Talk:Prince Harry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Prince Harry of Wales)
Jump to: navigation, search

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. There's little reason to expect further discussion could lead to any sort of consensus here. --BDD (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Prince Harry of Wales? – Cf. discussion above. Current title looks like a strange and silly attempt to combine his everyday name (Prince Harry) with his formal style (Prince Henry of Wales). Unless someone has reliable sources to support this, it must be changed, as it appears to be telling us that he is called something that in fact he is not called. Suggested alternatives: Prince Harry, Prince Henry of Wales, Prince Harry (Prince Henry of Wales), Prince Henry of Wales (Prince Harry). Take your pick. W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose until I know precisely what alternative I'm being asked to support. FactStraight (talk) 07:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
    • As I wrote, you can take your pick. Say which alternative you support, or suggest one of your own, or provide reliable sources to justify the current title. W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. There is no doubt that his "official" name is Prince Henry of Wales... and we should use that unless there is some other name that is used significantly more often in reliable sources. Now... According to [this google search "Prince Harry of Wales" is used by at least some sources. However, I am not sure whether it is used significantly more often than the official name. It looks like the unadorned Prince Harry is the most common usage (far outweighing all other options.). So... I would opt for either Prince Harry or Prince Henry of Wales. Blueboar (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support either Prince Harry (my favourite cos Harry is what he is known as) or Prince Henry of Wales would still be better than the current title. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Nobody refers to him as Prince Harry of Wales. As W. P. Uzer says, the current title is a silly attempt to combine his everyday name with his formal style. It's possible that results found in searches on Google are themselves a reflection of the title currently used for this article. Inglok (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Prince Harry (of Wales) ? -- (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Is that any better than the current title? It still implies that "Prince Harry of Wales" is an established name for him (or that he is from Wales, or from a specifically Welsh royal house, or something similar, which is even more untrue). Although my suggested parenthetical alternatives are cumbersome, I think they avoid the charge of inaccuracy, since a reader would presumably see that they are combining two different names. But my personal preference would be for the plain and simple Prince Harry, in spite of the fact that it sounds a little undignified in comparison with the names usually given to Wikipedia articles on royals. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose This issue has been chewed over before at length, while it is an awkward hybrid ultimately it raises fewer problems than any alternative approach, see WP:IAR. Move requests like this are verging on the inept, since we may well find that there is a majority for moving it from the present title, but there is no consensus about what to move it to, so the current title still has the support of a plurality. PatGallacher (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support either his official title, Prince Henry of Wales, or the more commonly used Prince Harry is preferable to the current title. Hot Stop talk-contribs 01:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Look at the last 2 archives, there were formal move requests in relation to this article in August 2009 and again in August 2012. Consensus can change, but this is in danger of becoming an annual event. Also, a minor point, but with the birth of Prince George of Cambridge he is no longer 3rd in line to the throne, he may be less in the public eye, so the case for treating him as the primary meaning of "Prince Harry" may become less clear cut. PatGallacher (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose It really isn't broken - there is no need to fix it. Kiltpin (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The title is good as it is. "Prince Harry" might also confuse with Shakespeare's Harry's. -- fdewaele, 1 August 2013, 11:52.
  • Comment. The reasons given for the last two votes of opposition are plain wrong. "Prince Harry of Wales" is simply not correct. It is a hybrid name that has been created by committee. That much is certain. And that last vote. Well, Harry was, of course, a nickname for Henry V. Prince Harry is so called by much of the media most of the time and so I doubt there is any room for confusion. I also struggle to find a good argument against a move in PatGallacher's vote, which appears basically to be, 'we've tried it before; it's never going to work' (no offence intended, PatGallacher, but this I think is a fair reflection of the thrust of your argument). I don't think this requested move should be viewed as an enforcement of any rule or rules. It's quite simply that the current title is, as you say, PatGallacher, awkward, and plain wrong. The formal name, Prince Henry of Wales, or the commonly used name, Prince Harry, are far more preferable, and I don't mind either. We could quite easily have a vote on which one, but I think moving away from something that is obviously quite wrong would be a step in the right direction. Inglok (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose This has been discussed over and over ([1][2][3]). Dr. D.E. Mophon (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Prince Harry. Easily the the common name, and there is no need for anything additional precision, as I am not aware of any alternate "Prince Harry" we would need to accommodate. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    • As already stated, Henry V of England was known as Prince Harry before he became king (at least by Shakespeare, which is where most people know him from). -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
      • So why does Prince Harry already redirect here? And wouldn't that Harry also technically be Prince Harry of Wales too? Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
        • "Prince Harry" redirects here probably because the chance of someone today searching for "Prince Harry" actually looking for King Henry V are near zero. And no one has ever been "technically" named Prince Harry of Wales. (BTW I could find no mention in Henry V's article of him being known as Harry; doesn't mean it wasn't so, but I found it curious.)LarryJeff (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No need for this. He is officially Prince Henry of Wales. He is commonly known as Prince Harry. Prince Harry of Wales is hardly inaccurate and nicely disambiguates him from the other Prince Henrys and Prince Harrys. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support firstly Prince Henry of Wales, secondly (distant, and I do mean that) Prince Harry. Seven Letters 13:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Agree exactly with comment of Seven Letters immediately above. LarryJeff (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I find this really incomprehensible. Several people have claimed that there's nothing wrong or inaccurate about Prince Harry of Wales, yet no-one has provided a single reliable source to support that name. Please, if the name is used, then at least give us one good source that we can include in the article to explain why we might have given it that title. Without this, it is original research and unverifiable and therefore against Wikipedia policy; no matter how many people write "oppose" or how many times the question may have been discussed before, it simply cannot be allowed to remain like that. W. P. Uzer (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Are you serious? "Prince Harry of Wales" is the way he is listed in the current Encyclopedia Britannica online here. FactStraight (talk) 07:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Thank you, this (apart from the first three words, perhaps) is the more constructive kind of contribution we want. But are we sure the online EB is a reliable source? The article in question seems to have been written ad hoc by an EB research editor with no particular claim to expertise in the field (suspicious types might even wonder whether he copied the title from Wikipedia...) Does anyone have access to the print edition, to check how the Prince is referred to there? W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
        • (I can't believe I'm defending the EC as a "reliable source" for use on English Wikipedia!) Encyclopedia Britannica no longer publishes a "print" version: its 2010 version was the last and updates are published exclusively online. Until it ceased, the print and online versions were owned and operated by the same company. The online version meets Wikipedia's definition of reliable source (some would say, par excellence!): "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy...The term 'published' is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online...self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis...are largely not acceptable...with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." The article in question, "Prince Harry of Wales" was written by Chelsey Parrott-Sheffer, a news editor at EB with an MA in History. EB's editorial board consists entirely of academics of first rate institutions. Regardless of what other sources and/or the 2010 print version says, the online version of EB counts as a reputable source which titled its article "Prince Harry of Wales" -- which is what you said was needed for citation purposes in a Wikipedia article of that name. FactStraight (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
          • All right, for that purpose it will have to do, though I still don't see any reason to choose the title of our article based on precisely that source, when we know from hundreds of other sources what his actual title and his actual common name are, and either of them would be perfectly reasonable as our title. We don't want to become part of an error-perpetuating cycle if we can help it. W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Debunking the Hewitt gossip[edit]

