Talk:List of guests at the coronation of Charles III and Camilla/Archive 1

Archive 1

"Dignitaries" over "guests"

Should this article be titled "List of dignitaries at the coronation of Charles III and Camilla", rather than "List of guests at the coronation of Charles III and Camilla". Also, should "Camilla" be "Queen Camilla" in the title? I understand it is not King Charles III, but typically we have the prefixed title before a consort. This is not a requested move at this moment, just a discussion first. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the article title should remain as it is because not all of the people attending are 'dignitaries'. Some are British Empire Medal recipients and there may be some celebrities that could attend. It should still say Camilla instead of Queen Camilla because it would be consistent with other coronation articles such as Coronation of Edward VII and Alexandra, Coronation of George V and Mary, Coronation of George VI and Elizabeth, etc. DDMS123 (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for pointing out the "Queen" thing. I didn't even think to look for other coronation articles. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

"Guest" vs "participants"

I think the Bishop of Edinburgh is likely misplaced here. He's not a "faith representative" guest, he's participating, perhaps only rather notionally, as a Gentleman Usher. And you'd want to avoid giving any impression he was "leading faith rep for Scotland", which is a couple of steps from being the case. The ECiS is neither the majority church nor one with any established or quasi-official role. And that primate isn't the head of it, either. 109.etc (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

We could just simply add a footnote that says he is also officiating? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

As we have no source that he's there as a "faith rep" at all, IMO still not ideal. 109.etc (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

William & Catherine's children

Just a suggestion. Perhaps we could (via pipe-link or re-direct) show them as Prince George, Princess Charlotte, Prince Louis. Do we really have to show the "..of Wales" bit? GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I is part of the titles, likewise the Prince and Princess of Kent. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 01:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Not at all likewise, for "common name not official title" purposes. Seems like a good idea to me: the "of Wales" is clear from context, and stylistically stilted. 109.etc (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

In the same list we do have the Prince and Princess of Kent. It's the same shoe fits all scenario. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 02:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and those are different for the very reasons I just gave. Unqualified "Prince Louis" is a common and identifying description, "Prince Michael" is not. "Princess Charlotte" is indented under an "of" parent with the same full formal style, "Princess Michael" isn't. Some degree of bespoke cobbling entirely appropriate. 109.etc (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that the territorial designations should be removed for some and not others, I also am not in favour of them being removed at all. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 04:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

But for any particular reason? 109.etc (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

For the very reason I gave in my last response. It's interesting you invoked WP:IDONTLIKEIT given my reasoning why hasn't changed, especially since this whole line of conversation has fallen under the same category. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I should also point out that the change was reverted by another editor, so I'm not the only one that is opposed by its standalone removal. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

... no, only one half. I already pointed out it's their common names, unambiguous in the context, and the only stylistically reasonable form. Naturally I'm equally curious as to @Keivan.f:'s rationale as yours, as neither their edit summary nor talk-page participation were enlightening (as there was none). 109.etc (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I’m not sure why you consider it unreasonable to include it, especially given it’s the article name, eludes back to not liking it. I’ve also said the same thing in 3/4 reply’s and the 4th pointed out the first 3. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 11:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The of Wales bit should still be shown. It makes no sense to omit it from some people's titles but keep it for others. Prince Michael is still under an of. The reason he isn't indented is because his father, the Duke of Kent, is no longer alive. If his father was still alive, he would be indented under his parents. DDMS123 (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I was figuring that in Michael & his wife's situation, it was alright to go with "of Kent", because (of course) his parents aren't listed. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the "of Wales" bit should remain because in other articles about guests at various events, it still shows the full title for the Wales children. DDMS123 (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

That's a bit WP:OTHERSTUFF, as it may simply be the same poor practice, potentially even by the same set of "we must use full official titles!" editors. Arguably it's largely harmless here due to the list structure -- though to my eye, the nesting makes the artless redundancy all the more clear, just mercilessly spamming the reader with the same info four times -- but in normal prose, it'd be rather odd to use the full titles where the context is clearly. Whereas for the "of Kents", that's pretty much the usual form. 109.etc (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@109.etc: WP:OTHERSTUFF states that using "other stuff" as a reason is perfectly valid when it provides consistency between articles. DDMS123 (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I feel like that's a borderline ad hominem argument. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 01:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Nford24: It's not an ad hominem argument, I am just repeating what the guideline says. DDMS123 (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Consistency is good, but provided that a) the practice in the unspecified other instance is actually the better one, and it wouldn't be preferable to instead change that, and b) context is taken account of in each case. Where the context is "I've said 'of Wales' so many times now that it's lost all meaning", chances are it's not the best choice. 109.etc (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

DDMS123 my apologies, that wasn’t directed at you. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 05:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

You feel it's an ad hom to argue against a practice... because people might have engaged in the practice? Not sure I'm quite following your thread there. 109.etc (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Nford24 All good DDMS123 (talk) 07:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Celebrities

As far as I can see the celebrities listed so far are not really guests at the coronation. They are taking part on the concert afterwards Ncox001 (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

It was a long shot adding it, I'm not too fussed that it was removed, but I'm pretty sure there are some sources that have supported them being at the coronation as well. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The Telegraph

Per this source, which has been used in the article, foreign royal guests include:

"Queen Margrethe II of Denmark, Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary of Denmark, King Felipe VI and Queen Letizia of Spain, King Juan Carlos I and Queen Sofia of Spain, King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia of Sweden, King Harald V and Queen Sonja of Norway, King Philippe and Queen Mathilde of Belgium, King Willem-Alexander and Queen Maxima of the Netherlands, Princess Beatrix of the Netherlands, King Abdullah II and Queen Rania of Jordan, Emperor Naruhito and Empress Masako of Japan, Prince Albert and Princess Charlene of Monaco, Queen Anne-Marie of Greece, Crown Prince Pavlos and Crown Princess Marie-Chantal of Greece, Grand-Duke Henri of Luxembourg and Grand-Duchess Maria Teresa of Luxembourg, The Hereditary Prince and Princess of Liechtenstein, The Sultan of Brunei, The Sultan of Oman, The King of Morocco, The King and Queen of Bhutan, The Emir of Qatar, The Ruler of Dubai, The Ruler of Abu Dhabi and President of the United Arab Emirates, Crown Prince of Bahrain, Crown Prince of Kuwait, King Letsie III of Lesotho, The King of Tonga, His Majesty the Yang di Pertuan Agong and Her Majesty Raja Permaisuri Agong of Malaysia, The Hereditary Prince of Baden, Former King Simeon II, Margareta of Romania and Crown Prince Alexander and Crown Princess Katherine of Serbia."

Forgive me for the large paragraph. In the article, barely any of these names have been included. Is there a reason they haven't been yet, otherwise we could add them (I know that some people like Margrethe II and Marie-Chantal of Greece are not coming). @DDMS123, Keivan.f, and Richiepip: I am just pinging to get input from you three as I know you have all been very active on this page. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 04:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Therealscorp1an- Most of the foreign royal guests listed in that article haven't officially accepted the invitation yet. Also, most of the monarchs featured on that article have sent someone in their place. For example the Crown Prince and Princess of Norway are attending instead of the King and Queen. DDMS123 (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@DDMS123: Do you reckon we could add like an "expected guests" sub-sub-header and include the above names? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Therealscorp1an - We could, but it might not sit well with other editors. A potential compromise could be adding it in but using hidden text. If their attendance is officially confirmed, then we can unhide the text. DDMS123 (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

What about placing them under "Invitees" or some other such description? Or add that as a scoping statement for the article as a whole. Who's RSVP'd or not yet is surely of marginal notability, unless there's some Prominent Snub narrative made of it. 109.etc (talk)

@109.etc - That could work. DDMS123 (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@109.etc and DDMS123: I just found this brilliant source, which is similar to The Telegraph's, but it says that all these guests have been confirmed. Should we use this as a source to add all the names? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Lot of handy detail indeed, but I don't think it's likely to be seen as a WP:RELIABLESOURCE. I think it's fine to list both confirmed "guests" and "invitees", as long as we're clear about the sourcing, and we cover what the article scope is in the text. 109.etc (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

This source could work as it is backed up by other sources such as The Telegraph. Another website I also think is good is this source because it has a list of invitees and it includes links to articles where they confirm their attendance. DDMS123 (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@DDMS123 and 109.etc: There is this source as well, which further backs it all up. I think there's enough sources to at least add an "invitees" section. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Therealscorp1an: This source would work. I also think there should be an "invitees" section since there are plenty of sources that backs it up. DDMS123 (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Alright. Would you like me to add it or do you want to? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

You can add it if you want to. DDMS123 (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

That's definitely a better source. Not quite WP:RS/P grade, but given the nature of the material I think a pretty appropriate one. Including invitees is fine I think, as I've said. 109.etc (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Earls mentioned incorrectly

Hi, not trying to be annoying or anything, but why are Earls written as "Earl of X"? The correct way of mentioning such people is as "The Earl of X", just like Dukes are. Some of those guys having courtesy titles, they should really be "X, Earl of Y", but I'd settle for "The Earl of X" anyway. Darth2207Lucas (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Darth2207Lucas: Earls are not mentioned incorrectly, they are all correct as they are. Most of the people on this list are using courtesy titles. Courtesy titles never have 'The' before their name because they are not the official title holder. You can see that most of the Earls are indented under their father who is a duke. Since their fathers (dukes) are still alive, they will continue to use the most senior subsidiary title which is an earldom. The Earl of Snowdon has 'The' before his name because that is his actual title. You can even look at the Royal Family Website [1]. Number 14 on the line of succession says Earl of Wessex, not 'The Earl of Wessex'. DDMS123 (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct, my apologies. Darth2207Lucas (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Darth2207Lucas: No problem. DDMS123 (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

That was extremely confusing as I'd lost all track of who tDoE and EoW were, in all the "it's a surprise for his buffday!" nonsense about something that'd be briefed out, and then briefed back in again, long in advance. 109.etc (talk) 08:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Torygraph source for "nearly the entire Royal family"

I was idly curious if our source for the attendance of Sophie Winkleman referred to her by her common (and professional, and birth, and normal, and post-1900-style...) name, or as cited here. Plot twist, it doesn't mention her at all. The source is simply the above quote. That's classic {{verification failed}}. Is there a better -- i.e., actual -- source for the individuals listed? Or should we cut the list down to what the existing source actually says? Policy-wise, it's one or the other... 109.etc (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Realm "seniority"

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

I agree. I think listing them in terms of "seniority" could imply that some countries are 'better' than others. I don't know if there was ever a discussion on the List of dignitaries at the state funeral of Elizabeth II article regarding this, but it just does not seem right. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I am in favour of alphabetical order. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 04:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I think it's better in alphabetical order. I haven't seen any reliable sources that says that some realms are more "senior" than each other. DDMS123 (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd a look too, and couldn't even find any unreliable ones! Plus we certainly shouldn't do it unglossed. 109.etc (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm assuming this all came from the flag protocol for parading flags of the Commonwealth of Nations in the UK (which is to parade the flags by order of the date they joined the organisation, starting with the UK). With that said, that is an informal practice, and we aren't obliged to follow informal flag protocol. Alphabetical would be the best order for an encyclopedic entry on the topic (as it doesn't require contextualization for readers). Leventio (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Which is a different thing from the "realms" of course, though the order might end up corresponding, depending how exactly each is being reckoned. But it's not even a general practice in contexts like for example the 2022 Commonwealth Games Parade of Nations. I'd strongly recommend keeping it for the Coronation edition of Staged, with David Tennant play the role of Canada, presumably... Hopefully resolved now. Really we need a stronger, sourced rationale for the organisation of the entire page, but one day's work at a time... 109.etc (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Vote

