Talk:Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Arrigo, please do not move this page again without taking a vote. Deb 18:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Deb, there was the vote. Actually, you have made moves with less. Please read the history. There was the standard request for the move, and it was kept for a long time. If someone wants to make another vote, please be my guests. However, the result of the conducted one favors the move. Arrigo 19:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I've checked the history, thanks. I see no record of the requested move in the history of Wikipedia:Requested moves, nor can I find any record of a vote on this page or anywhere else. Perhaps you could refer us to the relevant paragraphs. Deb 21:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The request was here from 11 July: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Princess_Alice%2C_Duchess_of_Gloucester&oldid=18590681
And at the same time, for approximately a week at RM. Edit history there does not have those days left afaik. Opinions given are still here on this page. Only some unsigned, IP-written opposing opinion came, its weight is close to zero. Arrigo 23:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Edit history of the RM page does still exist for the dates you mentioned, and this article does not appear on it. Clearly there was no vote and no consensus for a move. Deb 17:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Her heading does not need the word princess. Arrigo 10:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Whats your justification for this? That was her title

Calling her "Alice, Duchess of Gloucester" is just mixing her maiden title and marriage one - just use one or the other!

Arrigo please stop moving pages if the naming is controversial, in any case. Also do not remove renaming tags if the voting has not been clear and over. Please abide by Wikipedia rules and Wikiquette. Gryffindor 14:28, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 old misc 2 Title of Princess Alice 3 The Princess Henry? 4 Move? 5 Surname

[edit] old misc

She should be under her maiden name/style since she was nonreigning female royalty (Alphaboi867 00:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC))

Err, whut? We put people under their most common name if in doubt, and Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester is significantly more common a name than Lady Alice Christabel Montagu-Douglas-Scott for her to be known by. James F. (talk) 00:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• There is no consistency for this, Diana is Diana, Princess of Wales not Lady Diana Spencer. Since she only died about six months ago, I think her title of Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester is appropiate. Astrotrain 21:16, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think so too - who's going to automatically think "AH! It was Lady Alice Christabel Montagu Douglas Scott that was a member of the royal family" - she should be called Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester

agreed! but what´s going with Elisabeth the Queen Mum? i mean Lady Montagu something something, say what...? Antares911 09:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

why not have a dual title for her - "Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Queen Consort of the United Kingdom"

Her proper place would be Alice, Duchess of Gloucester. There is no need to put "Princess" into the heading - particularly as it was not her pre-marital title. As wife and widow of a peer, a duke, she does not need revert to maiden name. 217.140.193.123 09:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

No it wasn't her pre-marital title but it WAS her title so she should be called that. Bit hazy as to WHY she was called a Princess but the fact is she was so it should stay like that.

[edit] Title of Princess Alice

Why was she a princess? If she was born a Lady and became a Duchess on marriage, where does the title of Princess come into it? Surely she'd be ""Princess Henry"?? I thought Princess (christian name) was reserved only for daughters of the sovereign?

This has been a frequent topic of discussion on the usenet newsgroup alt.talk.royalty over the years. It is also illustrative of the "flexibility" ( or arbitariness) in the use of the title prince or princess since George V's 30 November 1917 Letters Patent. Basically, in the U.K., the use of the princely title and the style Royal Highness by members of the Royal Family is entirely at the will of the Sovereign. After the death of The Duke of Gloucester in 1974, his widow was briefly styled "Her Royal Highness The Dowager Duchess of Gloucester" because the new duke was married. However, the former duchess asked the Queen's permission to be styled "Her Royal Highness Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester." The Queen agreed and a brief announcement to that effect appeared in the Court Circular section of the Times. No Letter Patent or Royal Warrant were issued. There are three possible rationales for this request. First, the widowed duchess wanted to avoid using "dowager duchess" or "Princess Henry" in her title (both of which sound old-fashioned). Second, the alternative style for widows of peers (e.g., Alice, Duchess of Gloucester) is identical to the style for divorced wives of peers. Third, she wanted to follow the example of her late sister-in-law, Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent, who adopted that style just before the wedding of her elder son Prince Edward, Duke of Kent. However, Marina was a princess of Greece and Denmark in her own right. She became a British duchess and Royal Highness through marriage in 1934. Marina asked the Queen for permission to resume using her Greek title in 1961. User:Jeff (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

However, that is not a sufficient reason to use "Princess" as part of the heading of this article. We do not use "Lady whatever, Peeress of something" either. 217.140.193.123 11:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I was responding the previous query regarding Prince Alice's style and title during her widowhood. I was not responding to the thread regarding the proper title of this Wikipedia article. User:Jeff (talk) 10:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Princess Henry?

