Talk:Prince George of Wales/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Importance and Ethics

Hello, I'd like to share a thought. I assume that (very) later in our lives little George will be the new ruler of the United Kingdom. Therefore, the historical/encyclopedic importance of the birth event itself is clear. But, for Christ sake - he's barely two days old! He hasn't done anything by himself yet. The only content that could be written about him during the following years will probably be some 'hot' trivia facts: when he started smiling, his royal menu, his favorite royal toys and so on. By the way - Would you, dear Wikipedians, have liked that your lives had been described online in detail since your first day on Earth? Ethically, it doesn't feel right for me. Please think about it. MagicWord (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, basically this kid had the (mis)fortune to be born as the eventual heir to a throne. Which is the reason that he is written about at this particular time in his life and on Wikipedia. I don't think that his royal menu, his favorite royal toys etc. will be a part of this article however. The article will change I think but only when substantial stuff happens... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete and Merge into parents articles?

He is not notable to have his own article yet, he hasn't done anything apart from come out of a famous woman's vagina. Surely at this stage he doesn't pass WP:NOTABLE or WP:BIO (at two days old) for a stand alone article. This content should be merged into the articles "Prince William, Duke of Cambridge" and "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge". In theory he could die of cot death tonight and he never will be King of the UK. This article is against WP:CRYSTAL too. IJA (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Other less notable people or facts are mentioned on Wikipedia too. He is the next in line after Prince William, to the Royal Throne. On a different note, is it okay to mention in the article that the name was chosen in the afternoon of the 24th, Wednesday?

I would say that is quite appropriate to do so (IMO). Insulam Simia (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Less notable facts/ facts of similar notability are mentioned on Wikipedia, but they don't qualify for an article of their own. This article violates wikipedia policy for a Biography! IJA (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, and I think you'll find the consensus will be dead against you.

Re the name: All we know is when it was announced; we don't actually know when the parents decided on it. We already say in the article that it was announced on 24 July, and adding the time of day of the announcement is trivial. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Utterly tedious nomination. Removing PROD notice. Insulam Simia (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

PROD tag has been removed already. Insulam Simia (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

He was notable much before coming out of anyone's vagina. The last attempt to delete this article ended in a speedy keep over two weeks before he was born. This deletion nomination should probably be closed faster than any other ever was. Surtsicna (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) IJA- the Prince is clearly notable as third in line for the throne. There is already a significant amount of media attention, and, regardless of what happens from now on, George will be discussed by historians for years to come. I have removed your PROD for these reasons, and, in any case, the article was not eligible for a proposed deletion, as it has already been kept at AfD. I also find nominating the article for deletion while it is at the head of the ITN section of the main page to be bad form. J Milburn (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I work frequently on articles for United States Federal Judges. We maintain articles for every Article III Judge who has ever existed, on community consensus that just having that position confers inherit notability, even if the individual Judge would likely fail WP:GNG. Same here. Members of the British Royal Family are INHERENTLY notable from birth and thus get individual articles. As with United States Federal Judges, community consensus on this subject has long existed. Safiel (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

He's third in line to the British throne, and more important than so many people who have their own Wikipedia pages too. Even if he dies in the near future, morbid as the thought is, he'll still be notable because he's William's firstborn and heir. Do you also propose that Princess Elizabeth of Clarence should have her wikipedia page deleted? She died when she was a little less than three months and didn't do anything else than "coming out of a famous (in this case, the Duchess of Clarence) woman's vagina". Wake up, this child is a future King, he's certainly notable. Cotillards (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I, for one, seriously question the purpose of that article and Elizabeth's notability. The article about her sister Charlotte was deleted long time ago, althugh she was in the same situation as Elizabeth. Of course, neither of them was in the same situation as George. Surtsicna (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a difference between poor Princess Elizabeth and Prince James - he lives for now, and during his first years there will be nothing notable to write about him besides Trivia facts. If something happens to him - then maybe there should be an article as Princess Elizabeth has and that's it. As he lives - I think that it wouldn't be appropriate nor ethical to write every new 'hot' fact about him in an article, until he's at least 10. MagicWord (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that IJA is a little jealous in that Prince George has done something notable just by being born, making it one more notable thing than this user has probably ever done. I also infer from his userpage that he's a republican so is probably quite bitter that he's lost that debate for the next century.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.19.48.14 (talk)

Such a shameful personal attack on IJA should be sanctioned immediately. Surtsicna (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles legitimately being resubmitted for AfD within 24 of the previous one aren't rare. And since when has being on the main page made the article immunised from being proposed for AfD? The content is notable for a mention on wikipedia, I do not dispute this. What I dispute is a stand alone article at this stage in his life. At least wait until he is a public figure who is able to toilet himself properly before creating an article. Everything he does in his life/ happens in his life at the moment is trivial, eg he was given a name; weren't we all? He had an article before his birth, that is outrageous! @ IP Address in the London area, I'm not jealous, I feel sorry that he'll never have an normal life, be able to remain private from the media or be able to do the things he wants. I for one don't want to be "notable". I also agree with the User in the section above that this article is unethical, already at this stage in his life, he has a bunch of fan girls obsessed with his life. IJA (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

IJA, you didn't nominate this article at AfD. You proposed deletion. There's a big difference. When you're not even clear on how Wikipedia's deletion procedures work, I don't think it's particularly wise for you to be making bold claims about the deletion of high-profile articles. J Milburn (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes I was proposing it for deletion first. I never claimed to have nominated it for deletion, please feel free to prove me wrong. I don't think it is wise for someone to be an admin if they can't tell the difference between someone proposing an article for deletion and someone nominating an article for deletion. IJA (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

When you tried to defend your actions by claiming that "Articles legitimately being resubmitted for AfD within 24 of the previous one aren't rare", I assumed that you were saying you believed that you had nominated the article for deletion at AfD. Am I instead to assume that you knew you were PRODing the article? If so, you would know that you certainly should not have been doing so, as it had already been kept at AfD, and you would also know that you should not be edit warring to keep the PROD template there after it was removed, as both of these are against policy. I only assumed your ignorance because to do otherwise would be to suggest that you wilfully chose to ignore policy. J Milburn (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Silly, Pointy and Moot. Whether he ascends the throne, dies early, or is denied succession, he'll be notable, more notable than any of us here. μηδείς (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Insulam Simia - As for the collapse template - "These templates should only be used in accordance with the Wikipedia:Refactoring guideline; they should never be used to end a discussion over the objections of other editors". I object as you didn't even respond to the ethical issues I've suggested. MagicWord (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well whatever the issues are, he is notable, because he is third in line to the throne. Most trivia has been removed already. Insulam Simia (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

@ J Milburn My intention was to eventually nominate the AfD after getting some support by PRODing it first, however I should have anticipated the high volume of celebrity mad fan girls who have hijacked the article. My argument was if it is acceptable to nominate an article for deletion within 24 hours of it's previous AfD, why isn't it acceptable to just simply propose it's deletion? Surely PRODing is a lesser action than AfD-ing? At times I do like to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and this article's existence suggests that other editors like to ignore them. IJA (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

That's not what PRODs are for. PRODs are for uncontroversial deletions- this isn't even close to an uncontroversial deletion, IAR or not. And IAR certainly wouldn't allow you to edit war to keep the PROD tag- that's when you really stepped over the line. Also, could you please drop the "fan girl" rhetoric? It's sexist and patronising, and name-calling is hardly a useful way to gain support for your positions. Prince George isn't a "celebrity", he's a member of the royal family, and the people editing the article are not mere celeb-chasers. J Milburn (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

IJA, I think it's time to drop this and read WP:SNOW. Any deletion nomination will ultimately fail. — Richard BB 21:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

This article is being discussed for pre-deletion. If you wish to discuss intermediate deletion, full AfD, pre-rename, or pre-merge please select the appropriate template. Only Paris Hilton may remove this tag.

