[go: up one dir, main page]
Wikipedia

Talk:Wedding of Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer

Latest comment: 1 year ago by 86.151.137.231 in topic Article Title
Learn more about this page

Assertion

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

"Diana was the first British citizen to marry an heir to the British throne in 300 years", though copied verbatim from an Internet source, suggested that there was a "British throne" 300 years previously: the revised statement is "Diana was the first British commoner to marry an heir to the English or Scottish throne since James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell married Mary Queen of Scots, the heir apparent to the English throne". A somewhat inopportune fact. Could it have been noted at the time of the wedding?--Wetman (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

And how is the "4th Earl of Bothwell" a commoner ? Eregli bob (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
The reference to Bothwell should be removed from the lead, which should instead simply state that Diana was the first commoner to marry the heir to the British throne since the Act of Union in 1707. Comments?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon would have been a commoner also.Eregli bob (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
The Duke of York was not the Heir to the Throne when he married Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.9.59.96 (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Article title

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

At present the title is incorrect. It should be Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales and Lady Diana Spencer. This is what it says on the mugs (and the coin that is featured in the article), and they are correct. You don't say Wedding of Mr and Mrs Jones, you say Wedding of Mr Jones and Miss (or Ms or whatever) Smith. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Even this is wrong. Wetman has very correctly added a comma after Wales. Ericoides (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
That is what I thought as I was creating the article, whether to have it at Lady ..... or ..... Princess of Wales. - Epson291 (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Would 1981 Royal Wedding (UK) be a better title? Mjroots (talk) 05:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Venue

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The assertion that St Paul's Cathedral has a greater seating capacity than Westminster Abbey is unsourced and hard to verify: the WP articles on the two churches mention their physical dimensions but not their seating capacity. As to the "length of procession through the streets of London" each church allows, this is pure speculation. A procession could follow any possible route: there is no single route for either church. Donfbreed (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Guest list

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I've been wikifying the guest list (those that are royalty), but there are a few things that need doing:

  • (1) The guest list was added with this edit and is currently unsourced. Can anyone point me to, or provide, a good source for verifying the guest list and seeing if this one is correct and complete (royalty here, but other guest lists would be possible as well)?
  • (2) Is anyone able to check through the links I've added and see if they are correct? I've linked to the current article titles, but it would be better presented with piping and context provided (such as relationship with the British Royal Family and ages at the time and who are realted to who (there are several family groupings).
  • (3) Some specific ones I was unable to wikilink: (a) The members of this branch of the House of Hesse; (b) "HSH The Princess of Monaco" - this could be either Princess Stéphanie of Monaco (16 at the time) or Caroline, Princess of Hanover (24 at the time). I'm presuming it was Caroline, but am not sure so left it unlinked.

And in general, what would be the best way to present this list? Carcharoth (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Have now answered 3b - it was Grace Kelly (I thought she died before the wedding, but it was a year later). There was, apparently, no official guest list - details are here, in the links titled 'Inside St Paul's: Who's who and who's where'. Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
The Princess of Hesse and by Rhine might be the Hon. Margaret Campbell-Geddes (1913–1997) daughter of Auckland Campbell-Geddes, 1st Baron Geddes and widow of Louis, Prince of Hesse and by Rhine. The title Hesse and by Rhine doesn't seem to continue after Louis. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 03:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! That does look plausible. Carcharoth (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
The guest list of the Queen's Coronation[1] shows that some of the Germans are Prince Philip's relations. Rmhermen (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Despite the awful yellow background, that is a great page, thanks! It would be good to know where the photos came from, and to confirm things with other sources, but that is a good start for getting some of the bare fact. I love the picture of the Queen of Tonga and the Sultan of Zanzibar. It must have been a great day out for them, riding in an open-top landau in London on the occasion of the coronation of the Queen! Carcharoth (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Patronising much? Opera hat (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Merger proposal

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was not to merge. —capmo (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I suggest merging here the following articles:

I see no reason for having separate articles for mere objects related to Lady Diana's wedding. Besides, the merger won't make this article much larger than it is today. —capmo (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

If those objects have received significant coverage then they could have their own articles. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Oppose I find it really surprising that you see no reason why they should have their separate articles, while based on the sources both the wedding dress and the engagement ring have received significant coverage in the media, especially since the latter became the engagement ring of her daughter-in-law. And by the way, her dress was considered to be iconic at its time and just like Kate's wedding dress and Queen Victoria's wedding dress it deserves to have its own article. Keivan.fTalk 20:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Comment Dear capmo, two users had already opposed your proposal, and there had been no support votes here on this page in over 30 days, yet you just reverted Emir of Wikipedia's edit without a clear reason. The fact that you are not interested in these objects doesn't mean that they are not notable. The ring is definitely notable, as it had been the engagement ring of the wife of the heir to throne, and eventually became the engagement ring of the Duchess of Cambridge, who will be a queen consort in the future. As for the wedding dress, it deserves to have its own article, as it was worn by one of the best known women of the 20th century on her wedding day which was watched by millions. In fact, it's more notable than the bridal gowns worn by lesser known princesses, and yet we have separate articles for nearly all of them:
Personally as a man, I'm not interested in none of these bridal gowns, but I know women who are pretty much interested in these outfits from a "fashion" point of view. This time if you don't get enough votes after one or two months to have these pages merged, I will ask an admin to close the merge proposal. Keivan.fTalk 23:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Dear Keivan.f, thanks for taking the time to list these articles that were unknown to me. I still think that the main article could well accommodate all info related to the wedding dress and ring, though. I just ask for some more time for discussion (as I explained when reverting Emir), and that the discussion be closed by someone not directly involved with the articles or the discussion, as recommended at WP:MERGECLOSE. I agree with your suggestion to ask an admin to do it after one or two months. Kind regards, —capmo (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2018 (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.

Requested move 3 July 2018

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago15 comments11 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the pages to the titles proposed here. However, it appears possible that a subsequent discussion might find a consensus in favor of different titles for these articles, particularly in light of the result of concurrent discussion at Talk:Wedding of Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson. A new move request to the sorts of alternate titles proposed there, or suggested below, may be opened at any time. Dekimasuよ! 21:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

– WP:CONCISE. The existing titles are needlessly long. Opera hat (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't object to "Prince Charles and...". I only proposed the "Prince of Wales and..." format for consistency with the Duke of Windsor, who should definitely have his title, as you said. Opera hat (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Opera hat, it isn't apt while this rename discussion is happening, but I've left a suggestion on the talk of "Windsor and Mrs Simpson" wedding article that the content should be merged with his/her individual pages - there is so little to say about that wedding anyway except that no one came. It is probably the case that all the 'bunting' associated with these other royal weddings is what makes them notable - the fact that they were, to a greater or lesser extent, national celebrations of an ordinarily family or private event. AFAIK, we don't have an article for the private second marriage of Anne. Pincrete (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
But no other Dukes of York married ladies of those names. Opera hat (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Wedding of Prince Albert, Duke of York, and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Article Title

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should title be changed form Charles, Prince of wales, to King Charles III? Adevine605 (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

No, because that would imply he was king when he got married. 86.151.137.231 (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wedding_of_Prince_Charles_and_Lady_Diana_Spencer&oldid=1210932316"