Jump to content

Template talk:British princes

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

Titles

[edit]

I have given some of the princes, like the Hanovers and the Saxe-Coburgs, the titles of their immediate line as well as giving the kings those names because I feel their identities are otherwise partially obscured. We know that they were/are British princes because they are on this template, so let's use their other titles. Charles 05:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. DrKay (talk) 12:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Viscount Severn

[edit]

I changed James' name back to James of Wessex. My reasoning for this is that Viscount Severn is a courtesy title, not like his father, uncles and the rest of the princes with ducal titles. Now, once he becomes Earl of Wessex (or Duke of Edinburgh) I think we could fix that, but until then, I think James of Wessex is okay. Morhange (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have to disagree — "Prince James of Wessex" is entirely an invention of Wikipedia! The styling of second-generation princ(ess)es is simply a matter of custom, and, customarily, we have never seen Prince/ss James/Louise of Wessex in writing anywhere else — he is customarily styled Viscount Severn. This is undeniable. DBD 13:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Custom dictates he would be James of Wessex. If you are disputing that, let's remove him, because that means he is not a prince in your opinion. Charles 15:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing that. He would be of Wessex, but he's not. Even if we accept he's a prince, which as we all recognise, is up for grabs, his practical style is VS, he's not once been given a princely style — which we could surely only derive if he's been shown to have it. Surely we can only style him PJoW with an objective scholarly source independent of this 'pædia. DBD 16:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we not agree that a "Viscount" is not a "Prince" in any way, shape or form in the United Kingdom? Ludicrous! I recommend immediate removal from this list.114.146.144.150 (talk) 13:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a star should be put by James, Viscount Severn's name. The note at the bottom should read *=Is legally a British prince, but uses a courtesy title. The same goes for her sister, Lady Louise, in the British princesses template. What do you think? Should this be included?--PrincessAlice13 (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We need to find some other form of words if that or a similar footnote is to be inserted, as I don't think "legally" is verifiable: there is no statute as far as I'm aware determining who is or is not a prince. DrKay (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe 'technically' would work, or if not, we could leave it out. --PrincessAlice13 (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2017

[edit]
86.146.129.174 (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prince George 3rd in line to the throne86.146.129.174 (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. The template already lists Price George. RudolfRed (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other titles

[edit]

Shouldn't we include infos as note labels on those were also Princes of Hanover and Dukes of Brunswick-Luneburg and Princes of Saxe-Coburg and Dukes in Saxony? This indicates historical connections of the Royal Family to other dynasties and their status as not only British royals Kowalmistrz (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2020

[edit]

Please remove the brackets around Prince Alexander John of Wales, as it is a redirect. 2601:241:301:4360:85D1:2F79:2B87:9E94 (talk) 03:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2020

[edit]

Please remove the link to Prince Alexander John of Wales per the decision at Template:Austrian archdukes and Template:Tuscan princes that people without articles shouldn't be included in these templates. 2601:241:300:B610:FD72:E8C8:A75A:CC6C (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done He's not a 'descendant of Tuscan nobility born after 1860' or a 'descendant of Austrian nobility born after 1918'. DrKay (talk) 07:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The request is based on the fact that he does not have an article. The removals on Template:Austrian archdukes and Template:Tuscan princes weren't based on them being born after the abolition of the monarchies. Tuscan princes born before 1860 and Austrian Archdukes born before 1918 who don't have articles were removed from those lists, so the same should apply to others for consistency. 2601:241:300:b610:ac1b:2869:b7ef:5fd4 (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any consensus for this edit. DrKay (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added entries back to those pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:B610:516:4427:93AF:917D (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:DrKay The unlinked names from the Austrian archduke and Tuscan princes templates were removed per WP:EXISTING. I'm not sure why the (pointy?) argument was made to restore all 2800 bytes of non-notable people to the archdukes template, and 1000 to Tuscan princes, based on the existence of one redirect in the British princes template. JoelleJay (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss other templates at those templates please. None of the names on this template are pretenders nor are any unlinked. DrKay (talk) 07:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should it be linked since she doesn’t have an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎209.23.249.111 (talk • contribs)
Yes. DrKay (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about the examples on the other affected pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.23.249.111 (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, the templates for Danish and Swedish royalty have several unlinked items. Should they be removed?
It says at Wikipedia:Edit requests that this template is for uncontroversial requests. As this matter is under discussion elsewhere, including requests for comment, it is not uncontroversial. Please do not reactivate the request. DrKay (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to the RfC discussing whether navboxes should include entries that don't have their own articles? I don't see anything like that on the RfC page. JoelleJay (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be disingenuous. Template:Austrian archdukes and Template:Tuscan princes are obviously under discussion at the RfC. DrKay (talk) 07:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What should be done with those templates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:B610:A029:E03C:F712:2F4A (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Question_about_verifiabilty_in_lists_on_templates discusses issues relating to the matter at hand.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2022

[edit]

Can (8th generation) Alastair, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn be removed from the list of Princes. According to the National Archives, he was never created as a prince.[1] I have edited the article itself. 78.149.69.143 (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Another page at that same website (https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness.htm) says it was customary for great-grandchildren of a sovereign to have the style Highness and title Prince(ss) by courtesy. DrKay (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DrKay - Umm - I hate to be a killjoy but the page that you refer to particularly mentions Alastair lower down and indicates he isn't a prince... Your page supports my earlier statement. 78.149.69.143 (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It says "His birth registration designates him as a 'Prince'. Several contemporary references (Kelly's Handbook, Whitaker's Peerage) style him as prince. " and "'it would be in accordance with usage that the son of Prince Arthur of Connaught should be styled 'Prince' and 'Highness'", which is exactly what I've said. DrKay (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alastair was born in 1914. The Letters Patent only restricted titles to grandchildren in 1917. Alastair ended up losing his title, but he was still born a prince and remained as such for three years, so he should included. Same with Johann Leopold & Hubertus of Saxe-Coburg, and Ernst August and Georg Wilhelm of Hannover who were all born before 1917. They were male-line descendants who were entitled to be British princes, and held these titles at birth--even if they lost them later, they were still at one time British princes. Piratesswoop (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/TNA/HO_45_18980.htm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:British_princes&oldid=1083645843"