Talk:Princess Alexandra (born 1936)

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Requested move 24 July 2023

[edit]

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: After thorough discussion, it has been clearly supported that the article page should remain having the title of Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Oglivy. I thank you all for your thoughts and opinions, yet we must remember that we have to follow Wikipedia's thorough guidelines for page articles and we still, through discussion, must remain civil. That is all. BillClinternet (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy → Princess Alexandra of KentPrincess Alexandra of Kent – She is mostly known due to her father, Prince George of Kent and her cousin-ship to Elizabeth II, not as her role as the Lady Oglivy. Most people search for her as simply Princess Alexandra or Princess Alexandra of Kent. Even on the website, https://www.royal.uk/princess-alexandra it doesn't mention her role as the Lady Oglivy other than the mentioning of her marriage to Angus Oglivy and mostly she's referred to as Princess Alexandra on the Royal Family's social media.
It states on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility): "Use "Prince(ss) {first name} of ..." where a prince/ss has a territorial suffix by virtue of their parent's title, e.g. Prince Michael of Kent"
I would also like to point out that Alexandra doesn't have a substantive title, meaning that she didn't inherit the title Lady Oglivy, but received it through her marriage to the late Angus Oglivy.

I ask for your opinions.

That's all,
BillClinternet (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out to whoever says that it isn't her title, the proposal for Princess Alexandra of Kent is perfectly fine because it follows Wikipedia:COMMONNAME, and there are common examples through people like Mary of Teck, whose article isn't Queen Mary of the United Kingdom Princess Alice of the United Kingdom, whose article isn't Grand Duchess Alice of Hesse and by Rhine. By examination, most people refer to her as simply Princess Alexandra, but for encyclopedic purposes, should have her title re-named to Princess Alexandra of Kent. There's also Princess Helena of the United Kingdom, whose article wasn't named Princess Helena of Shleswig-Holstein.
As I also said before it also follows Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility): "Use "Prince(ss) {first name} of ..." where a prince/ss has a territorial suffix by virtue of their parent's title, e.g. Prince Michael of Kent" as I said before.
BillClinternet (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - As the nom state, she is most commonly known as Princess Alexandra, but obvious that's ambiguous. Technically, "Princess Alexandra, the Honourable Lady Ogilvy" is her formal title. What I see here is a classic case of misunderstanding NCROY (at least based on the provided examples): Mary of Teck and Princesses Alice and Helena of the United Kingdom are all dead, that is why their titles are at their birth names.
I think since plain "Princess Alexandra" is the COMMONNAME here, it's best to just stick to her official name until after her death, then it'd be more appropriate to move back to her birth name.
(Quick side note though- I do wonder if "The" should be capitalized. It's not on the royal website, so perhaps that should be discussed). estar8806 (talk) ★ 12:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this opposition, I am just making a comment on the "the." Most, if not every title in the United Kingdom, have the capitalized "the". The Princess Margaret. The Queen; although it's not grammatically correct, it is most definitely how they do it. When Edward VIII abdicated, it stated:
I, Edward the Eighth, of Great Britain, [...], do hereby declare My irrevocable determination to renounce the Throne for Myself and for my descendants, [...] effect should be given to this Instrument of Abdication immediately.
"Throne", a common noun; "My", a common noun; and "Myself" a common noun; are capitalized. There's no clear explanation to to that.
I would also like to point out this may because of a "proper noun phrase" also known as a "proper noun name".
Example: India's Ministry of Defense is planning on releasing a statement concerning the number of servicemen who died in the war.
Example: Queen Victoria's Small Diamond Crown sat upon her head for the photograph.
Although, below is not how you use it;
Example: Queen Victoria had a Small Diamond Crown. This sentence is speaking of any ambiguous small diamond crown, but the specific one is that being Queen Victoria's. The correct version should be Queen Victoria had a small diamond crown.
Another example with titles. Earl of Sandwich, alone, would be "earl of Sandwich", but when you are placing the word "earl" in lieu of the name, or if it is attached to the name like "John Doe, 1st Earl of Sandwich". Grammatically, any word can be a proper noun. The only thing that dictates a proper noun is that it refers to a person, place, or thing and is usually specific. Although if I say "my", a possessive pronoun, I could also style it "My" if I'd like to because it is a specific word referring to me, BillClinternet. Technically, it is correct.
So when you consider if "the" would be capitalized, it most likely would.
BillClinternet (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it generally should be capitalized. It is generally correct. But here it doesn't seem to be. The official royal website uses "Princess Alexandra, the Honourable Lady Ogilvy" in the same document as "The King" and "The Duke and Duchess of Kent" (capitalized "The")[1]. The same can be said for the London Gazette, which uses "The Queen" but "Princess Alexandra, the Honourable Lady Ogilvy" [2]. As you said in the nomination, she didn't inherit the title Lady Oglivy; ie. "the Honourable Lady Ogilvy" is not a substantive title like "The Queen" or "The Duke of Kent".
I'm not personally opposed to "The" being capitalized. But it seems as though the sources don't use it capitalized. estar8806 (talk) ★ 16:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Completely agree. I've always thought that this is a very weird title and not her common name (which is, of course, just Princess Alexandra, but the "of Kent" is a perfectly acceptable disambiguator just like her brother Prince Michael of Kent). When do we ever use honorifics like "Honourable" in article titles? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose She hasn't been "Princess Alexandra of Kent" since 1963 (60 years ago!) and the sources attest to that. In The London Gazette, she is referred to as "Princess Alexandra of Kent" in 1959, "Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Mrs Angus Ogilvy" in 1969, and "Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy" in 2018. The territorial designations are dropped when a British princess gets married; the most recent examples are Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice. I wouldn't oppose a move to "Princess Alexandra", which would be consistent in format to the way Beatrice and Eugenie's articles have been titled, but if that move is not possible the current title is the most recent and accurate one and it does not matter how weird it might sound because that's not a valid reason for moving a page. A case for moving the page to her maiden name and title could be made after her death, but even then a move cannot be guaranteed because we have pages that favor the most recent title over the maiden name such as Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone (whose maiden name was Princess Alice of Albany), etc. Keivan.fTalk 14:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • it does not matter how weird it might sound because that's not a valid reason for moving a page. Oh, but it is. We don't use "Sir" or "Dame" or "The Honourable" or "The Right Honourable" to disambiguate people in any other case, even if it is the correct form. So why are we using it here? Princess Alexandra, Lady Ogilvy would be just about acceptable (and just as accurate), but not the form as it current stands with the honorific. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The royal family refers to her as "Princess Alexandra [of Kent]". Wallis Simpson, although she remained the Duchess of Windsor, her page has always been named Wallis Simpson, because that is her Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. Per the naming conventions for royalty and nobility, there are 4/5 things that the new title would do that apply to the conventions.
    1: Use "Prince(ss) {first name} of ..." where a prince/ss has a territorial suffix by virtue of their parent's title, e.g. Prince Michael of Kent, Prince Arthur of Connaught, etc.
    Alexandra of Kent has a territorial suffix "of Kent" due to her father, George, Duke of Kent.
    2: Where they have no substantive title, use the form "{title} {name} of {country}", e.g. Princess Irene of Greece and Denmark. Use only the highest prefix title the person ever held and used (roughly before the 17th century, prince/ss would not be prefixed automatically).
    3: Do not use styles, such as HRH, as part of a title of an article.
    Obviously, it would not be titled as HRH or Her Royal Highness, Princess Alexandra of Kent.
    She has no substantive title, meaning that she did not inherit the title of "The Honorable Lady Oglivy".
    4: Do not use surnames in article titles for such persons. If royals have surnames, then this information should be mentioned in the first line of the article (but care should be taken, as many do not have surnames, and personal surnames may differ from the name of their Royal House). For details, see WP:Manual of Style (biographies)#Royal surnames.
    Alexandra does have the surname of Oglivy, yet, she belongs to the House of Windsor, similar how to you refer to Queen Camilla as Queen Camilla and not as Camilla Parker-Bowles, Camilla Mountbatten-Windsor (since she is married to a descendant of Elizabeth II and Philip, Duke of Edinburgh).
    There is always a Wikipedia:Commonname conflict when naming articles, but she is mostly known as, by both the royal family and the general public. It doesn't matter how different it sounds from her original title, that is what she's known as.
    Another thing to point out is that there have been many more "Princess Alexandra of [...]"s as oppose to the much fewer "Princess Beatrice of [...]"s. It is similar to the Charles III "debate", but with a clear answer.
    6 Beatrices.
    16 Alexandras.
    Princess Alexandra of Kent would most definitely be sensible and there should be little to no opposition. I understand your arguments, but yours just don't make sense considering the Wikipedia:COMMONNAME and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility).
    That's all.
    BillClinternet (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    After a bit of thinking and researching, I personally think that a move to plain Princess Alexandra is our best bet. The majority of pageviews go to her from the dab page [3]. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only just over half of outgoing page views, which does not seem sufficient to meet the standard of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which requires that the primary topic be substantially more sought than all the other topics combined. DrKay (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is true, however, I would presume that most people would be searching "King Charles" rather than "Charles III"; "King Charles" being the long-term usage topic whilst "Charles III" being the primary topic.
    The same goes for Alexandra.
    BillClinternet (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 2nd suggestion then Even if users at King Charles predominantly go to Charles III[4] that doesn't mean we should move the article there because Charles Windsor is not the overwhelming primary topic for "King Charles". Similarly, Alexandra Ogilvy is not the overwhelming primary topic for "Princess Alexandra". DrKay (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't justify the commonname and the literal page naming guide for royalty. BillClinternet (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, there have been far less Princess Eugenie and Beatrices than Princess Alexandras. Naming the article simply Princess Alexandra ambiguously would be non-sensible, and since she has no substantive title and would use "of Kent" due to the role of her father. BillClinternet (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The royal family refers to her as "Princess Alexandra [of Kent]". You just threw in [of Kent] in there. The royal family's website uses no territorial designations for her at the moment.
Use "Prince(ss) {first name} of ..." where a prince/ss has a territorial suffix by virtue of their parent's title This doesn't apply to Alexandra. The territorial designations are dropped when a British princess gets married and picks her husband's surname, or, when a British prince is granted a peerage. She has not been "of anything" for 60 years and the role of her father which you bring up is irrelevant. Any other suggestions fall under WP:OR.
Alexandra does have the surname of Oglivy, yet, she belongs to the House of Windsor, similar how to you refer to Queen Camilla as Queen Camilla and not as Camilla Parker-Bowles, Camilla Mountbatten-Windsor (since she is married to a descendant of Elizabeth II and Philip, Duke of Edinburgh). The comparison here makes zero sense. Queens do not carry a surname as part of their title because they are married to kings who typically have no surnames either. Charles III is never called "HM The King Charles III Mountbatten-Windsor". He is "His Majesty The King" and his wife is "Her Majesty The Queen". Princess Anne, however, was once "HRH The Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Phillips"[1] before being created Princess Royal. Similarly Beatrice's official title is "HRH Princess Beatrice, Mrs Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi" and Eugenie's official title is "HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank".[2] They actually carry these surnames as part of their titles.
there have been far less Princess Eugenie and Beatrices than Princess Alexandras. There have been several princesses with the name Beatrice or a variation of it, one of whom was the daughter of Queen Victoria and the other was Victoria's granddaughter (similar to how the current Princess Beatrice is a granddaughter of Elizabeth II). Users did not support a move to "Princess Beatrice, Mrs Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi" because it is archaic and includes her husband's full name. That is not the case with Alexandra. The name "Angus Olgily" appears no where in the page title. Whether the honorific "The Honourable" should be dropped, as User:Necrothesp suggested, is another matter. Keivan.fTalk 02:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

References

  1. ^ Davies, Nicholas (2013). Elizabeth II: Behind Palace Doors. Random House. ISBN 9781780578279. Until Elizabeth gave her the title, Anne's correct form of address had been a mouthful, 'Her Royal Highness The Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Phillips'.
  2. ^ "Annex D: The Royal Family" (PDF). The Royal Family. Retrieved 9 December 2020.

"Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy, LG, GCVO, CD" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy, LG, GCVO, CD 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 § Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy, LG, GCVO, CD until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Alexandra's infobox image following her death (edit: she's not dead)

[edit]

I was thinking her infobox image could be changed to an older image following her death, similar to other members of the royal family. Moreover, we should plan this now as she is growing old and bringing most of her public appearances down.

Option A:

Option B:


We can crop Option B as needed. There is one that is already cropped; however, it's lower quality than the one I attached.
Option A is an image I actually found on Pinterest, and is evidently probably from 1952, pre-coronation, she looks impressively young in the portrait. I couldn't find matching images on TinEye, Getty Images, or Alamy.

Please vote.

Thanks,

BillClinternet (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should go with A; more formal and better framed. We'll discuss it in detail when the time comes. Keivan.fTalk 04:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with option A. I think the regal look of it fits the subject matter very well. 99.30.125.111 (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option A Kenneth (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New image for the Lady Ogilvy

[edit]

I think we should change her picture. I mean this one looks like it was cut off from a main picture. As the granddaughter of King George V and as a born british princess, I think a picture from the coronation of her cousin, Queen Elizabeth, or her cousin's son, King Charles, would go well. Just a suggestion tho :) Thanks! SferaEbbasta87 (talk) 11:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New lead image

[edit]

Hi. I recently found images on an archived version of the Royal Website (here [5]), which can be attributed to a Creative Commons license after I skimmed through on how to pick a license using information on their website. I uploaded the image to the right.

File:Princess Alexandra by Mark Stewart.jpg

It's a formal portrait of Alexandra taken by Mark Stewart in 2005 (he also did photos of other royals and as I found out is a career royal photographer). I just uploaded this one because I noticed that Alexandra was really the only royal with a bad (sorry) lead image on their page. This is my first time uploading a photo, and I don't really know if I did it right. Would anyone consider it to be a new lead image?? Rexophile (talk) 05:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It says "(c) Mark Stewart" at the source, so it's copyrighted. Furthermore, it doesn't allow commercial use. Licenses on wikipedia must permit commercial use unless fair use applies. Fair use does not apply in this case because free images are available. See Wikipedia:Image use policy. DrKay (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 February 2025

[edit]
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. Moved as proposed. After extended time for discussion, there is clear consensus for moving away from the current title, but a lack of clarity over the target title, so I am defaulting to the proposal. It is not clear that there is specific opposition to disambiguation by year, although several participants would prefer disambiguation by location. BD2412 T 03:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy → Princess Alexandra (born 1936) – I've seen Princess Alexandra be simply referred to as Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra on official royal family announcements and social media. Could it be possible that her official title was switched to simply "Princess Alexandra"? I haven't really seen her being referred to as The Hon. Lady Ogilvy except for the royal family members index and older references. This could be possible because when Princess Alice became Princess Alice, it was never really announced. EDIT: I understand the Gazette still uses her husband's title with her name, but I just also want to point out that "Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy" renders way less results on Google rather than "Princess Alexandra of Kent" and simply "Princess Alexandra"... Rexophile (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 06:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would support Princess Alexandra of Kent as a naturally disambiguated option. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 14:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe, but Princess Alexandra of Kent is a title that she hasn't used for awhile now and might cause confusion because it is outdated. That idea is similar to calling Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon as Princess Margaret of York or Princess Margaret of the United Kingdom rather than simply Princess Margaret (born 1930). Rexophile (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The last time she was "Princess Alexandra of Kent" was about 60 years ago (just like Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie who are no longer "Princess Beatrice of York" and "Princess Eugenie of York" since their respective marriages). That being said, I prefer a natural way of disambiguation over the use of birth and/or death years in article titles whenever possible. Keivan.fTalk 02:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your opposition, but you also have to take into account that she may have been granted to be simply Princess Alexandra and dropped her other title altogether with permission. Rexophile (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This entry from The London Gazette regarding June 2023 appointments to the Royal Victorian Order mentions the dresser to "Princess Alexandra, the Honourable Lady Ogilvy" receiving the honour. So it appears that the title has not really been dropped. Keivan.fTalk 07:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be worth mentioning that the RF website only uses Princess Alexandra? Not sure if they are just using her shortform title or if she is just Princess Alexandra. cookie monster 755 09:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they do use the shortened form on the website and have done so for a long period of time but formally she is "Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy" just as Princess Eugenie is "Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank"; and there is no evidence of an alteration to her official title. I would have gladly supported a move to plain "Princess Alexandra". The issue though is we have had too many princesses named Alexandra in the past. Keivan.fTalk 15:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know, maybe Princess Alexandra of Kent would be good enough? I know this was a pre-marital title that she no longer uses, but it certainly seems to be more popular than her actual title.. Rexophile (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be like renaming Anne, Princess Royal to Princess Anne of Edinburgh. Why choose a title that's no longer in use as the main page name and mislead clueless readers? If such a page move were to take place though, then both pages on Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie should also be moved IMO. Keivan.fTalk 21:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say Anne is different, as she gained the "Princess Royal" title later in life and is currently her highest title, still in use. I would be interested to know what is Princess Alexandra current title (I think none) and maybe stick to that? Shouldn't she be in line with Princess Eugenie and Beatrice?
    My understanding is Alexandra full title is: Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy. So shouldn't this be shortened to just Princess Alexandra? In line with the other british princess descendant via secondary male lines? GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it should either be changed to Princess Alexandra (born 1936), Princess Alexandra, or Princess Alexandra of Kent. However, I really don't want to use "of Kent" as she doesn't use that title anymore; it would be best if "of Kent" would be added following her death.. Rexophile (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. And for sake of consistency, shouldn't she be same as Eugenie and Beatrice (of York)? GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think (born 1936) and of Kent could be added upon her death GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it wasn't dropped, but maybe this is a case like Princess Alice, where she was Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester but usually went by Princess Alice. Rexophile (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Naturally they would just go with Princess Alexandra, just like they refer to Andrew's daughters as Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie or George VI's daughter as Princess Margaret, etc. Here on Wikipedia though we have to take the issue of disambiguation into consideration. Let's see what other users think. Hopefully a consensus will be formed that can be used for both this page and the ones on Beatrice and Eugenie. Keivan.fTalk 21:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah.. I'm a lot more against of Kent than anything, but a lot of people are against the plain Princess Alexandra. But the name Princess Alexandra is relevant mostly to the one in question, so it would honestly make a lot more sense changing her title to simply Princess Alexandra. This is English Wikipedia, so really only Americans and British people would really be searching for Princess Alexandra just as Princess Alexandra because for most English speakers, that is the one most relevant to them. And also, to comment on Princess Anne, she is not widely known alternatively as her birth title, whereas Princess Alexandra is. But, this is a change request mostly for simply Princess Alexandra, so I have to support that choice the best. Rexophile (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just thinking, and I know that I have sort of been against "of Kent" but then realized that Queen Mary's article references her birth title in the title. Thoughts? Rexophile (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This format is actually used in a lot of female royal articles, where the title by virtue of marriage is omitted. Rexophile (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because in Mary's case WP:CONSORTS specifically applies. Keivan.fTalk 05:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should really just stick with Princess Alexandra (born 1936) or simply Princess Alexandra. We only need this conversation to have more consensus. I'm not trying to sound Anglocentric or anything, but, realistically, on English Wikipedia, the main Princess Alexandra they'd be searching for (that's living) would be this one, though I realize that there are others alive. An alternative that could fit but I am personally against is Princess Alexandra of the United Kingdom, which is super long and unnecessary. Rexophile (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Princess Alexandra of the United Kingdom wouldn’t work either, as the format “Prince(ss) X of the United Kingdom” is reserved for children of a British monarch, while she is a grandchild of a British monarch. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A Princess of the United Kingdom is a princess of the blood royal--regardless who is their parent or not. She is a Princess of the United Kingdom, and thus, even if not referred as officially, could be known as Princess Alexandra of the United Kingdom. That was just a suggestion though, which I didn't really like anyway. Rexophile (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Royalty and Nobility and WikiProject British Royalty have been notified of this discussion. Rexophile (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject London, WikiProject Women's History, and WikiProject Biography have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 06:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 2 November 2025

[edit]

Princess Alexandra (born 1936) → Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady OgilvyPrincess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy or Princess Alexandra – "(born 1936)" is only used when disambiguation is needed for two people sharing the same name, and occupation. There is no need for disambiguation here as the subject has a unique name. Now, since there's an issue with this title, maybe it could be moved to simply Princess Alexandra in which case the disambiguation page could be moved to Princess Alexandra (disambiguation). Of course, the short description "British princess (born 1936)" would disambiguate it. Spectritus (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 05:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Destinyokhiria 💬 05:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support this proposal because the proposed name is more recognizable, i.e. people who know who she is are much likelier to recognize her under the name "Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy" than "Princess Alexandra (born 1936)". A title is much easier to memorize than the year of birth. Surtsicna (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Surtsicna Thanks. Spectritus (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the issue with this is that it is long and that the palace hasn't attached "The Hon. Lady Ogilvy" in any official communication or on their website since the 2000s. Yes, it is technical. However, "Princess Alexandra of Kent" and "Princess Alexandra" render more results and are usually always of the subject in this case. Rexophile (talk) 03:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rexophile Then why not move it to Princess Alexandra of Kent? There's clearly no reason to use "(born 1936)". Spectritus (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That simply is not her title. Rexophile (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rexophile I discovered that earlier today when reading through the previous RM. Spectritus (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - "The Honourable Lady Ogilvy" at least has some usage [6]. However, I'm seeing a handful of sources refer to her as Princess Alexandra, Lady Ogilvy such as the National Portrait Gallery [7] Quite frankly, I'm of the opinion that if there is a natural disambiguator it should be used even if it's rather uncommon. Her birth name (Princess Alexandra of Kent) is used by Westminster Abbey [8]. I'm fine with any of these, certainly any of them are more common than a parenthetical disambiguator. estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Estar8806 I agree. Thanks. Spectritus (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Princess Alexandra of Kent ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She hasn't been Princess Alexandra of Kent for 62 years. The territorial designation is usually dropped when princesses marry. Other examples are Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie. Maybe after she has passed that's an option that could be considered. Keivan.fTalk 15:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The territorial designation is usually dropped when princesses marry. - Even accepting this as fact, Wikipedia, for example, still titles the article on one of George III's granddaughters Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge, using the maiden appendage over the married Princess Mary Adelaide, Duchess of Teck. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 00:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Relisting for further discussion given this is the second move discussion this year. Pinging @Chicdat, @CookieMonster755, @GrandDukeMarcelo, @Piratesswoop from the previous discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 05:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject London, WikiProject British Royalty, WikiProject Women's History, and WikiProject Royalty and Nobility have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 05:33, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: If anything, I would support a change to "Princess Alexandra of the United Kingdom" as a way of differentiating from the other Princess Alexandra's. On another note, I am aware it is still the custom for females who marry "peerageless" men to adopt the male form of their style (e.g. Lady Frederick Windsor, Princess Michael of Kent), but I am unsure if I fully agree with this, and am reflecting if we should steer away from it?! GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GrandDukeMarcelo I agree with your proposition. As for the adoption of the Husband's first name, I agree it seems a bit weird. Spectritus (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Princess Alexandra of the United Kingdom is not WP:PRECISE even disregarding other countries. There are four other British princesses named Alexandra. Moreover, Alexandra of the United Kingdom is already a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Alexandra of Denmark (Edward VII's queen consort). AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 02:36, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There is no need for disambiguation here as the subject has a unique name - This is not true. The Princess Alexandra dab page alone lists nine other princesses named Alexandra, even excluding the links to further dab pages. Thus, Princess Alexandra is less WP:PRECISE.
  2. Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy is less WP:CONCISE.
  3. Princess Alexandra of Kent is more WP:CONSISTENT with the article title for her brother, Prince Michael of Kent, who also does not hold a royal dukedom. Moreover, given that the Princess Alexandra of Kent redirect has targeted this page since 2006, this title would be WP:PRECISE.
WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and WP:NATURALNESS notwithstanding, Princess Alexandra of Kent thus balances 3 of the 5 WP:CRITERIA better than the status quo and original proposed alternatives.
AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 00:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AndrewPeterT Thank you. Spectritus (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject London has been notified of this discussion. HurricaneZetaC 15:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why was this opened again? GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The request at WP:RMTR was contested HurricaneZetaC 15:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose as per my comment above. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]