Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Archive 14

message: I think we drastically need a new policy for how to name articles on queen consorts.  Naming them by their maiden name works well for dynastic spouses in many western European countries.  Louis XIII married Anne of Austria (actually of Spain, but who's counting?).  Henry VIII married Catherine of Aragon.  And so forth.  These are the standard terms used to refer to these women.  But in many other cases, this doesn't seem to really be the case.  Most Russian Empress-Consorts are best known by, well, their Russian name.  Alexandra Feodorovna, Marie Feodorovna, and so forth.  Having the Dowager Empress at Dagmar of Denmark is just criminal, as is having Alexandra at Alix of Hesse and by Rhine, or wherever she is at the moment.  Having Queen Marie of Romania at Princess Marie of Edinburgh seems similarly problematic (especially since queen-consorts are not supposed to have "Princess" or "Grand Duchess" or "Archduchess" or "Duchess" before their name in article titles).  Sisi being at Elizabeth of Bavaria, a move for which I fought, is similarly problematic.  And for consorts of smaller European countries, these things seem to be deeply haphazardly located, some at Name of Countryofwhichtheywerequeen some at Name of Countryofwhichtheywerebornaprincess.  At any rate, I'm not sure how exactly we should deal with this, but I think the current convention is simply inappropriate - Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. john k 22:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dagmar was Marie Feodorovna.  Alix was Alexandra Feodorovna. john k 05:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that after I had saved by but was too tired to bother going back and changing it. :-) FearÉIREANN 06:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't follow. That was her name before her marriage. Henry VIII's first wife was Catherine of Aragon before her marriage. What is the difference between putting George VI's queen back to what she was known to before her marriage, and putting Henry VIII's queen back to what she was known as before her marriage. If all of history does the latter, what is the problem with doing the former? FearÉIREANN 06:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

text: On reigning queen consorts. I do think using in is, no pun intended, out. But I have regularly heard Sisi referred to as Elizabeth of Bavaria in conferences, etc by top academics. FearÉIREANN 06:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

text: again, another hot contentious issue. i know Bavarian users will probably hate me for this, but i think it´s ludicrous to have Empress Elisabeth of Austria as Elizabeth in Bavaria, of Bavaria, Duchess in Bavaria or whatever. trust me, hardly anyone in the German-speaking area ever refers to her as Elisabeth von Bayern. she is always known either as Sisi or Kaiserin Elisabeth von Österreich. because she left when she was 16, and the rest of her life was always as an empress. similar case with Empress Eugenie (Eugenie de Montijo? i mean ok whatever.. but i´ve never heard French people referring to her as such in common parlance) and don´t even ask me what the maiden names of Kaiserin Augusta of Germany was.. because no one really knows, so why list it under some mysterious maiden-name?
another case of empress-consorts, I mean should we list Empress Michiko of Japan as Michiko Shoda?? even after her death, that would actually be incorrect, because official protocol will always refer to her as Empress Michiko (in Japan they would actually get another post-humous name, like Emperor Hirohito is now known as the Showa Emperor). once an empress/queen/whatever until their death, always an empress/queen...
i think it all boils down to again what do we do? be consistent and one size-fits-all, or use names that people are most familiar with? I can also see how using maiden-names for queens in the UK is maybe ok, but for Russia it just doesn´t work. my point again, to name it the way the Russians do it in that case, that would be more authentic... Antares911 00:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I can see good arguments for making separate specific rules for the naming of consorts in particular countries.  As long as it doesn't lead us back to the great "Queen Elizabeth" debate. Deb 11:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article titles for Queen Consorts 

message: A current pretenders to the Russian throne has her article at Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia, while her son has his at Grand Duke George of Russia. Are these appropriate article titles? The latter, particularly, I think, is not correct. -- Nunh-huh 01:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I'm missing how that works. If she's not empress, why would he get her name? - Nunh-huh 04:22, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: That more or less confirms my impression: we're treating a pretender as if she were in actuality a fons honorum. That seems to me...not very wise, or very neutral, and perhaps actually misinformative. I don't know how consistent we are (I don't think the Count of Paris's children have articles, but if they did, would we use the titles granted by pretenders?). Anyway, I don't have a solution, but thought I'd rhrow the subject up for consideration. - Nunh-huh 16:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles of non-reigning Russian pretenders (Maria & Georgie) 

message: There is a WP:RM debate going on on what to name this chap who is often in English refered to as Gustavus Adolphus. I think that it would be a good idea if people who read this page had a look at the second vote on Talk:Gustav II Adolph of Sweden and put in their 2 pence worth in, otherwise the choice may have little to do with the standards worked out on this page and everything to do with the opinions of those who happen to be looking at WP:RM this week. Philip Baird Shearer 00:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Gustav II Adolph of Sweden

message: I have a big problem here. Please see :Talk:Lee Kuan Yew if anybody is interested.
Mr Tan 16:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Harry) [[Lee Kuan Yew]] 

message: What is the rule for a Royal Consort who dies before the monarch? Does their title change before the monarch dies or on the death of the monarch does their title change to that of a Previous Royal Consort? The wording on the page is not clear. 
Although not directly relevent, at the moment this is being discussed on Talk:Marie Antoinette as it has been proposed to change the page name to "Maria Antonia, Archduchess of Austria".  Philip Baird Shearer 19:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The current rule is a bit of a mess. We should really decide these on a country-by-country basis. (I'd say Marie Antoinette should be at Marie Antoinette of France or Marie-Antoinette of France.) Proteus (Talk) 20:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At Antares' invitation, my comment: Setting "standards" for a global project should be universal, and localizing the notion of "standards" to small areas makes for relativist policy. That said, this topic is for the most part trivial, and whats left is a simple choice between 'Set no standards,' hence allow each to their own, or 'set universal standards,' meaning some are going to be overrun. There is no "standard" which defaults to country or society, though an allowance for specific systematic exeptions and caveats is reasonable. -SV|t 23:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How can standards for naming be universal, when different places have different conventions in this matter? john k 00:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for inviting me to contribute to this topic Antares911. My understanding would be that some rigid, standardised rule would not actually help improve the obvious shortcoming (have often mused over the subject myself!), I would suggest to find a DISAMBIGUATION PAGE solution of some sort. This would allow a more general approach in searching for a particular personage. As a rule, however, NAMES should precede titles (Example: Marie Antoinette, Queen of France, born Archduchess of Austria. d. : Erzherzogin von Öesterreich. etc). STYLES should never be used in direct connection with the NAME. It sounds terribly silly and sycophantic to list a monarch, here, as HIM or HM, as we are referring to encyclopedic entries, that are not in particular need of imperial/royal court protocol!--Pantherarosa 00:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: hi John, well it is confusing I agree, those were just some thoughts i jotted down. for example, apparently we are not allowed to use titles for the names. 
#well in that case, Genghis Khan needs to be listed as Genghis, Khan not beeing his last name but his title. 
#:He certainly does not.  There is no rule that commas have to be used for titles, and there shouldn't be, since in many cases commas are not used. john k 00:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: #Compromise solution. how about this: can we say, that british royal consorts will be listed under their maiden names, however non-british consorts (including empresses) by the title they carried? Bhinneka 12:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that non-British consorts also revert to maiden name or title when they die. So to follow that rule would be to abandon world usage on the false premise that only British royal consorts revert to previous name/title when they die. For example, there are numerous historical and internet references to Dagmar of Denmark, the wife of Tsar of Alexander III of Russia. 
A page of influential women in Swedish history speaks of the following Danish queens. Note that they are referred to by maiden title. 
* 1259-66 Regent Dowager Queen Margrethe Sambiria Sprænghest 
* 1286-92 Regent Dowager Queen Agnes af Brandenburg
* 1376-87 Regent Queen Margrethe I Valdemarsdatter
* 1814-15 Regent Queen Marie Sofie Frederikke zu Hessen-Kassel
* 1972-2000 Co-Deputy Head of State Queen Ingrid of Sweden
The same is true with French consorts, for example Blanche of Castille (1188-1252), not Queen Blanche of France. 
FearÉIREANN(talk) 20:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: You'll find that we have lots of disambiguation pages, eg. Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth.  However, every article that is about an individual must have a unique title, otherwise it cannot be found.  This is why reference publications, like libraries and all other types of data store, have standardised rules for the way they name their entries. Deb 19:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: hi  FearÉIREANN i mean i really appreciate your input, but could you please maybe express yourself more to the point, and not repeat the same comments on each question, it makes reading a bit difficult in the end.
I agree with john k that what you suggested that ALL former queen consorts return to their maiden name is simply not true, also not in Asia. that might be true for british ones, but not for others, sorry. I looked up how other encyclopedias do this, and it seems that british ones are listed under their maiden names, but not necessarily someone like "Alix of Hesse", or "Marie Antoinette", or the current "Sirikit Kitiyakara". that´s why the compromise solution is the best thing I think. honestly, who in the english-speaking world (or even the German or Russian one) knows about "Alix of Hesse"? I therefore concur that British Queen Subjects can be listed by their maiden names, but non-british but what they were most known as for example "Empress Maria Feodorovna". someone like "Catherine II" the Great can stay like that. User:antares911
But Maria Feodorovna and Catherine II are two completely different types of monarch, one regnant, one consort. Your whole proposal seems to be based on a complete lack of understanding of the distinction, and of a lack of understanding of standard royal nomenclature. You cannot apply regnant terminology to consorts. You don't seem to grasp that it cannot be used because, as every sourcebook knows, consort titles lack the disambigulation references that are vital in royal naming. You cannot simply have an encylopaedia full of numerous Queen Marys, Queen Elizabeths, etc. It does not work and is not an option. There is no logical reason why Wikipedia should use amateurish naming attempts that would simply reduce consort titles to a mess and make itself a laughing stock. Russian consorts, for specific reasons, do have disambigution potential. The overwhelming majority of consorts do not. So using consort titles is simply not an option in all but a tiny number of cases. 
That is why consorts from Blanche of Castille (wife of Louis VIII of France) to Auguste Viktoria, Duchess of Schleswig-Holstein (wife of Wilhelm II of Germany), Marie de Guise (wife of James V of Scotland) to Mary of Teck are known as that, not Queen Blanche, Empress Auguste Victoria, Queen Marie and Queen Mary. And it is why Francis II of Austria was married four times to Elizabeth of Württemberg, Maria Theresa of the Two Sicilies, Maria Ludovika of Austria-Este and Maria Beatrice d'Este Princess of Modena. It is why Frederick Augustus II of Saxony is described as being married to Caroline of Austria, why Napoleon is described as being married to  Josephine de Beauharnais and Marie Louise of Austria, why King Charles X of France is described as being married to Marie-Thérèse de Savoie, not Queen Marie-Thérèse, why Louis VI is described as being married to Adélaide de Maurienne, why William III of the Netherlands is described as being married to Princess Adelheid Emma Wilhelmina Theresia of Waldeck and Pyrmont, why French king Henry I is described as being married to Anne of Kiev, why Gustav III's wife is described as Sofia Magdalena of Denmark, why King Umberto II of Italy is said to have been married to Marie José of Belgium, why Manuel I of Portugal was married to Eleonore of Austria, who later married Francois I of France. And that is why history books record that Henry VIII was married to Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves, Catherine Howard and Catherine Parr, not Queen Catherine, Queen Anne, Queen Jane, Queen Anne, Queen Catherine and Queen Catherine. And why history books say that George V was married to Mary of Teck, not Queen Mary, and why they say that George VI was married to Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, not Queen Elizabeth. 
Unless you want Wikipedia to be almost unique and to make an absolute fool of itself by confusing readers with Queen Mary (the 'one who was the daughter of Henry VIII, as they might say in Friends), Queen Mary (the one who was married to William III), Queen Mary (the one who was married to James II) and Queen Mary (the one who was married to George V), not to mention confusing everyone with Queen Elizabeth and her daughter Queen Elizabeth, as well as the Spanish Queen Elizabeth, the Balkan Queen Elizabeth, and Portugal's Queen Elizabeth, as well as having to rewrite thousands of links on Wikipedia, using the standard consort nomenclature of maiden name/title is the professional and normal way to write royal articles. You have given no reason why everyone else is wrong and calling people by their consort name is right, except to say that you personally don't recognise the identities of the people and therefore standard internationally used nomenclatures should be abandoned for one that will not work. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 19:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: "As Diana Spencer found on her divorce, consort titles are not the property of the person holding one, but by virtue of their marriage to a monarch or relationship to a monarch, and so changes constantly. Unless the paper you are writing is focused exclusively on the lady as queen mother, she should no longer be referred to as such after her death. Nor was she "Queen Elizabeth" from the moment of her husband's death. The standard academic approach, from the moment a consort or former consort dies, is to use their pre-marital name or pre-marital title. So if you are dealing with her outside specific years where she had a title, the overall name to use would be "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon", just as we use "Alexandra of Denmark", "Mary of Teck" and "Wallis Simpon". A minority of experts give a three to five year break between the death of someone and their reversion to a pre-marital name but most I know, and most academic publishers, think the change should place immediately. After all, from the moment she died she did become a historical figure, so standard methodology for naming royal consorts should apply. I know that is the view of my publishers. I hope that helps you." 
Maybe it was justifiable to keep EBL at QE the QM for a year or two, at the very very most up to five years. But certainly, now that she is 8 years dead Diana should be at LDS or DS, not at D, PoW, especially as there is legally another Princess of Wales now, even if she does not call herself that. She is now so long dead that there may be young people reading articles here who don't remember her and for whom she is just as much an anonymous name from the past as is Pope Paul VI, Franklin Roosevelt or George V. (I knew I was getting old when recently the son of a friend of mine, who is nine, asked me about controversial Irish taoiseach Charles Haughey and for whom Diana meant nothing. And in a couple of years time Wikipedia will have readers who will not remember the 'Queen Mother' just as for most today 'Queen Mary', 'Pope Pius' and 'President Eisenhower' mean absolutely nothing. FearÉIREANN(talk) 22:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: oops. :-) FearÉIREANN(talk) 22:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I think insofar as possible we should avoid making up names for people that were never actually used. Perhaps it would be best to disambiguate by dates: Empress Marie Feodorovna of Russia (1759-1828) and Empress Marie Feodorovna of Russia (1847-1928). Or Empress Marie Feodorovna of Russia, formerly Sophie Marie Dorothea of Württemberg, Empress Marie Feodorovna of Russia, formerly Princess Dagmar of Denmark. Though I'd prefer the dates: we need to keep things simple, and the further away we get from names that people actually use, the further away we get from an ideal system. - Nunh-huh 00:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, you are right about Prince Ferdinand being heir presumptive.  I am nevertheless fairly sure that Christian's family used "Prince of Denmark" rather than S-H-S-G after 1851.  At any rate, Dagmar married Alexander in 1866, three years after her father's accession to the throne, meaning she would have been "Princess Dagmar of Denmark" for at least three years prior to her marriage.  Queen Alexandra was certainly known as "Alexandra of Denmark" in spite of the fact that she married the Prince of Wales some months before her father became King... john k 22:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For instance, the NY Times, which is, unfortunately, the only newspaper from 1863 I can seem to find online, calls Alexandra "Her Royal Highness the Princess Alexandra."  The "Her Royal Highness" suggests that she was styled as a Princess of Denmark rather than as a Princess of S-H-S-G. john k 22:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Diana was not a consort - I don't see how that follows.  She was a peeress, and her style of Diana, Princess of Wales is that of a divorced consort peeress.  Should we move all deceased peeresses to their maiden names, as well? Lady Georgiana Spencer, for instance?  john k 22:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Consorts 

message: It is highly unsupported to try to make British consorts as exception. I cannot fathom what is thinking such peson who tries to propagate such, not seeing that the practice is common with most (if all) European countries.
Empress Maria Fedorovna of Russia means two distinct persons. Thus, it is much better to use Maria Fedorovna of Wurttemberg and Maria Fedorovna of Glucksburg. (And, this example hopefully shows to Antares that pre-marital designations ARE really needed. I hope. - though it may be too much hoped.)
(As the truth is rather the opposite, I must ask:) On what grounds does Antares claim that Alexandra von Hessen-Darmstadt was Alexandra Fedorovna's real name, and that Alix of Hesse was NOT????
Re Antares' ongoing desire and explicit intention to make new rules, I must say that having seen the lack of expertise of and the hasty actions Antares had made, such "Antares" rules will in all certainty NOT be tenable, credible, practical nor acceptable. The mentioned person should focus energy on something where the incompetence is not so blatant. 217.140.193.123 29 June 2005 14:49 (UTC)
:: you can check Wikipedia´s German language site, since she was a german princess, they will know best what her name was. one more thing 217.140.193.123, I have already asked you and I am doing it again, you either start posting your comments as a registered user, or your comments will be simply deleted from this forum and disregarded. if you continue making personal attacks on me from behind your anonymity, i will report your address to the administrators. sorry but i am simply fed up by your impossible behaviour. are we clear on this? Antares911 29 June 2005 18:20 (UTC)
:::The above scream by Antares contains several violations against Wikipedia policies. Seeing elsewhere other evidence of conduct by Antares, I believe that quite soon Antares will get reprimanded or banned. 217.140.193.123 30 June 2005 07:35 (UTC)
The anonymous user is correct. Your proposals would not be tenable, credible, practical, accessible or acceptable. Wikipedia cannot simply abandon traditional consort nomenclature used everywhere else. If it did it would look amateurish and incompetent. I don't think you understand what the norms in royal nomenclature are. (BTW anonymous users are perfectly entitled to contribute if they wish. FearÉIREANN(talk) 29 June 2005 18:30 (UTC)
::the anonymous user may post what he likes, however if he starts making personal remarks then he will be kicked out, simple as that. 
:::Very interesting that Antares erases comments of others from Talk pages of articles. 217.140.193.123 30 June 2005 06:26 (UTC)
I have said it many times and I will say it many times again: the current way of naming queen consorts and empress consorts, as well as non-european royalty and non-british nobility is misleading and confusing. according to current rules Marie Antoinette would have to be Maria Antonia, Archduchess of Austria. that will simply not work. that´s why i have suggested to name at least the non-british royals with the titles they carried for most of their life. same goes for Asian royals. you (talk) are simply still not convincing me, that the current way is the best way, i have already stated that before. maybe you could make some constructive suggestions of how we best solve this dilemna, instead of insisting that nothing change, and now even suggest that I don´t understand the norms of royal nomenclature? 
i am sure you understand how it works in the UK and I respect you for that, but the same format cannot go for all others around the world, because that is not how academia does it, regardless of what you claim. Antares911 29 June 2005 18:52 (UTC)
:You keep making an issue about naming conventions in the UK. This is nothing to do with the UK, as you have been told repeatedly. For a start I am not British and don't follow rules simply because Britain follows them. Maiden title for past consorts is the standard device used worldwide in English for all European and most world monarchs, with a handful of unique exceptions. For example
* Blanche of Castile was the queen consort of King Louis VIII of France.  
* Ingrid of Sweden was queen consort of King Frederick VIII of Denmark. 
* Marie José of Belgium was queen consort to King Umberto II of Italy. 
* Eleonore of Austria was queen consort to King Manuel I of Portugal. 
* Marie Louise of Austria and Josephine de Beauharnais were empress consorts to Emperor Napoleon I of France. 
* Augusta Viktoria, Duchess of Schleswig-Holstein was empress consort to Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany. 
* Emma of Waldeck and Pyrmont was the queen consort of William III of the Netherlands. 
:All of these, and hundreds, probably thousands, of others, are known by maiden title, not just in the UK, but worldwide. So unilaterally deciding that Wikipedia is going to be different is simply not an option. So far the only justification you have produced is that you find it confusing. Obviously as this system is used worldwide, millions clearly don't. FearÉIREANN(talk) 29 June 2005 19:39 (UTC)
::yeah, naming them that way makes sense when you list them together with their spouses. however, with queen consorts that are not well-known at all, naming them by themselves is misleading. and this does not even apply to queen consorts, but to empress consorts and consorts of other nobility as well. or do consorts of nobility also have to revert to their maiden name? Antares911 29 June 2005 19:52 (UTC)
:::Coming from a republic I am not fully au fait with all the traditions of noyal royal noble consort naming (a tongue-twister, that!). One option could be to create a disambigulation under the name of a royal consort, for example :Queen Elizabeth. It could then say 
Queen Elizabeth is a name associated with many queens regnant and queens consort. They are: 
* Elizabeth I of England was the reigning Queen of England (1558-1693)
* Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom was the reigning Queen of the United Kingdom (1952-present)
* Elizabeth of York was Queen consort of King Henry VII of England (1486-1503)
* Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon  was Queen consort of King George VI of the United Kingdom (1936-1952). She was later known as Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother (1952-2002)
* Elizabeth of Neuwied was the Queen Consort of King Carol II of Romania.
* Elizabeth of Romania was the Queen consort of King George II of Greece. 
BTW just putting together this list shows the problems associated with using consort names in titles. Anyone worldwide looking to find Elizabeth of Romania, the wife of George II of Greece, if they looked in Wikipedia would be directed to Queen Elizabeth of Romania, who the rest of the biographical world apparently calls Elizabeth of Neuweid!!! That is why I have been so dogmatic on the issue of using maiden names/titles. Everyone else does it. If we don't, Wikipedia would be unusable as a source because we would direct people to the wrong pages. (Now I'd better go off and sort out the Elizabeth of Romania mess. Oh goodie!) FearÉIREANN(talk) 29 June 2005 20:31 (UTC)
Whatever the German wikipedia may say, her name was Victoria Alix Helena Luise Beatrice von Hessen bei Rhein.  Alexandra was only the name she took upon conversion to Orthodoxy.  As to the anon - Marie Feodorovna of Denmark - why the insistence on Glucksburg?  If we have Alexandra of Denmark, I don't see why her sister should be styled differently.  john k 29 June 2005 18:37 (UTC)
* I agree with JT, the current system of having  deceased Queen-consorts under their maiden name is the best and most sensible way of listing this group of people. We have disambigiouty pages and re-directs, as well as extensive categorisation and templates for many of the royals, so I can't really see why people would be unable to locate particular articles. Astrotrain June 29, 2005 20:07 (UTC)
Antares - current policy only requires that Marie Antoinette be at Marie Antoinette of Austria, which is a perfectly reasonable place for her to be.  There is no requirement that the maiden title (Archduchess) be used (in fact, we say that it should not be), and certainly no requirement to use the original form of the name.  Otherwise we'd have Doña Anna d'Austria, Infanta of Spain instead of Anne of Austria. john k 29 June 2005 22:53 (UTC)
:::Agree. We may be at crossed purposes. What I mean my maiden title is that one doesn't use the consort title and maiden name eg, Queen 'Ingrid of Sweden' of Denmark. etc. The form Ingrid of Sweden is adequate. FearÉIREANN(talk) 29 June 2005 23:02 (UTC)
::nope sorry John, that´s where I disagree. then why is Sophie, Archduchess of Austria listed that way? Wikipedia has many listings of royalty and nobility with format Name, title and country, be it Grandduke, Archduke, prince, whatever... so saying Marie Antoinette of Austria would be implying she was queen of Austria by Wikipedia rules. just like Empress Maria Theresa of Austria. she was however never queen of Austria, but born an archduchess, therefore the correct titel would be Maria Antonia, Archduchess of Austria. User:antares911 30 June 2005 11:49 (UTC)
Perhaps Sophie, who never was consort of a monarch, is treated like a peeress. Otherwise, she should likely be at Sophie of Bavaria which suits her rather well as she was a daughter of the king there. Whereas "Marie Antoinette of Austria" certainly does not imply that she was monarch of Austria (for example, the ordinal is lacking, and, even if monarch could be without ordinal, anyway there is no such implication as the formula is used to non-reigning daughters too). Maria Theresa is sort of exception. Title is written "title" in proper English, not "titel" as in German or in Swedish.  (And, the above comment should have not been inserted between John and Jtdirl particularly because Jtdirl -without repeating the issue- replied by "agree".) 217.140.193.123 30 June 2005 12:11 (UTC)
User Antares seems to have used the following IP: 213.7.94.25 - and also some others of the same basis 213.7... Since yesterday that user has been making edits and erasures anon, apparently desiring not to reveal being Antares. 217.140.193.123 30 June 2005 12:18 (UTC) - Today I found that User:at33 (which obviously is Antares' sockpuppet) is using IP 160.45.163.109 - this is good to know. 217.140.193.123 17:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Royal consorts, again

message: If the following in the project page: "However, there has been one notable exeption. Shortly after King George VI died of lung cancer, on February 6, 1952, Elizabeth began to be styled "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother." This style was adopted because the normal style for the widow of a King, "Queen Elizabeth," would have been too similar to the style of her elder daughter, now Queen Elizabeth II. The alternative style "The Queen Dowager" could not be used because a senior widowed Queen, Queen Mary, the widow of King George V, was still alive." were to be deleted, I would be interested to see who of users would be the one to try to bring it back (or revert). There seems to be an intriguing history of that "exception" sneaking into the text. 217.140.193.123 14:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True. It was never debated. Now was there a consensus behind it. It just appeared and none of us spotted it. FearÉIREANN SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\(caint) 16:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  a sneak in the conventions text 

message: As there has been certain activity recently to pump Asian, Polynesian etc monarchies with headings full of wordiness, I believe it is necessary at this point to enact a new rule as follows: Non-"European" monarchs and royals do not need pre-emptive disambiguation by country ruled. 217.140.193.123 23:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the "present" convention says: "These conventions do not apply to eastern civilizations. See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)." It seems everyone is unaware of this. -- Taku 23:51, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Ah, the present convention, saying "do not apply" has been no hindrance to persons who created overflowing headings, apparently believing that no policy applies to their verbose heading pursuit. A new clause basically saying "no country names" (as here proposed) should hinder such from putting two unnecessary words everywhere (the two being: of + countryname). As to Jp&Ch-related manuals, there is no clear instruction re avoidance of unnecessary sycophancy. 217.140.193.123 00:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposal for addition 

message: As I faced the question, I hereby present here the case of Märtha of Sweden (I have no serious doubts that the article should eventually be under that heading) - this is perhaps a sort of exercise how to apply the clever naming conventions there is in place at the moment.
There has been one to remind When dealing with a Crown Prince/ss of a state, use the form "{name}, Crown Prince/ss of {state}" unless there is a clear formal title awarded to a prince which defines their status as crown prince (eg, 'Charles, Prince of Wales', 'Felipe, Prince of Asturias', etc). However, I am sure that everyone sees easily that is intended only to a crown princess suo jure, such as Victoria of Sweden. And also, it may be valid to a living crown princess consort (such as Mary, Crown Princess of Denmark), cf the case of Queen Sophia of Spain.
The said Märtha is now dead and was a consort, different rule applies.However, as she died before her husband ascended the throne (and she was not queen consort consequently), it COULD be a twisted case. Had she been a queen consort, she will be at Märtha of Sweden unquestionably.
My opinion is based on that option: I regarded her as equivalent of queen consort - she was at least a royal consort, to whom the same rule seems to be applied quite often, if always.
However, a case could be made that as crown princess consort, she should be treated like Princess Alice of United Kingdom who was grand duchess consort but never a queen, thus Märtha would be Princess Märtha of Sweden.
I vote for the simpler of these two - i.e, for Märtha of Sweden. 
Those who for a reason or another would like to dub crown princess consorts equivalent with crown princesses suo jure, would make "Märtha, Crown Princess of Norway".
An ardent iconoclast would like to have Märtha Bernadotte.
And, then, there could be certain very respectful (would I say another word describing that) persons who would presumably want the heading Her Royal Highness Princess Märtha Sofia Lovisa Dagmar Thyra Bernadotte of Sweden and Westrogothia, Her Royal Highness The Crown Princess of Norway or something pompous-like equivalent :))
Please have a nice chat reasoning how to apply naming conventions to her and what would be the most correct heading here. 217.140.193.123 16:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  an exercise to naming 

