The questioned editor here is in fact aware of this discussion as per user s talk page Re latest 2 part comment in very good faith there have long been perfectly clear established facts about all this in very reliable literature that need no further discussion nor any reevaluation by Wikipedia I go by Burke s and Debrett s in English Respectfully suggest we all save ourselves the trouble and miles and miles of unending discussion by relying on such experts and their insurpassable genealogical reports and correct everything to the contrary even to where articles may need to be mechanically protected from arbitrary POV pushing that can not be substantiated with sources anywhere near as reliable Royalty with subjects are royals nothing less no surnames ever Royalty without are former royals nothing more The latter in modern times have surnames Before then nobody did