Talk:Paula Vennells/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Profit claim

I have removed a claim in the article that the post office moved into making a profit under Vennells. It is referred to above in an unsuccessful semi-protected edit status request by @Mdonkin. That request was denied by @EphemeralPerpetuals (they/them)talk but my edit here contains no such request. My reasoning is that the sole reference to justify the claim that Vennells moved the post office into profit is a press release by the post office she was CEO of at the time. That does not satisfy WP:Reliable Sources in normal circumstances, but in this case doubly so since the scandal in the UK has exposed that the post office under Vennells routinely lied at the time about very serious issues. The @mdonkin request actually cited a very good (but I don't know if it's WP:RS) source arguing that the post office did not truly move into a profit that year, but in any event I have looked (on Google, not WP:OR) for a reliable reference to the effect that the post office did move into profit that year and I can find no such reference. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Has the Post Office not been obliged to publish annual accounts, like any other UK business? Would they be considered WP:PRIMARY? Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 09:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @Martinevans123, they are really interesting questions. I am a long way from being an expert, but I think scrutiny of the PO accounts at Companies House would probably be OR. It's a really interesting thought, though. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I see that DeFacto has now found a good source anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

and it is disappointing that an obviously genuine fact is deleted like this. If the querying editor felt strongly about it, the right course was to find a better source. MapReader (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @MapReader, thanks for your comments. Please assume good faith. I also recommend reviewing WP:Reliable Sources. You have reverted my edit to re-insert what you describe as; "a genuine fact" (which is of course a tautology). Your new reference is to an online business PR publication which invites readers to upload the text of own stories. The personnel named at the website are all from a PR background - none are from a journalistic background. Such publications simply take online content from press releases, and from PR officials (hence the upload facility) from and at the entities they report upon. The purpose of the Wikipedia reliable sources articles is to ensure that publications which lack any provenance are not used to justify specious claims. In particular, the status of vendors and e-commerce providers is relevant here. Business Leader UK has no charges or prices available; it is an online commerce entity which exists to sell products (e.g. the workshops it self-advertises). It is very far from an acceptable source. Notably, the claims it makes are not repeated in any non-deprecated source I can find. Whilst, on the other hand, the post office is the largest story in the UK at the moment because its officials lied about much of the most important aspects of its operations. It has been reported, for example, in non-deprecated sources such as the Guardian and Financial Times (I cite at the end of this note as I understand linking to an external source is not acceptable) I should stress, that the post-office may have erred in calculating its tax liability in respect of monies recovered from postmasters over the precise period you refer to. The 'error' is far larger than the profit claimed in post office PR and so even on the post office's own terms those years would return a loss. The claim that Vennells returned the post office to profit is very far from a; "genuine fact" and is indeed not supported by any non-deprecated source. It should be removed, in my opinion. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/13/post-office-could-face-100m-bill-over-compensation-tax-relief-says-expert#:~:text=It%27s%20also%20unlawful%20%E2%80%93%20so%20the,to%20postmasters%20as%20tax%20deductible. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @Martinevans123. I honestly do not think s/he has found a good source. See my comments below. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

So I guess your comments above are also addressed to DeFacto? Is it true to say that in the past, people genuinely believed that the PO made a profit of £35 million in 2017/18? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is likely true. I can't find a reliable reference to it in a decent source, but if the post office reported it as a press release then it would, at the time, have been accepted as true by reliable agencies. I guess one form of words could be something like "at the time, the post office claimed it had moved into profit that year..." but we'd still need a non-deprecated secondary source, I think. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2024

Change "During her time as CEO, the Post Office went from losing £120 million a year to making a profit." to "During her time as CEO, the Post Office went from losing £120 million a year to _apparently_ making a profit."

There is now a question as to whether the Post Office actually made a profit or if this was all or in part based on illegally claiming tax relief on compensation to which it was not entitled: https://twitter.com/DanNeidle/status/1745920610893434993/photo/1 Mdonkin (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EphemeralPerpetuals (they/them)^talk 02:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @EphemeralPerpetuals. I've commented on this further down the page at some length. @Mdonkin correctly noted that a post office press release is not an acceptable source for a claim. You have asked him/her to provide a reliable source, but this is surely incorrect - the empirical claim that a post office press release is not acceptable is confirmed by simple fact of observation. As it happens, I can find no non-deprecated source which justifies this claim and plenty which suggest that it can not be viwed as true given the now legally accepted unreliability of post-office self-reporting during the time in question. The claim should surely be removed simply because it should not be there in the first place, having had no non-deprecated source to justify it. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Charlie Campbell 28 - I'd like to apoligise for making a rash decision, this is not an area I'm well versed in. I simply saw a Twitter link, deemed that to not meet WP:VERIFY and moved on. Would you like me to strike out my "not done"? I wouldn't feel confident editing this page as I lack the background knowledge and don't aim to get into an edit war in which I don't have proper knowledge of the topic. EphemeralPerpetuals (they/them)^talk 16:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

That's super nice of you, @EphemeralPerpetuals. I think, to be honest, it's probably best to leave it now as it's been superseded by the latest discussion. Also, it was a semi-protected edit request and I've no idea if that would have been in order. Thanks so very much! Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Bad faith editing by Martinevans123, KJP1 and Ghmyrtle

Not relevant to this article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The fact that Camilla and Charles are not married was mentioned briefly in the course of a relevant discussion about transparency in the honours system informing the editing of this article. During that relevant discussion I answered the relevant question posed by the last person to contribute before myself. My link was hidden, although a link quoting the same wording from the same source supplied by another was not. Apart from the wilful disregard of one of the pillars ("Assume Good Faith") there are a number of breaches of the Universal Code of Conduct. KJP1 12:46 - A key theme of the discussion was the need for the utmost integrity of the people who bear honours KJP1 13:28 - A serious personal attack in breach of Articles 2.1, 2.2 and 3.1 of the Universal Code of Conduct. Distinguished King's Counsel Lord Pannick and Law Professors Stephen Cretney and Rebecca Probert have written academic papers proving that Charles and Camilla are not married. Nobody has written a paper proving the opposite. No members of the royal family have married in register offices - free salamanders would not tempt them. Yet KJP1 describes my brief aside as a "rant". If Britain's Best Barristers are wrong why did Camilla, Charles, Christopher Chope and Antonia Romeo feel the need to mount a Watergate style cover-up? KJP1 does not appear to be very competent [1]. He accuses me of sockpuppetry in violation of Article 2.1 of the Universal Code of Conduct. KJP1 12:44 - Three minutes after I removed some words from one of my comments he added them back. Editors may not edit other people's comments under any circumstances. This was abuse of rollback, which may only be used to revert vandalism. The same applies to Martinevans123 (12:35, 2 minutes, 13:13, 3 minutes). KJP1 13:44 - A serious personal attack. One of my ancestors wrote a medical textbook and was superintendent of a large hospital. What medical qualifications does he have? Ghmyrtle 13:00 - When a comment has been removed from a user's talk page, adding it back is harassment Notwithstanding that the above two appear to live in --------shire (information which has been self-posted) KJP1's 47 edits to User talk:Ghmyrtle satisfy me that they are distinct individuals. Here's the timeline: 2016 - British government argues that the consent of Parliament is not needed for Britain to exit the EU. Pannick argues in the Supreme Court that it is. He wins. 2016 - British government pressures the Queen to prorogue parliament in an unprecedented act before the summer recess to prevent Britain's exit from the EU being discussed. Pannick argues in the Supreme Court this is unlawful. He wins. 2005 - British government argues that the proposed register office marriage of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles is lawful. Writing in The Times, Pannick says: It is difficult to understand how the happy couple can marry in a civil ceremony, as they intend, without causing a right royal nullity. You finish the sentence. 89.240.113.74 (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC) Look who's laying down the law [2]. 89.240.113.74 (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

