Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject British Royalty/Archive 3

663:

Severn" (just as the eldest son of an ordinary Earl is "John William Smith, Esquire, commonly called Viscount London"). There has to be a real name before the "commonly called" styling of the eldest son of an Earl. If this real name is not his officially held but unused Royal style, then what is? Surely no one will argue he's actually "James Alexander Philip Theo Mountbatten-Windsor, Esquire, styled Viscount Severn"? That can't be right — legal names always use the highest style, even if the person concerned never uses it. The enormous confusion here seems in some part to be due to a failure to distinguish between substantive and courtesy styles: a Royal style is perhaps unique in being the only substantive style that does not derive from holding a substantive title; it is not of the same type as "Lord John Smith" or "Viscount Linley". So it's not a case of choosing which style to apply to someone, but of whether the courtesy style of the child of a peer is used instead of the substantive (but non-peerage-related) style of a relative of the Sovereign. Normally, obviously, it isn't, but here it has been stated that it will be. That is the limit of the effect of the press release, and that is all we can say it does: someone who is in fact an HRH Prince is styled by a courtesy peerage. Secondly, the title of the new article: I have to say I'm baffled by the current title. Legally he's HRH Prince James of Wessex. Where he needs to use a surname, though he doesn't have one, he will use "Mountbatten-Windsor". He is styled by courtesy Viscount Severn. He should be referred to as "the Viscount Severn" or "Lord Severn" (or possibly "James Severn"). Given this, I have no idea where plain "Windsor" comes from: it's an aspect of his sister's style, not his. He should be at

520:

whereas any title bestowed as the child of an earl can only be a courtesy title. Whatever the Queen or her family's personal wishes without a change in the law those children are royal princes and princesses. However if they wish to be referred to as Lord and lady then we can extend to them the courtesy of following their wishes and referring to them by their courtesy titles. The problem that has not been thought through will be what happens when a second son is born will he be a mere Honourable? Will Wessex be bumped up to the rank of Marquess or Duke to avoid that? For the time being I think we should follow the lead of the court circular and the British press. The Royal title I am watching is Duchess of Cornwall. In modern times the heir to the Prince of Wales has become the Duke of Cornwall on his marriage so will Prince William he be given another title (the Royal Dukedoms not in use are considered unlucky or have nasty connotations) and anyway it should be one of his father's secondary titles (Duke of Rothesay is mandated to Scotland) so will that be the perfect opportunity to bump Camilla up to "Princess of Wales"? Watch this space.

2282:. Instead of being the arms of the United Kingdom with an inescutcheon of Saxony, the arms were Saxony with an inescutcheon of the United Kingdom. The inescutcheon, I believe, denotes previous ancestry. The members of the main line of the British Royal Family were British princes of Saxon origin (inescutcheon of Saxony). When a British prince reigned in Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, his family technically became Saxon princes of British origin (reversed, so an inescutcheon of the United Kingdom). Since nearer sovereign status is more important in a family than remoter descent, we should change the arms of these princesses to those of the family in Germany. We need to stop being Anglocentric. 2708:. However, there is no substantial proof either way, as Deb said. Also, without that proof, moving the pages could cause confusion. Considering that we're just considering a couple of generations difference, why not leave the pages as they are? Even if they didn't actually use the suffix (and there's no proof yet that they didn't), some standardisation of the post-1714 styles is necessary, especially when there's such a short gap between George II's generation and George III's generation, when the style actually appears. Those are just my thoughts anyway, and I agree with Deb that there needs to be solid evidence, not just lack of evidence. 1653:

the children of George II. I am 99% certain that this styling came in with the Hanoverians, because the only previous instance of a Prince of Wales who was married with children was the Black Prince in the 14th century. The reason we don't hear the "of Wales" often is that these children, when they grew up, were normally given additional titles - or, if they lived until their parent ascended the throne, they then became "Prince/Princess X of Great Britain". It's only the ones, like Caroline Matilda, whose parents who never got to the throne, or those who died while their father was still Prince of Wales, that need to be considered.

701:

is constantly called, becomes as much and as effectively his name as if he had obtained an Act of Parliament to confer it upon him". Of course it is advisable to possess some proof of the change, such as a deed-poll, royal licence or act of parliament, but provided you are known by the name that name becomes your legal name. If you are known to different groups of people by different names then you have two or more legal names. If the Wessex children are known, as they are, by courtesy names, then those are their legal names. That they have a right to a higher title would normally be expressed by putting, for example, "

3004:

Imperial and Royal Highnesses. That is not to say that contemporary practice in Belgium would have applied in 19th-century Germany. My own feeling would be that, as Alfred is far better known as Duke of Edinburgh, which is how he spent most of his public life, than for his seven years as Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, in the absence of evidence of contemporary usage the titles of his children should be left as "of Edinburgh", though the addition as at present of "and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" will do no harm. It is certainly not incorrect, as they were that and had been from birth.

1741:

question are a) children of George II who died after 1714 but before 1727; and b) children of Frederick, Prince of Wales. It is up to those who are in favor of use of "Prince/ss X of Wales" for these people to provide some evidence of it - preferably evidence that it was a contemporary usage. In terms of Prince George William as Duke of Gloucester, that sounds wrong to me - my understanding was that it was his older brother Frederick who was called "Duke of Gloucester" until 1726, when he was created Duke of Edinburgh.

1809:, for one reason or another, not to use a style that was coming into use. I would guess that the reason it became popular in Charlotte's case was that she was George IV's only legitimate heir, and people may have been unconsciously anticipating the day when she would be (in effect) heir apparent, ie. thinking that calling her "Princess Charlotte of Wales" was a bit like calling her "Prince of Wales". There has been a bit of an issue about what to call female heirs all through history. 2994:

brought the inferior designation "Highness" it was not used, being shadowed as it were by the superior "Royal Highness", and because a title from a kingdom took precedence to one from a duchy. I'm not sure that this situation would have changed because their father became actual Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. I am sure that they would have continued to use the designation "Royal Highness" in any case, apart from Victoria Melita who became an Imperial Highness upon second marriage.

499:

continue to show their legal "royal" names italicized below their bolded aristocratic names. Hopefully this matter will be a non-issue if and when the Earl and Countess of Wessex are created Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh as it is thought will likely happen following the current Duke's death. We could assume that if the Dukedom is bestowed upon the Earl, that his children (paternal grandchildren of a monarch) would be referred to by their royal names. (Wishful thinking?) --

1660:, which is normally a very reliable source, Prince George William is sometimes referred to as "the Duke of Gloucester", which presumably means that it was the intention to invest him with this title - but it never happened. Therefore it is correct to refer to him as "Prince George William of Wales". It would not be correct to refer to him as Prince George William of Great Britain, since this style is reserved for the children of a monarch, which he was not. 3056:). I have reverted a few that were on my Mediæval watchlist, but don't want to if they need to be there. It does not seem to be necessary, as in most cases the actual length of the reign is mentioned in the text (and, if not, the infobox already has the dates), and it does not, at a quick look, appear in the articles of other (non-British) monarchs. Is this something needed/wanted? My personal opinion is that it is needless and ugly, but i bow to 31: 473:

word law. Her Majesty has merely chosen to abide by the parents' wishes, that the style used for the children in press releases is their aristocratic, rather than royal style. As I said, I believe that both styles, the royal and the aristocratic, are legal and correct. So it is a choice for Knowledge (XXG) to use the royal or the aristocratic. I personally prefer to use the aristocratic style because that is the parents' wishes.

3444:

formalised in Britain until the eighteenth century (before that, daughters were called "the Lady Elizabeth", etc). Because of this, Category:English princes would be largely restricted to Princes of Wales, Caetgory:English princesses would be largely restricted to Princesses Royal and Category:Scottish princes would be solely restricted to Scottish heirs-apparent, who were the only people to bear the title

3807: 595:

died then Prince Harry) will automatically become Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay etc on his fathers accession to the throne but will have to wait to be created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester. If the Queen does bestow a title on William when he marries I personally imagine she will create a brand new dukedom or possibly an earldom like she did for Edward.

276:, which I hardly see as an authority. The press release, omitting the mentioned of HRH, is clearly not meant to be legally binding. I believe one interview with Sophie Wessex had her stating they would be legally Prince/ss , and that they could use them if they wish(interview before 2004), but I cannot find the link (I believe it used to be via here 3341:, and to have monarchs but not their families within the scope is wrong. It's great that there's a project for British Royalty (and Canadian, Australian, etc; I don't want to get into a debate about that), but the scope has been over-extended. I hate these petty debates, and generally advise people to forget about them, but there are issues: 1215:, about the necessity of collapsing the Ancestry template. The code used for the collapse doesn't work in all browsers and skins. Also, the British princesses template could be confusing to people not familiar with royal ancestry -- as Doc glasgow has stated, 11th generation of what? Is there any way of making this clearer? Thanks, 269:

not, she needs to back it up with legal letters patent, not press releases), are "The Queen has also decided, with the agreement of The Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones, that any children they might have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl".

429:

mine, who is the eldest son of a hereditary Earl, is entitled to be styled as a courtesy Viscount, but does not ever use the title. The press release amounts to a statement by the Palace, on Louise's behalf, that she will not use the full title to which she is entitled. It does not negate the legal existence of that title.

3731: 4075:. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Knowledge (XXG) 1.0 Editorial team, 565:, instead of engaging in theoretical discussions (in the articles, that is). I still believe, however, and I hope that I am not playing with semantics here, that Lady Louise (who is likely to find out about this discussion within the next twenty years and either marvel at it or burst into laughter) is 1007:

I suppose because it makes it easier for people not fully familiar with the system to categorise them (it's just a question of moving the last bit to the front — "John Smith, 1st Duke of London" becomes "London, John Smith, 1st Duke of", in the same way that "John Smith" becomes "Smith, John"). If we

443:

It might be valuable for one of us to e-mail the Lord Chamberlain (or another officer of the Royal Household) and ask for a statement of the formal position on the issue; however, as we are bound by policy to use published secondary sources in writing our articles, we must still discuss both sides of

374:

princes begins (frankly) to look like soapboxing — like we here in the Knowledge (XXG) are telling the palace what to do. On the other hand, while the question of whether Buckingham Palace press releases can have as much validity as letters patent may be an interesting one, raising it in our articles

3741:

developed it. I've come up with something new.. what does everyone think? It may need a little work to deal with the negative space, but it hits on the one symbol (St Edward's Crown) that fits the entire period we're dealing with, as well as the Union Jack which is instantly recognizable as British

2729:

Amelia I'm happy with as long as there is no disambiguation issue, but I'm still concerned about "poor Fred"'s children. Like DBD, I can't find any evidence of them having used the "of Wales" suffix. On the other hand, I am unconvinced that they should be "of Great Britain". Maybe we could have a

935:

I am torn. I like it, and it gives emphasis to the surname, which is the subject's legal name, as well as includes all the elements of the title in an order that makes sense. However, if you put the words in order (move the first word to the end), you end up with "James, Viscount Severn, Windsor"; I

646:

