Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:12, 7 October 2008

Ancient discussion

Camilla Parker Bowles shouldn't be on the template until after the wedding. She is not now a member of the royal familly. (Alphaboi867 05:36, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC))

Diana and Sarah

Shouldn't Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York be on here? They are the mothers of the 2nd and 3rd (Diana), and 5th and 6th (Sarah)

Hence the note "as of April x 2005". AndyL 13:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've removed Camilla - she can go back on 8 April, no sooner, jguk 20:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Personally, i don't think she should be on at all! She is to blame for many problems within the family, however she is a member of the royal family, much against our own wishes !!

Styles->Interesting InfoInteresting_Info-2005-05-24T18:53:00.000Z">

The styles can be provided in each of the relevant biographical entries, there is absolutely no cause to be prefixing on other pages through a template. Whig 18:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)Interesting_Info"> Interesting_Info">

Protected.

This style dispute has spilled over from Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Enough, already. — Dan | Talk 19:10, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

This is not so much a "spill over" as it is part of the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom page, as this template is transcluded into that article, and Jguk has respected the edits I've made to try to restore NPOV. This protection is improper, no request for protection was made, there is no debate or discussion here on the Talk page, just the unilateral action of one sysop. Whig 03:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Right. Sysops are empowered to protect pages to stop or prevent edit wars, and no request is necessary. Discuss here, make a decision, and I or some other admin will unprotect it. — Dan | Talk 03:35, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

The use of abbreviated prefix styles conveys no information here that cannot be ascertained from the biographical articles themselves; and do not in fact give important disambiguating information since practically everyone on this list is simply designated as HRH (except for the queen and those designated "Lady So-and-So"). The maintenance of this stylistic flourish is especially improper because of its transclusion into articles which are substantially NPOV contested to begin with, and this is a barrier to resolution. Please unprotect. Whig 04:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

There are various different styles in royal families, and therefore it is necessary to use them to give the reader an idea of rank, and origin. eg HRH signifies the highest royal rank, whereas HH is a lower style. Using styles in articles about royality can never be a POV, since it is common for people to refer to royals with their appropiate style, and it is established to be part of their "legal name". Astrotrain 19:00, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Astrotrain, the relevant biographical entries provide the styles, and in the Template here there are no "HH's", just "HM" for the Queen and "HRH" for everyone else except "Lady". So there is no point to this. Whig 20:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• The styles can be provided here as well, and it seems like no-one agrees with you on the matter. This is a template for royal articles therefore it is important that the full style of the members are listed. Astrotrain 22:14, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Astrotrain, with all due respect, this has been a long-running discussion covering many weeks, and we're just getting to a point of working out our differences and resolving the NPOV dispute on the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom article. There hasn't been a lot of discussion on the template page here (just you and me, really), but I think you've missed the broader context, and I don't want to rehash everything here. The transclusion of this template into the Elizabeth article makes it more appropriate we discuss it there than here, really, and this falls into the larger subject of the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (biographies), the related Talk page, the survey and its related discussion, and quite a bit more. The fact that jguk is supporting my edits in the Elizabeth article is substantial progress towards resolution, and I hope you will try to work with the rest of us to settle things. Whig 02:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with Astrotrain here. We should certainly use styles where they would be used normally and where it is useful to do so. I have always said that we shouldn't go out of our way to overuse them, but that isn't the case here, jguk 05:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Indentation

I was wondering if this list should be indented to show the generations, as can be seen in other royal family lists.

The benefit of this is to break up the list, mainly to make it easier to read.

For example:

I would appreciate any thoughts. Rascalb 02:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it should be indented, and it was indented, but someone keeps changing it!!Mac Domhnaill

• The list is in order of precedence, not by generation. It can only work as you suggest, if the monarch is the first generation. Consider if say Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester were still alive, she would be a generation above the Queen, but this could not be shown logically by your indents. The same will also be true if the Queen is succeded by Charles who will be a generation below the Kents and Gloucesters. Astrotrain 23:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• • That version also suggests William and Harry are the children of Camilla (as pointed out by a user previously) Astrotrain 20:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • Couldn't Camilla be put underneath William and Harry? 207.90.94.104 18:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that if you did that, it would look like Camilla is the daughter of the Queen and married to Prince Andrew. Rascalb 22:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Royal Arms in templates

As detailed by OPSI (previously HMSO) in all copyright notices issued, while the Royal Arms are covered by Crown Copyright, they are not to be considered free use, and can only be used with Fair Use/Dealing rationales. As such, the Royal Arms should never be placed in templates or onto user pages as discussed at Misplaced Pages:Fair use#Policy. Inclusions of this template make up about a fair number of the remaining file links on Image:UK Royal Coat of Arms.png, and while it should probably be removed, I'm loathe to turn the template into a plain bordered box. So does anyone have any ideas as to what image to replace the Arms with, or any serious rationale as to why it should be included other than "it's pretty" or the equivalent? GeeJo ⁄_(c) • 07:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• The arms have not been sourced from the OPSI- they are the copyright of whoever drew them. Astrotrain 18:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No, they're not. See Crown Copyright. The Royal Arms are covered by the licence, and will be until at least 2040. The exact wording of the licence is:

"The material featured on this site is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The Crown copyright protected material (other than the Royal Arms and departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. Where any of the Crown copyright items on this site are being republished or copied to others, the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged." GeeJo ⁄_(c) • 19:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I assume that applies to the image actually on the page- but according to the coat of arms tag- "Representations of coats of arms are subject to copyright as original works of art and do not fall under Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corporation's purview as they are not representations of two-dimensional works of art."- so if they are redrawn by someone, they can be used freely. Astrotrain 19:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

That's true, and if a Misplaced Pages user took it upon themselves to create their own representation of it, it would be freely usable in any and all templates. Unfortunately, noone yet has — this image was uploaded by User:Boffin without any statement on the source, so we have to assume it's from a regular government department, and the only thing that's been done to it since then has been a conversion to a PNG with transparancy instead of whitespace. That alone isn't enough to constitute an original piece. GeeJo ⁄_(c) • 21:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This particular image is from Graham Bartram's website and he has allowed use of his images on Misplaced Pages. Craigy (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I had suspected it was from Graham's work. It is clearly not from a government website (as they don't use the full royal arms), and the royal.gov.uk website never has any particular high quality arms. Astrotrain 21:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, so that qualifies the image for {{Withpermission}} (or more specifically {{Flags.net}}.) But unless Graham's released it under a free license, rather than just permission specific to Misplaced Pages, the fact remains that this is a non-free image, and shouldn't be used in templates. GeeJo ⁄_(c) • 21:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. But that's a different kettle of fish and I suggest you take that up elsewhere seeing as we're detracting from your main argument and we've established that this image clearly isn't from OPSI - WP:PUI might be a good place to start. Craigy (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

(enough indenting) No, my main argument wasn't that the Royal Arms was from OPSI (I only highlighted that to show that the Arms weren't free use under crown copyright), but rather that the use of the image is only covered by fair use guidelines, and as per Misplaced Pages's Fair Use policy, fair use images shouldnt be on templates such as this one. Noone has actually addressed that point yet, and we've gotten sidetracked into a discussion of copyright ownership. I'm not calling for the image to be removed from the site entirely, and never have been. The image should be retained for use on specific articles, such as Royal Arms of the United Kingdom. GeeJo ⁄_(c) • 00:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. Maybe we could use this image with this template for the templates? It's not as good, but I guess it would get round the copyright problems. Craigy (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Diana and Sarah - Take two

I do not believe that Diana and Sarah should be included on the template. Even if the royal family says that Diana was still part of the family after her divorce, she is now deceased. Should we keep The Queen Mother on the template? As for Sarah, she is still alive, but until there is word form the RF about her status, she should stay off template. Prsgoddess187 18:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This template seems to cover the same ground as Template:House of Windsor

At a quick glance that template seems to be more comprehensive and flexible, in some ways. Maybe the two could be merged in some way ? --Richardb43 14:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• No- the Royal Family template includes consorts such as the Duke of Edinburgh or the Duchess of Kent, who cannot be in the HOW template. The RF template goes on the article of living royals, and the house template for deceased royals Astrotrain 14:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Grandchildren of George V?

Why have the Gloucesters, Kents, P/Pr Michael, and Princess Alexandra been removed? They're certainly still members of the royal family! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.73.77 (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I restored them- makes no sense to split them off. Astrotrain 15:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, they still appear on their pages, whenever the extended parameter is used – so a smaller version can be used for only the core (ie EIIR) lot... DBD 15:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to an extended version or a core veriosn. One version is needed only, for navigation. Astrotrain 15:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'd much prefer to see one complete template with all the people in the BRF. Having an extended version of the template may imply that the Kents/Gloucs etc. are extended members, which they're not. Craigy (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The Phillips

Why aren't the Princess Royal's husband and children included on the template? Mark Phillips is no less members of the Royal family than the Duchess of Cornwall or the Countess of Wessex, and Peter and Zara are just as much Her Majesty's grandchildren as are Princes William and Harry, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, and Lady Louise Windsor. Rrius (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Read British Royal Family – on this template, we use the definition where Majesties and Royal Highnesses count DBD 16:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

In that case, inclusion of the Earl of Wessex's children isn't really called for. They neither meet the 'carry out public engagements' test nor the 'use HRH' test (and the wikipedia is not a soapbox, so there's no relevance to our opinions on whether the palace is right or wrong to ignore the 1917 letters patent and not use the HRH for them). Doops | talk 14:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe they should be in there. They don't carry out public engagements due to their age, as the York children don't (yet). As Royal grandchildren of the monarch, they should be in Infobox.--UpDown (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with having them in; but then the Phillips children should be too. It's silly for us to be so blind to practicality and reality that we obsess over the proverbial "distinction without a difference". Doops | talk 17:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy with the Phillips in there. They are members of The Royal Family, even if not by strict definition, and are always listed in the Court Circular when at Royal events.--UpDown (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll put them in. Doops | talk 18:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The Philipses are not royalty and should not be included in this template. Female line descendants of a British prince or princess have never been royalty unless members of another family or raised to that position. The Philips' are not any of those. Their appearance in the Court Circular is more a societal thing than anything. They are entitled to attend events with their grandmother or mother just as any of the princes or princesses, but it does not make them royalty. Much like how someone could describe me as being a member of my Motherssurname family, which is true, but "not really". The distinction is much more prominent here. Charles 23:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't at all dispute the fact that the Phillips children are not princes/princesses, and are not entitled to the HRH label; that's well-known. But the logic of who belongs in this template does not ultimately depend on those technicalities. Common sense should prevail; and there really is only one commonsense basis for inclusion in this template. It should extend to 1) all descendants of the current monarch; and 2) other 'working' cousins. Doops | talk 23:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

At some point, the Crown will demise, and there will be a new monarch. Perhaps we should create a rule for who is in and who is out. -Rrius (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't create an arbitrary rule, the template should represent the British Royal Family, those who are princes and princesses. Isn't that simple enough? The Royal Family doesn't "shift" on the basis of who the monarch is. Perhaps the extended members do, but princes and princesses aren't (normally) deprived of their status. HM could live another 20 years. She might have many, many great-grandchildren. Should they then be included as well on such an arbitrary basis? Surely at that point though, a good number will not be royal. Common sense dictates that the members of a state's royal family are those who hold royal titles. Charles 01:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Didn't we have this argument on another article? GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know, it wouldn't be surprising. There are lots of liberal attitudes with what is proper or correct around here. Same with the Romanian Royal Family articles being edited to include non-royals and so on. Charles 01:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not calling for an arbitrary rule, just a rule. The point of the discussion is to attempt to arrive at a sound rule. If that rule is to be HMs and HRHs, fine. If it is to be spouses and grandchildren of a sovereign, so be it.

The reason the accession of the next monarch matters is that some rules might involve being within some degree of consanguinity to the monarch of the day. For instance, it might be reasonable to say the Royal Family includes the consort, parents, siblings of the royal parent, children of the siblings of the royal parent (first cousins), descendants, siblings, children of siblings, and anyone else entitled to the style "HM" or "HRH".

Finally, I"m not sure what this talk of "liberalizing" is. It has been suggested that the Queen's grandchildren are members of the Royal Family by virtue of being close relations of the Queen. Common sense does not dictate that to be a member of the royal family, one must hold a royal title. It is equally valid, without evidence to the contrary, to interpret "royal family" to mean close family member of the Queen (the word "royal" modifies the word "family" not the individuals in it). The argument above that usage in the Court Circular does not matter because inclusion of the Phillips children therein is only a societal thing is flawed in that being of the "Royal Family" is itself societal and not legal. -Rrius (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

In Britain though, these "some rules" do not apply. This is not the Netherlands, where the composition of the Royal House changes. The Royal House in the United Kingdom is composed of Majesties and Royal Highnesses. The liberal attitude I was referring to is the one which states that non-royal, female line descendants of the Royal Family are members of the Royal Family themselves. They made be related to a royal family, have royal lineage, etc, but that does not make them members of the Royal family itself. There is a reason why there are titles like Prince and Princess, to distinguish those who are and those who are not members of the Royal Family. We are talking about the British Royal Family, not just the Queen's (royal) family, here. Societal, perhaps. Princes and princesses are still legally commoners, I believe. However, where does this societal definition end when including female line descendants? Charles 00:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're still missing the point: this is a template / navbox. What is its purpose? Why does it exist? Like all templates / navboxes, to be useful. I do not think that choosing who is in and who is out on grounds of a mere technicality is a useful thing for the purposes of the wikipedia. I would never advocate misleading our readers, of course; absolute precision is very dear to my heart. But where precision is a matter of detail, it should be treated as detail, not as the be-all-and-end-all.

Perhaps you object to my assertion that the distinction here is a mere technicality; but it patently is. Every indication from the royal family is that the children of the Duke of York and Earl of Wessex will lead 'normal' (well, that's a joke, but insofar as possible) lives and will not take up royal duties. And indeed in the case of the children of the Earl of Wessex, there is an explicitly-stated plan to ignore the HRH and 'prince/princess' monikers. Plus, of course, they're infants. In the face of all that, to think that for the purposes of a wikipedia navbox there is any real distinction between the Phillips children and the Wessex ones (who, after all, are mere babies) is to prioritize starry-eyedness over reality.

If you really insist that the phrase 'Royal family' can only be appropriately applied to those with a title of prince/princess or an HRH (and I don't see why it should), then the proper solution is not to exclude the Phillips from the navbox, but to change the navbox name to something else like "Family of Queen Elizabeth II" or something like that. Which would be overkill, in my view; but go ahead if you must.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as captivated by all this as the next guy. But the point is that our duties as encyclopedia editors come before our personal hobbies. Doops | talk 01:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a toughy, according to the 1917 Leters Patents - Mark and Zara don't belong. Yet, by not listing them, it gives the impression (to less knowledgeable readers) that Princess Anne had no children & the Queen has only six grandchildren. Perhaps we could add Mark & Zara - with a footnote explaining their status (or lack thereof). GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The 1917 letters patent are perfectly clear on the question of who gets to be a prince/princess and be styled 'HRH'; but they are completely silent on the subject of wikipedia navboxes. Doops | talk 18:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not an issue though that should be remedied by including people where they do not belong. We are not here to advertise the existence of grandchildren in case someone believes they do not exist. Charles 00:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Where in the 1917 letters-patent does it say that it defines "royal family"? My understanding is that it defines who will be Princes of the UK and entitled to the style HRH. Where is it written that only a Royal Highness is a member of the Royal Family? In other words, where is the evidence that "royal family" means "family exclusively consisting of people entitled to "HRH" before their names" as opposed to "family that is royal"? -Rrius (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Order

