Talk:House of Windsor/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

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)
Thank you for this reasoned comment. Would Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie be considered in the House of Windsor after they marry? I would think they would, and I suspect they will want to retain their surname and hyphenate the names of their children? It's a serious question. And by your argument would you exclude the descendants of Princess Margaret from the House of Windsor? I know they are not royal and do not have any royal styles, but I always considered them part of the House of Windsor Pacomartin (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No, because both the 1917 and the 1952 proclamation specifically exclude 'female descendants who marry.' It also doesn't matter what surname their descendents use.'Surname' and 'House designation' are two different concepts. Also, both the 1917 and 1952 proclaimations are clearly stating who and who is not members of the House of Windsor, not 'saying what the royal family's surname is'. I think you are confusing 'House membership' with 'royal descent' which again, are two different things. To wit: the children of Anne and Margaret are members of the Houses of Phillips and Armstrong-Jones respectively; hence why they bear the arms of those respective Houses, and whether you consider them members of the House of Windsor is irrelevant; as i.POV, and ii. quite clear legislature explicitly states they are not.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 09:27, 24 May 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 (talkcontribs) 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)

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)
Sorry to butt in, but Salic law is surely an irrelevant issue here. Victoria lost her title as monarch of Hanover by virtue of being a woman and being crowned as Queen of GB in 1837, causing Salic law indeed to be broken and allowing Ernst-August I to become King of Hanover and 'head of the house of Hanover'. Great, however, since all aristocratic titles were banned in Germany after WW1 isn't this whole issue moot anyway? All these 'heads of royal houses' in Germany are surely nothing but pretenders and are private citizens governed by the same laws as everyone else in Germany. I.e. there are legally no 'heads' of royal houses in the UK or in Germany. In fact does Salic law hold anywhere anymore? It obviously doesn't in the Netherlands anymore either.

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)

@ 'DeCausa' "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."

-well; with the greatest of respect ; I can't see in anyway how it is a 'german' concept; if anything; it is a 'european' concept, and last time I checked, the United Kingdom is part of Europe, both geographically and culturally. -Even then, hell; House membership is determined on a patrilineal basis in as far-flung imperial/royal houses as those of the middle east, Japan and China. Your assertion that somehow rules are 'different' in the UK and that House membership on a patrilineal basis is a. contradicted by BOTH the 1917 and 1952 Proclamations concerning the House designation of the Royal family (the words 'in the male line' and 'except female descendants who marry and their descendents' don't really suggest anything other than that.), b.has absolutely no evidence to back it up, and c. is extremely questionable given the precedents of the Houses of Hanover, Stuart, Tudor, all of which were determined on a patrilineal basis.

"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). "

-the British Royal family has been 'British' since George III and his generation. (Not to mention most of the Houses that came before the accession of George I). Quite a clear association with the House of Welf/Hanover in respect to him and his descendents, so that doesn't really wash.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 10:37, 25 May 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... 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)

SHSG Part II

I say remove it from all but Philip. The rest have inherited their Royal House, like their royal titles and styles from the senior partner — HM; not HRH The Duke. They are the House of Windsor. No-one outside of this little Wikipedia Talk Page has ever considered otherwise DBD 22:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. DrKiernan (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree. It's a traditionalist continental european/Salic perspective that prompts all this. DeCausa (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree completely. Wikipedia is being treated as a promotional platform for the House of Glücksburg. One or two editors are aggressively promoting the agenda that all patrilineal descendants of this ancient but fading royal house must be prominently tagged as such. This is unjustified, political/ideological traditionalism. There is no good reason why Wikipedia should observe "genealogical law" or Salic Law, neither of which are laws in 2011. There is no reason why Wikipedia should treat patrilineal ancestry (or any other ancestry) as inherently notable if there is no evidence that it is politically, socially or culturally significant; currently, the House of Glücksburg article has precisely one(!) online RS, a Scotsman article which scarcely mentions Prince Philip's lineage, and one offline reference, which lacks any correct footnotes. Incidentally I think it's amusing that although assiduous efforts have been made to tag almost every last descendant of Philip as a member of the House of Glücksburg, Prince Harry has somehow been "forgotten", and although a vigorous argument has been launched to claim Catherine, on the grounds that she has married into the family, they haven't quite mustered up the nerve to claim Elizabeth II. Rubywine (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
LoL, funny that eh, Harry being left out of the Gluecksburg list... Fnar, fnar.1812ahill (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What? Whether you like it or not; all descendents of Elizabeth II and Philip belong agnatically to (by blood) the house of Oldenburg/SHSG, regardless of what you call them. That's not changable. You can't change someone's bloodline. But of course you can change what they're FORMALLY called, through an order-in-council. For example, the House of Welf is in actual fact a cadet line of the House of Este, but is called the House of Welf offcially. That, and it's hardly 'traditionalist continental european/Salic perspective' -all members of the Houses of Plantagenet, Stuart and Tudor were dynasts of those houses in the male line, and the first two are french/breton in origin and the latter is welsh. It applied for the german Welf (i.e. Hanover) and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Houses as well, as well as the 'first' House of Windsor prior to 1952. Also, to contrast, the Queens of the Netherlands; Juliana and Beatrix, are styled of the 'House of Orange-Nassau' despite being members of the House of Mecklenburg and Lippe respectively, so your 'continental-european centalism' comment makes little sense. Bearing also in mind that according to his biography by Jonathan Dimbleby; Charles regards the 'Windsor' part of his 'surname' as a 'pointless artifice', as well as his closeness to Lord Mountbatten, I find it unlikely that the House name 'Windsor' will be continued for Elizabeth II an Philip's descendents in the male line, at least through Prince Charles.

"There is no good reason why Wikipedia should observe "genealogical law" or Salic Law" -well, forgive me, but last time I checked, it's traditional in the western world for people to bear patronymic surnames(and, er; everywhere else; the east i.e. china/vietnam/japan/korea for example.) So, whilst officially, the second 'House of Windsor' is called merely that, in reality, it is of course a branch of the house of Oldenburg, so you wouldn't be wrong to say that it is a cadet branch of the House of Oldenburg, as, by blood; that's an undeniable fact. A person-royal or otherwise-can use whatever name they want, but they cannot change what family they belong to by blood, even if they abhor that fact.—Preceding unsigned comment added by JWULTRABLIZZARD (talkcontribs) 12:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's a fact, there must surely be some supporting sources. Can you provide them, please? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Interested to see the answer to that.
"Whether you like it or not; all descendents of Elizabeth II and Philip belong agnatically to (by blood) the house of Oldenburg /SHSG". Who says? This is a little like the "true believers" of certain rules of grammar asserting that "their" rule (no split infintives etc) must be followed. The concept of "Houses" is a social construct. It can be whatever "society" wants it to be. For example, membership of the leading patrician families in the Roman Republic was regularly determined by adoption rather than "blood". What is your evidence for saying there is an immutable "rule" that membership of a "House" is determined by blood?
"last time I checked, it's traditional in the western world for people to bear patronymic surnames" Well, I don't think you mean patronymic (which is Johnson rather than Smith), I think you mean inherit their surname from their fathers . Again, this is a social construct and indeed in the modern world people do take their mother's surname (and traditionally there are two instances where this has occurred: illegitimacy and, amongst the British aristocracy, where titles etc have been inherited from the mother.) The underlying point is that it's pointless dogmatically claiming absolute rules in this situation. DeCausa (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

well; are you suggest we give DNA tests to all male-line descendents of Prince Philip to ascertain as to which family (by blood) they belong to? Prince Philip is a direct male-line descendent of the first Count of Oldenburg, as are all the other members of his family in the male line. This is an undeniable and uncontestable fact, unless some male-line ancestor was cuckolded somewhere along the line, which I find somewhat unlikely. Therefore, he and all his male-line descendents are members of the House of Oldenburg regardless of what official name is given to his family. - I would say the birth certificates of the agnates mentioned (i.e. the male-line descendants of the Queen and Prince Philip)would be enough. - Look at it this way: my surname is Webster. My earliest traceable male-line ancestor had the surname 'Webster'. Even if I change my surname, (I won't, mind) I would still remain a member of the Webster family regardless of what my surname has become. Whilst you're correct in saying that, in Noble Houses, House names have been passed down through marriage to an heiress, this is the exception rather than the rule. You're also wrong to say that an illegitimate child is forced to automatically bear the surname of it's mother-in the nobility at least-if the father acknowledged the child, they would often have their father's name, or even have a made-up name (e.g. Fitzroy, Fitzclarence, etc.) and lastly-society? Well again, I would say the overwhelming majority of us bear our father's surname, as opposed to our mother's. Thus, by ratio at least, bearing a male-line surname is what society deems as a'rule'; not aways the case, but the exception rather than the rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JWULTRABLIZZARD (talkcontribs) 13:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"Whether you like it or not; all descendents of Elizabeth II and Philip belong agnatically to (by blood) the house of Oldenburg /SHSG". Who says?"

-er, their DNA? Not to mention the Y chromosone of Princes Philip, Charles, Harry, William, Andrew, Edward and the Viscount Severn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JWULTRABLIZZARD (talkcontribs) 13:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You've missed the point. No one is saying it's indisputable that they are blood descendants (well, assuming no hanky panky!). What you cannot absolutely assert, and you have provided no sources for despite Messianical asking for them, is that, in the context of the British royal family, agnatic blood descent = membership of a House. DeCausa (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm quite aware of that; I was merely being facetious. Well; I would say precedent is enough: the Houses of Tudor, Stuart and Welf/Hanover were all determined by the male line, as has nearly every single other noble/royal house (bar marriage to an heiress, which is again, the exception rather than the rule) -one the present day continent; I can only cite the House of Orange Nassau being passed down in the female line Wilhelmina-Juliana-Beatrix. I can't see any other examples at all (Denmark is quite likely to be the House of Laborde de Monpezat in the future) amongst any of the other REIGNING families of Europe, or the world for that matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JWULTRABLIZZARD (talkcontribs) 13:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

-can you provide evidence for your assertion that 'British customs in regard to this are somewhat looser than those on the continent' (or words to that effect?) -I've not seen any other examples in Britain's long history of Royal Houses of a House name being passed down through a Queen Regnant apart from this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JWULTRABLIZZARD (talkcontribs) 13:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

-also; in what way is the House of Oldenburg 'fading' in any way? There are currently two reigning agnates of this House on the thrones of Denmark, (Margarethe II) Norway, (Harald V), sixteen sovereign states have an agnate heir to the throne (UK and the other commonwealth realms), as well as having titular claim to the defunct thrones of Russia, Greece and Oldenburg. So, hardly fading exactly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JWULTRABLIZZARD (talkcontribs) 14:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

In Europe, the most famous matrilineal successions are Hapsburg (sometimes Habsburg-Lorraine) and Romanov (hardly ever, but ocassionally Holstein-Gotorp-Romanov). I'm sure there are many others. In Britain, it's the aristocracy I was thiking of. DeCausa (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

in actual fact the official name of the House descended from Maria Theresia and Emperor Francis I was always "von Habsburg-Lothringen i.e. "Habsburg-Lorraine"-so that hardly counts as matrilineal succession, as the paternal surname was retained, indeed it was hyphenated. Russia is perhaps a good example, but for a long time Russia did have 'difficulty' adapting to the 'rules' followed by other european states; it was for a long time-rightly or wrongly regarded as 'semi-oriental' by a lot of contemporary rulers throughout the 15th to mid 19th centuries; and, for example, Russian Heraldic practice was very much quasi-heraldrydid not conform to the rules followed elsewhere, whereas everyone else did Emperor Paul attempted to get himself and his progeny included in the Almanac de Gotha as dynasts of the 'House of Romanov', only for them to be refused on the grounds that they were in fact agnates of the House of Oldenburg, of the branch of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp. I think to be fair, Paul I had (unfounded, I believe, but it's understandable given his mother's sexual antics during her marriage to his father) doubts about his own paternity and so wished to show himself as a legitimate descendant of not only his father (Peter III) but also Peter the Great. But again, that's two (very shaky) examples, if they can even be considered as such, as opposed to the hundreds of other Houses that were determined on a fairly strict patrilineal basis. I wasn't aware that there was any difference between British Aristocratic and continetal (particularly German) practice bar the 'rule' re. marriage to an heiress: all members of the royal/noble line of the Stuarts -reigning or not- for example, (both in Scotland and England) were all descended in the direct legitimate line from the first stewart to bear the name: Walter Stewart, 3rd High Steward of Scotland; there are many branches of the House of Stanhope, but they all bear the surname of 'Stanhope' common ancestry, and so on ad infinitum bar marriage to an heiress, and even then, the surname is often hyphenated unless there is a 'Name and Arms' clause; and even then, this is uncommon. So again, that hardly rings true.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"I'm sure there are many others." - Errrr, I really can't think of any to be brutally honest, apart from Juliana and Beatrix of the Netherlands and the Romanov example, if that is to be accepted at all, of a royal dynasty using the mother's house name rather than the father's. And even in the case of Beatrix, her son Willem is Italic textvan Orange-Nassau-AmsbergItalic text I can think of instances where a Royal House has been changed outright (e.g. Wettin/Saxe-Coburg and Gotha/whatever >to> Windsor by George V in 1917, Wettin/Saxe-Coburg-Gotha >to> 'de Belgique'/'van Belgie' by Albert II in 1921 in Belgium.) But, yet again, this is very rare, an exception to the much more common 'rule', as is the use of the mother's House designation.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

So much verbiage and not a single source. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
-'DeCausa' hasn't provided any evidence for his claims, to be fair.
also, you're not taking into account that most Royal and noble houses, at have codified 'House Laws' that determine who or who is not a member of that said house. This is usually done on a patrilineal basis.—Preceding unsigned comment added by JWULTRABLIZZARD (talkcontribs) 15:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I also don't see DeCausa trying to insert dubious information into the article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, the magic words "House Laws" reveals where you're coming from on all of this. Not relevant to Britain - that's a Germanic concept we don't have. As this started off: this whole Salic obsession is not relevant to the Windsors. DeCausa (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

How do you know it isn't 'relevant to the windsors?' Do you have any evidence? and how do you know this concept is alien to the UK? The houses of Karadjordjevic, Bonaparte, Romanov and the houses of Bourbon and Orleans all posess house lawsand none of those are in any way 'germanic' in the slightest. (apart from romanov), so it's hardly a 'german' concept. My argument is also not 'salic' (the word you're looking for is 'agnatic'; as I'm not anywhere implying that Elizabeth II shouldn't be Queen, which would be the case under Salic Law.); and I am also not trying to add 'dubious information' to the article. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

How do we know that Salic Law and House Laws are not relevant to the Windsors? Oh dear. I won't be posting on this discussion any further. DeCausa (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I am in complete agreement with all of DeCausa's contributions to the discussion above. What we are seeing here is a concerted attempt to assert the overarching importance of a cultural concept (male-line descent) as universal "fact", thereby exempting it from any need to be proved in the relevant context. I don't think that there are any more substantive points that need to be made. See also Talk:WikiProject British Royalty. Rubywine (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hang on a tick; Decausa was trying to imply that 'House Laws' are an essentially 'germanic concept' whichmeans either one of two things: 1. It's based on the salic law of the salian franks that became applied to all ofd the successor states of the carolingian empire; roughly germany, france, and italy. This is why the German, Austrian, French, and north italian states (and, later, the kingdom of italy) observed salic law. it is also why Britain/scotland, the Iberian states, the Scandinavian states, the south italian states and also Russia up until prolumgation of the Pauline Laws allowed female succession. HOWEVER to claim that ONLY male-line inheritance is a 'germanic' concept is erroneous: the late Roman/Byzantine, Chinese, Persian, Mughal, Mongol, Incan, Aztec, Ottoman Empires allowed only male line succession, and none of those had anything to do with the carolingian empire in any way. Regardless, however, 'Salic Law' is not the issue. (If I had an issue with 'salic law'- which I don't; I wouldn't agree to Elizabeth II being on the throne in the first place!) Salic law was/is about inheritance; not about membership of a royal/noble house, which was pretty much determined in the same way a surname is roughly determined: via the male line. NOT always, but more often than not. You, Decausa, with all due respect, seem to be confusing family membership by 'agnatic descent' (which is pretty much a universal concept, both in europe and in asia and pretty much elsewhere although there is the odd exception) with 'salic law'. Totally different things. All the salic law says (amongst a lot of other things) is that 'women cannot inherit land' not 'women cannot pass on their house designation'. Thus, again, for the billionth time; my argument is not in any way 'salic'.

Decausa, I am not of course trying to imply that the House of Windsor possesses House Laws on the continental model, I just don't see how you can claim that Britain possesses any 'unique' 'uncontinental' tradition in this respect without any evidence. Back your statement up with evidence, and I would agree. It's al;ready clear that House membership of the Houses of Tudor, Stuart and Welf was held on a male-line basis, so that is a precedent. Also, House Laws are intrinsic to a HOUSE, not a territory. That, amazingly enough, is why they're called HOUSE laws.' Granted, a member can choose to ignore them (if he is in a position to do so) take, for example, when the now-Henri I of Luxembourg married his wife in 1986, the Head of the House of Borbon-Parma, Carlos Hugo, declared the marriage unequal under the House Laws. So Henri's father, Grand Duke Jean, retal;iated by renouncing all Bourbon-Parma titles borne by his (immediate) family. But yet, the Bourbon-Spain inescutcheon is still borne on the greater arms of the Grand Duke and his son bears the (recreated) title of 'Duke of Bourbon-Parma'. But nonetheless, aHouse Law applies to the House as a whole, not just those who live in a specific territory (unless of course, legislation is passed in that territory to that effect.) JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:TLDR DeCausa (talk) 10:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
This discussion warrants a formal RfC on which efforts must be made to engage the wider community of editors. Extreme POV material has been added to a whole raft of articles without the smallest attempt at proper sourcing. Wikipedia articles on royalty, right across the board, are badly in need of some sunlight, fresh air and community debate. Rubywine (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

-Unfortunately, 'Rubywine', 'DeCausa', documentary evidence doesn't seem to be on your side. Rather than argue about endlessly 'Salic Law' when: i.That isn't the issue here, and ii.You both quite evidently have no idea what 'Salic Law' actually means, or condemning our arguments as 'traditionalist and patrilinealist' (which is quite ironic, seeing as by its very nature, that's more-or-less exactly what monarchy is, by its very nature.)

Let's look at the evidence shall we?

Here's the 'original' 1917 order-in-council: 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.


(London Gazette, issue 30186, July 17, 1917, p. 1.)


-Now, that QUITE CLEARLY, no, you would have to be blind to not see it-states: "all the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms" -i.e. any male-line descendent of Queen Victoria and Prine Albert's four sons -MALE or FEMALE constitute the House of Windsor. So, that's argument a. of DeCausa's -his claim that the House of Windsor was not intended or is not based on a male-line basis, or his denial that the House of Windsor has any 'rules' -when clearly it does - is shown here to be erroneous. The 1917 proclaimation goes on to state: "other than female descendants who may marry or may have married," -so, that excludes not only the then-Princess Elizabeth after her marriage from membership of the House of Windsor, it also excludes both Prince Charles and Princess Anne. (until 1952 anyway) So, you may ask, what House did they belong to? Well, first assumption would probably be 'Mountbatten', woulkdn't it? HOWEVER the name 'Mountbatten was merely a name assumed by Prince Phillip for naturalisation purposes in Britain-despite what has been claimed, there is no legislation; either in the UK, Denmark, or Greece, renouncing Phillip's membership of the House of Oldenburg/SHSG, so, as he was born a member of that House, as no legislation was prolumgated saying anything to the contrary, Phillip remained a member of that House, and so did both his children. (according to the 1917 proclaimation, they were not members of the House of Windsor 1948-1952.) All that Phillip renounced on his naturalisation was the title 'Prince of Greece and Denmark' and the right to succeed to the Greek Throne. But that did not mean he ceased to be a member of that House. (that's also why he continued, 1947-1949, to bear the arms of the Greek Royal House, albeit differenced with an escutcheon of the arms of Princess Alice in the Honour Point.) -He was fully able to, say, succeed to the Headship of the House of Oldenburg had the older branches died out (before you scoff, there's legal precedent for this- Albert, Titular Duke of Schleswig-Holstein and a female-line grandson of Queen Victoria, was deprived of his territorial designation with his sisters in 1917. Nevertheless he succeeded to the Headship of the House of Oldenburg in 1931.)


The 1948 Letters Patent granting the issue of Elizabeth and Phillip the title of 'Prince(ss) of the United Kingdom' (which, otherwise, they would not have enjoyed):

GEORGE THE SIXTH by the Grace of God of Great Britain Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King Defender of the Faith To all to whom these Presents shall come Greeting Whereas His late Majesty King George the Fifth by His Letters Patent dated the thirtieth day of November in the eighth year of His Reign did declare His Royal Pleasure that certain members of the Royal Family therein more particularly mentioned should have the style title or attribute of Royal Highness And Whereas We are desirous of defining and fixing the style and title by which the children of the marriage solemnised between Our Most dearly beloved Daughter Her Royal Highness Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Duchess of Edinburgh and His Royal Highness Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh shall be designated And Whereas for that purpose We deem it expedient that the aforesaid Letters Patent should be amended and extended la manner hereinafter declared Now Know Ye that in the exercise of Our Royal and undoubted prerogative and of our especial grace we do hereby declare Our Royal Will and Pleasure that the children of the aforesaid marriage shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names in addition to any other appellations and titles of honour which may belong to them hereafter And We do further declare Our Will and Pleasure that our Earl Marshal of England or his Deputy for the time being do cause these Our Letters or the Enrolment thereof to be recorded in our College of Arms to the end that Our Officers of Arms and all others may take due notice thereof In Witness Whereof We have caused these our Letters to be made Patent Witness Ourself at Westminster the twenty-second day of October in the twelfth year of Our Reign

By Warrant under the King's Sign Manual NAPIER

(Certified copy of the letters patent, National Archives, LCO 6/3676.)


Whitehall, November 9, 1948. The KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm bearing date the 22nd ultimo to define and fix the style and title by which the children of the marriage solemnized between Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh and His Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, shall be designated. It is declared by the Letters Patent that the children of the aforesaid marriage shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names in addition to any other appellations and titles of honour which may belong to them hereafter.

(London Gazette, issue 38452, Nov. 9, 1948, p. 1/5889.)

-does not mention ANYWHERE ANYTHING pertaining to the House Designation of Phillip and Elizabeth's descendents; therefore it must be ascertained that, as per the 1917 order-in-council as they were not male-line descendents of Queen Victoria, they were not members of the House of Windsor, and, as no proclaimation had been issued saying they WEREN'T, QED they were of the House of Oldenburg/SHSG.

Lastly, Here we have the 1952 Proclaimation:

At the Court at Clarence House, the 9th day of April, 1952 Present, The Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in Council

Her Majesty was this day pleased to make the following Declaration: -"My Lords, I 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, other than female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the Name of Windsor".

P.J. FERNAU.


(copy, National Archives, HO 290/72)


Clarence House, April 9th. 1952. The Queen to-day declared in Council Her Will and Pleasure that She and her children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that Her descendants, shall bear the name of Windsor.

(London Gazette, issue 39513, Apr. 11, 1952, p. 1/2013).

-what is interesting is that it doesn't mention the 1917 proclaimation, nor does it refer to the pre-existing House of Windsor. So, as all the members concened were, up until this order in council, legally members of the House of Oldenburg/SHSG, what the Queen has essentially done here (or rather, what Churchill and Lord Beaverbrook have done) is create a new Hopuse of Windsor out of an existing branch of the House of Oldenburg/SHSG, just as the original House of Windsor was created from a branch of the House of Wettin/Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

-anyway, deny it all you will (and you will, as you both have regarding several very valid points in this discussion, in an EXTREMELY POV way.), but that's what the official legislature says.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:Synthesis/WP:Original research at best, fanciful interpretation at worst. Either way, it's not relevant to a Wikipedia article. Find a decent secondary source, per WP:Reliable sources that says what you say then maybe someone will listen to you. DeCausa (talk) 10:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

SHSG Part III

Firstly, both Houses of Windsor (Windsor-Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Windsor-Glucksburg) are agnatically German. Its simply the British name that masks the German origin. Yet its not really about nationality. If you're British, somewhere in your family tree, if you look far back, you will find at least one German (Anglo-Saxon), Norman, French, Scandinavian, etc. So, why so ardently defend the argument that Windsor-Glucksburg doesn't exist as a distinct house? After all, changing the name doesn't change the fact that they're both of German origin. That doesn't mean that their loyalty is in Germany. They are heirs to the illustrious line of British monarchs... What more could they ask for? Secondly, Windsor-Glucksburg is not yet "royal", in the sense that none of its members has yet succeeded to any kingdom. Thirdly, this distinction between the two Houses indeed comes from the German model. Agnatic descent meant... everything. Its nothing to be angry about. We all follow the same principle; we get the names of our fathers. In my country, bastards are denied that right. They bear the surnames of their mothers. In a huge number of articles already made, houses are classified according to descent in male line, regardless of whether the succession law is agnatic primogeniture, cognatic primogeniture, or absolute primogeniture. The two-house theory works best. It doesn't mean Elizabeth is a member of the House of Oldenburg, or that Charles is a member of the House of Wettin. It means that they both belong to Houses called "Windsor", and that, as a male-line descendant of Prince Albert, Elizabeth is a member of the House of Wettin, while her sons, as male-line descendants of Prince Philip, are members of the House of Oldenburg. Emerson 07 (talk) 09:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If we agree that any royal house, wherever they are, and whatever their law is, is classified according to the principle of agnatic descent, then George V created the House of Windsor, a cadet, descendant branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Elizabeth II, in turn, created a new House of Windsor, a cadet, descendant branch of the House of Glucksburg. I think what confuses most of us is whether the monarch, or anyone for that matter, can change the membership of a person to another house. The agnatic principle on the classification of houses, which has stood the test of time, tells us that nobody, not even Parliament, can. That would be as futile as trying to legislate the meanings of words in our language. All that can be changed is the name. Houses, by definition, includes all agnatic descendants of a family. Taking this meaning, we ask, to what house does Prince Charles belong? Remembering that houses are classed by agnatic descent, we have to reply, if intelligence does not fail us, that he belongs to the House of Oldenburg. Saying otherwise would disregard the meaning of the word house, and falsify the answer. However, the Queen declared that her agnatic descendants would belong to the House and Family of Windsor. The House of Windsor is a cadet branch agnatically descended from the House of Wettin. There! We see a contradiction. If Prince Charles is a member of the House of Windsor, according to the Queen, but a member of the House of Oldenburg according to the agnatic principle, it is irrational to conclude that he belongs to both. After all, each person has only one patriline. Then what can explain this mess? If
  1. the House of Windsor is a cadet branch of the House of Wettin, and
  2. Prince Charles is a member of the House of Windsor, yet is agnatically descended from the House of Oldenburg, then we get
  3. the House of Windsor to which Charles belongs is a cadet branch of the House of Oldenburg, distinct from the House of Windsor of Wettin. Emerson 07 (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
And if anyone's still after the Original Research or Needs Citation thing, I give up. Nothing's harder than teaching math to an adult who won't accept that adding 1 to 2 would be 3. What those royal proclamations say, in essentials, is that the monarch changed the name of the royal family. You will be lost trying to find any explicit mention of a second House of Windsor outside of this article. The Queen may have intentionally, or unintentionally, created the second House of Windsor. In those cases, you either have to read between the lines, or understand what's actually happening. It doesn't transfer their descendants from one house to another, which, as I say, cannot be done. People cannot be alienated from their ancestry (unless they're adopted). When we speak of houses, we speak of one specific ancestry: patrilineal ancestry. It's not about Salic law, and it's not about Elizabeth or Philip's bloodline being more important. It's just about following standard convention. Emerson 07 (talk) 09:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't about "reading between" the lines, or truth for that matter (WP:NOTTRUTH) it's about reporting what reliable sources say. That's it. When you can provide citations for the above, no problem in it going in. It's nothing to do with being anti-german, or being "angry", or any other "Real World" issue. It's just about following Wikipedia policies properly. DeCausa (talk) 10:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I see. You know, I first learned about this thing from Wikipedia. I've been reading stuff on kings. Once upon a time I stumbled upon this infobox "Titles and Succession" about Elizabeth II. House of Windsor, cadet branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Then, I read about Prince Charles. Down in the infobox, "Titles and Succession": House of Windsor, cadet branch of the House of Glucksburg. Then I read about the House of Glucksburg. There I found that Prince Charles was indeed a member. Then I asked myself, what's happening here? I found, in the article "Royal House", that the basis of membership to royal houses is patrilineal descent. A "cadet branch" is a junior branch descended in male line from the main house. It helped me appreciate the French monarchy. From Hugh Capet in 987 to Charles X in 1830, France was ruled by a single Royal House - the House of Capet and its cadet branches. Salic law enabled them to keep the throne for that long. The oldest and largest dynasty in Europe. No British dynasty can last that long, with cognatic primogeniture in place. Now they're even trying to switch to absolute primogeniture. Riding the bandwagon of kingdoms that had adopted absolute primogeniture. The meaning of royal house began to blur, as monarchies stuck to the more famous names - Habsburg, Romanov, Orange-Nassau, Windsor - instead of the "correct" patrilineal names. But these stuff still had to be cited, even though I'm technically just cross-referencing. Emerson 07 (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
You are aware that Wikipedia can't be used as a source? WP:CIRCULAR DeCausa (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, my reasoning is this: If you could find it in so many articles, persisting undeleted in a long period of time, maybe, just maybe, in those articles matters were cited, and as such, not removed. You will find, with remarkable consistency, about the distinction between the two Houses of Windsor, as cadet branches of Wettin and Oldenburg respectively. Unless of course, someone adverse to this opinion reads this, checks, and modifies each of those articles. I believe that those criteria makes the claim reasonably verifiable. Emerson 07 (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Your comment makes me believe that the argument that there are two Houses of Windsor is solid. Questions of technicality aside, I seek to obtain the consensus on this view. Emerson 07 (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
you might want to check those articles again...I think you might be disappointed. DeCausa (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
But honestly, I think adding a source for this is absurd. The concept is fundamental - membership in houses is determined by patrilineal descent. Do you agree, or not? That is the question. Given all arguments, is another source still necessary? The idea is derived from existing, cited, agreed-upon concepts. House. Patrilineal descent. Cadet branch. What could be clearer than that? If Philip is Charles' father, and William is Charles' son, do I have to cite a separate source in order to say that Philip is William's grandfather? I think not. That is an absurdity I wish to avoid. I want this article to impart a knowledge such that common readers will know the difference. So that they will not be confused, when this article says this, and that article says that. I want them to understand the difference between houses, so that when they read about other royal houses in Europe, they will become familiar with the term "house". So that when they read about the kings and queens of the United Kingdom, they will know why the royal house is not the "House of Hanover", even though all British monarchs since George I are descended from that house. Whenever a descendant through a female link succeeds to the throne, the name of a royal house changes. Windsor is an irregularity. What is sought here is to explain that irregularity. Emerson 07 (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this might be it. First there is this House of Windsor, founded by George V, of which Elizabeth II is a member. Agnatic descendants of this house are uniformly called "Windsor". After likewise naming her agnatic descendants Windsors, the Queen issued an Order-in-Council in 1960. This was "ambiguously" worded. I found it clear. The intention of the Order is to keep the name Windsor for the main family, while agnatic descendants farther from the throne, who do not bear the style "Royal Highness", such as great-grandchildren of the Sovereign, would become Mountbatten-Windsor. The "second House of Windsor", Mountbatten-Windsor is distinct from the first house because it is confined to the Queen's descendants, as agnatic descendants of the Duke of Edinburgh. The junior descendants of these Windsors become Mountbatten-Windsors. Emerson 07 (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This would apply to the children of James, Viscount Severn, to the children of Prince Henry if Charles does not become king, to the grandchildren of Prince Henry if Charles becomes king, etc. However, even now, some of the Queen's descendants informally use it. Emerson 07 (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

well first of all 'Emerson07'; whilst I do agree with a lot of what you have put:

i.your comment that 'We all follow the same principle; we get the names of our fathers. In my country, bastards are denied that right' is both historically and legally erroneous: (I am of course assuming you are British.) first of all, due to the legitimation acts of 1920,1959, and the parental responsibility act of 2002, the concept of 'illegitimacy' has no basis in british law (as, indeed did it not pre-christianisation of Britain either.) an illegitimate child has as much rights, including inheritence (bar succession to peerage titles and the throne) as a legitimate one. Secondly, your assertion that 'illegitimate child takes mothers name, legitimate takes father's surname' is also wrong. British history is resplendent with examples of illegitimate children who bore the surname of their father. take the many illegitimate branches of the scottish royal house of stewart - all had the surname of stewart. What you will find is that, where the father acknowledged his bastard, then he would (more commonly in scotland) bear his fathers name or, (as was common in england) they would bear a name that would suggest the identity of their father -often being an old family nickname, or the name of a title of their father or suchlike -without it being made specific by having the same surname as their father, so you have as a result the families of FitzClarence, numerous families called 'FitzRoy', Lennox, Beauclerc, FitzJames, Somerset, FitzGeorge, d'Este. and countless others. Indeed, Arthur Fox-Davies, in his monumental work, "a guide to heraldry", complained that it was often assumed that illegitimate children had a 'right to their mother's name', when in actual fact, under old english law, valid until the twentieth century, a bastard had no rights re. the family they descended from: they legally had no parents, no right of inheritance, and no automatic right of surname from either parent: it was just the church that was responsible for the trend in some quarters of giving natural children the surname of their mothers. However, if the father acknowledged the child as his (which, more often than not, he did.) then, by the father's grace, the child would bear his surname or a surname alluding to him, as well as -often- a differenced version of his family arms.British history is also full of examples of legitimate children who have taken their mother's name: the famous 'name and arms clause', in which a man with no sons requested that his issue through his daughter(s) bore his name and arms, is a good example of this.

ii. The monarch is the fount of honour, he/she IS the law, and is sovereign. Therefore, whatever he/she says, even if it is contrary to precedent, goes. Thus, the monarch can say that the royal arms, the name of the House, the house membership, etc. are whatever he/she says it is. Whilst I agree that the 'first and second' houses of windsor are two distinct entities, both the 1917, 1952, and 1960 orders-in-council are good examples of this. Another example is Edward VII's conferring of the title 'princess of the united kingdom' to his two matrilineal granddaughters through his daughter Louise, to which the Garter King of Arms of the time objected (as this title was only borne by the Monarch's descendents in the male line) but Edward VII merely stated "Just do it." -So there you have it, what the monarch says, goes to matters in this respect.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Membership to a house is not an "honour", which I believe is restricted to titles and styles. I doubt anyone would claim that the Queen's descendants are members of the House of Wettin. That's just what I'm saying. I do not claim that the Queen's descendants are not members of the House of Windsor. They are. But they are Windsors of the House of Oldenburg. That's what I'm saying. But it does them no damage whether they're called Windsors, Mountbatten-Windsors, or anything else they might prefer. It does no damage whether they are of Wettin or Oldenburg. Emerson 07 (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Members list for the British Line of Succession

In the section House_of_Windsor#Members I corrected a categorical error in the designation for the children of Queen Elizabeth. As their claims to the throne are derived from their mother, not their father, they cannot be called "agnatic" descendants. Their inheritance is matrilineal (from Queen Elizabeth). Their children may be called agnatic descendants, only if they are from the male heir. This excludes Princess Anne's children from such a designation. The box colors were fixed to reflect this, as well as adding a new category -- Direct descendants of Queen Elizabeth II and Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. --Skol fir (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Phillips kids, Chatto kids, Lewis kid, Gilman kid, Taylor kids and Ogilvy kids - aren't these all members of their respective father's house and not the house of Windsor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.169.183 (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're 100% correct, which is exactly the argument I've been having all along, more or less.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Here we go again. The term "matrilineal" is not entirely correct; that would mean that their succession rights were derived not only from their mother, but from their mother's mother, and from their mother's mother's mother, and so forth. Agnatic, or descent in male line, is used to distinguish between the two currently co-existing Houses of Windsor: the House of Windsor-Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, descended in male line from Prince Albert, and the House of Windsor-Glucksburg, descended in male line from Prince Philip. I'm not promoting Salic or German house law in Britain. It's just that its the way houses are classified for hundreds of years. Every house, whatever its name is, will be classified according to descent in the male line. The direct descendants of Elizabeth II category would include Elizabeth's children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and so forth. You will have to add a better qualifier to distinguish it from her male-line descendants. In the article, what I saw was that the direct descendants referred to the Queen's children only. That is utterly confusing. That is a distinction of generation, not of direct descent.Emerson 07 (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If the children of Elizabeth are merely her cognatic descendants, then her grandchildren cannot be agnatic descendants. Emerson 07 (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The agnatic descendants of a woman refer to the patrilineal descendants of a woman's sons. Emerson 07 (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

What makes the House of Windsor a cadet branch of the House of Glücksburg?

I would like to ask for the opinions of other editors on the attempts by Emerson 07 (talk · contribs) to add the House of Glücksburg everywhere he can, even if it is not correct. He assumes that all descendants of Queen Elizabeth II are of the Oldenburg line because of male-line inheritance. My understanding is that the House of Windsor has nothing to do with the Oldenburg lineage. That was the whole point of all those royal decrees, making sure that Prince Philip's origins do not affect the descendants (original Order in Council of Apr 9, 1952, which does not even mention Glücksburg). Here are some recent edits made by Emerson 07 that I am not going to revert myself, as I already reached my limit of two reverts at House of Windsor -- diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, diff 6, diff 7, diff 8.

Nowhere in this article, House of Windsor, does it mention that the House of Windsor is a cadet branch of the House of Glücksburg. If this is such a well-known fact, why is there no mention of it? Is it just a theory in someone's wild imagination? I would like to see more proof, as so far the connection is speculative, at best. --Skol fir (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's original research and WP:Synthesis based on an assumed principle that children always take their royal house from their father. The royal proclamations identify the house of the Queen's children and those that put forward the Glucksburg "traditionalist" POV are unable to provide citations for it. If they ever can find a citation for it, it could go into Wikipedia. But until they are the Royal proclamations are the only relevant determinant. DeCausa (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, DeCausa, for stating so clearly why the House of Windsor should be the only House tied to the descendants of QEII, for the purposes of Wikipedia. Even at the article for the House of Glücksburg, you can read that a branch of that house is linked to "...the heir to the thrones of the Commonwealth realms[1][2] (although in the latter case, they are, by royal proclamation, declared to be members of the House of Windsor[3]). By "branch" I am assuming that they mean patrilineal descent. It is also curious to note that the Mountbatten part of Mountbatten-Windsor (surname) is not patrilineal but matrilineal through Prince Philip's maternal grandfather. His mother was Princess Alice of Battenberg. Also, how can the House of Windsor, which was originally derived from the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha lineage suddenly jump to another House ( Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg) as if by magic. It looks like a conjuring trick to me. --Skol fir (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
See JWULTRABLIZZARD's timeline below. No tricks. He demonstrates that Prince Charles and Princess Anne were born to the House of Oldenburg. It was only later that the Queen declared they would belong to the House of Windsor. Your confusion of the House of Windsor, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha can only be resolved in the context of two Houses of Windsor. They did not jump from one house to another. They were born in the second House of Windsor, a branch of the House of Oldenburg, implicitly created by the Queen in her 1952 proclamation. The Queen did not make references to the House of Windsor created in 1917. Thus, the 1952 proclamation did not amend the one created in 1917. She made her agnatic descendants members of a royal house, which was named *Windsor*, "similar" to the name of the house to which she belonged. Emerson 07 (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Though I know Mountbatten did not come from Philip's patriline, it would suffice for the purposes of this discussion, which is to distinguish his family from the Windsor family. Mountbatten was adopted since it sounded British. Circumstances during the World War II era. If he took a surname from his paternal family, it would either be "of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg" or "of Greece and Denmark". Does that explain why he took his surname from his maternal grandparents? Emerson 07 (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that; because, according to the 1917 order-in-council, both the future queen and her children were specifically excluded from membership of the house of windsor; ('female descendents who marry and their issue' i.e. non-agnatic descendents of George V) and also because phillip was and remains a member of the house of oldenburg/SHSG, (as no legislature was passed saying he wasn't, either by the bristish crown or the head house of oldenburg), -the fact his surname became 'mountbatten has no bearing on his house membership- for example, ex-king constantine often uses the surname 'de grecia' but he's unquestionably a member of the house of oldenburg; et cetera- s that the 'second house' of windsor (for want of a better term) was created, legally speaking via the 1952 order-in-council from a branch of the house of oldenburg, and is quite clearly not the same thing as the original house of windsor.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

-also, 'decausa', patrilinealism is not 'traditionalist' seeing as a.some ancient houses were decided on a matrilineal basis- e.g. the pictish royal house- and b. it's not 'germanocentric' either, house membership is determined by patriline throughout europe. theat's why, for example, arms (heraldry being a europe-wide and indeeed now a global concept ) are passed down on a patrilineal and not a matrilineal basis.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"I would argue that..." There is no place for this in Wikipedia. Either there is a reliable source that describes the Queen and her offspring in this way or there is not. If not, it's just original research and synthesis. Nothing further to discuss. DeCausa (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
JWULTRABLIZZARD, who said that the Order in Council of 1952 was creating a new House of Windsor? That is pure bunk, as that would have been clearly indicated by QEII if that was what she desired. If she referred to the "House of Windsor" that could only have meant one House, the same one dating back to 1917. Are you making things up as you go? It certainly appears so to me. The Queen clearly wanted the same old House of Windsor to be the mark of her descendants, basically side-stepping the "direct male-line" rule that dominated so many royal houses at the time. Unfortunately for the Queen, she did not consult good lawyers to make the wording explicit and unequivocal. That left room for people to make assumptions about what she meant.
Still, I think that saying there is a "new" House of Windsor is assuming too much. --Skol fir (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

yeees...but according to the 1917 order in council; after her marriage, the future queen ceased to be a member of the house of windsor and her children were specifically excluded, as they were not male-line descendents. That's undeniable; backed up by evidence (above) -the 1952 order-in council also makes no reference to the 1917 order-in-council, George V, or anything like that; it just says that the queen 'and her children will be known as the house and family of windsor'

"The Queen clearly wanted the same old House of Windsor to be the mark of her descendants" -No, she didn't. Lord Beaverbrook, Churchill and Queen Mary wanted it to remain Windsor. The Queen, young and inexperienced, had little say. That's why the 1960 order-in-council was done then, because Queen Mary was dead and Churchill and Beaverbrook were no longer in power.

"the "direct male-line" rule that dominated so many royal houses at the time" -er, that's still the case in pretty much 99% of royal houses.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk)

-also, DeCausa, you asked for opinions. That is my opinion.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk)

"Either there is a reliable source that describes the Queen and her offspring in this way or there is not" -and the same goes for Phillip's membership of the House of Oldenburg. Was there any legislation prolumgated by either George VI or the head of the house of Oldenburg omitting Phillip and his legitimate descendants from the House of Oldenburg? No; so therefore, in the abcesnce of any legislation to the contrary, Phillip and his children were still Oldenburgs, 1948-1952. Therefore, obviously, the House referred to in 1952 was created from a branch of the House of Oldenburg.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk)

Fine. Provide a source that says that, and we can all agree. And, no, I didn't ask for opinions. I believe you are referring to Skol Fir's post. DeCausa (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

indeed he did. my mistake. in the abcense of any legislation to the contrary (eg house edict, order-in-council from george vi) the same children referred to in the 1952 order in council were prior to that date members of the house of oldenburg. so logic would lead one to define the present royal family (QEII and children) as being formed from a branch of the house of oldenburg.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

Would someone from the Royal Family please speak up? I fear we are being led down a garden path, more like a maze, and I don't know how to get out! --Skol fir (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
No need to worry, there's nothing to discuss. "so logic would lead one" is the definition of WP:synthesis. If and when a source is provided, this can be considered. Until that time it can be parked. DeCausa (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well; whilst I agree with the last statement by DeCausa, i thought I'd provide a timeline to illustrate what I'm getting at:

1917: George V issues order-in-council regarding The new House designation of Windsor. The order-in-council specifically excludes "women who marry and their descendents"

1921: Prince Phillipos of Greece and Denmark (future Prince Phillip) born. a member of the (greco-danish branch of)the House of Oldenburg.

1947:Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark naturalised as a British subject with the name 'Phillip Mountbatten' Neither the naturalisation of Phillip, his renunciation of the title 'Prince of Greece and Denmark', his renunciation of the right to succeed to the Greek throne, his change of religion from greek orthodoxy to anglicanism, nor his assumption of the name 'Mountbatten' has any bearing on his House membership, because no house order has been prolumgated by the Head of the House of Oldenburg removing him from the House. He does not become a member of the House of Mountbatten purely because of the assumption of this name either. (as does not anyone who decides to change their name to 'Mountbatten') He also continues to bear the arms of the House of Oldenburg on an inescutcheon on his arms until 1949.

1947: Phillip Mountbatten, now, Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, marries Princess Elizabeth. 1917 order-in council still in effect, specifically excluding Elizabeth and her issue. Princess Elizabeth thus joins the House of her Husband-The House of Oldenburg, becoming Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh.

1948: Prince Charles born. Legitimate son of Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh. 1917 order-in-council is still in effect, and hence he is born a member of the House of Oldenburg.

1950: Princess Anne born. Legitimate daughter of Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh. 1917 order-in-council is still in effect, thus she is born a member of the House of Oldenburg.

1952:Elizabeth II suceeds to the throne. She then issues order in council defining her and her male-line descendants as the 'House of Windsor', directly superceding (but not making reference to.) the 1917 order-in-council as regards the queen and her children, making them members of 'The House of Windsor', but again, WITHOUT reference to the 1917-order-in council, George V, (or George VI for that matter) or any other reference to the 1917 order-in-council. and hence, because 1948-1952, Elizabeth, Charles and Anne were specifically excluded from membership of the House of Windsor according to the 1917 order in council that was still in effect, the people referred to in the 1952 order in council as 'The House of Windsor' were prior to that date of the House of Oldenburg. Thus, the 'House of Windsor' referred to in the 1952 order-in-council was created from a branch of the House of Oldenburg.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC).

Skol fir, a good way out of this mess is to read. I'm pretty confident the assertions are correct. And about the reverts - that's how I found them, when I first read them, which was why I cannot let them rot unchanged in that diminished, misleading form. It is a cadet of Oldenburg. If you're just reading about contemporary royals, you won't understand anything. If you just read about British monarchs, you'd still be confused, since this is unprecedented. The "Habsburgs" descended from Maria Theresa of Austria do not belong to the original "House of Habsburg"; they are of the House of Lorraine, as descendants in male line of her husband. You may also read on House of Romanov. The male line of the original House of Romanov descended from Michael Romanov ended with the death of Peter II of Russia. A cognatic descendant of the family, Paul I, succeeded to the throne. He retained the name Romanov, even though he was not a male-line descendant. Does that remind you of anything? That reminds me of the House of Windsor. Anyway, Paul I's patriline is also the House of Oldenburg. As such, this second House of Romanov is a cadet branch of the House of Oldenburg. They're also called the Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov branch of Oldenburg. Emerson 07 (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

^indeed, Paul I wanted his issue listed in the Almanach de Gotha as 'The House of Oldenburg', but the editors refused, citing the agnatic descent from the house of oldenburg. also, in paul I's greater coat of arms, he has an inescutcheon of the house of oldenburg and quarters for the branch of schleswig-holstein-sonderburg-glucksburgJWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Glad to find someone as knowledgeable, instead of stubborn rules-lawyers. But your first sentence confused me. Paul I wanted his issue listed as "the House of Oldenburg". The editors refused, "citing the agnatic descent from the House of Oldenburg". So what really happened? Are they listed as "the House of Oldenburg", or did the editors refuse? Emerson 07 (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Now I see you've posted about the Habsburgs and Romanovs before. I wasn't able to read it because of the italics. Emerson 07 (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

-Paul I officially styled the House as merely 'Romanov'; but they are listed in the Almanac as 'Oldenburg'JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

-yes, sorry. i meant romanovJWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 13:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"Stubborn rules-lawyers". There's a reason there are no sources for your theory.
The trouble with that approach (apart from the lack of sources) is the belief in statements like X,Y,Z doesn't have "any bearing on his House membership, because no house order has been prolumgated by the Head of the House of Oldenburg removing him from the House."; "Princess Elizabeth thus joins the House of her Husband"; "hence he is born a member of the House of Oldenburg." It arises from a belief that there is one set of rules that determine these things. But it's a very narrow perspective that defines a "House" in this way. There's nothing absolute about these rules. Royal houses are an entirely social construct dependent for meaning and definition on culture and historical context. I've said elsewhere on this page that the Roman aristocracy of the republican era depended heavily on adoption to determine membership of their equivalent of a "House". Pictish royal dynasties were matrilineal. European, especially German influenced, aristocratic families from the renaissance onwards had "house rules". The point is that it cannot be asserted that there is any right or wrong in this or that there is any inevitable and immutable definition of who should be a member of a house. The only relevance of the house rules of the Oldenburgs or how membership of European royal houses are usually perceived (to give 2 examples) is that it might allow one to say (if there were sources): under the house rules of the Oldenburgs, Prince William would be considered to be a member of that house and no other; or, as membership of European royal houses are usually perceived William would be considered to be a member of the House of Oldenburg. What you cannot say (as an absolute) is that Prince William is a member of the House of Oldenburg. If you applied the same WP:synthesis to Rome, you would be saying that Augustus was a member of the Gens Octavia and not the Gens Julia: which would be wrong in Roman law, and contrary to all historians' views (and his Wikipedia article) who define his House as "Julio-Claudian". In the UK, the social construct of the "House" has changed from its general European perception of the last few centuries. Just as the Romans differed from it by including adoption as part of the definition, so in the modern UK, it differs by virtue of the royal proclamations. This change was probably facilitated by a traditionally more flexible concept of the "House" in Britain than in continental Europe e,g. from the 18th century, aristocratic surnames often passed through the female line if the male line had expired.
In a sense, the above comment could also apply to the absolute statement that William is a member of the House of Windsor , since in theory it should always be qualified by saying according to the royal proclamations. But at that point the Wikipedia rules on reliable sources, notability, fringe theories etc kick in because the overwhelming bulk of sources just describe him (without caveat) as a member of the House of Windsor. So, in Wikipedia terms, that's all that needs to be said. DeCausa (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
In a "house", bloodline is given value, and adoptions are either forbidden or not recognized. Have you ever heard of an adopted child becoming king? Bastards have a higher chance of succeeding to a noble or royal title than an adopted child. The concept of "house" is non-existent among the Romans, even though the society is patriarchal, since adopted children have the same rights as blood descendants. The concept of "house" is inapplicable to the Picts. Matrilineal-based system is completely opposite to that of houses, whose membership is patrilineal.
Those are not "houses", since the concept is Germanic, used by ancient Germans and Franks, which eventually spread and became standard among European royalty. Surname is not an indicator of house membership. That is an oversimplification. If surname does indicate house membership, then there would be no need to indicate that a house is a cadet branch of another; all unique surnames would be original houses in their own right. What you are saying is that the system of inheritance determines house membership. This is not a case. Laws of succession such as Semi-Salic law, cognatic primogeniture, absolute primogeniture, allow people of a different house to succeed. Membership to a house and right of inheritance are independent of each other. One may not be a member of a house but inherit, and one may be a member of a house but not inherit. Emerson 07 (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
House rules do not have a bearing on house membership. What house rules do is to regulate the action of its members, and upon disobedience, disinherit those members. Even the Head of a House cannot deprive cadets of their house membership. The most they can do is deny their succession rights. Emerson 07 (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
You don't seem to have understood anything I've written. By the way, "Those are not houses" ... there are 156 results from Google books for "Julian-Claudian House" and 879 results for "Julio-Claudian House" and 62 results for "Pictish Royal House" and and 5 for "Royal House of the Picts". (I notice the phrase "the matriarchate...may have been no more than a conservative survival in the Pictish royal house" in a 2003 book) Some other random examples from the real world: 1870 for House of Ptolemy; 6370 for for "House of Seleucus"; 3360 for "House of Herod"; 4160 for "House of Constantine" etc etc DeCausa (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

-all of which are terms used subsequently by historians and were certainly not used contemporarily. also the concept of the roman gens was not defined by adoption but by blood, also (but not usually) adoption. and the british concept of houses certainly has NOT changed.92.3.145.54 (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

the first sentence is irrelevant. The second sentence is consistent with what I said and the third sentence is unsourced, whereas the existence of the royal proclamations making the change are well-sourced. DeCausa (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

why is it irrelevant? no roman called augustus a member of the 'julio claudian dynasty'. they would have said he was of the gens julii. no one called the ptolemaic dynasty by that name at the time.

The pictish royal dynasties were not matrilineal. the succession certainly was, but the patriline was just as important. hence why the kings were Bridei mac (whoever), Talorcan MacEanfrith, et cetera. again, you're confusing 'succession' with house membership.

However, I have to disagree with 'Emerson07' regarding adoption. Adoption effectively nullifies the relationship of the child to its natural; parents and replaces that relationship with a legal relationship with their adoptive parents. History is also replete with examples of adopted children who succeeded adoptive parents as monarchs:

Carl XIV Johan of Sweden (Bernadotte) the following roman emperors: Tiberius Nero Trajan Hadrian Antoninus Pius Marcus Aurelius Justinian Justin II and so on.

Adoption also has the effect of nulllifying the membership of the adoptee to the house of their birth parents.

Also, 'DeCausa', no-one is suggesting that "Prince William is an oldenburg not a windsor"; as both the 1952 and 1960 orders-in-council clearly state that he is a member of the House of Windsor, but all the above evidence (and i have extensively cited and provided evidence re. the various orders-in-council) shows that the current house of windsor descended from Elizabeth II and Phillip was created from a branch of the House of Oldenburg.

To put it simply:

i. Were Charles and Anne members of the House of Windsor in the period 1948-1950? A. No, because the 1917 order-in-council was still in effect in 1948-1952 and thus they were SPECIFICALLY excluded

ii. So, if not members of the House of Windsor, what house did they belong to? A. The House of their father, as is the case with every other legitimate issue of a Peer in the United Kingdom, unless a names and arm clause applied to them, which it didn't. And, as Phillip was still a member of the House of Oldenburg/SHSG, they were members of that House.

So, that means the House described in the 1952 order-in-council, irrespective of the name given to it, was formed from a branch of the House of Oldenburg.

Now, with the greatest of respect, how is that not amazingly simple to understand?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"In the UK, the social construct of the "House" has changed from its general European perception of the last few centuries."

-No, it hasn't, and futhermore, what evidence can you provide that it has? A member of a noble house, for example, bears the arms of his father and so do all his issue in agnatic descent, only agnatic descendents can succeed to peerage titles (barring special remainder to cognatic descendants by special letters patent), the failing of which issue the title becomes extinct, and so on.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

-Wrong:

Brooke Little, J.P.; "Boutells Heraldry" P.118: "..in England arms are hereditary to all legitimate descendants of the grantee in the male line...."

Moncrieffe of that Ilk; Iain "Simple Heraldry" "such letters patent entitle you and your descendants to arms for ever..."

-also, if that was the case, what is the point in cadency marks and marshalling?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

(i) It's irrelevant because the issue is about what "House" means in 2011. (ii) "The pictish royal dynasties were not matrilineal." I've cited a source that says the oppposite. You haven't. (iii) "how is that not amazingly simple to understand?" No one is saying that what you have said isn't simple to understand. The problem is it's simplistic, but I understand it perfectly. It's (a) unsourced speculation (b)based on an artificially narrow, simplistic and unsourced definition of "House" per my post of yesterday. DeCausa (talk) 10:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Where on earth do you get this notion that the concept of 'House' has changed in some way? Noble houses in britain are still decided on a patrilineal basis: the members of the House of Mountbatten, to give one example, are all agnatic descendants of the first Marquess of Milford Haven. If you could cite some sources backing this notion up, I'd be inclined to agree, but unfortunately you can't. It's also not something that was introduced in the middle ages: the roman concept of the gens was determined on a patrilineal basis, even if that included adoption. -but then so did middle age society too. (don't forget that under roman law, and indeed, english law until 1884, a woman was defined as a chattel of her husband if married or her father if not and was not able to own property or inherit.)

That, and the Houses of Habsburg-Lorraine and Romanov, both derived from a matrilineal ancestor (Maria Theresa and the Grand Duches Anna) and probably the only exceptions in (recent) history of House designations being taken from a woman, as be expected for all houses (but it isn't) throughout europe. the patrilineal descendants of grand duchess Anna and of Maria Theresia became known as 'Habsburg-Lothringen' and 'Romanov' in 1745 (birth of the future Joseph II) and 1742 respectively (baptism of Peter III of Russia and his adoption as a russian grand duke), so this concept of 'houses named from a female ancestor' is hardly 'modern' also, both of these houses are decided on a strictly patrilineal basis.

You're also not taking into account that any notion of 'british law' does not exist -England (including wales) and Scotland have completely different legal systems.

Also; my speculation is sourced extensively: I've cited the 1917 order in council several times. That specifically excludes Elizabeth, Charles and Anne from membership of the House of Windsor prior to 1952. I've also cited both the 1952 and 1960 orders-in-council. Both decide the membership of the House of Windsor descended from Elizabeth II on a patrilineal basis: i.e., the Prince of Wales, Princes William, Harry, Andrew, Edward, and the Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie are all members, and all bear differenced versions of the royal arms (although; I note, not the arms of Prince Phillip, but as the royal arms are arms of dominion this is pretty much the exception to the arms-being-patrilineal rule.) This is in contrast to say, Peter and Zara Phillips, who are not 'Prince and Princess of the United Kingdom', are not members of the House of Windsor according to the 1952 order-in-council, and bear differenced versions of the arms of their father Capt. Mark Phillips, not differenced versions of the royal arms.

Oh and primary sources regarding the Picts here (as in a writer writing about the Pictish Royals at the time): Although kingship was decided through a matrilineal basis; i.e. but then, our only source for this is Bede, and even then he says that matrilineal succession was used only in exceptional circumstances. Source?: Bede's Ecclesiastical History, Book I, Chapter 1:

"Now the Picts had no wives, and asked them of the Scots; who would not consent to grant them upon any other terms, than that when any question should arise, they should choose a king from the female royal race rather than from the male: which custom, as is well known, has been observed among the Picts to this day."


The Picts are often said to have practised matrilineal succession on the basis of Irish legends (not reliable sources) and a statement in Bede's history. (reliable) In fact, Bede merely says that the Picts used matrilineal succession in exceptional cases. The Kings of the Picts when Bede was writing were Bridei and Nechtan, sons of Der Ilei, who indeed claimed the throne through their mother Der Ilei, daughter of an earlier Pictish king.

In Ireland, kings were expected to come from among those who had a great-grandfather who had been king. This was similar to the Pictavian situation: Kingly fathers were not frequently succeeded by their sons, not because the Picts practised matrilineal succession, but because they were usually followed by their own brothers or cousins, more likely to be experienced men with the authority and the support necessary to be king.

So that's it, the only contemporary source regarding Pictish royal succession re. matrilines we have. That, and we don't know that much about the Picts anyway, I mean, we don't even know for certain what ethnio-linguistic group they belonged to.


Lastly; how is it 'artificially narrow'? The whole concept of nobility, class, houses, house membership, surnames, et cetera is artificial anyway, so that hardly makes sense. That, and the wording of the 1952 order-in-council is (perhaps deliberately) worded in a way that makes no specific reference to the 1917 order-in-council, or to the Queens father or grandfather, as is usual in such proclaimations.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't really have anything to add because if I were to it would more or less say the same thing as my post of 13:33, 30 June. But just to conclude: your approach is simplistic and narrow because you think there are "rules to be followed" and "House" has only one meaning. As you say, noble houses etc are an artificial sociological constructs, for which there is no universal "law". You saw all academic references to the Julian-Claudians being referred to as a "House". I'm afraid your opinion that it's not (because "Houses" can only mean a certain thing in a certain era) doesn't really count against nearly 1000 sources. We've already established that this approach to the Windsors is WP:synthesis unsupported by WP:Reliable source. I think this is turning into a blog and WP:NOTFORUM applies. DeCausa (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Why? You ask for original sources, I give you them, and then you disregard them. Granted, the 1952 Order-In-Council and how it is related to the 1917 Order-In-Council -if indeed it is- is ambiguous but, as there is nothing in the 1952 order-in-council that directly references the 1917 order in council, saying stuff like "The house of windsor created in 1917 and the one mentioned in the 1952 order-in-council" is also interpretation.

Regarding the Julio-Claudian dynasty, that is a historical term applied to something that would have been viewed as two separate gens at the time. Augustus was adopted by Julius Caesar, hence he became a member of the gens julii. Tiberius was adopted by Augustus, he thus became a member of the gens Julii too. But Caligula was not adopted by Tiberius (he was anyway a member by blood of Tiberius' original gens-the gens Claudii) so he remained a Claudii. Claudius in turn was never adopted into another house-he was also a member of the gens Claudiii, and he adopted his stepson Nero, who thus became a Claudii too. So, there was no 'Julio-Claudian dynasty' as this was something invented nearly two thousand years later by historians. A roman would have no concept of this, only referring to two separate 'gens julii' and a gens claudii'

I'm still waiting for documentary, primary evidence; i.e. books, journal articles, otheracademic works, et cetera re. your assertion that the concept of 'House' in britain or indeed europe as a whole has changed in someway.

But don't take my word for it, let's ask the Houses themselves; let's look at their official websites:

The House of Karadjordjevic: http://www.royalfamily.org/index_eng.html

The House of Welf: http://www.welfen.de/

The House of Wettin: http://www.haus-wettin.de/

The two rival branches of the House of Savoy: http://www.crocerealedisavoia.it/index.html http://www.casasavoia.org/

The house of bourbon-two sicilies branch: http://www.realcasadiborbone.it/

-the spanish branch of the above branch of the house of bourbon: http://www.borbone-due-sicilie.org/

the House of Wittelsbach: http://www.haus-bayern.com/

The House of Hohenzollern: http://www.preussen.de/en/heute.html

The sigmaringen branch of the hohenzollern house: http://www.hohenzollern.de/

-anyone can see from glancing at these OFFICIAL pages (they all show genealogies) for even a few minutes that they're all determined on a patrilineal basis. It's 2011. How then, pray, has the concept of 'House' changed in any way?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"You ask for original sources". No, I ask for secondary sources. Have you read WP:reliable sources? The orders-in-council are primary sources, to which you apply WP:synthesis to draw your conclusions. That is not how Wikipedia works. DeCausa (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
"In the course of nature a queen regnant is the last of her dynasty: her succesor will inaugurate a new dynasty, taking its surname from her consort. Thus upon the accession of Elizabeth II, all the descendants of The Queen's marriage, born and unborn, male and unmarried female, in the male line, were clearly -- at common law -- surnamed Mountbatten. The common law has since been modified by two successive prerogative acts. A Declaration in Council in the first year of The Queen's reign stated that it was the intention that The Queen and her descendants should be known as the House and Family of Windsor. On further reflection, however, Her Majesty decided that this ruling, evidently dictated by respect for her father's memory, did less than justice to her husband as the progenitor of the dynasty to come...In the absence of any authoritative declaration to the contrary it would seem natural for Their Royal Highnesses to presume that the name they will be transmitting to their posterity is already theirs to bequeath, and accordingly to sign themselsves on those rare occasions as, for example, Charles or Anne Mountbatten-Windsor." Burke's Guide to the Royal Family, Twenty-one Years a Queen by Dermot Morrah, Arundel Herald of Arms Extraordinary, Westminster Press, Ltd., London, 1973, pp. 8-9, ISBN 0-2220-66222 Parameter error in {{isbn}}: Invalid ISBN.-3. FactStraight (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

-Does that count? Also, there is a historical precedent to the situation of Prince Philip: in 1917, the offspring of Duke Christian of Shleswig-Holstein and Princess Helena were ordered to drop their territorial designation 'Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg', they all become simply Prince/Princess with no territorial designation (and NOT Proinces/pRINCESSES of Great BRITAIN, EITHER!)However, in 1931, one of them, Prince Albert, became head of the House of Oldenburg and titular Duke of Schleswig-Holstein, EVEN THOUGH HE HAD CHANGED HIS HOUSE NAME, so this is entirely possible for Prince CharlesJWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Points of contention
DeCausa JWULTRABLIZZARD Emerson 07
A house is a social construct. It can be whatever "society" wants it to be. People belong to the “house” of their fathers. Patrilineal descent is the default basis of membership to houses. However, membership can change, through the action of the Sovereign, house laws, or adoption. Patrilineal descent is the sole basis of membership to houses.

A "house" is a social construct. In English, "house" is a fairly common word. When we hear about "house", the first thing that comes to mind is a building. There. House does not have an absolute, unique meaning. Like numerous other words, it has numerous definitions, and meaning can only be ascertained from context.

But here, we are talking about house as a family. According to one source, house is simply a family, bound by common ancestry. According to others, membership in houses has a principle behind it - patrilineal descent. Europe has seen numerous royal and noble houses since the Middle Ages. Historically, houses are classified according to male-line descent. Any counter-example would have to be non-European, or pre-Medieval.

However, we see relatively modern practices. Monarchs tend to retain the name of the Royal House, even though they are not patrilineal descendants. Also, the gender bias in favor of males has been eliminated in five of the seven remaining European monarchies. Does this change the meaning of house, as we knew it? The answer is that, we cannot be certain. However, there is a problem with the view that the meaning of house has indeed changed. Houses based on male-line basis still exist. Numerous royals (the Bourbons of Spain and Luxembourg), nobles (British nobility) and pretenders (mostly of defunct German duchies and kingdoms) still adhere to agnatically-based membership.

The view that houses, as a social construct, changes in meaning as society wants it to be, may have some merit, but then other issues come in. First, what is this "society" that can define or redefine the meaning of house? Does this society refer to Europeans, or does this just refer to the British? If the British can unilaterally define the meaning of house, what happens to the definition and significance of house in other societies, in other languages? And then, we cannot be sure that the semantics has changed in British society, or if there are still traditionalists who maintain the meaning of the term in the old order.

Even assuming that the meaning of house has indeed changed, then there will still be two Houses of Windsor. According to the traditional patrilineal membership, we have the House of Windsor (Wettin), and House of Windsor (Oldenburg). According to the new, "socially-sanctioned" meaning, the House of Windsor is one house. However, it will have to drop its origins, for, in abandoning the traditional meaning, patrilineal descent is also abandoned. The House of Windsor can no longer claim patrilineal descent from either Wettin or Oldenburg, or else some members will be alienated. Claiming agnatic descent from the Wettins is not true for the Oldenburgs, and claiming agnatic descent from the Oldenburgs is not true for the Wettins. But then again, contradicting itself, patrilineal descent will continue to be used. According to George V's proclamation in 1917, membership in the House of Windsor is limited to its descendants in male line. The Queen's House of Windsor is likewise restricted in the same manner. Here is your meaning of house, as "society wants it to be", or how you want it to be. Two different houses of the same name are fused, becoming a single house, abandoning the principle of agnatic descent in the process, and readopting the principle of agnatic descent for future generations. Still makes sense, huh?

I would have to dissent with JWULTRABLIZZARD's view that it is possible to change one's house membership. Membership in houses are determined from birth. Children are born as members of houses; they cannot be made members of houses. House membership is unlike citizenship, a concept that has basis in law. Citizenship is under the control of the State, while house membership is not. House membership is merely a genealogical claim of direct descent from an ancestor in male line. When one fails that criterion, he cannot be a member of that house. Adoption affects membership to a family, not membership to a house. Disobedience of house laws does not remove membership, but eligibility to succeed. Emerson 07 (talk) 10:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

"Any counter-example would have to be non-European, or pre-Medieval" www.royalark.org-most royal houses in the middle east, afica and the far east are patrilineal - for example, the Saudi, Qing, Pahlavi, Qajar, the royal families of morocco, lesotho, swaziland, etc are all defined via patriline, as can be seen here, so it's hardly a 'european' concept, as i stated earlier.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 08:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)