Jump to content

Talk:Annus horribilis

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

HM's Usage

[edit]

Of course, the sad thing is how few of her subjects would have recognised the allusion. O tempora, o mores ! WMMartin 17:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin and use

[edit]

I always thought that this phrase had originated with Sir Walter Raleigh. I first encountered the phrase about twenty years ago, in a biography of Raleigh, and it made an impression on me then. Also, Edmund Morris's biography of Ronald Reagan indicates that Reagan had long used the phrase to describe his 1948. If so, his use of the phrase probably predates Queen Elizabeth's in 1985. Brain Rodeo (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OED may date it to 1985, but we've antedated that to 1936 and 1900. The use in 1900 certainly sounds like it expects that the reader of The Nation would be familiar with the term. wikt:annus horribilis Robert Ullmann (talk) 07:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I question how accurate the following paragraph is: "John Major, then Prime Minister, wanted the government to cover the cost of repairs (Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace are government-owned), and the British Constitution requires the monarch to accept the advice of his/her prime minister. But there was much public outcry against this plan". Firstly the statement that Windsor and Buckingham Palace are government-owned is wrong. They belong to the Crown - the government owns nothing. But they are regarded as state rather than private assets. So of course the taxpayer should have paid for repairs. The second half of the paragraph implies that the Queen violated the "Constitution" (of course that should be "constitution") by refusing to accept John Major's advice. That is obviously wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Annus horribilis. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Annus horribilis. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Annus horribilis. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

falling out of favor

[edit]

2017 in the US was surely an annus horribilis, but few sources have referred to it. a catholic bishop in australia used it, but that figures. latin is not being taught outside seminary school.....Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles / Camilla phone call was revealed in 1993 not 1992

[edit]

"The infamous tampon conversation between the married heir to the throne and the equally wedded Camilla was one of the most damaging British royal stories of the late 20th century. The story was "broken" by New Idea in January 1993. Murdoch's British papers, the rest of Fleet Street and the world media then republished with abandon." [1]. "The transcript - dubbed 'Camillagate' caused shock waves throughout the Royal Family as it exposed the relationship between the Prince and Camilla, who at the time was married to Brigadier Andrew Parker Bowles. It was published by the People on 17th January 1993 under the headline 'Charles and Camilla - the tape.' Here is the transcript in full:" [2] Adpete (talk) 07:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2020

[edit]

Twice now people have added 2020 to the page as a See Also, and while I personally agree that the year as a whole has been a reeking dumpster fire, I have yet to see a reliable source (or ideally, multiple sources in agreement) calling it an annus horribilis. I'd assume that we wouldn't necessarily see those until 2020 is actually done with us; we've still got a month and a half to go and who knows what else awaits?

I intend to keep my eyes peeled for sources in early 2021, and would appreciate other editors doing the same - or, if you've got a source already, by all means feel free to add it! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 20:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't generally ref a "see also" in the article, but I believe there's a widespread characterization of 2020 as an annus horribilis to warrant adding it to the see also section. From the past few weeks:
I think it should be added (without that "fascism" commentary in the most recent addition). Schazjmd (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd only looked at the most recent revert, which was a "see also" edit. To add 2020 as a section with prose, I agree that we'd need to wait on end-of-year analyses that characterize it as such. Schazjmd (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tempting it may be, but it fails WP:RECENT. We do not know if 2021 will be worse or better than 2020, and it’s only 16 days into the new year. --Minoa (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Granted we don't know if 2021 will be worse, but that has no bearing on the heap of sources Schazjmd found characterizing 2020 as an annus horribilis. May I ask how that fails WP:RECENT? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of the message, my belief was that historians have located worse years such as 536 AD: in addition, what counts as the worst year depends on a lot of variables, such as personal perspectives (India Today: "misery is subjective, and different people would call different years their worst, depending on their experiences"). --Minoa (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Annus horribilis means "horrible year", not "worst year". Schazjmd (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that now. If you do add 2020 as its own section, standard procedures for citing sources apply. What matters to me the most is the use of reliable sources, given the flurry of "see also" edits with no citations: using some articles dated this year may help too. --Minoa (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2019

[edit]

2019 as a second annus horribilis for the royals has been mentioned by a few sources: [3] [4] [5] [6] Or not as bad, but still compared to it, here: [7]. Should this be included? —AFreshStart (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added to the article (I forgot about the prorogation controversy). —AFreshStart (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annus_horribilis&oldid=1248424602"