":No one's commented for two weeks so I'm taking it off.    

 == New members List == 

 I find the article not particularly clearly set out or easy to navigate - mainly because of the large graphics particularly the list of members. I was thinking it might be better to transfer that to List of members of the House of Windsor, leaving behind a wikilink. Any objection?    
 :Done.    
 ::How comes that the page is not yet semi-protected?-   

 -Not an objection, but just thought I'd point out: only those descended in the male line (male or female) from Elizabeth II and those descended from in the same circumstances from Queen Victoria (and who are British subjects/citizens) are members of the House of Windsor. People like; for example, Peter Phillips, the Earl of Harewood and Viscount Linley are most certainly not members of the House of Windsor. 

 The 1917 Order-In-Council: 

 ""...from the date of this Our Royal Proclamation Our House and Family shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that all the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, other than female descendants who may marry or may have married, shall bear the said Name of Windsor..."" 

 The 1952 Order-In-Council: 

 ""I hereby declare My Will and Pleasure that I and My children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that My descendants, other than female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the Name of Windsor.""   
 :This is an old argument which previously generated pages of posts that went nowhere. Let's not start again.    

 No; the old argument was about whether or not the male-line descendants of Elizabeth II were members of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg/Oldenburg. The issue as to who actually were members was not discussed. 

 -regardless of that; there are verifiable sources (the orders-in-council, debrett's, and various others that show very clearly that it is only the children of these respective monarchs and the male-line issue of their sons (and not their daughters) that are members of the House Of Windsor. If you want to ignore these sources, that's up to you, but I'll move this to the other talk page if that's the case.   

 :Unless you intend to revert my transfer of the list to the new article, I'm not sure that your point is relevant to this article. Suggest you deal with it there.    
 -which is what I've done. Please refer to that talk page.   

 == Edits by  == 

 I made 4 quite separate and distinct changes to this article which you reverted en bloc, claiming that they were original research.  I think if we go over them one at a time we can reach a sensible conclusion. 

 1) I changed a subheading from ""List of Commonwealth realms monarchs"" to ""List of monarchs of the House of Windsor"".  Since the article is actually entitled ""House of Windsor"", not ""Commonwealth realms monarchs"" this is surely an obvious and unobjectionable change: it simply aligns the title with the subject of the article (and besides the phrase ""Commonwealth realms monarchs"" is pretty ugly).  In any case, this is an editorial issue, with no research involved.  So I do not understand your objection to this. 

  
 2) The date Australia became a realm.  I understand that you are a lawyer, and that the Adoption Act states that it had effect from 3 September 1939.  But that is a matter of law, as interpreted after the passage of the Act in 1942, and the table is about (constitutional) history, not the law.  No Australian politician or lawyer between 1939 and 1942 could have agreed that the SoW had been adopted: Menzies' speech to parliament on the declaration of war presumes that it had not.  Section 2 of the Act itself says that it ""shall come into operation on the day on which it receives royal assent"" (see )  i.e. in 1942.   

 AS