Talk:List of guests at the coronation of Charles III and Camilla

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Realm "seniority"

We have no source that states that realms should be listed by "seniority"; we don't even have any text that asserts that's the "correct" way to do it, or indeed the way we've chosen to do it. We're here not to practice royalwonkery, but to properly document it. "See WP:OTHERSTUFF" is emphatically not an adequate edit rationale, especially when the otherstuff itself contains no such source or documentation of its own practice. 109.etc (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think listing them in terms of "seniority" could imply that some countries are 'better' than others. I don't know if there was ever a discussion on the List of dignitaries at the state funeral of Elizabeth II article regarding this, but it just does not seem right. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favour of alphabetical order. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 04:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I think it's better in alphabetical order. I haven't seen any reliable sources that says that some realms are more "senior" than each other. DDMS123 (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd a look too, and couldn't even find any unreliable ones! Plus we certainly shouldn't do it unglossed. 109.etc (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming this all came from the flag protocol for parading flags of the Commonwealth of Nations in the UK (which is to parade the flags by order of the date they joined the organisation, starting with the UK). With that said, that is an informal practice, and we aren't obliged to follow informal flag protocol. Alphabetical would be the best order for an encyclopedic entry on the topic (as it doesn't require contextualization for readers). Leventio (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a different thing from the "realms" of course, though the order might end up corresponding, depending how exactly each is being reckoned. But it's not even a general practice in contexts like for example the 2022 Commonwealth Games Parade of Nations. I'd strongly recommend keeping it for the Coronation edition of Staged, with David Tennant play the role of Canada, presumably... Hopefully resolved now. Really we need a stronger, sourced rationale for the organisation of the entire page, but one day's work at a time... 109.etc (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

Let's move it to a vote to determine what we do. Please write "Support" to change it to alphabetical order and "Oppose" to keep it the way it is.

  • Support as per the reasons given above. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - We should have the other realms in order of their age. GoodDay (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    {{citation needed}}. 109.etc (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Citation not required. There's no disputing the age of Canada (1867), Australia (1901), New Zealand (1907), etc. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Citation very much required. Your claim was "we should". There's no basis in Wikipedia P&G for this trope, therefore it's an editorial decision. If we adopt this organising principle, we'd properly have to gloss doing so. Which would then need to be sourced. What's the plan for that? <ref>{{cite web|work=GoodDay|title=Personal communication}}</ref>? 109.etc (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No source needed. It's a matter of choice, in this situation. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a matter of choice within the context described above. i.e. you make a weird choice, you need to contextualise it. Which you then need to source. Pretty slam-dunk. So, no source, then? 109.etc (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't convinced me to change my position in this discussion, nor do you have to. So, there's no point in continuing any further. GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your "position" is unimportant. Your P&G-based rationale for it is crucial. So absent any... 109.etc (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It should be listed alphabetically. DDMS123 (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Realm superiority simply doesn't exist, alphabetical order is the most logical and less demeaning way to present the list's (including future lists on similar articles). Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alphabetical order is usually the least controversial solution. No need to stir the pot unnecessarily. Keivan.fTalk 21:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is a protocol for arranging the realms in order of age; some time ago, I had a source for it. But, as it goes on the internet, some time sometimes leads to things disappearing. So, with the loss of that source, and it really being six and half a dozen, alphabetical is fine. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

For clarity's sake. Exactly which realms are we discussing? GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing how Canada is listed above Australia, but it seems someone has changed it to alphabetical order already. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assume, the United Kingdom isn't a part of this discussion, then? GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's validly part of the larger discussion I alluded to above, i.e., "how are we organising the entire article, and on what basis?" It's clearly not part of the narrow "'Other Commonwealth realms' section" discussion, as while clearly it's a "Commonwealth realm", it's not an "other Commonwealth realm", having jus been treated of separately. 109.etc (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Margrave or Hereditary Prince of Baden

@Theoreticalmawi: With your recent edits, are you saying that Bernhard is titled as "Hereditary Prince of Baden" or is the Hereditary Prince his son, Leopold, who will be attending? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions the Hereditary Prince of Baden, so I assume they are either misstitling the 'Margrave' or meaning his son. On first reading I assumed they were misstitling, but as there are Crown Princes and other heirs in the list, it seems more reasonable that they mean Leopold. If you have any further information to clarify this, it would be greatly appreciated. Theoreticalmawi (talk) 10:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theoreticalmawi: I have seen some sources saying that the Margrave (i.e. Bernhard) will be attending, however some sources say the Hereditary Prince will be attending. However, I do not know whether they are referring to Bernhard in both cases. Is the Hereditary Prince the heir to the Head of the House of Baden, meaning Bernhard's son, Leopold? On Bernhard's article, it says that he was formerly known as the Hereditary Prince, which doesn't really help the situation either way. User:109.etc, User:Nford24, User:DDMS123 and User:GoodDay, do any of you know anything about this? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No sorry, that’s out of my realm. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 14:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Therealscorp1an - Sorry, I'm not sure about this one. DDMS123 (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Therealscorp1an as @Richiepip keeps persiting reediting it to margrave and you are saying, that you read sources that mentioned the margrave, I would suggest to keep it as margrave and replace the source with an appropriate one. Theoreticalmawi (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, did not realize this was being discussed here. As I mentioned in my edit summaries, it seems highly unlikely that the 20-year-old Hereditary Prince is attending as opposed to his father the Margrave. I assume the sources that list Hereditary Prince are simply doing so as Bernhard was titled as such for 52 years prior to 29 December 2022. Richiepip (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I think we should reference a source that calls him the Margrave though. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they're saying "Margrave"? my guess is they mean the Margrave. If they're saying "Hereditary Prince"? then it must be the Margrave's son. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I presume they're intending to refer to Bernhard (particularly considering the new Hereditary Prince of Baden is just over 20 years old). Tatler (which I prefer to avoid, but its the only source where I could find any mention of the Badens) refers to the "Hereditary Prince", providing a picture of Bernhard. Estar8806 (talk) 03:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To add to the confusion, Tatler does the same thing: refers to the HPoB. But as they include a name and a photograph, evidently they mean Bernie and not Leo. I don't know why the title is being used in this sort of lagging indicator way. I assume a better source will turn up eventually. 109.etc (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops sorry, basically duplicated what @Estar8806 just said. But to redeem myself, here's an additional source that says the right thing in the right way: https://newsingermany.com/coronation-of-king-charles-iii-these-are-the-guests-from-germany/ "Bernhard Margrave of Baden (52) will travel from Salem in the Lake Constance district together with his wife Stephanie." Several other UK sources repeat the same mistake as the Tat and the Tory, so I'm guessing they're all working off the same press release, or copying each others' homework... 17:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC) 109.etc (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just also found this, which backs up that Bernhard is attending even more: "The Hereditary Prince of Baden, who took over as the head of the House of Baden on December 29, 2022, following the death of his father, the Margravine of Baden, is among the non-reigning royals expected to be invited to the King's Coronation." This from this source. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a great source -- UK "middle-market" tab -- and replicating the same error as Tat&Tory, but it at least confirms the general impression. 109.etc (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2023

201.217.60.67 (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

President of Paraguay Mario Abdo Benítez and First Lady Silvana Abdo Benítez are going to the coronation https://www.abc.com.py/politica/2023/04/27/mario-abdo-viajara-para-la-coronacion-del-rey-carlos-iii/#:~:text=El%20presidente%20Mario%20Abdo%20Ben%C3%ADtez%20viajar%C3%A1%20el%20martes,Moreira%20y%20ambos%20regresar%C3%ADan%20luego%20del%20evento%20oficial.

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2023

In the "Celebrities", please change the link for Lord Andrew Lloyd Webber to The Lord Lloyd-Webber, as the style "Lord [First Name] [Last Name]" is reserved for younger sons of dukes and marquesses, which Andrew Lloyd Webber is not; he is a life baron. 2601:249:9301:D570:ED46:5CCB:F533:719E (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 05:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Speaker

I notice that John McFall has not been mentioned here, which seems a curious omission. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Robin S. Taylor - We haven't found a source that states he is going. DDMS123 (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading information

All information from the Telegraph is pure speculation, there is no official confirmation for all these people. I suggest to delete them from the page (or hide) and wait for official announcements or the event itself. .GorgonaJS (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GorgonaJS - It is not "pure speculation" as most of the people listed on the Telegraph article have already confirmed their attendance. There are other sources that back this up. There is no point removing a source to replace it with another source that says the same thing. The ones that have not confirmed their attendance are listed under "Invited, but attendance unconfirmed". There is also a talk page consensus to use the Telegraph as as one of the sources for the attendees and invitees. DDMS123 (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2023

In the "Other royalty", next to the Hereditary Prince and Hereditary Princess of Liechtenstein's entry it says, the King's fifth cousin once removed and his wife. As it happens, they both happen to be fifth cousins once removed of King Charles (and sixth cousins to each other), via their common descent from Charles Louis, Hereditary Prince of Baden (with Hereditary Princess Sophie additionally being related to the king in the same degree through both Frederick, Duke of Saxe-Altenburg and Duke Louis of Württemberg) so please change the note to the King's fifth cousins once removed. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Per Therealscorp1an. Callmemirela 🍁 03:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's now been changed to "the King's fifth cousins once removed and his wife (sic)". Can it be changed back?2601:249:9301:D570:94D0:9968:6308:4AD7 (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Mayor

The Lord Mayor of Westminster will be attending -the event is in their city. They are also Deputy High Steward of the Abbey. 2A00:23C8:1382:F201:88A4:B5F8:EECB:77E9 (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source that states that he is attending? DDMS123 (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kuwait Royals

That section looks wrong if you look at the reference everyone listed under the crown prince was at the airport when the crown prince left. But they are not attending the Coronation or traveling to the UK. Can someone change that as I don't have access. 64.63.174.194 (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source and the list are correct. DDMS123 (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you read the source right. It says "was seen off at the airport by...." and then lists a lot of people. Those people are not going to the Coronation. They just were at the Airport. 64.63.174.194 (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you're correct, I didn't read it properly. It says that only the foreign minister is accompanying him. DDMS123 (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's been changed. DDMS123 (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since the foreign minister is a member of the ruling house, should he be moved to the other royalty section? 98.228.137.44 (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance of Olaf Scholz, Federal Chancellor of Germany

On 6 May, Olaf Scholz will be on a visit to Kenya according to his official website (https://www.bundeskanzler.de/bk-de/olaf-scholz/terminkalender-scholz).

Scholz should be removed from the list of guests and his photo next to Macron and Biden should also be removed. 83.135.10.120 (talk) 08:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Ross & Opposition in Scotland

Leader of the Opposition is not an official title in Scotland. Due to the lack of official opposition in Scotland as there is in Westminster, that title probably shouldn't be listed for Douglas Ross MSP MP. ThomasRintoul (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ThomasRintoul, he is still leader of the largest opposition party. DDMS123 (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, there isn't a difference in title or seniority of the opposition parties in Scotland as there is in Westminster. It's an unofficial title and further contributes to viewing the Holyrood system through a Westminster lens. I think it's better it be removed in lieu of his true title as Leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party. ThomasRintoul (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ThomasRintoul Please provide a reliable source that states that Leader of the Opposition is not an official title. If a reliable source is provided, it’ll remove it. DDMS123 (talk) 04:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It literally says as much on the wikipedia page for Leader of the Opposition (Scotland). ThomasRintoul (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But "only use official/formal titles" is the exact opposite to the Wikipedia house style. if he's commonly referred to as such, and more especially if reliable sources say that's the capacity he's invited to this event, we should follow suit in referring to him in that manner. 109.etc (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the Scottish Conservatives, were the official opposition in the Scottish Parliament. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out above, our own article on the topic makes this clear: Unlike in the Parliament at Westminster where there is an Official Opposition to the government of the day, all parties in the Scottish Parliament that are not in government are all technically on the same footing as 'opposition parties'. Be even better if it'd a source, but AIUI it's correct, albeit not relevant here. 109.etc (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

King of Spain cousin

The king of Spain is not Charles’s 2nd cousin but his 4th cousin 31.205.116.186 (talk) 06:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Their most recent common ancestor is George I of Greece, of whom Charles is a great-grandson and Felipe is a great-great-grandson, which makes them second cousins once removed (i.e., Charles is the son of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, who was the son of George I's fourth son Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark, while Felipe is the son of Queen Sofía of Spain, who is the daughter of Paul of Greece, who was the son of George I's eldest son Constantine I of Greece). 2601:249:9301:D570:94D0:9968:6308:4AD7 (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter because he did not attend as a cousin. This article is not the place to detail out distant genealogical relationships. Surtsicna (talk) 06:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surtsina please not violate this page. Of course it is an important point here so do not destroy want you dont comprehend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HulkNorris (talk • contribs) 20:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [reply]

President of Montenegro will attend

President of Milo Đukanović will attend the coronation. Please add to the list of foreign dignitaries. Source: https://www.vijesti.me/vijesti/politika/649650/djukanovic-pozvan-na-ceremoniju-krunisanja-kralja-carlsa-iii-i-kraljice-konzort 79.140.148.21 (talk) 08:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finnegan Biden

This article incorrectly identifies Finnegan Biden as Joe Biden's daughter. She is actually his granddaughter. 2A00:CA8:A16:2528:400E:AC62:2F6F:D8E9 (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2023

In the "Other royalty" section, the Duchess of Brabant is listed as the king's fourth cousin. Their closest relationship is actually third cousins twice removed, as King Charles is a third cousin of her grandfather, the former king Albert II of Belgium, since they are both great-great-grandchildren of Christian IX of Denmark (i.e., Charles is the son of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, who was the son of Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark, who was the son of Christian IX's second son George I of Greece, while Albert is the son of Astrid of Sweden, who was the daughter of Princess Ingeborg of Denmark, who was the daughter of Christian IX's eldest son Frederick VIII of Denmark). Please correct this. 2601:249:9301:D570:94D0:9968:6308:4AD7 (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. 73.93.5.246 (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Descendants of George V

This article and this video (from the timestamp of about 14:20 to 14:50) shows the respective children of Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy, and Prince Michael of Kent, though not any of their in-laws or grandchildren. It also appears that the younger son of Lady Sarah Chatto wasn't present. 2601:249:9301:D570:94D0:9968:6308:4AD7 (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC) Please say your source if claiming such things! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HulkNorris (talk • contribs) 18:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source is Town and County magazine. I included the links when I originally posted the section. 2601:249:9301:D570:94D0:9968:6308:4AD7 (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can visually identify them. Unless there are some members of the BRF seated elsewhere. Some of the sources in this article are speculative from before the event happening. We should only keep official confirmations, or cite sources from after the event, or provide a big seating chart with photos. A publication can say someone attended, but I still try to find photo/video of them actually there. QW3RTYP13.14 (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The video I linked includes a procession of the extended royal family and the article features pictures of them. 2601:249:9301:D570:94D0:9968:6308:4AD7 (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I was talking about other guests. QW3RTYP13.14 (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

duke of buccleuch

His wife has just died. Did he really attend in his role? HulkNorris (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the order of service he did, and he can be seen on the left holding the Sceptre in this video (time stamp 4:27). 2601:249:9301:D570:94D0:9968:6308:4AD7 (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hosam Naoum

