Talk:British Royal Family

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments

Contents 1 Older(?) comments 2 HRH 3 Freedom of Information Act 4 Useless institution 5 TRH 6 Chart 7 House of Hanover 8 Popularity 9 Buckingham Palace Picture 10 Queen, POW & taxes 11 House of Stuart 12 A better title? 13 Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII 14 Real names 15 Gallery 16 Titles, Styles, Honours & Arms 17 Issue, etc. 18 Sort Names by Order of Succession to the Throne 19 British Royal Family? 20 Cost Per Year to the Tax Payer 21 Direct descent from Fergus Mór to Elizabeth II 22 Identity 23 Requested move 23.1 Survey 23.2 Discussion

[edit] Older(?) comments

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

[edit] HRH

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

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

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

[edit] Freedom of Information Act

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

[edit] Useless institution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] TRH

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

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

[edit] Chart

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

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

[edit] House of Hanover

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

[edit] Popularity

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

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

[edit] Buckingham Palace Picture

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

[edit] Queen, POW & taxes

Is there a source to substantiate these claims?

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

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

[edit] House of Stuart

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] A better title?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII

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

How far up the totem pole, would you say?

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

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

There is a general cutoff, isn't there?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Real names

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Gallery

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

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

[edit] Titles, Styles, Honours & Arms

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

[edit] Issue, etc.

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

[edit] Sort Names by Order of Succession to the Throne

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

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

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

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

[edit] British Royal Family?

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

[edit] Cost Per Year to the Tax Payer

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

[edit] Direct descent from Fergus Mór to Elizabeth II

Please see the discussion here:

• Talk:List_of_monarchs_of_Scotland#Direct_descent_from_Fergus_M.C3.B3r_to_Elizabeth_II

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

[edit] Identity

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

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