Template talk:British royal family

Ancient discussion

[edit]

Camilla Parker Bowles shouldn't be on the template until after the wedding. She is not now a member of the royal familly. (Alphaboi867 05:36, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC))

Diana and Sarah

[edit]

Shouldn't Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York be on here? They are the mothers of the 2nd and 3rd (Diana), and 5th and 6th (Sarah)

Hence the note "as of April x 2005". AndyL 13:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've removed Camilla - she can go back on 8 April, no sooner, jguk 20:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Personally, i don't think she should be on at all! She is to blame for many problems within the family, however she is a member of the royal family, much against our own wishes !!

Styles->Interesting Info

[edit]

The styles can be provided in each of the relevant biographical entries, there is absolutely no cause to be prefixing on other pages through a template. Whig 18:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protected.

[edit]

This style dispute has spilled over from Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Enough, already. — Dan | Talk 19:10, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

This is not so much a "spill over" as it is part of the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom page, as this template is transcluded into that article, and Jguk has respected the edits I've made to try to restore NPOV. This protection is improper, no request for protection was made, there is no debate or discussion here on the Talk page, just the unilateral action of one sysop. Whig 03:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Sysops are empowered to protect pages to stop or prevent edit wars, and no request is necessary. Discuss here, make a decision, and I or some other admin will unprotect it. — Dan | Talk 03:35, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

The use of abbreviated prefix styles conveys no information here that cannot be ascertained from the biographical articles themselves; and do not in fact give important disambiguating information since practically everyone on this list is simply designated as HRH (except for the queen and those designated "Lady So-and-So"). The maintenance of this stylistic flourish is especially improper because of its transclusion into articles which are substantially NPOV contested to begin with, and this is a barrier to resolution. Please unprotect. Whig 04:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are various different styles in royal families, and therefore it is necessary to use them to give the reader an idea of rank, and origin. eg HRH signifies the highest royal rank, whereas HH is a lower style. Using styles in articles about royality can never be a POV, since it is common for people to refer to royals with their appropiate style, and it is established to be part of their "legal name". Astrotrain 19:00, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Astrotrain, the relevant biographical entries provide the styles, and in the Template here there are no "HH's", just "HM" for the Queen and "HRH" for everyone else except "Lady". So there is no point to this. Whig 20:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The styles can be provided here as well, and it seems like no-one agrees with you on the matter. This is a template for royal articles therefore it is important that the full style of the members are listed. Astrotrain 22:14, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Astrotrain, with all due respect, this has been a long-running discussion covering many weeks, and we're just getting to a point of working out our differences and resolving the NPOV dispute on the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom article. There hasn't been a lot of discussion on the template page here (just you and me, really), but I think you've missed the broader context, and I don't want to rehash everything here. The transclusion of this template into the Elizabeth article makes it more appropriate we discuss it there than here, really, and this falls into the larger subject of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), the related Talk page, the survey and its related discussion, and quite a bit more. The fact that jguk is supporting my edits in the Elizabeth article is substantial progress towards resolution, and I hope you will try to work with the rest of us to settle things. Whig 02:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Astrotrain here. We should certainly use styles where they would be used normally and where it is useful to do so. I have always said that we shouldn't go out of our way to overuse them, but that isn't the case here, jguk 05:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indentation

[edit]

I was wondering if this list should be indented to show the generations, as can be seen in other royal family lists.

The benefit of this is to break up the list, mainly to make it easier to read.

For example:

British Royal Family

I would appreciate any thoughts. Rascalb 02:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be indented, and it was indented, but someone keeps changing it!!Mac Domhnaill

  • The list is in order of precedence, not by generation. It can only work as you suggest, if the monarch is the first generation. Consider if say Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester were still alive, she would be a generation above the Queen, but this could not be shown logically by your indents. The same will also be true if the Queen is succeded by Charles who will be a generation below the Kents and Gloucesters. Astrotrain 23:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if you did that, it would look like Camilla is the daughter of the Queen and married to Prince Andrew. Rascalb 22:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Arms in templates

[edit]

As detailed by OPSI (previously HMSO) in all copyright notices issued, while the Royal Arms are covered by Crown Copyright, they are not to be considered free use, and can only be used with Fair Use/Dealing rationales. As such, the Royal Arms should never be placed in templates or onto user pages as discussed at Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy. Inclusions of this template make up about a fair number of the remaining file links on Image:UK Royal Coat of Arms.png, and while it should probably be removed, I'm loathe to turn the template into a plain bordered box. So does anyone have any ideas as to what image to replace the Arms with, or any serious rationale as to why it should be included other than "it's pretty" or the equivalent? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 07:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not. See Crown Copyright. The Royal Arms are covered by the licence, and will be until at least 2040. The exact wording of the licence is:
"The material featured on this site is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The Crown copyright protected material (other than the Royal Arms and departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. Where any of the Crown copyright items on this site are being republished or copied to others, the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged." GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 19:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I assume that applies to the image actually on the page- but according to the coat of arms tag- "Representations of coats of arms are subject to copyright as original works of art and do not fall under Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corporation's purview as they are not representations of two-dimensional works of art."- so if they are redrawn by someone, they can be used freely. Astrotrain 19:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, and if a Wikipedia user took it upon themselves to create their own representation of it, it would be freely usable in any and all templates. Unfortunately, noone yet has — this image was uploaded by User:Boffin without any statement on the source, so we have to assume it's from a regular government department, and the only thing that's been done to it since then has been a conversion to a PNG with transparancy instead of whitespace. That alone isn't enough to constitute an original piece. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 21:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This particular image is from Graham Bartram's website and he has allowed use of his images on Wikipedia. Craigy (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had suspected it was from Graham's work. It is clearly not from a government website (as they don't use the full royal arms), and the royal.gov.uk website never has any particular high quality arms. Astrotrain 21:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so that qualifies the image for {{Withpermission}} (or more specifically {{Flags.net}}.) But unless Graham's released it under a free license, rather than just permission specific to Wikipedia, the fact remains that this is a non-free image, and shouldn't be used in templates. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 21:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. But that's a different kettle of fish and I suggest you take that up elsewhere seeing as we're detracting from your main argument and we've established that this image clearly isn't from OPSI - WP:PUI might be a good place to start. Craigy (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(enough indenting) No, my main argument wasn't that the Royal Arms was from OPSI (I only highlighted that to show that the Arms weren't free use under crown copyright), but rather that the use of the image is only covered by fair use guidelines, and as per Wikipedia's Fair Use policy, fair use images shouldnt be on templates such as this one. Noone has actually addressed that point yet, and we've gotten sidetracked into a discussion of copyright ownership. I'm not calling for the image to be removed from the site entirely, and never have been. The image should be retained for use on specific articles, such as Royal Arms of the United Kingdom. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 00:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Maybe we could use this image with this template for the templates? It's not as good, but I guess it would get round the copyright problems. Craigy (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diana and Sarah - Take two

[edit]

I do not believe that Diana and Sarah should be included on the template. Even if the royal family says that Diana was still part of the family after her divorce, she is now deceased. Should we keep The Queen Mother on the template? As for Sarah, she is still alive, but until there is word form the RF about her status, she should stay off template. Prsgoddess187 18:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template seems to cover the same ground as Template:House of Windsor

[edit]

At a quick glance that template seems to be more comprehensive and flexible, in some ways. Maybe the two could be merged in some way ? --Richardb43 14:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No- the Royal Family template includes consorts such as the Duke of Edinburgh or the Duchess of Kent, who cannot be in the HOW template. The RF template goes on the article of living royals, and the house template for deceased royals Astrotrain 14:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandchildren of George V?

[edit]

Why have the Gloucesters, Kents, P/Pr Michael, and Princess Alexandra been removed? They're certainly still members of the royal family! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.73.77 (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I restored them- makes no sense to split them off. Astrotrain 15:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they still appear on their pages, whenever the extended parameter is used – so a smaller version can be used for only the core (ie EIIR) lot... DBD 15:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to an extended version or a core veriosn. One version is needed only, for navigation. Astrotrain 15:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'd much prefer to see one complete template with all the people in the BRF. Having an extended version of the template may imply that the Kents/Gloucs etc. are extended members, which they're not. Craigy (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Phillipses

[edit]

Why aren't the Princess Royal's husband and children included on the template? Mark Phillips is no less members of the Royal family than the Duchess of Cornwall or the Countess of Wessex, and Peter and Zara are just as much Her Majesty's grandchildren as are Princes William and Harry, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, and Lady Louise Windsor. Rrius (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read British Royal Family – on this template, we use the definition where Majesties and Royal Highnesses count DBD 16:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, inclusion of the Earl of Wessex's children isn't really called for. They neither meet the 'carry out public engagements' test nor the 'use HRH' test (and the wikipedia is not a soapbox, so there's no relevance to our opinions on whether the palace is right or wrong to ignore the 1917 letters patent and not use the HRH for them). Doops | talk 14:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they should be in there. They don't carry out public engagements due to their age, as the York children don't (yet). As Royal grandchildren of the monarch, they should be in Infobox.--UpDown (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with having them in; but then the Phillips children should be too. It's silly for us to be so blind to practicality and reality that we obsess over the proverbial "distinction without a difference". Doops | talk 17:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy with the Phillips in there. They are members of The Royal Family, even if not by strict definition, and are always listed in the Court Circular when at Royal events.--UpDown (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll put them in. Doops | talk 18:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Philipses are not royalty and should not be included in this template. Female line descendants of a British prince or princess have never been royalty unless members of another family or raised to that position. The Philips' are not any of those. Their appearance in the Court Circular is more a societal thing than anything. They are entitled to attend events with their grandmother or mother just as any of the princes or princesses, but it does not make them royalty. Much like how someone could describe me as being a member of my Motherssurname family, which is true, but "not really". The distinction is much more prominent here. Charles 23:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't at all dispute the fact that the Phillips children are not princes/princesses, and are not entitled to the HRH label; that's well-known. But the logic of who belongs in this template does not ultimately depend on those technicalities. Common sense should prevail; and there really is only one commonsense basis for inclusion in this template. It should extend to 1) all descendants of the current monarch; and 2) other 'working' cousins. Doops | talk 23:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At some point, the Crown will demise, and there will be a new monarch. Perhaps we should create a rule for who is in and who is out. -Rrius (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't create an arbitrary rule, the template should represent the British Royal Family, those who are princes and princesses. Isn't that simple enough? The Royal Family doesn't "shift" on the basis of who the monarch is. Perhaps the extended members do, but princes and princesses aren't (normally) deprived of their status. HM could live another 20 years. She might have many, many great-grandchildren. Should they then be included as well on such an arbitrary basis? Surely at that point though, a good number will not be royal. Common sense dictates that the members of a state's royal family are those who hold royal titles. Charles 01:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't we have this argument on another article? GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't know, it wouldn't be surprising. There are lots of liberal attitudes with what is proper or correct around here. Same with the Romanian Royal Family articles being edited to include non-royals and so on. Charles 01:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not calling for an arbitrary rule, just a rule. The point of the discussion is to attempt to arrive at a sound rule. If that rule is to be HMs and HRHs, fine. If it is to be spouses and grandchildren of a sovereign, so be it.
The reason the accession of the next monarch matters is that some rules might involve being within some degree of consanguinity to the monarch of the day. For instance, it might be reasonable to say the Royal Family includes the consort, parents, siblings of the royal parent, children of the siblings of the royal parent (first cousins), descendants, siblings, children of siblings, and anyone else entitled to the style "HM" or "HRH".
Finally, I"m not sure what this talk of "liberalizing" is. It has been suggested that the Queen's grandchildren are members of the Royal Family by virtue of being close relations of the Queen. Common sense does not dictate that to be a member of the royal family, one must hold a royal title. It is equally valid, without evidence to the contrary, to interpret "royal family" to mean close family member of the Queen (the word "royal" modifies the word "family" not the individuals in it). The argument above that usage in the Court Circular does not matter because inclusion of the Phillips children therein is only a societal thing is flawed in that being of the "Royal Family" is itself societal and not legal. -Rrius (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Britain though, these "some rules" do not apply. This is not the Netherlands, where the composition of the Royal House changes. The Royal House in the United Kingdom is composed of Majesties and Royal Highnesses. The liberal attitude I was referring to is the one which states that non-royal, female line descendants of the Royal Family are members of the Royal Family themselves. They made be related to a royal family, have royal lineage, etc, but that does not make them members of the Royal family itself. There is a reason why there are titles like Prince and Princess, to distinguish those who are and those who are not members of the Royal Family. We are talking about the British Royal Family, not just the Queen's (royal) family, here. Societal, perhaps. Princes and princesses are still legally commoners, I believe. However, where does this societal definition end when including female line descendants? Charles 00:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're still missing the point: this is a template / navbox. What is its purpose? Why does it exist? Like all templates / navboxes, to be useful. I do not think that choosing who is in and who is out on grounds of a mere technicality is a useful thing for the purposes of the wikipedia. I would never advocate misleading our readers, of course; absolute precision is very dear to my heart. But where precision is a matter of detail, it should be treated as detail, not as the be-all-and-end-all.

Perhaps you object to my assertion that the distinction here is a mere technicality; but it patently is. Every indication from the royal family is that the children of the Duke of York and Earl of Wessex will lead 'normal' (well, that's a joke, but insofar as possible) lives and will not take up royal duties. And indeed in the case of the children of the Earl of Wessex, there is an explicitly-stated plan to ignore the HRH and 'prince/princess' monikers. Plus, of course, they're infants. In the face of all that, to think that for the purposes of a wikipedia navbox there is any real distinction between the Phillips children and the Wessex ones (who, after all, are mere babies) is to prioritize starry-eyedness over reality.

If you really insist that the phrase 'Royal family' can only be appropriately applied to those with a title of prince/princess or an HRH (and I don't see why it should), then the proper solution is not to exclude the Phillips from the navbox, but to change the navbox name to something else like "Family of Queen Elizabeth II" or something like that. Which would be overkill, in my view; but go ahead if you must.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as captivated by all this as the next guy. But the point is that our duties as encyclopedia editors come before our personal hobbies. Doops | talk 01:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a toughy, according to the 1917 Leters Patents - Mark and Zara don't belong. Yet, by not listing them, it gives the impression (to less knowledgeable readers) that Princess Anne had no children & the Queen has only six grandchildren. Perhaps we could add Mark & Zara - with a footnote explaining their status (or lack thereof). GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 1917 letters patent are perfectly clear on the question of who gets to be a prince/princess and be styled 'HRH'; but they are completely silent on the subject of wikipedia navboxes. Doops | talk 18:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an issue though that should be remedied by including people where they do not belong. We are not here to advertise the existence of grandchildren in case someone believes they do not exist. Charles 00:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect - as I am just a bystander to this thread, I'd like to respond to this comment. It seems to me that the purpose of navboxes is precisely "to advertise the existence of" connected contemporary public figures whose existence readers (in this case, esp. those hailing from beyond the British commonwealth) may not be aware of.108.67.71.45 (talk) 09:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where in the 1917 letters-patent does it say that it defines "royal family"? My understanding is that it defines who will be Princes of the UK and entitled to the style HRH. Where is it written that only a Royal Highness is a member of the Royal Family? In other words, where is the evidence that "royal family" means "family exclusively consisting of people entitled to "HRH" before their names" as opposed to "family that is royal"? -Rrius (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order

[edit]

Since this template purports to be about the royal family (and not about the line of succession as such), I think in the top half (i.e. among the descendants of Elizabeth) it should reflect birth order rather than succession order. That is more logical, more what the reader expects. So I'm making that change too. Doops | talk 18:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Droops's edit has been reverted, but I agree with him. Position in succession is irrelevant. Anne's children, who are, in the succession, above others listed on the template, are not listed. On the other hand, Prince Michael of Kent, for example, is not in the line of succession because he married a Catholic, but is on the list. Listing by succession order just does not seem helpful, and may even be deceptive -Rrius (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British / commonwealth

[edit]

This is a very tricky issue, and I have to say I am disappointed that people don't seem to recognize that fact.

