Talk:House of Windsor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.

I do not like such unjustified reverts. The House of Windsor is not a different house than the house of Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha. The throne is still a posession of this house, and the only thing that happened in 1917 was that they adopted a new family name. Thus, I think it makes more sense to have one list of monarchs of this house, with a note concerning the name change. Besides, your removal of the rest of the information I added were highly inappropriate. I am going to revert this page. Ertz 07:56, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You are wrong. The name of the House was changed too: "hereby declare My Will and Pleasure that I and My children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that my descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name of Windsor" To say only the surname was changed is wrong and misleading. --Jiang 07:59, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There's no confusion given that where the list continues or originates from is clearly states. There's more confusion when you list members of a house that is no longer called such. In addition, "house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg" is a bunch of phooey. The order in council makes the provision for the House of Windsor to continue, even when ruled by a Mountbatten-Windsor. That will have to be changed by another Order in Council. --Jiang 08:05, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pardon? No councils are in position to change the system of family succession, which is based on the agnatic principles, and which applies to all German noble families, without exceptions. No matter what they call themselves, the children of Prince Philip technically belongs to his family, the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. Ertz 08:26, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And the stuff about the throne being a "possession" of a house reflects a position that is antiquated by a matter of some centuries. -- Nunh-huh 08:09, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is the British Royal Family, not the German one. No one is denying the lineage of the House of Windsor, but under British law, what is declared in the Privy Council goes. Your view is in the minority. Please cite your sources. --Jiang

i would tend to agree with Ertz, naming them of their true house would eliminate alot of confusion. - anon.

And yet Ertz's preferred name is not the actual name. That won't eliminate confusion, it will add it. - Nunh-huh 23:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not you merge the two articles in the future this one needs cleaning up now. Personally i feel you should leave them seperate but that isnt important. - Fenix

Contents 1 Princess Anne 2 Why Windsor 3 Russell Henry Errett comments 4 American School of Paris

[edit] Princess Anne

Shouldn't Princess Anne's children be included in the list of Queen Elizabeth's grandchildren? AEriksson 14:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

No, they're not part of the House of Windsor. Craigy (talk) 15:01, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why Windsor

It would be nice if the article said why the name Windsor was chosen. Windsor Castle says the family took the name from it, but that's still not much of an explanation - why not the House of Holyrood, resurrect the House of Stuart, or some other creative fiction like the House of Tudor-Stuart? Is much known about the rationale? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought the political rationale was well known: "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" was too German-sounding in a Britain at war with Germany, so the King changed the family's name, purely for perspicacious political reasons. As for why "Windsor," it's a nice English-sounding name that his subjects were already familiar with and which was already associated with the royal family. Same rationale by which "Battenberg" became "Mountbatten" -- more English-sounding. --Michael K. Smith 16:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Note also that for royal families, there is a distinction between a "Royal House name" and a "personal surname", which do not always coincide. The "personal surname" of this royal family was "Wettin" before being changed to "Windsor", and arguably there is some similarity between those two names (they share the same initial letter, if nothing else).
--HYC 06:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russell Henry Errett comments

Citations are sorely needed here. I couldn't find a lick of information on this doing a simple Google search, which leads me to believe that we're seeing a bit of nonsense. If anyone knows anything about R. Errett, they need to speak up before I remove the offending paragraph completely to avoid smearing someone's name unjustifiably. --Wolf530 07:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It's just plain bullshit, and it's gone now. - Nunh-huh 08:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American School of Paris

This article references Prince Philip attending the American School of Paris in St. Cloud. The American School of Paris website has an "official" historical timeline for the school, and that timeline begins in 1945. Moreover, the first location for the school was in the American Church in central Paris, not in the suburb of St. Cloud. Please clarify or correct the assertion in the article.