Talk:British royal family/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Older(?) comments

---

Can whoever inserted the photo of the Royal Family standing on the balcony at Buckingham Palace identify the personnel in the photo? There are some very obscure people there, if they are indeed members of the RF.

---

The British Royal Family is always written with a capital B, capital R and capital F. Jesus, doesn't anyone here know how to capitalise anything??? ÉÍREman 04:46 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

Come on, now, me old china, you know that isn't quite true. We had a conversation just the other day about how annoying we find it when national newspapers don't capitalise titles. Let's get this in perspective - we happen to like it this way, but it shouldn't be our number one priority.

I liked your contribution to Olga's page, though - I think someone should compile a book of wikipedia wit, wisdom and insults. Deb 21:17 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

Yeah I can be sacastic!!! On the issue of capitalisation, an encyclopædia has to be very careful in the longterm, a lot more than newspapers that write today and are in the trash tomorrow. If they get it wrong, the next morning it is forgotten. Royal Families should be capitalised, unless when referring generically to royal families. ÉÍREman 21:26 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

The page says "Otherwise, as grandchildren of the Sovereign through the female line, the offspring of Princess Elizabeth and The Duke of Edinburgh would not have been entitled to use HRH or Prince or Princess until their mother became Queen, at which point, as children of the Sovereign, they would have been eligible." Is that true? I once read that the rule was changed for the children of the then Princess Elizabeth because she was "heir presumptive".

The children of then Princess Elizabeth were born princes and princesses with the style of HRH because her future children were granted those titles and styles in Letters Patent of 22 October 1948, not because their father is HRH. See Yvonne Demoskoff's extremely informative webpage on the titular dignity of Prince in the British Royal Family -- Someone else 00:23 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Can someone go to Princess Royal Class and identify the remaining princesses please? Cheers, User:duncharris.

---

"However, civil list payments to the other royals were not abolished. Instead to them continued and the Queen pays an equivalent sum back to the Treasury. This was thought to be a technical arrangement to cover administrative and legal difficulties of stopping the payments. But Queen, saves about £536,000 a year in income by setting off the money she pays back to the Treasury against her own tax bill"

Is there a source for this? It seems very odd to me. (I'm not an accountant, though.) Proteus (Talk) 14:19, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

HRH

See http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page2359.asp for a reference to Louise of Wessex not being styled HRH. Jongarrettuk

see Talk:Lady Louise Windsor. It's either "The Lady Louise Windsor" or "Her Royal Highness Princess Louise of Wessex". "Princess Louise of Wessex" without the royal highness doesnt make sense. --Jiang 02:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Have amended in line with http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page476.asp, which as it is the Royal family's own website, should be correct. I'm amending the page "Lady Louise Windsor" as well. Jongarrettuk 05:57, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Freedom of Information Act

I am not sure it is relevant to mention the said Act on this page, as it does not really create a list of royal family members. Astrotrain 19:25, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Useless institution

(I previously posted the following elsewhere and was criticised for appropriateness. Perhaps it will be better received here.)

Although there are many other examples of self-indulgent and non-productive people, there are none that are so sedulously worshipped as the British Royal Family. I can see no reason for the Brits not to do away with this hugely expensive and useless institution. But then, I am just an ignorant Yank. (I also eschew the excesses of our presidency.) Too Old 19:49, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Fascinating I'm sure. But do you have a particular concern with this article? Adam Bishop 19:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Only that I have a hard time understanding the amount of space given to this family, its ramifications, titles, and doings. Nothing they do will have the slightest influence on official policy, thought it may have done so in the rather distant past. Do we, for instance, concern ourselves, outside of the gossip tabloids, with the doings of Chelsea Clinton, or G. W. Bush's daughters? Is this an encyclopedia or a gossip rag? Too Old 01:15, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

Well, your analogy with the US is false because royalty and aristocracy are real institutions in the UK. What this comes down to then is your personal opposition to these institutions, which, while understandable, is totally irrelevent to what should or should not be included in an encyclopedia. Ddye 20:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Very well, compare the space given to the British Royal family with that given to the House of Saud, a family with vastly more significance and power in the 20th and 21st centuries. I would think that the space given to the British royals should be about the same as that given to the Dutch, Belgian, Swedish, or Spanish royals. I will admit that a study of the attention given by the Brits to their royalty and aristocracy, in contrast to that given in other countries to theirs, might be an appropriate subject for an article. Too Old 01:38, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

This is an English encyclopedia, so naturally there will be more people who know stuff about the British monarchy than about other monarchies. As to the other monarchies, this is an argument for having more information about those articles, not for removing information. The fact that wikipedia has uneven coverage of things is not an argument to remove detail. john k 02:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

First: it is an encyclopedia in the English language, not an English encyclopedia. Now, detail. The "royal" and "aristocrastic" families of Europe are all inter-related -- in fact are a single inbred family -- and have been around for a millenium, give or take several centuries. In that span of time, given the amount of screwing around that they are prone to, a large part of the population of Europe must have become related to them, say 40 million people. We are, of course, interested in them all because of the family connection. Prince Charlie's 17th cousin Joe Blow has just been killed by a bomb in Iraq. His wife, Bessie, has not yet heard, because she's busy "entertaining" Tom, Dick, and Harry in an effort to raise the bail for her boyfriend, who's in the hoosegow for pushing crack. Do we care? Why not? It's related to the British Royal Family!!! Too Old

The human genome has been decoded. It is important information. Do we include the entire genome as part of wikipedia? Why not? Wikipedia doesn't have unlimited space. Too Old 18:19, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Quit using wikipedia as a forum to bloviate about how you don't like royal families. Nobody is terribly interested. john k 06:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with john. You should stop using wikipedia as a forum to pursue your anti-monarchist views. This is a neutral POV website 85.119.100.82 (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

TRH

The use of TRH (presumably Their Royal Highnesses) on this page is confusing because in each case the link does not go to the pair, but to the male member of the couple. It would be better to either put the TRH outside of the link (and possibly spell it out) or put HRH for both members of the couple. Jooler 12:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Have moved all TRHs, HRHs and HM to outside the link. --Spudtater 23:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Chart

Someone made a nice chart of all the members. Some people seem to dislike it because it has some wrong information in it, but I say just change the wrong information rather than turf the whole chart. Having charts like these ads a nice visual element to an article. user:J.J.

I never edited it back, but I saw the chart. It just does not work. For example, it has a name and a separate title section. It doesn't work. Members of the Royal Family have merged names/titles. There is no such thing as a Princess of York. There are two Princesses of the United Kingdom who are styled Princess Christian name of York, because their father is The Duke of York. Titles and names are hard to put together in a table because it divides it up, and once divided its wrong. [User:Eddo|Eddo]] 23:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Popularity

"The British Royal Family enjoys a reasonably high level of popularity among the people of the United Kingdom. However, a sizable minority (between 15 and 30 percent) are opposed to it and would prefer a British republic." I cannot see a source for this statement. This poll from 2005 does give a figure of only 18% who want the monarchy abolished, but also gives e.g. 62% think they should receive no money from tax. I don't think that the statement in the article necessarily gives an unbiased reflection of public opinion.Didsbury ryder 13:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The British people have never elected a republican government. Every poll since 1940 has shown at least 50% in favour of the UK being a monarchy. Republicans dont like that but it remains fact that the majority of British people support the monarchy.

Buckingham Palace Picture

Why isn't there any names of the Royal Family eg. the Quen, Queen Mother etc. to say who's who and when it was (year). Could this article be expanded to be slightly longer? I don't mind it now, but more information should be added. --Terence Ong 11:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Queen, POW & taxes

Is there a source to substantiate these claims?

• "The Queen saves about £536,000 a year in income tax by setting off the money she pays back to the Treasury against her own tax bill."
• "The Duchy of Cornwall, property of Prince Charles, does not pay capital gains or corporation tax (estimated to be £20m over past ten years)."

I've already edited them to remove a lot of the negative POV, but they still seems dubious to me, and I can't find sources to back them up. --gbambino 20:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

House of Stuart

Stuarts were the first British Royal Family. I see above somebody's complaint about Hanoverian members still included. Why then, is the Duke of Grafton listed in the "extended" section? We might as well either list only the current Windsorians, or all members regardless of how they stand. Recall that the Mountbatten-Windsor family has not reigned yet, which would make it unfair to keep them and disclude the remnant Stuarts and Hanoverians. Distinctly English Royal Families are still around, such as those of the Duke of Beaufort or Earl of Loudoun. But then again, we are discussing illegitimates in the case of Grafton and Beaufort. I wonder how that managed to happen, especially when the legal Jacobite succession is in exile on the Continent. I am confused on the purpose of mentioning illegitimates in regard to this article. I would have to include myself in the article, because of many criss-crossing descents through legit lines that were never specified to succeed. Please, I don't think anybody wants that. Does Grafton or anybody like him need to be here? IP Address 09:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the Duke of Grafton. Astrotrain 21:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

So what about legit pre- and post-Windsorian Royals? What does one do about them? IP Address 01:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The illegitimate descendants of Charles II (or of the Beauforts) should clearly not be included - they are not British royalty. Nor is the Earl of Loudoun a member of anything remotely resembling an English royal family. He is simply the heir of the line of the Duke of Clarence. I'm not sure what you mean by post-Windsorian royals. The Queen's children and grandchildren are clearly members of the royal family - it would be ridiculous to exclude them. I would suggest that the article should largely confine itself to discussion of the descendants of George V. Brief mention can be made of the Duke of Fife, of other descendants of Victoria living in Britain, and perhaps of the Hanoverian royal family, since they claim the title of "Prince of Great Britain and Ireland," but this should be brief. Others simply do not belong. john k 02:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

So you think that Franz, Duke of Bavaria doesn't belong? IP Address 02:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. john k 02:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This would mean that once the Queen is succeeded by Charles, this article will be updated to reflect Mountbatten-Windsor and descendents of Philip (or just Charles)? IP Address 19:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't only male line descendants of the current monarch. The Dukes of Cumberland and Cambridge were still members of the royal family after 1901, for instance. It is male line descendants of any monarch. john k 20:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

A better title?

Can we think of a better title for this article than "British Royal Family"? The Queen has realms outside Great Britain, and the Royal Family is the Royal Family of those realms, as well. How about Royal Family of Elizabeth II? Fishhead64 19:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• A related discussion on this idea is currently underway at Talk:Court Circular Astrotrain 19:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ga! Why must we constantly be subjected to this? john k 23:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it's reality. --gbambino 23:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's been a week, and no one has provided any rationale why this article shouldn't be retitled along the lines I suggested above. The discussion at Talk:Court Circular appears to have come to a screeching halt. Unless some rational objection is raised to retitling this article more accurately is raised, I will move it to Royal Family of Elizabeth II. Fishhead64 19:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

We have provided plenty of reasons why you and gbambino are wrong, you've just chosen to ignore them. The burden of proof is on you if you want to move the page, so unless some rational reason is provided for doing so I will revert any move you make against a clear consensus that you're talking rubbish. Proteus (Talk) 19:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Do the Commonwealth Realms have a royal family? This seems to be the crux of the matter. There is no legal or formal definition of membership in the family, hence discussions of citizenship or succession rights is purely speculative. It should be sufficient to note that members of the Royal Family regularly visit Commonwealth Realms and perform public duties there, and do so as delegates of the sovereign of those realms. Their status as members of the Royal Family derives from their relationship to the sovereign, and nothing more. This was not only articulated by the Queen herself, as referenced in the Court Circular discussion by gbambino, but is more tellingly demonstrated in these visits and public duties performed, and by the fact that members of the Royal Family serve as regimental commanders-in-chief and in other public capacities in those realms.

So remind me again what is "rubbish" about this? Fishhead64 19:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

They have legal precedence in the UK (and rather high precedence, for that matter): no similar situation exists in any other country, which all only recognise the precedence of the Queen above their officers of state. That certainly looks like legal recognition of their status in the UK to me (and correspondingly lack thereof elsewhere). And the fact that they perform official functions as delegates of the Sovereign is meaningless — the Queen could appoint me as her personal representative in Canada if she so wished, but it certainly wouldn't make me a member of the Royal Family. (And what's "rubbish" is that you're basing your arguments not on the constitution or law of the countries concerned but on a single statement made by the Queen to a crowd and a couple of websites, neither of which can really be relied on as legally definitive sources. I could prove all sorts of rubbish if I could use "royal.gov.uk says so" as a conclusive argument.) Proteus (Talk) 21:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing rubbish about it. Proteus seems to think that because he says we, and the Queen, are wrong, it must be so. If he'd provide the evidence that debunks a book on the Crown and Canadian Constitution, the Ministry of Canadian Heritage, the Governor General of Canada, and the Queen herself (as he was asked to do) he might have more credibility. But so far only opinions on citizenship and place of residence have been offered.

Frankly, I have no issue with this remaining as "British Royal Family" - it deals with the family's role in the UK, and has elements that don't pertain to the other Realms (such as the Civil List, Parliamentary Annuities, and peerages (since Canada blocked their issue in 1919)). Canadian Royal Family now deals with their role within Canada. I don't have anything for the other Realms besides these two. --gbambino 19:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course this article can always be expanded and sectioned. It might be a better alternative to creating a dozen or so other articles. Fishhead64 20:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, but it would be a long article if it dealt with their roles in every realm, one which might end up being broken down into separate articles, as is Wikipedia policy, anyway. As well, though it logically follows that they are the Royal Family of every Realm, currently I have no actual, tangible proof that the Royal Family is the Royal Family of any countries besides Canada and the UK. If some could be found, though, it would be great! --gbambino 20:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

They are the British Royal Family by nationality, their royal titles, and by living in the UK. The idea of a Canadian Royal Family is only held by die hard Canadian monarchists. Astrotrain 20:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad the Queen is a die-hard Canadian monarchist. --gbambino 20:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ehhh no, not true "Astro train", Canada is officially a British Commonwealth Realm, alongside The United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, our flag has the official colours of Canada given to us by King George V, our military and cultural customs are influenced from Britain, our Royal Anthem is God Save the Queen, 9 out of 10 of our provinces have some depiction of a British symbol on their flags, we have a governer general and a Prime Minister, in a house of parliament, and no matter what you say you can not deny Canada's British (and French) heritage. They are officially the Royal Family of Canada, as of Australia and New Zealand. You know, I am not a "die hard monarchist", but I am of English and Irish descent, and am quite proud to be in a British country, for the main reason we are not part of (or as $%@#ed up as) the United States, is because we stayed British. And the main population of Canada is British, followed by French descendants. Look up the facts.RyanRP 04:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII

What sort of social rank would one have to bear in their family, in order to be a descendent of either?

How far up the totem pole, would you say?

This is intended to have broad answers and based on gradients of time and population, not going into specifics about exact descendents. About how common is their descent in the English or British genepool today?

I've noticed that American Presidents don't descend from either king, but the most common recent royal ancestor shared by many of us is Edward III. How common is it for anybody in the English or British genepool, to have a Protestant royal ancestor?

There is a general cutoff, isn't there?

Is it because of fratricide in the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors' "new men", or the Union of the Crowns, or the parliamentary union under Queen Anne (I can't think of any non-royal family descent from the Hanoverians within the UK)?

I'm thinking that there is a big difference between Plantagenet and Tudor descents, that the commons in all likelihood have the former and the latter is held by the lords. (just generally speaking) Then again, Tudor descent in the Welsh must be higher in general. I am further curious about pre-Royal Tudor blood in Anglo-British people today, since the status and/or concept of Welsh royalty/nobility is rather hazy in my mind. I found the Blevins aka Ap Bleddyn family of Powys in my ancestry, but have no real idea on what to make of it--or any other Welsh "native aristocracy". I might be able to find Stewart descent somewhere, from way back when. What percentage of Hanoverian background do you think that German colonists had in America?

On the British side, I have to go as far back as Welf himself...but any recent genetic relationship with the Hanoverians or the counts of Nassau are completely obscure. How does one research those other colonial people, such as the Hessians?

UK genealogy is relatively easy when focusing on English (and French) ancestries. What would a "national person" of Jerusalem (or Antioch, for example) in Crusader times be known as?

We say "American" for those Founders, but was there such a nationality-term for the Crusaders in their own domains?

I guess the term is supposed to be Levantine/Outremer, or "Crusader" as our national heritage says "Colonist"...

IP Address 11:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Real names

Couldn't we bold the royals' real names as well as their titles? I find it kind of strange that it has the royal title bolded, but no the name. As in: Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor), instead of: Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor). Doesn't Wikipedia always bold any phrase that could substitute as a page's title? VolatileChemical 03:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It would make the top of the page look incredibly awkward with a whole line of bolding. john k 16:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's hardly a whole line, just six words. VolatileChemical 18:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This assumes that "Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor" could substitute as the page's title. This is a subsidiary page to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. There, I think, one could appropriately bold her full given name, (i.e., "born Elizabeth Alexandra Mary of the dynastic House of Windsor"). But, pace Benedict XVI and others, I think that secondary pages should just use the name she acquired after coronation and consecration as a monarch. My two cents. Fishhead64 18:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes! This guy gets it. VolatileChemical 15:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Just six words for Elizabeth II. A lot more words for some other royal personages. john k 03:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Gallery

A gallery containing fair use images is not a fair use, crown copyrighted images (which has not been demonstrated for most of hte images) are not free images. Please stop adding the gallery to the article.--Peta 01:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Fair use images of the royals could obviously be used in the royal family article (and most are free use or crown copyright in any case). find something better to do. Astrotrain 22:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That is simply not true, the only fair use of images of these individuals is in articles on them, and gallerys of other non-free content are not a good idea. This gallery only serves to bloat the article - it does not add significantly to the topic, incidently no other royal family article has a gallery of images.--Peta 02:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Titles, Styles, Honours & Arms

The styles and arms, titles and honours, titles, titles from birth to death sections and similar are in a veritable riot of disarrays. - I propose a small project of standardising across British Royal articles: I've done George I already, please do take a look and let's discuss what we all think. Many thanks, etc. DBD 21:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Issue, etc.

What do we think about the use of an Issue section in each article - it appears in some, and is, IMHO, most useful, but not in others (where, typically, issue are listed in Marriage(s)). George II is an example of the former, George VI the latter. DBD 21:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sort Names by Order of Succession to the Throne

You should sort names of the Royal Family in order of succession to the throne. But then again, that's my own personal opinion The Coldwood 18:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Not all of them are in the line of succession Astrotrain 09:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• The Duke of Edinburgh should come in 200-somethingth, or whatever? john k 10:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• The Duke of Edinburgh, as a female line great great grandson of Queen Victoria, is 558th in line to the British throne.--Duke of Yarmouth 02:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

British Royal Family?

how many are there?--Bee(y)^Ti 01:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Direct descent from Fergus Mór to Elizabeth II

Please see the discussion here:

• Talk:List_of_monarchs_of_Scotland#Direct_descent_from_Fergus_M.C3.B3r_to_Elizabeth_II

--Mais oui! 10:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Identity

File:Ouellet approaches to sign the Constitution.jpg

Signing of the Canadian Constitution

In this picture, can anyone identify who is the woman out of focus directly behind Queen Elizabeth's head in the blue jacket and red hat wearing the Royal Family Order ? Im thinking maybe it is Princess Alice, but im not sure. Dowew 05:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You could ask a question about it on the mailbox section of the Buckingham Palace magazine on www.royal.gov.uk, they have records and will be able to tell you

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move —Mets501 (talk) 04:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

British Royal Family → Royal Family of Elizabeth II — This article is about the Royal Family of 16 Commonwealth Realms and not about simply one of them. The proposed new title would more accurately reflect this reality, and British Royal Family could be a redirect Fishhead64 23:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Oppose I support the principle you raise, but not the solution you propose. Lethiere 01:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. A) you can't really argue they are the "Royal Family" equally in every realm since "Royal Family" is just a convention, not a legally recognised institution. B) There seems to be some suggestion that the Canadian Royal Family at least is not necessarily the same thing as the British Royal family. C) "British Royal Family" is a well accepted phrase; "Royal Family of QEII" would be a neologism, and also sounds grammatically odd (it seems to suggest the Queen might have some other, non-Royal Family somewhere...) FiggyBee 07:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, in response to both your comments and those of Lethiere (see also below), I would respond that (A & C) "The Royal Family" is a well-accepted phrase, ie., linguistic convention, in many, if not all, Commonwealth Realms, with no connotation that they are such by virtue of being British. Hence, news reports that such-and-such member of the Royal Family is visiting, say, Australia. (B) Parsimony should be the watchword here - the meaning isn't substantially different from one realm to another.I'm happy with a different solution, say "Royal Family of the Commonwealth Realms," since "Royal Family" alone is ambiguous. Fishhead64 08:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

They are members of a royal family by virtue of their status as princes and princesses of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They are not princes of Canada, or of Australia, or of Jamaica. They have no constitutional or political role in any of these countries. There is no Barbadian Royal Family, or Solomon Islands Royal Family. This is simply PC nonsense. john k 14:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The Royal Family existed as such by custom long before any laws or letters patent made them such in Britain. It's arguable if or when that custom was completely abandoned by each Commonwealth realm as it achieved legal independence. Since some citizens of these realms do seem to think of the Windsors as their Royal Family, and Windsors are occasionally sent to represent the Sovereign of those nations (not to represent the UK), not as paid employees but as part of their royal duties, I don't agree that the concept is nonsense. Members of the Royal Family also have minimal constitutional roles in the UK, and most Britons who accept them as their Royal Family don't do so because they are theoretically eligible to be appointed as Counsellors of State (their only constitutional role in the UK not shared with other Windsor realms), but because of their dynastic kinship to the Sovereign. The Royal Family remains largely a customary institution, rather than a constitutional or political entity. The fact that it is paid out of the UK's exchequer is also a matter of custom, since this was the case even when the Commonwealth realms were part of the British Empire and certainly accepted its royal family as their own. That citizens in these realms, whether monarchist, nationalist, or both (here including Scotland) increasingly reject references to all aspects of the monarchy as British rather affirms than denies that the institution, including the Sovereign's family, should no longer be over-identified with only one of her realms. Yes, that's a PC notion -- and a justifiable one, IMHO. In fact, it seems to me that this is more empirical than a matter of opinion: Do the media in these countries typically refer to the Windsors as "the Royal Family" or as "the British Royal Family"? If the latter, you're right. If the former, not. And if the former is the case, those here who reject such usage are not complaining as observers, but as polemicists: They think of the Windsors as exclusively British, and think others ought to do so. Certainly there are Scots who insist the Windsors are really only England's Royal Family, and that titles and usages to the contrary are obsolescent. Yet there are Scots who think otherwise. Clearly Fishhead64, a resident of one such Commonwealth realm, thinks otherwise. Whether he is wrong is, from a Wiki perspective, a matter of ascertaining Commonwealth reality rather than a vote based on the political perspectives of editors engaged in today's debate. Lethiere 20:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. For God's sake will this never stop? john k 08:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, what's your solution? They're either the Royal Family in all Commonwealth Realms or they're the Royal Family of one. Fishhead64 08:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

They are the British Royal Family. Other than the queen herself, none has any official role in any other commonwealth realm. The Prince of Wales is no more a member of some notional "Canadian Royal Family" than the King of Norway is a member of the British royal family by virtue of being in the line of succession. john k 14:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose- they are all British citizens, with no role or precedence outside the UK. All their titles are UK. Astrotrain 09:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - because it's not just about Queen Elizabeth's family, but the royal family in general. If you want to change the article to be only about the modern family, then I'll support; otherwise, it's far too much focus on recent history. -Part Deux 13:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - This article focuses on the Royal Family's connection to the United Kingdom. Though, much to John's chagrin, there is such a thing as the Canadian Royal Family (what else do you call the relations of, well, the Queen of Canada?), the specific information pertaining to that parallel, but conceptually separate group is covered elsewhere, and, as Figgy pointed out, the nature of one is actually somewhat different to the other. I might suggest an opening paragraph similar to the one at British Monarchy, Monarchy in Canada, Monarchy in Australia and Monarchy in New Zealand, which outlines the shared nature of the Royal Family and leads to where further information can be found. --G2bambino 16:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • One calls them, in fact, the British Royal Family. Just as the relations of the German Emperor, besides his wife and eldest son, were the Royal House of Prussia, and not the German Imperial House. john k 20:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Your example doesn't make any sense. Besides, as I keep saying to you John, you'll have to impart your vast wisdom on HM the Queen as she's clearly been mislead into thinking there's a Canadian Royal Family. After that you'll have to contact the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Governor General of Canada and tell them they're all wrong as well. And then I suppose you can start in on those who argue that the Queen's relations owe allegiance to the Sovereign in Right of Canada as a separate body to the Sovereign in Right of the UK. --G2bambino 21:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Well, G2, I'm thinking that if this motion fails - as it appears it will - I'll simply begin creating separate articles, starting with Canada on the Canadian Royal Family, Australian Royal Family, etc (they are currently redirects). After all, no one has seriously argued that other Commonwealth Realms don't have a conception of the Royal Family as being socially, historically, and politically indigenous - if not physically so. If the discussion has convinced me of anything, it is that there are differences in the concept from Realm to Realm - but the same individuals are involved. I simply thought that it made more sense to include all the information in one article instead of splitting it into sixteen. Fishhead64 20:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, outside of the Canadian Royal Family, you'll be crossing into original research. Also, there was originally a separate Canadian Royal Family article, the contents of which were merged into Monarchy in Canada. I don't oppose a separate article (Monarchy in Canada is getting excessively long), but it would be a relatively brief one. --G2bambino 21:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

How about something like Royal Family of the Commonwealth Realms? That seems to make more sense, perhaps, although it still privileges one Realm. Fishhead64 21:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was more meaning that any claim that there are "royal families" other than the British and Canadian would be original research as there are no sources to support their existence, despite the logical conclusion that they should. --G2bambino 21:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • What little there is to be said about the issue is covered in British Royal Family#Commonwealth. I caution you not to violate WP:POINT. –  Anþony  talk  21:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I certainly appreciate the helpful caution, and am all ears should someone wish to describe in what ways such proposed articles would disrupt anything. It simply reports what is factual. It comes down to whose ox is being gored - insofar as the section you cite already disrupts with a a British nationalist POV, by use of a national adjective to describe the Royal Family in discrete Commonwealth Realms. That is one reality - it is not the sole reality. Fishhead64 21:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. What John and Astrotrain said. Proteus (Talk) 16:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NC: [use] what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. -- Evv 04:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, it's not only the queen's family. Its the whole royal family in the past and present. This is on the British Royal Family, not on the Queen's family. Every Commonwealth Realm is considered a seperate royal family, like Canadian Royal Family etc. So its totally a different meaning if its moved. Terence Ong 13:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Opposed, but I do sympathize with Her Can-Do-Nothing-to-Satisfy-All Majesty, between her Scots subjects who feel she's not local enough, and her Commonwealth subjects who feel she's not global enough. Nonetheless:

1. British Royal Family is most common usage, so we need an overriding reason not to stick to it. Political correctness can only override if the alternative is not abusive to eye & ear. Sorry.
2. Dynasty is about family & succession -- not current individuals
3. "Royal Family of Elizabeth II" is redundant. The schoolmarm in me amends it to Family of Elizabeth II -- which wastes the historical & popular connotations understood by "The Royal Family".
4. Not much better -- but better: Royal Family of the Commonwealth Realms Lethiere 01:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

   Snap... :) FiggyBee 07:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Confusing tag

I added the Confusing tag to the Civil List & Parliamentary Annuities section.

Monies to support the Queen in the exercise of her duties as head of state (the Head of State Expenditure) of the United Kingdom come from the Civil List;

OK, that's understandable...

a return of a small portion of the revenue from the Crown Lands that are surrendered by the Monarch to Parliament at the beginning of each reign, all Crown Land being administered by The Crown Estates, an institution answerable to parliament.

This is a sentence fragment and I am now completely lost. Can someone help clarify this paragraph in the article? Tempshill 04:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Surving Male Consort?

"the widowed consorts of previous monarchs (Queen Mother or Queen Dowager);" - what about the case of a widowed consort? e.g., if the Queen of England was to die and her consort survived? Would he be called "The King Father"? Probably not :-) But surely something...

I think he would still be Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh because there probably won't be any British prince consort in his lifetime. He couldn't be King Father anyway, because he was never King Consort.87.250.113.209 15:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Prince Philip doesn't have any particular title to be widowed by. He holds his titles in his own right. Until/unless he is officially proclaimed Prince Consort and is widowed by the Queen, we will not know. Charles 15:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Queen of England?? There hasn't been a monarch of England since 1707. Anon user, you mean Queen of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 03:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars (again)

For the time being (until things are resolved at Royal Burial Ground) -- G2, let Tharky have his edit here & Tharky let G2 have his edit at Commonwealth realm, please. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth realm

Please respect the 'linking' article's choice to go with realm. If you do not, your persistance of using Realm will be viewed as disruptive behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You should've been more clear as to what your objection was; I didn't even notice the capital "R" on "realm" in there, and couldn't understand why you were directing me to Commonwealth realm for some kind of evidence. Complete mix up! D'oh. --G2bambino (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, all is calm again. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion/Exclusion of Commonwealth realm section

Now here's a switch - I would've expected G2 wanting to keep this section in & Tharky wanting to remove it. Very interesting. GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Dab

I don't think we should get too worked up about the dab just yet; this is all part and parcel with the changes to be made here and at Commonwealth realm as we decided to do at Talk:Royal Burial Ground. We said we'd hash out something at Commonwealth realm first, though the page is still locked due to Thark's removal of cited material, and his silence in response to being asked why.

One thing at a time, eh? --G2bambino (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, one thing at a time - all these discussions occuring simultaneously, are dizzying. As long as disputes reamin on the 'talk pages' all is calm. Edit Wars only increase tensions. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It certainly is! Could that be on purpose? I wonder. Anyway, as this is such an across-the-board issue, I've come to the conclusion that these accusations of POV pushing must be settled once and for all in one place; I've made a strong suggestion to Thark that he take his case before ArbCom and let them decide who is doing what and how to make it cease. --G2bambino (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Keeping my fingers & toes crossed. As for the Dab? a little dab'll do ya (from the movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest; a classic). GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Where is the Criticism?!

1 aspect of criticism: British Royal Family's ownership of British mines and the child labor within them, in the middle of the 20th century.

A lack of meaningful criticism, (not just stuff derived from tabloids), is likely a part of what keeps this article rated a 'B'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.236.67 (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Meaningful criticism" comes with a cite. Do you have one? --G2bambino (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

All members of the House of Windsor?

