Talk:Princess Margaret of Connaught

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Margaret of Connaught)
Jump to: navigation, search


Untitled[edit]

Out of curiosity, why isn't this at Princess Margaret of Connaught? Margaret died before her husband became king, so she can't be put as though she were queen-consort. Shouldn't this go at Princess Margaret of Connaught the way her daughter-in-law is still at Princess Sibylla of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha? Morhange 19:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I never thought about that. But you are right, she was only ever a Crown Princess of Sweden. I would probably suggest a move on WP:RM, only because these royal articles tend to be a bit touchier to move than others, better to cover all the bases. Smiley.png Prsgoddess187 20:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 09:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

Margaret of ConnaughtPrincess Margaret of Connaught – Margaret died before her husband became king, so she was not a queen-consort. Her daughter-in-law did not become queen either, and she is still listed as Princess Sibylla of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

Survey[edit]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support, see comment below. -- Jao 22:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Wikipedia naming conventions do not have a special form for crown princesses who never became queens or empresses. They are to be treated as regular royals. Charles 21:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Following NCs. FearÉIREANNIreland-Capitals.PNG\(caint) 01:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per NCs. Smiley.png Prsgoddess187 02:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is not NC, and it leads to untenable situation. So-called historical naming of dynastical wifes, used in all respectable works of eference, treat also these as such and "princess" does not belong to that format. There is a Maud of Wales, so there can be a Margaret of Connaught - the "princess" is not necessary from that argument either. ObRoy 20:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The reason there is no 'Princess' in front of the name of Maud of Wales is because Maud was a queen-consort; Margaret was not, therefore she needs the Princess in front of her name and title as per the NC. Morhange 02:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: ObRoy (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has been engaged in widespread canvassing of users to explicitly influence the vote here. His behaviour has been reported on the WP:ANI page. FearÉIREANNIreland-Capitals.PNG\(caint) 22:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments
  • It was moved here on May 2 with the rationale "crown prince consort". I can't find any specific guidelines on crown prince consorts in the naming conventions, though, and if this article should have a consort-style title I would be quite unsure about what it should be, perhaps Margaret of the United Kingdom (she is sometimes referred to as Margareta av Storbritannien in Swedish). Under all circumstances, "Princess Margaret of Connaught" is a courtesy title that you can't really remove a word from. The most clear-cut way out is to keep it with the "Princess" even if crown prince consorts should be treated differently, which is an issue I won't discuss. (By the way, Sibylla was never even crown princess, so the cases are different.) -- Jao 22:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The precedent on WP so far has been to treat crown princesses who never became queens as all other "regular" royals. There is no problem with simply moving it, just cite the WP naming conventions on consorts and how she does not fall within it. Charles 21:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
This proposal leads to impractical situation. It is too much sophistry to make differences between "she never became queen"... The historical naming usage, in very general use in respectable works of reference, calls these women with format "firstnames + of + countryname" - which is NOT how they were officially or legally titled or used when alive. That general usage should be followed and not to make any sort of sophistry (and wikipedia-own-rules) regarding just these. The usage of the approx thousand-year-long European culture of prevalence of dynastical marriages, the format I explained of, is generally used - and Wikipedia-specific exceptions to it would just gather laughs and lead to loss of credibility. A couple of centuries back, and the titles some people are now trying to put to prefix these dames, were not existent. There will be a huge problem of "princesses" of whom princess was never used, if this application proposed above gets approved. Some people do not think further than to their own favorite royals of 20th and 19th century, and seem to be eager to put (honoring and elevating) titles to them, even creating exceptions as above. I note that above, there are opinions of only such editors who do work with recent royals and presumably do not even know what titles were in use in, say, 15th century. Everyone should comprehend the larger picture: if a wife who did not become queen, shall be prefixed by princess here, then the same praxis will be applied to similarly-situated women of eras three or more centuries earlier. And that leads to bullshit. If Margaret here must have princess, then Anna of Brandenburg, wife of the future Frederick I of Denmark and mother of a future king too, will suddenly find herself a Princess Anna of Brandenburg, when there are no shred of evidence that they ever were accorded such title; same with: Anna Maria of the Palatinate, first wife of the future Charles IX of Sweden; and Ingeborg Knutsdotter, wife of Erik, son of Valdemar I of Sweden - and she certainly was not a princess by birth even. These are just a few Sweden-linked examples, but a much larger crowd all around Europe is waiting for the proposed principle to show a failure. ObRoy 20:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
While CP Margaret may be one of my favourite royals, I am in no way doing this for that reason. Margaret was not a queen-consort, so, like I said earlier, should be put under her birth title. Besides, looking at Anna of Brandenburg's page, it looks like she did become queen, so there's no need to put her at Princess (or really, Margravine) Anna at all. Morhange 02:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Morhange: it requires evidence from you that Anna was ever a Queen. According to history as we know it in real world, she died before her husband became king, and he even remarried. In order to influence the discussion here, the hint that she was queen is reprehensible, as it is impossible to back it up. Do you have contrary evidence? Where was she a queen, and of what? ObRoy 11:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to show the results of usual naming using the practice prevalent in respectable works of reference: Editors of otherlanguage-wikipedias have not fiddled any honorific to prefix her name, she is there: de:Sibylla von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha, sv:Sibylla av Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha. And we know that it is so in English usage too. I find it reprehensible that some people go arounf prefixing titles to deceased women against the usage in works of reference. And this woman: de:Margaret von Connaught, nl:Margaretha van Connaught, no:Margaret av Connaught, sv:Margaret av Connaught ObRoy 21:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong as usual. The other Wikipedia links, as elsewhere, were based on the name used on this article. That name was wrong and contrary to the naming conventions. As is normal they will be changed to match the moved name. FearÉIREANNIreland-Capitals.PNG\(caint) 21:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Could you prsent further evidence in support of your opinion that the name was loaned from here, since it seems to me at the edit history that this article was always Princess Margaret of Connaught until this got moved to the version wihout that "princess" just a couple of weeks ago. From that fact, it seems tad unbelivable that all other wikipedias loaned the name from here and all of them decided to drop "princess"... (No surprise that the person who is very often wrong, cries aloud that others are wrong) ObRoy 21:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be disagreement both over how the conventions should read and how they should be interpreted. I left a note at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). -- Jao 21:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The rule is quite simple.
  • A consort to a reigning monarch reverts to a version of her maiden name that reflects her former consort status by following the same construction as their reigning spouse. Reigning monarchs on WP are referred to as <name> <ordinal if one> of <country>. Spouses, on WP and throughout history books also are referred to as <name> of <title> (hence history books refer to Catherine of Aragon, not Princess Catherine of Aragon, etc.)
  • Consorts of non-monarchs use their pre-marital title in full, to distinguish them from consorts. So, for example if there were two Catherines of Aragon, one who became a queen and one who did not, the queen would be referred to as Catherine of Aragon and the non-queen Princess Catherine of Aragon, with the title making clear that the latter was never a queen.

