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: page not moved casting vote (this discussion has rhubarbed on for 56 days = 8 weeks.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Princess Henrietta of England → Henrietta of England — This page has been moved many times, often without much discussion at all. Those moves has included two cut-and-paste moves, resulting in disruption of the page history. This discussion is an attempt to settle the naming issue once and for all, to avoid further disruptive moves in the future JdH (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all this confusion about naming I decided to conduct a little experiment, i.e. do a google book search for the various alternatives:

Henrietta Anne Stuart 86 hits

Henrietta Anne of England 494 hits

Henrietta of England 8,500 hits

Princess Henrietta Anne of England 62 hits

Princess Henrietta of England 620 hits

Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orleans 602 hits

Henrietta, Duchess of Orleans 4,150 hits

This is actually pretty conclusive: We don't need the "Princess", and we don't need the "Anne"; the most common name, by far, is "Henrietta of England". I did a "book" search rather than a "web" search, because the web is heavily influenced by what is already here, and cannot be considered a "scholarly" source.
What is also clear that moving this article around as has happened in the past creates a chaos of biblical proportions; moves should henceforth only be made if there is broad concensus about it. What should no more happen, ever, is that people keep moving it pretty much on their own; with all the conflicting opinions about it that is bound to lead to chaos. JdH (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Let's drop the Princess and have the article's title as Henrietta of England.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henrietta of England: definitely drop Princess, debating about including Anne or not.[1]

--Frania W. (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe Princess should be used, as many Princesses from many different countries who have articles on Wikipedia do not mention them being a Princess in the page name, they state the country they a from and possibly their marital title, so either Henrietta Anne of England or Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orleans. I believe Anne should be in the article name as her mother was Henrietta Maria and there is no dispute against that..or as I believe--David (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but Maria was part of Henrietta's birth name, whereas Anne was added to her daughter's name later in honour of Anne of Austria.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Frania W. quoted actually shows that the French are pretty unequivocal about Henriette d'Angleterre. But we need to know what the most common name is in English, even though the fact that she lived most of her adult life in France does have significant impact. About padding it with Duchess of Orléans/Duchess of Orleans, see the previous discussion we had about that: Talk:Princess Henrietta of England#Naming this article. JdH (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly would not drop Princess to "pad her up" with Duchess of Orléans, because if we do so, then it will be unavoidable to begin debating whether all the wives of all the Dukes of Orléans should have that title added in title of article, beginning with Gaston d'Orléans' two wives Marie de Bourbon, Duchess of Montpensier & Marguerite of Lorraine, and Philippe's second wife, Elizabeth Charlotte of the Palatinate, including Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon, the wife of Philippe Égalité, und so weiter...

Wisdom tells me that this article should be Henrietta of England, and let's discuss if we should add Anne in order to differentiate her from her mother, but no Princess, no Duchess.

--Frania W. (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since her mother is called Henrietta Maria of France there should be no problem with confusing her with her mother, as long as we keep the "of England" suffix JdH (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to current precedent and conventions, this article should be at Princess Henrietta of England. If you wish to challenge the precedent and conventions (as I believe someone should, since it's extremely dubious whether there were any "Princesses of England" before the Hanoverians imported the custom), then you should do so before moving this article. Take a broad view across the range of effected articles, not a narrow view of this one. DBD 16:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see Wikipedia:NCROY#Other royals sub 2:

2. Where they have no substantive title, use the form "{title} {name} of {country}", e.g. Princess Irene of Greece. Use only the highest prefix title the person ever held and used (roughly before the 17th century, prince/ss would not be prefixed automatically).

That roughly before the 17th century does apply here, in particular as you point out that the Hanoverians imported the custom, which was after Henrietta. JdH (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so we need to work at establishing what the convention and precedent are for those individuals and write it into NCROY DBD 17:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look at precedent; we only need to look at what was used in England and Scotland before the Hanoverians; what is happening elsewhere in Europe is of no concern here. What we have is Elizabeth of Bohemia; my take on the convention is that she should actually be called Elizabeth of Scotland, but that redirects to List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II; what a mess!
And then we have Princess Elizabeth of England, and Princess Anne of England. In those cases the prefix Princess is actually needed to avoid confusion with the Queens of the same name. JdH (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at her sister's article: Mary of Orange?! Princess is mentioned twice in the article's name! What was wrong with the succint Mary of Orange?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Princess Royal" is a substantive title, and according to convention those should indeed be used, see e.g. Anne, Princess Royal; also previous discussion Talk:Princess Henrietta of England#Naming this article.
The Princess of Orange bit is probably needed for disambiguation, see Mary, Princess Royal, but there may be better ways to do that, e.g. Mary, Princess Royal of England. JdH (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. Henrietta doesn't need the title of Princess added to her article's name, however.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "Mary of England, Princess Royal" adequately distinguishes her from the other Mary who was princess royal - I know it's technically incorrect to call the royal family "of England" after 1707, but we shouldn't assume people will know that. Mary, Princess of Orange could, of course, apply also to Mary II of England, who, like her aunt, was Princess of Orange. I have never heard the Princess Royal referred to as "Mary of Orange." Indeed, she generally wasn't even referred to as "The Princess of Orange," a style which was, during her lifetime, normally reserved for her mother-in-law. More broadly, I don't think the naming guidelines give us much guidance here, and we ought to use common sense and common usage to determine titles, not rules that have never been elaborated in a consistent way about this topic. john k (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to argue for a name change of Mary, Princess Royal and Princess of Orange, even though a quick google search seems to indicates that Mary, Princess Royal of England always refers to the spouse of William II of Orange. btw, in Holland she is always referred to as "Mary Stuart I" JdH (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of this article, in particular, I tend to think what makes the most sense is probably Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orléans, or some such. There is a maiden name rule for queens, but even this is occasionally violated. There is no such rule at all for consorts below that rank, and I'm not convinced there should be any such rule. Some queens are referred to usually by their maiden name; others are not. There's no good reason to impose a one size fits all rule, and it works even less well for other consorts, where there are often conflicting positions. A Duchess of Devonshire is referred to by her married name. Why should not be a duchess of Orléans? Using that form makes it immediately clear who she was, and does not use an anachronistic term which probably wasn't ever used for her ("Princess" - as far as I'm aware, before 1714, "Princess" was used for Princesses of Wales, for Henrietta's sister the Princess Royal, and for Princess Anne, who was married to a prince of Denmark. I don't think it was typically used for the king's unmarried daughters. john k (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Using that form makes it immediately clear who she was" argument actually leads to Henrietta of England with 8,500 hits; Henrietta of England, Duchess of Orleans has only 486 hits JdH (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is an incredibly artificial way to get to a result. "Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orleans" gives me 10,800 results. Henrietta, Duchess of Orleans does even better, with 42,500 results. Given that nobody has suggested "Henrietta of England, Duchess of Orleans," why would you search for that? john k (talk) 06:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that "Form which gives us the most google results" is not even slightly the same thing as "form that makes it immediately clear who she was." john k (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did a google book search, not a web search, for reasons I explained at my first entry in this discussion. Doing the same for your suggestions I get the following: Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orleans 545 hits, and Henrietta, Duchess of Orleans 4,130 hits JdH (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about Henrietta (princess of England) — we then know who she was (daughter of a king of England) without implying she was called "Princess Henrietta". I prefer to avoid giving royals surnames because they may not have used them or even legally held them. A House name is quite separate (although often the same). DBD 10:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to follow conventions as closely as possible. The rule that applies in this situation is the following: Wikipedia:NCROY#Other royals sub 2:

2. Where they have no substantive title, use the form "{title} {name} of {country}", e.g. Princess Irene of Greece. Use only the highest prefix title the person ever held and used (roughly before the 17th century, prince/ss would not be prefixed automatically).

As explained a few paragraphs before, we don't need the Princess here, because Henrietta came before the Hanoverians introduced that title.

This rule also excludes marital title such as "Duchess of Orléans", since that is not a substantive title. Since Henrietta of England is the most commonly used name there is no reason to deviate from this rule. Furthermore, the name is unique, so there is no reason to add a marital title for reasons of disambiguation. JdH (talk) 13:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henrietta of England would be fine. But I really don't think there's anything in the policy which clearly forbids using marital titles, and if there is, it's a statement not supported by consensus. john k (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should apply Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). If someone wants to go argue for an exception, that person should go try to amend Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) before any changes are made. The Naming conventions begin with the principle that

“

It is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English ("common name" in the case of royalty and nobility may also include a person's title), but there are other things which should be considered: ease of use, precision, concision, and consistency among article titles; and a system constraint: we cannot use the same title for two different articles, and therefore tend to avoid ambiguous titles.

