Talk:Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Updated Coat of Arms

As the Child of a Sovereign, The Duke of Sussex's label becomes one of only three points. I would assume that the Spencer escallop will be on the centre point. I am not sure if this change needs to be ratified by the College of Arms, or if it was automatic, like that of his father and brother. 2601:646:8D00:4AC0:29B2:1351:7A19:D98A (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Should have been automatic. The three points that remain are to have escallops on them. https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/news-grants/grants/item/71-coat-of-arms-prince-william 2603:6080:4500:71AF:4C4B:4A83:AEC3:65F (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Changing the title (duke of Sussex) to (duke of York)

The (duke of York) title is normally given to the 2nd son of the monarch 130.105.162.36 (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

When and if that happens, we'll change the article then. Not before. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Rather difficult to do IP. His uncle Prince Andrew, Duke of York, is still alive. GoodDay (talk) 05:24, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The change will not happen, I would think, until Andrew dies and the title returns to the crown. 125.237.50.18 (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Harry will not become Duke of York unless the title is specifically given to him by the monarch. He did not automatically become Duke of York upon the Queen's passing, nor will he "inherit" the title when Andrew dies. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2022

Harry is listed as Henry twice. 2603:8090:702:4B92:B927:72D7:B68C:3442 (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: His birth name is Henry, so likely not an error. Please point out where Henry is used incorrectly. RudolfRed (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Job/new career

Podcaster Elviralustre11 (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Employed my Spotify as a podcaster Elviralustre11 (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Move the article from Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex to Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex

His actual name is Prince Henry so the article should be named accordingly. RayAdvait (talk) 07:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONAME. We title the article with the name that reliable sources use the most, not necessarily the most "correct" name. WP:OFFICIALNAME also explains this point. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Spelling error

In one element Windsor is spelle Windor Not allowed to edit it. Rhaugli (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Please be more specific. I can't see it. DrKay (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Title

As a child of the sovereign, he should be referred to as "The Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" rather than simply "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex". 86.10.191.53 (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

We don't put "The" in the article title. You can make a note of this under the titles section. cookie monster 755 17:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Why? That’s the correct format of the title other formats are wrong. The correct title is Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex Theeveralst (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The children of the monarch can have the definitive article "The" attached to their names to distinguish them from low ranking princes and princesses. Which is why Elizabeth II's three younger children are technically The Princess Anne, The Prince Andrew, and The Prince Edward, alternatively known as the Princess Royal, the Duke of York, and the Earl of Wessex. Keivan.f^Talk 05:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Issue - Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet as both now grandchildren of the current King, Charles III. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.179.78 (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is moot. According to the British Royal Monarchy, he is no longer a Prince and has not been one since 2018. "The Queen has today been pleased to confer a Dukedom on Prince Henry of Wales. His titles will be Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel. Prince Harry thus becomes His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex, and Ms. Meghan Markle on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex." (My italics, for emphasis.) Source: (Published May 19, 2018.) Note that this was published the very day of his wedding. The Queen pulled his Prince title because he married Markle, but gave him the dukedom so as not to cut him off from the royals completely. The wikipedia article already references him ceding his HRH honorific in 2020, which makes his current official title simply "Harry, Duke of Sussex", or "Duke Harry of Sussex". He is neither Prince, nor HRH, and the Royal website is (reasonably) consistent in referring to him only has Duke of Sussex. (Note that this ref has not been updated since the passing of the Queen.) Wikipedia should follow suit if accuracy is what we are after here, and this entry's title should be changed to reflect his actual title. The content of the article should be changed as well, referring to him by his current title or as "former Prince Harry" or "then Prince Harry" as appropriate to each reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.176.124.25 (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Addendum: Interestingly, I just found this on the royal website as well, regarding the royals surname. "The Royal Family name of Windsor was confirmed by The Queen after her accession in 1952. However, in 1960, The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh decided that they would like their own direct descendants to be distinguished from the rest of the Royal Family (without changing the name of the Royal House), as Windsor is the surname used by all the male and unmarried female descendants of George V.

It was therefore declared in the Privy Council that The Queen's descendants, other than those with the style of Royal Highness and the title of Prince/Princess, or female descendants who marry, would carry the name of Mountbatten-Windsor." Since Harry is not a Prince, and not allowed to use the HRH, his surname according to the Royal Privy Council is now Mountbatten-Windsor. This should also be reflected in the title of this article, which I suggest ought to be something along the lines of "Harry (or Henry) Mountbatten-Windsor, Duke of Sussex". 199.176.124.25 (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

What you write about Harry no longer being a prince is completely incorrect. The fact that he was given a Dukedom doesn't mean his lost his title of prince. There is ample precedent for that: as male line grandsons of the monarch (in case George V) the current Dukes of Kent and Gloucester are today also still Princes. A Dukedom is conferred (or later inherited) due to letters patent creating the Dukedom. The title of "prince" (or princess) is one which is conferred to the fact that one is a child of a British monarch or a male line grandchild (or the child of the monarch's eldest's son's eldest son). So one can be both a Duke and a Prince at the same time. But whereas Dukedoms devolve through the male line untill extinct, the title "prince" is since 1917 according to the rules established by George V in the UK strictly coupled to the fact of how distantly related one is to a monarch. Meaning that when the current Dukes of Kent or Gloucester die, their heirs will inherit the Dukedom but the Dukedom will seize to be a Royal Dukedom and become an ordinary Dukedom and the titleholders will not (as they aren't today either) be princes. Which of course has no conseqsuences with regards to their place an,d right to be in line to the throne.

In 1917 George V through letters patent altered the rights to the title prince and the style Royal Highness. These letters patent, dated 30 November 1917, stated that "the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign (as per the above Letters Patent of 1864) and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (a modification of the Letters Patent of 1898) shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour". It was also decreed in these letters that "grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line ... shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes of these Our Realms" (i.e., Lord or Lady before their Christian name). In addition the letters stated save as aforesaid the style title or attribute of Royal Highness, Highness or Serene Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess shall not henceforth be assumed or borne by any descendant of any Sovereign of these Realms.

On 31 December 2012, Elizabeth II amended these rules in such a way that all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, at that time Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and not only his eldest son, would have the title Prince or Princess and the style Royal Highness. This meant that not only George (as would have been the case under the rules established by George V) but also Charlotte and Louis were born as prince, whereas Archie and Lilibet weren’t. It’s only upon the accession of their grandfather that the latter as male line grandchildren of the (new) sovereign fulfilled the criteria to become “prince”.-- fdewaele, 13 October 2022, 15:53. Fdewaele (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Prince Harry is not & never has been a qualified pilot in any aircraft

Prince Harry is not and never has been a licensed helicopter pilot nor can he pilot any other aircraft. Harry tried to become certified as a helicopter pilot, but after training for three years to become an Army Air Corps Pilot, he quit. Harry has only ever qualified as a co-pilot gunner. But he’s not qualified to fly a helicopter or any other craft.

Prince Philip, King Charles III, Prince Andrew, and Prince William are all licensed pilots, and even the The Duchess of York, aka Fergie, was at one time a licensed helicopter and airplane pilot. William is a qualified helicopter pilot and flew search & rescue missions during his first year of marriage while living in Wales. He still pilots himself, staff members, and his family in a helicopter. 173.66.182.21 (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The article seems to say otherwise, with sources: "Prince Charles presented him with his flying brevet (wings) on 7 May 2010 at a ceremony at the Army Air Corps Base (AAC), Middle Wallop.[57] Harry was awarded his Apache Flying Badge on 14 April 2011.[58] Dhtwiki (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Accuracy of the article

I edited the ‘is’ part to was at the start of the article cause he exited the royal family in 2021 EditorGood (talk) 10:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

We use 'was' for deceased people, which he is not. He is still a member of the royal family. He just doesn't work for them. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Polo Record

Since Prince Harry has played lots of Polo, shouldn't we make an effort to collate his matches onto a chronological table in the Wiki? JacksonFolly (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Intro needs rewrite

I would invite you to compare the Wikipedia entries for both Harry and Meghan and compare them to those for the Duke and Duchess of Windsor.

Harry and Meghan — for good or ill — will go down in history for their break and on-going hostilities with the British royal family.

The Invictus Games, Meghan’s time on Suits are really side issues.

These entries are straining credulity and journalistic integrity. The estrangement with the royal family is at the heart of their celebrity and importance. To read their Wikipedia entries is to exist in a parallel universe. It’s time to get honest and do a re-write of both entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalbrian (talk • contribs) 04:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ceremony of Welcome for TRH The Duke and Duchess of Sussex (16).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Loss of virginity

Harry tells us that he lost his virginity, at the age of 17, to an "older woman". Plenty of secondary sources. e.g. The Daily Telegraph: "Prince Harry lost virginity in field behind pub with woman who treated him 'like a stallion'." Should this be mentioned? 86.187.160.118 (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I’ve added it, thank you :D Scientelensia (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

and what about his statement in his book that he was circumcised as a baby? 2A02:8440:5218:FC6:F540:EB4F:7ACB:DA2D (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Missing information

This is the cleanest, most white-washed, empty Wikipedia entry, ever. Missing: Controversy; proven mistruths in Oprah interview; the archbishop making a statement denouncing their early marriage claim, the discrepancy about where they met (the story for years was it was a blind date;) Harry dressed as a Nazi; Harry’s bigoted comments about Middle Easterners, Pakistanis and gays; strip poker in Las Vegas, etc…. 2601:5C2:8600:6550:CD61:ECE3:93A4:ED9D (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article? The Nazi uniform, Las Vegas photos, the discrepancy about how they met, the early vows claim (though it doesn't say the Archbish "denounced" the claim, though I'm not sure he actually said that) are all in there. Do you have reliable sources on the "bigoted" remarks. If so, suggest you put them forward. There's a lot on the Oprah interview. If you have sources on the "proven mistruths" then put them forward. However, we have high thresholds for any living persons biographies, not just this one: see WP:BLP. Tabloid tat isn't good enough. DeCausa (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Add most relevant information about Prince Harry to Introduction

Suggest a sentence be added to last sentence in the intro: "Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle announced in January 2020 that they were stepping back from their royal duties, and they are currently estranged from the royal family."

Note: A reader should not have to get through most of this biographic entry about Prince Harry to find the most relevant and most significant information about him. 72.80.197.42 (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

As a point of reference, the Wikipedia article on King Edward VIII mentions his changed role within the royal family in the introductory paragraph. Globalbrian (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Father

Has there been any anthropological studies about the level of probability that he is really the biological son of his father? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.144.244.89 (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we can categorically saythat he is the biological son of his father! DeCausa (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Epstein Prince Andrew scandal

Prince Harry becomes first royal to publicly address Prince Andrew's links to Jeffrey Epstein. He has become the first royal to publicly criticise Prince Andrew, labelling the Jeffrey Epstein affair "a shameful scandal". 93.211.215.213 (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Intro-resignation from army.

The introduction says that in 2015 he resigned from the army. This is repeated later in the text where it says he resigned his short service commission at that time. Howver it continues a bit later to say " In May 2018, he was promoted to the substantive ranks of Lieutenant Commander of the Royal Navy, Major of the British Army and Squadron Leader of the Royal Air Force."

Thats not altogether consistent. Surely he cannot be promoted if he doesnt already hold a rank. Was he actually wholly a civilian with no military rank after 2015, or did he merely resign frrom active service? I seem to recall other retired military officers still holding nominal rank? Struck me there might be a technical error here. Sandpiper (talk) 11:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth and Prince Harry.

The photo of the Seychelles stamp is captioned “Harry with his great-grandmother”. Surely Queen Elizabeth is his grandmother. Or did I miss someone between her and Charles, or between Charles and Harry? 65.95.146.153 (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

That photo is of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, wife of George VI, mother of Elizabeth II and thus Harry's great-grandmother. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Riven Rock

"the former estate of Riven Rock". Is there any significance to Harry of what Riven Rock used to be? Can we just say "at Riven Rock"? Nurg (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Early life

After footnote 10, suggest adding: “According to Harry’s memoir, the purpose of his birth was to provide blood and spare organs for his older brother William, should he require them.” (Spare, 2023, unknown page.) Globalbrian (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

“I was summoned to provide backup, distraction, diversion and, if necessary, a spare part. Kidney perhaps. Blood transfusion. Speck of bone marrow.” (From Harry’s memoir “Spare,” Penguin Random House, 2023.) Globalbrian (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2023

Under public image section towards the end it’s brazenly biased with tabloid sources. Ridiculous 2603:7081:1500:4767:6C99:E5C6:5A3D:68AE (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Bias in this Wikipedia entry

Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex

I have submitted multiple suggestions for additions under the Prince Harry “talk page,” but my comments go unevaluated and disappear without communication or comment. I believe that the individuals who “own” the Harry and Megan entries have an intentional or unintentional bias towards Harry and Meghan by “burying” the controversy, which will very likely be the signature set of events in their lives, and placing so much of the articles’ content and emphasis, that while true, is less salient to their affect on public life in the U.K. and abroad.

=====> I am suggesting that an outside panel of Wikipedia experts not involved with writing or editing the entries for both Harry and Meghan should evaluate their content and editorial emphasis and judgment.

======> For example, the introduction includes mentions Archewell and The Me You Can’t See series, and the Oprah interview ) but completely fails to mention the huge charge and impact of racism charge against the Royal Family that was only recently recanted.

The articles also fail to match up Harry and Meghan’s version of events told through interviews and his book, and charges against the Monarchy (including Charles, Camilla, William, and Catherine), and the British media, with the public record.

Specifically: In Wikipedia, the abdication crisis of 1936 is mentioned in the introduction of the entries of both Edward VIII and the Duchess of Windsor (Wallis Simpson).

Why should a reader be wading through most of Harry and Meghan’s entries to find out they are causing controversy within, and are estranged members of, the British monarchy?

Globalbrian (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi User:Globalbrian.

Looking at your suggestions above, Section “Early life”, posted 11 & 16 Jan 2023, maybe. However, the book “Spare” probably should not be taken as an unbiased, or as a reliable source. Instead, wait for secondary sources to comment on new information revealed in “Spare”.

I have just minutes ago slowed the archiving of talk page threads from 21 days to 180 days.

—- SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Estranged is a state and a feeling. Harry described his feelings. That’s a valid source of his state of mind. He and Meghan left the UK to get away from his family.

