Talk:British prince

message: I moved this page because it is not merely a list --Jiang 22:23, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved

message: What order are the princes listed in the table?  It isn't alphabetical, it isn't alphabetical by title, it isn't chronological.  RickK 08:46, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
And where's the entry for Albert Victor, Prince of Wales, afterward Edward VII?
: He's there, as Albert Edward not Albert Victor.  —Tamfang 22:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contents

message: 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)
replies: text: Not in the sense of this article which is about Princes of the UK. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Prince of Arcot question

message: 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)
thread_title:  Elizabeth 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes it is; the proper word here is accordingly (therefore or consequently would also work). Drdpw (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wording of the children of Prince William paragraph 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The subject matter of the article is clearly Princes of the UK / Great Britain. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I think that would solve the matter.XavierGreen (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: There has been a discussion about recent edits at a User page, starting with an edit of 18 September, soon after undone,, and re-undone. and , 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, regular editors may consider that of the two, the version of 15:27, 19 September is better suited to this article and context than the proposed revision., which has not so far been supported by RS. Qexigator (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catherine as Duchess and Princess 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Prince Philip Naturalisation 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes it needs removing this is some editor pushing their POV. Garlicplanting (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  James, Viscount Severn 

message: 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)
thread_title:  German Empire & its many principalities, grand dukedoms, dukedoms, etc 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Prince Andrew 

message: @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)
replies: text: 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  Rosbif73 (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prince Philip renoncement to his titles.