Talk:James, Viscount Severn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Lack of Photo[edit]

As yet there is no photo of the infant Viscount Severn, and a generic image is displayed in the infobox. The generic image is gigantic and disrupts the way the rest of the page displays (at least in Firefox). Would it me more prudent to delete the language "| image = Replace this image male.svg" from the infobox or to somehow shrink it? -Rrius (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The Surname[edit]

What can you say about the Viscount's surname? I suppose, it would be Mountbatten-Windsor. -- Worobiew (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(My reply from Worobiew's talkpage): Well, Louise and Severn's names and styles are quite controversial. They are both styled as non-royal children of a non-royal earl, despite being, by 1917 Letters Patent Prince(ss). However, there is an issue as to the legal effects of the announcement the Queen made – some consider that, because the Queen's word is law in these matters, the announcement can legally deny the pair of their princely styles, whereas others say that the announcement has no effect in law.
Now, Lady Louise is styled Windsor, and I daresay Lord Severn will be too, even if their surnames are legally Mountbatten-Windsor (that is, if they are not legally princely). If they are legally princely, they have no surname. Either way, they're styled as Windsor, so we use that as the best compromise DBD 22:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a contradiction on the page in respect of the surname. The first section asserts that the surname is Mountbatten-Windsor, whereas the last section brings that into question. Obviously the two cannot both be correct! Moonraker55 (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The Style[edit]

I have some doubts about the style given for the child by an edit from He or she added "The Lord" before "NN Windsor, Viscount Severn" under the Styles section. As a courtesy peer, wouldn't the child properly be called "NN Windsor, Viscount Severen"? -Rrius (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're right – although there's a case to argue that all eldest sons of Earls, as sons of earls are The Lord, those who have courtesy titles bear that instead, so it doesn't really ever come up. DBD 23:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
We need to get the article moved back. The talk page is still located here, and regardless, the article does not need the prefix Lord on it. Morhange (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I tried to be WP:BOLD and move the page, but I got an error when I tried to submit the change. "Lord" certainly isn't appropriate here. DBD, I don't know what case can be made for earls' eldest sons being styled "Lord," as their younger sons are only "The Hon.", but you may know something I don't. Regardless, it certainly isn't correct to use "Lord" in front the name of any courtesy peer (or a royal prince who's known only as a courtesy peer...) TysK (talk) 03:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the "The Right Honourable Lord NN Windsor, Viscount Severn". "The Rt. Hon." is the proper style of a Viscount, as well as for Earls and Barons. He's a "Lord" since all the owners of a nobility title can use this style: Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts and Barons. And there's also the Viscount Severn courtesy title. We can argue a little bit about the "Mountbatten-Windsor" surname.Saidleviatan (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The child does not own the title; his father does. The question of whether to use any of those prefixes is very much in debate. -Rrius (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, Mr Saidleviatan, I think there's a fundamental shortfall in you understanding of peerage styles here. Firstly, there is the distinction between substantive and courtesy title — Prince Edward is a substantive peer because he is the one to whom the peerages belong (in his case through being created a peer, in others through having inherited them). Viscount Severn, however, is a courtesy peer — he is styled as Viscount, but is not actually a Viscount (i.e. he is called Viscount or Lord Severn, but can't sit in The House (or at least, before the Reforms, he couldn't) and doesn't bear the style of The Rt Hon). Now, you say that all peers can use "Lord". You're not quite right — there are, as far as I can tell, three, equivocal, senses of "Lord" — "The Lord" as a rank, as in a Baron or Lord of Parliament ("The Rt Hon The Lord Surname"); "The Lord" as a style, as in "The Lady Louise Windsor" (daughter of an earl); and "Lord", being a shorthand for any peer or courtesy peer, substituted for his actual rank. Has this helped? DBD 10:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

A new Prince is born - as the article indicates James is entitled to be a prince as he is the grandson of the monarch. Theoretically speaking, supposing that The Queen had died before his birth, then would he still have been entitled to be a Prince? Ajayvius (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. He would have been the grandson of a British sovereign in the male line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles (talkcontribs) 02:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Be careful when moving this page[edit]

Somehow, this talk page was not moved in one of the many pagemoves going on, and I had to move it to the current (as of 03:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)) title of "Lord NN Windsor, Viscount Severn". The first priority is to agree on a title, but failing that, please make sure the "Move talk page" box is checked. szyslak 03:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I restored the talk page and the title momentarily, but then it didn't appear so because there was more than one move performed with some unchanged redirects. Frankly, it's ridiculous, because on Wikipedia and elsewhere, those with courtesy titles are titled like the "real thing". The difference comes with styling and how the person is referred to in text. I will be requesting a restorative move. Charles 05:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
In the case of every courtesy viscount I checked (which is in turn nearly all of them), if there is an article on the viscount, it is titled [Given name] [Surname], Viscout [X]. Where the only reference to the viscount is on the page dedicated to the superior title, there is a line saying the heir apparent to the current titleholder is [Given name] [Surname], Viscout [X]. I agree that we should be consistent with other courtesy viscounts, and the move brought that consistency. -Rrius (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Moved DrKay (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

I've actually put this up for a Wikipedia:Requested moves on that page. It is not contraversial and a discussion is not needed. We all know the current styling is wrong, he is not a Lord before forename. Last time it to Edward & Sophie four weeks to name the child, so we can't really wait til he's named! --UpDown (talk) 12:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support As nominator. Charles 05:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Morhange (talk) 06:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support See below at Discussion Rrius (talk)
  • Support per below Prsgoddess187 12:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


Any additional comments:
Comment: Is this such a drastic problem that it needs to be moved immediately, or can we wait until he's been named first? If we wait, it'll save us having to make a second move later. I basically support this move proposal, but I wouldn't do it until we know what his actual name is - listing someone under 'NN' first would just look odd. Terraxos (talk) 05:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Moves are free. As it stands, the current title is wrong and that really does matter. If he's listed as "NN" now, it wouldn't hurt to have his title correct. Really though, in my opinion this whole article is way premature, but it's here and arguably a notable topic. Charles 05:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that because moves don't cost anything, we may as well get it right. While it doesn't help anything for the moment, we need to answer the question of using "Lord" eventually, so why not settle it now. I vote for the move because it is consistent with the title of the article about Viscount Severn's second cousin, Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster. Earl of Ulster is also a courtesy title, it being a subsidiary title of the the Duke of Gloucester. I don't particularly want to search out more article titles at the moment, but if something else is actually standard, I would change my position. -Rrius (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Contributions of[edit]

Someone at IP is continually making changes to the article asserting that the child's given name is George. Unless the person is the Earl or Countess of Wessex, it's probably vandalism. The same IP is making the same changes at British Royal Family. Can someone temporarily semi-protect this page? -Rrius (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

baptismal name James rehabilitated[edit]

The UK royal family has now restarted to use James, a name of bad reputation in English royalty since 1689. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean that this should be specifically mentioned in the article? If so, I think at least we should wait until a reliable source comments on the fact. And if not, it's irrelevant for this talk page. -- Jao (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

A Question Regarding Titles and Styles[edit]

The article now says that under the 1917 letters pattent, the child is legally entitled to the style "His Royal Highness Prince James of Wessex". Is that more correct than "His Royal Highness Prince James, Viscount Severn"? -Rrius (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It's more normal, certainly. The latter thing you propose is a weird hybrid. Doops | talk 20:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
To expand: HRHs customarily don't use courtesy titles. For instance, before becoming the Duke of Kent, Edward used HRH Prince Edward of Kent, not HRH (The) Earl of Saint Andrews (and definitely not HRH Prince Edward, Earl of Saint Andrews). The subsidiary title is not entirely moot though, because the next generation doesn't become HRHs: Edward's son is not a prince, so he is known as Earl of Saint Andrews. -- Jao (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The reasoning is that courtesy titles, such as Viscount Severn or Earl of St Andrews, are lower that princliness, so princes don't bear them. The only reason substantive royal peers bear their titles harkens back to when being an hereditary peer granted entry to the Lords, and was therefore more important than being a Prince DBD 21:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought James' title of Viscount Severn was not automatic? I thought it had to be bestowed by the Queen. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
All of the eldest sons of peers are allowed to use one of their father's titles (usually the second highest, but occasionally a lower one if there is possible confusion -- i.e. Duke of Westminster and Marquess of Westminster). The Queen doesn't have to give her consent for this to happen, it is automatic. PeterSymonds | talk 07:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I though his full surname is James Mountbatten-Windsor, Viscount Severn. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
No, he doesn't have a full surname like that. He is styled James Windsor, Viscount Severn as if he has the surname Windsor, but according to the Letters Patent of 1917 he has no legal surname. Charles 17:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Opening of Early Life[edit]

