Talk:Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Makes no sense[edit]

Under "Stepping Back" is this sentence:

"At the time of the announcement of Harry and Meghan's decision to "step back" as senior members of the royal family in 2020, 95% of the couple's income derived from the £2.3 million given to them annually by Harry's father, Charles, as part of his income from the Duchy of Cornwall."

It's incomplete and makes no sense as it is. Please somebody fix it. 2600:1700:EA01:1090:A094:70AC:75B:AEDC (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source says:
They are giving up their slice of the Queen’s Sovereign Grant but, according to their website, it accounts for only five per cent of their income.
The couple receive about 95 per cent of their income from the Duchy of Cornwall, to the tune of £2.3 million a year. The lucrative Duchy is part of Prince Charles’s private estate and also funds the activities of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
Prince Harry and his brother received most of the £13 million fortune left by their mother, Princess Diana. According to the BBC, Prince Harry was also left millions of pounds by the Queen Mother, his great-grandmother.
How do you think it should be reworded?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity[edit]

This, to me, was obviously clearer before that reversal. The titles are needed there for clarity. I will add them again unless someone can come up with a good reason (better than everybody in the world knows who Charles and Elizabeth are) not to. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already gave you one in the edit summary. The prefixes "King/Queen" are absolutely not needed; otherwise they would have been included in the main title of the two pages we have on those two monarchs. And whether you like it or not, everyone knows who Elizabeth and Charles are. The wording is also consistent with the similar paragraph that appears on his brother's page, which incidentally came out of a GA review recently. Keivan.fTalk 22:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of your reasoning is relevant. This is about clarity of text, to be read by thousands of Americans and others not as familiar as you and I with these people. It's not about article titles or what's in other articles. I will reverse it unless someone else comes up with relevant reasons not to. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I neither have the time nor the energy to fight over such trivial matters; thus, I restored the original wording. Having the word Queen before Elizabeth's name makes no difference, when the name itself is linked within the article's body. Even a clueless reader is one click away from understanding who she was. Keivan.fTalk 13:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I neither have the time nor the energy to fight over such trivial matters" - yet the arguing went on and on. Article text should be as clear as possible to all readers, even those deemed "clueless" by some of us, without any need to click to other articles. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Monogram[edit]

There has been no official word on his monogram being updated with the coronet of the Sovereign. When William's was changed to the Heir Apparent, we were told that it couldnt be changed because there wasnt anything official. Why do we get to change Harry's then? It should be reverted back to the official one used. 170.85.9.75 (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Coronet of the Child of a Sovereign
170.85.9.75 (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We changed William's to feature the coronet of a child of the sovereign as well (before the whole file was deleted for some unknown reason). The heir and his wife do not always use the coronet set aside specifically for the prince/ss of Wales (Diana did not, neither during her marriage nor after it was over, but Camilla did). The inconsistency in that specific coronet's usage is why we need a source for it. Keivan.fTalk 17:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation medal[edit]

With regard to [1], I fear GBNews may have it wrong. Harry may not have been wearing the coronation medal because he was not given it. It is given to serving personnel or people who made an "active contribution". Page 2 of the eligibility criteria says "attendance at an event, i.e. as a guest, does not in itself qualify for the medal". GBNews says he was given it "alongside other Armed Forces and frontline emergency workers". Is he a serving member of the armed forces? DrKay (talk) 08:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proper title correction needed.[edit]

According to Harry's bio page on the royal website, his comprehensive list of titles no longer includes Prince. Nowhere on the site do they refer to him as Prince, except when referring to things he did in the past while he did have the title. Further research indicates that the Queen, in making him Duke of Sussex on his wedding day did not simply add the Duke title to his heraldry, but rather swapped out (reclaimed) the title of Prince for the title of Duke. The wording of the official change of title is vague, but it is an official *change* of title, not an announcement of title *bestowal*. Given that the subsequent changes regarding this on the royal website are uniformly in line with this, there can be no doubt that he is no longer Prince Harry,and has not been since his wedding. The fact that the media calls him Prince, the common public calls him Prince, and he and his publicists call him Prince is really irrelevant if the Palace says he does not possess that title. I propose it be corrected in the article with the relevant sources. Announcement of title change: https://www.royal.uk/prince-harry-and-ms-meghan-markle-announcement-titles Bio page listing all his official titles: https://www.royal.uk/the-duke-of-sussex

Special note should be taken to distinguish "prince", the biological relationship to the monarch, with "Prince", the royal title. The title is capitalized, the biological state is not. In Britain, being born a prince qualifies you for the title Prince, but does not guarantee it. Royal titles, including Prince, are the personal property of the monarch, and can be given and taken at will. 199.176.124.25 (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 60+ years of studying royalty, I have never seen anything like "to distinguish "prince", the biological relationship to the monarch, with "Prince", the royal title". Looks like free fantasy to me. Source, if any? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am just trying to sort this out from the royal.uk site on 19 May 2018:
"The Queen has today been pleased to confer a Dukedom on Prince Henry of Wales. His titles will be Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel.
Prince Harry thus becomes His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex, and Ms. Meghan Markle on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex."
That seems clear that he is no longer Price Henry of Wales.
He was still called Duke of Sussex on 19 February 2021
Today, on the page for Henry from the Royal Family listing:
"The Duke of Sussex is fifth in line to the throne and the younger son of The King and Diana, Princess of Wales"... "As announced in January 2020, The Duke and Duchess have stepped back as senior members of The Royal Family."
So, he has not been Price Henry since 19 May 2018 and is now Duke of Sussex.
I was trying to find something on the royal family site that showed that Harry lost his title of Duke of Sussex, and I don't see it.
As a side note, it would not be proper to take his titles from his own website.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, it's not really that great to take them from the royal family website either. Both constitute primary sources, whereas what we should be using is reliable secondary sources.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carole, it is not his website. It is the official website of the British Monarchy. One of the reasons the British are so upset with Harry right now is that on *his* website he still refers to himself as Prince Harry. 199.176.124.25 (talk) 01:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Serge: The source you are requesting is here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince
At least in Britain, a prince (lower case) is the direct descendant of the monarch. It is a reference to lineage. A Prince (capitalized) is one who holds the royal title. Harry was born a prince, was given the title of Prince, and who is apparently now only a prince again. The incorrect use of capitals and lowercase to distinguish which meaning of the word is intended is a large part of the confusion regarding this issue. Most of the world thinks the biological relationship and title are one and the same as a result. 199.176.124.25 (talk) 01:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict]

However, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) states: "European monarchs whose rank is below that of emperor or king (e.g., grand dukes, electors, dukes, sovereign princes), and whose plain common name is ambiguous, should be at the location "{Monarch's first name and ordinal}, {Title} of {Country}". Examples: Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria, Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Albert II, Prince of Monaco."
His brother's article title is William, Prince of Wales
Based on that guideline and his brother's article title, his article title should have been Henry, Prince of Wales or Harry, Prince of Wales... and I would have thought became Henry, Duke of Sussex or Harry, Duke of Sussex - which then became muddled when his title of Prince being stripped of "Prince" when he became Duke of Sussex.
That guideline refers to Wikipedia:Article titles and Wikipedia:Official_names#Common_name, refer back to the nobility and royalty guideline.
This is really confusing. I am going to post a question at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility).–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I posted the question at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#Correct_article_title_for_Prince_Harry,_Duke_of_Sussex.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain what you're calling for. Might be best, if you were to open an RM. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay Did you look at the post where I asked after a summary of name/title uses: "Would you please help us sort out the correct article title for Harry?"
My understanding of WP:Requested moves is that is used once it has been decided what the title should be - and there is concensus about that article title. We're not there yet.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For sons of British monarchs & sons of sons of British monarchs, who have ducal titles? We use Prince in the page title.
See (for examples)-
Prince Andrew, Duke of York
Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh
Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester
Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, etc.
GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As stated by GoodDay here, no article title change is needed for the reasons stated above.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally, an editor who wants a page moved can just unilaterally start the requested move, and the RM is how the consensus is decided. You are never required to already have a consensus before starting the RM. Of course, it's also always fine and good to talk informally first, if people think it's more productive, or if people aren't sure whether they really want to start an RM at all. Adumbrativus (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added indent for readability.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adumbrativus That's good to know. I have only requested moves that didn't require discussion - or as the result of discussion and consensus - but wasn't able to do the move myself. I just perused the WP:RM information. Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Questioning royalty and nobility guideline[edit]

This practice is part of the problem. In Britain, one can be a prince, but not a Prince. The biological relationship is not the same thing as the title. Harry is a prince, but according to the British monarchy he is no longer a Prince. This is the reason I started this discussion...because referring to him as Prince Harry is to impart a title to him which he no longer has. It is inaccurate. As far as Ducal titles go, your practice is also flawed because not all dukedoms are royal, not all of them are held by Princes or princes. Traditionally, but only traditionally, royal dukedoms have been held by Princes. There have been exceptions even to that though, which is why your practice is problematic.
Maybe we are making this more complicated than it needs to be. The *why, how, and when* it happened can be discussed over time, as can the nuances of British titling, but the basic fact is that according to the official website of the British Empire, Harry does not possess the title of Prince anymore. It is not present in the official list of his titles, and they no longer refer to him as Prince when they use his formal address, and they have taken great pains to remove such reference to the title Prince in the present tense from every last current reference to Harry throughout their website. Therefore, this page should be changed to reflect that, and to conform to his official formal address and titling as it is used by the Palace. 199.176.124.25 (talk) 00:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Britain, one can be a prince, but not a Prince. This is WP:OR and is categorically false. Here are Charles and Andrew being referred to as "His Royal Highness The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales" and "His Royal Highness The Prince Andrew, Duke of York", respectively, in The London Gazette. The statement was released by St James' Palace. Keivan.fTalk 00:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When it is capitalized it is a reference to the title. When it is lowercase it is reference to the biological relationship. Prince is a royal title, prince is the son or grandson of the monarch. In Britain only a prince can be given the title Prince. The biological relationship and the title are two very different things. 199.176.124.25 (talk) 00:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, it is not wp:or. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince 199.176.124.25 (talk) 01:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The IP appears to be under the presumption that he was stripped of his princely rank once he married. This never happened; a prince does not cease to be a prince when he's granted a peerage. Also, after leaving the UK he was simply stripped of his HRH, like his uncle Prince Andrew, Duke of York, not his peerage or princely rank. Keivan.fTalk 22:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kevin. No, I am not under that impression. I am under the impression that it *appears* the Queen reclaimed the title of Prince at the same time she bestowed the title of Duke. It appears that way for a number of reasons. If he had still been a Prince when he married, Meghan would have been eligible to become a Princess, and the bestowal would have been a formality as it was for Catherine. Additionally, and at the same time, the royal website began making changes to how they reference Harry as well as to his list of titles. But most notably is the actual wording of the announcement of title change. It says, "Prince Harry thus becomes His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex...", it does not say "Prince Harry thus becomes His Royal Highness Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex...", which would have been the proper way to phrase it if he had retained the title.
But as I said, this is how it *appears* to have happened. The only thing that is certain is that according to the official website of the British Empire, Harry does not currently possess the title of Prince.
As a matter of clarity, could you please capitalize the word "prince" when referring to the title and keep the word in lower case when referring to the biological status? Thanks! 199.176.124.25 (talk) 00:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no indication that he ceased to be "Prince Harry" once he was created Duke of Sussex, just as there is no indication that Andrew or Edward ceased to be "Prince Andrew" and "Prince Edward" when they were granted peerages. I just gave an example from the UK government gazette mentioning both Andrew and Charles when they were appointed councellors of state. Meanwhile, you drawing conclusions from the website and claiming that he's no longer "Prince Harry" is WP:SYNTHESIS, unless you can give a reliable source which explicitly states this. Keivan.fTalk 01:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keivan, you are still equating prince with Prince, and misusing the word "peerages". Your referencing Andrew and Edward and Charles is irrelevant without including the official notice of title change to compare the wording.
And once again, because you keep missing this: the indication that Harry is no longer a Prince is exactly as I have stated: The **British Empire** says he does not have the title. They do not include it in the official list of his titles and they do not include the title in his formal address. Given that it would be his highest ranking title, it would be listed and used in his formal address if he held it.
I am not sure how much clearer it can be, short of a hand-written letter from the King. Whatever the circumstances, timing, and process has been, Harry does not hold the title of Prince. It is not speculation on my part, it is the stated official record of the bloody British Empire. He is not "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex", he is just "Harry, Duke of Sussex". His Wikipedia page should reflect that. 199.176.124.25 (talk) 01:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The **British Empire** says he does not have the title. The British Empire does not exist anymore. You're referring to the British Monarchy. And the monarchy has said no such thing; here's the website referring to him as Prince Harry and here's The London Gazette referring to him as Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex: "On 6 May 2019, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex’s first child was delivered. Born “at 05.26” in the morning, Archie Mountbatten-Windsor was the Queen’s eight great-grandchild." Keivan.fTalk 02:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am really confused. Are you saying that you are questioning the stance by GoodDay on the Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#Correct_article_title_for_Prince_Harry,_Duke_of_Sussex page?

There are precedents for the guideline as stated by GoodDay above and on that post.

If you question that response, the guideline page would be the page to question the response that "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" is not correct.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bring me up to speed, folks. What title or titles have been stripped from the king's younger son? GoodDay (talk) 03:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has been stripped from him. His HRH has been put into abeyance as was agreed during the Sandringham Summit. He still holds his princely rank and his peerage, and is still "Prince Harry" according to the Royal family's website and the UK government gazette (i.e. The London Gazette). Keivan.fTalk 03:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. No need for the page title to be changed. GoodDay (talk) 03:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This entire thread should be ignored. The IP is wrong, and we are under no obligation to respond to its absurd contentions or attempt to educate those that do not wish to learn. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prince_Harry,_Duke_of_Sussex&oldid=1211225599"