Talk:George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews

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

Catholic?[edit]

Is Lord St Andrews Catholic? I know his wife and his two elder children are Catholic, but I've never seen anything to suggest that he himself has joined the Catholic Church. The article doesn't even say that, except to in passing call him a Catholic. john k (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he is not Roman Catholic (only married to one), then would his place in succession be restored if/when the changes to royal succession become law? And if so, he seems to be the highest ranked person in this situation.DanTrent (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. The changes in the law would have to be applied retroactively in order for that to happen (if he is indeed not a Catholic). I doubt that will be the case however. That goes for his uncle Prince Michael of Kent as well.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware he hasn't converted to Roman Catholicism but he has been restored to the line of succession to the throne as that was spelt out as happening in the new Succession to the Crown Act. Prince Micheal was also restored. Lord Nicholas remains out as he did convert to Roman Catholicism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.219.0 (talk) 08:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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: Not Moved Rushton2010 (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

–
1. [1] His personal surname is "St. Andrews", not "Windsor". The page was wrongly moved by a now-retired non-British editor [2].
2. [3] His personal surname is "Ulster", not "Windsor". The page was wrongly titled at creation from a non-British IP-number address [4].
3. Her married personal surname is "St. Andrews", not "Windsor".
4. Her married personal surname is "Ulster", not "Windsor". Relisted. BDD (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC) --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 05:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5. [5] --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

6. "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)." [6] --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 07:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : No, you cannot, and you may not. [Lords and Ladies St. Andrews and Ulster] are clearly members of the extended British Royal Family, whether they are entitled to the title of "Royal Highness" or otherwise, and are not mere simple members of the Peerage. Your ridiculous personal claim, assertion and supposition that they were mere simple Peers are absolutely ludicrous. --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC) --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Technically he's not even that. He uses a courtesy title and he is not in line to the throne. And even if he was, being related to the royals is just what it is. No more and no less. Male line great grandchildren of the monarch have no royal titles anymore and revert to non royal naming conventions. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1. Given the special Dutch features—of which I had discovered and learnt from the reported events surrounding the incapacitation and the eventual (lamented) demise of the Prince Friso—it is apparent that you might be confusing the characteristics of the British House of Windsor with that of the Dutch House of Orange-Nassau. There is no British equivalent of the Dutch distinction between "the Royal House" (Het Koninklijk Huis) and "the Royal Family" (De Koninklijk Familie). Eligibility to the British Crown and the British and Commonwealth Thrones does not affect (which is essentially undefined) membership within the British Royal Family, which is also not determined solely by the entitlement to the titles of "Prince", "Princess" and "Royal Highness".


2. If the very names of the two are mentioned by Buckingham Palace (the Queen's Personal Household) site side by side with those of members of the British Royal Family who are clearly in line and eligible to the Crown and Throne, then it would surely be foolhardy (foolish), imprudent and speculative of us to somehow deny that the former two are members of the British Royal Family.


3. At least one of your purported examples is clearly false. Barons, Scottish Lords of Parliament and Life Peers have no direct equivalence to the other more senior members of the English, Scottish and British Peerage.


4. In any event, all this is quite frankly all a red herring, and the subject of British courtesy titles is another red herring. There is no evidence to suggest that a (British) holder of a British courtesy title is not entitled to assume his title as his surname in place of his ancestral surname, as according to British aristocratic custom.


5. I would also refer you to [7]. --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with the differences between the Dutch and British Royal families, nor is it affected by the right of titled persons to use their titles as surnames. It has to do with what is customary on Wikipedia where article titles concerning holders of peerages are concerned. The people concerned are holders of peerages. They are styled as such just like other peers and hold no further titles or dignities. On Wikipedia these article titles include the surnames. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I say, my dear chap, but even Buckingham Palace says that you are wrong! The question of whether their titles are real and substantive, or merely a courtesy, are irrelevant. You, Sir, keep on mentioning the rules of Wikipedia as excuse. Would you perhaps care to produce a citation, or at least show it to me quotes from the relevant passages? I am unable to locate the offending passage from the Annals of Rules of Wikipedia to justify your rather peculiar continual objection. The name is either "A. B. C. Windsor" or "A. B. C., Earl of D.", but not a "portmanteau" of both. Your ludicrous comparison with other (non-Royalty) substantive and courtesy members of the "British" Peerage and members of the British Life Peerage is as no less incorrect as to refer by me or by any other Englishman H. M. Willem-Alexander and his consort as King and Queen of Holland (or worse, of [the Seven United Provinces of] the Dutch Republic, &c.) in the place and stead of as King and Queen of the Netherlands. --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 04:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per NCROY. While I agree that there is no legal or precise definition of "the British Royal Family", nor any distinction between the Family and the House, male-line great-grandchildren of a sovereign, and more remote descendants, haven't been accorded the princely title or royal style since 1917, when George V's Proclamation deprived them thereof and conferred upon those of legitimate descent the name "Windsor" and styles associated with the British nobility. Unless a reliable source is cited which indicates that those royal descendants do not legally bear (as distinct from make use of, de facto) surnames or that they bear surnames derived from ancestral peerages instead, this move request is unsubstantiated and contrary to both royal decree and modern practice. FactStraight (talk) 06:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
False. In the absence of any concrete, reliable and official proof to the contrary, they and their spouses ought to be given the benefit of the doubt and be treated and considered members of the British Royal Family, and are not members of the English, Scottish or British Peerage; thus the Guidelines for Peers do not apply. [8] "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)." --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "benefit of the doubt" to which allegations of fact are entitled in Wikipedia. Again, "Unless a reliable source is cited which indicates that those royal descendants [of sovereigns' beyond their children and paternal grandchildren] do not legally bear surnames or that they bear surnames derived from ancestral peerages instead, this move request is unsubstantiated and contrary to both royal decree and modern practice." The burden of proof is on you to substantiate this change by providing a reliable source for the usage you prefer. Where's your citation? FactStraight (talk) 07:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A very elaborate way of saying "I know better than you about things in your own Country". A family tree with their names on it [9] produced by Buckingham Palace would suggest that they might be members of the British Royal Family; hence Royalty, not Peers. You cannot have it both ways. If you are going to claim that they use the surname "Windsor", that would necessarily mean that they are members of the Royal Family, and not Peers; and such a claim by yourself undermines itself, and is self-contradictory! And, what "modern practice", exactly? And when did we the British last have "royal decrees" in the United Kingdom? Whatever happened to Parliament and the Privy Council? The very word "Decree" is associated with absolutism! --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 08:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 212.50.182.151 (talk), You seem to feel that I object to a number of things that I don't object to at all. You have not heard me say for instance, that courtesy titles are not relevant. I only made a remark about them. You also have not heard me say that the persons involved cannot be seen as members of the extended Royal Family (which doesn't necessarily make them "Royals" by the way), a category which, as you say, "is essentially undefined". What I am saying is that this undefined membership has no bearing on what these people are called and that their names should not be treated differently from people with comparable names (other peerage holders) because of it. The (undefined) status that you seem to think makes all the difference simply doesn't. This came about when in 1917, George V decided by Letters Patent how the great-grandchildren of a sovereign would be styled: (T)he titular dignity of Prince and Princess shall cease except those titles already granted and remaining unrevoked; and that the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line ..... shall have the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes. It is therefore that comparison with other members of the peerage (from whatever category) is relevant to the issue. Children of Dukes do have surnames. What is also relevant for the purpose of naming Wikipedia articles, are the Wikipedia naming conventions: Members of the British peerage, whether hereditary peers or life peers, usually have their articles titled "Personal name, Ordinal (if appropriate) Peerage title", e.g. Alun Gwynne Jones, Baron Chalfont; Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington; Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston. If you think that this is in any way undesirable, you should take that to the relevant forum of discussion. For now however these conventions stand. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This: 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, when carefully reading the whole section, obviously pertains to HRH's for UK purposes. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the proclamation of July 17th 1917, George V ordered that the persons involved in this matter shall bear the said Name of Windsor. To illustrate how the Palace views these matters I also quote a fragment from the declaration in Council by the Queen from February 8th 1960, in which The Queen states that: I have given further consideration to the position of those of My descendants who will enjoy neither the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness, nor the titluar dignity of Prince and for whom therefore a surname will be necessary. (emphasis mine). Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1. Heraldica is run by an American economist in the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, born and brought up (raised) in France, now living in the United States of America, and run out of his subject and "province" as an ametur and ameturish pursuit, so whatever he has got to say about British styles and titles must necessarily be considered "suspect", nay unreliable. [10]


2. Lord Ulster and Lord St. Andrews are not the descendants of Queen Elizabeth II.


3. "A proclamation on the Royal Family name by the reigning monarch [Royal Proclamation] is not statutory; unlike an Act of Parliament, it does not pass into the law of the land." [11] Definitely there is not an "Order" or a "Decree". A "Decree" (Décret; [12]; [13]) is no such thing in England, and an Order is an "Order in Council", not "Letters Patent". After Magna Carta, only the English, Irish and British Parliaments can and may make laws, not Kings or Queens. As we say here in England, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing! (Misattributed to Alexander Pope (1688–1744).)


4. On the contrary, do you have any actual evidence that the Lords and Ladies Ulster and St. Andrews actually use the surname "Windsor" for themselves? If not, then you have no reasonable right to oppose the move. --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Irrelevant, unless you would like to imply he misquoted the regulations mentioned.

2. Which is why I used the word "illustrate". There seems to be an opinion there that people who are not HRH need a surname.

3. These are nonetheless standing regulations.

4. Irrelevant. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Royal Proclamations" are not "standing regulations", which is no such thing in England. Furthermore, there is also absolutely no law in England that requires a natural person or the Queen's subject to bear a surname. --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The 1917 one is a Royal Proclamation done by the King in Council. These are, by virtue of the Proclamation by the Crown Act 1539, binding on the subject.
The 1960 one was done by Letters Patent which constitute legislation by royal prerogative. Both are means of regulation and both are standing. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1. If you are not British, then kindly stop brandishing terms that you know very little about! The Proclamation by the Crown Act 1539 was long repealed (reported to be in the year 1547)! Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom have no power to make primary legislation (laws) in England or in Scotland by [the] Royal Prerogative!


2. The Royal Proclamations are advisory, not legally-binding.


3. There are no "Regulations" for the British Royal House as such.


4. "Standing Regulations" are only for the members of British Armed Forces, and even they are not called as such (like that)! --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. The 1539 act enabled legislation by proclamation which was discontinued. This however has not ended the legality of Royal Proclamations as a means of delegated or secondary legislation, a notion derived from that now defunct Act. Nowhere have I claimed that these are matters of primary legislation. I hope you understand what is meant by the words "standing" and "regulation" in a non technical judicial context. Royal Proclamations made under the great seal by the King in Council are still binding on the subject at hand, since they are made in furtherance of the King in Councils already and lawfully existing prerogative to make delegated or secondary legislation on certain matters. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1. Royal Proclamations are not legislation, primary or secondary. Only an Act of Parliament (or a Statutory Instrument, or an Order in Council, but only when it is authorized by an Act of Parliament, and not without) can properly "fix" the surname of the British Royal House.


