Jump to content

Talk:Death and funeral of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

untitled

[edit]

I was wrong. It was about the funeral of Princess Margaret. But it was only 7 weeks earlier. the cited reasons makes mentioned persons unlikely to be there. So I'm inviting you to make refs for every person present. 79.243.197.144 (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me with that! 79.243.206.26 (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/who-s-who-in-the-procession-6329406.html

Finally not only this source but someone already brought the Bowes Lyon back and I hope it stays that way.84.167.81.194 (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC) And there a many, mostly distant relatives where the relation is missing.84.167.81.194 (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Family of Margaret Rhodes

[edit]

Why were they deleted?84.167.81.194 (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United States delegation

[edit]

The only reason why I added a separate section for the United States delegation is because they were the only country allowed to send three representatives. Tobin Armstrong, spouse of the former ambassador Anne Armstrong, was part of the delegation. Please see [1] SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then that's 4 people not 3. So, where does the 3 come from? Celia Homeford (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Spouses of official representatives were exceptions. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is a tangential side note not meriting a separate subsection. Drdpw (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using titles for attendees

[edit]

After having been reverted, i think using the titles of "prince of wales" ect leads to confusion within this page, was it the current king or prince william, is it the current duke of Edinburgh or was it the king or prince phillip, this leads (imo) to this article to be confusing to umderstand. It should be changed Jord656 (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jord656 - Your revision added incorrect information. Charles was not King yet, so he should be referred to as Prince Charles. James Mountbatten-Windsor shouldn’t have even been added as he wasn’t even alive in 2002; he was born in 2007. DDMS123 (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
he isn't even referred to a prince Charles in this article. The way it is currently portrayed is just confusing. But hey I am just some individual who's opinion means naught Jord656 (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is referred to as Prince Charles in the first sentence of the "Reactions and aftermath" section of the article. DDMS123 (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jord656 - Anyone will be able to see who the Prince of Wales was at the time by clicking the link. They can also scroll down to the "guests" section of the page and either hover or click on the link to see who the Prince of Wales was. In the guests section of the article, you can clearly see that Prince William was not the Prince of Wales at the time as he is not labelled as such. This is also in 2002, twenty years before Charles acceded to the throne and also when William became Prince of Wales. DDMS123 (talk) 02:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually theres no need as i am no longer going to be doing any editing. I am closing my account. Obvs my contributions as not needed. Bye Jord656 (talk) 02:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There's no need to exclude personal names. Charles should be listed as "Charles, Prince of Wales" and his brothers should be "Prince Andrew, Duke of York" and "Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex", etc. The piping is excessive, unnecessary, and more confusing than simply listing names. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Celia Homeford - I don't mind if it is changed or not but I would prefer to keep it to maintain consistency with other articles. The only reason I reverted @Jord656's edit was because he added incorrect information. For example, he changed Prince Charles to King Charles, changed Prince Edward to James Mountbatten-Windsor and changed Prince Harry to Duke of Sussex. Charles wasn't even king yet, James wasn't born yet and Prince Harry wasn't a duke yet. DDMS123 (talk) 09:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But in many articles the use of titles for a person has been used from prior to their creation. I accept that i got Earl of Wessex wrong, but just listing the titles leads to unnecessary confusion. Jord656 (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jord656 - We call them by whatever titles they held at the time. For example, articles about an event before 2022, refer to King Charles as Prince Charles. We never refer to them by their current titles in articles about events prior to their creation. This creates more confusion and it is also false information that is being provided to the readers. The purpose of the links is to get you to the main target's page. For example, if you see "Prince of Wales" linked and you're curious as to who held the title at the time, you can either hover over or click on the link and it will take you to Charles' page. If you're familiar with the Queen Mother's