Talk:Harald V of Norway
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | 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] | ||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Norway, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Norway. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or 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. | |
Contents |
[edit] Regarding King Olav V's bloodline
Just to clarify my recent rv of this article, removing the pgph on King Harald V's bloodline controversy (via his father King Olav V): this subject matter properly belongs in the Olav V article (where, indeed, it is discussed at length). If deemed necessary, one might perhaps make a small note about it in the present article. --Wernher 01:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "His Majesty"
This whole issue caused some stir in the article about Juan Carlos, because apparently the king of Spain, or Norway, or wherever is not everybody's "majesty," and if you're an anti-monarchist you may even reject the premise that anyone is a majesty. This is why it's a bit "tortuous." Besides, it may be an advantage to be explicit about the style - apparently grand dukes aren't majesties, for example, or some countries may deviate from the whole majesty protocol. --Leifern 21:37, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
- He's not everyone's majesty, as the term "His Majesty" implies. It's an often used term of address, and I don't think even the most ardent republican would claim that a king isn't addressed as such - there's no need to be tortuous about it, jguk 05:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
-
- Then we should write that he is addressed as such, not that he is a majesty. Even official Norwegian websites refer to him in this way sparingly. For example, his biography on kongehuset.no writes "Harald V, king of Norway" and then refers to him "as the king" afterwards. Where the style is referred to, it is as an abbreviation, e.g., "HM Kong Harald." --Leifern 10:37, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
The protocol is to use infoboxes rather than mentioning it at the start. No Kings deviate from the style of Majesty, but Grand Dukes aren't kings and use the style of Royal Highness instead.
Yanksta x 16:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Total loss of a reasonably good layout!
Argh! The recent proliferation of (redundant) 'information boxes' drives me mad. IMNSHO, we only need the House of Glücksburg box; the others should be banished for eternity. The article now looks like a total mess! --Wernher 02:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- I notice someone has fixed it now. Thanks! :-) --Wernher 17:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Colonel-in-Chief unit details
I sincerely implore the contributor who have supplied the very detailed information about the Yorkshire Regiment (and, incidentally, the King's Division) to put those details in said articles. All this is far too detailed to fit in the article on Harald V. --Wernher 17:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
