Talk:House of Windsor

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)

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. --Jiang 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. --Jiang 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. --Jiang

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

The best solution would be to choose another nationalistic British-sounding name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emerson 07 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

What are YOU talking about?? A quorum of the Privy Council meets every month or so, and the full Council meets on the accession of the monarch (therefore most recently in 1952). Parliament never decided the House was Windsor in the first place, so they have no say in any change or repeal. Research "Prerogative Orders," which are made under the Crown's inherent power to act on matters for which no legislation exists.

Seriously, it's not worth posting replies to posts like that. Below he says "I can swear and scream at you all", which says it all. DeCausa (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

@@@"Mountbatten is the English translation of "Battenberg" and so a name of German origin as well." I personally saw Lord Mountbatten of Burma say this on his television series back in the 1970s. It might not be on google, but it was on TV, his face, his words, his lips speaking. He didn't make that many TV series, just the one. It shouldn't be too hard to get off google, get out from your desk, and go find it. Or you could ask one of his nephews. They shouldn't be hard to find. @@@

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

Counting Edward VII among the House of Windsor would be anachronistic, it was his son who renamed the House. If you don't want the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (UK) to appear with only one monarch in it, you could include the monarchs of the House of Windsor up to Elizabeth II, since it still belongs to that House as a cadet branch.Emerson 07 (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Disputed

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)

This is a clear misinterpretation. I think the confusion arises from the ignorance of what a royal house really means. A royal house, by default, refers to descendants in the male line of a family. This is consistent with the concept of how a father passes his surname to his children, and his sons' children, and not to his daughters' children. In this article, there are two Houses of Windsor: 1) the House of Windsor descended agnatically from George V; and 2) the House of Windsor descended agnatically from Prince Philip and Queen Elizabeth II. The emphasis, of course, is on the male line. Be open-minded about this. Though the descendants of Princess Anne and Princess Margaret are closer to the succession than Prince Richard, still, they cannot be called "Windsors", at least in the proper sense. They are indeed descendants of the House of Windsor, but not in the male line, which is the primary requirement. Usually the surname test would be enough, which is why I don't really get how you don't understand this. The descendants of Princess Anne are of the House of Phillips, and that of Princess Margaret of the House of Armstrong-Jones.Emerson 07 (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

In his article this is presented as true.

George V had five sons, their descendants are shown in the table. Two of the descendants are dead (Princess Margaret and Prince William) and 7 are Catholic.

Just when did Prince William die and how?He is, as far as I know, very much alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.51.111 (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Prince William of Gloucester (elder brother of the current Duke of Gloucester) died in 1972. Prince William of Wales is very much alive, but he's a different person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.214.82 (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

