This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the
Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the
project page, where you can
join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
I never thought about that. But you are right, she was only ever a Crown Princess of Sweden. I would probably suggest a move on
WP:RM, only because these royal articles tend to be a bit touchier to move than others, better to cover all the bases. Prsgoddess18720:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
Support Wikipedia naming conventions do not have a special form for crown princesses who never became queens or empresses. They are to be treated as regular royals.
Charles21:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This is not NC, and it leads to untenable situation. So-called historical naming of dynastical wifes, used in all respectable works of eference, treat also these as such and "princess" does not belong to that format. There is a Maud of Wales, so there can be a Margaret of Connaught - the "princess" is not necessary from that argument either.
ObRoy20:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment The reason there is no 'Princess' in front of the name of
Maud of Wales is because Maud was a queen-consort; Margaret was not, therefore she needs the Princess in front of her name and title as per the NC.
Morhange02:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)reply
It was moved here on May 2 with the rationale "crown prince consort". I can't find any specific guidelines on crown prince consorts in the
naming conventions, though, and if this article should have a consort-style title I would be quite unsure about what it should be, perhaps
Margaret of the United Kingdom (she is sometimes referred to as Margareta av Storbritannien in Swedish). Under all circumstances, "Princess Margaret of Connaught" is a courtesy title that you can't really remove a word from. The most clear-cut way out is to keep it with the "Princess" even if crown prince consorts should be treated differently, which is an issue I won't discuss. (By the way, Sibylla was never even crown princess, so the cases are different.) --
Jao22:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)reply
The precedent on WP so far has been to treat crown princesses who never became queens as all other "regular" royals. There is no problem with simply moving it, just cite the WP naming conventions on consorts and how she does not fall within it.
Charles21:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)reply
This proposal leads to impractical situation. It is too much sophistry to make differences between "she never became queen"... The historical naming usage, in very general use in respectable works of reference, calls these women with format "firstnames + of + countryname" - which is NOT how they were officially or legally titled or used when alive. That general usage should be followed and not to make any sort of sophistry (and wikipedia-own-rules) regarding just these. The usage of the approx thousand-year-long European culture of prevalence of dynastical marriages, the format I explained of, is generally used - and Wikipedia-specific exceptions to it would just gather laughs and lead to loss of credibility. A couple of centuries back, and the titles some people are now trying to put to prefix these dames, were not existent. There will be a huge problem of "princesses" of whom princess was never used, if this application proposed above gets approved. Some people do not think further than to their own favorite royals of 20th and 19th century, and seem to be eager to put (honoring and elevating) titles to them, even creating exceptions as above. I note that above, there are opinions of only such editors who do work with recent royals and presumably do not even know what titles were in use in, say, 15th century. Everyone should comprehend the larger picture: if a wife who did not become queen, shall be prefixed by princess here, then the same praxis will be applied to similarly-situated women of eras three or more centuries earlier. And that leads to bullshit. If Margaret here must have princess, then Anna of Brandenburg, wife of the future
Frederick I of Denmark and mother of a future king too, will suddenly find herself a
Princess Anna of Brandenburg, when there are no shred of evidence that they ever were accorded such title; same with: Anna Maria of the Palatinate, first wife of the future
Charles IX of Sweden; and Ingeborg Knutsdotter, wife of Erik, son of
Valdemar I of Sweden - and she certainly was not a princess by birth even. These are just a few Sweden-linked examples, but a much larger crowd all around Europe is waiting for the proposed principle to show a failure.
ObRoy20:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)reply
While CP Margaret may be one of my favourite royals, I am in no way doing this for that reason. Margaret was not a queen-consort, so, like I said earlier, should be put under her birth title. Besides, looking at Anna of Brandenburg's page, it looks like she did become queen, so there's no need to put her at Princess (or really, Margravine) Anna at all.
Morhange02:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Morhange: it requires evidence from you that Anna was ever a Queen. According to history as we know it in real world, she died before her husband became king, and he even remarried. In order to influence the discussion here, the hint that she was queen is reprehensible, as it is impossible to back it up. Do you have contrary evidence? Where was she a queen, and of what?
ObRoy11:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Wrong as usual. The other Wikipedia links, as elsewhere, were based on the name used on this article. That name was wrong and contrary to the naming conventions. As is normal they will be changed to match the moved name.
FearÉIREANN\(caint)21:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Could you prsent further evidence in support of your opinion that the name was loaned from here, since it seems to me at the edit history that this article was always
Princess Margaret of Connaught until this got moved to the version wihout that "princess" just a couple of weeks ago. From that fact, it seems tad unbelivable that all other wikipedias loaned the name from here and all of them decided to drop "princess"... (No surprise that the person who is very often wrong, cries aloud that others are wrong)
ObRoy21:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)reply
A consort to a reigning monarch reverts to a version of her maiden name that reflects her former consort status by following the same construction as their reigning spouse. Reigning monarchs on WP are referred to as <name> <ordinal if one> of <country>. Spouses, on WP and throughout history books also are referred to as <name> of <title> (hence history books refer to Catherine of Aragon, not Princess Catherine of Aragon, etc.)
Consorts of non-monarchs use their pre-marital title in full, to distinguish them from consorts. So, for example if there were two Catherines of Aragon, one who became a queen and one who did not, the queen would be referred to as Catherine of Aragon and the non-queen Princess Catherine of Aragon, with the title making clear that the latter was never a queen.
In the case here, Margaret was married to a crown prince, not a king. After her death he became a king. As he was not a king in her lifetime she was never queen, therefore never a queen consort. As a result she cannot be named in the format applicable to deceased queen consorts. The title here, Margaret of Connaught would only be correct if she had been Swedish queen. She never was, therefore it is wrong. As she was merely the wife of a crown prince, the standard format to use is Princess Margaret of Connaught. ObRoy seems to want to have his own makey-uppy names. That is not an option. We all follow the Naming Conventions which deal with the names of articles. Under the naming conventions the rules are clear.
spouse of a reigning monarch — no title before name in maiden name/title.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Citations
This articles needs cited works. I'll bet you can source a lot of this information from two books: one by Jesus Ibarra and another by Scott Harewood.
--
Ashley Rovira12:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Do you mean the spelling? Back in the time when Margaret married Gustaf, the popular spelling of the swedish version of Margaret, Margaretha, was Margareta without a H. So the reason why her name Margareta was spelled without a H, is simply because that was the popular way of spelling it back then, while nowadays the popular spelling is Margaretha with a H.
Not quite so actually. The Crown Princess herself chose this particular spelling, which always has been more common in Sweden than the th version. The phonetic implications tend to be rather obvious, don't they? How her Swedish name would do in English in either spelling? I think she made the right choice. Her pen name (published at least one book through
Norstedts) was Margareta, Kronprinsessa av Sverige.
SergeWoodzing (
talk)
15:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Princess Margaret of Connaught and Strathearn
If her father held only one dukedom called Dukedom of Connaught and Strathearn and the title of Duke of Connaught and Strathearn (not Duke of Connaught and Duke of Strathearn), then why wasn't she styled HRH Princess Margaret of Connaught and Strathearn?
Surtsicna (
talk)
12:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)reply
But Connaught and Strathearn were two separate dukedoms, weren't they? Anyone who holds two dukedoms is styled "Duke of X and Y", that doesn't mean "X and Y" has become a single dukedom.
Strathearn is definitely a little special as it has never been held as someone's "first" dukedom, but I still think it's to be considered a dukedom in its own right. Are there any reasons to believe otherwise? --
Jao (
talk)
16:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Ah, thanks for the link. Proteus usually checks his facts thoroughly. Then I assume it's just a simplifying abbreviation; I noticed
Queen Victoria, in the same situation, was known simply as "of Kent". --
Jao (
talk)
16:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)reply
You're right, Victoria was in the same situation and she was simply of Kent. Too bad they didn't stick to double-dukedom-thing with the children's territorial designation too. By the way, Proteus usually checks her facts thoroughly ;)
Surtsicna (
talk)
17:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Princess Margaret of Sweden and the United Kingdom
Since Princess Margaret remained a princess of the United Kingdom, could she be known as Princess Margaret of Sweden and the United Kingdom ?
161.24.19.112 (
talk)
21:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Bold title
It is my opinion that it is appropriate to bold her higher title as Crown Princess of Sweden in the lede in this case, because readers will need to be clear about that distinction of this princess of Connaught already at the outset.
SergeWoodzing (
talk)
01:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)reply
But they are clear about it. It says that she was "Crown Princess of Sweden". Bolding that does not make any more sense than bolding "President of the United States" or "Queen of the United Kingdom".
Surtsicna (
talk)
07:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Why do you revert without discussing?
This is not such a case at all. She was hardly known to anyone as Princess of Connaught nor even asMargaret of Connaught though that's the article's name. She was a British princess who became Crown Princess of Sweden. If that (unfortunately) is not clear in the article's name, it needs to be maximally clear, by using bold type, in the lede. --
SergeWoodzing (
talk)
14:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)reply
You are reverting without discussing, SergeWoodzing, and you would have known that you are supposed to gain consensus if you had read
WP:BRD (as suggested). Anyway, I agree that she was never known as "Princess of Connaught". No such title has ever existed. Margaret was a Princess of the United Kingdom known as "Princess Margaret of Connaught" due to her father's dukedom. Needless to repeat that she is indeed best known by her maiden name and title, as a vast majority of women in history are. You have made it clear that you disapprove of this fact, but your disapproval does not make it any less a fact. The phrase "Crown Princess of Sweden" does not match any of the boldface criteria listed in the Manual of Style, and (as noted earlier) such phrases are not normally bolded. There is simply no need for that – that is literally the first thing said about her.
Surtsicna (
talk)
15:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)reply
After thís discussion on the talk page had been started and referred to in an edit summary
you, not I, reverted without using the talk page, which is known on WP as without discussing. You gave me an order in the edit summary, with is not known as discussing. Since then I have not reverted at all. --
SergeWoodzing (
talk)
16:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Writing a sentence on the talk page does not give you the right to restore clearly contentious edits against years long consensus. Again, you refuse to read
WP:BRD – or perhaps you are deliberately ignoring it.
Surtsicna (
talk)
16:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I did not "restore" anything after starting the discussion here. It would be nice if you'd stop inferring that I have broken any rules here. You, not I ignored the discussion and reverted.
This is getting ridiculous. Everyone can see that you did not follow
WP:BRD – which is not such a big deal, but should not be denied when it is plain and obvious. And yes, throughout the years I have come to understand your "common sense". Unfortunately for me (because I have to engage in petty disputes) and obviously for you, that "common sense" is more often than not in outright contradiction with basic principles of Wikipedia, such as
WP:V.
Surtsicna (
talk)
20:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Reading both sides of the argument, I conclude "Crown Princess of Sweden" should be in bold. Per the
WP:BOLDTITLE and mainly the
WP:R#PLA, it turns out that "
Margaret, Crown Princess of Sweden" is an already-existing redirect (there are a few more, see
what links here). A reader brought to this article through this link needs to be aware that they are on the right page--the Principal of Least Astonishment. The guideline does mention that all possible alternative title redirects need to be bolded for this reason.
However, aesthetically speaking, I would advise to keep in mind that excessively bolding short lead statements/paras often makes it too confusing for the readers; try to rearrange the lead for better clarity/readability if it gets too cluttered. -
Ugog Nizdast (
talk)
19:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Hockey
It says in the article she liked to play hockey. What kind of hockey did she play? Since it was in the winter time and in Sweden, I suppose it was either
ice hockey or hockey on the ice (the latter nowadays called
bandy) and not field hockey.
Snowsuit Wearer (
talk|
contribs)
20:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I was unable to find her house listed in the citation given as Windsor. The proclamation of 1917 removing German titles and adopting the name of Windsor excluded females who had married into foreign families. She had married into the Swedish royal family of Bernadotte in 1905.
Celia Homeford (
talk)
14:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)reply