User talk:DBD/The of Wales Issue

The Issue[edit]

Each of the following articles is well-cited as to their lack of the "of Wales" style whilst a child of the Prince of Wales:

Children of a Prince of Wales who later became children of the Sovereign[edit]

Children of a Prince of Wales who never became children of the Sovereign[edit]

Princess Augusta of Great Britain
George III of the United Kingdom
Prince Edward, Duke of York and Albany
Princess Elizabeth Caroline of Wales → Princess Elizabeth of Great Britain R
Prince William Henry, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh
Prince Henry, Duke of Cumberland and Strathearn
Princess Louisa Anne of Wales → Princess Louisa of Great Britain R
- This princess doesn't appear in the Gazette at all, so her precise styles are therefore based upon precedent (i.e. her siblings etc.)
Prince Frederick William of Wales → Prince Frederick of Great Britain R
Caroline Matilda of Great Britain

Now, I have successfully performed the moves of almost all of the above which were named "... of Wales", but could not for Amelia, Elizabeth, Louisa and Frederick because the target titles already exist as redirects. I therefore took those for a request for move, but failed.

Thus we must here discuss what the above titles should be called — my suggestion is that "of Wales" simply becomes "of Great Britain", but others have thought otherwise. So, let's hear it. D B D 22:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poll[edit]

Move the above four as original proposed
- Support (perhaps with reasons) or Oppose (with your suggested alternative course of action)
I proposed this, and, accordingly, implicitly support it D B D 19:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - because no evidence has been presented that they were called "of Great Britain". Therefore I don't see how the proposed nomenclature is more appropriate. Deb (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is all a bit abstruse for me. Why are they 'of GB' and not 'of UK'? I'm confused. [ roux ] [x] 16:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the UK didn't exist then!--UpDown (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Deb - Because there were Prince/ss of Great Britain, and while they may not have been referred to in that style, its perfectly correct. Queen Victoria is seldom referred to simply as "Victoria of the United Kingdom", but its still perfectly correct.--UpDown (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose? I think the most correct is "of the United Kingdom" or "of the United Kingdom of Great Britain" but I guess it really does not matter, because it comes to the same thing. Given that these royals in question are post-unification of England & Scotland, I would say either one, or both as indicated (i.e. "of the UK of GB") is correct. You could always be even more specific with "of", i.e Victoria of Kent, Queen of the UK or GB, but nitpick as you must do. --Ashley Rovira (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting Ashley, but there's something you must understand. Scotland and England-and-Wales were merged in 1707 into the "Kingdom of Great Britain", which was itself merged in 1801 with Ireland to form the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". Therefore the Princes and Princesses alive from 1707–1801 were Princes/ses of Great Britain and of Ireland and those alive since 1801 have been Princes/ses of the United Kingdom.... All of the above princes/ses (except George III, his sister Augusta and their brother William, Duke of Gloucester, whose article titles are unaffected by their Prince/ss of... status) died before the 1801 union, and are therefore "of Great Britain" rather than "of the United Kingdom". D B D 19:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have been keeping an eye on this for a while as I was grappling with the intricacies of the issue. If there is to be a move to something more consistent that can be applied in a majority of cases then I support a move in principle. However, if there is a historical debate as to whether they would have referred to themselves or insisted they be referred to in a particular manner, aren't we bordering on WP:SYN? Is there a need for a designation "of UK" or "of GB" in the title? If not, can we run with Prince/ss NAME with a lead that runs something like " b UV.WX.YZ, Prince/ss of GB/UK date - date", which is similar to what Ashley proposed above? Proberton (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely common with this subject and English is not my native language, but I still don't understand the move regarding the "Children of a Prince of Wales who never became children of the Sovereign". Their father was "The Prince of Wales", so why aren't they named "Prince(ss) X of Wales" instead of "Prince(ss) X of GB"??? This would be logically and is common rule... Demophon (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right — it would be both logical, and in line with a common rule. BUT they didn't follow the rule — the evidence shows that they were "Prince(ss) X". D B D 15:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, so they deliberately deviated from this rule. It is probably already asked and shown a thousand times but could you shown me the reason why? Is it because of this: "Past precedent is that such surnames are dropped from usage in adulthood, after which the title alone is used" (source: Prince_William_of_Wales#Titles, styles, honours and arms). Demophon (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's nothing to do with that (in fact, some of them died as children anyway). And they didn't "deliberately deviate" — rather, the rule came about in British custom after them, so they were pre-"of Wales" D B D 16:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]