Talk:Caroline, Princess of Hanover

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

dynasty[edit]

I think, in case of the dinasty, Brunswick-Lüneburg is correct. Google hits: "Brunswick-Lunenburg": 290 (including many "... Brunswick, Lunenburg, ...") // "Brunswick-Lüneburg": 796

It depends if you want it in English, in German, or in a bastard mix of both. Apparently at Wikipedia we're going with the bastard version. -- Someone else 23:01, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

As does Google:

"duchess of brunswick and lüneburg" - 39
"duchess of brunswick and luneburg" - 4
"duchess of brunswick and lunenburg" - 1
"duchess of braunschweig and lüneburg" - 2

--Wik 23:04, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

If it seems to be correct, we should change the bastards, 82.82.117.83 23:03, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC) (again)

"bastards"....an appropriate term given the family we're discussing. Britain's King Georg V revoked all titles held by the German branches of his family. To this end and given the fact that Ireland became a republic in 1948, this lady has no right to style herself....."Princess of Ireland"....


I'm not going to fight over spelling, you and Wik work it out. The next person along will change it to the one they prefer, and so on and so on... It's a matter of style, not correctness, and we have no style guide for this. -- Someone else 23:08, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)~

Heiress Apparent[edit]

As Heiress Apparent of Monaco, which she now is, does the Princess of Hanover automatically take the style of Hereditary Princess of Monaco as well as become Marquise des Baux?

It's hard to find out at the moment. The official Monaco website http://www.monaco.gouv.mc/ is currently nearly nonfunctional (slow) for obvious reasons. -- Curps 10:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Research as to previous holders of the Hereditary Prince/Princess title of Monaco indicates that the titular distinction is automatic though it appears to have eventual documentation passed to make it official. Would it be prudent to put "de facto" before the Hereditary Princess designation until we know if the distinction is "de jure"? Mowens35 21:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

She is no longer heiress apparent, as Prince Albert has legitimate issue. This is all a load of bollocks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.238.90 (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Heiress Apparent/Presumptive[edit]

If Wiki's entry on Apparent versus Presumptive is correct, the Princess of Hanover is Heiress Apparent, not Presumptive, to the throne of Monaco. Her brother, Albert II, could certainly father an heir to the throne if he had the inclination.

Are you sure? I believe it's the opposite: an heir presumptive can be replaced by the birth of a new heir, an heir apparent cannot be displaced by any birth. -- Curps 11:28, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


The Princess of Hanover is now officially Heiress Presumptive and can only become Heiress if and when her brother dies childless

If her brother dies without issue she doesn't decome heiress apparent, she becomes Soveriegn. Andrea would become heir apparent. (Alphaboi867 16:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Note: an heir apparent is the person who will DEFINITELY inherit, since no child with a better claim could possibly be born. Prince Charles is therefore the heir apparent in the U.K. An heir presumptive is the person who will inherit IF AND ONLY IF a child with a better claim is NOT born. Queen Elizabeth was the heir presumptive in the U.K. up until the day she succeeded, because it was always theoretically possible that her father, King George VI, might produce a son, who would have bumped Elizabeth down in the line of succession. Caroline of Monaco is therefore the heiress presumptive, since any child born to her brother would precede her in the Monegasque line of succession.68.72.94.110 (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Princesse Caroline[edit]

Is the style Marquise des Baux automatic or would it have to be officially conferred on her ? Also, does anyone know of the current incumbent of the Duchy de Valentinois ?

If I am not mistaken, the title of Marquis/Marquise des Baux is automatically and traditionally conferred on the heir/heiress to the throne of Monaco, though there may be some paperwork involved. But generally speaking, the heir to the throne seems to have automatically taken the Baux title. As for Valentinois, it was one of Prince Rainier's titles as Sovereign Prince of Monaco and not used by Prince Albert at all, so presumably it now is one of Albert II's titles until conferred otherwise. Louis II granted the Valentinois titles to his daughter and son-in-law upon their marriage, so presumably, based on that gift, the duchy of Valentinois belongs to the Sovereign Prince. Mowens35 10:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think someone should check that before we start putting the style Marquise des Baux everywhere.
The same goes for "Hereditary Princess of Monaco". Titles like Hereditary Prince, Hereditary Grand Duke and Crown Prince are generally limited to heirs apparent only. If there has been an exception to this rule made in Monaco, very well, but then we should cite a source on the matter. Personally I find it very hard to believe that Caroline has been granted any of the titles "Marchioness of Baux" or "Hereditary Princess of Monaco", given that it is not in any way impossible that her brother produce an heir to the throne. And even in the cases when a heir presumptive is very likely to succeed (say, Albert is 95 and still childless), he or she does not normally receive any of the titles commonly connected to being heir apparent. Again, it is possible that the Prince or another Monegasque institution may make an exception to this in the future, but if it has already been made, there should be a source. -- Jao 17:11, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Your logic is flawed, as history shows. Princess Caroline's grandmother, Princess Charlotte of Monaco, bore the title Hereditary Princess though there was every possibility that her father, Prince Louis II, might father a male heir, either by a mistress or by a wife. He was certainly able to do so up until his death in 1949, as will Prince Albert, until he drops dead. Until Charlotte abdicated her rights to the Monegasque throne in favor of Prince Rainier, by the rules of heir apparent and heir presumptive, she was the heiress presumptive and Hereditary Princess. And until Albert produces a child of his own, so is Caroline.
According to the Monegasque constitution: "L'héritier du Prince régnant qui est le plus proche dans l'ordre successoral résultant desdites dispositions est Prince Héréditaire." Meaning: "The heir to the Sovereign Prince who is closest in the succession resulting from the aforementioned terms is Hereditary Prince." It does NOT state anything about heirs-apparent and heirs-presumptive. It just says that the first in the line of succession is Hereditary Prince. Thus, Caroline is Hereditary Princess. Matjlav 01:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for clearing this out, Matjlav. -- Jao 11:04, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

"distant heir to the British throne"?=[edit]

How can this be? The living have no heirs.

The second official definition of "heir" is "A person who succeeds or is in line to succeed to a hereditary rank, title, or office." Note that bit "is in line to succeed" ... Mowens35 15:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since Caroline is a Catholic, she is not an heir to the British throne, even distantly. Indeed, under the 18th-century Acts of Settlement, her husband lost HIS place in the line of succession owing to his marriage to Caroline. (Though it's possible that his first wife was also Catholic, in which case Ernst was bounced out of the line of succession to the British throne well before he married Caroline.) I'm amazed that the article suggests that he is still an heir to the British monarchy. He is not.68.72.94.110 (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"Officially elsewhere"[edit]

How can she have a different "official name" elsewhere? In fact, her official name is "Caroline Prinzessin von Hannover" which translates from German as "Caroline, Princess of Hanover".

I agree that her name should be as she herself uses it, officially and under most circumstances. I think when utilizing titles, whether active or defunct, Wiki contributors should rely on standard publications re nobiliary enrollment, such as Burke's Peerage, Debrett's, and the Almanach de Gotha. Though many titles in the Almanach, for instance, are defunct and no longer legally recognized by various countries of origin, the titles are commonly used and often the only ones by which the titleholders are known. If we go the opposite direction, ie restricting ourselves only to active and legally recognized titles, then we will be forced to refer to entry subjects such as Caroline of Hanover as Caroline Wettin or Mrs Ernst August Wettin, which would serve no one seeking information about her/them any good. Mowens35 13:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Buhuu. Hanovers have nothing to do with surname Wettin. They are Welf. 62.78.106.50 23:28, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Titles and Styles[edit]

Thanks for the recent changes, Irish Republicans are indeed grateful.

First reigning Princess of Monaco ?[edit]

not strictly true. Her ancestor Louise Hippolyte reigned briefly in 1731

thanks for pointing this out; I have made the change in the text. Mowens35 13:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"no known children" ?[edit]

This is outdated information. Albert has publicly admitted to fathering two children out of wedlock - a daughter in California and a son in Africa - both of whom receive child support payments from him but neither of whom is eligible to ascend the Monegasque throne.

refer to the claims of Californian woman Tamara Rotolo that her daughter Jazmine Grace born 1992 was fathered by Albert - a claim not denied by him but he has consistently refused to take a paternity test.
Indeed....and bear in mind the fact that Rainier's mother was denied by the Grimaldi's as beings Louis' daughter until they had a successions crisis and recognised her in 1919
Regardless of this fact he has already aknowledged the fact that he fathered an illigitimate child, however in order to ascend to the throne you must be a legitimate heir. And not only does he not refuse to take a paternaty suit, Jazmin's mother took the case to court and the court said there were not grounds to make him to take the test. Suggesting at the fact that Jazmin's mother is full of crap and Albert is not the father. (Mac Domhnaill 01:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC))

Titles & Styles[edit]

By what title is Chantal Hoculi, first wife of Ernt August of Hanover now known ? - Chantal, Princess of Hanover ?

She can accurately be referred to as either, though she is typically and usually known as Princess Chantal of Hanover. As a divorced wife, she would be referred to, strictly correctly, as HRH Chantal, Princess of Hanover. This is the form a divorcée usually takes, ie Diana, Princess of Wales. Mowens35 20:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And please note that whomever added "Mrs. Caroline Casiraghi" to the Princess's titles did so in error; please do not do it again. In addition to her Monegasque title, she was Mrs. Stefano Casiraghi from the moment she married him until until she remarried after his death; she was Casiraghi's widow. As long as she did not remarry, she remained Mrs. Stefano Casiraghi, per traditional marital convention, whatever one's status, royal or commoner; so in 1999, she ceased to be Mrs. Stefano Casiraghi and became Princess of Hanover. Typically, according to tradition, however outmoded in today's world, to call someone "Mrs. Caroline Casiraghi" is to imply that she is/was divorced, which is not the case. Mowens35 20:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also please see paragraph 9 for the official style that Princess Caroline adopted upon her marriage to her present husband. Following this, the introductory title of the Wiki entry, ie the title first cited in the text, should be accurately "Her Royal Highness The Princess of Hanover and Hereditary Princess of Monaco." If anybody has further questions about this, I would be happy to call the Embassy of Monaco or the editors of the Almanach de Gotha for confirmation. Mowens35 21:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Her Royal Highness The Princess of Hanover and Hereditary Princess of Monaco" imlpies that she is also HRH Hereditary Princess of Monaco which is not the case.

I have made the change, to avoid the implication, and will check with the Embassy of Monaco as well as the editors of the Almanach de Gotha to ascertain the correct style. My gut says she is, FORMALLY, "Her Royal and Serene Highness, The Princess of Hanover, Hereditary Princess of Monaco," but I will make sure of the correct terminology. Mowens35 22:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please quit changing the introductory sentence of the article. Her official name and titular styling, according to the Government of Monaco, is HRH The Princess of Hanover. This is also what she herself prefers, as it is correct re etiquette, et cetera. Mowens35 10:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is wrong - her only TITLE is as a princess of Monaco. She does not hold any title "Princess of Hanover" or HRH, that is just what she STYLES herself, she is a princess but only a Monagesque princess, there are no Hanoverian princes(ses) anymore. Her legal name is Caroline, Princess of Hanover which acts in just the same way as Mr. John Smith. This should be mentioned - what she is de facto, all this Royal Highness rubbish is superfluous because she ISN'T a royal highness.

No republic can take away the title of Prince of Princess. There will always be Hanoverian Princes(ses)!

Princess Caroline should be titled Her Royal Highness as she was born in the current ruling house of Monaco. She, therefore, is royalty and her birth right is that title. And, as she is married to a Prince of Hanover, she is a Princess of Hanover. Republics can take titles away but that does not mean much. A ruling house of any country and its members are royalty, and they are in the right to be styled any titles they choose, whether another monarchy or anyone else feels that house counts as Royalty or not. RosePlantagenet 20:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The German titles of the Princess's husband still exist. The Weimar constitution did not abolish the titles but it did abolish the privileges associated with them and it decreed that said titles would henceforth be a part of the family names of the involved. Nobility in Germany is now strictly a private matter to those it concerns. Many of them stay diplomatically recognised by other powers (like Monaco). Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Mrs Casiraghi[edit]

not to imply that she was divorced but widowed. It is my understanding that she would have been styled Mrs. Caroline Casiraghi from October 3, 1990 until January 23,1999.

(If Diana had been widowed, she would still have been known as Diana, Princess of Wales but would have kept her HRH style.)

Actually she would have been HRH the Princess of Wales until William married, then she'd be HRH the Dowager Princess of Wales. If she remarried she'd lose her titles and become Lady Diana N. BTW only English speaking countries refer to woman by their husband's first names. Is anything it would have been Mme Caroline Casiraghi, but she never changed her style until she married the Prince of Hanover and she's never changed her surname. (Alphaboi867 21:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC))
A woman who is widowed does not automatically become, FORMALLY, Mrs Jane Doe ... she remains, FORMALLY, Mrs John Doe, as per convention. Believe me, I've been around enough to know this inside and out. Mowens35 10:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Also, if you had a copy of the Almanach de Gotha or any other volume of nobiliary enrollment at hand, you would see that your comment re "BTW only English speaking countries" is misinformed ... the sisters of the King of Sweden all have their husband's names appended to their titles, as do royal princesses of numerous other royal houses, active and inactive ... and every woman I know in Europe is referred to, FORMALLY, by her husband's first name and surname ... it is convention ... all you have to do is look at any party invitation to see "M. et Mme. Jacques Chirac" et cetera is the norm ... please do not put "Mme. Ernst August Hanover" against Princess Caroline's name ... it is absurd as well as incorrect ... Mowens35 22:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, none of the sisters of the King of Sweden has their husband's first name in their styling -- only their husband's last names and the titles they have as married women; they are Prinsessan Margaretha, Mrs. Ambler, Prinsessan Christina, Fru Magnuson and Prinsessan Désirée, Friherrinnan Silfverschiöld (and the royally-married HKH Prinsessan Birgitta av Sverige och Hohenzollern). I've only ever encountered women's use of their husband's first name in English-speaking countries, but it's quite possible that it happens in other countries as well. Not in Sweden, though. I'm quite sure that "Fru Nisse Hult" (the equivalent of "Mrs. John Doe") has never been used in Sweden. In fact, it's only some hundred years since Swedish women starting adapting their husbands' last names ("Fru Anna Hult") after marriage. As there are many countries in Europe where women still don't do this, I can only assume that in those countries they don't take their husbands' first names either. -- Jao 07:49, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I know well the wife of a former Swedish diplomat and formally she, tells me, she is formally and privately Mrs Georg Hickenlooper (made up for the posting), so you're wrong that it such a usage "has never been used in Sweden" (a rather sweeping statement, that, and easily proven wrong). Professionally, she prefers to use her maiden surname hyphenated with her husband's surname, ie Jane Magnuson-Hickenlooper. Women often do not name their husband's names for various good reasons, but when they do use it, we should accede to the usage. I once recall working at a major newspaper and having a woman in an article (mid 30s, very hip, very smart, very liberated) nonetheless insist on being referred to as Mrs. John Smith. Why? Because, as she told me, she had wanted to be Mrs. John Smith since she met him, and she insisted on my using Mrs. Smith on second reference, not Ms. The copy desk of the paper was horrified but acquiesced. Mowens35 21:00, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
MOwens, I don't know about Sweden but in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and France, wives never use the first names of their husbands. As far as I know it's an Anglo-Saxon habit. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

A dowager is a widow who holds a title or property derived from her deceased husband.The Princess of Wales is a courtesy title given to the wife of a Prince of Wales. If Diana had been widowed she would have been known as The Dowager Princess of Wales.

Diana would have been a Dowager, but the custom in the UK is for the widow of a peer to continue to by styled as a wife of a peer until/unless the new peer marries. Diana would have been the dowager Princess of Wales, but her style would have been HRH the Princess untill another woman became entilted to it.

Royal[edit]

I wish people would stop referring to the Grimaldis as "Royal" - they are not. With the exception of Princesse Caroline, HRH by marriage, the are a princely house whose members bear the style "Serene Highness". Offical correspondence always refers to them as Famille Princier - not Famille Royale.

Point taken, though I wish you would sign your postings with four tildes so we know who you are. It also would be best to post your comment on a page that actually refers to the Monaco princely family as royal; I just read the entry over three times and the word royal is not used even once. At least not to describe the Grimaldis. Mowens35 22:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uh ! when you go to the official web site Official web site, what do you see: Royal Family ! 194.183.196.141 08:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

but the French version of this site refers to "Famille Princier" - I imagine it is poor translation which resluts in "Royal Family"

Well, that means YOU think they are not royal but THEY think they are 194.183.196.141 08:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

No, it means THEY translated it BADLY. 24.14.120.92 04:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The Grimaldis have been ruling for 700 years and are the ruling house of Monaco, they are royalty. Most places in the world view them as royals. If you are descended from a ruling house of any country now or sometime in the past, whether that house still exists as the ruling house or not, through one parent or both, you are royalty. RosePlantagenet

Well that's what you say; and I think nobility would quite much agree except for exchange of one word. The word we look for is souvereign, or even more precise, "souverein or standesherrlich". And all would agree that it matters really much whether you are from a souvereign house or not, compared to (that's of course only a comparison and is not meant to interfere with human equality and the like) whether you are royalty; royalty however, i. e. the precise term of royalty, is something they are not. And in style and the like, some formal preference is given to royals even as opposed to souvereigns. We may wonder why the Grand Duke of Luxemburg prides himself in being a Royal (Dutch) Highness rather than a Grandducal Highness*, the then-Duke of Saxe Coburg and Gotha a Royal (British) Highness (until stripped of the title) rather than a Highness of his own governed duchy, or even the Hereditary Princess of Liechtenstein a Royal (Bavarian) Highness rather than a Serene (Liechtensteinian) Highness even though the Wittelsbachs don't rule in Bavaria but the Liechtensteins do rule in Liechtenstein; but they apparently do. * It may be objected that the title for a Grand Duke is "Royal Highness"; true, but the very reason for adopting the name of King which they didn't have was that a lot of Grand Dukes had these family connections.--91.34.226.198 (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Wettin[edit]

"(Caroline Louise Marguerite Wettin, formerly Grimaldi)"

AFAIK her official name is "Caroline Prinzessin von Hannover" (in English "Caroline Princess of Hanover"). The Hanover family does not use the Wettin name, it is only dynastical but has no official status in Germany as surname.


Could it be possible that the busybody Mowens is blocked from making any edits to this page? It seems that the texts that person concocts, are totally untruthful, for example the inventon of name Wettin for that family... 62.78.120.212 23:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

The Wettin name is wrong as it is the name of the former royals of Saxony. Not Hannover. They have the name Welf. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Edits of Caroline's title and styles[edit]

Just for the record, 130.88.188.205 insists that Caroline is legally titled Caroline, Princess of Hanover, but *not* styled HRH. Let it be known that Caroline's use of the title of Princess of Hanover comes along with the style of HRH, unless the head of the house (her husband), comes up with something to the contrary. Caroline is styled as HRH The Princess of Hanover in Monaco (the last I heard, before she became Hereditary Princess). Elsewhere, she is styled HRH by courtesy, whether using a Hanoverian or Monegasque title. Caroline no longer uses HSH and the article should reflect that. This is simply my stance on the needless and incorrect edits to the contrary.

I simply ask that those opposed to the style present their argument here. Charles 06:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right to an extent. The end of the article refers to Caroline's titles. She is legally Caroline, Princess of Hanover - that is a legal name, NOT a royal title, which is why it is inappropriate for an HRH to go with it because it implies it IS a royal title (as HRH's only accompany royal titles - she is not of a royal house since the Royal House of Hanover does not exist anymore). If it is included, it MUST be stated that it's by courtesy only - and that includes in Monaco. She may be styled HRH The Princess of Hanover in Monaco, but she is not an HRH, does not hold the rank of an HRH, nor is a Princess of Hanover since that title has been abolished. HRH The Princess of Hanover is just a courtesy style. User:130.88.188.14
In Monaco, she is accorded the title and style of HRH The Princess of Hanover (SAR la Princesse de Hanovre). That is the valid title. Even in Germany, a republic, she is accorded the style of HRH and the title of Princess of Hanover only because it is recognized in Monaco. The difference is that HRH's husband *may* not be so recognized. There are plenty of other articles that utilize defunct titles and styles, however, those stay. For instance, check out the Luxembourgish Grand Ducal Family. They all use HRH when that HRH (of Parma) "isn't valid" anymore and may not have been in the first place. Nonetheless, the sovereign of Luxembourg recognizes it as do foreign governments. The same holds true for Caroline. Her father, and now her brother, recognize her as HRH The Princess of Hanover. If you insist, edit every single article on German royals after 1918. I can guarantee that your ideology will have you blocked. That's not a threat from me, that's just careful guesswork. Charles 21:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Princess of Hanover is not a valid title in ANY country - it is merely a STYLE because Germany abolished it, and Monaco refers to her as HRH The Princess of Hanover by courtesy only. Just because she is styled something does not mean she is TITLED it (see Diana, Princess of Wales - neither an HRH after her divorce nor a Princess, also Sarah, Duchess of York...) She is STYLED HRH The Princess of Hanover, but she is not a real HRH, nor a Royal Princess of Hanover because these titles do not exist except as a surname - there are no Prince/sses of Hanover anymore. Monaco has no authority on the granting of Hanover "titles" because (a) they do not exist and (b) even if they did they would not be under the jurisdiction of Monaco because they would be German - not Monagesque - titles. She is legally Caroline, Princess of Hanover (Princess of Hanover being a surname, NOT a royal rank or title) in Germany and everywhere. Germany - and Monaco - recognises the STYLE of The Princess of Hanover, but it is not recognised as a title except a legal surname. User:130.88.188.14
Monaco also uses ducal and marquesal titles that would have fallen under the jurisdiction of France. Caroline is styled HRH because the sovereign of Monaco allows it. A style is what she is called, HRH The Princess of Hanover. The title, princess of Hanover, is one she is accorded in Monaco and one she is accorded socially elsewhere. Note in Germany, there are certain occasions where elected officials and former royalty mingle. It isn't uncommon to hear someone call a formal royal "Your Highness" or something similar. She uses the title Princess of Hanover. It is a title, isn't it? And she uses it in a way that a title would, correct? Also, no one has stopped her, have they? Charles 23:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Monaco allows her to be styled HRH, but then, so could anyone since it is a courtesy style. You're right the style is what she is called (HRH The Princess of Hanover) but there IS NO TITLE of Princess of Hanover - if there was, that would mean the Princely House of Hanover legally exists, but it doesn't (there is a family with that surname but they do not hold Royal status. Monaco claims the ducal and marquesal titles to be their own, which is why they use them (as the monarchs of England did with the claim of being King/Queen of France, it was only a nominal claim and they were not de facto kings of France). Princess of Hanover is not a Royal title, it is a surname - if you're arguing that it IS a royal title it is like saying anybody could change their surname to Prince/ess of X and said to BE a prince/ss when in fact they are not. She is accorded the style Princess of Hanover in Monaco by courtesy just like anywhere else - as far as I am aware Monaco has not enacted legislation to make her the Princess of Hanover and they would not have any right to do so, and if they did it would only be a nominal claim. How can the sovereign of Monaco have legal authority over a title of a territory he neither makes a nominal claim to nor enacts any legislation for? User:130.88.188.14

The same is true of Diana, Princess of Wales. Whilst the title may LOOK as though she was The Princess of Wales, she was in fact, not, since that title goes only to the wife of the Prince of Wales, which she was no longer. Her "Princess of Wales" was a just a name - she was no longer in the order of precedence, entitled to use the Royal Standard etc because she was no longer a princess. She could have styled herself as The Princess of Wales, but if she had that is not what she was. The same is true of Sarah, Duchess of York - she is no longer a duchess, so is not addressed as "your Grace" (and obviously not HRH) because she is not married to a duke nor holds the title in her own right. She is sometimes known as The Duchess of York, but officially she is not - her legal name is Sarah, Duchess of York. Caroline, Princess of Hanover is Caroline's true legal (not royal) title. Monaco does not claim to MAKE her a Princess of Hanover, just styles her as such. Plus, if she WERE a Princess of Hanover, then she would derive that title (should it exist) by marriage, in which case her husband would be The Prince of Hanover, which he is not - it is his surname. If she doesn't derive it from her husband (as you suggest), then that implies she holds the rank of Princess of Hanover herself. If Monaco had created her so, she would therefore be known officially as HRH The Princess of Hanover everywhere AS a royal princess - she cannot be titled so in one country and not in all the rest. If she were a Princess of Hanover de facto it would be known everywhere. You're right she is officially styled HRH The Princess of Hanover nearly everywhere (Monaco included) but that is not her official nor legal title anywhere. As with any courtesy title, she does not enjoy the rank of a royal princess because she isn't one, and Monaco has not made and could not make her so. She has no royal title, only her princely one. I don't understand how you can argue that she holds any rank of being a Princess of Hanover when it is quite clear ALL Hanover titles were and remain abolished, or where you get the idea from that Monaco has resurrected a dead title. She is a princess of Monaco only. User:130.88.188.14

Anon user, when replying, please precede your post with the appropriate number of colons (:) so the posts nest properly. It's easier to follow that way.

Caroline is accorded the title of Princess of Hanover just as her grandmother was accorded the title Duchess of Valentois or how her brother was accorded the title of Marquess of Baux. The original titles fell into French jurisdiction, but their use was adopted by the Monegasque court as Monagasque titles. I would make a stretch to say that it is analogous to the British Sovereign creating someone Earl Mountbatten of Burma, when really, Burma isn't the country according the title. Caroline is a Princess. She is also "of Hanover". She is the only princess in Monaco who is "of Hanover", whether as a surname or not. So she is The Princess of Hanover. Now, the Sovereign Prince of Monaco can accord or recognize whatever style he wants to Caroline. The style accorded to her is HRH. That is not disputed. It happens that Caroline's style is treated as a title. The title exists under Monegasque law, so let it be. The form I edited it to last seemed perfectly fair and fine considering your beliefs. Now, to be honest, it looks simply ridiculous. Caroline is referred to as HRH The Princess of Hanover by UNESCO and the Monegasque Government among others. CNN also refers to members of the Ernst's family as Princes and Princess of Hanover. Also, Caroline isn't the divorcee of Charles or Andrew... British form has nothing to do with this. Monaco extended this courtesy upon its own princess... Their princesses are matters that they handle. Ernst, as the head of a former royal house, can use the title on his own. In fact, he, the one who would otherwise have jurisdiction over the title, hasn't objected. The titles is used socially. The title exists socially. Therefore the title exists, but isn't backed up by the German government. Charles 03:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

There are a few points here:

Yes, Caroline is a princess. Yes, she is "of Hanover" (surname). But that does not make her titled "Princess of Hanover" because she is not a Hanoverian Princess, she is a Monegasque princess. (Just because Prince Charles is Duke of Cornwall and Earl of chester does not make him "Duke of Chester" - the titles are considered whole). You're right, the Prince of Monaco can indeed recognize whatever style he wants, he styles her Princess of Hanover, and yes she is styled an HRH. But Caroline's style is NOT treated as a de jure title. She has not been created a Princess of Hanover by anyone, that would take legal letters patent etc, only STYLED and KNOWN as Princess of Hanover. A title does not exist "socially" (otherwise anybody could title themselves Duke of whatever) - it has to exist legally i.e. in the form of letters patent etc. Ernst has no jurisdiction over anything since he has no sovereign power as he is a pretender - you'll find the German government is responsible for that. If you can provide evidence that she legally holds the rank of a Royal (not Serene) Princess of Hanover (as the title is a whole), then your argument will be supported, since holding the rank, precedence etc is actually what holding a title is all about, not just being styled. Monaco cannot/has not create/d Hanover titles, although it can recognise individuals who bear their style. Finally, you cannot say that she formally holds a title in one country (Monaco) and only has it by courtesy elsewhere - if she has a title, she has a title - if she doesn't, she doesn't. And she doesn't!

