Talk:Anne, Princess Royal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Royalty and Nobility (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject British Royalty (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Olympics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Anne, Princess Royal is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Equine (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Scouting (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Anne, Princess Royal is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


As we don't refer to Charles Windsor, Prince of Wales but Charles, Prince of Wales, so this should be Anne, Princess Royal (of the United Kingdom), clarifying name, title and region. Calling her Anne Windsor, Princess Royal is a bit like writing Pope Paul VI Montini. In any case, Anne's surname isn't Windsor, that the Royal Family's name. The surname she was born with was Anne Windsor-Mountbatten*. So if this page was to use a surname, that is the one that should be used. JTD 03:12 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

Oh dear, I'm getting quite worried by all this re-naming of the current royals. In my Chambers dictionary of biography, she's simply "Anne" with her other three Christian names in brackets, but I don't really like that either. I suppose I'll have to lump it unless I can come up with something better. Deb 17:41 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a hard one, especially when the family name is Windsor but the family member's surname is 'Windsor-Mountbatten'. But princes and princesses would be known by their title. Princess Anne was granted the title 'Princess Royal', which I think should be used in the same way as referring to 'Charles, Prince of Wales' or 'Andrew, Duke of York. I put in the '(of the United Kingdom) because, though as far as I am know, the title 'Princess Royal' title is unique to the UK, I am not 100% (only 99%). To be safe, I thought the brackets piece should be in. Do you think that bit should be pulled? JTD 19:51 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

Anne Windsor sounds fine to me, but whatever you agree on, please fix the double redirects (see What links here). --Eloquence 20:08 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

But Eloquence, Number One: there is NO such person as Anne Windsor. (Windsor is the family name, but in the 1950s it was decreed that descendants of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh would individually have the surname Windsor-Mountbatten) There is Anne Windsor-Mountbatten. Anne Laurence. Anne Phillips. Anne, Princess of the United Kingdom, Anne, Princiess Royal. But there is no such person as Anne Windsor. So why do you want to name a page after a non-existent person?

Number Two: If we call other male royals by their name and title, why should a female royal be named differently? After all, we follow the rule of using (a) maiden title (Anne of Cleves, Catherine of Aragon) [which wasn't their surname but pre-marital title] (b) most senior royal title like 'Prince William of Wales', not William Windsor-Mountbatten - let alone William Windsor. Other examples include Charles, Prince of Wales, George V of the United Kingdom not Prince George, George, Duke of York or George, Prince of Wales.) (c) we use most commonly recognised name; Anne Windsor (apart from a non-existent name) is the least recognised, least common, least correct name that could be used. If you want to go by the correct surname, it is anything but Anne Windsor. But we should apply the name that is easily understood, easily recognised, correct and non-sexist, then you apply the same rules as apply in the case of her brothers. If we don't Wikipedia will simply be making an ass of itself, which it is doing in calling this page Anne Windsor. Or are we going to rename Pope Paul VI's page Giovanni Montini, Elizabeth II Elizabeth Windsor , or the former Constantine II of Greece Constantine Gluckberg? Do that, and Wikipedia would be a joke. JTD 20:56 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

Just for reference, when Princes William and Harry were going through military training at Sandhurst, they were known as William Wales and Henry Wales. It seems that the 1950's change to allow the children of HM The Queen and Prince Phillip to have the surname of Windsor-Mountbatten was due to Phillip's concern that he was the only man in the land that couldn't pass on his name (Mountbatten) to his children. As we have more recently seen with William and Harry taking the surname "Wales," this is not a red-line rule currently for the second-generation royals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkporter12 (talkcontribs) 01:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't talk to me about that, User:The Anome renamed the page. I couldn't care less about royals. I would suggest, however, that whatever is agreed upon be written down in Wikipedia policy. --Eloquence 21:09 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)
I agree with that. We have a policy for naming monarchs, but not for royal families. The royal families of Belgium and Greece are all over the page as far as I can see, as far as how we're naming them. -- Zoe

I agree, Zoe. Can I make a suggestion. Apply a 'First Generation Royals, Second Generation Royals , Other Royals Rule.

  • Children & siblings of a monarch, ie, First Generation Royals should be referred to by title where they have one, or 'Prince/Princess of [country]' where they have no formal title, for example;
    • Charles, Prince of Wales
    • Andrew, Duke of York
    • Edward, Earl of Wessex
    • Anne, Princess Royal
    • Princess Margaret of the United Kingdom
    • Philip (or spanish version), Prince of the Asturias

(REASON: such royals are widely known and so recognised almost exclusively by name or title)

  • Second Generation Royals descended only from the monarch should be referred to by title if they have one, by Royal House name (eg, Windsor, etc) if they don't, for example:
    • Beatrice, Princess of York
    • Eugenie, Princess of York
    • Princess Anne's children have no title, so just use surname, which is Phillips.

(REASON: such royals are less well known but again are known largely by name/title. Using a surname would be confusing as many would have different surnames, not just the like of Windsor.)

  • Other Royals Royal House used, for example:
    • Earl of Ulster referred to by Royal House (in this case, Windsor)
    • Viscount Lindley as David Lindley.

(REASON: Such royals are hardly known, and rarely by title. But as they may have a different and almost totally unknown surname, using the Royal House name may be the most straight-forward way).

If in doubt, just put in as surname, with a note on the talk page. Someone in Wiki will know. It isn't fail-proof but it does produce a name that would be easily recognised by the average Wikipedia user.

All of the above seems reasonable to me (but please don't preemptively disambiguate Anne by using a parenthetical page title). But this whole thread really should be moved to Wikipedia Talk:History standards so that our group of historians (who watch that page) will notice the debate and weigh-in on it. --mav 00:29 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

I've just been reading Part II section 1 ("What is the surname of the royal family?") of the FAQ on British Royal & Noble Families. In summary, it says that the Queen declared in 1952 and again in 1960 that she and her children should be "styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor", but that Anne's surname was given as "Mountbatten-Windsor" on the certificate of her first marriage in 1974 (this being the Queen's decision, according to Buckingham Palace statement), and when the banns were read prior to her second marriage in 1992. Legally, in the UK, anyone can use any name they want, as long as it is not for a fraudulent purpose. So an interesting question would be: what name does Anne herself use now? Still, I think the Wikipedia convention is to use names that people are generally known by, and people don't generally use any surname for her, so I'll vote for the use of a title instead of a surname, as the person above does. (By the way, the name "Windsor-Mountbatten" seems to be a red herring. I don't know of it ever having been used for anyone.) -- Oliver PEREIRA 00:06 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

There is some confusion over whether it should be Windsor-Mountbatten or Mountbatten-Windsor. Different sources use different alternatives, although the former is the more widely referred to version, with the pre-marital name of the Queen coming ahead of her husband's, to indicate her superior status as his monarch. 'House and Family' of Windsor indicates a formal state name. But the monarch did announce, in honour of her husband, indicated that the personal family name of their descendants would be MW or WM. That does complicate matters, for it means that there are in effect three names; the House of Windsor, the Royal Family name of Windsor, but the surname of WM/MW. Anne on her marriage used her surname, not her Royal Family name, while the House name isn't personal to a member (though usually the House name, Royal Family name and surname are the same). Similarly, the last Austrian Crown Prince, Otto, uses a personal surname including the word Hapsburg, but he still belongs to the House of Hapsburg. Other Royal Families complicate matters further by using the state's name as their implicit surname, hence 'Irene of Greece' not 'Irene Gluckberg'. Add in confusion over styles and you have a right royal mess. Which is why I suggested (above) that the immediate Royal Family (monarch, siblings and children) be referred to by title. Grandchilden of the monarch if they have a title be referred to by it. Other than that, use a surname. JTD 00:26 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

I've never seen "Windsor-Mountbatten", except in informal webpages and newsgroup articles by random members of the public. If you can cite something more reliable that gives that form, I'd be interested to know! But I agree with you about putting titles into article headings, if that is how people are generally known. (By the way, I've added a missing apostrophe to your text above, as the italicisation was going all haywire. Hope you don't mind!) -- Oliver PEREIRA 01:31 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. It doesn't really matter about the WM/MW unless there is a specific page on it. If a consensus forms around the Three Generation Rule then it won't matter anyway. I've put the suggestion on the Wikipedia Talk:History standards page. Maybe you could put a comment there on the idea, so we can try to build up a consensus around it. It is the most workable solution I could come up with. Otherwise we'll have numerous versions appearing. JTD 01:47 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

The Princess Royal's staff in Buckingham Palace have confirmed to me that her maiden surname (and so the name used in the start of this article) is Mountbatten-Windsor, not Windsor. JTD 16:31 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

In the somewhat recent court case, she was listed as "Laurence, Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise." I assume that to be her full name. [[1]] Jiang 08:35 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

--- Can I point out these are all informal names anyway, being used for convenience. The correct styles for these people are The Prince of Wales, The Princess Royal, The Earl of Wessex, etc. Referring to someone as 'Charles, Prince of Wales' may be convenient when discussing multiple bearers of the title (and style) Prince of Wales, but it is not an official style. In fact I think the Princess Royal's official style is currently The Princess Royal, Mrs Timothy Laurence, but I won't swear to that. Gritchka

There are two correct references to the heir apparent to the British throne; outside Scotland he is simply The Prince of Wales. In Scotland, he is The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay. Prince Charles though often used, is a non-existent name, having disappeared when his mother inherited the throne in 1952. (Source: Prince of Wales' office, St. James's Palace) However we cannot use The Prince of Wales on wiki because that does not help readers know which Prince of Wales. So we opted to use personal first name, Charles, with the title to clarify with one. Most Princes of Wales became king and so would be referred to by their monarchical not princely title in article titles, as wiki uses the highest royal title held by someone. So Charles eventually will be down by his regal name (either Charles III or George VII; he has not decided which to use) when he becomes king. (BTW there was also no such person as Princess Diana. She was simply The Princess of Wales prior to her divorce, Diana, Princess of Wales afterwards. She is now on wiki using her maiden name of Diana Spencer (for the non use of Lady, see [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) on the issue of courtesy titles. Initially courtesy titles were not used. That has now been changed so I think Diana is also at Lady Diana Spencer also now.) Similarly Princess Anne ceased to be Princess Anne when she was made the Princess Royal, but to avoid confusion with past Princesses Royal, we use her first name for disambigulation purposes. (In doing so I checked with the Palace for guidance and they said that it was an obvious choice.)

Regarding her surname, history naming conventions do not use married surnames for royal women. That is because when they die, they revert to female name or female title. That is because of the problems caused with queen consorts who do not have an ordinal to distinguish between them, unlike queens regnant. So we can tell Queen Elizabeth I from Queen Elizabeth II by means of the ordinal I or II. But we have no way of distinquishing Queen Mary, wife of King George V, from Queen Mary, wife of James II. So maiden name or maiden title is used, in those cases, Mary of Teck, Mary of Modena. Queen Alexandra is known as Alexandra of Denmark. This is applied to royals worldwide. In view of this, using royal married surnames altogether is generally avoided. So while on her Banns of marriage, Anne was Anne Mountbatten-Windsor, and on her marriage she became Anne Laurence, the article follows the general principle of not adjusting the surname, hence the non-use of Laurence. (In any case as Anne and Tim are currently undergoing a trial separation (not highlighted yet in the media to give the couple space to try to save their collapsing marriage, but are expected ultimately to divorce, calling her Anne Laurence may be academic!) The only places where married names were used tended to be where as a result of marriage the Royal House name changed. So Queen Victoria's married surname of Wettin is used. But in most cases, the maiden name not married name is used.

Personally I would much rather not use royal surnames at all and instead use Royal House names. But past experience on wiki suggests that it a non-starter. There is a small but vocal minority of American-based wiki users who tried to get royal titles banned; they had Charles, Prince of Wales at [[Charles Windsor]] and wanted Queen Elizabeth as [[Elizabeth Windsor]].. These users in the past went around adding in what they thought were the correct surnames to pages, even though most of the time what they added in was complete crap. To stop this, it was decided to add in surnames, with on a number of occasions royal palaces being contacted to establish what the correct surname was. (Not all European royalty has surnames. And many that do have have totally unexpected names that differ dramatically from the Royal House name!). In particular using a name that many users found surprising but which had been authenticated tended to discourage the anti-titles brigade from changing article titles to delete royal titles, as the names used in the text tended to bring home to them just how little they actually knew about the issue.

The full naming conventions on wiki for referring to royalty are found in the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), which were agreed over a long (painfully long!) debate some months ago. So names used in articles should follow those conventions. FearÉIREANN 00:31 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree that the surname should be left out entirely. If they end up adding in crap, it's not to hard to explain take it out again. There seems to be not much of an issue for royal families without surnames to begin with...why would it be different here? I see how maiden names are needed for Queen consorts, but Princess Anne did not marry into the royal family; she married out, so there is no confusion here. I support starting the article using "Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise of the House of Windsor." Stating her surname as "Mountbatten-Windsor" seems flat out inaccurate. Or you could make a note later on in the article and address that her actual surname is now Laurence.Jiang 01:58 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

We tried that in the past on other pages, but all that produced is that someone would come along thinking that they knew this person's surname and would add it in, usually wrongly. Someone once called Queen Victoria Victoria Windsor, for example. If you leave the space blank, someone will add in Windsor (which Buckingham Palace says is wrong. According to them it is MW. Putting it in reduces the danger of someone putting in something else. As I said I would love not to have to do so, but past experience over the last eight months suggests that if you leave it blank, it won't remain so for long, with someone else adding in something. MW follows the naming convention closely and so reduces the hassle of constantly returning to this and other articles to remove someone else's wrong additions. We already give the name of her husband, so her marital surname is obvious from that. But this way follows the agreed conventions and we are all trying to get all wiki pages to follow the conventions, which we all debated and were agreed by consensus. FearÉIREANN 02:13 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Why is Queen Victoria's marriage name given while Princess Anne's is not? Again, I think its an issue of whether one marries into the royal family or married out. I still think "Mountbatten-Windsor" should be replaced with "Laurence", just as "wettin" has been added into the Queen Victoria article, if surnames are to be used at all. Jiang 08:30 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Two reasons: non reigning female royalty revert to their maiden name on their death; reigning female royalty don't. So under normal historical rules, Victoria and Anne would be treated differently. Where a surname is used at all with a reigning queen, it is the marital, not maiden name, not least because the fact of their marriage normally though not always has profound implications for the Royal House name. (BTW I think you were right to use Hanover as Victoria's RH name. I have been thinking about that. It is complicated as to how one acknowledges a change either through marriage or in title. I was thinking along the same lines some time ago but never got around to making the change). However where surname is mentioned for a non-reigning royal woman, it is usually the case that people stick with using the maiden name given that they may be known as that historically later on. Moving from royal title in life back to pre-marital title in death causes enough complications without reverting between married unused surname and maiden family name as well. To avoid too much confusing disruption, and given that her married name would not be used, the general approach is to leave the maiden family name untouched. It is slightly easier in Anne's case as her husband is not titled, but there is no point in doing something different in Anne's case.

For example: had Anne's husband been titled say the Duke of Mersey (a fictional name for the example), she would be the Duchess of Mersey. But after her death she would revert to Anne, Princess Royal. If her husband's personal surname was Parsons, she would be personally Anne Parsons, and in terms of title Duchess of Mersey. But on her death she would revert to the Princess Royal or maybe to Princess Anne. A double renaming from Anne Parsons, Duchess of Mersey to Anne Mountbatten-Windsor/Princess Anne would tend to confuse everyone. So even though her married personal name would be Anne Parsons, most sourcebooks would not use that and would continue to call her Anne Mountbatten-Windsor, Duchess of Mersey, she then moving less confusingly from Anne Mountbatten-Windsor, Duchess of Mersey to Anne Mountbatten-Windsor/Princess Anne.

That is why Anne's actual marital surname is not used. In Victoria's case, as I mentioned, many sourcebooks would use the marital name because the marriage would have such profound implications for the monarchy and its name. Using the maiden name would lead confused people to ask - so did the Royal Family's name change or not? So whereas keeping Anne at MW makes it easier to keep a track of name changes, keeping a reigning queen at her maiden surname would make it more complicated.

In addition there is that unique wiki problem of people who don't know what they are doing making changes anyway. I lost count of the number of reversions I had to do to stop people adding in wrong surnames when I left the surname out. Keeping the maiden-name in Victoria's case would simply lead to edit wars, as people who knew about the new Royal House name of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha would presume the use of the maiden name was an oversight. So they would remove it and plonk in SCG. And you or I or someone else would end up constantly coming back to this page to revert the addition. As I have learned from hard battles on wiki, if you don't put in a surname, someone else will. And if you keep the maiden name in the case of someone like Queen Victoria, others will think you have made a mistake and keep replacing it by SCG. (That's why I put the footnote reference to Wettin, BTW, to stop people putting in SCG.

Royal surnames are a right royal pain in the backside. Keeping it simple (maiden name for royalty other than reigning queens) cuts down on complexity and minimises the danger of edit wars. And there is nothing as annoying as having to revisit a site 5, 10 or 20 times to keep having to revert mistakes made by people who are simply chancing their arms and taking a guess at royal surnames. But the central issue isn't whether one marries in or out of the royal family, it is whether after one's death one reverts to maiden name & maiden title, or in the case of a reigning monarch, you don't. That difference affects how you refer to surnames. FearÉIREANN 10:45 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for explaining. I guess I learn something new each day...--Jiang 12:23 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

A few years later, HM The Queen modified this statement by issuing Letters Patent in February 1960 which stated in part:

while I and my children will continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, my descendants, other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attributes of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess, and female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name Mountbatten-Windsor. [2]

Since Princess Anne was a "female descendant who married," she should not be Anne Mountbatten-Windsor. Lord Emsworth 01:35, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)


"Born" or nee isn't really the right word here. The surname was not changed until 1960, ten years after her birth. She was born with the name Windsor. --Jiang 12:36, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I knew Princess Anne during the summer of '62, meeting her through one of her ladies in waiting, Lady Jacqueline Rufus-Isaacs, and she told me she was called Windsor, when I inquired as to how to introduce her to my friends. (user: sverre helgesen

One would normally introduce her as "Her Royal Highness" or "the Princess Anne," and latterly, "the Princess Royal" -- not as "Anne Windsor." -- Emsworth 23:39, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)


Reply to Lord Emsworth, re: Princess Anne's surname. The Princess Anne was trying to be discrete and just have a casual day out amongst 'normal' people when she suggested we refer to her as Anne 'Windsor'. She actually hated using titles, 'I'm Anne, so call me that. To be honest, I don't know what we're called this week, they're always chopping-an-changing. If you're going to be fussy we've got a huge great long German name, but we're not allowed to use that one in public anymore'. I met her a few times, once I organised 'the girls' to join a coach-trip with kids from St. Barnardo's and went to Bognor for the day, at the same time test-modelling some new beachware (read: minimal bikinis, and as far as Jackie Rufus Isaacs was concerned, almost non-existent - phwough!) for Mary Q, under the lenses of David Bailey. These shots were never published, they were only to check the new colour-films he was testing. I used to help him with this sort of stuff quiet often, why he was good, he never took chances, he KNEW. Be nice to see those photos again though, they were all lovely girls! Anne was only 12 at the time, but she was a big girl for her age, 'nicely developed', ahem. And had a mischivous eye, guess who lost his swimming-trunks and had, 'Nesbit-style' (but minus the rose) to rise from the sea wearing only two hands, to huge cheers and howls of laughter... The rumours are incorrect, Anne had an eye for more than horses. user: Sverre Helgesen.

Matrilineal Descent and Succession Order in the U.K.[edit]

This may sound like a foolish question, and admittably it is, based upon total ignorance. Still, I went to this discussion page and figured that someone else would have already asked the question, and yet no one else has, so I figured to place it in the page.

In theory, England is supposed to differ from some places in Europe in that it operates on a principle of matrilineal descent. In other words, succession can go through Queens as well as Kings. Upon going to the Queen Elizabeth II page, however, and noting the birth order of the sons and daughters of Elizabeth II, Princess Anne is the second son or daughter of Elizabeth II, after prince Charles. Why isn't Princess Anne at this time fourth in line to the throne, after Prince Charles and his descendants? When did this principle get established? Also when did the principle of matrilineal descent get started in Great Britain to begin with in general? I would imagine that it existed as early as Mary Tudor or Elizabeth I, but did it exist earlier, and if so, when?

Thank you, the ignorant Edital 18:30, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Succession can go through females, but the UK, like the bits of Europe where descent cannot pass through the female line, uses agnatic rather than cognatic primogeniture.
James F. (talk) 01:39, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
To explain it simply, it CAN pass to females, but it PREFERS males. For example, The Queen's uncle (Edward VIII) abdicated in 1936 making her father (George VI) King. George VI had only two daughters (the current Queen and her sister Margaret), so the eldest became Queen. If they had any sons, he would have become King over his elder sisters. So you have to pass through all the available male children (and their lines) before the first available female child.Bkporter12 (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Bkporter12

Mrs. Mark Phillips[edit]

After she married Mark Phillips her full title was Her Royal Highness The Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Phillips. Usually when a princess of the blood royal gets married she uses the feminine form of her husband's title. When a princess marries a commoner adds Mrs His Name to her name in lieu of a title. Princess Margaret did between her wedding and her husband getting his peerage. So did Princess Alexandra before her husband was knighted. When Anne got a title in her own right, Princess Royal, that would have been subsituted for her husbands name. (Alphaboi867 23:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC))

History of her surnames[edit]

I'm a new arrival to this page, so I've just caught up on the foregoing debates. Very enlightening. One thing that immediately struck me was that we have a complete history of her surnames in the lead para (Windsor > Mountbatten-Windsor > Phillips > Laurence). Is this really necessary? We can explain all that later (and we do). Phillips is null and void now, and Windsor has been changed to M-W. I can see a case for mentioning her current surname Laurence, and M-W, but not the other 2. JackofOz 08:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The BBC reported during her court hearing concerning her dog attacking children that she appeared in court as Anne Elizabeth Alice Laurence. BBC article This to me indicates that she is currently holding the surname of her husband. This would seem consistant with the fact that upon her marriage to Mark Phillips (prior to her creation as The Princess Royal) she was offically styled as HRH The Princess Anne, Mrs. Mark Phillips (view Court Circular during her marrige). In my opinion, having Mrs. Mark Phillips appear as part of her offical title indicates that she had taken his surname.

Additionally, the available information concerning the surname of the royal family see doesn't stat that they don't have a surname it says they don't need a surname and when one is needed it should be Mountbatten-Windsor except for women who marry. This leads me to the logical conclusion that prior to her marriages she was Mountbatten-Windsor which is reflected on her wedding registry, but that afterward she took her husband's surnames as seem to be reflected in her former offical title The Princess Anne, Mrs. Mark Phillips and by her appearing in court with the surname Laurence. 14:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Queen Brandissima

Scottish Rugby[edit]

The Princess Royal is also patron of the Scottish Rugby Union and attends most (all?) of their home games. I think this is worth a mention, but where? Epeeist smudge 07:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

-- I've added in a short section about it, maybe if we could get some quotes from the Princess to be added to the section as to why she is so passionate about the Scottish game --Goggage 07:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversy with Cherie Blair[edit]

If you read the article under the Controversy with Cherie Blair heading, it seems awfully far-fetched and hard to believe. I don't feel that the information in the article is truth, but mere speculation and a way to make the Blair's look strange. That is how the article came across to me. I don't feel this information is relevant to HRH The Princess Royal's biography here at Wikipedia. We don't even know if there is a rift between these two women, unless I have missed something. This supposed rift is not mentioned in Cherie Blair's article. It should not belong here. That is just my personal opinion though.

I do remember reading about it in the papers- of course that doesn't make it any more true. Astrotrain 16:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I personally hope this is true, Cherie Blair completely lacks any class or social graces. Anne was well within her rights as a HRH to reject an offer or invitation to engage her on first name basis.


I feel the kidnapping attempt needs expanding. Information about Ian Ball and the detectives shot need far more information --Goggage 07:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like the section called Popular Culture removed as it is insulting. Princess Anne is not a werewolf and whilst the rest of the article is serious in tone, this section is silly and irrelevent.

Something needs a bit of clarificaton. The desription of the personal police officer's wounds (and his rank at the time of attempted kidnapping) are inconsistent between this page and the officer's personal page? It could also be mentioned if the awards for the intervenors were posthumous or if they survived their wounds. I was actually surprised, havign read the description here and then moving to the page of the police officer, to find out he survived and served two more decades, since here it says he got shot in the head, which usually is lethal. (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Queen of Scots ?[edit]

I seem to recall having read somewhere (few years ago) that if Scotland were to become independant and have it's own monarchy, Anne would be favoured as their Queen. Has anyone else read this? should it be mentioned in the article? GoodDay 23:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

  • No- it appears to be speculation. An independent Scotland would probably retain Liz (as is the policy of the SNP). Astrotrain 09:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
That bit was obviously written before the SNP won the Scotland elections. First Minister Alex Salmond has pronounced that he is in favour of keeping the Monarchy. This however would not confirm nor establish Princess Anne's position as a Monarch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


The article as it stands states that she and her current husband have no children together. It strikes me as slightly awkward wording. Obviously she had children with her previous partner. But does she have stepchildren through her current one? Was he previously married? His page doesn't say either way, so I left a query on his talkpage, but thought more eyes might see it here. If, as I suspect, the answer to the two questions above is negative, a small amendment to this article would be welcome. BrainyBabe 07:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

She has no step-chilidren. She is Timothy Laurence's first wife. He is her second husband. JackofOz 11:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
As I thought. Do you have a reference for this, and can you insert it in the article? Thanks. BrainyBabe 12:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Confusing bit[edit]

Not sure if this is due to a part being moved or deleted, but the end of the following (Kidnapping) sentence seems rather odd:

"Ball planned to ransom the Princess for a sum given in various sources as £2 million [7] or £3 million. [8] to the NHS[9]." ThisIsAce 07:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Civil Court convictions?[edit]

These look distinctly like criminal court convictions to me, and in fact the article goes on to state that. You are 'convicted' in civil courts anyway. JonoP 13:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

They are criminal convictions, I'm changing it. One Night In Hackney303 07:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm almost certain that a speeding conviction is not a criminal conviction. The dangerous dogs act is something I don't know about though.Traditional unionist 07:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Well it's definitely not a "civil conviction" (sic). That official enough? One Night In Hackney303 07:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
There's no need to react like that.Traditional unionist 07:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I was reacting to the person who originally put "civil conviction" in the article, not your good self. One Night In Hackney303 08:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I've checked and they are criminal convictions if delt with in court. However the article uses the word criminal quite a lot, one should be enough, and the assumption is that "conviction" means "criminal conviction".Traditional unionist 08:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to change away, I only changed the "civil" to "criminal" where I saw it. One Night In Hackney303 08:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I see that someone has reverted this to civil. I, unfortunately, cannot offer opinion on this issue. However, I fail to see why the convictions fall under the Second Marriage heading. Casey boy (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Princess anne visits St. Bennet Bishcop High School Bedlington[edit]

Please can some one do and article about here visiting this school —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaunsomeone (talkcontribs) 16:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The Princess makes more public appearances per year than any other member of the Royal Family. We would need some sort of reason why this visit is particularly notable in order to justify its inclusion into the article. Was there something particularly special about the visit? roux ] [x] 16:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


I've searched high and low for the dates of Anne's various appointments to honorary military positions, but have come up empty handed. Does anyone know where such information can be found? There used to be a website that listed all these things for all members of the Royal Family, but it seems to now be gone. --G2bambino (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Official duties section[edit]

It would be appreciated if User:Finneganw could explain why he/she reverted my edit that eliminated the non-functioning link, put the remaining reference into a proper template format, and copyedited the text so as to allow for better flow, both stylistically and chronologically. No reasoning was offered in in the edit summary of the revert. --Miesianiacal (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

False statement?[edit]

In 2002, she became the first non-reigning woman to attend a funeral in uniform when she wore a that of the Royal Navy at the funeral of her grandmother, the Queen Mother.

This statement is clearly false -- every time a perfectly ordinary female member of a country's armed forces attends a funeral for a fallen college, they do it in uniform and while not reigning. Perhaps it should read "non-reigning female royal", or "non-reigning female member of the British Royal Family"? I'm hesatant to simply correct it, since I don't know what the correct version would be, and it has no citation to enable me to find out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theorbtwo (talkcontribs) 20:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say the line is simply false. There is video of HRH the Duchess of Edinburgh (Elizabeth) standing in at Trooping of the Colour in 1951 for King George VI, and she is clearly wearing the uniform of a colonel of the Grenaider Guards — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Trooping the Colour is not a funeral. PhilomenaO'M (talk) 05:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Same difference. She was not the first female royal to appear in uniform. That is the issue. (talk) 01:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Bad photo[edit]

The current photo at the top of the article is.. well, rather bad. Couldn't the photo shown further down in the article replace it? --Ragemanchoo82 (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think changing the photo would make much difference. It's Princess Anne. She's supposed to be ugly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

English Order[edit]

THe Order of the Garter has a Union Flag next to it on the page. This is incorrect: the Order of the Garter is an English Order - the equivalent to the Scottish Order of the Thistle. The flag next to the Garter reference should, therefore, be a St George's cross and not a Union Flag. Simhedges (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ian Ball in Broadmoor[edit]

I removed the statement he was sent to Broadmoor and remains there to this day. The BBC and his own website have him in Rampton Secure Hospital, though I couldn't find up-to-date references for this - I guess he might be moved occasionaly in any case, but he certainly has not always been in Broadmoor as the article implied.--Pontificalibus (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


Is there a reason for sorting Anne under 'Royal' - as in Princess Royal? I thought all royals were sorted under first name, i.e. 'Anne'. Ian Cairns (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Why did she become princess royal only in 1987?[edit]

that should be addressed, as the "position" had been vacant since 1965.17:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg[edit]

References to the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg are being added to multiple articles related to the Royal Family of the Commonwealth realms, and yet, not one reliable source has been provided. I yesterday began a discussion about this at Talk:House of Windsor#House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. Input there by interested parties would be appreciated. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"Criminal record"[edit]

I think this heading was overly dramatic, misleading and frankly wrong. Speeding does not produce a criminal record, though the offence is recorded. As for the dog incident, does being fined and having your dog undergo training produce a criminal record? Even if it does, does that warrant a whole section headed "criminal record"? And how would we deal with the speeding incident, given that doesn't produce a criminal record?

I have changed the section to "court sanctions", which is wider and covers both civil and criminal matters. We are, after all, talking about two fairly minor incidents. The Princess Royal doesn't have anything like a criminal record, more two very slight slaps on the wrist. John Smith's (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Although her punishment was very light, Princess Anne does indeed have a criminal record for the incident involving her dog. This is actually historically quite significant, not because she was convicted of a severe crime, but because she is the first member of the Royal Family to ever have a criminal record of any kind. I am going to put it back it with the proper references to BBC articles attesting to the relevant facts.WarlanderHorse (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The use of "The Princess Anne" in article opening[edit]

I am arguing that the short form of a British royal prince or princess in the opening of the article should include the "The" where applicable, as in "The Princess Anne." I argue that this is distinctive and meaningful as indicated on the British Monarchy's website. I would not, however, include HRH in the opening as this would be like using "Miss" which is not consistent with Wikipedia style. The use of "The" indicates that the prince is a child of the monarch.

It is unwise to split discussions across multiple pages. Please direct all discussion to Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh#The use of "The Prince Philip" in article opening. DrKiernan (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Lady Laurence?[edit]

I have seen HRH referred to as Lady Laurence before and I wanted to know if she should be known as Princess Anne, The Princess Royal, Lady Laurence. A normal wife of a knight is referred to as Lady Last Name so why isn't she? Or is it like The Queen, she should be Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth and Baroness Greenwich but because she's Queen her senior title overrules it. Would Anne be Lady Laurence after her husband's death like Princess Alexandra? DukeofDerbyshire (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

If she'd never been created Princess Royal she'd now be "HRH The Princess Anne, Lady Laurence". However, Princesses Royal are styled simply "HRH The Princess Royal" - it's effectively treated as a substantive peerage. Princess Mary likewise went from "HRH The Princess Mary, Countess of Harewood" to simply "HRH The Princess Royal". Proteus (Talk) 23:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Walther PKK[edit]

The Walther PPK is said to have jammed. This is not completely true. A remark was made at the time. The spring in the magazine is said to have lost its springiness, after having been left compressed for a long time. This means that only one round was fired by the Walther PPK. In point of fact, it seems to have missed Ball. This was credited later to the fact that the officer was injured when he fired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

See a Google search on "magazine spring fatigue". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
The account of the attempt at kidnapping is very short. The incident had numerous other elements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
The attempt by Jean-Baptiste Sipido in 1900 was the last before the 1974 incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Wrong weapon in the kidnapping section[edit]

The weapon carried by the personal protection officer was a Walther PP(Polizei Pistole) not the smaller Wather PPK (Polizei Pistole Kriminal). Though from the same stable the PP has a longer barrel and a bigger magazine. The K in PPK stands for Kriminal as in the crime or detective branch of a German police force and was developed for plainclothes use. The Metropolitan Police seem to have opted for a slightly bigger more "shootable" pistol even though it was for plainclothes use. There are several internet sources that mistakenly refer to Mr Beaton carrying a PPK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)