Talk:House of Windsor/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Are there any Admins keeping a watch on this Talk Page?

I've spent the better part an hour reading through this latter-part, and SOAPBOX, ORIG. RESEARCH/SYNTH and NOTAFORUM are being violated left and right, with only a couple of editors trying to swing everyone back to RELIABLE SOURCES. Isn't it time for an Admin warning to end debate that isn't trying to improve the article via RS ? Thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

No, because such censorship applies to article content, not to talk pages where contributors are entitled to expound their rationales for the changes they would like to see in the article. FactStraight (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

No, that's incorrect. WP:SOAP and WP:NOTFORUM applies to talk pages. Indeed, they apply specifically to talk pages. Talk pages should be used for specific improvements to articles. As HammerFimFan says, most of the posts on this page are in breach, and should only be about discussing how the article does or does not reflect reliable sources. Instead it's full of people expounding their personal ideas about genealogy. Waste of time, or at least, wrong place. DeCausa (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. It's tiring to read thru stuff trying to get to the 'meat' of what may need to be done to improve the article. HammerFilmFan (talk) 04:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Hey great, maybe we can have a longwinded argument about this aswell!;)1812ahill (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"Mrs Marina Ogilvy"

Marina is listed in the table of descendants as "Mrs Marina Ogilvy". It would be very unusual (indeed, unique) if this name were correct. She was Miss Marina Ogilvy from birth, then she became Mrs Paul Mowatt upon marriage. After her divorce she would be either Mrs Marina Mowatt or Ms Marina Ogilvy. I have shied away from editing the table, because I cannot find a reference to indicate which name she uses, but she would not be Mrs Marina Ogilvy. P M C 23:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It has come to pass that women (especially divorced women) can do whatever they want with their names. (Which I guess makes sense, given that they own them). So I would suggest that, absent a reliable source we stick with the status quo, because a Bold change would be synthesis of the sources we have. Achowat (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

No, looks like a typo to me. Needs to change. I suspect it was Mrs Marina Mowatt and when she got divorced an editor replaced the Mowatt to Ogilvy and forgot about the Mrs. Debrett's | calls her Mrs Marina Mowatt - I'll change it. DeCausa (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Achowat is right regarding the name being a matter of personal choice these days, but the honorific is more of a societal matter. She could be Mrs Mowatt, or Ms Ogilvy; my point is she would not be Mrs Ogilvy. I could find no reference as to which name she used and so made no change because of WP:NOR. DeCausa's source swings it for me though. I'd say change to Mrs Marina Mowatt. P M C 21:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

Not totally clear what the Neutrality tag is for. Any objections to taking it off? DeCausa (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

No one's commented for two weeks so I'm taking it off. DeCausa (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

New members List

I find the article not particularly clearly set out or easy to navigate - mainly because of the large graphics particularly the list of members. I was thinking it might be better to transfer that to List of members of the House of Windsor, leaving behind a wikilink. Any objection? DeCausa (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. DeCausa (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

How comes that the page is not yet semi-protected?-Localsmiler (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

-Not an objection, but just thought I'd point out: only those descended in the male line (male or female) from Elizabeth II and those descended from in the same circumstances from Queen Victoria (and who are British subjects/citizens) are members of the House of Windsor. People like; for example, Peter Phillips, the Earl of Harewood and Viscount Linley are most certainly not members of the House of Windsor.

The 1917 Order-In-Council:

"...from the date of this Our Royal Proclamation Our House and Family shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that all the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, other than female descendants who may marry or may have married, shall bear the said Name of Windsor..."

The 1952 Order-In-Council:

"I hereby declare My Will and Pleasure that I and My children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that My descendants, other than female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the Name of Windsor."JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

This is an old argument which previously generated pages of posts that went nowhere. Let's not start again. DeCausa (talk) 08:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

No; the old argument was about whether or not the male-line descendants of Elizabeth II were members of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg/Oldenburg. The issue as to who actually were members was not discussed.

-regardless of that; there are verifiable sources (the orders-in-council, debrett's, and various others that show very clearly that it is only the children of these respective monarchs and the male-line issue of their sons (and not their daughters) that are members of the House Of Windsor. If you want to ignore these sources, that's up to you, but I'll move this to the other talk page if that's the case.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Unless you intend to revert my transfer of the list to the new article, I'm not sure that your point is relevant to this article. Suggest you deal with it there. DeCausa (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

-which is what I've done. Please refer to that talk page.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Edits by 137.110.35.66

I made 4 quite separate and distinct changes to this article which you reverted en bloc, claiming that they were original research. I think if we go over them one at a time we can reach a sensible conclusion.

1) I changed a subheading from "List of Commonwealth realms monarchs" to "List of monarchs of the House of Windsor". Since the article is actually entitled "House of Windsor", not "Commonwealth realms monarchs" this is surely an obvious and unobjectionable change: it simply aligns the title with the subject of the article (and besides the phrase "Commonwealth realms monarchs" is pretty ugly). In any case, this is an editorial issue, with no research involved. So I do not understand your objection to this.

2) The date Australia became a realm. I understand that you are a lawyer, and that the Adoption Act states that it had effect from 3 September 1939. But that is a matter of law, as interpreted after the passage of the Act in 1942, and the table is about (constitutional) history, not the law. No Australian politician or lawyer between 1939 and 1942 could have agreed that the SoW had been adopted: Menzies' speech to parliament on the declaration of war presumes that it had not. Section 2 of the Act itself says that it "shall come into operation on the day on which it receives royal assent" (see [1]) -- i.e. in 1942.

AS to your claim that this is OR, if you look at other related WP articles, e.g. Commonwealth realm or Constitution of Australia, you will see that it's the date of the passage of the act which is regarded as significant. If you want to go to the mat on verifiable third-party sources we can, but I think the onus is on you to demonstrate that the consensus view is that, as a matter of historical fact, Australia became a realm in 1939, not 1942.

3) The Indian Empire. The table, as you want to keep it, shows a light green line from 1917 to 1931 and a dark green line from 1931 to 1947. According to the text above, In the chart below, the countries are differentiated between light green (realms of the House of Windsor as dominions), medium green (present realms of the House of Windsor), and dark green (former realms of the House of Windsor). -- that is, the table claims that the Indian Empire was a dominion before 1917 and became a realm in 1931. Neither statement is true, as I am sure you know.

You argued that the text here only mentions "realms" not "Commonwealth realms". The point is rather legalistic, since everywhere else in this table and in the article "dominions" are treated as Dominions per the Colonial Conference of 1907 and "realms" are treated as Commonwealth realms (and even if the point were granted it still wouldn't make the table accurate -- see above). I deleted this line because neither applies to the Indian Empire. But it is true that the Raj was regarded as a distinct and separate imperial domain. I have no problem in treating it as such in the table, so long as it is not treated in the same way as the Dominions and Commonwealth realms. The obvious way to do this is to make the line a single color from 1917 to 1947 that is not green.

4) Description of the table. The current description is confusing and incomplete. I changed it to read:

The chart below lists all countries which are or have been realms or Dominions of the House of Windsor. It shows the dates at which they became and, where relevant, ceased to be Dominions or realms. The flags shown are the national flags of each current realm and of each former realm at the time it ceased to be a realm. The timelines for each country differentiate between light green (Dominions of the House of Windsor), medium green (present realms of the House of Windsor), and dark green (former realms of the House of Windsor). The unrecognised state of Rhodesia, which claimed to be ruled by Elizabeth II as a separate realm from 1965 to 1970, is omitted as she did not accept the claim.

Putting aside the Indian Empire, I believe that this is accurate and bother clearer and more complete. If the entry for the Raj is retained but modified as I suggested above then it would need another sentence, but that's all. I do not see what you can object to in this paragraph.--137.110.35.66 (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC);

The first point is that the onus is on you, as the editor making changes reverted by 2 other editors, to gain consensus support per WP:BRD etc. That is one of the reasons I moved your post from my talk page to here. "the onus is on you to demonstrate that the consensus view is that, as a matter of historical fact, Australia became a realm in 1939, not 1942." No it isn't - it's been stable in the article for a long time.

As for your changes: 1. is OK; 2, no, the article on the act is clear, it was retrospective to 1939; 3. it was a realm, leaving it out is misleading. I would agree to the changed wording, but that's not what you've done (yet again); 4 not an improvement. Now, don't force your changes. Wait until others have commented and gain consensus for your changes. DeCausa (talk) 06:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Repeating points that I am responding to in blue in order to make the responses intetllegible --2602:304:7883:7E69:C1D:6303:4309:A767 (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The first point is that the onus is on you, as the editor making changes reverted by 2 other editors, to gain consensus support per WP:BRD etc. That is one of the reasons I moved your post from my talk page to here. "the onus is on you to demonstrate that the consensus view is that, as a matter of historical fact, Australia became a realm in 1939, not 1942." No it isn't - it's been stable in the article for a long time.

Not an argument: an error is an error no matter how long it has been present. As previously noted it is also inconsistent with other WP articles. --71.136.55.230 (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

As for your changes: 1. is OK;

Resolved --71.136.55.230 (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

2, no, the article on the act is clear, it was retrospective to 1939;

The facts are not in dispute: the act was passed in 1942 with retrospective effect from 1939. The point at issue here is what the dates in this table are supposed to represent. To me the dates are (IMO self-evidently) the dates in which certain events actually occurred (hence 1942 is correct). If I understand you correctly, you think the dates are the dates at which certain events are deemed, as of 2012, to have become effective (hence 1939 is currently correct, but that could, in theory, be changed by a future act of parliament to, say, 1926 or 1901). When it is agreed what the dates are supposed to represent we can decide which date to show, and make sure that the chosen interpretation is explained. --71.136.55.230 (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

One way to resolve this is to do what was done in the Commonwealth realm article: date 1942 but a footnote pointing out the retroactivity. --2602:304:7883:7E69:C1D:6303:4309:A767 (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

3. it was a realm, leaving it out is misleading. I would agree to the changed wording, but that's not what you've done (yet again)

By "changed wording" do you mean the changes in graphical representation that I suggested? I see you haven't made them, and I'm not going to make them unless there is agreement.

I have no problem leaving it in so long as it is treated correctly. The Indian Empire was not a dominion before 1931, there was no change in its status in 1931, and it was a very different entity from any other dominion or realm of the House of Windsor. --71.136.55.230 (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

4 not an improvement.

Why not? The text I changed is incomplete, confusing and inaccurate. (1) The purpose of the chart is not explained and must be inferred -- the timelines are not described at all (2) The selection criteria for the countries are not explained (hence, among other things, our Indian Empire discussion and the note I added about Rhodesia) (3) The term "realm" is ambiguous and needs clarification (hence also our Indian Empire discussion) (4) The countries are said to be coloured various shades of green when in fact it is portions of the timelines which are so coloured (5) [Minor] The choice of flags is not explained: the Ceylonese flag, the South African flag and the Canadian flag all changed in the interval covered by the table.

All these points are addressed in the text I added. No doubt it's not perfect and opinions can differ as to scope and wording. But IMO almost anything is an improvement on the current text.--71.136.55.230 (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Now, don't force your changes. Wait until others have commented and gain consensus for your changes.

No need to be patronising. Please stop passing summary judgement and seriously consider the points I am making. --71.136.55.230 (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

OK I get that you don't like inline responses. But there are four different topics here. By separating my response from your point on each one and by clumping my responses together you have made my responses unintelligible. Accordingly, I am leaving your text but I have repeated the points I am responding to in blue in order to place my response to each one in the proper context. I invite you to make any further response inline, which is far clearer in this type of discussion --2602:304:7883:7E69:C1D:6303:4309:A767 (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Since you complained about me making inline responses within your talk, I have not made any, or in any other way interfered with your edits. However you have repeatedly asserted that I have done so, and messed with my responses in such a way as to make them unintelligible. I have a much stronger case against you on this than you do against me: Stop interfering with my Talk.

I had high hopes, given your comments on your user page, that we could actually have a rational debate about how to resolve these issues -- a rare experience in WP. But you have decided to pick a pointless fight about form instead. In an effort to try to get this back on track I have created a version showing the compromise edits I suggested just before you went off the deep end: these are for illustrative and discussion purposes only. If you want to discuss them, let's discuss them. But if all you want to do is throw a temper tantrum I'm not going to waste any more time on you.--71.136.55.230 (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC);

Thank you for following the talk page rules. Editing another editor's talk page posts in the way that you did is a big WP no no. If you look at WP:TPO there are very limited circumstances when it is permissible where the editor objects. Cutting up the post is editing even if you don't change the words. The practical reason for the rule is that although it was convenient for you, it is inconvenient for everyone else. How will a third editor know who said what? How would they add their comments?{ I don't think you quite get the collaborative nature of WP from the way you've approached this article. Being "right" isn't enough on WP - you have to persuade you're co-editors that you're right. From some of the things you've said I don't think you've read WP:CONSENSUS. I suggest you do.

As far as your edit is concerned, I'll take a detailed look at it later today (don't have time right now). But please remember another editor objected to your edit so even if you & I reach agreement, we need to give him reasonable time to comment. DeCausa (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC);

I agree with your "compromise edits" except in 2 respects.

First, in the intro to the table it's misleading to talk about India being "ruled separately by the House of Windsor" as though it were a personal fiefdom in the manner of the Congo Free State (the Windsor monarchs have never "ruled" anywhere; parliamentary system etc per Bagehot: "reigns, but she does not rule"). Same applies to the Rhodesia reference. Also, it was not that "she did not accept the claim" as though she decided independently. Although the strict constitutional position is that it was not accepted "on the advice of her government" the reality is that it was a political decision made by the government (which she undoubtedly agreed with). (1 minor point: US spelling of colored per WP:ENGVAR). I therefore suggest:

The timeline for The Indian Empire, which was treated as a separate domain within the British Empire but was neither a Dominion nor a Commonwealth realm, is coloured in Indian red. Rhodesia claimed to be a separate realm from 1965 to 1970, but is omitted as its unilateral declaration of independence was not recognised by the UK, or internationally.

Second, the reason why the 1942 Act had to be made retrospective to 1939 is that the Australian Parliament had been passing legislation as though it were independent. It was to ensure the de jure and de facto positions matched. I see no grounds for using 1942 but accept that a footnote is needed to explain the retrospectivity of the Act. DeCausa (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Coats of Arms

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Over-long closed thread. Hatting to make page navigable DeCausa (talk) 07:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So I am not sure what is the particular objection to posting the coats of arms that the British Government posts on their own website as the symbols of their state. Please read the reference which takes you to their website. The definition of relevance from Merriam-Websters is Definition of RELEVANT 1a : having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand b : affording evidence tending to prove or disprove the matter at issue or under discussion <relevant testimony> c : having social relevance 2: proportional, relative — rel·e·vant·ly adverb See relevant defined for English-language learners » The definition of demonstrable is: Definition of DEMONSTRABLE 1: capable of being demonstrated 2: apparent, evident — de·mon·stra·bil·i·ty \-ˌmän(t)-strə-ˈbi-lə-tē\ noun — de·mon·stra·bly \-blē\ adverb See demonstrable defined for English-language learners » See demonstrable defined for kids » It seems that if the British Nation and government find these as "relevant" symbols of their monarchy, this article should note that, as well as those of all the other former royal houses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMvanDijk (talk • contribs) 15:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC) First off, the House of Windsor is the royal house for more than just the United Kingdom; the sovereign has 15 other coats of arms for use as monarch of each of those states. Secondly, the coats of arms are relevant to the individuals who hold them, not the royal house those individuals belong to. There are plenty of other articles wherein those arms are properly covered. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Dear Mr. Miesianiacal: yes, they are the royal house for many other commonwealth countries, Canada included. Go ahead an post them. I don't understand your second comment: the quote from the British government and their use by the government and by the Queen as Queen (the quote says she is not entitled to them otherwise) says that they are relevant to a wider audience than just the Queen. I would agree with you that this does not cover the other members of the Royal Family, although I'm sure one can find similar precedents in law, as members of the Royal Family are only entitled to bear those arms when they given under warrant by the Queen. You do need to provide a reference for the comment of irrelevant, or withdraw it as personal opinion. (talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Firstly, posting 15 sets of Coats of Arms is a ridiculous suggestion. It would entirely block up the page. This is not an article about heraldry, and apart from any other points already made to you: it's just too much heraldry. Maybe you should consider creating Heraldry of the British Monarchy? Secondly, the text you included and which you seem to think explains your edit is irrelevant to the House of Windsor. It's about the importance of the symbols to the monarchy: it may be relevant to Monarchy of the United Kingdom but not this article. The text then strays into the use of the arms by the government. What on earth has that got to do with the House of Windsor? You seem to think that anything to do with the British Monarchy can go in this article. That is not the case: this is specifically about the House of Windsor as a family/House. Thirdly, you have been reverted by 4 different editors each of whom believe that what you did is irrelevant. The onus is on you to establish it is relevant, and if you revert again you are likely to be blocked. DeCausa (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC) So, as to the objective parts, in the order given: Firstly; 6 arms are not 15. I agree, that would be too much. And, yes, there is an article on the Heraldry topic that this is cross-linked to, where there are the 15+ descriptions. The arms shown are those that are used only by the Queen and her predecessors in their capacity as soveriegn/head of state. Secondly: I'm giving you an exact quote here. Your point is valid if the House of Windsor has nothing to do with the British Government. In fact, their importance is that they fufill the function of (hereditary) head of state. Subpoint: the quote comes from the section of uk.gov that deals with the House of Windsor. It notes their capacity as the Royal Family and the (hereditary) head of state. Theses arms are then used by the Queen as head of state, and in a sligtly different version by the HMG. I was using the quote to cite their relevance, to both capcities. Thirdly, I'm just a humble physicist (so yes, I'm doing this on the side), but last I looked the policy of Wiki is to determine the relevance based on source and objective facts, not on majority vote. Much as we like to say it, vox populi is not vox dei. Hope that helps to show where I'm coming from. I'm really not understanding the senistivity to this, you will have to explain this to me as a non-subject/non-Commonwealth citizen. Looking from the outside of Britian in, these symbols are, outside of the Union Jack, the most prevalent things one sees on entry and visiting in the UK, and most commonwealth realms with their versions. They are posted/stamped on the coinage, money, stamps, sewn onto police and military uniforms, plastered all over every appearance by the Royals (latest at the Jubilee) in flags and banners. I'm at a loss here to deal with the objection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMvanDijk (talk • contribs) 16:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC) The arms of the sovereign of the United Kingdom are already covered at Monarchy of the United Kingdom#Arms and Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom. That is appropriate. Given that the House of Windsor is not the government of the United Kingdom, nor is it the monarch of the United Kingdom, nor is it the United Kingdom itself, the arms do not belong here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC) JMvanDijk: This is primarily about managing the content of related articles so that there isn't huge repetition of the same material. If the scope of this article was anything to do with the British Monarchy or British Royal Family there would be excessive repetition. It's best to keep this primarily to information about the House of Windsor as a House and not as its role, for instance, as the British Royal Family - there's a separate article for that. (Btw, don't forget to sign your posts with four tildas). DeCausa (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC) See the 2nd point above, your opinion is not that of Her Majesty's Government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMvanDijk (talk • contribs) 17:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Well, but isn't that just the point, the House of Windsor, unlike the previous Royal Houses, now extinct, are fufilling a dual function. They are the (hereditary) heads of state and also a house, if I take what you mean by house to be a collection of human beings related by parentage/DNA. They have 2 properties at once, similar to (if I may use an example from my world) a Higgs Boson, which can have the properties of mass as well as have integral spin. They are distinct and dissimilar. Now the first property, (hereditary) heads of state, makes them interesting to us (more than I thought! ;-)), the 2nd property makes them a family no different from mine or yours with an unusual symbol to indentify themselves. So, yes, there is a seperate article on these unusual symbols. However, I was merely adding the symbols of the state the intent of this article seems to be to describe the House of Windsor and their importance as (hereditary) heads of state (am I wrong here? That is an assumption.). If it is not, then they are just a rich family that likes to wear funny costumes with expensive jewelry and throw expensive public events on the taxpayer's pound? JMvanDijk (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)JMvanDijk (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC The issue is that the Coats of Arms are about the monarchy, about the state (as you say) and not about the Royal House in question. The Badge (in the infobox) is sufficient. Achowat (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC) I would also like to hear you opinion as to why one of the 16 arms used by one member of the House of Windsor is relevant. It would seem, if this information be relevant, that it would only make sense to list all of the arms for all of the members, which (at best guess) would be at least 50. Why are the Queen of the UK's arms relevant but the Queen of St Kitts and Nevis not? Moreover, why are the arms of the Queen relevant while the arms of the Duke of Cornwall not? He is as much a member of the House as she is? Achowat (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Again, read closely: the distinction here is that this article and the arms are about the House of Windsor as heads of state of the UK and commonwealth realms. They are not interesting in their capacity as a family (who as I said, like to dress up). The most common badge is the royal arms, not the one in the InfoBlocks (ok we could change that?). If this is only an article about the house of Windsor as a collection of people, that a few folks like to post information to, it should say that up front and not proport to report any authoritative information about the functioning of the British & Commonweath Head of State. To the 2nd comment, please read above. I do not think that the Commonwealth arms are not relevant(although my opinion is irrelevant to the point in discussion, we are talking about what the state practice and law is). I agreed above that the Commonwealth arms are just as important (assuming the same laws apply there as uk.gov says do in the UK, not all sure about that, someone needs to research that). I also do not know what the legal standing of Charles is as Duke of Cornwall/Prince of Wales/hier to the throne, i.e. is that a defined legal position in the UK and Commonwealth. If yes, then yes, his arms should be posted. However, I did agree above with Mr/Ms DeCausa that much more than the 6 arms posted is getting too long, and merits a seperate article (of which there is a cross reference to). JMvanDijk (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC) But the "House of Windsor" and "Heads of State of the UK" are two different things! It seems like you're having a terribly hard time dividing those in your head. They are distinct and seperable, and as such, information about one isn't relevant to the other. And the House of Windsor has but one badge (in the infobox) and individual members of the House have their own arms. As to "being upfront", our WP:General disclaimer does, in fact, do that. The opinions of the governments of any country, UK or otherwise, are completely irrelevant to the discussion of this particular family. Kennedy family doesn't list Jack's coat of arms, and neither should this page list Elizabeth's. Achowat (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC) So, I think you've almost got it. See my Higgs Boson Example above: Elizabeth serves 2 functions simultaneously. She is Elizabeth (Mountbatten-)Windsor, head of the House of Windsor. She is also Queen Elizabeth, the head of the State. As such, her arms are those of the head of state. I don't know if this would actually happen, but I assume if any other member of the royal family used those arms and was not the monarch, HMG could take them to court. If Elizabeth (Mountbatten-)Windsor used them and was not Queen, HMG could probably take her to court. For example, when Edward VIII abdicated, he was not allowed to keep using the arms, as they were the right of the head of state/king, but had new ones assigned to him. This was a seperate act from him being made "duke of Windsor". So, again, those arms are really owned by the State and used by Eliz. Windsor in her capacity as head of state. I would point out that in many countries (not the UK) monarchs have their own personal arms independent of the state arms so just this confusion does not arise. The UK, relying much more on tradition and unwritten rules, has not seen fit to separate the two. JMvanDijk (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC) I think you're proving our point. The Arms are hers, not in her capacity of Head of the House of Windsor, but solely in her capacity as Queen of the United Kingdom. As such, it belongs on the pages associated with her Monarchy, not her family. Achowat (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC) JMvanDijk, by your thinking there would be sections on Royal Prerogative, Civil list, Supreme Governor of the Church of England etc Why just limit it to the CoA?DeCausa (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Well yes, there could and should be here to be complete? Someone ought to mention them or put pointers to articles on them. My only interest is in what I posted. To Mr/Ms. Achowat: that is just the point. These arms are hers in both capacities, the UK has not seen fit to seperate those functions. If this is just an article on the Windsor family there is much that ought to be changed/excluded here? JMvanDijk (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC) If they were the Queens arms in a personal capacity, then they would also have been the Duke of Windsor's arms in a personal capacity, which they are not. (And it's Rev. Achowat, btw). Achowat (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC) What denomination (my father was Dutch Reformed). You are making a distinction here without a difference as the UK government does not make it, which is the point. See http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Symbols/History.aspx : "The principal symbol of the Monarchy is often deemed to be the Sovereign themselves. However, throughout the history of the Monarchy the authority of the Sovereign has been represented by symbols. "The most notable symbols of Monarchy are the Crown Jewels and regalia, the Honours of Scotland and the Principality of Wales. Lesser known symbols include the Great Seal and personal emblems of the Monarch such as the Royal Standard and Coats of Arms. ... " JMvanDijk (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC) The opinions of the UK Government have no bearing, ZeroPointZero% bearing on the House of Windsor. They refer to the Monarch and the Monarchy, which are part of that government. (And I'm going to decline to answer the faith question; no big deal.) Achowat (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Understand you not answering the faith question. Now to HMG. I do not understand how the opinion of HMG and British (as well as commonwealth law) have no bearing. Without their position as head of state, the house of Windsor is in a similar position to any of the other dispossed royal houses (see for example their distant cousins, the Kings of Bulgaria): of mere curiosity interest. Actually, now that I think of it, King Simeon II returned back at the beginning of the decade, but as an elected prime minister. As such, he did not use the royal title and the royal arms. They had no bearing to the state of Bulgaria of which he was prime minister. He was known as "Simeon Sakskoburggothski"(sp?). That situation is a distinction does not exist in the UK. Hence, the laws and statues of the government are quite relevant. The Lord Chamberlain (a member of the government) even publishes on the uk.gov website guidiance for use of the royal arms (as well as other royal images): things you can do and things they will prosecute you for (http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/Usag%20of%20the%20Royal%20Arms%5B1%5D.pdf). JMvanDijk (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC) 'JMvanDijk'; your assertions on this matter are not taking into account several things of which you may be unaware. i.It would not be under the jurisdiction of the British Government to take a person to court: as regards armorial matters, it is under the jurisdiction as regards the court of chivalry in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (which has not sat since 1953, and then after a several-hundred year hiatus) and the Court of the Lord Lyon as regards Scotland. The royal arms are only 'the arms of the government' because the British government, as in all monarchies; is acting in the name of the monarch. Whilst you are correct in saying that some monarchies have one coat of arms for the monarch and another for the state (although in fact it is only Denmark that makes this distiction in law.), if you would look more closely you would notice that in all instances where this is the case, the arms 'of the state' or 'of the government' are really just 'lesser' versions of the royal arms, they are not completely different arms altogether; and to claim or do otherwise (as the Danish government does, much to the disdain of heraldists) is just bad heraldic practice, and has nothing to do with the British monarchy being 'traditional'. ii. You don't seem to be aware of the constitutional nature of a monarch, or the fundamental constitutional difference between a monarchy and a republic. In a monarchy, the monarch, at least in law, is sovereign; all authority in theory derives from or is granted or delegated from them and them alone. Courts, government, etc. are carried out in the name of the monarch (hence why someone being prosecuted by the state in the UK for example; the case will be 'The Crown vs whoever') In heraldry, the arms of the monarch reflect this, so the arms of the monarch and the state are one and the same. In essence, the monarch, in legal terms at least is the state. The Queen of the UK is quite a unique case in respect of the fact that she is quite separately Queen of 16 separate sovereign states in their own right, as she is separately Queen of 16 different sovereign states, she bears 16 separate Arms of Dominion in respect to each state she is Queen of. Now, in a republic, the people are the sovereign, not the head of state. The President of the United States of America; for example, is not a sovereign. The arms represent the people as a whole, and the state at the same time; and not a monarch. The courts, government; everything in a republic is; at least in theory, in the name of the people (which; likewise, is why a person being prosecuted by the state in a republic will be 'The People' vs whoever.) This is why; for example, why various American Presidents have borne and used arms that are completely different from those of the United States itself. The same is true of various other republics: the various Doges of the Republic of Venice all bore arms that were completely different from those of the Republic of Venice itself; and so have various other republican heads of state throughout history. To quote the famous heraldic writer, J.P. Brooke-Little, Norroy and Ulster King of Arms, in his 1983 edition of 'Boutell's Heraldry' (page 222): "Royal Arms, or Arms of Dominion, are inseparable from the rank and office of royalty, and cannot be borne undifferenced by any person except the Sovereign...The Royal Arms may not be quartered without some difference. In the persons of Sovereigns, all minor ranks and titles are merged in their royalty, consequently whatever arms they may previously have borne cease to be used at their accession, and no other arms may be quartered with the Royal Arms." Furthermore; he writes in his 1978 book 'An Heraldic Alphabet'(under 'Arms of Dominion', page 38): "These, which are also styled 'arms of sovereignty', are those borne by a sovereign in respect to the territories over which he rules rather than his own family arms. The Royal Arms are Arms of Dominion; The Queen's arms of descent would be the arms of her branch of the House of Saxony. Arms of Dominion do not follow the ordinary rules and conventions of armory but are settled ad hoc by the monarch, usually, or course, with ministerial and heraldic advice." Hence, as the law of arms is universal, for a monarch to have different arms from those of the state is patently a nonsense. iii.You seem to be only dimly aware of cadency, also known as marks of difference or brisures. In some countries, the arms of families (and especially royal families) are 'differenced'; that is, each individual member of a family will bear slightly different arms (in some way) from those of the head of the family, and this is particularly true (and neccesary; because the arms of the monarch are also the arms of public authority for the state over which they reign/rule) of royal families. It is the case in the royal families of the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and in various dethroned royal families. But it is not the case in all heraldry worldwide, and particularly not in the heraldry of german and Scandinavian families, and particularly the royal families-notably; neither the Danish nor the Norwegian royal family uses cadency. In the case of the UK, each individual member of the royal family is assigned arms by Letters Patent which are in theory a new grant of arms. (they are not inherited and the family member in question does not bear arms until they are granted.) This has in nearly every case been the royal arms with an Argent label of three points for the child of a monarch, and an Argent label of five points for a male-line grandchild. Indeed, even the Queen herself used different arms prior to her accession as Queen. As the royal arms are the arms of the Queen herself and no-one else, it would be inappropriate to use these arms when only one member (the Queen) is entitled by law to use them, and at any rate the House has been assigned a heraldic badge to represent it as a whole. Please refer to the wikipedia pages as regards 'Cadency' and 'Cadency Labels of the British Royal Family' in relation to this. You might learn a great deal. iv.There is no Letters Patent, Order-In-Council, nor Act of Parliament denoting Elizabeth II as 'Head of the House of Windsor'-whilst I am not denying this is something she may be de facto; she certainly is not de jure, i.e. there is no 'official position' that the Queen occupies separate from her dignity as sovereign and Queen. In other words; there is no such thing as a 'Head' of the House of Windsor.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC) But, even if there were a thing as "Head of the House of Windsor", it would be a title she held distinctly and seperately from her dozens of other titles. As such, the arms of the Duke of Normandy and the arms of the Queen of Jamaica don't belong here. JMvanDijk, if the UK were to be dissolved tomorrow and incorporated into the Republic of Ukraine (to chose one at random) there would still be a House of Windsor. It's existence is not predicated on UK or Commonwealth law. Achowat (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC) JWULTRABLIZZARD: so was aware of the above, and thank you for posting it in such detail. I was trying to appeal to British law independent of heraldic law, which as you state, goes to the Court of Arms, which does not meet regularly. (The marks of candidacy are, as you hint at, an interesting question, as they are granted by warrant by the sovereign, but it unclear if anyone but the sovereign has any "standing" in the British state.) As such the link I posted takes the point of view (I leave it lawyers to judge) that the arms are a legitimate "trademark" of the government and the sovereign as the governement (as you say), i.e the Crown in Parliament, and all power theoretically devolves from her/him. Definitely not what we/I have in a republic. So, what better argument for posting the royal arms here (as I think you are saying)? Achowat: yes, if the UK goined the Ukraine, all the above would not apply/dissapear, unless the Ukraine passed laws to uphold it. The House of Windsor would still exist, and I suppose they could use the arms, and the Ukraine might even try to prevent them in a court of law, if they cared to. In any case, they would have the importance of their deposed cousins of other royal houses (e.g. like Bulgaria), i.e. not much. I do not know if Bulgaria cares if the Sakskoburggothskis use the arms. 21:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMvanDijk (talk • contribs) I really don't get what you mean by 'it unclear if anyone but the sovereign has any "standing" in the British state'-the only person in the whole royal family who has any 'standing' is the Queen and no-one else. "if the UK goined (sic) the Ukraine, all the above would not apply/dissapear, unless the Ukraine passed laws to uphold it. The House of Windsor would still exist, and I suppose they could use the arms, and the Ukraine might even try to prevent them in a court of law, if they cared to. In any case, they would have the importance of their deposed cousins of other royal houses (e.g. like Bulgaria), i.e. not much. I do not know if Bulgaria cares if the Sakskoburggothskis use the arms." -If Britain became a republic or became part of the Republic of the Ukraine; not only would the new British republic or province probably adopt arms that were different to those of the preceding United Kingdom (although they're not forced to-the present republics of Romania, Bulgaria and Serbia are identical to those of the former Kingdoms); but the House of Windsor would almost definitely keep on using the arms they already use; as many deposed Royal families already have. By a curious coincidence btw; the arms of Simeon II (and, as the Bulgarian royal family does not use marks of cadency; everyone else in the Bulgarian Royal Family) and the modern Republic of Bulgaria are exactly the same. But at any rate, there is no regulation of personal heraldry in Bulgaria-though there is of civic- and any arms borne by Simeon II would have been his family/personal arms; its just a coincidence that they're the same as the Republic. At any rate, Simeon II was elected as a head of government; not a head of state, so I hardly see how that is relevant. At any rate; the individual; differenced arms of the members of the House of Windsor might warrant being included on the page detailing the differet members of the House of Windsor; but as there are no arms for the whole house; then putting them here is not relevant when they are only used by one member of the House; i.e. the Queen.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC) -also; a couple of points: i.The issue of cadency is supremely relevant because; where the House of Windsor not to use marks of cadency; then all members of the House would use the same arms; and it would be relevant to use the arms on this page. As it happens of course; the House of Windsor does use cadency marks and that is why it would not be relevant to use the Arms of Dominion of the UK here. It would have been relevant if say; the page were about the Norwiegan Royal Family (as they don't use marks of cadency) but it is not relevant here ii.On the continent; all members of a House share an equal rank. Thus; in the Royal House of Saxony for example; all members are Duke/Duchess of Saxony. Same with the Bavarian royal family; same with the Hohenzollerns, same with the Belgian Royal familyHowever; in the UK; only the head of a House is of noble rank: all other members of the house are commoners. That is why a Duke, for example, is the only member of his family who bears a title; all the titles borne by for example his eldest son and his eldest male-line grandson are titles of courtesy; they do not bear the titles in their own right (that is; their titles are not substantive)-this major difference between the nature of continental nobility and that of British nobility is I think the source of the confusion here-it is only the head of the family-the Queen-who has any rank or political role. Everyone else-even the Prince of Wales-has no role. "the Ukraine might even try to prevent them in a court of law, if they cared to." -No they wouldn't because the Ukrainian Republic does not regulate the use of personal arms (as the royal arms would become if Britain became part of the Ukraine or became a republic) -but they do civic arms-thus a deposed House of Windsor could in theory bear whatever arms they wanted.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 11:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Good point there, I stand corrected on them becoming personal arms. 207.45.43.68 (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Perhaps we should get back on topic After Hungary and Prime Ministers and Trademarks and Marks of Cadency and the Higgs Boson...I'm rebooting this discussion. Is there any compelling reason to include the Arms of the UK on this page? Achowat (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC) None that I can see. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Yes, they are a symbol and attribute of the British Monarch and state. See all the reasons in the discussion. I have not heard any cited source, primary or otherwise, to support the other opinion, other than opinion. We need to go by primary sources and British custom and law. The postings by Mr/Ms JWULTRABLIZZARD are particularly complete. JMvanDijk (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC) I see no source that supports the opinion that the House of Windsor is the British monarchy and/or the British state, let alone that it is only the British monarchy and/or the British state. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC) The British Monarchy has nothing to do with this. The British State has less to do. Note that House of Bernadotte doesn't have the Swedish arms on there. Achowat (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC) No. They are covered in more appropriate articles and as they are not the arms of the House of Windsor, have little to no bearing on the topic of this article. DrKiernan (talk) 07:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Yes, that was my point here. By JMvanDijk's thinking there would be very little difference between this article, British Monarchy and British Royal Family. I think conceptually he does not see that they are different aspects of potentially the same group of people. But I think it's quite clear from the content of each of those articles that the long-standing consensus is to follow that differentiation.DeCausa (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Have you folks read carefully the comments above, the primary sources (which I thought encyclopedias where suppossed to follow as good research practice) and very erudite comments of JWULTRABLIZZARD. You are substituting your (personal) opinion for established custom and fact. In some sense, it really doesn't matter, its only a wiki article. But really, the expert sources/primary sources say there is not difference between British Monarchy = House of Windsor = British Royal Family. At least put in link to the proper coat of arms, and those of you that live in the UK, open your eyes the next time you go into a public building and watch TV and you'll see these arms displayed. Last word on the subject. 207.45.43.68 (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC) No, it's not the last word on the subject. Because your "=" don't belong there. And the opinion of 1/16th of the Governments run by the House of Windsor can't change that (even if that's what the sources say, which I disagree with). If your "=s" were true than "British Monarchy = House of Windsor = British Royal Family = Canadian Royal Family = Jamaican Monarchy = New Zealand Royal Family = Grenada Monarchy...". There is simply no reasonable way to suggest that the Arms of the One Member of the House are relevant to the House article. And not even one member, (as is explained above) but one of a series of dozens of temporary arms of One Member. And British people can see the arms displayed, as a symbol of the Monarchy, not of this Family (again, see the Duke of Windsor example). Achowat (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC) These are the arms of the head of the House of Stuart These are the arms of James I after 1603 These are the arms of the kingdom of Scotland Notice the difference between the files above: the arms of the head of the house are not the same as the arms of the kingdom or the arms of the monarch. The house of Windsor does not have a coat of arms. DrKiernan (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Though it does have a Badge, which is in the Infobox and discussed and commented on. Achowat (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC) I think if you asked someone in the House of Windsor, they would disagree with you. 207.45.43.68 (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC) JMvanDijk (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Sorry, I meant to say my last word on the subject. We seem to be getting nowhere faster and faster. Perhaps a 3rd party? I will ask for one. 207.45.43.68 (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC) JMvanDijk (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC) I really don't think a 3rd Opinion is necessary, given that there are already 5 or 6 here. (And you can feel free to ask the Duke of York if he believes his children exist solely as a part of the monarchy; Also, no one has ever answered the simple question "If the Arms are relevant, why only the British ones?"). IP 207.45.43.68 are you JMvanDijk? Your post above, that you "stand corrected", suggests you are the same user. Please log-in to avoid falling foul of WP:SOCK. DeCausa (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Well, we seem to be getting nowhere fast. I could not ask the duke in a quick timeframe, but here is what the prince of Wales' webpage says: http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/personalprofiles/theprinceofwales/abouttheprince/index.html: His Royal Highness is the 21st to hold the title of The Prince of Wales. As Prince of Wales, His Royal Highness holds a number of titles and standards with rules that govern their use. The Prince is strongly identified with his badge The Prince of Wales’s Feathers, the use of which dates back to the 14th Century and the time of Edward, The Black Prince, who was the first Prince of Wales. The Prince is also one of three members of the Royal Family able to grant Royal Warrants of appointment to companies. The company is then entitled to display The Prince of Wales’s Feathers on their products. :In addition to the feathers, The Prince has a coat of arms with long historical links with the heraldry of his ancestors. The Prince also has three standards: his Personal Standard, Standard for Scotland and his Standard for Wales. They are used depending on where His Royal Highness is visiting the United Kingdom. In addition to The Prince of Wales, His Royal Highness holds a number of other titles. Some are used depending on where he is in the country such as The Duke of Rothesay when he is in Scotland, and The Duke of Cornwall when he is visiting the South West of England. Other titles have been inherited in the same way but are not actively used, such as the Earl of Carrick. And really, I do need to get some work done now. JMvanDijk (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Do you have any sort of source that talks about, for instance, what we're talking about? The reason the Duke of York's children were chosen (and not the Prince of Wales) is because they likely will never see the throne, which is an important distinction. They are not part of the Monarchy (unlike HRH The Prince of Wales) but are part of the House of Windsor. Achowat (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC) -Regardless of how well sourced and 'erudite' my comments are, 'JMvanDijk'; they serve to contradict, not support your arguments. Also; 'DrKiernan', sorry to be a pedant, but the arms Or, a fess compony Argent and Azure are the arms borne by the Head of the House of Stuart prior to them gaining the Scottish throne, and not the arms of the House of Stuart (because there's no such thing, nor has there ever been). There is no such thing as 'Arms of a House' in British heraldry, and particularly not Scottish heraldry; which has the legal requirement of 'one man, one arms', that is; each member of a family must have arms that are 'differenced' by a difference (in Scotland, this is usually a bordure of various tincture.) from those of the Head of the family. Clarified. DrKiernan (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Also 'Achowat'; the only person really directly relevant to 'the British monarchy' is the Queen. Until either of them succeed to the throne, the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge are still only in the line of succession and could at any time be displaced by their deaths or through removal from the line of succession (for example if one of them became a Roman Catholic.) Note also that whilst the Queen herself has Arms of Dominion in respect to each of the 16 sovereign states of which she is separately Queen of in a personal union; none of the other members of the House of Windsor have arms in right of any of the other commonwealth realms; they only do so as regards the UK. "the arms of the house are not the same as the arms of the kingdom or the arms of the monarch. The house of Windsor does not have a coat of arms." -As I showed above; the arms of the Kingdom and the arms of the monarch are one and the same. Yes; those are the arms of Scotland; but don't forget they were also the arms of James VI before 1603 as well. That they are sometimes referred to in blazon as 'Scotland' is really just convention and for ease of blazoning really.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC) I agree that "The monarchy" is just one person, but the within institution of the monarchy (not the monarch) the PoW has significant duties; and constitutionally, it could be argued that the Duke of Cornwall has more than that, still. Achowat (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC) -A good point actually; albeit it's only as regards the Duchy of Cornwall. However; that's not really in the nature of a sovereignty or even a feudal relationship like it was originally. Perhaps the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall do warrant a mention, if only a brief, passing one. Also, sorry to be a pedant yet again; but the Queen is not Duke of Normandy, or Duchess of Normandy; or anything of Normandy for that matter.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Sorry, Lancaster...what on earth was I thinking? Achowat (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC) JWULTRABLIZZARD: so then what am I not understanding about why the arms of the Queen (Écartelé, en 1 et 4 de gueules aux trois léopards d'or, en 2 d'or, au lion de gueules, au double trescheur fleuronné et contre-fleuronné du même et en 3 d'azur, à la harpe d'or, cordée d'argent) should not be posted here? JMvanDijk (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC) I think what you are saying is that the Queen, as the head of the house has her arms, other members have their's, differenced with marks of candency. However, the Queen is one member of the house, so it would be a generalization not allowed by the laws of heraldry to allow her arms to stand for the whole house? Of course, what I'm saying is that the arms are also those of the Monarchy, and are of note in that respect here, as the head of the House is the Monarch. JMvanDijk (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC) The monarch has 16 coats of arms. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Actually, she has more than that. File:Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (Scotland).svg, File:Arms of William the Conqueror (1066-1087).svg, File:Coat of arms of the Isle of Man.svg and File:Duchy of Lancaster-coa.png are also hers. And, had she not been queen (say, upon abdication), it's perfectly reasonable that she would be able to bear her husband's arms in lozenge as the Duchess of Edinburgh. Achowat (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Because they are the arms of the Queen and the Queen alone, all the other members of the House of Windsor have their own arms that are different from these arms, and the arms of the Queen are not the arms of the House of Windsor, and there are no arms, whether in the UK or anywhere else that are the arms of the House of Windsor. The only thing the House of Windsor has as a whole is a badge, and nothing else. You seem to also not understand that 'monarchy' (from the greek monos archos) means quite literally 'rule by one person', not rule by a family. Also; its Mr. JWULTRABLIZZARD. The Queen is also not Duke of Lancaster; regardless of the existence of the Duchy of Lancaster. A monarch cannot hold a lesser title from themselves. They cannot hold a peerage title in their own right, and the Dukedom of Lancaster is extinct according to the Letters Patent creating it. But the Duchy itself still exists separate from the crown estates according to the Letters Patent even if the monarch does not (and can not) hold the title. She does not have any title in respect to and within the United Kingdom other than 'by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of her other realms and territories Queen, Defender of the Faith' -granted, she holds other titles in respect to and in other countries outside of the UK, but in respect to the UK, that is the only title she holds.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Oh, by the way, in Guernsey and Jersey, Her Majesty is, in fact, the Duke of Normandy (thought so). Achowat (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC) "it would be a generalization not allowed by the laws of heraldry to allow her arms to stand for the whole house?" -Absolutely correct.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC) So, that should settle this, right? Right? Please? Achowat (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Well I understand the meaning of monarchy (think we all learned that greek root as children?). However, MR. JWULTRABLIZZARD does have the most precise and closely drawn legalistic point from reliable sources, i.e. it would be a generalization not allowed by the laws of heraldry to allow her arms to stand for the whole house. I checked and found: Although the Sovereigns of the House of Windsor (this dynastic name was adopted by Royal Proclamation on 17th June 1917) have used various old royal badges only one or two new badges have been adopted that for Wales and the following badge for the House of Windsor, which was approved by King George VI on 28th July 1938: On a Mount Vert the Round Tower of Windsor Castle argent, masoned sable, flying thereon the Royal Standard, the whole within two branches of oak fructed or, and ensigned with the Imperial Crown. ” (J.P. Brooke-Little, 1954, Boutell's Heraldry, Frederick Warne: London and New York, pages 216-217) Given that, I was only trying to follow general practice of taking the head of the House's arms for those of the House. Never having seen this badge except in Wiki, I do take some heart that the badge includes the Royal Standard made up of the royal arms. However, I yield to those sources/experts, i.e. Mr. JWULTRABLIZZARD, and his sources, including,J.P. Brooke-Little. JMvanDijk (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC) P.S. Would point out then, by this logic, that a link to an armorial on the house of Windsor is appropriate. JMvanDijk (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC) You appear to continually forget (or gloss over the fact) that the sovereign has more than one coat of arms and more than one standard. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC) No, I agreed to that point at the beginning: don't think it was ever in contention. I just wasn't volunteering to do it. & yes, [[WP:STICK'd|stick this now]]. JMvanDijk (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC) I think it's high-time this conversation got WP:STICK'd. Achowat (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Agreed. The WP:CONSENSUS is clearly against the edit. DeCausa (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC) "Oh, by the way, in Guernsey and Jersey, Her Majesty is, in fact, the Duke of Normandy " -Off topic I know, but she really isn't 'Duke of Normandy'. See here: http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/royalstyle_uk.htm#Normandy and also here: http://www.jerseylaw.je/publications/jerseylawreview/june99/le_rouai.aspx -between 1289 and 1340 the English King held the Channel Islands by virtue of being Duke of Aquitaine, not Duke of Normandy -so; if anything, the Islands are remnants of the Duchy of Aquitaine, not the Duchy of Normandy!(the Normandy title was, by the way; intermittedly awarded to members of the French Royal House by the Kings of France, right up to the 1789 revolution.) after 1340 it was held by virtue of the 'fact' that the King of England was notionally King of France up until 1801. After 1801, there is no title held by the British monarch as regards the Channel Islands. Of course, a Royal Titles Act could be prolumgated by either the British parliament (or the states of either Bailiwick) changing her title to 'Duke/Duchess of Normandy' as regards the Islands, but this has not been done and until this does happen, the only title the Queen has as regards the Islands is simply 'By the grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and her other realms and territories Queen, Defender of the Faith'-nothing more, and nothing less, and that's regardless of the Loyal Toast and the royal website. The former is a tradition, the second is just in error, even if it is the royal website.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC) What I don't understand as well; 'JMVanDijk', is where on earth you've got the notion that the Queen is somehow 'Head' of the House of Windsor when there is no Act of Parliament, Order in Council, Letters Patent or any other official statement that says she is. Also; her being the monarch doesn't neccesarily mean she is the Head of the House. There are many examples of monarchs on the continent who are not the Heads of the Houses they belong to. For example, both Harald V of Norway and Queen Margrethe II of Denmark are members of the House of Oldenburg; but the Head of the House is Duke Christoph of Schleswig-Holstein. Likewise; King Juan Carlos I of Spain is not the Head of the House of Bourbon; his cousin the Duke of Segovia is, and so on. Not to mention precedent as regards the British monarchy itself: for example, Victoria was a member of the House of Hanover, but the Head of the House of Hanover during her reign was successively her Uncle, her Cousin, and her first cousin once removed (the Dukes of Cumberland; the first two of whom were also Kings of Hanover.)JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Ok, this page is not a blog or a general forum to chat about the topic, per WP:NOTFORUM. I'm taking JMVanDijk's earlier post that he's not pursuing his edit. If he and JWULTRABLIZZARD want to chew the fat on heraldry & genealogy then their own talk pages is the place for that.DeCausa (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bolding

A user or users are insisting that the linked term Saxe-Coburg and Gotha be bolded in the lead. There is no reason to do so, however. WP:MOSBOLDTITLE directs that alternate names for an article subject can be bolded ("Mumbai, also known as Bombay..."), and, though they aren't specifically used as an example, former names could probably be considered as alternate names and thus presented the same way. However, this article's first sentences are clear: the House of Windsor was a new entity when "founded by King George V by royal proclamation on 17 July 1917"; it therefore has no former name. This is only supported by the fact that House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is its own separate article (where the name House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is bolded in the first sentence). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.Qexigator (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that seems logical. Mumbai = Bombay, and Bombay = Mumbai. But the same couldn't be said of House of Windsor/House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. DeCausa (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

-Wholeheartedly agreed. The 'House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha' did not cease to exist in 1917; and continued to exist and indeed still does exist through the male-line descendents of the youngest son of Prince Albert and Queen Victoria; Leopold, Duke of Albany, through his son, Charles Edward, sovereign Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and also in the Saxe-Coburg-Kohary branch; currently represented by the former Bulgarian Royal Family. The House of Windsor was originally created from a branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, but that's it; the 1917 Order-In-Council was quite clear that the new House was a totally new creation; and at any rate, the 1915 House Law of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha specifically excluded from the House any member of the House, domiciled in a foreign country, who fought against the German Empire; which definitely excluded the members of the British Royal Family.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

South African Flag

The South African flag shown in the table at the bottom of the article is the pre 1994 flag. A new flag was adopted after 1994. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jensjakobsen911 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Correct. Given that all the times listed in the table were pre-1994, use of that flag is appropriate. —C.Fred (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Members of the House of Windsor

If Peter and Zara Phillips and also Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella are members of the House of Windsor then we should add the names of the children of Princess Margaret, The Duke of Gloucester, The Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra and also Princess Mary. Also Peter and Zara aren't included in List of members of the House of Windsor. Keivan.f^Talk 16:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Does it say they are? I only see them in a family tree of the descendants of George V. DeCausa (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The 1917 Proclamation creating the House of Windsor excludes "women who marry and their descendants" from being members of the House of Windsor. That is; only those (male OR female) who are descended in the male line through one of Queen Victoria's sons, in the male line, and who are British subjects are members. With the death of Alistair Arthur, 2nd Duke of Connaught in 1943; and because the male-line descendants of Leopold; Queen Victoria's youngest son, are German citizens (and are not covered by the 1917 proclamation and are thus still members of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha), this in effect limits this membership to the male-line descendants of George V's sons. The 1952 proclamation that included Elizabeth II; her children, and the descendants of her children in the Hose of Windsor was also worded in the same manner and also excluded female-line descendants. Thus; the descendants of Princess Anne, the late Princesses Margaret and Mary are most definitely NOT members of the House of Windsor, as none of them are descended in the male line from either George V or Elizabeth II. However, Lord Frederick Windsor, the Dukes of Kent, and Gloucester, etc. ARE members if the House of Windsor; despite their distance from the throne, because they are all descended from George V in the male line. Hope that clarifies a few things :-)JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

So, I think you and other users are agree with me to remove the names of Peter and Zara. As you said the descendants of Princess Anne, Princesses Margaret and Mary are most definitely not members of the House of Windsor, so there's no need to have their name in the family tree. Keivan.f^Talk 21:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, the family tree is just a tree showing some of the descendants of George V. It doesn't indicate that they are members of the House of Windsor, nor is it labeled as such. It doesn't make much sense to remove people as though they don't exist. I suggest some appropriate colour coding is a better option. DeCausa (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Granted; but the article is about the House of Windsor.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you JWULTRABLIZZARD. The family tree should show members of the House of Windsor. That family tree which shows the descendants of George V shouldn't be used here. Keivan.f^Talk 11:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

If the family tree (which should then be named differently) is only to show members of the House of Windsor surely there should be a diffeent colour coding for the husbands (and particularly the divorced) husbands. In fact if you interpret what is said strictly "women who marry and their descendants" Anne and Margaret never mind their husbands shouldn't be shown - which shows it's a nonsense to make a "family tree" on that basis. PhilomenaO'M (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Catholic Exclusion

The recent bill on succession now allows royals that marry Catholics to inherit the throne. This should be updated and made clear in the article (July 23, 2013). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.206.188 (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Table of countries

It it me but is the table of countries in the Designation and details section hard work to understand, must be far better ways of doing the same thing then an ungainly coloured table (not a prime requirement but it doesnt really work on mobile either). MilborneOne (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Ireland

I'm not sure of how to represent Ireland in the chart. First-up, Ireland changed from the Irish Free State to simply Ireland (under a new constitution) in 1937. Second, while that new constitution made no reference to the monarchy, the monarchy continue to have an external role (e.g. receiving diplomatic letters) until 1949, when Ireland declared itself a republic (see Republic of Ireland Act).

--Tóraí (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

May be the simplest would be similar to the chart for List of Dominions[2] --Qexigator (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I think I would be inclined to leave it as it is in this article (including just listing the Free State) but with a footnote that says something along the lines of "For most purposes the monarch ceased to fulfil the role of head of state in 1936. Whether the monarch continued to be the Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949 is a subject of scholarly debate. The position was clarified in 1949 when Ireland was formally declared to be a republic." DeCausa (talk) 13:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure that this doesn't overstate the post-1936 role of the monarch. Looking at most sources they seem to be saying that there's not much doubt that the King wasn't head of state. Vernon Bogdanor says that the monarch was just an "organ or instrument" authorized by the Irish President (here). DeCausa (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

So, why not simply adopt the solution above[3] :- use the names before and after 1936 with footnote, and the neutral wording in third column: The link with the monarchy ceased with the passage of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948, which came into force on 18 April 1949 and declared that the state was a republic. Qexigator (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Because per Bogdanor and others, it wasn't a monarchy post 1936. DeCausa (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

With all respect to him and his works, a Bogdanor one-liner is not sufficient for the peculiar and anomalous events and circumstances of the period. It can be seen that the wording quoted above is factually accurate and does not assert or imply that Ireland was a monarchy? Qexigator (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I just gave Bogdanor as a particularly clear example. (It isn't a one liner, he discusses the issue over two pages.) If you do a search of Google Books most sources clearly say that the Irish Prseident replaced the monarch as Head of State from 1936. As far as I can see, the Dominions' list gives a misleading impression which isn't accurate. DeCausa (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I cannot access the Bogdanor cite. Describing the attitude towards the monarch as being merely an "organ or instrument" it correct – though it was authorised to act by the Government, not the President (see External Relations Act).

The Executive Authority act removed essentially everything to do with the monarchy, except externally-facing functions of government (signing treaties, accepting diplomats, etc.). That's didn't make Ireland a republic. The external executive functions of government were still vested, strictly speaking, in the monarch (though the monarch could only act on the authority of the Government). The monarchy had no domestic role (e.g. in signing laws, convening parliament, etc.). The 1948 act transferred all of those executive functions to the President. But the monarchy was not actually said to be "abolished".

The President is today accepted as head of state from 1937. However, at the time it wasn't entirely clear – and whether Ireland was a republic or a monarchy was a debate at least once in the Oireachtas. George VI used the style "King of [...] Ireland" and, to this day, there is no provision that the President is "head of state". The 1937 constitution provides that the Taoiseach "head of Government", for example. However, of the President it says he or she is the person who "shall take precedence over all other persons in the State".

Anyway, all that said, I think a footnote would be a good approach. I'll add one and see how it goes. --Tóraí (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I would probably shorten the footnote and not go into so much detail given that there's a whole article on this - Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949 - and link to it. (mind you that article is in need of improvement.) FWIW, Bogdanor's take is slightly different to the one you've given. His interpretation is that legally the monarch was merely acting on behalf of the President externally, rather than having any sort of independent status. DeCausa (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

If he says "President" then he is mistaken. The Presidency didn't exist until a year after the External Relations act. Otherwise, yes, that would accord with Section 3 of the act. --Tóraí (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he says "authorized by the head of state, the President..." But he then goes on to say it's the Dáil that could withdraw the authority, which it did in 1949. DeCausa (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Surname

Is it true that in general Europena royal houses don't possess surname ? What is the reason behind this practicee ?

Siyac 12:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

In general, yes, and it is because their royal status originated before surnames were commonplace. When others needed to adopt surnames in order to further differentiate themselves from one another, royals always had their titles as parts of their names and therefore did not need surnames. Some surnamed families later became royal but did not always maintain their surnames. Case in point, the Bernadottes, who have that name as a royal house but legally do not bear surnames. Seven Letters 19:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not so much that they don't posses surnames as they don't typically use surnames; instead they either just use their given names or they use their titles in place of a surname. When a surname is necessary (and a title isn't used instead) they have one to use - Bernadotte, Mountbatten-Windsor, Grimaldi, Glücksburg, Bourbon, etc. - they just don't normally need to use one Psunshine87 (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Some royal families simply are legally surnameless. Members of the British Royal Family do not have a surname. Were there an actual surname to use, you wouldn't see "Wales" and "York" called into service as fillers for the surname field. Likewise, the Swedish Royal Family legally does not have a surname. Members of the family are entered in the Swedish tax registry with an asterisk in the surname field. Likewise, the Danish and Norwegian royal families do not have a surname, the latter being a branch of the former, this particularly brought to light when King Constantine of Greece, a member of the extended Danish Royal Family, was asked to provide a surname when he does not have one. Franco-Iberian royal families seem to be the general exception but even then, the "surnames" in use originated as house names. Seven Letters 20:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect for the British Royal Family. As stated in the article, descendants of the Queen who are not HRH have the surname Mountbatten-Windsor. DeCausa (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

What I said stands. Royal Family = Royal Highnesses and Majesties. Seven Letters 13:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between being "legally surnameless" and not possessing a surname. The British Royal Family do not legally use a surname, but they have one - either Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor, depending on their descent - that they can use if they so wish. Prince Charles, Prince Andrew, and Prince Edward have all used "Windsor" as a surname in the course of their careers (military for the former two, film for the latter). Some of the Queen's children have been reported as using "Mountbatten-Windsor" on their marriage certificates, and Prince William used "Mountbatten-Windsor" as a surname in the French courts. This means that they all have and are entitled to use a surname, but they are not required to use one. Psunshine87 (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

So if they have a surname, what is it? Because the ones you've mentioned are not the only filler names they have used. Those formats are affectations which are not always used. Once one is a great-grandchild or further out of the direct line, one is not a royal and therefore has a surname. That a surname is applied to those descendants does not mean their ancestors legally have one. So, something has been reported... Show us the proof! Prince George's birth certificate does not have a surname, his father's doesn't either. It was reported in the media at both William's and Charles' wedding that their wives would be losing their surnames. Prince William did not use "Mountbatten-Windsor" as a surname in the French courts, someone incorrectly entered it on his behalf. Obviously, we know of exactly who they are speaking of, but a clerical error does not a surname make. Seven Letters 13:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not that simple. There's no such thing as a "legal" surname in England and Wales: your "legal name" is the name that you are usually known by. I don't know what the situation is in France, but I would not be at all surprised if you required a surname there. DrKiernan (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

According to this Buckingham palace website all members of the family have had a surname since 1917, but not before. DeCausa (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This website, although the official website for the British Royal Family, has been riddled with numerous errors and gross simplifications over the years. They actually had the line of succession wrong for a long time. Seven Letters 13:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

In what way?PhilomenaO'M (talk) 06:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Head of the House of Windsor

This article says that Queen Elizabeth II is the head of the House of Windsor. Is this accurate? Since dynastic reckoning is traditionally agnatic, isn't Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, who is the most agnatically senior Windsor, as the senior male-line descendent of Prince Albert and Queen Victoria, truly the head of the House of Windsor? JamesReyes (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protection edit request on 3 August 2015

To avoid changes, since Elisabeth 2 is also semi-protected, so why isn't her house also protected?! — 73.47.37.131 (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Cannolis (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Queen of the Commonwealth realms??

I've changed the descriptive Queen of the Commonwealth realms to Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms. Why? the former came off as original research. I've never heard of or read about Elizabeth II being called Queen of the Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

My change was reverted. Therefore, I've merely deleted of the Commnonwelath realms. Certaintly, that should be acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on House of Windsor. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20101202223611/http://www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheMonarchy/KingsandQueensoftheUnitedKingdom/TheHouseofWindsor/TheHouseofWindsor.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheMonarchy/KingsandQueensoftheUnitedKingdom/TheHouseofWindsor/TheHouseofWindsor.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Lead

The lead has been reverted to incorrectly state that "The Windsors are set to be succeeded by the Mountbatten-Windsor family". As the body of the article correctly states, the next several people in the line of succession are all Windsors.--Trystan (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in getting back to you on this. They (from Charles on) are part of the Mountbatten-Windsor family, founded by Prince Phillip. These descend in the male line from a different German royal family (the House of Oldenburg) than Elizabeth (who is of the House of Wettin) and the other kings since Queen Victoria died. What the body of the article discusses is whether they will use the name Mountbatten-Windsor, or continue to use just the name Windsor. Either way Charles is from a different line to Elizabeth. Claíomh Solais (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

"Other major changes include the introduction of television media, the decline of Christianity and the transformation of the United Kingdom into a multiethnic society through post-colonial immigration." So are we really gonna call a country that's 92% white as multi-ethnic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.202.215 (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on House of Windsor. 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/20101202213352/http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/Windsor%20family%20tree.pdf to http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/Windsor%20family%20tree.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

List of monarchs

King George VI's relationship to predecessor is "brother of King Edward VIII." King George VI's father was not his immediate predecessor. 98.22.105.73 (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC) CR

House of Mountbatten someday?

Clarify: If/when Charles ascends the throne(s), he can immediately have the royal house name changed to House of Mountbatten. Each monarch can change the name of his/her royal house, I believe. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz is missing here

Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz should be mentioned as a progenitor of the Windsors here. --Horst-schlaemma (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Why? Celia Homeford (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)