Talk:Princess (car)

My pic is definitely 1967 so how can the Princess have been introduced in 1975?
The Vanden Plas 4 litre version started in August 1964 and stopped in May 1968 (according to the internet).
Have you failed to mention the earlier versions of this car or have I made a big dating error on my pic?
Adrian Pingstone 21:01, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think I've seen the light. The article concerns the BL Princess, before that it was made under the BMC banner. So should my pic be removed for the time being?

My web site for the 4 litre is ......

http://www.redlemon.co.za/vandenplasprincess/frame.html

Adrian Pingstone 21:15, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes it should

• There was a 1940s/50s limousine
• On the evidence of your picture there was a 60s Austin Princess
• There was a 70s wedge- shaped Princess made by British Leyland and badged as an Austin

Three completely different cars. The Leyland Princess is just the last one. We need another article for the others. Andy G 21:33, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

That's why I titled this one 'Leyland Princess' - so an article on the earlier Austins could be put under Austin Princess. I think I have a redirect there right now -- how about I write up a little stub and put the image there?

--Morven 22:08, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Created an Austin Princess article and included Adrian Pingstone's picture. --Morven 22:49, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Should it be Leyland Princess or BL Princess? I think - but I'm not sure - that Leyland, unqualified, was used for commercial vehicles, while the cars were all British Leyland or BL. Andy G 18:22, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hmm. The Princess bore no marque identification on the outside, as I recall from my dad's vehicle. Just 'Princess' on the grille, C pillars, and boot.

Probably technically was a BL, but I've always heard people refer to it as 'Leyland Princess' or (inaccurately) Austin Princess (a name it never officially bore -- when it was an Austin it was the Austin 18:22) --Morven 18:47, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Reverted anon changes

since they seemed inaccurate, 'playing around' and with atrocious grammar and spelling to boot. —Morven 09:51, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Wording way too POV

Princess enthusiasts are entitled to their opinions, but this does sound a bit too 'enthusiastic' for Wikipedia. Granted there may be those who think that the car was unfairly maligned at the time, but that's history, and hindsight and dispassionate views are neither here nor there. I dare say there are people who feel the same way about many other cars. Quiensabe 2005-08-24 00:37 UTC

I agree, though I think at one time the article was very POV the other way. Some objective balance is what we need. Graham 01:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Front Wheel Drive

There is no mention that the car was front wheel drive which was unusual. While the styling was radical the car's mechanical layout and suspension were derived from the older Austin 1800 which had hydrolastic suspension and used the same B series engine.

The FWD contributed to the interior space (and poor gearchange).

The engine bay was indeed large and there was plenty of space on the 1800 models (which made the engine very accessible for maintenance). However the 2.2 straight six + gearbox left very little space.

Once the three badges versions were consolidated into the 'Princess' brand the 1800s had the round headlight pairs and the 2.2 litre models had the halogen lights.

Power steering was an option on the 1800s and the car was very heavy to control at low speeds with the FWD layout putting lots of weight over the front wheels. Dryce 04:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Leyland 18-22 series grilles.jpg

Image:Leyland 18-22 series grilles.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Leyland Princess or just Princess?

According to "A-Z of Cars of the 1970s" by Graham Robson, "Princess was a marque (my emphasis) invented by British Leyland to re-badge Austin, Morris and Wolseley wedge-style front-drive saloons in 1975." Is it correct to label this vehicle as a "Leyland Princess"?. Was it ever badged or marketed as such? GTHO (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on the silence over this I assume that no-one will object if I rename the page from "Leyland Princess" to "Princess (Automobile)" --GTHO (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The company was in such a muddle at that time, as the quality of the 70s era cars had destroyed one by one the value of the various brands (marques if you like that word) acquired in the previous >20 years, that the car you and your source think of as 'Princess' will be remembered by one of several different names, whether by you or by My Robson and his ilk. Whatever name you give the entry, the more important thing is to create redirect pages for people who don't remember it with the same name as you. You might be interested to take a look at what I did with DKW 3=6 and DKW F91 and DKW Sonderklasse and DKW 900 for assurance that this is not a uniquely British Leyland issue.

However, to keep the entry user friendly (ie searcher friendly), I think you need to enter something at the top of the article for people looking for the Austin Princess - just as that article contains an invitation to redirect to this one for people who land there by mistake. I sense that you do not live in New Zealand: if you had, I gather that you would (if old enough) remember as the Austin Princess the car that you here want to define merely as the Princess. Leyland (like Japanese makers then and now) loved to confuse people by calling cars by different names at different times in different markets. So I don't think it terribly matters what you call the page, for these polynamed ones, just as long as you are reader friendly to folks who, for reasons as good to them as your own are to you, expect to find your car under a different name. Regards Charles01 (talk) 06:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The new lead section of the article is just right. However the new name for the article, Princess (Automobile), is not Wikipedian, in that it doesn't follow the conventions at WP:NAME or WP:DAB. In particular, the disambiguation word should not be capitalized unless it is a proper noun, and parentheses should only be used if necessary.

I think it is appropriate to disambiguate it (from royalty) with a phrase containing the name of the manufacturer, (such as Leyland Princess, BL Princess, or British Leyland Princess,)as the name of the article, as your lead makes clear that is not the actual name of the car (which had several names). A manufacturer phrase makes the parentheses unnecessary. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I too think Princess (Automobile) was about the worst of all worlds. At the very least it shouldn't capitalise "automobile", but it should really use "car" anyway, to match many other British car articles which use that word. There's also a case for using the BMC ADO number, as a variety of other badge-engineered models do, although personally I think the Princess is a special case so that's perhaps not the most helpful thing to do here. In the meantime I've changed "Automobile" to "car", and fixed the BL models template (which still had Leyland Princess in it, by the way). – Kieran T ^(talk) 20:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

At launch in March 1975 the Austin, Morris and Wolseley versions of the 18-22 Series were called by their names as an Austin HL, Morris HL, Wolseley and so on. When the car was relaunched in September 1975 as the Princess the car was sold as a product of Leyland Cars and the DVLA V5 registration document states that the manufacturer is Leyland Cars and the model as a Princess HL or HLS. Most motoring magazines at the time listed the Princess as a product of Leyland Cars, and all of BL's publicity specified the car as a product of Leyland Cars.

In 1978 when the Princess 2 was launched it then became a product of Austin Morris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rovamota (talk • contribs) 18:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Undiscussed page move

What's the process for getting this moved back to Princess (car)? Automobile is ridiculous for this article. There appears to have been a US-centric editor run riot. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You'll be interested in this discussion, which is what started the process. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)