Talk:Prince George of Wales/Archive 6

New picture
George is now double the age he was in that picture. He looks very different as a 6 year old (as most humans do compared to when they were 3). TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * As an encycopedia it doesnt have to be a "current" image, although if you have a later free image perhaps suggest it here to gain a consensus, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course, it does not have to be a "current" image. It cannot even be perfectly up to date. The problem is that the present image does not adequately illustrate the subject, who is now three times the age he was when the picture was taken. Another problem is that it is a crop of an image that already appears further down, so we have a redundant and extremely outdated infobox image just for the sake of having any image in the infobox. Surtsicna (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There isn't a newer picture on Commons unfortunately. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. That was my point already last year. See . Currently we have a photograph of a 2-year-old in the article about a schoolboy. I would not hold my breath for a new picture any time soon, but surely no picture in the infobox is better than an absurdly outdated one. It's not like the article is so long that the three pictures of George in the body are not readily visible. Surtsicna (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That disgusting underhanded wombat tableau was still a little too readily visible, so we're down to two in the body for a solid three overall. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought that someone else, other than who I had this discussion with three years ago, was objecting to that image. Unless others object, I will put it back, perhaps doing a better job of alleviating text sandwiching. Since you're the only one, apparently, with strong objections, I don't see why you won't let it be. I've explained my preference for it. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought you'd be gone by now, too, or at least realized how wrong that picture truly is. Guess not. If we're just reaffirming ourselves, have it your way again then, I'll be back when he's twelve. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's an adorable picture, and I don't know why you can't see it. Plus, there are all the optical illusions that you pointed out that should make it even more enjoyable. Dhtwiki (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't enjoy chimerae molesting children while elder statespeople look on approvingly, accidental or not, call me crazy or sensitive or whatever. I do enjoy the Rule of Three, so figured this would be a win-win. It was not (no hard feelings, though!). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

