This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
How about adding some colour to the entries in the trees ? Jay 02:37, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hey James! I followed your sugestion in Wars of the Roses! What does everybody think? :) Muriel Victoria 09:48, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Could we have the images modified to read "British monarchs," and the page moved to British monarchs as well? This would follow the format for List of British monarchs, and, furthermore, be more gender-neutral. -- Emsworth 01:55, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
I think Electress Sophia of Hanover should be included to House of Hanover family tree, because she was heiress pressumptive to the English, Scottish and Irish(Later Britsh and Irish thrones) for 12 years. Chamika1990 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
It would be great if someone could finish the page in the same fashion by providing the Saxon kings. The link is through Matilda of Scotland. 195.92.168.171 21:33, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
There's a problem here. The senior line of descent is actually back through the Scottish monarchs -- not the English ones. So this tree is actually incorrect. It and the Scottish monarchs tree should be re-arranged to create a corrected British monarchs tree and a new English monarchs tree. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:43, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)
Many Scots favour parliamentary independence from the UK (although not all, less than a third at the moment in fact). I would guess that even fewer want independence from the Crown. Nobody is saying that senior lines of descent are important in daily life. If they were, the descendants of James VII and II would still be in power. But they surely have some importance in the preparation of this kind of genealogical chart. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to appreciate the irony of Scotland and England being ruled by a family of Irish origin. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:16, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)
What on Earth do you mean by "senior line of descent"? The British monarchs are the senior line of descent from both the English and Scottish monarchs (if you exclude the Jacobite lines), which is (surprisingly enough) why the Kingdoms united in the first place. If you mean "senior line of ascent" (which is what you seem to be talking about, though the expression is a decidedly odd one), then you seem to be implying (since James V, King of Scots, had a claim to the Scottish throne through his father and to the English throne through his mother) that ascent though the male line is senior to ascent through the female line, which would imply that we should actually be showing the family tree of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, which by your logic is "senior" to the House of Hanover which married into it. That, of course, would be ridiculous, as is any claim that the Scottish monarchs are a more "senior line" than the English monarchs. The obvious solution, of course, is to have three different pages - British monarchs family tree, English monarchs family tree and Scottish monarchs family tree, with the first only showing monarchs after 1603. (By the way, the current images need to be replaced, as they are absolutely useless. There are capitalisation errors all over the place, and the styles are a disaster ("William Mountbatten-Windsor" and "Elizabeth II Windsor", for example). Not even the technical aspects are right, as, for example, King Henry VIII appears to have sprung from the Ether, and the birth order of siblings is muddled up all over the place.) Proteus (Talk) 11:01, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Proteus's proposal that there be separate pages for English, Scottish, and post-1603 monarchs. The English monarch page can even include the Saxon rulers, if anyone is up to the task of adding them. The Royal Family's website, indicated above, does include a PDF chart for them. -- Emsworth 14:21, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'll make the changes in the drwings, but since its a lot of work, lets discuss them first.
Opinions, comments, rants, complaints, its now or never! Cheers, [[User:Muriel Gottrop| muriel@pt]] 08:53, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't think we need the HRH and HMs. Monarchs should probably be "Elizabeth II", "George VI", etc., Princes "Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex" (if they have/had peerages), "Prince John" (sons of monarchs), "Prince William of Wales"/"Prince Michael of Kent" (sons of sons of monarchs). Titles should also be included for commoners marrying Royals - "Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon", "Henry Lascelles, 6th Earl of Harewood", etc. All titles should indeed by capitalised. That's about it really. Proteus (Talk) 12:43, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
One must also remember that, prior to the Hanoverian monarchs (George I and his successors), "Prince" and "Princess" were not in common use (I think that the only royals to use them consistently were the Princes of Wales). Thus, prior to 1714, just the peerages are enough for lesser royals. To see which individuals should be labeled as princes or princesses, one may consider the following pages: British prince, British princess. -- Emsworth 23:14, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Muriel, thanks for your hard work in making these family trees, both the originals and the new replacements. I know how fiddly it is to get these types of diagram to look nice and you have done a fine job. Wikipedia would not be the success that it is without the participation of good people like yourself and I for one appreciate it. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:12, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
I beleive there is an error on the date of the marriage line between Victoria and Albert. The date shown is 1835, should be 1840. Dennis 19:00 2004 December 22
dennisa@xtra.co.nz
Saxe-Leiningen? Mecklemburg? Wurtemberg? Streliz? Princess of Portugal? Victoria, Princess Royal, married her father-in-law? Puke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld? These are all errors that must be fixed. I volunteer... for now. Charles 23:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Just a quick note: Prince Charles is now married to Camilla Parker-Bowles. Should she not be added? Especailly since she will become Princess Consort when old Charlie get's the throne.
Please update the Windsor family Tree with this one: http://www.royal.gov.uk/files/pdf/Windsor%20family%20tree.pdf
Prince William or Wales and prince Henry of Wales? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.149.254.138 (
talk)
13:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
These are some of the following mistakes:
1) Henry Stuart, Prince of Wales (1595-1612)?; he was born in 1594
2) Charles I, succeeds the throne in 1626?; he succeeded in 1625
3) Charles II, succeeds the throne in 1661?; he succeeded in 1660
4) Frederick, Prince of Wales married in 1739?; he was married in 1736
5) Victoria, married in 1835?; she was married in 1840
6) Victoria, Princess Royal married William I of Germany?; she married William's son, Frederick III of Germany
7) Edward VII, married in 1862?; he was married in 1863
8) Alice, Duchess of Gloucester still living?; she died in 2004
9) Elizabeth II crowned in 1952?; she succeeded in 1952 & crowned in 1953 (we want the acession date)
10) Charles and Diana divorced in 1992?; they divorced in 1996
Does anyone know how to correct these?
GoodDay
23:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
That's all I see at the moment, but there might be more. john k 20:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this is a big deal. In the first place, this would lead to entirely unnecessary repetition. In the second place, the line going back to James I is necessary to show the relationship between Anne and George I. James I is a logical starting point. Anne certainly isn't. john k 12:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason for including Viscount Linley and Lady Sarah Chatto here? -- Jao 11:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
This page should be moved to British Isles monarch's family tree. GoodDay 22:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
How's this: User:DBD/Tree to replace the images? D B D 14:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The tree shows Diana Spencer as a child of Queen Elizabeth II instead of Prince Charles, could somebody fix this? XXL2oo ( talk) 06:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that geographically Hawai`i belongs in Polynesia, not the Americas, and a section be created to include the Kingdom of Tonga. -- Hugh7 ( talk) 06:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on British monarchs' family tree. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: MOVE. ( non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor ( talk) 05:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
British monarchs' family tree →
Family tree of the British royal family – Because this is what the page actually shows.
Celia Homeford (
talk)
09:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Should, Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, have box border that shows she is a child of a monarch? Pennwood711 ( talk) 14:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Why is Camilla labled as Queen Consort when no other Queen Consort is? I think it should be applied to all Queen Consorts or none. EmilySarah99 ( talk) 01:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Why are we removing or redirecting royal children that do not have royal titles? Shouldn’t this family tree show every member of the royal family their offspring connection? I feel that helps viewers who are interested in learning about the family connections with the offsprings. If we are going to redirect Anne's children why redirect them to a category list?
Honestly I am speaking for every member. We are not able to see the full connection of each family member by doing that. Are we only listing family members with royal status on the family tree. I feel that the family tree should included everyone regardless of royal status to be included in the tree because it helps us follow along.
Also, not all of Anne's children bare the last name Phillip. Zara is married to a man with the last name Tindall. She is not a Phillip only Peter and his children carry that last name. Welcometothenewmillenium ( talk) 06:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Sophia of Hanover was the daughter of Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia and Frederick V of the Palatinate, yet the descent line only connects her to Elizabeth. 98.228.137.44 ( talk) 22:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)