Jump to content

Talk:Princess Eugenie/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Top line

I agree with the removal of bold type, but the presence of two sets of brackets next to eachother is grammatically incorrect - separation with a semicolon doesn't lead to a dubious phrase - if we were to mean "born Eugenie Victoria..." that's what we'd write - "born Eugenie... Mountbatten-Windsor, 23 March..." -- DBD 12:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Royal Standard

She is 18, why does she not have a royal standard yet or arms? Her sister has them does she? Holtville (talk) 04:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Answered at the Wikiproject British Royalty page. But two things:
  1. This really isn't what WP is for; talk pages are for hashing out what to include and how to write articles, not for answering trivia questions.
  2. You could have waited more than 20 minutes before posting over there. Your phrasing of the question over there made it seem like you'd been waiting for months for an answer, and was somewhat demanding. Prince of Canada t | c 02:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Eugenie's arms

Eugenie has been granted arms as described in the article. The person who did the images for the arms of several royals is no longer active. If I knew how to do this stuff, I would, but I don't. I can be a little helpful: the image could be based on Beatrice's, here, but with the bees replaced by the thistles, of which there are some here. -Rrius (talk) 07:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do.. Prince of Canada t | c 07:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Well.. I made the file, but can't seem to upload... wtf. Prince of Canada t | c 08:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Position in Line of Succession

This will start changing sooner or later. Isn't it better to include a link to the official web page of the British Monarchy than having to correct the position all the time? http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/Successionandprecedence/Succession/Overview.aspx Q43 (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg

References to the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg are being added to multiple articles related to the Royal Family of the Commonwealth realms, and yet, not one reliable source has been provided. I yesterday began a discussion about this at Talk:House of Windsor#House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. Input there by interested parties would be appreciated. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Princess gone wild and busted

should have this part, at least it did happen.Derekjoe (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Derekjoe

She - reputedly - got drunk and swam in the ocean. Oh my god, shocking. Someone tell me that not all of Britain is this prudish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.187.131 (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

'Graduation'

This article makes reference to Eugenie's 'graduation.' She hasn't finished a degree yet, thus she hasn't graduated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.244.134 (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I would hazard a guess and say it was written by an American who doesn't realize that you don't 'graduate' (in any meaningful sense given you can leave school with or without a series of qualifications) from secondary school in the UK and most Commonwealth countries. It's simply sloppy writing, but does sound better than "finished" however.  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.55.62 (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No, a sloppy American wouldn't even bother with this nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.94.244 (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Eugenie2009 youngvictoria.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Eugenie2009 youngvictoria.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Eugenie2009 youngvictoria.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Pic?

Yes, pic plz! 85.227.226.168 17:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

More pics please? -Hans 190.18.161.219 (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

trade ambassador

Eugenie and Beatrice were at the Brandenberg Gate to drive a UK-themed car ss trade ambassadors for Britain. 74.69.11.229 (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Titles and styles, use of prose

In view of consensus favouring prose over a list format per WP:PROSE, especially when the list is not a list at all but a single item (per RfC: Bullet point in the Prince George "Title and style" section)[1] and edit[2] a similar format is in order here, per WikiProject British Royalty[3]. --Qexigator (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Christmas 2012

Princess Eugenie of York had the privilege of riding in the Bentley State Limousine with Her Majesty for Christmas service today. Should be filed under 'official duties'. 74.69.11.229 (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Rising in a motor car cannot be considered to be an official duty. Her Royal Highness is not listed as a working member of the Royal Family by Buckingham Palace and receives no emolument from the Privy Purse. She carries out engagements as a member of the Royal Family; she does not perform official duties.Strawbridge2017 (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

New Picture

Can we get a new picture, this one is a bit out of date. She's grown up since then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arg Matey (talk • contribs) 15:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

official duties and "working member"

These are redundant. A so-called "working member" of the Royal Family (used mostly to cover William and Kate's lack of work) by definition carries out official duties. Since Eugenie does not carry out "official duties," she is not a "working member," of the Family per se. 98.10.179.163 (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

engagement

Are she and Brooksbank actually engaged and where is the reliable source (like an announcement from Buckingham Palace)? She can't be "secretly" engaged or we wouldn't know about it. Either get a RS (like the Palace) or it should be removed as tabloid tittle tattle. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

British succession or not.

There is a discussion at Charles, Prince of Wales, relating to this article's intro. GoodDay (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Education

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

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

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

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

I think the problem with it is not reporting what Farr said but in saying she was offered a place because she was royal. The university claims it is usual practice for applicants with insufficient A-level grades for one course to be transferred into the admission stream for other courses with lower entry requirements, implying she was admitted because she met the entry requirements for the combined honours course but not the single honours one. Her application was treated identically to all other applicants and she was not given special favour. Like any other applicant she was rejected from a course for which her application was uncompetitive and offered a place on a course for which she met the academic requirements. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • If you were going to include it, you can't say "Eugenie was initially rejected" because that is not what the sources are saying. What they are saying is that during a speech to the anti-monarchist campaign group Republic’s annual convention, Dr Martin Farr claimed she was initial rejected and only accepted upon the realization that she was a royal, and his information is based on an unnamed colleague. That he said this is a fact. That it really happened is not a proven fact. Without qualifying it in this way, it is really a BLP violation, as the sources are about HIM saying it, not the accuracy of the claim. So a random professor talks to a bunch of people that don't like the monarchy and claims one got special treatment but won't provide his sources. No, I don't think that is worthy of inclusion in her article as he isn't an established reliable source for this kind of information, and I don't see any reliable source corroborating his story, they are just publishing the fact that he made this unproven claim. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude, certainly in WP voice, per Dennis Brown above, a lecturer says that a friend told him that he had heard from someone that etc. .... . Also, pedantically, an application is not 'rejected' until a firm decision is made (and rejection letter written/sent?), as neither appears to have happened, the most that could actually be said in this instance is that the application was initially put in the 'probably not' pile, until it was realised who she was. Also, pedantically the text: Eugenie was initially rejected from Newcastle University because her application to read English literature was allegedly deemed not sufficient, is borderline nonsense, it may have been that her qualifications were insufficient, or that her application was poorly written or inadequate in some way, but an application cannot be 'insufficient', unless what is meant is that it contained insufficient information upon which to base a decision. Pincrete (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude per Dennis Brown. We would need far more than one gossipy claim by one anti-monarchist activist reported by one source to include this tidbit in a BLP. Full disclose: I am an American and an anti-monarchist. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"engagements"

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

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

Protected edit request on 16 October 2018

Add a link to husbands Wikipedia. Richiepip (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

A good idea. The article is Jack Brooksbank. But the article here seems to be now under full protection. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Move protected for 3 days.

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

Thank you for your swift action. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, thank you indeed for your swift action preventing Martinevans123 from continuing their own unfounded agenda!2001:569:77E2:3900:9115:BBCD:ECF5:53FB (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Hmm... The BBC mentions nothing of which you speak... Oh, how odd!2001:569:77E2:3900:9115:BBCD:ECF5:53FB (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I was restoring to this version edited by User:Timrollpickering at 11:13 on 12 October 2018. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
So... What were you saying again?2001:569:77E2:3900:9115:BBCD:ECF5:53FB (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
So User:Amakuru doesn't understand Wikipedia policy yet feels he should be an admin. How unfortunate. Don't you agree, Dennis?2001:569:77E2:3900:9115:BBCD:ECF5:53FB (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Your editing suggests that you are just trolling here, not seeking consensus for the change. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't need consensus for the change because I'm not the one demanding a change! You are! Explain why you feel you should get your way... Please!2001:569:77E2:3900:9115:BBCD:ECF5:53FB (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Hmm... The BBC mentions nothing of which you speak... Oh, how odd!2001:569:77E2:3900:9115:BBCD:ECF5:53FB (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

IPv6 has been /64 range blocked for 2 further years. Note this is an LTA. -- ferret (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Title

Duplicate thread, "not very productive"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Could you provide one or more sources that support your belief? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Could you support one or more sources that support your belief that a change should be made? Oh... you can't. Because they don't exist. Way to be a page owner!2001:569:77E2:3900:9115:BBCD:ECF5:53FB (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Your editing suggests that you are just trolling here, not seeking consensus for the change. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't need consensus for the change because I'm not the one demanding a change! You are! Explain why you feel you should get your way... Please!2001:569:77E2:3900:9115:BBCD:ECF5:53FB (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps we should invite User:Timrollpickering to comment? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we should! I'm dying to find out what valid, third-party source he has for his policy! 2001:569:77E2:3900:9115:BBCD:ECF5:53FB (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Let's hope he arrives within the next three days, then. You seem to be revelling in some kind of battleground approach. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
YOU NEED THREE DAYS TO FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT (Personal attack removed)?! bahahaha!2001:569:77E2:3900:9115:BBCD:ECF5:53FB (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I think I'll leave you to your hysterical ranting for now. I'm not sure the personal attacks will do you any favours. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose re-adding honorific to article title per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Titles_of_people, which does not suggest honorifics in page titles. WP:BLP does not apply to titles. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 23:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It's right here. They updated Harry to reflect his "Duke of Sussex" title he received upon marriage and... Oh! Even after her marriage... Eugenie's still got "of York!"2605:8D80:404:3EC0:B903:5C46:67A0:AFA5 (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what added value this thread, ostensibly on same topic as the previous thread, actually has, except perhaps as a venue for anonymous IP ranting. So I propose hatting it off. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Article name

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

It has been moved back to Princess Eugenie now. Those who argue in favor of Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank, need to provide reliable sources, as well as those who believe the article should be titled Princess Eugenie "of York". The page cannot be moved without discussion, and if anyone wants to change the title, s/he needs to submit a move request. Keivan.fTalk 04:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@Prancer16: Regarding the question that you asked, the territorial designation gets dropped once a woman from the royal family gets married. An example would be Princess Alexandra, who was initially known as Princess Alexandra of Kent, then Princess Alexandra, Mrs Angus Ogilvy, and finally as Princess Alexandra, The Hon. Lady Ogilvy. Keivan.fTalk 04:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Says who? You? Care to provide a source for that please 'cause so it happened with Alexandra. Big whoop! Where's your proof it happened with Eugenie?2001:569:77E2:3900:9115:BBCD:ECF5:53FB (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Your editing suggests that you are just trolling here, not seeking consensus for the change. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Hmm... My editing actually suggests that I care about policies. Unlike you.2001:569:77E2:3900:9115:BBCD:ECF5:53FB (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
This comment just shows your WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:HYPOCRISY. You cherry-picked WP:BLP, which states All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. In other words, it only covers material challenged or likely to be challenged. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 23:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
This IP is an LTA, there's little point in engaging them. -- ferret (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I know that (so why did I do this)? Now that you say it, I think I'll WP:DTS here. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 00:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 Comment: Because it happened to Alexandra, it might be commonplace with others too. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 23:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It's right here. They updated Harry to reflect his "Duke of Sussex" title he received upon marriage and... Oh! Even after her marriage... Eugenie's still got "of York!"2605:8D80:404:3EC0:B903:5C46:67A0:AFA5 (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

You need to add a source into the actual article, not just your edit summary? But first you also need to get consensus. Other sources say other things. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Actually... No, I don't need to add a source anywhere because... Wait for it... Wait for it... Here it is: You guys never should have made the change in the first place! Why not? Because (contrary to what you just said...) there is not one single source anywhere stating she dropped the "of York" territorial designation upon marriage! Not one! None of you have ever provided proof that that happened! Ever! This is how Wikipedia works: in order for you to make a change... You have to prove your change isn't a lie by providing a source. None of you have ever done that. No one (not me nor anyone else) needs to prove that your unsourced and untrue changes are false (even though I have). Untrue and unsourced changes can and should be reverted. Either find a valid source stating she lost the "of York" territorial designation upon marriage or stop with your nonsense. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia and encyclopedias don't run on what you guys say you want things to be.2605:8D80:404:54F:9F9:561:BA33:41AC (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Readers find it useful to see sources for facts. It's also Wikipedia policy. Your last edit summary says "Uhm... Actually... I did source it and I also took it to talk page. You're welcome." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Ya! Right before this one where I sourced it but you lied and said I didn't. Guess you didn't find that Wikipedia policy to be very useful, huh?2605:8D80:403:4B75:818D:A9DC:82EE:64F2 (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
You're the editor who moved this article to ""Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank" on 14 October 2018? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Nope!2605:8D80:403:4B75:818D:A9DC:82EE:64F2 (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
So what are you aiming to achieve with your editing here? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm achieving fixing your unsourced lies. I've made that perfectly clear. Multiple times.2605:8D80:402:823F:C094:7CAD:9F3D:ED50 (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
You are edit warring. The article name is "Princess Eugenie" not "Princess Eugenie of York". If you wish to change the name of the article I suggest you open an WP:RM. Meanwhile, your added text, that Eugenie's proper title is "Princess Eugenie of York", is not being supported by any reliable source(s), which is contrary to Wikipedia's policy of Verifiability. You are also accusing other editors of adding "lies". Please stop. It's also not clear if you are multiple editors or if you are a single editor who is IP-hopping just to avoid WP:3RR. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
As for who it's "not clear about being multiple editors to avoid WP:3RR..." Uhm... This edit was made by an IP in Poland which is where you live. You then made this edit immediately afterwards. So... you deliberately logged out... edited from your IP... logged back in... and edited from your account while pretending you and your IP were not one and the same. But you are. So... who's editing from where to avoid what now?2605:8D80:401:1C62:7158:2F25:E191:CD43 (talk) 07:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I HAVE GIVEN YOU THIS SOURCE MULTIPLE TIMES NOW!2605:8D80:402:823F:C094:7CAD:9F3D:ED50 (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
...and I'm not avoiding anything.2605:8D80:402:823F:C094:7CAD:9F3D:ED50 (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Sources need to be added, after the actual material that they support, in the article itself, not just in edit summaries or on Talk pages, although I have to remind you of this despite your repeated claims that "no sources are needed" since you are simply restoring material that was unsourced to begin with. Also, could you please STOP SHOUTING. I'd also suggest that your increasingly unreasonable belligerent attitude and personal attacks will not really help your case here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
This not a personal attack... This is a FACT! YOU ARE FREAKING STUPID! I have not "restored anything that was unsourced to begin with!" Not once! I've only ever restored "of York" which has been sourced since the second she was born! The only one re-adding unsourced garbage is you! I have provided a source. MULTIPLE TIMES! I've even told you I've done it multiple times! When you and your little buddies are making up crap to say that one plus one equals three without ever proving it with anything (and then lying by saying you have even though you haven't)... I don't need to source an article when changing one plus one back to the two it never should have been changed from in the first place. Don't tell me to stop shouting. I've been saying the same thing over and over and over again to you but you just don't understand. You need to be shouted at. You also need to stop editing an encyclopedia. You're only suited for colouring books. Wow.2605:8D80:401:1C62:1DF9:988:7EA4:C6C2 (talk) 05:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I would imagine that Royal titles change over time and are not set in stone at birth. Since yesterday we have faced edits from at least six different IPs which geolocate to Rogers Wireless in Vancouver, British Columbia. I wonder could you now confirm that these are all from a single editor, i.e. you? I also wonder if you could furnish us all with a diff of where I have been "adding unsourced garbage"? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Still awaiting a response. Number 7 now seems to have arrived. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ferret:@Dennis Brown: I think this very unpleasant IP is the same editor from the #Move protected for 3 days. section, and so is probably evading a current block. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

S/he is certainly unpleasant, but does have a point. Based on precedent one would have expected Princess Eugenie to have become "Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank" as with Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Phillips in 1973 and Princess Alexandra, The Hon. Mrs Angus Ogilvy in 1963. But that is a rather archaic style these days, and there doesn't seem to be any indication yet that Princess Eugenie has adopted it (other than wearing a biker jacket). On the other hand, there is no indication that she has dropped the territorial designation either, and as the anonymous poster has pointed out, the royal.uk website still calls her "Princess Eugenie of York". Opera hat (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Are we all agreed, then? The royal.uk website is the only source that matters. And should be added to the article in support of the title "Princess Eugenie of York". Once that's done, perhaps we can quickly move the name of the article to follow suit? The overbearing Canadian IP can then go away again. Job done? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
This page should be changed back to Princess Eugenie of York since that's her name and always has been.2605:8D80:403:1303:A8F4:15C:41DC:43F4 (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: I would have thought the present title is the best one. It satisfies WP:CONCISE if nothing else.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
No objection. But it doesn't match the current name of the article for her sister. Is this because Eugenie is now married? Of course that article name could also be changed, as there is no other article with that exact name, only the DAB page Princess Beatrice (disambiguation). The official name, as given in the article (with at least one reliable source) could differ, I suppose. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC
The Princess Beatruce of York page should not be changed since that's her name.2605:8D80:403:1303:A8F4:15C:41DC:43F4 (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
And Tony Blair's name is "Anthony Charles Lynton Blair". But we don't call him that.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Ha! He's not even a Royal. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Sure. But the IP (who is allegedly the same person as the one serving a 2-year ban) claimed that we should not move the article because that's her name. Yet a lot of people have a lot of names that we don't use, so that's really a non-argument. Prince Harry was just called Prince Harry for many years, even though perhaps his real name was "Prince Henry of Wales" or somesuch.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
So now you're just making up whole new policies? Territorial designations should just be dropped from every page because you say so?2605:8D80:403:1303:A8F4:15C:41DC:43F4 (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Are you the same person as the one serving a 2-year ban for previous disruption? I think we deserve to know. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, alright then. I agree with you 100%. And I'm sure Henry Ogus would also agree with you. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
They're all me. I've never denied that and there's no policy stating it can't happen. You need to re-read that.2605:8D80:401:1C62:AC88:2E2C:5DDC:ACD9 (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
We need to re-read what? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 21 November 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus. See strong policy-based arguments below from supporters and opposers and yet, no agreement that this article should reside at its new name. In this case, the article title will revert to its long-term, stable title, Princess Eugenie of York. Kudos to editors for your suggestions, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  18:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Princess Eugenie → Princess Eugenie of York – There is, as yet, no reason to suppose her title has changed following her marriage.

