Talk:Lady Nicholas Windsor

Croatian Association
firstly: this is a private association, with no official status at all. To be cited in the article is far enough, in my humble opinion.

second: in the article there is a "lack" of objectivity, because the "pretension" of the surname it is historically based on the origin of the Doimi family. And this fact it wasn't never reported before.

third: the part referring this "statement" of this "association" is absolutely too vast compared to the whole article

That's why a short version on this matter is much better --Holytrully (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've re-written this, as I feel your version was too short. I have shortened the whole bit down, but I do feel the quote is necessary.--UpDown (talk) 07:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you are wrong. This "statement" came from a VERY PRIVATE ASSOCIATION with NO OFFICIAL STATUS AT ALL (!) could be - at VERY last....." stay in a note. Now is "surdimensioned" compared to the vhole article.... Please, don't revert. Thank's --Holytrully (talk) 10:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW: I never heard Lady Eindsor calling herself "princess Frankopan". This is wrong too.--Holytrully (talk) 10:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I wrote a complete version. Please keep it. Thanks --Holytrully (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yours was not a complete version, it was reduced version that appears to try and ignore the fact he's assumed an title with no apparent entitlement or right. Quoting the association is fine; we are not saying they are right, just saying that side of the argument. A note is also not correct for this use anyway. There would be no "official" source for this purpose, as Croatia is not a Monarchy and will not have an official view. Several media sources referred to Lady Nicholas as a princess before marriage. I am also concerned that you have come on WP for one reason and one reason only - to change this article. This suggests to me a strong POV.--UpDown (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition, neither of the references you give (from what I can see), show the relationship between this family and the Frankopan family. You would need an actual source giving the exact relationship.--UpDown (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the present version. The following is the only right words you have written until now, in my opinion; "There would be no "official" source for this purpose, as Croatia is not a Monarchy and will not have an official view". So, you could see for yourself that the "opinion" of this totally private "association" got the exactly identical "weight" that your opinion, or my opinion or the opinion of someone walking in the street now... Obviously you got some uknown hate to this person, because you dont' want to allow to explain, at least,  the POV of the family, but ONLY the POV of someone want to discredit the family.--Nosferamus (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I will not edit the page further, at the moment, for 3RR reasons. However, it is clear you both have POV, with one of you only editing this page and the other seeming only to edit on the family. I am perhaps guessing you are related to them, but thats not the point. Just because something is a private association does not mean it is not an authority on the matter. The sources given do not prove that the family have any connection to the Frankopan family. Either provide a source, or I will revert to the correct, NPOV version when I can. This is not about discrediting the family, it is about saying in a neutral manner that they appear to have no claim to use the name, and as such have been expelled from the Croation Nobility Association. Please remember Wikipedia is not for you to push your personal views or thoughts on this matter - clearly you are doing so.--UpDown (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I can only reply for myself. I got no intentions to "push a personal views or thoughts" as you said. It's seem's to me that if someone is trying to do this, that's is you. Because you pretend to insert in the article the POV of this "association" AGAINST the use of this surname, but you denied to allow anybody to present, at least, why (questionable or not, that's not the point here) the family was allowed to add this surname (the family origin from Doimo Frankopan-frangipane, I mean). I linked two genealogies of the Frankopan-Frangipani and - of course - there are genealogy of the FRANKOPAN family, not of the DOIMI family. For this reason never find any Doimi genealogy there. The DOIMI genealogy is well-known by scholars, and the origins from Doimo Frangipane are well-known too. Doesn't matter to me the "statement" of this guy (the "president" of this private and not official "Croatian noble association") much than ANY OTHER statement. For example myself I'm a president of an historically genealogical society too, and I'm well aware that the Doimi family descend from the Frankopan-Frangipani. Oh, btw, I'm afraid  I failed the occasion to be interviewed by "The Times".....:=) ! Finally, you wrote: "they appear to have no claim to use the name, and as such have been expelled from the Croation Nobility Association" and so? Once again, this doesn't prove anything! It just a PRIVATE OPINION of someone! This article IS NOT THE PLACE where WE CAN ASSERT OR DENIED the right to use this surname.

