Talk:Princess Eugenie

Untitled

Can somebody update the "alleged" event in 2003? RickK | Talk 20:37, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Meh, Jiang took care of it =P. ugen64 01:12, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

RfC: Education

The consensus is against including the claim by Martin Farr. Cullen328's comment reflects the consensus: "We would need far more than one gossipy claim by one anti-monarchist activist reported by one source to include this tidbit in a BLP."

Cunard (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There has been some sort of edit war going on this page (1, 2, 3) over the inclusion or exclusion of a claim by Martin Farr, a senior history lecturer at Newcastle University, who had said that Princess Eugenie was initially rejected, and that the only reason she got approved was due to her royal status. To User:Richard naar it sounds like a rumor, but rumors and conspiracies may become notable if they make their way to the national newspapers. We even have articles about different sorts of conspiracies here on Wikipedia. I ask the users and readers to take a look at this article by The Daily Telegraph and decide whether we should include these information in the article or not. Keivan.f^Talk 16:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the problem with it is not reporting what Farr said but in saying she was offered a place because she was royal. The university claims it is usual practice for applicants with insufficient A-level grades for one course to be transferred into the admission stream for other courses with lower entry requirements, implying she was admitted because she met the entry requirements for the combined honours course but not the single honours one. Her application was treated identically to all other applicants and she was not given special favour. Like any other applicant she was rejected from a course for which her application was uncompetitive and offered a place on a course for which she met the academic requirements. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• If you were going to include it, you can't say "Eugenie was initially rejected" because that is not what the sources are saying. What they are saying is that during a speech to the anti-monarchist campaign group Republic’s annual convention, Dr Martin Farr claimed she was initial rejected and only accepted upon the realization that she was a royal, and his information is based on an unnamed colleague. That he said this is a fact. That it really happened is not a proven fact. Without qualifying it in this way, it is really a BLP violation, as the sources are about HIM saying it, not the accuracy of the claim. So a random professor talks to a bunch of people that don't like the monarchy and claims one got special treatment but won't provide his sources. No, I don't think that is worthy of inclusion in her article as he isn't an established reliable source for this kind of information, and I don't see any reliable source corroborating his story, they are just publishing the fact that he made this unproven claim. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude, certainly in WP voice, per Dennis Brown above, a lecturer says that a friend told him that he had heard from someone that etc. .... . Also, pedantically, an application is not 'rejected' until a firm decision is made (and rejection letter written/sent?), as neither appears to have happened, the most that could actually be said in this instance is that the application was initially put in the 'probably not' pile, until it was realised who she was. Also, pedantically the text: Eugenie was initially rejected from Newcastle University because her application to read English literature was allegedly deemed not sufficient, is borderline nonsense, it may have been that her qualifications were insufficient, or that her application was poorly written or inadequate in some way, but an application cannot be 'insufficient', unless what is meant is that it contained insufficient information upon which to base a decision. Pincrete (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude per Dennis Brown. We would need far more than one gossipy claim by one anti-monarchist activist reported by one source to include this tidbit in a BLP. Full disclose: I am an American and an anti-monarchist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"engagements"

Public duties and royal engagements are the same thing. If she doesn't carry out public duties (which she doesn't) she can't also undertake "limited royal engagements." She is not a "working" member of the Firm. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with above; we need to take out that she does not do "public" duties, when in the same section it states that: "In January 2013, Eugenie with her sister Princess Beatrice visited Berlin and Hanover in Germany to undertake a series of engagements. These included representing the Queen..." I will await consensus on this subject before making change in Wiki.Mwinog2777 (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Title upon marriage

Assuming that her future husband does not receive a hereditary title, will she officially titled as Princess Eugenie, Mrs Brooksbank ? Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 11:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)he

By analogy to Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy, presumably she will be HRH Princess Eugenie, The Honourable Mrs. Jack Brooksbank, unless and until her husband is knighted, in which case she would be HRH Princess Eugenie, The Honourable Lady Brooksbank. Right? Neutron (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

No, Alexandra's husband was a younger son of an earl. Eugenie could be HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs Brooksbank (compare with Princess Anne). Surtsicna (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Surtsicna is right. Angus Ogilvy's father was an earl, so he had held the prefix "The Honourable" since his birth. Brooksbank, however, is not from a noble family, thus even if he gets knighted, Eugenie will be known as "Princess Eugenie, Lady Brooksbank", without the prefix "The Honourable". Keivan.f^Talk 21:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

"The Honourable Lady XXXX" is standard for the wives of knights and baronets. Noble fathers-in-law are not required. Princess Eugenie, Mrs Brooksbank strikes me as the most likely option, though the presence of "Mrs" in an article title does not fit comfortably into Wikipedia's normal conventions. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone know if Jack Brooksbank will get an earldom from the Queen? She seems to have made it tradition to offer an earldom to non-royal men who marry princesses of the blood (sure, they don't always accept, but she still offers it), but there's been no mention or speculation of that which is a bit surprising to me. Doxedevenexia (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with these comments. It would seem improper to refer to Princess Eugenie as "Mrs". Apart from her Princely title, she is a Lady as the daughter of a Duke in much the same way Lady Louise is a Lady as the daughter of an Earl. The problem with appending her marital status to her title is that it's messy. Jack is not a knight or a Lord and without her Princely title she would be known as Lady Eugenie Brooksbank. Therefore as absurd as it seems, it appears her title would be HRH Princess Eugenie, Lady Eugenie Brooksbank on marriage. She can't be known as Lady Jack Brooksbank as that would imply that her husband was a knight or a Lord and had she married as plain Lady Eugenie, then she would be Lady Eugenie Brooksbank on marriage as with the precedent set with the daughters of non Royal Dukes i.e. Lady Rosemary Spencer-Churchill became Lady Rosemary Muir on marriage.RhysHoffman (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.29.40 (talk)