And again, in 2020: the article has too many images, repeated images, and inappropriate images. Please see Manual of Style/Images, specifically MOS:LEADIMAGE, which says that the lead image should illustrate the topic, be what readers would expect to see, and be the kind of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works. This no longer illustrates the subject of the article because this is what the subject looks like now. A person coming to read about the 6-year-old schoolboy prince would not expect to see the picture of an infant on top. To make the matter worse, the uncropped version of that image (same image for all intents and purposes) is found again in the article under Prince George of Cambridge. As MOS:LEADIMAGE says, sometimes it's best not to have a lead image. Surtsicna (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We recently had a discussion (2018's "Infobox image", which is on this page as of this writing) where the consensus seemed to be to keep the present image, especially in lieu of having none at all (even the image of a cherub immediately tells people that they're at an article dealing with a living person, instead of, say, one of Queen Victoria's less notable offspring). The problem has been availability, especially with apparently stricter copyright on more recent pictures (the current images are largely due to relatively generous Australian and US copyright provisions). Dhtwiki (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And this discussion proves that there is no consensus for the inclusion of that image anymore, for reasons already stated. Having "none at all" is what the Manual of Style recommends in cases when no appropriate image is available, and the photo of an infant is, for reasons already stated, not appropriate. Yes, the availability is the problem, and that problem is not going to be solved any time soon, likely not before George reaches the age of majority and starts doing more stuff in public. We should not have the infobox depict him as an infant until then. "Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." Surtsicna (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Can an editor sketch him (or some other forgotten royal urchin) based on how he might appear today, and release it publicly? Realistically, I mean, no doodles (and no wombats!). Lots of bored competent artists out there, compared to February. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Some time ago, at the UK royals' website, I read the instructions concerning release of photos, thinking someone might approach them (preferably a UK citizen, which I am not); and I thought that their conditions precluded that being a possibility. Dhtwiki (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This seems to be an issue with a lot of the articles on younger royal children. For example, we have some photographs of the children of the Crown Prince of Denmark in their articles, but they are all severely outdated--Prince Christian of Denmark is currently 14 years old, but the photograph is of him as a 5 year old. Piratesswoop (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I have sorted that one out. I also suggest that Dhtwiki stop reverting and ignoring the present consensus that portraying the subject of this article as an infant is inappropriate. Surtsicna (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Keeping infobox image
We need to form a consensus on keeping the 2016 infobox image. I read the "Infobox image" section as establishing consensus to keep an outdated photo in the absence of anything better. Others see the "New picture" discussion as favoring its removal, but I see it as either ambiguous or evenhanded. I'm going to restore the photo, per WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD (it's been removed yet again). I don't see WP:ONUS as relevant, or WP:LEADIMAGE as dispositive, to our keeping it. Dhtwiki (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The consensus is formed. Five people in the past few days have objected to portraying this six-year-old schoolboy as a diaper-wearing infant. Do I need to repeat everyone's arguments? The only argument coming from your side is that any image is better than none, which is explicitly refuted by WP:IMAGERELEVANCE. Please stop restoring the contentious material. This is a short article and readers can see three images at a glance; absolutely nothing is gained by repeating one of those images. Surtsicna (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I was only explicit in my abject condemnation of what that filthy monster seems to be doing to the diaper-wearing infant, but if you want to assume I'm on your side about the way the intervening years have warped him and the lack of use for an infobox image suggesting he's frozen in time, that is indeed a starkly safe assumption. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Dhtwiki is fighting off someone else's insistence. Are we all allies now? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I'm leaving it up to the talk discussion to decide. Normally, I'd put the image back while letting this discussion take its course, as per guidelines. However, Surtsicna is adamant that it must go and you seem to have sided with them. I'm temporarily bowing to a 2-to-1 count to keep it off, and deciding not to have any more edit warring than necessary at the article. I suspect that, since others will want an image for the page, we will have more attempts, as we've had in the past, to place an infobox image there, which is an argument for leaving it there. However, unless people come here to state their preference in favor of the image, I can't pretend I have consensus on my side. Dhtwiki (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's the spirit! If temporary bowing becomes tedious, feel free to lay down and join us forever. In the meanwhile, the more image-pushers, the merrier; maybe with enough concerted effort, a picture that isn't totally obsolete may squeak through! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, did I just stumble into a hornets' nest of infobox image edit warring it seems. Feel free to undo the edit I did before reading the talk.  I found it odd, as it seems others have too, that a notable person did not have an image in their infobox.  Even if that image is of a child 4 years out of date, I'm on the side that it's far better than nothing as we await a newer image.  Now if some are pushing that a current images must be had for people's articles, I'd suggest working through a lot of the wiki space.  For example, have you seen the prince's great grandfather recently?  He's aged quite a bit from his 2015 image! 😏 If one goes back one more generation, does death excuse the use of an image 16 years out of date? Whomever is pushing WP:IMAGERELEVANCE as a reason for removal, one would really have to twist any of the reasons listed there to be an apt reason for removal in this case.  If people do feel this is a windmill that needs tilting, may I suggest editing Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images to include this situation?  If the Style editors go along, it makes it easier to then justify removal over WP:STATUSQUO. (just my 2¢) —
 * If we are being serious, a 98-year-old has not aged quite a bit since he was 93, whereas George is now three times older than he was in 2016. MOS:IMAGELEAD specifically says that not having a lead image may be best when no suitable image is available. Besides, the image you added is already in the article. Surtsicna (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Philip looks aged since 2015 to me . And after death, okay with you to use any image? "Suitable" is also quite a relative term. Who determines suitability in these cases?  Is one editor's judgement enough to trump WP:STATUSQUO? Should not a consensus be built first? I didn't see that in the edit history. Using even MOS:IMAGELEAD's seems to go beyond what it is trying to prevent.  I must also inquire, to you a brave knight who's been defending the honor of the world's royalty in Wikipedia for at least 12 years now 😏 (my sincere congratulations on your editing longevity and support for our encyclopedia!), when removing an image that you find "not suitable", do you also take the time to make a WP:RI to put out the call for a more suitable image?  May I also suggest that in situations such as this, you'd do what I've now done which is to put a comment into the infoboxes so that others will find the debate before doing the edit work. Cheerio —
 * Thank you for your kind words. Suitability is determined by editors. Five people have objected to the repetition of the image in the past few days. As for historic (i.e. dead) people, the common practice seems to be to use the best available image from the height of the person's career. What I normally do when I remove an image is look for a better one on the Commons and on FlickR, where I beg people to donate their photographs (which is how Diana's biography finally got a decent lead photo). In the case of George, however, it will probably be many years before another photo is available. Surtsicna (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Most welcome! Suitability is so relative and may swing to whims, I do prefer codification in style rules.  So, the Queen Mother, the current great-looking color 1986 image, or an image during the "height of the her career" which most would probably consider the WW2 era? Editors could certainly disagree here. 😁 Great job on image hunting. Yes, using WP:RI is suggested, but I've also seen years before anyone responds to some requests.  Nevertheless, I'll try. Now back to "Price George, BC" where I was headed before I was sidetracked here.  Cheerio —
 * We did have a WW2 era photograph in the infobox there for many years, back when the article was titled Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. It seems that the focus shifted to her dowager years when the title did. I am not placing much hope in WP:RI either, but it certainly does not hurt to try. In the mean time, I'll be begging strangers on FlickR. Surtsicna (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Return image, have just commented above before reading down, it not so out of date as to be unrecognisable as Prince George and the caption describes when the image was taken. Cavalryman (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC).
 * What the caption does not describe is why Wikipedia is depicting a 6-year-old schoolboy as a 2-year-old toddler. It looks jarringly amateurish, hurts the credibility of the article, and contravenes the first point of WP:LEADIMAGE: "Lead images should be ... the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." Surtsicna (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree, it looks jarring having no image at all. Cavalryman (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC).
 * Then your beef is with the Manual of Style. Surtsicna (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it is with the failure to include an available and recognisable image of Prince George in the infobox. Cavalryman (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC).
 * The Manual of Style says that it is okay to have no lead image. It also lists very sensible criteria for a lead image which the 2016 image fails. So yes, the Manual of Style is where your beef lies. As it stands now, images are not mandatory in infoboxes. Surtsicna (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The image does not fail, that is where you are mistaken. So again, my “beef” is with the failure to use an image that is recognisably Prince George. Cavalryman (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC).
 * It is not "natural and appropriate" to depict a 6-year-old as a 2-year-old and it is not "what our readers will expect to see", so yes, it fails MOS:LEADIMAGE. Surtsicna (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * With regard to "natural and appropriate", the linked guideline goes on to say "illustrate the topic specifically" (this isn't a photo of a generic child, nor is it a fanciful caricature), as well as "type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works" (this is a professional photo). In other words, what was on the minds of the people writing that guideline doesn't seem to be images that are somewhat out of date. Just about every image can be seen to be unrepresentative, especially of people, where they're of a certain age, hair style, body weight, mood, etc. As far as "what our readers will expect to see", I now count four recent attempts to place that particular image (or one so similar I couldn't tell the difference), only one of those editors having brought their concerns here, to this discussion, where there it's now 3–2 in favor of having the photo. That doesn't take into account the several editors in the previous discussions here, only one of which, by my count, other than yourself, has objected to any image in lieu of a more contemporaneous one, which we would all like to have. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Surtsicna, I too believe you are misinterpreting the policy, and I also think if a count of were conducted of both attempts to reinsert the image (that have been instantly reverted) as well as talk page comments, there is overwhelming support to reintroduce it. Cavalryman (talk) 04:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC).
 * Being a "professional photo" does not mean that it would be included in a high-quality reference work. One cannot seriously claim that a high-quality reference work would depict a 6-year-old as a 2-year-old, or almost anyone three times younger than they are. It is also obviously not "natural and appropriate" to depict the subject like that, and readers would obviously not "expect to see" such a ridiculously outdated photograph (hence ). The photograph is still in the article and there is no consensus to have a duplicate in the infobox. Perhaps it ought to be mentioned that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Surtsicna (talk) 08:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You may mention any policy you like, the point is there is general community support for the reintroduction of the image to the infobox with a small minority against, and there is no policy foundation for not reintroducing it. Cavalryman (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC).
 * You are wrong on both counts. Surtsicna (talk) 08:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I also think the 2yo photo should be added to the infobox in the absence of a more recent photo. I was perplexed to see photos later down in the article and none in the infobox. It's better than nothing even if it's somewhat old. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Full name
BBC called his full name George Alexander Louis. You can see exact quote in there: His full name of George Alexander Louis was announced two days later. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-23552087 So I’m adding this BBC News ref to article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berfu (talk • contribs) 12:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Image in baptism section
Per MOS:IMAGELOCATION Most images should be on the right side of the page, which is the default placement. Left-aligned images may disturb the layout of bulleted lists and similar structures that depend on visual uniformity,. As such I have removed one of the images. On my browser with two images in that section there is a very large white gap at the end of the section, particularly as the infobox comes into this section. I have right aligned the image iaw with the MOS but it could probably be moved left (whichever image is deemed better for the article). I think File:The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge with Prince George-crop.jpg is a better image than File:Prince George best 2013.jpg as it is a wider shot that shows who is holding the baby. I don't think we can justify having two similar images in the article, it isn't big enough for it. Woody (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

