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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
Re this edit (and now this one): I can see Surtsicna's point, but I wonder if it's a little pedantic. Take Prince Charles. At List of titles and honours of Charles, Prince of Wales we're told he was His Royal Highness Prince Charles of Edinburgh from the day of his birth, 14 November 1948. Yet, we've all been told of recent days that Charles's name was not decided for a month after his birth.
Should we therefore change that article to:
And similarly for all the other royals and others we have such lists of titles for? I really can't see this being a goer, frankly. Best not to make an exception for George, methinks. I'm no lawyer, but I'd be surprised if the law did not consider him to have been born as HRH Prince George of Cambridge just because his name was not decided until a few days later.
When we read that, for example, Judy Garland was born Frances Gumm, that does not mean she was given that name the precise moment she popped out of her mother's womb. Laws allow a certain period of time (up to a month in some places, maybe more elsewhere) for parents to make up their minds about their kids' names and then get them registered, but for all practical purposes the name applies as from the birth of the child. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm the one who started to question the practice of styling the young prince as Prince George of Cambridge from 22nd July. I AM SORRY. I never should have opened Pandora's box. I regret, repent and recant. If Wallis Simpson was "born" Wallis Warfield, then the same can be said for George. (I think the government records mark it this way for everyone - first name applies from birth.) It's not a question of Wikipedia policy (the OTHERCRAPEXISTS page talks about deletion requests, not about wording in articles) - it rather has to do with how English language is generally used. 94.101.4.193 ( talk) 05:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I propose doing what I just did on this article, and fudging it slightly so that you don't actually give the precise date of birth when writing these things out. In cases in which styles have changed, we can just say "up to XXXX-XXXX" for the first one, we don't have to say from when. I'm not sure it's wrong to say from the date of birth, but it certainly might cause some readers to think that the title was being applied from that day, which is bad information. W. P. Uzer ( talk) 09:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
As of this edit, the issue no longer seems to arise. Why does a date need to be included anyway? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 13:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Yet again - despite the discussion above - we have editors insisting that the date of his birth should be included as the date from which a particular style was used. I thought that almost everyone here had agreed that including a date could be misleading (as we didn't know his name until some time after he was born}, and there was no need to state anything other than "from birth". If those editors insisting on including a date could perhaps explain their views rather than simply reverting, we can (if necessary) continue the discussion. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 22:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to bother anymore this evening, but saying "throne" of the Commonwealth Realms is not wrong. Three editors have changed it into throne (including me) and added a comment about why. The Commonwealth Realms have a monarchy (Crown, Throne), with a shared character as well as separate legal contexts or jurisdictions. I think that should be acknowledged. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 18:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
-and also; physical thrones exist as well. There is one in the Canadian Senate for the Queen in her role as Queen of Canada (in the background, behind the Speaker's Chair):
-and here we have an example where the monarch of Canada is actually sitting in it:
and there's also one in the Australian Senate, albeit not a particularly impressive one (under the Australian Coat of Arms):
there's one in the Solomon Islands Parliament:
-there's one in the New Zealand Senate:
http://www.teara.govt.nz/files/33688-nzpa_0.jpg
-and here's the Queen of New Zealand sat in the old throne in 1954:
-there's one in the Senate of Barbados (the Governor-General here reading the Speech from the Throne):
http://www.nationnews.com/images/cached/inc/uploads/articles/06-GG_speech_1-450x350.jpg
there's one in the Bahamas Senate:
http://www.thebahamasweekly.com/uploads/10/IMG_9970.JPG
and there's one in the Jamaican Senate:
http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20120511/lead/images/StateopeningB20120510RM.jpg
-and amongst the former Commonwealth Realms; here's George VI sitting on the throne in the South African senate in his role as King of South Africa:
http://www.andrewcusack.com/net/wp-content/uploads/kstadroy4.jpg
and here's Princess Alexandra of Kent sitting on the throne in the Nigerian Senate, representing the Queen in her former role of Queen of Nigeria:
-and here's her brother the Duke of Kent acting as the Queen's representative in her former role as Queen of Sierra Leone at the throne in the Sierra Leone Senate:
http://www.sierraexpressmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Duke-of-Kent.png
Moreover, the Governor-General of the particular realm will read the Speech from the Throne during the State Opening of Parliament; as the representative of the monarch from the er, throne, as does the monarch in their right as Queen of the United Kingdom in the United Kingdom.
Sometimes, when the monarch themselves (or a member of the Royal family acting officially as their representative) is visiting the Commonwealth Realm, they themselves will give Royal Assent to legislation and could in theory read the Speech from the Throne.
It is absolutely possible for one of them to declare war upon each other, this happened during the 1948 Indo-Pakistan War; when George VI, King of India, was technically at war with George VI, King of Pakistan. Likewise, during the 1983 Invasion of Grenada; the Queen was technically at war with herself in respect of Canada and various other Caribbean states on the one hand, and in her role as Queen of Grenada on the other. All this was whilst Her government in the United Kingdom, acting in her name, was condemning this action.
Treaties between Commonwealth Realms are done in the name of the monarch in their separate capacity in right of each Realm, treaties will state for example 'the Queen of Canada agrees' on the one hand, and e.g. 'the Queen of Australia' on the other; just as a treaty with say, Norway would state the parties as 'the Queen of the United Kingdom' (or 'Her Britannic Majesty'), and 'the King of Norway' on the other.
