Jump to content

Talk:Prince George of Wales/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Infant baptism

Referring to this IP edit[1], given that the article reports known facts, and the facts include the child's baptism by the Archbishop of Canterbury, opposing infant baptism in connection with the theology or doctrine of any Christian denomination is not sufficient reason for preventing the infobox including "Religion Church of England". Qexigator (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree, as somebody who will become the head of the Church of England in the future is unlikely he will change his religion. MilborneOne (talk) 09:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Yet the British law itself apparently does not recognize infant baptism as determining his or her religion - at least not when it comes to royalty. Lord Nicholas Windsor's sons were definitely baptized by a Roman Catholic prelate and are definitely being raised as Roman Catholics, but that does not make them ineligible to succeed to the British throne. The official stance seems to be that children are not baptized as Protestants or Catholics, but simply as Christians, and that they "choose" the denomination upon confirmation. I too see no point in stating alleged religious views of an infant who can't sit up yet, and who won't be able to understand what a religion is (in addition to much simpler abstract concepts) for years to come. The article says and should say that he was baptized by the senior prelate of the Church of England, but stating the infant's religion as if it were a plain fact is bound to raise eyebrows. By not stating it in the infobox, we are not saying that he is not Anglican; we are simply not saying anything on the matter. A reader can make their own conclusion from undisputable facts presented in the article - those facts being his baptism and his age. Surtsicna (talk) 12:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Not sure any of that is really relevant to George, how do you reconcile the fact that he will become head of the Church of England and then not mention his religion, seems common sense to me. MilborneOne (talk) 12:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
How is it not relevant? Is George not a royal infant? It is not a fact that he will become head of the Church of England, so there is nothing to reconcile. A dozen of possible scenarios could prevent him from becoming head of the Church of England; he might die prematurely, become a Catholic, or otherwise never ascend the throne, or the Church might become disestablished. He seems to be 60 years away from becoming monarch and supreme governor. At the moment, he is only in the line of succession to the headship of the Church of England, much like his "Catholic" Windsor cousins. They, like George, are in the line of succession to the headship of the Church of England, but that does not automatically make them Anglicans. What seems common sense to me is that a 4-month-old cannot profess any religion. Surtsicna (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
All a load of what ifs, at the moment he is according to reliable sources a recognised member of the Church of England and will be a future head of the religion. We cant crystal ball future events and if we take that angle then a lot of articles would need to be amended to remove anything past today, as it might not happen. Sorry common sense still prevails and adding Church of England in the infobox is not a big deal and is supported by sources. MilborneOne (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Sources say that he is expected to become head of the Church of England. That is a fact. He is expected to become head of the Church of England. Of course we can't crystal ball future events, which is why we say that this is expected to happen, not that it will happen. Anything past today really might not happen, which is why Wikipedia articles always say that something is expected/scheduled/planned to happen. Using the fact that he is in line to become head of the CoE to imply that he identifies as an Anglican is synthesis, and would lead to logical fallacies in many cases (I have cited two). I see no common sense in claiming that a 4-month-old professes a religion. Would we say that the 4-month-old son of two Republicans, a godchild of G. W. Bush, is himself a Republican? As I said, it is a fact that George was baptised by an Anglican, that his parents are Anglicans and that he is expected to be head of the CoE, but it is not a fact that he identifies as an Anglican. He is 4 months old. He won't be able to even grasp what religion is for years to come. Removing religion from the infobox would thus not be a big deal. Surtsicna (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the merits, is it not the usual practice is to ascribe to an infant the denomination of the parents, and that one baptised in the name of the Holy Trinity will be accepted as a baptised Christian by other denominations which practise infant baptism in the tradition of the Nicene Creed? Note, concerning baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) and "baptism of blood" (baptismum sanguinis): "Because the Catholic Church practices infant baptism, these issues seldom arise except for adult converts to Catholicism who were not baptized as children."[2] This really is not a matter for Wikipedia to purport to determine otherwise, whether as a matter of theology, modern reasoning, civil rights or an attitude of knowing what's best for them. Jews, Hindus and so on have their practises, Christians theirs. Wikipedia is here to report, not pretend to certify, warrant or endorse validity or efficacy, or to offer gratuitous advice to members of any church or religious tradition. Qexigator (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. So why plainly state that the baby identifies as an Anglican? The matter is obviously not that simple, and this is one of few Wikipedia articles about infants. We can state all the facts in a neutral, undisputable manner. We also can (and should) abstain from infering anything regarding his religious views. (I can hardly even bring myself to write about a four-month-old's "religious views".) Surtsicna (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, perhaps an editor who can hardly bring h--self to address an editing question about an article's content had best leave it alone, at least until a calmer mood has been recovered. We are not purporting to state that the infant "identifies as an Anglican", nor as an infant or member of the royal family, or line of succession to the throne. Nor is there any useful comparison with political affiliation in families in USA. Qexigator (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you should not comment on me, and you should certainly not twist and manipulate my words. I said I could hardly bring myself to refer to a 4-month-old's religious views, not that I could hardly bring myself to "address editing question about an article's content". Of course there is a useful comparison between religious views and political views an infant can hold on the basis of being someone's child; an infant can obviously hold neither. Surtsicna (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Mine was a friendly response to comments intemperately expressed. In any case this article is not well suited to debating such metaphysical and contentious questions as what the baby identifies with, which is, in any event, beside the point. It can be noted that the Infobox entry had been undisturbed from 24 October[3] to IP 19 December [4]. Qexigator (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

This IP edit,[5] according to the summary, may have been made on the basis of personal opinion about a point of religious practise which it is not for Wikipedia to approve or disapprove; but I am inclined to see it as editorially acceptable, given the remarks above, and the purpose of letting readers have information presented in suitably encyclopedic manner. Qexigator (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Update. + agree with: "Baptised in the Church of England"[6] --Qexigator (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Importance

Surely this is a high importance UK and royalty article? Matty.007 17:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Deceased grandmother

To mention or not, that this child's grandmother is no longer alive?[7]. For many editors and readers of maturer years, her death is yesterday's news and never forgotten, while many readers (not only those of school age) have little or no knowledge of this, or how if at all it may affect the child's status as prince or as heir to the widowed grandfather, who had since remarried the woman who thus became the child's step-grandmother, still living. But, given the links (in the lead) to the child's father, Prince William, which has a sufficiently informative paragraph, to the grandfather, which gives further detail of the divorce and the second marriage, and to Diana herself, which has a panel displaying her "Issue", the insertion of "the late" would break the flow of the prose, adding nothing. Qexigator (talk) 09:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Apart from it being a WP:EUPHEMISM to be avoided here, it is impractical to update all Wikipedia articles whenever someone dies and redundant given the wikilinks to their articles. HelenOnline 09:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree it shouldn't say "the late Diana". I don't object to "his first wife Diana", if that is thought helpful to those unfamiliar with her history. DrKiernan (talk) 10:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Better not, if "first wife" could suggest tacit questions: ...of how many wives? ...any other child out of wedlock? Kind of opposite of implied euphemism. Qexigator (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I have opposed describing Diana (or anyone in Wikipedia) as "late" for a long time. It does not sound encyclopedic, and it is certainly not neutral (because it implies reverence) or consistent (because Elizabeth II's parents and grandparents are not described as "late" when first mentioned, despite being as dead as Diana is). Surtsicna (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I have never heard the opinion before that late "implies reverence" and I doubt that anyone with English as a first language would agree. It's just a common and colorless way of advising readers of the fact that someone is deceased. I would agree, though, that is does not look encyclopedic; thus I have made an attempt to solve this in a way that (1) is encyclopedic and (2) gives the uninitiated reader the relevant info that his famous grandmother is dead, which I think is a neutral way of looking at the fact. (Lots and lots of people - even in Britain - have no idea who Diana was - it's been 17 years since she died.). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
It is perfectly possible that something you have never heard of is nevertheless true. I should note that you never miss an opportunity to highlight that someone is not a native speaker of English, which, frankly, borders on personal attack. So does your description of DerbyCountyinNZ, who quite correctly reverted your edit, as "an apparent article owner". Anyway, as has been noted here, the fact that Diana is dead has no impact on George's life and status. Those familiar with her history already know that she is dead; an unfamiliar reader would not find the information useful because it is not relevant to the article. Surtsicna (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I concur that "the late" does not imply "reverence" or any degree of regard: one is as likely to describe a criminal as such as a princess. What it does usually imply is that the person's status (dead or alive) is unlikely to be known by the intended audience or that the death occurred within living memory, which is why comparing Diana's death to those of Elizabeth II's parents is not an apt analogy. It may be insufficiently encyclopedic (although I'm neutral on that point) because it smacks of recentism, but not for any other reason. FactStraight (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, as I believe HelenOnline also has a point when she describes it as a euphemism. Elizabeth II's mother outlived Diana by five years and died in this millennium, making the analogy quite apt. Surtsicna (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Noting the above comments, let me add that, while in some contexts it may be useful to mention, with suitable wording, that a person is no longer living, or had been residing lately or latterly in a certain parish or country but not presently, or that a person was formerly Lady or Lord Whoever or Miss or Mrs or Mr Anybody, the information that Diana is not alive today or that her life ended in 1997 is practically uninformative for the purpose of this article without the information given in the links mentioned above. But another question: why is she named "Lady Diana Spencer" in the "Ancestors"[8] and not "Diana, Princess of Wales", to which the name is linked? Qexigator (talk) 07:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The current version says princess. In writing about ancestry, it is common to use women's maiden names. See for example Bill Clinton's family tree.[9] TFD (talk) 08:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
The current version of the family tree (in the expandable panel) gives "Lady Diana Spencer". Is that consistent with others in the same tree, and in similar trees of members of UK's royal family? Qexigator (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
It's consistent with his father and uncle's family trees. The Queen's family tree list her mother as Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, not as Elizabeth, The Queen Mother. This is consistent with other European royals as well; Prince Christian of Denmark's family tree lists his mother by her maiden name, not her married one. Morhange (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for this elucidation, which settles the point so far as concerns-..Qexigator (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Qexigator, your original post in this section contained this clause: "how if at all it may affect the child's status as prince or as heir to the widowed grandfather, who had since remarried the woman who thus became the child's step-grandmother, still living." Please tell me how the death of an ancestor can change one's place in the line of succession to the British Throne. As an amateur historian with some exposure to the history of Great Britain in college, I'm unaware how this even became a bone of contention here. Neither the Prince of Wales nor Lady Diana Spencer ever disowned any of their progeny, so it cannot be that the line of succession was ever altered with respect to their children or grandchildren. Can it? loupgarous (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy Title?

Does HRH Prince George also not have use (from birth) of the courtesy title from his father's peerage, Earl of Strathearn? Should that be mentioned in the Titles section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfossa (talk • contribs) 13:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry (for not signing off properly too): I have arguably found the answer elsewhere, and have realised that this is a discussion on the subject matter, and not about the article per se. Feel free to close/delete this thread.

Hfossa (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

George doesn't use any courtesy titles from his father's peerage as he has titles of his own - namely, Prince George of Cambridge. Courtesy titles are only used (at least by men) when someone doesn't have a title of their own. This is similar to how Princes Charles and William have never used the lesser titles of their fathers (or in William's case his grandfather). Psunshine87 (talk) 09:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2014

I would like to request that George's stated religion is changed back from "Church of England" to "Baptised as a Christian", as suggested by Qexigator above on 21 December.

Since that date, Keivan.f reverted back to "Church of England" twice, in the process ignoring a request to take part in the talk page discussion.

Accordingly, I suggest that the reasons for preferring "Baptised as a Christian" still stand. Religion is a matter of personal choice, and a baby does not have the ability to make that choice. Keivan.f implied, in his edit summary, that this is how Royal Family articles are written. That may be so for family members who are sufficiently old to be able to choose whether to follow a particular faith. However, I would suggest that any Wikipedia article which labels a baby as having a particular faith is simply wrong in doing so - for the reasons given above. Scroogle22 (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It also provides a useful standard for royals such as the present Prince of Wales, who has stated that he would take the title of "Defender of Faith" on accession to the Throne. [1] I'm unaware that Parliament has amended the Royal Style and Titles Act to accommodate this change, or if consultations with the other Commonwealth realms have begun on the matter. loupgarous (talk) 08:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
The legislation does not specify the title or style. It gives the monarch the power to choose their own title and style. There is a separate title in each realm; there is no need for the realms to co-ordinate on that issue. DrKiernan (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that, DrKiernan. loupgarous (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Prince George will never be Duke of Cambridge

I made an edit to the Prince George Wiki page a few days ago which I thought was quite reasonable to add but has now been removed.

In the section about his titles, I added that providing the succession to the throne continues as expected, Prince George will never hold the title of Duke of Cambridge. This being because when Prince William accedes to the throne the title of Duke of Cambridge will merge with the Crown and by William being King, Prince George will automatically become Duke of Cornwall (and likely made Prince of Wales) so the Dukedom of Cambridge wouldn't ever be held by him.

Could somebody please explain to me why this edit is somehow speculative as the reverting editor labelled it!

