Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
February 2007

Contents 1 Katharine of Aragon 2 Elizabeth II 3 Diana Princess of Wales 4 Buckingham Palace FAR 5 Line of Succession to the British throne 6 An English passport? 7 FAR 8 Image 9 Princess Augusta Charlotte of Wales 10 Victoria 11 List of English monarchs 12 Name of WikiProject 13 Who's monarchy is it? 13.1 The Commonwealth realms Compromise 13.2 Cease fire 14 Infobox discussion for monarchs and royalty 15 Changes to some Commonwealt realms 16 Title format of Commonwealth realm monarchies 16.1 Previous discussion 16.1.1 Title 16.1.2 Requested move 16.1.2.1 Poll 16.1.3 Same or not the same? 16.2 Further discussion 17 Start again 18 Baffled 19 Image/Template layout 20 The Wessex Children 21 DEFAULTSORT for peers, courtesy peers? 22 List of English monarchs & List of British monarchs 23 Collapsing of Ancestry templates and Template:British princesses 23.1 Necessity of Template:British princesses 24 Merge proposal, List of British monarchs 25 William IV of the United Kingdom FAR 26 The "Prince/ss X of Wales" Issue 27 New crop of Act of Succession alteration articles 28 The Queen vs the Queen 29 1917 and the inescutcheon of Saxony 30 Two Brand New X-Rated Move Surveys! 30.1 Firstly 30.1.1 Survey 30.1.2 Discussion 30.2 Secondly 30.2.1 Survey 30.2.2 Discussion 31 Length of reign 32 Use of the title Duke of Rothesay 33 Naming discussion 34 Scope

[edit] Katharine of Aragon

Hello there. Just wondering if any of the members could give some advice on a debate on the Catherine of Aragon page regarding the spelling of her name. There is some heated discussion on the discussion page, could you drop by and add your thoughts?? Greatly appreciated! CheersPaul75 01:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am no expert, but the only spelling I have ever encountered in my readings is the 'K' spelling. I have never encountered the 'C' spelling. I am sure both are commonplace, though, depending on which scholars you choose to believe. I am not a specialist in anything relating to the Tudors, so my interest is strictly amateur. Therefore, my limited grasp of the historiography puts me in a weak position. However, I can only say what I know, and that is I have never seen the 'C' spelling. I apologize for answering you after such a delay.

--Ashley Rovira 03:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

--Catherine of Aragon-- Hello. The correct spelling of her name as always been Catherine. Generally, the Catholics use the "C" spelling. Henry VIII was married to three Catherines, including Catherine Howard and Katherine Parr. I have seen the latter spelled with a "K" and a "C". Kathryn O.~~britishgirl~~

[edit] Elizabeth II

Just a minor issue on the Scotland page and on her own page she is states as being Elizabeth II when this is not the case in every country(Scotland being the one I picked up on, where she is Elizabeth the first). I could not edit it for some reason though.

88.109.97.142 02:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• She is Elizabeth II no matter where she is. The concensus is now that when a british monarch choses their regnal name their regnal number will be the highest from the two countries... if there were ever a king called Robert he would become Robert IV as there was a Robert III king of Scotland. Sotakeit 11:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diana Princess of Wales

I was reading the Diana article and realized it is the 10th anniversary of her death this year. I know little about her so can't contribute much myself (a while back I did a bit and got the article protected but now the protection has been removed...) but I think it would be appropriate for the WikiProject British Royalty to consider a Wikipedia 'collaboration' of some sort as if her article can be brought up to FA standard it would a good article for the main page on the anniversary of her death. Bobbacon 12:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buckingham Palace FAR

Buckingham Palace has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Simply south 11:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

==Elizabeth II (again)== Is there anyway? we can persuad the pro-sixteen... editors, to go with UK and fifteen...? That opening line looks terrible. It even contradicts that page's 'external links'. What's with this Commonwealth nationalistic pride. GoodDay 21:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Line of Succession to the British throne

Does someone in the line of succession make them automatically British Royalty? What about those who are not in the line of succession because they were born out of wedlock, or married a Roman Catholic, or one or more of their parents were Roman Catholic - do they still count as Royalty? Rhyddfrydol 16:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Simply, no. In most cases, "British royalty" is defined as anyone holding the British styles of HM, HRH or HH. However, for interest, we do include, arbitrarily, their close relative (non-royal spouses and children, for instance). It's basically a judgement call. Also, we tend not to include foreign royalty, members of foreign sovereign houses, etc. ^† DBD 16:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Being in the Line of Succession isn't an automatic inclusion in the "royal family", although some people in the Succession are automatically royal, either for the House of Windsor or another house, for other reasons. --Ashley Rovira 12:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean that placing "Line of succession to the British throne" succession boxes under a "British royalty" header is wrong, though? Because this is current practice in WikiProject Succession Box Standardization. Waltham, The Duke of 22:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really, I as the one to create the s-roy template for successions not included under peerages and precedence, intended the banner "British royalty" not to imply ownership or anything like that, but rather a relation to the broad topic. ^† DBD 23:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I am greatly relieved to hear that. Thank you for your prompt response. Waltham, The Duke of 23:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An English passport?

Hello WikiProject British Royalty participants!

It seems a debate about the use of nationality and ethnicity has been stirred on the Bernard Manning article talk page (I do beg your pardon!). It is my believe that nationalism is spoiling the integrity of some articles, and have had Union flags and citations removed with no justification. Some are even asserting there is an English nationality!

I know Manning is far from royality, but would welcome some comments on the talk page, as I feel I'm talking to a brick wall. Jhamez84 21:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAR

George I of Great Britain has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Epbr123 21:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth I of England has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. DrKiernan 15:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I worked on this picture and wanted to know if you people like it to replace this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bewareofdog (talk • contribs) 05:05, 4 August 2007.

Well, my vote is in the negative, but then it would be, because the current one is of my design. And it's better. By far. ^† DBD 21:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Princess Augusta Charlotte of Wales

Sorry for bothering you ... :-) But could a member of this project please answer my question on Talk:Princess Augusta Charlotte of Wales which I posed several months ago? And in addition: Could someone / a member of this project please delete the wrong picture in Princess Augusta Charlotte of Wales because it shows her mother (see my comment on the discussion page). Greetz -- Sir Gawain 12:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Victoria

Members of this project should probably be aware of the fact that the is currently a vote on to move the page Victoria of the United Kingdom Jooler 17:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of English monarchs

It's been proposed at that article, that British monarchs be added. We need some opinons on this, and on when the British monarchy started (1603 or 1707). GoodDay 18:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name of WikiProject

I wander if this WikiProject should be renamed to -WikiProject: Commonwealth Royalty? GoodDay 16:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, more than a thousand years' worth is British, the Commonwealth has had royalty for a tiny fraction of that... But that's just my opposition – I wonder what others think. ^† DBD 19:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that taking a purely historical, as opposed to current, point of view? The British monarchy's roots lie deeper in the UK than anywhere else, for certain; however, in contemporary reality that one monarchy is no longer purely British. In certain contexts, calling either the institution or the family only British is quite incorrect. --G2bambino 19:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No it is taking a sensible and reasonable view. Although the Royal Family is shared, is remains mainly British. For a start, the members live there, are British themselves and is how they are known the world over. Start banding about created phrases like "Commonwealth Royalty", and it will only confuse people, and support your normal pro-Canadian POV. While of course it is important to mention the monarch's role as Queen of 16 countries, this does not apply to her family. As I've been recently informed, only Canada have formally a Royal Family, making this insistance even stanger. They are known the world over as British, live there, work there, are British and a suggestion to change this, makes Wikipedia look pathetic and highly-biased. --UpDown 08:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Your points make no sense. Elizabeth II is known the world over as the Queen of England. Should we change her article and all references to her to reflect this? That would, after all, be sensible and reasonable from your standpoint.

What does make sense is acknowledging the facts:

1. The person who is monarch of the United Kingdom is also, separately, monarch of 15 other countries.
2. The Royal Family of that monarch performs official duties on behalf of not only the United Kingdom government, but, separately, for the governments of the 15 other countries of which the monarch is monarch.
3. The Canadian government, and, indeed, the Queen herself, acknowledge the existence of a Canadian Royal Family
4. The monarch and Royal Family have a longer connection to the United Kingdom
5. The monarch and Royal Family are (probably because of point 4) predominantly perceived by the general public as being British

To ignore any of the above is what sheds light on a bias.

I agree that "Commonwealth royalty" is misworded; there is more than one royal house in the Commonwealth. "Commownealth realms royalty" might be more appropriate as it limits the scope to only the 16 countries that share the crown, monarch, and royal family. "British and other Commonwealth realms royalty" is accurate, but just seems too wordy. --G2bambino 15:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Would it be alright with this WikiProject, if 15 sister-WikiProjects were created? - WikProject Canadian Royalty, WikiProject Australian Royalty etc, or is the possibility of 16 related WikiProjects conflicting each other, too great? GoodDay 15:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, I was just thinking about that. But, besides wondering about whether the scope of articles is big enough to warrant such a creation, this wouldn't solve problems that arise at articles where the context goes beyond one particular country. What might be valid is your earlier suggestion of a brand new WikiProject relating to the Commownealth realms as a whole, to which this BRoy one would be subordinate. Is that feasible? --G2bambino 16:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There would be almost nothing to put in such projects - and literally nothing at all if one wished to exclude information already included in this one. A point you "forgot" to mention above is that the reason why those 15 other realms have the Queen as their head of state is precisely because she is the British monarch, and Britain is the former colonial power. I oppose any name change or subordination of this project. TharkunColl 16:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Then the amount overlap alone shows the limited scope of this project's title. --G2bambino 16:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Articles relating to the British monarchy will cover a period of 1500 years or more, only a tiny proportion of which will cover the period since 1931. It's those other putative projects that will be very short on content. TharkunColl 16:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Then I'm not sure what you mean; it was you who said a Commonwealth realms WikiProject would contain nothing not already covered in this one. That, to me, shows overlap. --G2bambino 16:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but out of the two, this one would also contain a massive amount more. Only a small proportion would deal with events since 1931. TharkunColl 16:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I honestly can't see a problem with creating a WikiProject Canadian Royalty. The core of these disputes is quite apparent aswell- Ownership of the monarchy. GoodDay 17:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ownership of the monarchy is indeed precisely the point. It was the English parliament that asserted ownership of the monarchy with the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and sealed it with the Act of Settlement of 1701. TharkunColl 17:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

And since then things have changed. --G2bambino 17:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I assure you that succession to the throne is still governed by the Act of Settlement - a fact of some controversy in our age of religious and sexual equality. TharkunColl 17:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but that doesn't prove how nothing has changed. --G2bambino 19:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's apparent this WikiProject won't be renamed, that's acceptable. Is there a better place we can argue monarchy ownership? GoodDay 17:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind where, as long as we don't have to do it on three different pages! TharkunColl 17:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, we'll keep it here, since I can't think of another place. GoodDay 17:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Are there not sixteen different monarchies? Each country "owns" its own monarchy, who just happens to be the monarch of 15 other countries. As for the name of this WikiProject and the articles it encompasses, from past royals up until now, the only thing they all have in common is that they all are or were members of the British Royal Family. George IV wasn't a member of the Canadian or Australian or New Zealand royal family. Leave it where a common name can apply to it all. Charles 21:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we're debating the WikiProject's Name anymore. It's remaining at British. GoodDay 22:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Late to the party, but I just wanted to add, in case this idea is resuscitated, that "Commonwealth royalty" would also include the Sultan of Brunei, the King of Lesotho, the various monarchs of Malaysia, and the kings of Swaziland and Tonga. That would clearly be a different project from this one. john k (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who's monarchy is it?

As pointed out above, we've a major problem concerning these disputes (see above). Who's monarchy is it, the Brits or the whole Commonwealth? GoodDay 17:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinon, it's the whole Commonwealth's monarchy (or monarchies). How this came about isn't important, what's important is that it exists. Elizabeth II is equally Queen of the UK, Canada, Australia etc. GoodDay 18:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I must also admit though, common usage demands that British be in place. GoodDay 18:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

How it came about is the very essence of why it exists. It is no accident that 15 countries around the world choose to recognise the British monarch as their own. But the statistics prove that it is merely a transitional phase from colony to independent republic. More than 50% of those countries who have experienced this are now republics. TharkunColl 19:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Edward VIII's abdication had to be approved by all Commonwealth realm Parliaments (not just the British Parliament). GoodDay 19:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

How anything came about is the essence of why it exists, but in this case: so what? The present situation is one of a shared monarchy; the UK does not have full control over that institution at this time. Hence, it is the UK's monarchy, but it is also, equally, every other Commonwealth realm's as long as said country remains a Commonwealth realm. --G2bambino 19:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not a case of "So what?" at all. The Royal Family live and work in Britain, and are themselves British. The common usage is overwhelminghly British Royal Family. Of course with that you've argued the normal "Queen of England". Thats totally different. Common usage doesn't apply in that case because its totally wrong, and also its not exclusive usage, she is often known as Queen of Britiain, or Queen of UK etc. The British Royal Family are never referred to as anything except "British Royal Family" (I'm talking about the Family, not the Queen). To make references to "the Royal Family of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms" is an invented title made by you to suit your POV. Queen Victoria was Empress of India, should we therefore say that her children were members of the Indian Imperial Family? The British Royal Family should always be referred to as that, anything else is invented, illogical and POV.--UpDown 08:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That is indeed a case of "So what"?

• The Royal Family live and work in Britain. So what? Where they live isn't really relevant; they work outside Britain as well.
• The Royal Family are British. So what? They're also defined as subjects of the Canadian monarch.
• The common usage is "British Royal Family." So what? Common usage is not always correct.
• The British Royal Family is never referred to as anything except "British Royal Family." So what? Of course the British Royal Family would be called the British Royal Family. The point is, though, that the same group of people are called the Canadian Royal Family in different contexts.

The only assertion you make that aren't a case of "So what?" are:

• References to "the Royal Family of the United Kingdom of the Commonwealth realms" is an invented title. Completely wrong. It is a description appropriate to certain contexts.
• Referring to this group of people as anything other than British Royal Family is invented POV. Completely wrong. Sources support that this same group is also called the Canadian Royal Family; from the Queen's own mouth, not less.

With no pertinent and valid evidence to support your assertions, I'd be careful in accusing others of promoting an invented POV. --G2bambino 16:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I cannot believe the above, I really can't. How you can say "So what" when you admit the British Royal Family are always called that. When, outside Wikipedia, do you hear mention to the "Canadian Royal Family"? No often, if at all. It really is time you accept that the Royal Family is primarily British, though history, current situation and everything. I really have had enough of your POV. And "the Royal Family of the United Kingdom of the Commonwealth realms" is an invented title, you created it. --UpDown 08:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The Royal Family is primarily involved with the UK; no one has ever disputed that. It seems then you're fighting a non-existent battle. --G2bambino 15:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've considered taking this dispute to an MoS page - Problem is, which one? GoodDay 17:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps taking this to a Mediation Committee is the next step? GoodDay 15:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before, one of the problems here is a failure to understand the difference between a legal construct ("the Crown" of any given country), and the actual person. This is not surprising, I think, for people who live in countries where the actual person is largely absent. If they lived in Britain they would realise just how ubiquitous the monarchy really is, and then they would be in no doubt that the monarchy is primarily British - in almost everything it says and does. TharkunColl 16:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's disputed their primary involvement with the UK. Why keep bringing this argument up? --G2bambino 17:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it is extremely relevant to the issue at hand. Please don't just reply "No it's not!". Try and justify your opinion. TharkunColl 17:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's relevant, but not disputed. So, allow me to rephrase myself: why bring up a non-existent argument? --G2bambino 17:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Tharky, nobodies arguing that E2 & family are living in the UK, performing most of their duties in the UK and are identified mainly as British. Nobodies arguing that. GoodDay 17:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that what the monarchy does is primarily British means that the monarchy is primarily British. It's actually very simple and obvious. Please attempt to refute this without just saying it is a "non-argument", or whatever. TharkunColl 17:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobodies ever argued that the monarchy was viewd mostly as being British. GoodDay 17:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This depends; "monarchy" is a broadly defined term. The Crown is shared equally. The monarch is shared equally, though is most directly involved in the UK's affairs. The Royal Family is shared equally, though they most often act officially on behalf of the UK. So, yet again, nobody's disputing either the Queen's or her family's primary association is with the UK. --G2bambino 17:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand the reason for resisting 'Commonwealth realms' being mentioned on these royalty articles. Particularily when we're accepting usage of United Kingdom ahead of it. GoodDay 17:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I know. It completely baffles me as well. --G2bambino 17:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Commonwealth realms Compromise

Given it alot of thought. I feel we need a compromise for all Commonwealth realm related articles. Here's my idea - 1)For British related articles we use the line United Kingdom and fifteen other Commonwealth realms, 2)For Canadian related articles Canada and fifteen other... , 3)For Australian related artirlces Australia and fifteen other... etc. Any other suggestions? GoodDay 19:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed a fine proposal, except for its inability to deal with those articles where the context isn't as specific, such as articles on the members of the Royal Family, or commonly shared institutions, or burial plots. In those examples the description that combines both clarity and accuracy is "...of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms"; a composite of the "British-first" and "Commonwealth-shared" facts. --G2bambino 19:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

For articles that are about the whole Commonwealth, I have no particular objection to "United Kingdom and fifteen other Commonwealth realms". But in articles about Britain, and its monarchy, there is simply no need to mention the other realms. We don't say, "Gordon Brown, Prime Minster of the UK, First Lord of the Treasury, Minister for the Civil Service, MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath" every time we mention the British Prime Minister - we only mention his other titles if they have a direct bearing on the article in question. In other words, we should not give those other titles WP:Undue Weight. TharkunColl 19:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Noone has proposed the other realms be mentioned in every instance; could you please heed that important point. Only in certain contexts would it be appropriate and/or necessary; just as it would, at points, be appropriate and/or necessary to mention all of Gordon Brown's offices, or, at least, say "Gordon Brown holds the premiership of the United Kingdom as well as a number of other government related offices."

In areas where the scope is more broad is where the other realms would be mentioned; for instance, in the opening of a Royal Family member's page: "[XX] is a member of the Royal Family of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms." The dab at the head of British Royal Family then explains the shared nature. In other, more specific contexts, however, "British Royal Family" or "Canadian Royal Family" will be acceptable. --G2bambino 19:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the fifteen thing, we already know there's sixteen realms. GoodDay 19:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If this compromise is turned down, we may have to go to Mediation. I'm not a fan of making deals like this, but it maybe what's needed to break this continous 'logjam'. GoodDay 19:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The main problem is the insertion of POV into articles that have nothing to do with the Commonwealth at all. If we had an article about a member of the royal family opening some supermarket somewhere in the UK, would we have to say "and the other Commonwealth realms"? No, such a notion is preposterous. TharkunColl 19:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As that is British-specific, no, that would not be necessary. --G2bambino 19:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, now if the royal opened a supermarket in Australia, we would use Australian. The compromise can be tweaked for such incidences. It's our compromise to mold, I just felt we needed a base to begin with. GoodDay 19:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In such an article, it would also need to be stated that the "Australian" royal family is also the British one. Otherwise we would simply be confusing and misleading our readers - i.e. giving them the impression that Australia has its own monarchy. We must always assume that our readers are ignorant of the facts - this is, after all, an encyclopaedia. TharkunColl 00:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Only if it's stated in other articles that the "British" Royal Family is also the Australian one. Otherwise we would simply be confusing and misleading readers - i.e. giving them the impression that Britain had its own monarchy. --G2bambino 00:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, forgive me for stating the bleeding obvious, but Britain does have its own monarchy. TharkunColl 00:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it shares a monarchy with fifteen other countries; within the UK it's British, within Australia it's Australian. --G2bambino 00:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

And how often is it "within" Australia? TharkunColl 08:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Whenever "it" acts regarding Australian affairs. --G2bambino 15:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

And how often is that? I'm not referring to people acting on behalf of the monarch, but acts of the monarch and her family in person. If you added up the duration of such instances for all of the other Commonwealth realms, it would still be dwarfed by the amount of time the monarchy acts in the UK. That is why the monarchy is still primarily, overwhelmingly, British, and will doubtless remain so. It has nothing to do with constitutional theory. TharkunColl 18:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Thark? As I said earlier, "monarchy" is a loosely defined term. The monarchy, as an institution - let's call that the Crown - acts all the time, in every realm; it's the perpetual source of all governmental authority in each of its jurisdictions. The Queen is the personal embodiment of the Crown, and the holder all that authority, and so she is Queen of all her countries equally, all the time. Because she has more personal contact with her British ministers than with her other ones doesn't preclude either this fact or the fact that when she exercises any authority or duty on behalf of a particular state she does so 100% as monarch of that country, not automatically as monarch of the UK.

Similarly, the members of the Royal Family may act more often on the direction of the British government, but that doesn't mean they don't "belong," per say, as much to any of the Queen's other countries. As subjects of the Queen of, say, Canada, members of the Royal Family are called upon by the Canadian government to represent the Queen of Canada at certain Canadian events, either locally or abroad. As they act for Canada in exactly the same manner as they do for the UK they're easily defined as the Canadian Royal Family, and have been.

Mentioning the Commonwealth realms in certain appropriate instances does not confuse or undermine the primacy of the UK in the everyday lives of the Royal Family members; so, again, concerns about the UK's primacy are irrelevant. --G2bambino 18:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Just as a thought experiment, what do you think would happen if Prince Charles constantly bombarded the Canadian PM and members of his cabinet with an endless stream of notes and suggestions about environmental policy, architecture, housing, this, that, and the other? And more to the point, why doesn't he? Why does he only choose to attempt to influence the British government? TharkunColl 18:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

An interesting thought experiment (and I don't know how much he does do that), but it's really not pertinent to the discussion. --G2bambino 19:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed pertinent. Prince Charles, by his actions, obviously feels that the British government is more "his" to influence than governments in the other realms. TharkunColl 19:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not really pertinent because your first question is a hypothetical, and your following statement is a supposition. --G2bambino 19:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's widen it out then. Do you know of any example of the Queen, or a member of her family, attempting to influence the Canadian government? In the UK we have the famous example from her Silver Jubilee in 1977 when she gave a speech with a thinly veiled criticism of the government's plans for devolution for Scotland and Wales (though why she didn't do it this time round is another question - perhaps she liked Blair better than Callaghan). TharkunColl 19:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not relevant. --G2bambino 19:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If you don't agree with my argument, then you should try and refute it. Continually dismissing it as irrelevant is doing your case no good at all. I feel that my argument is very relevant, and you should try and engage with it on those terms. TharkunColl 19:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You haven't made an argument; at least not one that pertains to this discussion. What Charles personally thinks is neither knowable by us, nor influential in any dispute against the proposed wording that's the subject of this discussion. Ditto for the Queen. I suspect you're beleaguering this "the royals are predominantly associated with the UK" point; i.e. you're still fighting a non-existent battle. --G2bambino 20:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No it is the British monarchy, other countries have since its inception taken it up. But is British.--UpDown 08:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

For non-Commonwealth realm related articles, we should go with British as Commonwealth would raise questions at those articles. GoodDay 19:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Depends on what country the monarch/royal family member is acting on behalf of. --G2bambino 20:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, country being represented. GoodDay 20:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If the suggestion to say on, for instance, Prince Andrew's article, "is a member of the Royal Family of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms" - then I totally disagree. G2bambino admits above they are always known as the British Royal Family, never as anything else. How you can ignore this common usage is beyond me it really is. When common usage is as widespread as this, and with good reason to, it must be followed. We cannot simply invent what they are called. They are called the British Royal Family, it really is as simple as that. In cases where the commonwealth is relevant fine, but in article about the individual or graveyards it is not relevant in opening line. Common usage prevails. And please remember the link to British Royal Family immediatley explains is a shared Monarchy. --UpDown 08:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Putting words in my mouth is very poor form and undermines your credibility. I did not say they are "always" known as the British Royal Family; I said they are predominantly referred to as such. You also demonstrate that you aren't interested in hearing anything other than that which you want to; otherwise you wouldn't say completely inaccurate things like "they are called the British Royal Family, it really is as simple as that." Presented evidence proves you wrong. --G2bambino 15:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no presented evidence that they are known around the world as "the Royal Family of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms". There is lots of evidence and sources that they are known as the British Royal Family.--UpDown 17:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, there isn't evidence of them being called "the royal family of the United Kingdom and the other Commownealth realms"; I've said as much elsewhere. Then again, there's no cited evidence of John Buchan being called "a Scottish novelist, best known for his novel The Thirty-Nine Steps, and Unionist politician who served as Governor General of Canada." You see, Wikipedia isn't a collection of quotations. But, if you'd like to play that game then you'll have to accept "the Britsh Royal Family and Canadian Royal Family," which is accurate, and cited, but still ignores the evident role of the royals in the Queen's other realms. --G2bambino 17:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cease fire

Why, why; why oh why is there such a kerfuffle? This project is not a place for this conflict – it is entirely irrelevant to its work. It matters not what we call the project, nor who "owns" the monarchy (which, by the way, is a ridiculous concept). This discussion will go nowhere because no party is willing to give. Everyone, please cease and desist – perhaps concentrate on editing – bring articles up to spec, etc. What say we? ^† DBD 16:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, DBD, I neglected to address you: where would you suggest this be resolved? Perhaps GoodDay is correct to seek out the establishment of a Commownealth realms WikiProject. --G2bambino 19:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I agree in theory. But it is G2ambino, and to a lesser extent GoodDay, who started and caused this disgrement. No one else is hell-bent on insisting mentioning the Commonwealth realms at every opportunity. And I am not prepared to let them get their way when it is so blantantly POV, incorrect and anti-common usage.--UpDown 17:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Really, do grow up, and desist with your manipulation of other people's arguments. --G2bambino 17:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he's got my jist – although he could have put a finer, subtler point on it, he is not entirely wrong on the last part. ^† DBD 19:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. --G2bambino 19:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand. Increasingly, more editors prefer not to add Commonwealth realms to every related page then those who wish to. Basically G2, you and I are loosing this argument. Our hopes of gaining a consensus (even on my proposed compromise) isn't catching on. It's best to accept what's being more commonly used - British -. If not we might be bordering on 'tentative editing'. GoodDay 20:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like the most practicable solution, sir ^† DBD 20:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

GoodDay: That's what I suspect he's saying, but I can't fully grasp it; it just doesn't compute. From my stance, I see that nobody is able to prove "...of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms" as being wrong, or even misleading. All that's been presented is a lot of baseless assertions that then turned to unfounded attacks on our motives. Thus, there isn't really an argument to lose; in an argument your opponent actually has to debate against your points, not debate against imaginary points they created in their own minds. This is exactly why you can't understand their opposition to the propsed wording: there have been no logical arguments against it put forward, just ceaseless foot stomping. --G2bambino 20:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

A related addition: the point that all those opposed to the inclusion of mention of the Commonwealth realms in appropriate situations are all of a UK extraction might be more than coincidental, and may explain the emotional, illogical reaction to the proposal. --G2bambino 20:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's over my friend, we've lost. Frustrating as it is, common usage and international recognition wins out. I know when I'm beat. GoodDay 20:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That's bolloks; common usage and international recognition were never challenged. All that was put forward was a proposal to acknowledge, in appropriate contexts, the wider scope of a certain institution. No valid reason was put forward to say why that should not be done. As I said, we haven't lost because nobody actually debated us. --G2bambino 20:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, thricely whoa. Hang on there – not everyone has rejected all of your proposal out of hand – I personally am absolutely fine with appropriate mentions of the official status of the Commonwealth realms in the appropriate articles. And, as for the name of the WikiProject, it's unfortunate that including "and the Commonwealth realms" pushes the length of its title into the territory of unwieldly-ness. And as for the insinuation that myself, or any of the other contributors, are biassed against the inclusion of the Commonwealth's status and joint Sovereignship, and especially that that would be on account of simply being British – that, dear sir, makes you guilty of the very "crime" of which you would accuse others. Please, do not assume bad faith. ^† DBD 21:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Then I am certainly completely confused! In terms of this project name: I could support a change, but really have little passion about the issue, and hence asked you, with genuine desire, where this debate might better take place. As far as I knew, the contest here, for some time now, has indeed been about the mention of the other Commonwealth realms, not in this project title, but in appropriate articles; yet, above, you seemed to support UpDown's assertion that to do just that would be "POV, incorrect and anti-common usage."

I was tentative about expressing my observations of the national characteristic common to all those so far opposed, or seemingly opposed, to the mention of the other Commonwealth realms in certain frameworks. Hence, I was careful and said it might be more than coincidence, and was perhaps worthy of consideration in tandem with the irrational responses coming from others (not you). I am trying to assume good faith, but piecing together some of what I see come out in discussion is what makes me smell bias so strongly, from one editor in particular.

I do hope, though, that we can clear this up. --G2bambino 21:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

And I couldn't help noticing that those who wish to diminish the status of the British monarchy are from former British colonies. Far be it from me to suggest that they may have that collective chip on their shoulder that is so common amongst colonials, and which seeks to belittle the mother country at every possible opportunity - like a rebellious teenager biting the parental hand that gave it life and existence in the first place. TharkunColl 23:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

One wonders who you're talking about; nobody here has "diminished" the British monarchy. You do seem to spend a significant chunk of your time fighting ghosts. --G2bambino 23:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, this is your typical debating tactic - you deliberately interpret words and phrases according to your own POV. When I say British monarchy, I mean precisely that - namely, the monarchy that reigns over the UK and 15 of its former dominions. If you counter with the suggestion that the British monarchy is merely limited to the UK, you will, indeed, be attempting to diminish the British monarchy. TharkunColl 23:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Then you do the same; however my "POV" is backed by sources, yours is not. No edit I have done, or propose to do, diminishes the British monarchy. --G2bambino 20:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

G2bambino, you comment on myself and TharkunColl being from the UK is a pointless one. You and GoodDay are both from Canada so I could say the same back. You seem to be unable to accept argument, constantly saying things like "baseless assertions" and "there isn't really an argument to lose; in an argument your opponent actually has to debate against your points, not debate against imaginary points they created in their own minds" and "there have been no logical arguments against it put forward, just ceaseless foot stomping". All these are what you are doing. We have presented many points, you just ignore them. Common usage demands British Royal Family. We seem to have a majority, so I suggest we end the disussion with that as a guideline. --UpDown 08:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This is precisely why I called for cease fire. This is no longer a debate, discussion or proper argument – it has become a spat. Stop it all of you.

Now, I strongly suggest you all agree (in as few words as possible) to the following amenable compromise, before I call in mediation:

• In return for never having to read this ridiculous clash of POVs again, I will personally edit the Project's front page to include guidelines on the mention of CR etc in appropriate articles, and add a guideline like:

Where appropriate – i.e. in any case where the monarchy, or an aspect thereof, is/was shared between Britain and any other state independent therefrom – it will be necessary to make specific mention of the Commonwealth realms, at first specifically, but more generally thereafter. The main state on which the article concentrates (Britain unless stated elsewhere) will be used most often throughout the text, but only as primus inter pares, and never to the exclusion of all others in the article

• Please say we can agree, or compromise, here? ^† DBD 09:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

One question first. Does the above mean articles on members of Royal Family (except monarch) should read "British Royal Family" at opening line not "Royal Family of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms", as should Royal Burial Ground and similar articles. If yes, then I agree. If no, I don't.--UpDown 12:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Where appropriate, yes, but please recognise that there may be cases where "Commonwealth realms" should be there. So that's an "enough yes for you to agree" :D ^† DBD 12:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be picky, but this is important to me. On, for instance, articles on the children/grandchildren of The Queen and for her cousins, what would you put? Would you add Commonwealth? --UpDown 19:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That depends – I'd say in the cases of Charles and William, since they're in the direct line to the CR crown, and possibly Philip, because he accompanies the Queen on her CR tours – but the other royals have even less to do with the other realms, so I probably wouldn't make mention in the text – rather link British Royal Family, where the situation is explained ^† DBD 19:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I too would say Philip, Charles, and William and Harry as they are in direct line to the throne. However, I would include the Queen's other children and a couple of her cousins; essentially only those who undertake duties at the behest of the Queen's non UK governments. If that's acceptable then your proposal seems more than adequate to me, DBD. Cheers. --G2bambino 20:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Acceptable indeed – but remember the watchword. Appropriate. Huzzah! Solution! ^† DBD 22:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've always mentioned the link, which as you say explains all. This is why I don't see it is necessary to mention Commonwealth in these circumstances. For Charles the current opening is as it should be. But with all others it should just read British Royal Family, the common usage and reflecting the historical and current situation. --UpDown 19:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox discussion for monarchs and royalty

Please have a look here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Royalty#Template:Infobox Monarch issues, new template. Charles 22:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to some Commonwealt realms

Updating changes here -I've done the following: Monarchy in Canada, Monarchy in Australia, Monarchy in Jamaica and Monarchy in New Zealand to Canadian monarchy, Australian monarchy, Jamaican monarchy and New Zealand monarchy. It's a gradual process. GoodDay 21:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ran into a slight bump at Monarchy in Jamaica; if anybody wants to complete the changes (of all 16 articles) go ahead. If anybody chooses to revert, go ahead. Just be sure they're all consistant. PS- I've been a little fatigued these last few days. GoodDay 19:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

G2bambino and I, have moved a few more pages from Monarchy in xxx to xxx monarchy. GoodDay 18:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Complete: All the existing Monarchy in xxx pages, have been moved to xxx monarchy. -Note- There's yet to be created Bahamas monarchy, Barbados monarchy, Grenadian monarchy, Papua New Guinean monarchy, Saint Kitts and the Grenadines monarchy, Sait Lucian monarchy. GoodDay 18:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There's current on exception - Monarchy in Jamaica. GoodDay 19:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Continued below. — AjaxSmack 00:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title format of Commonwealth realm monarchies

The following discussion was copied from Talk:Monarchy in Jamaica. It deals with deciding on the title format for all articles relating to the monarchies of the Commonwealth realms with a choice of [Realm] monarchy (e.g. Canadian monarchy, British monarchy) or Monarchy in [Realm]. Please read and continue the discussion below. — AjaxSmack 00:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Previous discussion

[edit] Further discussion

What about "Monarchy of X"? Obviously, there's some kerfuffle about adjectives, so why not retain the possessive with an "of"?--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 08:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be equally acceptable to me. --G2bambino (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Because the possessive might imply (sole) possession of the monarchy, which only one can legitimately claim ^† DBD 14:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well then, here's the slightly confusing part where we have to make a choice: there is one shared monarchy but it is "divided" into sixteen. By my reading, "Monarchy in [xxx]" says the shared monarchy in that country, and "Monarchy of [xxx]" says the branch of monarchy operating solely in that country. Technically, either is correct. However, as someone has noted below, "Monarchy of [xxx]" is the predominant format for monarchy articles. --G2bambino (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No more than List of Co-Princes of Andorra claims sole ownership of the President of France. My issue with leaving the British monarchy possessive while making the other ones "in X" seems to harkin back to the time before the Statute of Westminster when the monarch was merely the British monarch in a certain colony.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 19:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Again though, we're talking about all the Commonwealth realm monarchies (including the UK). GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It should also noted that other Monarchy pages on wikipedia go by the monarhcy of x format see Monarchy of Belgium and Monarchy of the Netherlands --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 19:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Great point Barry, you've hit a home run. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Are we getting close to closing this discussion & adopting Monarchy in x for all the articles? PS- I still got that guizing feeling in my gezzard, their gonna be an hassle when we 'move' British monarchy to Monarchy in the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no way I would support such a move. What's the point? Simply a desire for uniformity at all costs? TharkunColl (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The consensus reached, is quite clear on the matter. British monarchy will have to be moved to Monarchy in the United Kingdom, any resistance would cause havoc & headaches (and who needs that?). GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes; the required five day period is up today, though to be safe I'd leave it 'till the end of the day (Eastern Standard Time??). Though, I think "Monarchy of [xxx]" is, as pointed out, the established precedent, not "Monarchy in [xxx]." --G2bambino (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct, Monarcy of x. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence of a consensus that "British monarchy" should be moved, except repeated statements by GoodDay that there is one. john k (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The poll above shows a 'current' consensus to move all articles to Monarchy of x; at least that's what I thought. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree all of them should be moved to Monarchy of x --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 18:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that several people expressed a desire for an exception for the UK, I don't see how that makes a consensus. john k (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, five people expressed a preference for no exceptions, and two for exceptions. In addition to those two, Tharkun has now expressed opposition, and I would join in that. That's not a consensus. john k (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Could the 'two' of you (JK & Tharky), please say so at the 'Poll' above? It would make it easier to keep count. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Ther requisite 5 days are up. Even if Thark was against - though he didn't register his vote in the poll above - it would still stand at 5 to 3 in favour of the move. --G2bambino (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And isn't that just typical of your attitude - use any method you can to suppress dissent. Well, I've voted now, so to describe your proposal as having a "consensus" is to be plainly absurd. You are trying to impose a mindless uniformity on an article where none is necessary or desirable. If you want to change British monarchy, you must achieve consensus on its own talk page, not here. TharkunColl (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

5 to 3 is still a majority. It may not be desirable to you, but more people feel you are wrong in that opinion than think you are right. If you wish to have the page moved again, you'll have to start another move request, per Wikipedia:Requested moves. There is no need for any discussion to take place at Talk:British monarchy, this vote was opened and conducted exactly as WP:RM dictates. Nothing is rendered invalid because of faulty process. --G2bambino (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I was just going to say, Tharky will never accept it. But he beat me to it. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Err, who wants to move the British monarchy article? I'm in no mood for page movement wars. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I know. I'm thinking about contacting an admin. --G2bambino (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

A naming convention requires a consensus, not a mere majority. 5-3 is not a consensus, and, as such, nothing has been agreed to, and we continue the current (non-)policy of having no general rules on this subject, until such time as a consensus can be had. If you want to move British monarchy in this context, go over there and do a requested move, as there is not any consensus for a change in general naming policy. I would add that, even if there was a consensus here, you would, as Tharkun says, still have to do a move request on the individual page, as Wikiprojects have absolutely no authority to determine naming rules. john k (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This was set up exactly as WP:RM dictates, with all the appropriate notices set in the correct places, including at Talk:British monarchy. The discussion and poll obviously shows that the majority of people who chose to involve themselves felt that all the articles should be titled the same way. That in no way changes any naming policy, and, in fact, pulls all the titles more in line with the only applicable guideline: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government departments and ministers). Further, what counts as a consensus if not a majority? --G2bambino (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that all realms exluding the UK be moved to Monarchy of realm as this is the standard for other monarchy pages and then set up a WP:RM on the British monarchy page and ask for input there. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 03:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to quote wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:Consensus:

In practice, a lot of people look in on an issue and check to see if a (mere) majority exists in favor of their position. While this quick and dirty rule helps you to figure out what to spend your time on, it is obviously *not* the same thing as finding the actual consensus (or what it will end up as). To do that, you actually need to carefully consider the strength and quality of the arguments themselves (including any additional concerns that may have been raised along the way), the basis of objection of those who disagree, and in more complex situations, existing documentation in the project namespace should also be checked. If you are volunteering to carry out an action on the basis of rough consensus, only this thorough approach is acceptable.

Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and discussion should continue in an effort to try to negotiate the most favorable compromise that is still practical. In situations with a deadline, a perfect compromise may not have been reached by all participants at the deadline. Nevertheless, a course of action should be chosen that is likely to satisfy the most persons (rather than merely the majority). Running roughshod over the (then) minority is the best way to get yourself into almost unlimited amounts of trouble. Besides, next time someone from that minority might be the final closer, and you might be one of the people in a minority, so it's a good idea to be a gentleperson at all times and set a good example.

So, no, majority is not the same thing as consensus. john k (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In this case, though, the question was an either-or situation; either they are all the same or they are not all the same. There can't really be an in-between scenario there. --G2bambino (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it's actually not an either-or situation. It's a proposal to create a new convention. If there's no consensus to create such a convention, then there's no convention. That's how it works. The burden is on those wanting to change things to demonstrate a consensus in favor of change. In the lack of such a consensus, things stay how they are until a consensus can be achieved. john k (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell me what lies between "all the same" and "not all the same"? --G2bambino (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, obviously if you put it that way, there are two options. That being said, we have identified at least three ways these articles can be called (X Monarchy, Monarchy in X, and Monarchy of X), with no clear sense that there's a strong consensus for one over the other - Barryob has just again expressed a preference for "Monarchy of X". Furthermore, obviously "not all the same" features a number of possible ways to do things within itself. There is clearly no consensus for any general, uniform policy. In general, it is unwise to have sequential polls in which first one decision is made, and then another one. In a case like this, it is best to offer a number of different options, each of them already complete, and use approval voting to find out which one is acceptable to the largest number of people. As it is, all we know is that five people prefer "no exceptions" to "exception for the UK", but this isn't really sufficient to give a full idea of what is the solution that would have the most support overall. I think starting over with a much clearer and more transparent voting system would be the way to go. john k (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Days ago, I started changing these pages over to x monarchy, so as to match British monarchy. Naively, I didn't think anybody would mind. But now (thanks to my stupidity), things have fallen apart. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

John, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "more transparent"; as though this one was somehow covert. Regardless, I did see early on that the survey was somewhat unfocused; that's why we narrowed it down to first deciding whether all should be the same or not all the same, and that much still seems clear. I think it would be a waste of time to start that part of this project all over again, but could see the merit in extending debate about what format the titles should follow. --G2bambino (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It'd have been better to have full options, rather than deciding one thing, and then another. I wasn't meaning to suggest anything covert, just that this was done in an awkward fashion. john k (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well then, yes. I'd have to agree with that. --G2bambino (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So is it a consensus or not (concerning all Commonwealth monarchies) to move to Monarchy of x? Make up ya minds people. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

PS- I've moved Canadian, Australian, Belizan & New Zealand monarchies to Monarchy in/of xx (tried to fix mistakes on in/of, but couldn't). GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

GoodDay, please don't move anything until this is settled. --G2bambino (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was settled, as far as the non-UK realms were concerned. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears not; the last poll was too confused. I suggest we start again. --G2bambino (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, let's start over again. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Start again

In the spirit of getting this done right, I suggest we start from scratch. I will place a boilerplate at the head of each article - not the talk, but the article - directing people here for discussion. Before I do so, I want to see if the boilerplate is acceptable. I propose:

Obviously the discussion would take place at that talk and not here; I feel it's more appropriate and an unbiased location.

Comments? --G2bambino (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed fully; off I go to 'Commonwealth realm monarchies'. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This is fine. I suggest we work out what the options in such a discussion should be. I would suggest the following choices, with decision to be made by approval voting (i.e., everyone can vote for as many options as they want):

1. All at "Monarchy of X";
2. All at "Monarchy in X"
3. All at "X Monarchy"
4. All at "Monarchy of X", except the UK, which stays at "X Monarchy"
5. All at "Monarchy in X", except the UK, which stays at "X Monarchy"

Are there any other options that have shown any support? If so, they could be added. A procedure like this would be the most likely to generate a result which has general consensus, I think. john k (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say one glaring omission is the option in which none are the same. I wonder, though, if there are too many options there to start with. Wouldn't it be more systematic to ask first if they should all be the same or not be the same, and then decide on which of the three formats should be applied? Consistency was, after all, the initial point of this exercise, and I think it remains such. --G2bambino (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "No Change" would seem appropriate, as well. In terms of format, I think that in a situation like this, approval voting for a wide range of options is much more likely to come to a mutually acceptable result. In terms of consistency, there are obviously a couple of perspectives. I think almost everyone would agree that all the former colonies should have the same format, since their monarchies are virtually identical. I think the issue of whether the UK should also be consistent with the others is more controversial, and should be dealt with separately. If, in the approval voting, a small number of options seem to be getting most of the votes, we can get rid of the others and vote on the top two, or something, later. john k (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, why not add: All at "Monarchy of X", except the UK and Canada, which stay at "X monarchy"? Or any variation thereof? It seems here that singling out the UK alone has already been accepted as a valid option; yet, why? That's why I agree with your point: in terms of consistency, there are indeed a couple of perspectives: consistent or not consistent. We should decide on which of those first, and then, if they're not to be consistent, which should be different and why. --G2bambino (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Because the UK is different from the others. Treating the others as a group makes sense. Treating the UK alongside them may or may not make sense. I think, for instance, that there is an interest in making the UK relatively consistent with the pages for other European monarchies. Those articles are not, at present, consistent with one another (some use "Monarchy of X" and some use "X monarchy"), but there are various reasons why we might want to make an exception for the UK. Beyond that, of course, is the fact that several people have already expressed a preference for an exception for the UK. Nobody has expressed a preference for an exception for anyone else. If you want to propose other possibilities, go ahead, but I think there should be one vote, where all options can be explored, rather than multiple votes. john k (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've started this up at User:G2bambino/sandbox; I think the three options I've listed give ample choice without being too specific. I won't place it anywhere 'till we agree it's acceptable. --G2bambino (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's take this to Commonwealth realm monarchies, shall we? GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

::::::OK we'll haggle here: All those articles should be X monarchy, so as to avoid the friction at British monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that the overseas realms should have their title in the form Monarchy in x, because this more honestly reflects that fact that they don't have their own independent monarchy, and instead continue to recognise the British monarchy. TharkunColl (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

::Give your opinon at Commonwealth realm monarchies, that's where this discussion's being continued. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Nevermind. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The poll isn't open yet; I shouldn't have placed it there. My apologies. --G2bambino (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I tweaked it...I think it's much better to offer as many options as possible to start with. john k (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

So many choices still looks a bit overwhelming. But, hey, we can't get anywhere unless we try. Let's go for it. --G2bambino (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baffled

I honestly do not not see why we should change. I'm not being difficult: I genuinely cannot see what is the difference between, say, 'Australian Monarchy' and 'Monarchy in Australia'?--Gazzster (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're baffled? you've come to the right discussion. Seriously though, it's an article consistancy and Commonwealth realm equality thing. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I keep my fingers crossed that it's more for consistency than equality; though equality amongst the realms is tangentially related to this. Let's see how the vote unfolds. --G2bambino (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Consistency is a worthwhile goal - although it's worth noting the complete lack of consistency in our other articles about monarchies. For instance, we have Norwegian monarchy and Monarchy of the Netherlands. john k (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's be realistic. Speaking as somebody who grew up in the US (along with 2/3 of all native English speakers), I was completely unaware that Canada and New Zealand were kingdoms until very recently, but I was taught at a very young age that the UK is and has been for 1000 years. The commonwealth realms themselves are not equal or consistent, so why do the articles have to be? -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 01:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you're gettin at. What do you mean by the Commonwealth realms are not equal or consistent?--Gazzster (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Just that one of them has been around for a millennium, actually houses the Monarchy of the Commonwealth, and is much more well known to actually be a kingdom. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 04:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Know what you mean. I'm an Australian. I do take the point that the Australian monarchy is distinct from the UK one. Elizabeth is called Queen of Australia here. But I'd never call Australia a kingdom and I don't think anyone does except here in Wikipedia. We've always been called a Commonwealth. The whole monarchy in the Commonwealth realms thing is really overdone here.--Gazzster (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image/Template layout

I'd like some opinions on a new image layout for children and grandchildren of monarchs. The UK coat of arms would go in the house navbox. Inside the style infobox would be the prince's particular coronet, and the coat of arms goes below that. I've made a test page in my sandbox. Let me know what you think. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 01:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Wessex Children

Okay, so it's time to hash this out once and for all. Two extracts:

From Lady Louise Windsor, the Titles and Styles notes as they stand:

Letters patent issued in 1917 (and still remaining in force today) assign a princely status and the style of 'Royal Highness' to all male-line grandchildren of a monarch. Louise is thus entitled to all of these, and as such would be referred to as Her Royal Highness Princess Louise of Wessex.^[1] However, when her parents married, the Queen, via a Buckingham Palace press release, announced that (in hopes of avoiding some of the burdens associated with royal titles) their children would be styled as the children of an earl rather than as princes or princesses. Thus, court communications never refer to her in terms of a Princess of the United Kingdom, but simply as Lady Louise Windsor.

And the same text, as I would have it:

Letters patent issued in 1917 (and still remaining in force today) assign a princely status and the style of 'Royal Highness' to all male-line grandchildren of a monarch. Louise would thus be entitled to all of these, and as such would be referred to as Her Royal Highness Princess Louise of Wessex.^[1] However, when her parents married, the Queen, via a Buckingham Palace press release, announced that (in hopes of avoiding some of the burdens associated with royal titles) their children would be styled as the children of an earl rather than as princes or princesses. There are conflicting interpretations of the legal ramifications of the Queen's press release — some believe that, as an expression of the Sovereign's will, the announcement has just as much legal force as the 1917 Letters Patent^[2], which would deny the children princely status legally as well as in practice. Either way, court communications never refer to her in terms of a Princess of the United Kingdom, but simply as Lady Louise Windsor.

1. ^ ^{a b} Royal Styles and Titles – 1917 Letters Patent
2. ^ Heraldica – The Wessex Children

Now, the issue of Lady Louise's reputed legal status as a princess has been debated back and forth since her parents' marriage — I do not intend to establish a definitive answer, or even to try — I simply intend to establish that, in her article (and also Severn's), both sourced interpretations (and any others which come along) should be included. For those who are interested enough, the history of this dispute occurs at Talk:Lady Louise Windsor, User talk:UpDown#Lady Louise, again. and User talk:Danbarnesdavies#Lady Louise, again. Cheers ^† DBD 16:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, my views on this are well known. The Legal Letters Patent in 1917 state that she is a HRH & a Princess. No legal letters have been issued to contradict this. The words of the Press Release, which some claim is law (which in my eyes is suggesting that the Queen's word alone is law, it is not, she needs to back it up with legal letters patent, not press releases), are "The Queen has also decided, with the agreement of The Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones, that any children they might have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl".[2] If we take this as law, Louise is a Princess but not an HRH, as Prince/ss is not mentioned, only the HRH is. So, if you believe the Press Release is law, then you must believe that Louise is legally Princess Louise of Wessex, without the HRH. The only source that in my eyes seems to suggest that a Press Release over-rules a legally issued Letters Patent is this [3], which I hardly see as an authority. The press release, omitting the mentioned of HRH, is clearly not meant to be legally binding. I believe one interview with Sophie Wessex had her stating they would be legally Prince/ss , and that they could use them if they wish(interview before 2004), but I cannot find the link (I believe it used to be via here [4]). --UpDown (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Further to that, the link I can't find is the one here [5] listed as "temporarily unavailable". It had a newspaper, Daily Mirror I believe, from Sophie regarding this.--UpDown (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If we're gonna say Severn & Louise are 'Prince & Princess of the UK'? then that applies to Mark & Zara Phillips aswell. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Not according to the 1917 letters patent, they aren't. Doops | talk 17:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops, my blunder. The Phillips children, are the Queen's maternal grandchildren (thus bad example). GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Both sides err in presuming that an objective reality exists, that there is a platonic ideal list of "British princes/princess" in which the children's names either are or are not inscribed. That's silly. All this is a matter of human convention.

For us to state repeatedly and insistently that the children are princes begins (frankly) to look like soapboxing — like we here in the Wikipedia are telling the palace what to do. On the other hand, while the question of whether Buckingham Palace press releases can have as much validity as letters patent may be an interesting one, raising it in our articles looks like original research and speculation and is generally unencyclopedic.

My point of view is that there's nothing wrong or shameful in finessing the matter. There's nothing wrong in just stating the facts and letting the reader draw his/her own conclusion if he/she wishes. "The letters patent say this; the palace treats it this way; if we wanted to address the kids as princes under the letters patent here's how we'd do it." Doops | talk 17:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's basically a typical 'Royal Title' dispute. Can you image how many people out there prefer the article Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall be moved to Camilla, Princess of Wales? GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

From a legal perspective, letters patent are a legally binding form of proclamation in UK law (they are used to create peerages, for example). In contrast, a Buckingham Palace press release is just that: a press release, and has no formal authority. The holder of a title is not required to use that title; for instance, an acquaintance of mine, who is the eldest son of a hereditary Earl, is entitled to be styled as a courtesy Viscount, but does not ever use the title. The press release amounts to a statement by the Palace, on Louise's behalf, that she will not use the full title to which she is entitled. It does not negate the legal existence of that title.

However, I would also contend that the current state of the article is fine - that is, using Lady Louise Windsor as the article title, with a sourced discussion of the legal position at Lady_Louise_Windsor#Titles_and_styles. Lady Louise Windsor is the name under which she is most commonly known, and the article should reflect that. As a neutral encyclopedia, we should use the most commonly-used style in the lead but should also mention, with full secondary sourcing, the views of legal scholars as to the correct title.

It might be valuable for one of us to e-mail the Lord Chamberlain (or another officer of the Royal Household) and ask for a statement of the formal position on the issue; however, as we are bound by policy to use published secondary sources in writing our articles, we must still discuss both sides of the argument, with sourcing. Walton^One 17:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that the present title is okay. Deb (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

To my mind, both styles for Lady Louise and Viscount Severn are legal and correct. They are both entitled to HRH Prince/Princess as per Letter Patent 1917. They are also entitled and are legally Lady and Viscount, as per being the children of The Earl of Wessex. The Queen is not trying to make her word law. Her Majesty has merely chosen to abide by the parents' wishes, that the style used for the children in press releases is their aristocratic, rather than royal style. As I said, I believe that both styles, the royal and the aristocratic, are legal and correct. So it is a choice for Wikipedia to use the royal or the aristocratic. I personally prefer to use the aristocratic style because that is the parents' wishes.

--Ashley Rovira (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ashley. Because it is the prerogative of the parents of the Wessex children to style them as Lady and Viscount instead of Princess and Prince, their respective Wikipedia articles should reflect this preference. I do believe, however, that their biographical infoboxes should continue to show their legal "royal" names italicized below their bolded aristocratic names. Hopefully this matter will be a non-issue if and when the Earl and Countess of Wessex are created Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh as it is thought will likely happen following the current Duke's death. We could assume that if the Dukedom is bestowed upon the Earl, that his children (paternal grandchildren of a monarch) would be referred to by their royal names. (Wishful thinking?) --Caponer (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• The problem here is the usual Buckingham Palace cock-up - think back to was the Duchess of Windsor legally not an HRH to civil weddings in Windsor Castle that did not take place and general announcements with no great thought behind them The issue here is that the HRH is a title in its own right, whereas any title bestowed as the child of an earl can only be a courtesy title. Whatever the Queen or her family's personal wishes without a change in the law those children are royal princes and princesses. However if they wish to be referred to as Lord and lady then we can extend to them the courtesy of following their wishes and referring to them by their courtesy titles. The problem that has not been thought through will be what happens when a second son is born will he be a mere Honourable? Will Wessex be bumped up to the rank of Marquess or Duke to avoid that? For the time being I think we should follow the lead of the court circular and the British press. The Royal title I am watching is Duchess of Cornwall. In modern times the heir to the Prince of Wales has become the Duke of Cornwall on his marriage so will Prince William he be given another title (the Royal Dukedoms not in use are considered unlucky or have nasty connotations) and anyway it should be one of his father's secondary titles (Duke of Rothesay is mandated to Scotland) so will that be the perfect opportunity to bump Camilla up to "Princess of Wales"? Watch this space. Giano (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Agree - this is part of an emerging trend where members of the Royal Family have decided not to use their highest style. It simply needs to be explained. As far as Wikipedia policy goes, as long as both views are sourced, it's fine. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 23:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed. That said, I believe we ought to return to the more practical aspect of this matter, which has more or less sparked this conversation: do we, or do we not support the proposed change to the article? Theoretical discussion is good, but it must lead somewhere.
      I think I am forgetting something here... Ah, yes, my opinion on the issue. I support a hybrid of the two options: the addition of the proposed clarification, but with the original phrasing "is thus entitled" for the first line. For one thing, this version of the paragraph is clearer as far as the existing situation is concerned. After all, Wikipedia is supposed to be describing the status quo, instead of engaging in theoretical discussions (in the articles, that is). I still believe, however, and I hope that I am not playing with semantics here, that Lady Louise (who is likely to find out about this discussion within the next twenty years and either marvel at it or burst into laughter) is entitled to these styles, in the sense that, should the Wessex Siblings™ wish to use their princely titles in the future, they would probably be allowed to. But this is just me.
      I have made this more complicated, have I not? :-/ Waltham, The Duke of 08:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Re - gianos comment - Prince William can not become Duke of Cornwall when he marries unless the Queen has already died as the dukedom plus Prince Charles's Scottish titles are restricted to the eldest son (not nescerrially the heir to the throne) of the monarch. Prince william (or if William has died then Prince Harry) will automatically become Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay etc on his fathers accession to the throne but will have to wait to be created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester. If the Queen does bestow a title on William when he marries I personally imagine she will create a brand new dukedom or possibly an earldom like she did for Edward. Penrithguy (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, if Prince Charles dies before the Queen, Prince William would never become Duke of Cornwall, Rothey etc. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

But surely the reason for the Press Release was to inform the public that Louise and James were to be known as the children of an Earl. Although this hasn't happened legally (The Queen's word alone is not law, nor is a Press Release), it is agreed that this style will be used. This has happened before with Princess Patricia of Connaught, a daughter of The Duke of Connaught, who privately wished to be known as Lady Patricia Ramsay. She legally remained an HRH with the style Princess, but was not often referred to by that after the agreement took place (following her marriage to a commoner). I believe that the title the Wessex children will be officially known as (ie. Lady Louise and Lord Severn) should be used for their articles, with a note to say what their legal style remains. The Letters Patent step may not have been taken in case Louise and James choose to use their legal royal style when they come of age (they are obviously too young to decide for themselves at the moment). PeterSymonds | talk 08:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been asked to contribute here, so here are my thoughts. Firstly, I agree completely that the press release only describes how the Wessex children are to be known, not what they actually are. Legally speaking, Lord Severn is "His Royal Highness Prince James of Wessex, commonly called Viscount Severn" (just as the eldest son of an ordinary Earl is "John William Smith, Esquire, commonly called Viscount London"). There has to be a real name before the "commonly called" styling of the eldest son of an Earl. If this real name is not his officially held but unused Royal style, then what is? Surely no one will argue he's actually "James Alexander Philip Theo Mountbatten-Windsor, Esquire, styled Viscount Severn"? That can't be right — legal names always use the highest style, even if the person concerned never uses it. The enormous confusion here seems in some part to be due to a failure to distinguish between substantive and courtesy styles: a Royal style is perhaps unique in being the only substantive style that does not derive from holding a substantive title; it is not of the same type as "Lord John Smith" or "Viscount Linley". So it's not a case of choosing which style to apply to someone, but of whether the courtesy style of the child of a peer is used instead of the substantive (but non-peerage-related) style of a relative of the Sovereign. Normally, obviously, it isn't, but here it has been stated that it will be. That is the limit of the effect of the press release, and that is all we can say it does: someone who is in fact an HRH Prince is styled by a courtesy peerage. Secondly, the title of the new article: I have to say I'm baffled by the current title. Legally he's HRH Prince James of Wessex. Where he needs to use a surname, though he doesn't have one, he will use "Mountbatten-Windsor". He is styled by courtesy Viscount Severn. He should be referred to as "the Viscount Severn" or "Lord Severn" (or possibly "James Severn"). Given this, I have no idea where plain "Windsor" comes from: it's an aspect of his sister's style, not his. He should be at James, Viscount Severn. Proteus (Talk) 13:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC) \

"But Ma'am, what about the Letters Patent?!?!"

Keep it simple, keep in intuitive. Follow the guidelines HM set out in the Press Release.

Proberton (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DEFAULTSORT for peers, courtesy peers?

Hello all;

What would be the appropriate sorting for an individual titled as follows: Forename Surname, Title (of) Place/Designation. For instance, James Windsor, Viscount Severn (ignoring his princely title for the purposes of this example):

• Windsor, James, Severn, Viscount
• Severn, Windsor, James, Viscount

And, pretending for a second that there is a Viscount of Severn:

• Windsor, James, Severn, Viscount of
• Severn, Windsor, James, Viscount of

I am inclined to sort by surname myself, but is there a policy on this or should there be one to eliminate the question of it? One thing I do think is essential though is having the title itself way at the end (for instance, someone like Pless, Daisy of, Princess. Many thanks! Charles 08:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought that Severn, James Windsor, Viscount would be the most appropriate. He is styled as a peer (regardless of his legal title) and the above style is used on most peerage pages. PeterSymonds | talk 09:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Why would his forename have precedence in sorting over his surname though? Charles 09:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Note the absence of an intermediate comma: the name and surname constitute a single entity, so none has precedence over the other. By the way, only Scottish viscounts use "of", and even amongst these there are exceptions. But I suppose you are only using this as an example.

One one irrelevant thing, now that we meet again. You have failed to answer in our small s-roy debate. May I interpret it as a sign that you have come to agree with my view, or should I take it as a sign of forgetfulness? I am not fond of unfinished business.

Merry Christmas to all. Waltham, The Duke of 16:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

How's about we list the two most important parts: Severn, James, just like Linley, David? ^† DBD 17:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be misleading, however. It would make readers assume that they are dealing with a name and surname, which, of course, would not be the case. If we were to acknowledge that courtesy peers are legally commoners, we should have to replace this with Windsor, James. This would be overlooking the courtesy title, however, which is fairly important (the naming conventions support this). That said, I should support either Severn, James, Viscount or Severn, James Windsor, Viscount (preferring the latter, as it is fuller and includes all the elements of the corresponding article's titles). Waltham, The Duke of 17:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

What about Windsor, James, Viscount Severn? PeterSymonds | talk 21:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I am torn. I like it, and it gives emphasis to the surname, which is the subject's legal name, as well as includes all the elements of the title in an order that makes sense. However, if you put the words in order (move the first word to the end), you end up with "James, Viscount Severn, Windsor"; I do not believe this is supposed to happen. Waltham, The Duke of 00:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Peter, I don't believe the grade of the title should have precedence in sorting... It would be like giving precedence to the title/style of "Lord" in sorting, thereby preferring "L" to the designation of the title. Charles 02:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

They have always been sorted as "London, John Smith, 1st Duke of" (which is, I believe, how peers are normally sorted in reference works). Sorting them by surname is right out — in most cases, especially with historical peers, they are simply never referred to by surname. Who on Earth is going to look for Lord Salisbury under "G"? Proteus (Talk) 13:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do we include the surname them and then have it in the DEFAULTSORT as well? Charles 13:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose because it makes it easier for people not fully familiar with the system to categorise them (it's just a question of moving the last bit to the front — "John Smith, 1st Duke of London" becomes "London, John Smith, 1st Duke of", in the same way that "John Smith" becomes "Smith, John"). If we wanted to have a completely logical system we could sort them as "London D0101" (i.e. London, Duke, 1st creation, 1st holder) (or for courtesy peers "Severn V James", since there's no numeral), but it would be entirely baffling for normal editors. Proteus (Talk) 13:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

(Speaking about creations, you might be interested in the recent addition of a "creation" parameter for Template:S-ttl, used in succession boxes. This way, succession boxes can now mention peerage creations without the need for complex HTML. Somewhat irrelevant, I know, but it has to do with the general navigation subject; article titles mention all the rest, but leave creations out.)

As far as this debate is concerned, it seems to me that we are, after all, closer to [title name], [name(s)] [surname(s)], [rank (of)] than to any other choice. It is suitable for substantial and courtesy peers alike. Only for princes I am unsure, but it does not appear to be relevant to this conversation—I am only mentioning it because Charles did in his introductory speech. Waltham, The Duke of 15:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well? What will happen, after all? Waltham, The Duke of 12:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd imagine we'll continue to do as you say: "London, John Smith, 1st Duke of" for substantive peers and "Birmingham, William Smith, Marquess of" for courtesy peers. (Lord Severn should be articled at James, Viscount Severn and indexed as "Severn, James, Viscount".) Proteus (Talk) 12:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Good. The problem with such discussions is that it is often assumed that a decision has been reached without anyone saying so. Well, I suppose we no longer have this problem here. Waltham, The Duke of 12:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of English monarchs & List of British monarchs

New discussions have opened on these articles, concerning historian David Starkey's views. Please take a look. GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collapsing of Ancestry templates and Template:British princesses

Concerns have been raised here and here, by User:Doc glasgow, about the necessity of collapsing the Ancestry template. The code used for the collapse doesn't work in all browsers and skins. Also, the British princesses template could be confusing to people not familiar with royal ancestry -- as Doc glasgow has stated, 11th generation of what? Is there any way of making this clearer? Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 21:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Necessity of Template:British princesses

A discussion was held at FAC regarding this template. A discussion is now needed to establish whether there is a need to have the box in all articles, bearing in mind that there is a Category called English and British princesses.

• Suggestion 1: Non-compulsory. If the template doesn't add anything to the article (it doesn't at Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll, for example), it can be left out.
• Suggestion 2: Removal of the template from articles, and the division of the Category: "English princesses" and "British princesses".

Though I am happy to leave the decision to other editors, I ask you to consider the following. The template dropdown box is quite an unattractive addition to articles. Furthermore, it doesn't add anything to the article, especially when there's a category for such things. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 23:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal, List of British monarchs

Since List of British monarchs is relevant to this project, you may like to know that there is a proposal that it should be merged with List of English monarchs. See Talk:List of British monarchs#Merge monarch lists. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] William IV of the United Kingdom FAR

William IV of the United Kingdom has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Chwech 13:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The "Prince/ss X of Wales" Issue

The following from Talk:Prince George William of Wales: Throughout his life, he was styled His Royal Highness Prince George William of Wales.

Is there any evidence of this whatsoever? My understanding was that the first time the form "Prince N of Wales" was used was for the children of the future Edward VII. It was not even used for Princess Charlotte, much less for this guy. Can anyone provide any evidence to the contrary? john k 18:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The 8 & 11 February 1718 issues of The London Gazette refer to him only as "Prince George William", and those are the only issues which refer to the prince by name... I'll make edits to that effect, but surely this revelation would make the title of this page wrong — it would presumably move to either Prince George William of Prince George William of Great Britain (which are both redirects to this page) ^† DBD 14:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This would apply, as noted, to others - to the children of Frederick, Prince of Wales, and to Princess Charlotte, in particular. john k (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my research in the Gazette archives shows that Princess Charlotte (daughter of the Prince Regent) is the first example of "of Wales". Before her, there are absolutely no occurrences of "Prince/ss X of Wales" ^† DBD 19:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Searching further, the Gloucesters (great-grandchildren of GIIR), were the first to be "Prince/ss X of Y" (starting with William on 29 April 1794) ^† DBD 19:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest, then, moving Prince George William of Wales, Princess Augusta Frederika of Wales, Princess Elizabeth Caroline of Wales, Princess Louisa Anne of Wales, Prince Frederick William of Wales, and Caroline Matilda of Wales, probably to "Prince/ss X of Great Britain". john k (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Now, my thought is that we should move the above pages and remove all references to the "Prince/ss X of Wales" style prior to Princess Charlotte Augusta's birth. What say we? ^† DBD 13:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Assuming the London Gazette is accurate, the territorial designation "of Wales" did not exist, and therefore they should be styled in the same way as children of Sovereigns (ie. the default "of Great Britain"). Personally though it doesn't strike me as a big deal. They were daughters of a Prince of Wales, and therefore today the accepted style would be "of Wales". I would be inclined to ignore the naming conventions of the time (eg. Mary, Queen of Scots) in favour of consistency (Mary I of Scotland). This is just my humble opinion though. PeterSymonds | talk 13:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is quite a different situation from "Mary I of Scotland." That's just a standardization, and it's not one that we've made up - you look at a list of monarchs of Scotland, and she's "Mary I". This, on the other hand, is us making up a style which wasn't actually used, by anachronistically extending the current styling backwards. john k (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why we couldn't. It would just separate the children of Princes of Wales from those of Sovereigns, thus causing little confusion. We could add a note to those articles explaining why they weren't technically Princes/ses of Wales if it's needed, but having a standard style for all of them seems to be a good thing. PeterSymonds | talk 14:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not our job to make consistent what was, in fact, messy. Particularly when we can find no reliable secondary sources which do so. john k (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem messy to me — in fact you can see from my alterations at British prince/ss that it's a simple case of observing the contemporary reality and formulating it as a rule (i.e. children of Wales were simply "Prince/ss X" ^† DBD 11:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've only just realised that this discussion is going on in two separate places, so I'll duplicate my comments from the talk page for Prince George William. (Deb): The title "Prince/Princess X of Wales" has been used for the children of Princes and Princesses of Wales since at least as far back as the children of George II. I am 99% certain that this styling came in with the Hanoverians, because the only previous instance of a Prince of Wales who was married with children was the Black Prince in the 14th century. The reason we don't hear the "of Wales" often is that these children, when they grew up, were normally given additional titles - or, if they lived until their parent ascended the throne, they then became "Prince/Princess X of Great Britain". It's only the ones, like Caroline Matilda, whose parents who never got to the throne, or those who died while their father was still Prince of Wales, that need to be considered.

According to Alison Weir's Britain's Royal Families, which is normally a very reliable source, Prince George William is sometimes referred to as "the Duke of Gloucester", which presumably means that it was the intention to invest him with this title - but it never happened. Therefore it is correct to refer to him as "Prince George William of Wales". It would not be correct to refer to him as Prince George William of Great Britain, since this style is reserved for the children of a monarch, which he was not. Deb (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the Oxford DNB refers to Charlotte Augusta and the later Princesses of Wales with the style of Wales. As for Caroline Matilda, she's referred to as "Princess Caroline Matilda" with no territorial designation. If the style did come with the Hanoverians, it was only popularised during Charlotte's lifetime. PeterSymonds | talk 19:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It was in the case of Caroline Matilda that I first came across it, actually. I'll have to look into it a bit more, but I suggest we avoid any wholesale moves until we are quite sure. Deb (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. PeterSymonds | talk 20:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Deb, I agree we should avoid moves until we're clearer on this. Do you have any sources for the claim that the title was in fact used by the children of George II and Frederick? DBD has looked at the London Gazette from the 18th century, and suggests that the "Prince/ss X of Peeragetitle" form was first used for the children of George III's brother, the Duke of Gloucester, and that "Prince/ss X of Wales" was first used for George IV's daughter Princess Charlotte. So far as I can tell, the only people in question are a) children of George II who died after 1714 but before 1727; and b) children of Frederick, Prince of Wales. It is up to those who are in favor of use of "Prince/ss X of Wales" for these people to provide some evidence of it - preferably evidence that it was a contemporary usage. In terms of Prince George William as Duke of Gloucester, that sounds wrong to me - my understanding was that it was his older brother Frederick who was called "Duke of Gloucester" until 1726, when he was created Duke of Edinburgh. john k (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly encourage anyone else here to check my research for themselves my searching the London Gazette (perhaps we could also check the Edinburgh and Belfast too?). Beyond that, however, as many confirming alternative sources as possible are desirable — so long as we can source the 'rule' on the British prince/ss pages, we can follow it in articles, their titles and, particularly, 'titles and styles' sections. By the way, because of the T&S sections, where we list styles from birth to death, this revolution will affect all Wales children pre-Charlotte, whether they held a higher title (i.e. 'The Prince/ss') or not. ^† DBD 11:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't for one moment dispute that you are correct about what the London Gazette says. The question really is whether the London Gazette chose, for one reason or another, not to use a style that was coming into use. I would guess that the reason it became popular in Charlotte's case was that she was George IV's only legitimate heir, and people may have been unconsciously anticipating the day when she would be (in effect) heir apparent, ie. thinking that calling her "Princess Charlotte of Wales" was a bit like calling her "Prince of Wales". There has been a bit of an issue about what to call female heirs all through history.

Having said that, I would like to know, for my own peace of mind, when the usage officially - or indeed unofficially - came in, and I would suggest that the only thing to do is to continue to look at primary sources until either I can find evidence of "of Wales" being used contemporaneously or look at enough sources to be fairly sure that it wasn't used. I don't think the London Gazette on its own is enough. Deb (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

For which I laud you — I am of the same thinking (and btw, I didn't think you were disputing me, I was just encouraging that people see for themselves rather than taking one man's word) ^† DBD 12:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

With or without historical precedence for the "of Wales" usage, or with or without the certainty of first precedent, I pose the consideration that it might be advisable to make use of it in the case of Prince George William, if only for logical reasons. He was issue of a Prince of Wales, and in the absence of another title to distinguish him from the plethora of Prince George's and Prince William's of every description, he might be called George William of Wales by today's logic and custom. Furthermore, to the eye of the average Wikipedia reader, the "of Wales" might be most explanatory as to any questions of "who" or "what" which might arise. --Ashley Rovira (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an instance where I agree with retroactive styling. I think it makes sense for the purpose of identifying the prince with little to no ambiguity. Charles 13:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with Prince George William of Great Britain? The only possible ambiguity is with George III (George William Frederick), but "of Wales" doesn't actually disambiguate between them, since George III was the son of a prince of Wales from 1727 to 1751. If some further disambiguation is needed, then Prince George William of Great Britain (1717-1718) would do it. I'd also suggest that there's no particular reason to have an article about Prince George William in the first place - he died before his first birthday, and there is virtually no information in the article that couldn't just go in the articles on his parents. john k (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There isn't anything wrong with it but I don't think it is necessary to change the title. You are right though, the article should be deleted. I've been accused of being a deletionist before though and have to err on the side of caution when considering putting otherwise non-notable infants up for Afd. Charles 18:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

George William of Great Britain is a default style reserved for the children of Sovereigns. How would Prince George William of Great Britain be any more appropriate? It was thrashed out at Talk:Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom that the suffix was "made up" because she was only The Princess Beatrice in official documents before her marriage. We are still "making up" a style of Great Britain if we move the articles, so why not just keep the articles where they are, in order to disambiguate the children of Sovereigns from those of Princes of Wales? PeterSymonds | talk 18:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not "reserved" for the children of sovereigns. The male-line grandchildren are just as entitled to it. Styles and titles are different... The Beatrice example is a bad one because I imagine people were confusing the styling of a British princess (The Princess Beatrice) with her title (Princess of the United Kingdom). Charles 18:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, precisely, any articles at "(Prince/ss) X of Wales" before Charlotte are at a title which corresponds with neither any title nor any style they held — all of the people we're talking about were Princes/ses of GB, so can reasonably be placed at such a page. I think we're all agreed that, whether or not we utilise the current practice (of Wales) in page-titles, any reference pre-Charlotte should be eradicated from the text, as they are simply misleading! ^† DBD 20:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought you just agreed that we aren't agreed on that yet?...(puzzled):-) Deb (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Today, I was looking in the London Gazette archives (for whether Albert Victor was called "Duke of Clarence" or "Duke of Clarence and Avondale", apparently the latter), and it showed that the adult children of Albert Edward, Prince of Wales were styled The Prince/ss even during their grandmother's lifetime. Which does not conform to our style rules at all! And so the issue widens — do we correct our errors by referencing contemporary sources, or leave our fabricated rules in place, ignoring their falsity and allowing misdirection into our 'pædia? ^† DBD 10:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Where do the conventions come from? I noticed that when I use the LG for articles I write, the definite article is "incorrectly" placed before children of other royals (Her Highness The Princess Helena Victoria was one I happened to remember). Before 1917 standardisation, Queen Victoria created royals "Royal Highnesses" with the style of "Prince/Princess of the United Kingdom" by letters patent. Does the allowance of the definite article exist somewhere in those letters patents? PeterSymonds | talk 15:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New crop of Act of Succession alteration articles

• Telegraph #1
• Telegraph #2
• Telegraph #3
• Herald
• Religious Intelligence
• EURSOC

So, do we have mention of these articles and the alleged 'progress'? Particularly regarding Act of Settlement 1701 and Line of succession to the British throne...

If not, should we? ^† DBD 17:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This was raised at Talk:Monarchy of the United Kingdom. Yes, worth considering.--Gazzster (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Very British-centric; nary a mention of the fact that the British parliament can't "abolish" the Act of Settlement without not just the consent of every other realm, but a parallel change in their constitutions as well. But, I suppose mention of Brown's supposed toying with the idea could be mentioned; isn't there already a section covering the topic of proposed alterations/repeals at Act of Settlement 1701? --G2bambino (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

To answer myself: indeed there is: Act of Settlement 1701#Present debate. --G2bambino (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Queen vs the Queen

Just to inform everyone that a discussion is taking place here about the capitalisation of 'The Queen'. --Cameron (t|p|c) 19:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1917 and the inescutcheon of Saxony

How could George V's removal of the inescutcheon of Saxony have any effect on his relations who resided in Germany (the princes and princesses of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha who remained as such). Those arms became arms of the Ducal Family of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha the moment that those family members started to reign in Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and I don't think George V could remove Saxon elements from the arms of Saxon princes IN Saxony and the rest of Germany. Charles 23:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? Charles 01:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It only had effect in Britain, didn't it? George had no power over Germany, so it was only his German relatives resident in Britain who were forced to get rid of their German names/arms. Those relatives who were still in Germany by 1917 were considered to be on the German side. For most of the descendants of the Prince Consort, however, he was still in charge. Obviously those in Germany chose to go the other way, so he wasn't in charge, but the order was for all the descendants of the Prince Consort which included many of his relatives residing in Britain. It's just a guess. PeterSymonds (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I found the website for the Ducal Family of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and now I am convinced the arms are wrong entirely or at least given more important than they should be. In Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the situation was reversed. Instead of being the arms of the United Kingdom with an inescutcheon of Saxony, the arms were Saxony with an inescutcheon of the United Kingdom. The inescutcheon, I believe, denotes previous ancestry. The members of the main line of the British Royal Family were British princes of Saxon origin (inescutcheon of Saxony). When a British prince reigned in Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, his family technically became Saxon princes of British origin (reversed, so an inescutcheon of the United Kingdom). Since nearer sovereign status is more important in a family than remoter descent, we should change the arms of these princesses to those of the family in Germany. We need to stop being Anglocentric. Charles 06:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, I see, interesting. So the Princes and Princesses of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha should have a Saxon shield with an inescutcheon of the United Kingdom? Is there an image for that here? If there's not, Ipankonin (talk · contribs) could probably make one. PeterSymonds (talk) 07:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. The closest monarch in their male-line ancestry gives them their shield and the further monarchs give their inescutcheon. For the British Royal Family proper, this was Saxony on top of the UK, for the Saxon Ducal Family at Coburg and Gotha proper, this was the UK on top of Saxony. I checked Ipankonin (talk · contribs)'s page and contribution history and unfortunately he is inactive. Is there a WikiProject where a request can be posted? Charles 07:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) No, I don't know of one. I've looked through a ton of shields but they were all made by Ipankonin it seems. PeterSymonds (talk) 07:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've found one and have posted a request. Let's see how it goes. Interesting to note that Duke Alfred's article only shows the arms of a junior British prince and not of a Saxon sovereign! Madness! ;-) Charles 08:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your request over at WP:HV. It's reasonably easy to use Inkscape to make the Saxon version of these arms from the existing British versions (just enlarge the escutcheon, and shrink the large shield), for example here's Image:Alfred Duke of Saxe-Coburg Arms-Saxony.svg (cf the British version, Image:Alfred Duke of Saxe-Coburg Arms.svg). Note however that there is not just one coat of arms for all Princes of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha; the British part always has a unique label (heraldry) to distinguish it from the arms of the monarch (see list here). I count about 20 such coats of arms in commons:Category:Royal coats of arms of the United Kingdom. You'd also need to find a reliable source for each of these to say whether the individual used the British or Saxon form of their arms (or both). The website mentioned above seems only to refer to Prince Leopold and his son, and a couple of uncles. Dr pda (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't replied but I have just relocated and haven't had the time. I will post a detailed response soon or in a day or so with some new revelations. Charles 18:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two Brand New X-Rated Move Surveys!

Ok, so they're not X-rated. But thanks for your time anyway! Keep reading then...

[edit] Firstly

[edit] Secondly

[edit] Length of reign

I hope i've come to a place that can help; forgive me if not.

It seems that over the past few days a length of reign has been added to the infobox of some or all monarchs (e.g. Edward V). I have reverted a few that were on my Mediæval watchlist, but don't want to if they need to be there. It does not seem to be necessary, as in most cases the actual length of the reign is mentioned in the text (and, if not, the infobox already has the dates), and it does not, at a quick look, appear in the articles of other (non-British) monarchs. Is this something needed/wanted? My personal opinion is that it is needless and ugly, but i bow to consenus concensus general opinion. Cheers, Lindsay 20:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have been done in good faith but I think it is unnecessary, especially since two months (in the case of Edward V) is ambiguous (is it day of month to day of month, 8 weeks, 60 days or 21 days?) and it is inexact anyway... it is 78 days which is halfway between two and three months. I would revert while noting in the edit summary that you are reverting a good faith edit. Charles 20:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)I personally agree. I don't have monarchs watchlisted, but I don't think there has been any discussion here or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty. My rationale for non-inclusion is that the dates are provided; why clutter the infobox more? But if there has been discussion then a link would be helpful. Lindsay, I suggest you also take it up on the Royalty talk page (link above), as this is a right place but only for British royalty from 1714. The parent project deals with all royalty. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to note here that our scope does include pre-union monarchs... ^† DBD 22:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Since when? "For the moment, it is suggested that the initial scope of the project be limited to full members of the royal family (i.e. those having, at some point in their lives, bore the style Highness, Royal Highness, or Majesty) since the ascension of George I." PeterSymonds (talk) 12:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; i was misled by the adjective, which i mistook to mean "all British" rather than "British since Hanover". Anyway, i took Peter's advice, and went to the Project Royalty page. By the way, several of those monarchs who do fall under this project have the reign length added to the infobox (e.g. Victoria and some Georges), and several don't; i haven't changed any yet (maybe i'll Be Bold in a few minutes), but probably we ought to look for a little uniformity, oughtn't we? Cheers, Lindsay 13:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. I'll help take them out. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the title Duke of Rothesay

Click above ^† DBD 23:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming discussion

Dear all, there is a discussion currently occurring at Naming conventions (names and titles) about "simplifying titles, through which it is suggested that we remove "prince" from royals with substantive titles. The proposal was "passed" after 12 days, with the input of only five editors. I strongly encourage every one here to take part in the discussion such that a properly-agreed solution can be reached. ^† DBD 23:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scope

Just the other day someone changed the scope of this project so that "it is now suggested that the scope extends to any monarch in the British isles". Really? This appears to be one editor's decision. As Category:FA-Class British royalty articles shows, it isn't reflected anywhere else. The reason I mention this is that someone has been going round articles which have nothing to do with British monarchs applying what turns out to be Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty/Style guide. Even the most cursory look tells me that this wasn't created with Alfred the Great or Henry I of England in mind. I see nothing "artificial" in limiting a WikiProject on "British royalty" to British royalty as defined by List of British monarchs.

I would be delighted to see members of this project working on improving everything concerned with List of monarchs in the British Isles - the Kings of East Anglia, for example, contain excellent raw material but need wikification, inline references, and such like, and would be a great place to begin a collective article improvement drive - but to call these "British monarchs" is wrong. And to call the people in Category:Kings of Ailech "British" is not just wrong, it's purposefully tendentious. And as I already said, to apply the above style guide would likely be impossible, even for someone as indisputably and uncontroversially "British" as King Verica. Perhaps some debate would be in order here? Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As the editor who started the section in which the "decision" Angus McLellan objects to was made, may i point out that if the Project is restricted, it needs to be more clearly stated, and perhaps defined slightly differently. "British" certainly implies more than simply "since George I"; as i pointed out it misled me, and obviously, from the comments above, others have been too. Perhaps the Project could be extended back to James VI & I (for example), or renamed to WikiProject UKRoyalty. I expect, however, that there has been much discussion on these points previously, and i simply raise/remind of the ambiguity as an outsider who was fooled by it. Cheers, Lindsay 14:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, it's better to limit this scope to post-1714 royalty. To call, for example, Henry VIII or Alfred the Great "British" is wrong. The first ruler of "Great Britain" was Queen Anne, and to have monarchs but not their families within the scope is wrong. It's great that there's a project for British Royalty (and Canadian, Australian, etc; I don't want to get into a debate about that), but the scope has been over-extended. I hate these petty debates, and generally advise people to forget about them, but there are issues: Charles I is "British", but his brother Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales is not? Why confuse things? Keep the scope as it was and remove the British Royalty templates off everybody pre-1714. That's just my 2p. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)