Talk:Black spider memos

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Strange use of present tense

Why does the article use constructions like "The letters are sent...", "Charles writes the letters...", etc.? (My emphasis). Is this a strange deferential use, in parallel to "the royal we", the monarchy being ever-present? Is there a good reason for this odd language? If not, "we" shall change it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I used that tense as I assume he still writes letters. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Do up-to-date sources say that he does? I would have thought that, at least, a construction like "...has written letters..." would be better, if not "...wrote...", given that the term "black spider memos" seems in current usage to refer mainly if not wholly to those that are expected to be published later today. One other point about the article - the heading "2004-05 letters" then has a number of sub-headings that appear to relate to later memos, and perhaps could do with some restructuring. As I haven't edited (or indeed read) this article before today, I'm reluctant to launch myself into such edits myself, if the article's authors have a good justification for its current format. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like has written. Perhaps the other letters should be spun off. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 09:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a problem in this article in placing these letters in time and characterising them more specifically. When exactly did they begin and what distinguishes them from the other letters he writes? People like this write to the great and the good all the time because that's who they mix with. I think we need to be more specific. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fleur-de-lys etc

"The letters are adorned with the Prince's fleur-de-lis logo, and have been addressed from his Clarence House residence.[4]" Although this sentence does indeed reflect what the cited source claims ("[Paul] Richards ... said letters came with the Prince of Wales fleur-de-lis logo, or addressed from Clarence House, or from one his many charities, foundations and campaign groups") it is, of course, bollocks. As any fule kno, the Prince of Wales's badge (not logo) is not a fleur-de-lys but, er, the Prince of Wales's feathers (the clue's in the name), and that is indeed what appears on the top of some of his letters: e.g. here. It's really not worth trying to "fix" this misstatement, which really amounts to the totally unremarkable fact that when Prince Charles writes letters, he sometimes uses his own headed paper; so I'm just deleting the sentence. GrindtXX (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]