Talk:Maud of Wales

message: The heading is incorrect. She was queen consort, thus there should not be "princess" in her heading - there should be no title. 217.140.193.123 13:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Old discussion

message: Why is this under "Princess Maud of Wales"? That implies that her father only ever was the Prince of Wales, but he wasn't, he was king. Therefore, shouldn't it be "Princess Maud of the United Kingdom"?
*Probably because Princess Maud her title was never Princess Maud of the United Kingdom. She was married before the death of her grandmother, Queen Victoria, and therefore she was known as Princess Maud of Wales. I suppose you could argue that she was still a Princess of the United Kingdom, but her title from birth until her marriage to Prince Carl of Denmark (Haakon VII) was Maud of Wales. Morhange 17:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of article 

message: I think this should be under Maud of Wales, as she was married to Carl of Denmark prior to her father's accession.  Prsgoddess187 02:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: She is Maud of Wales because she married prior to 1901, BEFORE her father became King Edward VII.  Her sister Victoria is listed as "of the United Kingdom" because she never married, and upon her father assuming the throne, she became HRH The Princess Victoria.  Louise also married prior to 1901, and is listed at her style as Duchess of Fife and Princess Royal. Maud was never known as a Princess of the UK. Prsgoddess187 16:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of Article 

message: OK. Let's just take a few minutes and calm down. I've protected this page because there seems to be a conflict of interests in adding Queen Maud's genetic info. Can the users involved please discuss this below and come to a compromise (nicely :-) ? Craigy (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Without wishing to stir up a fuss, why should she me Maud of Wales rather than Queen Maud of Norway? It seems to me a Queen would trump a princess in terms of importance, so would be the obvious main title. But I'm not hung up about that, I presume it is taken care of  by redirects. My gripe is that the page includes the UK family link table, but not the Norwegian one, which actually lists her descendants. Admittedly the article is rather crowded by tables, but this same logic that her greater importance is as Queen would imply that if we are forced to a choice, the wrong one has been included. Sandpiper 09:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong on all counts.
* Royal consorts lack ordinals (numbers). As a result it is standard here and elsewhere to refer to deceased consorts by their maiden name or maiden title, never their consort name. That is why history refers to Catherine of Aragon, Mary of Modena, etc, not Queen Catherine, Queen Mary. Maud's premarital title was Maud of Wales. That is why she is correctly named that here. She cannot be placed as Queen Maud of Norway. That would imply she was a queen regnant, not a queen consort. 
* Wikipedia also correctly puts her birth family template in, not the template of the family she married into. She was a British princess and so naturally the British template is used, to show her ancestry. A page about someone born a Norwegian princess would of course include a Norwegian template to show her ancestry. The marital family template is only used when someone is alive, e.g., the current British Royal Family template is used on the Duke of Edinburgh page, and the page of Queen Sophia of Spain uses the Spanish royal one. When they die, the Greek royal one will be used instead to show their ancestry. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: well I take your first point, that's fine if it is convention, but I see it is plainly not without controversy. However, i do not take your second point. Tables we include are for the benefit of readers, and have little to do with geneaological conventions. As a reader I have been looking at some of these pages and it is an obvious lack that a page about someone who has important descendants does not have a table listing those descendants, so I can click on them or see them tabulated for easy reference. I do not like having to call up her husbands page, then find on that the link I need, bad page design. This is not the only page I have noticed where there is this lack of information on spouse pages. Either the table needs to be redesigned to show her in the middle with her english ancestors and norwegian descendants, or we need two tables (which presumably is simpler if essentially they already exist?) so anyone can see them here. Sandpiper 17:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was No consensus to move. —Centrx→talk • 05:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen maud 

message: *Oppose There is no convention that warrants the inclusion of the title of "Princess" for British princesses as said in your requested move. WP practice is to omit the title for all royal consorts. Moves are made to conform to that. Charles 00:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* 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.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Statue of Maud of Wales.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: This title should be changed to Princess Maud of the United Kingdom, as her sister's article is at Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Bit late but I agree! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should be ''Princess Maud of the United Kingdom'' 

message: Why are we using British terminology in titling her Princess Carl as a Danish princess, when such titling is unknown in Danish usage? The title she was given by Denmark was Princess Maud not Princess Carl, regardless of what Brits have used. Another user and I have both reverted this, but a third user puts it right back. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet another user reverted to my version - as long as we are counting users. She was referred to in English as "Princess Carl of Denmark". If need be, add how she was styled in Danish. It is really that simple. Surtsicna (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Actually, now that I look at it, it appears that "Princess Charles of Denmark" is what she was most commonly called. There is even a Begonia cultivar named "Princess Charles of Denmark". Surtsicna (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Princess Carl?

message: :::Said earlier in discussion: * Royal consorts lack ordinals (numbers). As a result it is standard here and elsewhere to refer to deceased consorts by their maiden name or maiden title, never their consort name. That is why history refers to Catherine of Aragon, Mary of Modena, etc, not Queen Catherine, Queen Mary. Maud's premarital title was Maud of Wales. That is why she is correctly named that here. She cannot be placed as Queen Maud of Norway. That would imply she was a queen regnant, not a queen consort. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Oh, have the Wikiroolz got fuzzy with the influx of the commoner consorts? Why do we now have pages on Queen Maxima of the Netherlands rather than Maxima Zorreguieta, Queen Mathilde of Belgium (shouldn't that be of the Belgians?) rather than Mathilde d'Udekem d'Acoz, Queen Letizia of Spain rather than Letizia Ortiz Rocasolano? Plus not-yet-consorts like Crown Princess Mary of Denmark rather than Mary Donaldson, Crown Princess Mette-Marit of Norway rather than Mette-Marit Hoiby, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall rather than Camilla Shand or even Camilla Parker-Bowles, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge rather than Catherine Middleton? Because the rule cited above fits none of those female consorts/consorts in waiting. Have things now changed? On the Talk pg for Queen Maxima, they're saying there that the rule is Queen goes before the consort's given name. Wholly confused about it now. ScarletRibbons (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they are not dead? All of this very confusing mess we've ended up with, as described here, could be fixed very easily with this, but sadly there seems to be little or no interest. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Consort Styling 

message: The redirect Matilda of Wales has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Matilda of Wales]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]