All ancestry is relevant and must be included on Wikipedia pages Of persons living or dead wherever it is known — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.216.134.54 (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * What Ardenter (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Good Article preparations
Noting here that I'm going to be making quite a few adjustments to this article in preparation for a good article review. Ardenter (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Session one is done! I've reviewed sourcing for about two thirds of the article. Every one I reviewed has been appropriately tagged if there were problems I couldn't immediately fix. All now have relevant quotes and archival links. I've also added authors if possible. Ardenter (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Finished! Ardenter (talk) 06:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Mountbatten-Windsor
Even in the article it is clearly stated “members of the Royal Family who are entitled to the style and dignity of HRH Prince or Princess do not need a surname” Why you are rewriting history and even adding Princess Anne’s article to Mountbatten-Windsor surname which they never use. She married two times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berfu (talk • contribs) 17:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Also we can see his full name in birth certificate. And there is no surname. We can’t change public documents like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berfu (talk • contribs) 18:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Also I checked other royal biographies such as royals from Denmark, Sweden or Monaco. Under full_name, only their names are listed, no surnames or even their birth titles. If there is need I’m sure full names in birth certificates should be used because they are public documents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berfu (talk • contribs) 20:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not certain why this change was made. The infobox for pretty much every royal specifically just uses their first and middle names. Piratesswoop (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well if we're not allowing Mountbatten-Windsor to be added to his name in the infobox? Why then do we has Windsor added to his great-grandmother's name in her infobox? GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Article images
Per WP:BRD - I disagree with a multitude of images being used in the article, particularly due to the subject's age and length of the biography so far. Per MOS:PERTINENCE, "too many [images] can be distracting." Variety is also important, and multiple images of George meeting separate foreign dignitaries isn't incredibly necessary to illustrate his public appearances, in my opinion.--Bettydaisies (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is an article not a gallery. And too many images will just make the whole material look unbalanced. Keivan.f  Talk 02:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps a slightly less melancholy image might be slightly more representative of the character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.7.111 (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're talking about the infobox image, no doubt. It took a lot of doing to find this image of him, which is one of the few we could use of him that everyone thought was representative of his present age. He's possibly just bored, maybe resentful. His father's hands on his shoulders may be restraining him from having any fun. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the current image displayed in the Infobox can be upadated with a version thats reflect the current age of the Prince. Fredmax0000 (talk) 07:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's the most recent image we have. We can only use free images that are not copyrighted or that are appropriately licensed for re-use. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It still looks shit though. Hopefully after today a better image will be available. Richard75 (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

From Cambridge to Cornwall
I'm assuming that when Queen Elizabeth II passes. George, Charlotte & Louis, will have of Cornwall, after their names. Then later, of Wales, when their father is made 'prince of Wales'. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I do not believe that Prince of Cornwall is a title and so the article should remain Prince George of Cambridge. Difbobatl (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Neither "Prince of Cornwall" nor "Prince of Cambridge" are titles. George's title is "Prince", and his last name comes from his father's duchy/duchies. Therefore, he is "of Cambridge" and a Prince of the United Kingdom, but not a "Prince of Cambridge" Mhapperger (talk) 11:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

This article (and those for Charlotte and Louis) need to be changed to Prince George of Wales (rather than Cornwall and Cambridge). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Difbobatl (talk • contribs) 17:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


 * They are not a Prince or Princess of Wales though, not until William becomes king and such title is given to them. Yikmo21 (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The "suffix", whether Cambridge, Cornwall or Wales is not "coupled" to the title of Prince, it is a convention that derives the titles of children who have none of their own from the paternal ones. Sira Aspera (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Picture Change
Hello everyone,

I think most can agree that the picture on the page isn't the best. It's quite grainy and a bit outdated and is over-all not good compared to other royal pictures. I will be changing the photo to something better, I don't think it needs much consensus due to the fact of the reasons above. If it's widely not accepted in the coming days or month, feel free to change it back. BettyCrocker321 (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have nominated that file for deletion. Images must comply with Image use policy. DrKay (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Titles and styles section
All other royal biographies have this section and I don’t know why someone keep erasing his or his siblings. Even If you argue palace never issued “Prince George of Cornwall and Cambridge” name you cannot erase other two names since multiple sources (palace too) clearly listed him first as “Prince George of Cambridge” and later “Prince George of Wales”. Same thing happenes to Princess Charlotte of Wales and Prince Louis of Wales too. Justi7 (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please do not restore challenged unsourced material without citation; see WP:Biographies of living people policy. I support explaining the change of George's title with appropriate sources. Surtsicna (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What unsourced material? Two days ago this page was Prince George of Cambridge and now Prince George of Wales. Why do you think it is? Royal family page also refered them as this title. you can see it is different than his birth name which have sources in article. If you are still not sure you can put a template about cituation needed but you cannot erase section. Justi7 (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The dates are unsourced. The "of Cornwall and Cambridge" is unsourced. There should be no "citation needed" templates in a biography of a living person, and the policy is indeed to remove such information as soon as it is challenged. Here I am challenging it: the children have never been styled as "of Cornwall and Cambridge", nor were they styled from the day of birth using names that were only announced days after their birth. This was thoroughly discussed on this talk page. Please do not cite sources that do not verify the information at hand. Surtsicna (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You can use Template:Better source needed and articles have dates and If you think that information is such a problem please change name of the article. I cannot believe I need to explain that. Justi7 (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have explained to you why such templates do not cut it in a BLP. WP:BLP is very clear on that. Why are you intent on violating this project's policies? Surtsicna (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m not violating any rules. You are removing section without talk. That is against the policy.Justi7 (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." The policy further states that you cannot restore the material without proper sources. You have not cited sources verifying this. So yes, you are violating the policy. Surtsicna (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You think name of the person is questinable material? And I added sources. And his name of Wikipedia page changed accordingly. If you think I’m doing something wrong you can complaint. Justi7 (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You are doing something wrong. I have explained to you what I am questioning and it is not the name. It is especially disruptive that you keep editing against long-standing talk-page consensus regarding the exclusion of the dates. I will reword the section to remove unsourced material and replace it with appropriate sources. If you revert again to a version that violates policy and consensus, I will report it. Surtsicna (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources I added mentioned two important events. Queen’s death (8 Semptember) Charles’s speech (9 September) There is nothing wrong with dates. And please report me. Justi7 (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources do not say anything about Prince George's title changing to "Prince George of Cornwall and Cambridge". It did not. They do not say that he became known as "Prince George of Cambridge" on 22 July. He did not. I am shocked that after 14 years on Wikipedia you cannot grasp how citing sources works or what WP:BLP and WP:OR policies are about. Surtsicna (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 22 July is his birthdate. Of course he will be named after that. This is how birth certificates work. Parents have legal time period to name their children. Are you serious?Justi7 (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 22 July being his birthdate does not make it true that he was styled "His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge" before 24 July. He was not, and you will not find any source saying that he was. This was discussed ad nauseam. If you wish to reopen that discussion, do so; but you cannot force your view against the consensus that has been established. Surtsicna (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * All other living royal biographies begins with birthdates at this section. William, Prince of Wales, Charles III, Catherine Middleton for example. What you are saying is very new policy. Please go and try to change every one of them too. Please don’t forget other European royal families. Justi7 (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You do not understand what a policy is. After 14 years on this project, such ignorance must be deliberate besides disruptive. Your insistence on citing a source that does not say what you claim it says is making the article deceiving to our readers. The article that was once a Good Article candidate is now, per your suggestion and because of your disruption, riddled with misinformation tags. I can only hope that administrators will have better luck explaining to you how Wikipedia works. Surtsicna (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It appears as though the His Royal Highness Prince George of Cornwall and Cambridge part is supported by a couple of tabloid articles supposing he was called that. It is worth pointing out that with the way those titles work in the UK, the King is the one proclaiming it, so unless the king decided to make them Cornwall and Cambridge and then the very next day turn around and make them Wales, more than likely, it was just a couple of tabloid articles making guesses as to the title, and the official title change happened on the 9th, when William was created Prince of Wales. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This all seems extremely pedantic. Why on earth does his title as Prince George of Wales fail verification? Piratesswoop (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That last tag is excessive. I have removed it. Surtsicna (talk) 05:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

What's the big problem? During the time between when their grandfather became king (Sept 8), and their father was appointed prince of Wales (Sep 9), he (George, Charlotte & Louis' father) was "Prince William, Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge". GoodDay (talk) 04:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The big problem, or at least one of the problems, is the lack of sources for the claim that George was styled "His Royal Highness Prince George of Cornwall and Cambridge" that day. The Palace never called him that. Surtsicna (talk) 05:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added some RS for some of the titles (and added citation templates for some of the sources already there - we can do better than adding bare URLs). As for "Prince George of Cambridge" this is his name from birth, even though the "George" bit was retrospective by two days; "Prince" derives from the letters patent issued by Victoria in 1864 and "Cambridge" is a surname derived from his father's title at the time; they do not only come into effect on his naming and, as with any child, the name given them by their parents is legally considered their name from birth, even if the decision is not made immediately.  Sourcing that is not straightforward but I really think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here.  GoldenRing (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no reason for Wikipedia to claim that George was styled "HRH Prince George of Cambridge" from 22 July when he was not. This has been discussed multiple times already. There is no reason for Wikipedia to go out of its way to entertain a legalistic fiction by explicitly stating something that is not only not verifiable but also clearly not true. Doing so is original research. I do not see why these dates have to be there instead of, say, a simple "2013-2022" range or perhaps a couple of sentences. As for "Prince George of Cornwall and Cambridge", the cited sources still do not verify the entire claim, but People is actually correct in saying merely that "it has been reported that George could become Prince George of Cornwall and Cambridge now that Charles is king". What ended up happening is that George never became Prince George of Cornwall and Cambridge; the Palace never called him that, and they are the authority on royal styles, not the media. We could say what People actually says rather than pretending that they say something else and that something else happened. Surtsicna (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * From July 22nd to Sep 9th is undisputed, he was His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge and after Sept 9th, he was His Royal Highness Prince George of Wales, and since his title has changed, it makes sense to acknowledge the change on the article, as other members of royalty do. The main question here is: Was he "His Royal Highness Prince George of Cornwall and Cambridge" for Sept 8/9th? I don't see any source confirming the king conferred the title on William, meaning the title was not conferred (at least not according to reliable sources), meaning the only change that was confirmed is when William was created Prince of Wales by the king. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have removed one of the sources, a Daily Express article, because really, we're using DE for contentious claims regarding BLPS now? FrederalBacon (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * FrederalBacon, the 22-24 July thing is not undisputed. He was not styled "His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge" during this time and you will not find sources stating that he was because his name had not been announced. The exact dates are simply not necessary anyway. As for Cornwall, that duchy passed to William immediately upon Charles's accession, requiring no creation, but it still does not mean that George himself was styled as "of Cornwall and Cambridge" or that this claim is verifiable. Surtsicna (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, is your argument that he had no name until day 3? As for Cornwall and Cambridge, I agree, there is no way to verify that he was used for the one day, if the title was conferred automatically, but in that case, we have reliable sources calling them that, so it makes sense to include it. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My point is that he was not called "His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge" on 22 July or 23 July 2013 (I remember those days very well), and my argument is that we should not go out of our way to include information that cannot possibly be verified (because we all know it not to be true). Back to "Cornwall and Cambridge": we do not have reliable sources calling him that because the only reliable source would be the Buckingham Palace. No media outlet is competent to decide a prince's style, or indeed any person's name for them. If we went by what reliable sources call these people, we would also have Diana under "Princess Diana" from her marriage to her death. Surtsicna (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If the titles are conferred automatically, and even if he wasn't given his name until day 3, the birth certificate would still mean his name was George for the first two days, so how was he not His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge for those two days? FrederalBacon (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The section is not talking about any birth certificate. It is asserting that he was known to the world as "His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge" on 22 and 23 July 2013. That is false. That is unverifiable. That is contradicted by this very article. Why must these dates be there? Why is a year range not enough? Or simple prose? Surtsicna (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Assuming that other royals weren't given a name immediately upon their birth? How have we handled their names & titles? GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Through original research mostly, I'm afraid. But see Princess Isabella of Denmark, who did not receive her name for first three months of her life. There we do not pretend that the palace or the world called her "Her Royal Highness Princess Isabella of Denmark" before they actually did. Surtsicna (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * But you yourself acknowledged the difference above. If the Cambridge title is conferred automatically as a result of him being William's child, it's automatic from the minute of birth. Isabella's title had to be granted by the queen. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, her title did not have to be granted either. She was a princess from birth but not known as "HRH Princess Isabella of Denmark" for some time. Same as George. I shall try once more: George was not called "His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge" the day he was born. We all know that he was not. There is no source on this planet saying that he was. Why must we peddle what we know to be false? Surtsicna (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So, the letter patent, dated from before his birth, state: Crown Office House of Lords, London SW1A 0PW 31 December 2012 The QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 31 December 2012 to declare that all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or with such other titles of honour.
 * So yeah, by letter patent issued before his birth, he was known as HRH Prince George from the minute he was born. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that is not what is disputed. Please reread my comment(s). Surtsicna (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I addressed your comment. Your assertion was George was not called "His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge" the day he was born. The above letters patent indicate that yes, he was. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Let us try one more time. George was born on 22 July. From the moment of his birth he was a prince of the United Kingdom entitled to the style of Royal Highness. Neither the Palace nor anyone in the whole wide world styled him "HRH Prince George of Cambridge" before 24 July, however, because 24 July is when it was announced that his name would be George. This information is in the article. Once more: nobody referred to him as "HRH Prince George of Cambridge" before 24 July 2013. Are we on the same page now? Surtsicna (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So, is your assertion that between July 22 and July 24, the child had no name and no titles? FrederalBacon (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Confirmation of title directly from the Royal Family Website dated July 22nd. He is styled His Royal Highness Prince [name] of Cambridge. from day one. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And that is evidently not the same as "His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge". In fact, that same announcement says the name would be announced later. Surtsicna (talk) 04:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So your assertion is that the child didn't have a name for the first two days of his life, correct? FrederalBacon (talk) 04:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, and now you're restoring "failed verification" tags to information that is fully verified in inline citation. Why? Explain what exactly is not supported by sources. All you keep saying is that it isn't supported, but it clearly is, and you don't explain what exactly your objections are. Explain your objections. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, that is not my assertion. I have made it plain and clear what my assertion is four times. Please reread. What is not supported by the sources is that George was styled as "His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge" from day one. All of us who worked on the article at the time know he was not. The source you cite says "His Royal Highness Prince [name] of Cambridge". That is why the verification is failed. Surtsicna (talk) 05:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So your entire assertion is that the child did not have a name for the first two days of his life because it wasn't announced until two days later? FrederalBacon (talk) 05:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I propose the following content of the section: "Prince George's official title and style is "His Royal Highness Prince George of Wales". Before his father was created Prince of Wales on 9 September 2022, George was styled "His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge"."

This explains to the reader how and why his styles have changed (which the bullets do not even attempt to) and avoids original research. It is in line with how the article treated the matter for year; see the June 2021 revision for instance. Surtsicna (talk) 05:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * That looks fine to me, why didn't you propose that long ago? Doesn't get mired up in the exact dates. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. It avoids needless repetition [giving birth dates in this section as well as at least three others, giving 8/9 September multiple times] and includes an explanation of the change. DrKay (talk) 07:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that's an improvement on the bullet list but I do think we need to mention "of Cornwall and Cambridge" since we have multiple RS asserting that that was his title, if only briefly. I don't understand your insistence on finding a primary source to verify it; this seems contrary to policy.  GoldenRing (talk) 09:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * He was Prince George of Cornwall and Cambridge from Sept 8 (when his grandfather became king) to Sept 9 (when his father was named prince of Wales), however. We can't skip that fact. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It was automatic, according to Surtsicna above. Whether the palace called him that or not is irrelevant, we have reliable sources that call him that, and the title was conferred automatically, so I'm not sure how it is a failed verification. It seems like two completely reliable (well...people is meh, but Le Monde is good) sources reported him as such.
 * So above, we got verification of his title from birth, and we've got reliable sources indicating his title for the one day. I think the tags need to be removed, but at this point, I'm not about to run afoul of BLP policy and get into an editing war over them. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. I've gone ahead and restored the prose. I am still reluctant to include the "of Cornwall and Cambridge" bit as a fact because the official sources never called him that. Unlike peerages, courtesy titles are not a matter of law but of practice; consider the Wessex and Sussex children, for example, who are in practice not princes and princesses. If anything, I propose including the sentence from Le Monde saying that it was speculated that George might be called Prince George of Cornwall and Cambridge. Surtsicna (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Any changes of how to write titles or styles section will effect other biographies. For example William, Prince of Wales or Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden or Fumihito, Crown Prince of Japan. We cannot just discuss Prince George’s title and done with it. Title changes usually shows some important events; births, deaths, marriages or change of law in case of Victoria. Also you need to look List of titles and honours of Charles III because some titles are automatically inherited. And you have to consider offical royal accounts turned “Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge” immediately after The Queen’s death. I think it need to be mentioned. Justi7 (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * They changed their titles on social media (including the official KensingtonRoyal twitter account, which is run by the household) the day of the Queen's death. That's good enough for me. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, William and Catherine did. Nothing was said about their children. While the Duchy of Cornwall passes automatically to the eldest son, courtesy titles are not automatic. If they were, Archie would have automatically become Prince Archie of Sussex the same moment George automatically became Prince George of Cornwall and Cambridge. Courtesy titles, however, are not set in stone. You have endorsed Le Monde; how do you feel about saying what Le Monde says? Surtsicna (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * LeMonde doesn't speculate, they flat out say that's his title. Where are you getting LeMonde is speculating? They state As Prince Charles becomes king, the order of succession for Britain’s monarchy is as follows: and then list Prince George of Cornwall and Cambridge. Where is the speculation aspect? FrederalBacon (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry. It is the People magazine that says: The official title for William and Kate's first child is His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge, though it has been reported that George could become Prince George of Cornwall and Cambridge now that Charles is king. While People is listed as a generally reliable source at WP:RSP, I agree with your misgivings about citing it here. There was a time when I insisted on citing only publications such as The Guardian, BBC, and The Daily Telegraph in this article in an attempt to keep up the quality. In this case, however, this magazine's report seems to me to be the most accurate, for Charles's expedience in granting the Wales title meant the speculations were never confirmed. Surtsicna (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree People is not the best source. I think the LeMonde article is a strong enough reference to include in the article. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be rather unbalanced. In one sentence, we would have the BBC plainly stating in 2013, and quoting the Kensington Palace, that George would be known as "His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge"; in the next, we would have Le Monde branding the subject "Prince George of Cornwall and Cambridge" without an explanation or reference to any source. BBC reported the Palace announcement; Le Monde apparently came up with the new title on its own and did not bother to explain it. Surtsicna (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What are you basing your assertion on that LeMonde made up the title? FrederalBacon (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The lack of any announcement or usage by the Buckingham or Kensington Palace. Surtsicna (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matters: We have reliable sources that call him that. To revert it as "see the talk" when it appears there may be consensus above to include it based off the sources is...odd. I don't think you have consensus here to remove it. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ONUS, a consensus is needed to include new information if it is disputed. I am rather bemused by the argument that it does not matter what the Palace decided and not quite sure how to proceed from there. The media have made up a name for his mother and a title for his grandmother too (namely Kate Middleton and Princess Diana, in Le Monde too), and yet there seems to be a clear consensus not to list those as ever having been their actual name and title, respectively. Do you honestly think that magazines decide royal titles? Surtsicna (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This sounds more like a discussion for the reliable source notice board, considering the fact that that you’re asking us to ignore a reliable source because you think they made it up. As for the ONUS, once again, I have several reliable sources saying that was his name. If you want to dispute the reliability of the source, this isn’t the venue. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of other sources between 8 September and 9 September saying that he was Prince George of Cornwall and Cambridge for that day. I don't see why we would ignore that.       Rlendog (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

TBH, we'd be better deleting the titles & styles section from all the royal bios that have them. There's confusion at Prince William's page concerning the topic. Confusion at King Charles III's page & maybe more inconsistencies on the others. I think we need a RFC on the entire topic, so we can figure out how to show which titles & styles. But again, IMHO, the whole titles/styles bit should be deleted from the related bios. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I personally don’t think there’s much problem with the sections existing. They are a notable (read: covered in reliable sources) aspect of their lives. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we should remove them whenever possible, particularly when they are not useful or specific. For example, all kings are called Majesty and all British princes are Royal Highness. The eldest son of the monarch is always Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay. Something that applies universally to the office shouldn't be in a personal biography. It's like writing a "Titles and styles" section on all the biographies of presidents of the United States that says "While in office the correct form of address was 'Mr President'." Editors repeatedly try to add "Ma'am" or "Sir" to the styles section (usually as part of a sidebar template). It's just useless fluff. Every man in the world can be called 'Sir'. Every woman in the world can be called 'Ma'am'. Biographies shouldn't be instructing readers about generic politeness that applies to every person in the world. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No we need this section since it shows their royal career. This is not about called sir. And you are talking about british royals. There is a lot of different royals who have different titles. For example: Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant or Catharina-Amalia, Princess of Orange. And british royals like Anne, Princess Royal uses very different titles.Justi7 (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Update
I find it very unlikely that I caused a copyright violation when the photo was taken by Princess Kate herself. Smh StrawWord298944 (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The copyright belongs to the author. You cannot use another person's work without permission. Therefore, unless you are this Princess Kate, it is a copyright violation. Surtsicna (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Princess Catherine StrawWord298944 (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Most recent image


There is a more recent image of George recently added to the Commons. Currently the full image shows George with his great-grandmother. Should the extracted image of George replace the one from 2019? Or is there more value in keeping the older image in the infobox and keeping the full image of George and Elizabeth within the article? Piratesswoop (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I think the 2022 image should be used, as it’s the most recent of him (which is important when it comes to children). Plus the background is much better. Someonefromohio (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The extracted 2022 image has better composition, but it is quite grainy and therefore less suitable than it would be otherwise. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It's true that it does not have the best quality, but I prefer the recent photo because kids tend to change rapidly as they grow up. Unlike adults whose appearance can remain unchanged for years. Keivan.f  Talk 23:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There's also the fact that George is looking quite a bit more chipper in this recent photo than in our present infobox one, whose display of glumness has already been unfavorably remarked on. On the other hand, the un-cropped photo is already in the article; so, there will be a bit of duplication if we include the cropped version in the infobox, a duplication that I wouldn't want to resolve by removing the un-cropped version. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

RfC on Charles III
There is an RfC on Talk:Charles III which may relate to this article. Feel free to contribute. Estar8806 (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

This article as a GA
I've addressed the rest of the suggestions made in the 2021 GA review. We should now be good to go for a second GAR. I recognise that I am not a major contributor to this article per WP:GANI: "If you are not a significant contributor to the article, you must secure the consent of the significant contributors before nominating". I'd like to nominate the article soon, so pinging the top five contributors:   , what do you all think? Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayed response but I really did not have time to actually read the article and only managed to do it now. I think it's good to go, considering that the article's subject is a child. However, as he grows up some of his "official appearances" might become trivial in the long run and should be taken out. But for now I think it's good. Of course there is going to be a second GAR and the reviewer might ask for bits and pieces to be omitted but we'll see. Keivan.f  Talk 23:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. Might take out some bits and pieces, but as you say, it's the reviewer's decision. I'll wait for one or two more to give their blessing(s) before nomination. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I am of a slightly different opinion regarding the official appearances: that which will be trivial in the future is extraneous already. That is because notability is not temporary; there is nothing in the article that is good now that will ever expire. I must say that much of the Prince George of Wales looks like fluff to me: applauding in a video, being enthusiastic about a football game, accompanying his parents to a church service, standing on a balcony, attending a party, again standing on a balcony, and so on. I do not see why that belongs in an encyclopedic biography. Surtsicna (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Surtsicna I've removed some of the "fluffier" appearances. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I know that I was not one of the users that you pinged. In addition, I do not have significant experience editing Prince George's Wikipedia article. However, as a fan of his father and a fanatic of royalty, I am deeply interested in the content of this article. Moreover, given that you requested an additional commentator and that I would like to someday say that I made the King of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms's Wikipedia article a GA, I want to offer my own comments.

In general, I am satisfied with the organization of George's article. I would also offer the following constructive criticism from the perspective of an American (i.e. non-member of the Commonwealth of Nations) whose fellow citizens may not know much about royalty:
 * I notice that it is mentioned three different times at the top of the page that George was born at St. Mary's Hospital. This seems very excessive. Perhaps we could remove the mention from the lede, given that part should be just a summary of the entire article?
 * Perhaps this is because I have never grown up in a monarchy. However, even knowing the cultural significance of George's possible future as a king, I am discomforted by the fact that his birth is an entire section. Mathematically speaking, 20% of this article's five core sections are devoted to an event that encompassed only approximately 10% of George's life. Unless there are reliable sources that would justify such a ratio, could we please remove some details from the Birth section, namely the information about the speculation on the British economy?
 * The Birth section also does not make it clear (in my opinion) why the 21-gun salute and ringing of the Westminster Abbey bells, among other details, are significant in the context of George's birth. This may be apparent to the average Brit or Canadian, but not to an American, even one (like myself) that likes royalty.
 * For the Upbringing section, I notice that there are no pictures. Do any free-use images exist in particular from George's christening? This would increase the visual appeal of the section in general.
 * Also, in the Upbringing section, is it really necessary to include the information on George's godparents? As a royal fanatic, information like this comes across as quite trivial and may not appeal to a general audience (especially from cultures without monarchies or where godparents do not exist). At the very least, could these names be condensed into a footnote?
 * I agree with Keivan and Surtsicna that the Official appearances section needs to be rewritten, especially if we hope to make George's article a FA like those of all his possible sovereign predecessors since 1707 (sans his grandfather). Namely:
 * How encyclopedic is it to mention that the Australian media called George a "republican slayer"? Although I identify as a (constitutional) monarchist, this article is not the place to advocate for such sentiments, which I believe this phrasing does, wittingly or not. In addition, to my knowledge, republicanism is a contentious issue in Australia. To avoid alienating an entire group of George's possible future subjects, we should eliminate the sentences in question altogether.
 * Likewise, is it necessary to mention that Barack Obama joked about George's bathrobe during their visit? While this quote may pique reader interest, I believe it gives undue weight to an event that did not directly pertain to George himself. Could we also please remove or condense this information?
 * Above all, this section takes the time to explain that George attended a UEFA match and asked David Attenborough a question, but nothing is mentioned about his great-grandfather's funeral, his great-grandmother's funeral, or his grandfather and step-grandmother's coronation. This prioritizing of information does not sit right at all with me, especially for an article on a well-known House of Windsor royal that we are striving to make GA status. Did George attend the latter three events? If so, what role did he play? (Spoiler alert: He did attend all events and had a role in Charles's coronation) . The article does not answer these questions and will leave some readers who know about Philip's death, Elizabeth's death, and Charles/Camilla's coronation wondering.
 * For the Public image section, some information also comes across as excessively detailed/trivial and unrelated to the subject matter. I do not object to the media portrayals of George being described. However, I fail to see how a generic reader, especially from outside of the Commonwealth, will gain a greater appreciation of the prince by knowing that a dressing gown he wore or type of lentils that he ate saw increased sales because of him. In addition, how uniquely notable is it that ISIS threatened George's school? (I ask because ISIS has committed many acts of terrorism, and as far as I know, his father William faced similar threats from the Irish Republican Army as a child, but I wouldn't feel obliged to mention this on William's Wikipedia page.) I recommend that the latter information be condensed or removed altogether.
 * In comparison to the section in Elizabeth II's article and the Prince of Wales's article, the section on George's titles and styles is very short. When did George specifically start to be called "Prince George of Wales" as opposed to "Prince George of Cambridge"? Does George have a coat of arms? What honors (American English disclaimer) does George hold? I understand that George is still a child and will gain more of these distinctions later in life. However, if we can disclose all of this information on Wikipedia when it comes to his great-grandmother and father, I see no reason why we cannot do the same for him.
 * I recognize that this comment is not unique to George's article, and I would be happy to raise this issue with WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. However, I believe there needs to be some footnote explaining why Wikipedia refers to George as "Prince George of Wales" as opposed to "Prince George of the United Kingdom" or even "Prince George of England (or Great Britain)". Even with my personal background and interest in royalty, it took months for me to realize that substantive titles do not necessarily have to be the name of the country of origin of the royal in question. I understand that this knowledge may be intuitive to a person such as a Brit, Dane, or Swede. However, an average American, for example, who never grew up in a world of noble and royal titles will be completely perplexed by names like that of George's Wikipedia article.
 * In general, I worry that ancestry sections on Wikipedia are too trivial for an average reader. However, in the case of George's article, I believe that some discussion of his descendants is appropriate. Namely, I would mention George's biological connections to the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha/Windsor, the Middleton family (via Catherine), and the Spencer family (via his grandmother Diana) (As a final thought, it is surprising that a Wikipedia reader will make it through George's article without learning that he is the eldest grandchild of the well-known People's Princess!)

Please let me know if you have any questions regarding my comments. I would also be happy to formally review Prince George's Wikipedia article for GA status and offer even more feedback should you still intend to submit this page for a nomination. Hurricane Andrew (444) 02:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @AndrewPeterT Thanks for this. I'll make the edits a bit later, but wanted to acknowledge that I'd seen your message. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 07:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @AndrewPeterT: Alright, I've done some work. I'll go through your suggestions and explain why I've done some things the way I did, or why I elected not to:
 * I've kept the "born at born at St Mary's Hospital" bit, as Elizabeth II, William, Prince of Wales, Charles III, and Anne, Princess Royal all have where they were born in the lead.
 * When George grows up, we can trim the birth section. However, given that he is nine years old ATTOW, and his birth is probably the biggest event of his life so far, I do think that it is justified.
 * I think the ringing of the bells, the 21-gun salutes etc., are significant enough to be included. For example, Anne's "Early life" section also mentions this type of celebration.
 * Can't find any images of the christening on Commons, but feel free to add an image from here if you'd like to illustrate the article further.
 * Removed the godparents.
 * I've trimmed some of the engagements. I dislike overly lengthy "Official duties" as much as the next guy, but I think it's concise enough now.
 * The "republican slayer" comment, I think, is also justified, although I won't protest too strongly if it's removed.
 * Ditto, but replace "'republican slayer'" with "Obama joke".
 * I'm on the fence about including mentioning Philip's funeral, but I will add a bit about Elizabeth's, as you are correct in that it should be in there somewhere. There is a sentence at the end of the section about the King and the Queen's coronation, and George's role in it.
 * I've removed the bit about ISIS per your rationale.
 * George doesn't currently have a coat of arms, and probably won't for another nine or ten years. Like you say, "George is still a child and will gain more of these distinctions later in life".
 * I might add an ancestry box (ahnentafel) similar to that of William and Charles, but only if Charlotte and Louis got one too, for consistency.
 * Cheers, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ahnentafeln have been subject to much discussion and I do not think they add any value, nor is that format commonly seen in published biographies. If there are any ancestors that deserve to be mentioned, they can and should be mentioned in prose. I think they all are. I also think that George's styles are sufficiently covered; we should not be mentioning any dates because providing sources that directly verify the dates is nearly impossible and certainly not worth the effort. Surtsicna (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I do agree. He has not been granted a peerage so the inclusion of dates for a single change in his style seems to be unnecessary, at least at the moment. Regarding the ancestry, well, I would not personally support adding an huge ancestry chart if that's what's being proposed, unless it can be properly referenced and accompanied by prose. In the event of adding a chart it should also be limited to three generations. I guess nobody wants an expanded list of individuals that the subject himself has not even met. Keivan.f  Talk 00:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for all of the replies and edits. I appreciate your time, and the article looks much better from my perspective.


