Talk:List of guests at the coronation of Charles III and Camilla

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Capitalisation of titles[edit]

I don't really have the time or energy to get into a war over this, but recent edits have decapitalised every single title (either peerage title or job title) in this list, which seems to be very inconsistent with the way we usually do things. I am really not sure this should apply to the peerage titles. I think we should also be blue-linking both the names and the titles of peers, eg Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester. --Noswall59 (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I believe it should be consistent with how other coronation articles list their guest lists, such as List of royal guests at the coronation of Elizabeth II.12.239.13.147 (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was also astonished to see that. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it should be consistent with literally every other guest list on Wikipedia, I do not wish to engage in an edit war but I am flabbergasted at how incorrect the edits made by User:A.D.Hope look and are. I am glad to see other Wikipedians agree. Richiepip (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a notice about this on their talk page, so we’ll see if they have anything to say. 12.239.13.147 (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:JOBTITLE is the guideline to follow on this, and consistency with other articles isn't important if they're not following the Manual of Style correctly either. While the wording isn't as clear as it could be, the basic rule is that titles should be uncapitalised unless they fit three specific criteria (and here I'm quoting):
  • When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon; Pope John XXIII, not pope John XXIII.
  • When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the Queen, not the queen (referring to Elizabeth II); the Pope, not the pope (referring to Francis).
  • When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description.
Most of the titles being used in this list do not fit these criteria, as we are using the proper names of the people concerned, but they are capitalised where they do e.g. Sir Tony Blair, the Queen (in reference to Camilla specifically). A.D.Hope (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The section doesn’t mention whether it applies to peerage titles, which is the main issue at question here and is inconsistent with how all other articles with such lists, such as Coronation of George V and Mary, Death and state funeral of Edward VII, etc. handle those lists. 12.239.13.147 (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The section gives 'president, king, emperor, grand duke, lord mayor, pope, bishop, abbot, prime minister, leader of the opposition, chief financial officer, and executive director' as titles which can be in lower case, and since the list isn't exhaustive it's reasonable to assume that this also extends to duke, earl, baron, etc. as they can also be common nouns. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The section is titled "Positions, offices, and occupational titles". Peerage titles are not any of those things. They are the holder's legal identity. This issue needs addressing more clearly in the MOS for that reason. Indeed, there certainly is not consensus for your approach; look at the various Featured Articles which exist using the formatting you argue is wrong: John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan, Frank Russell, 2nd Earl Russell, Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope, John Hastings, 2nd Earl of Pembroke. There are many more at WP:FA. In fact, I am not sure I know of an example with the lower case usage you propose. All of these FAs have through rigorous review by the sort of people who know the MOS inside out, and they were apparently fine with capitalisation. —Noswall59 (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]
It would be unusual to interpret the MOS:JOBTITLES to exclude peerages when it's clearly meant to include royal and noble titles — why else would 'king, emperor, grand duke' be included in the example list?
I can't answer for the featured articles. They don't conform with the MOS as currently written, though. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it’s worth, those monarchical titles are addressed in official capacity as “the king, the emperor, etc.”, while nobility is almost always addressed in an official capacity with their full title, without their personal names, i.e. Edward Fitzalan-Howard, 18th Duke of Norfolk is addressed as “the Duke of Norfolk”, not as “Edward Fitzalan-Howard”. 12.239.13.147 (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to refer to 'the earl' or 'the duke' in a sentence, though. John of Gaunt, for example, has 'Their children were given the surname "Beaufort" after a former French possession of the duke.', and if we look off-Wikipedia you can find the BBC (which has a slightly different MOS) using 'The duke is in charge of organising state occasions, such as the State Opening of Parliament.' A.D.Hope (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that they’re aren’t referred to in this list as just “the duke, the earl, etc.” They’re addressed with their full title “Duke of X, Earl of Y”, which is always capitalized. 12.239.13.147 (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Full titles aren't always capitalised, according to the style guide at least. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you added to your reply while I was writing mine. The MOS addresses this — if a title is used instead of a person's name then it should be capitalised, so 'John of Gaunt went to the shops' and 'The Duke of Lancaster went to the shops' are both fine. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A.D.Hope is correct. Another example is "the Duke of Norfolk" is the current earl marshal or Edward Fitzalan-Howard, the current duke of Norfolk is the earl marshal. DDMS123 (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that before the edits to this page, and on all other articles to list royal and noble titleholders, such individuals were listed in the style of “The Prince and Princess of Wales”, or other titles as appropriate depending on who is being linked, as opposed to this pages current style of “William, prince of Wales and Catherine, princess of Wales”. The issue is that is inconsistent with prior practice. 12.239.13.147 (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prior and current practice is inconsistent with the MOS, really. I'm not saying that to be antagonistic, but until there's a consensus for change we have to follow it as best we can. I don't love JOBTITLES myself.
