Talk:Anne, Princess Royal
|
|
As we don't refer to Charles Windsor, Prince of Wales but Charles, Prince of Wales, so this should be Anne, Princess Royal (of the United Kingdom), clarifying name, title and region. Calling her Anne Windsor, Princess Royal is a bit like writing Pope Paul VI Montini. In any case, Anne's surname isn't Windsor, that the Royal Family's name. The surname she was born with was Anne Windsor-Mountbatten. So if this page was to use a surname, that is the one that should be used. JTD 03:12 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)
- Oh dear, I'm getting quite worried by all this re-naming of the current royals. In my Chambers dictionary of biography, she's simply "Anne" with her other three Christian names in brackets, but I don't really like that either. I suppose I'll have to lump it unless I can come up with something better. Deb 17:41 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)
Yeah, it is a hard one, especially when the family name is Windsor but the family member's surname is 'Windsor-Mountbatten'. But princes and princesses would be known by their title. Princess Anne was granted the title 'Princess Royal', which I think should be used in the same way as referring to 'Charles, Prince of Wales' or 'Andrew, Duke of York. I put in the '(of the United Kingdom) because, though as far as I am know, the title 'Princess Royal' title is unique to the UK, I am not 100% (only 99%). To be safe, I thought the brackets piece should be in. Do you think that bit should be pulled? JTD 19:51 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)
Anne Windsor sounds fine to me, but whatever you agree on, please fix the double redirects (see What links here). --Eloquence 20:08 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)
But Eloquence, Number One: there is NO such person as Anne Windsor. (Windsor is the family name, but in the 1950s it was decreed that descendants of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh would individually have the surname Windsor-Mountbatten) There is Anne Windsor-Mountbatten. Anne Laurence. Anne Phillips. Anne, Princess of the United Kingdom, Anne, Princiess Royal. But there is no such person as Anne Windsor. So why do you want to name a page after a non-existent person?
Number Two: If we call other male royals by their name and title, why should a female royal be named differently? After all, we follow the rule of using (a) maiden title (Anne of Cleves, Catherine of Aragon) [which wasn't their surname but pre-marital title] (b) most senior royal title like 'Prince William of Wales', not William Windsor-Mountbatten - let alone William Windsor. Other examples include Charles, Prince of Wales, George V of the United Kingdom not Prince George, George, Duke of York or George, Prince of Wales.) (c) we use most commonly recognised name; Anne Windsor (apart from a non-existent name) is the least recognised, least common, least correct name that could be used. If you want to go by the correct surname, it is anything but Anne Windsor. But we should apply the name that is easily understood, easily recognised, correct and non-sexist, then you apply the same rules as apply in the case of her brothers. If we don't Wikipedia will simply be making an ass of itself, which it is doing in calling this page Anne Windsor. Or are we going to rename Pope Paul VI's page Giovanni Montini, Elizabeth II Elizabeth Windsor , or the former Constantine II of Greece Constantine Gluckberg? Do that, and Wikipedia would be a joke. JTD 20:56 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)
- Don't talk to me about that, User:The Anome renamed the page. I couldn't care less about royals. I would suggest, however, that whatever is agreed upon be written down in Wikipedia policy. --Eloquence 21:09 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)
- I agree with that. We have a policy for naming monarchs, but not for royal families. The royal families of Belgium and Greece are all over the page as far as I can see, as far as how we're naming them. -- Zoe
I agree, Zoe. Can I make a suggestion. Apply a 'First Generation Royals, Second Generation Royals , Other Royals Rule.
- Children & siblings of a monarch, ie, First Generation Royals should be referred to by title where they have one, or 'Prince/Princess of [country]' where they have no formal title, for example;
- Charles, Prince of Wales
- Andrew, Duke of York
- Edward, Earl of Wessex
- Anne, Princess Royal
- Princess Margaret of the United Kingdom
- Philip (or spanish version), Prince of the Asturias
(REASON: such royals are widely known and so recognised almost exclusively by name or title)
- Second Generation Royals descended only from the monarch should be referred to by title if they have one, by Royal House name (eg, Windsor, etc) if they don't, for example:
- Beatrice, Princess of York
- Eugenie, Princess of York
- Princess Anne's children have no title, so just use surname, which is Phillips.
