Talk:House of Windsor/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Ethnicity parameter

@Trystan: You say ethnicity is not a parameter of this template, yet it exists on numerous other Royal Family pages. Would you be able to explain your opposition to this parameter/direct me to the rule that is encouraging its removal? Alssa1 (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

A house cant have "ethencity" per common sense. MilborneOne (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

A house is simply a family (though a royal one); if families can have ethnicities, why can't Royal Families? Alssa1 (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not we have it in the article’s Wikitext, the parameter would not appear in the article unless it were restored to the template. I would suggest raising this issue at Template talk:Infobox family if you think it should be restored.--Trystan (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

As it is a new insertion, I've removed it again. New insertions that are contested should not be re-added until consensus changes. If the consensus is to add the parameter here, then fine, but we're not at that point yet. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Celia Homeford: It's not a new insertion per say, it's the re-insertion of an old parameter. You assert that it's a controversial parameter, can you explain why? Alssa1 (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

How exactly is their ethnicity German? Did any of the Windsors ever identify as being ethnically German? The closest ancestors of Queen Elizabeth II who were born in [what is now] Germany were her great-great-grandparents, and she is not the only Windsor around. Is the family ethnically Danish or Greek too? What about the expected child of Prince Harry? Will we add African American when she or he is born? Surtsicna (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I am unable to find this parameter in use at this article before 2018, testing for its presence in December 2016, 2014, 2012, 2010, 2008 and 2006. Therefore, I conclude that it is a new insertion. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The parameter of ethnicity for Royal families is quite old and was in place at the original creation of infoxboxes for noble families. As for "How" the Windsors are ethnically German, the house is a cadet branch of the German House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha; what's controversial about listing the ethnic origins of the family? Alssa1 (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

It's quit easy - the royal houses of Denmark, Norway, Greece, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg and the United Kingdom are of German up-spring. The houses of Denmark, Norway and Greece's family name is "von Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg" a cadet branch of the old German family "von Oldenburg". The royal Belgian family name is "von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha", the family name of Netherlands and Luxemburg is "von Nassau" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.132.192.187 (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Netherlands is van Amsberg. Luxembourg is de Bourbon-Parme. Neither are German. You've just highlighted why the parameter is problematic and incorrect in almost all cases. DrKay (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Queen Elizabeth II Coronation Portrait Herbert James Gunn.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Lifespan balling

We have the Queen definitely living past 2019-12-31. In my book that type of crystal-balling is bad luck, for her and for those of us that love her. Must we fake things like that? What's the point? To show off that we know how to make great charts? It's beautiful. And wrong. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Family tree

{{help me}} In the section that says Family tree, can you add Archie who is Harry and Meghan's son to the family tree? I don't know how to do that so I was hoping someone could do it for me. Interstellarity T 🌟 13:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: What should I put him on as? Everyone else has titles of some sort, but he doesn't really appear to have anything (and his article corroborates that). LittlePuppers (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

LittlePuppers, Oh I see. I didn't realize that people without titles are not listed. Should we still list people with no royal titles still? Interstellarity T 🌟 19:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: I don't know if they're intentionally unlisted or if everyone in the family just has titles (I'd be fine putting people without them), I was just wondering what to put him under. LittlePuppers (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

He's "Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor". We don't list, for example, the children of Princess Anne. You could make a case that we should list all the children and grandchildren of the heir apparent (Charles), though. - Nunh-huh 02:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Archie's last name is Windsor but the children of Princess Anne are not. He's also got a chance albeit a small one of succeeding to the throne so I think it's important to have him there.--Fadedcorgi (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Titles-schmitles! (Sorry.) List all or none, I say!. Otherwise (sorry again), it's fake news. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Commonwealth nations

The picture showing the evolution of Commonwealth membership through the years is not up to date. For instance, it shows that South Africa was expelled (or what amounted to it) in 1961 but not that it was readmitted in 1994. For another thing, I don't remember which countries (I think there are two) were accepted as members of the Commonwealth without ever having been part of the British sphere of influence before. ("Special circumstances", it was said.) — Tonymec (talk) 06:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

There isn't a table of Commonwealth membership. The (unsourced) table attempts to show sovereign states that had a monarch from the House of Windsor. South Africa became a republic in 1961 and still is one. DrKay (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Reign of George V

George V's reign didn't start in 1917. Saying it did is misleading and can't be found in any reliable source. DrKay (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Please, read "[N 1]", which can be found next to "George V" in the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.135.231 (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

That is also wrong. He was in the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha from 1865. DrKay (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The text in "[N 1]" is referring to which royal house King George V was a member of during his reign. Your confusion is understandable, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:D419:6400:4870:5E97:5195:38A (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The confusion is understandable because the article is written in a confusing and misleading way. I think most readers would interpret the dates in the chart as setting out George V's entire reign, not his reign as a member of the House of Windsor. The footnotes are not sufficient; it needs to be addressed directly in the chart.--Trystan (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Let's try (see the article). You're welcome to improve it. — Tonymec (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

After deliberating on the issue, I have come to the realisation that the table (in its former state) would have been confusing for many casual readers. Therefore, I have decided to add "As a Windsor" in the "Reign" and "Coronation" sections of George V. When combined with the links to two footnotes, all confusion should be avoided. I would like to thank everyone for their input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:D419:6400:10E6:2C3B:9205:2627 (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Ancestry

There's been some back-and-forth over a section about the Windsors being descendants of Sophia of Hanover. I think some version of this material is a valuable addition to the article. As originally added, it contained a misstatement about primogeniture, and I think probably too much detail about the exact rules of succession that isn't directly tied to the ancestry of the Windsors. I suggest the following be added under Members:

As all members of the House of Windsor are descended from Queen Victoria, they are also all descendants of Sophia, Electress of Hanover. Under the Act of Settlement 1701, succession to the throne was restricted to Sophia's Protestant heirs of the body.

That covers the ancestry, and the heirs of the body link has more info on the exact rules.--Trystan (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance. The relevant ancestry is already covered in the first sentences of both the Background and the Members sections and the second sentence of the lead. DrKay (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The ancestry is only covered going back to Victoria on that side of the tree; a bit of broader context is useful. The Act of Settlement is current constitutional law in Commonwealth countries. It's worth clearly stating how the current royal house connects to the law that makes them royal.--Trystan (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the house of Windsor not the royal family 300 years ago or the succession. DrKay (talk) 07:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Trystan, the 1917 Order in Council establishing the House of Windsor stated quite clearly that it only consisted of the male-line descendents of Queen Victoria, with the added addition that it only included those living in the UK (which leaves out the descendants of her male-line grandson, Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha). Therefore the house begins with Victoria, and any previous ancestry is not relevant to to this article.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 11:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The nature of this article

This is an article about the House of Windsor, not the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Therefore, one should not list dates before 17 July 1917 in the "Reign" and "Coronation" sections of the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.135.231 (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

That's too arbitrary a cutoff. The table should show George V's full reign and when in his reign the name change occurred. Trying to split it up into two reigns is confusing and misleading. --Trystan (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Why is it arbitrary? Before 1917, he wasn't a member of the House of Windsor. Nor were his children nor his uncle Arthur, Duke of Connaught, they were members of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (or Wettin), nor his children nor his grandson.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

"English royal family" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect English royal family. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 19#English royal family until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty § Adding House of Glucksburg to male-line descendants of Elizabeth II

 – Interstellarity (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Princess Anne's children not shown in family tree

I don't really have enough confidence in my technical skills (or the particular protocol of this article) to try adding this myself, but where in the family tree are Peter Phillips and Zara Phillips Tindall, the Princess Royal's children by Captain Mark Phillips?. They and their five children rank from 16th to 22nd in the order of succession to the throne. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The tree only shows members of the house of Windsor with a royal style. They aren't Windsors and don't have a royal style. DrKay (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Original "Old House of Windsor"

Is there any information on the original old family "de Windsor"/ the original 15th century local nobility? 153.26.2.61 (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Misleading

Ireland has been independent since 1921 or '22. The table misleadingly portrays the UK as only independent since 1930. The sources provided do not support half the content in the section: for example, the source for Canada gives a variety of dates between 1867 and 1949 for its independence: "autonomy in domestic and foreign affairs" [which appears to match the definition of a sovereign state] in 1867, "culminating in 1947 with the Letters Patent Constituting ... the Governor-General to exercise all the powers of the Sovereign in Canada, on the advice of the Canadian government." It doesn't explicitly give 1930 [or is it '31?] as the date of sovereignty, which is what is apparently shown in the table. DrKay (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

An excerpt from Britannica: "This change and others were embodied in the 1931 Statute of Westminster, which ended all legislative supremacy of the British Parliament over the dominion parliaments and made them, when they proclaimed the act, sovereign states sharing a common crown." Peter Ormond 💬 15:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

And what date does it give for "when they proclaimed the act"? Australia: 1942 (or is it 1939?). New Zealand: 1947. Ireland: never. DrKay (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Excerpt from the Royal website: "In 1931, the Statute of Westminster applied the term 'dominion' to Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Newfoundland, and the Irish Free State. This meant it was a country of the British Empire and later the Commonwealth, with autonomy in domestic and foreign affairs." Peter Ormond 💬 16:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Taking Canada as an example, see for example, Canada's "sovereignty was acquired in the period between its separate signature of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and the Statute of Westminster, 1931...", "It took five decades after the Statute of Westminster for Canada to make its final step toward full sovereignty. In 1982, it adopted its own constitution and became a completely independent country.", "The slowness and complexity of Canada's evolution have fostered differences of opinion as to when independence occurred". Even Britannica contradicts itself: "proclaimed by Queen Elizabeth II on April 17, 1982, making Canada wholly independent...the last legal tie with Great Britain was severed, and Canada became a fully sovereign state." Similar arguments can be had for all the pre-1947 dominions. Per WP:NPOV, wikipedia does not select one source over another when sources disagree. DrKay (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

It is better to drop the word "sovereign" altogether, and replace it with "independent", as sources disagree. Peter Ormond 💬 17:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not select one interpretation over another when reliable sources disagree. DrKay (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Changed to just "states". Peter Ormond 💬 18:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

There was an argument about this at Monarchy of Canada, months or years ago, concerning the founding date. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I would think it fairly obvious that the table should start in 1917. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that would make more sense given the article's topic focus on the house of Windsor. The states could then be listed by their traditional dates of foundation, so 1922 for the Irish Free State and before 1917 for Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, which would then match the dates at Commonwealth realm#Current realms, Commonwealth realm#List of states, and Dominion#List of Dominions. DrKay (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it should exactly be like that. Peter Ormond 💬 16:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Well if anybody here knows how to implement the changes-in-question? then by all means, have at it. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I see what you mean about that table. It's really code-heavy and over-complicated. I've simplified it to a table that is more useful, sortable and clearly understood. The dates are now clearer than before, as well as more accurate. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Edward VIII Portrait - 1936.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

de jure/de facto

The Queen's 1960 declaration very clearly states that Mounbatten-Windsor applies only to those not entitled to be styled HRH. Was Prince Charles styled HRH? Yes, therefore he was not a Mountbatten-Windsor. The fact that he considers himself, as do the others, a Mountbatten-Windsor is in deference to his father, the only man in Britain not allowed to give his children his name, as Philip famously complained. Thus those who are Windsor de jure are Mountbatten-Windsor de facto. And you have to wonder if that isn't what Elizabeth hoped would happen, even thought that's not how she stated it, specifically indicating the Royal House would remain Windsor. 2600:4040:5D38:1600:F581:52AD:912E:7658 (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Now House of Oldenburg

Seems to me that as of today it should be noted somewhere in this article that the primary line of the House of Windsor genealogically and unquestionably belongs to the House of Oldenburg. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

To date, King Charles III hasn't proclaimed a change in the name of the royal house/dynasty, he now heads. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

No need fora proclamation to note an obvious genealogical fact. Nobody is asking for a name change. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

House of Oldenburg

I do not agree with this edit. It is nowhere established that King Charles III and the British royals descending from him consider themselves genealogically a part of only a branch of the House of Oldenburg. It also more interesting, as apparent in our Oldenburg article, that they descend from a royal house founded in 1448 than limiting their heritage to a family branch which has only been royal since 1863. I will change the info back unless someone can convince me here not to do so. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I have revised the sentence in the lead to add the rest of Philip's descendants. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

"Cadet branch"

How is Mountbatten-Windsor a "cadet branch" of the House of Windsor according to the infobox? A cadet branch is defined as a family descending from a monarch's younger sons. Queen Elizabeth's oldest son, and his sons, use "Mountbatten-Windsor." If anything "Mountbatten-Windsor" is the de facto name of the royal house now that Charles is king. 85.164.237.213 (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Clearly an error. It's not a branch at all, but it is in use as a surname, for when they occasionally slum it by using one. OTOH, having a "house name" and "surname" be different doesn't seem to be possible with the current template. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• King Charles III in 2022.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Auto-Protect

I wish this page to be semi-protected due to constant picture changes of Charles III. It looks a bit "sus" that I had tried to make it semi-protected. Anyways, please do.

If you have any questions or concerns please find my talk page.

BillClinternet (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Monica Lewinternet and I do not agree. No need for that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Please stop harassing and please do not put any political viewpoints into this dispute. I do not support Bill Clinton, and my username is BillClinternet because I thought it was funny. I will continue to ignore you, and yes, administration will be brought into this. Please make sure you've read the Introduction to editing Wikipedia before editing. Thank you.

If you have any questions or concerns please find my talk page.

BillClinternet (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Picture of Charles

I don't understand why the picture of Charles was removed. The reason appears to be that it doesn't depict him as king, but neither does the picture of Edward VIII so that explanation is inconsistent at best. DrKay (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Put it back! The empty box looks bad. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done - and we don't order each other around in edit summaries. We discuss here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Too many photo edits without discussion here. Consensus is not (not) achieved by reverting edits and making comments in edit summaries. It is to be achieved by discussion on this talk page.

Proposal: Until we have an official portrait of him as King, let's leave this photo of Charles III in there.

• Support because it best matches the very formal, full-figure style of the others. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• I agree. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
• I also agree. DrKay (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Descendants from the House of Glücksburg (Oldenburg)

Shouldn't the article say that the descendants of Prince Philip & Queen Elizabeth II genealogically belong to those houses, instead of only Charles & his descendants? Maria0215 (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

It does, in the bottom section. I have tried to amend the part of the article which was incorrect, but another editor keeps changing it back. He will need to explain why he's doing that. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

All of Elizabeth II's & Philip's descendants, genealogically belong to the House of Glucksburg & Oldenburg. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Editors keep saying that, but I don't think they are. The descendants of princesses Anne, Beatrice and Eugenie would not ordinarily be members of that house. I understand that the situation has become complicated because in the modern world matrilineal descendants are included in houses when historically they wouldn't have been, but if we don't have citations saying they are Oldenburgs, then we shouldn't be saying that they are. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Celia Homeford, That's a bit confusing. So if the late Queen had not declared that her descendants were members of the House of Windsor, then Anne would not have belonged to any royal houses? Because based on the way you put it, it sounds that she would have not been a member of either houses. She's female but she's still a male-line descendant. I thought her children would be the ones that would take on the name of their father's house, or his surname as he turned out to be non-royal. Keivan.f^Talk 19:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

You do appear to be confused. Please provide a citation explicitly stating that Zara Tindall and Peter Phillips are members of the house of Glucksburg. If you don't have one, then there's nothing worth discussing as it is merely your own invention. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Celia Homeford, I misread your comment. You had talked about the "descendants of" princesses Anne, Beatrice and Eugenie, but I completely missed that part. Otherwise, I agree with what you have said. Female-line descendants of royal princesses take on the surnames of their fathers, and thus belong to their family/house. Keivan.f^Talk 23:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

We have no source to substantiate an assertion that they consider themselves belonging to the Glückburg branch or that anyone else includes them there. We do have a good source for Oldenburg. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

If certain editors are going to insist on mentioning the House of Oldenburg, the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg should also be added in order to explain the link. If we don't recognize that the Mountbatten-Windsors genealogically belong to HofSHSG, how can we claim they belong to its parent house? Hanna.paml (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Changes made again without discussion & consensus first. I beleive it is more appropriate to have the House of Oldenburg in the lead than merely in a footnote. It is a substantial change in this dynasty's genealogical make-up. Only one editor, as far as I can see, insists on removing it from the lead. I will reinstate it again unless someone can give us a good reason here not to. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Same again - rolled back 3 edits & wrote to user. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

And once more, this time, to my great surprise, by an experienced editor of many years. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Decisive factor: We have no source to support an assertion that the current king considers himself a Glücksberg. He decides that, not Wikipedians' unsourced opinions. We have a source confirming that he per genealogy is an Oldenburg. Changes should not be made (again and again and again without discussion here) unless we have a source showing that Charles III belongs to anything other than the House of Windsor, by decree, and the House of Oldenburg genealogically. I will change this again unless we have that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I assume the source you're referring to is Burke's Royal Families of the World. I don't have access to its content but I wonder what it actually says. Because in order to support the claims within the article, it has to state specifically that Charles or his siblings are members of the House of Oldenburg by agnatic primogeniture. There's also another aspect to this. People tend to forget that Philip let go of the titles passed down to him by the virtue of his father and became a Mountbatten, which itself is a branch of the Battenberg family. As you can see the issue is rather complicated. Keivan.f^Talk 19:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

It is now assumed here that a source I provided is the one I provided, the one that keeps getting reverted and removed and then becomes contaminated with info it does not contain. We do not have anything that refutes that source which clearly states that Philip was an Oldenburg, with not a word about him being a Glücksberg. Whether or not someone has access to the content of the source, and whether or not Philip let go of titles is irrelevant to the clear fact of his genealogical house as given in the source. I will reinstate the correct information, as per the cited source now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: Whether or not someone has access to the content of the source… is irrelevant I'm sorry, but it is relevant. You yourself mentioned that the source clearly states that Philip was an Oldenburg. So I assume you already have read what the source says. And since you mentioned the absence of any other sources that might refute it, I should probably bring up this article by The Guardian which describes Philip as a descendant of the Danish-German house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg. Then there's this article by The New York Times which clearly states Philip was born Philippos, of the royal house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, on the Greek island of Corfu on June 10, 1921. Not to mention his entry on Encyclopædia Britannica which states His father’s family name had been Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. The list goes on and on, with sources all describing him as a member of the House of Glücksburg: NBC, Vogue, Reuters, CNN, Time, The Independent, etc. I don't know why we should give preference to the source of your choice while dozens of others clearly state the opposite thing. Keivan.f^Talk 00:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

This is not about Philip exclusively. The current king decides this, not his deceased father. If/When we have a source of any kind that says that King Charles III considers himself genealogically a Glücksberg, that can be added of course. For now, we know he is an Oldenburg. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean "considers himself genealogically a Glücksburg"? He either is or isn't. Your genealogy doesn't change depending on what you "consider" to be the case.

I'm actually confused about the Royal House thing. I thought the House of Windsor ceased to be the reigning House on the death of Elizabeth II. I'm not sure what ruling house Charles III would be considered to belong to, though. Presumably not the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderberg-Glücksburg as Prince Philip had renounced his Greek and Danish titles before being made a Prince of the United Kingdom ahead of his marriage.

Would that create a new ruling house? House of Mountbatten, perhaps? House of Mountbatten-Windsor? I just don't see how the House of Windsor can be said to be reigning (even though I'm unsure of what the reigning house is) in the same way that when Victoria died, the House of Hanover ceased to reign and the House of Saxe-Coburg came in. Vabadus91 (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Reign is not to be confused with genealogy. You belong to a certain house due to your paternal heritage, not to to any reign. For now, we have a good source that Charles genealogically belongs to the main house, Oldenburg, but none that he believes that he belongs to any branch of it, his father's. Charles decides, and yes, it's likely he will announce another dynastic name eventually. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

PS Why not add at least one of those sources to the sentence about Philip where I put a cite tag the other day? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: If/When we have a source of any kind that says that King Charles III considers himself genealogically a Glücksberg, that can be added of course. I was actually going to make this point myself as well. We need to figure out whether Charles considers himself an Oldenburg or a Glücksburg. For now, I will add one of the sources listed above to the part that concerns Philip, who was clearly a Glücksburg. Keivan.f^Talk 22:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreement reached here. It will be interesting to see what King Charles does, if anything, about this. From what I've seen so far, before and since his accession, he often knows what he's doing. I would not be surprised if he considers it much more prestigious to belong to an ancient royal family which has been on a number of ancient thrones, than a relatively new branch of it, as far as thrones go. He might also surprise us with a new dynasty name of his own making (though he'll still be an Oldenburg by paternity). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Charles III and Queen Camilla Balcony (cropped Charles III).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Image should be removed

I do not agree with the reinstatement here of a dominant photo of some members and its huge distracting caption. It is not needed, nor is it relevant since not all members today are in it. I will remove it again unless someone can give us a good reason not to. All the members are named in the chart, which should suffice.--SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree that such a picture is superfluous to the page — which otherwise shows only the images of monarchs in a sea of of hard-to-follow technical prose — because a picture is worth hundreds of words, cf. Charles Dickens or George Orwell). However, I've developed doubts about the actual picture.

1. The caption is too awkward and bulky (perhaps it should remain on the image page at WikiMedia)
2. More importantly, once you blow up the photo, the images of individual royals are so blurry that they tell little. This is no aspersion at all on a good-faith insertion, but because it, praiseworthily, is a copyright-free own image, no doubt taken at a very great distance from the Palace balcony with a non-professional camera. My ideal solution would be if someone else could find and post a better-defined public-domain photograph. Whether, in the meanwhile, the current image should remain until a better one arrives is an opinion I have not yet reached. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

King Charles III now has an official portrait that might be exchanged to promote uniformity for this article 2601:805:8500:5DA0:F22E:1F3B:9B2E:EED0 (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

If you mean the copyrighted one in regalia, it's a non-starter. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Branch of the House of Oldenburg?

Although not official, can't it be argued that the House of Windsor is now a branch of BOTH the House of Wettin (Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) AND the House of Oldenburg (Glücksburg)? StrawWord298944 (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

House of Mountbatten

The article should make it clear that Philip was wrong in 1952. Whether a wife takes her husbands name or not, if she is Queen, her marriage does not change the name of the House. Victoria continued as a Queen of the house of Hanover, even after being married to Albert.

What does happen is that their children are members of the husbands House. So, Victoria was the last Hanover, and her son, Edward VII, was the first monarch of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (Alberts House).

The article should explain more why there was such a fuss in ‘52, and why the current monarch’s House does not bear the name of Philip’s House, according to previous precedent. It does imply at the end that the current monarch could change it if he wanted to, so some discussion of why he does not, and if he might do it, would improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c7:e287:1901:451c:34a1:782d:bab5 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Any and all article content must be supported by reliable sources. Feel free to try to find some for this! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Updating photos of List of monarchs

I believe they should look like the ones on their articles. RicLightning (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

No consensus for such a massive alteration. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The Queen, as of 2024

I do not agree with this edit. Googling old postcards of former British queens consort (in lieu of better sources right now) does not support it. It's a personal POV with nothing to back it. I am aware of, and can even respect the fact that many people take a more-or-less dim view of Camilla, ranging from just meek uncertainty or apprehensively positioned eyebrows to vehement, rabid, extreme, fanatic hatred. Anyone changing anything anywhere about her should ask h-elf what degree of that dimness of view might be swaying h to do so and how h motives might rightly be perceived. The woman has the exact same rank, title and style as previous British queens consort, and we all need to face that fact no later than now, no matter how it may hurt, somewhere, anatomically, with no sunshine. The king decides these things, not we Wikipedians. I will change this back unless someone can give us a good reason here not to. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

As it stands now, Queen Camilla's entry on family tree matches those of Queen Mary (of Teck) and Queen Elizabeth (Queen Mum). Moons of Io (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Current queens, whether consort or regnant, have always been called "The Queen". Those fine ladies are dead. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Serg - it was you who brought them up when you were "googling old postcards" I don't understand this backtracking from you initial comment. 2A02:1406:1B:8F49:7589:F8D7:3489:F41B (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes I did. They were called "The Queen" while their husbands were on the throne. No backtracking here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The royal family website refers to her as "The Queen" [1], as does the coronation invitation [2]. The use of the term queen mum was to distinguish from her daughter, who was also queen elizabeth. Both the queen mum and Mary of Teck were styled 'HM The Queen' during the reign of their husbands, as Camilla is known now. As she is the only Queen of the UK living, there is no need to distinguish her from anyone as was the case with the queen mum. EmilySarah99 (talk) 08:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Elizabeth II:s mother was known as "The Queen" during her husband's reign. Her daughter was (the only one) known as "The Queen" during hers. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)