How exactly was Alice a princess? Is it because she was a princess immediately after marriage, being "HRH The Princess Henry, Duchess of Gloucester?" or was she never a princess? Was she actually a Princess or did she just STYLE herself a princess? Was she legally titled a princess (but being "Princess Henry") and just styled Princess Alice to feminise it? or was she legally Princess Alice?

• She was technically Princess Henry, Duchess of Gloucester, etc. When her husband died and her son acceeded to the dukedom, she was The Dowager Duchess of Gloucester. She was allowed to title herself as Princess Alice as a courtesty from her neice, Queen Elizabeth II. Prsgoddess187 01:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

But did that mean she WAS Princess Alice or just styled that way? What does "courtesy from the queen mean"? Was she always the Princess Henry - for example, would this have been on legal documents?

• No, she was not Princess Alice as Princess Margaret was Princess Margaret, she was not a Princess of the blood royal. When she married Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, she became Princess Henry, although that title was never used. A "courtesy by the queen" means that Letters Patent were not issued to let Alice be styled as Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, that the Queen let her aunt do this as a favor. Alice wanted to follow the way her sister in law (Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent) was styled, but Marina was a Princess of Greece and Denmark before her marriage, so she had permission to use her pre-marital title with her peerage title. Prsgoddess187 12:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It may sound mad, but if Alice was "technically" "Princess Henry, Duchess of Gloucester" wouldn't that make, TECHNICALLY, the Duchess of Windsor Princess Edward, Duchess of Windsor? I'm not suggesting we change anything in her article, but just wanted to point that out to determine if anyone knows if, in addition to being denied the HRH, she also was legally denied that Princess Edward designation.Mowens35 21:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move?

I've changed the opening to Lady Alice Montagu-Douglas-Scott since that is what's happened to Diana, Princess of Wales, please let opinion be known on this and feel free to debate and change back if public vote decides.

Her offical title was HRH Princess Alice, Duchess of Glouchester. This is what should be used. All other forms are incorrect, most especially, Lady Alice Montagu-Douglas-Scott following her marriage and widowhood. As a widow who remained unmarried she should never ever be referred to by her premarital courtesy title. Following the statement of HM The Queen that HRH The Dowager Duchess of Gloucester would be known as HRH Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester no other form should be used offically or unoffically. The Queen is the "fountain of all honours" styles and titles are soley at her discreation.

HRH The Princess of Wales became Diana, Princess of Wales also at the discreation of HM The Queen. This, however, is the typical styling for an ex-wife of a peer e.g. HerName, Former title. -- Queen Brandissima

[edit] Surname

When Princess Alice was born she bore the surname of her father. Her marriage to The Duke of Gloucester did not remove her surname or alter it so that she would never again have a surname. The very specific wording of the LP of 1917 issued by George V only affects those who are male line decendants of Queen Victoria. This means when The Lady Alice married she would have changed her surname to Windsor or retained her own. The LP does not actually affect her surname because she is not a decendant of either George V or of Queen Victoria. Nor does the LP state that they don't have surnames if they hold the style of royal highness.

The Letters Patent of George V on 17 July, 1917 reads as follows:

from the date of this Our Royal Proclamation Our House and Family shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that all the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, other than female descendants who may marry or may have married, shall bear the said Name of Windsor

The Letters Patent issued by EIIR on 9 April 1952 only reaffirmed the original LP of 1917. The LP she issued in 1960 makes no reference to any member of the Royal Family other than herself and her decendants. In essence the 1960 LP does not apply to the extended Royal Family or their surname.

The actual Letters Patent themselves never make a reference to any member of the Royal Family (past or present) not having a surname. There are references in the Queen's LPs to stating "when a surname is needed" but that doesn't imply that they don't have a surname merely by holding the style of HRH..."not needed" is not "does not exist." That members of the royal family don't use surnames because the use their titles does not in any way reflect that they don't have them. That would actually directly contradict the specific wording of the Letters Patent.

It should also be noted that records of birth, marriage and death are, in fact, offical legal documents and do reflect what is legal (and actual).

If it is to be assumed that The Lady Alice took her husband's surname when she married him then her surname is Windsor.

This is covered extensively at the offical website http://www.britischebotschaft.de/statevisit/en/faq/index.htm#surname and at http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5657.asp

There is also information at heraldica.org (a good source for many things) and in the ATR faq.

If a footnote is going to be included it should lead to an actual reference not a statement by a member of their opinion.