Also, the concept of 'Commonwealth Realm', though a term that is valid and in use, is largely an artificial term to describe what is really just a personal union. It's not really any different from, to give an example of a personal union, the Personal Union between Denmark and the Kingdom of Iceland from 1918 to 1944. In essence, constitutionally speaking, there is no difference between the Queen of United Kingdom and the Queen of Canada for example than there is between the Queen of the United Kingdom and the Queen of Denmark. It's just that in the first example, they happen to be the same person. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 00:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I wonder how a queen/king feels when one of her/his Realms is at war with another of her/his Realms? — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 14:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, this is certainly unacceptable. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Now that's settled, here is a minor, but not frivolous, point arising from the above discussion. There is a tendency for words ordinarily used of visible things to become confused with the way in which the same words are used idiomatically as figures of speech: words such as "crown" and "throne", when denoting real but invisible ideas. "ascend the throne" is the long-standing usage when meaning "become king/queen", per Oxford Eng. Dic., not "to the throne", which would be used to describe any person climbing sometthing to be ascended, such as a scaffold, to reach a chair, such as a coronation chair, which had been placed upon it - the person making the ascent might be an attendant or a carpenter or cleaner or deputy for a rehearsal. Given that there is more than one crown among the Crown Jewels, and one of them is called the " Imperial State Crown" which has customarily been used for the coronation in Westminster Abbey, and for the State Opening of Parliament, what would the monarch have on his/her head when sitting on one of the thrones in any other realm? Qexigator ( talk) 06:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, does he have an official surname or not i.e. is his full name "George Alexander Louis" or "George Alexander Louis Mountbatten-Windsor"? I'm with the first option, as used on this page, but I'm finding it impossible to convince the users of german Wikipedia, who insist on including Mountbatten-Windsor in his full name. As one of the tho articles(german or english) must be wrong, which is correct? And are there any definite sources? -- Thoo2ng ( talk) 13:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
If you want to really be correct and especially for the German Wikipedia, the surname should be Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. This is the line the English Royal family comes from. The Windsor name was artificially created in the WWII era. You can always change your name in an attempt to hide your true identity, but you cannot change your blood line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.199.216 ( talk) 16:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The queens Order in Council stated that Her's and the Duke Male line Descendants that did NOT bear HRH Prince etc. would be known as Mountbatten-Windsor. Those that Held HRH/PRince/Princess that didn't marry and take anew name would still be WINDSOR if a SURname was Needed. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
168.21.71.6 (
talk) 02:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Does anybody know how much the baby weighs? Does he have a favourite stuffed animal yet? — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 13:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The question is relevant as the weights given via a Google search vary.
The truth is, only the person who weighed the baby at the hospital knows for sure. All hospitals weigh persons in kilograms only. Any other units result from a conversion. Thus the news release of 8 lb 6 oz is a converted value and may be wrong. This value converts to 3800 g, yet Australian media is reporting 3.74 kg. It is rumoured that this is a leaked actual mass as determined by the hospital staff and what appears on the official and legal documents.
A Google search of “Royal baby + kg” reveals some interesting anomalies:
News.com.au informs us that “He weighs 8lbs 6oz or 3800 grams (3.74kg)”
Sky News informs me “8lb 6oz (3.798kg)” http://news.sky.com/story/1119013/royal-baby-boy-world-awaits-first-glimpse
An article in the Sydney Morning Herald gives the weight as “3.8kg” http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity/royal-baby-by-numbers-who-are-you-calling-average-20130723-2qfq7.html
The South African mail quotes the palace as saying
“Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge was safely delivered of a son at 4.24pm, Kensington Palace said in a statement just over four hours after she gave birth.”
“The baby weighs 3.8kg. The Duke of Cambridge was present for the birth.” http://mg.co.za/article/2013-07-23-royal-baby-is-here-its-a-boy
Meanwhile, the Voice of Russia says: ” The announcement said the baby weighed 8 pounds and 6 ounces (about 3.5 kg)” http://english.ruvr.ru/news/2013_07_23/World-hails-birth-of-Britains-royal-baby-1564/
So 8 pounds 6 ounces equals about 3.5kg 3.74kg 3.798kg 3.8kg depending, of course, on your source.
Take your pick.
So, with this in mind, what is the actual birth mass of the baby as determined by the hospital staff? This is what should appear in the article, not the converted/reconverted values? 68.105.199.216 ( talk) 16:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
An editor has claimed "consensus". [1] What consensus? Qexigator ( talk) 20:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
...and later edits give the impression of opinionated and disruptive editing on that editor's part, associated with a failure to engage in reasoned discussion instead of trying to insist on having a less than useful insertion in the article, as if intent on a pretext for edit war. If not, let the editor answer the question put above. Qexigator ( talk) 21:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
This comes down to the equivalence, or not, of what people are referred to as, and their formal style. Surtiscna argues they are identical. But they are clearly not.