Do you like to keep the NEGATIVE POV? OK,m it is more that enough, But, please, don't insist trying to have the MAXIMUM evidence of this negative POV in the article. Thanks--Holytrully (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You still have not provided a reference linking the two families.--UpDown (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You have now had six days, and have not provided a ref for the link between the two families. I will revert to the neutral, NPOV version which just states that the use of the surname has recieved criticism.--UpDown (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You keep insisting asking for "evidences", but - as already wrote - this is not a place where we must collect "evidences" on this matter. Just reporting a NEUTRAL POV, reporting NOT the criticism ONLY (as seem's you like....) but ALSO the reasons supporting the family claims. Just this! Hoping the final revision will satisfy everybody. Thanks --Holytrully (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My version is fully sourced, by relaible sources. It says both sides of the argument, and includes a quote from the family explaining their position. This is neutral. Having such a long text in a footnote is not appriopiate - this should be in the text main. You clearly have a POV, as a single-purpose account, and I would urge you to accept my version, which as I said includes quotes from both sides.--UpDown (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral version?
I don't agree with .--UpDown (talk)version because is far then neutral. You asserted have posted "both sides arguments" but it's not true. I see no problem at all to have few lines in the footnotes. You clearly have a POV and it is more than evident that you are pushing because your no-neutral version - all oriented to criticism against the family - must be accepted. I repeat, your version it is far than neutral. I agree to revert to the previous version. If you insist, you'll be reported. --Nosferamus (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read the differences? After my adding "private, non-governmental organisation", there is pracitcally no difference at all, apart from yours being in the footnote (which is not the practise on Wikipedia). You are clearly POV, as shown by your edits in similar articles, and I will revert again. This is a neutral version formatted how Wikipedia articles should be. --UpDown (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly hope we can proceed in a civil confrontation.

I was just seing your "compromise" (!) ad I must admit that this is a (single) point that i can agree: definiton for this associat as "private, non-governmental organisation" it is correct. But i still not agree. To have this part in the main text, on the contrary, it make the article too "heavy" to read, IMHO. All this controversial matter not seem's to me so "important" for this biography. This is the reason why it must reamain in the footnote. And, finally you "forgot" (!) to keep the historical reasons su substaining the family claims. I'll introduce your "compromise" about the Association and I will revert in the footnote. Please, accept this very honest "compromise" and also, please, stop to try to "investigate" into all the accounts "Involving" in this discussion. See for yourself. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosferamus (talk • contribs) 14:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would urge you not to go ahead with that change. Information like that should not be in the footnote, it is not WP practise. Either information should be in the article or not, putting in the footnote makes no difference to that. I removed the genealogy link as it does not prove the link between the families, and is also possibly too much detail. I do find it interesting that the only edit your and Hollytrully do are connected with this family - that to me suggests a POV. --UpDown (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"Lady Paola Windsor"
From the main page under External links
 * La Casata dei Lupi. :(Italian language), contains photos of Lord and Lady Nicholas, their first son Albert, and members :of the Lupis family. Retrieved 26 September 2009. As of 26 September 2009, this was the only source :online that had the name of the second son as Leopold Ernest Augustus Guelph Windsor. However, :this name has not been confirmed by other sources, and the source calls her Lady Paola Windsor, :which is incorrect. [bolding here only]

Unfortunately, this family site calls the wife of Lord Nicholas Windsor, Lady Paola Windsor. She is not a) the daughter of a British duke (by British, I include all English, Scottish, Irish, Great Britain, United Kingdom dukes for convenience) b) the daughter of a British marquess, or c) the daughter of a British earl.

She was born the daughter of a commoner, whatever his lineage, ancestry or nobiliary claims outside the British Isles. She has acquired her title by marriage, and that title rank, style, and precedence is that of the wife of a younger son of a British duke (who just also happens to be a Royal duke).

In the same way that Princess Michael of Kent holds her title entirely by marriage, Lady Nicholas Windsor also holds her title by marriage. Please note the title of the article, and also various articles available on British nobiliary law and custom online e.g. at www.heraldica.org.

Unfortunately, an anonymous user believes otherwise. I have chosen to revert his/her changes, and to state my reasons on this discussion page.

wikibiohistory (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As the referred site is an Italian site, in Italy it sound absolutely "odd" to name a female "Lady Nicholas" or "Lady Charles" or using a male name for a woman. This is the only reason why, i. e., Lady Diana has ever been stated as "Lady Diana" and not "Lady Charles".

Also, according to the "Cerimoniale della Presidenza della Repubblica Italiana", all the members of a sovereign and reigning families that come to visit Italy, are addressed as "Le Loro Altezze Reali", (LLAARR) (english TRH) or "Sua Altezza Reale" "SAR" (en.: HRH) etc. (check the official site of "Ministero degli affari Esteri - Cerimoniale diplomatico) Once again, as it come fomr an Italian site, using italian language, the use in the genealogy published in the site reflects the italian protocol and customs. signed by: "the anonymous"!
 * Complete rubbish! The Italian Government does not assign HRH to anyone not an HRH is their own country. The HRH for the Kent's dies out with the present Duke anyway. Giacomo Returned 20:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Unnamed son in Bold
When the article mentions about Leopold Windsor's birth, firstly, it says 'an unnamed son' and unnamed is in bold. Why? --2.96.162.137 (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

British Civil law
I am not sure that British civil law mentions any name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.127.229.107 (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See Legal name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.65.5.186 (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Actual birth name
Reflecting the widely-accepted fact that her father changed the family name, Lady Nicholas was born- as can be seen on any genealogical records site- Paola Louise M. D(oimi). de Lupis, in 1969, at Westminster, London, mother's name 'Detter' (for reference, her brother Nicholas was similarly born without the 'Frankopan'). Since some source or other apparently gives her 'birth name' as including the assumed name of 'Frankopan', I make no effort to remove the assertion from the article, but for anyone wondering, her birth record- appropriately- makes no such reference to the Frankopan family name. Ashiyura (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Added details from Cambridge University Lists of Members, which, necessarily reflecting the legal names of individuals attending the university, are accurate; these clearly show that Lady Nicholas was a member of the university as 'Paola Louise Marica Doimi de Lupis' at first, and in subsequent years added the 'Frankopan Subic', with her original name being provided alongside presumably to clarify for anyone who might look her up and wonder if this new name pertained to the same individual, as they not unreasonably might. Ashiyura (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lady Nicholas Windsor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131618273000/http://www.vogue.com/vogue-daily/article/my-royal-wedding-paola-de-frankopan-remembers-her-own-marriage-into-the-british-royal-family/ to http://www.vogue.com/vogue-daily/article/my-royal-wedding-paola-de-frankopan-remembers-her-own-marriage-into-the-british-royal-family/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141205050031/http://www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha/news/2006_1.html to http://www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha/news/2006_1.html
 * Added tag to http://www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha/news/2007_1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lady Nicholas Windsor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131618273000/http://www.vogue.com/vogue-daily/article/my-royal-wedding-paola-de-frankopan-remembers-her-own-marriage-into-the-british-royal-family/ to http://www.vogue.com/vogue-daily/article/my-royal-wedding-paola-de-frankopan-remembers-her-own-marriage-into-the-british-royal-family/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

"At birth Albert was 26th in the line of succession"
Albert was born in 2007. His father became a Roman Catholic in 2001, thereby giving up his place in the succession. So how could Albert be in the line of succession? And he himself is a Catholic. The link to the article Succession to the British throne has him and his brothers at 40, 41, 42. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

'Frankopan' surname
Why has one editor taken it upon himself with no consensus to remove all information regarding the Doimi de Lupis family's baseless adoption of the Frankopan name with little justification offered. in this article, as well as that of her mother and brother? It may seem a profoundly trivial matter to a particular editor, but this opinion ought not to be taken as universally held. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.120.96 (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Article name
Who is "Lady Nicholas Windsor"? Someone in the middle of transitioning? If we're talking about Paola Doimi, her name is, well, Paola Doimi, with or without additional surnames. She may even have taken her husband's surname. But titling her article with her husband's forename - really?! Is there any objection to moving this article to Paola Doimi or Paola Doimi de Lupis or even Paola Windsor or Lady Paola Windsor? Nicholas Windsor is her husband - not her! Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Look at Debrett's Correct Form or an analogous volume. In now arguably outdated U.K. form, if a man were "John William Smith", i.e. "Mr J. W. Smith", his wife would be, irrespective of her name, "Mrs John William Smith" or "Mrs J. W. Smith", as in "Mr and Mrs J. W. Smith". The last doesn't imply BOTH have the same initials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.233.106 (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)