I changed the beginning of the Early Life section from James, Viscount Severn to Viscount Severn a little over a week ago. An unregistered user has changed it back today. It seems to me that James, Viscount Severn is a nonexistent halfway point between James Windsor, Viscount Severn and Viscount Severn. I bring this up to seek a consensus as to whether James, Viscount Severn is acceptable and as to which of the three is preferable for the beginning of that section. -Rrius (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how "James, Viscount Severn" is appropriate. It seems like a half-way point between a royal prince with no surname and a non-royal courtesy title. I understood that he is officially styled "James Windsor, Viscount Severn" like his sister Louise. PeterSymonds | talk 21:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
He is styled "Viscount Severn". (And so this article is absurdly titled — we've given him a surname (a) when he doesn't have one, (b) which isn't the one he would use were he forced to pretend to have a surname (Mountbatten-Windsor), (c) which isn't part of his legal style (His Royal Highness Prince James of Wessex) and (d) which isn't part of his style in practice (Viscount Severn). What an enormous muddle everyone here has gotten themselves into.) Proteus (Talk) 22:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Um, no. First, "Viscount Severn" is his courtesy style, not his style. His parents decided he would be styled as the eldest son of an earl, i.e., [forename] [Surname], [courtesy title]. No one here gave the boy a surname. We are applying his sister's style by analogy. If you were correct, his sister would not be titled "Lady Louise Windsor"; she would be "Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor" or simply "Lady Louise". To the extent there is a muddle, it is the result of the Earl and Countess's decision to style their children as children of an earl rather than as princes and princesses. The Queen's decision to respect that decision does not legally place the children within the class of Mountbatten-Windsors. At any rate, the decision of what to put after the given name has already been decided, despite any logical arguments that may be out there. Louise could have been Lady Louise of Wessex, Lady Louise of Windsor, Lady Louise Windsor, or simply Lady Louise. Press releases from the Palace call her "Lady Louise Windsor". The choice was made to use the name of the House. In short, I disagree with everything you said except for (b), which I only partially disagree with (but would agree with if you said "on legal documents" or the like). -Rrius (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
You are completely confused, and as much in a muddle as everyone else. The style of the eldest son of an Earl is "Viscount Something" or "Lord Something" (depending on the grade of the courtesy title used). It is most definitely not "Forename Surname, Viscount/Lord Something", as you can perfectly easily see by reading any authority on the subject or style guide whatsoever. (Debrett's Correct Form would be ideal, but if you want something online this, for instance, will demonstrate it clearly enough.) We generally title articles in that way, but that doesn't mean that it is the correct style. All that Buckingham Palace has announced is that he is called "James Alexander Philip Theo" and that he is "Viscount Severn": see the press release. As his given name does not form part of his style, BP has not had to consider "what to put after it". As far as they are concerned, he is simply Viscount Severn, just like Viscount Linley, Lord Culloden, Lord Downpatrick, and countless other courtesy peers. And we can't go around applying his sister's style to his name in some kind of bizarre logical exercise: she is styled "Lady Louise Windsor", he is styled "Viscount Severn" (and his first name is "James"), and as they're the only facts that have been given to us they're they the only ones we can use. Proteus (Talk) 10:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not confused, and your continued accusation that anyone who disagrees with you is in a muddle or confused is unhelpful. I believe you are confusing "style" with "form of address". Prince Charles's style is not "Prince of Wales"; it is "HRH The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, etc". Moreover, the MoJ website you provided notes the proper form of address, not the proper style. I have no idea why you referred me to the press release. It does not address the topic. If you want to call the [forename] [surname], [title] format something other than his style, it doesn't really matter. The aforementioned construction is common in referring to peers and courtesy peers (it was not invented by Wikipedia), and that is what the sentence in question is doing, referring to the child.
In any event, this discussion began because I objected to "James, Viscount Severn" being the proper way to begin the Early life section. I suggested it was a poor compromise between "James Windsor, Viscount Severn" and "Viscount Severn". The implication of your original comment is that you believe "Viscount Severn" is better than the current text. Is that correct? - —Preceding unsigned comment added by -Rrius (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Where are you getting all this from? (I'm particularly intrigued by the distinctions you're drawing between "style", "courtesy style" and "form of address" — would you mind defining what you mean by them?) Proteus (Talk) 19:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
In my last response to you I tried to move back to point of this discussion, but you did not answer my question. Since "Viscount Severn" is accurate and is the least likely to be continually edited, I am going to change the opening section. If you want to further discuss this title/style/form of address issue, start a new topic, change the article, or move the page. At this point, that discussion has strayed from the point and does not seem calculated to improve the article, and I for one will not waste more of my time on it until it is. -Rrius (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
It's central to the issue because you're basing your incorrect claims that "Forenames Surname, Viscount/Lord Something" is a valid "form of address"/"style"/"courtesy style"/whatever (and various other issues) on some kind of bizarre interpretation of the rules of correct form, and so I have no idea how to attempt to demonstrate to you what a load of nonsense you're speaking unless you give me some idea where these assertions have come from. Whereas I'm perfectly willing to explain exactly why what I'm saying is correct (and back it up with references to sources), what you're saying at the moment is "you're wrong, and you're wrong because you're confusing these terms, but I'm going to refuse to say what the terms you're confusing are because it's not relevant to this issue". That's simply unacceptable, and if you don't want to back up anything you're saying then I (and the other editors of this page) are going to have to ignore you and edit regardless of what you think is correct.
However, for the sake of enlightening you, here is how things work. I'll stick to Viscounts to clarify the situation, though similar statements will apply to other ranks. A substantive viscount is styled "The Rt Hon. the Viscount Hereford", or less formally "The Viscount Hereford" (i.e. that is how he would be described in writing, and what you would put on the envelope if writing to him). He is described in conversation (or very informal writing) as "Lord Hereford", and addressed verbally as "My Lord" or "Lord Hereford" (all of this can be found in Debrett's Correct Form (it's on page 39 of the 2002 edition)). Eldest sons of earls bear peerage titles by courtesy, and are styled as a peer but without "The Rt Hon." and without "The" in front of their title, "Viscount Ingestre", for instance, both formally and informally; forms of address and verbal descriptions are the same as they would be for a peer (pages 48 to 50 of the 2002 edition). As the eldest son of the Earl of Wessex, this child is therefore styled "Viscount Severn". "Viscount Severn" is how he would be described in text, and it is what you would put on an envelope were you to want (for some reason) to write to him.
Now obviously we (and other encyclopaedias) have had to come up with ways of naming people who hold titles, as the correct styles are too ambiguous (every Duke of Norfolk has been styled "The Duke of Norfolk", so some way is necessary of distinguishing them). We do this by placing their main forename and surname before their highest title, and include a numeral if they're a hereditary peer (obviously omitting that if they're a life peer or a courtesy peer). This is a perfectly acceptable way of titling an article, but it is not in any way a correct style or form of address. And in this case, because this child is not a normal courtesy viscount, it's not just not a correct style but it's wrong. His surname is not "Windsor", because he does not have one. His sister has been forced to use "Windsor" as part of her style, because the style of the daughter of an earl includes a surname, so she (or rather her parents) have been forced to pretend that Windsor is her surname, but the style of the eldest son of an earl does not. He is simply styled "Viscount Severn". He has no need for a surname. No surname has been given to him in any release from the Palace. They said before he was born that he would be styled as the child of an earl. They said after he was born what his names were. They are referring to him as "Viscount Severn", as, obviously, that is how the eldest son of an earl whose secondary title is the Viscountcy of Severn going to be styled. I really don't see how any of this is either controvertial or difficult to understand. Proteus (Talk) 08:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Proteus does have a very good point, no official release (to my knowledge) has given him any surname. His forenames have been announced as was the use of the courtesy title, but no surname. Should Wikipedia really then assume his 'surname' is the same as his sisters, when legally he is without surname?--UpDown (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I have never said that the child has a surname. "Windsor" is used for his sister even though she does not have a surname, so it is logical that it would be used for him in similar circumstances. I have already changed the opening sentence of the Early life section. My edit took what I saw to be the least controversial yet accurate path.
As I said in my last comment, this has gone rather far afield, and unless someone is going to begin a new topic about renaming the article or otherwise make this digression relevant, I am finished participating (other than, as here, defending myself). When Proteus made his initial, provocative comment, I took offense and responded. I realized my mistake and tried to subtly disengage. All I can do now is apologize for over reacting and subjecting editors to two days of unduly heated posts. -Rrius (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