Patricia Ramsay. She legally remained an HRH with the style Princess, but was not often referred to by that after the agreement took place (following her marriage to a commoner). I believe that the title the Wessex children will be officially known as (ie. Lady Louise and Lord Severn) should be used

440:. Lady Louise Windsor is the name under which she is most commonly known, and the article should reflect that. As a neutral encyclopedia, we should use the most commonly-used style in the lead but should also mention, with full secondary sourcing, the views of legal scholars as to the correct title. 237:

Now, the issue of Lady Louise's reputed legal status as a princess has been debated back and forth since her parents' marriage — I do not intend to establish a definitive answer, or even to try — I simply intend to establish that, in her article (and also Severn's), both sourced interpretations (and

4100:

If you notice, the only ones with SHSG in are Phil's descendants, because that's apparently their historically accurate patrilineal house. It's definitely true they're all House of Windsor, but whether in their case HoW is a "cadet branch" of SHSG is up for grabs indeed. I don't have a problem with

2993:

It seems arguable to me that "of Edinburgh" was the higher style, since it brought the designation "Royal Highness". The Princesses had always in any case been Princesses of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, as all the male-line descendants of the Prince Consort were, or Princes of course. However, since that

1990:

any style they held — all of the people we're talking about were Princes/ses of GB, so can reasonably be placed at such a page. I think we're all agreed that, whether or not we utilise the current practice (of Wales) in page-titles, any reference pre-Charlotte should be eradicated from the text, as

1972:

It's not "reserved" for the children of sovereigns. The male-line grandchildren are just as entitled to it. Styles and titles are different... The Beatrice example is a bad one because I imagine people were confusing the styling of a British princess (The Princess Beatrice) with her title (Princess

1851:

precedent, I pose the consideration that it might be advisable to make use of it in the case of Prince George William, if only for logical reasons. He was issue of a Prince of Wales, and in the absence of another title to distinguish him from the plethora of Prince George's and Prince William's of

1812:

Having said that, I would like to know, for my own peace of mind, when the usage officially - or indeed unofficially - came in, and I would suggest that the only thing to do is to continue to look at primary sources until either I can find evidence of "of Wales" being used contemporaneously or look

1541:

Assuming the London Gazette is accurate, the territorial designation "of Wales" did not exist, and therefore they should be styled in the same way as children of Sovereigns (ie. the default "of Great Britain"). Personally though it doesn't strike me as a big deal. They were daughters of a Prince of

700:

All you good people seem to have overlooked the simple fact that in England the law is that anybody may change his or her name without any formality whatsoever, and, as Lord Chief Justice Abbott said in 1822, "A name assumed by the voluntary act of a man, adopted by all who know him and by which he

519:

The problem here is the usual Buckingham Palace cock-up - think back to was the Duchess of Windsor legally not an HRH to civil weddings in Windsor Castle that did not take place and general announcements with no great thought behind them The issue here is that the HRH is a title in its own right,

4113:

I agree. Even assuming Prince Philip is still a member of SHSG, another house his descendants are in does not become a cadet branch of another House. There are not two Houses of Windsor. You cannot say that Philip's descendants are part of the House of Windsor, a cadet branch of SHSG, and that the

2942:

The only reason being that in my experience, I've always seen them referred to as X of Edinburgh, but this is probably partly because Alfred didn't become the Duke of SC and G until 1893. I agree that the higher title should be used in this case, but the common suffix concerns me ever so slightly.

2347:

Right. The closest monarch in their male-line ancestry gives them their shield and the further monarchs give their inescutcheon. For the British Royal Family proper, this was Saxony on top of the UK, for the Saxon Ducal Family at Coburg and Gotha proper, this was the UK on top of Saxony. I checked

2031:

Today, I was looking in the London Gazette archives (for whether Albert Victor was called "Duke of Clarence" or "Duke of Clarence and Avondale", apparently the latter), and it showed that the adult children of Albert Edward, Prince of Wales were styled The Prince/ss even during their grandmother's

1652:

I've only just realised that this discussion is going on in two separate places, so I'll duplicate my comments from the talk page for Prince George William. (Deb): The title "Prince/Princess X of Wales" has been used for the children of Princes and Princesses of Wales since at least as far back as

560:

I think I am forgetting something here... Ah, yes, my opinion on the issue. I support a hybrid of the two options: the addition of the proposed clarification, but with the original phrasing "is thus entitled" for the first line. For one thing, this version of the paragraph is clearer as far as the

472:

To my mind, both styles for Lady Louise and Viscount Severn are legal and correct. They are both entitled to HRH Prince/Princess as per Letter Patent 1917. They are also entitled and are legally Lady and Viscount, as per being the children of The Earl of Wessex. The Queen is not trying to make her

428:

are a legally binding form of proclamation in UK law (they are used to create peerages, for example). In contrast, a Buckingham Palace press release is just that: a press release, and has no formal authority. The holder of a title is not required to use that title; for instance, an acquaintance of

272:

If we take this as law, Louise is a Princess but not an HRH, as Prince/ss is not mentioned, only the HRH is. So, if you believe the Press Release is law, then you must believe that Louise is legally Princess Louise of Wessex, without the HRH. The only source that in my eyes seems to suggest that a

193:

press release, announced that (in hopes of avoiding some of the burdens associated with royal titles) their children would be styled as the children of an earl rather than as princes or princesses. There are conflicting interpretations of the legal ramifications of the Queen's press release — some

3003:

There is a contemporary example with Prince Lorenz of Belgium. He is always so known, but with the designation Imperial and Royal Highness rather than the standard Royal Highness, since he is also an Archduke of Austria-Este. The same applies to his children, Princes and Princesses of Belgium but

976:

They have always been sorted as "London, John Smith, 1st Duke of" (which is, I believe, how peers are normally sorted in reference works). Sorting them by surname is right out — in most cases, especially with historical peers, they are simply never referred to by surname. Who on Earth is going to

662:

I've been asked to contribute here, so here are my thoughts. Firstly, I agree completely that the press release only describes how the Wessex children are to be known, not what they actually are. Legally speaking, Lord Severn is "His Royal Highness Prince James of Wessex, commonly called Viscount

594:

Re - gianos comment - Prince William can not become Duke of Cornwall when he marries unless the Queen has already died as the dukedom plus Prince Charles's Scottish titles are restricted to the eldest son (not nescerrially the heir to the throne) of the monarch. Prince william (or if William has

378:

My point of view is that there's nothing wrong or shameful in finessing the matter. There's nothing wrong in just stating the facts and letting the reader draw his/her own conclusion if he/she wishes. "The letters patent say this; the palace treats it this way; if we wanted to address the kids as

268:

Well, my views on this are well known. The Legal Letters Patent in 1917 state that she is a HRH & a Princess. No legal letters have been issued to contradict this. The words of the Press Release, which some claim is law (which in my eyes is suggesting that the Queen's word alone is law, it is

3423:

were princesses by marriage, but despite being British none these people is listed. The distinction needs to be made between "Princ(ess)es of Great Britain/the United Kingdom" and other British people who held/hold princely titles and can therefore be described legitimately as British princes or

3075:

It seems to have been done in good faith but I think it is unnecessary, especially since two months (in the case of Edward V) is ambiguous (is it day of month to day of month, 8 weeks, 60 days or 21 days?) and it is inexact anyway... it is 78 days which is halfway between two and three months. I

2231:

How could George V's removal of the inescutcheon of Saxony have any effect on his relations who resided in Germany (the princes and princesses of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha who remained as such). Those arms became arms of the Ducal Family of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha the moment that those family members

2052:

Where do the conventions come from? I noticed that when I use the LG for articles I write, the definite article is "incorrectly" placed before children of other royals (Her Highness The Princess Helena Victoria was one I happened to remember). Before 1917 standardisation, Queen Victoria created

2255:

It only had effect in Britain, didn't it? George had no power over Germany, so it was only his German relatives resident in Britain who were forced to get rid of their German names/arms. Those relatives who were still in Germany by 1917 were considered to be on the German side. For most of the

1740:

from the 18th century, and suggests that the "Prince/ss X of Peeragetitle" form was first used for the children of George III's brother, the Duke of Gloucester, and that "Prince/ss X of Wales" was first used for George IV's daughter Princess Charlotte. So far as I can tell, the only people in

498:

I agree with Ashley. Because it is the prerogative of the parents of the Wessex children to style them as Lady and Viscount instead of Princess and Prince, their respective Knowledge (XXG) articles should reflect this preference. I do believe, however, that their biographical infoboxes should

2155:

Very British-centric; nary a mention of the fact that the British parliament can't "abolish" the Act of Settlement without not just the consent of every other realm, but a parallel change in their constitutions as well. But, I suppose mention of Brown's supposed toying with the idea could be

3443:

need overhauling. Firstly, it is Anglo-centric to group English and British together as if that continuation were any more valid than Scottish and British. Secondly, it is anachronistic to assign the princely title to all male-line descendants of any monarch, as this practice did not become

1365:

Is there any evidence of this whatsoever? My understanding was that the first time the form "Prince N of Wales" was used was for the children of the future Edward VII. It was not even used for Princess Charlotte, much less for this guy. Can anyone provide any evidence to the contrary?

3939:

are given with a royal crown placed on the escutcheon of Hanover. I'm pretty certain this is incorrect and only the King (and possibly the heir-apparent?) used the crown, though I'm afraid I don't have any sources at hand to back this up. Also, why is this coat used as the heading for

3697:

Has the logo been vandalised (I couldn't work out how) or is it supposed to look like that. Apologies to whoever designed it, but it's not a very good. It doesn't quickly identify the subject, and it's not nice to look at. Surely a stylised crown and a flag or something woud be better.

2256:

descendants of the Prince Consort, however, he was still in charge. Obviously those in Germany chose to go the other way, so he wasn't in charge, but the order was for all the descendants of the Prince Consort which included many of his relatives residing in Britain. It's just a guess.

1557:

I think this is quite a different situation from "Mary I of Scotland." That's just a standardization, and it's not one that we've made up - you look at a list of monarchs of Scotland, and she's "Mary I". This, on the other hand, is us making up a style which wasn't actually used, by

1260:

Though I am happy to leave the decision to other editors, I ask you to consider the following. The template dropdown box is quite an unattractive addition to articles. Furthermore, it doesn't add anything to the article, especially when there's a category for such things. Thanks,

3671:

I'm not sure she would, actually. Arms granted to children of the Sovereign are not hereditary, unlike arms granted to everyone else. It's only arms granted to grandchildren of a Sovereign that are hereditary, and even that is only since a Royal Warrant of 1975 that made them

1913:

with it but I don't think it is necessary to change the title. You are right though, the article should be deleted. I've been accused of being a deletionist before though and have to err on the side of caution when considering putting otherwise non-notable infants up for Afd.

3524:

with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Knowledge (XXG) 1.0 scheme! For the

1890:

would do it. I'd also suggest that there's no particular reason to have an article about Prince George William in the first place - he died before his first birthday, and there is virtually no information in the article that couldn't just go in the articles on his parents.

647:

for their articles, with a note to say what their legal style remains. The Letters Patent step may not have been taken in case Louise and James choose to use their legal royal style when they come of age (they are obviously too young to decide for themselves at the moment).

