Talk:Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex/Archive 7

RfC: Paternity
There is persistent speculation, frequently manifested in news and popular culture, that Prince Harry is the child of James Hewitt, with whom his mother had a relationship. Should his article include this facet of his public image? If so, in what form? Nstouski (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The article already had by previous consensus an appropriate note about the speculation with respect to WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP and I cant see why we need to change that position. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The opening comment was itself a gross breach of the biographies of living people policy. I have consequently edited it and I will block any editor who attempts to restore it. The rumors are already in the article, with appropriate refutation by named sources (though the rumor itself is never actually attributed). DrKay (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think the article should include this speculation. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:12, 29 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: '' There was widely reported 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)


 * Comment: the overly lengthy footnote is an embarrassment to Wikipedia, expecially it's highly opinionated language. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The first sentence is ungrammatical and the second does not explain why the denials are credible. There was no "opinionated language" in wikipedia's voice; there were quotes. But why we're discussing those I don't know. They're already removed. DrKay (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Improved grammar, thanx.
 * Sources attached should suffice as to details on the denials - I think the mention in article text should be short and accurate as per sources, and that the embarrassing footnote should be removed. It smacks of guilt hidden, not guilt disproved, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to be reading a completely different footnote. Three neutrally-worded sourced sentences is not overlong, inaccurate, embarrassing, opinionated or concealing. DrKay (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am misunderstood. The very fact that the widely reported item is a footnote, not a sentence in the article text, is what smacks of embarrassment, guilt, censorship. Not being straightforward with something usually has that effect. Hidden away, like the small print of a contract, the nudie magazines under all the others on the lower shelf of a coffee table, dirty laundry in a heavily covered hamper or the dunce's corner in gradeschool. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know about you coffee-lovers, but I always keep my nudie mags at the back on the closet, tucked away behind my old suits. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep it as it is. This is too confusing. I can't make head or tail out of who is voting for what or when. There are votes for different things and some votes that belong in this section are in the one above, and there's a duplication. This just shows that RfCs should not be started willy-nilly. They should start out with a clear single question. As far as I can make out, there are three editors saying remove the information entirely (Dhtwiki, Markbassett and Absolutelypuremilk) and two saying it should be in the article body (SergeWoodzing and Nstouski). Well, the middle path between those two alternatives is to keep it in a footnote (which is supported by two editors, MilborneOne and DrKay). Celia Homeford (talk) 10:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My comment in the previous section didn't make it quite clear, but I am in favor of keeping the footnote, but trimming it to one sentence (the sentences detailing the refutations—other than that those refutations were made—or hurt caused by the speculation aren't necessary), as well as citing those sources (possibly those belonging to the overly detailed parts) that are most reliable and give the best overview). Dhtwiki (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Exclude - just tabloid tosh.   There is no need to include silly tidbits per WP:NOTRUMOR and WP:FRINGE, particularly with WP:BLP "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims".   The Sun or Daily Mail even have done articles to debunk this one.  Might as well mention the Doctor Who episode story which would make him a werewolf.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I rather agree with mark. This is an encyclopaedia not a home for unsubstantiated gossip.Garlicplanting (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Exclude Absolute nonsense. It would be really really really cool, if verified references could be provided, instead of malicious gossip. scope_creep (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Exclude Taken literally, it is about what some fringe type people have been saying, not directly info about him. And if you changed the wording to be directly about him, it would violate a whole bunch of policies. North8000 (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep it as it is per Celia Homeford. FactStraight (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously it should be in the lead ! In the same way that the widely reported speculation that Elvis is alive is in the lead of his article ...no wait a minute my mistake, it isn't. In that case exclude as unencylopedic tabloid trash or maybe keep as a footnote but in no way leave it in the main text. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep it but trim it – per my followup to Celia Homeford above, and because, though it's baseless if not malicious, this gossip is well enough known that we should make it easy for our readers to see that Harry was its subject, not another of the royals, without worrying too much that by doing so we perpetuate it. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Exclude Even based on reliable sources, this is speculation. Doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. Broken Island (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Exclude per Domdeparis, this has the same encyc value as Elvis's continued secret exiatence - and probably poorer sourcing. Pincrete (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment on vote relevance: Looks to me like people are voting on whether or not Harry has another father, not on whether or not the very widely-reported speculation about that should be excluded (censured from?) the article or briefly mentioned in it with a reliable source or two. Would be great if everyone would stick to topic. Nor much use in having a vote otherwise. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I certainly did not !vote on whether he has another father or not. I voted on including the rumours on the speculation on whether Hewitt was his father or not. Not everything that is reported about a person has to be included in their page as per WP:UNDUE. I think everyone is on topic here. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It is my opinion that the exclusion of speculation that has been so widely reported and discussed in media, and of which so many people are aware, smacks of censorship. Addressing this particular issue in that manner (excluding it as if it did not exist) does more harm to Wikipedia (and to Harry?) than a brief mention of it, well sourced, as unsubstantiated but wide-spread speculation. Silence creates even more speculation. That, in essence, is what we should be voting on - the well-sourced existence of the rumors - not whether or not the rumors are credible. I believe I have a right to those opinions. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If the "exclude" votes win the day, how is it censorship to take out reports of apparently baseless rumor mongering, especially when it's hard to see how Harry has been affected by the rumors in any substantive way? Dhtwiki (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for asking! When something has been very widely reported, for years, and thus is very well known to the general public, it belongs in Wikipedia. If it happens to be unsubstantiated rumors that have thus become very well known, it needs to be included as such. Anyhing else goes to hushing it up and smacks of censorship. I respectfully repeat my most applicable opinion here: silence about a thing widely reported and very well known creates even more speculation, whereas acknowledging, well-sourced, that rumors are unfounded helps quel the mongering. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So if I understand rightly any rumour, regardless of how baseless and ridiculous it may be, must be included in Wikipedia so long as it has been reported in a sufficiently large number of sources even if they all say it is baseless? This is exactly what WP:UNDUE is trying to avoid. The example of the modern flat earth mouvement is a perfect one. We have all heard of the mouvement it has been very very widely reported but there is no evidence whatsoever that the earth is flat. Should we be worried that Wikipedia's silence on the page Earth will create even more speculation that the world is in fact flat? Is the fact that we do not mention the sightings of Elvis on his page fueling the belief in the fact he is alive and well somewhere in the Midwest? I suppose if we really feel that this thing has its place on Wikipedia I suggest finding a suitable list of Urban legends page or fringe theory page or conspiracy page and slide it in there. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant comparison, needless to say (?). Many more people will suspect that Harry's father isn't Charles than that the world is flat. The one is plausible, though disproved, the other utterly ridiculous. Have the sightings of Elvis been anywhere near as widely reported on as the rumors about Harry's paternity? I think not. Why cloud the issue here with stuff like that? Is that sticking to topic? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue here as I see it, is only one, and concerns Harry, not the earth or Elvis or the death of Marilyn Monroe: if there has been very wide media coverage of these rumors, their existence, and the fact that they are not legitimate, should be sourced & briefly mentioned in the article, if we are not to look censorial. If there has not been such very wide media coverage, the item should be excluded. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Exclude and remove the current footnote per WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. It is pure journalistic speculation which has been denied by Hewitt and is unsupported by any evidence. It does not belong here. WJBscribe (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Exclude per WJBscribe as uncorroborated speculation. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: move moratorium — Adopted through December 24, 2018
Given the recent frequency of move requests and drama that has come from certain editors' involvement in them, I propose that whatever the outcome of the 17 June 2018 request, a moratorium on move requests be implemented on this article for a minimum of six months. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support as proposer. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Let us get this proposal over first and see whether we can find consensus. I'm sure you are aware that the closure of the most recent proposal was highly controversial. Deb (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Support (changing my !vote as the opposers to the above RM will probably always oppose regardless of what arguments are presented based on a single creed, COMMONNAME) Dom from Paris (talk) 04:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC) as per Deb's !vote. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose only been one other move request this year in May when the subject actually changed his name, so hardly frequent. Lets just wait and see. MilborneOne (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support for six months only. No need to beat a dead horse.  CookieMonster755 ✉  02:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support six months. The choice discussed here doesn't really matter, but frequent equivocation over the question is distracting and embarrassing.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support for six months. Please keep calm on this. --B dash (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - there haven't been many RMs on this article, in the last few months. GoodDay (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There are currently nine (9) level-2 headers on this page bookending discussions about what the article title should be, just most of them don't have the move request template. There were three concurrent discussions alongside the 19 May request, and discussion over the result of that request has continued right up to the opening of the present request. This is exactly the sort of thing that leads to moving the page every few weeks depending on who shows up to the move discussion at any given time, and puts off new editors at a time when a high-profile topic like this should really be attracting new editors to the project. It really doesn't matter so much what the title is, but we should have one final fulsome discussion and then stick with whatever title is chosen, until there is some future change in circumstance necessitating a new discussion, not just that some editors don't accept the result of the last one. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If an RM keeps popping up every month or two, after the current one? then I'll go along with a moratorium of six months. GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Now ten. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support come what may. DBD 14:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support given best practice. --Varavour (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think we should at least wait for the outcome of the ongoing discussion above, and then we can decide whether a moratorium on move requests is necessary or not. Keivan.f  Talk 17:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I suggested that we should wait for the results, and there's "clear" consensus that this page should be titled "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex". It doesn't matter how many more move requests one might make, the results will still be the same. Keivan.f  Talk 00:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Agreed there's been rather frequent RMs as of late which is IMHO becoming disruptive. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I agree, the RMs are now so frequent as to be disruptive. Firebrace (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support 6-month break after the outcome of the ongoing move request. — JFG talk 08:33, 19 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  00:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – per Good Day. Corky  21:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Be accurate not just be fixed on common name. Sammartinlai (talk) 05:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've moved the moratorium proposal to its own separate section, since I think some of the editors who have commented on the moratorium proposal may have meant to comment on the move request. Pinging, , , and to clarify. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This !vote is more in order when no substantive proposal is already pending, lest the current direction of the vote unduly influence participants' votes. FactStraight (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 05:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the previous move proposal was closed controversially, which is why we're in the midst of the present one. I don't want to arbitrarily hobble objections to this one's result. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Users have the chance to object right now... Firebrace (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not to object to a close and controversial close, especially if outside developments that affect people's thinking quickly follow. It's too arbitrary and, I hope, unnecessary. I assume no one wants a perpetual move discussion. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - agree a perpetual move discussion is not what editors want. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: if moratorium, then not more than 1 month, to allow for a general shift evidenced by sourceable publications from "Prince H...." to "Prince H..., Duke of Sussex". Qexigator (talk) 12:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I don't think a moratorium would be necessary or appropriate. If the RM is controversial, or if the consensus is not clear, then we should still allow users to express their concerns with the outcome. Also, what about an WP:MR? It should still be allowed.
 * A moratorium on further discussion would defeat the principles of WP:CCC, and should only be applied when we expect users to be disruptive after the RM is closed. At this time, I don't see a reason to believe that disruption will occur. Edge3 (talk) 05:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)