funeral then you should at least know that Charles was Prince of Wales at the time. We can see that Charles was Prince of Wales at the time and William was an ordinary prince because as stated before, you can just scroll down to the "guests" section of the article and hover or click on the links. Also in all other articles about royal funerals, they refer to the Royal Family members by their titles. DDMS123 (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it leads it to being too complicated. Does an RFC need to be raised to get consensus? Jord656 (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jord656 - An RFC is not needed, even the Royal Family website refers to them by their titles. It is common practice to refer to them by their titles at formal events such as royal funerals. If we change this, then we would be deviating from the style set out by Buckingham Palace. It would be best to maintain the status quo so we can be consistent with both Buckingham Palace and numerous other Wikipedia articles. We also should not deviate from established norms and styles set out by the palace itself and other styles guides such as Oxford, Chicago, AP, etc. Even other reliable sources such as the BBC and Sky News refer to them by their titles. An example of the BBC using the same style is this source. As you can see in that source provided, Charles is referred to as the "Prince of Wales"; Philip is referred to as the "Duke of Edinburgh" and Elizabeth is referred to as the "Queen". Another example is this source where Prince Andrew is referred to as the "Duke of York". If people find it absolute essential to know who the Prince of Wales was in 2002, they can just go to that person's respective article. I don't know why we are making a big deal about this, titles have always - in the past, present and in the future - been used to refer to a specific person. Anyone browsing on this article would have a rudimentary understanding of the British Royal Family and will know that the Prince of Wales was Charles and the Earl of Wessex was Prince Edward. Another reason it does not lead to confusion or complications is since Elizabeth II was still the reigning queen, Charles would've still been Prince of Wales as he was the heir apparent. There would be no one thinking that the Prince of Wales was someone else when it clearly states that the Prince of Wales was Charles. Also if you removed the titles and referred to them by their names, then we might as well remove Queen Mother from the article as that is a title. Removing Queen Mother would lead to actual confusion as there will be two Queens named Elizabeth in this article. DDMS123 (talk) 07:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and the Queen Mother was styled using the term "The Queen" but when titles change holders it is difficult to understand who they are meaning. Would you use Prince of Wales for every male monarch in history or would you use King Xx as prince of wales? Jord656 (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the article was about an event prior to 2022, I would refer to Charles as the Prince of Wales. If the article was about an event that took place prior to 1936, I would also refer to Edward as the Prince of Wales. If the articles took place after 1936 or 2022, then I would refer to them as King Edward VIII and King Charles III. DDMS123 (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
we shall agree to disagree. Let's see what the consensus is with the RFC Jord656 (talk) 08:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we shall see what the RFC decides. However, if there is not enough participants in the RFC, then that would not be enough to call it as "consensus" and there would be no change. DDMS123 (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jord656 - What if in the first sentence of Death_and_funeral_of_Queen_Elizabeth_The_Queen_Mother#Royal_family, we change Prince Charles and Prince Andrew to Charles, Prince of Wales and Prince Andrew, Duke of York. In that way we can refer to them by their names in the first sentence which provides context for the rest of the article. With this compromise we can refer to them by their name in one section and then simply by their title in the rest of the article. Usually you mention their full title + name once e.g. Queen Elizabeth II and then later on you simply just refer to them by their title e.g. the Queen. DDMS123 (talk) 08:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example. This will provide context for the next section as you will be able to see that Charles was the Prince of Wales. DDMS123 (talk) 08:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Usually it is queen elizabeth then elizabeth.
As to me when i am looking up something, i want to read something a paragraph and know what it means, if i have to keep jumping to different pages then that just annoys me. I want to read something and not have to spend the next 10 minutes trying to figure out which prince of wales or which duke of Edinburgh. What i have noticed on wiki is for living people their highest title is used throughout their bio page such as prince william is referenced as the prince, for dead people, it is either thier surname or their christian name if no surname. Jord656 (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: style

[edit]

