Opening up conversation about passage there's apparently controversial capitalization over: "He could, theoretically, be king of the United Kingdom or the president of the United States" (User Rose And Heather insists king and president are always capitalized and sent me a PM to that effect, even though this contradicts every major style guide for capitalization of political titles. From AP Stylebook: "you should capitalize president only as a formal title that is before one or more names". For regal titles: "Capitalize king, queen, prince and princess when they are used directly before one or more names; lowercase when they stand alone: Queen Elizabeth II. The queen or Elizabeth on second reference."
Note usage by the Associated Press: https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-wins-white-house-ap-fd58df73aa677acb74fce2a69adb71f9
"Democrat Joe Biden defeated President Donald Trump to become the 46th president of the United States on Saturday"
Again: https://apnews.com/article/king-charles-iii-preserving-monarchy-bc63656c2d397bd1416ebd19c9ea24c7
"In addition to being king of the United Kingdom, Charles is..."
Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-president-joe-bidens-inaugural-address-2021-01-20/
"Following is the inauguration speech as prepared for delivery by Democrat Joe Biden, who was sworn in as president of the United States on Wednesday"
Again: https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/charles-britains-conflicted-new-monarch-2022-09-08/
"Prince Charles has finally become king of the United Kingdom and 14 other realms..."
NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/spotlight/joe-biden
"Biden is the 46th president of the United States and was sworn in on January 20, 2021."
BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/62927609
"King Charles III visited Wales today for the first time as king of the United Kingdom."
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States
"The president of the United States (POTUS) is the head of state and head of government..."
Capitalization in English: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalization_in_English
"royal titles: "King George III" but "kings and queens of England""
Buckingham Palace and official royal sources capitalize, but they also use non-standard capitalization like capitalizing "the" in the middle of a sentence.
But back to the passage being discussed. "He could, theoretically, be king of the United Kingdom or the president of the United States". This is a hypothetical situation, akin to saying "He could be a king" or "He could be a president". Since these are common nouns in that context, they should be lower case.
Edited by ja029673 Hide / Show Replies
"President of the United States" is a proper title. "He could be a president" would be acceptable, but the "...of the United States" makes it into a specific office instead of a general one and means it needs to be capitalized. It's the same as the difference between "...he will be an earl" and "...he will be the Earl of Arundel".
Edited by RoseAndHeather I serve at the pleasure of President Pritchart.
There's no such thing as a "proper title", there's only proper nouns. Titles for heads of state don't follow the same capitalization rules as earldoms, and are common noun that aren't capitalized because numerous countries have presidents and kings. Not to labor the point, but as I provided numerous examples of, offices themselves are not capitalized in reliable sources even when it's specific like "president of the United States". Could you please back up your assertion with examples in reliable published sources?
Edited by ja029673
On another topic, "royal family", as in "British royal family", probably isn't capitalized either. Reason being this is on a worldwide perspective, and since other countries have royal families, it's a common noun. This is how Wikipedia treats it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_royal_family
Also note: https://editorsmanual.com/articles/royal-titles-capitalization/
"Avoid capitalizing common nouns like family even when referring to a specific family—for example, the British royal family."
Edited by ja029673
You clearly don't understand what a proper noun is, or the fact that Buckingham Palace capitalizes the Royal Family and therefore we should too, but fine. You're welcome to continue being both wrong and disrespectful to the office of the President and the Royal Family. It's not worth my time or energy to keep correcting you when you won't listen. But the fact that you changed it back without waiting for me to have the time to respond/for consensus is not kosher. I wouldn't do it again.
Edited by RoseAndHeather I serve at the pleasure of President Pritchart.
These personal attacks like "You clearly don't understand what a proper noun is" and "you clearly don't care that you're wrong" (sent via PM) are very rude and unconstructive. As I rigorously documented, every reliable source uses these capitalization rules. If you don't agree, take it up with them. (Buckingham Palace uses non-traditional, archaic capitalization like "The King and The Queen Consort".) I asked you to provide reliable sources, other than yourself, for your assertions and haven't gotten any. These are just the established rules for capitalization used by reliable sources and style guides, they don't have anything to do with respect for the office which I'm confused why you're even associating those motives.
Edited by ja029673
We should use the same capitalization Buckingham Palace uses as they are the monarchy and we ought to take their lead.