Surtsicna removed the following material, with the edit summary "Mentioning this makes it look like it was considered a real possibility. Either that, or it makes Wikipedia look amateurish and tabloid-like. It is absurd to have this in the article."

Persistent suggestions, based on a similarity of hair colour, have been made that Harry's father is actually James Hewitt, with whom Diana had an affair. However, red hair is a known Spencer-family trait, and Hewitt stated to the press in 2002 that Harry had already been born by the time Hewitt's affair with Diana began, a statement corroborated by Diana's police bodyguard.[1][2]

There really is no possibility whatsoever that I am Harry's father. I can absolutely assure you that I am not…I can understand the interest but Harry was already walking by the time my relationship with Diana began. Admittedly the red hair is similar to mine and people say we look alike. I have never encouraged these comparisons and although I was with Diana for a long time I must state once and for all that I'm not Harry's father.

— James Hewitt[3]

I sympathise with the reasoning behind the removal, but Surtsicna may not realise the background. For a long time, the article had been beset by a large number of editors (most of them, I expect, acting in good faith) attempting to incorporate various changes suggesting that Harry's parentage was less than certain (e.g. by saying that Charles was "officially" Harry's father). Eventually it was felt that the best way to stop this nonsense was to acknowledge the rumours head-on and at the same time to debunk them, with references from relevant parties. This had the desired effect, and there were no further attempts to incorporate such stuff into the article.

Personally, I would prefer, with Surtsicna, not to have any mention of the gossip at all – it gives it a much higher profile than it deserves. My concern is that if the rumours are not debunked then we will revert to the previous editing problems. So I place the removed material here in case it, or something of the kind, becomes necessary at a future date. (Perhaps we just need to be rigorous in applying WP:BLP – which surely must exclude any unsubstantiated and potentially defamatory allegations regarding a person's parentage?) Vilĉjo (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I am certainly in favour of reverting and rigorously applying WP:BLP. There should be no compromises when it comes to these things. It might make sense to write a line or two about the rumours if they were prominent enough to be mentioned by his parents' biographers, but I doubt that. Surtsicna (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it should be included - these rumours are pretty well known, and a lot of readers will be expecting to find them discussed here. The quote from Hewitt and other sourced information seems to put the allegations in their proper context (i.e. debunk them), and won't necessarily be found by readers if they're forced to look elsewhere on the Internet for discussion of the issue. W. P. Uzer (talk) 05:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

So what about a single sentence, something like "Rumours have persisted that Harry may be the son of James Hewitt, with whom his mother had an affair, but this has been refuted by Hewitt and others, pointing out that Harry was born before the affair began." And put the rest of the information and the full quote in a footnote. W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

That was, more or less, what was there originally, but was subsequently "beefed up" by other hands, thus raising its profile unduly. I'd be happy with something of that kind, but would like to be sure that it enjoys a measure of consensus. The whole point of including such material is precisely to avoid the risk of edit wars. Vilĉjo (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Weeeell... the real point of including it is the same as the point of including anything, namely to help tell our readers, reliably, anything we think they might reasonably want to know about the subject. Since these rumours, however absurd, are pervasive (people keep making jokes or other insinuations about Prince Harry's supposed parentage), readers are likely to want to know what they're all about. And as it happens, we can supply them with information from reliable sources that firstly confirms that such rumours have indeed been pervasive and fills in the essential details of them, and secondly fairly conclusively shows them to be false. This is Wikipedia in action. W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I concur. It's a well known piece of gossip and shouldn't be ignored -- people shouldn't have to look for info on the talk page, as I have just done. --Hburdon (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
So is there any objection to this (re)addition (a single sentence in the body of the article, the rest in a footnote)? W. P. Uzer (talk) 10:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm a newcomer to this article, but having seen or heard the gossip somewhere previously, and not having seen or heard the refutation until I saw it here today, I would support the proposal of a single sentence plus footnote. Scolaire (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to add this then. W. P. Uzer (talk) 12:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Hewitt denies Prince Harry link". BBC News. 21 September 2002. Retrieved 28 December 2011. 
  2. ^ "Diana, Princess of Wales". BBC. Retrieved 28 December 2011. 
  3. ^ "Hewitt: I am not Harry's father". The Mail on Sunday. London. 22 September 2002. Retrieved 2 July 2011. 

Article should be moved to Prince Harry or Prince Henry of Wales[edit]

There were very little good arguments in the move discussion above for maintaining the current title. The result of the move discussion is supposed to be based on the quality of the arguments and not just the numbers of votes. When a majority of editors support moving the article (whatever the name), it should it be moved. Even though there may be disagreement about whether it should be "Prince Harry" or "Prince Henry of Wales", there can be a consensus that either of those article names is better than the current one. Count Truthstein (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Relationship with Cressida Bonas[edit]

Why is there nothing in this article about Prince Harry's relationship with Cressida Bonas? He has been in a relationship with her for the past 1 1/2 years, and there are rumors that he will marry her. At the very least, it should be mentioned that Harry is in a relationship with Bonas. Natg 19 (talk) 07:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I re-added something of what had previously been written, but without the reference to marriage, which is likely to be just gossip for the moment, that being the reason the information was previously removed. W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved to Prince Harry. Altogether, there's certainly consensus for a move. Taken alone, either of the first two subsections would be enough for a move, so the decision for me was to determine which option attracted stronger consensus; it appears "Prince Harry" is that option. --BDD (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Prince Harry of WalesPrince Henry of Wales – There seems to be consensus above that "Prince Harry of Wales" is a WP invention. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Should be moved to Prince Henry of Wales[edit]