  • Googling "Mrs Jack Brooksbank" only brings up press speculation as to what her title would be after marrying. This was a reasonable enough prediction, given the examples of Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Phillips in 1973 and Princess Alexandra, The Hon. Mrs Angus Ogilvy in 1963. However, the form "Mrs [Husband's Christian name] [Husband's surname]" is very old-fashioned these days, and many women choose not to adopt their husband's name at all. As far as we can tell, there is no evidence that Princess Eugenie has done so. When a woman does not adopt a married name, she keeps her maiden name, in this case "Princess Eugenie of York".
  • Some contributors seem to be of the impression that "of York" should be removed purely because she is married: User:Keivan.f asserted on this talk page that "the territorial designation gets dropped once a woman from the royal family gets married", and User:Timrollpickering moved the article to its current title on the grounds that she "drops house on marriage". Where has this idea come from? There have only been two previous instances when a daughter of a younger son of the Sovereign has married a man who did not already have a royal or noble title: when Princess Patricia of Connaught married the Hon. Alexander Ramsay in 1919, and when Princess Alexandra of Kent married the Hon. Angus Ogilvy in 1963. In the first case, Princess Patricia dropped her royal style altogether and became "Lady Patricia Ramsay" by royal warrant ("No. 31203". The London Gazette. 26 February 1919. p. 2819.). In the second, Princess Alexandra became "Princess Alexandra, The Hon. Mrs Angus Ogilvy" as noted above ("The Hon. Lady Ogilvy" after he was knighted in 1997). Even if there had been any consistency in these cases (and there is not), to try and extrapolate a precedent to be applied to Princess Eugenie would be WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. And on both occasions, the only need for a change was because they were adopting their husband's name, which Princess Eugenie appears not to have done, v.s.
  • Most tellingly, "Princess Eugenie of York" is the style that continues to be used on the official website of the royal family. The release of the wedding photographs on 13 October (the day after the wedding) reads "Her Royal Highness Princess Eugenie of York and Mr Jack Brooksbank have released four official photographs from their Wedding day." Compare the Duchesses of Cambridge and Sussex, who have been styled as such in all communications ever since they walked out of the church. And in the published order of succession, no. 9 is still "Princess Eugenie of York".
  • The proposed title maintains WP:CONSISTENCY with other articles in Category:British princesses. Opera hat (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Articles should be at their commonest, most concise, unambiguous name. She's the only Princess Eugenie that pops up in google searches[4] and is the primary topic on wikipedia by page views[5] She's called Princess Eugenie at her own website[6]. The full official name, even if we knew what it is, is unnecessary. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
You have a point, but would you support moves to Princess Beatrice, Princess Anne, Prince Andrew, Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince Harry and Princess Margaret? Also the commonest, most concise names, and the primary topics. WP:Consistency in article titles#Field-specific conventions specifically states that articles on members of royal families need not be at the most concise title, to maintain consistency across similar articles. Opera hat (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm. Good point. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I think not too. I was suggesting that the fact a person is living may influence how often they are searched for in an encyclopedia. That will never be the only factor, obviously. In the current case I'm suggesting that other two notable individuals, who have similar names, and who appear at the top of the article, look to me to be less notable as the objects of topical interest. That may change in future, I suppose. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I am just about to!
WP:COMMONNAME is a totally fair argument, though it does emphasise that all five article criteria should be considered, which includes WP:CONSISTENCY. The current article title is not consistent.
WP:CONCISE is not relevant here: it states that "Exceptions exist for biographical articles. […] See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)." WP:NCP#Scope of this guideline says "Article titles for certain groups of people are dealt with on more specialized guideline pages. See: […] Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)". And WP:NCROY#Other royals gives us "Use "Prince(ss) {first name} of ..." where a prince/ss has a territorial suffix by virtue of their parent's title, e.g. Princess Beatrice of York". Why do you think it is not at all clear that Eugenie is still officially "of York" when the official royal family website is still calling her that more than a month after her wedding?
Prince Harry was an unusual case in that he was known near-universally by a name different to his formal style of Prince Henry of Wales, and the previous article title of "Prince Harry of Wales" was an unhappy hybrid of the two forms. There is no such conflict with Princess Eugenie and no need to make an exception to the naming conventions for her. Opera hat (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Like any other married woman, she would have stopped using her father's name (York) if she had taken her husband's (Brooksbank). But even that rule is barely used for other Wikipedia articles: against Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy (née of Kent) and Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone (née of Albany) you have Princess Margaret of Connaught (Crown Princess of Sweden), Princess Patricia of Connaught (Lady Patricia Ramsay), Princess Alexandra, 2nd Duchess of Fife (Princess Arthur of Connaught), Princess Augusta of Cambridge (Grand Duchess of Mecklenburg) and Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge (Duchess of Teck). Opera hat (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Indeed there is inconsistency among these bio articles. I'm content with either title for this article. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support for consistency with her sister's article title. The ritualized nature of royal titles argues for a greater degree of consistency than among other topics. Powers T 14:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Title upon marriage

