Talk:Genealogy of the British royal family

Creator's word

 * Hi, I'm Working for Him from Texas. I created the original page but then made the more precise page which is the one you're looking at now. I wan't you to know that I want to know your opinions on this article so I can improve it.Jim Bart.
 * Well, I can say that this new page is a marked improvement over the earlier incarnations. I have a feeling that most of those redlinks can be turned blue by searching for the present titles of the articles on Wikipedia for those people.  For example, while you have Cecily of Neville, Wikipedia lists her as Cecily Neville.  You should try to make it a habit to sign and date stamp your posts by ending them with four tilde (~). -Acjelen 04:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll try to do just that. I'd also like to thank you or whoever it is who's improving the article for me because it is really a lot better than what I could have done.

Jim Bart (UTC) November 20, 2005
 * Okay, I didn't quite get what you said at the time ("just smile and nod") and made it sound like I understood, but now that it's been...how long has it been? It must been years ago but now. I'm a whole lot more Wiki literate now. -Working for Him 04:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Capetians
How come this list does not include the Capetians etc? IP Address 11:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Where should the Capetians spring off of. And I can only do direct descendents.Jim Bart 18:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hugh Capet is the 25th G-Grandfather of Queen Elizabeth II. - Nunh-huh 20:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed Conversation
A previous conversation was just removed because it blocked the flow of discussion for this page. Though if I made a boo-boo feel free to cuss me out one my talk page. You can always reverse my action by copying and pasting earlier carnations from the history option above. -Working for Him 04:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Dates
Alright starting when I get some time, I will take on the task of putting dates beside every individual listed here. -Working for Him 03:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Brunswick dukes
The Brunswick dukes listing seems to contradict the Wikipedia pages, specifically around "Henry the Younger." I will take a look at the German Wiki and try to figure out what is correct. Trjumpet (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Medici and Sforza Lines
I have created to templates showing lines The Medici Template:Medici_to_Prince_William and Sforza Template:Sforza_to_Prince_William

Put in main page if you want. --Nexus5 (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Descent from the Romans
What happened to the pages on Elizabeth II's descent from the Romans and the Franks? Were these articles unsourced and found to be wanting or was someone just arbitrarily cleaning up? Thanks. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't say what the rationale was, but if it wasn't "no living individual has a documented non-speculative descent from antiquity", it should have been. - Nunh-huh 10:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Took a while to find them. See Articles for deletion/Descent of Elizabeth II from the Franks. - Nunh-huh 10:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Organization
I am wondering just what the organization of this page is supposed to be. Is it Elizabeth at the top and then her ancestry in each house/section traced back through the generations going down? The opening paragraph of the article is nice, but a paragraph detailing the organization and explanation of the system used would be helpful. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Descents from High Kings of Ireland
Why doesn't this article show the descents from the Irish High kings like Brian Boru or Niall of the Nine Hostages. Is there any Irish descent that may have came into the bloodline via a native British spouse with a bit of Irish descent in them. A lot of Irish can trace their line back to the High kings. --Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Palatinate/Wittelsbach
Hello. The Palatinate/Wittelsbach section seems mostly in order, but the genealogy breaks down with the ancestors of Otto IV, Count of Wittelsbach. Henry I of Schweinfurt links to Henry III of Bavaria, while there is a Henry of Schweinfurt page that may or may not be the Henry I in question. Otto IV is variously described as a descendant of Otto II, a son of Otto II, or son of Otto I. Which is it? I will do some research into this, because I would like to see the correct lines. Trjumpet (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Genealogics.org contradicts the Palatinate/Wittelsbach lineage listed. If/When I have the time, I will make the appropriate changes. Trjumpet (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

How about the Franks then ?
There is a link here from another page labelled "Descent of Elizabeth II from the Franks", and specifically Arnulf of Metz, but nothing about the Franks here.Eregli bob (talk) 08:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Sofie von Mecklenburg-Schwerin
Is the Sofie von Mecklenburg-Schwerin on this list Sophie Von Mecklenburg-Schwerin ? - TB (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No. The Sophie von Mecklenburg-Schwerin on this list, wife of Johann “der Bestandige” (1468-1532), Elector of Saxony 1525-1532, was born before 18 December 1481 and died 12 July 1503. She was the daughter of Magnus II von Mecklenburg-Schwerin (1441-1503) and his wife, Sophia von Pommern-Wolgast (d. 1504). The person on this list, Sophie von Mecklenburg-Schwerin (bef. 1481-1503) was the great-aunt of Sophie von Mecklenburg-Güstrow (1557-1631), the one you linked to. - Nunh-huh 21:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like there are some problems with redirects pointing to the wrong person that will probably be a bear to clean up.- Nunh-huh 21:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)



Stewart/Stuart ancestry
Some of the early Stewart ancestry is incorrect. I will check genealogics.org when/if I have the time. Trjumpet (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Why does the SCOTTISH House of Stewart have people listed under their ENGLISH titles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.75.233 (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

All the way back to Pepin I
How would we list that, via Matilda, wife of William the Conqueror, it is possible to trace all the way back to Pepin I? Hires an editor (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Male Lineage
This article deals with male lineage and not genealogy or ancestry. I suggest a title change. - Or am I missing something? Alan Davidson (talk) 05:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - As this deals with male lineage, I propose a name change. I will take such steps in the near future, as there has been no comments for almost a year. Alan Davidson (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for updating your query. There are several possible alternatives to the current name for this article, so a change should be proposed via a move request rather than unilaterally executed. The article appears to detail the patrilineage of each heiress who carried the succession to the British crown to a different dynasty. Because membership in the British "Royal Family" is attached to the line of succession to the British throne and, until last year, that throne descended according to English Common Law's male-preference primogeniture (rather than absolute -- i.e., gender-neutral -- primogeniture), and the Crown has yet to descend by any other principle (except by Parliamentary statute, e.g. when the Crown was transferred from the Catholic Stuarts to the Protestant Hanovers), there is a comprehensible rationale to the article's structure up until now but it needs to be modified to accommodate the new principle of gender-neutral inheritance by which persons shall belong to the Royal Family in future. The term "Paternal ancestry of the British Royal Family" won't be quite accurate because, in theory, that includes all the ancestors of a person's father, whereas our article only gives the male-line ancestry of each royal heiress -- this being the historical way in which dynasties are calculated and traced. "Patrilineage of British monarchs" would be more accurate, but is a bit wonky. Other alternatives? FactStraight (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comment. By "take steps" I did mean the appropriate steps, not just a unilateral change. "Patrilinenage" seems to be the right word.  Certainly this site is not about "Genealogy".  And, the heading "Ancestors of Edward VIII and George VI" is inaccurate. Because of male-preference primogeniture (historically), the writers of this site used the male heirs, and the direct line only. A true site of genealogy would list thousands of names (which may involve OR). Again, over the next few days I would like to take the appropriate steps (unless you wish to). Alan Davidson (talk) 04:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Missing Edward Iv, Mary and Elizabeth I
Why are these 3 monarchs missing? I can't find any rhyme or reason as to their absence. The are members of the Tudor house but in the article, it ends with Henry VIII. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautiful1749 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)