  • Support as above. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I understand you prefer this option to the one below - can you give reasons? W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Thank you for asking! I remember when he was born and named how the British Royal Court officially asked that he should not be called "Harry", and thus it seems to me that press and media have flexed their rather ugly muscle - and middle finger - in deciding for us what we should call him anyway. However, I've learned the hard way that WP policy is based on frequency of (non-tabloid?) usage elsewhere, so I will be satisfied with either option - as long as we get rid of the slightly embarrassing mess we have now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
        • It seems, though, that even his official website now calls him Prince Harry (although the URL contains princehenryofwales, as Surtsicna points out), so probably the original official position has now shifted. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
          • My explanation (obviously?) refers to the situation at his birth, not the one today. If I was called "SiggieWoodzing" by every media outlet in the world for some 20 odd years, what would my chances be of maintaining a wish not to be called that? Royalty can no longer proclaim things that we all then must follow. They can only ask and hope their wishes will be respected. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose not WP:UCN, which is "Harry" -- (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Second choice Better than the present title, which conflates his formal and informal names into a rarely-used name that is neither what he is usually called nor his formal title. Neljack (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support During the Olympics broadcast his name was given as HRH Prince Henry of Wales/SAR le Prince Henri de Galles. Seven Letters 03:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. As noted by SergeWoodzing, the current title is a bizarre mish-mash. We could mimic the subject's official webpage ( by naming the article Prince Henry of Wales, but using "Prince Harry" (without the territorial designation) wherever that's not inappropriate. Surtsicna (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Just for the record, that website in fact uses Prince Harry in the content, including the heading (it's only the URL that uses henry). W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
      • I know the website uses "Prince Harry" in the content, but it does not use Henry only in the URL. See this page for example. It does not, however, use "Prince Harry of Wales", as that's neither here nor there. That is why I suggested using "Prince Henry of Wales" as article title and whenever "of Wales" is needed, and "Prince Harry" in the running text. Surtsicna (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
        • OK but it only uses "Prince Henry of Wales" to say what his official title is (which is something we know); even on that page it refers to him all of the rest of the time as Prince Harry. W. P. Uzer (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support move to Prince Henry of Wales, per NCROY, only because I don't want to see "Prince Harry" without suffix, since that smacks of Anglocentrism: I know of no other modern prince (except the singer) who is listed without suffix or surname. Even Princess Helena of the United Kingdom's children, who officially lost their suffix in 1917, are not named thus. FactStraight (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Reluctant second option: If and only if we can't form consensus for Prince Harry, I would rather see a move to his full formal style (Prince Henry of Wales) than see the status quo (which is and always has been awful) remain. DBD 10:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for reasons stated above, there simply is no person with the name and style "Prince Harry of Wales". The Duchess of Cambridge is best known as "Kate", or even still today as "Kate Middleton", but the article is not "Kate, Duchess of Cambridge". His website is --Simfan34 (talk) 05:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Most of the supports above fail to provide any relevant policy or guideline for the proposed move to "Henry". Consensus should not be gauged on what people's personal preferences are. We have numerous references to set decisions against, WP:COMMONNAME is particularly relevant. Leaky Caldron 08:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
    • They are indeed relevant but not more so than factual accuracy. If that weren't true, we'd call his mother Princess Diana and his sister-in-law Kate Middleton. "Prince Harry of Wales" is a bizarre mish-mash of official and common. Surtsicna (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support His common name is Harry, but if using it with "of Wales", it should be his actual name, consistent with WP:NCROY. Also for the reason stated by Simfan34. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 13:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Where a formal and non-formal name are both reasonable, I think we should default to the formal, in the title and the lede, introducing the name "Prince Harry" and "Harry" for use in the text thereafter. Note that he is never referred to as just "Henry". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As this is not the WP:COMMONNAME.Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 17:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Should be moved to Prince Harry[edit]

  • I would prefer this, since it's a much more common name for him than "Prince Henry of Wales", and Wikipedia's article titles tend to be common names. But either would be better than the present invention (which looking back, seems not even to have had consensus in the discussion that led to its being imposed, nor in any since). W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support "Prince Harry" is the overwhelming COMMONNAME. WP:NCROY is a guidelines, not an inflexible rule. It does not have to be followed where there is a unambiguous alternative name that is much more common. Examples such as Elizabeth II and Queen Victoria prove that. Neljack (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for "Prince Harry", per WP:UCN. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support, as by far the common name. His "of Wales" is seldom-used as is his full first name. DBD 10:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support WP:UCN is clear on this. Leaky Caldron 10:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Support this as a redirect, not article name. Seven Letters 17:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as per WP:COMMONNAME. I have no idea how they made "Harry" from "Henry" but I have never known about his actual Henry name until today.Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 17:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Should be retained as Prince Harry of Wales[edit]

  • Support. Interesting that this obvious option wasn't added, which suggests that the nominator doesn't like the idea that anyone may oppose his claim that it should be moved. This is not a neutral way to nominate articles for renaming and is not how we usually do things on Wikipedia. I would therefore like to register my objection to the whole process and would suggest it should be restarted in a neutral manner. There is no consensus it should be moved at all. Where is that consensus? My opinion remains as it was above, that there has been more than one person commonly known as Prince Harry (e.g. Henry V) and that the current title disambiguates them nicely. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm sincerely sorry I did this in such a (remarkably inappropriate?) way that it got you so bent out of shape that you had to criticize me personally and refer to me as headstrong. Very sad. Of course, keeping the current form is an option. I really thought that went without saying. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't aware I had used the word "headstrong" or anything close to it! If this option was on the table, why was it not added as a header? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Look Necrothesp, you wrote "the nominator doesn't like the idea that anyone may oppose his claim" - that was rude and uncalled for and can easily be interpreted as your referring to me as headstrong without your having to have used that word. As I see it the option to keep the current article name is always "on the table". Always! In my opinion you are being unneccessarily belligerent, creating a personal argument which is not constructive, and I see no reason whatsoever for any of that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry if you see it that way. But no, I'm merely expressing my irritation that this wasn't an option provided, which makes it look like you didn't think it was an acceptable option. If that wasn't your intention then I'm sorry, but the opinion below seems to suggest that I wasn't the only one who thought so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I accept your apology with sincere thanks. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
As I indicated in the discussion section, I formatted the discussion thus, not the nominator. My intention was that those opposing any move would simply say oppose in each of the two above sections; in effect, to run two concurrent RMs. --BDD (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I, too, thought that this option was being withdrawn from consideration even though it is my first choice, for the reasons cited above as well as NCROY, while "Prince Henry of Wales" is my second choice. FactStraight (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Either use the common name of just Prince Harry, or his official name Prince Henry of Wales, not a hybrid. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 13:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as stated above. The current title is neither here nor there. It is neither the most common name, nor the official name; it is nothing more than an inaccurate and bizarre mish-mash of the two sensible options. In my opinion, the best solution would be mimicking the subject's official website ( by having the article titled Prince Henry of Wales, referring to him as Prince Henry of Wales wherever "of Wales" is necessary and as Prince Harry in the rest of the running text. That (and not "Prince Harry of Wales") would be a sensible compromise between "Prince Henry of Wales" and "Prince Harry". Surtsicna (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Support Prince Harry (UCN, best known, colloquial is suitable for the living person, or Prince Henry of Wales, his formal name appropriate for a reference work. Oppose a name not based on sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We should use either his common name (Prince Harry) or his formal name (Prince Henry of Wales). The current title is unacceptable since we can't just make up names for people. Hot Stop 06:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
You're right, we can't. But since "Prince Harry of Wales" is the way his article is titled in the current Encyclopedia Britannica (as shown here and noted in the previous failed effort to move this page), clearly Wikipedia is not "making up a name" by using it and there is nothing "unacceptable" about it because it is reliably sourced. As previously acknowledged in this discussion "Prince Harry" is a colloquialism, not encyclopedic, and although "Prince Henry of Wales" is correct it is rarely seen. Yet Wikipedia article names are supposed to be selected on the basis of what the topic is best known as -- subject to needed disambiguation ("Prince Harry" is already immortalized in English literature and history as a name for the pre-regnal King Henry V) and appropriate encyclopedic tone (otherwise "Princess Di" and "Queen Mum" for Diana Spencer and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon). Given these 3 parameters, "Prince Harry of Wales" seems the most appropriate compromise. FactStraight (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the reasons given above and, because, Prince Henry of Wales is the choice I support (name of his website, actual formal name given in line of succession on royal site, etc). Seven Letters 18:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as per WP:COMMONNAME. I have no idea how they made "Harry" from "Henry" but I have never known about his actual Henry name until today. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 17:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


