Jump to content

Talk:Princess Olga of Savoy-Aosta

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greece and Denmark

[edit]

When did she become a Princess of Denmark this article says she was denied the suffix "and Denmark" and style HRH. - dwc lr (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She apparently always was a Princess of Denmark. No source was ever presented as to why the Princess would ever be denied the Danish title or even the style of Royal Highness. The September 2003 issue of Vanity Fair, for which the princess' father wrote an intro to their section on royals and also for which the princess was photographed on June 2, 2003 (it is sitting right in front of me) gives her title as Her Royal Highness Princess Olga Isabelle of Greece and Denmark. Her sister, also photographed, is similarly styled. Charles 03:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Were they both in the magazine? I seem to remember only Olga, because she had that huge butterfly clip thing on. Was Alexandra in the magazine too? I don't know where my copy is (which is a shame, I loved looking at it) or I'd check for myself. Morhange (talk) 05:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both Olga and Alexandra are in the magazine and both are titled as princesses of Greece and of Denmark and both are styled Royal Highness. Charles 06:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps Vanity Fair should have checked with the head of the dynasty, King Constantine II, rather than with the girl's father: HRH the late Duke of Windsor consistently asserted that his wife's title was "HRH the Duchess of Windsor", but King George VI was Britain's Fount of honour. Daniel Willis, whose book The Descendants of King George XIII is the source of this factoid, is known in royal genealogical circles for verifying information directly with dynasty members and Heads of Houses, rather than merely regurgitating what older published sources say. Since he carefully notes that the daughters do not share their father's HRH or "and Denmark" (page 94), and then goes out of his way to explain the difference (see endnote #24 to Chapter 1 on page 762), it is less likely to be in error than Vanity Fair, whose editors may know a lot about courtesy to doting dads, but nothing about royal titulature and the consequences of morganatic marriage. FactStraight (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Published author Marlene Koenig asserts that the daughters of Prince Michael are Royal Highnesses and Princesses of Greece and of Denmark. There are no set rules for morganatic marriage in Greece and nothing in Greece would allow for the removal of the Danish title. Perhaps the princesses are not dynasts but they do appear to be princesses and Royal Highnesses. Remember, it was announced before the Prince Michael's wife would be known as "the consort of Prince Michael of Greece", however now in the listing of prominent members of the Greek Royal Family they are known as Prince and Princess Michael. Things have changed, apparently. Charles 16:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Koenig's comment was posted on a newsgroup in 1997, whereas Daniel Willis's book was published in 1999 -- and Willis cites Koenig's book Queen Victoria's Descendants (which, however, does not mention Prince Michael or his daughters) and Koenig herself as sources. It's undisputed that although Marina Karella was not recognized as a princess when she wed Michael in Athens in 1965, her status and that of her daughters were upgraded: all sources now accord Marina the title of Princess and HRH. But the same genealogical sources continue to list the marriage as in violation of dynastic standards, the consequences of which are up to the Greek and Danish monarchs. Willis documents the continued distinction between the father's style and that of his daughters. So does L'Allemagne Dynastique volume VII, on the Oldenburgs: page 329, Michael's title is "Prince of Greece and Denmark", but page 357 records his daughters as "(Princesses) of Greece". Yet page 355 shows that Alexandra, the morganatic daughter of Alexander I of the Hellenes, was allowed the full title "Princess of Greece and Denmark"; so these distinctions are coming from kingly decisions & can't be dismissed as carelessness. Willis also confirms the distinction on page 419 of his 2002 genealogical book, The Descendants of King George I of Great Britain. You yourself cited Willis on a newsgroup to revert an edit last month. FactStraight (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, however, there are two lines of information going on here. One touting something as it was and another stating how things have changed. For all we know Mr. Willis wasn't aware of an upgrade. I am not discounting him as a source completely but the princesses have been styled as Royal Highnesses and as Princesses of Denmark (a status I haven't seen a source denying her specifically). I do know that Marina was formerly known as Marina, Consort of Prince Michael and that she is now HRH Princess Marina but Marlene Koenig, who has contact with the King, has said that the princesses are HRH and of Greece and of Denmark, another apparent change. Has Mr. Willis substantiated why the princesses are not of Denmark with decrees or other sources? Charles 02:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources aren't simultaneous, but sequential. Koenig's casual comment in a newsgroup can't outweigh two published royal geneaological books, with bibliographies and reputations for accuracy in royal genealogy. Wiki's standard doesn't require that the authors of books document each datum therein individually. Nor was Koenig's contact with the Greek royal family cited in the newsgroup as the source of her info in 1997.FactStraight (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When George I of Greece became King, he was the son of the crown prince of Greece. Some sort of declaration was passed that was recognized by both the Danish Government (who still recognizes it) and the Greek Government that said that all his children, the children of his sons, and there sons children, (and so on, and so fourth) so that the title of Prince of Greece & Denmark would pass down. As Princess Olga is a Direct disendent to George I of Greece, she has the right to be a Princess of Greece and Denmark. (Prince Olga <-- Prince Michael of Greece and Denmark <-- Prince Christopher of Greece and Denmark <-- George I of Greece). 98.193.60.125 (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, what is the evidence she is a Princess of Denmark. - dwc lr (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Male-line descent from a King of Denmark and a lack of sources explicitly denying her the title "Princess of Denmark". Omission does not equal denial. Charles 19:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Violation of WP:OR. The sources clearly state her title is Princess of Greece. This is clearly sourced you see the Willis book for yourself online. In L'Allemagne Dynastique her title is just Pss of Greece while her father is given Greece & Denmark as noted by FactStraight. - dwc lr (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than WP:OR and a newsgroup posting what half decent source is their that she is a Pss of Denmark when there are two genealogical works cited which say her title is merely Pss of Greece, or should we not concern ourselves with published sources. - dwc lr (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omission of a title in a published work does not mean that the title is not held. Sources have not been provided which explicitly deny the Danish title to the Princesses Olga and Alexandra and as male-line descendants of Christian IX of Denmark, as with all Greek royals, they hold the title "Princess of Denmark". The 1953 Act of Succession in Denmark created two classes of princes and princesses, those who were dynasts and those who are not. Olga and Alexandra are the latter because it allowed for princes and princesses to keep their titles and transmit them in the male-line as had always been done. Charles 22:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again WP:OR. These published works clear as day give her title, Pss of Greece what published works can you provide that say something else. - dwc lr (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must agree that this appears to be WP:OR. The 1953 Act states nothing about princely titles. Nor does it account for the various post-1953 counts af Rosenborg whose existence shows it's possible for the issue of Danish princes to be denied the princely title and Highness due to unapproved marriage. Moreover, titles are recorded affirmatively, explaining who has such-and-such title: Dynastic/genealogical publications aren't going to write "Princess Olga of Greece but not of Denmark", no matter how accurate that may be. Nor does any work I've ever heard of document the degree to which the Danish monarch was consulted about the marriages of Greek dynasts. Demanding such "proofs" is a red herring, since even the most reputable sources rarely document data so precisely. The most recent, reputable source that reports a person's specific titulature must surely prevail until contradicted by an equally reputable, equally specific source. So far, no such cite has been given.FactStraight (talk) 06:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following is a closed 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 no consensus. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark (born 1971) → Princess Olga of Greece (born 1971) — The title contradicts the article which states she does not bear the suffix "and Denmark". - dwc lr (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
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.
  • Strong oppose Greek dynastic law has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on Danish titles. A respected author, Marlene Koenig, who speaks with the King, has indicated that the princess is a princess of Greece and of Denmark. Any information in Willis' work which specifically denies the Danish title has to be verified and state why not according the relevant house laws. Charles 20:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the article is going to say she does not bear the suffix "and Denmark" surely its inappropriate for the title of the article to contradict this. From the above discussion did Koenig not say this in a newsgroup posting which are not accepted as sources with good reason. - dwc lr (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Koeing perhaps could be a source if you cited from her book. FactStraight has provided an additional source that she does not beat the suffix "and Denmark". The Willis book can be viewed online. What is the evidence that she is in fact a Princess of Denmark. - dwc lr (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
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.

Princess

[edit]

Isn't Greece a republic? Then these titles can surely no longer be legal. Shouldn't wikipedia stand by a NPOV? --85.226.44.210 (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daughter's middle names

[edit]

A source on Twitter says that the Duchess of Apulia's daughter Princess Isabella has been given the names of Isabella Vita Marina. Should this be added into the article or is Twitter not a 'reliable' enough source??

Here's the link: https://twitter.com/royalmusing/status/284074465523019776 --PrincessAlice13 (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 June 2021

[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: no consensus (closed by non-admin page mover) D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 18:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Olga, Duchess of Apulia → Princess Olga, Duchess of Aosta – This is what her current title is upon the death of her father-in-law. 67.173.23.66 (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 17:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. No one has come up with any examples of the subject being referred to by either the current or the proposed form. They both seem to have been created to answer the question, "What would we call her if her husband was king of Italy?" Which, you know, he's not. 99to99 (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support Olga of Savoy-Aosta or Olga di Savoia-Aosta as that is what she's called in independent secondary sources. DrKay (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly oppose, If we are going down this route we should go back in time as she is still known largely as Princess Olga of Greece NYT, DuJour. - dwc lr (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Almanach de Gotha (2016) calls the subject "Pss. Olga Isabelle" or "Pss. Olga Isabelle of Greece." I don't see any basis in published sources for either the current name or the proposed form. 99to99 (talk) 06:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This post gives a list of RS mentions that support the form "Olga of Greece." 99to99 (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support seems pretty uncontroversial, when a succession occurs, or someone changes name, articles instantly get updated to reflect the change even though sources take time to make it the “common name” based on years of previous usage. -dwc lr (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Italy will be a kingdom again, by the time this RM is closed. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2021 (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 14 August 2021

[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 to Princess Olga of Savoy-Aosta. Wikipedia policy tells us to close discussions using the principle of "consensus via compromise" in which the result incorporates as many aspects of the discussion as possible, finding a middle ground between various participants. To do this, I have examined the RM as two main issues:

  • (1) Broadly speaking, what should the name format be?
  • (2) Should we use a title (e.g. Princess, Duchess)?