 * Adding bump template sufficient to retain this thread on the active talk page through the expiration of the moratorium described therein. Safiel (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Queen Elizabeth, Prince Philip, and grandchildren (11440082454) (cropped1).jpg

Private jet usage, aka environmental hypocrisy
It seems like the private jet usage environmental hypocrisy has been removed as non-enclopedic. This is wrong. A person speech cannot be more encyclopedic that his real actions. Please, be neutral about this guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.174.3.101 (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry it is trivia and non-encyclopedic, the usage of aircraft is not unusual even by environmentalists so really nothing to see here other than some tabloids getting excited about a non-story. MilborneOne (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If we are going to mention his campaign for environment and sustainability, then this is obviously relevant. I find it at least as encyclopedic as stating that he wants no more than two children for the sake of the planet. Surtsicna (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * We will have to disagree, his use of aircraft is not unusual or uncommon and it is a matter of balance, just because he makes some statements on the environment doesnt mean he then has to live in a isolation bubble for the rest of his life. Do we have any evidence that environmentalist dont fly, drive or consume anything, no sorry this is the real world not a place made up by tabloids. MilborneOne (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * CNN is not a tabloid. Yes, environmentalist fly. They also reproduce. If we report that the subject is so serious about environmentalism that he wants to have no more than two children, then we should also report that some of his practices have been criticised by environmentalists. Otherwise we are not writing an encyclopedic article but a hagiography. Compare it with Charles, Prince of Wales, where the use of private jets is mentioned alongside the praise. Surtsicna (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, the point is not that he flies. The point is that he travels in private jets. That is obviously in contrast to what he preaches, and of course he is being criticised for it. Surtsicna (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * So, Does anyone disagree to keeping all the facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.48.185.210 (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I clearly disagree but more worrying is edit warring from IP 85 range while this discussion is still open, which is not good form and likely to get them blocked from editing. MilborneOne (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * With what do you disagree? Surtsicna (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That the criticism would be better focused on the conference and the use of private jets rather than an attack on both of them (no evidence that Meghan was at the conference) just to go on holiday. MilborneOne (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for removal of the hypocrite environmental speeches as they are non-encyclopedic trivia
Anyone disagrees? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.48.186.197 (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I do. His environmental campaign should be mentioned, and so should the criticism. Surtsicna (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I also disagree per Surtsicna, it just a matter of balance. MilborneOne (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But as it stands now there is no balance. There is praise but no criticism. Surtsicna (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I dont have a problem with a comment about Harry and others use of private jets to go to the google conference, I think the later use of an aircraft to go on holiday like loads of other people is misplaced. MilborneOne (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that private jets are 10 times more pollutant per passenger than commercial aircraft. https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/private-jets-environment-carbon-footprint-climate-change-harry-meghan-markle-a9071391.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.48.186.161 (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting the discussion. I think his environmental activities have to be mentioned, but the criticism needs to be included as well. The same thing is true for his wife. If others agree, we can start adding the material with reliable sources. Keivan.f  Talk 18:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Which ones of the already provided references are not reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.48.186.161 (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at the ones you used, but remember that tabloids are generally unreliable. The wording of your sentences also matter. It doesn't have to read like a personal attack. What we write has to be a reflection of the actual criticism, we don't praise or criticize the subjects directly here. Keivan.f  Talk 01:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making Wikipedia better and standing up to censorship attempts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.48.186.185 (talk) 04:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Suggested as monarch of Australia and Canada
The article should mention the fact that Prince Harry has been suggested as resident monarch of Australia and Canada respectively, as the following sources show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliketoeatbeansalot (talk • contribs) 17:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss the section here before blanking it again, so that there is an agreement that it should be blanked. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliketoeatbeansalot (talk • contribs) 04:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's trivial, commercial nonsense. Column filling content for a media outlet that needs a certain amount of reader pleasing material every day so that people will hopefully see the ads they run. Both the articles are clearly written with tongue firmly planted in cheek. Not serious suggestions. Whoops. Just remembered that there was a third source, but it's a Murdoch pay-walled journal, and there's no way I'm paying Rupert any of my hard earned to read probably even sillier nonsense in the Tele. HiLo48 (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , in general you should not be immediately restoring text you add if it is reverted, but rather the WP:ONUS is on you get the WP:CONSENSUS to restore the text. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Sydney Morning Herald opinion columns are meant to be taken seriously. One of them is written in an informal style, but that does not make it any less serious. A lot of research seems to have gone into them.The Daily Telegraph article requires registration to view, but is free. This should be mentioned in the article because a majority of Australians and Canadians may support having their own resident monarchs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliketoeatbeansalot (talk • contribs) 04:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ten-year-old filler pieces outlining a constitutional nonsense. Not worthy of inclusion. William Avery (talk) 09:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

One of the opinion columns is from 2017, and the author of the other is a constitutional lawyer, so he should be an expert on the constitution. If these are filler pieces then all opinion columns must be filler pieces, which cannot be true. And the Daily Telegraph article must be serious because the Telegraph is a quality newspaper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliketoeatbeansalot (talk • contribs) 14:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * An American constitutional lawyer. :-) William Avery (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Even so, he is probably familiar with the Australian constitution, as he works in Australia. Many would argue that having a resident monarch would be less nonsensical than having a monarch who resides in a foreign country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliketoeatbeansalot (talk • contribs) 15:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I added this information to the Public role and appearances section, but it was removed. I think that this information deserves to be in the article, even if it does not deserve its own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliketoeatbeansalot (talk • contribs) 17:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, you did add it to the article, enough times to be blocked for edit warring. Nobody has agreed with you about it being added. It's time for you to stop. HiLo48 (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I find this addition unacceptable. Starting with the weasel introduction: It has been suggested that Prince Harry should become resident monarch of either Australia or Canada,... Suggested by whom? What kind of WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH is this? But it gets worse: ...should those countries decide to have their own resident monarchs. This is just idle speculation. A solution looking for a problem that does not exist. A clear case of idle gossip, or, to put it in wiki terms, WP:CRYSTAL. Dr.   K.  06:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Because of Megxit, the article about the Canadian monarchy, at least, has become very relevant, and so should now be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliketoeatbeansalot (talk • contribs) 20:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The article should also mention the opinion poll which suggested that 61 percent of Canadians want Prince Harry to become Governor General of Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliketoeatbeansalot (talk • contribs) 12:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The article should also mention the National Post article which argues that it would be easy to make Prince Harry resident monarch of Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliketoeatbeansalot (talk • contribs) 23:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * No, we don't include speculative nonsense deigned primarily to sell tabloid newspapers. HiLo48 (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I thought this nonsense had died down. Apparently not. I just hope it does soon. Dr.   K.  03:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

King of Canada? Since 2011, there's been suggestions for that. Still, the Sussexes are moving to Canada. Perhaps involvement in the Royalty in Exile for WWII plans? (renewed for Megexit)