A royal duke could theoretically insist on always being referred to as The Most High, Potent, and Noble Prince, His Royal Highness the Duke of Utopia. Because that is the style to which he is formally entitled. But virtually nobody would comply. I'm sure there are other cases of divergence from the formal requirements. Thus, what people are actually referred to as, even in formal contexts, is NOT necessarily the same as their formal styles. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we can let the matter rest awhile? In this discussion there has been not so much a difference of opinion in principle about the date from which a person's name runs, or the date from which certain royal titles and styles apply to a newborn child (as per letters patent), but a question about the way in which the given information can more suitably be presented in this article for the accurate information of readers who need it. Neither of the editors who had been insisting on the disputed presentation, and claiming consensus for it, have given or shown support on its merits in respect of this article. It first appeared here [4], with no reason. It looked as odd then as it has since. It was first removed here [5]; it was put back here [6]; removed again and so on, while various edits on other points were happening. It was not needed and has not improved the article. It seems to be based on nothing but a preconceived point of view combined with intolerance of any other. Would they please take a little time to reconsider, with a sufficiently open mind, about whether may be it is not so important after all, and let the disputed line go? But whether it remains or not, adding a few words about the HRH title running from birth does well for readers and no harm to anyone. Qexigator ( talk) 00:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I think a better question would be, why do we need a list containing one item in the first place? The article already has his name, title, "style" and date of birth. When he gets a second title or style, whenever that may be, then someone can put in the "list". If that does not happen until years from now (which may very well be the case), I suspect nobody is really going to care that he did not actually have a known name for his first two days. I think it seems like a "big deal" to some people now, simply because of the recent-ness of the events in question. Give it a few years and it probably won't be an issue. (However, since I realize this will probably not be the chosen solution, I will say that I don't think there is anything wrong with treating his name as being "retroactive" to his birth.) Neutron ( talk) 00:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
This Sun article gives some nice details about the doctors present at birth but is not a RS unfortunately (ironic as many apparently more RS have incorrectly reported that Farthing was present at the birth although in the end he was not). Helen Online 09:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
For when Lizzy goes, we'll have this same level of confusion times twenty. -- MichiganCharms ( talk) 19:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
May all the living monarchs on List of longest reigning monarchs move a number of rungs up the list (and all WP-ians have a fair go at oldest/longest active status). Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Lessons of the unexpected:
Qexigator ( talk) 10:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The first 'recycled wood instant biographies' are already out. 80.254.147.68 ( talk) 14:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Some people are calling the child "Prince Of Cambridge". Does this title really exist or is merely fiction? Isn't him British prince like Prince Harry? Minerva97 ( talk) 22:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Isn't Prince George of Cambridge entitled to be Earl of Strathearn as a courtesy title b/c of his birth as the eldest son of the Duke of Cambridge, as Prince James of Wessex is known as Viscount Severn, the Duke of Gloucester's son is Earl of Ulster and the Duke of Kent's is Earl of St. Andrews? 74.69.9.224 ( talk) 13:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Could you remove or continue the page protection? It is set to end today. Thanks! buff bills 7701 12:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The above {"Style from birth" now archived at [15] and "Title" now archived at [16]) has been like hearing the grown-ups talking over a baby's head, making rival claims about who the infant most takes after (him, her, or his/her ma, pa...). It may be helping to build the kiddy's character, but are they correct who would claim that the line (of text) in question [17] (the one at the top of the section with a bullet, like a prominent mole on baby's face), should be seen as a mark of uniformity with more senior members of the family? I say, no: that mole is unprecedented. It ought to appear later, and not as a birthmark (per Neut.). [18] So may I ask: is there any instance of a similar one liner appearing in a similar article about a person's biog.? (If none, the 2 day Mizbot bids speedy action time.) Qexigator ( talk) 08:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
It looks like bullying or harassment to single out one editor alone (Surt.) when it is clear to anyone who reads with care that others, too, have reasoned objections to the bullet format which have never been answered. This section, if read from the top with knee-jerk restraint, makes clear that this is the opportunity for an acceptable explanation for retaining the bullet line to be made. So far, the opportunity has not been taken. It remains open for the time being. But please do not fail to reconsider the matter afresh, free from stale arguments and paying better attention to others as well as an editor who is being treated as a bugbear. Qexigator ( talk) 13:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Because clearly it is a Pandora's box approach, when it could have been simplified, and again, this is not bullying, the point of the user primarily is again, dates and styling which has already been answered by the gazette announcement, that in case is already a simplified solution, the user is clearly making us go round in circles back to the he-was-unamed-rant 13:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseud 14 ( talk • contribs)
The bulletted and straightforward approach is simple and direct, you dont need unemboldened prose when clearly we are just talking how he was styled. Pseud 14 ( talk) 14:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh really? It doesnt even make any difference at all. That section is just about how he was styled it is a solid section. Four needlessly emboldened words? (clearly you are going back to the old discussion). All that section needs is the date of styling and how he is styled and a brief overview as why, in which case, it already has explained by the way it is being presented. Pseud 14 ( talk) 15:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
It has become more apparent than ever that there is no good reason for having let the one liner back. It came in unannounced, [19] was given the bird, came back without any satisfactory by-your-leave, has never been explained and is overdue for removal any day now. The present version of the section into which it was first intruded awhile back gives the information and sources in a way well suited to this article without it, and no more would need adding after the bulleted one-liner's removal. If there are project persons with a party line (which I doubt) let them give their rationale openly and explicitly, to be taken into consideration by those intent on improving this specific article, instead of applying revert as a strong-arm gang tactic. That would look more like lax, undiscriminating, unreasoning, formulaic, agenda-driven editing, and is not to be expected. And see above "It's almost impossible..." (15:38, 29 July) Qexigator ( talk) 17:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Pending or in lieu of removal, please see new edit, which could be retained as a stop-gap until the series gets going, sooner or later. Qexigator ( talk) 21:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Clearly so much edit and removal has complicated this. And Surc speaks of a consensus of what? 2 users? Can we look into WikiProject on British Nobility please have this article styled in a similar manner. Pseud 14 ( talk) 22:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
This [20] is the best version so far, in line with the trend of the discussion away from the ide'e fixe. Qexigator ( talk) 22:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