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

By analogy to Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy, presumably she will be HRH Princess Eugenie, The Honourable Mrs. Jack Brooksbank, unless and until her husband is knighted, in which case she would be HRH Princess Eugenie, The Honourable Lady Brooksbank. Right? Neutron (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
No, Alexandra's husband was a younger son of an earl. Eugenie could be HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs Brooksbank (compare with Princess Anne). Surtsicna (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Surtsicna is right. Angus Ogilvy's father was an earl, so he had held the prefix "The Honourable" since his birth. Brooksbank, however, is not from a noble family, thus even if he gets knighted, Eugenie will be known as "Princess Eugenie, Lady Brooksbank", without the prefix "The Honourable". Keivan.fTalk 21:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
"The Honourable Lady XXXX" is standard for the wives of knights and baronets. Noble fathers-in-law are not required. Princess Eugenie, Mrs Brooksbank strikes me as the most likely option, though the presence of "Mrs" in an article title does not fit comfortably into Wikipedia's normal conventions. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone know if Jack Brooksbank will get an earldom from the Queen? She seems to have made it tradition to offer an earldom to non-royal men who marry princesses of the blood (sure, they don't always accept, but she still offers it), but there's been no mention or speculation of that which is a bit surprising to me. Doxedevenexia (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Her title and style come from her being the daughter of a royal duke. Using that title (derived from her father), and then also using the courtesy title for a daughter of a non-royal duke (which her father is not), does not seem to be correct. The princely title acts in the same way the courtesy title of "Lady" acts, considering that she does not lose her title upon marriage, so "Princess Eugenie, Lady Eugenie Brooksbank" is redundant not only literally but also in terms of courtesy titles, since the title of princess already stems from her father, so "lady" does not apply. I suppose we'll see what official correspondence refers to her as, considering they would take their cues from royal officials. Doxedevenexia (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
It is worth pointing out that Princess Eugenie's royal title of HRH is not derived from the fact that she is the daughter of a Royal duke. Princess Eugenie is a royal princess in her own right. This is because she is the daughter of a son of the Sovereign, and as such is accorded princely status in her own right. Consequently, Princess Eugenie is accorded the Type 4 Princely coronet for grandchildren of the Sovereign through the male line. To illustrate this principle further, the two daughters of the HRH The Duke of Gloucester are daughters of a Royal duke, but they are not accorded Princely status, simply because they are one generation further removed from the Crown as directed by the Royal warrant issued by King George V in 1917.Ds1994 (talk) 07:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Right, I was trying to point out why the point about "Princess Eugenie, Lady Eugenie Brooksbank" didn't work, but I guess I didn't explain myself well enough. Doxedevenexia (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
She can be Mrs, just as Princess Alexandra was HRH Princess Alexandra, The Hon Mrs Ogilvy, before her husband was knighted. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
What is this, a forum? Her marital title will be announced in due course and we can wait until then. DBD 10:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
People are speculating and asking questions... Obviously not a forum. Doxedevenexia (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Correct me if I'm wrong, but she is a princess in her own right as a male-line granddaughter of the reigning British monarch. She is styled Princess Eugenie of York, but she is a Princess of the United Kingdom. Piratesswoop (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
You are correct. Princess Eugenie is a Princess of the United Kingdom in her own right, in accordance with the Letters Patent issued by King George V in 1917. The previous comment is completely wrong and the 'contributor' (I use that term loosely) is a complete idiot.Ds1994 (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

