Talk:Prince George of Wales

Too many redirect pages.

Just going to leave this here and see if we could decide what should be kept and batch delete the rest. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

OUCH! I contributed Prince of Cambridge but most of those definitely could be pruned, although clearly we should wait until the baby is named to do so. Safiel (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Only 65? Is that a record? "Prince/ss Y of Wales" a personal favourite. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Now going into 90+ territory.  :/ --Super Goku V (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

A lot of these came from not knowing the name in advance and trying to catch whatever people are searching for. Let's start:

The new British royal baby, Princess Catherine's new baby, The Duchess of Cambridge's new baby, Kate's baby, Royal baby - all could apply to a second child

All the "of Wales" are quite simply wrong. The various Prince/ss NN, Ys and XXs without houses or of the UK or bits of it could apply to any Royal.

Delete all those and then it's easier to consider the rest. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. There are some rather silly redirects to this page. Insulam Simia (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep Prince of Cambridge and the four variants of George found at the bottom of the list of redirects, Delete all the rest. Safiel (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Seconded - Too many of these are useless. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The funny thing is, not to get too crystal ball-ish about HM's health, that the kid's likely to become Prince George of Wales before too long anyway, though I doubt that was intent with those redirects. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you think he'll go for the gender reassignment too? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I just heard that his secret fourth name is Wendy... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Added Prince George of Wales as a redirect. Given a catastrophic occurrence, subject will like accede to that style upon either the death of Queen Elizabeth II or the death of Prince Charles, if he predeceases her. Either way, Prince William would accede to the Prince of Wales and Prince George's style would be changed accordingly. Obviously, things could change, but the probability is high enough to go ahead and make a redirect. However, I still concur that other than the few redirects I mentioned in my previous post, most of the redirects should be deleted. Safiel (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Some of the redirects have links from logs, e.g. Child of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge has links from a previous AfD. These should probably be kept, but most of the rest should go, including those that just have links from the Duke or Duchesses talk pages. Perhaps a friendly admin could do it without having to CSD them all.Martin451 (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Just did a search through the links since I had time. The following have links to a page on Wikipedia: "The new British royal baby", "Princess Catherine's new baby", "The Duchess of Cambridge's new baby", "Kate's baby", "Prince/ss NN of Cambridge", "Prince X", "Unnamed Prince of Cambridge", "Unnamed prince", "Royal baby", "Child of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge", "Prince of Cambridge", "Prince NN of Cambridge", "Son of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge", "George Alexander Louis", "Prince George of Wales", "HRH Prince George of Cambridge", and "Kate's baby joy". In addition, I feel that "George Alexander Louis, Prince", "George, Prince of Cambridge", and "George of Cambridge" should be discussed further as they seem like natural redirects. The others do not like to an article and, based on my opinion only, do not seem to be natural redirects. (Granted, someone might be able to pull a few more out for part two.) --Super Goku V (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Anything too generic, like Prince X, Unnamed prince and Royal baby should definitely go. As his name becomes more widely known, the need for such vague redirects will diminish, and only the ones that couldn't reasonably refer to anyone else should be kept. There's no need to rush to delete them just yet, though. Robofish (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• I have just requested CSD-G6 or R7 on about 65 of the links which I don't think are contentious. There are three more Unnamed or Prince/ss XYZ's to go, and this leaves about 20 redirects to this article.Martin451 (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Somebody replaced the redirect at Prince of Cambridge with an unsourced article. I restored it to a redirect. Safiel (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Throne or thrones of the Commonwealth Realms

I'm not going to bother anymore this evening, but saying "throne" of the Commonwealth Realms is not wrong. Three editors have changed it into throne (including me) and added a comment about why. The Commonwealth Realms have a monarchy (Crown, Throne), with a shared character as well as separate legal contexts or jurisdictions. I think that should be acknowledged. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no consensus on whether it is plural or singular. I think it better to avoid the issue by removing "thrones of the CR" from the lead and changing the wording in the later section to something like "Elizabeth II, who is Queen of 16 CR". DrKiernan (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Three editors? I see only you changing it to singular twice.

As I explained to you at your talk page, the 16 monarchies do have shared elements: the line of succession (though actually a separate line in some countries kept identical to all the others) and the person of the monarch. There is not one throne for all, though; the one person who is monarch of each country "occupies" the thrones of those countries simultaneously. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The Commonwealth realms are separate kingdoms that share the same physical person as monarch. When someone ascends to the UK throne, he/she separately ascends to the thrones of the other realms. That has been highlighted recently by the change in the law of succession from male-preference primogeniture to absolute (gender-neutral) primogeniture, which was passed into law in the UK, but not automatically incorporated into the law of many of the realms, thus resulting in the possibility of different lines of succession to the different realm thrones in case the the new law came into effect in the UK before the other realms could take necessary legislative action to amend their own succession rules. In my humble opinion then, "throne" in the singular is wrong and we should use instead the plural form "thrones". 189.19.80.253 (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. But let us please get all of our terminology right. Just as one ascends a mountain, and not "ascends to a mountain", one also ascends a throne and not "ascends to a throne". What one does to a throne is accede. One accedes to a throne, but one simply ascends a throne. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It hasn't been passed into law in the UK yet. It has to be passed by all the CR's, exactly because the monarchy has a shared character (as well as legally distinct separate ones). The Crown is shared by the CR's but is at the same time legally distinct and seperate for each CR. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Miesianiacal, I've answered you on my talkpage. I do think that the article about the Commonwealth Realms has very good things to say about the subject. However, if the line of succession between one CR would become different from any of the others, that CR would stop being a CR I think. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

We're not talking about succession. The subject is thrones. If each Commonwealth realm is truly independent, there must be a throne for each, not one throne for all, which would be imperial. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Gerard: the bill has been passed and has even been given royal assent, but it has not come into effect yet because the law says a commencement order is necessary for that to happen. That provision was included in the bill precisely to avoid the situation I described above. JackofOZ: I disagree. The English dictionaries register usages such as "Jesus ascended to heaven" or "John Adams ascended to the presidency of the United States in 1797". 189.19.80.253 (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the "guilty parties" with an opposing opinion that had the outright cheek to edit an esteemed co-editor's copy back to "thrones", the point I would make is that yes, there is a shared "character" - given the single imperial origin of today's Commonwealth monarchies how could there be anything else? But what is shared is the origin, history and tradition of the institution. Also shared, of course, is the Monarch her-/himself. When we are talking about succession to the crown, however, we are then very firmly in purely legal and constitutional territory with no room for discussion of wishy-washy concepts such as character. Of course, as with any Westminster-system-based set up, everything is often gradually evolved and sometimes horrifically complicated to boot, but the key points are well known even if they are hard to pin down to a single date or event. The statute of Westminster, and a plethora of constitutional acts in various realms at different times from the 1940s through to the late 1980s, have brought us gradually to the position we are in today where each of the Realms are in personal union with the UK's head of state, but have their own fully (re-)patriated constitutions. That this is a personal union of 16 fully sovereign nations is well illustrated by the currently ongoing change to the laws of succession. If there were one crown/throne, the UK would just legislate and the other realms would need do nothing. However, what we have instead is a situation whereby all 16 realms must coordinate separate legislation to ensure the personal union is maintained. If they did not, the crowns could theoretically diverge at some point in the future. The huge stink caused by the Canadian parliament's lazy "whatever the UK said" approach adds further weight to the argument. As many disgruntled Canadians have pointed out, the Canadian parliament cannot agree to legislation passed by Westminster, because Westminster has not been able to legislate for Canada on any matter since 1982. P M C 19:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

PMC: I agree with the interpretation that Harper's "consent bill" simply has no value in Canadian law. But, on the other hand, there is a (minority) line of legal thought in Canada that says no legislative action by the Canadian parliament is actually necessary to change the line of succession since, by virtue of the preamble to the Constitution Act 1867, the person who is monarch of the UK automatically becomes king/queen of Canada. Others have an opposite opinion, i.e that not only is this not true, but actually a constitutional amendment would be required to change the succession, which would be far more difficult to pass than an ordinary federal law. As you said, it is complicated and not necessarily clear until the Canadian courts step in to clarify the law, which will happen eventually I guess.189.19.80.253 (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Quebec has some specific issues which may delay it further too, I believe. The wrangle in Australia over whether it is an exclusively Federal matter are causing a few headaches too. I just hope that with all the hiccoughs the issue isn't kicked into the long grass now that the next heir is known to be male.

189.19.80.253, The bill may have been passed but it will only become an act when all 16 participants have made it so. It must become valid in all 16 Realms at the same moment. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Within the UK, the bill received Royal Assent and so is now an Act (law). However, as mentioned above it is not yet in force as HMG is waiting for the other realms to 'catch up' before making a commencement order.

Petecollier. Your remarks about how this situation has evolved are perfectly valid. I'm not contesting that. I'm just saying that the shared aspects are as valid as the separate ones. Although they have become less important over time, they are still there. The Statute of Westminster, that recognized a common allegiance to "the Crown" still stands as it did in 1931. A lot of constitutional changes in the seperate CR's have taken place in the mean time however. I'm not suggesting that the CR's aren't fully independent nations. Just that they voluntarily share an institution that is .... well... shared, but also distinct for each and every one of them. I just wanted to bring attention to that situation. I also think that the CR's share more than a mere personal union, since this wasn't a result of a mere dynastic coincidence like most personal unions from history were. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Nor do I disagree with you, GvH (oh, this is all far too civilised). The monarchy has shared AND distinct qualities, and both are fundamental to it. The only point I would make is that when we discuss succession to the crown we are talking about the choice of a country's head of state, and that matter can only be considered with regard to the legal/constitutional specifics of country in question. Therefore, when discussing succession to the crown, we are unavoidably talking about 16 separate entities

Exactly right! However when one of the participants falls out of the shared aspect, by changing the succession, or becoming a Republic, They are not a CR anymore. The changes agreed upon in Perth stand or fall (they won't fall, rest assured) with the simultaneous agreement of all 16. If one of the 16 suddenly decides that Charles should be removed from the succession for whatever reason, that Realm stops being a CR, becoming a wholly separate monarchy of it's own.... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

One head on one throne, sixteen arms in sixteen realms. Like this charming fellow from Siam. Also, a throne is not something one ascends, but ascends to. If the throne is on a mountain, one must first ascend the mountain, but nobody climbs a throne. It's for sitting, and unless Prince George was born with two asses, he can only sit one. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:48, July 24, 2013 (UTC)

One head (and indeed arse), but sixteen thrones. Hence the need for Governors General. I understand the point you make. However, we are not talking about the royal posterior literally sitting on some over-stuffed cushion (in which case your logic would be indisputable), but rather the legal specifics of the constitutions of 16 independent countries. P M C 20:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree with ascends to, by the way: One ascends the mountain to the summit, one ascends (the steps/slippery slope/whatever) to the throne. P M C 20:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course, I'm talking about symbolic asses and cushions. The Governors General are like symbolic hands. If each had their own independent throne, plural would make sense. But they're all connected to the one throne/monarch/crown, and aren't considered royalty. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:12, July 24, 2013 (UTC)

That's the whole point - they do have independent thrones. Access to each (separate) country's (separate) throne is controlled by each country's (separate) constitution. It just happens that the 16 institutions are vested in the one individual person. The Governors General represent the same person, but they do not represent the same monarch. The Governor General of Canada, for example, acts only on behalf of the Queen of Canada, when she is busy doing something else (like being another Queen somewhere else). There used to be one imperial crown, as described ad nauseam above and elsewhere, but that is no longer the case. There is plenty of legal precedent you can read up on if you want to learn more. Be warned though, it has caused people's brains to melt. P M C 21:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

My brain is probably one of those. It's pretty solidly wired to the tangible world, and itches when even briefly exposed to the word "statute". We can agree to disagree, it's not important that the article thinks like I do. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:53, July 24, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. Including the brain melting part. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

That's the problem with the Westminster system. Nothing ever gets properly sorted out, it just bumbles along from one situation to the next, tinkering at the edges as it goes. Gradual evolution = 1000 years of legal sticking-plasters = confused mess. P M C 22:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

-and also; physical thrones exist as well. There is one in the Canadian Senate for the Queen in her role as Queen of Canada (in the background, behind the Speaker's Chair):

-and here we have an example where the monarch of Canada is actually sitting in it:

and there's also one in the Australian Senate, albeit not a particularly impressive one (under the Australian Coat of Arms):

there's one in the Solomon Islands Parliament:

-there's one in the New Zealand Senate:

http://www.teara.govt.nz/files/33688-nzpa_0.jpg

-and here's the Queen of New Zealand sat in the old throne in 1954:

http://www.commonwealthflagproject.org/Vice%20Regal/1954%20-%20Vellum%20Speech%20Passed%20to%20QEII.jpg

-there's one in the Senate of Barbados (the Governor-General here reading the Speech from the Throne):

http://www.nationnews.com/images/cached/inc/uploads/articles/06-GG_speech_1-450x350.jpg

there's one in the Bahamas Senate:

http://www.thebahamasweekly.com/uploads/10/IMG_9970.JPG

and there's one in the Jamaican Senate:

http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20120511/lead/images/StateopeningB20120510RM.jpg

-and amongst the former Commonwealth Realms; here's George VI sitting on the throne in the South African senate in his role as King of South Africa:

http://www.andrewcusack.com/net/wp-content/uploads/kstadroy4.jpg

and here's Princess Alexandra of Kent sitting on the throne in the Nigerian Senate, representing the Queen in her former role of Queen of Nigeria:

File:Alexandra independence.jpg

-and here's her brother the Duke of Kent acting as the Queen's representative in her former role as Queen of Sierra Leone at the throne in the Sierra Leone Senate:

http://www.sierraexpressmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Duke-of-Kent.png

Moreover, the Governor-General of the particular realm will read the Speech from the Throne during the State Opening of Parliament; as the representative of the monarch from the er, throne, as does the monarch in their right as Queen of the United Kingdom in the United Kingdom.

Sometimes, when the monarch themselves (or a member of the Royal family acting officially as their representative) is visiting the Commonwealth Realm, they themselves will give Royal Assent to legislation and could in theory read the Speech from the Throne.

It is absolutely possible for one of them to declare war upon each other, this happened during the 1948 Indo-Pakistan War; when George VI, King of India, was technically at war with George VI, King of Pakistan. Likewise, during the 1983 Invasion of Grenada; the Queen was technically at war with herself in respect of Canada and various other Caribbean states on the one hand, and in her role as Queen of Grenada on the other. All this was whilst Her government in the United Kingdom, acting in her name, was condemning this action.

Treaties between Commonwealth Realms are done in the name of the monarch in their separate capacity in right of each Realm, treaties will state for example 'the Queen of Canada agrees' on the one hand, and e.g. 'the Queen of Australia' on the other; just as a treaty with say, Norway would state the parties as 'the Queen of the United Kingdom' (or 'Her Britannic Majesty'), and 'the King of Norway' on the other.

Also, the concept of 'Commonwealth Realm', though a term that is valid and in use, is largely an artificial term to describe what is really just a personal union. It's not really any different from, to give an example of a personal union, the Personal Union between Denmark and the Kingdom of Iceland from 1918 to 1944. In essence, constitutionally speaking, there is no difference between the Queen of United Kingdom and the Queen of Canada for example than there is between the Queen of the United Kingdom and the Queen of Denmark. It's just that in the first example, they happen to be the same person.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be a distinct lack of "expert" agreement on that point, as is refreshingly well-sourced in our articles on the topic. It's a personal union, it's like a personal union but different, it's not a personal union at all, depending on which talking head you happen to have opine on the matter. And lacking a written constitution, what "constitutionally speaking" means amounts to some alleged expert's opinion on law, history, convention, and custom. An obvious distinction is that the CRs have chosen to deliberately "coordinate" succession law, so that it's very clearly not a mere dynastic coincidence who happens to reign in each. Presumably if one wishes to stress the PU interpretation, one argues that the choice of monarch determines membership of the CRs; if one wishes to minimise it, one argues that membership of the CRs determines the collective choice of monarch. 84.203.38.112 (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I wonder how a queen/king feels when one of her/his Realms is at war with another of her/his Realms? — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 14:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I think Mauritius once declared war on the UK in a conflict about the Chagos Islands. Mauritius was a CR at the time. It's now a Republic within the Commonwealth. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Reference to succession in lead

Well, this is certainly unacceptable. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I stand somewhat corrected. I say somewhat, because I'll probably forget most of that soon. But I won't touch the issue in the article, so no worries. Definitely a tad wordy in that bottom diff! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, July 25, 2013 (UTC)

The wordiness was reduced somewhat, but it's still in breach of WP:NPOV. We should return the lead here to similar to what User:DrKiernan suggested for the lead of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge: His great-grandmother is Queen Elizabeth II and he is third in line to succeed her, after his father and grandfather. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

That seems clear and true enough to me. No matter what anyone thinks the Queen actually does, we're all aware that she does something. And one day (at least theoretically), he will do the same. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:42, July 25, 2013 (UTC)

ascending (to) a throne

Now that's settled, here is a minor, but not frivolous, point arising from the above discussion. There is a tendency for words ordinarily used of visible things to become confused with the way in which the same words are used idiomatically as figures of speech: words such as "crown" and "throne", when denoting real but invisible ideas. "ascend the throne" is the long-standing usage when meaning "become king/queen", per Oxford Eng. Dic., not "to the throne", which would be used to describe any person climbing sometthing to be ascended, such as a scaffold, to reach a chair, such as a coronation chair, which had been placed upon it - the person making the ascent might be an attendant or a carpenter or cleaner or deputy for a rehearsal. Given that there is more than one crown among the Crown Jewels, and one of them is called the "Imperial State Crown" which has customarily been used for the coronation in Westminster Abbey, and for the State Opening of Parliament, what would the monarch have on his/her head when sitting on one of the thrones in any other realm? Qexigator (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I tend to consult Game of Thrones on matters such as these. Call me lowbrow, but I believe Lord Baelish when he says only the ladder is real and the climb is all there is (Warning: Contains murdered prostitute). The Queen herself can tell me how the Queen's English works, and I wouldn't personally change my mind.

But, this is an article where our English should be as "proper" as it gets, so no objections, if Oxford is cool with it. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:31, July 27, 2013 (UTC)

the term third in line to the throne is meaningless for actual succession

When the monarch still lives, there is no heir. Technically even Charles is only an heir apparent because it is possible that he could die tomorrow while the monarch is still alive. In which case, Charles would never be heir because a dead person cannot inherit. However, every media source (usually not Trusts and Estates lawyers) refers to the baby George Alexander Louis as third in line, so the article should refer to him as someone universally said to be third in line, however, no such title exists. Parliament since the English Civil War you can check the wikipedia articles on succession and the Civil wars, have had the final say on succession to the throne. That is why Elizabeth's Dad became king. Parliament said so. Even wikipedia's own article on British succession states that there is no official list. The numbers next to the names merely assumes that each person dies in the order of age. That may not occur . Lingust (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"The King never dies" means there is never a moment when there is not a monarch. Hence, technically, there is never an heir. But we all know what is meant by "Xth in line to the throne". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

the sentence "No official, complete version of the line of succession is currently maintained. Any person's actual position in the line of succession may change as a result of events including births, deaths or marriages of others." is n the current version of the article on line of succession meaning that if Parliament has a beef it decides who is monarch. Bt if Charles dies before Lizy, William's line is cut off and Charles yunger brother is the eldest child of Lizzy while Lizzy is still alive. Then when Lizzy dies with Andrew still alive, Andrew would be the eldest child and inherit the throne (if Parliament doesn't deny him) Lingust (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

No, you're making that up as you go along. Charles has established his line by producing William and Harry. In turn, William has established his line by producing George. That means that if Charles dies today, William becomes heir apparent; and if both Charles and William die today, George becomes heir apparent. Harry only gets a look in if all 3 of Charles, William and George die before any of them has the chance to produce any more offspring. It is extraordinarily unlikely that Harry, Andrew, Edward, Anne or any of their progeny will ever become monarch. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

(reply to comment by Lingust (talk)) The succession to the throne is governed by the Act of Settlement and other acts of Parliament. If Charles dies before HM The Queen, HRH The Duke of Cambridge would be first in line of succession and HRH Prince George of Cambridge would be second. If Charles dies before HM The Queen, HRH The Duke of Cambridge would become Heir Apparent (he would become King, as long as he does not predecease the Queen, which is the definition of Heir Apparent). I think you misunderstand what the Line of succession is and how it works. HRH Prince George is third in the line of succession, he is the Heir Apparent's (HRH The Prince of Wales) Heir Apparent's (HRH The Duke of Cambridge) Heir Apparent. He can never be moved down the Line of Succession, only up (or removed if he converts to Catholicism, marries a Catholic, or renounces). King of Nothing (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Marriage to a Catholic will soon be permitted. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Almost certainly true and male-preference primogeniture will almost certainly be changed to just primogeniture. But not yet, still some more legal hoops to go through. But i didn't want to get to technical, I just want Lingust (talk)) to understand so that he'll stop adding incorrect information to articles. but currently Prince George of Cambridge can be removed if he converts to Catholicism, marries a Catholic, marries without the approval of the Monarch, or renounces. King of Nothing (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

As for the heir apparent issue...Prince George (like his father Prince William) is an "Heir Presumptive." Only Charles is Heir Apparent. Compare that George VI was heir presumptive to his brother Edward VIII's heir apparent.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

No, sorry, but that is not true. although George VI was heir presumptive to Edward VIII, as Queen Elizabeth II was heir presumptive to George VI, Prince William (and Prince George and Prince Charles) are not Heir Presumptive's to anybody. Heir Presumptive means that they are the current Heir, but may become not the current Heir by a future birth (if Edward VIII had a child, George VI would no longer be Heir Presumptive, if Edward had a daughter she would become Heir Presumptive, if he had a son then he (the son) would become Heir Apparent). Prince Charles is Heir Apparent to HM The Queen, Prince William is Charles' Heir Apparent, and Prince George is William's Heir Apparent. Their currently is no Heir Presumptive to the Throne. If the Prince of Wales dies, then the Duke of Cambridge would become Heir Apparent. If both Prince Charles and Prince William die, then Prince George of Cambridge (who would become The Duke of Cambridge) would be Heir Apparent. King of Nothing (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

King of Nothing is correct. An heir presumptive "is the person currently entitled to inherit a throne, peerage, or other hereditary honour, but whose position can be displaced (in legal terms, is "subject to divestiture") by the birth of an heir or heiress apparent or of a new heir presumptive with a better claim to the position in question." TFD (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, "displaced" was the word I was reaching for. King of Nothing (talk) 03:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

What would happen if he turns out to be insane (or whatever you call insane people)? Can he be disqualified? I'm not talking about a George III situation (I just realized they have the same name) where he goes crazy after he's already king. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:51, July 25, 2013 (UTC)

Currently their is no process by which a Monarch could be disqualified due to mental health issues. Mental illness does not disqualify a person from becoming Monarch; therefore he would still become King (hopefully this will not become as issue, God Bless the little prince). If he became mentally ill during his reign he would still remain King, although a Regent could be appointed to act in his name for the duration of his incapacitation (or reign if necessary), i.e. George III. King of Nothing (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

That's good. If they're playing the birthright way, they should take who they get, regardless (of gender and religion, too). Otherwise, they may as well just elect them. But yeah, I wish the kid/king well. Even if he is crazy, not all crazy is the bad kind. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:33, July 25, 2013 (UTC)

Have a look here for more on the subject. P M C 06:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

In some monarchies, e.g. the Netherlands, the constitution allows the national legislature to exclude someone from the line of succession should "exceptional circumstances arise". Under the Dutch constitution, that would require a law passed by a two-third majority in a joint session of both houses of parliament. In the UK though, because there is no written constitution, parliament is actually sovereign and can exclude anyone from the line of succession by ordinary legislation. That was done at least twice in the past, namely to the descendants of the deposed King James II and to any possible descendants of Edward VIII (who ultimately didn't have children anyway). 189.19.80.253 (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, The UK Parliament cannot on its own alter the Line of succession to the shared Monarchy (it would require changing the laws in every single one of the Commonwealth Realms before it would become law in any of the Commonwealth Realms (including the UK)). Just like with King Edward VIII, it required laws being passed in each of the states with the shared Monarchy (now there is 16, at the time there was significantly fewer). King of Nothing (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

And just to elaborate. If, under an act which had been passed by the Queen in the UK Parliament, provisions for changing the law of succession came into operation they would have effect for UK but not in other realms unless they concurred or acquiesced according to the law of each realm. The Perth Agreement is binding in honour among the realms, but not (it seems) as a treaty or pact under international law. Given that each realm is a sovereign state with the same person, the Queen, as its reigning monarch, it is forseeable that circumstances could arise when the UK changed the line of succession for itself with the concurrence or acquiescence of one or more of the other realms; but it may be surmised that for the immediate and forseeably near future, the Queen is unlikely to be a willing party to letting the law of succession be changed for one or some only of the realms, unless so advised by governments of other realms as well as of UK. Briefly, forget it unless it happens. Qexigator (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Technically they could do that; but, it would require the repeal of the Statute of Westminster 1931 Act (in whole or in part), as well as other Acts considered to be the "foundation of the uncodified Constitution". Because the very Acts of Parliament that created the Commonwealth required each of the Commonwealth Realms to pass laws touching on the succession of the Crown before they would take effect, it would also almost certainly cause an end to the Commonwealth. However, this scenario is beyond extremely unlikely (but yes it is possible). King of Nothing (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

But not meaningless. "The line of succession to the British throne" is the ordered sequence of all those people eligible to succeed to the throne of the United Kingdom...it is also used to select the Counsellors of State (and a regent if the need arises) under the provisions of the Regency Act 1937. Qexigator (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is it "George Alexander Lewis" or "George Alexander Louie"?

The second. Assuming it's pronounced the same way as his father's fourth name is (William Arthur Phillip Louis), it's pronounced Louie. Metheglyn (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

loo-WEE, to be specific. Though some English-speaking people will always find that a bit too French, and go with LOO-wee, as they do with the French kings and the snack food. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:33, July 25, 2013 (UTC)

I believe William pronounces it LOO-wee. Tad Lincoln (talk) 03:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

That's how William pronounced it at his and Catherine's wedding, certainly, so I think that's likely how they'd pronounce their son's name. Metheglyn (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It is spelled Louis as in French and Pronounced "Louie" as in French. 68.105.199.216 (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

But isn't that a single syllable diphthong in French? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thankfully, nobody refers to someone by their third name for long, so it's not like any of us will have a chance to make a faux pas (as the Americans say). Probably a safe bet most of us will never even meet him. Of course, if he decides to become King Louis, we'll be hearing plenty of enunciation (proper and otherwise). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:59, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

Master of Strathearn

It appears PeteCollier has deleted the paragraph I added about the prince's title being the Master of Strathearn in Scotland. I'm a bit surprised, given that I backed it up with a reference to one of Scotland's main newspapers: [1] --Twid (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Record makes the same claim. I suspect it's completely wrong, myself: they're clearly going with the style of "Prince" as a courtesy title, rather than slumming it as a mere courtesy Earl, as was speculated about elsewhere on the page, much less as the son of an earl. I'd recommend "Scottish newspapers suggest" as a form of words, rather than quoting them authoritatively. 84.203.38.112 (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Earldom of Strathearn is in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, not the Peerage of Scotland. It just has a Scottish name. The child's full title and style is "His Royal Highness Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge" in every jurisdiction. Nothing else. Seven Letters 19:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, the prince's father is known as the Earl of Strathearn when he's in Scotland, so it would make sense for the prince to have a different title when he's north of the border, too. What would it take to convince you that the Scottish newspapers aren't making this up? --Twid (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure the Scottish papers are not making it up but they are wrong. As already stated all the peerage titles of Prince William are of the United Kingdom. There is a convention in Scottish titles where, if there is no junior title that may be used for the eldest son, the term 'Master' may be used. Clearly this does not apply in this case.Ds1994 (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

An official source that you cannot find because he is not styled as such. William has three peerage titles. George has only one courtesy title. (In fact, nobody can have more than one courtesy title.) How would George be called in Northern Ireland, then? The Hon. George Mountbatten-Windsor? Nonsense. Surtsicna (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Prince George of Cambridge doesn't have any peerages, so there's no one that he can be known by when in Scotland. Even his fathers secondary title of Earl of Strathearn is only used like that unofficially as a courtesy to the Scots. The only official alternate title for Scotland is Duke of Rothesay for the Prince of Wales. People who have titles of their own (like being a Prince) don't use courtesy titles because they don't need them. If he were not a Prince he would have used his father's second title Earl of Strathearn. Not just when in Scotland but throughout the UK. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You are completely correct but Prince William is entered in the roll of the Order of the Thistle as the Earl of Strathearn. Political correctness knows no boundaries and observes no conventions. Even when it comes to peerage titles.Ds1994 (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Please, spare us the off-topic Daily Mailisms about "political correctness". The "rules" are determined by palace whimsy. Which whims are in your assessment correct, and old, noble traditions, and which are new-fangled pandering to the chippy Scots is entirely besides the point. (Well, unless and until you have a DM citation to that effect.) 84.203.38.112 (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You're thinking like an American. That thought process does not work in the United Kingdom. Thank heavens you left in 1776.Ds1994 (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Your indentation seems to imply you're responding to yourself, but nonetheless, your comments appear to be moving in the wrong direction from the one I suggested. Please refer to WP:NPA ("Comment on content, not on the contributor."), WP:CIVIL ("Try to treat your fellow editors as respected colleagues with whom you are working on an important project."), and WP:TALK ("Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject.") 84.203.38.23 (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

If you're citing protocol then you really should apply it to yourself by registering with Wikipedia, signing on in the correct way, thereby preventing the visibility of your IP address. I suggest you attend to your own dirty laundry before lecturing to others.Ds1994 (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)As is commonplace on this page, lot of people with an opinion on what's "correct" and "official", not a lot of people troubling to follow policy as reflect what reliable sources say. I suggest a sentence to the effect of "Scottish newspapers have claimed that Prince George would be entitled to use the courtesy title of "Master of Strathearn" in Scotland.[cites]." When you have equally usable sources saying "said Scottish newspapers are wrong", you could add those, giving them proportionate weight. C'mon people, this isn't rocket surgery. 84.203.38.112 (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware you could perform surgery on rockets.Ds1994 (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

That, Sir Ds1994 is a wise remark we should always keep in mind when discussing issues like this! Gerard von Hebel (talk)

What style he may or may not be entitled to use wherever he is, is another matter altogether. You can't use a title for Scotland that isn't even a title. What 'reliable sources' are? Princes have never used courtesy styles or titles. If there's a change of policy, it won't be one announced by a newspaper. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added a new paragraph with suitable caveats, cf. this discussion. --Twid (talk) 11:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Said paragraph seems well-crafted, using multiple reliable secondary sources, and putting the claims in an appropriate context as to who was making them. (In contrast to many, many edits on this page.) Naturally enough, it was promptly and entirely inappropriately deleted wholesale, with the uncivil and inaccurate edit summary "Speculative". No, it's not, those newspaper definitely made those claims, in the terms stated. It's sourced material, it's accurate, it's in proper context, and it's being given due weight. Request this be restored. 84.203.38.23 (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit requests can only be performed when there is a clear consensus for the edit: see Wikipedia:Edit requests. DrKiernan (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Ancestry

As it stands at the moment this section is messy and not particularly relevant. If you dig back into the ancestry of the late Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother you will find recent antecedants as humble as some of Carole Middleton's ancestors. Also, Michael Middleton is descended from Edward III as already illustrated in another article on here. Do we really need to keep this section? And if so, can we at least improve upon it?Ds1994 (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I have reworked the section "Ancestry" slightly. Firstly, the quote concerned appeared in the leading article under the seal of the newspaper a whole, not just of a particular writer. Secondly, I have reworded the last sentence to show that the solicitor and bank manager were Michael Middleton's grandparents while the labourer and carpenter were Carole's grandparents, thus showing that all four were from different backgrounds.

In response to the comment above, could we work the wording "nineteenth and twentieth century" into the article? Martinvl (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure really if the main assertion of the section is entirely correct. It's suggested for instance that HRH The Prince of Wales is of aristocratic descent, which of course he certainly is. But amongst his forebears from HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother is a plumber called John Walsh. I'm not sure in the mix of the working classes whether you can differentiate between plumbers and coal miners? Either way the section reads clumsily, and requires revision.Ds1994 (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

As I'm sure you must secretly know, one's plumber is a true tradesman, whereas one's poor miner is so lowly he's now practically extinct. But how many generations back does one need to excavate? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I suppose the current reverted text is about as good as we will get. I do wince though when I see the term 'commoner', it really is brutal and unnecessary. The Prince of Wales is still descended from the plumber John Walsh and Michael Middleton is still descended from KingEdward III. The caveat of 'degree' must always be remembered when using the dreadful term 'commoner'.Ds1994 (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not happy with the text. Does the person quoted use the term "commoner" in the article? If so, we should use a direct quote. Otherwise, we should not use the word - it's antiquated and certainly not WP:NPOV. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Diana, Princess of Wales may have been of aristocratic descent, but until she married Prince Charles she was technically a commoner, as she was not a peeress. Just the daughter of a peer. (Not sure what she was after the divorce.) The same goes for the late Queen mother. The present text doesn't seem entirely satisfactory. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure the debate over Commoner has been had many times. I seem to remember one at the Queen Mother article, not so long ago. Am very surprised that Dr. K has not yet stepped in, to put all us commoners straight. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I was about to say "I'm a commoner, too" but then I looked it up in the Oxford English Dictionary and one of the definitions given is "a common harlot, prostitute". DrKiernan (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the definition of "commoner" is "not royal", and so even the grandest of peers are commoners too. Either you are born a prince(ss), or you're just one of the rabble... 62.156.255.22 (talk) 07:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) I'm bemused that there are still people who apparently believe that "technically", it's still "correct" to refer to someone as a "commoner". Can't we all just agree it's all a load of bollocks, and move on? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Is Prince George notable? If so why? His notability stems from him being a direct heir to the throne which in turn stems from his ancestry. Why then has details of his ancestry been stripped down to just two rather bland sentences? Martinvl (talk) 07:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It's unnecessary to spell out any details of his ancestry in this article - linking to other articles that give details of both sides of his family is quite sufficient. We should certainly get rid of words like "aristocratic" and "commoner". We should simply say who his grandparents are, and what royal house he belongs to - no more than that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The way it stands at the moment is deliberately 'brutal'. There is no need to bring into the article an outdated term as 'commoner'. As I have already illustrated, the present Royal family has several 'common' antecedants. May we achieve consensus please and change it?Ds1994 (talk) 08:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, his descent from Elizabeth II must be explained, but I agree with others that anything more than the basics is unnecessary. DrKiernan (talk) 09:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"Brutal"? There is no need to feel squeamish about the status of "commoner" in Britain. Wasn't Prince William keen to let it be seen and known that he was as good as any ordinary husband (say a tradesman or labourer or private soldier) without servants to fetch and carry when he put the baby in the car and drove off with his wife from the hospital? Members of the royal family, and members of titled families, may vote in parliamentary elections for the House of Commons, and to stand for election to that House, and if elected to become a member of it. Is that not the same in other Commonwealth realms if such persons were on the electoral roll? In UK, few hereditary peers, and not even royal dukes, are now members of the House of Lords. In that sense, princes and princesses like others are commoners (and may well be proud of it). At one time the Duke of Cumberland (1771–1851) was able to take part in the House of Lords after he had become King of Hanover when Victoria became Queen of UK. Before that, William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham had been known as The Great Commoner. But this is now the 21st century, and noble rank, aristocracy, the status of "gentlemen", or royal lineage, have little more than a faded glory, determining a place in the order of precedence for occasions when that applies, or to gratify others' snobbery, or allow a sneer to inverted snobbery. On "Nature's gentleman" see Burke's Peerage[2]. -- Qexigator (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't Prince William keen to let it be seen and known that he was as good as any ordinary husband... without servants..." I'm not sure we should impute any motives to him. Maybe he just thought it would be strange to do anything else. Most of the time they seem to lead a relatively normal life, even if she has "graced" the local supermarket with "her regal presence" and has her own parking space..... Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

We? Wikipedia ought not, but any of us can make our own inferences, and mention them to counter another's. Qexigator (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

--Is it an incitement to (brand) loyalty? Or looking for an honour from the Queen? Anyone might think so - I couldn't possibly say. But the chainstore is acting at its own commercial risk, should the price of this arrangement be popular boycott, there or in the Principality, within the polity of the Welsh Assembly, or anywhere else in this realm or others. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that the space painting at Llangefni Asda has rather presumptively planned already for that second royal child. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Let this talk page be a lesson

For when Lizzy goes, we'll have this same level of confusion times twenty. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Except Charlie may go first. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

As indeed we ourselves may....... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Bummer. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:53, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

Let's worry about that when HM Lillibet passes away, ok? Until then, long live the Queen! — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 13:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

May all the living monarchs on List of longest reigning monarchs move a number of rungs up the list (and all WP-ians have a fair go at oldest/longest active status). Jackiespeel (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Style from birth

Re this edit (and now this one): I can see Surtsicna's point, but I wonder if it's a little pedantic. Take Prince Charles. At List of titles and honours of Charles, Prince of Wales we're told he was His Royal Highness Prince Charles of Edinburgh from the day of his birth, 14 November 1948. Yet, we've all been told of recent days that Charles's name was not decided for a month after his birth.

Should we therefore change that article to:

• 14 November 1948 – mid-December 1948: His Royal Highness Prince Unnamed of Edinburgh
• mid-December 1948 - 6 February 1952: His Royal Highness Prince Charles of Edinburgh?

And similarly for all the other royals and others we have such lists of titles for? I really can't see this being a goer, frankly. Best not to make an exception for George, methinks. I'm no lawyer, but I'd be surprised if the law did not consider him to have been born as HRH Prince George of Cambridge just because his name was not decided until a few days later.

When we read that, for example, Judy Garland was born Frances Gumm, that does not mean she was given that name the precise moment she popped out of her mother's womb. Laws allow a certain period of time (up to a month in some places, maybe more elsewhere) for parents to make up their minds about their kids' names and then get them registered, but for all practical purposes the name applies as from the birth of the child. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Someone has been changing this in many Royal articles (possibly further). I am opposed. I say leave it, per the status quo, with the assumption people have their birth name (style) from birth. DBD 23:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The last sentence of the first section says that his name was announced on 24 July. Are you aware of how senseless it is to have the very first sentence of the next section claim that he was styled Prince George from 22 July? That's as contradictory as it gets. It is also entirely incorrect and anachronistic. That is something we can avoid simply by mentioning only the year, which is a normal practice in many cases. We should strive to improve Wikipedia by correcting inaccurate information, ad not to preserve status quo or to assume something that may not be (or is not) true. Changes can be good. Surtsicna (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not senseless at all - his name had not been publicly announced, but he probably had the name already. StAnselm (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

So who is it that styled him "HRH Prince George of Cambridge"? His mom and dad? I doubt so. Is there any source that referred to him as "HRH Prince George of Cambridge" before his name was announced? Besides, "probably" is certainly not good enough.

Royal styles have little to do with law. They are a matter of practice. The children of the Earl of Wessex are legally entitled to the princely title and style. Nevertheless, the current practice is to style them as children of an earl. George was born a British prince and a Royal Highness but it is plainly wrong to state that he was called Prince George before 24 July. Surtsicna (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

(Btw, "The children of the Earl of Wessex are legally entitled to the princely title and style."?! :P DBD 12:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC))

So, what about Prince Charles? Et al? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

What about him? Unless people could foresee future in 1948, I don't think any source referred to him as Prince Charles until his name was announced. Once again I have to say that Wikipedia is based on reliable sources; unsourced information have no place in a biography of a living person. Frankly, what is the likelihood of finding a pre-24 July reliable source that refers to him as "HRH Prince George of Cambridge"? 0%. He was simply not known as such. We are knowingly lying to our readers. Surtsicna (talk) 23:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

My point is that, if Charles's name wasn't known for a whole month after he was born, then by your argument aren't we wrong to say he was styled HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh from 14 November 1948, the day he was born? And if so, won't there be a humungous number of other such lists we're going to have to change? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is wrong to claim that he was styled "HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh" during the period when his name was unknown, i.e. when no source styled him that way. Take for example Charles II of England. He backdated his reign to the date of the execution of his father (30 January 1649) but the pure fact is that he was not King of England until the Restoraton in 1660. It is correct to say that Prince George was born on 22 July, but not that he was known as such immediately. He simply wasn't. Surtsicna (talk) 09:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Birth certificates say that the person named X was born on Day Y, even if the name was not known till Day Y+30, and the birth certificate was not issued till Day Y+40. That's the practical reality. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not saying that Prince George was not born on 22 July, Jack. I am saying that he was not referred to as such until 24 July. Titles and syles are the way people are referred to. If a woman married a Mr Smith in June 2012 but only started using her spouse's last name in December 2012, would it be right to claim that she was referred to as Mrs Smith from June 2012? Of course not. Surtsicna (talk) 09:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a very WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS line of argument. Other people haven't necessarily had several days of OMIGODWHENWILLTHEYNAMEHIMANDWHAT breathless media coverage, very readily establishing that he was not of any publicly acknowledged name for that period, that in this case makes it nonsensical to assume otherwise, without any pretense at providing any usable source that would supply a retrospective rationale. Though, it might equally be said that other articles are also poorly sourced in this regard, and often are filled with a lot of "stylecruft" that are problematic with regard to both due weight, and verifiability. Unless someone gains a new title in their first months of life, but after christening or a public name announcement, the "precision" of giving a calendar date is spurious in any case. 84.203.38.112 (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm the one who started to question the practice of styling the young prince as Prince George of Cambridge from 22nd July. I AM SORRY. I never should have opened Pandora's box. I regret, repent and recant. If Wallis Simpson was "born" Wallis Warfield, then the same can be said for George. (I think the government records mark it this way for everyone - first name applies from birth.) It's not a question of Wikipedia policy (the OTHERCRAPEXISTS page talks about deletion requests, not about wording in articles) - it rather has to do with how English language is generally used. 94.101.4.193 (talk) 05:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I am amazed this is even up for discussion. Looking at it from a common-sense point of view, a couple of things seem readily apparent: Firstly, the names for people or things are not always decided upon at the very moment of their birth/creation. Secondly, once a name has been chosen it becomes an essential (in the original sense of the word) property of that person or thing, and it is therefore applied retrospectively back to the moment of its emergence. I'm pretty sure, for example, that the article on the telephone does not insist that it is only referred to as a telephone from Date X, and that for any point before that date it can only be referred to as the "apparatus for transmitting vocal or other sounds telegraphically". 62.156.255.22 (talk) 08:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I propose doing what I just did on this article, and fudging it slightly so that you don't actually give the precise date of birth when writing these things out. In cases in which styles have changed, we can just say "up to XXXX-XXXX" for the first one, we don't have to say from when. I'm not sure it's wrong to say from the date of birth, but it certainly might cause some readers to think that the title was being applied from that day, which is bad information. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I entirely agree with that. What I originally did was remove the precise date and leave the year. Of course, it is bad information to claim that the style "HRH Prince George of Cambridge" was applied from the day of his birth. That is not true and everyone here knows that but some (for some reason) pretend not to. Surtsicna (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you continue to push this point, which is pointless. As others have explained (primarily JackofOz), in the United Kingdom you are allowed 30 days from birth to name a child. Once named the birth certificate is produced with the date of birth and the child's name. It is the same with noble and Royal styles. Clearly in this case the child was not immediately Prince George of Cambridge but once the name had been decided then the birth certificate may be produced and the style and name is provided on the birth certificate with date of birth. I fail to understand why this continues to be an issue? There is no issue at all. I really do not understand the persistence of this argument at all.Ds1994 (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I am pushing it for the sake of factual accuracy. One sentence says that his name was announced on 24 July and the very next claims that he was styled as Prince George of Cambridge from 22 July. It doesn't get more absurd than that and of course that is an issue. You are yet to cite a pre-24 July source that styles this child as "HRH Prince George of Cambridge". This has nothing to do with birth certificates and even discussing them is original research. I am not saying that it is wrong to say: "Prince George was born on 22 July." I am pointing out that we cannot claim that he was known as "HRH Prince George of Cambridge" before 24 July. He was not. Seriously, do you even remember 22 and 23 July? Surtsicna (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion civilised without the use of facetious comment. I understand the point you are making. Of course, the child was 'named' on the 24th July so there was clearly no reference to any name on the 22nd and 23rd July. But you are missing the point of law which I have raised with regard to English law and Scots law within the United Kingdom. You are allowed 30 days to name a child and then once named the name is retroactively applied to the individual as evidenced by the Birth Certificate, which gives the name of the child and the date of birth. This is a legal document and has legal standing. In effect the time the individual had no name is 'subsumed' so that, effectively within law, the period of no name ceases to exist. This principle applies to noble and royal titles as of course these titles constitute part of the legal name of the individual. I don't know how the law works in your territory but this is how it works in the United Kingdom in relation to English law (which applies to England, Wales, and a modified form in Northern Ireland), and Scots law in Scotland. So yes, the child was born on the 22nd July, the child was not given a name until the 24th July, but once named and the birth certificate duly produced, as far as the laws pertaining within the United Kingdom are concerned, the child is named Prince George of Cambridge from the 22nd July. The principle of law is regulated by Statute and common law within the United Kingdom, and it should not be Wikipedia policy to ignore or disregard the principle of law within any given territory.Ds1994 (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I apologise if I sounded too harsh. I think you are misinterpreting the titles and styles section. That section explains how people were styled at a time. "22 July 2013 - present: HRH Prince George of Cambridge" means that he was called Prince George on 22 July and on 23 July. That is not true. The fact that "the name is retroactively applied to the individual" does not change the fact that he was not called Prince George until 24 July. Charles II's reign was legally backdated to 1649 but it is a fact that he was not a monarch until 1660. Anne Boleyn's and Catherine Howard's marriages and queenships were retroactively nullified by law and never again declared valid, but it is a fact that these women (and especially the latter) were considered queens of England at some point. What I'm saying is that the law may provide for a retroactive application, but that does not make the no-name period (or the Cromwellian or the queenly period) non-existent or "subsumed". We can call him Prince George when referring to things that happened before 24 July, but we cannot straightforwardly lie that he was called Prince George before 24 July. Surtsicna (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

In other words, you are suggesting that the benefit of hindsight takes precedence over the principle of Statute law. As I have explained, as far as the laws of the United Kingdom are concerned, the individual is named Prince George of Cambridge from 22nd July, even though he was not given this name until the 24th July. It's as straightforward as that. I don't know how the law works in your territory but this is how it works in the United Kingdom. We can discuss this ad infinitum, but there's no point. As far as Statute law is concerned, there's no point to make in the first place.Ds1994 (talk) 12:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he is named George from 22 July as far as the law is concerned. It is not, however, correct to say that he was actually referred to as Prince George before 24 July. He was not. We can indeed discuss this ad infinitum but you will never be able to present a reliable pre-24 July source that refers to this person as "HRH Prince George of Cambridge", which is an irrefutable proof that he was not actually referred to as such before 24 July. Surtsicna (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

We can however attach a footnote to state that his name was published on 24 July. 13:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

As of this edit, the issue no longer seems to arise. Why does a date need to be included anyway? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't. The discussion is completely pointless any, as I have already indicated, as the provisions of Statute Law within the United Kingdom render the discussion futile in the first place.Ds1994 (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

With the greatest possible respect to Ds1994, and without intending to give offence, it may be necessary to review what editing this article is about. The public announcements about the birth and the names are as now stated in the article. None, I think, disputes, first, that it has been decided and announced by the only persons entitled to do so that the Cambridge baby is to be identified by the names George Alexander Louis, and to be identified by that name as from birth, to be understood in the usual way as identifying that person from birth unless there is any authoritative source to the contrary; and, secondly, as certain editors are well aware, that in the United Kingdom a royal style is determined by custom, act of parliament or by the monarch as fount of honour, and specifically in the case of the House of Windsor by letters patent under the laws and customs of the realm, conforming with any act of parliament that may apply. It is not for Wikipedia to use wording which appears to presume such a style is from birth, unless confirmed by a sufficiently authoritative (not merely journalistic) source. Nor would it be disputed that in the real world there may be complications due to special circumstances, such as use of a nickname to distinguish between two of the same name; or where a newborn was known as "Babby" at and from birth. but was deliberately renamed at or before registering the birth ("Bobbie" or other); or, as too often happens, a baby was misnamed at baptism by the clergyman (hard of hearing) and the "wrong" name was then registered (which may be forgotten by those concerned, or continue for years to be a source of vexation.) Further, there may be processes permitting or requiring a change of name, and usually once renamed that label will apply when referring to that same person from birth onward, except where it is important to mention the earlier name. (Compare a married woman who takes her husband's name, but who may choose to revert to her maiden name if divorced, or to take another name.) Qexigator (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Yet again - despite the discussion above - we have editors insisting that the date of his birth should be included as the date from which a particular style was used. I thought that almost everyone here had agreed that including a date could be misleading (as we didn't know his name until some time after he was born}, and there was no need to state anything other than "from birth". If those editors insisting on including a date could perhaps explain their views rather than simply reverting, we can (if necessary) continue the discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, almost everyone agreed there was nothing wrong with including the date. The compromise solution, while very well intentioned, puts this article at odds with every other royalty article. StAnselm (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's clearly no point in arguing over which side was the "silent majority". We should continue the discussion in the thread further down. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

"The pregnancy was described as a source of British national pride."

No it wasn't. None of the sources say any such thing. Certainly, some manufacturers have used the excuse of the pregnancy and birth to try to sell memorabilia, and some people have suggested that it all adds to some sort of national feel good factor, which is what the sources do say. The current wording suggests that the nation as a whole was "proud" because William and Kate did their thing. Can anyone suggest a wording more in line with what the sources actually say? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

sorry, still enjoying the pub lock-in. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I've reworded the offending/sive sentence to - "Before the birth there was speculation that it would boost the national economy and provide a focus for national pride" - and removed a dubious source. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't write the sentence, but I cut the last half off and added the sources. I didn't feel it suggested the whole nation was proud, but the event boosted national pride in some, or at least was described as doing so. I don't care if it's removed, I was just making it better than it was. Ghmyrtle's version seems alright. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:27, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the royal family itself is proud, anyway. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 13:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

False Town Crier

I have added a section called "False City Crier" but someone has deleted it. Don't you you think this story should be added ?, since many media outlets have fallen to this story. Here's a source to it on Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2377483/Royal-baby-News-networks-duped-fake-royal-town-crier-hijacked-birth-announcement.html --Midrashah (talk) 11:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

A personal highlight for me, Midrashah. In fact, it was probably the only one. But most other editors seem to agree the topic is trivia and the Daily Mail is not a very well respected source. There is quite a lot of previous discussion about Tony Appleton (including a great picture!) in the first Talk Page archive. But why did you think he was false? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC) (p.s. I'm sure we're all looking forward to that article for Tony, even though it hasn't quite been born yet.)

It don't matter if either he was a false or his deeds were false. The fact of the matter is that many media outlets fell to that. There is a story here. But I'm not gonna argue if you claim "most other editors" think otherwise. I simply think they are wrong. --Midrashah (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I just don't like it. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:06, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

Full Name/Surname

Hi, does he have an official surname or not i.e. is his full name "George Alexander Louis" or "George Alexander Louis Mountbatten-Windsor"? I'm with the first option, as used on this page, but I'm finding it impossible to convince the users of german Wikipedia, who insist on including Mountbatten-Windsor in his full name. As one of the tho articles(german or english) must be wrong, which is correct? And are there any definite sources? --Thoo2ng (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

They are both correct, it all depends have a read of http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheRoyalFamilyname/Overview.aspx but the use of surnames is pretty rare. MilborneOne (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I've read it and interpret it as meanig, that the Surname is not part of his official Name, unless it is declared otherwise. Others claim the page sais his surname is definitely and officially Moutbatten-Windsor. What would it say in his passport or on his tax-declaration? Does occasionally using the Name mean he has officially accepted it as his permanent surname? 89.182.134.154 (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Just my take on it - he doesnt officially have a surname but when official paperwork that doesnt understand royal protocol demands a surname they use Mountbatten-Windsor. MilborneOne (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

If you want to really be correct and especially for the German Wikipedia, the surname should be Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. This is the line the English Royal family comes from. The Windsor name was artificially created in the WWII era. You can always change your name in an attempt to hide your true identity, but you cannot change your blood line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.199.216 (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

That claim is ridiculous for many reasons but the most ironic is that Prince George does not belong to the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha line in any sense whatsoever. If anyone wanted to "really be correct and especially for the German Wikipedia", he or she would call him George Glücksburg. Get your facts straight before coming here to nag rather than to discuss possible improvements. Surtsicna (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he wouldn’t at all be Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, because houses pass through the male line (i.e. the Duke of Edinburgh), hence he would be part of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. Furthermore, the name Windsor was adopted during the Great War, not the Second World War. Even furthermore, it is ridiculous to be calling people German because they have some German ancestry. The Queen Mother was Scottish, so Queen Elizabeth II is half Scottish. The Princess of Wales was a mix of Britannic ancestries, mainly English. Then we have the Duchess of Cambridge, who is pretty much English. That means Prince George is much more Britannic than anything else, so the nonsense about the Royal Family being German is pretty much incorrect at this point.

Regardless, no, Prince George does not have a surname, in an official sense. Royalty do not have surnames. Per an Order-in-Council by the Queen, her descendants are allowed to use surname Mountbatten-Windsor when a surname is required for whatever reason (for example, in government documents that do not "comprehend" the lack of a surname). But this is really a courtesy title, at not a true surname. Hence, the German Wikipedia is incorrect if it states that "Mountbatten-Windsor" is actually part of George’s name. It isn’t. RGloucester (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Why can't we keep it simple anymore, like Alfred the Great? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:11, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

George the Gorgeous? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather George the Animal. Maybe that's just the Canadian in me. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:46, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

The queens Order in Council stated that Her's and the Duke Male line Descendants that did NOT bear HRH Prince etc. would be known as Mountbatten-Windsor. Those that Held HRH/PRince/Princess that didn't marry and take anew name would still be WINDSOR if a SURname was Needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.21.71.6 (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That is what the Queen said, but the actual practice among her children has been mixed. See Mountbatten-Windsor, which says that both Anne and Andrew used that name, and not just "Windsor", when they got married. Neutron (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

People with titles have surnames. They just don't use them (a lot). The Duke of Norfolk's surname is Fitzalan-Howard. Every HRH is Windsor. The greatgrandchildren of Prince Philip in the male line who are untitled will be Mountbatten-Windsor. Although some of Philip's children have used Mountbatten-Windsor. The Windsor versus Mountbatten-Windsor situation is however complicated and... uneasy. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Weight?

Does anybody know how much the baby weighs? Does he have a favourite stuffed animal yet? — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 13:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improving the article so not really relevant, have you tried Google (Other search engines are also available). MilborneOne (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I would imagine the parents will know. But I'm sure they don't feel obliged to share that information with the rest of the world. Indeed, I imagine a person's exact weight might be covered by WP:BLP policy? Perhaps readers are expecting to see Template:Baby weight which updates automatically month on month? And I suspect George's ecologically-minded grandfather would not look too favourably on any species of stuffed animal? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The question is relevant as the weights given via a Google search vary.

The truth is, only the person who weighed the baby at the hospital knows for sure. All hospitals weigh persons in kilograms only. Any other units result from a conversion. Thus the news release of 8 lb 6 oz is a converted value and may be wrong. This value converts to 3800 g, yet Australian media is reporting 3.74 kg. It is rumoured that this is a leaked actual mass as determined by the hospital staff and what appears on the official and legal documents.

A Google search of “Royal baby + kg” reveals some interesting anomalies:

News.com.au informs us that “He weighs 8lbs 6oz or 3800 grams (3.74kg)”

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/quick-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-royal-baby/story-fnisprwn-1226683621311#ixzz2Zv4x42yT

Sky News informs me “8lb 6oz (3.798kg)” http://news.sky.com/story/1119013/royal-baby-boy-world-awaits-first-glimpse

An article in the Sydney Morning Herald gives the weight as “3.8kg” http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity/royal-baby-by-numbers-who-are-you-calling-average-20130723-2qfq7.html

The South African mail quotes the palace as saying

“Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge was safely delivered of a son at 4.24pm, Kensington Palace said in a statement just over four hours after she gave birth.”

“The baby weighs 3.8kg. The Duke of Cambridge was present for the birth.” http://mg.co.za/article/2013-07-23-royal-baby-is-here-its-a-boy

Meanwhile, the Voice of Russia says: ” The announcement said the baby weighed 8 pounds and 6 ounces (about 3.5 kg)” http://english.ruvr.ru/news/2013_07_23/World-hails-birth-of-Britains-royal-baby-1564/

So 8 pounds 6 ounces equals about 3.5kg 3.74kg 3.798kg 3.8kg depending, of course, on your source.

Take your pick.

So, with this in mind, what is the actual birth mass of the baby as determined by the hospital staff? This is what should appear in the article, not the converted/reconverted values? 68.105.199.216 (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The weight is not that important and as long as it is reliably sourced we dont have to work it out ourselves. MilborneOne (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather not know about Prince George's "leaked actual mass", thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Even stranger sounding measured in grams. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

All UK hospitals measure babies weights in grams, rounded I believe to the nearest 10 grams. Then in order to avoid getting an earful from the editor of the Daily Mail, they convert the weight into pounds and ounces for the benefit of the mother (and of the granny who probably reads the Daily Mail). The recorded weight could have been 3.79 kg, 3.80 kg or 3.81 kg. See this article from "Metricviews".

Might be normal in Britain, but it still sounds weird to me. Not sure if I speak for all Canadians, but I and my circle use metric for everything except people's heights and weights. Metrication in Canada says our babies are measured in SI (no source and not clear whether in grams or kilos), but I've never heard a new mom use anything but pounds and ounces. If the doctor told me my newborn was 3500 grams, I'd hear $35,000.

But yeah, when in Rome. Whatever goes in Britain is good for a British article. No objections (if we list the weight at all). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:26, July 29, 2013 (UTC)

So who is in charge then - the medic who delivered the baby or the editor of the Daily Mail? Martinvl (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Crystal ball

As we are not predicters of the future we cannot say the only child for now, that presupposes predictive powers we do not have so please dont edit war over this esp when you cant even get a ref together to confirm your speculative predictions, see WP:Crystal. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a silly battle. I say just say "son of". If he had a sister or brother, we'd mention it. No mention? No sibling. A reasonably intelligent reader should be able to handle that. But yeah, "only child" works, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:19, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

Title

An editor has claimed "consensus".[3] What consensus? Qexigator (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

...and later edits give the impression of opinionated and disruptive editing on that editor's part, associated with a failure to engage in reasoned discussion instead of trying to insist on having a less than useful insertion in the article, as if intent on a pretext for edit war. If not, let the editor answer the question put above. Qexigator (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue has been fully discussed, and as far as I can tell User:Surtsicna is the only one who objects to including the date of birth in the style listing. StAnselm (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The solution proposed by two uninvolved users ([4], [5]) was to replace the bullet with a sentence. There has been no opposition on the talk page to that proposal, which seems like a perfectly reasonable compromise. Surtsicna (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

2 user proposition doesnt mean a consensus, when clearly looking at the thread, other users find the move, deliberately pointless. And more so, every response from user Surtsicna, is just pure justification. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, the "compromise" solution makes this article inconsistent with every other royalty article. StAnselm (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't matter, when common sense trumps "consistency". (Apologies for not noticing that this had been opened as a new thread, rather than continuing the earlier thread.) There is absolutely no need to include a date when we can simply say "from birth", and it would cause some confusion to do so. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You use this confusion argument, but is anyone actually confused? Many royal babies have not had their name announced on the day of their birth. StAnselm (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Is consistency really so important that having this one line in that exact place is absolutely indispensable? Not even Adrian Monk would insist on such word-to-word consistency. Believe it or not, we don't have to blindly adhere to one pattern. There is absolutely no problem about his name not being announced the day he was born. The problem arises when we start claiming that he was referred to (by sources, presumably) as Prince George from 22 July right after stating that his name was announced on 24 July. How could that not be confusing? Surtsicna (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) I'm not confused. My position is that I really, really, don't care. But it's clear from the earlier discussion that some editors are confused, and many readers will be confused knowing that his name was not announced immediately. Why create confusion, when a simple rewording would avert the possibility? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Common sense has clearly been out of this picture, the main point is, the need to argue on birth date and styling when clearly it is a matter of basic knowledge that it has retroactive power. It all boils down to whether a paper/certificate of birth and/or announcement can be superceded by retrograding it to the date of birth as a constitute of UK Law. The point is whether I was named days or month's after my birth, I am still and will be reflected as such name on the date of birth reflected on my certification. Clearly this stirred discussion has been subsequent to media attention and knowledge of when who was named or when they were named. I understand the factual and consistency claim, but this is beyond and is overly critical. If you look at featured articles of previous monrachs in their styles and titles (e.g. Elizabeth II, George VI et.al.) it is a conformity that these dates have been lauded as consistent despite the notion that no media announcement and/or knowledge was made as to when or how many days/months they were named/styled.

(e/c) I have never disputed that Prince George was Prince George from the moment he was born. He was not, however, immediately referred to as Prince George. The fact that he was not styled as Prince George before 24 July was not all of a sudden annihilated when his name was announced. Those two days did not disappear from history. Why on Earth should we pretend that sources referred to him as Prince George when they did not? A piece of paper cannot and does not have magical power to change historical facts. Surtsicna (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) There's an important difference, and I think Surtsicna knows it, between saying what someone's style was at various times in their life, and what they were "referred to as" at various times in their life. Prince George was not "referred to as" Prince George until 24 July, we all agree on that. But his title and style was "HRH Prince George of Cambridge" from birth, which remains true even if his name hadn't been chosen for a month. That's because he was his father's son, and by virtue of Royal Letters Patent. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

He was a Prince of the United Kingdom with the style "Royal Highness" from birth. The Palace did not announce that he would be known as "HRH Prince George of Cambridge" until 24 July. "Titles and styles" are forms of address, ways to refer to people. There is thus no difference between being "referred to as" and being "styled as". Surtsicna (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree JackofOz with your point raised on styling as per letters patent.

piece of paper cannot and does not have magical power to change historical facts this piece of paper is a certification of birth, no matter when or what date someone was given a name (as in UK Law which dictates a 42-day period of registry, a person is and will still be named as such and will reflect his date of birth), clearly where are not changing historical facts. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It is correct to say that George left hospital on 23 July. It is not correct to say that he was known as Prince George at that time. As simple as that. No certificate can change the fact that no source whatsoever referred to the baby as Prince George before 24 July. We can refer to him as George when discussing events that took place before 24 July - that is where the "retroactive power" comes into play. What we cannot do is claim that sources started styling him as "Prince George of Cambridge" before they actually did. Why can't we do that? Because that would be lying, and we generally avoid doing that to our readers. Surtsicna (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

One could always obtain a copy of the birth certificate (public domain?) and scan it in as an image in Commons (when it's available). It seems that is sometimes used at disputed biog articles. (But have they been down to the local Register office yet?) Martinevans123 (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

What would the birth certificate prove? Unless it states that sources should have styled him as Prince George of Cambridge from the moment he was born, I don't see how it's relevant. It is not incorrect to say that Prince George of Cambridge was born on 22 July 2013, much like it is not incorrect to say that the Duke of Cambridge was born on 21 June 1982. In both cases, however, it is incorrect to plainly state that sources referred to them as such from the moment they were born. The only thing that would prove that George was styled as Prince George of Cambridge before 24 July is a pre-24 July source that refers to him as Prince George of Cambridge. Surtsicna (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Clearly every response is a justification of being pushy on the intention, when in fact abovementioned users points raised are valid. Actually this is a very simple matter (sometimes negligible) that has been made complicated, by leaps and bounds. The intention is clearly not lying or misleading readers and keeping it at status quo (as with other Royal Styles) does not in anyway taint or reduce the validity of this article. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be striving for truth, Surtsicna, when we all simply need verifiability? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Far from that, Martinevans123! I am all for verifiability! That is why I've been asking for sources all along. So where is this one pre-24 July source that refers to this person as "Prince George of Cambridge"? We only need one to justify the claim that he was styled as such before 24 July. Surtsicna (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I think maybe you're asking for sources that will never exist? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

And when there exists no source that supports a certain claim, what does that imply? Surtsicna (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

That ONS get their act together, obviously! (but a bit too late here, I fear). Martinevans123 (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

To quote Jack of Oz Birth certificates say that the person named X was born on Day Y, even if the name was not known till Day Y+30, and the birth certificate was not issued till Day Y+40. That's the practical reality. It is not a mere claim, it simply implies he is and will always be style and have a given name from the time of birth by Letters Patent and Certificate, no attest or objection can supercede the validity of these regardless of the view that it has been sent out days or even months after the birth. Clearly the point editors have pointed out. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This comes down to the equivalence, or not, of what people are referred to as, and their formal style. Surtiscna argues they are identical. But they are clearly not.

Royal and noble styles#Noble styles in the United Kingdom tells us that

• Dukes and duchesses in the peerages of England, Scotland, Great Britain, Ireland, and the United Kingdom … also hold the style of Most High, Potent, and Noble Prince, but even in the most formal situations that is usually simply abbreviated to Most Noble, and even that style is quite archaic and very formal.
• Marquesses and marchionesses … also hold the style of Most Noble and Puissant Prince, but even in the most formal situations this style is rarely used.

A royal duke could theoretically insist on always being referred to as The Most High, Potent, and Noble Prince, His Royal Highness the Duke of Utopia. Because that is the style to which he is formally entitled. But virtually nobody would comply. I'm sure there are other cases of divergence from the formal requirements. Thus, what people are actually referred to as, even in formal contexts, is NOT necessarily the same as their formal styles. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

So, you are arguing that George was born with the formal style of "HRH Prince George of Cambridge" but that, for some reason, nobody chose to use it until the parents declared (or confirmed?) that his name's George? Are there any sources that confirm this? Surtsicna (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

As per Letters Patent : Date: 8 January 2013 Issue Number: 60384 Page number: 213 Publication Date: Tuesday, 8 January 2013

Notice Code: 1108

Crown Office

House of Lords, London SW1A 0PW

31 December 2012

The Queen has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 31 December 2012 to declare that all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or with such other titles of honour.

C I P Denyer

(1738680)

Pseud 14 (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we can let the matter rest awhile? In this discussion there has been not so much a difference of opinion in principle about the date from which a person's name runs, or the date from which certain royal titles and styles apply to a newborn child (as per letters patent), but a question about the way in which the given information can more suitably be presented in this article for the accurate information of readers who need it. Neither of the editors who had been insisting on the disputed presentation, and claiming consensus for it, have given or shown support on its merits in respect of this article. It first appeared here[6], with no reason. It looked as odd then as it has since. It was first removed here[7]; it was put back here[8]; removed again and so on, while various edits on other points were happening. It was not needed and has not improved the article. It seems to be based on nothing but a preconceived point of view combined with intolerance of any other. Would they please take a little time to reconsider, with a sufficiently open mind, about whether may be it is not so important after all, and let the disputed line go? But whether it remains or not, adding a few words about the HRH title running from birth does well for readers and no harm to anyone. Qexigator (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec) @ Surtsicna: Just trotting out the same point you've repeated numerous times won't advance the debate one millimetre. Various people including myself have already refuted it. No, I am NOT arguing "that George was born with the formal style of HRH Prince George of Cambridge". Those are your words. I am arguing that the formal style applies to him from birth. Obviously it was a retrospective application; but that is virtually always true. There is always a time gap between the actual birth of a baby and some announcement being made of its name; even where the name was decided before birth, most parents do not divulge it to others until the birth actually happens and the child is delivered alive. The time gap between birth and name announcement might be as short as an hour or less, or as long as a month or more. That is irrelevant. Whenever the name is announced, that name, and in this case the style and title, will have applied, for all legal purposes, from the moment the child was born. Consensus is clearly against you on this issue. Time to end this, I think. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I think a better question would be, why do we need a list containing one item in the first place? The article already has his name, title, "style" and date of birth. When he gets a second title or style, whenever that may be, then someone can put in the "list". If that does not happen until years from now (which may very well be the case), I suspect nobody is really going to care that he did not actually have a known name for his first two days. I think it seems like a "big deal" to some people now, simply because of the recent-ness of the events in question. Give it a few years and it probably won't be an issue. (However, since I realize this will probably not be the chosen solution, I will say that I don't think there is anything wrong with treating his name as being "retroactive" to his birth.) Neutron (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

My point exactly Qexigator (talk) and Jack of Oz. The London Gazette notice (http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/60384/notices/1738304) pre-dates the birth, hence it was stated that the HRH style and Princely title be prefixed on the Christian name, has already been announced, thereby HRH Prince NN of Cambridge (following territorial designation) has been a factual and substantive claim. As highlighted by Jack of Oz, There is always a time gap between the actual birth of a baby and some announcement being made of its name; even where the name was decided before birth, most parents do not divulge it to others until the birth actually happens and the child is delivered alive. The time gap between birth and name announcement might be as short as an hour or less, or as long as a month or more. That is irrelevant. Whenever the name is announced, that name will have applied, for all legal purposes, from the moment the child was born.. This should be a substantial and close-ended information to validate and end this repeated dispute from Surtsicna, per Neutron, this is in concurrence to royal nobility styles and titles as what other articles have had, and we most likely would not like to veer off from that, (e.g. is Prince Harry of Wales who has been styled similarly from birth to present) Pseud 14 (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

How is a winding-up order for CJ Ceilings relevant? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

A wind-up per CJ?[9] On a lighter note, for students of royal titles looking for LPs (old-time long playing records, vinyl), this could be the place to go: [10] --Qexigator (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I think CJ CEILINGS is a lovely name for a prince. But I thought, under UK law, those names which appeared (eventually) on the birth certificate were the ones that mattered. Even for Royal Princes, whether wound up or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Like so much in the law, one case may be distinguished from another (if it is a case of fortified wine, would that make port the same as sherry or different?). A name on the so-called birth certificate may or may not be conclusive if a person is known otherwise by repute, or if there is evidence that a testator had habitually referred to a putative beneficiary by some pet name (Harry? Hal?). Who gets loads of money could depend upon it. But commenters tend to forget that this section of the page is not about a baby's name but how to present the baby's birth title in the specific context of the disputed format. Perhaps it's throw-toys-out-of-pram time. Qexigator (talk) 10:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Unique and unprecedented format - disputed bullet - ricochet

The above has been like hearing the grown-ups talking over a baby's head, making rival claims about who the infant most takes after (him, her, or his/her ma, pa...). It may be helping to build the kiddy's character, but are they correct who would claim that the line (of text) in question[11] (the one at the top of the section with a bullet, like a prominent mole on baby's face), should be seen as a mark of uniformity with more senior members of the family? I say, no: that mole is unprecedented. It ought to appear later, and not as a birthmark (per Neut.).[12] So may I ask: is there any instance of a similar one liner appearing in a similar article about a person's biog.? (If none, the 2 day Mizbot bids speedy action time.) Qexigator (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It appears in the articles of most royals, including the child's uncle, Prince Harry of Wales. Morhange (talk) 08:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, No. If you look more carefully at the above and at PHoW it is not a similar instance: he is not an infant, he has been given other titles, it is not a one-liner but the first of a series, it has a rationale in its own context. The lack of a similar instance confirms the case for removing the bulleted one liner from Prince G. Qexigator (talk) 08:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems that this argument is between those (members of some sort of WikiProject?) who have established guidelines for setting out the styles of royals - which no doubt set out useful information on a consistent basis for obscure and/or historical and/or minor figures - and who wish to see that consistency applied here; and the rest of us, who see no real value in confusing or distracting the many casual readers coming to this article with an apparently odd (as Qexigator says, "a prominent mole") and unnecessary one-item emboldened list in the middle of the article. If that is the case, perhaps we can move on to discuss which approach should prevail? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, Ghmyrtle and Qexigator. Replacing the bullet with a single sentence would improve the section not only factually but also prosaically. That's all irrelevant, however, because the bullet is indispensable for reasons clear only to a few select individuals. Surtsicna (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Once again, it's in all the bios. Princess Josephine of Denmark, Prince Vincent of Denmark, Princess Alexia of the Netherlands, Princess Ariane of the Netherlands, etc. StAnselm (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not in "all the bios". Alois, Hereditary Prince of Liechtenstein, Princess Sophie of Bavaria, Prince Joseph Wenzel of Liechtenstein, Prince Maximilian of Liechtenstein, Princess Angela of Liechtenstein, Princess Madeleine of Sweden, Princess Nora of Liechtenstein, Princess Margaretha of Luxembourg, Prince Guillaume of Luxembourg, Princess Eléonore of Belgium, Haakon, Crown Prince of Norway, Hussein bin Abdullah, Crown Prince of Jordan, Mette-Marit, Crown Princess of Norway, etc (do I need to go on?). Evidently, the Universe won't explode if the bullet is replaced with a sentence. Surtsicna (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

StA. -and once again: Sorry, No. If you look more carefully at the above those are not similar instances, as can be seen by anyone willing to compare for him/herself with the text of the article which is the topic here. Qexigator (talk) 12:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I still believe that we should be conforming to the bulleted approach, i believe it has been repeatedly highlighted in the previous trail and should remain status quo, Surtsicna is clearly repeative and and up to the 2 day biz about styling and birth name. there is no point in argument if it is just left at that Pseud 14 (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You "believe that we should be conforming to the bulleted approach" only because you are unwilling to accept any compromise. Five users suggested that the bullet is far from necessary and that there are better, more natural and less flashy ways to state his title and style. But no, it has to be the bullet, as if someone somewhere decided that that was the only appropriate way to present a royal style. Surtsicna (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) And I believe we should not be "conforming to the bulleted approach". Who agreed it, where, and why? And, why should it be applied in this article? Just repeating a statement that it's "consistent with other articles" is of no value, when clearly many other articles do not take that approach, and no-one has yet explained why it is clearer to readers than unbulleted, unemboldened prose. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks like bullying or harassment to single out one editor alone (Surt.) when it is clear to anyone who reads with care that others, too, have reasoned objections to the bullet format which have never been answered. This section, if read from the top with knee-jerk restraint, makes clear that this is the opportunity for an acceptable explanation for retaining the bullet line to be made. So far, the opportunity has not been taken. It remains open for the time being. But please do not fail to reconsider the matter afresh, free from stale arguments and paying better attention to others as well as an editor who is being treated as a bugbear. Qexigator (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Because clearly it is a Pandora's box approach, when it could have been simplified, and again, this is not bullying, the point of the user primarily is again, dates and styling which has already been answered by the gazette announcement, that in case is already a simplified solution, the user is clearly making us go round in circles back to the he-was-unamed-rant 13:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseud 14 (talk • contribs)

It's almost impossible to make sense of that but, on the assumption that it was intended to be civil enough to warrant a civil answer: "Pandora's Box" is a gross exaggeration as can be seen by the examples wrongly instanced above. We are concerned, with this particular article. What is it with the tenacity for something which would boil down at most to a handful of similar cases of rather less worldwide interest and immediacy, which anyway are not compelled to follow suit? It is a fact of history and current affairs that the British monarchy today, including all sixteen realms, is of more worldwide interest than others, important as they all are in their own particular rights. Let us edit this article on its own merits. The claim below, that the bullet-line format is in some unspecified way "simpler and direct", is, to say the least, disingenuous and certainly a strange distortion of the language, resort to which again confirms that the claim is actually indefensible. Let it simply be removed until the time comes when it can stand as first in a series, like the other instances. That is simple enough. Qexigator (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

No, "this is not bullying", this is just one user "clearly making us go round in circles". Ah. Thanks for trying, Qexigator. No-one has even attempted to answer Ghmyrtle's question, making it apparent that there is no reason to prefer the bulllet to plain prose. The consistency argument has clearly gone out the window, so it all boils down to obstinacy. The bullet simply has to stay, even though the prose would do better. Surtsicna (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The bulletted and straightforward approach is simple and direct, you dont need unemboldened prose when clearly we are just talking how he was styled. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The approach suggested by Ghmyrtle and others is less straightforward, simple and direct than a mole bullet accompanied by four needlessly emboldened words? That's news to me. Surtsicna (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh really? It doesnt even make any difference at all. That section is just about how he was styled it is a solid section. Four needlessly emboldened words? (clearly you are going back to the old discussion). All that section needs is the date of styling and how he is styled and a brief overview as why, in which case, it already has explained by the way it is being presented. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It has become more apparent than ever that there is no good reason for having let the one liner back. It came in unannounced,[13] was given the bird, came back without any satisfactory by-your-leave, has never been explained and is overdue for removal any day now. The present version of the section into which it was first intruded awhile back gives the information and sources in a way well suited to this article without it, and no more would need adding after the bulleted one-liner's removal. If there are project persons with a party line (which I doubt) let them give their rationale openly and explicitly, to be taken into consideration by those intent on improving this specific article, instead of applying revert as a strong-arm gang tactic. That would look more like lax, undiscriminating, unreasoning, formulaic, agenda-driven editing, and is not to be expected. And see above "It's almost impossible..." (15:38, 29 July) Qexigator (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Pending or in lieu of removal, please see new edit, which could be retained as a stop-gap until the series gets going, sooner or later. Qexigator (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

And when, exactly, would this article fall in line with those for George's family members? What do you mean by "the series" and "gets going"? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

"the series" and "gets going" were mentioned as an attempt to offer some rationale which the proponents of the bullet-line had failed to expound for themselves. This much can be inferred: the proponents have an ide'e fixe about the bullet-style format potent enough to blind them to the fact that, while it may be a useful way of presenting information where there are two or more of a series, whether or not a later supersedes an earlier, it is quite bizarre when there is no more than one, and specifically it is out of place in this particular article, whether or not it is suited to others. As I write, another editor has removed the line altogether, and it should be allowed to stay that way in the interest of improving the specific article. The bullet line should not be brought back until needed, as has been amply explained in the course of the discussion. Qexigator (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Clearly so much edit and removal has complicated this. And Surc speaks of a consensus of what? 2 users? Can we look into WikiProject on British Nobility please have this article styled in a similar manner. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Time of Birth

Wiki's statement, that the birth was 16:24 BST / 15:24 UTC, seems to be based on speculation. The actual announcement said simply, "4:24 pm", with BST/UTC unspecified. It should be given in exactly that fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.119.52 (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

One would hardly expect a Royal announcement to use "BST" just for ease of verifiability at Wikipedia. British Summer Time was being used on 22 July, so it is hardly WP:OR to conclude that this is what the 4:24 was referring to. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)