Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Category:Heirs to the...

I was browsing through by categories and couldn't help but note the overlapping categorisations under Category:Heirs to the English throne which has Category:Heirs to the British throne as a parent category, and Category:Heirs to the English and British thrones, which does not appear to have either of the first two as sibling categories. Is making this categorisation right as simple as making the first two siblings of the third and re-distributing the population downwards or is it more complicated?.--Alf ^melmac 10:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion Category:Heirs to the English and British thrones should not exist: it is Anglocentric and implies that the continuation from English monarchs to British monarchs is somehow more important than the Scottish-British succession. I've moved some of the articles to Category:Heirs to the English throne and Category:Heirs to the British throne as appropriate but not all of them yet. Opera hat (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Opera Hat...otherwise we have to add the Scots too. Its just too much. :) --Cameron* 22:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page. Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project. No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work. Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

'Surname' being added to The Queen's article

I'd like to invite all members of the WikiProject to take part in the discussion taking place here here. --Cameron* 13:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of regnal numerals of future British monarchs#Purpose of this article

I've added a post above and would appreciate any comments or a further insight by others if possible. Thanks Craigy (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox on British monarchy

A user is presently contesting the use of the infobox at the head of the Monarchy of the United Kingdom article, claiming it is "false". This box has stood there for near on two years now, so I imagine that most involved in this project see no problem with it. However, I thought I'd seek some further input. Discussion over the matter is ongoing at Talk:Monarchy of the United Kingdom#Infobox (May 2009). Cheers. --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

British Royalty styles

Originally raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject English Royalty#British Royalty styles, but I see now that there's a British Royalty project as well.

I noticed that there was an inconsistency in the use of Template:Infobox British Royalty styles on George I of Great Britain and George II of Great Britain, with the alternate style listed as "Sire" for the former and "Sir" for the latter. Assuming that it should be "Sire", I corrected George II, and then (being thorough) checked where else the template is used.

Now I see that there are several pages listed with "Sire" and several with "Sir". Before I charge ahead and change any more pages, I wanted to ask you experts for your opinion on which is correct (or indeed if it actually is correct for the titles to change from royal to royal).

Thanks, Stelio (talk) 10:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it used to be Sire in the middle ages & it's Sir nowadays, so it must have changed at some point in time. Maybe someone's done the research & found that's when it was. Peter jackson (talk) 11:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where exactly this comes from, but I'm aware that "Sire" is pronounced the same as "Sir", and remains to this day the address style for the King... Erm, I think... DBD 16:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

italic superscript square brackets citation needed close square brackets Opera hat (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've read somewhere (in fact, I'm pretty sure it was on a Wikipedia talk page somewhere) that Victoria told someone (when she was the only one around who had actually interacted with royalty of the previous generation) that her uncles (George IV and William IV) were addressed as "Sire". Her son (Edward VII) was then addressed as "Sir". Possibly it dropped out of usage due to there being such a large gap between male monarchs. I don't have any sources for this, unfortunately. Proteus (Talk) 17:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

New project banner

I've spun off this project's WikiProject banner to {{WikiProject British Royalty}} (previously it was piggybacked onto {{WPBiography}}, which severely limited the flexibility of both banners). I'm steadily making my way through the pages tagged with the old banner and moving them over to the new shiny one. Enjoy! Happy‑melon 10:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

issue

Why do we use the Word "issue" rather than children in royal articles? It clearly a piece of terminology for people interested in such stuff, why are we not use the most simple word our readers will understand? --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to facilitate further discussion (which I think is welcome, by the way), here's a number of links to past discussions: Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh#Having issues with "had issue", Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty/Style guide#Issue, Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Archive 8#Use of the word "Issue", Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales/Archive 1#Children??, Talk:Otto von Habsburg#"Has issue"?, just to mention a few off a fairly long list. If you count talk pages where people have merely been confused by the word and wondered what it means, the list is even longer. —JAO • T • C 12:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

George III FAR

I have nominated George III of the United Kingdom for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Marskell (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the details, but George III has been given the gold star of a featured article, so presumably the nomination was successful. Congratulations. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Victoria's grandchildren & great-grandchildren

Building on an enormous amount of solid previous work, User:Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy, I and several others have spent the last month building up Grandchildren of Victoria and Albert. (1) If you look at Talk:Grandchildren of Victoria and Albert, you can see a format I created for royal marriages, which others are welcome to copy, adapt and use as might seem helpful. (2) With 9 children, 42 grandchildren, 90 great-grandchildren and 50-odd spouses (plus some notable great-great-grandchildren), there's ample room for chronological, arithmetic, orthographic, linking, geographical and factual errors, so any proofreading from fresh pairs of eyes is also welcome. (We've dealt with titles in a pragmatic fashion, considering space, familiarity and possibility of confusion, as well as the year a title was assumed, rather than following any one single system of nomenclature, which could lead to its own obscurities for the ordinary reader). (3) If you edit any of the relevant or half-relevant individual biographical articles, please give a thought to adding {{Seealso|Grandchildren of Victoria and Albert}} to its "Family", "Ancestry", "Issue" or "Children" section. This used to be an "orphan" article, which I only found by a lucky hunch, but the easier it is for others to find, the more useful it will be. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be affected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 02:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Requesting comments at Template: English, Scottish and British monarchs

We're at a logjam, there. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Wallis Time.jpg

File:Wallis Time.jpg has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Etymological question

Hopefully this is the right place to ask: I'm working on a rewrite of the history section for Albany, New York. Albany is named after the former Duke of York and Duke of Albany (later James II of England). We have written that: "Duke of Albany was a Scottish title given since 1398, generally to a younger son of the King of Scots. The name is ultimately derived from Alba, the Gaelic name for Scotland." We can't find a source for the Alba statement. Would anybody here be able to supply one? Even if it's offline? Thanks in advance for the help! upstateNYer 00:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found a source on Google Books. upstateNYer 02:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

House of Windsor

Could anyone here take a look at the House of Windsor article, its had a factual tag on since last year and some major bits of information on it are questioned and need checking. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment on ahnentafel templates: an open and shut case

The template to open ahnentafels (ancestry tables) (Template:ahnentafel top) was changed last May to open all such tables on first viewing with an option to "Hide". The previous situation had been the reverse (a title bar with a link to "Show").

(1) Editors can now change the first appearance of an ahnentafel by adding "|collapsed=yes" to "ahnentafel top" (see Template:Ahnentafel top/doc.)

(2) I'm now taking a survey to see how many editors (or the editors of how many articles) would prefer to keep this situation, and how many would prefer to change the default so that editors who wanted to display a full ahnentafel on first sight would have to add "collapsed=no".

Since over 2,500 articles (some of which would clearly benefit from one option and some from the other) use this template, a large sample of preferences would be very helpful in discussing which default to use.

Please indicate your preferences at Template talk:Ahnentafel top/Requested Comments 1. And let other editors know about this poll. Thanks. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That template is now closed by default, with an option to "open". See the talk page linked above. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:English and British princesses

Can someone seperate Category:English and British princesses into Category:British princesses and Category:English princesses? It seems Anglocentric to categorize British princesses with English princesses and the British and English princes have their own categories.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

British royalty articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the British royalty articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Prince Frederick of Great Britain

... got moved to Prince Frederick Wiliam of Wales without any discussion I can see by a user with 26 edits. Maybe this is OK, but I thought I'd drop a note here. --JaGa^talk 02:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Matter of fact, looking at the user's move history it looks like it's been an undiscussed move fest as soon as they joined the project. You might want to look into this. --JaGa^talk 02:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Two Royal Family templates

Is there any reason why there is two templates for the Royal Family, Template:British Royal Family and Template:UK Royal Family. Surely one should be used and the other deleted. - dwc lr (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Usage of Fergie

FYI, there is a discussion on the usage of the pagename "Fergie", see Talk:Fergie (singer)#Requested move (November 2010) 2. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Royal Maundy at FAC

Please feel free to review the article here. Reviews welcome. They are hard to come by at this time of year.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

RfC Notification

There is currently an RfC pertaining to British Royalty open here. NickCT (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed format changes to line of succession

There are currently a number of proposed format changes to Line of succession to the British throne. If you have an opinion, please share it on the talk page. Noel S McFerran (talk) 10:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Royal surnames

Hi, everyone. I've never understood this and I hope that someone here will. Look at the article on Prince William. It lists his full birth name as a sequence of given names and no surname. Then later in the article, it is said that his surname is Mountbatten-Windsor. What is his legal name? Do royals have birth certificates, and if so, what's on his birth certificate? - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No; royals do not have surnames. They don't need them for one because they have a title. Prince William's birth certificate, for instance, puts him just as 'Prince William Arthur Phillip Louis' and his father as just 'Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales'

Lookee here:http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_m10LhS3hygs/THwBNkWYS2I/AAAAAAAAAa8/HySya6i9b7A/s1600/williambirthcertificate.jpg&imgrefurl=http://kaldanis.blogspot.com/2010/03/prince-williams-occulted-numbers.html&usg=__CRsWAJ7wv8e5ej4JjQ5kH9v96xA=&h=800&w=627&sz=89&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=HzKlxMI5g-H6LM:&tbnh=165&tbnw=129&ei=wtfDTYDKBoXJtAaAro2KDw&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dprince%2Bwilliam%2527s%2Bbirth%2Bcertificate%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1120%26bih%3D633%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=499&page=1&ndsp=17&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&tx=89&ty=43

what they DO have is a formal House designation.(e.g. Tudor, Stuart, Bernadotte, Bourbon, Capet, etc.) This is often used by those of royal descent who do not bear titles (e.g. the great-great grandson of George V in the direct male line is 'Master Albert Windsor') or who have been stripped of their royal/noble titles for whatever reason (e.g. Folke Bernadotte.) JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no way Charles' birth certificate says 'Prince of Wales', because he was Prince Charles of EDINBURGH when he was born on 14, Nov. 1948. There was no Prince of Wales at the time. His mother did not ascend the throne until 6th Feb. 1952, and was known as (and still holds the courtsey title) Duchess of Edinburgh. 74.69.127.200 (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Reading this 4 years later ... I think that the original poster meant that, on *William's* birth certificate, his father was recorded as 'Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales'. Alekksandr (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Moving Tudor dynasty to House of Tudor

There is a discussion in progress at Talk:Tudor dynasty about moving Tudor dynasty to House of Tudor for those who wish to comment. OCNative (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Assessment

Wedding dress of Kate Middleton was changed to 'low' importance with this edit; is that valid? Cheers,  Chzz  ►  17:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Wessex children NPOV

There are Letters Patent still in effect from last century which make the children of the sons of the Sovereign Royal Highnesses and Princes/Princesses. There is also, still in effect, a Buckingham Palace Press Release from 19 June 1999 indicating the Queen's will that Louise and James be styled as the children of Earls.

Hello, and welcome to an argument.

Basically, some assert that a Press Release indicating the Queen's will is not sufficient to override a Letters Patent to "deprive" the two of the HRH Princely style, whereas others assert that the Queen's will, however expressed is the Queen's will, thus the two children are neither HRHs nor princes at all.

Currently the two children's articles (Lady Louise Windsor and James, Viscount Severn) are written from the former POV, which is clearly in violation of the NPOV policy. I have (years) previously attempted to right this wrong, but met with resistance. I now wish to establish consensus that we should represent a neutral POV in all concerned articles, rather than the "there are princess" view. I propose that we explain the arguments in the two children's articles and, elsewhere, follow Wittgenstein's advice (Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent) i.e. style them as Earls, omitting references to "Princeliness".

Background reading:

• The Wessex Children
• Talk:Lady Louise Windsor
• Talk:James, Viscount Severn
• Heraldica
• Blog: The Wessex question

DBD 21:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The articles currently use the most common form of name for these individuals (i.e. what they are commonly called); that follows Wikipedia naming policy. Both articles have a nicely worded paragraph explaining the "controversy" over the names and titles of the individuals. I think that that is NPOV. Can DBD explain more why he thinks there is a problem? Noel S McFerran (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Both articles include the supposed "Prince/ss X of Wessex" style at every opportunity. Is the nicely-worded paragraph you refer to this one?...

Letters patent issued in 1917 (and still remaining in force today) assign a princely status and the style of Royal Highness to all male-line grandchildren of a monarch. Louise is thus entitled to all of these, and as such would be referred to as Her Royal Highness Princess Louise of Wessex.[12] However, when her parents married, the Queen, via a Buckingham Palace press release, announced that (in hopes of avoiding some of the burdens associated with royal titles) their children would be styled as the children of an Earl rather than as Princes or Princesses. Thus, Court communications never refer to her in terms of a Princess of the United Kingdom, but simply as The Lady Louise Windsor.[3] This practice does not in any way affect her legal right. Thus, she remains legally HRH Princess Louise of Wessex.

...because I can't understand at all how that's NPOV! If you refer to the two sides (summarised above), that paragraph (a similar one appears in James' page) represents only one side. That's clearly unacceptable. DBD 22:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The author of the blog (is it you?) is absolutely right when s/he says no-one can be legally "Princess Louise of Wessex". She's legally named Louise, and may or may not be legally a Princess, but the "Princess N of X" form is just a conventional style for Princesses that her parents (and therefore everybody else, except some people on wikipedia) have chosen not to follow in her case. Opera hat (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(That blog is not mine. I've never had need of any other "handle" but my unique name!) I'm reasonably sure that the occurrence of "Princess Louise of Wessex" across the internet is pretty much down to POV-pushing Wikipedians alone! DBD 00:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Clarify: You're arguing for Lady Louise Windsor & James, Viscount Severn, be moved to Princess Louise of Wessex & Prince James of Wessex? GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hilarious. No. I am arguing that, in order to fulfill NPOV, we must purge the 'pedia of the undue weight given to the "they are princes" cause by removing every occurrence of those styles except for within the two children's "Titles and styles" paragraphs, where we should not the two arguments and conclude neither way. DBD 09:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with the article as it stands at this moment. I would agree that it would be wrong to keep referring to them as "prince" and "princess" when the Queen obviously does not intend that and that is not how they are commonly known either. Deb (talk) 11:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Deb. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I would agree but I would say that some of the commentary and explanation in the titles and styles section would be better as a footnote rather than be the largest section in both articles. It is not that important but in text terms it appears to be the main subject of the article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, show us how you mean DBD 12:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think DBD's proposal is a sound one, and it appears to have been implemented already. I don't see how anything could be removed from the section without doing damage to the its meaning. -Rrius (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a fundamental problem with the way that James, Viscount Severn is named in his biography. I have no opinion about which style or title should be used, but the unexplained switch mid-article from "Viscount Severn" to "Lord Severn" is strange and confusing. People, you need to make up your minds. (I will put aside the fact that I think the very existence of articles about these children is POV.) Rubywine (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Like a John Smith would be named "John Smith" in his lead and infobox, and "Smith" thereafter, so Lord Severn is firstly "Viscount Severn" and then "Lord Severn" thereafter (as for all peers other than Dukes) — I've changed for consistency one thereafter occurrence DBD 21:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I suggest it would be helpful to add an explanatory footnote to that effect after the first instance of "Lord Severn". I really doubt that this is general knowledge, even within the UK. Rubywine (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I reckon that it's best to put the argument into the article itself. The Letters Patent are notable enough for inclusion, and the Queen's statement is also notable enough for inclusion. As to whether they really are prince and princess, I dunno. I think that they aren't, since my attitude is that assigning those titles is the prerogative of the monarch. I have no doubt at all, though, that the children are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi all! I'm jumping into this discussion quite late, so forgive me if I don't follow the whole discussion entirely correct or miss something. But this is my opinion, there are two issues here: the legal name and their common name in daily use. The legal naming of the British Royal family is legally regulated by Letters Patent. To my knowledge the Letters Patent of 1916 is still into of force and also binding for the children of the Earl of Wessex. This means that their legal title is still "Prince/ss X of Wessex". The Letters Patent of 1950 (legally confirming the surname Windsor) and 1960 (legally regulating the surname Mountbatten-Windsor, officially hold by those who are not prince(ss), not officially used who are prince(ss)) do not supersede this.
However, according to the official website of the British Royal family: "The couple decided, with The Queen's agreement, that their children would use the courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl rather than the style Prince or Princess." (source: The Earl of Wessex -Marriage and family: naming of the children). If I'm reading this correct, this means not that they are not a prince or princess anymore, but it only means that the queen allowed that the children are being known by the courtesy style of a son or daughter of an Earl; beside that they still have their legal style and name HRH Prince/ss X of Wessex. To my knowledge the Queen did not issue a Letters Patent or Royal decree which regulated other legal names for the children of The Earl of Wessex instead..., unless some here could show me otherwise?
So concluding: they are legally named as HRH Prince/ss X of Wessex, but in daily practice are known as Viscount Severn (yes, Viscount Severn, thus not Lord Severn) and (The) Lady Louise (Mountbatten-)Windsor. How they are known in daily practice I merely consider that as like the stage name of an actor or singer, for example Sting, who is known by that name, but whose real legal name is Gordon Matthew Thomas Sumner. Or like a brand name that is patented by some one else, but who allowed you to use this patented name as your common or stage name, but this does not mean your legal name is altered.
Anyway, regarding the discussion: I would advise in this case to use the approach of the Wikipedia guideline WP:MOSBIO, section 2.3 Pseudonyms, stage names and common names, which describes the procedure for those who have a different legal name and common name or stage name. Maybe I have repeated some arguments here, but this is my opinion. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Blêh! After reading this, The children of the Earl of Wessex, I'm not so sure anymore, this is confusing... I have a question: I'm Dutch, not British. In the Netherlands, the royal titles and naming for the Dutch Royals are regulated by law, or otherwise our Queen has to officially issue a royal decree, nothing else. How legally binding is a letter patent in the UK, or is a press release or verbal declaration from the British Queen enough to overrule this? Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Demophon. The answer is, no-one is sure. There are 2 POVs: 1 is "press releases cannot overrule letters patent, therefore they are legally princes, the 2nd is "press releases could overrule letters patent, therefore they aren't legally princes". The NPOV we've settled on is to mention that they might be princes, and explain the arguments DBD 22:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

So let me rephrase: if 1) they are legally princes, and only in daily use named as the children of an Earl (press releases cannot overrule letters patent) or if 2) they are really legally and commonly named as the children of an Earl, not princes (press releases can overrule). I don't understand, what is the point then of a letter patent, if it can be easily overruled by a simple press release or even a verbal declaration by the British Queen? Why then all the fuss and elaborate practice, time and energy, of creating such an official document in the first place? It has no real value then if it can be simple overruled by a statement, the latter being much easier to produce. It makes no sense to me... To clearify, we need more (official) sources, which can shine more light onto this matter.

But it has even further and confusing implications: if 1) then the 1960 letter patent also is not applicable for them (they are HRHs), so they are only 'Windsor', if 2) the 1960 letter patent is binding for them (they are no HRHs so the rule is taken into effect), and their surname is really officially 'Mountbatten-Windsor'. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 05:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

There is some misunderstanding here. In England one's 'legal' name is the name by which one is known and that may be quite different from the name on a birth certificate or passport. There are various legal rulings that I could cite. In 1822 Lord Chief Justice Abbot ruled that "A name assumed by the voluntary act of a man, adopted by all who know him and by which he is constantly called, becomes as much and as effectively his name as if he had obtained an Act of Parliament to confer it upon him". In 1730 the Master of the Rolls had said that "I am satisfied that anyone may take upon him what surname and as any surnames as he pleases" and so if a person is known by different names in different communities those names are all his legal names. There is no such thing as a 'Royal decree' in England and in 1808 Lord Chancellor Eldon ruled "The King's Licence is nothing more than permission to take the name, and does not give it. A name taken in that way is a voluntary assumption". Because problems of identity arise if one changes one's name proof of identity may be provided either by deed-poll or by Royal Licence, but in both these cases the name has been changed by voluntary assumption and not by these documents. The child is undoubtedly by birth a Prince and the use of that title may be restricted by letters patent but the child may legally take and use whatever name it wishes and if it is known by that name by its parents and the community at large then that is its 'legal' name. AnthonyCamp (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC).

House of Glücksburg/"Salic Law" | Wikipedia is not a promotional or ideological platform

Like other royal biographies, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge has recently been edited from a strongly Salic perspective to highlight and emphasise his patrilineal ancestry through the House of Glücksburg. There appears to be a campaign underway to assert that ancestry which is not male-line is "trivial", to delete mentions of other ancestors from royal biographies, to aggressively promote the House of Glücksburg; and to do so without reliable sources. This is unacceptable. Wikipedia is not a promotional or ideological platform. More editors need to get involved in editing the Royal biographies on Wikipedia to ensure a balanced, accurate and properly sourced account of the Royal family's ancestry. See also Talk:House of Windsor and Talk:Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Rubywine (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

To illustrate, here is the recently rewritten Ancestry section for William. (Apparently, Elizabeth II does not even rate a mention.)

William is a male line descendant of Elimar I, Count of Oldenburg, and as such a member of the House of Oldenburg, one of Europe's oldest royal houses, and more specifically the cadet branch known as the House of Glücksburg, founded by his paternal ancestor Friedrich Wilhelm, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. His male line ancestors include five kings—Christian I of Denmark, Frederick I of Denmark, Christian III of Denmark, Christian IX of Denmark and George I of Greece—and also 11 counts of Oldenburg, two dukes of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg, five dukes of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Beck and one duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg.

Among his other recent, cognatic ancestors on his father's side are notably members of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the House of Battenberg, the main line of the House of Hesse-Darmstadt, the House of Hesse-Kassel and the House of Hohenzollern. Among his distant cognatic ancestors are also Henry IV and James II and VII. Should he become king, William would be the first monarch since Queen Anne to be descended from Charles I and Charles II, as his mother was descended from two of Charles's II illegitimate sons, Henry FitzRoy, 1st Duke of Grafton, and Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond. Through his father, William is of German descent, and through his mother's family, the Spencers, William is of English descent and of remote Irish, Scottish and American descent.

He is also descended from many of the pre-Union monarchs of Scotland and the pre-Conquest monarchs of England, and many notable foreign monarchs including, Peter I of Russia ("Peter the Great"), Catherine II of Russia ("Catherine the Great"), Afonso I of Portugal, Andrew II of Hungary, Ferdinand II of Aragon, Isabella I of Castile, and early French kings.

Following one of those links, we find the following paragraph in House of Oldenburg, written in breathless anticipation of Charles' succession. This is all exceedingly POV in my opinion.

*A member of this branch by patrilineage is Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, so the House of Oldenburg will also reign agnatically in the Commonwealth realms upon the accession of his male line heirs, where it will, however, continue to be named Windsor unless the succession falls to a cadet branch of Philip's male-line descendants not previously bearing princely styles in which case the reigning branch will be named Mountbatten-Windsor, pursuant to the provisions of a 1960 Order-in-Council.

Rubywine (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid as a high visibility subject Prince William will attract all sorts of claimants to add some sort of connection to him. Although his patrilineal ancestry is of note it certainly doesnt not need the weight as you show above. It just is not that important, perhaps a seperate geneological/ancestry sub-page might be better Prince William, Duke of Cambridge ancestry. The only important ancestry is really the House of Windsor through his father and grandmother.But if we can have articles on his wifes dog then is it worth the effort to create a quality encyclopedia!. MilborneOne (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is one of the world's leading information resources; of course it's worth the effort. If anyone wants to express an opinion on the dog, then please do so here. I request that this discussion is not sidetracked by trivia. Rubywine (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the strikethrough, MilborneOne. I'd also like to draw attention to the recent discussion at Talk:House of Windsor which is directly related to this. Rubywine (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

no one's saying that it's 'trivial', but it's also not wrong to say that he shares a patrilineage with the House of Oldenburg, regardless of what House designation he is called by.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Garn Svend is in the habit of deleting mentions of cognatic ancestors, and commenting that they are trivial. Rubywine (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

-also; haaang on a sec. Granted, Prince William's most IMPORTANT ancestry is his descent through Charles to Elizabeth II and George VI; but House-wise, that's hardly relevant. Henry VII's most important ancestry was Plantagenet, not Tudor, yet was he a plantagenet? No. James I's only important ancestry re. England was through Henry VII, but was he a tudor? No, he was a Stuart. Was George I a stuart because his most important ancestry (rer. Britain) was through James I? No, of course not. What you're not taking into account is that the only reason that the present royal family does not bear the name 'Schleswig-Holstein-Sondersburg-Glucksburg' or 'Oldenburg' or some anglicised variant thereof (e.g. Oldcastle) is because a. post-war political correctness. No-one wanted a german-sounding House name so soon after World War II, as the germans were the enemy, and to do so would have opnly promted ill-feeling against the monarchy. This is why Philip took the more-english-sounding 'Mountbatten' (despite its german origins) in the first place. It was not deemed appropriate at the time. This is also the reason the dutch, belgian, and british royal houses have not borne german house designations after in the immediate post war periods, despite the monarchs in question being agnatically members of german houses, (1948, 1921 and 1917 respectively) war b. The level of ill-feeling on a personal level Churchill (he blamed him partly for the loss of India), Lord Hailsham and Queen Mary had against Mountbatten was profound and they all prevailed on the Queen to issue the 1952 order-in council, against Mountbatten's wishes. That's also why the 1960 order-in-council re. the name 'Mountbatten Windsor' was prolumgated: Queen Mary had died and Churchill had retired.

Prior to the world wars, nobody batted an eyelid that the houses of welf and wettin reigned in britain (or elsewhere for that matter, as the former did in bulgaria, portugal, saxony, and the saxon duchies.). It was only post- WWI and -WWII that everything considered 'german' became demoised as inherently 'foreign', 'alien' or 'the enemy'-and then only in the immediate post-war periods. If WWI and WWII had never happened, we could well have had the houses of mecklenburg,lippe and wettin and oldenburg on the respective thrones of the netherlands and britain. It has nothing to do with being 'modern', it has everything to do with 'post war political correctness'.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 11:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to dismiss a century of history as 'post war political correctness' you have chosen the wrong platform to promote your arguments; open a personal blog. Your argument for the importance of names that might have been retained had the two World Wars never happened is bizarre and irrelevant. Wikipedia documents the real world, not some imaginary universe of alternate reality. Rubywine (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake, I'm not trying to say that we should ignore a 'century of history' am I? Just that the designation of Elizabeth II's descendents as 'windsor' rather than 'Mountbatten' is AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE. Obviously; their official house designation is 'Windsor', I'm not denying or suggesting we change the article to deny this, (although mentioning his patrilineage is not 'trivial', it would be an invaluable aid for, say a geneologist.) but can you cite any other examples of house designations being transmitted via the female line? Didn't think so. Lets not forget, the house of windsor prior to 1952 was run on agnatic lines: the male-line descendents of Princess Mary, Princess Royal of the House of Harewood were not members of the House of Windsor (as is stated in an official government memorandum re. this very issue.), and bearing in mind that George V had FOUR sons, I very much doubt George V intended the House designation to pass through the female line: as is obvious from the wording of the 1917 proclamation: EXCEPT THOSE PRINCESSES WHO MARRY AND HAVE DESCENDENTS. Sounds pretty clear to me. It also is nothing to do with 'salic law' or 'salic succesion', for the zillionth time. No-one is denying Elizabeth II's right to the throne, which would be impossible under salic law. Clearly you are under some confusion as to the meaning of the term 'salic'.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 09:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Salic Law has been cited repeatedly by Garn Svend, who recently rewrote William's ancestry section as quoted above, to support his insistence that the correct House name for William (and now, Catherine) is the House of Glücksburg (see Talk:Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge). Your speculation that George V intended male-line succession is irrelevant, and your implication that it is demonstrated by the number of sons he had is quite amusing. The British monarchy does indeed observe male-preference primogeniture, but that is not the topic of discussion here. Elizabeth II, the reigning monarch, has been omitted from the account of William's ancestry, and his ancestors through her line have been scarcely mentioned; in sharp contrast, the overwhelming weight given to William's patrilineal ancestry gives the strong and false impression that it is supremely important. Moreover, the final paragraph I quoted from the House of Oldenburg states that it will reign agnatically in 16 Commonwealth realms when a male line heir of Philip succeeds, although "it will, however, continue to be named Windsor"; that is tendentious nonsense. It is blatantly obvious that your arguments and the article submissions by other editors quoted above are driven by an ideologically inspired patrilinealism which has no place in Wikipedia. Please stop soapboxing. None of your arguments are even remotely relevant to our obligation to write neutral, balanced, well sourced articles. And incidentally, as DeCausa mentioned on another talk page, your persistent refusal to use indentation on talk pages after being requested to do so on more than one occasion is discourteous. Rubywine (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the fuss about this Salic house idea. If you are descended from The Sovereign or The Prince of Wales, that "trumps" any other line of descent! Why? She is the monarch, the Sovereign, The fricking Queen! I have huge respect for The Duke, but his house is largely irrelevant in discussing his descendants' houses because he married The Queen. Simples. Why is this taking so long?! DBD 18:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Salic Law doesn't apply in the UK anyway, if fact it would need references to show that it does. Since women cannot inherit under Salic law, it would mean there hasn't been a valid english monarch since 1553 when Edward_VI_of_England died. It's also why there was a split between Britain and Hanover as Hanover did follow Salic Law, so Victoria couldn't inherit that side in 1837. So that whole argument is not valid. 217.44.157.67 (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with DBD. If you are a royal groupie, JW's arguments will no doubt be quite interesting. However, we are not writing for that audience,but seeking a comprehensive, basic encyclopedia article, and as has been pointed out, some of JW's conclusions about what houses might be called seems speculative.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

DBD, why is what taking so long? What exactly are you expecting to happen? I am trying to establish peoples' views on recent edits to a whole raft of articles about British royalty which, in my view, need to be reverted or rewritten. I am not about to take that action unilaterally. I could just as well ask why it is taking so long for other members of this project to comment on this topic. Rubywine (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Rubywine: DBD, Wehwalt, indeed most of the people on this page, are agreeing with you (as, in general, do I). Responding aggressively to everyone who comments in a thread is a very unusual discussion style... Happy‑melon 19:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Happy-melon, thanks for mentioning that you agree. I had no idea that you were even reading this topic, let alone agreeing with it - after all, I'm not telepathic. I admit that I have felt a bit frustrated by the fact that only a couple of people have commented, and then I got what may have been a false impression of impatience from DBD. But I'm sincerely sorry if I have seemed aggressive. I don't intend to be so. Rubywine (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I very much sympathise with the frustration felt when a discussion simply isn't getting enough involvement to establish a good consensus; I'm poking at one myself over at another BRoy topic. I think DBD was expressing a simlar frustration as yourself, not frustration directed at you. In general I definitely agree that the primary reason for William's notability is his connection to the House of Windsor and the British Royal Family, other lineages are at best tangential and in many cases trivial. They are worth mentioning if they are suitably verified, but they should not be given undue weight. Happy‑melon 22:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

To make what I'm on about crystal clear, I am creating subtopics. Members of this project, and other visitors to this page, please offer your comments and viewpoints. Rubywine (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Prince Philip renounced his former House of Glücksburg upon marriage to Queen Elizabeth

Unless I missed something in the comments above, I did not see any mention of the important fact that Prince Philip, when he married Queen Elizabeth, renounced the use of his former House of Glücksburg outright. On the advice of Winston Churchill, and the insistence of the Queen's grandmother (consort to King George V), the Queen issued a royal proclamation in 1952 declaring that the royal house was to remain known as the House of Windsor.

House of Windsor (Apr 9, 1952) At the Court at Clarence House, the 9th day of April, 1952
Present, The Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in Council

Her Majesty was this day pleased to make the following Declaration:
-"My Lords,
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".
P.J. FERNAU.

(copy, National Archives, HO 290/72)
Clarence House, April 9th. 1952.
The Queen to-day declared in Council Her Will and Pleasure that She and her children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that Her descendants, shall bear the name of Windsor.
(London Gazette, issue 39513, Apr. 11, 1952, p. 1/2013).

A later declaration (when both Queen Mary the grandma and Churchill had passed on to Nirvana) simply added that for official purposes, the surname Mountbatten-Windsor could be used. This is in the same link for Styles of the British Royal Family, that was used for the above example. I think that should settle this matter, once and for all. --Skol fir (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The precedence of the House of Windsor over any other Houses in the British Line of Succession has already been explained at House_of_Windsor#Descendants_of_Elizabeth_II, just as I have done above. --Skol fir (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Strongly argued, thanks. I am now citing this well-sourced argument to support appropriate edits. I have started by removing the speculative claim in the House of Oldenburg. Also, I have replaced your outdent with a new subheading in order to make your contribution easier to find. Rubywine (talk)

So what House were Prince Charles and Princess Anne of Edinburgh before 1952? Opera hat (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Opera hat, before Charles was born (Nov. 14, 1948), the rules at the time allowed only male-line heirs to receive royal titles. On 22 October 1948, George VI issued new letters patent granting the style Royal Highness to any children of Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip; otherwise, Charles would have merely taken his father's title, and been titled by courtesy as Earl of Merioneth. In this way, the children of the heiress presumptive had a royal and princely status. I assume that by taking on the royal status, these children also belonged automatically to the House of Windsor, from birth. Queen Elizabeth just made it official in 1952, when she became Queen. --Skol fir (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Skol fir, I am fully aware of the provisions of the Letters Patent of 1917 and 1948 regarding the title of Princes and Princess. I just wasn't sure how the Royal Proclamation of 1917 (which applied to "the descendants in the male line of [...] Queen Victoria) could be considered to apply to the then Princess Elizabeth's children. Your assumption that it did doesn't wash, I'm afraid. Opera hat (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to contradict yourself. First you say you are aware of the 1948 new letters of patent. Then you say my assumption relating to that proclamation (saying that the Princess Elizabeth's children have all the rights and privileges of royalty) does not wash. What does my assumption have to do with 1917? That does not even apply here. Your logic is flawed. --Skol fir (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, Opera hat, you must be aware that before his marriage Prince Philip renounced his titles and adopted the surname Mountbatten. He was thereby forfeiting the transferance of his titles to his children. As any future children would be accorded royal status by the 1948 letters patent of George VI, they would naturally belong to the House of Windsor from birth. --Skol fir (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The grant of royal titles doesn't mean a switch of royal house. Victoria gave some of her relatives the titles of highness and prince but they didn't become members of the House of Hanover, they stayed Battenbergs and Tecks. Similarly, when Edward VII granted Victoria Eugenie a royal title, she remained a Battenberg, she didn't become a Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. DrKay (talk) 07:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

In this case it does, by default. I am not talking about distant relatives here. I am discussing Queen Elizabeth's children only. This case is unique in that the father (Prince Philip) declined to keep his titles, so that the children would inherit the mother's House, which just happens to be the House of Windsor. That is all I am saying. I am not talking about giving the royal title to "relatives" or distant cousins. Please don't obfuscate the issue. In this case it has do to with the royal children inheriting a House from the female line, as George VI obviously did not want Philip's House of Glücksburg to take precedence. --Skol fir (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

My comment does not obfuscate, it explains. Grants of royal titles and styles do not affect house membership by themselves. DrKay (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Your explanation is fine for the case where someone already belongs to a House, and there is no reason to change it just because they received a royal title. Fine, agreed. However, in this case, a newborn obviously arrives on the scene without a House, and needs to have one assigned, especially if he or she has a royal title, such as "His Royal Highness". Now the choice is between the father's House (House of Glücksburg) and the mother's House (House of Windsor). By default, Windsor won out, right from the date of birth, because ::

1. -they were the children of a presumptive heiress to the throne
2. -they had automatically received royal status upon birth
3. -George VI had overridden the 1917 letters patent by allowing the children of Queen Elizabeth to adopt a royal status, which meant they belonged to her Royal Family, which was the House of Windsor.
4. -Prince Philip's House of Glücksburg had taken a back seat the moment he married the Queen-to-be.

At least that is my take on this whole issue. If there is anything wrong with my logic, please rebut. --Skol fir (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, that logically makes no sense. Rather than have people harp on about how 'Salic Law' (When quite clearly they have no idea what 'Salic Law' actually means) let's look at documentary evidence:

1917 Order-In Council: http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm#German_titles_1917 By the KING. A PROCLAMATION declaring that the Name of Windsor is to be borne by his Royal House and Family and Relinquishing the Use of All German Titles and Dignities. GEORGE R.I. WHEREAS We, having taken into consideration the Name and Title of Our Royal House and Family, have determined that henceforth Our House and Family shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor: And whereas We have further determined for Ourselves and for and on behalf of Our descendants and all other the descendants of Our Grandmother Queen Victoria of blessed and glorious memory to relinquish and discontinue the use of all German Titles and Dignities: And whereas We have declared these Our determinations in Our Privy Council: Now, therefore, We, out of Our Royal Will and Authority, do hereby declare and announce that as 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: And do hereby further declare and announce that We for Ourselves and for and on behalf of Our descendants and all other the descendants of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, relinquish and enjoin the discontinuance of the use of the Degrees, Styles, Dignities, Titles and Honours of Dukes and Duchesses of Saxony and Princes and Princesses of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and all other German Degrees, Styles, Dignities. Titles, Honours and Appellations to Us or to them heretofore belonging or appertaining. Given at Our Court at Buckingham Palace, this Seventeenth day of July, in the year of our Lord One thousand nine hundred and seventeen, and in the Eighth year of Our Reign. GOD save the KING.

-Got that? So, that's all descendants of Queen Victoria's SONS and their issue in the direct male line (male or female), who are British subjects and (if female) haven't married. So, 1948-1952, that doesn't apply to either the future Elizabeth II OR her children. So, 1948-1952, they were not members of the House of Windsor, they were Mountbattens.

1952 Order-In-Council:

At the Court at Clarence House, the 9th day of April, 1952

Present, The Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in Council

Her Majesty was this day pleased to make the following Declaration: -"My Lords, 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".

-So, that's only the Queen and her children, NOT say, Zara Phillips and Peter Phillips, etc.

So, in retrospect, all this nonsense about what evidence do you have that british house rules go in the male line' is utter crap.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 10:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

To quote from various sources:

• "Prince Charles and Princess Anne had the surname Mountbatten. "Thus the House of Mountbatten ruled for two months." The first setback came in April 1952 when the Queen commanded by Order in Council that she had taken the name Windsor": Richard Hough's Mountbatten (1981)
• "Prince Philip apparently expected, as did his uncle Lord Mountbatten who promoted the idea, that when Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, succeeded to the Throne he would be the first of the House of Mountbatten": Bell, Bousfield & Toffoli Queen and Consort (2007)
• "It was Beaverbrook who first raised the question of what happens to the Royal House of Windsor, now that the House of Mountbatten is crowding it. He feared three-year-old Prince Charles, son of Elizabeth and Philip, and heir to the throne, would take the name Mountbatten, instead of Windsor": Look, vol. 16, issue 3 (1952)
• "The decision taken by the Queen meant that Prince Charles, in the course of time, will be the 5th sovereign of the House of Windsor and not the first sovereign of the House of Mountbatten.": Michael Leyland Nash, "The Monarchy 1952-1977" in The New Law Journal (1978) Vol. 127
• "he [Mountbatten] was heard boasting that the British throne had been occupied by a Mountbatten since 7 February; the House of Mountbatten had now been established.": John Parker's Prince Philip: A Critical Biography (1990) p. 156
• "In Common Law a Queen Regnant is the last of her line, so if nothing had been done, Prince Charles would have been born the first of the House of Mountbatten." Tim Heald & Mayo Mohs in H.R.H., The Man Who Would Be King (1979) p. 23
• "In the normal course of events Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, on inheriting the throne would become the first monarch of the House of Mountbatten": Norris McWhirter (editor) The Guinness Book of Answers (1985 edition). The same wording is used in previous and subsequent editions, e.g. 1991 edition (edited by Clive Carpenter) p. 699
• etc., etc. DrKay (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, 'DrKay'. 'Skol'; your assertion that the Charles and Anne were 'of the Hopuse of Windsor by default' is absolute and utter cobblers, as. a.The 1917 proclamation specifically states THEY'RE NOT members of the House, and b.No Order-in-council, Letters Patent etc. said they were, either. So, quite clearly, as legimiimate children of a man with the surname 'Mountbatten', they were quite clearly of the House of Mountbatten, until the 1952 order-in-council proclaiming them to be Windsors.