For what it's worth, this isn't confined to Wikipedia. If you look at the likes of Britannica you can see them following the same practice: 'Howard Family, a famous English family whose head, the duke of Norfolk, is the premier duke and hereditary earl marshal of England. The earls of Suffolk, Carlisle, and Effingham and the Lord Howard of Glossop and Lord Stafford represent the family in its younger lines.' A.D.Hope (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a question for RFC, if the practices are in conflict. 12.239.13.147 (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're braver than me for suggesting an RFC on JOBTITLES, if you look at the relevant talk page archives they're full of them. Personally I like the BBC approach to political titles ('initial caps only when the title is next to the name, in whatever order'), but it's not the current standard. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what's it's worth, the prior style has been moved back. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted that edit, as it primarily undid changes relating to WP:NCBRITPEER. This discussion is about capitalisation in relation to MOS:JOBTITLE, so it can't be used to justify the reversion in question. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCBRITPEER relates only to article titles, not applicable here where we are following the convention of every other guest list article. Richiepip (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I concur with having noble titles capitalized, as they form a singular title. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I read the manual, and the justification for capitalization is pretty clear. Under titles: “Titles should be capitalized when [attached to an individual's name, or where the position/office is a globally unique title that is the subject itself], and the term is the actual title or conventional translation thereof (not a description or rewording). Titles should not be capitalized when being used generically.” Scroll down for examples of uppercase denoting title and lowercase denoting generic use or description. If White House Chief of Staff John Doe, Sir John Doe and “Richard Nixon was President of the United States” is capitalized so can “John Doe, Duke of X”. It says don’t capitalize for “Richard Nixon was the president of the United States” but for peerage title we do “the Duke of X” but it not [‘the duke’ of ‘X’] it is [the ‘Duke of X’] QEII’s mother was the/a queen mother/dowager but she was also styled as Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother.
Also, justification for including name: “For modern-day nobility it is better to use name and title; at some time in the future the Prince of Wales will be a different person than William, Prince of Wales, and a great many articles risk becoming out of date.” QW3RTYP13.14 (talk) 05:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, there's an RFC going on at Talk:Death and funeral of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother about the issue of using names in attendees lists, which might affect the guidelines for this article as well. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So what can we change that isn’t under debate? John Kerry, Special Presidential Envoy for Climate is capitalized but not prime ministers. QW3RTYP13.14 (talk) 06:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS guidance is that capitalisation is only appropriate when a title is used before a person's name, when the title is used instead of the name, or when the title is the subject. That means that there's no justification for capitalising titles after names when they're not the subject, as is the case in this list; in a phrase like 'Edward Fitzalan-Howard, duke of Norfolk and earl marshal of England' the subject is Edward Fitzalan-Howard, not his titles.
To be quite honest I don't like the MOS on this and think the wording of the third bullet (when a formal title...) is less than helpful, but that's how it was written. A.D.Hope (talk) 07:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think the third bullet is like that… It is about capitalizing when using a title for a specific person as a unique formal title, and it is not multiple, modified, generic, or descriptive, regardless of before or after a name. So “White House Chief of Staff John Doe” and “John Doe, White House Chief of Staff” can both be capitalized. Bullet one differs in that a generic non-unique title can be capitalized when it’s attached to a name, so you can capitalize “Prime Minister John Doe”. By putting “John Doe, prime minister of X” you are saying he is a/the prime minister of X which is fine, but you can also attach the formal unique title to his name so “John Doe, Prime Minister of X.” See what I mean?