IP 89.240.113.74, if you believe any editor's editing here has been "in bad faith", you are of course entitled to report it to WP:AN/I. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Formally stripped of her CBE

She has been formally stripped of her CBE, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68384240 Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 15:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

See comments at "RfC on CBE in lead" above? the article has been updated. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

RfC on CBE in lead

How should Paula Vennells's CBE be handled in the lead of this article? A.D.Hope (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• My position is that the lead should mention that Paula Vennels received a CBE in 2019, that she offered to return it in January 2024, but that she retains the honour until the king revokes it. The wording could be something like this:

Vennells was appointed a CBE in 2019; in January 2024 she offered to return the honour, however it can only be revoked by the monarch.

This broadly follows the BBC article which is currently our main source.

A previous version of the lead omitted the return/revocation entirely, but this is not ideal as it is significant information. The current version omits that Vennells remains a CBE until the honour is revoked. This is misleading, as readers unfamiliar with the British honours system are likely to assume that she is no longer a CBE. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Just a point of grammar - the word "however" should never follow a comma, and the wording needs to be corrected (link). Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. Substituting 'but' would resolve the problem, I think. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Leave out. For myself, I think the lead should focus on what has made the person notable or famous. Is declining the CBE the event that made her notable? If not, I would add as a separate section in the body, perhaps with the headline CBE Controversy -- where the details of the awarding and declining can be fleshed out in more detail. Personally, I like clean leads. Slacker13 (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Isn’t a proper RFC supposed to offer a tightly defined question, or proposition, or set of options?

Regardless, I will comment.

The established precedent - Lennon and others - is that the individual’s wish regarding their honour is respected in the infobox and opening sentence of the lead.

That someone has been awarded an honour but decided to reject or return it is notable enough to mention in the lead, especially when the question had attracted interest from over a million people in a petition. Wording that makes clear it is the person’s decision or intent or willingness to reject the award is better than wording that suggests the award hasn’t been made or has been cancelled.

The body of the article can set out the full circumstances, including the specifics around how an honour can be awarded and rejected (or annulled) , which would be too much detail for the lead. MapReader (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

An RfC question should be neutral and brief, and the above wording is the best I could do. I hope you agree that it's neutral, if a little vague. I also hope you don't mind if I format our comments to make them easier to distinguish. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• As stated in an earlier thread, what is important for the opening section is that she has said that she is returning the CBE. Whether or not she technically still has the CBE, or needs to await a formal decision following a recommendation from the appropriate committee, is a point of lesser importance - one that is addressed in the article, but does not need to be explained in the opening paragraphs. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Procedural note. @A.D.Hope: You should change the RfC question to:

  Should the lead state the following: Vennells was appointed a CBE in 2019; in January 2024 she offered to return the honour, however it can only be revoked by the monarch.

I would support that change; it is neutrally stated and factually accurate. Leaving out that her CBE won't be revoked until the king says so could potentially mislead a reader who doesn't go past the lead into thinking that her offer is effective immediately. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion. My hope is that this RfC will settle the wording entirely, however, and focussing the discussion on a single option may make that more difficult. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• No objections, although the bit about the monarch could be left out and just explained in main body text. I am surprised it's not still shown in the infobox, but perhaps that's a separate RfC? (I looked at John Lennon and his MBE is not shown, even though it wasn't formally rescinded?) Martinevans123 (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Present wording looks fine - Dear me, what a lot of ink expended. For me, the current wording, which states she was awarded it in 2019 and, in 2024, expressed her intention to return it, looks fine. It's accurate, and acknowledges her stated intention. I think the legal position - she remains a CBE until the honour is rescinded - should be explained in the body, or in a footnote, for completeness. And on that point, the note should make clear that here, as in almost everything else (let's not go down the Royal Victorian Order rabbit hole), the king acts on the advice of ministers, on this matter the Forfeiture Committee. KJP1 (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  Just to note, the current wording is 'in January 2024 she stated that she was returning the honour'. This does not have the same meaning as 'in 2024 she expressed her intention to return it'. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  Not exactly the same meaning, agreed. But I'd see the first as encompassing the second. I think things may become easier here when she has actually "returned it". But she really can't depend on first class post, these days, can she. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