Furthermore: "George VI had overridden the 1917 letters patent by allowing the children of Queen Elizabeth to adopt a royal status, which meant they belonged to her Royal Family, which was the House of Windsor." -No, he didn't. He just made Charles and Anne Prince and Princess of the United Kingdom. As DrKay stated, Victoria made the Battenburgs and the Schleswig-Holsteins Royal Highnesses, and Edward VII did exactly that for the Fife daughters of his daughter Louise (made them princesses of the United Kingdom), yet they all remained members of their respective Houses.

"Prince Philip's House of Glücksburg had taken a back seat the moment he married the Queen-to-be." Nope, he just adopted the name 'Mountbatten' for purposes of naturalisation, because 'von Oldenburg'and'von Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg' sounded far too german and the anglicised version'Oldcastle' was deemed unsuitable.

"What does my assumption have to do with 1917? That does not even apply here." -What? Of course it does! If there was no intervening order-incouncil from the monarch 1917-1952, then of course it 'still applies' because the 1917 order-in-council had not be specifically superceded.

"In this case it has do to with the royal children inheriting a House from the female line, as George VI obviously did not want Philip's House of Glücksburg to take precedence." -Can you please give evidence that George VI expressed, said or wished this? The 1917 order-in-council specifically excludes 'female descendants who may marry or may have married' and furthermore states that'all the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms'-so all that obviously does not apply to either Prince Charles or Princess Anne, or Elizabeth either.

Your assertion that they were de fault members of the House of Windsor because 'Elizabeth was heir presumptive' undermines your argument yet further: until 1952, she was merely a heiress presumtive, not an heir apparent, and thus, had Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother been pregnant on George VI's death and given birth to a son (quite unlikely, but possible), then that son would have become King instead of Elizabeth. As an heress-presumtive, she had no guaranteed right to succession because, under the semi-salic British succession law, she could be easily displaced by a brother.

"Your explanation is fine for the case where someone already belongs to a House" -Only they did, they were members of the House of Mountbatten because they were the legitimate children of someone with that surname, just like the children of every other british subject (which, after relinquishing his greek and danish titles, Prince Phillip merely was until elevated to the peerage: he was 'merely' 'Sir Phillip Mountbatten, RN') given a title belong to the house of their father unless legislation to the contrary, and just like all the other offspring of members of noble houses who have married british princesses: the Harewoods, Fifes, Schleswig-Holsteins, Battenburgs, Tecks, etc, etc.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Both JWULTRABLIZZARD and DrKay appear to be overly obsessed with this issue. I know I asked for a rebuttal to my opinion, but not a Ph.D. dissertation! Although I am impressed with your dedication to your cause, I prefer to take the Queen's side in this issue, which is that "My children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that My descendants...shall bear the Name of Windsor". I really don't care what happened between 1948 and 1952. That's all water under the bridge anyway, and won't change the current state of affairs. --Skol fir (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes...although the length of our rebuttal in no way detracts from the validity of our points and er, the invalidity of your assumptions. You also ommited the words "other than female descendants who marry and their descendants"...you also can't assume that the house of Prince Charles and Anne 148-1952 was automatically 'Windsor' when absolutely no official order-in-council was issued to that effect. In short, you're making assumptions, rather than providing evidence as we have.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That's all water under the bridge anyway, and won't change the current state of affairs -Agreed 100% However, an order-in-council from Charles III will; I'm sure.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Now you are making assumptions. Charles III is not a guaranteed name for the next king, given the sour reputation for kings named Charles in the past. :-) I would be more inclined to the name George VII, if I was to place bets on it. However, on the matter of "water under the bridge," I am glad to see that we finally agreed on something. I happen to be Canadian, and therefore I do not have the direct access to important documents as you appear to have. I guess that I need to make a trip to London, UK, to scour the Archives there if I want to prove my assumptions to be correct. Rather an expensive proof, I might add. --Skol fir (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well; you're quite right on that 'assumption', apart from that I was quite aware of that.:-)JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The question of Prince William's ancestry

The ancestry section in Prince William's article is quoted above. I consider it to be extremely POV and badly in need of a rewrite. What do you think? Rubywine (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. MilborneOne (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

He's House of Windsor DBD 21:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

He belongs ONLY to the House of Windsor, by Royal Decree (1952, 1960). --Skol fir (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your comments, but I'd just like to redirect everyone's attention to the subsection of Prince William's article entitled Ancestry, which I have quoted in full at the start of the parent discussion. My question here concerns the issue of whether that section needs to be rewritten. To be clear, are you both saying that ancestors not in the Queen's line of ancestry should be completely omitted? If so, that's much further than I would go. Rubywine (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Rubywine, I consider the term "ancestry" as a different category than "Royal House." I don't think it is necessary to remove mention of other lines of ancestry other than the Queen's, for the purpose of genealogy. However, this section should be worded so that it is clear that this does not interfere with naming the royal succession as Windsor. I would add a statement qualifying the POV material (and reword the latter so that it is not so POV). Right now it sounds like the Germans are invading Britain again! lol --Skol fir (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I have made some improvements to the section Ancestry to reflect the true state of affairs. --Skol fir (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The question of whether House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg belongs in Windsor infoboxes

House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg has been added to the infoboxes for most of the Royal family. I think it should be removed from all articles except Duke of Edinburgh. What do you think? Rubywine (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree no reason why it should be in the infobox of others. MilborneOne (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Never DBD 21:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with Rubywine. Prince Philip is the last person in the British Royal Family to carry the name of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. Thank God for that! ...and Garn Svend, obsessed as he seems to be with the House of Oldenburg, must live with reality and stop fantasizing. --Skol fir (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

-He doesn't carry the name 'Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg'; his surname, which is never used, is 'Mountbatten'. In Gyles Brandreth's 'Phillip and Elizabeth'; the wedding certificate of Phillip and the then-princess Elizabeth is shown, clearly showing that Phillip is listed as 'Phillip Mountbatten' and his occupation as 'Duke of Edingburgh, Earl of Merioneth, Baron Greenwich' his father is listed as 'Andrew Slesvig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg' and his father's occupation listed as 'Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark'.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't see the fathers' names as the photocopy I have is cut off, but interestingly her unmarried surname is clearly given as Windsor. I say interestingly because it's often claimed she didn't/doesn't have one. DrKay (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The question of whether House of Oldenburg will reign in 16 Commonwealth realms upon Charles' succession

See the quoted paragraph from House of Oldenburg in the parent discussion, claiming that the House of Oldenburg will reign in 16 Commonwealth realms upon Charles' succession. I think it's insidious, unsourced nonsense that needs to be nipped in the bud. What do you think? Rubywine (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Highly unlikely that Charles thinks of himself as being House of Oldenburg his position is through his mothers position and ancestry. MilborneOne (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above remark. Why would Charles disagree with his mother the Queen, who declared on two occasions, in 1952 and 1960, that the House of Windsor would be the name of all her heirs? Charles is a good boy and listens to his mother! --Skol fir (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

CRYSTALBALL. And no DBD 21:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hm, why not then the House of Lorraine, since Helyas of Lorraine (identified as the Knight of the Swan) was the father of Elimar, the patrilineal ancestor of the House of Oldenburg? That House is thus a cadet branch of the House of Lorraine... I'm kidding, my answer is also: no. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Speaking about Lorraine, that should be the official house name of the Habsburgers as well, after all the last true Habsburger was Maria Theresia, who married a member of the House of Lorraine. Thus making her descendants part of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine. So it's not as if there aren't precedents for using an other name than the true patrilineair name. -- fdewaele 9 May 2011, 18:44. CET.

