[WikiEN-l] solving the problem of royal nomenclature

[james duffy]

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