message: Background of the case: the naming convention 6 for other non-royal names states "Courtesy titles (also referred to as an honorific prefix)² such as Lord or Lady differ from full titles because unlike full titles they are included as part of the personal name, often from birth. As such, they should be included in the article title if a person is universally recognised with it and their name is unrecognisable without it. For example, the late nineteenth century British politician Lord Frederick Cavendish was always known by that form of name, never simply Frederick Cavendish. Using the latter form would produce a name that would be unrecognisable to anyone searching for a page on Cavendish. Similarly, Lady Gregory, the Irish playwright, is more recognisable to readers than Augusta Gregory."
::Well, that desire to have headings people know to be looking for is apparently the reason why Deb insists to have "Lady" be in the start of headings of all noblewomen. Deb seems thus to believe that people always already know that a woman was "Lady Catherine Grey" when they seek for info about her. (I have not been presented any evidence that Catherine Grey is a name unrecognizable without "lady".) Arrigo 22:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: English history is hardly your area of expertise, as you have already demonstrated. Deb 22:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

text: That you have to ask for evidence shows your lack of knowledge of English history. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lady Catherine Grey

message: This was brought to my attention by the 'move' debate at Talk:St._Peter's_Basilica.
* Cathedral and church names, unless they individually use something different, are written as St. not Saint. Hence St. Paul's Cathedral not Saint Paul's Cathedral, St. Mary's Pro-Cathedral not Saint Mary's Pro-Cathedral, etc. 
Why?  It seems bizarre that saints should by policy be referred to with "Saint" rather than "St." or "St" (if either is used); but churches with "St." rather than "Saint".  I would have thought that consistency between the two would be best.
In addition, "St." as a shortening of "Saint" is generally considered incorrect in UK English - the t is the final letter, so no full stop is used (just as "Mister" is always abbreviated "Mr" not "Mr." in UK English - "St." usually means "street" in the UK); so many UK churches are currently at "St", not the recommended "St.".  Moving them to a specifically US-English version of the name would seem unintuitive - but using both in the Wikipedia results in silly things like "St Nicholas' Church" redirecting to one place while "St. Nicholas' Church" redirects to a different one.  To complicate the matter further, it's common Roman Catholic and Anglo-Catholic use to use "S." - but I'm sure that for the majority of churches, two or more of "St", "St.", "S." and "Saint" are used interchangeably, so establishing the form the church uses itself will not be possible.  It would seem most sensible to me to recommend that the fully-expanded version should be used in all cases, avoiding all this.  Thoughts?  TSP 19:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a difficult one.  I can't see any reason why "St Nicholas' Church" and "St. Nicholas' Church" should redirect to two different places - that's just careless editing.  I'd be inclined to argue that most church names are almost invariably written using the abbreviated form of the word "saint", whereas the actual saints' names aren't.  I think I'd defend present usage on that basis. Deb 20:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cathedral and Church Names 

message: This page is responsible for far too much.  It is a naming conventions page.  As such, it should only deal with how to title articles, not with their content.  The latter belongs in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), doesn't it?  Currently, that page directs one to come here for information on what title to use.  I think this is wrong.  This page would already be busy enough just having to deal with issues of article naming.  It shouldn't also deal with a matter that should be one of the basic issues dealt with in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies).  Can we have some clear consensus that this page is not for article content, but only for titles?  (I'm going to post a similar note at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies), suggesting that that page needs to have specific guidelines for what name to use at the beginning of the article, since it is different what name is used in the article title and what name is used in the first line. john k 14:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I agree with you overall. I don't know why the two conventions need to be different, but if they are, the conventions should be split among the two pages as you say. Maurreen (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Overall I think I'd agree too.  What about Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) as an alternative venue? Deb 16:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I already posted over there.  Maurreen - article titles are meant to be at "most commonly used names."  Normally, the first line gives the "full name."  For authors best known by pen names, the article is at the pen name, but the first line says their real name, e.g. Mark Twain or George Eliot.  The title convention for monarch articles makes sense, but there's no reason to open the article Louis XIV of France with Louis XIV of France (1638-1715).  It should be Louis XIV (1638-1715), King of France and Navarre. Or whatever - at any rate, there are significant times when article title, and name used in the first line, are not the same.  john k 18:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is doing far too much 