UK Royalist (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The unsourced edit I reverted was worded "though as long as the succession to the throne continues as expected, he will never hold these titles". This is unsourced speculation, as well as "when Prince William accedes to the throne", "will merge", "will automatically become", "wouldn't ever be held by him" in your comment above. Per WP:SPECULATION: "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included." and "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." I can think of at least one possible scenario where Prince George does become the Duke of Cambridge. HelenOnline 10:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I can think of two: a) his father predeceases him not having ascended the thrones, b) his father ascends the thrones and grants him the Dukedom of Cambridge. Helen is absolutely right. Surtsicna (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Err, that's why I prefixed it with 'if the succession continues as expected' - George would have no need to be granted Dukedom of Cambridge upon Prince William's accession. UK Royalist (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

A speculative statement prefaced with "if ..." is still speculation. This is not the place for it. HelenOnline 12:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that Prince George being the heir to his father's titles is an unnecessary inclusion in general. While he is the heir, he's not actually expected to inherit the titles (yes, that's speculation, but it's expected that the Dukedom will merge with the crown). It's not listed on Prince Charles' page that he is the heir to the title Duke of Edinburgh, even though he will inherit it if Prince Philip predeceases the Queen, so I don't see why it's necessary to include that Prince George is the heir to title Duke of Cambridge. Psunshine87 (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The title does not have to revert to the throne. The title, by a writ by parliament, could be treated like any other peerage and the regular rules apply. In the case should Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, predecease his son; the title would pass to him. On the Dukedom of Edinburgh issue, the Prince of Wales wouldn't inherit it. The title has a subsidiary (though currently independent) title of the Earldom of Wessex. --72.252.130.98 (talk) 03:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think the Earldom of Wessex is a subsidiary of the Dukedom of Edinburgh. The Duke of Edinburgh's subsidiaries are the Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich. It is intended that after the Duke's titles merge with the crown - following the deaths of Prince Philip and the Queen and the ascension of Prince Charles, who is Prince Philip's heir apparent - that the Dukedom will be recreated for Prince Edward. Until then, Prince Edward is in the line of succession to the Dukedom, but only after his elder brothers and nephews. Psunshine87 (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to second the point two above my comment here, I would argue the whole clause about him being heir to the title should be removed as the Dukedom will merge with the crown in the normal way of things. If Prince William dies before succeeding, then (and only then) Prince George would inherit the Dukedom. If the succession continues as it is, however, Prince George will never inherit it as it will merge with the crown upon Prince William's accession. Regarding the point above this comment about the Prince of Wales not inheriting the Dukedom, the remainder of the title of Duke of Edinburgh means he will inherit it upon the death of the Duke of Edinburgh. UK Royalist (talk) 07:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone object to removing the clause about Prince George being the heir to the Dukedom? Psunshine87 (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The article would be better without it, for the reasons given above. The speculative possibility either way adds nothing of informative value to the article, and, for the same reasons, there is no RS to support it. Qexigator (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
No objection here. HelenOnline 07:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Since there seems to be no real desire or reason to keep the point, I've removed it. Psunshine87 (talk) 06:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Does Subsidiary titles apply?

According to the rules of the Peerage of England (pree 1707), Scotland (pre 1707),Great Britain (post 1707), Ireland (pre 1801) and the United Kingdom (post 1801), the eldest son of the peer of the realm is entitled to use the highest ranking subsidiary title. Considering that Prince George of Cambridge's father is Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus; doesn't it automatically makes George, Earl of Strathmore.

The issue already has precedent, where Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex's son is Lord Severn (the Earldom's subsidiary title). The Earldom itself is subsidiary to the Dukedom of Edinburgh pending merger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.130.98 (talk) 03:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Viscount Severn is titled as such because his parents chose to have their children styled as children of a non-royal, Earl rather than as children of a royal Earl. If not for that decision, they would be known as Princess Louise and Prince James of Wessex, no courtesy titles, as the royal family has always done for male-line grandchildren of the monarch when the sons have a royal dukedom. Morhange (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
The Earldom of Wessex is not a sibsidiary title of the Dukedom of Edinburgh, it is a title that was created independently for the current Earl. The Earl is expected to be created Duke of Edinburgh (in its 5th creation) after the current Duke's death and the succession of the second Duke (Prince Charles) to the throne. While the eldest son of the peer of the realm may be entitled to use the highest ranking subsidiary title, subsidiary titles are only held when a person doesn't hold any titles of their own. Prince George holds a title - he is a Prince of the United Kingdom - and therefore doesn't use any of his father's subsidiary titles. Similarly, Prince William is a Prince of the United Kingdom and has never used any of his father's subsidiary titles, while Prince Charles is (among many other titles) a Prince of the United Kingdom and has never used any of his father's subsidiary titles. Viscount Severn, as Morhange pointed out, is styled as the son of an Earl instead of a Prince of the Realm, and as such doesn't hold (or use) any title of his own, and so is able to use his father's subsidiary title. Prince George is the heir to his father's titles, but he doesn't use any of them. Psunshine87 (talk) 08:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
AFAIK royal dukedoms do not carry subsidiary titles, probably because they are not inheritable. So Lord Severn is heir to the Earldom of Wessex, but there are no heirs to royal dukedoms. Also, as you say, the sons are entitled to use subsidiary titles, they are not required to, the same applies to wives. The Earl of Wessex is the Viscount Severn and his son is addressed as viscount by courtesy. TFD (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
No, royal dukedoms do have subsidiary titles and they are inheritable. Do you mean courtesy titles? The heirs-apparent to the Dukedoms of Edinburgh, of Cornwall, of Rothesay, and of Cambridge (York has no heir), all of whom will inherit their's father's peerages unless the crown 'gets in the way,' do not use courtesy titles (Earl of Merioneth, erm nothing I suppose, Earl of Carrick and Earl of Strathearn) because they are already entitled to much higher titles as Princes. Royal (substantive) peers use their (substantive) title because by tradition being a royal peer is a higher style that being a "mere" Prince, but royal would-be courtesy peers do not because by tradition being a Prince in one's own right is higher than being an Earl in someone else's. The heirs-apparent to the (currently-)royal dukedoms of Gloucester and of Kent do, however, use their courtesy styles as earls because they are not princes. DBD 08:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Not all royal dukedoms are inheritable. Cambridge and Edinburgh would ordinarily be inherited just like other peerages, as are Kent, Gloucester, and York. Cornwall and Rothesay, however, are special cases: they are reserved for the sole use of the Sovereign's eldest son. DrKiernan (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Damn my haste. Of course, I know that very well. Thanks DrK. DBD 09:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Some royal dukedoms revert to the crown on the death of their holders, while others are hereditary. But when someone is called by the subsidiary title of his father, it is done by courtesy. The title of prince is higher than that of a viscount. In the end however, I suppose members of the royal family are called whatever they decide to call themselves. It is interesting too that in most cases, subsidiary titles were created first and became subsidiary as their holders received higher titles. But in the case of members of the royal family, they are normally created at the same time. TFD (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Main Image

