Talk:Princess Charlotte of Wales

United Kingdom, or Great Britain...

In this edit another contributor removed the assertion Charlotte was a citizen of the United Kingdom, and asserted her nationality was British.

It is my understanding that, prior to the merging of the English and Scottish crowns, there were two separate citizenships. Some people were of Scottish citizenship, other were of English citizenship.

I am not going to look up the exact date. Around 1700.

It is my understanding that people from either Scotland or England were then citizens of Great Britain. It was correct to say those individuals were "British".

During the 1700s Ireland was still a separate country, with its own Parliament, and its own House of Lords.

So, when Ireland merged with Great Britain, was the new country named "The United Kingdom"? It is my understanding that, while citizens may still refer to themselves as "British", because there is no convenient term for an "UKian", this is not technically correct.

You are from there? Go fetch out your passport. Does it say "Great Britain"? Or does it say "United Kingdom"? George Swan (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2024 (CST)

In simple terms, "British" is a nationality whereas "United Kingdom" is a state. You do not say Joe Biden's nationality is United States or US, you say he is American. The nationality of a citizen of the Netherlands is Dutch, and so on. The nationality of someone with a UK passport is British but it is acceptable to say English, Scottish or Welsh as the case may be.

The point here is the number of annoying errors in the article. Anyone can make a mistake and that doesn't matter as long as it is corrected and as long as the editor recognises the mistake and learns from it. Taking nationality as one example, readers expect a basic biographical fact like that to be correct and rightly so. In other words, if you are going to write an article that readers are likely to read, make sure you do it right or the readers will go away and tell people they know that CZ can't get its facts right. John (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2024 (CST)

referencectomy

John, you removed a reference in this edit.

Did you consider replacing it with a superior reference?

I used it in George Mountbatten-Windsor and Charles_III. If it is a terribly inaccurate reference it should be replaced with the superior reference you supply here, everywhere it is used.

I used it to document the change that put Charlotte on an equal footing with her siblings, not coming after her younger brothers, like Princess Anne. George Swan (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2024 (CST)

• Can you please explain why you described it as a "rubbish source", so I can recognize another one? It looks OK to me. George Swan (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2024 (CST)

I see it is a news source and those are always potentially rubbish, especially if they are politically motivated like certain British tabloids which publish Tory propaganda on a daily basis. I didn't read the whole thing but I assume it says somewhere that Charlotte is sixth in line when it is common knowledge that she is third. Even someone who doesn't know about the Act would assume she is at most fourth. Everyone knows William is the heir and is followed by his three children so everyone knows they are second, third and fourth. Where did sixth come from? If you got the information she is sixth from that source, then it is a rubbish source that can't get its facts right. Of course, I may have done the source an injustice. Maybe I should read it in full and see if it does say Charlotte is sixth in line?

As for replacing the source with a "superior" one, I could do that but it isn't entirely necessary as long as the information is correct and not controversial. If you want a more reliable source, I suggest you look at the gov.uk or royal.uk sites. The gov.uk site is excellent, by the way, unlike the British government.

Again, the point here is that readers expect us to get our facts right. If CZ is to thrive, we need to attract readers, not annoy them and drive them away. John (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2024 (CST)

More errors

Having visited this talk page for the first time, I see the definition tells our readers that Charlotte is "Charles III's second greatgrandchild, first daughter of Prince William and his wife Catherine". Is she really? I wonder who her grandad is, then?

Also, the title of this article? What is the source for Mountbatten-Windsor as Charlotte's surname? The family name, rarely used, is plain Windsor but that isn't the issue. Charlotte is not known by any surname. Her name is Princess Charlotte of Wales (formerly Princess Charlotte of Cambridge), a subtle contrast to her mother's name which is Catherine, Princess of Wales.

So, again, if we are to present our readers with biographical articles, can we please make sure we get their names right because otherwise the reader will see this title and either think the article is about someone else or will be annoyed because CZ has got its facts wrong. Result? Another dissatisfied reader who goes away and doesn't return. John (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2024 (CST)