Talk:James, Viscount Severn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents 1 Lack of Photo 2 The Surname 3 The Style 4 Be careful when moving this page 5 Requested move 5.1 Survey 5.2 Discussion 6 Contributions of 72.77.222.174 7 baptismal name James rehabilitated 8 A Question Regarding Titles and Styles 9 Opening of Early Life 10 HRH in the lead 11 Possible style for another son of HRH The Earl of Wessex 12 Official site refers to him as HRH

[edit] Lack of Photo

As yet there is no photo of the infant Viscount Severn, and a generic image is displayed in the infobox. The generic image is gigantic and disrupts the way the rest of the page displays (at least in Firefox). Would it me more prudent to delete the language "| image = Replace this image male.svg" from the infobox or to somehow shrink it? -Rrius (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Surname

What can you say about the Viscount's surname? I suppose, it would be Mountbatten-Windsor. -- Worobiew (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(My reply from Worobiew's talkpage): Well, Louise and Severn's names and styles are quite controversial. They are both styled as non-royal children of a non-royal earl, despite being, by 1917 Letters Patent Prince(ss). However, there is an issue as to the legal effects of the announcement the Queen made – some consider that, because the Queen's word is law in these matters, the announcement can legally deny the pair of their princely styles, whereas others say that the announcement has no effect in law.

Now, Lady Louise is styled Windsor, and I daresay Lord Severn will be too, even if their surnames are legally Mountbatten-Windsor (that is, if they are not legally princely). If they are legally princely, they have no surname. Either way, they're styled as Windsor, so we use that as the best compromise ^† DBD 22:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Style

I have some doubts about the style given for the child by an edit from 81.151.108.236. He or she added "The Lord" before "NN Windsor, Viscount Severn" under the Styles section. As a courtesy peer, wouldn't the child properly be called "NN Windsor, Viscount Severen"? -Rrius (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're right – although there's a case to argue that all eldest sons of Earls, as sons of earls are The Lord, those who have courtesy titles bear that instead, so it doesn't really ever come up. ^† DBD 23:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

We need to get the article moved back. The talk page is still located here, and regardless, the article does not need the prefix Lord on it. Morhange (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried to be WP:BOLD and move the page, but I got an error when I tried to submit the change. "Lord" certainly isn't appropriate here. Dan, I don't know what case can be made for earls' eldest sons being styled "Lord," as their younger sons are only "The Hon.", but you may know something I don't. Regardless, it certainly isn't correct to use "Lord" in front the name of any courtesy peer (or a royal prince who's known only as a courtesy peer...) TysK (talk) 03:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the "The Right Honourable Lord NN Windsor, Viscount Severn". "The Rt. Hon." is the proper style of a Viscount, as well as for Earls and Barons. He's a "Lord" since all the owners of a nobility title can use this style: Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts and Barons. And there's also the Viscount Severn courtesy title. We can argue a little bit about the "Mountbatten-Windsor" surname.Saidleviatan (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The child does not own the title; his father does. The question of whether to use any of those prefixes is very much in debate. -Rrius (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Mr Saidleviatan, I think there's a fundamental shortfall in you understanding of peerage styles here. Firstly, there is the distinction between substantive and courtesy title — Prince Edward is a substantive peer because he is the one to whom the peerages belong (in his case through being created a peer, in others through having inherited them). Viscount Severn, however, is a courtesy peer — he is styled as Viscount, but is not actually a Viscount (i.e. he is called Viscount or Lord Severn, but can't sit in The House (or at least, before the Reforms, he couldn't) and doesn't bear the style of The Rt Hon). Now, you say that all peers can use "Lord". You're not quite right — there are, as far as I can tell, three, equivocal, senses of "Lord" — "The Lord" as a rank, as in a Baron or Lord of Parliament ("The Rt Hon The Lord Surname"); "The Lord" as a style, as in "The Lady Louise Windsor" (daughter of an earl); and "Lord", being a shorthand for any peer or courtesy peer, substituted for his actual rank. Has this helped? ^† DBD 10:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

A new Prince is born - as the article indicates James is entitled to be a prince as he is the grandson of the monarch. Theoretically speaking, supposing that The Queen had died before his birth, then would he still have been entitled to be a Prince? Ajayvius (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. He would have been the grandson of a British sovereign in the male line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles (talk • contribs) 02:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Be careful when moving this page

Somehow, this talk page was not moved in one of the many pagemoves going on, and I had to move it to the current (as of 03:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)) title of "Lord NN Windsor, Viscount Severn". The first priority is to agree on a title, but failing that, please make sure the "Move talk page" box is checked. szyslak 03:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I restored the talk page and the title momentarily, but then it didn't appear so because there was more than one move performed with some unchanged redirects. Frankly, it's ridiculous, because on Wikipedia and elsewhere, those with courtesy titles are titled like the "real thing". The difference comes with styling and how the person is referred to in text. I will be requesting a restorative move. Charles 05:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In the case of every courtesy viscount I checked (which is in turn nearly all of them), if there is an article on the viscount, it is titled [Given name] [Surname], Viscout [X]. Where the only reference to the viscount is on the page dedicated to the superior title, there is a line saying the heir apparent to the current titleholder is [Given name] [Surname], Viscout [X]. I agree that we should be consistent with other courtesy viscounts, and the move brought that consistency. -Rrius (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contributions of 72.77.222.174

Someone at IP 72.77.222.174 is continually making changes to the article asserting that the child's given name is George. Unless the person is the Earl or Countess of Wessex, it's probably vandalism. The same IP is making the same changes at British Royal Family. Can someone temporarily semi-protect this page? -Rrius (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] baptismal name James rehabilitated

The UK royal family has now restarted to use James, a name of bad reputation in English royalty since 1689. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.158.150 (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean that this should be specifically mentioned in the article? If so, I think at least we should wait until a reliable source comments on the fact. And if not, it's irrelevant for this talk page. -- Jao (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Question Regarding Titles and Styles

The article now says that under the 1917 letters pattent, the child is legally entitled to the style "His Royal Highness Prince James of Wessex". Is that more correct than "His Royal Highness Prince James, Viscount Severn"? -Rrius (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It's more normal, certainly. The latter thing you propose is a weird hybrid. Doops | talk 20:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

To expand: HRHs customarily don't use courtesy titles. For instance, before becoming the Duke of Kent, Edward used HRH Prince Edward of Kent, not HRH (The) Earl of Saint Andrews (and definitely not HRH Prince Edward, Earl of Saint Andrews). The subsidiary title is not entirely moot though, because the next generation doesn't become HRHs: Edward's son is not a prince, so he is known as Earl of Saint Andrews. -- Jao (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The reasoning is that courtesy titles, such as Viscount Severn or Earl of St Andrews, are lower that princliness, so princes don't bear them. The only reason substantive royal peers bear their titles harkens back to when being an hereditary peer granted entry to the Lords, and was therefore more important than being a Prince ^† DBD 21:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought James' title of Viscount Severn was not automatic? I thought it had to be bestowed by the Queen. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

All of the eldest sons of peers are allowed to use one of their father's titles (usually the second highest, but occasionally a lower one if there is possible confusion -- i.e. Duke of Westminster and Marquess of Westminster). The Queen doesn't have to give her consent for this to happen, it is automatic. PeterSymonds | talk 07:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I though his full surname is James Mountbatten-Windsor, Viscount Severn. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No, he doesn't have a full surname like that. He is styled James Windsor, Viscount Severn as if he has the surname Windsor, but according to the Letters Patent of 1917 he has no legal surname. Charles 17:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opening of Early Life

I changed the beginning of the Early Life section from James, Viscount Severn to Viscount Severn a little over a week ago. An unregistered user has changed it back today. It seems to me that James, Viscount Severn is a nonexistent halfway point between James Windsor, Viscount Severn and Viscount Severn. I bring this up to seek a consensus as to whether James, Viscount Severn is acceptable and as to which of the three is preferable for the beginning of that section. -Rrius (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how "James, Viscount Severn" is appropriate. It seems like a half-way point between a royal prince with no surname and a non-royal courtesy title. I understood that he is officially styled "James Windsor, Viscount Severn" like his sister Louise. PeterSymonds | talk 21:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

He is styled "Viscount Severn". (And so this article is absurdly titled — we've given him a surname (a) when he doesn't have one, (b) which isn't the one he would use were he forced to pretend to have a surname (Mountbatten-Windsor), (c) which isn't part of his legal style (His Royal Highness Prince James of Wessex) and (d) which isn't part of his style in practice (Viscount Severn). What an enormous muddle everyone here has gotten themselves into.) Proteus (Talk) 22:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. First, "Viscount Severn" is his courtesy style, not his style. His parents decided he would be styled as the eldest son of an earl, i.e., [forename] [Surname], [courtesy title]. No one here gave the boy a surname. We are applying his sister's style by analogy. If you were correct, his sister would not be titled "Lady Louise Windsor"; she would be "Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor" or simply "Lady Louise". To the extent there is a muddle, it is the result of the Earl and Countess's decision to style their children as children of an earl rather than as princes and princesses. The Queen's decision to respect that decision does not legally place the children within the class of Mountbatten-Windsors. At any rate, the decision of what to put after the given name has already been decided, despite any logical arguments that may be out there. Louise could have been Lady Louise of Wessex, Lady Louise of Windsor, Lady Louise Windsor, or simply Lady Louise. Press releases from the Palace call her "Lady Louise Windsor". The choice was made to use the name of the House. In short, I disagree with everything you said except for (b), which I only partially disagree with (but would agree with if you said "on legal documents" or the like). -Rrius (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You are completely confused, and as much in a muddle as everyone else. The style of the eldest son of an Earl is "Viscount Something" or "Lord Something" (depending on the grade of the courtesy title used). It is most definitely not "Forename Surname, Viscount/Lord Something", as you can perfectly easily see by reading any authority on the subject or style guide whatsoever. (Debrett's Correct Form would be ideal, but if you want something online this, for instance, will demonstrate it clearly enough.) We generally title articles in that way, but that doesn't mean that it is the correct style. All that Buckingham Palace has announced is that he is called "James Alexander Philip Theo" and that he is "Viscount Severn": see the press release. As his given name does not form part of his style, BP has not had to consider "what to put after it". As far as they are concerned, he is simply Viscount Severn, just like Viscount Linley, Lord Culloden, Lord Downpatrick, and countless other courtesy peers. And we can't go around applying his sister's style to his name in some kind of bizarre logical exercise: she is styled "Lady Louise Windsor", he is styled "Viscount Severn" (and his first name is "James"), and as they're the only facts that have been given to us they're they the only ones we can use. Proteus (Talk) 10:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not confused, and your continued accusation that anyone who disagrees with you is in a muddle or confused is unhelpful. I believe you are confusing "style" with "form of address". Prince Charles's style is not "Prince of Wales"; it is "HRH The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, etc". Moreover, the MoJ website you provided notes the proper form of address, not the proper style. I have no idea why you referred me to the royal.gov.uk press release. It does not address the topic. If you want to call the [forename] [surname], [title] format something other than his style, it doesn't really matter. The aforementioned construction is common in referring to peers and courtesy peers (it was not invented by Wikipedia), and that is what the sentence in question is doing, referring to the child.

In any event, this discussion began because I objected to "James, Viscount Severn" being the proper way to begin the Early life section. I suggested it was a poor compromise between "James Windsor, Viscount Severn" and "Viscount Severn". The implication of your original comment is that you believe "Viscount Severn" is better than the current text. Is that correct? - —Preceding unsigned comment added by -Rrius (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Where are you getting all this from? (I'm particularly intrigued by the distinctions you're drawing between "style", "courtesy style" and "form of address" — would you mind defining what you mean by them?) Proteus (Talk) 19:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In my last response to you I tried to move back to point of this discussion, but you did not answer my question. Since "Viscount Severn" is accurate and is the least likely to be continually edited, I am going to change the opening section. If you want to further discuss this title/style/form of address issue, start a new topic, change the article, or move the page. At this point, that discussion has strayed from the point and does not seem calculated to improve the article, and I for one will not waste more of my time on it until it is. -Rrius (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It's central to the issue because you're basing your incorrect claims that "Forenames Surname, Viscount/Lord Something" is a valid "form of address"/"style"/"courtesy style"/whatever (and various other issues) on some kind of bizarre interpretation of the rules of correct form, and so I have no idea how to attempt to demonstrate to you what a load of nonsense you're speaking unless you give me some idea where these assertions have come from. Whereas I'm perfectly willing to explain exactly why what I'm saying is correct (and back it up with references to sources), what you're saying at the moment is "you're wrong, and you're wrong because you're confusing these terms, but I'm going to refuse to say what the terms you're confusing are because it's not relevant to this issue". That's simply unacceptable, and if you don't want to back up anything you're saying then I (and the other editors of this page) are going to have to ignore you and edit regardless of what you think is correct.

However, for the sake of enlightening you, here is how things work. I'll stick to Viscounts to clarify the situation, though similar statements will apply to other ranks. A substantive viscount is styled "The Rt Hon. the Viscount Hereford", or less formally "The Viscount Hereford" (i.e. that is how he would be described in writing, and what you would put on the envelope if writing to him). He is described in conversation (or very informal writing) as "Lord Hereford", and addressed verbally as "My Lord" or "Lord Hereford" (all of this can be found in Debrett's Correct Form (it's on page 39 of the 2002 edition)). Eldest sons of earls bear peerage titles by courtesy, and are styled as a peer but without "The Rt Hon." and without "The" in front of their title, "Viscount Ingestre", for instance, both formally and informally; forms of address and verbal descriptions are the same as they would be for a peer (pages 48 to 50 of the 2002 edition). As the eldest son of the Earl of Wessex, this child is therefore styled "Viscount Severn". "Viscount Severn" is how he would be described in text, and it is what you would put on an envelope were you to want (for some reason) to write to him.

Now obviously we (and other encyclopaedias) have had to come up with ways of naming people who hold titles, as the correct styles are too ambiguous (every Duke of Norfolk has been styled "The Duke of Norfolk", so some way is necessary of distinguishing them). We do this by placing their main forename and surname before their highest title, and include a numeral if they're a hereditary peer (obviously omitting that if they're a life peer or a courtesy peer). This is a perfectly acceptable way of titling an article, but it is not in any way a correct style or form of address. And in this case, because this child is not a normal courtesy viscount, it's not just not a correct style but it's wrong. His surname is not "Windsor", because he does not have one. His sister has been forced to use "Windsor" as part of her style, because the style of the daughter of an earl includes a surname, so she (or rather her parents) have been forced to pretend that Windsor is her surname, but the style of the eldest son of an earl does not. He is simply styled "Viscount Severn". He has no need for a surname. No surname has been given to him in any release from the Palace. They said before he was born that he would be styled as the child of an earl. They said after he was born what his names were. They are referring to him as "Viscount Severn", as, obviously, that is how the eldest son of an earl whose secondary title is the Viscountcy of Severn going to be styled. I really don't see how any of this is either controvertial or difficult to understand. Proteus (Talk) 08:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Proteus does have a very good point, no official release (to my knowledge) has given him any surname. His forenames have been announced as was the use of the courtesy title, but no surname. Should Wikipedia really then assume his 'surname' is the same as his sisters, when legally he is without surname?--UpDown (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have never said that the child has a surname. "Windsor" is used for his sister even though she does not have a surname, so it is logical that it would be used for him in similar circumstances. I have already changed the opening sentence of the Early life section. My edit took what I saw to be the least controversial yet accurate path.

As I said in my last comment, this has gone rather far afield, and unless someone is going to begin a new topic about renaming the article or otherwise make this digression relevant, I am finished participating (other than, as here, defending myself). When Proteus made his initial, provocative comment, I took offense and responded. I realized my mistake and tried to subtly disengage. All I can do now is apologize for over reacting and subjecting editors to two days of unduly heated posts. -Rrius (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HRH in the lead

An editor at 69.159.30.178 added the following sentence to the lead: He is the first person in the line of succession not to hold the style of Royal Highness. I softened it by changing hold to use. I am not convinced that either version fairly summarizes the relevant portion of the article. -Rrius (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible style for another son of HRH The Earl of Wessex

Had The Earl and Countess of Wessex had another son, what would he be styled ? The Honourable Givenname Windsor or the upper title (Lord Givenname Windsor) ? I've been wondering this because official sources say that it was decided by The Earl and Countess of Wessex that their issue would be styled as the children of an Earl. However, younger sons of an Earl are styled The Hon. X Lastname, and I don't really think that a male-line grandson of a British sovereign could be styled as such, whereas a male-line great-grandson of a British sovereign is officialy styled Lord X Windsor.

According to the Palace, he would indeed be styled "The Honourable X Windsor".--UpDown (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a fair bet that there won't be any further Wessex children. But if there was a furtehr son, he'd eventually gain the style Lord when Edward is created Duke of Edinburgh and he becomes a younger son of a Duke,,, ^† DBD 13:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd forgotten about Edward one day becoming Duke of Edinburgh. I tend to agree that more Wessex children is most unlikely.--UpDown (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Official site refers to him as HRH

Hi, I just noticed something. In the gallery of the official site, he is referred to as "His Royal Highness": His Royal Highness, who was born in December 2007, received the names James Alexander Philip Theo. [1]Could this be a mistake? --Mdieke (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say that factually it is not a mistake since legally Viscount Severn is a Prince of the United Kingdom and a Royal Highness. Interesting on their part though. Charles 16:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)