Jump to content

Talk:Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 8

Ancestry

All Queens and Kings of England? Didn't Anne die childless seeing as her one son died young. She too should as be mentioned as not a ancestor of Harry.Also William's ancestory sumary is bigger, seeing as they have the same parents they should be the same size.Saimaroimaru (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some contention about Harry's Armenian descent. I've a source that confirms this - "[Elizabeth's] paternal grandmother was a Danish Princess. Farther back the roots were more multicultural - even multiracial. French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Polish, Cuman, Norwegian, Swedish and Flemish, as well as Dutch, Lithuanian, English, Arab, Byzantine Greek, Georgian, Armenian, Serbian and Welsh were some of those to be found." (p.22) But, I wonder if this detail needs to be covered here, and hence on every bio article for a member of the Royal Family. Should the longer lineage of these individuals not be covered in a single place that can then be linked to from here and other pages? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It certainly isn't notable enough to be mentioned in the articles about British princes and princesses. It would be notable if they didn't have such ancestry. It is only normal and expected that European royal families have ancestors born all over Europe and in parts of Asia that are close to Europe, don't you think? Surtsicna (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it's notable enough to be mentioned somewhere; in an article on the ancestry of the Commonwealth realms' royal family, or some such thing. But certainly not here, no. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I am afraid that mentioning it anywhere would be giving undue weight to the ancestry of the British Royal Family as oppposed to the ancestry of the other royal families. Doesn't the Danish Royal Family have ancestors from just as many European and Asian countries? Or the Spanish Royal Family? (etc) Mentioning that the British Royal Family is descended from many rulers might imply that other European royal families aren't. Surtsicna (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Who is the genetical father?

BLP nightmare, largely ignoring the facts.

The following discussion 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.

Oh, Jesus Christ, "genetical" isn't even a fucking word. Good God. Price Charles is his father, end of story. Shit, a couple of my kids don't look that much like me, but I was there when they were conceived. Trust me, I was. Drop the fucking issue.

Hello. The german newspapers wrote 6 months ago, that Harry has had done a genetical test. Is that true? Who is the dad? Thanks indeed for your help! --84.178.20.2 (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think for the time being we should stick with a reliable source, i.e. his birth certificate, which names Prince Charles. Rodhullandemu 14:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

In what way is birth certificate a reliable source? there is nothing done to check or confirm his biological connection with the father named. The family claim charles is the father, but no mention is made in the article of the continuing, widely documented debate disputing that. Might detract from the somewhat sycophantic tone I suppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.184.221 (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it would detract from the encyclopædic tone; this is not News of the World. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, that tripe in the article comes nowhere near the standard of of even the worst tabloid rag. THe debate is notable and therefore relevant, your opinion about it is not. 90.195.131.52 (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Harry looks like Charles, to me. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Harry looks almost exactly like Charles. (92.13.64.160 (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC))

Actually, he looks virtually nothing like Charles, or any blood member of the Windsor family. Note also, that Prince Philip, Prince Charles, Prince Andrew, Prince Edward and Prince William all started going bald at a young age, yet Harry has a massive ginger fringe. It's a good thing William is older as he is at least Charles' legitimate son, whereas Harry should be called Harry Fitzjames. One shudders to think what will happen is Prince William does not have legitimate offspring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Stewart Miller (talk • contribs) 10:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

He has the same eyes, mouth and nose as Charles. Harry will probably go bald as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.40.174 (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Essentially, it really doesn't matter who his biological father is because he is legally Charles' son, because (a) he is listed as his father on his birth certificate and (b) there is a legal principle which makes, barring any evidence to the contrary, any child of a woman born whilst she is married the legal child of her husband. Besides, he looks facially like Charles and has Philip's ginger hair... Can we please stop retreading this particular ground every five minutes?! DBD 11:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Where do you get that strange interpretation of british law from? ... clearly you've never had any exposure issues of paternity being raised in a court. Paternity is assumed to be what the woman says unless challenged, but that is all. In any case, almost all civil law excludes the royal family. 90.195.131.52 (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This "strange interpretation of British law" is the "presumption of legitimacy" in common law which has persisted for centuries. As far as I know, it hasn't been repealed, although the Family Law Reform Act 1969 dies state that it can be rebutted on a balance of probabilities. Rodhullandemu 17:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, please. Look at a picture of Harry next to one of Diana's lover James Hewitt. It is painfully obvious, not to mention a well-known public secret. Even if there is no "proof" it should at least be mentioned in the article... dllu (talk) 09:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue of our opinions are not relevant, anymore than a wish to ensure a non-critical tone. The question was about genetic father, not legal father, and as I pointed out a birth certificate is not evidence of that. Refering to legal status is, therefore, sidetracking. I don't know what the red tops say, I don't read them as much as some others here seem to, so I stick to what I think should be available for a visitor to this project. There has been widespread controversy and debate over his genetic father, it is noteworthy for that reason alone. Additionally, his status, societal significance and position as an heir to the throne is derived from hereditable rights, and so questions about his parentage are more than just irrelevant trivia. 90.195.131.43 (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Harry looks very much like Charles. The Duke of Edinburgh and Earl Spencer both have red hair. (92.5.59.107 (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC))

This discussion is very useful because I came to the article to see who is his rumoured real father. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't take a genius to see the shape of his nose and brow match that of Hewitt. Look at this picture: http://njmg.typepad.com/ervolino/images/2008/03/02/prince_harry_james_hewitt_20050413.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.16.144 (talk) 04:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there a rumor that Diana shagged the butler and that is why Harry is a ranga, because Charles has as much chance as being his father as thomas the bloody tank engine?60.240.14.140 (talk) 10:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

How about we try and find reliable sources instead of just rumours. Mmmmm? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah this article needs to at least say that many people are in doubt about who is father is. I imagine it's not Charles mainly because Charles has brains and a social conscience whereas Harry is a thug.--78.155.49.242 (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
If many people are in doubt, they clearly haven't grasped that Harry was already two years old when Diana first met Hewitt. We don't need to report their stupidity here, and, per WP:BLP, I'm closing this thread. Rodhullandemu 19:46, 19 November 2010 (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.

Paternity

I've recently made changes to the article clarifying that Harry's legal father is Charles. I further pointed out that there is no public proof of any genetic link. Bearing in mind that it would be both cheap and easy to prove that Charles were the father, and that it hasn't been done (publicly), I don't think it's unreasonable to point out the current status of the paternity debate. I am not getting into an edit war, but the article is more than a little daft as it's widely regarded as being an open secret that Charles is not the father. Further, it's also widely regarded as being patently obvious to even a casual observer that other known persons in Diana's life bear a close resemblance to Harry. I think it only reasonable that the article does not state something as a fact when it is neither believed by most people, nor is there any evidence for it. Where is the 'reliable source' that Charles is the biological father? Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Complete rubbish, he bears an even stronger resemblems to the Princess' brother - are we going to suggest inscest as well? Or just accept the possibility that the Spencer genes are stronger than the royal ones.  Giacomo  08:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Because of the presumption of legitimacy in English law, a source is not required for fatherhood. The presumption may be rebutted on a balance of probabilities, but that must be by producing evidence. It may not be rebutted by a conflation of two people looking like each other and admitted adultery. The royal family are outside the jurisdiction of UK family courts in any event, so the point is unlikely to be tested. Hewitt is on record as stating that when he and Diana met, Harry was already a toddler, and unless he is a time-traveller or lying, that is the position we must accept. The red hair gene is already noticeable in Diana's relatives, but because it's not a dominant gene, it may exhibit erratically. We should not descend to tabloid toss here, because that is based on speculation and not evidence. Should evidence arise that shows anything other than the legal situation, we can report it, but not until. Rodhullandemu 22:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:BLP states:- Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who constantly or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.
Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages.[2] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material.
Having seen the edits you made then reverted back to after Rodhullandemu deleted the edits inline with that policy puts you in violation of WP:BLP and liable to be blocked from editing if you replace the edits again. The policy is quite simple and you should not complain when it is abided to by editors on here, or seek a way round the policy to include sensationalist material into an article. Richard Harvey (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Documenting a widely-held and frequently-reported belief is not sensationalist, and my edits reflected the fact that no proof either way is in the public domain. It is ridiculous that wikilawyering is being used to present something as fact when it is widely held not to be fact, and nor is it evidenced. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I do not think so. This particular belief only seems to be "widely-held" because some irresponsible journalists have put 2 and 2 together and made 5; however, they are not an encyclopedia, and not a reliable source. Your edits did not exhibit a neutral point of view in that they cast doubt on Harry's legitimacy in the absence of cogent evidence to the contrary by the language they used. It is not up to editors to apply their preferred version of events based upon unreliable evidence. If applying WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE is Wikilawyering, then I shall do that to maintain this article within our standards, which are not negotiable. Rodhullandemu 23:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Stating that Charles is the legal father is factually correct and entirely appropriate for entry in WP. It is not appropriate for WP to endorse by implication 'facts' that are nothing of the sort. If someone had a piece of paper saying the Earth was flat, it would not make it so - and WP should not and would not report it as a fact.Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's exactly the point, which you seems to have grasped. Using terminology such as "his birth certificate states", and "he is at present legally regarded" isn't helpful, simply because it implies an unspoken (and unsourced) possible alternative. Per WP:BLP, that's simply unacceptable, even though it may be technically true in linguistic terms. Rodhullandemu 00:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There are many RS which we can use to demonstrate that a widespread belief exists that Harry is not Charles' child. The article states as fact something which is not widely taken to be so. This is unacceptable. Paternity cannot be stated as fact where it is both disputed and no supporting evidence is available.Andrewjlockley (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed on your first point, but this is unsuitable in a biography. What people are prepared to believe, on the basis of very flimsy evidence, must take second place to what the common law allows as a presumption of legitimacy, and has done so for over a thousand years. I recommend a reading of policy on what is permissible in biographies. Rodhullandemu 16:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how you can agree with his first point; there's no "widespread" belief that Charles is not Harry's father. There's only some tabloid press speculation, and even then, it's mostly limited to the UK (where tabloid press is done best!). James Hewitt being Harry's father is a fringe theory and should be here treated accordingly. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Paternity rumours have dogged all royal families since adultery and royals were first invented. In the 20/21st century alone, it has been "reliably" reported that Queen Victoria was a bastard, Edward VII had numerous bastards, King George V had a first wife and family before forced to marry his late brother's fiancee; Edward VIII (well enough said), George VI was a stuttering imbecile who could not naturally impregnate his wife; Elizabeth II's last two sons were by different fathers, neither of whom was the D of E and if course the late Princess of Wales, if the gutter press is to be believed, was so busy copulating she probably had no idea who was fathering who. Whatever the truth, all this can ever be, without a scrap of proof is scurrilous rumour - something Wikipedia does not deal in. Lets keep to the fact and not deal in what is "widely believed" in various chattering circles, most of whom have yet to meet a royal in their dull lives. It's only a mater of time before some little tart-on-the-make turns up claiming to be the mother of William or Harry's bastard are we going to feature and report those too? No, get a grip on reality.  Giacomo  19:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Fringe theories are still encyclopedic if widely believed or reported. George VI did have a stutter. Given his record it is slightly surprising that Edward VII never fathered an illegitimate child. PatGallacher (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is a quote from Gulliver's Travels which might have some bearing on the issue: "... our young noblemen are bred from their childhood in idleness and luxury; that, as soon as years will permit, they consume their vigour, and contract odious diseases among lewd females; and when their fortunes are almost ruined, they marry some woman of mean birth, disagreeable person, and unsound constitution (merely for the sake of money), whom they hate and despise. That the productions of such marriages are generally scrofulous, rickety, or deformed children; by which means the family seldom continues above three generations, unless the wife takes care to provide a healthy father, among her neighbours or domestics, in order to improve and continue the breed. That a weak diseased body, a meagre countenance, and sallow complexion, are the true marks of noble blood; and a healthy robust appearance is so disgraceful in a man of quality, that the world concludes his real father to have been a groom or a coachman." PatGallacher (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment Has everyone taken note of what the first line in the little white box, at the top of the page, says? Perhaps we can now use this page for its intended purpose and dispense with media style tittle-tattle that is more at home on a BBCode blog page? Richard Harvey (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Picture

I find it hard to believe that this is the best picture of him. 99.224.94.154 (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It isn't; but for living people, a alternative free of copyright could be obtained, and until we have a better such image, we're stuck with this one. WP:NFCC#1 sets this out. Rodhullandemu 00:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg

References to the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg are being added to multiple articles related to the Royal Family of the Commonwealth realms, and yet, not one reliable source has been provided. I yesterday began a discussion about this at Talk:House of Windsor#House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. Input there by interested parties would be appreciated. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ancestry

Firstly, shouldn't Harry and William's ancestry paragraphs be the same since they are brothers? Why is one more full than the other? Secondly, the brothers are descended from Charles II and James II through their mother, not their father or paternal family (ie paternal grandfather, Philip, Duke of Edinburgh) as seems to be written in both articles, since it is stated William will be the first monarch descended from Charles I since Anne; he can't be the first if Charles has the blood of James II from Philip, which it seems that he does not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.244.124 (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Controversies

This article looks as though it has been 'cleaned up'.

There's nothing about national headlines such as when Harry wore a Nazi uniform for 'fancy dress'. There's little about the 'Paki' and 'raghead' remarks as well.

- That's because they were all fucking non-stories blown out of proportion by the British Tabloids —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.0.91.179 (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

'Controversy' should be a complete paragraph in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.236.209 (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, the article has certainly been sanitised somewhere along the way. For one thing, the last time I looked at it, which could have been anything from a few months to a couple of years ago, the newspaper front page showing the prince in Deutsches Afrikakorps uniform was included, which is quite legitimate under a claim of fair use. Additionally, there is no mention of his involvement in bloodsports, for which he has received criticism and which is eminently notable. No doubt the royal family's PR people keep a close eye on their employers' Wikipedia articles, as these are rather more open to amendment than what the tabloid press prints. Combine that with all the sentimental "Gawd Bless Her Majesty" types out there sitting at their computers while they drink from their Diana commemorative mugs and you end up with an article progressively edited to make its subject out to be some kind of pillar of the community. 82.32.184.4 (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Further to that, I've just read the closed discussion above about paternity and I'm rather dismayed that nothing is mentioned in the article. The assumption on the part of editors who think it doesn't merit a mention seems to be that without any specific evidence like a DNA test or a relevant statement from Charles, Diana, James Hewitt, or someone else in the know, there is no notable evidence that Hewitt is his father. The aim, however, should not be for Wikipedia to rule on the actual question, merely to report that it is widely raised. The matter is discussed in Hewitt's article, as it should be, with sources cited. If it's worthy of inclusion there then it's worthy of inclusion here. The suggestion has been made consistently for many years and is considered at least possibly true by very many people. 82.32.184.4 (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia, unless you've missed something along the way, is an encyclopedia and not a tabloid newspaper. We don't deal with trivia such as ignorant speculation about parentage, and more so, we do not do so when the evidence is completely against the proposition. If someone posited "Was Hitler Welsh?" and failed to produce any cogent evidence in support of that, we would not report it here, however many people talked about it. It's arguably of value in Hewitt's article, if only to debunk the myth and obloquy that attaches to him because of the failed persistence of those who know no better. That's what WP:BLP is about. Here, it's an unproved allegation, and as such, worthless. Rodhullandemu 01:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
As I hoped I'd made clear above, I'm not suggesting that the idea Hewitt is Harry's father should be included on the grounds that there is substantial evidence for it, merely that there is a debate about the matter. If the tabloids spend years speculating, from whatever position of ignorance, then the fact that there has been ignorant speculation is itself noteworthy. This does not mean lending credibility to it by saying something like: "Harry's father is either the Prince of Wales, or James Hewitt", which would certainly be unmerited. We would report the claim in terms of media coverage and public perception of Prince Harry, not in terms of his actual parentage. I'm not sure why this is difficult to understand. We don't delete our article on astrology because it's a load of nonsense. It is encyclopaedic because it is a topic of discussion, not because it might be true. In the same vein, I find your link to WP:UNDUE and Hitler analogy to be a red herring. If lots of people thought Hitler might have been Welsh based on no evidence we ought to say "Hitler was Austrian. [...] Many people believe Hitler was Welsh,[source] but there is a consensus among historians that this is easily refuted by the evidence.[source]" All this article needs to have is something like the four sentences, with sources, that are currently in the Hewitt article and summarise the issue rather well:
  • Speculation has been rife for years that Hewitt is Harry's father
  • Hewitt has categorically denied this
  • Hewitt and Diana's bodyguard have pointed out that the affair began too late for it to be true
  • The bodyguard additionally pointed out that Harry's red hair is not surprising based on his maternal relatives
  • There are claims that Diana had a blood test done
  • There are claims of a plot to steal Harry's hair
I actually seem to spend a good deal of my time dealing with ignorant fringe theorists and conspiracy nuts, for example in the realm of climate change denial, and do not want to see unsubstantiated theories equated with what has been convincingly demonstrated. While I don't want these unsubstantiated theories to be given 'equal time', I don't want them to be altogether erased from Wikipedia, because they are notable by virtue of their public discussion. So we mention that many uninformed people dispute the well-established science on climate change because this is part of the social and political context of a settled scientific debate. We mention 9/11 conspiracy theories in the 9/11 article because they are widely believed. We do not present them as a credible alternative explanation. There is a big difference. The same goes for creationism, Holocaust denial, moon landing conspiracies and much else besides. Widespread ignorant speculation is notable because it is widespread, not because it is credible. 82.32.184.4 (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm also puzzled as to why you think it's worthy of inclusion in Hewitt's article but not here. I would have expected you, based on your comments, to have gone trying to remove it from that article. But then, Hewitt is notable as far as I can tell purely because of his affair with Diana and subsequent notoriety. (Things like TV appearances have been done on the back of this prior notoriety.) A major component of any comprehensive discussion of his involvement with Diana is the suggestion from some quarters that he fathered one of her children, so that needs to be mentioned there. The issue, however, concerns both parties to the greatest extent that it could: Harry is the child, and Hewitt is the alleged father. Again, if it's worthy of mention when talking about Hewitt it must be worthy of mention when talking about Harry. 82.32.184.4 (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I used to be dead against including anything about this. But actually the evidence (hair colour) in support of the allegations is so flimsy, and the evidence against so clear, that I've come to the conclusion that it may serve a useful purpose to include a brief refutation of this nonsense, so to that end I've clarified the paragraph which someone added three days ago, instead of deleting it as was my initial inclination. Vilĉjo (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I was really surprised to read such ridiculous, gossip nonsense in a Wikipedia. All of Diana's siblings have red hair, it's a Spencer trait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.195.164 (talk) 10:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, quite. And I wouldn't disagree if the consensus were to remove the present brief paragraph – certainly if we have any more attempts to treat tabloid rubbish about a TV hypnotism stunt as if it were a credible source of information. Vilĉjo (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Chelsy Davy

The paragraph about Chelsy Davy is inconsistent and sounds more than a bit insulting. She is known to the public as Chelsy, not as Davy. Is there any other article in Wikipedia that refers to a grown woman in this way that is not a pejorative. Is William marrying Catherine or is he marrying Middleton? Kiltpin (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It's fairly standard in formal writing (such as an encyclopedia) to refer to people by their last name after the first reference. Hot Stop (c) 15:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Doubt it

Last line under "Personal life and relationships":

"Harry is now dating Pippa Middleton, Kate's sister, after constant flirting at his wedding on the 29th April 2011." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.255.1 (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree; that's why I deleted it. JPJMendes (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Grandson

Harry is the third grandson, not the fourth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.189.62.220 (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. I've changed it to read "fourth grandchild". Tad Lincoln (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Stealth editing

I have reverted multiple edits by new editor Arnoldxmidnight who has systematically done several small edits to remove referenced detail that has been reverted by several editors. I suspect this has been done in the belief that it wouldn't be noticed, however it is obvious in the article edit history. I also suspect that Arnoldxmidnight and two other new editors Pjw89 and Franticjay are one and the same person, due to their sole editing being to these three articles:- Prince Harry of Wales, Florence Brudenell-Bruce and Chelsy Davy (see their contribution histories for evidence). They also seem to collaborate on having the Chelsy Davy article deleted from Wikipedia, see:- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelsy Davy (3rd nomination). Richard Harvey (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Prince Henry

He should be listed as Prince Henry, his birth name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.239.65.11 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 12 May 2011

Please see the talk page archives – this issue has already been done to death. However satisfactory or otherwise it may be, the present title is stable and established by consensus. Vilĉjo (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
There reads: Prince Henry of Wales (Henry Charles Albert David; born 15 September 1984), commonly known as Prince Harry
The main point is not accessed: Why exactly is he commonly known as Harry? 82.141.67.159 (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
In Britain Harry has been the familial nickname for men named Henry for hundreds of years and only in more modern times has Harry become a name in its own right. Diana announced that Henry would be known as Harry on the day that the prince was introduced to the press and to the world. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 08:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Seems the text you wrote would fit straight into the article. Hey, I forgot there has to be sources. Sorry. 82.141.67.159 (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Fan site? Really

With all the mainstream press, written by professional journalists and vetted by professional editors, etc., is it really necessary to have the basic details of Prince Harry's life referenced by a fan site, "Yvonne's Royalty Home Page"? Is that really the most WP:RS source available out of the hundreds or more newspapers, magazines and books covering the subject? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Title

The title of this page really needs to be changed. 'Prince Harry of Wales' is entirely erroneous. 'Prince Harry' is his nickname, 'Prince Henry of Wales' is his correct title, 'Prince Harry of Wales' is a very awkward invention of none-too-bright journos. I suggest changing it to Prince Henry of Wales with a Prince Harry redirect.135.196.104.154 (talk) 08:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death. Check through the archives to see those discussions. (I personally would favour a move to Prince Harry, but hey ho.) DBD 22:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I too believe it should be Prince Harry, as that is clearly by far the most WP:COMMONNAME. Whilst i prefer Prince Harry of Wales to Prince Herny of Wales, its clearly not entirely accurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Considering there are articles at locations like Queen Victoria, maybe it would be worth trying a Rm just to see if there is any consensus to move it to Prince Harry? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Why should WE care if the whole so-called British royal family don't? I think many of them were as surprised to see the name-tag at the Olympics closing ceremony as many of us. Up to you though. Never hurts to try something you think is necessary. BadaBoom (talk) 04:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

There are several accounts of both Camilla Parker-Bowles and Prince Philip informally referring to Harry as "Henry, first Earl of Hewitt" while speaking with friends and in social situations during the 1980s and 1990s, but I can't find any information about this title online. Does anyone know whether that's his actual title? If so, maybe someone should add it to the page?

Why the name Harry?

I've seen it suggested that Harry was named after one of Charles's favourite lecturers at Cambridge, the theology don H A (Harry) Williams. Is there any truth in this?

Meltingpot (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that. He's a "royal", he should've been named after one. There were more than enough kings he could be named after. BadaBoom (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, Charles is famously idiosyncratic. Anyway, his actual names are the names of kings or consorts (David was one of Edward VIII's names). Harry is his informal name, so I think it makes sense that Charles would choose the name of someone he held in high personal regard for this?

TBH I don't know for sure, I have to admit I'm very much an amateur here. Meltingpot (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

After Harry Secombe, perhaps. Charles is a fan of the Goons. Rothorpe (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's another likely one. Meltingpot (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

He has been listed as being named Henry. For some reaso, it is seen as if it is only Harry. --82.134.28.194 (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move August 2012

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved, per WP:NCROY Mike Cline (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


Prince Harry of Wales → Prince Harry – This article should be moved to Prince Harry per COMMONNAME. The overwhelming majority of sources simply refer to him as Prince Harry, with only a small number using the incorrect "Prince Harry of Wales". It is not just British media that say "Prince Harry", American, Australian, Canadian and other international media can clearly be sourced calling him Prince Harry. It's undeniable that it is his commonname. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

To demonstrate the difference.. A google news search finds about 70 results for "Prince Harry of Wales" compared to over 72,000 for "Prince Harry". (and i would bet many of those 70 have used it because of wikipedia using this made up title). BritishWatcher (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

One big problem: this move proposal violates Wikipedia's naming conventions for royalty and nobility. The Other royals section in the naming conventions guidelines make this clear and, ironically, use "Prince Harry of Wales" as an example. The very first guideline says, "Use "Prince(ss) {first name} of ..." where a prince/ss has a territorial suffix by virtue of their parent's title, e.g., Prince Harry of Wales, Princess Beatrice of York, Prince Arthur of Connaught, etc.". So we must include the territorial suffix "of Wales" in the article title. The article needs to remain Prince Harry of Wales (nicknames are allowed when there is overwhelming usage) or be changed to Prince Henry of Wales (what it actually is). But it should not and cannot be changed to Prince Harry. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
you are incorrect, this proposal does not violate any naming conventions, read the instructions at the top of the guidelines on that page which makes it very clear exceptions are possible. And in this case with a stupid title that is entirely made up and inaccurate, the justification for going with the commonname makes more sense. People can argue about the other pages all they like, what happens on this page does not impact on what happens on the other page. If this article was moved to Prince Harry it is not suddenly going to alter the result of another RM taking place on Prince Charles which at present is against the move. You would favour an inaccurate title which certainly does violate wikipedia policies rather than be more accurate. Shameful. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Nice try BritishWatcher. But as I have proven, the naming convention guidelines for royals like Prince Harry not only prove that "of Wales" must be included in the title, it amazingly also uses this article as an example. Haha. So getting angry by using a term like "stupid title," and constantly pounding editors over the head with your impassioned pleas, is not going to help your cause. And contrary to your false implication that the guidelines allow an exception for this article, you are completely wrong. What the guidelines actually state is merely that "occasional exceptions" can be considered for some naming conventions, which is a high hurdle. But that certainly doesn't apply here, where there is a very specific guideline precisely for an article title such as this one. I'll assume that your very misleading statement, which included no link, was unintentional. I'm sorry, but the only one who is "incorrect" on this matter is you. The words "of Wales" must be included in the article title. The article title can only be "Prince Harry of Wales" or "Prince Henry of Wales". Therefore, this move proposal is flawed and invalid. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Guidelines don't "prove" anything. I continue to think the present title falls between two stools. By the way, you have posted this twice. Rothorpe (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it's quite to the contrary. Having a guideline that specifically states that this article should be titled Prince Harry of Wales proves exactly why this proposal is invalid. Saying that we should simply ignore the guideline which addresses this exact proposal is completely illogical. The title has been this way a long time for a reason. It's time to move on. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Strong support – I don't really find the article title Prince Harry of Wales defensible, particularly now we have William the Conqueror, Queen Victoria, George VI et al. Prince Harry is referred to as such almost without fail – I could count on two hands the number of times I have seen Prince Harry/Henry of Wales in everyday life. Additionally, the fact that Prince Harry already redirects here indicates that we already consider him clearly the primary topic. DBD 15:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
But this is not the official website of The British Monaracy. It is Wikipedia, an encylopedia, and we are required to adhere to its guidelines on this matter, which clearly state that this article title should be either Prince Harry of Wales or Prince Henry of Wales. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
They are atleast at their correct titles.. unlike Prince Harry of Wales which should be Henry. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Although this is probably not worth making a huge fuss about, and I recognise that this title is an awkward hybrid, I feel that potentially this is the thin end of a thick wedge, as the majority of current princes and princesses in the British royal family are the primary but not sole meaning of their name. Do we move all of them? Does poor Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex get left on his own, the only one with a disambiguator? PatGallacher (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
That would depend on if Prince Edward is known around the world just as Prince Edward and that he is the most known Edward, im not sure that is the case, he is nowhere near as known internationally as Prince Harry or Prince Charles. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Which is why you would not move them all. You would merely move Prince William, Duke of Cambridge to Prince William, which already redirects to his article anyway because it is indisputably the most notable today. the additional titles to assist with ambiguity problems are only needed for all the other articles, not the primary topic which should be at the primary spot, especially when its served as a redirect for about 8 years with no controversy anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy says we should go with Commmoname. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually Wikipedia says we should go with "Common Sense", and consensus.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 10:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
In this case common sense is to go with the common name, and not a made up one. Hot Stop 14:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. The relevant guideline here seems to be WP:NCROY rather than WP:COMMONNAME. Should there be some sort of conflict between a general rule and a special rule, the special rule should be given priority, since it is created specifically to provide an exception to the general rule. An excerpt from WP:NCROY - "Even though it is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English, there are other things which should be considered: ease of use, precision, concision, and consistency among article titles; and a system constraint: we cannot use the same title for two different articles, and therefore tend to avoid ambiguous titles." Reigen (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Prince Harry already redirects here and there is clearly no rival so there is not any ambiguity issues with this. The outdated and unhelpful naming conventions should not stop this move taking place, considering this current article title violates those naming conventions, as well as the tiny matter of it being a completely made up name with very few sources backing itup. Prince Harry is more easy to use, precise and concise. There is no consistency possible in all cases of members of the royal family, as there are different situations. Prince Harry is known around the world as Prince Harry, not Henry which forms part of his official title. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Sadly some would rather people be incorrectly misled by wikipedia with silly made up names such as "Prince Harry of Wales" rather than go for what is the commonname and more accurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
All Oppose votes seem to be concerned about the possibility of this simple "Prince Harry" convention spreading to other articles, which seems unlikely to happen. For this, I find no more reason to oppose (for this instance). Reigen (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose If we do this then we have to remove Princess Beatrice of York to Princess Beatrice or Princess Eugenie of York to Princess Eugenie. We shouldn't remove the titles of the articles because they are commonly known as another name. Should we remove Diana, Princess of Wales to Princess Diana, because she is commonly known as this wrong name? Also Harry's official title is Prince Harry of Wales and his official title must be the name of this article, like the others. Keivan.fTalk 17:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Why do we have to change the others if this is changed? and no.. his official title is Prince Henry of Wales. Prince Harry of Wales is something made up by wikipedia to confuse and mislead people. The fact you have just said that proves why this title needs to be changed.. because it confuses people. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
OK! I don't have any problem with the name Prince Henry of Wales. We can remove the article to this name. Keivan.fTalk 07:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose lets try to keep some level of academic credibility as per WP:NCROY WP:COMMONNAME is one of those policies that get cited because people are not aware we have policies for specific things. WP:COMMONNAME is one of the polices that makes us look like children because we cant get the proper title/names of things right. Moxy (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
where is the academic credibility in this madeup term "Prince Harry of Wales"? Could some of you actually check the article title instead of just coming here and voting no? Unbelievable. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Just to remind everyone: his official title is Prince Henry of Wales, not Prince Harry of Wales (the article's current title). Rothorpe (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Omg did not notice the "Henry" vs "Harry"... see how WP:COMMONNAME has already made a mockery of this. WOW us using the made up title over the official name because that is what the press and Google says - but if that is what his own site uses O well what can we do. Moxy (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a farcical proposal. The best-known Prince Harry of all time was King Henry V of England. That doesn't mean it's a good article title. Deb (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article title is already a common name, (real name is Henry). Also, his brother's and father's articles are not "Prince William" or "Prince Charles", so there is no precedent being set there. "Prince Harry" would almost be like a disambiguation page, since as mentioned above, there have been a few in history. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
But his commonname is Prince Harry not "Prince Harry of Wales" which has very few sources, in part because it is a made up name by wikipedia. its true that the others are not at there more commonnames such as Prince Charles or Prince William (they should be), but the big differences is they are at accurate titles. This is not an accurate title because "Prince Harry of Wales" is made up. The other choices are Prince Henry of Wales, officially accurate but not very common, or the more common and accurate name Prince Harry. And Prince Harry has redirected here for many years with no controversy at all. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment If the proposal was to change the titles of all similar articles, so that they all match, I would support it. But we can't have most articles one way and a few the other. This whole matter is an issue of consistency. IMO, all these article titles should be dealt with together, at one time. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
What those other articles titles are need to be decided on there. If this article is approved for a move it does not mean that all the others would be. This is the most blatant need for a name change, i support simply using the commonname for Prince Charles and Prince William, but at least in those cases the title is not grossly factually inaccurate and misleading. "Prince Harry of Wales" is something made up by wikipedia. The guidelines on naming of royal articles say exceptions can be made. The fact nobody knows him as Prince Henry and the fact Prince Harry of Wales is complete fiction.. it justifies just using Prince Harry in this case. And if outdated and misunderstood naming conventions prevent this article from being fixed, clearly those outdated naming conventions need to be looked a and i shall certainly be raising it with this perfect example. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm sure you mean well but you are simply wrong on this move proposal. It's invalid, per this guideline. There are only two allowed options for this article title: Prince Harry of Wales or Prince Henry of Wales. Prince Harry violates Wikipedia's naming conventions. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Its not invalid, i suggest you stop making grossly misleading and inaccurate statements. "This guideline documents an English Wikipedia naming convention. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply ". The guideline clearly states there can be exceptions to the rule and commonsense should be followed. If its not commonsense to go with a commonname rather than an entirely made up and inaccurate name or a name almost nobody knows him by.. then i dont know what commonsense exceptions they had in mind. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is it possible to start a new discussion with THREE options to vote for: Prince Harry, Prince Harry of Wales and Prince Henry of Wales?--Daniel (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Not possible im afraid, and ill be strongly opposing a move to Prince Henry of Wales which almost nobody knows him by. We will have to wait and see how hit RM pans out. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Of course it's possible, Daniel. :) You can start a discussion and make any suggestions you want. With all due respect BritishWatcher, I assume you mean well but please stop hijacking discussions by posting an abundance of comments like you did, for example, in the Burma talk page discussion, where you posted about 40 comments. Everyone knows exactly how you feel. You don't need to constantly pound people in the head. It's very disruptive. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. As I see, different Wikipedia policies have been mentioned in this discussion. You could easily find one to support either Prince Harry or Prince Henry of Wales. So I decided to return back to the most general one, i.e. WP:CRITERIA. According to it, as you know, there are five principal criteria to follow in naming the article:
1. Recognizability (Titles are names or descriptions of the topic that are recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic): It looks like that Prince Harry is the most recognizable among these titles.
2. Naturalness (Titles are those that readers are likely to look for or search with as well as those that editors naturally use to link from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English): also favours the Prince Harry title.
3. Precision (Titles usually use names and terms that are precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but not overly precise): Am I right that Prince Harry title precise enough for this article?
4. Conciseness (Titles are concise, and not overly long): Prince Harry is obviously shorter than two other titles.
5. Consistency (Titles follow the same pattern as those of similar articles): Here it looks like Prince Henry of Wales is more consistent with the other similar articles.
So 4 to 1 of the criteria support Prince Harry over Prince Henry of Wales. Or am I completely wrong?--Daniel (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I think you're completely right. Rothorpe (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
That sums up the situation very well, and the main argument being used here to justify this made up current title is fear of it forcing changes on other articles. But the royalty naming page used to justify this format of title clearly states "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.", and that certainly applies more in this case where if we follow the format we either have a totally incorrect name or one that very few know, compared to other articles which may be less of a problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Flawed move proposal - One big problem with this move proposal: It violates Wikipedia's naming conventions for royalty and nobility. The Other royals section in the naming conventions guidelines make this clear and, ironically, use "Prince Harry of Wales" as an example. The very first guideline says, "Use "Prince(ss) {first name} of ..." where a prince/ss has a territorial suffix by virtue of their parent's title, e.g., Prince Harry of Wales, Princess Beatrice of York, Prince Arthur of Connaught, etc.". So we must include the territorial suffix "of Wales" in the article title. The article needs to remain Prince Harry of Wales (nicknames are allowed when there is overwhelming usage) or be changed to Prince Henry of Wales (what it actually is). But it should not and cannot be changed to Prince Harry. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
you are incorrect, this proposal does not violate any naming conventions, read the instructions at the top of the guidelines on that page which makes it very clear exceptions are possible. And in this case with a stupid title that is entirely made up and inaccurate, the justification for going with the commonname makes more sense. People can argue about the other pages all they like, what happens on this page does not impact on what happens on the other page. If this article was moved to Prince Harry it is not suddenly going to alter the result of another RM taking place on Prince Charles which at present is against the move. You would favour an inaccurate title which certainly does violate wikipedia policies rather than be more accurate. Shameful. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Nice try BritishWatcher. But as I have proven, the naming convention guidelines for royals like Prince Harry not only prove that "of Wales" must be included in the title, it amazingly also uses this article as an example. Haha. So getting angry by using a term like "stupid title," and constantly pounding editors over the head with your impassioned pleas, is not going to help your cause. And contrary to your false implication that the guidelines allow an exception for this article, you are completely wrong. What the guidelines actually state is merely that "occasional exceptions" can be considered for some naming conventions, which is a high hurdle. But that certainly doesn't apply here, where there is a very specific guideline precisely for an article title such as this one. I'll assume that your very misleading statement, which included no link, was unintentional. I'm sorry, but the only one who is "incorrect" on this matter is you. The words "of Wales" must be included in the article title. The article title can only be "Prince Harry of Wales" or "Prince Henry of Wales". Therefore, this move proposal is flawed and invalid. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Clearly no consensus either way. Moxy (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
But they do not "Prove that" because they clearly say there there can be exceptions and that commonsense should be used. Perhaps you could give an example of what you believe would merit making an exception? because this is one of the most blatant examples of needing an exception that i can think of. Nowhere does it say "of Wales" must be included on this article title, and certainly not a made up title like "Prince Harry of Wales" BritishWatcher (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia should maintain some sort of formality + uniformity should be followed. Although, I would slightly prefer the article title “Prince Henry of Wales” with in the introduction the remark that he is also known by the name “Prince Harry”. BTW, “Lady Di” has far more hits on the internet than Diana, Princess of Wales. Dr. D.E. Mophon 20:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose As above there should be some level of formality--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 02:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
So factually inaccurate formality is better than no formality. I see. BritishWatcher (talk)
The fact that Wikpedia allows for nicknames when there is "overwhelming usage," plus the the fact that the territorial suffix "of Wales" is required per the naming conventions for "other royals," validates its use. Prince Harry of Wales is fine, regardless of how many times one insists that it isn't. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
So wikipedia is allowed to make things up to fit inline with misread guidelines. Great. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
The 'of Wales' bit reeks of afterthought. Rothorpe (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Not only is it not an afterthought; it's a clearly stated guidleine, with this article used as as the first example. So saying that a very specific guideline on this exact topic "reeks" is illogical. By the way, here are just a few of many examples of "Prince Harry of Wales" usage: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] And let's not be misled here; "of Wales" is Harry's territorial suffix, not his title. (Charles is the Prince of Wales.) "Prince Harry of Wales" is perfectly acceptable and appropriate for this article title and is by no means "factually inaccurate" as BritishWatcher falsely claimed. Therefore, no change is needed to this article title. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
the number of sources for "Prince Harry of Wales" is tiny compared to Prince Harry or "Prince Henry of Wales" as i mentioned in my original post requesting this move. It is factually inaccurate, im sorry but its a made up term, some of those sources may have incorrectly got from wikipedia. The most significant of those is the metro article, all the others are hardly reliable sources on these matters. If we check the Metro website i think we will find its an exception to the rule, rather than a common approach taking by them. There is Prince Harry or there is his official Prince Henry of Wales name. It is not for wikipedia to pick and mix in this misleading and confusing way. It is wrong to add "of Wales" to something that almost all reliable sources never use. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I find 18 results for "Prince Harry of Wales" on the metro website, most if not all appear to be in 2011. Compared to 122,000 results for Prince Harry. Maybe they stopped using the incorrect term? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
"some of those sources may have incorrectly got from wikipedia." Haha. Sorry, the guidelines are very clear. Prince Harry of Wales is great. Time to move on. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, you shouldn't be so quick to laugh that one off. There are plenty of factual errors which we have introduced to the world. Whether our sources have used Wikipedia as a source themselves is a very important consideration. DBD 08:18, 30 August 2012 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed merger from Chelsy Davy

Davy seem to only be notable for her relationship with Harry, or at least that's what the articles suggest. On that basis, it would seem sensible to merge her article with this one. --Smalleditor (talk) 06:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I find it odd to classify a six-year on-off relationship as a single event. I don't think this was the kind of 'event' that the framers of BLP1E had in mind. William Avery (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
And furthermore I don't think she is by any means a low profile individual of the type covered by that policy. William Avery (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
So do you Oppose or are you just commenting? --76.189.108.102 (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Support Only notable for relationship with Harry. So should be merged into this one BritishWatcher (talk) 11:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose When I originally thought about this merge proposal, my strong instinct was to absolutely support it because in my mind her only claim to fame was her relationship with Harry. However, while it is certainly true that she would not be notable had she never been Harry's girlfriend, she unquestionably became notable as a result of it. She's now known around the world and that is an undisputed fact. She did not inherit Harry's notability, which would violate Wikipedia guidelines, but instead legitimately earned it (whether warranted or not) because of the relationship. She has been reported on in many mainstream, reliable sources and therefore meets the notability guidelines. It should also be noted that Kate Middleton's article was created when she was William's girlfriend, a full five years before they even became engaged. The only way I would consider changing my mind is if someone convinced me that the years-long media coverage of her on/off relationship with Harry is, by Wikipedia's definition, a single event. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, it says the editor who proposed this, smalleditor, is blocked indefinitely,[12] but the account redirects to another one, Ohconfucius, that says retired.[13] Confusing. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Now I'm even more confused. (What else is new?) The edit history of Chelsy Davy shows that the proposer (using the account Ohconfucius) edited the article in April 2012 and June 2011.[14][15] It doesn't seem to make sense to edit an article multiple times, then all of a sudden say it shouldn't even be an article. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose That's ridiculous! Prince Harry is single. It would be totally non-sense. In monarchy there isn't "relationship". There is engagements and marries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.241.207.14 (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I think there's no need. Keivan.fTalk 13:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose The decision that the partner of a well-known public figure has become sufficiently notable to merit their own biography is not a step to be taken particularly lightly, but once it has been taken they remain notable regardless of what happens with the relationship. PatGallacher (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Whatever she may be notable for, she plainly meets WP:N and merits an article. Moonraker (talk) 02:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose If she should have an article or not should be discussed in an AfD, and the info about her doesn't fit into this article. --Mentoz86 (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Ridiculous... Do i really need to say that they are two different persons? :) --WhiteWriterspeaks 22:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - they are no longer together and therefore it makes no sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.219.179 (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose If there is an encyclopedic reason for her to be in Wikipedia she should have her own article, or if not it should be deleted. But merger is patent nonsense whether her article is encyclopedic or not. Trilobitealive (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Current events

When I read the 'military career' section, it looks more like a current events listing, than an encyclopedic description of his military career. I was under the impression that Wikipedia was not Wikinews.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 16:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Cressida Bonas

I think it's time to add something about her and nix the "100% single" nonsense. ABC News has reported it, as have several British papers. I know all this nonsense about accuracy and the like, but it's getting significant media attention and is an important part of his life. "Kate Middleton" had a page on her as early as six years before she and William married. Maybe it won't go anywhere, but she should be worth a one-sentence mention like "Cressuda Bonas has been dating Prince Harry since..." 74.69.11.229 (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that this is reasonable. She has notable relations and ancestry, if not notable in her own right. Kiltpin (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Future Titles

In the Title section it mentions "If his father succeeds to the throne....". I'd like to see that extended: what would be Prince Harry's title if he himself succeeds to the throne? (I admit that it interests me largely because I believe he would be King Henry the Ninth.) ShawnVW (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Only if he chose that as his regnal name (which, admittedly, he likely would). But he doesn't have to--Harry's great-grandfather, the former Duke of York, went by Bertie but reigned as George VI. 63.116.103.10 (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
As you say, he doesn't have to use Henry for his regal name... indeed he could use Harry! 81.135.130.191 (talk) 22:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Henry v Harry

Some kind of mention as to why he's known as Harry rather than Henry would be nice. An above comment mentioned that it's the diminutive of Henry - is that true? If so then it ought to be mentioned in the article.--ЗAНИA talk WB talk] 17:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Harry is not the 'diminutive' of Henry - it's just another form of the name, sometimes used as an 'actual' name (eg on a birth certificate) or, as in the case of Prince Harry, the commonly used name for the person with Henry as their actual name. Another version for Henry is Hal (eg Henry V was known as Prince Hal before his kingship). Many English names have such alternative versions. If Prince Harry were to become king, he could use either Henry or Harry for his regal name - he'd be the first Harry but the ninth Henry of course! 81.135.130.191 (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be difficult to cite a reliable source to suggest why the alternative 'Henry' is not used by the royal family, maybe it was to appear more modern but that is just me speculating. There is an article about the use of both names in a more general context though. Badanagram (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Relationships section

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz removed an entire section about the subject's relationships, because it is supposedly "unsourced gossip" and "gossip without indications of significance". I have no idea how:

  • a section with several inline references can count as "unsourced";
  • facts confirmed by the Prince can be described as "gossip";
  • the subject's personal relationships can be described as insignificant biographical information.

There is obviously no BLP issue here. Surtsicna (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to redraft that paragraph to address any concerns. I see no particular reason why the reports should be removed totally. DrKiernan (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Genetical father

I know, we had this discussion here already, but after seeing this picture, i ask myself if there is a valid reference that "Harry was already two years old when Diana first met Hewitt" (this sentence ended the previous discussion on november 2010). --Agatha Bauer (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There are three references given. How many more do you want? Vilĉjo (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
What references? In this Article of USA Today it stands that Diana and James Hewitt met as early as 1981 and that they were lovers by January 1984, nine months before Harry's birth. --Agatha Bauer (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

He looks like Prince Philip - look at mouth, nose and eyes. His red hair is from the Spencer side of the family Prince Harry vs prince Philip(Coachtripfan (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC))

Correct. Take the (Spencer) hair-colour out of the equation and the resemblance of Harry to Philip – and indeed to Charles – is almost uncanny, while the resemblance to Hewitt is zilch. Vilĉjo (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Current Title

Shouldn't the title of the article be "Prince Henry of Wales" rather than the diminutive of his forename? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogueTrader101 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

That has been discussed. Really it should be his full formal title as you suggest or it should be his common name – Prince Harry (i.e. his given name). But we have left it here. DBD 22:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Title of Article

To give my two cents, this article absolutely should be called Prince HENRY of Wales. If he prefers to be known as Harry that is irrelevant. The name on his birth certificate should be the title of the article, especially since he is a royal with a title especially since it says "...known as Prince Harry" in the opening sentence. I recommend a title change of this article. Queen Alexandra was known as "Alex" to her family, but the article doesnt say Queen Alex. --Mezaco (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, this person is known as "Harry" not only to his family, but to everyone else in the world. I agree, though, that the current title is wrong and should be changed to either "Prince Harry" or "Prince Henry of Wales". I prefer the first, since Wikipedia article titles usually follow people's everyday names. Can we have a vote or something? W. P. Uzer (talk) 06:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The article should indeed be moved, having a vote would be the best way forward, offering the 2 titles suggested and the current title if refs can be cited that it is common usage outside wikipedia. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move July 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no consensus. There's little reason to expect further discussion could lead to any sort of consensus here. --BDD (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Prince Harry of Wales → ? – Cf. discussion above. Current title looks like a strange and silly attempt to combine his everyday name (Prince Harry) with his formal style (Prince Henry of Wales). Unless someone has reliable sources to support this, it must be changed, as it appears to be telling us that he is called something that in fact he is not called. Suggested alternatives: Prince Harry, Prince Henry of Wales, Prince Harry (Prince Henry of Wales), Prince Henry of Wales (Prince Harry). Take your pick. W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. There is no doubt that his "official" name is Prince Henry of Wales... and we should use that unless there is some other name that is used significantly more often in reliable sources. Now... According to [this google search "Prince Harry of Wales" is used by at least some sources. However, I am not sure whether it is used significantly more often than the official name. It looks like the unadorned Prince Harry is the most common usage (far outweighing all other options.). So... I would opt for either Prince Harry or Prince Henry of Wales. Blueboar (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support either Prince Harry (my favourite cos Harry is what he is known as) or Prince Henry of Wales would still be better than the current title. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Nobody refers to him as Prince Harry of Wales. As W. P. Uzer says, the current title is a silly attempt to combine his everyday name with his formal style. It's possible that results found in searches on Google are themselves a reflection of the title currently used for this article. Inglok (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Prince Harry (of Wales) ? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Is that any better than the current title? It still implies that "Prince Harry of Wales" is an established name for him (or that he is from Wales, or from a specifically Welsh royal house, or something similar, which is even more untrue). Although my suggested parenthetical alternatives are cumbersome, I think they avoid the charge of inaccuracy, since a reader would presumably see that they are combining two different names. But my personal preference would be for the plain and simple Prince Harry, in spite of the fact that it sounds a little undignified in comparison with the names usually given to Wikipedia articles on royals. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose This issue has been chewed over before at length, while it is an awkward hybrid ultimately it raises fewer problems than any alternative approach, see WP:IAR. Move requests like this are verging on the inept, since we may well find that there is a majority for moving it from the present title, but there is no consensus about what to move it to, so the current title still has the support of a plurality. PatGallacher (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support either his official title, Prince Henry of Wales, or the more commonly used Prince Harry is preferable to the current title. Hot Stop talk-contribs 01:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Look at the last 2 archives, there were formal move requests in relation to this article in August 2009 and again in August 2012. Consensus can change, but this is in danger of becoming an annual event. Also, a minor point, but with the birth of Prince George of Cambridge he is no longer 3rd in line to the throne, he may be less in the public eye, so the case for treating him as the primary meaning of "Prince Harry" may become less clear cut. PatGallacher (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose It really isn't broken - there is no need to fix it. Kiltpin (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The title is good as it is. "Prince Harry" might also confuse with Shakespeare's Harry's. -- fdewaele, 1 August 2013, 11:52.
  • Comment. The reasons given for the last two votes of opposition are plain wrong. "Prince Harry of Wales" is simply not correct. It is a hybrid name that has been created by committee. That much is certain. And that last vote. Well, Harry was, of course, a nickname for Henry V. Prince Harry is so called by much of the media most of the time and so I doubt there is any room for confusion. I also struggle to find a good argument against a move in PatGallacher's vote, which appears basically to be, 'we've tried it before; it's never going to work' (no offence intended, PatGallacher, but this I think is a fair reflection of the thrust of your argument). I don't think this requested move should be viewed as an enforcement of any rule or rules. It's quite simply that the current title is, as you say, PatGallacher, awkward, and plain wrong. The formal name, Prince Henry of Wales, or the commonly used name, Prince Harry, are far more preferable, and I don't mind either. We could quite easily have a vote on which one, but I think moving away from something that is obviously quite wrong would be a step in the right direction. Inglok (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose This has been discussed over and over ([16][17][18]). Dr. D.E. Mophon (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Prince Harry. Easily the the common name, and there is no need for anything additional precision, as I am not aware of any alternate "Prince Harry" we would need to accommodate. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    • As already stated, Henry V of England was known as Prince Harry before he became king (at least by Shakespeare, which is where most people know him from). -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
      • So why does Prince Harry already redirect here? And wouldn't that Harry also technically be Prince Harry of Wales too? Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
        • "Prince Harry" redirects here probably because the chance of someone today searching for "Prince Harry" actually looking for King Henry V are near zero. And no one has ever been "technically" named Prince Harry of Wales. (BTW I could find no mention in Henry V's article of him being known as Harry; doesn't mean it wasn't so, but I found it curious.)LarryJeff (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No need for this. He is officially Prince Henry of Wales. He is commonly known as Prince Harry. Prince Harry of Wales is hardly inaccurate and nicely disambiguates him from the other Prince Henrys and Prince Harrys. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support firstly Prince Henry of Wales, secondly (distant, and I do mean that) Prince Harry. Seven Letters 13:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Agree exactly with comment of Seven Letters immediately above. LarryJeff (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I find this really incomprehensible. Several people have claimed that there's nothing wrong or inaccurate about Prince Harry of Wales, yet no-one has provided a single reliable source to support that name. Please, if the name is used, then at least give us one good source that we can include in the article to explain why we might have given it that title. Without this, it is original research and unverifiable and therefore against Wikipedia policy; no matter how many people write "oppose" or how many times the question may have been discussed before, it simply cannot be allowed to remain like that. W. P. Uzer (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Are you serious? "Prince Harry of Wales" is the way he is listed in the current Encyclopedia Britannica online here. FactStraight (talk) 07:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Thank you, this (apart from the first three words, perhaps) is the more constructive kind of contribution we want. But are we sure the online EB is a reliable source? The article in question seems to have been written ad hoc by an EB research editor with no particular claim to expertise in the field (suspicious types might even wonder whether he copied the title from Wikipedia...) Does anyone have access to the print edition, to check how the Prince is referred to there? W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
        • (I can't believe I'm defending the EC as a "reliable source" for use on English Wikipedia!) Encyclopedia Britannica no longer publishes a "print" version: its 2010 version was the last and updates are published exclusively online. Until it ceased, the print and online versions were owned and operated by the same company. The online version meets Wikipedia's definition of reliable source (some would say, par excellence!): "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy...The term 'published' is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online...self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis...are largely not acceptable...with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." The article in question, "Prince Harry of Wales" was written by Chelsey Parrott-Sheffer, a news editor at EB with an MA in History. EB's editorial board consists entirely of academics of first rate institutions. Regardless of what other sources and/or the 2010 print version says, the online version of EB counts as a reputable source which titled its article "Prince Harry of Wales" -- which is what you said was needed for citation purposes in a Wikipedia article of that name. FactStraight (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
          • All right, for that purpose it will have to do, though I still don't see any reason to choose the title of our article based on precisely that source, when we know from hundreds of other sources what his actual title and his actual common name are, and either of them would be perfectly reasonable as our title. We don't want to become part of an error-perpetuating cycle if we can help it. W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Debunking the Hewitt gossip

Surtsicna removed the following material, with the edit summary "Mentioning this makes it look like it was considered a real possibility. Either that, or it makes Wikipedia look amateurish and tabloid-like. It is absurd to have this in the article."

Persistent suggestions, based on a similarity of hair colour, have been made that Harry's father is actually James Hewitt, with whom Diana had an affair. However, red hair is a known Spencer-family trait, and Hewitt stated to the press in 2002 that Harry had already been born by the time Hewitt's affair with Diana began, a statement corroborated by Diana's police bodyguard.[3][4]

There really is no possibility whatsoever that I am Harry's father. I can absolutely assure you that I am not…I can understand the interest but Harry was already walking by the time my relationship with Diana began. Admittedly the red hair is similar to mine and people say we look alike. I have never encouraged these comparisons and although I was with Diana for a long time I must state once and for all that I'm not Harry's father.

— James Hewitt[5]

I sympathise with the reasoning behind the removal, but Surtsicna may not realise the background. For a long time, the article had been beset by a large number of editors (most of them, I expect, acting in good faith) attempting to incorporate various changes suggesting that Harry's parentage was less than certain (e.g. by saying that Charles was "officially" Harry's father). Eventually it was felt that the best way to stop this nonsense was to acknowledge the rumours head-on and at the same time to debunk them, with references from relevant parties. This had the desired effect, and there were no further attempts to incorporate such stuff into the article.

Personally, I would prefer, with Surtsicna, not to have any mention of the gossip at all – it gives it a much higher profile than it deserves. My concern is that if the rumours are not debunked then we will revert to the previous editing problems. So I place the removed material here in case it, or something of the kind, becomes necessary at a future date. (Perhaps we just need to be rigorous in applying WP:BLP – which surely must exclude any unsubstantiated and potentially defamatory allegations regarding a person's parentage?) Vilĉjo (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I am certainly in favour of reverting and rigorously applying WP:BLP. There should be no compromises when it comes to these things. It might make sense to write a line or two about the rumours if they were prominent enough to be mentioned by his parents' biographers, but I doubt that. Surtsicna (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it should be included - these rumours are pretty well known, and a lot of readers will be expecting to find them discussed here. The quote from Hewitt and other sourced information seems to put the allegations in their proper context (i.e. debunk them), and won't necessarily be found by readers if they're forced to look elsewhere on the Internet for discussion of the issue. W. P. Uzer (talk) 05:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

So what about a single sentence, something like "Rumours have persisted that Harry may be the son of James Hewitt, with whom his mother had an affair, but this has been refuted by Hewitt and others, pointing out that Harry was born before the affair began." And put the rest of the information and the full quote in a footnote. W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

That was, more or less, what was there originally, but was subsequently "beefed up" by other hands, thus raising its profile unduly. I'd be happy with something of that kind, but would like to be sure that it enjoys a measure of consensus. The whole point of including such material is precisely to avoid the risk of edit wars. Vilĉjo (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Weeeell... the real point of including it is the same as the point of including anything, namely to help tell our readers, reliably, anything we think they might reasonably want to know about the subject. Since these rumours, however absurd, are pervasive (people keep making jokes or other insinuations about Prince Harry's supposed parentage), readers are likely to want to know what they're all about. And as it happens, we can supply them with information from reliable sources that firstly confirms that such rumours have indeed been pervasive and fills in the essential details of them, and secondly fairly conclusively shows them to be false. This is Wikipedia in action. W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I concur. It's a well known piece of gossip and shouldn't be ignored -- people shouldn't have to look for info on the talk page, as I have just done. --Hburdon (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
So is there any objection to this (re)addition (a single sentence in the body of the article, the rest in a footnote)? W. P. Uzer (talk) 10:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm a newcomer to this article, but having seen or heard the gossip somewhere previously, and not having seen or heard the refutation until I saw it here today, I would support the proposal of a single sentence plus footnote. Scolaire (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to add this then. W. P. Uzer (talk) 12:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 16, 2006, and May 19, 2006; Jimmy Wales. Keynote speech, Wikimania, August 2006.
  2. ^ Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden: "WP:BLP applies to all living persons mentioned in an article"
  3. ^ "Hewitt denies Prince Harry link". BBC News. 21 September 2002. Retrieved 28 December 2011.
  4. ^ "Diana, Princess of Wales". BBC. Retrieved 28 December 2011.
  5. ^ "Hewitt: I am not Harry's father". The Mail on Sunday. London. 22 September 2002. Retrieved 2 July 2011.

'Disputed' vs 'refuted', re paternity

"Rumours have persisted that Harry might be the son of James Hewitt, with whom his mother had an affair, but this has been refuted by Hewitt and others, who point out that Harry was born before the affair began"

The primary meaning of refute is "to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge", or "to prove that (something) is not true", or "to prove (a statement, theory, charge, etc) of (a person) to be false or incorrect; disprove". Per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia should not take an opinion on whether Hewitt's claims constitute proof; in the absence of a reliable third-party source, we should simply report that he has made them.

The same insinuation of truth is present when we say that somebody "pointed out that ______" or "corroborated ______"; contrast with "claims that ______" and "supported ______".

Nstouski (talk) 10:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You're right I suppose, but we have to be careful not to word it in a way that implies we're giving credulity to the rumours (as far as I know there are no reliable sources in support of their being true, only for their existing and being widespread and persistent). W. P. Uzer (talk) 11:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Is there a phrasing that you feel would satisfy both constraints? (looking to policy for guidance yields WP:CLAIM, which is relevant and useful). Maybe:
"this is dismissed by Hewitt and others, who says that Harry was born before the affair began"
"and others" deleted per WP:WEASEL. Nstouski (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
"Dismissed" is fine by me, but rather than deleting "and others" (which is supported by the refs), we could specify who they are.W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
On closer inspection, I think it'd make sense to change the sentence structure a bit. There's no sense in saying "there are rumours that _____ might be _____"; if they're already tagged as rumours, we don't need the "might be". Also, a "rumours say _______, but _______" structure suggests that the rumours are definitively addressed and quickly dismissable. It'll read more neutrally with two sentences. How about:
"Rumours have persisted that Harry is the son of James Hewitt, with whom his mother had an affair. In response, Hewitt and Diana's police bodyguard have stated that Harry was born before the affair began."
Nstouski (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I suspect you may be over-thinking this - no-one knowledgeable on the matter is asserting that these rumours are true, so we don't have to go to great lengths to appear neutral over the matter of their accuracy. I prefer the single sentence with "dismissed" - of course, readers don't have to accept the dismissal if they aren't inclined to. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I think we're in trouble when we start marking out where it's okay to dispense with WP:NPOV. It's not contested that: 1) Paternity is critically important in a monarchy, 2) Diana was unfaithful in the rough vicinity of Harry's conception, 3) there has been no definitive evidence of Harry's parentage and 4) a significant portion of the British people, whom it directly affects, are skeptical. Given those facts, policy compels us to be neutral.
I prefer dismiss to refute, but I think we can still do better. How do you feel about the wording currently used in the James Hewitt article:
"Persistent suggestions have been made in the media that Hewitt, and not Charles, is the biological father of Prince Harry. Hewitt stated to the press in 2002 that Harry had already been born by the time the affair between him and Diana began (a statement also made by Diana's police bodyguard)."
It feels more neutral and would need only minor adaptation (eg, make it about Harry, briefly mention the affair) to fit into this article. Nstouski (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't mind very much, maybe someone else could come in with an opinion. I still think, though, that it's better to indicate explicitly the link, namely that the second statement is intended as a refutation (indeed formed part of an absolute dismissal) of the allegations referred to in the first, instead of leaving the reader to fathom it out (admittedly not hard, but we try to write so as to help rather than hinder). W. P. Uzer (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
We also write so as not to influence, which is what we do when we tie one party's response to a claim so tightly to the claim itself and use "_____ says _____, but _____" structures. I'd be happy to hear a third opinion. Nstouski (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of more opinions, I edited in a two-sentence version. I don't think it's perfect, but it's a quick fix to the POV issues discussed above. I also removed this line:

"The rumours are supposedly based on a similarity of hair colour; however, red hair is a known Spencer family trait"

'Supposedly' and 'however' advance a tacit POV. The observation about red hair being a Spencer trait is relevant but unsourced. Nstouski (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

If I were the Prince I would find this whole discussion deeply offensive. It should be deleted. The 5th Earl Spencer was known as the Red Earl because of his large red beard as you can see from his portrait here on Wikipedia. AnthonyCamp (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC).

Hi AnthonyCamp. Sadly for Harry, the mandate of an encyclopedia often requires discussion and documentation of topics that biographied individuals would rather not acknowledge. I don't feel that the above discussion has been gratuitously offensive, and I can't see any argument for whitewashing a major facet of Harry's public image, regardless of whether either of us is personally persuaded by it. Nstouski (talk) 09:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
You are challenging the legitimacy of a living person and the fourth in line to the Throne! Any such discussion is offensive, more so when based solely on hair colour when that colour is known to exist (except apparently to you) in the mother's family. I have no idea what you mean by "a major facet of his public image". The mandate of an encyclopedia is to provide referenced facts. Why are you so unwilling to do that? You might, for instance, at the end of the first paragraph, say 'The Prince's distinctive hair colour, unlike that of other immediate members of the Royal Family, is a legacy from the Spencer family' and then provide a footnote cross-reference to the 5th Earl Spencer, deleting the section about 'rumours' under Personal Life. AnthonyCamp (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC).
The point is that the rumours are very well-known and their existence has been reported by reliable sources (not with any suggestion that they might be true). We're actually doing everyone a favour, public and subject alike, by clarifying them here and linking to an equally well-sourced rebuttal of them. It might stop a few people from believing the nonsense about hair colour and so on that they will find on the rest of the Internet. W. P. Uzer (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Simply linking to a relative of Charles' with red hair would constitute original research; you'd be making tacit assertions about the genetics of hair colour. If you had any reliable sources for Harry's paternity (eg, the results of a neutral, reliable, third-party DNA test) then of course I would support us citing it.
By "major facet of his public image", I mean that if you asked people in the public what they knew about Harry, a lot of them would mention the paternity speculation. Far, far more than would mention that he has a D in geography or that he was at the unveiling of the Folkestone Memorial Arch.
Lastly, we "challenge the legitimacy of living person[s]" all the time. I'm sure Justin Bieber would prefer us not to document some of his personal life either, but encyclopedia articles aren't vanity pieces for their subjects. The fact that Harry is in line to the throne doesn't mean anything here. Nstouski (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
One thing that should not 'mean anything here' is the promotion of a political ideology. If you cannot understand the difference between questions as to the paternity of a singer in a republic and the paternity of a prince in direct line to the throne in a monarchy then you should certainly not be involved in writing anyone's biography. AnthonyCamp (talk) 11:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC).
Expecting someone to be given preferential treatment because of their role within a monarchy is a perfect example of promotion of political ideology. To clarify my last point: Harry's public image is as important to you as Justin's is to his legions of Beliebers, but the thing that unifies them is that they're both equally subject to Wikipedia policy, which permits - even requires - discussion of publically relevant, sourced, salient information. As I explained above, Harry's parentage is a major part of his public image and critically important to his role within the monarchy, and easily warrants at least a short paragraph of text in an article of this size. Nstouski (talk) 09:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
If he wasn't "in line to the throne", would he even have an article here? I know a D in Geography is quite good, and that the Folkestone Memorial Arch is quite attractive, but still. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 December 2013 Redirection page Prince Henry of Wales

Prince Henry of Wales is a redirect to another redirection page Prince Harry of Wales. Please redirect Prince Henry of Wales to the current subject page of Prince Harry. -- Karl Stephens (talk|contribs) 03:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Wish more people had seen this as us old timers when thinking of Prince Henry the Duke of Gloucester the regent for Queen Elizabeth II. But I guess this is the most common term for the next generation. -- Moxy (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Really, Moxy, was the D of G widely called Prince Harry? The article notes he was known as Harry by family, but the present Prince Harry is universally publicly known as such. Not the same. DBD 13:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the fix. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move December 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was moved to Prince Harry. Altogether, there's certainly consensus for a move. Taken alone, either of the first two subsections would be enough for a move, so the decision for me was to determine which option attracted stronger consensus; it appears "Prince Harry" is that option. --BDD (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Prince Harry of Wales → Prince Henry of Wales – There seems to be consensus above that "Prince Harry of Wales" is a WP invention. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Should be moved to Prince Henry of Wales

Should be moved to Prince Harry

Should be retained as Prince Harry of Wales

  • Support. Interesting that this obvious option wasn't added, which suggests that the nominator doesn't like the idea that anyone may oppose his claim that it should be moved. This is not a neutral way to nominate articles for renaming and is not how we usually do things on Wikipedia. I would therefore like to register my objection to the whole process and would suggest it should be restarted in a neutral manner. There is no consensus it should be moved at all. Where is that consensus? My opinion remains as it was above, that there has been more than one person commonly known as Prince Harry (e.g. Henry V) and that the current title disambiguates them nicely. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm sincerely sorry I did this in such a (remarkably inappropriate?) way that it got you so bent out of shape that you had to criticize me personally and refer to me as headstrong. Very sad. Of course, keeping the current form is an option. I really thought that went without saying. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't aware I had used the word "headstrong" or anything close to it! If this option was on the table, why was it not added as a header? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Look Necrothesp, you wrote "the nominator doesn't like the idea that anyone may oppose his claim" - that was rude and uncalled for and can easily be interpreted as your referring to me as headstrong without your having to have used that word. As I see it the option to keep the current article name is always "on the table". Always! In my opinion you are being unneccessarily belligerent, creating a personal argument which is not constructive, and I see no reason whatsoever for any of that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry if you see it that way. But no, I'm merely expressing my irritation that this wasn't an option provided, which makes it look like you didn't think it was an acceptable option. If that wasn't your intention then I'm sorry, but the opinion below seems to suggest that I wasn't the only one who thought so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I accept your apology with sincere thanks. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
As I indicated in the discussion section, I formatted the discussion thus, not the nominator. My intention was that those opposing any move would simply say oppose in each of the two above sections; in effect, to run two concurrent RMs. --BDD (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I, too, thought that this option was being withdrawn from consideration even though it is my first choice, for the reasons cited above as well as NCROY, while "Prince Henry of Wales" is my second choice. FactStraight (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Either use the common name of just Prince Harry, or his official name Prince Henry of Wales, not a hybrid. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 13:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as stated above. The current title is neither here nor there. It is neither the most common name, nor the official name; it is nothing more than an inaccurate and bizarre mish-mash of the two sensible options. In my opinion, the best solution would be mimicking the subject's official website (www.princehenryofwales.com) by having the article titled Prince Henry of Wales, referring to him as Prince Henry of Wales wherever "of Wales" is necessary and as Prince Harry in the rest of the running text. That (and not "Prince Harry of Wales") would be a sensible compromise between "Prince Henry of Wales" and "Prince Harry". Surtsicna (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Support Prince Harry (UCN, best known, colloquial is suitable for the living person, or Prince Henry of Wales, his formal name appropriate for a reference work. Oppose a name not based on sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We should use either his common name (Prince Harry) or his formal name (Prince Henry of Wales). The current title is unacceptable since we can't just make up names for people. Hot Stop 06:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
You're right, we can't. But since "Prince Harry of Wales" is the way his article is titled in the current Encyclopedia Britannica (as shown here and noted in the previous failed effort to move this page), clearly Wikipedia is not "making up a name" by using it and there is nothing "unacceptable" about it because it is reliably sourced. As previously acknowledged in this discussion "Prince Harry" is a colloquialism, not encyclopedic, and although "Prince Henry of Wales" is correct it is rarely seen. Yet Wikipedia article names are supposed to be selected on the basis of what the topic is best known as -- subject to needed disambiguation ("Prince Harry" is already immortalized in English literature and history as a name for the pre-regnal King Henry V) and appropriate encyclopedic tone (otherwise "Princess Di" and "Queen Mum" for Diana Spencer and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon). Given these 3 parameters, "Prince Harry of Wales" seems the most appropriate compromise. FactStraight (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I've modified the discussion format; that I hope the nominator will not object. It appears the intent here is to gauge consensus for both Prince Henry of Wales and Prince Harry—in effect, two concurrent RMs. Thus users may feel free to make one vote on each of the questions. This may prove to be a more constructive format than the previous open-ended request. If consensus supports both options, it will be up to the closer to determine which one has stronger support. --BDD (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Relationship with Cressida Bonas

Why is there nothing in this article about Prince Harry's relationship with Cressida Bonas? He has been in a relationship with her for the past 1 1/2 years, and there are rumors that he will marry her. At the very least, it should be mentioned that Harry is in a relationship with Bonas. Natg 19 (talk) 07:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I re-added something of what had previously been written, but without the reference to marriage, which is likely to be just gossip for the moment, that being the reason the information was previously removed. W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Article should be moved to Prince Harry or Prince Henry of Wales

There were very little good arguments in the move discussion above for maintaining the current title. The result of the move discussion is supposed to be based on the quality of the arguments and not just the numbers of votes. When a majority of editors support moving the article (whatever the name), it should it be moved. Even though there may be disagreement about whether it should be "Prince Harry" or "Prince Henry of Wales", there can be a consensus that either of those article names is better than the current one. Count Truthstein (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Prince Harry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Typo

 Done Not a regular contributor, so apologies if this breaks protocol. There is a typo just after citation 107. I believe it should read "reporting", not "report". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.37.177 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Ref Tag

I added some Wikilinks to Royal Duties, & when I previewed the changes, I noticed 2 extant cite warnings in the section's references. Oddly no big red warning notices in the text as is, but the closing tags are incomplete in them....they're just a />. I tried to fix them with </ref>, but then it threw the big red warning notices at me that said it needed the exact tag I put in, so I gave up & put them back the way they were. Dunno what it wants, but the tags are incomplete. They're at the end of the 2nd paragraph & in the middle of the 11th paragraph after the date 6 April 2015. Can someone who comprehends Wikivoodoocode better than I have a go & repair them? TYVM in advance. ScarletRibbons (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no problem - they are closing tags for repeated references which don't work the same way as single refs - see WP:REFNAME for more details. Melcous (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
TYVM. I thought something was wrong because in edit mode those 2 references had cite warnings. ScarletRibbons (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Royal Duties

The majority of "Royal Duties" reads like it's a personal journal or blog. Most of this information isn't even important. If we wanted a day-to-day report of Prince Harry's whereabouts, we could just watch the news. I propose some serious editing for all of the "Royal Duties" section. --Brokor (talk) 02:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it does seem to have turned into a kind of travelogue so that every time he goes somewhere new it just gets added to the bottom of the section. It would be good to have some serious editing of the section to summarise the kinds of things he has done (perhaps with a couple of examples) rather than list every single one of them. Melcous (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Changing the article name from "Prince Harry" to "Prince Henry of Wales"

Hi fellow Wikipedians, I propose to change the title of the page from 'Price Harry' to 'Prince Henry of Wales' as his actual name. I think is better not to mix formal and nicknames. Please take a moment to review my request. Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot British (talk • contribs) 19:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that it is a terrible idea and I believe it is against laid down and agreed standards. Kiltpin (talk) 12:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Hot British, You should read through the requested move section above where the decision to move it to the current title was made. You will need to address the issues that were brought up there why it should be at this name. Then start a requested move dicussion. - GB fan 12:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Needs explanation why Harry is familiar variant of Henry

I'm at risk of 3rr, so I shan't put this back in. @Celia Homeford: thanks for your critical eye. You're right to be a stickler for BLP refs, of course. But the Behind the Name ref does say it's because of Norman French, AFAICS. In other words, Henry (pronounced something like onri in modern French) and "generally rendered as Harry or Herry in English pronunciation." Any suggestions? [Were I to put this back in the article yet again, I'd use http://www.behindthename.com/name/henry as the ref, not http://www.behindthename.com/name/harry which would obviate the need to click Expand!] ... richi (hello) 16:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

For now, I've linked it to Henry (given name), which has a pretty decent discussion of why. Better than having nested refs within footnotes! ... richi (hello) 16:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I think the extra footnote has created a problem because there are now two footnotes to explain his name. That's unnecessary when his name is actually simple and common. Also, the footnote digresses into matters that are not relevant to Prince Harry. It is over-complicated when all that is required is "Harry is a traditional nickname for Henry." Celia Homeford (talk) 08:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Wrong coat of arms

These are the arms of his uncle and his uncle's wife, they need to be changed back to his. The page is locked, who did this? Kiltpin (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Mourn,Accept,Absorb

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr1WxkWKmWs

i have spent a long time listening to these videos

trying to find order in a chaotic world is difficult

on a seperate note

we really need technical expertise on the RAF Sentry Aircraft programme at RAF Waddington

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y40Q5Qumb-4

There is currently a permanent recruitment campaign with Cobham

I have been told the aircraft is to be in service until 2035

You could live on base and mix with the Officers...

Best Regards

Darren Mark Horton

82.29.73.4 (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Darren, it might be useful if you created an User account for yourself? You need to post any suggestions for article improvements over at the RAF Waddington article, but not RAF recruitment adverts thanks. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

feminist

Shouldn't it be mentioned that Harry is a feminist? His fiance' says so. He would be the first male royal to identify as such and shows his political leanings; it is quite significant. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any source? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Daily Telegraph article, 19th January 2018 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/19/meghan-markle-prince-harry-feminist/ The Telegraph is a reliable source; it is a newspaper of record. Next question Martinevans? 98.10.165.90 (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Well yes, it makes a good headline, doesn't it. But eavesdropping a casual comment from a royal walkabout, is hardly the same as an official interview with Martin Bashir, is it? She also said that pedalling on an exercise bike was better than sitting at home playing on PlayStation. Is that equally notable? If Harry himself had self-identified as a feminist that would be very different. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
When the head of the family is a woman, it seems quite likely that they're all feminists. None of them go around saying the Queen should defer to a man. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
That would make all subjects of Mary I, Elizabeth I, Mary II, Anne and Victoria feminists, but we know they were definitely not. IP, what political leanings does Harry's feminism demonstrate? Surtsicna (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
The subjects and relations of Mary I, Elizabeth I, Mary II, Anne and Victoria did go around saying they should defer to a man. Anyone saying that today is a nutcase. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
By parity of "reasoning", a man who today defers to a woman, such as his wife or mother or grandmother, or who habitually opens a door to let a woman pass first, or to whom he offers his seat, or who defers to a woman who has precedence at court, or to a woman who is a presiding judge in a law court, or CEO in an organization, is a nutcase or feminist or misogynist? Qexigator (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
No. If you think otherwise, I would assume you to be a nutcase or a sexist pig. You're going to have to come up with better arguments than this to label Harry as a feminist. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
ROFL: false assumption, as well as needlessly incivil comment. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
It's interesting then that all the editors with accounts commenting here oppose calling Harry a feminist, but it is only the editor who identifies as a woman who gets other editors arguing with her. And she happens to be the only editor identifying as a woman commenting in the thread. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
It says nothing about his politics. Most people are liberal on some issues and conservative on others. Life isn't black and white. Firebrace (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Questionable grammar

"He is engaged to be married to American actress Meghan Markle on May 19 2017". This sentence seems to be bad grammar - would better wording be to say "he became engaged to marry Meghan Markle on May 19 2017"? Vorbee (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The date 19 May 2018 is for the wedding. The engagement announcement came in November. I'm not sure if the date of the proposal is publicly known and citable. The current version of the sentence reads: "He is engaged to marry American actress Meghan Markle on 19 May 2018". Acjelen (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Given that Prince Henry is one of the six in line of succession to the British throne and his wedding will be in Windsor Castle, the probability that the Queen has consented is almost certain, but if it has been announced should it be mentioned in the article? Meantime, omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta. Qexigator (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

If it's been announced, we must presume all the legalities have been observed, and we really don't need to act as auditors by seeking to give every bit of the process the Wikipedia tick. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 10:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Spouse

Acting in good faith, but also boldly, I added the name of Prince Harry's fiancé to the Info Box. One must not be married to have a spouse, as the term applies to domestic partners and even common law marriages. Also, "spouse" is not a synonym for "wife." I hope this edit will not be considered controversial. I hope any opposing thoughts will be discussed here before removal. With over 700k views yesterday, I know that there is intense interest in this page. Thanks. Juneau Mike (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution! I must disagree with it, however. Per WP:BRD, bold insertions can be removed and restored after a discussion. WP:BLP also warns us to be especially considerate when the article is about a living person. Merriam-Webster defines "spouse" as a "married person: husband/wife". Prince Harry has never contracted a marriage of any kind nor has he ever registered a domestic partnership. Markle is his fiancée and not his spouse by any definition whatsoever. No source has been presented describing Markle as his spouse. Please let us be patient. Surtsicna (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree. A spouse is a husband or wife, which she isn't yet. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
for what it’s worth it agree she should be in the infobox, the issue seems to be there is no option for fiancé in the infobox parameters, it does seem a little pedantic to revert her inclusion because of this as it gives the option to show this as ‘partner’. Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 11:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, fiancées have never been in infoboxes. See Prince Albert Victor, a featured article, for example. Surtsicna (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I tended to agree with Barryob, that somehow making it clear she is his fiancée is acceptable i.e. the word "spouse" does not actually appear. Surely many BLP article have subjects who become engaged, so there must be some precedent here? Surtsicna, is that written down somewhere as a rule or is it just an accepted convention? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
There is certainly no "royal" precedent. As far as I can tell fiancées have so far been listed in infoboxes only if they were already domestic partners (e.g. Jolie and Pitt), but in such cases they were named in infoboxes before the engagement as well. The practice with royalty articles so far has been not to name long-term girlfriends, boyfriends, fiancé(e)s, etc. I think the Crown Princess of Sweden even lived with her fiancé, but there was never any talk about naming him in the infobox. As for rules, the closest thing I can think of is Template:Infobox royalty/doc, which says the field spouse is for "husbands/wives only". Surtsicna (talk) 11:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I see. Yes, I was afraid we might have to start asking if they co-habit and that seemed to be straying into WP:OR. The advice at Template:Infobox royalty/doc sounds pretty clear. Why can't folks just wait until May? All the engagement details are in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Why can't folks wait? I wondered the same thing at Talk:Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. We know practically nothing about the event, not even the precise date, yet we have an article about it already. We are pretending that it's days away (weeks, at best) and already a huge, notable thing, when all there is so far is an engagement. Folks also couldn't wait for Catherine to actually have her third child, so they wrote an article about it 8 months ahead. There is a growing tendency to write articles prematurely, rushing things unnecessarily. Surtsicna (talk) 11:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Looking forward. I wonder is it Royal twins?? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
move indent, I understand the reason for not including her when they where still dating but now that they are engaged it’s an entirely different matter. A separate field could be added to infobox royalty for fiancé, but that seems redundant given that the spouse field could be utilised till the wedding, she is now doing official royal visits with Harry, therefore warrants included in the infobox Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 14:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't quite think it's "an entirely different matter". If there is a rule, or even just a convention, that has developed for Royal persons, or even for any BLP person that becomes engaged, I think we should follow it. But I am swayed a little by your argument about Royal duties. They do now operate officially as a couple in the public domain. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

"Sexting?"

The article says when Harry was photographed naked with a woman playing strip poker in a hotel too, St James's Palace said "he was essentially a victim of sexting in a private moment." St James's Palace didn't use that the term "sexting" in the article cited, and it seems like a misuse of the word. A voyeur taking an illicit photograph of a naked person through a window and selling them to a tabloid is not "sexting." Sadiemonster (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The Needed Citations

Hello! I just want to give a notice that I will be adding citations where needed. That's ALL I'm doing. I'm not changing any of the information or the way things are written. I'm giving this notice because of an assumption that this page is very closely watched. If you have concerns, please contact me via my talk page.Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The subject of this article is non-notable IMO

This article is ridiculous. There is nothing noteworthy about this individual. He was born 33 years ago, went to an elite school, joined the army for a little while and is currently unemployed. While he is currently dating a celebrity this does not make him notable in his own right. Moreover assertions of philanthropic notability are also misplaced. His aides and PR advisors would have founded The Invictus Games funded by taxpayer cash, you know the kind of 33 year old folk who hold down a real job, pay taxes and make the royal illusion possible? Just because the royal PR department would like you to believe that Harry created the Invictus Games does not mean that it is factually correct. Think of all the wild and wonderful claims authoritarian regimes have made about their leaders in the past. If you don't by default take the word of an authoritarian regime, then why should the word of a Royal propaganda department be considered any different. In summary this guy has done nothing of note in his life, and if you freed your collective minds from the myth that is monarchy and the class system, you would recognise that beyond the smoke and mirrors of Britain's antiquated class system, this individual is inherently non-notable. Ideally it would be refreshing if this encyclopedia took the view that one was not considered notable based on who their parents were or are. Freeknowledger (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Freeknowledger, and LOL :) Unfortunately, humorous essays are supposed to be created in (or appended to) your User Page, and/or created as WP:Essays, either of which you may or may not wish to do in this case. And, per WP:NOTFORUM, this Talk Page is supposed to be for discussing how to improve the article, etc, so I should perhaps point out that there's a procedure (WP:AFD) for trying to get rid of articles about allegedly non-notable subjects, though I wouldn't advise it in this case, due to WP:SNOW and to the large number of so-called Reliable Sources that deal with the subject, as shown by the large number of citations in the article, etc. For all I know there may also be a procedure for trying to get a source deemed unreliable if it deals with a subject that an editor deems ridiculously non-notable, but I have no idea what that procedure is, and, if it exists, using it just possibly might also be WP:SNOW in this case. Probably ditto for trying to change our Notability criteria. Also as Wikipedians we are not in any way required to 'believe' (whatever way we interpret the meaning of that ambiguous word) that what we report from a so-called RS is 'factually correct' (whatever that might mean, perhaps especially to a somewhat fundamentalist philosophical sceptic like me), as long as what we write accurately reflects what the source says, etc... But thanks again for your rather entertaining critique of Wikipedia and of the world as it appears to you :) Tlhslobus (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
So don't expect an invite to the wedding. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC) p.s. a 10-year career in the Army is just "a little while"? Perhaps you could tell us how cushy it is over in Afghanistan?
(Re Tickets, as I know nothing of Afghanistan) On the contrary, Martin, the wicked fascist imperialist royalist establishment may now try to corrupt and subvert him (OOPS, that should have been him/her) by sending him (OOPS again) tickets, which s/he can then retail for a substantial sum, thus perhaps making his/her contribution a thoroughly brilliant stratagem on his/her part :) Tlhslobus (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Apparently the Big Fat African-American Mixed-Race Wedding, sponsored by House and Hound, will be at Amnesia, in downtown Ibiza, and so will be easily forgotten. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
But, Martin, that comment violates WP:CRYSTAL, as it may not be so easily forgotten if Meghan gets photographed after losing at strip billiards (drools uncontrollably) :) Tlhslobus (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Mixed race fiancee needs a mention.

About a third of BBC2 Newsnight last night, and quite a bit of BBC1 News at 10, was spent discussing the possible social significance of Meghan Markle being 'a proud mixed race woman', yet there's no mention at all of this here (and no mention of its possible social significance at her bio article). I'm not sufficiently interested in him and her to go to the trouble of trying to put that in myself, but surely some editors here are sufficiently interested in them to try to do so? Tlhslobus (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Just wait until we get the bridesmaid announcement! Maybe a real life tennis star or even an Indian actress!! Drool. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
But, Martin, signalling genuine social change might require a porn star, especially in light of the past experiences of Randy Andy and Koo Stark.Tlhslobus (talk) 13:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
You'll be pleased to know I'm not offering my services. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
LOL, Martin, but now you're veering away from safe comments that only commit High Treason against the Monarchy, into something that could get you hauled before Big Brother by the Thought Police for wrecklessly making possibly unfounded assumptions about an editor's sexual preferences :) Tlhslobus (talk) 14:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
As ever, my duty lies with Wales. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Martin, I guess one learns something new every day, as I didn't know that Jimbo still required your services now that Bomis is defunct :) Tlhslobus (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I shall probably never live down the shame, but in the end I decided that since nobody else was posting it, and somebody ought to post it, that somebody would have to be me. So I've now posted a sentence with 4 citations to both articles. Now where can I find info on the best way to euthanize myself? (sobs uncontrollably) Tlhslobus (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

A very dignified addition, I'm sure. But no need for anything rash, dearie... I'm sure there's a opening for you at our sister publication. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prince_Harry,_Duke_of_Sussex/Archive_3&oldid=1142775107"