Talk:Lady Louise Windsor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

British Royalty This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles being read aloud. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to contribute.

It's Mountbatten-Windsor, not Windsor, isn't it? Also, some note should be made of the fact that she is entitled to the style of royal highness and the title of princess of the UK, but will not be referred to by that style, or something. Unless some sort of royal warrant or letter patent has been issued to deprive her of said style. The page should be moved to either "Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor" or "Lady Louise Windsor", depending.john 04:02, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The royal website uses Windsor: [1] --Jiang

It's "Mountbatten Windsor" (no hyphen). She will officially be known as Lady Louise Windsor. Graham :) 04:33, 27 Nov 03 (UTC)

Then is there something wrong with Mountbatten-Windsor? Why is there no hyphen? --Jiang

Because Mountbatten is one of her middle names, not part of her surname. Graham :) 04:46, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Wrong. Mountbatten is not one of her middle names. Her surname is Mountbatten-Windsor. Windsor is the Royal House name. Lady 'x' Windsor is a title, not a name. So her title is Lady Louise Windsor, her personal name is Louise Mountbatten-Windsor. FearÉIREANN 22:31, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The M-W article states otherwise. --Jiang

Yes it does doesn't it? Either the article's wrong, or the BBC reporter got it wrong earlier on today. She is certainly only going to be known by the surname Windsor as opposed to Mountbatten-Windsor. Graham :) 04:50, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The BBC seems to be wrong, as their article contradicts itself. "The name Louise Alice Elizabeth Mary Mountbatten-Windsor refers to several family members...With the permission of the Queen, she will instead use the title of a daughter of an earl and be referred to as Lady Louise Windsor." It might also be noted that the Earl and Countess of Wessex have no right to determine the style of their daughter, as the article suggests, and that "the permission of the queen" is a completely meaningless concept. Let's see what the Torygraph says... john 05:40, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The Torygraph provides more detail, although their story seems to be just as garbled and confused. While her surname is "Mountbatten-Windsor," she will be known as "Lady Louise Windsor." What oddness. john 05:51, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well that's the Royal Family for you... Graham :) 13:58, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"Male line grandchildren"? Isn't she female? SD6-Agent 14:50, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What that refers to is the right of the existing monarch's descendants by their male children to call themselves "His Royal Highness" or "Her Royal Highness". Any descendants by the monarch's female children don't have this right. Graham :) 18:45, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

As she is still a HRH and a Princess until new Letters Patent are issued, she has to be called that in the opening title, in accordance with factual accuracy and the naming conventions. If and when new Letters Patent are issued, the HRH/Princess reference can be moved and mentioned as having been her former title. FearÉIREANN 22:31, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"as part of a policy to reduce the size of the British Royal Family through the restriction of titles to the monarch and his or her marital family alone, with others receiving commoner courtesy titles."

Where did this come from? Wasn't it because "Lady" would be a more approprate title for the daughter of an Earl? --Jiang 01:23, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Or is this referring to the 1917 Letters Patent? --Jiang

No. All male children of a monarch receive a title. All of their children are known as Prince/ss <name> of title (eg, Prince Michael of Kent, son of the late Duke of Kent, son of George V, etc). In the 1990s a strategy group within the Royal Family concluded that with so many princes and princesses the Royal Family looked massive and could be perceived as all being a burden on the taxpayer, even though only a handful actually receive money from the Civil List and many cost the taxpayer nothing. (It also resulted in conflicts of interest where people like Prince Michael engaged in paid employment elsewhere. As they had no state income they needed it from somewhere but some thought they were using private money to top up state funding. Others thought they were using their titles to earn money.)

It was decided that henceforth only the children of a monarch and the children of the Prince of Wales would be given such titles, and that the children of the monarch's children would have courtesy titles akin to ordinary peers, not titles of prince and princess that flow from being the children of royal dukes and royal earls. Prince Andrew refused to accept the downgrading of his children, who already were princesses, to commoner status, believing that it would be unfair to them to strip them of their titles. It was decided that the rule would apply to the descendants of those members of the Queen's immediate family who had not been born when the rule was introduced. However the relevant Letters Patent have not yet been changed, meaning that Louise is still a HRH and still a Princess of the United Kingdom, specifically Princess Louise of Wessex, later Princess Louise of Edinburgh when he father inherits his father's dukedom. Lady is the standard courtesy title of ordinary earls but not royal earls. FearÉIREANN 23:49, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)


I think this article is a farce now. There is too much on the styling of the girl. I think a brief note stating she is entitled to style herself HRH Princess Louise is needed and leave it at that. The reference to Andrew and his daughters does not belong here, the article is supposed to be about Lady Louise, not the styling of Royal Family members. Plus it is not offical that the mentioned proposal even took place. I would edit this article to reflect my concerns and opinions, but I would imagine someone would change it back so what's the point? [[User:Astrotrain|Astrotrain]

It is official, as Buckingham Palace confirmed at the time and since. As to saying "she is entitled to style herself HRH Princess Louise" is factually incorrect. She is HRH Princess Louise, as the 1917 Letters Patent makes clear. It was decided, as part of the process of slimming down the size of the Royal Family, to use a different title for her, but as this is an encyclopædia and has clear naming conventions on royalty, wikipedia has to use the official title along with the colloquial one chosen for use. And as the issue of her name is the big issue right now, and as the child has done nothing right now to include, it is perfectly normal for the article to focus on what right now is the big issue. When the article grows as she does, then the section on her name will be a smaller section of the overall article. As to editing the "article to "reflect [your] concerns and opinions", this is an encyclopædia; it is not designed to reflect your concerns and opinions, it is designed to reflect facts. And right now the major fact about Louise Mountbatten-Windsor is that though she is a standard princess, it was decided to use a different title when referring to her, a unique occurance in British constitutional history. FearÉIREANN 19:55, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
She's a baby. There;s nothing better to mention. --Jiang

Contents

[edit] Lady Louise Windsor (future)

It's anybody's guess for certain how this young lady will be titled and styled in the future.

Two things, though: back at the time Princess Anne married Mark Phillips, she signed her maiden name in the register as "Anne Mountbatten-Windsor", which set off a lot of comment and eventually (not immediately, but in a year or two) the Queen issued an announcement that her immediate family would henceforth be known by the surname "Mountbatten-Windsor". This surname didn't carry over to cousins and such, obviously; it wasn't entirely clear whether she meant just her immediate nuclear family (her own children). This might be taken as a sign that she didn't, or that options are open.

The second is mere rumor and speculation from the time the Earl of Wessex married: comment was made that he and his new wife took relatively modest titles (supposedly riffing on "Shakespeare in Love" with their love of the media and as a bit of a joke - the title hadn't been used in ages, and I don't believe for an earl at all - I seem to remember the last actual use of 'Wessex' in a title was for the King of Wessex pre-Conquest) not just to downplay the whole "perception that we're freeloading on the Civil List" thing, but also with the future expectation that when the Duke of Edinburgh dies, Edward will inherit his title and Sophie become Duchess of Edinburgh. If that happens, the opportunity will be there, at least, to elevate the title and style of Lady Louise; although that may not happen in keeping with the "downplaying" attitude.

I think it's a pity, personally.

JH

[edit] Title

Although this article should state Louise's entitlement to be a princess with the style HRH, she is offically styled Lady Louise Windsor by both the Court Circular and Buckingham Palace. Using Princess Louise of Wessex as the introduction is confusing and inaccurate. She is styled with the Queen's permission, which means whatever the Queen has decided her style is, that is what she uses. A similar case is Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester who would normally carry the title of Dowager Duchess of Gloucester, however was granted permission by the Queen to be styled Princess Alice. Therefore I propose this article mentions the claim to the title of princess, but keeps the main introduction as Lady Louise Windsor. I know some people insist that she should be styled Princess Louise of Wessex, and other British royality pages in Wikipedia refer to her as such. But surley this is confusing to people with less knowledge of the British royality. Also it is ridiculus that Wikipedia is perhaps the only organisation refering to Louise with this title. Astrotrain the knowledgable

She doesn't have a "claim" to being a Royal Highness and a Princess - she is one under Letters Patent, which state that she shall "have and at all times hold and enjoy" those titles. Letters Patent are legally binding and can't be revoked by press release. Proteus (Talk) 15:28, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think my revisions make the article more useful. Letters patent, remember are not legally binding on the sovereign, who has in this instance decided that Louise should be styled as the daughter of an Earl, rather than a granddaughter of the sovereign. At the end of the day, the Queen has decided she is Lady Louise and this overrules any letters patent. Astrotrain the merciful
As far as the law is concerned, the girl in question is "HRH Princess Louise of Wessex." Letters patent are legal documents: they cannot be overridden by press releases. She is a Princess, but commonly known as a Lady.
I understand that HRH Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester was not the beneficiary of special letters patent either. But in her case, the question is once again a matter of style. I would imagine that, officially, she is a Dowager Duchess, but nevertheless known as "Princess Alice," just as the Lady Louise is a officially a Princess, but nevertheless known as "The Lady Louise Windsor." -- Emsworth 16:18, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the noble lord :-). Lady Louise is officially a princess by virtue of being the daughter of a royal peer and grand-daughter of a sovereign, but chooses (or it has been chosen for her) to use the title she would have had her father been an ordinary earl. FearÉIREANN 16:58, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is it expected that new Letters Patent will be drawn up for make Princess Louise's (yes, yes, I know...) title as BuckP has suggested? If so, when? If some are issued, this point will become moot, of course; if not, well...
James F. (talk) 17:32, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The general consensus over at alt.talk.royalty at the time seems to have been that the royal family seems to be being rather sloppy, and there's no evidence of any intention to have a letter patent or other instrument (I believe a royal warrant, or some such, would be sufficient - and was perhaps used for Princess Alice). john k 23:49, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There is no Princess Louise of Wessex, the title does not exist in Queen Elizabeth II's court. The court circular, which always uses the correct title, refers to her as Lady Louise Windsor. The Queen has given permission for her to be styled as Lady Louise Windsor, which over-rides any letters patent. Princess Louise of Wessex is an inaccurate title and is not used anywhere else by anyone else in the world. If the Queen sees fit for her to be Lady Louise then this should suffice for wikipedia. Astrotrain the annoyed


[edit] "...styled as the children of a duke"

After their marriage, the Earl and Countess of Wessex announced that, with the Queen's permission, that any future child of theirs would be styled as the children of a duke.

Why, if their father is an earl? Marnanel 01:15, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Because a younger son would probably be "Lord N Windsor" (like Lord Frederick Windsor, also not the son of a duke), rather than merely the Hon. N Windsor. Although I'm not sure of this - it should be checked out. john k 03:44, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also, as discussed, Edward is intended to be the next-created Duke of Edinburgh.
James F. (talk) 19:46, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The way it's put it sounds like they expected Prince Philip to die before they had any kids of their own. Marnanel 20:05, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think that any Prince has the right to have children styled as the children of a Duke - it surely wouldn't be fair for Edward's son to have a lower style than the son of Prince Michael of Kent, would it? john k 21:53, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] HRH

I've amended her style in accordance with what it says on http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page476.asp , which is on the Royal Family's own website. Jongarrettuk 06:19, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The point is that no-one calls her HRH, and no-one will ever call her HRH. We can't just call her HRH on a pseudo-legal technicality that no-one else takes any notice of. The world is not governed by letters patent, they are not laws.
By all means mention the discrepancy between the letters patent and what is followed in practice, but don't call her HRH Princess Louise of Windsor, because it is just patent nonsense to do so. (pun intended:) )
Now every other article on wiki does not have the title (previously there was a mish-mash - and I'm sure we can agree that wikipedia should be internally consistent on the point).
Finally, I don't think it's fair to ignore the reference on the Royal Family's website on the grounds that the website is 'crap'. Especially when it clearly reflects the Royal Family's practice. Jongarrettuk 10:48, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We've already discussed this (try reading the talk page before editing), and the state of the article before you messed around with it reflects the view of several royalty experts. Letters Patent are legally binding, and can't be ignored because you feel like it. Anyway, HRH and Princess go together, and it's utterly absurd to use one without the other. (And, for the record, the Royal web site is useless. It claims (amongst other things) that HM is Duke of Normandy and Duke of Lancaster, which is utter rubbish, and is hardly personally written by the Royal Family.) Proteus (Talk) 11:14, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I did review and reflect on the earlier discussion. It appeared inconclusive on the point. There was certainly no consensus claiming that she is actually referred to as HRH in real life.

You don't offer a source for your assertion on how binding Letters Patent are - and in particular what happens when the Royal Family's practice diverges from them.

The argument that HRH and Princess necessarily go together is, of course, wrong. Diana, Princess of Wales had the terminology HRH stripped from her. The monarch confers the style HRH, but not the term princess (though the monarch may choose to confer that title on someone who does not have it by right).

I'm puzzled by your assertion the the Queen isn't Duke of Normandy or Duke of Lancaster. I don't know who you think holds those positions, but when you've done your research, you'll find out it's the Queen.

Finally, the website may not be written by the Royal Family (though who knows, I understand HM and the Duke of Edinburgh are keen surfers), but the announcement before The Earl and Countess of Wessex' marriage that their children would not bear the title HRH would have been personally approved by the Queen.Jongarrettuk 11:30, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The article is now consistent - it states what she is actually called, and later on notes what titles she is entitled to use, but does not use. Jongarrettuk 12:11, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Diana ceased also to be a princess of the UK upon her divorce. Her use of the style "Diana, Princess of Wales" did not indicate that she was Princess of Wales - it meant that she was divorced from the Prince of Wales. This is standard practice for divorced peeresses. The Queen does not hold the position of Duke of Lancaster. She owns the Duchy of Lancaster, but the monarch cannot hold a peerage title - all peerage titles revert to the crown upon accession. There has not been a Duke of Lancaster since 1413. The Queen is also not Duke of Normandy. Although she is the ruler of the Channel Islands which were once part of the Duchy of Normandy, her predecessor, Henry III, gave up the right to use the title "Duke of Normandy" in 1259 in a treaty with the King of France. Although later English monarchs would claim the throne of France itself, none would claim the title of Duke of Normandy by virtue of their rule over the Channel Islands. Finally, the point isn't whether the Queen approves the usage. The point is that the Queen can't change a letter patent, which is legally binding, through means of a press release. A formal instrument is required, and none has ever been made. john k 14:24, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(1) Where are the references to your assertions?
(2) Are you seriously suggesting she is called HRH rather than just entitled to use HRH (which the Royal Family and Italic texteveryone else apart from this encyclopaedia do not use)?
(3) What is wrong with using the name she is known by at the start, and then referring to the Letters Patent later, as my last version did?
(4) Letters patent permit or grant things (or remove things that have been permitted or granted beforehand). What authority have you for them (and specifically George V's Letters Patent on the HRH style) requiring things?
(5) Is some legal cloud cuckooland name really more important than the one she actually uses? Particularly as mentioning the 'HRH' in the first sentences will confuse people into thinking it is actually used.
(6) I don't agree with the Lancaster and Normandy bits, but won't argue the point here (there are plenty of references around to support my contention). Jongarrettuk 14:38, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1) Which assertions? I'm largely culling from the FAQs for alt.talk.royalty [2]. See particularly question 7 for the stuff about Lady Louise. 2) I am certainly not suggesting that she is called HRH. However, I am also not suggesting that she is "just entitled to use HRH." According to law, she is supposed to be styled HRH. She is not, but this has not been done properly (as it was with Princess/Lady Patricia in 1919). This is a strange situation. 3) The wording has been very carefully chosen. More discussion should be had if we want to change it. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed in principle to using "Lady Louise Windsor" first, although I'm somewhat dubious - the article itself is already at that location. 4) The letter patent of 1917 states: " shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour" [3]. "shall have and at all times hold" suggests that this is not optional. 5) Of course it's not important - the article itself is at Lady Louise Windsor. 6) The Lancaster bit is definitely nonsense. Look in any peerage guide under "Lancaster". Here, for instance, is [Burke's Peerage]. Yes, people in Lancashire toast to "Our Duke, the Queen," but popular local tradition doesn't have legal force. In Normandy, the 1259 treaty is cited in numerous sources. It should be up to you to find evidence (beyond the royal website) that this title has ever actually been used in the centuries since. john k 15:09, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Let me summarise where I think we're at on Lady Louise:
(1) We are agreed that if she was styled in accordance with the 1917 Letters Patent, she would be styled as a princess and use HRH;
(2) I think we both accept that she is commonly known as 'The Lady Louise Windsor' (which is what the article currently says anyway);
(3) I note that you wouldn't oppose in principle using 'The Lady Louise Windsor' first, though you have reservations about it;
(4) I am strongly opposed to using the term 'HRH Princess Louise of Wessex' as the opener to the article. This is because having it there implies that she is, at least formally, known by that title. This is untrue - nobody, in practice, uses that title. This is the situation de facto. We can argue (and I could even accept) that the legal position is different, but that is irrelevant. My concern is that it is actually misleading to tell readers that she is actually referred to by that name in real life.
The reference you gave to [4] is interesting. It supports my contention rather than yours. It never refers to her as HRH. Indeed, one extract is explicit:
On the wedding day of HRH The Earl of Wessex to Miss Sophie Rhys-Jones, a press release from Buckingham Palace announced the queen's decision (made with the couple's agreement) that any children they have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an earl. While royal styles and titles have usually been conferred and withdrawn by way of letters patent or royal warrants, precedents show that such instruments are not necessary, and there is no reason to doubt that the press release correctly expresses the sovereign's will, which is all that matters
Perhaps based on all of this, we can agree that in the first paragraph she is only referred to as The Lady Louise Windsor (ie we take out the bit which says HRH The Princess Louise of Windsor), leaving the issue to be discussed at the end of the article? Jongarrettuk 18:52, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are correct - that reference does, in fact, support your case - I had misread it. I do wonder whether precedents really show that such instruments are not necessary. At any rate, I will reserve judgment on the basic issue until others who have previously weighed in on this debate return to the fray. john k 19:02, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There aren't really many dissenters. Looking at the page again, there's an assertion by FearÉIREANN that it should be in the opening paragraph, and only Proteus who has offered him any support. It's unclear what Proteus thinks about the first para itself. I'm changing it back. If it's reverted again, I'll put it on RfC and go for a wider consensus. Jongarrettuk 19:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, numerous people have worked on this page, or on the discussion page in the past. Other than you, only Astrotrain has supported your position, that I can see. I do think that it should be in the opening paragraph, however, since the exact situation is disputed. john k 01:14, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The article title reflects the name by which one is most commonly known (Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh), but the first mention of his/her name should be their legal name -- Frederic Leighton, 1st Baron Leighton, for example (Leighton's peerage lasted for one day, and he was obviously never referred to as "Lord Leighton", but it's the first title mentioned anyway). Now, as for this specific article -- I believe that following naming conventions, John Kenney, Emsworth, and Proteus are correct in in mentioning the HRH Princess Louise... bit. It does not matter whether or not he or she was referred as "HRH Princess Louise of Wessex" in real life -- "My concern is that it is actually misleading to tell readers that she is actually referred to by that name in real life." Well, you clarify it within the article then. ugen64 22:16, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
Can you point me to a definition of legal name, I never knew such a thing existed, but am happy to be persuaded otherwise if you can prove otherwise. My understand is that under English law, an individual can legally call himself anything he wants, subject to very few restrictions (such as fraud).
Are you really saying that Wikipedia should start articles about people with a name that quite simply is used in practice by absolutely no-one at any time whatsoever? This is a fact, and I'm sure you'll note that no-one has yet disputed it on this page either.
My understanding is that Wikipedia articles should start with the highest ranking name that has/is actually used in real life. By way of contrast, have a look at Talk:Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark where john and others argue what is essentially the opposite to what they are arguing here: namely that she has to be referred to by something she was actually called. To quote john, he says 'Names that aren't there in the real world? That's ridiculous.' This is all I am saying here. Jongarrettuk 22:35, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Legal name is self-evident -- it's the name legally given to an individual. In this case, I agree with the others -- letters patent are legally binding, and that warrants at least a mention at the start of the article. Certainly, an "individual can legally call himself anything he wants" (I could call myself the Duke of Wikipedia if I really wanted to), but does that mean that the Wikipedia article on that person should reflect what he calls himself? Finally, I have made some edits on the article, including the inclusion of a superscript numeral to get the reader to look at the section describing her titles. ugen64 00:12, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
I assume, in the above quote, you meant "legally" as in "not illegally" -- if you meant "legally" as in "legally binding", then I don't agree. ugen64 00:13, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
You're right, I meant "legally" as in "not illegally". Similarly, I presume you meant "legally" as in "not illegally" in the first sentence of your last but one paragraph. Unfortunately, I can't see that this gets us anywhere.
I've amended the article again as the first paragraph and the second paragraph of your amended version were contradictory. I hope that this version that incorporates your and my edits can form the basis of a consensus. If you disagree, and you feel strongly that the article needs to mention more about HRH and princess at the start, can we agree that it's in the first paragraph but not in the first sentence? Jongarrettuk 00:26, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't think those sentences contradicted each other -- to "use a name" and "legally known by a name" are two different concepts. While this version is quite all right in my opinion, I remain persistent in my belief that the legal name (provided by an explicit legal document, such as letters patent) of a person should be mentioned first, or at least bolded in the first paragraph. But yes, I think this version is quite satisfactory. ugen64 00:43, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
 :) I appreciate your concerns, and I think there are some points on which we're never going to agree with each other on. But I'm glad that we've found a version that we can both agree to be satisfactory. I trust that others will find it an equally satisfactory compromise to this debate. Jongarrettuk 00:59, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wording