”

I take that standard to mean that if someone is overwhelmingly known one way - like Edward, the Black Prince - then you go with the most common name. But for all other royals and nobles, the fact that they changed what they were called so much that there is no one name by which they are most commonly known, and therefore we should just apply the rules set out further down in the naming convention. I don't think anyone has established that she is known overwhelmingly by one name in English. I'm not sure that a Google book search is really useful at determining "the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English". Google Books are so slanted towards 19th century books, that they give you a sense of what people called her in the 19th century, whereas a 20th or 21st century historian is more likely to go for historical accuracy. So, I don't think we have a "most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English" so we should just apply the rules. So in declining order, we have rules for (1) sovereigns, (2) consorts to sovereigns, (3) royals with a substantive title, and (4) other royals. Was she a sovereign? No. Was she a consort to a sovereign? No, "Duke of Orléans" was not a sovereign title. So, was she a "royal with a substantive title"? A substantive title is "a title of nobility or royalty held by someone (normally by one person alone), which they gained through either grant or inheritance, as opposed to one given or loaned to them either as a courtesy title, or gained through marriage." She gained the title of "Duchess of Orléans" by marrying Philippe I, Duke of Orléans. Therefore she did not have a substantive title. Is she an "other royal"? Yes: her father was a king so she is a royal. That brings us to "Use "Prince(ss) {first name} of ..." where a prince/ss has a territorial suffix by virtue of their parent's title." That gives us Princess Henrietta of England. It's not perfect, but it's what we've got. I vote to keep the article name as is. Adam sk (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is to keep the Princess part and add Anne back if it wouldn't be to hard. I would like it to be Henrietta Anne Stuart, but I don't think anybody would be in agreement with that.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She was known as Henrietta (she was baptised with just that name) not Henriette/a Anne. Anne was given to her at the time she moved to France by the time she was some 3/4 years old. Princess is appropriate as she was not a queen consort, just the wife of a Duke. Overall, I do not think Anne is a must have. At any rate some sources call her Madame Henriette not "Madame Henriette Anne" Louis Philippe Charles (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, although I'd prefer a version with Orleans, and am uncertain about Anne, I support the move, because I don't believe she was ever called a princess. john k (talk) 07:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — the proposed name "Henrietta of England" just doesn't tell us what we need to know. Although it's a bit inaccurate, I favour the current location for clarity. DBD 17:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe she was ever called a princess - according to this annotation to Pepys' diary, in his memoirs, Sir John Reresby referred to Henrietta as "the Princess". Adam sk (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for clarity, and others in Category:English princesses. As is the case in many categories around Europe, princesses who have no other distinguishing name (by marriage, place of birth for medieval ones etc) should be called "Princess Foo of Fooland". Plain "Foo of Fooland" should be reserved for monarchs and consorts. Johnbod (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Put me down as a support for "Henrietta of England", since that seems to be her most common name - and if she wasn't really titled Princess, then someone ought to update the Titles and Syles section of the article, which states that she was. --Kotniski (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I notice some comments above suggesting that, if we want to go against WP:NCROY, then we should change the guideline first, and then apply the changed rule here. I must disagree with that in the strongest possible terms. That has never been how Wikipedia works, and on my watch, it never will be.

  Our "rules" are abstracted from the bottom up, not applied from the top down. Everything is decided on a case-by-case basis, and if individual cases contradict the general rule that someone wrote down, then the general rule should be re-written to reflect reality. (Policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive.) Otherwise, it's way too easy to fall into the idea that we're rule-bound and bureaucratic.

  If this article should be titled Henrietta of England, then that's true on the merits of this particular case, and not because of some abstract rule. The abstract rule follows specific decisions, and while it can inform them, it doesn't lead them. It certainly doesn't compel them.

  I'm here from Wikipedia:Requested moves to close this request, if possible, but I'm going to make the call based on specific arguments about this article, and not based on what someone wrote down when they didn't have this article in mind. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:42, 26 December 2010 (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.