In the case here, Margaret was married to a crown prince, not a king. After her death he became a king. As he was not a king in her lifetime she was never queen, therefore never a queen consort. As a result she cannot be named in the format applicable to deceased queen consorts. The title here, Margaret of Connaught would only be correct if she had been Swedish queen. She never was, therefore it is wrong. As she was merely the wife of a crown prince, the standard format to use is Princess Margaret of Connaught. ObRoy seems to want to have his own makey-uppy names. That is not an option. We all follow the Naming Conventions which deal with the names of articles. Under the naming conventions the rules are clear.

  • spouse of a reigning monarch — no title before name in maiden name/title.
  • not a spouse of a reigning monarch — a title before name in maiden name/title. FearÉIREANNIreland-Capitals.PNG\(caint) 04:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Citations[edit]

This articles needs cited works. I'll bet you can source a lot of this information from two books: one by Jesus Ibarra and another by Scott Harewood. --Ashley Rovira 12:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Margareta or Margaretha?[edit]

The article mentions that the Swedish version of her name is Margareta; however, the other Swedish Margarets are located at Princess Margaretha of Sweden and Princess Margaretha, Mrs. Ambler. Why is her Swedish name listed as Margareta? Morhange 00:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the spelling? Back in the time when Margaret married Gustaf, the popular spelling of the swedish version of Margaret, Margaretha, was Margareta without a H. So the reason why her name Margareta was spelled without a H, is simply because that was the popular way of spelling it back then, while nowadays the popular spelling is Margaretha with a H.

Not quite so actually. The Crown Princess herself chose this particular spelling, which always has been more common in Sweden than the th version. The phonetic implications tend to be rather obvious, don't they? How her Swedish name would do in English in either spelling? I think she made the right choice. Her pen name (published at least one book through Norstedts) was Margareta, Kronprinsessa av Sverige. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Princess Margaret of Connaught and Strathearn[edit]

If her father held only one dukedom called Dukedom of Connaught and Strathearn and the title of Duke of Connaught and Strathearn (not Duke of Connaught and Duke of Strathearn), then why wasn't she styled HRH Princess Margaret of Connaught and Strathearn? Surtsicna (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

