Talk:Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex/Archive 1

Military Rank

His Royal Higness is stated in the beginning of the article to hold the rank of Second Lieutenant. However, within the section of his military service, it states that HRH the Prince Henry of Wales is a full Lieutenant (and Troop Commander within his regiment). Therefore, what is the correct rank? Ctjj.stevenson (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Paternity

Why is that there is never anything about Harry's questionable paternity? And why is it that every time someone adds something about this, it disappears within minutes? Is Wikipedia a true encyclopedia, or is information only allowed to stay if it toes the line? This seems like a case of propaganda winning out over truth. Is Jimbo Wales trying to get knighted, and if not, why does anything about Harry's paternity get erased?

Because it is speculative. That's reason enough to revert it. DBD 18:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It is commonly enough believed in both the UK and the US that is should at least be mentioned. Many other speculations are mentioned with a caveat. Why not here? One of the royals tugging on Mr. Wales sleeve?

I'd say it's more to do with the bio of living persons guidelines: "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." I would call claiming the 3rd in line to throne to be an illegitimate bastard controversial and potentially libelous. 87.194.37.201 19:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Why the is the following sentence OK in Hewitt's bio but always taken out of Harry,'s bio, despite it being sourced? "However, in a 2005 interview with the television company Making Time Productions, Hewitt admitted under hypnosis that he had met Diana in 1981 or 1982 and that their affair began shortly afterward. [3]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.86.221 (talk) 18:43, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Surely whether the rumours/stories/whatever about Harry's questionable paternity are true or untrue, the amount of speculation there has been about this, coupled with the more-than-striking resemblence of the Prince to Hewitt, means there should at least be a mention of the "controversy". I don't see how it's libelous to point out the amount of speculation, so long as it appears NPOV. Giving both sides of the debate - i.e. the offical Palace line (which is that Diana didn't meet Hewitt until 1986, when Harry was a toddler) as well as the SOURCED line mentioned above about hypnosis (yes, SOURCED, so whoever keeps removing it without a word on the discussion page ought to be ashamed of themselves) would in my opinion be sufficient. Thoughts? Davetibbs 17:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have now added a section which I believe is as NPOV as possible, including sources. If you think this should be reverted, please discuss it here first. Whether the rumours are true or not is almost irrelevant in this case, the fact that there has been such a huge level of speculation is surely undeniably notable. Also discuss why it's allowed to remain on Hewitt's Wikipedia entry!! Davetibbs 11:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The section which describes the reason for the red hair appears to step slightly further than this with the attempts to push the POV that he very much resembles his father and grandmother. (Furthermore, photographs of a young Queen Elizabeth [2] illlustrate the Prince's strong phenotypical resemblance ([3] )to his grandmother. His forehead, eyes, and especially nose also bear strong resemblance to Prince Charles'sItalic text') 81.145.242.105 (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Currently, the Prince of Wales is listed as the father in the article's first paragraph, while Hewitt is listed in the infobox. Adamgarrigus (talk) 16:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What you think about Harry's appearance is utterly irrelevant, we need sourced and reliable material. We are an encyclopedia, not the Drudge report. Happy editing, SqueakBox 18:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand that we must be careful with living persons as well as include information only from reliable and respected sources in instances such as this. But since a source as auspicious as the BBC has commented on the issue of paternity http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2273498.stm then it seems there should at least be a mention that it has been a public issue. If the BBC feel that it's OK to raise the subject without facing any libel charges, it seems it would be alright on wikipedia as well as long as it's mentioned in a neutral manner. RockStarSheister (talk) 08:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Death of Diana, Princess of Wales Section

The last paragraph reads:

"Contrary to his eulogy, in which he promised that Diana's 'blood family' would take over her less-traditional upbringing of them, the boys have seen little of the Earl Spencer and the other members of Diana's family."

Who is the antecedent for "his" and "he"? I presume it's Prince Charles? Pentegamer 21:06, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

No, the "he" is meant to refer to Earl Spencer, who gave his sister's eulogy. Her ex-husband, Charles, did not speak at her funeral services. - Nunh-huh 21:11, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Who can confirm how often the Princes William and Harry have seen the Spencer family since Diana's death ? Sounds unverifiable to me.

Why the hell is this section the first subsection? "Learn about Harry: His mum was famous and died in a crash".

Circumcision chat

The note on circumcision status is copied directly from the article on circumcision on Wikipedia.

• 209.217.75.162 09:53, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

January 2005 "Nazi" tabloid set-up

Someone should add the info about Prince Harrys Nazi scandal ( an anonymous contribution from User:24.141.214.87)

Someone should also point out it was a very convenient distraction from both Mark Thatcher's guilty plea and the month-delayed announcement of the end of the Snipe of Mass Destruction hunt. Even CNN paid more attention to this SETUP than the lies used to start a war.

And so far, the only organ I've seen that's remembered this old German family's Nazi empathies was Der Spiegel. Kwantus 04:30, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

Pravda put it very well. It was a fanciful-dress party with a Colonials and Natives theme. How dare he go as as one of the biggest colonials since Britain herself!

This poor sod. The bottomfeeders of the media stalk him, slavering for anything they can pounce on; all while surrounded by handlers whose loyalties lie with the "intelligence" services, perfectly placed to use him to create a flapdoodle whenever some serious news needs hiding...On top of which his own father, an emotional cripple, despises him for being the wrong gender and hair colour! He's named for England's most infamous king and manipulated 'round the clock to live down to his namesake, like a Punch puppet, with only the faintest hope of the small recompense of being a figurehead King for awhile. I wouldn't be him for the world.

I admit now this Nazi thing is a scandal, all right. But most people have completely mistaken its nature. Kwantus 19:06, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

• His cousin four times removed, the Duke of Albany was a real Nazi Carl Eduard, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (HRH The Duke of Albany), a grandson of Queen Victoria. Also I wouldn't describe the Nazis as colonials, more conquerors. Astrotrain 19:27, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

It will be to our credit until this bogus turmoil is over, to keep "Harry "The Nazi" of Wales" and the like out of our opening paragraph. An anonymous drive-by joker added it, and User:PatGallacher— under the reassuring rubric "clarified a few points, nothing drastic"— covered it. (No doubt he "didn't see it" though it was in the first line.) This behavior discredits us all. I have put this entry on my Watchlist, much as I detest being Kindergarten Cop. I hope some other grown-ups will help out. I expect about three rather tiresome weeks, as grinning fools jump on this bandwagon. --Wetman 02:33, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, actually, I did see it. I did find it a bit surprising, but my inclination is not to delete things without good reason. I am still fairly new to Wikipedia, if people expect me to delete things like this so be it. Isn't "clarified a few points, nothing drastic" a fair summary of the changes I did make? --PatGallacher 16:30, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It did seem unmissable. "Under the reassuring rubric" is also perfectly fair. But, another time, why not be more skeptical of the neutrality of any expression like George W. "the Nazi" Bush and suchlike? There are many privileged 19-year-old boys and girls in our world whose gaffes are broader than this kid's... --Wetman 20:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Harry"?

Why is this article Prince Harry of Wales? The Prince Harry is obvious enough - though maybe "Henry Windsor" would be more wikipedia conventional. His dad is Prince of Wales but I don't see that he has anything to do with Wales. His brother will become Prince of Wales in due course. http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/about/biography/harry.html which looks an official site never mentions "of Wales" about him. -- SGBailey 23:25 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

I think it's probably explained at Talk:Prince William of Wales, though this isn't really my field... -Nommo

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) for more info. Atorpen 23:44 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

Why is this article Prince Harry of Wales? Yep, same question, different reason. Why not Prince Henry of Wales, as in the introduction? I'm not British, but actually I severely doubt that "Prince Harry of Wales" is ever used (while just "Prince Harry" is of course common, but colloquial). Am I wrong? -- Jao 15:15, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The proper style for the Prince is "HRH Prince Henry of Wales." "HRH Prince Harry of Wales" is also used, and is both accurate and easily recognisable. -- Emsworth 01:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• I made this comment at the talk for Prince William of Wales: According to the British Monarchy site, the Prince of Wales is not a title for automatic succession. [See http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/about/bio_index.html]. Although Charles is the 21st person to hold the title and it is usually reserved for the male heir to the throne, it is only granted "at the sovereign's pleasure". In fact, Prince Charles did not receive the title until 1958 (and was not formally invested until he was 20). Although I agree that differentiating the heirs of Charles is difficult, Wales is not the correct term. --Westendgirl 07:17, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It was explained to me that just as Diana was the Princess of Wales while she and Charles were married, so too are his sons Prince X of Wales -- just not the Prince of Wales, which as you point out is given at the monarch's pleasure to his/her oldest son. - Montréalais 03:51, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• All male British princes and princesses of the blood (HRHs) are known by the territorial title of their fathers. Wales is the correct term for all legitimate children of the Prince of Wales, by comparison HRH Prince Michael of Kent is the son of the Duke of Kent, the late HRH Prince William of Gloucester was the son of the Duke of Gloucester. Following a decree from Queen Victoria:-When the family member ceases to be an HRH (great grandchildren of the sovereign, then they revert to the courtesy title associated with an ordinary peer of their father's rank for example Lord Nicholas Windsor (son of HRH Duke of Kent) as a great grandson of the sovereign (George V) assumes the title of the son of a mere Duke as opposed to a royal Duke. Lord Nicholas' children will be 'Honourable' and their children will be plain Mr or Miss. Royal females, apart from a sovereign queen, no matter what their rank pass no title to their children whatsoever, unless they are married to a titled man, then the children inherit the courtesy titles associated with their father's rank. If this did not happen Britain would eventually be overun by HRHs and titled people.Giano 22:41, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not so. Lord Nicholas is treated as the younger son of a Duke. His children will not be 'the Hon.' as that is reserved specifically for the younger sons of (certain) peers. His eldest son will be entitled to use 'Esq.' and his eldest son's eldest son &etc..Alci12

The details from these disambiguations should be succinctly represented in thje entry itself. --Wetman 02:33, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

-when william joined st andrews university and asked to styled as william wales, it was largely reported as a cute thing and a nice way of expressing his solidarity with his welsh connections. questioning harry's use of it only seems to enhance the fact that he is largely seen as "not his brother".

Bottom line: Why is it HENRY instead of HARRY!?!? Is his name Henry? ... never mind, apparently it is. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Henry) TodKarlson 09:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

His legal name is Henry, however, at the time of his birth it was announced (with is birth announcement) that he was to be known as Harry thus making him offically styled HRH Prince Harry of Wales not Prince Henry. The article should be corrected to reflect who he is properly styled. - Queen Brandissima

Images

It is fairly critical that someone get out there with a zoom lens and get a good quality photo of Harry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.73.185 (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure about the need for the News of the World image showing Harry's drug story breaking, the article already states that this happened, and the image is just a re-print of this in a paper. I think the Nazi story page should be kept. Also it would be better not to have too many images on this page, as it isn't that long at the moment.

I don't quite agree. I think it's useful and interesting to see the drugs story as it first appeared in papers, and as for the arrangement, the page flows quite nicely when they're both on the right, while it seems a bit disjointed to me to have an image on the left. This is simply aesthetic, of course, but it's always been my preference. — Dan | Talk 22:47, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is a judgement call of course on what people thinks looks better, I think a bit of variety can be better, with some on the left (if it does not disjoint the page). As for relevance, I think the Nazi article image is useful becuase of the pic only, the drug story is dealt with in the article, I think the image just duplicates this. I am never really keen on newspaper articles being used as images as a rule, however it may be appropiate here. Astrotrain 22:55, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Entry into Sandhurst

In the BBC News article about Harry's entrance into Sandhurst, [1], it is said that Prince Harry will be referred to as "Mr. Wales" or "Officer Cadet Wales". I would have expected "Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor" as being a more appropiate name. Does someone that understands these things better want to make an update about it? Or is it unimportant? JRP

He has no real surname. "Mountbatten-Windsor" is, effectively, a made-up term that is sometimes used when it's needed. His surname is replaced by his title, "of Wales".

James F. (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Correct. I don't want an edit war but really the use of Henry Charles Albert David Mountbatten-Windsor at the top of this article is just plain wrong. As an HRH he has no surname and no use of a surname can ever be correct. The bans point raised is again due to error not intent. Earl Mountbatten convinced Anne she should use that form as part of the conniving plan to advance his own name. If you check th marriage registers as at the recent wedding of Charles and Camilla you will see Charles correctly uses only his Christian names and for his surname he used Prince of the united Kingdom or Prince of the Blood Royal. The same form used in Royal passports

It is important to remember that all surnames are "made-up" and the common practice in many countries to take on one's father's surname is mere convention. Harry appears to be following his older brother in using Wales as a surname while at school. -Acjelen 5 July 2005 20:14 (UTC)

It's certainly not merely a "convention" in the UK, as it is governed by law. Proteus (Talk) 5 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)

Royals do have surnames and any claim that they don't is plain wrong. When, for example George V changed from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha his proclaimation stated

Whereas We, having taken into consideration the name and title of Our Royal House and Family, have determined that henceforth Our House and Family shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor:

Thoughout the text, a distinction was drawn between the Royal House and the family name. It was decreed that both the family name and the Royal House name were to be Windsor. If there was no family name/surname, the proclamation would not have needed to mention anything but the Royal House. The proclamation went on to say

all the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, other than female descendants who may marry or may have married, shall bear the said name of Windsor. Proclamation Declaring the Name, to Be Borne by His Majesty's Royal House and Family, and Relinquishing all German Titles. London, July 17, 1917.

Firstly, not all the people in the list were members of the Royal House, and secondly the proclamation explicitly speaks over and over of a family name and a Royal House name. Prior to 1917, there was a different Royal House name (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) and family name (Wettin). George V opted to use the same name for both, but did not abolish a separate family name, merely decreed that the family name and the Royal House name would happen to be the same.

Harry's surname, according to his father's office, unambiguously is Mountbatten-Windsor. However royal tradition internationally is that a prince with a title other that the national state name uses title as a form of honorary family name. So he is Mr Harry Mountbatten-Windsor but may use the form Harry Wales, just as Princess Beatrice of York is Ms Beatrice Mountbatten-Windsor but may use the form Beatrice York. The same convention has been used in royal nomenclature for hundreds of years. The idea that royalty don't have surnames is actually a myth. They personally admit they do. As a British royal said once to a colleague of mine who was engaged in small talk at a state dinner "of course we have a surname. We just don't use them. In fact sometimes, as with Queen Victoria who didn't know she was a Wettin and when she found out was not pleased about it, we've had to have our staff check it out, saying "What is it my surname is again?"" (At which point HRH laughed and explained how at one stage it was contemplated giving the family the surname Oldcastle until it was realised that was the name of a place in Ireland, and it was thought better not to use the name of a place not actually associated with royalty, much less one associated with a Catholic martyr killed by English protestants!) FearÉIREANN^(talk) 5 July 2005 23:25 (UTC)

Oldcastle, in case anyone wanted to know, being a translation of Oldenburg after Philip's agnatic ancestors the counts of Oldenburg who became kings of Denmark in 1448. —Tamfang 21:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If the proclamation of George V is to be understood as taking or changing a surname and/or family name (which are not necessarily the same thing), then it must be read literally, and therefore that is "of Windsor", not plain Windsor. All of the text of the proclamation I read always says "of Windsor".

However, as far as it proclaims the name of the "royal house", it is House of Windsor which cannot be understood directly as a surname, and therefore should be used fully, i.e in version "belongs to... (or something like) the House of Windsor". The membership (and thus name) of royal house is not transferable as regular surname, as (1) wives do not become members of that house by marriage (they remain members of the "house" they happened to belong - for example, Elizabeth II despite marriage is of the house of her father, and Edward VII was the first UK monarch of S-C-G, Victoria was not) and (2) bastards do not receive the status of such "house" even if the local legislation allows a bastard to take father's surname, and (3) children of a female member of such "house" do not receive the atatus of that house even if local legislation (or lack of marriage or father) would give mother's surname to children.

