Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Hi all - I've recently been creating the above templates, for use on British royalty pages. With the preliminary work done, I want to start up a discussion about their format, use, etc. HERE, so do please join in! – DBD 12:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just created a proposal for our Style Guide - HERE - please do discuss it on the talk page // DBD 12:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• I believe that we should also work on the list of the monarchs of england and bring it up to the standard that is seen in the List of French Monarchs article. I know not all of the English monarchy in the list is covered in this wikiproject, but if we can bring that list up to featured article status,as is the French list, then more attention would be placed on this project, and more support for this project could possibly show up. --74.133.52.253 15:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I was thinking. Does English, Scottish Royalty etc. get covered by this group? The countries are in Britain now? But not then, so? Peterwill 19:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Put simply, yes - although, as previously mentioned, we'll probably form separate task forces for them // DBD 10:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:BIOGRAPHY :-) Come join our work group Royalty and nobility - we have a British Isles division. I didn't know this project existed until just now... plange 03:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Really want to contribute especially the Descendant WikiProjects. What first shall I do? Hedwig0407 01 August 2006

First up, a warm welcome to you! Not wishing to be at all patronising, but are you aware that "Descendant WikiProject" means a 'sub-project' of this one, rather than a WikiProject about descendants - it's not been altogether clear, from your responses, whether you knew or not. Presuming you did indeed wish to join/create/helm a child project, which one would it be? Pre-1660 Great Britain? Pre-union England? Pre-union Scotland? Early English? Early Scottish? -- DBD 09:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes Im aware that "Descendant WikiProject" is kind of 'sub-project'. Im 100% really want to join/create/helm a child project. I really want to do all, but I choose to first at Pre-1660 Great Britain. So guide me on what information I will put. (You could reply me also at mytalk page.) Hedwig0407 01 August 2006

I have been poking around in the featured article area and have discovered that George I, George III and George IV are all featured, and all fit into this project. Any one of these could be a guide to how all articles for this project should be written. LynnMarie 1 August, 2006

I created the Template:Infobox British Royalty for use on our project's pages, derived from Template:Infobox Monarch. It has since been proposed for deletion here - please do participate in the discussion there. Meanwhile, I believe we should discuss the template here - its format, colours, fields, etc. A copy is hosted in User:DBD/Infoboxes/British Royalty, so feel free to 'fiddle' with that copy, and using the Project Sandbox to preview. -- DBD 10:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

And the winner is... So, do please help me out here - let's discuss our now-approved infobox... -- DBD 10:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, I've created some, updated others, of the above category. One of my updates has been the addition of colour-coding (red for England, blue Scotch, purple GB/UK) - this has been reverted a few times, so I want to know all your opinions... Colour or Blank? – DBD 12:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Colour is better imo. --Majorly (Talk) 13:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Colour, just looks nicer. :P Terence Ong 13:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Colour, as it would make things clearer. Philip Stevens 14:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Colour, it just looks better. Morhange 18:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Colour, is perfectly fine. Laserbeamcrossfire 19:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• colour (WP:VIE) makes things "clearer" as User:Philip Stevens said.
• Colour, preferable to colourless in my opinion. Charles 23:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Colour, being the more attractive option. --Iriseyes 14:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Colour, so at one look you'll know if it is British or Scottish or whatever. Hedwig0407 05:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that many of the minor royals and their descendants are up for deletion:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Lascelles
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tewa Lascelles
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Lascelles
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulf Bauscher
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Lascelles
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amelia Mary Carnegie Etherington
7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rowan Lascelles
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbus Taylor
9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Lascelles
10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Chatto
11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Chatto
12. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eloise Taylor
13. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassius Taylor
14. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbus Taylor
15. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Lascelles

Astrotrain 13:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

None of these are royalty, and are therefore not really the concern of the WikiProject... -- DBD 14:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I posted it for information purposes- although I see not many people are members of the project- perhaps it was a waste of time. Astrotrain 10:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Just for balance, I guess I would like to say that perhaps a few of these people are somewhere on the Order of Succession. Perhaps a Wiki article about the Order of Succession could include their names, and then the above articles could be deleted. Rich

I think the principal articles should have as their title the formal name of the subject, and all of the familiar names and nicknames rediract there. As an example: The main article should be titled "Prince Henry of Wales", and not as at present "Prince Harry" with "Prince Henry" and "Prince Henry of Wales" redirecting there. Guy 12:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur - he's not "Prince Harry of Wales" - he's "Prince Henry of Wales", and is referred to as "Prince Harry"... -- DBD 13:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The article isn't at "Prince Harry", but Prince Harry of Wales. It's gone back and forth between Prince Harry of Wales and Prince Henry of Wales before and will again. Wikipedia convention calls for the most common name to be used as the article title. Hardly anyone uses Prince Henry of Wales. Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Tom Cruise, and Sissy Spacek are all the names of articles and those are the usual way people know those individuals. The same should apply to royals in terms of the personal name. -Acjelen 15:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been asked to pass on notice to you of this this list of Featured Articles. Many of them are about British royalty and nobility, and they were written in the days before inline citations were required in FAs. It's quite likely, I'm told, that they could be listed for defeaturing. Perhaps the project would like to tackle bringing some of these up to modern FA standards? --kingboyk 14:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I was searching around and came accross [1] this link which features numerous public domain (due to age) images of Victorian era Nobility. Perhaps some of these images could be of use in the commons or in wikipedia projects ? Dowew 03:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have just been categorising and found Alan Reid (Royal Household). I can't find a category for people that work in the royal household, only one for the positions within it. If it doesn't exist maybe it should be created? However I have no idea what its title should actually be. Ksbrown 16:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps just "Members of the Royal Household"? --Couter-revolutionary 12:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Edward III is up for FA-nomination, please weigh in at the discussion page! Eixo 12:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've requested a move of this article from its present title to its previous well-established title. Even if you don't agree with me, please contribute to the debate at Talk:Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Deb 22:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
• User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
• User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
• User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 14:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm just dropping by here briefly to request more attention for the article on Marie of Edinburgh (better known as Queen Marie of Romania). Probably the most important non-regnant queen of the last 200 years. Her husband was a bit of a nonentity, whereas she was a celebrated intellectual and diplomat who successfully represented her country at Versailles after World War I, negotiating about as successfully there as any one national leader. It seems that a lot more effort has been put into far lesser figures. - Jmabel | Talk 06:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed a huge backlog in the unassessed articles related to our project. I hope we can clear the backlog, and also find new British royalty-related articles and do an assesment. Anyone wants to help? --Terence Ong 16:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd let you all know, the articles of our five latest monarchs (HM The Queen, George VI, Edward VIII, George V and Edward VII) have been nominated for Good article status (see here)! Well done one and all! – DBD 02:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this article deserves scrutiny for balance, so I'm bringing it to the attention of this WikiProject. While doing some work on the Lowthers, I read his entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. The contrast between their article and ours is striking. While the ODNB skips rather quickly over his personal life during the 1920s, our article consists of little but rumours and innuendo about that period, with little mention of his military career. Almost all of it is hedged: "believed to have been", "There is some suggestion", "said to have been". Most of the article seems to be sourced to "War of the Windsors: A Century of Unconstitutional Monarchy", which sounds polemical and is perhaps not a reliable source. Perhaps someone more familiar with the recent members of the Royal Family can scrutinize this. Choess 16:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

George IV of the United Kingdom has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. 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 here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 09:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The section Titles, styles, honours and arms in the article only goes on to deal with titles, styles and arms. Could someone expert in such matters add a subsection concerning his honours, please? Thank you! ^talkGiler S 12:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. Just wondering if any of the members could give some advice on a debate on the Catherine of Aragon page regarding the spelling of her name. There is some heated discussion on the discussion page, could you drop by and add your thoughts?? Greatly appreciated! CheersPaul75 01:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am no expert, but the only spelling I have ever encountered in my readings is the 'K' spelling. I have never encountered the 'C' spelling. I am sure both are commonplace, though, depending on which scholars you choose to believe. I am not a specialist in anything relating to the Tudors, so my interest is strictly amateur. Therefore, my limited grasp of the historiography puts me in a weak position. However, I can only say what I know, and that is I have never seen the 'C' spelling. I apologize for answering you after such a delay.

