Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 41

Request for Comment: Use of Windsor as last name?
NOTE: For discussions leading up to this RfC see "To show or not show the 'last name' in intro & infobox" and "Infoboxes for others of House of Windsor" in Archive 40 . Qexigator (talk) 08:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

As per the talk thread above, is it appropriate to use Windsor as the last name of the Queen in the article and infobox? Natt39 (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. You cannot settle things like this with an RfC. It's not a matter of taste but factual accuracy. Surtsicna (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * No - The last name should be removed, it's not the practice of the monarch to have a last name. In this case, Windsor is the name of the dynasty's House. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Says you, and you are contradicted by reliable sources. Surtsicna (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't use Windsor in George V, Edward VIII & George VI, fwiw. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So put it there. Surtsicna (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * They didn't use a last name either, just like Elizabeth II doesn't. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * But we have reliable sources stating otherwise. You can go on and on saying it did not happen, but that's not very convincing. Surtsicna (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't use a 'last name' here or on other monarch bio articles. BTW: It's not entirely up to me, whether we use or don't use Windsor in this article's intro & infobox. This is an Rfc, which invites input from many others. As always, I'll abide by the Rfc's consensus result. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And whether we put the last name or not should not be up to an RfC. It should be up to the reliable sources at hand. Surtsicna (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't set up this Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit: Strikethough comment, someone else can fight this fight. I'm not going to waste my Saturday arguing on Wikipedia. However, because one of the points bellow is so completely incorrect I have to correct it... the surname is not recorded in the 'name, if any' column because surnames weren't recorded in this column. The surname of the child is the surname of the father, which is recorded in the 'Name, and surname of father' column. When people point out there is no surname on Elizabeth's birth certificate, they are pointing out that George, Duke of York (later George VI) doesn't have a surname. Which as mentioned earlier, would be the surname of the child. Editing with Eric (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. As I've pointed out above. It's one of her names. Biographies should always list the subject's names. DrKay (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No Monarchs and most royals don't use surnames in the conventional way. There are times a surname might be required for legal documentation (as in the birth reference and marriage certificate examples) but this isn't evidence of a surname so much as it is an example of a historic tradition not fitting within rigid bureaucratic forms that dictate a surname must be provided. She could just have easily had the surname 'York' for her birth reference given her father was Duke of York (I believe Prince William's children are 'of Cambridge' on their birth certificates). It's also worth pointing out that the birth record posted above is how it appears in the references books (whatever it's called), if you look at Elizabeth's actual birth certificate (Google it) you'll see that there is no surname provided on the official document. It's the same for Prince Charles' birth certificate from 1948, neither parent use any surname whatsoever. The British royal family just don't have surnames, but the House of Windsor name (or Mountbatten-Windsor later) can be substituted in if required. Wikipedia isn't a marriage certificate, it doesn't need to pretend Windsor is a surname to satisfy the bureaucracy. Editing with Eric (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no surname on Elizabeth's birth certificate because the surnames were not recorded in the "name, if any" field. See these birth certificates for comparison:, . This matter was also well explained by FactStraight, who correctly described the notion of the British royal family having no surname as "an urban legend among monarchists". So far we have George V's proclamation, Elizabeth II's proclamation, the royal family's website, and the marriage certificates pointing to the fact that they do have a surname. No source has been provided that says they do not have a surname (let alone a source more reliable than the family's own website). Surtsicna (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to add to the above, The Royal Family website has a page on the topic, with the TL;DR being 'it's confusing, but most the time they don't use a surname'. Editing with Eric (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Since everyone can read what it says, we may as well report correctly. The website says: "Before 1917, members of the British Royal Family had no surname, but only the name of the house or dynasty to which they belonged." The obvious takeaway is that since 1917, they have had a surname. Luckily we do not have to guess because the website goes on to say it explicitly: "In 1917, there was a radical change, when George V specifically adopted Windsor, not only as the name of the 'House' or dynasty, but also as the surname of his family." It then mentions some instances in which the surname was used. Not using a surname is not the same as not having a surname, and the website explicitly says that they do have a surname. Surtsicna (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I concur with Eric. She doesn't have a last name. The certificates-in-question required that she use a last name. Elizabeth II could've easily had on them Elizabeth Alexandra Mary York. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither of you provides any evidence, so your statements do not amount to anything - especially since you are contradicted by the woman's own website, which explicitly states that she does have a surname and says the surname is not Windsor (not York or anything else). So try citing some sources, please. Surtsicna (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We'll see how the Rfc goes. Plenty of more folks to hear from. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I take that to mean that there are no citations to be provided in support of your claim. Surtsicna (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Take it as you wish. My argument stands, we don't use a last-name for monarchs. Just have to wait for more input from others. We've got until early March. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not true that we do not use a last name for monarchs. We do it right here in this article (and some others). And we do it because all evidence points to Elizabeth bearing the surname Windsor. Surtsicna (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree. It's currently in the article's intro & infobox, merely because each time it's been removed, the same editor(s) put it back in. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is currently in the article because those who remove it provide no sources for their claim. Just like you are not providing any now. Merely saying "disagree" does not cut it. Surtsicna (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The Rfc's open for a whole month. Already said I'd accept the result, whatever it may be. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please provide a source for the claim that surnames are required on birth or marriage. I've never seen this anywhere before and it seems strange given that many cultures, such as Arabs, don't have them let alone use them. it isn't a legal requirement to actually have either a first name or a surname...It's also possible to have a single name. There are plenty of people in the world who don't use surnames (Cher, Nenê, Voltaire, Hergé, Canaletto, Napoleon, Björk, I'm sure you can come up with your own examples), that doesn't mean we exclude their other names from their biographies. DrKay (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * No because that isn't her surname, it's the name of her Royal House. Simple matter of fact.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 16:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Says who? Elizabeth's official website explicitly contradicts this "simple matter of fact": "Windsor is the surname used by all the male and unmarried female descendants of George V." "Before 1917, members of the British Royal Family had no surname..." "In 1917, there was a radical change, when George V specifically adopted Windsor, not only as the name of the 'House' or dynasty, but also as the surname of his family." Surtsicna (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

No. Look, we can argue all we want about "surname" vs. "dynasty name," but the bottom line at Wikipedia is Reliable Sources. Reliable Sources do not call her "Elizabeth Windsor". They call her "Queen Elizabeth" or "the Queen". (By "Reliable sources" I do not mean an explanatory item on a website; I mean how she is actually referred to in sources that write about her.) And she does not call herself Elizabeth Windsor. I am sorry to see "Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor" in the lead of this article as if it were her name, and I think Windsor should be removed. Or else provide evidence that this is how Reliable Sources refer to her. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S. It looks like "Windsor" was added just a week ago, on January 31, after never being in the article before. Since this is a new revision and is controversial, I think the article should be restored to its longstanding version (no surnames) while the issue is discussed here. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was first added in 2019, after years of not being in the article. Since then, any attempts to remove it, have been met with reverts. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. It's still a recently introduced change to longstanding content. The usual Wikipedia practice in such a case is to keep the longstanding version until there is consensus to change it. BTW the repeated argument from Surtsnica, above, seems to amount to "consensus doesn't matter because the rest of you are just wrong." That's not how Wikipedia works. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The argument I am repeating is that consensus on Wikipedia is not formed by votes or unsubstantiated opinions. Contradicting sources without citing any sources is not how Wikipedia works, and it does not matter how many people contradict them. Nobody is suggesting that we should refer to Elizabeth as Elizabeth Windsor. We do not refer to Cher as Cherilyn Sarkisian, but we do mention her full name in the lead. MOS:FULLNAME is explicit about this. Reliable sources do state that Elizabeth's surname is Windsor (including her own website). Her biographer, Robert Lacey, who is cited in the article, gives her full name as "Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor". And despite Elizabeth not being commonly known as Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, nobody seems to have a problem with her middle names being in the lead. Why? Surtsicna (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Those are not her middle names; those constitute her full name. Her name is Elizabeth Alexandra Mary. Her oldest son's name is Charles Philip Arthur George. The full name of Prince William of Gloucester whom I mention below is William Henry Andrew Frederick. That's how it works for royals. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, her full name is Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor. We have reliable sources confirming that. We have her biographer, we have the BBC, we have the Telegraph. We also have primary sources, for what that's worth. What sources to the contrary do we have? It's mind-boggling that I have to keep asking this question. Surtsicna (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry but that is simply incorrect the exact same policy MOS:FULLNAME that you quote there goes on to say Only incorporate surnames in the opening line of royal biographies if they are known and if they are in normal use. But do not automatically presume that the name of a royal house is the personal surname of its members. In many cases it is not. For visual clarity, articles on monarchs should generally begin with the form "{name} {ordinal if appropriate} (full name – but without surname; birth and death dates, if applicable)" It appears that policy on this is clearer than we all thought. I am too inexperienced to know what the protocol for calling these discussions are but at this point I would not object if someone did. Natt39 (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And in this case the surname is known and the name of the royal house is Elizabeth's surname. That is what her website explicitly says. So including the surname is in line with MOS:FULLNAME. Surtsicna (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There are two sources actually shown within this section. ...It's really not difficult to find sources. DrKay (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the sources. So the name Windsor has occasionally been used - particularly during the war when she was working in the trenches and wanted to fit in. (Royals do this; in college I once knew Prince William of Gloucester, who was listed on the university roster as "Gloucester, Prince William of" but introduced himself as Bill Gloucester.) But the Wikipedia policy quoted above (thank you, Natt) is clear: we only use surnames for royals if they are in normal use. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Similarly, and famously, Prince Harry's military title was Captain Wales, not Captain Windsor. Kahastok talk 21:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * No - Manual_of_Style/Biography and WP:NCROY are quite clear that we should not use surnames or family names in cases such as this, where the subject is royalty and their surname is not in common use. Kahastok talk 21:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. It'll have to go somewhere. I think in this discussion too much effort has been put into sticking with a "yes" or a "no" answer to the question, and not enough effort has been put into explaining nuance or finding a compromise. For example, I was going to suggest that one compromise would be to put her surname in a footnote, which is done for most of the members of her family, but I do find those footnotes intrusive and rather silly. I mean 'The Queen doesn't usually use a surname, but when she does it is "Windsor"', is rather like writing 'The Queen doesn't usually use her other Christian names but when she does they are "Alexandra Mary"'. See what I mean? You may as well not bother with the parameter when it leads to such footnotes. I think I'd prefer to remove the parameter from the infobox, which is already an absurd length and so full of extraneous and nuanced information it's almost impossible to parse, and then have the footnote in the opening line instead. Anyway, that's my idea for compromise. Perhaps other people can think up another one; it looks like there was already a bit of an effort below as some of the comments there appear to imply that the surname could be removed from the opening line if it was kept in the infobox, or that the Accession and coronation section could be expanded to include a more explicit explanation of her full name. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes According to Wikipedia, citing Oxford Dictionaries, 'A surname, family name, or last name is the portion (in some cultures) of a personal name that indicates a person's family.' A print copy of The Oxford Handy Dictionary (OUP 1978): 'Name common to all members of a family, a person's hereditary name.' I concur with the comments of DrKay, Surtsicna, and Celia Homeford. Qexigator (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The issue I find here is that people are trying to shoehorn an exceptional case into a pattern that it does not fit. There is a cultural expection of the role of middle names and of a surname.  The Royals' use of middle names falls firmly within that expectation (with exceptions that do not apply here).  "Windsor" simply isn't used in the way that most people in Britain and other countries use surnames.


 * It's said above The Queen doesn't usually use a surname, but when she does it is "Windsor". That's actually not obvious in practice.  As noted above, there are plenty of examples of Royals using other things as a "surname" without significant comment.  The fact that people are having to scrabble about to try and find instances of this usage demonstrates that the usage is relatively rare.


 * The status quo totally ignores this fact. From the first sentence you would assume that the Queen uses Windsor in the same way that David Beckham uses "Beckham".  She does not.  Neither the lede nor the infobox has so much as a footnote making it clear that royal usage is not the same as usage by other families.  This is misleading and a disservice to the reader.


 * The best way of dealing with this? Remove the name from the infobox, where it is unnecessary and adds bloat.  Remove it from the lede as per our own style guidelines.  If any further discussion is required, beyond what already exists in the accession and coronation section, then actually explain it to the reader in a "name" section. Kahastok talk 10:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In view of some comments so far on this Talk page, it may be remarked that it is not evident that Elizabeth's surname Windsor was discontinued when she became head of the House of Windsor on her father's death. It is evident that as queen her title and status of princess discontinued, but not that her surname was thereby discontinued, given that her birth was in the reign of George V, when her father's elder brother was heir apparent and Prince of Wales, and that she was born with the title Princess and the surname Windsor, and continued so while heir presumptive, after her uncle's abdication, until she herself became the reigning queen on her father's death. Her younger sister's title as Princess continued until her death, while her surname Windsor continued until her marriage. Qexigator (talk) 07:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * No Windsor is the house name, it seems bizarre that she is born with a name and then doesn't change it on marriage... from the head of the church to ignore such tradition.... Jamesington (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Windsor is her surname, as stated on her own website, her biographers, and reputable media outlets. We are not here to discuss her life choices. Surtsicna (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No Since the house is already listed, it seems redundant to me. While yes it is technically her last name, in her case saying it is her "house" or "Dynasty" is more accurate.Nightenbelle (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * House and surname are two different things, as explained by the subject's website. Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor is a member of the House of Windsor, but so is Charles Arthur Philip George Mountbatten-Windsor. The point here is that it is factually wrong to state that the subject's full name is Elizabeth Alexandra Mary. Surtsicna (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * No Her Majesty is not known by the name Windsor, which is the name of her dynastic house. Prince Harry was known as Harry Wales in the Military. This doesn't mean his actual surname is Wales. Neither is Prince George's surname Cambridge. Steepleman (t) 06:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The subject's website states that her surname is Windsor. So do her biographers and other reliable sources. Please cite sources if you want to dispute that. Surtsicna (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Some comments on this page seem to disregard facts already in the public domain. Princess Elizabeth's marriage certificate (see inset above), in the box for Full name and surname, shows, under "Philip Mountbatten", hers as "Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor". He signs as "Philip" she signs as Elizabeth, her mother signs as Elizabeth R. Unlike her sister Princess Margaret, Elizabeth did not take her husband's surname at any time. Following custom, her Royal sign-manual, where no surname is used, is her regnal name ""Elizabeth" followed by "R" for Regina. Qexigator (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * + Given that Elizabeth's mother's surname at birth (Bowes-Lyon), has been in the infobox from as long ago as 2005, and that she signed her daughter's marriage certificate as "Elizabeth R", and Elizabeth's surname is known to have been Windsor from birth and, unlike that of other female descendants of hers or of George V, remained unchanged on or after marriage, what good reason is there for removing Elizabeth's surname from the infobox, where such information is usually included? Qexigator (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * + MOS royal surnames, when read as carefully as it was composed, section by section and line by line, can be seen as supporting keeping the surname Windsor as Elizabeth's last name in the infobox:- first, because it is the correct surname, and secondly, because in her case, it shows that it is the same as the House name, and that she has it in common with some others of that House, but unlike certain others of the same House whose surname is Mountbatten-Windsor, except in the case of females who marry a person of another surname (it is possible that some day Mountbatten-Windsor cousins could marry). Qexigator (talk) 09:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Some comments here ignore the WP:Verifiability policy. Are we really expected to disregard her official website, her biographer, and other sources just because some Wikipedia editors contradict them? Surtsicna (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * No We go by WP:COMMONNAME, which in turn stems from want third-party, independent reliable sources use. There she is consistently referred to as "The Queen", "Elizabeth II" and "Queen Elizabeth". "But the Queen's own website..." is only half relevant. As a primary source it can be used to tell us something happened (that a name was introduced in 1917), but not what the long-term intention was behind it (i.e., whether or was intended to ever become a surname in the popular sense of the word). No-one's doubting that Windsor is used as a family (house) name, and occasionally individually as a surname (e.g., IIRC, William and Henry went by the surname Windsor at school), but not consistently or persistently enough for it to be the name the Queen (or other Westminster monarchs) is/have been known by in the sources. Incidentally,, have done enough Wp:BLUDGEON for one RfC I think; if it continues, then ANI. (Note:  also bludgeoning. Between you, you three have replied to every !vote you disagree with it. Everyone knows your opinion; you will not change minds with this WP:BATTLEGROUND approach.)  ——  SN  54129  09:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC) (updated  ——  SN  54129  10:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC))
 * Participants here as elsewhere would do well not to use ad hominem threats to support a weak argument based on WP:COMMONNAME, failing to rebut the points under discussion. Qexigator (talk) 09:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME is about article titles. Nobody is suggesting that the article be renamed Elizabeth Windsor. We are discussing whether "Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor" should be listed under "Full name". Third-party, independent reliable sources do state that her full name is Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, including her biographer Robert Lacey, the BBC, and the Telegraph. The fact that she is not generally referred to by her surname does not mean that her surname should not be mentioned as part of her full name. Napoleon, Adele, Prince, and others all have their surnames given in the infobox and the lead. Surtsicna (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I could hardly care less what you call me. I am not giving my opinion. I am reporting what the sources say. I am aware that this will not change your opinion, but I will continue to point to sources and to ask for sources. So report away. Surtsicna (talk) 10:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, how nice that User:Surtsicna prefers to troll than to contribute to a rounded discussion. Still, no real surprise. ——  SN  54129  13:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm glad I'm rising to your expectations. Surtsicna (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * No. Arguments made by Natt39 make the most sense to me. Darwin Naz (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you please elaborate why you find a Wikipedia user who does not cite sources more convincing than a variety of secondary sources cited in this discussion? Surtsicna (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am simply stating that I agree with the bulk of the points raised by Natt39. I do not intend to add to the length of the discussion by repeating the arguments he made. Darwin Naz (talk) 13:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * No this appears to be trying to mix chalk and cheese. There is a private person, who, if she held a driving licence (or some other mechanical legal document), it would bear the name E. Windsor, but whether she actually ever uses it - or whether others ever use it to refer to her is pretty dubious, maybe when she was a Girl Guide, but extremely rarely - if ever - since then. Then there is a public person who, by chance has adopted the 'regnal' name Elizabeth (ie the same name as her given birth name). You cannot mix the two, just as you cannot mix Pope John Paul Karol Józef Wojtyła. The Pope may continue to hold private bank accounts in his 'birth' name as far as I know, but no one would mix the private and 'regnal' names.Pincrete (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC) ps The present article text seems misleading in claiming that her marriage certificate is signed as proof of her surname. Yes the certificate IS signed, by her and him and immediate relatives of both ... but their signatures in each and every case are first names only. This is proof that all of them may have legal surnames, but that they are almost never used even by themselves. George R, Alice, Elizabeth, Philip etc. I think that if we do refer to her surname, it should be in text not infobox. The nuances of a surname which is almost never used by or about the subject seem too subtle for a simple infobox entry.Pincrete (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I see only one mention of the marriage certificate, not in the text but as the first in the References section linked to the infobox. It correctly states "Her full name can be seen on her marriage certificate, which is signed by both her and her father". The certificate clearly evidences that the signatories, including her mother, father and other family members, witnessed that Philip's surname was Mountbatten and Elizabeth's was Windsor. Philip and Elizabeth also signed the certificate. There has never been a suggestion that any of them made a mistake, or somehow failed to understand the meaning and effect of what they were signing. Apparently, there is no evidence that the surname of either was later changed in any way.  For uncropped image see Qexigator (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody is suggesting that we call her Elizabeth Windsor, i.e. mix her regnal name and her surname. The question is whether her full name (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor) should be mentioned. The regnal name does not include the latter forenames just like it does not include the surname. Virtually nobody calls her Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, but virtually nobody calls her Elizabeth Alexandra Mary either. Surtsicna (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Surtsinca, thank you for that helpful explanation. I had not previously noticed the concealed misunderstanding that may be underlying at least some of the comments here in favour of letting the infobox state (erroneously) "Full name - Elizabeth Alexandra Mary", on the suppostion that the last two are completing the name at the top of the infobox. Just as "Windsor" has two distinct uses, one as the name of the House and the other as a surname, so "Elizabeth" is used as the first of her forenames but also as her regnal name. Her father's first forename was Albert, he was known among family and friends as "Bertie" but took George as his regnal name. The article mentions that Elizabeth was called "Lilibet" by close family, and that on becoming queen she herself decided to take "Elizabeth" for her regnal name, which she uses when signing "Elizabeth R." Qexigator (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify. Nobody's recommending that the article title be changed. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it is established that she has a legal surname - which is only ever used by her or anyone else in the very rare circumstances that Title/Royal-rank followed by first name are either inapt or inadequate (does she have a passport, does she have private bank accounts, has she ever held a driving licence, how was she referred to in the Guides or in the ATS - Sergeant Windsor?). Is it helpful however to put it into the infobox? Are people going to understand - without explanation - that Elizabeth Windsor is almost never used by anyone? Does it clarify or muddle to include in the infobox as though the name were used in the normal fashion?Pincrete (talk) 08:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * But the article never calls her Elizabeth Windsor, and nobody is arguing that it should. Her surname is not normally used, but neither are her forenames (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary) or the surnames of Napoleon, Titian, Michelangelo, Adele, Madonna, Rihanna, etc. If we do list something that we call "Full name", then surely that should be the verifiable full name. Surtsicna (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * No. Even if the Queen technically has a surname, it is hardly ever used, so it would be WP:UNDUE to include it in this article, except under a section (if one existed) specifically discussing such names. Source not specifically addressing the surname issue don't append a surname on to her full name, for example Britannica, History.com, book sources. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I cannot see how it could be undue for a biography to state the subject's surname. There are many people who are hardly ever known by their surnames, yet Wikipedia biographies mention them, from Napoleon to Adele. But in any case, thank you for bothering to cite some sources. Surtsicna (talk) 12:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Wikipedia should follow what reliable secondary sources do.  Wikipedia content should not be based upon sleuthed obscure official primary source documents.  The fact that her registered birth surname was Windsor belongs in the content, but not given UNDUE prominence. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Several secondary sources stating her full name have been cited, from an academic biographer to the BBC and The Telegraph. Do you think her forenames (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary) are also given undue prominence? This might help us reach a compromise. Surtsicna (talk) 12:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, because her forenames are widely attested, including in the sources I gave above. Her "surname" is rarely found in sources, other than in the context of her royal house. And generally the surname is only mentioned in very specific places such as the royal website cited several times above, which deals with the formal question of whether she has a surname at all. But the vast majority of sources don't use a surname for her. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes to most of that, but it is demonstrably not true that the subject's forenames are more widely attested than her surname. Newspapers have written about her surname constantly throughout her reign; as for her forenames, I would not be surprised if the last article to delve into them was published in 1926. Surtsicna (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Featured article status
The MOS:FULLNAME guideline being used as an argument by the "No" lobby above applies explicitly to the opening line only, but the "Noes" seem determined to apply it universally and thereby remove the name Windsor from the entire article. This is an extreme view that they seem happy to support despite multiple reliable sources proving that the article is non-compliant with the featured article criteria on reliability, comprehensiveness and neutrality if her full name is censored. If the full name is censored, then the article will have to be listed at featured article review for potential delisting. DrKay (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * We could equally argue, of course, that if the name remains in place in clear and obvious violation of our style guidelines, the article would fail featured article criterion number 2, and would therefore have to be listed at featured article review for potential delisting. Kahastok talk 21:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a simple matter to remove one word from one line and render the article compliant. It is different matter when, like you, you actually want to remove a relevant fact from the article entirely. There is no guideline supporting such a view. In fact, they oppose it. DrKay (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You are drawing vast interpretations of my views without any evidence to support them. Unless you can tell me where I referred to the Accession and coronation section of the article? Kahastok talk 21:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You were asked, "is it appropriate to use Windsor as the last name of the Queen in the article"? You replied, "no". DrKay (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I replied "no", per two explicit guidelines, in the context of a discussion about the first line and infobox. The usage of the name "Windsor" in "Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor" in those places goes directly against those guidelines and also against the standard practice on other similar articles.


