Talk:British prince

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Moved

I moved this page because it is not merely a list --Jia ng 22:23, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Prince of Arcot question

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)[reply]

Not in the sense of this article which is about Princes of the UK. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth

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)[reply]

God blesse you Musharf Butt (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wording of the children of Prince William paragraph

I'm slightly confused by this:

On 31 December 2012, Queen Elizabeth II declared that all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, at that time Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, would have the title Prince or Princess and the style Royal Highness (a modification of the Letters Patent of 1917).[10] Regardless of these Letters Patent, the Duke's son, born on 22 July 2013, is styled His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge.

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)[reply]

Yes it is; the proper word here is accordingly (therefore or consequently would also work). Drdpw (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No because the word "regardless" pertains to the LP of 1917, not the ones of 2012. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wife of a British Prince

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)

Alex0832003 There are two reasons for my having again undone your revision to this article, 1) the statement you object to as "not true' is indeed accurate, and 2) while the statement you added is also accurate, it adds a fine-tooth detail about British princesses that is unnecessary in an article about British princes, especially in the article's introduction.

As I think about it, perhaps any mention of when British princes marry is not truly germane and need not be in the article's introduction at all Drdpw (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree here. The revision IS accurate. Even the "source" is insufficient, it's simply a link to a Birth Certificate filled out by Prince William, who has no "power" to make Catherine a Princess. A British Princess can ONLY be created by either being born of the Monarch, the Monarch's direct male issue or if the Monarch issues letters patent creating someone a Prince/Princess. This is WELL established. Thus, Catherine is absolutely NOT " entitled to refer to herself as a Princess of the United Kingdom". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.57.176 (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prince of Waterloo

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)[reply]

Yes, Charles Wellesley, 9th Duke of Wellington, a Brit, is also Prince of Waterloo, which is a Dutch & Belgian noble title. That makes this Brit a Dutch and Belgian prince, but not a British prince. That said, where you put the link to the title, in the article's "see also" section, is a good place to draw the connection between British prince and this noble title. Drdpw (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject matter of the article is clearly Princes of the UK / Great Britain. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From reading the body article that is clear, but from the title alone one could reasonably infer that the article is about British individuals who are princes, which Charles Wellesley certainly is.XavierGreen (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone's confusion about the article's subject matter would be cleared up by the opening sentence. I suppose you could, for clarity sake, propose changing the article's title to something like, Prince of Great Britain/United Kingdom. Drdpw (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would solve the matter.XavierGreen (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you do move the article, and I have no objection to your doing so, be sure to also move the British princess article to Princess of Great Britain/United Kingdom, so the two stay in sync with each other.Drdpw (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Princes of Great Britain and Category:Princes of the United Kingdom already exist. The female equivalent is still Category:British princesses, though. Opera hat (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the Duke of Wellington, regardless of his Dutch title, is a British prince, as are all British dukes ("Most High, Potent, and Noble Prince") and marquesses ("Most Noble, Most Honourable, and Potent Prince"). Opera hat (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the comments above, I think the page should be changed to Prince of the United Kingdom' with the Princes of Great Britain being noted in the opening as included in the scope of the page.XavierGreen (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason, I think, why the article is called British Prince in the first place, is to include the Royal Princes of the Kingdom of Great Britain AND of the United Kingdom. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, a new title would need to be something like, Prince of Great Britain and the United Kingdom or Prince of the United Kingdom (or Great Britain). Is a change warranted here (and on the British princesses page as well)? Drdpw (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in favour of changing the title at all. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1917 Letters Patent

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)[reply]

You are correct about the inapplicability of anything done in 1917 to deprive the Coburg Albanys or Hanover Cumberlands of royal styles as distinct from British noble titles. No, the 1917 Proclamation does not apply to British princes who were also members of the House of Hanover, as were the Dukes of Cumberland. It is common to construe that the Hanovers were deprived of their title and styles as British princes in 1917 or, less commonly, in 1919. Yet it is clear from the wording of those documents that they did not affect the royal styles (as distinct from peerages) of the Hanovers -- and that they were very carefully worded so as to avoid doing so. Why they should have been thus shielded -- since the 1917 Letters Patent and Titles Deprivation Act were presumably written, in substantial part, with them in mind -- I do not know and cannot imagine. The confusion as to their having the effect of deprivation appears to arise from the fact that members of the House of Hanover born after 1917 were not, strictly, entitled to British princely titles/styles, which separated several of them, status-wise, from their older siblings (such as Frederika of Hanover, Queen of the Hellenes). The reason that those Hanoverians born after the 1917 LPs were not British royals turns, indeed, upon the phrase "...excepting always any such descendant who at the date of these Letters Patent holds or bears..." because those not yet born could not benefit from this exception. The clearest and most correct observations made on their status were two posts in a thread on alt.talk.royalty by Jacobite Noel E. McFerran here. FactStraight (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I've always understood (but I may be very wrong here) the Letters Patent of 1917, only applied to Princes that were the male line descendants of Queen Victoria and subsequent monarchs and did therefore not apply to the members of the House of Hanover. Also I've heard (but it's always good to check the details) Ernst-August (the father of the present one) sued in 1953 to be recognized as a British subject and as a British Prince and won. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst-August, Hereditary Prince of Brunswick won the right (for himself and hundreds of other descendants of the Electress Sophia, like Prince Philip of Greece who renounced his Greek dynastic rights and title upon being naturalized in the UK, but we now know that this was legally redundant) to British citizenship, but not the right to be a "British prince": Although the Hanover descendants retain their British rights of succession and, until last year when the law changed, sought and obtained the British monarch's permission to marry when, in 1999 the Queen-in-Council authorised the current Ernst August, Prince of Hanover's marriage to Princess Caroline of Monaco, he was referred to in the official document only by his Hanoverian princely title and attributed the Brunswick dukedom -- no British princedom or peerage was mentioned. In addition to their succession rights (including Princess Alexandra of Hanover (born 1999) despite her mother's Catholicity), the Hanovers retain their right to petition for restoration of the Cumberland dukedom. Also, there is a branch of Hanovers who were forced to forfeit their rights to the British succession: the descendants of Prince George William of Hanover (1915–2006)'s 1946 marriage to Philip's sister, Princess Sophie of Greece and Denmark, are also excluded from the British succession because the British government refused to allow George VI to grant them permission, since World War II was not officially over. George VI was not even allowed to send a personal message to his cousin that his non-approval was not personal, because Whitehall feared such a gesture could later be interpreted as tacit authorisation. FactStraight (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just put this here so people know the individuals in question:

Ernst August Christian Georg
Johann Leopold William Albert Ferdinand Victor
Ernest Augustus William Adolphus George Frederick
Alastair Arthur
Dietmar Hubertus Friedrich Wilhelm Philipp
George Wilhelm Ernst August Friedrich Axel
Ernst August Georg Wilhelm Christian Ludwig Franz Joseph Nikolaus Oskar

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)[reply]

The 1917 LP and/or Proclamation referred to 1. Queen Victoria's (male-line) descendants, 2. Subjects of George V's realms, and 3. Excepted from its ambit those who held princely titles or styles under unrevoked LPs (and that held by the Hanovers since 1914 was never revoked). But yes Alastair of Connaught, who met criteria 1 and 2 above, did lose the princely title which had been attributed to him since his birth. As for Queen Victoria's grandson, Prince Charles Edward, Duke of Albany who had moved to Germany to reign as Duke of Coburg, he was not affected by the 1917 edicts but his sons Johann Leopold, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Prince Hubertus of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha were deprived of their princely titles and the style of Highness in 1917, a fact that was of no consequence at the time since they retained (and since the commencement of World War I in 1914 against the UK, had only used) their German princely title and HH style.

It is not entirely clear if Hanovers lost British princely titles under the 1917 LP. Ernest Augustus (1845-1923), Prince of Great Britain and Ireland, Duke of Cumberland and former Crown Prince of Hanover did lose his rights to British princely and ducal titles along with his surviving son Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick (1887-1953) by issuance of the 28 March 1919 Order-in-Council pursuant to the 1917 Titles Deprivation Act. While there has been some speculation as to whether the Hanovers held their British princely title by English custom or by royal decree (implicitly: the Orders-in-Council approving their marriages attributed to them British princely titles), those titles borne by custom were swept away by the 1917 LP, while those held by decree were stripped by the Titles Deprivation Act -- there being a few who have questioned this on the grounds of ambiguity either in the 1917 LP ("...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 in the 1919 Act's section 1.4.b ("All privileges and all rights to any dignity or title, whether in respect of a peerage or under any Royal Warrant or Letters Patent, shall cease and determine."). In practice, both of these men have been treated as deprived of their British princely styles as well as their peerages. Thus the only person on the list above whose claim to be a British prince is not covered by any lawful revocation was Ernst August Georg Wilhelm Christian (along with the two eldest of his four siblings, Prince George William of Hanover (1915–2006) and Queen Frederica of the Hellenes. The current Prince of Hanover, Ernst August (born 1954), and his siblings, are not British princes because the 1914 LPs only recognised that title for the previous generation of Hanovers -- not remoter descendants: Elizabeth II's 1999 Order-in-Council attributes only the Hanover princedom and Brunswick dukedom to him, whereas that of 1951 acknowledged that his father had been born a UK prince.

Bottom line: since 1919 the Coburgs, Hanovers, and since 1917 Alastair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, are generally not referred to as British princes in mainstream sources. While it may well be useful to refer readers of the bios to those on your above list to some version of this explanation (inserted perhaps here in the "British prince" and/or in the House of Hanover articles), it would be excessively tedious detail to include it in every article. I'd object to any language which asserts in a Wiki bio otherwise than what is prevalent absent an explanation that contextualizes the matter, acknowledging what is usual. Insisting on sources for every such reference is a little like demanding that Wikipedia footnote everyone who takes their father's surname despite the reality that is accepted usage, and would likely prove a daunting task of re-write and documentation to be accurate, clear and succinct. Fixing "what ain't broke" is a diversion of editors' time and effort. You can certainly find reliable sources which refer to these royals as explained herein, but you will also find that the Hanovers, in particular, are referred to by varying names and titles, often incorrectly, because the titles of persons who have been dethroned go through a period of ambiguity (and this family acquired and lost thrones and titles in 1820, 1866, 1914, 1918 and 1919). Moreover complications abound in the literature because, since 1931, all members of the Brunswick dynasty explicitly, unilaterally re-assumed their former titles as princes of Hanover and as princes of Great Britain and Ireland. Be careful opening this Pandora's box! FactStraight (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you FactStraight and Re5x. I'd have to look at the exact text of the 1917 LP, but I seem to remember (wrongly perhaps and I have known to be wrong before) that the limitations concerning the Princely title, only applied to the male line descendants of Queen Victoria and subsequent monarchs. Isn't the Titled Deprivation Act just about peerages? I know that the Hanovers still call themselves Princes of the UK of GB&I. I'm wary of Pandora and her box but I just like to find out what's actually legislated in both the relevant LP and in the TDA. So I'm going to look for that information in the somewhat near future and may very well report back here! Thanks all! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry FactStraight, I see now that you just mentioned an OIC from 1919 about that. Which of course I will have to look in also. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing that the old Grand Duchess of Mecklenburg-Strelitz never lived to see this. I'm pretty sure it would have caused her some harm..... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Duchess Augusta would have gotten by the 1917 LP and Proclamation with her princely title and "Royal Highness" intact, being the male-line granddaughter of a British sovereign so entitled under those Letters Patent. But she would indeed have been likely to fall afoul of the Titles Deprivation Act if she had been named in the Privy Council report presented to the King after laying before Parliament for 40 days. That was potentially a legal consequence inasmuch as she: 1. was a "person" (application of the law not restricted to men), 2. who was a "British prince(ss)", and 3. "...adhered to His Majesty's enemies." (i.e., "... a person shall be deemed to have adhered to His Majesty's enemies if since the commencement of the present war he has voluntarily resided in an enemy country...)". Indeed that was precisely what happened to another male-line grandchild of a British monarch: Augusta's cousin Prince Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Duke of Albany who, however, was named in the 1919 Privy Council report, forfeiting his peerage and princely dignity pursuant to the Act, which provided for suspension of peerages (eligible for recovery only by subsequent heirs thereto) and permanent loss of any other "dignity or title" that derived from letters patent, those for the dukedom having been issued 24 May 1881 and for the princely title 30 November 1917.

There were three other born British princesses who belonged to the House of Hanover aside from Augusta, who would also have met the Title Deprivation Act's criteria prior to 30 November 1917 and been in danger of losing their British sytles: Princess Marie Louise of Baden née "of Hanover and Cumberland", Alexandra, ex-Grand Duchess of Mecklenburg-Schwerin née "of Hanover and Cumberland", and Princess Olga of Hanover and Cumberland); as well as another born British princess married to the national of an enemy nation to Britain during World War I, Alexandra, Princess zu Hohenlohe-Langenburg née "of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Edinburgh". But being neither children nor grandchildren of a British sovereign, none of them was any longer a British princess or Highness under the 1917 Letters Patent (albeit recognised as such, pre-1917, when British monarchs had given the required consent to their marriages by Orders-in-Council), nor was any of them named in the 1919 Privy Council report. Thus, none lost "...all privileges and all rights to any dignity or title, whether in respect of a peerage or under any Letters Patent or Royal Warrant..." because after 1917 they had none to lose. FactStraight (talk) 11:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine as Duchess and Princess

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)[reply]

+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)[reply]

+ 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)[reply]

+ 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)[reply]

Prince Philip Naturalisation

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)[reply]

It's not cited, so it could be just removed. However, the restriction in the Act is not "Protestants only", it is "Catholics excepted". So, any descendant who is not a Catholic is included. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James, Viscount Severn

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)[reply]

Yes it needs removing this is some editor pushing their POV. Garlicplanting (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List is too confusing with their titles.

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 believe it is important to be able to distinguish them. People are more likely to know who Prince George, Duke of Kent is than George Edward Alexander Edmund. Surtsicna (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than one Duke of Kent or Duke of York or Duke of Gloucester in the list. They hold same title, just in different years. Same title have multiple owners. It is more confusing that way. For example look at list of Prince of Wales. You will see just names. Because title is diffrent. Title can change. Also including titles will not make difference here. While article names should be most known names according to wiki, there is no need for that to include lists here. There is a wiki guide about naming peoples: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Titles of people which says Titles should not be capitalized when being used generically. Use titles where they are necessary for clarity or identification in the context, except in the lead sentence of a biographical subject's own article. Look at List of princes of Denmark for example.

Also british prince titles comes from monarch. For example being great grand son can make you one. Being son of Henry, Duke of Gloucester is unimportant really. Berfu (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I’m not a native English speaker, please be kind. Also things you stated can change great-great-grandson very easily. Or it can be erased since being great-great son is mostly about Albert or Philip and they are also prince concorts. Are there any other complains? If there is not I should change back article to old wikipedia format. Berfu (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither am I, but that does not prevent us from making an effort to spell out the entire word. Some other concerns are listed here. Surtsicna (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I changed 8-eight, 2xgt grandson to great-great-grandson. And using prince title everywhere in the british prince article will not help them seperate. (Their own biographies different story of course) Berfu (talk) 05:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

German Empire & its many principalities, grand dukedoms, dukedoms, etc

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)[reply]

Prince Andrew

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)[reply]

Prince Philip renoncement to his titles.

@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)[reply]

Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources say, and numerous sources refer to "renunciation". Looking at hits, there are admittedly a few that appear to be quoting wikipedia, but to take just one example that is definitely a reliable and original source, the official Royal Family website tells us 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)[reply]