Talk:Prince Louis of Wales/Archive 1

Archive 1

NN

What does "Prince NN" mean?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomen nescio. He doesn't have a name yet.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Does he not have a name, or is it simply that the name hasn't been announced yet? StAnselm (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that's something we are able to know. Acjelen (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

It's terrible writing, is what it is. But Wikiroyalists want to get in as soon as possible with the "HRH Prince Yadda" stuff as soon as they possibly can. (Once the child's named, that'll time-travel back to today and that'll be crowbarred in as his "name from birth".) 92.235.37.26 (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

No, it won't. I fought that windmill when George was born. Surprisingly enough, I defeated it. Surtsicna (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is bound by no precedent, least of all its own! But it's very possible that my prediction and yours are perfectly compatible. i.e. there's an edit-frenzy as I describe, and eventually it settles down to the sort of text on the other article. Compatible as it is with reliable sources and temporal causality, for which kudos. 92.235.37.26 (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Pre-empting the name discussions

When Their Royal Highnesses announce the name of their newborn son, and the article changes its name accordingly, we will have a likely flurry of 'in the event of his succeeding to the throne he would be King [Insert name here] III' material. It is not really necessary, nor indeed decent.

In case anyone is interested in hypothetical / conjectural regnal names, I see that someone has written a table of names and 'another of the name would be..': https://wikishire.co.uk/wiki/Names_of_Kings_and_Queens

Howard Alexander (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not think we have had problems with such additions before. But of course, it does not belong here. Surtsicna (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

BLP issues

There is no place for unsourced claims in a biography of a living person. Please read WP:BLP before restoring such claims. Surtsicna (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no place for demanding sources on an ancestry template.Please do not remove such templates.12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll take that as a joke. Surtsicna (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Line of succession

I do not think we should recite the entire line of succession up to the newborn. We have an article specifically about that, the line of succession. Naming the two people that precede George might be justifiable by the fact that he is expected to follow them on the throne in due course, but for a third child it's excessive (regardless of what happened in 1830). We need to draw a line somewhere. Or should we recite the line in the articles about Prince Harry and others too? Surtsicna (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I suppose listing the preceding people is unnecessary with the link to the line of succession there, but I think we should keep it in the opening of the article. Acjelen (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I think for William's children, it's best to begin with third child, as that's more significant, since the Perth Agreement took effect in 2015. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but we should take care not to sound silly. We should not say that the third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge is the third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Surtsicna (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we add it back, when he's named? GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The Kensington Palace below stairs have got a few grand on Arthur (allegedly). But why does Catherine lose her title in the infobox (as with the other two children)? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC) p.s. I've put a fiver on more inclusive, but I might live to regret it.

It is common in genealogy to use the premarital name for the mother. That's why Elizabeth II's mother is called Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon in the infobox. Surtsicna (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Gosh, even in these heady days of equality and all that. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the Express is WP:RS. Firebrace (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

"Another porker"

The lovely Kay Burley, presenter for Sky News, was "... slammed for referring to him as ‘another porker’." But I guess if the actual birth weight of the prince is deemed "trivia", this item would be considered just trivia about trivia? We're probably not going to have List of Royal babies by birth weight any time soon. Those poor old Daily Express readers, eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the sumo plug. Care to join?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Already more fat royals than I can keep up with, thanks. [1] Martinevans123 (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Mother's name

Why is his mother's name given as "Catherine Middleton"? Surely it is disrespectful to use her maiden name, especially as the article it links to is "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge". Is there a reason behind this? If not, it should be changed. I wanted to check if there was a reason, otherwise I would have changed it.

Pinkalotk (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

See the response in "Line of succession" above? I also think that's quite bizarre, but apparently it's "common in genealogy", even though this is not a genealogy website, of course. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Pinkalotk. Yes, there is a reason. Elizabeth II's mother is called Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon in the infobox, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon's mother is called Cecilia Cavendish-Bentinck, George V's mother is called Alexandra of Denmark, etc. Wikipedia is not a genealogy website but basic genealogy is pertinent in an article about someone who derives his title and constitutional position from his parentage. Surtsicna (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

How would Prince Louis' mother's name appear on his birth certificate? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

There's an inconsistency. At Charles, Prince of Wales' infobox, his father is shown as Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, rather then Prince Philip of Greece. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Or does this convention apply only to mothers? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The main purpose for inclusion of the parents is to provide genealogical information. I agree that the standard practice in ancestral tables, family trees and genealogy works is to use each person's own name, i.e. the maiden or birth name, or the highest title which that person (male or female) holds in their own right. It is not usual practice to list women by their married names or people who held a later title in their own right by their birth name. DrKay (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

So in Philip's case a Duke trumps trumps a Prince? You mean "or men who held a later title in their own right by their birth name"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I meant exactly what I wrote Martin. "Elizabeth II" is not her birth name or her maiden name. DrKay (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

So regarding the word "later" there, women should be listed by their birth name, unless they held a title in their now right before they married? Is that correct? While men always get their latest title, regardless of how they were called when they married? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

It is titles gained by marriage that are dropped in genealogy. Thus the father of Princess Estelle of Sweden is listed as Daniel Westling. Philip did not become Duke of Edinburgh by marriage. Surtsicna (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

No. Elizabeth II became Queen after she married. She is listed by her highest title in her own right, just like Margarethe II, Lady Saltoun, etc. etc. This is standard practice. Frankly, you're coming across as a sexist pig, whether you mean to or not. Women should be defined with their own names not by their husband's. DrKay (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I must admit that I've been assuming for many years now that it was a custom in many countries, not least in the UK, for women to typically take the surname of their husband when they marry. I am now just trying to work out what the Wikipedia conventions are for naming titled parents in infoboxes. But I'm "coming across as a sexist pig"?? Um no, I didn't actually mean to come across like that. I do hope everyone else can understand what the expected conventions are here, as I'm still struggling. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Wadding in. Firstly, there is nothing particularly disrespectful about the surname Middleton. The Duchess of Cambridge is not hiding her origins with her title anymore than "Princess Diana" or "the Queen Mum" were hiding their origins by using those styles. As an informational resource, women's maiden names are given in the infobox so that that information is readily available to readers of the page. Did you know that the Queen's mother came from the Bowes-Lyon family? Well you do know. Secondly, as for not using Princess Elizabeth or Princess Elizabeth of York in Charles infobox, this is an exception. Presumably there is discussion of it on the Prince of Wales talk page. The Duke of Edinburgh is probably the same, especially since his style of 'prince' came much later in the marriage. Finally, Wikipedia is neither a court circular nor a newspaper and is not beholden to either of those organs or their conventions. There are conventions in Wikipedia, however, and this is one of them. Acjelen (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

But these are just Wikipedia conventions, not policy, yes? Are they written somewhere, for ease of reference? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps an Rfc is required concerning this topic, to either get consistency or at least clarification on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd certainly welcome that. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

What's unclear, GoodDay? And where is the inconsistency? Surtsicna (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Why is Charles' father called Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, yet William's mother is called Lady Diana Spencer (for examples). GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

They are both referred to by the highest titles they held in their own right (and not through marriage). Neither is referred to by their birth name, as Diana was not born "Lady Diana Spencer". Entirely consistent, isn't it? Surtsicna (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

If that is the only rule, and it applies equally to men and women, I don't think we need an RfC. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course there's no need for RfC. The rule definitely applies to both men and women equally. As such, Prince Albert is referred to as "Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" instead of the "Prince Consort" in his children's info boxes. Surtsicna also made a good point. Each individual is referred to by the highest rank he/she has ever held in his/her own right regardless of their marital status. Titles such as queen consort, prince consort, princess of Wales, etc. are earned through marriage. Prince Philip's case is different as a dukedom was bestowed upon him. He ceased to be "Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark" and instead became known as "Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh", just like "Prince William of Wales" who later became "Prince William, Duke of Cambridge". Including the father/mother's surnames is also very useful from a genealogical point of view, as it shows the other side of a person's ancestry at the first glance. Keivan.f^Talk 22:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I asked earlier on the talk page for the infobox and on a project page for explicit clarity on this point, but we certainly don't need a RfC. As for the Duke of Edinburgh, both his title and his style of 'prince' come separately and neither through marriage. Acjelen (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Birth weight

This was challenged as being trivial and then readded, so it should be discussed here. I don't think it does belong - it isn't, for example, in Prince William's article. I gather it's been recently removed from the siblings' articles. But generally speaking, it occurs very seldom here on Wikipedia, even among the most famous of people. StAnselm (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed. In fact, I removed it myself, and I was really surprised that it was added back. Just because he's a royal baby doesn't mean that his weight at birth is important. It's pure trivia and must be removed. Keivan.f^Talk 04:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I think people are desperate to add content to small articles and birth weight is one of his very few defining features for babies. You might argue that it's relevant for a short while. There aren't many other articles about babies or infants, are there? And I guess they don't typically mention birth weight unless it's very unusual. It doesn't appear in this one, for example. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

It's absolutely trivial. We have reports about William's weight at birth, yet we are sensible enough not to include that. We have reports about William's present height and weight yet it does not cross anyone's mind to mention them, as William is neither a sumo wrestler nor a model. Neither are his children. A child's weight at birth is relevant if it is said to indicate a health issue, if it sets a world record or if it attracts another significant commentary. A bare number is useless information. Surtsicna (talk) 10:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, it looks like we have consensus and it has been removed from the article, so it appears all resolved. StAnselm (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The name Charles

"On 27 April 2018, it was announced that the baby had been named Louis Arthur Charles, the first and the middle names honoring his great-great-great-uncle Lord Mountbatten and his grandfather the Prince of Wales respectively."

Nowhere in the source it is mentioned that hy was named Arthur after prince Charles. Shouldn't it read that his last name is honouring prince Charles? And honouring instead of honoring? Winstonza (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I've changed that. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Mountbatten-Windsor

Even in the article it is clearly stated “members of the Royal Family who are entitled to the style and dignity of HRH Prince or Princess do not need a surname” Why you are rewriting history and even adding Princess Anne’s article to Mountbatten-Windsor surname which they never use. She married two times. How his full name can be that much different than his birth certificate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berfu (talk • contribs) 18:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Also I checked other royal biographies such as royals from Denmark, Sweden or Monaco. Under full_name, only their names are listed, no surnames or even their birth titles. But If there is need I’m sure full names and titles in birth certificates should be used, not surnames they never used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berfu (talk • contribs) 20:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

of Wales?

This title has not been granted to Prince Louis so surely, he is not "of Wales" Yikmo21 (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

See my reply in the page of his sister. Sira Aspera (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Image

I was wondering if anyone could check if an updated copyright-free image is available. Being a child, this is now clearly obsolete even though it dates back to only three years ago.Sira Aspera (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Titles and styles section

All other royal biographies have this section and I don’t know why someone keep erasing his or his siblings. Even If you argue palace never issued “Prince Louis of Cornwall and Cambridge” name you cannot erase other two names since multiple sources (palace too) clearly listed him first as “Prince Louis of Cambridge” and later “Prince Louis of Wales”. Same thing happenes to Princess Charlotte of Wales and Prince George of Wales too. Why remove whole section? Justi7 (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

His godparent was a ghost?

For one of his godparents it mentions a man named Nicholas, but Nicholas passed in 2013 while Louis was born in 2018, so what gives? 47.151.210.20 (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

A section heading in the linked article had been changed. Now fixed. DrKay (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Profile Photo Update

The profile photo used for this page needs to be updated due to the process of age 67.212.47.110 (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Charles III

There is an RfC on Talk:Charles III#RfC: Inclusion of "Agnatic house" which may relate to this article. Feel free to contribute. Estar8806 (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)