As of right now it's outright incorrect, if it's true that CBEs cannot be returned. There must be sources somewhere that tell us that without it being OR. If not, it's a case of WP:NOTRIGHT. JM (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not "outright incorrect". It correctly reports what she has said. It's Vennells herself who has said something that's technically incorrect. A small footnote could easily explain this. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Why bother with a footnote when we could use more accurate language? It's been reported by the BBC that Vennells can't actually return the honour, so we don't need to follow her inaccurate wording exactly. (talk) A.D.Hope (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• I would also go with Present wording looks fine. The full position is spelled out in the article; this is simply a matter of what goes in the lead. Like John Lennon, her intention regarding 'return' of the honour will be respected (i.e. conformed with) in future reporting, and she isn't going to be referred to as "Paula Vennells CBE", regardless of whether the Committee and monarch ever get round to considering the matter or not. That the formal legal position is that an honour can't be rejected is a technicality, proper for mention in the article, but which is not a detail that needs (or justifies) spelling out in the lead. MapReader (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  You would outright oppose any explanatory footnote in the lead section? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  A lead is the article summary, or overview; an explanatory footnote isn't appropriate. Also, a reminder that an RfC is a request for comment from a range of editors; it is often unhelpful to jump on any contribution that expresses a contrary view. MapReader (talk) 10:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  I was merely intending just a clarification, not an unhelpful jump. I've seen footnotes used quite successfully in the lead sections of a number of articles. But whatevs. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  Just pay some cognisance to WP:BLUD. IMHO the lead is supposed to summarise the essentials as an overview to the article, and footnotes on the minutiae don’t sit happily there. MapReader (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  If anyone else feels "bludgeoned", please let me know. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  Politely asking to clarify is not bludgeoning. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  There's no rule against an explanatory footnote in the lead, and plenty of high quality articles have them. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

One question: is Charles and/or the Forfeiture Committee obliged to announce that the honour has been rescinded and if so when? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended content

I can think of a number of things Charles is not obliged to do but does nevertheless: Investing a donor in a secret ceremony (these ceremonies are gazetted in advance) Instructing High Court office staff to forge a form and tell the plaintiff that if it isn't returned "the papers would be hurled into the wastebin" and "they would hold on to the expensive court fee." A topical poem: [3] The answer to the question is "yes" 89.240.113.74 (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC) Sorry, "What's the rarest level of human hospital?" Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC) They never agreed, but the relevant comment is the last one in the discussion (the final sentence is not relevant). 89.240.113.74 (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry, I have no idea what you mean. Maybe other editors do. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC) Quote: If "clinics" are included the number of "specialist hospitals" (in Harley Street and elsewhere) is greatly expanded. News reports overnight say "Charles is doing well" and "the queen is by his side." While I wish him a speedy recovery, she is nothing of the kind. You may recall that a litigant filed a case in the High Court challenging her use of the title because English law specifically prohibits members of the royal family from marrying in register offices. The court office wrote back months later (target time for reply is five working days) to say the papers would be hurled into the wastebin if a court form declaring the case to have no prospect of success was not filed. Naturally they would hold on to the expensive court fee. The Civil Procedure Rules Committee examined the form and declared it to be a forgery. Also overnight it is reported that a jury has ordered Donald Trump to pay 83 million dollars in damages. His lawyer says she will appeal. Even Trump does not attempt to prevent his opponents having their day in court. (emphasis added),

[4] - This says that decisions of the Forfeiture Committee are "usually" published in the London Gazette. As an aside, while searching for that, I also found they say the following, regarding voluntary forfeiture:

"Can an honour be forfeited voluntarily? - An honour can only be forfeited by the decision of His Majesty. However, an individual may decide to renounce their honour voluntarily and take the practical steps required of those that have forfeited. They would still hold the honour unless or until HM King annulled it. Their decision would not be publicised by the Cabinet Office and they would continue to be able to describe themself as holding an honour."

