Talk:Lady Louise Windsor/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Courtesy Title

I hesitate for a moment before entering the fray, but wish to say that I entirely agree with an interpretation which asserts the binding nature of letters patent, and the non-optional status of the existence of the style HRH and title princess, if not their use.

The point I raise relates to the amendments I have just made, namely that the person in question cannot be properly described as 'The Lady Louise' as the definite article 'The' is for use in substantive titles of the peerage. As this title is a courtesy title there should be no such article and it should read Lady Louise Windsor.

I must say also that I still don't quite get how her surname can be Mountbatten-Windsor but her title (a courtesy title for the daughter of an earl) can use an alternative surname.--Ross UK 01:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

According to Buckingham Palace, all the Queen's male children and their children use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor. Charles and Anne used it in their first banns. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite get Jtdirl's point here; has anyone questioned her surname being M-W? Anyway, Ross, for "The", there seems to be disagreement. Take a look at this note from Proteus. As far as the surname goes, I find it strange, too. Calling her (The) Lady Louise Windsor instead of (The) Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor only adds to the confusion about the surname, so it was perhaps not the best of choices, but that is what she's called, so we'll have to go with it. I don't know, though, if it's common for British nobility with hyphenated surnames (there are quite a few long ones) to only use part of them. -- Jao 09:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that info, Jao. I am pleased to see that the 'The' issue is one which has been discussed before, and am surprised that there is some learned disagreement about it. According to our article, the form of a coutesy title for an earl's daughter is (The) Lady [Firstname] [Lastname], ie. the surname should be used in the title. There seems little doubt that the surname in this case is Mountbatten-Windsor, so the difference is indeed puzzling.

New Official Photos?

Have any new photographs of Lady Louise been published? She's going on three years old now, but the photo of her is still her as an infant. Morhange 15:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

An internet search doesn't reveal any new pictures. john k 20:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

From a similar search, it appears not. --Ross UK 03:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

ive just looked and found this picture on thios website taken earlier this year when she went with her mother on the Queens cruise around the outter islands of scotland the orignal copy right is hellos weather you want to use it is up to you guys http://blogs.papermag.com/images/2006/07/ladylouise-dop1b.jpg

What else is there to write about? How about the fact that Lady Louise suffers from strabismus -- her eyes are not aligned properly. The last I read, she will require surgery if the condition does not correct itself. I suspect that this is one reason few photographs are available, though it's true that a couple did appear in the press when the Wessex family joined the Queen on her cruise during the summer of 2006.68.72.110.24 18:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If there is a more recent photo I think it should be used as when I saw the current (tiny baby) picture I assumed it was of her newborn brother. Perhaps others arriving at the page will make the same mistake. Helen-Eva (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue of 'The Lady Louise Windsor'

There are some who continue to choose to ignore the role of HM The Queen in this debate. It was her official decision to deny Lady Louise Windsor the title of Princess of the United Kingdom before the birth. That is her unquestionable legal right. New Letters Patent do not need to be issued to do this. The Queen has issued a public statement officially from Buckingham Palace. It is not the decision of a bureaucrat and it is perfectly legal.

Those who refute this should take the matter up directly with The Queen and her advisers and see what answer they will receive rather than persisting in changing the page on Lady Louise Windsor with unsubstantiated fact. The Queen has decided to ignore the Letters Patent of King George V. That is her legal right. She gives and denies honours in all her realms. Get it? It really is very easy to understand. Nobody with any accurate knowledge of the issue refers to her as a Princess. Do you honestly think as an adult Lady Louise Windsor would openly defy the Sovereign and call herself Princess? The decision is all part of reducing the size of the royal family. There have been no objections from any of the royal family, least of all the parents of Lady Louise Windsor who are in full agreement with the decision of HM The Queen.

It is not MY decision but that of HM The Queen.

P.S. Wikipedia prides itself on presenting accurate information and not heresay. Perhaps those who continually alter the article on Lady Louise Windsor, placing incorrect and unreferenced material on the page should think about this before incorrectly referring to her as a Princess, a title she has never ever held. The issue is quite clear and requires no debate.