-- Queen Brandissima —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.105.150.19 (talk) 05:03:48, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

No sorry. When she married she adopted the titles and surname of her husband, hence the letters patent apply to her. You say took her husband surname, well he didn't have one. BMD records do not reflect legality; royalty have used various different names in certificates (ie Anne put "Mountbatten-Windsor", Charles did not mention any surname). As I said see the other wives of HRH's, and please ask User:Danbarnesdavies, he's usually good on these things. --UpDown 10:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to ask another user. We should ALL do independant research! The Letters Patent do NOT apply to her. They themselves, specifically, state whom they applied to. You need to read the Letters Patent. They do not include anything in reference to women who marry into the family. Her husband did hold a surname and if she took his name upon marriage then she should be listed as Windsor. As I stated earlier this has been discussed in other forums by respected historians and is actually covered on the offical website.

The Letters Patent do NOT state that those holding the style of Royal Highness do not have a surname. In fact, they specifically mention what the respective surnames are.

I never said look at her husband's surname I said look at the Letters Patent. Her husband is covered under the LP of 1917 which states that the surname for male line decendants is Windsor.

You need to cite a reference that states that she did not have a surname. Furthermore, a footnote should lead to an actual reference not a statement by you.

If you need to ask another user instead of doing your own research then you should not be editing points that have been referenced.

I have, specifically, referenced the actual LP and the offical website. You have cited nothing. 76.105.150.19 11:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Queen Brandissima

"Indepedent research" sounds like a breach of WP:OR to me. You cannot simply say you have spoken to historians etc, where your proof? The reason I said ask another user is it is always useful to have a 3rd party. --UpDown 11:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)]

Independant research is the only way to verify a source. Or, are you not up-to-date on what verification means.

I cited the proof. That you have chosen to blatantly ignore the Letters Patent is a mystery to me.

Footnotes should lead to references not statements by you. READ THE LETTERS PATENT and check the offical website which has a section just on this. I provided the link earlier. Clearly, you didn't use it.

Furthermore, you have yet to cite a single source referenece to support your theory. 76.105.150.19 11:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Queen Brandissima

You have now broken WP:3RR. Please don't. And you don't to do "indepedent research", you look at sources and cite them. You have not done this, you mention them but don't cite them. You could be making them up for all anyone else knows! I would seriously urge you to remember this is Wikipedia, not you only personal website to put forward your theories. And you must abide by policy. --UpDown 12:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you have a very serious misunderstanding of what "independant research" is. I have the habit of actually opening books and looking at "offical" websites that provide information. Do you think I gather information from tabloids? Wikipedia actually needs more references. I provided information in my previous entries to this same discussion page.

I once again state that every person who contributes should be doing their own research before they contribute. If you have not opened a book or checked a website that does list the source of it's information. You should also be encouraging everyone to actually do research!

I have numerous times already reiterated to you the source of my information and actually provided it. That you chose not to follow the links that I provided has nothing to do with me.

I provided the link to the source of my previous information in my inital posting to this discussion. I fail to see how you could have possibly missed it! I once again urge you to visit http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5657.asp You can very well see for yourself that this is the offical government website and you can also verify that the information that I provided concerning the Letters Patent is included. I included this in several postings ago.

I never said that I "spoke" with historians about anything. I references several places where one could look for the information and for more indepth discussions on the matter by persons who are well informed suchs as alt.talk.royalty (the ATR faq), heraldica.org, the offical website, ect...

I think it's very unfortunate that you are actually encouraging people to not do research into the subjects they contribute to. 76.105.150.19 12:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Queen Brandissima

You misunderstand - referencing does not mean you "mention" it on the talk page, it means you add a cite to the article and then the full reference appears at the bottom of the page. Just telling me the source is not good enough. --UpDown 12:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I started the discussion on the talk page to initiate a dialog on the matter with those who are actually interested in the facts. Additionally, when I did so I referenced the information. I was never telling "you" the source. I was making it known to the wiki community. I am not an HTML magician. I actually have no skill with web design nor do I have the interest in learning it. This is one of the main reasons I place notes on on the discussion page. Generally, a more skilled web design wiki member comes immediately along and adds a cite to the article. I'd rather leave the information on the discussion page then ruin the entire format of the article.

Perhaps, when I have the time to spend I'll visit the sandbox and practice. However, my main concern remains starting discussions that encourage those who contribute to wiki to open a book, check an offical website, a website with extensive source listings, or pick up a pen and write a letter if necessary to fully verify questionable information. 76.105.150.19 12:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Queen Brandissima brandy.kelley@gmail.com

You'll be pleased to note that I played in the sandbox until I am confident that I can, at least, cite to a website. I added the citation that you wanted to the article. It linked page from the offical website should pretty much cover questions that a reader may have, and provideds the full or partial text of the actual LPs concerned. The same page should probably be cited on other articles of members of the RF where a surname is and isn't listed. 76.105.150.19 14:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Queen Brandissima