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

• Support as per the reasons given above. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - We should have the other realms in order of their age. GoodDay (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  {{citation needed}}. 109.etc (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  Citation not required. There's no disputing the age of Canada (1867), Australia (1901), New Zealand (1907), etc. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  Citation very much required. Your claim was "we should". There's no basis in Wikipedia P&G for this trope, therefore it's an editorial decision. If we adopt this organising principle, we'd properly have to gloss doing so. Which would then need to be sourced. What's the plan for that? <ref>{{cite web|work=GoodDay|title=Personal communication}}</ref>? 109.etc (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  No source needed. It's a matter of choice, in this situation. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  It's a matter of choice within the context described above. i.e. you make a weird choice, you need to contextualise it. Which you then need to source. Pretty slam-dunk. So, no source, then? 109.etc (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  You haven't convinced me to change my position in this discussion, nor do you have to. So, there's no point in continuing any further. GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  Your "position" is unimportant. Your P&G-based rationale for it is crucial. So absent any... 109.etc (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  Whatever. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support - It should be listed alphabetically. DDMS123 (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support Realm superiority simply doesn't exist, alphabetical order is the most logical and less demeaning way to present the list's (including future lists on similar articles). Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support Alphabetical order is usually the least controversial solution. No need to stir the pot unnecessarily. Keivan.f^Talk 21:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support There is a protocol for arranging the realms in order of age; some time ago, I had a source for it. But, as it goes on the internet, some time sometimes leads to things disappearing. So, with the loss of that source, and it really being six and half a dozen, alphabetical is fine. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

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

We are discussing how Canada is listed above Australia, but it seems someone has changed it to alphabetical order already. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I assume, the United Kingdom isn't a part of this discussion, then? GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

It's validly part of the larger discussion I alluded to above, i.e., "how are we organising the entire article, and on what basis?" It's clearly not part of the narrow "'Other Commonwealth realms' section" discussion, as while clearly it's a "Commonwealth realm", it's not an "other Commonwealth realm", having jus been treated of separately. 109.etc (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2023

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

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

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

Margrave or Hereditary Prince of Baden

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

The article mentions the Hereditary Prince of Baden, so I assume they are either misstitling the 'Margrave' or meaning his son. On first reading I assumed they were misstitling, but as there are Crown Princes and other heirs in the list, it seems more reasonable that they mean Leopold. If you have any further information to clarify this, it would be greatly appreciated. Theoreticalmawi (talk) 10:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Theoreticalmawi: I have seen some sources saying that the Margrave (i.e. Bernhard) will be attending, however some sources say the Hereditary Prince will be attending. However, I do not know whether they are referring to Bernhard in both cases. Is the Hereditary Prince the heir to the Head of the House of Baden, meaning Bernhard's son, Leopold? On Bernhard's article, it says that he was formerly known as the Hereditary Prince, which doesn't really help the situation either way. User:109.etc, User:Nford24, User:DDMS123 and User:GoodDay, do any of you know anything about this? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

No sorry, that’s out of my realm. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 14:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Therealscorp1an - Sorry, I'm not sure about this one. DDMS123 (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Therealscorp1an as @Richiepip keeps persiting reediting it to margrave and you are saying, that you read sources that mentioned the margrave, I would suggest to keep it as margrave and replace the source with an appropriate one. Theoreticalmawi (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, did not realize this was being discussed here. As I mentioned in my edit summaries, it seems highly unlikely that the 20-year-old Hereditary Prince is attending as opposed to his father the Margrave. I assume the sources that list Hereditary Prince are simply doing so as Bernhard was titled as such for 52 years prior to 29 December 2022. Richiepip (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Alright. I think we should reference a source that calls him the Margrave though. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

If they're saying "Margrave"? my guess is they mean the Margrave. If they're saying "Hereditary Prince"? then it must be the Margrave's son. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I presume they're intending to refer to Bernhard (particularly considering the new Hereditary Prince of Baden is just over 20 years old). Tatler (which I prefer to avoid, but its the only source where I could find any mention of the Badens) refers to the "Hereditary Prince", providing a picture of Bernhard. Estar8806 (talk) 03:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

To add to the confusion, Tatler does the same thing: refers to the HPoB. But as they include a name and a photograph, evidently they mean Bernie and not Leo. I don't know why the title is being used in this sort of lagging indicator way. I assume a better source will turn up eventually. 109.etc (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Oops sorry, basically duplicated what @Estar8806 just said. But to redeem myself, here's an additional source that says the right thing in the right way: https://newsingermany.com/coronation-of-king-charles-iii-these-are-the-guests-from-germany/ "Bernhard Margrave of Baden (52) will travel from Salem in the Lake Constance district together with his wife Stephanie." Several other UK sources repeat the same mistake as the Tat and the Tory, so I'm guessing they're all working off the same press release, or copying each others' homework... 17:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC) 109.etc (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I just also found this, which backs up that Bernhard is attending even more: "The Hereditary Prince of Baden, who took over as the head of the House of Baden on December 29, 2022, following the death of his father, the Margravine of Baden, is among the non-reigning royals expected to be invited to the King's Coronation." This from this source. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Not a great source -- UK "middle-market" tab -- and replicating the same error as Tat&Tory, but it at least confirms the general impression. 109.etc (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2023

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

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

Lord Speaker

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

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

Misleading information

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

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

Lord Mayor

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

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

Kuwait Royals

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

The source and the list are correct. DDMS123 (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure you read the source right. It says "was seen off at the airport by...." and then lists a lot of people. Those people are not going to the Coronation. They just were at the Airport. 64.63.174.194 (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry you're correct, I didn't read it properly. It says that only the foreign minister is accompanying him. DDMS123 (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

It's been changed. DDMS123 (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Since the foreign minister is a member of the ruling house, should he be moved to the other royalty section? 98.228.137.44 (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Attendance of Olaf Scholz, Federal Chancellor of Germany

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

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

President of Montenegro will attend

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

Finnegan Biden

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

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2023

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

 Done. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Per Therealscorp1an. Callmemirela 🍁 03:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

It's now been changed to "the King's fifth cousins once removed and his wife (sic)". Can it be changed back?2601:249:9301:D570:94D0:9968:6308:4AD7 (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

duke of buccleuch

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

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

Descendants of George V

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

The source is Town and County magazine. I included the links when I originally posted the section. 2601:249:9301:D570:94D0:9968:6308:4AD7 (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

We can visually identify them. Unless there are some members of the BRF seated elsewhere. Some of the sources in this article are speculative from before the event happening. We should only keep official confirmations, or cite sources from after the event, or provide a big seating chart with photos. A publication can say someone attended, but I still try to find photo/video of them actually there. QW3RTYP13.14 (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The video I linked includes a procession of the extended royal family and the article features pictures of them. 2601:249:9301:D570:94D0:9968:6308:4AD7 (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I know. I was talking about other guests. QW3RTYP13.14 (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Douglas Ross & Opposition in Scotland

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

@ThomasRintoul, he is still leader of the largest opposition party. DDMS123 (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

However, there isn't a difference in title or seniority of the opposition parties in Scotland as there is in Westminster. It's an unofficial title and further contributes to viewing the Holyrood system through a Westminster lens. I think it's better it be removed in lieu of his true title as Leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party. ThomasRintoul (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@ThomasRintoul Please provide a reliable source that states that Leader of the Opposition is not an official title. If a reliable source is provided, it’ll remove it. DDMS123 (talk) 04:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

It literally says as much on the wikipedia page for Leader of the Opposition (Scotland). ThomasRintoul (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

But "only use official/formal titles" is the exact opposite to the Wikipedia house style. if he's commonly referred to as such, and more especially if reliable sources say that's the capacity he's invited to this event, we should follow suit in referring to him in that manner. 109.etc (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I thought the Scottish Conservatives, were the official opposition in the Scottish Parliament. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

As pointed out above, our own article on the topic makes this clear: Unlike in the Parliament at Westminster where there is an Official Opposition to the government of the day, all parties in the Scottish Parliament that are not in government are all technically on the same footing as 'opposition parties'. Be even better if it'd a source, but AIUI it's correct, albeit not relevant here. 109.etc (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Hosam Naoum

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2023

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

Done, thank you. 109.etc (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

He's currently listed out of alphabetical order. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

... also done. 109.etc (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Wrong information on the list

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

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

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

Maybe they can be mention in separate paragraph, not in the list 84.15.185.158 (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Peers

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

Agreed. Duplicates should be removed. The barons should be styled consistently with the rest of the peers. I also noticed that the recent edits have also left some knight missing the "Sir" in front of their names, which should be addressed as well. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Looking into it, the Earl of Dalhousie appears to be the only duplicate remaining.98.228.137.44 (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s weird that the section “other peers of the realm” is at the top then you have other peers who are listed in sections further down like the order/award section or royal household section. Shouldn’t they be listed in the highest applicable section then have a “other” section? If that makes sense. Plus the other peers section need organizing like rank > role/no > alphabetical or something, I keep finding more life peers to add. QW3RTYP13.14 (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd personally suggest moving the "Royal Household" section to before the "other peers" section. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The list of guests

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

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

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

King of Spain cousin

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

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

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

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

Format of peers' names and titles

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

• The Lord Patel, presenting the ring

became

• Narendra Patel, baron Patel, presenting the ring

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

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

I'm in favor of the first option, as it's in line with what the other articles in categories such as Category:Coronations of British monarchs and Category:European royal weddings use, looks more formal, and matches what's used in the order of service. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

It may look more formal, but we need to think about readers. Identifying by peerage alone unecessarily restricts the information given in the article, when we could easily incorporate names as well. Several peers in the list are better-known by their names than their titles (e.g. Floella Benjamin, Nicholas Soames, Sebastian Coe), and in those cases it's particularly unhelpful to only use their title.

My view is that we shouldn't be aiming for the most formal list, but the most accessible one, and that using names as well as titles helps achieve that. 'John Smith, baron Smith' is formal enough for British peer article titles, so it must be good enough for body text. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

If nothing else, the lowercase capitalization is at odds with how titles of nobility are presented on this site and elsewhere. My vote still stands, because I having having different pages use different naming formats for guest lists looks inconsistent. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

It is kind of ridiculous, since he can’t be Prince William of Wales or Prince William, Duke (duke) of Cambridge anymore, that if we want to mention William’s name he has to be William, prince of Wales, while there is Prince George of Wales and Prince Harry, duke of Sussex. It’s ‘Prince of Wales’ as a whole title, not ‘prince of’ Wales like a common descriptor or like there can be multiple. Fine don’t capitalize page or secretary, fine mention their names, but the lowercase titles are not helping readers. (Even my autocorrect is capitalizing everything.) QW3RTYP13.14 (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

This discussion is about the format of peers' names and titles, not capitalisation. Please keep that discussion to the section above. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth articles like List of royal guests at the coronation of Elizabeth II, List of dignitaries at the state funeral of Elizabeth II, and others use the first format, so this article is currently an outlier in that regard. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Not to be awkward, but I think it's a bad format and that it should be changed in all the relevant articles, not just this one. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Given how it affects many different articles, there should probably be consensus for changing it, lest even more disagreement arises. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

That's what I'm hoping to achieve. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it appears there is strong opposition to the format, based on the above comments. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not especially bothered. Using both name and title is a better format, and in line with MOS:SURNAME: 'for modern-day nobility it is better to use name and title.' A.D.Hope (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think the poster in the other thread had a point in that consensus should have been reached before they were changed. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I think my comment is relevant here because you are talking about including their names with their titles to help readers understand. And I gave William as an example of my issue, which I know is also related to capitalization. QW3RTYP13.14 (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Your comment is more relevant to the discussion above than here. I'm not trying to dismiss it by any means, just focus each section on their respective topics. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Currently, the page is inconsistent with how it refers to peers. Compare the "United Kingdom" section to the "Royal Household section" and you can see the mix of styles. 2601:249:9301:D570:7031:D4CE:3173:66F9 (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

It's best not to edit material under dispute, so nothing can be done about that until this is resolved. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Though the current incarnation of just linking the articles is far preferable to the lowercase, I still believe in the "The [peer]" format, as it was and to be consistent with the way we do these guest lists. Richiepip (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

In addition, I think any confusion as to who that specific peer is can be alieved by clicking on their linked article. Richiepip (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Is it worth asking whether 'the way we do these guest lists' is actually the best thing for the reader? If omitting names has the potential to cause confusion, and we could easily include them, shouldn't we do so? A.D.Hope (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Confirmed their attendance

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

Baroness Williams of Trafford

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