text:
River Wye

The River Wye (Afon Gwy ) is the fourth-longest river in the UK, stretching some 250 km from its source on Plynlimon in mid Wales to the Severn Estuary. For much of its length the river forms part of the border between England and Wales. The Wye Valley (lower part) is designated an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The Wye is important for nature conservation and recreation, but is affected by pollution.

Etymology
The meaning of the river's name is not clear. Possibly the earliest reference to the name is Guoy in Nennius' early 9th Century Historia Brittonum and the modern Welsh name is Gwy. The Wye was much later given a Latin name, Vaga, an adjective meaning 'wandering'. The Tithe map references a Vagas Field in both Whitchurch and Chepstow. Philologists such as Edward Lye and Joseph Bosworth in the 18th and early 19th centuries suggested an Old English derivation from wæg, "wave".

Description
The source of the Wye is in the Welsh mountains at Plynlimon. It flows through or past several towns and villages, including Rhayader, Builth Wells, Hay-on-Wye, Hereford (the only city on the River Wye), Ross-on-Wye, Symonds Yat, Monmouth and Tintern, meeting the Severn estuary just below Chepstow. The lower 16 mi of the river from Redbrook to Chepstow form the border between England and Wales.

Conservation
The River Wye is protected by two Sites of Special Scientific Interest, one covering the Upper Wye (Gwy Uchaf) above Hay-on-Wye, and one covering the Lower Wye (Gwy Isaf) downstream to Chepstow. The criteria for inclusion of the river as an SSSI include geology, topography, flora, mammals, invertebrates, fish and birdlife, as the river and its tributaries constitute a large linear ecosystem. The Lower Wye SSSI is itself divided into seven units of assessment set by Natural England, and administrative responsibilities are shared between the councils of Powys, Herefordshire, Gloucestershire, and Monmouthshire. The Wye abuts a range of other SSSIs in England and Wales, including the Upper Wye Gorge and Lower Wye Gorge.

It is also a Special Area of Conservation and one of the most important rivers in the UK for nature conservation. It is an important migration route and wildlife corridor, as well as a key breeding area for many nationally and internationally important species. The river supports a range of species and habitats covered by European Directives and those listed under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. In Powys the river lies within the Radnorshire Environmentally Sensitive Area. Much of the lower valley is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Salmon
The Lower Wye has been designated as a salmonid fishery under the EC Freshwater Fish Directive.

The Wye was particularly famous for its large "spring" salmon that had spent three or more years at sea before returning to spawn. They used to enter the river between January and June and sometimes reached weights of over 50 lb, the largest recorded being 59 lb landed after a long fight by Miss Doreen Davey from the Cowpond Pool at Winforton on 13 March 1923. The last recorded 50 lb rod-caught salmon from the Wye was taken in 1963 by Donald Parrish and weighed 51 lb. Since the early 2000s the spring catch has been steadily recovering and salmon of over 35 lb have been reported every year since 2011.

Pollution
Pollution has severely affected the river; the Wye does not meet European and national standards on river health. This has been happening for some time; a Nutrient Management Board (NMB) was established in 2014 to address the issues. Pollution from chicken and dairy farms has become so bad the Wye has been used as an example of river pollution in the UK on Countryfile and in several national newspapers. "The Wye is dying at astonishing, heartbreaking speed. When I canoed it 10 years ago, the stones were clean. Now they are so slimy that you can scarcely stand up. In hot weather, the entire river stinks of chicken sh**, from the 10 million birds being reared in the catchment.." This pollution causes algal blooms several times a year with increasing frequency and length, depleting the oxygen in the water causing fish such as brown trout, chub and barbel as well as aquatic invertebrates and plants to suffocate to death. Fish and aquatic invertebrates are the main food source for otters, kingfishers, herons, eels and other protected species. "If this goes on, we will lose everything that we treasure about the Wye. It will turn a horrible, ugly green every time it gets sunny. The fish will go, and they will be followed by our kingfishers, our dippers and our herons." Along with many other rivers the Wye is being heavily polluted by manure from the 10 million free range chickens for eggs and meat in intensive poultry units (IPUs) in Powys and Herefordshire, contaminating the Wye's tributaries. As of April 2020, there were over 110 registered IPUs in Powys, each with over 40,000 birds (smaller IPUs need not be registered).

In addition, runoff from dairy farms, farm slurry and silage liquor are entering the Wye. A study by the Welsh Government found that only 1% of farm slurry stores in Wales met regulations and that farms were purposely spreading slurry on fields before high rainfall, leading to increased run off into waterways. An investigation by Greenpeace found that Environment Agency staff cuts from austerity had reduced pollution inspections by up to one third. An internal report by the Environment Agency showed that the use of a “voluntary approach” by government was leading to increased levels of river pollution across the UK. Powys County Council approved the construction of 20 new free-range chicken sheds in 2019 and as of February 2022 continues to license new chicken farms. In addition to problems with the riverine environment, this is causing air quality issues. Pollution from the chicken factory farms is estimated to have killed 90% to 97% of the river’s water crowfoot beds, and 3000 tonne more phosphate than plants can absorb is released in the River Wye's catchment every year.

In February 2022, it was declared at a meeting of the River Wye Nutrient Management Board that"The River Wye will be in irreversibly worse condition within two years unless swift action is taken"In March 2023, a High Court claim was brought against the Environment Agency by environmental charity River Action for failing to take action to protect the Wye from environmental pollution, after a Lancaster University study found that 60-70% of phosphates in the river come from agriculture.

History
The Romans constructed a bridge of wood and stone just upstream of present-day Chepstow, some remains of which were found in the river bed during an archaeological dig in 1911. The River Wye is tidal from its junction with the River Severn for about 15 mi to Bigsweir, where a band of hard rock forms a natural weir across the river. The tidal range on this lower section is huge, with water levels rising by up to 50 ft on some spring tides, but despite the risks of navigating such a river, it has been used since Roman times to transport coal from the Forest of Dean, cider from Hereford, together with Italian wine, iron, stone and timber.

When compared to many of the long rivers in Britain, the Wye is quite steep, with a rise of 1.93 feet per mile (0.365 m per km) between its junction with the River Severn and Monmouth, and a rise of 2.4 feet per mile (0.455 m per km) between there and Hereford. In the summer months, the river level at Hereford is 152 ft above ordnance datum (AOD), and Hereford is about 70 mi from the river mouth. For navigation to occur, some form of management of river levels was required. Early records are fragmentary, but it appears that the river was used to transport iron from the Forest of Dean for Edward the Confessor's ships in the 11th century, and in 1171 and 1172, iron was supplied to Henry II for his invasion of Ireland. From the 13th century, the records are clearer, and iron from forges at Bicknor, Lydbrook, Monmouth and Carey Mills was transported by river. During the reign of Edward I, a common right of navigation on the Wye was recorded, with the channel to be kept free of weirs and other obstructions. Where these already existed, they were to be demolished at the owner's expense. Documents from 1561 and 1571 concerning water mills and weirs show that the river was used for navigation at the time.