  • I've modified the discussion format; that I hope the nominator will not object. It appears the intent here is to gauge consensus for both Prince Henry of Wales and Prince Harry—in effect, two concurrent RMs. Thus users may feel free to make one vote on each of the questions. This may prove to be a more constructive format than the previous open-ended request. If consensus supports both options, it will be up to the closer to determine which one has stronger support. --BDD (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Protected edit request on 30 December 2013 Redirection page Prince Henry of Wales[edit]

Prince Henry of Wales is a redirect to another redirection page Prince Harry of Wales. Please redirect Prince Henry of Wales to the current subject page of Prince Harry. -- Karl Stephens (talk|contribs) 03:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Wish more people had seen this as us old timers when thinking of Prince Henry the Duke of Gloucester the regent for Queen Elizabeth II. But I guess this is the most common term for the next generation. -- Moxy (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Really, Moxy, was the D of G widely called Prince Harry? The article notes he was known as Harry by family, but the present Prince Harry is universally publicly known as such. Not the same. DBD 13:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the fix. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

'Disputed' vs 'refuted', re paternity[edit]

"Rumours have persisted that Harry might be the son of James Hewitt, with whom his mother had an affair, but this has been refuted by Hewitt and others, who point out that Harry was born before the affair began"

The primary meaning of refute is "to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge", or "to prove that (something) is not true", or "to prove (a statement, theory, charge, etc) of (a person) to be false or incorrect; disprove". Per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia should not take an opinion on whether Hewitt's claims constitute proof; in the absence of a reliable third-party source, we should simply report that he has made them.

The same insinuation of truth is present when we say that somebody "pointed out that ______" or "corroborated ______"; contrast with "claims that ______" and "supported ______".

Nstouski (talk) 10:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You're right I suppose, but we have to be careful not to word it in a way that implies we're giving credulity to the rumours (as far as I know there are no reliable sources in support of their being true, only for their existing and being widespread and persistent). W. P. Uzer (talk) 11:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Is there a phrasing that you feel would satisfy both constraints? (looking to policy for guidance yields WP:CLAIM, which is relevant and useful). Maybe:
"this is dismissed by Hewitt and others, who says that Harry was born before the affair began"
"and others" deleted per WP:WEASEL. Nstouski (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
"Dismissed" is fine by me, but rather than deleting "and others" (which is supported by the refs), we could specify who they are.W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
On closer inspection, I think it'd make sense to change the sentence structure a bit. There's no sense in saying "there are rumours that _____ might be _____"; if they're already tagged as rumours, we don't need the "might be". Also, a "rumours say _______, but _______" structure suggests that the rumours are definitively addressed and quickly dismissable. It'll read more neutrally with two sentences. How about:
"Rumours have persisted that Harry is the son of James Hewitt, with whom his mother had an affair. In response, Hewitt and Diana's police bodyguard have stated that Harry was born before the affair began."
Nstouski (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I suspect you may be over-thinking this - no-one knowledgeable on the matter is asserting that these rumours are true, so we don't have to go to great lengths to appear neutral over the matter of their accuracy. I prefer the single sentence with "dismissed" - of course, readers don't have to accept the dismissal if they aren't inclined to. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I think we're in trouble when we start marking out where it's okay to dispense with WP:NPOV. It's not contested that: 1) Paternity is critically important in a monarchy, 2) Diana was unfaithful in the rough vicinity of Harry's conception, 3) there has been no definitive evidence of Harry's parentage and 4) a significant portion of the British people, whom it directly affects, are skeptical. Given those facts, policy compels us to be neutral.
I prefer dismiss to refute, but I think we can still do better. How do you feel about the wording currently used in the James Hewitt article:
"Persistent suggestions have been made in the media that Hewitt, and not Charles, is the biological father of Prince Harry. Hewitt stated to the press in 2002 that Harry had already been born by the time the affair between him and Diana began (a statement also made by Diana's police bodyguard)."
It feels more neutral and would need only minor adaptation (eg, make it about Harry, briefly mention the affair) to fit into this article. Nstouski (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't mind very much, maybe someone else could come in with an opinion. I still think, though, that it's better to indicate explicitly the link, namely that the second statement is intended as a refutation (indeed formed part of an absolute dismissal) of the allegations referred to in the first, instead of leaving the reader to fathom it out (admittedly not hard, but we try to write so as to help rather than hinder). W. P. Uzer (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
We also write so as not to influence, which is what we do when we tie one party's response to a claim so tightly to the claim itself and use "_____ says _____, but _____" structures. I'd be happy to hear a third opinion. Nstouski (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of more opinions, I edited in a two-sentence version. I don't think it's perfect, but it's a quick fix to the POV issues discussed above. I also removed this line:

