2654:. As far as I am aware of, I'm 100% Slavic and therefore I could not possibly be Anglocentric. Perhaps you didn't understand what I meant. I proposed creating a universal infobox for all royalty (French, Russian, Ethiopian, Siamese, whatever). Infobox Royalty would resemble this infobox, but wouldn't cover only British royalty. We all agree that we do not need 15 infoboxes that only differ in colour. Anyway, Infobox Royalty would be a lot better than Infobox Monarch, since it could be used by all royalty (not just by monarchs but also by their spouses and offspring). Of course, it would look better, just like this infobox looks better than Infobox Monarch.
740:, they will see the date formatted according what is set, but those who are not signed in or haven't stated a preference will see the date formatted according to North American customs "February 20, 1951 (age 56)". Of course people in the UK or other commonwealth countries (except Canada) would expect to see it formatted "20 February 1951 (age 56)". I think we need either have an alternate template for articles about subjects from countries other that the US or Canada or perhaps we can figure out a way to state the default formatting as an optional 4th parameter. So, let's hold off until this issue is resolved. See
1688:"Nobility" is a very nebulous thing in Britain; it's far less well-defined than on the Continent. Nobility isn't granted to, say, all of one's descendants in the male line in Britain as it is elsewhere in Europe. In Britain, there are three well-defined classes: the monarch, the peers, and commoners. There's no such thing as a "peer by courtesy" or a "peer by marriage". A person with only a courtesy title is a commoner, not a peer, and the spouse of a peer is also a commoner. It makes no sense to use one infobox for disparate classes of people. -
914:
We can simplify things very easily in the links? Remember there is always the possibility of there being a ridiculously long title. Like the example I state above. If Canute was listed in Sweyn
Forkbeard's with his full title it would be two line's worth even with the extra width. Shouldnt we just get used to the simplification of royal names, if needs be, at least in this section? After all the childeren of royal usually only acquire their full titles later in life. This is then maybe an over-the-top way to refence someone's issue.
621:. I personally don't think that this needs to be added because the infobox shows information directly related to the article and there isn't really a reason to want to hide it, whereas with a navbox the info is 'you might want to also see...' and isn't directly related. Also, can I suggest that you test what you want to do in a sandbox as every edit to a template means a change has to be made in every page using that template, and when several changes are made, that's a lot of changes.
1194:
2364:. Isn't military service "relevant to very few articles"? Isn't beatification "relevant to very few articles"? Isn't a link to a style page "relevant to very few articles"? Stick to the basics it says: "The availability of optional fields does not mean that all fields should be made optional, however, nor that large numbers of rarely used fields should be added without regard for the overall layout and ease-of-use of the infobox template." Seems pretty clear.
2173:. We could redirect this template along with all it's clones to this universal template. It would look just like Infobox British Royalty (unless someone has other ideas). That would solve the problem, since this universal infobox could be used by all emperors, empresses, kings, queens, princes, and princesses, regardless of their country. It's quite simple...
2425:
kings and queens, princes and princesses (and perhaps even for grand dukes and grand duchesses). Nobody has yet disputed the fact that this infobox (which would be a foundation for
Template:Infobox Royalty) looks far better than Infobox Monarch. Besides, Infobox Monarch could not be used by any member of a royal family other than king or queen regnant.
55:
21:
2608:
Well you'd have to ruthlessly simplify things if you want standardisation. Start from the ground up. What is truly essential? If you want it to be universal there's no point in starting from an
Anglocentric recentist position. Is there any practical difference between the two ways of adding an image?
2569:
No, I don't like the idea of removing the infoboxes. I proposed creating a universal infobox called
Infobox Royalty. Infobox Royalty wouldn't label 11th century people as British = one problem solved. Another advantage is that it could be used for all emperors and empresses, kings and queens, princes
2424:
Both sections are relevant to very few articles. I still hold that creating a universal infobox called
Template:Infobox Royalty would solve this problem, as well as many other problems. Infobox Royalty wouldn't label 11th century people as British and it could be used for all emperors and empresses,
2239:
We're not talking about KB size, we're talking about length on screen. If we were to amalgamate the templates (for argument's sake prior to the military record and saint areas), not a one would show any change at all, since each one would only use the options it previously did. So screen length would
913:
Ok... maybe not completely stupid. You mean to tell me though this is actually meant purely to contain the long names of the royals? Even if this might seem like sense to some, with it being a royalty info box, dont you think it is a bit disfunctional? Surely royal names can be brought down to size?
347:
I just check the
Duchess of Cornwall's page. Her maiden name and first married name, with honorariums, are given in the Titles field (but not Princess of Wales). Does this also fall into the purpose of this field? If so, one could add Cadet William Wales and Cornet Harry Wales (or Lt. Harry Wales)
2700:
Anglocentric, eurocentric, same difference. You'd need to drop the recentist cruft - anthem, motto, occupation - use generic terminology - dynasty or family, not royal house - and add room for reign names &c, non-Latin representations, drop the presumption that rulers are crowned, inaugurated is
1066:
I do agree with Nunh-huh on this one. Facts should be presented as they happended in life, it would be like starting an article with someone's death and ending with their birth. I also see no problem in putting "(1937-1972)" for Wallis & Edward, as they did cease to be married in that, you can't
891:
Right, I presume you meant that the list of issue is takes up one column as wide as the other two. This is because the links to issue become quite long (like if we have "Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" there), so they're given as much space as possible. I'm sorry if you think it looks
604:
I have removed the collapsibility from the template as it is defeating the objective of the infobox. From what I understand of these things, the problem was that the NavFrame class was used, which autocollapses if there are three or more of these tables on the page. To get the functionality that you
245:
I don't think the infobox needs to give the name of the person three times, especially since its probably in the article title as well. I think the most common name (good luck with that) should in the first bar, the full style with the "HRH" (or otherwise) in the second bar and any titles minus the
219:
While I agree that this infobox lacks beauty and grace, I came here to complain about wrong information currently used in the infobox on the Prince
William page. Mainly, the wrong link is used for William's father (twice and once for his mother). Also, the Prince of Wales does not precede William,
198:
Just because the template states "Monarch" in its title, ir does not mean that it can't be used for other purposes. This template is absolutely the ugliest one I have seen on
Knowledge (XXG) and is totally, 100% redundant to the Monarch template. Indeed, there is nothing that this template can bring
3162:
I support the idea of a universal
Royalty infobox with country-specific options, with a couple of caveats. First, replacing the derivatives (they're not clones, as many have been modified to varying degrees) cuts right across the whole encyclopedia, it affects a huge number of projects. I'd suggest
2830:
No, we do not need options for different countries. It would be better to have special fields for
European monarchs (such as coronation and royal house) and for Asian monarchs (era and posthumous name). It's great that DBD was patient enough to create such a complex infobox, but we don't need it so
2224:
Different countries use different titles and styles and organise themselves in different ways you need different infoboxes for different countires because otherwise you would need so many options for it. People have been complaining that Infobox Briitsh Royalty is 4x the size of Infobox Monarch but
1927:
I noticed this change on the Anglo-Saxon kings; I agree with Angus that it should not be used there. I agree with Angus on his other points too. I'd also be fine with no infobox, as I don't think they add much value, but if we have them they should have appropriate scope and be used in accordance
1908:
people for esoteric reasons that only hard-core royalty-twitchers understand, I see no obvious reason why it needs to be used elsewhere. It's second best in most applications, bloat without benefit. It can include too much information, encouraging well-meaning editors to add incorrect or misleading
1575:
I know, I've been watching your prototype since yesterday! It's even better than I imagined, but I would propose removing the succession field from infboxes for peers by courtesy, because it's a bit confusing to read "Henry Somerset, Marquess of Worcester" and below that "Duke of Beaufort". Why not
1531:
I thank you very much and I hope you slept well :) I will be glad to help by adding the infobox to the articles. The idea came to me when I read the article about John and Sarah Churchill; both of the articles are featured, but they have no infobox at all. When I was trying to create the infobox, I
972:
Why do you believe that this change requires discussion, and what do you mean to suggest that there is an onus? The following are facts: (1) the use of "issue" in this sense is archaic, (2) the typical Knowledge (XXG) reader will not know that it's a synonym for offspring, (3) it has already been
2708:
this month and you'll be in with a chance of making a universal template. Of course, that would mean hard choices. Royalty is a big subject. It takes a great deal of boldness - hubris even - to believe that you can fit five millennia of history and the whole wide world into one standard format. It
2009:
further outside its scope than either Wessex or Alba. So... That leaves us with a question — one or many? Should we create Infobox Scottish Royalty and Infobox before-England-was-united-English Royalty? Or should we create a universal Infobox Royalty combining every feature of the clone templates?
1987:
Oh my goodness, Angus! POV much?! First, I'd like to address your criticisms of the template itself. I've been with this template through its entire history, so I'm almost uniquely able to shed some light on some of the reasons. Now, the "visual glitch" you mention is not any such thing — if you'd
1494:
I noticed there are a lot of good articles about peers, but they really lack a nice infobox. I've tried to create one myself by using this infobox as an example, but I found it too hard. I will keep trying, but I hope someone will make an effort and create the infobox for peers (if you do, please
2327:
Are such sections needed anyway? Infoboxes are supposed to give the most important informations (image, title, father, mother, reign, spouse, issue, house), not to be an article's summary. Why do we need a military section, a signature section, a section for saints, etc? That kind of information
1093:
Yes, this listing of beginning and ending dates of marriages is another silly convention we seem to have taken from the IMDB. Give dates of marriages, and dates of divorce, appropriately marked as such. (Though, of course, the death of a spouse ends a marriage. That's why the marital status of a
1042:
On the contrary, there's no apparent reason why the last spouse would be more important than any other. Chronological order is the appropriate one here; if someone wants to know the last spouse, they look at the last one on the list. If they want to know the first spouse, they look at the first.
397:
I am against the use of the "titles" information for British monarchs. It makes the templates too big. There are no dates or context to the information. The titles are usually given in a separate section in the article anyway (with dates). And the list in the infobox isn't usually complete.
3073:
First of all I got to say sorry for all the templates I created. I think they were Mexico, Roman, Hessian, Celtic, Ancient Hellenic/Byzantine merged with the Greek, Ethiopian, and ect. I had no idea this was such a problem. I wonder if I should keep adding Infoboxes to the articles. I went
1024:
Well, the reverse chronological order makes sense due to the consideration that, more often than not, a person's most recent spouse either was their spouse at death, or still is – either way, it is probable that the couple are still married, so it makes sense for that spouse to be listed first
2000:
to two rows. I can't find anywhere where the reason is described, but I'm fairly certain it's for length of names (as royalty do so often have very long styles). Secondly, the bloated, crufty lengthiness is neither of my doing nor supported by me (or anyone other than the editor The Quill). I
576:
I'm trying to remove the collapseabilty of this infobox, but I can't work out how to do it. I really don't think that someone's infobox should be hidden when you first go to the page like this one is. It removes the photo and important details and I fail to see why it should be hidden at all.
1625:
If this is going to be an infobox for British peers - and that's what it should be for maximum utility - restrict it to actual peers. That means no courtesy titles, and no baronets. If they need a template, let them have another template. Mixing non-peerage titles and courtesy titles with
1633:
If you just use titles like "8th Duke of Queensberry", you're going to run into all kinds of difficulty, because numberings of peers are different between sources. There's no way to solve this completely, but you'd go a long way towards resolving most of the discrepancies by using a fuller
496:. Surly every British Monarch should have this template or none of them should. I could understand if Anne (the first monarch of Britain has a whole) and all her successors used this template and all who came before her used Infobox Monarch but they don't, it just seems completely random.
1904:. Most of the features it provides that the monarch box are simply irrelevant to pre-modern articles. It even has a visual glitch in that it inserts a newline before a list of children and is larger than necessary because it lists one sprog per line. If this template needs to be used on
110:
Is House in this case meant to mean the house one married into or the house of one's birth? Frankly, the House of one's birth would be much more useful, in my opinion, since the house of the spouse or of the British royal family will be found on the respective sovereign's page.
1637:
Make sure that peerages that are distinguished by place names that are not part of the title proper give the right links. For example, "17th Lord Grey, of Wilton", "6th Lord Grey, of Codnor", "1st Lord Grey, of Rothermere", and "3rd Lord Grey, of Groby" should all link to
2649:
Simplify what? Are you saying that there is a signicant difference between Infobox British Royalty and Infobox Greek Royalty/Infobox Spanish Royalty,/Infobox Russian Royalty/Infobox Hawaii Royalty, etc? Of course there isn't. I am not sure what do you mean by
765:
template has been added to address this concern, but I hope that eventually we can get to a single template that meets everyone's needs with an optional 4th parameter that allows the user to specify a default date formatting. Someone has already added it to
2380:
The Sainthood section perhaps, however, due to the close links between Royalty and the Military Britain (with the military being one of the few jobs roaylty feel they are treated as equals and not as betters) the military section could be used quite often.
871:
There is a problem with the Issue thing. Its not the use of the word though. It is the alignment of the childeren's name in the list with the style of tabular column and row, or even marginal paragraph labels. Whatever it is, it is out of alignment (see
973:
complained about at the beginning of this section, (4) the use of "children" as suggested by 86.136.255.33 above connotes youth, which "offspring" does not. Do you believe that any of those are not facts? If so, please say why. I am reverting back.
2701:
vaguer and more generally applicable, or that people have full names, that places of birth and death are likely to be known or be worth including if they are, that titles and styles are anything other than "relevant to very few articles", and so on.
1823:
to have an infobox for all the rulers and their less important relatives, which was nice. But, as so often happens, it didn't stay like that. Goalposts were moved, scope crept steadily and before we knew it the template was spreading like herpes.
1963:
I too, think that an infobox that is "British Royalty" has no business on monarchs or their relatives prior to George I. Much of the information isn't needed on pre-George monarchs, and it certainly has nothing to do with Scottish monarchs. Plain
1436:, where the image is kind of small to begin with, and rendering it at 262px (or whatever this template's default is) makes the picture look unnecessarily pixilated and ugly. There's got to be some way around this, but I don't know it. Advice?
1054:
I'm glad to see that this absurdity of presentation isn't a long-standing thing; for example, the reversal of the appropriate order of the wives of Henry VIII occurred only on 2 November. It's time to correct this before more work is created. -
2001:
personally think that, in good faith though they undoubtedly have been, The Quill's addition of several new sections are a bit too much. Also, re: scope: thank you for bringing this up, as I had intended to anyway. I recently noticed that the
1745:
Now every article containing this infobox is in category Royalty and nobility infobox templates. Imagine my surprise when I saw that Her Majesty is in category Royalty and nobility infobox templates! Can someone fix it? I tried, but failed.
919:
Maybe we can open a debate and people can bring to the table their reason's, and examples, for the pros and cons of this arrangement. If there already is one please direct me to it, and if I can add to it Ill see if I can reopen it. Thanks.
2343:
Certain members of the Royal family hold positions that if they weren't royalty would qualify them for Infobox Military Person. The Military section is there to avoid double infoboxes which look messy and clog up the page yet are required.
1380:
pointed out that the link should go to the section "Titles and styles". Is there any way around this? I am reluctant to divide the section "Titles and styles" into "Titles" and "Styles", because there would be little point. Many thanks,
199:
than the other doesn't do 100% better. This one is hard to read, (purple background with black lettering!) and cannot be enforced due to the crossbreeding that has occurred between the Russian, Danish, French, etc etc royal families. --
3198:
Some fields were removed (by me) because they were surplus to requirements — for instance (I think) I deemed "full name" to be satisfactory for "personal name". And you're right, discussions on improving TIR should be at its talk page
2831:
complex. We don't need different colours for different countries. Let's just pick one and stick to it. I like the idea of having "Religion" field included. I have no other objections regarding the infobox - it's a great improvement.
