Talk:Princess Elizabeth of Great Britain

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance).

British Royalty Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move

Move to Princess Elizabeth of Great Britain?: see Wikipedia:Requested moves Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See centralised discussion at the WikiProject D B D 09:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move revisited

Oh yes, I've been away and gathered sources etc. Now, let's do the Time Warp again! Join me, it's awfully lonely D B D 23:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was move all. And slavery is bad. (Who knew?) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Elizabeth Caroline of Great Britain → Princess Elizabeth of Great Britain Princess Louisa Anne of Great Britain → Princess Louisa of Great Britain Prince Frederick William of Great Britain → Prince Frederick of Great Britain — Per naming conventions, middle names are not used in article titles unless they are/were commonly used to refer to the subject. — D B D 09:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 obviously D B D 09:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Please see discussion below. Paul Roberton (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per DBD. Prsgodd e ss187 02:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

There is a fundamental difference between what we know to be fact and what we believe to be fact. It is suggested by Michel Foucault through his notion of the episteme that the study of discrete periods of history be looked upon through a schema defined by the world view of the day.

"... [worldviews] organised by 'reason' that cannot be adequately described or identified because it is so embedded, ingrained and implicit." ( Schirato et al Understanding Foucault ) This embeddedness can be reinforced in Whorfian sense. If a rule has absolutely no exceptions, it is not recognised as a rule or as anything else, it is part of the background of experience of which we tend to remain unconscious.

Therefore we must not seek to apply a modern understanding to eras past for there is a danger we will overlook the embedded understanding of the era- the implicit understanding of knowledge, and acceptance of power and authority. Slavery is a perfect example. The world accepts that slavery in all forms is reprehensible, and we are aghast that the Bible does not actively condone slavery- thrusting a 21st century morality on a document reflecting society 2000 years ago, where slavery an implicit norm.

(Please note, I am not making a connection between this debate and slavery, I am merely trying to exemplify how worldview can change over time and that modern worldviews cannot be a schema for studying the past)

Therefore, we must be content with being consistent with what these people called themselves in common practice, and how they generally accepted being called by their family, their peers and the public at large at that time. By seeking to be so forensically correct with the historical record and retroactively applying knowledge we believe to be fact, we are in fact, bordering in WP:SYN, in 'spirit' of the policy.

In conclusion, my support for the proposal as described above. Failing all else... KISS it ( Keep it Simple Silly)

On a slightly different tack, aren't we also discussing the correct description of the realm? The original debate also centred around the UK v GB didn't it?

Paul Roberton (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:O ... ... Reasonably intelligent though I am, I found that rather hard to wrap my lobes around, lol. And, on the different tack, I never saw it as that — I have never doubted for a second that 1707–1801 are Prince/ss of Great Britain (and Ireland) and since 1801 are Prince/ss of the United Kingdom. In the previous discussion, I merely had to explain this to some other 'paedians. Hurrah for support! D B D 13:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite as simple as that: see [1]. Being too definite about "of Great Britain" vs "of the United Kingdom", even as late as 1905, risks forcing modern understanding onto historical custom, as condemned by Paul Robertson above. Of course this article could only ever be at "of Great Britain", though. Opera hat (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to argument of the dates delineating Dark Ages/ Middles Ages or Old English/Middle English I'm loathe to be too specific. When it comes to Acts of Parliament, that's a different story. 1707 and 1801 are clear landmarks. While I generally agree public sentiment might precede these landmarks, Acts of Parliament really do cement the dates of what the name of the realm should be. When such issues are debated by elected representatives and approved by Monarch it becomes part of the discourse. I support using the Acts of Parliament to define the names of the realms.Incidently, please note my name doesn't have an S in it, it is a locative surname, not a patronymic one. Paul Roberton (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon - I know I hadn't read "Roberton" as "Robertson", so it must have been George taking over when I was actually typing. Opera hat (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All good :) I tend to get a bit zealous in trying to exorcise the S! When reading that back, I seem a bit terse! Paul Roberton (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It all boils down to the old maxim " a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing" lol... if someone more well-versed in Foucault tramped through here, I'm pretty sure my argument could fall to pieces ;). How long will the survey and discussion remain open? Paul Roberton (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible does condone slavery, see for example Leviticus 25:44, which tells the Israelites that "bondmen" and "bondmaids" should be bought from the surrounding peoples. Opera hat (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on the subject of the Bible, I seem to remember that the dedication in the A.V. describes James I and VI as "King of Great Britain, France and Ireland" - according to your argument above, as he called himself that and was called that by his contemporaries, shouldn't his article be at James I of Great Britain not James I of England? Opera hat (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I daresay the issue of buying them from surrounding peoples is an economic one and a social one, supporting the community and allowing the slaves to be in proximity enough to stay in contact with their families. At any rate the bible also says that slaves should be well treated and cared for, a far cry from modern slave trading which includes maltreatment, transportation in squalor and sexual exploitation. I doubt the bible would condone THAT.

On the subject of James though- my wee dissertation refers to naming conventions- using the NAMES they used, not realms or titles.

Following my assertions above- when applied to King James; we KNOW that he was James VI King of Scots and James I King of England. We also KNOW that he preferred to hold court at England, which is probably why his article his article is at James I of England. ( a source of pain to this particular scottish nationalist lol). We also KNOW that Great Britain didn't exist until 1707. The fact his CLAIM to be King of 'Great Britain' was rejected the parliaments of England and Scotland fails 'the test' of what his subjects called him, which is why his ordinals and realm are both dealt with in the lead of the article, not in the name.

I digress however, and will return to the premise of the my earlier statement. Princess Elizabeth Caroline should moved to Princess Elizabeth, on the grounds that her contemporaries would have called her Elizabeth or Princess Elizabeth. We don't call princes of Wales "Prince William Arthur" or "Prince Henry Charles" do we? In fact the Prince Harry article is also a nice example. It sits at "Prince Henry of Wales", with 'Commonly called Prince Harry' in the lead. It is the most simple solution, that I advocated above. (The KISS approach). I'll climb off my soap box. Paul Roberton (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.