Template talk:British royal family

message: Camilla Parker Bowles shouldn't be on the template until after the wedding.  She is not now a member of the royal familly. (Alphaboi867 05:36, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancient discussion

message: Shouldn't Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York be on here?  They are the mothers of the 2nd and 3rd (Diana), and 5th and 6th (Sarah)
Hence the note "as of April x 2005". AndyL 13:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed Camilla - she can go back on 8 April, no sooner, jguk 20:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Diana and Sarah

message: The styles can be provided in each of the relevant biographical entries, there is absolutely no cause to be prefixing on other pages through a template. Whig 18:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Styles->Interesting Info

message: This style dispute has spilled over from Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Enough, already. — Dan | Talk 19:10, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
:This is not so much a "spill over" as it is part of the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom page, as this template is transcluded into that article, and Jguk has respected the edits I've made to try to restore NPOV. This protection is improper, no request for protection was made, there is no debate or discussion here on the Talk page, just the unilateral action of one sysop. Whig 03:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Sysops are empowered to protect pages to stop or prevent edit wars, and no request is necessary. Discuss here, make a decision, and I or some other admin will unprotect it. — Dan | Talk 03:35, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
The use of abbreviated prefix styles conveys no information here that cannot be ascertained from the biographical articles themselves; and do not in fact give important disambiguating information since practically everyone on this list is simply designated as HRH (except for the queen and those designated "Lady So-and-So"). The maintenance of this stylistic flourish is especially improper because of its transclusion into articles which are substantially NPOV contested to begin with, and this is a barrier to resolution. Please unprotect. Whig 04:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Astrotrain, the relevant biographical entries provide the styles, and in the Template here there are no "HH's", just "HM" for the Queen and "HRH" for everyone else except "Lady". So there is no point to this. Whig 20:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected. 

message: I was wondering if this list should be indented to show the generations, as can be seen in other royal family lists.
The benefit of this is to break up the list, mainly to make it easier to read.
For example:
British Royal Family
*HM The Queen
*HRH The Duke of Edinburgh
**HRH The Prince of Wales
**HRH The Duchess of Cornwall
***HRH The Duke of CambridgeHRH The Duchess of Cambridge
***HRH Prince Henry of Wales
**HRH The Duke of York
***HRH Princess Beatrice of York
***HRH Princess Eugenie of York
**HRH The Earl of Wessex
**HRH The Countess of Wessex
**HRH The Princess Royal
*HRH The Duke of Gloucester
*HRH The Duchess of Gloucester
*HRH The Duke of Kent
*HRH The Duchess of Kent
*HRH Prince Michael of Kent
*HRH Princess Michael of Kent
*HRH Princess Alexandra
I would appreciate any thoughts. Rascalb 02:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that if you did that, it would look like Camilla is the daughter of the Queen and married to Prince Andrew. Rascalb 22:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indentation 

message: I do not believe that Diana and Sarah should be included on the template.  Even if the royal family says that Diana was still part of the family after her divorce, she is now deceased.  Should we keep The Queen Mother on the template?  As for Sarah, she is still alive, but until there is word form the RF about her status, she should stay off template. Prsgoddess187 18:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diana and Sarah - Take two 

message: At a quick glance that template seems to be more comprehensive and flexible, in some ways. Maybe the two could be merged in some way ? --Richardb43 14:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This template seems to cover the same ground as [[Template:House of Windsor]] 

message: Why have the Gloucesters, Kents, P/Pr Michael, and Princess Alexandra been removed? They're certainly still members of the royal family!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.73.77 (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored them- makes no sense to split them off. Astrotrain 15:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they still appear on their pages, whenever the extended parameter is used – so a smaller version can be used for only the core (ie EIIR) lot... DBD 15:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no need to an extended version or a core veriosn. One version is needed only, for navigation. Astrotrain 15:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'd much prefer to see one complete template with all the people in the BRF. Having an extended version of the template may imply that the Kents/Gloucs etc. are extended members, which they're not. Craigy (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grandchildren of George V? 

message: Since this template purports to be about the royal family (and not about the line of succession as such), I think in the top half (i.e. among the descendants of Elizabeth) it should reflect birth order rather than succession order. That is more logical, more what the reader expects. So I'm making that change too. Doops |  talk 18:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Droops's edit has been reverted, but I agree with him. Position in succession is irrelevant. Anne's children, who are, in the succession, above others listed on the template, are not listed. On the other hand, Prince Michael of Kent, for example, is not in the line of succession because he married a Catholic, but is on the list. Listing by succession order just does not seem helpful, and may even be deceptive -Rrius (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order 

message: Why is there a remark from 2005 above the contents box? -Rrius (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who knows. It's so irrelevant and not important now that I believe it can be removed without any fuss. Charles 00:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting of Talk Page 

message: G2, please revert your latest edit. The discussion on the infobox hasn't concluded yet. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 15:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What ever for? The above discussion has nothing to do with the width of the present incarnation. If there is consensus to change the layout and placement, then whatever changes are agreed on can be made. --G2bambino (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussions above are all related to the size, placement, and format of the infobox. As you yourself have said, the status quo should remain until the conversation is concluded. That status quo means the version used should be the way it was before you started editing the infobox at all, as multiple users have expressed concerns with your changes. Please put it back. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 15:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. The discussion above seems to have steered well away from the width issue where it began, though. --G2bambino (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 16:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest edit 

message: The width of this template should match that of the infoboxes on the pages the template exists on. --G2bambino (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No need; as has been elaborated at great length above, nobody sees any issue with the template as it currently stands. [ roux ] [x] 22:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For aesthetic reasons, it should be the same width as the infoboxes. --G2bambino (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At least three or four people have already stated that the infobox is perfect as it is within the last, what, two weeks? Consensus is against you. [ roux ] [x] 22:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The earlier commentary was distracted by your redesign proposal. For now, I'd like to simply concentrate on the width, and nothing else. --G2bambino (talk) 22:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an unnecessary change. [ roux ] [x] 22:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not for aesthetic reasons. --G2bambino (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

text: On this issues, I'm not really bothered either way. All I will say is that I don't see why it has to be the same width as the infobox, I see no benefit in that and I don't see it as better aestheticly.--UpDown (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We had an issue similar to this on Wikinews with our audiobox template redesign. I was against making it the same size as the infobox (too much space for too little info), but consensus went against me, and we ended up going in that direction (for the sake of vertical infobox uniformity). But I have to say, now that it's been this way for a while, I like same sized infoboxes better. Having randomly sized rightside infoboxes looks goofy. So I'd suggest that we do the same thing with this template. It just looks better in the end. Gopher65talk 04:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, then; if there's no serious objection to widening the box, I'll go ahead and make the change. --G2bambino (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently I forgot to remove this from my watchlist. There is a serious objection: it is simply not a necessary edit. Consensus on the page, as has been explained to you, is against any changes. Reverting. [ roux ] [x] 21:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you discounting the above discussion? The only person expressing opposition to a change in width, specifically, is you. --G2bambino (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not getting into an argument with you. Mayalld explained, as did I, what the consensus on this page is. It is against changes. Bye. [ roux ] [x] 21:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet, you've just initiated an argument. So we can either affirm or dispel this idea of there being a consensus on not changing the width, could you please point me to where I was "told" what the consensus was here regarding that specific matter? --G2bambino (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You know precisely what you were told and where; see comments by Mayalld at the talk page of your RfC/U. The overriding consensus on the page is that no change is required to this template. Period. Your attempts to override that by saying "well nobody specifically said this specific thing" are beside the point; the overall view across this entire talk page is very, very clear: no change. None. Nada. Zero. Nothing. You have already been told this, and quite specifically, by Mayalld. I suggest you re-read his comments. [ roux ] [x] 22:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

text: You're asking me to deal with something I've yet to see. Right above I see two users besides myself who have no issue with changing the width and one who does. And that makes a consensus against change how? Mayalld said there was no consensus here; this discussion was initiated two days prior to his comments in order to garner opinion, and we see above what was said. I would concede to popular opinion if one existed, but it seems I'm being told not to do something because one user says a consensus exists but can't prove it. --G2bambino (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see the Template deleted (but that's another subject, ha ha). GoodDay (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is getting ridiculous. According to WP:CON silence implies consensus. No valid reasons for not changing the template have been brought up...Besides, consensus usually isn't needed for trivial edits like this...Best, --Cameron* 12:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for reaffirming that there has been no real argument against changing the width. I would still like to do it, but I sense that Roux will not relinquish his notions of control. --G2bambino (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a violation of your restrictions, there. You're also ignoring that DBD has said exactly the same thing. [roux » x] 00:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly; please understand the difference between a personal attack and a comment on your recent mode of editing. Both you and DBD have said there's some kind of consensus against changing the width, but neither of you have pointed to where it is. At best, the issue is still up in the air with four users not opposed, one opposed, and one possibly opposed. But, as Cameron says, the demand for consensus on such a "trivial edit" is rather incomprehensible. --G2bambino (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would a monthly rotation work? GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I don't know what you mean, GD. --G2bambino (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Width 2 

message: I have started a discussion here about capitalzation of the definite article the. You are invited to discuss. Surtsicna (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization of the definite article "the" 

message: Ladies & Gentlemen, it's time to have 16 Templates. Wikipedia has room for them. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 16 templates for what? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Create Template: Canadian Royal Family, Template: Australian Royal Family etc etc (whatever can be varified). Wikipedia has limitless room for articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But not limitless room in articles. More templates would clutter up pages. The idea perhaps takes too far the notion of "separate" in "separate but equal". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On the assumption that 're-naming' this Template to 'Commonwealth Royal Family' (which would be 'original research) would be rejected? I've no prob with the Canadian linkage being kept (and future linkages being added). GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a problem with this one, what was wrong with that one? Anyway here is a suggestion Sodacan (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

text: If you can make 'of the United Kingdom' & 'Commonwealth realms' equal size, it's acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would have to be "United Kingdom and the other Commownealth realms"; the former is not excluded from the latter. The exclusively English arms are still there, too. Otherwise, as it's very similar to something I earlier tried to implement, I don't see why I'd object now. Other editors, however... --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this? DrKay (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I guess I can back down on the title-y bit, but dear Lord that image is ugly... DBD 10:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The badge that Sodacan created and inserted here is vastly better than anything that was in the template before. Many thanks to him for making the file. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

text: If François Velde is to be believed, the royal family as a legal entity does not exist. And according to Monarchy of Canada#Canadian Royal Family," unlike in the United Kingdom, the monarch is the only member of the Royal Family in Canada with a title established through law".... Who are we to determine who is and who is not in the so-called "Commonwealth Royal Family"?  -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. The Viscount Severn and Lady Louise Windsor are not members of the Canadian Royal Family. See: Department of Canadian Heritage: "Royal Family" 
I must've been possessed when I made that recommendation at 16:25 November 1, 2009. GoodDay (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate, but equal

message: Does anyone know what this is about? DBD 18:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:UK Royal Family]] 

message: The children of the Earl and Countess of Wessex might be legally prince and princess of the United Kingdom. However, they are not styled as such. Including them as "Viscount Severn" and "Lady Louise Windsor" makes as much sense as would including Lord Ulster and Peter Phillips. The template says: "The only people who should be listed in this template are the sovereign, his or her consort and all living Princes and Princesses of the United Kingdom, to the exclusion of all others." James and Louise are not considered prince and princess. They are not styled as such. It is not even clear whether they are prince and princess (whether the Queen's word is more authoritative than her grandfather's letters patent). The fact that they are "very close family members in male line of the queen" is irrelevant. They are just as much her grandchildren as are the Princess Royal's children and they bear just as much royal titles. The template is not limited to male-line relatives. It is limited to "the sovereign, his or her consort and all living Princes and Princesses of the United Kingdom". Surtsicna (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Viscount Severn is just a member of the royal family, for example the Press Office of the Queen writes about Viscount Severn as being a member of this family (see: Arrangements for the christening of Viscount Severn). Unfortunately, I can not find a clear cut and reliably list on internet about who's is indeed member of this family, which is rather strange... Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wessex children 

message: You should list the members of the royal family according to this PDF File from the official website of The British Monarchy.  Have also separate templates for each realm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.64.19 (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there should be one template as only one is necessary and the extra ones will have little, if any, potential use. DrKay (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

text: I would not object particularly to the addition of Peter and Zara Phillips, however, the inclusion of all the descendants of the previous king begins to look like overkill. I've no idea what Sarah Chatto looks like, and I don't think she's a public personality, or her husband and children. As one gets more and more distant from the monarch, the basis for inclusion becomes weaker, almost arbitrary. I do appreciate that the list you've provided is from an official site and is a clear list, but personally I think we should agree a tighter definition for inclusion, to prevent burdening the template with minor figures. DrKay (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose we trim down even further, and insist on HM and HRHs only. (So we lose Severn & Louise and Sarah who has somehow been added). In fact I'm going to Bold it. DBD 11:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think It's right to remove the name of Sarah, but it's not right to remove the name of James and Louise, They are the children of The Earl of Wessex and indeed they ARE British Prince and Princess, so we shouldn't remove their name. Keivan.fTalk 13:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Of note, Wessex's children are Their Royal Highnesses, their father has just chosen to treat them as children of an Earl as opposed to grandchildren of the Monarch. I suspect The Viscount Severn will be titled HRH the Earl of Wessex upon the death of the Duke of Edinburgh and Edward's assumption of that title. Achowat (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway I think it's right to have the name of Sarah on the Template because she is a British princess by marriage, and as you know, Diana, Princess of Wales remained a member of the Royal Family after her divorce and I think Sarah is also included. But Phillipses are not Prince and Princesses because they are the children and Grandchildren of the daughter of The Queen and of course Viscount Linly and Lady Sarah Chatto aren't Prince and Princess because they got their surname from their father and they belong to their father family. Keivan.fTalk 14:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My justifications: whether or not Louise & Severn "technically are" or "legally are" HRHs or some bullshit I don't believe like that, the fact is they have never used their HRHs. The intent from the Queen in 1999 is Very Clear Indeed – that they  are not to be treated at Royals. As for Sarah – she is the mother of two princesses, but she ceased to be royal when she divorced. The comparison to Diana is false, since her treatment as a sort of member of the RF (1996–1997) was by virtue of being the future heir-and-spare's mother. DBD 20:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: But again, I don't think like you. Louise & James are grandchildren of The Queen in male line. It is right that they don't use the HRH style, but anyway they are British Prince and Princess. And about Sarah, as the mother of two princesses, she is an Important lady and according to the official website of the British monarchy, she is still a member. Keivan.fTalk 07:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  This entire discussion seems (to someone who has NO vested interest in the British Royal Family) to be far too particular for the article's title.  The article is entitle the "British Royal Family", so I am unclear as to why, if they're the family, why does it matter whether they are HM, HRM, a prince or princess or anything else.  If you want to be that specific, perhaps an article entitle British Sovereigns, Princes and Princesses. Vertium (talk to me) 21:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Members are incomplete 

message: In sight of what happened to Elizabeth II on the main page, is it not best to have this template protected against IP edits? --Inops (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection of this template 

message: A request for comments which may impact this template has been started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#RfC on style in royal family templates. You are welcome to comment there. Fram (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC notification

message: To try to end the very-slow-speed edit warring that seems to be occurring on this template, can we reach an agreement as to how Prince Harry should be listed? My preference is for his formal title, Prince Henry of Wales, so as to be consistent with the way everyone else is listed on this template. This could be followed by the more reader-friendly "Prince Harry" in brackets. (In any case, as was noted in the last edit summary, the underlying link should be to the actual article title, not a redirect.) W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Just use the article title, as I suggested above and here, for all entries, this would remove the Harry/Henry edit war as well. If Harry is good enough for his article, then it certainly should be good enough for this infobox. Fram (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: But that would lead to a wholesale change throughout the template. As I understand it this list as it stands is meant not just as a pure navigation aid, but as an informative list of formal titles. If we changed them all to article titles, we would end up with a mix that would be more confusing from an informational point of view. The only reason I have a slight preference for including the bracketed "Prince Harry" is that his formal title is likely to be unrecognizable to far more people than any of the others are. W. P. Uzer (talk) 11:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's not a list, it's a template used as a navigational aid on all these articles. I have no objection against a list of "Order of precedence in the BRF" (which probably exists), but that's not what we have here of course. The current template is much more confusing to most readers than what I proposed; while I know who Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex is (or simply "Prince Edward" would do in the template as well), I have no idea who "HRH The Earl of Wessex" is (yes, some high member of the family, but that's obvious a priori). We now have a mixture of people addressed by title only, and people addressed by name, which is very confusing. Fram (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply "Prince Edward" would not work as there are two British men alive right now who have that name.  The people who are addressed by their name, as you put it, are those who hold no higher titles.  Leaving the proper titles system as we have in place now, as it provides a uniformity to the chart and seems to be standard for other templates of this nature. Psunshine87 (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no, they should all be changed, the standard system for these is not in line with the standard system throughout Wikipedia, which is to avoid honorifics and the like wherever possible. I agree that if there are two Prince Edwards at the moment, the template should use the full article title. Note that the reverse is equally a problem, Template:Belgian Royal Family refers to "The Queen" without a name, but Belgian at the moment has three queens, Fabiola, Paola and Mathilde. Fram (talk) 06:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's a standard system - in appropriate contexts, we provide information about honorifics, official titles, etc. This template/list seems to have been constructed to serve (at least partly) as a neat and compact way of listing the honorifics and official titles of members of the British royal family (and the Belgian one probably functions similarly - I assume "The Queen" or its Dutch/French translation is an official title applied in Belgium only to one person, just as it was in the UK even when the late Queen Mother was alive). Since there are plenty of other ways of navigating around our royal family articles, it doesn't seem to me very helpful to redesign this template so that it no longer serves the informational purpose that it has at present. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's preferring one largely unimportant aspect of the families (honorifics and order of precedence) over clarity, recognisability, ease of use as a navigational tool. No "redesign" is needed, just a change of the links (well, the displayed portion of the links), which would make it a lot more informational than it is now. Anyway, I made my point, I prefer (for this specific discussion) Harry over Henry, and think that the template needs a complete change in displayed items, away from the formal and towards the practically useful. Fram (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

text: A few points here. First of all,  Template:Belgian Royal Family refers to "The Queen" under "The King" without a name, but then lists "King Albert II", "Queen Paola", and "Queen Fabiola" separately. Anyone looking at the template should be capable of realizing that "The King" and "The Queen" refer to the current monarch and his consort.
Secondly, the standard within 'all of the royal infoboxes is to use proper honourifics and titles.  This isn't detering people from using them, and is informative - it is essentially going "this is the current royal house as they call themselves."
Thirdly, using proper titles in this one spot provides a uniformity within the infoboxes.  Not all pages use proper titles, or even proper names, which does make sense within the pages.  However, If the infobox were to list "Elizabeth II", "Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh," and "Prince Harry" (as each of their actual page names list) then there would be no uniformity within the box.  Listing their proper titles, as they're listed on the British Monarchy website, is more informative and less disorganized. 
Fourthly, you made this argument last year and were unsuccessful in getting enough support to garner a change.  There is no need to rehash it all again this year. Psunshine87 (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no consensus then, so further discussing this a year later is not so strange. I know that I'll not get support from most of the "insiders", the people maintaining these templates: the RfC made it clear that a fair number of "outsiders" agreed with me though, and that these templates are "clear" and "informative" to people who know and care about what the royalty websites use to describe themselves, what the order of precedence and the "correct" titles are; most of the rest of the world believes that these are very minor aspects of royalty though, and knows them by name first and foremost, not by title only, and couldn't care less whether they should be adressed formally as HRH, HH, HE or HIH. These templates, and the arguments used to keep them as they are, are navel-gazing of the worst kind, not interested in what is the most useful and normal way to present things, but with what is the formally correct things according to the royals themselves. Fram (talk) 07:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Harry/Henry

message: Why not organize this like the Swedish Royal Family's template?--Hipposcrashed (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see much difference. Please explain how the templates differ. DrKay (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: None of them are referred to as Duke or Duchess. It is less formal as they use their names in place of more formal titles.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: How would we list princesses by marriage? Surtsicna (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: Should we add unofficial members who are sometimes included in listings? Векочел (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should stick to those bearing royal titles, which also roughly to the people listed at the official website. Surtsicna (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other members 

message: Her title is “Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy” every other member is listed by their titleBarryob  (Contribs) (Talk) 17:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the very formal style used in the Gazette, but the official website and the Court Circular now just call her Princess Alexandra. DrKay (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The royal website until very recently referd to her as Lady Ogilvy, in addition this template includes the “HRH” she is simply not “HRH Princess Alexander” 08:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's how the official website refers to her, then we should use that format. Adding the full title to the infobox doesn't seem to be reasonable, as the other members are not listed by their full titles either. Keivan.fTalk 01:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: So when Princess Eugenie is married, we will just call her HRH Princess Eugenie even though that is not her full official title because she would be Mrs. Brooksbank. What happens if Jack is granted an earldom (however unlikely), will we not put the earldom after her name and such? Prancer16 (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Her rank as a princess is obviously more noteworthy than the simple title of Mrs. Brooksbank. If her husband is granted an earldom, then she will have an actual title (HRH The Countess of X) but that's really unlikely. Keivan.fTalk 16:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Princess Alexandra  

message: Since she's now married to Jack Brooksbank, doesn't she drop the "of York" in her title and instead is just HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs Brooksbank ?  Same would apply to Princess Alexandra?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volundrbean (talk • contribs) 10:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: See the discussion at Talk:Princess Eugenie of York#Requested move 21 November 2018. Opera hat (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Princess Eugenie after marriage  

message: Why does the template need the badge image? I am hoping for answers more helpful than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It takes up a lot of space and does not appear to impart information. There is no context for the image; without a caption, the average reader cannot even know what it is supposed to be. Surtsicna (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you (or anyone else) want to make this one template different from the other Royal/defunct Royal Family templates? GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to make this template better than it is. Other editors can make other edits to other templates if they think it will improve those templates. Surtsicna (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Badge 

message: As Camilla is the only living person with the title of Queen, there doesn't seem to be any need to disambiguate with the title of Queen Consort. 2601:241:300:B610:E0B6:EFC4:47D5:E4BE (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think The Queen as a link is ambiguous. Per WP:EGG, readers should not be surprised by a link they're not expecting and most readers will, currently, expect "the Queen" to refer to the previous one. DrKay (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: All the other templates for ruling kingdoms listed on :Category:Europe royal family templates (except Denmark, which currently has a Queen Regnant) use the style, "The Queen" to refer to the queen consort, alongside "The King" to refer to the ruling monarchs, so I don't see a reason to be inconsistent with this standard. 2601:241:300:B610:E0B6:EFC4:47D5:E4BE (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

text: I complete agree that she should be shown as The Queen. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

text: The official website and the Court Circular are still calling her Queen Consort. DrKay (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought secondary sources, took precedence over primary sources. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Secondary sources also still calling her Queen Consort. DrKay (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all secondary sources though. Oh well, it's eventually going to be changed to The Queen, anyway. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen Consort