Talk:Princess Alexandra, 2nd Duchess of Fife

message: Why isn't this located at Princess Arthur of Connaught? And if it remains here, how do we categorize it? I've categorized it as "Fife, Alexandra, Duchess of" for now. – ugen64 19:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From her marriage, she was always known as Princess Arthur of Connaught or Princess Arthur.  Upon her marriage, she became a Royal Highness and moved up the precedence table.  So on grounds of both her highest title and the name she was commonly known as and which Wikipedia users would search for, this article should be entitled Princess Arthur of Connaught.  The fact that she held a peerage in her own right can be referred to in the text.I am new to Wikipedia so dare not make this momentous change but hopefully someone will do it.VictoriaGates1 (talk) 12:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: misc

message: During her marriage and widowhood, she was however also known as Duchess of Fife. And it is actually very obvious: peerage, particularly a duchy, does not get lost or become hidden in titulary and style despite of becoming HRH. 217.140.193.123 7 July 2005 07:50 (UTC)
But she wasn't called Duchess of Fife.  Her formal style was Her Royal Highness Princess Arthur of Connaught.  I don't see why we should call her by a name she was not known by, any more than we do for other peers not called by their peerage title. john k 23:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  known as 

message: I find the inclusion of this "genetics" section very unhelpful. Although I admit I have no idea what it actually means- I can't see it being very relevant to a biography article. Particularly as Tsar Nicholas II was only a cousin of the Princess, and not a direct ancestor or descendant. Astrotrain 01:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What relevance has it to Alexandra's biography? None! Astrotrain 01:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Why is the certainty of her (biological) ancestry relevant? Proteus (Talk) 18:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "Like"? Has it been mentioned in other books, or by other people? Does anyone actually care, other than, presumably, you and the author of that book (if in fact you are separate people, which I have doubts about)? And even if she is mentioned in that book, that should be in the article about that book, not in her article, which is (surprisingly enough) about her and not about "certainty of ancestry" theories. At the very least it's inane trivia (and I doubt even that, since trivia is usually interesting). Proteus (Talk) 17:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It also can't be proved- she is dead, as are her offspring. I can't see her being exhumed just to back up a certainty of ancestry" theory. Astrotrain 17:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You still haven't answered the obvious question "Why is that relevant to her biography?". Did it affect her life? Does it shed light on any aspect of her character, her actions or her background? Does it explain or clarify any other part of the biography? Is is interesting to the average reader? Obviously the answer to all of these questions is "no". It seems to be on the same level as saying "her shoe size was 7" or "she had AB+ blood" — perhaps quite true and maybe even verifiable, but still utterly irrelevant and certainly not worthy of mention. Proteus (Talk) 12:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetics

message: Yes, a 51-year old could have lived during the reigns of six British monarchs (and I'm sure a few did), but I added that particular fact about Princess Arthur because she was one of the shortest-lived members of the British royal family to do so.  That's what makes it noteworthy.  I look forward to your comments and I am considering restoring my contribution to the article.  EgbertW 05:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it could say something like, "Though many members of the Brit. Royal Fam. lived during six reigns- those of (list names)- Princess Arthur was one of the shortest lived to do so." That would establish why it's important. I still wonder, though, if that information is noteworthy enough to include in her article. TysK 17:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lived During Six Reigns 

message: The introduction says "MAlexandra and her younger sister Maud had the distinction of being the only female-line granddaughters of a British Sovereign to receive the title of Princess of Great Britain and Ireland and the style Highness." Later on, however, it says As a female-line great-granddaughter of the British monarch, (Queen Victoria), Alexandra was not entitled to the title of a Princess of Great Britain or the style Royal Highness." Is there a difference between "Princess of Great Britain and Ireland" and "Princess of Great Britain". The article appears to contradict itself. StAnselm (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not actually a contradiction if you read on. She wasn't "entitled" to the title, but it was granted by letter of patent in 1905. It's explained in the section "Princess Alexandra". WormTT 11:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Princess of Great Britain

message: Articles on Royal peers who are/were princes should be at "Prince Name, Rank of Title" (i.e. no ordinal). Examples: Prince Andrew, Duke of York, Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn.
refers to princes rather than princesses
plus the wording in the note rather indicates it is refering to royal dukes/royal peerages which the fife dukedom isnt.
that was my reading of it but if i am incorrect could you ellaborate?Nirame (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. I see what you mean – I suppose this one is open to interpretation a bit. I would suggest leaving it at the long-established title (with the assumption that that somehow implies consensus) until a discussion establishes a new consensus either way. DBD 20:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing is the number in the title shows the rarer aspect of being her title being in her own right otherwise it just looks the same as those becoming duchesses by marriage.Nirame (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmmm. I'm not really sure what to say. I shan't object particularly is you moved it back DBD 20:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if you don't object to the move? What i could do is move it back to "2nd .."for now copy our discussion to the talk page and see if anyone adds anything or takes issue with it?Nirame (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. DBD 20:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that would be wrong. She was not a Royal peer. Her Royal style was by courtesy only. The peerage however was in her own right. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

text: I suppose HRH the Duchess of Connaught & Strathearn, 2nd Duchess of Fife. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Title:Duchess of fife or 2nd Duchess of fife?

message: I've just written Edward Iwi, in which I've included the following quote from Sir George Coldstream:
* The trouble with Iwi is that he usually puts his finger on an awkward question ... You will no doubt recall that Iwi has on several occasions proved right and on at least one of these occasions he could have caused the government great embarrassment - I refer to the unfortunate mistake by which Princess Arthur of Connaught was named as a Counsellor of State in 1944.
What was the "unfortunate mistake" a reference to?  --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's because the King's nephew Viscount Lascelles had come of age in February that year, and as he was closer in line to the throne than Princess Arthur he should have been named as Counsellor instead. But as he was out of the country at the time (and had just been captured by the Germans) he couldn't have served anyway. Opera hat (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for that.  I guess Iwi's view was that Lascelles should have been named a counsellor anyway. Do you know of any documented discussion of this matter?  --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue wasn't that Lascelles should have been named a Counsellor of State while in enemy hands, but that Princess Arthur of Connaught, Duchess of Fife (or anyone else) should not have been appointed in his place, since there was no statutory authorization for bypassing an "unavailable" Counsellor at that time. After the fact, Iwi pointed out that the law had been broken, embarrassing because it involved relatives of the Royal Family. Would be delicious to read Iwi's "gotcha!" memo, but even juicier to read the tag-you're-it discussion about who was to tell the Prime Minister and the King -- and the fact that the only fix for the future would have to be legislation, bound to evoke Parliamentary discussion exposing the mistake. Yes, it's been discussed; as one might expect, Velde found and mentions the problem on Heraldica.org -- also annotating there other Counsellor snafus, but one might have to plumb the depths of alt.talk.royalty's archives to find out which document dug up in the bowels of Whitehall he pulled it from (or ask him; he's a Chicago economist). FactStraight (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Counsellor of state - what "unfortunate mistake"?

message: I wonder reference of "Princess Alexandra of Fife". According to the London gazette(09/11/1905), "His Majesty has also directed that the Daughters of Her Royal Highness shall bear the style, title, and attribute of Highness, and also the style of Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names" without mention of territorial suffix. I searched other source to refer Princess Alexandra as Princess Alexandra of Fife, but I failed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.13.234.37 (talk) 10:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The "of Fife" is nowhere to be found in the grant of Princess and Highness.  In official documents before marriage she was referred to as "Her Highness Princess Alexandra" with no territorial designation.  The territorial designation is given to children of the Prince of  Wales and royal dukes; princess Alexandra's father was not a royal duke.95.252.66.128 (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right. I corrected that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: of Fife?

message: :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: withdrawn. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Princess Alexandra, 2nd Duchess of Fife →  – Unnecessary disambiguation. There aren't any other duchesses of Fife called Princess Alexandra. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 23 June 2021 

message: :
If this was true at the time, it is no longer: George VI granted the status of Prince/ss and Royal Highness to the children of Elizabeth's marriage to Philip. That became redundant in 1952, of course, but after Charles and Anne were born. —Tamfang (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It still is somewhat true as they were the only female-line descendands of a British sovereign with both the title of Princess and style of "Highness" The Children of Princess Elizabeth were given the Princely titles with the style of Royal Highness rather than simply highness. Etoilespourvous (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

text: It is in past tense, indicating that it was true at the time and not any longer. Surtsicna (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  the title of Princess 

message: :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: not moved. Per consensus. As stated in the discussion, the subject was a duchess in her own right. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Princess Alexandra, 2nd Duchess of Fife →  – Only Princess Alexandra, Duchess of Fife ever so the sequential number is unnecessary. There was a previous attempt to have it moved but it was withdrawn. Killuminator (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Oppose - I understand the rationale behind this proposal, but Alexandra held a non-royal dukedom, so she was technically numbered as duchess. It's the same reason her father's article is called Alexander Duff, 1st Duke of Fife, not plain Alexander Duff, Duke of Fife. I also think the number places some emphasis on the fact that she was a sun jure duchess, not merely the wife of a duke like Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll.estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why that would make much of a difference, being given a title of inheriting the title, the end results has you using a title and you're a royal person as well. I don't see anything in NCROY to suggest differences between royal and non-royal dukedoms matter here.  Killuminator (talk) 10:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

text: I think I have to oppose. The number indicates that she was a duchess in her own right. Had the peerage been created specifically for her (like it was done for many current and past royal dukes) I would have supported the move, but she was preceded by her father, Alexander Duff, 1st Duke of Fife, and succeeded by her nephew, James Carnegie, 3rd Duke of Fife. Her case is similar to that of Patricia Knatchbull, 2nd Countess Mountbatten of Burma (daughter of the 1st Earl and mother of the 3rd Earl), Elizabeth Finch, 1st Countess of Winchilsea, etc. Keivan.fTalk 13:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 15 September 2023