Surnames are always more or less conventions and choices of individuals, thus a british royal using a surname does not say that that is the surname of the royal house, nor that others of the same royal house are necessarily carrying the same surname. My last-mentioned point is important: no other royal (except perhaps the monarch) is entitled to decide another's surname.

Also, remembering the possibilities of individual choice etc, re the case under discussion it is -in my opinion- not wrong for Harry to use surname "Wales" 217.140.193.123 6 July 2005 11:47 (UTC)

But he doesn't use it as a "surname", any more than Charles Nall-Cain, 3rd Baron Brocket uses "Brocket" as a surname when he calls himself "Charles Brocket". It's just a convention amongst British people with titles that in informal circumstances the title can be used in place of a surname, not as one. Proteus (Talk) 6 July 2005 12:10 (UTC)

That, apparently, was your reason to revert my text which told that Harry used it in the place of surname: "The prince's official family name is that of Windsor, according to legal documentation and to his grandmother's royal proclamation of 1960, but all the descendants of Queen Elizabeth II appear to utilize the surname Mountbatten-Windsor as personal preference. In school and in military, Harry has used the "Wales" in the place of surname. A check to residence registers does not help to determine the surname question, as there Harry does not have any surname." 217.140.193.123 6 July 2005 12:21 (UTC)

A series of Orders-in-Council and proclamations proves otherwise.

FearÉIREANNFile:Irish flag.gif\^(caint)

Do you mean those orders-in-council which make Windsor as Charles' family name and Anne's maiden name, and which they have so obediently followed?? 217.140.193.123 8 July 2005 23:55 (UTC)

Actually, I reverted it because it made no sense. Proteus (Talk) 6 July 2005 12:25 (UTC)

Ah, in that case I will write those corrections back there. Hope you see the sense. 217.140.193.123 6 July 2005 12:33 (UTC)

Now that the prince's brother has entered Sandhurst, isn't there an element added to his name at school? -Acjelen 04:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The second picture in this article shows Harry's surname of Wales on his helmet: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4901830.stm

opening paragraph

The opening paragraph was a bit of a mess, both in terms of how it discussed Harry's name and how it defined him. The important fact is not that Harry is a member of the Royal Family but that he is third-in-line to the throne. It is also important to mention that he is also third-in-line to Commonwealth Realm thrones also. Finally, Harry is not a nickname. It is the name his family announced they would use for him, though officially he is called Henry.

FearÉIREANNFile:Irish flag.gifFile:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\^(caint) 7 July 2005 20:43 (UTC)

Rugby

I feel like a fool, but what is the difference between rugby football and rugby union? Which is a better link for this article? -Acjelen 22:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

There are two kinds of Rugby Football . Rugby Union and Rugby League.

Grades and cheating scandal

I added his A-level grades but did not comment on how he needed vast amounts of cheating to achieve them, absolutely appaling they were anyway. Would someone knowledgable make an extract on this? I feel it's an important part of the 'Education' section of this article. Also perhaps, if known, add his GCSE grades on. Skinnyweed 02:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This article linked from BBC home page

• BBC home page feature box "Prince Harry at 21". BBC, September 15, 2005.

  Feature box at [2] had four links, three to BBC pages and one to the Prince Harry wikipedia page at Prince Harry [3]. The link was titled "Wikipedia: Prince Harry".

The above text has also been placed under the correct date here:[4]

I think it is ridiculous to say that he cheated on his A grades! how would you like that comment to be thrown in your face by some one that does not even no you, anyways how do u know he was cheating ? just something to ponder

Hi I'm New to Wikipedia so please forgive any mistakes. One thing I an sure of though is that Prince Harry did not cheat. What we have to keep in mind is that the Teacher who accused him of cheating had secretly recorded him in conversation with her AND THEN EDITED THE TAPE BEFORE SHOWING IT. The News Stories of the time confirm that the tape was edited. You don't edit someone's conversation unless you want to change its meaning. In any case a man - even a prince much as some people dislike it - is innocent untill proven guelty. One fact we can be sure of is that the teacher in question made a lot of money out of the tape. We should also note that this said teacher was earlier dismissed. Its a sad state of affairs when a child cant even trust his own Schoolteacher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.64.22 (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Accession

Although I know he is not directly in line to the throne, might it be worth mentioning which number he will be if he ascends to the throne under the name Henry? I'm not suggesting we do it for all people in line for the throne, perhaps just all those directly in line (as we currently do) and another one or two who are next in line? Nil Einne 12:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, he would be the future Henry IX in that scenerio. However, like you said, since he's not in direct line, perhaps it wouldn't be worth mentioning. But of course that's up to the Wiki community. GoodDay 20:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It isn't automatic that a monarch will use their own name for their title - Charles for instance has talked about taking the title "George VII". Plus "Henry IX" is an awkward title because there haven't been any previous King Henries in Scotland, and whilst yes there won't have been any previous "King Henry of the United Kingdom"s, I suspect the Royal Family will want to avoid a repitition of the "she's Elizabeth the first of Scotland" of the 1950s. (This part of the Royal Family seems particularly burdened with unsuitable names. "King William V" not only has the same problems in Scotland, but also raises potential problems in Northern Ireland as different parts of the community will have very different reactions to a new "King William". And "King Charles" is associated with a man who lost both his throne and head, a serial adulterer and a dog!) Timrollpickering 18:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at List of regnal numerals of future British monarchs#Background, as it explains about future regnal numbers... DBD 19:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

True, but I do actually question whether the Royal Family will want to take such a risk (at least with a numbering derived from the English side), regardless of the actual rule set down. (Also the last King Henry was not exactly the friendliest of English monarchs to Scotland.) Timrollpickering 21:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Originally, I was 'unsure' about adding Harry's -potentialy accession-. However, now I believe the 'accession' section should remain until Prince William is married & has an legitimate child. GoodDay 17:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Parentage

I see there is no mention of the widespread theory that he is the son of James Hewitt. Probably for the best.

The following is from the article: "Some people note that Harry shares red hair colour with Diana's lover James Hewitt, and see this superficial characteristic enough to doubt Charles' paternity. Hewitt's affair with Diana may not have begun, however, until well after Harry was born. On 29th June 2005, the Sun newspaper published extracts from a close friend of Princess Diana, that proved Prince Charles was Harry's father. Harry resembles both his paternal grandfather in his youth and increasingly the Prince of Wales." -Acjelen 14:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this one keeps resurfacing from time to time. James Hewitt has said that he would be very proud if Prince Harry was his son, but that the first time he ever clapped eyes on Diana, little Harry was standing at her side with his finger up his nose :-).160.84.253.241

Unfortunately that isnt in the article at all. As for the second point i refer you to the article on James Hewitt "In a recent interview, however, Maj. Hewitt admitted under hypnosis that he'd met Diana in 1981 or 1982 and that their affair began shortly afterward, leaving open the possibility that he is Prince Harry's natural father."

I'm not sure what the motivation is behind the thinking that Major Hewitt is Prince Harry's father. That they both have red hair? In that case, maybe the Duke of Edinburgh and Hewitt's mother also had an affair, because Harry looks like Prince Philip. Anyway, the genetic tests of The Sun trump the hypnosis of The Mirror'. -Acjelen 12:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

hahaha the Sun what an authoritative organ that is. We must bow to it.The difference is that the Sun piece was written by a crackpot medium who many suggest had no real links with Diana and in the Mirror Hewitt admits it himself. The real point here is that if the theory of Hewitt's parenthood warrants a mention in his article it should warrant one in this article too.

Then does it follow that we should remove mention of military service in this article since it is does not warrant a mention in Hewitt's article? -Acjelen 05:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

in a word - no.

I second the notion that the controversy and theory that his real father may be James Hewitt should be included in the article. It is a popular alternative theory and should definitely be included under "controversies." It doesn't mean the article has to speculate as to who his father is, but the fact that many publications (tabloids?) and many people suspect James Hewitt is his real father is relevant to a discussion of Prince Harry. -Laikalynx 00:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the autobiography of Hewitt's publicist Max Clifford Read All About It, Hewitt's affair with Diana began in 1982, not 1986. Harry was born in 1984. Engleham 12:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As I noted in my blurb above under the "Paternity" section, while we need to be careful with living persons, it would seem prudent to at least mention the issue in a neutral manner as the BBC had done so. (Please see the link above.) The issue of exactly when Diana and Mr. Hewitt met is still debatable, as Hewitt's publicist is not an impartial source and Hewitt has said one thing first and then another under hypnosis. If the BBC deems it important enough to print, we probably should as well, but to reiterate, in a neutral manner. RockStarSheister (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I had hoped that the unmistakable resemblance to Prince Philip full-on and the resemblance to Her Majesty in profile (the curve of the nose is an uncanny "copy", especially given the frontal resemblence is nothing like HM's!!) would have quashed this stupid story, especially since the Spencers are known to have red hair, but obviously not. Yes, I am disgusted!! FlaviaR (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Military titles

Now that Harry is a commisioned officer isn't his full style "Second Lieutenant His Royal Higness Prince Henry of Wales"? Even if he doesn't use it on duty aren't part of royal styles? (Alphaboi867 20:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC))

Members of the Royal Family don't use military ranks as part of their styles. Even the Duke of Edinburgh, who is an Admiral of the Fleet, the highest rank in the British Armed Forces, is simply styled "His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh". Proteus (Talk) 21:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't Prince Andrew Lieutenant His Royal Highness the Prince Andrew? Plus isn't Phillip also a Field Marshall and Marshal of the Royal Airforce as well? (Alphaboi867 22:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC))

He was known as that on active service, of course, because it's vital to specify the rank of someone when they're actually on a ship or what not. It was never used in ordinary contexts. (And Admiral of the Fleet is technically a higher rank than Field Marshal and Marshal of the Royal Air Force, because (since the RN is the Senior Service) naval ranks take precedence over otherwise equal ranks in the other services.) Proteus (Talk) 20:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be Second Lieutenant His Royal Highness Henry Windsor, Prince of Wales if we were trying to be completely correct. The Army just call him Second Lieutenant Windsor however. Pragmatic as ever. Darth Doctrinus 12:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

And it's Henry, Prince of Wales not 'Prince Henry of Wales'. How disgustingly American. Darth Doctrinus 12:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's Prince Henry of Wales, not Henry, Prince of Wales. Harry's father is the Prince of Wales. Harry is a prince because he is the agnatic grandson of the Queen and of Wales because he father is the Prince of Wales. -Acjelen 17:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah you're misunderstanding me. You're entirely correct - of course Harry's dad is Prince of Wales, but it is utterly incorrect to refer to Harry as 'Prince Harry of Wales' for the simple reason that his Dad is the 'Prince of Wales' - how many do you need? You may wish to look at the Highgrove website and see how the family themselves refer to the 2 Princes. And of course, when I refered to 'Harry, Prince of Wales' I was assuming that he was the legitimate holder of that appointment purely to draw attention to the nomenclature. I wouldn't worry too much about this - we have entire libraries devoted to this nonsense in UK... Darth Doctrinus 23:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

He is Prince Henry of Wales. Henry, Prince of Wales' is 100% wrong. It would refer to a Prince of Wales called Henry. Children of a royal prince take their father's title in the form Prince <name> of <title>. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 19:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)}

Sure. Cheers. Darth Doctrinus 14:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl is 100% correct :-) Charles 19:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Why the little prince of Birjand, an city in Iran, had a offer of the princess Raiyah of jordan to get an Admiral if he marries her but prince Harry can't get an military title? There exists surely also a title or not!?Menu2a 08:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Besides, being in The Blues and Royals, his rank is Cornet specifically, rather than 2nd Lieutenant, so he's Cornet His Royal Highness Prince Henry of Wales, or, as he's informally styled, Cnt Henry Wales. DBD 19:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thrones

Hmm... So there are lots of thrones, but only one line of succession? Never mind – I'll leave the dodgy English this time.—Preceding unsigned comment added by The Font (talk • contribs)

It is perfectly correct. There are multiple thrones, but all use the one line of succession. There is nothing dodgy about it. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 19:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)}

Schooling

According to St. George's School (Rhode Island), it says that Prince Harry attended St. George's School in Newport, Rhode Island for a year. Is this true? I live in Rhode Island, and I have never heard this before. I tend to believe that this information is false, but I could be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.152.64 (talk • contribs)

I think it is, too. I've removed it from there.

James F. (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It is the popular opinion that Prince Henry of Wales is the anti-Christ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.50.29 (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

Removed the part saying "The Prince was also photographed at the event holding a cigarette and a drink." Why does that need to be mentioned? Are royals not allowed to smoke?

It's okay for them to smoke, and it's okay for them to drink. But it's not okay for them to smoke and drink. All clear now?JGC1010 (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Need new picture

With the infobox giving its picture added credence, someone needs to find an updated picture of Prince Harry. It won't do having his "school picture" still at the head of his WP articles. -Acjelen 15:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Move to Prince Henry of Wales

According to wp's naming convention title of this article should be Prince Henry of Wales and not Prince Harry of Wales. There is no reasons to call him otherwise. Perhaps, Prince Harry is the most used form, it cannot be automatically extended to Prince Harry of Wales. Please post your comments,  tasc ^words_deeds 14:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As I see no opposition. I will move the article after 48 hours of my initial posting will pass. -- tasc ^words_deeds 08:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to be pedantic, shouldnt this be at 'Prince Henry Windsor'? Harry is, after all, not the Prince of Wales. Modest Genius ^talk 12:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that he is Prince of Wales. But wp naming convention states: Use "Prince(ss) {first name} of ..." where a prince/ss has a territorial suffix by virtue of their parent's title, So, if you want to be pedantic he is Prince Henry of Wales. -- tasc ^words_deeds 12:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoax Image?

I believe the current image is not of Prince Harry so I am removing it from this page. I'd revert back to the old image but it seems to have been deleted. I've explained everything on the image's talk page. Please read the comments there before restoring the image. -- IslaySolomon | talk 10:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Surname

Is his surname Mountbatten-Windsor or Wales? I saw a picture of him in a newspaper today (2007-01-14) in uniform (not dress uniform, camo) and the name badge said "Wales". See also [5] [6] Mark83 22:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, technically, like every royal, he has no surname, he is HRH Prince Henry of Wales. In situations where a surname is needed, Mountbatten-Windsor, which is their personal surname, is usually used (like on Charles' recent banns of marriage). However, in the case of those who have, or whose fathers have, titles, like Charles and his sons, or Andrew and his daughters, their territorial designations are sometimes used - for instances, William and Harry used Wales throughout their educations (i.e. that was the surname under which they were enrolled), and, similarly, Beatrice and Eugenie York. It seems that both the Wales are continuing their use of that surname into their army careers. Hope this helps! – DBD 23:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

In any case, since he really has no surname, it should be removed. Charles 05:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Prince Harry 'to be sent to Iraq'

Hmm, this is certainly a noble call of duty, not sure if it's wise, but it's noble. Well, just pointing out, think it deserves to be mentioned in the article. Any thoughts? Lovelight 01:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see it's already noted, it's just a small update, I'll let active editors deal with it… have fun editing, regards. Lovelight 01:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/02/22/harry.iraq.ap/ --70.126.236.103 09:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

We know his position 'Troop commander'. But his Army rank, isn't listed. What's his rank? GoodDay 19:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