OK, this page was worded badly. In the opening paragraph, it is best to say she is the granddaughter of Queen Elizabeth II, as this is why she is a member of the Royal Family. No need to repeat parents twice in such a small article. In second paragraph, I have changed some of the styling. Can't say HM The Queen, as this could be any queen. Also Prince Philip is not styled The Prince Philip. Sophie is never styled Princess Edward as her husband has a peerage. And BTW these changes are neither strange or incorrect as some have said. Astrotrain 21:21, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

A couple of changes.

  • It is rather important in the opening paragraph, whatever about saying that HM the Queen is her grandmother, to point out who her father is!!!
  • There was a sort of edit war over the fact that she still is officially HRH Princess Louise of Wessex. I have mentioned that in the second paragraph. As that is her official title, it does have to be up at the top somewhere. It would break normal biographical standards not to mention someone's official title, even an unused one, somewhere at the start. But it isn't in the opening paragraph as that could cause confusion.
  • The Way Ahead committee report has to be mentioned, as that was probably the reason why Edward and Sophie decided to use the form of style they have for their daughter. They may also have been motivated by the example of the Princess Royal, who has won privacy for her children by avoiding titles.

I don't think an accurate article can avoid any of the above. I've tried to do it in as NPOV a way as possible, while providing the context that the article missed. For example, nowhere did it say why she is Lady Louise Windsor and not plain Miss Louise Mountbatten-Windsor. The reason is straightforward. It would be how she would be referred to if her father was an ordinary earl rather than the son of the Queen. They have simply treated her as the daughter of an earl rather than the daughter of a prince. FearÉIREANN 22:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone changed a while to speak of Louise being entitled to be HRH P L of W, in fact entitlement doesn't come into it. She is HRH Princess Louise of Wessex, just as Camilla is officially HRH The Princess of Wales, Queen Mary was officially Queen Mary the Queen Mother etc. In all these cases, the people involved though officially holding one title, have chosen, or in Louise's case has had chosen for her, a different title. So Camilla, while Princess Of Wales, won't use that title but will use a subsidary one, Duchess of Cornwall in practice. Louise will be treated in practice as the daughter of an earl (using The Lady . . . ) rather than the daughter of a prince (which automatically makes her a princess and an HRH) Until new Letters Patent are issued, Louise will be a HRH and a princess. It is simply that that form of address is not being used. FearÉIREANN 11:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jguk's change and comment

Jguk is wrong. It isn't that she "could be styled" Princess Louise of Wessex. She is legally Princess Louise of Wessex. It is officially and legally that. However the Earl and Countess, with the Queen's permission, have opted to use a different working title, namely that of the daughter of an earl (Lady . . . ) as her father is a prince and an earl. The Court Circular goes by the wishes of her parents as approved by the Queen. But legally and officially she is PL of W.

As to his comment that he is a little uneasy about the fact that that the article is almost totally about her style, she is two years old. What else is there to write about? The issue of her style is the only issue right now that can be written about other than the circumstances of her birth. In years to come as more stuff about Louise the person appears then the style bit will be amount to a smaller proportion of a larger article. But right now we have nothing else to write about unless we want to say how many teeth she has, how often her nappies were changed or whether she used disposable or reusable nappies. FearÉIREANN 23:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How can she be offically Princes Louise of Wessex, when she is not called that by anyone including the royals themselves? She may be entitled to the style by the 1917 letters patent, but the Queen has given permission for this style to be used. Surley the Queen, being in charge of these things, has decided she is LLW and not princess. In the UK there is no law that gives someone a "legal name". The practice of taking a title or name from your father or husband is custom, and not definable in law. Astrotrain 18:20, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
Almost every statement in that paragraph is incorrect. The 1917 don't "entitle" someone to use the style HRH, they state that they "shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour". The Queen is in charge of such things, but she hasn't said that she isn't a Princess, merely that she isn't to be known as a Princess, which are two entirely different things. And, contrary to what you assert, people do have legal names, and such names are governed by Common Law, not merely custom. Proteus (Talk) 18:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
have and at all times enjoy..... suggests to me that "entitlement" rather than "is". If the Queen says she is LLW, then that is what she is. I disagree with your assertion over "legal names". My name is that on my birth certificate, although I may use any name I wish as long as it is not for fraudulent purposes. If I were female, I would not need to take the style and title of my husand, and could keep my marital name without prejudice. Astrotrain 18:42, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Proteus is 100% right, Astro 100% wrong. I'm afraid Astro your grasp of royal titles, and interpretation of both the Queen's legal rights and the 1917 Letters Patent is way off. FearÉIREANN 18:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have changed it to "would normally be styled HRH P L of W". I've also removed the specualtion and rambling on seconfd part of the article which does not belong here. In any case the suggestions stated were not actually confirmed, and are speculation. There was no suggestion by the Palace, at least openly, that Beatrice and Eugeine would lose their titles. Astrotrain 10:15, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy Title

I hesitate for a moment before entering the fray, but wish to say that I entirely agree with an interpretation which asserts the binding nature of letters patent, and the non-optional status of the existence of the style HRH and title princess, if not their use.

The point I raise relates to the amendments I have just made, namely that the person in question cannot be properly described as 'The Lady Louise' as the definite article 'The' is for use in substantive titles of the peerage. As this title is a courtesy title there should be no such article and it should read Lady Louise Windsor.

I must say also that I still don't quite get how her surname can be Mountbatten-Windsor but her title (a courtesy title for the daughter of an earl) can use an alternative surname.--Ross UK 01:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

According to Buckingham Palace, all the Queen's male children and their children use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor. Charles and Anne used it in their first banns. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite get Jtdirl's point here; has anyone questioned her surname being M-W? Anyway, Ross, for "The", there seems to be disagreement. Take a look at this note from Proteus. As far as the surname goes, I find it strange, too. Calling her (The) Lady Louise Windsor instead of (The) Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor only adds to the confusion about the surname, so it was perhaps not the best of choices, but that is what she's called, so we'll have to go with it. I don't know, though, if it's common for British nobility with hyphenated surnames (there are quite a few long ones) to only use part of them. -- Jao 09:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that info, Jao. I am pleased to see that the 'The' issue is one which has been discussed before, and am surprised that there is some learned disagreement about it. According to our article, the form of a coutesy title for an earl's daughter is (The) Lady [Firstname] [Lastname], ie. the surname should be used in the title. There seems little doubt that the surname in this case is Mountbatten-Windsor, so the difference is indeed puzzling.

[edit] New Official Photos?

Have any new photographs of Lady Louise been published? She's going on three years old now, but the photo of her is still her as an infant. Morhange 15:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

An internet search doesn't reveal any new pictures. john k 20:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

From a similar search, it appears not. --Ross UK 03:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

ive just looked and found this picture on thios website taken earlier this year when she went with her mother on the Queens cruise around the outter islands of scotland the orignal copy right is hellos weather you want to use it is up to you guys http://blogs.papermag.com/images/2006/07/ladylouise-dop1b.jpg

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/a/d/Talk%7ELady_Louise_Windsor_6a0e.html"