Talk:List of guests at the coronation of Charles III and Camilla

"Dignitaries" over "guests"

Should this article be titled "List of dignitaries at the coronation of Charles III and Camilla", rather than "List of guests at the coronation of Charles III and Camilla". Also, should "Camilla" be "Queen Camilla" in the title? I understand it is not King Charles III, but typically we have the prefixed title before a consort. This is not a requested move at this moment, just a discussion first. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the article title should remain as it is because not all of the people attending are 'dignitaries'. Some are British Empire Medal recipients and there may be some celebrities that could attend. It should still say Camilla instead of Queen Camilla because it would be consistent with other coronation articles such as Coronation of Edward VII and Alexandra, Coronation of George V and Mary, Coronation of George VI and Elizabeth, etc. DDMS123 (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for pointing out the "Queen" thing. I didn't even think to look for other coronation articles. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The Telegraph

Per this source, which has been used in the article, foreign royal guests include:

"Queen Margrethe II of Denmark, Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary of Denmark, King Felipe VI and Queen Letizia of Spain, King Juan Carlos I and Queen Sofia of Spain, King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia of Sweden, King Harald V and Queen Sonja of Norway, King Philippe and Queen Mathilde of Belgium, King Willem-Alexander and Queen Maxima of the Netherlands, Princess Beatrix of the Netherlands, King Abdullah II and Queen Rania of Jordan, Emperor Naruhito and Empress Masako of Japan, Prince Albert and Princess Charlene of Monaco, Queen Anne-Marie of Greece, Crown Prince Pavlos and Crown Princess Marie-Chantal of Greece, Grand-Duke Henri of Luxembourg and Grand-Duchess Maria Teresa of Luxembourg, The Hereditary Prince and Princess of Liechtenstein, The Sultan of Brunei, The Sultan of Oman, The King of Morocco, The King and Queen of Bhutan, The Emir of Qatar, The Ruler of Dubai, The Ruler of Abu Dhabi and President of the United Arab Emirates, Crown Prince of Bahrain, Crown Prince of Kuwait, King Letsie III of Lesotho, The King of Tonga, His Majesty the Yang di Pertuan Agong and Her Majesty Raja Permaisuri Agong of Malaysia, The Hereditary Prince of Baden, Former King Simeon II, Margareta of Romania and Crown Prince Alexander and Crown Princess Katherine of Serbia."

Forgive me for the large paragraph. In the article, barely any of these names have been included. Is there a reason they haven't been yet, otherwise we could add them (I know that some people like Margrethe II and Marie-Chantal of Greece are not coming). @DDMS123, Keivan.f, and Richiepip: I am just pinging to get input from you three as I know you have all been very active on this page. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 04:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Therealscorp1an- Most of the foreign royal guests listed in that article haven't officially accepted the invitation yet. Also, most of the monarchs featured on that article have sent someone in their place. For example the Crown Prince and Princess of Norway are attending instead of the King and Queen. DDMS123 (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@DDMS123: Do you reckon we could add like an "expected guests" sub-sub-header and include the above names? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Therealscorp1an - We could, but it might not sit well with other editors. A potential compromise could be adding it in but using hidden text. If their attendance is officially confirmed, then we can unhide the text. DDMS123 (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

What about placing them under "Invitees" or some other such description? Or add that as a scoping statement for the article as a whole. Who's RSVP'd or not yet is surely of marginal notability, unless there's some Prominent Snub narrative made of it. 109.etc (talk)

@109.etc - That could work. DDMS123 (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@109.etc and DDMS123: I just found this brilliant source, which is similar to The Telegraph's, but it says that all these guests have been confirmed. Should we use this as a source to add all the names? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Lot of handy detail indeed, but I don't think it's likely to be seen as a WP:RELIABLESOURCE. I think it's fine to list both confirmed "guests" and "invitees", as long as we're clear about the sourcing, and we cover what the article scope is in the text. 109.etc (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

This source could work as it is backed up by other sources such as The Telegraph. Another website I also think is good is this source because it has a list of invitees and it includes links to articles where they confirm their attendance. DDMS123 (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

"Guest" vs "participants"

I think the Bishop of Edinburgh is likely misplaced here. He's not a "faith representative" guest, he's participating, perhaps only rather notionally, as a Gentleman Usher. And you'd want to avoid giving any impression he was "leading faith rep for Scotland", which is a couple of steps from being the case. The ECiS is neither the majority church nor one with any established or quasi-official role. And that primate isn't the head of it, either. 109.etc (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

We could just simply add a footnote that says he is also officiating? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

As we have no source that he's there as a "faith rep" at all, IMO still not ideal. 109.etc (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

William & Catherine's children

Just a suggestion. Perhaps we could (via pipe-link or re-direct) show them as Prince George, Princess Charlotte, Prince Louis. Do we really have to show the "..of Wales" bit? GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I is part of the titles, likewise the Prince and Princess of Kent. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 01:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Not at all likewise, for "common name not official title" purposes. Seems like a good idea to me: the "of Wales" is clear from context, and stylistically stilted. 109.etc (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

In the same list we do have the Prince and Princess of Kent. It's the same shoe fits all scenario. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 02:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and those are different for the very reasons I just gave. Unqualified "Prince Louis" is a common and identifying description, "Prince Michael" is not. "Princess Charlotte" is indented under an "of" parent with the same full formal style, "Princess Michael" isn't. Some degree of bespoke cobbling entirely appropriate. 109.etc (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that the territorial designations should be removed for some and not others, I also am not in favour of them being removed at all. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 04:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

But for any particular reason? 109.etc (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

For the very reason I gave in my last response. It's interesting you invoked WP:IDONTLIKEIT given my reasoning why hasn't changed, especially since this whole line of conversation has fallen under the same category. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I should also point out that the change was reverted by another editor, so I'm not the only one that is opposed by its standalone removal. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

... no, only one half. I already pointed out it's their common names, unambiguous in the context, and the only stylistically reasonable form. Naturally I'm equally curious as to @Keivan.f:'s rationale as yours, as neither their edit summary nor talk-page participation were enlightening (as there was none). 109.etc (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I’m not sure why you consider it unreasonable to include it, especially given it’s the article name, eludes back to not liking it. I’ve also said the same thing in 3/4 reply’s and the 4th pointed out the first 3. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 11:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The of Wales bit should still be shown. It makes no sense to omit it from some people's titles but keep it for others. Prince Michael is still under an of. The reason he isn't indented is because his father, the Duke of Kent, is no longer alive. If his father was still alive, he would be indented under his parents. DDMS123 (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I was figuring that in Michael & his wife's situation, it was alright to go with "of Kent", because (of course) his parents aren't listed. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the "of Wales" bit should remain because in other articles about guests at various events, it still shows the full title for the Wales children. DDMS123 (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

That's a bit WP:OTHERSTUFF, as it may simply be the same poor practice, potentially even by the same set of "we must use full official titles!" editors. Arguably it's largely harmless here due to the list structure -- though to my eye, the nesting makes the artless redundancy all the more clear, just mercilessly spamming the reader with the same info four times -- but in normal prose, it'd be rather odd to use the full titles where the context is clearly. Whereas for the "of Kents", that's pretty much the usual form. 109.etc (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@109.etc: WP:OTHERSTUFF states that using "other stuff" as a reason is perfectly valid when it provides consistency between articles. DDMS123 (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I feel like that's a borderline ad hominem argument. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 01:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Nford24: It's not an ad hominem argument, I am just repeating what the guideline says. DDMS123 (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Consistency is good, but provided that a) the practice in the unspecified other instance is actually the better one, and it wouldn't be preferable to instead change that, and b) context is taken account of in each case. Where the context is "I've said 'of Wales' so many times now that it's lost all meaning", chances are it's not the best choice. 109.etc (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

DDMS123 my apologies, that wasn’t directed at you. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 05:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

You feel it's an ad hom to argue against a practice... because people might have engaged in the practice? Not sure I'm quite following your thread there. 109.etc (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Nford24 All good DDMS123 (talk) 07:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Earls mentioned incorrectly

Hi, not trying to be annoying or anything, but why are Earls written as "Earl of X"? The correct way of mentioning such people is as "The Earl of X", just like Dukes are. Some of those guys having courtesy titles, they should really be "X, Earl of Y", but I'd settle for "The Earl of X" anyway. Darth2207Lucas (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Darth2207Lucas: Earls are not mentioned incorrectly, they are all correct as they are. Most of the people on this list are using courtesy titles. Courtesy titles never have 'The' before their name because they are not the official title holder. You can see that most of the Earls are indented under their father who is a duke. Since their fathers (dukes) are still alive, they will continue to use the most senior subsidiary title which is an earldom. The Earl of Snowdon has 'The' before his name because that is his actual title. You can even look at the Royal Family Website [1]. Number 14 on the line of succession says Earl of Wessex, not 'The Earl of Wessex'. DDMS123 (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Celebrities

As far as I can see the celebrities listed so far are not really guests at the coronation. They are taking part on the concert afterwards Ncox001 (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)