How about the male spouses of female members of the family? Surely they are not members of the House of Windsor, either by birth or marriage. The Duke of Edinburgh for example is not a Windsor in any sense. TharkunColl (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ya know, I never thought of that. I'm afraid I don't know the answer to this one, but it's got me scratching my brain. GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There's more as well, to muddy the issue even further. The Queen has proclaimed that her successors as monarchs will remain members of the House of Windsor, even though their surname is Mountbatten-Windsor. However, those who do not become monarchs will simply be Mountbatten-Windsors. Since, so far, the Queen has had no successors, then the only member of the Royal Family who is also a member of the House of Windsor is herself, by birth. All the others are either Mountbattens (the Duke of Edinburgh), Mountbatten-Windsors, or married to Mountbatten-Windsors. Added: I was refering to the immediade Royal Family. People like the Duke of Kent are, of course, full Windsors (descended from younger brothers from generations back) - ironically. TharkunColl (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My assumption is that when/if Charles succeeds the throne he can/will have the Royal House name changed to Mountbatten or Mountbatten-Windsor or whatever he prefers as it's the monarch's choice. That's an assumption of course. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

He could indeed do that, if he wishes, but in doing so he would be overturning his mother's 1953 proclamation which specified that her successors will be of the House of Windsor. I suspect he wouldn't do it as this would dishonour his mother. TharkunColl (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So does that mean that at this point in time, the surname of Prince Charles, and his two sons, is Mountbatten-Windsor? Nudge67 (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No, he doesn't have a surname, nor do his sons. Charles 21:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Charles, would you please explain why you removed the sentence "The term is also commonly applied to the same group of people as the relations of the monarch in his or her role as sovereign of any of the other Commonwealth realms, thus sometimes conflicting with official national terms for the family, such as in Canada." You state the article isn't about Canada, but the sentence above doesn't pretend that it is. I await your response, though I hope it is in a more civil tone than your edit summaries. --G2bambino (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't answer for him, of course. But I can suggest that the text: was wordy and awkward (it took me five readings before I worked out what it was trying to express); 'commonly' applied requires a reference; 'sometimes conflicting' requires a reference; and it belongs better in the main body of the text. Introductions are for describing concepts in the broadest terms.--Gazzster (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to sum up a pretty complex situation in an easily read sentence. Regardless, how many references where the term is used in such a manner are needed to prove its commonality? What reference is needed to prove that "British Royal Family" conflicts with "Canadian Royal Family"? And, finally, how did the sentence not describe the concept in broad terms? --G2bambino (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Detail such as this should go in the body of the article, but not the lead paragraph. One would not write an article on Winston Churchill (I haven't looked at it by the way so I'm only guessing) and putting in the lead paragraph that he was a complete drunk and incapable of running the country for prolonged periods - despite what everyone thinks. TharkunColl (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not the place for going into details that, interesting as they may be, are pretty obscure.--Gazzster (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

One, single sentence is not too much detail. As for its placement: where else would this single sentence be put, if not in the lead? The term "British Royal Family" is widely used, with varying meanings in different contexts. For the sake of readers it seems best to spell that out in the lead, with actual detail in the body of the article. --G2bambino (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the name supposedly 'conflicting' with names in other realms, such as 'Canadian Royal Family'.--Gazzster (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Well, I guess that particular example isn't necessary; it was to illustrate the point. --G2bambino (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't Edward VIII in the family tree?

Why isn't Edward VIII in the family tree? Ha! (talk)

Probably because he is not the ancestor of any member of the current royal family. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

House of Hanover

I really don't think that the current members of the House of Hanover should be included. They descend from George III, who reigned in the 1800s. Although they style themselves Prince/Princess of Great Britain and Ireland, those titles are not 'officially' recognized in the UK. Furthermore, I took out a paragraph which stated "the Royal House of Hanover isn't really royal." That is completely wrong, just because the House of Hanover no longer reigns in any given jurisdiction doesn't mean it is no longer royal. Eddo 07:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Cost Per Year to the Tax Payer

BBC News just reported that the royal family costs the tax payer 62 pence per person per year. Apparently, this only includes the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh. Ethoen 12:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Family Tree

When removing some useless text placed by what appears to me as a vandal, I noticed that the very same person had removed the family tree section from the article after looking at the edit history. However, when I attempted to restore the section it didn't come out too well in the Edit preview, so Cancelled editing at that point. So, this is just to point out that it needs placing back in the article. Think777 (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

the Earl of Harewood

Why is the Earl of Harewood, a first cousin of the Queen, not listed as a member of the Royal Family when all the Queen's other surviving first cousins are? Nudge67 (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Simply because he is not a royal DBD 00:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Princess Margaret?

Shouldn't Princess Margaret, the Queen's sister, be included in the family tree? I know she's deceased, but so are others in the tree, and she IS the child of a Monarch, after all. 129.22.52.19 (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyone in the family tree is either a current member of the royal family or one of those former members who serves to show their connection — Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester (d.) is there to show how HRH The Duke of Gloucester is related to HM. Margaret isn't there because she has no royal descendants. DBD 00:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you very much. 129.22.52.19 (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, Princess Margaret has two children who has a more senior claim to the throne than either the Duke of Kent or the Duke of Gloucester. So it is outrageous that descendents of George V and Victoria are mentioned as relatives, but the children of Princess Margaret is not mentioned at all.

I agree, and I suspect the Queen would agree too. They are much higher up on the line of succession than the Kents, and are much closer to the Queen herself - being neices and nephews of the Queen. Is there any objection if I add them? Rodchen (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

All of Princess Margaret's family attended Kate and William's wedding, and sat with the Royal family. Hence I think that is conclusive evidence they are part of the Royal family, so I have included them. Rodchen (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Really, conclusive? john k (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Henry vs Harry

Please change HRH Prince Henry of Wales (The Prince of Wales's younger son) to HRH Prince Harry of Wales (The Prince of Wales's younger son) Zephyr750 —Preceding undated comment added 22:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC).

Why? He was given the name Henry.PhilomenaO'M (talk) 09:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Family tree

The template display had one syntax error, plus an extra "[[" I deleted the leading "[[" and fixed the syntax error; however clearly the free floating boxes need to be conencted, but I do not know to whom. I will look it up shortly. ( Martin | talk • contribs 03:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC))

I don't know how to edit the 'family tree', but if somebody can edit it, can they add Pricess Margaret and her family to the family tree. She and her family are completely missing. Rodchen (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is Princess Diana and Princess Fergie not in the family tree??????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.161.95 (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

ALSO..Where on the family tree are Princess Anne's Children Zara and Philip?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.161.95 (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

"Besides the above"

The "collateral" members seem to be the first section on this article, which is a little confusing. What is "Besides the above" referring to? Has a whole paragraph been lost at some point? Bob talk 22:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Family tree of members

Why HRH Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon and HRH Prince William of Gloucester are not included in the family tree? They ar both deceased, I know, but they are members of the Royal Family as Princess Margaret is a daughter of a king (HM George VI) and Prince William of Gloucester is a grandson in the male line of HM George V. They should be included. Someone fix that, please. --84.91.101.206 (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, why is HRH The Duchess of Gloucester at the left side of HRH The Duke of Gloucester unlike the other couples, why is HRH Prince Michael of Kent at the left side of HRH Princess Alexandra, The Hon. Lady Ogilvy if he is younger than her and why is Viscount Severn at the left side of Lady Louise Windsor (same reason of the 2nd case)?--84.91.101.206 (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Forget my posts above, I already figured out how to manage with the chart and made the changes. --84.91.101.206 (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Parker-Bowles Children

On what basis are the children of the Duchess of Cornwall by a previous marriage included in a list of "collateral members". They figure nowhere obviously in the line of succession. When and where are they treated as members of the Royal Family?PhilomenaO'M (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur. FactStraight (talk) 10:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe they were there (and belonged there) according to the heading "individuals descended directly and closely from Royal Highnesses:", since Camilla is an HRH. DBD 14:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Stepkids of prior or later marriages of the spouses of British HRHs haven't traditionally been regarded as members, direct or collaterally, of the British Royal Family. Only the relative who marries the royal acquires that status -- the rest are simply "in-laws" of the particular royal to whom their relative is married. For example, no one regarded the 10 children of the two first marriages of Frederica of Mecklenburg-Strelitz as British royalty after her marriage to Prince Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland. Nor are the children of the Earl of Snowdon's second marriage regarded as in any sense "royal" because their half-siblings are the Elizabeth II's nephew and niece. I've substituted "descendants of British princes/ses" for "descendants of HRHs" to avoid confusion. FactStraight (talk) 05:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no comparison between the children of Lord Snowdon's younger children and The Duchess of Cornwall's- the future Queen. The Parker Bowles' and Lopes' sat in places of prominence and their step-brother's wedding, as he considers them his siblings. Additionally, he considers their children his nieces and nephews, and gave Eliza a role his wedding. The Prince of Wales calls the children his grandchildren. When the Prince of Wales does come the Throne, Mr. Parker Bowles and Mrs. Lopes will most likely receive Peerages.

Additionally, the Norwegian Royal Family article very clearly list Mr. Marius Hoiby, the step-son of The Crown Prince as a member of the Royal Family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.216.203 (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

"Besides these, there are those descended closely from persons born British princes/ses". Is the Duchess of Cornwall a British princess by bith?

What definitely more modernized and less profiled Royal Court in Norway thinks of its Crown Prince's step son does not really matter in this case. And what the Prince of Wales thinks of his stepchildren and grandchildren does not matter too, because membership in the Royal Family is not a matter of personal attitudes. The Queen's very close (first and second) maternal cousins are not members of the Royal Family, but surely they are the Queen's family. Does it make them royals in any way? No! The Act of Settlement 1701, Sophia Naturalization Act 1705 and the Royal Marriages Act 1772 are those three acts of law which may help us in this problem of who may and who may not be considered in any way, a member of the British Royal Family. By the first act, Dowager Electress Sophia of Hanover and her Protestant descendants were declared to be in the line of succession to the throne. Sophia, a granddaughter of James I of England, was not considered to be an Englishwoman as she had not been born in England. However, the second Act naturalized her and "the issue of her body" as English subjects. Naturalization was restricted to Protestants. However, any person born to a descendant of Sophia could also claim to be the "issue of her body". And finally, The Royal Marriages Act 1772 is an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain which prescribes the conditions under which members of the British Royal Family may contract a valid marriage, in order to guard against marriages that could diminish the status of the Royal House. The Act said that no descendant of George II, male or female, other than the issue of princesses who had married or might thereafter marry "into foreign families", could marry without the consent of the reigning monarch. Thus, those who are in force of the act, the descendants of George II, with an exception of the issue of princessses married with foreign princes, may be considered members of the Royal Family, as well as British subjects (under the Sophia Naturalization Act) and pretenders to the throne (under the Settlement Act). And I think this acts, who does not apply to the Duchess of Conrwall's children and grandchildren, do not exclude them from the Royal Family, but they surely suggest who should be considered a member.

The Duchess of Conrwall's family is also the family of her husband, that's obvious, but it does not mean they are members of the Royal Family, which is something much larger and a semi-official body. The RF is a personal family of the Prince of Wales, but in the way they are commonly descnded from the Sovereign, and that's what distinguishes them from the Duchess of Conrwall's family. And the suggestion that because the Duke of Cambridge thinks of his step-mother's children as siblings makes them "royal" in any way is just ridiculous.

"The Parker Bowles' and Lopes' sat in places of prominence and their step-brother's wedding, as he considers them his siblings. Additionally, he considers their children his nieces and nephews, and gave Eliza a role his wedding. The Prince of Wales calls the children his grandchildren. When the Prince of Wales does come the Throne, Mr. Parker Bowles and Mrs. Lopes will most likely receive Peerages." The Parker Bowles' and Lopes' did not sit on the same side of the church as the closest Royal Family and the extended Royal Family, it is on the right side to the altar. They most likely sat with the Bride's family on the opposite side to the Royals. It is very unlikely that they are going to receive any peerages or other honours, when even the Queen;s paternal first cousin and a Prince of Blood, Prince Michael of Kent, stands without any title other than that of a Prince. The government stopped giving hereditary peerages to non-royals in the 50s or 60s and life peerages are not given because of someone's family links.

http://www.officialroyalwedding2011.org/blog/2011/April/23/Selected-Guest-List-for-the-Wedding-Service-at-Westminster-Abbey Kowalmistrz (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The Duchess of Windsor

Please add the Duchess of Windsor to the family tree, as she was the wife of former Edward VIII of the United Kingdom. It does not matter if she was estranged by her husband's family and not considered a Royal. Kowalmistrz (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

List of collaterals

I think we should not make any distinctions between the Phillipses and the Linleys and the Gloucester and Kent children. The Gloucesters and Kents are just what the words a spouse and the children and grandchildren of its current full or deceased members) carrying no official Royal style who sometimes appear in listings mean, the same as the Phillipses and Linleys! It's quite clear to me... The Duke of Gloucester, Duke of Kent, Prince Michael and Princess Alexandra are paternal grandchildren of a former Sovereign with full royal status. They are very important part of the RF, having been very supportive and quite crucial for the monarchy mostly in the past, when the Queen's children were children and were enable to perform official royal duties. In her generation, Princess Alexandra was the third or even the second most important and most popular princess in England, after the Queen and before the Princess Margaret who was always an individual. So I think their children are quite the same important as the children of Princess Royal and Princess Margaret. If you look at some of the Court's official circular notes, there are always the Gloucesters and Kents mentioned before those whose distinct position in the list here you are defeating. Most recently, look at the pictures from the St Paul's Cathedral, where the Royal Service of Thanksgiving was held. Where are seating the Phillipses and the Linleys and where is, for example, Lord Frederick Windsor sitting? In what raws they sat at the wedding of Prince William? That means something. Of course, there is the unqestionable basic distinction made in the sequence of the listed names, as people closer to the Throne always precede those who are further in the line and I think this is just enough for today. Thus, the Phillipses as the godchildren of current reigning monarch take precedence over the Linleys who are descended from a previous monarch, who in turn are higher in rank than the Gloucester and Kent children, who are descended from a more remote monarch, but still are closely and directly related to the throne, just after the Queen's own descendants and nephews and nieces. They are children of HRHs and that's why I think they should be included in the same part of the list as their second and third cousins. It's not only about the current reigning Queen! The Royal status is something more complex. And the second part of the list should starts with the Dowager Countess of Harewood, whose recently deceased husband was a grandson of George V. Then, descendants of monarchs before George V should follow the list, starting with the Duke of Fife, who is a great-grandson of Edward VII. Please, share your opinion here and do not remove all editions of the article just because you think they are not appropriate. Kowalmistrz (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

List of Members

This list is headed by the words: [quote]This is a list of current members of the Royal Family who bear the style of Royal Highness:[/quote]

So ... why does it contain two members that do _not_ bear the style of Royal Highness? Ordinary Person (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Queen Anne Belongs to the same generation of George I, Even though she is younger than George I she became a member of British royal family and British manarch before himChamika1990 (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Why the capitals?

It's a family that's royal in Britain (and I suppose in Gibraltar and a few other places too). Why not "British royal family"? -- Hoary (talk) 12:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Bump. -- Hoary (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

senior royal

Frequently in the papers, the term of "senior royal" is mentioned. Whom does that include? How is it used? Senior to whom? Amount of news coverage? Obviously the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh lead the list, as they are the oldest members of the Family. Prince Charles and Camilla, as the heir apparent and his wife. Obviously by news coverage, Prince William and Catherine are the most prominent by far; here in the U.S., you would think no other royals existed, not even the Queen. Anyone else? William and Catherine don't carry out many public duties as yet, and I'm loathe to include Harry, since he's an absolute disgrace with his public conduct and he rarely does anything useful for the Family. Over here, no one knows who Charles' siblings are. Is that it? 74.69.11.229 (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Here (Guardian), the "most senior royals" are the queen and her oldest son. Here (Mail), "senior royals" clearly encompasses the allegedly disgraceful Harry. I think it's an informal, undefined term to cover those who are (i) particularly closely related to the queen and (ii) are adults and are paid directly rather than via their parents. -- Hoary (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Lady Rose Gilman's second child

Her second child was already born, his name is Rufus Gilman. Why can't we include him already? 84.91.100.44 (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Style of divorced wifes

With the letters pattens 1996 and 2012(as of the article), divorced wives of the younger sons of the eldest son of the prince of wales can use royal highness and any divorced wife of other princes can't. Can divorced wives of specially appointed princes(like princes Alexandra, Duchess of Fife) by monarch's will, use royal highness or highness. Is there any law to avoid this?Chamika1990 (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Assuming another child of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales were to be conceived next month, it would be early summer of 2030 before this hypothetical younger son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales could even legally marry (at age sixteen) and depending on whether he was resident in England or Scotland I'm not sure how quickly after that a divorce could be obtained. By that time the Sovereign would be at least 104. As soon as the Prince of Wales were to accede, his sons and their wives, and their sons and their wives, would be covered, as children and grandchildren of the new Sovereign, by the 1996 letters patent which deny HRH to divorced spouses. Though I sing "long may she reign" with as much gusto as the next loyal subject, I think the other factors combine to make the contingency you describe pretty remote. Opera hat (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The "The"

Is it capitalized "The Queen", "The Prince of Wales" etc. regardless?..or is it sometimes "the Queen", "the Prince of Wales" etc. depending on their place in the sentence? The article is notably inconsistent on this point.WQUlrich (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I notice the Court Circular used as reference 6 employs that capitalisation of 'the'. William Avery (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

IT'S A BOY!

The British Royal Family

and Prince William and Kate

Proudly Welcomes into the World

Prince GEORGE ALEXANDER LOUIS

Congratulations and Well Wishes are Welcome

198.151.130.45 (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Descendants of the sons of King George V

Just remember, it's not all about the current BRF. The article is also about the British Royal Family in a wider view of that matter, a wider perspective, also historical. Of course, the status of someone's membership in the Royal Family depends on this one's kinship to the current Sovereign, but there are many nuances. Kowalmistrz (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Why were they deleted again? They are usually invited for big events and descend from living princes. And if they can't have a place here, even less can the Harewoods, the Fifes and other even more distant collaterals. A decision must be taken about where's the limit for this article, the alternatives being:

• A) Only The Queen and The Princess Margaret's direct descendants;
• B) All of the above plus all descendants of the sons of King George V (as on the line of succession article);
• C) All of the above plus all descendants of The Princess Mary (the Harewoods);
• D) All of the above plus The Earl of Harewood, The Duke of Fife, The Lady Saltoun, The Marquess of Milford Haven and The Countess Mountbatten of Burma.

These options, in my opinion, all make more sense than excluding the Gloucesters and Kents but including the Harewoods and so on. I'm more incline for the D) option. --217.129.92.218 (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

A fifth option, which I'd prefer, is to list the descendents of the reigning monarch + all others who according to George V's 1917 patent (as amended by the Queen in 2012) are entitled to HRH as royal princes (limited to the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign, as well as the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales). This means in efect, that regarding non-poffspring of the current monarch, it would be limited to the sons, daughters and grandsons of a previous sovereign. Thus the Duke of Gloucester, the Duke of Kent and his brother should be mentioned but no their offspring because they aren't (generationally) closely enough related to be a prince. -- fdewaele, 9 July 2013, 11:13 (CET)

Those members you are referring are basically The Queen and all princes styled as HRH plus Viscount Severn and Lady Louise. That's the proper Royal Family. But I'm talking about the collaterals section, where we have the children and grandchildren of The Princess Anne and The Princess Margaret. The discussion here is about which collaterals we can put here. --217.129.92.218 (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Why put any "collaterals" at all? Why shouldn't this article (titled British Royal Family) list only members of what you refer to as "the proper Royal Family"? Why complicate the matter by making up who can or should or cannot or should not be listed among "collaterals"? Those "collaterals" are as royal as India Hicks. Surtsicna (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't completely agree with that assessment. The fact one is a Royal Highness and a British prince gives one which is a collateral a special distinction which for instance India Hicks completely lacks. As a reaction to 217.129.92.218: the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester and Prince Michael are collaterals as well as they don't descend from the current Sovereign. -- fdewaele, 9 July 2013, 14:20 (CET)

Oh, I am sorry, I was not clear enough. Of course I believe the Queen's patrilineal first cousins and their wives should remain. By "collaterals", I meant all those who are listed in the Collaterals section (those with no royal title, style or role). Surtsicna (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

To Surtsicna: That can be the E) option if the users approve it, remove all collaterals, no exceptions, even the Phillips. --217.129.92.218 (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't hardly agree with that option. Why did you already make the changes before waiting for more opinions on that matter here? The removed "collaterals" of the BRF, the descendants of the Gloucesters and Kents are certainly not as much "royal" as India Hicks is. First of all, the degree of kinship to the current Sovereign should matter most. India Hicks is the Queen's third cousin once removed as she is descended from The Princess Alice and for example, Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster is the Queen's paternal first cousin once removed. Additionally, after the death of his father, the Duke of Gloucester, he will not only succeed to the country's most senior extant Royal dukedom (not counting the dukedoms which are held by birth by the heir apparent to the throne) but also be the senior agnatic member of the Royal House, meaning he will be the senior male-line male descendant of Edward VII or Queen Victoria in her right of the United Kingdom. India Hicks is a great-great-great-granddaughter of Queen Victoria and Lord Ulster, as well as Lady Davina, Lady Rose, Earl of St Andrews, Lord Nicholas, Lady Helen, Lord Frederick, Lady Gabriella, James Ogilvy, Marina Ogilvy, the Earl of Harewood, the Hon. James Lascelles, the Hon. Jeremy Lascelles, the Hon. Mark Lascelles, Henry Lascelles, and Martin David Lascelles, are great-grandchildren of King George V and of course, the Queen's first cousins once removed. Moreover, they are the first 30 or something people in the line of succession to the throne after the immediate eiglible descendants of the current Sovereign and her late sister. They regularly appear on the balcony of Buckingham Palace during Trooping the Colour, attend major royal family and state events such as weddings, funerals, jubillees. They are also sometimes listed in the Court Circular or any other official reports and statements from the Royal Household as members of the Royal Family. THEY ARE! Kowalmistrz (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This article was started in 2002. But there seems to be current work in progress, with no clear sense of direction. The remark above "The article is also about the British Royal Family in a wider view of that matter, a wider perspective" invites the question: whose view and perspective? It sounds like naked SYN and OR, mixed with POV, unless based on a published source, such as an encyclopedia or directory, like Whitaker's Almanack or Burke's Peerage. What is the source for "List of members"? What validates the "immediate family members" as supposedly "Collaterals" who are members of the Royal Family? How is it proposed to make sense of the collection of names in the section "Members of the British Royal Family since 1707"? Qexigator (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Sarah, Duchess of York

I've found a multitude of sources that use the name Duchess of York in common parlance, media etc. I would think the Royal Family would stop this if it were patently improper. I've also found one source that says she is still Duchess, http://ukwhoswho.com/public/royals. And one source, (reliability uncertain) that says while she can still use the name, she cannot use HG, http://www.baronage.co.uk/bphtm-01/royal-01.html. I think we should use the name, but not the HG. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 15:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I am pretty sure she is allowed to call herself "Sarah, Duchess of York", with the same connotations as "Diana, Princess of Wales".Deb (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The Official list of Members published by the Palace at the time of the Diamond Jubilee specifically mentioned the Duchess of York. She was included directly after Princess Alexandra. --24.220.227.216 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It does. But without the style HRH. So if you want to add her in the section on collaterals, you may have a case. If you want to add her to the section of people with the styles of HM or HRH, you don't. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. But we need to get consensus that the real, and quite murky, issue is addressed properly. Whether she is still considered a member of the "British Royal Family" which is the topic of this article. At least one reliable source seems to say she is not a member of the family. The official website of The British Monarchy (http://www.royal.gov.uk/Home.aspx) has no listing for her. Do you have any reliable references we can use to support the idea that she is still a member of the family? My brother is divorced and I don't think of his ex as family any more. YMMV —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 16:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no skin in the game on that. I ran across the question in my role as a Reviewer of pages subject to WP:Pending changes. My sole point here was to say that there appears to be no case for including her in the one section (which was the edit you reverted before). The only possible case is in the other section. And that I'll leave to you Royal Family mavens. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

My understanding on this matter is that between the wedding and the divorce, she was HRH The Duchess of York, being a princess by marriage and a duchess by marriage, never being entitled to the style HG due to the royal status of The Duke of York. When she and Diana (at the time HRH The Princess of Wales) were divorcing their husbands, the Queen determined both would lose the style HRH and be styled respectively as Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York (as a former Princess of Wales and a former Duchess of York), but the Queen let Diana, and not Sarah, continue to make part of the Royal Family as the mother of the 2nd and 3rd in line to the throne. Since then Sarah is a commoner and "Duchess of York" is her surname unless she marries again. If she marries another commoner she will be Mrs Sarah (2nd husband surname), losing any reference to the marriage to the Duke of York. If she marries within nobility she will be titled accordingly too. The same would happen to Diana if she had married again, being excluded from the family too. So, in my opinion, Sarah ceased to be a member in 1996, period. --217.129.92.218 (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Excellent analysis. If you have a reliable source that agrees with your analysis then we will have this issue resolved. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 18:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That's referred on her Wikipedia article itself. I have no other source but it's the common practice. For example, The Duke of Fife's ex-wife's style before she married him was The Hon Caroline Dewar, when they divorced it was Caroline, Duchess of Fife, and then she remarried to Gen Sir Richard Worsley and became The Hon Lady Worsley. Once again, Wikipedia. I don't have the source that proves unambiguously Sarah's status, but I'm almost absolutely sure of this. if someone finds it, it'll be very useful. --217.129.92.218 (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Bracketed text in List of members

Is the bracketed information using the formal title "The Queen", therefore requiring a capital T or is "The" simply part of a sentence in the bracketed area not requiring caps?--Amadscientist (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Family tree

Just remember, it's not all about the current BRF. The article is also about the British Royal Family in a wider view of that matter, a wider perspective, also historical. Of course, the status of someone's membership in the Royal Family depends on this one's kinship to the current Sovereign, but there are many nuances.

I think there should be included the late husband of Princess Alexandra, the former and current husband of The Princess Royal as well as the late Prince William of Gloucester and Princess Margaret as they were full memebers of the Royal Family from the same generation of the Royal House as the Queen is, male-line grandchildren of George V. I would also add the late Prince John and Princess Mary, Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood, just to the tree be completed. They are the two other children of George V not included in the recent version of the tree but they could be, as they form together with those included as well as those whom I mentioned above, the complete tree of the current BRF, as George V is the common ancestor of all current full members of the family (HRH Windsors) (well, without the Princess Mary's and Princess Margaret's husbands). But the most needed update is to add Sir Angus Ogilvy and Captain Mark Phillips and Vice-Admiral Timothy Laurence, if you finally do not agree with me on more additions to the tree. Kowalmistrz (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the article is about the current royal family. It is certainly not about all individuals related to all British monarchs since George I, Anne or even James I & VI. Imagine if Template:British Royal Family, which is a summary of this article, included all those people! Anyway, the problem of "collaterals" has been discussed above. It makes no sense to add people who are not members of the royal family, i.e. who are not royal, bear no royal titles or styles and perform no royal duties. Neither the present nor the former husband of the Princess Royal is a member of the royal family, so why include any of them anywhere? They should especially not be in the tree. The tree is supposed to depict relations between the living members of the family. Why include Prince John and Princess Mary but exclude Queen Maud? Why stop at George V if the article is not "all about the current BRF"? It is an arbitrary cut-off point. Surtsicna (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Why was Edward VIII removed from the tree!? Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 08:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Is he mentioned in the British Royal Family#List of members? Surtsicna (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact that he is dead does not change anything. He is a quite recent precedessor of the Queen, the person after whom her father came to the throne, her eldest uncle and was senior of the whole Royal House of Windsor. Why do not mention him to give a reader a wider perspective? Do you have to be so arbitrary, Surtsicna? ;) Kowalmistrz (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

So why exclude Victoria then? Or George I? Or Anne? Each of them was just as much a "direct predecessor" of the Queen and each was the senior member of the British Royal Family of their time. Listing all of them would give readers a very wide perspective. Isn't it arbitrary to include Edward VIII but exclude all others? There is list of members of the British Royal Family through history. Dead people belong there. Living people belong here, for simplicity and clarity's sake. Surtsicna (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, although I still think such close relatives and important ones such as Edward VIII could be included here to give a better perspective, I must admit that I understand for what you stand and that you may have a point here. But I don't understand why should your point of view be decisive? IMO there should be a place for the former or at least current husband of The Princess Royal as well as the late husband of Princess Alexandra... Anyway, please, join also the discussion about the "collaterals" section below, Surtiscna! Kowalmistrz (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course mine shouldn't be decisive if someone has a better argument. Edward VIII is hardly mentioned in the article. There are plenty of articles that deal with British monarchs, succession to the Crown, genealogy, history, etc. This one should be about the British Royal Family. We are doing the readers a favour by not cluttering the page with unnecessary detail. We can and should direct them to related articles in section such as "See also". Why should men who were never royal be included in the article about the British Royal Family? Furthermore, why should dead and divorced men be included among the living? And if the dead are to be included, where should we stop? It does not seem very sensible. The most simple solution (and thus probably the best one) is to mention living members here and deceased members over there. Surtsicna (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said it before, you have a point here. But you asked why men who were never royal included. Well, maybe they are not royal in their own right but as spouses of royals, they are part of the Royal Family (not in the strictest sense of the term). Kowalmistrz (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Who should be included in here?

I decided to start a new section to merge the discussions about the collaterals mentioned in the article as well as who should or should not be included in the family tree. We have to decide who should be included in the list of "collaterals" of the BRF here in this article. What determines someone's being enough "royal" to be listed here? After we make our decision, there should be no more questions, argues and edit conflicts. And I said WE, not just you, Surtsicna... As it is now, after Surtsicna's recent edits, I see it as a little misunderstanding. I can understand why we should include the current Queen's female-line grandchildren as well as the current and former spouses of the BRF's full members and the children of late Princess Margaret, as they are female-line grandchildren of a former Sovereign (and the Dowager Countess of Harewood as the widow of a former female-line grandson), but the Duke of Fife, the Lady Saltoun and the Mountbattens are much farther in the line of kinship to the Queen and former Sovereigns than many others, e.g. the children of the Gloucesters and Kents. Thus, why include them and not include the Gloucester and Kent branches of the Royal House? Especially as they are male-line descendants and thus, agnatic members of the House of Windsor and the Phillipses for example, are not.

IMO the absolute minimum of "collaterals" should be: spouses of female full members who do not take their wives' royal status and style and female-line grandchildren of the Sovereign and former Sovereigns (with a reference to their own immediate families).

There should be also mentioned the Gloucesters and Kents. Why? 1) they are members of the junior (and agnatically, the only two surviving!) branches of the Royal House of Windsor; 2) they are paternal first cousins once removed of the current Sovereign and next in line to the throne right after the Queen and her sisters' descendants; 3) they are children, the immediate family of almost half of all members of the current full British Royal Family. Their parents are Princes and a Princess of Blood Royal with full royal status and protocol and very hard working and important supporters of the Queen for all their lives; 4) as they are immediate family of the Queen's immediate family, they are included in the wider sense of the term Royal Family not only by me but in a common sense. They take active part in the Royal Family's and state's life, including Trooping the Colour, official church services, weddings, funerals, christenings, Christmas and summer holidays at Sandringham and Balmoral, they are invited by the Queen to her pre-Christmas family lunch (only the Royal Family!). From time to time, they are listed among the others I mentioned above as "members of the Royal Family" by the official sources, such as Court Circular and the Palace press officers. Just visit http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/CourtCircular/Todaysevents.aspx and type "Frederick Windsor" as keyword and search. Well, I think if they would not be members of the Queen's family, the Royal Family they would not be invited to such great state events and their presence there would not be mentioned in the Court Circular notes... As a matter of fact, the Lascelleses, Frasers and Carnegies are also there, so I would like to add them to the list of collateral too, but you can disagree with that. Kowalmistrz (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is to keep all collaterals included at this moment and bring back all the Gloucesters and Kents. And yes, there is a serious need of a discussion here, instead of Surtsicna dictating the rules alone. --217.129.92.218 (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:British royal family/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Has the makings of an excellent article. Would benefit from inline citations and a little cleaning then submitting as a Good Article Candidate. --kingboyk 08:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 08:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)