[WikiEN-l] solving the problem of royal nomenclature

[Ray Saintonge]

james duffy wrote:

> 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. 

I welcome your enthusiasm to do the work of sorting out this mess.  I 
know that I have tried to puzzle some of these out in connection with 
the [[People on stamps]] articles, only to become thoroughly confused 
when I saw the inconsistent treatment that has prevailed on Wikipedia. 
 If I undertook to track down the proper form in each of these 
circumstances, I would accomplish very little indeed.  I'm often left 
with my own best guess.  I basically support this initiative, but will 
no doubt have things to say about some of the details.

> (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.

1. We should also try to catch some spouses of a monarch here.
2. The entry for these  is not simply [[Title]] but [[Given name, Title]]
3. Some attention should be paid to precedence, with a person being 
listed under his or her highest ranking title.  That can change over his 
lifetime.  Charles was not Prince of Wales until 1958.
4. "Crown Prince[ss]" strikes me as a reasonably generic term, that 
could be used for any heir apparent to the throne in the absence of an 
overriding term.  Is it necessarily a title?  "Prince of the Asturias" 
is unlikely to be a known search term for people outside of Spain. There 
may also be an issue about when "Princess" should be written with a 
capital "P";  this would distinguish between a title and a description.
5. Do we use the terms "infante" or "infanta" for appropriate Spanish 
royals?
6. Since this rule would not apply only to current royal families, there 
should be an article for each title in this first group where all the 
holders of that title are listed.  The pupose of this would be to 
pre-emptively disambiguate the title holders.  Obviously, doing this may 
not be practical when only a description is appended.  
7. I hope that there is something simpler than "(daughter of George VI, 
sister of Elizabeth II)" to use as a disambiguator.

> (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. 

Fine!  I look at "Princess" in this context as necessarily descriptive 
without suggesting that the person holds that title. The titular 
reference following the given name would be to the father's title, again 
without any suggestion that she holds that title in her own right.  I 
would assume from your wording above for Eloise that she actually has 
the title, "Countess of Orange-Nassau"

> (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. 

This seems inconsistent with what you said above regarding the Phillips 
surname for Anne's children.

> So an entry would go,
>
> CHARLES, PRINCE OF WALES
>
> Charles Philip Arthur George [[Mountbatten-Windsor]], of the [[Royal 
> House]] of [[Windsor]] . . . etc etc
>
The link to [[Windsor]] would be to a disambiguation page, because it is 
also used for a couple of cities.

Redirects should also be created from other names that might reasonably 
be used.  You'll get an idea of what these are when people mistakenly 
use them.

Eclecticology