 * I note that removing the name "Windsor" from "Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor" in those two places would bring us back to the point when the article was first featured back in 2012. It is difficult to see that it would now be grounds for delisting.


 * I see nothing in the above, or in any part of the context, that suggests that anyone who said "no" advocates removing the entire paragraph on this subject in the Accession and coronation section of the article. Kahastok talk 21:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I see nothing in the guidelines that advocates removing the full name from an infobox parameter called "full name", and keeping the full name there would take us back to the version of the article that has been stable for well over a year. DrKay (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Up until 2019, we (for years) had it as Elizabeth Alexandra Mary. Furthermore, having Windsor in the intro & infobox, puts the article out of sync with George V, Edward VIII, George VI, as well as her children & her paternal first cousins. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And not having "Windsor" in the intro and the infobox (the field explicitly called "Full name") makes the article factually incorrect. I always choose accuracy over sync. Surtsicna (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Your argument here is certainly a slippery slope if I ever saw one. It is quite clear that the people above, including myself, are advocating the removal from the first line and info box only as per the style guidelines. No one has suggested throughout the two discussions on this matter on this page that we purge Windsor from the entire article and I don’t believe that anyone other than yourself has come to that conclusion either. If you feel, that should this be the consensus outcome, you would like the article’s feature status to be reviewed then that is of course your right. I fail, however to see what your point is beyond that.Natt39 (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm irritated by these false tropes. It has been in the infobox since September 2018. There is no guideline advocating removal from the infobox. DrKay (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't have a last name used in the intros/infoboxes of George V, Edward VIII, George VI, the current prince of Wales, the princess royal, the duke of York, the earl of Wessex, duke of Cambridge, duke of Sussex, duke of Gloucester, duke of Kent, etc. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't talk past me or repeat points. Correct your false statements. DrKay (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t believe anyone has made any false statements here. GoodDay’s point is completely valid and points have similarly been repeated on both sides of the argument. “Go and add it then” for example. I mean, come on, we’re discussing a single word here there’s limited scope for discussion. I will admit that I was unaware that the word had been used in the info box since 2018 but given that the rest of the Queen’s extended family do not use it I would argue that it was the used HERE in error not the other way around. Unless you wish to achieve consensus a on the other all articles as well in which case we would of course accept that. If you want a specific guideline to remove it from the infobox I would argue it falls under WP:CON Seriously though it’s a single word used erroneously twice on a single article and consensus so far is to remove it, there are bigger fights to be had elsewhere. Natt39 (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet more false statements. You stated that you "are advocating the removal from the info box only as per the style guidelines". That is false. You know and knew it to be false because I said so twice before you said it and once since. There is no such style guideline. GoodDay stated that the surname had been absent from the article "up until 2019". That is false, which I pointed out both before and after he repeated it. Despite knowing it to be false, he has chosen not to correct his false statement. DrKay (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Very well, 2018. Since then, every time it was deleted? it was always restored. GoodDay (talk) 07:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Just because you have said something does not make my statement false. You have also misquoted me by cherry picking my comment. What I actually said was ”we are are advocating the removal from the first line and info box only as per the style guidelines.” I believe your interpretation of policy is incorrect. I have cited which policies I believe to apply here and judging by the comments above the the majority of commenters agree with me. You are not the arbiter of policy or of what is and isn’t correct. As far as I’m concerned MOS:FULLNAME covers the first line and WP:CON the infobox. Unfortunately while I was quite enjoying this argument, since it has become apparent that you were not going to get consensus to retain your edits your responses have changed from an argument of the facts to attacks on the credibility of others statements based on your own and even downright rudeness by telling other contributors “not to speak past you” no one here is behaving like a schoolchild and as such no one deserves to be treated as such. I’ve zero interest in continuing this conversation with you. Natt39 (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "attacks on the credibility of others"? You mean like "misquoted me by cherry picking", "your interpretation of policy is incorrect", "You are not the arbiter of policy", "downright rudeness", "behaving like a schoolchild"? DrKay (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

An article that fails to mention the subject's surname (i.e. full name), as given on the subject's official website, in the subject's peer-reviewed biographies, and in the most reputable media outlets, cannot possibly meet FA standards. Surtsicna (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Given that you're making the same claim debunked above, I think you should also now cite a point in this discussion where somebody has proposed to remove the part of the article that discusses this point in detail. As opposed to just changing the first sentence and infobox, which would bring the article back into line with the version that passed WP:FAC in the first place. Kahastok talk 09:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You're the one that started that false trope. The "Ayes" never claimed that there was a desire to amend the Accession and coronation section. You were the first person to mention it. DrKay (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You said that I and others wanted to "remove the name Windsor from the entire article" and described this as censorship. When I asked you about this, you said that I wanted "to remove a relevant fact from the article entirely".  Note the repeated use of the word "entire" and "entirely".  When I specifically referred to the Accession and coronation section, you made it clear that you were claiming I wanted to remove it.


 * Surtsicna's comment similarly refers to leaving the article such that it "fails to mention" this point. Which is not what anybody is advocating, given that the point is discussed in the Accession and coronation section and nobody advocates removing it.