 * With respect to my comments on George's ancestry, I was looking to include an ahnentafel template that I have seen on many other Wikipedia articles on royals. However, I will settle for a prose paragraph that explains George's most recent descendants. My last comment is that Diana, another famous ancestor of George, was still not mentioned in this article. I have added a sentence myself in the birth section of George's article to describe this biological connection. Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not think we need to mention either Diana or the Middletons. None of them are much discussed in relation to George. The thing about being born royal is that you tend to have many famous ancestors anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I have given the article a generous trim. The idea was to write in general terms (George attends events and accompanies his parents on tours) rather than listing every single thing he has done in public. I have also reorganized the section in a chronological order so that the article conforms to Manual of Style/Biography. Doing so I have merged the Official appearances section into Upbringing, ridding the article of a section that inevitably turns an encyclopedic biography into a royal engagement diary. I am also looking for sources that discuss George's role in events in a more general manner. There was once a time when I diligently kept the article free of sources such as Vanity Fair, as I believe this article can and should do better; I would appreciate help with replacing the ones that have crept in with the likes of BBC, The Guardian, Telegraph, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 08:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * As per WP:GANI, given that I have been a significant contributor to the pages of both of George's parents, their charities as well as his siblings for more than a year now I can say that this page has been successfully trimmed down though still changes can be made. I have also made a few corrections to user Surtsicna's edits which I can say are all fine. Thank you. MSincccc (talk) 09:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing the grammar to perfection, MSincccc. That is a major contribution! Surtsicna (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * A bit too generous in some places, I think. I agree that we don't need a blow-by-blow account of every engagement George has ever been on; however, we should keep a few examples, and the "Public image" section was fine as was. I also thought that the close-up image of George as a newborn was better, and that the sections were better left un-re-organised. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As you can see I have put the previous picture back just as it was though I have replaced the caption because I find this caption more accurate and relevant. I hope @Tim O'Doherty you are now satisfied. I will continue to rearrange other things I find which were as good as it was. Thank you MSincccc (talk) 10:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello @Tim O'Doherty@Keivan.f@Surtsicna, I just wanted to say something regarding Prince Louis' page here because it's regarding the same issue. To not mention any of his official appearances like for his siblings will not be good as far the accuracy and relevancy of his page is concerned. I suggest that we should add atleast some of his public appearances like his first Trooping the Colour, Coronation and Easter Sunday appearance. Thank you MSincccc (talk) 11:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that a few examples are good to have, but I thought that was covered by the mention of his appearances in the royal tours of Australia and New Zealand; meeting the Obamas; his first Trooping the Colour parade; the Platinum Jubilee celebration; and the coronation. Do these not suffice? I am quite disappointed that you both like the close crop-up better. To me it seems to be of little value, since it shows a newborn baby, that looks exactly like millions of newborn babies born every year, in the arms of someone. The whole photograph, on the other hand, illustrates the media attention that the section is talking about, and even non-fans can tell from that photo that the baby is a prince. Surtsicna (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hwllo @Surtsicna, don't be disappointed. But the basis for adding the close up picture here is to draw other page viewers to spit the baby more than others as can be seen in your preferred picture. Also the page is about the young Prince hence it will only be appropriate that the close up picture is used here. I hope you understand and comply with this close up picture. Thank you. MSincccc (talk) 11:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * My point is that nobody can tell the subject is a young prince without some background context. At the very least we could show his parents with him. Surtsicna (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Surtsicna on this one. The cropped version was used in the infobox ten years ago, because, well, that's how he looked like back then. For the article's body, however, I suggest using the uncropped version because it captures the essence of the event, which involved his parents, the press, etc. not just a baby wrapped in a shawl. Keivan.f  Talk 12:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * But @Keivan.f, the closeup picture is more relevant because the spotlight is on the baby and the picture has been used to highlight George coming out of St. Mary's Hospital in his mother's arms for his first ever public photo. So it would only be better that the present one stays as it is. The picture preferred by and previously used by user @Surtsicna did not highlight George (he is hardly visible) which isore important for accuracy. MSincccc (talk) 05:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not see the point in highlighting George when nobody can tell it's George. In the zoomed-in picture he looks exactly like hundreds of thousands of other babies born every day. People can tell it's George from the picture that shows his parents and the media. Therefore the picture with more context is more informative. Surtsicna (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * But @Surtsicna everyone can notice his mother's arms in which he is being carried and hence make out that it is Prince George. The picture is henceforth better suited. Please understand. Thank you MSincccc (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you telling me that people can recognize Catherine by her arms? In this photo? Surtsicna (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, especially if they are not familiar with royals other than the King and Queen. But the picture used by you was far fetched. The spotlight is far from being on the newborn. Also that picture also features the heads of cameramen and media executives blocking a clear view of Prince George back then. But the picture can only belong to George and no outsider will doubt it (you previously said that "In the zoomed-in picture he looks exactly like hundreds of thousands of other babies born every day") for the following reasons: 1)It is Prince George 's Wikipedia page.2) The Commons filed used has been legally verified and captioned as been that of newborn George. 3) The caption used for the image clearly states that it is of "Prince George" ,then a newborn, leaving the hospital in the arms of his mother. 4) If people trying to reaffirm whether the photo really belongs to newborn George search it on the web, it will end their doubts because the one used here was George's first picture published by the media. (When he was being taken to his home for the first time) . I don't think anything more needs to be specified now that I have made my discussion clear @Surtsicna@Keivan.f@Tim O'Doherty. Thank you . MSincccc (talk) 05:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not doubting that it is Prince George in the photo. I am doubting the value of the image. It does not add value because it does not tell a story. A photo with more context makes it clear that the baby is the most famous prince in the world. It illustrates the text of the paragraph, in which we describe the media interest in him. It is sad to miss the opportunity to show that. Surtsicna (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Here I am talking about Prince Louis' page @Keivan.f@Surtsicna@Tim O'Doherty as well. Would it not be nicer and more accurate as far information is concerned to talk about Louis'first Trooping the Colour, Coronation and Easter Sunday appearance on his page. @Surtsicna I found that you removed his entire "Official appearances" section for the sake of trimming. As @Tim O'Dohertysaid above, "however, we should keep a few examples, and the "Public image" section was fine as was". This applies to Prince Louis'page as well. MSincccc (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added some examples of Louis's appearances. Surtsicna (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)