Of course, royal/peer titles have its own nuances. Like Princess Royal is a unique title in itself and “princess royal” doesn’t mean anything. QW3RTYP13.14 (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, but I don't think the wording of JOBTITLES supports that interpretation (sensible as it might be). Bullet one only allows capitalisation when a title is before a name, and one of the conditions of the third bullet is that the title must be 'addressed as a title or position in and of itself', whereas in this list most titles are being used as descriptions. If we follow the style guide your second example would have to be 'John Doe, White House chief of staff', because the title is being used as a description for John Doe. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are treating it as description by putting it lowercase. “White House Chief of Staff” is a unique position, I am using it as a formal title (as a whole unit ala bullet three) and attaching it before or after John Doe, not writing out a description. In the manual, both post-nominal letters and pre-nominal letters exist, and both are attached to names as titles, Dr. John Doe and John Doe, Esq. QW3RTYP13.14 (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Chief of staff' isn't a unique position, so it shouldn't be capitalised — the White House chief of staff article actually uses lowercase outside the title. The MOS says that titles can be capitalised before a person's name, not after. Postnominal letters are a separate issue, but generally follow the rule of initialisms being capitalised. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first bullet says capitalize a generic title when followed by a Name. It does not say that only titles before a name can be capitalized. It does not restrict the location of a title capitalized via bullet three. Bullet three says capitalize when addressing “a formal title as a title in and of itself” not necessarily “a title as the subject.” A specific title (president of the United States) can be treated as a Specific Title (President of the United States) with the stipulations of bullet three. As “a title in and of itself”, it can be used in relation to a person, but not replacing the name such as via bullet two. Some titles are automatically unique, such as Unicorn Pursuivant, and cannot be lowercase or reworded as a description. Peer titles are granted by the monarch via letters patent to an individual, so titles (with names and/or territories) are whole entities and proper nouns. For UK passports, titles are acknowledged in the surname field as well as in an observation, so the title is not description, especially next to the name of the current holder.
Think of each bullet independently, and only one has to apply for capitalization. Think of it like this, we are not even writing a complete sentence or passage, we are just listing individuals with “• Name, Specific Title” QW3RTYP13.14 (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that the first bullet only mandates capitalisation before a name. It says nothing about capitalising titles after names, so we should assume they're lower case unless they fulfil the requirements of the other two bullets.
Bullet two is simple and shouldn't affect the article if we include names and titles.
Bullet three is essentially saying that titles can be capitalised when they're the subject or otherwise being referred to speficially. That doesn't apply here, as the subject is the person who holds the title rather than the title itself.
Think of the list as 'John of Gaunt, [who is] duke of Lancaster'. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Titles near names should be capitalized as usually without inventing new rules. Now it's simply difficult to read the list. GorgonaJS (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the (frankly ridiculous) manner in which the peer's names were written, WP:NCBRITPEER pertaining to article titles not how they are rendered in an article, but have left the lowercase titles for now pending discussion here. Richiepip (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was reverted again. There's a related discussion below. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consistency to this article. Half of it (correctly) capitalizes the titles of individuals and half of it (incorrectly) doesn't. "Governor General of Canada Mary Simon" doesn't suddenly become "Mary Simon, governor general of Canada" just because the title went from preceding to following Simon's name. If it were something like "the governor general of Canada represents the monarch of Canada", the lower-case would be fine. But, "Mary Simon, Governor General of Canada", is a specific individual and "Governor General of Canada" is her title. The same goes for all the governors, prime ministers, and the like throughout. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Titles should most certainly be capitalised. The article looks, dare I say it, childish currently. Not only this, the title is capitalised; that is how it is written in the actual title! Unless consensus reaches that they should be decapitalised (which is completely against the norm), the article should go back to having the titles capitalised. Consensus needs to be reached BEFORE the change is made, not after it. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Therealscorp1an - Agreed, it should've been brought up in the talk page first before being unilaterally changed by one editor. I also agree with @Miesianiacal that there is really no difference between having a title precede the name or come after it. This shouldn't impact the capitalisation of the titles. DDMS123 (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a real difference according to our MOS, which only mandates capitalisation of titles before names. I appreciate that it looks odd for people used to a different style, but it's the standard we have. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue were capitalization seems to be an issue is the "Officers of arms". Referring to things like Rouge Dragon Pursuivant and Portcullis Pursuivant implies that they are common phrases, when they both refer to very specific offices. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 05:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baroness Williams of Trafford[edit]

She is listed twice. GorgonaJS (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to Charles' relations to royalty?[edit]

Why have the relationships between attended royalty and Charles been omitted? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 06:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna DDMS123 (talk) 01:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A stupid troll is vandalizing it — Preceding unsigned comment added by HulkNorris (talk • contribs) 06:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale provided in the relevant edit was "the relationships are unsourced. Secondly, none of these people attended as fifth or so cousins. They attended as national representatives. Even Boris Johnson and David Cameron are fifth cousins (thrice removed) of the king." (see edit diff here). While I wasn't the one that made the edit, I do agree with the rationale behind it. Leventio (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The article is a list of attendees at the coronation, not relations of the royal family. Surtsicna has made a perfectly reasonable argument and is certainly not a troll. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

THat was a thesis from one troll only. There is no consensus to make it so this person is doing harm to wikipedia. The article was good beforeHulkNorris (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Care to point out what was wrong with the person's assertion? There were no sources in the article which verifies the relationships, nor is there a source which states these people were attending this event in any other capacity outside of being representatives of X. The article is good when it adheres to WP:RS. Post: Also, just want to say, I would advise you not assume bad faith by calling the editor who made the change a troll, and engage their rationale instead) Leventio (talk) 07:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should not ignore my experience. HulkNorris (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And you should not ignore the other editor's arguments. Leventio (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on capitalisation and peerage format[edit]

ROUGH CONSENSUS FOR NAME AND TITLE
While the discussion received minimal input there is a rough consensus to use both the name and title. However, there is no consensus on whether the title should be capitalized; further discussion may be needed to determine which to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 10:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 should MOS:JOBTITLE be applied to this page? Should peers be listed under their name and title or title alone? A.D.Hope (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should be looking at MOS:SURNAME rather than MOS:JOBTITLE. The former clearly recommends the form "William, Prince of Wales". Reasons:
1. There is a difference between a job title and a title of nobility (even if they occasionally overlap). King, president, prime minister, chief executive, are roles that people fill. If they resign they are replaced. Baron Lloyd-Webber isn't a role. If Andrew Lloyd Webber, Baron Lloyd-Webber renounced his peerage he wouldn't be replaced.
2. Consistent with this, take as an example, Anne, Princess Royal (gold-stick-in-waiting to the King), where Anne, Princess Royal is a name and gold-stick-in-waiting is a role.
3. Related to this, job titles are not added to Wikipedia article titles. Joe Biden's article isn't Joe Biden, President of the United States.
4. While WP:NCBRITPEER may be a discussion of article titles rather than people's names, it doesn't introduce any rules about capitalization. If the correct form was William, prince of Wales, that should be the name of his article.
5. Related to this, to make the title lower case you need to type something like [ [William, Prince of Wales|William, prince of Wales] ]. We're making a very odd encyclopaedia if the name of the article about a person is a form of their name that we aren't allowed to use.
6. An alternative being considered above seems to be just to use the title, for instance Prince of Wales. Adding the current holder's name adds clarity for the reader but shouldn't alter the title.
Mgp28 (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC) (PS - I talked too much about article titles, but if you look at the bold text at the start of each individual's article that makes the same point and is an example of the form suggested by MOS:SURNAME in article content. Mgp28 (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfortunate that SURNAME and JOBTITLE seem to be in conflict; I've asked about that on the relevant talk page.
I do agree with you that "[Name], [title]" is the best format to use for names as it's clearer, but I can't agree that titles of nobility are special and therefore exempt from JOBTITLE. The list of examples there includes 'grand duke', so it seems clear that it's intended to cover noble titles. The upshot is that 'William, prince of Wales' is the correct form according to the MOS, even if the corresponding articles and article titles don't currently use it. Britannica uses the same style, if you want to see it 'in action'. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guidelines made for the peers are MOS:ROYAL and MOS:SIR, it should be obvious that JOBTITLE where it is a commercial job where one is hired and fired is not the same. Particularly if it is an title one inherited, I view it as more of the person’s identity. In the bulk text I would defer to any preference of the person after the first mention. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    JOBTITLE includes peerages, royalty, clerics, and other non-standard roles. The name is a bit of a misnomer in that the focus is on titles, rather than jobs. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Peerage titles are parts of name, not job. GorgonaJS (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I say, despite the name the focus of JOBTITLE is titles, which includes peerages, rather than jobs specifically. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:A.D.Hope Honestly, it's just that generic job practices on titling would be incorrect both grammatically and by the peerage customs, because there are explicit rules and declarations involved, and depending on whether it is a title by blood or investiture or marriage, whether it is used or not is a requirement on them and for us if one is to be technically correct and not improper. One would hope WP gives priority to giving folks correct information by following RS, and respecting the person's identity and wishes, over a generic grammar rule WP made and changes. A title sometimes should be regarded as part of their name as seen in combination where another position or job title is involved. (e.g. Admiral Horatio Lord Nelson) As of 2020, there were 46 members of the British royal family (24 members using a royal style and 22 members not using a royal style), and one can refer to the RS such as royal.uk The line of Succession to see who gets named what. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Rory Stewart not listed[edit]

Not sure what section he would come under as former MP and minister. He is a privy counsellor and attended in this uniform: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/may/28/the-rest-is-politics-podcast-alastair-campbell-rory-stewart-interview OJGale (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.coronationroll.gov.uk/principle-attendance/[edit]

The official list. 46.253.254.175 (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_guests_at_the_coronation_of_Charles_III_and_Camilla&oldid=1223537854"