message: not quite sure where I should post these now since apparently this page is becoming overburdened...?
revised some of the proposals from earlier, I hope they are more satisfactory now.
Users please post your comments below the proposals, not in between, since this makes reading easier for everyone. In case of objections, please give your constructive reasoning in a short and concise manner by proposing an alternative solution. thank you. Antares911 14:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not beat a dead horse ny longer. Kindly please. 217.140.193.123 15:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd try proposal 

message: Wikipedia:Requested moves have been made for these pages:
* Talk:Duff Cooper, 1st Viscount Norwich — Duff Cooper, 1st Viscount Norwich → Duff Cooper – most commonly used name AND 
* Talk:John Julius Cooper, 2nd Viscount Norwich — John Julius Cooper, 2nd Viscount Norwich → John Julius Norwich – most commonly used name. These may be controversial because of interpretation of the naming conventions. Deb 20:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested moves

message: I'd like to amend the guidelines for baronets ever so slightly. The guidelines currently state that:
Baronets, as they hold hereditary titles, often for a large part of their lives, follow the same practice as hereditary peers (that is, the title should be used unless it the person concerned is exclusively known without it). The format is Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet.
The problem is that baronets are rarely known by the format suggested. For example, Robert Peel would be referred to as "Sir Robert Peel, Bart", "Sir Robert Peel, Bt", or just "Sir Robert Peel." The format "Sir Robert Peel, 2nd Baronet" is most often used in cases of disambiguation (i.e. an encyclopedic index). Therefore, I'd change the guideline to this:
Baronets, as they hold hereditary titles, often for a large part of their lives, follow the same practice as hereditary peers and should have their title noted in the beginning of the article. The format is Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet. For the article title, this format should only be used when disambiguation is necessary; otherwise, the article should be located at John Smith.
The format Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet is wonderful for purposes of disambiguation but horrendous for ease-of-use. Unless we actually need to include the baronetage in the actual article title I think we should let it be. See Alexander Cockburn, Sir Alexander Cockburn, 12th Baronet, and Robert Peel for comparison. Mackensen (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would fully support this suggestion.  I've always found the present convention somewhat cumbersome. Deb 15:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Baronets

message: Some additions to non-European usage:
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles)
Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hawaii/Manual_of_Style, in the future possibly Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hawaii/Manual_of_Style
Wikipedia:History standards for China-related articles
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)
For general purposes, some intent documentation is good, imo. "Most of directives below are intended for medieval and modern European and Muslim rulers and nobility, since in these civilizations several countries share same given names, whereby disambiguation by territorial designation is meaningful. Outside such circumstances, territorial designations may be regarded as unnecessary in names and in article titles." Arrigo 00:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-Europeans 

message: We already have: "If a person is best known by a cognomen, or by a name that doesn't exactly fit the guidelines above, revert to the base rule: use the most common English name. Examples: Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion, etc...". I think that these words should be written into a tad stricter form. Such as "overwhelmingly best known"...
I look forward to applying this exception only to cases such as Charlemagne instead Charles I of Franks, but not to cases Frederick the Great instead of Frederick II of Prussia nor Catherine the Great instead of Catherine II of Russia.
IMO Philip the Fair should not be adopted instead of Philip IV of France, despite of the fact that Philip's own era never used those ordinals. Actually, for medieval monarchs, ordinal system is almost totally a later fabrication, and still we live with it - the blame is to earlier historians and encyclopedias, a century or more ago etc, which adopted those... Arrigo 00:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: see my reply below, after Philip Baird Shearer's comment. --Francis Schonken 10:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

text: If a person is best known by a cognomen, or by a name that doesn't exactly fit the guidelines above, revert to the base rule: use the most common English name. Examples: Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion, etc...
The words must have been written (and prof read) by people over familiar with English history and their intent was to say that under the usual rules for numbering English kings numbers start with William I in 1066 and because of those rules kings before this time are usually known by their cognomen otherwise Kings like Edward I of England would not be Edward I of England.
If the wording is not changed then we may as well put this page up for a VFD as all but very minor kings and queens are commonly known by a cognomen. So I think we need to come up with a way of stating that if a person belongs to a European house which by histographic traditions do not included in the ordinal then... . As a stop gap measure while we agree on better wording I propose a simple change to stop requests like the requested move to "William the Conqueror":
a) If a person does not fit the guidelines above, use the most common English name. Examples: Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion, etc...
b) As "Exception 2" as a catch-all ought to be moved to be the last exception.
--Philip Baird Shearer 09:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I think it should be OK now: also, I put the "exception 2" header at the point where the discussion started focussing on that topic. --Francis Schonken 10:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Exception 2