Talk:Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha

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 inconclusive; I've moved pursuant to current WP naming standards. —Nightstallion (?) 09:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

• Augusta of Saxe-Gotha → Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha … Rationale: Move back to correct name given current WP conventions on the naming of royals (Augusta never became queen-consort). Charles 01:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

• Support As nominator. Charles 01:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. She is generally well known by this name version; and the version "Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha" is quite bad, as it implies only to her childhood and is actually against the usage of so-called historical names for dynastical women. Moreover, I doubt that the title "Princess" was not yet at that time in an established use in these "courtesy" cases - that century is a borderzone. Shilkanni 01:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia rules are quite clear on non-queen consorts. Gryffindor 10:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support as above. Craigy (talk) 11:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I realise that those who are supporting the move do so in the belief that there is a guideline covering this situation, but they are mistaken in this case. The suggested title, "Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha", would be completely incorrect. She was only a Princess of Saxe-Gotha until her marriage, and ceased to be one afterwards. She is universally known as "Augusta of Saxe-Gotha" because of her almost unique position as a Princess of Wales who never became queen. Princess of Wales was the highest title she ever held, and thus the one we would use on wikipedia, but we cannot use this in the title of the article because her title was "The Princess of Wales" (not, as some may mistakenly believe, "Augusta, Princess of Wales"). The Princess of Wales is not the same as a Crown Princess, because the title is associated with a territory -- in Augusta's time, the Prince of Wales still received the revenues from Wales. The only other person in an analogous position to Augusta was Joan of Kent, who is correctly located at "Joan of Kent". Deb 19:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Where in any of the Saxon house laws does it state that a princess loses her title upon marriage? That is up to you to prove. Other royals, number 11: Use the most senior title received by a royal personage. Augusta was not granted the title of Princess of Wales. She became one by marriage. If she had held a title in her own right, she would be titled as such (E.g. Victoria, Princess Royal, not at German Empress Victoria). Joan of Kent is from an era where women were referred to by their father's title in lieu of a surname. Remember, Joan of Kent is from mediaeval England (no set surnames, no specific titles for agnates of the English royal house) and Augusta is from much later Germany. Charles 19:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• This is what is known as sophistry. Deb 20:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support As the maiden name rule applied generally involves reverting to the pre-marital title and it is monarchical consorts who are referred to without title designation (ie, princess, etc, with the exception of early mediaeval personages, both non-royal and royal, who used the format also), IMHO Augusta should be at Princess. Sorry Debs, we disagree on this one. (Is this a first??? lol) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No, not a first, but I'm amazed that you could think this is a possible option. Had you said it should be at "Augusta, Princess of Wales", I might have understood, but for you to suggest that we should revert to the pre-marital title is beyond my comprehension. Deb 21:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

But dear Deb, I've always been advocating using the MT format. That is the standard biographical format for deceased spouses of royalty and has been for over 600 years!!! That is why historians refer to Catherine of Aragon, Mary of Modena, Mary of Teck and why they now increasingly refer to Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, etc with the lack of the princess in the earlier ones indicating that they were monarchical spouses rather than merely royal spouses. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Augusta, Princess of Wales would have some point and reflect actual usage (390 hits). The proposal has no advantage whatever; and is an example of why the maiden name rule is a guideline only; it can guide us over a cliff, as here. Septentrionalis 21:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm astonished you wrote that. Augusta, Princess of Wales means Augusta, former wife of the Prince of Wales. Was she divorced from him? No. Then that title is a non-runner. <name>,<ex-title> is exclusively the format for divorcees, hence Diana, Princess of Wales after her divorce. Just because a few illiterate morons on websites misunderstand Diana's title and think it is the title of a Princess of Wales, not an ex-Princess of Wales, and then apply their screw-up to the previous Princesses of Wales, does not justify us making a similar faux pas. After all hundreds of websites insist that the heir apparent to the British throne is some guy called Charles Windsor!!! One dares say that Charles Mountbatten-Windsor, the guy's actual name according to the Palace, is less than amused. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I wrote it too (see above). The point Septentrionalis is making is the same - that this title, though incorrect, would be more in keeping with our understanding of the guidelines. For me, Crown Princess is not at all the same thing as Princess of Wales. Deb 11:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

The move of this back to Augusta of Saxe-Gotha was rather silly. The current naming conventions state that the form Name of Place is reserved for sovereigns and the consorts of sovereigns. Augusta was neither a queen-consort nor was she the duchess of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg. Charles 01:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I find the wording "silly" quite offensive. My experience about its writer tells quite many similar, or even more severe if possible, epithets about doings of the said writer. Shilkanni 01:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Be offended elsewhere. This is not the place for discussion about me. Charles 01:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Could I request you Charles to actually be elsewhere altogether. As this encyclopedia is actually intended for editors who make contributions to the contents of the encyclopedia and are somewhat knowledgeable about subjects they write about. Shilkanni 01:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Take it to my talk page if you have anything to say to me. Charles 01:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus over such naming convention Charles above indicates to. Possibly some mistakes had been made in formulation of wordings in certain guidelines, but never ever anywhere has there been a consensus to abandon the historical naming system regarding consots who did not become queens. Deb has in this case been quite correct in applying the historical naming practice, well-established in respectable works of reference; and particularly in undoing a move to a quite bad form of name. Shilkanni 01:40, 29 May 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.