Her title and style come from her being the daughter of a royal duke. Using that title (derived from her father), and then also using the courtesy title for a daughter of a non-royal duke (which her father is not), does not seem to be correct. The princely title acts in the same way the courtesy title of "Lady" acts, considering that she does not lose her title upon marriage, so "Princess Eugenie, Lady Eugenie Brooksbank" is redundant not only literally but also in terms of courtesy titles, since the title of princess already stems from her father, so "lady" does not apply. I suppose we'll see what official correspondence refers to her as, considering they would take their cues from royal officials. Doxedevenexia (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that Princess Eugenie's royal title of HRH is not derived from the fact that she is the daughter of a Royal duke. Princess Eugenie is a royal princess in her own right. This is because she is the daughter of a son of the Sovereign, and as such is accorded princely status in her own right. Consequently, Princess Eugenie is accorded the Type 4 Princely coronet for grandchildren of the Sovereign through the male line. To illustrate this principle further, the two daughters of the HRH The Duke of Gloucester are daughters of a Royal duke, but they are not accorded Princely status, simply because they are one generation further removed from the Crown as directed by the Royal warrant issued by King George V in 1917.Ds1994 (talk) 07:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Right, I was trying to point out why the point about "Princess Eugenie, Lady Eugenie Brooksbank" didn't work, but I guess I didn't explain myself well enough. Doxedevenexia (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

She can be Mrs, just as Princess Alexandra was HRH Princess Alexandra, The Hon Mrs Ogilvy, before her husband was knighted. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

What is this, a forum? Her marital title will be announced in due course and we can wait until then. DBD 10:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

People are speculating and asking questions... Obviously not a forum. Doxedevenexia (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

She is NOT in fact a princess "in her own right"... in order for a title in her own right, it has to be a substantive title; she has a courtesy title as Princess of York as the daughter of the Duke of York. The only female royal with a substantive title is the Princess Royal. The Queen does not have a substantive title as she is the Sovereign; she can not have an honour from herself. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but she is a princess in her own right as a male-line granddaughter of the reigning British monarch. She is styled Princess Eugenie of York, but she is a Princess of the United Kingdom. Piratesswoop (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

You are correct. Princess Eugenie is a Princess of the United Kingdom in her own right, in accordance with the Letters Patent issued by King George V in 1917. The previous comment is completely wrong and the 'contributor' (I use that term loosely) is a complete idiot.Ds1994 (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Article name

Why has this been moved to "Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank" with no discussion? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

It has been moved back to Princess Eugenie now. Those who argue in favor of Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank, need to provide reliable sources, as well as those who believe the article should be titled Princess Eugenie "of York". The page cannot be moved without discussion, and if anyone wants to change the title, s/he needs to submit a move request. Keivan.f^Talk 04:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Prancer16: Regarding the question that you asked, the territorial designation gets dropped once a woman from the royal family gets married. An example would be Princess Alexandra, who was initially known as Princess Alexandra of Kent, then Princess Alexandra, Mrs Angus Ogilvy, and finally as Princess Alexandra, The Hon. Lady Ogilvy. Keivan.f^Talk 04:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Says who? You? Care to provide a source for that please 'cause so it happened with Alexandra. Big whoop! Where's your proof it happened with Eugenie?2001:569:77E2:3900:9115:BBCD:ECF5:53FB (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Title

I see this page is now simply titled Princess Eugenie as opposed to Princess Eugenie of York. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure that even after her marriage she still keeps her title? Her mother is still referred to as Sarah (Ferguson) Duchess of York even after her divorce. Eugenie as far as we know is still Eugenie of York even if she doesn't take Jack's surname as her own? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.169.159 (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Could you provide one or more sources that support your belief? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Could you support on or more sources that support your belief that a change should be made? Oh... you can't. Because they don't exist. Way to be a page owner!2001:569:77E2:3900:9115:BBCD:ECF5:53FB (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Your editing suggests that you are just trolling here, not seeking consensus for the change. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Move protected for 3 days.

Please hash this out without the fighting. I've not protected from EDITING, just from moving, and the intent is that no one should try to change the redirects at all. If you do find a consensus before the protection expires, just ask any admin if you need protection removed. Anyone who tries to go around the mild protection and swap the redirect around will be blocked for the duration of the protection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift action. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thank you indeed for your swift action preventing Martinevans123 from continuing their own unfounded agenda!2001:569:77E2:3900:9115:BBCD:ECF5:53FB (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I was restoring to this version edited by User:Timrollpickering at 11:13 on 12 October 2018. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

So... What were you saying again?2001:569:77E2:3900:9115:BBCD:ECF5:53FB (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

So User:Amakuru doesn't understand Wikipedia policy yet feels he should be an admin. How unfortunate. Don't you agree, Dennis?2001:569:77E2:3900:9115:BBCD:ECF5:53FB (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Your editing suggests that you are just trolling here, not seeking consensus for the change. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't need consensus for the change because I'm not the one demanding a change! You are! Explain why you feel you should get your way... Please!2001:569:77E2:3900:9115:BBCD:ECF5:53FB (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)