Talk:Princess Augusta Wilhelmine of Hesse-Darmstadt

message: Her father was not a landgrave, as he was the second son and his elder brother held the title was passed down his line. It is custom the second sons are prince and his issue are title princes and princesses. Just check the German Wikipedia version of this article.  Spencer creek woods (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All the children of landgraves were landgraves and landgravines. It is based on the principle that the children of a German noble share his titles. It is not custom that the second sons are princes, it is an informality stemming from the fact that the oldest usually became "the" Landgrave, an unusual title in English. For this reason, I am reverting. Charles 21:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: She is the daughter of a landgrave. Her father, as the son of the Landgrave, was a landgrave. Therefore AW was a landgravine. Please note that *AFTER* Hesse-Darmstadt became the Grand Duchy of Hesse that all members of this line officially became Princes and Princesses of Hesse. Before that point, they were landgraves and landgravines, just as the children of counts were counts and countesses and the children of dukes were dukes and duchesses. If anything, the titling of her father is in error. Note there are differences in usage (see a person like Prince Rupert of the Rhine and note the intro titles). German Wikipedia is actually very inconsistent with titles and the title of princess is only an informality for this woman. Charles 21:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you even at all opened minded. The son of a king is not a king. Landgrave is a positionary title in that one is the a landgrave of hesse-darmstadt like one is the King of France. Her father was a prince as none-governing son would be and therefore she is not a Landgrave, but a princess. The whole point of this discussion page is to advoid edit wars. I'll admit that you have not made a valid case thus far but am waiting for it. Let's try to agree, but undoing. Spencer creek woods (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kings, emperors and grand dukes do not transmit those titles to their children, but pre-1806, all other rulers in "Germany" did. The children of dukes were dukes, the children of counts palatine were counts palatine, the children of archdukes were archdukes and the children of landgraves were landgraves. Pre-1806 there was only one king in the empire, and that was the Holy Roman Emperor, who had the only titles not transmittable to his children (emperor and king). Charles 21:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mute point as even in the article itself she is not the daughter of a landgrave, but a prince Spencer creek woods (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He was called a prince, but he was not one. Also, for instance, see Prince Rupert of the Rhine and read the titles at the top. He was a prince in the meaning he was the son of a ruler, but he wasn't properly titled as a prince. Charles 22:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: What I don't get is that User:Charles believes her to be a landgravine rather then a princess, why he didn't edits the first sentence of this article in which is states that she is a German princess. Betting he'll do it now that I've pointed it out to him. But it's weird that the father's title and the first sentence weren't noticed in the editing. Spencer creek woods (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The father's title was noticed, and princess is a collective term for the daughters and descendants of rulers, particularly in Germany. Please reply to my note about the pre-1806 titles and the note about Prince Rupert of the Rhine. Charles 22:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What exactly do me to read on the Prince Rupert page? Didn't the Palatine rulers not use Landgravine or Landgrave anyhow?Prince Rupert was commonly called Prince Rupert by Englishmen of his time. You must know about Prince Rupert's Land. Find me an English source from the 1700s that calls her Landgravine or Princess. Spencer creek woods (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact of the matter is he was called Prince Rupert, but his formal titles were duke and count palatine, as listed in the introduction, like this woman's is landgravine. Whether she was called princess or not is only a matter if the page had to include a title (in which case common names matter (refer back to Rupert)). What is known is that she was a landgravine as the male-line granddaughter of a landgrave. What someone is called and what some is are two different things. That's why Prince Rupert's page isn't called Count Palatine Rupert of the Rhine, but introduces him as that. Also, do you understand what I meant about the pre-1806 titles? Charles 22:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  Landgraves are different. All landgraves were princes, but not all princes are landgraves. Her father was a prince and she is not a landgravine, but a princess from her father.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencer creek woods (talk • contribs) 22:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is a landgrave different from a duke, a margrave, a count palatine, an altgrave, a burgrave or a count? Before 1806, all of those titles were shared by the members of whatever families bore them. All of these were princes in the sense of rank, being ruling families, but not in title. Her father was called a prince, but his actual title was landgrave. Like the example I raised... Rupert of the Rhine was called a prince, but he was actually titled count palatine and duke, titles shared by all the Wittelsbachs. Charles 00:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  Okay, fair enough with Prince Rupert, but who about the article in question. Landgraves are different margraves and dukes and counts. Otherwise what you against having Princess in this article. She is not a landgravine because, while her grandfather was a landgrave, her father, from where her title comes from, is a prince (which both the article and you agree with) and therefore she is a princess. Pretty sure the case has been made outside of the red herring of Prince Rupert, she is not a landgravine, reserved for the daughters and wives, not granddaughters Spencer creek woods (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but you are way, way off mark here. How is a landgrave different from