Talk:Coronation of George VI and Elizabeth/Archive 1

Archive 1

Daily Mail

This article contains a lot of information, but the Daily Mail is a tabloid and I couldn't find the quotes anywhere else. It would be great if we could find other sources for that information. Surtsicna (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Lead

We need a more sound explanation as to why the original inclusion of the title, bolded, in the lead is not wanted.

So far, one of WP:BOLDTITLE's directions--that there should be no bolding in the opening sentence if the article title can't be included "easily and naturally"--has been quoted in the summary of an edit that changed the composition of the lead so as to remove from its opening sentence the easy and natural inclusion of the title! Since there was nothing difficult or unnatural about the composition that included the article title, and considering the same editor's prior change to the lead that simply removed the bolding in order to link the first mention of the names of George VI and Elizabeth, it would seem we're getting to the actual heart of the no-bold campaign with this: "It is absolutely senseless not to link articles about the key people the first time they are mentioned."

Yet, it not "absolutely senseless" at all to not link the first mention of the names of key people; many articles don't do so for places, things, or names. See Battle of the Somme ("River Somme" not linked until end of second sentence), History of the United Kingdom ("United Kingdom" not linked until end of first paragraph), Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II ("Elizabeth II" not linked until beginning of second sentence), Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II ("Elizabeth II not linked until second mention in first sentence), Arms of Canada ("Canada" not linked until end of first sentence), Anthems and nationalistic songs of Canada ("Canada" not linked at all in lead), Iraq War ("Iraq" not linked until second mention in first sentence), Monarchy of the United Kingdom ("United Kingdom" not linked until second mention in first sentence), and President of Germany ("Germany" not linked until end of first sentence) for just a tiny sample.

What, then, is so different about this article that it absolutely must link the names of central people upon first appearance? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

No bold campaign? Labeling a content dispute as a campaign is quite immature. Other crap exists. This sentence is better than this one. It is more informative, more natural, flows better and is less repetitive. There is no rule that says that the article title has to be incorporated. There is especially no rule that says that incorporating article titles into lead sentences is so important that wording should be downgraded from optimal to "fine". WP:BOLDTITLE allows for exceptions. Is the want for bold letters so great that quality of the sentence doesn't matter? Surtsicna (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't be so dramatic. Other stuff may exist, but your response above doesn't explain at all why this article is so special, nor what is actually wrong with this opening; it is just as repetetive as this, replacing one repetetion of "brother" with "George" and, really, the second mention of "Elizabeth" in mine could be changed to "his wife", just as you used the more clunky and harder to understand "sister-in-law [of Edward VIII]" in place of the Queen's name. (Plus, yours links Coronation of the British monarch twice.) So, you're again left to eludicate on why you need so badly to ignore what WP:BOLDTITLE prefers just so the sentence can be worded so it's acceptable to link the first mention of George VI and Elizabeth; "I like mine better" doesn't cut it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

We both like our own better. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't be having the discussion. Please don't try to misrepresent the situation, as you started doing by referring to this as a "campaign". WP:BOLDTITLE does not give preference to either version, as it allows for both. Not linking the Queen in the first instance and then piping the link to her article as "his wife" is a really bad idea. I've removed the extra link; it was that easy. I could agree to a compromise:

The coronation of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth took place at Westminster Abbey, London, on 12 May 1937. With his wife Elizabeth as consort, George VI ascended the thrones of the British Empire and Commonwealth upon the abdication of his brother, Edward VIII, on 11 December 1936. Edward's coronation had been planned for 12 May 1937 and it was decided to continue with his brother and sister-in-law's coronation on the same date.

That way, key words are at least linked right after the lead sentence, and you get your article title. I still believe "my" version is better, but that was not going to get us anywhere. Surtsicna (talk) 10:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree (with some reservations) with Surtsicna's compromise above. When I originally wrote the lead, I followed the format of the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II - my original text seems to have been lost from the history in the redirect from "Coronation of George VI". It listed the British Dominions which George had been crowned king of in the same way as Elizabeth's article. There is no such title as "king and queen of the British Empire and Commonwealth". He was however, the first British monarch to be the King of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa; these having become independent and co-equal nations by the Statute of Westminster 1931. Also he was the last Emperor of India. It works for Elizabeth II's page so why not here? However, to avoid an unseemly edit war, I am willing to go along with the suggestion above. Alansplodge (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

D'oh! I wasn't looking very hard - my original text: "The coronation of King George VI was the ceremony at Westminster Abbey, London, in which George VI of the United Kingdom, was crowned King of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa and Emperor of India." Alansplodge (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

As a whole, the matter isn't entirely about believing in the superiority of one's own composition. WP:BOLDTITLE does prefer that the article title be included and bolded in the opening sentence, only not being so when it can't be done "easily and naturally". That said, what's proposed above seems to work well. I only wonder if it should be "With his wife, Elizabeth, as consort...", as it is with Edward VIII a little farther on. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Indian rulers

Do we have a reference for the attendance of Indian rulers at the coronation? My understanding is that it was intended to hold a Delhi Durbar during 1938, when the Indian princes would pledge their loyalty to the new King-Emperor. Therefore, as happened at the coronation of George V, the Indian rulers were not invited to Westminster. In the end, the Durbar was postponed indefinitely for reasons of economy, but more likely to avoid an anti-British uprising. Alansplodge (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference now added. Alansplodge (talk) 13:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of things named after Queen Elizabeth II which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

O clap your hands

They sang "O clap your hands" but how do we know which? Gibbons, perhaps, or this: O clap your hands (Vaughan Williams)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

According to Westminster Abbey's Coronation of George VI May 12 1937 it was the Gibbons. RVW's only contribution in 1937 seems to have been the Festival Te Deum in F Major. Alansplodge (talk) 09:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Could the list of music perhaps be a little more detailed then, based on that source (which I don't have). Compare the recent wedding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

It could be, but the section probably needs to be rewritten into some kind of logical sequence. I didn't find that source when I wrote it. Alansplodge (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, I have now added a full list of music in sequential order, in a collapsed table. Alansplodge (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! - Do we know what setting of the Luther hymn? Credo and Sanctus from which mass? Gloria from which mass by Stanford? Do any of the other hymns have articles? - Plenty of music, btw! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find out much about the Luther, even whether it was choral or purely orchestral. Merbecke's 1552 Communion Service was almost universal in the Anglicanism at that time, but our article says that there were numerous settings of it in four-part harmony rather than the original plainsong; no clue there either. The Byrd Sanctus is noted elsewhere as being in Latin, so maybe from the Mass for Four Voices, but no ref to confirm that. The Gloria is the one which Stanford wrote for the 1911 coronation and later incorporated into the Festal Communion Service in B Flat and I DID find a reference for that. Alansplodge (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Coronation of King William IV and Queen Adelaide which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Made my fellow train people happy

Forgot to mention, but I've done my railfan duty and added the Coronation Scot and Coronation rail services on here :) 86.188.86.71 (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• George VI and Elizabeth and their daughters after Coronation.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)