![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Just for the record, here is the House of Windsor in February of 1952 when Elizabeth became the Queen. I thought it should be included in the discussion instead of in the article. David Lascelles (age 1) was the Queen first cousin once removed (not her nephew).
Age | Succ | Name ( B-Date )
25 | -- | Elizabeth II , The Queen ( 21-Apr-26 )
3 | #1 | The Prince Charles ( 14-Nov-48 )
1 | #2 | The Princess Anne ( 15-Aug-50 )
21 | #3 | The Princess Margaret (21-Aug-30 )
51 | #4 | Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester ( 31-Mar-00 )
10 | #5 | Prince William of Gloucester ( 18-Dec-41 )
7 | #6 | Prince Richard of Gloucester ( 26-Aug-44 )
16 | #7 | Prince Edward, Duke of Kent ( 9-Oct-35 )
9 | #8 | Prince Michael of Kent ( 4-Jul-42 )
15 | #9 | Princess Alexandra ( 25-Dec-36 )
54 | #10 | Princess Mary, Princess Royal ( 25-Apr-97 )
28 | #11 | George Lascelles, 7th Earl of Harewood ( 7-Feb-23 )
1 | #12 | David Lascelles, Viscount Lascelles ( 21-Oct-50 )
27 | #13 | Gerald David Lascelles ( 21-Aug-24 )
Prince Edward had become Duke of Kent at the age of 6 since his father died at the age of 39. George Lascelles had become Earl at the age of 24 since his father was age 40 when he was born. Only three of six siblings were still alive from the generation of Queen Elizabeth's father, but Edward was excluded from the line after he abdicated.
Pacomartin ( talk) 22:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't Princess Anne's children be included in the list of Queen Elizabeth's grandchildren? AEriksson 14:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
It would be nice if the article said why the name Windsor was chosen. Windsor Castle says the family took the name from it, but that's still not much of an explanation - why not the House of Holyrood, resurrect the House of Stuart, or some other creative fiction like the House of Tudor-Stuart? Is much known about the rationale? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Citations are sorely needed here. I couldn't find a lick of information on this doing a simple Google search, which leads me to believe that we're seeing a bit of nonsense. If anyone knows anything about R. Errett, they need to speak up before I remove the offending paragraph completely to avoid smearing someone's name unjustifiably. -- Wolf530 07:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
This article references Prince Philip attending the American School of Paris in St. Cloud. The American School of Paris website has an "official" historical timeline for the school, and that timeline begins in 1945. Moreover, the first location for the school was in the American Church in central Paris, not in the suburb of St. Cloud. Please clarify or correct the assertion in the article.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayintheusa ( talk • contribs) 00:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
This is used in the article. Can someone please clarify what it stands for or means. My people don't have a monarch, so I am clueless. I have heard it used in reference to Princess Diana. Thank you. Dkriegls 09:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I am just SHOCKED - I can swear and scream at you all. How anyone can sit and glibly passed unsourced and false material since APRIL 2004? Please see this terrible unsourced edit to see where your article began. Compare Edit list. I would honestly be ashamed. And ppl have actually quoted from this article in their websites. Mike33 23:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I think Mike33 was in good faith but a little confused. See my talk page and his. I have revamped the page somewhat. -- BlueMoonlet 04:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The
House of Windsor should remain the same, whether through male or female lines. The Netherlands' royal family is still called the
House of Orange-Nassau, although there have been three successive queens -
Queen Wilhelmina (reigned 1890-1948) married Duke
Hendrik of Mecklenburg-Schwerin;
Queen Juliana (reigned 1948-1980) married Prince
Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld; and
Queen Beatrix (reigned since 1980) married
Claus von Amsberg. I'm not sure of the Danish royal family's surname,
Queen Margrethe II married
Count Henri de Laborde de Monpezat, but I wouldn't be surprised its still
Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. I don't see that the British royal family couldn't do the same and stick with Windsor, and not
Mountbatten-Windsor.
JJC-IE
23:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Like I carefully wrote in the article, members of this House still held some rights to certain German principalities.
It is worth noting that George V was not entitled to renounce his already living sons' rights, if he even renounced any succession rights at all. His 1917 decision was to renounce from names, basically. Henq ( talk) 18:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Talk more about Alice, daughter of Duke of Buccleuch, being not equal enough to a Saxe princeling. I am deeply interested in hearing about the matter. Henq ( talk) 19:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Saxe territories were hereditary in male-line descent from the first grantee. Both Ernestine and Albertine lines. And both Weimar and E the Pious line of the Ernestines. And each of the Ernest the Pious lines forwards. If a territory had primogeniture, and its branch went extinct, line from senior brother of the progenitor will enjoy the primogeniture of that territory. Hopefully no one is denying that actually these royal dukes descend in male line from first grantee of those Wettin lands. Henq ( talk) 19:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Enactment of primogeniture to the state of Saxe-Meiningen, in 1802, detailed further at Talk:Konrad, Duke of Saxe-Meiningen. Henq ( talk) 21:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Some scholars, such as Sainty, Sjostrom, Eilers and McFerran, have expressed their information and opinions about these questions: European Royals debate. Suedois ( talk) 17:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[ http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/ViewPDF.aspx?pdf=30186&geotype=London&gpn=7119&type=ArchivedIssuePage&all=royal%20family&exact=&atleast=&similar= From The London Gazette.]
BY THE KING.
A PROCLAMATION
DECLARING THAT THE NAME OF WINDSOR IS TO BE BORNE BY HIS ROYAL HOUSE AND FAMILY AND RELINQUISHING THE USE OF ALL GERMAN TITLES AND DIGNITIES.
GEORGE R.I.
WHEREAS We, having taken into consideration the Name and Title of Our Royal House and Family, have determined that henceforth Our House and Family shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor:
And whereas We have further determined for Ourselves and for and on behalf of Our descendants and all other the descendants of Our Grandmother Queen Victoria of blessed and glorious memory to relinquish and discontinue the use of all German Titles and Dignities:
And whereas We have declared these Our determinations in Our Privy Council:
Now, therefore, We, out of Our Royal Will and Authority, do hereby declare and announce that as from the date of this Our Royal Proclamation Our House and Family shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that all the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, other than female descendants who may marry or may have married, shall bear the said Name of Windsor:
And do hereby further declare and announce that We for Ourselves and for and on behalf of Our descendants and all other the descendants of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, relinquish and enjoin the discontinuance of the use of the Degrees, Styles, Dignities, Titles and Honours of Dukes and Duchesses of Saxony and Princes and Princesses of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and all other German Degrees, Styles, Dignities. Titles, Honours and Appellations to Us or to them heretofore belonging or appertaining.
Given at Our Court at Buckingham Palace, this Seventeenth day of July, in the year of our Lord One thousand nine hundred and seventeen, and in the Eighth year of Our Reign.
GOD SAVE THE KING.
-- StanZegel (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
There was a quote - possibly appearing in several places - on how the name was selected - along the lines of "it might be x or y, and is certainly not z or w...": anyone know where to find it? Jackiespeel ( talk) 19:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The cartoon "A Good Riddance" is apparently from late June 1917. History.com says the date was June 19, whereas Wikipedia says July 17. How does July 17 fit with the cartoon date of June 27?
80.203.48.223 (
talk)
20:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Surely there is a more appropriate, NPOV image to use for the House of Windsor; the arms that were placed in the infobox are those only of one member of the house in one area of one country. I have read of a badge specifically for the House of Windsor, though I can't seem to find it in general internet searches. -- G2bambino ( talk) 00:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
POPULAR CULTURE
Shouldn't there be a paragraph here about
the Windsor's effect on popular culture. After all, together the entire dynasty has had an overwhelming effect in this area. I don't want to get into any argument about when the dynasty
started from, but if you look at the line of descent from
Albert and Victoria right up to our current Princes William and Harry, they feature in no end of Movies, Songs,novels, Etc. I Know this list could be overwhelming if we where to focus on each and every member, but on the other hand, if we where to highlight a few specific cases we could give a flavour of the dynasty in question. Also, we could focus on what they therselves have brought to popular culture. In this case a list might go somthing like this:
(1) Prince Albert was president of the
social crusades for the Extinction of Slavery, Child Work Laws and Dueling. He was the founding force behind the Great Exhibition, the Creater of Balmoral Castle, and Introduced the Christmas Tree to Popular Culture. (Although Queen Charlott was the first person in Britain to use a Christmas Tree, It was Albert who made it popular and I think this deserves at least a passing Mention)
(2) Queen Victoria saved the rare
ballochbuie forest from extinction when she perchased it from the woodcutter, thus saving Scotlands Colludion Pine which once covered the whole of britain and which now, because of Globel warming has retreated to the top of the Highlands where it now covers just one percent of the whole of Britain. The Landseer Paintings Commisioned by Queen Victoria.
