Talk:British royal family/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2021

129.126.146.147 (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Because there are some errors and mistakes

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Revamping the article. A question.

I am in the process of revamping the article to provide at least a brief overview of the essential aspects of the topic; a skeleton that can be later fleshed out. I am trying to ​rely on reputable sources; although the likes of Vanity Fair are not proscribed, I am certain that the information this article needs to contain can be found in more serious places. I also think the article should not go into biographical detail about individual members, but focus on the bigger picture, i.e. the group as a whole.

I would appreciate help. For a start, does anyone know of a source that lists all members of the family with the title prince/princess and HRH style? I suspect Debrett's does here or here, but I am not subscribed and thus cannot access it. Surtsicna (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The closest I've found is this Evening Standard article but it excludes Prince & Princess Michael of Kent (I don't blame them.) I love the idea of the family tree, but does it continue off screen for anyone else? The Chattos appear to be cut out.--Bettydaisies (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Family list

Can we please return to the former list? It was much better.84.167.81.194 (talk) 13:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes. The family tree was also needlessly expanded.--Killuminator (talk) 00:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you please explain what exactly has been made worse and how? The family tree was expanded to include people who are mentioned as members of the royal family in reliable sources. Surtsicna (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Senior Royals

One often sees the term "senior royals" and "minor royals" in the press but rarely is there a solid definition given for either term. The recent case of [Prince Philip's will] suggests that there is a definition for the former term within the legal profession:

Paragraph 15 For reasons which I will set down later (paragraph 77), I propose to publish, as an annex to this judgment,a complete list of the sealed Royal wills of which the President of the Family Division is currently custodian. This Court has been informed that in recent times the definition of the members of the Royal Family whose executors might,as a matter of course,apply to have the will sealed up has been limited to the children of the Sovereign or a former Sovereign, the Consort of the Sovereign or former Sovereign, and a member of the Royal Family who at the time of death was first or second in line of succession to the throne or the child of such a person.In addition, the wills of other, less senior, members of the Royal Family may have been sealed for specific reasons, or, as the list of names suggests, a wider definition of “Royal Family” may have been applied in this context in earlier times.

Paragraph 23 The confidential note that was disclosed and is attached to Charles J’s judgment contains an interesting account of the development of the practice of sealing Royal wills during the last century. That note provided that, in particular,the practice of applying to the Family Division applied, as a matter of course,to ‘senior members of the Royal Family’ who were defined as:

• The Consort of a Sovereign or former Sovereign;
• The child of a Sovereign or former Sovereign;and
• A member of the Royal Family who,at the time of His/or Her death, is first or second in line of succession to the throne or the child of such a person.

Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Family tree and the Diamond Jubilee

The family tree uses the Diamond Jubilee as a kind of watershed that distinguishes between those who joined before or after the jubilee. I suspect this is due to the desire to use as a source the Lord Chamberlain's list of the royal family in the Diamond Jubilee guidelines. However, this is an odd distinction to make because the jubilee itself has no bearing on a person's position in the royal family. It would seem better to instead use the Lord Chamberlain's list of the royal family which was published in July 2020. Furthermore, I think it's important to remove any suggestion that the Lord Chamberlain lists them as "members" of the royal family (since the list does not use the word "member"). This may seem pedantic, but when dealing with something as nebulous as the definition of a member of the royal family, I think one should be as precise as possible.

Titles and surnames

According to this paragraph the children of the Duke of Sussex are now HRH and are prince and princess, being grandchildren of the monarch rather than great-grandchildren. Has anything happened to confirm or change this? I think I lack the skill to change the family tree to show this and I may have missed something in the deluge of information since the accession of King Charles. Spinney Hill (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

During Queen Elizabeth II's lifetime the children of the Duke of Sussex were male line great-grandchildren of the monarch and at time not entitled to the title Prince/Princess. After all, according to the Letters Patent issued by King George V in 1917 and which rule the granting of the title Prince/Princes, the title of Prince and Princess of the UK is reserved to the children of the monarch, the male line grandchildren of the monarch, and the eldest son of the eldest son of the heir apparent (in this case Prince George although the Queen expanded that right to all of William's children so Charlotte and Louis were princess and prince from birth).

Under the Letters Patent issued by King George V in 1917, the children of Harry would thus legally become a British Prince and Princess upon the accession of their grandfather, King Charles III on 8 September 2022. Because from that moment on they were no longer (male line) greatgrandchildren of the monarch, but male line grandchildren of the monarch.

Strictly speaking the children of the Earl of Wessex as male line grandchildren of the monarch were thus also entitled to the title but it was announced on the marriage of their parents they decided that their offspring wouldn't use the style. -- fdewaele, 23 September 2022, 10:35 CET.

Yes ,that is what I thought. Has this been confirmed by any source since the Accession or has there been a declarationn similar to that made by the Earl of Wessex? Spinney Hill (talk) 09:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The answer may be found in Archie and Lilibet's wikipedia articles. Archie's page says that his parents wished them to be treated as private citizens and Archie would not be referred to by his curtesy title of "Earl of Dumbarton." Lilibet's page is not so specific but the Duke and Duchess presumably applied the same reason to her and she would not therefore be called "Lady Lilibet Mountbatten- Windsor." Now that they are entitled to be "HRH" and "prince" or "princess" the same reason applies so unless and until their parents decide otherwise they will not use it. It would seem that on their 18th birthdays they could make their own decisions. I have seen no report as to any new declaration by their parents.Spinney Hill (talk) 08:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Article quality

It took quite some effort for this article to be well-written and well-sourced. This addition spoils both of that. Obvious conclusions do not need including. Edward is mentioned as earl at least three times, and if dukedoms are usual, then earldoms are not. If superfluous information needs to be in the article, it should at the very least be cited so that the article at least at the first glance appears to have retained quality. Surtsicna (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

No section on Racism

Given the current news I expected to find details about Racism in the Royal family especially the Fulani and Meggan incidents were not isolated Ref: https://time.com/5945383/meghan-harry-royal-family-racism/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11489725/amp/Black-studies-professor-Royal-Family-never-escape-problem-institutional-racism.html https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63808613 https://www.insider.com/british-royal-family-racist-history-black-lives-matter-2020-8?amp https://advocatechannel.com/amp/queen-elizabeth-dies-at-96-looking-back-on-the-racism-of-the-royal-family-2658170764 https://theconversation.com/amp/the-royal-family-cant-keep-ignoring-its-colonialist-past-and-racist-present-156749 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lxOMwir0x4g https://www.republic.org.uk/royals_and_racism https://www.thecut.com/2021/06/a-new-report-reveals-the-palaces-history-of-racism.html https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20210429-race-royalty-and-the-black-aristocrats FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

If you can whip up something using only reputable sources (e.g. BBC, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph), feel free to give it a go. Surtsicna (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with the paragraph on it already. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

What are the "Meggan incidents"? GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Queen Camilla

For some months the article has been changed back and forth to refer to Queen Camilla as " Queen" or "Queen Consort." With the recent reports re the Coronation invitations I entered the discussion by removing "Consort" I was challenged to provide a source, so I reinstated my edit and provided a source- that morning's Times. I have often thought what the best way of removing something from w/k was if a new source removes or modifies the validity of a previously sourced statement. Can anybody suggest anything? I can see someone who doesnt see the British press reverting this again. I could put in a statement about the change in naming policy by the Royal Family citing this source but it seems a bit off topic for the article itself. Spinney Hill (talk) 09:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I support the usage of "Queen". GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Other royal families, on this page?

I removed the recent addition of the Canadian royal family, from the opening paragraph. It seemed out of place, as this page is about the British royal family. I recommend instead that a separate page be created, for the Canadian royal family. GoodDay (talk) 05:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

There is such a page. I haven;t checked to see if there is a similar page for Australia,New Zealand etc.If those countries also feel that their Royal family is slightly different then I see no reason why a similar sentence should not be included to cover all of them. It's relevant because the king and some of the core members are the same people. Spinney Hill (talk) 07:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

If there is such a page or pages, then list them in the 'See also' section. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I have added a "See also" for "Monarchy of Canada." I have checked that there are pages for the Monarchy of Australia, New Zealnd and Jamaica. I haven't checked but there presumably are similar pages for the other Commonwealth countries of which the King is Head of State. The difference between the Canadian page and the Australian, New Zealand and Jamaican pages is that the Canadian page has a paragraph about the Royal Family, whereas the others do not. Spinney Hill (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

But those aren't 'royal family' pages. Perhaps someday. Somebody will create such 'royal family' pages, both current & past. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay is correct that those are not pages about royal families, specifically. More to the point, though, they also don't contain sections about distinct royal families in those countries; becaause, well... I assume those countries don't consider themselves to have a separate royal family the way Canada does. At least, I've not seen any reliable sources saying otherwise. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