--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Paris, you're nine months too late. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"Religion" in infobox

Is it not a bit presumptuous to decide what religious beliefs a day-old baby has? - filelakesh03 (t / c) 14:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. While it's assumed that he'll have to be Church of England simply as a matter of tradition, I don't think we should have this field filled out until anything official is declared. We never know what might happen. Not to mention that all babies are born atheist. — Richard BB 14:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, but he will most likely be christened into the Church of England before the end of the year. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 14:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you'll find they're all born agnostic. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Although I don't want to get into a WP:FORUM-y debate, but he'd be considered a weak atheist, as agnosticism is a far more philosophical assertion that a baby would be incapable of. Either way, it's a redundant (and pedantic) discussion, as I'm not advocating we put "atheist" or "weak atheist" into the religion field, I think we should just leave it blank. I think we should only put CoE in when he actually is baptised. — Richard BB 15:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

True, but that doesn't mean the newborn are not atheist as well. I assume that a newborn baby does not have religious beliefs. Perhaps this can wait until the child is christened (although he might very well be an agnostic and an atheist at that time as well.....) Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

am already busy with another new article. I'm very glad that Richard BB has not opened that particular can of Anglican worms... Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, I think we should leave it blank rather than sticking "atheist" or "weak atheist" in there. — Richard BB 16:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting indeed... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

He could not possibly be either atheist or agnostic, weak or otherwise. Those assume the adoption of a certain intellectual position after considering a range of facts, theories and opinions. Right now he's areligious, apolitical, asexual and every other a- one could think of. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

But that's precisely what weak atheism is, as it is implicit. — Richard BB 14:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

argghh!! just when we all thought you had lost the can opener!! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll put it away! — Richard BB 15:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It's implicit all right. Of course it is. Lack of belief in a god or gods. You can have explicit beliefs besides that too (but not when you're a two day old kid). Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

As most Christian churches tend to recognize each other's baptisms it's a moot point if you can be baptized C of E or just a Christian. PatGallacher (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a interesting question. Surely only confirmation into the Anglican church confers religion as "C of E"? I suspect that the baptisnm may just sneak into the news in a few month's tine. But, you never know, perhaps he'll be christened Louis. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Where's my t-shirt? Gypsy Rose gets all the credit, naturally. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I think Richard BB is right. When the kid is baptized he becomes a member of the CoE regardless of his philosophical capabilities however.... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

He should avoid being christened a Catholic though. As I was when I lost my rights to the throne.....Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

No; baptism alone confers membership of the Church of England. I think it's probably a given he'll believe at least the basic tenets of the Church, even if he's not a profound believer. And all of his forebears-father, grandfather, great-grandmother, etc. we're all confirmed, as we're his uncle, great uncles and aunts and his cousins, so that's pretty likely as well (btw, this is just speculation, I'm not indulging in crystalballism here.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's wait for the actual baptism, however. We pushed the envolope by creating an article before he was born, flushed out his titles before his name has been announced, and now we are on the verge of debating how many of the 39 Articles he adheres to before he's even been sprinkled in a church. At this rate, by fall we will be discussing which university he will attend. Jonathunder (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Permanence of princely title

The article states:

“On 11 December 1917, King George V restricted the style Royal Highness with the princely title to the children of the Sovereign, the children of the sons of the Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest living son of a Prince of Wales.”

This implies that, were Prince William to die tomorrow, the new baby would cease to be a prince. That can’t be the intention, surely?Grant (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

No. Status and titles remain even if the parent or grandparent they're derived from dies. The Gloucesters and Kents are still Princes & Princesses, and in 1936 it was confirmed that the ex-King was still a Prince because he was the son of a monarch. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

And if that were to happen he would also become the Duke of Cambridge. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, the more pertinent letters patent are the 2012 ones, which refer to "all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales". DBD 12:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the source given, this "eldest living son of the eldest living son" formula doesn't appear at all, as far as I can see: it's simply "eldest living son of the eldest son". So the question doesn't arise. Could someone please edit this accordingly to correct this? Or else simply replace the whole thing with the 2012 "re-expansion" that DBD mentions? The two are at least consistent on this instance, it seems. 84.203.35.193 (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. DrKiernan (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, much obliged. 84.203.38.112 (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Order of precedence

If anyone is interested in discussing the child'd place in the Order of Precedence, please join us: User talk:Trajanis#Baby Cambridge's precedence (re: Order of precedence in England and Wales) DBD 14:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The UK article on the order of precedence says "Since there is no specific place in the order for a great-grandchild of the Sovereign (no matter how directly in line), Prince George of Cambridge must presumably take precedence as the eldest son of a Duke of the Blood Royal" though there is no citation. Couldn't we check back to the last time there was three generations and see what happened? (I think it was in the late 1800s, but I am not sure.) --Super Goku V (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

That would be an interesting fact in itself, but one should avoiding bootstrapping from the one to the other, unless some suitable source does so. 84.203.38.112 (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that the Court Circular lists the Duke of Cambridge above his uncles, suggesting that he takes precedence over them, as if he were the Sovereign's second son. That in turn might suggest that Prince George will rank as a grandchild of the Sovereign. That's original research on my part, of course, but it might be wise to take that into account while searching for the answer to the precedence question. Surtsicna (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

That position for Wills is also inconsistent with our articles on the actual orders of precedence (assuming those are sound on some basis). (My own piece of OR would currently be tending towards "there's no single clearly established such order, and the precedence varies according to a combination of fashion, cherry-picked tradition, and sheer whimsy".) 84.203.38.112 (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Terminology

Perhaps it should be 'first (grand)son' - we do not yet know whether George will be the only one. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Just "son" and "grandson" will suffice nicely until we do, I think. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Hebel, but my impish nature can't help observing that George will always be the first Grand-/son, no matter how many siblings he may or may not have in the future... P M C 20:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

'First' is permanently future-proof, 'only' isn't. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 July 2013

I see this regarding the line of succession ahead of newly-named Prince George:

"He is preceded by his grandfather, Charles, Prince of Wales, and father."

The information is OK, but could you make these minor changes? Try semicolon, not comma, just after "Wales"; inserting "by" and "his" in references to "his father" (Prince William). So the line would then read:

"He is preceded by his grandfather, Charles, Prince of Wales; and by his father." 128.63.16.20 (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it for now. DrKiernan (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"Preceded by his father and grandfather" would be simpler. Should be clear to most readers that "grandfather" doesn't refer to this commoner, but the current heir. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Earl of Strathern

Is it correct that the child will use William's subsidiary title "Earl of Strathern"? Prince nn of Cambridge, Earl of Strathern?

Stephennarmstrong (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not. The child is a prince of the United Kingdom. That courtesy title is much higher than the courtesy title he would be entitled to as son of a duke. Surtsicna (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Stephennarmstrong, I thought so too at first and said so in the article. But I was wrong. Male heirs of peers usually use the secondary title of their father as a courtesy title. However, people who have perfectly good titles of their own (like beings a Prince) don't need courtesy titles. Courtesy titles are only used by people who don't have titles of their own. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Some of the confusion about this seems to come from comparisons to Prince Edward's son Viscount Severn. By default, Prince Edward's son James would have been styled HRH Prince James of Wessex; however, because the Queen issued Letters Patent on the day of Edward's marriage saying that his children would be styled as children of an Earl, James is given the courtesy title of Viscount Severn and his older sister is Lady Louise Windsor (although both do carry the HRH as male-line grandchildren of the monarch.) Just as William was styled HRH Prince William of Wales before he received the title Duke of Cambridge, just as his brother is still HRH Prince Henry of Wales, William's son is HRH Prince (name) of Cambridge. Hope that helps! History Lunatic (talk) 07:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)History Lunatic

The intent of Wills' "extra" titles isn't that they be subsidiary in that sense, but is more by way of constituent country tokenism. i.e. he has a "Scottish" title and a "Northern Irish" one, as well as an "English" one, and that'd be undercut if he was to "lend out" use of those to his child. Of course, something like this could be done, as with Viscount Severn (though he too is "entitled" to a higher style). 84.203.35.193 (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the intent or thought behind it, they are his subsidiary titles. And not, as often stated, the alternate ones for Scotland or other devolved entities. The only persons with alternate titles for Scotland are the Prince of Wales and his wife. The tokenism of which you speak has been going on since the 18th century I believe. Viscount Severn and his sister are entitled to the title of Prince with the HRH. A choice was made not to style them thusly but to make an exception from the existing rules. Remember that there is a difference between titles and styles. Severn and his sister are legally Princely and HRH. Camilla is legally the Princess of Wales. But the styles are different. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not likely he'll use the subsidiary title. George V, who was direct in line for the throne and, like Prince William, the eldest son of the heir to the monarch, was created Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killarney. But his son, the future Edward VIII, was never syled Earl of Inverness.Flyte35 (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

"Devolved entities"? By your own evidence, devolution has nothing to do with this, so that terminology just seems to be off-topic snark. And I didn't claim they were "alternate" titles, whatever that's supposed to mean. The logic in Chuck's case is that he uses whichever title is the more senior in precedence in each "entity". As far I know, the same would be the case with any other "double duke" (or multiple marquis, etc) where such a difference existed. The intent has everything to do with it: if they'd planned on giving him titles for the purposes of giving the child a different courtesy title, they would have chosen otherwise. (In theory they could still do so, but that would look particularly ad hoc.) The distinction between "styles" and "legal titles" is a pretty slim one, given that both are essentially matters of fiat. But since there's no evidence whatsoever for such a plan, much less reliable evidence, this is all quite spectacularly moot. 84.203.35.193 (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

User 84.203.35.193, you did not claim that, neither did I say you claimed that. I also didn't say that subsidiary titles, in this case, were meant to be carried by the heir as courtesy titles. Merely that they are not for alternate use in England, Scotland an N-Ireland. The Duke of Cambridge (like any other peer) is known by his highest peerage. Furthermore, all of these titles are in the peerage of the United Kingdom. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

By "alternate", I mean the title of Duke of Rothesay. Which is what the P. of Wales is known as in Scotland for historical reasons. This is a title in the Peerage of Scotland. The titles of P. William are all in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems "Earl of Strathearn" is often used for William when in Scotland - for example the Queen sid "It is our pleasure that His Royal Highness the Prince William, Earl of Strathearn, be installed a Knight of the most ancient and most noble Order of the Thistle." That's probably about as formal as you can get in this matter. (Similarly the title "Duke of Rothesay" is in much more frequent Scottish mass and media use for Charles these days rather than "Prince of Wales" which used to have a lot more use north of the border.) I've no idea what William gets called in Northern Ireland (has he been there since ennoblement?). (By the way were Letters Patent actually issued for the Wessex children? Or are they a similar case to Camilla whereby the Queen and Wessexes have agreed the style to be used but no actual legal instrument has withdrawn the higher one?) I think it remains an open question what Prince George will get called in Scotland but I suspect court circulars may go for "Prince George of Strathearn". But let's wait for something to actually happen there. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Title and style?

I see the article say that his full title is "His Royal Highness Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge". I believe this is wrong. He is EITHER "His Royal Highness George Alexander Louis Windsor, the Prince of Cambridge" OR "His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge". You can't mix his full name and full title into one. BadaBoom (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you can. It is always done. What he is most certainly not is "the Prince of Cambridge" or "George Alexander Louis Windsor". Surtsicna (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Really? So what's his full Christian name? You don't suggest that "of Cambridge" is his surname. Or do you? BadaBoom (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

He doesn’t have a surname. He will be allowed to use Mountbatten-Windsor in situations where a surname is required, but technically he has none. RGloucester (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? I didn't know that. Is there some kind of written rule about that? BadaBoom (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is. The Queen issued an Order in Council some years ago. I think the OiC that created the M-W name also gives rise to the fact that, as an HRH, the little chap could also use just "Windsor", M-W would seem a more likely choice though given its use by Charles and Anne. However, as RGloucester said, the young mite doesn't actually have a surname nor does he need one. P M C 20:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Since he is an HRH (and doesn't really need a surname), and is therefore a member of the House of Windsor, he could use the surname Windsor. He could also use Mountbatten-Windsor which is the surname for the patrilineal descendants of Prince Philip and the Queen. It's been used once or twice by Anne, Charles and Edward. But basically titled people don't use surnames but use the designations of their title instead. So Cambridge seems more likely to me. Until he becomes Cornwall. Or Wales. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, The Palace's position appears to be that the dynasty does have a surname (M-W). They're just too posh to have to use it, or to be restricted to just that one if they fancy using one. If he follows his father's model exactly, he won't trouble to use one until he goes to university or joins the forces, in which case he'll be "Cambridge", if Zombie Great-Grannie still reigns, or more likely "Wales". Or some other "tradition" will be made up on the spot to suit. 84.203.38.112 (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Record

Little George must have the record for most references in his Wikipedia article per living day! --NaBUru38 (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

And the greatest amount of opinion on the article's talk page in such a short amount of time.-Sticks66 05:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

'After a couple of weeks' activity will become more intermittent (the christening etc) - and interest will transfer to the other 'future royal.' :) Jackiespeel (talk) 08:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

NOT A FORUM. Please talk about non-article issues elsewhere. Meta-discussion about the article also falls under this policy. Please keep comments here in what is a busy talk page limited to specific improvements or issues with the article.204.65.34.238 (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Commonwealth realms

The wording "He is third in line to succeed his great-grandmother, Elizabeth II, to the thrones of the Commonwealth realms, following his grandfather and father" sounds very obscurantist to me. What is a throne? Can one person sit on more than one? What is a "Commonwealth realm"? I therefore changed it to "He is third in line to succeed his great-grandmother, Elizabeth II, as King of the United Kingdom and of fifteen other independent states that are members of the Commonwealth, following his grandfather and father." TFD (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

See #Reference to succession in lead for discussion on this subject. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

An editor has now changed "states that are members of the Commonwealth" to "commonwealth realms", saying "wordiness."[1] While the first description is longer, few readers, even in the UK and the other "commonwealth realms", are likely to know what a commonwealth realm is. It is a term that is rarely used. Does the proverbial man on the Clapham omnibus know that he is travelling through a commonwealth realm? TFD (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly why it's Wikilinked. Those who do know what it means shouldn't suffer a poor sentence so those who don't can avoid learning. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Readers should not have to click on links in order to understand articles. This article will receive a wide readership and I bet dollars to donuts 99% of them do not know, or care, what a "commonwealth realm" is. They might be interested though to know he will be called king in 15 other countries. TFD (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

He may be called that. Nobody knows that he will be. Even if you win your donuts. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This is meant to be an encyclopaedia not the typical news media - so what if the average person doesn't know what a Commonwealth Realm is? They can be informed by clicking on the Wikilink and reading up on it. That is after all the whole point of Wikipedia. Not to report the news in a dumbed-down fashion, which is sadly the standard. 81.154.185.162 (talk) 12:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

See "General points on linking style", "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so. Also use a link, but do not make a reader be forced to use that link to understand the sentence...." (Notice that while I provided a link to the the "Manual of Style/Linking", it is not necessary to click on the link to know what I am talking about.) TFD (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Many valid points have been raised about TFD's edit: 1) Elizabeth II is not King of the United Kingdom, so George will not succeed her as such. 2) It's unknown whether or not George will actually acceed to the throne at all. And 3) readers can click through to find out what a Commonwealth realm is; though, "16 sovereign states known as the Commonwealth realms" at least explains that the realms are countries and is shorter than "of the United Kingdom and of fifteen other independent states that are members of the Commonwealth." I'd also add that there's no justification that fits within Wikipedia policy--both WP:NPOV and WP:V--for pulling the UK apart from the other realms, as though it were a unique Commonwealth realm with some imagined special place apart from the rest of them.

The wording currently in place is much better. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to especially echo point #2. The UK media are giddily reporting what "will" happen in, what, 50 or 60 years' time? The phrase "men plan, gods laugh" springs to mind. Or in most recent soft-rock terms, "tomorrow is a promise to no-one". Much better, more encyclopaediac, and certainly more in keeping with WP:CRYSTAL to just report the bare facts, and if meta-speculation is to be included, to contextualise it as such. 84.203.38.112 (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Biography record

Will Prince George be the youngest person ever to have a Talk Page archive? Jackiespeel (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

No one will ever know, of course (unless this whole project closes and gets archived). But at minus one month, I think he was the youngest to get a Talk Page at all, so far anyway... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Royal first-borns (of whatever line) in the direct line are fairly scarce and are likely to generate much discussion (possibly by relevant language WP): and it is likely to be some time before the next one appears to challenge the statement, at least in English-WP. :) Jackiespeel (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Very fair comment, but "ever" is quite a long time. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

without any intended offense, this discussion is not about improving teh article, therefore does not belong on the Talk page. There are plent of places on the internet to have these sorts of discussions. Please keep this space free as per Not A Forum.204.65.34.238 (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Quite agree. Happy to delete. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

(reset) I was commenting both on 'the scarcity of notable infants as such who qualify for WP articles' and the length of this talk page when said NotabIe Infant is only a few days old.

It is likely to be some time yet before another Notable Infant will generate a talk page to challenge this one. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Naturally I refuse to continue with this space-wasting, forum, wiki-type, non-princey, chatty debate. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

As with the 'too much of X' outbreaks on the Main Page talk page etc some mild 'amused comment on the extended comment on the topic' can be justified. What shall we start discussing next ME? Jackiespeel (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Main Page ITN wording

In biblical text, the child producing mother is referred to, along with the father as, "x" bore "y" a son/daughter. Shouldn't it read, In The News section; gives birth to Prince William's son, Prince George of Cambridge. Tandrum (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The place to discuss current ITN items is Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. HelenOnline 20:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

image

you mean no one put down the pint, to camp at St Mary's beach, and snap a creative commons pic ?! a balcony bump is not the same. shame UK wikipedia. 98.169.251.81 (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

So why didn't you do it?Martin451 (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Things may be tough at the NHS, but the Lindo Wing is in a hospital, not on a beach? Apparently. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

They're sending NHS hospitals to Greece? How sympathetic of them... Insulam Simia (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Only for those patients of Greek descent (with strictly verifiable sources, naturally). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

For the avoidance of confusion, while St. Mary's is an NHS hospital, the Lindo Wing is a private unit. 84.203.38.112 (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Pic in infobox

Note - I removed the current image in the infobox, since it doesn't display George himself, and therefore the image isn't relevant. If anyone objects - speak now! Insulam Simia (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your removal. Any picture in the info box should be of Prince George himself, not that of his parents. However that picture could be of him wrapped up.Martin451 (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Origin of forenames (- relocated from "Trivia")

Are there published sources to denote why certain names were bestowed upon the child, Such as "Louis", in reference to Prince Louis of Battenberg? [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.139.128.82 (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a very good question. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

....and now is apparently starting to become an issue in the content and structure of the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Style before naming

Why does the article say he was styled Prince George already from July 22nd? He had no name before July 24th.94.101.4.193 (talk) 02:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Because even without a name, he was still officially HRH Prince [name] of Cambridge. Danish royal children aren't officially given a name for three months, but that doesn't mean Prince Christian of Denmark only got an official title and style on January 21 2006. Morhange (talk) 03:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Strange. I can understand what you say, except that we didn't know what the "[name]" stood for between July 22nd and 24th. What if he had died before receiving a name...?94.101.4.193 (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

We didn't know his name, but his parents were probably pretty sure before the 22nd. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I doubt his parents called him "His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge". It is, of course, absurd to claim that he was styled as such from birth. You will never find reliable source from 22 or 23 July 2013 that refers to him as "HRH Prince George of Cambridge". Why? Because he simply wasn't styled as such. And yes, Prince Christian of Denmark could not have been styled as such until he was actually named Christian. He was a Danish prince from birth, of course, but obviously not "Prince Christian" (though the name choice was obvious). Surtsicna (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I concur. We should go with the date of the earliest such source, unless there are reliable sources that specifically say that the name/style are "back-dated". 84.203.38.112 (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

His name is the only aspect that isn't pre-ordained. Whether he was George or Charles or Hubert or Amrando or Sue, he was going to he His Royal Highness (because he is first son of the first son of reigning monarch...his future brothers/sisters would NOT be Royal Highness, they would be Lord/Lady). Additionally, regardless of name, he is Prince of Cambridge. So his title and styling are preordained, just not his name.204.65.34.238 (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually if there are siblings of HRH Prince George of Cambridge they will also be accorded the title of HRH. This was decreed by Letters Patent by HM The Queen in December 2012. And the title 'Prince of Cambridge' simply does not exist - this is not the convention of Royal titles in the United Kingdom.Ds1994 (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Were it not for that latest bit of title-twiddling and royalness-expansion, even the "style" wouldn't have been predetermined before the birth (or at least, not generally known), as it would have depended on the child's gender, as well as birth order. Personally, I think it's silly to present the "style" in a form that includes the name, purporting to cover a period before the name was announced. But the key point is this: it needs a usable source, not an exercise in WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. 84.203.38.112 (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

But the 'style' of the infant was certainly predetermined before its birth. The style 'HRH' was determined in December 2012 by Letters Patent, and the convention of taking the father's territorial designation is also predetermined by existing convention which has been observed for many centuries.Ds1994 (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Entirely besides the point. You're not addressing the key thread of my argument that the page is including the backdated name in the style, contrary to, well, any logic. And more importantly, you're entirely ignoring the truly central point that this needs a source, not an editorial rationale. 84.203.38.112 (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You're being needlessly pedantic. The question of 'style' between the birth of the infant and the naming is irrelevant. If you require a source for the styling convention then I suggest you visit the Royal Family website.Ds1994 (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

How much pedantry do you consider "needful"? Royal styles and titles are practically the quintessence of pedantry, in the first place, and as all this kid has done in his life is a) been born, b) been given a royal title, and c) been named, then basic accuracy and verification in these matters isn't an excessive demand. I'm not suggesting that "I require" a source for the current text. I'm pointing out that Wikipedia policy insists that the article only contain that which can be source. If there's no source on "retro-naming", it should be changed to something that can be sourced. 84.203.38.112 (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Surtsicna has been changing the dates on several other royal children's style sections to the day they were named, which I have to say is absolutely ridiculous. He wasn't titleless for two days until his parents announced the name. He didn't become HRH Prince of Cambridge on 24 July, he became HRH Prince of Cambridge the moment he was born. It is the same situation with the Danish children, Prince Christian of Denmark was not titleless and styleless just because he had no name. Morhange (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Morhange, you are not telling the truth. I was mostly removing dates altogether, leaving only the year. I could not do that in the case of Prince Christian because he was born in 2005 and named in 2006. These people were not titleless but they were certainly not styled by the names they did not yet have. Nobody knew that this child would be named Louise between her birth on 8 November and the announcement of her name on 27 November, so why on Earth should we claim that she was styled as Lady Louise Windsor from 8 November? That's simply incorrect and there is no justification for presenting plainly wrong facts. Surtsicna (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Morhange, that's not the "correct" form of his title, though it's certainly one could copiously source being referred to as. His formal style requires the use of a first name, which is obviously only possible once he has a name -- hence all the guff up-page about Prince NN of Cambridge. It's one thing glossing over the pre-naming style when there's no source on when the name was announced, or even when the christening occurred, but in this case it's being picked over in meticulous detail, so we should reflect what the sources say, per policy. 84.203.38.112 (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Glad someone finally stated the relevant fact: his title requires a given name, in the form "Prince NN of Cambridge", thus the title can't be used until the name has been declared. However his rank and titulature became effective at birth, so if we want readers to correctly understand how this works we can write, "Born a Prince of Cambridge (not "born Prince of Cambridge") and a Royal Highness, his given name, George, was inserted in his official style when announced on ?July 2013." BTW, "Prince George of Cambridge" is not a legal title, merely a customary designation (or style (manner of address), which is why the modern versions of the Almanach de Gotha don't describe the Queen's cousin Michael as "of Kent" and won't refer to George as "of Cambridge": British princes (actually, royal princes generally) either lack an "of Territory" or were (e.g. Ernest Augustus, Prince of Hanover (1914–1987) and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, whose letters patent, unusually, included those suffixes) "of Great Britain and Ireland" and "of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", respectively. The "Prince Givenname of Fathersdukedom" is merely a custom of the British royal court, like capitatlising "The" in front of certain royals' and nobles' names -- it is neither a legalism nor a standard practice of the English language per se. FactStraight (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Morhange, Ds1994 and the 204 IP. What the general public and newspapers knew isn't important. His titles and name were ready for him at birth. If he'd been a girl, there'd be another name and another title. Which to use would have been immediately apparent upon seeing a penis or not. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. It is only important that his parents knew his name, right? Are they the ones who referred to him as "HRH Prince George of Cambridge" before the rest of the world knew his name? That's absurd. Besides, Wikipedia is based on sources and there is no pre-24 July source that refers to him as Prince George of Cambridge. Absolutely none. Why? Because he was not styled as such before 24 July. Surtsicna (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. It is convention when naming a child to backdate the name to the point of birth, as confirmed in the Birth Certificate, where the date of birth and name(s) are provided. The argument as to the style of Prince George of Cambridge between 22nd July and 24th July is entirely spurious. Thank heavens the couple named the child so quickly - English and Scots law allows up to 30 days to name a child.Ds1994 (talk) 08:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I fold. Some arguments just aren't worth winning. Still agree with the others, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Kerrr-ching?

Sold out? In a commercial tabloid Royal-fan stunt? [3]. Or maybe it's just more unspeakable trivia. The coins, I mean. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Seems it's notable after all. And, in fact, unique? I guess it either had to be coims or stamps. And coins are quite a bit more regal - a bit like medals. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Right! One's had quite enough of this disrespect and traitorous roguery..[4] -- ER II

What was the point?

I made this discussion about 15 days ago, commenting on how it was rather useless to have all this information in the article that wasn't going to be retained anyways. Really, the whole idea of an article on someone before they're born was ridiculous from the outset. The article looked like this at that point in time and it currently looks like this. What was retained exactly? About 3-4 sentences. Two lines about the pregnancy, a line about taking leave, and a line about the letters patent. Seriously, what was the point? Silverseren^C 22:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a social experiment. The point is seeing how a diverse group of "ordinary" people go about the process of building an encyclopedia that dwarfs Britannica in size and reach, and all the thinking that goes into it. The end results are secondary to the process. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I think most Wikipedians would dispute that. And, regardless, your comment didn't address what I said at all. Silverseren^C 22:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You asked the point. I told you it was in observing our thinking. Now we all know more about what you think of that, as well as more about Prince George of Cambridge. The system works. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

"Told you so" or "I was right" is never an appropriate subject for discussion. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

There, better? Now, can you actually answer my question rather than trying to find an excuse to avoid doing so? Silverseren^C 22:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we'd need a survey to answer any claim about "most wikipedians". I too wondered what was the point of such an OK-magazine-type crystal-ball-gazing article. It's quite obvious we now need a separate article for the Birth of Prince George as a public social record of encyclopedia-building, if nothing else. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. We're like Twitter, but more detailed and compartmentalized. Future generations aren't going to want to wade through billions of vague hashtags, most of which will (hopefully) be in a lost language. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Gosh, really? And the phrase "trending on Twitter" did not even get a look-in in this article (did it?) One day, just maybe, we'll be like the mighty encyclopedia that really matters. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Are we on trial here? Whence does your unmitigated arrogance arise?

The fact is the whole western world was discussing this child from the moment his mother's pregnancy was announced in December of last year. The fact that he was still in utero at the time and his sex and name were not known, does not change the colossal amount of pre-birth interest in him. If anything, those unknown factors added to the interest. We can discuss till the cows come home the wording and content of any article, but whether or not the unborn prince was notable and therefore deserving of an article is beyond question. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Except practically none of that information, of that coverage was actually retained. So it clearly couldn't have been that important, since it wasn't kept. The lack of continuing information in the article about the pregnancy really brings into question your entire statement. Silverseren^C 23:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

"The moment of birth is generally the same moment that pre-natal speculation becomes of no interest to anyone, not least the parents." (.. who had the audacity to say that?) Martinevans123 (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I presume you wouldn't argue with him having an article at least from his birth onwards? Well, take a look at it in 30 years' time and see how similar or different it will be. ALL articles, particularly of living people, change as facts change and they do stuff. What we had there to start with was what was known at that time. What we have now is what is known now. No different from anyone else in that respect. True, most people aren't discussed internationally before they're born, but then, most people are not born to be a head of state. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

To answer the OP's question, there actually isn't any point. The early article was just a prime example of WP:NOT#NEWS, and our editors just don't seem to realise that news coverage alone doesn't make for biographical notability. And no, we need an article about the birth like we need an artificial hole in the head. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 23:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I think one of the most useful reasons to have established this page is proven farther up the talk page, based on the number of page titles that were redirected to "Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge," as this page was originally (or at least early-on) titled. It gave a single page for people to focus on and then work to update and make current when Kate went into labor and had the baby, and then later once Prince George was actually named. People were creating all sorts of crazy stub pages from early on in Kate's pregnancy (I saw a few of them), but having this one (from early on a generally rational one) available to link to from William and Catherine's pages, and to focus authors' attention to, was worth having the page. Thus, everyone knew immediately which page to keep current, rather than multiple users competing to establish a brand new page and splitting up their (and other readers') attention onto multiple, redundant, pages. Based on the nature of enthusiasm of Wikipedians Prince George was bound to have a page eventually, so creating this so early essentially just headed the bulk of the duplication off at the pass. Metheglyn (talk) 23:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree. The huge level of interest in the pregnancy itself shows that the article was worth having from pregnancy onward. Wikpedia is an organic enterprise. The fact that so many people were creating versions of the page shows that it was necessary. It seems pretty obvious that massive worldwide interest = notability. I'm sure other people will keep asking if this page was/is necessary, but you may as well accept the fact that this topic has massive worldwide interest. Doesn't mean you can't feel differently, but Wikipedia isn't really the place to express that annoyance. Tinmanic (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

+1 SilverSeren- kudos; how can we get some of the breaking news aggregration over to wikinews where it is more appropriate? notable ≠ encyclopedic. this wikipedia tunnelvision is silly.Duckduckgo (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Age

I can't believe someone is actually editing the info box EVERY DAY to update the age of the baby. Apart from the fact that's utterly, completely ridiculous, it's not giving credit to a reader's mental ability to work it out for themselves. Please, are you seriously going to update it until he's 1 year old - or possibly older?--ErikaJJ (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you'll find that's because there's a template that updates it automatically. :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Beautiful! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Gold! StAnselm (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Surprised to see someone with such a name as yours, Anslem, so in thrall to a future King of England. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak for Anselm, but I was appreciating the misunderstanding. Babies are OK, but only one was ever beautiful. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Too many redirect pages.

Just going to leave this here and see if we could decide what should be kept and batch delete the rest. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

OUCH! I contributed Prince of Cambridge but most of those definitely could be pruned, although clearly we should wait until the baby is named to do so. Safiel (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Only 65? Is that a record? "Prince/ss Y of Wales" a personal favourite. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Now going into 90+ territory.  :/ --Super Goku V (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

A lot of these came from not knowing the name in advance and trying to catch whatever people are searching for. Let's start:

The new British royal baby, Princess Catherine's new baby, The Duchess of Cambridge's new baby, Kate's baby, Royal baby - all could apply to a second child

All the "of Wales" are quite simply wrong. The various Prince/ss NN, Ys and XXs without houses or of the UK or bits of it could apply to any Royal.

