Talk:Harald V

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regarding King Olav V's bloodline[edit]

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)[reply]

"His Majesty"[edit]

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 everyones 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

EDIT: Just to add it, HM stands for Hans Majestet (His Majesty), but more commonly used is HKM, Hans Kongelige Majestet (His 'Kingly' Majesty) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RuneKid (talk • contribs) 16:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. I've never seen HKM used. Only HM. Maybe you're confusing it with HKH (Hans Kongelige Høyhet - His Royal Highness) used by other members of the royal family.Lidmann (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He might also be thinking about that he is called, "Hans Majestet Kongen" (His Majesty The King) when opening Stortinget, and that it's called "Hans Majestet Kongens Garde".83.108.116.186 (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Total loss of a reasonably good layout![edit]

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)[reply]

I notice someone has fixed it now. Thanks! :-) --Wernher 17:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel-in-Chief unit details[edit]

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)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Monogram of Harald V.jpg[edit]

Image:Monogram of Harald V.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

correct names and places[edit]

I hope the changes I've made is good. (If there are any, typo you must only Obey restriction). since I am Norwegian, and can understand what is at the Norwegian pages on wikipedia, I thought that I could help you to write about different things Norwegian. (Such as royalty and the Norwegian counties ... etc) TVNorge (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using picture from the norwegian version[edit]

Using the picture from the Norwegian version witch is higher quality, looks better and is more up to date is probably smart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.19.201 (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:HM Kong Harald V.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:HM Kong Harald V.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uncomplimentary Photo At Opening of Article[edit]

The photo at the opening of the article is uncomplimentary, unless there is something I don't understand about Norweigian culture, in which case I apologize. The Kings hair is a mess and the photo looks like it caught him in an awkward moment. I think this is important because this article is also about Norway and should be more respectful. I have known Norwegians and they are a very fine people. 64.134.222.67 (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Issue Section[edit]

I think I found a quite hughe mistake in the issue-section.

Princess Märtha Louise is clearly not married with Máxima Zorreguieta who is the Queen of the Netherlands. Never posted anything in wikipedia. So perhaps somebody can correct this. Hope it was helpful 92.231.161.175 (talk) 11:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Heiko[reply]

"British" honours[edit]

Two honours in this article are being presented as having been given to Harald by the United Kingdom: the Royal Victorian Order and the Royal Victorian Chain. A cited website is used to support this. However, more scholarly, published sources (which DrKay often--always?--says trump websites) show that both honours are not awarded by any state; they are personal gifts of the monarch who grants them. That monarch is not even sovereign of just one country, nor are the honours associated with only one country. Given that and the fact they're not awarded at the direction of the government of any one country, it's misleading to claim these honours came from the UK. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source, which is official, says otherwise. DrKay (talk) 08:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then the source seems to be in error, on two counts. First, no official British honours are awarded "by the United Kingdom". They are all awarded by the monarch; most on the recommendation of the government, but some not. Second, the RVO is one of the ones in the latter category, and as we say in our article, "admission remains at the sole discretion of the monarch". (my bolding). Any source, no matter how official, that says something else, is out of step with the universally-recognised and inviolate protocols for these awards. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Verifiability for guidance. DrKay (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harald V Land[edit]

I have removed the reference to Harald V land, which is currently a redlink, because per Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) it does not fit within any of four criteria for geographic regions areas or places (Populated, legally-recognized places, Populated places without legal recognition, Disputed regions, Named natural features). Instead, it fits clearly within inherited notability, which states "Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events." There is a random area of land named after an individual. It's not independently a notable geographic area. Put it another way, it didn't merit a page prior to being named after the King, so the mere fact that it is named after him doesn't make it notable now. JCO312 (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Harald V of Norway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of the City of Cork?[edit]

Where are the references for this? He paid a visit to cork but can't find any information on this award? Should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.14.66 (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction Paragraph issue[edit]

"Harald was the third child (and only son) born to Olav V and Princess Märtha of Sweden. He was second in the line of succession at the time of his birth, behind his father but ahead of his two older sisters, Ragnhild and Astrid."
According to my knowledge above statement should be reviewed because his older sisters were not in the line of succession even behind him as they used agnatic primogeniture on those days. Chamika1990 (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed per page 1625 of Christine Alice Corcos (2012) "From Agnatic Succession to Absolute Primogeniture" Michigan State Law Review 1587–1670. DrKay (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Kill the King through bombing'[edit]

From 'Second World War', 2nd sentence: "The dramatic journey northbound was marked by the Germans' repeated attempts to kill the King through bombing." I have inserted a 'Citation needed' marker. This seems inherently implausible. It would surely be more useful in propaganda terms for the Germans to capture the Royal Family rather than give them heroic deaths during the invasion of their country. Is there any reliable source that can be cited to support the idea that German bombing raids were specifically targeted on the King? How did the Luftwaffe know where the King was? Is it known that the bombing wasn't part of general military operations which affected the Royal Family by accident? The reference for this paragraph is a biography in Norwegian, no page number(s), no ISBN number ("English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources). Robocon1 (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to his Wikipedia entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haakon_VII_of_Norway, Haakon VII, having left Oslo after the invasion on 9th April, met the German ambassador in Elverum, who demanded that the King order a surrender and appoint Quisling prime minister. After consulting the cabinet the King refused and "The following morning, 11 April 1940, in an attempt to wipe out Norway's unyielding King and Government, Luftwaffe bombers attacked Nybergsund, destroying the small town where the Government was staying. The King and his ministers took refuge in the snow-covered woods and escaped harm, continuing farther north through the mountains toward Molde on Norway's west coast." There is no mention of any other bombing raids. The Royal Family evidently separated before the bombing, because according to this article (on Harald V) the Crown Princess and the children arrived in Sweden on the evening of the 10th. I am therefore amending the text accordingly. Robocon1 (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Harald V of Norway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Harald V of Norway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

King Halal[edit]

In response to his expressed support for multiculturalism and multicultural immigration, King Harald has been nicknamed King Halal in nationally oriented environments, who also turn their back on the monarchy as an institution. Should this be included in (and balance) the biography, and have we got sources to support it? User5757602 (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The King's portrait[edit]

His hair is a mess! Could it be possible to upload one of his offical portraits from www.royalcourt.no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KongHaakonVII (talk • contribs) 16:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 September 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. The community is roughly equally divided on this; I count about 8 in support and 7 opposed. See #Discussion below for detailed analysis and a possible path forward. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Harald V of Norway → Harald V – The title is more concise. Interstellarity (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC) —Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Heart (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - As we should go back to Name # of country for all these monarch articles, per consistency. GoodDay (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - As per comment above. Nothing is gained from reducing recognizability. Walrasiad (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:SOVEREIGN: If the regnal name and number are unambiguous, use them. There is only one Harald V, so it is unambiguous. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with GoodDay. Dimadick (talk) 07:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per GoodDay. Deb (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:SOVEREIGN, WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE, and WP:COMMONNAME. A vast majority of articles about Norwegian kings need no disambiguation, including the most recent eight kings. We also have Elizabeth II (and have had for a decade), Juan Carlos I, and Carl XVI Gustaf. Therefore, consistency is not an issue. Surtsicna (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth II, Juan Carlos I & Carl XVI Gustaf should also be moved back to Name # of country, then. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Juan Carlos I & Carl XVI Gustaf were recently the topics of requested move discussions that decided on moving them to the current titles.
Elizabeth II has been at its current title for over a decade. You're welcome to request a move for that article, but I'm pretty sure that article isn't moving. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of the reasons it was moved then, was because having of the United Kingdom in the title, offended a few Canadian monarchists. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per previous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • support because follow WP:SOVEREIGN and precedent. --Investigatory (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Just "Harald" would be even more concise. If the trend for conciseness continues, we'll soon have article titles with just the surname. Why have an article with title "Albert Einstein", which is way too long, when most people refer to him as just "Einstein"? Vpab15 (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There have been many people names Harald, but he is the only Harald V. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vpab15: That is not true. Part of the reason why the title of the Albert Einstein article is at that title rather than Einstein is because it is proper encyclopedic format. See the third paragraph of WP:SINGLENAME on why this is used. Royalty are different. Interstellarity (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Almost all of the opposition is arguing against the rule itself, which isn't allowed per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. -- Calidum 15:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Calidum: Or is it the guideline that represents local consensus? Srnec (talk) 03:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A guideline cannot be local consensus. -- Calidum 19:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. Maybe not the best place to discuss this, but I wasn't aware of the change to rule #2 in WP:SOVEREIGN. As other editors have said, removing the country removes very useful information. There are three different countries with kings named Harald. Does the average reader know which number corresponds to which country? I think the answer is probably no. Vpab15 (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, WP:SOVEREIGN is clear on this matter. Personal disagreements with the recent changes to the guideline are irrelevant here, as this isn't the place to overturn that RFC. BegbertBiggs (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per Columbia Encyclopedia and Merriam Webster. 3K008P9 (talk) 07:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC) !vote by sock of community-banned user struck per WP:BMB. Favonian (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:SOVEREIGN. If someone wishes to propose a change to the guideline, please feel free to create a properly advertised RFC specifically to do so. Until then we should respect the guideline as currently written, and if consensus is later overturned, a new move request can be raised. CThomas3 (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I came to close this discussion, but decided to weigh in instead. The crux of the discussion rests around an apparent conflict between a recent change to WP:NCROY vs. the Consistency element of WP:TITLE. In my opinion, when there is a conflict, Policy trumps Guideline ... in other words WP:TITLE overrides WP:NCROY. Conciseness is part of WP:TITLE, but so is Consistency and Recognizability ... I doubt that a significant swathe of readers when encounting "Harald V" think oh, the Norwegian monarch (I'm writing from the United States which is admittedly near the bottom of the heap in regard to knowledge of global history :-| ). Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would point out that if this is truly how we should be interpreting WP:TITLE, we have a massive number of articles violating it. My first four clicks of "random article" turns up Jinnie Trail (I had no idea it was a nature trail in Staffordshire), Anatoly Kirov (as a casual fan at best of Greco-Roman wrestling, it was news to me he was a wrestler), Ninsusinak (I'm not at all familiar with Etamite mythology so I had no clue what this was), Cognicide (seems like it should be some kind of crime but it turns out it's an album by Western Addiction, which itself seems like it should be something other than the name of a band), etc. Should we disambiguating these as well? I would argue it's relatively uncommon for articles to be completely unambiguous from the title alone, but our policies on conciseness and precision means that natural disambiguation is neither required nor preferred. I don't see why we should insist that "Harald V" be any different. CThomas3 (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Mobile search for "Harald"

I arrived here upon seeing that this requested move has been open for well over 90 days (three months!), which exceeds the open time of the current second longest running RM by quite a lot.

I find that the catalyst behind this and other recent RMs is the rough consensus at this request for comment on naming conventions for royalty and nobility, which ran 2 June–14 August 2020.

Consensus was obtained for "proposal #2" – "If the regnal name and number are unambiguous, use them: Louis XVIII, Edward VIII, Ivan V, Gustaf VI Adolf. Adding a country to the article title, when there is no other country with a monarch of that name, goes against WP:PRECISION."

Based on that consensus, this edit was made at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) (WP:NCROY), in §Sovereigns (WP:SOVEREIGN):

  • In a few cases consensus has been reached that the country can be omitted, because it is unnecessary, against usage or possibly problematic: Elizabeth II (rather than "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom") and Napoleon (rather than "Napoleon I of France"). It is also possible to combine a numeral with a cognomen or surname, as in John III Sobieski.

was changed to:

I find that one of the four listed examples, Ivan V, is not actually unambiguous. At 19:22, 14 August 2020 Interstellarity moved Ivan V of Russia to Ivan V over redirect, with edit summary "Shorten title in accordance with WP:SOVEREIGN", but then at 22:40, 15 September 2020‎ GoodDay moved page Ivan V back to Ivan V of Russia over redirect, with edit summary "Requires an RM". I added a disambiguation hatnote at the top of Ivan V of Russia:

"Ivan V" redirects here. For the last nominally independent ruler of Ryazan Principality, see Ivan V of Ryazan.

Wikipedia:Article titles policy says that there is often more than one appropriate title for an article. In that case, editors choose the best title by consensus. The five characteristics recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency should be seen as goals, not as rules, and it may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others. Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines or by Wikipedia projects, such as Names of royals and nobles. While it's true that adding a country to the article title, when there is no other country with a monarch of that name, goes against WP:PRECISION, that's rather stating the obvious. WP:SOVEREIGN does not clearly say that for royalty and nobility we should view precision as more important than recognizability.

Some royalty are well known, and have high recognizability – thus there is less need to add a country to the article title, e.g. Edward VIII, a relatively recent British monarch, is known for his abdication in 1936. While Harald V should be relatively well known as a sitting monarch, he actually isn't that well known in America as USA tabloid media doesn't seem to pay much attention to him or his family, that I'm aware of.

Encyclopædia Britannica has a solution for this issue. Their article is precisely titled Harald V but right below that the subtitle "king of Norway" increases recognizability. Wikipedia's {{short description}} template provides our equivalent solution (see the information page). The short description of a Wikipedia article is a concise explanation of the scope. Wikipedia's mobile interface uses descriptions to augment searches, and the Wikipedia Apps also display them below each article title.

See the image I uploaded of my mobile search for "Harald" on the right. Note that " of Norway" becomes redundant when you see "King of Norway" immediately below that. This feature has been embedded into desktop Wikipedia via the new {{SHORTDESC}} magic word. It shouldn't be a big leap for the developers to display the short description immediately below article tiles and above the line separating the title from the tagline "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". I'm curious to know how other editors feel about doing that. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Signature[edit]

I think the present image for HM’s signature may be wrong, doesn’t he sign “Harald R” like his British (Charles R) and Danish (Margrethe R) counterparts. I found at least one instance instances where he may have done this: https://www.thedailyworld.com/life/ruth-mccausland-celebrates-100th-birthday/ I also know his father and grandfather signed “Olav R” and “Haakon R”. Does anybody know anything further? Estar8806 (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. I uploaded the “Harald R” signature to Wikidata, with citations. Znuddel (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s good. Is there someone who can make that same change here? I wouldn’t know how to make the stylised signature rather than using a photo of it. Estar8806 (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Haakon VII of Norway which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC of interest[edit]

(non-automated message) Greetings! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users following this article talk page! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here! Hurricane Andrew (444) 19:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harald_V&oldid=1195533174"