A title can very well exist socially. Allow me the joke - believe me, it's in an amiable spirit - that whereas the British prefer to have their titles in letters patent and their Constitution in longstanding custom, the Germans do it vice versa. (And that was to a lesser extent also true also in monarchical times.) And what is not true is that "otherwise anybody could style himself Duke"; it's just a matter of plain common sense that only Dukes can style themselves as Duke. (Leaving aside the question of artist names.) The Duke of Bavaria is styled as Royal Highness; and if the practice of the media and the reports and social activities doesn't suffice, then I have heard in a recording present on the Internet that His now-Eminence the Archbishop of Munich and Freising, who hasn't only since become a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church but is also the authority of a Corporation of public body under German recognition (to wit, his archdiocese), has, in the presence of the Landtag of Bavaria assembled, referred to him (or another member of the House of Wittelsbach) as "Königliche Hoheit" in the address and I didn't hear protesting from the members of parliament. --91.34.226.198 (talk) 11:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

HRH[edit]

Subsequent to her marriage to Ernst-August, Caroline adopted the "style" HRH as her husband had done.This style has been recognised by courtesy in Monaco by her late father and now her brother the reiging prince.Princess of Hanover is her surname only - nobody created or indeed could create her a princess of Hanover. She is a princess of Monaco and nothing else. Please also note that her grandmother was Duchesse de Valentinois in her own right - the title was implicitly re-created for her.

Caroline of Monaco[edit]

Caroline, princess of Hannover?. First of everything, Hannover is not a principality, it is a city of the Federal Republic of Germany, reason why that nobiliar title does not have any validity. Second, it is well-known internationally being the princess of Monaco, that if it is a principality, in which she is the first Lady from 1982 in which princess Grace Kelly dies. Finally, if the article deals with Caroline, it has to make mention to its own title, that she is the one of princess of Monaco, and not to the one of his third husband, that he is the one of Hannover. Therefore I believe that the article would have to be transferred to Caroline of Monaco.

Sorry, but that form (<Forename> of <Territory>) is reserved for deceased consorts only. Women known by the titles their husbands hold (Caroline is referred to as The Princess of Hanover in Monaco and in other places by courtesy) take the form of <Forename>, <title>, if their husbands are the heads of a royal/noble house, which Ernest Augustus is. Charles 23:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
While I concur that Caroline is most correctly known as "The Princess of Hanover" because that is the term used officially by the nation with which she is most associated and which exercises proper jurisdiction over her titulature ("The reigning Prince has full authority over all members of the Sovereign Family", per Article I of the Statutes of the Sovereign Family of Monaco, as amended 29 May 2002. And "The" in her title is informative, indicating that she is the consort of the head of the Hanover family rather than a member of it by birth), I also agree that it seems counter-productive to title the article about her in this way.
Presumably, people are looking her up in Wikipedia to find out information about her, and most will look under <Forename> and <Territory>, both because that is how she is best known and because those are the minimal terms someone who does not know her exact title would expect to be able to search for her under, online or in a library. If this intrudes upon Wikipedia format reserved for deceased consorts, the article should be titled "Caroline, Princess of Monaco". Let the style "Caroline, the Princess of Hanover" re-direct to the article under that title.
I disagree. Let what people think she is under redirect to her official Monegasque title and style (as Princess of Hanover). Charles 19:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
You seem to recommend compliance with Wikipedia's "Naming Conventions: Other Royals" rule no. 11. Yet arguably rules no. 1 and 5 are just as applicable to naming Caroline's article as 11. In a situation in which no one rule fully addresses the royal's status, the Naming Conventions are specific; "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem." I submit that "Caroline Princess of Monaco" is a "more common form of the name" than "Caroline Princess of Hanover", so the latter should redirect to the former. Lethiere 02:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Caroline, Princess of Hanover, is her married name and is official in Monaco, where it trumps her birth style (HSH to HRH) and where she is referred to as The Princess of Hanover. Since her marriage is relatively new as they come when in comes to encyclopedic entries, she may be known to those who pay less attention as Princess Caroline of Monaco. But she is The Princess of Hanover and that is how the article ought to stay. Once she has died, if Wikipedia is around, she will be under the article Caroline, Princess of Monaco. Charles 03:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
We agree on how she is officially styled in Monaco (and I refer to her as "HRH the Princess of Hanover" when referring to her in situations where that is unlikely to be misunderstood -- and I've never been to Monaco). But I don't see why that should prevail over Wikipedia's Naming Conventions for titles of articles as quoted above. If she becomes more generally known by her married style, the redirect can be reversed. Your point about her posthumous Wikipedia entry conforms to rule no. 9, "Past Royal Consorts", even though she will have been the consort of a pretender rather than of a monarch. In the case at hand, there is an applicable rule, so why not comply with it? Lethiere 04:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The farthest change I would support would be to Princess Caroline, The Princess of Hanover. Other than that, I think that article is fine as is. Caroline is in a fairly unique situation in that she holds a legally valid title and one by courtesy. I do, however, think that the courtesy title accorded to her in Monaco, of which she is a princess, should be used here on Wikipedia. There is no dispute that Ernest Augustus *would* be the King of Hanover if Hanover were still a kingdom. In that sense, Caroline is the consort of a royal, albeit a royal prince. Charles 21:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, you have made it clear that you find it important to include Caroline's married style in the article's title. What I haven't heard addressed is why that importance trumps the Wikipedia Naming Convention that the *most* important consideration in deciding an article's name, when the enumerated rules don't cover the matter or conflict, is "use the most common form of the name". Since you haven't been arguing that "Caroline, Princess of Hanover" is more widely known than "Caroline, Princess of Monaco" by those likely to look her up in an encyclopedia, I am trying to understand what criterion are you substituting for the Naming Convention, and on what grounds? For the reasons you have stated, I agree that the article itself should unequivocally clarify that the title most used by her and by her country is "Princess of Hanover". Her titulature is interesting because of her international celebrity, but it is not particularly unique: Living princesses of six of Europe's eleven extant monarchies have taken consorts of dethroned dynasties that still use their princely titles: 1. Caroline of Monaco, the Princess of Hanover 2. Benedikte of Denmark, the Princess of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg, 3. Birgitta of Sweden, Princess (Johan) of Hohenzollern, 4. Astrid of Belgium, the Archduchess of Austria-Este, 5. Marie-Astrid of Luxembourg, Archduchess (Carl-Christian) of Austria, 6. Barbara of Liechtenstein, Princess (Alexander) of Yugoslavia. Some of these princesses use their birth title, some their married style. None of them is widely known outside of her native country, so none is as closely associated in the public mind with that country as is Caroline.Lethiere 02:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The article should briefly explain Monaco's usage of Caroline's married style in describing other terms by which she is known (e.g. "Her Royal Highness", "Hereditary Princess", "Marquise des Baux", "Caroline Grimaldi", "Prinzessin von Hannover"). The current paragraph about abolition of German titles and "her only uncontested title" is unnecessary. There is no controversy, beyond Wikipedia, about how she is referred to: Outside of Monaco she is widely known as "Princess Caroline of Monaco" and inside Monaco she has two other titles, one of which ("Hereditary Princess of Monaco") is a formal legal title, and the other ("HRH the Princess of Hanover") is her prevalent, official style at court. Lethiere 03:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a point:

Monaco doesn't accord her the title of Princess of Hanover; it accords her the style. She is not legally a Princess of Hanover (it's a surname not a royal title) as far as letters patent and legislation goes since legally she doesn't hold a rank of a princess of Hanover since the royal status of that house has been abolished. Monaco styles her officially but styles her by courtesy; similar to the late Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester who was not Princess Alice legally but The Princess Henry. Her official style is The Princess of Hanover everywhere, but she holds no title by that name - there is no evidence it is a legal title (but it is a legal style). By the way, how is "The" before Princess of Hanover informative? above: "And "The" in her title is informative, indicating that she is the consort of the head of the Hanover family rather than a member of it by birth" Just a question!

