Talk:Chapel Royal

Christianity: Anglicanism / Reformed Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Reformed Christianity portal This article is supported by WikiProject Reformed Christianity (assessed as Low-importance).

Classical music

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Royalty and Nobility

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of royalty and nobility on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Royalty and NobilityWikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityTemplate:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityRoyalty and Nobility articles

Pipe organ (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pipe organ, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Pipe organWikipedia:WikiProject Pipe organTemplate:WikiProject Pipe organPipe organ articles

hailing all fact checkers

but elevated to the status of Chapel Royal by Queen Elizabeth II only in 2004.

I can assure you that the chapel of the Mohawks in Brantford was a royal chapel well before 2004.

Randal Oulton (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with Scotland and England

I think we need seperate pieces on Scotland and England, but wonder what would be the best approach. Any ideas?Harrypotter 20:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthgledhill responds: I have just added some more detail on Hampton Court. I think the main headline of the entry should be Chapels Royal not Chapel Royal and have just worked out how to change that - hope none objects. I would be happy to have a go at a separate page on Hampton Court if that was considered appropriate. It is quite interesting at the moment because of the new foundation just launched this year.

Great. Ruth, if you type four tildes after the end of your message it will be signed timed and dated for you. Eddaido (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Children of the Chapel Royal

Article needed on "Children of the Chapel Royal". Fair few uses of the phrase in WP and notable history but no WP article. SmithBlue (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC) Found it. Linked it. Done. SmithBlue (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organists

I've removed once more the names of the present Organist and Sub-organist of the British Chapel Royal. These individuals - most certainly the latter - are not notable characters, and thus don't warrant a mention in this article. I've left the links that were used as sources, and moved them down to the External links section. I hope that suffices. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old Gant's got his own page now! I don't understand how anyone could disreagrd hos clear notability!Harrypotter (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Dr. Gant may be a notable enough person in his own right (I would see no reason to oppose a separate article on him); regardless of whether I am correct in my estimation concerning that fact, it seems to me that the name of the current Organist, &c., of the Chapel Royal is notable enough for the inclusion in this entry. It's an historic position, and its a useful, non-trivial fact (and Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopædia, &c.). I think Miesianiacal is confusing two separate forms of 'notability'. Restoring. Tobyox (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone beat me to it:) Seems I saw an older version... Tobyox (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraph

I have to admit, I've read the first paragraph and couldn't understand a thing - it's all written in "royalese". I doubt very much that the average reader, who just wants an idea of what a chapel royal actually is, will not be greatly helped by the current version. Is it possible to simplify it? Aviad2001 (talk) 11:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was officialese and is it any better now? Eddaido (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but now I learn the problem. Eddaido (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think your good attempt at fixing one problem resulted in another. I've tried to remedy the latter while incorporating your initial changes. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split?

I suggest that this article be renamed with a suffix like (UK) and a new article named just Chapel Royal (no suffix) be opened to contain those items and references to all establishments, often very well-covered, like those in Canada.

Because it seems every Christian monarch once had her/his personal group of clergy, singing men and choristers and as they belonged to the then (almost) universal church they usually took the same form.

As a group these institutions are notable because they endeavoured to contain the leading performers of their day and so they provide a link to many other articles within Wikipedia. Where they cover institutions rather than individuals they can be hard to identify e.g. Flemish chapel (capilla flamenca) had been confused (twice!) with Capilla Flamenca not to mention the deletion of sources . . . Eddaido (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, moved out the ugly chunks to Chapels Royal. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification and further work

I've tried to clear up the difference between the English and Scottish Chapels Royal in the history section, but this needs further elaboration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CollierJP (talk • contribs) 21:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chapel Royal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

chapels royal

the link in the disambiguation line to chapels royal just comes back to this article. Is there in face a separate article "for the general topic etc"?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

where else?

The article on the Mohawk Chapel says "It is one of six Chapels Royal outside of the United Kingdom and one of two in Canada." Where are the other 4? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are three now

Massey Chapel is now official. Sources:

Bobagem (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No Caps?!

@Anthony Appleyard: Sorry about this but it is a proper noun — Chapel Royal - at least in England. Eddaido (talk) 11:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 September 2017

initiated RM seems to have been based on a misunderstanding — no prejudice against continuing talks, and clarifying what this is about outside the RM discussion which is moot for the time being. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chapel royal → Chapel Royal – @Eddaido: Queried move request. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about this but it is a proper noun — Chapel Royal - at least in England. Eddaido (talk) 11:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddaido: According to the Wikipedia article,

A proper noun is a noun that in its primary application refers to a unique entity, such as London, Jupiter, Sarah, or Microsoft, as distinguished from a common noun, which usually refers to a class of entities (city, planet, person, corporation), or non-unique instances of a specific class (a city, another planet, these persons, our corporation).

