Talk:House of Windsor Information & Talk:House of Windsor Links at HealthHaven.com

(Rated Start-Class, High-priority)

	v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-priority on the priority scale.

WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia

The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. --Jia ng 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. --Jia ng 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. --Jia ng

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

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

[edit] 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

(talk) 15:01, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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[1]. Charles 17:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [[2]]. 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

is the coat of arms of the House of Stuart as a family however this

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 [3], 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: [4]. 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.

[edit] 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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Disputed

[edit] Please keep the list complete

When I built this table I endeavored to keep a complete and accurate list of every single descendant of George V. I included dead people, abdicated kings, every known child regardless of legitimacy, and Catholics). There is an appropriate column to indicate their category. Please do no arbitrarily remove people from the list and make it inaccurate. The new son born in September of 2009 is automatically excluded like his brother since he is being raised Catholic. If you don't believe check the royal web site. http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/Successionandprecedence/Succession/Overview.aspx . The royal website stops after the oldest son of Princess Mary (the queen's aunt). I included all of her children as well. The comment about Edward VII being included in the article was included in a separate section where his descendants are listed. He cannot in any way be considered as part of the House of Windsor since he died 7 years before it's creation. The House was not created retroactively.Pacomartin (talk) 06:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You are in violation of WP:OWN. People have not been "arbitrarily removed". The only members of the House of Windsor are the male-line descendants of George V and the male-line descendants of Elizabeth II. Also included in the proclamation were the male-line descendants of Victoria. 142.68.80.29 (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Just because someone is in succession and is a descendant of George V, it doesn't mean they are a member of the House of Windsor. Likewise, someone can be a member of the House without succession rights (Prince Michael of Kent). 142.68.80.29 (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is George V's proclamation: "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..." 142.68.80.29 (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Prince Michael is a royal and has the HRH designation. This information collated in this manner is nowhere else in wikipedia. I put this information together from outside sources since the full line with all the descendants of Princess Mary was not collated anywhere. The quote 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 is NOT relevant, since it only has to do with the assignment of surnames to non-royal. Do not delete without getting a consensus.Pacomartin (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not collated in this manner elsewhere in Wikipedia because it is not encyclopedic. So far I have given references on this talk page for my edits. You have not. You are in violation of WP:OWN. This page is not a genealogical listing, it is an article. The quote is directly relevant to the establishment of the House of Windsor. Good day. 142.68.80.29 (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Your references are inappropriate as they do not define House of Windsor merely the use of the surname Windsor. You are tailoring the article to your personal beliefs.Pacomartin (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Your implication that non-male line descendants of British monarchs are members of the house is original research and a violation of Wikipedia's policies on editing articles. 142.68.80.29 (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Heading change

I have made the original discussion into a subheading so that the "disputed" tag on the article links here. 142.68.80.29 (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedic knowledge of the descendants of the George V is perfectly acceptable under the rules of Wikipedia. While tables of geneology are not an acceptable topic in general, geneology of the immediate royal family is of widespread interest. There is no reason to cull information that has been gathered and formatted. I changed the title of the appropriate section to Descendants of George V to remove any doubt about the definition of the section. The list of Catholics who have been excised is of general interest to the public who is reading about potential changes to the laws of succession. The legitimate/illegitimate descendants are of interest. I am not in any way disputing the wording of the letters patent.Pacomartin (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Of interest to whom? Encyclopedic? No. This is original research and unsuited to the topic of the article. Make it a user subpage of yours, perhaps, but otherwise it does not belong in this article. Do you suggest adding female-line descendants to the articles House of Hohenzollern, House of Oldenburg, House of Zähringen, House of Hesse, House of Savoy, House of Wittelsbach, House of Hanover, etc? Assume that the article will be amended shortly to reflect factual accuracy and to remove personal points of view, original research and the assertion of ownership of the article by one editor. 142.68.80.29 (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing listed in the heading "Members of the House of Windsor".

It would be helpful, if two headings were inserted:

1. Members of the House of Windsor, and 2. biological descendants (no one excluded*)

note: *perhaps the subject of additional, and linked pages.

This bickering is obstructive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Replyrobot (talk • contribs) 07:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

Contents