Talk:Royal Family Order of George V

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Royal Family Order of King Edward VII which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious[edit]

It is claimed that the order came in four different sizes (let's call them XL, L, M and S for convenience). Mary apparently got an XL, Elizabeth apparently got an S. Here's Mary wearing hers: File:Queen Mary Bassano.jpg. Here's Elizabeth wearing hers: File:Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms.jpg. I can't see a size difference. DrKay (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pages 32 & 33 of Royal Service Volume II contain photographs from the makers Garrard of the back and front of the four different sized badges, side by side, to "illustrate the difference in the sizes." Page 42 lists the recipients of each of the four sizes of the badges - two for size 1, 13 for size 2, two for size 3 and six for size 4. DWStudham (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Styles upon conferral or styles now/later[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Further to my posts in the 'Royal Family Order of Elizabeth II' and the 'Royal Family Order of George VI', I wish to discuss whether conferees should be styled as they were at the time that the order was presented to them or how they are now (or became later, or, even, how they are best known). Unlike in the other two articles, there is definitely inconsistency between these stances: 'Princess Elizabeth of York' is how the late Queen Elizabeth II was known when she became a member of the order, whereas 'Mary, Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood' is likely to have become a member of the order before she became Princess Royal, this being in 1932, only four years before her father died.

As before, rather than just stand by idly while policy is enforced in the manner that it has been, I figure that the *democratic* way of handling this is to open it for discussion here. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.