1324:. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are 1032:, used in succession boxes. This way, succession boxes can now mention peerage creations without the need for complex HTML. Somewhat irrelevant, I know, but it has to do with the general navigation subject; article titles mention all the rest, but leave creations out.) 3128:

Since when? "For the moment, it is suggested that the initial scope of the project be limited to full members of the royal family (i.e. those having, at some point in their lives, bore the style Highness, Royal Highness, or Majesty) since the ascension of George I."

830:

Note the absence of an intermediate comma: the name and surname constitute a single entity, so none has precedence over the other. By the way, only Scottish viscounts use "of", and even amongst these there are exceptions. But I suppose you are only using this as an

3657:

Because for reasons known only to herself and her advisors, Her Majesty has not yet seen fit to issue Letters Patent granting Eugenie her own arms. That being said, I would imagine she is entitled to use the arms of her father, differenced as per convention.

165:

press release, announced that (in hopes of avoiding some of the burdens associated with royal titles) their children would be styled as the children of an earl rather than as princes or princesses. Thus, court communications never refer to her in terms of a

886:

That would be misleading, however. It would make readers assume that they are dealing with a name and surname, which, of course, would not be the case. If we were to acknowledge that courtesy peers are legally commoners, we should have to replace this with

1852:

every description, he might be called George William of Wales by today's logic and custom. Furthermore, to the eye of the average Knowledge (XXG) reader, the "of Wales" might be most explanatory as to any questions of "who" or "what" which might arise. --

557:

Indeed. That said, I believe we ought to return to the more practical aspect of this matter, which has more or less sparked this conversation: do we, or do we not support the proposed change to the article? Theoretical discussion is good, but it must lead

2032:

lifetime. Which does not conform to our style rules at all! And so the issue widens — do we correct our errors by referencing contemporary sources, or leave our fabricated rules in place, ignoring their falsity and allowing misdirection into our 'pædia?

4089:

I just noticed that the succession boxes for the Royal Family list the House of Windsor as a cadet branch of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. That is not possible; Windsor was extant before anyone from SHSG married in. This should be changed.

3284:, for example, contain excellent raw material but need wikification, inline references, and such like, and would be a great place to begin a collective article improvement drive - but to call these "British monarchs" is wrong. And to call the people in 1388:

refer to him only as "Prince George William", and those are the only issues which refer to the prince by name... I'll make edits to that effect, but surely this revelation would make the title of this page wrong — it would presumably move to either

1008:

wanted to have a completely logical system we could sort them as "London D0101" (i.e. London, Duke, 1st creation, 1st holder) (or for courtesy peers "Severn V James", since there's no numeral), but it would be entirely baffling for normal editors.

3093:. My rationale for non-inclusion is that the dates are provided; why clutter the infobox more? But if there has been discussion then a link would be helpful. Lindsay, I suggest you also take it up on the Royalty talk page (link above), as this is 366:

Both sides err in presuming that an objective reality exists, that there is a platonic ideal list of "British princes/princess" in which the children's names either are or are not inscribed. That's silly. All this is a matter of human convention.

1542:

Wales, and therefore today the accepted style would be "of Wales". I would be inclined to ignore the naming conventions of the time (eg. Mary, Queen of Scots) in favour of consistency (Mary I of Scotland). This is just my humble opinion though.

538:

Agree - this is part of an emerging trend where members of the Royal Family have decided not to use their highest style. It simply needs to be explained. As far as Knowledge (XXG) policy goes, as long as both views are sourced, it's fine. --

1039:

than to any other choice. It is suitable for substantial and courtesy peers alike. Only for princes I am unsure, but it does not appear to be relevant to this conversation—I am only mentioning it because Charles did in his introductory speech.

181:

issued in 1917 (and still remaining in force today) assign a princely status and the style of 'Royal Highness' to all male-line grandchildren of a monarch. Louise would thus be entitled to all of these, and as such would be referred to as

773:

I am inclined to sort by surname myself, but is there a policy on this or should there be one to eliminate the question of it? One thing I do think is essential though is having the title itself way at the end (for instance, someone like

153:

issued in 1917 (and still remaining in force today) assign a princely status and the style of 'Royal Highness' to all male-line grandchildren of a monarch. Louise is thus entitled to all of these, and as such would be referred to as

1238:

A discussion was held at FAC regarding this template. A discussion is now needed to establish whether there is a need to have the box in all articles, bearing in mind that there is a Category called English and British princesses.

3145:

Thank you; i was misled by the adjective, which i mistook to mean "all British" rather than "British since Hanover". Anyway, i took Peter's advice, and went to the Project Royalty page. By the way, several of those monarchs who

3810:

I quite like it, but then I tend to like iconic design elements used in new ways. DBD's other version at left, slightly modified by me (I didn't like the purple or the top & bottom, but I do like the logo otherwise).

3313:

objects to was made, may i point out that if the Project is restricted, it needs to be more clearly stated, and perhaps defined slightly differently. "British" certainly implies more than simply "since George I"; as i

1580:

I don't see any reason why we couldn't. It would just separate the children of Princes of Wales from those of Sovereigns, thus causing little confusion. We could add a note to those articles explaining why they weren't

3288:"British" is not just wrong, it's purposefully tendentious. And as I already said, to apply the above style guide would likely be impossible, even for someone as indisputably and uncontroversially "British" as King 1329: 953:

Peter, I don't believe the grade of the title should have precedence in sorting... It would be like giving precedence to the title/style of "Lord" in sorting, thereby preferring "L" to the designation of the title.

3911:

Ha! GMTA indeed. (And FSD of course...) Well.. do you think a box would be useful? I'd like to make it look less 'infoboxy' and more 'just what the layout of this section looks like', if that makes any sense?

2963:

The point is not what "seems perfectly reasonable" or "sounds right to me", but what the evidence shows. Can anybody provide evidence of what form of name is more commonly used in English-language publications?

3502: 3495: 4060:, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with 1679:. As for Caroline Matilda, she's referred to as "Princess Caroline Matilda" with no territorial designation. If the style did come with the Hanoverians, it was only popularised during Charlotte's lifetime. 1886:(George William Frederick), but "of Wales" doesn't actually disambiguate between them, since George III was the son of a prince of Wales from 1727 to 1751. If some further disambiguation is needed, then 2805: 1775:

pages, we can follow it in articles, their titles and, particularly, 'titles and styles' sections. By the way, because of the T&S sections, where we list styles from birth to death, this revolution

1735:

Deb, I agree we should avoid moves until we're clearer on this. Do you have any sources for the claim that the title was in fact used by the children of George II and Frederick? DBD has looked at the

1102:

I'd imagine we'll continue to do as you say: "London, John Smith, 1st Duke of" for substantive peers and "Birmingham, William Smith, Marquess of" for courtesy peers. (Lord Severn should be articled at

2303:

Ooh, I see, interesting. So the Princes and Princesses of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha should have a Saxon shield with an inescutcheon of the United Kingdom? Is there an image for that here? If there's not,

3790:

I don't know about anyone else, but I find the Union Flag broken up into letters absolutely eye-watering. If you were going for a flag, mightn't the Royal Standard look better (and be more fitting)?

4045:. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at 3451:

And then there are those British/English/Scottish/Irish noblemen who are formally styled Princes, i.e. Dukes (Most High, Potent and Noble Prince) and Marquesses (Most Noble and Puissant Prince)...

2278:

I found the website for the Ducal Family of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and now I am convinced the arms are wrong entirely or at least given more important than they should be. In Saxe-Coburg and Gotha,

634:

the children of an Earl. Although this hasn't happened legally (The Queen's word alone is not law, nor is a Press Release), it is agreed that this style will be used. This has happened before with

2980:

I know that it is not "Edinburgh and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha". It is not clear at best and we have the higher style (daughter of a sovereign) vs the lower style (junior member of "another" house).

3921:

Well.. seeing no objections, I'm going to go ahead and start doing this on a few articles. I'll leave the original text hidden in a comment to make reverts easier if people really hate it.

3257:

shows, it isn't reflected anywhere else. The reason I mention this is that someone has been going round articles which have nothing to do with British monarchs applying what turns out to be

3154:

Victoria and some Georges), and several don't; i haven't changed any yet (maybe i'll Be Bold in a few minutes), but probably we ought to look for a little uniformity, oughtn't we? Cheers,

4128:

Then neither can you say that the House of Romanov was a cadet branch of the House of Holstein-Gottorp, or that the House of Orange-Nassau is a cadet branch of the House of Lippe (e.g. at

3337:

In my humble opinion, it's better to limit this scope to post-1714 royalty. To call, for example, Henry VIII or Alfred the Great "British" is wrong. The first ruler of "Great Britain" was

2053:

royals "Royal Highnesses" with the style of "Prince/Princess of the United Kingdom" by letters patent. Does the allowance of the definite article exist somewhere in those letters patents?

1827:

For which I laud you — I am of the same thinking (and btw, I didn't think you were disputing me, I was just encouraging that people see for themselves rather than taking one man's word)

1698:

It was in the case of Caroline Matilda that I first came across it, actually. I'll have to look into it a bit more, but I suggest we avoid any wholesale moves until we are quite sure.

3513:. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. 2825: 4061: 3872:

with a different version of the COA infobox; this one fits better into the body of an article, I think. I'd like to start using these (to begin with) across all relevant pages under

3476: 3521: 2871: 2646: 2547:

to ascertain each one's actual contemporary style (and even name!). Having done that, it was necessary to move some pages accordingly. Some of which I couldn't move, so they went to

81: 76: 64: 59: 4067:

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at

1432:

archives shows that Princess Charlotte (daughter of the Prince Regent) is the first example of "of Wales". Before her, there are absolutely no occurrences of "Prince/ss X of Wales"

2417: 2396: 1138:

Good. The problem with such discussions is that it is often assumed that a decision has been reached without anyone saying so. Well, I suppose we no longer have this problem here.

3246:

Just the other day someone changed the scope of this project so that "it is now suggested that the scope extends to any monarch in the British isles". Really? This appears to be

194:

believe that, as an expression of the Sovereign's will, the announcement has just as much legal force as the 1917 Letters Patent, which would deny the children princely status

3479:, we at the Knowledge (XXG) 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at 3322:. I expect, however, that there has been much discussion on these points previously, and i simply raise/remind of the ambiguity as an outsider who was fooled by it. Cheers, 3258: 3480: 3318:

it misled me, and obviously, from the comments above, others have been too. Perhaps the Project could be extended back to James VI & I (for example), or renamed to

2809: 2705: 569:

to these styles, in the sense that, should the Wessex Siblings™ wish to use their princely titles in the future, they would probably be allowed to. But this is just me.

2441: 2421: 978: 4214:

on the WikiProject Council/Proposals area. This project would be a child of WikiProject British Royalty and would take a similar role as WikiProject English Royalty.

2425: 639: 2232:

started to reign in Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and I don't think George V could remove Saxon elements from the arms of Saxon princes IN Saxony and the rest of Germany.

3600: 3514: 1949:

if we move the articles, so why not just keep the articles where they are, in order to disambiguate the children of Sovereigns from those of Princes of Wales?

47: 17: 3642:

Sorry to have to discuss it here but will someone please respond to the question I had about her personal coat of arms in her article's talk section. Thanks!

2470:

Sorry I haven't replied but I have just relocated and haven't had the time. I will post a detailed response soon or in a day or so with some new revelations.

841:. May I interpret it as a sign that you have come to agree with my view, or should I take it as a sign of forgetfulness? I am not fond of unfinished business. 3220:, through which it is suggested that we remove "prince" from royals with substantive titles. The proposal was "passed" after 12 days, with the input of only 1938: 891:. This would be overlooking the courtesy title, however, which is fairly important (the naming conventions support this). That said, I should support either 2213: 1867:

This is an instance where I agree with retroactive styling. I think it makes sense for the purpose of identifying the prince with little to no ambiguity.

3254: 2829: 4211: 2684:- sorry, but I feel obliged to oppose a move unless there is actual evidence that the "of Wales" offspring were ever referred to as "of Great Britain". 1321: 3571: 3559: 2444:. You'd also need to find a reliable source for each of these to say whether the individual used the British or Saxon form of their arms (or both). 2429: 2113: 1450: 4050: 3392: 3388: 2556: 4031: 3526: 1381: 1377: 3217: 3213: 1934: 1879: 1394: 4190: 3491:

represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.

3277: 2400: 1626:

that it's a simple case of observing the contemporary reality and formulating it as a rule (i.e. children of Wales were simply "Prince/ss X"

3090: 2201: 2592: 1805:

I don't for one moment dispute that you are correct about what the London Gazette says. The question really is whether the London Gazette

1767:

too?). Beyond that, however, as many confirming alternative sources as possible are desirable — so long as we can source the 'rule' on the

1479: 1325: 1317: 3349:

is not? Why confuse things? Keep the scope as it was and remove the British Royalty templates off everybody pre-1714. That's just my 2p.

1604:

It is not our job to make consistent what was, in fact, messy. Particularly when we can find no reliable secondary sources which do so.

794:

would be the most appropriate. He is styled as a peer (regardless of his legal title) and the above style is used on most peerage pages.

3013: 2596: 2138: 1887: 1520: 1475: 1355: 2432:). Note however that there is not just one coat of arms for all Princes of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha; the British part always has a unique 4166:

There is currently a debate about how to list the dates of appointment to military ranks, honorary military positions, and orders, at

4133: 3936: 1247: 4030:

is a collection of English Knowledge (XXG) articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The

2092: 2572: 2568: 1487: 1449:

Searching further, the Gloucesters (great-grandchildren of GIIR), were the first to be "Prince/ss X of Y" (starting with William on

314:

If we're gonna say Severn & Louise are 'Prince & Princess of the UK'? then that applies to Mark & Zara Phillips aswell.

4003: 3707: 3346: 3224:

editors. I strongly encourage every one here to take part in the discussion such that a properly-agreed solution can be reached.

2584: 2560: 2538: 1414:

This would apply, as noted, to others - to the children of Frederick, Prince of Wales, and to Princess Charlotte, in particular.

1313: 3610:

will contain the first almost-500 people in the line of succession and could potentially be a featured-list candidate someday.

2600:— Contemporary sources suggest that the princess's middle name wasn't generally used, nor the territorial designation "of Wales" 2588:— Contemporary sources suggest that the princess's middle name wasn't generally used, nor the territorial designation "of Wales" 4137: 2359: 2314: 548: 119: 3391:

need to be renamed, as these articles/templates deal solely with princess and princesses who are members of the Royal Family.

2875: 2650: 2576:— Contemporary sources suggest that the prince's middle name wasn't generally used, nor the territorial designation "of Wales" 94:

I'd like some opinions on a new image layout for children and grandchildren of monarchs. The UK coat of arms would go in the

3941: 3432: 3404: 3396: 2813:— Princess Victoria Melita was the daughter of a Saxon sovereign but only a granddaughter of a British sovereign. Her nearer 1471: 732: 635: 238:

any others which come along) should be included. For those who are interested enough, the history of this dispute occurs at

3319: 4104:

It's not possible for the HoW to be a 'cadet' branch, as HoW was in existance before anyone from SHSG became part of it.

3622: 3428: 2580: 2362:)'s page and contribution history and unfortunately he is inactive. Is there a WikiProject where a request can be posted? 2217: 1483: 1293: 1144: 1075: 1046: 942: 905: 850: 577: 4046: 1256:: Removal of the template from articles, and the division of the Category: "English princesses" and "British princesses". 4167: 3440: 3400: 398: 4027: 3089:(e/c)I personally agree. I don't have monarchs watchlisted, but I don't think there has been any discussion here or at 3035:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2773:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2753:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2548: 2506:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

3699: 3408: 3384: 2833:— Princess Beatrice was the daughter of a Saxon sovereign but only a granddaughter of a British sovereign. Her nearer 2380:(outdent) No, I don't know of one. I've looked through a ton of shields but they were all made by Ipankonin it seems. 1232: 1197: 2541:. This has been closely related to the above-discussed "Prince/ss X of Wales" issue i.e. I've been searching through 3269:

in mind. I see nothing "artificial" in limiting a WikiProject on "British royalty" to British royalty as defined by

4223: 4200: 4179: 4149: 4129: 4123: 4108: 4094: 4079: 4017: 3985: 3971: 3953: 3925: 3916: 3906: 3884: 3858: 3835: 3815: 3799: 3780: 3759: 3746: 3713: 3684: 3662: 3651: 3632: 3548: 3465: 3416: 3358: 3328: 3299: 3236: 3202: 3176: 3160: 3138: 3123: 3106: 3080: 3069: 3021: 2984: 2973: 2952: 2932: 2918: 2899: 2791: 2739: 2717: 2693: 2674: 2615: 2534: 2530: 2524: 2474: 2457: 2407: 2389: 2366: 2326: 2286: 2265: 2246: 2236: 2221: 2187: 2169: 2150: 2131: 2102: 2082: 2077: 2063: 2044: 2017: 2003: 1977: 1959: 1918: 1900: 1871: 1861: 1839: 1822: 1792: 1750: 1730: 1707: 1689: 1669: 1638: 1613: 1599: 1567: 1552: 1535: 1503: 1465: 1444: 1423: 1409: 1370: 1343: 1303: 1271: 1225: 1190: 1150: 1113: 1081: 1052: 1015: 998: 988: 958: 948: 930: 911: 881: 856: 817: 804: 784: 714: 694: 674: 657: 620: 604: 583: 552: 529: 508: 488: 463: 448: 414: 387: 356: 336: 323: 309: 288: 262: 123: 99: 38: 4068: 4042: 3626: 3510: 3436: 2841:"of Edinburgh" which her father did not hold in a sovereign sense. We don't mix "real" titles with mere apanages. 2821:"of Edinburgh" which her father did not hold in a sovereign sense. We don't mix "real" titles with mere apanages. 1982:

Well, precisely, any articles at "(Prince/ss) X of Wales" before Charlotte are at a title which corresponds with

1813:

at enough sources to be fairly sure that it wasn't used. I don't think the London Gazette on its own is enough.

1491: 1320:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to 95: 3563: 3412: 3376: 3285: 3270: 2087: 1289: 1285: 1278: 1171: 1167: 1139: 1070: 1041: 937: 900: 845: 776: 611:

Also, if Prince Charles dies before the Queen, Prince William would never become Duke of Cornwall, Rothey etc.

572: 239: 3049:

It seems that over the past few days a length of reign has been added to the infobox of some or all monarchs (

899:(preferring the latter, as it is fuller and includes all the elements of the corresponding article's titles). 3876:

in order to standardize proper blazonry etc when discussing the article subject's arms. I've posted over at

3454:

I thought I'd invite discussion on this issue before charging ahead and making such widespread alterations.

3017: 4197: 3296: 1857: 1300: 484: 270: 397:

It's basically a typical 'Royal Title' dispute. Can you image how many people out there prefer the article

3353: 3171: 3133: 3101: 2947: 2712: 2384: 2321: 2260: 2175: 2157: 2109: 2058: 1954: 1725: 1684: 1594: 1547: 1266: 1220: 1103: 925: 799: 664: 652: 218: 107: 1780:

affect all Wales children pre-Charlotte, whether they held a higher title (i.e. 'The Prince/ss') or not.

1288:

is relevant to this project, you may like to know that there is a proposal that it should be merged with

4072: 3338: 3183: 1896: 1746: 1609: 1563: 1499: 1419: 1390: 1028:(Speaking about creations, you might be interested in the recent addition of a "creation" parameter for 710: 2704:

Oh, there's two discussions. :) I don't oppose the removal of their middle names, as that's a bit like

2852:

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with

2627:

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with

630:

But surely the reason for the Press Release was to inform the public that Louise and James were to be

3342: 3281: 3097:

right place but only for British royalty from 1714. The parent project deals with all royalty. Best,

2403:'s article only shows the arms of a junior British prince and not of a Saxon sovereign! Madness! ;-) 600: 274: 229: 2543: 1847:

With or without historical precedence for the "of Wales" usage, or with or without the certainty of

4219: 4175: 4145: 4105: 4091: 3981: 3967: 3949: 3922: 3913: 3881: 3854: 3832: 3812: 3795: 3756: 3743: 3680: 3659: 3647: 3461: 3276:

I would be delighted to see members of this project working on improving everything concerned with

2353: 2308: 2183: 2165: 835: 690: 544: 437: 433: 139: 115: 3831:

Love it, except (again, sorry) for the countercharging of the tagline. Should be all blue, IMHO.

4194: 3445: 3310: 3293: 3266: 2969: 2146: 1853: 1675:

Hmm, the Oxford DNB refers to Charlotte Augusta and the later Princesses of Wales with the style

1297: 525: 480: 2156:

mentioned; isn't there already a section covering the topic of proposed alterations/repeals at

4076: 3618: 3540: 3420: 3350: 3168: 3130: 3098: 3077: 2981: 2944: 2929: 2797: 2709: 2404: 2381: 2363: 2318: 2283: 2257: 2243: 2233: 2209: 2054: 1974: 1950: 1915: 1868: 1721: 1680: 1590: 1543: 1262: 1216: 1186: 1110: 1012: 995: 985: 955: 921: 814: 795: 781: 671: 648: 616: 504: 410: 352: 319: 190: 162: 4010: 3899: 3873: 3773: 3229: 3195: 3116: 2892: 2667: 2608: 2445: 2279: 2124: 2037: 1996: 1832: 1785: 1631: 1528: 1458: 1437: 1402: 874: 561:

existing situation is concerned. After all, Knowledge (XXG) is supposed to be describing the

432:

However, I would also contend that the current state of the article is fine - that is, using

255: 3891: 3380: 3262: 2787: 2520: 2453: 2433: 2108:

So, do we have mention of these articles and the alleged 'progress'? Particularly regarding

1892: 1772: 1742: 1623: 1605: 1559: 1495: 1415: 1367: 1334: 1212: 706: 305: 284: 243: 199: 167: 2097: 1755:

I strongly encourage anyone else here to check my research for themselves my searching the

4119: 4035: 3720: 685:

Keep it simple, keep in intuitive. Follow the guidelines HM set out in the Press Release.

596: 445: 384: 333: 198:

as well as in practice. Either way, court communications never refer to her in terms of a

4136:), or that the House of Nassau-Weilburg is a cadet branch of the House of Bourbon-Parma ( 3877: 3846: 834:

One one irrelevant thing, now that we meet again. You have failed to answer in our small

4210:

I just though everybody should know that WikiProject Scottish Royalty has been proposed

3076:

would revert while noting in the edit summary that you are reverting a good faith edit.

4215: 4171: 4141: 3977: 3963: 3945: 3850: 3791: 3676: 3643: 3457: 3372: 2349: 2304: 2179: 2161: 1768: 1619: 1029: 686: 540: 425: 178: 150: 111: 3959: 3673: 2437: 1589:

if it's needed, but having a standard style for all of them seems to be a good thing.

4191:

Template talk:Infobox British Royalty#RfC: Scope and appropriateness of this template

4013: 3902: 3776: 3498:, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects. 3324: 3232: 3198: 3156: 3119: 3065: 2965: 2914: 2895: 2735: 2689: 2670: 2611: 2142: 2127: 2040: 2013: 1999: 1835: 1818: 1788: 1703: 1665: 1634: 1531: 1461: 1440: 1405: 1361:

Throughout his life, he was styled His Royal Highness Prince George William of Wales.

1246:: Non-compulsory. If the template doesn't add anything to the article (it doesn't at 1178: 1035:

As far as this debate is concerned, it seems to me that we are, after all, closer to

877: 521: 459: 258: 247: 4049:. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at 2564:— Contemporary sources suggest that the princess's middle name wasn't generally used 2420:. It's reasonably easy to use Inkscape to make the Saxon version of these arms from 277: 3611: 3530: 2471: 2205: 1182: 1107: 1009: 982: 668: 612: 500: 406: 348: 315: 4057: 3869: 2489:

Ok, so they're not X-rated. But thanks for your time anyway! Keep reading then...

2529:

You may have noticed I've done a considerable amount of works on the children of

3806: 2783: 2516: 2449: 994:

Why do we include the surname them and then have it in the DEFAULTSORT as well?

301: 280: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2800:, which I shall let him explain (if they do in fact need further explanation). 2551:, where it's been suggested that a move discussion is held. So, here they are: 2424:(just enlarge the escutcheon, and shrink the large shield), for example here's 375:

looks like original research and speculation and is generally unencyclopedic.

294: 4115: 1883: 380: 329: 3999: 2008:

I thought you just agreed that we aren't agreed on that yet?...(puzzled):-)

1945:

in official documents before her marriage. We are still "making up" a style

3962:

says they didn't use the crown, and he's generally pretty well-researched.

3719: 2448:

seems only to refer to Prince Leopold and his son, and a couple of uncles.

813:

Why would his forename have precedence in sorting over his surname though?

727:

What would be the appropriate sorting for an individual titled as follows:

4064:, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. 4007: 3896: 3770: 3738: 3226: 3192: 3113: 2910: 2889: 2731: 2685: 2664: 2605: 2121: 2034: 2009: 1993: 1829: 1814: 1782: 1699: 1661: 1628: 1618:

It doesn't seem messy to me — in fact you can see from my alterations at

1525: 1455: 1434: 1399: 871: 705:

Prince or Princess of the United Kingdom", in brackets after their names.

455: 436:

as the article title, with a sourced discussion of the legal position at

252: 3111:

I'd like to note here that our scope does include pre-union monarchs...

3825: 103: 3976:

Removed the image from the D of C article and from the Teck template.

3821: 1933:

is a default style reserved for the children of Sovereigns. How would

3765: 3494:

The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of

3289: 3755:

Looking at it again, may look better as BROY instead of BRoy, thus.

3261:. Even the most cursory look tells me that this wasn't created with 3150:

fall under this project have the reign length added to the infobox (

2767:

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal.

2500:

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal.

1177:

New discussions have opened on these articles, concerning historian

133:

Okay, so it's time to hash this out once and for all. Two extracts:

4023:

Knowledge (XXG) 0.7 articles have been selected for British royalty

3998:

Oh yes, I've been away and gathered sources etc. Now, let's do the

3824:? (And, with a bit of foresight and a sprinkling of light ribbing, 1519:

remove all references to the "Prince/ss X of Wales" style prior to

3729: 3029:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.

2747:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.

106:, and the coat of arms goes below that. I've made a test page in 3742:(though, granted, not in use for the entire period we deal with) 273:

Press Release over-rules a legally issued Letters Patent is this

3730: 3046:

I hope i've come to a place that can help; forgive me if not.

735:(ignoring his princely title for the purposes of this example): 3849:

refers to WikiProject Brazil, not WikiProject British Royalty.

3595:

At the same time, articles that are smaller and easier to edit.

3509:

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at

3501:

A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as

2806:

Princess Victoria Melita of Edinburgh and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

25: 3592:

Articles that are a little harder and more confusing to edit.

370:

For us to state repeatedly and insistently that the children

1558:

anachronistically extending the current styling backwards.

328:

Huh? Not according to the 1917 letters patent, they aren't.

4185:

RfC: Scope and appropriateness of British Royalty template

2442:

commons:Category:Royal coats of arms of the United Kingdom

2200:

Just to inform everyone that a discussion is taking place

4114:

Queen and her cousins are part of the House of Windsor. -

379:

princes under the letters patent here's how we'd do it."

343:

Oops, my blunder. The Phillips children, are the Queen's

296:

listed as "temporarily unavailable". It had a newspaper,

2826:

Princess Beatrice of Edinburgh and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

3315: 3306: 3259:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject British Royalty/Style guide

3250: 3247: 3212:

Dear all, there is a discussion currently occurring at

3053: 1515:

Now, my thought is that we should move the above pages

1208: 1204: 293:

Further to that, the link I can't find is the one here

752:

And, pretending for a second that there is a Viscount

189:. However, when her parents married, the Queen, via a 161:. However, when her parents married, the Queen, via a 4170:. At this point, other input would be appreciated. -- 2874:, please explain your reasons, taking into account 2649:, please explain your reasons, taking into account 1941:that the suffix was "made up" because she was only 571:I have made this more complicated, have I not? :-/ 3517:is already finding and listing C-Class articles. 2399:. Let's see how it goes. Interesting to note that 1888:Prince George William of Great Britain (1717-1718) 861:How's about we list the two most important parts: 3890:Interesting, because I created an idea ages ago: 3864:Standardizing blazons & arms in BRoy articles 2810:Princess Victoria Melita of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha 2706:Princess Victoria Alexandra of the United Kingdom 2072:New crop of Act of Succession alteration articles 1294:Talk:List of British monarchs#Merge monarch lists 2436:to distinguish it from the arms of the monarch ( 2426:Image:Alfred Duke of Saxe-Coburg Arms-Saxony.svg 1937:be any more appropriate? It was thrashed out at 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject British Royalty 4036:automated selection of articles for Version 0.7 3292:. Perhaps some debate would be in order here? 1494:, probably to "Prince/ss X of Great Britain". 729:Forename Surname, Title (of) Place/Designation 681:"But Ma'am, what about the Letters Patent?!?!" 3554:Talk:Line of succession to the British throne 219:Royal Styles and Titles – 1917 Letters Patent 8: 3737:It's supposed to look like that. I believe 1939:Talk:Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom 4058:list of selected articles with cleanup tags 4051:Knowledge (XXG):Release Version Nominations 3960:François Velde's page on British Royal arms 2204:about the capitalisation of 'The Queen'. -- 1106:and indexed as "Severn, James, Viscount".) 936:do not believe this is supposed to happen. 4032:Knowledge (XXG):Version 1.0 Editorial Team 3255:Category:FA-Class British royalty articles 2872:polling is not a substitute for discussion 2830:Princess Beatrice of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha 2647:polling is not a substitute for discussion 2440:). I count about 20 such coats of arms in 454:I'd agree that the present title is okay. 4101:it... DBD 09:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC) 2837:as the daughter of a sovereign masks the 2817:as the daughter of a sovereign masks the 2430:Image:Alfred Duke of Saxe-Coburg Arms.svg 3572:Line of succession to the British throne 3560:Line of succession to the British throne 3091:Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Royalty 2114:Line of succession to the British throne 1397:(which are both redirects to this page) 300:I believe, from Sophie regarding this.-- 4041:We would like to ask you to review the 3894:. Coincidences eh? Or great minds etc! 3471:Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme 3433:Category:English and British princesses 3393:John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough 3389:Template:British princesses by marriage 2730:fuller explanation of that preference. 2557:Princess Amelia Sophia of Great Britain 1882:? The only possible ambiguity is with 208: 1935:Prince George William of Great Britain 1880:Prince George William of Great Britain 1395:Prince George William of Great Britain 720:DEFAULTSORT for peers, courtesy peers? 642:, who privately wished to be known as 174:And the same text, as I would have it: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3828:!) DBD 00:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC) 3608:List of Descendants of Queen Victoria 3587:List of Descendants of Queen Victoria 3278:List of monarchs in the British Isles 3214:Naming conventions (names and titles) 3167:Definitely. I'll help take them out. 2887:per nom. Seems perfectly reasonable. 2176:Act of Settlement 1701#Present debate 1196:Collapsing of Ancestry templates and 438:Lady_Louise_Windsor#Titles_and_styles 7: 3429:Category:English and British princes 3309:the section in which the "decision" 2876:Knowledge (XXG)'s naming conventions 2651:Knowledge (XXG)'s naming conventions 2593:Princess Elizabeth Caroline of Wales 1480:Princess Elizabeth Caroline of Wales 1309:William IV of the United Kingdom FAR 244:User talk:UpDown#Lady Louise, again. 214: 212: 202:, but simply as Lady Louise Windsor. 170:, but simply as Lady Louise Windsor. 4043:articles selected from this project 3570:No change for the casual reader of 2597:Princess Elizabeth of Great Britain 2485:Two Brand New X-Rated Move Surveys! 2227:1917 and the inescutcheon of Saxony 2174:To answer myself: indeed there is: 2139:Talk:Monarchy of the United Kingdom 1476:Princess Augusta Frederika of Wales 1356:Talk:Prince George William of Wales 1250:, for example), it can be left out. 1069:Well? What will happen, after all? 768:Severn, Windsor, James, Viscount of 763:Windsor, James, Severn, Viscount of 110:. Let me know what you think. -- 4134:Willem-Alexander, Prince of Orange 3937:Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge 1248:Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll 347:grandchildren (thus bad example). 24: 3726:Proposed new logo for the project 3583:List of Descendants of George III 2573:Prince Frederick of Great Britain 2569:Prince Frederick William of Wales 1759:(perhaps we could also check the 1488:Prince Frederick William of Wales 1338: 248:User talk:DBD#Lady Louise, again. 102:would be the prince's particular 4132:) or of the "House of Amsberg" ( 4047:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Version 0.7 3944:? They only quartered his arms. 3805: 3579:List of Descendants of George II 3411:are examples of princesses, and 3347:Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales 2585:Princess Louisa of Great Britain 2561:Princess Amelia of Great Britain 1349:The "Prince/ss X of Wales" Issue 1314:William IV of the United Kingdom 747:Severn, Windsor, James, Viscount 742:Windsor, James, Severn, Viscount 29: 4138:Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg 3880:, too.. what do you all think? 3845:Regarding the "BR" offering... 3826:the version for use in Scotland 2778:The result of the proposal was 2511:The result of the proposal was 2416:Hi, I saw your request over at 1335: 918:Windsor, James, Viscount Severn 897:Severn, James Windsor, Viscount 792:Severn, James Windsor, Viscount 230:Heraldica – The Wessex Children 4150:02:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC) 4124:23:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC) 4109:22:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC) 4095:06:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC) 4080:22:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC) 3942:Template:Teck-Cambridge Family 3764:I see your logo and raise you 3405:Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg 3397:George Cowper, 6th Earl Cowper 3345:is "British", but his brother 1472:Prince George William of Wales 1371:18:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC) 1181:'s views. Please take a look. 733:James Windsor, Viscount Severn 636:Princess Patricia of Connaught 200:Princess of the United Kingdom 168:Princess of the United Kingdom 1: 4224:17:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC) 4201:20:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC) 3986:10:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC) 3972:02:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC) 3954:01:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC) 3859:01:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC) 3836:00:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC) 3816:23:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC) 3800:22:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC) 3558:There is a proposal to split 2864:, then sign your comment with 2639:, then sign your comment with 2581:Princess Louisa Anne of Wales 2422:the existing British versions 1484:Princess Louisa Anne of Wales 1428:Actually, my research in the 1272:23:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC) 1226:21:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC) 1191:00:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 1053:15:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 1016:13:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 999:13:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 989:13:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 959:02:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 949:00:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 931:21:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 912:17:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 882:17:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 857:16:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 818:09:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 805:09:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 785:08:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 715:14:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC) 675:13:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 658:08:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC) 621:22:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC) 605:19:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC) 584:08:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC) 553:23:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 530:19:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 509:04:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC) 489:18:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 464:17:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 449:17:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 444:the argument, with sourcing. 415:17:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 388:17:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 357:17:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 337:17:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 324:17:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 310:16:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 289:16:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 263:16:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 124:01:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC) 4206:WikiProject Scottish Royalty 4180:13:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC) 4168:Talk:Prince William of Wales 4004:Join me, it's awfully lonely 3868:Hi all. I've been fiddling 3441:Category:Scottish princesses 3401:Prince Maurice of Battenberg 1991:they are simply misleading! 1151:12:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC) 1114:12:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC) 1082:12:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC) 399:Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall 4018:23:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC) 3926:22:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 3917:18:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 3907:18:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 3885:18:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 3781:23:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC) 3760:23:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC) 3747:22:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC) 3714:16:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC) 3566:. The net effect will be: 3409:Princess Antonia of Prussia 3385:Template:British princesses 2796:There are two proposals by 2446:The website mentioned above 2317:) could probably make one. 2141:. Yes, worth considering.-- 1656:According to Alison Weir's 1233:Template:British princesses 1198:Template:British princesses 695:17:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 4239: 4193:which may be of interest. 4130:Beatrix of the Netherlands 3935:I notice that the arms of 3577:New separate articles for 2280:the situation was reversed 2188:23:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC) 2170:23:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC) 2151:21:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC) 2132:17:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC) 2004:20:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 1978:18:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 1960:18:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 1919:18:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 1901:17:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 1872:13:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 1862:13:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 1840:12:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 1823:11:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 1793:11:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 1751:01:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 1731:20:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC) 1708:20:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC) 1690:19:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC) 1670:14:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC) 1639:11:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 1614:01:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 1600:14:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC) 1568:14:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC) 1553:13:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC) 1536:13:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC) 1521:Princess Charlotte Augusta 1504:03:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC) 1470:I'd suggest, then, moving 1466:19:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 1445:19:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 1424:17:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 1410:14:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 1344:13:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC) 1328:. Reviewers' concerns are 1203:Concerns have been raised 790:I would have thought that 424:From a legal perspective, 403:Camilla, Princess of Wales 3685:11:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC) 3511:Category:C-Class_articles 3466:13:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC) 3437:Category:Scottish princes 3063:general opinion. Cheers, 2475:18:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 2428:(cf the British version, 2064:15:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 2045:10:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 2018:11:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 1492:Caroline Matilda of Wales 1316:has been nominated for a 1304:18:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 777:Pless, Daisy of, Princess 187:Princess Louise of Wessex 159:Princess Louise of Wessex 4140:). Which I'm fine with. 3663:02:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC) 3652:02:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC) 3638:Princess Eugenie of York 3633:04:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC) 3549:20:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 3427:Likewise the categories 3413:Daisy, Princess of Pless 3377:Template:British princes 3359:14:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC) 3329:14:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC) 3300:12:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC) 3286:Category:Kings of Ailech 3271:List of British monarchs 3237:23:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 3203:23:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC) 3177:13:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC) 3161:13:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC) 3139:12:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC) 3124:22:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC) 3107:21:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC) 3081:20:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC) 3070:20:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC) 3032:Please do not modify it. 3022:09:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 2985:18:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC) 2974:13:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC) 2953:22:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC) 2933:18:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC) 2919:11:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC) 2900:08:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC) 2792:00:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC) 2770:Please do not modify it. 2750:Please do not modify it. 2740:11:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC) 2718:13:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2694:11:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2675:08:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC) 2616:08:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC) 2525:00:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC) 2503:Please do not modify it. 2458:11:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC) 2408:08:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2395:I've found one and have 2390:07:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2367:07:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2327:07:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2287:06:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2266:06:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2247:01:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2237:23:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC) 2222:19:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 1973:of the United Kingdom). 1658:Britain's Royal Families 1290:List of English monarchs 1286:List of British monarchs 1279:List of British monarchs 1172:List of British monarchs 1168:List of English monarchs 844:Merry Christmas to all. 240:Talk:Lady Louise Windsor 3417:Evelyn Princess Blücher 1523:'s birth. What say we? 1318:featured article review 893:Severn, James, Viscount 4069:this project's subpage 3735: 3727: 2909:- sounds right to me. 2196:The Queen vs the Queen 2158:Act of Settlement 1701 2110:Act of Settlement 1701 2098:Religious Intelligence 1104:James, Viscount Severn 665:James, Viscount Severn 4073:User:SelectionBot/0.7 3733: 3725: 3320:WikiProject UKRoyalty 1943:The Princess Beatrice 1909:There isn't anything 1391:Prince George William 640:The Duke of Connaught 90:Image/Template layout 42:of past discussions. 4062:copyediting requests 3282:Kings of East Anglia 146:notes as they stand: 4189:There is an RfC at 4028:Knowledge (XXG) 0.7 3367:"British prince/ss" 2137:This was raised at 2119:If not, should we? 1354:The following from 434:Lady Louise Windsor 140:Lady Louise Windsor 129:The Wessex Children 3994:The of Wales Issue 3736: 3728: 3527:1.0 Editorial Team 3446:Prince of Scotland 3403:were all princes, 3305:As the editor who 3267:Henry I of England 3218:simplifying titles 2544:The London Gazette 1878:What's wrong with 1386:The London Gazette 184:Her Royal Highness 156:Her Royal Highness 3722:File:BRoyLogo.png 3712: 3631: 3630: 3546: 3421:Elizabeth Bibesco 3356: 3208:Naming discussion 3174: 3136: 3104: 2950: 2715: 2387: 2324: 2263: 2061: 1957: 1728: 1687: 1597: 1550: 1269: 1223: 1149: 1080: 1051: 947: 928: 910: 855: 802: 655: 582: 191:Buckingham Palace 163:Buckingham Palace 144:Titles and Styles 87: 86: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4230: 4106:Prince of Canada 4092:Prince of Canada 4085:Succession boxes 3923:Prince of Canada 3914:Prince of Canada 3882:Prince of Canada 3833:Prince of Canada 3813:Prince of Canada 3809: 3757:Prince of Canada 3744:Prince of Canada 3723: 3710: 3706: 3704: 3660:Prince of Canada 3616: 3615: 3543: 3538: 3535: 3381:British princess 3354: 3263:Alfred the Great 3186:Duke of Rothesay 3184:Use of the title 3172: 3134: 3102: 3034: 2948: 2868: 2862: 2856: 2772: 2752: 2713: 2643: 2637: 2631: 2505: 2434:label (heraldry) 2397:posted a request 2385: 2322: 2261: 2059: 1955: 1947:of Great Britain 1931:of Great Britain 1726: 1685: 1595: 1548: 1382:11 February 1718 1340: 1337: 1322:featured quality 1277:Merge proposal, 1267: 1221: 1213:User:Doc glasgow 1143: 1074: 1045: 941: 926: 904: 849: 800: 731:. For instance, 653: 638:, a daughter of 576: 232: 227: 221: 216: 73: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4238: 4237: 4233: 4232: 4231: 4229: 4228: 4227: 4208: 4187: 4164: 4087: 4025: 3996: 3866: 3734:Another version 3721: 3708: 3700: 3695: 3640: 3599:Please comment 3556: 3541: 3531: 3522:leave a message 3473: 3369: 3244: 3210: 3188: 3044: 3042:Length of reign 3039: 3030: 2966:Noel S McFerran 2961: 2866: 2860: 2854: 2848: 2768: 2762: 2757: 2748: 2726: 2641: 2635: 2629: 2623: 2549:requested moves 2501: 2495: 2487: 2229: 2198: 2074: 1929:George William 1351: 1311: 1282: 1236: 1201: 1175: 780:. Many thanks! 722: 235: 228: 224: 217: 210: 131: 92: 69: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4236: 4234: 4207: 4204: 4195:Angus McLellan 4186: 4183: 4163: 4160: 4159: 4158: 4157: 4156: 4155: 4154: 4153: 4152: 4086: 4083: 4024: 4021: 3995: 3992: 3991: 3990: 3989: 3988: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3929: 3928: 3865: 3862: 3843: 3842: 3841: 3840: 3839: 3838: 3788: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3784: 3783: 3750: 3749: 3694: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3688: 3687: 3666: 3665: 3639: 3636: 3597: 3596: 3593: 3590: 3575: 3555: 3552: 3507: 3506: 3503:described here 3499: 3492: 3477:may have heard 3472: 3469: 3373:British prince 3368: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3361: 3332: 3331: 3311:Angus McLellan 3294:Angus McLellan 3243: 3240: 3209: 3206: 3187: 3181: 3180: 3179: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3109: 3084: 3083: 3043: 3040: 3038: 3037: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2988: 2987: 2960: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2936: 2935: 2928:As nominator. 2922: 2921: 2903: 2902: 2881: 2880: 2855:*'''Support''' 2847: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2822: 2776: 2775: 2763: 2761: 2758: 2756: 2755: 2743: 2742: 2725: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2697: 2696: 2678: 2677: 2656: 2655: 2630:*'''Support''' 2622: 2619: 2602: 2601: 2589: 2577: 2565: 2509: 2508: 2496: 2494: 2491: 2486: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2411: 2410: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2250: 2249: 2228: 2225: 2197: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2172: 2106: 2105: 2100: 2095: 2090: 2085: 2080: 2073: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1904: 1903: 1875: 1874: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1810: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1769:British prince 1757:London Gazette 1738:London Gazette 1733: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1693: 1692: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1620:British prince 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1447: 1350: 1347: 1310: 1307: 1298:Angus McLellan 1281: 1275: 1258: 1257: 1251: 1235: 1229: 1200: 1194: 1174: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1033: 1030:Template:S-ttl 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1002: 1001: 979:Lord Salisbury 974: 973: 972: 971: 970: 969: 968: 967: 966: 965: 964: 963: 962: 961: 951: 889:Windsor, James 842: 832: 823: 822: 821: 820: 808: 807: 771: 770: 765: 750: 749: 744: 721: 718: 628: 627: 626: 625: 624: 623: 591: 590: 589: 588: 587: 586: 570: 559: 533: 532: 516: 515: 514: 513: 512: 511: 477: 476: 475: 474: 467: 466: 426:letters patent 422: 421: 420: 419: 418: 417: 364: 363: 362: 361: 360: 359: 341: 340: 339: 234: 233: 222: 207: 206: 205: 203: 179:Letters patent 176: 171: 151:Letters patent 148: 130: 127: 98:. Inside the 91: 88: 85: 84: 79: 74: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4235: 4226: 4225: 4221: 4217: 4213: 4205: 4203: 4202: 4199: 4196: 4192: 4184: 4182: 4181: 4177: 4173: 4169: 4161: 4151: 4147: 4143: 4139: 4135: 4131: 4127: 4126: 4125: 4121: 4117: 4112: 4111: 4110: 4107: 4103: 4102: 4099: 4098: 4097: 4096: 4093: 4084: 4082: 4081: 4078: 4074: 4070: 4065: 4063: 4059: 4054: 4052: 4048: 4044: 4039: 4037: 4033: 4029: 4022: 4020: 4019: 4016: 4015: 4012: 4009: 4005: 4001: 3993: 3987: 3983: 3979: 3975: 3974: 3973: 3969: 3965: 3961: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3951: 3947: 3943: 3938: 3927: 3924: 3920: 3919: 3918: 3915: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3905: 3904: 3901: 3898: 3893: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3883: 3879: 3875: 3871: 3863: 3861: 3860: 3856: 3852: 3848: 3837: 3834: 3830: 3829: 3827: 3823: 3819: 3818: 3817: 3814: 3808: 3804: 3803: 3802: 3801: 3797: 3793: 3782: 3779: 3778: 3775: 3772: 3767: 3763: 3762: 3761: 3758: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3748: 3745: 3740: 3732: 3724: 3718: 3717: 3716: 3715: 3711: 3705: 3703: 3692: 3686: 3682: 3678: 3674: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3664: 3661: 3656: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3649: 3645: 3637: 3635: 3634: 3628: 3624: 3620: 3613: 3609: 3604: 3602: 3594: 3591: 3588: 3584: 3580: 3576: 3573: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3565: 3561: 3553: 3551: 3550: 3547: 3544: 3536: 3534: 3528: 3523: 3518: 3516: 3512: 3504: 3500: 3497: 3493: 3490: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3482: 3478: 3470: 3468: 3467: 3463: 3459: 3455: 3452: 3449: 3447: 3442: 3438: 3434: 3430: 3425: 3424:princesses. 3422: 3418: 3414: 3410: 3406: 3402: 3398: 3394: 3390: 3386: 3382: 3378: 3374: 3366: 3360: 3357: 3352: 3348: 3344: 3340: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3330: 3327: 3326: 3321: 3317: 3312: 3308: 3304: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3298: 3295: 3291: 3287: 3283: 3279: 3274: 3272: 3268: 3264: 3260: 3256: 3252: 3249: 3241: 3239: 3238: 3235: 3234: 3231: 3228: 3223: 3219: 3215: 3207: 3205: 3204: 3201: 3200: 3197: 3194: 3185: 3182: 3178: 3175: 3170: 3166: 3162: 3159: 3158: 3153: 3149: 3144: 3140: 3137: 3132: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3122: 3121: 3118: 3115: 3110: 3108: 3105: 3100: 3096: 3092: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3082: 3079: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3068: 3067: 3062: 3059: 3055: 3052: 3047: 3041: 3036: 3033: 3027: 3023: 3019: 3015: 3014:86.165.100.95 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2986: 2983: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2975: 2971: 2967: 2958: 2954: 2951: 2946: 2941: 2938: 2937: 2934: 2931: 2927: 2924: 2923: 2920: 2916: 2912: 2908: 2905: 2904: 2901: 2898: 2897: 2894: 2891: 2886: 2883: 2882: 2879: 2877: 2873: 2865: 2861:*'''Oppose''' 2859: 2853: 2850: 2849: 2845: 2840: 2836: 2832: 2831: 2827: 2823: 2820: 2816: 2812: 2811: 2807: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2799: 2794: 2793: 2789: 2785: 2781: 2774: 2771: 2765: 2764: 2759: 2754: 2751: 2745: 2744: 2741: 2737: 2733: 2728: 2727: 2723: 2719: 2716: 2711: 2707: 2703: 2699: 2698: 2695: 2691: 2687: 2683: 2680: 2679: 2676: 2673: 2672: 2669: 2666: 2661: 2658: 2657: 2654: 2652: 2648: 2640: 2636:*'''Oppose''' 2634: 2628: 2625: 2624: 2620: 2618: 2617: 2614: 2613: 2610: 2607: 2599: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2587: 2586: 2582: 2578: 2575: 2574: 2570: 2566: 2563: 2562: 2558: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2550: 2546: 2545: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2527: 2526: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2507: 2504: 2498: 2497: 2492: 2490: 2484: 2476: 2473: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2459: 2455: 2451: 2447: 2443: 2439: 2438:see list here 2435: 2431: 2427: 2423: 2419: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2409: 2406: 2402: 2398: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2388: 2383: 2368: 2365: 2361: 2358: 2355: 2351: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2328: 2325: 2320: 2316: 2313: 2310: 2306: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2288: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2267: 2264: 2259: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2248: 2245: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2235: 2226: 2224: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2207: 2203: 2195: 2189: 2185: 2181: 2177: 2173: 2171: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2130: 2129: 2126: 2123: 2117: 2115: 2111: 2104: 2101: 2099: 2096: 2094: 2091: 2089: 2086: 2084: 2081: 2079: 2076: 2075: 2071: 2065: 2062: 2056: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2043: 2042: 2039: 2036: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2002: 2001: 1998: 1995: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1976: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1961: 1958: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1920: 1917: 1912: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1902: 1898: 1894: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1876: 1873: 1870: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1854:Ashley Rovira 1850: 1841: 1838: 1837: 1834: 1831: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1811: 1808: 1804: 1803: 1794: 1791: 1790: 1787: 1784: 1779: 1774: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1758: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1748: 1744: 1739: 1734: 1732: 1729: 1723: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1709: 1705: 1701: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1691: 1688: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1659: 1654: 1640: 1637: 1636: 1633: 1630: 1625: 1621: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1611: 1607: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1598: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1551: 1545: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1534: 1533: 1530: 1527: 1522: 1518: 1505: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1464: 1463: 1460: 1457: 1452: 1451:29 April 1794 1448: 1446: 1443: 1442: 1439: 1436: 1431: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1408: 1407: 1404: 1401: 1396: 1392: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1369: 1363: 1362: 1359: 1357: 1348: 1346: 1345: 1342: 1341: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1308: 1306: 1305: 1302: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1287: 1280: 1276: 1274: 1273: 1270: 1264: 1255: 1252: 1249: 1245: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1234: 1231:Necessity of 1230: 1228: 1227: 1224: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1199: 1195: 1193: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1179:David Starkey 1173: 1169: 1166: 1152: 1148: 1147: 1141: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1115: 1112: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1083: 1079: 1078: 1072: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1054: 1050: 1049: 1043: 1038: 1034: 1031: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1017: 1014: 1011: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1000: 997: 993: 992: 991: 990: 987: 984: 980: 960: 957: 952: 950: 946: 945: 939: 934: 933: 932: 929: 923: 919: 915: 914: 913: 909: 908: 902: 898: 894: 890: 885: 884: 883: 880: 879: 876: 873: 868: 867:Linley, David 864: 863:Severn, James 860: 859: 858: 854: 853: 847: 843: 840: 838: 833: 829: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 819: 816: 812: 811: 810: 809: 806: 803: 797: 793: 789: 788: 787: 786: 783: 779: 778: 769: 766: 764: 761: 760: 759: 757: 755: 748: 745: 743: 740: 739: 738: 736: 734: 730: 725: 719: 717: 716: 712: 708: 704: 698: 696: 692: 688: 683: 682: 678: 676: 673: 670: 666: 660: 659: 656: 650: 645: 641: 637: 633: 622: 618: 614: 610: 609: 608: 607: 606: 602: 598: 593: 592: 585: 581: 580: 574: 568: 564: 556: 555: 554: 550: 546: 542: 537: 536: 535: 534: 531: 527: 523: 518: 517: 510: 506: 502: 497: 496: 495: 494: 493: 492: 491: 490: 486: 482: 481:Ashley Rovira 471: 470: 469: 468: 465: 461: 457: 453: 452: 451: 450: 447: 441: 439: 435: 430: 427: 416: 412: 408: 404: 400: 396: 395: 394: 393: 392: 391: 390: 389: 386: 382: 376: 373: 368: 358: 354: 350: 346: 342: 338: 335: 331: 327: 326: 325: 321: 317: 313: 312: 311: 307: 303: 299: 295: 292: 291: 290: 286: 282: 278: 275: 271: 267: 266: 265: 264: 261: 260: 257: 254: 249: 245: 241: 231: 226: 223: 220: 215: 213: 209: 204: 201: 197: 192: 188: 185: 180: 177: 175: 172: 169: 164: 160: 157: 152: 149: 147: 145: 141: 136: 135: 134: 128: 126: 125: 121: 117: 113: 109: 105: 101: 100:style infobox 97: 89: 83: 80: 78: 75: 72: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4209: 4188: 4165: 4162:Appointments 4088: 4077:SelectionBot 4066: 4055: 4040: 4034:has made an 4026: 4006: 3997: 3934: 3895: 3867: 3844: 3820:How's about 3789: 3769: 3701: 3696: 3641: 3607: 3606:The article 3605: 3598: 3586: 3582: 3578: 3564:transclusion 3557: 3537: 3532: 3519: 3508: 3488: 3474: 3456: 3453: 3450: 3426: 3370: 3351:PeterSymonds 3323: 3275: 3248:one editor's 3245: 3225: 3221: 3211: 3191: 3190:Click above 3189: 3169:PeterSymonds 3155: 3151: 3147: 3131:PeterSymonds 3112: 3099:PeterSymonds 3094: 3064: 3060: 3057: 3050: 3048: 3045: 3031: 3028: 2962: 2945:PeterSymonds 2940:Weak support 2939: 2925: 2906: 2888: 2884: 2869: 2863: 2857: 2851: 2838: 2834: 2824: 2818: 2814: 2804: 2795: 2779: 2777: 2769: 2766: 2749: 2746: 2710:PeterSymonds 2701: 2681: 2663: 2659: 2644: 2638: 2632: 2626: 2604: 2603: 2591: 2579: 2567: 2555: 2542: 2528: 2512: 2510: 2502: 2499: 2488: 2382:PeterSymonds 2379: 2356: 2319:PeterSymonds 2311: 2258:PeterSymonds 2230: 2199: 2120: 2118: 2107: 2088:Telegraph #3 2083:Telegraph #2 2078:Telegraph #1 2055:PeterSymonds 2033: 2030: 1992: 1987: 1983: 1951:PeterSymonds 1946: 1942: 1930: 1910: 1848: 1846: 1828: 1806: 1781: 1777: 1764: 1760: 1756: 1737: 1722:PeterSymonds 1681:PeterSymonds 1676: 1657: 1655: 1651: 1627: 1591:PeterSymonds 1586: 1585:Princes/ses 1582: 1544:PeterSymonds 1524: 1516: 1514: 1454: 1433: 1429: 1398: 1385: 1364: 1360: 1353: 1352: 1333: 1312: 1283: 1263:PeterSymonds 1259: 1254:Suggestion 2 1253: 1244:Suggestion 1 1243: 1237: 1217:PeterSymonds 1202: 1176: 1145: 1076: 1047: 1036: 975: 943: 922:PeterSymonds 917: 906: 896: 892: 888: 870: 866: 865:, just like 862: 851: 836: 796:PeterSymonds 791: 775: 772: 767: 762: 758: 753: 751: 746: 741: 737: 728: 726: 723: 702: 699: 684: 680: 679: 661: 649:PeterSymonds 643: 631: 629: 578: 566: 562: 478: 442: 431: 423: 402: 401:be moved to 377: 371: 369: 365: 344: 298:Daily Mirror 297: 251: 236: 225: 195: 186: 183: 173: 158: 155: 143: 137: 132: 96:house navbox 93: 70: 43: 37: 3489:new C-Class 3316:pointed out 2401:Duke Alfred 1583:technically 1146:The Duke of 1077:The Duke of 1048:The Duke of 981:under "G"? 944:The Duke of 916:What about 907:The Duke of 852:The Duke of 724:Hello all; 707:AnthonyCamp 579:The Duke of 541:I. Pankonin 112:I. Pankonin 36:This is an 3339:Queen Anne 2959:Discussion 2724:Discussion 2539:George III 1986:any title 1884:George III 1384:issues of 597:Penrithguy 563:status quo 558:somewhere. 108:my sandbox 4216:The Quill 4172:G2bambino 4142:Opera hat 4000:Time Warp 3978:Opera hat 3964:Opera hat 3946:Opera hat 3851:Opera hat 3792:Opera hat 3693:BRoy logo 3677:Opera hat 3644:Holtville 3481:WP:ASSESS 3458:Opera hat 3343:Charles I 3061:concensus 2535:Poor Fred 2531:George II 2350:Ipankonin 2305:Ipankonin 2180:G2bambino 2162:G2bambino 1761:Edinburgh 1720:I agree. 977:look for 687:Proberton 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 71:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 3766:a cypher 3623:contribs 3496:a rubric 3371:I think 3251:decision 3058:consenus 3054:Edward V 2870:. Since 2760:Secondly 2700:Partial 2645:. Since 2360:contribs 2315:contribs 2242:Anyone? 2143:Gazzster 1677:of Wales 1587:of Wales 831:example. 756:Severn: 632:known as 567:entitled 345:maternal 4002:again! 3874:WP:BRoy 3612:davidwr 3542:Disable 3533:§hepBot 3520:Please 3515:The bot 3475:As you 3325:Lindsay 3307:started 3216:about " 3157:Lindsay 3078:Charles 3066:Lindsay 2982:Charles 2930:Charles 2926:Support 2907:Support 2885:Support 2798:Charles 2662:as nom 2660:Support 2513:no move 2493:Firstly 2472:Charles 2405:Charles 2364:Charles 2284:Charles 2244:Charles 2234:Charles 2206:Cameron 1984:neither 1975:Charles 1916:Charles 1869:Charles 1765:Belfast 1430:Gazette 1183:GoodDay 1140:Waltham 1108:Proteus 1071:Waltham 1042:Waltham 1010:Proteus 996:Charles 983:Proteus 956:Charles 938:Waltham 901:Waltham 846:Waltham 815:Charles 782:Charles 703:de jure 669:Proteus 613:GoodDay 573:Waltham 501:Caponer 407:GoodDay 349:GoodDay 316:GoodDay 250:Cheers 196:legally 104:coronet 39:archive 4198:(Talk) 3702:Verbal 3627:e-mail 3585:, and 3355:(talk) 3297:(Talk) 3290:Verica 3280:- the 3173:(talk) 3135:(talk) 3103:(talk) 2949:(talk) 2846:Survey 2784:JPG-GR 2714:(talk) 2702:oppose 2682:Oppose 2621:Survey 2517:JPG-GR 2450:Dr pda 2386:(talk) 2323:(talk) 2262:(talk) 2103:EURSOC 2093:Herald 1893:john k 1743:john k 1606:john k 1560:john k 1496:john k 1490:, and 1416:john k 1380:& 1368:john k 1301:(Talk) 1292:. See 1284:Since 1170:& 1111:(Talk) 1013:(Talk) 986:(Talk) 839:debate 672:(Talk) 446:Walton 302:UpDown 281:UpDown 142:, the 4116:Rrius 3878:WP:HV 3847:WP:BR 3253:. As 3242:Scope 2839:style 2835:title 2819:style 2815:title 2418:WP:HV 1911:wrong 1849:first 1807:chose 1211:, by 1037:, , 837:s-roy 522:Giano 381:Doops 330:Doops 279:). -- 138:From 16:< 4220:talk 4212:here 4176:talk 4146:talk 4120:talk 3982:talk 3968:talk 3950:talk 3892:here 3870:here 3855:talk 3822:this 3796:talk 3709:chat 3681:talk 3648:talk 3619:talk 3601:here 3487:The 3462:talk 3439:and 3419:and 3407:and 3399:and 3387:and 3222:five 3152:e.g. 3051:e.g. 3018:talk 2970:talk 2915:talk 2867:~~~~ 2788:talk 2780:move 2736:talk 2690:talk 2642:~~~~ 2537:and 2521:talk 2454:talk 2354:talk 2309:talk 2202:here 2184:talk 2178:. -- 2166:talk 2160:? -- 2147:talk 2116:... 2112:and 2060:talk 2014:talk 1956:talk 1897:talk 1858:talk 1819:talk 1778:will 1763:and 1747:talk 1727:talk 1704:talk 1686:talk 1666:talk 1610:talk 1596:talk 1564:talk 1549:talk 1500:talk 1420:talk 1376:The 1336:Chwe 1330:here 1326:here 1268:talk 1222:talk 1209:here 1207:and 1205:here 1187:talk 927:talk 801:talk 711:talk 691:talk 654:talk 644:Lady 617:talk 601:talk 526:talk 505:talk 485:talk 460:talk 411:talk 385:talk 353:talk 334:talk 320:talk 306:talk 285:talk 246:and 4071:of 4053:. 3739:DBD 3625:)/( 3621:)/( 3562:by 3448:. 3273:. 3265:or 2911:Deb 2732:Deb 2686:Deb 2010:Deb 1988:nor 1815:Deb 1700:Deb 1662:Deb 1517:and 1393:of 895:or 697:. 456:Deb 372:are 4222:) 4178:) 4148:) 4122:) 4056:A 4038:. 3984:) 3970:) 3952:) 3857:) 3798:) 3768:! 3683:) 3675:. 3672:so 3650:) 3603:. 3581:, 3529:, 3483:. 3464:) 3435:, 3431:, 3415:, 3395:, 3383:, 3379:, 3375:, 3148:do 3020:) 2976:. 2972:) 2917:) 2858:or 2828:→ 2808:→ 2790:) 2782:. 2738:) 2692:) 2633:or 2595:→ 2583:→ 2571:→ 2559:→ 2533:, 2523:) 2515:. 2456:) 2220:) 2186:) 2168:) 2149:) 2057:| 2016:) 1953:| 1899:) 1860:) 1821:) 1773:ss 1749:) 1724:| 1706:) 1683:| 1668:) 1624:ss 1612:) 1593:| 1566:) 1546:| 1502:) 1486:, 1482:, 1478:, 1474:, 1453:) 1422:) 1339:ch 1332:. 1296:. 1265:| 1219:| 1189:) 1142:, 1073:, 1044:, 940:, 924:| 920:? 903:, 869:? 848:, 798:| 754:of 713:) 693:) 677:\ 667:. 651:| 619:) 603:) 575:, 551:) 528:) 507:) 487:) 479:-- 462:) 413:) 405:? 383:| 355:) 332:| 322:) 308:) 287:) 242:, 211:^ 122:) 4218:( 4174:( 4144:( 4118:( 4014:D 4011:B 4008:D 3980:( 3966:( 3948:( 3903:D 3900:B 3897:D 3853:( 3794:( 3777:D 3774:B 3771:D 3679:( 3646:( 3629:) 3617:( 3614:/ 3589:. 3574:. 3545:) 3539:( 3505:. 3460:( 3233:D 3230:B 3227:D 3199:D 3196:B 3193:D 3120:D 3117:B 3114:D 3095:a 3016:( 2968:( 2913:( 2896:D 2893:B 2890:D 2878:. 2786:( 2734:( 2688:( 2671:D 2668:B 2665:D 2653:. 2612:D 2609:B 2606:D 2519:( 2452:( 2357:· 2352:( 2312:· 2307:( 2218:c 2216:| 2214:p 2212:| 2210:t 2208:( 2182:( 2164:( 2145:( 2128:D 2125:B 2122:D 2041:D 2038:B 2035:D 2012:( 2000:D 1997:B 1994:D 1895:( 1856:( 1836:D 1833:B 1830:D 1817:( 1789:D 1786:B 1783:D 1771:/ 1745:( 1702:( 1664:( 1635:D 1632:B 1629:D 1622:/ 1608:( 1562:( 1532:D 1529:B 1526:D 1498:( 1462:D 1459:B 1456:D 1441:D 1438:B 1435:D 1418:( 1406:D 1403:B 1400:D 1378:8 1358:: 1185:( 878:D 875:B 872:D 709:( 689:( 615:( 599:( 549:c 547:/ 545:t 543:( 524:( 503:( 483:( 458:( 409:( 351:( 318:( 304:( 283:( 259:D 256:B 253:D 120:c 118:/ 116:t 114:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:WikiProject British Royalty/Archive 3 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index