On the one hand, it is absolutely true that "British royal family" is by far the most commonly-heard phrase used to describe the family. Likewise the coat of arms used in the template at present is UK-specific. So why shouldn't we be simple and straightforward and go with the easy title?

On the other hand, the fairness argument is very powerful. Nobody likes to be unfair; we here at the wikipedia would hate to think that we were. But that said (back on the first hand), bear in mind that our duty here is to report the facts, not to try to create our own vision of a better world.

I wish people wouldn't be so self-righteous in arguing this issue. It's (to repeat myself) legitimately very tricky. Doops | talk 22:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as I said in response to UpDown at my talk page, I'm not sure what he's having a fit about. The template never did say "British Royal Family," and always has, and still does, link to British Royal Family, as it is the most commonly used term (though, in most contexts a misnomer). The only thing I changed was the "British Royalty" part: there is no article on "British Royalty," and it's also too nation-specific for a template that goes on pages for people who are actively involved as members of the royal family in other countries.
I had no real issue with your compromise, Doops. However, I can also live with it as it stands now. UpDown, however, has threatened futher reverts, though he has already done four, putting him in breach of 3RR. --G2bambino (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I now see that I may have also done more than three, though one was to restore your compromise, which was mistakenly lost. --G2bambino (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It read "British Royalty - Royal Family" (which perhaps should be changed to British Royal Family). This is far clearer than your invented, POV "Royalty of the Commonwealth realms - Royal Family". I am not "threatening" anything. I am just eager to restore the neutral, correct wording. Your POV attitude has come to a stage where I think you ought to be officially warned, its getting really out of hand. --UpDown (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you did a direct cut and paste from my talk, then so will I: Prove that it's POV, UpDown. In fact, take it to arbitration, and let them decide. This is what I asked TharkunColl to do, and, apparently not being able to, he quit and left. You similarly seem to have this self-righteous view that everyone sees things from the same UK-centric point of view as you do. Well, sorry, you're wrong. And, though I understand there is such a thing as common usage, "British royalty" is not commonly used outside of the United Kingdom, unless you can show me otherwise.
Further, related to the last edit, I'm more satisfied with this, given that in future some edits will be made to British Royal Family that will more adequately describe the uses of the term. --G2bambino (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "British Royal Family" is far better than the previous wording of "British Royalty - Royal Family" is strange wording, and frankly one I didn't pay much attention to, I was more focused on the British or Commonwealth side of it. --UpDown (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All other templates are in the form "Suchandsuch Royal Family". This template should read "British Royal Family". That is not to say that they are not the royal family of any other place, it is to say that they are the British Royal Family! Really, this is ridiculous. The "British Royalty - Royal Family" really does look contrived, redundant, whatever. Fill in your own words. Perhaps someone who is truly concerned could add a switch to the template. Otherwise, give it at least a proper title: British Royal Family. Charles 23:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, can someone change it to British Royal Family ASAP. I don't wish to touch it for 3RR reasons.--UpDown (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Droops, but that was not necessary. 3 - 1 on this page go with "British Royal Family", the common sense, common usage term. I think even Gambino is more pleased with this than previous version of "British Royalty - Royal Family". Your comprimise, while well intentioned, is over-complicated for a simple template listing family members!--UpDown (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not ecstatic about "British Royal Family" but it's fine. --G2bambino (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow what's all the fuss? Am I too late? GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting of Talk Page

[edit]

Why is there a remark from 2005 above the contents box? -Rrius (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows. It's so irrelevant and not important now that I believe it can be removed without any fuss. Charles 00:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? But it's easily fixed. Doops | talk 02:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming the petered-out discussion

[edit]

To resume:

  • We all understand that the children of the Princess Royal are not entitled to be called 'prince' or 'princess' nor to the HRH style; that's not the issue. The issue is how much that matters.
  • The 1917 Letters Patent are clear on the subject of who gets to be a prince/princess, who gets to use HRH; but they are silent on the subject of who gets to be included in Wikipedia navboxes. Furthermore, they are silent on the definition of the phrase 'royal family.'
  • Doubtless the definition Charles proposes (limiting the 'royal family' to those with the rank of prince/princess and style HRH) is one valid option; but it is not the only one.
  • From the point of view of reality (rather than rose-colored glasses land) there is no meaningful way in which the children of the Earl of Wessex (or even those of the Duke of York) are more integral members of the royal family than those of the Princess Royal. None of these three families' children are expected to perform royal duties; the Wessex children, even if entitled to the 'prince'/'princess' and the HRH, are not expected to use them.
  • The primary purpose of the wikipedia is to be informative. Accuracy is essential, but so is clarity: we are doing our readers a disservice any time that we let our personal hobby horses get in the way of that.
  • Leaving the children of the Princess Royal out of the navbox is a best perplexing to readers, and at the worst misleading. A natural assumption, reading the chart, is that you can use it to navigate through the family; and the lack of 'leaves' below the princess royal suggests that she doesn't have any. On the other hand, including the Phillips children in the navbox will not not in any way mislead people into thinking that they are princes or HRHs, since we explicitly include the 'Prince' and HRH in front of other members of the navbox (and will not, of course, include it for them).
  • I cannot state it often enough: the purpose of navboxes are to improve the wikipedia. They are our servants, not our masters. The present navbox simply serves no useful purpose.

Therefore I propose either that we 1) include the children of the princess royal in this navbox; or 2) exclude all the non-working children (i.e. those of the Duke of York and those of the Earl of Wessex) and make it a box of working royals. Cheers, Doops | talk 04:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated my views above and only wish to add that there is a third option. If we can't come to some consensus, we could abandon the template. If someone is going to believe the thing is arbitrary and inaccurate either way, perhaps it does not belong in the articles. -Rrius (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I propose we limit the template to princes and princesses of the realm. After all, the British are notorious for "confusing" omissions, however, there is something to be said for specifying who exactly is a prince or a princess of the United Kingdom. Charles 07:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I've just had an idea: you know those horizontal navboxes at the bottom of the page such as Template:British dukes? Well, let's make one of those for Princes and Princesses of the UK! There's a lot of sense to that. Doops | talk 07:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We do have those: Template:British princes and Template:British princesses of the blood royal. Charles 07:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just found those. But I meant for the living ones. Doops | talk 07:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The living ones are on there as well, although I see no reason why a switch couldn't be included in the template to just show the ones who are still kicking. Charles 07:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a proposal for a whole-family navbox: User:DBD/Family, which includes HRHs, plus their spouses and dependants. And the Phillips DBD 14:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like it with that title. Family of Queen Elizabeth II might be better, with this one for princes and princesses. Charles 15:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be just the other way around: the vertical one, on the right side of the page, should be for the family of Elizabeth II; and there should be a horizontal one for living princes / princesses. When I get a chance I'll try it. Doops | talk 16:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The vertical ones all usually contain royal families. The other people are only notable for their relations to the Royal Family, not membership in it. They should be in the horizontal boxes. We don't use vertical boxes for any other "private" families as far as I know. Charles 17:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but I'm ok with including the Phillipses and titling the box "Royal Family"; I was only offering to change the name to 'Family of Elizabeth II' because I thought you'd prefer that. My first concern is pragmatism: what makes for a useful vertical navbox? What is least confusing to our readers? Basing inclusion on minutiae such as HRH-ness is confusing. You haven't addressed the pragmatic arguments at all.
I have what I think is a perfectly valid basis for inclusion: first list all descendants of the present monarch; then, below a horizontal rule, list all working royals. This will certainly shift as monarch succeeds monarch; but that's not surprising.
I also think that there's nothing wrong with calling such a box "Royal Family"; I think it's erroneous (and false precision) to assume that there's some platonic ideal of the 'royal family' — that either your definition or mine is 'right' and the other person's 'wrong'. Many phrases are simply a little vague, a little fuzzy; and 'royal family' is one of those. Cheers, Doops | talk 17:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about labeling the top half of the template, "Descendants of the Queen" (or some such), and the bottom half, "Other Princes of the Realm", or the like. That way, we could use different rules for top and bottom without confusing readers. -Rrius (talk) 06:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would not accept calling such a template British Royal Family. Charles 22:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Charles. This template cannot be called "Template:British Royal Family" if it's going to include people who are not members of the Royal Family. Surtsicna (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any explanation as to why you believe certain people should not be considered members of the royal family would have been more helpful. A closer reading of the discussion would show that the question of who is in the family and who is not is the root of the disagreement here. A more detailed explanation would not be that helpful, of course, as the discussion ended more than four months ago with no action. -Rrius (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the UKGBNI there is no legal definition of the term "the Royal Family". There is practice - but it varies. The sidebar on the page "Members of the Royal Family" on the official website doesn't even list William and Harry, let alone their cousins. I'm not suggesting that they be removed. ;) Noel S McFerran (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New face of the template