Delete all those and then it's easier to consider the rest. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. There are some rather silly redirects to this page. Insulam Simia (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep Prince of Cambridge and the four variants of George found at the bottom of the list of redirects, Delete all the rest. Safiel (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Seconded - Too many of these are useless. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The funny thing is, not to get too crystal ball-ish about HM's health, that the kid's likely to become Prince George of Wales before too long anyway, though I doubt that was intent with those redirects. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you think he'll go for the gender reassignment too? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I just heard that his secret fourth name is Wendy... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Added Prince George of Wales as a redirect. Given a catastrophic occurrence, subject will like accede to that style upon either the death of Queen Elizabeth II or the death of Prince Charles, if he predeceases her. Either way, Prince William would accede to the Prince of Wales and Prince George's style would be changed accordingly. Obviously, things could change, but the probability is high enough to go ahead and make a redirect. However, I still concur that other than the few redirects I mentioned in my previous post, most of the redirects should be deleted. Safiel (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Some of the redirects have links from logs, e.g. Child of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge has links from a previous AfD. These should probably be kept, but most of the rest should go, including those that just have links from the Duke or Duchesses talk pages. Perhaps a friendly admin could do it without having to CSD them all.Martin451 (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Just did a search through the links since I had time. The following have links to a page on Wikipedia: "The new British royal baby", "Princess Catherine's new baby", "The Duchess of Cambridge's new baby", "Kate's baby", "Prince/ss NN of Cambridge", "Prince X", "Unnamed Prince of Cambridge", "Unnamed prince", "Royal baby", "Child of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge", "Prince of Cambridge", "Prince NN of Cambridge", "Son of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge", "George Alexander Louis", "Prince George of Wales", "HRH Prince George of Cambridge", and "Kate's baby joy". In addition, I feel that "George Alexander Louis, Prince", "George, Prince of Cambridge", and "George of Cambridge" should be discussed further as they seem like natural redirects. The others do not like to an article and, based on my opinion only, do not seem to be natural redirects. (Granted, someone might be able to pull a few more out for part two.) --Super Goku V (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Anything too generic, like Prince X, Unnamed prince and Royal baby should definitely go. As his name becomes more widely known, the need for such vague redirects will diminish, and only the ones that couldn't reasonably refer to anyone else should be kept. There's no need to rush to delete them just yet, though. Robofish (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• I have just requested CSD-G6 or R7 on about 65 of the links which I don't think are contentious. There are three more Unnamed or Prince/ss XYZ's to go, and this leaves about 20 redirects to this article.Martin451 (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Somebody replaced the redirect at Prince of Cambridge with an unsourced article. I restored it to a redirect. Safiel (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is it "George Alexander Lewis" or "George Alexander Louie"?

The second. Assuming it's pronounced the same way as his father's fourth name is (William Arthur Phillip Louis), it's pronounced Louie. Metheglyn (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

loo-WEE, to be specific. Though some English-speaking people will always find that a bit too French, and go with LOO-wee, as they do with the French kings and the snack food. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe William pronounces it LOO-wee. Tad Lincoln (talk) 03:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

That's how William pronounced it at his and Catherine's wedding, certainly, so I think that's likely how they'd pronounce their son's name. Metheglyn (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It is spelled Louis as in French and Pronounced "Louie" as in French. 68.105.199.216 (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

But isn't that a single syllable diphthong in French? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thankfully, nobody refers to someone by their third name for long, so it's not like any of us will have a chance to make a faux pas (as the Americans say). Probably a safe bet most of us will never even meet him. Of course, if he decides to become King Louis, we'll be hearing plenty of enunciation (proper and otherwise). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Master of Strathearn

It appears PeteCollier has deleted the paragraph I added about the prince's title being the Master of Strathearn in Scotland. I'm a bit surprised, given that I backed it up with a reference to one of Scotland's main newspapers: [5] --Twid (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Record makes the same claim. I suspect it's completely wrong, myself: they're clearly going with the style of "Prince" as a courtesy title, rather than slumming it as a mere courtesy Earl, as was speculated about elsewhere on the page, much less as the son of an earl. I'd recommend "Scottish newspapers suggest" as a form of words, rather than quoting them authoritatively. 84.203.38.112 (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Earldom of Strathearn is in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, not the Peerage of Scotland. It just has a Scottish name. The child's full title and style is "His Royal Highness Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge" in every jurisdiction. Nothing else. Seven Letters 19:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, the prince's father is known as the Earl of Strathearn when he's in Scotland, so it would make sense for the prince to have a different title when he's north of the border, too. What would it take to convince you that the Scottish newspapers aren't making this up? --Twid (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure the Scottish papers are not making it up but they are wrong. As already stated all the peerage titles of Prince William are of the United Kingdom. There is a convention in Scottish titles where, if there is no junior title that may be used for the eldest son, the term 'Master' may be used. Clearly this does not apply in this case.Ds1994 (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

An official source that you cannot find because he is not styled as such. William has three peerage titles. George has only one courtesy title. (In fact, nobody can have more than one courtesy title.) How would George be called in Northern Ireland, then? The Hon. George Mountbatten-Windsor? Nonsense. Surtsicna (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Prince George of Cambridge doesn't have any peerages, so there's no one that he can be known by when in Scotland. Even his fathers secondary title of Earl of Strathearn is only used like that unofficially as a courtesy to the Scots. The only official alternate title for Scotland is Duke of Rothesay for the Prince of Wales. People who have titles of their own (like being a Prince) don't use courtesy titles because they don't need them. If he were not a Prince he would have used his father's second title Earl of Strathearn. Not just when in Scotland but throughout the UK. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You are completely correct but Prince William is entered in the roll of the Order of the Thistle as the Earl of Strathearn. Political correctness knows no boundaries and observes no conventions. Even when it comes to peerage titles.Ds1994 (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Please, spare us the off-topic Daily Mailisms about "political correctness". The "rules" are determined by palace whimsy. Which whims are in your assessment correct, and old, noble traditions, and which are new-fangled pandering to the chippy Scots is entirely besides the point. (Well, unless and until you have a DM citation to that effect.) 84.203.38.112 (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You're thinking like an American. That thought process does not work in the United Kingdom. Thank heavens you left in 1776.Ds1994 (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Your indentation seems to imply you're responding to yourself, but nonetheless, your comments appear to be moving in the wrong direction from the one I suggested. Please refer to WP:NPA ("Comment on content, not on the contributor."), WP:CIVIL ("Try to treat your fellow editors as respected colleagues with whom you are working on an important project."), and WP:TALK ("Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject.") 84.203.38.23 (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

If you're citing protocol then you really should apply it to yourself by registering with Wikipedia, signing on in the correct way, thereby preventing the visibility of your IP address. I suggest you attend to your own dirty laundry before lecturing to others.Ds1994 (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)As is commonplace on this page, lot of people with an opinion on what's "correct" and "official", not a lot of people troubling to follow policy as reflect what reliable sources say. I suggest a sentence to the effect of "Scottish newspapers have claimed that Prince George would be entitled to use the courtesy title of "Master of Strathearn" in Scotland.[cites]." When you have equally usable sources saying "said Scottish newspapers are wrong", you could add those, giving them proportionate weight. C'mon people, this isn't rocket surgery. 84.203.38.112 (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware you could perform surgery on rockets.Ds1994 (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

That, Sir Ds1994 is a wise remark we should always keep in mind when discussing issues like this! Gerard von Hebel (talk)

What style he may or may not be entitled to use wherever he is, is another matter altogether. You can't use a title for Scotland that isn't even a title. What 'reliable sources' are? Princes have never used courtesy styles or titles. If there's a change of policy, it won't be one announced by a newspaper. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added a new paragraph with suitable caveats, cf. this discussion. --Twid (talk) 11:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Said paragraph seems well-crafted, using multiple reliable secondary sources, and putting the claims in an appropriate context as to who was making them. (In contrast to many, many edits on this page.) Naturally enough, it was promptly and entirely inappropriately deleted wholesale, with the uncivil and inaccurate edit summary "Speculative". No, it's not, those newspaper definitely made those claims, in the terms stated. It's sourced material, it's accurate, it's in proper context, and it's being given due weight. Request this be restored. 84.203.38.23 (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit requests can only be performed when there is a clear consensus for the edit: see Wikipedia:Edit requests. DrKiernan (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Ancestry

As it stands at the moment this section is messy and not particularly relevant. If you dig back into the ancestry of the late Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother you will find recent antecedants as humble as some of Carole Middleton's ancestors. Also, Michael Middleton is descended from Edward III as already illustrated in another article on here. Do we really need to keep this section? And if so, can we at least improve upon it?Ds1994 (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I have reworked the section "Ancestry" slightly. Firstly, the quote concerned appeared in the leading article under the seal of the newspaper a whole, not just of a particular writer. Secondly, I have reworded the last sentence to show that the solicitor and bank manager were Michael Middleton's grandparents while the labourer and carpenter were Carole's grandparents, thus showing that all four were from different backgrounds.

In response to the comment above, could we work the wording "nineteenth and twentieth century" into the article? Martinvl (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure really if the main assertion of the section is entirely correct. It's suggested for instance that HRH The Prince of Wales is of aristocratic descent, which of course he certainly is. But amongst his forebears from HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother is a plumber called John Walsh. I'm not sure in the mix of the working classes whether you can differentiate between plumbers and coal miners? Either way the section reads clumsily, and requires revision.Ds1994 (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

As I'm sure you must secretly know, one's plumber is a true tradesman, whereas one's poor miner is so lowly he's now practically extinct. But how many generations back does one need to excavate? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I suppose the current reverted text is about as good as we will get. I do wince though when I see the term 'commoner', it really is brutal and unnecessary. The Prince of Wales is still descended from the plumber John Walsh and Michael Middleton is still descended from KingEdward III. The caveat of 'degree' must always be remembered when using the dreadful term 'commoner'.Ds1994 (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not happy with the text. Does the person quoted use the term "commoner" in the article? If so, we should use a direct quote. Otherwise, we should not use the word - it's antiquated and certainly not WP:NPOV. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Diana, Princess of Wales may have been of aristocratic descent, but until she married Prince Charles she was technically a commoner, as she was not a peeress. Just the daughter of a peer. (Not sure what she was after the divorce.) The same goes for the late Queen mother. The present text doesn't seem entirely satisfactory. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure the debate over Commoner has been had many times. I seem to remember one at the Queen Mother article, not so long ago. Am very surprised that Dr. K has not yet stepped in, to put all us commoners straight. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I was about to say "I'm a commoner, too" but then I looked it up in the Oxford English Dictionary and one of the definitions given is "a common harlot, prostitute". DrKiernan (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the definition of "commoner" is "not royal", and so even the grandest of peers are commoners too. Either you are born a prince(ss), or you're just one of the rabble... 62.156.255.22 (talk) 07:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) I'm bemused that there are still people who apparently believe that "technically", it's still "correct" to refer to someone as a "commoner". Can't we all just agree it's all a load of bollocks, and move on? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Is Prince George notable? If so why? His notability stems from him being a direct heir to the throne which in turn stems from his ancestry. Why then has details of his ancestry been stripped down to just two rather bland sentences? Martinvl (talk) 07:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It's unnecessary to spell out any details of his ancestry in this article - linking to other articles that give details of both sides of his family is quite sufficient. We should certainly get rid of words like "aristocratic" and "commoner". We should simply say who his grandparents are, and what royal house he belongs to - no more than that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The way it stands at the moment is deliberately 'brutal'. There is no need to bring into the article an outdated term as 'commoner'. As I have already illustrated, the present Royal family has several 'common' antecedants. May we achieve consensus please and change it?Ds1994 (talk) 08:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, his descent from Elizabeth II must be explained, but I agree with others that anything more than the basics is unnecessary. DrKiernan (talk) 09:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"Brutal"? There is no need to feel squeamish about the status of "commoner" in Britain. Wasn't Prince William keen to let it be seen and known that he was as good as any ordinary husband (say a tradesman or labourer or private soldier) without servants to fetch and carry when he put the baby in the car and drove off with his wife from the hospital? Members of the royal family, and members of titled families, may vote in parliamentary elections for the House of Commons, and to stand for election to that House, and if elected to become a member of it. Is that not the same in other Commonwealth realms if such persons were on the electoral roll? In UK, few hereditary peers, and not even royal dukes, are now members of the House of Lords. In that sense, princes and princesses like others are commoners (and may well be proud of it). At one time the Duke of Cumberland (1771–1851) was able to take part in the House of Lords after he had become King of Hanover when Victoria became Queen of UK. Before that, William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham had been known as The Great Commoner. But this is now the 21st century, and noble rank, aristocracy, the status of "gentlemen", or royal lineage, have little more than a faded glory, determining a place in the order of precedence for occasions when that applies, or to gratify others' snobbery, or allow a sneer to inverted snobbery. On "Nature's gentleman" see Burke's Peerage[6]. -- Qexigator (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't Prince William keen to let it be seen and known that he was as good as any ordinary husband... without servants..." I'm not sure we should impute any motives to him. Maybe he just thought it would be strange to do anything else. Most of the time they seem to lead a relatively normal life, even if she has "graced" the local supermarket with "her regal presence" and has her own parking space..... Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

We? Wikipedia ought not, but any of us can make our own inferences, and mention them to counter another's. Qexigator (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

--Is it an incitement to (brand) loyalty? Or looking for an honour from the Queen? Anyone might think so - I couldn't possibly say. But the chainstore is acting at its own commercial risk, should the price of this arrangement be popular boycott, there or in the Principality, within the polity of the Welsh Assembly, or anywhere else in this realm or others. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that the space painting at Llangefni Asda has rather presumptively planned already for that second royal child. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

"The pregnancy was described as a source of British national pride."

No it wasn't. None of the sources say any such thing. Certainly, some manufacturers have used the excuse of the pregnancy and birth to try to sell memorabilia, and some people have suggested that it all adds to some sort of national feel good factor, which is what the sources do say. The current wording suggests that the nation as a whole was "proud" because William and Kate did their thing. Can anyone suggest a wording more in line with what the sources actually say? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

sorry, still enjoying the pub lock-in. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I've reworded the offending/sive sentence to - "Before the birth there was speculation that it would boost the national economy and provide a focus for national pride" - and removed a dubious source. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't write the sentence, but I cut the last half off and added the sources. I didn't feel it suggested the whole nation was proud, but the event boosted national pride in some, or at least was described as doing so. I don't care if it's removed, I was just making it better than it was. Ghmyrtle's version seems alright. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the royal family itself is proud, anyway. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 13:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

False Town Crier

I have added a section called "False City Crier" but someone has deleted it. Don't you you think this story should be added ?, since many media outlets have fallen to this story. Here's a source to it on Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2377483/Royal-baby-News-networks-duped-fake-royal-town-crier-hijacked-birth-announcement.html --Midrashah (talk) 11:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

A personal highlight for me, Midrashah. In fact, it was probably the only one. But most other editors seem to agree the topic is trivia and the Daily Mail is not a very well respected source. There is quite a lot of previous discussion about Tony Appleton (including a great picture!) in the first Talk Page archive. But why did you think he was false? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC) (p.s. I'm sure we're all looking forward to that article for Tony, even though it hasn't quite been born yet.)

It don't matter if either he was a false or his deeds were false. The fact of the matter is that many media outlets fell to that. There is a story here. But I'm not gonna argue if you claim "most other editors" think otherwise. I simply think they are wrong. --Midrashah (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I just don't like it. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Crystal ball

As we are not predicters of the future we cannot say the only child for now, that presupposes predictive powers we do not have so please dont edit war over this esp when you cant even get a ref together to confirm your speculative predictions, see WP:Crystal. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a silly battle. I say just say "son of". If he had a sister or brother, we'd mention it. No mention? No sibling. A reasonably intelligent reader should be able to handle that. But yeah, "only child" works, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

the term third in line to the throne is meaningless for actual succession

When the monarch still lives, there is no heir. Technically even Charles is only an heir apparent because it is possible that he could die tomorrow while the monarch is still alive. In which case, Charles would never be heir because a dead person cannot inherit. However, every media source (usually not Trusts and Estates lawyers) refers to the baby George Alexander Louis as third in line, so the article should refer to him as someone universally said to be third in line, however, no such title exists. Parliament since the English Civil War you can check the wikipedia articles on succession and the Civil wars, have had the final say on succession to the throne. That is why Elizabeth's Dad became king. Parliament said so. Even wikipedia's own article on British succession states that there is no official list. The numbers next to the names merely assumes that each person dies in the order of age. That may not occur . Lingust (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"The King never dies" means there is never a moment when there is not a monarch. Hence, technically, there is never an heir. But we all know what is meant by "Xth in line to the throne". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

the sentence "No official, complete version of the line of succession is currently maintained. Any person's actual position in the line of succession may change as a result of events including births, deaths or marriages of others." is n the current version of the article on line of succession meaning that if Parliament has a beef it decides who is monarch. Bt if Charles dies before Lizy, William's line is cut off and Charles yunger brother is the eldest child of Lizzy while Lizzy is still alive. Then when Lizzy dies with Andrew still alive, Andrew would be the eldest child and inherit the throne (if Parliament doesn't deny him) Lingust (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

No, you're making that up as you go along. Charles has established his line by producing William and Harry. In turn, William has established his line by producing George. That means that if Charles dies today, William becomes heir apparent; and if both Charles and William die today, George becomes heir apparent. Harry only gets a look in if all 3 of Charles, William and George die before any of them has the chance to produce any more offspring. It is extraordinarily unlikely that Harry, Andrew, Edward, Anne or any of their progeny will ever become monarch. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

(reply to comment by Lingust (talk)) The succession to the throne is governed by the Act of Settlement and other acts of Parliament. If Charles dies before HM The Queen, HRH The Duke of Cambridge would be first in line of succession and HRH Prince George of Cambridge would be second. If Charles dies before HM The Queen, HRH The Duke of Cambridge would become Heir Apparent (he would become King, as long as he does not predecease the Queen, which is the definition of Heir Apparent). I think you misunderstand what the Line of succession is and how it works. HRH Prince George is third in the line of succession, he is the Heir Apparent's (HRH The Prince of Wales) Heir Apparent's (HRH The Duke of Cambridge) Heir Apparent. He can never be moved down the Line of Succession, only up (or removed if he converts to Catholicism, marries a Catholic, or renounces). King of Nothing (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Marriage to a Catholic will soon be permitted. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Almost certainly true and male-preference primogeniture will almost certainly be changed to just primogeniture. But not yet, still some more legal hoops to go through. But i didn't want to get to technical, I just want Lingust (talk)) to understand so that he'll stop adding incorrect information to articles. but currently Prince George of Cambridge can be removed if he converts to Catholicism, marries a Catholic, marries without the approval of the Monarch, or renounces. King of Nothing (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

As for the heir apparent issue...Prince George (like his father Prince William) is an "Heir Presumptive." Only Charles is Heir Apparent. Compare that George VI was heir presumptive to his brother Edward VIII's heir apparent.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

No, sorry, but that is not true. although George VI was heir presumptive to Edward VIII, as Queen Elizabeth II was heir presumptive to George VI, Prince William (and Prince George and Prince Charles) are not Heir Presumptive's to anybody. Heir Presumptive means that they are the current Heir, but may become not the current Heir by a future birth (if Edward VIII had a child, George VI would no longer be Heir Presumptive, if Edward had a daughter she would become Heir Presumptive, if he had a son then he (the son) would become Heir Apparent). Prince Charles is Heir Apparent to HM The Queen, Prince William is Charles' Heir Apparent, and Prince George is William's Heir Apparent. Their currently is no Heir Presumptive to the Throne. If the Prince of Wales dies, then the Duke of Cambridge would become Heir Apparent. If both Prince Charles and Prince William die, then Prince George of Cambridge (who would become The Duke of Cambridge) would be Heir Apparent. King of Nothing (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

King of Nothing is correct. An heir presumptive "is the person currently entitled to inherit a throne, peerage, or other hereditary honour, but whose position can be displaced (in legal terms, is "subject to divestiture") by the birth of an heir or heiress apparent or of a new heir presumptive with a better claim to the position in question." TFD (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, "displaced" was the word I was reaching for. King of Nothing (talk) 03:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

What would happen if he turns out to be insane (or whatever you call insane people)? Can he be disqualified? I'm not talking about a George III situation (I just realized they have the same name) where he goes crazy after he's already king. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Currently their is no process by which a Monarch could be disqualified due to mental health issues. Mental illness does not disqualify a person from becoming Monarch; therefore he would still become King (hopefully this will not become as issue, God Bless the little prince). If he became mentally ill during his reign he would still remain King, although a Regent could be appointed to act in his name for the duration of his incapacitation (or reign if necessary), i.e. George III. King of Nothing (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

That's good. If they're playing the birthright way, they should take who they get, regardless (of gender and religion, too). Otherwise, they may as well just elect them. But yeah, I wish the kid/king well. Even if he is crazy, not all crazy is the bad kind. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Have a look here for more on the subject. P M C 06:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

In some monarchies, e.g. the Netherlands, the constitution allows the national legislature to exclude someone from the line of succession should "exceptional circumstances arise". Under the Dutch constitution, that would require a law passed by a two-third majority in a joint session of both houses of parliament. In the UK though, because there is no written constitution, parliament is actually sovereign and can exclude anyone from the line of succession by ordinary legislation. That was done at least twice in the past, namely to the descendants of the deposed King James II and to any possible descendants of Edward VIII (who ultimately didn't have children anyway). 189.19.80.253 (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, The UK Parliament cannot on its own alter the Line of succession to the shared Monarchy (it would require changing the laws in every single one of the Commonwealth Realms before it would become law in any of the Commonwealth Realms (including the UK)). Just like with King Edward VIII, it required laws being passed in each of the states with the shared Monarchy (now there is 16, at the time there was significantly fewer). King of Nothing (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

And just to elaborate. If, under an act which had been passed by the Queen in the UK Parliament, provisions for changing the law of succession came into operation they would have effect for UK but not in other realms unless they concurred or acquiesced according to the law of each realm. The Perth Agreement is binding in honour among the realms, but not (it seems) as a treaty or pact under international law. Given that each realm is a sovereign state with the same person, the Queen, as its reigning monarch, it is forseeable that circumstances could arise when the UK changed the line of succession for itself with the concurrence or acquiescence of one or more of the other realms; but it may be surmised that for the immediate and forseeably near future, the Queen is unlikely to be a willing party to letting the law of succession be changed for one or some only of the realms, unless so advised by governments of other realms as well as of UK. Briefly, forget it unless it happens. Qexigator (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Technically they could do that; but, it would require the repeal of the Statute of Westminster 1931 Act (in whole or in part), as well as other Acts considered to be the "foundation of the uncodified Constitution". Because the very Acts of Parliament that created the Commonwealth required each of the Commonwealth Realms to pass laws touching on the succession of the Crown before they would take effect, it would also almost certainly cause an end to the Commonwealth. However, this scenario is beyond extremely unlikely (but yes it is possible). King of Nothing (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

But not meaningless. "The line of succession to the British throne" is the ordered sequence of all those people eligible to succeed to the throne of the United Kingdom...it is also used to select the Counsellors of State (and a regent if the need arises) under the provisions of the Regency Act 1937. Qexigator (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)