"The American president" and "the President of the United States" follow different capitalization rules because "President of the United States" is a proper noun (as the title of a specific office) and ought to be treated as such.
As I said, I am too tired to continue arguing with you. Fine. You win. You still should have waited for consensus before you reverted the changes.
And I am sorry if I came across as rude.
Edited by RoseAndHeather I serve at the pleasure of President Pritchart.
So I just want to point out the idea that the crown estates are the direct personal property of the monarch isn't true. King George handed over the profits in exchange for the civil list so he wouldn't have to fund the entire civil service. The reason the monarch ever got the profit from the crown estate was that they were head of the government and used those expenses to, you know, fund the running of the country.
Even in 1760 it wasn't just personal spending money for the monarch. The point of the money from the crown estate was always to run the country. If the royals aren't running the country they have no right to the profits.
It's like saying "parliament only runs on ascent from the Queen so if we got rid of the queen we couldn't have a parliament anymore". It's an absurd non-argument. Technically the queen owns all the swans but obviously if she's not monarch any more she wouldn't get to keep that.
Also where are they getting "over twenty times" from? The Sovereign grant is fixed at 25% of the crown estate's profits. So the value of the Crown estate is four times what the royal family gets, not "over twenty times".
(and keep in mind that's not counting all the money they get from the Cornwall and Lancaster duchies, which neither goes to the treasury nor gets taxed)
I do love the argument that it's best if all these potential heritage sites should remain in the hands of the royal family because all that would happen is the public would get access to them instead of being hoarded by a bunch of rich people.
Since everyone is the "first generation" folder is deceased, maybe we should upgrade King Charles and Queen Camilla to "first generation"?
Hide / Show Replies
That's what I was thinking. Question is, is it only Charles and Camilla that get moved to G1 and everyone else gets removed?
Qui odoratus est qui fecit.
I think the Queen and Prince Philip can stay as the first generation, since for a long time they were at the head of the Royal family, and rest of the page is made up of their descendants, which makes sense for a first generation. The alternatives could be merging this page with The House of Windsor, or moving everyone who isn't a "working royal" to The House of Windsor page.
We could move Charles and Camilla to G1, then the kids to G2, grandkids to G3, and then Andrew, Edward, Anne, and their respective spouses kids, and grandkids to the others. Elizabeth and Philip then get moved to House of Windsor.
Yeah, once all the changes get made, the king, queen consort, and the king’s siblings should all be G1. G2 should be their children, with princes William and Harry (each followed by their wives) first; and their children at G3 in order of parents, and birth order
So how long until Charles III gets his Useful Notes page?
Hide / Show Replies
God save the Queen. She died today, 8 September 2022.
Charles has already been announced as King Charles III.
It's go time. Time for the massive overhaul of this page and The House of Windsor.
I understand the general intent although I would have to say that it's dishonest to say that Harry and Meghan have kept a low profile since they were married. I understand the purpose of educating people about the royal family and not having this page be only about scandals and dramas that roll into flame wars, while saying that they have kept a low profile is not true. They are in the tabloids a lot, and even if there is a disagreement about whether they should be in the tabloids for the reasons that they are in there, they are still in the tabloids a lot, from Archewell being accused of being for licensing to even what is mentioned on the page itself, like the scandals about race. So I understand wanting to keep this page clean from being a place to have flame wars full of negative energy, I don't think that anyone who has been in following the news even vaguely that Harry and Meghan have been keeping a low profile since their marriage.
Hi all, now that Prince Philip has sadly passed away, should his entry be moved to the The House of Windsor page, along with other historic members of the family? Thoughts?
Pet Sitter Extraordinaire
Something is missing in the entry for Princess Anne (she had a Reliant Scimitar, you know).
Edited by Comrade_Mabby Regards, Comrade Mabby (they/them) Resident Smart-Alec & Know-It-All
Is it appropriate to talk about how cute William and Kate's children are? I mean, most children are cute and it comes off as tabloid-ish.
Hide / Show Replies
How would it be inappropriate? Beyond the fact that you, personally, don't like it, I mean.
Lighten up. We're T Vtropes, not Wikipedia.
I serve at the pleasure of President Pritchart.
It seems almost certain that Camilla's title will change to "HM The Queen" from tomorrow - that's how she's referred to in the official order of service.