Talk:Line of succession to the British throne/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Omit remoter collaterals

The recent increase in the line descending from the present heir apparent, and the above discussion, suggest that the time has come for letting the list omit the collateral lines descending from George V, now numbered 22 to 49. The prospect of any of them succeeding to the throne is practically non-existent. If the line stops at descendants of Margaret, the Queen's deceased younger sister (the first collateral line), the paragraph under the Notes could be rewritten to read:

• The line of succession continues with the eligible descendants of the brothers of George VI, namely, Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester (1900–1974) and his descendants, followed by Prince George, Duke of Kent (1902–1942) and his descendants. The line then continues with the eligible descendants of Mary, Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood (1897-1965), only daughter of George V (and sister of George VI), followed by the other eligible descendants of Edward VII (1841-1910) and earlier British monarchs, back to George I (1660-1727) (the line is limited to Sophia of Hanover's descendants, of whom all alive today are also George I's descendants). The last person in line (which runs into thousands) was reported in 2011 to be Karin Vogel (born 1973) from Rostock, Germany.

It seems there is small reason for retaining these remoter lines. Some of the persons listed may be, in some sense, members of the Royal Family or of the House of Windsor, and if so let them be listed there. Qexigator (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

It is, of course, true that none of them will ever succeed to the throne, and it is safe to say that with such a certainty. That part of the line, however, includes "full-time royals" such as the Duke of Gloucester and the recently "retired" but previously very active Princess Alexandra, as well as other "Royal Highnesses", i.e. members of the royal family. It might be useful to show their places in the line of succession. We don't lack space, do we? Surtsicna (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I like your suggestion Qexigator. In the interest of inclusiveness and to show his place in the line of succession I have added King Edward VIII/The Duke of Windsor to the list, which, I believe strengthens your point about shaving the list. However, given that the people who would be removed are in fact members of the royal family, perhaps the list should remain as inclusive as it is until after the death of Queen Elizabeth II. That would be, IMO, the most appropriate time to remove George V, Edward VIII and the younger siblings of George VI. Drdpw (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I think they should be kept even after the eath of QEII, especially if her senior royal cousins are still living. The Dukes of Kent and Gloucester, Prince Michael (when he is readded) and Princess Alexandra are all currently or were until restricted by health, active members of the royal family. It's a unique situation, because most other royal families don't really have collateral lines like this, for the vast majority, Liechtenstein aside, it's only the ruler's children, siblings or aunts/uncles still remaining. As long as those four remain alive, I think they and their descendants should be included, because they are officially part of the royal family, but once they pass, I think it can be restricted to QE2's descendants. The Earls of St Andrews and Ulster will be Windsors, but not royal Windsors, which is an important distinction. Morhange (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Concede retain per Surt. above, but EVIII not eligible for this list, even if he were living. The list is of those in line of succession, but includes deceased in italics to show through whom a line descends. Qexigator (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Noted, (per Mor.) descendants of 2nd dukes (now 22 to 50) up for removal on next demise of the crown. Could be some years ahead. Qexigator (talk) 03:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I think if we are still wanting to trim the list, the non-royal descendants of the collateral branches should only be removed once 1) QE2 dies AND 2) once the royal dukes of Kent and Gloucester, Prince Michael and Princess Alexandra are all deceased. Then again, as long as we have a valid source for births/deaths/marriages, I don't see why trimming is that necessary. Morhange (talk) 06:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