In 1622, a petition was raised by the counties of Gloucestershire, Herefordshire and Monmouthshire, together with the city of Hereford, that the river should be cleared of obstructions that made fishing and navigation difficult. A commission of sewers was appointed, but seems to have done very little, since most of the weirs belonged to the king. There were seven weirs on the river in 1641, to provide water power for mills and forges. During Cromwell's Commonwealth period, proposals were made to improve the river for navigation by building flash locks at the weirs, and dredging the channel to make it deeper. Although there were arguments for and against the proposals, Sir William Sandys was appointed in 1662 to oversee making the Wye and the River Lugg navigable. He had previously worked on the Warwickshire Avon to make that navigable. Some £1,300 had already been raised in the country, but it is unclear what he did with the money. He was assisted by Henry and Windsor Sandys, and they were given powers to construct a towing path, 4 ft wide on both sides of the river, to allow boats to be hauled upstream. Although tolls could be charged, they also had to maintain the right of free passage which was long established on the river. Twenty Commissioners were appointed, ten from Hereford, five from Gloucester and five from Hereford. All weirs were to include an opening, so that salmon and other fish could migrate along the river.

The scheme involved the construction of flash locks in channels cut to bypass the weirs, a system which Sandys had used with success on the Avon, but the Wye was a much faster flowing river, which meant that the solution was impracticable and very costly. It had been abandoned by 1668, as maintenance costs made the operation of boats unprofitable, and a new scheme, proposed by Lord Coningsby of Hampton Court, Herefordshire was to be implemented. All fishing weirs and mill weirs would be bought and demolished, while Sandys locks would be abandoned. The river bed would also be deepened where necessary. The cost of buying the weirs would be raised by a tax on the county, and it was estimated that the river would be navigable for about 200 days per year. At the time there were weirs supplying six fulling mills and three corn mills at Hereford, and another nine elsewhere, at Fownhope, Hancox, Carey, Foy and Wilton. There were another nine derelict weirs above Monmouth, and five below the town.

Lord Coningsby's proposals were enshrined in an act of Parliament, the  (7 & 8 Will. 3. c. 14), which authorised the County of Hereford to buy up and demolish the mills on the Wye and Lugg. All locks and weirs were to be removed, except that at New Weir forge below Goodrich, which survived until about 1815. By 1727, around £18,000 had been raised to carry out the work, and thirteen weirs in Herefordshire had been bought and removed. Some work had also been carried out on the Lugg, but much of it was damaged by flooding soon afterwards. One unexpected consequence of removing the weirs was that water levels dropped, resulting in there being a number of shoals that boats now had to negotiate. Another act of Parliament was obtained, the  (13 Geo. 1. c. 34), which appointed new trustees, and allowed them to authorise the construction of mills and weirs at locations which would assist navigation. In 1763, James Taylor proposed the construction of 22 weirs, each with an associated pound lock, to make the river fully navigable, but the scheme was not implemented. When it looked likely that the Herefordshire and Gloucestershire Canal would not reach Hereford, there were calls to further improve the Wye. At the time, boats were hauled by gangs of ten or eleven men, but men were in short supply, and a towing path for horses was suggested. William Jessop carried out a survey, and the towing path was authorised by the  (49 Geo. 3. c. lxxviii). A company was formed to build 37 mi of path from Lydbrook to Hereford, and to maintain ferries at five points where the path crossed from one side of the river to the other.

Evidence given in Parliament during the passage of the bill stated that some 10,000 tons of coal were moved along the river to Hereford each year, with 3,000 tons of other commodities. Another 4,000 tons of lime and other goods were delivered to various points along the river. Progress on the project was rapid, and local newspapers announced the arrival of two barges in Hereford on 23 January 1811, each towed by two horses. Carriage of coal to Hereford became easier following the opening of the Severn and Wye Tramroad in 1813, which brought coal to the river bank at Bishop's Wood. A steam tug was trialled on the river in 1825, but although it proved to be successful, it was sold due to the difficulty of finding suitable barges for it to tow. Passenger services became a feature of the river from 1835, with boats running between Ross, Monmouth and Chepstow, later extended to include Goodrich and Tintern. The river was also navigable above Hereford, as far as Hay-on-Wye, although only when there was sufficient water, and a system of ropes and pulleys were used to allow boats to negotiate the rapids at Monnington. Money was spent several times improving the River Lugg from Leominster to its confluence with the Wye at Mordiford, but its navigation is likely to have been difficult. The Herefordshire and Gloucestershire Canal reached Hereford in 1845, providing an alternative way to supply the town with coal, and trade tailed off with the opening of the Newport, Abergavenny and Hereford Railway in 1854, and the Hereford, Ross and Gloucester Railway in the following year. After the Wye Valley Railway opened in 1876, the river ceased to be navigable above Brockweir, and as the river silted up, Tintern became the normal upper limit for navigation. The river is still used by pleasure craft.

The river was unusual in that it was a Free Navigation from its source to Hay-on-Wye, a distance of 82 mi. It ceased to be free after the modifications by Sandys in the 17th century, but this right was re-established by the 1695 act, which stated: "Therefore be it enacted that the rivers Wye and Lugg may be henceforth accounted, deemed and taken to be free and common rivers for all to make use of for carrying and conveying of all passenger goods, wares and commodities by boats, barges, lighters and other vessels whatsoever."

The National Rivers Authority brought a case before the High Court in 1995, to enable them to impose bylaws on the river. Shortly afterwards, they were replaced by the Environment Agency, and in 2002, the  (SI 2002/1998) was enacted. This confirmed the right of navigation on both the Wye and the Lugg, but established the Environment Agency as the navigation authority for the rivers. It also banned the construction of locks and weirs, so neither river is likely to be navigable by motor boats under normal circumstances. Despite this, in 1989, Frank Barton and Pat Hucket successfully navigated a 124 ft 230-ton barge up the river to Hereford. Travelling time on the river was 20 hours, but this was spread over six months, as they had to wait for just the right water levels. The vessel was renamed Wye Invader during the journey. In March 2019, Barton returned to the river, navigating a narrowboat called Wye Invader Two from Sharpness to Monmouth Rowing Club and back again. The trip was possible because there was about 7 ft of flood water in the river, enabling the boat to pass over the weirs and obstructions.

Navigation and sport
The Environment Agency is the navigation authority for the river. The normal tidal limit (NTL) of the river is Bigsweir and navigation below this point is under the control of the Gloucester Harbour Trustees as Competent Harbour Authority. There is a public right of navigation up to Hay-on-Wye, and canoes are generally permitted on the next 5.5 mi up to Glasbury, so long as they do not disturb anglers.

The River Wye provides for canoeing and kayaking as it has sections suitable for all ranges of skills and free access all the way downstream from Hay to Hereford and Monmouth, and the tidal Wye to Chepstow and the Severn Estuary. There are a wide range of canoe hire and supervised trips, as well as campsites at key points on the river. Symonds Yat has a particularly popular series of rapids that was purchased by the British Canoe Union in 2003 to preserve the rapids for recreational use, canoe trips through the rapids stop next at Monmouth. There are three rowing clubs on the river at Hereford, Ross-on-Wye and Monmouth. Annual regattas are held at Ross-on-Wye and Monmouth for rowers and scullers of all abilities, next to the local rowing club. In 2017 more than 600 people took to the River Wye in inflatables ranging from dinghies to paddling pools during the event WYE FLOAT, opened by former Olympic ski jumper Eddie the Eagle.

Walkers can take the Wye Valley Walk which follows the route of the River Wye from Coed Hafren, near Plynlimon, to Chepstow along a series of well-maintained way-marked paths. A viewpoint near The Biblins on the Wye is known as 'Three Counties View', the meeting place of the counties of Herefordshire, Gloucestershire and Monmouthshire.

Tributaries
The Wye's tributaries include the river Lugg, Elan, Dulas, Irfon, Marteg, Monnow, Trothy, Ithon, Llynfi, Letton Lake, Tarennig (the Wye's first tributary) and Bidno. A fuller list is available at the relevant section of the list of rivers of Wales

2020 floods
In February 2020, Wales and parts of England endured extremely heavy rainfall from Storm Dennis, following shortly after Storm Ciara. The central part of South Wales was particularly affected. The river over-topped its banks and caused flooding in several areas, including Hay-on-Wye, Hereford, Ross-on-Wye and Monmouth. Much of Hereford was flooded, with homes inundated. Churches and leisure centres were opened to accommodate evacuated residents. The river at Monmouth reached its highest level ever recorded.

2021 floods
In January 2021, the Wye catchment suffered flooding as a result of Storm Christoph.

Cultural references
The Romantic poet William Wordsworth includes an apostrophe to the Wye in his famous poem "Lines Written a Few Miles Above Tintern Abbey", published in 1798 in Lyrical Ballads: How oft, in spirit, have I turned to thee, O sylvan Wye! thou wanderer thro' the woods, How often has my spirit turned to thee!

Nelson travelled down the Wye in 1802, along with Lady Hamilton and her husband, Sir William Hamilton. They sailed from Ross-on-Wye to Monmouth, to be greeted by a cannonade and the band of the Monmouthshire Militia playing See, the Conquering Hero Comes. Nelson expressed surprise that he was known at "such a little gut of a river as the Wye".

title: River Wye


text:
User:Folker Behrens

personal web site see www.elbestrandgut.de .......

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Folker Behrens


text:
Talk:Mountbatten-Windsor

'One uncle and no aunts'?
I have removed the reference to the Queen only having one paternal uncle and no aunts - two of her FOUR paternal uncles and an aunt were still living at the time of this surname's introduction. 195.188.40.144 (talk) 09:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

-Five. You forgot Prince John. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

1. Help!
Searching for Mountbatten-Windsor goes direct to a wrong page for a different Windsor. Something has got cocked up but I don't know how to fix this.

2. I think what the article says is wrong. The surname M-W is not to be used for *all* descendants of the present Queen, but only those of minor lines. The 'Royal Highness' princes and princesses will continue to be surnamed Windsor. Here's a quote I found on another site http://www.etoile.co.uk/Muse/001221.html, confirming my belief. This is supposed to be a quote from the proclamation or some such. However, I haven't yet been able to validate this from a primary royal source. Still looking. But the Guinness Book of Answers, a source I trust greatly, concurs.

 * 'while I and my children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, my descendants, other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attributes of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess, and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name Mountbatten-Windsor?

 * Okay, I've taken a risk and edited the article to conform to my own understanding. If you have clear evidence to the contrary I'd be very interested, but for the moment I think my interpretation is more accurate.::Gritchka 21:10 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * That was my understanding but when I checked with Buckingham Palace they said it was wrong. For example, when then published the banns for the weddings of Princess Anne, they called her Anne Mountbatten-Windsor. The Prince of Wales's office also said they and he regarded his surname as M-W. They were adamant about that. So either Buckingham Palace and St. James's Palace have been wrong in their interpretation dating back to the wedding the Princess Anne in 1972, or a change occured somewhere along the line. FearÉIREANN 22:58 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The reason Buckingham Palace is adamant is that they are struggling with cognitive dissonance, that is, the state of having inconsistent beliefs. What they are trying to do is reconcile the fact that all of Elizabeth’s descendants, including the HRH’s, consider themselves Mountbatten-Windsors when her 1960 declaration clearly states that the HRH's are not, but rather were to remain Windsors. They do this out of respect for Philip, who famously complained that he was the only man in the country who could not give his name to his children. The legal distinction of de jure (by the law) and de facto (by actual practice) comes into play. The HRH’s are Windsor de jure and Mountbatten-Windsor de facto. 2600:4040:5D38:1600:E14D:4C39:9FFF:E11D (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

 * Fine, that's certainly authoritative enough for me. I wish there was something official we could find: such niggles pique my curiosity. Gritchka

 * Should the Princess of Wales go on this list for the period of her marriage?

 * No. Encyclopædias and history books usually put royal women in by maiden rather than marital name/title. That is because there may be many with identical names but which lack the ordinal available to monarchs to distinguish between them. Most families rarely member people from more than a generation behind, but royal families may have people from many generations before who may be the subject of historical or biographical interest. So we refer to Catherine of Aragon and Katherine Howard, not Catherine Tudor and Katherine Tudor. So Diana is known as the Lady Diana Spencer and is listed as a Spencer, not a Mountbatten-Windsor, just as the late Queen Mother is listed as Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, not as her marital name, Elizabeth Windsor. And her mother-in-law is known as Mary of Teck, her maiden name/title and not listed by marital name or title. The only exception is usually the current spouse of the monarch. Hence we have Queen Sophia of Spain, but if her husband the King predeceases her, she will be recorded by maiden title of Sophia of Greece alone. FearÉIREANN 00:13, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * I think that most of you are wrong in your interpretation of the surname. It was stated that the surname M-W should only be used for those descendents requiring a surname, anyone in the British royal family styled as royal highness does not require a surname, thus the usage of the surname does not currently apply to any member of the royal family, as with the exception of Peter and Zara Phillips. However they would not use the surname as they are female line descendents. And it does not appear that there will be a need for it for a while. This is as the Queen's only male-line grandson's are Prince's William and Harry and neither them or their children (possibly grand-children) will require a surname. It is likely that the first people who would legally use the surname would be grand-children of Prince Harry, assuming he as a son. (This all of course is assuming that Prince Charles and Prince William ascend to the throne) It is quite possible that the surname may never be used legally as it is possible that Prince's William and Harry may have daughters or they may have sons but only grand-daughters)Mac Domhnaill 23:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Royals do not take surnames. They do not need them. Some have taken Windsor as a surname (e.g., The Earl of Wessex) when it suits them. From "Royal Insight" on the Official Web Site of the British Monarchy: "The Queen does not normally use a surname (she doesn't need a passport or a driving licence for example), but on the few occasions where it has been necessary, i.e when serving with the ATS during World War II, she has used the surrname 'Windsor'."  "It was therefore declared in the Privy Council that The Queen's descendants, other than those with the style of Royal Highness and the title of Prince/Princess, or female descendants who marry, would carry the name of Mountbatten-Windsor. "

 * Some people fail to realize that there are cases where the authority of the British civil government supersedes even that of the Monarch or the Royal Family - such as in marriage records and the birth certificates of children.74.249.90.250 (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I like it like we have in the U.S.A. where is its clearly stated that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. It says so itself, and it has been ratified and accepted by all of the States and Commonwealths of the Union. But in he U.K., the authority of the Parliament and other civil authorities is Supreme.74.249.90.250 (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

 * It IS evident that ONLY those who are NOT entitled to the style and dignity of Royal Highness may be known as Mountbatten-Windsor.

--ScottyFLL 22:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

This quote from the Royal.gov.uk sites confuses me

"Unless The Prince of Wales chooses to alter the present decisions when he becomes king, he will continue to be of the House of Windsor and his grandchildren will use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor."

Can anyone clarify?

 * It doesn't say much, just that when he's king he could, if he wanted to, arrange for a change of house name or a change of surname for his descendants who use one. He might, for example, exercise his Royal Prerogative by having the house become the "House of Mountbatten" through another Order-in-Council. - Nunh-huh 01:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I am particularly confused by which "grandchildren" of Prince Charles' would be affected if he didn't change the order. Surely not Prince William's children but perhaps Prince Harry's? Is that your understanding?

 * The house name would affect all his grandchildren. In terms of surname, his grandchildren would need one if they didn't bear the titular dignity of prince or princess and the style of HRH. Queen Victoria issued letters patent on 30 Jan 1864 allowing grandsons of the sovereign to have the titular dignity of prince and bear the style HRH. On 30 Nov 1917 Queen Elizabeth restricted this to children of the sovereign, the children of the sons of any such sovereign, and the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. So William & Harry's children are equivalent when Charles is on the throne. Their (hypothetical) half-sister (by Camilla) would not be; her children would not be princes or princesses, as hers is a female line. - Nunh-huh 00:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

But any half-siblings of Princes William and Harry would still be a grandchild of the sovereign through Prince Charles and thus entitled to the same style and dignities as William and Harry.

Your 1917 date above is a typo but I understand this order to mean that Prince Harry's children (i.e. he is the second son of the Prince of Wales) would use M-W, since the Order does not mention great-grandchildren of the present sovereign. Also, if Prince William only has daughters, they would use M-W OR his first son would use Windsor and all other sons and daughters would use M-W. QE II's Order-in-Council has more to do with the use of the surname M-W and less to do with using the HRH, as I understand it.

Oops! The date was right, the name was wrong - I left out part of what I meant to say. 1917 was the date the name of "House of Windsor" was assumed (George V). The name was confirmed by Queen Elizabeth II in 1952: "The Queen today declared in Council her will and pleasure that she and her children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that her descendants, other than female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name of Windsor." (In other words, she decided not to change house names, even though, with a female on the throne, most people would expect a change). In 1960, the decision was made to differentiate the Queen's progeny from those who also descended from George V, by proclaiming that all the queen's descendants who did not bear the "style, title or attribute of HRH, and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess" would bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor. (Or to paraphrase, any of her descendants who had need of a surname should use Mountbatten-Windsor.). It's this latter that ties the use of a surname to the absence of an HRH. You're quite right that once Charles accedes his granddaughter would be able to use the HRH - but she wouldn't during the remainder of Elizabeth's reign, absent some grant of a right to do so. (Which actually make the royal.uk.gov site quote even more meaningless! Perhaps they just didn't have much to say ) - Nunh-huh 23:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I have heard that the Queens intention was to make all her children (and therefore descendents) bear the name Mountbatten-Windsor, and she indicated that to the PM of the time. However the Order in Council only did what is referred to above - it made non HRH's and Princes Mountbatten-Windsors. I understand that the Royal Family 'thinks' its name is Mountbatten-Windsor, which is why they are all officially married as that. However legally they are still Windsors Ham21 22:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

 * That's an interesting way to put it, the Royal Family "thinks" they're Mountbatten-Windsors. This is the legal difference between de jure (by the law) and de facto (in actual practice). The HRH's are Windsors de jure and Mountbatten-Windsors de facto. By the way, four of Elizabeth's still living first cousins are also HRH's as male-line grandchildren of George V.2600:4040:5D38:1600:31DF:3F58:E554:D9A3 (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

"Informal" Usage
The article states that Mountbatten-Windsor is "informally used by members of the Royal Family descended from Queen Elizabeth II as their surname, as shown at the marriages of the Duke of York and the Princess Royal, both having been registered with Mountbatten-Windsor in their entries in the marriage registers". However, is not a marriage register a formal document and thus a formal declaration?204.126.251.245 (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Edward Wessex
I'm not sure of the significance of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, styling himself "Edward Wessex". I recall hearing the Queen introduce Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, to Lech Wałęsa, then President of Poland, as simply "Richard Gloucester".Hebbgd (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It's common for royals to use the location that they're "of" in place of a surname. Edward's title is Earl of Wessex, and since receiving it he has used "Wessex" as a title. Similarly, Andrew, Beatrice, and Eugenie have used "York" as a surname (Andrew while in the military, the girls while in school), and William and Harry both used "Wales" as one during their respective schooling and military careers. Psunshine87 (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