Aussiebrisguy 23 May 2007

Part Two

Have been in touch with Buckingham Palace who have confirmed the complete correctness of my answer. That is that The Queen, as per her clear official statement, published on the royal website and earlier elsewhere, made the decision after consultation with the Earl and Countess of Wessex, to deny any children born of the Earl and Countess of Wessex, any royal title and style. Further to this it was added that as per the official statement that The Lady Louise Windsor has never been a Royal Highness or a Princess. No change in the earlier Letters Patent were deemed necessary due to the official nature of the statement of the Sovereign. It was confirmed that The Lady Louise Windsor is and has only ever been "The Lady Louise Windsor", taking her title as that of the daughter of an Earl. - case closed.

Aussiebrisguy 24 May 2007

---

Sorry, but where is your source for that? Are we just meant to take your word that you have been in contact with BP? This is certainly not "case closed"!--UpDown 07:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess nothing will convince you as you are not open to changing your incorrect viewpoint no matter who provides the information. I guess the Queen's Staff at Buckingham Palace are not good enough for you. No point discussing this further as you are not open to accepting the reality of the situation.

Aussiebrisguy 24 May 2007

You're missing the point. Why should anyone believe BP said that? We just have your word for it. I could say I contacted BP and they agreed with me, but would you believe me then? I doubt it. We need evidence. The 1917 Letters Patent is evidence, you saying BP said something to you is not evidence. --UpDown 08:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You're very amusing. Guess there's not much hope when you don't even read and accept clear evidence produced by BP themselves. You criticise them and fail to accept them. After all they only represent The Queen. One wonders what you represent, if anything. Even BP can't persuade you as you don't want to learn. Obviously you need to do some research into the powers of the crown as you don't appear to have any understanding of them whatsoever.

Aussiebrisguy 24 May 2007

Please try to understand, Aussie. Wikipedia sources must be verifiable, that means, the source must be published in a way that anyone can find it and read it. If the information that you quote ("No change in the earlier Letters Patent were deemed necessary due to the official nature of the statement of the Sovereign") had been published by Buckingham Palace (on their website, for instance) it would have been verifiable, but as it is now, the reader who wants to check the source has to personally ask Buckingham Palace to repeat the information, and that's just not good enough. It's not a matter of whether or not we believe you, it's a matter of Wikipedia policy. -- Jao 11:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Jao : I understand verification only too well. I guess I find sometimes with wikipedia a great deal of unverified speculation and contributors who do not fully understand matters who decide their opinion is the only one possble as has happened in this case. Because an article has been inaccurate for years does not make it credible. Unless people with a high level of education pick up on errors that are repeatedly perpetuated, this sort of inaccuracy continues. The one thing I also have noticed is that when something is verified there are still some who refuse to believe it even when it comes from a highly credible organisation who have no reason to publish whatsoever, and very rarely do, inaccurate information. Some contributors even choose to remove verified information as has happened in this case. Why on earth would The Queen have inaccurate information on her own website about a member of her own family? Where do you think the information comes from? Think about it. She controls ALL titles in her own family and beyond, sometimes on government advice. She also removes titles with and without reference to Letters Patent. In case you are not sure she does check the website of her own organisation. You will have to trust me on that one. I am also regarded as somewhat of an expert in the field as well having had privileged access to rare archival material from the very top for approved and highly respected research. Such approval is rarely given. I guess that is why I know how to obtain information from credible sources and find it sad when inaccurate information is published repeatedly at wikipedia. Thankfully this does not happen all the time. It is good that this article has been locked from further inaccurate editing. Many people, for whatever reason, do not check sources and rely on wikipedia for accuracy. I guess given this fact, I find it extremely sad when inaccuracy is perpetuated and malicious slander is allowed to go unchecked on what would appear to an increasingly frequent basis. Check the character denigration, heresay and sweeping statements made about the Earl of Wessex if you are in any doubt. Media criticism or ridicule by media does not amount to 'many people'. It is an agenda pushes by a small editorial minority. Terminology has also been inaccurate. This leads to confusion. For example 'Commonwealth' is generally known to refer in cases to do with royalty attached to Queen Elizabeth II as referring to the 'Commonwealth of Nations' as in the title, 'Head of the Commonwealth'. That is why wikipedia has a page that is 'Commonwealth Realms' to distinguish the difference. It is highly inaccurate and insulting to those who live in Commonwealth Realms to have the term 'Commonwealth' used. Members of the royal family occupy honorary military position in 'Commonwealth Realms'. They do not occupy them in countries in the Commonwealth of Nations that are not Commonwealth Realms. The Commonwealth of Nations has no standing military forces. The same applies for honours bestowed by The Queen in Commonwealth Realms. They are not bestowed by the Commonwealth of Nations. It is simple fact and such inaccuracies need to be corrected so that others using wikipedia are not confused. There are blatant generalisations in some articles as well such as on Prince Edward. None of this provides a credible article on the subject and does not engender respect for wikipedia as you and I both wish to see.

Aussiebrisguy 24 May 2007

I certainly do agree that too many statements in Wikipedia are unsourced and unfounded, and that terminology (not least the Commonwealth/CR distinction) is too often inaccurately used. I'm glad we agree on that. As for the subject at hand, it is obvious that the sovereign (not the current one, but still) has issued letters patent effectively granting Louise the style of HRH. It is also obvious that no later letters patent have been issued to override the previous one on this matter. So it all boils down to these questions: Can the sovereign legally override earlier issued letters patent without issuing new ones? (And why, in that case, were letters patent deemed necessary in 1936 and even 1996?) And whether or not she can, was Buckingham Palace acting under the assumption that she can (so not issuing letters patent because the same effect would be achieved even without them) or under the assumption that she cannot (so not issuing letters patent because a legally binding change of title was not desired)?

As for the first question, IANAL (and I Am Also Not A Briton), but the logical answer is that letters patent can only be overridden by letters patent. (Yes, the sovereign is the fount of all honours – but how does she create and withdraw these honours? Isn't that just what letters patent are for?) If the opposite answer is the correct one, we need a credible source. Something to stand against "The right to use this style or title [HRH], in our view, is within the prerogative of His Majesty and he has the power to regulate it by Letters Patent generally or in particular circumstances." [1]

As for the second question, this is where your quoting BP is interesting. Your quote is effectively saying that BP was acting under the assumption that the sovereign can legally override letters patent by a less formal expression of the royal will – and so was actually trying, successful or not, to legally change the titles of Wessex's children. If we had a verifiable source for that, it would be good material for the article, whatever the answer to the first question might be. But still, we can't put "personal correspondence" in a footnote. -- Jao 09:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree largely with the above. Letters Patent need to be overwritten by later ones. A press statement is not legally binding. Say a press statement had said in 1973 that Princess Anne's children would be HRH Prince/ss, but no letters patent were issued. I think its safe to assume that there would little debate that Peter and Zara weren't legally Prince/ss. A good point from above is that if the Queen deemed it necessary to issue letters patent in 1996 to deny Diana and Fergie the HRH, then why would she not do the same three laters for the Wessex's children. The Queen may be "fount of all honour", but this does not mean her word alone is automatically law, she still has to legalise it. I again request that this page is returned to its previous wording. --UpDown 11:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You still don't get it ÚpDown. You continually refer to an OFFICIAL statement from The Queen as a Press Statement. I think perhaps you truly have no idea at all and are just 'UpDown' Do some research and remember cracked records are not longer played. Aussiebrisguy 17:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I do get it, thank you very much. Even if it was an "official" statement, I do not believe an official statments trumps a legal letters patent and there is no evidence to say it does. With regard to the Prince Edward page, look at what you are reverting, much of it breaks links, deletes info or is very POV. In one case it actually changes "1st Earl" to the incorrect "1st Duke". I have tried to comprise by asking for over some 'contraversial' statements, regarding It's A Royal Knockout and his sexuality, and I suggest you to try to comprise. --UpDown 17:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What you believe is very POV and inaccurate. Compromise can occur when accuracy occurs. The libellous sections have no place in wikipedia as you know and have been removed, particularly where no citations have been forthcoming as pointed out by yet another contributor. Do try to learn the difference between Commonwealth and Commonwealth Realms. Repeating such inaccuracy shows up a lack of knowledge on political realities. You repeatedly choose to ignore this. There is no room for compromise on such gross inaccuracy. Do some research into the monarchy rather harping on about Letters Patent. Much occurs which is quite legally valid without resort to Letters Patent. Check into removal of knighthoods. I doubt The Queen requires your advice on such matters when she obtains it from highly informed sources of her own. After all she has been doing the job for over 55 years. I tend to think she has a tiny bit more experience than you and has no need to compromise on matters she decides that effect her family. Please stop repeatedly vandalising articles with your unverified and inaccurate opinions otherwise you will, with regret, be reported. Aussiebrisguy 00:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't threaten me. I am not going to continue arguing with you, as it is fruitless. Regarding the Prince Edward page, I will now leave this, but to be honest it is now biased. There were rumours about his sexuality, and It's A Royal Knockout was riduculed. It's a shame you cannot admit this. I ask for other editors to put there input in on the Lady Louise issue. I will revert to the previous version when the editing block is lifted, this version is grossly incorrect. --UpDown 10:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Fine, I am content to let this fly until I do ask at the palace (where I work over the summer). For the moment, with the status of princess unconfirmed, dropping mention from the acticle seems the best compromise. Let's just vague it up a little! DBD 16:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph of Lady Louise's article about her title was fine and everyone seemed happy with until User:Aussiebrisguy came along and changed things. He insists that a press statement overides the 1917 Letters Patent. Firstly, that is just stupid. Letters Patent are legally binding, press statements are not. Secondly, I quote from royal.gov.uk "It was also announced that any children the couple might have would not use the title HRH, but instead would carry a courtesy title as the sons or daughters of an Earl.". I stress "would not use"; Sophie later also made this clear. A press statament cannot override a legal letters patent. I would also ask User:Aussiebrisguy to stop pushing his POV on Prince Edward's page. It also seems greatly unfair that this page was protected after Aussiebrisguy did his edit. My version had been the one used since her birth, and is also written far more like an encylopedia should be. I request an Admit reverts it ASAP. --UpDown 18:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Edward and Sophie expecting

The Wessexes are expecting their second child in December 2007. We should mention the fact- Louise' place in the line of succession would be affected, if her parents have a boy? GoodDay 19:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've made a note in Line of succession to the British Throne... DBD

Yes Princess Louise of Wessex (I insist on legal titles being used) would go down a notch in the line of succession if her parents have a boy. The son's correct title would be HRH Viscount Severn I think.

His legal title would be HRH Prince X of Wessex; the Viscount Severn would not come into it. However, the boy would be styled Viscount Windsor as per the Wessexes wishes. --UpDown 08:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If indeed the Wessex children are legally princ(ess)es, then he would legally be HRH Prince X of Wessex, but, per the wedding announcement would always by styled Viscount Severn, like the eldest son of any other earl would be... DBD 13:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't know why I put Viscount Windsor, certainly not what I meant to put! --UpDown 13:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes his legal title would be HRH Prince X of Wessex, that is right. The Wessex children ARE legally Princes or Princesses as no new LAWS (letters patent) have been issued saying otherwise. He may not always be STYLED Viscount Severn, and Princess Louise may not always be styled as "Lady Louise". It depends on what they decide when they come of age, and it also depends on the will of future monarchs.

Updating the Profile Picture

Ok she's 4 years doesnt any one have a more up to date picture(218.215.30.124 08:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)).

Surname and definite article

She was registered with the surname Mountbatten-Windsor you can view this for yorself in the GRO index, however, it was was announced by BP that she will be known as The Lady Louise Windsor.

Additionally, I'd like for the person who keeps removing the definative article THE from the page to please view Burke's, Black's or Debrett's. The definative article is NOT reserved for substantive titles. The children of a Duke, Marquess, Earl, ect... all use the definative article associated with their courtesy title The Lady, The Lord, The Hon. ect.. Queen Brandissima

I brought this up at Talk:Courtesy title#Younger sons of Dukes and Marquesses, and daughters of the same plus Earls, but so far there has been very cool interest in the issue. -- Jao 18:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

My interest is in making sure the title listed is accurate not in seeing of other members are interested in the subject. I can easily verify the information myself without needing to ask others who may not have same interest in royalty or perserving the actual correct form. I already cited several references. Additionally, I have discussed the matter at length over the past 12 years with royal historians. -- Queen Brandissima

I do actually agree with "Queen Brandissima", my reading is also that there is a "The", out of pure courtesy. It does not mean the are peers, it a courtesy styling. But I'm not massivley bothered, but I do believe she is right. With regards to the surname, we do know her legal surname is Mountbatten Windsor (although she doesnt have a surname being a Princess...), but the opening line shows how she is commonly known. Her surname is mentioned in article.--UpDown 18:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The point that you seem to have missed while reading through Talk:Courtesy title and User talk:Counter-revolutionary is that while references for the definite article are plenty, there are also authoritative references against it, at least according to Proteus. I'm no expert, I'm not to say what's right or wrong, but if we are saying that the authoritative sources A and B are correct and the authoritative sources C and D are mistaken, we really need very good evidence that it is so. That goes for both sides. -- Jao 19:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've not see any authorative references against the use of the definative article! In fact, all the non-wikipedia references I've seen specifically state that the correct formal courtesy title for the daughter of a duke, marquess or earl is The Lady MyName FamilyName. I didn't just wake up this morning and decided I'd pick this up royal and noble research has been my heart and soul for over a decade. - Queen Brandissima

Anyone I know who holds such a courtesy title does not use "the", and I know of no issues in reality where this has been used, regardless of what sources say. --Counter-revolutionary 19:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

ps, "heart and soul" ha! --Counter-revolutionary 19:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Still, Queen Brandissima, I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just addressing what Proteus said about the Earl Marshal and the College of Arms. I don't know if their views are well-documented or not; if not, we don't really need to consider them. And to Counter-revolutionary: remember, verifiability, not truth. It doesn't matter what you think, it doesn't even matter what you know, if it's not verifiable. So no, there's no "regardless of what sources say". What sources say is what should go into the encyclopedia, otherwise it's OR. And if it's simply the case that the definite article should be there but is often omitted in usage (such as news reports), that might be mentioned with a few examples as references in the Courtesy title article. -- Jao 19:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That's the point that I keep trying to make. Yet, now even my comments to the "discussion" area are being removed.

The definative article isn't always included because it is the formal form of written address. It isn't supposed to be used when speaking. However, when writing an encyclopedic article that includes a formal title it should always be included.

I didn't see anything mentioned by Proteus concerning courtesy titles for children of peers other than a comment that Burke's isn't always correct (which I why I also cited Debrett's and Black's). -- Queen Brandissima

"To make it even more complicated, the Earl Marshal and the College of Arms don't like the definite article being given to such daughters, while successive Lord Chamberlains have insisted they are entitled to it" (from the message by Proteus linked above) -- Jao 19:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen anything from either The Earl Marshall or the College of Arms that stated they didn't like it. I've certainly never seen anything that states they believe it is incorrect or should not be included from either. The College of Arms has nothing to do with styles or titles of nobility. They only record lineages and arms. I generally view the The Lord Chamberlain and The Great Lord Chamberlain as authorative. I've already started a letter to Private Secretary of The Queen concerning the use of definative articles. Perhaps, I should send a similar letter to the Earl Marshall and the College of Arms. -- Queen Brandissima

