This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
I moved this page because it is not merely a list -- Jia ng 22:23, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
What order are the princes listed in the table? It isn't alphabetical, it isn't alphabetical by title, it isn't chronological. Rick K 08:46, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
And where's the entry for Albert Victor, Prince of Wales, afterward Edward VII?
An anomaly perhaps, but it was Britain which created the title "Prince of Arcot" for the the Nawab of teh Carnatic. Since all the Indian/Iraqi/foreign baronets and the Indian Baron (Baron Sinha) count as *British* titles, does the Prince of Arcot therefore also qualify as a British Prince? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.84.1.3 ( talk) 09:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
In the late 1940s would she not have been styled "heiress presumtive" rather than "heir presumtive"? 75.216.113.149 ( talk) 02:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
God blesse you Musharf Butt ( talk) 00:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm slightly confused by this:
Isn't the style of the new prince in accordance with the Letters Patent issued by the Queen in 2012? Hence the word "regardless" is out of place. — Amakuru ( talk) 17:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I was looking you were reverting my changes in the British Prince section, you said "When a British prince is married, his wife, if not already a princess in her own right, gains the privilege of sharing in his princely title and the dignity of being known as a British princess in his name. For example, the wife of Prince Michael of Kent is known as Princess Michael of Kent." Thats no true!!! anyone including (british princess on her own right) or any women who marry a British prince adquire the title and dignity of British princess in his name. An example is Princess Alexandra, Duchess of Fife, Who was princess in her own right, when she married his cousin Prince Arthur of Connaught she was know as Princess Arthur of Connaght. It doenst matter if is a princess of the blood royal or any women, they always adquire the title of british princess in his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex0832003 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex0832003 ( talk • contribs)
Since this article is titled British prince, I think it is pertinent to mention the Prince of Waterloo in some capacity, whether it be in the body of the article or a footnote. While the Prince of Waterloo is not a British title, it is a title held exclusively by someone who is British. Thus the holder of the title would be from some interpretations of the term, a British Prince. XavierGreen ( talk) 17:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm
How is it that those listed as having lost their titles is due to this Letters Patent? According to the text:
"...excepting always any such descendant who at the date of these Letters Patent holds or bears any right to any such style degree attribute or titular dignity in pursuance of any Letters Patent granted by Ourselves or any of Our Royal Predecessors and still remaining unrevoked..."
Or is it because of the Proclamation where
"And do hereby further declare and announce that We for Ourselves and for and on behalf of Our descendants and all other the descendants of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, relinquish and enjoin the discontinuance of the use of the Degrees, Styles, Dignities, Titles and Honours of Dukes and Duchesses of Saxony and Princes and Princesses of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and all other German Degrees, Styles, Dignities. Titles, Honours and Appellations to Us or to them heretofore belonging or appertaining."
Forgive me because I'm not really an expert on this but I wish these claims were sourced and not misleadingly or using misrepresented sources. Furthermore this article (and others) does not cite anything that mentions that that a particular individual was affected by a loss of British title. If there aren't any sources then this seems to be more like original research.
