Talk:Peter Phillips

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)Reply

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)Reply

Absolutely he is entitled to a title. His mother chose not to exercise this right for either of her children.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.61.65.60 (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

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)—Preceding undated comment added at 15:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

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—Preceding undated comment added at 02:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Surely the neutrality of this article is disputed?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.153.31 (talk) 11:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

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 81.131.80.62 (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

"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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Benfurnival (talk • contribs) 15:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.194.165 (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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 who 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 would styled as the children of dukes. It made no mention of female-line descendants mainly because at time it was usual for princess to marry into other royal houses and there children would bear there father titles. Consquently, female 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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.216.154 (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

"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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Very well, we'll wait for an official annoucement. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

He is related to the Mountbatten-Windsor through female line and as such, is not a member. His family is the Phillipses. Just like The Queen's family is Windsor and not Bowes-Lyon. She is also, through marriage, a member of the Mountbatten family started by Prince Philip when he adopted that name.. I think the M-W family category should be removed from this article. Kowalmistrz (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

' In March 2012, he left RBS to take on a role as managing director at SEL UK.' and 'They now live in London where he continues to work for the bank.', a contradiction? 31.52.254.104 (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 3 external links on Peter Phillips. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070630231134/http://www.royal.gov.uk:80/output/Page5599.asp to http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5599.asp
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131020180635/http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page3081.asp to http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page3081.asp
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101230215844/http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Pressreleases/2010/MrsPeterPhilipshasgivenbirthtoababygirl30December2.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Pressreleases/2010/MrsPeterPhilipshasgivenbirthtoababygirl30December2.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Is there a deep meaning behind why his daughters both have geography-based names? --47.61.144.63 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Peter Phillips. 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://archive.is/20121223213754/http://www.student.city.ac.uk/~rc391/jubbly/faces/faces_aw_3.html to http://www.student.city.ac.uk/~rc391/jubbly/faces/faces_aw_3.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070917123753/http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/s2.cfm?id=519302003 to http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/s2.cfm?id=519302003

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Queen Elizabeth, Prince Philip, and grandchildren (11440082454) (cropped1).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

There's no need to include the names and birthday's of his children here. They're both minors and very minor royals asnd they're not notable in their own right. Appearing on the balcony and waving every now and again, or appearing in the odd dubious RS gossip/royal fanboi article isn't enough to justify ignoring Wikipedia:BLPNAME. Unbh (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Unbh, Both articles must be reverted back to their previous version from early July, as that was the stable version, not the current version that you're trying to forcefully submit. Not to mention that WP:OTHER is used as an argument in deletion discussions; I’m not trying to establish notability here. What I’m stating is that these children are not entirely private individuals. They are in the line of succession to the British throne. And, WP:BLPNAME does not need to be always implemented. Check the article on Beyoncé for example, which lists the name of all her children. WP:BLPNAME states that "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." The name of these children has been widely disseminated as is evident from a simple search on the Internet and from the fact that they are listed on the royal family's website as well. So there is no violation of privacy here. Keivan.f^Talk 08:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

They are the Queen's great-granddaughters. There's no harm in naming them. Peter Ormond 💬 09:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Peter Phillips eldest son of Princess Anne and grandson of Queen Elizabeth. jpg.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

  The redirect Isla Phillips has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 7 § Isla Phillips until a consensus is reached. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  The redirect Savannah Phillips has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 7 § Savannah Phillips until a consensus is reached. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Isla Phillips is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isla Phillips until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

voorts (talk/contributions) 23:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply