Talk:Lady Louise Windsor/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg

References to the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg are being added to multiple articles related to the Royal Family of the Commonwealth realms, and yet, not one reliable source has been provided. I yesterday began a discussion about this at Talk:House of Windsor#House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. Input there by interested parties would be appreciated. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Wessex children NPOV

I have opened a new, and, one hopes, decisive, discussion: here because this article is currently in violation of the NPOV policy DBD 21:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 4 May 2011

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: return to original name; SNOW close Kotniski (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor → Lady Louise Windsor – Return to long-standing former title. Recently moved as a knee-jerk reaction to one official occurrence of longer surname. In line with WP:COMMONNAME, and bearing in mind:

• "Lady+Louise+Windsor"+-"Lady+Louise+Mountbatten-Windsor" : 117,000 results

vs

• "Lady+Louise+Mountbatten-Windsor"+-"Lady+Louise+Windsor" : 11,300 results.

QED DBD 11:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - For goodness sake, who moved this and what was he/she thinking of?! Deb (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support - The move to Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor was done unilaterally and without proper discussion. That move was done without a Requested move and was against Wikipedia guidelines. This is really annoying and irritating. It should be moved back to Lady Louise Windsor. Only then, again: only then, a discussion can be started whether the page name should be changed. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. per Deb & DEMophon. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly the common name. That said, the move was obviously done in good faith and there is no need to belittle the person who did it. There is no guideline that says discussion must take place before an article move and editors are actually encouraged to be bold, which is what was done in this case. To quote from their edit summary when moving the article, "if there is an objection, please revert and excuse my being bold". I would suggest that if a kindly admin saw this, they could probably speedy close this discussion, as the original mover said it was fine to revert their move if objections were raised (which there obviously have been). Jenks24 (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, maybe the move was done in good faith, but it was a clearly unilaterally move done with the arrogant view and mentality that the proper discussion was not needed. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. Presumably not a Brit, so it's quite excusable. Deb (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Deb. Mr. D. E. Mophon: Why didn't you take part in a proper discussion that has been started more than six months ago and which has produced more than one official source calling this girl "Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor"? It is truly hypocritical to call my being bold "arrogant", because not only there was a discussion, but you failed to take part in it. We are encouraged to improve what we think should be improved (which is not arrogant) and in the edit summary, I encouraged anyone who objected to revert the move. The name is not blatantly incorrect and there is no need for such a dramatic display of emotions. Just state that you believe that the common name is more important than the official name. No need for insults. Surtsicna (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose; the most recent official sources use "Mountbatten-Windsor". Powers ^T 12:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Official name and Wikipedia:Common name. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Thank you, but I'm not a newbie. I'm quite well versed in both. But you'll note that we quite regularly change article titles when a new event occurs that causes a change in the official name. Say a famous actress gets married and announces she will hyphenate her name in all future projects; we would change her article title immediately out of respect for the actress as a person and her decision to render her name as she likes. Or when a corporation changes its name, we don't wait for a majority of sources -- past and present -- to catch up; we change it right away because the old name, while still most common, is now wrong. I see this case the same way; we have new information that didn't exist before that better explains the subject's choice (or, more likely, the choice of her family) of name. Given the official sources that have recently come to light, it's silly to continue to give significant weight to older sources that were written before this new information was available. Powers ^T 17:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Shit, didn't notice your username properly when I made my comment. I've seen you at quite a few RMs and you know your stuff, so sorry for treating you like a newbie. I see the argument you're making, but I'm afraid I don't really agree with it. I think there is no harm leaving it at the original title and seeing if the common name does change, as nothing as important as a marriage or a complete rebranding of a company has happened. Apologies again for treating you like a newbie, Jenks24 (talk) 10:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
        • No problem. It seems clear, though, that Mountbatten-Windsor is what the royal family intends for Lady Louise's surname; out of respect for the wishes of a living person (by proxy via her family), we ought to change it. Even the official royal web site uses "Mountbatten-Windsor": http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/Successionandprecedence/Succession/Overview.aspx -- and they haven't even updated Prince William's title yet. Powers ^T 13:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support; she is commonly known as Lady Louise Windsor, not Mountbatten-Windsor.--Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Support Move made with no discussion and to an incorrect location. The members of the House of Windsor do not have surnames unless they marry and take one unilaterally; this has not happened here. Long standing name of the article should remain. Outback the koala (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support If I understand the article correctly, this is the name used in Buckingham Palace press releases. Also, while there may be some dispute about what the surname of the British royal family is, and they do not use surnames very often, it seems to be generally recognised that is is Windsor e.g. her father has sometimes used the name Edward Windsor in some contexts. PatGallacher (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)*
• Support The common form should be the name of the article, alternative names should only be mentioned. Dimadick (talk) 06:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support, as that's the most common usage, even though it actually should be Lady Louise Mountbatten. Why Philip's adopted surname got unprecedentately brushed aside, we'll never know. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Example of "Lady Louise Windsor" here and in the blacklisted website. And hurry up too. Should never have been moved in the first place. Irritating indeed. - Yk (talk | contrib) 02:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The link to the briefing doc is broken. The other link was from before the wedding, which is where the corrected name was first publicized. We should not be relying on out-of-date sources for the name of a living person! Powers ^T 11:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
    • You're gonna have to trust me that the document says Lady Louise Windsor when listing the bridesmaids. Other recent examples: here (announcing the bridesmaids), here (on the wedding day itself), here, here, here and here. For people who keep up with the news on her, this is plain ridiculous. That's just the name she's been using all her life. The royal family website is an isolated case, showing her correct surname (probably to show that she's a descendant of the Queen and the other people on the list with the last name Windsor are not), just not the name her parents chose to use. - Yk³ talk · contrib 16:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support because the name change violates Wikipedia's naming conventions for royalty, which are sensible, practical and meet the needs of readers. Having said that, this biography should be deleted, along with all other biographies of royal children who are notable solely for being royal children. Rubywine (talk) 11:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

And as a royal child she is notable and has been mentioned in numerous news articles. The articles should stay. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support because she is commonly referred to as Lady Louise Windsor. Let's keep it that way so we don't confuse the people looking at this page. FUTURI (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Time to invoke WP:SNOWBALL and get this over with. - Yk³ talk · contrib 01:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Apparently the move to … Mountbatten-Windsor was done in belief that some recent royal family references to Lady Louise implied a change in the royal family’s position on what she should be called. Even if the inference was correct, however, the move was premature. The article should be moved back at least until usage over a period of time confirms the inference—or better until the royal family explicitly announces a change in its position. —teb728 t c 23:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Second youngest granddaughter

The lead says she's "the second-youngest granddaughter of Elizabeth II"; so who's the youngest? The York princesses and Zara Phillips are all quite a bit older. Is this supposed to be 2nd-youngest grandchild and youngest granddaughter? [with her brother James as youngest grandchild] Biblioteqa (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted! That edit was made by Juliaglaeser on 8 July.[1] I have undone it. Thank you. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

A "better" picture of her?

Can someone find a clearer photo of "Lady" Louise? She's 8 yrs. old, and a male-line granddaughter of the Sovereign surely there is a beter photo that shows her more prominently? The one of the wedding shows the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge at center, you can barely see "lady" Louise "Windsor" off to the side. The article is about her, not her cousin and cousin-in-law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.127.200 (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Exotropia?

This article says that she has exotropia, which I can kind of understand, because all kinds of news articles seem to say that. But exotropia is when your eyes turn outward. From pictures one can clearly tell that she has esotropia, as one of her eyes turns inward. I don't know, does that count as original research? The articles saying she has exotropia seem to be clearly wrong. Spock of Vulcan (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Descent Categories Question

Would Lady Louise be in the categories English people of German descent, English people of Irish descent, English people of Welsh descent and English people of Russian descent? Her mother is of Irish and Welsh descent and her father is of Russian and German descent (he's got Russian blood through Grand Duchess Olga Constantinovna of Russia and German blood through Queen Victoria. Lady Louise also has Greek descent through her paternal grandfather Prince Philip. Should the German, Russian and Greek descent categories apply to all of the Queens children/grandchildren? What are your opinions on this? :) --PrincessAlice13 (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

My immediate reaction is that there is almost certainly a guideline as to how far back counts. DBD 14:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me. :) --PrincessAlice13 (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Grand Duchess Olga Constantinova had less than 2% "Russian blood", so Lady Louise would have about 0.001% of that. And as for Prince Philip, I don't think he has any Greek blood at all. His blood is German with a little Danish and about 0.5% Russian, from his grandmother, Olga.Lathamibird (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Tenth in the Line of Succession?

I have a feeling that this will probably end up not helping the article, otherwise someone would have asked it sooner, but why does the article say that "Lady Louise is currently tenth in the line of succession to succeed her grandmother" in the lede? Considering the matter that gender didn't matter over the Son of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, why does Lady Louise come after Viscount Severn. Shouldn't the positions be flipped? --Super Goku V (talk) 05:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The proposed changes to the succession laws only apply to people born after October 2011. DrKay (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for the answer. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Title speculation.

The section after "Titles and styles" particularly after "There are two opposing opinions" is wholly speculative unsubstantiated and pushing POV. The 'sources' Ukroyaltitles.tumblr.com and Heraldica are both seemingly self published sources. Nothing cites to any authoritative source(s) per Wikipedia:RELY that there is a dispute over the Queens's power to grant or alter princely titles. Scanning above in the talk page all I can see is an argument based on editors opinions and little more. Unless some meaningful sources can be found the section needs massive editing. Garlicplanting (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Which parts do you propose to censor? DBD 12:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:RELY 'The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material.' My feeling is that entire section after "There are two opposing opinions" fails that and should go. (We have no good sources per the policy to substantiate that text.) I'm also troubled by the "Letters patent issued in 1917 (and still remaining in force today)" The italicised section seems to assume in fact something the later dispute (on what trumps what) centres upon. The italics should also go. Obviously the exact same issue arises word for word with James,_Viscount_Severn. Garlicplanting (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I've made some changes. If people disagree plz do not revert without providing proper sources per Wikipedia:RELY for their being a genuine public dispute over the title usage and legal status of the LP -v- Royal prerogative powers. Garlicplanting (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Youngest Granddaughter of the Queen

"She is the youngest granddaughter of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh."

No, that would be the William and Kate's new daughter. 109.150.122.1 (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure as the new Princess born today is a great-granddaughter. MilborneOne (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just realized my stupid mistake. 109.150.122.1 (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

letters patent

Letters Patent are a legal instrument which is "a significant form of legislation which does not require the consent of Parliament." A press release is a "written or recorded communication directed at members of the news media for the purpose of announcing something ostensibly newsworthy." Since Letters Patent are a form of law, which can only be altered, amended or rescinded by another piece of legislation, whether an Act of Parliament or another Letters Patent, King George V's proclamation is still legally in force, which means that Lady Louise Windsor is still technically a Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Queen is not above the law. She is ignoring the law but she is not above the law. The Queen can not ignore settled law, the Letters Patent of 1917 being law that is in effect and that has not been altered, amended or rescinded. Now that is the end of the matter. Louise Alice Elizabeth Mary is a Princess of the United Kingdom, she is merely not styled as such. If such status is to be changed, it MUST be done legally through Letters Patent or an Act of Parliament if it is to have any legal effect. 66.67.32.161 (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

<sigh> Would that were so... FactStraight (talk) 08:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

It is so. Legally she is a Princess of the United Kingdom unless the Queen issues a letter patent or Parliament issues an Act of Parliament to the contrary. She may be called whatever the Earl and Countess wish but that doesn't make it legally binding. The Crown may be the font of honour but to create or deny an honour requires a legal instrument. Otherwise it's pap. 66.67.32.161 (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Would that your repeating it over and over made it so. It does not. The authority for declarative acts within the Crown's purview resides in the Sovereign, not in the instrument she chooses to express her will. Letters patent (royal warrants, proclamations, etc.) are traditional, formal and clarifying -- but they carry no intrinsic executive authority independent of the Sovereign's use of them. She has the authority to change the instruments she uses to communicate her will. I wish that were not so, as I deplore press releases as instruments of change (not least because they seldom actually are: usually, they express a temporary practice -- but "temporary" is apt to become permanent by default if no further action in the matter is taken). And certainly in some areas, such as the creation of peerages, both Parliamentary and judicial acts have imposed restrictions on the content and processes made use of by the Crown. But where no such restrictions have been explicitly imposed, they do not exist and do not confine exercise of the royal prerogative. Alas. FactStraight (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lady Louise Windsor. 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/20131020180635/http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page3081.asp to http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page3081.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)