Talk:Princess Märtha of Sweden

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 per vote *and* NC. —Nightstallion (?) 10:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Märtha of Sweden → Princess Märtha of Sweden — She died a Crown Princess, and never became a queen consort, so she should be at Princess Märtha of Sweden, as was the case with Princess Margaret of Connaught.

[edit] Survey

• Support Although I would have just asked an administrator, citing the conventions. Charles 15:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support I still don't understand why not the highest title a woman accheived should be the one that sticks. It's that way with the guys... I know there is a policy on this, but if she can't be Crown Princess Märtha of Norway let her at least be a princess. :) Inge 02:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Inge, royals on Wikipedia are usually titled under the highest title they held in their own right. It is not unknown to females, however. (Victoria, Princess Royal rather than of the UK or Victoria, German Empress plus variants) Charles 02:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Shilkanni 21:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC) That "Princess" really is not in established use in respectable works of reference such as other encyclopedias and hispory books: these cases follow the same usage of pre-marital name, historical consort naming. The addition of Princess now to these cases is just a quirk of some Wikipedians who want, presumably, to convolute article names, to use as much royal titulary as they can get away with, and to play here "using the rules as hammers". I would like to see them in producing good text to articles, instead of running these RMs all around the site. It has seemed to me that certain persons do not have sufficiently to offer in content, and they fill their days with nagging about forms. And they apparently are without good familiarity with history books - if they have some familiarity, they would be able to produce content - and they wouldn't fight for these "Princess" prefixes as they would be aware that such are not used in other books. These cases are not mentioned as princesses, precisely because of the same reasons as their queenly "sisters" are not: they often had a higher title by marriage, but it cannot be used in article names because of high ambiguate potential (if consort name is used) and if added to pre-marital name, for being misleading (that would make this woman to "crown princess Märtha of Sweden" - and she was not crown princess of Sweden). These simply are without the prefix title and shuld be so. Besides, this "Princess" prefix is not a part of naming conventions. And, that guideline for royalty naming they are constantly (but misleadingly) referring to is NOT a policy here. Policy as defined in what are Wikipedia policies. Shilkanni 21:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support I think this case could arguably fall under the Naming Conventions' "Other Royals" section, rule #5 (When dealing with a Crown Prince/ss of a state, use the form "{name}, Crown Prince/ss of {state}..."), as well as Rule #3 (Use "Prince/ss {first name} of..." where they have a territorial suffix by virtue of their parent's title...). But the latter rule does justify this move. Although I'd rather see her under "Crown Princess Martha of Norway" as that is how she was best known (and I can't find where a consensus made the "maiden name" rule apply to anyone but monarchs' spouses). Still, I'd prefer to see her here than looking like a Queen Consort which, alas she did not live to become. Lethiere 01:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

To the Comment by Charles above: I know :) this was just my small sigh towards the fact that I think the current wikipedia policy don't do the girls justice. The in their own right thing in my view makes it seem as though they didn't deserve the title they got after marriage. It was just a curtesy because they married so and so. But most of these women (certainly Märtha) made their life effort in their role as consorts or pricesses of their husbands country. That was their most important title and the title they might have been most proud of and spent most of their working life under and they earned them in their own right afterwards. I am not trying to change policy as I fear I am outnumbered, I just wanted to express disagreement. :) Inge 02:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You are most certainly not outnumbered. I disagree with many sections of the naming conventions and frequently contribute to discussions on various naming matters. Don't hesitate to post a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) if you feel strongly. You'll find that most often the discussion is stimulation as a whole, even if heated at times. (PS, I feel bad for the poor husbands of various female sovereigns! With only princely titles, behind queens, empresses and grand duchesses...) Charles 03:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. We seem always to get new people who fight against the historical naming of consorts. When they do not win the major battles, some of them continue to nibble smaller corners, in order to get more and more and more honorifics into some article names. Indications of such people: 1) comes as fresh editor, wants all those dead women to have empresses and queens in article names. Loses. 2) is continuously unhappy with many namings, and "disagree with manu sections" and "frequently contribute to discussions on various naming matters" (read: nags more than frequently in all possible places and makes move requests and votes in move surveys using Chewbacca defenses, other sophistry; drives such changes to article names which could, in her/his silent prediction, cause the historical naming to crumble by producing undesired results through rigid application of misunderstood guidelines; and encourages other enthusiasts open new discussions at NC names and titles talkpage, produces tons of opinions in matters related to formalities around articles and next to nothing to content of articles, happily drives to dozens of discussions to end to a stale really stale mate outcome.) Shilkanni 21:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop your little vendetta and grow up a little. There is no need for such proclamations solely based in your vanity of having to say something for everything. Charles 00:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Charles, you just spoke of yourself when "...solely based in your vanity of having to say something for everything...". Projection is a funny thing, and a symptom also. However I try to understand your situation, there is a clear degree of desperation which cannot be healthy. It must be bad if your deep monarchist and "return-the-monarchy to these favorite ladies" (as evidenced by your opinions e.g at) [1] cnnot find a platform, not at least here in WP. Shilkanni 09:44, 6 June 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.