[edit]

To be honest, I don't like the template's new face. It was much more clear when it looked like this. I don't see why such a drastic change was necessary. Surtsicna (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To compact the amount of space the template takes up in articles. It's a common technique. --G2bambino (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Agreed. Reverting. G2--discuss here to justify the change. Prince of Canada t | c 22:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Surtsicna. Looked far better before, and certainly with the current picture, not another one.--UpDown (talk) 07:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not concern ourselves with looks for the time being, and instead focus on mechanics, convenience, usefulness, and policies. So, why, then, should the template be longer than necessary? And why should it display only one of the arms of only one member of the family, thereby breaching NPOV in two ways? Further, the version that's been reverted to doesn't sit properly in the articles anymore. --G2bambino (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fitted fine before to my knowledge. Maybe you should have got consensus before making a move that would effect articles. I don't believe there is any NPOV breach.--UpDown (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you mean, GZbambino. The template fits perfectly. The template should be long enough to be readable. This version does not require clicking on "Show", and it cannot mislead in any way. We certainly should focus on the template's look; the whole article can be affected by the template's look. In a nutshell: this version is simple, better looking, and readable. Surtsicna (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was within my bounds in making the edits I did. Now, the template doesn't fit well in articles; it is long, and causes image stacking. Thus, instead of being placed in a consistent spot following the main subject infobox, editors have been placing it in various non-conflicting locations. Having a collapsable infobox conserves space and avoids many of the conflicts the long, permanently expanded box does. In terms of NPOV I was already clear, so please address what I said: the Queen's Royal Arms for the United Kingdom are only one of the arms of only one member of the family; ergo, using it prioritises one individual and one country. Something neutral is needed. --G2bambino (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G2 has as much right as anyone to be bold. I personally dislike templates where all the information is collapsed in an autohide function, but I don't think G2 needs to restrain himself from doing what people do to templates all the time. The fact is, doing it G2's way gets more attention to the proposed change than just putting it on this talk page.
That said, I think autohiding makes the template nearly worthless because people not already familiar with it are not necessarily likely to click on use it because they don't see the information. People who are familiar with it are just as likely to find a link to the Queen and use her infobox as to use this template.
In addition, this is the British Royal Family template. A more neutral template could be created at template:Royal Family in the Commonwealth realms or some such. -Rrius (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rrius, I'm now thinking that perhaps you're right about novice users and autohid navboxes. However, there are many autohid navboxes across Wikipedia, both as side boxes and footboxes. There are probably other ways to arrange this one for both ease of use and conservation of space; I never thought that what I'd done earlier was necessarily perfect; just an improvement.
As for having a neutrally titled template: it's a good idea, but I tried this earlier and it didn't fly. It was decided that, despite it being inadequate in a wider context and a violation of WP:NPOV, "British Royal Family" is the most widely used phrase for this group of people. However, sub-par common usage does not mean a UK-specific image has to be used; nor does it mean that only one member of the family's arms should be used. I understand there is a type of badge for the House of Windsor, but have never seen it around Wikipedia. --G2bambino (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It emphasises the arms not of one person (The Queen) but of one kingdom, that is to say the oldest and prima inter pares realm... Rather than a monochrome sketch of 'a crown'. DBD 22:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't the arms of a kingdom, or even a family; they are the arms of a person: Elizabeth II in right of the UK. All the other family members have their own arms, but they aren't shown. The Queen has more arms, but those aren't shown. What's there now simply is not neutral. --G2bambino (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was suggesting the second template for non-British articles. While similar, they would be different templates for different purposes. It could even have a collapsed section for country specific articles like "X Royal Family" or "Monarchy of X". -Rrius (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of collapsed sections for country specific articles. But, this template is only used on the articles for royal family members. There would be little sense in having, on those pages, another navbox with essentially the same contents. --G2bambino (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see a POV problem. It shows the arms of the head of the family of the infobox's title, ie the British Royal Family. I believe a problem is being created where there isn't one. This infobox was totally and absolutley fine before - if something isn't broken why fix it?--UpDown (talk) 07:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whether you see it or not, it's there. Why choose one of the family head's arms over her others? It's evidently shows a pro-British POV. Nice and neutral is the way to go. --G2bambino (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This might be off topic, but are all members of the British Royal Family also Canadian (or Australian, ...) royals? They are not Princes(ses) of Canada, are they? The way I see it, only the King and/or Queen of Canada are Canadian royals because only they are of Canada. Anyway, I would strongly oppose renaming this template because British Royal Family is the name by which they are known and that's certainly not a violation of NPOV. Are they ever called Canadian Royal Family or Royal Family of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines? They are not called Royal Family of the Commonwealth relams either. Surtsicna (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand they may legally be also the Canadian Royal Family, but not the Royal Family legally of any other realm bar the UK, and certainly anything other than Prince or Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland. How it is then POV to call a group of people who are Prince and Princess of the the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland, and nothing else, the British Royal Family or use the UK coat of arms. They are legally the British Royal Family, they have British titles, are called British by 'everyone' and so on. The arms should remain.--UpDown (talk) 07:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surtsicna: There's no move to change the name; that was all dealt with earlier. UpDown: As you've simply asked the same question again, I'd have to provide the same answer; but, there's no sense in repeating myself. Whether or not they have titles in other jurisdictions (though the Queen most definitely does), these same people are part of the national lives of countries beyond the borders of the United Kingdom, culturally and legally. To deny this in order to favour - no, not just favour - to isolate one country is against WP:NPOV and the efforts of WP:BIAS. --G2bambino (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, legally they have no role in any other country bar the UK (and possibly Canada). Part of "national lives" or not, legally they are have no titles in any other country, therefore using the UK coat of arms is not POV at all.--UpDown (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Legally: line of succession. Culturally: royal tours, military ceremonies, colonels-in-chief, national anniversaries, dedications, etc. --G2bambino (talk) 07:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your understanding is correct. The only Canadian to bear a royal title is the Queen. All other members of the family are accorded titles in Canada through courtesy only. Prince of Canada t | c 07:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to G2babmbino. I shall not debate with you further, as I know you will never see it. But there would need to be a consensus to change the picture in the template. Currently there is no consensus to change.--UpDown (talk) 07:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is, of course, up to you to decline to address my pertinent points. I've already started to take this matter to a larger audience, so we shall see what transpires. --G2bambino (talk) 07:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not being drawn into your normal games, like you did at Autumn Phillips, of dragging out the issues, turning it round on me, and never actually accepting anyone has answered the questions. It's your normal games; we've all said our points, you disagree but instead of accepting people disagree, you pretend they haven't answered the question and try and drag it out as long as possible. It's exactly this type of behaviour that got you an ANI.--UpDown (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am entitled to disagree, make arguments, and ask questions. I raised examples of how the members of the Royal Family are legally and culturally attached to other countries, and there was zero response from you save for "I shall not debate with you further, as I know you will never see it." But, as I said, it is equally your entitlement to do so. --G2bambino (talk) 08:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Actually, the armorial bearings shown aren't those of the Queen as Q of the UK simpliciter. They're those used in England & Wales (& NI?). Different 1s are used in Scotland. I've frequently had to correct Anglocentrism in British monarchy articles, & no doubt there's plenty more I've missed. (To anticipate a question: I'm English myself.)
  2. The current template page has @ top, twice, a statement that it should cover only the Sovereign, consort, Princes & Princesses. This isn't actually followed.
Peter jackson (talk) 09:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second point first - yes it does. Louise & James are legally Prince/ss, and should be on this template. As to the first point, I've said all my comments above. This is the best image we can use for the template, it may not be perfect, but its the best there is (unless there was a House of Windsor coat of arms).--UpDown (talk) 11:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(out) However, the House of Windsor does have an heraldic badge... Prince of Canada t | c 11:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't heard that the Wessex children were legally still HRH &c. The Severn article says so, so I assume it's right. Peter jackson (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are, they're just not styled as such, at the parents' request. I'm desperately trying to find the Windsor badg; I'm astonished that it's not anywhere online. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 05:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My search for it came up empty as well. --G2bambino (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Width

[edit]

When one compares

to

in what way is the latter better than the former? --G2bambino (talk) 05:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is minor, and is only blatantly obvious when it is stacked right underneath the main infobox, which I am not convinced is the best place for it in all articles. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 05:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's seems safer there than being placed arbitrarily in each article. If the difference in width, then, is minor, there should be little objection to being tidy and making it match the infobox. --G2bambino (talk) 05:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Arbitrary' is hardly an accurate word. 'Appropriate for the layout of the specific article, bearing in mind usage of other photos and infoboxes' would be rather closer to the point. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 05:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm... Well, regardless of any doubt I have about the amount of consideration behind the earlier placement of the template, I lean towards favouring standardization. If there was a common section throughout all the Royal Family members' articles where the template would be appropriate, then it could possibly go there. But, a) it's still a long navbox, and b) I can't think of what section would accomodate it. --G2bambino (talk) 05:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...which is kind of precisely why placement needs to be evaluated based on the specifics of each article. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 05:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Layout of right-side materials should be ad hoc. If there is an image closely related to the text below the infobox, the template should certainly be lower on the page so the image can appear in the sensible place. Moreover, when the BRF template is placed directly below the infobox, the code should not appear in the lead. When it is put there and overlaps multiple section headings, the edit links for those headings all appear on a single line below the template in at least some browsers. -Rrius (talk) 05:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, and you can't use {{fixbunching}} on the lead, as it forces {{clear}} before any headings on the page are rendered. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 05:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then, should it not consistently go in the Ancestry section of each article? What other section does it relate to? --G2bambino (talk) 06:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it could be put there and the section renamed to Ancestry and relations, or something along those lines. --G2bambino (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the Ancestry section on most of these articles is a) short, and b) dominated by a (necessarily) full-width family tree box. This would mean that the box would be below that, impinging on the References sections and External Links, as Ancestry is generally the final section on these articles. Further, underneath the External Links section are more 100% width boxes, which could easily therefore create the whitespace you hate so much. As Rrius said, it should be ad hoc, based on whatever else is used in the article. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 06:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That approach seems to be asking for problems. What other navboxes to we have floating around in different positions on different articles? --G2bambino (talk) 06:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(out) Apart from the lead (infobox) and utter end of the page (navboxes), attempting to say that an infobox the size of this one 'must' go in a certain place invites rather larger problems. Namely, ignoring the fact that different articles will have different layouts, different photos, different amounts of photos, etc etc etc etc. If you really want to pursue this, I suggest you start at WT:LAYOUT. Rrius is right; these things need to be ad hoc based on specific article requirements. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 06:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A navbox is generally themed, and thus either related to an article's entire subject (in which case it usually goes at the head or foot of the page), or related to an article section's subject (in which case it usually goes in the section). Thus, I rather think that the first question that needs to be answered here is: what is the purpose of this navbox? --G2bambino (talk) 06:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To provide quick links to related articles. Problem solved:
Note I have removed all the HRH--it was rather redundant, and contrary to what I understand the policy to be on using honorifics. Also no image, ending that particular issue. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 07:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously suggesting the infobox should be changed to the above? It's vile. And HRH's should be used. As I've said before, the infobox is perfect as it is, why meddle with it and make it worse?--UpDown (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with UpDown, the infobox is perfect as it is. Any change would make it worse. Surtsicna (talk) 08:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you find new vocabulary; 'vile' isn't appropriate. I am, yes, suggesting that the infobox be changed. Doing so addresses all of G2's layout issues, contains the same information, and aligns with how almost all such information is given on the articles in question--namely, navboxes. Do you have a substantive objection other than "I don't like it"? [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 09:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but "vile" was the best word I could think of in a hurry. The 'new' design of far to blank, too much white, too much space, unclear and unnecessary in the extreme. It's also a totally different shape. The current one matches all other Royal Family infoboxes, and there is no need to change.--UpDown (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It still wasn't appropriate. Recreating the infobox as a navbox (which would then be moved to the bottom of the page, with all the other navboxes; alternatively could be moved into the Ancestry section) avoids any concerns with formatting, removes the current dispute over the width of the box, removes any dispute about which image to use, and allows for standard specification of where to put it on every single article. It's just as clear as the current version. Her Madge & Philip at the top, their kids and grandchildren below, grouped by parents, collateral members below that. Minor cosmetic details can be changed; I just copied the basic design of the infobox. No need to attack me for it. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 15:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go half-ways between the difference of the 'boxes' you both prefer. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was no attack on you whatsoever, but on something you created. No reason to jump and take it personally. And I'm sorry but I take issue with "minor cosmetic details" - not minor at all!! I don't see how we have gone from a discussion about the width to changing the whole design and layout. This currently matches Template:Danish Royal Family, Template:Albanian Royal Family, Template:Austrian Imperial Family, Template:Bavarian Royal Family, Template:Belgian Royal Family, Template:Bulgarian Royal Family, Template:Dutch Royal Family, Template:Swedish Royal Family and so on. Why should this ONE be different?--UpDown (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that cosmetic details can be changed. And frankly, I would see nothing wrong with changing the other infoboxes, for the same reasons outlined here. In any case, it's just a suggestion--can you address, please, all the other points I've raised? [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 19:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the point is they don't need to be changed, the infoboxes are fine as they are. The suggested new version is, as I say above, too white, too plain, lacking in a proper and clear structure (which the current ones has), and is too large for the info it contains. This present template is fine, and please tell me why it needs changing so radically. This started as a discussion about the width, how did that lead to this new design? If there are still problems with the picture (It's not POV, but I know some insist it is), then remove the picture, don't redesign the whole thing. And if you want to change all the templates (they'd have to be, no reason to have one different from the others), this discussion should stop and move to a more general page (Wikiproject Royalty) where it can be discussed as a general change, not just for this template.--UpDown (talk) 06:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(out)You keep saying 'too white, too plain'--that can be changed. The structure seems perfectly clear to me--Queen at the top, kids below, their kids below that, and collateral members in a separate section. I didn't say it needed to be changed, I suggested a changed to avoid some issues--most of all, that of consistent layout across articles. For another thing, changing to a navbox opens up more article space for pictures. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 10:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I keep saying it because that is the problem. Present a new version then I can make new comments. You say a "consistent layout" across articles, well, how important is that? And on the whole this template (as it is now) can be put in a standard place in each article - I believe someone suggested below the infobox, this seems to work. But, I think this discussion needs to be moved. If we are to be "consistent", which as you say is important, then all Royal Family templates should be consistent, which means changing them all - which means a Royalty project wide discussion.--UpDown (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consistent layout is important from an informational point of view; that's why we have a manual of style, for ecample. As for below the infobox, please read Rrius' comments above; positioning the navbox right below the infobox creates problems with layout, which is how we got onto this particular point in the first place.
I've included Anne's husband and children, with a note explaining that they are not royalty, which should cover all the disagreements far above on the page. I don't disagree that this should go to WPRoyalty, but it makes more sense to deal with initial objections here, and then take it there. As far as cosmetic issue go, I've made a few changes. Apart from the very bottom row, there's approximately the same amount of whitespace as in the upright version; can you point to specific things you have an issue with, and offer suggestions for fixing? I want to address your concerns but I need to know what they are so I can. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 13:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent] Yes, Roux, I think the idea behind your suggestion is going along the right path. Aesthetic issues can be worked out after the location of the navbox is decided on; and, as I've said, the Ancestry section seems the best candidate: it's common to all Royal Family members' articles and is relevant to the subject of the navbox. --G2bambino (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

..and that could work too. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait and see what consensus has to say. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 17:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Duchess of Kent, The Duchess of Gloucester, and Princess Michael of Kent do not have ancestry sections. What about them? Surtsicna (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Create them? [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 18:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or, as I said above, put these at the bottom of the page along with all other navboxes.[ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 18:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latest edit

[edit]

G2, please revert your latest edit. The discussion on the infobox hasn't concluded yet. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 15:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What ever for? The above discussion has nothing to do with the width of the present incarnation. If there is consensus to change the layout and placement, then whatever changes are agreed on can be made. --G2bambino (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussions above are all related to the size, placement, and format of the infobox. As you yourself have said, the status quo should remain until the conversation is concluded. That status quo means the version used should be the way it was before you started editing the infobox at all, as multiple users have expressed concerns with your changes. Please put it back. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 15:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. The discussion above seems to have steered well away from the width issue where it began, though. --G2bambino (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 16:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal/restarting discussion

[edit]

Above you can see what I propose as a complete replacement for the current infobox. Advantages:

  • Ensures consistency of layout across all articles;
  • Placement suggestion: Ancestry section. Where there is no ancestry section, one can be created or the box can go with the rest of the navbox stack at the bottom;
  • Allows for more images to be placed within the article;
  • Ends all (and any future) disputes about sizing, image, etc.

Yes, of course this needs to go to WikiProject Royalty before it gets implemented anywhere. I would like to gain a sense here of specific objections and concerns. UpDown for example has commented on a dislike for the design--what, exactly, do you not like? I need to know so I can fix it. [ roux ] [x] 17:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look so bad anymore. Good job, Roux! However, I am afraid that the template won't be noticeable. The current infobox simply cannot go unnoticed. I have no objections concerning the template's looks. Surtsicna (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I think the noticeability issue may not be too important, especially if the navbox is placed within the text (e.g. Ancestry section) as opposed to with the rest of the navbox stack. Personally I think one large infobox is probably enough eye-candy for any article. [ roux ] [x] 18:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Noticeability is very important. What's the point of having a template if nobody is going to notice it? I do agree, however, that one large infobox is enough, especially if the article is not very lengthy. Surtsicna (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had wondered - and had been trying to test - if the navbox could become a part of the infobox, though only appearing on the infoboxes of those currently listed as being in the Royal Family. Just a thought. --G2bambino (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Sorry Surtsicna, I wasn't clear; I meant in this case noticeability isn't much of an issue as the proposed placement of the navbox will be fairly prominent.
It's relatively trivial to add that sort of 'if' statement to a template, but it's kind of a hammer in search of a nail to do so, and would in those cases create an infobox that is ridiculously long. Not a good idea. [ roux ] [x] 18:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I imagined that it would be collapsed within the infobox. But, no matter, it was just a suggestion. --G2bambino (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it's possible to arrange the template to look like a family tree which would a) show the Queen's relationship to the Duke of Gloucester and the Duke of Kent, b) make it clear that the Duchess of Cornwall and Timothy Laurence are not parents of their spouse's children. Is it possible? Surtsicna (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like this? I think that would probably be a bit too complex. And without going to something that detailed, it's kind of hard to really delineate whose children are whose. [ roux ] [x] 19:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Small edit to describe the collateral members. I think the children are obvious enough, and by marriage the new spouses all became step-parents anyway, and it's relatively clear as to who married into the family and who was born into it. [ roux ] [x] 19:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course it's clear and obvious enough, but I though that having a family tree (yes, something like this one) would be a nice touch to the template. It's not neccesary, but it would make the template more interesting and it would add another advantage to your proposal. Surtsicna (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think having a family tree would probably make the whole thing a bit too complex, and would basically duplicate a huge chunk of the information at British Royal Family. [ roux ] [x] 20:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I have said numerous times, the current template is fine and I am not at all convinced by the reasons for change. All this seems to have borne out from a disagreement over width? The constituency of layout can be done with the current template. This should go to the Royalty Wikiproject, so more can get involved and discuss. I see no reason to debate on here at all, when it will go to the Wikiproject anyway and be discussed there. As many people as possible should be involved in all the discussion, and that means holding it there not here. On another point, the Phillips & Tim Laurence should not be on the template at all. There are not, strictly speaking, British Royalty, so should not be on here. Otherwise, why not put on the Linleys, Chattos, Freddie Windsor and so on.--UpDown (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, articles cannot have consistency of layout with the current template due to its size and difficulty of placement. I've already said I will that this to WPRoyalty, I just want to hammer out issues here. I added Anne's husband and children--with a footnote, as you can see--because it looked rather strange to have her all alone. Anne and her family are seen at most events involving the whole family whereas the Chattos etc are not. [ roux ] [x] 11:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, why not hammer out the issues there, where more people can see it? Otherwise, other users may have further problems. You cannot include the Phillips & Laurence in this template - they are not Royalty. I agree, Anne looked odd on her own - another reason why the current template is far superior.--UpDown (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because, as I said above, I would like to get an idea of specific concerns here first, so as to be able to go to WP:Royalty with a close to finished version. [ roux ] [x] 12:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"close to finished version" - what if people at the Wikiproject raise more concerns and issues, the further changes will need to be made or whatever. Far easier to discuss where it will most effect. After all, if changed this will effect all Royalty templates, so why basically create a new version at the talk of only one template?--UpDown (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My tip would be: "If it isn't broken, don't fix it". I find the first one visually more pleasing, more noticable, and better to place. Also, it lacks the image, which the last one had, which makes it rather boring. I also object to Zara P. being referred to as "Not royalty". Who said so? I'd prefer "Holds no royal title". --Cameron* 12:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" - its what I've said all along. Sorry, I'm a bit unclear as to which version you prefer, do you mean the current one or the first one of this talk page? Secondly, I understand strictly speaking only the Queen and HRHs are members of the "British Royal Family", and they should be the only ones that appear on this template, otherwise we could include various people (Phillips, Laurence, Gloucester children, Chattos, Kent children, Michaels' children). --UpDown (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say the template as is is necessarily "broken", but it isn't really optimum, either; it does cause issues with article layout that could be avoided if the navbox were altered. --G2bambino (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am pleased with the current version, and I would like to keep it untouched, but other people seem to be dissatisfied. But I'm still not convinced that the current template needs to be replaced with the proposed one. Surtsicna (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — I know this isn't a vote, but, wow. The current one is fine. Leave it. DBD 18:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Width 2

[edit]

The width of this template should match that of the infoboxes on the pages the template exists on. --G2bambino (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need; as has been elaborated at great length above, nobody sees any issue with the template as it currently stands. [ roux ] [x] 22:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For aesthetic reasons, it should be the same width as the infoboxes. --G2bambino (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least three or four people have already stated that the infobox is perfect as it is within the last, what, two weeks? Consensus is against you. [ roux ] [x] 22:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The earlier commentary was distracted by your redesign proposal. For now, I'd like to simply concentrate on the width, and nothing else. --G2bambino (talk) 22:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is an unnecessary change. [ roux ] [x] 22:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not for aesthetic reasons. --G2bambino (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On this issues, I'm not really bothered either way. All I will say is that I don't see why it has to be the same width as the infobox, I see no benefit in that and I don't see it as better aestheticly.--UpDown (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We had an issue similar to this on Wikinews with our audiobox template redesign. I was against making it the same size as the infobox (too much space for too little info), but consensus went against me, and we ended up going in that direction (for the sake of vertical infobox uniformity). But I have to say, now that it's been this way for a while, I like same sized infoboxes better. Having randomly sized rightside infoboxes looks goofy. So I'd suggest that we do the same thing with this template. It just looks better in the end. Gopher65talk 04:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then; if there's no serious objection to widening the box, I'll go ahead and make the change. --G2bambino (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I forgot to remove this from my watchlist. There is a serious objection: it is simply not a necessary edit. Consensus on the page, as has been explained to you, is against any changes. Reverting. [ roux ] [x] 21:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you discounting the above discussion? The only person expressing opposition to a change in width, specifically, is you. --G2bambino (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not getting into an argument with you. Mayalld explained, as did I, what the consensus on this page is. It is against changes. Bye. [ roux ] [x] 21:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, you've just initiated an argument. So we can either affirm or dispel this idea of there being a consensus on not changing the width, could you please point me to where I was "told" what the consensus was here regarding that specific matter? --G2bambino (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know precisely what you were told and where; see comments by Mayalld at the talk page of your RfC/U. The overriding consensus on the page is that no change is required to this template. Period. Your attempts to override that by saying "well nobody specifically said this specific thing" are beside the point; the overall view across this entire talk page is very, very clear: no change. None. Nada. Zero. Nothing. You have already been told this, and quite specifically, by Mayalld. I suggest you re-read his comments. [ roux ] [x] 22:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roux, old friend, please retreat lest the cretinous masses around these parts smack you down again. G2, you really ought to read discussions and edit histories before you blunder in. There is consensus against changing the width. Deal with it. DBD 23:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking me to deal with something I've yet to see. Right above I see two users besides myself who have no issue with changing the width and one who does. And that makes a consensus against change how? Mayalld said there was no consensus here; this discussion was initiated two days prior to his comments in order to garner opinion, and we see above what was said. I would concede to popular opinion if one existed, but it seems I'm being told not to do something because one user says a consensus exists but can't prove it. --G2bambino (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see the Template deleted (but that's another subject, ha ha). GoodDay (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting ridiculous. According to WP:CON silence implies consensus. No valid reasons for not changing the template have been brought up...Besides, consensus usually isn't needed for trivial edits like this...Best, --Cameron* 12:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reaffirming that there has been no real argument against changing the width. I would still like to do it, but I sense that Roux will not relinquish his notions of control. --G2bambino (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a violation of your restrictions, there. You're also ignoring that DBD has said exactly the same thing. [roux » x] 00:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly; please understand the difference between a personal attack and a comment on your recent mode of editing. Both you and DBD have said there's some kind of consensus against changing the width, but neither of you have pointed to where it is. At best, the issue is still up in the air with four users not opposed, one opposed, and one possibly opposed. But, as Cameron says, the demand for consensus on such a "trivial edit" is rather incomprehensible. --G2bambino (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would a monthly rotation work? GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't know what you mean, GD. --G2bambino (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm addressing the complaint at WP:AN, however I do wish to point out that from my perspective I see 4 people agreeing above over a week ago that change to this template is bad. "The current one is fine. Leave it", "If it isn't broken, don't fix it" etc. This is in response to roux's proposal. I don't know if this is the consensus that roux is speaking about, but that may be the basis of your misunderstanding with him. I do feel that you have violated your restrictions by assuming that roux was acting in bad faith. As such I'm placing a 24 hour block on G2bambino. When the block expires I ask both of you to figure out if consensus exists against the width change or the proposal that roux gave. If it is the latter, then discuss with other editors whether the width of this template and possibly other related templates needs to change, or should they stay the same. —— nixeagle 06:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of the definite article "the"

[edit]

I have started a discussion here about capitalzation of the definite article the. You are invited to discuss. Surtsicna (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manufactured controversy

[edit]

In adding a link to the Monarchy of Canada#Canadian Royal Family, I was merely carrying out a suggestion made by someone else some time ago and I only just recalled now as I was working on that other article. Where the supposed controversy lies is anyone's guess, especially as the edit summary of the reverter completely avoided any specific references to it. It's difficult to know how to reach some agreeable compromise/solution when those objecting won't express themselves clearly. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't pretend that you don't know what I am talking about and don't say that I am not expressing myself clearly. This kind of issue has been discussed so many times and you have participated in every such discussion that it is rather inappropriate to pretend that you don't know why I reverted your edit. I don't need to explain it any more clearly, but I will: the British Royal Family is also the royal family of each Commonwealth realm. Nevertheless, it is most commonly referred to as British Royal Family. Thus, it makes no sense to mention "Canadian Royal Family" and ignore the other 14 realms, as "Canadian Royal Family" is not the most common name used to refer to this family. Surtsicna (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I must say so in order to gain the clarity you pretend I have. But, your motivations for reverting are still unclear, as you've just expressed objections to things that were never done; the facts you mention were never subverted. The sole germane point is that about mentioning only two incarnations of the family; that's justified simply because those are the only two supported by reliable sources. So, you can only be counter to either where I placed the link to the information on the Canadian Royal Family, or to the inclusion of that link at all; which is it? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without reply from you for over 30 hours, and evidence you've been active on Wikipedia during that time, I've restored my edit that you reverted. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that link on the same grounds as Surt. This is mental. DBD 18:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surtsicna didn't give an argument why the link is unacceptable, and thus neither have you. I asked what the objection is, and still await a response. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surtsicna DID give arguments, you just didn't listen. His arguments are:
  • While the family is the royal family of the entire commonwealth, it is most commonly referred to as the "British Royal Family".
  • Adding "Canadian Royal Family" is pointless, as you are still ignoring the 14 other commonwealth realms, and Noone calls it that. (Even in Canada!)
So, those are his arguments. What are yours? 188.141.65.45 (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see a few options for this template and The Commonwealth:

  • Remains as it is and we admit that the family is British, they are born, married, live, work and die here.
  • We add a link to every realm's "Royal Family" article
  • We create a near-identical template for each realm's RF
  • We add a switch to display other realms if need. It wouldn't be needed though, since we use this on people's articles, and can only use one realm, whereas those people, in the overequalist argument, "belong" to 16

To be honest, though the Commonwealth realms all de jure share the British Royal Family equally, there isn't such thing as as Commonwealth Royal Family, and there certainly isn't an article. De facto, they are the British Royal Family and the template should reflect that. Sure, we can add links to each Royal Family article, where the "Canadian" link is, but there are just too many, and even the one is ugly and unnecessary. Let's have an end to this manufactured controversy DBD 11:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC) DBD 11:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There do not exist "articles" for every realm's royal family; precisely my point when I said only two incarnations of the group are linked here because we only have two "articles" because we only have sources for two. The question of what to do with others is therefore not presently relevant. Further, given that the term "British Royal Family" has place of prominence - in both location and font size - the rest of the concerns raised are rendered moot. The claim of "ugliness" could, I suppose, have some rationale behind it; but without any put forward, it remains only an utterly incomprehensible personal opinion. Could you expand on that assertion? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When they're created, don't forget to add the 14 others, folks. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not change the name to the 'House of Windsor' instead? (I know there is one already but it also makes sense when apply here) (and well said GoodDay) BTW (New Zealand Royal Family) Sodacan (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether well said or not, it's unclear what the point was. Regardless, New Zealand Royal Family hasn't a single source to support its claims. I personally believe what it says is true, but, technically, it should be deleted. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Point is that your point is very very valid, BUT will you be willing when the articles for the 13 others are made the New Zealand one is sourced, to add them all on to the template? and be burdened with all those links? P.S. how about "The Family of the Head of the Commonwealth"? (just trying to come up with a solution here) Sodacan (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There already is a Template:House of Windsor. -Rrius (talk) 03:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sodacan did point that out; however, he's got a valid question in why are there two templates, and could they be combined? As for the other incarnations of the Royal Family: as I alluded to earlier, it's not something we need worry about until it actually becomes an issue (and I've a strong suspicion that will be a long time coming). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry, Sody. -Rrius (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there wont be new ones soon, but the template was created for the reader to quickly navigate between the different individuals making up the family and it is irrevocably about them (and about that) and not their different incarnations as the first family of the different realms. That link and statement should be made in the British Royal Family page and not on the template (it is just clearly not the place for it). That is why I think we should find a new 'neutral' name at the top of the template and remove the link instead. Sodacan (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I would absolutely love, love, love to find some neutral title for this navbox; some editors will tell you just how annoying they think my efforts to reach such a goal have been (I even once attempted to merely replace the British arms with a neutral image; it, like all my other tries, was promptly reverted). But, that same bunch is one that will adamantly stick to the idea that popular perception, no matter how incongruous with reality, is more important than neutrality. Hence, every single attempt at objectivity resulted in a revert.
In light of that, I don't think it's inappropriate to link to another of the family's national incarnations; it is a navbox about the Royal Family, after all. But, as I said, I'm certainly very willing to find some other alternative. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Commonwealth realms set-up is a 'hair-pulling' one. Is the Royal Family a single Royal Family or 16 Royal Families? Most common usage - says we should use British, yet accuracy says all 16 are equal. PS: Anybody got an asperin? GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Separate, but equal

[edit]

Ladies & Gentlemen, it's time to have 16 Templates. Wikipedia has room for them. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

16 templates for what? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Create Template: Canadian Royal Family, Template: Australian Royal Family etc etc (whatever can be varified). Wikipedia has limitless room for articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But not limitless room in articles. More templates would clutter up pages. The idea perhaps takes too far the notion of "separate" in "separate but equal". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the assumption that 're-naming' this Template to 'Commonwealth Royal Family' (which would be 'original research) would be rejected? I've no prob with the Canadian linkage being kept (and future linkages being added). GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with this one, what was wrong with that one? Anyway here is a suggestion Sodacan (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Royal Family of the United Kingdom
and the other Commonwealth realms

HM The Queen
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh

If you can make 'of the United Kingdom' & 'Commonwealth realms' equal size, it's acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would have to be "United Kingdom and the other Commownealth realms"; the former is not excluded from the latter. The exclusively English arms are still there, too. Otherwise, as it's very similar to something I earlier tried to implement, I don't see why I'd object now. Other editors, however... --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? DrKay (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC) ->[reply]
Ok, I guess I can back down on the title-y bit, but dear Lord that image is ugly... DBD 10:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The badge that Sodacan created and inserted here is vastly better than anything that was in the template before. Many thanks to him for making the file. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If François Velde is to be believed, the royal family as a legal entity does not exist. And according to Monarchy of Canada#Canadian Royal Family," unlike in the United Kingdom, the monarch is the only member of the Royal Family in Canada with a title established through law".... Who are we to determine who is and who is not in the so-called "Commonwealth Royal Family"? -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The Viscount Severn and Lady Louise Windsor are not members of the Canadian Royal Family. See: Department of Canadian Heritage: "Royal Family"

I must've been possessed when I made that recommendation at 16:25 November 1, 2009. GoodDay (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK Royal Family

[edit]

Does anyone know what this is about? DBD 18:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wessex children

[edit]

The children of the Earl and Countess of Wessex might be legally prince and princess of the United Kingdom. However, they are not styled as such. Including them as "Viscount Severn" and "Lady Louise Windsor" makes as much sense as would including Lord Ulster and Peter Phillips. The template says: "The only people who should be listed in this template are the sovereign, his or her consort and all living Princes and Princesses of the United Kingdom, to the exclusion of all others." James and Louise are not considered prince and princess. They are not styled as such. It is not even clear whether they are prince and princess (whether the Queen's word is more authoritative than her grandfather's letters patent). The fact that they are "very close family members in male line of the queen" is irrelevant. They are just as much her grandchildren as are the Princess Royal's children and they bear just as much royal titles. The template is not limited to male-line relatives. It is limited to "the sovereign, his or her consort and all living Princes and Princesses of the United Kingdom". Surtsicna (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Viscount Severn is just a member of the royal family, for example the Press Office of the Queen writes about Viscount Severn as being a member of this family (see: Arrangements for the christening of Viscount Severn). Unfortunately, I can not find a clear cut and reliably list on internet about who's is indeed member of this family, which is rather strange... Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even though they have titles, they hold no prince/princess title. Whether the HM writes about them being members, I'm sure she does the same with the Phillipses. It might be a good idea to have their names removed. --Ta, Chip 123456 (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Members are incomplete

[edit]

You should list the members of the royal family according to this PDF File from the official website of The British Monarchy. Have also separate templates for each realm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.64.19 (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

British Royal Family
HM The Queen
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh



Australian Royal Family
HM The Queen
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh

New Zealander Royal Family
HM The Queen
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh



Canadian Royal Family
HM The Queen
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh



Jamaican Royal Family
HM The Queen
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh
I think there should be one template as only one is necessary and the extra ones will have little, if any, potential use. DrKay (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would not object particularly to the addition of Peter and Zara Phillips, however, the inclusion of all the descendants of the previous king begins to look like overkill. I've no idea what Sarah Chatto looks like, and I don't think she's a public personality, or her husband and children. As one gets more and more distant from the monarch, the basis for inclusion becomes weaker, almost arbitrary. I do appreciate that the list you've provided is from an official site and is a clear list, but personally I think we should agree a tighter definition for inclusion, to prevent burdening the template with minor figures. DrKay (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I propose we trim down even further, and insist on HM and HRHs only. (So we lose Severn & Louise and Sarah who has somehow been added). In fact I'm going to Bold it. DBD 11:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think It's right to remove the name of Sarah, but it's not right to remove the name of James and Louise, They are the children of The Earl of Wessex and indeed they ARE British Prince and Princess, so we shouldn't remove their name. Keivan.fTalk 13:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of note, Wessex's children are Their Royal Highnesses, their father has just chosen to treat them as children of an Earl as opposed to grandchildren of the Monarch. I suspect The Viscount Severn will be titled HRH the Earl of Wessex upon the death of the Duke of Edinburgh and Edward's assumption of that title. Achowat (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway I think it's right to have the name of Sarah on the Template because she is a British princess by marriage, and as you know, Diana, Princess of Wales remained a member of the Royal Family after her divorce and I think Sarah is also included. But Phillipses are not Prince and Princesses because they are the children and Grandchildren of the daughter of The Queen and of course Viscount Linly and Lady Sarah Chatto aren't Prince and Princess because they got their surname from their father and they belong to their father family. Keivan.fTalk 14:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My justifications: whether or not Louise & Severn "technically are" or "legally are" HRHs or some bullshit I don't believe like that, the fact is they have never used their HRHs. The intent from the Queen in 1999 is Very Clear Indeed – that they are not to be treated at Royals. As for Sarah – she is the mother of two princesses, but she ceased to be royal when she divorced. The comparison to Diana is false, since her treatment as a sort of member of the RF (1996–1997) was by virtue of being the future heir-and-spare's mother. DBD 20:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But again, I don't think like you. Louise & James are grandchildren of The Queen in male line. It is right that they don't use the HRH style, but anyway they are British Prince and Princess. And about Sarah, as the mother of two princesses, she is an Important lady and according to the official website of the British monarchy, she is still a member. Keivan.fTalk 07:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This entire discussion seems (to someone who has NO vested interest in the British Royal Family) to be far too particular for the article's title. The article is entitle the "British Royal Family", so I am unclear as to why, if they're the family, why does it matter whether they are HM, HRM, a prince or princess or anything else. If you want to be that specific, perhaps an article entitle British Sovereigns, Princes and Princesses. Vertium (talk to me) 21:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]