Talk:The Royals (TV series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Television / Episode coverage (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the episode coverage task force.
 

Broadcasting in the UK, Feb. 2018[edit]

For some reason I have been led to believe that this will air from 26 Feb. 2018 - does anyone know on which channel? Thanks.

Queen of England[edit]

I understand the distinction between Queen/King of the UK and King/Queen of England, and as far as the general text of the article we should certainly stick to how the sources describe the setting of the series. But I'm not so sure about designating the direct quote by Hurley as flawed (using sic). Queen Elizabeth is the Queen of England, Ireland and Scotland so referring to Diana/Harry as potential Queen/King of England is correct, just not complete. Putting aside my guess that "Queen of England" is a common encapsulating expression and Hurley herself as a Brit would know the difference, we can point out spelling mistakes to show that WP editors have not made them, but as far as I'm concerned we're not meant to point out factual errors like this in quotations. If Hurley was making an inaccurate claim (like "William will directly succeed Elizabeth") then we might attribute the quote like, "According to Hurley ..." but this is really just lingo. — TAnthonyTalk 18:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

"Princess Diana", "King/Queen of England": these are non-existent titles. ("King/Queen of England" is a non-existent office. And there's no such thing as "King/Queen of England, Scotland, and Ireland", either; the office and title in the UK is "King/Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", "King/Queen of the United Kingdom" for short. Diana's title was "Diana, Princess of Wales".) The purpose of sic is precisely to alert readers to the errors contained within a verbatim quote; the mistake is that of the person being quoted, not the publication using the quote. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
The article is not stating that anyone is the King/Queen of England, an actress is referring to these titles. It is a direct quote, and while I know the proper use of sic, I don't think this is a "significant error" in context to the point that sic is helpful to the reader, which is the purpose of sic. Unless there are comparable precedents in articles of assessed quality, I don't interpret the MOS as supporting this. For one, I don't think an everyday reader who hasn't read your edit summary will understand why the quote has been flagged at all.— TAnthonyTalk 05:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Quotes in the article mistakenly name an actual position (or an extant country, depending on how one wants to look at it) and give the wrong title to an actual person. "Queen (or King) of England" and "Princess Diana" are commonly used terms, but, they are inaccurate and this is an encyclopedia, so...
I linked the first use of sic in case any reader didn't know what it signified. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Still, they are quotes regarding fictional and basically impossible situations, and the article is not actually about any of these real-life figures. I find it to be an unnecessary negative impact to readability in this instance, and again, the common reader does not necessarily know/understand the titular nuance and won't know why it's been sic-ed. Some style guides recommend its use for illustrating factual errors, and some support its use as an aid to the reader and not "as an indicator of disagreement with the source". The MOS indicates sic be used for spelling and "significant errors" that could otherwise be attributed to WP editors. I don't see this as definitively meeting that criteria. We're both correct to some degree but I hope to get more input on the discussion to either convince me your way is better or prove otherwise, and I'd really like to see other instances of this kind of usage in Wikipedia.— TAnthonyTalk 05:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Sic exists for use in quotes. Further, Diana, Princess of Wales, was most certainly not fictional. The comments about either she or Harry becoming queen or king, respectively, of the UK are, yes, hypothetical. But, the position that's referred to is not, nor is the country that's being mislabelled. Do we really want Wikipedia fostering the idea there's still such a thing as the King or Queen of England, or that "England"is the correct way to refer to what's properly called the United Kingdom? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
OK I get that you're a monarchy buff but Wikipedia is not fostering anything, it is in this case presenting quotes from two UK citizens in the context of a TV series, not in any article related to actual events or situations related to the monarchy. This is not the same thing as using "Queen of England" within the text of an article to describe Elizabeth II. That would be improper ... and yet, the country of England has a queen, and her name is Elizabeth. She has a specific title based on the particular political construct of the United Kingdom, but this article is not addressing the Queen or even discussing her in a formal manner, it is quoting an actress, in a specific hypothetical scenario. Hurley's character calls herself the Queen of England in a clip from the series, which is likely intentional on the part of the writers to subtly distance the series from the actual British monarchy. Regardless, in that context, Hurley and Moseley's comments could also be likened to their saying "If Prince Harry became Batman". You don't find it interesting that both of them made the same mistake? Again, I'm well aware that sic is for pointing out errors in quotations and these are of course technical errors. But really?? — TAnthonyTalk 19:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
By the way, I hope this discussion isn't coming across as "heated", obviously I don't like the quote as it is now but I don't intend to change it based on this conversation alone. Debate is fun LOL. — TAnthonyTalk 20:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'd say the quotes do relate the article to the "actual" world by mentioning real people and (though incorrectly) their titles/positions; it's those quotes that themselves bridge between the fiction of the show and the non-fiction of true life. Again, England has a queen because England is part of the UK and there's a Queen of the United Kingdom; but, it's no more accurate to call Elizabeth II "Queen of England" than it is to call her "Queen of Wales" or "Queen of Saskatchewan"; those latter two titles simply don't exist. I suppose one could say "queen of England"; that's not being presented as some kind of title. But, the quotes as published use the upper case "q", do they not? If they do, is it bad form to reproduce the quote here with a lower case "q"?
The "Princess Diana" bit, however, seems to be pretty cut and dry: Princess Diana is a duchess in Portugal, which is certainly not who Elizabeth Hurley is referring to. In that case, I think the sic is absolutely necessary. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I see that one quote uses a lower case "q" for "queen of England", so, it's not being presented as a title. In the same source, though, the other quote uses a capital "k" for "King of England". Just to make things easier, of course. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Ha, it looks like perhaps that AP reporter actually did her research and knew Hurley was misspeaking LOL. Anyway, I appreciate the compromise with that one and I appreciate your (very valid) side of the argument so I'm not going to make any more fuss.— TAnthonyTalk 02:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

""Princess Diana", "King/Queen of England": these are non-existent titles" - err, wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.159.28 (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for stating the obvious. As explained in this discussion, this is a TV series with fictional characters and (some) fictional titles. The article should reflect what is used in the show and not what is "real", and quotes from actors and crew members should reflect what they actually said, even if it is technically incorrect from a real-world peerage standpoint.— TAnthonyTalk 16:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

People comment[edit]

I've removed the comment from People magazine in the "Reception" section about the Emmy Award.

This was a comment about one line in one episode and not a review of the TV series. The out-of-context presentation and wording of the quote as placed in the "Reception" section is deceptive and seems to be intended to create the perception of a positive review where none existed. BlueSalix (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I've bookmarked some reviews about the series and have yet to look for quotes worth incorporating, but I'm seeing a trend here that makes me uncomfortable. So far much of the press about the series has been negative, and that is rightfully reflected here, but I'm getting the impression that, consciously or not, editors are beginning to resist the addition of even the suggestion of a positive comment. BlueSalix, I do not think you are intentionally biased in your removal of these admittedly limited quotes, but at least one of the negative reviews was also based on a single episode. Perhaps these are not the right examples, but I don't think a reviewer complimenting a single situation or episode necessarily misleads the reader or compromises the integrity of the section. The Royals actually quoted the People comment in their own on-air promotional sizzle, so they're taking it as a positive comment.— TAnthonyTalk 22:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The fact that the E! Television Corporation considers this a positive comment is irrelevant to our decision-making on WP; please see WP:PROMO. The "Reception" section is for indexing the reception to the The Royals (TV series). If you want to try to cram-in what the reception was to a preview ... of one line ... of one episode, the place to do that is in the separate article for that episode. Otherwise this is WP:UNDUE. BlueSalix (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes yes of course, but don't you also find it interesting that you added the sound byte slam from the NYT article, but none of the (admittedly few) positive adjectives and compliments in the article? The NYT reviewer is giving the show a thumbs-down, it would be wrong to suggest otherwise, and your quote does convey the general rating. However, she also used the words "mischievous", "amusing" and "fun" while declaring the show ultimately dull, flawed and a disappointment. Surely you see how presenting only the worst can be just as misleading? As I read it, instead of "fun but flawed" you chose "stinks". I'm not sure that's entirely fair, but of course some of the other eight negative quotes in the section are going with the juiciest barbs as well. I get it. I'm not objecting to your edit, or any of the material in the section, but I keep seeing what amounts to subtle editorializing in pop culture WP articles because editors forget they're not bloggers.— TAnthonyTalk 02:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The general gist of the article is that the show was not good. The selection quoted conveyed the general gist of the article. As to the separate issue of your research into the social psychology and existential philosophy of Wikipedia editing, I don't think I can contribute. Sorry. BlueSalix (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The Reception section as now written overweights the negative reviews and amplifies this overweighting with multiple "worst series ever" quotes that are less relevant than the constructive quotes that certain editors seem obsessed with removing. I hope that someone not on the payroll at Buckingham Palace will rewrite this section with a little more balance. Btw, I find this series to be generally amusing, and it sounds like many other viewers do as well. For example, the Rotten Tomatoes audience 'like' score is 71% vs 28% for published reviews: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/the-royals/?search=the%20royals. This is an above-norm differential between the 'Rotten' audience and reviewers. It seems the mighty Palace PR machine is working diligently in the media to discredit this series. Jrgilb (talk) 05:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Ha, I assure you there is no conspiracy here, I was looking for positive reviews when developing this article and couldn't really find any! And I haven't looked again lately. But I did just grab a few you provided from Metacritic and I hope to incorporate them soon.— TAnthonyTalk 06:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
The conspiracy I allude to is the fact that the first wave of reviews did, indeed, lean very negative, and disproportionately so for a show that is considered by most of its audience to be fairly amusing. I smell the Palace flacks hard at work, not in Wikipedia, but in the tabloid press. More worrisome for the producers are the dwindling viewership numbers, although we conspiracy theorists know these numbers can also be fraudulently manipulated. Don't really know, obviously, just sayin'. Jrgilb (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Reviews[edit]

