Jump to content

Talk:Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

bad things to bad people

Doesn't seem like the fact he once worn the "bad things things to bad people" is significant enough to warrant inclusion. Gerardw (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It was worn as an part/extension of his army uniform in the context of a war. There is no point in removing the comment, it is only a line long. I am in favour of including sourced relevant information, as opposed to excluding information. For many (like me!) this is a notable/significant fact - I am sure most people can agree with this statement. Chendy (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Something needs to be said about...

..this latest disgrace. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7822574.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by OperationOverlord (talk • contribs) 06:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, but don't use the article talk page to preach your own opinion. — Realist2 19:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice idea, but one cannot in reality be expected to be equanimous about racism, can one? Because equanimity is often mistaken for support, do you not think, sir? OperationOverlord (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you're trying to say here; unexpressed equanimity equates to silent tolerance? I don't think so, because it posits awareness. Even if you are aware, is there any reason why a point of view *needs* to be expressed? The impression I get is that most people don't give a flying toss about this storm in a teacup; I eagerly await, however, the febrile response that "Shock horror! Prince Harry is seen SMOKING a CIGARETTE and BRANDISHING a MACHETE". He's obviously from a dysfunctional family and the intervention of Social Workers is long overdue. Fuck off! Let's get real here, please, he's a soldier. He does what soldiers do. If you don't like it, please feel free to abolish the Army and see how far it gets you. --Rodhullandemu 00:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The problem is, he is not just a normal soldier, he is a prince from a very well known palace, and as a royalty, he is expected to set good examples to his people, which he is obviously not doing. I think this issue should be mentioned because it is real and Prince Henry himself confessed and apologised for the remarks. But I really respect all of you for defending him although he has done something wrong, all of you are very loyal to the royal family. Wow! =) kotakkasut 01:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that the principle you set out, worthy though it might be, historically, is indefensible, although Prince Andrew does not appear to have suffered unduly from criticism in the long term. However, the third in line, and sometimes the second in line, to the throne, are not immune from criticism. Perhaps you should Google for "Tranby Croft" for an example within the last 120 years. Nothing to do with loyalty to the royal family; I wouldn't miss them, personally, although they are probably better at unifying a nation in times of trouble than is possible in a republic. Again, that hasn't really happened in the last 60 years, but then, they have more money than I have. Twats. --Rodhullandemu 01:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
All of your points are right, especially the last part lol! Ps. Someone should really archive this page, it takes forever to load... Signed, kotakkasut 02:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh wait, another news of the incident: BBC NEWS UK: Prince's racist term sparks anger. I'm off this topic. kotakkasut 03:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've archived some of the page, it will help. — Realist2 06:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
whilst i agree this needs to be mentioned, i think there should be a little more balance. This is totally one sided without stating a single defense issued or source that defended him just saying that he has "apologised" is not enough. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
What defense is there, we need third party sources to report this "defense". — Realist2 16:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoa! Calm down Rodullandemu! Admins should not use such bad language!Celtic Muffin&Co. (talk) 13:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to forward my thanks to the grounded nature of the writing on this issue to whoever did it. Good stuff :) Superpie (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Trying, at some point I'll have to start trimming the info down, per WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. — Realist2 17:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the adding a preamble to his actual comments, that he "used racist language", I think Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Let the facts speak for themselves is worth a read. Rockpocket 18:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
It does seem that people are inserting too much minutae drawn from every tabloid out there. Realist is right that we should watch carefully the boundaries of WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM, as well as WP:NPOV. --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree, we only need the quotes, people can make their own mind up. Reading the relevant articles gives definitions of the words. — Realist2 18:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I tried to prune some of it down, however, in light of the anon editor who is presently very active in adding condemning details, we should maybe decide where the line is between sufficient and excess information. For example, is the cadet's father's refusal of Harry's apology noteworthy enough to warrant a mention? --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
No, also, I had to correct the title of a CNN source. The source was formatted with the word "racist" included in the title, however if you read the CNN article it does not mention the word "racist" in the title at all. Please read sources very carefully to ensure people aren't adding misleading info. — Realist2 18:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
That is pretty remarkable, though I suppose its possible CNN themselves changed their title at some point after it was added (such updates are not uncommon in online media). Rockpocket 19:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it's more likely that someone wrote their own POV title. Maybe it was an honest mistake, maybe they didn't know that the title must be exactly the same as the corresponding article. It seems unlikely that a reputable source like CNN would point blank put "racist" in the title. They tend to have a little more class than that. — Realist2 19:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Actually, I hate to say it, but the adjective "racist" is used by more media outlets than just the Daily Telegraph: Associated Press, Toronto Star (uses "racial slur"), BBC, CityTV, Sky News ("race slurs"), CTV, AFP, and more. Singling out the Daily Telegraph seems misleading and unfair. --Miesianiacal (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

By all means, add a few more prominent examples to the list. I was intending to do likewise. However makes sure the publication itself is labeling them "racist" words. — Realist2 21:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't such a list become rather unweildly? Maybe something like "...in which he used terms that were described by a number of media outlets – such as the BBC, the Associated Press, AFP, and others – as "racist" language in referring to..." would suffice; a few examples rather than every news source. No? --Miesianiacal (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Never mind; I see now you said to add a few more prominent examples. Fair enough. --Miesianiacal (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
3/4 of the best newspapers will get any such point across. Again, only if the newspaper itself calls them racist comments. Not if its "allegedly racists comments". — Realist2 21:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The following news sources also label Harry's remark as racist: The Guardian, Stuff.co.nz, the BBC, CBS News, Hindustan Times, the Dallas Morning News, Bild.de, From the AP, "Prime Minister Gordon Brown says a racial slur used by Prince Harry..." and MSNBC via the AP. These are from a ten minute search. KnightLago (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The first link, The Guardian, the title has the word "racist" in brackets, it doesn't necessarily mean the newspaper itself believes the words are racist. We are looking for sources that do believe the words spoken were racist. The Guardian source, at least from that title, is not saying the words are racist. — Realist2 01:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Read further down, see the sentence that says: "But the casual use of racist terms by the prince, who was promoted to lieutenant last year, appears..." KnightLago (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep, I see it, and agree they've reached the conclusion the words are racist. We should probably have sources from different countries, give it an international perspective. 2/3 from the UK, and a few from abroad. — Realist2 01:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I still don't think we need to specifically attribute the description to individual papers as long as we have citations to multiple reliable sources. Which in this case we do. I think the citations would be sufficient to satisfy BLP and help the article flow better. Thoughts? KnightLago (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
We could say, "some news outlets labeled the words as racist".[1][2][3][4] However, the article already breaches the NPOV policy, because there clearly isn't enough information on Harry's defense. We also need to add sources that say it wasn't racist, that there is a contextual element etc etc. — Realist2 03:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
There are certainly sources that say Harry's words were taken out of context, but I have the feeling that going down this path will lead to about 6 paragraphs in the article on this minor issue. "Some media outlets dubbed the comments as racist, while others said the Prince's words were taken out of context" (or something along that line) seems sufficient to me. --Miesianiacal (talk) 06:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree, we need to present both sides of the story without going over 1 reasonably sized paragraph. We could set up a draft page to work on an informative, yet tight paragraph? — Realist2 06:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, there was some questions about homophobic comments in that video, and if you want something in his defence, Peter Tatchell is your man http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-10508.html Hrcolyer (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Unbalanced section

A random anon user seems to have declared, without evidence, that Rod Richards is "disgraced" and somehow "not significant enough" to warrant the inclusion of his defence of the Prince. Perhaps the anon could elaborate on this, and, further, maybe seek a consensus on whether or not Richards' words should be banned from this article; of course, per WP:BRD, this is what he should have done in the first place. --Miesianiacal (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

New Title: Controversy

Controversy Title The controversy on Henry's Nazi uniform as well as his racially toned insults against other minorities should be placed outside of "personal life" it seems as if his name is being protected or at least conveniently hidden from plain sight. Almost all other famous people such as Mel Gibson, etc. all have their misbehavior under "controversy". Thus, Henry's behavior needs to be under a separate title such as "controversy". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surag238 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've undone your change as "controversy" sections, despite being employed on some articles, violate neutrality guidelines. --Miesianiacal (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Paternity

I've removed the following section from the main page:

Ever since Harry was born, there have been rumours about whether the Prince of Wales is truly his father. Diana admitted to having an affair, and most believe this affair was with James Hewitt. It has also been noted that although William bears a resemblance to both his parents, Harry looks nothing like Charles but bears a striking resemblance to Hewitt. It was rumoured that Diana was considering a paternity test but decided against it before her death.

This is worded in very strong terms, esp. the comment that Harry looks nothing like Charles. Also, Hewitt's response that harry was already born when he first me Diana (discussed above) is not mentioned. At the very least proper sources are needed for the paragraph but I would suggest its language is rather POV and more neutral language could be found. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 02:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that back in April, the following discussion was in the article:
Some people note that Harry shares red hair colour with Diana's lover James Hewitt, and see this superficial characteristic enough to doubt Charles' paternity. Hewitt's affair with Diana may not have begun, however, until well after Harry was born. On 29th June 2005, the Sun newspaper published extracts from a close friend of Princess Diana, that proved Prince Charles was Harry's father. Harry resembles both his paternal grandfather in his youth and increasingly the Prince of Wales.
This is also unsourced and takes the contrary view, playing down the Hewitt similarity in its own POV wording. Can we try and sort out some sort of a compromise paragraph and find some sources? - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 02:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the paternity I think the current discussion on the possibility of Prince Harry being sent to Iraq (News of the World, 14th januari) is of upmost importance.

This issue needs to be addressed in the article.Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
As long as it can be done within policy on biographies and neutrally, using only reliable sources, there would not be a problem with that. Unfortunately, all that seems to exist on that is tabloid speculation and a complete absence of DNA evidence so we are no further forward. Additionally, we have a responsibility to living people we write about to treat them with scrupulous fairness, not only for legal, but also for humanitarian reasons. The paternity issue appears to be a dead duck which should be laid to rest- and I speak as a republican. Rodhullandemu 23:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The truth will out one day ;) 1812ahill (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
... and porcine aviation will become feasible. Rodhullandemu 14:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Ofcourse no one has the right to enforce it, but all this gossip could easily be scotched by (the palace by) a (verifiably independent) DNA test which (if I'm not mistaken) the queen has refused. Harry's civil list status makes this even more pertinent. 1812ahill (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Anything on this subject would be very quickly removed, especially for legal reasons. Even if they had a DNA test and the results were given to everyone proving these accusations to be false, it wouldnt stop these anti monarchy campaign groups claiming the result was fixed, so why bother? "all this gossip" is limited to a few nutty tabloids long ago and the usual suspects who can be found in the dark corners of the internet. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand the paternity stories. Henry resembles Charles, more then William does & as for the red hair? it's a Spencer trait. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Ouchhhh that was a nasty attack on Henry lol :). BritishWatcher (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
William looks like Di :) I don't see why anyone should be surprised about infidelity in the royal family they have been at it for centuries! As for internet gossips and nutty tabloids, this is hardly comparable to UFO or X-Files type conspiracies. Prince Edward, Andrew and Zara Phillips are further clear examples of things not being what they seem - we just can't say these things - it's libel oh, and treason.1812ahill (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Gossipy twaddle

I came through a week ago looking for a good enough quality articles to include in the WP DVD. Sadly there is too much unencyclopedic gossip in this article (ref paternity etc). It looks amateur against the well researched stuff and the talk section above seems to conclude it shouldn't be included. Newspapers which print unchecked material to make sales are not reliable resources and unless you can find that the gossip itself was notable enough to be discussed per sae in reliable sources with due weight it shouldn't be there. This article is way out of line with several policies but perhaps some of the regulars would rather clean it up yourselves? --BozMo talk 22:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Newspapers which print unchecked material to make sales are not reliable resources" unfortunately, from what I've seen of WP:RS, they are considered RS. Personally I'd love to see newspapers like the Express group considered unreliable after their 110 article campaign over several months defaming the McCanns recently. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 15:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:RS (which admittedly changes a bit) says "When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used" so I would say the Express group doesn't get through. In so far as high quality means anything in a UK context it would be broadsheet not tabloid. --BozMo talk 20:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The 2002 BBC article acknowledges that in 2002 the rumour persisted but as it is a contentious allegation under WP:BLP it shouldn't get in unless a credible (preferably current) source supports it. --BozMo talk 09:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
As I said before, whether the paternity issue is even true or not is almost irrelevant - surely the level of discussion and controversy surrounding the issue is notable? Why isn't a BBC story that mentions the rumours credible? And why does this section of the article keep being removed? The editing of this particuarly section seems remarkably biased. Davetibbs (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I actually concur with Mr Tibbs — the paternity issue is something which is relevant to this page — it's a stock reference among the British, and should certainly be addressed, even if just to make abundantly clear what tosh it is... DBD 22:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree it is very relevant - especially in light of the large amounts of public money being paid to various royals on the basis of their heredity. I am thinking of Prince Andrew and Edward here aswell... 1812ahill (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Henry v Harry

The subject of the article's name is Henry, however he is always called Harry, whether in newpapers, television, radio or the internet - including his profile at the Prince of Wales's website. Calling him Henry all the way through the article is meaningless, as that is not his name. He is never referred to as Henry, and is unlikely ever to change his name. Propose listing his official name as Henry, but calling him Harry in the rest of the article. Johnhousefriday (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think first you'd have to renegotiate this guideline. Common-sense exceptions may occur, obviously, but his name is Henry, whatever nickname is given by the media or even himself. Additionally, an encyclopedia is written in a formal tone. Rodhullandemu 18:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
His name is Henry Charles Albert David, not Harry Charlie Al Dave. He was christened as Henry and that is his first name. The same ignorant media who refer to him as "Prince Harry" also refer to his mother as "Princess Diana" - that's how reliable they are. Are we going to replace "Sarah, Duchess of York" with Fergie, "Diana, Princess of Wales" with Di, etc? Surtsicna (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
His name is offically Henry and I think this page should reflect this. However I do believe it should be consistant throughout the article so I think all Harry's should be changed to Henry's--81.77.210.185 (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate what you're saying and I agree that he should be referred to by his name, however the point then rests on the definition of a name: whether it's the name written on his birth certificate, or the name by which he is known. My own dictionary here defines name as "a word or words by which an individual person, place or thing is identified and referred to". His birth name is Henry, but he isn't called that anywhere in the world except this article. Harry is not on his birth certificate, but is used in all branches of British and international media, including the Prince of Wales's website (as I noted above).
You are correct that, as an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia ought to be written in a formal tone, but it is also meant to be modern, accessible and relevant to the general public, to whom Prince Harry is called.... well, just that! He is called Harry in the same way Anthony Blair is called Tony, i.e. no matter what his birth certificate might say, Tony is his name. The fact is he oughtn't to be called Henry because Henry is not his name; his name is Harry. Johnhousefriday (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Then please feel free to discuss this generally at Wikipedia Talk:MOSBIO, but until then, it would appear that consensus is for the status quo, and for us, his name is Henry, not Harry. Rodhullandemu 19:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Just for added information, it says here that he is "always known as Prince Harry", yet here he's referred to as "Prince Henry". --Miesianiacal (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
This is untrue - the link quoted refers to him as Harry throughout! Deb (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
It is not necessary to discuss it at the manual of style, as it is clearly shown there that common names should be used in description in preference to legal names, e.g. Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Tony Blair. The point about websites is ridiculous; one is an actual biography on the Royal Family's official website, while the other is merely a factsheet on the Canadian Department of Heritage's website. Hardly a conclusive source. Naming him in the opening paragraph as Henry is sensible, and using that for the title of the article is acceptable, however insisting on calling him Henry throughout the entire article is meaningless; it's just not his name. Johnhousefriday (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, thanks ever so much for belittling the Department of Canadian Heritage; wot colonies and all that, eh? --Miesianiacal (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
If we are going to use the Royal Family's official website as the top source, we will have to ignore the fact that George III held the title of Prince of Wales. Why? Because the official website says that he couldn't have held the title. Why? Because, as they say, the title can only be granted to the Sovereign's eldest son, and George III was never the Sovereign's son. Surtsicna (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any response to the point I raised re. common names? Johnhousefriday (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I do: Princess Diana/Lady Di and Fergie. Those are the most common names for Diana, Princess of Wales, and Sarah, Duchess of York. Should we use them? Surtsicna (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
That's an irrelevant argument. The difference between using Lady Di and Fergie is that they don't call themselves that, but Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Prince Harry do call themselves by those names. Johnhousefriday (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
No, that's a relevant arguement because it shows that the most common name is not always the name which should be used by an encyclopaedia. Can you prove that Sarah, Duchess of York, doesn't call herself Fergie, or that Prince Henry of Wales calls himself "Prince Harry"? Surtsicna (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
You've misunderstood the term, common name, which refers to a name which is not the subject's given or legal name but which is universally used to refer to the subject in place of the legal name, e.g. Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Derry Irvine, Paddy Ashdown. I can't prove the Duchess of York doesn't call herself Fergie, just as you can't prove Harry doesn't call himself Harry. Johnhousefriday (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
It's you, not me, who claimed that Prince Henry of Wales calls himself "Prince Harry". In case of Tony Blair and the others, the most common name is used only in the title of the article; in the text, he is called simply "Blair" (per MoS). If we are going to adhere to the most common name principle, we would have to rename this article to Prince Harry, right?
Anyway, Tony Blair article just gave me an idea: we could simply refer to Henry as "the Prince". I believe this solution would satisfy everyone. Surtsicna (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
This is absurd. He is universally known as "Prince Harry." This is perfectly correct, and there's absolutely no reason not to use it. john k (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(old) Requested move

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

The result of the move request was page moved per the articulated common-names argument, which has the most support in this discussion. —harej (talk) (cool!) 05:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


Prince Henry of Wales → Prince Harry of Wales — Most common name, not in conflict with any naming guidelines I'm aware of john k (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Opppose I agree almost no one calls him Prince Henry. But I don't like "Prince Harry of Wales" because it sounds like an official title, which it isn't. What about just "Prince Harry"? Already a redirect, and nobody's going to type in "Prince Harry" if they're looking for Henry I - VIII. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 18:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article should remain at Prince Henry of Wales but use Harry in the body of the text. Johnhousefriday (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Johnhousefriday. The current situation, with the article titled correctly and the use of the 'informal' Harry in the body, is a very good and sensible compromise. As long as "Prince Harry" and "Prince Harry of Wales" both redirect here, all bases are covered and there is no problem with it. (And this from an editor who, until a few weeks ago, was firmly in the camp of "Prince Henry" throughout). 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 20:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Could you define "titled correctly"? As you can hopefully see, I initially opposed this move but was persuaded to change to support. As john k points out, "Prince Henry of Wales" is not the official title of the prince (even if it were, Wikipedia does not care about the official name of anything), nor is it the most common. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 22:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
With due respect, I think you are missing the points made by other editors; Prince Charles, Prince William and Queen Elizabeth II are all known by those first names. Prince Harry is not widely known at all as Prince Henry despite his christening, and authoritative sources including Encyclopedia Britannica use "Prince Harry of Wales". The Beatrice example isn't relevent in this case, since we are keeping the place name (of York, of Wales) but proposing changing the first name. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
That statement comes from a user who said: ...the papers and official sources always refer to "Prince Harry"... How come you suddenly changed your mind? Surtsicna (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean, which statement? If you are asking why I changed from opposition to support, it is because I thought "Prince Henry of Wales" was an official title; as it is not, WP:COMMON must apply. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 19:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Surtsicna was talking to DBD. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
:Yes, I was referring to DBD's statement from the section above. He said that the papers and official sources always refer to "Prince Harry", but opposes moving the page to Prince Harry. Surtsicna (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. I've crossed out my comment above. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 21:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support He is known as Prince Harry not Henry. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support His name Henry is so little known as to cause confusion for people when searching. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Totally oppose This is an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid. His name is Henry. That is what his parents named him and what is on his birth certificate. Harry is a nickname often used by people called Henry. He and his family, and now the media, have chosen to call him that informally. But on all formal correspondence, all formal documentation and everywhere else he is down as "Henry". There is in reality no such person as "Prince Harry". There is a prince nicknamed Harry. That is all. Proposing that the article be at "Prince Harry of Wales" would involve making up a non-existent title and would be the equivalent of putting his mother at "Princess Di" or Sarah Ferguson at "Fergie". There is an argument in the text for using 'Harry' in describing the person, given that he has chosen to be informally known by Harry. But "Prince Harry of Wales" as an article title is preposterous. There is no such person and no such title. It would involve wikipedia having to make up a non-existent constitutional title and that would be against Wikipedia's own rules. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Should we move Bob Dylan to Robert Allen Zimmerman? From what i understand thats what was on his birth certificate. Or what about William Clinton, why on earth is his article at Bill Clinton??? The person who took the oath of office and became president was not called Bill. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
As myself and other editors have tried to make clear, "Prince Henry of Wales" is not an official title, and authoritative souces use "Prince Harry". Please also see WP:OFFICIAL. As for Wikipedia's conventions, we only use them when it would make sense to do so, and we can disregard them where appropriate. See WP:IGNORE. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 22:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Bill Clinton is not a title. "Prince Henry of Wales" is a title. You are missing the point. If this article was under the title "Harry Mountbatten Windsor" or "Harry Wales" then it would be the equivalent if "Bill Clinton". It isn't. It uses his formal constitutional title. "Prince Harry of Wales" would only make sense of you move Diana Princess of Wales to "Princess Di", Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon to "The Queen Mum" or Sarah, Duchess of York to "Fergie". FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Jtdirl, I understand your concerns. I would love to have this article titled Prince Henry of Wales, but only if the article is going to refer to him as Prince Henry. Having the article titled Prince Henry of Wales, while the article itself refers to Prince Harry, is unencyclopaedic. Surtsicna (talk) 11:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The article text doesn't have use his full constitutional title. It is perfectly OK to refer to "Prince Harry", which is not a formal title. But it would be beyond ludicrousness to create someone called "Prince Harry of Wales" when there is no such title. The article can quite correctly indicate what he formal title is, and then use the colloqual version in the text having contextualised the usage in the opening paragraph. But referring to a "Prince Harry of Wales" is plain preposterous. I had heard that the reference to formal titling on this site, which had once been high (and been praised for accuracy in articles) had gone to the dogs. But if it stoops to making up nonexistent titles for article titles it will have sunk from being an encyclopaedia to being a tabloid. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I hate double standards. Saying that it is OK to refer to "Prince Harry" in the text, but claiming that the article must not be titled Prince Harry, doesn't make much sense. If "Prince Henry of Wales" is correct, then "Prince Harry" is incorrect and shouldn't be used at all; if "Prince Harry" is the most common name and "Prince Henry of Wales" isn't used by any source, then the latter shouldn't be used at all. It is simple. There is no need to come up with complicated solutions for simple situations. There is no valid explanations for inventing a title for the article and then explaining in the article that nobody except Wikipedia calls him that way. Surtsicna (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support People would look at you blankly in Britain if you said "Prince Henry". His WP:COMMON name is overwhelmingly Prince Harry. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Prince Harry. No Wales. Bouncing Kangeroo (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support with reservations. "Prince of Wales" is indeed a title, and the way to refer to an individual using that title is to insert their name between "Prince" and "of". This does not make whatever name is inserted into the title part of the title itself--if it were, then it would not sound ridiculous to ask, "who preceded Harry Mountbatten Windsor as Prince Henry of Wales?". That said, I do find "Prince Harry of Wales" to be an ugly compromise--it's not a conventional use of the title and it's also not how he's most often referred to. I'd prefer something like "Prince Harry (Prince of Wales)", with "Prince Harry", "Prince Harry of Wales", and "Prince Henry of Wales" redirecting.--Atemperman (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Yet Henry is not Prince of Wales - he is "Prince Henry" (known as "Prince Harry") and "of Wales", but not Prince of Wales, so I am a bit confused by your reasoning. Aubergine and I (and perhaps you?) think that Prince Harry would be even better than Prince Harry of Wales. Surtsicna (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Prince Harry would be a great article title but the wikipedia convention police would go crazy if we tried that :). BritishWatcher (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair point, Surtsicna; my mistake. I too agree that "Prince Harry" is better than "Prince Harry of Wales", but think that "Prince Harry (of Wales)" or "Prince Harry (Prince, of Wales)" or something like that might, ugly as they are, get more support on Wikipedia. Although, the BBC evidently has no problem calling him "Prince Harry" in his profile[1], and he's also called "Prince Harry of Wales" by CNN[2]. Frankly, I don't really care that much. In cases like these where there's no perfect solution, we're really looking for the least bad solution, and since "Prince Harry of Wales" misleads readers (as it did me, evidently) into thinking he was Prince of Wales, "Prince Harry" is preferable.
Now we are going to the ridiculous! How can "Prince Henry of Wales" mislead people into thinking he is Prince of Wales??? He is Prince Henry of Wales. That is is title. His brother is Prince William of Wales. His cousin is Princess Beatrice of York. A relative is Prince Michael of Kent. Or are you suggesting Wikipedia should unilaterally dump all royal titles and make up its own, in the process dumping its own rules on naming? The sons of a Prince of Wales are always officially titled "Prince [name] of Wales". The daughters of a Prince of Wales are officially titled "Princess [name] of Wales". The whole point of an encyclopaedia is to educate people. If you don't know that the sons of a Prince of Wales are referred to as "Prince [name] of Wales" this is your chance to find out. It isn't Wikipedia's role to ignore what the law says, what hundreds of years of rules say, and what Wikipedia's own rules say, simply because you don't know what the rules are. If you don't know the rules, learn them. It is one thing to debate whether to replace the guy's formal name in the article title with his nickname. But to suggest dumping his title also because you didn't know he had that title is preposterous. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Bouncing Kangeroo (talk) 03:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedia amateurism strikes again. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 13:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't you oppose referring to him as Prince Harry in the section above? I opposed it alone. Surtsicna (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Because "Prince Harry" is an acceptable colloqualism that he himself uses. "Prince Harry of Wales" is entirely fictional because legally and constitutionally such a title does not exist. Legally and constitutionally if using his formal title it is "Prince Henry of Wales" and nothing else. "Prince Harry" on its own is not doable as you have to indicate his formal title as the article title. So the only options were an entirely made up formal title "Prince Harry of Wales", or the constitutionally correct one, "Prince Henry of Wales". As is all too common on Wikipedia, it decided to ignore what is right and go by what superfically it could get away with. Granted, Wikipedia hasn't sunk to the preposterous levels it originally had when using royal titles, which made it an international laughing stock, but having moved to accuracy it has decided to slip back to shoddy inaccurate make-it-up-as-you-go-along standards again. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

wow commonsense prevailed on wikipedia... Im lost for words :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Jumper's I wish I would've known about this. We may aswell move Prince William of Wales to 'Prince Wills of Wales'. I'm just not wild about Harry. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
"Prince Henry of Wales" is not any more "constitutionally correct" than "Prince Harry of Wales." Neither "Prince Harry of Wales" nor "Prince Henry of Wales" legally or constitutionally exist. They are informal styles. The only things that Prince Harry legal holds are the title of "Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and the style of "Royal Highness". All the rest is just a standard form which is typically used for sons of royal peers. If he is always known as "Prince Harry" (as he more or less is), then it's perfectly appropriate to use "Prince Harry of Wales" rather than "Prince Henry of Wales." Because "Prince Henry of Wales" isn't a formal style either. john k (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
And Sarah, Duchess of York to Fergie! It is crazy and amateurish. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
We could always ignore stupid wikipedia naming conventions and change the article title to Prince Harry :) BritishWatcher (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
If we're going to pander to the tabloidists here who apparently disbelieve that an encyclopedia is intended to be a formal document, with structures and standards, WTF don't we just move this article to Harry Hewitt? I suggest a community-wide discussion is indicated here, not least because WP:COMMONNAME has been invoked, despite that Prince Harry/Henry is not a commoner.</sarc> Rodhullandemu 23:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Henry is a commoner, as he is neither peer nor sovereign. Anyway, "Prince Harry" and "Prince Henry of Wales" can't be both correct. If the former is "entirely fictional", then the latter should be used. If the latter is "legally and constitutionally correct", then the former is not "legally and constitutionally correct" and shouldn't be used. You cannot justify the use of "Prince Harry" if you say that "Prince Henry of Wales" is "legally and constitutionally correct". I wanted (and still want) this article to be titled "Prince Henry of Wales", but only if the article refers to him as such. As I said, having the article titled "correctly" and then explaining that nobody (not even the supposedly-credible official site) refers to him that way can only confuse readers - let alone the fact that it looks awfully unencyclopaedic. Surtsicna (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
That sounds odd. I did not think a HRH was considered a commoner. Why does it not say in the article that he is a commoner? --Law Lord (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Should all articles about commoners say that their subjects are commoners? Certainly not. Anyway, our article explains who is commoner under British law. There are sources to back it up. Surtsicna (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Why are other articles about commoners relevant? With all due respect, is it really your position that Prince Henry of Wales is like any other commoner? In that case, further debate would be a waste of my time. --Law Lord (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Why is my position relevant? He is a commoner. No further debate needed anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Its naming conventions that are the problem here, otherwise this article would be Prince Harry we all know thats his most commoname used by the media, government, royal family itself. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The article name must be Prince Henry of Wales. Otherwise, the article about Elisabeth II must be moved to "The Queen" (since that is how she is mostly referred to). --Law Lord (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Her article should be moved to Queen Elizabeth II but sadly naming conventions on these matters are awful at wikipedia.. they prevent commonsense. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Can someone clarify. Is he really Prince Henry Of Wales (And the same with Prince William). I always understood that Prince Charles is the Prince Of Wales, and the Of Wales part is reserved for the immediate heir only. Starfiend (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Both William & Henry are Prince X of Wales. Also, both of Andrew's daughter are Princess X of York & Edward's daughter & son would've been Princess/Prince of Wessex, but Edward & Sophia wanted them to have less formal titles (thus Lady & Viscount). GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Harry v Henry continued

I see that someone has made a point of changing all the occurrences of the name "Harry" to "Henry" - I see no consensus for this. Harry has always been called Harry, ever since he was born. His parents announced before his christening that, although Henry was the name on his birth certificate, he would be known as Harry. There is no question about it, he is always known as Harry, and the article should reflect this. It is particularly silly to try to make it look as though external references, such as the link to the Prince of Wales's official site, call him Henry when in fact even these refer to him as Prince Harry. Deb (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, for all those reasons. This debate has been had (above) but ground to a halt due to fallacious reasoning from the other side. Johnhousefriday (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Refering to him as Harry in the article and having the article called "Prince Henry of Wales" doesn't make much sense because it looks like Wikipedia is using a nickname instead of the name. If Harry is the most common name, then move the article to Prince Harry and call him Harry. After all, Wikipedia:Common name is a policy, while it is forbidden to use royal styles as titles of articles. Prince Henry of Wales is part of a style used by person who is commonly known as Prince Harry. In a nutshell: article about Henry should talk about Henry; article about Harry should talk about Harry.Surtsicna (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be acceptable to retain the page at Prince Henry of Wales but refer to him as Harry. The title would then be factually correct, and as everyone in the world refers to him by a nickname I don't see any problem with Wikipedia doing the same for the body of the article. Johnhousefriday (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We don't call "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" by her official title throughout the article. Nor do we do that with any other kings and queens. It's different from "Lady Diana", which is not only not her official title, but not what she was called by people. The broadcast news, the papers and official sources always refer to "Prince Harry", whilst everyone (in the UK, anyway) is aware that his title is "Prince Henry of Wales". Deb (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
As I said, referring to a Harry in an article whose title mention Henry seems informal and inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. I am aware that he is best known as Harry - then why doesn't the title of this article abide Wikipedia:Common name? If I understand correctly, Johnhousefriday claims that Prince Henry of Wales is factually correct, which would mean that Prince Harry is factually incorrect, right? I do not understand why do we have to refer to him by name which is factually incorrect? Wikipedia should contain no factual inaccuracies. If, however, "Prince Harry" is not factually inaccurate, then it should be used as the title of the article, since the broadcast news, the papers and official sources always refer to "Prince Harry". Surtsicna (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
No, this is not what we mean. "Prince Henry of Wales" is factually correct in terms of his official title. "Prince Harry" is factually correct in terms of the name he uses. That's all there is to it. We have a naming convention for royal titles, which overrides the "most common name" rule, but we don't have a rule that we can't use the common name in the article if it makes it easier to understand. We don't need to be hidebound by rules that don't exist, and there is really no grounds for confusion as the article explains that he is called "Harry" rather than "Henry". Deb (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The naming conventions for royal titles do not override the most common name rule. The most common name is the most generall rule overall and the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) stresses that too. The article explains that he is always called Harry, yet the article is called "Prince Henry of Wales". Isn't that original research, if no sources (not even official ones) refer to him by that name? Claiming that the article should use the most common name and that the title of the article shouldn't contain that most common name is double standards.Surtsicna (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The article should probably be at Prince Harry of Wales. Whether or not it should be, he should certainly be referred to as "Prince Harry" in the article proper. john k (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have changed most instances of "Henry" to "Harry" in the text of the article. It is ridiculous to be more formal than the royal family itself is - this is just mindless pedantry. Manual of style rules should never be followed slavishly, and if an individual application would result in an absurd result, it should be ignored. Consensus on a general manual of style item certainly should not be used to force nonsense onto an individual article when it is clear that a majority of contributors to that article think it's wrong. I also think the article should be at Prince Harry of Wales, but I'll wait on that for the moment. john k (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If you do not propose moving this article to Prince Harry soon, I'll replace Harry with Henry again because the current situation is ridiculous - the text uses the most common name, while the title is original research. Prince Harry of Wales would be an invented title because a) it is a silly mixture of informal and formal style, b) Prince Henry of Wales is used more often than Prince Harry of Wales. Surtsicna (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The current situation is fine. The article title reflects his formal title, as is appropriate for an article about a member of the Royal Family, but it is made clear he is always known as Harry, and the information within it reflects the fact that it is essentially his name. I think we have reached a suitable balance between the two. Johnhousefriday (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Prince Harry of Wales is not an "invented title" - It is used by CNN, Encyclopaedia Britannica, and about 1.5 million other sites. There are more than three times as many non-wikipedia hits for "Prince Harry of Wales" as for "Prince Henry of Wales." john k (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
And what is ridiculous is calling him "Prince Henry" when he is universally known as "Prince Harry." I would be happy to move the page to Prince Harry of Wales. john k (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Then propose the move. The current situation is horrible. Claiming that the article should use the most common name and that the title of the article shouldn't contain that most common name is double standards. Surtsicna (talk) 10:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
There are always reasons why the most common name cannot be used as an article title - we have whole heaps of naming guidelines due to this fact. There is never any reason why the most common name should not be used in the article text. This is not double standards. john k (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the most common name used to refer to this man cannot be used as the title of the article about him? Surtsicna (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Lets change title back to Henry of Wales

As a supporter of the recent change, I think we should change the title back to Prince Henry of Wales, this current title is clearly going to continue to cause more problems than having Henry did. Im no fan of wikipedia naming conventions, i think this title should be Prince Harry which was the main reason i supported change (half way to perfection lol) but at the moment the title is inaccurate if "Prince Henry of Wales" is his official title and "Prince Harry of Wales" has no status at all. According to this BBC news article [3] it is his offical title and was used recently on the Prince of Wales website. [4] .

So shall we start the requested move process again and return it to its previously stable spot at Prince Henry of Wales? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care where the article is located, so long as the article text calls him "Prince Harry." I still don't see anything wrong with the current title, but admittedly I mostly proposed the move because Surtsicna was going on about how he was going to change everything back to "Prince Henry" if we didn't move it. john k (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
It should certainly always say Prince Harry throughout the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC) BritishWatcher (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely yes. The article should be called "Prince Henry of Wales" but with 'Prince Harry' and 'Prince Harry of Wales' redirecting here. The opening lead should make it clear that although he was christened Henry he has always been known as Harry by the family and by the public. He should be referred to as Harry throughout the article. That was always the sensible stance and the current naming of the article is a nonsense. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 18:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the article intro should probably say something like "almost always" called Harry rather than "commonly" which sounds a bit like just a nickname or another way hes known. For the overwhelming majority of people, theyve never heard of Henry. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, coming at this article fresh, I think it should either be at "Prince Henry of Wales" (real name) or "Prince Harry" (most common name, name of least astonishment). In an ideal world it would be the latter, but what we have at the moment is pretty confusing to a reader not familiar with either royal naming conventions (weird) or wikipedia naming conventions (weirder): we've got the name of the article being "Prince Harry of Wales", the name in the infobox as "Prince Henry of Wales" and the article starting out with "Prince Henry of Wales, commonly known as Prince Harry". So the article title isn't mentioned again anywhere in the actual article, which leaves a reader wondering where "Prince Harry of Wales" came from. Given every other royal article follows the same convention, I guess the most stable, workable solution would be to put it back where it was. Obviously, he should be referred to as Prince Harry throughout the article (and I agree it should start off saying that he is almost always known as that). My tuppence worth.
EDIT: After looking it up, and realising that "Prince Harry of Wales" isn't actually incorrect, I've changed my mind. Prince Harry of Wales is fine, but the rest of the article ought to follow suit to prevent illiterati (like me) getting confused about what is and isn't correct. So far as I can figure out,
  1. he is formally Prince Henry Charles Albert David, and a Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  2. children of the Prince of Wales are known as 'blah' of Wales
  3. he is always [5][6][7][8] referred to as Prince Harry unless his full style HRH Prince Henry of Wales is used.
So now the only niggle I have with the article is that it's muddled. Given that calling him Prince Harry of Wales is actually reasonable, I think the article should start with "Prince Harry of Wales (Henry Charles Albert David)...", the infobox be titled "Prince Harry" (with his full name given underneath), and leave it to the section on styles and titles to mention that even though he is universally known as Prince Harry, in formal address he is always HRH Prince Henry of Wales. That way people won't come to the article and immediately get the (erroneous) impression that every source (including Wikipedia itself) that calls him Prince Harry of Wales is incorrect. Charlie A. (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was no consensus. —harej (T) 06:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


Prince Harry of Wales → Prince Henry of Wales — We should move the article title back to the previously stable name. Henry of Wales is his official title[9], Harry of Wales is not there for this leads to too much confusion, but he must be referred to as Harry not Henry throughout the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Support Wholeheartedly. Should never have been moved away from this in the first place. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 16:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Henry of Wales isn't his official title. His full style is HRH Prince Henry of Wales, but he is known universally as Prince Harry and by virtue of the fact his dad has been granted the title Prince of Wales he is known as "... of Wales". The article title's fine, the article itself just needs to be internally consistent. I think it should refer to him as Prince Harry throughout unless giving his full name (Prince Henry Charles Albert David) or his full style (HRH Prince Henry of Wales). Charlie A. (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support The article is about Prince Henry of Wales. There is no such person as Prince Harry of Wales. There is a Prince Henry of Wales who is informally known as Prince Harry. It makes this site look ridiculous to make up a non-existent name for the subject of the article. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Jtdirl, could you provide a source for the contention that "Prince Henry of Wales" is some kind of official title? He is obviously called "Prince Henry of Wales" in certain kinds of sources, and it is the standard form used for princes of the UK who are not sons of the monarch or peers. But as far as I am aware this form is not defined or prescribed by law in any way. It is simply a customary way of referring to members of the royal family. john k (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Well this BBC report says its his official title [10]. I dont know if its in law or anything, but its certainly more of an official title than Prince Harry of Wales.
Prince William is at the his HRH title of Prince William of Wales so Harry should really be at Prince Henry of Wales like used on the Prince of Wales website when they set up a household for them. [11] . I would prefer Prince Harry and Prince William but im sure the wikipedia naming convention police would strong oppose that. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I still think the claim that "HRH Prince Henry of Wales" is official in any real way is problematic, but Prince Henry of Wales is a completely reasonable title. As I said, I don't particularly care. I proposed the move largely to test sentiments, and I really don't think that the discussion which followed demonstrated any kind of consensus to move to Prince Harry of Wales - many people supported a move to Prince Harry, but that's not the same thing. I do care that we don't get back to a situation of having the text call him "Prince Henry." john k (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Given that the article has a whole section devoted to his styles and manner of address, I still think titling the article Prince Harry or Prince Harry of Wales is preferable. He is called Prince Harry of Wales in a few sources, he is universally known as Harry. He is only ever called Henry when stating his full name or when using HRH (I think there's consensus that royal article titles are not just shortened forms of their styles). But I don't see that getting consensus, and for the sake of clarity/stability, I guess this article is going to be moved back to Prince Henry of Wales. Still oppose, but mildly, and I'm not going to kick up a fuss when it inevitably does get moved back. Charlie A. (talk) 11:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I would really love to see this article at Prince Harry, considering thats already a redirect to this page the only thing standing in the way is the formal naming conventions, which id love us to be able to ignore but im sure many would oppose saying its against the rules. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
More to the point, it is fatally ambiguous; I would expect Prince Harry to be about the young Henry VIII, if not Henry V. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Obviously you didn't mean any, but someone could easily take offense to having their point of view called amateur and ignorant. Would you call Encyclopedia Britannica (who name their article Prince Harry of Wales) "amateur and ignorant"? I'm not saying that Wikipedia should strive to emulate Britannica in everything it does, but it does show that Prince Harry of Wales is an accepted (and, more importantly, common and recognized) name for the guy. I wish those who claim the name "Prince Harry of Wales" doesn't exist would give some references or something to the effect that it's incorrect. I can't find anything other than the fact that his style is HRH Prince Henry of Wales (article names are not shortened forms of styles) and his name on his birth certificate is Henry (irrelevant when considering common names). Good, reliable third-party sources call him Prince Harry of Wales. I really don't think the desire to have the "Official Name" (remember, Wikipedia does not care about the official name of anything) is important enough to make us move an article from an acceptable, third-party referenced common name to a very rare shortened form of an formal style. I mean, a large proportion of the public would probably not know who you were talking about if you mentioned "Prince Henry". It's quite trivial in the grand scheme of things, but I don't like the idea of moving an article from an acceptable common name to an "official" uncommon one. Charlie A. (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Whether people take offence is irrelevant, since my words were about an action not about people. The person "Prince Harry of Wales" does not exist, and I can prove it by the fact that Prince Henry of Wales does actually exist. Also, it is often quite difficult to prove that somebody does not exist. Much easier to prove that they do exist. --Law Lord (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
What on earth is the basis for these claims? I don't know what the point is, and I don't think these wildly extravagant claims make much sense. The fact that he is officially "HRH Prince Henry of Wales" certainly does not demonstrate that "'Prince Harry of Wales' does not exist." john k (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose on procedural grounds. I admit that I didn't even read most of the wall of text here, as I'm not particularly interested. This is obviously a content dispute gloaming on to the movereq mechanism in an attempt to avoid or bypass substantive consensus building.
    — V = I * R (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Law Lord, if it were irrelevant whether people take offence when over-belligerent words are used to describe people's actions, I would be happy to say that moving this article back to Henry would be pretentious, pedantic, pointless, self-important, elitist and short-sighted. As it is, I'm not going to say that because I recognise that even if I think it, I can express myself far more politely ;)
(EDIT: just to clarify, that's not what I think. I just think moving the article back to Henry would be a bit silly.)
So, rather than arguing sophisms over the mutual exclusivity of having a formal name and common name, I'll ask if you have anything to say regarding the third party sources that refer to him as Prince Harry of Wales. Do you consider Britannica,[12] the London Evening Standard,[13], the Daily News of New York,[14], CNN,[15] and the Independent of Ireland[16] to be "amateur" and "ignorant"? Were Charles and Diana amateur" and ignorant for telling the world that he was to be known as Harry? Given that the whole world knows him as Prince Harry, it must be the case that we consider all the above sources to be amateur and ignorant if we move this article back to Prince Henry. I do not think they are. I think they show common sense. Charlie A. (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not Law Lord. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
It was an edit conflict :/ Charlie A. (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Okiely Dokiely. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hokay then. Anyone else up for submitting this to Requests for Comment? Get a broader perspective? Might be useful to get some more fresh opinions. Seems to me that current guidelines don't really adequately cover this situation (a royal who is known universally by a name not on his birth certificate), so it'd probably be good to see what editors in the broader community think. Charlie A. (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ive no problem with getting further input, however we should move this article back to its previous stable name as soon as possible, then get into a more general debate about this. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Alrighty. It's obviously not got consensus for being where it is (but neither has it got consensus for being at Henry). I don't really ken why it ought to be moved from one controversial position to an equally contentious position... but if it will help to get a broader discussion going then I'm all for it. So long as it is well understood that it's going back not because that's the right place for it to be, but just as a temporary compromise then I'll remove my opposition. Charlie A. (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, i still think this article belongs at the most common name which would be Prince Harry i just cant see people accepting going against some of the wiki naming conventions to have that, even if this was treated as a special case there are probably quite a few out there with problems. I think Prince Henry of Wales (as its his HRH title and in line with Williams article) is better than Prince Harry of Wales, but not sure what other alternative names there are apart from Prince Harry. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Forget Henry or Harry why does his uniform (and Williams) the name Wales?