2Lt, wasn't it? DBD 22:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Just read on the news that he will no longer be going to Iraq, I tried to update the article however writing articles like this isn't really my forte so I'll leave the link and hopefully someone better and more involved with this article can update it! The news article for citation is - [7]. Andy^talk 15:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"In May 2007 British soldiers in Iraq were reported to be wearing t-shirts bearing the statement "I'm Harry!": an obvious reference to the scene in the movie Spartacus in which the survivors of Spartacus's army, defeated by Roman legions, are offered leniency by Crassus if they will identify their leader. Every survivor declares: "I'm Spartacus!": isn't this more likely to be a reference to The Life of Brian where they all yell "I'm Brian" to try and gain release? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.6.95 (talk) 06:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Full name

Do you think Harry's mum used his full name when yelling at him as a small child? My mum used mine. "C'mere Henry Charles David Albert!!!!" It doesn't roll off the tongue very well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.214.123.28 (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Why does it matter? What does it have to do with this article? Your guestions are better asked, at a blog site. GoodDay 22:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter any less as to whether this dude is Henry, Prince of Wales or Prince Henry of Wales? His titles are as valueless as mine. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by His right honorable Lord 71.214.123.28, King of Klusteria, Duke of Mountbatten, Father of Windsor, Prince of Lucretia, Defender of Yo Mama and Holder of the Flame of Arnor (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

How about shut up. DBD 23:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Woah, D, I think 71.214.123.28 makes a good point. You should try to be civil and give a response with some merit. We talk about calling him Harry instead of Henry, but he has other names as well. Do these names ever get used by members of the family? I agree that that issue does have more relevance to the person that Harry is rather that an archaic title like Prince Henry of Wales or whatever. -- Djibouti Bandango.

I may be to blame for this current 'heated' discussion. My response to the anon-user, may have come across as 'not caring'. I assumed the anon-user, was about to go off on a anti-monarchy rant. I should have been more 'polite' in explaining to him, that his question was better suited for blogs. My mistake. GoodDay 00:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

My error was very much of a similar kind. One just gets tired of defending one's views... DBD 00:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The best thing to do would be to remind people this is a discussion page for discussing improvements to the article, not for the subject. Factual questions are suited for the reference desk. Since it's unlikely anyone knows the answer to the above, it's not really useful to ask at the reference desk instead suggest the discussion be held elsewhere (whether blogs, usenet, forums, whatever) 04:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've apologised to the anon-user, at his IP adress 'discussion' page. GoodDay 00:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Parentage

Surely there should be something about his parentage (James Hewitt connection)? Shermozle 10:09, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

• I put in a sentence, with references, but this was removed by User:Silverhorse. Is this in deference to HRH? I have reinstated it, as I do feel it has a place, as stuff of this sort would usually find its way into equivalent biographical entries on Wikipedia. I say this especially as Diana herself admitted to an affair with Jamie, and the UK press has commented widely on the matter. Ohconfucius 08:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Due to the affair and the fact the he looks a bit like James Hewitt, I feel the sentence should have been left. However, I am sure it is hurtful to Prince Henry as well as Prince William. Therefore, perhaps that is why it was removed.

Due to the fact that he looks nothing like Hewitt, it should be removed just on that score alone. Luckily, we don't need to rely on things that some people refuse to see.FlaviaR (talk) 05:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The removal has nothing to do with "hurtful" it has to do with sources. Find a reliable source that shows this is a mainstream concern/issue that is being discussed and it can go in. But web tittle-tattle, and the speculation of unqualified people, does not count.--Doc^g 09:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Doc, the fact that the BBC has reported on it certainly makes it worthy of inclusion, and the BBC is certainly a "reliable source" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2273498.stm RockStarSheister (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Harry Will Not Be Tank Commander

Taken from the Daily Mail: "Most members of his Household Cavalry Regiment are already in Basra on a six-month tour of duty. The Prince is now expected to be given a role in Iraq which would rarely involve him leaving the confines of British bases. He is no longer going to be utilised as a reconnaissance troop commander - the job he trained for - as this is now considered too dangerous." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=454456&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=

Arius Maximus 21:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Arsenal Fan

Here's a source regarding Harry's support of Arsenal F.C.: Arsenal Celebrity Supporter Series: Prince Harry - PeeJay 17:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not a reliable source. This subject is being discussed at Talk:Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon#Arsenal. --G2bambino 17:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Saggybottom section

This section contains the following text: "However, Saggybottom later claimed in an interview with the tabloid News of the World, for which she was paid over $30.00 CAD..." Gee a whole $30??? Obviously an error, anyone know the correct number? --ukexpat 15:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Costume controversy

Why is there so much on this? It was such a trivial point, especially when you consider there is no mention of his drug use —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.72 (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

BREAKING NEWS update?

It's just been announced and confirmed on CNN, MSNBC, BBC, Daily Sun, The Mirror that Prince Harry has been in Afghanistan for the last 10 weeks serving on the front lines in the city of Helmann which is primarily made of the ethnic tribe of Gurkha's.

[8] [9] [10]

ApsbaMd2 (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Who leaked the story?

[11]

This article claims that an Australian and a German newspaper were the first to break the story of Prince Henry being deployed, then followed by the Drudge Report, Wikipedia currently says the Drudge Report was first. The article also details the secrecy about the deployment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.6.83.138 (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The 3rd largest Australian mag. New Idea on Jan 7th and 15th and Feb 14th. As regards the deal with the major news organisations, they spent 5 months wrangling over whether to sacrifice Prince Harry's safety in exchange for privileged coverage. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 16:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Did it say that he was brought home before he became addicted to heroin? Where did that come from? Why would the royal family worry about him becoming a heroin addict?--76.244.160.95 (talk) 08:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't like England

When a Prince of England the U.K., the grandson of the Queen, says he doesn't like England, that is noteworthy. It isn't just some random sound bite. It should be in the article. Kingturtle (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

A Prince of the United Kingdom actually. Would it be noteworthy if a Prince of Spain said he didn't like Andalusia? Lets not blow this out of proportion. --Camaeron (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The quote succintly explains a lot about how he feels, about what his life is like. Kingturtle (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Andalusia is not to Spain what England is to the U.K. Kingturtle (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with adding this as a sourced statement, not only is it far less controversial than his pot smoking and fancy-dress choices but it has clearly not in any way aliented him, his popularity is never higher and this popularity includes this statement. We are dealing with some real BLP issues in this article, but these are not the pot and fancy dress issues, which can be seen as criticism, but really we cannot portray his comment re England in a negative light, because that is now how it they are seen, remebering that England is not really a country right now and anyway our armed services serve Britain (with our Scottish PM) and the Queen is head of the UK and not of England. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it wil be significant (it isn't certainly isn't yet), or it was an off-the-cuff remark that he'll retract tomorrow. Do you know how he feels? Anyway, unless the story grows it is simply a news cycle, fit for wikinews, but not for a biography. You can't tell whether a few words are going to be a significant part of explaining his life.--Doc^g 21:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't add it to the article to add to his controversies - I added it because (IMHO) it is noteworthy and telling of his biography. IMHO the quote really tells of what he's feeling and what he's been through. Kingturtle (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, IMHO = generally your POV. So unless you can find sources to show that this quote is significant and revealing of his attitude?--Doc^g 22:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Doc, I hadn't checked the history justt his thread, you are doing some good work re the Royal family right now and I am happy to acquiese to your judgement on this one, and indeed to some extent my last piece was agreing that this isn't notable at all, certainly not in a controversial way. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

At the moment it is news, whether it is more than that only time will tell. Actually, I won't fight too hard to keep it out, because I suspect in a few weeks someone will simply think "eh? why is that there?" and remove it. (And I don't like England either ;) )--Doc^g 22:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Me neither, that is why I don't live there anymore. But I love being English abroad in a place where I am the only one. Happy editing, SqueakBox 22:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Doc, I just did a quick informal google search for "don't like england that much" harry and retrieved hundreds hits. People are talking about it. I found a Reuters story titled Britain's Prince Harry:" I don't like England much", a AFP article titled Harry 'doesn't like England,' lashes British media. The quote is notable. Kingturtle (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

How about do the reverse of what Doc says and just keep it out for a few weeks and then review whether we should add it, depending on how controversial it seems. Harry has clearly had a big impact and with Kosovo indepence is clearly a hot topic throughout Europe right now (hence the forums) so this is one we should be very conservative with. Happy editing, SqueakBox 22:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain a bit more on we should be very conservative with? I am not sure what you mean. Kingturtle (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Re our living biography and neutrality policies, conservative with a small c, ie cautiously etc, nothing to do with the Tories. Happy editing, SqueakBox 22:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't even thinking of the Tories :) I was trying to figure out why we should be very conservative with this? And how we should proceed if we are to be conservative? Kingturtle (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Harry's remark ambiguous without context? When I read it I instinctively assumed he was alluding to overzealous paparazzi/tabloids. Britney Spears can't be that enamoured with the "US" at present ;-). SoLando (Talk) 14:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't write it out of context. I wrote it in context, and tried to write it NPOV. I encourage you to fix the phrasing. I am sure my first pass needs help. Kingturtle (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As Andalusia is only a province of Spain so is England only a part of the UK. I dont find worth adding into the article. Add it to wikinews if you find it that amazing that someone doesnt like England. --Camaeron (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC) My point exactly..I must agree with Solando! --Camaeron (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think our biography policy demands we edit conservatively, and while Harry is highly notable he didn't choose that notability in a way that Tony Blair or Amy Winehouse did. Anyway it continues to be highly uncontroversial. Many young people find the country they grew up in boring, and I guess Harry was finding Afghanistan exotic and fascinating (as most Afghanis would England) and I am sure this statement, far from alienating him, is one many people can identify with (but not the estimated 5 million ex-pats. Happy editing, SqueakBox 15:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Then why not include the quote as I presented it? Kingturtle (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually think BLP has nothing to do with the quote. It's public and high profile as is he so putting it in the article isn't intrusive. My reason for objecting is that I don't think it is important enough to put into a biography of his life. A public figure like this will get thousands of soundbites over the years, and most will be be lost after a 24 hour news cycle. Is there any on-going media debate about the quote? Will there be in two weeks? Does anyone care? It is newsworthy, but it is simply not encyclopedic. Wikinews, yes, wikiquote maybe. Actually I think we've a silly amount of detail on the whole Afganistan thing. Give it a year and we'll reduce it to two sentences. The problem is that too many wikipedians don't know the difference between an encyclopedia and a news reviewer.--Doc^g 15:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to make sure everyone reading here has read the edit to this article that this discussion sprang from. It was in the article for all of two hours. I'd like some feedback on how to make that entry better. Kingturtle (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Your quote just seems out of place, KT, simply because it is generating no controversy whatsoever and there are many other sound bites that could be equally added. I think to some extent Doc is right about BLP and this issue as it just isn't controversial (in a way that the fancy dress was). Thank God no intrepid wikipedian picked up on the referenceable original Australian report. It seems to me Afghanistan is a milestone in Harry's life (possibly in the war too as it has certainly publicised it in the UK) though we still, probably inappropriately, still don't have an article on the current conflict in Afghanistan, butt hat the qwquote re not liking England is an entirely unmemorable part of that, we'd be much better using the much more picked up quote that "this was about as normal as it was going to get" in his life. Happy editing, SqueakBox 15:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I need to reiterate, I did not add it because I thought it was controversial. I am not trying to put in tabloid things involving parties and mishaps. I added it because it succinctly gives insight into his feelings and his life. Kingturtle (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Technically it is within context but it's still liable to interpretation and that's one of my issues with the passage: it's ambiguous. His dislike of the media is noted and then is abruptly followed by a new sentence containing the quote, effectively detaching it from his (understandable) dislike of the media. The media is evidently discussing it but without a direct response from Harry himself, the meaning of the remark can't be reliably verified. If it alludes to his animosity towards the media, it might be pertinent to a section expounding on his relationship with them. Otherwise, is there really application for the quote? SoLando (Talk) 16:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as it is kept NOPV, it seems the quote should be included. There is a difference between Harry saying that he doesn't like the English paparazzi versus his saying he doesn't like England. Life is yin and yang; Harry never has to hold down or try to find a regular job and never has to worry about money and can meet any celebrity he likes due to the position he was born into. This is the up side. The down side is that because of the position, wealth and privilege he was born into and continues to enjoy, he has a responsibility to act in a certain way, to try and do his duty for his country, the UK. Saying that he does not like England, the constituent country of the UK which includes the majority of the UK's land mass and population, is not living up to this duty. If he wants to give up all the privileges of his position, he can say what he likes. But if he is going to continue to use his title and position as he does, then he has a duty to his country to not badmouth it, and especially to not badmouth it in public or to the press, which he had done. Thefore, the comment should be included so long as it is done in a NPOV manner.RockStarSheister (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Who keeps reverting to Wales???

I have deleted Wales off the "full name" part once or twice now. I won't delete it again until I have heard what every one here has to say and because I don't want to become part of an edit war. But...Wales really isnt one of Henry's names! Ironically the source after the name still reads thus "As a titled royal, Harry holds no surname, but, when one is used, it is Mountbatten-Windsor (or, more colloquially, his father's territorial designation, Wales)". Note it says when one is used.....That means it is only used when he needs one. As a titled royal he does not have a surname and logically it shouldn't be included. See Prince William or other family members for further proof. Thank you in advance...--Camaeron (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Military Honours

I have made a correction to this section. The previous edit showed the Queen's Gallantry Medal and the OSM for Afghanistan. I have removed the entry for the QGM and replaced it with the QGJM (Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal), to which he is actually entitled. Groovenow (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal from his list of honours. He wasn't in the army when they were awarded in 1997. (Sapperhutch (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC))

Wales is wrong

It is certainly wrong to call him Prince Henry of Wales. His father is prince of Wales not him! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.56.41 (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

WWRRRAAAAAARRRRGGGHHH!!!! That is all. DBD 20:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Prince Henry of Wales is correct. Now, if it were Henry, Prince of Wales? you'd have a point anon. PS- The Duke of York's daughters are Princess Beatrice of York & Princess Eugenie of York (for example). GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all children of princes in their own right are styled so. With the exception of the Wessexes...--Cameron (T|C) 14:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"The" Prince Henry

Reluctantly, I have deleted the reference to "The" Prince Henry again. It is in the context of his official title, so it is important that it be right.

Neither the royal family website nor the Court Circular speaks of "The" Prince Henry / Harry. think that both can be trusted to get it right. "The" is only used for the issue of a reigning sovereign. See the articles on Princess Margaret and Princess Anne which show how their titles changed to "the" upon their parents ascending the throne. Informed Owl (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl

maiden name is standard for info box

If you check out Elizabeth II, in the info box, her father is George V of the United Kingdom and her mother is Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, so there changing this mother's maiden name. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was the Duchess of York at the time of her daughter's birth and later on Queen Elizabeth and then The Queen Mother. George V was born Prince George of York and was Duke of York at the time of his daughter's birth so the standard practice is to use the monarch's title and his/her consort's birth one.64.230.110.176 (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, Elizabeth II's father was George VI. Further, the Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon issue appears to be a special case that was covered in discussions at her article. --G2bambino (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a move request, not a info box. See nearly any other royal info box Ludwig II of Bavaria or Frederick Lewis, Prince of Wales and maiden name is given 64.230.110.176 (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. If there's one thing I've learned - and you, as an anon, perhaps have not - is that we sometimes have to eschew consistency to accomodate anomolies. Aslo, one article does not always set the standard for others; it can be wrong. So, though there may be other articles that list the maiden name of the subject's mother, that does not mean that a) those articles are correctly formatted, or b) that the same practice applies here. Perhaps you should take this to WP:BROY where there are a number of users far more versed in this and could help you out. --G2bambino (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Is it just me that thinks it somewhat dubious that he would actually have been positioned 'on the front lines' in Afghanistan. Given the Taliban's use of mortars I'd say that it's very unlikely that he was actually stationed so close to the conflict as is made out by the press, if anything it seems like a token gesture, to show that the royal family will fight alongside the British Armed Forces. Moustan 86.10.97.187 (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That's an opinion. We don't do those here. If you can find a reputable, verifiable third-party source that agrees with you, then by all means put it in the article. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 02:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Article title

In my opinion this should be at Prince Harry of Wales. This is by far the most common name by which he is known (including at his official site, www.princeofwales.gov.uk, and at www.royal.gov.uk) and does not go against the naming conventions concerning names and titles. What do others think? Opera hat (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it should probably stay where it is; variations of Pr Harry redirect here, I think? [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 13:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, OK - why do you think it should stay where it is? Opera hat (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Or Prince Henry "Harry" of Wales...hehehe. --Cameron* 12:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Opera hat: it's the correct name, Harry redirects here. I don't feel enormously passionate about it, but I do feel we should have the article at the correct name whenever possible. [ roux ] [x] 13:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It should stay at Henry; as we don't has Prince Billy of Wales. Nor do we have King Harry VIII of England or King Jimmy IV of Scotland, etc. GoodDay (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, none of those are ever called that, so that would be why. Whereas Prince Harry is called Prince Harry, and far more frequently than he's called "Prince Henry". The only time I can think of that he is called Henry is in the Court Circular. Opera hat (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

He is called that, yes, and we have redirects to handle that. [ roux ] [x] 15:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

But shouldn't he be at Harry according to WP:COMMONNAME (as I said before)? Opera hat (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No, because if anyone puts in the common name, they get redir to his full correct name. IAR allows for exceptions. [ roux ] [x] 22:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

But why Prince Henry of Wales but Tony Blair and Bill Clinton? I think there has to be a good reason to WP:IGNORE, and these examples would seem to suggest that having the "correct" name at the expense of the most common name isn't one. Opera hat (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Like I said above, I'm not hugely passionate about it; I've said my piece. Whatever consensus decides is fine by me, though perhaps a quick trip to the Naming Conventions board (the royalty one I mean) would make sense? [ roux ] [x] 01:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps because neither Tony Blair nor Bill Clinton are members of royal houses? Are there not guidelines set up for the titling of articles on royal individuals? --G2bambino (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are; the relevant section is WP:NCNT#Other royals, which makes no pronouncement either way on whether the most common first name or the actual full first name should be used. That's why I thought the only guideline on that would be WP:COMMONNAME, which would support Harry over Henry. Opera hat (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It's true that the guideline is not absolutely clear on actual name/common name usage. I would infer from it that when a royal title is required for an article title, the individual's proper name should be used. --G2bambino (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is probably an issue for the WP:NCNT talk page, then. I'll come back here if a consensus is reached there to clarify the guidelines. Opera hat (talk) 11:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Though WP:NCNT already has "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem" emblazoned across the top so I'm not sure if much can be added to that. Opera hat (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it applies that well to royalty, though. For example, the article is Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, not Elizabeth II of England. It's Diana, Princess of Wales, not Princess Diana. Charles, Prince of Wales, not Prince Charles. Prince Harry of Wales redirects here anyway, so I don't see what the issue is, really. --G2bambino (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, g2. Prince Harry of Wales just looks odd. If we're going to use Harry, let's move the whole page to "Prince Harry", the common name. "Prince Harry of Wales", is not very widespread. --Cameron* 15:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

H'm, yes, I see your point. I might still see what people have to say at WP:NCNT if/when I can be bothered to raise the issue, though. Opera hat (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Images here, now.

G2bambino, the image you just moved (of Harry standing at attention) should not be on the left side, as MOS calls for images to 'face' the text. The dominant figures in the image are all facing left. Please restore the image to where it was before. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 16:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I won't move it to where it was before. I will, however, move it to the right. --G2bambino (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Before, it was beside the first paragraph, which discussed events in 2005. The photo is of an event in 2005. It makes simple logical sense for the image to be next to the paragraph it is illustrating. Please put it back. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 17:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Again.. please put the image back where it was (the status quo) and then discuss where to move it. This is per BRD and per what you always require of others. Thank you. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 18:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

We've already discussed where to move it. At the top-right of the section it collides with the BRF navbox. At the right of the section, one paragraph in, the subject is facing away from the page. Perhaps if something is resolved with the layout and placement of the BRF navbox, the image can be shifted to the top-left again. --G2bambino (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

'We' have discussed no such thing. And you seem to have your sides mixed up; the subject of the article is facing facing due forward, while the dominant figures in the photo are facing left. Now, again, the image is displaced on your computer, not on the majority of screens that are online. And, again, placing the image there simply isn't logical. Please put the image back where it was and then discuss where to move it. This is per BRD and what you always require of others. The status quo had the image at the top right of the section, and you always require that people observe the status quo while something is being discussed. Please follow your own rules. Thank you. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 22:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that you consider your screen to be the benchmark for all editing, and the layout on screens other than yours to be of no importance. There are, however, other users here, and the best efforts should be made to accomodate all of them. Let's not be screen elitists.

Returning the image to where it was reinstates your preference. If I do so, what incentive will you have to discuss changes, and what alternative could you propose if I move it back that you can't put forward now? --G2bambino (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

What incentive do I have? I won't even dignify that with a response. I am trying to get you to do what you require everyone else to do when they make changes you don't like. Namely, restore the disputed part to the way it was so that discussion may work out the details. I'd remind you, again, that BRD requires this as well... so whether it's doing what you require from others, or doing what BRD requires, you're sort of bound to return the image to where it was no matter what. Please do so, and I will be happy to discuss alternatives. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 22:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Though you again seem to be tainting your efforts with self-beneficial interpretations of both the guidelines and my past words, I have none-the-less restored the image to its former location. Now, I've no alternatives other than to put it back from where I just moved it, the BRF navbox issue notwithstanding. What are your suggestions? --G2bambino (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly 'self-benificial' to ask that you a) abide by guidelines, and b) abide by what you expect others to do.

My suggestion is that you stop worrying about it. Formatting to make things perfect on your screen is something you have been informed--indeed, something you have told me--doesn't work, as far back as two or three years ago. The simple fact is, we don't have access here to full control over how a given page is going to look. We are limited in what we can do. If this were your own site, where you had complete control, you could define alternate layouts for different screen sizes, for example. We can't do that here. And so, we aim--as LAYOUT implies--to format pages so that they work well on the screen size & resolution that is used by the most people online.

The simple fact about this particular image move is that putting it anywhere else makes no sense. The photo is of Harry on parade at Sandhurst in 2005. The first paragraph discusses Harry at Sandhurst in 2005, and moves on chronologically to other things. There is no benefit served by moving the image anywhere else, much less formatting pages to fit one marginally used screen resolution.

Now, please restore the images you moved and removed, respectively, on EIIR and William's articles, as those too are subject to BRD. Thank you. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 23:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to repeat myself, with emphasis for clarity: you again seem to be tainting your efforts with self-beneficial interpretations of both the guidelines and my past words.

