Talk:British royal family

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Commonwealth

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Commonwealth, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Commonwealth of Nations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CommonwealthWikipedia:WikiProject CommonwealthTemplate:WikiProject CommonwealthCommonwealth

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

British Royalty B‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the British royal family article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 3 months

Wessex children

Why are they included in the family tree section ?185.215.2.204 (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grandchildren of the present Queen. Deb (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

we don’t list the Princess Royals children - also grandchildren of the Queen. The Wessex children are not members of the royal family and should be removed 185.215.2.204 (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we do. they are under "Family members not using a royal style". Deb (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not in the family free section 185.215.2.204 (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell they have been listed in the collapsed "Royal Familyy tree" table for a number of years, under the bit that says Earl of Wessex -- The Countess of Wessex, or are you looking somewhere else. MilborneOne (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, he's right - Anne's children do appear to be missing from the family tree. Deb (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It’s correct that they are missing, the issue is the inclusion of the Wessex children they are members of the royal family185.215.2.204 (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you've just said doesn't make any sense, I'm afraid. Deb (talk) 06:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't include children of the Princess Royal in the family tree as they are descendants of the monarch in female-line, thus they don't hold any royal title. The children of the Earl of Wessex, however, are direct descendants of the Queen in male line, just like Beatrice and Eugenie, and they would have been legally called prince/ss if their parents had not asked the queen to strip them of their princely title. Yet, I understand what your concern is, and it somehow makes sense to remove their names as well. Keivan.f^Talk 04:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"thus they don't hold any royal title". I don't think that's entirely true, but in the past their husbands could be ennobled and this would give the children a title, such as an earldom. In Anne's case, she specifically chose not to have this done. However, now that the laws of succession have been changed, this will presumably not be the case for future generations, and Anne's children should be in the family tree, because they are, and always have been, in the line of succession.Deb (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being in the line of succession is not equal to having a royal title, which means that one merely does not become a royal figure based on her position in line to the throne. Anne and her first husband refused the offer of an earldom. Had he accepted the Queen's offer, the children would have been part of the British nobility not royalty. The same can actually be said for Princess Margaret's children. Although they have noble titles, they are not considered British prince/ss, as the letters patent restrict that privilege only to male-line descendants (except the Earl of Wessex's children who are styled as children of an earl rather than prince/ss per their parents' wishes). Keivan.f^Talk 16:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel we should include them, with a note to that effect. Deb (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank

Earlier today, it was posted a reliable source in Princess Eugenie's article supporting this new title, which was already thought to be. I thought it was appropriate to move the article to this new title and update links on a bunch of related pages, being bold. @GoodDay: asked me if it was too early, and I told him just that. Then @Theroadislong: told me a discussion should be opened about it. Well, here it is. Feel free to express your support or opposition to my changes, some of them reverted by Theroadislong. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, an RM should've been held at Princess Eugenie's article first. Then if it had passed, the article title would be changed & various related changes made throughout related articles. Anyways, we'll know over the next few hours, what the rest think. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: Okay, let's see what happens. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, this change is a bit too bold. I think an RM or RfC is required. The single source given, for this undiscussed move, is The Express?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: Please, feel free to join the discussion. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I'm not sure there's much to discuss. As mentioned above, if you want to change the name of the article you should list it at WP:RM giving good reasons why you think the WP:COMMONNAME of Princes Eugenie has changed. Unless and until the article is moved, you shoipd not be changing text in article texts to a name that hasn't been agreed upon. If you continue to do so, despite many people telling you to stop, this may be regarded as disruptive editing. Thanks. — Amakuru (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Amakuru: I had already made all changes before @Theroadislong: told me to stop, so I wasn't doing that anymore. I just didn't revert my own edits, while he reverted some of them. Just to set the record straight. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, noted. Thank you. — Amakuru (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lineage of the British royal family

On the official website of Prince Charles, https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/hrh-romania-day-three (wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20181107073707/https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/hrh-romania-day-three), it says that lineage of him/and -naturally- his parents go back to Vlad the Impaler; where does this fit in the article?

thank you

Grandia01 (talk) 07:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason why it should be in the article (if that's what you're asking). Deb (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

why shouldn't it, since the lineage of the royal family is a primary topic? (as is the case with any influential family) Grandia01 (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Sussex boy

1. He does not apply to be included in the section as it clearly states that it includes those relatives of the Queen who "sometimes appear in listings". As he is a newborn, he has never appeared in any list regarding members of the RF. So either we change the criteria of the section or exclude him from the list.

2. If included, he should not be listed before the Queen's grandchildren and maybe not even before Mr Brooksbank, who is a grandson-in law. He is a great-grandson at the time, we are counting kinship to the current Sovereign, not future ones. Kowalmistrz (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Sussex boy should be included; look at the number of verifiable sources that can be shown that he is of interest. At this point, he is more noteworthy than the Duke of Cambridge and Prince George of Cambridge, who are both likely future Sovereigns. Also, he is the eldest son of a royal Duke and Duchess and that ought well to count for something. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously think he should not be included before the Queen's grandchildren. It is not a ranking of popularity. The rest of members are listed in an order of their degree of kinship, more or less... U s e r s, contribute. Kowalmistrz (talk) 06:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it more logical to rank the queen's descendants within the royal family according to their place in the line of succession? -- fdewaele, 9 May 2019, 9:26 CET.

Official precedence doesn't do that. eg HRH The Duke of York ranks above HRH The Duke of Cambridge Garlicplanting (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Archie

Can you add then the royal born on the 6th of may, 2019 : Archie Harrison. RobloxFanEditor (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He was added ages ago,[1] on the day he was born. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]