Talk:Peter Phillips

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

Contents 1 Older discussion 2 Neutrality 3 Wedding 4 The lack of title 5 Tabloidy / People-magazine-like 6 Place in the order of precedence 7 Born a commoner sentence 8 "No date for the wedding has been officially announced" 9 Requested move 9.1 Survey 9.2 Discussion 10 Residence

[edit] Older discussion

Should this be moved to Peter Phillips? ugen64 23:19, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

I guess the middle names were for disambiguation purposes... ugen64 23:19, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

---

"Peter is the first grandson of a British monarch not to hold a title." – What is meant by title here? What about, for example, The Honourable Gerald Lascelles? I have never thought "The Honourable" to be a title. Semantics, of course, but the sentence had me confused. -- Jao 17:36, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Technically, you're right. "The Honourable" is an honorific prefix, not a title, but most people don't know that. TysK 22:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reomved Peter is the first grandson of a British monarch not to hold a title. as it is not true because he is a female line descendent and is therefore not entitled to one. Although as a courtesy his grandmother offered to create him a Prince, however his mother did not want this. Mac Domhnaill 21:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Referring to Mac Domhnaill's comment, absolutely he is entitled to a title. His mother chose not to exercise this right for either of her children. Ben Furnival 21:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ben Furnival is right: His mother decided that they would not have a title. The fact that he is descended from a female line has nothing to do with it. Eventer

The fact that he is descended from a female line has everything to do with why he isn't "entitled" to a title, if you mean "entitled" in the sense of having one simply because of birth. Except in rare situations (women who are peers in their own right), you can only inherit a title through your father, even if your mother is a princess. He is only "entitled" to a title in the sense that nothing would prevent him from holding one if the Queen wanted to give him one. But his not a "right" that his mother could "exercise"; as a child with a father who holds no title whatsoever he has absolutely no "right" to hold a title.It's completely an issue of semantics. TysK 22:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

Surely the neutrality of this article is disputed? 84.67.153.31

Am with agreement with the above, this does not seem NPOV but not bring an expert on the person in question I don't feel I have the wherewithall to edit it —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) - actual this person is 81.131.80.62

This article is not merely unsourced and highly biased, but poorly written and tabloid in style and content. It needs severe fixing. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. —Mirlen 18:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Titles in Great Britain go through the male line. For example, the son of a Prince is a Prince, but the son of a Princess is Mr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.129.96 (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wedding

According to the Telegraph, the wedding date for the ceremony is set in May at St George's chapel in Windsor. It's seems that Peter will renounce his place in the line of succession. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/02/17/dp1701.xml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.36.63 (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"Mandrake" is the society gossip section of The Daily Telegraph. While it's most likely true, it is still rumour. We need to wait until it is officially announced.--UpDown (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The lack of title

"Peter is the first grandson of a British monarch not to hold a title." Absolutely he is entitled to a title. His mother chose not to exercise this right for either of her children.

The unsigned comment above is wrong. As a decendent in the female line through his mother, he has no automatic 'right' to a title of any sort. He could, however, have been bestowed a 'grace and favour' title from his grandmother, the Queen, who offered one but his mother declined and Her Majesty honoured her daughter's wishes and did not grant titles through letters patent to either of the Princess Royal's children. CanadianMist 16:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. Letter Patent issued in 1917 laid down rules for royal titles. It stated that the children of the sovereign and male-line grandchildren would be entitled to the title of prince or princess with the personal attribute of royal highness. Male-line great grandchildren (with expection of eldest son of the eldest of sons of the Prince of Wales who would be a royal highness/prince) would be styled as the children of dukes (Lord or Lady with christain and family name). It made no mention of female-line descendants mainly because at time it was usual for princesses to marry into other royal houses and there children would bear there father titles. Consequently, female line descendant's have no automatic right to a title. In some cases special provision have been made to ensure they get one, for example, Princess Margaret husband was created an Earl and her children bear titles attached to that rank.

It seems a bit suspicious to call him the Queen's favorite grandson, considering the bond she has with William, who will in all likelihood one day succeed to the throne.

[edit] Tabloidy / People-magazine-like

The general tone needs work. It sounds much more like a People magazine article than an encyclopedia. There are any number of books on the Royal Family that could be used to check facts.rich 16:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Place in the order of precedence

Does Mr Phillips have any place in the United Kingdom order of precedence by right of being a grandson (even though female-line) of The Queen? 62.25.106.209 13:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

As the grandson of the Queen, I guess he would have some social predecence by courtesy. Stricly speaking titles and social rank can only be transmitted in the male line. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.188.225.132 (talk) 23:50, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Born a commoner sentence

I question the statement "Phillips is therefore the first royal baby to be born a commoner, having not even a courtesy title, for more than 500 years." Both Princess Alexandra's children, who are older than Phillips, were born without titles. Their father was the younger son of an earl and was later knighted, but his titles (Hon. and Sir) were not heritable. If, as it seems, we're calling female-line children "royal babies," then James and Marina Ogilvy precede Phillips as far as being royal babies without titles is concerned.68.72.88.11 (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a good point. I will change the wording to grandchild of a monarch, which is what I think it is referring to.--UpDown (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, UpDown. However, I am going to raise a perennially-difficult subject for royals fans: please note: merely holding a title does NOT mean that you are not a commoner. Only peers and some royals can claim that they are not commoners (and there is some serious dispute about the commoner status of royals who are not actually the monarch). Children of peers, holding mere courtesy titles, ARE commoners. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a dream world. Diana was a commoner. I know you Diana fans don't want to believe that, but courtesy titles for little earls' daughters mean absolutely nothing. Period. 68.72.94.110 (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of that, and am quite unsure who your sentence "you Diana fans don't want to believe that" is aimed. You sound quite hostile in your language, and I'd recommend you change this in the future. The sentence in the article reads "Phillips was therefore the first legitimate grandchild of a monarch to be born a commoner, having not even a courtesy style, for more than 500" - please note the "having not even a courtesy style".--UpDown (talk) 07:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "No date for the wedding has been officially announced"

Now that unofficial (reliable?) sources are popping up, that does not of course change the fact that we have no official source. But what are we waiting for, exactly? Will Buckingham Palace ever say something about the marriage of two commoners? How related do you have to be to the Queen for your wedding to be officially considered a royal one? -- Jao (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I know, I am thinking that bearing in mind they are getting married next month (in the press is correct), that it must be announced soon!! I would have thought it will be announced, as after all the Palace announced their engagement. Also, on the wedding day Windsor Castle will I guess be closed to the public, which I would have thought would be announced?--UpDown (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] Residence

It seems improbable that he commutes from Gatcombe Park to Edinburgh. And are the lengths of his pre-marital relationships really encyclopedic? MilkFloat 13:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep meaning to edit where he lives, he has flats in Edinburgh and London and the cottage. I'll change this with ref soon. I would argue that his previous relationships are encyclopedic, as the details of a royal's life are what makes them notable.--UpDown (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)