The reviews are all negative and are presumably from an American perspective. However as a British subject I can attest that this show is absolutely fabulous and a breath of fresh air from otherwise formulaic and tedious offerings. The casting is superb and the irony clearly lost on Americans. The storyline is riveting and sooooo naughty. Clearly made for a British audience that would appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.167.3 (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia; we are not limited to the use of American reviews here. If you can cite reviews by British reviewers who agree with you, by all means do. Otherwise, we are required to reflect the opinions of reliable sources, even if you believe that they are somehow biased. Dwpaul Talk 18:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
http://www.metacritic.com/tv/the-royals Several favorable reviews are linked in this page. Jrgilb (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I added what I could from the Metacritic reviews but there actually wasn't much favorable stuff there. Here are some I didn't use:
  • Rorke, Robert (March 9, 2015). "Take a reign check on Hurley and The Royals". New York Post. Retrieved December 28, 2015.
  • Owen, Rob (March 12, 2015). "Tuned In: The Royals lathers up Sunday night". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved December 28, 2015.
  • Gilbert, Matthew (March 12, 2015). "These Royals are just too stuffy". The Boston Globe. Retrieved December 28, 2015.
  • Gay, Verne (March 12, 2015). "The Royals review: Joan Collins, Elizabeth Hurley send the trash meter soaring". Newsday. Retrieved December 28, 2015.
  • Perigard, Mark (March 12, 2015). "Only Elizabeth Hurley shines in E! drama about Brits". Boston Herald. Archived from the original on March 13, 2015. Retrieved December 28, 2015.
I'm not trying to suppress anything, but the article seems to already have plenty of negative reviews.— TAnthonyTalk 21:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Titles[edit]

In this show, there is a specific declaration on His/Her Royal Highness/Majesty. You call it clutter, its something very specific to this show. In The Tudors, The Crown, Victoria and even Reign, there is a lack of issue with titles (even incorrect uses actually). I believe specifically the reason in the Royals they do it because of the station standings of Jasper. Mainly seen with Beck but it has also ruffled Robert's feathers in S3. Theoretically, with the elevation of Robert and death of a Simon, even in a fictional environment Eleanor and Liam would have had their formal titles changed from "HRH The" to "HRH" as it is isolated to when the sovereign parent is King/Queen. Helena is Queen Consort as she is not Queen in her own right. She did try that power play in S2, to make her the last monarch when Cyrus died but that did not pass. While Cyrus has called her Queen Mother, it remains to be seen completely if Robert elects to demote her station to Queen Dowager. Although regardless unless stripped, she would still have all the comforts befitting a sitting Queen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCharmed21 (talkcontribs) 16:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You realize, of course, that you are making arguments based on unsourced, in-universe material that could be construed as original research? They may use certain titles or honorifics onscreen but as editors we have to be careful about making interpretations or assumptions based on our own knowledge or real-world situations. But regardless of the accuracy/inaccuracy of the honorifics themselves, they have no place in a character list in the main article of a TV series. As I stated in my edit summary, cast/character lists typically use common names and/or credited names.— TAnthonyTalk 16:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
From your edit history you seem to be a new editor, so it's understandable that you may not be entirely familiar with the Manual of Style and other guidelines. You should note that the character lists in The Crown, The Tudors, Victoria, Reign, The Hollow Crown, The Palace, Kings, Isabel, and others contain titles like King or Princess but not honorifics like HRH or The Right and Honorable. There may be other places in series, episode, or character articles that mention of honorifics may be appropriate (and maybe not), but not in primary lists.— TAnthonyTalk 17:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Royals (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)