Talk:Maud of Wales

Old discussion

The heading is incorrect. She was queen consort, thus there should not be "princess" in her heading - there should be no title. 217.140.193.123 13:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

What the puck. This has earlier been under Maud of Wales BUT WAS MOVED BY CUT-AND-PASTE!!!! Here, a noisy scream is in order. Edit history is under earlier heading  !!!! 217.140.193.123 13:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Name of article

Why is this under "Princess Maud of Wales"? That implies that her father only ever was the Prince of Wales, but he wasn't, he was king. Therefore, shouldn't it be "Princess Maud of the United Kingdom"?

• Probably because Princess Maud her title was never Princess Maud of the United Kingdom. She was married before the death of her grandmother, Queen Victoria, and therefore she was known as Princess Maud of Wales. I suppose you could argue that she was still a Princess of the United Kingdom, but her title from birth until her marriage to Prince Carl of Denmark (Haakon VII) was Maud of Wales. Morhange 17:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• I think that we should move the page back to Maud of Wales. She was, technically, a Princess of the United Kingdom, but was never titled as such, as Morhange stated above, she was married to Prince Carl of Denmark (future Haakon VII), before her father assumed the throne.Prsgoddess187 17:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. This Should be under Maud of Wales. Princess of Wales was her titular designation prior to her Marriage --Mpokane 11:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Move

The following is a closed discussion 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 proposal was Moved WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 08:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this should be under Maud of Wales, as she was married to Carl of Denmark prior to her father's accession. Prsgoddess187 02:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support Having looked over the issue and how other daughters of people who later become monarch are described, I notice how we use as their maiden title the title they had when they marry, not a title they would have had if they had remained unmarried until their parent became monarch. So I think this is a logical move. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 16:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)}
• Support Prsgoddess187 has done a very good job at giving me the facts. Support the reversal to its original name, unless someone else can come up with better arguments :-) Gryffindor 17:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support She was Maud of Wales when she married, that is her pre-consort name and where she should be located. Prsgoddess187 19:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support For pretty much the same reasons as above (she was never styled of the UK, as she would've been Queen of N by then). Andreala 03:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Name of article

Why is she just "Maud of Wales"? Her sisters are "Princess Victoria" and "Princess Louise" - why does Maud not get the Princess in the title?

She is Maud of Wales because she married prior to 1901, BEFORE her father became King Edward VII. Her sister Victoria is listed as "of the United Kingdom" because she never married, and upon her father assuming the throne, she became HRH The Princess Victoria. Louise also married prior to 1901, and is listed at her style as Duchess of Fife and Princess Royal. Maud was never known as a Princess of the UK. Prsgoddess187 16:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Protected

OK. Let's just take a few minutes and calm down. I've protected this page because there seems to be a conflict of interests in adding Queen Maud's genetic info. Can the users involved please discuss this below and come to a compromise (nicely :-) ? Craigy (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I reference specific articles on Haplogroup T (mtDNA) and Haplogroup H (mtDNA) which use the well known book The Seven Daughters of Eve by Bryan Sykes. The same Sykes who contacted research on the remains of the Romanovs in 1991. Tasc does not state any sources on his rejection of the addittion.

I incorporate text in the articles which was created by User:Saforrest back in February and has since been inserted to any number of articles on matrilinear relatives of both Nicholas II of Russia and Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse but was glaringly missing on the articles on the two main individuals.

I have tried to adress the matter in User talk:Tasc five days ago but other than some vague comment on it being "poorly written" he has really not made clear why he/she reacts so to the mere mention of a Genetics section in the article.

Examples of articles which do include the section and Tasc has never complained about include among others:

• Anne de Foix.
• Bertha von Putelendorf.
• Elisabeth of Tirol.
• Eleanor of Navarre.
• Catherine de Foix.
• Blanche I of Navarre.
• Juana Manuel of Castile.
• Blanca de La Cerda y Lara.
• Eleanor of Castile (d. 1416).
• Anna Sophie of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg.
• Elisabeth of Austria (d. 1505).
• Elisabeth II of Bohemia.
• Barbara of Celje.
• Anne, Duchess of Luxembourg.
• Anne of Austria.
• Margaret of Thuringia.
• Anna of Brandenburg.
• Ursula of Brandenburg.
• Sophie of Pomerania.
• Sofie of Mecklenburg-Schwerin (d. 1631).
• Anna of Saxony.
• Elisabeth of Hesse.
• Christina of Holstein-Gottorp.
• Christine of Hesse-Kassel.
• Anne of Denmark.
• Elizabeth of Bohemia.
• Sophia of Hanover.
• Louise of Hesse-Kassel.
• Princess Louise Charlotte of Denmark.
• Princess Margarita of Baden.
• Anna of Holstein-Gottorp.
• Anna Maria of Ostfriesland.
• Anna Maria of Mecklenburg-Schwerin.
• Anna Sophie of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg.
• Magdalena Sibylle of Saxe-Weissenfels.
• Charlotte Sophie of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld.
• Anna Sophie, Princess of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt.
• Sophia Frederica of Mecklenburg-Schwerin.
• Christine of Saxony.
• etc.

