Talk:British princess

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Princess Diana error[edit]

I have to dispute the "source" that states that Diana retained the title of a British Princess upon divorce. Diana was NEVER a British Princess during her marriage. She held the title HRH The Princess of Wales on marriage and on the day the divorce became absolute Diana became Diana, Princess of Wales. Princess of Wales was a style and NOT a title. Had Diana remarried she would not have become Princess Diana, Mrs X.. she would have become simply Mrs x or Lady x as befits the daughter of an Earl. I honestly think that section needs to be revised.

Queen Mary[edit]

I believe it is incorrect to say that the "Victoria" in Queen Mary's name was not named after Queen Victoria. Her mother Princess Mary Adalaide was a 1st Cousin of Queen Victoria and I have certainly read biographies stating that Princess Victoria Mary (later Queen Mary) was named in honour of Queen Victoria. Sorry I cannot cite the sources. I do however think that some Wikipedia articles may refer to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.185.230 (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this page because it is not merely a list. --Jiang 22:22, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I guess you are right, although the list is a huge part, and the list of British monarch page is List of British monarchs. But as long as it links through, it is at least necessary for the link.

Anyway, I need to link in some birth and deaths of some of the princesses on the list, which should be in soon!!! Astrotrain

Have made the comments on The Lady Louise Windsor consistent with what is on that page. Jongarrettuk 06:26, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Details of wives British Princes who grew up in Germany[edit]

There are three British princes who grew up in Germany. They were all born in the early 20th century. While it is not surprising that their 4 wives were not British princess the exact legal mechanism is unclear. Also they are not mentioned in this article. For instance when Prince Ernest Augustus was restored citizenship, was he restored as a British Prince? Why wouldn't his wife have been a princess? What about the sister of Duke of Edinburgh? Why wasn't she a British princess by default? Was there an act by parliament?

Could someone post me if they know the answer? Pacomartin (talk)

male line[edit]

Someone changed "male-line grandchildren" to "grandchildren". While it is true that some children of daughters of sovereigns have had the royal style, so far as I know it was a special concession in each case; e.g. when the present queen was married (1947) the then king expressly granted the title to her future children, because she was heiress presumptive. (Charles and Anne, born 1948 and 1950, were beneficiaries of this.) The children of Princesses Margaret, Anne and Mary (Countess of Harewood) are royal grandchildren but without royal styles. —Tamfang 20:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

other[edit]

How would one classify Princess Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg (later Queen of Spain) who was granted the style of Royal Highness by King Edward VII on the eve of her marriage to the King of Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.59.205 (talk) 07:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. This should be addressed and I added it under NOTES... see if you agree with my addition addressing this issue.

She was not a Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which is I think normally what is meant by "British princess." But then, the Fife princesses were not princess of the United Kingdom either, so far as I know. If we include those, we should also mention Princess Helena Victoria and Princess Marie Louise, who dropped their Schleswig-Holstein titles in 1917 but were given the style of Highness and called "HH Princess Helena Victoria" and "HH Princess Marie Louise." john k (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Princesses married into other royal families[edit]

Would a princess who married into a foreign royal family prior to 1917 have been affected by George V's dropping of German titles? For example, his sister Maud of Wales, was married in 1896 to Charles of Denmark, and then in 1905 became Queen of Norway. Would she have dropped the "Princess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" from her list of titles, even though she was by that time a member of another Royal Family? Prsgoddess187 09:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She would have ceased to use them on her marriage, having dropped them like women often drop their maiden surname on marriage.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, she wouldn't have: British princesses who marry remain British princesses. But the proclamation abandoning the German titles only applied to "the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms". On her marriage to a foreign prince, Maud, though remaining a British princess, ceased to be a subject of the United Kingdom, so George V's renunciation did not apply to her. Opera hat (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh, Princess by Marriage section?[edit]

Umm. I hesitate to point this out, because it's causing quite a stir on another page, but the section in regards to "Princess by Marriage" is in and of itself a misnomer. One does not become a "Princess" by marrying a Prince in the United Kingdom. There are only three ways to be a Princess of the United Kingdom; Daughter of the Monarch, Daughter of the Son of the Monarch, Be created one by Letters Patent from the Monarch.

This section needs to be changed.. Thoughts? Dphilp75 (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be deleted, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Camilla, Catherine and Meghan are all not Princesses, so this section should be removed entirely. Mythology3757 (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2019 (BST)

Nonsense. A woman shares her husband's rank and title. Wives of barons, viscounts, earls, marquesses, dukes, princes, and kings are baronesses, viscountesses, countesses, marchionesses, duchesses, princesses, and queens respectively. Catherine is explicitly described as "princess of the United Kingdom" on the birth certificates of her children. The section is fine. Surtsicna (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes to succession[edit]

I was just wondering if the proposed changes to the male-preference succession would have any effect on William and Catherine's eldest child, if a daughter. I know that for know, the eldest son of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales, has the style and title "HRH Prince X of Y". In this case it would be "HRH Prince Firstname of Cambridge". Any other children would be Lord/Lady Firstname Windsor.

Would this also be the style of a firstborn princess? If William and Catherine's eldest is a princess, would she be "HRH Princess Firstname of Cambridge"?

PrsGoddess187 15:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

link improper[edit]

The link to "Charlotte" does not go to a disambiguation page or the name, but the city of Charlotte, NC, entirely inappropriate. 74.69.127.200 (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

headers[edit]

The box of the British princesses by marriage has an asterisk by Wallis Simpson that she was not a British princess by marriage. If so, what was she, and why is she listed in a box that SAYS "British princesses by marriage". She married a British prince, albiet a former sovereign, and while she was not a royal duchess and not entitled to the style or precedence of "Her Royal Highness" (I've read that after the Abdication, the Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor ranked lowest in precedence after his younger siblings and that Wallis ranked the lowest of the low). I believe that regardless, for the purposes of the box, that she was a British princess by marriage, because she MARRIED a British PRINCE. However she was not a royal princess by the Letters Patent of King George VI. 74.69.6.182 (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are we Wikipedians giving out titles, or aren't we?[edit]

Of all the confusing articles I've seen since I started using Wikipedia many years ago, this one may take the cake. Is a princess a princess just because she marries a prince, are duchesses not princesses even when they are married to princes or even though they were born British princesses?

Here are a few exampes:

  1. What on earth is Wallis doing listed in this article at all?
  2. Why is Marina not considered a princess all along?
  3. When was Alice a princess and when was she not?

Are there any reliable sources for some of the this hodge-podge?

The lists desparately need "From - Until" columns - please! - to alleviate some of the the madness. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing some of the point here. There are two forms of Princesses in Britain; those who are Princesses by their birth and those who are Princesses by marriage. Thus, women like Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon were not Princess' prior to their marriages but became one afterwards, even if they weren't necessarily styled as such - the Queen Mother was never formally titled "Princess" yet from the moment of her marriage she was technically The Princess Albert (she just used her husband's higher title, Duke of York, until he became King). Her sister-in-law, Princess Marina was a Greek and Danish Princess from birth, became a British Princess on her marriage, but was styled as Duchess of Kent - her husband's highest title - until after his death when she took a rather unique title for her position - that of a British Princess suo jure, which she was not. Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone was a Princess from birth, as she was the granddaughter of a British monarch. Wallis is something of a unique situation, which is explained in the notes of this article - she was technically entitled to the title of HRH Princess Edward, Duchess of Windsor upon her marriage - the female equivalent of her husband's titles - but letters patent deprived her of this title. From one standpoint she was a British Princess, even if she never held or used such titles.
If you look at the way the two tables are set up, the first one lists those who were born British Princesses. With few exceptions these women were Princesses from birth until death, and it does make note of the women who lost their titles because of the 1917 LPs (the women highlighted in grey) and mentions those who relinquished or ceased to use their titles at some point in their lives. The second table is the list of women who became British Princesses upon their marriage - some who were Princesses in other realms before hand, but others who were not Princesses in any way and became Princesses through their marriage even if they never used that title. Once again, most of these women never lost this title, but when they did it's noted - either they were married to a man who became King (making them Queen), they were married to a man who lost his titles with the 1917 LPs, or else they lost their titles upon their divorce. This is all noted in the article already. Psunshine87 (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, sincerely! Now, are there any reliable sources for any of all that?
And wouldn't it be helpful to show much more clearly those periods during which they all (except one!) were British princesses?
English is my first language, with which I've worked quite a bit, rather successfully, for over 50 years now. Yet your sentence re Wallis "From one standpoint she was a British Princess[according to whom?], even if she never held or used such titles." makes no sens to me whatsoever. (What standpoint, just someobody's personal opinion?) Nor does the word technically in "she was technically entitled[by whom?] to the title of HRH Princess Edward, Duchess of Windsor upon her marriage ... but letters patent deprived her of this title". The letters patent, depriving her of the title, were issued before they married, weren't they? Why are we making such poor excuses (and damaging the reliability of this project, that's why I'm appalled) to include "Her Grace" Ms Wall-Wall, who obviously never was a princess and does not belong on this list. Is it because gossip biographies describing her fabulous erotic prowess have turned somebody on here big time, or is some powerful Wikipedian a relative of hers? I can't think of any other reasonable explanation. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since we have no reliable sources of any kind that Camilla is a princess of any kind I have rm a photo of her - at top of the article yet! - again. I will be rm her and Wallis from the list too, soon, unless reliable sources for their inclusion in this list are provided. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.royal.gov.uk/thecurrentroyalfamily/princeandprincessmichaelofkent/stylesandtitles.aspx It's not specifically on Camilla, however it does say, quote "Traditionally, all wives of male members of the British Royal Family, the aristocracy and members of the public take the style and title of their husbands.' As Charles is officially His Royal Highness The Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, it stands to reason that his wife is Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles Philip Arthur George. What you need is not a source proving that Camilla is a Princess, for she is as entitled to that status as much as Sophie or Catherine, or any one of the many other women who have married into the British Royal Family and are included in this list without any sourcing and yet you have not taken any exception to them. Unless you have a source that is saying that Camilla is not a Princess, then the precedent established by British Common law and supported by the link I've provided says that Camilla is a princess. Also, just to add to it, when Charles and Camilla married it was said that the marriage is not morganatic even if Camilla isn't using Charles' main title, once again making her a princess: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/camilla-can-legally-be-queen-u-k-minister-1.529907 (and this link is one of the sources on Camilla's page).
As for Wallis' titles, in That Woman: The Life of Wallis Simpson Duchess of Windsor by Anne Sebba it's said "Although most lawyers pointed out then and subsequently that the announcement of Letters Patent was based on fallacious premises and a royal title foe the Duchess should have followed automatically from marriage - had it not, then Wallis would after all be marrying the Duke morganatically, which had been ruled out as an impossibility months before - the Duke obviously guessed that there would be strong opposition from his family and therefore had written to his brother in mid-April asking him to announce the Duchess' HRH formally." (page 209) Therefore there is a legal standpoint that despite the LPs she was actually Princess Edward but just was not recognized as such owing to the fact that it was against the will of the King. At best her status as a Princess is as much debatable as that of Lady Louise Windsor, whose inclusion in this list you seem to have no problem with. Psunshine87 (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretations, in this context, of "traditionally", of what's in Sebba's book and other things, are arbitrary and constitute Original research of yours, and for all intents and purposes attempts on your part to create princesses where none have been created elsewhere. What is needed instead is a reliable source or two which specifically name Camilla and Wallis as British princesses. Otherwise WP will be alone among reliable works in specifically doing so, and that's exactly what's not allowed. I know nothing about Louise Windsor, but naturally the same would apply to her. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off topic, I was under the impression that when Princess Marina took the style 'HRH Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent' upon her son's marriage, the use of the word 'princess' reflected Princess Marina being born a Princess of Greece and Denmark rather than her taking the style of a British Princess by birth.Bellachn (talk) 06:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Camilla is a Princess[edit]

The Duchess of Cornwall should be listed too. If she is not listed ... also die Countess of Wessex and the Duchess of Cambridge cant be listed here. The moment a woman marries a Bristish Prince she becomes a British Princess ... And if a certification is needed for Camilla ... a certification is needed for Sophie and Catherine too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.20.133 (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to provide a reliable source which specifically states that she is a princess, not just your personal opinion. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But can you provide a source which specifically states that Sophie and Catherine are princesses? The Bristish laws gives women directly all titles in style of their husbands. And here is the source you wanted: Titles and Orders--Bar78 (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a personal website not recognized as a reliable source. Nor is it relevant to an unsourced allegation in this article, once challenged, whether something is or is not sourced in another article, per POINT. Nor do "British laws" give wives all styles of their husbands': that principle applies to peerages. FactStraight (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And why are Shophie and Catherine Princesses? --Bar78 (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep removing a photo of Camilla, and will soon remove her and Wallis from the list also, unless reliable sources are given to substantiate the claim that they actually are/were princesses of any kind. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still wait for an answer: Where is the source, that Sophie, Countess of Wessex and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge are Princesses?--Bar78 (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Camilla's photo again and now also written to that one-issue user who keeps doing things that are not appropriate. Now, as per warning above, I will also remove her and Wallis from the list. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete name formats?[edit]

Wouldn't it be considered obsolete and passé in our modern world to claim that the Queen's youngest son's wife, for example, besides her regular title, also could be called Princess Edward and the wife of Prince William can be called Princess William? I am more interested in reliable sources, which might confirm that such anachroisms are still in use, than I am in what only would amount to the personal opinions of fellow users. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn't be.[1] See also the stall plate at the Queen's Chapel of the Savoy: [2] They are very much in present use (and therefore not anachronisms at all), as illustrated by the examples of Princess Michael of Kent and Lady Nicholas Windsor. Surtsicna (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Will add your sources to the article. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on British princess. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British princess. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RMA needs deleting or major rewrite[edit]

"For example, Prince George, Duke of Cambridge, a male-line grandson of George III, married Sarah Louisa Fairbrother, in contravention of the Royal Marriages Act. Although morganatic marriage did not exist in British law, the duke's wife was never titled the Duchess of Cambridge or accorded the style "Her Royal Highness". Instead, she was known as "Mrs FitzGeorge". Most famously, George VI issued Letters Patent dated 27 May 1937 that entitled The Duke of Windsor "to hold and enjoy for himself only the title style or attribute of Royal Highness so however that his wife and descendants if any shall not hold the said title style or attribute".

A marriage conducted in contravention of the RMA was not a marriage in UK law. So the sovereign didn't withold any title since there was no marriage for the title to be gained by! Garlicplanting (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Common Names[edit]

This article states that Queen Mary was not named for Queen Victoria. That is not true. Her mother specifically named her first name Victoria to ingratiate herself to her cousin the queen. 209.179.118.134 (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wives of sons of the eldest child of the Prince of Wales[edit]

I am wondering would the wives of sons of the Prince of Wales also have the title of HRH Princess? Joddd334 (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_princess&oldid=1200368162"