Should the article list guests by their titles only or also by name, i.e., should we say "the Prince of Wales" or "Charles, Prince of Wales", "the Duke of Edinburgh" or "Philip, Duke of Edinburgh", etc.? Celia Homeford (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • List by title in list section only It is best to list them by their title in order to maintain consistency between other articles. The royal family website also refers to them by their titles. For example, they are referred to by their titles in the line of succession section. It is fine to refer to them by their titles considering the fact that they are referred to by their names throughout the rest of the article. But refer to them by name and title in paragraph section. DDMS123 (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DDMS123: I just mean, should we broaden this discussion to make a final decision on all royalty lists like this one, so all articles are consistent? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 09:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Therealscorp1an - Read my 'important comment' at the bottom which may clear up some confusion as to what this RFC is about. DDMS123 (talk) 09:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Common name in English. We're not here to practice royalwonk protocol, we're here to describe it. Or we should be, if we have any interest in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Just listing people by title would be ridiculous and potentially confusing, as who's "The Prince of Wales", "The Duke of Edinburgh" or "(The) Earl of Essex" on one article will be different from another, so to list them in that manner, with an easter-egg link to the person's actual name and identity. If that's notably and prominently different from the then-contemporary practice, we can note that as we would an actor "credited as" a name other than the one they're best know as. 109.etc (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, for example is Earl of Wessex referring to the current holder of the title Prince Edward, or his son who uses it as a courtesy title. Using Prince Edward, was it the current Duke of Edinburgh at the funeral or one of the 2 recent former Dukes of Edinburgh (Philip or Charles) Jord656 (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jord656 - There is no mention of Prince Edward's son anywhere in the text as he wasn't even born yet. If Charles was Duke of Edinburgh, then there would be no mention of Duke of Edinburgh anywhere in the text since Prince of Wales is more senior and that would be what he is referred to. DDMS123 (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • List by title and keep it consistent with all the other articles. Also, nobody would be confused about Charles or anyone else's identity since almost everything is linked. As an example, in the article about the Wedding of Prince George and Princess Victoria Mary, Edward VII and Alexandra of Denmark are rightly referred to as Prince and Princess of Wales, because they were not King and Queen at the time; and it makes no sense to refer to Alexandra as Alexandra, Princess of Wales, a style taken up by divorcées such as Diana, Princess of Wales. Yes, we should not adhere to royal protocol or any other protocols strictly but we should also be accurate in the way we describe people. Keivan.fTalk 12:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • List by name and by title (e.g. Charles, Prince of Wales) It is the clearest and most recognisable form to a global readership, and/or those who don't know or remember who held the title at the time. To do otherwise would be fairly pedantically unhelpful IMO. Pincrete (talk) 09:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
List by name and title As we are trying to ensure clarity, we should avoid referring to anyone by just their title. However, just referring to them by their names also does not provide total clarity for these individuals as they are known by their titles all over the world. The best practice will be to list them out with their names and titles. Pickalittletalkalittle (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • List by name and by title. The article should list guests by their titles and names. For example, "the Prince of Wales, Charles" or "Philip, Duke of Edinburgh". This helps to avoid confusion about identities and ensures accuracy in the description of the guests. Additionally, including both titles and names makes the article more informative and easier to understand for a wider audience.
Rockyscreen (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • List by name and title - The argument I find most compelling is that title holders change hands, and there's no guarantee of this article being updated when that happens. Write for readers in the future who won't know who these people are, and just linking the title won't help without having to tediously cross reference dates. We need to uniquely identify each individual, and the title alone simply won't do it. Fieari (talk) 07:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Important comment

[edit]

@Therealscorp1an, @109.etc, @Pincrete, @Theoreticalmawi and other contributors. I think there is a lot of confusion as to what this RFC is about. This is about either referring to royal family by their titles or names in the paragraph section of the article only. It is already agreed to keep the list section as it is and only refer to them by their titles. DDMS123 (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the question I'm asking. I'm asking about the list. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Celia Homeford - But the initial dispute was about the paragraphs. The dispute started with this revision. There is not point starting an RFC to resolve the dispute if the RFC is not even about the dispute. DDMS123 (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute is over using solely titles or if we are using first names Jord656 (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to implement @Jord656's suggestions and resolve a very minor dispute. Unfortunately, what was a very small dispute exploded into a big thing due to Celia Homeford starting an RFC too quickly. DDMS123 (talk) 09:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DDMS123 Thanks for the clarification, but I would still prefer a more elaborate version of the names in the list. As a test, I looked at the list and tried to recognise the individuals. My first mistake was to mistake the 2nd Earl of Snowdon for his son and wonder why the Earl did not attend. I could go on with examples of how such a consice form is confusing to anyone who is not an expert on the Royal Family. I don't want to reopen the argument as someone who just came here to comment, but I wanted to share my concerns. I hope you will take them into account in your further considerations. Theoreticalmawi (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for the clarification. I think I still support listing by name and by title, but it's just a slight support. I do not think we should write, for example, "...blah blah blah Charles, Prince of Wales, blah blah blah..." every time. It would be easier to just call him Prince Charles. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_and_funeral_of_Queen_Elizabeth_The_Queen_Mother&oldid=1206909185"