--Ashley Rovira 03:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

--Catherine of Aragon--

Hello. The correct spelling of her name as always been Catherine. Generally, the Catholics use the "C" spelling. Henry VIII was married to three Catherines, including Catherine Howard and Katherine Parr. I have seen the latter spelled with a "K" and a "C".

Kathryn O.~~britishgirl~~

Just a minor issue on the Scotland page and on her own page she is states as being Elizabeth II when this is not the case in every country(Scotland being the one I picked up on, where she is Elizabeth the first). I could not edit it for some reason though.

88.109.97.142 02:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• She is Elizabeth II no matter where she is. The concensus is now that when a british monarch choses their regnal name their regnal number will be the highest from the two countries... if there were ever a king called Robert he would become Robert IV as there was a Robert III king of Scotland. Sotakeit 11:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I was reading the Diana article and realized it is the 10th anniversary of her death this year. I know little about her so can't contribute much myself (a while back I did a bit and got the article protected but now the protection has been removed...) but I think it would be appropriate for the WikiProject British Royalty to consider a Wikipedia 'collaboration' of some sort as if her article can be brought up to FA standard it would a good article for the main page on the anniversary of her death. Bobbacon 12:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. 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 here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Simply south 11:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

==Elizabeth II (again)== Is there anyway? we can persuad the pro-sixteen... editors, to go with UK and fifteen...? That opening line looks terrible. It even contradicts that page's 'external links'. What's with this Commonwealth nationalistic pride. GoodDay 21:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Does someone in the line of succession make them automatically British Royalty? What about those who are not in the line of succession because they were born out of wedlock, or married a Roman Catholic, or one or more of their parents were Roman Catholic - do they still count as Royalty? Rhyddfrydol 16:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Simply, no. In most cases, "British royalty" is defined as anyone holding the British styles of HM, HRH or HH. However, for interest, we do include, arbitrarily, their close relative (non-royal spouses and children, for instance). It's basically a judgement call. Also, we tend not to include foreign royalty, members of foreign sovereign houses, etc. DBD 16:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Being in the Line of Succession isn't an automatic inclusion in the "royal family", although some people in the Succession are automatically royal, either for the House of Windsor or another house, for other reasons. --Ashley Rovira 12:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean that placing "Line of succession to the British throne" succession boxes under a "British royalty" header is wrong, though? Because this is current practice in WikiProject Succession Box Standardization. Waltham, The Duke of 22:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really, I as the one to create the s-roy template for successions not included under peerages and precedence, intended the banner "British royalty" not to imply ownership or anything like that, but rather a relation to the broad topic. DBD 23:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I am greatly relieved to hear that. Thank you for your prompt response. Waltham, The Duke of 23:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello WikiProject British Royalty participants!

It seems a debate about the use of nationality and ethnicity has been stirred on the Bernard Manning article talk page (I do beg your pardon!). It is my believe that nationalism is spoiling the integrity of some articles, and have had Union flags and citations removed with no justification. Some are even asserting there is an English nationality!

I know Manning is far from royality, but would welcome some comments on the talk page, as I feel I'm talking to a brick wall. Jhamez84 21:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

George I of Great Britain has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. 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 here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Epbr123 21:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth I of England has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. 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 here. Reviewers' concerns are here. DrKiernan 15:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I worked on this picture and wanted to know if you people like it to replace this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bewareofdog (talk • contribs) 05:05, 4 August 2007.

Well, my vote is in the negative, but then it would be, because the current one is of my design. And it's better. By far. DBD 21:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you ... :-) But could a member of this project please answer my question on Talk:Princess Augusta Charlotte of Wales which I posed several months ago? And in addition: Could someone / a member of this project please delete the wrong picture in Princess Augusta Charlotte of Wales because it shows her mother (see my comment on the discussion page). Greetz -- Sir Gawain 12:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Members of this project should probably be aware of the fact that the is currently a vote on to move the page Victoria of the United Kingdom Jooler 17:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been proposed at that article, that British monarchs be added. We need some opinons on this, and on when the British monarchy started (1603 or 1707). GoodDay 18:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)