Jump to content

Talk:Prince George of Wales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ardenter (talk | contribs) at 06:49, 11 July 2021 (nominated for ga). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


Mountbatten-Windsor

Even in the article it is clearly stated “members of the Royal Family who are entitled to the style and dignity of HRH Prince or Princess do not need a surname” Why you are rewriting history and even adding Princess Anne’s article to Mountbatten-Windsor surname which they never use. She married two times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berfu (talk • contribs) 17:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also we can see his full name in birth certificate. And there is no surname. We can’t change public documents like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berfu (talk • contribs) 18:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also I checked other royal biographies such as royals from Denmark, Sweden or Monaco. Under full_name, only their names are listed, no surnames or even their birth titles. If there is need I’m sure full names in birth certificates should be used because they are public documents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berfu (talk • contribs) 20:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not certain why this change was made. The infobox for pretty much every royal specifically just uses their first and middle names. Piratesswoop (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image in baptism section

@Ciaran.london: Per MOS:IMAGELOCATION Most images should be on the right side of the page, which is the default placement. Left-aligned images may disturb the layout of bulleted lists and similar structures that depend on visual uniformity,. As such I have removed one of the images. On my browser with two images in that section there is a very large white gap at the end of the section, particularly as the infobox comes into this section. I have right aligned the image iaw with the MOS but it could probably be moved left (whichever image is deemed better for the article). I think File:The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge with Prince George-crop.jpg is a better image than File:Prince George best 2013.jpg as it is a wider shot that shows who is holding the baby. I don't think we can justify having two similar images in the article, it isn't big enough for it. Woody (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All ancestry is relevant and must be included on Wikipedia pages Of persons living or dead wherever it is known — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.216.134.54 (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What Ardenter (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Descendants of Elizabeth

I undid a change because Unless The Prince of Wales chooses to alter the present decisions when he becomes king, he will continue to be of the House of Windsor just means possibility. That is not a fact. But It was therefore declared in the Privy Council that The Queen's descendants, other than those with the style of Royal Highness and the title of Prince/Princess, or female descendants who marry, would carry the name of Mountbatten-Windsor is fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berfu (talk • contribs) 13:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And Mountbatten comes from Prince Philip so all his children-not just Prince of Wales- will be effected.

It's irrelevant. The quote you've selected only applies to 'the Queen's descendants, other than those with the style of Royal Highness and the title of Prince', so that part of the page does not apply to George, and you applying it is original research by synthesis. The relevant part of the page that explicitly refers to George is lower down. DrKay (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I’m trying to tell you. Mountbatten-Windsor is for untitled members of the royal family. And you are adding that surname to everyone. Look here it is:
Any royal with the title "His Royal Highness Prince" or "Her Royal Highness Princess" doesn't need to use a surname at all. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/british-royal-family-surname-last-name-a7519901.html— Preceding unsigned comment added by Berfu (talk • contribs)
You have performed 4 reverts in 24 hours. You must either undo your last revert, or re-insert the missing information: British royalty do not usually use a surname, but when is needed the grandchildren of the Prince of Wales "will use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor"[1]. I have said multiple times that "British royalty do not usually use a surname". Straw man arguments about a point on which everyone is agreed is in my view disruptive. DrKay (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are completly missing most important section of sentence “when he becomes king“. He didn’t become one yet and when he become he can alter he present desicion or he will not (exact quote: Unless The Prince of Wales chooses to alter the present decisions “when he becomes king”...) what he will do in the future is just possibility. Prince George will become King George VII one day.(A lot of newspapers reported) But we are not writing This here now, do we? We can just write what currently in practice. Reference to: London Gazette, issue 41948, Feb. 8, 1960, p. 1/1003. See also the Times Feb 9, 1960 p. 10E. “My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor." This is Elizabeth’s desicion which currently in practice. Prince George is a prince so no Mountbatten-Windsor for him. Royal page you are showing doesn’t refer him like that too. By the way I’m adding different facts and references. Those are legal documents.https://web.archive.org/web/20160423165659/http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm#1960 If there is missing information I’m sure British Goverment would have fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berfu (talk • contribs) 16:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not. This is another straw man argument trying to attack a view I do not hold and am not espousing. It is clear that English is not your first language and neither the source nor I say what you think we're saying. DrKay (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
“When Charles become king” as you reference says he can do any change he want but now as article clearly states: For the most part, members of the Royal Family who are entitled to the style and dignity of HRH Prince or Princess do not need a surname, but if at any time any of them do need a surname (such as upon marriage), that surname is Mountbatten-Windsor. Why you are ignoring this information? I’m adding this sentence because now this is the way, so there will not be more confusion. You are trying to write future. Let’s wait what they will be called. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berfu (talk • contribs) 16:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not ignoring the information. I have repeatedly and consistently expressed that view. If you edit the page again I will report you to the noticeboard for administrative action. Your behavior here is unacceptable, and while some of the misunderstanding comes from a language difficulty, that cannot explain all of it. DrKay (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you tell me where can I report peoples? There should have been some anti-bullying preventions in here but I can’t find now. If you kindly show me where... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berfu (talk • contribs) 16:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it's very serious, try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. However, if you're seeking a less serious route, try Wikipedia:Editor assistance. DrKay (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The Royal Family name". royal.uk.

Article images

Per WP:BRD - I disagree with a multitude of images being used in the article, particularly due to the subject's age and length of the biography so far. Per MOS:PERTINENCE, "too many [images] can be distracting." Variety is also important, and multiple images of George meeting separate foreign dignitaries isn't incredibly necessary to illustrate his public appearances, in my opinion.--Bettydaisies (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is an article not a gallery. And too many images will just make the whole material look unbalanced. Keivan.fTalk 02:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a slightly less melancholy image might be slightly more representative of the character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.7.111 (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about the infobox image, no doubt. It took a lot of doing to find this image of him, which is one of the few we could use of him that everyone thought was representative of his present age. He's possibly just bored, maybe resentful. His father's hands on his shoulders may be restraining him from having any fun. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article preparations

Noting here that I'm going to be making quite a few adjustments to this article in preparation for a good article review. Ardenter (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Session one is done! I've reviewed sourcing for about two thirds of the article. Every one I reviewed has been appropriately tagged if there were problems I couldn't immediately fix. All now have relevant quotes and archival links. I've also added authors if possible. Ardenter (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Finished! Ardenter (talk) 06:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prince_George_of_Wales&oldid=1033041016"