Regardless of the debate of whether or not this image is a free image, is it really appropriate as the main image for the page? I question this since the image is a painting of a living person, instead of an actual picture of a living person, and is pretty similar to a picture located elsewhere in the article that was moved from being the main picture on the grounds that it doesn't show Prince George's face and is no longer an accurate picture of Prince George (him having been a day old in the image). If we must have a picture and cannot find another free image, then it would seem to me to be better to use the actual picture already included in the article (particularly as there isn't a debate about it being a free image). Even better would be to try to find a free image from the current New Zealand/Australia tour, where Prince George has been photographed heavily, or use one of the pictures released by the family for his christening or just prior to the tour. Psunshine87 (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This painting may be a copyright violation. There is a deletion discussion on Commons for this. From here it will either stay or be deleted.--Egghead06 (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Picture

There is a picture of George, his parents, and the Governor-General of Australia in the article. Is there any reason why a larger, cropped version of the picture can't be used as the main picture? Psunshine87 (talk) 06:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is. Firstly, why use the same photograph twice? Secondly, he is not facing the camera. Thirdly, the photograph is already more than four months old; since the subject is a toddler, this means it's likely outdated. All in all, the cropped version looks terrible. Surtsicna (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Redirects to this page nominated at RfD

Three redirects to this page have been nominated for discussion or deletion at RfD today. Your contribution to the discussions would be welcome.

Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"big brother"

This is the sort of article that attracts near trivia such as George's first birthday party was themed around children's author Beatrix Potter, who knew members of the Lupton family, George's maternal ancestors, and The Prince George effect, also known as the Royal Baby effect, is the trend that news about Prince George has in business and pop culture.[10] Less trivial could be that Ed Miliband, the Labour Party (UK) leader, and Leader of the Opposition (United Kingdom) has been reported by The Guardian as saying: "Fantastic to hear that Prince George will soon be a big brother!"[11] Coming from such a prominent politician, that may be notable as an inadvertent (or intentional?) reference to Big Brother (Nineteen Eighty-Four) or Big Brother (UK). Is there a place for it in this article? Qexigator (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
If anything, it implies Miliband prefers the closer, less successful Fulton & Fulton version of The Fantastics to Rogers & Fulton. Remember, all assumptions about this baby must tie into Scottish independece. The news heap has spoken. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

what is this?

What is this nonsense that a one-year-old had a birthday party based on Beatrix Potter? Who the hell cares? If this was ANY other 1-year-old, we wouldn't mention it at all. It is NOT NOTABLE. When he does something notable like go to nursey school, we can add something Until then, no. 66.67.32.161 (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Most other one-year-olds aren't likely to have their own wikipedia page. Most other first birthday parties also don't likely have three sources attached to them. Psunshine87 (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, he isn't any other one-year-old. He's special. It's crazy, but it's true. Just one of those things. It makes more sense to just not look. Or campaign against the the second son. He's only kind of special. The reliable sources will undoubtedly confirm this by comparison when he's one. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

God, that's creepy.

I just restored a cropped picture of a baby and a wombat for the infobox. Once I did, I realized it had a human hand. That's scary stuff. I still think my summary reasoning (that we should spread the photos around the article) is valid, and that Wikipedia is not censored, so I think it should stay. But I definitely see how this may be terrifying to general audiences. That was not my intention. If someone can find a picture more suitable to British sensibilities, I'm all for it, but we should have something in the infobox.

Whether the horrible mutant belongs in his previous space, unzoomed and not so immediately apparent is a question we'll have to ask later. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Gun Salute in Gibraltar on the birth of Prince George of Cambridge
It's better to have no picture than an admittedly unsuitable one, which I have removed for that reason and because it is repeated uncropped below, as previously pointed out by another editor. Until a better is available let this be used, as an incentive to replace it with one of the boy himself, unaccompanied or with his parent(s), when it becomes available. The salute at his birth is not irrelevant, and will have some relevance for his lifetime, like his royal birth title as prince.
Qexigator (talk) 07:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Having a picture of the 21 gun salute as the main image makes absolutely no sense. Sure, include it in the article, but it's as logical of a main image in the infobox as the image of the easel announcing his birth. I fail to see why the cropped picture of George in New Zealand is "unsuitable" given as it's a full picture of him and seems to be the only one we seem to have access to. It might not be the best picture of him, especially as it's a side angle, but it's the only one we have access to and despite it being older more recent but not free images show that he still looks pretty much the same. The full picture, with his parents, can easily be removed from the article - as it already was once, only to be readded by someone else. Why don't we just leave the cropped picture in place and take out the full image again rather than leave the infobox empty or with a picture that isn't actually of the Prince? Psunshine87 (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I was the one who re-added the group-photo version because it's the better composed picture. It's also more versatile, in that you can see more. The cropped photo, which gives less information, doesn't work well as a thumbnail and takes up too much room. If you're allowed to keep only one version (and I don't think that that's policy), why not put the family portrait in the infobox? If people need to see the boy in closeup, let them click on the photo to see a larger version. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't really care which version we use in the infobox, but the justification that people continue to use for not having the image in the infobox is that it appears elsewhere in the article. It seems to be a common practice to crop pictures for the infobox when multiple subjects are shown. Psunshine87 (talk) 07:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it looks incredibly stupid to have the cannons, or whatever they are, in the infobox. This is an article about a person (however non-notable he may be, but that is a battle long lost), not artillery. The cropped photo of the actual subject of the article is far from perfect (due to the unavoidable portions of other people and the wombat), but it is much better than anything else here (which I am assuming contains all the current options.) I also see nothing wrong with having the prince in the infobox, and then the full picture with Mom and Prince Dad and whoever that other guy is, and the monster wombat, lower down in the article where it is now. One is a picture of Prince George, the other is a picture of an event including Prince George; it is not really that jarring, especially if the group photo is the last one in the article. Or replace the group shot with the cannons, as long as the cannons are not in the infobox. Neutron (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Since only one person here seems to think the 21 gun salute image is a better one, can we go forward and re-add the picture of George? Psunshine87 (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
What is the possibility of obtaining another, better image, one that would show the child's face better? What is the possibility of getting permission to use official portraits as they're released, especially since any current photo will be outgrown in a short period of time? Dhtwiki (talk) 05:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I would disagree that any photo will be outgrown in a short period of time; the official pictures of George released for his birthday show him looking much the same as he did in Australia; a bit bigger and more stable on his feet perhaps, but no drastic differences (especially if you consider that the picture currently being used for George's great-grandfather is one that is more than 20 years old). If we were arguing between a picture from his christening and a more recent one I would agree, as he did change in appearance drastically, but he hasn't changed as much since then. As for the issue of whether or not we can use an official portrait, the Prince of Wales' website is rather vague on copyright issues. The website doesn't say that they can be used in creative commons; in contrast the picture of George and his parents in Australia is free to use in accordance with the Governor General's copyright information on his website. If someone can find something on the Prince of Wales' website or the Monarchy's website that says otherwise then I think we'd be good to go ahead, but for now we're not.
That said, in the mean time while we're limited to just the one picture can we please put it back in the infobox? Psunshine87 (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense. He certainly isn't a cannon. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The official photos are copyrighted and those that aren't are restricted to non-commercial use only; see http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/terms-and-conditions. DrKiernan (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
"To obtain permission from the Press Association visit the Press Association website." Not telling you to do it, just putting it out there. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Assuming that the Press Association counts as a news agency, they would likely ask for a "hefty fee" for use, according to one Wikipedia policy page I consulted. That didn't sound as though WP counts as an exception. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Watch for sewing machines and spinning wheels. Again.