How is it that the term chapel royal refers to a specific entity rather than a non-unique instance of a specific class given that there are many chapels royal (plural)? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is it that a banana refers to a specific banana? The problem here is that for some reason a general dab page on chapel royals is stuck on top of a long article about Chapel Royal (UK). It needs forking, long overdue. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the article were solely about the UK, why would we capitalize the article's title as though it were a proper noun when there is more than one chapel royal in the UK? I fail to see how capitalization here would comply with MOS:CAPS. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is only one Chapel Royal in UK, these are branches. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should be clear from the article the Chapel Royal is not one or a collection of buildings as you may be assuming but an institution which lends its name to various buildings it uses. A chapel (part of a building) which is used by royalty is not for that reason alone a / the Chapel Royal (though it may be). HTH, Eddaido (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said elsewhere, the "stuck on top" is quite nonsensical. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — @Anthony Appleyard: "@Eddaido: Queried move request" is not a move rationale, please replace that by a rationale that makes sense at the WP:RM page, where the rationale for the move request (everything before the first signature) is copied by a bot. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support proposed move: for the topic of this article (which, BTW, is not "Chapel Royal (UK)") Chapel Royal seems to be always capitalised (although I'm not an expert). The general concept of a royal chapel, inside and outside British Commonwealth context, is not capitalised, but has a different word order (that is, in English: some other languages may have the capilla, chapelle, etc. before the reial, royale, etc, in the expression that refers to the general concept). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the discussion since, there is a query here, about capitalizing the words "Chapel Royal". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Appleyard:This is all too much for me. I don't know what it is you require. I am not an American but I would have thought it is written White House (not house) even when the institution (and not the building) is for the moment in Florida. Is that any help? Eddaido (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re. [1] — Please, you're making the move request just messier and messier: now it doesn't indicate any more *to which page the move is requested* in the box above, while on the other hand there is still a meaningless move request rationale for inclusion at WP:RM. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE! I have made no move request Eddaido (talk) 10:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nor have I made any entries or amendments I have not signed for. What a heap of misunderstandings. Eddaido (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, trying to help out on the misunderstandings, so a first step is trying to find out what you actually intended. If you want to have "Chapel Royal" capitalised, a first step seems to be to get the article title in that format (which technically is a move request). Do you want the article title capitalised? That is, both words, as well "Chapel" as "Royal" with a capital letter? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All I wanted to do was point out that the move was wrong. For some reason I was notified of the completed move but never notified of the discussion. I do want a move because the lower case is quite wrong but aside from that I watch proceedings with less and less and now no interest so I'll stop. I'm not aware of your various protocols, sorry about that. Eddaido (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "... that the move was wrong" — do you mean this move? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i do. see No Caps?! above. Response delayed by edit conflicts . Eddaido (talk) 11:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, moved back to the capitalised version now, and aborted current RM, which should be reworded if another RM would make sense. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal This issue is quite complicated given the existence of Royal chapel (on the general subject) and Royal chapel (disambiguation). The title of this article is misleading given the highly specific content and current capitalisation. In my view it should either be moved over the redirect to Chapel Royal or to Chapel Royal (UK and Canada). In either case, the hatnote should be amended to something like:

This page is about the chapels royal in the United Kingdom and Canada. For the general subject of chapels royal, see Royal chapel. For other uses of the terms "chapel royal" or "royal chapel", see Royal chapel (disambiguation).

Voceditenore (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...is a royal chapel in the form of...

Is there a problem with this edit? If so, which? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mess

This is a mess. The lead starts off with "In both the United Kingdom and Canada, a Chapel Royal refers not to a building but to a distinct body of priests and singers" and then throws in a mention of a building in Bermuda. Next we have a section "United Kingdom" talking first about a building in Scotland, then a body of singers in England. Then we have sections talking about four buildings in England (and one in Dublin), and one about three buildings in Canada.

In my view anyone wanting to read about a building is already served by the dab note to Royal chapel (disambiguation). I propose to repurpose this article to the topic exclusively of the Chapel Royal in England (body of singers) as that is the main usage. I will split/merge where appropriate those parts concerned with other topics. A reworded dab note and carefully worded lead would ensure people coming here are less confused than currently. --Pontificalibus 17:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so but this is Not about a building, is it! Eddaido (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]