As far as I can see it has not diminished the worth of these articles but has made them better linked to one another. I could care less if I am personally banned but I would like to see these articles stay in good shape and not suffer in quality due to the likes of Tasc. User:Dimadick

Unprotected

Unprotecting the page since there hasn't been discussion in a bit. I have WLed the page though. Any 3RR vios will lead to blockings. --Woohookitty^(meow) 02:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The first post protection edit was a revert. I don't want to see any more reverts or else the page will be protected immediately. I strongly dislike when people stop discussing, wait until the page is unprotected and then go right back at it. --Woohookitty^(meow) 12:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Being interested in history I usually embrace any info on the subject, but I don't feel the genetic information merits a place in the article. May I suggest creating a separate article on the subject including a list of these people? Then if you insist you can alway include a link to that article under the See also heading. Inge 12:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

hi wooho. I just edited the item which seems to be in contention. I'm afraid that I did not know what the hell the link meant, and got absolutely no further clicking either mitochondrial or haplogroup. I gave up before clicking T and googled instead. So I changed the three separate links so thay all point to the correct article, which properly explains what is meant.

On the question of whether this information should be included or not, I am a little nonplussed. As it stands it is pretty meaningless and needs rephrasing to explain that it means she is one (I presume) of millions of humans who happen to have this genotype, so the fact is unremarkable except that most people don't know if they belong to the group. Logically, including it would imply that all wiki biography articles whould include a section on the genetic makeup of the individuals concerned. This seems absurd, unless there is is some significant consequence of belonging to the group. Sandpiper 08:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Queen maud

Without wishing to stir up a fuss, why should she me Maud of Wales rather than Queen Maud of Norway? It seems to me a Queen would trump a princess in terms of importance, so would be the obvious main title. But I'm not hung up about that, I presume it is taken care of by redirects. My gripe is that the page includes the UK family link table, but not the Norwegian one, which actually lists her descendants. Admittedly the article is rather crowded by tables, but this same logic that her greater importance is as Queen would imply that if we are forced to a choice, the wrong one has been included. Sandpiper 09:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts.

• Royal consorts lack ordinals (numbers). As a result it is standard here and elsewhere to refer to deceased consorts by their maiden name or maiden title, never their consort name. That is why history refers to Catherine of Aragon, Mary of Modena, etc, not Queen Catherine, Queen Mary. Maud's premarital title was Maud of Wales. That is why she is correctly named that here. She cannot be placed as Queen Maud of Norway. That would imply she was a queen regnant, not a queen consort.

• Wikipedia also correctly puts her birth family template in, not the template of the family she married into. She was a British princess and so naturally the British template is used, to show her ancestry. A page about someone born a Norwegian princess would of course include a Norwegian template to show her ancestry. The marital family template is only used when someone is alive, e.g., the current British Royal Family template is used on the Duke of Edinburgh page, and the page of Queen Sophia of Spain uses the Spanish royal one. When they die, the Greek royal one will be used instead to show their ancestry. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 20:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)}

well I take your first point, that's fine if it is convention, but I see it is plainly not without controversy. However, i do not take your second point. Tables we include are for the benefit of readers, and have little to do with geneaological conventions. As a reader I have been looking at some of these pages and it is an obvious lack that a page about someone who has important descendants does not have a table listing those descendants, so I can click on them or see them tabulated for easy reference. I do not like having to call up her husbands page, then find on that the link I need, bad page design. This is not the only page I have noticed where there is this lack of information on spouse pages. Either the table needs to be redesigned to show her in the middle with her english ancestors and norwegian descendants, or we need two tables (which presumably is simpler if essentially they already exist?) so anyone can see them here. Sandpiper 17:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. As the mother of a line of Norweigan monarchs, Maud's page should show her connections to her decendants. (ZIGBRYWG 17:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

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 No consensus to move. —Centrx→talk • 05:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Maud of Wales → Princess Maud of Wales – naming conventions for British royalty includes the title Princess before the name if there is no greater title - DBD 16:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose There is no convention that warrants the inclusion of the title of "Princess" for British princesses as said in your requested move. WP practice is to omit the title for all royal consorts. Moves are made to conform to that. Charles 00:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per WP:NC. Prsgoddess187 11:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support I read there "are referred to by their pre-marital name or pre-marital title". Princess Maud's title was "Princess Maud of Wales", not "Maud of Wales", so surely it would be against policy to leave this page here? -- DBD 10:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Is Maud of Wales not a premarital name? Judging from your quote of WP:NC, it applies. Charles 12:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply That is a premarital name, but, as with all other British Princess articles, Princess should be applied before it (prenominal Princess is absent in exceptional cases, like a postnominal Princess (eg Princess Royal) being applicable) -- DBD 13:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment There is no such convention for British princesses. There is distinction in that Maud was actually a queen. Charles 18:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) currently read as follows:

Deceased Royal Consorts are referred to by their pre-marital name or pre-marital title, not by their consort name, as without an ordinal (which they lack) it is difficult to distinguish various consorts; eg, as there have been many queen consorts called Catherine, use Catherine of Aragon not Queen Catherine.

In spite of the fact that the convention does not say not to use the title "princess" (in fact it even mentions "pre-marital title"), many people have interpreted the example "Catherine of Aragon" (i.e. without the title "princess") to be prescriptive for all consorts. In my opinion, the current convention doesn't work well, and this lady's article should be found under "the most common form of the name used in English" (i.e. Queen Maud of Norway) - but there isn't any hope of that change for the forseeable future. Noel S McFerran 21:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The accepted convention that we use is that past consorts have no title in the article title; hence, Mary of Teck, not Princess Mary of Teck, consort of King George V of the United Kingdom; Sophie of Prussia not Princess Sophie of Prussia, consort of Constantine I of Greece; and Astrid of Sweden not Princess Astrid of Sweden, consort of Leopold III of Belgium. Prsgoddess187 11:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

By "the accepted convention that we use" you must mean practice. The convention does not say to do that - although, admittedly, the practice is all but universal. Noel S McFerran 12:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Prsgoddess187 12:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles): Use "Prince(ss) {first name} of ..." where a prince/ss has a territorial suffix by virtue of their parent's title, eg, Prince William of Wales, Princess Beatrice of York, Prince Arthur of Connaught, etc. -- DBD 13:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yes that is true, "unless" they had a higher title, which Maud did as Queen Consort of Norway. In that case, the practice we use is outlined above, at Deceased Royal Consorts. Prsgoddess187 17:55, 24 July 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.

Princess Maud of Denmark?

Surely after her marriage she would have become Princess Carl (or Charles) of Denmark? I have changed the article to say this. Penrithguy 21:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That is British usage. In Denmark we have a Princess Alexandra, a princess formerly by marriage, but who was also known as such during her marriage. It's a UK thing. Charles 23:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but she was styled HRH Princess Carl of Denmark in English. Since this is not Danish language Wikipedia, it is irrelevant how she was styled in Danish. Surtsicna (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

But this isn't the British Wikipedia either. How is for instance the usage in the world's largest English-speaking country? And how do you know she was styled HRH Princess Carl of Denmark? Do you got any English-language correspondence from the Danish court that uses this form? Frankly, to me Princess Carl sounds like a transvestite :-)

When I compare the Wikipedias in different languages, I find that several different choices about what to call this article have been made. Of those in the Latin alphabet less than half use Maud of Wales. The Swedish has Maud of Great Britain. the German Maud of Great Britain and Ireland, the Catalan Maud of United Kingdom, the Italian Maud of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the Norwegian and Danish Maud of Norway, and the rest Maud (Norwegian queen). There is no article in Welsh about this Princess of Wales. I would guess she is best know, and most notable, as Queen Maud of Norway. Both the title and the introduction should be changed to reflect this.

--213.236.196.39 (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Statue of Maud of Wales.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Statue of Maud of Wales.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Should be Princess Maud of the United Kingdom

This title should be changed to Princess Maud of the United Kingdom, as her sister's article is at Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Bit late but I agree! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Princess Carl?

Why are we using British terminology in titling her Princess Carl as a Danish princess, when such titling is unknown in Danish usage? The title she was given by Denmark was Princess Maud not Princess Carl, regardless of what Brits have used. Another user and I have both reverted this, but a third user puts it right back. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

And yet another user reverted to my version - as long as we are counting users. She was referred to in English as "Princess Carl of Denmark". If need be, add how she was styled in Danish. It is really that simple. Surtsicna (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at it, it appears that "Princess Charles of Denmark" is what she was most commonly called. There is even a Begonia cultivar named "Princess Charles of Denmark". Surtsicna (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 20 December 2015

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: not moved. Clear consensus against this proposed title. Jenks24 (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Maud of Wales → Princess Maud of Wales – Bring into line with other articles such as Princess Beatrice of York and Princess Charlotte of Cambridge> 83.54.180.237 (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: such a move would take this article out of line with all the others in Category:Norwegian royal consorts (including Caroline Matilda of Great Britain and Louise of Great Britain) which do not use the title. Opera hat (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Opera hat. Surtsicna (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Maud of Wales" is stupid, but calling a queen a princess makes it worse. I'd support a move to something like Maud of the United Kingdom or Maud of Great Britain. john k (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:CONSORTS indicates living consorts are treated differently than deceased, and that deceased consorts article titles should not include a royal title. 1bandsaw (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose well-meaning idea. Deb (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• Weak support but preferably move to Maud of Norway. "Princess Maud of Wales" is the standard format for her maiden name, as the nominator says. According to WP:CONSORTS, "Deceased consorts are referred to by a name by which they are commonly known": the articles on the Norwegian Wikipedia (both of them) are titled "Maud of Norway" and she is probably better known as Queen of Norway in the UK as well. In addition, WP:CONSORTS specifically mentions that "Many other queens and empresses, particularly English princesses who marry abroad, are traditionally known by the name of their husband's country, as with Elizabeth of Bohemia". This is surely a parallel case. "Maud of Wales" satisfies neither convention. Opera hat (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose by a prevalently adhered-to (though not unanimous or official) convention, most deceased European queens consort are eventually located at "Firstname of Paternalseat" e.g. Eleanor of Aquitaine (Queen of England), Margaret of Valois (Queen of France), Mary of Guise (Queen of Scotland), Catherine of Braganza (Queen of England), Anne of Austria (Queen of France), Louise of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (Queen of Prussia), Josephine of Leuchtenberg (Queen of Sweden), Elisabeth of Wied (Queen of Romania), Emma of Waldeck and Pyrmont (Queen of the Netherlands), Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg (Queen of Spain), Zita of Bourbon-Parma (Empress of Austria), Astrid of Sweden (Queen of Belgium), Giovanna of Italy (Queen of Bulgaria), Marie-José of Belgium (Queen of Italy), etc. FactStraight (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The header says "Please base arguments on article title policy". The relevant policy is WP:CONSORTS which reiterates WP:COMMONNAME. The current title is not the name by which this queen consort is commonly known. Opera hat (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The article title policy to which the header links explicitly includes as a criterion "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles"; a consistency which the examples I cite illustrate, and which explains the !vote I cast. If you wish to cast your own !vote based on some other criterion, feel free to do so. FactStraight (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2015 (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.

Current Consort Styling

Said earlier in discussion: * Royal consorts lack ordinals (numbers). As a result it is standard here and elsewhere to refer to deceased consorts by their maiden name or maiden title, never their consort name. That is why history refers to Catherine of Aragon, Mary of Modena, etc, not Queen Catherine, Queen Mary. Maud's premarital title was Maud of Wales. That is why she is correctly named that here. She cannot be placed as Queen Maud of Norway. That would imply she was a queen regnant, not a queen consort. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Oh, have the Wikiroolz got fuzzy with the influx of the commoner consorts? Why do we now have pages on Queen Maxima of the Netherlands rather than Maxima Zorreguieta, Queen Mathilde of Belgium (shouldn't that be of the Belgians?) rather than Mathilde d'Udekem d'Acoz, Queen Letizia of Spain rather than Letizia Ortiz Rocasolano? Plus not-yet-consorts like Crown Princess Mary of Denmark rather than Mary Donaldson, Crown Princess Mette-Marit of Norway rather than Mette-Marit Hoiby, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall rather than Camilla Shand or even Camilla Parker-Bowles, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge rather than Catherine Middleton? Because the rule cited above fits none of those female consorts/consorts in waiting. Have things now changed? On the Talk pg for Queen Maxima, they're saying there that the rule is Queen goes before the consort's given name. Wholly confused about it now. ScarletRibbons (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Because they are not dead? All of this very confusing mess we've ended up with, as described here, could be fixed very easily with this, but sadly there seems to be little or no interest. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Queens

We should be making a distinction between Queen regnant & Queen consort concerning Margaret I, so as to to confuse readers. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Margaret was both, so no distinction is necessary. No distinction would be necessary either way because a queen consort and a queen regnant are both queens. Complicating simple matter is what confuses readers.

Maud being the first queen of a fully independent Norway, for the first time in over half a milennium, is also very signficant and should certainly not be removed. Surtsicna (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

A distinction is necessary, as Maud never reigned in Norway. I'm trying to draw the difference between them, but so far you've kept reverting me at every attempt. According to your argument, we would have to change the intro to Princess Ingrid Alexandra of Norway. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

But Margaret was also a queen consort. I pointed that out already but you keep ignoring it. Why are you inventing problems where there are none?

"She was the first queen for more than 500 years that our people could call queen of Norway alone." Apparently the people who wrote her obituary saw no need for any distinction. Surtsicna (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

They don't make a distinction between a reigning Queen & a Queen consort, that's true. But we should, so as not to confuse readers. Anyways, I've reverted back to what it was earlier today & leaving it alone. Margaret I's multiple positions are a headache. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

"Matilda of Wales" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Matilda of Wales has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 7 § Matilda of Wales until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)