Talk:Lord Frederick Windsor

There's something we'd all like to say on here right now but I'm guessing that it could get Wikipedia into a lot of legal bother!!!

Well, without saying what it is, what do you all think the probability is? If news reports are anything to go by, it could be in the public domain soon in any case.

Milvinder 21:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't be the first to report anything. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not him anyway. Widmerpool 09:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well Lord Freddie has been vindicated anyway. It has nothing to do with him. He is not like that any way, he used cocaine once in 1999 and apologised for his stupid mistake and learnt his lesson. He simply doesn't behave in that way anymore and was never a frequent drug user or hard drinker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.82.53 (talk) 11:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Any info on his sexual predilections? AuntFlo (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Education

It is not correct that he attended Ludgrove. He did attend a nursery school in London, then Wetherby School for pre-prep, Sunningdale for prep, Eton, and then Oxford. But the reference to his attending Ludgrove isn't correct. --Ashley Rovira 16:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Kents are my favourite royals...i love them..annyway...about making personal accusations and spreading rumours about someone ..wikipedia is certainly not the place fot it....go and get hired in sick papers like new of the world or any other murdoch corporation for that..i have deleted entry someone had posted about him and gay society..there were no sources for it...--Yahoo 15:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I found a source for it.--Johnbull 20:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

History

Is it really appropriate to discuss why Lord Fred is not a Prince or HH/HSH?? The fact that he isn't should be enough. If anyone is interested in the history of british royal titles, they will read the relevant article. This aricle should provide a brief biography of the subject, and not something his great-great grandfather did. Cristien Nikolas 19:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It is his great grandfather King George V, not his great great grandfather. It is appropriate because that is the only way anyone will know or understand why he is styled as a Lord and not a Prince, even though legally he still is a Prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and a Duke of Saxony, having direct male legitimate descent from Prince Albert, Queen Victoria's husband.

For one, you would need a reliable source to prove he is a Prince of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha and Duke of Saxony. More importantly it is not necessary to have all that information on why he is not a Prince. Even Lady Louise's page has a much shorter section on her title, and her titles have been under much debate. Many people would have been Prince/ss before 1917, but aren't now, but that is the nature of Royal titles, they change. Such changes should be on the articles about the British Monarchy etc, but on the page of every person. --UpDown 12:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It should be on his page, or at least a link explaining it, it would make the article better, so that those not familiar with royalty in depth, can find out why certain cousins of the Queen are not called Prince or Princess such and such, even though they are her close relatives. They were Princes and Princesses up until a relatively recent (in the 1000 year history of the monarchy) change. The Saxe-Coburg and Gotha inheritance titles, continue for each direct male line descendent of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, but they are not used because they are German titles, that is just a fact. I think people should be informed of this. And what is the relevant page that this information is in, if certain people don't want it on the page of individual persons?

They were not called Prince/ss for 1000 years, the title Prince/ss wasn't widely used in the UK until George I's reign, when the first rules were established. You also assume people would think that the son of the Queen's cousin would be a Prince, why would he be? He is a minor Royal. On Lady Louise's page we explain why she isn't, because as The Queen's male-line grandaughter you would expect her to be. You wouldn't expect Lord Frederick to be a Prince. The Prince/ss info is at British Royal Family#Royal styles and titles. You could even create a page regarding the 1917 letters patent, and then a sentence could be inserted saying "Lord Frederick is styled as a duke's younger son under the 1917 Letters Patent" - This would be a lot simpler and more concise.

And you still need a source for them being Saxe-Coburg Princes, a source to prove the 1917 isn't legal (I actually am with you on this, I do think they hold these titles, but we need to source it). Even if you do source it, the info should only be the British Royal Family article, not indididual pages. --UpDown 15:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, yes, that's true that only from the rules according to King George I, on, would Lord Frederick have been a Prince. The changes made by George V were legal. I was just trying to point out that, if these changes had not been made, Frederick would be H.H. Prince Frederick of Kent, and his sister would be H.H. Princess Gabriella of Kent, and they have the German titles as well. Take for instance the page, of Alistair Windsor, the 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn. It explains clearly that he was a male line great-grandson of the sovereign (Queen Victoria-Prince Arthur-Prince Arthur-Prince Alistair/Earl of Macduff) yet he was deprived of his Princely status, just as Frederick has been, and his cousins the Earls of St. Andrews and Ulster I might add. With "Lady" Louise it is different, she has not been legally deprived of being a Princess, she is just currently not officially styled as one. Unlinke Louise, Frederick is not legally a Prince/Princess of the UK. So no I don't have a source at hand about the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha titles, but it was explained to me by a qualified expert that that is the case for Lord Frederick, particularly because his mother was titled, the marriage is more acceptable for German Royal House laws. But I do think George V's changes limiting who is a Prince/Princess of the UK and Ireland, is legal.

