Talk:Alan Lascelles

To refer to a person only by their last name, without salutation, is generally considered rude. In the newspapers, it is generally reserved for convicts. For Sir Alan Lascelles, it is also inaccurate. He was not 'Lascelles', or indeed 'Mr Lascelles', or anything of the sort from the moment of his elevation to knighthood. Wikipedia may have a house style, but there is no call for inaccuracy. Certainly, nobody has yet appeared to have thought of referring to the queen as 'Windsor'. With this in mind, I've changed all such references to 'Sir Alan'. Ché (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you would like Lascelles to be called "queen", please provide unoriginal research that he was one. Of course, providing original research in this case would be far more entertaining. Jyg (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The queen is a different case. She is not officially Elizabeth Windsor, but Queen Elizabeth. That is why on her page she is Elizabeth. Edward Jocob Philip Smith (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Could this article be more dry?
This article is little more than a litany of lineage and dates. How is it that there is nothing of Lascelles relationships with the George VI and Elizabeth II, their perceptions of him or that of the public? What sort of man was he? Was he as smarmy and self-important as he was portrayed in the most recent television series? Jyg (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Italicisation
Why are italics used so often in the "Career" section of this article?

1. "serving in that role until resigning in despair in 1929"

2. "He had been deeply shocked by the abdication"

3. "and the evening he heard of it he was so stunned that he went out and walked 3 times round St James Park in the darkness, thinking of James II"

4. "after effecting the forced resignation of Alec Hardinge"

These usages do not seem to meet any of the criteria for the usage of itlics in Wikipedia's Style Guide, except perhaps "emphasis". But why do these phrases need emphasis at all, and especially the third that I have noted?

They creates the stark impression that there is a particular opinion about Sir Alan that needs emphasis, that is "more important" than other opinions. There is neither justification, nor citation to support that bias, and it looks like "original research". At the very least it makes this article appear biased and unlike almost all other Wikipedia articles.

I suggest all these italicisations should be removed Jalanb (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)