Talk:Princess Alexandra, 2nd Duchess of Fife

misc

Why isn't this located at Princess Arthur of Connaught? And if it remains here, how do we categorize it? I've categorized it as "Fife, Alexandra, Duchess of" for now. – ugen64 19:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, she should be at Princess Arthur of Connaught, which was how she was known for most of her life (1913-1959). She was only known as Princess Alexandra, Duchess of Fife, for a year (1912-1913). She was also Lady Alexandra Duff (1889-1905) and Princess Alexandra of Fife (1905-1912). john k 23:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

known as

During her marriage and widowhood, she was however also known as Duchess of Fife. And it is actually very obvious: peerage, particularly a duchy, does not get lost or become hidden in titulary and style despite of becoming HRH. 217.140.193.123 7 July 2005 07:50 (UTC)

But she wasn't called Duchess of Fife. Her formal style was Her Royal Highness Princess Arthur of Connaught. I don't see why we should call her by a name she was not known by, any more than we do for other peers not called by their peerage title. john k 23:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that she and her sister were not the only female line grandchildren of a monarch to be styles 'princess.' Before the current Queen came to the throne, Anne used the title of princess, albeit with the style of 'Royal Highness' as opposed to just 'Highness.'

Princess Anne's right to the style "Royal Highness" was established by Letters Patent of October 22 1948.Badita (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Genetics

I find the inclusion of this "genetics" section very unhelpful. Although I admit I have no idea what it actually means- I can't see it being very relevant to a biography article. Particularly as Tsar Nicholas II was only a cousin of the Princess, and not a direct ancestor or descendant. Astrotrain 01:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The entire identification in 1991 was based on his being a member of Haplogroup T (mtDNA) and Bryan Sykes has went on to devote chapters on his books about Nicholas and how he relates to the families of Europe. Which you might have found out id you read the articles instead of removing links to them. User:Dimadick.

What relevance has it to Alexandra's biography? None! Astrotrain 01:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Points to her ancestry with certainty for one. Haplogroup T is a "Tara" descedant. User:Dimadick

Why is the certainty of her (biological) ancestry relevant? Proteus (Talk) 18:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Has been mentioned in well known publications like The Seven Daughters of Eve by Bryan Sykes and it is among the few instances you will find her mentioned nowadays. User:Dimadick

"Like"? Has it been mentioned in other books, or by other people? Does anyone actually care, other than, presumably, you and the author of that book (if in fact you are separate people, which I have doubts about)? And even if she is mentioned in that book, that should be in the article about that book, not in her article, which is (surprisingly enough) about her and not about "certainty of ancestry" theories. At the very least it's inane trivia (and I doubt even that, since trivia is usually interesting). Proteus (Talk) 17:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It also can't be proved- she is dead, as are her offspring. I can't see her being exhumed just to back up a certainty of ancestry" theory. Astrotrain 17:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That is the point with the haplogroups. Mitochondrial DNA does not change from generation to generation. "There is little change in the mtDNA from parent to offspring, unlike nuclear DNA which changes by 50% each generation. Since the mutation rate is easily measured, mtDNA is a powerful tool for tracking matrilineage, and has been used in this role for tracking many species back hundreds of generations."

We simply do not need to have her exhumed as long as there are matrilinear relatives. User:Dimadick

You still haven't answered the obvious question "Why is that relevant to her biography?". Did it affect her life? Does it shed light on any aspect of her character, her actions or her background? Does it explain or clarify any other part of the biography? Is is interesting to the average reader? Obviously the answer to all of these questions is "no". It seems to be on the same level as saying "her shoe size was 7" or "she had AB+ blood" — perhaps quite true and maybe even verifiable, but still utterly irrelevant and certainly not worthy of mention. Proteus (Talk) 12:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It is an addition to her genealogy, not her biography User:Dimadick

Lived During Six Reigns

Yes, a 51-year old could have lived during the reigns of six British monarchs (and I'm sure a few did), but I added that particular fact about Princess Arthur because she was one of the shortest-lived members of the British royal family to do so. That's what makes it noteworthy. I look forward to your comments and I am considering restoring my contribution to the article. EgbertW 05:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it could say something like, "Though many members of the Brit. Royal Fam. lived during six reigns- those of (list names)- Princess Arthur was one of the shortest lived to do so." That would establish why it's important. I still wonder, though, if that information is noteworthy enough to include in her article. TysK 17:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Princess of Great Britain

The introduction says "MAlexandra and her younger sister Maud had the distinction of being the only female-line granddaughters of a British Sovereign to receive the title of Princess of Great Britain and Ireland and the style Highness." Later on, however, it says As a female-line great-granddaughter of the British monarch, (Queen Victoria), Alexandra was not entitled to the title of a Princess of Great Britain or the style Royal Highness." Is there a difference between "Princess of Great Britain and Ireland" and "Princess of Great Britain". The article appears to contradict itself. StAnselm (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Not actually a contradiction if you read on. She wasn't "entitled" to the title, but it was granted by letter of patent in 1905. It's explained in the section "Princess Alexandra". Worm^TT 11:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Title:Duchess of fife or 2nd Duchess of fife?

Articles on Royal peers who are/were princes should be at "Prince Name, Rank of Title" (i.e. no ordinal). Examples: Prince Andrew, Duke of York, Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn. refers to princes rather than princesses plus the wording in the note rather indicates it is refering to royal dukes/royal peerages which the fife dukedom isnt. that was my reading of it but if i am incorrect could you ellaborate?Nirame (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. I see what you mean – I suppose this one is open to interpretation a bit. I would suggest leaving it at the long-established title (with the assumption that that somehow implies consensus) until a discussion establishes a new consensus either way. ✝DBD 20:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The only thing is the number in the title shows the rarer aspect of being her title being in her own right otherwise it just looks the same as those becoming duchesses by marriage.Nirame (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Mmmm. I'm not really sure what to say. I shan't object particularly is you moved it back ✝DBD 20:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well if you don't object to the move? What i could do is move it back to "2nd .."for now copy our discussion to the talk page and see if anyone adds anything or takes issue with it?Nirame (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. ✝DBD 20:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

How she would be called if her husband had succeeded his fathers dukedom?Chamika1990 (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)