Talk:Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha

message: *Support As nominator. Charles 01:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment Where in any of the Saxon house laws does it state that a princess loses her title upon marriage? That is up to you to prove. Other royals, number 11: Use the most senior title received by a royal personage. Augusta was not granted the title of Princess of Wales. She became one by marriage. If she had held a title in her own right, she would be titled as such (E.g. Victoria, Princess Royal, not at German Empress Victoria). Joan of Kent is from an era where women were referred to by their father's title in lieu of a surname. Remember, Joan of Kent is from mediaeval England (no set surnames, no specific titles for agnates of the English royal house) and Augusta is from much later Germany. Charles 19:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *This is what is known as sophistry. Deb 20:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not a first, but I'm amazed that you could think this is a possible option.  Had you said it should be at "Augusta, Princess of Wales", I might have understood, but for you to suggest that we should revert to the pre-marital title is beyond my comprehension. Deb 21:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But dear Deb, I've always been advocating using the MT format. That is the standard biographical format for deceased spouses of royalty and has been for over 600 years!!! That is why historians refer to Catherine of Aragon, Mary of Modena, Mary of Teck and why they now increasingly refer to Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, etc with the lack of the princess in the earlier ones indicating that they were monarchical spouses rather than merely royal spouses. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: AFAIK there has never been a Frederick II, Duke of Saxe-Gotha. Maybe Frederick II, Duke of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg is meant? Känsterle 21:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Saxe-Gotha

message: Please note that this page was recently moved to "Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha" without consultation or being raised on the requested moves page.  I have moved it back to the title which it has been at for several years.  If anyone else thinks it should be moved, please let's have a proper discussion first. Deb 19:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The name "Augusta of Saxe-Gotha" goes against current naming conventions for royals on Wikipedia. The name it was at for years was so because a) she may be of little interest and b) naming conventions may have changed since the article was started and she was overlooked. Charles 19:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if the above statements were correct, it would not be a reason to move the page without consensus. Deb 22:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't help but turn it around and say the exact same: You moved the page without consensus to a form reserved for consorts and sovereigns. Charles 23:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Augusta was the consort of the Prince of Wales. This was the highest title she held, therefore to place her at "Princess ___ of Saxe-Gotha" would be contrary to the naming conventions.  QED.  Deb 23:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Prince of Wales was not a sovereign. Consort is taken to mean the consort of a sovereign. That is how it is practiced on Wikipedia. Please do not cite royal naming conventions on Wikipedia when you are haphazardly applying them with no regard to the distinction between a Prince of Wales and a king, emperor, grand duke, etc. Charles 23:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I won't dignify this with a response.  If you have a proposal for a valid move, then please place it on the Requested Moves page and we will put it to the vote. Deb 10:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to Augusta of Saxe-Gotha

message: CLOSING: Not moved. Courcelles 17:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move  

message: Issue... had issue... no issue... what does this mean? There is no explanation nor a link to an explanation. I'm well read and I can't believe I've never heard this term. Looking it up, it appears to mean offspring or progeny. For this reason, I am going to add "...or progeny" for others who are a confused as I was when I first read this. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 05:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Issue = biological children, i.e. excluding adopted children. Progeny = descendants. Thus, "issue" is not synonymous with "progeny". Even if it were, there would be no need for both words. Surtsicna (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is issue? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140220031111/http://www.kew.org/heritage/people/augusta.html to http://www.kew.org/heritage/people/augusta.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060830234237/http://ftp.cac.psu.edu/~saw/royal/r10.html to http://ftp.cac.psu.edu/~saw/royal/r10.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article says: "Princess Augusta enlarged and greatly extended Kew Gardens after her husband's death. Sir William Chambers built several garden structures for her. One of these, the lofty Chinese pagoda built in 1761, still remains.[6]." But actually several remain, the other big one is the Orangery. Davidnugget (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kew 

message: Do we know what precedence she held during her son's reign? She had never been a queen consort, and there is no place for the sovereign's mother otherwise. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precedence 

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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 13:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha →  – The title is consistent with other people that have held the title such as Catherine, Princess of Wales and Diana, Princess of Wales. She was never queen and upon the death of her husband, her title was Augusta, Princess of Wales. Interstellarity (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

text: Oppose. This is a totally different case from Diana, Princess of Wales - who was called that only after she ceased to be "The Princess of Wales", and I'm not convinced that the article for Catherine is at a good title either. Joan of Kent is a more appropriate analogy. The article on Augusta should properly be at Augusta of Saxe-Gotha, which is what the history books call her, but was controversially moved many years ago. Deb (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

text: * Support EmilySarah99 (talk) 05:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

text: Oppose. The standard for historical royal woman seems to be to refer to them by their birth titles.2601:241:300:B610:C479:CF14:9F1:F4F2 (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

text: Oppose: Per arguments above Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 21 September 2022 

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. Consensus that the existing title is preferable under WP:NCROY and WP:CONSISTENT. (closed by non-admin page mover)  ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha →  – This is the proper title of the article. Interstellarity (talk) 11:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Strong (procedural) Oppose - No policies or guidelines were given to support the move, which contradicts WP:NCROY. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Strong oppose That is a format mainly used for queens consort (WP:CONSORTS) not the wives of princes. It would disrupt the consistency (WP:TITLECON) with Princess Margaret of Connaught, Princess Märtha of Sweden, Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark, etc., two of whom were actually married to men who later became kings, unlike Augusta's husband. The suggested title violates WP:NCROY which states  or  Thus, the name for this page could either be Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha or Augusta, Princess of Wales. An attempt to move the page to the latter failed a couple of months ago, as it violated WP:TITLECON (among other reasons). Keivan.fTalk 12:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Oppose per above.2601:249:9301:D570:29BD:A34B:248A:C785 (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Support. This is how she is normally known and is thoroughly appropriate. It should never have been moved to its present title. Deb (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Her name was "Augusta of Saxe-Gotha"; no one is disputing that and those words are part of the article title already. The prefix "Princess" is necessary to keep the page consistent with articles about wives of other heirs to the throne who either died before their husband's ascension or the husband himself died before sitting on the thron (examples include Princess Frederica Charlotte of Prussia, Princess Margaret of Connaught, Princess Märtha of Sweden, etc.). We really do not need to violate WP:TITLECON and WP:NCROY to create an exception just for Augusta. Keivan.fTalk 17:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not correct. Wikipedia tries to avoid titles, and the title "Princess...of Saxe-Gotha" is the one she held before she became Princess of Wales, thus the "Princess" part of it ceased to become valid once she achieved higher rank. See other Princesses of Wales, e.g. Caroline of Ansbach, Joan of Kent. None of your examples are relevant in this case, as all were princesses by marriage. Deb (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: . The title of Princess did not exist in its current form when Joan of Kent was around. Even though she was the granddaughter of a king, she was not referred to as "Princess Joan" to the best of my knowledge. Also, unlike Augusta, Caroline of Ansbach became a queen consort thus WP:CONSORTS applies to her.  That is factually incorrect. Princess Margaret of Connaught was the daughter of Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn and upon marriage became "Crown Princess of Sweden" which is a higher title than "Princess…of Connaught". Princess Märtha of Sweden was also the granddaughter of Oscar II and became "Crown Princess of Norway"; again a higher title than her previous one. The way their pages has been titled is exactly in line with how WP:NCROY outlines how the pages of crown princesses or wives of heirs to the throne should be named. Keivan.fTalk 11:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 9 June 2023