I was here last year, crying "Hear Ye!" about how we should pay attention to people we've ignored, and keep the prince from pricking his finger. As the new year approaches, it's imperative we remain vigilant.

See here. The christening gown was first worn by Queen Victoria. They even say "interwoven". Now see here. A stitch in time, in Victoria, B.C.! There was a movie called that once, by a man named Wisdom. It was shot entirely in Buckinghamshire.

Long story short, I suspect the old Queen shall return. On the 13th of this month, it was announced that in her 13th year, Victoria was "very very very very horribly naughty!!!!" I'm not saying that clearly means she's The Thirteenth Guest (not that one, this one). I'm just saying it might.

So keep your eyes peeled for signs, like smallfolk in Nottingham offering introductions to the "ancient craft" of spinning wool today. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

23:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Knitting is even more hazardous in a deck chair. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Burn it! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Frightfully irresponsible use of fossil fuels, dear chap. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
For the record, my timestamp had nothing to do with this or the "new year approaches" bit. I meant the baby's new year. Just wanted Miszabot to work. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Prince George of Cambridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Both links look good. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Baptism and beliefs

Can a child less than two years of age hold religious beliefs? Or in what other sense can he be said to "have a religion"? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Good point! I don't think so. I also don't think that infant baptism constitutes someone having a religion. Membership of a church perhaps, but on that age even that doesn't imply that the person in question actually has a religion or religious beliefs. I'm all for not mentioning such things in biographies of living persons (royalty and otherwise) until there is some act of confirmation. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, baptism does not make one a member of a religious group, just that one's parents consider the denomination to be part of the Christian church. TFD (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
In the Church of England, baptism is precisely what makes one a member of that religious group. Jonathunder (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
In the big picture, his religious beliefs won't really matter at all. That's something private, which is no one's business, except his own. However, given his position as future king and future head of the Anglican Church, we can safely say that he is (and will most likely be, for the rest of his life) affiliated to the Anglican church. Whether he really believes in it or not, it doesn't matter in the slightest. He will have to fulfil that role anyway, unless he pulls an Edward VIII and gives up the throne. So we can safely mention his religion as Anglicanism, because that is the truth, at least formally. Whether it is also his real belief, it is not for us to debate and for Wikipedia to mention, because it none of our business. Bluefairy en (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Is "Baptised in the Church of England" a religion? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Archive 5 contains a discussion on this subject which reached the current consensus. I think that consensus should be reviewed. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

There is now consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes to remove this parameter from biographical infoboxes that do not relate to religious leaders/figures. DrKay (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

England, UK

There is no need to include both England and UK, for several reasons. First, London is an internationally known city, and we can expect that (provided with UK as a disambiguator) most readers have a good understanding of where it is. Second, per MOS:INFOBOX, we should present information in short form. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: The fact is that adding "England" doesn't make it much longer, and it obviously still remains in the short form as we're not including street address on the infobox. And, yes, London as a city is widely known around the world, but it's a part of England. Paris is also an internationally known city in its own right but its name has been generally added with the country's name, France, to the infoboxes. When you look at the articles you can obviously see that generally after a city's name comes the country's name. It still seems confusing because England is a part of the UK, but it's still a country so I suggest we add it. Keivan.fTalk 18:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Adding "England" makes that infobox item long enough that it has to be split and occupy two lines, leaving just "UK" by itself on the second line, which doesn't look very good. Dhtwiki (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I can see no added value in adding "England" between London and UK. If the reader really doesn't know where London is, they are one click away from finding out. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
One click technically just leads to St Mary's Hospital, London, which barely mentions England. At least they'll learn George was born in the W postcode area. I've heard of England, but never that. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Have now adjusted to "St Mary's Hospital, London". The glorious W postcode area still perfectly attainable. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that's a MOSLINK problem. [[St Mary's Hospital, London]] or [[St Mary's Hospital, London|St Mary's Hospital]], London or [[St Mary's Hospital, London]], UK are all good options. As Dhtwiki notes, adding "England" splits the line. Adding "France" to "Paris" is analogous to adding "UK" to "London". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

British succession or not.

There's discussion at Charles, Prince of Wales, relating to this article's intro. GoodDay (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Citation overkill

There are too many citations in this article. Nothing should require three citations. In fact, if one covers the information, there is no need for two. The References section is ridiculously long. Surtsicna (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Could you point to instances where there is actual duplication? I'm seeing sources that describe actions and reactions in various parts of the commonwealth and in other countries that take a lively interest in such events. Some of the citations grouped at the end of a sentence might be distributed to the various sections they support, such as at the sentence on various countries minting coins. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The wombat must go!

At least, that's the conclusion I've come to after two-and-a-half years of trying to unsee his human hand. It's not even so much that it's an abomination of God and science, but the whole damned scene is just creepy. The future king is having his jewels cupped by a monster, which appears to also be chewing out his heart (or nibbling his nipple, which is wrong on two levels). His face (particularly his eyebrow) says he is not having a good time. He is reaching for the werebear's (lifeless) eyes, as custom dictates one should when attacked by any large carnivore. He would escape, but is surrounded by three gleeful giants; one restrains him, one props up the beast (awkwardly) and one rules a distant realm where wild animals famously eat babies.

He's getting to the age where he can Google himself, if he isn't already, and though it'll be a while before it teaches him all he needs to know to comprehend this wicked display, even a peasant child can recognize a general "that which should not be" in dark art. It would be a shame if such an image were baked into his malleable brain, warping slightly as the years go on, as the weirder cartoons often do. I'm not saying King George III was haunted by the time his mother fed him to his father's undead inhuman mistress while an old man watched, but if he was, he'd have been a lot madder about someone taking a photo and putting it on the Internet for smallfolk to laugh at.

If anyone can find a more flattering free replacement with a Governor General, that'd be great. In the meantime, I've deleted the wombat. If someone is particularly fond of it, or sure it won't drastically affect the future, I won't stop you from restoring it. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Except for George's mother's hand possibly being the wombat's instead, which I hadn't noticed, and the missing two digits of George's left hand, which I think has been pointed out; none of the particulars of the photo as you see it register with me. I see a photo that is a display of geniality (of the participants) and generosity (of the Australians, in being able to afford such a lavish gift, as well as the liberality of their copyright laws that allow the photo's display on Wikipedia). As far as this photo being a future embarrassment, a) only the wombat is nude, and b) it'll be nothing compared to what he'll have to deal with once the press decides that he's fair game. Yes, I'll be restoring the photo, and, next time, let's have this discussion before you edit the article, so people don't have to access an old version to see what's being talked about. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
All good points. Didn't even consider Australian copyright or the wombatman's lack of either jeans or genitals. There won't be a next time. I'll just try to avert my eyes till this photo naturally grows old and is replaced by something more age-appropriate (like a Vegas pool party). In the meantime, I'll sleep easier with the record showing I was on his side, if it comes to that. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

This thread is precious. Surtsicna (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant details

My question is, how Catherine's morning sickness or William's paternity leave could in any way be considered part of George's biography? Over the course of 10 years, who will care whether William went on a one-weak paternity leave or a two-weak one? This is an article, not a diary. That is why I fully agree with Surtsicna's edit on the newborn child's article. Keivan.fTalk 04:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Much of the article is about more than just the subject's biography in terms of what he accomplishes or experiences day-to-day: the effect of his birth on the order of succession, the interest taken in him, etc. What you took out were fairly brief and well sourced mentions that have the implicit consensus of being longstanding. I'll revert awaiting a new consensus forming here for their removal. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
But all that is still directly related to him, Dhtwiki. William taking two full weeks of paternity leave is not about George, however, but about William. In addition to that, is it really encyclopedically noteworthy that a parent took parental leave? The same can be said about much of the first two sections. Surtsicna (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
The other is directly related. William taking paternity leave was directly related. How the pregnancy affected his wife, as well. The tradition maintained of using the same hospital is relevant. The part you just deleted for being sourced from the Daily Mail (I think disruptively, as a "better source" template could have been placed, but for which I couldn't find better), on midwifery, whose employment may indicate a trend to natural pregnancies, possibly helped along by this pregnancy, is related. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
That's your opinion. Does it really matter who delivered Queen Elizabeth 92 years ago or whether her father took paternity leave or not? These are not encyclopedic information; it's called trivia and there's no place for such things on the biography of a living person, especially someone like George who will probably have an eventful life. Keivan.fTalk 01:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
So it was two people in favor of removing those details, and one in favor of keeping them. If anyone else does not oppose the changes in a few days, I'll remove them again myself. Keivan.fTalk 22:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Support removal, probably stems from the early days of the article when loads of trivia gets added to the article just to fill the page but were probably not relevant then either. MilborneOne (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: While I agree that the paternity leave is irrelevant, your edit went far beyond that, and included details that are indisputably about George himself, such as his role as a page boy. If you think that should be removed as well, make an argument for it, but so far it hasn't been discussed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

What I removed was information such as Kate's labour and the doctors who assisted her during birth, and you restored a large portion of it without a clear reason. What do any of these things have to do with George? Regarding the paragraph which said that he served as a page boy at his aunt's wedding, that's trivial and is not an event of significant importance in his life. William also served as a pageboy in numerous weddings. I don't see any of them being mentioned on his article though. Keivan.fTalk 20:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
As mentioned in my edit summary, I felt your edit was too aggressive - it removed details that were not discussed here, and which are in fact about George, including his role as a pageboy and who delivered him. Given that the child is four years old, details that may be insignificant in the life of a man in his thirties are not so here; they can always be revisited and removed once eclipsed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
And as I said, everything except his role as a page boy, was already discussed and removed per consensus, but I don't believe that his appearance as a page boy is really important, as it has not even been mentioned on Charlotte's article. I think traveling to Canada with their parents on a royal tour is much more important and needs to be mentioned instead. Keivan.fTalk 21:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
We don't have a word limit, and the article is not particularly long anyways. If you think something should be added, add it; there is no "instead" needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not trying to say that we should necessarily replace existing stuff with other things. What I meant was that trivial information need to be cleared out and biographical information should remain. Keivan.fTalk 14:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I too fail to see how George carrying rings or carrying the train (or whatever it is that pageboys do) at an aunt's wedding is of encyclopedical relevance. It was a private, family event, and George's role was... not quite essential. I do not think that the scarcity of proper biographical information warrants an inclusion of trivia. Less can be more. Surtsicna (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

As of now, the body of the article makes absolutely no mention of George being third in line to the throne. That fact, his sole claim to notability, is mentioned only in the lead sentence and in the succession box at the bottom, without a single source to back it up. I think we need to get our priorities straight and focus more on the subject's constitutional position than on what he, as a 4-year-old, does. Surtsicna (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Tone of article

Can the breathless and sycophantic tone of this article be dialed down? For heaven's sake, he's only 5 years old. There's no need for either excessive detail or repeating the over the top claims of the press. Landbroke99 (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you please specify what the excessive detail is and what the over-the-top claims are? Your edits so far were not particularly helpful. It is not an embellishment to report what is literally in the title of the BBC article. The BBC article does not present an editorial opinion but poll results. The content you removed for being unsourced is, in fact, well sourced. Citations are not supposed to appear in the lead, however. Surtsicna (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
"The visit bolstered the support for the monarchy in the two realms" is a vast exaggeration and citing the words of Tony Abbott, Australia's most monarchist PM in decades, as evidence, is ridiculous. Landbroke99 (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Abbott's words are not cited as evidence. The BBC article is cited as source. The evidence are the polls. Surtsicna (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
An excellent example then of how this article is embellishing since, according to the BBC article, the poll was "published on the morning of the couple's arrival" meaning the poll was actually conducted before the royal tour began meaning it cannot be used as evidence that "the visit bolstered the support of the monarchy". For that you'd need to have a poll taken after the visit and compare it with one taken before. The article puts the cart before the horse. Landbroke99 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Does this article even need to exist right now? Can't it wait until he's an adult? Landbroke99 (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

It couldn't wait until he was born. It was created twice while he was still a fetus. Surtsicna (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Intro

Do we really need to know that his birth was widely celebrated in the UK & the other Commonwealth realms, as he's a future monarch? We don't have any mention of celebrations over Charles' or William's births in their article intros. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

If you have reliably sourced information about the celebrations of Charles's and William's birth, please do not hesitate to improve the articles about them. Removing info from one article because parallel info is not found in another article is not the way to improve an encyclopedia. It would be akin to removing the mention of William's wife because no wife of George is mentioned. Wikipedia articles are not written according to a template. Literally a third of this article is about the celebration of George's birth, and the lead section of an article is supposed to summarize the content of the article. Surtsicna (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
As the boy ages, celebration over his birth will become less significant. The intros to these bio articles should be as consistent as possible. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
No, intros of articles about different topics cannot be consistent with each other. One topic is a 4-year-old, another is a 35-year-old. Your quest for consistency is becoming a burden to the quality of articles. Surtsicna (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Seeing as we're discussing just a sentence in this article's intro, an Rfc isn't required. A local consensus will do. Hopefully, others will chime in here. Obviously, you & I aren't going to come to an agreement. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Keep sourced information also see WP:OTHERCONTENT 80.235.147.186 (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm happy for the celebrations to be kept in the lead for the next few years, if he becomes more notable for other reasons (as seems likely!) then it can be replaced with that information. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Why shouldn't this article contain George's ancestry?