"Cadet branch"
I placed a "citation needed" tag at the end of the first sentence of the article, but I want to make it clear I am not questioning the first half of the sentence, which does have a source. I am questioning the statement that "Mountbatten-Windsor" is "a cadet branch of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg..." Perhaps I should have used the "dubious" tag instead, because this statement does not seem correct. The article (in fact, the very next sentence) makes clear that Mountbatten-Windsor is not the name of the Royal Family or Royal House, it is merely a surname that can be (and is) used by some members of the House of Windsor. It is a little unusual because it is a surname and not a "family name" or "house name." That being the case, there is no "house" (or "family") of Mountbatten-Windsor, and therefore it cannot be a "branch" ("cadet" or otherwise) of a different house or family. Right? And this is leaving aside other issues, like whether the Schleswig etc. name, family, house etc. would still follow Prince Philip and his descendants around, given the fact that he changed his name long ago. Neutron (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and deleted the "cadet branch" reference, and while I was at it, reorganized the intro and rewrote parts of it. I am certainly open to being shown that the "cadet branch" thing is correct, but it does not seem correct, based on what is in the rest of the article, especially the fact that "Mountbatten-Windsor" is not a "house" (or even a "family"), but simply a surname.  Neutron (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Since there is no legal meaning to the terms "house" or "family", I don't see on what grounds it can be concluded that the Mountbatten-Windsors are disqualified from being either? Insofar as they all descend patrilineally from Prince Philip, who is indisputably a cadet of the deposed Royal Family of Greece which, in turn, is a cadet branch of the Royal Family of Denmark, a cadet branch of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg, now the senior branch of the House of Oldenburg, why would the Mountbatten-Windsors not be a cadet branch of the Greeks, Glucksburgs, Danes and Oldenburgs? Certainly one of its antecedent families is often referred to as the House of Battenberg -- which has thus far generated a sovereign prince, two queens and a royal prince consort. Please note that when the "Mountbatten-Windsor" surname was assigned to cadets of the British Royal Family, it was simultaneously declared that Elizabeth II and her children would be members of the "House and Family of Windsor": but nothing was declared about the surnames of her (male-line) descendants beyond her children -- except that (at least) some would of them would (and do) bear the surname of Mountbatten-Windsor. It seems to me that the only reason the Mountbatten-Windsors might not be a "cadet branch" of the House of Windsor is that the surname does not appear to be confined to "cadets" -- since the UK's heir-apparent, Charles, Prince of Wales, it. The status of the Mountbatten-Windsors seems similar to that of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine -- which Wikipedia calls...a house! FactStraight (talk) 09:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the reason that "Mountbatten-Windsor" is not the name of the "house" or "family" that reigns in the UK is that the Queen, who apparently has the authority to decide these things, decided that the "house" and "family" are still named "Windsor." (It's one of the very few things she actually gets to decide, as opposed to rubber-stamping decisions made by "her" government.)  Or to put it another way, while the rules of patrilineality may say one thing, it seems the Queen has decided not to completely follow those rules.  Such breaking of tradition seems consistent with her related decision not to take her husband's name, or to have that name passed along to her children, though at least some of those children have decided otherwise.
 * But of course, all of this discussion is somewhat beside the point, because the article must be based on reliable sources. If you have reliable sources (hopefully at least two) that say the surname Mountbatten-Windsor is a cadet branch of the House of Whichever, then by all means restore that sentence, with the sources.  But if it does go back in, I don't think it should be part of the first sentence of the article.  It doesn't necessarily even need to be in the intro at all, in my opinion.  Neutron (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Male-line descendants of Elizabeth II
The section titled "Male-line descendants of Elizabeth II" seems to show several female-line descendants -- August Brooksbank, the Tindalls, and the Phillipses. Should they be removed? Powers T 14:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Use of the name Mountbatten-Windsor by non-royals
Considering that, under English law, anyone is free to take whatever name he or she wants unless it is for farudulent purposes, could someone who is not a male-line descendant of the Queen use the name Mountbatten-Windsor?179.208.240.220 (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

de jure/de facto
The Queen's 1960 declaration very clearly states that Mounbatten-Windsor applies only to those not entitled to be styled HRH. Was Prince Charles styled HRH? Yes, therefore he was a Windsor, not a Mountbatten-Windsor. The fact that he considers himself, as do the others, a Mountbatten-Windsor is in deference to his father, the only man in Britain not allowed to give his children his name, as Philip famously complained. And you have to wonder if that isn't what Elizabeth hoped would happen, even though that's not how she stated it, specifically indicating the Royal House would remain Windsor.

Here's what the Royal website says: "It was therefore declared in the Privy Council [in 1960] that The Queen's descendants, other than those with the style of Royal Highness and the title of Prince/Princess, or female descendants who marry, would carry the name of Mountbatten-Windsor.

The effect of the declaration was that all The Queen's children, on occasions when they needed a surname, would have the surname Mountbatten-Windsor."

Bold is mine. These two statements contradict each other. It's that simple. The best way to explain the status quo is that those who are Windsor de jure are Mountbatten-Windsor de facto. 2600:4040:5D38:1600:9083:D031:9A6D:40AE (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

House of Mountbatten-Windsor
If the name is used for "male-line descendants of the Queen and Prince Philip", then doesn't that mean the royal house is now technically the House of Mountbatten-Windsor considering King Charles is a male-line descendant? 2A02:C7F:14B4:3400:41C:5BD9:6D44:355C (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

 * No. Mountbatten-Windsor is used for male-line descendants who are not entitled to be styled His/Her Royal Highness. Since Charles as Prince of Wales was an HRH, he was a Windsor, not a Mountbatten-Windsor. Now it is certainly true that he and the rest of Elizabeth's descendents consider themselves Mountbatten-Windsors, but that is simply out of respect for Philip, and not according to the Queen's 1960 decree. On the other hand, Charles III can designate the Royal House as whatever he chooses, so we shall see. 2600:4040:5D38:1600:9083:D031:9A6D:40AE (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Issue with Succession
The page Succession to the British throne shows that two additional people in line to the thrown: Sienna Mapelli Mozzi (b. 2021) at position 10 and August Brooksbank (b. 2021) at position 12. Perhaps its a technicality that they don't have the surname Mountbatten-Windsor but surely they should be recognised within the chart at Mountbatten-Windsor. Sienna and August are still descendants of the Duke of York- they're his grandchildren no? The whole thing is confusing because it shows Anne as 14th in-line to the thrown, but her page says 16th. I'm sure there's stylistic or perhaps procedural technicalities due to lineage for presenting it this way but it is ultimately confusing for the lame/ordinary reader. >> Lil-unique1  (  talk  ) — 22:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Right; but they're not *male line* descendents of the late Queen and Duke of Edinburgh.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

References to male line only?
There are at least two references to the name Mountbatten-Windsor being used for only the male line, then elsewhere it states that HRH Princess Anne also uses the Mountbatten-Windsor name. which is correct? This needs to be updated in line with the correct use of the name. Dbridge276 (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

'Male line' means 'through males', not 'males only'. So a daughter would still use that name (just like a daughter traditionally does in the western world). Princess Anne, as the daughter of Prince Philip, used the double-barrelled name on her marriage register.

This is also why Lady Louise, the daughter of the Earl of Wessex,(Prince Edward), and Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor, the daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex (Prince Harry and Meghan Markle), also use that surname.

Think of it in the same way surnames get (traditionally) passed on in western culture: all of a man's children are born with their father's surname, but only the sons traditionally pass the surname on, the children of daughters will instead have their own father's surname.

