Talk:British monarchs' family tree

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Suggestions

How about adding some colour to the entries in the trees ? Jay 02:37, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What do you mean by colours? Ladies pink, men blue? :) I really dont see your point. Muriel Victoria 11:21, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
yup, something like that ... we really cannot give different colours to parents and children, because the children are parents to their children and parents are children of their parents. so the only distinct elements in a family tree are the male and the female. the idea is not to make the whole thing jazzy, but if colours are placed at the right places, it'll make for a good picture. i don't know much abt family trees though. Jay 17:56, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
We could pick three or so colours, and give each 'generation' a colour, rotating in turn. This would help show which people were which in some of the bits (notably around E3) where it gets a bit messy.
James F. 19:48, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I understand the point: sometimes it does get a bit messy. It could be usefull to "paint" Lancastrians vs Yorks around the War of the Roses. Muriel Victoria 08:35, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Ah, yes, we could paint them red and... oh. ;-) I think that the trees are readable enough given the circumstances (they can't be anywhere near as wide as they need to be), and that attempting to add colour to make them easier to read will probably just make them look worse.
James F. 14:13, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hey James! I followed your sugestion in Wars of the Roses! What does everybody think? :) Muriel Victoria 09:48, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Good :) what did you use to edit the image ? Jay 10:21, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I took the original corel file and painted it with the apropriate colours... Muriel
Hmm. I was thinking more of a little box around each person (or perhaps grouping). And maybe red and green, instead?
James F. (talk) 22:49, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I'll substitute it tomorrow. It was just for fun, Muriel

Could we have the images modified to read "British monarchs," and the page moved to British monarchs as well? This would follow the format for List of British monarchs, and, furthermore, be more gender-neutral. -- Emsworth 01:55, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, his Lordship, by all means, your faithfull servant, Muriel 07:36, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Done, Muriel 07:50, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Saxon Kings

It would be great if someone could finish the page in the same fashion by providing the Saxon kings. The link is through Matilda of Scotland. 195.92.168.171 21:33, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Line of Descent

There's a problem here. The senior line of descent is actually back through the Scottish monarchs -- not the English ones. So this tree is actually incorrect. It and the Scottish monarchs tree should be re-arranged to create a corrected British monarchs tree and a new English monarchs tree. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:43, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

Yes, but its always Scotland who wanted/ts independencence and not England. That says a lot about the real importance of senior lines of descent. [[User:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 10:47, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Many Scots favour parliamentary independence from the UK (although not all, less than a third at the moment in fact). I would guess that even fewer want independence from the Crown. Nobody is saying that senior lines of descent are important in daily life. If they were, the descendants of James VII and II would still be in power. But they surely have some importance in the preparation of this kind of genealogical chart. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to appreciate the irony of Scotland and England being ruled by a family of Irish origin. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:16, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)

I see your point and you are right of course. Thing is that wikipedia favours the most common point of view, meaning that the reader will expect to see the rulers previous to Queen Victoria (for example) to be the rulers of England not Scotland. I think the change you suggest, though accurate, would be seen as akward (did i get the spelling right??). We can ask Emsworth for his opinion. He's the sort of British royalty expert around here. Cheers, [[User:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 08:33, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What on Earth do you mean by "senior line of descent"? The British monarchs are the senior line of descent from both the English and Scottish monarchs (if you exclude the Jacobite lines), which is (surprisingly enough) why the Kingdoms united in the first place. If you mean "senior line of ascent" (which is what you seem to be talking about, though the expression is a decidedly odd one), then you seem to be implying (since James V, King of Scots, had a claim to the Scottish throne through his father and to the English throne through his mother) that ascent though the male line is senior to ascent through the female line, which would imply that we should actually be showing the family tree of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, which by your logic is "senior" to the House of Hanover which married into it. That, of course, would be ridiculous, as is any claim that the Scottish monarchs are a more "senior line" than the English monarchs. The obvious solution, of course, is to have three different pages - British monarchs family tree, English monarchs family tree and Scottish monarchs family tree, with the first only showing monarchs after 1603. (By the way, the current images need to be replaced, as they are absolutely useless. There are capitalisation errors all over the place, and the styles are a disaster ("William Mountbatten-Windsor" and "Elizabeth II Windsor", for example). Not even the technical aspects are right, as, for example, King Henry VIII appears to have sprung from the Ether, and the birth order of siblings is muddled up all over the place.) Proteus (Talk) 11:01, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Uau! Aren't you having a nice day! Without starting a discussion about what side of the bed you woke up today, I would appreciate a detailed list of corrections to make to the useless figure, in order to improve it. Please be patient with me and describe the proper styles to use, since i no nothing about that, except the obvious HRH and the likes. With a smile, [[User:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 12:57, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, I slept badly last night and being tired puts me in a bad mood. :-( But following the format in the PDFs on the Royal Family's website (here) should make it perfect. (ObviouslBETHANY DAWN DUNLOP WAS EYAHH DOING HISTORY HOMEWORK :y we can't just use their family tree, because it's copyrighted.) Proteus (Talk) 13:37, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Or perhaps he is just displeased by the result of the U.S. presidential election :-) -- Emsworth 14:30, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I understand that feeling. What an embarassment! [[User:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 08:53, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Proteus's proposal that there be separate pages for English, Scottish, and post-1603 monarchs. The English monarch page can even include the Saxon rulers, if anyone is up to the task of adding them. The Royal Family's website, indicated above, does include a PDF chart for them. -- Emsworth 14:21, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'll make the changes in the drwings, but since its a lot of work, lets discuss them first.

  • As far as I understand the concept of style, that means that the kings should be listed as HRM The King Name N°, the princes HRH, and so on and so forth. I dont really agree with the idea of spamming the drawing with this aditional letters. Is it *really* necessary?
  • Capitalization: I'll change duke to Duke, prince to Prince, king to King and etc.
  • I'll remove the surnames
  • I'll separate the kings of England up to 1603 to a sepparate article.

Opinions, comments, rants, complaints, its now or never! Cheers, [[User:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 08:53, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we need the HRH and HMs. Monarchs should probably be "Elizabeth II", "George VI", etc., Princes "Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex" (if they have/had peerages), "Prince John" (sons of monarchs), "Prince William of Wales"/"Prince Michael of Kent" (sons of sons of monarchs). Titles should also be included for commoners marrying Royals - "Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon", "Henry Lascelles, 6th Earl of Harewood", etc. All titles should indeed by capitalised. That's about it really. Proteus (Talk) 12:43, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

One must also remember that, prior to the Hanoverian monarchs (George I and his successors), "Prince" and "Princess" were not in common use (I think that the only royals to use them consistently were the Princes of Wales). Thus, prior to 1714, just the peerages are enough for lesser royals. To see which individuals should be labeled as princes or princesses, one may consider the following pages: British prince, British princess. -- Emsworth 23:14, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Cant I refer to the princes just with their peerages? Eg. Andrew, Duke of York, instead of Prince Andrew, Duke of York? If we add Prince/Princess up to 1714, the diagram will loose clarity, i'm afraid. [[User:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 09:42, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That would be okay with me. Proteus (Talk) 10:20, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Since nobody objects anything else, I'll start with the reviewing of the diagrams. [[User:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 08:51, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Muriel, thanks for your hard work in making these family trees, both the originals and the new replacements. I know how fiddly it is to get these types of diagram to look nice and you have done a fine job. Wikipedia would not be the success that it is without the participation of good people like yourself and I for one appreciate it. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:12, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

  • Thanks! Thats a nice thing to read after a battle with CorelDraw! Cheers! [[User:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 10:18, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Image:UK-Victoriapresent.png

I beleive there is an error on the date of the marriage line between Victoria and Albert. The date shown is 1835, should be 1840. Dennis 19:00 2004 December 22

dennisa@xtra.co.nz

[edit] Errors

Saxe-Leiningen? Mecklemburg? Wurtemberg? Streliz? Princess of Portugal? Victoria, Princess Royal, married her father-in-law? Puke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld? These are all errors that must be fixed. I volunteer... for now. Charles 23:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update

Just a quick note: Prince Charles is now married to Camilla Parker-Bowles. Should she not be added? Especailly since she will become Princess Consort when old Charlie get's the throne.

Please update the Windsor family Tree with this one: http://www.royal.gov.uk/files/pdf/Windsor%20family%20tree.pdf

It's preferred to concentrate on the 'line of succession' - unless Charlie & Camillia have children, she's not to be added. GoodDay 21:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. john k 19:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
That's how the article has it; second marriages haven't been listed (unless a monarch was produced from that marriage). GoodDay 18:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
But how many opportunities for it are there? The only other one I see is Princess Anne, whose second marriage is obviously less relevant than her brother's. john k 05:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Add Charlie's second marriage if you like, can't see any harm in it. GoodDay 21:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


Prince William or Wales and prince Henry of Wales? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.254.138 (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some mistaken dates

These are some of the following mistakes:
1) Henry Stuart, Prince of Wales (1595-1612)?; he was born in 1594
2) Charles I, succeeds the throne in 1626?; he succeeded in 1625
3) Charles II, succeeds the throne in 1661?; he succeeded in 1660

He succeeded in 1649. He ascended in 1660. john k 19:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

4) Frederick, Prince of Wales married in 1739?; he was married in 1736
5) Victoria, married in 1835?; she was married in 1840
6) Victoria, Princess Royal married William I of Germany?; she married William's son, Frederick III of Germany
7) Edward VII, married in 1862?; he was married in 1863
8) Alice, Duchess of Gloucester still living?; she died in 2004
9) Elizabeth II crowned in 1952?; she succeeded in 1952 & crowned in 1953 (we want the acession date)
10) Charles and Diana divorced in 1992?; they divorced in 1996
Does anyone know how to correct these? GoodDay 23:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

These trees are full of mistakes. Some more:
  1. Frederick V of Bavaria? Obviously, all Wittelsbachs held the title of Duke (or Duchess) in (of?) Bavaria, but Frederick was of the Palatinate line, and its confusing to associate him with Bavaria.
  2. Henry, Prince of Wales died in 1612, not 1610
  3. Cromwell was Lord Protector from 1653, not 1649.
  4. Monsieur would never be called "Philip of Bourbon."
  5. James II is considered to have been deposed in December 1688, not 1689
  6. Why is William III "William III of Nassau"? Why is Anne "Anne Stuart"?
  7. Princess Augusta, George III's daughter, is not, so far as I'm aware, known to have married.
  8. I don't see why Princess Sophia is to be associated with Thomas Garth. We don't have any other extramarital liaisons listed.
  9. The Duke of Sussex's marriages were never annulled, as they were never valid in English law to begin with.
  10. the Duke o f Cumberland was Ernest Augustus I of Hanover, not Ernest I
  11. "Strelitz" is spelled wrong in Queen Charlotte's entry
  12. "Alice Scott of Buccleuch"?
  13. The 6th earl of Harewood was named, I believe, Henry, not Charles.
  14. Antony Armstrong-Jones is the Earl of Snowdon.

That's all I see at the moment, but there might be more. john k 20:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, James I/VI to William III/II don't belong on this article. They belong at the English monarchs family tree & Scottish monarchs family tree. GoodDay 20:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a big deal. In the first place, this would lead to entirely unnecessary repetition. In the second place, the line going back to James I is necessary to show the relationship between Anne and George I. James I is a logical starting point. Anne certainly isn't. john k 12:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It's too bad; on first glance it appears as though the Stuarts are British monarchs (which they weren't -until Anne-). GoodDay 14:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
They were not the rulers of a kingdom called "Great Britain," but, as rulers of both England and Scotland, they could be seen as "British monarchs" (the term is quite ambiguous). john k 16:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Ambigous, but easily misunderstood. GoodDay 18:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, so the text of the article should clarify the situation (which, of course, it doesn't). john k 05:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Viscount Linley and Lady Sarah Chatto

Is there a reason for including Viscount Linley and Lady Sarah Chatto here? -- Jao 11:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, they should be omitted. The monarchs's siblings children aren't listed (unless they'd succeeded to the throne). GoodDay 14:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page Movement

This page should be moved to British Isles monarch's family tree. GoodDay 22:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Why? Charles 00:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, why? That's just incredibly awkward, and brings i n "British Isles," a controversial term, unnecessarily. john k 19:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. GoodDay 19:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)