What I meant to have mentioned above was that descendants in the two remoter collateral lines, namely, Gloucester line: 22-31, and Kent line: 32-50, would be up for removal, at some indefinite point in the future. In practice, the state of the collateral lines will be reviewed as seniors pass to another realm than this. The list is not to honour particular honourable persons, such as Princess Alexandra, or to give a genealogy of members of the royal family. Given that the actual purpose of the article is to list the current line of succession, and that the Queen's descendants are by now sufficiently numerous and apparently healthy (subject to sporting or other accidents) and fecund (if willing), there is an austere case for leaving out all three collateral lines (from 16). When the law of succession has been changed (anyone's guess), we could consider splitting the line with first, Queen's direct descendants, and then up to three collaterals. Meantime, I have conceded to Surt.'s comment. Qexigator (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's be realistic, the prospect of anyone below Harry coming to the throne is so small it's laughable. And even Harry's prospects are minimal. The same reason for culling the entries over #22 is equally valid at a practical level for any entry over #4. I think it needs to be decided by Wikipedia once and for all what this page is intended for as it's been argued and counter-argued over practically since it was first added. If the likelyhood to accede is now the main justification, then everyone after Harry should be deleted and be done with it. Analog Kid (talk) 06:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Be realistic, Analog Kid: have you read the comment immediately above dated 20 August 2013? It has not been argued about for over a year. Qexigator (talk) 06:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It'll come up again at some point, it always does. Who to include, and in which order has been an on/off issue since day one. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see another argument about the line when William's next kid is born. Granted the arguments seem to be a lot less frequent than they were a few years ago when the talk page used to scroll for ages. I still say the question should be settled though, so that it doesn't need to come up at all. For practical purposes, everyone below Harry has no chance, so if that's the criteria just delete everyone below him. If a different criteria is adopted, fair enough, but I think something should be set-in-stone. That's my opinion of course, yours may vary. I last visited the page about a year ago, so it must have been just before this topic popped-up. Analog Kid (talk) 07:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems silly to be bringing this up again since a consensus seems to have been reached last year and the situation hasn't changed beyond a handful of births. However, since it has come up again, I would recommend that the set-in-stone criteria would be that we set the basis for which collateral lines we use would be the British Monarchy's website. If it includes the descendants of George V, then we should as well (especially while there are still living descendants of George V who themselves are also British Royals). In the future, when these collateral lines no longer have British royals in them and they're no longer included on the British Monarchy's website then we should remove them. Psunshine87 (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I've stirred the pot. I visited the page, saw another topic on it and thought "Oh no, not again." I should've examined the dates more closely and realised they were 2013, not 2014. Still, if a final consensus can be reached, that would help in future. Analog Kid (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Superscript abbreviations in the Line of Succession section

In the section called "Line of Succession," most of the names have superscript letters to the right of them. The Prince of Wales, for example, has "B D W" in superscript out beside his name. The article doesn't provide any explanation for what that means. I've looked around a little online and not found anything yet. Would it be possible for someone to put a brief explanation of what this means (ideally with a link to a more complete explanation) at the beginning of the section, between the "Line of Succession" heading and the beginning of the list proper? CKA3KA (Skazka) (talk) 04:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The letters are explained in the notes subsection below the listing. TFD (talk) 04:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah! So they are. That's embarrassing. Thanks. CKA3KA (Skazka) (talk) 05:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

On the subject of superscripts, Lord Nicholas Windsor has an "XC", meaning excluded as Roman Catholic, but his three sons, who were all baptized Catholics, do not. Is there a reason for this and, if so, what is it? 86.41.43.163 (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That is because they're still listed on the British Monarchy's official website's line of succession. The idea seems to be that they're not considered Catholics until their confirmations. Psunshine87 (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Unborn child

Given that an unborn child is not in any line of succession, IP's edit[1] is in error. Qexigator (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

+Such is the need to repeat information sufficiently known to regular editors here, for casual readers and occasional editors, it is better to add back who will, from birth, be fourth in the line of succession, behind elder brother, father, and grandfather,[2] and to add also "whether boy or girl", to read "who from birth, whether boy or girl, will be fourth in the line of succession, behind elder brother, father, and grandfather". Qexigator (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Unborn children ARE in the line of succession. When King William IV died, princess Victoria was proclaimed Queen, however the Accession Proclamation stated that "the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is solely and rightfully come to the high and mighty Princess Alexandrina Victoria, saving the rights of any issue of his late Majesty King William IV. which may be born of his late Majesty's consort". Varro (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The very fact that Victoria ascended immediately on the death of William IV proves that unborn children are not in the line of succession. I have no idea how you interpreted it the other way around. Had Adelaide been pregnant, Victoria's reign would have ended upon the birth of the child, if born alive, not a moment sooner. That was the point of the proclamation. Surtsicna (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Surtsicna's point seems to be valid. Under the laws of England a fetus is not a person. In fact today, Adelaid might have conceived a child from her late husband after Victoria ascended the throne, and that child would have succeeded to the throne at birth. This again illustrates why it is original research to adjust the list rather than wait for a new list and use it as a source. TFD (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe there is no need to state that the child will be fourth in the line and be "behind elder brother, father, and grandfather". Right below that sentence is a wonderfully detailed graph that clearly names the first three people in the line. Casual readers and occasional editors surely know that 4 comes after 1, 2 and 3. Not naming the "elder brother, father, and grandfather" makes the sentence entirely unhelpful, redundancy notwithstanding. If we are going to assume that our readers, though obviously literate, cannot count to five, why assume they won't think the grandfather is Michael Middleton? Finally, the word child means "a son or daughter", so the phrase "whether boy or girl" adds nothing but length to the sentence. Surtsicna (talk) 09:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

We need not be argumentative about this when we can settle for[3]. --Qexigator (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Alfonso XIII of Spain succeeded his older sister at birth. That would have been the same here, had not the law of succession been changed. However, in Medieval France, an interregnum was declared prior to the nominal reign of Jean I of France. However, say King George VII is killed by a rogue drone during the 2066 commemoration of the Battle of Hastings, his pregnant and much, much younger Queen might then become regent for the fetus, for whatever gender it was, it was next in line. However, if there was a two year old princess at the time, she would be Queen even if the baby was to be a brother, as the act of succession has been changed to absolute primogeniture.Ericl (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

A fetus is not a person. Therefore the succession would pass to Prince Harry as heir presumptive and George VII's son or daughter would become king or queen at birth, and a regent appointed. TFD (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Dates

Can the reason for this be clarified? Statement of the change in NZ planted between statement of the change being implemented somewhere and the change being implemented in the UK; it makes no sense. There've been, so far as we know, two changes: in New Zealand on 25 March and in the UK on 26 March. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

See further revised edit[4]. Qexigator (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

+It is odd to see the Lord President's statement in the House of Commons, repeated in the House of Lords, Today the provisions of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 come into force, with no instrument to that effect, as the Act requires, yet available. Perhaps it will be in the London Gazette, but if Australia and New Zealand can act in time for today, why not UK? Qexigator (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The edits still don't make sense.

I've reduced the matter to its most pertinent. It's in the lede of an article that isn't about succession law. All the extra information is available at a number of other pages.

You can find citation templates here (if I haven't pointed that out to you already). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

BRF website

With the changes to the Succession to the Crown Act coming into effect, I was expecting the official BRF website to make updates to reflect this so that it matched our version (aside from their confusion about Lady Helen and Lord Nicholas' lines). However, it seems that they've removed everyone following Lady Louise. Are we still requiring that silly stipulation about only including someone if their exact number is sourced somewhere? Because now none of the sources we're using are accurate or follow the current list we have. Does anyone have the updated 2015 edition of Whitaker's? We're still using the 2013 version, but even so, it's still going to be outdated by the end of next month anyway once the second Cambridge baby is born. The BBC and Express both say Prince Michael is 47th for some bizarre reason, probably because they think Lord Nicholas, Lord Downpatrick and Lady Marina got put back in. Morhange (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

If no one has published a current list beyond the first ten people in line to the throne, then the rest of the list lacks notability. And researching the facts on each person and determining whether they fit under 16 Commonwealth Realms, 15 British overseas territories, 10 Canadian provinces, and other realms and territories is original research, which is specifically prohibited. It might be the case for example that Canada's Succession Act is invalid, and that could invalidate the UK one. TFD (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

By that rationale, the fact that BBC and Express publish Prince Michael as 47th in line means a. being in the line of succession up to #47 is, ipso facto, "notable", and b. their error in calculation may not be corrected or even acknowledged. Determining who is where in the line of succession is a mere numerical calculation that is constitutionally and legally significant -- both in terms of who is called upon to exercise the prerogatives of the Crown as Counsellors of State (in the past, at least two of these dynasts didn't even use royal titles) and who is subject to the Succession to the Crown Act 2013's restrictions on marriage. But Wikipedia remains tongue-tied on the matter, the very kind of facts for which people turn every day to an encyclopedia to ascertain what is accurate. The institution called "the British Royal Family" and those deemed members of it -- consisting of significantly more than 10 individuals -- are notable by virtue of that fact as evidenced by the vast amount of ink they elicit in reliable sources -- yet Wikipedia's policy that the order of their proximity to the throne is reportable only for the first 10 is a glaring, head-scratching anomaly that calls for a re-consideration of how "the rules" are applied to coverage about them. Morhange's right: if we follow our own rules, the moment the next Cambridge baby is born (and by logical extension every dynastic newborn) all of our info about who is in the line of succession from that point on should be deleted as obsolete -- yet everyone knows that the line of succession continues to exist beyond that point, and what it is -- everyone, that is, except Wikipedia! (It just seems to me that we continue to withhold information that the public properly wants not because we don't or can't find it, but because some think people's interest in matters monarchical is unwarranted and that Wikipedia should discourage it by adhering to counter-intuitive rules bound to starve their interest. Hope I'm wrong, but just can"t else understand why WP has become such a thwartingly small-minded hobgoblin in this area. ) FactStraight (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Retain the old, shorten the new

The old

Given that the list as it was before 26 March was correct[5], is it possible for it to be retained as such, together with the annotations, and indicating any which were at that time expected to change when the new rules became effective? It would be of lasting interest to anyone wishing to have the historic information, and it need not be consigned to oblivion.

The new

But that version of the list is no longer valid, and a shorter list will suffice. The shorter the list, the less the updating problem. Which of the following would be acceptable?

• If the line included only the heir apparent and his descendants, it would number no more than (4) going on (5).
• If it included the other descendants of the Queen, it would number (16) going on (17).

Qexigator (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

We should only use lists that already appear in reliable sources, rather than creating our own, so I would favor 2. If you have any sources that explain how the new laws affected individual ranking, that could be added to the article. TFD (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

People are much more likely to be interested in the current line of succession than in an obsolete list. There will not yet be many sources which contain an up to date list because the changes are new, and there is no rule or policy in Wikipedia that says we can't make our own list, as long as it is verifiable, which it already is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Anyone who wants to know the old order can go to the article history and look up 25 March. As for the length of the list, most interested people already know who the first four or five in line are, so they will be coming to this article to see who is further down the line. Richard75 (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Noting the above comments, a further option would be to break the current version of the list at (16) which has not been changed by the new rules, and let that be updated, while making a new section for the remainder as it was in the old version together with the annotations, etc., with a clear statement that this part of the old list stops before the changes, and is not being updated. Not all who come here will know where to find the back numbers. Nor is it safe to surmise that most interested people know who the first four or five are; many may not, and those that do may wish to check. It will become increasingly difficult to verify collateral lines. Qexigator (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