But Connaught and Strathearn were two separate dukedoms, weren't they? Anyone who holds two dukedoms is styled "Duke of X and Y", that doesn't mean "X and Y" has become a single dukedom. Strathearn is definitely a little special as it has never been held as someone's "first" dukedom, but I still think it's to be considered a dukedom in its own right. Are there any reasons to believe otherwise? -- Jao (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
"It was one Dukedom, and all other "double" Royal Dukedoms of that period were also "Duke of X and Y" rather than "Duke of X" and "Duke of Y"." As I understood, it was only one dukedom called Connaught and Strathearn. See Talk:Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale#Number of dukedoms?. Surtsicna (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the link. Proteus usually checks his facts thoroughly. Then I assume it's just a simplifying abbreviation; I noticed Queen Victoria, in the same situation, was known simply as "of Kent". -- Jao (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
You're right, Victoria was in the same situation and she was simply of Kent. Too bad they didn't stick to double-dukedom-thing with the children's territorial designation too. By the way, Proteus usually checks her facts thoroughly ;) Surtsicna (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I should really stop assuming people's genders. -- Jao (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Princess Margaret of Sweden and the United Kingdom[edit]

Since Princess Margaret remained a princess of the United Kingdom, could she be known as Princess Margaret of Sweden and the United Kingdom ?161.24.19.112 (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Bold title[edit]

It is my opinion that it is appropriate to bold her higher title as Crown Princess of Sweden in the lede in this case, because readers will need to be clear about that distinction of this princess of Connaught already at the outset. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

But they are clear about it. It says that she was "Crown Princess of Sweden". Bolding that does not make any more sense than bolding "President of the United States" or "Queen of the United Kingdom". Surtsicna (talk) 07:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Why do you revert without discussing?
This is not such a case at all. She was hardly known to anyone as Princess of Connaught nor even as Margaret of Connaught though that's the article's name. She was a British princess who became Crown Princess of Sweden. If that (unfortunately) is not clear in the article's name, it needs to be maximally clear, by using bold type, in the lede. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
You are reverting without discussing, SergeWoodzing, and you would have known that you are supposed to gain consensus if you had read WP:BRD (as suggested). Anyway, I agree that she was never known as "Princess of Connaught". No such title has ever existed. Margaret was a Princess of the United Kingdom known as "Princess Margaret of Connaught" due to her father's dukedom. Needless to repeat that she is indeed best known by her maiden name and title, as a vast majority of women in history are. You have made it clear that you disapprove of this fact, but your disapproval does not make it any less a fact. The phrase "Crown Princess of Sweden" does not match any of the boldface criteria listed in the Manual of Style, and (as noted earlier) such phrases are not normally bolded. There is simply no need for that – that is literally the first thing said about her. Surtsicna (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
After thís discussion on the talk page had been started and referred to in an edit summary you, not I, reverted without using the talk page, which is known on WP as without discussing. You gave me an order in the edit summary, with is not known as discussing. Since then I have not reverted at all. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Writing a sentence on the talk page does not give you the right to restore clearly contentious edits against years long consensus. Again, you refuse to read WP:BRD – or perhaps you are deliberately ignoring it. Surtsicna (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I did not "restore" anything after starting the discussion here. It would be nice if you'd stop inferring that I have broken any rules here. You, not I ignored the discussion and reverted.
I'm not as WP:Dogmatic (should be a huge page!) as you seem to be when it comes to name formatting which I find illogical. I believe more in WP:Common sense --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. Everyone can see that you did not follow WP:BRD – which is not such a big deal, but should not be denied when it is plain and obvious. And yes, throughout the years I have come to understand your "common sense". Unfortunately for me (because I have to engage in petty disputes) and obviously for you, that "common sense" is more often than not in outright contradiction with basic principles of Wikipedia, such as WP:V. Surtsicna (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:3O[edit]

Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request:
Reading both sides of the argument, I conclude "Crown Princess of Sweden" should be in bold. Per the WP:BOLDTITLE and mainly the WP:R#PLA, it turns out that "Margaret, Crown Princess of Sweden" is an already-existing redirect (there are a few more, see what links here). A reader brought to this article through this link needs to be aware that they are on the right page--the Principal of Least Astonishment. The guideline does mention that all possible alternative title redirects need to be bolded for this reason.

However, aesthetically speaking, I would advise to keep in mind that excessively bolding short lead statements/paras often makes it too confusing for the readers; try to rearrange the lead for better clarity/readability if it gets too cluttered. - Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hockey[edit]

It says in the article she liked to play hockey. What kind of hockey did she play? Since it was in the winter time and in Sweden, I suppose it was either ice hockey or hockey on the ice (the latter nowadays called bandy) and not field hockey. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 20:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I seem to remember it was Ice hockey, yes!--Aciram (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
No, at the time, 'hockey' meant the sport which is now called bandy. The crown princess actually had her own bandy club called sv:Kronprinsessans Hockeyklubb in the 1910s. Ice hockey wasn't played at all in Sweden before the 1920s. Skogsvandraren (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Then I remembered wrong, it seems! I am very glad it was corrected! --Aciram (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)