Hope this helps in reaching a conclusion. I think it confirms what we already knew - Ms V can say they don't want it/will give it back, but they can't make it forfeit. KJP1 (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Just by way of illustration, here's the London Gazette announcement regarding Jean Else.[5] KJP1 (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Well kind of helps, thanks. I mean there's no suggestion at Jean Else that she was intending to hand back her honour. And she was made a Dame, not just a mere CBE? I'm just guessing that the expected sequence of events would be: the Forfeiture Committee make a recommendation; it's signed off by King Charles; the committee (or Cabinet Office?) gets it published in The London Gazette. But I guess there's no real strict timetable for any of these steps. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

No, just an illustration of the announcement that will, likely, appear in the LG at some, entirely undetermined, date in the future. Nothing more. I see that Jean Else is now practicing as a medium. Life can bring some unexpected turns. KJP1 (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see. Many thanks for clarifying. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC) I'll look forward to eventually meeting Dame Gypsy Paula Petulengro in her new career.

Where did we end up landing with this? Is there any scope for even a slight tweak to '...Vennells stated she wished to return the honour', to indicate that it's not a done deal until Charles strips it? A.D.Hope (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

If there's a consensus that it must be referenced in the lead, and I'm not sure there is, then I'd stick a footnote at the end of the last sentence. Something to the effect of: "{{efn|Recipients of an honour can indicate their intention to renounce it, return their [[insignia]] and cease to use the [[Post-nominal letters]]. However, forfeiture only comes into effect following a decision of the monarch, who takes advice on the issue from the prime minister, who will themselves receive a recommendation from the [[Honours Forfeiture Committee]]. The monarch's decision, and an announcement of the cancellation of the honour, will normally be published in the [[London Gazette]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://honours.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/how-to-nominate/forfeiture/|title=Forfeiture: Can an honour be forfeited voluntarily?|publisher=[[Cabinet Office]]|access-date=11 February 2024}}</ref>}}"

People may well think that's a bit wordy; I'm sure it could be trimmed. KJP1 (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

No objection to a footnote. But I think the consensus was that we leave it as is until the forfeiture is officially announced, who knows when. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

No issue at all, if that’s the consensus. My initial “vote” was stet. KJP1 (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

There isn't a consensus that the fact Vennells can't return the honour must be mentioned in the lead, although I do still think that the current wording is inaccurate by omission. It is a bit weird that you can't give up your own honour, I wouldn't expect a reader to know that. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Good heavens, even Queen Camilla ought to know that? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not "inaccurate by omission". it accurately states that she has said that she is returning it. That is all that matters for the lead - the technicalities of what she can or can't do can be left to a brief note in the main text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you think the average reader knows that British honours can't be returned by their bearers? I do not, therefore the implication that Vennells can return the honour is misleading. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

If you don't mind me elaborating, imagine if the sentence was instead 'In 2024, Vennells stated she would be returning as CEO of the Post Office'. This is not something she can simply declare she is doing, so we would either add a caveat or, more likely, not include the information in the lead at all. Either would be appropriate. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

CBE is a minor honour. How important is this anyway, considering that there is current litigation to establish whether Camilla is queen which is mentioned nowhere at Wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles. For example, writing in Wednesday's Evening Standard Victoria Moss says:

Famously, Katherine Hamnett wore her "58 per cent don't want Pershing" slogan tee. Hamnett - who yesterday shared a video of her hurling her CBE into a wheelie bin in protest over the war in Gaza - did not attend.

There's no big talkpage discussion about the "publicly relinquished her CBE" reference in her article, which is not in the lead, so let's get real about this. High Court office staff hurling papers into the wastebin on the instruction of you know who is very much lead material, so can someone go over to the protected article and add it in? The law relating to royal marriages, which was drafted while the "marriage ceremony" of George IV and Maria Fitzherbert was fresh in the memory, appears to have been worded to cover just this eventuality. Someone should also go over to another protected article, Prince Harry, and remove all those links which claim he lied about the date of his wedding. It was private, same as that of George IV, which was only invalid because his father had not given permission. Queen Elizabeth did give permission for Harry and Meghan to marry. 92.21.199.184 (talk) 12:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended content

Only got the news this second. Martinevans123 is claiming the above comments are "offtopic." This is nonsense. An examination of how a similar situation is dealt with in another article is very relevant to how it is dealt with in this article. His comment on my talkpage is pure waffle. 92.21.199.184 (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC) On Saturday I linked to the Cabinet Office webpage providing answers to 20 questions ranging from "Can honours be removed?" to "Where are forfeitures published?" My link was removed as "Improper use of talk page" yet five hours later the exact same questions and answers were linked to again and nobody objected. See WP:TPO. 89.240.113.74 (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC) You added this? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC) And this? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC) This needs to be followed up, as if anything happens to Charles (and God forbid that it does) Camilla will be claiming all the rights of a queen dowager. While a church marriage cannot be challenged in court after the death of either party, the ceremony was legally a "non-qualifying ceremony." Judging by the way Trump's lawyers behave, Camilla's lawyers may be expected to advance the argument nevertheless. One of Charles' first acts as monarch was to appoint Dr John Sorabji as his deputy private secretary, no doubt with just this eventuality in mind. There's a profile of Dr Sorabji here [6]. It notes: He is described as the "general editor" of 'The White Book', a hefty practitioners' text containing the rules relating to civil procedure, and has perviously [sic] advised ... he drafted the forms used in the High Court. This is relevant to the discussion above. If you wish to transfer the entire discussion to Talk:Charles III or Talk:Queen Camilla we would have no objection. 89.240.113.74 (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC) Sorry, but I don't think this is relevant, and it's also WP:CRYSTAL, and should be hatted. You are free to place it at those other two Talk pages, which might be relevant. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC) It's fully sourced, as you might expect - for example Civil Procedure Rule Committee Secretariat Freedom of Information response 19 September 2023 (Ref. 230901052). 89.240.113.74 (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC) You've added a link to a "Legal Cheek" article with the headline "King Charles hires UCL law lecturer as deputy private secretary". I don't see any mention of Paula Vennells, or even of the honours system in general. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC) Charles secretly ennobling a donor is discussed above. 89.240.113.74 (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC) The discussion is relevant here for the reasons stated, and more so on the talk pages of other articles where it could form the basis of amendments to the articles themselves. We have identified four such articles: Charles III, Christopher Chope, Queen Camilla and Antonia Romeo. However, two of them are protected, so we need your help. Looking through the paperwork, we find that the notice of intention to apply for Judicial Review was served on 16 October 2022 and Sorajbi's appointment was reported two days later. Coincidence? We think not. Two further Freedom of Information disclosures: - 89.240.113.74, 13:20, 8 February 2024 Taking another look through the papers, I see that the prime minister has been informed of the defalcation of his Justice Secretary and Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. Of course, he knew already - you don't throw Judicial Review papers citing the monarch in the bin without getting clearance from the very top. In fact, everyone seems to know - there is a copy letter from Angela Rayner saying she would like to follow up but can't because the plaintiff doesn't live in her constituency. So the last thing Charles is going to do at this point in time is revoke Paula's honour (pot, kettle, etc.), especially with the police peering over his shoulder regarding the Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz affair. 89.240.113.74 (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

References

It seems that this matter is now finally resolved, as the honour has been revoked. I have attempted a summary in the lead section, but happy for other editors to improve it if required. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

About time! I wish they'd think of us poor Wikipedia editors when doing these things, imagine all the bytes we could have saved.

I've simplified the lead wording. I'm quite happy for the detail to be in the body, so long as it's clear Vennells is CBE-less in the lead. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

15 honours forfeited since August 2023, so she's hardly alone. One wonders if there are other notable individuals whose Wikipedia articles still show an honour that has now been revoked. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)