2359:
Let's be clear about this, neither infoboxes nor particular fields in them are required. If present, infoboxes don't need to contain all information, just "summary or overview information about the subject". You may want to look at
1011:
The "reverse chronological order" suggested by the makers of the template make no sense; the appropriate order of presentation is chronological. These are articles dealing with history, not IMDB pages about an actors latest film. -
2049:
The point of an RfC is to get opinions, so evidently, yes, that was my point of view. Toned down a bit obviously since I omitted some of my related pet hates for which I hold the assorted royalty projects responsible, such as the
3158:
who was beatified is gone. So we need to include that. And I notice in the Sandbox archduke/archduchess is in the Russian part and there never existed Russian archduke/archduchess. I think it means to say grand duke/duchess
2989:
and do we really need the realm parameter as all it effectively does is change the colour of the infobox. But on the whole having one standard royalty infobox instead of dozens of separate identical ones is a positive move. -
1415:? I suggest you return to the original clearly-defined and more or less logical scope, the alternative would be another tfd. As regards the WikiProject, I would think that the change in scope there is equally ill-advised.
2941:
Just a thought- in situations such as Napoleon, Louis-Philippe, and Napoleon III, they were all considered monarchs, but they took over power and were 'coronated' at different times. Is there a way to differentiate this?
1839:, none of whom were included in the original scope. It gets used on Scots monarchs, who certainly were no more British than the Anglo-Saxon ones. It's now used, based on a wide-ranging discussion by all three members of
220:
he is his father. Harry is not William's heir (heir to what?), but his brother. Harry will only be his brother's heir if William is king and has no children. William is not even heir to any of his father's titles. -
1948:
Problems with chidlren are harly any justification for a look at scope relevance. Now you've pointed out the problem I will go and fix it. It only will take a vcouple of seconds for someone to fix if you point it out.
442:
Well, now we've gone too far. The deceased are not married to anyone and are no one's spouse. One might as well claim Bill Clinton is the president of the United States as Diana is the spouse of the Prince of Wales.
935:
The formatting is of no importance to me; it seems clear enough. However, "issue" is archaic jargon and a disservice to the readership. I changed it to "Offspring". Uses of the template with issue=... still work.
810:
Can someone please move the birth and death details (dates and places) further up the infobox, probably right up to just below the image bit. Such key data shouldn't be hidden away down at the bottom of the infobox.
2195:
I agree seems ridiculous to have a separate infobox for each countries royalty, you don’t get different infoboxes for British, American, French actors, footballers etc you just have one standard infobox. -
386:
Yeah. That didn't answer my question. "Miss Camilla Shand" is not a title, or a place-holder for a title like on Prince William's page. Why is it there and what does it mean for the infobox as a whole?
154:. Also, as there is a lot of cross-over between different houses in Europe, the question is raised as to which one to use. It is therefore better to use just one box for all members of all families. --
3325:
I have grasped that however it seems slightly hypocrtical of you as you are the one making the reverts. I am merely reverting the page back to the version that was in use when the discussion started.
640:
Any objections if this template were to be added to the various infoboxes for Royalty? Using Queen Elizabeth as an example, the effect of this would be to change the birthdate from looking like this:
337:
You should add that to the descriptions in the infobox, which are otherwise generally helpful. You might want to add some examples of untitled royals so that editors understand your intentions. -
2924:
Oh, blimey — I forgot to let people know! I last edited it eight days ago, and it's ready for testing, per my above advice. Please, please, please, test any and every situation you can think of!
1626:
substantive peerages is just going to be confusing. Courtesy titles especially, baronets less so, though including them might mislead unless the template itself makes clear that a baronet is not
2704:
Start with the assumption that whatever you do should fit Charlemagne and his children and King Scorpion and Manco Cápac and the Kiangxi Emperor and his wives and whatever minor royalty are in
2449:
If we are considered getting rid of the template ( a bad idea if you ask me ) then you shoudl get rid of all of the and so this would mean that this talk should happen on a more general page.
2035:). That would end this problem and many similar problems that have already occured. I wanted to propose this long time ago, but I was afraid that the creators of this infobox would not agree.
3306:
Well, Quill was Bold in removing colour variations and adding several sections, I and others have reverted, but Quill hasn't grasped that the 'Revert' stage stops for the 'Discuss' stage.
2405:? Let's face it, large chunks of the longer infoboxes fields are redundant on most of Knowledge (XXG)'s articles on royalty. We don't have the relevant information on medieval monarchs.
1328:
We are indeed here to inform, but looking presentable is important. I think the above is a bit OTT. Perhaps we could miss out the dates. Is there a general Wiki policy regarding this?--
3167:
didn't make it through as far as I could see. Here's a before and after shot for that template - someone should do a similar comparison for all the migrated infoboxes, just as a check.
2328:
should be given in the article and we don't need redundancy. We also don't need infoboxes that are longer than articles. Is that the only reason to keep 15 clones of the same infobox?
2609:
For editors? For bots? For AWB? Do we really need configurable colours? Isn't it going to be obvious from the title and content that this is a French/Russian/Ethiopian/Siamese royal?
3220:. It's by no means an insurmountable problem, and I still think a universal template is a very good idea, but it is going to need some care and input from the affected wikiprojects.
3041:) can anyone see why in the "succession2" field (President of Albania) Koço Kota comes up as successor instead of “Monarchy established” which I put in the parameter "successor2". -
2151:
I hate infoboxes and would do away with all of them if I could. I have long found this one an annoyance and distraction and would love to see it pared down to the most basic data.
70:
36:
1514:
and have carried out most of the major additions since, so I could certainly take that on. I'll take a look at it tomorrow. Actually, I guess it'll be today, but after I sleep!
3004:
Yes, I agree with DWC LR. The template should be a bit wider and the realm parameter is not necessary. Let's choose one colour (I propose the royal purple) and stick to it.
164:
At the nomination for deletion, it was agreed that the BRoy infobox would be useful - the style and so forth will be discussed in the WikiProject - the template Monarch is
3074:
through most of Russia and Saxony+the Ernestine duchies. I wonder if I should continue with the Hungarians, Hessians, and Roman emperors. Anyone, give me some advice.
3163:
including a link to this discussion in edit summaries. Second, please make sure that all the fields get migrated - the recently added (by me) "Personal name" field from
2535:
With the idea of removing the infoboxes? I am against removing the infoboxes in total, perhaps an arrangement such as that of Infobox Office Holder could be considered.
3088:
Please continue adding Infoboxes to the articles! Those infoboxes won't be deleted, they will just be merged so using them until the new one is completed won't hurt.
2395:
I agree with Angus here, we should probably prune these down. And if the sections aren't needed for an article, why shouldn't we use the much simpler (and smaller)
2002:
1076:
Ok, chronological order it is – but can we please leave marriages ending in death as open – if only because it can be confused for the termination of a marriage...
3083:
562:
I kind of saw your point when the boxes were so different, but now that it is not the case, the two could easily be integrated thereby reducing template cruft. --
2738:
A General Discussion about creatig a collective infobox should really take place on a different page as this affects not only British but all Royalty infoboxes.
1432:
Hey, in templates like this where the default image size seems to be coded right in, is there a way to manually change it in an article? Like, for example, at
587:
Well, you've hit upon it. It shouldn't be hidden - I wanted it collapseable, but not hidden at first. I'm trying to find someone who can correct my blunder... –
1634:
description, such as "8th Duke of Queensberry of the 1642 creation". This will avoid many of the conflicts from titles that have been created more than once.
951:
This is a change which should be dicussed, and the onus is on you. Summon interested parties (such as editors of this template from the past and members of
3216:
And right there we have the problem with a universal template. Japanese emperors have a complicated naming system which isn't covered by "Full name" - see
3079:
510:. If they're British and royal, then they should have it. I just haven't changed them all yet. And a few times they get reverted... *grumble grumble* –
150:
This infobox, besides being overly garish and hard to read, is superfluous to requirements as all data can be presented using the more than adequate
2859:
Why do we need separate options for different countries we are literally going to need hundreds of them all that will be different is the colour. -
3311:
3204:
3061:
2929:
2878:
2766:
2476:
2361:
2245:
2125:
2015:
1840:
1816:
1808:
2110:? Well, he's not a Monarch, so the first is out. Of course, he is a person, but surely that's a bit general? Wouldn't we then just as easily have
1373:
853:
Why not simply "children"? I'm not an expert and am entirely willing to accept that the two terms might not mean precisely the same thing, though
230:
Well, I'm not sure who is responsible, but the infobox looks much better at this article and the incorrect information/links have been removed. -
1864:
2873:
Fair enough — I'm still writing the doc and waiting for testing to happen. From that we can start to "evict" features or nominate new ones...