The name on uniforms in the US would be the individual last name, is that not the same in England? I realize the title Prince of Wales but seems wrong to have a name tag read Wales for the two of them. 76.251.108.68 (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)macomberga@gmail

Look at the article Mountbatten-Windsor, it is explained near the end. Sussexonian (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal

Was he really awarded this he wouldn't have been eligable. Stupidstudent (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

How so? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
You had to have been in service for 5 years before 2002. Stupidstudent (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that you will find that, like many similar medals, not only are they awarded officially the monarch also has the sanction to award them to whoever they please. So most members of the royal family will receive one (whether they are in the armed forces or not) as well as members of the Queen's personal and household staff. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 15:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Henry's father

It's been brought up that due to the fact Prince Charles is alive, he should be presented as The Prince of Wales in this article's intro & infobox. Whatcha all think? GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I see you reverting me GoodDay [17] and you are completely wrong! The Prince of Wales is THE Prince of Wales for as long as his mother is alive, he is not Prince Charles of Wales or Charles, Prince of Wales, and to use his Christian name coupled with his title is plain wrong. If he dies as Prince of Wales and is succeeded as prince by Prince William of Wales then the Christian name may be used to differentiate hom from preceeding Princes of Wales. In much the same way as Diana, Princess of Wales acquired her Christiam name after her divorce and was no longer THE Princess of Wales. Princes Harry and William of Wales have their Christian names in their titles because they are junior to the Prince of Wales. This is all straight forward British prescribed forms of address and precedence - see THE Duke of Kent and his younger brother Prince Michael of Kent and so on. it is indisputable and the correct form of address.  Giano  22:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Charles, Prince of Wales is used at Prince William of Wales. Prince Andrew, Duke of York is used at Princess Beatrice of York & Princess Eugenie of York. Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex is used at James, Viscount Severn, etc, etc. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh well, with no authoritative policy or guideline, that's the beauty of consensus, even a tacit one. Rodhullandemu 23:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
You're correct (GR) in your changes. It's just that 'currently', these articles prefer the parents full name & title. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
If you are so keen on getting their Christian names correct then at least use the correct name of Prince Henry of Wales and not his nickname of Harry. Also please note that Princess Diana had her Christian name given by her Parents when she was 'Christened as a child, long before she even met Prince Charles, and not as you say after her divorce! Richard Harvey (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Richard Harvey, if you care to read above you will see I have argued for the page to be moved to "Henry" I merely use Harry in this instance to avoid further confusion. Regarding the late Diana, Princess of Wales, before her marriage her Christian name, Diana, was coupled with that of her courtesy title of Lady. On her marriage, she became THE Princess of Wales - she lost the right to use her Christian name coupled with her title in favour of the superior title. Superior titles are always used over lesser, the exception being when THE Prince and Princess of Wales are officially in Scotland and sometimes Cornwall. Contrary to continual press reports she was never Princess Diana, if people wanted to use Princess+Christian name she would have been Princess Charles, but that too would have been incorrect (Buckingham Palace cited this and made it clear at the time of her engagement). After her divorce, she was given the title Diana, Princess of Wales - this assumption is common practice anongst the divorced wives of peers and those dowagers who don't like "dowager." That is what is meant by "acquired her Christian name." To refer to any current holder of any non-courtesy title, avove baronet, with a preceding Christian name is wrong and that most certainly appleis to the Prince of Wales and for that matter the Princess Royal. Giano  09:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I have also spoken out in support of the correct name of Henry being used for the article. However please do not confuse a person 'title' with their 'Christian name', more correctly called a 'Forename', they are not the same! A forename is given by the childs parents. No title will change that it just incorporates it into whatever title the person is entitled to use at any given time, to change a person name they would need to apply for a Deed of change of name. :) Richard Harvey (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Forename/Christian name, you are being pedantic, some courtesy titles incorporate the Christian name - most senior titles do not. As all titles are the gift of a sovereign appointed by the grace of God, I think we are safe going with Christian names.  Giano  16:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Pedantic no; I don't believe I am! A 'Christian Name' is peculiar to those of 'Christian faith, which is why official forms in the UK defer to the use of 'Forename' and 'Surname'. Again with 'Titles' I doubt that those of a non-Christan faith with 'British' titles would be impressed by the assumption their Title/Name was a Christian one, such as some British politicians with an Asian heritage:- Baron Ahmed, Baron Alli, Baron Bhattacharyya, Baron Bilimoria, Baron Dholakia, Baroness Flather, Baroness Prashar, Baroness Uddin, Baroness Verma, Baroness Warsi. To assume a Sovereign is appointed by God is again based on an assumption that there is a God. In Wikipedia it is safer to assume nothing and ask for a reference. :) Richard Harvey (talk) 08:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
As far as I am aware (Life peers) do not use their Christian/forenames as part of their titles at all, so it should not be too much of a problem for them - allthough I notice that Wikipedia incorrectly give their names before titles. Regarding British official forms, it's my observation that these are written by people with a less than comamanding understanding of English so nothing which crops up there can be a huge surprise, but I do accept your point that certain people would rightly prefer to have a forename than Christian name and I'm not going down the path of political correctness that so consumes the British. However, I do think it safe to assume that 99.9% of Europe's titled aristocracy as opposed to meritocracy (and political life peers) are from the Christian religions. Anyway, interesting as this is, it's gettingh very far off subject - so I suppose we had better stop or go to my talk page.  Giano  09:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Giacomo has a point, RH. Is there something you wish changed on this article? GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes; The article title changed to what we all agree is the Princes correct 'Christian' name of Henry and not his popular nickname of Harry! Richard Harvey (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
If anybody wants to open another RM? let me know. I'm in favour of changing to Prince Henry of Wales. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Would you be in favour of referring to Prince Henry of Wales as Henry in the texts of this and other articles? Surtsicna (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Harry vs Henry (for the umpteenth time)

WikiCommons and WikiQuotes both have their categories under "Prince Henry of Wales". Is it time for Wikipedia to do so? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No. There was absolutely no consensus whatsoever to move this article. Under the naming conventions, he is Prince Henry of Wales. Prince Harry of Wales is a construction which does not exist. He is either Prince Henry of Wales or JUST Prince Harry. It was irresponsible and a breach of conventions, guidelines, etc of whoever decided to move this article without consensus. 142.68.138.25 (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
This article should be at Prince Henry of Wales. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This page should be named Prince Henry of Wales.  Giano  22:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree but then we should refer to him as Henry throughout the entire article. Having the article titled Prince Henry of Wales and yet referring to a Prince Harry throughout the article doesn't make sense. Surtsicna (talk) 09:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really, when he was born it was anounced that he was to be officially Henry and commonly known as Harry. That seems to be the case still, only the Court Circular and official documants refers to him as Henry - his family openly call him Harry. If they can do this, I don't see why Wikipedia cannot - failing that, the article could just refer to him as "The Prince" to avoid any confusion.  Giano  09:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
So, if "everyone calls him Harry", what's the problem with Wikipedia calling him Prince Harry of Wales or, better yet, Prince Harry? Surtsicna (talk) 09:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
His name is indispputably Prince Henry of Wales. He was certified that at birth, he was Christened that, the Court Circular refers to him as that, he will be married as Henry and will be buried as Henry. In the meantime, if his family/the press at a future date decide to nickname him "Carothead" are we to change the page to that? One is his name and the other is his nickname. That's my opinion and last word. I have never edited this page so have no really strong opinion. 13:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
So, you must agree with me that we should always refer to him by his name and not by his nickname? Surtsicna (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Move to Prince Henry of Wales. We don't have Prince William of Wales at Prince Wills of Wales. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I have always advocated this article should be correctly titled Prince Henry of Wales with a following note that he is familiarly referred to as Prince Harry. Searches for Prince Harry and Prince Harry of Wales will be redirected here, so noone will get lost. Within the article we should use the Prince to avoid confusion. How many times is this going to be debated? 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 16:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What I do not understand is how people can simultaneously use the arguments:

  • "Henry is his real name" (while demanding that this article be moved to Prince Henry of Wales) and
  • "Harry is what they really call him" (while demanding that, even if the article were titled Prince Henry of Wales, we refer to him as Harry). We should either use his real name or the most common name; are strange mishmashes (such as having the article about Prince Henry of Wales mention only a Harry and no Henry) really desirable? Are double standards desirable? Anyway, I would agree with moving the article to Prince Henry of Wales if he is not going to be referred to as Harry. Surtsicna (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Sarah, Duchess of York is commonly called 'Fergie', However her article is not named that, Prince Henry of Wales is the correct title for this article and should be moved to reflect his correct name, regardless of what his 'nickname' is! If the circumstances required it he would also be crowned King Henry, not King Harry! Richard Harvey (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Luckily, nobody wants to refer to Sarah, Duchess of York, as Fergie in the article about her. The "problem" here is that there are users who want to refer to Henry as Harry. Thus, we can't really compare the articles about Henry and his aunt. Surtsicna (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It should've remained at Prince Henry of Wales. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, albeit he's better known as Harry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
As there seems to be consensus as to the name of the article (Henry), if friendly discussion of usage in the wording of it (Henry / Harry / mixture of the two), ha no one moved the article to "Prince Henry of Wales"? Are you happy if I do it? Howard Alexander (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Will everyone be happy if we refer to him as Henry throughout the article? The article should be moved if we are going to refer to him as Henry. Why should an article called "Prince Henry of Wales" refer to a Harry? Surtsicna (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I would be prepared to support the article being moved back to "Prince Henry of Wales"(i originally voted for the move to Prince Harry of Wales and have changed my mind), but he has to be referred to as Harry throughout the article text. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Could you please explain those contradictory positions? Surtsicna (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I certainly support the move. Also the rewording of 'Prince Harry' throughout the article to 'Prince Henry', though I am prepared to accept the nickname of Harry when not preceeded by the formal title of 'Prince'. Richard Harvey (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Prince Harry / Harry is without doubt what he is known as. Now i would rather this article be at Prince Harry, sadly the wikipedia naming police would block such a change. Having Henry of Wales in the title and harry throughout the article would make sense and seems like a reasonable compromise.
I would not support changing this article to Henry if it meant he had to be called henry throughout the article, id rather it stays the same. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Having Henry in the title and Harry in the text is unencyclopaedic. If the title refers to him as Henry, so should the text. If the title calls him Harry, so should the text. Personally, I'd like to see the article titled Prince Henry of Wales and referring to him as Henry, but I'd rather see the article titled Prince Harry of Wales referring to him as Harry than a bizarre mish-mash. Surtsicna (talk)

Okay. My tuppenny bit goes like this: some here seem not to distinguish between a nick name and a given name. A "given name" is any of a person's forenames, any shortening or pet form thereof. A "nick name" is any name by which a person is commonly called. For example, my first name is {e.g. Jonathan}, and that is what is on my birth certificate, passport, degree etc etc, but I am seldom if ever called that — my given name is {e.g. Jon}. You will find the case of the prince in question to be similar. Harry is obviously his given name. I don't see that there can be any dispute as to that fact. Here follow some examples of individuals who go by a given name (distinguish from nick name) other than their full first name: Kate Middleton & "Kate" in-article (not Catherine Middleton & "Catherine"), Tony Blair & "Tony" (not Anthony Blair & "Anthony"), Gordon Brown & "Gordon"/"Mr Brown" (not James Gordon Brown & "James Gordon"/"Dr Brown"). Each one notes the subject's full name in the lead and then proceeds to use their given name exclusively throughout the article. Hence, precedent. I propose there is adequate precedence, for the time being, for: Prince Harry of Wales, full name in lead, legal style where seldom appropriate, but "Harry" throughout. Thankyou and good night DBD 22:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC) (& 22:18)

Having the article title as Prince Henry of Wales & having the subject called Harry within the article, is certainly acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Acceptable indeed. However, per my Blair-Brown-Middleton argument, it seems precedent indicates Prince Harry of Wales is preferable DBD 10:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, the "Move" option seems to have disappeared. Howard Alexander (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I used the nuclear option, but the redirect is done (and with no change in the text, not a jot nor tittle). Howard Alexander (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I tried. The article is "move protected" so we have to convince an admin that we really have come to a consensus, at least on the title. Howard Alexander (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prince_Harry,_Duke_of_Sussex/Archive_2&oldid=1136239596"