What I’m trying to point out is that Harry and Meghan have an adversarial relationship with the Royal Family. If the Wikipedia community working on their entries thinks his self-help documentary and how much money she made off of The Tig are the most important call-outs, then I can’t help you. I can guarantee that their leaving their positions as working royals, leaving the UK, and making the Netflix reality series about their truth and their journey and the controversy they’ve cause will be in the very first paragraph of their obituaries. Globalbrian (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

but completely fails to mention the huge charge and impact of racism charge against the Royal Family that was only recently recanted ?

Can you link a reliable source for the huge change, and the impact? This sort of thing is opinion of perception, and needs a reliable secondary source, or else it can become editorialising by Wikipedia editors. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Harry was on CBS’s 60 Minutes on Sunday, January 8, 2023 to promote Spare. Interviewer Anderson Cooper asked Harry about H+M’s charge during the Oprah interview that the Royal Family is racist. Harry said they had never called the family racist, and that’s a conclusion and charge the media made. He then went on to say the RF isn’t racist — nearly two years after this bombshell controversy. In all that time neither Harry nor Meghan saw fit to clarify the Oprah interview comment. Globalbrian (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, but neither “Spare” nor the Oprah interview are independent of the subject of the article. Non independent sources are to be avoided, unless there are other sources, reliably published, that comment on the content of the non independent source. This Wikipedia article must not be allowed to be a book analysis of “Spare”, or an Oprah interview analysis. I think I see where you are coming from, and it is forbidden by Wikipedia’s core content policies, especially WP:NOR. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

UK Daily Express, Wed. Feb 1, 2023

Another problem the royals would likely address [if there are meetings to clear the air]…is why the Duke and Duchess of Sussex did not immediately correct reports accusing the Royal Family of racism following their interview with Oprah Winfrey.

She said: "He let this statement fester for almost two years, he did not correct it after the Oprah interview. And I think that's particularly hurtful [for the royals], he didn't put out a statement the day it happened."

Speaking with Ms Winfrey in early 2021, Meghan reported there had been conversations at the Palace regarding her firstborn Archie Harrison not being given the title of Prince and security.

The interviewer asked her: "You certainly must have had some conversations with Harry about it and have your own suspicions as to why they didn’t want to make Archie a prince. What are those thoughts? Why do you think that is? Do you think it’s because of his race? And I know that’s a loaded question, but..."

The Duchess, pregnant with Lilibet Diana at the time, replied: "But I can give you an honest answer. In those months when I was pregnant, all around this same time... so we have in tandem the conversation of 'He won’t be given security, he’s not going to be given a title' and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born."

This claim prompted a shocked reaction by Ms Winfrey.

The statement in response to the interview issued by Buckingham Palace seemingly referred to this issue, as it read: "The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning."

While both the Duke and Duchess of Sussex remained silent on the issue between 2021 and 2022, Harry fought back the claim he or Meghan had ever accused the Royal Family of racism.

In an interview promoting the release of the memoir Spare, ITV's Tom Bradby said: "You talk about accountability, in the Oprah interview you accused members of your family of racism, you don’t even…"

Harry replied: "No, I didn't. The British press said that. Did Meghan ever mention they are racist?"

The Duke added that, having lived within his family, he would not describe the comment on Archie's skin colour as "essentially racist".

He continued: "Going back to the difference between what my understanding is because of my own experience, the difference between racism and unconscious bias, the two things are different. Globalbrian (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I have provided quality sources from The Washington Post and The New York Times in a separate posting dated February 5, 2023. Globalbrian (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

RE the archived Talk:Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex/Archive 8#Intro needs rewrite

I think I see what you mean. But the problem is that Harry is current affairs, and Edward is history. It is hard to have quality sources that contextualise current affairs. Can you suggest some good sources? Wikipedia must follow quality sources, never lead them. Beware citogenesis.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Globalbrian, you seem to have a few misapprehesions as to how Wikipedia articles are edited. No one "owns" this article. It's sort of crowdsourced for want of a better word i.e. anyone, meaning the general public, can edit it provided they (in this casebecause of vandalism) have a minimal number of edits credited to a registered account. The general public's editing is regulated only by consensus on this talk page and by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you put forward suggestions previously that no one who passed by the talk page of this article (potentially from the stats that's c.30 people a day) thought worthwhile or agreed with then those suggestions won't be going anywhwere. you can edit directly the article provided that none of the 30k daily viewers of the page reverted you. We don't have an "outside panel of Wikipedia experts" to swoop in and "fix" articles. It's either done by the general public or it doesn't happen. SmokeyJoe says "I think I see what you mean". I don't. It's not clear to mean what you perceive the problem to be. May be if you were clearer you'd get more support for what you want changed. DeCausa (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I’ll collect some public opinion data from reputable sources with random sampling to compare pre- and post- controversy in the UK and the US, with age cohorts where available. Also, perhaps search data for Royal Family and racism. Globalbrian (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

If you take a look at the Wikipedia entry for US Congressman George Santos, you’ll see that it mentions directly in the intro section the lying controversy in which he is involved. It’s not history. It’s happening right now, and George Santos is alive.

Again, why a different standard for Harry and Meghan their entries. They are members of the Royal Family living in self-imposed exile. It is now elemental to who they are. Globalbrian (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The difference is sources. The George Santos article has quality sources directly covering his lying controversy.

We do not have a quality source that says, plain and simple, that Harry is estranged from his family. You are conducting WP:SYNTH. This is not ok, if it were, Wikipedia would become the worlds primary reference for the estrangement. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The New York Times, January, 9, 2023 — (author Mark Landler is London Bureau Chief of NYT)

Prince Harry’s Bridge-Burner of a Memoir Signals a Bigger Royal Rift

The self-exiled royal has given the world a warts-and-all look at his family — with an emphasis on the warts.

Excerpt:

With Harry and his wife, Meghan, estranged and living in Southern Calif-ornia; the king’s disgraced younger brother, Andrew, in internal exile following his settlement of a sexual assault lawsuit; and the death of Queen Elizabeth II (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/08/world/europe/queen-elizabeth-dead.html) last

September, the family’s senior ranks have dwindled to a handful of figures. Globalbrian (talk) 06:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Source “Estranged”

Time Magazine:

Prince Harry Alleges William Assaulted Him. What to Know About the Claims in Spare

BY CHAD DE GUZMAN AND ARMANI SYED

UPDATED: JANUARY 6, 2023 8:13 AM EST | ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED: JANUARY 4, 2023 11:59 PM EST

After estranged British Prince Harry and his brother Prince William appeared together after their grandmother’s death last September, it may have seemed like the feuding royals would put the worst of their differences behind them. Not so fast. Globalbrian (talk) 06:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Here are some quality sources:

January 9, 2023 at 08:21 ET
LONDON — “Prince Harry, the memoirist and estranged son of the House of Windsor, launched a full broadside against Buckingham Palace on Sunday and Monday, appearing in more interviews to promote his new book…” (The Washington Post)

January 9, 2024

With Harry and his wife, Meghan, estranged and living in Southern California; the king’s disgraced younger brother, Andrew, in internal exile following his settlement of a sexual assault lawsuit; and the death of Queen Elizabeth II last September, the family’s senior ranks have dwindled to a handful of figures. (The New York Times)

January 2, 2024

Harry, 38, has previously spoken about his estrangement from his father, King Charles III, and elder brother Prince William since his departure from the U.K.

