Talk:Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex/Archive 6

Requested move 17 June 2018

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. There is clear consensus (even discounting low-participation IP edits) and a reasonable policy-based rationale put forward for the move. Per the extended discussion in the next section, there is also consensus favoring a six month moratorium on further move requests with respect to this article. bd2412 T 20:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Prince Harry → Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex – Following extensive discussion, this appears to be the title that meets the most essentials - it is unique, it is in line with article naming conventions, and it is consistent with articles for people of similar status, such as Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, Prince Andrew, Duke of York and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. The most recent move resulted in the present title, for which there is (in my opinion) no clear consensus. I do not think it is necessary for all the arguments to be repeated here, and it would be helpful if those voting could restrict themselves to voicing their feelings on the move actually being proposed, rather than some proposal which is not currently being made. Deb (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per requestor. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:NCROY, per Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Andrew, Duke of York, Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, and per numerous cases of using the better known familiar form rather than the formal first names for peers e.g. Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford (not "Francis"), Tom Denning, Baron Denning (not "Thompson" or "Alfred"), Charlie Falconer, Baron Falconer of Thoroton (not "Charles"), Alex Carlile, Baron Carlile of Berriew (not "Alexander"), Bill Morris, Baron Morris of Handsworth (not "William"), Harry Snell, 1st Baron Snell (not "Henry"), Frank Russell, 2nd Earl Russell (not "Francis" or "John"), Tony Giffard, 3rd Earl of Halsbury (not "Anthony" or "John") and Chris Rennard, Baron Rennard (not "Christopher"). Timrollpickering 12:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I was cautious about re-opening this, but I have been convinced by Timrollpickering's argument. I would add a further example: Chris Smith, Baron Smith of Finsbury, not Christopher.  We give Prince Philip and Prince Andrew their full titles, even though they are also the primary meaning of these names. PatGallacher (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per multiple recent discussions, and per WP:CONCISE: the current title is sufficient to identify the subject and does not require disambiguation. Consistency of titles between separate articles is neither required nor desirable on Wikipedia. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as per nom and WP:NCROY. I disagree with Ivanvector's comment that consistency is not required or desirable as this is in contradiction with WP:TITLE which clearly states "This page in a nutshell: Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent". (My bolding). It says in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above.. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. His WP:COMMONNAME is "Prince Harry'. His official name is "Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex". The proposed title is a mixing of the two and completely against any sort of article naming conventions. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree with Timrollpickering. --Editor FIN (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Rreagan007. The proposed title is the body of COMMONNAME stitched together with the tail of NCROY, like an Egyptian god. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, since this is his new title and COMMON.  CookieMonster755 ✉  02:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, as from now on, increasing number of sources will be using it. GoodDay (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Unproven. Use of "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" has not yet emerged, and may never happen. Qexigator (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe not but in the same way that Prince William Duke of Cambridge is not used. It is either Prince William in most of the press or the Duke of Cambridge in official sources and certain more conservative press sources. In the same way that Charles is not known as Charles, Prince of Wales but either Prince Charles or The Prince of Wales. Before his marriage the official site of the monarchy, www.royal.uk, used Prince Harry almost exclusively and now uses The Duke of Suffolk Sussex exclusively. Both are common names and official names. The proposed change is precise recognisable and consistent, is it concise ? I believe it is, is it natural...that's debatable but so many titles for royalty are not either. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Suffolk"? Qexigator (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't want to prolong this unnecessarily, but the idea that "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" must appear in those exact words in sources is a red herring (as already discussed just a few days ago). We already know that he will be called "Duke of Sussex" only. We are discussing a suitable title for an encyclopedia article, not what the Court Circular calls him. Deb (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, of course, Deb you are as free to let us know your opinion of the relevance of the Court Circular to the discussion as others are to disagree, but if you have checked the Court Circular lately perhaps you could let us have a link to see for ourselves whether or not it supports the proposal to improve the article by changing from the current "Prince Harry" to "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex", which, as some others have pointed out, is neither one thing nor the other. It would be unprecedented, and for many would be misinformative outside the confines of Wikipedia. No one using Wikipedia is likely to be inconvenienced in any way by the article continuing to be named as it is, given the opening sentence and the redirect. Qexigator (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As User:Timrollpickering quite rightly pointed out this is not unprecedented and gave 9 exemples. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out by others, Prince William & Duke of Cambridge are used separately, as are Prince Charles & Prince of Wales. Yet we use Prince William, Duke of Cambridge & Charles, Prince of Wales for article titles. Therefore, there's a precedent. GoodDay (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Dom and GoodDay: I see no precedent for use of nickname with title in the case of a UK prince of the present royal house, who is still referred to in published sources as "Prince Harry" or "Duke of Sussex". His "common name" is emphatically not "Ptrince Harry, Duke of Sussex". The main point is, at present, irrespective of personal preferences and unauthoritative opinions of commenters on this and other pages, no one using Wikipedia is likely to be inconvenienced in any way by the article continuing to be named as it is, given the opening sentence and the redirect. Qexigator (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * here's one for you Princess Patricia of Connaught her first name was Victoria. Patricia or Patsy was not her official name...like Harry which by the way is not just a nickname but is also a given name, see Harry Powlett, 4th Duke of Cleveland. Any other objections? Dom from Paris (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And here's the best one yet that should really seal it. Guess what Queen Victoria's husband Albert, Prince Consort was really called. Francis. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What point are you trying to make? Harry was Powlett's name, in the same way as Henry is the name of the Duke of Sussex and Patricia (not Patsy) was her name and Albert's was his. Qexigator (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC).
 * I knew I shouldn't have added that snippet of useless information because you seem to have ignored what I was really trying to point out. You say that there was no precedent for using a nickname and a title, this is not a nickname as such but it is a diminutive of Henry and also a given name elsewhere. But that is not really important. The monarchy website refered to him as Prince Harry he signs documents as Harry this is his usual name. The other examples I have given you are also British princes and princesses that used other non-official first names throughout their lives and their article pages use these non-official names with their title because this is how they were known and the title that they carried. Would you have the Prince Albert page renamed Francis, Prince Consort? Albert was not known as Albert, Prince Consort but simply Prince Albert but the WP has quite rightly used an article title that is clear and precise but uses a non official name, Albert and his official title, Prince Consort. You are saying that there is no precedent for using a nickname of a British prince with his title.. I would say that you are using a precedent now. If Harry is a nickname and Prince is a title then this very page is the precedent you are looking for. I cannot see how you can argue that it is OK to use Prince but not Duke of Suffolk. Where is the logic? Dom from Paris (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No: you seem to have misread my comment, and you have then gone on to argue with a strawman. If you look again you will see that I said that there is no precedent for use of nickname (or diminutive) with title in the case of a UK prince (or princess) of the present royal house. The instances so far cited show that to be so. "Harry was Powlett's name, in the same way as Henry is the name of the Duke of Sussex" and neither Patricia nor Albert was a nickname/diminutive. Whether or not some commenters support the move on "common name" reasoning, in fact his "common name" is not "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex". So far, "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" would be an invention of Wikipedia that published sources have avoided using. At the present time and in the case of this prince's biographical article, the main point is that Wikpedia questions such as this should not be determined by personal preferences and unauthoritative opinions of commenters: the criterion here is whether anyone using Wikipedia is likely to be inconvenienced in any way by the article continuing to be named as it is, given the opening sentence and the redirect. Qexigator (talk) 06:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * has given plenty examples of articles named with 'nickname & title'. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Any example of a use of nickname with title in the case of a UK prince of the present royal house is noticeable by its absence, and I note that none is disputing that no one using Wikipedia is likely to be inconvenienced in any way by the article continuing to be named as it is, given the opening sentence and the redirect.
 * We shall have to disagree, as he's now the Duke of Sussex. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per nomination and WP:NCROY. --B dash (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Its not a perferfect solution but consistency/ncroy and commoname this is a compromise. Garlicplanting (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose We recently had this discussion and landed on the current title, which satisfies COMMONNAME. DBD 14:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Just this very day the highly reputable sources of the BBC and the Guardian, published articles which used the term "Prince Harry" throughout. They both briefly called Meghan Markle the "Duchess of Sussex", as an alternative title for her, but otherwise the term Sussex was not mentioned in those articles. Although "the Duke of Sussex" does appear in some sources, it seems like the majority of reputable sources still omit or don't labour that title at all. This is in contrast to William, who is much more frequently referred to as the Duke of Cambridge. I'm also surprised that this nomination does not address the COMMONNAME issue at all, seeing as we had a discussion less than a month ago which resulted in no move on that basis. WP:NCROY, while a useful guideline under some circumstances, should certainly not overrule the common name where that is very clear. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You may not have read them that thoroughly because in the BBC article that you sourced (which is a rather tacky piece about her father's tacky paid interview and not signed by any journalist) Prince Harry is referred to as the Duke of Sussex once and his wife as The Duchess of Sussex in the very first sentence and as "the Duchess" 3 more times. In the Guardian piece about the same tacky interview with her father where the only time he is called Prince Harry is in the following phrase "Prince Harry called for Donald Trump to be “given a chance” his father-in-law has revealed in his first broadcast interview." and we don't even know if this was before he got married or after he obtained the title Duke of Sussex. The rest of the time the journalist refers to him simply as Harry 5 times. Both of these sources were simply reporting on Markel's paid interview with Piers Morgan who wrote for some of the very worst of the British tabloids. This is not what I would use to show Commonname. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Would the opponents stop crying about the COMMONNAME policy, and give a solid reason that why this page should not be moved to the new title? The name that has been suggested by the nominator both satisfies COMMONNAME and also makes the article consistent with the other pages about royal figures. By the way, the official websites and documents and many news agencies already refer to him as the Duke of Sussex, thus the argument that "Prince Harry" alone is his common name is not valid anymore. Keivan.f  Talk 17:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment here are a few more cases where titles and non-official names are mixed Grey Ruthven, 2nd Earl of Gowrie, F. J. Robinson, 1st Viscount Goderich, Angus Kennedy, 6th Marquess of Ailsa, Mark Colville, 4th Viscount Colville of Culross, Clive Bigham, 2nd Viscount Mersey, Garry Runciman, 3rd Viscount Runciman of Doxford. There is very long list of people that have titles that mix a commonname and a title. This would not be the frist time by a long chalk. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - His official title is "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" so as such we should use that, COMMONNAME is irrelevent here - The Queens article is titled "Elizabeth II" and not "The Queen" if makes sense, Anyway support. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What? No, you've got that the wrong way round. It's the WP:OFFICIALNAME that's irrelevant, unless it also happens to be the WP:COMMONNAME. That's how our title policy works. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If Commonname is what is important above all else then we have a problem with his mother's page because Princess Diana gets 30M Ghits against Diana, Princess of Wales 4M Ghits and Lady Diana 5M Ghits, should we rename her page Princess Diana? His brother's commonname is Prince William 48M Ghits and Prince William, Duke of Cambridge 2.5M Ghits. One day we are going to have to get past this blockage that only the commonname is the one that counts. The name is being used in very serious sources, the Telegraph refers to him as such the Encyclopedia Britannica has renamed its page on him Prince Harry, duke of Sussex, the Express uses the same name , Cosmopolitan is using it too , the Canadian Encyclopedia has renamed their page on him  "Prince Harry (HRH The Duke of Sussex)". Dom from Paris (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for reasons previously given on this page (by self and others): "the current title is sufficient to identify the subject and does not require disambiguation. Consistency of titles between separate articles is neither required nor desirable on Wikipedia"; "His official name is 'Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex'. The proposed title is a mixing of the two"; "Use of "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" has not yet emerged, and may never happen"; "changing from the current "Prince Harry" to "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex", which, as some others have pointed out, is neither one thing nor the other, and for many would be misinformative outside the confines of Wikipedia. No one using Wikipedia is likely to be inconvenienced in any way by the article continuing to be named as it is, given the opening sentence and the redirect"; "there is no precedent for use of nickname (or diminutive) with title in the case of a UK prince (or princess) of the present royal house"; "Wikpedia questions such as this should not be determined by personal preferences and unauthoritative opinions of commenters"; "Although 'the Duke of Sussex' does appear in some sources, it seems like the majority of reputable sources still omit or don't labour that title at all. This is in contrast to William, who is much more frequently referred to as the Duke of Cambridge"; "This is a confused discussion, since there is a third option, that we just leave him at 'Prince Harry'. When this article was at 'Prince Harry of Wales' there were objections that this was an awkward hybrid between his formal title and his common name"; "When he was born, his parents and the Palace announced that he would be known as Harry. It is definitely not something the media invented"; "This requested move is premature"; "official sites will either use 'Prince Harry' or 'The Duke of Sussex' from now on. 'Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex' is no more or less 'official' than 'Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex'; " 'Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex' is a Wikipedia neologism"; "suggest that the choice of name made by a person's parents should apply for so long as the person does not express a desire to be known by another name"; "the royal website calls him Prince Harry, including the page showing an image of the Queen's instrument of consent to his marriage". Qexigator (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Your choice, but I just don't see the reason behind making this one bio article different from all the others. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As GoodDay has already pointed out, this bio must not be an exception. We have hundreds of articles on Wikipedia which combine the common names and official titles of the peers. Examples are already available above. Keivan.f  Talk 21:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is an exception. Unlike the other comparable bios (royal dukes such as his brother), neither Harry, Duke of Sussex nor Henry, Duke of Sussex is acceptable for different reasons. But before long, Harry, Duke of Sussex may win through if cites such as above become more plentiful: Telegraph, Express, Cosmopolitan. Canada's "Prince Harry (HRH The Duke of Sussex)" comes close, but does not conform with WP's normal house style. Qexigator (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not an exception. There lay the core of our positions on this topic. You see it as an exception, where's I don't. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As above said, questions such as this should not be determined by personal preferences. Qexigator (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's obvious that you & I are not going to agree on this article's title. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * and, . WP:COMMONNAME states "Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used." the Encyclopædia Britannica uses "Prince Harry, duke of Sussex". The above proposal is not in contradiction with Commonnanme nor with WP:NAMECHANGES. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Operative words "may be": not necessarily as carefully and scrupulously edited as WP, letting open discussion thresh out and blow away chaff. Qexigator (talk) 09:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per nomination. This is his official title. I don't know why this page was moved back. --202.155.194.40 (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC) — 202.155.194.40 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Support per nomination. This is the "common name" for British royality. --219.78.191.247 (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC) — 219.78.191.247 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Support per nom. That's what he's called now. That's what the media call him. Just like his brother, father and uncles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per NCROY and per Timrollpickering. "Per WP:TITLE This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names": Such "clear benefits" are manifest here because this proposed title uniquely combines both the common name under which people are still likely to look him up in an encyclopedia, and the peerage which is his most correct designation and that is thus the information people expect to be promptly told by an encyclopedia. It is indeed "inconvenient" to omit "Duke of Sussex (regardless of any precedent thereby set or broken), because while Wikipedia contributors have decided to prioritize naming articles to maximize ease of access, Wikipedia readers turn to an encyclopedia for, above all, accuracy -- and seeing the article about him titled simply "Prince Harry" will suggest to many, if not most, visitors to the article that this is the preferred way to refer to him, which once it was but is no longer. Conveying that impression to the reader is inconvenient because it is more misleading than need be in this context, thus imposing an unnecessary barrier to the ready grasp of information. FactStraight (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that comment is over-anxious in its conjecture about the ability of visitors to the article to understand what they find. In the case of one who needs to know Prince Harry's title and style of address, for instance: if the opening paragraph is not`enough to give the information that such a visitor is looking for, s/he can easily go to the "Titles and styles" section, which plainly states 15 September 1984 – 19 May 2018: His Royal Highness Prince Henry of Wales. 19 May 2018 – present: His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex. There is nothing "inaccurate" (or misleading or inconvenient) in the article's plain name "Prince Harry" to amount to "imposing an unnecessary barrier to the ready grasp of information". There is no reason to suppose that the current article's title makes the article deficient in "the information people expect to be promptly told by" Wikipedia which has the advantage of using infoboxes and numerous inline links, which visitors can easily navigate. Further, it is unusual to find secondary sources on websites or in newspapers, magazines or other print publications using "Prince (Name), Duke of (Place)". Qexigator (talk) 07:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support – this is standard practice on Wikipedia, and if this page is kept the current name (along with Meghan's), then we have a LOT of moving to do. Corky  21:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:NCROY. Usage of first name "Harry" instead of official name "Henry" is justified by real-world practice, where nobody ever called him Henry. This could change in a few years if "Prince Henry" takes root. We have numerous precedents of preferring familiar names, as listed above by, for example Tony Giffard, 3rd Earl of Halsbury (not "Anthony" or "John"). — JFG talk 04:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination and the comments above. --118.140.125.71 (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC) — 118.140.125.71 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Support Common name and how we treat his brother. I also haven't seen a decent argument against the move. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per my previous comments. Also, I saw "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" link at Pr. Charles's page and it looked right, esp. as it was below his brother's link and would have looked out of place as just "Prince Harry". Furthermore, I heard "Suffolk" the first time I heard Harry's new title given (without having read it first). Others may have the same problem. That's another reason to have Harry's substantive title up front. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per multiple recent discussions, and per WP:CONCISE: the current title is sufficient to identify the subject and does not require disambiguation. Consistency of titles between separate articles is neither required nor desirable on Wikipedia. 213.205.242.121 (talk) 04:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC) — 213.205.242.121 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This !vote is in contradiction with the 5th characteristic of title criteria: Consistency. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support as above. --182.239.122.174 (talk) 10:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC) — 182.239.122.174 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Support as I've mentioned before. Sammartinlai (talk) 10:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as per WP:Article titles. WP:CRITERIA includes: "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." Although "Prince Harry" meets the "Recognizability", "Naturalness", "Precision", and "Conciseness" criteria, that section (WP:CRITERIA) also urges us to look at topic-specific conventions for further guidance. As other editors have already stated, WP:NCROY supports this requested move.
 * Furthermore, MOS:PRECISION states: "Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines or by Wikipedia projects, such as ... Names of royals and nobles." WP:NCROY does not contradict WP:AT, but rather supports and supplements it. Edge3 (talk) 03:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose because there is nobody actually named "Harry" who is Duke of Sussex. The nickname and the title clash in a way that makes us look foolish. I would support Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex, but not another Wikipedia invention like Hedwig of Holstein (no such Queen of Sweden has ever existed in the real world). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's best to have Duke of Sussex in the article title. Would also rather it accompanied with Henry, but there's so many editors who oppose using Henry at all. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Harry has chosen to sign all his official documents with "Harry" Kensington palace referred to him as Prince Harry the royal foundation uses Harry whereas his birth name was Henry so if we follow that logic there was no prince called Harry so the page should have been Prince Henry of Wales. This would have been foolish because almost all RS used Harry. We could use the same argument for actors or artists that use a stage name or a nom de plume, that they do not exist in the real world. Queen Victoria's husband was known by his middle name, his first name was Francis but I think that if we renamed the page Francis, Prince Consort this would be very foolish indeed especially when the encyclopedia Britannica and the national archives and all other sources use Albert Prince Consort. Wikipedia is not here to mirror birth certificates but to supply information about important subjects and use names for titles that are precise and easily recognisable. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support: he is almost universally known as "Prince Harry", and his title is "Duke of Sussex". A strict adherence to name/title order, and an insistence that he must be known as "Henry" is not only pedantic but borders on original research.--Hazhk (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. So long as the proposed title is demonstrably a much less WP:COMMONNAME, and there's no evidence that this prince Harry isn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the name "Prince Harry", the present title is the better fit according to WP:COMMONNAME and the WP:CRITERIA, including WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Does that mean we should move Charles, Prince of Wales to Prince Charles; Prince William, Duke of Cambridge to Prince William, for examples? GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If they're the primary topics of "Prince Charles" and "Prince William", respectively, then I don't see any problem with that. I'm not sure they are, however, there are a lot more princes named Charles and William than "Harry".--Cúchullain t/ c 17:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rank of Major
Yes there are pictures of him in a wearing the rank of Major, but the London Gazette does not specify his promotion. So do not add unless with a credible source.

Sammartinlai (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

See this link: https://metro.co.uk/2018/05/19/queen-gives-harry-ok-wear-military-uniform-wedding-day-despite-beard-7561068/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3C1:C300:2A7:E8AC:B6DE:DF31:DA92 (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Tabloids are not a reliable source as stated here. If the London Gazette does not mention his promotion it should not be included. --KingUther (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Check his service number against the London Gazette, says so mention of promotion at all. Sammartinlai (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Suspect that it will be posted in Monday or Tuesday's London Gazette. As of last Remembrance Sunday he still had Captain's rank insignia on his Cloak.Sundayschild58 (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Clearly, it has not been.Sammartinlai (talk) 10:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we are trying to overcomplicate this. The LG is a notification method. But ultimately if the Queen approves him wearing a Majors ranks then thats that. Its in her gift. Its normal form for all Royal princes to have their ranks increase in line with their peers after active retirement. I can find many broadsheets stating major like https://www.telegraph.co.uk/luxury/mens-style/prince-harrys-wedding-outfit/ Garlicplanting (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Issue solved. Announced today 19 June 2018 and no it is not overcomplicating.Sammartinlai (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course it is. If a UK Prince is wearing any insignia of rank it has been granted. The Sovereign is free promote who they please. The gazette is notification Garlicplanting (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Why "Harry" instead of his name "Henry"?
"Harry" v. "Henry" has been much discussed, but the article lacks sufficiently clear information about how, why and when the diminutive form of Henry came into use for naming this prince and has persisted to this day in almost all publications and royal websites, except formal documents such as letters patent.. The footnotes fail failed (before 19 June revision) to explain why he is known by the nickname/diminutive practically to the exclusion of Henry, other than in formal documents such as the letters patent where he was called Henry of Wales, which is unhelpful to an inquirer without prior knowledge. Qexigator (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC) update 21:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The use of "Harry" as a diminutive of Henry goes back hundreds of years not just with this Prince. MilborneOne (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * At some point "Harry" did become a name in its own right. See for example Harry S. Truman (b. 1884), who was born Harry, not Henry. "Harry" as a given name was one of the top 100 most popular boys' names in the UK from before 1900 until 1954 and again from 1994 to present. Firebrace (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * He was actually born Harry?? I had always assumed the parents legally named him after the birth bit. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Truman was named after his uncle, Harrison Young. GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ... and Prince Harry of Volgograd, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC) ... and Prince Cliff of Wimbledon, of course
 * Thank you, that is good to know in case it ever comes up at a pub quiz. Firebrace (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Milborne, Firebrace: That information is well enough known, but it goes nowhere to answering the question: why the article, including footnotes, fails to explain why he has been and continues to be almost universally known as "Harry" instead of "Henry", unlike his brother William who when younger was sometimes called "Wills", but soon became known by his actual name (Prince) William. In that respect, the article is unhelpful to an inquirer without prior knowledge. Qexigator (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you suggest we fix that problem? Firebrace (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Good question: "Early life: his familiar name "Harry" from a baby, alongside formal name "Henry" as Christened". Could be tweaked in the usual way of editing for the improvement of an article. Qexigator (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just link in a note to Harry (name) which explains that Henrys have been called Harry for a very long time. MilborneOne (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There is such a note in the article now. --Acjelen (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I remember reading somewhere that it was his mother who wished to have him christened Harry but Charles or the palace refused but agreed to it being used as his usual name rather than his official one. I'll try and find a RS. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've been hunting for that for a while. I clearly remember an official announcement that his name would be Henry but he would be known as "Harry". Deb (talk) 07:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * According to Andrew Morton's book, both "William" and "Harry" were Diana's choices of names, despite Charles wanting them to be "Arthur" and "Albert". I guess a formal use of "Henry" was either Charles or the Palace making some sort of insistence - Palace officials are not known for being up to date and probably regarded "Harry" as not a proper name, whatever its use overseas. Timrollpickering 16:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If there had been palace interference, it is likely we'd have heard or Morton would have mentioned it. Much more likely is that both Andrew Morton, the princess, and the Palace officials know/knew very well that people named Henry are called Harry and people called Harry are named Henry.  One can even suppose that they never even discussed it.  Diana said Harry and someone noted down Henry. Anyway, isn't 'harry' just the Middle English pronunciation of the French name Henry anyway? They aren't actually two different names. --Acjelen (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "[P]eople called Harry are named Henry" except for Harry Kane, Harry Styles, Harry Connick Jr., Harry S. Truman, and Harry Reid to name five people who are both called and named Harry. Barring exceptions like Harry Enfield and Harry Redknapp, who are named Henry, most people called Harry are not actually named Henry. Firebrace (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * It was announced at the same time his name was announced by his parents that he would be called Harry. I don't have a source, but media coverage of his naming should include it.  The seemingly earnest confusion about his name is mildly alarming, but I don't have any evidence if it is generational, cultural, or philosophical. --Acjelen (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There does not seem to have been any official announcement but the press were clearly told prior to the birth that the child would be called Harry. The Times, Issue 61938, for Monday, 17 September 1984, page 1, refers to the baby as 'Prince Harry - as he is to be known".AnthonyCamp (talk) 10:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC).