 * All of this is of course a load of nonsense as I’ve ever seen. Gerard von Hebel (talk)

Titles and styles
The instagram source that purportedly describes his future titles is dated before the announcement of his future titles was made. Quite clearly a source written before the event cannot be used to support any statement about a later event. Not only have we miraculously warped forward a few months into 2020, apparently we are even now already enjoying the reign of George VIII. The instagram source does not, indeed can never, support the statement it is next to. You can also, of course, find any number of sources written before yesterday that call him "The Duke of Sussex" without the HRH, that doesn't mean they're good sources to use for his abandonment of it. DrKay (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * If they are true, I think he would be able to use the style of Grace in place of HRH. Buckingham Palace did release a statement. Let’s remember that Wallis was allowed to use the style Grace. As Harry is a Duke, he should be able to. A2RunRun (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm really not sure what Wallis Simpson has to do with any of this. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources I've read state that Harry will not be stripped of the Royal Highness style and British prince title, but will merely begin to cease using it. They say he will in future be referred to as "Harry, Duke of Sussex", similar to the styles used by his late mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, and uncle's ex-wife, Sarah, Duchess of York, after their respective divorces.

In view of the fact that Harry will actually retain his "HRH", I think it's unlikely he would begin to start using "His Grace", as he hasn't actually been demoted to a non-royal duke. It's just choosing to not use certain titles. Just like he very rarely uses his Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel titles.

We just have to go on what we're being told at the moment. MesmeilleursSay Hey! 15:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Coverage of this issue in RS has been very clear on the fact that he will "not use" or that he will "give up" the HRH style. For our purposes of listing the titles and styles under which he is known, this means that his style does not include "HRH". Whether he is supposedly, theoretically, "technically", "entitled" to the style is immaterial if he doesn't use it and if RS state that he is no longer known as such. He's probably theoretically "entitled" to use some ancestral German princely title, but if he doesn't use such titles it doesn't matter (Prince Philip's supposed "renunciation" of titles was a press release, in a foreign country and a foreign language, of no legal relevance or formal effect outside the UK). --Tataral (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2020
In first paragraph, change “sixth” to seventh for his place in line for succession for the thrown, since Prince William now has three children instead of two (so it’s the Queen, Prince Charles her son, Prince William, his three children, then Prince Harry, which makes him seventh) 2601:241:400:AEF0:68D0:CD8:8CBF:4319 (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌. Thanks, but the queen doesn't count, She cannot succeed herself. Dr.   K.  04:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Data to add for section on personal life
the section for "Personal Life" should provide more details on some of the recent developments of recent weeks, i.e. specific statements, discussions, meetings with Royal Family, and so on. Would like to add this to that section. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is the text that I wish to add. --Sm8900 (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:
 * New developments and discussions regarding role and status in Royal Family


 * In early January 2020, Prince HArry and Meghan announced that they would "step back" from their current role and public activities as senior members of the Royal Family. Press reports indicated that in response, sources in the Royal Family announced they were "hurt" over this, and that resolving this new development would be "complicated."


 * On January 13, Queen Elizabeth met with Prince Harry, along with Prince Charles and Prince William, in order to discuss the future course of his role within the Royal Family, and the resulting scope of his role in public life. this meeting was in the wake of Prince Harry and Meghan's public statements to the effect that they wished to re-evaluate their roles, and to restructure their current roles and activities. On January 20, Prince Harry made his first public statements on this issue since the conference, stating, the context for this, and that he felt "great sadness" over the current situation.

Comments
It seems too repetitive to me. We've already mentioned their new roles three times and now this section would mention it twice more. I don't see why we need two more sentences: In early January 2020, Harry and Meghan announced that they would "step back" from their current role and public activities as senior members of the royal family. and in the wake of Prince Harry and Meghan's public statements to the effect that they wished to re-evaluate their roles, and to restructure their current roles and activities when we already have In January 2020, the couple announced their intention to step back as senior members of the royal family and In January 2020, the Duke and Duchess announced that they were stepping back from their role as senior members of the royal family, and would balance their time between the United Kingdom and North America. and On 18 January 2020, Buckingham Palace announced that, following their decision to step back from royal duties. A couple of the sentences above could be integrated into the existing content, but saying essentially the same thing five times in one article is ridiculous. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2020
I retract the edit I made about changing Harry being sixth in line, I learned it doesn’t include the current queen so Harry is sixth. But you might want to include an explanation of why Harry is sixth, so that American readers and others not familiar with the customs are not confused. Just a suggestion. Sorry for bothering you. 2601:241:400:AEF0:68D0:CD8:8CBF:4319 (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As this article is about Harry rather than the line of succession, I think it best to leave the explanation in the line of succession article, and then link to that from here through a wikilink. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Note
Note, an Rfc at Meghan, Duchess of Sussex concerning that article's name, is on the way. The result could potentially effect this article's title. GoodDay (talk) 10:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably both the articles need to be updated with concerns to the more recent relocation of the royal couple from Canada to Los Angeles, the native town of the Duchess Megan Markle (sourced here).Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC about the Russian prank