Why is Hosam Naoum listed among other Christian denominations? I see that Hosam Naoum is an Anglican bishop. Grillofrances (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is technically correct, as he's not CoE, as with the CoI and CiW bishes. But arguably it's presentationally anomalous as they get subsections, and he doesn't. 109.etc (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2023

Andrew Lloyd Webber is listed twice in the article, one in the "Other peers of the realm" section and once in the "Celebrities" section. Please remove the duplicate entry. 2601:249:9301:D570:4412:9340:176:60E (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thank you. 109.etc (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He's currently listed out of alphabetical order. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... also done. 109.etc (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2023 (2)

Other royalty - Members of reigning royal houses Prince Abdul Mateen of Brunei Change note ref from b to a Attended both reception and Abbey.

https://borneobulletin.com.bn/sultan-attends-coronation/

https://www.instagram.com/p/Cr7qWh0L_wj/?igshid=NjZiM2M3MzIxNA== Numpty Diver (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. 73.93.5.246 (talk) 07:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong information on the list

  • The Duchess of Brabant, the King's fourth cousin
  • Princess Beatrix of the Netherlands, the King's fourth cousin once removed
  • The Princess of Orange, the King's fifth cousin once removed

All these princesses were not invited to the coronation service. I deleted them, but somebody put them back on the list. It's an error. GorgonaJS (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, they were at the reception held the day prior, but not at the actual coronation, so I don't know if they should be listed. For reference, Princess Anne isn't listed on List of royal guests at the coronation of Elizabeth II because she didn't attend the coronation ceremony, although she was at the balcony appearance afterwards, so perhaps we should be consistent. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they can be mention in separate paragraph, not in the list 84.15.185.158 (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peers

1. Some people are listed twice under royal household and other peers, shouldn’t they be listed only once? 2. Shouldn’t Barons be styled The Lord [Barony]? That is how they are styled on the invitations and their Wikipedia pages. QW3RTYP13.14 (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Duplicates should be removed. The barons should be styled consistently with the rest of the peers. I also noticed that the recent edits have also left some knight missing the "Sir" in front of their names, which should be addressed as well. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking into it, the Earl of Dalhousie appears to be the only duplicate remaining.98.228.137.44 (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s weird that the section “other peers of the realm” is at the top then you have other peers who are listed in sections further down like the order/award section or royal household section. Shouldn’t they be listed in the highest applicable section then have a “other” section? If that makes sense. Plus the other peers section need organizing like rank > role/no > alphabetical or something, I keep finding more life peers to add. QW3RTYP13.14 (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally suggest moving the "Royal Household" section to before the "other peers" section. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation of titles

