Hi Wilkiens,
We have a major problem over how to refer to members of a royal family other
than monarchs. Different people are using any number of references,
structures and names. Do we use (i) surnames or (ii) titles? What happens if
a ''personal'' surname is different to a Royal House name? (eg, is the
former Austrian Crown Prince Otto Von Hapsburg, Otto von Hapsburg, Otto von
Habsburg, or Otto Habsburg-Lothringen? Which is the Royal House name? Which
is a surname?) Furthermore, putting in a 'common name' (as presumed by a
page writer) is problematic; for example, there is NO such person as
'Charles Windsor', nor 'Anne Windsor' because Windsor is a Royal House
name,
not their surname; their surnames actually are different. I have spent some
time checking out the whole issue, including speaking to the Buckingham
Palace press office to get accurate information re-British royals. I put my
suggestion on the history standards page and so far it has met with general
consensus approval, subject to minor modifications, which I have made. I
call it the THREE GENERATION RULE.
(1) FIRST GENERATION ROYALS
'Children & siblings of A monarch'' (not just the present monarch!) should
be referred to by TITLE where they have one, or 'PRINCE/PRINCESS OF
[country]' where they have no formal title, for example;
**Charles, Prince of Wales
**Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark
**Philip (or spanish version), Prince of the Asturias (or Crown Prince of
Spain)
**Willem Alexander, Crown Prince of the Netherlands
**Andrew, Duke of York
**Anne, Princess Royal
**Victoria, Princess Royal (daughter of Queen Victoria and mother of Kaiser
Wilhelm II)
**Margaret, Princess of the United Kingdom (daughter of George VI, sister of
Elizabeth II)
**Beatrice, Princess of the United Kingdom (daughter of Queen Victoria,
sister of Edward VII)
REASON: such royals are widely known and so recognised almost exclusively by
name or title. Using standard names (which some reference books do) won't
work on WIki because the vast majority of its users won't have a clue what
their standard name is, particularly as their actual surname is frequently
different to the Royal Family name. It has already caused problems for some
people I know, who decided to go elsewhere for information.
(2) SECOND GENERATION ROYALS
Those descended from a monarch should be referred to by title if they have
one, by Royal House name (eg, Windsor, etc) IN THE ARTICLE TITLE if they
don't, unless they have a CLEAR AND IDENTIFIABLE SURNAME, for example:
**Princess Beatrice of York
**Princess Eugenie of York
**Eloise Sophie Beatrix Laurence, Countess of Orange-Nassau
**Zara Phillips
**Princess Anne's children have no title, an almost unique situation. They
are universally known by their father's surname of Phillips, so a degree of
flexibility is required here, but as I say they do SEEM unique.
REASON: such royals are less well known but again are known largely by
name/title. Using a surname would be confusing as many would have different,
largely known surnames. If we use, say, 'Beatrice of the United Kingdom'
that could be mixed up with an earlier one of the same name. But we can't
say 'Princess of York', as that isn't correct, even though she IS a princess
and OF York. Leaving out princess causes another problem; many in the middle
ages called themselves, for example, 'John of Gaunt', 'Philip of Chester,
'Maud of Lille' etc. And just using a surname is out because contrary to
what some on Wiki think, Windsor isn't her surname and few would recognise
her actual double-barrelled surname. The view expressed to me was that you
need to clarify her status as a princess and use York to define her. The
general view was in such cases, 'Princess Beatrice of York' is
name-specific, person-specific and the most correct title, clarifying
exactly who she is. And it is workable in all occasions I can think of.
(Sons and daughters of royal dukes and earls use their parent's title as
part of their own. For example, 'Prince William of Wales', 'Prince Richard
of Gloucester', etc.) For example,
**Princess Beatrice of Edinburgh (grand-daughter of Queen Victoria)
**Princess Victoria of Connaught (grandaughter of Queen Victoria)
Such figures are unlikely to feature in Wiki, but if they do, it is worth
having a standard structure by which they can be dealt with.
(3) Other Minor Royals.
The Royal House name should be used, for example:
The Earl of Ulster referred to by Royal House (in this case, Windsor)
Where a ''minor royal'' is unambiguously identified by a clear surname,
that
could be used. For example
**Viscount Linley as David Linley.
By using a Royal House name, we would be using the name most people would
associate with a monarchy. In Britain, that would be Windsor,
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha in Belgium.
REASON: Such royals are hardly known, and rarely by title. But as they may
have a different and almost totally unknown surname, using the Royal House
name may be the most straight-forward way
Having used title or accurate reference in the ARTICLE TITLE, we may then
add in a surname (if we have it, and its not as simple as people think) IN
THE OPENING LINE. I've added two definitions onto Wiki that can also be
linked in for clarity. ROYAL HOUSE means Royal Family name. So, on a
reference to a member of the British Royal Family, after the name in the
text, you can simply add ''of the [[Royal House]] of [[Windsor]]'' and
someone who isn't sure can check to see what a Royal House is. I've also
added definitions for the two British Royal Family names; [[Windsor (Royal
House)]] (the Royal House/Royal Family name, which is also the surname of
some but but no means all of the family), and [[Mountbatten-Windsor]], the
actual surname of Charles, Anne, Edward and Andrew and all their children,
according to Buckingham Palace.
So an entry would go,
CHARLES, PRINCE OF WALES
Charles Philip Arthur George [[Mountbatten-Windsor]], of the [[Royal House]]
of [[Windsor]] . . . etc etc
So far, there has been general consensus on the idea, subject to minor
queries and ideas which I am incorporating. Indeed a number of people have
begun renaming articles to conform with this structure. (I've added in the
correct surnames to articles on Queen Elizabeth's children).
Has anyone any observations or suggestions? I know both Deb and Mav seem
reasonably satisfied with the idea. Others have made minor suggestions for
adaptions but seem happy with the overall idea. As I said, the current
haphazard system isn't working, while just using what people THINK are
correct surnames is producing references that most people won't understand
and which in many cases are factually incorrect. In the case of royalty, it
is easier to be specific using unambiguous titles than surnames, not least
when many royals don't actually have them, again contrary to what some think
when they take a dubious stab at making them up, as is the case with
[[Charles Windsor]]; whomever he is, it most certainly isn't Prince Charles,
whose surname is Mountbatten-Windsor according to the Palace.
JT.
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail