Talk:Prince Octavius of Great Britain

message: What a poor article!  What did he die of at such a young age?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.69.81.2 (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unknown (as far as I can tell; probably fever). He was his mother's 15th child, and both he and his brother Alfred (14th) died young. George III cried: "There will be no Heaven for me if Octavius is not there". PeterSymonds | talk 17:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Children often died young back then. As the person above me said, it was possibly fever, but could have been anything. It wasn't at all unusual to lose a few children. 71.66.230.44 (talk) 07:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Died Very Young

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Prince Octavius of Great Britain. 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/20110927024852/http://www.stgeorges-windsor.org/about-st-georges/royal-connection/burial/burials-in-the-chapel-since-1805.html to http://www.stgeorges-windsor.org/about-st-georges/royal-connection/burial/burials-in-the-chapel-since-1805.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The text refers to Caroline of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, who became Princess of Wales in 1795. Who was Princess of Wales from 1779 to 1783, the lifetime of Prince Octavius? Belle Fast (talk) 09:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody, as the PoW was unmarried. No mystery. Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the text, there was a Princess of Wales in Octavius' lifetime and it was Caroline. Still mystified. Belle Fast (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

text: I think we could remove that single clause, keeping "sexual misconduct and financial irresponsibility". That makes the point still made but without mentioning an event more than ten years after Octavius's death. Celia Homeford (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

text: Yes (longer cmt ec'd). Johnbod (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you all for bringing this to my attention. I have gone ahead and removed that bit of information. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mystery princess? 

message: Why do we need the ref in the first sentence? The information seems covered below. Also, why is there no reference for the "Titles and styles" section? Aza24 (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, @Aza24. The reference in the first sentence points to a source that flat out states that Octavius lived from 23 February 1779 – 3 May 1783. None of the FA reviewers had a problem with it, so it's just been there for a while; I think it's useful to have. As for the "titles and styles" section, British princes have bore the style "Royal Highness" and have been called "The Prince X" for centuries, so no one who looked at this article seemed to question it. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see any reason for the ref, in regards to MOS:LEADCITE, but can't really object further I suppose. I would still strongly suggest sourcing the "Titles and styles" section—readers can't be expected to know about title precedents for British princes ahead of time. Aza24 (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: The article currently reads (Death and aftermath section):
:The day after his son's death, the King passed through a room where artist Thomas Gainsborough was completing the finishing touches on a portrait of the family. The King asked him to stop, but when he found out that the painting was of Octavius, allowed the painter to continue.
This presents an inconsistency: was the painting "of the family" (as the first sentence states) or "of Octavius" (as the second states, implying that it was of him alone)?  If the former, the second sentence should likely read "included Octavius" or somethign non-limiting like that. Minturn (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Minturn It was a collection of paintings of the royal family. Imagine if you took 5 separate photos of each member of a family, and then displayed them next to each other. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: So, should the text read "finishing touches on a set of portraits of the family" and "that a painting was of Octavius"?  The language now is entirely singular, not what one would expect for a group of paintings. Minturn (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Minturn Yes, feel free to do that. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I will take care of it. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Minturn (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency