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 |
I've spent the better part an hour reading through this latter-part, and SOAPBOX, ORIG. RESEARCH/SYNTH and NOTAFORUM are being violated left and right, with only a couple of editors trying to swing everyone back to RELIABLE SOURCES. Isn't it time for an Admin warning to end debate that isn't trying to improve the article via RS ? Thanks. HammerFilmFan ( talk) 21:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan
Marina is listed in the table of descendants as "Mrs Marina Ogilvy". It would be very unusual (indeed, unique) if this name were correct. She was Miss Marina Ogilvy from birth, then she became Mrs Paul Mowatt upon marriage. After her divorce she would be either Mrs Marina Mowatt or Ms Marina Ogilvy. I have shied away from editing the table, because I cannot find a reference to indicate which name she uses, but she would not be Mrs Marina Ogilvy. P M C 23:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Not totally clear what the Neutrality tag is for. Any objections to taking it off? DeCausa ( talk) 19:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I find the article not particularly clearly set out or easy to navigate - mainly because of the large graphics particularly the list of members. I was thinking it might be better to transfer that to List of members of the House of Windsor, leaving behind a wikilink. Any objection? DeCausa ( talk) 19:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
-Not an objection, but just thought I'd point out: only those descended in the male line (male or female) from Elizabeth II and those descended from in the same circumstances from Queen Victoria (and who are British subjects/citizens) are members of the House of Windsor. People like; for example, Peter Phillips, the Earl of Harewood and Viscount Linley are most certainly not members of the House of Windsor.
The 1917 Order-In-Council:
"...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..."
The 1952 Order-In-Council:
"I hereby declare My Will and Pleasure that I and My children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that My descendants, other than female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the Name of Windsor." JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 02:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
No; the old argument was about whether or not the male-line descendants of Elizabeth II were members of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg/Oldenburg. The issue as to who actually were members was not discussed.
-regardless of that; there are verifiable sources (the orders-in-council, debrett's, and various others that show very clearly that it is only the children of these respective monarchs and the male-line issue of their sons (and not their daughters) that are members of the House Of Windsor. If you want to ignore these sources, that's up to you, but I'll move this to the other talk page if that's the case. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 10:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
-which is what I've done. Please refer to that talk page. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 14:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I made 4 quite separate and distinct changes to this article which you reverted en bloc, claiming that they were original research. I think if we go over them one at a time we can reach a sensible conclusion.
1) I changed a subheading from "List of Commonwealth realms monarchs" to "List of monarchs of the House of Windsor". Since the article is actually entitled "House of Windsor", not "Commonwealth realms monarchs" this is surely an obvious and unobjectionable change: it simply aligns the title with the subject of the article (and besides the phrase "Commonwealth realms monarchs" is pretty ugly). In any case, this is an editorial issue, with no research involved. So I do not understand your objection to this.
2) The date Australia became a realm. I understand that you are a lawyer, and that the Adoption Act states that it had effect from 3 September 1939. But that is a matter of law, as interpreted after the passage of the Act in 1942, and the table is about (constitutional) history, not the law. No Australian politician or lawyer between 1939 and 1942 could have agreed that the SoW had been adopted: Menzies' speech to parliament on the declaration of war presumes that it had not. Section 2 of the Act itself says that it "shall come into operation on the day on which it receives royal assent" (see
[1]) -- i.e. in 1942.
AS to your claim that this is OR, if you look at other related WP articles, e.g. Commonwealth realm or Constitution of Australia, you will see that it's the date of the passage of the act which is regarded as significant. If you want to go to the mat on verifiable third-party sources we can, but I think the onus is on you to demonstrate that the consensus view is that, as a matter of historical fact, Australia became a realm in 1939, not 1942.
3) The Indian Empire. The table, as you want to keep it, shows a light green line from 1917 to 1931 and a dark green line from 1931 to 1947. According to the text above, In the chart below, the countries are differentiated between light green (realms of the House of Windsor as dominions), medium green (present realms of the House of Windsor), and dark green (former realms of the House of Windsor). -- that is, the table claims that the Indian Empire was a dominion before 1917 and became a realm in 1931. Neither statement is true, as I am sure you know.
You argued that the text here only mentions "realms" not "Commonwealth realms". The point is rather legalistic, since everywhere else in this table and in the article "dominions" are treated as Dominions per the Colonial Conference of 1907 and "realms" are treated as Commonwealth realms (and even if the point were granted it still wouldn't make the table accurate -- see above). I deleted this line because neither applies to the Indian Empire. But it is true that the Raj was regarded as a distinct and separate imperial domain. I have no problem in treating it as such in the table, so long as it is not treated in the same way as the Dominions and Commonwealth realms. The obvious way to do this is to make the line a single color from 1917 to 1947 that is not green.
4) Description of the table. The current description is confusing and incomplete. I changed it to read:
Putting aside the Indian Empire, I believe that this is accurate and bother clearer and more complete. If the entry for the Raj is retained but modified as I suggested above then it would need another sentence, but that's all. I do not see what you can object to in this paragraph.-- 137.110.35.66 ( talk) 23:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC);
Consensus reached. JMvanDijk's edit not pursued. I'm taking JMVanDijk's earlier post that he's not pursuing his edit. DeCausa ( talk) 22:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC) |
Over-long closed thread. Hatting to make page navigable DeCausa ( talk) 07:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
So I am not sure what is the particular objection to posting the coats of arms that the British Government posts on their own website as the symbols of their state. Please read the reference which takes you to their website. The definition of relevance from Merriam-Websters is
The definition of demonstrable is:
It seems that if the British Nation and government find these as "relevant" symbols of their monarchy, this article should note that, as well as those of all the other former royal houses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMvanDijk ( talk • contribs) 15:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Miesianiacal: yes, they are the royal house for many other commonwealth countries, Canada included. Go ahead an post them. I don't understand your second comment: the quote from the British government and their use by the government and by the Queen as Queen (the quote says she is not entitled to them otherwise) says that they are relevant to a wider audience than just the Queen. I would agree with you that this does not cover the other members of the Royal Family, although I'm sure one can find similar precedents in law, as members of the Royal Family are only entitled to bear those arms when they given under warrant by the Queen. You do need to provide a reference for the comment of irrelevant, or withdraw it as personal opinion. ( talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
So, as to the objective parts, in the order given:
Hope that helps to show where I'm coming from. I'm really not understanding the senistivity to this, you will have to explain this to me as a non-subject/non-Commonwealth citizen. Looking from the outside of Britian in, these symbols are, outside of the Union Jack, the most prevalent things one sees on entry and visiting in the UK, and most commonwealth realms with their versions. They are posted/stamped on the coinage, money, stamps, sewn onto police and military uniforms, plastered all over every appearance by the Royals (latest at the Jubilee) in flags and banners. I'm at a loss here to deal with the objection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMvanDijk ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
See the 2nd point above, your opinion is not that of Her Majesty's Government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMvanDijk ( talk • contribs) 17:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Well, but isn't that just the point, the House of Windsor, unlike the previous Royal Houses, now extinct, are fufilling a dual function. They are the (hereditary) heads of state and also a house, if I take what you mean by house to be a collection of human beings related by parentage/DNA. They have 2 properties at once, similar to (if I may use an example from my world) a Higgs Boson, which can have the properties of mass as well as have integral spin. They are distinct and dissimilar. Now the first property, (hereditary) heads of state, makes them interesting to us (more than I thought! ;-)), the 2nd property makes them a family no different from mine or yours with an unusual symbol to indentify themselves. So, yes, there is a seperate article on these unusual symbols. However, I was merely adding the symbols of the state the intent of this article seems to be to describe the House of Windsor and their importance as (hereditary) heads of state (am I wrong here? That is an assumption.). If it is not, then they are just a rich family that likes to wear funny costumes with expensive jewelry and throw expensive public events on the taxpayer's pound? JMvanDijk ( talk) 17:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC) JMvanDijk ( talk) 17:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC
Again, read closely: the distinction here is that this article and the arms are about the House of Windsor as heads of state of the UK and commonwealth realms. They are not interesting in their capacity as a family (who as I said, like to dress up). The most common badge is the royal arms, not the one in the InfoBlocks (ok we could change that?). If this is only an article about the house of Windsor as a collection of people, that a few folks like to post information to, it should say that up front and not proport to report any authoritative information about the functioning of the British & Commonweath Head of State. To the 2nd comment, please read above. I do not think that the Commonwealth arms are not relevant(although my opinion is irrelevant to the point in discussion, we are talking about what the state practice and law is). I agreed above that the Commonwealth arms are just as important (assuming the same laws apply there as uk.gov says do in the UK, not all sure about that, someone needs to research that). I also do not know what the legal standing of Charles is as Duke of Cornwall/Prince of Wales/hier to the throne, i.e. is that a defined legal position in the UK and Commonwealth. If yes, then yes, his arms should be posted. However, I did agree above with Mr/Ms DeCausa that much more than the 6 arms posted is getting too long, and merits a seperate article (of which there is a cross reference to). JMvanDijk ( talk) 17:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
So, I think you've almost got it. See my Higgs Boson Example above: Elizabeth serves 2 functions simultaneously. She is Elizabeth (Mountbatten-)Windsor, head of the House of Windsor. She is also Queen Elizabeth, the head of the State. As such, her arms are those of the head of state. I don't know if this would actually happen, but I assume if any other member of the royal family used those arms and was not the monarch, HMG could take them to court. If Elizabeth (Mountbatten-)Windsor used them and was not Queen, HMG could probably take her to court. For example, when Edward VIII abdicated, he was not allowed to keep using the arms, as they were the right of the head of state/king, but had new ones assigned to him. This was a seperate act from him being made "duke of Windsor". So, again, those arms are really owned by the State and used by Eliz. Windsor in her capacity as head of state. I would point out that in many countries (not the UK) monarchs have their own personal arms independent of the state arms so just this confusion does not arise. The UK, relying much more on tradition and unwritten rules, has not seen fit to separate the two. JMvanDijk ( talk) 18:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Well yes, there could and should be here to be complete? Someone ought to mention them or put pointers to articles on them. My only interest is in what I posted. To Mr/Ms. Achowat: that is just the point. These arms are hers in both capacities, the UK has not seen fit to seperate those functions. If this is just an article on the Windsor family there is much that ought to be changed/excluded here? JMvanDijk ( talk) 19:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
What denomination (my father was Dutch Reformed). You are making a distinction here without a difference as the UK government does not make it, which is the point. See http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Symbols/History.aspx :
JMvanDijk ( talk) 19:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Understand you not answering the faith question. Now to HMG. I do not understand how the opinion of HMG and British (as well as commonwealth law) have no bearing. Without their position as head of state, the house of Windsor is in a similar position to any of the other dispossed royal houses (see for example their distant cousins, the Kings of Bulgaria): of mere curiosity interest. Actually, now that I think of it, King Simeon II returned back at the beginning of the decade, but as an elected prime minister. As such, he did not use the royal title and the royal arms. They had no bearing to the state of Bulgaria of which he was prime minister. He was known as "Simeon Sakskoburggothski"(sp?). That situation is a distinction does not exist in the UK. Hence, the laws and statues of the government are quite relevant. The Lord Chamberlain (a member of the government) even publishes on the uk.gov website guidiance for use of the royal arms (as well as other royal images): things you can do and things they will prosecute you for ( http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/Usag%20of%20the%20Royal%20Arms%5B1%5D.pdf). JMvanDijk ( talk) 20:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC) 'JMvanDijk'; your assertions on this matter are not taking into account several things of which you may be unaware. i.It would not be under the jurisdiction of the British Government to take a person to court: as regards armorial matters, it is under the jurisdiction as regards the court of chivalry in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (which has not sat since 1953, and then after a several-hundred year hiatus) and the Court of the Lord Lyon as regards Scotland. The royal arms are only 'the arms of the government' because the British government, as in all monarchies; is acting in the name of the monarch. Whilst you are correct in saying that some monarchies have one coat of arms for the monarch and another for the state (although in fact it is only Denmark that makes this distiction in law.), if you would look more closely you would notice that in all instances where this is the case, the arms 'of the state' or 'of the government' are really just 'lesser' versions of the royal arms, they are not completely different arms altogether; and to claim or do otherwise (as the Danish government does, much to the disdain of heraldists) is just bad heraldic practice, and has nothing to do with the British monarchy being 'traditional'. ii. You don't seem to be aware of the constitutional nature of a monarch, or the fundamental constitutional difference between a monarchy and a republic. In a monarchy, the monarch, at least in law, is sovereign; all authority in theory derives from or is granted or delegated from them and them alone. Courts, government, etc. are carried out in the name of the monarch (hence why someone being prosecuted by the state in the UK for example; the case will be 'The Crown vs whoever') In heraldry, the arms of the monarch reflect this, so the arms of the monarch and the state are one and the same. In essence, the monarch, in legal terms at least is the state. The Queen of the UK is quite a unique case in respect of the fact that she is quite separately Queen of 16 separate sovereign states in their own right, as she is separately Queen of 16 different sovereign states, she bears 16 separate Arms of Dominion in respect to each state she is Queen of. Now, in a republic, the people are the sovereign, not the head of state. The President of the United States of America; for example, is not a sovereign. The arms represent the people as a whole, and the state at the same time; and not a monarch. The courts, government; everything in a republic is; at least in theory, in the name of the people (which; likewise, is why a person being prosecuted by the state in a republic will be 'The People' vs whoever.) This is why; for example, why various American Presidents have borne and used arms that are completely different from those of the United States itself. The same is true of various other republics: the various Doges of the Republic of Venice all bore arms that were completely different from those of the Republic of Venice itself; and so have various other republican heads of state throughout history. To quote the famous heraldic writer, J.P. Brooke-Little, Norroy and Ulster King of Arms, in his 1983 edition of 'Boutell's Heraldry' (page 222): "Royal Arms, or Arms of Dominion, are inseparable from the rank and office of royalty, and cannot be borne undifferenced by any person except the Sovereign...The Royal Arms may not be quartered without some difference. In the persons of Sovereigns, all minor ranks and titles are merged in their royalty, consequently whatever arms they may previously have borne cease to be used at their accession, and no other arms may be quartered with the Royal Arms." Furthermore; he writes in his 1978 book 'An Heraldic Alphabet'(under 'Arms of Dominion', page 38): "These, which are also styled 'arms of sovereignty', are those borne by a sovereign in respect to the territories over which he rules rather than his own family arms. The Royal Arms are Arms of Dominion; The Queen's arms of descent would be the arms of her branch of the House of Saxony. Arms of Dominion do not follow the ordinary rules and conventions of armory but are settled ad hoc by the monarch, usually, or course, with ministerial and heraldic advice." Hence, as the law of arms is universal, for a monarch to have different arms from those of the state is patently a nonsense. iii.You seem to be only dimly aware of cadency, also known as marks of difference or brisures. In some countries, the arms of families (and especially royal families) are 'differenced'; that is, each individual member of a family will bear slightly different arms (in some way) from those of the head of the family, and this is particularly true (and neccesary; because the arms of the monarch are also the arms of public authority for the state over which they reign/rule) of royal families. It is the case in the royal families of the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and in various dethroned royal families. But it is not the case in all heraldry worldwide, and particularly not in the heraldry of german and Scandinavian families, and particularly the royal families-notably; neither the Danish nor the Norwegian royal family uses cadency. In the case of the UK, each individual member of the royal family is assigned arms by Letters Patent which are in theory a new grant of arms. (they are not inherited and the family member in question does not bear arms until they are granted.) This has in nearly every case been the royal arms with an Argent label of three points for the child of a monarch, and an Argent label of five points for a male-line grandchild. Indeed, even the Queen herself used different arms prior to her accession as Queen. As the royal arms are the arms of the Queen herself and no-one else, it would be inappropriate to use these arms when only one member (the Queen) is entitled by law to use them, and at any rate the House has been assigned a heraldic badge to represent it as a whole. Please refer to the wikipedia pages as regards 'Cadency' and 'Cadency Labels of the British Royal Family' in relation to this. You might learn a great deal. iv.There is no Letters Patent, Order-In-Council, nor Act of Parliament denoting Elizabeth II as 'Head of the House of Windsor'-whilst I am not denying this is something she may be de facto; she certainly is not de jure, i.e. there is no 'official position' that the Queen occupies separate from her dignity as sovereign and Queen. In other words; there is no such thing as a 'Head' of the House of Windsor. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 20:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
JWULTRABLIZZARD: so was aware of the above, and thank you for posting it in such detail. I was trying to appeal to British law independent of heraldic law, which as you state, goes to the Court of Arms, which does not meet regularly. (The marks of candidacy are, as you hint at, an interesting question, as they are granted by warrant by the sovereign, but it unclear if anyone but the sovereign has any "standing" in the British state.) As such the link I posted takes the point of view (I leave it lawyers to judge) that the arms are a legitimate "trademark" of the government and the sovereign as the governement (as you say), i.e the Crown in Parliament, and all power theoretically devolves from her/him. Definitely not what we/I have in a republic. So, what better argument for posting the royal arms here (as I think you are saying)? Achowat: yes, if the UK goined the Ukraine, all the above would not apply/dissapear, unless the Ukraine passed laws to uphold it. The House of Windsor would still exist, and I suppose they could use the arms, and the Ukraine might even try to prevent them in a court of law, if they cared to. In any case, they would have the importance of their deposed cousins of other royal houses (e.g. like Bulgaria), i.e. not much. I do not know if Bulgaria cares if the Sakskoburggothskis use the arms. 21:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMvanDijk ( talk • contribs) I really don't get what you mean by 'it unclear if anyone but the sovereign has any "standing" in the British state'-the only person in the whole royal family who has any 'standing' is the Queen and no-one else. "if the UK goined (sic) the Ukraine, all the above would not apply/dissapear, unless the Ukraine passed laws to uphold it. The House of Windsor would still exist, and I suppose they could use the arms, and the Ukraine might even try to prevent them in a court of law, if they cared to. In any case, they would have the importance of their deposed cousins of other royal houses (e.g. like Bulgaria), i.e. not much. I do not know if Bulgaria cares if the Sakskoburggothskis use the arms." -If Britain became a republic or became part of the Republic of the Ukraine; not only would the new British republic or province probably adopt arms that were different to those of the preceding United Kingdom (although they're not forced to-the present republics of Romania, Bulgaria and Serbia are identical to those of the former Kingdoms); but the House of Windsor would almost definitely keep on using the arms they already use; as many deposed Royal families already have. By a curious coincidence btw; the arms of Simeon II (and, as the Bulgarian royal family does not use marks of cadency; everyone else in the Bulgarian Royal Family) and the modern Republic of Bulgaria are exactly the same. But at any rate, there is no regulation of personal heraldry in Bulgaria-though there is of civic- and any arms borne by Simeon II would have been his family/personal arms; its just a coincidence that they're the same as the Republic. At any rate, Simeon II was elected as a head of government; not a head of state, so I hardly see how that is relevant. At any rate; the individual; differenced arms of the members of the House of Windsor might warrant being included on the page detailing the differet members of the House of Windsor; but as there are no arms for the whole house; then putting them here is not relevant when they are only used by one member of the House; i.e. the Queen. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 10:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC) -also; a couple of points: i.The issue of cadency is supremely relevant because; where the House of Windsor not to use marks of cadency; then all members of the House would use the same arms; and it would be relevant to use the arms on this page. As it happens of course; the House of Windsor does use cadency marks and that is why it would not be relevant to use the Arms of Dominion of the UK here. It would have been relevant if say; the page were about the Norwiegan Royal Family (as they don't use marks of cadency) but it is not relevant here ii.On the continent; all members of a House share an equal rank. Thus; in the Royal House of Saxony for example; all members are Duke/Duchess of Saxony. Same with the Bavarian royal family; same with the Hohenzollerns, same with the Belgian Royal familyHowever; in the UK; only the head of a House is of noble rank: all other members of the house are commoners. That is why a Duke, for example, is the only member of his family who bears a title; all the titles borne by for example his eldest son and his eldest male-line grandson are titles of courtesy; they do not bear the titles in their own right (that is; their titles are not substantive)-this major difference between the nature of continental nobility and that of British nobility is I think the source of the confusion here-it is only the head of the family-the Queen-who has any rank or political role. Everyone else-even the Prince of Wales-has no role. "the Ukraine might even try to prevent them in a court of law, if they cared to." -No they wouldn't because the Ukrainian Republic does not regulate the use of personal arms (as the royal arms would become if Britain became part of the Ukraine or became a republic) -but they do civic arms-thus a deposed House of Windsor could in theory bear whatever arms they wanted. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 11:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Good point there, I stand corrected on them becoming personal arms. 207.45.43.68 ( talk) 14:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Perhaps we should get back on topicAfter Hungary and Prime Ministers and Trademarks and Marks of Cadency and the Higgs Boson...I'm rebooting this discussion. Is there any compelling reason to include the Arms of the UK on this page? Achowat ( talk) 21:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Have you folks read carefully the comments above, the primary sources (which I thought encyclopedias where suppossed to follow as good research practice) and very erudite comments of JWULTRABLIZZARD. You are substituting your (personal) opinion for established custom and fact. In some sense, it really doesn't matter, its only a wiki article. But really, the expert sources/primary sources say there is not difference between British Monarchy = House of Windsor = British Royal Family. At least put in link to the proper coat of arms, and those of you that live in the UK, open your eyes the next time you go into a public building and watch TV and you'll see these arms displayed. Last word on the subject. 207.45.43.68 ( talk) 14:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I think if you asked someone in the House of Windsor, they would disagree with you. 207.45.43.68 ( talk) 14:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC) JMvanDijk ( talk) 15:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Sorry, I meant to say my last word on the subject. We seem to be getting nowhere faster and faster. Perhaps a 3rd party? I will ask for one. 207.45.43.68 ( talk) 14:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC) JMvanDijk ( talk) 15:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, we seem to be getting nowhere fast. I could not ask the duke in a quick timeframe, but here is what the prince of Wales' webpage says: http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/personalprofiles/theprinceofwales/abouttheprince/index.html:
:In addition to the feathers, The Prince has a coat of arms with long historical links with the heraldry of his ancestors.
And really, I do need to get some work done now. JMvanDijk ( talk) 15:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
-Regardless of how well sourced and 'erudite' my comments are, 'JMvanDijk'; they serve to contradict, not support your arguments. Also; 'DrKiernan', sorry to be a pedant, but the arms Or, a fess compony Argent and Azure are the arms borne by the Head of the House of Stuart prior to them gaining the Scottish throne, and not the arms of the House of Stuart (because there's no such thing, nor has there ever been). There is no such thing as 'Arms of a House' in British heraldry, and particularly not Scottish heraldry; which has the legal requirement of 'one man, one arms', that is; each member of a family must have arms that are 'differenced' by a difference (in Scotland, this is usually a bordure of various tincture.) from those of the Head of the family.
Also 'Achowat'; the only person really directly relevant to 'the British monarchy' is the Queen. Until either of them succeed to the throne, the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge are still only in the line of succession and could at any time be displaced by their deaths or through removal from the line of succession (for example if one of them became a Roman Catholic.) Note also that whilst the Queen herself has Arms of Dominion in respect to each of the 16 sovereign states of which she is separately Queen of in a personal union; none of the other members of the House of Windsor have arms in right of any of the other commonwealth realms; they only do so as regards the UK. "the arms of the house are not the same as the arms of the kingdom or the arms of the monarch. The house of Windsor does not have a coat of arms." -As I showed above; the arms of the Kingdom and the arms of the monarch are one and the same. Yes; those are the arms of Scotland; but don't forget they were also the arms of James VI before 1603 as well. That they are sometimes referred to in blazon as 'Scotland' is really just convention and for ease of blazoning really. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 15:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
-A good point actually; albeit it's only as regards the Duchy of Cornwall. However; that's not really in the nature of a sovereignty or even a feudal relationship like it was originally. Perhaps the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall do warrant a mention, if only a brief, passing one. Also, sorry to be a pedant yet again; but the Queen is not Duke of Normandy, or Duchess of Normandy; or anything of Normandy for that matter. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 16:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
JWULTRABLIZZARD: so then what am I not understanding about why the arms of the Queen (Écartelé, en 1 et 4 de gueules aux trois léopards d'or, en 2 d'or, au lion de gueules, au double trescheur fleuronné et contre-fleuronné du même et en 3 d'azur, à la harpe d'or, cordée d'argent) should not be posted here? JMvanDijk ( talk) 16:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC) I think what you are saying is that the Queen, as the head of the house has her arms, other members have their's, differenced with marks of candency. However, the Queen is one member of the house, so it would be a generalization not allowed by the laws of heraldry to allow her arms to stand for the whole house? Of course, what I'm saying is that the arms are also those of the Monarchy, and are of note in that respect here, as the head of the House is the Monarch. JMvanDijk ( talk) 16:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Because they are the arms of the Queen and the Queen alone, all the other members of the House of Windsor have their own arms that are different from these arms, and the arms of the Queen are not the arms of the House of Windsor, and there are no arms, whether in the UK or anywhere else that are the arms of the House of Windsor. The only thing the House of Windsor has as a whole is a badge, and nothing else. You seem to also not understand that 'monarchy' (from the greek monos archos) means quite literally 'rule by one person', not rule by a family. Also; its Mr. JWULTRABLIZZARD. The Queen is also not Duke of Lancaster; regardless of the existence of the Duchy of Lancaster. A monarch cannot hold a lesser title from themselves. They cannot hold a peerage title in their own right, and the Dukedom of Lancaster is extinct according to the Letters Patent creating it. But the Duchy itself still exists separate from the crown estates according to the Letters Patent even if the monarch does not (and can not) hold the title. She does not have any title in respect to and within the United Kingdom other than 'by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of her other realms and territories Queen, Defender of the Faith' -granted, she holds other titles in respect to and in other countries outside of the UK, but in respect to the UK, that is the only title she holds. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 16:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
"it would be a generalization not allowed by the laws of heraldry to allow her arms to stand for the whole house?" -Absolutely correct. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 16:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Well I understand the meaning of monarchy (think we all learned that greek root as children?). However, MR. JWULTRABLIZZARD does have the most precise and closely drawn legalistic point from reliable sources, i.e. it would be a generalization not allowed by the laws of heraldry to allow her arms to stand for the whole house. I checked and found:
Given that, I was only trying to follow general practice of taking the head of the House's arms for those of the House. Never having seen this badge except in Wiki, I do take some heart that the badge includes the Royal Standard made up of the royal arms. However, I yield to those sources/experts, i.e. Mr. JWULTRABLIZZARD, and his sources, including,J.P. Brooke-Little. JMvanDijk ( talk) 17:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC) P.S. Would point out then, by this logic, that a link to an armorial on the house of Windsor is appropriate. JMvanDijk ( talk) 17:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
No, I agreed to that point at the beginning: don't think it was ever in contention. I just wasn't volunteering to do it. & yes, [[ WP:STICK'd|stick this now]]. JMvanDijk ( talk) 21:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
"Oh, by the way, in Guernsey and Jersey, Her Majesty is, in fact, the Duke of Normandy " -Off topic I know, but she really isn't 'Duke of Normandy'. See here: http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/royalstyle_uk.htm#Normandy and also here: http://www.jerseylaw.je/publications/jerseylawreview/june99/le_rouai.aspx -between 1289 and 1340 the English King held the Channel Islands by virtue of being Duke of Aquitaine, not Duke of Normandy -so; if anything, the Islands are remnants of the Duchy of Aquitaine, not the Duchy of Normandy!(the Normandy title was, by the way; intermittedly awarded to members of the French Royal House by the Kings of France, right up to the 1789 revolution.) after 1340 it was held by virtue of the 'fact' that the King of England was notionally King of France up until 1801. After 1801, there is no title held by the British monarch as regards the Channel Islands. Of course, a Royal Titles Act could be prolumgated by either the British parliament (or the states of either Bailiwick) changing her title to 'Duke/Duchess of Normandy' as regards the Islands, but this has not been done and until this does happen, the only title the Queen has as regards the Islands is simply 'By the grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and her other realms and territories Queen, Defender of the Faith'-nothing more, and nothing less, and that's regardless of the Loyal Toast and the royal website. The former is a tradition, the second is just in error, even if it is the royal website. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 22:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC) What I don't understand as well; 'JMVanDijk', is where on earth you've got the notion that the Queen is somehow 'Head' of the House of Windsor when there is no Act of Parliament, Order in Council, Letters Patent or any other official statement that says she is. Also; her being the monarch doesn't neccesarily mean she is the Head of the House. There are many examples of monarchs on the continent who are not the Heads of the Houses they belong to. For example, both Harald V of Norway and Queen Margrethe II of Denmark are members of the House of Oldenburg; but the Head of the House is Duke Christoph of Schleswig-Holstein. Likewise; King Juan Carlos I of Spain is not the Head of the House of Bourbon; his cousin the Duke of Segovia is, and so on. Not to mention precedent as regards the British monarchy itself: for example, Victoria was a member of the House of Hanover, but the Head of the House of Hanover during her reign was successively her Uncle, her Cousin, and her first cousin once removed (the Dukes of Cumberland; the first two of whom were also Kings of Hanover.) JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 22:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
|
A user or users are insisting that the linked term Saxe-Coburg and Gotha be bolded in the lead. There is no reason to do so, however. WP:MOSBOLDTITLE directs that alternate names for an article subject can be bolded ("Mumbai, also known as Bombay..."), and, though they aren't specifically used as an example, former names could probably be considered as alternate names and thus presented the same way. However, this article's first sentences are clear: the House of Windsor was a new entity when "founded by King George V by royal proclamation on 17 July 1917"; it therefore has no former name. This is only supported by the fact that House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is its own separate article (where the name House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is bolded in the first sentence). -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
-Wholeheartedly agreed. The 'House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha' did not cease to exist in 1917; and continued to exist and indeed still does exist through the male-line descendents of the youngest son of Prince Albert and Queen Victoria; Leopold, Duke of Albany, through his son, Charles Edward, sovereign Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and also in the Saxe-Coburg-Kohary branch; currently represented by the former Bulgarian Royal Family. The House of Windsor was originally created from a branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, but that's it; the 1917 Order-In-Council was quite clear that the new House was a totally new creation; and at any rate, the 1915 House Law of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha specifically excluded from the House any member of the House, domiciled in a foreign country, who fought against the German Empire; which definitely excluded the members of the British Royal Family. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 20:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The South African flag shown in the table at the bottom of the article is the pre 1994 flag. A new flag was adopted after 1994. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jensjakobsen911 ( talk • contribs) 15:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
If Peter and Zara Phillips and also Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella are members of the House of Windsor then we should add the names of the children of Princess Margaret, The Duke of Gloucester, The Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra and also Princess Mary. Also Peter and Zara aren't included in List of members of the House of Windsor. Keivan.f Talk 16:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
The 1917 Proclamation creating the House of Windsor excludes "women who marry and their descendants" from being members of the House of Windsor. That is; only those (male OR female) who are descended in the male line through one of Queen Victoria's sons, in the male line, and who are British subjects are members. With the death of Alistair Arthur, 2nd Duke of Connaught in 1943; and because the male-line descendants of Leopold; Queen Victoria's youngest son, are German citizens (and are not covered by the 1917 proclamation and are thus still members of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha), this in effect limits this membership to the male-line descendants of George V's sons. The 1952 proclamation that included Elizabeth II; her children, and the descendants of her children in the Hose of Windsor was also worded in the same manner and also excluded female-line descendants. Thus; the descendants of Princess Anne, the late Princesses Margaret and Mary are most definitely NOT members of the House of Windsor, as none of them are descended in the male line from either George V or Elizabeth II. However, Lord Frederick Windsor, the Dukes of Kent, and Gloucester, etc. ARE members if the House of Windsor; despite their distance from the throne, because they are all descended from George V in the male line. Hope that clarifies a few things :-) JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 18:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Granted; but the article is about the House of Windsor. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 14:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
If the family tree (which should then be named differently) is only to show members of the House of Windsor surely there should be a diffeent colour coding for the husbands (and particularly the divorced) husbands. In fact if you interpret what is said strictly "women who marry and their descendants" Anne and Margaret never mind their husbands shouldn't be shown - which shows it's a nonsense to make a "family tree" on that basis. PhilomenaO'M ( talk) 20:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
The recent bill on succession now allows royals that marry Catholics to inherit the throne. This should be updated and made clear in the article (July 23, 2013). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.206.188 ( talk) 15:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
It it me but is the table of countries in the Designation and details section hard work to understand, must be far better ways of doing the same thing then an ungainly coloured table (not a prime requirement but it doesnt really work on mobile either). MilborneOne ( talk) 20:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure of how to represent Ireland in the chart. First-up, Ireland changed from the Irish Free State to simply Ireland (under a new constitution) in 1937. Second, while that new constitution made no reference to the monarchy, the monarchy continue to have an external role (e.g. receiving diplomatic letters) until 1949, when Ireland declared itself a republic (see Republic of Ireland Act).
-- Tóraí ( talk) 23:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Is it true that in general Europena royal houses don't possess surname ? What is the reason behind this practicee ?
Siyac 12:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
In what way? PhilomenaO'M ( talk) 06:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
This article says that Queen Elizabeth II is the head of the House of Windsor. Is this accurate? Since dynastic reckoning is traditionally agnatic, isn't Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, who is the most agnatically senior Windsor, as the senior male-line descendent of Prince Albert and Queen Victoria, truly the head of the House of Windsor? JamesReyes ( talk) 00:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
House of Windsor has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To avoid changes, since Elisabeth 2 is also semi-protected, so why isn't her house also protected?! — 73.47.37.131 ( talk) 23:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I've changed the descriptive Queen of the Commonwealth realms to Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms. Why? the former came off as original research. I've never heard of or read about Elizabeth II being called Queen of the Commonwealth realms. GoodDay ( talk) 22:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
My change was reverted. Therefore, I've merely deleted of the Commnonwelath realms. Certaintly, that should be acceptable. GoodDay ( talk) 23:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on House of Windsor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
The lead has been reverted to incorrectly state that "The Windsors are set to be succeeded by the Mountbatten-Windsor family". As the body of the article correctly states, the next several people in the line of succession are all Windsors.-- Trystan ( talk) 15:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
"Other major changes include the introduction of television media, the decline of Christianity and the transformation of the United Kingdom into a multiethnic society through post-colonial immigration." So are we really gonna call a country that's 92% white as multi-ethnic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.202.215 ( talk) 16:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on House of Windsor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
King George VI's relationship to predecessor is "brother of King Edward VIII." King George VI's father was not his immediate predecessor. 98.22.105.73 ( talk) 20:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC) CR
Clarify: If/when Charles ascends the throne(s), he can immediately have the royal house name changed to House of Mountbatten. Each monarch can change the name of his/her royal house, I believe. GoodDay ( talk) 17:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz should be mentioned as a progenitor of the Windsors here. -- Horst-schlaemma ( talk) 11:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
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 |
I've spent the better part an hour reading through this latter-part, and SOAPBOX, ORIG. RESEARCH/SYNTH and NOTAFORUM are being violated left and right, with only a couple of editors trying to swing everyone back to RELIABLE SOURCES. Isn't it time for an Admin warning to end debate that isn't trying to improve the article via RS ? Thanks. HammerFilmFan ( talk) 21:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan
Marina is listed in the table of descendants as "Mrs Marina Ogilvy". It would be very unusual (indeed, unique) if this name were correct. She was Miss Marina Ogilvy from birth, then she became Mrs Paul Mowatt upon marriage. After her divorce she would be either Mrs Marina Mowatt or Ms Marina Ogilvy. I have shied away from editing the table, because I cannot find a reference to indicate which name she uses, but she would not be Mrs Marina Ogilvy. P M C 23:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Not totally clear what the Neutrality tag is for. Any objections to taking it off? DeCausa ( talk) 19:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I find the article not particularly clearly set out or easy to navigate - mainly because of the large graphics particularly the list of members. I was thinking it might be better to transfer that to List of members of the House of Windsor, leaving behind a wikilink. Any objection? DeCausa ( talk) 19:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
-Not an objection, but just thought I'd point out: only those descended in the male line (male or female) from Elizabeth II and those descended from in the same circumstances from Queen Victoria (and who are British subjects/citizens) are members of the House of Windsor. People like; for example, Peter Phillips, the Earl of Harewood and Viscount Linley are most certainly not members of the House of Windsor.
The 1917 Order-In-Council:
"...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..."
The 1952 Order-In-Council:
"I hereby declare My Will and Pleasure that I and My children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that My descendants, other than female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the Name of Windsor." JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 02:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
No; the old argument was about whether or not the male-line descendants of Elizabeth II were members of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg/Oldenburg. The issue as to who actually were members was not discussed.
-regardless of that; there are verifiable sources (the orders-in-council, debrett's, and various others that show very clearly that it is only the children of these respective monarchs and the male-line issue of their sons (and not their daughters) that are members of the House Of Windsor. If you want to ignore these sources, that's up to you, but I'll move this to the other talk page if that's the case. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 10:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
-which is what I've done. Please refer to that talk page. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 14:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I made 4 quite separate and distinct changes to this article which you reverted en bloc, claiming that they were original research. I think if we go over them one at a time we can reach a sensible conclusion.
1) I changed a subheading from "List of Commonwealth realms monarchs" to "List of monarchs of the House of Windsor". Since the article is actually entitled "House of Windsor", not "Commonwealth realms monarchs" this is surely an obvious and unobjectionable change: it simply aligns the title with the subject of the article (and besides the phrase "Commonwealth realms monarchs" is pretty ugly). In any case, this is an editorial issue, with no research involved. So I do not understand your objection to this.
2) The date Australia became a realm. I understand that you are a lawyer, and that the Adoption Act states that it had effect from 3 September 1939. But that is a matter of law, as interpreted after the passage of the Act in 1942, and the table is about (constitutional) history, not the law. No Australian politician or lawyer between 1939 and 1942 could have agreed that the SoW had been adopted: Menzies' speech to parliament on the declaration of war presumes that it had not. Section 2 of the Act itself says that it "shall come into operation on the day on which it receives royal assent" (see
[1]) -- i.e. in 1942.
AS to your claim that this is OR, if you look at other related WP articles, e.g. Commonwealth realm or Constitution of Australia, you will see that it's the date of the passage of the act which is regarded as significant. If you want to go to the mat on verifiable third-party sources we can, but I think the onus is on you to demonstrate that the consensus view is that, as a matter of historical fact, Australia became a realm in 1939, not 1942.
3) The Indian Empire. The table, as you want to keep it, shows a light green line from 1917 to 1931 and a dark green line from 1931 to 1947. According to the text above, In the chart below, the countries are differentiated between light green (realms of the House of Windsor as dominions), medium green (present realms of the House of Windsor), and dark green (former realms of the House of Windsor). -- that is, the table claims that the Indian Empire was a dominion before 1917 and became a realm in 1931. Neither statement is true, as I am sure you know.
You argued that the text here only mentions "realms" not "Commonwealth realms". The point is rather legalistic, since everywhere else in this table and in the article "dominions" are treated as Dominions per the Colonial Conference of 1907 and "realms" are treated as Commonwealth realms (and even if the point were granted it still wouldn't make the table accurate -- see above). I deleted this line because neither applies to the Indian Empire. But it is true that the Raj was regarded as a distinct and separate imperial domain. I have no problem in treating it as such in the table, so long as it is not treated in the same way as the Dominions and Commonwealth realms. The obvious way to do this is to make the line a single color from 1917 to 1947 that is not green.
4) Description of the table. The current description is confusing and incomplete. I changed it to read:
Putting aside the Indian Empire, I believe that this is accurate and bother clearer and more complete. If the entry for the Raj is retained but modified as I suggested above then it would need another sentence, but that's all. I do not see what you can object to in this paragraph.-- 137.110.35.66 ( talk) 23:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC);
Consensus reached. JMvanDijk's edit not pursued. I'm taking JMVanDijk's earlier post that he's not pursuing his edit. DeCausa ( talk) 22:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC) |
Over-long closed thread. Hatting to make page navigable DeCausa ( talk) 07:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
So I am not sure what is the particular objection to posting the coats of arms that the British Government posts on their own website as the symbols of their state. Please read the reference which takes you to their website. The definition of relevance from Merriam-Websters is
The definition of demonstrable is:
It seems that if the British Nation and government find these as "relevant" symbols of their monarchy, this article should note that, as well as those of all the other former royal houses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMvanDijk ( talk • contribs) 15:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Miesianiacal: yes, they are the royal house for many other commonwealth countries, Canada included. Go ahead an post them. I don't understand your second comment: the quote from the British government and their use by the government and by the Queen as Queen (the quote says she is not entitled to them otherwise) says that they are relevant to a wider audience than just the Queen. I would agree with you that this does not cover the other members of the Royal Family, although I'm sure one can find similar precedents in law, as members of the Royal Family are only entitled to bear those arms when they given under warrant by the Queen. You do need to provide a reference for the comment of irrelevant, or withdraw it as personal opinion. ( talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
So, as to the objective parts, in the order given:
Hope that helps to show where I'm coming from. I'm really not understanding the senistivity to this, you will have to explain this to me as a non-subject/non-Commonwealth citizen. Looking from the outside of Britian in, these symbols are, outside of the Union Jack, the most prevalent things one sees on entry and visiting in the UK, and most commonwealth realms with their versions. They are posted/stamped on the coinage, money, stamps, sewn onto police and military uniforms, plastered all over every appearance by the Royals (latest at the Jubilee) in flags and banners. I'm at a loss here to deal with the objection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMvanDijk ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
See the 2nd point above, your opinion is not that of Her Majesty's Government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMvanDijk ( talk • contribs) 17:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Well, but isn't that just the point, the House of Windsor, unlike the previous Royal Houses, now extinct, are fufilling a dual function. They are the (hereditary) heads of state and also a house, if I take what you mean by house to be a collection of human beings related by parentage/DNA. They have 2 properties at once, similar to (if I may use an example from my world) a Higgs Boson, which can have the properties of mass as well as have integral spin. They are distinct and dissimilar. Now the first property, (hereditary) heads of state, makes them interesting to us (more than I thought! ;-)), the 2nd property makes them a family no different from mine or yours with an unusual symbol to indentify themselves. So, yes, there is a seperate article on these unusual symbols. However, I was merely adding the symbols of the state the intent of this article seems to be to describe the House of Windsor and their importance as (hereditary) heads of state (am I wrong here? That is an assumption.). If it is not, then they are just a rich family that likes to wear funny costumes with expensive jewelry and throw expensive public events on the taxpayer's pound? JMvanDijk ( talk) 17:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC) JMvanDijk ( talk) 17:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC
Again, read closely: the distinction here is that this article and the arms are about the House of Windsor as heads of state of the UK and commonwealth realms. They are not interesting in their capacity as a family (who as I said, like to dress up). The most common badge is the royal arms, not the one in the InfoBlocks (ok we could change that?). If this is only an article about the house of Windsor as a collection of people, that a few folks like to post information to, it should say that up front and not proport to report any authoritative information about the functioning of the British & Commonweath Head of State. To the 2nd comment, please read above. I do not think that the Commonwealth arms are not relevant(although my opinion is irrelevant to the point in discussion, we are talking about what the state practice and law is). I agreed above that the Commonwealth arms are just as important (assuming the same laws apply there as uk.gov says do in the UK, not all sure about that, someone needs to research that). I also do not know what the legal standing of Charles is as Duke of Cornwall/Prince of Wales/hier to the throne, i.e. is that a defined legal position in the UK and Commonwealth. If yes, then yes, his arms should be posted. However, I did agree above with Mr/Ms DeCausa that much more than the 6 arms posted is getting too long, and merits a seperate article (of which there is a cross reference to). JMvanDijk ( talk) 17:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
So, I think you've almost got it. See my Higgs Boson Example above: Elizabeth serves 2 functions simultaneously. She is Elizabeth (Mountbatten-)Windsor, head of the House of Windsor. She is also Queen Elizabeth, the head of the State. As such, her arms are those of the head of state. I don't know if this would actually happen, but I assume if any other member of the royal family used those arms and was not the monarch, HMG could take them to court. If Elizabeth (Mountbatten-)Windsor used them and was not Queen, HMG could probably take her to court. For example, when Edward VIII abdicated, he was not allowed to keep using the arms, as they were the right of the head of state/king, but had new ones assigned to him. This was a seperate act from him being made "duke of Windsor". So, again, those arms are really owned by the State and used by Eliz. Windsor in her capacity as head of state. I would point out that in many countries (not the UK) monarchs have their own personal arms independent of the state arms so just this confusion does not arise. The UK, relying much more on tradition and unwritten rules, has not seen fit to separate the two. JMvanDijk ( talk) 18:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Well yes, there could and should be here to be complete? Someone ought to mention them or put pointers to articles on them. My only interest is in what I posted. To Mr/Ms. Achowat: that is just the point. These arms are hers in both capacities, the UK has not seen fit to seperate those functions. If this is just an article on the Windsor family there is much that ought to be changed/excluded here? JMvanDijk ( talk) 19:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
What denomination (my father was Dutch Reformed). You are making a distinction here without a difference as the UK government does not make it, which is the point. See http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Symbols/History.aspx :
JMvanDijk ( talk) 19:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Understand you not answering the faith question. Now to HMG. I do not understand how the opinion of HMG and British (as well as commonwealth law) have no bearing. Without their position as head of state, the house of Windsor is in a similar position to any of the other dispossed royal houses (see for example their distant cousins, the Kings of Bulgaria): of mere curiosity interest. Actually, now that I think of it, King Simeon II returned back at the beginning of the decade, but as an elected prime minister. As such, he did not use the royal title and the royal arms. They had no bearing to the state of Bulgaria of which he was prime minister. He was known as "Simeon Sakskoburggothski"(sp?). That situation is a distinction does not exist in the UK. Hence, the laws and statues of the government are quite relevant. The Lord Chamberlain (a member of the government) even publishes on the uk.gov website guidiance for use of the royal arms (as well as other royal images): things you can do and things they will prosecute you for ( http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/Usag%20of%20the%20Royal%20Arms%5B1%5D.pdf). JMvanDijk ( talk) 20:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC) 'JMvanDijk'; your assertions on this matter are not taking into account several things of which you may be unaware. i.It would not be under the jurisdiction of the British Government to take a person to court: as regards armorial matters, it is under the jurisdiction as regards the court of chivalry in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (which has not sat since 1953, and then after a several-hundred year hiatus) and the Court of the Lord Lyon as regards Scotland. The royal arms are only 'the arms of the government' because the British government, as in all monarchies; is acting in the name of the monarch. Whilst you are correct in saying that some monarchies have one coat of arms for the monarch and another for the state (although in fact it is only Denmark that makes this distiction in law.), if you would look more closely you would notice that in all instances where this is the case, the arms 'of the state' or 'of the government' are really just 'lesser' versions of the royal arms, they are not completely different arms altogether; and to claim or do otherwise (as the Danish government does, much to the disdain of heraldists) is just bad heraldic practice, and has nothing to do with the British monarchy being 'traditional'. ii. You don't seem to be aware of the constitutional nature of a monarch, or the fundamental constitutional difference between a monarchy and a republic. In a monarchy, the monarch, at least in law, is sovereign; all authority in theory derives from or is granted or delegated from them and them alone. Courts, government, etc. are carried out in the name of the monarch (hence why someone being prosecuted by the state in the UK for example; the case will be 'The Crown vs whoever') In heraldry, the arms of the monarch reflect this, so the arms of the monarch and the state are one and the same. In essence, the monarch, in legal terms at least is the state. The Queen of the UK is quite a unique case in respect of the fact that she is quite separately Queen of 16 separate sovereign states in their own right, as she is separately Queen of 16 different sovereign states, she bears 16 separate Arms of Dominion in respect to each state she is Queen of. Now, in a republic, the people are the sovereign, not the head of state. The President of the United States of America; for example, is not a sovereign. The arms represent the people as a whole, and the state at the same time; and not a monarch. The courts, government; everything in a republic is; at least in theory, in the name of the people (which; likewise, is why a person being prosecuted by the state in a republic will be 'The People' vs whoever.) This is why; for example, why various American Presidents have borne and used arms that are completely different from those of the United States itself. The same is true of various other republics: the various Doges of the Republic of Venice all bore arms that were completely different from those of the Republic of Venice itself; and so have various other republican heads of state throughout history. To quote the famous heraldic writer, J.P. Brooke-Little, Norroy and Ulster King of Arms, in his 1983 edition of 'Boutell's Heraldry' (page 222): "Royal Arms, or Arms of Dominion, are inseparable from the rank and office of royalty, and cannot be borne undifferenced by any person except the Sovereign...The Royal Arms may not be quartered without some difference. In the persons of Sovereigns, all minor ranks and titles are merged in their royalty, consequently whatever arms they may previously have borne cease to be used at their accession, and no other arms may be quartered with the Royal Arms." Furthermore; he writes in his 1978 book 'An Heraldic Alphabet'(under 'Arms of Dominion', page 38): "These, which are also styled 'arms of sovereignty', are those borne by a sovereign in respect to the territories over which he rules rather than his own family arms. The Royal Arms are Arms of Dominion; The Queen's arms of descent would be the arms of her branch of the House of Saxony. Arms of Dominion do not follow the ordinary rules and conventions of armory but are settled ad hoc by the monarch, usually, or course, with ministerial and heraldic advice." Hence, as the law of arms is universal, for a monarch to have different arms from those of the state is patently a nonsense. iii.You seem to be only dimly aware of cadency, also known as marks of difference or brisures. In some countries, the arms of families (and especially royal families) are 'differenced'; that is, each individual member of a family will bear slightly different arms (in some way) from those of the head of the family, and this is particularly true (and neccesary; because the arms of the monarch are also the arms of public authority for the state over which they reign/rule) of royal families. It is the case in the royal families of the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and in various dethroned royal families. But it is not the case in all heraldry worldwide, and particularly not in the heraldry of german and Scandinavian families, and particularly the royal families-notably; neither the Danish nor the Norwegian royal family uses cadency. In the case of the UK, each individual member of the royal family is assigned arms by Letters Patent which are in theory a new grant of arms. (they are not inherited and the family member in question does not bear arms until they are granted.) This has in nearly every case been the royal arms with an Argent label of three points for the child of a monarch, and an Argent label of five points for a male-line grandchild. Indeed, even the Queen herself used different arms prior to her accession as Queen. As the royal arms are the arms of the Queen herself and no-one else, it would be inappropriate to use these arms when only one member (the Queen) is entitled by law to use them, and at any rate the House has been assigned a heraldic badge to represent it as a whole. Please refer to the wikipedia pages as regards 'Cadency' and 'Cadency Labels of the British Royal Family' in relation to this. You might learn a great deal. iv.There is no Letters Patent, Order-In-Council, nor Act of Parliament denoting Elizabeth II as 'Head of the House of Windsor'-whilst I am not denying this is something she may be de facto; she certainly is not de jure, i.e. there is no 'official position' that the Queen occupies separate from her dignity as sovereign and Queen. In other words; there is no such thing as a 'Head' of the House of Windsor. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 20:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
JWULTRABLIZZARD: so was aware of the above, and thank you for posting it in such detail. I was trying to appeal to British law independent of heraldic law, which as you state, goes to the Court of Arms, which does not meet regularly. (The marks of candidacy are, as you hint at, an interesting question, as they are granted by warrant by the sovereign, but it unclear if anyone but the sovereign has any "standing" in the British state.) As such the link I posted takes the point of view (I leave it lawyers to judge) that the arms are a legitimate "trademark" of the government and the sovereign as the governement (as you say), i.e the Crown in Parliament, and all power theoretically devolves from her/him. Definitely not what we/I have in a republic. So, what better argument for posting the royal arms here (as I think you are saying)? Achowat: yes, if the UK goined the Ukraine, all the above would not apply/dissapear, unless the Ukraine passed laws to uphold it. The House of Windsor would still exist, and I suppose they could use the arms, and the Ukraine might even try to prevent them in a court of law, if they cared to. In any case, they would have the importance of their deposed cousins of other royal houses (e.g. like Bulgaria), i.e. not much. I do not know if Bulgaria cares if the Sakskoburggothskis use the arms. 21:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMvanDijk ( talk • contribs) I really don't get what you mean by 'it unclear if anyone but the sovereign has any "standing" in the British state'-the only person in the whole royal family who has any 'standing' is the Queen and no-one else. "if the UK goined (sic) the Ukraine, all the above would not apply/dissapear, unless the Ukraine passed laws to uphold it. The House of Windsor would still exist, and I suppose they could use the arms, and the Ukraine might even try to prevent them in a court of law, if they cared to. In any case, they would have the importance of their deposed cousins of other royal houses (e.g. like Bulgaria), i.e. not much. I do not know if Bulgaria cares if the Sakskoburggothskis use the arms." -If Britain became a republic or became part of the Republic of the Ukraine; not only would the new British republic or province probably adopt arms that were different to those of the preceding United Kingdom (although they're not forced to-the present republics of Romania, Bulgaria and Serbia are identical to those of the former Kingdoms); but the House of Windsor would almost definitely keep on using the arms they already use; as many deposed Royal families already have. By a curious coincidence btw; the arms of Simeon II (and, as the Bulgarian royal family does not use marks of cadency; everyone else in the Bulgarian Royal Family) and the modern Republic of Bulgaria are exactly the same. But at any rate, there is no regulation of personal heraldry in Bulgaria-though there is of civic- and any arms borne by Simeon II would have been his family/personal arms; its just a coincidence that they're the same as the Republic. At any rate, Simeon II was elected as a head of government; not a head of state, so I hardly see how that is relevant. At any rate; the individual; differenced arms of the members of the House of Windsor might warrant being included on the page detailing the differet members of the House of Windsor; but as there are no arms for the whole house; then putting them here is not relevant when they are only used by one member of the House; i.e. the Queen. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 10:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC) -also; a couple of points: i.The issue of cadency is supremely relevant because; where the House of Windsor not to use marks of cadency; then all members of the House would use the same arms; and it would be relevant to use the arms on this page. As it happens of course; the House of Windsor does use cadency marks and that is why it would not be relevant to use the Arms of Dominion of the UK here. It would have been relevant if say; the page were about the Norwiegan Royal Family (as they don't use marks of cadency) but it is not relevant here ii.On the continent; all members of a House share an equal rank. Thus; in the Royal House of Saxony for example; all members are Duke/Duchess of Saxony. Same with the Bavarian royal family; same with the Hohenzollerns, same with the Belgian Royal familyHowever; in the UK; only the head of a House is of noble rank: all other members of the house are commoners. That is why a Duke, for example, is the only member of his family who bears a title; all the titles borne by for example his eldest son and his eldest male-line grandson are titles of courtesy; they do not bear the titles in their own right (that is; their titles are not substantive)-this major difference between the nature of continental nobility and that of British nobility is I think the source of the confusion here-it is only the head of the family-the Queen-who has any rank or political role. Everyone else-even the Prince of Wales-has no role. "the Ukraine might even try to prevent them in a court of law, if they cared to." -No they wouldn't because the Ukrainian Republic does not regulate the use of personal arms (as the royal arms would become if Britain became part of the Ukraine or became a republic) -but they do civic arms-thus a deposed House of Windsor could in theory bear whatever arms they wanted. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 11:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Good point there, I stand corrected on them becoming personal arms. 207.45.43.68 ( talk) 14:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Perhaps we should get back on topicAfter Hungary and Prime Ministers and Trademarks and Marks of Cadency and the Higgs Boson...I'm rebooting this discussion. Is there any compelling reason to include the Arms of the UK on this page? Achowat ( talk) 21:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Have you folks read carefully the comments above, the primary sources (which I thought encyclopedias where suppossed to follow as good research practice) and very erudite comments of JWULTRABLIZZARD. You are substituting your (personal) opinion for established custom and fact. In some sense, it really doesn't matter, its only a wiki article. But really, the expert sources/primary sources say there is not difference between British Monarchy = House of Windsor = British Royal Family. At least put in link to the proper coat of arms, and those of you that live in the UK, open your eyes the next time you go into a public building and watch TV and you'll see these arms displayed. Last word on the subject. 207.45.43.68 ( talk) 14:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I think if you asked someone in the House of Windsor, they would disagree with you. 207.45.43.68 ( talk) 14:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC) JMvanDijk ( talk) 15:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Sorry, I meant to say my last word on the subject. We seem to be getting nowhere faster and faster. Perhaps a 3rd party? I will ask for one. 207.45.43.68 ( talk) 14:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC) JMvanDijk ( talk) 15:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, we seem to be getting nowhere fast. I could not ask the duke in a quick timeframe, but here is what the prince of Wales' webpage says: http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/personalprofiles/theprinceofwales/abouttheprince/index.html:
:In addition to the feathers, The Prince has a coat of arms with long historical links with the heraldry of his ancestors.
And really, I do need to get some work done now. JMvanDijk ( talk) 15:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
-Regardless of how well sourced and 'erudite' my comments are, 'JMvanDijk'; they serve to contradict, not support your arguments. Also; 'DrKiernan', sorry to be a pedant, but the arms Or, a fess compony Argent and Azure are the arms borne by the Head of the House of Stuart prior to them gaining the Scottish throne, and not the arms of the House of Stuart (because there's no such thing, nor has there ever been). There is no such thing as 'Arms of a House' in British heraldry, and particularly not Scottish heraldry; which has the legal requirement of 'one man, one arms', that is; each member of a family must have arms that are 'differenced' by a difference (in Scotland, this is usually a bordure of various tincture.) from those of the Head of the family.
Also 'Achowat'; the only person really directly relevant to 'the British monarchy' is the Queen. Until either of them succeed to the throne, the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge are still only in the line of succession and could at any time be displaced by their deaths or through removal from the line of succession (for example if one of them became a Roman Catholic.) Note also that whilst the Queen herself has Arms of Dominion in respect to each of the 16 sovereign states of which she is separately Queen of in a personal union; none of the other members of the House of Windsor have arms in right of any of the other commonwealth realms; they only do so as regards the UK. "the arms of the house are not the same as the arms of the kingdom or the arms of the monarch. The house of Windsor does not have a coat of arms." -As I showed above; the arms of the Kingdom and the arms of the monarch are one and the same. Yes; those are the arms of Scotland; but don't forget they were also the arms of James VI before 1603 as well. That they are sometimes referred to in blazon as 'Scotland' is really just convention and for ease of blazoning really. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 15:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
-A good point actually; albeit it's only as regards the Duchy of Cornwall. However; that's not really in the nature of a sovereignty or even a feudal relationship like it was originally. Perhaps the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall do warrant a mention, if only a brief, passing one. Also, sorry to be a pedant yet again; but the Queen is not Duke of Normandy, or Duchess of Normandy; or anything of Normandy for that matter. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 16:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
JWULTRABLIZZARD: so then what am I not understanding about why the arms of the Queen (Écartelé, en 1 et 4 de gueules aux trois léopards d'or, en 2 d'or, au lion de gueules, au double trescheur fleuronné et contre-fleuronné du même et en 3 d'azur, à la harpe d'or, cordée d'argent) should not be posted here? JMvanDijk ( talk) 16:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC) I think what you are saying is that the Queen, as the head of the house has her arms, other members have their's, differenced with marks of candency. However, the Queen is one member of the house, so it would be a generalization not allowed by the laws of heraldry to allow her arms to stand for the whole house? Of course, what I'm saying is that the arms are also those of the Monarchy, and are of note in that respect here, as the head of the House is the Monarch. JMvanDijk ( talk) 16:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Because they are the arms of the Queen and the Queen alone, all the other members of the House of Windsor have their own arms that are different from these arms, and the arms of the Queen are not the arms of the House of Windsor, and there are no arms, whether in the UK or anywhere else that are the arms of the House of Windsor. The only thing the House of Windsor has as a whole is a badge, and nothing else. You seem to also not understand that 'monarchy' (from the greek monos archos) means quite literally 'rule by one person', not rule by a family. Also; its Mr. JWULTRABLIZZARD. The Queen is also not Duke of Lancaster; regardless of the existence of the Duchy of Lancaster. A monarch cannot hold a lesser title from themselves. They cannot hold a peerage title in their own right, and the Dukedom of Lancaster is extinct according to the Letters Patent creating it. But the Duchy itself still exists separate from the crown estates according to the Letters Patent even if the monarch does not (and can not) hold the title. She does not have any title in respect to and within the United Kingdom other than 'by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of her other realms and territories Queen, Defender of the Faith' -granted, she holds other titles in respect to and in other countries outside of the UK, but in respect to the UK, that is the only title she holds. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 16:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
"it would be a generalization not allowed by the laws of heraldry to allow her arms to stand for the whole house?" -Absolutely correct. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 16:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Well I understand the meaning of monarchy (think we all learned that greek root as children?). However, MR. JWULTRABLIZZARD does have the most precise and closely drawn legalistic point from reliable sources, i.e. it would be a generalization not allowed by the laws of heraldry to allow her arms to stand for the whole house. I checked and found:
Given that, I was only trying to follow general practice of taking the head of the House's arms for those of the House. Never having seen this badge except in Wiki, I do take some heart that the badge includes the Royal Standard made up of the royal arms. However, I yield to those sources/experts, i.e. Mr. JWULTRABLIZZARD, and his sources, including,J.P. Brooke-Little. JMvanDijk ( talk) 17:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC) P.S. Would point out then, by this logic, that a link to an armorial on the house of Windsor is appropriate. JMvanDijk ( talk) 17:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
No, I agreed to that point at the beginning: don't think it was ever in contention. I just wasn't volunteering to do it. & yes, [[ WP:STICK'd|stick this now]]. JMvanDijk ( talk) 21:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
"Oh, by the way, in Guernsey and Jersey, Her Majesty is, in fact, the Duke of Normandy " -Off topic I know, but she really isn't 'Duke of Normandy'. See here: http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/royalstyle_uk.htm#Normandy and also here: http://www.jerseylaw.je/publications/jerseylawreview/june99/le_rouai.aspx -between 1289 and 1340 the English King held the Channel Islands by virtue of being Duke of Aquitaine, not Duke of Normandy -so; if anything, the Islands are remnants of the Duchy of Aquitaine, not the Duchy of Normandy!(the Normandy title was, by the way; intermittedly awarded to members of the French Royal House by the Kings of France, right up to the 1789 revolution.) after 1340 it was held by virtue of the 'fact' that the King of England was notionally King of France up until 1801. After 1801, there is no title held by the British monarch as regards the Channel Islands. Of course, a Royal Titles Act could be prolumgated by either the British parliament (or the states of either Bailiwick) changing her title to 'Duke/Duchess of Normandy' as regards the Islands, but this has not been done and until this does happen, the only title the Queen has as regards the Islands is simply 'By the grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and her other realms and territories Queen, Defender of the Faith'-nothing more, and nothing less, and that's regardless of the Loyal Toast and the royal website. The former is a tradition, the second is just in error, even if it is the royal website. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 22:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC) What I don't understand as well; 'JMVanDijk', is where on earth you've got the notion that the Queen is somehow 'Head' of the House of Windsor when there is no Act of Parliament, Order in Council, Letters Patent or any other official statement that says she is. Also; her being the monarch doesn't neccesarily mean she is the Head of the House. There are many examples of monarchs on the continent who are not the Heads of the Houses they belong to. For example, both Harald V of Norway and Queen Margrethe II of Denmark are members of the House of Oldenburg; but the Head of the House is Duke Christoph of Schleswig-Holstein. Likewise; King Juan Carlos I of Spain is not the Head of the House of Bourbon; his cousin the Duke of Segovia is, and so on. Not to mention precedent as regards the British monarchy itself: for example, Victoria was a member of the House of Hanover, but the Head of the House of Hanover during her reign was successively her Uncle, her Cousin, and her first cousin once removed (the Dukes of Cumberland; the first two of whom were also Kings of Hanover.) JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 22:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
|
A user or users are insisting that the linked term Saxe-Coburg and Gotha be bolded in the lead. There is no reason to do so, however. WP:MOSBOLDTITLE directs that alternate names for an article subject can be bolded ("Mumbai, also known as Bombay..."), and, though they aren't specifically used as an example, former names could probably be considered as alternate names and thus presented the same way. However, this article's first sentences are clear: the House of Windsor was a new entity when "founded by King George V by royal proclamation on 17 July 1917"; it therefore has no former name. This is only supported by the fact that House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is its own separate article (where the name House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is bolded in the first sentence). -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
-Wholeheartedly agreed. The 'House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha' did not cease to exist in 1917; and continued to exist and indeed still does exist through the male-line descendents of the youngest son of Prince Albert and Queen Victoria; Leopold, Duke of Albany, through his son, Charles Edward, sovereign Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and also in the Saxe-Coburg-Kohary branch; currently represented by the former Bulgarian Royal Family. The House of Windsor was originally created from a branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, but that's it; the 1917 Order-In-Council was quite clear that the new House was a totally new creation; and at any rate, the 1915 House Law of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha specifically excluded from the House any member of the House, domiciled in a foreign country, who fought against the German Empire; which definitely excluded the members of the British Royal Family. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 20:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The South African flag shown in the table at the bottom of the article is the pre 1994 flag. A new flag was adopted after 1994. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jensjakobsen911 ( talk • contribs) 15:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
If Peter and Zara Phillips and also Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella are members of the House of Windsor then we should add the names of the children of Princess Margaret, The Duke of Gloucester, The Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra and also Princess Mary. Also Peter and Zara aren't included in List of members of the House of Windsor. Keivan.f Talk 16:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
The 1917 Proclamation creating the House of Windsor excludes "women who marry and their descendants" from being members of the House of Windsor. That is; only those (male OR female) who are descended in the male line through one of Queen Victoria's sons, in the male line, and who are British subjects are members. With the death of Alistair Arthur, 2nd Duke of Connaught in 1943; and because the male-line descendants of Leopold; Queen Victoria's youngest son, are German citizens (and are not covered by the 1917 proclamation and are thus still members of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha), this in effect limits this membership to the male-line descendants of George V's sons. The 1952 proclamation that included Elizabeth II; her children, and the descendants of her children in the Hose of Windsor was also worded in the same manner and also excluded female-line descendants. Thus; the descendants of Princess Anne, the late Princesses Margaret and Mary are most definitely NOT members of the House of Windsor, as none of them are descended in the male line from either George V or Elizabeth II. However, Lord Frederick Windsor, the Dukes of Kent, and Gloucester, etc. ARE members if the House of Windsor; despite their distance from the throne, because they are all descended from George V in the male line. Hope that clarifies a few things :-) JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 18:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Granted; but the article is about the House of Windsor. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 14:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
If the family tree (which should then be named differently) is only to show members of the House of Windsor surely there should be a diffeent colour coding for the husbands (and particularly the divorced) husbands. In fact if you interpret what is said strictly "women who marry and their descendants" Anne and Margaret never mind their husbands shouldn't be shown - which shows it's a nonsense to make a "family tree" on that basis. PhilomenaO'M ( talk) 20:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
The recent bill on succession now allows royals that marry Catholics to inherit the throne. This should be updated and made clear in the article (July 23, 2013). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.206.188 ( talk) 15:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
It it me but is the table of countries in the Designation and details section hard work to understand, must be far better ways of doing the same thing then an ungainly coloured table (not a prime requirement but it doesnt really work on mobile either). MilborneOne ( talk) 20:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure of how to represent Ireland in the chart. First-up, Ireland changed from the Irish Free State to simply Ireland (under a new constitution) in 1937. Second, while that new constitution made no reference to the monarchy, the monarchy continue to have an external role (e.g. receiving diplomatic letters) until 1949, when Ireland declared itself a republic (see Republic of Ireland Act).
-- Tóraí ( talk) 23:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Is it true that in general Europena royal houses don't possess surname ? What is the reason behind this practicee ?
Siyac 12:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
In what way? PhilomenaO'M ( talk) 06:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
This article says that Queen Elizabeth II is the head of the House of Windsor. Is this accurate? Since dynastic reckoning is traditionally agnatic, isn't Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, who is the most agnatically senior Windsor, as the senior male-line descendent of Prince Albert and Queen Victoria, truly the head of the House of Windsor? JamesReyes ( talk) 00:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
House of Windsor has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To avoid changes, since Elisabeth 2 is also semi-protected, so why isn't her house also protected?! — 73.47.37.131 ( talk) 23:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I've changed the descriptive Queen of the Commonwealth realms to Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms. Why? the former came off as original research. I've never heard of or read about Elizabeth II being called Queen of the Commonwealth realms. GoodDay ( talk) 22:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
My change was reverted. Therefore, I've merely deleted of the Commnonwelath realms. Certaintly, that should be acceptable. GoodDay ( talk) 23:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on House of Windsor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
The lead has been reverted to incorrectly state that "The Windsors are set to be succeeded by the Mountbatten-Windsor family". As the body of the article correctly states, the next several people in the line of succession are all Windsors.-- Trystan ( talk) 15:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
"Other major changes include the introduction of television media, the decline of Christianity and the transformation of the United Kingdom into a multiethnic society through post-colonial immigration." So are we really gonna call a country that's 92% white as multi-ethnic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.202.215 ( talk) 16:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on House of Windsor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
King George VI's relationship to predecessor is "brother of King Edward VIII." King George VI's father was not his immediate predecessor. 98.22.105.73 ( talk) 20:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC) CR
Clarify: If/when Charles ascends the throne(s), he can immediately have the royal house name changed to House of Mountbatten. Each monarch can change the name of his/her royal house, I believe. GoodDay ( talk) 17:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz should be mentioned as a progenitor of the Windsors here. -- Horst-schlaemma ( talk) 11:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)