I'm sorry if it exasperates you, but I am not going to be a monitor snob and believe that images should be placed to benefit any one person. Neither of us has any idea what size screens the majority of Wikipedia users have, nor what resolution the majority of them are set to, nor how many of whom are on here at any given point of time. As with the rest of this project, image placement becomes an exercise in accommodation: if someone raises a concern about format or appearance, we do our best to address those concerns, within established guidelines, so that the end result is better than before, for more users than before. We are told that article layout is a matter of common sense, and nothing tells us that an image cannot be a paragraph away from the one it relates best to; the main guide is that it be inside the relevant section. I'm not going to say your desire to have the image right smack next to mention of Sandhurst is in any way unwarranted; however, as doing so causes layout issues, and it need not be exactly in that spot, I maintain that it should be placed where I had it before. Your suggestion that I not worry about it simply is not acceptable; I could put the image back and tell you to do the same. Where else, then, do you suggest the image go in order to satisfy everyone to the greatest possible extent? --G2bambino (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(out)I haven't tainted anything, I merely asked you to abide by the guidelines you frequently require of others. Good, now that's out of the way, perhaps we can actually focus on content. Seeing as there really is no logical reason not to have the image next to the paragraph it's illustrating, there's really no need to move it. Moving it to satisfy the layout concerns of a very small minority of internet users really doesn't make any sense, as it disturbs the logic of the page, and doesn't account for those using screen readers. — [ roux ] [x] 21:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Good, now that's out of the way... That type of flippant and dismissive attitude only serves to further aggravate. You are reading guidelines and my past words in a manner that benefits you, as opposed to in a way that moves things forward for the benefit of the project. Along those lines, you make claims about what the majority of Wikipedia users see; how are you aware of this statistic? You also imply that WP:ACCESS states an image must be placed not just within the relevant section, but within the relevant paragraph; where does it say such a thing? --G2bambino (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as I never said that, I would be hard pressed to show you where ACCESS says that. What I have said is that since ACCESS requires that images be within their sections, there is a logical inference that they should, where possible, also be beside the paragraphs they are illustrating. As for the statistic, please see this, which was first brought to your attention here. — [ roux ] [x] 21:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not say you said it; I said you implied it. Logical inferences are not guidelines, so let's not pretend they are. As the image does not have to go in the first paragraph, it can be moved elsewhere, should there be reason to do so. Your link says nothing about the majority of Wikipedia users, nor does it say that the opinions of people with different screen resolutions are dismissable. I have said to you that it being in the first paragraph causes it to collide with the BRF navbox. I propose shifting it down a paragraph in order to avoid this. You object. What other solutions do you propose? --G2bambino (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You yourself said that 'common sense' reigns. Common sense dictates that the image be placed next to the paragraph it is illustrating. Thank you. — [ roux ] [x] 22:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Common sense also says that white space is unprofessional. You're welcome (?). Will you, or will you not, acknowledge that there is a problem and work towards amicably solving it? --G2bambino (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem you state is not a problem on the majority of computer screens online. As such, it is minor, and logical/ACCESS concerns about placing the image beside the paragraph it is illustrating trump it--as even if the image is displaced on wide resolution screens, screen readers will still read in the correct order. — [ roux ] [x] 22:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem I state is a problem. If you will not acknowledge it as such, you are already standing in the way of resolution. As you admit that placing an image in a paragraph is only your extrapolation from WP:ACCESS, and that the guideline actually makes no mention of where in a paragraph the image should go, the argument is a red herring. --G2bambino (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a minor problem. And no, it's not a red herring, it's common sense. There's no need for the image to move, but I must say it's refreshing that you did do what you require of others. Please do the same at Elizabeth and William's articles so that discussion may actually commence. — [ roux ] [x] 22:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you may see it as a minor problem, but that doesn't mean I do, or anyone has to. Your sense isn't necessarily more common than mine, either. I will put the image back where I had it, and this will then have to go to a wider audience for input if you cause any future disruption. --G2bambino (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That is in direct violation of BRD, but go ahead if you want to. I'm not creating disruption; I'm attempting to discuss a contested edit. — [ roux ] [x] 22:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You are not discussing, you are attempting to lecture. Further, as you never reverted my move of the image to the second paragraph, right-side, BRD hasn't progressed past the bold phase. Thank you in advance for not causing disruption, then. --G2bambino (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(out)You may characterise my words however you like, it's your choice. The point remains that I didn't revert because I was trying to get you to do what you require of others, which is to revert one's own edits back to the status quo and discuss from there. — [ roux ] [x] 23:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems you've forgotten the part where it was shown to you that the status quo was the image in the infobox and you said you didn't want that. You then decided that where you had placed it, a scant day ago, was the status quo. I do not characterise your words; it is your actions that speak for themselves in this case. --G2bambino (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have this article confused with Prince William's. In any case, I'm tired of this discussion. As I said there, please re-read BRD and your repeated instructions to people that the status quo be observed during a discussion, and then re-examine your failure to observe either. I'm going to go have a nice dinner now. — [ roux ] [x] 23:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you responded before I could rectify my error. Pertaining to this page, I did revert to the status quo; however, you have since refused to discuss the issue, instead choosing to argue that there isn't an issue, which is rather what I thought you would do in the first place (hence, my original question about incentive). --G2bambino (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have not refused to discuss the issue. I have given my opinion on the issue. I have attempted to get you to understand it. Your refusal to do so isn't the same as me not discussing. So um, not really seeing what you mean. — [ roux ] [x] 23:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You can't discuss an issue you say doesn't exist. You may be of the opinion that placing the image where you want it doesn't cause any issue, but I am not insane in seeing that it does. As I said, if you're unwilling to even recognise a problem, there's no way you'll be able to participate in the finding of a solution. --G2bambino (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop twisting my words. I said the problem is minor, and trumped by other concerns. [ roux ] [x] 13:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

So you did. Eventually. I apologise then. The question, then, is: is whitespace a lesser problem than an image not being in the best associated paragraph? That aside, even, fixing the BRF navbox would solve this entire mess. --G2bambino (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. As for the infobox, I have made my opinion clear and await consensus at the template page. [ roux ] [x] 13:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

And I say no, and would rather move the image pending any future changes to the BRF navbox. But I will be patient, and wait a little longer to see what the outcome is there. --G2bambino (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Issues of accessibility outweigh any minor cosmetic issues. [ roux ] [x] 17:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they do, but you'd first have to prove there was an accessability issue. Your extrapolations from WP:ACCESS don't necessarily count as fact. --G2bambino (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(out) I really am sick to death of arguing ridiculous semantics with you. Seeing as nobody else has weighed in on your side after two days, it's clear that consensus is for the picture to remain where it is. Cheers. [ roux ] [x] 18:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Then, by all means, stop arguing, Roux. Nobody else has weighed in on "your side" either. The image will stay where it is because I said I will be patient and wait to see what happens with the BRF navbox. Let's see what can be done over there. --G2bambino (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. The image will stay where it is because that is the consensus. You want it moved, you need to change the consensus. [ roux ] [x] 18:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hardly. I'd need to work on resolving any isses anyone raised against a move. So far, that's only you. I will wait to see what happens with the navbox, and, pending the outcome of that, will see what needs to be done next here, whether or not that be taking this to a wider audience, as we've already reached the point of impasse here. --G2bambino (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Only me... and silence=consensus. So.. yeah, sorry, it stays because that's the consensus. You're the only one arguing for consensus to change, and you have no support. And that really is quite enough of your pedantry for me today. Cheers. [ roux ] [x] 18:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can change. You are the only one arguing for it to remain as is, and you have no support. Should the navbox not change, and you continue to revert my moving of the image to accomodate the navbox without white space, then the dispute has to go to the next level of conflict resolution. That is how a new consensus is formed under such circumstances.

So.. yeah, sorry... quite enough of your pedantry for me... I already mentioned earlier your flippant tone and sarcasm; I will remind you again that it only serves to aggravate. --G2bambino (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If you say so. [ roux ] [x] 19:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Some elements were removed from the lead recently; I restored them as they make the lead here consistent with those at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Charles, Prince of Wales, and Prince William of Wales. --G2bambino (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

And reverted. This material primarily belongs in British Royal Family and you have mischaracterized the article on the Queen, please do not do so again. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't follow you. I'm not sure what material you're talking about, nor what mischaracterisations. Further, you've put in reference to something called "the Commonwealth realm"; that does not exist. --G2bambino (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That's because the person at Talk hasn't contributed anywhere since then His contributions list says otherwise. Also, Roux, why did you revert my revert, but not User:UpDown's? SqueakBox had also removed the words "although he is resident in and most involved with the United Kingdom", which UpDown subsequently put back, without input here. --G2bambino (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh terribly sorry, he hasn't contributed since a short time after you posted your reply. Whatever. And I am so very sorry that I missed an edit. CAN YOU EVER FORGIVE ME? [ roux ] [x] 21:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

There. Us humans do make mistakes, you know. [ roux ] [x] 21:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed we do. --G2bambino (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)