As to (1), we have a clear and obvious consensus in favor of "Olga of Savoy-Aosta." 4 votes in favor of this exact name, 1 vote in favor of this name as long as it contains "Princess" (dwc), and 1 vote opposed as long as the husband's name is different (GoodDay).

As to (2), the question of whether or not it is appropriate to use the title "Princess", this discussion has resulted in no consensus. We have 2 in favor (dwc, GooDay), 2 directly opposed (99to99, PatGallacher), and 2 who are neutral (DrKay, CeliaHomeford).

In cases of no consensus, we default to the status quo. This article has included a "Princess" in its title since 2008, when it was created. So that is the status quo. It is also important to note that no consensus on the legitimacy of "Princess" has formed in any prior RMs.

Note to the proposer: I have marked the "princess question" as no consensus, meaning you are absolutely able to immediately start a new discussion on this more precise question. I would recommend a repeat RM focused on just this narrow thing, and I would be happy to close it when/if a consensus forms.

If anyone believes I have mischaracterized their position, I am happy to reconsider and open this back up, and as always, it can also be addressed in a move review if I disagree. (non-admin closure) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That the article is now at a title that literally no one supported in the last RM is a ridiculous result. Vogue Italia (2010) calls her "Olga di Savoia-Aosta." Vanity Fair (2011) says "Olga was known as Princess Olga of Greece....Now she is titled Princess Olga of Savoy-Aosta, Duchess of Apulia." Almanach de Gotha (2016) gives "Pss. Olga Isabelle of Greece." Her profile in The New York Times (2016) calls her "Princess Olga of Greece." The NYT is both the most recent and the most in-depth of these sources. Since she is not legally a royal, I dropped the "princess." Feel free to vote for any of these possibilities. 99to99 (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The 2011 Vanity Fair story suggests that she was struggling to get people to use her married name at that time. It is not clear if that is still an issue. But I am certainly fine with "Olga of Savoy-Aosta." Putting "princess" or "duchess" in the article title goes against WP:NCNT: "Do not use hypothetical, dissolved or defunct titles, including pretenders (real or hypothetical), unless this is what the majority of reliable sources use." 99to99 (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have a guideline specific to pretenders which I quote in the proposal. Your own preferred RS calls her "Olga di Grecia"! She is also Olga di Grecia on Italian Wikipedia. 99to99 (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed but the guideline doesn’t say anything about not being able to use titles full stop, as with everything we are guided by the sources. Reliable sources call her Princess and Duchess of Aosta, we need a unique title as there are numerous Princess Olga of Greece’s and Princess Olga, Duchess of Aosta provides that so is the logical choice. - dwc lr (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with 99to99, go for "Olga of Savoy-Aosta". We have a naming convention against using these defunct titles, unless it can be shown that it is their common name. There appears to be no consensus about which of these defunct titles to use, suggesting that none of them is her common name. PatGallacher (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are 4 people called Olga of Greece, and she's about the third most important: see pageviews. Support as first choice a move to Princess Olga of Greece (born 1971): using her maiden name escapes the arguments over her married titles and also escapes having to move the article whenever she gives herself another title: Duchess of Apulia, Duchess of Aosta, Duchess of Savoy, Queen of Italy, or gets a divorce. Support as second choice either of Olga of Savoy-Aosta or Princess Olga of Savoy-Aosta because these are her married names, and will always remain her married name regardless of what other titles she chooses to give herself, for as long as she remains married and Italy remains a republic. Support as third choice: Olga di Savoia-Aosta or Olga di Savoia Aosta because although wikipedia naming conventions prefer English-language names, we do use foreign-language names, if there is consensus to do so and they are compliant with policy. Support as fourth choice: Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark (born 1971), because that is the original article title. It was then moved to Princess Olga of Greece (born 1971)[1] and then back again[2] and then there was a requested move that closed with no consensus[3]. Despite the requested move discussion the page was moved outside of the mandated process, first with a cut-and-paste move[4] and then with an undiscussed move[5]. Given all the move-warring that went on, the page should never have been moved without a discussion, and in cases where there is no consensus, we would usually retain the original article title. Having said that, the original article title is sub-optimal because 'and Denmark' makes it unnecessarily long and the Danish part is disputed. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as it does not seem to be the subject's Wikipedia:CommonName.2601:241:300:B610:302B:63E6:5D6E:3CC6 (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. These moves are usually decided by consensus. In this case, I would say that there is a consensus that the current title is simply wrong. No one has found any RS that supports it. I suggest that the article be moved to the most popular valid title, namely "Olga of Savoy-Aosta." I count four votes for this option, namely 99to99, DrKay, PatGallacher, and Celia Homeford, with no other option getting more than one vote apiece. (I am not counting "Olga di Savoia-Aosta" since this is just a variation of the same idea.) 99to99 (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a second choice option (to my first choice above) I would support Princess Olga of Savoy-Aosta, which is also supported by other editors. She is commonly attributed a title so we should use one. I would not support ‘Olga of Savoy-Aosta’. - dwc lr (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Princess_Olga_of_Savoy-Aosta&oldid=1254676354"