"The rumours are supposedly based on a similarity of hair colour; however, red hair is a known Spencer family trait"

'Supposedly' and 'however' advance a tacit POV. The observation about red hair being a Spencer trait is relevant but unsourced. Nstouski (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

If I were the Prince I would find this whole discussion deeply offensive. It should be deleted. The 5th Earl Spencer was known as the Red Earl because of his large red beard as you can see from his portrait here on Wikipedia. AnthonyCamp (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC).

Hi AnthonyCamp. Sadly for Harry, the mandate of an encyclopedia often requires discussion and documentation of topics that biographied individuals would rather not acknowledge. I don't feel that the above discussion has been gratuitously offensive, and I can't see any argument for whitewashing a major facet of Harry's public image, regardless of whether either of us is personally persuaded by it. Nstouski (talk) 09:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
You are challenging the legitimacy of a living person and the fourth in line to the Throne! Any such discussion is offensive, more so when based solely on hair colour when that colour is known to exist (except apparently to you) in the mother's family. I have no idea what you mean by "a major facet of his public image". The mandate of an encyclopedia is to provide referenced facts. Why are you so unwilling to do that? You might, for instance, at the end of the first paragraph, say 'The Prince's distinctive hair colour, unlike that of other immediate members of the Royal Family, is a legacy from the Spencer family' and then provide a footnote cross-reference to the 5th Earl Spencer, deleting the section about 'rumours' under Personal Life. AnthonyCamp (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC).
The point is that the rumours are very well-known and their existence has been reported by reliable sources (not with any suggestion that they might be true). We're actually doing everyone a favour, public and subject alike, by clarifying them here and linking to an equally well-sourced rebuttal of them. It might stop a few people from believing the nonsense about hair colour and so on that they will find on the rest of the Internet. W. P. Uzer (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Simply linking to a relative of Charles' with red hair would constitute original research; you'd be making tacit assertions about the genetics of hair colour. If you had any reliable sources for Harry's paternity (eg, the results of a neutral, reliable, third-party DNA test) then of course I would support us citing it.
By "major facet of his public image", I mean that if you asked people in the public what they knew about Harry, a lot of them would mention the paternity speculation. Far, far more than would mention that he has a D in geography or that he was at the unveiling of the Folkestone Memorial Arch.
Lastly, we "challenge the legitimacy of living person[s]" all the time. I'm sure Justin Bieber would prefer us not to document some of his personal life either, but encyclopedia articles aren't vanity pieces for their subjects. The fact that Harry is in line to the throne doesn't mean anything here. Nstouski (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
One thing that should not 'mean anything here' is the promotion of a political ideology. If you cannot understand the difference between questions as to the paternity of a singer in a republic and the paternity of a prince in direct line to the throne in a monarchy then you should certainly not be involved in writing anyone's biography. AnthonyCamp (talk) 11:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC).
Expecting someone to be given preferential treatment because of their role within a monarchy is a perfect example of promotion of political ideology. To clarify my last point: Harry's public image is as important to you as Justin's is to his legions of Beliebers, but the thing that unifies them is that they're both equally subject to Wikipedia policy, which permits - even requires - discussion of publically relevant, sourced, salient information. As I explained above, Harry's parentage is a major part of his public image and critically important to his role within the monarchy, and easily warrants at least a short paragraph of text in an article of this size. Nstouski (talk) 09:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
If he wasn't "in line to the throne", would he even have an article here? I know a D in Geography is quite good, and that the Folkestone Memorial Arch is quite attractive, but still. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