I added his ancestry but it was removed. Why shouldn't this article contain his ancestry? There is a link to the whole family's family tree, but the one in this article was more detailed as it also contained his mother's ancestors. --Pjoona11 (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

All the other royal family members' articles contain their ancestries, why should William's children be exceptions? Doesn't make any sense. --Pjoona11 (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Other stuff exists is not a valid reason, an ancestry table adds zero value to the article, the link to the family tree article is sufficient for those interested. Bit concerned that that you say it needs a more detailed table, no it doesnt his notability is through his parents which are clearly mentioned the rest is basically trivia. MilborneOne (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Just to note this discussion has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 9#Royals Ancestry. MilborneOne (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with MilborneOne, Celia Homeford and DrKay. It's trivial, 5 generations is a gross overkill, and using sources published decades before the subject was born is an obvious violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. Please do not reinsert disputed content without consensus. Surtsicna (talk) 14:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

That was fast; it's already been deleted. I remember it as a tightly cropped version of a public-domain photo (per being taken by a US government photographer) that is still on the page. It either shouldn't have been hard to establish copyright bona fides or to create another cropped photo (although there have been complaints all along that the photo shows a too-youthful George). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhtwiki (talk • contribs) 23:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I think you missed an intervening edit, which presumably replaced the photo you're talking about with a copyrighted one. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Prenatal development

This biographical article is unique in having been created before the subject was born, and the first paragraph of Prince George of Cambridge#Birth and baptism is there to remind us of that dubious curiosity. I have tried to rewrite it from a 2020 perspective but I cannot find whatever happened to British national economy and pride. Hopefully someone else might. Surtsicna (talk) 10:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Current image possibilities?

There are now two, just officially released this week by the Palace. But I have no clue as to their policies on image copyrights. When released on Instagram here https://www.instagram.com/p/CC8EOXUliV5/ and here https://www.instagram.com/p/CC61TwRFOXU/ they were immediately picked up by dozens of global media outlets and put into articles. That seems to imply they are put out for restriction-free usage. Anyone who is more tied to this (like Surtsicna) should investigate. It would put this constant issue to bed (at least for a few years). Also, Dhtwiki may find it's an easier way to get an image into the article's infobox than their flirting with a possible 3RR ban – as seems to be happening right now. 😉 Cheerio – ░▒▓ №∶72.234.220.38 (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC) ▓▒░

Unless the pictures include an acceptable and explicit WP:CC/PD license, we can't use them. George will eventually have his own image, so we don't need another entry at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 20:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the Palace released these images to be used by all media. For evidence I'll present; "all media" 😉. The royal.uk site has some restrictions on commercial usage. I'm not at all invested in this article, so others will need to do the research work to get the two new images over here where they would quash the edit warring. – ░▒▓ №∶72.234.220.38 (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC) ▓▒░
That's not how WP:licenses work. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 17:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
And the link you provided explicity says "Images of Members of the Royal Family under the age of 18 should not be used for commercial purposes." So they will not allow us to use their pictures here. An external source must provide a free image. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 17:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Greetings ©Tbhotch™, I feel you may not be really clear on what "commercial purposes" implies in this case. As you probably know, Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, a "not-for-profit and charitable organization". What you may not know is that under UK law, not-for-profit and charitable organizations are excluded from most rules governing commercial-nature transaction related regulations. Reading the Royal.uk stipulations, it's quite clear what they are wishing to prevent on the commercial use side of image usage. Furthermore, most of these types of published royal images will fall under the UK's Open Government Licence (OGL). This licence is often quoted on Wikimedia content as the rational for permitted usage at our encyclopedia. It has been the case for years, and specifically since 2010 when the most recent OGL was enacted. At that time, we created a template for this which creates the needed "copyright tag". Are you sure you have a full & accurate take on WP:licenses?
But as I stated before, this article isn't something I edit. So I'll leave it to Surtsicna or others to, if they wish, tie current images to the OGL and then upload them to Wikimedia for use here. Regards. – ░▒▓ №∶72.234.220.38 (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC) ▓▒░

Infobox image edit war

I have fully protected the article from editing due to the edit war amongst a number of editors that has taken place over the last few days related to what is apparently a long term issue about the image in the infobox. I would strongly suggest dispute resolution of some sort to resolve this apparently intractable issue. At the very least a new discussion to establish consensus should occur. I am happy for any admin to unprotect if they feel a consensus has formed here. Woody (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Will you look at that Surtsicna, someone put back in the old image and then the page was protected. I find it personally funny as you brought me around to your thinking of this after I added the image back in months ago. It is quite stale, and people seem to ignore the MoS on images, which states:

Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic.

Maybe best to get one of the current images into Wikimedia Commons or perhaps put in a different image () to illustrate your point!. 😊 Regards. – ░▒▓ №∶72.234.220.38 (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC) ▓▒░
The lead image of Olivia de Havilland is her in 1945 even though we have pictures of her after the release of Gone with the Wind, until her late years. The lead picture of Celia Cruz is one of 1958 even when she is mostly remembered by pictures like that of Azúcar Negra. This whole discussion about George not looking like he used to 5 years ago is ridiculous. The topic is "Prince George of Cambridge" and the lead picture is clearly representing a younger version of him. We don't need to change the picture every time a person goes through physical changes. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 17:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello again. You seem to be comparing apples to oranges here. Although not specifically in the images MoS, actors and other celebrities are usually depicted in the lead/infobox with an image representing them in their "prime", or at the peak of their careers or notoriety. Such as with Olivia de Havilland. For every Celia Cruz (who I'm not familiar with), one can quickly point examples to the contrary, such as – John Wayne, Lucille Ball, Henry Kissinger, Fidel Castro, Freddie Mercury, Paul Newman, Greta Garbo, Marlon Brando. The only guidance and advice the MoS gives is what I quoted above. Now to the oranges: Children are also a specific case as their appearances change quickly. Conforming to the appropriate representations of the topic becomes more difficult. Your opinion as to how "ridiculous" this is, is… well… your opinion. Does this reach the level of Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars? My opinion is "not even close!", some of those are truly epic. 😊 Regards. – ░▒▓ №∶72.234.220.38 (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC) ▓▒░