 * Given that you have repeatedly accused others of making "false statements", I think you should perhaps consider carefully your own claims and whether they could be described in a similar way. Kahastok talk 12:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You have "misquoted me by cherry picking". DrKay (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If the subject's surname, as given in the subject's peer-reviewed biographies, official website, and reputable media outlets, is not given in the infobox field titled "Full name", then the article is factually incorrect and the information is censored. Removing it from the infobox and the lead is not a minor change. Surtsicna (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, Elizabeth II does not mention the subject's full name and I do not see why it should be in the middle of the article. Elizabeth II could open with the full name, "Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor", emulating the plaque at her birthplace. But the omission of the surname from places in the article which seemingly list the full name is misleading. Surtsicna (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm open to a compromise of footnoting Windsor in the intro & infobox. Rough example: "Elizabeth Alexandra Mary ". GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not see the point in that. The "full name" is again not given in full. Surtsicna (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As DrKay pointed out above this is how it is dealt with on her children’s pages and I would second this as a fair compromise. Natt39 (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That would just mean more misleading censorship. Why should a part of the full name be relegated to a footnote when the infobox field is called "Full name"? If the inclusion of the surname is so offensive, I suggest we just do away with the full name altogether. Yes, the information would still be censored but at least there would be no misinformation. Surtsicna (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A compromise never hurt a soul. The footnote is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Being acceptable to one side does not make the footnote a compromise. Surtsicna (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Where "compromise" refers to an inconsistent or pointless botch, it would not improve the article or be acceptable. In view of the various points so far in this discussion, to my mind it would be better to leave out "Full name" from the infobox than to insert there what is not the full name. Whether or not to do the same for her descendants is another question. In current versions Full name does not include Windsor, but is followed by "House(links to Dynasty)  - Windsor (links to House of Windsor). House of Windsor, gives the explanation for "Windsor", and mentions the surname question raised by Lord Mountbatten at the time of her betrothal to Philip. This could be redone by adding the surname, and leaving the footnote info. to the text.  Qexigator (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Other post-1917 British royal bios
Just noting to all. If Windsor is kept in the intro & infobox here, with or without a footnote? I'll be adding the name in the same style (intro/infobox) to all post-1917 British royal bio articles. This 'one' article shouldn't be singled out. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless of other realms or bios, the surname should be in the usual place in the infobox here, and not relegated to a footnote: as all accept, UK is the place of her birth and has remained the place of her principal residences, public and private. I see no good reason for the surname not also being in the infobox of all the other realms, or other descendants of King George V so named. Qexigator (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain what you mean by infoboxes in the other realms. We don't have the lastname in the infobox at United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A stray thought, which need not trouble this discussion further. Qexigator (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * + It appears that in the UK the normal use of surnames can be flexible or fluid, except in the case of issue of George V who are born with a surname determined by the reigning monarch as head of the House of Windsor. In this connection, it is an open question whether in any formal legal context, the surname of a descendant of George V who was born as Windsor or as Mountbatten-Windsor is equally changeable as the surname of others normally is. In the first place, the prescribed surname at birth of a descendant of George V is either Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor, and evidently, they are as free to use the name or not, as other persons may use their own, unless for purposes such as registration their previously registered surname is required to be declared. For example, a person whose birth registration states the father's surname as the newborn's surname may later decide to take and use instead the mother's maiden name (or vice-versa) or the mother's new surname when she takes the surname of a second husband, or some other family name, or a name other than that of any member of the family. It is also noticeable that, for example, in Meghan, Duchess of Sussex's infobox we see "Issue - Archie Mountbatten-Windsor" and "House - Windsor (by marriage)", and in Archie's infobox we see "Relatives" include "British royal family". Princess Anne was born with one surname and, in the usual way, assumed the surname of her first husband on marriage, which was duly passed on to their two children, Peter and Zara now Tindall, and of her second husband on re-marriage. Qexigator (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC).
 * We also have situations where William & Harry did go by William Wales & Harry Wales in their younger years. This is most notable during their tenure in the military. I haven't checked into it, but this would assume the William's children will use 'Cambridge' as a last name, in the same manner. Windsor has been used as a 'last name', but not as the last name of the British royal family. Harry's son, using Mountbatten-Windsor, rather then Windsor, is another example. He could easily go as Archie Sussex during his school & possible later military career. So many last names, to use. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * All this tends to show that if Full name is stated it should normally include  the surname at birth, that is, Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor, except where a woman has taken her husband's name in the usual way, but with an explanation in the main text of any temporary use of another name such as Wales, Cambridge or Sussex. Qexigator (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Windsor is the surname of the male-line descendants of George V. Mountbatten-Windsor is the surname of the male-line descendants of Elizabeth II. Archie does not belong to the former group but to the latter, hence his surname. Surtsicna (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A footnote would be best, as it's obvious that different surnames have been used by Elizabeth II's children, grandchildren & great-grandchildren. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Surtsicna: If that is stated anywhere in these articles, I have missed it, but it would be a simple way of enabling the reader understand the point, if there were added somewhere a sentence such as:
 * "Windsor is Elizabeth II's surname and that of George V's other male-line descendants, while Mountbatten-Windsor is the surname of Elizabeth's male-line descendants."
 * Perhaps one place would be as an introductory note to the Elizabeth's Issue section and at the end of the article's second paragraph? Another could be in the lead of House of Windsor as a summation of part of that article's content? Qexigator (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The surname of her children is already mentioned. I don't think it needs to be mentioned again. DrKay (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Did Elizabeth's surname change on marriage from Windsor (as at birth) to Mountbatten-Windsor? Qexigator (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Probably not, because "Mountbatten-Windsor" was a later coinage. But whether she continued to be "Windsor" is unclear.


 * Point being, as already repeatedly pointed out, the royals don't actually use surnames in the way that everyone else does. And Elizabeth was not at that stage (1947-52) in one of those roles that requires a surname.  She was the "Duchess of Edinburgh" or "Princess Elizabeth" in the same way that her eldest son today is either the "Prince of Wales" or "Prince Charles".  We might speculate that had she needed a surname for some reason she might have used "Edinburgh" or "Mountbatten", but there probably isn't much evidence.


 * Remember that in common law, a person's name is not something inherent that exists outside usage. Your name is the name you choose to use for yourself.  If you wish to change your name, you stop using the old one and start using the new one.  If you choose to completely stop using a particular name, then it ceases to be part of your name.


 * (It's true that authorities issuing ID documents will ask for proof of a change of name - hence deed polls - but it's not the deed poll that changes the name, it's formally the change in usage.) Kahastok talk 23:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * GoodDay: Perhaps you are aware that may be the only ones currently eligible for "Windsor" are those born with the title prince or princess and surname Windsor who are listed as 1 to 6, 8 to 11, and 14, and three princes of George V's descendants: Richard (Gloucester) 27, Edward (Kent) 37, Michael (Kent) 48, and maybe also those princesses who took their husband's surname, listed as Eugenie 10, Anne 14, Alexandra (Kent) 53. Qexigator (talk) 11:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * +...and see: Charles, William, Richard (Gloucester) 27,, Edward (Kent) 37, Michael (Kent) 48, Qexigator (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing's been settled yet, yet you went ahead & added Windsor into the infoxes of those bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: I've reverted your changes on those articles, as this Rfc here hasn't been settled yet. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Qexigator, you were way out of line to change those other infoboxes while the discussion here is still ongoing and nothing whatever has been said about surnames at the talk pages of those articles. I am going to revert those changes, and you are expected to WAIT for consensus on this article before attempting to change the situation here or anywhere else. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that others have already reverted your changes. If they hadn't, I would have done. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Those reverts and above comments are out of order: this RfC is about this article not those. The only question of interest is whether or not those princes' surnames are Windsor, which the relevant sources clearly demonstrate. So what's the problem? Qexigator (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Those bio articles were already mentioned in this Rfc & are definitely related. One could've easily seen those changes at those articles, as a way to win the argument on this article. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that the purpose is to improve articles not win arguments, what's the problem? Qexigator (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Bad optics. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is your blind insistence that you are correct so you can just go ahead and do whatever you think is right to "improve the article". This isn't just you; there are several other people in this discussion who also have the attitude "Consensus doesn't matter because the rest of you are just wrong." -- MelanieN (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's the issue: You have shown some documents that list her with the surname Windsor. Others have shown Wikipedia guidelines saying “Only incorporate surnames in the opening line of royal biographies if they are known and if they are in normal use. But do not automatically presume that the name of a royal house is the personal surname of its members. In many cases it is not. For visual clarity, articles on monarchs should generally begin with the form "{name} {ordinal if appropriate} (full name – but without surname; birth and death dates, if applicable)”. So, which takes precedence? - the fact that she has occasionally used Windsor as a surname, or the Wikipedia guidelines say only to use surnames if they are “in normal use”? That is what the discussion here is about. That is what we need consensus to determine. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that the point at issue has been better identified in the course of discussion on this page, it is fairly simple and obvious. Note that at the top of this section there was mention of adding the surname Windsor to all post-1917 British royal bio articles. Shall we leave the other articles status quo ante for the time being? Qexigator (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As mentioned at the top of this section. The result of this Rfc, should determine whether or not to use Windsor in this and the other (aforementioned) related bio articles intros & infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Noted. Qexigator (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Use given names parameter instead
Another compromise suggestion: use the existing template parameters to create a field with an undisputed value: Celia Homeford (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is acceptable for the infobox. Would we also have Windsor removed from the intro & replaced with a footnote? GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a brilliant suggestion and I support it. It seems like it should meet the arguments of both sides. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, as anyone participating here should know by looking at the discussion, Windsor and Mountbatten-Windsor, unlike most other surnames, are given automatically at birth by a reigning monarch's declaration, along with the title Prince or Princess, and therefore it is difficult to see how the proposed template can be acceptable as a sufficient means of giving the relevant information, and there is no need to resort to footnotes, as if we must use an awkward subterfuge: why would Wikipedia do that? It is also difficult to see why it should be imagined that any of the royal family (except Philip's protest at the time - with Lord Mountbatten- that resulted in the Mountbatten-Windsor surname) or their friends, or any of the British public, could reasonably find using the surnames in this encyclopedia's infoboxes unacceptable. Qexigator (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * + Conversely, the College of Arms is "an authorised location for enrolling a change of name" and has a procedure allowing an applicant to change "name and arms" pursuant to Royal Licence, "usually dependent on there being some constraining circumstances such as a requirement in a will or a good reason to wish to perpetuate a particular coat of arms." Qexigator (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This would be accurate and verifiable, and anything verifiable is fine with me. I do not see the point in listing only the given names, however; if the full name must be censored, I would rather have no such field in the infobox. Same goes for the intro. Surtsicna (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Possibly uniquely in the UK, Windsor is a given name at birth together with the title Prince or Princess, and the given name/ surname distinction does not quite fit. The baptismal names may be given at the same time as the birth, while registering will usually be a little later (hours or days), unless the registrar is in attendance, and the baptism may also be immediate, or hours or days later. Qexigator (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Surtsicna and Qexigator, would you accept the above suggestion if, instead of "House", the second field was titled "Surname"? Or some combination of the two? That would accommodate your insistence that her official surname is Windsor, as well as the objection by others that she virtually never uses it as a surname and that it is not "in normal use" as such. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for proposing to adapt the proposed template. How would it work for this article and the other articles where the surname also is Windsor, as explained on this page?


 * Given names - Elizabeth Alexandra Mary
 * Surname       - Windsor
 * House           - Windsor.


 * We would then need to match that for the M-Ws:


 * Given names   - ..................................
 * Surname       - Mountbatten-Windsor
 * House         - Windsor.


 * That would show that "Windsor" is used in a dual manner: as name of The House for all descendants, and at the same time as the surname for only some of them. It would be acceptably meaningful, and so far as it goes, self-explanatory. Qexigator (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this is the best suggestion yet. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Usage of Surname is unacceptable. House will do. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Why? Surtsicna (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * See my post, at 18:41. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but that's not an explanation. "Unacceptable" is a strong word. Surtsicna (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * See my post at 18:41, where I'm willing to bend 'a little'. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. I think we've all bent a little; from my angle it is getting a bit difficult to read properly. Surtsicna (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, MelanieN! That is yet another good suggestion and would work very well with Celia Homeford's suggestion. Most importantly, it is verifiable. Surtsicna (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of documents: You have shown a general birth registry where her birth was listed, among many others, alphabetized under "Windsor". But her actual birth certificate, which I just now saw (apologies if it has been posted here before), shows no surname for herself or her parents. The handwritten document, reproduced here, lists her name as Elizabeth Alexandra Mary and her father as His Royal Highness Prince Albert Frederick Arthur George. No surname given for him, even though the box on the form says "name and surname of father". Her mother's former surname is referenced, but no current surname is listed for her either. It's clear that use of "Windsor" as a surname is very rare. To put it in terms of the Wikipedia guideline, Windsor as a surname is "known" but is not "in normal use". -- MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The surnames, his Mountbatten and hers Windsor, are shown on the marriage certificate. Have you seen this explanation from the official website? It begins with a pretty good summary (maybe a little verbose), and looks as if it was issued by people who had a good detailed knowledge: "Members of the Royal Family can be known both by the name of their Royal house, and by a surname, which are not always the same. And often they do not use a surname at all. People often ask whether members of the Royal Family have a surname, and, if so, what it is. The situation of members of the Royal Family is more complex than for most people, as they can be known both by the name of the Royal house, and by a surname, which are not always the same." Qexigator (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, MelanieN, that prompted me to look up other birth certificates from that period, and it turns out that surnames were not given under "Name, if any". It is indeed omitted from her father's full name, and then both appear with the surname in her marriage certificate. You are evidently right when you say that the surname is not in normal use. The surname, as well as her given names, appear almost exclusively in legal documents. That is why I am puzzled by the insistence to treat them differently. Surtsicna (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, in fact you listed several such birth certificates above. As you noted, the “name, if any” box does not call for a surname, and there is no surname in that field. But both the father and mother boxes do call for a surname, and surnames are listed for both of those examples.    Apparently the standard system was that the child gets listed without a surname (just “Christian names” as they used to be called, or no name at all if the child has not yet been named), but surnames are required for both parents. However, no surnames are listed for Elizabeth’s parents even though the form requests them. (Nate pointed that out to you at the time when you posted these birth certificates.) But you know what? If we can get consensus for the modified infobox proposed in this section, we can quit this kind of back-and-forth and just move on. This proposed compromise allows us to move from "no, never" to "yes, and..." -- MelanieN (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm still not happy with the surname bit being added, but does it mean we'll have Elizabeth Alexandra Mary in the infobox & the article's intro? I prefer the first example (House), but will stomach the second example (House and Surname). GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, as I see it a field for the Given names above House and surname - Windsor is the way to go. Qexigator (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, in relation to the proposed compromise. We will be using Elizabeth Alexandra Mary in both the intro & infobox? GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Intro as now "Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926)[a] is Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms."