The description of the Arms omits the labels on the Supporters and Crest. The words 'the whole differenced .. etc..' relate to the Escutcheon and would be better placed there. Arms are 'Granted' not 'Adopted'. AnthonyCamp (talk) 10:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Prince Harry. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


Yes check.svg Done Not a regular contributor, so apologies if this breaks protocol. There is a typo just after citation 107. I believe it should read "reporting", not "report". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 19:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Ref Tag[edit]

I added some Wikilinks to Royal Duties, & when I previewed the changes, I noticed 2 extant cite warnings in the section's references. Oddly no big red warning notices in the text as is, but the closing tags are incomplete in them....they're just a />. I tried to fix them with </ref>, but then it threw the big red warning notices at me that said it needed the exact tag I put in, so I gave up & put them back the way they were. Dunno what it wants, but the tags are incomplete. They're at the end of the 2nd paragraph & in the middle of the 11th paragraph after the date 6 April 2015. Can someone who comprehends Wikivoodoocode better than I have a go & repair them? TYVM in advance. ScarletRibbons (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no problem - they are closing tags for repeated references which don't work the same way as single refs - see WP:REFNAME for more details. Melcous (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
TYVM. I thought something was wrong because in edit mode those 2 references had cite warnings. ScarletRibbons (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Royal Duties[edit]

The majority of "Royal Duties" reads like it's a personal journal or blog. Most of this information isn't even important. If we wanted a day-to-day report of Prince Harry's whereabouts, we could just watch the news. I propose some serious editing for all of the "Royal Duties" section. --Brokor (talk) 02:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it does seem to have turned into a kind of travelogue so that every time he goes somewhere new it just gets added to the bottom of the section. It would be good to have some serious editing of the section to summarise the kinds of things he has done (perhaps with a couple of examples) rather than list every single one of them. Melcous (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Needs explanation why Harry is familiar variant of Henry[edit]

I'm at risk of 3rr, so I shan't put this back in. @Celia Homeford: thanks for your critical eye. You're right to be a stickler for BLP refs, of course. But the Behind the Name ref does say it's because of Norman French, AFAICS. In other words, Henry (pronounced something like onri in modern French) and "generally rendered as Harry or Herry in English pronunciation." Any suggestions? [Were I to put this back in the article yet again, I'd use as the ref, not which would obviate the need to click Expand!] ... richi (hello) 16:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

For now, I've linked it to Henry (given name), which has a pretty decent discussion of why. Better than having nested refs within footnotes! ... richi (hello) 16:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I think the extra footnote has created a problem because there are now two footnotes to explain his name. That's unnecessary when his name is actually simple and common. Also, the footnote digresses into matters that are not relevant to Prince Harry. It is over-complicated when all that is required is "Harry is a traditional nickname for Henry." Celia Homeford (talk) 08:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Wrong coat of arms[edit]

These are the arms of his uncle and his uncle's wife, they need to be changed back to his. The page is locked, who did this? Kiltpin (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Changing the article name from "Prince Harry" to "Prince Henry of Wales"[edit]

Hi fellow Wikipedians, I propose to change the title of the page from 'Price Harry' to 'Prince Henry of Wales' as his actual name. I think is better not to mix formal and nicknames. Please take a moment to review my request. Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot British (talkcontribs) 19:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that it is a terrible idea and I believe it is against laid down and agreed standards. Kiltpin (talk) 12:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Hot British, You should read through the requested move section above where the decision to move it to the current title was made. You will need to address the issues that were brought up there why it should be at this name. Then start a requested move dicussion. - GB fan 12:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


i have spent a long time listening to these videos

trying to find order in a chaotic world is difficult

on a seperate note

we really need technical expertise on the RAF Sentry Aircraft programme at RAF Waddington

There is currently a permanent recruitment campaign with Cobham

I have been told the aircraft is to be in service until 2035

You could live on base and mix with the Officers...

Best Regards

Darren Mark Horton (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Darren, it might be useful if you created an User account for yourself? You need to post any suggestions for article improvements over at the RAF Waddington article, but not RAF recruitment adverts thanks. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)