It's right here. They updated Harry to reflect his "Duke of Sussex" title he received upon marriage and... Oh! Even after her marriage... Eugenie's still got "of York!"2605:8D80:404:3EC0:B903:5C46:67A0:AFA5 (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

That's just "The line of Succession". The source doesn't confirm that those are all formal Royal titles. In fact, I'm pretty sure they're not. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Even after her wedding, she is still known as "Her Royal Highness Princess Eugenie of York": see here at www.royal.uk ("Official photographs released from Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank's wedding"). -- Blairall (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2018

Her title/style of address changed when she married - we should remove the "of York" at the bottom of the page as she is now HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs Brooksbank (or just HRH Princess Eugenie for simplicity). Volundrbean (talk) 10:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC) Volundrbean (talk) 10:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Even after her wedding, she is still known as "Her Royal Highness Princess Eugenie of York": see here at www.royal.uk ("Official photographs released from Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank's wedding"). -- Blairall (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The Court Circular of 29 May 2019 identifies Princess Eugenie as 'Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank'. https://www.royal.uk/court-circular?text=&mrf=&date%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=12%2F05%2F2019&date%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=1%2F06%2F2019&id= — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:F017:D600:A924:A6F0:EAA8:724C (talk) 07:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank

She is referred to as Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank in the Court Circular. Kowalmistrz (talk) 07:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

This change seems to be in the news: [7], [8], [9] Martinevans123 (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
You're a week late: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Princess_Eugenie_of_York&diff=900092057&oldid=899632123. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh tish. I blame the late delivery of my copy of Hello! magazine. But just to clarify Celia, (and to avoid more pointless new threads here), that title style is wholly optional (i.e. "she may be styled") and need not appear anywhere else in this article? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I presume it's optional because sometimes she's called Princess Eugenie, just as the Court Circular sometimes says 'Princess Alexandra, the Hon Lady Ogilvy' and sometimes says 'Princess Alexandra'. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I see, thanks. Any view on whether this article needs any further change? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
That's difficult to answer when no-one has proposed a change. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I meant just on this topic, not in general. But of course. Perhaps I was assuming that eventually someone would want to add that title into the opening sentence. We'll just have to wait and see. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 20 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. In addition, there is no consensus in the current discussion to move the page to Princess Eugenie, but that possibility could be revisited in the future. Dekimasuよ! 15:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Princess Eugenie of York → Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank – When this topic was discussed back in November 2018, there was no reliable source available to show what her official title is. Now it turns out that in in the Court Circular she's referred to as "Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank", meaning that she's not technically Princess Eugenie "of York" anymore. This type of title is not uncommon in the royal families. Eugenie's aunt Princess Anne was known as Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Phillips before becoming the Princess Royal. Other examples in the British royal family and other royal families include Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy (who was Princess Alexandra of Kent before marriage and then Princess Alexandra, Mrs Angus Ogilvy), Princess Margaretha, Mrs. Ambler, Princess Christina, Mrs. Magnuson, etc. Keivan.fTalk 05:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Looks stupid. “Technical” is a reason to avoid. This is not a serious proposal without listing some sources calling her this. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Articles should be at their commonest unambiguous name. There was little to no support for my suggestion of 'Princess Eugenie' in the previous requested move, and 'of York' still remains the more common name of the two longer alternatives: 120 news hits for Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank 6,000 for Princess Eugenie of York. We should also be mindful that times have moved on. Women are no longer defined by their husbands. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as suggested, but perhaps, as a compromise, we could move the article to "Princess Eugenie" instead, since she no longer uses her territorial designation after marriage. That title already redirects to this article and would probably be more accurate as well. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Whatever the outcome, there is currently a difference between the title of the article and the opening sentence. But perhaps this doesn't matter? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not her common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Ridiculous. This is not her common name. Also I believe the name used should be consistent JamesVilla44 (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment As a reminder, this is not a place to simply vote, you need to argue in favor of your position. So all of a sudden everyone cares about the Common Name policy? Isn't the Duchess of Cambridge's common name Kate Middleton? Not to mention that Diana is also commonly known as Princess Diana, not Diana, Princess of Wales. Examples outside royalty include Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis who is commonly known as Jackie Kennedy. As you can see, common name is not necessarily the best choice, especially for royal or political figures that heavily follow traditions. User:Ravenpuff suggested moving the article to Princess Eugenie, which would at least be a better choice compared to the article's current title, which is technically wrong. Keivan.fTalk 02:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Maybe the Swedes have some special dispensation in the archaic sexist name construction department? Except I suspect they are each wholly unaware of these peculiar English stylings, both of which appear to be wholly unsourced at their respective articles? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

