Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Additional comments required

Greeting everyone. There is currently a heated debate taking place at Talk:Elizabeth II#Third opinion in regards to the way the term 'Royal Family' should be capitalised. It has been established that the majority of the articles relating to the British Monarchy all tend to style the word in capitals when the context is specifically about the family of the Queen; and the same term would be in lower case if the words were referring to any royal family in general. Many wiki-guidelines have been referred and they haven't been very helpful, with most contradicting each other. Official sources also stated the words should be capitalised, while other sources into "proper noun styles" state the words should not be capitalised. Would it please be possible for members of this project to head over to the talk page and assist in settling this dispute. I have attempted to hold a WP:3O and provided evidence, but one user seems to be failing to "get it". Thanks, Wesley Mouse 15:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to clear up my meaning on this invite too, as I have received an allegation of posting a bias, canvassing and attacking invite. The wording of the above invite is meant to be outlining the entire debate at Talk:Elizabeth II covering what has been said so far in brief summary. Also when I said "one user seems to fail to get it", I meant one as in any one of the users may be failing to see the point others are making, so any assistance in resolving this would be highly appreciated. Thank you, Wesley Mouse 18:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for article on the Cambridges' royal tour 2012

This seems like a good place to suggest that someone with more time and motivation than I create an article on TRH tour of Singapore and Pacific islands this summer. An article already exists on their tour of Canada last year, so there is precedent if anybody wants to do it. It would be easy to find plenty of source materials on that, which was made even more notable by the concurrent publication of the infamous topless pics of Kate.

Come to think of it, I suppose an article could be done on Harry's tour of the Caribbean this year, as well as the Queen's own series of Jubilee tours to various parts of Britain. Just sayin'. Textorus (talk) 23:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I've sometimes thought it odd that such a historically unimportant event as the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's tour of Canada has its own article, when far more significant royal tours such as the Prince of Wales's tour of India in 1875 and the Duke of Cornwall and York's Imperial tour in 1901 (which included the opening of the first Australian parliament) do not. Opera hat (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an Aladdin's Cave of "historically unimportant events" and people - which is one of the things that makes it attractive to readers. Boatloads of stuff you would never ever find in a "real" encyclopedia, like how to conjugate Klingon verbs, or the name of the one almost-but-not-quite-hit record some backwoods Canadian country singer had in 1968. To each his own. But I agree, every royal tour since Victoria and Albert's to Ireland in 1849 could be written up in articles, for those who have the time and interest in that sort of thing. I only suggested this most recent one because it would be so easy for someone to research and source. Textorus (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't personally object to the existence of such an article, but to suggest that someone else should write it seems a bit much. If anyone has the level of interest required, I'm sure they will get round to it eventually. Deb (talk) 10:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Duchess of cambridge.jpg

problematic image File:Duchess of cambridge.jpg has been tagged for deletion. The problem is that the metadata seems to say that this is not usable on Wikipedia. Does anyone have a replacement image? -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Article on Queen Charlotte needs a re-write

I am not sure if this project is really interested in historical British royalty or only current ones, but the article on Queen Charlotte is badly in need of a re-write, consisting as it does almost solely of passages copied out of Victorian books in ludicrously old fashioned language. I will put it on my list of the many many terrible articles I have seen on wikipedia and ought to try to do something about one day, in the meantime maybe someone could grab a modern biography of this important royal figure and try to improve it.Smeat75 (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Come to Talk:Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz to discuss further. Deb (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Coat of Arms of The Duchess of Cornwall.jpg.png

file:The Coat of Arms of The Duchess of Cornwall.jpg.png has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

British Royal Family vandalism

Can someone else please pay some attention to the article on British Royal Family? A user keeps reverting edits without any explanation, thereby restoring names of hundreds of completely irrelevant and unknown people into the article. Thanks, Surtsicna (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist now.Deb (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Prince George of Cambridge

There is an ongoing disagreement between editors over the section headed "Title and style". One camp is insisting on using bulleted bold text for a single-item "list"; the other camp prefers an explanation in unbulleted normal prose. There are arguments over alleged consistency with other articles, and over alleged ease of understanding and clarity. The discussion isn't going anywhere, other than perhaps to WP:RFC. Does anyone else want to comment first? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

As highlighted in the discussion and I quote from --Ħ MIESIANIACAL The bullet is the beginning of the list that should, in time, grow longer. There is much precedent for starting that way; for years, articles about the Prince's relatives have had the subject's one title or one honour listed: Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, before he became a duke and received more appointments and decorations; Sophie, Countess of Wessex, before she received more decorations; and currently Prince Henry of Wales (titles), Princess Beatrice of York (titles), Princess Eugenie of York (titles), Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex (military ranks), Peter Phillips (titles), Zara Phillips (honours), Lady Louise Windsor (titles), James, Viscount Severn (titles), Prince Michael of Kent (titles), and more. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe that a bulleted list has become the norm for the reasons stated above.Deb (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It is quite clear that those who casually drop in with well-meaning remarks such as "a bulleted list has become the norm for the reasons stated above" simply have not paid the attention due to the reasoned objections concerning this particular article. This may be that they are among those who either are not sufficiently interested to give it that attention, or who have not the aptitude for discerning the point at issue. Either way, such remarks do less than nothing to contribute to editing that article with the intent of improving it. Qexigator (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

"those who casually drop in"? Deb is among the longest-participating editors on English Wikipedia's royalty articles, who can usually be counted to weigh in with an accurate reflection of the institutional memory of our past discussions on management of royalty & nobility articles. She rarely comments, but can almost always be counted on to be listening in and observing the details. That doesn't make her opinion right, but I simply have to take exception to the contrary presumption: that if she isn't agreeing with a particular view or long-windedly explaining her dissent, she must not be heeding the issues or the discussion. We are unfortunately transferring to this page the uncivility of Prince George's talk page, where people will find it difficult to compromise when they feel insulted by the accusatory and condescending tone of the arguments being made. This issue doesn't move me to express an opinion one way or the other, but yes I am paying close attention -- and see merits to both points of view. Please, please, please: if you hope to reach consensus, give people the room to embrace it without feeling that they've been overrun in a war: there is all the difference in the world between "I feel strongly that we should handle the matter this way, but recognizing that in every discussion some prefer blue to red and have their reasons for doing so, here's my case and I hope to understand yours" vs. "Anyone who doesn't agree with me lacks common sense, isn't paying attention, isn't serious, obviously can't understand that there is no way a reasonable person could hold an opinion other than mine, so you're just being obstructive for the sake of being so." I know which approach is more likely to get me to give a better hearing to a differing view. FactStraight (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I want to understand why others feel differently and I

Ghm: Are you able to say how this discussion relates to Talk:Prince George_of_Cambridge#Title at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard[1] Filed by Pseud 14 on 03:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC) . I note that above you have characterised the discussion as between one camp and another. Of course, I know what that is saying, and it aligns with the editor who has put the matter up for "dispute resolution". For my part, I am not one who delights in being drawn into a so-called dispute process, however well-meant by those who initiate it, but I may sooner or later put something there if in my view it will help the editing process for the Prince George article. For the moment, I have said all I have to say on the bullet-format-nonlist question at that talk page. Briefly, I concur with you on that, as I think you know, and as shown by my recent edits to the Titles section of the article. Qexigator (talk) 11:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It is quite clear from your statement above that you believe your arguments to be superior to other people's, presumably on the grounds that they are made by you. In fact, it rather sounds like you are enjoying the process of being drawn into a dispute because it gives you the opportunity to insult other contributors. Deb (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I am ready and willing (time and place permitting) to attend to constructive and reasoned points when they are presented. The above remark (Deb 15:09, 30 July 2013) does not lead me to believe that I was mistaken in surmising that this person may not have paid sufficient attention to the discussion, for whatever reason, to be making a useful contribution at this stage. The remark has no more weight than one that has been "casually dropped in". "I believe that..." carries the discussion no further without some definite basis beyond the presumption that weight will be given to it by those who know that "Deb is among the longest-participating editors on English Wikipedia's royalty articles, who can usually be counted to weigh in with an accurate reflection of the institutional memory of our past discussions on management of royalty & nobility articles" (per FactStraight). I would expect a person so extolled to be able to avoid the personal animus apparent in the comment "...you believe your arguments to be superior to other people's, presumably on the grounds that they are made by you." It is always open to that commenter, as it is to others, to make a constructive suggestion for the improvement of the article at its Talk page, here, or at Talk:Prince George_of_Cambridge#Title at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. In particular, long experience with the range of articles may help with focussing on the preliminary points at[2], and the comments about lists recently added (16:30, 30 July 2013) at the end of "Unique and unprecedented format - disputed bullet - ricochet"[3] Qexigator (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

One of the problems is that this dispute started with a reversion here on the basis that "as per talk, the consensus preferred to have it on status quo" - a quite fallacious argument as there was clearly no such consensus, and there was (and perhaps still is) a disagreement over whether his style should be said to have started from birth when he wasn't publicly given a name until a couple of days later. Several editors, myself included, objected to the reversion on the basis that there was no merit in a bulleted list of one entry when WP:EMBED clearly states:

"Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain."

We now have a view that precedent on other similar articles is to include a list - though I haven't yet seen any codification of that in guidance. Personally, I can understand that, where the subject is historical, and the person's style changed more than once, such a list is helpful. This is not like most such articles. It is highly viewed, by many readers who will have no understanding of why some sort of precedent may have led to the appearance of an anomalous one-item "list" mid-article. It just seems very odd, and apart from the argument of precedent there seems to be no good reason for it. Of course, as new titles are given to him, we can update the text as appropriate. But why do we need to use a list format now? My answer is that we don't - we should use prose per WP:MOS, to explain matters clearly to readers, rather than using a format that is only preferred by certain editors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Please note proposal at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard[4] to let that process be suspended indefinitely to allow further connsideration to be given here to the question pinpointed by Mies., about how to reconcile the list format which has been used in Titles sections for years with non-lists of one item, in articles such as Prince George of Cambridge. (Note, some of the earlier discussion has been botted to [[5]])

After a myriad of "it should be blue or it should be red" discussion over the Titles and Honours section, specific to Prince George of Cambridge and royals who have ‘one-list’ formats, the general consciousness and awareness rapidly fumed into a humongous outburst from editors who are for bulleted-list and those who highlight on prose. As we have been accustomed to the precedent, which was one point raised by those who go for the former, we also could not deny that the latter will bring clarification and explanation to the articles.

YES, it is precedent and has been a norm to bullet-ize a list (even for one-listed), and YES the prose gives fluidity to the article to provide purpose of explanation. And if you would look closely into an example I have extracted from one-listed royals; both Bulleted form and Prose come into play

• 15 September 1984 – present: His Royal Highness Prince Henry of Wales

The Prince's style and title in full is His Royal Highness Prince Henry Charles Albert David of Wales. As a British prince he uses the name of the area over which his father holds title; i.e., Wales, as a territorial suffix in lieu of surname. Past precedent is that such surnames are dropped from usage in adulthood, after which either title alone, or Mountbatten-Windsor is used when necessary. Prince Harry, however, continues to use Wales as his surname for military purposes and is known as Captain Harry Wales in such contexts. If his father succeeds to the throne, Harry will be known as His Royal Highness The Prince Henry. Traditionally, sons of the reigning monarch and their sons receive a dukedom prior to marriage, the most recent being Prince William, who became Duke of Cambridge. In 2011, it was reported the Queen had promised Harry the Dukedom of Sussex upon his own marriage.

• 8 November 2003 – present: Lady Louise Windsor

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. Therefore, all else being equal, Louise would have been styled as Her Royal Highness Princess Louise of Wessex. 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. There are two opposing opinions as to whether or not Louise is "legally" a princess and Her Royal Highness: Some experts consider the Queen's press release to not have enough legal force to override the 1917 letters patent, whereas other experts contend that the Queen's will, however expressed, is law in matters of royal titles and styles. If the latter is the case, then the 1960 letters patent is also applicable and Louise bears (but is seldom styled with) the surname Mountbatten-Windsor.

• 17 December 2007 – present: Viscount Severn

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. Therefore, all else being equal, James would have been styled as His Royal Highness Prince James of Wessex. However, when his 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. The eldest son of an earl is customarily accorded one of his father's subsidiary titles by courtesy, thus James is named as Viscount Severn, and court communications never refer to him as a prince of the United Kingdom, but simply as Viscount Severn. There are two opposing opinions as to whether or not James is legally a prince and has the title "His Royal Highness": some experts consider the Queen's press release to not have enough legal force to override the 1917 letters patent, whereas other experts contend that the Queen's will, however expressed, is law in matters of royal titles and styles. If the latter is the case, then the 1960 letters patent are also applicable and James bears (but is not styled with) the surname Mountbatten-Windsor.

The bullet form is to highlight the need to indicate usage, longevity of usage and to when a specific style is used (even for single list – that is and will be expanded should a change in style come into play). Looking at it closely, the point highlighted by User: Ghmyrtle is a point well taken, the prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context. Because looking at the cited articles above, the prose clearly and vividly explained the bullet or the list presented above it. So it is not just having a bullet alone, or a prose and explanation in itself. Given the scenario and scrutiny on the example., Both bullet list and Prose may have had, even before, complimented each other, for past articles, and can even work for the PrC article itself. A scenario wherein, debating editors (that’s us), may have overlooked, because of our pure intent to dwindle and deduce each other’s views and analysis.

Just my two cents, I hope this gives a clearer picture for both sides, so all this bickering can stop, because at the end of the day, we all have the same end goal-- to be patrons of improvement for articles for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty Pseud 14 (talk) 09:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Stepping forward - a list

A point of view for a methodical treatment of Title sections: This list (with its three divisions) is made after noting the various comments above and at Talk:Prince George of Cambridge. It is about a possible way to treat the Titles sections where the person has only the birth title. Note that it ought not to be presumed or implied that one or more other titles, styles, honours or awards will follow soon or at any time in the person's life ahead (of unknown duration); even an heir apparent may predecease the father or otherwise fail to inherit the father's titles.

Lists per Wikipedia practice

Generally

• In Wikipedia, listing articles generally have a name in the form "List of ...(item)s" (plural).
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists starts with the sentences "Lists are commonly used in Wikipedia to organize information. Lists may be found within the body of a prose article, or as a stand-alone article." Soon after is the guideline "The title and bullet style... is common for list articles."
• If nothing is mentioned there about a list of one item that is not surprising, given that a stamdard dictionary defintion of a "list" is "an item-by-item record of names or things, usually written one below the other".
• The guidelines propose that "Stand-alone lists should always include a lead section just as other articles do...that introduces the subject, and defines (its) scope and inclusion criteria. Further, non-obvious characteristics of a list, for instance regarding the list's structure, should be explained in its lead section."

For "Title" sections in the scope of WikiProject British Royalty

• If that is followed and adapted to a section of an article containing a stand alone list, as in the case of some elder members of the family into which Prince George has been born, it would result in that section having an introductory paragraph explaining the content of the list - defining its scope and inclusion criteria, and any non-obvious characteristics, such as, regarding its structure.

Possible steps forward

• 1_Letting the present version of the the newly created article for Prince George of Cambridge be rectified, so that, instead of continuing the practice of having a nonlist of one item in the bullet format, there is simply a paragraph which could be retained (subject to copyedit) as an introduction for a bulleted list of two or more items if a second title/honour eventually comes along; and then letting the same be done in future articles.
• 2_Letting the same be done now to rectify the existing HRH articles such as the two York princesses.
• 3_Decidiing about following the same practice to rectify other existing articles of members of the British Royal Family within the Project scope which as yet have no more than one item.

Qexigator (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Questions about "precedent"

These questions are addressed to Deb and others listed as Participants on the Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty page[6], who may be regarded as the hosts while others are guests, and who keep in touch by Wikiproject Watchlist - WikiProject British Royalty Watchlist.[7] The Project seems to have started in July 2006.[8] It may help all who are taking part in the present discussion to be sufficiently informed of the background. A claim has been made that the main or only reason for intruding a bullet nonlist in the Prince George article was a longstanding "precedent" or series of precedents in the range of articles within the scope of Project BRF. Can we be told more about that?

• Which edit for which person was the first instance of this? And what were the subsequent instances?
• At what point and by whom was it decided that this was a precedent not to be violated in the case of the newly created article for Prince George?
• Now that the use of the bullet format for a nonlist has been questioned, is there claimed to be any ruling against letting this practice be rectified, in respect of Prince George and any newly created articles for other persons?
• Is Prince George considered to be one of the "Royals since Hanoverian ascension", such that his article is due to be put into the Project list?[9]

Qexigator (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Join the Talk:Prince George of Cambridge#Name registration (Official full name) discussion

We need more opinions of editors in order to decide on this matter --93.172.189.235 (talk) 06:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I just looked at this discussion and it sounds fairly straightforward - one user disagreeing with about ten others. I don't think any further opinions are called for.Deb (talk) 07:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Deb's "look" is again too superficial to be helpful or to contribute to improving the article, but his/her more diligent reply to Questions about "precedent" above is long overdue, and would go some way to a better informed and less partisan discussion. Qexigator (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

No need to get personal.Deb (talk) 11:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Quite so, Deb: now can you please attend to the matter as requested. Qexigator (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Try to understand that not every topic you raise is going to be considered a top priority by other editors.Deb (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, quite so, and answers are still to be attended to before dropping in csaually with unconstructive comment in a lengthy and ongoing discussion on a currently topical article. The BRF Project has not made much of a contribution so far here. It may be imagined how disappointing that is, but it has all the appearance that no credible answer can be given. Qexigator (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact that some questions are not easy to answer does not in itself mean that the question is relevant or that the answer is worth hearing.Deb (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Qex, you cannot just expect rulings from a WikiProject. They are merely informal psuedo-frameworks for some of the editors who edit in a topic area to work together. That said, assume I can't be bothered to read the backlog of assorted bitching and tell me simply and directly what it is you want and why. DBD 18:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

DBD: Thanks for a civil response. If you are interested in discussing a way forward, please see What "precedent"? at Talk:Prince George of Cambridge. --Qexigator (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Prince George - Viscount Severn - York princesses

In view of RfC: Bullet point in the "title and style" section[10] and edit[11] a similar format is in order for the other three singletons. Qexigator (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

+To clarify: Are the articles for any of the three above named exempted from removal of singleton and beyond present recall: due to age, in the case of the boy because he is no longer a toddler (but still of tender years), and either or both of the two women because they are adults; or due to any other reason? Qexigator (talk) 09:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you plan to do with the honours and military ranks/appointments? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Responding to "you" as in "WikiProject British Royalty" participants, and others (such as present commenter). Are others of the opinion that the same applies to "honours and military ranks/appointments" per Mies.'s query? One position could be: always avoid a singleton for a birth title, but allow bullets once there is a list of any two or more (including birth title, if any); and in all cases where there is a bulleted list, it should be headed by a prose introduction per standard WP. The purpose of this method would be to show at a glance the first (and any later) change/s, in a way which the infobox does not. But this is not a "plan" on the part of...... Qexigator (talk) 08:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on royal double titles

Hi all. Please come along and contribute at Talk:Royal dukedoms in the United Kingdom#Dukes of Here and There. Thanks! DBD 14:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Redirects to Prince George of Cambridge

Three redirects to Prince George of Cambridge have been nominated for discussion or deletion at RfD today. Members of this WikiProject are likely to be interested and/or knowledgeable about this topic and so you are invited to contribute to the discussions:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 8#Baby Cambridge
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 8#Royal baby
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 8#Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Featured list nomination for List of Knights Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order appointed by Queen Victoria

Hello all. Just to let you know, I've nominated this article for featured list status. The nomination page is here - any input or reviews would be much appreciated. Many thanks, --Noswall59 (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC).

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding name to contributor list

Could someone kindly advise how to add my name to the contributors list or point me to a "how to"? Thanks. ChiHistoryeditor 14:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiHistoryeditor (talk • contribs)

Tudor dynasty listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Tudor dynasty to be moved to House of Tudor. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

House of Tudor listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for House of Tudor to be moved to House of Tudor. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 12:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Alastair, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Alastair, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn to be moved to Alistair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Queen Victoria listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Queen Victoria to be moved to Victoria. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 14:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Alphabetizing Help Please...

Hello all, I am heavily involved in editing List of Freemasons which, of course, includes many members of the British Peerage. This list is naturally in alphabetical order. The problem is we have encountered some disagreement on how to alphabetize peers and royals when listed with many “regular” people. From what I have read, I have come up with the following guidelines and would appreciate it if you fine folks could let me know if I am correct or not:

Alphabetizing Rules for Members of the British Peerage

Rank	Example	Alphabetized By
King	King George VI	G for George
Prince	Prince Michael of Kent	M for Michael, not K for Kent nor W for Windsor
Duke	Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk	N for Norfolk, not T for Thomas nor H for Howard
Marquess	Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 7th Marquess of Salisbury	G for Gascoyne-Cecil, not R for Robert nor S for Salisbury
Earl	Robert Capell, 10th Earl of Essex	C for Capell, not R for Robert nor E for Essex
Viscount	William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne	L for Lamb, not W for William nor M for Melbourne
Baron	Peter Maxwell, 28th Baron de Ros	M for Maxwell not P for Peter nor R for Ros

Thanks! Eric Cable  |  Talk  19:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

At first, I would have thought ordering by rank and then by name would have been logical. But when I thought about it more logically this would be strange. For example, prior to King George VI coming to reign, his title would have been simply Prince George of York. Similarly to the now Prince George of Cambridge, who may go on to become King George VII.

Also I would not have thought to order by surname/end-title. Prince (name) of Kent, for example. The "of Kent" is only given if their parents are a Duke of Kent, Earl of Kent etc. So based on this, I would have said to order by the letter of their first name. Wesley Mᴥuse 19:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Even for lower ranked people like Earls, Vicounts, and Barons? Margaret Thathcer would be sorted under Thatcher, not Margaret right? Eric Cable  |  Talk  19:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between royalty and politicians. Royals, even though they have a surname, tend not to use it. They hold "regal" titles; such as King, Queen, Prince, Princess, Earl, Viscount, etc. You don't generally get a Prime Minister Thatcher II or a David Cameron IV, although I'm not saying it isn't possible, just that it is 1 in 1,000,000 chance of it happening. When it comes to non-royals that do use their surname; then the correct method would be to alphabetise them by surname then forename(s). Wesley Mᴥuse 20:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

If one were to maintain consistency by means of surname, then the royal surnames would be dependant to the "Royal House" that they belong to. For example, King George VI if of the House of Windsor - his full name (without royal titles) would be Albert Frederick Arthur George Windsor. Prince Michael of Kent's would be Michael George Charles Franklin Windsor. Wesley Mᴥuse 20:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like we are saying the same thing. I am saying that for example in a printed encyclopedia like we all had when we were kids, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh would have his full article under "P" for Phillip. Then under "E" there would be "Duke of Edinburgh... see Prince Phillip" and under "M" there would be "Mountbatten, Philip... see Prince Phillip." The same would hold true for a monarch. Then for dukes like Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington would be under "Wellington" with a "Wellesley, Arthur... See Duke of Wellington" under Wellesley. Finally, for Marquis and below, they would be listed by surname. Again, I am looking for the proper way to alphabetize royals and peers along with ‘regular’ people.  Eric Cable  |  Talk  15:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure trying to differentiate Royals and Peers against "regular" people is a good term. It would make us look like segregating humans. What is regular to one person, may not be regular to another. It's like saying is a glass half full or half empty? Both answers are correct. So in my opinion I don't think we should be looking for a way to treat royals and peers as if they were "regular people" or even "regular people" as if they were royals and peers. Their "lineage" (for better phrasing) would need to be handled on an individual basis. So alphabetise royals and peers based on how they should be done, and treat regular people such as politicians in their individual way. And if that means using the same method as would be used in a printed encyclopaedia, then so be it. You could always try inputting their names into an excel spreadsheet, and see how that places things in alphabetical order, although I'm not sure if it would provide a definitive answer or not. Wesley Mᴥuse 15:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments and help. I think I know the direction I need to go. Thanks! Eric Cable  |  Talk  15:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if The Peerage Website will be of much help. They enlist Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, under M for Mountbatten (Mountbatten, Philip, 1st Duke of Edinburgh). In fact it enlists every British Peer in alphabetical order without using the "see elsewhere" descriptions. Wesley Mᴥuse 15:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Obviously very late to the party, but I'm not sure I understand why you're treating (non-royal) dukes differently from other members of the peerage. Either they should all be listed by surname, or all by title. And if you're going to do double-barreled names, it's more standard (as in, e.g., the ODNB) to alphabetize by final barrel, not by the whole surname. So Lord Salisbury would go under "C" for "Cecil," not "G" for "Gascoyne-Cecil". john k (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Maud of Wales listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Maud of Wales to be moved to Princess Maud of Wales. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Order of Merit listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Order of Merit to be moved to Order of Merit (Commonwealth realm). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Sylvana Windsor, Countess of St Andrews listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Sylvana Windsor, Countess of St Andrews to be moved to Sylvana Tomaselli. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 11:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Scottish and Welsh FMs

Hi a discussion has raised re the inclusion of the monarch on the Scottish and Welsh first minister articles, a user keeps removing the monarch despite them appointing by the queen. Your comments are appreciated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder#Scottish_.26_Welsh_First_Ministers_infoboxes Ouime23 (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Endogamy in the British monarchy

The article Endogamy in the British monarchy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

original research and synthesis

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Education of the British Royal Family

There is a new article Education of the British Royal Family, requesting input from editors on several active RfCs and discussions on Talk and help with improvement to focus more on history and the theory and practice of the provision of education to the Royal family. Whizz40 (talk) 05:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Ernest Augustus I of Hanover listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Ernest Augustus I of Hanover to be moved to Ernest Augustus of Hanover. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 12:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Diana, Princess of Wales listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Diana, Princess of Wales to be moved to Princess Diana. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

British Royal Family listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for British Royal Family to be moved to British royal family. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Moving Queen mother to Queen mother (title)

There is a discussion in progress at Talk:Queen mother, about moving Queen mother to Queen mother (title) for those who wish to comment.--Nevé–selbert 17:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Protocol for mothers of royal subjects in infoboxes

Prince Louis of Cambridge's infobox shows his mother as "Kate Middleton", and we're told that we have to use the mother's maiden name (typically, the lowest title she ever had). Same for George and Charlotte.

Yet, for Anne, Princess Royal, we show her mother as "Queen Elizabeth II", which is the highest title she ever had, definitely not her maiden name, and not even the title she had at Anne's birth.

Why this odd difference in approach? How can newbies be expected to understand this if reasonably experienced editors like me (14 years ++) find it baffling? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Do not use the marital name. Use the name of her own right. DrKay (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

IMHO, we should use the highest title for all. For example: In Prince Louis' infobox, we should have his mother listed as Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Change it to Catherine, Princess of Wales when her status changes, then to just Catherine when she's Queen-consort. Change it, as the linked parent's article title changes. Is it really required to have the parents described as they were at the time of the child's birth? GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

They're not described as they were at the time of the child's birth. You just tried to do that,[12] and I corrected you.[13] You may as well remove the mother entirely if you are only going to define her by her husband. DrKay (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I find the whole thing frustratingly confusing. It's even mixing me up in my posts. Anyways, It's given me enough of a headache, that'll happily let the rest of you deal with the topic. GoodDay (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Most articles list the mother's maiden name (or maiden title), however there is a discrepancy when it comes to mothers whose titles changed over time. For instance William and Harry's mother is listed as Lady Diana Spencer, which I believe was her title at birth; whereas the Queen's children have their mother listed as Queen Elizabeth II. This is consistent with other articles of the children of Kings/Queens, whereby their parent's title as a monarch is listed; however is inconsistent with other royal mothers. To add further confusion, the Queen's children have their father listed as Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh; shouldn't it be Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark? I agree with GoodDay, it's all very headache inducing! goodforaweekend (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm just not seeing the problem. We use the spouse's own name, not one derived from the marriage. Just look at an ancestral table in any article. All the people will be listed under their own names. DrKay (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

People can generally have various names and/or titles over their lifetimes. Women are more prone to this than men, as traditionally a woman changed her surname to that of her husband's, upon marriage. But when such a change is made, the new name is now absolutely the person's name, for all purposes. If a policeman tapped Kate on the shoulder and enquired if she were the Duchess of Cambridge, and she denied this, saying "No, I am Kate Middleton", imagine the absurdity of that; she could even get into trouble for lying to a police officer, potentially perverting the course of justice. <end hyperbole> I don't get how "Kate Middleton" (and if we're going to be precise, it's not even "Kate" but "Catherine", as per her birth certificate) is somehow more "her own name" than anything she may acquire due to her marriage. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you're confusing someone's name, which is whatever they might be called at any point in time, with their name in their own right, which excludes married names. It doesn't say "Kate". It says "Catherine". You must be looking at a rare cached version because I couldn't find the revision where it changed and have now given up looking. DrKay (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, where is the current wiki-protocol spelled out, if anywhere? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I think this discussion is focusing on one or two people only (Catherine and Philip) when it should be looking at the question as a whole. Ask yourselves, what should the mother of George V be called in the infobox: Queen Alexandra or Alexandra of Denmark or Alexandra of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg? What should the mother of James Carnegie, 3rd Duke of Fife be called: Lady Maud Duff, Lady Maud Carnegie, Princess Maud of Fife or Maud, Countess of Southesk? What should the mother of Prince Carlo, Duke of Castro be called: Princess Chantal of Bourbon-Two Sicilies or Chantal de Chevron-Villette? What should the mother of Barack Obama be called: Ann Dunham, Ann Obama, Ann Soetoro, or Ann Sutoro? I say: Alexandra of Denmark, Princess Maud of Fife, Chantal de Chevron-Villette and Ann Dunham. These are common names that give us more information than the later name alone and they are the names used at the moment. Are we really saying that it should be Ann Obama, Princess Charlotte of Bourbon-Two Sicilies, Maud, Countess of Southesk and Queen Alexandra? We would be talking about changing thousands upon thousands of articles away from the current consensus. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

DrKay The problem is that it's inconsistent, that's all. goodforaweekend (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

If you meant for that link to be a ping: it wasn't one. Users are only notified when a link is added in the same edit as a signature, not otherwise.

I still see no inconsistency.

If your objection is to treating Philip differently from other spouses, then I think you have forgotten that Philip was a prince and was a duke before his marriage, so the form of his name currently in use "Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh" is a form of his pre-marital name. If the consensus is to use "Philip of Greece", which is his birth name, or "Philip Mountbatten", which was a name he used for a few months in 1947, then so be it, but I see no evidence that consensus to change to a different form of his name in his own right has changed. Furthermore, such a change needs to be discussed at the individual articles or those article's talk pages notified of the discussion here.

If your objection is to using the higher titles of queens regnant and peeresses in their own right instead of the names they had on marriage, then you need to come up with some sort of solid reasoning for changing from name in their own right to name on marriage, because at the moment, I'm not seeing any and I think it would be a very unpopular change. You'd not only have to change all the mothers' names to names on marriage but also, if consistency and fairness is the goal, all the fathers' to the names they had on marriage, which is (1) a vast undertaking; (2) confusing, when infoboxes should be succinct and clear; (3) would result in names appearing differently in the infobox with the name in the predecessor parameter different from the name in the parental parameter; and (4) unnecessary and onerous when there is already a clear and consistent use of name in their own right. DrKay (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, at his wedding he was a Duke (only since that morning), but did not become a Prince until 1957, after the birth of Charles and Anne: The day preceding his wedding, King George VI bestowed the style of Royal Highness on Philip and, on the morning of the wedding, 20 November 1947, he was made the Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth, and Baron Greenwich of Greenwich in the County of London. Consequently, being already a Knight of the Garter, between 19 and 20 November 1947 he bore the unusual style His Royal Highness Sir Philip Mountbatten and is so described in the Letters Patent of 20 November 1947. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

They're his British titles. He was a Greek and Danish prince from birth. DrKay (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

But we say: Before the official announcement of their engagement in July 1947, he abandoned his Greek and Danish royal titles and became a naturalised British subject, adopting the surname Mountbatten from his maternal grandparents.

Is "abandoned" the same as "formally renounced"? Either way, he no longer wished to be associated in any way with those titles, so I don't see how he nevertheless remained a prince. Can you clarify? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You can read about the confusion at http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness.htm#Edinburgh. DrKay (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I am confused by the confusion over this. We do not use the lowest title the mother ever had nor do we necessarily use the premarital name. We simply use the highest title the mother held in her own right, i.e. not through marriage. We also do not use the birth title either; Diana was born not "Lady Diana Spencer" but "the Hon. Diana Spencer". We list her as Lady Diana Spencer because that is the highest title she held in her own right. The highest title Elizabeth II has held in her own right is Queen of the United Kingdom. We list both Diana and Philip by the highest titles they held in their own right; in Philip's case, those titles are Prince of the United Kingdom and Duke of Edinburgh. So where is the inconsistency? Besides, this is not just about the mothers; we list Princess Estelle's father as Daniel Westling although he is now Prince of Sweden and Duke of Västergötland by marriage, James VI and I's father as Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley even though he was King of Scotland by marriage, etc. by To suddenly change the traditional and very useful (informative) practice would mean listing Mary I's mother as Catherine, Queen of England, Elizabeth I's mother as Anne, Queen of England, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

DrKay apologies for getting the ping wrong, I'm a new user and still picking up how things work.

Surtsicna He's not Prince of the United Kingdom in his own right though is he? I'm pretty sure he only has that title due to his marriage. goodforaweekend (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

No, he was not Prince of the United Kingdom for the first 10 years of his marriage (or for the first 5 years of his wife's reign). Men do not gain titles by marriage in the United Kingdom. Surtsicna (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg

A new user has changed James, Viscount Severn to add a load of stuff about him being a member of House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg which is more important that the current British perspective, all looks to be trivia and not noteworthy enough to mention in Viscount Severn article. Although the edit has been challenged and reverted the user has added the same stuff back. I am sure we had these sort of additions a few years ago so if anybody can remember what this was all about it would be appreciated, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark an admiral?

There is categorization and one brief listing which appear to claim that Princess Marina was an admiral by virtue of a position with the WRENs. Judging from the article on the latter, I believe this was an honorary position of the sort he held with respect to other units, but I figured that someone here would know where to look to clarify this quickly. Mangoe (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Userbox

I made one for the group. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

   This user is a member of
    WikiProject British Royalty

Sandringham House

Sandringham is up for FAC here, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sandringham House/archive1. Although leaving something to be desired as architecture, the house has considerable royal interest, as the Queen's private Norfolk home, and the house in which both her father and her grandfather died. It could do with a reviewer or two and any and all comments would be most gratefully received. KJP1 (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Now passed. KJP1 (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

William of the United Kingdom

William of the United Kingdom, currently a redirect to William IV of the United Kingdom, has been nominated at RfD. Your comments are invited in the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 16#William of the United Kingdom. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Coronation of Queen Victoria

Hello. Just to let you know that I've included this article in your project portfolio by adding your banner to its talk page. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Calala Island and Eugenie

I’ve been working on an article with others for around a year, Calala Island and the surrounding Pearl Cays to be exact. Princess Eugenie of York became engaged while on vacation on the island.

However there are couple of contrasting views. It was agreed the engagement should be mentioned, but currently only covered by a couple of sentences on a single article. My question is therefore how much depth should an event like this receive? Thanks for any input. KiteWings (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Memorial

I'm not sure why this wasn't posted here automatically by the RMCD bot, but there's a Requested Move discussion underway at Talk:King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Memorial. Ham II (talk) 10:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't realised that RMCD bot only notifies talk pages of WikiProjects which aren't subscribed to Article Alerts – which seems a shame as it would be helpful to have notices on talk pages as well. Ham II (talk) 10:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

A second RM discussion on this article is now underway. Ham II (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Harold Phillips

Please discuss. Bearian (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Peacock feathered dress of Queen Kapiʻolani

Seeking someone to help create a start article about the peacock feathered dress of Queen Kapiʻolani which she wore on the occasion of the 1887 Golden Jubilee of Queen Victoria and was designed by her servant James Washington Lonoikauoalii McGuire

Sources: [14] [15] KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Diana, Princess of Wales

All editors are welcome to a discussion regarding the lede sentence of Diana, Princess of Wales, on the talk page (here). Thank you, cookie monster (2020) 755 03:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Article of the week tomorrow

Wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Philip Mountbatten will be getting a bunch of pageviews tomorrow from WMF social media accounts that will be highlighting it as the "article of the week". It's in bad shape—anyone want to fix it up? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

rfc: "___ is member of the British royal family."

Hello! By not being a member of this Wikiproject, I'm not sure if I'm overstepping my bounds here, so if I am, please let me know! Obviously, in many articles such as Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, the article begins with so-and-so is member of the British royal family. However, down the line, for "untitled" or extended family members, the sentencing varies, such as Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor and Zara Tindall. I know that "there is no strict legal or formal definition of who is or is not a member of the British royal family", however, think there needs to be a clearer precedent or "policy" per say regarding the use of this phrasing on WP. Personally, I think that those who appear in the main listings/are titled members, should be included as members in the lead in, whereas those who aren't, and live primarily as private citizens, should be listed as the son of/daughter of/grandchild of/etc. in respect to their relation and position. Thoughts?--Bettydaisies (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this is in particular relation to Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, who some editors are arguing is not a member of the royal family, and therefore his article should not be in accordance to the The British Royal Family Wikipedia Project Style guide. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and just for clarification - the debate isn’t whether he is, in terms of relation, a member of the royal family, but whether the lead-in paragraph should list him as such, given his age, his parent’s wish for an untitled, private life without a public royal role, and other extenuating circumstances. Bettydaisies (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Given that it seems like a very hot-button issue on Mountbatten-Windsor's page in particular, perhaps it's worth pinging a few active members @Celia Homeford: @Willthacheerleader18: @Iamthecheese44:, sorry to bother, but would you mind providing us with some consultive guidance on styling? Thanks!--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion

There is currently a discussion here on whether to move Princess Helena of Waldeck and Pyrmont to Princess Helen of Waldeck and Pyrmont that requires some input. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

True historical context

I would like to know how the concept of kingship came into being in the first place, with all its trappings, such as thrones, crowns and royal courts, among a tribal people. Can the current royal family truly claim to occupy a role in the nation's being, with meaningful continuity going all the way back to Alfred the Great? 72.80.23.194 (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Andrew Lenton

Does this belong on Wikipedia? --Devokewater 20:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Adding House of Glucksburg to male-line descendants of Elizabeth II

Moved from Talk:House of Windsor § Adding House of Glucksburg to male-line descendants of Elizabeth II

 – Interstellarity (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I would like to discuss whether we should add in the infobox of male line descendants of Elizabeth II such as Prince Charles and Prince William regarding whether to add House of Glucksburg because their male-line ancestors go through Prince Philip's line. There was a discussion about this 9 years ago here. I would like to discuss whether the consensus still remains or if has changed since consensus can change. Interstellarity (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

It's still not sourced, so no. Philip is spelled with one l. DrKay (talk) 07:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, per due weight: virtually all sources say they are Windsors, so if a house is given, it should be what most sources say. DrKay (talk) 07:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@DrKay: I have corrected the spelling. Interstellarity (talk) 11:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Interstellarity, I would suggest that you also ask about this matter at the slightly more active Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty. Btw, they too discussed the Glücksburgs at length there back in 2011, though from a different angle (see TOC #6). Cordially, History DMZ ^{(talk)+(ping)} 13:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@History DMZ: I have moved the discussion to this page so that I don't create two discussions about the same topic. Thanks for the suggestion. Interstellarity (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Only if it can meet WP:ONUS of providing a RS, and only to the point of ‘associated families’ per House of Windsor. I would say the WP:WEIGHT of how they’re commonly known and MOS:BIO should guide such, except respect the explicit wishes of the person for any WP:BLP. As far as I know, the descendants are not claiming this. And I am not aware of Glücksburg asserting they have a claim. I am aware King George abandoned such titles, and Queen Elizabeth gave further statements during the question of Mountbatten, and it looks like an accepted matter. So in these cases Glücksburg is just a perhaps distant fact of genealogy that might be in here but is not a significant WEIGHT view so should not get WP:UNDUE prominence. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe

House of Windsor (cognatic) House of Glūcksburg (agnatic) MCMax05 (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps Windsor (official) and Glucksburg (agnatic). I note that the distinction is made in this way for Dutch royals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin S. Taylor (talk • contribs)

Dutch royals carry titles associated with the agnatic house. British royals don't. DrKay (talk) 06:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about article "Prince William, Duke of Cambridge"

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Prince William, Duke of Cambridge#Baron or Lord Carrickfergus, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Review of Ruby Jubilee of Elizabeth II on quality scale

When my article Ruby Jubilee of Elizabeth II was accepted on 22 November 2020, it was rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. Since then, I have improved the article in many ways. So, I would like to request a review of the article on the project's quality scale. Regards. Peter Ormond (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Moving Queen Victoria to Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom

 Hello! There is a discussion in progress at Talk:Queen Victoria about moving Queen Victoria to Victoria, Queen of Great Britain. My reasons for suggesting such move can of course be found on the talkpage. Obviously, you lot in this WikiProject are the aptest to have a word on the matter, so do please join if you have any thoughts :)! DieSonneUnsLacht (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

ANI alert

Hello, all,

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:SlimJim20013 and The Manorial Society of England and Wales about a scam organization that is selling British titles. If folks here could be alert to these fake articles about phony British royalty and tag them for deletion, it would be greatly appreciated. Over the past year, I've come across two phony Baronet articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit request for "Head of the Commonwealth" in infoboxes

Can someone with a little more technical knowledge please add "Head of the Commonwealth" and all relevant information to the infoboxes of George VI and Elizabeth II, thanks. The discussion 2 sections above has most definitely ended, and resulted in a consensus to include. DeaconShotFire (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

There's already an ongoing RFC on that topic, on this WikiProject. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

And there has been no addition to it for 10 days. Discussion has ended. DeaconShotFire (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

So, be patient. When the RFC-template expires, I'll make a closure request at the proper place. Then we'll all sit tight & wait for the decision. Right now, any attempts to force the title into the infoboxes, via unilaterally declaring consensus, will be troublesome. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

No need to wait for the template to expire; discussion has naturally ended. I'm archiving it and keeping up this edit request. DeaconShotFire (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

You're being disruptive, now. Let the RFC run its course. Template will expire in a week. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

This is one opinion against another, whether to end it or not. You cannot accuse me of being disruptive. No disruption will be caused by ending a 6-4 consensus RFC a week early, especially given that it hasn't been commented on in 10 days. DeaconShotFire (talk) 23:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm asking you to be patient, for another week. More editors might give input there, in that time period. Furthermore read WP:NOTVOTE & besides 6-4 is not very convincing as a consensus to change a long-standing infobox. When the time comes I'll request closure of the RFC & a ruling at WP:Closure requests. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

There's no need to wait for an arbitrary expiry time for discussions that have run their course, per WP:CLOSE (WP:WHENCLOSE in particular), however I don't think that's the case here. There have been a flurry of new comments since this "edit request" was started, including today. I think the discussion up to now is certainly leaning significantly in one direction and I doubt that a week's worth of new comments will reverse that trend, but there's no harm in waiting. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll put in the closure request, when the template expires in about three days. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Head of the Commonwealth, include or exclude at George VI's & Elizabeth II's infoboxes

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is to include “Head of the Commonwealth” in the infobox, though not necessarily with the reign parameters. Several have pointed out that the reign parameters should not be repeated, if the title’s reign conforms exactly to other reign parameters in the infobox. A separate RfC could be initiated to discuss the reign parameters. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Should we include Head of the Commonwealth in the infoboxes of George VI, Elizabeth II & eventually Charles? A low attended-discussion (which was held April-May, July 2021) was declared a consensus (in Sept 2021, by @RandomCanadian:) to include at George VI, but there's been no consensus to include at Elizabeth II. We can't have inconsistency. So what say you all? GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
A) Include
B) Exclude

Survey: Head of the Commonwealth

• Include - I agree that this should be added. It's a position that is distinct from their roles as monarchs, and it isn't hereditary. DeaconShotFire (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• Include for all holders of the title. It is not a royal title, it is a figurehead position within the Commonwealth, which presently includes more countries than those in which Elizabeth II is head of state. The title has so far only been given to British monarchs and both were appointed for life, but the title is not hereditary - Charles will be the next head but he was chosen by the leaders of the Commonwealth, not by the monarch nor by the present title holder, and the next title holder after him could presumably be anyone the Commonwealth elects. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• Exclude - as it's merely a title with 'no' powers or reserve powers. Also, it's not limited to the British monarchs or monarchs-in-general. Adding it, would only crowd up the infoboxes. PS - Shall we also add the title Defender of the faith, as well? GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• Exclude Of course, it is hereditary because the British monarchy is hereditary. As for "the next titleholder after him could presumably be anyone the Commonwealth elects," when that happens, i.e. when the head of the Commonwealth is chosen by the Commonwealth, the title will indeed become notable. But then we won't be having a discussion on this page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  Charles was chosen by the Commonwealth ([16]). The Commonwealth government leaders choose their own Head; it is not royal prerogative, and not a title that is inherited with the Crown. The Queen definitely influenced the leaders' decision, but it was never her choice to make. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 18:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Exclude because it's a meaningless figurehead title, like many others, so it's not really encyclopedic infomration. Only include what actually matters.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Include- This should be added because it is an important role the Queen holds and is separate from her role as monarch. Although Prince Charles has been chosen to be the next Head of the commonwealth, there one day may be a non-royal Head. Also Head of the Commonwealth has its own wikipedia page describing what the office is, and typically offices with pages describing the duties of the office are usually included in the infoboxes of the offices that leaders hold. Also Commonwealth realms doesn't cover it as not all commonwealth countries have the Queen as head of state, but she is the head of the association. If we don't include this office, then will we be removing Emperor/Empress of India from other monarchs' pages? It just doesn't make sense to not have this included. ( Jjfun3695 (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC) )Jjfun3695
• Exclude any direct repetition. One of the objections at the last round of discussions centred on the repetition of information in the infobox. If the dates of tenure, predecessors and successors of any title are identical to any others, then that information should not be repeated in the infobox. Any duplicate parameters should be merged, if not removed altogether. I don't object to the addition of four extra words: I'm opposing the addition of a whole new set of 'succession' and 'reign' parameters. It makes the infobox too long and complicated, and too boring when the same information is given twice. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - based on the discussion below, and Celia Homeford's comment above in particular, I think it should be included but hear the concerns about repetition and clutter. Elizabeth's infobox currently reads "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms", followed by a collapsed box showing the particular dates she was Queen in those various realms, but that is missing the information that she was also Head of the Commonwealth in those countries plus a significant number of others for the entire duration of her reign. I suggest that adding another header for "Head of the Commonwealth" directly below the "Queen" header (between it and the reign information) is a simple way to resolve the missing information. Charles doesn't actually hold the title yet but on his ascension should probably follow the same treatment as Elizabeth, unless and until that situation changes. For George VI, a full separate section with separate term/successor info should be added to George VI, since he only held the title for part of his reign in the same way that we have a separate "Emperor of India" section (and for Victoria, but not for the kings in between who were Emperors of India for their entire reigns). If that makes his infobox too cluttered, then we could follow the example of the complicated reign of Philip II of Spain which has his primary titles listed with a "more..." link leading to a table describing his various titles and dates. I definitely do not agree that we should omit this information just because it's challenging to present. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

You should place your comment in the 'Discussion' section, so as not to crowd up the 'Survey' section. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• INCLUDE. The headship of the Commonwealth is a significant role. It is not a royal title, but an official post in the Commonwealth of Nations, just like Secretary-General of the United Nations. This position is non-hereditary and is therefore not inherited with other royal titles; the Head is appointed by the Commonwealth heads of government. So, such an important post in a well-known intergovernmental organisation should be included in the infobox. The Commonwealth is a huge part of the monarchy today and the Head of the Commonwealth is seen as a figurehead even in countries, where she is not the head of state. The change of the status of the monarch from former Imperial times to the modern Commonwealth should be reflected in the infobox. Some roles and duties of the Head of the Commonwealth are listed below:

• The Head of the Commonwealth regularly attends Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings at different locations in the world, where she delivers the inaugural address. During the summit, the Head of the Commonwealth has a series of private meetings and audiences with each of the 54 Commonwealth leaders.

• The Head of the Commonwealth keeps in touch with Commonwealth developments through regular contact with the Commonwealth Secretary General and the Secretariat, the Commonwealth's central organisation.

• The Head of the Commonwealth or her representative opens the quadrennial Commonwealth Games held at different locations in the Commonwealth.

• The Queen's Baton Relay, held prior to the beginning of the Commonwealth Games, carries a message from the Head of the Commonwealth to all Commonwealth Nations and territories.

• The Head of the Commonwealth regularly attends the inter-denominational Commonwealth Day Service held at Westminster Abbey every year.

• Every year on Commonwealth Day, the Head of the Commonwealth broadcasts a special message to all the peoples of the Commonwealth, roughly 2.5 billion people.

• The Head of the Commonwealth has toured a number of Commonwealth countries solely in this capacity.

• The Head of the Commonwealth also has a distinct flag to represent her in that position.

• Important Commonwealth documents like charters are signed by the Head of the Commonwealth.

• The Head of the Commonwealth is patron of several Commonwealth associations, initiatives and charities.

Now, some will argue that it's a symbolic role, but note that the Head of the Commonwealth's role as monarch is largely the same: visiting places, having audiences and giving speeches. Peter Ormond 💬 23:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• Include, while symbolic this is a role that is in effect in several countries outside the UK. --Kathy262 (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Include - Worth independent note at that level, as the Commonwealth of Nations is closely tied to the history and government of 54 nations formerly part of the British Empire. Particularly for The Queen who has ruled during many of the transitions, it is part of the life and impact for whoever heads it up. This is a strong part of the history end of colonial rule, and the involvement with this many nations seems comparable only to the Secretary-General of the UN. Also serves the general good of integrating lead to relevant other topics such as the Commonwealth Realms and Empress of India. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• Exclude. As others have noted don't include minor titles such as "Defender of the Faith". I would consider this title to be in the same vein; it does not hold sufficient relevance for inclusion, given the relative lack of power and influence held by the leader over the Commonwealth in general. BilledMammal (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Exclude any direct repetition per Celia Homeford and Ivanvector's squirrel. DrKay (talk) 06:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Include. The Commonwealth is one of the only organizations Elizabeth/George is still relevant and plays an active, borderline political role. Note that the position as head of the Commonwealth isn't some random subsidiary title the British monarch gets, but is also designation in Commonwealth countries that are not realms. The infobox should reflect this status. —WildComet ^talk 01:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• Include but Exclude repetition per Celia Homeford and Ivanvector's squirrel. The minimal statement that she holds this office seems significant, but the 'clutter' of including previous/next and dates would be very tedious.Pincrete (talk) 08:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion: Head of the Commonwealth

@PEIsquirrel:/@Ivanvector: please clarify. You appear to arguing for exclusion. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Can you clarify? I don't really understand why you read my comment that way, so I can't really respond. Remember that if you're pinging someone you have to sign the same edit where you insert the ping template. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 18:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

You & the first fellow, are describing the 'Head of the Commonwealth' title, the way I am. That's what confused me. But no matter. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah I get it, we agree that the title is not royal, but disagree on whether that means it should be included in the infobox. Based on Celia Homeford's recent comment, I think I agree that it should not be included separately within {{Infobox royalty}}, which I didn't realize was the scope of the RfC. However, I don't agree that it should not be mentioned, or perhaps have its own infobox or infobox section, but that's probably overkill for a ceremonial title that has only ever had three named holders. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@CeliaHomeford I'm a little confused on what you are tryin to say about repetition. Being queen of Commonwealth realms is not the same as Head of the Commonwealth. Many of the commonwealth countries don't have the queen as head of state but she is the head of the organization they are a part of. Head of the Commonwealth is separate then being queen let's say of Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjfun3695 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I think my comment is clear enough. No-one else seems to have a problem understanding that I'm talking about repeating the dates, predecessor and successor. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Elizabeth II is not Queen of the Commonwealth realms, as there's no such position. Be careful not to confuse 'head of the commonwealth', with 'head of state'. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

"Queen of the Commonwealth realms" isn't a thing, but she is the Queen (and head of state) of all of the Commonwealth realms, separately and individually (the Commonwealth realms being those Commonwealth members which still recognize the monarchy). I don't know how we would go about including that in an infobox and don't think that we should. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

We already have that solved with using "Queen of the United Kingdom and the 15 other Commonwealth realms" in the lead. We also have it solved in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Note: I put in a request for closure. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oh geez. There's likely going to be challenges to this close decision. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Inclusion of Windsor surname for George V and descendants

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

A surname should be excluded from the lead of George V and any of his descendants who do not normally use a surname. DrKay (talk) 07:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Should the surname Windsor be included in the lead for George V and any of his descendants who also hold the surname, seeing as it's already included in infoboxes and in various portions of articles? The last discussion on this was 18 months ago, so I feel this is appropriate. DeaconShotFire (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey: Windsor surname

• Exclude from both intros & infoboxes. It's the name of the dynasty's house & shouldn't be treated as a surname. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  Except it was decreed by George V in 1917 that it was his family's surname. DeaconShotFire (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  That translates to Royal House. PS - I don't recall (for example) Queen Elizabeth II, ever being called Queen Elizabeth Windsor. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, because monarchs are rarely ever referred to like that. This doesn't mean she can't be referred to as Elizabeth Windsor, which she most certainly can, because that's her name. It's included on her marriage certificate, and was even declared her surname by herself in the early 1950s. DeaconShotFire (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Depends. For George V and his descendants with royal titles (e.g. Prince Michael of Kent), no, per GoodDay. For his descendants who don't hold royal titles (e.g. Lord Nicholas Windsor, or Archie Mountbatten-Windsor), yes, as described in the Mountbatten-Windsor article. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Per WP:Manual of Style/Biography#Royal surnames: "Only incorporate surnames in the opening line of royal biographies if they are known and if they are in normal use". Also, "Do not automatically presume that the name of a royal house is the personal surname of its members. In many cases it is not". Peter Ormond 💬 15:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  The royal family's surname is well known and is in common use in the media. I am not presuming that it's their surname, I'm stating that it's their surname, as it verifiably is. DeaconShotFire (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  Some royals don't normally use a surname. Peter Ormond 💬 02:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Exclude unless the member is untitled, i.e Lady Louise Windsor. This also avoids any confusion causes by marriages (i.e Sophie, Countess of Wessex, has no documented source of using the surname, and while Princess Beatrice could be entitled to the surname, she also has her husband's surname included in her title).--Bettydaisies (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Exclude (Summoned by bot) from both intros & infoboxes. It's the name of the dynasty's house & shouldn't be treated as a surname, except for those minor untitled persons who are ACTUALLY commonly referred to by this name, per GoodDay, Ivanvector etc. WP:COMMONNAME would tend to say 'exclude', regardless of what the legal position might be in the rare circumstance of marriage certificate/School or Navy title etc.Pincrete (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• Exclude as it is not a surname and is not usually used. --Kathy262 (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• Exclude from both intros & infoboxes. It's the name of the dynasty's house & shouldn't be treated as a surname for those who are titled, and who thus do not use the name. Apart from a handful of specific legal circumstances - such as wedding certs and membership of armed forces as SERVING members, the name is not used by the person or others and including it would not have any useful purpose. Pincrete (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Pincrete (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.
• Exclude unless it is used by the subject. George V declared, “All descendants in the male line of Queen Victoria, who are subjects of these realms, other than female descendants who marry or who have married, shall bear the name of Windsor.” Monarchs are not subjects and therefore do not have surnames. HRH princes and princesses do not have to use a surname and can use a territorial designation (such as Wales, York or Cambridge) instead. Also, the rule was changed by Elizabeth II, so the surname of her descendants would be Mountbatten-Windsor. TFD (talk) 23:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion: Windsor surname

• I sent in a closure request, now that the RFC-template has expired. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• In the 'near' future. I'll be opening an RFC concerning 'Windsor' being in the infoboxes of George V's descendants. GoodDay (talk) 07:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

RMs

Please comment at the RMs at Monarchy of Barbados and Queen of Nigeria to generate a clear consensus. Thank you. Peter Ormond 💬 05:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC

An RfC is open at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales#RFC: Should the monarch be included in Wales in Year articles?. Please comment there to generate a clear consensus. Peter Ormond 💬 17:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

No longer. It's been closed weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Monarchy in the United Kingdom FAR

I have nominated Monarchy of the United Kingdom for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 21:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Queens of England, Scotland, Ireland, UKGB&I and UK

I've created redirects Queen regnant of England, Queen regnant of Scotland, Queen regnant of Ireland, Queen regnant of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Queen regnant of the United Kingdom.

IMHO, Queen of Scotland, Queen of Ireland, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland & Queen of the United Kingdom should be made into disambiguation articles, just like Queen of England.

Why all this you ask? Because Queen in British history, has 'two' meanings. Some are monarchs, while many are consorts. GoodDay (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Per this, then King of Scotland also has two meanings: a King regnant or a King consort (Lord Darnley). Peter Ormond 💬 08:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

With Darnley, I'd use a pipelink "[List of Scottish consorts|King of Scotland]". BTW, I changed the redirect of King of the United Kingdom, from Monarchy of the United Kingdom to List of British monarchs, to bring them in-line with their predecessors. GoodDay (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Many users won't agree because we use the phrase "Queen consort" in the infoboxes of female consorts. So the same approach should be followed for Darnley, i.e., "King consort". Peter Ormond 💬 08:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not going push the bit on the consort bios. More concerned with the monarch bios. GoodDay (talk) 08:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Besides, King consort of Scotland already redirects to List of Scottish royal consorts. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm with GoodDay on this. If disambiguation is required for Queen of England, then similar disambiguation pages should be created for the other four titles. And the reason is clear: Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom (or the Queen), but her mother Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was also Queen of the United Kingdom (also the Queen), with the only difference being that the latter was a queen consort and the former is a queen regnant, but for those unfamiliar with the terminology and the meaning in each case, some sort of clarification is required. Keivan.f^Talk 05:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Geez, isn't anybody else gonna show any interest in this idea? GoodDay (talk) 06:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

'Tis best to always have the instruments playing in sync. Therefore, I've gone ahead & re-directed King of the United Kingdom, Queen of the United Kingdom, Queen regnant of the United Kingdom to the article Monarchy of the United Kingdom. Furthermore, I've re-directed King of England, Queen of England, Queen regnant of England to the English monarchy section of the Monarchy of the United Kingdom article & King of Scotland, Queen of Scotland & Queen regnant of Scotland to the Scottish monarchy section of the Monarchy of the United Kingdom article. Perhaps in future - A brave & ambitious editor will request a split from the British monarchy article & create the articles Monarchy of Scotland & Monarchy of England, on the basis that we already have Monarchy of Ireland. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding 'Commonwealth realms' as sub-header in honour sections of British royal bios

Continuing from User talk:Peter Ormond#Adding 'commonwealth' in titles etc sections, of British royal bios.

Should we add "Commonwealth realms" as sub-header in honour sections of British royal bios, to explain why some non-British honours are included in the main honours list, while some are in a section titled "Foreign"?

User:GoodDay suggests "United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms", but that seems too long. "Commonwealth realms" seems fine for the sake of conciseness.

What should be done here? Posting here to get more input. Peter Ormond 💬 05:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

My first choice is "United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms", because the royals-in-question are most associated with the United Kingdom & it appears as though the UK is where they've gotten 'most' of their titles, styles, honors, etc. My second choice would be to simply list 'every' realm that has handed out a title, style, honor, etc. PS - Take note of the name of this WikiProject, btw ;) GoodDay (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The sub-header "Honours" is sufficient. Per MOS:LAYOUT, short paragraphs do not warrant their own subheading. DrKay (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

"Honours" would be acceptable & is certainly even 'more' concise. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Surname in the infoboxes of George V's descendants

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should we do the following in the infoboxes of George V's descendants who are official members of the royal family.

• A) Keep the surname in the infobox
• B) Delete the surname from the infobox
• C) Keep the surname in note form in the infobox

GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• B - is my first choice. Will settle for C as a compromise. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• B: Delete the surname from the infobox. They don't usually use a surname. And if one is required, it is not necessarily the name of the Royal House. For instance, Princes William and Harry have used the surname "Wales" while in military, and George, Charlotte and Louis use "Cambridge" as surname in school. They can also use "Windsor" or "Mountbatten-Windsor", but they don't. This shows that the titled royals don't have a common surname or any surname at all. And, of course, for non-titled royals, it is "Mountbatten-Windsor" by the Queen's decree. So, delete the surname from titled royals, and keep for non-titled royals only if they use it regularly. Peter Ormond 💬 02:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Mainly B -- The modern practice among the British aristocracy seems to be to use forename + title. Christopher Lyttelton, Viscount Cobham calls himself Christopher Cobham; before he inherited from his brother he would have been Hon. Christopher Lyttelton, but may not have used the "Hon". Until given a title of their own, the princes seem to use their father's as a surname, rather than their father's courtesy title. I am not sure what some of the minor royals are doing: some may be using the surname "Mountbatten-Windsor"; if so that should appear in the infobox. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Either A keep the full name or D delete the entire full name parameter from the infobox. Like I said before, they do not usually use any name other than their first name. The argument that they don't usually use a surname unless required is the same as the argument that they do not usually use their middle names unless required. If one is removed, there is no argument for retention of the other and the entire parameter becomes meaningless. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• B or C - Conventionally, these people don't use their "actual" surnames in almost any circumstance. It would be weird to plaster all over the infobox information that is almost never useful or germane to the subject of the article. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• B except where the surname is widely used in public discussion, ie principally minor royals . The name used at kindergarten/ school/ in the forces etc is ordinarily not used by sources and is not useful information IMO. Pincrete (talk) 13:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Now that we've clarified the 'surname' topic for the bio intros of George V's descendants. It's time to clarify the 'surname' topic for the infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't the best approach be to follow common usage? We should only include surnames if they are normally used. The Queen for example does not use a surname, but her great-grandson, Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, does. TFD (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

That's what the RFC is about. GoodDay (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Household of Elizabeth II Help

The article Household of Elizabeth II, a list article, mostly contains the original officeholders from 1952. I've fleshed out the first few sections with all officeholders during her reign but I thought I'd let this WikiProject know, in case anyone was more of an expert in this area. AnandaBliss (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Armorial

Help appreciated at Draft:Armorial of the House of Windsor, Draft:Armorial of the House of Hanover and Draft:Armorial of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

We need a licensed updated image at Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

Howdy. In the infobox of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, we've an outdated image of the Duchess of Sussex, before her marriage to the Duke of Sussex. This outdated image, has been the root of a little spat over what the caption for the outdated image should be. The little spat would be quickly solved, with a post-marriage image of the Duchess. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Schools

This page needs help. I'm compiling the details of all schools in the British Isles and elsewhere named after various royals. It could prove to be quite a long list. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Be sure to clarify the there was also a Scottish monarchy & an Irish monarchy, along with an English monarchy. All of which eventually formed the British monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the list should be restricted to monarchs, because it we include all royalty, it would be a veeeeeeeeeeery long list. These articles may help: List of things named after Anne, Queen of Great Britain, List of places named after Queen Victoria, Royal eponyms in Canada and List of things named after Elizabeth II. Peter Ormond 💬 22:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I tried helping. But, you keep insisting on naming the section headings with the misleading 1603, rather then the more accurate 1707. Why ask for assistance, if you're just gonna do it 'only' your way? GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Coronation of the British monarch

I have nominated Coronation of the British monarch for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Archie and Lilibet as prince and princess

A discussion has been started here regarding Archie and Lilibet as prince and princess. cookie monster 755 21:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion regarding page name of Lady Louise Windsor

A discussion has been started here regarding the name of the page for Lady Louise Windsor. Any feedback is welcomed. TopGiza (talk) 05:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

FA Review

Hello, all! I submitted Prince Octavius of Great Britain for a FA review a few weeks ago, but unfortunately, it has not seen a lot of engagement from users. If y'all could take a look at the nomination and give your thoughts and support, I would appreciate it! Don't worry, its not a long read (the poor boy died at the age of 4). Cheers! Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Death and state funeral of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani#Requested move 25 September 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Death and state funeral of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani#Requested move 25 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

That probably was cryptic... why do we care about that? This RM involves about 50 state funeral articles, including at least one that is related to this WP. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Elizabeth II for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. John (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:VPR

There is a discussion going on at WP:VPR which members of this WikiProject could potentially be interested in. The link is here for those interested. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:ROY

There is a discussion going on at WP:ROY which affects this WikiProject. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

New task force

A new task force for this WikiProject has been created: WP:CIII. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC at Charles III

Hello--There's an open RfC Talk:Charles III#RfC on opening sentence that welcomes input. ₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion for William of the United Kingdom

(non-automated message) Greetings, members of WikiProject British Royalty! I have initiated a move request here that pertains to multiple British princes. While participation is optional, I would appreciate any feedback! (Please note that I have not initiated this process before, so I apologize if this message is unnecessary.) Hurricane Andrew (444) 23:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:William IV#Requested move 14 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:William IV#Requested move 14 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – MaterialWorks 17:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 November 10 § Template:London Bridge task force

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 November 10 § Template:London Bridge task force. --Trialpears (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

RfC of interest

(non-automated message) Greetings to all members of WP:BROY! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users of this WikiProject! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here! Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Royal corgis#Requested move 4 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Royal corgis#Requested move 4 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Celtic Princes of Wales

Hi, I wanted to reach out to this royalty Wiki Project group relating to an ongoing argument regarding the Celtic (native) Princes of Wales. I understand this is mostly a royal biography project group, however, if there is someone knowledgeable on the Prince of Wales title and its pre-English Celtic origins, could you please join the conversation at Talk:Prince of Wales. Someone independent is needed to give a neutral point of view, not just about the title, but also about the process of publishing work related to a potential list. Please see talk & history for a better understanding of the problem. Thanks. Cltjames (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Upon inspecting, it seems @Celia Homeford: has already given some advice to the matter. It's an important topic and it would be good if more could contribute, please. Also, as part of the conversation and the overall rejection of the idea of re-adding the Celtic (native) list of Princes of Wales, perhaps a new article could be created. Could someone please give advice on another discussion involving the same body of work; discussed: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales#Legendary Kings of Wales, and first talked about Talk:King of Wales, regarding a similar list to the List of legendary rulers of Cornwall, List of High Kings of Ireland and Legendary kings of Scotland lists. The source would be the Book of Baglan, then later incorporating Brut y Tywysogion and new sources listing rulers of Wales in a direct male line descent from Brutus of Troy's son King Camber (King of Cambria/Wales) (c. 1,000 BC), ending the lineal Welsh Kings descent with the House of Aberffraw and Owain Lawgoch 1378 AD or perhaps later with Owain Glyndwr in 1415 (over 2,000 years later). Cltjames (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

No one?? Cltjames (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Peer review of historic British Royal family member

Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was a strange, footnote-of-history type character. A British prince who became a German duke and later a Nazi leader. I have put it up for peer review (See:Wikipedia:Peer review/Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha/archive1) in the hope of getting it to featured article status. Any contributions would be greatly appreciated. Llewee (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mary II of England#Requested move 25 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mary II of England#Requested move 25 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Copyright on coronation recordings

Charles III's coronation was obviously televised around the world, with all stations apparently using the same footage. Elizabeth II's has both a monochrome television feed and a colour film. George VI's has a full-length radio broadcast as well as monochrome film. Small pieces of film exist for George V and Edward VII.

Do we have a reliable record of who actually owns these? I would have thought that some of the earlier examples must be in the public domain by now (especially as they were recorded at a time when copyright terms were shorter) but I'm struggling to find definitive answers. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 11:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Anne, Queen of Great Britain#Requested move 15 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Anne, Queen of Great Britain#Requested move 15 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)