An editor has (inadvertently?) reinstated the bullet line [21] while leaving it without the introductory rationale which s/he had previously removed, so that the single line "list" is again unexplained to readers, simply because it is claimed to be "obvious" to persons with some knowledge of the subject such as that editor. Often readers are looking for confirmation of hazy knowledge or correction of misinformation and they need to have it clearly stated, not left to inference and supposition. The rules and practice of styles and titles are not obvious and are mutable, and often editors themselves are incorrect or uncertain or discover something they had not known about. It would be better to be using the version here [22] -- Qexigator ( talk) 23:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
The point exactly is, you are veering away off from a supposed standard held by other previous articles of the British Royal Family. This is not fixed or pre-occupied mindset as being pointed out, since clearly, this has been a manual of style for other British Royal Family bio. As per -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL
So, what you need to do is either make a convincing argument as to why this article alone should buck the precedent and be exempt from the format used on those of the subject's other family members or take this to a larger venue, like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty, to get a consensus for a new convention that bans starting lists of titles and honours until [insert random number] has been acquired by whomever it is the article is about. Until you've succeeded at either, this article should fall in line with the others. Pseud 14 ( talk) 23:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Please note that the heading of this section gave a clear indication of what it was about: the "Unique and unprecedented format (of the) disputed bullet (format)". If this discussion has since been veered into silliness by proponents of the format consider this: a quick search in Wikipedia suggests that listing articles (invariably?) have a name in the form "List of .....s", as would normally be expected. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists starts with the unsurprising sentences "Lists are commonly used in Wikipedia to organize information. Lists may be found within the body of a prose article, or as a stand-alone article." Soon after is the guideline "The title and bullet style or vertical style is common for list articles." But there is nothing that I can see about a list of one item, and that is not surprising either given that a stamdard dictionary defintion of a "list" is "an item-by-item record of names or things, usually written one below the other". The nearest to the PrG article discussion seems to be this: "Stand-alone lists should always include a lead section just as other articles do." If this is adapted to a section of an article containing a stand alone list, as in the case of some elder members of the family into which he has been born, it would result in that section having an introductory paragraph explaining the content of the list - in the words of the guidelines "...that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list. Further, non-obvious characteristics of a list, for instance regarding the list's structure, should be explained in its lead section". Have the proponents of the single item non-list bullet format anything to say about that which is to the point in question? Qexigator ( talk) 16:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
As the one who started this section at 08:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC), I propose that further discussion be put in a new section below, or, better still, carried on as others have indicated above, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty [24], and please note there mention of proposal at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard [25] to let that process be suspended indefinitely to allow further connsideration to be given (here or there) to the question pinpointed by Mies., about how to reconcile the list format which has been used in Titles sections for years with non-lists of one item, in articles such as the newly created Prince George of Cambridge. (Note, some of the earlier discussion has been botted to [ [26]]). -- Qexigator ( talk) 08:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The Prince's style and title in full is His Royal Highness Prince Henry Charles Albert David of Wales. As a British prince he uses the name of the area over which his father holds title; i.e., Wales, as a territorial suffix in lieu of surname. Past precedent is that such surnames are dropped from usage in adulthood, after which either title alone, or Mountbatten-Windsor is used when necessary. [1] Prince Harry, however, continues to use Wales as his surname for military purposes and is known as Captain Harry Wales in such contexts. [2] If his father succeeds to the throne, Harry will be known as His Royal Highness The Prince Henry. Traditionally, sons of the reigning monarch and their sons receive a dukedom prior to marriage, the most recent being Prince William, who became Duke of Cambridge. In 2011, it was reported the Queen had promised Harry the Dukedom of Sussex upon his own marriage. [3]
Letters patent issued in 1917 (and still remaining in force today) assign a princely status and the style of Royal Highness to all male-line grandchildren of a monarch. Therefore, all else being equal, Louise would have been styled as Her Royal Highness Princess Louise of Wessex. However, when her parents married, the Queen, via a Buckingham Palace press release, announced that (in hopes of avoiding some of the burdens associated with royal titles) their children would be styled as the children of an earl, rather than as princes or princesses. Thus, court communications never refer to her in terms of a princess of the United Kingdom, but simply as Lady Louise Windsor. [4] There are two opposing opinions as to whether or not Louise is "legally" a princess and Her Royal Highness: Some experts consider the Queen's press release to not have enough legal force to override the 1917 letters patent, whereas other experts contend that the Queen's will, however expressed, is law in matters of royal titles and styles. [5] If the latter is the case, then the 1960 letters patent is also applicable and Louise bears (but is seldom styled with) the surname Mountbatten-Windsor. [6]
Letters patent issued in 1917 (and still remaining in force today) assign a princely status and the style of Royal Highness to all male-line grandchildren of a monarch. Therefore, all else being equal, James would have been styled as His Royal Highness Prince James of Wessex. [7] However, when his parents married, the Queen, via a Buckingham Palace press release, announced that (in hopes of avoiding some of the burdens associated with royal titles) their children would be styled as the children of an earl, rather than as princes or princesses. The eldest son of an earl is customarily accorded one of his father's subsidiary titles by courtesy, thus James is named as Viscount Severn, and court communications never refer to him as a prince of the United Kingdom, but simply as Viscount Severn. [4] There are two opposing opinions as to whether or not James is legally a prince and has the title "His Royal Highness": some experts consider the Queen's press release to not have enough legal force to override the 1917 letters patent, whereas other experts contend that the Queen's will, however expressed, is law in matters of royal titles and styles. [8] [5] If the latter is the case, then the 1960 letters patent are also applicable and James bears (but is not styled with) the surname Mountbatten-Windsor. [9]
The ultimate question here is simply this: does "precedent" (AKA WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) and a local decision at a Wikiproject (almost a guarantee of a gerrymandered majority for royaltrivialitycruft, I would imagine) supersede Wikipedia policy on sources and verification? I would have imagined not, but we're back at the situation where a style is "bullet-pointed" as applying from the 22nd, which includes his name, which is justified only by a source dated the 24th, stating what his style will be. Not, please note, a source stating that his name quantum-tunnelled back in time two days, and by the sovereign will of UK statue applies retrospectively. (Not to mention how readily sourceable the lack of a publicly-known name for those two days is.) It's feasible to gloss over this detail for other articles where this information isn't so well-known... though it equally underlines that those articles are not strictly sourced for "name and style at birth". 84.203.34.166 ( talk) 22:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
her
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
Re this edit (and now this one): I can see Surtsicna's point, but I wonder if it's a little pedantic. Take Prince Charles. At List of titles and honours of Charles, Prince of Wales we're told he was His Royal Highness Prince Charles of Edinburgh from the day of his birth, 14 November 1948. Yet, we've all been told of recent days that Charles's name was not decided for a month after his birth.
