Talk:Family tree of the British royal family

message: It would be great if someone could finish the page in the same fashion by providing the Saxon kings. The link is through Matilda of Scotland. 195.92.168.171 21:33, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Saxon Kings

message: There's a problem here.  The senior line of descent is actually back through the Scottish monarchs -- not the English ones.  So this tree is actually incorrect. It and the Scottish monarchs tree should be re-arranged to create a corrected British monarchs tree and a new English monarchs tree. -- Derek Ross |  Talk 03:43, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)
:Yes, but its always Scotland who wanted/ts independencence and not England. That says a lot about the real importance of senior lines of descent. muriel@pt 10:47, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point and you are right of course. Thing is that wikipedia favours the most common point of view, meaning that the reader will expect to see the rulers previous to Queen Victoria (for example) to be the rulers of England not Scotland. I think the change you suggest, though accurate, would be seen as akward (did i get the spelling right??). We can ask Emsworth for his opinion. He's the sort of British royalty expert around here. Cheers, muriel@pt 08:33, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I slept badly last night and being tired puts me in a bad mood. :-( But following the format in the PDFs on the Royal Family's website (here) should make it perfect. (ObviouslBETHANY DAWN DUNLOP WAS EYAHH DOING HISTORY HOMEWORK :y we can't just use their family tree, because it's copyrighted.) Proteus (Talk) 13:37, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Or perhaps he is just displeased by the result of the U.S. presidential election :-) -- Emsworth 14:30, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that feeling. What an embarassment! muriel@pt 08:53, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: That would be okay with me. Proteus (Talk) 10:20, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Line of Descent

message: Saxe-Leiningen? Mecklemburg? Wurtemberg? Streliz? Princess of Portugal? Victoria, Princess Royal, married her father-in-law? Puke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld? These are all errors that must be fixed. I volunteer... for now. Charles 23:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors 

message: Just a quick note: Prince Charles is now married to Camilla Parker-Bowles. Should she not be added? Especailly since she will become Princess Consort when old Charlie get's the throne.
Please update the Windsor family Tree with this one:
http://www.royal.gov.uk/files/pdf/Windsor%20family%20tree.pdf
:It's preferred to concentrate on the 'line of succession' - unless Charlie & Camillia have children, she's not to be added. GoodDay 21:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's ridiculous. john k 19:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's how the article has it; second marriages haven't been listed (unless a monarch was produced from that marriage). GoodDay 18:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But how many opportunities for it are there?  The only other one I see is Princess Anne, whose second marriage is obviously less relevant than her brother's. john k 05:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add Charlie's second marriage if you like, can't see any harm in it. GoodDay 21:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: These are some of the following mistakes: 
1) Henry Stuart, Prince of Wales (1595-1612)?; he was born in 1594 
2) Charles I, succeeds the throne in 1626?; he succeeded in 1625 
3) Charles II, succeeds the throne in 1661?; he succeeded in 1660 
::He succeeded in 1649.  He ascended in 1660. john k 19:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These trees are full of mistakes.  Some more:
#Frederick V of Bavaria?  Obviously, all Wittelsbachs held the title of Duke (or Duchess) in (of?) Bavaria, but Frederick was of the Palatinate line, and its confusing to associate him with Bavaria.
#Henry, Prince of Wales died in 1612, not 1610
#Cromwell was Lord Protector from 1653, not 1649.
#Monsieur would never be called "Philip of Bourbon."
#James  II is considered to have been deposed in December 1688, not 1689
#Why is William III "William III of Nassau"?  Why is Anne  "Anne Stuart"?  
#Princess  Augusta, George III's daughter, is not, so far as I'm aware, known to have married.
#I don't see why Princess Sophia is to be associated with Thomas Garth.  We don't have any other extramarital liaisons listed.
#The Duke of Sussex's marriages were never annulled, as they were never valid in English law to begin with.
#the Duke o f Cumberland was Ernest Augustus  I of Hanover, not Ernest I
#"Strelitz" is spelled wrong in Queen Charlotte's entry
#"Alice Scott of Buccleuch"?
#The 6th earl of Harewood was named, I believe, Henry, not Charles.
#Antony Armstrong-Jones is the  Earl of Snowdon.
That's all I see at the moment, but there might be more. john k 20:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, James I/VI to William III/II don't belong on this article. They belong at the English monarchs family tree & Scottish monarchs family tree. GoodDay 20:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It's too bad; on first glance it appears as though the Stuarts are British monarchs (which they weren't -until Anne-). GoodDay 14:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They were not the rulers of a kingdom called "Great Britain," but, as rulers of both England and Scotland, they could be seen as "British monarchs" (the term is quite ambiguous).  john k 16:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ambigous, but easily misunderstood. GoodDay 18:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, so the text of the article should clarify the situation (which, of course, it doesn't). john k 05:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some mistaken dates

message: Is there a reason for including Viscount Linley and Lady Sarah Chatto here? -- Jao 11:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, they should be omitted. The monarchs's siblings children aren't listed (unless they'd succeeded to the throne). GoodDay 14:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Viscount Linley and Lady Sarah Chatto

message: This page should be moved to British Isles monarch's family tree. GoodDay 22:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Charles 00:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, why?  That's just incredibly awkward, and brings i n "British Isles," a controversial term, unnecessarily. john k 19:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. GoodDay 19:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Movement

message: How's this: User:DBD/Tree to replace the images? DBD 14:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: the wikicode for that chart is mindboggling - HTML5/SVG please rescue us!  Cander0000 (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart proposal 

message: The tree shows Diana Spencer as a child of Queen Elizabeth II instead of Prince Charles, could somebody fix this? XXL2oo (talk) 06:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error 

message: I suggest that geographically Hawai`i belongs in Polynesia, not the Americas, and a section be created to include the Kingdom of Tonga. --Hugh7 (talk) 06:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kingdoms of  Polynesia 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on British monarchs' family tree. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101202213352/http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/Windsor%20family%20tree.pdf to http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/Windsor%20family%20tree.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Should, Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, have box border that shows she is a child of a monarch? Pennwood711 (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon 

message: Why is Camilla labled as Queen Consort when no other Queen Consort is? I think it should be applied to all Queen Consorts or none. EmilySarah99 (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Camilla 

message: Why are we removing or redirecting royal children that do not have royal titles? Shouldn’t this family tree show every member of the royal family their offspring connection? I feel that helps viewers who are interested in learning about the family connections with the offsprings. If we are going to redirect Anne's children why redirect them to a category list? 
Honestly I am speaking for every member. We are not able to see the full connection of each family member by doing that. Are we only listing family members with royal status on the family tree. I feel that the family tree should included everyone regardless of royal status to be included in the tree because it helps us follow along. 
Also, not all of Anne's children bare the last name Phillip. Zara is married to a man with the last name Tindall. She is not a Phillip only Peter and his children carry that last name.Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be listing only people who held British titles, since otherwise, listing every single person descended from British royalty would make the tree impractically long and convoluted. 2601:249:9301:D570:B958:671A:92BB:984 (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children/Descendants of Royals without titles 

message: Sophia of Hanover was the daughter of Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia and Frederick V of the Palatinate, yet the descent line only connects her to Elizabeth. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sophia of Hanover parentage link only connecting one parent