 * What's embarrassing here, for Wikipedia, is that there is no Duke of Sussex actually named "Harry". The nickname and the title clash in a way that makes us all look foolish here. Another sad Wikipedia invention like Hedwig of Holstein (no Swedish queen has ever existed by that name). The most-frequent-use-in-media rule should never outdo common sense like this, in my opinion. It's a case of have your cake (nickname) and eat it too (title). Ugh! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Mmm, tasty. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The concern expressed in SW's comment was also expressed by many contributing to the Move Proposal discussions. A decision was needed one way or the other for retaining "Prince Harry" or changing to the usual model using either "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" or "Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex". There were points made for and against the options, A decision has been made. It is not irrational, and may be regarded at least as acceptable as other options, given the unusual, and perhaps unique, case in respect of this prince and the publicity that has followed him as "Harry" from his birth, by his parents' choice initially, and his own choice ever since, and condoned and perhaps welcomed by the Queen as head of the family and grantor of titles for royal princes. Qexigator (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not think we have anything to blush about, the encyclopedia britannica has changed the title of its page here to "Prince Harry, duke of Sussex" the Canadian encyclopedia uses "Prince Harry (HRH The Duke of Sussex)" here Time magazine refers to him as such here. People will always have their own personal ideas about what is right and proper be it for royals or commoners. The idea is to find a compromise and consensus. Unless I am very much mistaken the case of Hedwig or Helvig is another kettle of fish as it concerns the English language spelling of a Swedish name. To say it is a Wikipedia invention is misleading because the first discussion here concluded that most reliable English language sources used the spelling Hedwig when referring to her and one even suggested that Helvig was actually incorrect and a second dicsussion confirmed the first here. There may well be cases of Wikipedia invention elsewhere but the consensus was that this was not the case here. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Fact check: Helwig and Hedwig are two different names, as different as Herbert and Hubert, not versions of the same name. Since that queen never bore the name Hedwig, it is a Wikipedia invention to name an article like that based on a few less-than-knowledgeable authors' work that can be dug up, which appartently outnumber (and at WP at its very worst override) the very limited scolarly work about her in English. But that's a different discussion. Expounding on it here at length only looks unnecessarily argumentative. I apologize for my part in that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * PS the Swedes know what her name was. sv:Helvig av Holstein. I guess that's enough. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. They also have Louise of the Netherlands at Lovisa av Nederländerna. Surtsicna (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Louise in Swedish is Lovisa. Helwig in Swedish is Helvig, not Hedwig. That's the difference. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And what is amusing is that on the Swedish page it says in the lead "även (felaktigt) känd under namnet Hedvig" which I believe means "also (incorrectly) known as Hedvig" so despite using the word "incorrectly" the Swedish editors acknowledge that there is a debate about what her real name was. So it might be fairer to say that the Swedish Wikipedia community has decided that her correct name is Helvig, but as Wikipedia is not a reliable source it doesn't really matter at all what the other projects call her. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We are allowed to have different opinions without having to argue at length. My distict opinion is that it matters if English Wikipedia names a biography with a name that the subject person never has had or used in real life. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And the community has decided that most reliable sources in English use Hedwig and that that is what the page should be titled regardless of our opinions. I think this discussion has run its course here as it had on the article's talk page. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Changing article title to match prince william
Should this now be Prince William, Duke of Sussex? William's is in that format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:9A02:3D00:1CB6:7785:6D45:D496 (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There are several discussions on this page on exactly this question. Up until now there has been no consensus to move away from the long-term title of just plain "Prince Harry", which matches the WP:COMMONNAME for him used by a lot of the sources. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, most people here would probably love to see Prince Wills 'cause that's what he's called! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Wills" is nowadays seldom used except as a nickname. I never see it in conjunction with "Prince". Deb (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would agree with a move to Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex (or Henry, whatever), but it seems that users simply just prefer to refer to Harry and Meghan by their so called common names, and at the same time prefer the formal format of the rest of the royal family. It just doesn't make sense, but that's how it has recently been. Keivan.f  Talk 20:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * People were just not happy with 'Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex' and preferred either 'Prince Harry' or 'Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex'. The Meghan Markle move was unpopular due it being carried out by Jimbo Wales, and the admins were very unhappy about that, but an administrator also took it upon himself to move this one to 'Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex', so it's all much of a muchness really. Firebrace (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Now that this argument has worn itself out may I humbly suggest that the title be 'Prince Henry (Harry), Duke of Sussex'. I make this suggestion because that is the way his name appears (as 'Prince Henry (Harry) of Wales' in the last (2003) edition of Burke's Peerage and Baronetage, vol. 1, page clxv, and in other Burke publications. I would myself prefer that the word Harry be in inverted commas, indicating in a standard way used in many genealogical publications, that it is a name generally used but not the formal birth name. AnthonyCamp (talk) 08:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC).
 * I wouldn't support that myself. It's incredibly long-winded and unnecessary. I don't know why people are so unhappy with the present title, both for Harry and Meghan. The issue isn't just that there's confusion between Harry/Henry or that Jimbo made the move for Meghan... the issue is that "Prince Harry" and "Meghan Markle" are still overwhelmingly what they're called in the media, even in reputable sources such as The Independent, and until that changes there's simply no reason to move it per WP:COMMONNAME.


 * To my mind, AC's suggested "Prince Henry (Harry), Duke of Sussex" could be acceptable if it becomes standardised by appearing in a future edition of Burke's Peerage and similar sources. Qexigator (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Then again, "Princess Diana" is a WP:COMMONNAME, but the article is titled Diana, Princess of Wales, so there are some exceptions to that rule... Firebrace (talk) 10:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that, adapting the above, that "Prince Henry 'Harry', Duke of Sussex" (which is the way I would expect to see it, with "Harry" quoted, not in parenthesis), is certainly a legitimate form. It may be the most "encyclopedic" (e.g. how it might appear in an actual, print encyclopedia) choice yet, however wordy. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Qexigator, his new title does now appear on Burkes Peerage . Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 04:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That is in the context of giving his full style and title, and not together with "Harry" as proposed above. We are still waiting to see a more frequent use of "Henry, Duke of Sussex" than is yet apparent. Qexigator (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The in a nutshell at the top of the page says "Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent." We are lacking consistency as it stands. There are specific naming conventions such as Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) but as per WP:TITLE This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names; I would suggest looking at the discussion on Diana and try and see if there are arguments that could be used here. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In Diana's case, the article title was her actual official title once she ceased to be "the Princess of Wales", and was also the title by which she was generally known. In the case of Harry, he will now be officially known as "The Duke of Sussex" and informally and incorrectly known as "Prince Harry". To my mind, "Prince Henry (Harry), Duke of Sussex", is unworkable because it will never be the first thing a reader searches on. As has been said many times in these debates, we do have a duty to act as an encyclopedia and educate people by letting them known that "Prince Harry" is neither his correct title nor a unique title by making it either a redirect or a disambiguation page. BUT we can't call the page "The Duke of Sussex" or "Duke of Sussex", because these are also not specific enough for an article title. So the only viable option is "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" or "Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex". Both are, at present, unique and both are correct in the context of our article naming conventions. The debate on whether to use "Harry" or "Henry" to refer to him has been repeated many times and has always come out in favour of "Harry". To me, this is a no-brainer, but I understand why people who haven't spent as long on these discussion pages as I have are confused by it. Deb (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this. If "Prince Harry" is what most sources call him, then it is not "incorrect", and we have no duty to "educate people" otherwise. WP:COMMONNAME is crystal clear that we follow the sources, we don't attempt to correct them, or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The duty of an encyclopedia to report on the real world, not an idealised or "official" version of the real world. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If Commonname is really that important would you be for moving the Diana page to "Princess Diana" and the William page to "Prince William"? and the Charles page to either "Prince Charles" or "The Prince of Wales"? I have never heard anyone call the Queen "Elizabeth II" and I have always heard Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother referred to either as "The Queen Mother" or "The Queen Mum" but never by the title of the article. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't right great wrongs, but we are not here to mislead people either. Per WP:COMMONNAME, "Ambiguous[6] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources" and I suppose that is why Wikipedia uses Diana's official title rather than "Princess Diana", by which she was more commonly known. Firebrace (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The page was created as Diana, Princess of Wales back in 2001 as the choice of the editor that created the page. It was moved once to Diana, Whore of Wales by a vandal and once to Princess Diana and once to HERM E E ? by another vandal. There was a discussion here to request a move in 2016 and the decision was the opposite to the one above i.e. prefer WP:NCROY and not commonname. In 2011 the question had already been posed and the reply from User:Fvasconcellos one of the earlier admins was To actually answer the original question, articles on royals are governed by a different naming convention. WP:COMMONNAME is superseded by topic-specific conventions when the latter exist and have been accepted by the community.. It all seems to be a question of consensus at any one time and largely depends on the editors that participe. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Although the log does not show it, it's evident from the earliest comments on the Talk page for the article on Diana, Princess of Wales, that it had been moved from another article - by me - in 2003, and the reasoning given, and it seems to have started off at "Lady Diana Spencer". Amakuru is correct in pointing out one important difference in that "Princess Diana" always was, and always will be, wrong, whereas "Prince Harry" is not wrong in the same sense, but is ambiguous; moreover, it is neither his current nor his previous title nor does it include the title by which he will be known for the remainder of his life. Where Amakuru is incorrect is in assuming that reliable sources will persist in using Harry's former title in preference to his new one. Just as "Prince Andrew" and "Prince Edward" ceased to be called that by the media and official sources when they acquired additional titles, Harry will in years to come be known as the Duke of Sussex and people will forget that he was ever called anything else. Deb (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well that's great. Once it's obvious that everyone has started doing that, we'll just go right on and move the article. The fact that it's still at Prince Harry today doesn't mean we can't move it at any point in the future. However, your assertion saying that I'm incorrect in assuming the reliable sources will persist is unprovable per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Rather than predicting it, let's just wait and see. The Diana case is an interesting one, but I don't think it's entirely equivalent because "Diana, Princess of Wales" was found extremely often across the sources, in a way that "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" simply isn't. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Like I've said, he will never be called "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex". He will be called "the Duke of Sussex". He already is. A quick Google search on "Duke of Sussex" gets 29,500,000 results and "Prince Harry" gets 755,000,000. Bear in mind that he's been Duke of Sussex for less than a month when he was plain Prince Harry for 33 years, I don't think a crystal ball is needed. It's Wikipedia that is currently out of step. Deb (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

As somebody already mentioned, the reason for this article's current title is that enough editors pushed for it. Should it be Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex or Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex? of course it should. But that's likely not gonna happen anytime soon, per the continued resistance to add Duke of Sussex to the article's name. PS: And ya'll thought Elizabeth II's bestowing the title on her grandson would suffice?? HA, not on Wikipedia. Though strangely enough, it did suffice for Prince William. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Whether it should be "Harry, Duke of Sussex" or "Henry, Duke of Sussex" is the bone of contention... Firebrace (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have a marginal pref for Henry - in line with peers where the start is the most formal form of any title and thereafter the less formal form is used. Garlicplanting (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Bolding of actual official name
I agreed with the bolding of his birth name, and was sad to see that reversed. The lede should make it clear what his actual given name is, not just his nickname as per article title. How about bolding just Henry. Clarity needed. Let's not pretend we haven't seen the official proclamations where he's called "Henry" not "Harry". Please! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Prince Harry's personal name (the one his parents gave him and that he and everybody else uses) is clearly given in the article title and is bolded in the lede. His full name (first, second, third given names, etc.) is given in parentheses as is common in Wikipedia articles.  Since literally zero people call him Prince Henry and since that link goes to a disambig page anyway, there is no need to bolded the traditional/formal spelling of his first name. --Acjelen (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "literally zero" not accurate: . Actual name, as posted there and in other formal government proclamations, needs to be bolded. We are here to create clarity, not the opposite. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I like how in the tweet you linked to, Prince Harry is called Prince Harry, and then called Prince Harry three more times in the actual announcement. You would have helped yourself more with this link . --Acjelen (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I like how the proclamation makes it crystal clear what his actual name is (no matter how many times his nickname is mentioned). I don't like how so many users at English WP like to minimize the importance of what his actual name is. I also don't like that hundreds if not thousands of readers, who are not royalty experts, will be unnecessarily confused by "Harry" bold but "Henry" not so, unexplained. Looks more like a typo that conscientious work on behalf of a reasonably informative encyclopedia. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm reminded of the scene, toward the end of episode 2 (I think) of the 2005 documentary Windsor Castle: A Royal Year, where one of the volunteer castle bell ringers, upon learning that they were to be change ringing for the birthday of "Prince Henry", whose name is spelled thus on a list on nearby wall, has to have it translated for him by the others. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

This nonsense has to be resolved once and for all. Royalty articles generate the pettiest disputes imaginable and this one ranks high among them. No reliable source pays as much attention to this non-issue as Wikipedians do. Having an inline explanation of why a Henry is called Harry is ridiculous. No Anglophone will ever find it surprising that a Harry's legal name is Henry. Henrys have been called Harry for many, many centuries. In this case, the name Henry is mentioned once in the lead and that is perfectly sufficient. Same goes for Bill Clinton, where we do not (and should not) have half a paragraph explaining how his legal name is actually William. Can we please direct our energy on more important stuff, such as the layout, style, and referencing, in order to actually improve the article? Surtsicna (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I totally agree this is a futile argument. He calls himself Harry, everyone refers to him as Harry including his family we know he was baptised Henry it is mentioned 10 times in the article, why labour the point any more? Dom from Paris (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I wonder, in what universe would Featured Article reviewers ask why the article does not contain a paragraph of explanation of Henry = Harry? A group of Wikipedians' endeavor to force the usage of the legal name does not mean that there is any confusion about the subject's name out there in the real world. Surtsicna (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I just showed that there is confusion out there, documented by TV broadcast. If that confusion exists, then Wikipedia should address it and not just say that it doesn't or that it shouldn't. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You showed that confusion exists when Prince Harry is called Prince Henry (as inn the TV broadcast). There is no confusion when we introduce him as Prince Harry, state his full name as Henry Charles Albert David, and go on calling him Prince Harry. Introducing him as Harry, stating his full name as Henry Charles Albert David, and then explaining that he is a Henry who is known as Harry is incredibly redundant and an insult to our readers' intelligence. Surtsicna (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, redundant, pedantic and pandering to those that are sore because the page was renamed. I think that everyone should step back and get over themselves. This kind of debate is only held for royalty, no one adds this kind of rubbish for Bill Gates or Tom Hanks or Benny Hill or Charlie Chaplin or Ben Affleck or ...heaven forbid...his holiness Saint Jimbo of Wales. What a monumental waste of energy for all involved. The article clearly explains his birth name and his usual name let's stop pretending that readers of Wikipedia are so stupid that they have to have this spelled out for them 4 or 5 times. How insulting is that? Dom from Paris (talk) 07:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I am amazed at all the drama here, which was absolutely not my intention. Seems to me we could all try harder just to stick to impoving the article without so much direct or indirect criticism of other users involved in the discussion. It can be done. I've seen nothing here that would infer that anyone of us considers the readers of English Wikipedia to be stupid or wishes to insult them.

