This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Referring to this IP edit [1], given that the article reports known facts, and the facts include the child's baptism by the Archbishop of Canterbury, opposing infant baptism in connection with the theology or doctrine of any Christian denomination is not sufficient reason for preventing the infobox including "Religion Church of England". Qexigator ( talk) 08:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Whatever the merits, is it not the usual practice is to ascribe to an infant the denomination of the parents, and that one baptised in the name of the Holy Trinity will be accepted as a baptised Christian by other denominations which practise infant baptism in the tradition of the Nicene Creed? Note, concerning baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) and "baptism of blood" (baptismum sanguinis): "Because the Catholic Church practices infant baptism, these issues seldom arise except for adult converts to Catholicism who were not baptized as children." [2] This really is not a matter for Wikipedia to purport to determine otherwise, whether as a matter of theology, modern reasoning, civil rights or an attitude of knowing what's best for them. Jews, Hindus and so on have their practises, Christians theirs. Wikipedia is here to report, not pretend to certify, warrant or endorse validity or efficacy, or to offer gratuitous advice to members of any church or religious tradition. Qexigator ( talk) 16:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
This IP edit, [5] according to the summary, may have been made on the basis of personal opinion about a point of religious practise which it is not for Wikipedia to approve or disapprove; but I am inclined to see it as editorially acceptable, given the remarks above, and the purpose of letting readers have information presented in suitably encyclopedic manner. Qexigator ( talk) 22:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Update. + agree with: " Baptised in the Church of England" [6] -- Qexigator ( talk) 17:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Surely this is a high importance UK and royalty article? Mat ty. 007 17:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
To mention or not, that this child's grandmother is no longer alive? [7]. For many editors and readers of maturer years, her death is yesterday's news and never forgotten, while many readers (not only those of school age) have little or no knowledge of this, or how if at all it may affect the child's status as prince or as heir to the widowed grandfather, who had since remarried the woman who thus became the child's step-grandmother, still living. But, given the links (in the lead) to the child's father, Prince William, which has a sufficiently informative paragraph, to the grandfather, which gives further detail of the divorce and the second marriage, and to Diana herself, which has a panel displaying her "Issue", the insertion of "the late" would break the flow of the prose, adding nothing. Qexigator ( talk) 09:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Noting the above comments, let me add that, while in some contexts it may be useful to mention, with suitable wording, that a person is no longer living, or had been residing lately or latterly in a certain parish or country but not presently, or that a person was formerly Lady or Lord Whoever or Miss or Mrs or Mr Anybody, the information that Diana is not alive today or that her life ended in 1997 is practically uninformative for the purpose of this article without the information given in the links mentioned above. But another question: why is she named "Lady Diana Spencer" in the "Ancestors" [8] and not "Diana, Princess of Wales", to which the name is linked? Qexigator ( talk) 07:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Does HRH Prince George also not have use (from birth) of the courtesy title from his father's peerage, Earl of Strathearn? Should that be mentioned in the Titles section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfossa ( talk • contribs) 13:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Hfossa ( talk) 13:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
George doesn't use any courtesy titles from his father's peerage as he has titles of his own - namely, Prince George of Cambridge. Courtesy titles are only used (at least by men) when someone doesn't have a title of their own. This is similar to how Princes Charles and William have never used the lesser titles of their fathers (or in William's case his grandfather). Psunshine87 ( talk) 09:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to request that George's stated religion is changed back from "Church of England" to "Baptised as a Christian", as suggested by Qexigator above on 21 December.
Since that date, Keivan.f reverted back to "Church of England" twice, in the process ignoring a request to take part in the talk page discussion.
Accordingly, I suggest that the reasons for preferring "Baptised as a Christian" still stand. Religion is a matter of personal choice, and a baby does not have the ability to make that choice. Keivan.f implied, in his edit summary, that this is how Royal Family articles are written. That may be so for family members who are sufficiently old to be able to choose whether to follow a particular faith. However, I would suggest that any Wikipedia article which labels a baby as having a particular faith is simply wrong in doing so - for the reasons given above. Scroogle22 ( talk) 02:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I made an edit to the Prince George Wiki page a few days ago which I thought was quite reasonable to add but has now been removed.
In the section about his titles, I added that providing the succession to the throne continues as expected, Prince George will never hold the title of Duke of Cambridge. This being because when Prince William accedes to the throne the title of Duke of Cambridge will merge with the Crown and by William being King, Prince George will automatically become Duke of Cornwall (and likely made Prince of Wales) so the Dukedom of Cambridge wouldn't ever be held by him.
Could somebody please explain to me why this edit is somehow speculative as the reverting editor labelled it!
UK Royalist ( talk) 10:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Err, that's why I prefixed it with 'if the succession continues as expected' - George would have no need to be granted Dukedom of Cambridge upon Prince William's accession. UK Royalist ( talk) 12:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I would argue that Prince George being the heir to his father's titles is an unnecessary inclusion in general. While he is the heir, he's not actually expected to inherit the titles (yes, that's speculation, but it's expected that the Dukedom will merge with the crown). It's not listed on Prince Charles' page that he is the heir to the title Duke of Edinburgh, even though he will inherit it if Prince Philip predeceases the Queen, so I don't see why it's necessary to include that Prince George is the heir to title Duke of Cambridge. Psunshine87 ( talk) 02:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Not necessarily. The title does not have to revert to the throne. The title, by a writ by parliament, could be treated like any other peerage and the regular rules apply. In the case should Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, predecease his son; the title would pass to him. On the Dukedom of Edinburgh issue, the Prince of Wales wouldn't inherit it. The title has a subsidiary (though currently independent) title of the Earldom of Wessex. -- 72.252.130.98 ( talk) 03:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to second the point two above my comment here, I would argue the whole clause about him being heir to the title should be removed as the Dukedom will merge with the crown in the normal way of things. If Prince William dies before succeeding, then (and only then) Prince George would inherit the Dukedom. If the succession continues as it is, however, Prince George will never inherit it as it will merge with the crown upon Prince William's accession. Regarding the point above this comment about the Prince of Wales not inheriting the Dukedom, the remainder of the title of Duke of Edinburgh means he will inherit it upon the death of the Duke of Edinburgh. UK Royalist ( talk) 07:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone object to removing the clause about Prince George being the heir to the Dukedom? Psunshine87 ( talk) 23:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
According to the rules of the Peerage of England (pree 1707), Scotland (pre 1707),Great Britain (post 1707), Ireland (pre 1801) and the United Kingdom (post 1801), the eldest son of the peer of the realm is entitled to use the highest ranking subsidiary title. Considering that Prince George of Cambridge's father is Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus; doesn't it automatically makes George, Earl of Strathmore.
The issue already has precedent, where Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex's son is Lord Severn (the Earldom's subsidiary title). The Earldom itself is subsidiary to the Dukedom of Edinburgh pending merger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.130.98 ( talk) 03:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of the debate of whether or not this image is a free image, is it really appropriate as the main image for the page? I question this since the image is a painting of a living person, instead of an actual picture of a living person, and is pretty similar to a picture located elsewhere in the article that was moved from being the main picture on the grounds that it doesn't show Prince George's face and is no longer an accurate picture of Prince George (him having been a day old in the image). If we must have a picture and cannot find another free image, then it would seem to me to be better to use the actual picture already included in the article (particularly as there isn't a debate about it being a free image). Even better would be to try to find a free image from the current New Zealand/Australia tour, where Prince George has been photographed heavily, or use one of the pictures released by the family for his christening or just prior to the tour. Psunshine87 ( talk) 20:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a picture of George, his parents, and the Governor-General of Australia in the article. Is there any reason why a larger, cropped version of the picture can't be used as the main picture? Psunshine87 ( talk) 06:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Three redirects to this page have been nominated for discussion or deletion at RfD today. Your contribution to the discussions would be welcome.
Thanks, Thryduulf ( talk) 16:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
This is the sort of article that attracts near trivia such as George's first birthday party was themed around children's author Beatrix Potter, who knew members of the Lupton family, George's maternal ancestors, and The Prince George effect, also known as the Royal Baby effect, is the trend that news about Prince George has in business and pop culture. [10] Less trivial could be that Ed Miliband, the Labour Party (UK) leader, and Leader of the Opposition (United Kingdom) has been reported by The Guardian as saying: "Fantastic to hear that Prince George will soon be a big brother!" [11] Coming from such a prominent politician, that may be notable as an inadvertent (or intentional?) reference to Big Brother (Nineteen Eighty-Four) or Big Brother (UK). Is there a place for it in this article? Qexigator ( talk) 16:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
What is this nonsense that a one-year-old had a birthday party based on Beatrix Potter? Who the hell cares? If this was ANY other 1-year-old, we wouldn't mention it at all. It is NOT NOTABLE. When he does something notable like go to nursey school, we can add something Until then, no. 66.67.32.161 ( talk) 23:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I just restored a cropped picture of a baby and a wombat for the infobox. Once I did, I realized it had a human hand. That's scary stuff. I still think my summary reasoning (that we should spread the photos around the article) is valid, and that Wikipedia is not censored, so I think it should stay. But I definitely see how this may be terrifying to general audiences. That was not my intention. If someone can find a picture more suitable to British sensibilities, I'm all for it, but we should have something in the infobox.
Whether the horrible mutant belongs in his previous space, unzoomed and not so immediately apparent is a question we'll have to ask later. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I was here last year, crying "Hear Ye!" about how we should pay attention to people we've ignored, and keep the prince from pricking his finger. As the new year approaches, it's imperative we remain vigilant.
See here. The christening gown was first worn by Queen Victoria. They even say "interwoven". Now see here. A stitch in time, in Victoria, B.C.! There was a movie called that once, by a man named Wisdom. It was shot entirely in Buckinghamshire.
Long story short, I suspect the old Queen shall return. On the 13th of this month, it was announced that in her 13th year, Victoria was "very very very very horribly naughty!!!!" I'm not saying that clearly means she's The Thirteenth Guest (not that one, this one). I'm just saying it might.
So keep your eyes peeled for signs, like smallfolk in Nottingham offering introductions to the "ancient craft" of spinning wool today. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
23:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Prince George of Cambridge. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Can a child less than two years of age hold religious beliefs? Or in what other sense can he be said to "have a religion"? Martinevans123 ( talk) 12:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
There is now consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes to remove this parameter from biographical infoboxes that do not relate to religious leaders/figures. DrKay ( talk) 16:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
There is no need to include both England and UK, for several reasons. First, London is an internationally known city, and we can expect that (provided with UK as a disambiguator) most readers have a good understanding of where it is. Second, per MOS:INFOBOX, we should present information in short form. Nikkimaria ( talk) 13:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
There's discussion at Charles, Prince of Wales, relating to this article's intro. GoodDay ( talk) 03:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
There are too many citations in this article. Nothing should require three citations. In fact, if one covers the information, there is no need for two. The References section is ridiculously long. Surtsicna ( talk) 10:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
At least, that's the conclusion I've come to after two-and-a-half years of trying to unsee his human hand. It's not even so much that it's an abomination of God and science, but the whole damned scene is just creepy. The future king is having his jewels cupped by a monster, which appears to also be chewing out his heart (or nibbling his nipple, which is wrong on two levels). His face (particularly his eyebrow) says he is not having a good time. He is reaching for the werebear's (lifeless) eyes, as custom dictates one should when attacked by any large carnivore. He would escape, but is surrounded by three gleeful giants; one restrains him, one props up the beast (awkwardly) and one rules a distant realm where wild animals famously eat babies.
He's getting to the age where he can Google himself, if he isn't already, and though it'll be a while before it teaches him all he needs to know to comprehend this wicked display, even a peasant child can recognize a general "that which should not be" in dark art. It would be a shame if such an image were baked into his malleable brain, warping slightly as the years go on, as the weirder cartoons often do. I'm not saying King George III was haunted by the time his mother fed him to his father's undead inhuman mistress while an old man watched, but if he was, he'd have been a lot madder about someone taking a photo and putting it on the Internet for smallfolk to laugh at.
If anyone can find a more flattering free replacement with a Governor General, that'd be great. In the meantime, I've deleted the wombat. If someone is particularly fond of it, or sure it won't drastically affect the future, I won't stop you from restoring it. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
This thread is precious. Surtsicna ( talk) 21:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
My question is, how Catherine's morning sickness or William's paternity leave could in any way be considered part of George's biography? Over the course of 10 years, who will care whether William went on a one-weak paternity leave or a two-weak one? This is an article, not a diary. That is why I fully agree with Surtsicna's on the newborn child's article. Keivan.f Talk 04:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@ Keivan.f: While I agree that the paternity leave is irrelevant, your edit went far beyond that, and included details that are indisputably about George himself, such as his role as a page boy. If you think that should be removed as well, make an argument for it, but so far it hasn't been discussed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
As of now, the body of the article makes absolutely no mention of George being third in line to the throne. That fact, his sole claim to notability, is mentioned only in the lead sentence and in the succession box at the bottom, without a single source to back it up. I think we need to get our priorities straight and focus more on the subject's constitutional position than on what he, as a 4-year-old, does. Surtsicna ( talk) 22:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Can the breathless and sycophantic tone of this article be dialed down? For heaven's sake, he's only 5 years old. There's no need for either excessive detail or repeating the over the top claims of the press. Landbroke99 ( talk) 12:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Does this article even need to exist right now? Can't it wait until he's an adult? Landbroke99 ( talk) 18:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Do we really need to know that his birth was widely celebrated in the UK & the other Commonwealth realms, as he's a future monarch? We don't have any mention of celebrations over Charles' or William's births in their article intros. GoodDay ( talk) 15:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I added his ancestry but it was removed. Why shouldn't this article contain his ancestry? There is a link to the whole family's family tree, but the one in this article was more detailed as it also contained his mother's ancestors. -- Pjoona11 ( talk) 17:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
All the other royal family members' articles contain their ancestries, why should William's children be exceptions? Doesn't make any sense. -- Pjoona11 ( talk) 17:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed with MilborneOne, Celia Homeford and DrKay. It's trivial, 5 generations is a gross overkill, and using sources published decades before the subject was born is an obvious violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. Please do not reinsert disputed content without consensus. Surtsicna ( talk) 14:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
This biographical article is unique in having been created before the subject was born, and the first paragraph of Prince George of Cambridge#Birth and baptism is there to remind us of that dubious curiosity. I have tried to rewrite it from a 2020 perspective but I cannot find whatever happened to British national economy and pride. Hopefully someone else might. Surtsicna ( talk) 10:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
There are now two, just officially released this week by the Palace. But I have no clue as to their policies on image copyrights. When released on Instagram here https://www.instagram.com/p/CC8EOXUliV5/ and here https://www.instagram.com/p/CC61TwRFOXU/ they were immediately picked up by dozens of global media outlets and put into articles. That seems to imply they are put out for restriction-free usage. Anyone who is more tied to this (like Surtsicna) should investigate. It would put this constant issue to bed (at least for a few years). Also, Dhtwiki may find it's an easier way to get an image into the article's infobox than their flirting with a possible 3RR ban – as seems to be happening right now. 😉 Cheerio – ░▒▓ №∶ 72.234.220.38 ( talk) 20:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC) ▓▒░
I have fully protected the article from editing due to the edit war amongst a number of editors that has taken place over the last few days related to what is apparently a long term issue about the image in the infobox. I would strongly suggest dispute resolution of some sort to resolve this apparently intractable issue. At the very least a new discussion to establish consensus should occur. I am happy for any admin to unprotect if they feel a consensus has formed here. Woody ( talk) 15:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic.
On the advice of Woody (above), and seeing that the discussion in this section is seemingly not moving toward consensus, I have started an RfC on the matter (see below). – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Clear option 3, no need to go on, I changed the photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Wiki User the 2nd ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC) Which image should the infobox use? – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
*Option 1, until a newer image is available.
Naue7 (
talk) 09:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
As already explained several times, File:Prince George of Cambridge color fix.jpg is a poor choice for the infobox. George is twice that age now and looks nothing like that. Wikipedia is very unlikely to get a new photo of him for years to come, so for how long is it supposed to depict him as a two-year-old? Besides, the exact same photograph is found further down in the article, so no content is lost by removing it from the infobox. A lead image is not a requirement, and File:Prince George of Cambridge color fix.jpg as the lead image here is definitely not an improvement. Surtsicna ( talk) 09:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Referring to this IP edit [1], given that the article reports known facts, and the facts include the child's baptism by the Archbishop of Canterbury, opposing infant baptism in connection with the theology or doctrine of any Christian denomination is not sufficient reason for preventing the infobox including "Religion Church of England". Qexigator ( talk) 08:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Whatever the merits, is it not the usual practice is to ascribe to an infant the denomination of the parents, and that one baptised in the name of the Holy Trinity will be accepted as a baptised Christian by other denominations which practise infant baptism in the tradition of the Nicene Creed? Note, concerning baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) and "baptism of blood" (baptismum sanguinis): "Because the Catholic Church practices infant baptism, these issues seldom arise except for adult converts to Catholicism who were not baptized as children." [2] This really is not a matter for Wikipedia to purport to determine otherwise, whether as a matter of theology, modern reasoning, civil rights or an attitude of knowing what's best for them. Jews, Hindus and so on have their practises, Christians theirs. Wikipedia is here to report, not pretend to certify, warrant or endorse validity or efficacy, or to offer gratuitous advice to members of any church or religious tradition. Qexigator ( talk) 16:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
This IP edit, [5] according to the summary, may have been made on the basis of personal opinion about a point of religious practise which it is not for Wikipedia to approve or disapprove; but I am inclined to see it as editorially acceptable, given the remarks above, and the purpose of letting readers have information presented in suitably encyclopedic manner. Qexigator ( talk) 22:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Update. + agree with: " Baptised in the Church of England" [6] -- Qexigator ( talk) 17:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Surely this is a high importance UK and royalty article? Mat ty. 007 17:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
To mention or not, that this child's grandmother is no longer alive? [7]. For many editors and readers of maturer years, her death is yesterday's news and never forgotten, while many readers (not only those of school age) have little or no knowledge of this, or how if at all it may affect the child's status as prince or as heir to the widowed grandfather, who had since remarried the woman who thus became the child's step-grandmother, still living. But, given the links (in the lead) to the child's father, Prince William, which has a sufficiently informative paragraph, to the grandfather, which gives further detail of the divorce and the second marriage, and to Diana herself, which has a panel displaying her "Issue", the insertion of "the late" would break the flow of the prose, adding nothing. Qexigator ( talk) 09:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Noting the above comments, let me add that, while in some contexts it may be useful to mention, with suitable wording, that a person is no longer living, or had been residing lately or latterly in a certain parish or country but not presently, or that a person was formerly Lady or Lord Whoever or Miss or Mrs or Mr Anybody, the information that Diana is not alive today or that her life ended in 1997 is practically uninformative for the purpose of this article without the information given in the links mentioned above. But another question: why is she named "Lady Diana Spencer" in the "Ancestors" [8] and not "Diana, Princess of Wales", to which the name is linked? Qexigator ( talk) 07:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Does HRH Prince George also not have use (from birth) of the courtesy title from his father's peerage, Earl of Strathearn? Should that be mentioned in the Titles section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfossa ( talk • contribs) 13:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Hfossa ( talk) 13:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
George doesn't use any courtesy titles from his father's peerage as he has titles of his own - namely, Prince George of Cambridge. Courtesy titles are only used (at least by men) when someone doesn't have a title of their own. This is similar to how Princes Charles and William have never used the lesser titles of their fathers (or in William's case his grandfather). Psunshine87 ( talk) 09:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to request that George's stated religion is changed back from "Church of England" to "Baptised as a Christian", as suggested by Qexigator above on 21 December.
Since that date, Keivan.f reverted back to "Church of England" twice, in the process ignoring a request to take part in the talk page discussion.
Accordingly, I suggest that the reasons for preferring "Baptised as a Christian" still stand. Religion is a matter of personal choice, and a baby does not have the ability to make that choice. Keivan.f implied, in his edit summary, that this is how Royal Family articles are written. That may be so for family members who are sufficiently old to be able to choose whether to follow a particular faith. However, I would suggest that any Wikipedia article which labels a baby as having a particular faith is simply wrong in doing so - for the reasons given above. Scroogle22 ( talk) 02:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I made an edit to the Prince George Wiki page a few days ago which I thought was quite reasonable to add but has now been removed.
In the section about his titles, I added that providing the succession to the throne continues as expected, Prince George will never hold the title of Duke of Cambridge. This being because when Prince William accedes to the throne the title of Duke of Cambridge will merge with the Crown and by William being King, Prince George will automatically become Duke of Cornwall (and likely made Prince of Wales) so the Dukedom of Cambridge wouldn't ever be held by him.
Could somebody please explain to me why this edit is somehow speculative as the reverting editor labelled it!
UK Royalist ( talk) 10:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Err, that's why I prefixed it with 'if the succession continues as expected' - George would have no need to be granted Dukedom of Cambridge upon Prince William's accession. UK Royalist ( talk) 12:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I would argue that Prince George being the heir to his father's titles is an unnecessary inclusion in general. While he is the heir, he's not actually expected to inherit the titles (yes, that's speculation, but it's expected that the Dukedom will merge with the crown). It's not listed on Prince Charles' page that he is the heir to the title Duke of Edinburgh, even though he will inherit it if Prince Philip predeceases the Queen, so I don't see why it's necessary to include that Prince George is the heir to title Duke of Cambridge. Psunshine87 ( talk) 02:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Not necessarily. The title does not have to revert to the throne. The title, by a writ by parliament, could be treated like any other peerage and the regular rules apply. In the case should Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, predecease his son; the title would pass to him. On the Dukedom of Edinburgh issue, the Prince of Wales wouldn't inherit it. The title has a subsidiary (though currently independent) title of the Earldom of Wessex. -- 72.252.130.98 ( talk) 03:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to second the point two above my comment here, I would argue the whole clause about him being heir to the title should be removed as the Dukedom will merge with the crown in the normal way of things. If Prince William dies before succeeding, then (and only then) Prince George would inherit the Dukedom. If the succession continues as it is, however, Prince George will never inherit it as it will merge with the crown upon Prince William's accession. Regarding the point above this comment about the Prince of Wales not inheriting the Dukedom, the remainder of the title of Duke of Edinburgh means he will inherit it upon the death of the Duke of Edinburgh. UK Royalist ( talk) 07:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone object to removing the clause about Prince George being the heir to the Dukedom? Psunshine87 ( talk) 23:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
According to the rules of the Peerage of England (pree 1707), Scotland (pre 1707),Great Britain (post 1707), Ireland (pre 1801) and the United Kingdom (post 1801), the eldest son of the peer of the realm is entitled to use the highest ranking subsidiary title. Considering that Prince George of Cambridge's father is Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus; doesn't it automatically makes George, Earl of Strathmore.
The issue already has precedent, where Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex's son is Lord Severn (the Earldom's subsidiary title). The Earldom itself is subsidiary to the Dukedom of Edinburgh pending merger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.130.98 ( talk) 03:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of the debate of whether or not this image is a free image, is it really appropriate as the main image for the page? I question this since the image is a painting of a living person, instead of an actual picture of a living person, and is pretty similar to a picture located elsewhere in the article that was moved from being the main picture on the grounds that it doesn't show Prince George's face and is no longer an accurate picture of Prince George (him having been a day old in the image). If we must have a picture and cannot find another free image, then it would seem to me to be better to use the actual picture already included in the article (particularly as there isn't a debate about it being a free image). Even better would be to try to find a free image from the current New Zealand/Australia tour, where Prince George has been photographed heavily, or use one of the pictures released by the family for his christening or just prior to the tour. Psunshine87 ( talk) 20:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a picture of George, his parents, and the Governor-General of Australia in the article. Is there any reason why a larger, cropped version of the picture can't be used as the main picture? Psunshine87 ( talk) 06:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Three redirects to this page have been nominated for discussion or deletion at RfD today. Your contribution to the discussions would be welcome.
Thanks, Thryduulf ( talk) 16:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
This is the sort of article that attracts near trivia such as George's first birthday party was themed around children's author Beatrix Potter, who knew members of the Lupton family, George's maternal ancestors, and The Prince George effect, also known as the Royal Baby effect, is the trend that news about Prince George has in business and pop culture. [10] Less trivial could be that Ed Miliband, the Labour Party (UK) leader, and Leader of the Opposition (United Kingdom) has been reported by The Guardian as saying: "Fantastic to hear that Prince George will soon be a big brother!" [11] Coming from such a prominent politician, that may be notable as an inadvertent (or intentional?) reference to Big Brother (Nineteen Eighty-Four) or Big Brother (UK). Is there a place for it in this article? Qexigator ( talk) 16:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
What is this nonsense that a one-year-old had a birthday party based on Beatrix Potter? Who the hell cares? If this was ANY other 1-year-old, we wouldn't mention it at all. It is NOT NOTABLE. When he does something notable like go to nursey school, we can add something Until then, no. 66.67.32.161 ( talk) 23:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I just restored a cropped picture of a baby and a wombat for the infobox. Once I did, I realized it had a human hand. That's scary stuff. I still think my summary reasoning (that we should spread the photos around the article) is valid, and that Wikipedia is not censored, so I think it should stay. But I definitely see how this may be terrifying to general audiences. That was not my intention. If someone can find a picture more suitable to British sensibilities, I'm all for it, but we should have something in the infobox.
Whether the horrible mutant belongs in his previous space, unzoomed and not so immediately apparent is a question we'll have to ask later. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I was here last year, crying "Hear Ye!" about how we should pay attention to people we've ignored, and keep the prince from pricking his finger. As the new year approaches, it's imperative we remain vigilant.
See here. The christening gown was first worn by Queen Victoria. They even say "interwoven". Now see here. A stitch in time, in Victoria, B.C.! There was a movie called that once, by a man named Wisdom. It was shot entirely in Buckinghamshire.
Long story short, I suspect the old Queen shall return. On the 13th of this month, it was announced that in her 13th year, Victoria was "very very very very horribly naughty!!!!" I'm not saying that clearly means she's The Thirteenth Guest (not that one, this one). I'm just saying it might.
So keep your eyes peeled for signs, like smallfolk in Nottingham offering introductions to the "ancient craft" of spinning wool today. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
23:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Prince George of Cambridge. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Can a child less than two years of age hold religious beliefs? Or in what other sense can he be said to "have a religion"? Martinevans123 ( talk) 12:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
There is now consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes to remove this parameter from biographical infoboxes that do not relate to religious leaders/figures. DrKay ( talk) 16:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
There is no need to include both England and UK, for several reasons. First, London is an internationally known city, and we can expect that (provided with UK as a disambiguator) most readers have a good understanding of where it is. Second, per MOS:INFOBOX, we should present information in short form. Nikkimaria ( talk) 13:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
There's discussion at Charles, Prince of Wales, relating to this article's intro. GoodDay ( talk) 03:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
There are too many citations in this article. Nothing should require three citations. In fact, if one covers the information, there is no need for two. The References section is ridiculously long. Surtsicna ( talk) 10:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
At least, that's the conclusion I've come to after two-and-a-half years of trying to unsee his human hand. It's not even so much that it's an abomination of God and science, but the whole damned scene is just creepy. The future king is having his jewels cupped by a monster, which appears to also be chewing out his heart (or nibbling his nipple, which is wrong on two levels). His face (particularly his eyebrow) says he is not having a good time. He is reaching for the werebear's (lifeless) eyes, as custom dictates one should when attacked by any large carnivore. He would escape, but is surrounded by three gleeful giants; one restrains him, one props up the beast (awkwardly) and one rules a distant realm where wild animals famously eat babies.
He's getting to the age where he can Google himself, if he isn't already, and though it'll be a while before it teaches him all he needs to know to comprehend this wicked display, even a peasant child can recognize a general "that which should not be" in dark art. It would be a shame if such an image were baked into his malleable brain, warping slightly as the years go on, as the weirder cartoons often do. I'm not saying King George III was haunted by the time his mother fed him to his father's undead inhuman mistress while an old man watched, but if he was, he'd have been a lot madder about someone taking a photo and putting it on the Internet for smallfolk to laugh at.
If anyone can find a more flattering free replacement with a Governor General, that'd be great. In the meantime, I've deleted the wombat. If someone is particularly fond of it, or sure it won't drastically affect the future, I won't stop you from restoring it. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
This thread is precious. Surtsicna ( talk) 21:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
My question is, how Catherine's morning sickness or William's paternity leave could in any way be considered part of George's biography? Over the course of 10 years, who will care whether William went on a one-weak paternity leave or a two-weak one? This is an article, not a diary. That is why I fully agree with Surtsicna's on the newborn child's article. Keivan.f Talk 04:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@ Keivan.f: While I agree that the paternity leave is irrelevant, your edit went far beyond that, and included details that are indisputably about George himself, such as his role as a page boy. If you think that should be removed as well, make an argument for it, but so far it hasn't been discussed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
As of now, the body of the article makes absolutely no mention of George being third in line to the throne. That fact, his sole claim to notability, is mentioned only in the lead sentence and in the succession box at the bottom, without a single source to back it up. I think we need to get our priorities straight and focus more on the subject's constitutional position than on what he, as a 4-year-old, does. Surtsicna ( talk) 22:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Can the breathless and sycophantic tone of this article be dialed down? For heaven's sake, he's only 5 years old. There's no need for either excessive detail or repeating the over the top claims of the press. Landbroke99 ( talk) 12:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Does this article even need to exist right now? Can't it wait until he's an adult? Landbroke99 ( talk) 18:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Do we really need to know that his birth was widely celebrated in the UK & the other Commonwealth realms, as he's a future monarch? We don't have any mention of celebrations over Charles' or William's births in their article intros. GoodDay ( talk) 15:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I added his ancestry but it was removed. Why shouldn't this article contain his ancestry? There is a link to the whole family's family tree, but the one in this article was more detailed as it also contained his mother's ancestors. -- Pjoona11 ( talk) 17:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
All the other royal family members' articles contain their ancestries, why should William's children be exceptions? Doesn't make any sense. -- Pjoona11 ( talk) 17:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed with MilborneOne, Celia Homeford and DrKay. It's trivial, 5 generations is a gross overkill, and using sources published decades before the subject was born is an obvious violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. Please do not reinsert disputed content without consensus. Surtsicna ( talk) 14:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
This biographical article is unique in having been created before the subject was born, and the first paragraph of Prince George of Cambridge#Birth and baptism is there to remind us of that dubious curiosity. I have tried to rewrite it from a 2020 perspective but I cannot find whatever happened to British national economy and pride. Hopefully someone else might. Surtsicna ( talk) 10:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
There are now two, just officially released this week by the Palace. But I have no clue as to their policies on image copyrights. When released on Instagram here https://www.instagram.com/p/CC8EOXUliV5/ and here https://www.instagram.com/p/CC61TwRFOXU/ they were immediately picked up by dozens of global media outlets and put into articles. That seems to imply they are put out for restriction-free usage. Anyone who is more tied to this (like Surtsicna) should investigate. It would put this constant issue to bed (at least for a few years). Also, Dhtwiki may find it's an easier way to get an image into the article's infobox than their flirting with a possible 3RR ban – as seems to be happening right now. 😉 Cheerio – ░▒▓ №∶ 72.234.220.38 ( talk) 20:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC) ▓▒░
I have fully protected the article from editing due to the edit war amongst a number of editors that has taken place over the last few days related to what is apparently a long term issue about the image in the infobox. I would strongly suggest dispute resolution of some sort to resolve this apparently intractable issue. At the very least a new discussion to establish consensus should occur. I am happy for any admin to unprotect if they feel a consensus has formed here. Woody ( talk) 15:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic.
On the advice of Woody (above), and seeing that the discussion in this section is seemingly not moving toward consensus, I have started an RfC on the matter (see below). – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Clear option 3, no need to go on, I changed the photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Wiki User the 2nd ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC) Which image should the infobox use? – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
*Option 1, until a newer image is available.
Naue7 (
talk) 09:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
As already explained several times, File:Prince George of Cambridge color fix.jpg is a poor choice for the infobox. George is twice that age now and looks nothing like that. Wikipedia is very unlikely to get a new photo of him for years to come, so for how long is it supposed to depict him as a two-year-old? Besides, the exact same photograph is found further down in the article, so no content is lost by removing it from the infobox. A lead image is not a requirement, and File:Prince George of Cambridge color fix.jpg as the lead image here is definitely not an improvement. Surtsicna ( talk) 09:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)