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As some users may already know, there have been some news concerning a claim made by two Russian pranksters, who say that they have talked to Harry on two different occasions and each time he has made harsh comments about his own family and the president of the US. I saw BBC publishing an article about this 1 and it seems that that the phone calls have been recorded and published. 2 Considering the fact that we have covered similar scandals in the articles that we have about his parents and other family members, should we include this in the body of the article? Keivan.f Talk 00:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Why the RfC, instead of just a discussion? It's probably too early to understand the import of this particular incident. From what I've seen, the "harsh" comments amounted to "being a prince is harder than you might think" and that isn't much of a revelation nor particularly harsh. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * RfCs usually attract more users. A simple post on the talk page could not catch the attention of a lot of people. Besides, saying that the US President has blood on his hands and that his family deliberately want to push him away sounds a little bit harsh to me. Keivan.f  Talk 21:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read about the "blood on his hands" bit (that seems something a Spencer would say), but I didn't think much of it. There's so much criticism of Trump that it didn't register; but it does qualify as harsh if also naive to be revealing so much to someone he thought was a youngster. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I think you should skip it -- not sure if you mean an edit of 'he got pranked' or 'he said', but either way seems like no. It just doesn't seem very important to his life that he got pranked or have a notable result.  (The Elton John case is mentioning Putin called because he got pranked, nothing about the prank.)  And the words attributed to him don't seem particularly unusual or causing great impact.  Besides, when CNN is hedging "allegedly" and the source is "two pranksters", the available details just doesn't seem very reliable.    Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Duke of Sussex?
Having abdicated the royal titles, is Prince Harry no longer the name, or Duke of Sussex no longer the official title of Harry Windsor-Mountbatten ? C. James 16:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * They have not abdicated their titles. They will no longer use the HRH title as they're no longer "active" royals, but they retain rights to and will continue to use other titles, including Duke [Duchess] of Sussex, per BBC and others. Supposedly they are also dropping the Mountbatten-Windsor surname. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020
Please see the titles and styles information: 1984 - 2018 reads prince Henry, not prince Harry! 107.190.73.167 (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * This was addressed by more than one RfCs (see talk page archives). The present article title and subsequent references are combinations of the informal and the formal. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020
Hello, I would like to change the profile of this page. WinifredOrette (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. If you mention what changes you'd like to make to the article here on the talk page, other editors may be willing to put them in for you. Pupsterlove02  talk • contribs 14:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020
Change Issue to Offspring or child 190.80.37.216 (talk) 04:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. That's part of the infobox, silly as it is. You'll have to take it up at Template talk:Infobox royalty. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 05:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Royal Titles
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle denounced their royal titles. Is it still proper to refer to them as the "duke of sussex" or "duchess of sussex"? or should that be changed in the article throughout? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.230.28 (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * They retain their titles. It's the style of royal highness that they no longer use. DrKay (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Passport and Visa
No statement has been made how the Duke of Sussex, a Bristh national, is able to reside legally in the USA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:9B92:9B01:10E0:D02:CEDD:2BFC (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * One can only speculate. Sampajanna (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Feminism
In 2018, the Duchess of Sussex announced to the public on a visit to Cardiff that her husband, Prince Harry, was a feminist. One year later, Prince Harry fully embraced the title, proclaiming on a visit to Birkenhead that he is indeed a feminist. As part of an interview with Gloria Steinem in August 2020, Harry was quoted as saying "You know that I’m a feminist too, right Gloria?! It’s really important to me that you know that." Sampajanna (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I really don’t know if it’s notable enough to mention in his, or even her lead-in. It makes sense to mention in someone like Emma Watson, whose down recognized work in the field, but has either received widespread coverage for their work besides the mention or identification? I’m not sure if it’s a good idea.--Bettydaisies (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Bettydaisies : It seems very important to them, having publicly announced it three times in recent years. Otherwise, their new foundation, Archewell, has affiliated itself with the Loveland Foundation, which provides mental health resources to black women. In any event, whether it stays or not in the lead, the same should really apply to both Harry and Meghan pages. Sampajanna (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Definitely, but funding a foundation isn’t the same as advocacy or putting on the work. Identifying as a feminist might belong more in the personal life or charity work section, like it does on other articles. The lead is supposed to establish primary notability and work done, and I don’t think the couple has done sufficient work in the field or have their beliefs reporting on to the extent of say, veterans rights work or acting career.--Bettydaisies (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * When did you last look at the 'Personal life" section? Sampajanna (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Just did! Thanks for that. It seems a bit out of place among the relationships, but considering he doesn’t have other public political beliefs, I suppose it’ll have to do, although it feels strange to have a subsection on feminism for a person who merely identifies as such. Thank you for the addition!--Bettydaisies (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Bettydaisies : It's his 'Personal life' and evolution. The Pro-feminism article could interest you. For consistency, are you going to remove the feminist description in Meghan's lead as well? Sampajanna (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it makes sense to, since it's stated later in the article in more depth anyway. I still think the feminism could be added in the "charity work" section alongside his other statements on race/etc., but it works alright as is, I suppose.--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Listen to this page
Is this 2014 sound file still relevant ? Sampajanna (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I doubt it, it's definitely outdated at this point - in 2014, Harry was still in active military service, hadn't established the Invictus Games, and was unmarried. It misses an enormous amount of biographical detail.--Bettydaisies (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
NOTE : Please try to stay in the top three sections of this pyramid. Sampajanna (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
You have changed identical information in six other royal infoboxes (Princes William, Charles, Andrew, George and Louis + Princess Charlotte), but not Prince Harry after various reminders. You have also deleted efforts to discuss this on your own talk page. Please disclose if you have any WP:COI conflict of interest with respect to Prince Harry's article. Sampajanna (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

"COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted. Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing. If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts."


 * I didn't remove efforts to discuss this on my talk page I removed your "reminders". Naue7 (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Your User talk:Naue7 history indicates otherwise. Please discuss the matter here Sampajanna (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Nope, you can see those edits are just deleting your reminders. and  Naue7 (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Please disclose if you have any WP:COI conflict of interest with respect to Prince Harry's article. YES / NO Sampajanna (talk) 06:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No, do you? YES / NO Naue7 (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The short answer is NO. Otherwise, try to stay focused. Why change identical information in multiple other royal infoboxes but exclude Prince Harry ? Sampajanna (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I got over ten "reminders" from you so I assume you are aware of the edits so since you have no WP:COI you can do them yourself here and the Edward and Anne pages if you so wish. Naue7 (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * As you would already be aware, Prince Harry's was edited prior to your comment (above). If any other editors care to do otherwise, so be it .... Sampajanna (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Honorary Military Titles
Why has this article not been updated with todays news that he was stripped of his honorary military titles and royal patronages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowwallpaper3 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Good question! See the next Talk item. I have never contributed to this page, so I hope that those who have been doing so will update the article and especially the lead. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Why does the lead ignore their defection to America?
Is this article out of date, or is there an intentional omission? Surely his leaving the UK, quitting his role as a Senior Royal, losing his military title, etc. are important enough to be covered in the lead? The Megxit page does mention some of that, but is not up to date. In any event, this page's lead really should include a mention of this huge change in his life and his role.

Just a week ago, with the move now permanent, Buckingham Palace announced that the two will lose their royal patronages and honorary military titles. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/meghan-harry-royal-patronage/2021/02/19/eb797014-72b1-11eb-8651-6d3091eac63f_story.html

Prince Harry and Meghan lose their patronages, won’t return as ‘working royals’ “Following conversations with The Duke, The Queen has written confirming that in stepping away from the work of The Royal Family it is not possible to continue with the responsibilities and duties that come with a life of public service,” the palace said in a statement, which sounded a bit pointed to many.

Peter K Burian (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi! The lead-in states that "In 2020, the couple stepped down as senior members of the royal family and moved to the Duchess's native Southern California.". The loss of his patronages and military titles is mentioned in the "Post-active service" and "Charity work", respectively.--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Bettydaisies, Thanks for your kind reply. I must admit I did not even notice that sentence. Surely the final sentence of the lead should provide the most recent info. They left long, long ago. I would make the edit but no doubt, some of the regular editors on this article would Revert it. Such is life at Wikipedia. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

This is useful: Sussexes v Buckingham Palace: timeline of a royal crisis Here is part of it: I still feel that more than a brief mention that they went to California is necessary in the lead. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/04/sussexes-v-buckingham-palace-timeline-of-a-royal-crisis

January, 2020: “We are stepping back” Harry and Meghan announced that they planned to step back from senior roles in the royal family in an effort to become financially independent, a move which surprised the public – and also, apparently, Buckingham Palace. February 2021 The couple would not return as working members of the royal family, the palace said, adding that they would also be giving up their royal patronages. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Article should cover his sources of income
Per recent articles: three-year podcasting deal with Spotify, which could be worth between $15 million to $18 million, according to Forbes. They also landed a multi-year deal with Netflix, and although the total isn't disclosed, The New York Times reported. ... The New York Times also reported that Harry and Meghan signed a deal with Harry Walker Agency in June 2020 for speaking engagements, with fees estimated at $1 million per speech. ... (inheritance from Diana) and also inherited money from the Queen Mother, his great-grandmother. https://stylecaster.com/prince-harry-net-worth/ AND  https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a23379222/meghan-markle-net-worth-prince-harry-kate-middleton-prince-william-compared/

Aside from the money from dad:  the Duchy of Cornwall, a private fund managed by Prince Charles, which amounts to £2.3 million ($3 million US) a year. It is understood the couple will continue to receive money from Harry's father under the new agreement,   https://www.businessinsider.com/prince-harry-net-worth-2018-4 AND (from 2020) https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-51047186 Peter K Burian (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Proper address as U.S. civilian
Is he Mr. David or Mr. Albert-David? 68.134.72.214 (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * A Cosmopolitan article (Feb. 2021) about his name offers the following info:
 * his full name is Henry Charles Albert David.... does Harry just...not have a last name?
 * Due to being royal, Harry doesn't have a last name like us mere mortals. While Harry doesn't technically have a last name, his son Archie uses Mountbatten-Windsor.
 * Back when he served in the military, Harry used the last name "Wales" and was known as Captain Harry Wales, according to a circa 2011 Telegraph article.
 * Harry can use Mountbatten-Windsor whenever he wants to
 * Prince William and Kate Middleton's kids use the last name "Cambridge" at school https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a35584974/prince-harry-last-name-explained/

Peter K Burian (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Need to edit his title
we need to edit his title in the document. He is no longer a Prince and no longer the Duke of Sussex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zinnium (talk • contribs) 15:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * He is still the Duke! Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor is Queen Elizabeth's great-grandson. His father, Prince Harry, is sixth in line to the British throne; his mother, Meghan Markle is the Duchess of Sussex. https://www.oprahmag.com/entertainment/a35757402/meghan-markle-archie-skin-color/
 * From Cosmopolitan (magazine) today: Meghan Markle and Prince Harry May Lose Their Duke and Duchess Titles After Oprah Interview https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a35763254/meghan-markle-prince-harry-stripped-duke-duchess-titles-oprah-interview/ Peter K Burian (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Only Archie has no title: The Duchess of Sussex suggested her son Archie was denied his birthright of the title of prince by the palace and that the decision went against protocol. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/08/why-meghan-harry-son-archie-denied-title-prince-mixed-race Peter K Burian (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Those two preceding posts both contain speculation. ("May", "suggested") Nothing there for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * He very much IS still a Prince and Duke of Sussex. https://www.royal.uk/The-Duke-of-Sussex Jcasey1701 (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Private marriage
No. This cannot happen. A marriage cannot be private. It must be witnessed. So to say that the Archbishop of Canterbury officiated at a private exchange of vows is nonsense.

I can only imagine that the Archbishop got them to read through the vows as a rehearsal, and Meghan mistook it for the real thing, being unfamiliar with the procedures.

Amandajm (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Uniform
In the context of the funeral of The Duke of Edinburgh we read that Prince Harry can't wear a uniform because he handed back his honorary military appointments. But why can't he wear a uniform of the military rank he earned in normal service, like any other veteran? Would that rank seem too "low" next to his family members? did he hand back the regular appointments as well?--Oudeís talk 15:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't really the correct venue for general chit-chat about the subject per WP:TALKNO, and I would certainly say this topic is too minor to warrant inclusion in this article. But to answer the question - as I understand it, from e.g., it is not permitted for servicemen who are no longer in the armed forces to appear in uniforms at such events, irrespective of what rank they attained. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the inappropriate question & thanks for the competent answer. --Oudeís talk 10:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In the context the funeral of Prince Philip, this fact assumes some significance if this was indeed the reason the entire funeral party will wear civilian mourning dress. Sorry if this is seen as "general chit-chat". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Petition for Harry to give up royal titles
This may be a delicate issue for some. However, it's of major significance if anyone is willing to add it to the main article.
 * Thousands of people have signed a petition calling for Prince Harry to relinquish his royal titles to “stop damage to the monarchy”.
 * Stop UK funding and remove all titles including 'HRH' for Meghan Markle & Prince Harry
 * Thousands sign petition calling on Prince Harry to give up royal titles to 'stop damage to monarchy' Sampajanna (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Up-to-date Wikipedia
This article shows what an up-to-date encyclopaedia Wikipedia can be. It was only mentioned on the news in the early evening tonight (Sunday 6 June) that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have given birth to a daughter, and already this news is in the article. Rollo August (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2021
Hey in titles it says from 2018 he is His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex but thats wrong he is currently just The Duke of Sussex 183.87.43.192 (talk) 08:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems to be covered in the explanatory paragraph below the list. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

