Talk:House of Windsor

message: I believe they should look like the ones on their articles. RicLightning (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No consensus for such a massive alteration. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating photos of List of monarchs 

message: I do not agree with this edit. Googling old postcards of former British queens consort (in lieu of better sources right now) does not support it. It's a personal POV with nothing to back it. I am aware of, and can even respect the fact that many people take a more-or-less dim view of Camilla, ranging from just meek uncertainty or apprehensively positioned eyebrows to vehement, rabid, extreme, fanatic hatred. Anyone changing anything anywhere about her should ask h-elf what degree of that dimness of view might be swaying h to do so and how h motives might rightly be perceived. The woman has the exact same rank, title and style as previous British queens consort, and we all need to face that fact no later than now, no matter how it may hurt, somewhere, anatomically, with no sunshine. The king decides these things, not we Wikipedians. I will change this back unless someone can give us a good reason here not to. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: As it stands now,  Queen Camilla's entry on family tree matches those of Queen Mary (of Teck) and Queen Elizabeth (Queen Mum). Moons of Io (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Current queens, whether consort or regnant, have always been called "The Queen". Those fine ladies are dead. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Serg - it was you who brought them up when you were "googling old postcards" I don't understand this backtracking from you initial comment. 2A02:1406:1B:8F49:7589:F8D7:3489:F41B (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I did. They were called "The Queen" while their husbands were on the throne. No backtracking here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

text: The royal family website refers to her as "The Queen" , as does the coronation invitation . The use of the term queen mum was to distinguish from her daughter, who was also queen elizabeth. Both the queen mum and Mary of Teck were styled 'HM The Queen' during the reign of their husbands, as Camilla is known now. As she is the only Queen of the UK living, there is no need to distinguish her from anyone as was the case with the queen mum. EmilySarah99 (talk) 08:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! Elizabeth II:s mother was known as "The Queen" during her husband's reign. Her daughter was (the only one) known as "The Queen" during hers. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Queen, as of 2024 

message: Children of female monarchs take the house of their fathers, but Charles III is listed as part of Windsor on his page and the current head of house Windsor on the House of Windsor page, but then on the Glücksburg page he is listed as a currently reigning monarchs part of House Glücksburg. By all reasonable definition Charles is part of house Glücksburg. Currently we are at an impasse with contradicting articles. If female monarchs could pass on their house then the house of Windsor wouldn't even exist, this logic is insane. Personally I believe it is worth adding Glücksburg to Charles's page alongside Windsor, and mentioning this on the Glücksburg page and the Windsor page. Zenryzap (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "this logic is insane" No it is not? The United Kingdom has had several changes in its legislation concerning the reigning house and its succession since World War I. Dimadick (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Britain has changed succession laws to be gender neutral, changed their branch of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor, and changed the last name of the family to Mountenbatten-Windsor as far as I'm aware, what of that list would make Charles part of Windsor instead of Glücksburg? The best answer I've found says that he is indeed part of house glücksburg, but also windsor because Elizabeth II declared all monarchs descended from George V to be Windsor (is that really "legislation"), and one site said that this makes it a cadet branch, but i'm not entirely sure about that. Either way at least 1 article is wrong. I will admit calling it insane is harsh though. Zenryzap (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The Royal.UK website directly addresses the royal house name, "Unless The Prince of Wales chooses to alter the present decisions when he becomes king, he will continue to be of the House of Windsor and his grandchildren will use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor." To my knowledge, no such change ever took place, so the official house is still House of Windsor. House name. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 05:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Ok, on the Glücksburg page it mentions that charles III is only agnatically part of house glücksburg, and in a footnote it states that he reigns as house windsor, so does the windsor page, but Charles III's page doesn't mention Glücksburg at all. If both house pages are in agreement to mention charles's connection to the other house, then shouldn't charles's page  include a section about his agnatic hertiage of glucksburg?  it should at least be mentioned. Zenryzap (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If/until King Charles III decides otherwise, the British royal house is "Windsor". GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Then should he be removed from the glücksburg page? Zenryzap (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll have to ask, over there. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

text: "Children of female monarchs take the house of their fathers" assumes that all houses operate on the same, i.e. agnatic principles. I think it's clear by George V's 1917 proclamation, Elizabeth II's 1960 proclamation, and current practice that the House of Windsor doesn't currently operate on such principles entirely. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

text: As far as I know, there are no planned changes on the dynastic name. Charles' genealogy has no impact on any legislation on the matter. Dimadick (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Legislation? Who mentioned legislation? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles III, Glücksburg or Windsor?