(AP News)

Jan. 6, 2023. Prince Harry alleges in a much-anticipated new memoir that his brother Prince William lashed out and physically attacked him during a furious argument over the brothers' deteriorating relationship. The book "Spare" also included incendiary revelations about the estranged royal's drug-taking, first sexual encounter and role in killing people during his military service in Afghanistan.” (CTV News/Associated Press)

Dec 7, 2021 — As he continues his Californian lifestyle, the Duke of Sussex could not seem more estranged from the House of Windsor he once rallied behind. (The Telegraph UK)

Dec 11, 2022 — “What is clear is that a cheeky, fun-loving boy has grown in

to an introspective, embittered man – estranged from his family…” (The Telegraph UK) Globalbrian (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll respond to this more in depth, but I do appreciate the reply. I do think it is ironic that you believe Harry's memoir is an unreliable source of information about his life == I greatly agree. And while Harry is indeed still alive, I don't know why it's necessary for him to die to have the least bit of context about his life in the introduction. He has a top best seller, the Netflix series was top rated, and H+M and their discontent has been a massive ongoing news story for over two years. To say that at this point that all of the controversy and their estrangement might not end up being a very big deal is to suspend all disbelief and editorial judgment. No historian is saying Archewell and The Me Nobody Can See are important, but there they are featured prominently -- it's plain silly. My simple suggestion in this discussion area a couple of weeks ago that H+M's intros state that the are "estranged" members of the Royal Family -- one single word that is accurate beyond any standard was not commented on and disappeared into the ether.

Again, I'll respond in a more detailed way, but I maintain there is an overall bias in their entries that minimizes the impact and import of the couple's statements and actions. I would also want to know whether any of the community contributing to their entries are paid PR professionals or individuals whose work has a monetary stake in association with the couple. I would think this should be a disqualifier. Thank you. 72.80.197.42 (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

You have replied while logged out and signed as an IP. Are you User:Globalbrian? If yes, can you please sign your posts with “Globalbrian” so we know who it posting?

Your latest post is not more depth nor more detailed. It is rhetoric without reliable sources. What content currently in the article is based on a biased source? What is a better source that should be used? What source can you prefer to support “estranged” as a method or style of introduction? It sounds ok, but Wikipedia must not do WP:Voice of Wikipedia, it must point to sources that guide this writing. Eg, do you proffer this? It does not actually make the statement. This? “Prince Harry may be currently estranged from his brother, Prince William, and father …”? The “may be” kills it as a useful source for your suggestion. Can you give use a source that clearly bolds states that Harry and Meghan *are* estranged from the Royal Family? Weak may might could statements are not enough. Logic, WP:SYNTH, is not ok. Asserting conclusions of editors is not good enough.

On the other side, you might like to point to something in the article that is not attributable to a reliable source, which should be cut..

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary online, the definition of “estranged” is:

having lost former closeness and affection : in a state of alienation from a previous close or familial relationship

This is a 100% bullseye. In the 1/8/2023 interview with Anderson Cooper, Harry said he hasn’t spoken to his brother “in a long time.” In Spare, he called Camilla “the villain”, and he said William is his “arch-nemesis “.

Merriam-Webster-Webster’s definition of “archnemesis” is: archenemy, a chief enemy.

Globalbrian (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH. “ Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.” SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Those comments all come from Harry directly on how he feels about his family members. Why does it matter that it wasn’t all said in one mouthful? Globalbrian (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The Time Magazine piece sourced above from Jan 6 , 2023 is a single source and describes Harry as “estranged” in the first sentence.

Time Magazine follows standard journalistic practice with inverted pyramid style — present information from most important to least important. Globalbrian (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

https://time.com/6244729/prince-harry-william-altercation-spare-book/

“After estranged British Prince Harry and his brother Prince William appeared together after their grandmother’s deathlast September …”. Ok, that’s one. Are there more? SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I've offered you multiple sources — The New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, Canadian television. Where do we go from here? Globalbrian (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Suggest adding sentence to Introduction

Self-exile

Suggest adding sentence: “Prince Harry currently lives in self-exile in California”

The Spectator (UK) — January, 2023

Harry and Meghan have for some time been pitching themselves as a more modern alternative to the corrupt, jealous, borderline-racist institution in London. Self-exiled in California, the House of Sussex has engaged in all sorts of fashionable causes. For all their resentment of press intrusion, they have sought to build a media business out of their identity – with podcasts, television interviews, books and Netflix shows. Globalbrian (talk) 06:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

No. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 07:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Nope. GoodDay (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I certainly understand why someone who wishes Canada to be a republic would support your viewpoint. Globalbrian (talk) 11:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

What does my being a republican, have to do with opting to oppose your proposal? GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you might have a bias towards sanitizing Harry's entry because he is a powerful critic of the Royal Family, which you clearly oppose. It is for you and the community to judge whether this is a valid concern. 72.80.197.42 (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment above is from Globalbrian Globalbrian (talk) 09:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

That's a tricky slope. A discussion over NPoV was brought up weeks ago, at Prince Andrew, Duke of York's page. GoodDay (talk) 03:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Suggested addition to Introduction

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.

---

Request for edit to semi-protected section

Append sentence to introduction section:

“Prince Harry is currently estranged from the royal family.”

January 9, 2023 at 08:21 ET
LONDON — “Prince Harry, the memoirist and estranged son of the House of Windsor, launched a full broadside against Buckingham Palace on Sunday and Monday, appearing in more interviews to promote his new book…” (The Washington Post)

January 9, 2024 With Harry and his wife, Meghan, estranged and living in Southern California; the king’s disgraced younger brother, Andrew, in internal exile following his settlement of a sexual assault lawsuit; and the death of Queen Elizabeth II last September, the family’s senior ranks have dwindled to a handful of figures. (The New York Times)

January 2, 2024 Harry, 38, has previously spoken about his estrangement from his father, King Charles III, and elder brother Prince William since his departure from the U.K. (AP News)

Jan. 6, 2023. Prince Harry alleges in a much-anticipated new memoir that his brother Prince William lashed out and physically attacked him during a furious argument over the brothers' deteriorating relationship. The book "Spare" also included incendiary revelations about the estranged royal's drug-taking, first sexual encounter and role in killing people during his military service in Afghanistan.” (CTV News/Associated Press)

Dec 7, 2021 — As he continues his Californian lifestyle, the Duke of Sussex could not seem more estranged from the House of Windsor he once rallied behind. (The Telegraph UK)

Dec 11, 2022 — “What is clear is that a cheeky, fun-loving boy has grown in to an introspective, embittered man – estranged from his family…” (The Telegraph UK)

August 29, 2022 — Sources tell RadarOnline.com that Prince Harry's estranged family was not given a heads up about Meghan's bombshell sitdown…” (radaronline.com) Globalbrian (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Is that really valuable to his biography? And so important it needs to go in the lede? It reads a bit like a headline, and Wikipedia isn't a nswspaper. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd say it's more relevant than his mental health documentary that got minimal viewing. Currently a reader has to wade through most of this entry to find out Harry is a of a multi-year media controversy that has left him estranged from his family and in a position that a bill to strip him of his titles is about to be introduced into the House of Commons. It is my contention that this Wikipedia entry lacks balance. It is Harry's alienation from the Royal Family that will go down in history, rather than his merely being a prince. I appear to be in the minority here, but I am confident that this entry will look more and more odd with the passage of time in its concealments and minimizing of unflattering information about Harry. Globalbrian (talk) 06:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

See WP:CRYSTALBALL. "Expressing my personal view on this" isn't the definition of "neutral". Maybe something could be said about "strained relations" or "friction". But, "estranged" means "no longer close or affectionate" and neither we nor the media really know whether anyone in the family feels affection for Harry and vice-versa or not. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 07:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Then, you're editorializing. The exact word used in news articles from reputable sources is "estranged." Why are you looking to water it down and making it less precise? Globalbrian (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not Wikiquote. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what argument you're making. I was pointing out that there isn't a basis for not using the actual description in the articles. Why would a separate characterization add accuracy or precision? Globalbrian (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

There's a bill pending in the House of Commons, to strip him of his titles? GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Will be introduced this month. Globalbrian (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if I've heard of such a thing as this, occurring in the past. There was a Act passed for King Edward VIII's abdication & an Act removing titles from members of the British royal family, who took up arms against the UK. But this bill seems unique. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It certainly will be. Globalbrian (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/should-parliament-strip-the-sussexes-of-their-titles/ Globalbrian (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Globalbrian, this is the Duke of Sussex's bio page. Not a news page. PS - Why do you have two future dates in your proposal? GoodDay (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Great catch. My typos : those two quotes are 2023 dates (which you might have expected), but now you know! Globalbrian (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The two quotes that I cited as 2024 are 2023. Globalbrian (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Globalbrian: you mentioned removal of titles 'bill'. Am I correct in that this is a proposed amendment to the Titles Deprivation Act 1917? -- GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Why don't we wait and see how events unfold. Globalbrian (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a general bill before Parliament already, which doesn't name individuals, but it won't go anywhere. It's just a joke bill to make a point and has no prospect of progression. See https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3289. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source to suggest the bill is a joke? Globalbrian (talk) 05:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Joke or not, it has not come into fruition. Note that this suggested bill would most likely affect Andrew first if it were to pass, since the Labour MP who has introduced it is critical of Andrew because of his association with York and not Harry. That being said, we cannot confirm whether Harry is estranged from his family or not. First of all, the royal family does not include only his father and his brother. There are other family members as well. Is he estranged from all of them? We cannot possibly know. On the subject of the couple's claims and allegations, we have separate articles dedicated to full in-depth coverage of their Netflix docuseries and Oprah interview. We cannot simply move details from there to here, as this page is already too long. Keivan.f^Talk 15:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

After 2+ weeks, of discussion. I'm not seeing a consensus forming, for what's being proposed & recommend closure via hatting. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Seems like you moved the goalpost. Quality sources were asked for, I provided them (The New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press), and now that's not good enough. There's so much detail in the introduction that adds so little to a reader's understanding of Prince Harry, and it seems like the team of contributors here is so willfully trying to ignore or minimize the elephant in the room -- Harry's damaged relationship with the Royal Family. Very odd. 72.80.197.42 (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

What do you exactly want? For the page to state that he's estranged from his family? Well, that is impossible. And it doesn't really matter how many sources you introduce. None of them can possibly know the state of relationships between family members. Not to mention that Harry has confessed that he has not spoken to his father and brother but he has not uttered the word "estranged", not even once in any of his interviews. And his father and brother have certainly not commented on their personal lives, so anything else would be our own interpretation of the events. This is a WP:BLP so we have to be careful. Keivan.f^Talk 17:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

He wants to add into the page's intro, "Prince Harry is currently estranged from the royal family". GoodDay (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

That statement in itself cannot be proven and most likely does not reflect the truth. The 'royal family' does not consist of Charles and William alone. There are Charles's siblings and cousins and their spouses. I he estranged from all of them? Who knows. For example, Harry and Meghan were seen chatting with the Duke of Kent during jubilee celebrations. Keivan.f^Talk 15:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2023 (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.

Potentially defamatory and vulgar content

It is disgusting that any information in the article from his book about Sasha Walpole or Caroline Flack is included when neither woman consented to having that be made public and his speculations about why his relationship ended with Caroline are completely unconfirmed (and he flat out lied about Sasha). This really should be removed and just be on the page dedicated to the book itself. 174.115.15.87 (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

BLP obviously doesn't apply to Caroline, and Sasha revealed herself to the press, not Harry. DrKay (talk) 08:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Caroline's own agent rebutted his claims (https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-harry-caroline-flack-relationship-25923807) and it's morally wrong if not legally to even be discussing her opinion about anything when she cannot speak for herself. Meanwhile, Sasha only revealed herself because he made her sound like a predatory cougar who traumatized him sexually when she was clearly one of his mates and it was a short and innocent fling twisted into something sinister. 174.115.15.87 (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Her agent criticized him for bringing up old "forgotten slurs" that the media used when discussing her. He also added that Harry could not know the actual reason behind her suicide. The agent did not say that the two didn't have a relationship and he certainly did not discuss the manner in which it ended, only stating "the reason they split is very sad.". Regarding Sasha, those are your interpretations of Harry's words in the memoir. Sasha might have had the same interpretation which is why she came forward with the story despite the fact that she was not even named in the book and nobody outside their close circle even knew who she was. In the end, it was Sasha herself who revealed her identity regardless of her or even Harry's motives. Keivan.f^Talk 19:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Caroline also discussed the relationship in her own 2015 memoir when she was alive. Keivan.f^Talk 10:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

If she did then you'd have to show me when she mentioned that the relationship ended because of media attention because I highly doubt that was the actual reason. 174.115.15.87 (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome to buy her book and read pages 193–194. And here she is stating: "Once the story got out, that was it. We had to stop seeing each other." Keivan.f^Talk 19:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

That still doesn't verbatim say that was the reason for the breakup and in this interview she was asked if they would have stayed together if there hadn't been press intrusion and she answered that she never even had a (presumably serious) relationship with him and with a laugh (around 2:35). I just think saying anything about how the relationship ended is inappropriate given that Caroline never really revealed the reason and she said herself she would never speak for anyone else's experience despite Harry's failure to do the same (around 2:28). 174.115.15.87 (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Two things here. Note that not having a 'serious' relationship is not equal to having no relationship at all. And they have both acknowledged that there was a relationship. However, if your problem is with Harry's claims on how it ended (although Caroline herself was not really clear about it either), then the wording can be adjusted to indicate that those are Harry's claims. Even though parts of the sentence are in quotation marks which shows that they are directly taken out of Harry's mouth. Keivan.f^Talk 21:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would help. 174.115.15.87 (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

None of this content belongs on Wikipedia. Just because Harry wrote a biography it doesn’t mean entire content belongs on wiki. Go look at Matthew McConaughey wiki, he just wrote a biography in great detail about every relationship and feeling, it’s not added to his bio. Also, compare to any other wiki page where the subject have written a biography. You will see that 60% of Harry’s wiki entries must be deleted. It’s an abomination to Wikipedia. DigitialNomad (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Just because Harry wrote a biography it doesn’t mean entire content belongs on wiki. Well, first of all that is incorrect because the entire content of his autobiography is not on this page. And the information can belong on Wiki if reliable "secondary" sources report on it, and in this case they have done it. The example of McConaughey's page is irrelevant. His memoir did not get the amount of coverage in secondary sources as Harry's did. Keivan.f^Talk 15:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Frogmore Cottage eviction

It has also been reported that they are no longer the legal owners of Frogmore Cottage which puts Harry's status as counsellor of state into question and whether or not they actually repaid for the refurbishment (or whether King Charles footed the bill without telling anyone). More information is needed but this should be mentioned eventually. 174.115.15.87 (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

They were never the legal owners and the tenancy has nothing to do with being a counsellor of state. DrKay (talk) 08:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

You absolutely cannot be a counsellor of state without being domiciled in the UK - sorry my wording wasn't perfect - and with his eviction he is no longer domiciled in the UK (as per the Counsellor of State page already on here). 174.115.15.87 (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we are all aware of that. However, he can always lease or buy other properties to remain domiciled. And since we are not entirely aware of his private activities, he might have as well done it by now. The best thing would be to wait until reliable sources report on it. Keivan.f^Talk 19:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

That is true. Thanks for your kind response. 174.115.15.87 (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

This information doesn’t belong in Wikipedia. Compare to any other persons Wikipedia, this is not encyclopedic worthy information. Entire thing must be deleted. DigitialNomad (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Entire thing must be deleted What entire thing? There's no mention of their eviction on this page. Keivan.f^Talk 15:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Tell me why someone’s housing situation. Belongs in Wikipedia? If you think this information is encyclopedic? Did you also add it to King Charles page? That he decided it? This is regular everyday stuff, just because the British Press out it on their front page doesn’t mean it belongs on Wikipedia. DigitialNomad (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, what are you complaining about? The eviction is not even covered on this page. Keivan.f^Talk 19:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Titles and styles

Why does Harry's page not have his titles listed in this category by date of when he got each like is on most or many other royalty's pages? For example, since Charles became king, did Harry become The Prince Henry of the United Kingdom? This article doesn't say. 76.202.192.102 (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Because those dates are impossible to source and this information is too complex to be presented like that. The article says all there is to say; it is not supposed to list all the styles he does not use. Surtsicna (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Since his marriage, I think he's been "The Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex". GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

No, he has never been nor will he ever be The Prince Henry lol that sounds absolutely ridiculous as well. He is Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex (formally Prince Henry but no one calls him that) just like he was upon marriage. 184.147.14.9 (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

this page is an abomination to Wikipedia principles

Why is Harry’s biography content being added in great detail? Why are there quotes from random people in British tabloids on his Wikipedia page? @kevian.f There is no other Wikipedia page where so many mundane details are included. I can show you numerous examples of people who have written biographies and there isn’t this many details or random peoples quotes about them added. This is unprecedented. DigitialNomad (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Numerous examples of other people is irrelevant because not all of them are members of a reigning royal family. Each page is written differently. In four edits, you removed entire sections on his service in the army and subsequent activities, his bachelorhood, his court case to get taxpayer-funded security, and his political views, all of which were attributed to "reliable" secondary sources not tabloids as they have been chosen based on WP:RSP. And if credible sources report on a matter it can be included in a page whether it is negative or positive. Keivan.f^Talk 15:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I think DigitialNomad is on the right track with the sort of pruning this article needs. Some of what they removed was valuable, but a lot of it was undue and puffery. The stuff about police protection in Canada, for example, is worth including but in a full biography is worthy of a few sentences at most, not an entire section. His time in Afghanistan should absolutely be included, but again in summary style and with less reliance on what Harry said he did. This is one of the subjects where we have to be more selective in what we include because "reliable sources" will report every time he leaves the house to buy milk. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Trimming something down is not equal to removing huge chunks of information.

Meanwhile this is what your (DigitialNomad's) rationale was with regards to removing information on his active service, This is not a news site. The information must be encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a place where we add the entire content of someone’s autobiography. There's not a single line in those sections that were taken from his autobiography, none whatsoever. What you did was removing quotes that came out of his own mouth on different occasions in which he compared fighting to a video game and revealed his kill count and got backlash for it. You purposely removed information that shone him in a negative light and this is not a fan page.

When removing information on his bachelorhood you wrote: This is not something that is on any other royal family members page. There is no “bachelorhood” section for Prince William or any of the others... Just because someone wrote a biography or is written about by tabloids a lot, it doesn’t mean the entire content belongs on Wikipedia. To begin, there was not a single tabloid used as a reference for that section. You should stop throwing that word around pointlessly. And to say that there's no bachelorhood section for other members of his family is also factually incorrect. Go check the page on Prince Andrew and his relationship with Koo Stark. Not to mention that what goes on in other pages is irrelevant to the content of this page. Harry, William, and other members of his family all lead different lives, thus the difference in content.

Then we get to the section on "Political views" and you wrote All royal family members talk about climate change, say they are feminists and have projects talking about online hate, they don’t have political views section like this. It is not Wikipedia’s job to interpret what someone says, and then put it in political views. Don’t do it for Harry, when it’s not done for anyone else. No members of the royal family have commented on abortion. None of them has claimed they had intel on January 6 United States Capitol attack before it happened. And certainly none of them called the U.S. First Amendment "bonkers". So what are you suggesting? That we should censor information here to create structural harmony between articles? I'm sorry but that's not going to happen.

And finally when removing the section on his taxpayer-funded security you wrote: Completely irrelevant section.. First of all, how is it irrelevant? When was the last time a member of the royal family sued the Home Office? And to say Just because there is information out there, doesn’t mean it belongs on Wikipedia. is also wrong. That's not how Wikipedia works. If reputable secondary reliable sources report on it, then it can belong on Wikipedia. Keivan.f^Talk 16:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

No, Just because there is information out there, doesn’t mean it belongs on Wikipedia is correct. That's what I was getting at above. We have an entire policy section titled "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion", and a huge policy list of things we don't include, verifiable or otherwise. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell; And I said such information can belong on Wikipedia, not that it must be included. Nevertheless I have taken your advice into consideration and trimmed down the sections on his active service by removing some of his quotes and some of the detailed quotes that were included in response to him revealing his kill count. If you have other suggestions, feel free to leave it here so we can discuss them. Keivan.f^Talk 16:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

the thing is that if people want to read about Harry’s or other peoples thoughts and feelings about Harry,they can buy newspapers or read his biography. It is unreasonable to include other peoples tittle tattle about Harry in his Wikipedia. So anyone can just Say anything in the media about him and it ends up on his wiki? see below quoted for how short his military service section should be. Anything in between that people want to find out, they can read blogs, newspapers, books etc. Wikipedia is not to be used as a propaganda tool. A lot of information out there about Harry, good or bad is part of a information war between him and British media. He is in the middle of a major lawsuit with every tabloid in the Uk, regarding phone tapping, surveillance and listening devices. So Wikipedia can not Lap everything up from either side. Considering Harry is pretty young, if this page continues at this rate, it will become a blog, as it is almost that now. There is no comparison to Harrys page on Wikipedia, no one has a page like him and his wife. You cannot show me any page that gets updated with every detail of their life, including how they broke up with a girlfriend years ago. Not a single celebrity, royal or any other.