As stated in my latest edit summary, "this article is about the British Royal Family" is not a valid argument for deleting a sentence that very clearly makes reference to the British Royal Family. GoodDay knows full well that the article Canadian royal family was deleted and made a redirect to Monarchy of Canada#Royal family and house; but, whether the information about the Canadian Royal Family is in its own article or in a section of an article is utterly irrelevant. Most of the members of the British Royal Family will remain members of the Canadian Royal Family, regardless, and vice-versa, just as the section Monarchy of Canada#Royal family and house openly states ("given the shared nature of the Canadian monarch, most are also of members of the British royal family"). If GoodDay is going to continue to object to a sentence saying as much here, he's going to have to also justify the deletion of the reciprocal sentence in the section of Monarchy of Canada. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

If you want to create a page called Canadian royal family, then by all means have at it. Same with Australian royal family, Saint Lucian royal family, etc. This page is about the British royal family. You mentioned an attempt was made in the past to create Canadian royal family & it ended up being re-directed. I'd suggest you go the WP:AFC route & see if a different result occurs. If we can have Monarchy of Canada, Monarchy of Solomon Islands, Monarchy of Saint Lucia, etc? Then I'm guessing we can have pages for each of their royal families. If such page creations are still rejected? Then, it's best not to make'em subsections on this page. GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Repeating your non-argument does not make it an argument. You have not explained how a sentence specifically referencing the British Royal Family is impertinent to the topic of the British Royal Family. You have not explained how the non-existence of a page speifically about the Canadian Royal Family is relevant. The sentence you're deleting is information about the members of the British Royal Family. Please cease with the straw man arguments and give a logical explanation for why you're deleting it. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

This is the British royal family page, not the British & Canadian royal family page. Perhaps an RFC is required, to settle this content dispute? I am considering it, no matter what its result will be. GoodDay (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

No RfC is required for you to actually answer two simple questions:

1) How is a sentence containing information about members of the British Royal Family impertinent to the article on the British Royal Family?

2) How is the information about the Canadian Royal Family being in a section of a page, rather than on a page of its own, of any relevance?

The only person pushing for an RfC is you simply by your stubborn insistence on reverting while refusing to answer clear and pertinent questions only you can answer and without which there's no hope of resolving the dispute. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I've given you my answers. You just won't accept them. Like I said, I'm considering an RFC on this matter. Meanwhile, if you want to create a "Canadian royal family" page? I won't oppose such a creation - But would recommend you go the WP:AFC route. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

You have not given any answers to the questions I put to you. "It's the British Royal Family page" does not explain how a sentence containing information about the British Royal Family is irrelevant to the page on the British Royal Family, nor does it explain how the location of the information about the Canadian Royal Family is in any way relevant to your argument.

In terms of basic English grammar (Subject–verb–object word order), what is the subject of the sentence "most members of the British Royal Family also comprise the Canadian Royal Family"? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Best to open an RFC on this matter - Simple question being - 'include' or 'exclude', the paragraph-in-question. As the editor who made the 'bold' edit in the WP:BRD process, I will give you the platform to make your argument for said-paragraph-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Your refusal to answer will make your next revert a crossing of the line into disruptive editor territory. You have the right to revert once (or twice, if we're pushing things). But, you do not have the right to revert while you play WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the talk page. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I will not have this become a personal grudge between us. Thus, the RFC will commence. I presume, you're confident in your argument for inclusion & the result of the RFC will be respected. GoodDay (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Says the person prolonging this for no explicable reason whatsoever. For the I don't know how many-th time, you've followed me around Wikipedia, begun a dispute and pushed it and pushed it by refusing to engage in productive discourse with me and then used the very lack of progress you cause as "justification" for shunting responsibility for resolution off of yourself and onto others. Then you try to veil it all with an appeal to not make this personal. Christ on a stick. It's getting beyond ridiculous. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The way that consensus works is that no editor should revert and re-revert. Instead we must trust the community. If there is a consensus then an uninvolved editor would revert. Also please note that only an disinterested editor should actually close a discussion. Those of us who are putting in our two pennyworth may request that a discussion be closed but we can't close it ourselves. What will happen is that a new editor will jump in and make a judgement call.One hopes that it will be a senior editor with a lot of experience so that we can all accept the judgement. OrewaTel (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)