Talk:Royal lives clause

message: Would it be appropriate to update the "outside of the UK" section to include as an example case the recently reported clause in the agreement passed by the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District that includes a Royal Lives Clause. The reporting is available at this source? https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-ne-disney-new-reedy-creek-board-powerless-20230329-qalagcs4wjfe3iwkpzjsz2v4qm-story.html OriginalOranges (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Central Florida Tourism Oversight District 

message: Not 'sic' at all.  He is definitely King of England, and if you talk to the right people in Wales and Scotland, they'll say they had no choice about who Westminster says is in charge.  I understand the editor who added that notation was thinking 'King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' etc etc, but that might not be true for much longer.  England, however, will always be correct in this case.
Corgi (talk) 08:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely incorrect. The title 'King of England' does not exist and has not existed since the 1690s (before US independence!) The popular use of the term King/Queen of England is irrelevant - it has no legal basis. Whether or not it will be 'true for much longer' is also irrelevant; at the time the contract was signed, it was (and is) incorrect. They could have used no fewer than fifteen different titles, including King of Canada/Jamaica, but King of England is a misnomer. 2A00:23C8:4383:9301:517D:F1B:37D:8D1D (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

text: Sic means 'as written'. King of England was a title but there are no living incumbents which is why Wikipedia redirects it to Monarchy of the United Kingdom. It doesn't seem to change the wording used in the Royal lives clause. Darrelljon (talk) 08:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  'King of England' (sic) 

message: The phrasing of the intro to this entry sounded to me like it was saying “take the monarch who’s currently alive. Then look at all the descendants they ever have. When their family line eventually dies out, thousands or millions of years from now, that’s when the contract term ends.” But I eventually figured out that it was really intended to say “take a given monarch. Then look at all of their currently living descendants. When the last of that group of people dies, that’s when the contract term ends.”
That is, the bit about “currently living” was meant to refer to the descendants, not to the monarch.
So I did some rephrasing of the intro, and while I was at it I made the sample a little easier to read too. (The long bracketed phrase just before the “who” was making it confusing to me.)
I don’t love the phrasing that I ended up with; please feel free to improve it. But whatever changes you make, please continue to make clear that the “currently living” criterion refers to the descendants, not to the monarch.” Elysdir (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing phrasing 

message: TODO: Fill this in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.39.49.160 (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is already included, in Royal lives clause#Application, paragraph 3. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would Be Nice To Add A Reference To Disney's Recent Use Of The Clause In Florida