(REASON: such royals are less well known but again are known largely by name/title. Using a surname would be confusing as many would have different surnames, not just the like of Windsor.)
- Other Royals Royal House used, for example:
- Earl of Ulster referred to by Royal House (in this case, Windsor)
- Viscount Lindley as David Lindley.
(REASON: Such royals are hardly known, and rarely by title. But as they may have a different and almost totally unknown surname, using the Royal House name may be the most straight-forward way).
If in doubt, just put in as surname, with a note on the talk page. Someone in Wiki will know. It isn't fail-proof but it does produce a name that would be easily recognised by the average Wikipedia user.
- All of the above seems reasonable to me (but please don't preemptively disambiguate Anne by using a parenthetical page title). But this whole thread really should be moved to Wikipedia Talk:History standards so that our group of historians (who watch that page) will notice the debate and weigh-in on it. --mav 00:29 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)
I've just been reading Part II section 1 ("What is the surname of the royal family?") of the alt.talk.royalty FAQ on British Royal & Noble Families (http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html). In summary, it says that the Queen declared in 1952 and again in 1960 that she and her children should be "styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor", but that Anne's surname was given as "Mountbatten-Windsor" on the certificate of her first marriage in 1974 (this being the Queen's decision, according to Buckingham Palace statement), and when the banns were read prior to her second marriage in 1992. Legally, in the UK, anyone can use any name they want, as long as it is not for a fraudulent purpose. So an interesting question would be: what name does Anne herself use now? Still, I think the Wikipedia convention is to use names that people are generally known by, and people don't generally use any surname for her, so I'll vote for the use of a title instead of a surname, as the person above does. (By the way, the name "Windsor-Mountbatten" seems to be a red herring. I don't know of it ever having been used for anyone.) -- Oliver PEREIRA 00:06 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)
There is some confusion over whether it should be Windsor-Mountbatten or Mountbatten-Windsor. Different sources use different alternatives, although the former is the more widely referred to version, with the pre-marital name of the Queen coming ahead of her husband's, to indicate her superior status as his monarch. 'House and Family' of Windsor indicates a formal state name. But the monarch did announce, in honour of her husband, indicated that the personal family name of their descendants would be MW or WM. That does complicate matters, for it means that there are in effect three names; the House of Windsor, the Royal Family name of Windsor, but the surname of WM/MW. Anne on her marriage used her surname, not her Royal Family name, while the House name isn't personal to a member (though usually the House name, Royal Family name and surname are the same). Similarly, the last Austrian Crown Prince, Otto, uses a personal surname including the word Hapsburg, but he still belongs to the House of Hapsburg. Other Royal Families complicate matters further by using the state's name as their implicit surname, hence 'Irene of Greece' not 'Irene Gluckberg'. Add in confusion over styles and you have a right royal mess. Which is why I suggested (above) that the immediate Royal Family (monarch, siblings and children) be referred to by title. Grandchilden of the monarch if they have a title be referred to by it. Other than that, use a surname. JTD 00:26 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)
I've never seen "Windsor-Mountbatten", except in informal webpages and newsgroup articles by random members of the public. If you can cite something more reliable that gives that form, I'd be interested to know! But I agree with you about putting titles into article headings, if that is how people are generally known. (By the way, I've added a missing apostrophe to your text above, as the italicisation was going all haywire. Hope you don't mind!) -- Oliver PEREIRA 01:31 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction. It doesn't really matter about the WM/MW unless there is a specific page on it. If a consensus forms around the Three Generation Rule then it won't matter anyway. I've put the suggestion on the Wikipedia Talk:History standards page. Maybe you could put a comment there on the idea, so we can try to build up a consensus around it. It is the most workable solution I could come up with. Otherwise we'll have numerous versions appearing. JTD 01:47 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)
The Princess Royal's staff in Buckingham Palace have confirmed to me that her maiden surname (and so the name used in the start of this article) is Mountbatten-Windsor, not Windsor. JTD 16:31 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)
In the somewhat recent court case, she was listed as "Laurence, Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise." I assume that to be her full name. [[1] (http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2002/11/22/1037697872255.htm)] Jiang 08:35 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
--- Can I point out these are all informal names anyway, being used for convenience. The correct styles for these people are The Prince of Wales, The Princess Royal, The Earl of Wessex, etc. Referring to someone as 'Charles, Prince of Wales' may be convenient when discussing multiple bearers of the title (and style) Prince of Wales, but it is not an official style. In fact I think the Princess Royal's official style is currently The Princess Royal, Mrs Timothy Laurence, but I won't swear to that. Gritchka
There are two correct references to the heir apparent to the British throne; outside Scotland he is simply The Prince of Wales. In Scotland, he is The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay. Prince Charles though often used, is a non-existent name, having disappeared when his mother inherited the throne in 1952. (Source: Prince of Wales' office, St. James's Palace) However we cannot use The Prince of Wales on wiki because that does not help readers know which Prince of Wales. So we opted to use personal first name, Charles, with the title to clarify with one. Most Princes of Wales became king and so would be referred to by their monarchical not princely title in article titles, as wiki uses the highest royal title held by someone. So Charles eventually will be down by his regal name (either Charles III or George VII; he has not decided which to use) when he becomes king. (BTW there was also no such person as Princess Diana. She was simply The Princess of Wales prior to her divorce, Diana, Princess of Wales afterwards. She is now on wiki using her maiden name of Diana Spencer (for the non use of Lady, see [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) on the issue of courtesy titles. Initially courtesy titles were not used. That has now been changed so I think Diana is also at Lady Diana Spencer also now.) Similarly Princess Anne ceased to be Princess Anne when she was made the Princess Royal, but to avoid confusion with past Princesses Royal, we use her first name for disambigulation purposes. (In doing so I checked with the Palace for guidance and they said that it was an obvious choice.)
Regarding her surname, history naming conventions do not use married surnames for royal women. That is because when they die, they revert to female name or female title. That is because of the problems caused with queen consorts who do not have an ordinal to distinguish between them, unlike queens regnant. So we can tell Queen Elizabeth I from Queen Elizabeth II by means of the ordinal I or II. But we have no way of distinquishing Queen Mary, wife of King George V, from Queen Mary, wife of James II. So maiden name or maiden title is used, in those cases, Mary of Teck, Mary of Modena. Queen Alexandra is known as Alexandra of Denmark. This is applied to royals worldwide. In view of this, using royal married surnames altogether is generally avoided. So while on her Banns of marriage, Anne was Anne Mountbatten-Windsor, and on her marriage she became Anne Laurence, the article follows the general principle of not adjusting the surname, hence the non-use of Laurence. (In any case as Anne and Tim are currently undergoing a trial separation (not highlighted yet in the media to give the couple space to try to save their collapsing marriage, but are expected ultimately to divorce, calling her Anne Laurence may be academic!) The only places where married names were used tended to be where as a result of marriage the Royal House name changed. So Queen Victoria's married surname of Wettin is used. But in most cases, the maiden name not married name is used.
Personally I would much rather not use royal surnames at all and instead use Royal House names. But past experience on wiki suggests that it a non-starter. There is a small but vocal minority of American-based wiki users who tried to get royal titles banned; they had Charles, Prince of Wales at [[Charles Windsor]] and wanted Queen Elizabeth as [[Elizabeth Windsor]].. These users in the past went around adding in what they thought were the correct surnames to pages, even though most of the time what they added in was complete crap. To stop this, it was decided to add in surnames, with on a number of occasions royal palaces being contacted to establish what the correct surname was. (Not all European royalty has surnames. And many that do have have totally unexpected names that differ dramatically from the Royal House name!). In particular using a name that many users found surprising but which had been authenticated tended to discourage the anti-titles brigade from changing article titles to delete royal titles, as the names used in the text tended to bring home to them just how little they actually knew about the issue.
The full naming conventions on wiki for referring to royalty are found in the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), which were agreed over a long (painfully long!) debate some months ago. So names used in articles should follow those conventions. FearÉIREANN 00:31 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- I agree that the surname should be left out entirely. If they end up adding in crap, it's not to hard to explain take it out again. There seems to be not much of an issue for royal families without surnames to begin with...why would it be different here? I see how maiden names are needed for Queen consorts, but Princess Anne did not marry into the royal family; she married out, so there is no confusion here. I support starting the article using "Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise of the House of Windsor." Stating her surname as "Mountbatten-Windsor" seems flat out inaccurate. Or you could make a note later on in the article and address that her actual surname is now Laurence.Jiang 01:58 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
We tried that in the past on other pages, but all that produced is that someone would come along thinking that they knew this person's surname and would add it in, usually wrongly. Someone once called Queen Victoria Victoria Windsor, for example. If you leave the space blank, someone will add in Windsor (which Buckingham Palace says is wrong. According to them it is MW. Putting it in reduces the danger of someone putting in something else. As I said I would love not to have to do so, but past experience over the last eight months suggests that if you leave it blank, it won't remain so for long, with someone else adding in something. MW follows the naming convention closely and so reduces the hassle of constantly returning to this and other articles to remove someone else's wrong additions. We already give the name of her husband, so her marital surname is obvious from that. But this way follows the agreed conventions and we are all trying to get all wiki pages to follow the conventions, which we all debated and were agreed by consensus. FearÉIREANN 02:13 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Why is Queen Victoria's marriage name given while Princess Anne's is not? Again, I think its an issue of whether one marries into the royal family or married out. I still think "Mountbatten-Windsor" should be replaced with "Laurence", just as "wettin" has been added into the Queen Victoria article, if surnames are to be used at all. Jiang 08:30 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Two reasons: non reigning female royalty revert to their maiden name on their death; reigning female royalty don't. So under normal historical rules, Victoria and Anne would be treated differently. Where a surname is used at all with a reigning queen, it is the marital, not maiden name, not least because the fact of their marriage normally though not always has profound implications for the Royal House name. (BTW I think you were right to use Hanover as Victoria's RH name. I have been thinking about that. It is complicated as to how one acknowledges a change either through marriage or in title. I was thinking along the same lines some time ago but never got around to making the change). However where surname is mentioned for a non-reigning royal woman, it is usually the case that people stick with using the maiden name given that they may be known as that historically later on. Moving from royal title in life back to pre-marital title in death causes enough complications without reverting between married unused surname and maiden family name as well. To avoid too much confusing disruption, and given that her married name would not be used, the general approach is to leave the maiden family name untouched. It is slightly easier in Anne's case as her husband is not titled, but there is no point in doing something different in Anne's case.
For example: had Anne's husband been titled say the Duke of Mersey (a fictional name for the example), she would be the Duchess of Mersey. But after her death she would revert to Anne, Princess Royal. If her husband's personal surname was Parsons, she would be personally Anne Parsons, and in terms of title Duchess of Mersey. But on her death she would revert to the Princess Royal or maybe to Princess Anne. A double renaming from Anne Parsons, Duchess of Mersey to Anne Mountbatten-Windsor/Princess Anne would tend to confuse everyone. So even though her married personal name would be Anne Parsons, most sourcebooks would not use that and would continue to call her Anne Mountbatten-Windsor, Duchess of Mersey, she then moving less confusingly from Anne Mountbatten-Windsor, Duchess of Mersey to Anne Mountbatten-Windsor/Princess Anne.
That is why Anne's actual marital surname is not used. In Victoria's case, as I mentioned, many sourcebooks would use the marital name because the marriage would have such profound implications for the monarchy and its name. Using the maiden name would lead confused people to ask - so did the Royal Family's name change or not? So whereas keeping Anne at MW makes it easier to keep a track of name changes, keeping a reigning queen at her maiden surname would make it more complicated.