Thanks everyone. On the basis of What_Wikipedia_is_not#CRYSTALBALL and the detailed, sourced refutation provided earlier by Skol fir, I have now deleted this claim from House of Oldenburg. Rubywine (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Well first of all, I didn't say that george V intended 'male-only succession', nor did I say this was backed up by the number of sons he had. Way to monumentally miss the point. and as regards 'importance of ancestry'; Edward VII's 'most important' lineage BY FAR was via his mother Victoria. Did that make him a member of the house of welf? Er no, he was a wettin, bearing the saxon inescutcheon in his arms. It is stated in Jonathan Dimbleby's biography of Charles that he regards the whole 'windsor' part of his 'surname' as a 'useless artifice.' Bearing in mind this, as well as Charles' closeness to Louis Mountbatten, i find it unlikely that Charles will continue to use the 'Windsor' house designation. Also, all three of the 1917, 1950 and 1960 orders-in-council do not include female-line issue. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Does the fact that the Queeen has proclaimed the name of the ruling house to be Windsor and that Prince Philip changed his name and (I believe) dropped claims to Greece and Denmark change the fact that Prince Philip and Prince Charles belong to the umbrella House of Oldenburg? Just as the royal family previously changing their name from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to the House of Windsor does not change the fact the Queen is part of the umbrella House of Wettin.--CSvBibra (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The wording here does not make sense -- "The fact that the Queen...change the fact that..." Let's have proper English, please. CSvBibra, is that what you really meant to say in the first sentence? I think not. The second sentence does not make sense either, based on the first sentence. --Skol fir (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Your owner user page quotes "Remember Everyone makes mistakes." This is only a discussion page not an article itself.--CSvBibra (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Touché, CSvBibra! My apologies for sounding like a schoolteacher berating her English class for bad grammar. (You might also note correctly that my previous sentence does not have a predicate, and therefore should be roundly condemned to the ash heap of flawed English.) I have struck out the sentence in my comment above, about "proper English", as I was just being facetious with that remark. Your corrections to the above paragraph merit **Four Stars** for improvement. It now makes perfect sense, what you are saying. :-) --Skol fir (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

As for your statement above -- no, the Queen cannot wipe history off the map with a wave of her magic wand. The point is that the Houses of Wettin and Oldenburg have no current claim to the throne of "Great" Britain and the Commonwealth Realms, as the Queen's various declarations have basically dumped them in favour of the House of Windsor. This still leaves the possibility that either Prince Charles or Prince William could decide to change the name of the Royal House when they succeed to the throne.

Officially, the House of Windsor is currently the only House that has any relevance to infoboxes. Sections about ancestry, within the articles about the Royal Family, can adequately address the true lineage of the various members of the family, for historical purposes. For example, see Charles,_Prince_of_Wales#Ancestry. There is no need to add a long list of hyphenated Houses to an infobox, in the hope that they might one day be revived as the Royal House. We do not gaze into the "Crystal Ball" at Wikipedia. The same applies to the bold claim that had been made at the House of Oldenburg, which Rubywine judiciously removed. --Skol fir (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

". If you are descended from The Sovereign or The Prince of Wales, that "trumps" any other line of descent! " -er, how? Wrong, I have to add. Queen Victoria was a Guelph, as well as a Queen and an Empress. Prince Albert was a saxe-coburg gotha/wettin and the second son of a very minor german princeling. So, by your logic, Edward VII by all rights should have been a Guelph, as Victoria's status far, far 'trumped' Albert's. But, of course, this is absolute hogwash, Edward VII was of the house wettin/saxe-coburg and gotha, because his father was, just like every other royal house like, ever. (With the odd one or two exceptions, the 'second house of Windsor' being one. but then, for the trillionth time THAT IS NOT WHAT USUALLY HAPPENS!)JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD pending on Wulfrida, Queen of Wessex?

The Wulfrida article states she was Queen of Wessex, as wife of Æthelred of Wessex. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wulfrida states "No verifiable evidence that Wulfrida existed." I assume users from this project may wish to comment one way or another on this deletion. OCNative (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth II - question about notability of length of reign

I have tried to add the following the sentence to the intro for the Queen. It has been repeatedly deleted. Twice by Rrius on the grounds that it is "factually incorrect" because of the length of the reign of the King of Thailand, which is just illogical; subsequently on the grounds that it is "trivia", and lastly on the grounds that it's a 5th paragraph (WP:LEAD).

"On 12 May 2011, Elizabeth will become the second longest-reigning British monarch in over 1,200 years, the length of her reign upon that date being exceeded only by that of her great-great-grandmother Queen Victoria."

I think it's an important statistic, not simply because of the move from 3rd to 2nd place, but because it indicates the remarkable length of Elizabeth's reign, within the historical context of the British monarchy. I think it is more worthy of inclusion in the introduction than most of the material in the existing fourth paragraph on the annus horribilis in 1992. What do others think? Rubywine (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This matter is already under discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II#Lead. Please place comments there rather than here. DrKay (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That discussion topic is obscurely titled and it seeks to trivialise the issue, which is actually about the notability of the relative length of the Queen's reign, within the historical context of the monarchy. I do not think this is a trivial issue and I want to broaden the discussion to a wider community of editors. That is why I have opened a discussion topic here. However if people want to add comments to the article's discussion page rather than here, I have no objections. Rubywine (talk) 08:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Over 1200 years? The British monarchy has only been in existance for 304 years. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

But there were British monarchs (i.e. monarchs who were also British) before. I never thought of interpreting 'British monarchs' in this context other than as 'Monarchs of the United Kingdom or its predecessor states' 85.180.20.235 (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Your statement is correcr. And it is a notable fact. I remember it being reported in the poular media.Gazzster (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Are we planning to have this discussion again in four years time? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

2011 royal tour of Canada

If possible, some assistance in cleaning up 2011 royal tour of Canada would be appreciated, to prove the topic's notability. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Ancestry Charts of the Current British Royal Family

Ancestry Charts of the Current British Royal Family has just been created, it appears to be un-referenced and is only really be seen with a large display. Did think of a prod but thought I would raise it here as it is appears to be related to this project to see what you think. MilborneOne (talk) 07:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)