I don't really have the time or energy to get into a war over this, but recent edits have decapitalised every single title (either peerage title or job title) in this list, which seems to be very inconsistent with the way we usually do things. I am really not sure this should apply to the peerage titles. I think we should also be blue-linking both the names and the titles of peers, eg Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester. --Noswall59 (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I believe it should be consistent with how other coronation articles list their guest lists, such as List of royal guests at the coronation of Elizabeth II.12.239.13.147 (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was also astonished to see that. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it should be consistent with literally every other guest list on Wikipedia, I do not wish to engage in an edit war but I am flabbergasted at how incorrect the edits made by User:A.D.Hope look and are. I am glad to see other Wikipedians agree. Richiepip (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a notice about this on their talk page, so we’ll see if they have anything to say. 12.239.13.147 (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:JOBTITLE is the guideline to follow on this, and consistency with other articles isn't important if they're not following the Manual of Style correctly either. While the wording isn't as clear as it could be, the basic rule is that titles should be uncapitalised unless they fit three specific criteria (and here I'm quoting):
  • When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon; Pope John XXIII, not pope John XXIII.
  • When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the Queen, not the queen (referring to Elizabeth II); the Pope, not the pope (referring to Francis).
  • When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description.
Most of the titles being used in this list do not fit these criteria, as we are using the proper names of the people concerned, but they are capitalised where they do e.g. Sir Tony Blair, the Queen (in reference to Camilla specifically). A.D.Hope (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The section doesn’t mention whether it applies to peerage titles, which is the main issue at question here and is inconsistent with how all other articles with such lists, such as Coronation of George V and Mary, Death and state funeral of Edward VII, etc. handle those lists. 12.239.13.147 (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The section gives 'president, king, emperor, grand duke, lord mayor, pope, bishop, abbot, prime minister, leader of the opposition, chief financial officer, and executive director' as titles which can be in lower case, and since the list isn't exhaustive it's reasonable to assume that this also extends to duke, earl, baron, etc. as they can also be common nouns. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The section is titled "Positions, offices, and occupational titles". Peerage titles are not any of those things. They are the holder's legal identity. This issue needs addressing more clearly in the MOS for that reason. Indeed, there certainly is not consensus for your approach; look at the various Featured Articles which exist using the formatting you argue is wrong: John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan, Frank Russell, 2nd Earl Russell, Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope, John Hastings, 2nd Earl of Pembroke. There are many more at WP:FA. In fact, I am not sure I know of an example with the lower case usage you propose. All of these FAs have through rigorous review by the sort of people who know the MOS inside out, and they were apparently fine with capitalisation. —Noswall59 (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]
It would be unusual to interpret the MOS:JOBTITLES to exclude peerages when it's clearly meant to include royal and noble titles — why else would 'king, emperor, grand duke' be included in the example list?
I can't answer for the featured articles. They don't conform with the MOS as currently written, though. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it’s worth, those monarchical titles are addressed in official capacity as “the king, the emperor, etc.”, while nobility is almost always addressed in an official capacity with their full title, without their personal names, i.e. Edward Fitzalan-Howard, 18th Duke of Norfolk is addressed as “the Duke of Norfolk”, not as “Edward Fitzalan-Howard”. 12.239.13.147 (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to refer to 'the earl' or 'the duke' in a sentence, though. John of Gaunt, for example, has 'Their children were given the surname "Beaufort" after a former French possession of the duke.', and if we look off-Wikipedia you can find the BBC (which has a slightly different MOS) using 'The duke is in charge of organising state occasions, such as the State Opening of Parliament.' A.D.Hope (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that they’re aren’t referred to in this list as just “the duke, the earl, etc.” They’re addressed with their full title “Duke of X, Earl of Y”, which is always capitalized. 12.239.13.147 (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Full titles aren't always capitalised, according to the style guide at least. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you added to your reply while I was writing mine. The MOS addresses this — if a title is used instead of a person's name then it should be capitalised, so 'John of Gaunt went to the shops' and 'The Duke of Lancaster went to the shops' are both fine. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A.D.Hope is correct. Another example is "the Duke of Norfolk" is the current earl marshal or Edward Fitzalan-Howard, the current duke of Norfolk is the earl marshal. DDMS123 (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that before the edits to this page, and on all other articles to list royal and noble titleholders, such individuals were listed in the style of “The Prince and Princess of Wales”, or other titles as appropriate depending on who is being linked, as opposed to this pages current style of “William, prince of Wales and Catherine, princess of Wales”. The issue is that is inconsistent with prior practice. 12.239.13.147 (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prior and current practice is inconsistent with the MOS, really. I'm not saying that to be antagonistic, but until there's a consensus for change we have to follow it as best we can. I don't love JOBTITLES myself.
For what it's worth, this isn't confined to Wikipedia. If you look at the likes of Britannica you can see them following the same practice: 'Howard Family, a famous English family whose head, the duke of Norfolk, is the premier duke and hereditary earl marshal of England. The earls of Suffolk, Carlisle, and Effingham and the Lord Howard of Glossop and Lord Stafford represent the family in its younger lines.' A.D.Hope (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a question for RFC, if the practices are in conflict. 12.239.13.147 (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're braver than me for suggesting an RFC on JOBTITLES, if you look at the relevant talk page archives they're full of them. Personally I like the BBC approach to political titles ('initial caps only when the title is next to the name, in whatever order'), but it's not the current standard. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what's it's worth, the prior style has been moved back. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted that edit, as it primarily undid changes relating to WP:NCBRITPEER. This discussion is about capitalisation in relation to MOS:JOBTITLE, so it can't be used to justify the reversion in question. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCBRITPEER relates only to article titles, not applicable here where we are following the convention of every other guest list article. Richiepip (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I concur with having noble titles capitalized, as they form a singular title. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I read the manual, and the justification for capitalization is pretty clear. Under titles: “Titles should be capitalized when [attached to an individual's name, or where the position/office is a globally unique title that is the subject itself], and the term is the actual title or conventional translation thereof (not a description or rewording). Titles should not be capitalized when being used generically.” Scroll down for examples of uppercase denoting title and lowercase denoting generic use or description. If White House Chief of Staff John Doe, Sir John Doe and “Richard Nixon was President of the United States” is capitalized so can “John Doe, Duke of X”. It says don’t capitalize for “Richard Nixon was the president of the United States” but for peerage title we do “the Duke of X” but it not [‘the duke’ of ‘X’] it is [the ‘Duke of X’] QEII’s mother was the/a queen mother/dowager but she was also styled as Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother.
Also, justification for including name: “For modern-day nobility it is better to use name and title; at some time in the future the Prince of Wales will be a different person than William, Prince of Wales, and a great many articles risk becoming out of date.” QW3RTYP13.14 (talk) 05:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, there's an RFC going on at Talk:Death and funeral of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother about the issue of using names in attendees lists, which might affect the guidelines for this article as well. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So what can we change that isn’t under debate? John Kerry, Special Presidential Envoy for Climate is capitalized but not prime ministers. QW3RTYP13.14 (talk) 06:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS guidance is that capitalisation is only appropriate when a title is used before a person's name, when the title is used instead of the name, or when the title is the subject. That means that there's no justification for capitalising titles after names when they're not the subject, as is the case in this list; in a phrase like 'Edward Fitzalan-Howard, duke of Norfolk and earl marshal of England' the subject is Edward Fitzalan-Howard, not his titles.
To be quite honest I don't like the MOS on this and think the wording of the third bullet (when a formal title...) is less than helpful, but that's how it was written. A.D.Hope (talk) 07:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think the third bullet is like that… It is about capitalizing when using a title for a specific person as a unique formal title, and it is not multiple, modified, generic, or descriptive, regardless of before or after a name. So “White House Chief of Staff John Doe” and “John Doe, White House Chief of Staff” can both be capitalized. Bullet one differs in that a generic non-unique title can be capitalized when it’s attached to a name, so you can capitalize “Prime Minister John Doe”. By putting “John Doe, prime minister of X” you are saying he is a/the prime minister of X which is fine, but you can also attach the formal unique title to his name so “John Doe, Prime Minister of X.” See what I mean?
Of course, royal/peer titles have its own nuances. Like Princess Royal is a unique title in itself and “princess royal” doesn’t mean anything. QW3RTYP13.14 (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, but I don't think the wording of JOBTITLES supports that interpretation (sensible as it might be). Bullet one only allows capitalisation when a title is before a name, and one of the conditions of the third bullet is that the title must be 'addressed as a title or position in and of itself', whereas in this list most titles are being used as descriptions. If we follow the style guide your second example would have to be 'John Doe, White House chief of staff', because the title is being used as a description for John Doe. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are treating it as description by putting it lowercase. “White House Chief of Staff” is a unique position, I am using it as a formal title (as a whole unit ala bullet three) and attaching it before or after John Doe, not writing out a description. In the manual, both post-nominal letters and pre-nominal letters exist, and both are attached to names as titles, Dr. John Doe and John Doe, Esq. QW3RTYP13.14 (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Chief of staff' isn't a unique position, so it shouldn't be capitalised — the White House chief of staff article actually uses lowercase outside the title. The MOS says that titles can be capitalised before a person's name, not after. Postnominal letters are a separate issue, but generally follow the rule of initialisms being capitalised. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first bullet says capitalize a generic title when followed by a Name. It does not say that only titles before a name can be capitalized. It does not restrict the location of a title capitalized via bullet three. Bullet three says capitalize when addressing “a formal title as a title in and of itself” not necessarily “a title as the subject.” A specific title (president of the United States) can be treated as a Specific Title (President of the United States) with the stipulations of bullet three. As “a title in and of itself”, it can be used in relation to a person, but not replacing the name such as via bullet two. Some titles are automatically unique, such as Unicorn Pursuivant, and cannot be lowercase or reworded as a description. Peer titles are granted by the monarch via letters patent to an individual, so titles (with names and/or territories) are whole entities and proper nouns. For UK passports, titles are acknowledged in the surname field as well as in an observation, so the title is not description, especially next to the name of the current holder.
Think of each bullet independently, and only one has to apply for capitalization. Think of it like this, we are not even writing a complete sentence or passage, we are just listing individuals with “• Name, Specific Title” QW3RTYP13.14 (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that the first bullet only mandates capitalisation before a name. It says nothing about capitalising titles after names, so we should assume they're lower case unless they fulfil the requirements of the other two bullets.
Bullet two is simple and shouldn't affect the article if we include names and titles.
Bullet three is essentially saying that titles can be capitalised when they're the subject or otherwise being referred to speficially. That doesn't apply here, as the subject is the person who holds the title rather than the title itself.
Think of the list as 'John of Gaunt, [who is] duke of Lancaster'. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Titles near names should be capitalized as usually without inventing new rules. Now it's simply difficult to read the list. GorgonaJS (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the (frankly ridiculous) manner in which the peer's names were written, WP:NCBRITPEER pertaining to article titles not how they are rendered in an article, but have left the lowercase titles for now pending discussion here. Richiepip (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was reverted again. There's a related discussion below. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consistency to this article. Half of it (correctly) capitalizes the titles of individuals and half of it (incorrectly) doesn't. "Governor General of Canada Mary Simon" doesn't suddenly become "Mary Simon, governor general of Canada" just because the title went from preceding to following Simon's name. If it were something like "the governor general of Canada represents the monarch of Canada", the lower-case would be fine. But, "Mary Simon, Governor General of Canada", is a specific individual and "Governor General of Canada" is her title. The same goes for all the governors, prime ministers, and the like throughout. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Titles should most certainly be capitalised. The article looks, dare I say it, childish currently. Not only this, the title is capitalised; that is how it is written in the actual title! Unless consensus reaches that they should be decapitalised (which is completely against the norm), the article should go back to having the titles capitalised. Consensus needs to be reached BEFORE the change is made, not after it. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Therealscorp1an - Agreed, it should've been brought up in the talk page first before being unilaterally changed by one editor. I also agree with @Miesianiacal that there is really no difference between having a title precede the name or come after it. This shouldn't impact the capitalisation of the titles. DDMS123 (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a real difference according to our MOS, which only mandates capitalisation of titles before names. I appreciate that it looks odd for people used to a different style, but it's the standard we have. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue were capitalization seems to be an issue is the "Officers of arms". Referring to things like Rouge Dragon Pursuivant and Portcullis Pursuivant implies that they are common phrases, when they both refer to very specific offices. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 05:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Format of peers' names and titles

Hello all. I'd appreciate your input on the format peers' names and titles should take in the list. The original format was 'The [peer], [role/relationship]', which I changed to '[Name], [peerage], relationship'. For example:

  • The Lord Patel, presenting the ring

became

  • Narendra Patel, baron Patel, presenting the ring

To my mind the second option is preferable as it more clearly identifies the peer in question and allows consistency regardless of whether a peer is better-known by their name or by their title. It also follows WP:NCBRITPEER, which technically only applies to article titles but seems to be the closest thing we have for a guideline on peers in lists. What do you think?

Just a reminder that this discussion isn't about capitalisation, which is already being discussed above. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of the first option, as it's in line with what the other articles in categories such as Category:Coronations of British monarchs and Category:European royal weddings use, looks more formal, and matches what's used in the order of service. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may look more formal, but we need to think about readers. Identifying by peerage alone unecessarily restricts the information given in the article, when we could easily incorporate names as well. Several peers in the list are better-known by their names than their titles (e.g. Floella Benjamin, Nicholas Soames, Sebastian Coe), and in those cases it's particularly unhelpful to only use their title.
My view is that we shouldn't be aiming for the most formal list, but the most accessible one, and that using names as well as titles helps achieve that. 'John Smith, baron Smith' is formal enough for British peer article titles, so it must be good enough for body text. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing else, the lowercase capitalization is at odds with how titles of nobility are presented on this site and elsewhere. My vote still stands, because I having having different pages use different naming formats for guest lists looks inconsistent. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is kind of ridiculous, since he can’t be Prince William of Wales or Prince William, Duke (duke) of Cambridge anymore, that if we want to mention William’s name he has to be William, prince of Wales, while there is Prince George of Wales and Prince Harry, duke of Sussex. It’s ‘Prince of Wales’ as a whole title, not ‘prince of’ Wales like a common descriptor or like there can be multiple. Fine don’t capitalize page or secretary, fine mention their names, but the lowercase titles are not helping readers. (Even my autocorrect is capitalizing everything.) QW3RTYP13.14 (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is about the format of peers' names and titles, not capitalisation. Please keep that discussion to the section above. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth articles like List of royal guests at the coronation of Elizabeth II, List of dignitaries at the state funeral of Elizabeth II, and others use the first format, so this article is currently an outlier in that regard. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be awkward, but I think it's a bad format and that it should be changed in all the relevant articles, not just this one. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given how it affects many different articles, there should probably be consensus for changing it, lest even more disagreement arises. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm hoping to achieve. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, it appears there is strong opposition to the format, based on the above comments. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not especially bothered. Using both name and title is a better format, and in line with MOS:SURNAME: 'for modern-day nobility it is better to use name and title.' A.D.Hope (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think the poster in the other thread had a point in that consensus should have been reached before they were changed. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think my comment is relevant here because you are talking about including their names with their titles to help readers understand. And I gave William as an example of my issue, which I know is also related to capitalization. QW3RTYP13.14 (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is more relevant to the discussion above than here. I'm not trying to dismiss it by any means, just focus each section on their respective topics. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, the page is inconsistent with how it refers to peers. Compare the "United Kingdom" section to the "Royal Household section" and you can see the mix of styles. 2601:249:9301:D570:7031:D4CE:3173:66F9 (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's best not to edit material under dispute, so nothing can be done about that until this is resolved. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Though the current incarnation of just linking the articles is far preferable to the lowercase, I still believe in the "The [peer]" format, as it was and to be consistent with the way we do these guest lists. Richiepip (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I think any confusion as to who that specific peer is can be alieved by clicking on their linked article. Richiepip (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth asking whether 'the way we do these guest lists' is actually the best thing for the reader? If omitting names has the potential to cause confusion, and we could easily include them, shouldn't we do so? A.D.Hope (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The list of guests

For the presence of Lord McFall of Alcluith, he came in procession to Westminster Abbey.

For the presence of The Duchess of Brabant, The Princess Beatrix of The Netherlands, The Princess of Orange, this is announced in officials sites of The Royal Families of Belgium and The Netherlands. MR FRANCOIS DUBRULLE (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MR FRANCOIS DUBRULLE - These names are already in the article. The Lord Speaker is in the "Peers of the Realm" section and the other people you have mentioned are listed in a footnote. DDMS123 (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed their attendance

The lead section currently says "Representatives from at least 157 countries ... confirmed their attendance". Presumably by now we ought be able say "Representatives from at least 157 countries ...attended". (Subject a citation, currently "[needed]"). Mitch Ames (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baroness Williams of Trafford

She is listed twice. GorgonaJS (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to Charles' relations to royalty?

Why have the relationships between attended royalty and Charles been omitted? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 06:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna DDMS123 (talk) 01:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A stupid troll is vandalizing it — Preceding unsigned comment added by HulkNorris (talk • contribs) 06:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale provided in the relevant edit was "the relationships are unsourced. Secondly, none of these people attended as fifth or so cousins. They attended as national representatives. Even Boris Johnson and David Cameron are fifth cousins (thrice removed) of the king." (see edit diff here). While I wasn't the one that made the edit, I do agree with the rationale behind it. Leventio (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The article is a list of attendees at the coronation, not relations of the royal family. Surtsicna has made a perfectly reasonable argument and is certainly not a troll. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

THat was a thesis from one troll only. There is no consensus to make it so this person is doing harm to wikipedia. The article was good beforeHulkNorris (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Care to point out what was wrong with the person's assertion? There were no sources in the article which verifies the relationships, nor is there a source which states these people were attending this event in any other capacity outside of being representatives of X. The article is good when it adheres to WP:RS. Post: Also, just want to say, I would advise you not assume bad faith by calling the editor who made the change a troll, and engage their rationale instead) Leventio (talk) 07:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should not ignore my experience. HulkNorris (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And you should not ignore the other editor's arguments. Leventio (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on capitalisation and peerage format

ROUGH CONSENSUS FOR NAME AND TITLE
While the discussion received minimal input there is a rough consensus to use both the name and title. However, there is no consensus on whether the title should be capitalized; further discussion may be needed to determine which to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 10:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


How should MOS:JOBTITLE be applied to this page? Should peers be listed under their name and title or title alone? A.D.Hope (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should be looking at MOS:SURNAME rather than MOS:JOBTITLE. The former clearly recommends the form "William, Prince of Wales". Reasons:
1. There is a difference between a job title and a title of nobility (even if they occasionally overlap). King, president, prime minister, chief executive, are roles that people fill. If they resign they are replaced. Baron Lloyd-Webber isn't a role. If Andrew Lloyd Webber, Baron Lloyd-Webber renounced his peerage he wouldn't be replaced.
2. Consistent with this, take as an example, Anne, Princess Royal (gold-stick-in-waiting to the King), where Anne, Princess Royal is a name and gold-stick-in-waiting is a role.
3. Related to this, job titles are not added to Wikipedia article titles. Joe Biden's article isn't Joe Biden, President of the United States.
4. While WP:NCBRITPEER may be a discussion of article titles rather than people's names, it doesn't introduce any rules about capitalization. If the correct form was William, prince of Wales, that should be the name of his article.
5. Related to this, to make the title lower case you need to type something like [ [William, Prince of Wales|William, prince of Wales] ]. We're making a very odd encyclopaedia if the name of the article about a person is a form of their name that we aren't allowed to use.
6. An alternative being considered above seems to be just to use the title, for instance Prince of Wales. Adding the current holder's name adds clarity for the reader but shouldn't alter the title.
Mgp28 (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC) (PS - I talked too much about article titles, but if you look at the bold text at the start of each individual's article that makes the same point and is an example of the form suggested by MOS:SURNAME in article content. Mgp28 (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfortunate that SURNAME and JOBTITLE seem to be in conflict; I've asked about that on the relevant talk page.
I do agree with you that "[Name], [title]" is the best format to use for names as it's clearer, but I can't agree that titles of nobility are special and therefore exempt from JOBTITLE. The list of examples there includes 'grand duke', so it seems clear that it's intended to cover noble titles. The upshot is that 'William, prince of Wales' is the correct form according to the MOS, even if the corresponding articles and article titles don't currently use it. Britannica uses the same style, if you want to see it 'in action'. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guidelines made for the peers are MOS:ROYAL and MOS:SIR, it should be obvious that JOBTITLE where it is a commercial job where one is hired and fired is not the same. Particularly if it is an title one inherited, I view it as more of the person’s identity. In the bulk text I would defer to any preference of the person after the first mention. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    JOBTITLE includes peerages, royalty, clerics, and other non-standard roles. The name is a bit of a misnomer in that the focus is on titles, rather than jobs. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Peerage titles are parts of name, not job. GorgonaJS (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I say, despite the name the focus of JOBTITLE is titles, which includes peerages, rather than jobs specifically. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:A.D.Hope Honestly, it's just that generic job practices on titling would be incorrect both grammatically and by the peerage customs, because there are explicit rules and declarations involved, and depending on whether it is a title by blood or investiture or marriage, whether it is used or not is a requirement on them and for us if one is to be technically correct and not improper. One would hope WP gives priority to giving folks correct information by following RS, and respecting the person's identity and wishes, over a generic grammar rule WP made and changes. A title sometimes should be regarded as part of their name as seen in combination where another position or job title is involved. (e.g. Admiral Horatio Lord Nelson) As of 2020, there were 46 members of the British royal family (24 members using a royal style and 22 members not using a royal style), and one can refer to the RS such as royal.uk The line of Succession to see who gets named what. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rory Stewart not listed

Not sure what section he would come under as former MP and minister. He is a privy counsellor and attended in this uniform: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/may/28/the-rest-is-politics-podcast-alastair-campbell-rory-stewart-interview OJGale (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_guests_at_the_coronation_of_Charles_III_and_Camilla"