Many thanks. -- Re5x ( talk) 06:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll just put this here so people know the individuals in question:
Are these individuals really affected by the 1917 Letters Patent? Did they really lose their "British prince" titles because of this document (take a look at the wording above)? Anyways... I've gone through each article for sources and they all seem to cite the Letters Patent but that is not really a proper source because the Letters Patent don't mention the individuals and Wikipedia discourages interpreting sources. It seems that the only ones that can be cited are those who lost their British peerages in 1919. What do you guys think is best done? If we can't cite them properly I think it's best we remove the claim. Awaiting more opinions. :) -- Re5x ( talk) 05:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
There has been a discussion about recent edits at a User page [1], starting with an edit of 18 September [2], soon after undone, [3], and re-undone. [4] and [5], and continuing done and undone. The doer has intruded into the lead the remark "This should not be confused with being a Princess of the United Kingdom in their own right, unless specific Letters Patent are released by the Crown as as was done for Princess Charlotte of Cambridge". Given Prince George's birth certificate as shown in the source [6], regular editors may consider that of the two, the version of 15:27, 19 September [7] is better suited to this article and context than the proposed revision. [8], which has not so far been supported by RS. Qexigator ( talk) 22:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
+Recent edit summaries [9] show well enough that Danny Philp has failed properly to understand the point he has been pushing, and that may account for the failure to make any reasoned response here. Qexigator ( talk) 07:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
+ There is a public record, viewable online, showing that Prince William, when registering his son's birth, acknowledged by his signature that his occupation was "Prince of the United Kingdom", and that Catherine, his wife, was "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge", and that her occupation was "Princess of the United Kingdom". It is not Wikipedia's task to reason why, but it is self-evident that her status as duchess and as royal highness and as princess relate to William's as a prince and peer of the United Kingdom. For the purposes of editing the article, we can surmise, unless the contrary is shown by RS, that he and the Registrar, were better informed than others, and not acting in defiance of the Queen, regardless of what some, inside or outside court circles, may previously have supposed about the use of "Princess of the United Kingdom", by reference to letters patent or otherwise. Qexigator ( talk) 10:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
+ The above suffices, but, in case there were any lingering doubts, another editor has explained the position in fuller detail, with RS. [10] Qexigator ( talk) 14:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The text "unaware that he was already a British subject by virtue of the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705" may be in error. The Act applied only to those descendents who were protestant. Philip had been baptised into the Greek Orthodox Church. This was certainly known to Archbishop of Canterbury, Geoffrey Fisher, who received Philip into the Church of England. At the very least until received into the Church the Act would not have applied and his naturalisation occurred some five months earlier. Calmeilles ( talk) 17:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Toward the top of this list, it states that James is *not* included as he is not a British prince; then down the list, he is listed as a British prince. The article is self-contradictory. He is not a British prince, he's the son of an earl. 98.10.165.90 ( talk) 23:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
British princes born with their names. Than they can become duke or king or whatever. This is just their style and changes frequently. But name never changes. Because of that I changed list to old version which shows their name without titles. Also current and former lists are unnecessary. They are all british princes.
I agree with many of your concerns but please try to use proper English when writing articles. The entire edit is spoiled by things such as "& 2xGt-grandson of King George III" and "Gt-gt-grandson of Queen Victoria". Surtsicna ( talk) 17:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
As I understand it, the German Empire & thus the German monarchy ended on November 9, 1918. We have (however) differing dates on when its 'smaller' monarchies ended. For example: Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Did his reign end on November 8, 9 or 14, 1918? GoodDay ( talk) 14:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
In the "Styles of Princes" section, Prince Andrew is used as an example. The section reads, "Sovereign's sons (not Prince of Wales) with peerage – HRH The Prince X, Duke of Y (with Y being the territorial designation of their highest peerage), e.g., HRH The Prince Andrew, Duke of York."
In January 2022, Prince Andrew ceased using the title 'HRH', although it was not formally removed. This raises the question of whether this section should be rephrased to use a different example for this style. Talanpoe ( talk) 21:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
@Rosbif73 what sources says he renounced his Greek and Danish titles ? The King of Greece never received or aknowledged a renunciation from Prince Philip like he did when prince Mikael of Greece renounced his right. There is no reference in no source to an act of renunciation from prince Philip. The only references are about the naturalisation process, as also said in this article. Though its true that journalists loved the narrative of "the prince who abandon his titles for the love of a future Queen" there is absolutely no trace of any act of renunciation. It is always said that he renounced his titles during the naturalisation process. The naturalisation process for prince Philip was the same as for anyone. Since 1932, the Home office has included a form to aknowledge that foreign titles wont have an official recognition in the UK. It is not an act of renunciation to dynast rights and princely titles. Its just an aknowledgment. https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/foreigntitles.htm Dugoasmeur ( talk) 12:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Prince Philip adopted the family name of Mountbatten when he became a naturalised British subject and renounced his Greek and Danish Royal title in 1947.Rosbif73 ( talk) 18:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
I moved this page because it is not merely a list -- Jia ng 22:23, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
What order are the princes listed in the table? It isn't alphabetical, it isn't alphabetical by title, it isn't chronological. Rick K 08:46, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
And where's the entry for Albert Victor, Prince of Wales, afterward Edward VII?
