I notice George is referred to here as Prince George of Wales. Where does this come from? Does someone somewhere along the line think that is his surname? Georgie is a Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so "of Wales" is a bit superfluous. Anyway, SFAIK this territorial appellation/style is German, not British (Manfred von Richtofen, Alexander of Hesse: Rupert of Hentzau?); it hasn’t been used in England since the Middle Ages, and even then referred to a place of birth rather than a lordship (Edward of Woodstock, Henry of Monmouth). Also, unlike most of his princely rellies ,he doesn’t have peerage, yet, so he is simply Prince George (of the UK of GB and NI). Even then, his dad wasn’t Prince William of Cambridge, and his uncle isn’t Prince Harry of Sussex ( he’s Prince Henry (of GB and NI), (and) Duke of Sussex; two different/separate titles.
I note that the source (Harpers Bazaar?) doesn't say it's his official style, it simply says he is "now known as Prince George of Wales" and his new name at school "will be George Wales" ie. a name of convenience. When his dad was in the Army he was "Lieutenant Wales"—a name based on his father's title Prince of Wales—(presumably because Lieutenant Mountbatten-Windsor is a bit of a n mouthful to shout over the noise of a helicopter) but again, that was a name of convenience, not an official style. Where does this stuff come from? Swanny18 (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- William was never "Prince William of Cambridge"; he too, was "Prince William of Wales" before his marriage, as his father, Charles, was the Prince of Wales. William became "Duke of Cambridge" on his wedding day. As for this article using "Prince George of Wales", it's nothing informal or made-up: Britannica uses it too. Regards, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for replying: So, is this an official style or is it his common name? Swanny18 (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I would strongly bet on it being his official style, but I can't be sure: @Keivan.f:, @Surtsicna: @MSincccc: I don't know if you'd be able to find any good, solid sources for this. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a difference between peerage and princely style. Prince Richard is currently "The Duke of Gloucester". Before getting the peerage, he was simply "Prince Richard of Gloucester" as the son of Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester (see this entry from The London Gazette). Similarly, Prince Michael of Kent is known by this name and style because he's the son of the late Prince George, Duke of Kent and has not been given a peerage. Concerning George, his official style at the moment is "His Royal Highness Prince George of Wales" per 1, 2, and 3 as he's the son of "The Prince of Wales". He could become "The Prince George" if his father accedes to the throne (though usually as the eldest son he would become "The Duke of Cornwall" automatically). The current title is both accurate and common and a great way to disambiguate him from the zillions of other princes named George. Keivan.fTalk 17:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahh! That makes sense; I had forgotten about Pr Michael (and Pr Richard) and their styles. And I reckon the Household website is a good solid source (I didn’t know if we were just taking some journalists word for it). Thanks for that... Swanny18 (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is his Coat of Arms still missing as of 2024, during the reign of Charles III? Neither are Their Royal Highnesses Princess Charlotte's, Prince Louis', Prince Archie's and Princess Lilibet's. --170.64.206.141 (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- They don't have one. DrKay (talk) 06:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @DrKay is right. The practice is to only grant them their own versions when they turn 18. See this article from the College of Arms. Jtrrs0 (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please change his age to ten GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The "birth date and age" template in the infobox automatically updates the age without any user interference. No editing needed about that. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok thankyou GothicGolem29 (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I recently added a list of the prince's styles history. It looked like the following. (I don't know how to do bullet points on this part of Wikipedia, so imagine one behind every line)
22 July 2013 — 8 September 2022: His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge
8 September 2022 — 9 September 2022: His Royal Highness Prince George of Cornwall
9 September 2022 — present: His Royal Highness Prince George of Wales
It said it was removed because there is no source for the second title. The matter of the fact is, a prince or princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland without a peerage in their own right uses "of [father's or late father's highest peerage title]". Hence, that is why he was styled "of Cambridge" during the roughly day and a half before his father was appointed Prince of Wales
Example. Despite being 81, Prince Michael of Kent was never given a peerage. He uses "of Kent" as it was his late father's highest title.
Another example. In the rare decision that either James, Earl of Wessex or Lady Louise Windsor decide to use the title of Prince or Princess, he or she would be styled "Prince James of Edinburgh" or "Princess Louise of Edinburgh".
The only exception to this is a prince or princess without a peerage who is child of the monarch. They are styled "The Prince/Princess [name]". An example of this is the late Elizabeth II's younger children excluding the now King Charles III. This is because the heir apparent is always Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay as you should know.
So, this is something that is just customary. StrawWord298944 (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be Prince George of Cornwall and Cambridge, based on the precedence set by George V's children during the time between his grandmother's death and when his father finally named him Prince of Wales, but I think there is no direct source for this because it was less than 24 hours that William's children held this title and there was never any decree from the BRF that used this title, just assumption that this was their title for a edw hours before it was announced that William was Prince of Wales anyway and it didn't matter. Piratesswoop (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Prince George of Wales/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: MSincccc (talk · contribs)
Reviewer: AndrewPeterT (talk · contribs) 04:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opening comments
Please note that it is bedtime where I reside, and I will leave detailed comments as soon as I can tomorrow (March 27).
In the interest of full disclosure, I have left detailed feedback to improve content on the article's talk page on one occasion (but have not been involved with this article otherwise). If this counts as a "significant contribution" per WP:GAN/I#R2, please let me know and I will recuse immediately.
For now, I will end with this remark: Wow. In my 10 years on Wikipedia and being personally interested in the House of Windsor, I never would have guessed that one day, I would be scrutinizing the article on a future British king for its GA merits! And as a registered user, there was no way I was going to pass this opportunity to be part of Wikipedia, if not worldwide, history!
However, if permitted, I will definitely commit to objectively reviewing Prince George's article against the six criteria. Because I know that many people are going to consult his article in the years to come, I genuinely want to make my contribution here as productive as possible. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 04:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @AndrewPeterT All I hope for is that it is passed as GA as soon as possible in an accurate manner. Regards MSincccc (talk) 04:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Both: a bit of discussion on the talk page does not constitute "significant" editing per the GAN criteria, i.e. this is a drive-by nomination. It can either be quick-failed or you can simply CSD this page so that it is deleted, and remove the nomination from the talk page, it doesn't matter much. For the record, it appears that MSincccc has recently conducted multiple drive-by nominations; I've pointed out the policy to him on his talk page re another article. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I am the fifth largest author and also made 68 edits, the 7th-most to the article. I know that the Sherlock Holmes one could have been considered a drive-by but obviously not this one @Chiswick Chap. Editors @Keivan.f and @Tim O'Doherty will tell you more. I do satisfy all the criteria as I am among the top five authors. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @AndrewPeterT I hope to receive comments from you soon. I have admitted to a drive-by nomination for the article Sherlock Holmes given my authorship of that article was largely due to running of a bot. However, I have significantly contributed to George's article and am presently one of the top 10 editors as well as one of the top five authors to the page. Further, I have also consulted other editors on the issue. I hope you understand. Regards MSincccc (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @AndrewPeterT The drive-by charges were in relation to my GA nomination for Sherlock Holmes not this article. Hence please go forward with this review. I have spoken to the others in this concern. Looking forward to your comments. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2024 (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.
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Prince George of Wales/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: MSincccc (talk · contribs) 09:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewer: Tim O'Doherty (talk · contribs) 17:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prose:
- "Charles III" but "Queen Elizabeth II" - pick one
Done
- "then known as Duke and Duchess of Cambridge" - they weren't just known as the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, they were the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge: just "then Duke and Duchess of Cambridge" is fine.
Done
- "Prince George was born on 22 July 2013 in St Mary's Hospital, London, at 16:24 BST, during the reign of his paternal great-grandmother Elizabeth II, as the first child of Prince William and Catherine, then known as Duke and Duchess of Cambridge" - this sentence traipses on a bit too much: "Prince George was born at 16:24 BST on 22 July 2013 in St Mary's Hospital, London, during the reign of his paternal great-grandmother Elizabeth II. He was the first child of Prince William and Catherine, then Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. His birth was announced by press release..."
Done
Done
- "Celebrations were staged for his birth" - "for his birth" is strange, could probably get rid: "Celebrations were staged".
Done
- "by Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury" -> "by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby"
Done
- "his family relocated to Kensington Palace in 2014" - when in 2014? If it's in the latter portion of the year it isn't really in George's "first months".
It's said that George spent his first months at Bodorgan Castle before moving to Kensington Palace sometime in 2014.
- "Then Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott" -> "The then-
Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott" Done
- You can merge paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Upbringing
Done
- "George took part in his great-grandmother Queen Elizabeth II" - you've told us who his great-grandmother is.
Done
- "was succeeded by George's grandfather as King Charles III" - strange phrasing: "was succeeded by George's grandfather, who took on the regnal name Charles III" would be longer, but neater.
Done
- "George served as a page of honour" - "He" is all that's needed, and breaks up four successive sentences beginning with "George".
Done
- "In the British satirical sketch programme Newzoids, George was" - this comma can be removed.
Done
- "of both Queen Elizabeth II" - "Elizabeth" is fine, you don't need the full title.
Done
- "cameo appearance from Prince George" - "George" will do.
- "(voiced by showrunner Gary Janetti)" - this can be removed: we haven't got who voiced him in Newzoids and people can click the link if they want to see the cast.
Done
- "life difficult both for his family and for the British monarchy" -> "life difficult for his family" should be fine: unless he's damaging the institution of monarchy in the show, the two are essentially the same.
Done
- "the first series drew criticism for satirising children" - children in general, or younger royals, or just George? What does the source say?
Done Source says- "...has drawn criticism for satirizing the royal children and especially its take on 8-year-old Prince George, who is portrayed as entitled and conniving."
Sources:
- Some have quotes, some don't
Done Removed the unnecessary ones but retained a few like the one pertaining to his godparents.
- Paywalled sources need the "subscription" parameter
Done
- Inconsistent capitalisation in article titles
Done
Images:
Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I have taken care of the prose. I will take a final look at it tomorrow. Thanks for taking it up by the way. Regards and have a great day. MSincccc (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well @Tim O'Doherty, I've addressed your comments for improving the article. You're welcome to take another look to verify my claims. Thanks a lot once again for reviewing it. Regards MSincccc (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The ref titles still need work. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please be a little more specific? I would greatly appreciate it. Regards and faithfully yours MSincccc (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The article titles in the refs need to be standardised per MOS:TITLECONFORM. Eg, in ref 5, "A Future Monarch is Born" should be "A future monarch is born", 36's "Winnie-the-Pooh Meets Queen Elizabeth II (and Prince George) in New Release" to "Winnie-the-Pooh meets Queen Elizabeth II (and Prince George) in new release". There are still paywalled sources not marked as such and some of the prose comments (merging paragraphs being one that sticks out) haven't been addressed either. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Done @Tim O'Doherty You're welcome to have another look at the article. Thanks for your suggestions. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good so far, although The Telegraph is also a paywalled source. I might do a source-to-text-integrity spotcheck later. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tim O'Doherty Well The Telegraph citations I found were accessible. I think it is because not all articles are solely meant for the subscribers. Looking forward to a positive result by tomorrow. I hope you are doing great both in mind and body. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm looking forward to your spot check for source-to-text integrity @Tim O'Doherty. Please let me know if any further changes are needed. Regards MSincccc (talk) 08:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Numbers picked at random:
- 9 Y
- 10 N - neither of the sources cited seem to mention Bodorgan Hall
- 11 - Ditto
- 16 Y
- 17 Y
- 26 Y
- 32 Y
- 33 Y
- 36 Y
- 41 Y
Just the issue of Bodorgan Hall to be resolved then. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Done MSincccc (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2024 (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.
i just made an edit which was reverted. I don't know what was the issue with my edit (and don't need clarification). I do know there's an incomplete sentence there which needs fixing. There's no subject or verb. Just a mention of the Obamas and a date. Clicking through on the link footnooted at the end of the paragraph and reading THAT makes it clear it should read that's when the Obamas were met. Someone should fix that so the edit sticks. synergy (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I have fixed the sentence in question. However please ensure that sentences should not start like
On date month year,...
or like On month date, year
as per WP: Proseline. Let me know if you have any further suggestions for the article and have a great day ahead. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 07:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The one currently in use (from the Platinum Jubilee balcony appearance in 2022) is a bit dark and fuzzy. I would suggest this one from the coronation in 2023. I've tried increasing the brightness and gamma a bit to get a clearer view of his face. Sadly we don't seem to have any free shots of him in 2024 so far. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Robin S. Taylor Is it fine now? I have added the image to the infobox. Thanks for uploading it on Commons. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that @Tad Lincoln has reverted it I'd like to put it to a vote. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Which one do you personally prefer @Robin S. Taylor? Looking forward to your response. MSincccc (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jubilee 2022
Coronation 2023
Trooping 2023
- I like the 2023 Trooping photo. The coronation one is nice but the raindrops on the window are a bit distracting. Piratesswoop (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I pick the 2023 Trooping photo too. It's better. RicLightning (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Trooping 2023 too. DankJae 21:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The coronation one has the more iconic outfit and he's actually looking at the camera, but the trooping one has less distortion. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Trooping 2023 will be a fine picture, in my view. Pinging other experienced editors so that they can join in the discussion-@Keivan.f:, @DrKay:, @Tim O'Doherty:, @Nikkimaria:. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done
- neither of the sources cited seem to mention Bodorgan Hall
_2023.jpg/1280px-Prince_George_(carriage_window_crop)_2023.jpg)
_crop_2.jpg/1280px-Trooping_the_Colour_2023_(GovPM_41)_crop_2.jpg)