Talk:Chapel Royal

message: but elevated to the status of Chapel Royal by Queen Elizabeth II only in 2004.
I can assure you that the chapel of the Mohawks in Brantford was a royal chapel well before 2004.
Randal Oulton (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: hailing all fact checkers

message: I think we need seperate pieces on Scotland and England, but wonder what would be the best approach. Any ideas?Harrypotter 20:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great.  Ruth, if you type four tildes after the end of your message it will be signed timed and dated for you. Eddaido (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Dealing with Scotland and England

message: Article needed on "Children of the Chapel Royal". Fair few uses of the phrase in WP and notable history but no WP article. SmithBlue (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children of the Chapel Royal 

message: I've removed once more the names of the present Organist and Sub-organist of the British Chapel Royal. These individuals - most certainly the latter - are not notable characters, and thus don't warrant a mention in this article. I've left the links that were used as sources, and moved them down to the External links section. I hope that suffices. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that Dr. Gant may be a notable enough person in his own right (I would see no reason to oppose a separate article on him); regardless of whether I am correct in my estimation concerning that fact, it seems to me that the name of the current Organist, &c., of the Chapel Royal is notable enough for the inclusion in this entry. It's an historic position, and its a useful, non-trivial fact (and Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopædia, &c.). I think Miesianiacal is confusing two separate forms of 'notability'. Restoring. Tobyox (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone beat me to it:) Seems I saw an older version... Tobyox (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organists 

message: I have to admit, I've read the first paragraph and couldn't understand a thing - it's all written in "royalese". I doubt very much that the average reader, who just wants an idea of what a chapel royal actually is, will not be greatly helped by the current version. Is it possible to simplify it? Aviad2001 (talk) 11:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That was officialese and is it any better now? Eddaido (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, but now I learn the problem. Eddaido (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think your good attempt at fixing one problem resulted in another. I've tried to remedy the latter while incorporating your initial changes. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph 

message: I suggest that this article be renamed with a suffix like (UK) and a new article named just Chapel Royal (no suffix) be opened to contain those items and references to all establishments, often very well-covered, like those in Canada.
Because it seems every Christian monarch once had her/his personal group of clergy, singing men and choristers and as they belonged to the then (almost) universal church they usually took the same form. 
As a group these institutions are notable because they endeavoured to contain the leading performers of their day and so they provide a link to many other articles within Wikipedia. Where they cover institutions rather than individuals they can be hard to identify e.g. Flemish chapel (capilla flamenca) had been confused (twice!) with Capilla Flamenca not to mention the deletion of sources . . . Eddaido (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, moved out the ugly chunks to Chapels Royal. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split? 

message: I've tried to clear up the difference between the English and Scottish Chapels Royal in the history section, but this needs further elaboration.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CollierJP (talk • contribs) 21:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification and further work 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chapel Royal. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090216120854/http://www.royal.gov.uk:80/TheRoyalResidences/TheChapelsRoyal/TheChapelsRoyal.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalResidences/TheChapelsRoyal/TheChapelsRoyal.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708011727/http://www.blackburncathedral.com/UserFiles/File/Concert%20Diary%202008_9.pdf to http://www.blackburncathedral.com/UserFiles/File/Concert%20Diary%202008_9.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: the link in the disambiguation line to chapels royal just comes back to this article.  Is there in face a separate article "for the general topic etc"?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  chapels royal 

message: The article on the Mohawk Chapel says "It is one of six Chapels Royal outside of the United Kingdom and one of two in Canada."  Where are the other 4?  --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  where else?  

message: Massey Chapel is now official. Sources:
* https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/06/20/massey-college-chapel-designated-canadas-third-chapel-royal.html
* https://www.utoronto.ca/news/massey-college-chapel-designated-canada-s-first-anishinaabek-chapel-royal
* http://www.masseycollege.ca/2017/06/20/queen-designates-chapel-royal-at-massey-college/
Bobagem (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are three now 

message: Sorry about this but it is a proper noun — Chapel Royal - at least in England. Eddaido (talk) 11:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Caps?! 

message: Is there a problem with this edit? If so, which? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...is a [[royal chapel]] in the form of... 

message: This is a mess. The lead starts off with "In both the United Kingdom and Canada, a Chapel Royal refers not to a building but to a distinct body of priests and singers" and then throws in a mention of a building in Bermuda. Next we have a section "United Kingdom" talking first about a building in Scotland, then a body of singers in England. Then we have sections talking about four buildings in England (and one in Dublin), and one about three buildings in Canada.
In my view anyone wanting to read about a building is already served by the dab note to Royal chapel (disambiguation). I propose to repurpose this article to the topic exclusively of the Chapel Royal in England (body of singers) as that is the main usage. I will split/merge where appropriate those parts concerned with other topics. A reworded dab note and carefully worded lead would ensure people coming here are less confused than currently. --Pontificalibus 17:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe so but this is Not about a building, is it! Eddaido (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Mess