As for the actual name item, I think it's fine now, as explained in the lede. It was mostly the totally absent explanation that I found less than helpful. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I personally think that adding his official name to the lede just makes the readers more confused. The article is titled "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex", yet the first few words of the first paragraph read "Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex". Honestly, I would have changed Henry to Harry; his official full name is already included in the parentheses. Keivan.f  Talk 16:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This was because of continued modification by User:NapoleonX who does not agree with the consensus here. I have warned them twice now on their talk page here and also here but they have removed the warnings without replying and there is a joke message there saying that a bot will ignore the messages which obviously it doesn't as they delete the messages themself. They have been warned about this kind of thing several times recently notably by User:Acroterion as they seem to enjoy slow motion edit warring against consensus. The next time I shall file a report at ANI. At least they won't be able to pretend that a bot has removed that message. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Quick question
Why is there a field missing from Prince Harry's infobox? I mean I assume he was allied with the UK during his service in the British Army, but why leave that field out? --Acjelen (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless otherwise stated, it can be inferred that a soldier of the British Army is allied with the United Kingdom. (Only a small, small fraction of military personnel ally bear allegiance to a foreign power rather than the state in whose military they serve.) And as MOS:INFOBOX provides, "The less information [an infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." 142.160.89.97 (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree it's silly to mark allied to the UK for a British Army soldier because every soldier pledges allegiance to the Queen as per Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_Kingdom). So you cannot be a British soldier without pledging allegiance to the monarch of the United Kingdom. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Unexplained reversions
Having been reverted without explanation, I'm wondering why. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * He is claiming flagcruft does not apply to royals Govindaharihari (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * These flags are used in the other British royal bio infoboxes, where military service is involved. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds like "other stuff exists". How do you reconcile your position with MOS:FLAGICON? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * One article should not stand out, from the others. Why are you so fixated on this one article? GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know that one edit qualifies as "fixated", . This was just the article I happened to come across. I don't see why this need become so personal. But anyway, that doesn't address the question: How do you reconcile your position with MOS:FLAGICON (bearing in mind that "[c]onsensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale")? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This article shouldn't be made different from the others, see Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * See my comment below. Additionally, that still doesn't address the initial question: how do you reconcile that position with MOS:FLAGICON? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And if the hope is that articles don't "stand out, from the others", shouldn't we be moving to conform to the standards that consensus dictates apply to all biographies (outside exceptional circumstances)? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to delete the flags from the infoboxes of all the British royal bios? then by all means, do so. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Why is the scope "British royal bios" as opposed to, for example, all military persons or all members of royalty? And I would certainly like to see all articles conform to the MOS, while of course recognizing that there is no deadline. But how can we move towards that if you're reverting such changes? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You were only deleting the flags at this article. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer the question, . Why is the scope "British royal bios" as opposed to, for example, all military persons or all members of royalty? (And, for that matter, how do you reconcile your position with MOS:FLAGICON?) 142.160.89.97 (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I won't oppose your deletions, if you do them to all the British royal bios' infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That doesn't address the issue, . I'm not opposed to it being done elsewhere, but we're discussing why you oppose them in this particular case.
 * You have asserted that it is because uniformity in this particular regard is required for "British royal bios". Where has that consensus been established? And why is it limited to that scope? Why not all biographies of military persons or all members of royalty – or all articles for that matter, seeing as all articles are subject to MOS:FLAGICON outside of exceptional circumstances?
 * And how do you reconcile your position – that flag icons are permissible provided that they're used consistently in a particular context in a particular class of articles that you define – with MOS:FLAGICON? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I already explained it to you. I opposed your removal, because you were doing it to just this article, while ignoring the others. Either delete the flags from ALL the British royal bio infoboxes 'or' don't delete any of them. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You did explain that, but you did not explain:
 * Where consensus exists for such a policy;
 * Of what relevance the class of "British royal bio infoboxes" is over any other definable class; or
 * How you reconcile your position with MOS:FLAGICON (which does not have a "well, other stuff exists" clause).
 * Please clarify. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I should also note that unregistered editors are not able to edit all biographies of members of the British royal family. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're not going to go forward and delete the flags from all the aforementioned British royal bio articles? then I will. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, because like I said, it is technically infeasible for me to do so. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems like the manual of style for flag icons applies to all infoboxes for those with military service, not just royals, as the only exception allowed for this style given is Olympic athletes. If anyone needs articles to edit so that they conform to this style, the articles on John McCain, Chris Kyle, and Erwin Rommel all violate the no flag icons in the info box rule.  Good luck editing! -Acjelen (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, unfortunately most articles on Wikipedia need to be brought into conformity with the MOS in one way or another. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe it is pointless having an allegiance flag because as a British soldier he had to pledge allegiance to the monarch of the United Kingdom so this is totally redundant. The British army flag is a useful addition because few people know that there is a flag for the Army other than the Union Flag (which is the war flag) . This is similar to the RAF and Navy ensigns. Dom from Paris (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you reconcile the latter position with MOS:FLAGICON? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 01:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A start might be that in the case of military service details in infoboxes, everybody is ignoring MOS:FLAGICON and there's no reason why we shouldn't ignore it as well. I don't know if everybody is ignoring MOS:FLAGICON because of ignorance or if it's because all of the editors of biographical articles are flagrantly violating MOS:FLAGICON purposefully because it is stupid. But whatever the reason, we should not follow a style point no one else is. -Acjelen (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If that's your argument, then you wouldn't just be violating a style guideline; you would be in flagrant violation of WP:CONLEVEL too. If you take issue with the guideline itself, the forum for that discussion would be WT:MOSICON, not here. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

It's likely there'd be resistance to removing all flags from the British royal bios infoboxes. That's not a headache I want. Meanwhile, I've no problems with military flags being used. GoodDay (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I can find nowhere either in MOS or template information where the use of a flag or any icon is anything but discouraged. Just because other articles incorrectly use it is not a reason to oppose its removal here I believe. Removal elsewhere may be met with resistance but when very clear policy based arguments are used I would suggest (as did the Daleks) that resistance is useless. Maybe a RFC would be useful though. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Assuming no one is arguing this do be an exceptional circumstance, would such a localized RFC not be contradictory to WP:CONLEVEL? If there is concern about the existing central consensus, the forum for that discussion would be WT:MOSICON. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Didn't you that you were going to have the others removed? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, then. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Parentage (again)
In Archive 4, a very quick discussion overturned the long-observed consensus (established in Archive 3, but discussed at length in earlier archives as well) that the well-known and persistent speculation over Harry's parentage merits a short, neutral mention.

It would be very difficult to argue that this speculation is not notable, especially given that:


 * it is very persistent and widespread (newspapers and magazines continue to publish pieces on the topic to this day)
 * Harry's paternity is the main reason he himself is considered notable

I suggest we restore it, per my now-reverted edit (which compromises by reducing the length of the section considerably) or in some other form.

Nstouski (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Harry looks like Charles, more so then William. GoodDay (talk) 02:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but we shouldn't edit according to our own personal beliefs or judgements. Nstouski (talk) 07:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that you've been reverted now by three different editors, it doesn't look as though there is consensus for this change. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Celia. Please bear in mind that:
 * The content in question was consensus for almost four years, until real-world events brought a new wave of editors here
 * The issue has been open on the talk page for a week
 * None of those committing reversions have contributed to the discussion
 * Even absent of those factors, I'm sure you're aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy. In an article like this where many people feel attached to the subject matter, it's especially important that disputes are resolved by reference to policy rather than by counting the editors on each side. Nstouski (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: The very widely reported rumors about his paternity should be briefly mentioned, as very widely reported rumors, in this article. We are not supposed to indulge in censorship. I think we rather obviously are doing that if we exclude the very widely reported rumors about his paternity. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed placement and wording: Placed last in "Early life" section: ''Speculation was very widely reported that Harry is the son of James Hewitt, with whom his mother had an affair. Hewitt and one of Diana's police bodyguards Ken Wharfe have publicly and credibly denied it. '' --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you read note 3? MilborneOne (talk) 08:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's a foonote which is much too long and also includes inappropriate, non-encyclopedic, strongly opinionated language. The very widely reported rumors about his paternity should be briefly mentioned, as very widely reported rumors, in this article (that proposal excludes footnotes like that). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support, per reasoning at top of section. Nstouski (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If the rumors are included then the denial must be included. That's basic NPOV. DrKay (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The restored content contained denials from Hewitt and Wharfe. What more would you suggest? Nstouski (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The restored content that Nstouski linked to is not appropriate: the speculation is presented as just existing, rather than being attributed, and the sentence is in the present tense, but sourced to a 2002 article. Write some decent text, with suitable sources, then start a proper RfC so that we can get community consensus.  Girth Summit  (blether)  19:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. Regarding recency, this article from The Independent in 2017 acknowledges it ("Mr Hewitt has been frequently forced to deny rumours that he is Prince Harry’s father."), and there's a 2015 play called Truth, Lies, Diana that addresses the matter and was widely covered (including by, again, The Independent). Regarding attribution, how would you suggest we attribute a (verifiable, per above) perception held variously throughout an entire culture? Nstouski (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, you could say something like 'There has been speculation amongst media commentators', or words to that effect. My concern is more about the tense - saying that there is speculation, rather than there was, or has been, speculation. The source you linked was better, but it's just a single line from an article published 18 months ago - I'm not seeing a lot of ongoing discussion of this issue in the media now. I still think you should start a proper RfC on this - this is a high-profile BLP, a decision about whether to mention doubts about his parentage should have more eyes on it. Girth Summit  (blether)  15:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I think the distinction I'm trying to make is between a media commentator speculating that Hewitt is Harry's father, and a news outlet reporting that the speculation exists in wider society. Thanks for the suggestion on the RfC. Created below. Nstouski (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The speculation seems to have been always wholly without foundation and doesn't seem to have led to substantive changes, say, in how the palace handles the press, what medical procedures are used to determine parentage, or changes in the law. However, the current footnote is longwinded and focused on the hurt of individuals whose own willful indiscretions might have contributed to their predicament. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "The speculation seems to have been always wholly without foundation". So has the flat earth model, but we have a fairly lengthy article on the topic because it's believed by a significant number of people and is known and of interest to others. We don't need to verify the speculation for it to be notable.
 * "doesn't seem to have led to substantive changes, say, in how the palace handles the press, what medical procedures are used to determine parentage, or changes in the law". Nor has the identity of his engagement ring's manufacturer, or his visit to a hydropower centre, or his interest in polo. The standard you're setting seems unusually specific. Nstouski (talk) 09:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You're saying it was widely reported. What indication do we have of that beyond mentions in a few newspaper articles and personal impressions? What effect did that reporting, and people's belief in it, have on anything? I see this as possibly libelous gossip and to risk perpetuating it here without good reason is different than stating the mundane facts you listed as apparent equivalents. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment on recently added proposed wording: I'm not sure that "publicly" is necessary (it's at least somewhat implicit), and I'm concerned that "credibly" offers a POV; can we let users follow the sources and assess credibility for themselves? Additionally, it feels that there'd be value in explaining why the speculation exists - eg, a clause like "due to a perceived similarity in appearance"? (per the source) Nstouski (talk) 12:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The disastrously embarrassing footnote has got to go. And can we please discuss sources and frequency and cut down on all the personal opinions?! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * DELETE - This conspiracy theory seems not biographical as it is not a life decision of his or had an impact on his life. Also, BLP guides bios to write conservatively, so a wild rumor does not really fit.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)