This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the
Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the
project page, where you can
join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Awards, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
awards and
prizes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AwardsWikipedia:WikiProject AwardsTemplate:WikiProject Awardsawards articles
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the
importance scale.
Earl of Chester citation needed
@
Keivan.f,
Nford24, and
The Sri Lanka: have all removed the citation needed tag without providing said citation nor even giving explanation. I can't restore it again without violating
WP:3RR. That issue is currently being discussed at
Talk:William,_Prince_of_Wales#Earl_of_Chester. All other subsidiary titles were mentioned in the king's speech - either explicitly or implicitly (ie The Scotish Titles) except for Earl of Chester. We do not yet know if that was an oversight or if the title has now been separated from that of Prince of Wales. Until we have a source to know which case it is,
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
Gecko G (
talk)
21:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Gecko G My assumption was that it is always granted together with the Prince of Wales title. While Charles has stated that the Prince of Wales title and all his Scottish titles were passed down to William, he did not explicitly mention Earl of Chester. I was wondering if any of the titles have been gazetted. That could put an end to the speculation. I also restored the cn tag for now with a hidden note that would redirect users to the talk page for William's article. Keivan.fTalk22:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Thus far, none of William's title changes have been gazetted, nor has any other RS been found specifically addressing Earl of Chester (and unlike most of the subsidiary titles it is not automatic but must be recreated like 'Prince of Wales' is). Back when Charles was created such his letters patent did specifically mention both. Right now, we don't know if it was just an omission oversight in the speech or if the tradition of awarding them together has been dropped. There's no law saying they must be awarded together.
Gecko G (
talk)
00:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)reply
^"Crown Office". The London Gazette. 24 February 2023. Retrieved 25 February 2023.
Is he Prince of Wales only from 13 Feb 2023?
So, per the article, if he is Earl of Chester as of the date of the Letters Patent of 13 February 2023 (which seems correct) why isn't he also Prince of Wales only from that date as well given that he received that title by the same Letters Patent?
DeCausa (
talk)
23:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)reply
As said, the dating is confusing. Other RS (firstly and most notably the king's speech) confirmed him as Prince of Wales prior to the letters patent. We can say the Prince of Wales title was gazetted at the later date, but numerous RS used it to refer to him as having such prior to it being gazetted. Meanwhile the only public RS for Earl of Chester is the letters patent. Wikipedia can only go off of public, RS.
Gecko G (
talk)
00:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)reply
No, there's some secondary source reporting - mainly celebrity magazines which are not great from an RS point of view.
People (magazine), as well as reporting on Earl of Chester, says his new titles, including Prince of Wales,
"only became official" with the Letters Patent of 13 Feb.
DeCausa (
talk)
08:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Are you saying the People magazine source specifically called him Earl of Chester prior to Feb, or only Prince of Wales? If the former, that could have been quite helpful in prior discussions (though as you acknowledge, it's not the best source). If the later, then there's no need to use it when the King's speech declaring him such is a far superior source (and other RS corroborate). As discussed [extensively] elsewhere, the king's speech, and all other sources except one local non-reliable source, specifically addressed every other title except for Earl of Chester.
Gecko G (
talk)
00:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)reply
No, the point is that People explicitly said he became Earl of Chester when the Letters Patent were issued on the 13 February. But the point I'm raising is that it also says the Prince of Wales title "only became official" with the same Letters Patent on 13 February. (Btw, the King's speech is
WP:PRIMARY and if you read it doesn't actually excplicitly say when he was to become PoW). Because People isn't a great source I think this may have to be parked until better sources discuss this but I suspect there is a difference between being designated Prince of Wales and the formal creation date.
DeCausa (
talk)
09:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I thought that was the case but wanted to make sure.
I never have understood the opposition to primary sources, but in any event there's plenty of RS from September, so it's not an issue.
Normally titles are gazetted closer to when they are announced, and the distinction between creation and de-facto "registration" is mostly arcane academic trivia, but the combination of the time gap and the announcement of one but not both titles, when both got gazetted together, is the only thing that makes this case noteworthy. He, and multiple sources, started using the Prince of Wales title in September. I'm unsure if it should continue to be listed as it is (which IIRC I added) or if the differing dates should be relegated to something like a footnote or endnote.
Gecko G (
talk)
22:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Just to be clear "gazetting" is not in any case the definitive point. That's mere publication. The key point is the date of the Letters Patent. And just to repeat
WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: a newspaper, even a paper of record, is not necessarily RS for this. Ultimately it's a point of law, and a very esoteric one at that which is not always the forte of the media. We'll see if the issue surfaces in specialist RS in due course...I don't think there is anything to add to the article until it does.
DeCausa (
talk)
22:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)reply
AFAIK, he & his wife have been called Prince & Princess of Wales since September 9, 2022. Also their bio pages & their children's bio pages were likewise changed on September 9, 2022. Anyways, I'll go along with whatever date is chosen - September 9, 2022 or February 13, 2023.
GoodDay (
talk)
20:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Obviously "RS" have been referring to him as Prince of Wales since September. But there's two questions (1) is there a point to be made in the article about the difference being commonly "called" Prince of Wales and date of the actual creation of his title? I acknowledge that People magazine is not a great source for that point but they do suggest a difference. (2) Per
WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, are the otherwise reliable mainstream news media
WP:RS for the esoteric medieval legalities of
Letters Patent. Maybe they are (plus www.royal.uk). Maybe they aren't.
DeCausa (
talk)
21:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)reply