Talk:Albert, Prince Consort

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move to Albert, Prince Consort per the poll below. This was acceptable to everyone and several people placed it high on their preference list, so, although there is no supermajority, the page will be located there. —Mets501 (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha → Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha — comply with naming conventions Deb 22:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

1. Support. See below for explanation. Deb 22:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Support, although I don't think an RM is necessary. john k 23:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Support I read back through the archives at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) looking for discussions on this point, and the examples that I could find (prior to the discussion there that is simultaneous with this one) are exclusively of female consorts. Male consorts differ fundamentally from female consorts because the latter automatically take the feminine version of their husbands' titles (in most cases), whereas that has been the exception for male consorts (and the more recent the case, the more exceptional it is). Lethiere 21:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose, aside from the current title, which is supported by conventions, the most used titles are of Prince Consort (used for Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark) or "Prince Albert". Charles 23:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

   The current title is no more supported by convention than the proposed one. john k 23:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

   Apparently, there is an unwritten "convention" which you are referring to. Charles 23:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

   I agree that the written convention does not support my view, but nobody has ever interpreted it to support yours before, either. john k 22:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose Doesn't address the main point which is whether Saxe-Coburg-Gotha should be mentioned at all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose Prince Albert, despite the unsourced claim about Prince Albert in a Can, is primarily and unambiguously used, in English, for the subject of this article; sufficiently that the present name is surprising. The proposed change ignores this. Septentrionalis 20:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

   The Prince of Monaco is a living person who is often called "Prince Albert" - I think there is sufficient ambiguity to warrant disambiguation. john k 22:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose - Support move to Albert, Prince Consort // DBD 17:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other royals items 4, 9, and 10; dead consorts revert to their pre-marital titles. In this case, that would be Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, which is where the article now resides. I disagree that male and female consorts are fundamentally different. Marital naming conventions have, and do, change. Wikipedia strives for conformity across all articles; this would be in line with the conventions for consorts. While only female examples are given, the conventions refer to "Royal Consorts", not "Queen Consorts" to the exclusion of "Prince Consorts". The item for existing Royal Consorts (currently #10) contains the phrase, "The same rule applies to male royal consorts." The phrase has been there since 2003-01-31; it's a bit late to be saying that these conventions were only intended for female consorts. Other usage is irrelevant, if Wikipedia tried to follow every naming convention the world over there couldn't possibly be any consistency in article naming.—Chidom ^talk  23:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Para #9 of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) states that "Past Royal Consorts are referred to by their pre-marital name or pre-marital title, not by their consort name". Albert was Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha both before and during his marriage, and is still generally known by this title in the UK. The present title suggests a monarchical status which he did not hold. The proposed title is preferable to the alternative of "Prince Consort" because it avoids possible ambiguity by making it clear from which territory the princely title originated. Deb 22:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Where Albert is from (other than "Germany") isn't relevant to most people anyway and the territorial designation is more a matter of the deeper history of the prince's character than it is of his broader identity. He is known as Prince Albert (compare Marie Antoinette) or the Prince Consort to most. The current name is no less ambiguous than potential conflicts between varying queens regnant and queens consort of the same name. Charles 23:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Prince Albert is ambiguous. I don't understand why you are proposing a name which is even less like his most commonly known name than the alternative. Your opinion seems to be "this title isn't the most common name, so let's move to a title even less like the common name." john k 23:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)\

We have to ignore the possibility of using "Prince Albert" as an article title -- it would not be admissible except as a disambiguation article (which it already is). Deb 11:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

We do not have to do any such thing. It is possible to have Prince Albert and Prince Albert (disambiguation). Charles 15:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is if there are conventions then implement them as is done for other royals who are arguably better known by other names. The most common name is not Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, but Prince Albert or even Albert, Prince Consort (of the United Kingdom). Charles 23:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The conventions do not mean what you keep on saying they mean. The conventions have always been interpreted to mean that Albert should be at Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Prince Albert, Prince Consort might be an alternative, but there is certainly nothing in the conventions which requires him to be at this location, or even suggests that this is the best location, save a faulty interpretation of a convention designed to deal with queens. john k 19:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That convention is itself disputed, and should not be used to steamroll the matter in the absence of consensus. Septentrionalis 20:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

But surely any convention can then be swept aside by whoever says that they "dispute" it? By de-valuing previous efforts to resolve issues, Wiki's process of striving toward consensus through building on previous discussions is mocked. Moreover, this poll doesn't include the option "Prince Albert". It calls for an expression of which term is preferred between "Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" and "Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha". By voting on that first, then other choices, we can avoid mixing up distinct issues. Lethiere 21:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and several of us oppose both of these choices. That's what approval voting is for. I'm not setting it up now, however. Septentrionalis 21:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm one of them. Why does that prevent anyone from indicating which is preferred of the two choices that are currently under consideration? People were urged during discussion here and at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) to put the issue of "treating male consorts like female consorts" to a vote, and now it seems as if that vote is being undermined so that we will not get to learn prevailing views on that point. I don't understand. Lethiere 07:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, guys: is it time to make this an approval poll, since there are at least four options here (besides the suggestion below to give the German praenomina, which I oppose)? Septentrionalis 20:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is. Otherwise we end up in the ridiculous situation (which has unfortunately occurred several times before) where an article remains at a title that is clearly wrong because people can't agree on which of several more appropriate titles to use instead. Please, someone, list the alternatives. Deb 16:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are some I've observed:

• Albert, Prince Consort
• Albert, Prince Consort of the United Kingdom
• Prince Albert (with Prince Albert (disambiguation used for other Prince Alberts)
• Prince Albert, Prince Consort
• Prince Albert, Prince Consort of the United Kingdom

There are more, possibly. Charles 17:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

By my perception of what is usually protocol for listing royals, Albert, Prince Consort would be correct - as he is listed then by his highest royal title, and his rank and name (although, in this case, 'Albert' rather then 'Prince Albert', because the latter is implied in that he was Prince Consort). Like, for instance, Charles, Prince of Wales // DBD 17:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it can be argued that princes who inherit peerages or other such titles are Prince X, title of Y. I see no need to discount including prince before the forename when it is really two distinct dignities. The Prince of Wales is a prince of the United Kingdom and the Prince of Wales. I don't think an exception that should be fixed should dictate the naming of Albert when all other royal peers have Prince affixed in front of their forenames. But that is another discussion. What of the territorial designation (UK)? Is it cumbersome and can be omitted or is it necessary? Charles 17:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I personally see both the preceding Prince (seeing as it is, for all intents and purposes, repeated) and the UK territorial designation clumsy and unnecessary - is there any otehr person to whom "Albert, Prince Consort" can apply? Is it an ambiguous title? Is it immediately clear as to whom it refers? // DBD 19:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

While it is clear that there is only one Albert, Prince Consort, there is also only one Prince Andrew, Duke of York (not named Andrew, Duke of York). But anyway, your point as to the length of the title is well noted. Charles 20:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The Duke of York is at Prince Andrew, Duke of York, because his title is a dukedom, rather than a princedom like Albert's, thus Andrew's prenominal Prince is required to distinguish him from a non-royal duke... // DBD 21:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The current title seems to be liked by nobody. Would everybody agree to "Albert, Prince Consort"? That seems to be the title most likely to achieve consensus. Also, can I just go ahead and move Prince George back to Prince George of Denmark? The current title suggests that he was King of Denmark. john k 22:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

In answer to the first question, I prefer "Albert, Prince Consort of the United Kingdom". In answer to the second, I think the move is appropriate.Lethiere 00:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't; the absence of title should not suggest sovereignity any more than it does with Joan of Arc. Septentrionalis 15:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Those two are my top choices. Charles 02:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether the current title is liked or not is irrelevant; it is correct. The conventions do apply to male royal consorts. Item #10 says they do, and the conventions have said so since 2003-01-31. (original version).—Chidom ^talk  02:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding both of the nature of WP guidelines and of the content of WP:NC (names and titles). See below.Septentrionalis 03:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Both of John's proposals suit me. I don't think Prince Albert can be said to refer overwhelmingly to the Prince Consort, given that Albert of Monaco is alive and well and being written about in Hello!, et al. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guidelines

• How can we editors presume ourselves wiser than a guideline?
  • Because we wrote them.
• What is a guideline?
  • An approximation to the consensus of editors on similar questions, held together by Scotch tape and piano wire. See WP:PR therefore, as Template:guideline says, it has exceptions.
• What is the status of the section on consorts?
  • That's one of the things we're here to find out. It's a generalization of actual usage, such as Eleanor of Aquitaine and Isabelle of Bavaria; there is some trifling </irony> dispute on how it should apply, for example, to Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse. We disagree on how rough an approximation it is; at least one of us denies that it applies to this case at all.
• How does it apply to this case?
  • Setting aside all questions of what the guideline should be, that's still debateable. All of the choices proposed are more or less defensible under the guideline as it stands; for example, Prince Albert is an appeal to exception 4 on monarchial names: If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, use it. I will now go add a note that that applies generally, and see if anyone reverts me. Septentrionalis 03:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Approval poll

Please indicate all you can tolerate, with brief comments to distinguish degrees of approval. Feel free to add choices.

Albert, Prince Consort

1. Second choice Septentrionalis 15:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
2. First choice. Charles 16:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Acceptable. john k 17:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
4. I heartily endorse this choice // DBD 17:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Acceptable, but well down my list of preferences. Deb 20:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Second choice. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Albert, Prince Consort of the United Kingdom

1. Third choice, adds no real information. Septentrionalis 15:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
2. I could probably tolerate this choice // DBD 17:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Acceptable. Deb 20:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Prince Albert with Prince Albert (disambiguation) used for other Prince Alberts

1. First choice; the Prince of Monaco is always going to be disambiguated from it. Septentrionalis 15:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Second choice. Charles 16:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Slightly ambiguous, but arguably a primary usage. john k 17:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Distant third choice. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Prince Albert, Prince Consort

1. Acceptable, but why repeat? Septentrionalis 15:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Third choice. Charles 16:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
3. This would be acceptable. john k 17:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Acceptable to me, too. Deb 20:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
5. First choice; I can live with tautology but perhaps others cannot. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Prince Albert, Prince Consort of the United Kingdom

1. As above Septentrionalis 15:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
2. This would be acceptable. john k 17:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Acceptable. Deb 20:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha

1. Last choice Septentrionalis 15:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Tied for last with below. Charles 16:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
3. This would be acceptable, save that we generally refer to "Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" rather than "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" on wikipedia. If we are to change this article, we should change all such references. john k 17:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
4. First choice for me (but I take the point John makes above). Deb 20:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha

1. Tied for last with the above. Charles 16:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

1. First choice. john k 17:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Second choice for me. Deb 20:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (present location)

1. First choice. Adheres to my initial interpretation of Wikipedia Naming Conventions; why have them if we don't use them?—Chidom ^talk  01:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Albert of Germany (just to make it more interesting)

1. Second choice. Parallels Sofia of Greece, which is what Queen Sofía of Spain's article will be named after her death, even though she was born Princess of Greece and Denmark. Albert's birthplace is now part of Bavaria, but was in Germany at the time. See Marie-José of Belgium, the last Queen Consort of Italy (The Princess of Piedmont). She was born in Belgium as Princess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Duchess in Saxony. She was the daughter of a reigning king, however, Albert was the son of a duke in Germany. Were sons of dukes accorded the title "prince"? Who ruled Germany in those days? Lastly, common usage doesn't apply unless one of the other conventions doesn't work. I think one does, I'm just not really sure which one.—Chidom ^talk  03:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You are terribly confused. Germany wasn't unified. Albert was born in Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, which wasn't Germany at the time and nor was it Bavaria. Titling is not retroactive. Charles 04:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further discussion

I !vote for Saxe-Coburg-Gotha only because Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is even less desirable. I have never seen this as English usage for any member of the family; and I have never seen it for Albert in any language.

As for inclusion of SCG, why? Please do not just quote the guideline; this seems one of the situations where it is unusually silly, even if it applies to males. Would we move Ferdinand of Bulgaria to Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha? Septentrionalis 15:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• For the same reason that Ferdinand's consort is found at Marie Louise of Bourbon-Parma instead of at Marie Louise of Bulgaria or at Princess Marie Louise?
• "Burke's Guide to the Royal Family", 1973, p.295, lists the husband of Victoria of the United Kingdom as "HH Prince Francis Albert Augustus Charles Emmanuel of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Duke of Saxony..."; Marlene Eilers' "Queen Victoria's Descendants", 1997, page 121 calls him "HSH Prince Franz August Karl Albert Emanuel of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha; Dan Willis's "The Descendants of King George I of Great Britain", 2002, page 47: "Franz August Karl Albert Emanuel of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Duke of Saxony, The Prince Consort"; Theo Aronson's "Grandmama of Europe: The Crowned Descendants of Queen Victoria", 1973, page 268 states, "Now, a mere sixteen years after her death, her grandson changed the name of her beloved Prince Albert's dynasty of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to Windsor"; Walter J.P. Curley, Jr.'s "Monarchs-in-Waiting", 1973, page 27 says, "The House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, one of the oldest Germanic dynasties, spawned the royal houses of Bulgaria, Great Britain, Belgium, and Portugal." The first three authors are well-known royal genealogists, while Aronson was probably the English language's most popular writer of biographies of modern "royalty" until his death two years ago. None of which contradicts the fact that in popular parlance "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" is probably more common -- but the "and" version is not rare in English. Lethiere 21:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for finding a source for SC and G. I could only wish it were a more reliable one than Burke's. I still do not prefer it; we should pick the simplest form of the country; as we prefer Constantine I of Greece to Constantine I of the Hellenes. Septentrionalis 02:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The difference between the two is that Saxe-Coburg and Gotha means Saxe-Coburg and Saxe-Gotha. It's a basic used of the form "of A-B" except "B" in this case is two things and not one. Charles 04:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.