In addition there is that unique wiki problem of people who don't know what they are doing making changes anyway. I lost count of the number of reversions I had to do to stop people adding in wrong surnames when I left the surname out. Keeping the maiden-name in Victoria's case would simply lead to edit wars, as people who knew about the new Royal House name of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha would presume the use of the maiden name was an oversight. So they would remove it and plonk in SCG. And you or I or someone else would end up constantly coming back to this page to revert the addition. As I have learned from hard battles on wiki, if you don't put in a surname, someone else will. And if you keep the maiden name in the case of someone like Queen Victoria, others will think you have made a mistake and keep replacing it by SCG. (That's why I put the footnote reference to Wettin, BTW, to stop people putting in SCG.
Royal surnames are a right royal pain in the backside. Keeping it simple (maiden name for royalty other than reigning queens) cuts down on complexity and minimises the danger of edit wars. And there is nothing as annoying as having to revisit a site 5, 10 or 20 times to keep having to revert mistakes made by people who are simply chancing their arms and taking a guess at royal surnames. But the central issue isn't whether one marries in or out of the royal family, it is whether after one's death one reverts to maiden name & maiden title, or in the case of a reigning monarch, you don't. That difference affects how you refer to surnames. FearÉIREANN 10:45 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Okay. Thanks for explaining. I guess I learn something new each day...--Jiang 12:23 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
A few years later, HM The Queen modified this statement by issuing Letters Patent in February 1960 which stated in part:
while I and my children will continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, my descendants, other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attributes of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess, and female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name Mountbatten-Windsor. [2] (http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html#p2-1)
Since Princess Anne was a "female descendant who married," she should not be Anne Mountbatten-Windsor. Lord Emsworth 01:35, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)
| Contents |
nee
"Born" or nee isn't really the right word here. The surname was not changed until 1960, ten years after her birth. She was born with the name Windsor. --Jiang 12:36, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I knew Princess Anne during the summer of '62, meeting her through one of her ladies in waiting, Lady Jacqueline Rufus-Isaacs, and she told me she was called Windsor, when I inquired as to how to introduce her to my friends. (user: sverre helgesen
One would normally introduce her as "Her Royal Highness" or "the Princess Anne," and latterly, "the Princess Royal" -- not as "Anne Windsor." -- Emsworth 23:39, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)
Refresh
I've refreshed this article by providing picture and more detail. The Honourable Astrotrain
Matrilineal Descent and Succession Order in the U.K.
This may sound like a foolish question, and admittably it is, based upon total ignorance. Still, I went to this discussion page and figured that someone else would have already asked the question, and yet no one else has, so I figured to place it in the page.
In theory, England is supposed to differ from some places in Europe in that it operates on a principle of matrilineal descent. In other words, succession can go through Queens as well as Kings. Upon going to the Queen Elizabeth II page, however, and noting the birth order of the sons and daughters of Elizabeth II, Princess Anne is the second son or daughter of Elizabeth II, after prince Charles. Why isn't Princess Anne at this time fourth in line to the throne, after Prince Charles and his descendants? When did this principle get established? Also when did the principle of matrilineal descent get started in Great Britain to begin with in general? I would imagine that it existed as early as Mary Tudor or Elizabeth I, but did it exist earlier, and if so, when?
Thank you, the ignorant Edital 18:30, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Succession can go through females, but the UK, like the bits of Europe where descent cannot pass through the female line, uses agnatic rather than cognatic primogeniture.
- James F. (talk) 01:39, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Mrs. Mark Phillips
After she married Mark Phillips her full title was Her Royal Highness The Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Phillips. Usually when a princess of the blood royal gets married she uses the feminine form of her husband's title. When a princess marries a commoner adds Mrs His Name to her name in lieu of a title. Princess Margaret did between her wedding and her husband getting his peerage. So did Princess Alexandra before her husband was knighted. When Anne got a title in her own right, Princess Royal, that would have been subsituted for her husbands name. (Alphaboi867 23:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC))