Jump to content

Talk:Prince George of Wales/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

WP:CRYSTAL

Does this article fall foul of WP:CRYSTAL? As I understand it, it does not. This article:

  • Contains no unverifiable speculation.
  • Is not about an anticipated future event, it is about an unborn child.
  • Is about a subject which demonstrably already enjoys wide interest.
  • Only contains predictions or speculation of future events (which hospital, etc) which is verifiable from reliable expert sources, is notable and is almost certain to take place.

Bo.Clive (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll need to consult my lawyer. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Don't you mean your barrister;?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
possibly... Martinevans123 (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The part about the child possibly becoming third in the lines to the thrones of the Commonwealth realms is almost certainly, to me, some crystal balling. We don't know what the outcome of the attempt to fulfill the Perth Agreement will be; Australia still hasn't passed its bill, I'm uncertain about New Zealand, and Canada's law is being challenged in court. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Think it also kind of depends on whether or not there is such a thing as a Commonwealth by then? And this could be expected to be when - in 40 years' time, 50, 60? Nobody knows. Would this kind of predictive detail be permitted in the article of a person who had been born, I wonder? Gypsy Rose Lee's on overtime here. I also find it curious that we have a "Reaction" section for an event that is yet to happen. I guess it's a "pre-emptive reaction". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
User:DrKiernan apparently either knows the appropriate laws have all been enacted or knows they will be. I think he should state which it is and share with us the information he possesses that allows him to be so certain about these matters. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The child will be third regardless of gender, unless (1) they die at birth or shortly after or (2) it is a daughter and Kate later has a son. It is not dead. She is not having a second child at the same time as this one, unless she is carrying twins and no-one has told us. DrKiernan (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm fed up with your arrogant ownership issues and uncommunicative style. Reardless, in this case, it seems you're correct. I apologise. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not just with me. Regardless, perhaps try filling out edit summaries a little more often, so others know why you're making the change you are. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Response amended at 16:34
So should you. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear "Doctor K", I have never yet called you "Rose", and I don't intend to start now! Twins or no twins. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
And I've been deemed a smarmy attacker. My attitude towards you is only triggered by the attitude you show towards me, either directly in talk pages (less frequent) or indirectly in the way you edit around me (quite frequent). There was no sarcasm; on my part, anyway. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Not exactly. I will say, though, that this should continue elsewhere if it is to go on. My talk page is available. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Photo

I appreciate we can't have a photo of the baby just yet, but it's a pity the one we have of its mother shows her with her brother-in-law, rather than with her husband (the assumed father of the child). Isn't there one we can use of Kate with Will? -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 11:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

There is, and it was used in the article until I recently replaced it. See this version. I replaced it for the sake of the DYK nomination (the nominated image must be in the article). I think I can come up with a good solution though - cropping the Duchess out of the image of her and the Duke. Let me just see if that will work. While we're at it, would you be interested in reviewing the DYK nomination? Needless to say, the hook should be featured before the child is born, and your review would be appreciated. Surtsicna (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Generation of £260 million

We've copied what the source says: The event is expected to generate £260 million worldwide. But I have no idea what that means. £260 million worth of what? Women's magazine sales? Gifts from well-wishers? What? And how can the source be in a position to estimate whatever it is they're talking about? How can these things be measured even after the event, let alone before?

I note this item gets a mention in the DYK nom, so we need to get clear about whatever it's supposed to be about. Or get rid of it entirely. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 11:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

See these Google search results. According to this article, "the biggest commercial opportunity is going to be with tourists", but it also mentions souvenirs, food, alcohol, commemorative china and "other collectables, toys, books, DVDs and media". This one says that "happy occasions often boost consumer confidence" and goes on to mention "street party snacks, summer frocks and suntan lotion", as well as "tea, cakes and commemorative china." According to this article and the Center for Retail Research, "the money will come from the sale of souvenirs and trinkets and other festivities related to the royal birth", and "three million bottles of Champagne and sparkling wine will be opened to celebrate the new baby". Should we mention all of this? It might be a bit excessive. Surtsicna (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Excessive, indeed. But we need something, to give at least the flavour of what it is we're talking about. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 12:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
How about summing it up to: "mostly from tourism, souvenirs, and birth-related festivities"? Surtsicna (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
OK by me. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 12:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Move suggestion: Unborn child

Shouldn't this article be moved to Unborn child of..? As it is still not born, it is not officially part of the estimated 7 billon humans in the world. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

According to Merriam-Webster and others, the word "child" can refer to "an unborn or recently born person" as well. According to this one, a fetus is a child. I don't see the need for lengthening the title. Once the baby is born, it would have to be moved again to the present title, and then shortly thereafter to Prince George of Cambridge or whatever. By keeping it at Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, we can avoid much of the hassle. Surtsicna (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Even if the child is sometimes used for unborn children (as the dictionary indicates) it doesn't mean that the word child will always be the most precise or best choice of word, for instance in an encyclopedia where precision is of special weight. There are several differences between a born and unborn child (fetus); an unborn child is for instance not part of the royal succession line etc. And when most people here the word child, they think of a child that is actually born. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that is true; for example, when a woman says that she is "with child", nobody assumes that child is in stroller. The sources themselves don't trouble with noting that the child is an "unborn child". Surtsicna (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It's amazing that the life of an unborn Royal child causes such a stir, yet the millions of unborn Common children that are murdered every year aren't even considered to be alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.247.3.210 (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the point of this article?

This child -- if it survives -- will be born in under a month, so other than impatience I can't see any reason why this article needs to exist yet. All of the information about how famous it is and how much money it is generating and so on could just as easily go in the article on Kate Middleton or Prince William. Do we really need it? Richard75 (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The child will be born soon even if it does not survive, but obviously there is no need to speculate about that. The article may well be the result of impatience (indeed, it struck me as bizarre when I first saw it), but the subject is clearly already notable. Why start the deletion process when the child will probably be born before the discussion is over? The birth itself will hardly add more notability - it will just add even more coverage. Surtsicna (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

World's most famous baby ???

What about Kim Kardashian ? Who decided that this is the world's most famous baby ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eregli bob (talk • contribs) 11:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC+1)

Who's Kim Kardashian? Whose baby is she? "[T]he world's most famous baby" is a quotation (presented as such, may I add) from The Washington Post (via The Torygraph for some reason...) DBD 10:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I believe the OP meant the baby North West. For whom we don't have an article, yet. Tvoz/talk 04:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
North West is a person/child/bady? LOL WHAT? Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 06:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Succession to Duchy of Cornwall

Sunday (30 June 2013) newspapers in the UK raised the point that, although recent legislation has ensured that the baby will be in line of succession to the throne regardless of gender (as the article states), it will not under the current rules of succession be eligible if female to be awarded the Duchy of Cornwall, which is reserved for the Prince of Wales, which title can only currently be bestowed on the Heir Apparent, but who must also be male. I believe the reports suggested that legislation may be planned to address this anomaly. I suggest this point deserves addressing in the current article, so I'm placing it on record (not currently having time to do so myself, as I'm sneaking this in during a coffee break). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The Duchy of Cornwall is not reserved for the Prince of Wales, it the automatic property of the eldest living son of the sovereign if and only if he is also the heir apparent. You are correct that no legislation has been passed to alter this to "eldest living child", but – whoever adds this to the article needs to know – recent legislation (Sovereign Grant Act 2011) did provide for the equivalent funds to those from the Duchy when vacant to be paid to the heir apparent if over 18. DBD 16:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Living people

Does it really make sense to have this article in Category:Living people when she's not yet born?? That category implies that we're within her life, meaning that she has already been born. Any disagreements?? Please explain. Georgia guy (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The child is either alive or dead, and as it's not the latter, it must be the former. Plus this puts it in the BLP category. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
How do we define someone who is alive?? Do we define such a person as someone whose life is currently going on or as someone whose life is to start soon?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, I think even the most hardcore pro-choice activists would agree that this fetus is very much alive - "alive and kicking", as one might say. Surtsicna (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
You mean, we should use the rule that children are alive as soon as their mother becomes pregnant?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, apologies if I'm being too blunt, but the point has long passed where she could abort the child. I'm not aware of any other articles on WP for unborn children, but common sense would apply that this individual is alive. To say that he/she isn't, sounds ridiculous. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Living? Indubitably. A person? Not legally, not till they're born. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 07:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Debating semantics is pointless. Even if the child-to-be is not legally a living person, its parents-to-be who are integral to the article surely are and the purpose of the category is to protect such living people in Wikipedia articles. The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. Helen (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
"and the purpose of the category is to protect such living people in Wikipedia articles" This. And the main point is that I was right too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
"I was right" should never be the point of any discussion on Wikipedia. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 21:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
It shouldn't, but it is. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Huh? You agree that it's a bad thing to do, but you're justifying your doing it because, what, other people do it? Mob mentality, your day has arrived. You deserve a standing ovation, from the Latin oves, meaning "sheep". -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 23:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
"Huh?" Seriously? Dear god. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Are there any other royal births who have had Wikipedia articles prior to their birth? What has been done in the past? George.millman (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope, this is the first. In fact, I am certain that this is Wikipedia's first article about an unborn person. Surtsicna (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the category, for reasons of NPOV: the question of whether unborn babies are 'persons' is one of great political and philosophical controversy, and not something Wikipedia should be taking sides on. Robofish (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
On further thought, as well as NPOV, this is a matter of accuracy: legally speaking, personhood begins at birth. If - to consider a morbid and unlikely possibility - the baby is stillborn, it would strictly speaking not have been a person with a birth and death date, but never have been a 'living person' in the first place. For that reason, the category can't be added until the happy day of birth itself. Robofish (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted your unilateral edit made without consensus and requested comment. Did you not see the Wikilawyering link I posted above? The word "legally" does not belong in this discussion. Helen (talk) 06:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes Regardless of the legal definition of when life begins (usually coached in the problematic context of abortions), and the legal definition of a person, it is common sense to assume that the subject will arguably and unequivocally be covered by WP:BLP, so it makes no difference whether we apply the category today or six months from now - unless the child does not successfully come to term, and if that happens then we can (regretfully) remove the category with one mouse click. I appreciate the argument over the technicality (if that's the reason), but there is no "temporal" argument about whether the subject is now living, at least from our standpoint. We are not a court of law hearing an abortion case. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
WILL join the category is not the same as IS in that category. Nevertheless, WP is not a place for the abortion debate and when life begins. Aaother for a may b meore importnt(Lihaas (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)).
I reverted your unilateral removal of the category because we have not reached consensus here yet. Your edit summary is also flawed, the reasons provided above for the inclusion of the category have nothing to do with the abortion debate (however it seems to have everything to do with editors removing the category). Helen (talk) 10:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Category Inappropriate - I'm not going to comment on whether the baby/fetus/child (or whatever you want to call it) is "living". What I will say is that whether or not it is "living" is probably going to be controversial and/or subject to debate. My default position whenever a category is controversial is to simply avoid the categorization. NickCT (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Category Inappropriate - We should move this page to a new sibling Category:Unborn people. We don't want to get into questions of at what point life begins, but a "living person" normally means already born and walking around. This page (and any similar pages) should probably still be subject to WP:BLP, although that is a separate issue. If we are going to start including biographies of unborn people then we need an appropriate category for them. --Andrewaskew (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
    CommentI don't think it's necessary to create an unborn people category. This is probably the only time in the foreseeable future that we will have an extensive article on an unborn child. Any future children the Cambridges have will probably just get a mention in Catherine's article. This child is important because he or she will be the future monarch, regardless of gender, of the most famous royal family in the world. The coverage is unprecedented. But probably won't be repeated until he or she has a child of their own. Morhange (talk) 06:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
    Um, this child may be the future monarch, assuming he or she survives, and assuming the monarchy is still with us in three generation's time? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Category Inappropriate- To comply with Neutral Point of View. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 08:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • When someone dies, their dates begin on the day that they were born to the day that they died. Legally, that is the day that a person's life begins. This child does not yet fit the criteria of being a living person - that is, living independently outside of its mother. George.millman (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a court of law, such criteria do not necessarily apply here. HelenOnline 15:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Why shouldn't they apply though? If something is not legally considered a living person at this time, why should it be on Wikipedia? George.millman (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

That is a different question for another thread. This thread is about the category for the article not whether there should be such an article. Reasons for the category have already been stated repeatedly in this thread. HelenOnline 21:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I may have misread that last night, but I think I answered it either way. HelenOnline 06:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not what I was saying. I meant, if something is not considered to be a living person in a court of law, why should it be considered in that way on Wikipedia? Surely it's more simple to go along with what is generally considered to be the case. As someone else said, if the baby is a stillbirth (although obviously I hope it isn't), it would be considered to have never been living. It isn't living yet, not legally. And if it isn't living legally, I don't see why Wikipedia should consider it to be so. George.millman (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

OK understood. Including the article in the Living people category does not necessarily mean WP considers the main subject of the article to be a living person. It just gives the unborn child and its parents WP:BLP protection. HelenOnline 14:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. Surely if something is in a category, it means that Wikipedia considers the article's subject to be in that category. Wikipedia clearly considers this child to be in the categories of House of Windsor, Mountbatten-Windsor family, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge and Royal children. In the same way, if it's in 'Living people' it means that Wikipedia considers it to be a living person. If our legal system doesn't consider it to be, why does Wikipedia? George.millman (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the Category:Living people description?: "This category is intended for use in articles structured as biographical entries for living individuals." This article is structured as a biographical entry for a living individual, even though they are not living yet. HelenOnline 15:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
really, what a lot of fuss about bugger all! IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

How is it structured in the form of a biographical article for a living person? There is almost nothing about the life of this person on the page (as there is nothing yet to put); nearly all of it is about what this person represents, not about the person themselves. How is it possibly structured like that? The category is completely inappropriate. George.millman (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

She's in labour now, so I don't see the point of arguing anymore; if it's not a living person yet, it soon will be. But if there is ever again an article made for an unborn person, I hope that the editors see sense and don't make it a 'living person' until it's born. George.millman (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorted IdreamofJeanie (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

First Wikipedia page of an unborn person

"Prince William and Kate's baby becomes first person to get Wikipedia page".

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It is interesting that the history of this article will eventually document a person from before birth until after death. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Very interesting indeed. -- TOW  23:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous rant

I'm sorry but I have to think this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of. The child isn't even a child yet, it's still a fetus until it comes out of the womb and it has its own Wikipedia page. What's next? The first time it needs it's diaper changed? The first time the royal breasts feed it? The first step it takes a step? Until it does something in its own right to be "notable", I strongly object to the creation of this page. It is the most unnecessary one yet and the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of. Are we going to update every time it burps or grows an inch? We don't even know if the baby will be born. No wonder the world's so bloody screwed up to heaven and down to Hell when we have people who waste precious time creating a page for something that hasn't even been born yet, let alone done ANYTHING in it's own right to merit a page. 74.69.9.224 (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

That's super. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Completely agree with you. Although I understand the interest, creating a page for an unborn baby is ridiculous. What is next? Creating a page for a royal that isn't even conceived yet? Mdieke (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

What is relevant to policy is not whether the child is yet born, but whether there are enough reliable sources to justify a standalone article. The relevant guide is WP:GNG and the article has enough sources to satisfy that. FurrySings (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
There was a recent deletion of this page and was recreated in contravention of CSD guidelines G4.
Then removing all that is speculation from fact leaves just a few sentences )6) that can go on the mother's page in the subsection ofpregnancy (and when she has another pregnancy (IF) then one can add that to pregnancies or second pregnancy.
As an aside, per the OP, the reference "will the mother breast feed the baby" is frankly laughab;le and obviously tabloid fodder and NOT eneyclopaeidic(Lihaas (talk) 06:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)).
Quite right. Surely at least one formula milk producer is "By Appointment to His Royal Majesty"?! ... outrageous marketing opportunity, anyone? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
What I really want to know is: Will the royal baby be sleeping in a BOX? -- Hillbillyholiday talk 15:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
.. whatever next... "SKOGFAHL" - the Royal State Crib? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Finland is not Sweden. Marnanel (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
and cardboard is not wood. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It's true that this child has not been born and has not done anything good or bad. But he or she will automatically be a prince or princess, as well as potentially a marquis of some kind, solely by being born, and at present plenty of people have a page on Wikipedia only because they hold a hereditary title, having done nothing else notable. Marnanel (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the baby will be a marquess of any kind, unless the Queen creates peerage for him or her - which is very unlikely. Surtsicna (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
... um, can we now expect articles for all expectant titled mothers, or just for the next "most famous baby in the world" after this one, etc. etc. Maybe we'll get a sortable list? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
This article came about because the interest over this child's birth generated mountains of media attention, due to a wide variety of factors. The second child won't generate quite as much as "the spare" and royal children from Continental royal houses may generate a lot of attention in their own countries, but in English-language media, not much. Like I said above, this probably won't happen again until this child is older and has a child of their own, and possibly not even then. Morhange (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Ah, what a relief. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Surtsicna: I find I was thinking of the Earl of Strathearn, which is the highest of Prince William's subsidiary titles and would presumably go to a male child as a subsidiary title, as has happened with Viscount Severn. I doubt people would use the title, of course, since the child would also be a prince. Marnanel (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
That is not how it's done, however. This child will be entitled to a courtesy title of Prince(ss) of the United Kingdom, which is a much higher courtesy title than that of Earl of Strathearn. William, for example, was never known by a courtesy title derived from his father's or grandfather's peerage. Viscount Severn is known as such because it was decided that he would not be styled as a prince. Besides, William himself is referred to as Earl of Strathearn when in Scotland. Surtsicna (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The Duke of Cambridge has a secondary title (Earl of Strathearn) but that is not officially an alternate title for Scotland (unlike Duke of Rothesay for the Prince of Wales). Gerard von Hebel (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Crystal ball?

"The royal baby will be a girl, she will be named Elizabeth and will weigh less than 2.26kg."

-- Lilian Lowers, Gilgandra, nr. Dubbo
Well, that's certainly put Gilgandra back on the map. But why did it ever fall off? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
"No spaghetti hoops and turkey twizzlers for Baby Cambridge". Essential information, I feel. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I have it on good authority that forthcoming adverts for a well-known supermarket will portray the Queen as being fed up with foie gras and Faberge-egg omelletes, and gagging for cheap sausage rolls.. "That's why Ma'am goes to Iceland." -- Hillbillyholiday talk 08:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

STOP THE PRESSES!

Royal baby's name revealed as Chunky

"Prince William and Kate Middleton chose the name from a list of favourites including Basher, Baldy and The Baby. Prince William said: "It's a good name because when you think about it all babies are chunky"

"Royal baby's name revealed as Chunky". The Daily Mash. 17 July 2013. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 08:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Who is this "Kate Middleton" person? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I assume they are referring to the Duchess of Cambridge -- Hillbillyholiday talk 09:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because the subject is obviously notable and more than sufficiently covered by sources. The page looks nothing like the one that was deleted and contains no speculations whatsoever. That much can be seen by everyone. --Surtsicna (talk) 09:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Well it can be seen but sadly not understood by some of our more challenged readers. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Pregnancy announcement

There seems to be background info missing. Is there a reason there is no mention of when the pregnancy was made public last year? I would like to add a date at least but I may be missing some article history related to this? Helen (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

This article is useless

Practically all of the information in this article is going to be removed once the child is actually born, because it's information that doesn't belong in a biography article. What exactly is the purpose of this article? A placeholder? SilverserenC 00:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Not true. It will be renamed "Prince Rothbart of Cambridge" or "Princess Demelza of Cambridge" (or whatever) once the baby is born, and virtually all the info will be retained (if in a slightly altered form). -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 02:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
You don't include information about before someone was born in a biography article. If anything, the pregnancy info will be moved to the mother's article, as it has no place here at all. SilverserenC 06:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Whatever, but in 2 or 3 days' time we would have needed a new article anyway, and all Wikipedia articles change frequently. So, we are in no worse, and no better, a net position than we would have been anyway. Having this discussion so close to the birth is, frankly, pointless. Part of the rationale was to head off well-meaning but misguided stabs at the title, in editors' all-too-hasty attempts to be the first to create the article after the birth of the child. In that, at least, we have succeeded. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 07:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
We don't include "information about before someone was born in a biography article" because there is rarely any. Few people were notable as fetuses. I don't see why all the information should be removed when the child is born. Only the information about the pregnancy will become unnecessary. Surtsicna (talk) 11:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
That's right. Wikipedia has articles on notable subjects, and, given the extraordinary level of interest in this particular pregnancy, which has already indirectly and very sadly been associated with the untimely death of at least one person, one could not seriously argue that this subject is not notable. I'm sure nobody would object to an article called Pregnancy of the Duchess of Cambridge, so why should anyone object to it being named after the product of that pregnancy? -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 12:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of Jacintha Saldanha? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I would argue that it would be disproportionate to the overall significance to this article's topic. Helen (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree. This article should be about the child, not what happened when the child's mother was pregnant. –anemoneprojectors– 16:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Primarily, of course you're right. But associated background events merit some mention as well. Ms Saldanha would probably still be alive if the Duchess of Cambridge had not conceived a child. To avoid all mention of her death, as if it didn't matter, would be terribly offensive to her family. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 07:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
"Ms Saldanha would probably still be alive if the Duchess of Cambridge had not conceived a child." I find this speculative statement which amounts to victimization of the Duchess and/or her child extremely offensive and unnecessary, especially in a BLP space. "To avoid all mention of her death, as if it didn't matter, would be terribly offensive to her family." That does not sound like a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Helen (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry you "find" my statement to have victimised anyone, Helen. That was certainly not in my mind. I'm simply stating that there is an obvious connection between the Duchess's pregnancy, the "prank" by the Australian radio jocks, and the death of Ms Saldanha. A connection. That's all. I state this because it is an extremely prominent series of events that occurred not only during, but specifically because of, the gestation of the future royal child. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 10:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
This is not about me and I do not need an apology. I need you to behave more responsibly in a BLP space. Your (repeated) statement attributing blame for the incident is speculative and irresponsible. I am not going to get involved in the merits of your speculation as this is not a forum. Helen (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
One more time, I am not attributing blame to anyone about anything. Please desist from characterising my comment that way. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 11:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Mel Greig and Mike Christian were to blame, quite obviously. But the underlying factor, which made the whole tragic episode even possible, seems to have been the celebrity attached to this unborn individual. Having an entire article about a foetus still strikes me as rather odd. It's difficult to see clearly what is relevant and what is not. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd be very cautious about statements like your opening one, Martin. I'm sure User:HelenOnline would agree with me that BLP requires we do not make such assertions that have not been tested legally. There are legal processes under way in both the UK and Australia, including Mel Greig suing her employer (the radio station) for not providing a safe workplace. This is why I have studiously avoided the question of blame in raising the Saldanha matter here. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 22:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
You are very wise to be cautious, Jackaroo. If you read our very wonderful objective article you will see the legal process has fizzled out, the family have been paid off and the issue of blame is quite obvious. Of course, the b-word does not appear in that article. How could it. I'm quite prepared to be hauled off to ANI again, if need be, by Helen or even that anon ip from Ohio. But it will make little difference here. And good luck to Ms Greig - some workplaces are so safe, you're not even allowed a phone. Allegedly. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Plain speaking, straight to the point, and with some style! -- Hillbillyholiday talk 23:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't blame this baby for having stage fright and not wanting to come out. HelenOnline 10:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
It's still very early days for "Baby Cambridge". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Saldana's death is mentioned in Catherine's article, I think that's probably a better place for it. Morhange (talk) 08:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Are pub lock-ins really a source of British national pride?

The pregnancy was described as being a source of British national pride comparable to Olympic success and pub lock-ins.

Olympic success, sure, but pub lock-ins? A source of national pride? Really? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 17:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

If one is a reader of such posh magazines, then apparently yes. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
This isn't a sufficient discussion. The sentence is pure journalistic opinion, and looks incongruous. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you. (But we're all crammed into the good old "Queen Vic" here, grouped round the "old joana", singing out "Roll Out the Barrel" for the next four and a half hours, at least, so we can barely hear ourselves think...) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
It's the view of a major publication with a readership of (supposedly) half a million British people. Why do you object to it so? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
It's got such a large readership because it's given out for free at London Underground stations. If a tabloid journalist says 'X can be compared to X', so what? it's not the opinion of a significant person or a well referenced survey. I don't want this article to get so sloppy so quickly. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I do not view the article as being sloppy. I view the article as reflecting a wide range of mainstream points of view concerning the son of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
This is tabloid journalism, at best.--Egghead06 (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Seems strange to me, too, but I'm not British. In any case, it's more to do with defining (or at least measuring) national pride, and doesn't do much to help a reader understand this topic. When I read it, I understood the Olympic comparison as something like an 8/10 for patriotism, but after clicking on the lock-in Wikilink, seems like a 4. If it weren't for the outside news world, I'd have come away thinking the baby was a 6.
Would there be a problem with simply saying it was "described as a source of British national pride", without comparing it to anything specific? Less room for opinions to muddy things that way. No real need for "as being a", either. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
If we're gonna have the ShortList here based on their readership figures, then I can't wait to start adding quotes from The Daily Mash to BLPs.
Btw, the wonderful tradition of the pub lock-in went into decline around 2005 when they began to let pubs open all day long -- Hillbillyholiday talk 00:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I've never heard of smosh, but apparently it has 11.1 million subscribers, making it the most trusted name in YouTube journalism. Not sure why I'm whispering this. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
It is indeed a jarring sentence, rather like someone changed the last words for a laugh. It doesn't work as a comment on the size of the (alleged) national heartstirring instilled by the article subject, because it smacks you in the face with one person's eccentric notion of what British people are proud of. Pub lock-ins? Ridiculous. Maybe the journalist who wrote it had just come out of one, and was somewhat worse for wear. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I have, of course, consulted a British lawyer regarding the end of those happy days. The jarring element is indeed rather noteworthy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I've added two more sources for the national pride part. With a claim like this, more sources is better to demonstrate it isn't just one writer's opinion. I've removed the one writer's opinion on Olympics and pub lock-ins, since that precision seems to be a fringe view. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I thank you. Now let's all go down the pub before they close up for the night. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Media at the Hospital

do we want to mention the media camped outside St. Mary's? or is that not relevant.

Also the hospial is becomming a torist destination. 96.27.15.131 (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Not relevant at all, and I'd hardly call it a tourist destination. The media seem to be the only ones camped out there. Le fantome de l'opera (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I would say that encampment was wholly relevant. Whether it was needed, or indeed welcomed by the family or the hospital, is quite a different matter. And yes, I can understand why the hospital might become a destination for some tourists, for one or two days, but not beyond that. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 July 2013

At the start of the final paragraph of the article, change, "The child—regardless of gender—will be third in the line of succession to the thrones of the Commonwealth realms", to, "The child may be, regardless of gender, pending the univeral ratification of the 2011 Perth Agreement, third in the line of succession to the thrones of the Commonwealth realms".

The following Australian website would be the best source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-06/royal-baby-delivers-legal-wrangle/4803536

There are many other sources including: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/07/07/british-royal-baby-faces-succession-legal-wrangle/ http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/06/11/pol-royal-baby-bill-legal-challenge.html

This edit is important because although the laws have been ratified in the UK and other realms, they have not been in other realms, and in Australia and Canada there are strong legal chalanges from the states of Queensland and Quebec respectivly. 206134a (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why people find it so hard to understand this. The child will be born third in line regardless of gender and regardless of whether any law whatsoever is passed in any realm whatsoever. If the child is female, she will be third in line even according to the 300-year-old law. Under that law, she would keep her position until a) a brother is born, b) the Queen or someone preceding her in the line dies. Thus, it is not true that the child may be third in line. The child will be third in line. Surtsicna (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The child will be third and no realm has implemented the changes agreed at Perth yet. All the acts of parliament have built in delays to prevent one realm moving ahead of the others. DrKiernan (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 July 2013

I suggest that the phrase 'The child—regardless of gender—will be third ...' under the heading 'Titles and style' should be changed to 'The child—regardless of sex—will be third ...'. Since a distinction between 'gender' and 'sex' is often made, it seems appropriate to use a word that cannot possibly be ambiguous. The BBC, which I am watching now, has consistently used 'sex', as one would expect. 86.137.43.223 (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Addressed by HelenOnline [1]. DrKiernan (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick resolution. 86.137.43.223 (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete

This article should be deleted because wikipedia is not a crystall ball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.160.206 (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Watch for sewing machines and spinning wheels.

The fairytale atmosphere in the news today has reminded me of a similar, fictional hullabaloo about a young heir.

While it's likely just my imagination, I believe we should remain vigilant about the possibility of obscure people loosely connected with the royals feeling spurned, envious or otherwise slighted by the attention bestowed upon this child.

There was a story late last month about the possible rising threat in Britain.

If that's too subtle an alarm (the story does paint the trend as a good thing, after all), there's this recent incident, from Middleto(w)n. And yesterday's training camp in Killhope (apparently part of Crook & Weardale).

And then there's this, from likely nearly five months to the day before the birth.

I'm not suggesting we add anything yet, but it's worth keeping an eye on in the weeks ahead. Small details can be lost in a stream of media frenzy like needles in haystacks (or invitations in the mail). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Just gotta guess the royal name now. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
It wouldn't surprise me in the least. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

If the coincidences aren't trippy enough already, I just did a Google News search for "sewing machines and spinning wheels", verbatim. Despite claiming "about 0 results" and Pinterest not being news, it gave me this sole result, from a woman named Kate. The sole comment she has on anything is, appropriately, from a Katie. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Should the page be moved to Prince NN of Cambridge? PatGallacher (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it should. See #Prince/Princess of Cambridge. Nobody on Earth will refer to the child as Prince NN. Until he is named, he will be known as the son of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Thus, the present title makes much more sense and is perfectly accurate. He will be named soon enough anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Dubious precedence

I know there is no predetermined place for this child in the order of precedence but I find it extremely hard to believe that a future king ranks behind all the dukes and archbishops and people such as Alex Fergusson and the barely known Earl of Ulster. Is there a source that confirms this? If not, this should be removed immediately per BLP policy. Surtsicna (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Strange, but it appears to be the case. I would not be surprised at all if the Queen issues letters patent to correct this, but that remains to be seen. Safiel (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Is it possible for there to be a source that he doesn't have a higher place? Take a look at the order of precedence pages (which you should find sufficiently sourced, I hope!) and you'll see Q.E.D. (I also expect an amendment soonish.) DBD 21:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Wholly agree with Surtsicna - should be removed immediately. It is pointless and of no informative value to mention it without authoritative source. Qexigator (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikinews

Why isn't anyone contributing to the corresponding Wikinews article. Ideally, we should have it on their main page by now. --Thebirdlover (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

We are too busy updating this article and trying to keep it clean. HelenOnline 21:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikinews is supposed to be more up to the minute than Wikipedia. It was originally designed to be a rival to regular news websites. --Thebirdlover (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Helen: Well, all the best with that. I for one will be back later tomorrow once the madness has died down to do a proper job... G'night! DBD 21:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Me too. At least it was semi-protected. HelenOnline 21:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 July 2013

Correct typographical error - "direcr" should read "direct" Tomgordonuk (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Done by Coinmanj[2]. DrKiernan (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 July 2013

On Son of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge#Prenatal, in the line "The unborn became the first person to get Wikipedia page before being born.", there should be an "a" before Wikipedia. 184.8.220.234 (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC) I guess it's already done

That seems sort of trivial to me and should probably be removed altogether. Also, I wonder if it's actually true; it seems like something that would have happened before now, but I can't think of any concrete examples to back up my suspicion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Is the source used for this a "reliable" one? It looks less like a news organisation, and more like a self-preening monarchist website. Given WP:SELF, I would suggest omitting this unless its verifiability is pretty bombproof. Also, if this remains, care is needed to avoid tortuous references to "the unborn before being born", and such like, and to get into the whole "prenatal personhood" tangle. 84.203.35.193 (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 July 2013

Edit request to change in the box area where the Baby is now 3rd position in line to the throne, to the left box it says "Succeeded by Prince Henry of Wales" should be "Succeeded by Prince Harry of Wales"

Citation: Prince Harry of Wales is now 4th in line to the throne. IDesignFly (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Henry is Prince Harry's legal birth name. Morhange (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

But they aint even named him yet so he can't be king ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.133.104 (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Why not? If his three forebears predeceased him in rapidfire fashion in the next couple of days, do you imagine that Hal would accede ahead of him on grounds of namelessness? 84.203.35.193 (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWSPAPER

Is the problem with this article. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me? Surtsicna (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
There are a lot of details in the article that come straight from the news and that will probably not be there in a few years time when the article is about an actual person. This for instance "The Palace reported "Her Royal Highness and her child are both doing well," and "The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh, The Prince of Wales, The Duchess of Cornwall, Prince Harry and members of both families have been informed and are delighted with the news." The Prince of Wales said he and his wife were "overjoyed at the arrival of my first grandchild. It is an incredibly special moment for William and Catherine, and we are so thrilled for them on the birth of their baby boy" is news. Not encyclopedia. Take the bit about the town crier.... I mean.... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Articles can change. That's not necessarily a bad thing. This article is clearly Notable though and properly cited. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 11:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The sooner that sort of trivia is removed the better. Perhaps Wikinews[3] would welcome it. Is there a means of transfer? Yesterday's Court Circular as published in today's Times newspaper (of London) makes no mention of the birth event. Qexigator (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree about the family statements absolutely and I did remove them but my revert was reverted. I disagree about the town crier though, that part is arguably history. HelenOnline 12:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I see that Surtsicna made good there! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Also, I seriously doubt that the town crier's performance is of any historical significance. It's folklore. Nice, but just that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Hopefully third time is a charm. HelenOnline 17:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Haha! Let's hope so. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Eventually there will be enough about the prince himself that an article on his birth, including the reaction to it, can be separated out. Until then removing info on the birth is just elitist exclusionism. The palace statement is historical: "According to the palace statement, "The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh, The Prince of Wales, The Duchess of Cornwall, Prince Harry and members of both families have been informed and are delighted with the news."[1] The Prince of Wales said, "Both my wife and I are overjoyed at the arrival of my first grandchild. It is an incredibly special moment for William and Catherine, and we are so thrilled for them on the birth of their baby boy."[2]" but I have no opnion on the town crier. μηδείς (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
"Close relatives express pleasure at birth of child" is the opposite of "historical". If Charles had issued a statement declaring himself disappointed or questioning its paternity, for instance, that would be notable. As it stands, it's pure fluff. Mogism (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it's in the same boat as "Officials declare tragedy tragic" or "Police intend to catch suspect". InedibleHulk (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't stand anymore. I don't know what is meant by 'elitist exclusionism'. But I'm pretty sure that's of no concern to this article. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
This is, frankly, silly. You are not going to be able to maintain a policy of no reactions to the birth, and there's no more notable reaction than that of the royal family itself. μηδείς (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Hard to maintain many policies in current event pages. Doesn't mean we can't try. I'm not so much against the mention as the weight you gave it. Full quotes and listing each member who was happy about the birth is too much. It can be trimmed down to a sentence or two and lose no educational value. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Medeis, reactions to the birth may very well not be encyclopedial. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Alert to misreporting

It is evident that some journalists have failed to check their facts about the lack of progress in the change of the law of succession as per [[4]] and [[5]], and the info box at Succession to the Crown Act 2013 clearly shows "Commencement Section 5: 25 April 2013, Rest of Act not in force". But the front page of today's Times newspaper (of London) no. 70944, print copy) wrongly informs its readers: "Under the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, girls have now equal succession rights as boys...But as the couple's firstborn child was a boy, the law is irrelevant." This sort of error is likely to be repeated and recopied by other supposedly reliable publications around the world and by twitterati. It's an instance of misreporting and bogus commentary which induces a wary scepticism of such publications as sources for Wikipedia articles. Perhaps some twitterer will (has?) put a correction into circulation. Anything similar in other realms? Qexigator (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh yea, oh yea?

So it seems that Tony Appleton is "unaffiliated" (whatever that means - no explanation at Town crier?). Is he still a member of the Loyal Company of Town Criers? I had always assumed that if one was a Town Crier one needed, at the very last, a town. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed that bit of editorializing. HelenOnline 12:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. But do we know where he's from, and if so should the article tell us? Presumably he's not just an obscure village Crier. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
He has a website. HelenOnline 13:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
He is the Lord of the Manor of Great Baddow. HelenOnline 13:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for the info. As he was self-appointed, I guess no more needs to be added. Certainly the highlight of the whole event for me personally. But perhaps he was just angling for his own Wikipedia article. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
As said before, I doubt that this whole thing will be of any interest in about a month... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
His website makes it clear that he's a freelancer, and has no town of his own. I'll try using that word (instead of 'unaffiliated') and see if that works. Doops | talk 15:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I think any child's birth may be announced in this way. Isn't this a commercial service they offer? Maybe we'll see a whole new trend. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
It seems "gatecrasher" Tony is, in fact, the official Town Crier of Romford, of 12 years standing: [6] He also took part in the closing Olympics ceremony last year, apparently. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Edition

Who can edit this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CiociaDobraRada (talk • contribs) 12:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

    • The page has been pre-emptively semi protected as a precaution against vandalism, so editors like you, with no history and therefore a potentially disruptive editor, won't be able to touch it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.6.11.17 (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Three generations of direct heirs

"The birth also marks the first time since the birth of Prince Edward (the future King Edward VIII) in 1894, during the reign of Queen Victoria, that the reigning monarch and three generations of direct heirs to the throne have been alive at the same time" - Queen Vicky died in 1901 with Eddy VII becoming king followed by Geo. V and Edw. VIII, as a result should this not read "since the death of Queen Vic" as this was the case not just during 1984 but each and every year up to and including 1901? --wintonian talk 15:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Should it be "first time since the period 1894-1901..." etc? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
"Since 1901" was what I was really thinking, but "1894-1901" would do just as well and is perhaps more explanatory. --wintonian talk 15:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Agree, including the range of years best explains it. LarryJeff (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Trivia

Town crier Tony Appleton who announced the birth of the new Prince, at an event in 2010

I removed some silliness about one or the other former colonies knitting this kid a blankie or something. I feel that mentions of 81.3 gun salutes, fruitbaskets and other minor gifts/celebrations need to have reporting in multiple, reliable secondary sources before being included in the article. Also, I'd like consensus here on talk before such trivia is included. Abductive (reasoning) 18:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think, just based on our other articles about royal children, that the gifts from the major Commonwealth realm governments are far more notable than the WP:NEWSy stuff about town criers and who's press release said what. I also have a feeling that it wouldn't be an issue if the gifts were from the British government. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Symbolic gifts from Heads of State are significant in the lives of (one-day-old) neonates? Even if they are totally unaware of them (apparently). I think many editors may be struggling with an article that, despite its title, is still predominantly about an event rather than a person. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Maybe we could spin them together into some sort of Birthday/Christening Gifts section? It does seem a bit notable to me, like the frankincense and myrrh they gave baby Jesus, the virtues the (good) faeries gave Sleeping Beauty or the dragon eggs Illyrio gave Daenerys (though substantially more actual).
Sort of like paying actual (though still basically symbolic) tribute to a future king, instead of lip service (which I don't find worth noting). I'd limit it to heads of the Commonwealth realms, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
... what?? no mention of the books!? "A Royal Fairytale, a picture-book version of the origin story of how Will and Kate met and fell in love. It's available immediately as an e-book, complete with interactive scenes involving fireworks, and published in hardcover in the U.S. under the title A Real Prince Is Hard to Find." [7] - Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
...and of course "Bubblegum Princess will go on sale once the baby is born. It's a charming, pink-drenched book based on a real-life, gum-chewing incident in Kate Middleton's life, reinterpreted for this special occasion...." I've put my order in already..... (<<< joke) Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
[8] Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
"The prince has already changed his first diaper, the couple told reporters." I demand to know why this momentous event is not yet mentioned. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
"Oh, is he driving? He's driving!" These modern prince-fathers, incredible. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I still think the whole thing is infested with trivia that will not ultimately survive. Presents? Gun shots? and the &*^$# town crier? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like some editors feel that the reference to the (&*^$#) town crier, Tony Appleton, may be too trivial for the article, but if not I just thought you might want to know that photographs of him at an event in 2010 wearing the same uniform are now available at the Wikimedia Commons. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Those 5,000 changes were called "Cambridge", I'll have you know!! Not to mention Tony's Royal dinging of the donger. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the the (&*^$#) town crier, Tony Appleton (sorry about that Tony), deserves an article of his own here! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Look, official acts might have a place in the article. I am removing this unsanctioned Town Crier as a publicity-seeking non-notable. Abductive (reasoning) 01:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
An Australian former prime minister knitting seems trivial. Is this something we are likely to want to know in the future!?--Egghead06 (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
This is indeed a biography and not an article about the birth. "The former Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, was photographed knitting a toy kangaroo for the baby." is just some of the rather mind-numbing trivia that I just removed. I seem to recall having removed it once before but it has returned. The mention is just about her knitting and has nothing to do with a state gift, and in any event Gillard is no longer PM of Australia. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
The fact that she knit it isn't notable. That a photograph of this event-within-an-event exists isn't notable. If she mails it to his parents and receives a thank you note, that isn't notable. But if there's anything resembling a birthday party, that'll probably be a notable bash, and the kangaroo perhaps the most notable gift of all. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
And yeah, I've had enough of this town crier, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Wikipedia should not be in the business of helping out-of-power politicians buff up their resumes. As I say above, perhaps official acts by governments could be worthwhile including in this article, but I doubt it. Certainly not acts by private citizens. Abductive (reasoning) 02:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I should have noted that I don't stand by my kangaroo claim if the tag says "From Julia Gillard". Only Australia matters here. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
There's just no enduring notability there. Even a royal birthday party isn't likely to be notable. A month from now, if that trivia isn't removed, someone will come along and nuke it. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I've no objection to nuking it right now. Until it's been made a gift in a proper princely manner (if that even happens), it's just a bunch of yarn and a snapshot. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Prince/Duchess of Cambridge

Because the child is a boy and because the Duke of Cambridge's second title is the Earl of Strathearn we now know that the new baby is HRH The Earl of Strathearn, since he takes his fathers next title by courtesy, just as other heirs to British Dukes do, so the title of the article should be HRH The Earl of Strathearn, and it should also be noted in the section about his Title and Style. 31.109.139.238 (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Dukes heir uses a courtesy title only if he have no title by own right. Now he is Prince george of Cambridge he don't need a courtesy title. If Prince William predesease his father, the new born will prince george the duke of Cambridge and etc. eg:- George V 's third son was styled HRH The Prince Henry, The Duke of Gloucester, Earl of Ulster and Baron Culloden. his heirs(first Prince William then Prince Richard after his brothers death) hold Princely titles because of Kings male line grand children, as called Prince William of Gloucester and Prince Richard of Gloucester instead of Earl of Ulster. But Present Duke, prince Richards children don't have princely titls because they are kings great grand children(Only Prince of Wales elderst sons children get princely titles among kings grand children) and his son called Earl of Ulster and sons heir and elderst son called Lord Culloden.Chamika1990 (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

When the child has been born, assuming we don't know the given name immediately, should we move this article to Prince of Cambridge or Princess of Cambridge? This article may be linked on the Main page under In the news, so we should probably be prepared for that. I noticed there was already an Unnamed Prince of Cambridge and an Unnamed Princess of Cambridge redirecting to Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge#Pregnancy (I have just edited them to redirect here instead). HelenOnline 10:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

No, that would not be right. The child will not be Prince of Cambridge or Princess of Cambridge, i.e. that will not be a substantive title like Prince of Wales or Duke of Cambridge. The child will be a prince of the United Kingdom known as Prince(ss) X of Cambridge. It would be best to just leave the article at Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge until the child is named; the present title certainly won't become less accurate or less precise once the childis born. Surtsicna (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The child will be officially entitled Prince (Name) of Cambridge or Princess (Name) of Cambridge. So probably not. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 03:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Prince(ss) NN of Cambridge would be the best answer, but seeing as the child will be given a name within the first couple days anyway, there's no point moving the article only to move it again a couple days later. The Princess NN of Country came about mostly because of the Danish tradition of waiting until the baptism to name the child, so the articles were made when the children were born and then we had an article in place while we waited for the name. In other cases, ie Princess Estelle of Sweden or Princess Eleonore of Begium, the article Princess NN of Sweden/Belgium was created and then moved within a day or two to its proper location when their names were announced. But this article is already in place, so moving it, only to move it yet again a day or two later is pointless. Morhange (talk) 05:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I think Norman is a great name for a Prince, although Princess NN also has a certain ring to it. Martinevans123 (talk)
I agree with Morhange. Additionally, we might not be certain as to the child's precise style until one is used (styles have broken precedent before, remember!), so we really ought to avoid assuming something based on precedent which could soon turn out to be WRONG... DBD 10:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


The style of the boy is given as "His Royal Highness Prince [name] of Cambridge" on the official webpages of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge - so speculation about that can now end... (www.dukeandduchessofcambridge.org/news-and-diary/the-duchess-of-cambridge-has-been-delivered-of-son)

Since this article is locked, can someone correct, "as was the case for his father who was named William, Prince of Wales," in the first paragraph of that section? There is only one Prince of Wales, and that's Charles. Prince William is Prince William of Wales, not William, Prince of Wales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.13.141 (talk) 05:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Done. Metheglyn (talk) 05:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 July 2013

Please change "Kate Middleton" to "Catherine" in the first sentence of the article because using the Duchess's maiden names gives an implication that the child is illegitimate. Upon her marriage to Prince William, Kate Middleton became Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge and when she does require a surname, she uses Cambridge. This can be seen on the webpage of the Royal Family: http://www.royal.gov.uk/thecurrentroyalfamily/theduchessofcambridge/theduchessofcambridge.aspx Mfumarolo (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done The official title makes more sense, IMO. Insulam Simia (talk/contribs) 16:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I took out the piped link so that her full title including her first name was present; otherwise we used "Duchess of Cambridge" to give further background on the "Duchess of Cambridge". Risker (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
That's fine by me. Insulam Simia (talk/contribs) 16:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
That's all fair enough. I piped her as Kate Middleton because that is the way most media and people worldwide think of/call her... (WP:COMMONNAME style.) DBD 17:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Somebody changed the first part of this to read "Please change "Kate Middleton" to "Waity Katy" in the first sentence of the article because using the Duchess's maiden names gives an implication that the child is illegitimate. Upon her marriage to Prince William, Kate Middleton became Waity Katy, Duchess of Cambridge and when she does require a surname, she uses Cambridge." While this is a talk page and not the article itself, it's still vandalism and could give others reading it later the wrong impression about what request was answered. Changing it back to "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge." Metheglyn (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

name change

when the baby is born somewone should change the name of this article to the name of the kid. Oh by the way Quebec is a province. Not a state — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.133.104 (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

When its name is officially announced, of course we will move it. DBD 18:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Its name? The child is a human being, not a rag doll. 169.231.88.26 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

How else do you want them to call him? At the time of the post they didn't know the gender of the child. Try to be more thoughtful before commenting...--54.216.235.75 (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Should we even have a reaction section anymore?

This pregnancy is no longer an event, the boy is now an actual (but tiny) person, and the article otherwise reflects this. Does any other BLP have a reaction section? If so, does it begin its first sentence with "The event..."?

Any objections to turning this into a full-on biography? Barack Obama has a "Cultural and Political Image" and Shakira a "Legacy". I'm sure I've seen "Reception" used for others. A simple retitling may be good enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead with "Recognition". OK? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Unnamed son

A question: Is he really "unnamed" (i.e., not named)? Isn't it more accurate to say that the actual name itself has simply not (yet) been revealed or disclosed or made public? Just wondering. It's highly doubtful that two such famous people of the Royal Family (the Duke and Duchess), over the past nine months, have not come up with a male and alternative female name. I would think that they simply have not yet told "us" the name and will do so when they feel that the time is right. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

I agree. I'm sure the couple isn't calling their son "him", "he", or "that little dude". The name was probably chosen a while back and the official announcement just hasn't been made yet. The recent move of this article to "Unnamed son of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge" is wordy, odd and probably inaccurate. Moving it back to "Son of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge", until the name is announced, makes sense. 204.111.20.10 (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I've moved it back. The recent, un-discussed move made little sense, and was overly wordy. It should stay here until such time as the kid's name is announced. Courcelles 03:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, "unnamed son" was needlessly specific. May as well call him the "unnamed eight-pound unemployed Caucasian son". I'm sure we'll hear the name once the needle on the caring meter drops past an allowable level. I'll guess Wednesday. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I win! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I have fully move-protected the article at its current location. Any admin can lift the move protection if (1) there is a consensus for a rename or (2) as soon as the infant's name is publicly released, since it will have to move then anyway to Prince XXX of Cambridge or whatever. Risker (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
It is not uncommon for a royal baby's name to not be revealed for a month. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 05:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
As I recall, the longest wait in the last 30 years for the British royal family was for Prince William, and that was within a week. Risker (talk) 06:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
That's usually only with the Danish royals. From what I can remember, the Norwegian, Dutch, Spanish, Swedish and Belgian babies were all named within a day or two of their births. Morhange (talk) 06:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Elizabeth II's name was not announced until a month after her name accordind to what is being (constantly) reported on Australian television. (I do hate to be refering to media there by the way). Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 10:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Article name

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing as discussion is now moot. Safiel (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Extended content

There have been quite a few Duke of Cambridge and Duchesses, so the title seems rather poor. Son of Prince William and Duchess Kate from the United Kingdom would be better -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

If the bookies are correct, the article will be renamed Prince George of Cambridge within a day or two. WWGB (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. 81.135.131.41 (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

She is not "Duchess Kate". She is "Princess William", although the press prefer to use her title, the "Duchess of Cambridge". It will be renamed soon. In the interim, "Son of Prince and Princess William" would be preferable to "Son of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge" but I don't think there's any real ambiguity.GSTQ (talk) 07:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Only nine to choose from? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

There may be nine persons listed in Prince William (disambiguation). But not all of those married at all, and most of those that did married princesses suo jure, so their wives were not known as "Princess William". In any event, whichever title is used, there is no real ambiguity. We all know which "Prince and Princess William" are referred to, and we all know which "Duke and Duchess of Cambridge" are referred to.GSTQ (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Change article name to "The Prince of Cambridge"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was oppose per WP:SNOWBALL. Safiel (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Extended content

Though his name is not yet known, it has been announced that he will carry the the title "The Prince of Cambridge" and the article should be titled accordingly. --Midrashah (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Support Neutral - Is the official name and is starting to be to be the common name. Insulam Simia (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC) For a temporary title it might be good, but we could just wait until his name is announced (the problem is is that may take some time). Insulam Simia (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - It's not correct. There is no such thing as The Prince of Cambridge. He is Prince [Name] of Cambridge... the "of Cambridge" element is because his father is the Duke of Cambridge. Why is this so hard for people to understand? 81.135.131.41 (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Because people tend to believe what they hear from the media, and those people just don't get it and probably never will. They're the ones who are still referring to the Duchess as "Kate Middleton". Would they refer to any other married woman who's dropped her maiden name, by her maiden name? Hardly. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The baby will be named by the end of the week, as early as tomorrow, there's no point in continuing to move the article and messing up infobox links when he'll have a name soon enough anyway and this will all be moot. Morhange (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2013 (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.

Continuation of main thread discussion

When the child is named the article title should be changed to "Prince (name) of Cambridge". Until then the article should not move at all. Safiel (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2013 (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.
  1. ^ Kate, Duchess of Cambridge, delivers royal baby boy CBC News Posted: Jul 22, 2013 2:45 AM ET Last Updated: Jul 22, 2013 4:08 PM ET http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2013/07/22/royal-baby-born.html
  2. ^ It's a boy! Catherine gives birth to royal baby By Dana Ford. Laura Smith-Spark and Richard Allen Greene, CNN, updated 4:15 PM EDT, Mon July 22, 2013 http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/22/world/europe/uk-royal-baby/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prince_George_of_Wales/Archive_1&oldid=1257793679"