Talk:British royal family

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)