Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Piratesswoop (talk | contribs) at 02:44, 27 May 2006 (→Discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

Out of curiosity, why isn't this at Princess Margaret of Connaught? Margaret died before her husband became king, so she can't be put as though she were queen-consort. Shouldn't this go at Princess Margaret of Connaught the way her daughter-in-law is still at Princess Sibylla of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha? Morhange 19:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I never thought about that. But you are right, she was only ever a Crown Princess of Sweden. I would probably suggest a move on WP:RM, only because these royal articles tend to be a bit touchier to move than others, better to cover all the bases. Prsgoddess187 20:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Margaret of Connaught → Princess Margaret of Connaught – Margaret died before her husband became king, so she was not a queen-consort. Her daughter-in-law did not become queen either, and she is still listed as Princess Sibylla of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support, see comment below. -- Jao 22:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support Misplaced Pages naming conventions do not have a special form for crown princesses who never became queens or empresses. They are to be treated as regular royals. Charles 21:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support Following NCs. FearÉIREANN\ 01:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support per NCs. Prsgoddess187 02:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is not NC, and it leads to untenable situation. So-called historical naming of dynastical wifes, used in all respectable works of eference, treat also these as such and "princess" does not belong to that format. There is a Maud of Wales, so there can be a Margaret of Connaught - the "princess" is not necessary from that argument either. ObRoy 20:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The reason there is no 'Princess' in front of the name of Maud of Wales is because Maud was a queen-consort; Margaret was not, therefore she needs the Princess in front of her name and title as per the NC. Morhange 02:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: ObRoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaged in widespread canvassing of users to explicitly influence the vote here. His behaviour has been reported on the WP:ANI page. FearÉIREANN\ 22:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• It was moved here on May 2 with the rationale "crown prince consort". I can't find any specific guidelines on crown prince consorts in the naming conventions, though, and if this article should have a consort-style title I would be quite unsure about what it should be, perhaps Margaret of the United Kingdom (she is sometimes referred to as Margareta av Storbritannien in Swedish). Under all circumstances, "Princess Margaret of Connaught" is a courtesy title that you can't really remove a word from. The most clear-cut way out is to keep it with the "Princess" even if crown prince consorts should be treated differently, which is an issue I won't discuss. (By the way, Sibylla was never even crown princess, so the cases are different.) -- Jao 22:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The precedent on WP so far has been to treat crown princesses who never became queens as all other "regular" royals. There is no problem with simply moving it, just cite the WP naming conventions on consorts and how she does not fall within it. Charles 21:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This proposal leads to impractical situation. It is too much sophistry to make differences between "she never became queen"... The historical naming usage, in very general use in respectable works of reference, calls these women with format "firstnames + of + countryname" - which is NOT how they were officially or legally titled or used when alive. That general usage should be followed and not to make any sort of sophistry (and wikipedia-own-rules) regarding just these. The usage of the approx thousand-year-long European culture of prevalence of dynastical marriages, the format I explained of, is generally used - and Misplaced Pages-specific exceptions to it would just gather laughs and lead to loss of credibility. A couple of centuries back, and the titles some people are now trying to put to prefix these dames, were not existent. There will be a huge problem of "princesses" of whom princess was never used, if this application proposed above gets approved. Some people do not think further than to their own favorite royals of 20th and 19th century, and seem to be eager to put (honoring and elevating) titles to them, even creating exceptions as above. I note that above, there are opinions of only such editors who do work with recent royals and presumably do not even know what titles were in use in, say, 15th century. Everyone should comprehend the larger picture: if a wife who did not become queen, shall be prefixed by princess here, then the same praxis will be applied to similarly-situated women of eras three or more centuries earlier. And that leads to bullshit. If Margaret here must have princess, then Anna of Brandenburg, wife of the future Frederick I of Denmark and mother of a future king too, will suddenly find herself a Princess Anna of Brandenburg, when there are no shred of evidence that they ever were accorded such title; same with: Anna Maria of the Palatinate, first wife of the future Charles IX of Sweden; and Ingeborg Knutsdotter, wife of Erik, son of Valdemar I of Sweden - and she certainly was not a princess by birth even. These are just a few Sweden-linked examples, but a much larger crowd all around Europe is waiting for the proposed principle to show a failure. ObRoy 20:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

While CP Margaret may be one of my favourite royals, I am in no way doing this for that reason. Margaret was not a queen-consort, so, like I said earlier, should be put under her birth title. Besides, looking at Anna of Brandenburg's page, it looks like she did become queen, so there's no need to put her at Princess (or really, Margravine) Anna at all. Morhange 02:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to show the results of usual naming using the practice prevalent in respectable works of reference: Editors of otherlanguage-wikipedias have not fiddled any honorific to prefix her name, she is there: de:Sibylla von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha, sv:Sibylla av Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha. And we know that it is so in English usage too. I find it reprehensible that some people go arounf prefixing titles to deceased women against the usage in works of reference. And this woman: de:Margaret von Connaught, nl:Margaretha van Connaught, no:Margaret av Connaught, sv:Margaret av Connaught ObRoy 21:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong as usual. The other Misplaced Pages links, as elsewhere, were based on the name used on this article. That name was wrong and contrary to the naming conventions. As is normal they will be changed to match the moved name. FearÉIREANN\ 21:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you prsent further evidence in support of your opinion that the name was loaned from here, since it seems to me at the edit history that this article was always Princess Margaret of Connaught until this got moved to the version wihout that "princess" just a couple of weeks ago. From that fact, it seems tad unbelivable that all other wikipedias loaned the name from here and all of them decided to drop "princess"... (No surprise that the person who is very often wrong, cries aloud that others are wrong) ObRoy 21:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be disagreement both over how the conventions should read and how they should be interpreted. I left a note at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). -- Jao 21:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)