(3) Edward VII and Edwardian: Amplitude
and Leasure. Also, King Edward Cigars, etc.
(4) Prince Charles Pondburry Estate I Could go on but you get my drift. Thanks I'm Sorry if my last comment looked a mess.
I'm New at this. I'm still trying to get the hang of this computer.
The image File:Edward Sophie Wedding.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 09:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Genealogically Edward VII was the founder of this house, his son George V just decided to rename it (which he was within rights to do). Keep in mind Edward VII was not the actual senior head of the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha during his reign. His relative Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was. Edward VII should certainly be included in this article, because otherwise we'd need an article called House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-United Kingdom with just one monarch covered in it. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 14:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not like such unjustified reverts. The House of Windsor is not a different house than the house of Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha. The throne is still a posession of this house, and the only thing that happened in 1917 was that they adopted a new family name. Thus, I think it makes more sense to have one list of monarchs of this house, with a note concerning the name change. Besides, your removal of the rest of the information I added were highly inappropriate. I am going to revert this page. Ertz 07:56, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Pardon? No councils are in position to change the system of family succession, which is based on the agnatic principles, and which applies to all German noble families, without exceptions. No matter what they call themselves, the children of Prince Philip technically belongs to his family, the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. Ertz 08:26, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
i would tend to agree with Ertz, naming them of their true house would eliminate alot of confusion. - anon.
And yet Ertz's preferred name is not the actual name. That won't eliminate confusion, it will add it. - Nunh-huh 23:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Whether or not you merge the two articles in the future this one needs cleaning up now. Personally i feel you should leave them seperate but that isnt important. - Fenix
By Act of parliament - shit about privy council (privy council have not met as a body since the reign of Charles I. Then new proclomations this is UTTER NONSENSE. The Queen has no right to style herself unless by act of parliament. It's happened once - the dynesty are windsor until parliament decides. forget german law or any law before the Saxe-coburg-gotha change - law is law until it is changed or repealed. This nonsense is SHIT an certainly not EVER to be part of wikipedia :-
OH YES BS never ends, but with a cool was of saying its shit:-
Any future monarch could change the dynasty name if he or she chose to do so. Another Order-in-Council would override those of George V and Elizabeth. For example, if the Prince of Wales accedes to the throne, he could change the royal house to "Mountbatten" in honour of his father, and of his uncle Louis Mountbatten. Mountbatten is the English translation of "Battenberg" and so a name of German origin as well. I can't beleive you write this shit. There is not a single source on google outside of a crazy, who possibly copied and thought it was true. I am shocked. Mike33 20:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
What are YOU talking about?? A quorum of the Privy Council meets every month or so, and the full Council meets on the accession of the monarch (therefore most recently in 1952). Parliament never decided the House was Windsor in the first place, so they have no say in any change or repeal. Research "Prerogative Orders," which are made under the Crown's inherent power to act on matters for which no legislation exists.
@@@"Mountbatten is the English translation of "Battenberg" and so a name of German origin as well." I personally saw Lord Mountbatten of Burma say this on his television series back in the 1970s. It might not be on google, but it was on TV, his face, his words, his lips speaking. He didn't make that many TV series, just the one. It shouldn't be too hard to get off google, get out from your desk, and go find it. Or you could ask one of his nephews. They shouldn't be hard to find. @@@ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.80.153 ( talk) 04:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Were the Royal Family briefly called the House of Mountbatten, between Elizabeth II's accession and her revertion back to Windsor, apparently on the advice of Churchill? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.107.204.140 ( talk) 17:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
A good document to look at is a formally SECRET parliament document written two months after Queen Elizabeth II ascended to the throne. I put it on my website, but it is simply downloaded from the National Archives if you want to get it yourself. National Archive Summary written on the Name Windsor (7 April 1952) . While this is parliament's argument as to why the new Queen should bear a proclamation that her descendants should bear the name of Windsor. It's a good document because it goes into some history about the earlier documents issued by King George V, and parliament's interpretation of those documents. Pacomartin ( talk) 07:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Is Elizabeth II truly the head of the House of Windsor? Why isn't Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, head of the house? After all, he is the senior male member of the house, right? Traditionally, one is a member of the royal house to which his/her father belonged, so Elizabeth can't be succeeded by her son. This must be true for the House of Windsor too if the House of Windsor is a branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, as this article claims. If the House of Windsor is a branch of the said German royal house, I don't understand how Richard is not the head. Surtsicna ( talk) 21:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Act of Settlement 1701 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.217.63.142 ( talk) 21:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
The Act of Settlement 1701 has something to do with it? If it does, why didn't Victoria become head of the House of Hanover? Oh, that's right, Victoria had uncles, just like Elizabeth. So, what's the difference? Surtsicna ( talk) 21:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
that raises the questions what is the head of household, and is the House of Windsor truly different than the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha? 67.176.160.47 ( talk) 20:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Victoria did not become the head of the House of Hanover because the Hanoverian lands must pass to a man, whilst the British lands may pass to a woman. So there was a split, with the British crown going to Queen Victoria as heir to her father, and the Hanoverian crown to her uncle who was the closest living male to her father. The name of the British house became Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and then to Windsor, the head of the house being whomever is sovereign of the British lands. The different crowns have different laws of succession, but Elizabeth is the head of the House as she is Queen, because the laws of Britain allow a woman to inherit the throne.
[tk]
XANDERLIPTAK
19:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Surtsicna, although I'd add that the whole "headship" question is not a matter of "English law", but a matter of genealogy as seen by continental European genealogists (as the families concerned are considered branches of continental European princely families). From that perspective, "House of Windsor" should be considered a cadet branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, whereas Prince Philip and his patrilineal descendants constitute a cadet branch of the House of Glücksburg, irrespective of what name they might use in the future. Jolanak ( talk) 17:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
No! See reply below (section: Is Elizabeth head of the House of Windsor?). DeCausa ( talk) 17:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone make this line clearer? Not sure what "agnatic descendents" are? 173.171.151.171 ( talk) 14:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry - I'm not an editor but can I point out to you real editors that the first part of this para is misleading:
"Only a single person, Alastair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, who was not a descendant of George V, ever bore the surname Windsor, and he died without issue. So today the only living royal Windsors are the agnatic descendants of George V."
It is definitely not true to say that only one person not related to George V bore the surname Windsor. There are plenty of Windsors in the world. The second part of the quote ("So today...") only makes sense if you clarify the first part.
Not arguing - helping to improve. Keep up the good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.11.223 ( talk) 14:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Aren't women who marry into the royal family members of the House of Windsor? DrKiernan ( talk) 20:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
"Only a single person, Alastair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, who was not a descendant of George V, ever bore the surname Windsor, and he died without issue. So today the only living royal Windsors are the agnatic descendants of George V."
This statement is confusing for several reasons. Firstly, there are many people, who are not descendants of George V, who have the surname Windsor. Secondly, one might supposed that all of the male lines from Queen Victoria's offspring, are extinct, except for the lines through George V. Now this may or may not be correct. Thirdly, George V's proclamation assigning the name of Windsor to the descendants of Victoria, refered to male-line descendants. Yet the said Alastair, 2nd Duke of Connaught, was descended from Victoria through his mother and his mother's mother. So why isn't he getting his family name from his father or grandfather instead of from his maternal great-grandmother anyhow ? Eregli bob ( talk) 05:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The correct statement would be: "At the time of the proclamation in July 1917 there were no male line descendants of Queen Victoria subject to British rule so the latter part of the proclamation only applied to future subjects". In November, 1917 Prince Alastair had the title of Prince removed by another letters patent that said that the only great grandchild of a monarch to be styled a prince had to be the heir to the heir to the Prince of Wales. Since Prince Alastair was a male line great grandchild who was not the son of the Prince of Wales he was removed from royalty, and in keeping with the July proclamation assumed the surname Windsor. As Prince Alastair died in WWII before he married, the next non-royal to assume the surname Windsor was George Windsor, born in 1962. As of April 2011 there are 10 non-royal descendants of George V who bear the surname of Windsor.