On the advice of Woody (above), and seeing that the discussion in this section is seemingly not moving toward consensus, I have started an RfC on the matter (see below). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC about the infobox photo

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

Clear option 3, no need to go on, I changed the photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC) Which image should the infobox use? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

  • 2, no image, per WP:LEADIMAGE: a lead image is not required, and people do not expect to see a toddler when they look up Prince George. George is now 7, three times the age he was when the image was taken. He has since been potty trained and learnt to climb stairs, speak in sentences, read, and write, lost baby fat, and achieved adult-like proportions, etc. The image may be kept this year but it will only become more absurd as time passes. Do we still want to have the toddler image in the infobox when he is 13? We have had such situations.[12][13][14]
    The other issue is that File:Prince George of Cambridge color fix.jpg is a crop of File:Obamas with the Royals (26488482612).jpg, and so entirely redundant to it. If the crop should be in the infobox, then surely the full image should go. No biography needs more than one photograph of the subject in a bathrobe, least of all a child's biography. Surtsicna (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • 2, no image. Note: This opinion coming from an editor who had re-added the image some months back – my opinion was changed. (Finnusertop – RfC option 3 is sort of meaningless as there seem to be no other age-current images available). We should just follow the MoS. If someone having little knowledge of this subject views this article they may assume that the old image represents the current person. It does not, therefore, is at first glance, misleading (yes, they may later see the caption and "do the math"). As was mentioned, and pushing to reductio ad absurdum, will this image still be there when he turns 13? 18? 36? Who decides what's best? Of course a free-to-use current image will eventually be found, but until then, the MoS does state that a lead image is not required. Also, not having an image may make editors work harder to go out and find one! 😉 – ░▒▓ №∶72.234.220.38 (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC) ▓▒░

*Option 1, until a newer image is available. Naue7 (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Judging by the content of the GA-rated article, Evancho was at the height of her career in her puberty. Age-wise, the two cases will be comparable when Evancho is 39, i.e. three times the age she was when the lead picture was taken, if she continues her career. Surtsicna (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Feels inappropriate to put a minors photograph in an encyclopedia. We're not a tabloid. Comatmebro (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Yes, this biography would ideally include an image, but it's better not to have one than to include an outdated photo. I also agree with the point above that not having an image for the time being "may make editors work harder to go out and find one!" Some of everything (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
A photo from 2019
  • Option 1 or Option 3. An old picture is better than no picture, even for an article about a child. For Option 3, I found a 2019 photo on Commons and cropped it—see the photo to the right. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear it! I also found photos of his brother and sister on Commons from the same source. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Option 3 now. Ditto to what (Surtsicna) wrote. It's age appropriate/not misleading (for now), states it's under a Creative Commons CC BY license. Debate should be over, Granger seems to have solved it for us (Tnx!). See what results a little edit-warring can produce? 😉 – ░▒▓ №∶72.234.220.38 (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC) ▓▒░
  • I move to Option 3 - Yes, this is a much better photo of Prince George, and I think it works well for the page. Seeing this image will be less confusing for readers as opposed to the previous one. Thanks to Granger for providing an alternative. Some of everything (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: Leave the comment in the infobox next to the image recommending that any future editor first come discuss at the TALK page before changing the image. It may stop this silliness some years in the future, if/when that happens. – ░▒▓ №∶72.234.220.38 (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC) ▓▒░
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.

Infobox image

As already explained several times, File:Prince George of Cambridge color fix.jpg is a poor choice for the infobox. George is twice that age now and looks nothing like that. Wikipedia is very unlikely to get a new photo of him for years to come, so for how long is it supposed to depict him as a two-year-old? Besides, the exact same photograph is found further down in the article, so no content is lost by removing it from the infobox. A lead image is not a requirement, and File:Prince George of Cambridge color fix.jpg as the lead image here is definitely not an improvement. Surtsicna (talk) 09:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep most recent image as many edits agree it is better than no image in the infobox. Just as his father Prince William doesn't look exactly like his image from 2 years ago as he now has less hair it has a caption below it explaining the image is from 2016 just like this one does. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. IMO, any photo is better than none at all. Just as there's no requirement to have a lead image, there's no requirement that the image has to be up-to-date. clpo13(talk) 21:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
A 2016 photograph of an adult depicts him or her perfectly well in 2018. A 2016 photograph of a toddler does not depict a school age child at all. George is now twice the age he was when that picture was taken. That's comparable to using a photo of William when he was 15. While there is no requirement for an up-to-date photograph, there is a requirement that "images should look like what they are meant to illustrate" (MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE). Besides, that same photograph appears later in the article, making it redundant in the infobox. I disagree with clpo13's opinion that any photo in the infobox is better than none at all. The only photo we have of the 14-year-old Princess Ingrid Alexandra of Norway is from 2007; to use that in the infobox would be ridiculous. Surtsicna (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The new image doesn't appear later in the article. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
No, that's a new one, and it's terrible. It's still ridiculous to depict a school age child as a toddler. This 1987 photo is the only photograph we have of Peter Phillips but we have enough common sense not to put it into the infobox. Some might argue, however, that common sense flew out the window when we decided to have biographies of fetuses and newborns. Surtsicna (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Think you answered your own argument. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Think you have no arguments to counter my arguments. But to be fair, it is difficult to counter a clear and universally accepted guideline. Surtsicna (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
If you want one I would say another free image will appear in around 1 or 2 years just as the others have and to keep this image in the meantime seems reasonable in my opinion. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Other Royal pics don't exist. The current image seems fine to me, in fact a well-composed and charming photo. Readers can actually read the caption to see how old he was then. If it was still there in 10 years time, then yes we'd have a problem. I agree with clpo13. Martinevans123 (talk)
The original photograph is brilliant indeed. The cropped version is really not. It would've been a poor choice even in 2016, since the subject is facing away from the reader. The main problem is that a 2016 image is not a representative image of the subject, thus failing MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE and MOS:LEADIMAGE. Readers can read the caption only to realize then that the photograph is useless or, worse yet, misleading. There will still be people trying to add that toddler photo into the infobox in 10 years. Trust me, it happens. And as I said, he is already twice as old as he was when that picture was taken, so we already have a problem. Surtsicna (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
He's still recognisable. Don't see a problem. I feel sorry for Ingrid, but I'm sure her time will come. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
So, what's the consensus here? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
From the multiple different users adding an image to the infobox and everyone on the talk page agreeing there should be one with only one user reverting them all and dissenting here the consensus is to have an image in the infobox. Naue7 (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I have seen your many objections above and respectfully disagree, it not so out of date as to be unrecognisable and the caption describes when the image was taken. Cavalryman (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC).
  1. ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/3454271/Prince-Charles-to-be-known-as-Defender-of-Faith.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prince_George_of_Wales/Archive_5&oldid=1137098169"