Wikipedia

Talk:Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex/Archive 4

< Talk:Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Deb in topic Redirect note
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8

Arms

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

The description of the Arms omits the labels on the Supporters and Crest. The words 'the whole differenced .. etc..' relate to the Escutcheon and would be better placed there. Arms are 'Granted' not 'Adopted'. AnthonyCamp (talk) 10:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The Coat of Arms featured in the "Prince Harry" page is not the current one. The current Coat of Arms he uses features the Royal Victorian Order KCVO medal and the "VICTORIA" ringlet that was bestowed to him by HM The Queen on 4 June 2015. I hope that the posted Coat of Arms be replaced by the current one.--Ralph1300 (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Please give a citation. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
No. While You can display honours hung from a full achievement of arms it is not a requirement so the arms are not in anyway faulty for the lack of depiction. Very few COAs display them even though almost all royals and many peers are entitles to do so. Garlicplanting (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Why isn't there some consistency among the coat of arms for members of the British Royal Family? For example, the coats of arms for both Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall and Prince Michael of Kent show the ribbon of the Royal Victorian Order around the escutcheon and the order's insignia suspended at bottom. All members who have been award the Order of the Garter also show the ribbon. Why is Prince Harry the exception? (003FX (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC))

Individual articles on the English Wikipedia have different sets of editors who watch that page. The differences in who watches a page usually results in variations between pages. If you would like to change the manner in which all coats of arms are presented, you should build a consensus on a project page with some oversight of articles featuring coats of arms. Two reasons why this article includes the arms of Prince Harry without those honors are included above in this section. Acjelen (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Further reading section?

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

There is a free PDF that outlines Prince Harry's life quite well. Unfortunately the link is a blacklisted Lulu link. I understand why Lulu is blacklisted, because wikipedia doesn't want vanity works to be spammed, etc. However, this particular work is a free PDF download and it has an ISBN. We can add it for "further reading" and just list the ISBN and title, and author of course, but no link. The ISBN is 9781387546008. The work includes the first ever interview given by Prince Harry in 1998 and an outline of his official work and army career. --Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Who is it written by? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Vanity works still have ISBNs. Self-published works like this should not be added to any section. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
They can be depending upon the author of the work, which is why I asked who it is by. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
It's by Tatiana Coco and Ashley Michaels. I don't think they meet the conditions for inclusion because the works I can trace to them are all self-published. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming Move - Harry or Henry?

Latest comment: 6 years ago20 comments10 people in discussion

So when Harry gets the new Dukedom, we will be seeing a move. Given the prior discussions on whether the page should be Prince Harry, or Prince Henry of Wales, now that there definitely will be a new title, should we decide now whether we will use "Prince Henry, Duke of X", or "Prince Harry, Duke of X"? Sanctaria (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Media will refer to him as "the Duke of X" rather than "Prince Harry", so I would go with "Prince Henry, Duke of X". Firebrace (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Surely, we will simply match his brother? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Well naturally it'd follow the same pattern as that of William's page (Prince X, Duke of Y), but my question was specifically as to what "first" name we might move the page to (Henry or Harry), given the previous considerable debate on the matter (see above requests). My own personal preference would be Prince Henry, Duke of X, so I would agree with User:Firebrace above. Sanctaria (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think this is something we wikiproles get to decide here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
We do get a say in the wikipage name, though. I agree, it may *ultimately* depend on common usage, but I imagine based on precedent, the letters patent creating him a Duke will use Henry, so the wikipage should reflect that, at least at first. Sanctaria (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Although "Prince Invictus of Markle" does have quite a nice ring to it? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I cannot conceive of a reason that we would all suddenly start calling someone Henry rather than Harry. Dropping such a common, frequently used, and all-but universally understood English nickname seems to be unlikely. And if common usage does change, then we should change the name of the article. But we will move the article to Prince Harry, Duke of X long before that. Indeed, we will be doing it on May 19th. Acjelen (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Since marrying in 2011, William is more commonly referred to by UK media as "the Duke of Cambridge". After 19 May, "Prince Harry" will be dropped in favour of "the Duke of X" in all but the gutter press (Sun, Star, et al). The couple will be known as "the Duke and Duchess of X". Therefore we also can stop using "Harry" (no longer the most common name for that individual) and move this article to "Prince Henry, Duke of X". Firebrace (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Prince Harry's own parents continue to be known by the monikers 'Prince Charles' (his name/style prior to his investiture) and 'Princess Diana' (entirely a misconception/error) to this very day. While I am heartened that Duke of Cambridge is catching on, it is still Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. So too the imminent Duke of X will continue to be Prince Harry, Duke of X until we stop calling him (again, doubtfully) Harry. Acjelen (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
It's possible common usage will change though - the media referred to Prince William and Kate Middleton as "Wills & Kate" throughout their relationship, but when they were married they all moved to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. I suppose the below comment by Celia Homeford details the obvious and best course of action. I had started this section to (hopefully) come to consensus before the day of the marriage, but there will probably be too much disagreement. Sanctaria (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. Because there has been past debate about the best name for the page, and we can predict that someone will disagree with the chosen name, it should only be moved on the closure of a Requested move discussion. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
So once he's given a new title, there are probably going to be three options for the requested move:
  • Option A - Keep at "Prince Harry" (as that would still be his common name that most people would recognize)
  • Option B - Move to "Prince Henry, Duke of XXX" (as his official new title. Downside: he's much better known as Harry - see all the reasons that people voted for "Prince Harry" to be the page name in the last Requested Move.)
  • Option C - Move to "Prince Harry, Duke of XXX" (to include the last part of his new title.)
Hmmm, this'll be interesting. Paintspot Infez (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I think we should wait and see how the media commonly refer to him after the wedding. Outside of the non-WP:RS tabloid press, William is better known as "the Duke of Cambridge" than "Prince William", and if Harry is going to be referred to as "the Duke of X", with no mention of Harry or Henry, then it makes the Harry/Henry argument redundant and we can just use his official title (Prince Henry, Duke of X). Firebrace (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
How is Option B consistent with Prince Harry's brother, father, or uncles? When the Queen granted Prince William a title, we moved his page without issue by only adding the new title. The same should be done for Prince Harry. He'll still be best known as Prince Harry Saturday morning. Only later if common usage changes to 'Prince Henry' should we even consider changing the personal name and not only adding the title. Option C is the best choice. Acjelen (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Please see the requested move below. I think it's time. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
How about a new option Prince Henry (Harry), Duke of Sussex?Lotrjw (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 19 May 2018 (2)

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Closed as duplicate of the request above. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex → ? – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. 122.110.229.47 (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Intro

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Regardless of the article title, the intro should be Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex. AFAIK, his name didn't magically change nor did he become a different person, upon marriage. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I can find no reliable sources using the construction "Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex". Wikipedia shouldn't invent new names when common names exist. DrKay (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Change the source for Harry and Megan's title changes from news reports to the Kensington press release, cited below. https://www.royal.uk/prince-harry-and-ms-meghan-markle-announcement-titles 2601:14D:8602:5CD0:ADAF:C5DE:625D:6D1C (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with using news reports as a citation for the titles. MilborneOne (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I've never gotten people's obsession with replacing secondary news reports with the primary source documents; news sources reporting on it allow us to make sure we aren't misinterpreting or using out of context press releases and other issues like that Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I say use them all. HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Uses both is fine, I suppose, but people usually replace 'em Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The title of Prince Henry has just changed.

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Confirmed by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II this morning, His Royal Highness Prince Harry (Henry) has just been re-named 'His Royal Highness Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.210.10 (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

There's a lot of editors who just happen to be 'wild' about Harry :( GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

Latest comment: 6 years ago16 comments15 people in discussion
WP:SNOW Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

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.

How about a new option: Prince Henry (Harry), Duke of Sussex?Lotrjw (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2018 (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.

Intro

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex first name is 'Rachel' but she is best known as Meghan, so this article should remain as 'Harry' as even the official Royal website mentions his name as 'Prince Harry, Duchess of Sussex' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellomonday 1245675 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I highly doubt that they call him a duchess. Richard75 (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Good grief, ANYTHING but plain "Prince Harry"!

Latest comment: 6 years ago31 comments10 people in discussion

I'm not proposing a particular new title,so this doesn't rank as a "requested move". But the very IDEA of an article title that makes no reference to some royal person's dynasty/country/title is an insult to every royal of every other country. It just shouldn't be possible.12.144.5.2 (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. It's making Wikipedia look like the tabloid media. HiLo48 (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
True, and that's exactly how Wikipedia is supposed to behave: follow the sources, not lead them. So let's wait until the media, tabloid or others, adopt the royal title in routine coverage. WP:There is no deadline. — JFG talk 03:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
We can follow the sources AND write the content using better language than the tabloid journals. WP:RS says "Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications." That bolding of mine may rule out most journals that call him simply Prince Harry. HiLo48 (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
So in other words, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge should be moved to Prince William; Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh should be moved to Prince Phillip; and Elizabeth II should be moved to Queen Elizabeth? That is what you are saying, JFG - sources don't call them by the titles we have currently. This article is no longer consistent with the other Royal Family articles and it makes Wikipedia look like a bunch of dang fools. Corky 03:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
From a personal standpoint, I'm actually sympathetic to your opinion, and I don't condone the plain "Prince Harry". But my opinion, or yours, should carry very little weight, if any. Each of those cases can be discussed by editors independently from each other, in light of sourcing and policy. The most recent discussion was settled in favor of the "Prince Harry" title, and another discussion in a few months may well change it again. Irrespective of official titles by the Court Circular, the Wikipedian community has the last say. — JFG talk 06:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
In point of fact, royal website pages predominantly use "Harry" not "Henry", including The Royal Foundation[1], but after his being made Duke of Sussex, they are predominantly using "Duke of Sussex" without "Harry" or "Henry". The Wikipedia page Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex redirects to Prince Harry. If in future there is more frequent use of "Prince Henry", it would be reasonable to reconsider. Qexigator (talk) 07:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The idea that referring to the subject by the name the Palace and he himself use makes Wikipedia look like tabloid media or insults someone is the single most unreasonable thing I have seen repeated over and over again on Wikipedia. It is so ludicrous that I am embarrassed to address it. I had no idea that so many editors felt the need to prove themselves more Catholic than the pope. Surtsicna (talk) 07:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Surtsicna's interesting hyperbole reveals a longstanding contributor's feelings on the question, but "to prove themselves more Catholic than the pope" is so far off the mark that expressing it may be a source of embarrassment. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC).
Given that we are both in favor of calling him Harry, I will boldly assume that you have misunderstood my comment, Qexigator. Surtsicna (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you remember the words spoken by Francis Urquhart (Ian Richardson) as long ago as the 1990s: "you might very well think that, but of course I could not possibly comment."[2] Qexigator (talk) 06:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
What makes having NOTHING BUT "Prince Harry" be the article title an insult to all royals of all royal families other than his has nothing to do with official overuse of his nickname,it's the matter of the complete lack of a designation implying that it is understood that any prince belongs to his royal family with no further identification being necessary.We don't call Prince Aymeric of Belgium just "Prince Aymeric" even though no other dynasty has a prince of that name.12.144.5.2 (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Literally no article about a member of the British royal family refers to the United Kingdom in its title. Several articles do not contain any territorial designation at all, including Elizabeth II, Anne, Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy. The same is true for some members of other royal families. Some editors have been very vocal in their complaints that identifying British royals with the United Kingdom in article titles is "insulting" to Canadians, Australians, and a myriad of other Commonwealth nations. Now you are claiming that not doing so insulting to the rest of the world. The whole argument is silly. Surtsicna (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
In each case there is a designator of which Queen Elizabeth,which Princess Anne,which Princess Alexandra.To go completely without implies only one royal family exists.12.144.5.2 (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
No, nothing in the titles Elizabeth II, Anne, Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy indicates which royal family they belong to. Let's not fool ourselves. Surtsicna (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
What Princess Anne other than the British one is titled Princess Royal?...what Princess Alexandra other than the British one married an Ogilvy?...if you don't understand the importance of including something other than the bare name,you are fooling yourself.12.144.5.2 (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
And what Prince Harry other than the British one is called Prince Harry? Surtsicna (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
As I noted,what Prince Aymeric other than the Belgian one is called Prince Aymeric?...just plain "Prince [name]" should never ever be used for anyone.12.144.5.2 (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps Prince Aymeric should indeed be called simply Prince Aymeric. You are welcome to make your case at Talk:Prince Aymeric of Belgium. Community decisions so far have settled on plain names before. Much like we have a plain Prince Harry, we also have a plain Queen Victoria. We have even plainer Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI and Elizabeth II. Surtsicna (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
The only case to be made is against "Queen Victoria" (regnal numbers suffice to distinguish individuals in the cases with numbers).Communities that decide wrongly need education,not deification of herd mentality.12.144.5.2 (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
If "regnal numbers suffice to distinguish individuals", then surely we would have Leopold III instead of Leopold III of Belgium. The cases of Leopold III vs. Leopold III of Belgium and Prince Aymeric vs. Prince Aymeric of Belgium entirely parallel the cases of Elizabeth II vs Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and Prince Harry vs. [whatever it is that you are advocating]. If you believe that the community is wrong, present your case and reach a consensus. Saying that the community is wrong while presenting entirely incoherent arguments is not the way to go. Surtsicna (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a coherent argument in favor of plain "Prince [name]".12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Yawn. Surtsicna (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Qexigator and Surtsicna, you may have missed the point. It's not the Harry vs Henry thing that's the problem. It's the absence of any indication of why he has that Prince title. See Prince William, Duke of Cambridge for what I'm talking about. The "Duke of Cambridge" bit is important. Harry's article should be consistent with Wills' article. HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Why he has that Prince title? Guess he was born with it. Why he has that Duke title is because he just got married. — JFG talk 08:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Please read my comment again, all of it. You haven't really responded. HiLo48 (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
HiLo48 seems to have missed the point of my comment and the discussion generally, and added nothing to the discussion which has not already been considered. Qexigator (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I think there would have been a better chance of this and Megan's article would have been moved to other titles if a couple of Admins had let move discussions happen rather than taking unilateral action. ~ GB fan 13:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

"Prince Harry" alone - atrocious. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

For those tuning in late, the present situation is the result of a recent requested move (see above) that some of us think went awry in how the result was interpreted. I expected the resulting article title to be "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex", i.e. no consensus for change. However, others are reasonably arguing for us to wait-and-see, as to how coverage of Harry turns out. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm planning on opening up another RM in the coming days, with the options of Prince Harry or Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex. The previous RM developed into a three option discussion. My proposed RM, will have two options. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Section on parentage

Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

I am new to "editing" so I hope I'm proceeding correctly. The section on rumors about Prince Harry's parentage seems inappropriate as it is essentially gossip. The fact that individuals other than the person in question have responded to the rumor does not make inclusion valid in the person's biography. Thanks. PursuitOfPerfect (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You have made a good point. Neither Harry nor his parents have never even acknowledged the existence of these rumors, let alone commenting on them. I suggest we move the section to the article about James Hewitt. That would be the best thing to do in my opinion. Keivan.fTalk 20:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
"never complain, never explain" Doesn't look much like his father, doesn't he? Fortunately Cosmo has the truth with some photographic evidence. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps we can retain it in a less intrusive footnote? I'm not sure we can kill it off entirely. DrKay (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
We're actually happy to use the Daily Mirror as a source?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I kept it in because the BBC source refers to it. DrKay (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Presumably not in a "we-wouldn't-publish-this-speculative-rubbish" sort of way. Doesn't seems totally unreasonable, although some RS hardliners might complain. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I never understood the rumors. IMHO, Harry looks more like Charles, then William does. As for William? he resembles his uncle Edward. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but he also looks a lot like Diana. Harry doesn't look much like either Diana or Charles, in my opinion. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Surely it's time to drop the blatant original research. It's not encyclopaedic. HiLo48 (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
This isn't original research., it's WP:FORUM. But thanks for the reminder. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Redirect note

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Ivanvector and I seem to be having a disagreement over the redirect note. The intent of Template:Redirect is "to reduce confusion by helping users get to their intended page if they were redirected to another page while, for example, searching for a topic".

Prince Harry is the target of many redirects, and we can't include notes for all of them. Also, he is no longer known by his Wales title today. As such, I recommend that we switch to his Sussex title and remove references to his Wales title.

Current: "Prince Harry of Wales" redirects here. For other princes called Henry or Harry, see Prince Henry (disambiguation). For Princes of Wales called Henry or Harry, see Henry, Prince of Wales.

Proposed: "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" redirects here. For other princes called Henry or Harry, see Prince Henry (disambiguation).

This is the edit that I submitted (and which was reverted). However, after considering it further, I'm not even sure whether we need the "Duke of Sussex" reference at all. "Prince Harry" is a simple search term, and it is already the article title. If anything, we should just say, "For other princes called Henry or Harry, see Prince Henry (disambiguation)." Thoughts? Edge3 (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Shortest version is best, keep just the "other princes called Henry or Harry" part. — JFG talk 09:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
For the record, the hatnote I restored was the work of Paintspot in three edits ([3], [4], [5]) about a week ago. The problem is that Prince Harry of Wales and Prince Henry of Wales are still redirects to this page, so we need a navigation note for readers who are looking for a different Harry of Wales or Henry of Wales; they are listed at Henry, Prince of Wales. We don't need the second note, it's obvious that Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex redirects here, and it's reasonably obvious that nobody is going to search for "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" when they are looking for a different individual.
The problem, really, is that the various "Prince Henry of Wales" redirects are not synchronized. If there isn't one already, I'm going to open a discussion thread at WP:RFD aobut that, and the result will inform a discussion about what hatnote should be in use here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
No, no, no, no! Prince Henry of Wales is not at all the same as Henry, Prince of Wales! Harry is actually the only person that has ever been called "Prince Harry of Wales", and there are only a handful who have been Prince Henry of Wales.Deb (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Good idea on the RFD! Edge3 (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree we should keep the present hatnote for reasons put forward by Ivanvector. PatGallacher (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Thanks for the added information. In that case, I would write For other princes, see Prince Henry and Henry, Prince of Wales. Short and clear. — JFG talk 09:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@JFG: That's a great idea! I completely agree that it's much clearer now. Edge3 (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prince_Harry,_Duke_of_Sussex/Archive_4&oldid=849181921"