Jump to content

Talk:British royal family/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Prior question

Looking at the Talk Archive from the early days of this article, it seems that the article has a weakness which has yet to be resolved.

  • The lead states it thus: "no strict legal or formal definition of who is or is not a member of the Royal Family". Why then should editors be debating who is right or wrong about that? A consesnus of Wikipedia editors has little encyclopedic value, except as reporting and presenting, for the information of readers, what is found in authentic sources.
  • "The British Royal Family is the group of close relatives of the monarch of the United Kingdom": has the Queen said this or authorised it?[1] Has parliament in connection with the Civil List or otherwise?[2] Is it the same as the House of Windsor? Or an authentic variant of the House of Windsor.
  • What does "The new name chosen, Windsor, had absolutely no connection other than as the name of the castle which was and continues to be a royal residence" mean?[3]
  • George V's letters patent of 1917 were announced "to define the styles and titles to be borne henceforth by members of the Royal Family": thus, all those mentioned are members of the Royal Family, but what authentic source, apart from the Queen's letters patent of 1996 and 2012, adds or excludes others?
  • Does the authorised order of precedence declare those who are of the RF?
  • "Collaterals" heads a section, but appears to be nowhere explained, and seems to be loosely or perhaps incorrectly used.
  • The Family Tree setting out descendants of Geoge V fails to include the Duke of Windsor, but includes other deceased persons. Who else is missing from the tree, and why?
  • If we were writing of any other family, we would call it: Family of Lord / Lady/ Sir/ Dame / Mr/ Mrs/ Miss... and determine the common ancestors, main line of ascent/descent, and collateral lines of ascent/descent etc. In the case of British Royal Family, is this the Family descended from George V, or some ancestor of his? Qexigator (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't concur that "the article has a weakness", rather, it has a reality which Wikipedia seems loathe to address. Just because the "Royal Family" has no legal definition does not mean it has no definition and no meaning: like most words, the term's meaning lies not in law, but in how it is used. Wikipedia presumptuously adds to that, "the way it is used in reliable sources", although the real world imposes no such limitation. But "reliable sources" on the term are all over the place and will not yield a consistent, unambiguous definition. Still, that doesn't justify Wikipedia in saying, "since the term is used in differing ways by different reliable sources, it cannot be defined in Wikipedia, cannot be the subject of an article in Wikipedia, and cannot be used meaningfully in Wikipedia." The problem isn't the term, but Wikipedia's self-imposed blind spot: some terms are so ubiquitous and dynamic that no one feels the need to explicitly define them, so no "reliable source" exists which unambiguously, comprehensively and authoritatively does so. Therefore, to force terms, including "Royal Family", to comply with Wikipedia's rules, we've tried to pass off ersatz definitions as founded in fact, such as the assertion that the Royal Family consists of those who bear the style "Majesty" and "Royal Highness": but no one with authority to do so has ever defined or restricted the term "Royal Family" to such persons, although most Wikipedian editors treat that definition as somehow authoritative, when at most it should be treated as the minimum persons included. Why not just acknowledge explicitly that the term has varying meanings depending upon the sources consulted? Here's some extra ones which have bearing on the topic: In 1923 the "Treaty between Great Britain and Sweden for the Marriage of Lady Louise Mountbatten with His Royal Highness Prince Gustaf Adolf, Crown Prince of Sweden" was executed by plenipotentiaries on behalf of Sweden and the UK. The treaty stated, in part, that the kings of the United Kingdom and Sweden "having judged it proper that an alliance should again be contracted between their respective Royal Houses by a marriage...have agreed upon and concluded the following Articles". Louise was not only no HRH, she wasn't even (any longer) a princess and didn't require the UK sovereign's authorization to marry under the Royal Marriages Act 1772, but she was a British subject residing in the UK who was in the line of succession to the British throne (perhaps such dynasts constitute the maximum persons included in Britain's extended "Royal Family"?). Another relevant factoid: Ernest Augustus, Prince of Hanover (1914-1987) and his siblings (i.e., Frederika of Hanover, Queen of the Hellenes and Prince George William of Hanover whose 1946 formal petition for George VI's legal authorization to marry Prince Philip's sister, Sophie of Greece, was ignored by the British Government against the king's express wish) were all the beneficiaries of George V's June 1914 letters patent to the effect: "We do hereby declare and ordain that the children born to their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Brunswick and Lüneburg shall at all times hold and enjoy the style and attribute of 'Highness' with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names, or with any titles of honour which may belong to them. And we do hereby further declare and ordain that the designation of the said children shall be 'a Prince (or Princess) of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'". Given such broad parameters, how do we define the British Royal Family in a way that is both consistent with Wikipedia's reliable sources restriction and with reality? Good luck! FactStraight (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

