# Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Since Prince Philip birth name was Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark. So the title should be appropriate. To avoid confusion with the present Duke of Edinburgh. 2409:40F0:1014:1D2C:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Surely they are adequately disambiguated by personal name? Celia Homeford (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Was he not much better known, and for much longer, as the Duke of Edinburgh? The description "of Greece and Denmark" suggests no connection with the United Kingdom? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Neveselbert, why do you believe in keeping clunky false titles? They’re not becoming or appropriate for an article in British English. Keeper of Albion (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Keeper of Albion: you can remove those. I just took issue with your other style and prose changes. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
There's nothing clunky. They're fine in any variety of English. DrKay (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
They are hideously clunky, tabloidese and alien. See current edition of Fowler, p. 810.  Fine for The Sun but not for encyclopaedia articles written in the King's English. Tim riley talk 07:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't work in my region. "The US Defense Secretary Peter Hegseth" is fine because there is (thankfully) only one of him but "the English constitutional expert Edward Iwi" sounds as if there is only one English constitutional expert. It also can be read as labeling him as an Englishman, when he was a Welsh Jew. DrKay (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC) Withdrawn. DrKay (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Not sure how just "English constitutional expert Edward Iwi" would be any better. Also not sure now his Jewishness affects anything. I guess you would prefer "Edward Iwi, a commentator on English constitutional matters"? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
"The English constitutional expert Edward Iwi" does not imply there is only one English constitutional expert, in the same way "The children's fantasy novel The Hobbit" does not imply there is only one children's fantasy novel.
"The English constitutional expert, Edward Iwi," is what you refer to. Keeper of Albion (talk) 09:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Of the two users who removed it either recently[1][2] or originally[3], the recent one self-identifies as British and the original one prefers British spelling and syntax in his talk page posts and so is presumably not American. The person who added it originally[4] self-identifies as Australian and the person who added it recently[5] self-identifies as British. The bad-tempered insult thrown at Americans in the edit summary[6] was unjust and should be withdrawn. This is not a battle between nations or an issue relating to varieties of English. DrKay (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
At least it wasn't a WP:THEBAND-tempered insult. But tricky to withdraw edit summaries. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
And it is undeniable that the superstition about compulsory commas after dates is an Americanism. See the current edition of Plain Words, p. 249, for helpful guidance on this point. Tim riley talk 10:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
I have made no comments about commas. DrKay (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
The edit summary to which you take exception reads "Rv to remove sloppy American English false titles and excessive commas". Tim riley talk 15:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I am able to read. I have only commented on and am only interested in the issue of false titles (and the insult/nationalist attack). DrKay (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Yay, Yankee comma bashing! Bring it on!! Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
@Martinevans123@Keeper of Albion@Keeper of Albion@Tim rileyhttps://vm.tiktok.com/ZSDP1sMPq/ 2402:E000:5A2:3924:0:0:0:1 (talk) 05:56, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
Anon IP 2402, this looks like a complete scam. I won't be opening that tiktok.com link, thanks. In fact, I refuse to even respond to you here! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

The article currently says Elizabeth "was reportedly at her husband's bedside when he died," based on initial reports from April 2021. However, Gyles Brandreth's book Elizabeth: An Intimate Portrait states that she was not present, as Philip died before she could be or was called.
Normally I wouldn’t suggest changing a long-standing claim based solely on a later book, but Brandreth was personally acquainted with both the Queen and Prince Philip, and was authorised to write Philip’s biography. His books are also widely used as sources across royal articles.
Given that, should we add a follow-up sentence noting the discrepancy? ItsShandog (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Done. Wellington Bay (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)