Talk:Princess Helen of Waldeck and Pyrmont

Dowager Duchess

Surely, upon her son's marriage, she was no longer the only Duchess of Albany, so she would have be en Dowager? DBD 17:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Helena would remain the Duchess of Albany for as long as the new Duke had no wife to assume the title. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep. So yes, in 1905, she became the Dowager Duchess of Albany. Though her son was Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and therefore his wife, while still technically Duchess of Albany, would've gone by this higher title. Therefore Helen was the only Duchess of Albany to use that title. PeterSymonds | talk 21:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, while those titles are true, shouldn't this article be title Princess Helena of Waldeck and Pyrmont because of WP:NCNT? Charles 21:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Torn really. On the one hand, she was the Duchess of Albany, just like Princess Marina was Duchess of Kent, and is not titled Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark. Then again, you have Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld and not Princess Victoria, Duchess of Kent. There doesn't seem to be a consistency; what do you say? PeterSymonds | talk 21:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I do feel that including the British titles is a little UK-centric and that we should back up a bit and take a more general stance. Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark would be a fine title as any other is. The *only* exclusions to the convention that I *wholly* endorse are the Russian grand duchesses by marriage, who frequently changed names., but they don't have a convention yet. That was a little off-topic though. I feel the pages should be moved. Charles 21:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree about Helena. The thing about the later Duchesses (Marina, Alice Gloucester etc) is that they're most well-known as a Duchess. I wouldn't advise, for example, having Princess Alice's name at her maiden name, because barely anyone unfamiliar with the royal family will know it. Princess Marina is also commonly known as the Duchess of Kent, and not Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark, both in Britain and abroad. Do you think these are acceptable exceptions, as they go by their most common title? PeterSymonds | talk 21:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)'

Hmm, you're right, although I agree most about Alice (all British peeresses by marriage seem to be at their married names if commoners by birth) and am iffy about Marina (although I'd support it anyway). Charles 21:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'll file a requested move for Helena and see what happens. The discussion may leak onto the other titles as well, so consensus might help us move forward. Furthermore, what about Princess Louise Margaret, Duchess of Connaught? 1) I think if anything it should be "of Connaught and Strathearn" and 2) would it be more appropriate to title her Princess Louise Margaret of Prussia? PeterSymonds | talk 21:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Princess Louise Margaret ought to be under her premarital title as well, I have come across her in many of my readings where she is mentioned as Princess Louise Margaret of Prussia. I also think that any encyclopedia should strive for a reasonable amount of internal consistency balanced with articles which are strong exceptions. Charles 21:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'll start a RM for her as well. PeterSymonds | talk 22:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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 move. JPG-GR (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Princess Helena, Duchess of Albany → Princess Helena of Waldeck and Pyrmont — Per a talk page discussion. Per WP:NC(NT), princesses are generally known by their birth title (for example Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld). Notable exceptions include Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester who was born a commoner, and Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent who is most known as a Duchess of Kent. This is not so clear-cut with Princess Helena, and therefore consensus is needed to determine whether it should be moved. —PeterSymonds | talk 22:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support Per my comments in the above section and also to satisfy some sort of internal consistency among the names of royal wives. Charles 22:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support As per Charles. Morhange (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support per above. Prsgoddess187 11:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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.

File:Laszlo - Alice, Countess of Athlone.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Laszlo - Alice, Countess of Athlone.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 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) 18:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Titles after WWI

We all know that the main line of the British Royal Family dropped all German titles during George V's name-changing blitz of 1917, but what about Helena? I assume at her marriage she became "Princess Leopold of the UK, Princess of SC&G, Duchess of Saxony" as those were the titles of her husband, but what about after 1917. George V dropped SC&G and Saxony, would she have dropped Waldeck and Pyrmont? Did she lose these when she married, even though she was a princess in her own right? 70.46.223.38 (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 6 March 2021

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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 14:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Princess Helena of Waldeck and Pyrmont → Princess Helen of Waldeck and Pyrmont – Per sources in the article, all of which use Helen, except for The New York Times, which uses Hélène. See also [1][2][3] DrKay (talk) 09:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Polyamorph (talk) 10:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Although both are certainly used, Helena does seem more common. It's what The Times calls her in her obituary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Please provide evidence in the form of links. I'm concerned that the recent upswing in the use of Helena is all after this page was created[4] and looks like an artefact created by wikipedia mirrors. In her lifetime, Helen was considerably more common. DrKay (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think The Times is generally a pretty good source for what people were called in their lifetimes, being the UK's main newspaper of record. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Please provide evidence in the form of links for the claim does seem more common. I know what the Times is. Don't be so bloody rude. DrKay (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm mystified as to why you thought it was rude to point out that The Times was a newspaper of record and therefore a reliable source as to someone's common name! Maybe it's just that I don't agree with you... -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• No, it's not that. You've just been rude again, for no apparent reason. DrKay (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• All I'll say is that you seem to have a very wide and bizarre interpretation of rude. Pointing out a fact is rude, apparently. Expressing an opinion as to what is a good source is rude. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.71.249.245 (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support. There are more citations in the article and in the supporting statement than in the opposing one. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2021 (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.

Obviously, what I found rude was being condescending and sarcastic in the second response and making an unsupported and bad faith accusation in the third response. Editors who cause offense should apologize, strike or remove the offending comments not double down on them or pretend that the complaint is about something else entirely. DrKay (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)