Should we therefore change that article to:
And similarly for all the other royals and others we have such lists of titles for? I really can't see this being a goer, frankly. Best not to make an exception for George, methinks. I'm no lawyer, but I'd be surprised if the law did not consider him to have been born as HRH Prince George of Cambridge just because his name was not decided until a few days later.
When we read that, for example, Judy Garland was born Frances Gumm, that does not mean she was given that name the precise moment she popped out of her mother's womb. Laws allow a certain period of time (up to a month in some places, maybe more elsewhere) for parents to make up their minds about their kids' names and then get them registered, but for all practical purposes the name applies as from the birth of the child. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm the one who started to question the practice of styling the young prince as Prince George of Cambridge from 22nd July. I AM SORRY. I never should have opened Pandora's box. I regret, repent and recant. If Wallis Simpson was "born" Wallis Warfield, then the same can be said for George. (I think the government records mark it this way for everyone - first name applies from birth.) It's not a question of Wikipedia policy (the OTHERCRAPEXISTS page talks about deletion requests, not about wording in articles) - it rather has to do with how English language is generally used. 94.101.4.193 ( talk) 05:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I propose doing what I just did on this article, and fudging it slightly so that you don't actually give the precise date of birth when writing these things out. In cases in which styles have changed, we can just say "up to XXXX-XXXX" for the first one, we don't have to say from when. I'm not sure it's wrong to say from the date of birth, but it certainly might cause some readers to think that the title was being applied from that day, which is bad information. W. P. Uzer ( talk) 09:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
As of this edit, the issue no longer seems to arise. Why does a date need to be included anyway? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 13:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Yet again - despite the discussion above - we have editors insisting that the date of his birth should be included as the date from which a particular style was used. I thought that almost everyone here had agreed that including a date could be misleading (as we didn't know his name until some time after he was born}, and there was no need to state anything other than "from birth". If those editors insisting on including a date could perhaps explain their views rather than simply reverting, we can (if necessary) continue the discussion. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 22:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to bother anymore this evening, but saying "throne" of the Commonwealth Realms is not wrong. Three editors have changed it into throne (including me) and added a comment about why. The Commonwealth Realms have a monarchy (Crown, Throne), with a shared character as well as separate legal contexts or jurisdictions. I think that should be acknowledged. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 18:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
-and also; physical thrones exist as well. There is one in the Canadian Senate for the Queen in her role as Queen of Canada (in the background, behind the Speaker's Chair):
-and here we have an example where the monarch of Canada is actually sitting in it:
and there's also one in the Australian Senate, albeit not a particularly impressive one (under the Australian Coat of Arms):
there's one in the Solomon Islands Parliament:
-there's one in the New Zealand Senate:
http://www.teara.govt.nz/files/33688-nzpa_0.jpg
-and here's the Queen of New Zealand sat in the old throne in 1954:
-there's one in the Senate of Barbados (the Governor-General here reading the Speech from the Throne):
http://www.nationnews.com/images/cached/inc/uploads/articles/06-GG_speech_1-450x350.jpg
there's one in the Bahamas Senate:
http://www.thebahamasweekly.com/uploads/10/IMG_9970.JPG
and there's one in the Jamaican Senate:
http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20120511/lead/images/StateopeningB20120510RM.jpg
-and amongst the former Commonwealth Realms; here's George VI sitting on the throne in the South African senate in his role as King of South Africa:
http://www.andrewcusack.com/net/wp-content/uploads/kstadroy4.jpg
and here's Princess Alexandra of Kent sitting on the throne in the Nigerian Senate, representing the Queen in her former role of Queen of Nigeria:
-and here's her brother the Duke of Kent acting as the Queen's representative in her former role as Queen of Sierra Leone at the throne in the Sierra Leone Senate:
http://www.sierraexpressmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Duke-of-Kent.png
Moreover, the Governor-General of the particular realm will read the Speech from the Throne during the State Opening of Parliament; as the representative of the monarch from the er, throne, as does the monarch in their right as Queen of the United Kingdom in the United Kingdom.
Sometimes, when the monarch themselves (or a member of the Royal family acting officially as their representative) is visiting the Commonwealth Realm, they themselves will give Royal Assent to legislation and could in theory read the Speech from the Throne.
It is absolutely possible for one of them to declare war upon each other, this happened during the 1948 Indo-Pakistan War; when George VI, King of India, was technically at war with George VI, King of Pakistan. Likewise, during the 1983 Invasion of Grenada; the Queen was technically at war with herself in respect of Canada and various other Caribbean states on the one hand, and in her role as Queen of Grenada on the other. All this was whilst Her government in the United Kingdom, acting in her name, was condemning this action.
Treaties between Commonwealth Realms are done in the name of the monarch in their separate capacity in right of each Realm, treaties will state for example 'the Queen of Canada agrees' on the one hand, and e.g. 'the Queen of Australia' on the other; just as a treaty with say, Norway would state the parties as 'the Queen of the United Kingdom' (or 'Her Britannic Majesty'), and 'the King of Norway' on the other.
