The questioned editor here is in fact aware of this discussion as per users talk page   Re latest 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 Burkes and Debretts 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 POVpushing that cannot 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