Talk:House of Windsor/Archive 1

House of Windsor at the time of Elizabeth's succession
Just for the record, here is the House of Windsor in February of 1952 when Elizabeth became the Queen. I thought it should be included in the discussion instead of in the article. David Lascelles (age 1) was the Queen first cousin once removed (not her nephew).

Age	|	Succ	|	Name	 (	B-Date	) 25	|	--	|	Elizabeth II, The Queen	 (	21-Apr-26	) 3	|	#1	|	The Prince Charles	 (	14-Nov-48	) 1	|	#2	|	The Princess Anne	 (	15-Aug-50	) 21	|	#3	|	The Princess Margaret 	 (21-Aug-30	) 51	|	#4	|	Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester (	31-Mar-00	) 10	|	#5	|	Prince William of Gloucester	 (	18-Dec-41	) 7	|	#6	|	Prince Richard of Gloucester 	 (	26-Aug-44	) 16	|	#7	|	Prince Edward, Duke of Kent	 (	9-Oct-35	) 9	|	#8	|	Prince Michael of Kent	 (	4-Jul-42	) 15	|	#9	|	Princess Alexandra	 (	25-Dec-36	) 54	|	#10	|	Princess Mary, Princess Royal	 (	25-Apr-97	) 28	|	#11	|	George Lascelles, 7th Earl of Harewood	 (	7-Feb-23	) 1	|	#12	|	David Lascelles, Viscount Lascelles	 (	21-Oct-50	) 27	|	#13	|	Gerald David Lascelles	 (	21-Aug-24	)

Prince Edward had become Duke of Kent at the age of 6 since his father died at the age of 39. George Lascelles had become Earl at the age of 24 since his father was age 40 when he was born. Only three of six siblings were still alive from the generation of Queen Elizabeth's father, but Edward was excluded from the line after he abdicated.

Pacomartin (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Princess Anne
Shouldn't Princess Anne's children be included in the list of Queen Elizabeth's grandchildren? AEriksson 14:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No, they're not part of the House of Windsor. Craigy [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|15px]] (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Why Windsor
It would be nice if the article said why the name Windsor was chosen. Windsor Castle says the family took the name from it, but that's still not much of an explanation - why not the House of Holyrood, resurrect the House of Stuart, or some other creative fiction like the House of Tudor-Stuart? Is much known about the rationale? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought the political rationale was well known: "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" was too German-sounding in a Britain at war with Germany, so the King changed the family's name, purely for perspicacious political reasons. As for why "Windsor," it's a nice English-sounding name that his subjects were already familiar with and which was already associated with the royal family. Same rationale by which "Battenberg" became "Mountbatten" -- more English-sounding. --Michael K. Smith 16:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Note also that for royal families, there is a distinction between a "Royal House name" and a "personal surname", which do not always coincide. The "personal surname" of this royal family was "Wettin" before being changed to "Windsor", and arguably there is some similarity between those two names (they share the same initial letter, if nothing else). --HYC 06:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Queen Victoria knew that there would be a problem with the Household name of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha long before WWI. She was actually the first British sovereign queen who would have a son who would become sovereign and adopt his father's household name. She had her geneologists research Albert's family tree to come up with an older household name. The family had originally been the House of Wettin in the 9th century. Wettin, (like Windsor) was the name of an ancient town and castle. Unlike Windsor, the castle at Wettin had been destroyed centuries earlier. The name Wettin evoked images of the shared Saxon heritage of the English (Anglo-Saxons) and the Saxony region of Germany. Unfortunately the name never really took hold. The house was continually referred to a Saxe-Coburg & Gotha which was the name of a minor duchy. In March of 1917 a long range bomber was developed that could bomb the innocent civilians in London. The Germans called it The Gotha after the region in Germany where it was produced. Now the royal household shared part of it's name with a weapon of terror and mass destruction (by 1917 standards). Within weeks King George V, finally made the decision to change the household name. He considered the traditional name of Wettin, but felt that it was not a strong enough political statement. His secretary suggested the name of the ancient castle.Pacomartin (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Russell Henry Errett comments
Citations are sorely needed here. I couldn't find a lick of information on this doing a simple Google search, which leads me to believe that we're seeing a bit of nonsense. If anyone knows anything about R. Errett, they need to speak up before I remove the offending paragraph completely to avoid smearing someone's name unjustifiably. --Wolf530 07:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's just plain bullshit, and it's gone now. - Nunh-huh 08:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

American School of Paris
This article references Prince Philip attending the American School of Paris in St. Cloud. The American School of Paris website has an "official" historical timeline for the school, and that timeline begins in 1945. Moreover, the first location for the school was in the American Church in central Paris, not in the suburb of St. Cloud. Please clarify or correct the assertion in the article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayintheusa (talk • contribs) 00:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

HRH?
This is used in the article. Can someone please clarify what it stands for or means. My people don't have a monarch, so I am clueless. I have heard it used in reference to Princess Diana. Thank you.Dkriegls 09:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * HRH - His or Her Royal Highness - its all about status. It means A first relation to the current monarch. Mike33 21:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Editing an article with unsourced content
I am just SHOCKED - I can swear and scream at you all. How anyone can sit and glibly passed unsourced and false material since APRIL 2004? Please see this terrible unsourced edit to see where your article began. Compare Edit list. I would honestly be ashamed. And ppl have actually quoted from this article in their websites. Mike33 23:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind
For the record, I think Mike33 was in good faith but a little confused. See my talk page and his. I have revamped the page somewhat. --BlueMoonlet 04:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

House of Windsor
The House of Windsor should remain the same, whether through male or female lines. The Netherlands' royal family is still called the House of Orange-Nassau, although there have been three successive queens - Queen Wilhelmina (reigned 1890-1948) married Duke Hendrik of Mecklenburg-Schwerin; Queen Juliana (reigned 1948-1980) married Prince Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld; and Queen Beatrix (reigned since 1980) married Claus von Amsberg. I'm not sure of the Danish royal family's surname, Queen Margrethe II married Count Henri de Laborde de Monpezat, but I wouldn't be surprised its still Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. I don't see that the British royal family couldn't do the same and stick with Windsor, and not Mountbatten-Windsor. JJC-IE 23:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This particular discussion doesn't directly relate or discuss or refer to any particular point or problem in the article. Is it just your opinion? The Dutch queens were members of two houses if you take their view of being members of the House of Orange-Nassau. Juliana was a member of the House of Mecklenburg (whether she liked it or not) as well as being "head of the House of Orange-Nassau". Beatrix is a member of the House of Lippe (again, whether she likes it or not) as well as being "head of the House of Orange-Nassau". Regardless of whatever other additional house names the British Royal Family takes on, they are agnates, and therefore members, of the Houses of Wettin and Oldenburg. Really, what it all boils down to is that Windsor is a sub-branch of these houses. "Changing" one's house name, as a junior member of the house, only ever creates a sub-house. Charles 03:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * ...you posted your spiel verbatim at Talk:Mountbatten-Windsor. Don't do that. I've removed it as the talk pages are meant to directly discuss the topics at hand, not to copy and paste things. Charles 03:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

German hereditacies
Like I carefully wrote in the article, members of this House still held some rights to certain German principalities.

It is worth noting that George V was not entitled to renounce his already living sons' rights, if he even renounced any succession rights at all. His 1917 decision was to renounce from names, basically. Henq (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Where are your sources, especially for the Saxon territories which were NOT Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and where are your sources which state than a woman with an English noble father was suitable marriage material for a Saxon princeling. Charles 18:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk more about Alice, daughter of Duke of Buccleuch, being not equal enough to a Saxe princeling. I am deeply interested in hearing about the matter. Henq (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The thing is, there are no sources to support your claim of her without a doubt being equal. English nobility was not treated the same as German nobility. For sovereign houses, only brides from sovereign or mediatized families were usually admitted. Not simply noble ones, especially where the bride herself had no title ("Lady" is not a title, it's a style). Charles 19:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are sadly mistaken about the equality requirements enacted in the House of Saxony. They certainly did not reatrict only to sovereign or mediatized houses. Henq (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Saxe territories were hereditary in male-line descent from the first grantee. Both Ernestine and Albertine lines. And both Weimar and E the Pious line of the Ernestines. And each of the Ernest the Pious lines forwards. If a territory had primogeniture, and its branch went extinct, line from senior brother of the progenitor will enjoy the primogeniture of that territory. Hopefully no one is denying that actually these royal dukes descend in male line from first grantee of those Wettin lands. Henq (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * First, enough of this "Saxe" territories. Take your pick of Saxon lands, Saxon territories, Saxon duchies. Second of all, you have not given a source which states that Saxe-Meiningen had primogeniture, a condition for your assertion that it would pass to another line. I never denied that the Gloucesters are Wettins. I just don't support your unilateral and unsourced claims. Charles 19:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Enactment of primogeniture to the state of Saxe-Meiningen, in 1802, detailed further at Talk:Konrad, Duke of Saxe-Meiningen. Henq (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Material from web debates
Some scholars, such as Sainty, Sjostrom, Eilers and McFerran, have expressed their information and opinions about these questions: European Royals debate. Suedois (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Is M. Sjöström the Wikipedia user Henq? I don't think he's a scholar on the matter. The incorrect terminology used in the linked post is identical to posts made here. Charles 17:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If we're going to admit message boards, which I don't think we should, we should note Guy Stair Sainty, a prominent and noted royal historian. Charles 17:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Text of Proclamation by George V, 17 July 1917
[http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/ViewPDF.aspx?pdf=30186&geotype=London&gpn=7119&type=ArchivedIssuePage&all=royal%20family&exact=&atleast=&similar= From The London Gazette.]

