Jump to content

Talk:Mountbatten family

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

What Would Stop Charles...

[edit]

...from changing the name of the royal house should he ascend to "Mountbatten?" 66.31.78.14 (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. Or he could call himself "Homer Simpson". Think of the possibilities! 149.217.1.6 (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking actually the Prime Minister of the day could stop it under the advice of the Prime Minister, which the monarch is constitutionally bound to accept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.69.76 (talk) 09:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The name change was widely noted at the time. In “Gentlemen prefer Blondes”, Anita Loos has the narrator meet a man called Mr. Ginzberg, from New York:

“Only his name is not Mr. Ginzberg any more because a gentleman in London called Mr. Battenburg, who is some relation to some king, changed his name to Mr. Mountbatten which Mr. Ginzberg says really means the same thing after all. So Mr. Ginzberg changed his name to Mr. Mountginz.”

This could add to the article as a sample of contemporary reaction to the change. 96.90.200.185 (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hough reference

[edit]

The very first reference listed in the references section of the article is for a work presumably authored by someone named Hough. However, the citation is incomplete and fails WP:CITE, WP:MOS, and WP:Verify. The first occurence of a work must provide a full citation. Only subsequent footnotes using that same work can use the shorthand of stating only the author’s surname and page number. If a full citation is not provided, then no one can verify that it exists, is correct, and/or is used correctly. Unless someone can flesh out the Hough reference, it will have to be replaced instead with a {{Citation needed}} tag. — SpikeToronto (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, in searching Amazon, I have determined that Richard Hough has written several books on the various members of the Mountbattens (see here). But, which Hough work is intended to be the reference for the translation of Battenberg, etc., is not able to be determined from that list. — SpikeToronto (talk) 06:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Mountbattens

[edit]

To be honest, I am rather doubtful of the latter part of this section. I have seen no evidence that any of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s children or grandchildren use the name Mountbatten-Windsor. The issue seems fairly settled in law due to to the efforts of Her Majesty, the late Queen Mary, and the then Prime Minister, the late Sir Winston Churchill. The current Queen has not succeeded in prodding Parliament — if ever she even tried — to pass any legislation altering that passed in the reign of her grandfather, His Majesty King George V. Moreover, none of the references provided in the references section of the article serves to prove otherwise.

Further, the last part of the Royal Mountbattens section — from “However, under an ambiguously-worded Order-in-Council issued in 1960” to “when both used Mountbatten-Windsor in their entries in the marriage registers” — appears to fail Wikipedia’s verifiability guidelines. For instance, the reference attached to the “wedding registry” statement leads to nothing more than a fansite of the late Princess Diana, hardly a reputable source. In contrast, a U.K. documentary aired on PBS a few weeks ago seemed to suggest that Mountbatten’s attempt to make Windsor-Mountbatten a reality failed miserably, in his lifetime … again, see the efforts of Queen Mary and Sir Winston. An Order-in-Council cannot override, overrule, or repeal legislation that has been passed, proclaimed, and promulgated. What would be required would be another Act of Parliament.

Whether the name Mountbatten-Windsor is, or is not, a part of the Royal Family needs to be verified and this part of the article should be re-written accordingly. — SpikeToronto (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a book entitled "The History of the Royal Family" by Geoffrey Hindley and was first published in 1985 by Bisson Books Ltd in London England. It is stated on pg. 128 in the early days of Elizabeth II reign, a breezy Lord Mountbatten of Burma remarked that a Mountbatten has been sitting on the throne since February of 1952. It goes on to say that Old Queen Mary was outraged that anyone would entertain the notion of changing the dynastic name that her husband, Goerge V had established. Furthermore the British 'Establishment' sided with the old Queen. More importantly, there was a proclaimation by the Queen, Elizabeth II, on 9th April 1952 that the her descendents, apart from female descendents who marry, shall bear the name of Windsor. Furthermore, there is no legislation to that effect and Churchill at any time did not bring this matter before Parliament. Churchill's cabinet merely unanimously authorised him to advise the Queen regarding the name of the royal house. Under British constitutional law, the monarch must accept the advice of her Prime Minister, for example, there will never ever be any legislation regarding the creation of new knights or the membership into the Order of the British Empire, but every year there is the Queen's birthday honors list that names the specific honour that the Queen will bestow on a given individual. That lists is the advice and recommendation of the Prime Minister of the day. The advice was taken by the issuance of a royal proclaimation.

In response to the issue of Mountbatten-Windsor claim, the forementioned book states on pg. 134 - 135 that it dates back to early February 1960. The Home Secretary of the day assured the Queen that her children who may be in need of a surname have the name of Mountbatten-Windsor. This will be more evident when Prince Edward's daughter or grandchildren get married. Right now, no member of the immediate Royal Family will ever use a surname. It exists when the royal dukes become dukes of blood royal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.222.140 (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Members of the Royal Family only sign their first names. They never use a surname when signing their names. For example, on the Instrument of Abdication of Edward VIII, Edward signed himself as Edward R. His brothers, as the witnesses, signed their names respectively as Albert, Henry and George. Charles and Anne would have only have signed the wedding registry as respectively Charles and Anne.----
Edward actually signed himself "Edward R I" as he was of course an Emperor as well as a King.Ds1994 (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms of the 'Head' of the Mountbatten Family

[edit]

It should be noted that the Coat of Arms provided in the article are for Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma, and not for the 'Head' of the Mountbatten family, the 4th Marquess of Milford Haven. In England we do not use the term 'chief' of family either, is this an Americanisation? In any case, the coat of arms needs to be changed as outlined if we need to describe them as those used by the 4th Marquess and present 'head' of the Mountbatten family. Ds1994 (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the coat of arms granted to Prince Philip is not the one depicted in this article either: he is of course not a dynastic member of the House of Mountbatten. I would go as far as saying he and his descendants should not be covered in this article. Hfossa (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mountbatten 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Literal" "translation"

[edit]

Just deleted yet another so-called "literal" so-called "translation". Why do WP writers find it so irrestistible to break foreign words down into their component parts, anglicize these by the Russian-roulette-with-the-dictionary method, and put them back together and into a WP article? The result can hardly be considered informative. Anyway, let the next person who tries it consider what Grimms' Dictionary says about "batten": it's a word once common in Hesse (where the mountain is) meaning to be useful, proficient, productive. Let's see you work that in. Wegesrand (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mountbatten_family&oldid=1232248597"