“ Prince Harry, served in the British Army for over a decade. He began his military career in 2005 and completed his initial training at Sandhurst Military Academy. He then served in various roles, including as a reconnaissance troop leader, and as an Apache helicopter pilot. He also completed two tours of duty in Afghanistan, the first in 2007-08 as a Forward Air Controller and the second in 2012-13 as an Apache pilot.He left the military in 2015 to focus on his charity work and other public duties” DigitialNomad (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

To suggest that we should reduce his whole military career to that paragraph is absolutely bizarre. And army figures criticizing Harry is not other peoples tittle tattle. No member of the royal family has been criticised by British armed forces as none of them, including Andrew who served in a warzone, have discussed their kill counts. And none of them have commented on other countries' constitutions. And no, not everything told in the media about him ends up on his wiki, because several journalists have harshly criticised him in very strong terms and none of them have ended up here. His fight with the tabloids is also irrelevant. No tabloid has been used as a source here and there are many sources from news resources operating in the US. Keivan.f^Talk 17:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I also modified the paragraph concerning the Canadian taxpayers. It was not me who put it in the article to begin with, but I think some of the points made there are valid and can remain. Keivan.f^Talk 16:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I think a lot of what is included is valid and worth keeping, and DN's edits threw the baby out with the bathwater, but your edit was a good start at removing some of the bloat. The article has a reasonable structure and does a reasonable job at describing the events of his life, but it's 14,000 words long because it doesn't summarise—it goes into a lot of detail about relatively unimportant events in his life, and it relies heavily on quotes from talking heads rather than summarising the important points. For example, "Harry's revelations prompted backlash from both Taliban members and British politicians and military figures" adequately explains the controversy; everything following it is just quotes from talking heads. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Thanks for the comment. Yes, I do agree that there is room for improvement but deleting information is not the answer. I'm always open to the idea of trimming down the content, which is why I wanted people to discuss 'specific' parts of the article that could benefit from summarizing. Keivan.f^Talk 18:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I don’t understand why the entire military section is a summary of his book? Even the part about “he compared fighting to video games” is complete in accurate. Just a tabloid spin, and now quoted by @kevian.h above as fact. He was talking about the screen in the helicopter and his thought process on this was much more complex than “he compared it to a video game”. But, my point is that this doesn’t belong on Wikipedia. DigitialNomad (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The article states Harry compared operating the Apache's weapons systems in Afghanistan to playing video games. There's no spin. Have you ever heard on paraphrasing? He was operating a military aircraft in a warzone to fight. Keivan.f^Talk 18:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

In the book that is not how he says it, he goes into great detail about his feelings around having to do some of the things he described. Each one of those sentences is preceded and followed by more context. Again, this is too complex to add to a Wikipedia. I don’t even want to add correction or litigate accuracy. It doesn’t belong on Wikipedia. DigitialNomad (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

My whole point is that this is not a fan page. So why is there point by point details of his every thought.

I am not advocating for adding positive information. I’m advocating for less of everything. Much much less. Because otherwise this becomes a blog. Even the part where you said “ which he compared fighting to a video game and revealed his kill count and got backlash for it” this is not what he said? You are removing all context, it’s not the essence of what he means, you have to read the chapter to understand. He is also specifically talking about the screen inside the helicopter. But I don’t want to litigate this, I don’t think it belongs on Wikipedia. You cannot pick one sentence from his book and just put it here without context. DigitialNomad (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The essence of what he means can be interpreted in different ways based on how you analyze it. And just so that you know, I have read the book and I know that he provides details. But, the fact is that he said it and he was criticized for it by major army figures (not the tabloids), and to exclude that would be censoring information. Yes, it can be trimmed down but it cannot be removed. Keivan.f^Talk 18:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

He was also praised, should we include that? That would be ridiculous. DigitialNomad (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Praised by whom? A military figure? A government official? A psychiatrist who has worked with veterans? If so, why not. As you can see with this edit I reduced the whole thing to one sentence: Harry's revelations prompted backlash from both Taliban members and British politicians and military figures. A follow-up sentence would be but they garnered praise from [insert profession]. And that would be it. Summarized, backed up by credible sources, and not bloated out of proportion. Keivan.f^Talk 18:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

If you are going to include it, then add the context. The book was leaked before its release and excerpts were published without context. And people were asked to make commentary based on those excerpts. Because many many had different reaction after reading full context. So leaving out the part about how it was presented doesn’t tell the full story. Below is an excerpt from the book that you can add. But in my opinion none of this belongs on a wiki page.

@User:HJ Mitchell what are your thoughts on this ?

“So, my number: Twenty-five. It wasn’t a number that gave me any satisfaction. But neither was it a number that made me feel ashamed. Naturally, I’d have preferred not to have that number on my military CV, on my mind, but by the same token I’d have preferred to live in a world in which there was no Taliban, a world without war. Even for an occasional practitioner of magical thinking like me, however, some realities just can’t be changed.

While in the heat and fog of combat, I didn’t think of those twenty-five as people. You can’t kill people if you think of them as people. You can’t really harm people if you think of them as people. They were chess pieces removed from the board, Bads taken away before they could kill Goods. I’d been trained to “other-ize” them, trained well. On some level I recognized this learned detachment as problematic. But I also saw it as an unavoidable part of soldiering.”

Excerpt From

Spare

Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex

This material may be protected by copyright. DigitialNomad (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

There was a sentence at the beginning of the paragraph which provided more context which read He added that "It's not a number that gave me any satisfaction. But neither was it a number that made me feel ashamed." (check this revision). I removed it since there were arguments that there was too much detail in that paragraph, but now I have added it back since you want more context. That sentence alone perfectly shows his true feelings about the situation. Keivan.f^Talk 19:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the removal was the right way to go. That he served in Afghanistan is undoubtedly relevant; Harry's thoughts on it possibly; the opinions of talking heads solicited to fill column inches, less so. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you think it’s reasonable to add a section about his bachelorhood, because he wrote 6 lines about an ex girlfriend in his book? They also included his virginity in that section? This is maddness, there are numerous biographies out there of celebrities, we don’t add everything about them on their page. Just because information is out there it doesn’t mean it belongs here. We also know about prince Williams bachelorhood, why isn’t there a section about that on his page? Like, this is embarrassing to the standards of Wikipedia. The entire page is filled with “polls” said this “public opinion” this… just because he is in the middle of a information war with the British press, doesn’t mean we need to include every little thing they decide to print. Popularity in a poll is not encyclopedic information. It’s fleeting and anyone can create a poll at anytime. You don’t even see polling on pages belonging to politicians. Updates about court cases are not encyclopedic, we must wait until there is a conclusion and then add it. Right now, that section is being added everytime there is anything in the news about it. DigitialNomad (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with having a section on his bachelorhood. I can list countless biographies that go into detail about the subject's relationships. And what are you complaining about exactly? If he did not want any of it to be public information he could have stayed silent; but since he is the one who has shared it that means that he is OK with it being in the public sphere. With regards to your Popularity in a poll is not encyclopedic information comment: all I have to say is that you're welcome to go and read pages on William and Catherine since you are so eager to constantly compare them to this page. They also include YouGov poll results. So just because Harry's is not favorable we should dismiss it? The section is on his public image and including polls and scores is common practice (e.g. Angelina Jolie's bio which includes details on her Q Score). Keivan.f^Talk 18:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

What am I complaining about? It’s not encyclopedic, people can buy his book or read a blog. I’m not concerned with if his information is public or not. I don’t care. I’m concerned with this page turning into a blog. Wikipedia is not here to be a substitute for a book or newsfeed. DigitialNomad (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

How about we shut the whole website down because people can now go and buy books and read newsfeed on their favorite subjects? Your definition of not encyclopedic is clearly different from mine. Content could be bloated, yes, but there's a difference between trimming down and deleting information. Keivan.f^Talk 18:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The poles should be removed everywhere. They’re used as a propaganda tool. Newspapers can publish pool however they like, they don’t need to show the data behind it. With someone who is in the process of suing so many tabloids for surveillance, you have to be mindful of not buying into their trap. To me it seems that his page have lapped everything out there about Harry - good or bad. And I’m advocating for less, much less. I don’t understand why you can’t look at the page and see the abundance and indulgence? I am not your enemy, there is still time for you to try and gain perspective on this matter. I think maybe the discourse have weighed you down. It’s not easy dealing with these pages, because of the information war. But you must gain perspective before you lose all sense of proportion. DigitialNomad (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

YouGov is not a newspaper or part of the press pack, which makes your argument about newspapers' propaganda and their polls moot. You are always welcome to open an RfC and discuss the reliability of YouGov with the whole community and if the consensus is that it is unreliable then it will be removed from all articles.

