Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Early life

In the second paragraph it is stated that Philip and his mother travelled to London. In the third paragraph it is stated that The British naval vessel HMS Calypso evacuated Prince Andrew's family, with Philip carried to safety in a cot made from an orange box. The observant reader is entitled to ask how could Philip be evacuated from Greece on HMS Calypso when he and his mother were in London?

The best solution to this problem may be to delete the sentence about Philip and his mother travelling to London. It adds nothing to the narrative and confuses the description of the flight from Greece. Dolphin51 (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There has been no opposition or comment, so I have deleted the confusing sentence. I have no objection to someone else restoring the sentence, provided it is re-written in such a way that the confusion regarding evacuation from Greece on HMS Calypso is avoided. Dolphin51 (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that User:DrKiernan has restored the sentence, and re-written it so well that it is no longer confusing.

However, I challenge the relevance of the following text in a biographical article about Philip, Duke of Edinburgh:

Shortly after Philip's birth, his maternal grandfather, Prince Louis of Battenberg, died in London. Louis was a naturalised British citizen and, after long and distinguished service in the Royal Navy, had renounced his German titles, and adopted the surname Mountbatten. After visiting London for the memorial, Philip and his mother returned to Greece

What is the point of this extraneous information? If it is to highlight the first occasion on which Philip visited the British Isles then the text should say so explicitly. If not, then the information about Louis of Battenberg should be omitted. Presumably it is only duplicating what is already said in an article dedicated to Louis. Dolphin51 (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to keep it in because it explains why Philip's mother was called Alice of Battenberg but her brothers and father were Louis/George Mountbatten, why Philip's British mother was a German princess but his mother's brothers were not German princes, and why when he adopted his mother's family name, the name was "Mountbatten" not "of Battenberg". DrKiernan (talk) 11:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. I agree that this information is essential, but it is out-of-place in the account of Philip's early life. I would like to see this information transferred to the Introduction where there is a more logical place for it. I suggest that the Introduction, starting at the second sentence, be changed to:

Philippos was born a royal prince of Greece and Denmark, and thus a member of the Danish-German House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. He renounced these titles shortly before his marriage and adopted the surname of his maternal grandfather, to become known as Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten. His maternal grandfather was born Prince Louis of Battenberg, a minor German prince, but had become a British citizen and an officer in the Royal Navy. At the outbreak of World War I, Battenberg renounced his German titles and changed his surname to Mountbatten.

On the day before Philip was married … … …

If this change is made, it would invite the question as to whether there is any remaining purpose for the account of Philippos's quick trip to London for his grandfather's memorial service. I suspect not.

You have written that the information in question explains why Philip's British mother was a German princess but his mother's brothers were not German princes. This would indeed be interesting information, but I don't see that the account of Prince Louis changing his name from Battenberg to Mountbatten reveals that. Perhaps you can insert that information in a suitable place. Given the subject's fascinating family history, perhaps there is an opportunity for a new level 2 heading devoted to explaining all this. Dolphin51 (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I prefer not to move it to the lead, since the lead should be a summary of the article, rather than introduce information not given elsewhere. I think the present version is the least we can get away with, without losing or adding information, or confusing the reader. DrKiernan (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Religion

[Moved in from User talk:Gtyt67] Gtyt67 - What you replaced in the article by reverting is already covered in the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh#Interests section. I see no need for it to be said twice, nor why something that refers to his later life should be chronologically misplaced in the section on his childhood. Do you see things otherwise? --Miesianiacal (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. It appears that User:Surtsicna has noted the same thing as I did and removed the duplicate information. Cheers. --Miesianiacal (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I don't agree here. It seems to me that this is a detail of his personal life than relates to his historical circumstances and origins ; so that separating it off as an *interest* later on underplays that. Gtyt67

I'm afraid I don't understand your argument. Are you saying that Philip had a strong Greek Othrodox faith at birth? Otherwise, the information is in the wrong area. If we don't know when the Duke first discovered his faith (which he would have to have done to later rediscover it), then mention of his interest in it later in life should go, well, later in the article. (PS - sign your posts with four tildes, or use the signature button above the editing window.) --Miesianiacal (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it , he considered himself formally Orthodox before marrying the queen ( as did the Palace ) , because of the circumstances of his birth, and rediscovered a practising interest again later in life. Surely this makes this detail relevant to this part of the article ? Gtyt67 (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see why. The section about his early life says nothing about his discovering of his Orthodox faith, so I can't see why it should mention his later rediscovery of said faith; at best, it seems random and, as I said, chronologically out of place. At worst, it appears as an attempt to claim without supporting evidence that Prince Philip discovered his Orthodox faith at his baptism. In the absence of reliable sources that outline Philip's spiritual evolution, the event of his rediscovering Greek Othodoxy should go exactly where it happened: later in his life. --Miesianiacal (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

sorry, this makes no sense to me at all , & strikes me as equally promoting a reverse understatement for whatever reason. 1) He was a born into a non-Protestant environment and formally identified himself as such until marrying the queen, 2) He changed religion 3), he rediscovered an interest in his initial faith. How can something so fundamental , clearly officially and possible personally, only be relevant to a "hobbies" -style section of the article ? This seems to be clear POV. Gtyt67 (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll first have to provide some sources to back up your claims about Philip's religious development before we proceed any futher along that path. In the meantime, I didn't say mention of his renewed faith had to go in the "Interests" section. It's merely out of place where you've put it. --Miesianiacal (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What I'm really saying is that there are three things that are clearly linked - his orthodox birth and formal identifcation, the section of the article that runs " Louis Mountbatten urged Philip to renounce his Greek and Danish royal titles, as well as his allegiance to the Greek crown, and convert from Greek Orthodoxy to the Church of England]", and his current stance of ploughing money into Mount Athos and various orthodox instutions (mentioned in the ref I think). I think this makes the question of orthodox * faith* / identification mentioned in the original sentence more relevant than his who/ where christened him in Corfu. Gtyt67 (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There may be other solutions to this. I'm going to move this discussion to the article talk page, though; if you don't mind. It might help to have more people see this and chime in with their opinion. --Miesianiacal (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• The Prince was baptised a few days after his birth ... In later life, he has had a rediscovered interest in his original Greek Orthodox faith.[2] Shortly after, his maternal grandfather, Prince Louis of Battenberg, died in London,...

This is clumsy grammar and it makes for a confusing chronology. If we retain the interest in orthodoxy it should be placed into a section covering the the subject's later life.   Will Beback  talk  21:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be reverted. The new version is badly phrased, badly spelt, out of chronological order, introduces needless Greek translations of his name, and introduces inaccuracies such as "George V ordered", which are not in fact supported by the references given at the end of those sentences. DrKiernan (talk) 07:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Prince-consort?

I don't think it's correct to refer to Philip as Prince-consort. While he is a prince and a consort, he is not automatically a prince-consort (was Diana Princess Diana by virtue of her being a princess and a Diana?). Anyway, Prince-consort is a person who is given that title. At one point, he is described as Prince-consort, and later it is stated that he is not Prince Consort. It would be much less confusing if we just describe him as "consort to the British monarch" in the infobox and succession boxes. Surtsicna (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

He's not simply the consort of the British monarch, however. By virtue of his marriage to the Queen, he's consort in all her realms. "Royal consort" may be an applicable and neutral alternative. --Miesianiacal (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"Consort to the monarch of Commonwealth realms" is better, although not better than "Consort to the British monarch" in my opinion. Surtsicna (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Canadian nationality?

From Order of Canada:

• Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, was offered appointment to the order as an honorary Companion in 1982; however, he refused on the grounds that, as the consort of the Queen, he was a Canadian, and thus entitled to a substantive appointment rather than an honorary one. In 1993, the Advisory Council proposed an amendment to the constitution of the Order of Canada, making the sovereign's spouse automatically a Companion, but Prince Philip again refused, stating he should be appointed on his merits. Conversely, he accepted the Order of Australia as a companion in 1988 without issue.

This seems very odd to me. It might be argued that the monarch has Canadian, New Zealand, Jamaican, Australian, British ..... citizenship by virtue of being the monarch of all these places. But does that apply to their consort? I would have said definitely not. Any alternative viewpoints? -- JackofOz (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd imagine there've been scholarly opinions on this. We don't need to decide on our own.   Will Beback  talk  04:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The monarch isn't a citizen of any country. I'm not sure what citizenship Philip holds, though I know he doesn't have the Canadian type; hence, he is precluded by the order's constitution from being a member of the Order of Canada. Still, the Duke of Edinburgh is not considered a foreigner, and is classified as a subject of Canada. Much of this is outlined in Monarchy of Canada#Canadian Royal Family. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody contests that he's a member of the Canadian Royal Family; but that's not the issue here. I agree that he doesn't hold Canadian citizenship (which seems to mean, on a literal reading of the rules, that he's not entitled to a substantive appointment). He renounced his Greek citizenship and was naturalised a British subject before his marriage, and afaik has never taken out any other citizenship. Merely marrying a citizen of Canada (as he seems to be claiming the Queen is), does not make one a Canadian citizen. The Queen is Sovereign of the Order of Canada, and whether at law she's a Canadian citizen or not is subsumed in her sovereignty of the order, because one could hardly deny membership of the order to its very sovereign. She’s a member ex officio, if you like. That does not apply even to any of her children, and certainly not her husband, whose appointments (if any) are always made as discrete appointments just like those of ordinary citizens. The Queen is above questions of citizenship; even if she had a passport, which I doubt, she'd never be asked to produce it when visiting any of her realms. The same courtesy is probably extended to all the other members of the Royal Family. But Philip is still a British subject, and not a Canadian citizen. However, his appointment as a Companion of the Order of Australia was not honorary, and neither was Prince Charles’s knighthood of the Order of the Australia. So I’m confused as to why a different line was taken in these 2 countries, given that the substantive/honorary rules for both orders are virtually identical. I've raised a question about this at Talk:Order of Canada. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes out of control

A Greek Royal Family info/navbox template has recently been installed on this page. The presence of the BRF template was bad enough (why it has to go at any arbitrary point at the right side of a page is beyond me), but now this additional template is pushing images and text all over the place. I can see how the box is related to the subject matter here, but is there not some better way to insert it (and, by extension, the BRF one, as well)? It seems to me that there are at least two possible options: leave the boxes at the right margin but make them collapsible, or make the boxes fit the bottom margin of pages and place them there. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ya can delete it if ya want, as Greece has no royal family. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been true since 1973 & confirmed in 1974. Anyways, that's another entire topic. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, even if Greece (after a dodgy "referendum") no longer has a royal family, there's still a Greek Royal Family. Wikipedia (obviously) has an article about it, so I don't see why the related info/navbox should be removed. But if it's kept, a better way to insert it has to be found. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I get what ya mean, now. There's a 'Greek Royal Family', but there's no 'Royal Family of Greece'. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, I'll be content with whatever changes are made, concerning the infobox-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Greek Orthodox "renewed interest"

This was removed from the article because the citation refers to Prince Charles, not Prince Philip, and to the contrary, the Duke of Edinburgh is generally thought to dislike his Greek Orthodox heritage:

In later life, the Duke has rediscovered an interest in his original Greek Orthodox faith.

--StanZegel (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Languages

I have reformulated the material on languages spoken per the source provided by DrKiernan. I don't see any reason why this material should not be included. Urban XII (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The source doesn't directly claim what you've currently said it does. It says he can understand the odd word of French and German, and has a limited understanding of Greek, not that he speaks those languages fluently. DrKiernan (talk) 13:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

He went to school in both France and Germany, it's self-evident that he speaks those languages. I've seen a number of other sources that referred to him being fluent in German and French, I can see if I can provide some further sources on this, but basically this goes without saying. Urban XII (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"Controversial remarks" and Wikquote link in lede

With the removal of the section in question from the article body, the lede is now the only place which discusses it. This is inappropriate. While I certainly don't want a dumping ground of this kind of rubbish in the body, that it has received significant coverage from reliable sources means that it ought still to be mentioned somewhere. As for the Wikiquote link, I'd prefer to use a sisterlink template rather than an inline link. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If that most interesting section ever returns, here is some better context and some even more interesting remarks, all from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/6805975/Duke-of-Edinburgh-gaffes-by-mocking-blind-boy.html: 68.175.101.2 (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

...Stephen Menary, a teenage army cadet who was blinded in an IRA bombing, had been invited to meet the Queen and her husband...After the Queen asked the then 15-year-old how much sight he had left, the Duke of Edinburgh responded: "Not a lot, judging by the tie he's wearing".

The same report you've cited quotes the blind cadet himself as saying: "he just tries to put people at ease by trying to make a joke. I certainly didn't take any offence." If you detail the so-called "gaffes" then you should also provide balance. DrKiernan (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

In 2002, he asked an aborigine whether he was "still throwing spears".

On a State visit to China in 1986, he told British students: "If you stay here much longer, you'll all be slitty-eyed."

As dole queues grew in 1981, he said: "Everybody was saying we must have more leisure. Now they are complaining they are unemployed."

Once, he asked a Kenyan dancer during a State visit: "You are a woman, aren't you?"