An anomaly perhaps, but it was Britain which created the title "Prince of Arcot" for the the Nawab of teh Carnatic. Since all the Indian/Iraqi/foreign baronets and the Indian Baron (Baron Sinha) count as *British* titles, does the Prince of Arcot therefore also qualify as a British Prince? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.84.1.3 ( talk) 09:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
In the late 1940s would she not have been styled "heiress presumtive" rather than "heir presumtive"? 75.216.113.149 ( talk) 02:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
God blesse you Musharf Butt ( talk) 00:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm slightly confused by this:
Isn't the style of the new prince in accordance with the Letters Patent issued by the Queen in 2012? Hence the word "regardless" is out of place. — Amakuru ( talk) 17:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I was looking you were reverting my changes in the British Prince section, you said "When a British prince is married, his wife, if not already a princess in her own right, gains the privilege of sharing in his princely title and the dignity of being known as a British princess in his name. For example, the wife of Prince Michael of Kent is known as Princess Michael of Kent." Thats no true!!! anyone including (british princess on her own right) or any women who marry a British prince adquire the title and dignity of British princess in his name. An example is Princess Alexandra, Duchess of Fife, Who was princess in her own right, when she married his cousin Prince Arthur of Connaught she was know as Princess Arthur of Connaght. It doenst matter if is a princess of the blood royal or any women, they always adquire the title of british princess in his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex0832003 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex0832003 ( talk • contribs)
Since this article is titled British prince, I think it is pertinent to mention the Prince of Waterloo in some capacity, whether it be in the body of the article or a footnote. While the Prince of Waterloo is not a British title, it is a title held exclusively by someone who is British. Thus the holder of the title would be from some interpretations of the term, a British Prince. XavierGreen ( talk) 17:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm
How is it that those listed as having lost their titles is due to this Letters Patent? According to the text:
"...excepting always any such descendant who at the date of these Letters Patent holds or bears any right to any such style degree attribute or titular dignity in pursuance of any Letters Patent granted by Ourselves or any of Our Royal Predecessors and still remaining unrevoked..."
Or is it because of the Proclamation where
"And do hereby further declare and announce that We for Ourselves and for and on behalf of Our descendants and all other the descendants of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, relinquish and enjoin the discontinuance of the use of the Degrees, Styles, Dignities, Titles and Honours of Dukes and Duchesses of Saxony and Princes and Princesses of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and all other German Degrees, Styles, Dignities. Titles, Honours and Appellations to Us or to them heretofore belonging or appertaining."
Forgive me because I'm not really an expert on this but I wish these claims were sourced and not misleadingly or using misrepresented sources. Furthermore this article (and others) does not cite anything that mentions that that a particular individual was affected by a loss of British title. If there aren't any sources then this seems to be more like original research.
Many thanks. -- Re5x ( talk) 06:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll just put this here so people know the individuals in question:
Are these individuals really affected by the 1917 Letters Patent? Did they really lose their "British prince" titles because of this document (take a look at the wording above)? Anyways... I've gone through each article for sources and they all seem to cite the Letters Patent but that is not really a proper source because the Letters Patent don't mention the individuals and Wikipedia discourages interpreting sources. It seems that the only ones that can be cited are those who lost their British peerages in 1919. What do you guys think is best done? If we can't cite them properly I think it's best we remove the claim. Awaiting more opinions. :) -- Re5x ( talk) 05:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
There has been a discussion about recent edits at a User page [1], starting with an edit of 18 September [2], soon after undone, [3], and re-undone. [4] and [5], and continuing done and undone. The doer has intruded into the lead the remark "This should not be confused with being a Princess of the United Kingdom in their own right, unless specific Letters Patent are released by the Crown as as was done for Princess Charlotte of Cambridge". Given Prince George's birth certificate as shown in the source [6], regular editors may consider that of the two, the version of 15:27, 19 September [7] is better suited to this article and context than the proposed revision. [8], which has not so far been supported by RS. Qexigator ( talk) 22:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
+Recent edit summaries [9] show well enough that Danny Philp has failed properly to understand the point he has been pushing, and that may account for the failure to make any reasoned response here. Qexigator ( talk) 07:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
+ There is a public record, viewable online, showing that Prince William, when registering his son's birth, acknowledged by his signature that his occupation was "Prince of the United Kingdom", and that Catherine, his wife, was "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge", and that her occupation was "Princess of the United Kingdom". It is not Wikipedia's task to reason why, but it is self-evident that her status as duchess and as royal highness and as princess relate to William's as a prince and peer of the United Kingdom. For the purposes of editing the article, we can surmise, unless the contrary is shown by RS, that he and the Registrar, were better informed than others, and not acting in defiance of the Queen, regardless of what some, inside or outside court circles, may previously have supposed about the use of "Princess of the United Kingdom", by reference to letters patent or otherwise. Qexigator ( talk) 10:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
+ The above suffices, but, in case there were any lingering doubts, another editor has explained the position in fuller detail, with RS. [10] Qexigator ( talk) 14:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The text "unaware that he was already a British subject by virtue of the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705" may be in error. The Act applied only to those descendents who were protestant. Philip had been baptised into the Greek Orthodox Church. This was certainly known to Archbishop of Canterbury, Geoffrey Fisher, who received Philip into the Church of England. At the very least until received into the Church the Act would not have applied and his naturalisation occurred some five months earlier. Calmeilles ( talk) 17:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Toward the top of this list, it states that James is *not* included as he is not a British prince; then down the list, he is listed as a British prince. The article is self-contradictory. He is not a British prince, he's the son of an earl. 98.10.165.90 ( talk) 23:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
British princes born with their names. Than they can become duke or king or whatever. This is just their style and changes frequently. But name never changes. Because of that I changed list to old version which shows their name without titles. Also current and former lists are unnecessary. They are all british princes.
I agree with many of your concerns but please try to use proper English when writing articles. The entire edit is spoiled by things such as "& 2xGt-grandson of King George III" and "Gt-gt-grandson of Queen Victoria". Surtsicna ( talk) 17:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
As I understand it, the German Empire & thus the German monarchy ended on November 9, 1918. We have (however) differing dates on when its 'smaller' monarchies ended. For example: Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Did his reign end on November 8, 9 or 14, 1918? GoodDay ( talk) 14:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
In the "Styles of Princes" section, Prince Andrew is used as an example. The section reads, "Sovereign's sons (not Prince of Wales) with peerage – HRH The Prince X, Duke of Y (with Y being the territorial designation of their highest peerage), e.g., HRH The Prince Andrew, Duke of York."
In January 2022, Prince Andrew ceased using the title 'HRH', although it was not formally removed. This raises the question of whether this section should be rephrased to use a different example for this style. Talanpoe ( talk) 21:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
@Rosbif73 what sources says he renounced his Greek and Danish titles ? The King of Greece never received or aknowledged a renunciation from Prince Philip like he did when prince Mikael of Greece renounced his right. There is no reference in no source to an act of renunciation from prince Philip. The only references are about the naturalisation process, as also said in this article. Though its true that journalists loved the narrative of "the prince who abandon his titles for the love of a future Queen" there is absolutely no trace of any act of renunciation. It is always said that he renounced his titles during the naturalisation process. The naturalisation process for prince Philip was the same as for anyone. Since 1932, the Home office has included a form to aknowledge that foreign titles wont have an official recognition in the UK. It is not an act of renunciation to dynast rights and princely titles. Its just an aknowledgment. https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/foreigntitles.htm Dugoasmeur ( talk) 12:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Prince Philip adopted the family name of Mountbatten when he became a naturalised British subject and renounced his Greek and Danish Royal title in 1947.Rosbif73 ( talk) 18:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)