HRH in the lead[edit]

An editor at added the following sentence to the lead: He is the first person in the line of succession not to hold the style of Royal Highness. I softened it by changing hold to use. I am not convinced that either version fairly summarizes the relevant portion of the article. -Rrius (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible style for another son of HRH The Earl of Wessex[edit]

Had The Earl and Countess of Wessex had another son, what would he be styled ? The Honourable Givenname Windsor or the upper title (Lord Givenname Windsor) ? I've been wondering this because official sources say that it was decided by The Earl and Countess of Wessex that their issue would be styled as the children of an Earl. However, younger sons of an Earl are styled The Hon. X Lastname, and I don't really think that a male-line grandson of a British sovereign could be styled as such, whereas a male-line great-grandson of a British sovereign is officialy styled Lord X Windsor.

According to the Palace, he would indeed be styled "The Honourable X Windsor".--UpDown (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's a fair bet that there won't be any further Wessex children. But if there was a furtehr son, he'd eventually gain the style Lord when Edward is created Duke of Edinburgh and he becomes a younger son of a Duke,,, DBD 13:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'd forgotten about Edward one day becoming Duke of Edinburgh. I tend to agree that more Wessex children is most unlikely.--UpDown (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Official site refers to him as HRH[edit]

Hi, I just noticed something. In the gallery of the official site, he is referred to as "His Royal Highness": His Royal Highness, who was born in December 2007, received the names James Alexander Philip Theo. [1]Could this be a mistake? --Mdieke (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say that factually it is not a mistake since legally Viscount Severn is a Prince of the United Kingdom and a Royal Highness. Interesting on their part though. Charles 16:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Whereas I have never held that the Wessex children are princely, and would instead suggest that, yes, not only could this be a mistake, but it is also one of many on the official website. (A pity really!) DBD 01:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No mistake. Although the Earl and Countess of Wessex prefer their children use the titles of Earl's children, in reality, Viscount Severn is HRH Prince James of Wessex. His sister is HRH Princess Louise of Wessex. They are male-line grandchildren of a British monarch. Lady Patricia Ramsey, daughter of Queen Victoria's son, Prince Arthur, preferred such as title. She was born HRH Princess Patricia of Connaught. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Coats of arms[edit]

Has he or his sister yet been granted a coat of arms? They may have decided to wait. As far as I was aware, they were granted arms soon after birth, and then could change it at a later date or formalise it. Am I mistaken? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll just correct myself slightly: the Queen was only granted arms at 18, her sister 14; although it seems to be rather random. Although the question stands, I think it's unlikely. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 12:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


Does this page establish notability? I question whether the simple fact of being a 'Viscount' is, or should be, enough. Leoniceno (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I believe that his notability (if any) stems from the fact that he is a Prince of the United Kingdom, not from the fact that he is styled Viscount Severn (even though he is not Viscount Severn). Surtsicna (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominate for Deletion! A Second Time!![edit]

Wikipedia actually (seriously?) has an article on a two-year-old kid? And an article of this depth? Until “Lord Severn” grows up and actually accomplishes something noteworthy in his own right, he should be relegated to a sentence under his father’s article.

Look, I’m no flaming radical and as far as I am concerned the royal family and their gentry ilk can hunt foxes and bestow meaningless, anachronistic titles on one another to their hearts’ content. But this is ridiculous:

“Lord Severn was admitted to Great Ormond Street Hospital in London on 24 January 2008 with what Buckingham Palace called a ‘minor allergic reaction.’[4] He was released from hospital within days.”

Pray keep us informed when the little fellow loses his first tooth. As the pre-repentant Ebenezer Scrooge noted: “I shall retire to Bedlam!"

I nominate this article for deletion…at least for the foreseeable future! Let’s keep some semblance of dignity about Wikipedia!HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  • First, this isn't the proper way to accomplish your goal. Second, we just had this bloody conversation, and nothing of significance has changed and you provide no new arguments. Finally, a member of the Royal Family, a grandson of Queen Elizabeth, is at least as notable as a Pokemon character, and inclusion of the former no more damages the "dignity about Wikipedia" than the latter. On that basis, I Oppose this improper "nomination". -Rrius (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Rrius's point that there is no evidence of a change in consensus on this article in the relatively short interval since the issue was last raised. Additionally, I oppose on grounds that WP has no business reifying the nominator's underlying premise, which appears to be the motivation for this nomination (rather than any allegation that evidences exists that consensus has changed): while I respect the nominator's strong feeling that WP should require that notability result exclusively from noteworthy actions of the article's subject, there is in fact no recognized consensus in that notability does only arise from individual achievement. So it remains a private opinion. The fact is that subjects of Wikipedia articles are often notable because of what happens to them rather than because of actions or initiative undertaken by them. And, yes, notability, i.e. public interest taken in someone that is sufficient to evoke coverage of that person in serious publications -- sometimes attaches to people by virtue of the family into which they are born. Objections to that fact should, perhaps, evoke political action -- not censorship. FactStraight (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

[Okay, then please allow me to attempt to persuade you by taking a different tack. There is a consensus that if this subject is sufficiently notable to warrant an independent article in Wikipedia at all, it is solely because of the child’s paternal heritage. The subject himself is too young as of yet to have contributed any embellishment upon that heritage other than the fact of his mere existence which, I assume, is mentioned in his parents’ articles. Since his heritage is already covered within the articles concerning his father, royal uncles and aunt and paternal grandmother, the only discernable reason for this article is redundant. Therefore, I nominate this article for deletion due to its redundancy, at least at this time. I submit to you that who designed his baptismal gown, for example, does not constitute any notable addendum to the heritage of the royal family of the United Kingdom, the subject's only claim to notability.

As a side note, my remarks are in no way prompted by any political or ideological motivation on my part. They are solely prompted by my striving to raise and maintain the status of Wikipedia to that of a serious reference resource. I agree that there should be articles about Hitler and Stalin. Obviously, I cannot be both a Nazi and a Bolshevik.]HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

—Did you read the excerpt from this fascinating article I quoted? Would an excerpt like that come from the queen’s article: “In June of 1928, the future queen was hospitalized for a few days with diphtheria and then released”? No? Then why in this article? Because its subject is a bloomin’ two-year-old kid! What else is there to say about him?

Yes, he’s notable as the queen’s grandson which is why—at this stage of his life—he merits a brief mention in his father’s article and not an article of his own that belongs, if anywhere, in People Magazine or one of your renowned tabloids. Wikpedia is supposed to be an online encyclopedia.

Because it is online and doesn’t have the space limitations of a conventional encyclopedia, a much wider range of subjects may be included. But one has to draw the line somewhere or else it becomes meaningless through article inflation and vanity entries. As one such line, I suggest not having independent articles about kids who still struggle to say “Da da.”

In our celebrity-obsessed culture, Wikiepdia has numerous articles on child actors. (All of whom, by the way, are old enough to use, for example, a toilet on his or her own!) If James becomes a child actor of any note in say eight years from now, then the fact that he is the grandson of the Queen of England should only be noted in passing. Such a hypothetical article would be about his acting career and not his parentage which would be irrelevant as to why he would have an independent article in Wiki at all. This is what notability means.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Mia Talerico is younger than Lord Severn, yet she has her own article... Morhange (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

—Yes, another ridiculous article. Alas, I know I have no hope in winning an argument along the lines that the great majority of entertainers, adults or children, do not make sufficiently notable contributions to civilization to warrant Wiki articles; how far contemporary society has degenerated. I shall have to solace myself with the fact that at least such articles are predicated upon the actions of their subjects and not simply upon there mere existences as in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryBuff14 (talkcontribs) 17:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, your view was adequately represented at the AfD, but lost. You don't have to like it, but you should move on with your life. -Rrius (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I concur with Rrius. Outback the koala (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

—Oh you do, do you? Knock me over with a feather! Yes indeed, this article is “clearly notable and well sourced.” How could anyone doubt the accuracy of its recounted origins of the little lord’s baptismal gown?!

It’s people like the ones here (save Leoniceno and Edison) who have taken what might have been a valuable and serious reference tool and transformed it into something so unrecognizable that even its co-founder has abandoned it. You have rendered it a travesty! I shall trouble Wiki and you no more.

Henceforth, I’m going with Larry. I just glanced at Citizendium and was pleased to note that it appears to contain not a single article (as yet, at least) that even “Lord Severn” would dare drivel upon. (After all, he is a royal and presumably has some innate sense of aristocratic refinement waiting to be more saliently manifested via emergent growth hormones.) Do the thinking world a favor and please don’t follow my lead!

For all the world, you people remind me of Douglas Adams’s Golgafrinchans and Ford Prefect’s parting shot to them: “You’re all a bunch of bloody lunatics!”HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with HistoryBuff14. Well said, and thanks for the tip about Citizendium. Rubywine (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I can settle the 'need' for this article's existence once and for all. There is an article on Eloise Taylor. She is the Queen's second cousin once removed and about the same age as Princess Louise of Wessex. There aren't any articles on her brothers (nor need there be). If there's an article on the 8-yr.-old 2nd cousin 1st removed from the Queen who is an 8-yr.-old and I never heard of before, and neither have A LOT of people, then there defintely can be an article on the youngest grandson of the Queen, b/c under the Letters Patent, he is accorded the style and titular dignity of being a Prince of the United Kingdom, even if he doesn't use it and is never referred to as it. Fair enough? (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

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

References to the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg are being added to multiple articles related to the Royal Family of the Commonwealth realms, and yet, not one reliable source has been provided. I yesterday began a discussion about this at Talk:House of Windsor#House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. Input there by interested parties would be appreciated. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


When he comes of age, will he be able to choose to use the style HRH Prince James of Wessex, rather than being styled as the son of an earl, as his parents want? Tad Lincoln (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Wessex children NPOV[edit]

I have opened a new, and, one hopes, decisive, discussion: here because this article is currently in violation of the NPOV policy DBD 21:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


I'm an ignorant middle-class American, so forgive me. But who are his godparents? I mean, I know their names, but are friends of the Earl and Countess of Wessex, former business partners, great-aunt's second cousins nieces and nephews twice removed? Most royal children have at least one royal godparent, whether in the Firm or another Royal Family. I'm just curious what relationship these people are to the Viscount, because to me, they just seem to be a list of names, so why are they notable? (I know they're his godparents, but I mean why are they his godparents?) (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Denise Poulton is a trustee of the Wessex Youth Trust, one of Sophie's charities, & also a friend of Sophie's

Jeanye Irwin is an American who was Sophie's former flatmate

Alastair Bruce is also a friend of Sophie's & could be Wikilinked as he has his own page,_5th_Baron_Aberdare

Duncan Bullivant seems to be a British CEO, no idea what the royal connection may be

Too many Tom Hills to properly call that one (tho I am amused at one of them being a bassist for a British glam rock band & I'd pick that one as he sounds like he'd be a friend of Edward's)

But I don't see how defining them all as Sophie's pals helps the article any. ScarletRibbons (talk) 11:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Royal duties?[edit]

A 5 yo showing up at the Trooping of the Colour hardly constitutes *royal duties*! It's not as if he did anything whilst present. Slacker didn't even work the crowd\s - is this section really necessary? Perhaps it should be reserved for when he actually cuts a ribbon or does some charity work, which isn't going to be likely given his current age. ScarletRibbons (talk) 10:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Titles and styles, use of prose[edit]

In view of consensus in favouring prose over a list format per WP:PROSE, especially when the list is not a list at all but a single item (per RfC: Bullet point in the Prince George "Title and style" section)[2] and edit[3] a similar format is in order here, per WikiProject British Royalty[4]. --Qexigator (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on James, Viscount Severn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 25 March 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

James, Viscount SevernJames Windsor, Viscount Severn – Consistent with Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster; George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews; and Lady Louise Windsor. Used by sources such as Debrett's. Posted on behalf of Mr Hall of England (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC). DrKay (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the reason no surname is used is because Lord Severn is legally "His Royal Highness Prince James Alexander Philip Theo, styled Viscount Severn" (whereas Lord Ulster is "Alexander Patrick Gregers Richard Windsor, Esquire, styled Earl of Ulster"), and princes do not use surnames. Opera hat (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Despite his parents' wishes not to style him as such, as the Queen's grandson he is legally a prince and therefore does not use a surname. It is true that the same could be said of Lady Louise Windsor, but she does use a surname. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James, Viscount Severn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)