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.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [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. To participate, visit the project page.

Contents

[edit] Mountbatten-Windsor?

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)
I think I can explain it. Ok, in the 1950s The Queen announced that all her descendents not bearing the HRH, and thus needing a surname, would have the surname M-W. Well, Louise was born and being her grandchild, was entitled to HRH style. There was no revision on the Letters Patent 1917, so this remained effective. Even though Louise is using the style of Lady, as daughter of an Earl, she is still entitled to the HRH Princess title, and therefore she doesn't fall under the category of a descendent without the HRH. Because she does have the HRH, she just does not use it. But there was a problem: her parents didn't want her to use the HRH; they want her to be known as daughter of the Earl of Wessex only. So therefore, what do you call her? Well, for the time being, until such time as there is a new LP or Louise becomes of age, the 'Windsor' surname will be used.

All of this still does not explain why the parents put M-W on her birth certificate. It was like Princess Anne in 1973 using Mountbatten on her marriage certificate. But Anne was HRH Princess and had no surname! --Ashley Rovira (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2007 (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] ***Everyone*** I worked two summers at Buckingham Palace press office.... and from what I was advised The Lady Louise Windsor is a royal princess in her own right by being a grandchild of the british sovereign in the male line. Understand, Queen Elizabeth didn't find it necessary to issue letters patent sense both parents along with The Queen agreed on such a matter. From my understanding of working at the press office, if she had in fact issued letters patent LLW would ofcourse be stripped of her royal entitlement which was re-confirmed due to George V's letters patent issued in 1917. It's best to know that the british sovereign has royal Prerogative when it comes to bestowing titles. And has the right to strip anyone of there title. For example: The Princess Louise, Princess Royal and Duchess of Fife was the daughter Edward VII. When The Princess Lousie, Princess Royal got married, Edward VII issued letters patent granting the children of The Princess Royal titular dignity of royal highness, something they would've not been entitled to as being grandchildren of the monarch in the female line. Her husband was the Duke of Fife. Normally they would've gained their rank of Lady from their father's dukedom. Basically if Queen Elizabeth's daughter The Princess Anne agreed with The Queen to elevate her son and daughter's rank to Prince/Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland just the sovereign's "wish" isn't good anough in such a station becouse letters patent would've had to be granted due to the fact that her grandchildren are from the female line. You must also take into account that Letters Patent issued in 1917 regulated those who can and cannot be styled HRH. The reason The Queen didn't issue letters patent regarding the qualification of LLW is becouse she knows legally her granddaughter is entitled to such a titular dignity and by issueing letters patent to say otherwise would in fact be morally wrong. In a nut shell The Queen has the right to bestow titular dignity on anyone that she pleases. So LLW is rightfully a royal princess by letters patent but use's the style of Lady at the sovereign's will.

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

[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

What else is there to write about? How about the fact that Lady Louise suffers from strabismus -- her eyes are not aligned properly. The last I read, she will require surgery if the condition does not correct itself. I suspect that this is one reason few photographs are available, though it's true that a couple did appear in the press when the Wessex family joined the Queen on her cruise during the summer of 2006.68.72.110.24 18:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If there is a more recent photo I think it should be used as when I saw the current (tiny baby) picture I assumed it was of her newborn brother. Perhaps others arriving at the page will make the same mistake. Helen-Eva (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The issue of 'The Lady Louise Windsor'

There are some who continue to choose to ignore the role of HM The Queen in this debate. It was her official decision to deny Lady Louise Windsor the title of Princess of the United Kingdom before the birth. That is her unquestionable legal right. New Letters Patent do not need to be issued to do this. The Queen has issued a public statement officially from Buckingham Palace. It is not the decision of a bureaucrat and it is perfectly legal.

Those who refute this should take the matter up directly with The Queen and her advisers and see what answer they will receive rather than persisting in changing the page on Lady Louise Windsor with unsubstantiated fact. The Queen has decided to ignore the Letters Patent of King George V. That is her legal right. She gives and denies honours in all her realms. Get it? It really is very easy to understand. Nobody with any accurate knowledge of the issue refers to her as a Princess. Do you honestly think as an adult Lady Louise Windsor would openly defy the Sovereign and call herself Princess? The decision is all part of reducing the size of the royal family. There have been no objections from any of the royal family, least of all the parents of Lady Louise Windsor who are in full agreement with the decision of HM The Queen.

It is not MY decision but that of HM The Queen.

P.S. Wikipedia prides itself on presenting accurate information and not heresay. Perhaps those who continually alter the article on Lady Louise Windsor, placing incorrect and unreferenced material on the page should think about this before incorrectly referring to her as a Princess, a title she has never ever held. The issue is quite clear and requires no debate.

Aussiebrisguy 23 May 2007

[edit] Part Two

Have been in touch with Buckingham Palace who have confirmed the complete correctness of my answer. That is that The Queen, as per her clear official statement, published on the royal website and earlier elsewhere, made the decision after consultation with the Earl and Countess of Wessex, to deny any children born of the Earl and Countess of Wessex, any royal title and style. Further to this it was added that as per the official statement that The Lady Louise Windsor has never been a Royal Highness or a Princess. No change in the earlier Letters Patent were deemed necessary due to the official nature of the statement of the Sovereign. It was confirmed that The Lady Louise Windsor is and has only ever been "The Lady Louise Windsor", taking her title as that of the daughter of an Earl. - case closed.

Aussiebrisguy 24 May 2007

Sorry, but where is your source for that? Are we just meant to take your word that you have been in contact with BP? This is certainly not "case closed"!--UpDown 07:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess nothing will convince you as you are not open to changing your incorrect viewpoint no matter who provides the information. I guess the Queen's Staff at Buckingham Palace are not good enough for you. No point discussing this further as you are not open to accepting the reality of the situation.

Aussiebrisguy 24 May 2007

You're missing the point. Why should anyone believe BP said that? We just have your word for it. I could say I contacted BP and they agreed with me, but would you believe me then? I doubt it. We need evidence. The 1917 Letters Patent is evidence, you saying BP said something to you is not evidence. --UpDown 08:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You're very amusing. Guess there's not much hope when you don't even read and accept clear evidence produced by BP themselves. You criticise them and fail to accept them. After all they only represent The Queen. One wonders what you represent, if anything. Even BP can't persuade you as you don't want to learn. Obviously you need to do some research into the powers of the crown as you don't appear to have any understanding of them whatsoever.

Aussiebrisguy 24 May 2007

Please try to understand, Aussie. Wikipedia sources must be verifiable, that means, the source must be published in a way that anyone can find it and read it. If the information that you quote ("No change in the earlier Letters Patent were deemed necessary due to the official nature of the statement of the Sovereign") had been published by Buckingham Palace (on their website, for instance) it would have been verifiable, but as it is now, the reader who wants to check the source has to personally ask Buckingham Palace to repeat the information, and that's just not good enough. It's not a matter of whether or not we believe you, it's a matter of Wikipedia policy. -- Jao 11:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Jao : I understand verification only too well. I guess I find sometimes with wikipedia a great deal of unverified speculation and contributors who do not fully understand matters who decide their opinion is the only one possble as has happened in this case. Because an article has been inaccurate for years does not make it credible. Unless people with a high level of education pick up on errors that are repeatedly perpetuated, this sort of inaccuracy continues. The one thing I also have noticed is that when something is verified there are still some who refuse to believe it even when it comes from a highly credible organisation who have no reason to publish whatsoever, and very rarely do, inaccurate information. Some contributors even choose to remove verified information as has happened in this case. Why on earth would The Queen have inaccurate information on her own website about a member of her own family? Where do you think the information comes from? Think about it. She controls ALL titles in her own family and beyond, sometimes on government advice. She also removes titles with and without reference to Letters Patent. In case you are not sure she does check the website of her own organisation. You will have to trust me on that one. I am also regarded as somewhat of an expert in the field as well having had privileged access to rare archival material from the very top for approved and highly respected research. Such approval is rarely given. I guess that is why I know how to obtain information from credible sources and find it sad when inaccurate information is published repeatedly at wikipedia. Thankfully this does not happen all the time. It is good that this article has been locked from further inaccurate editing. Many people, for whatever reason, do not check sources and rely on wikipedia for accuracy. I guess given this fact, I find it extremely sad when inaccuracy is perpetuated and malicious slander is allowed to go unchecked on what would appear to an increasingly frequent basis. Check the character denigration, heresay and sweeping statements made about the Earl of Wessex if you are in any doubt. Media criticism or ridicule by media does not amount to 'many people'. It is an agenda pushes by a small editorial minority. Terminology has also been inaccurate. This leads to confusion. For example 'Commonwealth' is generally known to refer in cases to do with royalty attached to Queen Elizabeth II as referring to the 'Commonwealth of Nations' as in the title, 'Head of the Commonwealth'. That is why wikipedia has a page that is 'Commonwealth Realms' to distinguish the difference. It is highly inaccurate and insulting to those who live in Commonwealth Realms to have the term 'Commonwealth' used. Members of the royal family occupy honorary military position in 'Commonwealth Realms'. They do not occupy them in countries in the Commonwealth of Nations that are not Commonwealth Realms. The Commonwealth of Nations has no standing military forces. The same applies for honours bestowed by The Queen in Commonwealth Realms. They are not bestowed by the Commonwealth of Nations. It is simple fact and such inaccuracies need to be corrected so that others using wikipedia are not confused. There are blatant generalisations in some articles as well such as on Prince Edward. None of this provides a credible article on the subject and does not engender respect for wikipedia as you and I both wish to see.

Aussiebrisguy 24 May 2007

I certainly do agree that too many statements in Wikipedia are unsourced and unfounded, and that terminology (not least the Commonwealth/CR distinction) is too often inaccurately used. I'm glad we agree on that. As for the subject at hand, it is obvious that the sovereign (not the current one, but still) has issued letters patent effectively granting Louise the style of HRH. It is also obvious that no later letters patent have been issued to override the previous one on this matter. So it all boils down to these questions: Can the sovereign legally override earlier issued letters patent without issuing new ones? (And why, in that case, were letters patent deemed necessary in 1936 and even 1996?) And whether or not she can, was Buckingham Palace acting under the assumption that she can (so not issuing letters patent because the same effect would be achieved even without them) or under the assumption that she cannot (so not issuing letters patent because a legally binding change of title was not desired)?
As for the first question, IANAL (and I Am Also Not A Briton), but the logical answer is that letters patent can only be overridden by letters patent. (Yes, the sovereign is the fount of all honours – but how does she create and withdraw these honours? Isn't that just what letters patent are for?) If the opposite answer is the correct one, we need a credible source. Something to stand against "The right to use this style or title [HRH], in our view, is within the prerogative of His Majesty and he has the power to regulate it by Letters Patent generally or in particular circumstances." [5]
As for the second question, this is where your quoting BP is interesting. Your quote is effectively saying that BP was acting under the assumption that the sovereign can legally override letters patent by a less formal expression of the royal will – and so was actually trying, successful or not, to legally change the titles of Wessex's children. If we had a verifiable source for that, it would be good material for the article, whatever the answer to the first question might be. But still, we can't put "personal correspondence" in a footnote. -- Jao 09:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree largely with the above. Letters Patent need to be overwritten by later ones. A press statement is not legally binding. Say a press statement had said in 1973 that Princess Anne's children would be HRH Prince/ss, but no letters patent were issued. I think its safe to assume that there would little debate that Peter and Zara weren't legally Prince/ss. A good point from above is that if the Queen deemed it necessary to issue letters patent in 1996 to deny Diana and Fergie the HRH, then why would she not do the same three laters for the Wessex's children. The Queen may be "fount of all honour", but this does not mean her word alone is automatically law, she still has to legalise it. I again request that this page is returned to its previous wording. --UpDown 11:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You still don't get it ÚpDown. You continually refer to an OFFICIAL statement from The Queen as a Press Statement. I think perhaps you truly have no idea at all and are just 'UpDown' Do some research and remember cracked records are not longer played. Aussiebrisguy 17:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I do get it, thank you very much. Even if it was an "official" statement, I do not believe an official statments trumps a legal letters patent and there is no evidence to say it does. With regard to the Prince Edward page, look at what you are reverting, much of it breaks links, deletes info or is very POV. In one case it actually changes "1st Earl" to the incorrect "1st Duke". I have tried to comprise by asking for [citation needed] over some 'contraversial' statements, regarding It's A Royal Knockout and his sexuality, and I suggest you to try to comprise. --UpDown 17:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What you believe is very POV and inaccurate. Compromise can occur when accuracy occurs. The libellous sections have no place in wikipedia as you know and have been removed, particularly where no citations have been forthcoming as pointed out by yet another contributor. Do try to learn the difference between Commonwealth and Commonwealth Realms. Repeating such inaccuracy shows up a lack of knowledge on political realities. You repeatedly choose to ignore this. There is no room for compromise on such gross inaccuracy. Do some research into the monarchy rather harping on about Letters Patent. Much occurs which is quite legally valid without resort to Letters Patent. Check into removal of knighthoods. I doubt The Queen requires your advice on such matters when she obtains it from highly informed sources of her own. After all she has been doing the job for over 55 years. I tend to think she has a tiny bit more experience than you and has no need to compromise on matters she decides that effect her family. Please stop repeatedly vandalising articles with your unverified and inaccurate opinions otherwise you will, with regret, be reported. Aussiebrisguy 00:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't threaten me. I am not going to continue arguing with you, as it is fruitless. Regarding the Prince Edward page, I will now leave this, but to be honest it is now biased. There were rumours about his sexuality, and It's A Royal Knockout was riduculed. It's a shame you cannot admit this. I ask for other editors to put there input in on the Lady Louise issue. I will revert to the previous version when the editing block is lifted, this version is grossly incorrect. --UpDown 10:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Fine, I am content to let this fly until I do ask at the palace (where I work over the summer). For the moment, with the status of princess unconfirmed, dropping mention from the acticle seems the best compromise. Let's just vague it up a little! † DBD 16:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph of Lady Louise's article about her title was fine and everyone seemed happy with until User:Aussiebrisguy came along and changed things. He insists that a press statement overides the 1917 Letters Patent. Firstly, that is just stupid. Letters Patent are legally binding, press statements are not. Secondly, I quote from royal.gov.uk "It was also announced that any children the couple might have would not use the title HRH, but instead would carry a courtesy title as the sons or daughters of an Earl.". I stress "would not use"; Sophie later also made this clear. A press statament cannot override a legal letters patent. I would also ask User:Aussiebrisguy to stop pushing his POV on Prince Edward's page. It also seems greatly unfair that this page was protected after Aussiebrisguy did his edit. My version had been the one used since her birth, and is also written far more like an encylopedia should be. I request an Admit reverts it ASAP. --UpDown 18:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edward and Sophie expecting

The Wessexes are expecting their second child in December 2007. We should mention the fact- Louise' place in the line of succession would be affected, if her parents have a boy? GoodDay 19:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've made a note in Line of succession to the British Throne... † DBD

Yes Princess Louise of Wessex (I insist on legal titles being used) would go down a notch in the line of succession if her parents have a boy. The son's correct title would be HRH Viscount Severn I think.

His legal title would be HRH Prince X of Wessex; the Viscount Severn would not come into it. However, the boy would be styled Viscount Windsor as per the Wessexes wishes. --UpDown 08:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
If indeed the Wessex children are legally princ(ess)es, then he would legally be HRH Prince X of Wessex, but, per the wedding announcement would always by styled Viscount Severn, like the eldest son of any other earl would be... † DBD 13:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I don't know why I put Viscount Windsor, certainly not what I meant to put! --UpDown 13:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes his legal title would be HRH Prince X of Wessex, that is right. The Wessex children ARE legally Princes or Princesses as no new LAWS (letters patent) have been issued saying otherwise. He may not always be STYLED Viscount Severn, and Princess Louise may not always be styled as "Lady Louise". It depends on what they decide when they come of age, and it also depends on the will of future monarchs.

[edit] Updating the Profile Picture

Ok she's 4 years doesnt any one have a more up to date picture(218.215.30.124 08:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)).

[edit] Surname and definite article

She was registered with the surname Mountbatten-Windsor you can view this for yorself in the GRO index, however, it was was announced by BP that she will be known as The Lady Louise Windsor.

Additionally, I'd like for the person who keeps removing the definative article THE from the page to please view Burke's, Black's or Debrett's. The definative article is NOT reserved for substantive titles. The children of a Duke, Marquess, Earl, ect... all use the definative article associated with their courtesy title The Lady, The Lord, The Hon. ect.. Queen Brandissima

I brought this up at Talk:Courtesy title#Younger sons of Dukes and Marquesses, and daughters of the same plus Earls, but so far there has been very cool interest in the issue. -- Jao 18:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


My interest is in making sure the title listed is accurate not in seeing of other members are interested in the subject. I can easily verify the information myself without needing to ask others who may not have same interest in royalty or perserving the actual correct form. I already cited several references. Additionally, I have discussed the matter at length over the past 12 years with royal historians. -- Queen Brandissima
I do actually agree with "Queen Brandissima", my reading is also that there is a "The", out of pure courtesy. It does not mean the are peers, it a courtesy styling. But I'm not massivley bothered, but I do believe she is right. With regards to the surname, we do know her legal surname is Mountbatten Windsor (although she doesnt have a surname being a Princess...), but the opening line shows how she is commonly known. Her surname is mentioned in article.--UpDown 18:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


The point that you seem to have missed while reading through Talk:Courtesy title and User talk:Counter-revolutionary is that while references for the definite article are plenty, there are also authoritative references against it, at least according to Proteus. I'm no expert, I'm not to say what's right or wrong, but if we are saying that the authoritative sources A and B are correct and the authoritative sources C and D are mistaken, we really need very good evidence that it is so. That goes for both sides. -- Jao 19:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've not see any authorative references against the use of the definative article! In fact, all the non-wikipedia references I've seen specifically state that the correct formal courtesy title for the daughter of a duke, marquess or earl is The Lady MyName FamilyName. I didn't just wake up this morning and decided I'd pick this up royal and noble research has been my heart and soul for over a decade. - Queen Brandissima

Anyone I know who holds such a courtesy title does not use "the", and I know of no issues in reality where this has been used, regardless of what sources say. --Counter-revolutionary 19:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
ps, "heart and soul" ha! --Counter-revolutionary 19:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Still, Queen Brandissima, I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just addressing what Proteus said about the Earl Marshal and the College of Arms. I don't know if their views are well-documented or not; if not, we don't really need to consider them. And to Counter-revolutionary: remember, verifiability, not truth. It doesn't matter what you think, it doesn't even matter what you know, if it's not verifiable. So no, there's no "regardless of what sources say". What sources say is what should go into the encyclopedia, otherwise it's OR. And if it's simply the case that the definite article should be there but is often omitted in usage (such as news reports), that might be mentioned with a few examples as references in the Courtesy title article. -- Jao 19:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That's the point that I keep trying to make. Yet, now even my comments to the "discussion" area are being removed.

The definative article isn't always included because it is the formal form of written address. It isn't supposed to be used when speaking. However, when writing an encyclopedic article that includes a formal title it should always be included.

I didn't see anything mentioned by Proteus concerning courtesy titles for children of peers other than a comment that Burke's isn't always correct (which I why I also cited Debrett's and Black's). -- Queen Brandissima

"To make it even more complicated, the Earl Marshal and the College of Arms don't like the definite article being given to such daughters, while successive Lord Chamberlains have insisted they are entitled to it" (from the message by Proteus linked above) -- Jao 19:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen anything from either The Earl Marshall or the College of Arms that stated they didn't like it. I've certainly never seen anything that states they believe it is incorrect or should not be included from either. The College of Arms has nothing to do with styles or titles of nobility. They only record lineages and arms. I generally view the The Lord Chamberlain and The Great Lord Chamberlain as authorative. I've already started a letter to Private Secretary of The Queen concerning the use of definative articles. Perhaps, I should send a similar letter to the Earl Marshall and the College of Arms. -- Queen Brandissima

You needn't do the latter – if you get a response from the Queen's people, then that's that, end of. † DBD 20:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really doubt that I'll receive a response. Writing a professional letter has yet to fail me when it comes to responses. They are, normally, very good about responding they just aren't always speedy with the reply. Given the volume of mail I'd probably receive a response from them before the office of EIIR. -- Queen Brandissima

  • Sorry to but in when I am nothingh to do with this page but I thought you might be interested to know that the daughters of Earls and children of Marquesses and Dukes do formally have the definite article, especialy when referred to in writing. This is always the case in the published court circular. A good example is here:

Tuesday, 26th May 1998

BUCKINGHAM PALACE

"....Mrs. Ian Nish, Dr. Alan and the Lady Caroline Borg, Mr. Paul Smith, Major General"

This one is very interesting because The Lady Caroline is mentioned in our very own article here Royal Warrant of Precedence as having been elevated to the rank of the daughter of a Marquess. Perhaps now is the time to accept that the Queen herself may know when to apply the definite article. Giano 09:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear! seems to have a hit a raw nerve [6] perhaps you can now consider the matter closed. Giano 10:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even think to mention the Court Circular! An excellent point, thanks for adding it. -- Queen Brandissima

The Lord Chamberlain vs College of Arms thing comes from British Titles by Valentine Heywood, if anyone still wants to know the source. And the Court Circular does indeed use definite articles, not only for daughters of peers but for courtesy peers as well, another category of person that Wikipedia has for rather odd reasons decided not to use definite articles for (even though "the Duke of Richmond had dinner with Marquess of Worcester" sounds absurd). For instance, "Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy was represented by the Lady Mary Mumford" [daughter of a Duke of Norfolk] on 29 March 2000, but also, on the same date, "The Queen was represented by the Marquess of Hartington (Her Majesty's Representative at Ascot) at the Service of Thanksgiving for the Life of the Marquess of Abergavenny KG (formerly Her Majesty's Representative at Ascot, Her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant of East Sussex and Chancellor of the Most Noble Order of the Garter) which was held in the Guards Chapel, Wellington Barracks, London SW1, this morning" [no distinction between a courtesy Marquess and a substantive Marquess]. Proteus (Talk) 10:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

At the end of the day if the Queen - the "fountain of honour" chooses to use the definite article who are we (or the College of Arms) to argue? Giano 11:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has conventions on titles and names that lead to continual inclusion of incorrect information. I drives me mad that it appears that the "rules" concerning articles on title persons lead directly to the inclusion of massive amounts of incorrect information. It me it seems that Wikipedia is geared toward what is easy instead of what is correct. I find numerous articles where other members will continually edit out factual referenced information and replace it with information that is both wholly wrong and not able to be cited. I would never contribute to an article without first doing research. This has been one of the most interesting and stimulating discussions I've had on Wiki. 76.105.150.19 12:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Queen Brandissima brandy.kelley@gmail.com

There is no incorrect information of the article titles you refer to. There are only incorrect in your view. There are totally correct. And you say you do research, well you never cite it in the article do you?--UpDown 12:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

UpDown, I would suggest the following lite reading for you to answer many of your own questions.http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/prince_highness.htm 76.105.150.19 15:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Queen Brandissima


I have always cited references from Burke's, Black's, Debrett's, offical websites or to websites that actually include extensive bibliographies, offical statements, royal warrants and letters patent. And, I should point out that there are many, many glaring mistakes concerning titles in Wikipedia. I don't even have the time (or interest) to point them all out. I could point out that neither you nor anyone else provided a single reference to a single time when Queen Victoria's daughter The Princess Beatrice has ever been referred to as "Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom." You make assumptions that because she was a princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Ireland that should was ever referred to as such outside of Wikipedia. Crack open Marlene Eilers Koenig's book on Queen Victoria's decendants or search back through old London Gazettes. View archived offical announcements of birth, death, engagement, marriage and death these are specifically worded.

If an offical statement is issued by The Queen concerning a title that is correct information.76.105.150.19 12:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, you assume that referencing information means you can put the source in the talk page or editing comment. No - you must cite in the article in the proper way. This is what you are not doing. If you don't have the "time (or interest)" to correct "mistakes" then why are you at Wikipedia?--UpDown 12:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

My point was that there are far too many errors to correct them all. And, by "no interest" I mean that I don't normally contribute to articles that are out of my sphere of interest. It would literally take weeks to correct all the mistakes concerning royalty and nobility that are on Wikipedia. BTW, I don't normally alter information that has already been cited. However, I have changed several things that were incorrect that were never cited in the first place. 76.105.150.19 13:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Queen Brandissima

I take serious issue with being told to "cite" a reference and when I do it is removed and replaced by a link to not a reference or any source of fact but to a statement written by someone that does not provide a source of reference. The footnote on surnames should be referenced to http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5657.asp not a statement by a member that is neither correct nor verified. Additionally, it would probably be of use to link to the actual Royal Warrants and Letters Patent in the London Gazette Archive in the reference section. 76.105.150.19 04:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Queen Brandissima

[edit] wholesale reversions

There is no need to discuss edits that are adequately explained by their edit histories. None of the edits I am making to the page at present are changing its factual content; they are made in aid of style and clarity of expression. As such, they should be engaged with cooperatively rather than reverted wholesale. Doops | talk 22:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

But, OK, I'll bite: what's your objection to explaining the current cryptic surname sentence? Doops | talk 22:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
And, likewise, what is your specific objection to my rewriting of the first paragraph? Because I keep tweaking it, trying to make it more acceptable in your eyes. Meet me halfway. Doops | talk 22:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Because I think the paragraph was fine before. You are creating confusion where there isn't any. The paragraph was perfectly clear before. Other edits you have made [7] go against the the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty. The pages should all look similar, for the sake of uniformity, and by you making such changes with prior consulatation you are ruining this. The current page is better than this version [8], which really over-complicated the surname issue. --UpDown (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but that's not how the wikipedia works. Every article is fair game for improvement, and quality of any individual article is more important than a procrustean attempt to enforce uniformity. Likewise, when you see something in need of improvement, the wikipedia's motto is to be bold and improve it.
Perhaps my wording of the paragraph explaining the surname issue was overly complicated. But the current sentence is overly cryptic. Perhaps you could have a go at writing something in between? Thanks, Doops | talk 22:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)