That is what is meant by 'male line'.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

RfC on Charles III
There is an RfC on Talk:Charles III which may relate to this article. Feel free to contribute. Estar8806 (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mountbatten-Windsor


text:
User:Ralesk

Ralesk is just a rarely editing member of these things here. Interested in languages and geeky stuff like telecommunication.

title: User:Ralesk


text:
User talk:Ralesk

 * snugs* Hi, and welcome - glad to see you here. ^_^ With regard to contacting Grin, the easiest way to do so is probably to write something his talk page, User talk:Grin. -- schnee
 * Hiya Schnee ^^ Yes, I was about to leave him a comment, the silly thing never entered his e-mail address -- Ralesk

Hello Ralesk, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. You can learn more on the how to edit page. The naming conventions and manual of style pages are also useful. Feel free to experiment at the Sandbox. If you have any questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. Angela
 * Thank you, Angela. I'll try ^_~ -- Ralesk

Hi Ralesk. Check m:user:grin, Kezdolap :-) --grin 22:11 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * Squee! -- Ralesk

Thanks for telling me. I was relying on the ZRCE language guesser which told me it was Hungarian. I shall try and find someone at cs: to help. Angela 01:10, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Ralesk. I think I know you from LiveJournal, I'm njyoder. I'm the one who asked some questions about restoration and I think you replied in my journal in an abortion pride post. I came across you when looking for a list of obscure fetishes. I saw the foreskin fetish one and went into look at the dicussion and to my surprise I saw you there. I had added a comment to say that fetishes like that should be under an entry called "cultural fetishes."

Not to my surprise the rabid pro-circ zealot Robert was there. I might have contributed to some circumcision articles, but I decided I don't really care enough to get involved in silly edit wars with an psychotic zealot. Seriously, doesn't he have something better to do than pervert Wikipedia articles?

Oh yeah, I just read the edits to foreskin fetish by robert. It's astounding what he considers to be NPOV, I'm surprised he wasn't perm banned the first time an RFC for him came up. He doesn't even want to acknowledge that this isn't actually a fetish where it's common place. Nathan J. Yoder 07:43, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Oh, it’s you! I knew your name sounded familiar :D -- Ralesk 11:47, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

palatalization

 * 1) Palatalisation: the way Hungarian palatalised consonants work is very different from how it does in Slavic languages. In fact it’s the first sign of someone being Hungarian if you’re listening to someone speaking Russian or Polish. Furthermore, Slavic languages palatalise consonants as they meet “iotised” vowels (or modern successors of what have been called that in Old Slavic), whereas in Hungarian it happens only on an explicite j (and again, the resulting sound it miles apart). What do you mean by English having a similar feature? Oh, and our palatalised consonants exist on their own, unlike Slavic ть and нь

 * Ralesk, you write about Hungarian. However, Slawic have the same softening of consonants, as Hungarian (n-ny, t-ty,...). As far as I know, Finnish completely misses this kind of softening. So what do you mean here? Please give examples.

 * I speak about palatalisation that does not work anywhere like Slavic palatalisation. It doesn’t sound like it, either.  ty is nothing like ть and ny is nothing like нь.  Also, ty and ny and gy exist on their own as sounds, whereas the ones you believe to be equivalents of these in Slavic languages do not in most of the cases.  They only come along in certain (albeit not rare) circumstances, such as being followed by an iotised vowel. -- R.

 * The other thing is: You speak about Hungarian only. What about palatalization in Finnish, Estonian and the other uralic languages? Can you give to palatalization there examples, especially what is different from other languages in palatalization? Antifinnugor 07:13, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I just listened to some Livonian (Lív) text and it seems to have a compact ty sound (as opposed to the t-j of Slavic languages), and furthermore, while definitely sounding very much like Finnish and Estonian on the vowels, the doubled consonants feel very much like Hungarian. The doubled consonants we, the Finnish and the Livonians all seem to have seem not to exist in Germanic and Slavic languages. -- R.

 * http://homepage.mac.com/uldis/livonia/interrogatives.html is an interesting thing. -- R.

AF RFC
You might want to take a look at this: Requests for comment/Antifinnugor. Nyenyec 17:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Man, didn't expect to find you here!
Hope you have warm and fuzzy feelings about me! So, what kind of articles have you written?

 * Oh, the Chimp, impressive! Not many, here, I am more productive on the Hungarian Wikipedia, there written about Telecommunication, Telephone, DVD, Byte, and a bunch of other things. — Ralesk 06:00, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) // P.S. Please sign your comments with ~.

Györ

 * Halló Ralesk! I have seen that you are active regarding Template:Wrongtitle. I started yesterday to put them systematicaly on Romanian articles. I also link what I can and insert Template:romania-geo-stub (a equivqlent to Template:Hungary-geo-stub) wherever needed. If you want to link to romanian titles please be aware that a list of 13.800 places is available at ro:Wikipedia:Proiectul localit&. These are oficial names from http://www.posta-romana.ro . Best regards Gangleri | [ Th] | T 07:31, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

Re: Szilárd Leó
Thank you for your message and insight. That's probably why I have to switch to ISO-8859-1 encoding when I send out the email, UTF-8 usually doesn't have the right characters, and ends up obliterating some parts of my message. Would there be a big advantage to switching to UTF-8? If so, have you brought this up on WikiEN-l?

Yours, Frazzydee|✍ 18:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, the point of UTF-8 and Unicode is that it is the currently widespread standard way to include all (or at least many) characters needed at the same time. The classic ISO and Windows character pages didn’t include many characters, as they were limited to 8‐bit, 256 characters.  Unicode is a much bigger code table, most modern OS and browsers handle it well, and it makes it possible, among other things, to make proper article titles in Wikipedia.  You can read about it in the respective articles.

 * I think we once brought it up on wikipedia-l, but it was shot down as useless and counterproductive for the English WP — counterproductive because of those <1% of users still using crappy browsers that are unable to handle UTF-8. Meanwhile, the Spanish are just as much a western‐characters‐only language as English, and they seem to be having an UTF-8 wikipedia without trouble.

 * I’m not active on the lists anymore, but if you wish, you could propose this yourself. The obvious benefits are the ability to make proper article names (see Györ, redirects with “inappropriate characters” can always be made), not having the trouble of seeing just a HTML entity instead of a character in the edit.

 * — Ralesk 19:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

Just wanted to let you know (if you don't know already) that the letters "ő" and "ű" are finally allowed in article titles :)

regards,
 * Alensha 28 June 2005 22:51 (UTC)

Wonderful, thank you! — Ralesk 29 June 2005 01:48 (UTC)

Policies in HuWiki
Hi,

I just wanted to let you know that there is a vote and a corresponding debate going on in HuWiki. Actually, I think the discussion is more important than the vote.

Anyway, as someone familiar with the English Wikipedia, we would appreciate your input:

 * hu:User:Grin/Irányelvek and its corresponding talk page
 * hu:User:Grin/Irányelvek/Alapelvek
 * hu:Wikipédia:Szavazás

Thanks, nyenyec ☎ 29 June 2005 03:52 (UTC)

 * Kösz, hogy szóltál, elolvasgattam a három lapot meg a Utalk:G/I lapot is, majd meglátom, lesz‐e kedvem, ötletem, akármim segíteni :) — Ralesk 29 June 2005 16:00 (UTC)

 * Köszi, ahogy érzed. -- nyenyec ☎ 29 June 2005 17:10 (UTC)

Pole placement
Yes, of course in most cases you must not place closed-loop poles on the disk frontier or with real part. This, for two reasons. Of course oscillationas are almost always not welcome. Second, you always need to take care of some robustness, as the model's parameters are never known exactly. Therefore if you're on the frontier, when you apply the controller syntesized for the "nominal model" (the one you used for the clculations) it could happen that the true control system is a bit unstable, or even baldy unstable.

Currently I'm working to a suspension system. The problem is it has two complex poles whose real part is really near to zero. I need a BIG gain in the feedback loop to reduce the complex part, but anyway their real part cannot be moved easily (the problem is that the thesis' objective is to use Model predictive control... I'm just noticing that MPC is NOT the right control system for this!!!!). So it can happen that, for some reasons, poles symply stable or really little stable must remain in that position. Anyway the system is not unstable, as they are the poles it had intrinsically.

Ciao!

See you soon.

Nomination of Talk:Macrophilia for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Talk:Macrophilia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:Macrophilia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Pandarsson (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ralesk


text:
Battle of the Thames

The Battle of the Thames, also known as the Battle of Moraviantown, was an American victory in the War of 1812 against Tecumseh's Confederacy and their British allies. It took place on October 5, 1813, in Upper Canada, near Chatham. The British lost control of Southwestern Ontario as a result of the battle; Tecumseh was killed, and his confederacy largely fell apart.

British troops under Major General Henry Procter had occupied Detroit until the United States Navy gained control of Lake Erie, cutting them off from their supplies. Procter was forced to retreat north up the Thames River to Moraviantown, followed by the tribal confederacy under Shawnee leader Tecumseh who were his allies.

American infantry and cavalry under Major General William Henry Harrison drove off the British and then defeated the Indigenous peoples, who were demoralized by the death of Tecumseh in action. American control was re-established in the Detroit area, the tribal confederacy collapsed, and Procter was court-martialed for his poor leadership.

Background

The American Army of the Northwest under Major General William Henry Harrison was attempting to recover Fort Detroit and capture Fort Malden at Amherstburg, Ontario during the last months of 1812 and for much of 1813 from the Right Division of the British Army in Upper Canada, which was commanded by Major General Henry Procter. The British position depended on maintaining command of Lake Erie, as the sparsely populated region produced insufficient crops and cattle to feed Procter's troops, the sailors of the British ships on the lake, and the large number of Indians and their families gathered at Amherstburg under Tecumseh.

Supplies could effectively be brought to them only by water, usually from Long Point near the eastern end of Lake Erie. If naval command of Lake Erie passed to the Americans, they would be able to land an army on the north shore, cutting off Procter from reinforcement from the east.

British armed vessels had maintained control of the lake from the start of the war to the end of July 1813. The United States Navy was constructing its own squadron at Presque Isle Bay commanded by Master Commandant Oliver Hazard Perry. During July, the British under Commander Robert Heriot Barclay kept the Americans pinned down in Presque Isle, but they had to lift the blockade for two days in order to receive supplies.

Perry was able to move his ships across the sandbar at the entrance to the harbor and into the lake, and Barclay failed to attack them. Perry's superior squadron instituted a counter-blockade of Amherstburg as soon as his vessels were armed and manned, and supplies of food rapidly ran short.

With supplies almost exhausted, Barclay put out to seek battle with Perry on September 10, but Perry gained a complete victory in the Battle of Lake Erie. Perry hastily wrote a note to General Harrison stating: "We have met the enemy and they are ours". Harrison knew that Procter would be forced to retreat, so he ordered an advance. One thousand mounted troops began advancing along the lake shore to Detroit, and 2,500 foot soldiers were carried there and to Amherstburg by Perry's ships once they had repaired any damage received during the battle.

Procter's retreat
Procter had made preparations to fall back to the British position at Burlington Heights at the western end of Lake Ontario even before he received news of Barclay's defeat, and Tecumseh knew that this would remove all protection from the confederation tribes whose lands lay to the west of Detroit. He attempted to dissuade Procter:

"Our fleet has gone out, we know they have fought; we have heard the great guns but know nothing of what has happened to our Father with one Arm [Barclay had lost an arm in 1809]. Our ships have gone one way, and we are much astonished to see our Father [Proctor] tying up everything and preparing to run the other, without letting his red children know what his intentions are.... We must compare our Father's conduct to a fat animal that carries its tail upon its back; but when affrighted, it drops it between its legs and runs off."

Nevertheless, Procter could not defend Fort Amherstburg, as there was no food and the guns had been removed from the fort to be mounted on Barclay's ships. He began to retreat up the Thames River on September 27. Tecumseh had no option but to go with him. Procter apparently agreed to a compromise to retreat only as far as Moraviantown, a settlement of Lenape Indians who had migrated from the United States. This was the highest navigable point of the river, so it was safe from outflanking moves by water. Also, some supplies could be brought there overland from Burlington Heights, although the roads were very poor. However, Procter made no attempt to fortify this position.

The British retreat was badly managed, and the soldiers had been reduced to half rations. Procter allegedly left the main body of his army under command of Colonel Augustus Warburton of the 41st Regiment, without orders, while he led the retreat accompanied by his wife and family, the other women and dependents, and his personal baggage. The British soldiers were becoming increasingly demoralized, and Tecumseh's warriors grew ever more impatient with Procter for his unwillingness to stop and fight.

The Americans left a brigade under Duncan McArthur to garrison Detroit and another under Lewis Cass to garrison Sandwich, Ontario. Harrison led the main body from Sandwich in pursuit of Procter on October 2. As they advanced, Harrison's men captured several abandoned boats and a steady stream of British stragglers. They caught up with the retreating British and Indians late on October 4. Tecumseh skirmished with the Americans near Chatham, Ontario to slow their advance, but the Indians were quickly overwhelmed. The boats carrying Warburton's reserve ammunition and the last of the food ran aground and were left behind to be captured by an American raiding party.

Forces
William Henry Harrison's force numbered at least 3,500 infantry and cavalry. He had a small detachment of regulars from the 27th U.S. Infantry and five brigades of Kentucky militia led by Isaac Shelby, the 63 year-old governor of Kentucky and a hero of the American Revolutionary War. He had 1,000 volunteer cavalry under Colonel Richard Mentor Johnson. Most of Johnson's men were from Kentucky, but some were from the River Raisin area of Michigan, all of them spurred on by the slogan "Remember the River Raisin."

Procter had about 800 soldiers, mainly from the 41st Regiment. The veterans of the regiment's 1st Battalion had been serving in Canada since 1803 and had suffered heavy casualties in several engagements in 1813, including the Battle of Lake Erie, where more than 150 of its men had served aboard Barclay's ships. They had been reinforced by the young soldiers of the 2nd Battalion. Most of the regiment's officers were dissatisfied with Procter's leadership, but Colonel Warburton, the next in seniority, refused to countenance any move to remove him from command. Tecumseh led about 500 Indians.

Battle
Procter ordered his troops to abandon their half-cooked breakfast and retreat a further two miles shortly after daybreak on October 5, then formed them into line of battle with a single 6-pounder cannon. He planned to trap Harrison on the banks of the Thames, driving the Americans off the road with cannon fire, but he had made no attempt to fortify the position by creating abatis or throwing up earthworks, and the ground presented no obstacle to the American horsemen, while scattered trees masked the British fire. Tecumseh's men formed a line in a black ash swamp on the British right to flank the Americans. Tecumseh rode along the British line, shaking hands with each officer before rejoining his warriors.

General Harrison surveyed the battlefield and ordered James Johnson (brother of Col. Johnson) to make a frontal attack on the British regulars with his mounted riflemen. Despite the Indians' flanking fire, Johnson's Kentuckians broke through, the British cannon not having fired. The exhausted, dispirited, and half-starved British regulars fired a single ragged fusillade before retreating in disorder.

Procter and about 250 of his men fled from the battlefield, while the rest of his soldiers threw down their weapons and surrendered. Most of the British soldiers, including Lieutenant Richard Bullock's grenadier company, who escaped the battlefield were on the right of the British line, where the ground was marshy and more thickly wooded.

Tecumseh and his followers remained and carried on fighting. Col. Johnson charged into the Indian position at the head of about 20 horsemen to draw attention away from the main American force, but Tecumseh and his men answered with a volley of musket fire that stopped the cavalry charge. Fifteen of Johnson's men were killed or wounded, Johnson himself was hit five times, and his main force became bogged down in the swamp mud. Tecumseh is believed to have been killed during this fighting.

The main force made its way through the swamp, and James Johnson's troops were freed from their attack on the British. The American reinforcements were converging as news spread of the death of Tecumseh, and Indian resistance dissolved. Richard Mentor Johnson was credited with shooting Tecumseh, though the evidence is unclear. William Whitley, a Revolutionary War veteran, is also credited with killing him. Lawyer and one-armed marksman James A Drain Sr., in his autobiography Single Handed (1927), wrote of hearing from Whitley's granddaughter the family tradition that Whitley and Tecumseh killed each other simultaneously.

Casualties
Harrison reported that the British regulars had 72 killed and 22 wounded prisoners. Lieutenant Richard Bullock of the 41st Regiment, however, said that there were 12 killed and 36 wounded prisoners. More than a year after the battle, British Colonel Augustus Warburton and Lieutenant Colonel William Evans both reported that 18 were killed and 25 wounded. Harrison reported 601 British troops captured, a figure that included the prisoners taken during the retreat leading up to the battle and stragglers captured after it.

The Indians recorded their own casualties as 16 killed, including Tecumseh, although Harrison claimed that 33 dead Indians were found in the woods after the battle. General Procter wrote in a letter dated October 23, 1813, "The Indian cause and ours experienced a serious loss in the death of Round Head." American soldiers scalped and skinned some of the dead Indians in order to acquire souvenirs.

There are conflicting versions of the American loss in the battle. Harrison stated that 7 were killed outright, 5 died of wounds, and 17 more were wounded. Major General Isaac Shelby said that 7 or 8 were killed outright, 4 died of their wounds, and about 20 more were wounded. Participant Robert McAfee gave 10 killed and 35 wounded, while Peter Trisler Jr. said that there were 14 killed and 20 wounded.

Historian Samuel R. Brown states that there were 25 killed or fatally injured and 50 wounded in Johnson's regiment, and 2 killed and 6–7 wounded in the infantry, for a total of 27 killed and 56 or 57 wounded. Harrison informed Secretary of War John Armstrong Jr. that the only casualties inflicted by the British were three men wounded; all of the rest were caused by the Indians.

Aftermath
The enlistments were about to expire for the militia component of Harrison's army, so the Americans retired to Detroit.

The American victory led to re-established American control over the Northwest frontier, and the Detroit area remained comparatively quiet for the rest of the war, apart from skirmishes such as the Battle of Longwoods and an American mounted raid near the end of 1814 which resulted in the Battle of Malcolm's Mills. American victory at the Thames failed to translate into recapture of Illinois, Wisconsin, and other Midwestern territories, which the British and Indians held until the war's end; efforts also failed to regain control of the Old Northwest and of fur trade routes after the British victory at the subsequent Engagements on Lake Huron.

The death of Tecumseh was a crushing blow to the Indian alliance which he created, and it dissolved following the battle. Harrison signed an armistice at Detroit with the chiefs or representatives of several tribes, although others fought on until the end of the war and beyond. He then transferred most of his regulars east to the Niagara River and went himself to Washington where he was acclaimed a hero. However, a comparatively petty dispute with President James Madison and John Armstrong resulted in him resigning his commission as major general. Harrison's popularity grew, and he was eventually elected president. Richard Mentor Johnson eventually became vice president to President Martin Van Buren, based partly on the belief that he had personally killed Tecumseh.

A few days after the battle, Procter rallied 246 men of the 41st Regiment at the Grand River, reinforced by some young soldiers of the 2nd battalion who had not been present at the battle. The two battalions were reorganized and merged, as the regiment was severely understrength at this point, and the survivors of the 1st Battalion were placed in the grenadier and light infantry companies. The soldiers of the 41st who were taken prisoner at Moraviantown and the Battle of Lake Erie were exchanged or released towards the end of 1814. They had been held in encampments near Sandusky, Ohio, and had suffered severely from sickness during their captivity.

In May 1814, Procter was charged with negligence and improper conduct, though a court martial could not be held until December, when campaigning had ceased for the winter and a senior board of officers could be assembled. They judged that Procter had managed the retreat badly, failing to secure his stores, and also disposed the troops ineffectively at Moraviantown. He was sentenced to be suspended from rank and pay for six months.

Legacy
Three modern battalions of the United States Army perpetuate the lineage of the old 27th Infantry Regiment, elements of which were at the Battle of the Thames.

Order of battle
The following units and commanders of the American, British, and Native American armed forces Battle of the Thames:

 * Abbreviations used

 * MG = Major General
 * BG = Brigadier General
 * Col = Colonel
 * Ltc = Lieutenant Colonel
 * Maj = Major
 * Cpt = Captain
 * Lt = 1st Lieutenant
 * w = wounded
 * k = killed
 * m = missing

American Forces
Army of the Northwest: MG William Henry Harrison

General Staff
 * Inspector-General: Col George Walker
 * Military Secretary: Maj William T. Barry
 * Judge Advocate General: Maj Thomas Barr
 * Adjutant General: Joseph McDowell
 * Aide-de-Camp: Oliver Hazard Perry
 * Aide-de-Camp: BG Lewis Cass

Kentucky Militia
Governor Isaac Shelby

General Staff
 * 1st Aide de Camp: BG John Adair
 * 2nd Aide de Camp: Maj John J. Crittenden
 * Quartermaster General: BG John Payne

British and Native forces
Major General Henry Procter

British

 * 41st (Welsh) Regiment of Foot: Col Augustus Warburton
 * Local militia (composition unknown)

Tecumseh's confederacy
Tecumseh †

 * Shawnee: Tecumseh
 * Odawa: Naiwash
 * Ojibwe: Oshawahnah

title: Battle of the Thames