BY THE KING.

A PROCLAMATION

DECLARING THAT THE NAME OF WINDSOR IS TO BE BORNE BY HIS ROYAL HOUSE AND FAMILY AND RELINQUISHING THE USE OF ALL GERMAN TITLES AND DIGNITIES.

GEORGE R.I.

WHEREAS We, having taken into consideration the Name and Title of Our Royal House and Family, have determined that henceforth Our House and Family shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor:

And whereas We have further determined for Ourselves and for and on behalf of Our descendants and all other the descendants of Our Grandmother Queen Victoria of blessed and glorious memory to relinquish and discontinue the use of all German Titles and Dignities:

And whereas We have declared these Our determinations in Our Privy Council:

Now, therefore, We, out of Our Royal Will and Authority, do hereby declare and announce that as from the date of this Our Royal Proclamation Our House and Family shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that all the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, other than female descendants who may marry or may have married, shall bear the said Name of Windsor:

And do hereby further declare and announce that We for Ourselves and for and on behalf of Our descendants and all other the descendants of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, relinquish and enjoin the discontinuance of the use of the Degrees, Styles, Dignities, Titles and Honours of Dukes and Duchesses of Saxony and Princes and Princesses of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and all other German Degrees, Styles, Dignities. Titles, Honours and Appellations to Us or to them heretofore belonging or appertaining.

Given at Our Court at Buckingham Palace, this Seventeenth day of July, in the year of our Lord One thousand nine hundred and seventeen, and in the Eighth year of Our Reign.

GOD SAVE THE KING.

--StanZegel  (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Change of name
There was a quote - possibly appearing in several places - on how the name was selected - along the lines of "it might be x or y, and is certainly not z or w...": anyone know where to find it? Jackiespeel (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The cartoon "A Good Riddance" is apparently from late June 1917. History.com says the date was June 19, whereas Wikipedia says July 17. How does July 17 fit with the cartoon date of June 27? 80.203.48.223 (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

English royal arms
Surely there is a more appropriate, NPOV image to use for the House of Windsor; the arms that were placed in the infobox are those only of one member of the house in one area of one country. I have read of a badge specifically for the House of Windsor, though I can't seem to find it in general internet searches. --G2bambino (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The badge is correct as it is historicially the first coat of arms to be used by the House of Windsor. --Cameron* 12:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "badge": that I mentioned which belongs speficially to the House of Windsor, or the arms of the monarch in right of England, Wales and NI? --G2bambino (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with this at all. A discussion at the Template:British Royal Family failed to get it removed there, so the consensus looks already to be against changing. And someone please remove the hideous tag - totally unnecessary for this context.--UpDown (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone unfamiliar with the subject may wish to read Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom, specifically []. Although the arms are the official COA of the UK, they are first and foremost the COA of the reigning monarch.
 * I have moved, but not removed the tag. --Cameron* 15:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see where on the UK CoA article it states that the England/Wales/NI arms are older than the Scottish; both lists seem to start at around the same era. Regardless, that doesn't reflect modern reality, wherein the reigning monarch possesses more than one coat of arms, does she not? Someone please find the House of Windsor badge! ;) --G2bambino (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I do see your point G2. The bade currently displayed is the contintually evloving coat of arms of the succession of the British monarch. Most houses do also have a personal coat of arms unique to their family. Eg. This [[Image:Arms of Stewart.svg|50px]] is the coat of arms of the House of Stuart as a family however this [[Image:James I & VI Scottish Arms 1603.PNG|50px]] is the coat of arms James VI & I used as a sovereign. The two types of coat of arms seem to be kept in different boxes, so to speak. Ideally the former type would be the more "country neutral" but I don't think it exists in the case of the windsors. You could try asking at the Humanities reference desk. Hope you can understand what I'm even on about, I get a little muddle-headed when I get excited and then nobody can understand what I'm on about! ;) Best, --Cameron* 18:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps as I always fear nobody knows what I'm on about, we cancel each other out and are perfectly comprehensible! It seems, though, I've found an image of the House of Windsor badge, which exists on the lower-right corner of The Queen's Body Guard of the Yeomen of the Guard standard. Low and behold, it has the UK royal standard flapping from the flagpole atop the Round Tower. Still, an svg version might be of use for here and in other articles. --G2bambino (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, it's a good image! I definitely want a copy! ;) How do we get an svg image? :S --Cameron* 19:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Another version here: . I imagine someone with some photoshop skills has to make a free version of it, as was done with most coats of arms. I could try, but I wouldn't be quick. --G2bambino (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That one is even better! I would prefer the image to be an actual shield shape to it fits in with the other coat of arms nicely! I would also have a go at designing it if I had the slightest clue how! Regards, --Cameron* 19:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Mind you, the crown on the first one looks better. It is obviously the St Edward's Crown whereas the latter looks rather like the Coronet of George, Prince of Wales, which would seem rather out of place...--Cameron* 19:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

                     POPULAR CULTURE''' Shouldn't there be a paragraph here about the Windsor's effect on popular culture. After all, together the entire dynasty has had an overwhelming effect in this area. I don't want to get into any argument about when the dynasty started from, but if you look at the line of descent from Albert and Victoria right up to our current Princes William and Harry, they feature in no end of Movies, Songs,novels, Etc. I Know this list could be overwhelming if we where to focus on each and every member, but on the other hand, if we where to highlight a few specific cases we could give a flavour of the dynasty in question. Also, we could focus on what they therselves have brought to popular culture. In this case a list might go somthing like this:

(1) Prince Albert was president of the social crusades for the Extinction of Slavery, Child Work Laws and Dueling. He was the founding force behind the Great Exhibition, the Creater of Balmoral Castle, and Introduced the Christmas Tree to Popular Culture. (Although Queen Charlott was the first person in Britain to use a Christmas Tree, It was Albert who made it popular and I think this deserves at least a passing Mention) (2) Queen Victoria saved the rare ballochbuie forest from extinction when she perchased it from the woodcutter, thus saving Scotlands Colludion Pine which once covered the whole of britain and which now, because of Globel warming has retreated to the top of the Highlands where it now covers just one percent of the whole of Britain. The Landseer Paintings Commisioned by Queen Victoria. (3) Edward VII and Edwardian: Amplitude and Leasure. Also, King Edward Cigars, etc.                   (4) Prince Charles Pondburry Estate I Could go on but you get my drift. Thanks I'm Sorry if my last comment looked a mess. I'm New at this. I'm still trying to get the hang of this computer.

Image copyright problem with File:Edward Sophie Wedding.jpg
The image File:Edward Sophie Wedding.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --09:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Edward VII should be in this article
Genealogically Edward VII was the founder of this house, his son George V just decided to rename it (which he was within rights to do). Keep in mind Edward VII was not the actual senior head of the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha during his reign. His relative Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was. Edward VII should certainly be included in this article, because otherwise we'd need an article called House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-United Kingdom with just one monarch covered in it. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Counting Edward VII among the House of Windsor would be anachronistic, it was his son who renamed the House. If you don't want the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (UK) to appear with only one monarch in it, you could include the monarchs of the House of Windsor up to Elizabeth II, since it still belongs to that House as a cadet branch.Emerson 07 (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

untitled Subject/headline
I do not like such unjustified reverts. The House of Windsor is not a different house than the house of Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha. The throne is still a posession of this house, and the only thing that happened in 1917 was that they adopted a new family name. Thus, I think it makes more sense to have one list of monarchs of this house, with a note concerning the name change. Besides, your removal of the rest of the information I added were highly inappropriate. I am going to revert this page. Ertz 07:56, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * You are wrong. The name of the House was changed too: "hereby declare My Will and Pleasure that I and My children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that my descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name of Windsor" To say only the surname was changed is wrong and misleading. --Jiang 07:59, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * There's no confusion given that where the list continues or originates from is clearly states. There's more confusion when you list members of a house that is no longer called such. In addition, "house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg" is a bunch of phooey. The order in council makes the provision for the House of Windsor to continue, even when ruled by a Mountbatten-Windsor. That will have to be changed by another Order in Council. --Jiang 08:05, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pardon? No councils are in position to change the system of family succession, which is based on the agnatic principles, and which applies to all German noble families, without exceptions. No matter what they call themselves, the children of Prince Philip technically belongs to his family, the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. Ertz 08:26, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * And the stuff about the throne being a "possession" of a house reflects a position that is antiquated by a matter of some centuries. -- Nunh-huh 08:09, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * This is the British Royal Family, not the German one. No one is denying the lineage of the House of Windsor, but under British law, what is declared in the Privy Council goes. Your view is in the minority. Please cite your sources. --Jiang

i would tend to agree with Ertz, naming them of their true house would eliminate alot of confusion. - anon.


 * The best solution would be to choose another nationalistic British-sounding name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emerson 07 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

And yet Ertz's preferred name is not the actual name. That won't eliminate confusion, it will add it. - Nunh-huh 23:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not you merge the two articles in the future this one needs cleaning up now. Personally i feel you should leave them seperate but that isnt important. - Fenix

Change of Dynasty name
By Act of parliament - shit about privy council (privy council have not met as a body since the reign of Charles I. Then new proclomations this is UTTER NONSENSE. The Queen has no right to style herself unless by act of parliament. It's happened once - the dynesty are windsor until parliament decides. forget german law or any law before the Saxe-coburg-gotha change - law is law until it is changed or repealed. This nonsense is SHIT an certainly not EVER to be part of wikipedia :-
 * In April 1952, after her accession, Queen Elizabeth II ended confusion over the dynastic name when she declared to the Privy Council her “Will and Pleasure that I and My children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that my descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name of Windsor.” This comes into conflict with Germanic house laws, which state that all of her children are of the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg through their father, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

OH YES BS never ends, but with a cool was of saying its shit:-
 * Later, on February 8, 1960, the Queen issued another Order-in-Council, confirming that she and her four children will be known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that her other male-line descendants (except those who are "HRH" and a Prince or Princess) will take the name "Mountbatten-Windsor".

Any future monarch could change the dynasty name if he or she chose to do so. Another Order-in-Council would override those of George V and Elizabeth. For example, if the Prince of Wales accedes to the throne, he could change the royal house to "Mountbatten" in honour of his father, and of his uncle Louis Mountbatten. Mountbatten is the English translation of "Battenberg" and so a name of German origin as well. I can't beleive you write this shit. There is not a single source on google outside of a crazy, who possibly copied and thought it was true. I am shocked. Mike33 20:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What are YOU talking about?? A quorum of the Privy Council meets every month or so, and the full Council meets on the accession of the monarch (therefore most recently in 1952). Parliament never decided the House was Windsor in the first place, so they have no say in any change or repeal. Research "Prerogative Orders," which are made under the Crown's inherent power to act on matters for which no legislation exists.


 * Seriously, it's not worth posting replies to posts like that. Below he says "I can swear and scream at you all", which says it all. DeCausa (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

@@@"Mountbatten is the English translation of "Battenberg" and so a name of German origin as well." I personally saw Lord Mountbatten of Burma say this on his television series back in the 1970s. It might not be on google, but it was on TV, his face, his words, his lips speaking. He didn't make that many TV series, just the one. It shouldn't be too hard to get off google, get out from your desk, and go find it. Or you could ask one of his nephews. They shouldn't be hard to find. @@@ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.80.153 (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Briefly Not Windsor
Were the Royal Family briefly called the House of Mountbatten, between Elizabeth II's accession and her revertion back to Windsor, apparently on the advice of Churchill? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.107.204.140 (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, never. She didn't 'revert'; she reaffirmed the name. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A good document to look at is a formally SECRET parliament document written two months after Queen Elizabeth II ascended to the throne. I put it on my website, but it is simply downloaded from the National Archives if you want to get it yourself. National Archive Summary written on the Name Windsor (7 April 1952). While this is parliament's argument as to why the new Queen should bear a proclamation that her descendants should bear the name of Windsor. It's a good document because it goes into some history about the earlier documents issued by King George V, and parliament's interpretation of those documents.Pacomartin (talk) 07:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Head of the House of Windsor?
Is Elizabeth II truly the head of the House of Windsor? Why isn't Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, head of the house? After all, he is the senior male member of the house, right? Traditionally, one is a member of the royal house to which his/her father belonged, so Elizabeth can't be succeeded by her son. This must be true for the House of Windsor too if the House of Windsor is a branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, as this article claims. If the House of Windsor is a branch of the said German royal house, I don't understand how Richard is not the head. Surtsicna (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Act of Settlement 1701 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.217.63.142 (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The Act of Settlement 1701 has something to do with it? If it does, why didn't Victoria become head of the House of Hanover? Oh, that's right, Victoria had uncles, just like Elizabeth. So, what's the difference? Surtsicna (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

that raises the questions what is the head of household, and is the House of Windsor truly different than the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha? 67.176.160.47 (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Victoria did not become the head of the House of Hanover because the Hanoverian lands must pass to a man, whilst the British lands may pass to a woman. So there was a split, with the British crown going to Queen Victoria as heir to her father, and the Hanoverian crown to her uncle who was the closest living male to her father. The name of the British house became Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and then to Windsor, the head of the house being whomever is sovereign of the British lands. The different crowns have different laws of succession, but Elizabeth is the head of the House as she is Queen, because the laws of Britain allow a woman to inherit the throne. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  19:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant. Regardless of who inherits the crown, headship of a royal house always passes to the closest agnate. A monarch is not neccessarily head of the house he/she belongs to. The monarchs of Denmark, Norway, Spain, Belgium, and others are not heads of their respective royal houses. Surtsicna (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you're right. I've never heard of a woman who was considered to be the Head of a House before. Note, however, that because of the British insistence on keeping the name Windsor for the Queen's descendants, there will be two houses of Windsor in the UK: one would be a cadet branch of the House of Wettin (the Queen's male-line cousins) and one would be a cadet branch of the House of Oldenburg (the Queen's male-line descendants, as counted among the House of her husband). Strictly speaking, Prince Richard would indeed be the Head of the House of Windsor that descended from George V; determining the Head of the House of Windsor that descended from Prince Philip Mountbatten would be more problematic (whether it would be he himself, his wife, or his first son).Emerson 07 (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As another example, though Queen Mary II succeeded in overthrowing her father, King James II, she did not become the Head of the House of Stuart, which would later pass to her brother, James, the Old Pretender. Headship of the Royal House is not a requirement to become the British Monarch, as opposed to that of France, whose kings in the Ancien Regime could always be identified to be the Head of the Capetian Dynasty. This is so because of the male primogeniture used in Britain, and the agnatic primogeniture used in France. Headship of a House is more a matter of genealogy rather than the actual power or prestige held by an individual member compared with another.Emerson 07 (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The answer is that there is no such thing as "Head of a House", at least in English law. Anyone could assume that 'title'. There are no rules as to who is the 'Head' of the house of Windsor. It has no significance - perhaps just in the popular mind or as a 'courtesy title' only. I think other jurisdictions do attach a real meaning to 'Head of a House' - particularly in the Holy Roman Empire and in German law. I think this may be where the confusion has arisen. DeCausa (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Surtsicna, although I'd add that the whole "headship" question is not a matter of "English law", but a matter of genealogy as seen by continental European genealogists (as the families concerned are considered branches of continental European princely families). From that perspective, "House of Windsor" should be considered a cadet branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, whereas Prince Philip and his patrilineal descendants constitute a cadet branch of the House of Glücksburg, irrespective of what name they might use in the future. Jolanak (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No! See reply below (section: Is Elizabeth head of the House of Windsor?). DeCausa (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

"So today the only living royal Windsors are the agnatic descendants of George V."
Can anyone make this line clearer? Not sure what "agnatic descendents" are?173.171.151.171 (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agnatic descendants are patrilineal descendants, that is, male-line descendants (children of sons of sons of sons... of a person). Surtsicna (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And since Elizabeth II's children are members of the House of Windsor, and not agnatic descendents of George V, the statement would seem to be wrong. Eliminate "agnatic" and it becomes true. - Nunh-huh 08:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is more complicated. But if you eliminate "agnatic", Princess Anne's children, Princess Margaret's children, Princess Mary's, and Princess Alexandra's descendants also turn out to be members of the House of Windsor. Surtsicna (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all. The statement isn't "All descendants of George V are Windsors", but rather that "All living royal Windsors are descendants of George V". - Nunh-huh 09:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I though the sentence said that all agnatic descendants of George V are Windsors. Never mind. Surtsicna (talk) 10:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, its a good point.  Get rid of flaky Charles and move the Duke of Kent to the top of the succession.Eregli bob (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Duke of Kent would be wrong.  I hope I live to see the accession of King Richard the Fourth.Eregli bob (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If they did that, it would be impossible to explain why the current monarch isn't the 26-year old Ernest August the Sixth ;) Surtsicna (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I'm not an editor but can I point out to you real editors that the first part of this para is misleading:

"Only a single person, Alastair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, who was not a descendant of George V, ever bore the surname Windsor, and he died without issue. So today the only living royal Windsors are the agnatic descendants of George V."

It is definitely not true to say that only one person not related to George V bore the surname Windsor. There are plenty of Windsors in the world. The second part of the quote ("So today...") only makes sense if you clarify the first part.

Not arguing - helping to improve. Keep up the good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.11.223 (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Aren't women who marry into the royal family members of the House of Windsor? DrKiernan (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Membership to a house is determined from birth. We all belong to the house of our fathers. Strictly speaking, even the descendants of female Windsors, such as Princess Anne and Princess Margaret, should not have been listed here, since their husbands are not Windsors. There's no disputing the fact that they are members of the royal family, but membership to a royal house is entirely another thing. Emerson 07 (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Problematical statement
"Only a single person, Alastair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, who was not a descendant of George V, ever bore the surname Windsor, and he died without issue. So today the only living royal Windsors are the agnatic descendants of George V."

This statement is confusing for several reasons. Firstly, there are many people, who are not descendants of George V,  who have the surname Windsor. Secondly, one might supposed that all of the male lines from Queen Victoria's offspring, are extinct,  except for the lines through George V.  Now this may or may not be correct. Thirdly, George V's proclamation assigning the name of Windsor to the descendants of Victoria, refered to male-line descendants. Yet the said Alastair, 2nd Duke of Connaught, was descended from Victoria through his mother and his mother's mother. So why isn't he getting his family name from his father or grandfather instead of from his maternal great-grandmother anyhow ? Eregli bob (talk) 05:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The 2nd Duke of Connaught was descended from Victoria through both his mother and his father. His father's father was Victoria's third son, Prince Arthur, 1st duke of Connaught.  As far as the male lines from Queen Victoria's offspring, the male lines of Victoria's second and third sons, Alfred and Arthur, are indeed extinct.  The eldest son, Edward VII, had only one son who produced offspring, George V.  There are, in fact, numerous male-line descendants of Leopold, Victoria's youngest son.  However, these are descendants of Leopold's only son, Karl Eduard, the last duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.  They all live in Germany and bear the surname "Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha".  john k (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Would it make more sense if this was reworded: "Only a single person who was not a descendant of George V (Alastair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn) ever bore the surname Windsor under the terms of this proclamation, and he died without issue. So today the only living royal Windsors are the agnatic descendants of George V." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.201.138.25 (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The correct statement would be: "At the time of the proclamation in July 1917 there were no male line descendants of Queen Victoria subject to British rule so the latter part of the proclamation only applied to future subjects". In November, 1917 Prince Alastair had the title of Prince removed by another letters patent that said that the only great grandchild of a monarch to be styled a prince had to be the heir to the heir to the Prince of Wales. Since Prince Alastair was a male line great grandchild who was not the son of the Prince of Wales he was removed from royalty, and in keeping with the July proclamation assumed the surname Windsor. As Prince Alastair died in WWII before he married, the next non-royal to assume the surname Windsor was George Windsor, born in 1962. As of April 2011 there are 10 non-royal descendants of George V who bear the surname of Windsor. That paragraph is wordy, but it conveys the correct facts.Pacomartin (talk)

"Badge" of the House of Windsor?
What is that in the infobox and where does it come from? As far as I'm aware the only arms (or badge, whatever that's supposed to be) would be the royal coat of arms. DeCausa (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Does the article not link to Heraldic_badge? Should it? One sees references to a general badge of the House of Windsor (a relatively recent substitute for the monarch's personal badge) on the web. . Should we be looking for a better (i.e., dead-tree) reference? - Nunh-huh 00:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any WP:RS for this 'badge' on the web. If it existed surely it would be referred to on this site - it's not. The site does refer to the 'personal badges' of the Queen and other members of the Royal family (none of which look anything like this 'windsor badge), and so personal badges don't seems to have been substituted. TDeCausa (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the "Source" section of the information template on the file page itself? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  13:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Around 1938, King George VI ask the Garter King of Arms to design a heraldic badge for the House of Windsor, the badge made its first appearance in the Regimental Standard (image attached), (please note the King's sign-manual top left) of the Yeomen of the Guard. This information is from the Regiment's website and this is a close up image (from the same website) of the part of the standard with the badge on it- I drew over this file to create the image. Since then the badge has made many appearances including on a shield as part of the Queen's Beasts set of sculptures for her coronation in 1953. An example of this can be seen on this stamp, this is the whole set of stamps, the badge on a shield is being held by a griffin of Edward III (strangely enough). Additional information can be found on this website, half way down is an explanation of the Griffin and the Windsor badge. Text and book references are also available, but it will take some time to unearth them. Sodacan (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough - although they are a little obscure as sources. It's still surprising that more expected sources like the Monarchy's own website doesn't mention it. DeCausa (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably because it is a personal badge of the family and not a state device, plus it is relatively recent in its creation. Sodacan (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But the Queen's personal badge is there (the badge with the "E" on it) and personal badges of other members of the royal family are described... DeCausa (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But clearly, it does exist, and it does represent what it is suppose to. Just because it is not on the Monarchy's website doesn't mean otherwise. The website, although authoritative and thorough is definitely not a repository of ALL royal information. You would be hard pressed to find this on the webpage, yet it is the Royal Badge of Wales as issued in 1953, and is still used by the Wales Office today on their webpage. The "E" is a personal cypher, not a badge, her heraldic badges as Sovereign are: the Tudor rose, the thistle, the Welsh dragon and the Irish harp (just to name a few). Sodacan (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Err... I imagine you mean repository.... - Nunh-huh 07:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is what I mean, sorry. Anyway found this:


 * "Although the Sovereigns of the House of Windsor (this dynastic name was adopted by Royal Proclamation on 17th June 1917) have used various old royal badges only one or two new badges have been adopted that for Wales and the following badge for the House of Windsor, which was approved by King George VI on 28th July 1938: On a Mount Vert the Round Tower of Windsor Castle argent, masoned sable, flying thereon the Royal Standard, the whole within two branches of oak fructed or, and ensigned with the Imperial Crown."
 * (from J.P. Brooke-Little, 1954, Boutell's Heraldry, Frederick Warne: London and New York, pages 216-217) Sodacan (talk) 10:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * LMAO! Missed that first time round...you should nominate it for a bloopers page (if such a thing exists in WP)! DeCausa (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL, how could you miss that, I was talking to you! Sodacan (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Err, question could equally be posed to the author! DeCausa (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No excuses there ;) but you can't argue with this Sodacan (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Relinquished Arms and Titles & Restrictions of Princes and Princesses
These two subjects are closely related but not exactly the same thing. Many of these princes and princesses that relinquished titles from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha remained in the House of Windsor. Most of the German princes and princesses that lost their titles were because of the Letters Patent issued in November 1917 which restricted princes and princesses to only children, grandchildren born of a son, or the son to the heir to the Prince of Wales (unless specifically addressed in a different letters patent). I would like to move this to a different section or possibly a different article.Pacomartin (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The House of Windsor was created by letters patent on July 17, 1917. On November 30, 1917 another letters patent removed a groups of princes and princesses based on the number of generations they were from the monarch. Prince Charles Edward was not removed as a prince until 1919. I disagree that the removal of these royals is not part of the discussion of the House of Windsor. If the order of the letters patent was reversed, then there might be an argument.Pacomartin (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It was a proclamation in July, not letters patent. Foreigners are specifically excluded. They were never Windsors. DrKiernan (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Read the document below. There is not one word that excludes foreigners from bearing British titles. All it says is that the British will Relinquishing the Use of All German Titles and Dignities. The decision to exclude the Germans was proclaimed in November 1917 several months later.

German titles (July 17, 1917) By the KING. A PROCLAMATION declaring that the Name of Windsor is to be borne by his Royal House and Family and Relinquishing the Use of All German Titles and Dignities. GEORGE R.I. WHEREAS We, having taken into consideration the Name and Title of Our Royal House and Family, have determined that henceforth Our House and Family shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor: And whereas We have further determined for Ourselves and for and on behalf of Our descendants and all other the descendants of Our Grandmother Queen Victoria of blessed and glorious memory to relinquish and discontinue the use of all German Titles and Dignities: And whereas We have declared these Our determinations in Our Privy Council: Now, therefore, We, out of Our Royal Will and Authority, do hereby declare and announce that as from the date of this Our Royal Proclamation Our House and Family shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that all the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, other than female descendants who may marry or may have married, shall bear the said Name of Windsor: And do hereby further declare and announce that We for Ourselves and for and on behalf of Our descendants and all other the descendants of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, relinquish and enjoin the discontinuance of the use of the Degrees, Styles, Dignities, Titles and Honours of Dukes and Duchesses of Saxony and Princes and Princesses of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and all other German Degrees, Styles, Dignities. Titles, Honours and Appellations to Us or to them heretofore belonging or appertaining. Given at Our Court at Buckingham Palace, this Seventeenth day of July, in the year of our Lord One thousand nine hundred and seventeen, and in the Eighth year of Our Reign. GOD save the KING. Pacomartin (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is specifically restricted to persons "who are subjects of these Realms". DrKiernan (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the alternative views above, Pacomartin's edit is undue and gives disroportionate space to a very minor issue. At most it should be one line possibly with a link to its own article. And, by the way, Pacomartin if you restore your edit you will be edit-warring unless consensus is reached here. You are the one seeking to make the change, and per WP:BRD you need to obtain the consensus afrter a revert before you can restore it. DeCausa (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that it says who are subjects of these Realms but the other clause say they will Bear the name of Windsor which clearly does not refer to royals. It refers to commoners who are male line descendants from Victoria. That is not in dispute since royals don't bear name. The Our House and Family shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor refers to royals. It just so happens that in July of 1917 there was no one currently alive that met that criteria.


 * I think you are making a serious judgement call to say disproportionate space to a minor issue. This is a major issue as there are members of the House of Hanover that dispute this call until today. The expulsion of these 15 people was a fundamental part of shaping the House of Windsor from the previous Royal House.

I didn't undo Dr Kiernan's edit, even though he has made no justification of his decision to undo two of my edits. I think you have to prove your point because you are the one on nonsensical ground. My argument is consistent with the rest of the articles in Wikipedia.Pacomartin (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Pacomartin (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The fact that some individuals dispute it doesn't make it notable enough to be such a big chunk of this article. You don't understand Wikipedia processes: if you make an edit which is reverted, you need to obtain consensus before re-introducing it. At the moment you don't have that consensus. I see you have now been reported to administrators for edit-warring: you need to read WP:3RR. DeCausa (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I changed the content of my edit after the first revert. I agreed that there were not enough references and I added several. I am not the one who is undoing edits without any valid reason. The proclamation of the House of Windsor came first, and the removal of the princes and princesses by changing the generational rules came second. The generational rules applied to Alastair of Connaught as well as the German princes. This fact is an extremely important part of the historical record and is missing from this article. Do you have some pressing need to suppress these historical facts? The elimination of these princes was fundamental to the shaping of the House of Windsor. It was not a minor point of history. I did not undo any edits without trying to make a better article. DrKiernan has made no justification to his statement.Pacomartin (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter whether you "think" you are right. Have you read WP:BRD? If you make a change and consensus is against it you are not entitled to re-introduce the change. Instead, you need to try to persuade others to your view. As far as my objection is concerned, you've not demonstrated sufficient notability to take up so much space of the article. DrKiernan obviously has other objections. DeCausa (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I have sources that justify that the House of Windsor was created before the Princes were removed. I referenced them in the article. Where are your sources? I am a historian, who are you? What does that mean:you've not demonstrated sufficient notability to take up so much space of the article. I spent considerable time trying to compress these names into a small table so that it wouldn't take up a lot of space. I think I am right because I have the sources to prove it. Where are you getting your information? Pacomartin (talk)


 * I don't care whether the House of Windsor was created before the Princes were removed - that's DrKiernan's point not mine. My point is that it's not significant enough to give it such a predominant position as you want to. You want to give it almost the largest of three sections. Why? It's trivia (relatively). If you want to do some sort of advocacy on behalf of these people, Wikipedia is not the place to do it per WP:SOAP DeCausa (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I disagree with you that it is not significant. It shaped the future of the British monarchy. It is not trivia. Why is your opinion on this matter the deciding factor? I can find thousands of comments on blogs, multiple articles about the Anglicization of the BRF. I can find books in the library. I think your charges of a Soapbox make no sense. I have no advocacy. All of these people are long dead. I am interested in getting the historical facts clear. In particular the removal of Prince Charles Edward caused such bitterness in him that he retaliated by supporting Adolf Hitler. Historians have made the argument that Adolf Hitler could not have initially risen to such prominence without the backing of Prince Charles Edward. How significant is that? '''You say it is relatively trivial, and I say that it greatly influenced 20th century history? Does resolving conflict mean you get the final say here?Pacomartin (talk)

If you think it should be in it's own article then I am open to suggestions as to the sentence you would put in this article. How about: The day before the proclamation was made that the House of Windsor was created there were 15 princes and 23 princesses of the blood royal. By the end of conflict there were 7 princes and 16 princesses as outlined in Restriction of British Princely Titles in WWI. Please write your own words and we will reach concurrence. Pacomartin (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I have done everything you asked. I've reduced the whole discussion to three sentences, completely referenced, and containing only simple facts.Pacomartin (talk)


 * I've reverted your edit. I see that see that you are an experienced editor so I don't understand why you aren't following Wikipedia policies. These are the basics: Firstly, you cannot add material like this (when it's subject to dispute) until you have obtained consensus agreement here for it. Propose it here and then, when agreed, add it. I've explained it several times. This is the way Wikipedia works. Its not that "I have the final say". You are the one making a change and it's a basic principle of Wikipedia that an editor can't make a change against consensus. Two of us oppose your change - so you don't have consensus. Secondly You have a source problem. The only source you have provided is the text of the Letters Patent. Wikipedia does not work on primary sources (because of issues of interpretation). You need to find and cite a reliable secondary source (book, academic article, newpaper etc, not a blog) to support your view. Read Reliable sources and also Wikipedia policy on primary sources. Thirdly Looking at DrKiernan's point, I agree with him. The text of the proclamation does restrict the House of Windsor to British subjects. The response you gave him doesn't make sense. This is why it's important to find a secondary source (rather than relying on a primary source) to support your view, otherwise it will be the product of original research which is not permitted on Wikipedia.


 * My suggestion is that:
 * You find a secondary source supporting your point of view and resolves DrKiernan's point
 * Once you have done that, propose some wording on the Talk page here (There are still some issues with the wording you used and its positioning).
 * Create a linked article expanding on the topic


 * DeCausa (talk) 07:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Royalty does not have surnames. That is a fact of European life for a thousand years. You cannot disagree with that statement. When King George V said all the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, other than female descendants who may marry or may have married, shall bear the said Name of Windsor: he is referring to non-royals. Non-royals have surnames. Royals do not have surnames. There is no point to resolve. When this proclamation the son of Queen Victoria did not start using a surname and he was a subject of the realm. I am not using a secondary source. I am using as primary of a source as exists. I just cited a transcription since the original is unreadable Signed Letters Patent by George V I did propose some wording and you did not respond. Why do I have to get your approval? What is your qualifications that you can redefine history this way? I'm a serious student of history.Pacomartin (talk)
 * While most royals do not have surnames, because their families were founded before the adoption of surnames, some royals do have them either because they have since adopted one or because they became royal after their family adopted a surname. Prince Philip's surname was Mountbatten. Henry VII's surname was Tudor. You are confused because although royals can have surnames, they either very rarely use them or drop them on becoming royal. In the case of Windsor, the proclamation specifically says "all the male-line descendants ... who are subjects of these realms shall bear the said name of Windsor". There's no clause which excludes descendants who bear royal styles, and so the legal name of all British male-line descendants is Windsor. The Germans, however, are not and never were called Windsor. They were never members of that house. DrKiernan (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me repeat this statement If you think it should be in it's own article then I am open to suggestions as to the sentence you would put in this article. How about: The day before the proclamation was made that the House of Windsor was created there were 15 princes and 23 princesses of the blood royal. By the end of conflict there were 7 princes and 16 princesses as outlined in Restriction of British Princely Titles in WWI. Please write your own words and we will reach concurrence.
 * I don't think I need to find a secondary source that supports my claim that royalty don't have surnames. It's a known fact. If you believe they do then you find a secondary source that says royalty have surnames.
 * If you don't write your own sentence I will take it as your agreement that we have reached consensus.

Pacomartin (talk)


 * First of all who you claim to be is irrelevant. Wikipedia works on secondary sources, not on your personal knowledge or your interpration of primary sources. It also doesn't allow synthesis which is what your post amounts to. Unless you can produce a secondary source that qualifies as a reliable source that supports your point there is nothing further to discuss. If you are so convinced you are right you should not find it difficult to find such a source. It just needs to say something like "The Titles Deprivation Act 1917 and Letters Patent issued on November 30, 1917 resulted in the House of Windsor ceasing to have 8 of its princes and 7 of its princesses" or words to that effect (if this is your point). In fact, the point could also be covered in this article by that sentence but only if you can find a secondary source to support it. This is really a basic point about how Wikipedia works and I'm amazed that you can have as many edits as you have and not know this. You don't "have to get my approval" but you do have to respect Wiipedia's rules. I'll make it simple for you: secondary source good; primary source bad. Wikipedia isn't about stating the "truth" it's about being a summary of reliable secondary sources: see NOTTRUTH DeCausa (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

How about
 * On the day the House of Windsor was created there were 15 British princes and 23 princesses of the blood royal. By 28 March 1919 there were 7 princes and 16 princesses after the Titles Deprivation Act 1917 and Letters Patent issued by King George V on 30 November 1917 (published in the London Gazette on 11 December 1917) which limited the use of the style His Royal Highness or Her Royal Highness (HRH) and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess.

No interpretation of primary sources whatsoever. Just a statement of unequivocal facts backed up by another Wikipedia article and a secondary source which is quoting a primary source. The subject matter is important to history so you can't call it trivial (your interpretation). I assume that I am allowed to count, or does that qualify as basic research? Pacomartin (talk)

As this statement has nothing that can be seen as remotely subjective, is backed with a secondary source, and is as bland as possible, and no one has responded, I am assuming I have consensus?Pacomartin (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's far too misleading. First of all it implies the Germans were members of the House of Windsor. They were not. Secondly, it says that the Germans were British and not princes after 1917. But they were not British and they were still princes by virtue of their other titles. Thirdly, the source you've used is an extremely poor one. It is merely a site used for english-language comprehension tests. I would prefer no source at all, rather than a really rubbish one. DrKiernan (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, more to the point it says it is sourced from the Wikipedia article British Royal Family so it is excluded as a reliable source in accordance with WP:CIRCULAR. Pacomartin, I don't think you will get anywhere with this until you find a source that supports what you are trying to say - however that eventually ends up being expressed. Your difficulty in producing the source is beginning to look like DrKiernan is correct. From my point of view, so long as this is kept to being 2 or 3 sentences (say) I have no objection to it going in provided you can find a source that is on point. DeCausa (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to find a free source without having to purchase a legal journal where I know it is published. Why doesn't DrKiernan have to provide a source? These 15 people were princes and princesses from birth. (that point is clear) The House of Windsor was proclaimed on July 17 1917 (that point is clear). The passage
 * all the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, other than female descendants who may marry or may have married, shall bear the said Name of Windsor

is clearly referring to commoners who are in the male line from Queen Victoria (that point is obvious). The reason it is obvious is that royals do not have surnames. Surnames only became common in Britain in the 13th century. Royal families continued the ancient practice of styling themselves by territories and did not acquire surnames. Every commoner (there are at least 10 living) in the male line from Queen Victoria has the surname Windsor. But only British male line descendants bear that name. The German ones do not call themselves Windsor. If you don't believe me then here is a reference:
 * The Letters Patent of 1917 in limiting the number of persons who may be entitled to the style of "H.R.H. Prince X" (for whom, as I have said a surname is unnecessary) made it [u]essential to provide a surname for those of the Royal Family who in the future, by reason of the Letters Patent, would not be entitled to that style[/u]. Accordingly the Proclamation of 1917 provided that the surname should be Windsor.The Name of Windsor, Memorandum by Lord Chancellor, National Archives Catalogue Reference:CAB/129/51

A total of 14 princes and princesses were removed as British princes and princesses on November 30, 1917 (that point is clear). The final prince, Charles Edward) was removed on 28 March 1919 (he was the only male line grandson). July 17, 1917 comes before November 30, 1917 and before 28 March 1919 (I hope that is clear). So there was a period when the House of Windsor was created when these 15 people were British princes and princesses (that is a mathematical certainty).

I do not even understand this sentence. There were no German princes after 18 November 1918. Can you explain to me what this objection means in clear language?
 * Secondly, it says that the Germans were British and not princes after 1917. But they were not British and they were still princes by virtue of their other titles.

And what about the charge that about the sentence it implies. Is that a clear unbiased statement? I took careful pains to make the statements unbiased and precise.

Read it again and make your comments clear and don't use words like imply.
 * On the day the House of Windsor was created there were 15 British princes and 23 princesses of the blood royal. By 28 March 1919 there were 7 princes and 16 princesses after the Titles Deprivation Act 1917 and Letters Patent issued by King George V on 30 November 1917 (published in the London Gazette on 11 December 1917) which limited the use of the style His Royal Highness or Her Royal Highness (HRH) and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess.

Pacomartin (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Before I comment on the above could you clarify one point. From your table that you had put in the article, 4 of the Princes and 5 of the Princesses that lost their titles wer from the House of Hanover. Why are they relevant to this article? (Btw, could you use standrd Wikipedia indnting practice when you post to this page as it makes it difficult to follow the flow of the discussion by not doing so.) DeCausa (talk) 06:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

They were also British princes in addition to being part of the House of Hanover. The head of the House of Hanover was the same as the King of Great Britain and Ireland for the reigns of George I, George II, George III, George IV, and William IV. It was only split between Queen Victoria and her uncle because Hanover did not permit a female monarch. The members of the House of Hanover when functioning as British princes were under the reign of George V. He did not remove them as British princes until November 30, 1917 when he signed the letters patent. It is quite possible to hold a royal position in two different houses in Europe. The current Prince Phillip was born a Prince of Denmark, and a Prince of Greece. The current head of the House of Hanover before he wed Princess Caroline of Monaco since he was a descendant of George II. George II said that all of his princes needed to ask permission of the monarch as to their choice of bride so he could see that they were not marrying beneath their dignity. You will notice on the table that in the first column I put their primary title which was often German, and in the second column I put their British title. By 1918 the German government removed all the German titles of nobility. Anyway, I will concede that a listing of the names can be put in a different article according to your definition of trivial. I have reduced the comment here to a simple count. Pacomartin (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I will reproduce the table here for clarification of anyone reading this section. I didn't put the British title for the princesses since they would all be identical HRH Princess X. Normal procedure is to call someone by their highest title. If their highest title is German you use that first. Every person on here is a male line descendant of a British monarch which is why they are designed British princes or British princesses'. King George V changed the rules on November 1917, 5 months after he created the House of Windsor. He said that you now had to be a (1) child of a monarch, (2) a grandson via a son, (3) the oldest son of the heir to the heir, (4) covered by name in letters patent by a former or future monarch. So the two princesses (daughter of Louisa) were made princesses by his father. He didn't retroactively change his father's explicit will, but he was changing the rules covering the general case.

Although the primary motivation at the time was to eliminate the British princes and princesses who were living in a nation fighting against Britain, it would have been a simple matter to publish personal letters to make the 3 year Alastair a prince. King George V did not do that because he had the foresight to envision a smaller group of royals for the future. That is why today, Princess Anne's children are not royal, Prince Harry's children will not automatically be royal, and Lord Freddy Windsor is not royal, nor is his sister Lady Gabriella Windsor. The only child of the next generation to automatically be royal while the Queen lives is the oldest son of Prince William.

''The action of King George V in renouncing the German titles of his family and in limiting the number of persons entitled to the style of Royal Highness was widely acclaimed at the time when we were at war with Germany. Later, when the passions of war had subsided, it was also generally regarded as having been an act of wise statesmanship which had confirmed and increased the prestige of the monarchy.'' THE NAME OF "WINDSOR", Memorandum by the Lord Chancellor, 7TH APRIL, 1952

Pacomartin (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you please follow usual indenting practice on this Talk page. I've already asked you to do that, and it's discourteous not to follow the relevant Wikipedia guideline: Help:Using talk pages.


 * As far as your message is concerned, you have not explained what is the relevance to this article, which is not about "British princes", it's about the House of Windsor. I've reorganized your table below and as can be seen only one Windsor prince and no Windsor pincesses lost their Title. This assumes that DrKiernan is correct - that the Prince/Princesses who were not British subjects did not become Windsors by virtue of the exception in the July proclamation. I tend to accept what DrKiernan says on this because it can be readily seen from the wording of the proclamation itself. Your argument that the "subjects only" provision of the proclamation doesn't apply to Royals because they don't have surnames doesn't hold water. As DrKiernan says in an earlier message today here, the Tudors (and, indeed, the Stuarts) did have a surname. If you want to include these people as Windsors you would definitely need a specific source confirming that they became Windsors. As only one Windsor lost the title of Prince (and no Windsors lost the title of princess) I really don't see that this is something for this article. It could be suitable for the British Royal Family article or more likely the British prince article where this is already mentioned.


 * {|class="wikitable"

!Name !A Windsor who lost the title of Prince? !House
 * + Princes deprived of their British titles
 * Alastair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn
 * Yes
 * Windsor
 * Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
 * No
 * Saxe-Coburg-Gotha: Not a British Subject at the time of the July Letters Patent
 * John Leopold, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
 * No
 * Saxe-Coburg-Gotha: Not a British Subject at the time of the July Letters Patent
 * Prince Hubertus of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (pilot)
 * No
 * Saxe-Coburg-Gotha: Not a British Subject at the time of the July Letters Patent
 * Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick
 * No
 * Hanover
 * Ernest Augustus IV, Prince of Hanover
 * No
 * Hanover
 * Prince George William of Hanover (1915–2006)
 * No
 * Hanover
 * }
 * No
 * Hanover
 * Prince George William of Hanover (1915–2006)
 * No
 * Hanover
 * }
 * }
 * }


 * {|class="wikitable"

!Name !A Windsor who lost the title of Princess? !House
 * + Princesses deprived of their British titles
 * Princess Frederica of Hanover
 * No
 * Hanover
 * Princess Marie Louise of Hanover and Cumberland
 * No
 * Hanover
 * Princess Alexandra of Hanover and Cumberland
 * No
 * Hanover
 * Princess Olga of Hanover and Cumberland
 * No
 * Hanover
 * Princess Sibylla of Albany
 * No
 * Saxe-Coburg-Gotha: Not a British Subject at the time of the July Letters Patent
 * Princess Caroline Mathilde of Albany
 * No
 * Saxe-Coburg-Gotha: Not a British Subject at the time of the July Letters Patent
 * Princess Fredrica of Hanover and Brunswick-Luneburg
 * No
 * Hanover
 * }
 * No
 * Saxe-Coburg-Gotha: Not a British Subject at the time of the July Letters Patent
 * Princess Fredrica of Hanover and Brunswick-Luneburg
 * No
 * Hanover
 * }
 * }
 * }


 * DeCausa (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I will grant you that the surnames of Tudor and Stuart do seem like exceptions, and you genuinely believe your argument is valid. But my argument does hold water and DrKiernan is not correct. I refer you to the National Archives and the Lord Chancellors memorandum, The Name Windsor. As this is the official parliamentarian record on this issue this document is above dispute, above your opinion, my opinion, and DrKiernan's opinion. It may be said that members of two of our Royal Houses possessed surnames, and it is true that the Tudor and Stuart dynasties are known by those names, which were the surnames of their founders but, as I have already said, such precedents can be of little value today,. You can download this document if you don't believe me from the UK national archives http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ reference CAB/129/51, 7TH April 1952. It is a secondary document, since it is summarizing the letters patent and proclamations of Queen Victoria, George V, and the historical relationship between royalty and surnames. The Lord Chancellor is interpreting the meaning of the documents issued by George V. He is very very explicit in saying that the comments about surnames were designed for future people who would be common and would require a surname.  The Lord Chancellor states that surnames are quite a separate thing than the name of the Royal Household and that the descendants of Queen Victoria, who are subjects of these Realms other than female descendants who may marry or may have married should bear the surname of Windsor. No ambiguity whatsoever. Your table is wrong. As British princes and princesses they are subject to the head of the royal house of Britain. To give you a more recent example from 1998/99, Ernst August, Prince of Hanover (born 1954) Duke of Brunswick, Prince of Great Britain and Ireland, applied to Queen Elizabeth II for permission to marry Princess Caroline of Monaco. On 11 January 1999, Queen Elizabeth II formally responded with an order in council. Even though he was a German citizen, marrying a Monaguesque princess. As far as I am concerned I have met your requirement to produce a secondary source that confirms beyond a shadow of a doubt that the British government interprets that section of the proclamation to refer to common male line descendants of British monarchs. And until those 14 people were denied the title of British prince and princess they were part of the royal family. The 15th person was Prince Charles Edward, who was a male line grandson, and did not have his title removed until 1919. As a grandson''' he was not covered by the letters patent of November 1917. Pacomartin (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Your entire argument that all British Princes were not affected by the Proclamation of July 1917 is based on the phrase "who are subjects of these Realms". As I have shown by reference to the Lord Chancellors letter that portion of the proclamation only refers to commoners who need a surname. All British Princes are subject to their monarch. I think you need to find a secondary source that supports your claim that someone could be a British prince and not part of the ruling Royal Household. It is not sufficient to say that they had a German title also. As I stated above, lots of people have titles from more than one kingdom. I do not want to add my statement to some other Wikipedia article since it belongs here since it is part of this period in history. There are other sentences in the article like At the same time, Prince Louis of Battenberg adopted the surname Mountbatten, a partial translation into English. Prince Louis is the maternal grandfather of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.. While the name of the House of Battenberg is not directly part of an article on the House of Windsor, the changing of both names is historically related. The removal of the titles of roughly a third of the British Prince and Princess (and their noble titles) is part of the same story. That's why I would like to see this sentence included in this article. My argument is unequivocally backed by a secondary source which is beyond dispute.Pacomartin (talk) 07:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nothing there about whether the Germans are members of the House of Windsor. DrKiernan (talk) 08:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's also very easy to find sources saying it is a surname used by all the male and unmarried female descendants of George V. DrKiernan (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For me that's the end of the matter. The Hanover princes/princesses are clearly not Windsors and have no place in this article. (Pacomartin, I have no idea why you would think Ernst August asking for permission to marry has any bearing on this.) As for the "German" Saxe-Coburg-Gotha Prince/Princeses being Windsors, the only argument for it was Synthesis (not a direct source) based on whether Royals have a surname. The official website of the Royal Family is sufficient to dispell that argument. Pacomartin, if you want to pursue this you will need to invoke one of the content dispute resolution processes or wait for others to comment in your favour - as at the moment two of us are against your change and you have no one agreeing with you. DeCausa (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For starters, my statement did not say they were in the House of Windsor. I merely said that when the House of Windsor was created there was this many princes and princesses. At the date in 1919 there were this many. Your rebuttal was that the Proclamation only applied to "subject of the realm". I have clearly shown that that section of the proclamation only applied to non -royal male line descendants who use a surname. You are clearly wrong in this matter. I have a secondary source of the highest level that agrees with that. If your only criteria is that every sentence in this article has to do with the house of Windsor, then let's scrub the entire article for references to Mountbatten. Why would the surname of an Admiral be more appropriate for this article then a single paragraph that addresses the status of 15 British princes and princesses? I say that if you are prince of a country, and the ruling house is the house of xxx, then you are in that house. You say differently. Where is your secondary source? Why the hell are you fighting this simple statement of historical fact?

How about if I reword my edit to say: ''On the day the House of Windsor was created there were 15 British princes and 23 princesses of the blood royal. By 28 March 1919 there were 7 princes and 16 princesses but in accordance with the rules set down by the proclamation made by King George V on July 1917 only one Prince, Alastair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn received the surname Windsor.'' There is no way on earth that you can dispute the factual accuracy of that statement. Please state in clear unambiguous terms without getting on a WP:SOAPS. If you want to propose a rewording of that statement, then I am open to your suggestion. If you insist that it is not part of the House of Windsor, I will expect you to endorse a thorough scrubbing of the article for all incidental comments.

The above statement is not in conflict with the statement on the official royal web site: '''The House of Windsor came into being in 1917, when the name was adopted as the British Royal Family's official name by a proclamation of King George V, replacing the historic name of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. It remains the family name of the current Royal Family.''' Pacomartin (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose that the Mountbatten comment is there to set the scene for the later paragraphs where it is explained that Philip's children are not members of his house, but members of their mother's house instead. You could try removing it if you wish, and see if anyone complains. DrKiernan (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem determined to prove that I have an agenda other than historical accuracy. Personally, I think the sentence is appropriate to the article, because the renaming of the Battenberg surname occurred at exactly the same time as the renaming of the royal house. Since they are related historically, by the same reasoning, I think that the reduction of the number of British Princes and Princesses is appropriate to this article because the two events went hand in hand. I have reworded and addressed every objection that you made. The limitation of the princes & princess titles was probably more historically significant than the change in the Battenberg surname. Pacomartin (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My objections are not addressed. Apart from the other issues, your most recent version says only Alastair got the surname, that is directly contradicted by a source that says they all got the surname. Why not a much simpler and succinct statement like: During the war and after, George also stripped his German relations of their British titles and styles. DrKiernan (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant only Alastair got the surname in 1917, all the other non-royal male line descendants received the surname Windsor as they were born starting with George Windsor in 1962. I would prefer the more specific During the war and after, George V also stripped 22 of his German relations of their British titles and styles of prince and princess. The need for accuracy is that some other Germans lost titles like baron. I would also like to include at a later date a reference to another Wikipedia article that would pursue the topic in more detail. Can I say we have reached agreement?Pacomartin (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's 14, surely? Other than that, I have no objection. I can't speak for others, obviously. DrKiernan (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Not yet. Where did "22" come from? What person was stripped of the title "princess"? And I agree with DrKiernan's earlier statement that royalty could, did and do sometimes have surnames (Spain's royalty, just as an obvious instance, have used the Bourbon surname since Philip V), so that there can be no implication in the article that Alastair was the only descendant of Queen Victoria who acquired the surname "Windsor" in 1917, since there is no consensus for that interpretation. FactStraight (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My error. I meant to type 15 (the 8 princes and 7 princesses in the earlier tables). Fourteen of them lost their title of prince and princess by the letters patent in November 30, 1917 and 1 lost his title of Prince in 1919. Although we are removing this mention of Alistair Windsor from the article, he was the only former British prince who received the surname of Windsor as a result of the combined proclamation of July 1917 and letters patent November 1917. But the rule remained in effect. When 3rd generation male line descendants started being born in 1962 they were given the surname Windsor. I count 14 (but 2 are married now).

(1) George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews b. 26 June 1962 (2) Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick b. 2 December 1988 (3) Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor b. 30 September 1992 (4) Lady Amelia Windsor b. 24 August 1995 (5) Lord Nicholas Windsorb. 25 July 1970 (6) Albert Windsor b. 2007 (7) Leopold Windsor b. 2009–) (8)  Lord Frederick Windsor b. 6 April 1979 (9)  Lady Gabriella Windsor b. 23 April 1981 (10) Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster b. 24 October 1974 (11) Xan Windsor, Lord Cullodenb. 12 March 2007 (12) Lady Cosima Windsor b 20 May 2010 (13) Lady Davina Lewis b. 19 November 1977 (dropped the surname Windsor upon marriage in 31 July 2004) (14) Lady Rose Gilman b. 1 March 1980 (dropped the surname Windsor upon marriage in 16 November 2007 ) Now the addition reads During the war and after, George V also stripped 15 of his German relations of their British titles and styles of prince and princess. with the agreement that there will be reference to a longer article specifically geared towards this subject at a later date.Pacomartin (talk)
 * I've just reverted your edit. These Princes and princesses were not windsors so your edit has no place in this article. Take it to British Royal Family or British prince. DeCausa (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I had consensus with DrKiernan. I thought that you agreed to a majority consensus. Do you feel that we should delete every sentence in the article now that does not directly concern the House of Windsor?Pacomartin (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why you went back on your word. Once I had a majority consensus then the edit was OK. Bottom line is it you want it your way or no way.Pacomartin (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't "gone back on my word". When did I ever mention "majority" consensus? There's no such thing. Review WP:Consensus for its meaning. OK, I guess I don't need to be purist about this and exclude all mention of it - although you haven't really explained why it belongs in this article. But the way you've inserted it gives the impression that these people are Windsors. I'd be happy with During the war and after, George V also stripped 15 of his German relations - most of whom belonged to the House of Hanover - of their British titles and styles of prince and princess. DeCausa (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And I have repeatedly asked you not to make charges of gives the impression or implies. I have also asked you to provide a secondary source about who is or was not in the House of Windsor. The only answer is your reliance on the section of proclamation of July 1917 where King George V says "who are subjects of these Realms". Even the Lord Chancellor interprets that phrase to refer to commoners who are descended from male line from Queen Victoria who would adopt the surname Windsor. There were still male line descendants of QV in Germany. Once Prince Charles Edward became common, they didn't want him to adopt the surname Windsor. Since the royals were still British Princes for a few months or a few years in some cases, and the ruling house was called House of Windsor, I would assume you can't be a royal and not belong to the royal house. Since you have made no attempt to find a secondary source to prove your argument then my position is the statement belongs in here. By the way, I color coded the article on British Princes to make it easier to read. I will withdraw all of my objections if we put British prince as a Wikipedia reference in the article on House of Windsor. I feel that it is a significant part of history, and I just don't want it buried in a relatively obscure article. Pacomartin (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course you can be a royal and not belong to the royal house. When Edward VII became King he was in the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. His maternal cousins, like Prince George, Duke of Cambridge, didn't suddenly switch houses because the royal house had changed. They remained in the House of Hanover. Similarly, when George V founded the House of Windsor his German relations remained in their own houses. Only the British royals switched. DrKiernan (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Pacomartin you are now not making any sense whatsoever. Your above point is not relevant to the 8 Princes and Princesses on your chart from the House of Hanover. The July proclamation is irrelevant to that House and only applies to the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas. Of course...that's basic. There is absolutely no doubt that the 8 members of the House of Hanover always remained in that House and never became members of the House of Windsor. No one thinks otherwise - and if you do you have badly misunderstood the change of name. The "German" Saxe-Coburg-Gothas issue is an entirely different matter and turns on the point you make in your post. My amendment to your words, is factually correct, lets you make your point and does not "cover up" anything, and avoids the point which I thought was in dispute i.e. whether the S-C-Gs became Windsors. If you think the Hanovers became Windsors you frankly don't now what you are talking about. DeCausa (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are a really being insulting here. May I point out that even members of parliament at the time freely admitted that the issue was not straightforward. Even, the status of the title of Prince, and whether this could be removed under the prerogative, was put to Sir Alfred Scott-Gatty, Garter King of Arms, who reported to Lord Sanderson, a member of the Select Committee considering the Bill, on 24th April 1917. The question also arose of whether the Duke of Cumberland and Albert of Schleswig-Holstein held any British title of Prince, of which they could be deprived. Garter stated that Letters Patent issued on 3rd February 1864 provided that the royal titles of Prince and Princess and Royal Highness were to be borne by children and grandchildren of Sovereigns. Garter considered this to be merely declaratory of existing law and identified two ambiguities in the provision. First, that it was not clear whether royal titles were limited to the children or grandchildren of Sovereigns, or could devolve on more remote issue. Second, that it was not clear whether all grandchildren were meant or only grandchildren in the male line. Practice since then had not clarified the position, as there had been a number of cases in which grandchildren in the female line had been formally created Prince or Princess with the prefix of Highness, which would not have been necessary had they held royal titles automatically. - A Reaction to Popular Hysteria:The Titles Deprivation Act 1917 Ann Lyon Lecturer in Law University of Wales Swansea However, there were several documents which referred to these people by the title of British prince (even though they were only great grandchildren of a former British monarch). 'The entire point of the Letters Patent issued in latter part of 1917 was to formally clarify the rules in unambigious terms about who was a British Prince and Princess and who was not.' All of these documents, (1) the declaration of the House of Windsor, (2) the letters patent that limited princes/princesses to children, male line grandchildren, and the oldest son of the heir to heir, unless specifically covered individually by another letter patent, (3)the Titles Deprivation Act (4) the adoption of Anglican names by members of the families close to the royal family and (5) the distribution of British titles to replace the German titles relinquished, were all part of the same discussions in Parliament, and the same historical action. No one had ever renamed a house before. I didn't even bring up the distinction between houses. As to the line I would assume you can't be a royal and not belong to the royal house. I have discussed this point with an expert on the law of titles. She said that since all these people were descendants of Sophia of Hanover, according to the Princess Sophia’s Naturalisation Act 1705 (which gave British nationality to the Electress Sophia and her non-Catholic issue whenever born) and was in force up to 1949. As far as she is concerned all of these people (including the Hanovers) were British subjects by this law. However, I do not want to put this complex point of law into the Wikipedia article. I didn't raise any of these issues. All I want to do is to give readers some indication that the large reduction in the number of princes and princesses that resulted from the decision to create an Anglicized British house. I have no idea why you are fighting this very simple straightforward edit. Pacomartin (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * None of your over-lengthy post answers my last message. There is absolutely no evidence, no source and no logic behind claiming that Hanovers became Windsors. I'm done here. DeCausa (talk) 05:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And you have framed your entire argument that removing the titles of British princes is irrelevant because they were a different House. I didn't bring up that argument. By 1917 The Kingdom of Hanover had not existed for 51 years. There was no place for these people to rule, they held those titles entirely in pretense against the German government. They only had aristocratic leverage because they were princes of the United Kingdom. They were British Dukes, British generals, Members of the Knights of the Royal Garter, and in many ways thought they were part of the British royal family. Look at my edit. All I want to say is that the British government removed these British princes and princesses from the royal family and took away their titles. Legal advisors at the time wrote extensively that the situation was complex. They further wrote that law and status was unclear. Even the nationality of these people was open to extensive interpretation. Yet you sit here and smugly say your wealth of knowledge is above all of that conflict. In the case of the Duke of Brunswick and his children, the government was proclaiming that people were traitors and denying their titles British prince only three years after personally making them princes by letters patent. I have repeatedly asked you not to make charges of gives the impression or implies. I have also asked you to provide a secondary source about who is or was not in the House of Windsor which you have failed to do. But since you seem absolutely determined to add the clause, I will go with it. It isn't correct since the removal of the titles was done by Order in Council, specifically because George V was unhappy with the decision. Their nationality is also in question since they were living in Austria. I still think what I wrote was simple, uncluttered, and totally factual. You are the ones who brought up all the charges of irrelevancy. The edit will read. During the war and after, George V also stripped 15 of his German relations - most of whom belonged to the House of Hanover - of their British titles and styles of prince and princess. exactly as you wrote it.Pacomartin (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)