Since this template purports to be about the royal family (and not about the line of succession as such), I think in the top half (i.e. among the descendants of Elizabeth) it should reflect birth order rather than succession order. That is more logical, more what the reader expects. So I'm making that change too. Doops | talk 18:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Droops's edit has been reverted, but I agree with him. Position in succession is irrelevant. Anne's children, who are, in the succession, above others listed on the template, are not listed. On the other hand, Prince Michael of Kent, for example, is not in the line of succession because he married a Catholic, but is on the list. Listing by succession order just does not seem helpful, and may even be deceptive -Rrius (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

British / commonwealth

This is a very tricky issue, and I have to say I am disappointed that people don't seem to recognize that fact.

On the one hand, it is absolutely true that "British royal family" is by far the most commonly-heard phrase used to describe the family. Likewise the coat of arms used in the template at present is UK-specific. So why shouldn't we be simple and straightforward and go with the easy title?

On the other hand, the fairness argument is very powerful. Nobody likes to be unfair; we here at the wikipedia would hate to think that we were. But that said (back on the first hand), bear in mind that our duty here is to report the facts, not to try to create our own vision of a better world.

I wish people wouldn't be so self-righteous in arguing this issue. It's (to repeat myself) legitimately very tricky. Doops | talk 22:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as I said in response to UpDown at my talk page, I'm not sure what he's having a fit about. The template never did say "British Royal Family," and always has, and still does, link to British Royal Family, as it is the most commonly used term (though, in most contexts a misnomer). The only thing I changed was the "British Royalty" part: there is no article on "British Royalty," and it's also too nation-specific for a template that goes on pages for people who are actively involved as members of the royal family in other countries.

I had no real issue with your compromise, Doops. However, I can also live with it as it stands now. UpDown, however, has threatened futher reverts, though he has already done four, putting him in breach of 3RR. --G2bambino (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I now see that I may have also done more than three, though one was to restore your compromise, which was mistakenly lost. --G2bambino (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It read "British Royalty - Royal Family" (which perhaps should be changed to British Royal Family). This is far clearer than your invented, POV "Royalty of the Commonwealth realms - Royal Family". I am not "threatening" anything. I am just eager to restore the neutral, correct wording. Your POV attitude has come to a stage where I think you ought to be officially warned, its getting really out of hand. --UpDown (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As you did a direct cut and paste from my talk, then so will I: Prove that it's POV, UpDown. In fact, take it to arbitration, and let them decide. This is what I asked TharkunColl to do, and, apparently not being able to, he quit and left. You similarly seem to have this self-righteous view that everyone sees things from the same UK-centric point of view as you do. Well, sorry, you're wrong. And, though I understand there is such a thing as common usage, "British royalty" is not commonly used outside of the United Kingdom, unless you can show me otherwise.

Further, related to the last edit, I'm more satisfied with this, given that in future some edits will be made to British Royal Family that will more adequately describe the uses of the term. --G2bambino (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "British Royal Family" is far better than the previous wording of "British Royalty - Royal Family" is strange wording, and frankly one I didn't pay much attention to, I was more focused on the British or Commonwealth side of it. --UpDown (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

All other templates are in the form "Suchandsuch Royal Family". This template should read "British Royal Family". That is not to say that they are not the royal family of any other place, it is to say that they are the British Royal Family! Really, this is ridiculous. The "British Royalty - Royal Family" really does look contrived, redundant, whatever. Fill in your own words. Perhaps someone who is truly concerned could add a switch to the template. Otherwise, give it at least a proper title: British Royal Family. Charles 23:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, can someone change it to British Royal Family ASAP. I don't wish to touch it for 3RR reasons.--UpDown (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Droops, but that was not necessary. 3 - 1 on this page go with "British Royal Family", the common sense, common usage term. I think even Gambino is more pleased with this than previous version of "British Royalty - Royal Family". Your comprimise, while well intentioned, is over-complicated for a simple template listing family members!--UpDown (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ecstatic about "British Royal Family" but it's fine. --G2bambino (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow what's all the fuss? Am I too late? GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Formatting of Talk Page

Why is there a remark from 2005 above the contents box? -Rrius (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Who knows. It's so irrelevant and not important now that I believe it can be removed without any fuss. Charles 00:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not? But it's easily fixed. Doops | talk 02:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Resuming the petered-out discussion

To resume:

• We all understand that the children of the Princess Royal are not entitled to be called 'prince' or 'princess' nor to the HRH style; that's not the issue. The issue is how much that matters.
• The 1917 Letters Patent are clear on the subject of who gets to be a prince/princess, who gets to use HRH; but they are silent on the subject of who gets to be included in Misplaced Pages navboxes. Furthermore, they are silent on the definition of the phrase 'royal family.'
• Doubtless the definition Charles proposes (limiting the 'royal family' to those with the rank of prince/princess and style HRH) is one valid option; but it is not the only one.
• From the point of view of reality (rather than rose-colored glasses land) there is no meaningful way in which the children of the Earl of Wessex (or even those of the Duke of York) are more integral members of the royal family than those of the Princess Royal. None of these three families' children are expected to perform royal duties; the Wessex children, even if entitled to the 'prince'/'princess' and the HRH, are not expected to use them.
• The primary purpose of the wikipedia is to be informative. Accuracy is essential, but so is clarity: we are doing our readers a disservice any time that we let our personal hobby horses get in the way of that.
• Leaving the children of the Princess Royal out of the navbox is a best perplexing to readers, and at the worst misleading. A natural assumption, reading the chart, is that you can use it to navigate through the family; and the lack of 'leaves' below the princess royal suggests that she doesn't have any. On the other hand, including the Phillips children in the navbox will not not in any way mislead people into thinking that they are princes or HRHs, since we explicitly include the 'Prince' and HRH in front of other members of the navbox (and will not, of course, include it for them).
• I cannot state it often enough: the purpose of navboxes are to improve the wikipedia. They are our servants, not our masters. The present navbox simply serves no useful purpose.

Therefore I propose either that we 1) include the children of the princess royal in this navbox; or 2) exclude all the non-working children (i.e. those of the Duke of York and those of the Earl of Wessex) and make it a box of working royals. Cheers, Doops | talk 04:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I have stated my views above and only wish to add that there is a third option. If we can't come to some consensus, we could abandon the template. If someone is going to believe the thing is arbitrary and inaccurate either way, perhaps it does not belong in the articles. -Rrius (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I propose we limit the template to princes and princesses of the realm. After all, the British are notorious for "confusing" omissions, however, there is something to be said for specifying who exactly is a prince or a princess of the United Kingdom. Charles 07:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I've just had an idea: you know those horizontal navboxes at the bottom of the page such as Template:British dukes? Well, let's make one of those for Princes and Princesses of the UK! There's a lot of sense to that. Doops | talk 07:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

We do have those: Template:British princes and Template:British princesses of the blood royal. Charles 07:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just found those. But I meant for the living ones. Doops | talk 07:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The living ones are on there as well, although I see no reason why a switch couldn't be included in the template to just show the ones who are still kicking. Charles 07:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I've created a proposal for a whole-family navbox: User:Danbarnesdavies/Family, which includes HRHs, plus their spouses and dependants. And the Phillips DBD 14:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it with that title. Family of Queen Elizabeth II might be better, with this one for princes and princesses. Charles 15:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be just the other way around: the vertical one, on the right side of the page, should be for the family of Elizabeth II; and there should be a horizontal one for living princes / princesses. When I get a chance I'll try it. Doops | talk 16:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The vertical ones all usually contain royal families. The other people are only notable for their relations to the Royal Family, not membership in it. They should be in the horizontal boxes. We don't use vertical boxes for any other "private" families as far as I know. Charles 17:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but I'm ok with including the Phillipses and titling the box "Royal Family"; I was only offering to change the name to 'Family of Elizabeth II' because I thought you'd prefer that. My first concern is pragmatism: what makes for a useful vertical navbox? What is least confusing to our readers? Basing inclusion on minutiae such as HRH-ness is confusing. You haven't addressed the pragmatic arguments at all.

I have what I think is a perfectly valid basis for inclusion: first list all descendants of the present monarch; then, below a horizontal rule, list all working royals. This will certainly shift as monarch succeeds monarch; but that's not surprising.

I also think that there's nothing wrong with calling such a box "Royal Family"; I think it's erroneous (and false precision) to assume that there's some platonic ideal of the 'royal family' — that either your definition or mine is 'right' and the other person's 'wrong'. Many phrases are simply a little vague, a little fuzzy; and 'royal family' is one of those. Cheers, Doops | talk 17:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

How about labeling the top half of the template, "Descendants of the Queen" (or some such), and the bottom half, "Other Princes of the Realm", or the like. That way, we could use different rules for top and bottom without confusing readers. -Rrius (talk) 06:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I would not accept calling such a template British Royal Family. Charles 22:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Charles. This template cannot be called "Template:British Royal Family" if it's going to include people who are not members of the Royal Family. Surtsicna (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Any explanation as to why you believe certain people should not be considered members of the royal family would have been more helpful. A closer reading of the discussion would show that the question of who is in the family and who is not is the root of the disagreement here. A more detailed explanation would not be that helpful, of course, as the discussion ended more than four months ago with no action. -Rrius (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

In the UKGBNI there is no legal definition of the term "the Royal Family". There is practice - but it varies. The sidebar on the page "Members of the Royal Family" on the official website doesn't even list William and Harry, let alone their cousins. I'm not suggesting that they be removed. ;) Noel S McFerran (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

New face of the template

To be honest, I don't like the template's new face. It was much more clear when it looked like this. I don't see why such a drastic change was necessary. Surtsicna (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

To compact the amount of space the template takes up in articles. It's a common technique. --G2bambino (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Reverting. G2--discuss here to justify the change. Prince of Canada 22:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Surtsicna. Looked far better before, and certainly with the current picture, not another one.--UpDown (talk) 07:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's not concern ourselves with looks for the time being, and instead focus on mechanics, convenience, usefulness, and policies. So, why, then, should the template be longer than necessary? And why should it display only one of the arms of only one member of the family, thereby breaching NPOV in two ways? Further, the version that's been reverted to doesn't sit properly in the articles anymore. --G2bambino (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Fitted fine before to my knowledge. Maybe you should have got consensus before making a move that would effect articles. I don't believe there is any NPOV breach.--UpDown (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean, GZbambino. The template fits perfectly. The template should be long enough to be readable. This version does not require clicking on "Show", and it cannot mislead in any way. We certainly should focus on the template's look; the whole article can be affected by the template's look. In a nutshell: this version is simple, better looking, and readable. Surtsicna (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I was within my bounds in making the edits I did. Now, the template doesn't fit well in articles; it is long, and causes image stacking. Thus, instead of being placed in a consistent spot following the main subject infobox, editors have been placing it in various non-conflicting locations. Having a collapsable infobox conserves space and avoids many of the conflicts the long, permanently expanded box does. In terms of NPOV I was already clear, so please address what I said: the Queen's Royal Arms for the United Kingdom are only one of the arms of only one member of the family; ergo, using it prioritises one individual and one country. Something neutral is needed. --G2bambino (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

G2 has as much right as anyone to be bold. I personally dislike templates where all the information is collapsed in an autohide function, but I don't think G2 needs to restrain himself from doing what people do to templates all the time. The fact is, doing it G2's way gets more attention to the proposed change than just putting it on this talk page.

That said, I think autohiding makes the template nearly worthless because people not already familiar with it are not necessarily likely to click on use it because they don't see the information. People who are familiar with it are just as likely to find a link to the Queen and use her infobox as to use this template.

In addition, this is the British Royal Family template. A more neutral template could be created at template:Royal Family in the Commonwealth realms or some such. -Rrius (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)