With someone who is in the process of suing so many tabloids for surveillance, you have to be mindful of not buying into their trap. Again, where are the tabloids cited in this article exactly? If you are to go about improving this page's content you should drop this argument. His so-called war with the tabloids is of no relevance. And I am not your enemy either. This is not an issue of personal enmity. This is about a public figure who has done things, some good and some bad, which need to be covered in the context of a neutral biography. That being said, I'm always open to the idea of summarizing and trimming down as I stated above, but I am absolutely opposed to deleting information (WP:NOTCENSORED). Keivan.f^Talk 18:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Just so that everyone knows, I have removed the bit about Harry's fling with Sasha Walpole, because it is not significant based on the opinions of at least two users/readers. Keivan.f^Talk 19:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Since you want to keep everything on this page and it mostly consists of whatever the media thinks is important. Actually every single thing is included. I will go ahead and add the opposite view of everything you added, from sources just as reputable.. So I will add polling that shows different results, military talking heads that agreed with Harry and didn’t think there was anything wrong with what he said, and I will go and on for every section. Because it can’t be that only the people who disagree are noteworthy enough to add. I think maybe this will suit you better, since it seems we can go back and forth forever with me trying to make you see that so much doesn’t belong in here. Then if someone else want to come and edit all of our additions, they can remove both the parts that agree and disagree: DigitialNomad (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

DigitialNomad Point to the paragraph where military talking heads that disagreed with Harry's statements in Spare have been listed. You won't be able to do it. Because it's non-existent and I have removed it. I take into consideration people's advice when what they say is sound. Yet, I will not simply delete the information. That is not how an article is written. Keivan.f^Talk 15:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

RfC on Charles III

There is an RfC on Talk:Charles III#RfC: Inclusion of "Agnatic house" which may relate to this article. Feel free to contribute. Estar8806 (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Change to Coat of Arms after Accession of Charles III

After Charles III became King, the Duke of Sussex became the child of the Sovereign, rather than the grandchild of the Sovereign. Hence, his coat of arms would have changed from bearing a label of five points to a label of three points. (The two blank points between the three points with scallop shells would be removed.) Is there any documentation for this? I know that, under present circumstances, changing his coat of arms is probably not the highest priority in the world for the Royal Household or the College of Arms. 70.89.82.217 (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

As of May, 2023, the coat of arms shown appears to bear labels of three points. However, the text has not yet been amended.Gerglish (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The Harkles

• The Harkles .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Car chase

I removed car chase section - see Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex#Car chase–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Style

I feel like there’s needs to be a line added which mentions the fact that in court cases he is still referred to as hrh as well as his wife Meghan, who is also referred to as hrh. The lines regarding the style make it seem as if she was stripped out and never allowed to use, especially with Meghan and in other small articles talking about the hrh style. Theeveralst (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

In the Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex#Titles and styles section it states "On 18 January 2020, Buckingham Palace announced that, following their decision to step back from royal duties, from 31 March 2020 Harry and his wife would not use their Royal Highness styles in practice. They still legally retain the style.[488][489]"

Doesn't that cover it?-–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Spare

It's redundant to have it in both the Bibliography and Further Reading sections 174.115.15.87 (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed it from the Further reading section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Makes no sense

Under "Stepping Back" is this sentence:

"At the time of the announcement of Harry and Meghan's decision to "step back" as senior members of the royal family in 2020, 95% of the couple's income derived from the £2.3 million given to them annually by Harry's father, Charles, as part of his income from the Duchy of Cornwall."

It's incomplete and makes no sense as it is. Please somebody fix it. 2600:1700:EA01:1090:A094:70AC:75B:AEDC (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The source says:

They are giving up their slice of the Queen’s Sovereign Grant but, according to their website, it accounts for only five per cent of their income.

The couple receive about 95 per cent of their income from the Duchy of Cornwall, to the tune of £2.3 million a year. The lucrative Duchy is part of Prince Charles’s private estate and also funds the activities of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

Prince Harry and his brother received most of the £13 million fortune left by their mother, Princess Diana. According to the BBC, Prince Harry was also left millions of pounds by the Queen Mother, his great-grandmother.

How do you think it should be reworded?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Clarity

This, to me, was obviously clearer before that reversal. The titles are needed there for clarity. I will add them again unless someone can come up with a good reason (better than everybody in the world knows who Charles and Elizabeth are) not to. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I already gave you one in the edit summary. The prefixes "King/Queen" are absolutely not needed; otherwise they would have been included in the main title of the two pages we have on those two monarchs. And whether you like it or not, everyone knows who Elizabeth and Charles are. The wording is also consistent with the similar paragraph that appears on his brother's page, which incidentally came out of a GA review recently. Keivan.f^Talk 22:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

None of your reasoning is relevant. This is about clarity of text, to be read by thousands of Americans and others not as familiar as you and I with these people. It's not about article titles or what's in other articles. I will reverse it unless someone else comes up with relevant reasons not to. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I neither have the time nor the energy to fight over such trivial matters; thus, I restored the original wording. Having the word Queen before Elizabeth's name makes no difference, when the name itself is linked within the article's body. Even a clueless reader is one click away from understanding who she was. Keivan.f^Talk 13:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

"I neither have the time nor the energy to fight over such trivial matters" - yet the arguing went on and on. Article text should be as clear as possible to all readers, even those deemed "clueless" by some of us, without any need to click to other articles. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Royal Monogram

There has been no official word on his monogram being updated with the coronet of the Sovereign. When William's was changed to the Heir Apparent, we were told that it couldnt be changed because there wasnt anything official. Why do we get to change Harry's then? It should be reverted back to the official one used. 170.85.9.75 (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Coronet of the Child of a Sovereign

170.85.9.75 (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

We changed William's to feature the coronet of a child of the sovereign as well (before the whole file was deleted for some unknown reason). The heir and his wife do not always use the coronet set aside specifically for the prince/ss of Wales (Diana did not, neither during her marriage nor after it was over, but Camilla did). The inconsistency in that specific coronet's usage is why we need a source for it. Keivan.f^Talk 17:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Coronation medal

With regard to [1], I fear GBNews may have it wrong. Harry may not have been wearing the coronation medal because he was not given it. It is given to serving personnel or people who made an "active contribution". Page 2 of the eligibility criteria says "attendance at an event, i.e. as a guest, does not in itself qualify for the medal". GBNews says he was given it "alongside other Armed Forces and frontline emergency workers". Is he a serving member of the armed forces? DrKay (talk) 08:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)