Also, the concept of 'Commonwealth Realm', though a term that is valid and in use, is largely an artificial term to describe what is really just a personal union. It's not really any different from, to give an example of a personal union, the Personal Union between Denmark and the Kingdom of Iceland from 1918 to 1944. In essence, constitutionally speaking, there is no difference between the Queen of United Kingdom and the Queen of Canada for example than there is between the Queen of the United Kingdom and the Queen of Denmark. It's just that in the first example, they happen to be the same person. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 00:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I wonder how a queen/king feels when one of her/his Realms is at war with another of her/his Realms? — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 14:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, this is certainly unacceptable. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Now that's settled, here is a minor, but not frivolous, point arising from the above discussion. There is a tendency for words ordinarily used of visible things to become confused with the way in which the same words are used idiomatically as figures of speech: words such as "crown" and "throne", when denoting real but invisible ideas. "ascend the throne" is the long-standing usage when meaning "become king/queen", per Oxford Eng. Dic., not "to the throne", which would be used to describe any person climbing sometthing to be ascended, such as a scaffold, to reach a chair, such as a coronation chair, which had been placed upon it - the person making the ascent might be an attendant or a carpenter or cleaner or deputy for a rehearsal. Given that there is more than one crown among the Crown Jewels, and one of them is called the " Imperial State Crown" which has customarily been used for the coronation in Westminster Abbey, and for the State Opening of Parliament, what would the monarch have on his/her head when sitting on one of the thrones in any other realm? Qexigator ( talk) 06:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, does he have an official surname or not i.e. is his full name "George Alexander Louis" or "George Alexander Louis Mountbatten-Windsor"? I'm with the first option, as used on this page, but I'm finding it impossible to convince the users of german Wikipedia, who insist on including Mountbatten-Windsor in his full name. As one of the tho articles(german or english) must be wrong, which is correct? And are there any definite sources? -- Thoo2ng ( talk) 13:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
If you want to really be correct and especially for the German Wikipedia, the surname should be Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. This is the line the English Royal family comes from. The Windsor name was artificially created in the WWII era. You can always change your name in an attempt to hide your true identity, but you cannot change your blood line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.199.216 ( talk) 16:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The queens Order in Council stated that Her's and the Duke Male line Descendants that did NOT bear HRH Prince etc. would be known as Mountbatten-Windsor. Those that Held HRH/PRince/Princess that didn't marry and take anew name would still be WINDSOR if a SURname was Needed. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
168.21.71.6 (
talk) 02:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Does anybody know how much the baby weighs? Does he have a favourite stuffed animal yet? — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 13:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The question is relevant as the weights given via a Google search vary.
The truth is, only the person who weighed the baby at the hospital knows for sure. All hospitals weigh persons in kilograms only. Any other units result from a conversion. Thus the news release of 8 lb 6 oz is a converted value and may be wrong. This value converts to 3800 g, yet Australian media is reporting 3.74 kg. It is rumoured that this is a leaked actual mass as determined by the hospital staff and what appears on the official and legal documents.
A Google search of “Royal baby + kg” reveals some interesting anomalies:
News.com.au informs us that “He weighs 8lbs 6oz or 3800 grams (3.74kg)”
Sky News informs me “8lb 6oz (3.798kg)” http://news.sky.com/story/1119013/royal-baby-boy-world-awaits-first-glimpse
An article in the Sydney Morning Herald gives the weight as “3.8kg” http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity/royal-baby-by-numbers-who-are-you-calling-average-20130723-2qfq7.html
The South African mail quotes the palace as saying
“Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge was safely delivered of a son at 4.24pm, Kensington Palace said in a statement just over four hours after she gave birth.”
“The baby weighs 3.8kg. The Duke of Cambridge was present for the birth.” http://mg.co.za/article/2013-07-23-royal-baby-is-here-its-a-boy
Meanwhile, the Voice of Russia says: ” The announcement said the baby weighed 8 pounds and 6 ounces (about 3.5 kg)” http://english.ruvr.ru/news/2013_07_23/World-hails-birth-of-Britains-royal-baby-1564/
So 8 pounds 6 ounces equals about 3.5kg 3.74kg 3.798kg 3.8kg depending, of course, on your source.
Take your pick.
So, with this in mind, what is the actual birth mass of the baby as determined by the hospital staff? This is what should appear in the article, not the converted/reconverted values? 68.105.199.216 ( talk) 16:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
An editor has claimed "consensus". [1] What consensus? Qexigator ( talk) 20:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
...and later edits give the impression of opinionated and disruptive editing on that editor's part, associated with a failure to engage in reasoned discussion instead of trying to insist on having a less than useful insertion in the article, as if intent on a pretext for edit war. If not, let the editor answer the question put above. Qexigator ( talk) 21:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
This comes down to the equivalence, or not, of what people are referred to as, and their formal style. Surtiscna argues they are identical. But they are clearly not.
A royal duke could theoretically insist on always being referred to as The Most High, Potent, and Noble Prince, His Royal Highness the Duke of Utopia. Because that is the style to which he is formally entitled. But virtually nobody would comply. I'm sure there are other cases of divergence from the formal requirements. Thus, what people are actually referred to as, even in formal contexts, is NOT necessarily the same as their formal styles. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we can let the matter rest awhile? In this discussion there has been not so much a difference of opinion in principle about the date from which a person's name runs, or the date from which certain royal titles and styles apply to a newborn child (as per letters patent), but a question about the way in which the given information can more suitably be presented in this article for the accurate information of readers who need it. Neither of the editors who had been insisting on the disputed presentation, and claiming consensus for it, have given or shown support on its merits in respect of this article. It first appeared here [4], with no reason. It looked as odd then as it has since. It was first removed here [5]; it was put back here [6]; removed again and so on, while various edits on other points were happening. It was not needed and has not improved the article. It seems to be based on nothing but a preconceived point of view combined with intolerance of any other. Would they please take a little time to reconsider, with a sufficiently open mind, about whether may be it is not so important after all, and let the disputed line go? But whether it remains or not, adding a few words about the HRH title running from birth does well for readers and no harm to anyone. Qexigator ( talk) 00:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I think a better question would be, why do we need a list containing one item in the first place? The article already has his name, title, "style" and date of birth. When he gets a second title or style, whenever that may be, then someone can put in the "list". If that does not happen until years from now (which may very well be the case), I suspect nobody is really going to care that he did not actually have a known name for his first two days. I think it seems like a "big deal" to some people now, simply because of the recent-ness of the events in question. Give it a few years and it probably won't be an issue. (However, since I realize this will probably not be the chosen solution, I will say that I don't think there is anything wrong with treating his name as being "retroactive" to his birth.) Neutron ( talk) 00:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
This Sun article gives some nice details about the doctors present at birth but is not a RS unfortunately (ironic as many apparently more RS have incorrectly reported that Farthing was present at the birth although in the end he was not). Helen Online 09:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
For when Lizzy goes, we'll have this same level of confusion times twenty. -- MichiganCharms ( talk) 19:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
May all the living monarchs on List of longest reigning monarchs move a number of rungs up the list (and all WP-ians have a fair go at oldest/longest active status). Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Lessons of the unexpected:
Qexigator ( talk) 10:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The first 'recycled wood instant biographies' are already out. 80.254.147.68 ( talk) 14:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Some people are calling the child "Prince Of Cambridge". Does this title really exist or is merely fiction? Isn't him British prince like Prince Harry? Minerva97 ( talk) 22:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Isn't Prince George of Cambridge entitled to be Earl of Strathearn as a courtesy title b/c of his birth as the eldest son of the Duke of Cambridge, as Prince James of Wessex is known as Viscount Severn, the Duke of Gloucester's son is Earl of Ulster and the Duke of Kent's is Earl of St. Andrews? 74.69.9.224 ( talk) 13:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Could you remove or continue the page protection? It is set to end today. Thanks! buff bills 7701 12:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The above {"Style from birth" now archived at [15] and "Title" now archived at [16]) has been like hearing the grown-ups talking over a baby's head, making rival claims about who the infant most takes after (him, her, or his/her ma, pa...). It may be helping to build the kiddy's character, but are they correct who would claim that the line (of text) in question [17] (the one at the top of the section with a bullet, like a prominent mole on baby's face), should be seen as a mark of uniformity with more senior members of the family? I say, no: that mole is unprecedented. It ought to appear later, and not as a birthmark (per Neut.). [18] So may I ask: is there any instance of a similar one liner appearing in a similar article about a person's biog.? (If none, the 2 day Mizbot bids speedy action time.) Qexigator ( talk) 08:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
It looks like bullying or harassment to single out one editor alone (Surt.) when it is clear to anyone who reads with care that others, too, have reasoned objections to the bullet format which have never been answered. This section, if read from the top with knee-jerk restraint, makes clear that this is the opportunity for an acceptable explanation for retaining the bullet line to be made. So far, the opportunity has not been taken. It remains open for the time being. But please do not fail to reconsider the matter afresh, free from stale arguments and paying better attention to others as well as an editor who is being treated as a bugbear. Qexigator ( talk) 13:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Because clearly it is a Pandora's box approach, when it could have been simplified, and again, this is not bullying, the point of the user primarily is again, dates and styling which has already been answered by the gazette announcement, that in case is already a simplified solution, the user is clearly making us go round in circles back to the he-was-unamed-rant 13:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseud 14 ( talk • contribs)
The bulletted and straightforward approach is simple and direct, you dont need unemboldened prose when clearly we are just talking how he was styled. Pseud 14 ( talk) 14:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh really? It doesnt even make any difference at all. That section is just about how he was styled it is a solid section. Four needlessly emboldened words? (clearly you are going back to the old discussion). All that section needs is the date of styling and how he is styled and a brief overview as why, in which case, it already has explained by the way it is being presented. Pseud 14 ( talk) 15:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
It has become more apparent than ever that there is no good reason for having let the one liner back. It came in unannounced, [19] was given the bird, came back without any satisfactory by-your-leave, has never been explained and is overdue for removal any day now. The present version of the section into which it was first intruded awhile back gives the information and sources in a way well suited to this article without it, and no more would need adding after the bulleted one-liner's removal. If there are project persons with a party line (which I doubt) let them give their rationale openly and explicitly, to be taken into consideration by those intent on improving this specific article, instead of applying revert as a strong-arm gang tactic. That would look more like lax, undiscriminating, unreasoning, formulaic, agenda-driven editing, and is not to be expected. And see above "It's almost impossible..." (15:38, 29 July) Qexigator ( talk) 17:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Pending or in lieu of removal, please see new edit, which could be retained as a stop-gap until the series gets going, sooner or later. Qexigator ( talk) 21:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Clearly so much edit and removal has complicated this. And Surc speaks of a consensus of what? 2 users? Can we look into WikiProject on British Nobility please have this article styled in a similar manner. Pseud 14 ( talk) 22:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
This [20] is the best version so far, in line with the trend of the discussion away from the ide'e fixe. Qexigator ( talk) 22:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