The key difference is that Prince Alistair was born a Prince then deprived of the title. Lord Frederick never had the title nor was he ever going to have a right to it, because of rules drawn up long before his birth. This is why it is irrelevant on his page. With regard to the Saxe-Coburg titles, as I said I agree with you that they have them, but we need a very reliable source and it should be on the British Royal Family article, not Frederick or Gabriella's articles, or indeed the article on any indidiual royal. --UpDown 11:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see there is an important difference between being known as a Prince for some time, as Prince Alastair was, and then having that taken away, and never being called a Prince of the UK as Lord Frederick has been. But if me or you or someone finds a written source detailing how the male-line descendents of Prince Albert the Prince Consort, are still Princes/ess of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Dukes/Duchesses of Saxony, I think it should be on the individual royal's page, as well as the general article, because this really applies to not that many people.

They are not Princes/ess of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Dukes/Duchesses of Saxony as George V renounced all their Germanic titles for royals who were British and for their descendants. Astrotrain 22:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

But that applies in Britain. It is not effective in Germany. They still have these German titles under the German Royal House rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.82.53 (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Germany abolished royal titles- they are not used officially in Germany. Astrotrain 13:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• But they still exist and many German royals, most of them, still use their titles. They are just not recognised "officially" by the German State, but they still exist.

Many peopple use titles that no longer exist, or to which they have dubious claims. Since the subject has real titles let's not muddy the waters by claiming defunct honors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sweet suite

• In 2002 it was reported that he had joined the board of the exclusive Soho gay members club Sweet Suite.[1]

The link goes to an online source that I wouldn't consider reliable on its own. It just cites a Daily Mail mention. I looked it up. "Lord Louche is reined in; " ADAM HELLIKER. Mail on Sunday. London (UK): Nov 24, 2002. pg. 21 The piece is apparently a gossip item. It never quotes the subject, or anyone, else by name, and is written in the style of a gossip column. I think that this is basically unconfirmed gossip and unsuitable for an encyclopedia biography. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, it shouldn't be there.

"HH Prince Frederick of Kent"

• In 1917 his great grandfather, George V, revised the Royal styles and titles, due to the intense anti-German sentiment among the British people during the First World War. The King and his family were convinced to abandon all titles held under the German Crown and to change their German titles and dynastic name to anglicized versions. The House of Windsor replaced the British branch of the German House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Without these changes, Lord Frederick might have been styled HH Prince Frederick of Kent.

This material has never been sourced. If my great-grandfather had done things differently, I might be known by another name too. To take another example, if the Norman Conquest hadn't occurred then the subject might not be a prince or even a lord. I don't think this material is really necessary or helpful. If no one can find a source in the next month I'll delete it.   Will Beback  talk  11:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I concur. Shall we be bold? DBD 13:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced and speculative, not sure it's worth waiting a month to delete it. Johannes Pratt (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Article name

I'm surprised to see this article is at "Lord Frederick Windsor": the naming conventions say that courtesy titles should only be used "if the person is far better recognised with the title than without". Given that even the Daily Mail calls him "Freddie Windsor", that doesn't seem to apply here. 84.203.40.54 (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Royal Family

He is NOT a member of the British Royal Family. He is a relative of them. To be a "Royal" you must have the title HRH or be the grandchild of the Sovereign. He is not listed as a member. Look up the British Monarchy website on who is and ISN'T and remove that note from his page please. 74.69.9.224 (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Title Of 'Lord'

How is Frederick entitled to use what I assume is a courtesy title of Lord? He isn't the son of a Peer, royal or otherwise. His father's title is Prince and I know of no reason why Prince Michael of Kent's two children are entitled to Lord and Lady (in the case of Frederick's sister). Does it come from his Mother who is a Baroness? Frazzle (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

See: Forms of address in the United Kingdom. Dr. D.E. Mophon 09:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe that that link gives any reason why he should be 'Lord'. I feel it ought to be discussed in this article. Otherwise visitors may be left (as I was) wondering why he has a lordly title. His father is a not a duke and he is not a younger son so his title doesn't fit the norm. I suspect Letters Patent give him the right to style himself as the son of a duke but his father has no subsidiary titles to give him. Someone back me up on this (and provide the answer!) Thanks Team! TomboPC (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I have now added a section explaining why he is entitled to "Lord". TomboPC (talk) 00:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lord Frederick Windsor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070308112747/http://business.timesonline.co.uk:80/tol/business/article626377.ece to http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/article626377.ece

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)