that raises the questions what is the head of household, and is the House of Windsor truly different than the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha? 67.176.160.47 (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Victoria did not become the head of the House of Hanover because the Hanoverian lands must pass to a man, whilst the British lands may pass to a woman. So there was a split, with the British crown going to Queen Victoria as heir to her father, and the Hanoverian crown to her uncle who was the closest living male to her father. The name of the British house became Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and then to Windsor, the head of the house being whomever is sovereign of the British lands. The different crowns have different laws of succession, but Elizabeth is the head of the House as she is Queen, because the laws of Britain allow a woman to inherit the throne. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. Regardless of who inherits the crown, headship of a royal house always passes to the closest agnate. A monarch is not neccessarily head of the house he/she belongs to. The monarchs of Denmark, Norway, Spain, Belgium, and others are not heads of their respective royal houses. Surtsicna (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right. I've never heard of a woman who was considered to be the Head of a House before. Note, however, that because of the British insistence on keeping the name Windsor for the Queen's descendants, there will be two houses of Windsor in the UK: one would be a cadet branch of the House of Wettin (the Queen's male-line cousins) and one would be a cadet branch of the House of Oldenburg (the Queen's male-line descendants, as counted among the House of her husband). Strictly speaking, Prince Richard would indeed be the Head of the House of Windsor that descended from George V; determining the Head of the House of Windsor that descended from Prince Philip Mountbatten would be more problematic (whether it would be he himself, his wife, or his first son).Emerson 07 (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As another example, though Queen Mary II succeeded in overthrowing her father, King James II, she did not become the Head of the House of Stuart, which would later pass to her brother, James, the Old Pretender. Headship of the Royal House is not a requirement to become the British Monarch, as opposed to that of France, whose kings in the Ancien Regime could always be identified to be the Head of the Capetian Dynasty. This is so because of the male primogeniture used in Britain, and the agnatic primogeniture used in France. Headship of a House is more a matter of genealogy rather than the actual power or prestige held by an individual member compared with another.Emerson 07 (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The answer is that there is no such thing as "Head of a House", at least in English law. Anyone could assume that 'title'. There are no rules as to who is the 'Head' of the house of Windsor. It has no significance - perhaps just in the popular mind or as a 'courtesy title' only. I think other jurisdictions do attach a real meaning to 'Head of a House' - particularly in the Holy Roman Empire and in German law. I think this may be where the confusion has arisen. DeCausa (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Surtsicna, although I'd add that the whole "headship" question is not a matter of "English law", but a matter of genealogy as seen by continental European genealogists (as the families concerned are considered branches of continental European princely families). From that perspective, "House of Windsor" should be considered a cadet branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, whereas Prince Philip and his patrilineal descendants constitute a cadet branch of the House of Glücksburg, irrespective of what name they might use in the future. Jolanak (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No! See reply below (section: Is Elizabeth head of the House of Windsor?). DeCausa (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

"So today the only living royal Windsors are the agnatic descendants of George V."

Can anyone make this line clearer? Not sure what "agnatic descendents" are?173.171.151.171 (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Agnatic descendants are patrilineal descendants, that is, male-line descendants (children of sons of sons of sons... of a person). Surtsicna (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

And since Elizabeth II's children are members of the House of Windsor, and not agnatic descendents of George V, the statement would seem to be wrong. Eliminate "agnatic" and it becomes true. - Nunh-huh 08:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is more complicated. But if you eliminate "agnatic", Princess Anne's children, Princess Margaret's children, Princess Mary's, and Princess Alexandra's descendants also turn out to be members of the House of Windsor. Surtsicna (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. The statement isn't "All descendants of George V are Windsors", but rather that "All living royal Windsors are descendants of George V". - Nunh-huh 09:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I though the sentence said that all agnatic descendants of George V are Windsors. Never mind. Surtsicna (talk) 10:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, its a good point. Get rid of flaky Charles and move the Duke of Kent to the top of the succession.Eregli bob (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the Duke of Kent would be wrong. I hope I live to see the accession of King Richard the Fourth.Eregli bob (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If they did that, it would be impossible to explain why the current monarch isn't the 26-year old Ernest August the Sixth ;) Surtsicna (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I'm not an editor but can I point out to you real editors that the first part of this para is misleading:

"Only a single person, Alastair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, who was not a descendant of George V, ever bore the surname Windsor, and he died without issue. So today the only living royal Windsors are the agnatic descendants of George V."

It is definitely not true to say that only one person not related to George V bore the surname Windsor. There are plenty of Windsors in the world. The second part of the quote ("So today...") only makes sense if you clarify the first part.

Not arguing - helping to improve. Keep up the good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.11.223 (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Aren't women who marry into the royal family members of the House of Windsor? DrKiernan (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No. Membership to a house is determined from birth. We all belong to the house of our fathers. Strictly speaking, even the descendants of female Windsors, such as Princess Anne and Princess Margaret, should not have been listed here, since their husbands are not Windsors. There's no disputing the fact that they are members of the royal family, but membership to a royal house is entirely another thing. Emerson 07 (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Problematical statement

"Only a single person, Alastair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, who was not a descendant of George V, ever bore the surname Windsor, and he died without issue. So today the only living royal Windsors are the agnatic descendants of George V."

This statement is confusing for several reasons. Firstly, there are many people, who are not descendants of George V, who have the surname Windsor. Secondly, one might supposed that all of the male lines from Queen Victoria's offspring, are extinct, except for the lines through George V. Now this may or may not be correct. Thirdly, George V's proclamation assigning the name of Windsor to the descendants of Victoria, refered to male-line descendants. Yet the said Alastair, 2nd Duke of Connaught, was descended from Victoria through his mother and his mother's mother. So why isn't he getting his family name from his father or grandfather instead of from his maternal great-grandmother anyhow ? Eregli bob (talk) 05:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The 2nd Duke of Connaught was descended from Victoria through both his mother and his father. His father's father was Victoria's third son, Prince Arthur, 1st duke of Connaught. As far as the male lines from Queen Victoria's offspring, the male lines of Victoria's second and third sons, Alfred and Arthur, are indeed extinct. The eldest son, Edward VII, had only one son who produced offspring, George V. There are, in fact, numerous male-line descendants of Leopold, Victoria's youngest son. However, these are descendants of Leopold's only son, Karl Eduard, the last duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. They all live in Germany and bear the surname "Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha". john k (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Would it make more sense if this was reworded: "Only a single person who was not a descendant of George V (Alastair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn) ever bore the surname Windsor under the terms of this proclamation, and he died without issue. So today the only living royal Windsors are the agnatic descendants of George V." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.201.138.25 (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Is Elizabeth head of the House of Windsor?

We need a reference for the claim that Elizabeth is the head of the House of Windsor. Normally, the head of the House of Windsor would be Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester; regardless of who inherits the crown, the headship of a royal house always passes to the closest agnate. Surtsicna (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Who exactly decides these rules and can they ever change? If not, why not?68.123.159.45 (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

User Surtsicna seems obsessed with this. My post above repeated: "The answer is that there is no such thing as "Head of a House", at least in English law. Anyone could assume that 'title'. There are no rules as to who is the 'Head' of the house of Windsor. It has no significance - perhaps just in the popular mind or as a 'courtesy title' only. I think other jurisdictions do attach a real meaning to 'Head of a House' - particularly in the Holy Roman Empire and in German law. I think this may be where the confusion has arisen." DeCausa (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, there is no "headship" in English law the same way as in continental Europe, although the point here is that both the houses concerned are in fact German princely houses also governed, from a genealogical point of view, by their respective house laws/Salic law. It's just a question of national perspective whether you view them according to European/German traditions or according to British political "decrees". Jolanak (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

As the house, or rather, the two houses concerned, are agnatically German, not English, Surtsicna certainly raises a valid point. Although the answer should be that Windsor is not a "house" by the definition traditionally used in Europe, but more of a political construct in the UK than a "family"/"house" by its traditional, genealogical definition (families are not created by "decrees"), and in fact, the members of the claimed "house of Windsor" are in fact from a genealogical point of view counted as members of two distinct houses, namely the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (Queen Elizabeth, Princess Margaret) and the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg (Philip and his descendants). The article should address both the political usage in the UK, and the genealogical background. Jolanak (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a very German-centric point of view. British customs are not as rigid as German rules and historians treat the meaning of "House" in this country differently. For example, the Houses of York and Lancaster are distinguished from Plantagenet. Also, joining an aristocratic family through descent through a female is not uncommon. Just because a British Queen had a German ancestor in the 19th century doesn't mean it's logical for German house rules to apply. The basic point about the British monarchy is that law and royal proclamation determine all things, including genealogical rules. DeCausa (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The whole point is that there are in fact two different points of view, which are equally valid, and depend on the national perspective. Prince Philip was born into a family governed by the other perspective. Jolanak (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Prince Philip maybe. But as for the rest of the family, the connection with Germany is now tenuous and appears somewhat strange to apply these rules to these British people (and who have now been British for several generations). I would say it is illogical for anything else but the British perspective to predominate - but no harm, as a matter of interest, noting how the German house rules would see it. But it is only "out of interest". Your post above didn't give equal validity to a British perspective but clearly indicated the answer is to be found in German House rules alone. DeCausa (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The answer to the question raised by 68.123.159.45 is: The house laws of the two houses concerned. Jolanak (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg

Lately, there have been claims added to a number of articles about the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg: an anon editor added it to the infobox of the biographies of two generations of the Royal Family, the opening paragraph of this page goes on about it at length, and it has been said at House of Glücksburg that "all agnatic descendants of Prince Philip, including Charles, Prince of Wales, also belong to this house." I wonder: where are the supporting cites for these claims? Philip's renunciation of his titles and inheritance in 1947 would seem to indicate that he and his offspring have nothing to do with the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

duke of edinburgh renounced all claims to his inheritance, true but he is still of that house, which make Charles, Willy, Harry, Jimmy ALL from that house. There are members of the royal family from windsor though. For instance, Prince Michael is a windsor, not a SHSG. This is just a plain fact. Blood is thicker than anything. If you write "Windsor" for their House, you have to write SHSG as well. Wikipedia is not about protraying the "standard" story. It is about disclosing the truth, even when the truth will confuse people.

No it's not, it's about sumarising verifiable sources. It's not about what you think is the "truth". Take some time to read WP:V which opens by saying "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Unless you can cite a reliable source supporting your statement, what you think is "just plain fact" is irrelevant. DeCausa (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Philip renounced his titles as Prince of Denmark and Prince of Greece. Being a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg is a matter of genealogy, you cannot renounce your genealogy. It's not a title. "have nothing to do with the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg" is a hilarious statement, it's his/their family by patrilineal descent. They are considered as members of that house by the house law of the house, and thus by genealogists. Being a member of that house is totally independent of which titles/names they use (they have used a variety of titles). It's easy to find plenty of sources confirming this ("Philip is a member of a German-Danish dynasty, the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg"—In reality, the Duke is a member of the Danish-German aristocratic family of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg"—"Philip's actual family is the Danish and German house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg"—countless more can be found). Jolanak (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I lament the fact about all this confusion... I wished World War II never happened, so that the British monarchs would not change the name of their house from the natural to an artificial name... The Houses of Windsor currently existing are distinct from each other, since they are cadet branches of different royal houses - Wettin and Oldenburg. No law, or proclamation for that matter, can change anyone's ancestry, especially for those of royalty, since their pedigrees are widely recorded. For those who cannot see this difference, I suggest you read about the article on patrilineality. Also, see the table on Titles and Succession for Elizabeth II and Charles, Prince of Wales, at the bottom part of their articles. As proof, you will see there that Elizabeth is a member of the House of Windsor, cadet branch of the House of Wettin; and Charles, Prince of Wales is a member of the House of Windsor, cadet branch of the House of House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. Britons should know about this kinds of things. Or at least, one who wants to edit Wikipedia.Emerson 07 (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add that even if you renounce your right to inherit from your father, he'd still be your father. Even if you change your surname, discarding the name your forefathers have borne before you for several generations, you still belong to that family. For ruling houses, genealogists have long devised a method that enables them to keep tract of such houses that change their names - by designating such houses as cadet branches. In this instance, the second House of Windsor is a cadet branch of the House of Glücksburg. Its name "changed" from the name of its parent house. Just to clarify, a cadet branch refers to an agnatic line of a family other than the senior-most. Cadet branches, who are denied the right to inherit from their parents, are forced to seek their fortunes elsewhere, sometimes marrying into the family of heiresses. They often change their family name to suit their new fortunes, adopting their bride's family name or the name of the place they settled in. Yet in no way does this impair their succession right to their original house, should the senior line become extinct.Emerson 07 (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be very attached to these absolute "rules" which you say exist - and to this theory of the "two houses" of Windsor. All would be fine to put into the article if they were acompanied by reliable source citations as something which "mosts genealogists believe" - if that's what the citations say. Otherwise, it's just WP:OR or WP:synthesis. But even if this is what "genealogists say", that's not the end of it. Who says that "genelogists" are the final arbiters on this? There are other issues to consider. Most importantly, there is applicable United Kingdom law. For example, the law of England and Wales (i) allows anyone to change their family name at will. There is no "magic" to a family name - it's an individual's choice (ii) adoption law does indeed mean that your family of birth can change. Obviously, adoption is not relevant to the Windsors, but it is an example of how your "absolute" rules are not quite as absolute as you think. (I'd also mention in this context undiscovered "Non-paternity events") (iii) It's an often quoted constitutional premise that the UK Parliament can do everything "apart from turn a woman into a man and as man into a woman" (although that's now possible too!). The same could be said of English common and case law. As far as the Windsors are concerned, they are a member of whatever family or house they say they are - if that's what the law or royal proclamation allows. If "genealogists" say otherwise, that's fine too - but needs to be expressed only as what "genealogists say", not as any sort of absolute. DeCausa (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It was changed from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to Windsor in 1917 (during World War I). Elizabeth II's successor will be allowed to change the Royal House name if he/she so chooses. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no problem in describing Elizabeth's descendants as members of the House of Windsor. The problem starts when you have to describe them as Windsors and the House of Windsor as a branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha because it is absolutely ridiculous to claim that Charles is a member of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. That is why the two-houses theory works best. Surtsicna (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I would say that what works best is the legal position which is that the "House of Windsor" descends through the female line. There is ample precedent in British aristocratic families for this. It's not relevant that it's contrary to the Germanic model. However, if there is WP:RS for the "2 Houses of Windsor" - then no problem including it in the article. Without that, it's just original research or synthesis. DeCausa (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not question Elizabeth's agnatic descendants' status as members of the House of Windsor (thought it poses the question whether Anne's children are also Windsors and, if they are, whether any legitimate descendant of George V is a Windsor). The only thing that bothers me is implying that Charles is a member of the House of Wettin. Surtsicna (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be incorrect. But I don't see that stated in the article (unless I'm missing it). There is a section in the Infobox that mentions "Ancestral House", which seems ambiguous to me. (Infoboxes cause more trouble than they're worth in my opinion). It could mean a House from which this House is descended, which would be correct. But, probably a footnote saying that under the relevant House rules, the Queen's descendants are not members of the House of Saxe-Coburg. I'm not sure what you mean about Anne's children: they're Philips not Windsors, there's no doubting that. DeCausa (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing and nobody argued or implied that Charles is a member of the House of Wettin: the implication is that his mother belongs, genealogically, to that house and that he belongs, genealogically, to the House of Glucksburg. British law says nothing about membership in the House of Windsor being exclusive. British law says nothing about membership in the Royal House "descending through females": George V in 1917 stipulated "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". Elizabeth II did likewise, declaring that her royal male-line descendants, like those of Victoria, would belong to the House of Windsor and bear its name. Without her decrees of 1952 and 1960, Elizabeth II's children would not have belonged to the House of Windsor, but to the House of Mountbatten. They would still have been royal dynasts, they simply would not have been Windsors because their father was not a Windsor. No act of the Sovereign has ever been required to make descendants of a male sovereign members of his "house". But it required special acts for George V and Elizabeth II to make royal dynasts members of a House other than that of their legal father. There are two principles at work here: one is the tradition (in the UK as well as on the Continent) that people belong automatically to their father's family or "House", and there is the prerogative of British monarchs to change the name of their dynasty, two of whom (George V and Elizabeth II) have exercised that prerogative. Whereas George V declared that the British descendants of Queen Victoria would cease to bear whatever German titles they enjoyed by law or tradition -- thus excising himself and his sons from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (at least, in the UK), Elizabeth II did not stipulate that her children ceased to bear titles or dynastic membership inherited from their father. Philip officially renounced his titles as prince of Greece and of Denmark upon becoming a British subject -- so he did not have them any longer to pass to his descendants -- but not his title of "Prince of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg", which his ancestors had ceased to use since also becoming Princes of Denmark in 1851 (thereby creating a new tradition), but never renounced. Insofar as Prince/ss of S.H.S.G. is a German title, it ceased to exist legally after World War I. Insofar as it is a Danish title, it has never been legally abolished, nor its use prohibited. Documenting all of this to fit Wikipedia's rules is difficult because only a published summary saying all of the above would be deemed "sourced", whereas most sources just discuss portions of this complicated dynastic evolution. So it has to be left out. But that doesn't mean we should be confused about the history or the reality. FactStraight (talk) 06:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