 * Infobox ss shown here and above. Qexigator (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not see the point in listing given names in the intro without the surname. The inclusion of the string of given names only makes sense if they are included as part of her full name, which is Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor. If a part of her full name must be censored, despite sources verifying it, then let's censor it all. "Elizabeth II (born 21 April 1926) is..." Surtsicna (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Surtsicna: I personally would accept that you have at least half a point, maybe more, but given that there is no pretext in the first sentence that a Full name consists of forenames only, divested of surname, the first sentence of Elizabeth II's article does not seem problematic, and is in the style usual for this sort of article, such as George VI, Charles, Prince of Wales, Anne, Princess Royal, Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex. If it is an imperfection it is debatable as a matter of house style, and I feel it is very different from wilfully miscalling "Full name" the forenames. devoid of the surname. Qexigator (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Is the above proposal acceptable?
I propose to add to the infobox the suggestion above: Or alternativelys much as all
 * Given names - Elizabeth Alexandra Mary
 * Surname - Windsor
 * House - Windsor
 * Given names - Elizabeth Alexandra Mary
 * House and Surname - Windsor

It looks to me as if this suggestion was agreed to by people on both sides. Have we reached a feeling here that this would be reasonably acceptable, or do we have to go on arguing? Can we answer with a basic yes or no, without repeating our arguments which we have all laid out repeatedly? -- MelanieN (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Either formulation is fine with me. I slightly prefer the first one. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, ditto MelanieN, slight preference for the first. Qexigator (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, though my personal choice is to have only 'House' in the infobox. I'm accepting the 'alternative' (House and Surname) proposed compromise, as it has Elizabeth Alexandra Mary in the intro & infobox. GoodDay (talk) 06:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note - the first proposal would be necessary, for the royal family members who have used 'Mountbatten-Windsor'. GoodDay (talk) 06:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * May we look for an accepted conclusion in a day or two. Many editors will recognise this as one of those concerns about no more than a word or two which sometimes involve seemingly lengthy discussion over some time. The current discussion began on 31 January 2020, and has continued in RfC opened on 7 February, only about three weeks in all so far. Qexigator (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's likely best to keep the Rfc open for a whole month, since it has more editors involved in it, then the preceding related discussion. We've yet to hear for the others, concerning this compromise proposal. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes. Surtsicna (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - What say you,, , , , , , , , , & . -- GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not terribly opposed to the second one. The first one seems ugly when the House and 'Surname' are the same. Possibly we can have three or would that be too inconsistent? Steepleman (t) 01:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - What say you, & . -- GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * what say I about what? I've already made my !vote in the RFC above, and I said there that I oppose inclusion of Windsor as a surname in the infobox or in the lede paragraph. So yes, I oppose the proposal above, which seems to do just that. As far as I can tell there is a reasonably clear "no" consensus in the RFC, so I'm not sure what these proposals here are regarding? Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes- either works IMO, but I do like the first one better. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment There's a lot of nuance to the Windsor surname and my original position has actually shifted slightly from reading the discussion. My opinion now is that it would be better to have the lead and infobox naming basically the same as in the current version but add a referenced footnote explaining the nuances in short detail. However, I haven't participated in this debate much so I appreciate my comments likely won't carry much weight. Editing with Eric (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is an awkward mix of certainty and uncertainty. Given that the marriage certificate provides a verifiable source, a better treatment for the infobox than either of the two being proposed in this section could be to retain the opening sentence of the current version while keeping the infobox as: "Full name Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor", preferably with no footnote, and working any explanatory information into the text of the main body of the article. It seems that unequivocal and verifiable sources for the princes and the two unwed princesses (Charlotte Cambridge and Beatrice York) have not emerged. (In the state of information to date, I am not withdrawing my "Yes, acceptable" in this section.) Qexigator (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Just curious, why no footnote? An infobox footnote would of course be supplementary to an article explanation, not instead of (the infobox is effectively a summary of prose). Footnote aside this is basically what I think would be best. I appreciate the above proposals are desperately trying to find a consensus everyone can live with but it comes of as a bit too design by committee for me personally. Editing with Eric (talk) 11:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I accept the link in the current version of the infbox, but nothing more by way of explanation (if proposed) is needed there, and would clutter. Any sufficient explanation would be suitable for the main text but too wordy for the quick read infobox. Maybe Wikipedia's editorial perticipants in total  constitute the largest volunteer committee in the world, subdivided into those that habitually watch and edit various articles, who are occasionally joined by the volunteers who participate in RfC discussions. At the moment, we are concerned with retaining Featured article status for this article. Qexigator (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes Thank you for the tag, I prefer the first but I bow to consensus as to whatever is chosen. Might I also add that once we stopped beating each other with sticks the passion of this community in the defence of their given opinion is laudable, particularly given that we are discussing a single word on one article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natt39 (talk • contribs)

A better solution IMO would be to put in the infobox:


 * Given names - Elizabeth Alexandra Mary
 * House - Windsor
 * Surname - See 

or


 * Given names - Elizabeth Alexandra Mary
 * House - Windsor
 * Surname - See Surname of the British royal family

And then explain the question of surnames in the appropriate place.

A simple field:


 * Surname - Windsor

without further explanation fails to provide the casual reader with the context required to understand what is being said here. Not all of our casual readers will be familiar with the traditions of European royalty. The fact that the British royal family do not use a surname in the way that the vast majority of families do requires explanation, and this article ought to either provide that explanation or tell the reader where they can find it. Kahastok talk 11:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In view of the discussion so far, this newly proposed variation seems to suggest that the current version of the infobox is better left as it is, and, of course the opening sentence of the article, while leaving room for improving the main body of the article by working additional explanatory information into the text. Qexigator (talk) 12:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Elizabeth II does not normally use all her given names either, going instead by the regnal name which appears on the top of the infobox. There is no reason not to state her surname clearly if the forenames are stated clearly (and vice versa - there is no need to list one without the other). Wikipedia should not invent uncertainty when there is not any. Surtsicna (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that the Queen's uses one given name instead of three is entirely in line with the rest of the population and will not cause any more surprise for her than for any other individual.


 * The fact that the Queen generally does not use a surname is different from the rest of the population and is likely to cause confusion to those not familiar with European royal customs. It's our job to explain that. Kahastok talk 19:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I know of no good reason to suppose that the proposed change to the infobox "is likely to cause confusion to those not familiar with European royal customs". No one with an interest in such things will be thereby discommoded and others will not wish to be pestered with details that they do not need to have, unless they choose to look further in the article for such and other more detailed information than an infobox is designed to give. But it could be most helpful to us if you would draft a proposed sentence or two for comment on this page (properly sourced and linked in the usual way), for adding to the article if acceptable, to give such information which, in your opinion, is lacking there. Qexigator (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * See WP:BADGER. Kahastok talk 12:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Kahastok: Your comment above seems to be proposing a tweak as "a better solution", but so far you have not explained what you intend by "See #Name". It is in blue but there seems not to be a link. It could help if you would please let us know. You may be thinking of the well-sourced information, which includes the published announcement of Queen Elizabeth's Declaration in Council of 9 April 1952, Queen Victoria's proclamation of 3 February 1864, and George VI's proclamation of 1948. Qexigator (talk) 07:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If what you are saying is that I am somehow obligated to satisfy you on this, to the point that I am expected to be the sole contributor to a compromise that is not my preferred solution, then I will simply withdraw the suggestion and oppose the proposal outright. Attempting the compromise here was clearly a mistake on my part. Kahastok talk 18:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per User:Surtsicna's trolling. ——  SN  54129  18:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Serial Number, this is a singularly unhelpful post. Are you really opposed to the proposal here? If so, why? Just a reason, please, without personal attacks. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. Surtsicna, earlier in this discussion you said "yes," you approved of this version. So did Qexigator. It was really looking as if we had reached a compromise that could end the arguing. Now has Kahastok's post undone all that and we are back to Square One? Or where exactly do you stand? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, MelanieN; as far as I am concerned, we are on a really good way to achieve a compromise. I concur with the proposal made in this subsection, just not with Kahastok's additional suggestion. Surtsicna (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * MelanieN: ditto to Surtsicna. Qexigator (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, DrKay contributed to this article as much as all other editors combined, quite literally, and I hope the major contributor agrees with the proposal too. Surtsicna (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * DrK 46.2%, runner up 10%. Qexigator (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Which does not give them a veto on article content.


 * There is a huge amount of bludgeoning of the process here, with Qexigator and Surtsicna in particular badgering everyone who disagrees with them. We look at the statistics from this discussion, most editors are happy with just removing "Windsor" from both infobox and opening sentence.  The numbers at the moment are running about 12 noes to 3 yesses.  Now, arguments are important, but editors opposed are making good well-reasoned arguments in line with policy, notably WP:UNDUE and the part of the style guide that deals with this precise question. Kahastok talk 12:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a huge amount of bludgeoning of the process by heaps of comments that contradict the cited sources without citing any sources in return, which may be what FactStraight described as "bordering on an idée fixe among some Wikipedia editors" seven years ago. This is not [supposed to be] a vote but a discussion leading to a compromise solution. Surtsicna (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

For my part, I see room for compromise in this. My answer is to say that I still have concerns that this proposal as-is does not answer, not that I object to the general approach.

That said, I see no form of "compromise" that would be acceptable to me that goes down the route of "this newly proposed variation seems to suggest that the current version of the infobox is better left as it is". Kahastok talk 19:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Kahastok, would it be possible to fuse MelanieN's suggestion with yours? Perhaps by having a footnote such as:
 * Given names - Elizabeth Alexandra Mary
 * House and surname - Windsor
 * Obviously it's a little rough. Surtsicna (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * At this stage, I do not see why I should indulge your poor behaviour here. I'll simply oppose this proposal. Kahastok talk 18:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Clarifying the question: the present position
If this already lengthy discussion is being prolonged, now seems to be a time to take into account that the question at the top of the RfC is ambiguous. It combines two or three different questions as if a Yes or No to one would be the same for the others. At the end of the third RfC week a proposal was made (in section immediately above here) for altering the infobox in a way that would display "Given names - Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, Surname - Windsor, House - Windsor". So far the proposal has been given 5 "Yes" and none against.

Here is a breakdown of the RfC question:
 * 1 As per the talk thread above
 * 2 is it appropriate [criteria unstated] to use Windsor as the last name of the Queen
 * 3 in the article
 * 4 and infobox?

1 The talk thread was opened to contest the use of Windsor in the intro & infobox, asserting "We don't show the 'last name' in this manner for British monarchs." Comment: In the discussion that assertion was rebutted.

2 The prinicipal criterion against the use of Windsor in the thread was "We don't show the 'last name' in this manner for British monarchs...It's not our practice to show a last name in the intro or infobox of British monarchs (or for that matter, monarchs in general)." Comment: That assertion was rebutted on the same day, before the RfC was opened. Other criteria were introduced a week later, with rebuttals, concerning verifiablity and various assertions about English law, custom and practice.

3 and 4: The main target against has been the current version of the infobox, which is: "Full name - Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor " Comment: the source is indisputable. Qexigator (talk) 09:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC) \
 * I'm not sure what this is intended to achieve? If it's intended as an aid to the closer, then bear in mind that the closer will have to have read the entire discussion and so adding your take on the questions asked is not going to add anything.  If it intended to spark discussion, it seems illogical since there appears to be movement toward consensus in the section above without it.  If you're just restating your arguments, then don't you feel that we all know them already? Kahastok talk 11:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you had not noticed that commenters sometimes lack the time or attention to avoid responding to the points and rebuttals already made, and prolong such a discussion as this, sometimes in such a way that even an experienced closer may be less able to perform that task satisfactorily. Perhaps you imagine the conclusion is foregone? Actually, there is more than one way to resolve the question raised, such as the further variation you have newly introduced above, to which others may wish to say yea or nay or tweak again. Qexigator (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you are trying to restate the arguments made by those that disagree with you in a way that favours your position, in order to sway a potential closer into supporting your position? Kahastok talk 19:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems to be what you are saying. Qexigator (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear: I oppose Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor either in the article intro or infobox. It must be Elizabeth Alexandra Mary in the intro & infobox. Windsor (in the infobox only) is acceptable only in the proposed compromise form. House - Windsor (personal preference) or House and Surname - Windsor. GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the 5 Yea-sayers above accept the proposal to remove "Full name" from the infobox and that instead Elizabeth Alexandra Mary will be displayed as "Given names", Windsor both as  "Surname" and as "House" (separately or as a single entry), and that retained links will be:
 * House to House of Windsor as current version
 * Surname to the current reference reading Her full name can be seen on her marriage certificate, which is signed by both her and her father, and linking "marriage certificate" to the image. Qexigator (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's how I'm understanding it, too. Going by the visual examples above. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Qexigator, I'm not sure what your point is here. You point out that 5 (now 6) people said they would accept the proposed way of handling the infobox, and no one said they wouldn't. The "yes" comments included you and Surstnica. So far so good. But then you relist other people's arguments and claim they have all been rebutted. Why? Look, the whole idea here is to get beyond the arguing and find a wording that everybody can accept, even if they feel the other side is dead wrong in their reasoning. On my user page I list one of the things I have learned at Wikipedia: "It's amazing how often a controversial situation can be resolved by a simple rewording." That's what we are working toward here. Are you now renouncing that treatment of the infobox, which you originally accepted? Or are you trying to modify it? Or clarify it? Please make it clear where you are coming from. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I must confess, it's getting confusing. Sure hope I'm not agreeing to something, which gets changed into something else in the process. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, Qexigator, so based on your discussion with GoodDay just above: is the bottom line that you still support the proposal, and your point was to make sure that the links from "house" and "surname" would remain as they are in the proposal? Do I have that right? Just want to be sure we all understand each other. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure, quite so, exactly, happy to confirm, I have made clear my concurrence with GoodDay and Surtsinca, and look forward to the satisfactory conclusion of this whole discussion. Qexigator (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the proposed compromise is in serious jeopardy, as the number of editors who oppose having Windsor in the intro or infobox is growing. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a bit out the loop here. And me as a naysayer for Windsor in the infobox.. it feels contradictory. Although the discussion has changed now, for what it's worth, I get the feeling Windsor is likely used on documents that must have a surname listed for index purposes, and therefore Windsor is a sort of filler name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesington (talk • contribs) 16:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC) Why in jeopardy? As participants in the discussion know, the present position is that only the infobox is under discussion, (and not the article's title or its first sentence or any other part of the text). By "compromise" I understand that GoodDay's concern refers to the proposal that has been reached by reasoned discussion (with his support) about the current version of the infobox. The proposal is simply this: The words "Full name" in the infobox will be replaced by the words "Given names" and Elizabeth's three forenames would be set there, but the name Windsor would be set against "Surname" and also against "House", and the links in the current version would be retained, thus or similar (adapting part of current infobox)(includes further proposal above to add a note such as italicised in this specimen): ——————————————————————————————————————————————————
 * The present position
 * full Given names  = Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor
 * Surname  = Windsor Her full name can be seen on her marriage certificate, which is signed by both her and her father. < /ref > House and surname - Windsor  
 * House    = Windsor
 * Father   = George VI
 * Mother     = Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon
 * Signature  = Elizabeth II signature 1952

——————————————————————————————————————————————————

Qexigator (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Closing
We're approaching the 1-month mark. We'll need an administrator to close this Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Has expired. Qexigator (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I put a request in for an administrator to access if there's a consensus & what that consensus is. GoodDay (talk) 09:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd have thought the consensus is quite a clear "No" to the question asked, and the "last name" should be removed from both lead and infobox. But I guess per WP:RFCCLOSE we're not allowed to make that call if the matter is contentious. The fact that it is "EXPIRED" does not mean we throw the whole thing out with no action though, it should be closed and the consensus assessed. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to change the current infobox, but there may be sufficient acceptance for tweaking as above. Qexigator (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, I didn't know what to do. Nobody's been around for a over a week, until the Rfc tag expired. If ya want to ping all participants, that's acceptable. WP:RFCCLOSE is backlogged for months. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: I've removed the request for closure, per your objections. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)