Template talk:British princesses by marriage

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

British Royalty This template 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 United Kingdom This template is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom

Should these ladies be sorted by their maiden names, rather than married names, or is it fine the way it is? Morhange (talk) 04:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. After I change over the template, I'll comment. Charles 04:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that these women would best be sorted under their birth names if they held a title and by their British title if still alive and married. I also feel that using British titles for some princesses here is wrong (like the Queen of Hanover). If I didn't know about British princesses and I looked at this page, the fact that they all have British titles wouldn't do much for me. But if I saw a queen of Hanover listed here, I'd be inclined to start clicking around, you know? I am, however, going to try out some changes at "British prince" with people like the King of Hanover. The British titles their seem to hide their identity. Charles 05:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this template should be concerned with who was a princess by birth or not. The articles could very well handle that. So I propose again, birth names for all, British titles for those still living, and maybe Queen ... for those who became queens. Charles 05:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Lady a title of nobility? Morhange (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Charles already proposed a year ago, I think we should sort these princesses under their birth names and titles. A quick look at the template would make people realise that there were titleless commoners who became princesses even in the 18th century and that there are still princesses today who are of noble birth. It would also provide a short description of their background: four of these women were Princesses of Greece, two were Princesses of Prussia, two were Princesses of Greece, two were daughters of earls and one was a daughter of duke. There were royal princesses, princely princesses, duchesses, a grand duchess, a countess, a baroness and even a margravine. Such a diversity can only be noticed if we sort them under their birth names and titles, just like we sorted British princesses by birth under their marital titles.

What do you think?

Surtsicna (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. DBD 23:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like it and I don't. I do like that it shows the maiden names, but I also like that it shows the married names, so I'd honestly be fine either way :) Morhange (talk) 07:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean Morhange. I just think that the template itself is a lot more interesting when you can see that British princes married all sorts of women - from bastard commoners to daughters of kings and emperors. Surtsicna (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DBD agrees, Morhange is neutral, so I suppose I can edit the template. Surtsicna (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take a look at Talk:Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent#Unofficial move propasal? Thank you. Surtsicna (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find the little asterisked note "did not have a royal or noble title at birth" confusing. The difference between style and title is not clear in the public mind, and are the German designations titles or styles? Now that the titles/styles by marriage are removed, I think the little note and asterisks can be removed too. DrKiernan (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Style = Her Royal/Serene/Grand Ducal/Imperial Highness, Title = Princess of the United Kingdom, etc. What do you mean German designations? Though I agree, we really don't need the asterisk now that they are at their birth names. Morhange (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Baroness von Reibnitz" is a style, German titles don't exist anymore. Unless it's actually her personal name. To most people, "Lady" is a noble title (even if it isn't one), hence, having a note "did not have a noble title at birth" against people called "Lady" is confusing. DrKiernan (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to keep her in, then we need to rename this template to "Wives of British princes" or some such. DrKiernan (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed accordingly. Opera hat (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was Wallis Simpson never a British princess by marriage? CookieMonster755✉ 18:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]