2. There is no law requiring a British subject to have a surname. I cannot possibly and humanly prove a negative. --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exercise of the Royal prerogative by means of Letters Patent or Royal Proclamation is also a form of legislation, albeit a very peculiar one. I used the term secondary legislation because Letters patent and Royal Proclamations (that are or were mostly issued by Letters Patent) derive their authority from the Royal Prerogative i.e. the remaining (vestigial) discretionary powers of the Monarch, which I (I'm no lawyer per se) assumed to be regulated by existing legislation. Since that may not entirely or explicitly be the case, the term secondary legislation might be misplaced. Legislation however it is, since the royal prerogative is a very real aspect of the British 'Constitution'. I get the feeling that you are arguing that these regulations (which is what they are in understandable terms), are of no consequence and that there is no such thing as royal prerogative. Nothing in the Letters Patent / Proclamation mentioned is contrary to existing law and they are therefore (per the royal prerogative) binding. The mere state of affairs that no law seems to exist (as you say) that can force someone to have a surname (you should indeed not even try to prove a negative) doesn't come into that. That doesn't make it an offense to have one, or to confer one on people per existing prerogative. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1. Letters Patent and Royal Proclamations are NOT legislation in the United Kingdom. Full stop. Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom have no power to legislate without Parliament by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. [14] Royal Proclamations are declarations by the King or the Queen, with the "advice and consent", or "assent", of his (or her) "Great Officers of State", but without the "advice and consent" of Parliament; hence they cannot be considered law in any sense of the word. The Royal Proclamation of 1917 is no more of a legislation than a Christmas Card bearing the Royal Coat-of-Arms and the "personal sign manual" (signature) and signet of King George V, with the great seal affixed or attached.


2. "Dispensing Power.: That the pretended Power of Suspending of Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall. ... Late dispensing Power.: That the pretended Power of Dispensing with Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authoritie as it hath beene assumed and exercised of late is illegall." (The English Bill of Rights [1688] (O.S.), Chapter 2, 1 Will. and Mar. Sess. 2, entitled An Act declareing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Setleing the Succession of the Crowne.) [15]


3. "[T]he King cannot make law or custom by his grant." ("A Treatise on the Law of the Prerogatives of the Crown; and the Relative Duties and Rights of the Subject.", Joseph Chitty (1775–1841), Middle Temple, London, Anno 1820, p. 386) [16] --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are playing with words and legal terms here. Nobody has argued that actual laws (as meant in your above quotes, equivalent to laws made by Parliament) are being made by LP's or RP's. Just that Letters Patent and Proclamations are binding and legal instruments (as they are regulated by statutory instruments) that grant or withhold titles, offices and the like and that they are "legislation" in that sense only. Now if you want to construct a rationalization of sorts that implies that Letters Patent are about as meaningful as letters from my auntie or as you say that RP's have about as much meaning as Christmas cards I wish you much luck with that, but I don't think pretending that Royal prerogative doesn't exist, or that the instruments with which it is executed are meaningless, will get very far. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Officials at Buckingham Palace have published their opinion that Royal Proclamations are NOT legally-binding. [17] They are only self-binding (voluntary) statements of intent, and the Proclamation of 1917 died with the demise of King George V.


2. Their names are either "George, Earl of St. Andrews" and "Alexander, Earl of Ulster", or, "George Windsor" and "Alexander Windsor", and the same for their spouses; but not both. "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." [18]


3. [19] ([20] ) --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1. That is not what your source says. It just uses the word binding in a sentence that means a particular thing that is very different from what you're implying. RP's are not binding to their successors in the sense that they can make new Proclamations to the contrary. They haven't done that yet so the old one still stands. To imply that this means these LP's and RP's loose their meaning on the death of the sovereign who issued them is ridiculous. It would for instance mean that Edward VIII, George VI and Elizabeth II reverted to being Princes of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha in 1936. It would also undo every single statute which the law requires the monarch to proclaim.
2. You have yet to explain why this should apply to these people and not for all other peers. These people have a surname and a title that they may not choose to use in combination in real life but that are both displayed in Wikipedia article titles about them because they both exist. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The words "have a surname" is false. According to British custom, aristocrats are perfectly entitled to assume their territorial designations as their personal surnames in the place and stead of their ancestral surname. Do you have any evidence that the surname "Windsor" is actually recorded on their birth certificates? Birth certificates in England are usually open to public copies for a fee. --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. I already wished you luck with the construction of your rationalization but these links have to do with the creation of new offenses which the Monarch can not do by proclamation. It has no bearing on the existence of Royal prerogative as such in common or civil law. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out numerous times here, the fact that custom allows peers to use their titles as surnames doesn't imply that they therefore have no patronymic surname. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1. The English Bill of Rights [1688] (O.S.) makes the creation of new laws by Royal Proclamation, or by Order in Council without advice and consent of Parliament by Act of Parliament, illegal.


2. If, when they were newly-born infants, their births were never registered with the name "Windsor" as a surname, then a piece of paper from 1917 would be immaterial (irrelevant, also). Where are the birth certificates? There is no evidence, one way or another, for or against the inclusion of the surname "Windsor".


3. "Also it was resolved, that the King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him." --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1. We are not talking about laws here (as has been pointed out quite a few times) but about an executive regulation of another nature.
2. No it wouldn't. Where do these people's children get their surnames from then?
3. The prerogative in question here, was creating new offenses by proclamation, which the case was about. See also what it says about common law (which RP is partly based in). Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment Despite the extensive conversation here, I'm relisting in hopes that more participants will weigh in. --BDD (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If Lord St Andrews's surname is not Windsor, are his daughters surnameless? Of course not. His daughters are Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor and Lady Amelia Windsor. Lord St Andrews would have been been Lord George Windsor had he had an older brother, so it seems that the (erroneous) belief here is that peers and courtesy peers don't have surnames, which is obviously not true. Surtsicna (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To summarize: The notion that these courtesy title holders enjoy a different surname situation than other courtesy title holders because of their association with royalty is unsubstantiated.
The idea that the surname Windsor and the regulations that installed that surname for these people are somehow invalid is also unsubstantiated. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per NCROY. While I agree that there is no legal or precise definition of "the British Royal Family", nor any distinction between the Family and the House, male-line great-grandchildren of a sovereign, and more remote descendants, haven't been accorded the princely title or royal style since 1917, when George V's Proclamation deprived them thereof and conferred upon those of legitimate descent the name "Windsor" and styles associated with the British nobility. Unless a reliable source is cited which indicates that those royal descendants do not legally bear (as distinct from make use of, de facto) surnames or that they bear surnames derived from ancestral peerages instead, this move request is unsubstantiated and contrary to both royal declarations and modern practice. FactStraight (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should we re-oppose or re-support when a request is re-listed? I'm not sure but I will do so just in case. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nothing has been brought forward to justify the assumption that these holders of courtesy titles should be treated otherwise than other holders of courtesy titles where Wikipedia article names are concerned. Since a courtesy title is just a form of address, holders thereof have surnames which they may or may not use in daily life. Substantial peers have surnames as well. They are generally used in Wikipedia article names about them as well. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Is married of marries[edit]

I will revert an edit by User:Barliner. A person who was married to an RC was not necessarily excluded. A spouse can always convert to Catholiscism after the marriage, like in the case of the Duchess of Kent. The spouse needed only to be RC at the time of the wedding for exclusion to have taken place. So 'marries' is the operative word here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree, but I believe my change emphasised that succession was denied to a person aleady married to an RC at the potential succession would be denied the succession but that after succession marrying an RC spouse, as well as spousal converesion, would be possible  Barliner  talk  15:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In other words, what would have happened if a reigning monarch had married a Roman Catholic? I would assume he would have stopped being the reigning monarch the moment he or she married..... But now that you mention it.... I'm not sure.. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the monarch married an RC he could continue. Our difference is purely over a grammatical point which I misinterpreted and which now now longer exists since the new Succession Act, so I accept you reversion.  Barliner  talk  16:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Act of Settlement[edit]

The article currently states: "Downpatrick is the most senior person excluded from the line of succession for being a Roman Catholic under the Act of Settlement 1701". There are actually scads of people excluded from the line of succession for this reason, above all the whole Jacobite succession, against whom the act was directed. I'm not quite sure how to phrase the idea intended: perhaps "the nearest relative to Queen Elizabeth excluded from the line of succession for being a Roman Catholic under the Act of Settlement 1701"? Q·L·1968 ☿ 19:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Windsor,_Earl_of_St_Andrews&oldid=1202744213"