That paragraph is wordy, but it conveys the correct facts.
Pacomartin (
talk)
What is that in the infobox and where does it come from? As far as I'm aware the only arms (or badge, whatever that's supposed to be) would be the royal coat of arms. DeCausa ( talk) 00:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
These two subjects are closely related but not exactly the same thing. Many of these princes and princesses that relinquished titles from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha remained in the House of Windsor. Most of the German princes and princesses that lost their titles were because of the Letters Patent issued in November 1917 which restricted princes and princesses to only children, grandchildren born of a son, or the son to the heir to the Prince of Wales (unless specifically addressed in a different letters patent). I would like to move this to a different section or possibly a different article. Pacomartin ( talk) 18:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The House of Windsor was created by letters patent on July 17, 1917. On November 30, 1917 another letters patent removed a groups of princes and princesses based on the number of generations they were from the monarch. Prince Charles Edward was not removed as a prince until 1919. I disagree that the removal of these royals is not part of the discussion of the House of Windsor. If the order of the letters patent was reversed, then there might be an argument. Pacomartin ( talk) 21:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Read the document below. There is not one word that excludes foreigners from bearing British titles. All it says is that the British will Relinquishing the Use of All German Titles and Dignities. The decision to exclude the Germans was proclaimed in November 1917 several months later.
German titles (July 17, 1917) By the KING. A PROCLAMATION declaring that the Name of Windsor is to be borne by his Royal House and Family and Relinquishing the Use of All German Titles and Dignities. GEORGE R.I. WHEREAS We, having taken into consideration the Name and Title of Our Royal House and Family, have determined that henceforth Our House and Family shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor: And whereas We have further determined for Ourselves and for and on behalf of Our descendants and all other the descendants of Our Grandmother Queen Victoria of blessed and glorious memory to relinquish and discontinue the use of all German Titles and Dignities: And whereas We have declared these Our determinations in Our Privy Council: Now, therefore, We, out of Our Royal Will and Authority, do hereby declare and announce that as from the date of this Our Royal Proclamation Our House and Family shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that all the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, other than female descendants who may marry or may have married, shall bear the said Name of Windsor: And do hereby further declare and announce that We for Ourselves and for and on behalf of Our descendants and all other the descendants of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, relinquish and enjoin the discontinuance of the use of the Degrees, Styles, Dignities, Titles and Honours of Dukes and Duchesses of Saxony and Princes and Princesses of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and all other German Degrees, Styles, Dignities. Titles, Honours and Appellations to Us or to them heretofore belonging or appertaining. Given at Our Court at Buckingham Palace, this Seventeenth day of July, in the year of our Lord One thousand nine hundred and seventeen, and in the Eighth year of Our Reign. GOD save the KING. Pacomartin ( talk) 21:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I didn't undo Dr Kiernan's edit, even though he has made no justification of his decision to undo two of my edits. I think you have to prove your point because you are the one on nonsensical ground. My argument is consistent with the rest of the articles in Wikipedia. Pacomartin ( talk) 21:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Pacomartin ( talk) 21:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I changed the content of my edit after the first revert. I agreed that there were not enough references and I added several. I am not the one who is undoing edits without any valid reason. The proclamation of the House of Windsor came first, and the removal of the princes and princesses by changing the generational rules came second. The generational rules applied to Alastair of Connaught as well as the German princes. This fact is an extremely important part of the historical record and is missing from this article. Do you have some pressing need to suppress these historical facts? The elimination of these princes was fundamental to the shaping of the House of Windsor. It was not a minor point of history. I did not undo any edits without trying to make a better article. DrKiernan has made no justification to his statement. Pacomartin ( talk) 22:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I have sources that justify that the House of Windsor was created before the Princes were removed. I referenced them in the article. Where are your sources? I am a historian, who are you? What does that mean:you've not demonstrated sufficient notability to take up so much space of the article. I spent considerable time trying to compress these names into a small table so that it wouldn't take up a lot of space. I think I am right because I have the sources to prove it. Where are you getting your information? Pacomartin ( talk)
Well I disagree with you that it is not significant. It shaped the future of the British monarchy. It is not trivia. Why is your opinion on this matter the deciding factor? I can find thousands of comments on blogs, multiple articles about the Anglicization of the BRF. I can find books in the library. I think your charges of a Soapbox make no sense. I have no advocacy. All of these people are long dead. I am interested in getting the historical facts clear. In particular the removal of Prince Charles Edward caused such bitterness in him that he retaliated by supporting Adolf Hitler. Historians have made the argument that Adolf Hitler could not have initially risen to such prominence without the backing of Prince Charles Edward. How significant is that? You say it is relatively trivial, and I say that it greatly influenced 20th century history? Does resolving conflict mean you get the final say here? Pacomartin ( talk)
If you think it should be in it's own article then I am open to suggestions as to the sentence you would put in this article. How about: The day before the proclamation was made that the House of Windsor was created there were 15 princes and 23 princesses of the blood royal. By the end of conflict there were 7 princes and 16 princesses as outlined in Restriction of British Princely Titles in WWI. Please write your own words and we will reach concurrence. Pacomartin ( talk) 22:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I have done everything you asked. I've reduced the whole discussion to three sentences, completely referenced, and containing only simple facts. Pacomartin ( talk)
Royalty does not have surnames. That is a fact of European life for a thousand years. You cannot disagree with that statement. When King George V said all the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, other than female descendants who may marry or may have married, shall bear the said Name of Windsor: he is referring to non-royals. Non-royals have surnames. Royals do not have surnames. There is no point to resolve. When this proclamation the son of Queen Victoria did not start using a surname and he was a subject of the realm. I am not using a secondary source. I am using as primary of a source as exists. I just cited a transcription since the original is unreadable Signed Letters Patent by George V I did propose some wording and you did not respond. Why do I have to get your approval? What is your qualifications that you can redefine history this way? I'm a serious student of history. Pacomartin ( talk)
Let me repeat this statement If you think it should be in it's own article then I am open to suggestions as to the sentence you would put in this article. How about: The day before the proclamation was made that the House of Windsor was created there were 15 princes and 23 princesses of the blood royal. By the end of conflict there were 7 princes and 16 princesses as outlined in Restriction of British Princely Titles in WWI. Please write your own words and we will reach concurrence.
Pacomartin ( talk)
How about
No interpretation of primary sources whatsoever. Just a statement of unequivocal facts backed up by another Wikipedia article and a secondary source which is quoting a primary source. The subject matter is important to history so you can't call it trivial (your interpretation). I assume that I am allowed to count, or does that qualify as basic research? Pacomartin ( talk)
As this statement has nothing that can be seen as remotely subjective, is backed with a secondary source, and is as bland as possible, and no one has responded, I am assuming I have consensus? Pacomartin ( talk) 16:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I am trying to find a free source without having to purchase a legal journal where I know it is published. Why doesn't DrKiernan have to provide a source? These 15 people were princes and princesses from birth. (that point is clear) The House of Windsor was proclaimed on July 17 1917 (that point is clear). The passage
is clearly referring to commoners who are in the male line from Queen Victoria (that point is obvious). The reason it is obvious is that royals do not have surnames. Surnames only became common in Britain in the 13th century. Royal families continued the ancient practice of styling themselves by territories and did not acquire surnames. Every commoner (there are at least 10 living) in the male line from Queen Victoria has the surname Windsor. But only British male line descendants bear that name. The German ones do not call themselves Windsor. If you don't believe me then here is a reference:
A total of 14 princes and princesses were removed as British princes and princesses on November 30, 1917 (that point is clear). The final prince, Charles Edward) was removed on 28 March 1919 (he was the only male line grandson). July 17, 1917 comes before November 30, 1917 and before 28 March 1919 (I hope that is clear). So there was a period when the House of Windsor was created when these 15 people were British princes and princesses (that is a mathematical certainty).
I do not even understand this sentence. There were no German princes after 18 November 1918. Can you explain to me what this objection means in clear language?
And what about the charge that about the sentence it implies. Is that a clear unbiased statement? I took careful pains to make the statements unbiased and precise.
Read it again and make your comments clear and don't use words like imply.
Pacomartin ( talk) 23:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
They were also British princes in addition to being part of the House of Hanover. The head of the House of Hanover was the same as the King of Great Britain and Ireland for the reigns of George I, George II, George III, George IV, and William IV. It was only split between Queen Victoria and her uncle because Hanover did not permit a female monarch. The members of the House of Hanover when functioning as British princes were under the reign of George V. He did not remove them as British princes until November 30, 1917 when he signed the letters patent. It is quite possible to hold a royal position in two different houses in Europe. The current Prince Phillip was born a Prince of Denmark, and a Prince of Greece. The current head of the House of Hanover before he wed Princess Caroline of Monaco since he was a descendant of George II. George II said that all of his princes needed to ask permission of the monarch as to their choice of bride so he could see that they were not marrying beneath their dignity. You will notice on the table that in the first column I put their primary title which was often German, and in the second column I put their British title. By 1918 the German government removed all the German titles of nobility. Anyway, I will concede that a listing of the names can be put in a different article according to your definition of trivial. I have reduced the comment here to a simple count. Pacomartin ( talk) 11:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I will reproduce the table here for clarification of anyone reading this section. I didn't put the British title for the princesses since they would all be identical HRH Princess X. Normal procedure is to call someone by their highest title. If their highest title is German you use that first. Every person on here is a male line descendant of a British monarch' which is why they are designed British princes or British princesses. King George V changed the rules on November 1917, 5 months after he created the House of Windsor. He said that you now had to be a (1) child of a monarch, (2) a grandson via a son, (3) the oldest son of the heir to the heir, (4) covered by name in letters patent by a former or future monarch. So the two princesses (daughter of Louisa) were made princesses by his father. He didn't retroactively change his father's explicit will, but he was changing the rules covering the general case.
Although the primary motivation at the time was to eliminate the British princes and princesses who were living in a nation fighting against Britain, it would have been a simple matter to publish personal letters to make the 3 year Alastair a prince. King George V did not do that because he had the foresight to envision a smaller group of royals for the future. That is why today, Princess Anne's children are not royal, Prince Harry's children will not automatically be royal, and Lord Freddy Windsor is not royal, nor is his sister Lady Gabriella Windsor. The only child of the next generation to automatically be royal while the Queen lives is the oldest son of Prince William.
The action of King George V in renouncing the German titles of his family and in limiting the number of persons entitled to the style of Royal Highness was widely acclaimed at the time when we were at war with Germany. Later, when the passions of war had subsided, it was also generally regarded as having been an act of wise statesmanship which had confirmed and increased the prestige of the monarchy. THE NAME OF "WINDSOR", Memorandum by the Lord Chancellor, 7TH APRIL , 1952
Name | British titles held in 1917 | Birth | Death | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|
Alastair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn | Prince Alastair | 1914 | 1943 | son of Prince Arthur of Connaught |
Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha | Duke of Albany | 1884 | 1954 | grandson of Queen Victoria via a male line |
John Leopold, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha | Prince John | 1906 | 1972 | son of Prince Charles Edward |
Prince Hubertus of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (pilot) | Prince Hubertus | 1909 | 1943 | son of Prince Charles Edward |
Ernest Augustus, Crown Prince of Hanover | Duke of Cumberland | 1845 | 1923 | son of George V of Hanover |
Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick | Prince Ernest | 1887 | 1953 | son of Crown Prince of Hanover |
Ernest Augustus IV, Prince of Hanover | Prince Ernest | 1914 | 1987 | son of Prince Ernest Augustus |
Prince George William of Hanover (1915–2006) | Prince George William | 1915 | 2006 | son of Prince Ernest Augustus |
Title at birth | Birth | Death | Lineage |
---|---|---|---|
Princess Frederica of Hanover | 1848 | 1926 | Great-granddaughter of George III, daughter of George V of Hanover |
Princess Marie Louise of Hanover and Cumberland | 1879 | 1948 | Great-great granddaughter of King George III, daughter of Ernst August, 3rd Duke of Cumberland |
Princess Alexandra of Hanover and Cumberland | 1882 | 1963 | Great-great granddaughter of King George III, daughter of Ernst August, 3rd Duke of Cumberland |
Princess Olga of Hanover and Cumberland | 1884 | 1958 | Great-great granddaughter of King George III, daughter of Ernst August, 3rd Duke of Cumberland |
Princess Sibylla of Albany | 1907 | 1972 | Great granddaughter of Victoria, daughter of Prince Charles Edward, 2nd Duke of Albany |
Princess Caroline Mathilde of Albany | 1912 | 1983 | Great granddaughter of Victoria, daughter of Prince Charles Edward, 2nd Duke of Albany |
Princess Fredrica of Hanover and Brunswick-Luneburg | 1917 | 1981 | Great great great granddaughter of George III, daughter of Prince Ernst August (III) of Cumberland and Hanover, Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg |
Pacomartin ( talk) 13:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Name | A Windsor who lost the title of Prince? | House |
---|---|---|
Alastair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn | Yes | Windsor |
Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha | No | Saxe-Coburg-Gotha: Not a British Subject at the time of the July Letters Patent |
John Leopold, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha | No | Saxe-Coburg-Gotha: Not a British Subject at the time of the July Letters Patent |
Prince Hubertus of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (pilot) | No | Saxe-Coburg-Gotha: Not a British Subject at the time of the July Letters Patent |
Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick | No | Hanover |
Ernest Augustus IV, Prince of Hanover | No | Hanover |
Prince George William of Hanover (1915–2006) | No | Hanover |
Name | A Windsor who lost the title of Princess? | House |
---|---|---|
Princess Frederica of Hanover | No | Hanover |
Princess Marie Louise of Hanover and Cumberland | No | Hanover |
Princess Alexandra of Hanover and Cumberland | No | Hanover |
Princess Olga of Hanover and Cumberland | No | Hanover |
Princess Sibylla of Albany | No | Saxe-Coburg-Gotha: Not a British Subject at the time of the July Letters Patent |
Princess Caroline Mathilde of Albany | No | Saxe-Coburg-Gotha: Not a British Subject at the time of the July Letters Patent |
Princess Fredrica of Hanover and Brunswick-Luneburg | No | Hanover |
How about if I reword my edit to say: On the day the House of Windsor was created there were 15 British princes and 23 princesses of the blood royal. By 28 March 1919 there were 7 princes and 16 princesses but in accordance with the rules set down by the proclamation made by King George V on July 1917 only one Prince, Alastair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn received the surname Windsor. There is no way on earth that you can dispute the factual accuracy of that statement. Please state in clear unambiguous terms without getting on a WP:SOAPS. If you want to propose a rewording of that statement, then I am open to your suggestion. If you insist that it is not part of the House of Windsor, I will expect you to endorse a thorough scrubbing of the article for all incidental comments.
The above statement is not in conflict with the statement on the official royal web site: The House of Windsor came into being in 1917, when the name was adopted as the British Royal Family's official name by a proclamation of King George V, replacing the historic name of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. It remains the family name of the current Royal Family. Pacomartin ( talk) 17:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
(1) George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews b. 26 June 1962 (2) Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick b. 2 December 1988 (3) Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor b. 30 September 1992 (4) Lady Amelia Windsor b. 24 August 1995 (5) Lord Nicholas Windsorb. 25 July 1970 (6) Albert Windsor b. 2007 (7) Leopold Windsor b. 2009–) (8) Lord Frederick Windsor b. 6 April 1979 (9) Lady Gabriella Windsor b. 23 April 1981 (10) Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster b. 24 October 1974 (11) Xan Windsor, Lord Cullodenb. 12 March 2007 (12) Lady Cosima Windsor b 20 May 2010 (13) Lady Davina Lewis b. 19 November 1977 (dropped the surname Windsor upon marriage in 31 July 2004) (14) Lady Rose Gilman b. 1 March 1980 (dropped the surname Windsor upon marriage in 16 November 2007 ) Now the addition reads During the war and after, George V also stripped 15 of his German relations of their British titles and styles of prince and princess. with the agreement that there will be reference to a longer article specifically geared towards this subject at a later date. Pacomartin ( talk)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Just for the record, here is the House of Windsor in February of 1952 when Elizabeth became the Queen. I thought it should be included in the discussion instead of in the article. David Lascelles (age 1) was the Queen first cousin once removed (not her nephew).
Age | Succ | Name ( B-Date )
25 | -- | Elizabeth II , The Queen ( 21-Apr-26 )
3 | #1 | The Prince Charles ( 14-Nov-48 )
1 | #2 | The Princess Anne ( 15-Aug-50 )
21 | #3 | The Princess Margaret (21-Aug-30 )
51 | #4 | Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester ( 31-Mar-00 )
10 | #5 | Prince William of Gloucester ( 18-Dec-41 )
7 | #6 | Prince Richard of Gloucester ( 26-Aug-44 )
16 | #7 | Prince Edward, Duke of Kent ( 9-Oct-35 )
9 | #8 | Prince Michael of Kent ( 4-Jul-42 )
15 | #9 | Princess Alexandra ( 25-Dec-36 )
54 | #10 | Princess Mary, Princess Royal ( 25-Apr-97 )
28 | #11 | George Lascelles, 7th Earl of Harewood ( 7-Feb-23 )
1 | #12 | David Lascelles, Viscount Lascelles ( 21-Oct-50 )
27 | #13 | Gerald David Lascelles ( 21-Aug-24 )
Prince Edward had become Duke of Kent at the age of 6 since his father died at the age of 39. George Lascelles had become Earl at the age of 24 since his father was age 40 when he was born. Only three of six siblings were still alive from the generation of Queen Elizabeth's father, but Edward was excluded from the line after he abdicated.
Pacomartin ( talk) 22:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't Princess Anne's children be included in the list of Queen Elizabeth's grandchildren? AEriksson 14:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
It would be nice if the article said why the name Windsor was chosen. Windsor Castle says the family took the name from it, but that's still not much of an explanation - why not the House of Holyrood, resurrect the House of Stuart, or some other creative fiction like the House of Tudor-Stuart? Is much known about the rationale? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Citations are sorely needed here. I couldn't find a lick of information on this doing a simple Google search, which leads me to believe that we're seeing a bit of nonsense. If anyone knows anything about R. Errett, they need to speak up before I remove the offending paragraph completely to avoid smearing someone's name unjustifiably. -- Wolf530 07:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
This article references Prince Philip attending the American School of Paris in St. Cloud. The American School of Paris website has an "official" historical timeline for the school, and that timeline begins in 1945. Moreover, the first location for the school was in the American Church in central Paris, not in the suburb of St. Cloud. Please clarify or correct the assertion in the article.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayintheusa ( talk • contribs) 00:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
This is used in the article. Can someone please clarify what it stands for or means. My people don't have a monarch, so I am clueless. I have heard it used in reference to Princess Diana. Thank you. Dkriegls 09:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I am just SHOCKED - I can swear and scream at you all. How anyone can sit and glibly passed unsourced and false material since APRIL 2004? Please see this terrible unsourced edit to see where your article began. Compare Edit list. I would honestly be ashamed. And ppl have actually quoted from this article in their websites. Mike33 23:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I think Mike33 was in good faith but a little confused. See my talk page and his. I have revamped the page somewhat. -- BlueMoonlet 04:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The
House of Windsor should remain the same, whether through male or female lines. The Netherlands' royal family is still called the
House of Orange-Nassau, although there have been three successive queens -
Queen Wilhelmina (reigned 1890-1948) married Duke
Hendrik of Mecklenburg-Schwerin;
Queen Juliana (reigned 1948-1980) married Prince
Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld; and
Queen Beatrix (reigned since 1980) married
Claus von Amsberg. I'm not sure of the Danish royal family's surname,
Queen Margrethe II married
Count Henri de Laborde de Monpezat, but I wouldn't be surprised its still
Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. I don't see that the British royal family couldn't do the same and stick with Windsor, and not
Mountbatten-Windsor.
JJC-IE
23:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Like I carefully wrote in the article, members of this House still held some rights to certain German principalities.
It is worth noting that George V was not entitled to renounce his already living sons' rights, if he even renounced any succession rights at all. His 1917 decision was to renounce from names, basically. Henq ( talk) 18:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Talk more about Alice, daughter of Duke of Buccleuch, being not equal enough to a Saxe princeling. I am deeply interested in hearing about the matter. Henq ( talk) 19:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Saxe territories were hereditary in male-line descent from the first grantee. Both Ernestine and Albertine lines. And both Weimar and E the Pious line of the Ernestines. And each of the Ernest the Pious lines forwards. If a territory had primogeniture, and its branch went extinct, line from senior brother of the progenitor will enjoy the primogeniture of that territory. Hopefully no one is denying that actually these royal dukes descend in male line from first grantee of those Wettin lands. Henq ( talk) 19:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Enactment of primogeniture to the state of Saxe-Meiningen, in 1802, detailed further at Talk:Konrad, Duke of Saxe-Meiningen. Henq ( talk) 21:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Some scholars, such as Sainty, Sjostrom, Eilers and McFerran, have expressed their information and opinions about these questions: European Royals debate. Suedois ( talk) 17:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[ http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/ViewPDF.aspx?pdf=30186&geotype=London&gpn=7119&type=ArchivedIssuePage&all=royal%20family&exact=&atleast=&similar= From The London Gazette.]
BY THE KING.
A PROCLAMATION
DECLARING THAT THE NAME OF WINDSOR IS TO BE BORNE BY HIS ROYAL HOUSE AND FAMILY AND RELINQUISHING THE USE OF ALL GERMAN TITLES AND DIGNITIES.
GEORGE R.I.
WHEREAS We, having taken into consideration the Name and Title of Our Royal House and Family, have determined that henceforth Our House and Family shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor:
And whereas We have further determined for Ourselves and for and on behalf of Our descendants and all other the descendants of Our Grandmother Queen Victoria of blessed and glorious memory to relinquish and discontinue the use of all German Titles and Dignities:
And whereas We have declared these Our determinations in Our Privy Council:
Now, therefore, We, out of Our Royal Will and Authority, do hereby declare and announce that as from the date of this Our Royal Proclamation Our House and Family shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that all the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, other than female descendants who may marry or may have married, shall bear the said Name of Windsor:
And do hereby further declare and announce that We for Ourselves and for and on behalf of Our descendants and all other the descendants of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, relinquish and enjoin the discontinuance of the use of the Degrees, Styles, Dignities, Titles and Honours of Dukes and Duchesses of Saxony and Princes and Princesses of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and all other German Degrees, Styles, Dignities. Titles, Honours and Appellations to Us or to them heretofore belonging or appertaining.
Given at Our Court at Buckingham Palace, this Seventeenth day of July, in the year of our Lord One thousand nine hundred and seventeen, and in the Eighth year of Our Reign.
GOD SAVE THE KING.
-- StanZegel (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
There was a quote - possibly appearing in several places - on how the name was selected - along the lines of "it might be x or y, and is certainly not z or w...": anyone know where to find it? Jackiespeel ( talk) 19:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The cartoon "A Good Riddance" is apparently from late June 1917. History.com says the date was June 19, whereas Wikipedia says July 17. How does July 17 fit with the cartoon date of June 27?
80.203.48.223 (
talk)
20:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Surely there is a more appropriate, NPOV image to use for the House of Windsor; the arms that were placed in the infobox are those only of one member of the house in one area of one country. I have read of a badge specifically for the House of Windsor, though I can't seem to find it in general internet searches. -- G2bambino ( talk) 00:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
POPULAR CULTURE
Shouldn't there be a paragraph here about
the Windsor's effect on popular culture. After all, together the entire dynasty has had an overwhelming effect in this area. I don't want to get into any argument about when the dynasty
started from, but if you look at the line of descent from
Albert and Victoria right up to our current Princes William and Harry, they feature in no end of Movies, Songs,novels, Etc. I Know this list could be overwhelming if we where to focus on each and every member, but on the other hand, if we where to highlight a few specific cases we could give a flavour of the dynasty in question. Also, we could focus on what they therselves have brought to popular culture. In this case a list might go somthing like this:
(1) Prince Albert was president of the
social crusades for the Extinction of Slavery, Child Work Laws and Dueling. He was the founding force behind the Great Exhibition, the Creater of Balmoral Castle, and Introduced the Christmas Tree to Popular Culture. (Although Queen Charlott was the first person in Britain to use a Christmas Tree, It was Albert who made it popular and I think this deserves at least a passing Mention)
(2) Queen Victoria saved the rare
ballochbuie forest from extinction when she perchased it from the woodcutter, thus saving Scotlands Colludion Pine which once covered the whole of britain and which now, because of Globel warming has retreated to the top of the Highlands where it now covers just one percent of the whole of Britain. The Landseer Paintings Commisioned by Queen Victoria.
(3) Edward VII and Edwardian: Amplitude
and Leasure. Also, King Edward Cigars, etc.
(4) Prince Charles Pondburry Estate I Could go on but you get my drift. Thanks I'm Sorry if my last comment looked a mess.
I'm New at this. I'm still trying to get the hang of this computer.
The image File:Edward Sophie Wedding.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 09:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Genealogically Edward VII was the founder of this house, his son George V just decided to rename it (which he was within rights to do). Keep in mind Edward VII was not the actual senior head of the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha during his reign. His relative Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was. Edward VII should certainly be included in this article, because otherwise we'd need an article called House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-United Kingdom with just one monarch covered in it. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 14:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not like such unjustified reverts. The House of Windsor is not a different house than the house of Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha. The throne is still a posession of this house, and the only thing that happened in 1917 was that they adopted a new family name. Thus, I think it makes more sense to have one list of monarchs of this house, with a note concerning the name change. Besides, your removal of the rest of the information I added were highly inappropriate. I am going to revert this page. Ertz 07:56, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Pardon? No councils are in position to change the system of family succession, which is based on the agnatic principles, and which applies to all German noble families, without exceptions. No matter what they call themselves, the children of Prince Philip technically belongs to his family, the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. Ertz 08:26, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
i would tend to agree with Ertz, naming them of their true house would eliminate alot of confusion. - anon.
And yet Ertz's preferred name is not the actual name. That won't eliminate confusion, it will add it. - Nunh-huh 23:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Whether or not you merge the two articles in the future this one needs cleaning up now. Personally i feel you should leave them seperate but that isnt important. - Fenix
By Act of parliament - shit about privy council (privy council have not met as a body since the reign of Charles I. Then new proclomations this is UTTER NONSENSE. The Queen has no right to style herself unless by act of parliament. It's happened once - the dynesty are windsor until parliament decides. forget german law or any law before the Saxe-coburg-gotha change - law is law until it is changed or repealed. This nonsense is SHIT an certainly not EVER to be part of wikipedia :-
OH YES BS never ends, but with a cool was of saying its shit:-
Any future monarch could change the dynasty name if he or she chose to do so. Another Order-in-Council would override those of George V and Elizabeth. For example, if the Prince of Wales accedes to the throne, he could change the royal house to "Mountbatten" in honour of his father, and of his uncle Louis Mountbatten. Mountbatten is the English translation of "Battenberg" and so a name of German origin as well. I can't beleive you write this shit. There is not a single source on google outside of a crazy, who possibly copied and thought it was true. I am shocked. Mike33 20:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
What are YOU talking about?? A quorum of the Privy Council meets every month or so, and the full Council meets on the accession of the monarch (therefore most recently in 1952). Parliament never decided the House was Windsor in the first place, so they have no say in any change or repeal. Research "Prerogative Orders," which are made under the Crown's inherent power to act on matters for which no legislation exists.
@@@"Mountbatten is the English translation of "Battenberg" and so a name of German origin as well." I personally saw Lord Mountbatten of Burma say this on his television series back in the 1970s. It might not be on google, but it was on TV, his face, his words, his lips speaking. He didn't make that many TV series, just the one. It shouldn't be too hard to get off google, get out from your desk, and go find it. Or you could ask one of his nephews. They shouldn't be hard to find. @@@ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.80.153 ( talk) 04:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Were the Royal Family briefly called the House of Mountbatten, between Elizabeth II's accession and her revertion back to Windsor, apparently on the advice of Churchill? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.107.204.140 ( talk) 17:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
A good document to look at is a formally SECRET parliament document written two months after Queen Elizabeth II ascended to the throne. I put it on my website, but it is simply downloaded from the National Archives if you want to get it yourself. National Archive Summary written on the Name Windsor (7 April 1952) . While this is parliament's argument as to why the new Queen should bear a proclamation that her descendants should bear the name of Windsor. It's a good document because it goes into some history about the earlier documents issued by King George V, and parliament's interpretation of those documents. Pacomartin ( talk) 07:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Is Elizabeth II truly the head of the House of Windsor? Why isn't Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, head of the house? After all, he is the senior male member of the house, right? Traditionally, one is a member of the royal house to which his/her father belonged, so Elizabeth can't be succeeded by her son. This must be true for the House of Windsor too if the House of Windsor is a branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, as this article claims. If the House of Windsor is a branch of the said German royal house, I don't understand how Richard is not the head. Surtsicna ( talk) 21:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Act of Settlement 1701 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.217.63.142 ( talk) 21:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
The Act of Settlement 1701 has something to do with it? If it does, why didn't Victoria become head of the House of Hanover? Oh, that's right, Victoria had uncles, just like Elizabeth. So, what's the difference? Surtsicna ( talk) 21:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
that raises the questions what is the head of household, and is the House of Windsor truly different than the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha? 67.176.160.47 ( talk) 20:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Victoria did not become the head of the House of Hanover because the Hanoverian lands must pass to a man, whilst the British lands may pass to a woman. So there was a split, with the British crown going to Queen Victoria as heir to her father, and the Hanoverian crown to her uncle who was the closest living male to her father. The name of the British house became Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and then to Windsor, the head of the house being whomever is sovereign of the British lands. The different crowns have different laws of succession, but Elizabeth is the head of the House as she is Queen, because the laws of Britain allow a woman to inherit the throne.
[tk]
XANDERLIPTAK
19:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Surtsicna, although I'd add that the whole "headship" question is not a matter of "English law", but a matter of genealogy as seen by continental European genealogists (as the families concerned are considered branches of continental European princely families). From that perspective, "House of Windsor" should be considered a cadet branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, whereas Prince Philip and his patrilineal descendants constitute a cadet branch of the House of Glücksburg, irrespective of what name they might use in the future. Jolanak ( talk) 17:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
No! See reply below (section: Is Elizabeth head of the House of Windsor?). DeCausa ( talk) 17:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone make this line clearer? Not sure what "agnatic descendents" are? 173.171.151.171 ( talk) 14:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry - I'm not an editor but can I point out to you real editors that the first part of this para is misleading:
"Only a single person, Alastair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, who was not a descendant of George V, ever bore the surname Windsor, and he died without issue. So today the only living royal Windsors are the agnatic descendants of George V."
It is definitely not true to say that only one person not related to George V bore the surname Windsor. There are plenty of Windsors in the world. The second part of the quote ("So today...") only makes sense if you clarify the first part.
Not arguing - helping to improve. Keep up the good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.11.223 ( talk) 14:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Aren't women who marry into the royal family members of the House of Windsor? DrKiernan ( talk) 20:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
"Only a single person, Alastair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, who was not a descendant of George V, ever bore the surname Windsor, and he died without issue. So today the only living royal Windsors are the agnatic descendants of George V."
This statement is confusing for several reasons. Firstly, there are many people, who are not descendants of George V, who have the surname Windsor. Secondly, one might supposed that all of the male lines from Queen Victoria's offspring, are extinct, except for the lines through George V. Now this may or may not be correct. Thirdly, George V's proclamation assigning the name of Windsor to the descendants of Victoria, refered to male-line descendants. Yet the said Alastair, 2nd Duke of Connaught, was descended from Victoria through his mother and his mother's mother. So why isn't he getting his family name from his father or grandfather instead of from his maternal great-grandmother anyhow ? Eregli bob ( talk) 05:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The correct statement would be: "At the time of the proclamation in July 1917 there were no male line descendants of Queen Victoria subject to British rule so the latter part of the proclamation only applied to future subjects". In November, 1917 Prince Alastair had the title of Prince removed by another letters patent that said that the only great grandchild of a monarch to be styled a prince had to be the heir to the heir to the Prince of Wales. Since Prince Alastair was a male line great grandchild who was not the son of the Prince of Wales he was removed from royalty, and in keeping with the July proclamation assumed the surname Windsor. As Prince Alastair died in WWII before he married, the next non-royal to assume the surname Windsor was George Windsor, born in 1962. As of April 2011 there are 10 non-royal descendants of George V who bear the surname of Windsor.
That paragraph is wordy, but it conveys the correct facts.
Pacomartin (
talk)
What is that in the infobox and where does it come from? As far as I'm aware the only arms (or badge, whatever that's supposed to be) would be the royal coat of arms. DeCausa ( talk) 00:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
These two subjects are closely related but not exactly the same thing. Many of these princes and princesses that relinquished titles from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha remained in the House of Windsor. Most of the German princes and princesses that lost their titles were because of the Letters Patent issued in November 1917 which restricted princes and princesses to only children, grandchildren born of a son, or the son to the heir to the Prince of Wales (unless specifically addressed in a different letters patent). I would like to move this to a different section or possibly a different article. Pacomartin ( talk) 18:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The House of Windsor was created by letters patent on July 17, 1917. On November 30, 1917 another letters patent removed a groups of princes and princesses based on the number of generations they were from the monarch. Prince Charles Edward was not removed as a prince until 1919. I disagree that the removal of these royals is not part of the discussion of the House of Windsor. If the order of the letters patent was reversed, then there might be an argument. Pacomartin ( talk) 21:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Read the document below. There is not one word that excludes foreigners from bearing British titles. All it says is that the British will Relinquishing the Use of All German Titles and Dignities. The decision to exclude the Germans was proclaimed in November 1917 several months later.
German titles (July 17, 1917) By the KING. A PROCLAMATION declaring that the Name of Windsor is to be borne by his Royal House and Family and Relinquishing the Use of All German Titles and Dignities. GEORGE R.I. WHEREAS We, having taken into consideration the Name and Title of Our Royal House and Family, have determined that henceforth Our House and Family shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor: And whereas We have further determined for Ourselves and for and on behalf of Our descendants and all other the descendants of Our Grandmother Queen Victoria of blessed and glorious memory to relinquish and discontinue the use of all German Titles and Dignities: And whereas We have declared these Our determinations in Our Privy Council: Now, therefore, We, out of Our Royal Will and Authority, do hereby declare and announce that as from the date of this Our Royal Proclamation Our House and Family shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that all the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, other than female descendants who may marry or may have married, shall bear the said Name of Windsor: And do hereby further declare and announce that We for Ourselves and for and on behalf of Our descendants and all other the descendants of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, relinquish and enjoin the discontinuance of the use of the Degrees, Styles, Dignities, Titles and Honours of Dukes and Duchesses of Saxony and Princes and Princesses of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and all other German Degrees, Styles, Dignities. Titles, Honours and Appellations to Us or to them heretofore belonging or appertaining. Given at Our Court at Buckingham Palace, this Seventeenth day of July, in the year of our Lord One thousand nine hundred and seventeen, and in the Eighth year of Our Reign. GOD save the KING. Pacomartin ( talk) 21:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I didn't undo Dr Kiernan's edit, even though he has made no justification of his decision to undo two of my edits. I think you have to prove your point because you are the one on nonsensical ground. My argument is consistent with the rest of the articles in Wikipedia. Pacomartin ( talk) 21:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Pacomartin ( talk) 21:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I changed the content of my edit after the first revert. I agreed that there were not enough references and I added several. I am not the one who is undoing edits without any valid reason. The proclamation of the House of Windsor came first, and the removal of the princes and princesses by changing the generational rules came second. The generational rules applied to Alastair of Connaught as well as the German princes. This fact is an extremely important part of the historical record and is missing from this article. Do you have some pressing need to suppress these historical facts? The elimination of these princes was fundamental to the shaping of the House of Windsor. It was not a minor point of history. I did not undo any edits without trying to make a better article. DrKiernan has made no justification to his statement. Pacomartin ( talk) 22:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I have sources that justify that the House of Windsor was created before the Princes were removed. I referenced them in the article. Where are your sources? I am a historian, who are you? What does that mean:you've not demonstrated sufficient notability to take up so much space of the article. I spent considerable time trying to compress these names into a small table so that it wouldn't take up a lot of space. I think I am right because I have the sources to prove it. Where are you getting your information? Pacomartin ( talk)
Well I disagree with you that it is not significant. It shaped the future of the British monarchy. It is not trivia. Why is your opinion on this matter the deciding factor? I can find thousands of comments on blogs, multiple articles about the Anglicization of the BRF. I can find books in the library. I think your charges of a Soapbox make no sense. I have no advocacy. All of these people are long dead. I am interested in getting the historical facts clear. In particular the removal of Prince Charles Edward caused such bitterness in him that he retaliated by supporting Adolf Hitler. Historians have made the argument that Adolf Hitler could not have initially risen to such prominence without the backing of Prince Charles Edward. How significant is that? You say it is relatively trivial, and I say that it greatly influenced 20th century history? Does resolving conflict mean you get the final say here? Pacomartin ( talk)
If you think it should be in it's own article then I am open to suggestions as to the sentence you would put in this article. How about: The day before the proclamation was made that the House of Windsor was created there were 15 princes and 23 princesses of the blood royal. By the end of conflict there were 7 princes and 16 princesses as outlined in Restriction of British Princely Titles in WWI. Please write your own words and we will reach concurrence. Pacomartin ( talk) 22:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I have done everything you asked. I've reduced the whole discussion to three sentences, completely referenced, and containing only simple facts. Pacomartin ( talk)
Royalty does not have surnames. That is a fact of European life for a thousand years. You cannot disagree with that statement. When King George V said all the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, other than female descendants who may marry or may have married, shall bear the said Name of Windsor: he is referring to non-royals. Non-royals have surnames. Royals do not have surnames. There is no point to resolve. When this proclamation the son of Queen Victoria did not start using a surname and he was a subject of the realm. I am not using a secondary source. I am using as primary of a source as exists. I just cited a transcription since the original is unreadable Signed Letters Patent by George V I did propose some wording and you did not respond. Why do I have to get your approval? What is your qualifications that you can redefine history this way? I'm a serious student of history. Pacomartin ( talk)
Let me repeat this statement If you think it should be in it's own article then I am open to suggestions as to the sentence you would put in this article. How about: The day before the proclamation was made that the House of Windsor was created there were 15 princes and 23 princesses of the blood royal. By the end of conflict there were 7 princes and 16 princesses as outlined in Restriction of British Princely Titles in WWI. Please write your own words and we will reach concurrence.
Pacomartin ( talk)
How about
No interpretation of primary sources whatsoever. Just a statement of unequivocal facts backed up by another Wikipedia article and a secondary source which is quoting a primary source. The subject matter is important to history so you can't call it trivial (your interpretation). I assume that I am allowed to count, or does that qualify as basic research? Pacomartin ( talk)
As this statement has nothing that can be seen as remotely subjective, is backed with a secondary source, and is as bland as possible, and no one has responded, I am assuming I have consensus? Pacomartin ( talk) 16:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I am trying to find a free source without having to purchase a legal journal where I know it is published. Why doesn't DrKiernan have to provide a source? These 15 people were princes and princesses from birth. (that point is clear) The House of Windsor was proclaimed on July 17 1917 (that point is clear). The passage
is clearly referring to commoners who are in the male line from Queen Victoria (that point is obvious). The reason it is obvious is that royals do not have surnames. Surnames only became common in Britain in the 13th century. Royal families continued the ancient practice of styling themselves by territories and did not acquire surnames. Every commoner (there are at least 10 living) in the male line from Queen Victoria has the surname Windsor. But only British male line descendants bear that name. The German ones do not call themselves Windsor. If you don't believe me then here is a reference:
A total of 14 princes and princesses were removed as British princes and princesses on November 30, 1917 (that point is clear). The final prince, Charles Edward) was removed on 28 March 1919 (he was the only male line grandson). July 17, 1917 comes before November 30, 1917 and before 28 March 1919 (I hope that is clear). So there was a period when the House of Windsor was created when these 15 people were British princes and princesses (that is a mathematical certainty).
I do not even understand this sentence. There were no German princes after 18 November 1918. Can you explain to me what this objection means in clear language?
And what about the charge that about the sentence it implies. Is that a clear unbiased statement? I took careful pains to make the statements unbiased and precise.
Read it again and make your comments clear and don't use words like imply.
Pacomartin ( talk) 23:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
They were also British princes in addition to being part of the House of Hanover. The head of the House of Hanover was the same as the King of Great Britain and Ireland for the reigns of George I, George II, George III, George IV, and William IV. It was only split between Queen Victoria and her uncle because Hanover did not permit a female monarch. The members of the House of Hanover when functioning as British princes were under the reign of George V. He did not remove them as British princes until November 30, 1917 when he signed the letters patent. It is quite possible to hold a royal position in two different houses in Europe. The current Prince Phillip was born a Prince of Denmark, and a Prince of Greece. The current head of the House of Hanover before he wed Princess Caroline of Monaco since he was a descendant of George II. George II said that all of his princes needed to ask permission of the monarch as to their choice of bride so he could see that they were not marrying beneath their dignity. You will notice on the table that in the first column I put their primary title which was often German, and in the second column I put their British title. By 1918 the German government removed all the German titles of nobility. Anyway, I will concede that a listing of the names can be put in a different article according to your definition of trivial. I have reduced the comment here to a simple count. Pacomartin ( talk) 11:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I will reproduce the table here for clarification of anyone reading this section. I didn't put the British title for the princesses since they would all be identical HRH Princess X. Normal procedure is to call someone by their highest title. If their highest title is German you use that first. Every person on here is a male line descendant of a British monarch' which is why they are designed British princes or British princesses. King George V changed the rules on November 1917, 5 months after he created the House of Windsor. He said that you now had to be a (1) child of a monarch, (2) a grandson via a son, (3) the oldest son of the heir to the heir, (4) covered by name in letters patent by a former or future monarch. So the two princesses (daughter of Louisa) were made princesses by his father. He didn't retroactively change his father's explicit will, but he was changing the rules covering the general case.
Although the primary motivation at the time was to eliminate the British princes and princesses who were living in a nation fighting against Britain, it would have been a simple matter to publish personal letters to make the 3 year Alastair a prince. King George V did not do that because he had the foresight to envision a smaller group of royals for the future. That is why today, Princess Anne's children are not royal, Prince Harry's children will not automatically be royal, and Lord Freddy Windsor is not royal, nor is his sister Lady Gabriella Windsor. The only child of the next generation to automatically be royal while the Queen lives is the oldest son of Prince William.
The action of King George V in renouncing the German titles of his family and in limiting the number of persons entitled to the style of Royal Highness was widely acclaimed at the time when we were at war with Germany. Later, when the passions of war had subsided, it was also generally regarded as having been an act of wise statesmanship which had confirmed and increased the prestige of the monarchy. THE NAME OF "WINDSOR", Memorandum by the Lord Chancellor, 7TH APRIL , 1952
Name | British titles held in 1917 | Birth | Death | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|
Alastair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn | Prince Alastair | 1914 | 1943 | son of Prince Arthur of Connaught |
Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha | Duke of Albany | 1884 | 1954 | grandson of Queen Victoria via a male line |
John Leopold, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha | Prince John | 1906 | 1972 | son of Prince Charles Edward |
Prince Hubertus of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (pilot) | Prince Hubertus | 1909 | 1943 | son of Prince Charles Edward |
Ernest Augustus, Crown Prince of Hanover | Duke of Cumberland | 1845 | 1923 | son of George V of Hanover |
Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick | Prince Ernest | 1887 | 1953 | son of Crown Prince of Hanover |
Ernest Augustus IV, Prince of Hanover | Prince Ernest | 1914 | 1987 | son of Prince Ernest Augustus |
Prince George William of Hanover (1915–2006) | Prince George William | 1915 | 2006 | son of Prince Ernest Augustus |
Title at birth | Birth | Death | Lineage |
---|---|---|---|
Princess Frederica of Hanover | 1848 | 1926 | Great-granddaughter of George III, daughter of George V of Hanover |
Princess Marie Louise of Hanover and Cumberland | 1879 | 1948 | Great-great granddaughter of King George III, daughter of Ernst August, 3rd Duke of Cumberland |
Princess Alexandra of Hanover and Cumberland | 1882 | 1963 | Great-great granddaughter of King George III, daughter of Ernst August, 3rd Duke of Cumberland |
Princess Olga of Hanover and Cumberland | 1884 | 1958 | Great-great granddaughter of King George III, daughter of Ernst August, 3rd Duke of Cumberland |
Princess Sibylla of Albany | 1907 | 1972 | Great granddaughter of Victoria, daughter of Prince Charles Edward, 2nd Duke of Albany |
Princess Caroline Mathilde of Albany | 1912 | 1983 | Great granddaughter of Victoria, daughter of Prince Charles Edward, 2nd Duke of Albany |
Princess Fredrica of Hanover and Brunswick-Luneburg | 1917 | 1981 | Great great great granddaughter of George III, daughter of Prince Ernst August (III) of Cumberland and Hanover, Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg |
Pacomartin ( talk) 13:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Name | A Windsor who lost the title of Prince? | House |
---|---|---|
Alastair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn | Yes | Windsor |
Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha | No | Saxe-Coburg-Gotha: Not a British Subject at the time of the July Letters Patent |
John Leopold, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha | No | Saxe-Coburg-Gotha: Not a British Subject at the time of the July Letters Patent |
Prince Hubertus of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (pilot) | No | Saxe-Coburg-Gotha: Not a British Subject at the time of the July Letters Patent |
Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick | No | Hanover |
Ernest Augustus IV, Prince of Hanover | No | Hanover |
Prince George William of Hanover (1915–2006) | No | Hanover |
Name | A Windsor who lost the title of Princess? | House |
---|---|---|
Princess Frederica of Hanover | No | Hanover |
Princess Marie Louise of Hanover and Cumberland | No | Hanover |
Princess Alexandra of Hanover and Cumberland | No | Hanover |
Princess Olga of Hanover and Cumberland | No | Hanover |
Princess Sibylla of Albany | No | Saxe-Coburg-Gotha: Not a British Subject at the time of the July Letters Patent |
Princess Caroline Mathilde of Albany | No | Saxe-Coburg-Gotha: Not a British Subject at the time of the July Letters Patent |
Princess Fredrica of Hanover and Brunswick-Luneburg | No | Hanover |
How about if I reword my edit to say: On the day the House of Windsor was created there were 15 British princes and 23 princesses of the blood royal. By 28 March 1919 there were 7 princes and 16 princesses but in accordance with the rules set down by the proclamation made by King George V on July 1917 only one Prince, Alastair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn received the surname Windsor. There is no way on earth that you can dispute the factual accuracy of that statement. Please state in clear unambiguous terms without getting on a WP:SOAPS. If you want to propose a rewording of that statement, then I am open to your suggestion. If you insist that it is not part of the House of Windsor, I will expect you to endorse a thorough scrubbing of the article for all incidental comments.
The above statement is not in conflict with the statement on the official royal web site: The House of Windsor came into being in 1917, when the name was adopted as the British Royal Family's official name by a proclamation of King George V, replacing the historic name of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. It remains the family name of the current Royal Family. Pacomartin ( talk) 17:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
(1) George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews b. 26 June 1962 (2) Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick b. 2 December 1988 (3) Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor b. 30 September 1992 (4) Lady Amelia Windsor b. 24 August 1995 (5) Lord Nicholas Windsorb. 25 July 1970 (6) Albert Windsor b. 2007 (7) Leopold Windsor b. 2009–) (8) Lord Frederick Windsor b. 6 April 1979 (9) Lady Gabriella Windsor b. 23 April 1981 (10) Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster b. 24 October 1974 (11) Xan Windsor, Lord Cullodenb. 12 March 2007 (12) Lady Cosima Windsor b 20 May 2010 (13) Lady Davina Lewis b. 19 November 1977 (dropped the surname Windsor upon marriage in 31 July 2004) (14) Lady Rose Gilman b. 1 March 1980 (dropped the surname Windsor upon marriage in 16 November 2007 ) Now the addition reads During the war and after, George V also stripped 15 of his German relations of their British titles and styles of prince and princess. with the agreement that there will be reference to a longer article specifically geared towards this subject at a later date. Pacomartin ( talk)