Talk:Prince Henry of Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Prince Henry of Wales article.
British Royalty 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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 British military history task force

Contents

[edit] Death of Diana, Princess of Wales Section

The last paragraph reads:

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

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

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

[edit] Parentage

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

[edit] Circumcision chat

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

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

[edit] January 2005 "Nazi" tabloid set-up

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

Someone should also point out it was a very convenient distraction from both Mark Thatcher's guilty plea and the month-delayed announcement of the end of the Snipe of Mass Destruction hunt. Even CNN paid more attention to this SETUP than the lies used to start a war.
And so far, the only organ I've seen that's remembered this old German family's Nazi empathies was Der Spiegel. Kwantus 04:30, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
Pravda put it very well. It was a fanciful-dress party with a Colonials and Natives theme. How dare he go as as one of the biggest colonials since Britain herself!
This poor sod. The bottomfeeders of the media stalk him, slavering for anything they can pounce on; all while surrounded by handlers whose loyalties lie with the "intelligence" services, perfectly placed to use him to create a flapdoodle whenever some serious news needs hiding...On top of which his own father, an emotional cripple, despises him for being the wrong gender and hair colour! He's named for England's most infamous king and manipulated 'round the clock to live down to his namesake, like a Punch puppet, with only the faintest hope of the small recompense of being a figurehead King for awhile. I wouldn't be him for the world.
I admit now this Nazi thing is a scandal, all right. But most people have completely mistaken its nature. Kwantus 19:06, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
It will be to our credit until this bogus turmoil is over, to keep "Harry "The Nazi" of Wales" and the like out of our opening paragraph. An anonymous drive-by joker added it, and User:PatGallacher— under the reassuring rubric "clarified a few points, nothing drastic"— covered it. (No doubt he "didn't see it" though it was in the first line.) This behavior discredits us all. I have put this entry on my Watchlist, much as I detest being Kindergarten Cop. I hope some other grown-ups will help out. I expect about three rather tiresome weeks, as grinning fools jump on this bandwagon. --Wetman 02:33, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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


[edit] "Harry"?

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

I think it's probably explained at Talk:Prince William of Wales, though this isn't really my field... -Nommo
See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) for more info. Atorpen 23:44 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

  • All male British princes and princesses of the blood (HRHs) are known by the territorial title of their fathers. Wales is the correct term for all legitimate children of the Prince of Wales, by comparison HRH Prince Michael of Kent is the son of the Duke of Kent, the late HRH Prince William of Gloucester was the son of the Duke of Gloucester. Following a decree from Queen Victoria:-When the family member ceases to be an HRH (great grandchildren of the sovereign, then they revert to the courtesy title associated with an ordinary peer of their father's rank for example Lord Nicholas Windsor (son of HRH Duke of Kent) as a great grandson of the sovereign (George V) assumes the title of the son of a mere Duke as opposed to a royal Duke. Lord Nicholas' children will be 'Honourable' and their children will be plain Mr or Miss. Royal females, apart from a sovereign queen, no matter what their rank pass no title to their children whatsoever, unless they are married to a titled man, then the children inherit the courtesy titles associated with their father's rank. If this did not happen Britain would eventually be overun by HRHs and titled people.Giano 22:41, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Not so. Lord Nicholas is treated as the younger son of a Duke. His children will not be 'the Hon.' as that is reserved specifically for the younger sons of (certain) peers. His eldest son will be entitled to use 'Esq.' and his eldest son's eldest son &etc..Alci12
The details from these disambiguations should be succinctly represented in thje entry itself. --Wetman 02:33, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

[edit] Images

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

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

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

[edit] Entry into Sandhurst

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

He has no real surname. "Mountbatten-Windsor" is, effectively, a made-up term that is sometimes used when it's needed. His surname is replaced by his title, "of Wales".
James F. (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Correct. I don't want an edit war but really the use of Henry Charles Albert David Mountbatten-Windsor at the top of this article is just plain wrong. As an HRH he has no surname and no use of a surname can ever be correct. The bans point raised is again due to error not intent. Earl Mountbatten convinced Anne she should use that form as part of the conniving plan to advance his own name. If you check th marriage registers as at the recent wedding of Charles and Camilla you will see Charles correctly uses only his Christian names and for his surname he used Prince of the united Kingdom or Prince of the Blood Royal. The same form used in Royal passports
It is important to remember that all surnames are "made-up" and the common practice in many countries to take on one's father's surname is mere convention. Harry appears to be following his older brother in using Wales as a surname while at school. -Acjelen 5 July 2005 20:14 (UTC)
It's certainly not merely a "convention" in the UK, as it is governed by law. Proteus (Talk) 5 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oldcastle, in case anyone wanted to know, being a translation of Oldenburg after Philip's agnatic ancestors the counts of Oldenburg who became kings of Denmark in 1448. —Tamfang 21:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
If the proclamation of George V is to be understood as taking or changing a surname and/or family name (which are not necessarily the same thing), then it must be read literally, and therefore that is "of Windsor", not plain Windsor. All of the text of the proclamation I read always says "of Windsor".
However, as far as it proclaims the name of the "royal house", it is House of Windsor which cannot be understood directly as a surname, and therefore should be used fully, i.e in version "belongs to... (or something like) the House of Windsor". The membership (and thus name) of royal house is not transferable as regular surname, as (1) wives do not become members of that house by marriage (they remain members of the "house" they happened to belong - for example, Elizabeth II despite marriage is of the house of her father, and Edward VII was the first UK monarch of S-C-G, Victoria was not) and (2) bastards do not receive the status of such "house" even if the local legislation allows a bastard to take father's surname, and (3) children of a female member of such "house" do not receive the atatus of that house even if local legislation (or lack of marriage or father) would give mother's surname to children.
Surnames are always more or less conventions and choices of individuals, thus a british royal using a surname does not say that that is the surname of the royal house, nor that others of the same royal house are necessarily carrying the same surname. My last-mentioned point is important: no other royal (except perhaps the monarch) is entitled to decide another's surname.
Also, remembering the possibilities of individual choice etc, re the case under discussion it is -in my opinion- not wrong for Harry to use surname "Wales" 217.140.193.123 6 July 2005 11:47 (UTC)
But he doesn't use it as a "surname", any more than Charles Nall-Cain, 3rd Baron Brocket uses "Brocket" as a surname when he calls himself "Charles Brocket". It's just a convention amongst British people with titles that in informal circumstances the title can be used in place of a surname, not as one. Proteus (Talk) 6 July 2005 12:10 (UTC)

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

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

FearÉIREANNImage:Irish flag.gif\(caint)

Do you mean those orders-in-council which make Windsor as Charles' family name and Anne's maiden name, and which they have so obediently followed?? 217.140.193.123 8 July 2005 23:55 (UTC)
Actually, I reverted it because it made no sense. Proteus (Talk) 6 July 2005 12:25 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] opening paragraph

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

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

[edit] Rugby

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

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

[edit] Grades and cheating scandal

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

[edit] This article linked from BBC home page

  • BBC home page feature box "Prince Harry at 21". BBC, September 15, 2005.
    Feature box at [2] had four links, three to BBC pages and one to the Prince Harry wikipedia page at Prince Harry [3]. The link was titled "Wikipedia: Prince Harry".

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


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

[edit] Accession

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

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

[edit] Parentage

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

The following is from the article: "Some people note that Harry shares red hair colour with Diana's lover James Hewitt, and see this superficial characteristic enough to doubt Charles' paternity. Hewitt's affair with Diana may not have begun, however, until well after Harry was born. On 29th June 2005, the Sun newspaper published extracts from a close friend of Princess Diana, that proved Prince Charles was Harry's father. Harry resembles both his paternal grandfather in his youth and increasingly the Prince of Wales." -Acjelen 14:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, this one keeps resurfacing from time to time. James Hewitt has said that he would be very proud if Prince Harry was his son, but that the first time he ever clapped eyes on Diana, little Harry was standing at her side with his finger up his nose :-).160.84.253.241


Unfortunately that isnt in the article at all. As for the second point i refer you to the article on James Hewitt "In a recent interview, however, Maj. Hewitt admitted under hypnosis that he'd met Diana in 1981 or 1982 and that their affair began shortly afterward, leaving open the possibility that he is Prince Harry's natural father."
I'm not sure what the motivation is behind the thinking that Major Hewitt is Prince Harry's father. That they both have red hair? In that case, maybe the Duke of Edinburgh and Hewitt's mother also had an affair, because Harry looks like Prince Philip. Anyway, the genetic tests of The Sun trump the hypnosis of The Mirror'. -Acjelen 12:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
hahaha the Sun what an authoritative organ that is. We must bow to it.The difference is that the Sun piece was written by a crackpot medium who many suggest had no real links with Diana and in the Mirror Hewitt admits it himself. The real point here is that if the theory of Hewitt's parenthood warrants a mention in his article it should warrant one in this article too.
Then does it follow that we should remove mention of military service in this article since it is does not warrant a mention in Hewitt's article? -Acjelen 05:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
in a word - no.


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

[edit] Military titles

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

Members of the Royal Family don't use military ranks as part of their styles. Even the Duke of Edinburgh, who is an Admiral of the Fleet, the highest rank in the British Armed Forces, is simply styled "His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh". Proteus (Talk) 21:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't Prince Andrew Lieutenant His Royal Highness the Prince Andrew? Plus isn't Phillip also a Field Marshall and Marshal of the Royal Airforce as well? (Alphaboi867 22:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC))
He was known as that on active service, of course, because it's vital to specify the rank of someone when they're actually on a ship or what not. It was never used in ordinary contexts. (And Admiral of the Fleet is technically a higher rank than Field Marshal and Marshal of the Royal Air Force, because (since the RN is the Senior Service) naval ranks take precedence over otherwise equal ranks in the other services.) Proteus (Talk) 20:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
It would be Second Lieutenant His Royal Highness Henry Windsor, Prince of Wales if we were trying to be completely correct. The Army just call him Second Lieutenant Windsor however. Pragmatic as ever. Darth Doctrinus 12:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
And it's Henry, Prince of Wales not 'Prince Henry of Wales'. How disgustingly American. Darth Doctrinus 12:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's Prince Henry of Wales, not Henry, Prince of Wales. Harry's father is the Prince of Wales. Harry is a prince because he is the agnatic grandson of the Queen and of Wales because he father is the Prince of Wales. -Acjelen 17:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah you're misunderstanding me. You're entirely correct - of course Harry's dad is Prince of Wales, but it is utterly incorrect to refer to Harry as 'Prince Harry of Wales' for the simple reason that his Dad is the 'Prince of Wales' - how many do you need? You may wish to look at the Highgrove website and see how the family themselves refer to the 2 Princes. And of course, when I refered to 'Harry, Prince of Wales' I was assuming that he was the legitimate holder of that appointment purely to draw attention to the nomenclature. I wouldn't worry too much about this - we have entire libraries devoted to this nonsense in UK... Darth Doctrinus 23:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Sure. Cheers. Darth Doctrinus 14:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Jtdirl is 100% correct :-) Charles 19:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Thrones

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

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

[edit] Schooling

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

I think it is, too. I've removed it from there.
James F. (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

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

[edit] Need new picture

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

[edit] Move to Prince Henry of Wales

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

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

If you're going to be pedantic, shouldnt this be at 'Prince Henry Windsor'? Harry is, after all, not the Prince of Wales. Modest Genius talk 12:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not claiming that he is Prince of Wales. But wp naming convention states: Use "Prince(ss) {first name} of ..." where a prince/ss has a territorial suffix by virtue of their parent's title, So, if you want to be pedantic he is Prince Henry of Wales. -- tasc wordsdeeds 12:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/i/Talk%7EPrince_Henry_of_Wales_502f.html"