In 1919 the monarchy and the nobility were abolished in Germany. Therefore the title of Prince of Hannover does not exist because it also disappeared in 1919. Ernst is a pretender to prince of Hannover and she does not have treatment of Royal Highness because he is not noble, but don't mention it pretender to nobleman. In Monaco officials cannot do titles that have been abolished in their country of origin, like this, reason why Carolina is not Princess of Hanover and she's not Royla Highness. I do not understand so that in wikipedia in English they occur by valid all the abolished titles and therefore, nonexistent. --Hinzel 15:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hinzel (talkcontribs)

Education[edit]

The article says: She was educated at the Sciences Po in Paris, and Princeton University in the USA.

Her official bio on the Monaco site says nothing about Princeton. She was educated at the Sorbonne in Paris, earning a diploma in Philosophy and minors in Psychology and Biology.

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 no consensus. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 18:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

Caroline, Princess of Hanover → Princess Caroline of Monaco – Although "Princess of Hanover" (as wife of the head of a German dynasty dethroned in 1866) is the style that she and the court of Monaco use, Caroline is internationally famous because she is a Monegasque princess and Grace Kelly's daughter, and the most widely-known name for her is Princess Caroline of Monaco. Lethiere 23:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • Support Various aspects of the name for Caroline's article have been much-discussed above, but the bottom line is that this move is called for under WP Naming Conventions. Lethiere 23:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Caroline's official title and style within Monaco (when you say she should be Princess Caroline of Monaco) is HRH The Princess of Hanover. This is where it should stay. Charles 03:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I watch TMC regularly and especially the weekly Monacoscope and they always refer to Caroline as La Princesse de Hanovre.Hektor 05:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: articles are under common names, not always the same as pedantic ones. Jonathunder 15:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, agree with Lethiere. Thumbelina 17:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

I SUPPORT this move because:

  1. She is best-known as "Princess Caroline of Monaco" (and second-best as "Caroline, Princess of Monaco", but that form should probably be reserved for living consorts of princes who have actually reigned). Re-naming the article accordingly would bring it into compliance with the most applicable WP naming convention.
  2. WP titles of other living married females of reigning families vary erratically, but moving this article would increase consistency by bringing it into conformity with the styles for Princess Benedikte of Denmark, Princess Nora of Liechtenstein, Princess Margriet of the Netherlands, Princess Astrid of Norway, Infanta Elena of Spain and, importantly, with Princess Thyra of Denmark, ancestress of Caroline's husband.
  3. No overwhelming reason has been given for why this world-famous heiress presumptive to one of Europe's ten remaining monarchies should be known by the courtesy title of a pretender to the crown of a country that has not existed for 130 years (and lest it be argued that "mere fame" should be irrelevant, remember that's how most people get into encyclopedias -- royalty glide in on ancestral fame). This is not to invalidate her claim (by tradition) to the Hanoverian title or to its historical importance: that should be mentioned early on in the article text. Lethiere 23:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Caroline's official title in Monaco, where all her legal/courtesy titles and styles are based, is HRH The Princess of Hanover, simply put. The examples with Elena, Astrid, etc are mostly of women who married commoners or very obscure nobles. Charles 03:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
How is it relevant to WP Naming Conventions whether or not a princess's husband is also a "commoner" or "very obscure noble"? Ernst August V, Prince of Hanover, except insofar as he is known as the consort of Princess Caroline of Monaco, is an "obscure" pretender. Certainly he is less famous in his own right than Iñaki Urdangarin, Spain's best known handball player and a three-time Olympic Games competitor, yet the WP page of his wife is listed at Infanta Cristina of Spain. WP Naming Convention does not use the official titles given in monarchies to members of their dynasties, but uses the title best known in English, except in cases where some other naming principle has been agreed upon (such as "Firstname" of "Realm" for monarchs). Therefore, on what basis do you contend that Caroline's style should be an exception to the application of the WP Naming Convention which places the pages of Princess Benedikte of Denmark, Princess Nora of Liechtenstein, Princess Margriet of the Netherlands, Princess Astrid of Norway and Infanta Elena of Spain under their maiden titles rather than under the names or titles of their husbands? I have asked this question before -- about how "the Princess of Hanover" complies with WP Naming Convention -- and I would really appreciate a direct answer this time. Please. Lethiere 07:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Evidence speaks for itself. The Princess Grace Foundation page at the portal for the Princely House, UNESCO entry on The Princess of Hanover. Plus the official site refers to la Princesse de Hanovre. Charles 14:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that there's a fairly strong argument for calling a Monegasque princess by the title that the Monegasque government itself uses for her. Which would be, apparently, Princess of Hanover, and not Princess Caroline of Monaco. But I don't feel terribly strongly either way. john k 05:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Comparing Caroline's "HRH" to Bourbon-Parma's[edit]

  1. The change made in the article's reference to the consort of Grand Duchess Charlotte of Luxembourg as "Prince of Parma" instead of "Prince of Bourbon-Parma" is inaccurate for reasons that have been documented before, but here goes:
    1. The evidence shows that "Prince X of Bourbon-Parma" and "Princess Y of Bourbon-Sicily", or variations thereof (always including "Bourbon" and usually "name-of-realm") is how members of these branches of the Bourbon dynasty are overwhelmingly referred to (rather than as "Prince X of Parma" or "Princess Y of the Two Sicilies") in even the most precise venues, but also in general reference, the latter being what is most relevant to WP usage.
    2. As indicated on the Bourbon-Parma website and the Bourbon-Sicily website, this is how they refer to themselves, and how they instruct others about their titulature.
    3. It is how they are referred to legally:
      1. One of them filed a lawsuit in France: "Cour d'appel de Paris (1re Ch. sect. A) 22 novembre 1989 Présidence de Mme Ezratty Premier Président Prince Henri d'Orléans, comte de Clermont et Prince Sixte Henri de Bourbon Parme c. Carmen Rossi". (emphasis mine).
      2. The same in the Netherlands: "Bij Koninglijk Besluit van 15 mei 1996 nr 96.000163, zijn de vier kinderen van HKH prinses Irene, te weten Carlos Javier Bernardo; Margarita Maria Betriz; Jaime Bernardo en Maria-Carolina de Bourbon de Parme ingelijfd in de Nederlandes Adel met de title van prins en prinses en het preikaat Koninklijke Hoogheid" (emphasis mine).
      3. And in Luxembourg: On 28 July 1986 Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg issued a decree dropping use of the title Prince de Bourbon de Parme for himself and his descendants (but not his siblings). But on 18 December 2000, Grand Duke Henri decreed that among the titles his son and heir, Guillaume (born 11 Nov. 1981), would henceforth bear would be that of Prince de Bourbon de Parme.
    4. The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica's article on the principality of Bulgaria states: "In the spring of 1893 Prince Ferdinand married Princess Marie-Louise of Bourbon-Parma..." (emphasis mine). Note that in English, the second "de/of" in the name had already morphed into a hyphen by 1911.
    5. Until it ceased publication in 1944, the Almanach de Gotha was regarded as the premier source and authority on proper use of dynastic titles, relied upon by courts and diplomats. Since it began publication in 1951 the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels is now regarded as the most authoritative genealogical work on royalty. Both publications did and do submit entries to the Head of House of each dynasty for prior review.
      1. The 1878 Almanach de Gotha included its entry on the Dukes of Parma, who had been in exile since 1859, under "Bourbon". But it did not define the official titles of Parmesan dynasts, nor did it report titular suffixes for females. But I found one relevant example: in the Portugal entry the marriage was recorded of the Infanta Adelgonde in 1872 to a younger son of Duke Charles III of Parma, who is listed as Prince Henri de Bourbon, Comte de Bardi (emphasis mine).
      2. But the 1912 Almanach entry does define the official title of Parmesan dynasts: "Les cadets portent les titre et nom de prince ou princesse de Bourbon de Parme, Alt. Roy." (emphasis mine).
      3. The 1991 Handbuch does likewise on p.13: "Die Nachgeborenen führen den Titel und Namen Prinz bzw. Prinzessin v. Bourbon v. Parma und das Prädikat Kgl. Hoheit." (e-mphasis theirs).
    6. No decree has been adduced that ever legally granted the title of "Prince/ss of Parma" to cadets of the Bourbon dynasty. So far as we know, that style was borne by Farnese cadets in the 18th century as a matter of courtesy, and was then assumed by Bourbon cadets on the basis of tradition (Parma was a papal fief. But it was allocated by the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748 to Infante Felipe, youngest of the Spanish Bourbons -- without the papal investiture that would normally specify the titular details that treaties omit). Sometime after the loss of the throne of Parma in 1859, cadets of this family came to be known by a combined form of their dynastic surname and their forfeited territory. Throughout the 20th century, and seemingly earlier, "HRH Prince X de Bourbon de Parme" became prevalent enough to replace the earlier tradition of "Prince of Parma" to such an extent that members of the family now use the latter almost exclusively instead of the former.
    7. The House of Bourbon reigned in Parma (with interregnums) 1748-1859. So I agree with Charles that it would be reasonable to use "Prince/ss of Parma" for members of the family born prior to 1860. But the dynasty has now been in exile from their realm longer than they held its throne, and Charlotte's consort Felix was born 30+ years after exile.
  2. My choice of wording, "She would retain use of the attribute of Royal Highness consistent with the tradition that conferred that style upon descendants of Charlotte sovereign Grand Duchess of Luxembourg as a result of her marriage to Prince Felix of Bourbon-Parma, member of a deposed dynasty that once reigned over a kingdom" was admittedly wordy. But its substance should be retained: Its analogy illustrates for skeptics the point that Caroline's use of Royal Highness is precedented. It is important to stress that Charlotte headed a sovereign dynasty of her own to show that members of a reigning family have assumed a higher style that comes to them via marriage. It's an important parallel to Ernst Hanover's role that the Bourbon-Parmas were likewise deposed but still deemed "royal" by tradition when Felix wed Charlotte in 1919. The reference to the Bourbon-Parma descent from a dynasty that reigned over "a kingdom" explains whence Felix obtained the style of HRH. Yet we just don't know precisely whether that attribute derives from his agnatic descent from Etrurian, Spanish or French kings -- so it is best left unspecified.
  3. The article's reference to the Grimaldi dynasty as "royalty" was done (believe it or not) for brevity, and in full accord with the WP definition of that term as "a Royal family (by extention the ruling house of any monarchy..." However, the edit is understandable. Lethiere 09:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "Prince of Bourbon-Parma" is the more common usage, and is the better way for wikipedia articles to refer to such dynasts. john k 05:17, 15 April 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.

Using International dates[edit]

The current policy is as per this MoS reference:

If the topic itself concerns a specific country, editors may choose to use the date format used in that country. This is useful even if the dates are linked, because new users and users without a Wikipedia account do not have any date preferences set, and so they see whatever format was typed. For topics concerning the UK, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, most member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, and most international organizations such as the United Nations, the formatting is usually [[17 February]] [[1958]] (no comma and no "th"). In the United States and Canada, it is [[February 17]], [[1958]]. Elsewhere, either format is acceptable. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English for more guidance.

Perhaps Nunh-huh is referring to this section on disputes over styles:

In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article uses colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles, although editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk

The substantial reason for the change in date formats in this article is that Monaco uses the "littleendian" international date format of Day Month Year. In addition, the date formats were inconsistent and I rationalised them, as per my edit summary. --Jumbo 00:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for thoroughly explaining this. Charles 01:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding HRH[edit]

When/if Caroline becomes Princess of Monaco, after she dies, will her son Andrea, when/if he succeeds as Prince of Monaco, use HRH or HSH? Morhange 16:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It is unknown. She will be HRH and there really is no reason for her not to use it. Charles 17:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Style[edit]

Is she not technically Princess Ernst August as she was not(and could not have been) born a princess of "Hanover " ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.45.251 (talkcontribs)

As the wife of the Head of the House of Hanover who is styled the Prince of Hanover, Caroline is the Princess of Hanover. Charles 19:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, she is the Princess of Hanover but she is not Princess Caroline of Hanover - She is officially styled S.A.R. la Princessse Ernst August de Hanovre.Royalpirate 09:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, she is styled SAR la Princesse de Hanovre. Charles 20:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Caroline is an HRH through her marriage to Ernst-August. Her sons are not and will therefore use (if their mother get the throne) HSH. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Her sons do not have any titles or styles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.43.101 (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say they had styles or titles. They haven't. But I'm pretty sure that they will get them once their mother becomes a reigning Princess. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Also she is not styled Princess Ernst-August. The style Princess (husbands given name) is a British custom that does not necessarily apply to her. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Technical corrections[edit]

Recent copyedits have improved the grammar and flow of the article but, in a few cases, somewhat diminished accuracy. I'm making minimal edits to restore accuracy as follows:

  1. re-insert "valid" in "However, this is no longer an option owing to the constitutional changes of 2002." Caroline's grandmother, Charlotte, was not validly adopted because the 1918 law authorizing her natural father, Louis II, Prince of Monaco, to do so required that he have attained the age of 50, which he had not, in fact, done when the adoption took place in 1919. This has been ignored for 3 generations, but it is not impossible that a legal or political challenge could be raised by descendants of the 2 Monegasque princesses displaced by Charlotte's "adoption", inasmuch as they had protested against being excluded at the time. The article should take note of the difference between de facto and de jure official actions when they have legal or political implications.
  2. re-insert "a successor" in "Albert's lack of legitimate children prompted Prince Rainier to change the constitution so as to ensure the places of Caroline and her descendants in the line of succession." Monaco's constitution didn't need to be changed to allow Caroline to succeed Albert (in case he died without dynastic descendants), but to allow anyone to succeed Albert on the throne. Monaco's 1918 treaty with France stipulated that, in the event of vacancy of the throne, Monaco would become a protectorate of France, losing its independence. The fact that Caroline benefits from the change in law is secondary.
  3. re-insert "dynastic" in "So long as Prince Albert remains without legitimate issue, Princess Caroline remains first in line to succeed him on the throne." It was and is perfectly possible for Albert to have legal, legitimate descendants who, upon his death or abdication, would have no right of succession to the throne: 1. Any children he adopts, and their descendants 2. Any descendant of a legitimate child of Albert's who is born of a marriage that lacked the reigning Prince's prior consent. Thus, such descendants would be non-dynastic, whereas only dynastic descendants may inherit the throne. Lethiere 06:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Caroline's Children[edit]

If Caroline becomes Princess of Monaco, would her children receive the Grimaldi surname and the style/title HSH Princess X of Monaco? For example would Andrea become HSH Prince Andrea Casiraghi Grimaldi of Monaco, of course he, as eldest son, would also be The Hereditary Prince of Monaco and Marquis of Baux. Prsgoddess187 22:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Marquise des Baux[edit]

As Hereditary Princess of Monaco, is Caroline also titled (even if not styled) as marquise des Baux? I am under the impression that this title belongs to the heir, but am unsure if it extends to heirs presumptive. Charles 05:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hannover is not a kingdom[edit]

Nobility was abolished in Germany in 1919. Hannover is not a Kingdom. You cannot be Princess of Hannover in the real life. In the world of Disney you can be Princess, yes, but not in Germany because is a republic and the monarchie and nobility was abolished in 1919. --Hinzel 04:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hinzel (talkcontribs)

She's still a princess regardless of whether she's in the world of Disney or not, since she's also a Princess of Monaco... 70.29.213.241 (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Hinzel, why don't you tell that to the Prince of Monaco, who doesn't mind when his sister and brother-in-law are introduced as TRH The Prince and Princess of Hanover? In other words, as long as official publications refer to her as Princess of Hanover, everything else is irrelevant. Besides, the title of Prince of Hanover doesn't have anything to do with the city called Hanover, just like the title of Duke of Norfolk has nothing to do with Norfolk. It's just the title she uses and the title European courts use to refer to her. Surthttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caroline,_Princess_of_Hanover&action=edit&section=29sicna (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
It's very well German custom to call him RH and Duke. And it is not law not to do so, as we live in a free country and can very well call our Dukes Duke and Princes Prince. The German law rules out the way their name is recorded by the registry office. Ask Mr. McAllister (who is a German, to avoid the confusion) whether he a) has heard of the practice of calling the Prince of Hanover Prince of Hanover, b) has any objections to it on grounds of the national interest of Lower Saxony. - Dear @Surtsicna: Well here comes the problem: The Prince of Hanover is supposed to have to do with Hanover. The Duke of Norfolk may not, and I've read Mr. G. K. Chesterton heavily mocking the practice; not that I would; but at least the major titles of German major nobility are supposed to say something about what the title-holders are about. As does "Duke of Cornwall".--91.34.226.198 (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
In 1919 Germany abolished the privileges of nobility (an thereby the nobility itself as a class) but not their titles. They were to become part of the surname. Nobility in Germany is a complete private matter not mentioned in the present constitution. The provisions of 1919 however are still valid.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


German nobility title has "higher rank and status"?[edit]

Last phrase of the article: "Historically, styles associated with kingdoms, such as Ernst August's, have been deemed of higher rank and status than those associated with principalities." Stupid question: How can a kingdom that has been inexistent for almost a century have "higher rank and status" than an existent and very real principality? I know that nobility titles are legal in Germany, but there is no actual kingdom in Germany. Those German "nobility" titles are actually only some of "courtesy" while those in Monaco are very real (at least, real in Monaco). Fredyrod (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a matter of widely accepted tradition. All monarchies continue to recognize some form of titles and styles borne by royalty of abolished monarchies. All of them continue to treat those who held monarchical rank at the time of deposition as if they still held that rank -- although with precedence following still reigning royalty. Thus, Caroline could use, and the rulers of Monaco could recognize her use, of styles appertaining to her princely rank, i.e. "Princess of Monaco" and Serene Highness. But instead the Monegasque court refers to her by the feminine version of her husband's title of pretence, "the Princess of Hanover", and the associated, higher style of Royal Highness. By contrast, Denmark recognizes and uses the title of the husband, Richard, Prince of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg, of the reigning Queen's sister, Princess Benedikte of Denmark, because as the daughter of a king, her rank and style (Royal Highness) is higher than his (Serene Highness). Benedikte's younger sister, married to the former sovereign of Greece, is still accorded the title of "Queen" and style of Majesty, although her husband is now referred to at the Copenhagen (and other royal courts) as "King Constantine II" instead of as "The King of the Hellenes", which was his title when he still sat on the throne. The tradition of continuing to accord deposed royalty the same titles and rank as when they reigned is a very ancient tradition that goes back at least to the Crusades, when many Christians returned to Europe from the Near East having lost the kingdoms and principalities they had established there by conquest. That tradition was preserved and recorded in the pages of the Diplomats' Bible, the Almanach de Gotha when Napoleon deposed many old dynasties and erected his own in their place. Since the Almanach ceased publication in 1944, the tradition has been maintained by Europe's dynastic courts. FactStraight (talk) 06:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

2nd Divorce ?[edit]

If she divorces Ernst as speculated, will she lose the HRH title and will she still be known as princess of hanover? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.222.184 (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes if she divorce. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I am quite sure she will not. Catholic princesses should not divorce (TWICE)

Catholic princesses should not do plenty of the things she has done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.43.101 (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Style and Title[edit]

As she is HRH by marrige and HSH by birth, isn't she styled "Her Royal and Serene Highness" rather than "Her Royal Highness"?--Scn82 (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

no one? --Scn82 (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
No, Royal Highness always outranks Serene Highness and therefore it is the only one used. Surtsicna (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Grounds for annulment?[edit]

Anyone know exactly what the grounds for annulment of her first marriage were? And why they didn't occur to anyone before the event? Paul Magnussen (talk) 00:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Apparently, the marriage was not consummated. (whover was responsible for her 1st pregnancy(miscarriage)., it seems Mr. Junot was not. Quel surprise. This poor woman has had great difficulty keeping track of her pregnancies and who caused them.

Estranged Husband[edit]

For anyone who is interested, her estranged husband is NOT *the* heir male of George III of the United Kingdom; only of George III of Hanover, who happened to be the same person.

One of the reasons the British monarchy continued to survive when almost every other monarch was swept from the face of Europe in the early to mid-20th century, is that it has always been a purely statutory institution. British constitutional law, like English and Scottish constitutional law before it, has never agnatic succession rules.

Scotland, however, historically recognised matrilineal succession. Prior to the Stewart/Stuart succession, the monarch was always male but his eligiblity for the throne was determined by his mother's royal position, not by his paternal connexions. Thus, a king was succeeded first by his brothers (the other sons of his mother, as ranking princess royal), then his nephews (his sisters sons), then his cousins (his mother's sisters grandsons), then finally by his own sons or grandsons - assuming he married the princess royal who was in the right position in the ranking for that to happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.62.103 (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

(re-factoring this section to appear in proper chronological order) "heir male of George III" is not synonymous with "heir of George III": Elizabeth II is the rightful heir of George III in the succession to the British throne. "Heir male" is a genealogical term which specifically means "senior male by masculine primogeniture in the legitimate descent of George III". That's who Caroline's current husband is. FactStraight (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Queen of Hannover[edit]

in pretenses from 1999 to now wouldn't she have been Know in pretenses as the Queen Of Hannover Because she marry her husband who is in pretenses King of Hannover? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingOscarXIX (talkcontribs) 16:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

No, because the in pretense Duke of Brunswick and Luneburg ~(which her husband is also) is in pretense bound to his grandfathers recognition of Prussian sovereignty over Hanover, hence the grandfather stopping being in pretense King of Hanover. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Caroline, Princess of Hanover. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)