Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'd like some opinions on a new image layout for children and grandchildren of monarchs. The UK coat of arms would go in the house navbox. Inside the style infobox would be the prince's particular coronet, and the coat of arms goes below that. I've made a test page in my sandbox. Let me know what you think. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 01:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The Wessex Children
Latest comment: 16 years ago21 comments16 people in discussion
Okay, so it's time to hash this out once and for all. Two extracts:
Letters patent issued in 1917 (and still remaining in force today) assign a princely status and the style of 'Royal Highness' to all male-line grandchildren of a monarch. Louise is thus entitled to all of these, and as such would be referred to as Her Royal HighnessPrincess Louise of Wessex.[1] However, when her parents married, the Queen, via a Buckingham Palace press release, announced that (in hopes of avoiding some of the burdens associated with royal titles) their children would be styled as the children of an earl rather than as princes or princesses. Thus, court communications never refer to her in terms of a Princess of the United Kingdom, but simply as Lady Louise Windsor.
And the same text, as I would have it:
Letters patent issued in 1917 (and still remaining in force today) assign a princely status and the style of 'Royal Highness' to all male-line grandchildren of a monarch. Louise would thus be entitled to all of these, and as such would be referred to as Her Royal HighnessPrincess Louise of Wessex.[1] However, when her parents married, the Queen, via a Buckingham Palace press release, announced that (in hopes of avoiding some of the burdens associated with royal titles) their children would be styled as the children of an earl rather than as princes or princesses. There are conflicting interpretations of the legal ramifications of the Queen's press release — some believe that, as an expression of the Sovereign's will, the announcement has just as much legal force as the 1917 Letters Patent[2], which would deny the children princely status legally as well as in practice. Either way, court communications never refer to her in terms of a Princess of the United Kingdom, but simply as Lady Louise Windsor.
Now, the issue of Lady Louise's reputed legal status as a princess has been debated back and forth since her parents' marriage — I do not intend to establish a definitive answer, or even to try — I simply intend to establish that, in her article (and also Severn's), both sourced interpretations (and any others which come along) should be included.
For those who are interested enough, the history of this dispute occurs at Talk:Lady Louise Windsor, User talk:UpDown#Lady Louise, again. and User talk:DBD#Lady Louise, again. Cheers DBD16:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, my views on this are well known. The Legal Letters Patent in 1917 state that she is a HRH & a Princess. No legal letters have been issued to contradict this. The words of the Press Release, which some claim is law (which in my eyes is suggesting that the Queen's word alone is law, it is not, she needs to back it up with legal letters patent, not press releases), are "The Queen has also decided, with the agreement of The Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones, that any children they might have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl".[1] If we take this as law, Louise is a Princess but not an HRH, as Prince/ss is not mentioned, only the HRH is. So, if you believe the Press Release is law, then you must believe that Louise is legally Princess Louise of Wessex, without the HRH. The only source that in my eyes seems to suggest that a Press Release over-rules a legally issued Letters Patent is this [2], which I hardly see as an authority. The press release, omitting the mentioned of HRH, is clearly not meant to be legally binding. I believe one interview with Sophie Wessex had her stating they would be legally Prince/ss , and that they could use them if they wish(interview before 2004), but I cannot find the link (I believe it used to be via here [3]). --UpDown (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Further to that, the link I can't find is the one here [4] listed as "temporarily unavailable". It had a newspaper, Daily Mirror I believe, from Sophie regarding this.--UpDown (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
If we're gonna say Severn & Louise are 'Prince & Princess of the UK'? then that applies to Mark & Zara Phillips aswell. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Both sides err in presuming that an objective reality exists, that there is a platonic ideal list of "British princes/princess" in which the children's names either are or are not inscribed. That's silly. All this is a matter of human convention.
For us to state repeatedly and insistently that the children are princes begins (frankly) to look like soapboxing — like we here in the Wikipedia are telling the palace what to do. On the other hand, while the question of whether Buckingham Palace press releases can have as much validity as letters patent may be an interesting one, raising it in our articles looks like original research and speculation and is generally unencyclopedic.
My point of view is that there's nothing wrong or shameful in finessing the matter. There's nothing wrong in just stating the facts and letting the reader draw his/her own conclusion if he/she wishes. "The letters patent say this; the palace treats it this way; if we wanted to address the kids as princes under the letters patent here's how we'd do it." Doops | talk17:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
From a legal perspective, letters patent are a legally binding form of proclamation in UK law (they are used to create peerages, for example). In contrast, a Buckingham Palace press release is just that: a press release, and has no formal authority. The holder of a title is not required to use that title; for instance, an acquaintance of mine, who is the eldest son of a hereditary Earl, is entitled to be styled as a courtesy Viscount, but does not ever use the title. The press release amounts to a statement by the Palace, on Louise's behalf, that she will not use the full title to which she is entitled. It does not negate the legal existence of that title.
However, I would also contend that the current state of the article is fine - that is, using Lady Louise Windsor as the article title, with a sourced discussion of the legal position at Lady_Louise_Windsor#Titles_and_styles. Lady Louise Windsor is the name under which she is most commonly known, and the article should reflect that. As a neutral encyclopedia, we should use the most commonly-used style in the lead but should also mention, with full secondary sourcing, the views of legal scholars as to the correct title.
It might be valuable for one of us to e-mail the Lord Chamberlain (or another officer of the Royal Household) and ask for a statement of the formal position on the issue; however, as we are bound by policy to use published secondary sources in writing our articles, we must still discuss both sides of the argument, with sourcing. WaltonOne17:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
To my mind, both styles for Lady Louise and Viscount Severn are legal and correct. They are both entitled to HRH Prince/Princess as per Letter Patent 1917. They are also entitled and are legally Lady and Viscount, as per being the children of The Earl of Wessex. The Queen is not trying to make her word law. Her Majesty has merely chosen to abide by the parents' wishes, that the style used for the children in press releases is their aristocratic, rather than royal style. As I said, I believe that both styles, the royal and the aristocratic, are legal and correct. So it is a choice for Wikipedia to use the royal or the aristocratic. I personally prefer to use the aristocratic style because that is the parents' wishes.
I agree with Ashley. Because it is the prerogative of the parents of the Wessex children to style them as Lady and Viscount instead of Princess and Prince, their respective Wikipedia articles should reflect this preference. I do believe, however, that their biographical infoboxes should continue to show their legal "royal" names italicized below their bolded aristocratic names. Hopefully this matter will be a non-issue if and when the Earl and Countess of Wessex are created Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh as it is thought will likely happen following the current Duke's death. We could assume that if the Dukedom is bestowed upon the Earl, that his children (paternal grandchildren of a monarch) would be referred to by their royal names. (Wishful thinking?) --Caponer (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem here is the usual Buckingham Palace cock-up - think back to was the Duchess of Windsor legally not an HRH to civil weddings in Windsor Castle that did not take place and general announcements with no great thought behind them The issue here is that the HRH is a title in its own right, whereas any title bestowed as the child of an earl can only be a courtesy title. Whatever the Queen or her family's personal wishes without a change in the law those children are royal princes and princesses. However if they wish to be referred to as Lord and lady then we can extend to them the courtesy of following their wishes and referring to them by their courtesy titles. The problem that has not been thought through will be what happens when a second son is born will he be a mere Honourable? Will Wessex be bumped up to the rank of Marquess or Duke to avoid that? For the time being I think we should follow the lead of the court circular and the British press. The Royal title I am watching is Duchess of Cornwall. In modern times the heir to the Prince of Wales has become the Duke of Cornwall on his marriage so will Prince William he be given another title (the Royal Dukedoms not in use are considered unlucky or have nasty connotations) and anyway it should be one of his father's secondary titles (Duke of Rothesay is mandated to Scotland) so will that be the perfect opportunity to bump Camilla up to "Princess of Wales"? Watch this space. Giano (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree - this is part of an emerging trend where members of the Royal Family have decided not to use their highest style. It simply needs to be explained. As far as Wikipedia policy goes, as long as both views are sourced, it's fine. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 23:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. That said, I believe we ought to return to the more practical aspect of this matter, which has more or less sparked this conversation: do we, or do we not support the proposed change to the article? Theoretical discussion is good, but it must lead somewhere. I think I am forgetting something here... Ah, yes, my opinion on the issue. I support a hybrid of the two options: the addition of the proposed clarification, but with the original phrasing "is thus entitled" for the first line. For one thing, this version of the paragraph is clearer as far as the existing situation is concerned. After all, Wikipedia is supposed to be describing the status quo, instead of engaging in theoretical discussions (in the articles, that is). I still believe, however, and I hope that I am not playing with semantics here, that Lady Louise (who is likely to find out about this discussion within the next twenty years and either marvel at it or burst into laughter) is entitled to these styles, in the sense that, should the Wessex Siblings™ wish to use their princely titles in the future, they would probably be allowed to. But this is just me. I have made this more complicated, have I not? :-/ Waltham, The Duke of08:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Re - gianos comment - Prince William can not become Duke of Cornwall when he marries unless the Queen has already died as the dukedom plus Prince Charles's Scottish titles are restricted to the eldest son (not nescerrially the heir to the throne) of the monarch. Prince william (or if William has died then Prince Harry) will automatically become Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay etc on his fathers accession to the throne but will have to wait to be created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester. If the Queen does bestow a title on William when he marries I personally imagine she will create a brand new dukedom or possibly an earldom like she did for Edward. Penrithguy (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
But surely the reason for the Press Release was to inform the public that Louise and James were to be known as the children of an Earl. Although this hasn't happened legally (The Queen's word alone is not law, nor is a Press Release), it is agreed that this style will be used. This has happened before with Princess Patricia of Connaught, a daughter of The Duke of Connaught, who privately wished to be known as Lady Patricia Ramsay. She legally remained an HRH with the style Princess, but was not often referred to by that after the agreement took place (following her marriage to a commoner). I believe that the title the Wessex children will be officially known as (ie. Lady Louise and Lord Severn) should be used for their articles, with a note to say what their legal style remains. The Letters Patent step may not have been taken in case Louise and James choose to use their legal royal style when they come of age (they are obviously too young to decide for themselves at the moment). PeterSymonds | talk08:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been asked to contribute here, so here are my thoughts. Firstly, I agree completely that the press release only describes how the Wessex children are to be known, not what they actually are. Legally speaking, Lord Severn is "His Royal Highness Prince James of Wessex, commonly called Viscount Severn" (just as the eldest son of an ordinary Earl is "John William Smith, Esquire, commonly called Viscount London"). There has to be a real name before the "commonly called" styling of the eldest son of an Earl. If this real name is not his officially held but unused Royal style, then what is? Surely no one will argue he's actually "James Alexander Philip Theo Mountbatten-Windsor, Esquire, styled Viscount Severn"? That can't be right — legal names always use the highest style, even if the person concerned never uses it. The enormous confusion here seems in some part to be due to a failure to distinguish between substantive and courtesy styles: a Royal style is perhaps unique in being the only substantive style that does not derive from holding a substantive title; it is not of the same type as "Lord John Smith" or "Viscount Linley". So it's not a case of choosing which style to apply to someone, but of whether the courtesy style of the child of a peer is used instead of the substantive (but non-peerage-related) style of a relative of the Sovereign. Normally, obviously, it isn't, but here it has been stated that it will be. That is the limit of the effect of the press release, and that is all we can say it does: someone who is in fact an HRH Prince is styled by a courtesy peerage. Secondly, the title of the new article: I have to say I'm baffled by the current title. Legally he's HRH Prince James of Wessex. Where he needs to use a surname, though he doesn't have one, he will use "Mountbatten-Windsor". He is styled by courtesy Viscount Severn. He should be referred to as "the Viscount Severn" or "Lord Severn" (or possibly "James Severn"). Given this, I have no idea where plain "Windsor" comes from: it's an aspect of his sister's style, not his. He should be at James, Viscount Severn. Proteus(Talk)13:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
\
All you good people seem to have overlooked the simple fact that in England the law is that anybody may change his or her name without any formality whatsoever, and, as Lord Chief Justice Abbott said in 1822, "A name assumed by the voluntary act of a man, adopted by all who know him and by which he is constantly called, becomes as much and as effectively his name as if he had obtained an Act of Parliament to confer it upon him". Of course it is advisable to possess some proof of the change, such as a deed-poll, royal licence or act of parliament, but provided you are known by the name that name becomes your legal name. If you are known to different groups of people by different names then you have two or more legal names. If the Wessex children are known, as they are, by courtesy names, then those are their legal names. That they have a right to a higher title would normally be expressed by putting, for example, "de jure Prince or Princess of the United Kingdom", in brackets after their names.AnthonyCamp (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
DEFAULTSORT for peers, courtesy peers?
Latest comment: 16 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion
Hello all;
What would be the appropriate sorting for an individual titled as follows: Forename Surname, Title (of) Place/Designation. For instance, James Windsor, Viscount Severn (ignoring his princely title for the purposes of this example):
Windsor, James, Severn, Viscount
Severn, Windsor, James, Viscount
And, pretending for a second that there is a Viscount of Severn:
Windsor, James, Severn, Viscount of
Severn, Windsor, James, Viscount of
I am inclined to sort by surname myself, but is there a policy on this or should there be one to eliminate the question of it? One thing I do think is essential though is having the title itself way at the end (for instance, someone like Pless, Daisy of, Princess. Many thanks! Charles08:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I would have thought that Severn, James Windsor, Viscount would be the most appropriate. He is styled as a peer (regardless of his legal title) and the above style is used on most peerage pages. PeterSymonds | talk09:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Note the absence of an intermediate comma: the name and surname constitute a single entity, so none has precedence over the other. By the way, only Scottish viscounts use "of", and even amongst these there are exceptions. But I suppose you are only using this as an example.
One one irrelevant thing, now that we meet again. You have failed to answer in our small s-roy debate. May I interpret it as a sign that you have come to agree with my view, or should I take it as a sign of forgetfulness? I am not fond of unfinished business.
That would be misleading, however. It would make readers assume that they are dealing with a name and surname, which, of course, would not be the case. If we were to acknowledge that courtesy peers are legally commoners, we should have to replace this with Windsor, James. This would be overlooking the courtesy title, however, which is fairly important (the naming conventions support this). That said, I should support either Severn, James, Viscount or Severn, James Windsor, Viscount (preferring the latter, as it is fuller and includes all the elements of the corresponding article's titles). Waltham, The Duke of17:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I am torn. I like it, and it gives emphasis to the surname, which is the subject's legal name, as well as includes all the elements of the title in an order that makes sense. However, if you put the words in order (move the first word to the end), you end up with "James, Viscount Severn, Windsor"; I do not believe this is supposed to happen. Waltham, The Duke of00:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Peter, I don't believe the grade of the title should have precedence in sorting... It would be like giving precedence to the title/style of "Lord" in sorting, thereby preferring "L" to the designation of the title. Charles02:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
They have always been sorted as "London, John Smith, 1st Duke of" (which is, I believe, how peers are normally sorted in reference works). Sorting them by surname is right out — in most cases, especially with historical peers, they are simply never referred to by surname. Who on Earth is going to look for Lord Salisbury under "G"? Proteus(Talk)13:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I suppose because it makes it easier for people not fully familiar with the system to categorise them (it's just a question of moving the last bit to the front — "John Smith, 1st Duke of London" becomes "London, John Smith, 1st Duke of", in the same way that "John Smith" becomes "Smith, John"). If we wanted to have a completely logical system we could sort them as "London D0101" (i.e. London, Duke, 1st creation, 1st holder) (or for courtesy peers "Severn V James", since there's no numeral), but it would be entirely baffling for normal editors. Proteus(Talk)13:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
(Speaking about creations, you might be interested in the recent addition of a "creation" parameter for Template:S-ttl, used in succession boxes. This way, succession boxes can now mention peerage creations without the need for complex HTML. Somewhat irrelevant, I know, but it has to do with the general navigation subject; article titles mention all the rest, but leave creations out.)
As far as this debate is concerned, it seems to me that we are, after all, closer to [title name], [name(s)] [surname(s)], [rank (of)] than to any other choice. It is suitable for substantial and courtesy peers alike. Only for princes I am unsure, but it does not appear to be relevant to this conversation—I am only mentioning it because Charles did in his introductory speech. Waltham, The Duke of15:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd imagine we'll continue to do as you say: "London, John Smith, 1st Duke of" for substantive peers and "Birmingham, William Smith, Marquess of" for courtesy peers. (Lord Severn should be articled at James, Viscount Severn and indexed as "Severn, James, Viscount".) Proteus(Talk)12:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Good. The problem with such discussions is that it is often assumed that a decision has been reached without anyone saying so. Well, I suppose we no longer have this problem here. Waltham, The Duke of12:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Concerns have been raised here and here, by User:Doc glasgow, about the necessity of collapsing the Ancestry template. The code used for the collapse doesn't work in all browsers and skins. Also, the British princesses template could be confusing to people not familiar with royal ancestry -- as Doc glasgow has stated, 11th generation of what? Is there any way of making this clearer? Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk21:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
A discussion was held at FAC regarding this template. A discussion is now needed to establish whether there is a need to have the box in all articles, bearing in mind that there is a Category called English and British princesses.
Suggestion 1: Non-compulsory. If the template doesn't add anything to the article (it doesn't at Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll, for example), it can be left out.
Suggestion 2: Removal of the template from articles, and the division of the Category: "English princesses" and "British princesses".
Though I am happy to leave the decision to other editors, I ask you to consider the following. The template dropdown box is quite an unattractive addition to articles. Furthermore, it doesn't add anything to the article, especially when there's a category for such things. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk23:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
William IV of the United Kingdom has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Chwech13:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The "Prince/ss X of Wales" Issue
Latest comment: 16 years ago30 comments6 people in discussion
The following from Talk:Prince George William of Wales:Throughout his life, he was styled His Royal Highness Prince George William of Wales.
Is there any evidence of this whatsoever? My understanding was that the first time the form "Prince N of Wales" was used was for the children of the future Edward VII. It was not even used for Princess Charlotte, much less for this guy. Can anyone provide any evidence to the contrary? john k18:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
The 8 & 11 February 1718 issues of The London Gazette refer to him only as "Prince George William", and those are the only issues which refer to the prince by name... I'll make edits to that effect, but surely this revelation would make the title of this page wrong — it would presumably move to either Prince George William of Prince George William of Great Britain (which are both redirects to this page) DBD14:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This would apply, as noted, to others - to the children of Frederick, Prince of Wales, and to Princess Charlotte, in particular. john k (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, my research in the Gazette archives shows that Princess Charlotte (daughter of the Prince Regent) is the first example of "of Wales". Before her, there are absolutely no occurrences of "Prince/ss X of Wales" DBD19:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Searching further, the Gloucesters (great-grandchildren of GIIR), were the first to be "Prince/ss X of Y" (starting with William on 29 April 1794) DBD19:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Assuming the London Gazette is accurate, the territorial designation "of Wales" did not exist, and therefore they should be styled in the same way as children of Sovereigns (ie. the default "of Great Britain"). Personally though it doesn't strike me as a big deal. They were daughters of a Prince of Wales, and therefore today the accepted style would be "of Wales". I would be inclined to ignore the naming conventions of the time (eg. Mary, Queen of Scots) in favour of consistency (Mary I of Scotland). This is just my humble opinion though. PeterSymonds | talk13:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this is quite a different situation from "Mary I of Scotland." That's just a standardization, and it's not one that we've made up - you look at a list of monarchs of Scotland, and she's "Mary I". This, on the other hand, is us making up a style which wasn't actually used, by anachronistically extending the current styling backwards. john k (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why we couldn't. It would just separate the children of Princes of Wales from those of Sovereigns, thus causing little confusion. We could add a note to those articles explaining why they weren't technically Princes/ses of Wales if it's needed, but having a standard style for all of them seems to be a good thing. PeterSymonds | talk14:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not our job to make consistent what was, in fact, messy. Particularly when we can find no reliable secondary sources which do so. john k (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't seem messy to me — in fact you can see from my alterations at British prince/ss that it's a simple case of observing the contemporary reality and formulating it as a rule (i.e. children of Wales were simply "Prince/ss X" DBD11:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I've only just realised that this discussion is going on in two separate places, so I'll duplicate my comments from the talk page for Prince George William. (Deb):
The title "Prince/Princess X of Wales" has been used for the children of Princes and Princesses of Wales since at least as far back as the children of George II. I am 99% certain that this styling came in with the Hanoverians, because the only previous instance of a Prince of Wales who was married with children was the Black Prince in the 14th century. The reason we don't hear the "of Wales" often is that these children, when they grew up, were normally given additional titles - or, if they lived until their parent ascended the throne, they then became "Prince/Princess X of Great Britain". It's only the ones, like Caroline Matilda, whose parents who never got to the throne, or those who died while their father was still Prince of Wales, that need to be considered.
According to Alison Weir's Britain's Royal Families, which is normally a very reliable source, Prince George William is sometimes referred to as "the Duke of Gloucester", which presumably means that it was the intention to invest him with this title - but it never happened. Therefore it is correct to refer to him as "Prince George William of Wales". It would not be correct to refer to him as Prince George William of Great Britain, since this style is reserved for the children of a monarch, which he was not. Deb (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, the Oxford DNB refers to Charlotte Augusta and the later Princesses of Wales with the style of Wales. As for Caroline Matilda, she's referred to as "Princess Caroline Matilda" with no territorial designation. If the style did come with the Hanoverians, it was only popularised during Charlotte's lifetime. PeterSymonds | talk19:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
It was in the case of Caroline Matilda that I first came across it, actually. I'll have to look into it a bit more, but I suggest we avoid any wholesale moves until we are quite sure. Deb (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Deb, I agree we should avoid moves until we're clearer on this. Do you have any sources for the claim that the title was in fact used by the children of George II and Frederick? DBD has looked at the London Gazette from the 18th century, and suggests that the "Prince/ss X of Peeragetitle" form was first used for the children of George III's brother, the Duke of Gloucester, and that "Prince/ss X of Wales" was first used for George IV's daughter Princess Charlotte. So far as I can tell, the only people in question are a) children of George II who died after 1714 but before 1727; and b) children of Frederick, Prince of Wales. It is up to those who are in favor of use of "Prince/ss X of Wales" for these people to provide some evidence of it - preferably evidence that it was a contemporary usage. In terms of Prince George William as Duke of Gloucester, that sounds wrong to me - my understanding was that it was his older brother Frederick who was called "Duke of Gloucester" until 1726, when he was created Duke of Edinburgh. john k (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I strongly encourage anyone else here to check my research for themselves my searching the London Gazette (perhaps we could also check the Edinburgh and Belfast too?). Beyond that, however, as many confirming alternative sources as possible are desirable — so long as we can source the 'rule' on the British prince/ss pages, we can follow it in articles, their titles and, particularly, 'titles and styles' sections. By the way, because of the T&S sections, where we list styles from birth to death, this revolution will affect all Wales children pre-Charlotte, whether they held a higher title (i.e. 'The Prince/ss') or not. DBD11:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't for one moment dispute that you are correct about what the London Gazette says. The question really is whether the London Gazette chose, for one reason or another, not to use a style that was coming into use. I would guess that the reason it became popular in Charlotte's case was that she was George IV's only legitimate heir, and people may have been unconsciously anticipating the day when she would be (in effect) heir apparent, ie. thinking that calling her "Princess Charlotte of Wales" was a bit like calling her "Prince of Wales". There has been a bit of an issue about what to call female heirs all through history.
Having said that, I would like to know, for my own peace of mind, when the usage officially - or indeed unofficially - came in, and I would suggest that the only thing to do is to continue to look at primary sources until either I can find evidence of "of Wales" being used contemporaneously or look at enough sources to be fairly sure that it wasn't used. I don't think the London Gazette on its own is enough. Deb (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
For which I laud you — I am of the same thinking (and btw, I didn't think you were disputing me, I was just encouraging that people see for themselves rather than taking one man's word) DBD12:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
With or without historical precedence for the "of Wales" usage, or with or without the certainty of first precedent, I pose the consideration that it might be advisable to make use of it in the case of Prince George William, if only for logical reasons. He was issue of a Prince of Wales, and in the absence of another title to distinguish him from the plethora of Prince George's and Prince William's of every description, he might be called George William of Wales by today's logic and custom. Furthermore, to the eye of the average Wikipedia reader, the "of Wales" might be most explanatory as to any questions of "who" or "what" which might arise. --Ashley Rovira (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
This is an instance where I agree with retroactive styling. I think it makes sense for the purpose of identifying the prince with little to no ambiguity. Charles13:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
What's wrong with Prince George William of Great Britain? The only possible ambiguity is with George III (George William Frederick), but "of Wales" doesn't actually disambiguate between them, since George III was the son of a prince of Wales from 1727 to 1751. If some further disambiguation is needed, then Prince George William of Great Britain (1717-1718) would do it. I'd also suggest that there's no particular reason to have an article about Prince George William in the first place - he died before his first birthday, and there is virtually no information in the article that couldn't just go in the articles on his parents. john k (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
There isn't anything wrong with it but I don't think it is necessary to change the title. You are right though, the article should be deleted. I've been accused of being a deletionist before though and have to err on the side of caution when considering putting otherwise non-notable infants up for Afd. Charles18:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
George William of Great Britain is a default style reserved for the children of Sovereigns. How would Prince George William of Great Britain be any more appropriate? It was thrashed out at Talk:Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom that the suffix was "made up" because she was only The Princess Beatrice in official documents before her marriage. We are still "making up" a style of Great Britain if we move the articles, so why not just keep the articles where they are, in order to disambiguate the children of Sovereigns from those of Princes of Wales? PeterSymonds | talk18:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not "reserved" for the children of sovereigns. The male-line grandchildren are just as entitled to it. Styles and titles are different... The Beatrice example is a bad one because I imagine people were confusing the styling of a British princess (The Princess Beatrice) with her title (Princess of the United Kingdom). Charles18:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, precisely, any articles at "(Prince/ss) X of Wales" before Charlotte are at a title which corresponds with neither any title nor any style they held — all of the people we're talking about were Princes/ses of GB, so can reasonably be placed at such a page. I think we're all agreed that, whether or not we utilise the current practice (of Wales) in page-titles, any reference pre-Charlotte should be eradicated from the text, as they are simply misleading! DBD20:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Today, I was looking in the London Gazette archives (for whether Albert Victor was called "Duke of Clarence" or "Duke of Clarence and Avondale", apparently the latter), and it showed that the adult children of Albert Edward, Prince of Wales were styled The Prince/ss even during their grandmother's lifetime. Which does not conform to our style rules at all! And so the issue widens — do we correct our errors by referencing contemporary sources, or leave our fabricated rules in place, ignoring their falsity and allowing misdirection into our 'pædia? DBD10:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Where do the conventions come from? I noticed that when I use the LG for articles I write, the definite article is "incorrectly" placed before children of other royals (Her Highness The Princess Helena Victoria was one I happened to remember). Before 1917 standardisation, Queen Victoria created royals "Royal Highnesses" with the style of "Prince/Princess of the United Kingdom" by letters patent. Does the allowance of the definite article exist somewhere in those letters patents? PeterSymonds | talk15:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
New crop of Act of Succession alteration articles
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Very British-centric; nary a mention of the fact that the British parliament can't "abolish" the Act of Settlement without not just the consent of every other realm, but a parallel change in their constitutions as well. But, I suppose mention of Brown's supposed toying with the idea could be mentioned; isn't there already a section covering the topic of proposed alterations/repeals at Act of Settlement 1701? --G2bambino (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
How could George V's removal of the inescutcheon of Saxony have any effect on his relations who resided in Germany (the princes and princesses of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha who remained as such). Those arms became arms of the Ducal Family of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha the moment that those family members started to reign in Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and I don't think George V could remove Saxon elements from the arms of Saxon princes IN Saxony and the rest of Germany. Charles23:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It only had effect in Britain, didn't it? George had no power over Germany, so it was only his German relatives resident in Britain who were forced to get rid of their German names/arms. Those relatives who were still in Germany by 1917 were considered to be on the German side. For most of the descendants of the Prince Consort, however, he was still in charge. Obviously those in Germany chose to go the other way, so he wasn't in charge, but the order was for all the descendants of the Prince Consort which included many of his relatives residing in Britain. It's just a guess. PeterSymonds(talk)06:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I found the website for the Ducal Family of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and now I am convinced the arms are wrong entirely or at least given more important than they should be. In Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the situation was reversed. Instead of being the arms of the United Kingdom with an inescutcheon of Saxony, the arms were Saxony with an inescutcheon of the United Kingdom. The inescutcheon, I believe, denotes previous ancestry. The members of the main line of the British Royal Family were British princes of Saxon origin (inescutcheon of Saxony). When a British prince reigned in Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, his family technically became Saxon princes of British origin (reversed, so an inescutcheon of the United Kingdom). Since nearer sovereign status is more important in a family than remoter descent, we should change the arms of these princesses to those of the family in Germany. We need to stop being Anglocentric. Charles06:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Ooh, I see, interesting. So the Princes and Princesses of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha should have a Saxon shield with an inescutcheon of the United Kingdom? Is there an image for that here? If there's not, Ipankonin (talk·contribs) could probably make one. PeterSymonds(talk)07:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Right. The closest monarch in their male-line ancestry gives them their shield and the further monarchs give their inescutcheon. For the British Royal Family proper, this was Saxony on top of the UK, for the Saxon Ducal Family at Coburg and Gotha proper, this was the UK on top of Saxony. I checked Ipankonin (talk·contribs)'s page and contribution history and unfortunately he is inactive. Is there a WikiProject where a request can be posted? Charles07:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I've found one and have posted a request. Let's see how it goes. Interesting to note that Duke Alfred's article only shows the arms of a junior British prince and not of a Saxon sovereign! Madness! ;-) Charles08:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't replied but I have just relocated and haven't had the time. I will post a detailed response soon or in a day or so with some new revelations. Charles18:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Two Brand New X-Rated Move Surveys!
Latest comment: 16 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion
Ok, so they're not X-rated. But thanks for your time anyway! Keep reading then...
Firstly
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
You may have noticed I've done a considerable amount of works on the children of George II, Poor Fred and George III. This has been closely related to the above-discussed "Prince/ss X of Wales" issue i.e. I've been searching through The London Gazette to ascertain each one's actual contemporary style (and even name!). Having done that, it was necessary to move some pages accordingly. Some of which I couldn't move, so they went to requested moves, where it's been suggested that a move discussion is held. So, here they are:
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with*'''Support'''or*'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
Oppose - sorry, but I feel obliged to oppose a move unless there is actual evidence that the "of Wales" offspring were ever referred to as "of Great Britain". Deb (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Partial oppose Oh, there's two discussions. :) I don't oppose the removal of their middle names, as that's a bit like Princess Victoria Alexandra of the United Kingdom. However, there is no substantial proof either way, as Deb said. Also, without that proof, moving the pages could cause confusion. Considering that we're just considering a couple of generations difference, why not leave the pages as they are? Even if they didn't actually use the suffix (and there's no proof yet that they didn't), some standardisation of the post-1714 styles is necessary, especially when there's such a short gap between George II's generation and George III's generation, when the style actually appears. Those are just my thoughts anyway, and I agree with Deb that there needs to be solid evidence, not just lack of evidence. PeterSymonds(talk)13:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Discussion
Amelia I'm happy with as long as there is no disambiguation issue, but I'm still concerned about "poor Fred"'s children. Like DBD, I can't find any evidence of them having used the "of Wales" suffix. On the other hand, I am unconvinced that they should be "of Great Britain". Maybe we could have a fuller explanation of that preference. Deb (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Secondly
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with*'''Support'''or*'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
Weak support The only reason being that in my experience, I've always seen them referred to as X of Edinburgh, but this is probably partly because Alfred didn't become the Duke of SC and G until 1893. I agree that the higher title should be used in this case, but the common suffix concerns me ever so slightly. PeterSymonds(talk)22:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Discussion
The point is not what "seems perfectly reasonable" or "sounds right to me", but what the evidence shows. Can anybody provide evidence of what form of name is more commonly used in English-language publications? Noel S McFerran (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC).
I know that it is not "Edinburgh and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha". It is not clear at best and we have the higher style (daughter of a sovereign) vs the lower style (junior member of "another" house). Charles18:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems arguable to me that "of Edinburgh" was the higher style, since it brought the designation "Royal Highness". The Princesses had always in any case been Princesses of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, as all the male-line descendants of the Prince Consort were, or Princes of course. However, since that brought the inferior designation "Highness" it was not used, being shadowed as it were by the superior "Royal Highness", and because a title from a kingdom took precedence to one from a duchy. I'm not sure that this situation would have changed because their father became actual Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. I am sure that they would have continued to use the designation "Royal Highness" in any case, apart from Victoria Melita who became an Imperial Highness upon second marriage.
There is a contemporary example with Prince Lorenz of Belgium. He is always so known, but with the designation Imperial and Royal Highness rather than the standard Royal Highness, since he is also an Archduke of Austria-Este. The same applies to his children, Princes and Princesses of Belgium but Imperial and Royal Highnesses. That is not to say that contemporary practice in Belgium would have applied in 19th-century Germany. My own feeling would be that, as Alfred is far better known as Duke of Edinburgh, which is how he spent most of his public life, than for his seven years as Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, in the absence of evidence of contemporary usage the titles of his children should be left as "of Edinburgh", though the addition as at present of "and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" will do no harm. It is certainly not incorrect, as they were that and had been from birth.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Length of reign
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
I hope i've come to a place that can help; forgive me if not.
It seems that over the past few days a length of reign has been added to the infobox of some or all monarchs (e.g.Edward V). I have reverted a few that were on my Mediæval watchlist, but don't want to if they need to be there. It does not seem to be necessary, as in most cases the actual length of the reign is mentioned in the text (and, if not, the infobox already has the dates), and it does not, at a quick look, appear in the articles of other (non-British) monarchs. Is this something needed/wanted? My personal opinion is that it is needless and ugly, but i bow to consenusconcensus general opinion. Cheers, Lindsay20:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems to have been done in good faith but I think it is unnecessary, especially since two months (in the case of Edward V) is ambiguous (is it day of month to day of month, 8 weeks, 60 days or 21 days?) and it is inexact anyway... it is 78 days which is halfway between two and three months. I would revert while noting in the edit summary that you are reverting a good faith edit. Charles20:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
(e/c)I personally agree. I don't have monarchs watchlisted, but I don't think there has been any discussion here or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty. My rationale for non-inclusion is that the dates are provided; why clutter the infobox more? But if there has been discussion then a link would be helpful. Lindsay, I suggest you also take it up on the Royalty talk page (link above), as this is a right place but only for British royalty from 1714. The parent project deals with all royalty. Best, PeterSymonds(talk)21:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Since when? "For the moment, it is suggested that the initial scope of the project be limited to full members of the royal family (i.e. those having, at some point in their lives, bore the style Highness, Royal Highness, or Majesty) since the ascension of George I." PeterSymonds(talk)12:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you; i was misled by the adjective, which i mistook to mean "all British" rather than "British since Hanover". Anyway, i took Peter's advice, and went to the Project Royalty page. By the way, several of those monarchs who do fall under this project have the reign length added to the infobox (e.g. Victoria and some Georges), and several don't; i haven't changed any yet (maybe i'll Be Bold in a few minutes), but probably we ought to look for a little uniformity, oughtn't we? Cheers, Lindsay13:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear all, there is a discussion currently occurring at Naming conventions (names and titles) about "simplifying titles, through which it is suggested that we remove "prince" from royals with substantive titles. The proposal was "passed" after 12 days, with the input of only five editors. I strongly encourage every one here to take part in the discussion such that a properly-agreed solution can be reached. DBD23:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Scope
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Just the other day someone changed the scope of this project so that "it is now suggested that the scope extends to any monarch in the British isles". Really? This appears to be one editor'sdecision. As Category:FA-Class British royalty articles shows, it isn't reflected anywhere else. The reason I mention this is that someone has been going round articles which have nothing to do with British monarchs applying what turns out to be Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty/Style guide. Even the most cursory look tells me that this wasn't created with Alfred the Great or Henry I of England in mind. I see nothing "artificial" in limiting a WikiProject on "British royalty" to British royalty as defined by List of British monarchs.
I would be delighted to see members of this project working on improving everything concerned with List of monarchs in the British Isles - the Kings of East Anglia, for example, contain excellent raw material but need wikification, inline references, and such like, and would be a great place to begin a collective article improvement drive - but to call these "British monarchs" is wrong. And to call the people in Category:Kings of Ailech "British" is not just wrong, it's purposefully tendentious. And as I already said, to apply the above style guide would likely be impossible, even for someone as indisputably and uncontroversially "British" as King Verica. Perhaps some debate would be in order here? Angus McLellan(Talk)12:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
As the editor who started the section in which the "decision" Angus McLellan objects to was made, may i point out that if the Project is restricted, it needs to be more clearly stated, and perhaps defined slightly differently. "British" certainly implies more than simply "since George I"; as i pointed out it misled me, and obviously, from the comments above, others have been too. Perhaps the Project could be extended back to James VI & I (for example), or renamed to WikiProject UKRoyalty. I expect, however, that there has been much discussion on these points previously, and i simply raise/remind of the ambiguity as an outsider who was fooled by it. Cheers, Lindsay14:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
In my humble opinion, it's better to limit this scope to post-1714 royalty. To call, for example, Henry VIII or Alfred the Great "British" is wrong. The first ruler of "Great Britain" was Queen Anne, and to have monarchs but not their families within the scope is wrong. It's great that there's a project for British Royalty (and Canadian, Australian, etc; I don't want to get into a debate about that), but the scope has been over-extended. I hate these petty debates, and generally advise people to forget about them, but there are issues: Charles I is "British", but his brother Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales is not? Why confuse things? Keep the scope as it was and remove the British Royalty templates off everybody pre-1714. That's just my 2p. PeterSymonds(talk)14:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
"British prince/ss"
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Likewise the categories Category:English and British princes, Category:English and British princesses, Category:Scottish princes and Category:Scottish princesses need overhauling. Firstly, it is Anglo-centric to group English and British together as if that continuation were any more valid than Scottish and British. Secondly, it is anachronistic to assign the princely title to all male-line descendants of any monarch, as this practice did not become formalised in Britain until the eighteenth century (before that, daughters were called "the Lady Elizabeth", etc). Because of this, Category:English princes would be largely restricted to Princes of Wales, Caetgory:English princesses would be largely restricted to Princesses Royal and Category:Scottish princes would be solely restricted to Scottish heirs-apparent, who were the only people to bear the title Prince of Scotland.
And then there are those British/English/Scottish/Irish noblemen who are formally styled Princes, i.e. Dukes (Most High, Potent and Noble Prince) and Marquesses (Most Noble and Puissant Prince)...
I thought I'd invite discussion on this issue before charging ahead and making such widespread alterations.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable)20:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Line of succession to the British throne
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The article List of Descendants of Queen Victoria will contain the first almost-500 people in the line of succession and could potentially be a featured-list candidate someday. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Princess Eugenie of York
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Sorry to have to discuss it here but will someone please respond to the question I had about her personal coat of arms in her article's talk section. Thanks! Holtville (talk) 02:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Because for reasons known only to herself and her advisors, Her Majesty has not yet seen fit to issue Letters Patent granting Eugenie her own arms. That being said, I would imagine she is entitled to use the arms of her father, differenced as per convention. Prince of Canada t | c02:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure she would, actually. Arms granted to children of the Sovereign are not hereditary, unlike arms granted to everyone else. It's only arms granted to grandchildren of a Sovereign that are hereditary, and even that is only since a Royal Warrant of 1975 that made them so[5]. Opera hat (talk) 11:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
BRoy logo
Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
Has the logo been vandalised (I couldn't work out how) or is it supposed to look like that. Apologies to whoever designed it, but it's not a very good. It doesn't quickly identify the subject, and it's not nice to look at. Surely a stylised crown and a flag or something woud be better. Verbalchat16:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
File:BRoyLogo.pngProposed new logo for the projectAnother versionIt's supposed to look like that. I believe DBD developed it. I've come up with something new.. what does everyone think? It may need a little work to deal with the negative space, but it hits on the one symbol (St Edward's Crown) that fits the entire period we're dealing with, as well as the Union Jack which is instantly recognizable as British (though, granted, not in use for the entire period we deal with) Prince of Canada t | c22:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about anyone else, but I find the Union Flag broken up into letters absolutely eye-watering. If you were going for a flag, mightn't the Royal Standard look better (and be more fitting)? Opera hat (talk) 22:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I quite like it, but then I tend to like iconic design elements used in new ways. DBD's other version at left, slightly modified by me (I didn't like the purple or the top & bottom, but I do like the logo otherwise). Prince of Canada t | c23:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
How's about this? (And, with a bit of foresight and a sprinkling of light ribbing, the version for use in Scotland!) DBD 00:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Hi all. I've been fiddling here with a different version of the COA infobox; this one fits better into the body of an article, I think. I'd like to start using these (to begin with) across all relevant pages under WP:BRoy in order to standardize proper blazonry etc when discussing the article subject's arms. I've posted over at WP:HV, too.. what do you all think? Prince of Canada t | c18:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Ha! GMTA indeed. (And FSD of course...) Well.. do you think a box would be useful? I'd like to make it look less 'infoboxy' and more 'just what the layout of this section looks like', if that makes any sense? Prince of Canada t | c18:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Well.. seeing no objections, I'm going to go ahead and start doing this on a few articles. I'll leave the original text hidden in a comment to make reverts easier if people really hate it. Prince of Canada t | c22:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I notice that the arms of Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge are given with a royal crown placed on the escutcheon of Hanover. I'm pretty certain this is incorrect and only the King (and possibly the heir-apparent?) used the crown, though I'm afraid I don't have any sources at hand to back this up. Also, why is this coat used as the heading for Template:Teck-Cambridge Family? They only quartered his arms. Opera hat (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot22:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Succession boxes
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I just noticed that the succession boxes for the Royal Family list the House of Windsor as a cadet branch of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. That is not possible; Windsor was extant before anyone from SHSG married in. This should be changed. Prince of Canada t | c06:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
If you notice, the only ones with SHSG in are Phil's descendants, because that's apparently their historically accurate patrilineal house. It's definitely true they're all House of Windsor, but whether in their case HoW is a "cadet branch" of SHSG is up for grabs indeed. I don't have a problem with it... DBD 09:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Even assuming Prince Philip is still a member of SHSG, another house his descendants are in does not become a cadet branch of another House. There are not two Houses of Windsor. You cannot say that Philip's descendants are part of the House of Windsor, a cadet branch of SHSG, and that the Queen and her cousins are part of the House of Windsor. -Rrius (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I just though everybody should know that WikiProject Scottish Royalty has been proposed here on the WikiProject Council/Proposals area. This project would be a child of WikiProject British Royalty and would take a similar role as WikiProject English Royalty. The Quill (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I quite like it, but then I tend to like iconic design elements used in new ways. DBD's other version at left, slightly modified by me (I didn't like the purple or the top & bottom, but I do like the logo otherwise). Prince of Canada t | c 23:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
