Talk:Albert Windsor

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-11-30. The result of the discussion was Redirect to Lord Nicholas Windsor.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Notable?

Sorry, but I really don't think he's notable. He's a great-great grandson of a monarch, has no title and will get little press attention. This should be reverted to the redirect. --UpDown 07:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither does Estella Taylor and her siblings, yet they have articles. He is, at least, the grandson son of a British royal peer, and notable enough for being the first direct male-line descendant of George V to have no title. Morhange 08:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Taylor children shouldn't have articles either, and you can't use other article to defend this one. He may be notable for the first direct male-line descendant of George V to have no title, but that does not need a whole article. A redirect to his father's page, and the relevant section is sufficient.--UpDown 08:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Taylor children are up for deletion and most likely will be (justifiably) deleted. Young Albert may follow suit. Charles 03:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Names

Regarding his names, I believe the Daily Mail article mentions that the baby was named after the prince consort, and that the Louis and Edward are for his grandfathers. I don't know about Philip, but I will search through the Google Group's discussion of Albert to see if I can find any info regarding this. [1] Morhange 17:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession

Was he briefly in the line of succession between birth and baptism? Did he ever appear in an officially published line? This is important, as there has been some dispute over at what point Catholic children lose there place in the line of succession, is it baptism? PatGallacher (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masuccio Salernitano (talk • contribs) 12:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is not currently in the official line of succession, see [2]. Was he ever in this line? PatGallacher (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was in line from the moment of his birth until the moment of his baptism as a Catholic. He was never included on the BRF site because sooner or later he'd need to be removed anyway. A person is in the line of succession from birth unless they are baptised Catholic, marry a Catholic or convert to Catholicism. Just because he was born to Catholic parents didn't make this a sure thing, but yes, for the couple months between his birth and baptism, he was in the line of succession. Morhange (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

If the outcome of the deletion discucion was to redirect this to his father why does he currently have an article was there a deletion review or something? - dwc lr (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted! I suggest this ought to be changed back to a redirect, I will do so unless anyone objects. PatGallacher (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree if anyone objects surely a deletion review would be the correct course for them. - dwc lr (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]