Talk:Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha

Requested move 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was inconclusive; I've moved pursuant to current WP naming standards. —Nightstallion (?) 09:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Augusta of Saxe-Gotha → Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha … Rationale: Move back to correct name given current WP conventions on the naming of royals (Augusta never became queen-consort). Charles 01:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

• Support As nominator. Charles 01:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. She is generally well known by this name version; and the version "Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha" is quite bad, as it implies only to her childhood and is actually against the usage of so-called historical names for dynastical women. Moreover, I doubt that the title "Princess" was not yet at that time in an established use in these "courtesy" cases - that century is a borderzone. Shilkanni 01:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia rules are quite clear on non-queen consorts. Gryffindor 10:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support as above. Craigy (talk) 11:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I realise that those who are supporting the move do so in the belief that there is a guideline covering this situation, but they are mistaken in this case. The suggested title, "Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha", would be completely incorrect. She was only a Princess of Saxe-Gotha until her marriage, and ceased to be one afterwards. She is universally known as "Augusta of Saxe-Gotha" because of her almost unique position as a Princess of Wales who never became queen. Princess of Wales was the highest title she ever held, and thus the one we would use on wikipedia, but we cannot use this in the title of the article because her title was "The Princess of Wales" (not, as some may mistakenly believe, "Augusta, Princess of Wales"). The Princess of Wales is not the same as a Crown Princess, because the title is associated with a territory -- in Augusta's time, the Prince of Wales still received the revenues from Wales. The only other person in an analogous position to Augusta was Joan of Kent, who is correctly located at "Joan of Kent". Deb 19:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Where in any of the Saxon house laws does it state that a princess loses her title upon marriage? That is up to you to prove. Other royals, number 11: Use the most senior title received by a royal personage. Augusta was not granted the title of Princess of Wales. She became one by marriage. If she had held a title in her own right, she would be titled as such (E.g. Victoria, Princess Royal, not at German Empress Victoria). Joan of Kent is from an era where women were referred to by their father's title in lieu of a surname. Remember, Joan of Kent is from mediaeval England (no set surnames, no specific titles for agnates of the English royal house) and Augusta is from much later Germany. Charles 19:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• This is what is known as sophistry. Deb 20:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support As the maiden name rule applied generally involves reverting to the pre-marital title and it is monarchical consorts who are referred to without title designation (ie, princess, etc, with the exception of early mediaeval personages, both non-royal and royal, who used the format also), IMHO Augusta should be at Princess. Sorry Debs, we disagree on this one. (Is this a first??? lol) FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 20:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)}

No, not a first, but I'm amazed that you could think this is a possible option. Had you said it should be at "Augusta, Princess of Wales", I might have understood, but for you to suggest that we should revert to the pre-marital title is beyond my comprehension. Deb 21:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

But dear Deb, I've always been advocating using the MT format. That is the standard biographical format for deceased spouses of royalty and has been for over 600 years!!! That is why historians refer to Catherine of Aragon, Mary of Modena, Mary of Teck and why they now increasingly refer to Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, etc with the lack of the princess in the earlier ones indicating that they were monarchical spouses rather than merely royal spouses. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 23:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)}

• Oppose Augusta, Princess of Wales would have some point and reflect actual usage (390 hits). The proposal has no advantage whatever; and is an example of why the maiden name rule is a guideline only; it can guide us over a cliff, as here. Septentrionalis 21:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm astonished you wrote that. Augusta, Princess of Wales means Augusta, former wife of the Prince of Wales. Was she divorced from him? No. Then that title is a non-runner. <name>,<ex-title> is exclusively the format for divorcees, hence Diana, Princess of Wales after her divorce. Just because a few illiterate morons on websites misunderstand Diana's title and think it is the title of a Princess of Wales, not an ex-Princess of Wales, and then apply their screw-up to the previous Princesses of Wales, does not justify us making a similar faux pas. After all hundreds of websites insist that the heir apparent to the British throne is some guy called Charles Windsor!!! One dares say that Charles Mountbatten-Windsor, the guy's actual name according to the Palace, is less than amused. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I wrote it too (see above). The point Septentrionalis is making is the same - that this title, though incorrect, would be more in keeping with our understanding of the guidelines. For me, Crown Princess is not at all the same thing as Princess of Wales. Deb 11:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

The move of this back to Augusta of Saxe-Gotha was rather silly. The current naming conventions state that the form Name of Place is reserved for sovereigns and the consorts of sovereigns. Augusta was neither a queen-consort nor was she the duchess of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg. Charles 01:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I find the wording "silly" quite offensive. My experience about its writer tells quite many similar, or even more severe if possible, epithets about doings of the said writer. Shilkanni 01:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Be offended elsewhere. This is not the place for discussion about me. Charles 01:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Could I request you Charles to actually be elsewhere altogether. As this encyclopedia is actually intended for editors who make contributions to the contents of the encyclopedia and are somewhat knowledgeable about subjects they write about. Shilkanni 01:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Take it to my talk page if you have anything to say to me. Charles 01:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus over such naming convention Charles above indicates to. Possibly some mistakes had been made in formulation of wordings in certain guidelines, but never ever anywhere has there been a consensus to abandon the historical naming system regarding consots who did not become queens. Deb has in this case been quite correct in applying the historical naming practice, well-established in respectable works of reference; and particularly in undoing a move to a quite bad form of name. Shilkanni 01:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Saxe-Gotha

AFAIK there has never been a Frederick II, Duke of Saxe-Gotha. Maybe Frederick II, Duke of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg is meant? Känsterle 21:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Move to Augusta of Saxe-Gotha

Please note that this page was recently moved to "Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha" without consultation or being raised on the requested moves page. I have moved it back to the title which it has been at for several years. If anyone else thinks it should be moved, please let's have a proper discussion first. Deb 19:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The name "Augusta of Saxe-Gotha" goes against current naming conventions for royals on Wikipedia. The name it was at for years was so because a) she may be of little interest and b) naming conventions may have changed since the article was started and she was overlooked. Charles 19:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Even if the above statements were correct, it would not be a reason to move the page without consensus. Deb 22:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't help but turn it around and say the exact same: You moved the page without consensus to a form reserved for consorts and sovereigns. Charles 23:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Augusta was the consort of the Prince of Wales. This was the highest title she held, therefore to place her at "Princess ___ of Saxe-Gotha" would be contrary to the naming conventions. QED. Deb 23:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The Prince of Wales was not a sovereign. Consort is taken to mean the consort of a sovereign. That is how it is practiced on Wikipedia. Please do not cite royal naming conventions on Wikipedia when you are haphazardly applying them with no regard to the distinction between a Prince of Wales and a king, emperor, grand duke, etc. Charles 23:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I won't dignify this with a response. If you have a proposal for a valid move, then please place it on the Requested Moves page and we will put it to the vote. Deb 10:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

CLOSING: Not moved. Courcelles 17:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha → Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg — because the state that her father ruled was the duchy of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg not the duchy of Saxe-Gotha. - Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy 23:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment For what it is worth, the British Monarchy website states: "George III was born on 4 June 1738 in London, the eldest son of Frederick, Prince of Wales, and Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha." (George III (r. 1760-1820)) Generally, Augusta appears to be called "Augusta of Saxe-Gotha" more often than "Augusta of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg," but both names appear in sources. You could say that "Saxe-Gotha" is just a shorten version of "Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg" just as "Saxe-Coburg" is sometimes used in place of "Saxe-Coburg and Gotha." In the end, I do not have strong feelings about the matter as long as a redirect remains at whichever name is not used for the article.AaronTheTypoWarrior (talk) 08:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Unfortunatly, the British Monarchy website is not as reliable as people believe it is. If we trusted it completely, our list of Kings of Great Britain would start with James I & VI. Anyway, I do not have a particularly strong opinion about the title either but those who choose to voice theirs should consider both common name principle and accuracy. Surtsicna (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The duchy of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg and the members of its ruling family were never actually called that. They were dukes of Saxe-Altenburg as well as Saxe-Gotha, but they never actually used the title "Prince of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg". (This is unlike Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, which was actually used). Personally, I'd prefer just moving her to Augusta, Princess of Wales to avoid the whole issue - it is a unique name, and it is the one she is best known by. The tyranny of maiden names ought to be brought to an end. As it stands, I will not support an even longer name for this article. john k (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • BTW, to address jtdirl and Deb's point in the early RM in response to Septentrionalis's identical suggestion of "Augusta, Princess of Wales," that title does not in the slightest imply the divorced wife of a prince of Wales. Obviously Augusta would have been referred to as HRH The Princess of Wales during her lifetime, but after she had died, "Augusta, Princess of Wales" would absolutely be what people said to distinguish her from other princesses of Wales. If there are multiple dowagers for a single peerage title, they are referred to as "Mary, Countess of Westingham" and "Anne, Countess of Westingham" to distinguish them from each other. We have numerous articles on peeresses at such forms, and it doesn't even vaguely imply that they are divorced. Note also that our article on the Countess of Wessex is at Sophie, Countess of Wessex, and well it should be. john k (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support per NCROY. FactStraight (talk) 08:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose She just isn't called that - and Wikipedia shouldn't invent names for people. I concur with john k about ending the "tyranny of maiden names". In spite of the fact that I am a devout Jacobite and don't believe for one minute that this lady was actually "Princess of Wales", I would support a move to "Augusta, Princess of Wales" since that is what she is commonly known as. The Dictionary of National Biography doesn't mention Altenburg. Noel S McFerran (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree that the royal website is not an ideal source but the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (article written by John Bullion[1]) calls her "Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha"[2], and it does appear to be the favored form in academia: 78 google scholar hits for current title 0 google scholar hits for proposed target. DrKiernan (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - this variation is absolutely never used in real life. Deb (talk) 11:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• 'Oppose. Per john k's statement. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 14:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose the proposed move for the reasons already given. But either dropping the "Princess" from the present title, or changing to "Augusta, Princess of Wales", would apparently lead to a significantly more commonly used name (per Google Books, at least). And as I read WP:NCROY, it actually implies Augusta, Princess of Wales - could the guideline have got it right for once?--Kotniski (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

What is issue?

Issue... had issue... no issue... what does this mean? There is no explanation nor a link to an explanation. I'm well read and I can't believe I've never heard this term. Looking it up, it appears to mean offspring or progeny. For this reason, I am going to add "...or progeny" for others who are a confused as I was when I first read this. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 05:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Issue = biological children, i.e. excluding adopted children. Progeny = descendants. Thus, "issue" is not synonymous with "progeny". Even if it were, there would be no need for both words. Surtsicna (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140220031111/http://www.kew.org/heritage/people/augusta.html to http://www.kew.org/heritage/people/augusta.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060830234237/http://ftp.cac.psu.edu/~saw/royal/r10.html to http://ftp.cac.psu.edu/~saw/royal/r10.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 02:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Kew

The article says: "Princess Augusta enlarged and greatly extended Kew Gardens after her husband's death. Sir William Chambers built several garden structures for her. One of these, the lofty Chinese pagoda built in 1761, still remains.[6]." But actually several remain, the other big one is the Orangery. Davidnugget (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Precedence

Do we know what precedence she held during her son's reign? She had never been a queen consort, and there is no place for the sovereign's mother otherwise. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 21 September 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 13:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha → Augusta, Princess of Wales – The title is consistent with other people that have held the title such as Catherine, Princess of Wales and Diana, Princess of Wales. She was never queen and upon the death of her husband, her title was Augusta, Princess of Wales. Interstellarity (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. This is a totally different case from Diana, Princess of Wales - who was called that only after she ceased to be "The Princess of Wales", and I'm not convinced that the article for Catherine is at a good title either. Joan of Kent is a more appropriate analogy. The article on Augusta should properly be at Augusta of Saxe-Gotha, which is what the history books call her, but was controversially moved many years ago. Deb (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support – the Royal Collection Trust refers to her as Augusta, Princess of Wales. cookie monster 755 16:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's not a great example. They actually "refer to" her as simply "Augusta". The article title is "Augusta, Princess of Wales (1719-72)". If you're looking for examples, the NPG calls her "Augusta of Saxe-Gotha, Princess of Wales", as do some history books. This would be a better title but is rather long-winded. More recent books, like Mary Beacock Fryer's 1996 book, call her simply "Augusta of Saxe-Gotha". Deb (talk) 09:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support EmilySarah99 (talk) 05:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. The standard for historical royal woman seems to be to refer to them by their birth titles.2601:241:300:B610:C479:CF14:9F1:F4F2 (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: Per arguments above Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Actually, upon her husband's death, she became Dowager Princess of Wales. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support - per WP:COMMONNAME - I've read many articles about her that I've found on the internet and many (but not all) historical sites do label her as "Augusta, Princess of Wales", maybe just change/move the page name to "Augusta, Princess of Wales" but keep the text in the main description as "Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg" or "Augusta of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg" similar to the pages of Albert, Prince Consort and Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. Pawpaw442 (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  Ignorance appears to be at work here. Albert was consort of a monarch, as was the Queen Mother. Neither was ever either Prince or Princess of Wales. Deb (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support per above comments. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Shwcz (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose As Deb mentioned, Joan of Kent was also Princess of Wales, but we tend to keep the page titles at the subjects' maiden names especially if they are deceased, because there's a chance that someone with the exact same first name might carry the title in the future. So at this point this move would go against WP:TITLECON as it disrupts an established pattern. Other examples include Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld who was Duchess of Kent and Strathearn, Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark who was Duchess of Kent, Princess Helen of Waldeck and Pyrmont who was Duchess of Albany, etc. Not to mention that there's a high probability that page on Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother will be moved in the future, as deceased consorts have to be referred to by their maiden names per WP:NCROY, and her maiden name appears to be common enough and will be more commonly used now that her daughter's reign is over. Keivan.f^Talk 05:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Both forms of the name are common and in use, so common name arguments don't apply, but neither does the consistency argument. The current article title is consistent with other royal brides, who are at their maiden names. Consequently, the opening rationale has no strength and there's no reason for a move. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 9 June 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus that the existing title is preferable under WP:NCROY and WP:CONSISTENT. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha → Augusta of Saxe-Gotha – This is the proper title of the article. Interstellarity (talk) 11:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Strong (procedural) Oppose - No policies or guidelines were given to support the move, which contradicts WP:NCROY. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose That is a format mainly used for queens consort (WP:CONSORTS) not the wives of princes. It would disrupt the consistency (WP:TITLECON) with Princess Margaret of Connaught, Princess Märtha of Sweden, Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark, etc., two of whom were actually married to men who later became kings, unlike Augusta's husband. The suggested title violates WP:NCROY which states If a prince(ss) holds a substantive title but is not widely known by it, use "Prince(ss) {first name} of ...". or When dealing with a Crown Prince(ss) (however not consort) of a state, use the form "{name}, Crown Prince(ss) of {state}" unless there is a formal title that unambiguously implies their status as crown prince. Thus, the name for this page could either be Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha or Augusta, Princess of Wales. An attempt to move the page to the latter failed a couple of months ago, as it violated WP:TITLECON (among other reasons). Keivan.f^Talk 12:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per above.2601:249:9301:D570:29BD:A34B:248A:C785 (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Support. This is how she is normally known and is thoroughly appropriate. It should never have been moved to its present title. Deb (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Her name was "Augusta of Saxe-Gotha"; no one is disputing that and those words are part of the article title already. The prefix "Princess" is necessary to keep the page consistent with articles about wives of other heirs to the throne who either died before their husband's ascension or the husband himself died before sitting on the thron (examples include Princess Frederica Charlotte of Prussia, Princess Margaret of Connaught, Princess Märtha of Sweden, etc.). We really do not need to violate WP:TITLECON and WP:NCROY to create an exception just for Augusta. Keivan.f^Talk 17:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Not correct. Wikipedia tries to avoid titles, and the title "Princess...of Saxe-Gotha" is the one she held before she became Princess of Wales, thus the "Princess" part of it ceased to become valid once she achieved higher rank. See other Princesses of Wales, e.g. Caroline of Ansbach, Joan of Kent. None of your examples are relevant in this case, as all were princesses by marriage. Deb (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

thus the "Princess" part of it ceased to become valid once she achieved higher rank. The title of Princess did not exist in its current form when Joan of Kent was around. Even though she was the granddaughter of a king, she was not referred to as "Princess Joan" to the best of my knowledge. Also, unlike Augusta, Caroline of Ansbach became a queen consort thus WP:CONSORTS applies to her. None of your examples are relevant in this case, as all were princesses by marriage. That is factually incorrect. Princess Margaret of Connaught was the daughter of Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn and upon marriage became "Crown Princess of Sweden" which is a higher title than "Princess…of Connaught". Princess Märtha of Sweden was also the granddaughter of Oscar II and became "Crown Princess of Norway"; again a higher title than her previous one. The way their pages has been titled is exactly in line with how WP:NCROY outlines how the pages of crown princesses or wives of heirs to the throne should be named. Keivan.f^Talk 11:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.