An editor has (inadvertently?) reinstated the bullet line [21] while leaving it without the introductory rationale which s/he had previously removed, so that the single line "list" is again unexplained to readers, simply because it is claimed to be "obvious" to persons with some knowledge of the subject such as that editor. Often readers are looking for confirmation of hazy knowledge or correction of misinformation and they need to have it clearly stated, not left to inference and supposition. The rules and practice of styles and titles are not obvious and are mutable, and often editors themselves are incorrect or uncertain or discover something they had not known about. It would be better to be using the version here [22] -- Qexigator ( talk) 23:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
The point exactly is, you are veering away off from a supposed standard held by other previous articles of the British Royal Family. This is not fixed or pre-occupied mindset as being pointed out, since clearly, this has been a manual of style for other British Royal Family bio. As per -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL
So, what you need to do is either make a convincing argument as to why this article alone should buck the precedent and be exempt from the format used on those of the subject's other family members or take this to a larger venue, like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty, to get a consensus for a new convention that bans starting lists of titles and honours until [insert random number] has been acquired by whomever it is the article is about. Until you've succeeded at either, this article should fall in line with the others. Pseud 14 ( talk) 23:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Please note that the heading of this section gave a clear indication of what it was about: the "Unique and unprecedented format (of the) disputed bullet (format)". If this discussion has since been veered into silliness by proponents of the format consider this: a quick search in Wikipedia suggests that listing articles (invariably?) have a name in the form "List of .....s", as would normally be expected. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists starts with the unsurprising sentences "Lists are commonly used in Wikipedia to organize information. Lists may be found within the body of a prose article, or as a stand-alone article." Soon after is the guideline "The title and bullet style or vertical style is common for list articles." But there is nothing that I can see about a list of one item, and that is not surprising either given that a stamdard dictionary defintion of a "list" is "an item-by-item record of names or things, usually written one below the other". The nearest to the PrG article discussion seems to be this: "Stand-alone lists should always include a lead section just as other articles do." If this is adapted to a section of an article containing a stand alone list, as in the case of some elder members of the family into which he has been born, it would result in that section having an introductory paragraph explaining the content of the list - in the words of the guidelines "...that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list. Further, non-obvious characteristics of a list, for instance regarding the list's structure, should be explained in its lead section". Have the proponents of the single item non-list bullet format anything to say about that which is to the point in question? Qexigator ( talk) 16:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
As the one who started this section at 08:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC), I propose that further discussion be put in a new section below, or, better still, carried on as others have indicated above, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty [24], and please note there mention of proposal at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard [25] to let that process be suspended indefinitely to allow further connsideration to be given (here or there) to the question pinpointed by Mies., about how to reconcile the list format which has been used in Titles sections for years with non-lists of one item, in articles such as the newly created Prince George of Cambridge. (Note, some of the earlier discussion has been botted to [ [26]]). -- Qexigator ( talk) 08:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The Prince's style and title in full is His Royal Highness Prince Henry Charles Albert David of Wales. As a British prince he uses the name of the area over which his father holds title; i.e., Wales, as a territorial suffix in lieu of surname. Past precedent is that such surnames are dropped from usage in adulthood, after which either title alone, or Mountbatten-Windsor is used when necessary. [1] Prince Harry, however, continues to use Wales as his surname for military purposes and is known as Captain Harry Wales in such contexts. [2] If his father succeeds to the throne, Harry will be known as His Royal Highness The Prince Henry. Traditionally, sons of the reigning monarch and their sons receive a dukedom prior to marriage, the most recent being Prince William, who became Duke of Cambridge. In 2011, it was reported the Queen had promised Harry the Dukedom of Sussex upon his own marriage. [3]
Letters patent issued in 1917 (and still remaining in force today) assign a princely status and the style of Royal Highness to all male-line grandchildren of a monarch. Therefore, all else being equal, Louise would have been styled as Her Royal Highness Princess Louise of Wessex. However, when her parents married, the Queen, via a Buckingham Palace press release, announced that (in hopes of avoiding some of the burdens associated with royal titles) their children would be styled as the children of an earl, rather than as princes or princesses. Thus, court communications never refer to her in terms of a princess of the United Kingdom, but simply as Lady Louise Windsor. [4] There are two opposing opinions as to whether or not Louise is "legally" a princess and Her Royal Highness: Some experts consider the Queen's press release to not have enough legal force to override the 1917 letters patent, whereas other experts contend that the Queen's will, however expressed, is law in matters of royal titles and styles. [5] If the latter is the case, then the 1960 letters patent is also applicable and Louise bears (but is seldom styled with) the surname Mountbatten-Windsor. [6]
Letters patent issued in 1917 (and still remaining in force today) assign a princely status and the style of Royal Highness to all male-line grandchildren of a monarch. Therefore, all else being equal, James would have been styled as His Royal Highness Prince James of Wessex. [7] However, when his parents married, the Queen, via a Buckingham Palace press release, announced that (in hopes of avoiding some of the burdens associated with royal titles) their children would be styled as the children of an earl, rather than as princes or princesses. The eldest son of an earl is customarily accorded one of his father's subsidiary titles by courtesy, thus James is named as Viscount Severn, and court communications never refer to him as a prince of the United Kingdom, but simply as Viscount Severn. [4] There are two opposing opinions as to whether or not James is legally a prince and has the title "His Royal Highness": some experts consider the Queen's press release to not have enough legal force to override the 1917 letters patent, whereas other experts contend that the Queen's will, however expressed, is law in matters of royal titles and styles. [8] [5] If the latter is the case, then the 1960 letters patent are also applicable and James bears (but is not styled with) the surname Mountbatten-Windsor. [9]
The ultimate question here is simply this: does "precedent" (AKA WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) and a local decision at a Wikiproject (almost a guarantee of a gerrymandered majority for royaltrivialitycruft, I would imagine) supersede Wikipedia policy on sources and verification? I would have imagined not, but we're back at the situation where a style is "bullet-pointed" as applying from the 22nd, which includes his name, which is justified only by a source dated the 24th, stating what his style will be. Not, please note, a source stating that his name quantum-tunnelled back in time two days, and by the sovereign will of UK statue applies retrospectively. (Not to mention how readily sourceable the lack of a publicly-known name for those two days is.) It's feasible to gloss over this detail for other articles where this information isn't so well-known... though it equally underlines that those articles are not strictly sourced for "name and style at birth". 84.203.34.166 ( talk) 22:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
her
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).