From what I know of Wikipedia, it is common to revert a female royal's name (at least in the British royal family) back to their maiden one when they are deceased; ex: Alexandra of Denmark (she died titled as Queen Alexandra and officially the Queen Dowager), Mary of Teck (died titled as Queen Mary and officially a queen dowager) and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (commonly known as Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother). Since Princess Eugenie is not deceased yet thankfully and she is Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank, like her cousin, Princess Alexandra the Honorable Lady Ogilvy (because her late husband was Sir Angus Ogilvy) I think Princess Eugenie's page should be titled as such, whether it is cumbersome or not. "Princess Eugenie<' would only be appropriate if she were the daughter of the Queen; Wikipedia was not around when the Princess Royal was known solely as Princess Anne but if it had, she should have been. Princess Eugenie is not simply "Princess Eugenie" because of her marginal position in the royal family and styling her as such could imply she is, which she isn't, so we shouldn't. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

At the moment she is neither Princess Eugenie "of York" nor "The" Princess Eugenie (as she's not the daughter of the monarch). However, since everyone opposes the idea of having her husband's surname in the title, Princess Eugenie would be the only appropriate option left for future discussions about this article's title. Keivan.fTalk 03:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
You could get it over and done with? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 20 December 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page as requested at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 11:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Princess Eugenie of York → Princess Eugenie – As per the previous move discussion on this page, "Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank" was ruled out by consensus for being archaic or sexist. However, the possibility of a future discussion for simply "Princess Eugenie" was left open, which is the intention of this requested move. Now that she is married, Eugenie doesn't take her father's territorial designation ("of York"), which has been supplanted by her husband's surname; thus, the current title is technically outdated and incorrect. Moreover, "Princess Eugenie" already redirects to this same article, so no further disambiguation is required, in my opinion. Note that, while this would be inconsistent with her sister's article (Princess Beatrice of York), it would still be justified, as Beatrice is unmarried and thus still retains "of York" as part of her name. If she marries, her article should likewise be renamed to simply Princess Beatrice. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 08:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose Only because it is only a few weeks after the last request, "in the future" should be a bit longer. MilborneOne (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support It doesn't matter how recent the last request was if the page name is wrong. A logical and persuasive case has been made for the move. Richard75 (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2019‎ (UTC)
  • Support. Articles should be at their commonest, most concise, unambiguous name. She's the only Princess Eugenie that pops up in google searches[10] and is the primary topic on wikipedia by page views[11] She's called Princess Eugenie at her own website[12]. Celia Homeford (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Royalty is weird because the naming scheme oscillates between (1) the rules at WP:NCROY (prioritising consistency and accuracy at the cost of throwing up some unnatural individual results) and (2) WP:COMMONNAME (which generates less surprising individual results, at the cost of creating inconsistency and maybe some confusion overall) depending on the local consensus. However, this is an easy case: "of York" is no longer accurate or consistent, was never part of her common name, is mildly misleading, and is no longer used by her family's official record (WP:SPNC). As there's no need for disambiguation (she's the primary topic for Princess Eugenie), get rid of it. Charlie A. (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Royalty is weird. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

“Princess” Eugenie in running text

Regarding this:

  1. It’s reverted back to inconsistent usage in the article - sometimes “Princess” is included sometimes it isn’t
  2. Of course MOS:HONORIFIC applies. It discusses “styles” and “titles” in the section’s text.
  3. HONORIFIC says the honorifics or styles are “not usually used in running text, though some may be appropriate in the lead sentence of a biographical article, as detailed below, or in a section about the person's titles and styles.” This is why SURNAME says “Charles or Prince Charles” - to allow for the opening sentence or a styles section.
  4. Why is Eugenie an exception that doesn’t apply to the rest of the royal famly not even the articles on Elizabeth II or Charles, Prince of Wales where they are referred to as Elizabeth and Charles?

DeCausa (talk) 06:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

"Husband of Jack Brooksbank"

Uh, the opening sentence appears to say she is the "husband of Jack Brooksbank". What gives? Muzilon (talk) 08:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

An IP editor made a mistake or vandalised the page. Now fixed. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Princess_Eugenie/Archive_1&oldid=1159865215"