FS.: Broadly and in the main I agree with that. Let me rephrase my opening comment: Given that there is "no strict legal or formal definition of who is or is not a member of the Royal Family", a weakness results from the tendency to construct the article as if a consensus of Wikipedia editors would have encyclopedic value otherwise than as reporting what is found in authentic sources, and presenting it for the information of readers, Hence, the importance of finding where possible authentic points of reference rather than attempting to invent something to please the editors, the crowd or some special interest group, such as royalists, republicans, genealogists, marxists, journalists, romantic novelists or biographers. The factoids you have selected for mention are, in my view, not without relevance to a well constructed article. The list of current "Royal Family" is fairly easy to determine, allowing for annotations for variations and anomalies, but the list in the article as from 18c. is at present something of an incoherent jumble. I dissent, however, from the notion that the article needs to "define the British Royal Family" otherwise than by reference to the way in which this can be ascertained from what the undoubted members of the Family (usually king/queen), past and present, have declared and done, and any externally verifiable facts confirming that, or otherwise. Qexigator (talk) 06:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
You will have a well and reliably sourced article which defines the Royal Family precisely -- and contentiously and inaccurately, because virtually no Wiki editor who prides themself on being knowledgeable about matters royal will accept that the Mountbattens or the Hanovers are part of the UK's RF. My point wasn't that we should defy the sources, but accept that the sources will produce such counter-intuitive, piece-meal results as to be permanent edit-war bait. The easy way out is to do what we do now: define RF to mean people who are Majesty or Royal Highness. The accurate way is to write that "Royal Family" is a fluid concept because it is fundamentally political in nature: Edward VII wanted his niece Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg to become Queen of Spain, so when Anglicans pressured him to refuse to allow his British-born and raised niece to marry Alphonso XIII of Spain, he told them that she wasn't a member of the British Royal Family and could marry as she liked -- promptly having drawn up and ratified treaty language almost identical to that of Louise Mountbatten's, whom George V wanted treated as a member of his "dynasty" for the same reasons: dynasties aggrandize by extending their influence. Royal Family members are tools in service to that or to some other monarchical/dynastic purpose. My point was that it is probably impossible to find a reliable source to say that -- so our article will continue to be ersatz, incomplete and therefore misleading because the truth is complex -- and therefore hard to source. FactStraight (talk) 06:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
FactStraight--> you wrote: "Louise was not only no HRH, she wasn't even (any longer) a princess and didn't require the UK sovereign's authorization to marry under the Royal Marriages Act 1772, but she was a British subject residing in the UK who was in the line of succession to the British throne" and later "Edward VII wanted his niece Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg to become Queen of Spain, so when Anglicans pressured him to refuse to allow his British-born and raised niece to marry Alphonso XIII of Spain, he told them that she wasn't a member of the British Royal Family and could marry as she liked -- promptly having drawn up and ratified treaty language almost identical to that of Louise Mountbatten's, whom George V wanted treated as a member of his "dynasty" for the same reasons". First of all, Louise Mountbatten was never what we call here a "full member" of the Royal Family, I mean by that a full dynastical status. Her family was neither Saxe-Coburg and Gotha nor Windsor, but that of Battenberg. That's because you take your dynasty belonging from your father and not your mother, that's clear. The Battenbergs were a morganatic branch of the House of Hesse. However, Lady Louise was closely related to the British Royals through her mother, Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine, who was a granddaughter of Queen Victoria and a first cousin of George V, who concluded the treaty on Louise's marriage. But, Princess Victoria was a female-line granddaughter of Victoria and Albert, so she was not a dynast of the British Royal House. The point is that the Battenbergs were living in Britain and were closely linked to their British royal relatives and when George V broke the German links of his family to their German cousins (although it didn't change the fact that he was almost purely German by blood) they stayed in Britain and chose the King's side. They lost their German titles and were rewarded by the King with British peerages and were considered by him as family members, which they were of course. That ment they could play a part in dynastic and international politics of the King and his government. They could be treated as royal matches in the royal intermarriage which was still playing some minor role in international politics. My point is Louise Mountbatten was not a full dynast of the House of Windsor but she was considered a member of the Royal Family by the King clearly. However, her status of lady not from a royal birth (the royal line of her patrilineal descent was broken by a morganatic marriage of her grandfather) was a problem in her possible marriage with the Swedish Crown Prince. That's why George V decided to conclude an official treaty with his Swedish counterpart on the marriage of Louise and Gustav Adolf. By doing this, the parties acknowledged her dynastical status and her right to marry the Crown Prince as equal. It was some kind of legitimization of her royal status equal with that of the Crown Prince. You're right that he didn't have to do this bu this is why he chose to did so. However, under the Royal Marriages Act, Louise needed the King's assent to her marriage anyway, and you are mistaken in that point (not only Princes and Princesses of the Royal House need the Sovereign's assent to marry, until the recent changes all the descendants of Electress Sophia of Hanover, who were considered rightful to the British throne needed the assent). But the treaty was surely not necessary. The other thing you've missed here is about Victoria Eugenia of Battenberg. She belonged to the same family as Louise but her marriage happened before the 1917 changes and she was still then a German/Hessian noble, a morganaut of the Grand Ducal House. However, she was again considered a member of the family by her maternal uncle, Edward VII. He even elevated her the style to that of Royal Highness to enrich her position and also concluded an official treaty on the matter of her marriage with the Spanish king. As for the status of the Hanoverian cousins of the Windsors, the Letters Patent of George V you've mentioned lost its effect when shortly after that the same King issued Letters Patent in which he limited the title and style of British prince and princess to the children of the Sovereign, the children of the Sovereign's sons and the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. However, the Hanoverians still consider themselves dynasts of the UK and use the titles of Princes and Princesses of Great Britain and no one denies their right to do so. They also continued to seek the British sovereign's assent to their marriages (and they were granting them, most recently by Elizabeth II of course). However, after recent changes (see the Perth Agreement and related articles on the ongoing changes in the Succession laws) this is no longer required. Kowalmistrz (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Point of (pedantic?) detail: If "Louise...until the recent changes ..." refers to Succession to the Crown Act 2013 the provisions have not yet come into operation. Reprise of previous comment above: the "list in the article as from 18c. is at present something of an incoherent jumble". Qexigator (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
1. "Louise Mountbatten was never what we call here a 'full member' of the Royal Family, I mean by that a full dynastical status." Nobody ever said she was -- that is the point of citing her as an example: she is someone who was not a princess, not very closely related to Britain's king (she and George V were first cousins-once-removed), and not a member of the King's patrilineage, yet the UK signed a treaty with Sweden explicitly recognizing that, by marrying her, the Crown Prince of Sweden was marrying into the British Royal Family. So clearly, membership in that entity is not defined by title or degree of kinship to the monarch. 2. No, neither Lady Louise nor Princess Victoria Eugenie needed the British monarch's permission to marry because neither descended in the male line from a British monarch and because they do descend from British princesses (Princess Alice of the United Kingdom and Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom, respectively) who married foreigners (yes, both of their fathers' became British subjects -- but only after their marriages). 3. You assert that the only reason the UK signed a treaty with Sweden agreeing to Lady Louise's wedding was in order to establish that she was eligible to marry the future Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden, but that begs the question: Why would the Swedish Crown Prince choose to marry "Lady Louise Mountbatten" when Sweden had a very strict law requiring dynastic marriage? Could/would the UK have signed a treaty with Sweden recognising that their Crown Prince's marriage to "Miss Jane Doe, of Suffolk, England" constituted an alliance between the two Royal Families if, in fact, George V didn't regard Miss Doe as a de facto member of his Royal Family? The evidence is just as strong that the treaty was simply a repeat, for tradition's sake, of, e.g., the treaty signed when Ena of Battenberg had married the King of Spain in 1906 -- in other words, it's mere speculation that the treaty was intended to make Louise royal rather than to acknowledge her as such. 4. Equally unprovable arguments are often adduced for Ena's sake, claiming that she was elevated from Highness to Royal Highness in order to make her "royal enough" to marry a King of Spain (as if marriage to, for instance, a Serene Highness of the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen dynasty would have been rejected by Spain merely because her "style" was too low!). I agree that the elevation helped make Ena look more royal to the Spanish court -- but any lawyer would tell you that letters patent or even a law declaring someone to be a "Royal Highness" would not change their legal status, rank or dynastic rights in the slightest degree, so if the Spanish thought it did, the joke was on them. But in fact, both in Madrid in 1906 and in Stockholm in 1923 these Battenberg/Mountbatten girls were already deemed to be "British royals" because that is the way they were treated by Britain's Royal Family, that is how their suitors came to encounter them when visiting the Court of St. James's, and neither the Spanish nor the Swedish government was surprised at or objected to these brides precisely because their affiliation with Britain's RF was already known in every court in Europe (OTOH, even authorising on his deathbed the marriage of Princess Victoria of Prussia to Prince Alexander of Battenberg and pleading posthumously therein for his son, Kaiser Wilhelm II, to allow the wedding "for your sister's happiness" did not result in the daughter of German Emperor Friedrich III being permitted to marry one of that morganatic clan: the Hohenzollerns simply defined "Royal Family" differently from Spain's Bourbons and Sweden's Bernadottes -- yet all three required royal intermarriage by law. But "dynastic alliance" is as elusive a concept as "Royal Family". 5. The Hanovers continue to ask the British monarch for permission to marry and to receive it in the form of a decree from the Queen-in-Council because they are, for purposes of British law, members of the UK's Royal Family, so "defined" by the fact that their marriages are governed by both the Royal Marriages Act 1772 and the Act of Settlement (neither of which has, as of this writing, been rendered moot by the Perth Agreement). So Ernst August, Prince of Hanover needed Elizabeth II's consent to marry Princess Caroline of Monaco in 1999, because he descends in legitimate male line from a British monarch (George III) -- so that is yet another way one might define "British Royal Family" (yet that in no way suggests the Hanovers' entitlement to British royal titles which, contrary to your assertion, have not been recognised in any British Order-in-Council issued to authorise a Hanover marriage since 1919, when their British titles were stripped or suspended). The point is that the UK benefited from keeping the definition loose in order to maximize marital and political options. That yields a vague, malleable meaning of "British Royal Family" that will defy any authoritative attempt to define it precisely, which was the point I was making. We have a lacuna here because that vagueness is observable, but not documented (in any source I know of), so the only definitions we can offer of the term are those we know are accurate but unsourced, or those that are inaccurate but widely accepted (i.e. "The Royal Family consists of those entitled to the style 'Majesty' or 'Royal Highness'"). FactStraight (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
FactStraight above: . . . like most words, the term's meaning lies not in law, but in how it is used. That sounds right to me. This indeed makes it like most words, or rather like most noun phrases. It's rather like "the Rothschild family": presumably in order to be within the latter, your surname must be or have been Rothschild; but the other requirements are unclear and probably depend on the context. WP has an article "Rothschild family"; why is this one "British Royal Family" and not plain "British royal family"? -- Hoary (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

List of members

That list consists on all people who helds or have held the title of Prince(ss) of Great Britain and/or the United Kingdom since 1707. Until you present all those pages about the genealogy in Wikipedia, I don't see how this is pointless. As for what you dub as "misleading", if your concern is the wording at the top of the section, we can work on that. You can suggest what should be changed in order to avoid misleading the readers. 2.83.177.21 (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC) One more thing: Queen Frederica of the Hellenes surely wasn't included in the immediate Royal Family but she was entitled to the title of Princess Frederica of Cumberland and Princess of the United Kingdom from her birth in 1917 until 1919 when her grandfather the 3rd Duke of Cumberland, his children, grandchildren and surviving sister were deprived of their British titles, together with the 2nd Duke of Albany and his children. 2.83.177.21 (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

First of all, there are already articles that list the princes and princesses: British prince and British princess. On top of that, there are detailed genealogy articles, such as British monarchs' family tree and others listed in the See also section. The claim that Queen Frederica of Greece (along with many others) was in any meaningful way a member of the British Royal Family, as defined in the lead paragraph of the article, is dubious at best. Surtsicna (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
@Surtsicna: All right, but I'll ask you again: do you want to make changes to the wording at the top of that section? If you do, then I am available to discuss it. If you don't, fine, I'll drop it. 2.83.177.21 (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't know how to amend the wording to make the list useful. As I said, we have more detailed, more accurate and more meaningful lists of princes and princesses elsewhere. Surtsicna (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
@Surtsicna: Okay, I'll drop it. 2.83.177.21 (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a girl!

New member arrived about 20 minutes ago. No name has been announced [4].--Mark Miller (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC) The girl has been named Charlotte Elizabeth Diana.

Collaterals

I don't quite understand why are some members of the extended RF included as "collaterals" and some of them are not. For example, Earl of Ulster fit for the description: "(a spouse and the children and grandchildren of its current full or deceased members) carrying no royal style who sometimes appear in listings". He is the son of a RF's current full member, The Duke of Gloucester (the Queen's senior agnatic relative), he does not carry a royal style and sometimes apeears in listings... Can someone explain? Kowalmistrz (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Sarah, Duchess of York

Why is she listed als collateral, not as former collateral? SheldonReloaded (talk) 12:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The source given in the article includes her on a list of the royal family. DrKay (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Why "Collaterals"

The use of "Collaterals" for this section heading seems to be incorrect[5]. Is it supported by the source linked, which for me is not in readable script? Qexigator (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure where collaterals came from it is not a commonly used English word in this context. MilborneOne (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Question

"By this criterion, the Royal Family will usually include the monarch, the consort of the monarch, the widows of previous monarchs, the children and male-line grandchildren of the monarch and previous monarchs, the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, and the wives or widows of the monarch's and previous monarchs' sons and male-line grandsons."

This says that if the Queen predeceases Prince Philip that he will no longer be a member of the Royal Family as "widows of previous monarchs" are included but not widowers. That's hard to believe.

Also, is it appropriate to have "male-line" here in two places? Now that the primogeniture rule is changed it seems wrong. If Prince William and his son, Prince George had both been women (and ignoring the question of whether the change in the primogeniture rule would have been retroactive), Charles's grand-daughter would have been third in the line of succession, but would not be included in the list above. Or, put more broadly, it is entirely possible now that the Royal Family could descend through the female line, so that a grand-daughter of the monarch could be second in succession. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 20:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you are correct. Deb (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
The primogeniture rule was changed only in respect of the line of succession to the crown, and not in respect of royal or other descendible peerages, or otherwise in relation to inheritance or princely status (male or female). Qexigator (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
The line of succession is very long though, isn't it? Deb (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Is that relevant to the topic of this article? Qexigator (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 14 October 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Participants are clearly in favor of following the Wikipedia guideline, and since reliable sources appear to be somewhat in conflict, our guideline should rightly prevail. Arguments in opposition and comments make note that other pages also need to be renamed to the guideline, so we can expect more consistency in the near future. This is not by any means a slight to the British royal family nor to their loyal subjects; this is merely an attempt to strive for encyclopedic consistency. (non-admin closure)  Paine  u/c 01:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

British Royal Family → British royal family – WP:NCCAPS says that article titles should be generally lower case unless they are proper names. I contend that "British royal family" is not a proper name but merely descriptive - the royal family (q.v.) of Britain - and so does not warrant being capitalised. Hairy Dude (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. Does not appear to be a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 05:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support nom is clearly correct MrStoofer (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) does indeed say not to capitalise unless the title is a proper name, as in a country's name or a book title. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, in agreement with all above. Qexigator (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
    • +Later Comment The opening of the article rightly states that "There is no strict legal or formal definition in the UK of who is or is not a member of the Royal Family, and different lists will include different people." The article reproduces the notice in the London Gazette of 11 December 1917, which includes "...members of the Royal Family". But neither the use of capitals in official announcements, including proclamations and letters patent, nor in legislation such as the Sovereign Grant Act 2011[6] requires the house style of an encyclopedia to do the same. Here, it would be better to use lower case r and f in the title and in the article, except when quoting an original source. Note the inconsistency, for example, in section 7. of the Treasury's document (updated 28 June 2016) Sovereign Grant Act 2011: guidance,[7] as well as " ...may use the Royal Train for longer journeys...", "The Royal train enables...", "Journeys on the train..."; and, while the official website, at External links, has a page[8] which consistently uses R F caps, the website seems to have no list of current members. Qexigator (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not so sure. I think if I were writing, I would say "a royal family", but "The Royal Family" when referring to a specific case.
The UK press is ambivalent on capitalization, as this, from the Mirror web site, amply demonstrates"
"The Royal family are the close relatives of The Queen, and form the line of succession to the British throne. Members of the Royal Family have belonged, by birth or marriage, to the House of Windsor since 1917, under the reign of George V." emphasis added
However the official web site, https://www.royal.uk/, capitalizes both words in both captions and text. Also note that at Royal family, while the article title uses "family"", the list of current royal families capitalizes it throughout. The linked articles whose title is "X Royal Family" also capitalize it (some of the links are to "Monarchy of X"). So, I don't think we should change it here without changing it everywhere.
I note also that we have First Family of the United States.

. Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 14:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

And, by the way, since all of you are clearly interested in this topic, would you please take a look at my Question above? Thanks. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 14:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as descriptive title per MOS:CAPS: Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. Other royal families should appear in lower case too. — JFG talk 16:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As DrKay says, the BBC recommends capitalising this, and generally in British sources, it is capitalised; we rely more on British sources than others for this, per WP:TIES. Also since all other royal families caps this, (and have not been included in this request, so should not be moved unless a new multi-move is made), there is WP:CONSISTENCY in the current title. Wikipedia's MOS historically has recommended unnecessary caps, as JFG points out, but the recent lengthy debate and decision to retain caps at Syrian Civil War shows that we are no longer following that guideline. A majority of British English sources capitalise, so we should also capitalise.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – this is about a specific family, therfore making it a proper noun. It is different than "the first family" in the U.S. because that changes every 4-to-8 years; The British Royal Family will likely be unchanged anytime soon. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 14:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

I see that this RM was listed by the bot at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty#British Royal Family listed at Requested moves, which is good, but that was the most recent edit to that page, so perhaps there is nobody there to receive the message just now.

But as others have commented, this is not just about B/british R/royalty. Who else should be notified?

I wonder, how will WikiProject British Royalty react if we rename the WikiProject to british royalty? (;->

Seriously, folks, it's not that this is a lot of work so we shouldn't do it. It's more that because it's potentially such a lot of work, we should be extra sure before we start that we know what the scope and justification of the decision is. Just that.

Our rules aren't always consistent. That's one of several reasons we have WP:IAR. Andrewa (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

There is some cleaning up to do either way, it seems to me, or at the very least some explanation... just from the categories of this article alone, why Category:B-Class British royalty articles (note royalty) and yet Category:WikiProject British Royalty articles (note Royalty)? The more I look the bigger the job becomes. Andrewa (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Royal Family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British royal family. 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:

 The archive link marked "permanently dead" is definitely not a dead link.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Children of Earl and Countess of Wessex

Why are the two children of The Earl and Countess of Wessex not styled as HRH Prince(ss)? Векочел (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Because the Earl requested it. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Dowager Countess of Harewood

She's dead. DrKay (talk) 06:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

She should be in the list again.217.92.235.144 (talk) 09:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

She's not a member. DrKay (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course she is. Like the Duchess of Kent, Duchess of Gloucester and Princess Michael of Kent.217.92.235.144 (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Prove it. DrKay (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no need to talk. The family ties are obvious.217.92.235.144 (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

So please change it!217.92.235.144 (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

No. She isn't a member. The family ties of the Queen can be traced to millions of people. That doesn't make them all members of the royal family. DrKay (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

That's ridicoulous. You're talking nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.92.235.144 (talk) 06:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

DrKay, the Dowager Countess' family ties to the Queen are much more direct and close than milions' you've mentioned, even if they are not close and do not seem to maintain family relations at all (but we don't know it really). Let's just say the Queen dies and then she is followed by one of her grandsons, Peter Phillips. Would you still consider then his widow, Autumn Phillips, a member enough to include her in this category of the article we are discussing now? The very similar situation is with the Dowager Countess of Harewood now (and could be analagous in a situation when the now Prince William, Duke of Cambridge accedes to the throne, with Autumn Phillips being the widow of his royal first cousin). I assume you know what's Patricial Lascelles' exact relation to the Sovereign. Another question: do you think the late Lord Harewood was "member enough" to be included (I remind you that he was a grandson of George V)? If you do, why not include his widow until she dies or remarries?

Anyway, apart from the Queen herself there is no really a strict rule who is and who isn't a member of the RF as the RF itself is "unofficial", it's just a concept, not a legal body like the Crown itself! There are some persons whose membership is obvious for us and everyone considers them members, like all the HRHs. But in a broader sense, it really depends on who and where describes it. Legally, you can really say, for example, that every legitimate descendant of Sophia of Hanover who is not a Catholic, as an issue of her body per the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705, is a British royal dynast as he/she belongs to the legally standing royal lineage of people eligible to succeed to the British throne.

You can find some sources, both in the media and from the Court, stating the late Lord Harewood's royal status and naming him a member and it's obvious for me that this applies also to his wife. Compare: Court Circular from 4 June 2002 (but this includes also the children of the Gloucsters and the Kents), 1, 2, 3. Kowalmistrz (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

There are official lists of members: Lord Chamberlain's Diamond Jubilee Guidelines Annex CTrade Marks Manual, Intellectual Property Office (pp. 140–141). She's not on them. DrKay (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
At the time of Harewood's second marriage, I was under the impression that he had given up his place in the succession but I suppose it was such a moot point that he didn't need to. Deb (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, another thought - the children from the second marriage are not in the line of succession, are they? Whereas the children of the other people mentioned are. Deb (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, those are official sources, but what do you mean by "official"? This doesn't mean they are conclusive. Those are the members explicitely pointed but there are other sources mentioning others too, see the said Court Circular from the Jubilee celebrations in 2002 (where the Harewoods are mentioned) and later circulars where other extended family members are included, like the children of the Queen's royal cousins.Kowalmistrz (talk)
Loads of people get mentioned in the Court Circular, like ladies-in-waiting, equerries and distinguished guests, but that doesn't make them all members of the royal family. DrKay (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Of course, but the said sources name them as members of the RF. They are not mentioned like thousands of other people mentioned in the circular. It is in the context:
The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh this morning attended the Thanksgiving Service in St. Paul's Cathedral for Her Majesty's Ninetieth Birthday. The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall, The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, Prince Henry of Wales, The Duke of York with Princess Beatrice of York and Princess Eugenie of York, The Earl and Countess of Wessex with Viscount Severn and The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor, The Princess Royal and Vice Admiral Sir Tim Laurence with Mr. and Mrs. Peter Phillips and Mr. and Mrs. Michael Tindall, The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester with Earl and Countess of Ulster, The Lady Davina and Mr. Gary Lewis, and The Lady Rose and Mr. George Gilman, The Duke of Kent with Earl and Countess of St. Andrews, accompanied by Lord Downpatrick, The Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor and The Lady Amelia Windsor, and The Lord and Lady Nicholas Windsor, The Lady Helen and Mr. Timothy Taylor, accompanied by Mr. Cassius Taylor, Prince and Princess Michael of Kent with The Lord and Lady Frederick Windsor and The Lady Gabriella Windsor, Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy with Mr. and Mrs. James Ogilvy, Viscountess Linley, accompanied by the Hon. Charles Armstrong-Jones and the Hon. Margarita Armstrong-Jones, and The Lady Sarah and Mr. Daniel Chatto, accompanied by Mr. Samuel Chatto and Mr. Arthur Chatto also attended. The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh were received at the Cathedral by the Rt. Hon. the Lord Mayor and Her Majesty and His Royal Highness and other Members of the Royal Family were received by the Dean and Chapter, the Bishop of London and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Kowalmistrz (talk)
Um ... none of the Harewoods are listed there? And it doesn't say that all the people listed are members of the royal family. It's just a list of the Queen's relations at a service for her birthday. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
They're not mentioned simply because they were not attending. They were, though, in 2002. Yes, it does not explicitly say they are members but it's in the context, which is obvious for me. Kowalmistrz (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

DrKay, please take a position on what I said about how analagous/similar situation is with the Phillipses. The difference is that the Phillipses are the current Sovereign's grandson and granddaughter-in law. The Harewoods are/were the previous one's but the current's closest (by blood) Royal cousins! By royal I mean not an HRH with princely rank but something more important in case of precedence (see the precedence rules, where the royal cousins have specified place among the RF, and this included also the Harewoods) - the Royal origin of their relation. Cheers! Kowalmistrz (talk) 07:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You need a source saying she is a member. DrKay (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I see your point. No source - no mention in the article. That's very conservative approach but I get it. How 'bout the Court Circular 4 June 2002?

Anyway, please, DrKay, take a position on the similarity I've pointed before.... Kowalmistrz (talk)

So no one thinks it's because her kids aren't in line for the throne? Surely, if she was a member of the royal family, Mark Lascelles and his sisters would be? Deb (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
You mean Mark Hubert Lascelles? He was born out of wedlock, that's the reason he has no rights to the throne. He was later legitimated by his parents' marriage and thus is accorded the style of The Honourable, as a child of an earl but with no rights. The case of Lord Harewood's second marriage and the preceding affair with Patricia Tuckwell was scandalous and uncomfortable for he Royal Family. Mind that they were both divorcées and had an iillegitimate son and that was in the 1960s. Just over a decade before the Queen refused to accept a divorcée, Peter Townsend, as a groom for her sister, the Princess Margaret. And it was not her personal feelings towards them but the Church and Court's standing which made her do that. Kowalmistrz (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I remember it. Sorry, I misread the article as suggesting they had other children. So Mark and his children all miss out on the line of succession. I'm guessing that Harewood's first wife, Marion Stein, was also not a member of the royal family after their divorce, even though her children are in the line of succession. Deb (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, I think she could be considered a member, at least until she remarried in 1973. See what's with Sarah, Duchess of York. Until she remarries, she keeps the title by courtesy and is considered a member though she is not accorded the royal rank anymore. Kowalmistrz (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
... but not enough to be invited to Harry's wedding reception! :-)
Is a source that doesn't say she is a member good enough to support the claim that she is? No. The Countess of Harewood is listed in that source with Katharine Fraser, Mistress of Saltoun and her husband, who are even more remotely related. Being a distant relation of the Queen is not sufficient to make you a member of the royal family. It just makes you a distant relation. DrKay (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, first cousin is not a distant relation. What really matters is the nature of their relation - its through the Queens royal parent. It makes the Harewoods and the Linleys not members of simply the queens family (like the Bowes-Lyonses are) but the royal family in specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A318:8460:9D80:F844:CE3B:417:99EC (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2018 (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.

The Hanovers

Aren't the Hanovers also, in the strictest sense, members of the extended British Royal Family as dynastic, legitimate male-line descendants of George III? The Danish royal family article applies the Greek royals status of extended Danish royals. Until 2011 repealment of the Royal Marriages Act 1772, members of the House of Hanover sought the British sovereign's formal permission to marry. Kowalmistrz (talk) 07:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

They were deprived of all their British titles in 1917. Besides, not even all male-line descendants of George V are commonly regarded as members of the royal family. Surtsicna (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Wessex children

Why are they included in the family tree section ?185.215.2.204 (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Grandchildren of the present Queen. Deb (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
we don’t list the Princess Royals children - also grandchildren of the Queen. The Wessex children are not members of the royal family and should be removed 185.215.2.204 (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we do. they are under "Family members not using a royal style". Deb (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
No, they are not in the family free section 185.215.2.204 (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can tell they have been listed in the collapsed "Royal Familyy tree" table for a number of years, under the bit that says Earl of Wessex -- The Countess of Wessex, or are you looking somewhere else. MilborneOne (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
No, he's right - Anne's children do appear to be missing from the family tree. Deb (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
It’s correct that they are missing, the issue is the inclusion of the Wessex children they are members of the royal family185.215.2.204 (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
What you've just said doesn't make any sense, I'm afraid. Deb (talk) 06:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
We don't include children of the Princess Royal in the family tree as they are descendants of the monarch in female-line, thus they don't hold any royal title. The children of the Earl of Wessex, however, are direct descendants of the Queen in male line, just like Beatrice and Eugenie, and they would have been legally called prince/ss if their parents had not asked the queen to strip them of their princely title. Yet, I understand what your concern is, and it somehow makes sense to remove their names as well. Keivan.fTalk 04:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
"thus they don't hold any royal title". I don't think that's entirely true, but in the past their husbands could be ennobled and this would give the children a title, such as an earldom. In Anne's case, she specifically chose not to have this done. However, now that the laws of succession have been changed, this will presumably not be the case for future generations, and Anne's children should be in the family tree, because they are, and always have been, in the line of succession.Deb (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Being in the line of succession is not equal to having a royal title, which means that one merely does not become a royal figure based on her position in line to the throne. Anne and her first husband refused the offer of an earldom. Had he accepted the Queen's offer, the children would have been part of the British nobility not royalty. The same can actually be said for Princess Margaret's children. Although they have noble titles, they are not considered British prince/ss, as the letters patent restrict that privilege only to male-line descendants (except the Earl of Wessex's children who are styled as children of an earl rather than prince/ss per their parents' wishes). Keivan.fTalk 16:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I feel we should include them, with a note to that effect. Deb (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank

Earlier today, it was posted a reliable source in Princess Eugenie's article supporting this new title, which was already thought to be. I thought it was appropriate to move the article to this new title and update links on a bunch of related pages, being bold. @GoodDay: asked me if it was too early, and I told him just that. Then @Theroadislong: told me a discussion should be opened about it. Well, here it is. Feel free to express your support or opposition to my changes, some of them reverted by Theroadislong. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, an RM should've been held at Princess Eugenie's article first. Then if it had passed, the article title would be changed & various related changes made throughout related articles. Anyways, we'll know over the next few hours, what the rest think. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Okay, let's see what happens. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Agree, this change is a bit too bold. I think an RM or RfC is required. The single source given, for this undiscussed move, is The Express?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Please, feel free to join the discussion. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, but I'm not sure there's much to discuss. As mentioned above, if you want to change the name of the article you should list it at WP:RM giving good reasons why you think the WP:COMMONNAME of Princes Eugenie has changed. Unless and until the article is moved, you shoipd not be changing text in article texts to a name that hasn't been agreed upon. If you continue to do so, despite many people telling you to stop, this may be regarded as disruptive editing. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC).
@Amakuru: I had already made all changes before @Theroadislong: told me to stop, so I wasn't doing that anymore. I just didn't revert my own edits, while he reverted some of them. Just to set the record straight. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Alright, noted. Thank you.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Lineage of the British royal family

On the official website of Prince Charles, https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/hrh-romania-day-three (wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20181107073707/https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/hrh-romania-day-three), it says that lineage of him/and -naturally- his parents go back to Vlad the Impaler; where does this fit in the article?

thank you

Grandia01 (talk) 07:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why it should be in the article (if that's what you're asking). Deb (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
why shouldn't it, since the lineage of the royal family is a primary topic? (as is the case with any influential family) Grandia01 (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Archie

Can you add then the royal born on the 6th of may, 2019 : Archie Harrison. RobloxFanEditor (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

He was added ages ago,[10] on the day he was born. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The Sussex boy

1. He does not apply to be included in the section as it clearly states that it includes those relatives of the Queen who "sometimes appear in listings". As he is a newborn, he has never appeared in any list regarding members of the RF. So either we change the criteria of the section or exclude him from the list.

2. If included, he should not be listed before the Queen's grandchildren and maybe not even before Mr Brooksbank, who is a grandson-in law. He is a great-grandson at the time, we are counting kinship to the current Sovereign, not future ones. Kowalmistrz (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The Sussex boy should be included; look at the number of verifiable sources that can be shown that he is of interest. At this point, he is more noteworthy than the Duke of Cambridge and Prince George of Cambridge, who are both likely future Sovereigns. Also, he is the eldest son of a royal Duke and Duchess and that ought well to count for something. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I seriously think he should not be included before the Queen's grandchildren. It is not a ranking of popularity. The rest of members are listed in an order of their degree of kinship, more or less... Users, contribute. Kowalmistrz (talk) 06:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Isn't it more logical to rank the queen's descendants within the royal family according to their place in the line of succession? -- fdewaele, 9 May 2019, 9:26 CET.
Official precedence doesn't do that. eg HRH The Duke of York ranks above HRH The Duke of Cambridge Garlicplanting (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually according to precedence, the Duke of Cambridge takes precedence over his uncles, since he is listed above them in the Court Circular. But definitely, a great-grandchild of the Sovereign, no matter how "newsworthy," should never be placed above a grandchild of the Sovereign and definitely not one who is a full member of the Royal Family and is actually entitled by law as a Prince of the Realm. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Images

I think it would be appropriate to have more images added of Her Majesty and the rest of the British Royal family. Kmc2418 (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed! Anyone feel free to add more. Syced (talk) 05:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Rules

I think it would be appropriate to have a section about the Royal rules to help understand their day to day life.Kmc2418 (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

What rules? DrKay (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
There's a quote going around about Meghan Markle's dissatisfaction with royal life: "She had no idea how un-glamorous it really is to be a royal and, when she found out she would be a civil servant in a tiara she was, like, ‘No way.’”[11] 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:DF95 (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
That's a press quote, really, though, isn't it - do we really need to include all media speculation? The subject of that article is actually their financial position, which is more interesting but still speculation. Deb (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion of whether that quote should be in the article. I thought it was pithy but probably more relevant to the Megxit article. There's probably something spelling out in more length what it is that the royals actually do all day. I'm not into this subject at all but looked at some of the articles because of the massive tv coverage of Megxit here. I don't even understand why people in their position would want to chase more money, given the palaces and stuff that they already have. The royal family is also supposed to be worth something like 88 billion USD, making them almost as rich as Jeff Bezos. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:DF95 (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Pince Harry and Meghan

? -- L.Smithfield (talk) 06:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

They are still in the royal family but they have agreed to stop using the HRH style. There has been some reverting adding/removing them in the section titled "Relatives not using a royal style" but is logically obvious to me that if they have formally announced they will stop using the style and they in fact stop, they should be in that section, even if they are legally still designated HRH (that was one of the issues in the reversion).

I put in a crappy Huffpo link documenting this but there is probably something better out there. I also heard someone on TV remark on it, that they still formally have the title, they only have stopped using it, but the door is being left open to their possibly taking it up again some day, if they are willing to resume their former duties. Something like agreeing to stop driving the family Rolls Royce but still holding onto the keys in case something changes. FWIW, I'm in the US and can't believe the nonstop TV coverage this thing is getting here. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:DF95 (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC) I added a better link, pending acceptance. Thanks User:Iamreallygoodatcheckers for approving the previous edit. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:DF95 (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't thing legality of their titles and status mean something. Take Princess Maud, granddaughter of Edward VII. By his grant, she was a British princess with the style Highness but she chose not to use it and thus were styled everywhere in official documents, gazetted as a mere Countess of Southesk.Kowalmistrz (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

"Working"

For informational purposes for an international audience, the idea of "working members" could use a definition section. As I understand it, the Queen can and does designate people inside and outside the family to represent her from time to time, but there are family members who's 'full-time job' is to represent the Queen. All this could use elucidation. Thanks. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Please don't forget Lady Saltoun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.101.71 (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Earl and Countess of St Andrews

Although I might not consider all of the children of the Duke and Duchess of Kent to be direct members of the royal family, should we consider their first born and heir, Earl of St Andrews and his wife, Countess of St Andrews, to be members of the royal family? Or even Baron Downpatrick? As the heirs to the Dukedom of Kent, are they considered members of the royal family/are they permitted to represent the Queen in any formal capacity? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so, most of the members included appear so because they are included in official/general listings of the BRF; the Duke and Duchess of Kent have been undertaking engagements for decades, but I don't think any of their children have done so.--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC about the full names

What is the surname of the royal family and is it okay to add it after their given names? Keivan.fTalk 19:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

As some users might have noticed, the issue of the surname of the royal family has been brought forward again and an edit war occurred on some pages, including Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, Prince George of Cambridge, Princess Charlotte of Cambridge, Prince Louis of Cambridge, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, Anne, Princess Royal, Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, and Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy.

  1. The main issue is: what is the surname of the royal family and is it okay to add it after their given names? Apparently it's "Windsor" for "the male and unmarried female descendants of George V,"[1] and "Mountbatten-Windsor" for descendants of Elizabeth II. Quote: "For the most part, members of the Royal Family who are entitled to the style and dignity of HRH Prince or Princess do not need a surname, but if at any time any of them do need a surname (such as upon marriage), that surname is Mountbatten-Windsor."[2] Yet once another user and I added the surnames after given names, User:DrKay reverted our edits, arguing that this was original research since the full name of each of those individuals was not listed in the source. I don't think a source like that is even required. It is clear what the given names and surnames for each individual are.
  2. User:DrKay also opposes having only their given names in the infobox (correction: for post-World War I royals), because given name is not full name but for the previous generations we only have the given names in the infobox without any surnames. For various other royals from previous generations such as Queen Victoria or Queen Mary only given names are listed in the infobox. Should we remove given names from the infobox and not list them as full names?
  3. The Royal Family website states that royal surnames can be used by unmarried female descendants of the monarch. So what is the surname for married female members such as Anne, Beatrice, Eugenie and Alexandra? Should we avoid listing any surnames for them?

Keivan.fTalk 19:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, #2 above, I have never nor would I ever insist on a surname on either Victoria's or Mary's articles, nor have I ever insisted on the removal of given names, where placed in the appropriate parameter. The opening comment misrepresents my view. My actual view is given in the comment below and not in the comment above. DrKay (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I made some corrections to #2. Hopefully it's clear enough now. Keivan.fTalk 01:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I repeat nor have I ever insisted on the removal of given names, where placed in the appropriate parameter. The opening comment says "DrKay also opposes having only their given names in the infobox". No, I don't. The opening comment still says "Yet once another user and I added the surnames after given names, DrKay reverted our edits arguing it was original research since the full name of each of those individuals was not listed in the source." No, it was Berfu that removed the surname[12][13][14]. I put them in, multiple times: [15][16][17][18]. As I said, my view is below here. It is not in the opening comment. Opening comments should not try to explain other people's views. They will inevitably get it wrong. They should be neutral and brief. Editors should explain their own views, not be told what their view is by someone else who doesn't understand it. DrKay (talk) 07:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
There was some ooposition by DrKay for given names. When I changed Princess Charlotte of Cambridge’s name to Charlotte Elizabeth Diana, DrKay undid this change because “full name on birth certificate is given as 'Her Royal Highness Prince Charlotte Elizabeth Diana of Cambridge', this parameter has selectively chosen 3 of the 9 words in the name” [19] So I looked another reliable source for this 3 names. Apparently Palace announced this way and I added reference with a note “ Exact quote: Kensington Palace revealed on Monday that she had been named Charlotte Elizabeth Diana” This again changed back. [20] Same happened with Prince Louis of Cambridge I added exact quote: The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have named their third child Louis Arthur Charles. But DrKay again edited that because for her “the source does not say what the 'full name' is” [21] Does any other human biographies in wikipedia demands “full name” mention? This is first time I saw that. If parents announced they named their child X Y Z, newspapers reported like that why “If you give your child a name you had to say that is their full name, If not wikipedia will not accept person’s name” demand? By the way, BBC announced full name of Prince George as George Alexander Louis. So he is only royal sibling without veritification problem on his name wikipedia. Wikipedia have millions of biographies but this is first time I see demand like that. Berfu (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Straw man fallacy. DrKay did this...DrKay did that...DrKay did the other thing. This RfC is more about DrKay than the British royal family. That is inappropriate. It's essentially a user-related discussion masquerading as an RfC. Note: I'm the only editor named in the opening comment and the only editor linked there. And what's stated about me there is incorrect. DrKay (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Amended. 10:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
You also stated my name “Berfu removed this...”. And I’m just stating facts. I believe points you made for changes have to be discussed as general wikipedia policy about full names. Berfu (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
That's only because Keivan got the two of us mixed up and ascribed your edits to me. DrKay (talk) 10:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I think I need to clarify that this is NOT intended as a personal attack. I’m not accusing anyone of anything nor do I intend to force my opinions onto someone else’s. I tried to present different points of views that are not necessarily consistent with what we have been practicing so far. And please understand that I’m a human so I can occasionally mix things up. Nevertheless, the point is to get a consensus for what the ‘full name’ parameter in the infobox should be like, especially after the house name changed from Saxe-Coburg to Windsor. Keivan.fTalk 16:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it's a personal attack. I know you're acting in good faith. But there has been a succession of misunderstandings, which are compounding instead of being resolved. The only way out of those is further explanation. DrKay (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.royal.uk/royal-family-name
  2. ^ https://www.royal.uk/royal-family-name
Some users who might already be interested in the topic: @DrKay:, @Celia Homeford:, @Surtsicna:, @Alanscottwalker:, @Ritchie333:, @Willthacheerleader18:, @Bettydaisies:, @Sampajanna:, @Berfu:, etc. Keivan.fTalk 19:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. If the surname or the full name of an individual is known and in use then it can be added. If the surname or full name of an individual is not known then it cannot be added. All content must be verifiable to reliable sources. Any content that is not verifiable should be removed. If sources disagree on the full name or surname, then per wikipedia policy each view must be represented with due weight. DrKay (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @DrKay: What is your stance on having only the given names in the infobox then? For example, Alexandra of Denmark and Mary of Teck. Should we remove their given names from the infobox since we are not sure about their surnames or should we keep them, just like dozens of other royals who have only their given names listed in the infoboxes? And to be honest it makes sense because these people do not even use surnames regularly so given names are essentially the same as full names for them. Keivan.fTalk 19:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
British royal family/Archive 2
Names
Given names: Elizabeth Alexandra Mary

.

  • Comment - Surnames should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @GoodDay: And by that you mean it's okay to have only the given names in the infobox, right? Keivan.fTalk 19:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes. PS - I first encountered this whole surname deal, last year at the Elizabeth II article. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
        • I think you need to clarify these comments. I'm strongly against removing them from Napoleon and Catherine de' Medici. When surnames are known and in use, they should be given. DrKay (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
          • We're dealing here with the British royal family, particularly the monarch, children, grandchildren, cousins, etc. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
            • If this RfC is to be restricted to British royalty, then that needs to be made plain in the opening comment and any examples of Danish and Luxembourgish royals should be removed since consistency is only found within individual families. A one size fits all approach won't work worldwide. DrKay (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
            • You also need to clarify 'etc'. You seem to be saying you want the surname deleted from the Queen's grandchildren, such as Lady Louise Windsor, and all the other members of the royal family who do have a verifiable surname. DrKay (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
              • Having Windsor added at the end of Elizabeth II's full name in the infobox, is incorrect (IMHO). Thank goodness it's no longer in the article's intro. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
                • I wonder how they came up with that name? Because that is totally made up name, I never saw her using that. And I don’t think any other source used too. Also what is Edward VII as Albert Edward Saxe-Coburg Gotha? I didn’t know wikipedia have a right to rewrite history that way. Berfu (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
                  • The RfC on that is at Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 41. DrKay (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
                  • I see a lot of “No”s and closing section showed that too. Still don’t understand how they ended up with that unused name. It is simply rewriting history and against wikipedia naming rules for royals. Berfu (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
                    • Wikipedia naming rules apply to article titles; article content is determined by content policies. DrKay (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
                      • Yes, I’m talking about that content policy where it state you have to use most commenly known name and dont made up information. Small group of wikipedia editors cannot change Monarch’s name and put a name they want. If those name is not normalle in use, Wikipedia cannot use too. There is as rule Only incorporate surnames in the opening line of royal biographies if they are known and if they are in normal use. Windsor is not at Elizabeth II’s opening because she don’t use that but small group of editors add infobox anyway. I can’t understand that logic. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography clearly states those issues. Berfu (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
                        • I see, I thought by "wikipedia naming rules" you meant Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography clearly says "opening line". The infobox is different. Similarly, we don't put religion or burials in the opening line, but consensus is to include them in the infobox. The infobox documentation at Template:Infobox royalty defines how each parameter should be used, and "full name" is defined as "English/Anglicised full legal non-titular name (current/most recent), with maiden name". DrKay (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
                          • Yes and because of that we have to ignore all historic records, reliable sources, references, largely in use legal documents because someone in wikipedia writed some infobox guide you have to add maiden name. Because of that now Elizabeth II and Edward VII have brand new name. Amazing what you can do with wikipedia. If only Infobox guide stated “don’t add surname If person doesn’t use commonly” than problem would have been solved easily. Berfu (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
                            • We don't ignore them. The policies determining article content, such as those on verifiability and original research, take precedence over infobox documentation. DrKay (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
            @DrKay: Removed examples about other European households and placed examples of British royalty there to make it clear that we are talking about the British royal family. We obviously cannot cover all of the royal houses in a single thread. Also I think I have made it clear that we are talking about titled royals (in other words, princes and princesses), not individuals such as Louise, James, or Archie who have no ‘royal’ titles at this point. Keivan.fTalk 21:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
            • Neither Queen Victoria nor Queen Mary had a surname. Hardly any royals after the Stuarts and before World War I did so. The situation is not comparable. Same goes for the rest of Europe: before the war, hardly any surnames among royalty; after the war, many were forced to adopt them. DrKay (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
              It's better to cross out the names then; I don't want to cause more confusion. And I made a correction to my initial statement. But you made a good point. In any case, if the discussion favors the inclusion of given names, we can set up the infoboxes the way you suggested for post-World War I royals. Keivan.fTalk 23:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
              Queen Victoria and Mary of Teck born as British princess and centuries old traditions like how to name princesses didn’t change. Last generation is named exactly like Victoria and Mary. There is no clear distinction between their time and post-war era. As you can see from British princess list in the article. Berfu (talk) 05:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
            I also want to add Letters Patent 1960 (letters patents are legal documents in UK) states untitled members will be called Mountbatten-Windsor while titled members will enjoy style of Prince/HRH. There is no danger for Lady Louise Windsor to lost her surname. Also there is no need for search surname for peoples who have princely titles.[1] House of Windsor#Descendants of Elizabeth II shows how royal proclamation is done. Berfu (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20160423165659/http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm#1960
  • Comment - Surnames should be ‘’deleted’’. (Wikipedia policy) Full names without titles should be added. For example Prince George of Cambridge’ name is George Alexander Louis. Palace announced and newspapers reported that way. But his birth certificate (which is a public document) shows his titles too, HRH Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge) We can legally add this to article but I think it had to be consistent with other European royal families. I believe we should have use just George Alexander Louis. In his lifetime his titles and style will change, He will be Duke, than Prince of Wales, than King. But those birth names never will change. Berfu (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • About surnames: I looked up some wikipedia policies about that. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#Other royals number 4 says “Do not use surnames in article titles for such persons. If royals have surnames, then this information should be mentioned in the first line of the article (but care should be taken, as many do not have surnames, and personal surnames may differ from the name of their Royal House). For details, see WP:Manual of Style (biographies)#Royal surnames. That is actually quite true. For example Prince William, Duke of Cambridge often called William Wales in school (He graduated as that) That in army career he was William Wales too. We are talking about 30 years of his life. Same as Anne, Princess Royal. Her sport career and BBC award was under The Princess Anne, her professional career as The Princess Royal. We are talking about almost 50 years of human life here. One or two times they might have use Mountbatten-Windsor (William once did in France because he sued some newspapers there. apparently Anne married under that name) but their professional life was under completely different name. Nobody knows them as Mountbatten-Windsor. I believe we should stick Wikipedia rules about Royal biographies. Because we can’t rewrite history. For example Prince George of Cambridge uses George Cambridge in the school. Several newspapers reported. How can we legally add Mountbatten-Windsor to his wikipedia article now? His birth certificate doesn’t show that either by the way. I really believe we should stick to original wikipedia policy. Berfu (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Keivan.f: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 2,400 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Redrose64: Oh, thanks for pointing that out. I don't know how to make it shorter really, because a brief statement would require cutting out a huge chunk of what I wrote and that will make everyone even more confused. But I guess we can remove the RfC tag if that's possible, because users that are interested in the topic have already started participating. I'll be looking forward to your response :) Keivan.fTalk 01:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    You don't need to remove the {{rfc}} tag: just insert a brief statement, (optional) signature and (mandatory) timestamp between the tag and the paragraph beginning As some users might have noticed. The brief statement might be What is the surname of the royal family and is it okay to add it after their given names?, that already being stated to be the main issue; and the timestamp should be 19:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC) to match the longer statement. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    I gave up waiting, and did it myself. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I support retaining the omission of surnames, as it's presumably not used in legal documents (i.e birth certificate) or activities (except military training) with the exception of Lady Louise Windsor, Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, etc. However, the note regarding the Mountbatten-Windsor family name should be included at least, given the information dictated by sources. Additionally, if the "born" parameter demonstrates their birth name, as it does on, for instance Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, shouldn't the technical information without honorifics contain the full name, i.e Prince William Arthur Phillip Louis of Wales, if that's the rhetoric? --Bettydaisies (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    I agree there should be some mention to surname. Before notes section stated “British princes and princesses such as Prince George do not normally use a surname. If needed, the surname for descendants of Elizabeth II and Prince Philip is usually Mountbatten-Windsor“ which is right. Also royal family website states: “For the most part, members of the Royal Family who are entitled to the style and dignity of HRH Prince or Princess do not need a surname, but if at any time any of them do need a surname (such as upon marriage), that surname is Mountbatten-Windsor.” Those notes can be added to articles of british princes and princesses— Preceding unsigned comment added by Berfu (talk • contribs) 05:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Can I add a spanner in the works? I had a look at the court circular for the past week which is published in the Times (and I think the Daily Telegraph. It lists official engagements and certain other events. All Royals mentioned during that period are not given surnames. They include "The Queen," "the Prince of Wales," "The Duke of Cambridge," "The Duchess of Cornwall", " The Princess Royal" and "the Earl of Wessex." None of these include christian names. (I am old fashined enough to use that term) I do know that surnames are or were sometimes used. Before Princess Anne took the title Princess Royal she was referred to as "Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Phillips." Her surname would now be that of her present husband.Princess Alexandra would be "Princess Alexandria,Lady Ogilvy" (I don't think she has too many official engagements nowadays. I think Eugenie wpould be referred to as "Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank" In short Royals have a family name which they can pass on to their family but they do not need to use them themselves. (Princes Anne is Lady Laurence but nobody calls her that. ) Sons of royals who do not inherit the title prince use the family name (eg Lord Nicholas Windsor and Archie Mountbatten-Windsor.) Daughters use that name until they marry. So Zara Phillips was called that untill she married Mike Tindall. So far no such female has chosen to retain her pre-marriage name although Zara must have come close to doing so, being famous in her own right.Spinney Hill (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

That's similar to something I said in the previous request for comment (at the Elizabeth II talk page last year). Keivan.f says above 'dozens of other royals ... have only their given names listed in the infoboxes ... it makes sense because these people do not even use surnames regularly'. But that doesn't make sense to me. They don't use their other given names regularly either, so if we're going to remove surnames on the basis of non-use, then all but the most used first name could also be removed. It's better to seek a compromise which most people will accept, such as changing the parameter to read 'Given names' (which is what was decided in the previous request for comment but never implemented). Celia Homeford (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


British royal family/Archive 2
BornPrince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge
Maybe their birth names can be showed under birth name section. For example Prince George of Cambridge’s birth certificate names him as HRH Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge. (No surname because he doesn’t have one legally)Berfu (talk) 07:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


Prince Harry
Duke of Sussex (more)
BornPrince Henry of Wales


The above (unsigned comment) makes a lot of sense and is probably stating the obvious; transcribing the birth certificate names (without HRH) to the birth name section. However, consider Prince Harry: Prince Henry Charles Albert David of Wales. At the moment, he is shown as (birth name) Prince Henry of Wales with (name) Prince Harry at the top of the infobox.
The lead reads as follows: "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex,[fn 1] KCVO, ADC (Henry Charles Albert David; born 15 September 1984[1]) is a member of the British royal family." This, along with the footnote, is clear and concise. So too is the 2nd sentence in the 'Early life' section of the article: "He was christened Henry Charles Albert David on 21 December 1984 at St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Runcie.[fn 2]"
Because Harry is different to Henry, this could serve well as a good versatile example / model to apply across the board with the British royal family. Sampajanna (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Prince Harry". The Royal Household. Retrieved 28 November 2017.
  2. ^ "Royal Christenings". Yvonne's Royalty Home Page. Archived from the original on 6 August 2011. Retrieved 31 July 2013.
  3. ^ Smith, Terry; Rosemary Thorpe-Tracey (14 January 1985). "A Windsor War". People. 23 (2). Retrieved 6 June 2013.
Prince Andrew
Duke of York (more)
BornThe Prince Andrew Albert Christian Edward
I think it's okay for the name at the top to be different from the name that is shown as the birth name. That's the case for many people actually, about whom we have articles here: The name they use doesn't match the name they have in their birth certificate. Also, I think I need to point out not everyone in the royal family is born as Prince/ss of X. Some like Andrew and Edward were born as The Prince X, because they were born to a monarch. I assume if everyone ends up favoring the birth_name parameter, then it has to be used for Andrew and Edward as well, but in their case it will be something like the infobox next to my message. Keivan.fTalk 00:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I actually made first suggestion but I looked up Template:Infobox royalty again. It says:

birth_name = If different from name or full name
full name = English/Anglicised full legal non-titular name (current/most recent), with maiden name '(née Whatever)'
British royal family/Archive 2
BornPrince Harry of Wales
Names
Henry Charles Albert David

Person who added Mountbatten-Windsor surname I think confused “(née Whatever)” section. It doesn’t really say “you must add a surname”. British princes and British princesses fairly limited group of peoples who legally does not born with a surname. Adding surname is confusing for them because their professional careers are under different names. Because of this confusion Edward VII have brand new name now which I believe only can been seen on wikipedia. I think we must go back old format. Their surname situation can be explained in Notes section with a official royal family website reference “For the most part, members of the Royal Family who are entitled to the style and dignity of HRH Prince or Princess do not need a surname, but if at any time any of them do need a surname (such as upon marriage), that surname is Mountbatten-Windsor.” (Of course this was for new generation of princes, Old generation is under Windsor name). Berfu (talk) 07:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You use the words "legally" and "legal documents" alot. The main problem is that "legal name" in the UK is fluid. I don't know what the situation is in Turkey, but I think I'm right in remembering that Ataturk forced everyone to adopt surnames and now someone's name in Turkey is legally defined. That's not the case in the UK: "In cases where a person has been known by more than one name (for different purposes, or to different people) — or where a person has changed their name many times — it can be difficult to know what that person’s legal name is."[22] Meghan Markle's current legal name is "Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Sussex": it's the name used on her child's birth certificate[23] and in legal proceedings[24], notwithstanding the claim that she's dropped "HRH". "Legal name" doesn't really work for British royals. It's not a useful concept in the UK because "legal name" is defined as the name you use and by which you are generally known. DrKay (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
HRH The Duchess of Sussex is just a title/style. There is no name in here, legal or not. This is big difference with British princesses by birth or by marriage. For example look at Princess Charlotte’s birth certificate name. If you take titles, styles (HRH Princess) and territorial designation (of Cambridge) you can find Princess Charlotte’s full legal non-titular name. HRH Princess Charlotte Elizabeth Diana of Cambridge. You can’t do that to HRH The Duchess of Sussex Big difference. Berfu (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Note my post is cited and reliable sources are given. The above post is not cited and no sources are given. DrKay (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I don’t understand why I had to explain clear difference between name and title, style since even wikipedia policy refer them as such. (For example “HRH means style” according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) But still If I had to find outside source: CNN said her title and style[1]

Meghan received “the title” Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex upon her marriage to Prince Harry in May 2018. The letters (HRH) stand for His or Her Royal Highness, “a style” used to denote senior members of the royal family.

And titles and styles changes frequently. For example look at Edward VIII’s titles and styles. But his names didn’t change. (Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick).Berfu (talk) 11:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
It just doesn't work like that in the UK. See Michael Ancram and John Thurso for example. DrKay (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
It does work for British prince and British princesses because they are not just British nobility (or politician) but they are Royalty. Berfu (talk) 12:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Here we are 'over 5 months later' & there's still inconsistency in the infoboxes of the British royal family, concerning Elizabeth II's descendants. We show Windsor in her infobox, but no surnname's shown in her children's or some of her grandchildren's infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/20/uk/harry-meghan-hrh-title-explainer-scli-gbr-intl/index.html

Template change

I think this whole issue can be solved with the simple removal of one word at one page[25]. DrKay (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=fn> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=fn}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_royal_family/Archive_2&oldid=1109979641"