Talk:Duke of Windsor

message: Have removed the 1st from the succession box as bearers of the style HRH and Prince/Princess do not use numbers. Although Edward abdicated the throne, he was born with the style HRH The Prince Edward, and before his so the numbering is not necessary.
: He wasn't born with that style- he was born His Highness Prince Edward of York as the son of the Duke of York and great grandson of Queen Victoria. Astrotrain 14:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''1st''' Duke of Windsor 

message: I added to this section, as it was stated that the title Duke of Sussex was vacant; technically the exact title was, but as I pointed out an earldom of Sussex was extant as a subsidiary title of the Duke of Connaught. Since I had never heard that either Connaught or Cambridge were under consideration, and they could not well have been since both titles were then in use, and since no source was given for that assertion, I could well have removed that speculation as both absurd and unsourced. I didn't, but pointed out that the Sussex title was not in fact available, though it might just have been used since the Duke of Connaught's heir being a Royal prince did not require it, and added Kendal, Ross and Clarence as other and more unambiguously vacant titles that were not apparently considered, as the article (unsourced) already stated had seemed to be the case with Sussex.
This all seemed uncontentious to me, but someone felt otherwise and has reverted the article to its earlier state of less-informed unsourced speculation, rather strangely giving "unsourced" as the reason. In the hope that this person will not do so again, see Earl of Sussex and note the 1874 (last to date) creation, Duke of Kendal and note that the title has had royal connotations and was then currently vacant, and Duke of Ross ditto, also Duke of Clarence. For the non-use of the title by the then heir of the Duke of Connaught, see the link to Prince Arthur of Connaught in the restored text.
If someone wants to clean all the speculation out of the section, I wouldn't object for my part, though felt it would be going too far to do that myself. But if there's going to be speculation, it might as well be reasonably well-informed and not talk about Sussex for example as if there were no extant title at the time. 86.178.43.76 (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that section is that the entire section except the last sentence is unsourced and only references other wikipedia articles. Therefore, I thought your edit was unverifiable. The article has great potential but need plenty of contempory and modern sources. It currently has precisly one. Your edit was very interesting and, if sourced, would be a great addition to the article. LizzieHarrison 18:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thank you and sorry for the snappy tone. I'd be quite happy as I said for all the unsourced material to be removed, including mine, all it really gives is speculation. I'm in no doubt that what Wikipedia says about the various titles is correct, being reasonably familiar with the field and having published hardcopy sources to hand, but am not quite sure what else I could link to that would be acceptable as a source. And in any case speculation it would remain. 86.178.43.76 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can use those hard-copy sources with the cite book template, then everyone would be happy. I cannot do this as I only have Wikipedia to hand on this topic. After this, if it is unsourced, it can be removed. LizzieHarrison 12:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Considerations leading to the creation 

message: It says in the article about the choice of the title, that,  "...this was an entirely reasonable, if indeed not the only possible, conclusion." This is the opinion of the author and ought not to be included in the article. There are many other opinions. Surely the article should just stick to the facts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  According to who? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Duke of Windsor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100331022540/http://www.crwflags.com:80/fotw/flags/gb-rooth.html to http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/gb-rooth.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: There is no proof of Arthur, Prince of the British Commonwealth ever existing. The part which proclaims that he is the new Duke of Windsor has no sources and I could not find any mention of him anywhere on the internet. I believe a user has added this in to the page as a WP:HOAX because there are no sources about this or proof that this person even exists anywhere. WikiSmartLife (talk) 08:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That bit was a complete hoax. There has only been one duke of Windsor, the former king Edward VIII. It was a bit funny that the vandal claimed that his source was "royal.co.uk". The website of the British monarchy is "royal.uk" 80.62.29.143 (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoax? 

message: Wasn't he gay?  Scotty Bowers says he was.R.M. Schultz (talk) 10:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are problems with Scotty Bowers' story. This was previously discussed at Talk:Edward VIII/Archive 2#Bisexuality. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

text: If the numbers at the end are an ISBN, I suggest you use Template:ISBN. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Homosexual?