Talk:Princess Antonia, Duchess of Wellington

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 08:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Children's titles

Would Antonia's daughters and her younger son be entitled to the courtesy titles of Lord/Lady? I understand her eldest son, as the heir of the heir of the Duke of Wellington, but since their father is only a courtesy marquess, shouldn't they just be Mr./Miss FIrstname Lastname.

Prsgoddess187 20:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Here's Heywood's 'Coronation Problem' chapter in his book British Titles if it helps:

Although convention had accorded these courtesy styles to such grand-daughters of peers for many years, they were not in fact officially recognised until the Coronation of the present King and Queen in 1937. It arose out of the choice of the six Maids of Honour to assist the Dowager Duchess of Northumberland, the Mistress of the Robes, to wait upon the Queen. When the official list was being prepared it was pointed out, by Garter King of Arms, that although five of their number were correctly given the style of "Lady" as the daughters of peers, the other, known conventionally as Lady Margaret Cavendish-Bentinck, was not officially entitled to that style as she was not the daughter of a peer but only of a peer's elder son (Marquess of Titchfield, heir to the Duke of Portland).

The King overcame the immediate difficulty by issuing at once a Royal Warrant expressly granting Lady Margaret the use of that style.

But this raised the whole question of courtesy titles and subsequently, in 1939, recommendations were submitted to the King designed to put the practice on a more regular basis.

Briefly, these recognised the use of courtesy peerage styles for the grandsons of dukes and marquesses in the direct line of succession, provided the titles were those of actual peerages held by the grandfathers; and allowed such a grandson to "succeed" to any higher courtesy style held by his father if his father died in the grandfather's lifetime.

But they also proposed not to allow officially courtesy titles to any other children of peer's eldest sons without the sanction of a Royal Warrant in each case. The effect of this would have been that though the eldest son of a courtesy marquis might correctly be known as Earl of This or That, his brothers and sisters would officialy be merely Mr. and Miss.

The King's Decision

It appears, however, that His Majesty was loth to interfere to this extent with a practice which had become so general, and the upshot was a general permission for all the children of holders of courtesy peerage titles to bear such styles as would be theirs if their fathers actually held the peerages by which they were known.

Actually this latest ruling by the King refers only to the grandchildren of dukes and marquesses, but adherence to the spirit and not merely the wording of it would seem to rule out the further use of those "invented" courtesy titles to which I have referred. But as fairly long usage has sanctioned the custom, and the peerages concerned are few in number, any difficulty would probably be met by the issue of a Royal Warrant granting permission.

Craigy (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The "of" in title

I thought that the title is "Marquess Douro" without an of, in view of the fact that Douro is a Portuguese river? Lethiere 10:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

True, but they style themselves with the "of". As well, it is only a courtesy title as it is. There are certain peers in the UK who style themselves with different forms of their "actual" titles. Charles 01:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Princess?

This was an honorific, as her father Prince Frederick of Prussia took the name "Mr. Friedrich von Preussen" when he was granted British citizenship in 1947. See [1] for the 1961 Commons debate on his attempt to get compensation from Poland.86.42.204.255 (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This person was never "Her Royal Highness Princess Antonia of Prussia"

There has not been any such thing since 1919 when all German royal titles were abolished.Smeat75 (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

No source has been cited in support of the applicability of this general rule to the subject of this article, therefore it is irrelevant and inapplicable synthesis. Whereas, sources substantiating the post-1919 attribution and use of princely titulature for this person have been added to the article. FactStraight (talk) 10:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The first entry in the section states that her "title and style" was "Her Royal Highness Princess Antonia of Prussia (1955–1977)", that is a German title. Noble Privilege by M L Bush, Manchester University Press, 1983 [2] "the abolition of titles coincided simply with the removal of the monarchy...The fall of the Habsburgs...and their replacement by republican governments...directly caused the elimination of noble titles in Germany". I could find as many reliable sources as you like that say plainly and in unequivocal language that all German royal and noble titles have been abolished for nearly 100 years.Smeat75 (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, German titles, save those of hereditary sovereigns, were not abolished in 1919: they ceased to be recognized from that date as royal/noble honorifics and henceforth became recognized by Germany's governments as part of the surname. By contrast, the Soviet Union and Austria abolished and banned use of hereditary titles, whereas the republics of Germany, Italy, France etc simply ceased recognizing them as noble indicia -- but neither abolished them nor banned their use. Secondly, and more definitiesly, this argument violates SYNTH. FactStraight (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 4 August 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus DrStrauss talk 20:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Princess Antonia, Duchess of Wellington → Antonia Wellesley, Duchess of Wellington – Although she was born and initially styled Princess Antonia of Prussia, German titles are given up by female holders when they marry. In official publications e.g. The London Gazette, she has been styled as Antonia Elizabeth Brigid Louise, Title[3]. Antonia Wellesley, Duchess of Wellington would be consistent with other articles on Duchesses of Wellington e.g. Elizabeth Wellesley, Duchess of Wellington born Lady Elizabeth Hay Nthep (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 21:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support per nom. I can't understand why people create articles with titles like that. It's not like there's a policy stating "anyone who's a pretender to a royal title is entitled to be called that on Wikipedia, even though it might have been abolished decades before the person was born." Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• I also have the same notability concerns I mentioned at Talk:Arthur Wellesley, Marquess of Douro. There is no claim to notability being made other than "relative of other famous people". Nthep, how would feel about these two articles just being redirected to Charles Wellesley, 9th Duke of Wellington? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

No personal opinion but I'd be surprised if sufficient RS couldn't be found for someone who has done enough to be awarded an OBE for her own work. Nthep (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Likewise, and see my google search below... several thousand ghits. Andrewa (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. No justification for this move in terms of wp:AT. I get several thousand ghits for the existing name [4] including many RSS and only four for the proposed name [5] none of which appear to be RSS. Andrewa (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I am more than happy to reconsider this if evidence of common usage and/or of a specific request from the subject herself is presented, see #BLP issues below. Andrewa (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It appears that the request was from unspecified members of the family, and covered several family members, at least one of which has now been renamed as a result (in fact I closed that one and performed the requested move myself), see below. Andrewa (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
    • It now appears that the request came from the personal secretary of the subject herself. See comments elsewhere about this trickling of information. Still no change of !vote, but this does raise a relevant issue IMO. Andrewa (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support The Duchess title is current, while the "Princess" title is a deprecated German title. Not only is the title not one which she could use in Germany, it is also notable that the use of German titles was deprecated in the UK during WW I. As a result, use in Wikipedia as though it were an accepted current honorific in combination with her UK title-by-marriage is misleading. Collect (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

She can call herself Prinzessin von Preußen all she likes in Germany, as far as I am aware. Legally too. Surtsicna (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Andrewa has shown that the present name is used thousands of times more than the proposed name. It is not up to us to decide whether she has a moral right to a title. Dana Elaine Owens is universally know as Queen Latifah, so we call her Queen Latifah. If Nthep or someone else could show that the subject uses exclusively the ducal title, that would warrant a reconsideration. Surtsicna (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment You ask can it be shown that she exclusively uses the ducal title; in Who's Who she is styled Antonia Elisabeth Brigid Luise Wellesley, Duchess of Wellington. In formal company documents that link in the search given by Andrewa she is titled, Antonia Wellesley, Duchess Of Wellington so I'd say she does use the ducal title exclusively - why would she bother to contact us to ask fr the change if she didn't. As for the 000s of ghits following the current title, I have to search through several screens before I start seeing anything that is as reliable, the first pages are filled with blogs, the Daily Mail and other equally unreliable sources. Also who is to say that any sources using the current title haven't actually picked the title from Wikipedia? Nthep (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

She contacted who? And where? It's not mentioned in the nomination. Surtsicna (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Read down. I raised this discussion from an OTRS request received from the Duchess's private secretary on behalf of the Duchess. Nthep (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

And you have only yourself to blame that we didn't know that, as that's the first time you have divulged some of that information. I greatly appreciate the work of the OTRS team as I'm sure do others, but I hope you will review your procedures as a result of this discussion. As I have said before, the trickling out of information has wasted a lot of time, and has helped nobody. Andrewa (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Also who is to say that any sources using the current title haven't actually picked the title from Wikipedia? - I missed that and it's a good point for which we have no answer AFAIK. But if adopted as a reason for change it could result in large scale chaos, as it would disqualify any source supporting any name that Wikipedia had used before the source did. Andrewa (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Two (thousand) wrongs do not make a right, that the incorrect title is used in loads of sources does not make that usage correct or desirable. I can find many reliable sources that use Freddie Flintoff but the Wikipedia article uses his correct name of Andrew Flintoff. Similarly with J-Lo and Jennifer Lopez. The thing about Princess Antonia, Duchess of Wellington is that no matter how many sources are using that title, none that I have read show that this is a title the duchess uses about herself - if that was conclusively shown then the argument for the move falls but I'll reiterate, this is a request from the subject that we stop using an incorrect form of address and move the article to a form which is a) accurate b) in line with WP:NCBRITPEER and WP:MOSAT and, c) is consistent with other articles on similar subjects. There may only be a small number of sources that show the proposed title but they are there but they do exist. I take all the criticism about my failure to phrase the request accurately in the first place, I hold my hands up to that error, but this request should be based on the merits of the case not the presentation thereof. The current title can, and should, be retained as a redirect. Nthep (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose No evidence "Antonia Wellesley, Duchess of Wellington" has been used. Almost all of the very few hits on Google are of this proposed move. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Try adding -Wikipedia to your search string... same result but easier to read. Andrewa (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

From above: I can't understand why people create articles with titles like that. It's not like there's a policy stating "anyone who's a pretender to a royal title is entitled to be called that on Wikipedia, even though it might have been abolished decades before the person was born."

The problem seems to be that you assume that Wikipedia will (even must) use the official name of such persons. There are several reasons we don't do that, see that essay for some explanation, it was written because this is a very common misconception. The policy is instead to use the name used in reliable English sources. Does that help? Andrewa (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

It is correct that we don't have to use the official name but I'm not seeing lots of reliable sources that are using the common name either, most of the top ghits I see are tabloids and blogs. The other point is that this request for a move is from the subject themself and per WP:BLPEDIT we should try and respect that - the matter of the titling is no different than dealing with any other erroneous material in the article. Nthep (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Certainly blogs aren't RSS but tabloids may be, and it doesn't matter if the RSS aren't among the top ghits as we simply discard the non-RSS ghits wherever they fall anyway. So the fact that most of the top ghits I see are tabloids and blogs is irrelevant. The point is just that the RSS are there once the non-RSS are discarded, and are there in quantity.

The point about BLP is significant and timely, and deserves both a subsection of its own, and further discussion whichever way this particular RM goes.

But I hope you now understand why people create articles with titles like that. One reason is that they are simply following Wikipedia policy, or at least trying to. (No change of !vote at this stage.) Andrewa (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

BLP issues

From above The other point is that this request for a move is from the subject themself and per WP:BLPEDIT we should try and respect that - the matter of the titling is no different than dealing with any other erroneous material in the article. This raises several important issues.

...this request for a move is from the subject themself... Is it? No evidence of that in the discussion on this page that I can see, have I missed it? (I note that the the particular section of WP:BLP you cite, WP:BLPEDIT, is specifically dealing with edits by the subject, and so would be inapplicable otherwise.)

...the matter of the titling is no different than dealing with any other erroneous material in the article... With respect to non-BLP articles, this is a commonly held misconception, see wp:correct and wp:official names. The question of when a title becomes erroneous is treated rather differently to that of erroneous content, for some subtle but good reasons. But in BLP articles, this may carry some weight. I don't think the policy and guidelines are at all clear on this.

WP:BLP does not deal with article names at all, as far as I can see. Have I missed it, or is it covered elsewhere?

At the risk of instruction creep, perhaps we need to clarify this with an explicit guideline. Andrewa (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Note also the recent result at Talk:Arthur Wellesley, Earl of Mornington#Requested move 4 August 2017 where there was strong consensus to rename the article based on the family's request through OTRS, and overturning a previous RM. Perhaps that is a way forward. Andrewa (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, for some reason I omitted the OTRS ticket from the original request but this request does comes from the same ticket 2017080410010435 as Talk:Arthur Wellesley, Earl of Mornington#Requested move 4 August 2017.

Words fail me. The one consolation is that you have wasted so much of your own time as well as that of others. Andrewa (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The article name is as much part of the content as the text of the article So if an article subject says you have got X wrong about me, it shouldn't make any difference if X is part of the text or the title of the article.

That's generally true but not currently sound as a such a sweeping principle, as there are many differences between the way we source and cite references to content and the way we choose article titles. If it's to be adopted as a principle, that would need discussion and approval, and I see many pitfalls. But feel free to propose it. Andrewa (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it needs any separate guideline in this case as WP:NCBRITPEER point 2 says Articles on the wives of hereditary peers are generally headed {First name} {Married name}, {Title}, as Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire; using her maiden name and so calling her Georgiana Spencer, Duchess of Devonshire would be anachronism. ... if a peeress has had several styles, redirects will be useful. Using Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire as an example, at the time of her marriage she was titled in her own right as Lady Georgiana Spencer due to her father being a viscount, but we don't title the article about her Lady Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire. Titling this article Antonia Wellesley, Duchess of Wellington is consistent with this guideline as well as being in line with the request made by the subject. Nthep (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Quite so. But whether these considerations can overcome the fact that the proposed name is (on the evidence I provided above at least) apparently unknown in reliable secondary sources, while they regularly use the current name, is I think still a good question.

But at least you have now provided some relevant arguments. This is indeed progress. Andrewa (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Note that in the case of Arthur Wellesley, Earl of Mornington, the recent successful RM was supported by the proposed name being the common name. That does not seem to be the case here, on the evidence so far. Andrewa (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Andrewa, I think when you interleave your comments with those of another as you did above it is potentially confusing and leaves their text orphaned without signatures. As to the name I think in this case we are not choosing among multiple versions that are in common use, in which case preference might be given to the variant more consistent with WP:NCBRITPEER even if it is not the most common. It does only say "generally" in the above quoted guidance. If we used the proposed version we would be completely manufacturing a new name, if Google is to be trusted. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

when you interleave your comments with those of another as you did above it is potentially confusing and leaves their text orphaned without signatures... Interesting point. It certainly relies on people using and understanding the stringing convention, which perhaps is unreasonable. But for those familiar with the convention it makes discussion far more concise and easy to follow. Interested in discussing this further. One possible modification to the convention is to sign all paragraphs so as to allow more clarity when comments are interspersed. Andrewa (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Since you signed this I'll consider it a separate post and reply here. If it were not signed I think it would count as editing/breaking up another's post. I've started a discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Guidance against interleaving replies. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

That was the intent of the signature. Thank you! But I would not have previously considered the signature necessary, as the indenting makes the author clear provided the convention is followed (and it's all in the history if they don't, but not conveniently). Thanks also for raising it elsewhere, I will continue there. Andrewa (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

If we used the proposed version we would be completely manufacturing a new name, if Google is to be trusted. No. But good point as we would in a sense be allowing the subject to do so... aided and abetted by some significant authorities on the topic of noble titles. We don't allow corporations to do this, but should we allow private individuals to do so? And if so where do we draw the line between private individuals and public figures? Isn't anyone with a Wikipedia article in a sense a public figure? As I have said all along, this is not a trivial question at all. Andrewa (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the subject's preference for the title of a BLP is not really relevant. We wouldn't defer to them if they didn't want an article to say unflattering but correctly sourced and balanced things. The fact of the common name is similar to the fact of something unflattering, not for us to interfere with. To me the main issue is whether the naming convention for British peers should override the common name, but the convention only says "generally". —DIYeditor (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Very to the point, since this RM is apparently in response to a direct request by the subject. Very interested in other views. Andrewa (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Tabloids etc as reliable sources

I thought I had answered the suggestion that we must disregard tabloids as reliable sources, [6] but it's been raised again [7] (the Daily Mail and other equally unreliable sources, my wikilink).

I fear that we may be doing our own chances of an eventual peerage a frightful amount of damage here, but dash it all, that frightful Wikipedia does consider tabloids, even the Daily Mail, as reliable sources, would you believe it. Thank God they don't call themselves British Wikipedia! Worse still, they then use these laughable sources to call the Duchess by a "common name", as they term it. As if a Duchess has a "common" name! It strikes at the very heart of civilisation. Oh, here comes the nice man with the cucumber sandwiches. Anyone for tea, or is the sun over the yardarm yet? (;->

Seriously, sources are reliable for a purpose. As evidence of a common name even the Daily Mail is perfectly acceptable. Andrewa (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't the RfC apply to the Daily Mail? I don't see a reason to make an exception here. Other tabloids may be reliable for what someone's common name is. WP:PUS says tabloids "should be used with caution." I don't think all of the many references to "Princess Antonia, Duchess of Wellington" are tabloids (of the questionable variety) and if they were that might be problematic as far as notability. For example Vogue [8] is not a tabloid. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Good questions. No, the RfC closure reads the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. An edit filter should be put in place going forward to warn editors attempting to use the Daily Mail as a reference. But no mention of its use in determining common names, for which IMO it is perfectly acceptable.

Also note that this RfC is specifically about the Daily Mail, while the question here concerns tabloids more generally... most of the top ghits I see are tabloids and blogs. Later this was scoped down to the Daily Mail and other equally unreliable sources... as I see it this still tars all tabloids with the same brush, which the RfC does not.

And it makes no significant difference in this case if we exclude "Daily Mail" from the Google search. [9] Still thousands of ghits for the existing name, many relevant, as opposed to four for the proposed, all of them irrelevant. Andrewa (talk) 07:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.