"Post-royal" work?
Since the duke and duchess both retain their styles as royal highnesses, even if they do not use them, I think that heading is a bit misleading & should be reworded. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Work outside the royal sphere" is clunky and not much better. Their titles, while retained, are in abeyance (mentioned in that section or other) and their professional work is not done on behalf of their royal statuses. The only other thing I can think of is "Work in the United States" and I don't particularly care for it.--Bettydaisies (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Better (though perhaps not much) mainly because it is not clearly misleading. Nothing in their lives is "post-royal" since they are still royal, whether they use it or not. We are not here to interpret but to give readers verifiable facts with as much clarity as possible. "Post-royal work" doesn't qualify. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The opening sentence clearly identifies Harry as a royal - "Post-royal work" iw accurate since they no longer carry out royal duties as they did before. Another solution I can think of is separating from "Public life" and creating a "Career" section, much like Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I understood "post-royal work" to mean post-royal work, i.e. life and work after royal engagements, rather than as post-royal work. The career suggestion is even more elegant, though. Surtsicna (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with either the restoration of "Post-royal" or a "Career" section, as both flow better than the current alternative. For the sake of uniformity with Meghan's page, the content could also be merged into her existing career section (which might have to be more succinctly relabelled).--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not 'Activities as private individuals'? And cut out all the waffle.AnthonyCamp (talk) 10:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * They're not necessarily "private individuals", but are still celebrities performing public activities and professional work, just not in a royal capacity.--Bettydaisies (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Ghostbusters
Prince Harry was referenced in the original Ghostbusters, from 1984. At one point in the film, someone held up a tabloid that said Princess Di was pregnant again. Someone should add it to the filmography section of this article. I'd do it myself, but I can't, as the article is semi-protected, and I'm not a registered user. - 2603:9000:E408:4800:784A:A801:9D6F:C6AA (talk) 04:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There are two issues with this. 1) It’s really trivial and not worthy for inclusion 2) For a movie or series to be added to the filmography section, it needs to have an appearance by Harry himself. Considering that he was in his mother’s womb at the time, it would have been impossible for him to make an appearance in that film. Keivan.f  Talk 07:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Controversy section
It has been pointed out and noticed by visitors to both Prince Harry and Prince William Wikipedia pages, that how the brothers are reported on is being perceived as possibly biased. Partly because it might appear as if any public slight, backlash, or misquote on one brother is added promptly and pushed forward immediately to his Wikipedia article. While the other brother's page public mishaps or backlash is woven into the body of his article, to the point readers barely notice it was listed. I have suggested, in Prince William's talk page, to be more fair and balanced by creating a Public Image and Controversy section. Or for Prince Harry's Wikipedia page, I'm posting this in his talk to edit and format similar to his brother's, by removing the controversy section and entering that bit of info throughout the article. In addition, I thought according to Wiki rules, ''All controversial material is included in the normal biographical sections they occur in, in this article (including sometimes in Notes or footnotes), and in the various daughter articles. Having a separate "controversies" or "criticisms" article or section is considered a violation WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism and also raises significant WP:BLP concerns.'' If so, why does Prince Harry have a controversial section listed on Wiki article? When neither his father Prince Charles nor Prince William has no such section on their Wikipedia pages.Purplebrown43 (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because he's been far more controversial than his father or his brother? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Currently, Prince Charles's charity is being investigated over an alleged cash for honors scheme. Prince William recently received backlash for what some in the media deemed racist comments, with regards to his overpopulation speech. Yet, neither has a section listed for controversy. And for readers of Prince Harry Wikipedia, the difference in reporting between the royal pages can be perceived as being biased.Purplebrown43 (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Ah, right. I thought he had married a TV actress, relinquished his position in the Royal Family, and moved to America. Perhaps I dreamt it. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC) p.s. re Michael Fawcett: "The auditing firm EY, which was hired by the charity to carry out an investigation, published a summary report in December 2021, stating that there was "no evidence that trustees at the time were aware of these communications"
 * And it's still not listed under a controversy section. In addition, the matter is still being looked into Prince Charles is under increased pressure after Britain's biggest police force asked a news organization to see the evidence over cash-for-honors allegations. Purplebrown43 (talk) 11:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * He didn't relinquish his position in the royal family. He's listed as the sixth in line. And still retains his HRH status, announced that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will no longer use the style of His/Her Royal Highness due to their decision to step down as working members of the British royal family, though they are still entitled (to the style). Anyway, back on topic. I think the controversies section needs to be removed.Purplebrown43 (talk) 11:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean his position as a family member, not his "place in the queue." And I don't think their use of that style was entirely their decision. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * My comments are 100% on topic. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

If there's no disagreement over the removal of the controversy section. Then content should be removed from the article, by an editor. Or I can remove it.Purplebrown43 (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone disagreed above, so no. You need consensus. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 19:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you agree with the changes needed to the article?Purplebrown43 (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with something called consensus. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 19:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree a neutral third party is needed. Because this article is not adhering closely to specified rules, for Wikipedia Biographies of a living person [] (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Purplebrown43 (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Above, you quoted the statement All controversial material is included in the normal biographical sections they occur in, in this article (including sometimes in Notes or footnotes), and in the various daughter articles. Having a separate "controversies" or "criticisms" article or section is considered a violation WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism and also raises significant WP:BLP concerns.. For clarity, what policy or content guideline did you get this quote from? Thanks, Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Aoi (青い)Those policy and guidelines are from and and Purplebrown43 (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Purplebrown43, please could you sign your post immediately above? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Ah, so it's not a direct quote of a policy or guideline. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Aoi (青い)It's a summarized quote of direct policy from the cited sources, I listed.Purplebrown43 (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * No, one has explained why there's a lack of consistency among the royal family biographies, in regards to controversy sections. In addition, how can a consensus even take place until the article is cleared up to adhere to Wikipedia's living person biography?Purplebrown43 (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've offered a possible explanation. Could you possibly answer Aoi's question above? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I did answer Aoi (青い) question I cited the sources, that were requested. Purplebrown43 (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the word “controversy” needed to be removed from the section’s title; ‘Public image’ would be sufficient in this case. As to why he has more controversial stuff listed on his page compared to other members of the royal family? Well, the answer is simple; he has been more controversial. There’s no way around it. Not to mention that Charles’ cash for honours scandal is covered in detail under the “Media image” section, along with his friendship with Jimmy Savile and the impact of his marriage to Diana; so it pretty much contains all the controversial stuff. A similarity can be drawn between Harry and Princess Michael of Kent, another controversial figure. However, it would be pointless to compare Princess Michael’s page to that of her sister-in-law Katharine, Duchess of Kent, and demand that sourced stuff be removed to ensure neutrality and balance between the subjects. This simply is not achievable because each person’s life events are different. Keivan.f  Talk 20:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wholly agree. A very useful critique. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic- complete shambles of a page
Hello everyone, I will make as many edits as I have time to do. But I wanted to discuss the many many tabloid stories that seem to make their way to Harry’s page. It’s just not encyclopedic. I’ve noticed that a few of the stories that include other royal members only make it to Harry’s page. Ex, the Queens page doesn’t include that an anonymous source representing the Queen said “The Queen doesn’t approve of Lilibet being named after her”. However, that’s same story based on that anonymous source somehow made it on Harry’s page. If we include tittle tattle by anonymous sources, because it was written and Harry had to deny it, that means we can be used as a propaganda tool. All someone has to do to fill up Harry’s page is write stories they know he will push back against. Also, if the anonymous sources is seen as anything more than just another story of thousands about them, then it needs to go on the queens page also. Would love to hear your opinion on this. Sorry for any typo I’m on the run in the city. DigitialNomad (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, sending a legal letter is not “legal issues” every single royal does that to the media and you don’t see it on their Wikipedia. There is a long list from William, Kate, Charles etc all in recent years. This is considered normal work stuff for high profile people. It’s not encyclopedic DigitialNomad (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The Daily Telegraph is not generally viewed as a UK "tabloid"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll address this bit by bit. 1 Where do you even get the notion that William, Charles, Camilla or Kate's pages don't list controversial info? For example, William "dad dancing" at a nightclub in Verbier and missing the Commonwealth Day is encyclopedic enough to be on his page, but Harry's presence at a movie premiere and missing a veterans event he was supposed to attend as Captain General of the Royal Marines is not? At least get your facts straight before making comparisons between different pages. 2 This story was solely about Charles until Harry jumped in and released an official statement, saying that he had nothing to do with the "CBE scandal", whereas his charity had in fact accepted money from the Saudi donor. The criticism is justified. Needs a little bit of rephrasing. 3 I personally have no problem with rephrasing this. This was discussed at length on Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/Archive 11 and the result was removing the whole thing from Meghan's page as she was not the person who talked to the Queen. I think it can be rephrased to only include Harry's reaction. 4 There is nothing wrong with this part. It merely says that they were looking to form a working relationship with Quibi, which did not come to fruition. 5 If public speaking is paid then it's work. Note that similar info has been included in the section on Princess Michael of Kent's career, as she does paid public speaking too. 6 A perfectly positive impact if he's breaking stigma surrounding mental health issues. The source doesn't need to be merely about Harry; he was just listed as a contributing factor. Final note: None of the stuff that you tried to remove are actually attributed to tabloids. In fact, they are backed up by reliable sources. See WP:RSP to get a full understanding of which sources are acceptable and which ones are not. Keivan.f  Talk 04:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that the Baby name issue discussion hasn't yielded a solid consensus for removal, though, but I agree with the rest. Reliably reported information with wide circulation shouldn't be under the same umbrella as tabloid gossip.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * True. But since it didn’t result in a major legal fight I just reduced the whole thing to one sentence. Keivan.f  Talk 14:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Harry is no longer a prince he gave up his title
50.108.116.9 (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * See sections above and article text. DrKay (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Article description lacks specificity
It would be more accurate to describe Prince Harry as a "former senior member of the British royal family." This is a more specific and informative description and conveys his estrangement from both the institution of the monarchy and his family. It also captures how Harry himself described his change in activity and how he relates to the royal family. 108.6.34.58 (talk) 04:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The
As Harry is now the son of the Sovereign, he receives the definitive article “the,” before his title, ie. he is the Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex. Unless he has been deprived of his title by an Act of Parliament, this is how he is legally referred from now on. It ONLY applies to the Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge and him, as children of the Sovereign. 98.10.175.133 (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2022
Harry is sixth in line to the throne not fifth. As you can see on this link

https://www.royal.uk/The-Duke-of-Sussex 92.5.0.17 (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The link is out of date. DrKay (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Change image
It doesn’t show his face probably and it is not as clear as previous images 2.99.23.25 (talk) 09:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Can no longer use Prince of Wales
Bio info needs to be edited since he can no longer use of title of his father Prince of Wales. That now belongs to William. 2600:4040:214E:E500:B5B9:B86D:9219:B236 (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * He has never used the title Prince of Wales. That title is for the heir apparent. He was formerly styled Prince Henry of Wales, which is not the same as Prince of Wales. cookie monster   755  17:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)