margraves and dukes in how the titles are transmitted? Did you know hear me at all when I told you that the titling of her father is comparable to Rupert of the Rhine in that they were called by titles which they did not really have? Rupert was not a Prince of the Rhine, although he was called such (his article gives his correct titles). George William was not a Prince of Hesse-Darmstadt, although he may have been informally called such. Since George William was not a Prince in title (rather than style) but a landgrave, his daughter was a landgravine. Do pray tell inform me why a pre-1806 landgrave differs from a margrave, a duke or a count in how he transmits titles to his children? I am anxious for the knowledge. Charles 02:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please tell me if you can see the following links:  . English writers lean to using the title of prince or princess, if it is even supported by the slightest bit of informal usage, over titles like landgrave or landgravine, which they have difficulty comprehending. It does to show that these titles were the actual ones. Please also reply to the message I wrote immediately above thi s one. Charles 03:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well didn't hear anything since you typed it. Well actually landgraves or margraves or dukes actually had to do with governing of a certain lands. And as to Prince Rupert's line, what about his brothers, Frederick Henry von der Pfalz, Prince Maurice von Simmern, Edward, Count Palatine of Simmern?Spencer creek woods (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, time after time, as if talking to a brick wall, there are issues with naming on Wikipedia and the existence of an inconsistency does not support another. Like I said, Rupert was a Count Palatine of the Rhine (Count of the Palatinate of the Rhine, which can be informally divided into a number of components) and a Duke of Bavaria, titles still used by the Wittelsbachs today. More accurately though, the line was the Palatinate of the Rhine at Simmern, but that is beyond the point, this is about titles, not designations. Do not sidetrack the discussion You said landgraves were different from margraves or dukes when it came to transmitting the titles. HOW. Also, did you open those two links? Here they are:  . And also, again:
I'm sorry, but you are way, way off mark here. How is a landgrave different from margraves and dukes in how the titles are transmitted? Did you know hear me at all when I told you that the titling of her father is comparable to Rupert of the Rhine in that they were called by titles which they did not really have? Rupert was not a Prince of the Rhine, although he was called such (his article gives his correct titles). George William was not a Prince of Hesse-Darmstadt, although he may have been informally called such. Since George William was not a Prince in title (rather than style) but a landgrave, his daughter was a landgravine. Do pray tell inform me why a pre-1806 landgrave differs from a margrave, a duke or a count in how he transmits titles to his children? I am anxious for the knowledge. Charles 02:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not shown that the children of landgraves were titled princes or princesses formally and not landgraves and or landgravines. You have not shown that landgraves are different from ruling margraves and dukes in how they transmit titles to their children (pre-1806). You also have not acknowledged that styling which may be used in article titles may differ from actual titles. Charles 03:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't calling anybody a brick wall, kettle. Prince Rupert is a red herring. It didn't having any weight in this discussion about Augusta Wilhelmine of Hesse-Darmstadt, apparently somebody you have quite a passion about. Have you bothered to check other similar articles about Hesse-Darmstadt, like I've given with German Wikipedia? Spencer creek woods (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have you opened the links I gave you and made note of the fact that an informal title in an article title doesn't mean that title has to appear in the article if it is incorrect? No, you have not, out of many requests. Have you explained why you feel a landgrave cannot transmit that title while a margrave or a count palatine can? No, you have not. Was Prince Rupert a red herring? No, it was an example of the title of the article not matching the formal title of the person, as would have been the case with George William being called "prince", a title he could not transmit to his daughter because it wasn't his to do so. Do you know anything about how titles of the Holy Roman Empire are transmitted? Charles 04:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Is formally referring to this woman as Princess Augusta Wilhelmine anachronistic? I am not referring to present princes and princesses of Hesse... They are all Prince(ss) and Landgrav(in)e of Hesse. After 1806 I have hardly seen the title of landgrave, before that there is the colloquial usage of the title of prince and princess, but it certainly does not belong in the first line when this woman's title was landgravine. Charles 17:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  princess, not landgravine 

message: Bearing in mind the way in which titles were transmitted in the Holy Roman Empire (which existed until 1806), were the children and male line descendants of a ruling Landgrave formally titled as landgraves and landgravines?
:Total outsider here responding to the RfC. I looked at the German version of this article and it neatly sidesteps the whole issue by not using either title. At the risk of aggravating everyone, my suggestion is to do the same here. My feeling is that, as Wikipedians, it is not our job to apply the rules of how titles are transmitted, doing so comes under the heading of Original Research. Again. I'm an outsider without knowledge of the subject, but it seems to me that the use of titles does not add significantly to the overall quality of the article; if it's not needed in the German version then why is it needed here? If I am wrong about this then please find an authoritative external source which states directly which title she had and cite it. 
:The article as a whole does not cite any sources and this seems to me the top priority. The German version does, so that might be a good place to start.--RDBury (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formal title: Landgravine or princess?