he has chosen to be known as the Earl of Wessex and Forfar, rather than the Earl of Wessex (just as his nephew William was known as the Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge for a day but that didn't prevent a page move). And regarding to the point that he's known simply as Prince Edward in the UK, no, he's not and that's because there's another Prince Edward, the Queen's cousin Prince Edward, Duke of Kent. Keivan.fTalk 19:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "A statement from The Earl of Wessex and Forfar". The Royal Family. 16 September 2022. Retrieved 17 September 2022.
  2. ^ "The Funeral of The Duke of Edinburgh". royal.uk. 4 December 2017. Archived from the original on 2 February 2022. Retrieved 11 February 2022.
  3. ^ "HRH The Earl of Wessex and Forfar KG GCVO". The Duke of Edinburgh's International Award. Archived from the original on 11 February 2022. Retrieved 11 February 2022.
  4. ^ "To our Merchant Navy… THANK YOU". The Seafarers' Charity. Archived from the original on 11 February 2022. Retrieved 11 February 2022.
  • Support Several court circulars, press releases, news reports, and members of the public have been using 'Earl of Wessex and Forfar' to refer to The Prince Edward since at least last year. Falls under WP:COMMONNAME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HolaQuetzalcoatl (talk • contribs) 20:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per their statement here identifying them as such. cookie monster 755 20:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per WP:NAMECHANGES, Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to independent, reliable English-language sources ("reliable sources") written after the name change. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, as described above in "Use commonly recognizable names". (Emphasis added on the word "independent".) It's been two and a half years since the Queen granted the title of Edward. Although court circulars and press releases have used "Earl of Wessex and Forfar", independent sources have overwhelmingly continued to refer to Edward as simply the "Earl of Wessex," including the BBC, The Mirror, The Independent, the New York Times, etc. I've got no problem referring to him as the "Earl of Wessex and Forfar" in the article text, but the article title should reflect what independent, reliable sources are calling him. (Same with Sophie, by the way, whose article I notice was also moved.) Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    These sources have called his mother "Queen Elizabeth" instead of "Queen Elizabeth II", incorrectly referred to Diana as "Princess Diana" for years, and insisted on referring to the wives of Edward's nephews as Kate Middleton (or Princess Kate!) and Meghan Markle (or Duchess Meghan!) instead of "Princess of Wales" and "Duchess of Sussex", despite the fact that none of these women ever used any of these names after their marriage (or accession to the throne in the case of Elizabeth) in public or private capacities. A person's choice of name matters. If he has chosen to be known by both his English and Scottish titles we're in no place to shove our own opinion on how he should be referred to as down his throat. Name changes happen and sources will pick up and follow gradually. The recent examples that I can think of are Elliot Page, previously known as Ellen Page, or William, Prince of Wales, known until last week as the Duke of Cambridge. Nobody questioned their change of name or title, and nobody should be questioning Edward's decision for a change in his titles. Keivan.fTalk 01:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not making any statement about whether the use of "Earl of Sussex" is technically correct or not. I am simply saying that per Wikipedia's naming conventions, article titles should reflect the WP:COMMONNAME used in independent, reliable sources. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, this is less cut-and-dry than it may initially appear. The initial announcement of the Earl and Countess's new title said they would "use the title The Earl and Countess of Forfar when in Scotland." Entries in the Court Circular still often list the Earl's appearance as simply the "Earl of Wessex." From 16 September: This evening The King, accompanied by The Queen Consort, The Duke of York, The Earl of Wessex, accompanied by The Countess of Wessex, and The Princess Royal, accompanied by Vice Admiral Sir Tim Laurence.... From 15 September: The Earl and Countess of Wessex this morning visited the Central Library, St. Peter's Square, Manchester, and were received by His Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant of Greater Manchester (Mrs. Stephen Hawkins). From 14 September: The Coffin was followed by The King, The Prince of Wales, The Duke of Sussex, The Duke of York, The Earl of Wessex, The Princess Royal, Mr Peter Phillips, The Duke of Gloucester, The Earl of Snowdon and Vice Admiral Sir Tim Laurence. The Earl of Forfar title seems to be used in the Court Cicular only when the Earl is conducting an event that has relevance to Scotland, which is consistent with how the title was described when the Queen granted it to him. Every single speech listed on the Royal Family's official website by Edward is attributed to "The Earl of Wessex". And his own official website lists him as "The Earl of Wessex". Granted, perhaps his intent is to use both earldom titles going forward following the Queen's passing, but it's too early to say. Tldr, I dispute that "Earl of Wessex and Forfar" is the WP:COMMONNAME. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:COMMONNAME essentially states that a name needs to be common and recognizable. I cannot see how adding Forfar to his title would suddenly make the subject unrecognizable. Not to mention that in the case of royalty, WP:NCROY has to be considered as well. He has been referred to by the Royal Family website as the Earl of Wessex and Forfar since at least last year, when the funeral of his father took place (1), and that funeral did not take place in Scotland. I had also thought that maybe the title is only reserved for using when he's in Scotland, but it appears that this is not the case. The order of the service published for his mother's funeral also uses the two titles in combination. With regards to the contradictions on the website, that is definitely an issue that they need to sort out themselves as they have done it in the past with other family members (see Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy#Honours and the note regarding the appropriate abbreviation for her as a Royal Knight of the Order of the Garter). In any case, the last up to date pieces of info that we have on him are his statement regarding his mother's death and how he has been mentioned in the funeral documents and it's apparent that he uses the English and Scottish titles together at the moment. I'll leave it to the community to decide with regards to the information on hand. Keivan.fTalk 04:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fast support The Order of Service for The Queen's state funeral lists him as "The Earl of Wessex and Forfar". [1] --Zimbabweed (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support In all official documents I've seen since early this year hes been referred to as the Earl of Wessex and Forfar. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 23:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Might I enquire as to what documents? Until the recent events surrounding the funeral, the court circular seems to only have used "and Forfar" when there was a connection to Scotland. More data points could be enlightening on the issue as I'm not even sure what his proper Style is, let alone trying to figure out what the wiki page title should be. Gecko G (talk) 04:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as formal title. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 02:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - with the knowledge of the possibility, he'll eventually be appointed "Duke of Edinburgh", by the King. At which point, "Earl of Wessex and Forfar" will be used by (his son) James. GoodDay (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – The Order of Service for today's funeral lists him as the Earl of Wessex and Forfar. Here is the article. (The original PDF file is already mentioned above.) Vida0007 (talk) 04:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per User:Aoi. Not the WP:COMMONNAME used by independent sources. Tad Lincoln (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support – The use of both titles will be good, especially as Duke of Edinburgh would be WP:CRYSTAL, and as pointed out before the Order of Service for Her Majesty's funeral listed him as Earl of Wessex and Forfar. CIN I&II (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support using the title as his formal name. Presuming the Duke of Edinburgh would be WP:CRYSTAL, but I'll let you pass on that one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thy Reader (talk • contribs) 18:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. He's invariably known as the Earl of Wessex, not the Earl of Wessex and Forfar. Who calls him that? He was referred to as the Earl of Wessex in media coverage throughout the last week. After all, we don't call Prince William (or previously Charles) the Prince of Wales and Duke of Rothesay. WP:COMMONNAME is very clear. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is because the title of Prince of Wales is of higher rank than a ducal title, this is a case of two titles of equal rank.--Killuminator (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose With this precedent, someone would then think appropriate to make the royal dukes' article titles like Prince X, Duke of A, Earl of B and Baron C... Seriously, Earl of Wessex and Forfar is overkill and will never be used naturally. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This appears to be a commonly used title and the one that is used as of now. Векочел (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It might be instructive to see how we treat the issue of one person having multiple titles of the same rank on other articles. As a general rule, only the most senior of the titles is put in the article name. For earldoms we have these examples: 1, 2, 3 and 4. This is just a sample but it generally holds up even for extinct titles and titles of other ranks. --Killuminator (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Let's look at coverage of the royal funeral in reliable media sources, shall we. BBC: Earl of Wessex. ITV News: Earl of Wessex. The Times: Earl of Wessex. The Telegraph: Earl of Wessex. The Guardian: Earl of Wessex. Sky News: Earl of Wessex. Even The Scotsman: Earl of Wessex. So, in which world is he commonly referred to as the Earl of Wessex and Forfar? His WP:COMMONNAME is very clearly still the Earl of Wessex as it has been since he was appointed to the title. Official titles and common names are not the same thing per WP:OFFICIAL. Sounding "a bit disrespectul to Scotland" is not a Wikipedia criterion for naming per WP:RGW. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems inconsistent lately. Years back I though "Earl of Forfar" was just for use in Scotland, and would replace "Earl of Wessex" there, much like how The Prince of Wales used Duke of Rothesay in place of Prince of Wales when in Scotland. But it looks like at some point it became Earl of both in Scotland, and just "of Wessex" elsewhere, and now in the last few days 'of both' is getting used more and more outside of Scotland, but some official things still list it as just Wessex. Is the usage in the middle of changing or has there just been some sloppy usages lately now that he's in the news more than usual in the past few days? I don't know what's correct. Gecko G (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not seeing the change in multiple independent reliable sources. My opinion is that we are seeing Earl of Forfar more frequently in recent days because of all the ceremonial events in Scotland related to the passing of the Queen. I would say we continue to watch this as the new normal sets in and see how the multiple titles are used. EricSerge (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The royal website will most likely revert back to normal after September 26, when the mourning period for the royal household is over. That's what happened after Philip died. So, hopefully we will get an answer really soon. Keivan.fTalk 23:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 17 November 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. There is a consensus that the proposed title is the subject's WP:COMMONNAME among reliable sources. Some opposition to the move was leveled under WP:NAMECHANGES and MOS:IDENTITY; however, both NAMECHANGES and IDENTITY encourage following the terminology most commonly used by recent RS, and participants in the discussion showed that such sources continued to use "Earl of Wessex" without including the Forfar title.
There were also some procedural arguments levied on both sides of the discussion, with opponents of the move arguing that not enough time had passed since the previous RM, and supporters of the move arguing that the previous RM had not actually led to a sufficient consensus to justify the original move. On the whole, though, the procedural arguments formed a fairly minor part of the discussion, and the WP:COMMONNAME argument proved most decisive in determining the consensus here. (non-admin closure) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex and Forfar → Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex – WP:COMMONNAME, per https://www.royal.uk/the-earl-of-wessex. Greatminton (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be 'never called' Prince William, Duke of Cornwall, Rothesay & Cambridge? Cornwall & Rothesay are reserved for the British monarch's eldest son. GoodDay (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would, but I excluded Cornwall as for a period of about 18 hours his article was called "Prince William, Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge". However, I will add it as during that window of time he was also DoR, but the article title didn't include it, even though for some reason the Scottish title is included with this article. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Clearly still his common name. Unfortunately contributors to the previous discussion ignored much evidence that this was the case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Did we not already have an RM on this? GoodDay (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per clear WP:COMMONNAME. Per Necrothesp, support in previous RM based mostly on the official name, which is not one of the WP:CRITERIA. Vpab15 (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Give it a rest. That's what his title is, and in his letter to the Houses of Parliament to request more Counsellors of State be created, the King refers to his brother as the Earl of Wessex and Forfar, so that the argument that the title is used only in Scotland or is not in common use is void. Keivan.fTalk 07:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:COMMONNAME: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). Nobody is denying that full title is sometimes used. But it is much less common than the abbreviation. Vpab15 (talk) 11:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:COMMONNAME is but one factor. WP:NAMECHANGES and MOS:IDENTITY should also be considered. Nobody showed any opposition to move the page on Prince William from "Prince William, Duke of Cambridge" to "Prince William, Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge" during the one-day period he was known with that title. If a title change occurs Wikipedia should accurately reflect it, because royals are not known by common names or nicknames but by their titles, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a pop culture magazine. Keivan.fTalk 21:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NAMECHANGES clearly indicates that we should use the common name if there is one. It says when it should apply: If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name. That is clearly not the case here. Vpab15 (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The current title is a clear violation of our naming policy, specifically WP:COMMONNAME and it's accompanying explainer at WP:OFFICIALNAME. While the "and Forfar" is no doubt part of his official style etc, he is very rarely referred to as such in sources. The September RM was incorrect, and certainly should be reversed at this point. Opposing comments talking about letters from the King and other miscellany are entirely irrelevant here, and should be discarded in closing the RM.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, I think there would have been a very good case to challenge the above RM closure at WP:MRV, had I known of this at the time I would have done so. The closing statement of "There's a bit more support to move than to remain" suggests that the closer came to their decision mainly on the basis of !vote counts, with no assessment of the merits of the different arguments, and despite almost 50% opposition at that time. If this discussion finishes with "no consensus" then it should revert back to the prior long-term title.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Procedural query What happens if there is never a clear consensus? I myself am undecided on the merits of the opposing arguments, but I do think the previous MR was closed without sufficient consensus - but at the same time I am unaware of what happens if there is never consensus. Gecko G (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind, I found the answer- per the 3rd bullet point at WP:NOCON the prior article title should remain, therefore if no new consensus is reached here the article title should be moved back, right? Gecko G (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In theory that's correct, we revert to the long-term stable title or the most recent consensus. That's slightly confused here though, given that I think the previous finding of consensus in the close above could easily be challenged at move review and to me (admittedly biased as I prefer the shorter name) it looks like there wasn't really a consensus at that time.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To reiterate what I said in the RM discussion above. Let's look at coverage of the royal funeral in reliable media sources. BBC: Earl of Wessex. ITV News: Earl of Wessex. The Times: Earl of Wessex. The Telegraph: Earl of Wessex. The Guardian: Earl of Wessex. Sky News: Earl of Wessex. Even The Scotsman: Earl of Wessex. So, in which world is he commonly referred to as the Earl of Wessex and Forfar? His WP:COMMONNAME is very clearly still the Earl of Wessex as it has been since he was appointed to the title. Official titles and common names are not the same thing per WP:OFFICIAL. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Clearly the common name. Most British people would just look at you with confusion if you referred to "the Earl of Wessex and Forfar". The Wessex title is very well known; Forfar is hardly ever used and I suspect is essentially unknown outside Scotland and royalty/peerage experts. In addition, our naming conventions generally require the use of the most senior peerage only (e.g. we have Alexander Feilding, 12th Earl of Denbigh, even though he is known as "the Earl of Denbigh and Desmond"), and so the current title makes it look like Edward has one earldom called "Wessex and Forfar". Proteus (Talk) 16:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the clear common name per evidence above. The countervailing arguments are not convincing: we don't defer to the official name; WP:NAMECHANGES simply tells us to give greater weight to more recent sources, which in this case use "Earl of Wessex" too; and MOS:IDENTITY says expressly to "use the term that is most commonly used by recent reliable sources" (i.e. "Earl of Wessex") except in uncertain circumstances not present here. Renominating so soon instead of going to MR was probably a poor idea, but at this point the only other option – procedurally closing this RM and then spending a week or more arguing about the first RM at MR – would be unnecessarily bureaucratic. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As per most of the aforementioned evidence. The Royal Family website still uses just Earl of Wessex. The BBC [1] uses it too. And the Counsellors of State Bill refers to him to as "Earl of Wessex and Forfar" but just "Earl of Wessex". In that regard, Earl of Wessex could be considered both his official and common name. Estar8806 (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-63626113
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MA from Cambridge

[edit]

All Oxford and Cambridge graduates gain the right to the status of MA a certain number of years after matriculation. This isn't earnt. The question that follows is whether our subject has chosen to accept this status; this is a matter of fact, though it can be argued it's too obscure to be worth mentioning. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page Protected

[edit]

I just protected the page for 10 days, and reverted the edits to before the edit-warring started.

Needless to say - take it to the talk page.

If the edit warring continues after the page protection expires, blocks and/or other sanctions may be applied by any uninvolved admin.

And note, per WP:3RR, 3 edits is merely a bright line rule. Edit warring is disruptive. So don't think that playing games by counting to 3 will prevent sanction.

Work out your differences through discussion and find consensus.

Thank you - jc37 21:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the edit summary of my single edit to the page in the last six months,[8] the sentence Edward was known as "His Royal Highness The Prince Edward". is describing a style. Similarly, he became "His Royal Highness The Earl of Wessex" and is thus known as "His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh" are also describing styles. He was at times referred to as the Earl of Wessex and Forfar, is describing a style because, as implied by the use of referred, "Earl of Wessex and Forfar" is a style not a title. (The two separate titles are "Earl of Wessex" and "Earl of Forfar", the combination of the two is a style.)
The claim that the section does not discuss styles is absurd, and the removal of the word style from the section is unjustified. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Life Peerage

[edit]

None of Edward's present or future descendants can inherit the title "Duke Of Edinburgh". Does that signal a precedent? Is Charles III preventing a future time 100 years from now when a Duke Of Edinburgh could be a vastly distant relative to the Monarch? Does anyone know if ALL Dukedoms conferred on such descendants of Charles III who are at present without a title or not yet born will be lifetime non-hereditary titles? And when the current Duke of Kent (or Duke of Gloucester) dies, and the next holder of either of those titles is too distantly related to the Monarch to be "Prince", "HRH", or "Royal Duke", will they, NOT being members of the Royal Family, have a lot more political freedom to engage in political debate and to earn income as strategists for a political party than their fathers have now? In fact, since they already KNOW they will never be members of the Royal Family (unless they MARRY into it later), DO they have such political freedoms, prohibited to their fathers, ALREADY?2600:1700:6759:B000:7844:D0DC:F581:8251 (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson[reply]

The granting of noble titles is the personal responsibility of the monarch, and he can grant them hereditarily or for life. The ability to stand for electoral processes, I must tell you that since they are noble titles, they are members of the House of Lords, therefore they cannot be elected to the House of Commons.Sirslayercort (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To state that all holders of hereditary peerages are members of the House of Lords is wrong: most are not. So long as they are not members of the upper house, they may, since 1999, stand for election to the House of Commons – according to the article 'Privilege of peerage', anyway. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward on Edward

[edit]

I've created an article for the documentary Edward on Edward. It still has a long way to go to be a good article, but to boost attention, can someone link it down on the films part of Prince Edward's page? Thanks. StrawWord298944 (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Special:Diff/1151433646. DanCherek (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

[edit]

Please change "highly-selective" to "highly selective", per MOS:HYPHEN 73.93.5.246 (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Special:Diff/1151434068. DanCherek (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 23 April 2023

[edit]

Please link the new article Edward on Edward in the filmography, thanks. Uncle Spock (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Special:Diff/1151433646. DanCherek (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Charles III

[edit]

There is an RfC on Talk:Charles III#RfC: Inclusion of "Agnatic house" which may relate to this article. Feel free to contribute. Estar8806 (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

A discussion is going on at the Commons concerning the copyright status of several coats of arms that are in use on pages related to British royalty. Please feel free to share your comments and input at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Coat of arms of Queen Camilla.svg. Thanks. Keivan.fTalk 18:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surname

[edit]

From the Notes section: Edward does not usually use a family name but when one is needed, it is Mountbatten-Windsor.

This isn't exactly true. In the production credits in the Ardent films, he called himself "Edward Windsor." After he was created Earl of Wessex in 1999, he used "Edward Wessex," and the earlier films were edited to reflect the Wessex surname. According to imdb.com, Castle Ghosts Of Ireland (1996) was produced by Edward Windsor. For Castle Ghosts Of Scotland (also 1996) he is listed in imdb as Edward Wessex, retconned from his Earldom three years later. 172.56.193.204 (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a succession box in a life peerage?

[edit]

The title of Duke of Edinburgh is not going to be inherited, so there should be a succession box at the bottom of the page. There is no succession box in any life peerage. I think that should be corrected. Thank you. Greetings. Sirslayercort (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Duke of Edinburgh

[edit]

Edward is not divorced from a Princess from whom he derives his title. He is 'The Duke of Edinburgh' not Edward, Duke of Edinburgh. Add the article 2603:6081:64F0:82D0:E40B:CE9A:D1F7:AEDF (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already included at Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh#Titles and styles. DrKay (talk) 07:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prince_Edward,_Duke_of_Edinburgh&oldid=1250902012"