Talk:Lady Gabriella Kingston

Windsor or Kingston?

So is she still Lady Gabriella Windsor or is she now Lady Gabriella Kingson? 203.17.70.26 (talk) 04:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Undoubtedly Kingston. Ncox001 (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move

The Lady Gabriella Windsor → Lady Gabriella Windsor – "Lady", in this case, is a coutesy title, and thus, is not preceded with the definite article.

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support per nom! --Lox (t,c) 09:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support JSIN 09:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support safe to say that "The" can be dropped, but not the "Lady" part Gryffindor 23:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - per Gryffindor. Prsgoddess187 01:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• If this is approved, we are also going to have to move her brother, and various cousins. If we just move her, it will look strange. Prsgoddess187 01:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Lord Frederick Windsor, her brother, does not have the definite article. If I'm not mistaken (and if I am please correct me), great-grandchildren of the Sovereign are styled as children of a duke, which means "Lord" and "Lady" and not "The Lord" and "The Lady" which is reserved for substantive titles. JSIN 08:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to make sure that if we changed her title, we would change any others that occur like hers. I am not sure if her cousins, and others are styled The Lord/Lady. Prsgoddess187 12:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think if we move this, then it would be in order to move other similar pages too. JSIN 13:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved. —Nightstallion (?) 08:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

She is, indeed, The Lady Gabriella Windsor not merely Lady. Just as her brother is correctly The Lord Frederick Windsor not merely Lord Frederick Windsor. The definite article is correct and is required.

It should also be noted that even the children of a common garden (non royal) Duke, Marquess or Earl are properly styled as The Lord HisName X and The Lady HerName X. If the definite article were not required the courtesy title would not include their name - at all.

When Diana married The Prince of Wales she was The Lady Diana Spencer just as her sisters remain The Lady Jane Fellows and The Lady Sarah M.

The Lord/The Lady are not reserved for substantive titles only.

Queen Brandissima - brandy.kelley@gmail.com

Says who? CITE! DBD 22:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Says Burke's, The House of Lords, The Office of The Lord Chamberlain, ect...

Queen Brandissima

Is she royal?

Just thought I would quote from another source about her status

"With her enviable combination of brains, beauty and regal connections Gabriella Windsor constantly tops most eligible lists and is at the centre of the aristocratic social scene. But like Zara Phillips, Ella is one of the new set of young working royals determined to retain her independence and make her own way in the world without flaunting her famous surname." If Zara Phillips is Royal then she is as well Note the word Royal http://www.hellomagazine.com/profiles/lady-gabriella-windsor 78.145.166.159 (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's Hello magazine! They do not care about being precise or factually correct. When this lady gets a royal title, then we will be able to call her a royal. When this lady starts doing royal duties or when the official website lists her as member of the royal family, then we can call her royal. Surtsicna (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

How about the Daily Mail or do they not care about being precise or factually correct "Lady Gabriella gives her royal cast-offs to Oxfam" again note the word Royal (September 28, 2008) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1063339/Lady-Gabriella-gives-royal-cast-offs-Oxfam.html 78.145.166.159 (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Those are just tabloids! When the official website lists her as member, I'll let go. But that will never happen because she is legally a commoner. In Letters Patent gazetted on 11 December 1917, King George V made it clear that only children of the Sovereign, the children of the sons of the Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest living son of a Prince of Wales are royal. Therefore, this woman has no royal title. She has no royal style (such as Royal Highness. She has no royal duties. She is not royal! Surtsicna (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If you dont like the Daily Mail try the The Telegraph, now that must be more up market (and not a tabloid!!). "A member of the Royal Family has taken a job writing for the Spanish version of Hello! just three months after the furore caused by Peter Phillips selling his wedding photos to the society magazine ......their Royal contributer.....Under the name Ella Windsor, the Royal" Now I could be wrong but there are three Royals in that article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/2645300/Lady-Gabriella-Windsor-writes-for-Spanish-Hello.html?mobile=basic 78.145.166.159 (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think that word of a journalist is of greater importance than word of a king? Do you really think that a journalist is a greater authority on who is royal and who isn't than a king? If you do, then we have nothing else to say to each other. Surtsicna (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Lets try whos-who (not a paper, nor a tabloid) it it lists her as a member of The Royal Family http://www.ukwhoswho.com/public/royals Anyway who is the King? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.166.159 (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You should've read what I said. The King who issued the letters patent which make her a commoner is her great-grandfather, George V. When will you understand that the letters patent issued by a king are greater authority than any internet page? Surtsicna (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You want a REFERANCE? Here you are, a reference: In Letters Patent gazetted on 11 December 1917, the King restricted the style "His (or Her) Royal Highness" and the titular dignity of "Prince (or Princess) of Great Britain and Ireland" to the children of the Sovereign, the children of the sons of the Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest living son of a Prince of Wales. This is written on the 310th page of book called King George the Fifth: His Life and Reign and written by Sir Harold Nicolson. Is a tabloid greater authority than him too? Here is alink to the letters patent too: [1]. And if you don't want to click on that link, I'll present the letters patent right here (please click on "show"): Surtsicna (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Letters patent issued by His Most Gracious Majesty King George V in 1917 GEORGE THE FIFTH by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas King Defender of the Faith To all to whom these Presents shall come Greeting Whereas Her late Majesty Queen Victoria did by Her Letters Patent dated the thirtieth day of January in the twenty-seventh year of Her Reign declare Her Royal Pleasure as to the style and title of the princes and princesses of the Royal Family in the manner in the said Letters Patent particularly mentioned and Whereas We deem it expedient that the said Letters Patent should he extended and amended and that the styles and titles to he borne by the princes and princesses of the Royal Family should be henceforth established defined and limited in manner hereinafter declared Now Know Ye that We of Our especial grace certain knowledge and mere motion Do hereby declare Our Royal Will and Pleasure that the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sone of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold style and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince of Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour and We do further declare Our Royal Will and Pleasure that save as aforesaid the style title or attribute of Royal Highness Highness or Serene Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess shall not henceforth be assumed or borne by any descendant of any Sovereign of these Realms excepting always any such descendant who at the date of these Letters Patent holds or bears any right to any such style degree attribute or titular dignity an pursuance of any Letters Patent granted by Ourselves or any of Our Royal Predecessors and still remaining unrevoked It being Our Royal Will and Pleasure that the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy on all occasions the style and title enjoyed toy the children of Dukes of these Our Realms Our Will and Pleasure further 1b that Our Earl Marshal of England or his Deputy for the time toeing do cause these Our Letters Patent or the enrolment thereof to toe recorded in Our College of Arms to the end that Our Officers of Arms and all others may take due notice thereof In Witness Whereof We have caused these Our Letters to toe made Patent Witness Ourself at Westminster the thirtieth day of November In the eighth year of Our Reign.

The word "royal" is an adjective in the phrase "royal family". Neither the adjective "royal" nor the phrase "royal family" is defined in statute. There is no precedent for people like Ella (i.e. male line descendants who do not have the princely title or style). Since there is nothing in statute or in precedent, all that there is to guide us is current usage. This seems to be divided. Some more popular sources seem to use the word "royal" very liberally (it boosts sales). More scholarly sources seem to limit the use of the word "royal" and the phrase "royal family" to those with the princely title. It seems to me unnecessary to describe Ella as "a member of the extended British Royal Family" - and at worst it may even be inaccurate. Noel S McFerran (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Position In Line Of Succession

This will keep changing. Isn't it better to include a link to the official web page of the British Monarchy than having to correct the position all the time? http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/Successionandprecedence/Succession/Overview.aspx Q43 (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Lady Gabriella's page says her brother Frederick was brought up as a Roman Catholic, but Lord Frederick's page says he was brought up Anglican. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.18.112.127 (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

"HH Princess Gabriella of Kent"

• Had her great grandfather, King George V, not revised Royal styles and titles in 1917 owing to the strong popular anti-German sentiment in Britain during World War I, which eventually persuaded His Majesty and his family to abandon all titles held under the German Crown, and to anglicize all the family's German titles and House names, such as the Royal House of Windsor, which he founded from the British branch of the (German) House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Lady Gabriella would have been born, however still with an English surname, with the style of HH Princess Gabriella of Kent.

This material is unsourced and of questionable relevance. In accord with a parallel discussion at Talk:Lord Frederick Windsor, I'll delete this in May unless a source can be found to show it's accuracy and relevance.   Will Beback  talk  11:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced and speculative, also very awkward phrasing (describing her relationship to KGV, the fact that he revised the tutles, why he revised the titles, and how he revised the titles, and examples in the one sentence!). Why wait a month? Johannes Pratt (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I've removed it.   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Move protection

I have protected the article from being moved for a month. I don't care at the moment which side in the move-war is right and which one (if different) is upset with the current title. We have a process for sorting out disputes about article names, using WP:RM not move-warring, which is disruptive and can lead to blocks. The advantage of using WP:RM is that it should attract more people to the discussion, and the more people come to the discussion, the better the chance that someone will know what the applicable Wikipedia naming convention is, and the better the chance of building a decent consensus behind the best title which should settle the issue. Bencherlite^Talk 00:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime, can we discuss the use of the word "The" in the title? Other lords and ladies of equivalent station do without it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Restoration move

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was move per request per unanimous consensus below and prior discussion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

---

The Lady Gabriella Windsor → Lady Gabriella Windsor – Undo out-of-process move clearly against the consensus of the previous discussion. Article titles should be concise, natural, recognisable and consistent (see WP:AT); the current name fails on all four compared to the old name. The suggested target is the common name. And in line with MOS:HONORIFIC and WP:NCNT, honorifics should not be included in article titles. DrKiernan (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support I concur whole-heartedly. The guidelines on this matter as they stand (which this move simply and directly contravenes) are agreed, reasonable and long-standing. DBD 01:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Should never have been moved in the first place. This is not how we title articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Unnecessary verbiage, not common name. PatGallacher (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Per all the articles in Category:Daughters of British dukes, Category:Daughters of British marquesses and Category:Daughters of British earls. By the way, I have no idea why those categories [should] exist, but that's another issue. Surtsicna (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The categories are legitimate, but just looking at the daughters of earls category, I am staggered at the size of it, a lot of them must be non-notable (although granted some are e.g. Anne Boleyn, Antonia Fraser). PatGallacher (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't see the purpose of those categories. We don't have categories such as Category:Daughters of US presidents, Category:Daughters of UK prime ministers, etc. In fact, the only "Daughters of..." categories are those related to British peerage. They seem rather bizarre. Surtsicna (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Actually, we do have categories Category:Children of Presidents of the United States and Category:Children of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. PatGallacher (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support - clearly an out-of-process move against the current consensus for such titles.--ukexpat (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Proposal for deletion

I have proposed this article for deletion as it does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG. Please contribute to the discussion, if you can (whatever your opinion). The link is at the article itself. All the best, fellow Wikipedians! Emmentalist (talk) 08:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)