You needn't do the latter – if you get a response from the Queen's people, then that's that, end of. DBD 20:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really doubt that I'll receive a response. Writing a professional letter has yet to fail me when it comes to responses. They are, normally, very good about responding they just aren't always speedy with the reply. Given the volume of mail I'd probably receive a response from them before the office of EIIR. -- Queen Brandissima

• Sorry to but in when I am nothingh to do with this page but I thought you might be interested to know that the daughters of Earls and children of Marquesses and Dukes do formally have the definite article, especialy when referred to in writing. This is always the case in the published court circular. A good example is here:

Tuesday, 26th May 1998

BUCKINGHAM PALACE

"....Mrs. Ian Nish, Dr. Alan and the Lady Caroline Borg, Mr. Paul Smith, Major General"

This one is very interesting because The Lady Caroline is mentioned in our very own article here Royal Warrant of Precedence as having been elevated to the rank of the daughter of a Marquess. Perhaps now is the time to accept that the Queen herself may know when to apply the definite article. Giano 09:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear! seems to have a hit a raw nerve [2] perhaps you can now consider the matter closed. Giano 10:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even think to mention the Court Circular! An excellent point, thanks for adding it. -- Queen Brandissima

The Lord Chamberlain vs College of Arms thing comes from British Titles by Valentine Heywood, if anyone still wants to know the source. And the Court Circular does indeed use definite articles, not only for daughters of peers but for courtesy peers as well, another category of person that Wikipedia has for rather odd reasons decided not to use definite articles for (even though "the Duke of Richmond had dinner with Marquess of Worcester" sounds absurd). For instance, "Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy was represented by the Lady Mary Mumford" [daughter of a Duke of Norfolk] on 29 March 2000, but also, on the same date, "The Queen was represented by the Marquess of Hartington (Her Majesty's Representative at Ascot) at the Service of Thanksgiving for the Life of the Marquess of Abergavenny KG (formerly Her Majesty's Representative at Ascot, Her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant of East Sussex and Chancellor of the Most Noble Order of the Garter) which was held in the Guards Chapel, Wellington Barracks, London SW1, this morning" [no distinction between a courtesy Marquess and a substantive Marquess]. Proteus (Talk) 10:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

At the end of the day if the Queen - the "fountain of honour" chooses to use the definite article who are we (or the College of Arms) to argue? Giano 11:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has conventions on titles and names that lead to continual inclusion of incorrect information. I drives me mad that it appears that the "rules" concerning articles on title persons lead directly to the inclusion of massive amounts of incorrect information. It me it seems that Wikipedia is geared toward what is easy instead of what is correct. I find numerous articles where other members will continually edit out factual referenced information and replace it with information that is both wholly wrong and not able to be cited. I would never contribute to an article without first doing research. This has been one of the most interesting and stimulating discussions I've had on Wiki. 76.105.150.19 12:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Queen Brandissima brandy.kelley@gmail.com

There is no incorrect information of the article titles you refer to. There are only incorrect in your view. There are totally correct. And you say you do research, well you never cite it in the article do you?--UpDown 12:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

UpDown, I would suggest the following lite reading for you to answer many of your own questions.http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/prince_highness.htm 76.105.150.19 15:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Queen Brandissima

I have always cited references from Burke's, Black's, Debrett's, offical websites or to websites that actually include extensive bibliographies, offical statements, royal warrants and letters patent. And, I should point out that there are many, many glaring mistakes concerning titles in Wikipedia. I don't even have the time (or interest) to point them all out. I could point out that neither you nor anyone else provided a single reference to a single time when Queen Victoria's daughter The Princess Beatrice has ever been referred to as "Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom." You make assumptions that because she was a princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Ireland that should was ever referred to as such outside of Wikipedia. Crack open Marlene Eilers Koenig's book on Queen Victoria's decendants or search back through old London Gazettes. View archived offical announcements of birth, death, engagement, marriage and death these are specifically worded.

If an offical statement is issued by The Queen concerning a title that is correct information.76.105.150.19 12:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, you assume that referencing information means you can put the source in the talk page or editing comment. No - you must cite in the article in the proper way. This is what you are not doing. If you don't have the "time (or interest)" to correct "mistakes" then why are you at Wikipedia?--UpDown 12:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

My point was that there are far too many errors to correct them all. And, by "no interest" I mean that I don't normally contribute to articles that are out of my sphere of interest. It would literally take weeks to correct all the mistakes concerning royalty and nobility that are on Wikipedia. BTW, I don't normally alter information that has already been cited. However, I have changed several things that were incorrect that were never cited in the first place. 76.105.150.19 13:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Queen Brandissima

I take serious issue with being told to "cite" a reference and when I do it is removed and replaced by a link to not a reference or any source of fact but to a statement written by someone that does not provide a source of reference. The footnote on surnames should be referenced to http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5657.asp not a statement by a member that is neither correct nor verified. Additionally, it would probably be of use to link to the actual Royal Warrants and Letters Patent in the London Gazette Archive in the reference section. 76.105.150.19 04:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Queen Brandissima

wholesale reversions

There is no need to discuss edits that are adequately explained by their edit histories. None of the edits I am making to the page at present are changing its factual content; they are made in aid of style and clarity of expression. As such, they should be engaged with cooperatively rather than reverted wholesale. Doops | talk 22:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

But, OK, I'll bite: what's your objection to explaining the current cryptic surname sentence? Doops | talk 22:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

And, likewise, what is your specific objection to my rewriting of the first paragraph? Because I keep tweaking it, trying to make it more acceptable in your eyes. Meet me halfway. Doops | talk 22:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Because I think the paragraph was fine before. You are creating confusion where there isn't any. The paragraph was perfectly clear before. Other edits you have made [3] go against the the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty. The pages should all look similar, for the sake of uniformity, and by you making such changes with prior consulatation you are ruining this. The current page is better than this version [4], which really over-complicated the surname issue. --UpDown (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's not how the wikipedia works. Every article is fair game for improvement, and quality of any individual article is more important than a procrustean attempt to enforce uniformity. Likewise, when you see something in need of improvement, the wikipedia's motto is to be bold and improve it.

Perhaps my wording of the paragraph explaining the surname issue was overly complicated. But the current sentence is overly cryptic. Perhaps you could have a go at writing something in between? Thanks, Doops | talk 22:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

School

Where will Lady Louise attend school? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.54.82 (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

In 2012, she was going to a day school. The identity of the same is not mentioned clearly, perhaps for security reasons. It is said to have 400 pupils. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.173.221 (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Mountbatten-Windsor (again)

I note that the Royal website refers to her as The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor on the list of succession[5] - Nbpolitico (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The programme for the royal wedding also lists her (as a bridesmaid) as The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor, suggesting that this is her correct, full name. [6] JRawle (Talk) 12:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

And the Court Circular in today's Daily Telegraph refers to her as "the Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor". Opera hat (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I've decided just to change it, as there's been little discussion in recent months. I don't expect it'll last long, though. I've left "Princess Louise..." in the opening for balance, but put the full version of her usual style first. JRawle (Talk) 21:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is totally screwed now, it contains several introduction errors. This is very annoying. Also, technically she is not styled Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor, but as Lady Louise Windsor. The reason is explained previously, the 1960 order is not applicable here. But she is also only known as Lady Louise Windsor. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, since her shorthand style appears to have changed recently (we all know she's been Lady Louise Windsor for 7 years), oughtn't we to note that in the article? Should we perhaps even admit that we're not really all that sure as to her style? DBD 22:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The usage in the captions of the recent royal wedding photos on the British Monarchy’s flickr photostream is inconsistent: This caption and this have W, and this has M-W. (For what it’s worth, the W captions seem more careful about styles than the M-W caption). —teb728 t c 02:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)