IMO, do as we have been doing and continue to list the male-line descendants of George V. Right now, the only real point of contention in our current list is whether or not Lord Nicholas Windsor's children are actually in line, because all we know is that taking a Catholic sacrament excludes you; whether that occurs as early as infant baptism or requires consent with confirmation is unknown. We know the female-line Gloucester grandchildren have switched places. We know Lord St Andrews and Prince Michael of Kent are back in line. At the very least, the first 35 spots (soon to be 36 when Baby Cambridge #2 is born) are accurate based on the last list the BRF website kept and factoring in the changes to the Gloucesters and Kents caused by the new law. Morhange (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

the only real point of contention...is whether or not Lord Nicholas Windsor's children are actually in line: Agree with that. Qexigator (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The Old: Link to old version now added.[6] --Qexigator (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

We're punting and stalling here. Two facts: The official Royal Family website did not update the list to make it more accurate -- it truncated the list to prevent it being inaccurate, and the imminent birth of the next Cambridge prince/ss will render all other published sources on the line of succession obsolete beyond the first three. Since we know these facts, both reliance upon the recently changed website and ignoring the real changes amount to collusion on the part of anyone reading this to fail to bring this article into compliance with what heretofore has been treated by consensus as the most reliable source -- although it never has been. I admire the above efforts to come up with a version of this page which doesn't deviate too obviously from what everyone knows is the current truth while appearing to comply with our distortingly constrictive rules, but it's a contortion, and one which will fail glaringly a few hours after Kate Middleton goes into labour. As Qexigator rightly notes, people don't just come here to find out what they already (think they) know, but to confirm it and to find out more -- since the "more" is known to exist and known to be calculable by anyone who can add and knows the dramatis personae to whom to apply the addition. At that point, there simply won't yet be "reliable sources" which accurately enumerate the order of successors to the crown (indeed, some of them may be awaiting Wikipedia's publication of same), yet successors there will be, and an order in which they succeed there will also be. What then? FactStraight (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

...distortingly constrictive rules...etc. There are some good npov editing reasons for not over-extending the list, and if the keepers of the British Monarchy site [7] have decided to continue with a cut-off point at Zara Tindall (15) going on (16), we may consider that in itself is a pointer to letting it be the cut-off in future updates, in other words, retaining only the Queen's descendants to Zara, and discontinuing remoter descendants or collaterals. They are unlikely to come near enough to the succcession to be notable by reason only of proximity, whatever notability any one of them may otherwise have from time to time. But there will be sufficient continuing historical interest to warrant recording the few changes in position which occurred when the rules changed, and the simplest way of presenting the information is with the vertical tree format which is used in the article. This is not the article for maintaining a genealogy or tree of the Royal Family, but only for the quite different purpose of listing (tree-wise) those currently in proximate line of succession, including the information about any of them who happen to be within the number affected by application of the rules affecting marriage. That should suffice here for keeping the facts straight. Qexigator (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

There's no need to do that. It wasn't POV before 26 March and it isn't now. It's fine as it is. Richard75 (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

You were overeacting, anticipating and suggesting collusion on the part of anyone reading this, and (higher above): ...we continue to withhold information that the public properly wants not because we don't or can't find it, but because some think people's interest in matters monarchical is unwarranted and that Wikipedia should discourage it by adhering to counter-intuitive rules bound to starve their interest..... That is why I now repeat 'There are some good npov editing reasons for not over-extending the list', and gave reasons. I look forward to a reasoned response. Qexigator (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Truncation but not deprivation

Editors will be looking to the next update, expected soon. Professional and amateur enthusisasts for particular topics tend to maintain websites with additiional informative content, for which Wikipedia is not responsible, but which can be readily accessed by live external links from the encyclopedically constructed articles which Wikipedia offers, free of copyright. The unofficial 'British Royal Family History' is a good example, with one of its pages headed 'Line of Succession to the British Throne'.[8]. But while currently it lists 100 (not necessarily accurately or up-to-date), it does not match the service to readers which Wikipedia can provide: it does not present the information of lineage by tree or words and it lacks the Wkipedia inline and other links. The current version of our article (as at 18:55, 5 April) includes a link to the version before the change: For the line of succession immediately before the changes of 26 March 2015.

At the update coming soon on the birth of the second Cambridge child, let us follow the British Monarchy website in respect of the list's extent. This will not be denying notable information about the topic of the article's name. It is not that the remoter collaterals, with or without princely or other titles, have renounced or been deprived of the position in which they are now placed by birth, operation of law, and the passage of time, but simply that it can be surmised that the Queen and they themselves may be taking a more practical view of their position, and a dignified public/private balance in their lives. Those that are sufficiently notable for other reasons, such as involvement in public work, will have their own articles. For public or private information, owners of any website or online device can link themselves to the current or earlier version of our article, with the opportunity freely to use the content for constructing an updated line extending to the collaterals to suit their own interests or purposes. Qexigator (talk) 09:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No. There is no need to copy what some other website is doing. Wikipedia is not improved by removing verifiable information. People shouldnt have to go to an old version of this article to find out what they want to know. Richard75 (talk) 10:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Yet again, have you any useful, practical, editing, npov reasons to offer us for consideration? It seems not. Qexigator (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Richard75, for revealing what seems to be the closest you can get to reasoning on the point.[9] --Qexigator (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I am with Richard75. As it stands, the article we have now is about as accurate as it can get based on the last version of the official site where it included in its full list the descendants of George V's sons; like I have previously mentioned, the only real point of contention is whether or not infant baptism into Catholicism is what disinherits a person, or if one must wait until juvenile confirmation. At any rate, as I have also argued for in the past, our list should continue to reflect the royal representatives of the Kent and Gloucester branches. As long as there are HRHs in these branches, they should be included in our list. They are still members of the British Royal Family, and despite their low chance of ever inheriting, they should still be included in the British line of succession. In due time, when the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent, Princess Alexandra and Prince Michael pass away, then we should discuss restricting it to George VI or Queen Elizabeth's descendants only. Morhange (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Previous discussions

For discussion 'Omit remoter collaterals', July-Sepember 2013, see Archive 16[10]; on introduction of the Tree list,[11], 23 June 2012, see 'Visual "succession" ' in Archive 13[12] --Qexigator (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2015

Prince Harry of Wales for some reason is shown as Prince Henry of Wales. 86.167.14.227 (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: See below: Jamietw (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Prince "Henry" listed instead of Prince Harry

This page lists a prince Henry as 4th in line, when it should be Prince Harry

108.54.56.50 (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• • Prince Henry of Wales is his real name. Harry is his nickname.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Jamietw (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Disruption?

Editors should be alerted to certain persistent bad edits currently occurring at this and other articles:

• Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge[13]
• Succession to the British throne[14]
• Line of succession to the British throne[15]

Qexigator (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm quite disappointed, sir. However, unlike yourself, I can't afford to stay involved in this kinda dispute, wich will be moot within 24-48 hrs. Therefore, you can have your way. GoodDay (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, GD, though we've used NN consistently before, there is an argument to be heard that it is not something our readers will easily understand! Better off using prose. Or "unnamed Middleton-Windsor child". DBD 15:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The?

I see some are piped as "The Prince" and "The Princess" instead of "Prince" or "Princess". Why? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The children of the monarch are "The Prince" or "The Princess." More distant relations are just "Prince" or "Princess. Psunshine87 (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Not to sound like a two-year-old, but why? Prince Charles' article doesn't refer to him that way once. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Prince Charles's article should refer to him as The Prince Charles but he is widely known as simply Prince Charles. The correct style for the children of a reigning monarch is to refer to them as "The Prince" or "The Princess." Grandchildren of a monarch are simply "Prince" and "Princess." Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Source? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

See "Styles of British Princes", Prince Harry, p. 15.[16] TFD (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

"The server encountered an error and could not complete your request." But it's a start. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Changed link, please try again. TFD (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Access granted. Still weird to me, but seems in order. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)