Talk:Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha

Requested move 21 September 2022

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)

---

Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha → Augusta, Princess of WalesAugusta, Princess of Wales – 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) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

• Support – the Royal Collection Trust refers to her as Augusta, Princess of Wales. cookie monster 755 16:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's not a great example. They actually "refer to" her as simply "Augusta". The article title is "Augusta, Princess of Wales (1719-72)". If you're looking for examples, the NPG calls her "Augusta of Saxe-Gotha, Princess of Wales", as do some history books. This would be a better title but is rather long-winded. More recent books, like Mary Beacock Fryer's 1996 book, call her simply "Augusta of Saxe-Gotha". Deb (talk) 09:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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)

Oppose: Per arguments above Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Actually, upon her husband's death, she became Dowager Princess of Wales. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support - per WP:COMMONNAME - I've read many articles about her that I've found on the internet and many (but not all) historical sites do label her as "Augusta, Princess of Wales", maybe just change/move the page name to "Augusta, Princess of Wales" but keep the text in the main description as "Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg" or "Augusta of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg" similar to the pages of Albert, Prince Consort and Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. Pawpaw442 (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  Ignorance appears to be at work here. Albert was consort of a monarch, as was the Queen Mother. Neither was ever either Prince or Princess of Wales. Deb (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support per above comments. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Shwcz (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose As Deb mentioned, Joan of Kent was also Princess of Wales, but we tend to keep the page titles at the subjects' maiden names especially if they are deceased, because there's a chance that someone with the exact same first name might carry the title in the future. So at this point this move would go against WP:TITLECON as it disrupts an established pattern. Other examples include Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld who was Duchess of Kent and Strathearn, Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark who was Duchess of Kent, Princess Helen of Waldeck and Pyrmont who was Duchess of Albany, etc. Not to mention that there's a high probability that page on Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother will be moved in the future, as deceased consorts have to be referred to by their maiden names per WP:NCROY, and her maiden name appears to be common enough and will be more commonly used now that her daughter's reign is over. Keivan.f^Talk 05:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Both forms of the name are common and in use, so common name arguments don't apply, but neither does the consistency argument. The current article title is consistent with other royal brides, who are at their maiden names. Consequently, the opening rationale has no strength and there's no reason for a move. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 9 June 2023

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)

---

Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha → Augusta of Saxe-GothaAugusta of Saxe-Gotha – This is the proper title of the article. Interstellarity (talk) 11:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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 If a prince(ss) holds a substantive title but is not widely known by it, use "Prince(ss) {first name} of ...". or When dealing with a Crown Prince(ss) (however not consort) of a state, use the form "{name}, Crown Prince(ss) of {state}" unless there is a formal title that unambiguously implies their status as crown prince. 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.f^Talk 12:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

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.f^Talk 17:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

thus the "Princess" part of it ceased to become valid once she achieved higher rank. 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. None of your examples are relevant in this case, as all were princesses by marriage. 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.f^Talk 11:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.