3075:
974:
937:
1656:
The infobox seems to be for British nobility (peers, peers by courtesy, children of peers, and peeresses by marriage), not just peers.
3097:
1781:
1235:
3107:
So, when will we create the infobox? There are no objections to the prototype, so I assume that the infobox is ready to be used.
2278:
2097:
2032:
771:
741:
264:
styles-titles... I wouldn't call that excessive (but then again that's obvious - else I wouldn't've designed it like that...) --
2505:
You seem to be the only to support this proposal, although nobody has opposed either. Is there something wrong with this idea?
1401:
This template survived two tfds on the basis that it had a purpose. By changing the use in this way, it becomes redundant to
1894:
Now the template itself is huge. I used the words crufty and bloated, and I'd stand by those. It's three times the size of
3154:
It is good but it doesn't include parts like sainthood which the British royalty does. The edits I made to articles like
1856:
531:. What is the purpose of having two infoboxes that provide and display the information in almost exactly the same way?? --
2985:
My main comments on the infobox are can we make the width 25em instead of 20 as this is the standard suggested width at
2761:
to test specific implementations and report any problems. It's very nearly all the same, but I'll do some doc tomorrow.
540:
I really can't be bothered to repeat myself. Look over this talk page, and over the TfD discussion linked at the top. –
419:
Please do read - the idea of the titles box is not to list all titles, it is to list what she was known as over time. –
287:
Perhaps the problem is with application. For some royalty, the three fields will have basically the same information. -
3300:
3164:
1621:
Do comments belong here? I have a few suggestions for improvements....and some questions that might help designing it.
1551:
61:
27:
2286:
1777:
787:
759:
634:
175:
s! For goodness sake, please pay attention to past discussions *before* you rush in and undo someone's hard work. --
2282:
2114:
1159:
We're here to inform. Looking pretty is ancillary. So take an additional line to both inform and look pretty. : eg:
3292:
It's Bold, Revert, Discuss, folks, not just revert revert revert. Shall we start discussing rather than reverting?
3269:
3246:
3181:
1884:
1852:
1223:
829:
1912:
So, threat or menace? You tell me. Evidently my mind is made up, but I could live happily with no infobox at all.
825:
Please will someone added a coordinates parameter for "place of burial", using the "resting place coordinates" of
736:
Having said this, now I find a small problem. For those users that are signed in and have stated a preference in
1812:
925:
882:
97:
2054:
which I saw being put in yet more inappropriate articles this week. Anyway, a universal template you said. Like
3250:
3137:
2399:
2170:
2090:
2058:
2028:
1968:
1898:
1819:- this infobox was created. It was twice nominated for deletion and kept on the basis that it was fine for the
1511:
1477:
1441:
1405:
528:
493:
477:
151:
2005:
is almost entirely populated by clones of this very infobox. I would therefore say that this infobox has been
358:
Well, Camilla has never been styled Wales; the Wales's each have a title which outranks their military ranks
2713:
2613:
2368:
2104:
2078:
2068:
1932:
1916:
1460:
1419:
978:
941:
840:
767:
213:
93:
3140:. I've redirected all the clones except for this template. Do we all agree to redirect this template too?
1836:
1773:
1386:
1229:
481:
2074:
you mean? I have the suspicion that there's a solution available off the shelf if that's what is wanted.
1645:
Will the template take more than one title? How will it handle titles that have different successors? -
187:
133:
862:
618:
3127:
3046:
3038:
2995:
2915:
2864:
2787:
2484:
2240:
remain the same (all things being equal), whilst we condense many templates into one, saving KB size.
2201:
1832:
921:
878:
563:
532:
527:
Now that this template conforms to the styles employed in other infoboxes, it is almost identical to
485:
200:
155:
3330:
3258:
3145:
3112:
3093:
3009:
2974:
2836:
2809:
2758:
2743:
2659:
2575:
2540:
2510:
2454:
2430:
2386:
2349:
2333:
2317:
2294:
2230:
2178:
2040:
1954:
1872:
1789:
1751:
1679:
1585:
1541:
1500:
1473:
1437:
737:
497:
1555:
3297:
3170:
3155:
3123:
3042:
2991:
2911:
2860:
2783:
2710:
2610:
2480:
2410:
2365:
2197:
2075:
2027:
Certainly the best solution would be redirecting this infobox and all it's clones to a universal
1979:
1929:
1913:
1718:
1457:
1416:
1377:
877:
If this is meant to be like this it is stupid. I am 99% sure it isnt though. Can someone fix it?
836:
489:
375:
326:
276:
3174:
1193:
3334:
3318:
3281:
3262:
3229:
3211:
3193:
3149:
3131:
3116:
3068:
3050:
3013:
2999:
2978:
2953:
2936:
2919:
2885:
2868:
2840:
2813:
2791:
2773:
2747:
2716:
2663:
2616:
2579:
2544:
2514:
2488:
2458:
2434:
2413:
2390:
2371:
2353:
2337:
2321:
2298:
2252:
2234:
2205:
2182:
2160:
2132:
2081:
2044:
2022:
1982:
1958:
1935:
1919:
1793:
1755:
1740:
1722:
1694:
1683:
1651:
1606:
1589:
1570:
1545:
1526:
1504:
1481:
1463:
1445:
1422:
1391:
1343:
1332:
1306:
1154:
1137:
1126:
1109:
1100:
1088:
1071:
1061:
1049:
1037:
1018:
996:
982:
967:
945:
929:
904:
886:
865:
843:
815:
797:
778:
748:
731:
710:
676:
625:
599:
581:
566:
552:
535:
522:
500:
457:
447:
431:
413:
391:
381:
352:
341:
332:
308:
304:
Is the intention of this field to give all current titles or only the chief titles over time? -
291:
282:
250:
234:
224:
203:
193:
158:
139:
115:
112:
100:
3277:
3225:
3189:
2479:“If the field is relevant to very few articles, it should probably not be included at all”. -
1876:
1382:
2570:
and princesses, grand dukes and grand duchesses, which means no redundant royalty infoboxes.
1733:
1599:
1563:
1519:
1147:
1119:
1081:
1030:
960:
952:
897:
724:
592:
545:
515:
424:
370:
321:
271:
182:
128:
3217:
1905:
1868:
1844:
1828:
1820:
1453:
1433:
1412:
1372:
The link has been criticised because it doesn't link to the right place. For example at the
1268:
873:
473:
469:
409:
2986:
2709:
might not be possible. Deb's preference, on the other hand, does easily fit every article.
2943:
2277:
I really don't think you need different infoboxes for different countries. Please compare
2225:
if you put all the different options into one box you would have one thats it dunnoh 16x!
1848:
992:
812:
699:
1142:
Length is what is wrong – it's preferred that each datum takes one line and one only...
682:
Of course it should. It is widely accepted and used in infoboxes for politicians (i.e.
246:
name further down in the infobox. The "Princess Michael" sort will be tricky, though. -
3326:
3254:
3141:
3108:
3089:
3034:
3005:
2970:
2832:
2805:
2739:
2655:
2571:
2536:
2506:
2450:
2426:
2382:
2345:
2329:
2313:
2290:
2226:
2174:
2036:
1950:
1860:
1785:
1747:
1675:
1581:
1537:
1533:
1496:
1212:
3314:
3293:
3207:
3064:
2932:
2881:
2769:
2406:
2248:
2156:
2128:
2018:
1975:
1736:
1714:
1690:
1647:
1602:
1566:
1522:
1339:
1302:
1150:
1133:
1122:
1096:
1084:
1057:
1045:
1033:
1014:
963:
900:
727:
691:
673:
622:
595:
578:
548:
518:
427:
2782:
Do we need all the different options for the countries like Austria, Bavaria etc. -
3273:
3221:
3185:
2754:
687:
672:
And it's being increasing applied to the various infoboxes across Knowledge (XXG).
444:
399:
388:
349:
338:
305:
288:
247:
231:
221:
1452:
parameter that sets the image width. I know this because Dr. Kay just added it to
256:
Well, the first field is a short-form of their name, the second is their primary
1329:
1106:
1068:
861:
the same thing, then "issue" looks, frankly, a little bit pointlessly snobbish.
794:
793:
to members of the Royal Family besides the two members that already have it. --
775:
745:
707:
695:
404:
3056:
That was a copy-and-paste error on my part. Fixed now. Cheers for flagging it!
857:
gives no hint of that and simply calls it an "old term for offspring". If they
2958:
2804:
Austria yes, Bavaria probably not, but the principle you are suigresting yes.
2051:
1888:
1639:
988:
703:
683:
3122:
I believe everything is ready so it will be good to get it out there asap. -
453:
Bill Clinton is in fact President, and will remain so until the day he dies.
2962:
1880:
454:
3308:
3201:
3058:
2926:
2875:
2763:
2285:. What's the difference? The former has a different colour and a link to
2242:
2152:
2122:
2012:
1730:
1596:
1560:
1516:
1208:
1144:
1116:
1078:
1027:
957:
894:
721:
644:
589:
542:
512:
421:
365:
316:
266:
177:
123:
1263:
2969:, which gives the date of accession and the date of the end of reign.
1768:
Why has this field even been added? DBD 13:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
1671:
54:
20:
468:
The usage of this infobox on the pages of monarchs is confusing. The
2910:
Thanks for your work do we know when the template will be ready? -
1891:, at which point people less reasonable than me will get involved.
1709:
Could someone with the proper authority add this infobox into the
1043:
Reverse chronological order is counterintuitive and misleading. -
854:
1843:, on post-1066 English rulers. It turns up on Danish kings like
648:
121:
I see your point. Okay, we'll go with house of birth then... --
1114:
We could just leave dates off – they're in the body anyway...
168:
adequate - most of the people you have reverted are, in fact,
49:
15:
3180:
Also, further discussion on this topic should probably go to
955:). I will revert to the established usage in the mean time.
3184:
to focus on improving that and coordinating the migration.
1988:
bothered to look in the edit history, you'd've come across
2477:
Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style (infoboxes)#General advice
2362:
Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style (infoboxes)#General advice
1105:
Indeed, we can't just say married year and nothing else.--
3249:, but I need your permision to redirect this template to
2289:. That's it. Is that why we need 15 different infoboxes?
1811:, a project which claims to cover British monarchs, from
1772:
Becuase certain monarchs have signatures uploaded. See:
1989:
783:
If no one objects, I think that we should start adding
506:
It shouldn't be confusing. It's quite simple - Infobox
742:
Template talk:Birth date and age#British or U.S. order
1875:. It can only be a matter of time until we see it on
1495:
notify me, so that I don't create the same infobox).
613:, but this causes problems with the alignment of the
1290:
1282:
1274:
1262:
1248:
1219:
1203:
1179:
92:The colour is to bright imo; can you cool it down?
2169:No, Angus, I mean universal infobox for royalty -
1817:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject British Royalty#Scope
1131:There's nothing wrong with m. 1972, div. 1983. -
987:I don't like "Offspring". It sounds too bestial.
2753:Well, for anyone who's interested, I've created
2652:starting from an Anglocentric recentist position
2003:Category:Royalty and nobility infobox templates
1800:RfC: Scope and appropriateness of this template
617:parameter and it looks odd. For more info, see
1550:I've created a prototype for what I've called
892:unpleasing, but it's for a practical reason.
8:
1451:There's an optional |imgw=<something: -->
719:Ok, so shall I add that to the usage notes?
1974:works just fine on anything before George.
1841:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject English Royalty
1809:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject British Royalty
398:Queen Elizabeth has a million titles (like
1532:tried to make the name field green, as in
1192:
1176:
1670:I have a suggestion here. Take a look at
1804:!! time=20:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)}}
2965:. That's why there is a section called
2475:That’s true Surtsicna and according to
1807:Once upon a time, in a land far away -
1674:. It seems like an efficient solution.
1374:Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom
260:, and the later list is a full list of
3218:Emperor of Japan#Addressing and naming
1865:Margaret of Scotland (Queen of Norway)
1711:Royalty and nobility infobox templates
1510:I was the one who developed this from
1337:No, I haven't seen any such policy. -
1245:
3287:
7:
2757:. Please feel free to create pages
1859:. It's on non-British non-monarchs
1558:. Frank and honest input welcomed.
2312:A military section for a start...
65:
60:This template was considered for
31:
26:This template was considered for
14:
3165:Template:Infobox Japanese Royalty
1784:. That is why it has been added.
1782:Edward VIII of the United Kingdom
1472:Now that's what I call service.
402:) that aren't in the infobox. --
2287:Full style of British sovereigns
2279:Template:Infobox British Royalty
2098:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
2033:Template:Infobox British Royalty
772:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
53:
19:
3245:We'll continue this discussion
3076:Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy
1536:, but I couldn't even do that.
2283:Template:Infobox Greek Royalty
2031:(which currently redirects to
1236:Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor
1:
3335:20:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
3319:14:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
3301:14:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
3253:. Do I have your permission?
3182:Template_talk:Infobox Royalty
2979:20:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
2954:19:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
2937:08:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
2920:00:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
2886:20:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
2869:20:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
2841:18:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
2814:17:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
2792:17:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
2774:01:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
2748:16:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
2717:22:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
2664:21:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
2617:21:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
2580:20:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
2545:20:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
2515:20:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
2489:20:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
2459:20:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
2435:20:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
2414:20:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
2391:20:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
2372:20:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
2354:19:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
2338:19:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
2322:19:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
2299:18:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
2253:18:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
2235:17:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
2206:21:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
2183:18:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
2161:09:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
2133:02:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
2082:23:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
2045:21:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
2023:21:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
1983:21:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
1959:20:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
1936:20:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
1920:20:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
1857:Eustace IV, Count of Boulogne
1794:18:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
1756:21:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
1741:02:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
1723:20:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
1344:00:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
1333:10:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
1307:01:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
1155:01:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
1138:00:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
1127:19:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
1110:18:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
1101:14:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
1089:14:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
1072:08:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
1062:03:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
1050:03:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
1038:03:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
1019:02:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
821:Coordinates of resting places
749:04:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
732:22:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
711:22:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
677:16:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
448:19:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
432:22:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
414:22:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
2755:an Infobox Royalty prototype
1851:and on French magnates like
1392:11:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
626:16:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
600:13:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
582:12:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
567:22:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
553:20:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
536:16:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
523:19:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
501:14:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
458:23:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
3282:12:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
3263:11:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
3230:11:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
3212:11:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
3194:10:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
3150:21:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
3132:20:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
3117:11:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
3098:16:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
3084:09:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
3069:22:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
3051:20:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
3014:19:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
3000:19:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
1778:George III of Great Britain
866:02:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
844:13:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
698:)), and entertainers (i.e.
635:Template:Birth_date_and_age
611:class="infobox collapsible"
609:to the class so it becomes
472:page has this template but
392:15:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
382:15:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
353:15:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
348:to the appropriate pages. -
342:15:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
333:14:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
309:14:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
292:20:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
283:19:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
251:15:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
235:23:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
225:22:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
204:16:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
194:09:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
159:23:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
140:20:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
116:16:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
3351:
3288:It's BRD... not BRRRRR....
3136:Well, it's out there! See
1885:Niall of the Nine Hostages
1853:Geoffrey V, Count of Anjou
1672:es. wiki's Infobox Monarch
1224:Earl Winfield Spencer, Jr.
1094:widow isn't "married".) -
930:14:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
905:08:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
887:05:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
101:07:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
84:Surely that's enough said?
1813:George I of Great Britain
1695:12:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
1684:08:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
1659:Why not include a field "
1652:00:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
1607:00:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
1590:22:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
1571:22:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
1546:11:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
1527:23:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
1505:21:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
1482:18:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
1411:. What's "British" about
1253:
1244:
1191:
1184:
983:02:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
968:22:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
946:16:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
816:00:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
798:20:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
779:15:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
241:What was your name again?
3251:Template:Infobox Royalty
3138:Template:Infobox Royalty
2171:Template:Infobox Royalty
2029:Template:Infobox Royalty
1552:Infobox British Nobility
1512:Template:Infobox Monarch
1464:17:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
1446:20:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
1423:13:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
997:13:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
690:), sports figures (i.e.
619:Knowledge (XXG):NavFrame
529:Template:Infobox Monarch
494:Template:Infobox Monarch
478:Template:Infobox Monarch
300:List of shorthand titles
152:Template:Infobox Monarch
3033:I used the infobox for
1992:, where I changed both
1580:11th Duke of Bedford"?
1278:Teackle Wallis Warfield
1067:be married in death. --
835:as a model? Thank you.
806:Birth and death details
768:Prince William of Wales
488:have this template but
214:Prince William of Wales
1774:Elizabeth I of England
1254:Bessie Wallis Warfield
1230:Ernest Aldrich Simpson
1198:Wallis Simpson in 1970
605:want, you need to add
2115:infobox notable topic
1663:" and put it before "
1833:Edwin of Northumbria
1713:category? Thanks :)
1233:(m. 1928, div. 1937)
1227:(m. 1916, div. 1927)
841:Talk to Andy Mabbett
68:. The result of the
34:. The result of the
2961:is not the same as
1873:Margaret of Denmark
1837:Æthelwulf of Wessex
738:special:preferences
3156:Giselle of Bavaria
2086:So, you would put
1428:Default image size
1186:Duchess of Windsor
788:Birth date and age
760:Birth date and age
2759:in that directory
1928:with that scope.
1877:Gruffydd ap Cynan
1490:Infobox for peers
1389:
1298:
1297:
1286:Alice M. Montague
1258:
1257:
830:Infobox biography
412:
82:
81:
48:
47:
3342:
3039:User:DBD/TIR/Zog
2951:
2949:
2404:
2398:
2119:
2113:
2109:
2103:
2095:
2089:
2073:
2067:
2063:
2057:
1973:
1967:
1906:British monarchy
1903:
1897:
1869:Mary of Guelders
1845:Canute the Great
1829:Alfred the Great
1827:It turned up on
1821:British monarchy
1693:
1650:
1454:Edward the Elder
1434:Edward the Elder
1413:Alfred the Great
1410:
1404:
1387:
1342:
1305:
1269:House of Windsor
1246:
1196:
1177:
1136:
1099:
1060:
1048:
1017:
874:Canute the Great
834:
828:
792:
786:
764:
758:
668:
664:
662:
616:
612:
608:
474:Edward the Elder
470:Alfred the Great
408:
380:
378:
373:
368:
363:
331:
329:
324:
319:
281:
279:
274:
269:
192:
190:
185:
180:
138:
136:
131:
126:
67:
57:
50:
33:
23:
16:
3350:
3349:
3345:
3344:
3343:
3341:
3340:
3339:
3290:
2947:
2944:
2402:
2400:Infobox Monarch
2396:
2117:
2111:
2107:
2101:
2093:
2091:infobox monarch
2087:
2071:
2065:
2061:
2059:infobox monarch
2055:
1971:
1969:infobox monarch
1965:
1901:
1899:Infobox Monarch
1895:
1849:Sweyn Forkbeard
1805:
1802:
1766:
1707:
1689:
1646:
1492:
1430:
1408:
1406:infobox monarch
1402:
1399:
1370:
1338:
1301:
1215:
1199:
1132:
1095:
1056:
1044:
1013:
1009:
922:WikieWikieWikie
879:WikieWikieWikie
851:
832:
826:
823:
808:
790:
784:
762:
756:
700:Parminder Nagra
666:
660:
658:
638:
614:
610:
606:
574:
508:British Royalty
466:
440:
376:
371:
366:
364:
359:
327:
322:
317:
315:
302:
277:
272:
267:
265:
243:
217:
188:
183:
178:
176:
148:
134:
129:
124:
122:
108:
90:
85:
12:
11:
5:
3348:
3346:
3338:
3337:
3322:
3321:
3289:
3286:
3285:
3284:
3243:
3242:
3241:
3240:
3239:
3238:
3237:
3236:
3235:
3234:
3233:
3232:
3178:
3168:
3105:
3104:
3103:
3102:
3101:
3100:
3035:Zog of Albania
3031:
3030:
3029:
3028:
3027:
3026:
3025:
3024:
3023:
3022:
3021:
3020:
3019:
3018:
3017:
3016:
3002:
2983:
2982:
2981:
2897:
2896:
2895:
2894:
2893:
2892:
2891:
2890:
2889:
2888:
2850:
2849:
2848:
2847:
2846:
2845:
2844:
2843:
2821:
2820:
2819:
2818:
2817:
2816:
2797:
2796:
2795:
2794:
2777:
2776:
2736:
2735:
2734:
2733:
2732:
2731:
2730:
2729:
2728:
2727:
2726:
2725:
2724:
2723:
2722:
2721:
2720:
2719:
2711:Angus McLellan
2702:
2681:
2680:
2679:
2678:
2677:
2676:
2675:
2674:
2673:
2672:
2671:
2670:
2669:
2668:
2667:
2666:
2632:
2631:
2630:
2629:
2628:
2627:
2626:
2625:
2624:
2623:
2622:
2621:
2620:
2619:
2611:Angus McLellan
2593:
2592:
2591:
2590:
2589:
2588:
2587:
2586:
2585:
2584:
2583:
2582:
2556:
2555:
2554:
2553:
2552:
2551:
2550:
2549:
2548:
2547:
2524:
2523:
2522:
2521:
2520:
2519:
2518:
2517:
2496:
2495:
2494:
2493:
2492:
2491:
2468:
2467:
2466:
2465:
2464:
2463:
2462:
2461:
2440:
2439:
2438:
2437:
2419:
2418:
2417:
2416:
2393:
2375:
2374:
2366:Angus McLellan
2341:
2340:
2310:
2309:
2308:
2307:
2306:
2305:
2304:
2303:
2302:
2301:
2266:
2265:
2264:
2263:
2262:
2261:
2260:
2259:
2258:
2257:
2256:
2255:
2213:
2212:
2211:
2210:
2209:
2208:
2188:
2187:
2186:
2185:
2164:
2163:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2145:
2144:
2143:
2142:
2141:
2140:
2139:
2138:
2137:
2136:
2135:
2105:infobox person
2076:Angus McLellan
2069:infobox person
2047:
1941:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1914:Angus McLellan
1861:Marjorie Bruce
1803:
1801:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1765:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1706:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1668:
1657:
1643:
1635:
1631:
1620:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1534:Template:S-reg
1491:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1467:
1466:
1458:Angus McLellan
1429:
1426:
1417:Angus McLellan
1398:
1395:
1369:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1296:
1295:
1292:
1288:
1287:
1284:
1280:
1279:
1276:
1272:
1271:
1266:
1260:
1259:
1256:
1255:
1251:
1250:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1238:
1234:
1232:
1228:
1226:
1221:
1217:
1216:
1207:
1205:
1201:
1200:
1197:
1189:
1188:
1182:
1181:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1112:
1103:
1052:
1008:
1007:Marriage order
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
933:
932:
916:
915:
910:
909:
908:
907:
850:
847:
822:
819:
807:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
753:
752:
751:
734:
714:
713:
670:
669:
665:April 21, 1926
652:
651:
637:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
573:
570:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
498:Philip Stevens
465:
462:
461:
460:
439:
436:
435:
434:
395:
394:
384:
345:
344:
335:
314:The latter --
301:
298:
297:
296:
295:
294:
242:
239:
238:
237:
216:
210:
209:
208:
207:
206:
147:
144:
143:
142:
107:
104:
89:
86:
83:
80:
79:
66:2006 August 21
58:
46:
45:
32:2006 August 10
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3347:
3336:
3332:
3328:
3324:
3323:
3320:
3317:
3316:
3313:
3310:
3305:
3304:
3303:
3302:
3299:
3295:
3283:
3279:
3275:
3271:
3267:
3266:
3265:
3264:
3260:
3256:
3252:
3248:
3231:
3227:
3223:
3219:
3215:
3214:
3213:
3210:
3209:
3206:
3203:
3197:
3196:
3195:
3191:
3187:
3183:
3179:
3176:
3172:
3169:
3166:
3161:
3160:
3157:
3153:
3152:
3151:
3147:
3143:
3139:
3135:
3134:
3133:
3129:
3125:
3121:
3120:
3119:
3118:
3114:
3110:
3099:
3095:
3091:
3087:
3086:
3085:
3081:
3077:
3072:
3071:
3070:
3067:
3066:
3063:
3060:
3055:
3054:
3053:
3052:
3048:
3044:
3040:
3036:
3015:
3011:
3007:
3003:
3001:
2997:
2993:
2988:
2984:
2980:
2976:
2972:
2968:
2964:
2960:
2957:
2956:
2955:
2952:
2950:
2940:
2939:
2938:
2935:
2934:
2931:
2928:
2923:
2922:
2921:
2917:
2913:
2909:
2908:
2907:
2906:
2905:
2904:
2903:
2902:
2901:
2900:
2899:
2898:
2887:
2884:
2883:
2880:
2877:
2872:
2871:
2870:
2866:
2862:
2858:
2857:
2856:
2855:
2854:
2853:
2852:
2851:
2842:
2838:
2834:
2829:
2828:
2827:
2826:
2825:
2824:
2823:
2822:
2815:
2811:
2807:
2803:
2802:
2801:
2800:
2799:
2798:
2793:
2789:
2785:
2781:
2780:
2779:
2778:
2775:
2772:
2771:
2768:
2765:
2760:
2756:
2752:
2751:
2750:
2749:
2745:
2741:
2718:
2715:
2712:
2707:
2703:
2699:
2698:
2697:
2696:
2695:
2694:
2693:
2692:
2691:
2690:
2689:
2688:
2687:
2686:
2685:
2684:
2683:
2682:
2665:
2661:
2657:
2653:
2648:
2647:
2646:
2645:
2644:
2643:
2642:
2641:
2640:
2639:
2638:
2637:
2636:
2635:
2634:
2633:
2618:
2615:
2612:
2607:
2606:
2605:
2604:
2603:
2602:
2601:
2600:
2599:
2598:
2597:
2596:
2595:
2594:
2581:
2577:
2573:
2568:
2567:
2566:
2565:
2564:
2563:
2562:
2561:
2560:
2559:
2558:
2557:
2546:
2542:
2538:
2534:
2533:
2532:
2531:
2530:
2529:
2528:
2527:
2526:
2525:
2516:
2512:
2508:
2504:
2503:
2502:
2501:
2500:
2499:
2498:
2497:
2490:
2486:
2482:
2478:
2474:
2473:
2472:
2471:
2470:
2469:
2460:
2456:
2452:
2448:
2447:
2446:
2445:
2444:
2443:
2442:
2441:
2436:
2432:
2428:
2423:
2422:
2421:
2420:
2415:
2412:
2408:
2401:
2394:
2392:
2388:
2384:
2379:
2378:
2377:
2376:
2373:
2370:
2367:
2363:
2358:
2357:
2356:
2355:
2351:
2347:
2339:
2335:
2331:
2326:
2325:
2324:
2323:
2319:
2315:
2300:
2296:
2292:
2288:
2284:
2280:
2276:
2275:
2274:
2273:
2272:
2271:
2270:
2269:
2268:
2267:
2254:
2251:
2250:
2247:
2244:
2238:
2237:
2236:
2232:
2228:
2223:
2222:
2221:
2220:
2219:
2218:
2217:
2216:
2215:
2214:
2207:
2203:
2199:
2194:
2193:
2192:
2191:
2190:
2189:
2184:
2180:
2176:
2172:
2168:
2167:
2166:
2165:
2162:
2158:
2154:
2150:
2149:
2134:
2131:
2130:
2127:
2124:
2116:
2106:
2100:? Or perhaps
2099:
2092:
2085:
2084:
2083:
2080:
2077:
2070:
2060:
2053:
2048:
2046:
2042:
2038:
2034:
2030:
2026:
2025:
2024:
2021:
2020:
2017:
2014:
2008:
2004:
1999:
1995:
1991:
1986:
1985:
1984:
1981:
1977:
1970:
1962:
1961:
1960:
1956:
1952:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1937:
1934:
1931:
1930:Mike Christie
1926:
1925:
1924:
1923:
1922:
1921:
1918:
1915:
1910:
1909:information.
1907:
1900:
1892:
1890:
1886:
1882:
1878:
1874:
1870:
1866:
1862:
1858:
1854:
1850:
1846:
1842:
1838:
1834:
1830:
1825:
1822:
1818:
1815:onwards, see
1814:
1810:
1799:
1795:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1779:
1775:
1771:
1770:
1769:
1763:
1757:
1753:
1749:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1739:
1738:
1735:
1732:
1727:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1720:
1716:
1712:
1704:
1696:
1692:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1681:
1677:
1673:
1669:
1666:
1662:
1658:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1649:
1644:
1641:
1636:
1632:
1629:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1608:
1605:
1604:
1601:
1598:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1587:
1583:
1579:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1569:
1568:
1565:
1562:
1557:
1556:some examples
1553:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1543:
1539:
1535:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1525:
1524:
1521:
1518:
1513:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1489:
1483:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1465:
1462:
1459:
1455:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1427:
1425:
1424:
1421:
1418:
1414:
1407:
1396:
1394:
1393:
1390:
1384:
1379:
1378:Mike Christie
1375:
1368:"Detail" link
1367:
1345:
1341:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1331:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1304:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1270:
1267:
1265:
1261:
1252:
1247:
1243:
1237:
1231:
1225:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1195:
1190:
1187:
1183:
1178:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1153:
1152:
1149:
1146:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1135:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1125:
1124:
1121:
1118:
1113:
1111:
1108:
1104:
1102:
1098:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1087:
1086:
1083:
1080:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1070:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1059:
1053:
1051:
1047:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1036:
1035:
1032:
1029:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1016:
1006:
998:
994:
990:
986:
985:
984:
980:
976:
975:76.254.79.159
971:
970:
969:
966:
965:
962:
959:
954:
950:
949:
948:
947:
943:
939:
938:76.254.79.159
931:
927:
923:
918:
917:
912:
911:
906:
903:
902:
899:
896:
890:
889:
888:
884:
880:
875:
870:
869:
868:
867:
864:
863:86.136.255.33
860:
856:
848:
846:
845:
842:
838:
831:
820:
818:
817:
814:
805:
799:
796:
789:
782:
781:
780:
777:
773:
769:
761:
755:I see that a
754:
750:
747:
743:
739:
735:
733:
730:
729:
726:
723:
718:
717:
716:
715:
712:
709:
705:
701:
697:
693:
692:David Beckham
689:
685:
681:
680:
679:
678:
675:
657:
656:
655:
650:
646:
643:
642:
641:
636:
633:
627:
624:
620:
603:
602:
601:
598:
597:
594:
591:
586:
585:
584:
583:
580:
571:
569:
568:
565:
554:
551:
550:
547:
544:
539:
538:
537:
534:
530:
526:
525:
524:
521:
520:
517:
514:
509:
505:
504:
503:
502:
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
479:
475:
471:
463:
459:
456:
452:
451:
450:
449:
446:
437:
433:
430:
429:
426:
423:
418:
417:
416:
415:
411:
407:
406:
401:
393:
390:
385:
383:
379:
374:
369:
362:
357:
356:
355:
354:
351:
343:
340:
336:
334:
330:
325:
320:
313:
312:
311:
310:
307:
299:
293:
290:
286:
285:
284:
280:
275:
270:
263:
259:
255:
254:
253:
252:
249:
240:
236:
233:
229:
228:
227:
226:
223:
215:
211:
205:
202:
197:
196:
195:
191:
186:
181:
174:
171:
167:
163:
162:
161:
160:
157:
153:
145:
141:
137:
132:
127:
120:
119:
118:
117:
114:
105:
103:
102:
99:
95:
87:
77:
73:
72:
63:
59:
56:
52:
51:
43:
39:
38:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
3307:
3291:
3244:
3200:
3106:
3057:
3032:
2966:
2945:
2925:
2874:
2762:
2737:
2705:
2651:
2342:
2311:
2241:
2121:
2011:
2006:
1997:
1993:
1911:
1893:
1826:
1806:
1767:
1729:
1710:
1708:
1664:
1660:
1627:
1619:
1595:
1577:
1559:
1554:and set out
1515:
1493:
1431:
1400:
1383:PeterSymonds
1371:
1299:
1185:
1143:
1115:
1077:
1026:
1010:
956:
934:
893:
858:
852:
849:Why "Issue"?
837:Andy Mabbett
824:
809:
720:
688:Gordon Brown
671:
653:
639:
588:
575:
561:
541:
511:
507:
467:
441:
420:
403:
400:Lord of Mann
396:
360:
346:
303:
261:
257:
244:
218:
172:
169:
165:
149:
109:
91:
75:
69:
41:
35:
2052:ahnentafels
1397:Scope creep
696:Ben Alnwick
607:collapsible
482:Elizabeth I
146:Superfluous
3268:Continued
2959:Coronation
1889:Brian Boru
1867:. It's on
1640:Baron Grey
1594:Addressed
1291:Occupation
813:Carcharoth
704:Hugh Grant
684:Tony Blair
661:1926-04-21
615:{{{name}}}
71:discussion
37:discussion
3327:The Quill
3255:Surtsicna
3142:Surtsicna
3109:Surtsicna
3090:Surtsicna
3006:Surtsicna
2971:Surtsicna
2963:accession
2833:Surtsicna
2806:The Quill
2740:The Quill
2656:Surtsicna
2572:Surtsicna
2537:The Quill
2507:Surtsicna
2451:The Quill
2427:Surtsicna
2383:The Quill
2346:The Quill
2330:Surtsicna
2314:The Quill
2291:Surtsicna
2227:The Quill
2175:Surtsicna
2037:Surtsicna
1990:this edit
1951:The Quill
1881:Hywel Dda
1786:The Quill
1764:Signature
1748:Surtsicna
1676:Surtsicna
1582:Surtsicna
1538:Surtsicna
1497:Surtsicna
1294:Socialite
1239:(m. 1937)
654:to this:
486:Charles I
3294:Ealdgyth
2946:Monsieur
2407:Ealdgyth
1976:Ealdgyth
1715:Morhange
1705:Category
1691:Nunh-huh
1665:Duration
1661:Creation
1648:Nunh-huh
1340:Nunh-huh
1303:Nunh-huh
1209:Frogmore
1134:Nunh-huh
1097:Nunh-huh
1058:Nunh-huh
1046:Nunh-huh
1015:Nunh-huh
674:Tabercil
667:(age 98)
645:April 21
579:Berks105
62:deletion
28:deletion
3274:Orpheus
3222:Orpheus
3186:Orpheus
1630:a peer.
1578:Heir to
1474:Ford MF
1438:Ford MF
1213:Windsor
953:WP:BROY
490:James I
445:Acjelen
389:Acjelen
350:Acjelen
339:Acjelen
306:Acjelen
289:Acjelen
248:Acjelen
232:Acjelen
222:Acjelen
173:Monarch
113:Charles
76:to keep
42:to keep
3171:Before
3124:dwc lr
3043:dwc lr
2992:dwc lr
2987:WP:IBX
2912:dwc lr
2861:dwc lr
2784:dwc lr
2714:(Talk)
2706:Hello!
2614:(Talk)
2481:dwc lr
2369:(Talk)
2198:dwc lr
2079:(Talk)
1994:Titles
1933:(talk)
1917:(Talk)
1780:, and
1728:Done.
1628:per se
1461:(Talk)
1420:(Talk)
1330:UpDown
1283:Mother
1275:Father
1220:Spouse
1204:Burial
1180:Wallis
1107:UpDown
1069:UpDown
876:): -->
795:rogerd
776:rogerd
746:rogerd
708:rogerd
706:)) --
623:mattbr
572:"Hide"
438:Spouse
410:(Talk)
405:JW1805
98:(Talk)
88:Colour
3175:after
2967:reign
1998:Issue
1376:FAC,
1264:House
1249:Names
989:DrKay
855:issue
744:. --
464:Usage
258:title
212:from
106:House
94:Brian
74:was "
40:was "
3331:talk
3298:Talk
3278:talk
3272:...
3270:here
3259:talk
3247:here
3226:talk
3190:talk
3146:talk
3128:talk
3113:talk
3094:talk
3080:talk
3047:talk
3010:talk
2996:talk
2975:talk
2916:talk
2865:talk
2837:talk
2810:talk
2788:talk
2744:talk
2660:talk
2576:talk
2541:talk
2511:talk
2485:talk
2455:talk
2431:talk
2411:Talk
2387:talk
2350:talk
2334:talk
2318:talk
2295:talk
2281:and
2231:talk
2202:talk
2179:talk
2157:talk
2041:talk
2007:much
1996:and
1980:Talk
1955:talk
1887:and
1871:and
1863:and
1855:and
1847:and
1835:and
1831:and
1790:talk
1752:talk
1719:talk
1680:talk
1586:talk
1542:talk
1501:talk
1478:talk
1442:talk
1388:talk
993:talk
979:talk
942:talk
926:talk
883:talk
770:and
649:1926
492:has
484:and
476:has
455:Eixo
2153:Deb
2096:on
2064:or
859:are
564:Bob
533:Bob
262:all
201:Bob
170:not
166:not
156:Bob
64:on
30:on
3333:)
3296:-
3280:)
3261:)
3228:)
3192:)
3173:,
3148:)
3130:)
3115:)
3096:)
3082:)
3049:)
3012:)
2998:)
2977:)
2948:dl
2918:)
2867:)
2839:)
2812:)
2790:)
2746:)
2662:)
2578:)
2543:)
2513:)
2487:)
2457:)
2433:)
2409:-
2403:}}
2397:{{
2389:)
2352:)
2336:)
2320:)
2297:)
2233:)
2204:)
2181:)
2159:)
2120:?
2118:}}
2112:{{
2108:}}
2102:{{
2094:}}
2088:{{
2072:}}
2066:{{
2062:}}
2056:{{
2043:)
1978:-
1972:}}
1966:{{
1957:)
1902:}}
1896:{{
1883:,
1879:,
1792:)
1776:,
1754:)
1721:)
1682:)
1667:"?
1588:)
1544:)
1503:)
1480:)
1456:!
1444:)
1409:}}
1403:{{
1385:|
1300:-
1211:,
995:)
981:)
944:)
928:)
885:)
839:|
833:}}
827:{{
791:}}
785:{{
774:--
763:}}
757:{{
702:,
694:,
686:,
663:)
647:,
577:--
480:.
361://
96:|
78:".
44:".
3329:(
3315:D
3312:B
3309:D
3276:(
3257:(
3224:(
3208:D
3205:B
3202:D
3188:(
3177:.
3144:(
3126:(
3111:(
3092:(
3078:(
3065:D
3062:B
3059:D
3045:(
3037:(
3008:(
2994:(
2973:(
2933:D
2930:B
2927:D
2914:(
2882:D
2879:B
2876:D
2863:(
2835:(
2808:(
2786:(
2770:D
2767:B
2764:D
2742:(
2658:(
2574:(
2539:(
2509:(
2483:(
2453:(
2429:(
2385:(
2348:(
2332:(
2316:(
2293:(
2249:D
2246:B
2243:D
2229:(
2200:(
2177:(
2155:(
2129:D
2126:B
2123:D
2039:(
2019:D
2016:B
2013:D
1953:(
1788:(
1750:(
1737:D
1734:B
1731:D
1717:(
1678:(
1642:.
1603:D
1600:B
1597:D
1584:(
1576:"
1567:D
1564:B
1561:D
1540:(
1523:D
1520:B
1517:D
1499:(
1476:(
1440:(
1151:D
1148:B
1145:D
1123:D
1120:B
1117:D
1085:D
1082:B
1079:D
1034:D
1031:B
1028:D
991:(
977:(
964:D
961:B
958:D
940:(
924:(
901:D
898:B
895:D
881:(
728:D
725:B
722:D
659:(
596:D
593:B
590:D
549:D
546:B
543:D
519:D
516:B
513:D
443:-
428:D
425:B
422:D
387:-
377:D
372:B
367:D
328:D
323:B
318:D
278:D
273:B
268:D
189:D
184:B
179:D
135:D
130:B
125:D
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