"Badge" of the House of Windsor?

What is that in the infobox and where does it come from? As far as I'm aware the only arms (or badge, whatever that's supposed to be) would be the royal coat of arms. DeCausa (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Does the article not link to Heraldic_badge? Should it? One sees references to a general badge of the House of Windsor (a relatively recent substitute for the monarch's personal badge) on the web. [5]. Should we be looking for a better (i.e., dead-tree) reference? - Nunh-huh 00:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any WP:RS for this 'badge' on the web. If it existed surely it would be referred to on this site - it's not. The site does refer to the 'personal badges' of the Queen and other members of the Royal family (none of which look anything like this 'windsor badge), and so personal badges don't seems to have been substituted. TDeCausa (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you look at the "Source" section of the information template on the file page itself? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Around 1938, King George VI ask the Garter King of Arms to design a heraldic badge for the House of Windsor, the badge made its first appearance in the Regimental Standard (image attached), (please note the King's sign-manual top left) of the Yeomen of the Guard. This information is from the Regiment's website and this is a close up image (from the same website) of the part of the standard with the badge on it- I drew over this file to create the image. Since then the badge has made many appearances including on a shield as part of the Queen's Beasts set of sculptures for her coronation in 1953. An example of this can be seen on this stamp, this is the whole set of stamps, the badge on a shield is being held by a griffin of Edward III (strangely enough). Additional information can be found on this website, half way down is an explanation of the Griffin and the Windsor badge. Text and book references are also available, but it will take some time to unearth them. Sodacan (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough - although they are a little obscure as sources. It's still surprising that more expected sources like the Monarchy's own website doesn't mention it. DeCausa (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably because it is a personal badge of the family and not a state device, plus it is relatively recent in its creation. Sodacan (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

But the Queen's personal badge is there (the badge with the "E" on it) and personal badges of other members of the royal family are described... DeCausa (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

But clearly, it does exist, and it does represent what it is suppose to. Just because it is not on the Monarchy's website doesn't mean otherwise. The website, although authoritative and thorough is definitely not a repository of ALL royal information. You would be hard pressed to find this on the webpage, yet it is the Royal Badge of Wales as issued in 1953, and is still used by the Wales Office today on their webpage. The "E" is a personal cypher, not a badge, her heraldic badges as Sovereign are: the Tudor rose, the thistle, the Welsh dragon and the Irish harp (just to name a few). Sodacan (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Err... I imagine you mean repository.... - Nunh-huh 07:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that is what I mean, sorry. Anyway found this:

"Although the Sovereigns of the House of Windsor (this dynastic name was adopted by Royal Proclamation on 17th June 1917) have used various old royal badges only one or two new badges have been adopted that for Wales and the following badge for the House of Windsor, which was approved by King George VI on 28th July 1938: On a Mount Vert the Round Tower of Windsor Castle argent, masoned sable, flying thereon the Royal Standard, the whole within two branches of oak fructed or, and ensigned with the Imperial Crown."

(from J.P. Brooke-Little, 1954, Boutell's Heraldry, Frederick Warne: London and New York, pages 216-217) Sodacan (talk) 10:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

LMAO! Missed that first time round...you should nominate it for a bloopers page (if such a thing exists in WP)! DeCausa (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL, how could you miss that, I was talking to you! Sodacan (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Err, question could equally be posed to the author! DeCausa (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No excuses there ;) but you can't argue with this Sodacan (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)