On another occasion he asked a student who had been trekking in Papua New Guinea: 'You managed not to get eaten, then?"

Speaking to a driving instructor in Oban, Scotland, he asked: "How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to get them through the test?"—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.101.2 (talk • contribs)

Ah yes. This article really reads like a whitewash of the available sources. The media certainly think his "gaffes" are notable. They never fail to report them. In fact in Britain today Prince Phillip is largely known for offensive sense of humour, which may be racism and classism, depending on your point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.85.207 (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It is in the article: in the last paragraph of the "Duties and milestones" section. I missed that earlier too, which is why I added it to the lead this morning, but now that I see it is covered, I don't think it's necessary or particularly desirable to cover it further. Material should not be duplicated unnecessarily. DrKiernan (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand all this chatter, I just see him as a fine Consort to the Queen and would like someone to add facts of all his important titles, as the Quees is also Queen of Australia, I don't know what special titles he holds in Australia, but as a former RAAF recruit we were informed we must salute him as he is the highest officer in the Australian Royal Airforce, with the title "Marshall of the RAAF". Can someone clear this un and perhaps fit it to an appropriat reference on his name, before he dies, or I do?--203.99.251.248 (talk) 08:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry

Including "Mostly of German descent" is not "unnecessary and highly selective detail", it's concise and highly relevant. The article has an ancestry section which shows clearly that his ancestors are almost exclusively German. If any of the current content of the lead section is unnecessary and highly selective detail, it would rather be the material on him adopting the style "Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten" in 1947 and so on. The argument that "we are all Africans" is not really relevant. Urban XII (talk) 13:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There are several problems with it. Firstly, it depends on when you decide to draw the line:

His father is Greek; his mother is British.

His grandfathers are Danish and naturalised British. His grandmothers are Russian and British.

His great-grandparents are 4 Germans, 1 Dane, 1 Russian, 1 Pole and 1 Brit.

All his ancestors alive x million years ago were African (as are everybody's).

So, yes, if you go back far enough, but not back the whole way, his ancestors are mostly German, but a good proportion of them are not. Secondly, if you did the same thing for the Queen most of her ancestors are British. However, we don't write "Mostly of British descent" into the lead of the Queen's article because it is an irrelevant and incidental detail. Thirdly, the fact that Germany is the most populous nation in Western and Central Europe is also bound to mean that someone with pan-European antecedents is going to have a large portion of German blood. You could add "of substantial German descent" to the article of every royal in Europe. It is not an unusual or relevant detail if it applies to everyone. DrKiernan (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth is about 50 % German, as her father, unlike most previous members of that family, didn't marry a German. Philip, on the other hand, is more than 95 % German. It's not unusual, on the contrary, to refer to the ethnicity of a person in the lead section of articles (compare all the "Jewish-American (or African-American) politician" articles). Philip's father is not Greek by ethnicity, his mother is not British by ethnicity. It's not a generally accepted point of view that ethnicities do not exist because "we are all Africans". The Glücksburg and Battenberg families have ties to Germany, their country of origin, until this day, which means that a large portion of Philip's family lives in Germany, that he himself was sent to a German school, that many members of his family spoke German as their primary language, that his close ancestors were considered as Germans. Urban XII (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No, you're confusing ethnicity with descent. A person's ethnicity is determined by what language they speak and what culture they follow, not by their descent. Six of the Queen's great-grandparents spoke English as their primary language and were British in their cultural outlook. Similarly, for Philip, his mother spoke English as her first language and was brought up in British society and his father spoke Greek and English as his two languages at home. Further, as Philip was brought up by his British grandmother and uncles, he has far more in common culturally with upper-class English society than he does with his sisters' German families. DrKiernan (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I concur with DrKiernan; the lead is not the place to discuss Philip's ancestry in detail, and there's no particular reason to highlight his German ancestry to the exclusion of all others. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

To the "exclusion" of what? He's predominantly German. I'm afraid you are wrong, this (i.e. the article, the lead section did never discuss his ancestry in detail) is exactly the place to discuss everything relevant to Prince Philip, including his ancestry. The lead section is intended as a summary of the article, as such pointing out his ancestry is relevant (much more relevant than his exact title in the UK in 1947, at least), and in accordance with our usual practice for biographies. Urban XII (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What would be the point? I'm with Miesianiacal and DrKiernan here; a detailed exposition of ancestries of any royal families, particularly European ones, and especially so in the lead is somewhat futile, and I wonder why it matters anyway. The genetics of his ancestry, and consequences thereof, or anyone's, would seem to be supremely irrelevant, since the "nature vs nurture" debate continues to rage in academic circles, and I propose we don't waste much time on this. Rodhullandemu 02:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you start a blog to tell the world that ancestries don't matter. In an encyclopedia, they do. The lead section did never include a "detailed exposition of ancestries". Urban XII (talk) 05:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I too agree with Miesianiacal and DrKiernan. Besides, aren't all English people descended from various Germanic people? I don't see that mentioned in articles about English people. Surtsicna (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If you don't know the difference between German and Germanic, I suggest you concentrate your efforts on other issues. This is not an English person, this is a person "born into the Greek royal family". In that context, his family background is highly relevant, leaving it out could give readers the impression he was of Greek descent. Urban XII (talk) 05:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobody here yet agrees with your insertions, let alone the fact that you have no consensus to make them. This is highly disruptive editing on your part. The arguments against your wishes have been presented. If you still feel you are right, seek a third opinion instead of reverting again and again and again and... --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

My edits are in line with very established practice in Wikipedia biographies. You on the contrary are trying to push the highly unorthodox POV that ancestry should be disregarded because "we are all Africans" which is not widely accepted here. The people who agree with you are people with extremely little knowledge of the subject, who think German and Germanic are the same and that Philip is an Englishman by birth. They have not presented any convincing arguments for why we should make this exception and mislead readers to think Philip is of Greek origin. If ancestry should be removed from lead sections on a general basis, we have possibly hundreds of thousands of articles to clean up. Urban XII (talk) 05:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Those are not my contentions at all; please read people's comments more carefully before commenting on them yourself. Further, whether you think yourself better than everyone else is of little importance here; you need consensus to make your edits. Period. You don't have it. Period. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't have any consensus to change common practice. Period. Urban XII (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you let the community decide that. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Then I suggest you propose at the appropriate place a change of policy, that ancestry can not any longer be mentioned in biographies. Currently, the situation is that including information on the origin of a person is the widely accepted point of view at this project. We even have thousands of categories for that specific purpose (Irish-American actors and so on). Urban XII (talk) 05:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Do stop being disingenuous; it isn't fooling anyone. You know full well that the issue is not about mention of ancestry in a biography, but the undue weight you're giving to his German ancestry in the lead.

It is not undue weight to describe a person who's almost exclusively of German descent as a member of a family mostly of German descent, in the context of describing him as "born into the Greek royal family" (Philip was widely regarded as a person of German background when he married Elizabeth, which caused much debate in the UK at the time - for instance, the late Queen Mother considered him a "German"). Perhaps the problem here rather is Germanophobia, this is completely non-standard and is a principle never applied to people of other backgrounds. The stuff about his title in 1947, his styles in the UK at various times, however, is WP:UNDUE, at least if way more important information like his house membership and family background is deleted. Urban XII (talk) 06:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm starting to change my mind. I am coming to understand what Urban XII is trying to say but, unfortunatly, I can't say that I like the way he is treating people (me, for instance, such as basically telling me to go away since I supposedly don't know something he knows - even though the word German has been used to refer to the Germanic peoples). Anyway, if you have any reliable (in this case, most newspaper articles are probably not reliable) and neutral (e.g. sources that are clearly biased against the British monarchy are not neutral) sources that confirm that he (or both of his parents) is mostly of German descent, I won't oppose your proposal. I am reluctant to agree on something which is a bit of original research (original research mening your own conclusion). Please cite more sources as you just did above. If you cite many reliable sources, nobody will be able to oppose you without citing sources. Surtsicna (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

When reading this article on the english wikipedia I was surprised that nowhere is mentioned that he "was" German. The German article is giving here an additional detail: when he changed his name in 1947 he also changed the citizenship. Being German myself, I wonder why this detail is missing but I guess that has to with a certain "unpopularity" of this matter, maybe. (Same like changing the name into House of Windsor due to unpopularity of a German name in WWI, but that is a different discussion.)--Terbach (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You cannot have read the article because the naturalization is mentioned, both in the text and in an extensive footnote. His German relations are also clearly mentioned in the lead and the body of the article and in the ancestry section. Pardon the expression, but there are already more than enough Germans in the article. Anymore would give undue weight to your particular nationalist bias. DrKiernan (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is really quite mental if we're honest. It's perfectly simple — he was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark (grandson of the Greek king) and is now a Prince of the UK (husband of the British queen). He was Greek and is British. Why be more complicated? DBD 20:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)