Celia Homeford

https://www.unr.edu/writing-speaking-center/writing-speaking-resources/mla-quotation-punctuation#:~:text=Using Brackets

I merely committed an honest mistake of using parentheses instead of brackets. But I will let things be with your reversion; although I did find the quote confusing and tried to clarify. Buszmail (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Celia, thanks for your edits on my addition to The Duke's page regarding his clandestine marriage to Ann Maguire. You commented that you could not find the citation in the material. The documents containing the detail are held at the London Metropolitan Archive (I deposited them there myself last week) under the reference "Uncatalogued B23/103 RECORDS of ANTHONY CROSBY". I referenced this at the start of the paragraph and provided additional supporting references to Anthony Camp's publications. How can I better reference the deleted material to ensure it can be found? Thanks Graham Young Ee87gsy (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I was referring to the citation I removed, not the archives or Camp. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Indeed the citation for Old Bracknell House is just referencing a picture of the house. I am happy for this to be removed. However, the detail about The Duke providing the residence at Old Bracknell, Maguire's claims and Crosby's letters are in the LMA archive. So perhaps I should remove the Old Bracknell reference and provided a further reference at the end of the paragraph to the LMA? (I have documented much more detail about Ann Maguire and the Duke on Crosby's wikipedia page). Ee87gsy (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Dear Celia, a problem ocurred at the article: House of Glücksburg, where i edited the following:

"While the official royal house of Denmark remains the House of Glücksburg although the current Danish king is a patrilineal member of the House of Monpezat, it is the other way round in the United Kingdom, whose current king is a patrilineal member of the House of Glücksburg, while the official royal house is the House of Windsor, which emerged from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha."

I think you deleted all of that. The whole content of the above text is, however, already proven. The official royal house of Denmark remains the House of Glücksburg, this can be read on all official publications of the royal house.

If you took a closer look at the page House of Glücksburg, you will notice that there is much confusion about who now belongs to the house and who not, and it is therefore necessary to explain the situation about the kings of Denmark and of the UK in the lede. Otherwise, the insertion and deletion of those two kings will go on for ages. Krokusblum4 (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I haven't seen those publications. You will need to provide them. All content on wikipedia should be cited. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think, you are one of the driving forces to push the deletion of the House of Glücksburg from the Danish king's page, and probably you are also one of the voices impeding the insertion of the Glücksburg/Windsor info. It's because of people like you, that there is ongoing confusion as to who belongs to which house. You seem to write about nobility all the time, but yet you claim not being able to find suitable sources. Now there is a page about a king without a house. For sure, it can't stay like that for long. Aside from that, the Danish article still states House of Glücksburg. Krokusblum4 (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Er, no. All you have to do to add the material is provide suitable sources. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello Celia Homeford

As always, thanks for your superb oversight of Wiki pages concerning royalty & related matters.

A slight conundrum as how to cite Sophie, Duchess of Edinburgh's award of the King Charles III Coronation Medal - and likewise for the vast majority of its recipients (going forward)...

Might a picture of her wearing it suffice or perhaps more official would be citing HM Govt's published eligiblity criteria for receipt of this Coronation Medal? (with which she clearly complies, viz. military appointments) qv. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64cb653b2322ce000dcd23b7/Coronation_Medal_eligibility_criteria.docx.

What do you think? because, as recently mentioned to DrKay, no official gazette or other comprehensive authorative source exists for such awards (Jubilee/Coronation/etc) given that so many (3,000+) are issued.

To me, "citation needed" on Wiki implies some doubt as to veracity, whereas there clearly is none here.

Looking forward to hearing - many thanks.

Best Primm1234 (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

If she's clearly wearing it, that's good enough for me. When you refer to the eligibility criteria, I presume you mean category 13 of Annex A? That's the only potential category for her as far as I can make out. Celia Homeford (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Celia Homeford

Sophie, Duchess of Edinburgh, complies under 8.A of these regulations but, on a wider issue, what about other recipients who appear in Wiki?

Many thanks & shall I go ahead by updating her article accordingly?

Best Primm1234 (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can see how she can meet Annex A, category 13 (b). I don't see that she meets 8A. For that, there must be an "active contribution" ... "attendance at an event, i.e. as a guest, does not in itself qualify for the medal". Celia Homeford (talk) 08:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you please explain why you removed the internal link to Eleanor of Aquitaine's family tree, which I am in the process of building. The interrelationships of French and English nobility of the time is so complicated, it requires a clear genealogy to make sense of it, rather than just a textual description. I am intending to revert your edit. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 22:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see no reason to using a farcically archaic and absurd term like 'Acscendants' when all other articles on royalty use the usual and idiomatic 'Ancestry'. Article consistency should be maintained. Nor do I see any reason to depart from the project-wide consensus to use sentence case for sub-headings. 'Family tree' should be written in sentence case, as mandated by the Manual of Style. Also, per policy, edits that are undone should be discussed and not reimposed unilaterally by a single editor against project-wide consensus. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Should I not have added the tudors to the template? My original purpose of the template was to show the basic transition from Stuart to Hanover. Sophia is clearly the key, there. Then I added the Tudors because it looked more like a simple 1→2→3 flowchart, but the "1" (tudors) was missing. —GoldRingChip 12:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't see how the Tudors are relevant to the Hanoverians, or vice versa. There's a hundred years between them. I can see why such links are shown on arching articles like a family tree of all English monarchs, but that's not appropriate for a biography of an individual where family trees should show relationships relevant to the article subject's life. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

That is fine. I have now removed the Tudors. —GoldRingChip 13:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Celia,

You recently move the page for "Ernst August von Hannover (born 1983)" to "Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1983)". I realise it may be a bit unclear given the discussion wasn't on the talk page but this page title was discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)/Archive_24#Requested_move_7_June_2023

I believe you've made the move based on the short 2016 move discussion on the talk page where they say "There is no reason to translate his given names just because he is a prince. We wouldn't translate the given names of other living Germans." which is amusing considering his surname is not "of Hanover" and is in fact "von Hannover". Please revert the move and open a move discussion if you feel a move is needed.

Thanks D1551D3N7 (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

What User:Celia Homeford did is absolutely right. The discussion you are pointing out to does not cover the page on Ernst August nor does it cover the pages on any of his siblings. If you wish to move any of those pages, you should open an RM that specifically covers them so that the community make a decision by taking WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONSISTENT and other factors into consideration. Keivan.f^Talk 17:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Actually the reason to have one bigger discussion was for WP:CONSISTENT purposes as I would get accused of making pages inconsistent if I did 1 page at a time. This is a point I think I made within that discussion.

I realise now that this is a different Ernst August to the one in that discussion, apologies. How the unprincely Ernst August can have a son who is Prince Ernst August is a mystery however, I think it would logically follow that his offspring wouldn't bear these fantasy titles.

I've opened a move request on Ernst August now anyway. D1551D3N7 (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Edward IV: I was debating the use of the word "claim" vs "right", as according to the Act of Accord the Yorkists did have the right to throne as they were now legally the successors of Henry VI. Do you not agree? Ychc1n19 (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Maybe if the citations say that, but I would need to be shown that citations are agreed on the issue and support it explicitly. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Act of Accord page says "Under the Act, King Henry VI of England was to retain the crown for life but York and his heirs were to succeed him, excluding Henry's son, Edward of Westminster. Henry was forced to agree to the Act." It was a Parliamentary Act, so was legally binding despite Margaret of Anjou refusing to accept it. Ychc1n19 (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The citations at that page are all primary sources or weak webpages. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Henry VI: Surely it's good to leave in the link to the Cadet branches page, in case people don't know what that means and they can just hover over it and see before moving on? Ychc1n19 (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I nearly left that in myself. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello--
Her official style is The. I thought it was only used in formal situations, similar to how sometimes Sarah, Duchess of York is referred to jointly with Andrew as "The Duke and Duchess of York" in some circumstances.
Sorry for the confusion.
71.184.82.123 (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Here are some links to the official site: [1][2][3]. No 'The'. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

In the official line of succession, she is referred to as The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor, see here. 2604:3D08:697F:CA20:EE1C:545E:7D6D:248A (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I read that the first, second and third times you said that. No need to repeat it for fourth time, or any further. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

You deleted the coats of arms on the pages from the Princess of Wales, Duchess of Edinburgh, Princess Royal & Duke of Sussex. I was wondering why. The arms of different princesses of Wales at different periods is something about them, especially as a coat of arms is so often used by the British Royal Family. Also, why did you delete the coat of arms on the top of these pages? You said it was the "Personal arms of the incumbent, not those of the office or title", but it said underneath that this was the arms of the Incumbent specifically. JAMAMBTGE (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

You keep changing it to the 22nd when it isn't written anywhere I'm sure every British monarch or English that I know of succeeds on the date of death of the predecessor, so if Edward vi reign started on the 28th Jan if you look at that wiki page yet your trying to say Henry viii didn't on the 21st ? Explain Lew 283 (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

You are wrong. I did explain. See the citations and books like page 27 of https://guides.library.harvard.edu/ld.php?content_id=12548485. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

So the reason I stuck in Maurice is that William III was heir to the political traditions of the House of Orange and well as Stuart. In the United Provinces, the military tradition of the princes of Orange was established by Maurice as the first captain of his age, who by the way trained many of the commanders in the English Civil War. He is in there as important to that tradition and his lack of mention in the article is an oversight. See "Orange and Stuart" by Peter Geyl.

Dear Celia: I have now stuck in, amply cited by noted historians, the justification for William's family and political heritage as well as the citing of the banner used in the Glorious Revolution. JMvanDijk (talk)

I have also substaintially softened to 2-3 sentences the political background of William in the Dutch Republic, and added many more references. I have also added the details on the invasion flag to the references. JMvanDijk (talk)

You claimed that Robb wrote "The banner read: "Pro Religione et Liberate -- Je Maintiendrai", which translated means "For Religion and Liberty -- I will maintain". Je Maintiendrai is the motto of the House of Orange-Nassau". You calimed that it was a direct quote. It is not. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotations: "wording of the quoted text must be faithfully reproduced". It is not acceptable to rearrange or paraphrase QUOTES. She does not say that. That is not a QUOTE. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

So I have no provided a direct quote, instead of from my notes, as well as many alternate sources, even from the great encyclopedist Diderot. This is only a footnote, which most folks won't read, so let's let this go. This is obviously important enough to be mentioned in all the sources cited and probably more. Propaganda is often a key tool of statesmanship. And please let's leave the judgment words such as "ridiculous" out of this. JMvanDijk (talk)

"Your notes" is not an acceptable citation. Neither is fotw.info, as you have already been told. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

As said, my notes were corrected by the citation you gave in Robb from Archiv.org, and the sources are from the French Encyclopedia of 1780, published in Paris, by Diderot and D'Alembert, plates and image numbers given. You should, if you are acting as editor, put them in the citation. But, enough of this. This reaching the end of reason. JMvanDijk (talk)

Hello, Celia! I made a mistake and improperly translated the caption of king's armour's photo into Portuguese. Thank you for reversing my edit. Luiz265 (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

What do you think about to use this short phonograph recording as a sample of voice of queen as an editor of her page? https://blogs.bl.uk/files/queen-victoria.mp3 Taken from here: https://blogs.bl.uk/sound-and-vision/2019/05/bicentenary-of-queen-victoria-is-this-her-voice.html Dmitry Azikov (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can't really hear the voice. It's mostly noise. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it also not absolutely sure that it is really recording of her voice, recording of her cousin prince George, duke of Cambridge was identified, but unfortunately phonograph records of late 19-th and early 20-th centuries rarely have good quality like Christmas messages of her descendants starting from her grandson king George V, but they are added in articles like speeches of american US presidents like Benjamin Harrison, German chancellor Otto con Bismarck and marshal Helmuth von Moltke, Russian composer Piotr Tchaikovsky, writer Leo Tolstoy and revolutionary bolshevik Vladimir Lenin. Version from YouTube has a bit better quality

Dmitry Azikov (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I saw you reverted a link that I added as source to show the location of the wedding. Can I know why you removed it just so I understand what was wrong with it? Here's the change. Thanks Daphoenyx (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

On the matter of ireland, I called the succession to the high king of ireland as it was usually the strongest clan with the best right. The clans themselves are tanistry, where the most senior head is head of the clan Jfrimpong945 (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

What's your source? Everything added to wikipedia should be from a reliable source. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Celia Homeford:

The article Star of India (flag) was recently moved twice to a new name without any discussion. As per WP:COMMONNAME, the Star of India is commonly used to refer to the flags used during British rule in India (although never officially). If you find it appropriate please move the article back to its former name (which was the name on Wikipedia for over 15 years).

Regards Bairagi Ram (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please also see User talk:Indefatigable2#Star of India. Bairagi Ram (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please follow the process at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

According to this thread. Best. ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I saw your revert here. It seems that I accidentally wrote those sentences on the first paragraph of the section British_Empire#Second_World_War instead at the end of the 2nd paragraph which is specific to the Atlantic Charter. Let me know if you have any problem if I restore the paragraph there or you will do that. Thanks Ratnahastin (talk) 02:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I just realized that Just kidding me? (talk) keeps editing the House of Romanov page relying on original research and not using reliable sources. They seem to want to include the name of an alleged Romanov descendant unattested elsewhere, also I see that they keep deleting the edits of anyone who challenges their position. Would you be so kind as to let an admin know so the situation can be fixed please? This page appears to be constantly vandalized by people who wish to support one disputed claimant to the head of the house over the other... Thank you. Frid.antonia-arlon (talk) 08:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LaGB16 Moxy🍁 11:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

About the picture, I know that the precise date is unknown, but why is it impossible? Are you aware that 1900's comprises the years from 1900 to 1909 and the fashion fits perfect that of the Edwardian era? Just a possibility. Jibco (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I did a reverse image search and looked at the file source page to see if I could find a reliable date but drew a blank. Unfortunately, it is not possible for me to correct my inaccurate edit summaries retrospectively, so they must remain. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply