Talk:Diplomatic correspondence

"Sir My Sister"
I do not have access to the source used in the Letters section which describes the salutation and closure of a diplomatic letter, but the section currently suggests that the female version of "Sir My Brother" is "Sir My Sister", which seems odd to me. Is "sir" really used for female monarchs, or is this an oversight? ~ Mable ( chat ) 11:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Mablestrip thank you for catching this, it is an oversight (by me). The correct form is "Madame My Sister". I'll correct it. LavaBaron (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad I helped ^_^ ~ Mable ( chat ) 04:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

An another question regarding the differences in salutations when the corresponding monarchs are not of "equal rank". I doubt that there should be a differentiation made between monarchs like King and (Sovereign) Prince. First of all, yes, king/queen is a higher title than grand duke, duke and prince. However, in terms of diplomatic protocol and common thought, assuming that the position of a monarch comes from his/her position as sovereign, all sovereigns (and republican heads of state by the way) are equal to each other. Precedence of monarchs is also not determined by their titles but their term of office (date of assuming office, thus kings are not always before princes). Here in this video (a documentary about Prince Albert II of Monaco) you can see a letter of crecedence for HBM's Ambassador to Monaco, in which she addresses the Prince as "Sir My Brother and Cousin" and signs herself as his "Sister and Cousin". I don't think she really personally considers herself a cousin of the Prince, it is purely a matter of custom. Cheers, my brothers and cousins of common African origin Kowalmistrz (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

"Letter of protest" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Letter of protest and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 7 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hildeoc (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

"Letter of protest" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Letter of protest and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 6 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hildeoc (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

"Letters of protest" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Letters of protest and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 30 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 06:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

"Letters of Protest" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Letters of Protest and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 30 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 06:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Notes after See Also
It seems that there has been an oversight. In most articles, the "notes" section contains notes about the article, and typically (always?) follows the "see also" links. In this article, the "notes" section gives information about diplomatic notes. It seems incorrect that "see also" should come before this "notes" section, since by doing so it appears in the middle of the article, rather than the end. Most probably, this should be corrected so that "see also" appears at the end of the article. 71.127.47.81 (talk) 04:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)