Talk:Maud Carnegie, Countess of Southesk

Move article

Why was this moved from Princess Maud, Countess of Southesk? Her sister is located at Princess Alexandra, Duchess of Fife, why the sudden move to Maud. Prsgoddess187 14:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• She was never known as Princess Maud, Countess of Southesk, since she stoped using her title of Princess following her marriage. I moved it to her maiden name of Princess Maud of Fife, which was the highest title she ever used. This makes her the same as her sister, who is located at her maiden name also. Astrotrain 15:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Okay, I was just trying to find out the reason. Thanks for the quick response. Hopefully, she will stay here for a while, and not be moved about. Prsgoddess187 15:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • The title "of Fife" is incorrect. She was never Princess Maud "of Fife". In all official documents during the period when she used her title of princess, she is referred to as Her Highness Princess Maud" - without the territorial designation "of Fife". The territorial designation "of Fife" would be correct if her father had been a royal duke - he was not.95.252.66.128 (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• • • • Suggest moving to Princess Maud, Countess of Southesk, and redirecting there from current page title. She was never officially known as Princess Maud of Fife so this is unintentionally misleading.VictoriaGates1 (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• • • • • Remember, Wikipedia style is not to name bios according to the subject's "official" title or legal name (otherwise Prince Harry, Emperor Norton, Lady Gaga, Bill Clinton, Baudouin of Belgium and Charlemagne would all be located elsewhere) but according to how readers are most likely to look them up -- within our other constraints (e.g., "Use maiden name" or "Use a person's highest title" -- Edward VIII vs Edward, Duke of Windsor). And our guideline, NCRAN concurs. If you look in the Almanach de Gotha, no British prince or princess is listed as "Prince/ss Firstname of Fathersdukedom" because those suffixes have never been deemed official or legal, but as courtesy styles. Wikipedia uses "most common" name (within limits) because that is how English speakers are most likely to think of and to look these persons up. In the body of the article we provide legal name and official title -- not in the namespace of the bio. Until seeing it here, I don't ever remember seeing these ladies referred to pre-maritally as just Princess Alexandra or Princess Maud MacDuff. People attributed them the "of Fife" suffix because they assumed that the same rule applied to them as to daughters of royal dukes, and the place to correct that is in the article's text, not its namespace. FactStraight (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• • • • • • Thank you FactStraight. I think you are right and will add something to clarify the "of Fife" designation.VictoriaGates1 (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I moved the article to “Princess Maud” (Countess of Southesk)”. I wanted to make a move to just “Princess Maud”, but there’s already a Wikipedia category of that name. Obviously “Princess Maud of Fife” is wrong. The reasoning that the title of the article should express what a person is known as, rather than his or her official name, is, although fine in itself, a little to steep for me in this particular case. Was she really generally known by that name? The article itself states hat she was sometimes called that by mistake. Now, that’s not the same as being generally known as something. If she was however, I would like to see a strong and explicit source to support that. Meanwhile the addition in brackets is meant as a clarification. (She may have been called “Princess Maud, Countess of Southesk”, but she chose not to use that as het style). It is also a way to circumvent the technical aspect that there is already a Wiki category of that name. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

She was still "Princess Maud" after her marriage even though she did not generally use the title. See for example the Letters Patent appointing her a Counsellor of State in "No. 36064". The London Gazette. 22 June 1943. Her name is given as "Our Most dear and entirely beloved Cousin Her Highness Princess Maud Alexandra Victoria Georgina Bertha Countess of Southesk". So Princess Maud, Countess of Southesk is not incorrect as an article title, and it certainly looks better than Princess Maud (Countess of Southesk). Opera hat (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Titles

Just because Princess Maud stopped using her titles after her marriage doesn't mean she ceased to have them. You cannot just decide you want to give up your titles; it requires Letters Patent from the sovereign to do so. After her marriage she was still legally HH Princess Maud of Fife, Lady Carnegie, though she did not style herself as such. Her situation was similar to that of The Duchess of Cornwall, who is Princess of Wales but does not call herself that. Also reference Lady Louise Windsor, whose real title is HRH Princess Louise of Wessex. She does not use her royal title, but, lacking any letters patent or other legal move, still holds it. Thus I am changing Princess Maud's titles, to reflect her royal status. Furthermore, The Lady Maud Carnegie would never have been correct anyway; Carnegie was not her husband's last name but a courtesy title he held- the only correct title would be just Lady Carnegie. TysK 07:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The header (which ought to be "styles," and not "titles") is meant to indicate what the person was actually called, not all the titles and styles they were theoretically entitled to. I'm going to change it back (correcting "Lady Maud Carnegie" to "Lady Carnegie," - although it ought to be noted that Carnegie was both her husband's last name and his courtesy title.) john k 02:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Calling the section "styles" does solve the problem, and thanks for leaving in the sentence I added explaining the situation. Thanks for pointing out the issue with her husband's title-I had forgotten that (though of course "Lady Maud Carnegie" is still incorrect.) TysK 06:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

For peers' daughters married to courtesy peers whom they outrank, it would be perfectly correct to use the style Lady [Firstname] [Husband's courtesy title]. See Debrett's Correct Form, etc. Opera hat (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Opera Hat is correct: after her marriage and before her husband acceded to his peerage, she was officially known as Lady Maud Carnegie.95.252.66.128 (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Carnegie was het husbands last name AND a courtesy title he held at marriage. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Princess of Great Britain

The introduction says "Maud, and her elder sister, Alexandra, 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 a British monarch (Queen Victoria), Maud 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)

I have corrected the reference. By Letters Patent of November 9 1905, King Edward VII granted her the style "Highness", but not the title Princess of Great Britain and Ireland.Badita (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

She was created Highness and Princess in 1905, but not Princess of Great Britain and Ireland. I have changed the text. However the opening statement is really ambiguous: Princess Helena Victoria and Princess Marie Louise of Schleswig-Holstein both female-line granddaughters of a British Sovereign were granted the style of Princess and Highness by George V. Princess Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg, also a female-line granddaughter of a British Sovereign was created Royal Highness (but not Princess). Helena Victoria and Marie Louise were not created Princess of Great Britain and Ireland and there is no reason to assume that Princess Maud was too; the 1905 grant certainly does not bear this out.VictoriaGates1 (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that Maud and her sister were given the prefix of "Princess" but no suffix, still less that of "of Great Britain and Ireland". Moreover, The Times of 20 June 1917 states, "The Court Circular published to-day contains the following announcement: The King has been pleased to direct that Royal Warrants shall be prepared declaring that Their Highnesses Princess Helena Victoria and Princess Marie Louise of Schleswig-Holstein shall henceforth be styled Their Highnesses Princess Helena Victoria and Princess Marie Louise respectively..." But in fact, no such warrants were ever issued, although no one has effectively disputed the Sovereign's authority to enact changes in style (as distinct from conferring peerages) as a fount of honour whether done by promulgated decree or in pectore. Still, since the Court Circular announcement appears to have been the only instrument in which their new styles were gazetted, it is ambiguous whether the King "created" Helena Victoria and Marie Louise "princesses" thereby, rather than simply "recognizing" their retention and continued use in Britain of their life-long titles -- on the express stipulation that they ceased using as suffix the Dano-German territorial designation ("of Schleswig-Holstein") to which the titles had theretofore been attached. In which case the concession of the prefix "Princess" is indeed unique to the Fife girls (and, implicitly, to Lady Alice Montague-Douglas-Scott in widowhood). FactStraight (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with FactStraight regarding Princesses Helena Victoria and Marie Louise. By the grant of 15 May 1867 (National Archives, HO 125/2), they had the style of Highness, but not the style of Princess which was probably taken for granted on the basis that they would have that anyway as part of the Schleswig-Holstein dignities. On balance as they were British subjects, I agree that the 1917 announcement was a recognition of their retention and continued use in Britain of their life-long titles. I think that the King was simply directing that the territorial designation "of Schleswig-Holstein" should not be used. The Court Circular announcement of 1917 refers to them as Princess - although never created as such in England. All subsequent official documents such as coronations and funerals refer to them as Princesses. So they were Highnesses (UK) and Princesses tout court!VictoriaGates1 (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Precedence after marriage

I think everyone agrees that Maud continued to be a Princess and Highness throughout her life. One intriguing question: what was her precedence? According to the original grant, she was granted precedence after all members of the Royal family bearing the style of Royal Highness. Presumably she maintained this precedence (at least de jure) until her death? I have no information on this and input from others would be very welcome.VictoriaGates1 (talk) 08:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 30 August 2020

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. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Princess Maud, Countess of Southesk → ? – Since she discontinued the use of the style of Princess after her marriage, using a mix of titles she used before and after her marriage seems anachronistic. Not sure what the best alternative would be. 73.110.217.186 (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Opera hat explained above that she was sometimes called Princess Maud, Countess of Southesk, but I suppose Maud, Countess of Southesk would be fine as well. (Princess Maud is apparently ambiguous.) Surtsicna (talk) 08:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• • Looking at the article, she was sequentially known throughout her life as Lady Maud Duff, Princess Maud, Lady Maud Carnegie, and The Countess of Southesk. Maybe Maud Carnegie, Countess of Southesk, consistent with other article titles for countesses, would work.

---

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.