Talk:Princess Alexandra of Kent

Requested move 24 July 2023

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)

---

Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy → Princess 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)

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)

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)

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)

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"). The same can be said for the London Gazette, which uses "The Queen" but "Princess Alexandra, the Honourable Lady Ogilvy" . 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)

• 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)
• 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.f^Talk 14:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
  • 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)

  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)

  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 . estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

Oppose 2nd suggestion then Even if users at King Charles predominantly go to Charles III 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)

This doesn't justify the commonname and the literal page naming guide for royalty. BillClinternet (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

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" 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". 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.f^Talk 02:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: Hasn't been titled as such in decades.2601:249:9301:D570:D9A5:F194:455C:D3DB (talk) 03:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Requested move 23 February 2025

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)

---

Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy → Princess Alexandra (born 1936)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. TarnishedPath^talk 06:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• I would support Princess Alexandra of Kent as a naturally disambiguated option. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 14:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

  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)

• 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.f^Talk 02:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  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)

  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.f^Talk 07:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  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)

  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.f^Talk 15:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  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)

  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.f^Talk 21:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  I think (born 1936) and of Kent could be added upon her death GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

  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)

  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.f^Talk 21:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  That's because in Mary's case WP:CONSORTS specifically applies. Keivan.f^Talk 05:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

Note: WikiProject Royalty and Nobility and WikiProject British Royalty have been notified of this discussion. Rexophile (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject London, WikiProject Women's History, and WikiProject Biography have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 06:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support Princess Alexandra of Kent. Easily the best disambiguator. My second choice would be the YOB. The current title is very poor. It is her formal title, but certainly not her common name, which is simply Princess Alexandra. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

  Comment As others pointed out above, she hasn’t been known as “of Kent” for over 60 years. Granted, most deceased princesses are listed under their birth titles, but the style formats seem to be different for living individuals. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed, but we're trying to work out a good disambiguator here, not be smug! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  I wasn’t intending to be smug. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

  I wasn't suggesting you were personally, but I've found that some editors are too fond of using minutiae and/or their knowledge of Wikipedia procedures to derail discussions on decent disambiguation of article titles just because. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

  It was more to explain why I was skeptical that the “Of Kent” disambiguation was appropriate in this case. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support. I don't really care what we decide on, as long as we drop "The Honourable". That prenominal formally applies to a wide range of people, in many countries, for a host of reasons. Apart from this case, not a single one of them is given the prenom as part of the title of their Wikipedia article. Not one. I will never be convinced that Princess Alexandra is somehow a special case deserving of unique treatment. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, and I don't think I have found any other article that uses The Hon. or The Honourable in-name except for Alexandra's. Rexophile (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

  What does that have to do with anything? Since when article titles should be strictly matching one another? We have an article titled Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother despite the fact that no other queen mother's article is titled as such. To force a maiden title upon a living woman who has not used that so called name in 60 years is absurd. Keivan.f^Talk 04:26, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  Ok, why do we never find prenominal honorifics such as "His Excellency", "His Holiness", "Her Majesty", "The Very Reverend", "His Grace", "His Royal Highness", "His Worship", et nauseam, in Wikipedia titles? Because it's inappropriate, and I'm sure it breaches some MOS rule. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  I agree entirely. ^^ Rexophile (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  I don't really have an issue with The Hon. being in the current title. I just think the whole title could be condensed. And I also think that Princess Alexandra of Kent should be used preferably after her death.. simply Princess Alexandra, or Princess Alexandra (born 1936) could suffice, no? I like the latter more. Rexophile (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  Princess Alexandra on its own would not suffice at all considering how many other Princess Alexandras there have been. Piratesswoop (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

  I think adding (born 1936) is a good disambiguator. Rexophile (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  Wouldn't this be the same argument for how many Princess Beatrices have existed before?

  Therfore shouldn't Alexandra page be in line with Beatrice and Eugenie (of York) pages, given that the common thing thay all have is being daughters of male princes, via a secondary male line. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

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

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: not moved. The original two suggestions have almost no support, and the arguments are weak. While an alternative proposal, "Princess Alexandra of Kent", did gain traction, there were far more oppose votes that direct support of the alt rename. (closed by non-admin page mover) – LuniZunie_(talk) 02:33, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

---

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. TarnishedPath^talk 05:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 12:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Destinyokhiria 💬 05:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

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)

@Surtsicna Thanks. Spectritus (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

@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)

That simply is not her title. Rexophile (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Rexophile I discovered that earlier today when reading through the previous RM. Spectritus (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nothing has changed since the last RM. Nobody knows her as "The Honourable Lady Ogilvy" and that's not a style we use for anyone else on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Necrothesp There's no reason to use "(born 1936)" either. Spectritus (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  We have to, given Princess Alexandra is already taken! See WP:COMMONNAME. That most certainly is not Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Necrothesp I think more people know her title than her year of birth. And what about Princess Alexandra of Kent? Spectritus (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Still makes it clear which one we're referring to, using common sense. YOB is very commonly used as a disambiguator. I would (and did) support Princess Alexandra of Kent, but it was opposed in the previous RM. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Necrothesp Why was Princess Alexandra of Kent opposed? Also, even if it was moved to Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy, people who don't know the title could still find her with a redirect. And I think most people will search "Princess Alexandra of Kent" than anything else or just type "Princess Alexandra" and see what comes up. Spectritus (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Read it! It's only just above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Necrothesp Okay. I see the issue. But, I've had another idea. How about we move Princess Alexandra (born 1936) to plain Princess Alexandra and move the disambiguation page to Princess Alexandra (disambiguation). Spectritus (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  (The short description "British princess (born 1936)" would disambiguate it.) Spectritus (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Because there's no primary topic for Princess Alexandra by long-term significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Necrothesp According to what people said in the previous RM, she's the only Princess Alexandra most people will search for. Also, I updated the proposal above. The bot should update the rest soon. Spectritus (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  That's simply not true. Queen Alexandra, for instance, was Princess Alexandra first. And primary topic is not only determnined by pageviews - that's WP:RECENTISM. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Necrothesp She was known as Queen not Princess. Spectritus (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Even if Alexandra of Denmark was better known as the United Kingdom's queen, she was also a Danish princess by birth. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

  @ Spectritus & Necrothesp: I fully SUPPORT moving Princess Alexandra (born 1936) to plain Princess Alexandra and moving the disambiguation page to Princess Alexandra (disambiguation). The fact that there have been other Princess Alexandras, including one who later became Queen Alexandra, does not get away from the fact that the one we're discussing is far and away the best known of all of them in 2025. She is clearly the primary topic. (Not that it will ever happen, but she is also actually in the line of succession, whereas Queen Alexandra never was, or if she was it was much more distant.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  @JackofOz Thanks. Spectritus (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  the fact that the one we're discussing is far and away the best known of all of them in 2025. But that's pretty much irrelevant. We also look at long-term significance, which I suspect a cousin of a monarch and a granddaughter of another will not have. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Necrothesp We can always move it again when she passes away. Spectritus (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  So, are you saying you don't agree with the long-term significance clause of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Because it's a cornerstone of article titling. We certainly don't automatically make the currently living person primary and then move the article when they die. Just not how it works. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Necrothesp What's the problem with moving it again when she dies? Also, dor disambiguation, title comes first and then birth year if necessary. Spectritus (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  I've always said I favour Princess Alexandra of Kent! However, I do not favour and never will favour Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy, as that is simply not a title form we ever use on Wikipedia. Moving an article when people die is not something we do either. Long-term significance is long-term significance. It doesn't vary depending on whether someone is alive or dead. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  Would you say that more people know her as "born 1936" than as "The Honourable Lady Ogilvy"? I would be inclined to think that whoever knows anything about her would sooner recognize her by her family name than by the year of her birth. We agree that we need to have something, but the year of birth (in my opinion) makes a far worse disambiguation than either of the two options her titles give us. Surtsicna (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Surtsicna Indeed. I agree. Spectritus (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  No, I don't agree. People may not know the year of her birth, but from it they can work out which Princess Alexandra we're referring to. On the other hand, absolutely nobody calls her The Honourable Lady Ogilvy. We do use YOB as a disambiguator quite a lot, you know. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Necrothesp Yes, but for example there are multiple Princess Alexandra of Hanover articles with a birth year as disambiguator. Title first, then if necessary birth year. Spectritus (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  I've always said I favour Princess Alexandra of Kent! However, I do not favour and never will favour Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy, as that is simply not a title form we ever use on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Necrothesp Okay. But I saw that some people said in the previous RM that she hasn't used the "of Kent" title in decades. Spectritus (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  She hasn't, but she still is (as her brother is Prince Michael of Kent). It's by far the best disambiguator. Far better than the married name that she has never used and is completely against all Wikipedia's naming conventions (including, as it does, not one but two honorifics!). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Necrothesp Okay. Then, shall I update the proposal? Spectritus (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  Amending requested moves while they are in progress can cause confusion. It might be better to suggest that as a new target in a separate discussion or after relisting of this one with a new comment after the relisting notice rather than changing the opening comment again. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Celia Homeford Understood. Spectritus (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  How can people who do not know her year of birth work out from the year of birth which Princess Alexandra we are referring to? Surtsicna (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Surtsicna That's why I said that when disambiguating the title comes first then the birth year if necessary. Spectritus (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  Because anyone who knows anything about her will know approximately how old she is! And anyone who doesn't isn't going to be particularly helped by any disambiguator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Conciseness on the first proposed target, no evidence for primary topic on the second. DrKay (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  @DrKay She's the most known Princess Alexandra and I believe also the only living one. Spectritus (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Pageviews say otherwise. To be the primary topic she should be much more famous than Princess Alexandra of Greece (born 1968), Princess Alexandra of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg (born 1970), Princess Alexandra of Luxembourg (born 1991), and Princess Alexandra of Hanover (born 1999) combined. She is nowhere even close to that. DrKay (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  @DrKay They have an extension ("of [Place]") so they're not contenders. Spectritus (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Don't be absurd. Do you see an extension here? The more you bludgeon the debate by trying to respond to every comment with another unsupported claim, the weaker your case becomes by pointing out its many flaws. DrKay (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  @DrKay Sorry, I don't know why I said that. Spectritus (talk) 11:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  They have an extension ("of [Place]") so they're not contenders. - Regardless of whether or not those people have territorial appendages in their names, they are princesses named Alexandra. Per WP:PRECISE, the topical scope of Princess Alexandra could thus equally refer to Princess Alexandra of Denmark, for example, as to subject of this requested move. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 00:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

• I support the first option. The page was naturally disambiguated until some people decide to cut a part of her name off and insert her year of birth in there. Keivan.f^Talk 21:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Keivan.f Thanks. Spectritus (talk) 11:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• No opinion on the first option — Oppose on the second. I don't mind which disambiguator is used because they all have advantages and disadvantages and I don't see an obvious way to choose between them. However, a disambiguator is needed because the case for primary topic has not been made. Indeed, on the evidence provided so far, it seems clear that she is not the primary topic. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Celia Homeford I understand. However, when disambiguating the title comes first and then the birth year if necessary. Spectritus (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I've just re-read Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming the specific topic articles and it says "Natural disambiguation that is unambiguous, commonly used, and clear is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation." So, a title or territorial designation is "generally preferable" to a parenthetical date. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Celia Homeford Indeed. Spectritus (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Support - "The Honourable Lady Ogilvy" at least has some usage . However, I'm seeing a handful of sources refer to her as Princess Alexandra, Lady Ogilvy such as the National Portrait Gallery 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 . 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)

@Estar8806 I agree. Thanks. Spectritus (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Support Princess Alexandra of Kent ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

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.f^Talk 15:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

I mean you don't have to take my word for it. Just look at what happened to Princess Anne, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie's titles when they got married. The example on Mary Adelaide could be more relevant if the subject was deceased because in general we revert the page titles to maiden names once the the subject has passed away (e.g. Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark), though there are exceptions as well (Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, etc.) Keivan.f^Talk 17:22, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose both proposals, the first per WP:CONSISTENT, the second per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Support Princess Alexandra of Kent. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
  • What's the rationale behind opposing while citing WP:CONSISTENT? In fact adding the territorial designations would make the title inconsistent with pages on other married princesses as I explained in an earlier comment. Keivan.f^Talk 17:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

    Consistent in the sense that this would be the only article on royalty where the word "Honourable" is used. I also don't see any articles that simultaneously use "Princess" and "Lady" (although some combine "Princess" and "Duchess"). Regarding marriage, I only know that for royalty it is standard to disambiguate using territorial designations. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

    Might that not be because she is the only princess whose full title includes the word "Honourable"? Consistency does not mean enforcing a one-size-fits-all solution. Surtsicna (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

    I wrongly assumed that "Honourable" is regularly used in royal titles. Nevertheless, I think it's better to use similar nomenclature where possible, even if it is somewhat inaccurate. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting for further discussion given this is the second move discussion this year. Pinging @Chicdat, @CookieMonster755, @GrandDukeMarcelo, @Piratesswoop from the previous discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 05:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject London, WikiProject British Royalty, WikiProject Women's History, and WikiProject Royalty and Nobility have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 05:33, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - The current name, lines up with her brothers' (Prince Edward, Duke of Kent & Prince Michael of Kent) page names. GoodDay (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

  How does it line up? I do not see years of birth in their page titles. Surtsicna (talk) 06:00, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

  Compared to the addition of "The Honourable Lady Ogilvy"? it does. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

• Move back to Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy. Longstanding stable title. The current title, which was adopted based on a shaky consensus only a few months ago, is not an improvement. 162 etc. (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose; support Princess Alexandra of Kent - Having edited the Princess Alexandra disambiguation (dab) page multiple times, here is my insight:

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)

@AndrewPeterT Thank you. Spectritus (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject London has been notified of this discussion. HurricaneZeta^C 15:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Why was this opened again? GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

The request at WP:RMTR was contested HurricaneZeta^C 15:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I oppose as per my comment above. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy violates MOS:HONORIFIC as "The Honourable Lady Ogilvy" is clearly an honorific. And I see no evidence that she is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Princess Alexandra when there are so many people with that name. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose both Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy and Princess Alexandra per Joseph2302. I don't have a strong opinion regarding "of Kent". Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I think the issue of requested article titles moves for royalty and nobility is larger than just this page. There seems to not be consistency of whether WP:COMMONNAME takes precedence or that WP:NCROY overrides WP:COMMONNAME. Arguments here say the same. So her common name is Princess Alexandra, what is her official full title? The monarchy website simply lists her as Princess Alexandra which the current title of this page does. cookiemonster755 ^(talk) 10:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

  Comment: That is the thing. She doesn't have a title. A part from the birth right of Princess, as a younger and female daughter of a Prince (and granddaughter of a monarch), she gets the Princess title, plus the territorial designation her dad had, as the Duke of Kent. This is my understanding and I am happy to be corrected otherwise. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

  Policies (COMMONNAME) take precedence over guidelines (NCROY), per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Conflicts between advice pages. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Well then why is it Meghan, Duchess of Sussex and not Meghan Markle? cookiemonster755 ^(talk) 09:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Because she gets the female version of her husband title/peerage, upon marrying him.

Same as Countess of Wessex (Earl of Wessex); Duchess of Cambridge (Duke of Cambridge); And so on. Females who marry "peerageless" princes still get the female version of whatever title there is, e.g. Princess Michael of Kent (her name is Marie though) GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Because, and you will not believe it, Jimbo Wales crowned her "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" against talk page consensus to not move the page without a discussion. (Extra fun fact: he tried to pull similar shit at Gaza genocide, for reasons probably totally unrelated to Jimmy_Wales#Israel, but was told off.) Meghan has since made it clear that she prefers the Sussex name to the Markle name, so MOS:IDENTITY would apply as well. Surtsicna (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

It is true that Wales unilaterally moved the page, but he was brought to ANI and the move was overturned on MR. A few weeks later, a new RM was initiated where editors by a margin of roughly 2 to 1 voted for the current title. Kelob2678 (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

okay, thanks for the info. I assume that royal page titles are a case by case basis then depending on all the factors mentioned above. cookiemonster755 ^(talk) 11:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

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.

Lady Sponsor, of HMS Kent

I saw {unreliable source?} template standing by this claim in the article, and went to check around a bit. If http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk is seen as reliable source, and if way Wayback Machine is seen as reliable archive, the contents there also confirms the claim.

I didn't yet see any reason to estimate the original citation either as reliable or not, so I left the the template mentioned above as I found it. Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Marjan Tomki SI: the "unreliable source" template was applied to the "Royal Central" source, which doesn't meet our standards for sourcing, The Royal Navy source used is fine and so I have removed the Royal Central reference and the template. DuncanHill (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: I see I also unintentionally missed (at preview) and left {tl|unreliable source?}. I looked at that template's documentation while inserting the other citation; so thanks for clearing that tl blunder at the same time. --Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 28 May 2026

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. Rough consensus to move, as a more helpful disambiguation. The previous RM was only six months ago, but I do not find it controlling as it found that the proposed title here did gain traction but was proposed too late to gain consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

---

Princess Alexandra (born 1936) → Princess Alexandra of Kent – Putting forth a move request for this title which seemed to have some support. My reasoning behind this move matches the arguments made in the previous discussions. Interstellarity (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jacksonvil (alt) (talk) (contribs) (Main account) 23:40, 4 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 17:00, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support per my comments at previous RMs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support, because I find the "of Kent" disambiguation to be much more helpful than "(born 1936)". Surtsicna (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

  Support, because of the reasons discussed above. The designation "of Kent" is more helpful than simply "(born 1936)". S1r Gawa1n 2004 (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Relisting this again and again until the supporting faction get their way is not really how we function here. The Google search for "Princess Alexandra of Kent" does not even show her as the primary result but is rather centered about a plant, which is reasonable as this lady has not been called "Princess Alexandra of Kent" for 60 years. So to say that's her WP:COMMONNAME at the moment is a bit of a stretch. Territorial designations are dropped when princesses marry, hence why Elizabeth II's granddaughters are called Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie not "Princess Beatrice of York" and "Princess Eugenie of York". MOS:IDENTITY and WP:NAMECHANGES certainly apply as the subject of the page (or her official representatives) do not identify her as "Princess Alexandra of Kent" at the moment. You may revisit this issue once she is deceased. Keivan.f^Talk 22:25, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Relisting this again and again until the supporting faction get their way is not really how we function here. Nobody is doing this, as you'd realise if you read the RMs above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:41, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
    • I don't need to read them because I participated in all of them and this is the second time it has been directly suggested that this page should be moved to "Princess Alexandra of Kent"; and even within the other RMs there were some users that were suggesting this name be chosen as the article title. So, yes, this suggestion has been put forward again and again and has never been chosen, justifiably so. Keivan.f^Talk 11:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. Even though I believe a living member of the royal family should not have on their page title the year they were born, it is true that "of Kent" has not been her style for a very long time, and if anything, Princess Alexandra, The Hon Lady Ogilvy, is the style used in most formal documents. To keep in line with previous discussions about Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice, the move should be made. MaximusWikipedian (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject British Royalty, WikiProject Women's History, WikiProject London, WikiProject Biography, and WikiProject Royalty and Nobility have been notified of this discussion. Jacksonvil (alt) (talk) (contribs) (Main account) 23:41, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Support: If these are the only two options to choose from, then I prefer 'of Kent'. That said, I maintain my suggestion of 'of the United Kingdom', as per above. 'The Hon Lady Ogilvy' is a complete no for me, though. MORNHOLT 21:04, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I believe “of the United Kingdom” is reserved for daughters of sovereigns, such as Princess Helena of the United Kingdom, Princess Sophia of the United Kingdom, Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom, etc. Daughters of princes are mainly listed by the titles they held at birth (Princess Patricia of Connaught, Princess Charlotte of Wales (1796–1817), etc.) or the titles they held via or after marriage (Princess Beatrice, Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone, etc.). I also don’t think for any living prince or princess we use the titles they held at birth as article titles; it would be like having the page on Anne, Princess Royal titled “Princess Anne of Edinburgh”. Keivan.f^Talk 13:47, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Following your earlier point about continually relisting the discussion, I don't think we need to go argument by argument either. Your views are well known and well taken here. MORNHOLT 17:59, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think anybody had suggested adding "of the United Kingdom" to the title, hence why I felt the need to respond to your comment specifically to clarify the matter. Keivan.f^Talk 01:59, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

As I noted in the previous discussion, Princess Alexandra of the United Kingdom is not WP:PRECISE (see Alexandra of the United Kingdom (disambiguation)). Also, Alexandra of the United Kingdom is already a WP:PREDIRECT to Alexandra of Denmark. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 02:59, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's not her WP:COMMONNAME and doesn't qualify under WP:NCPRINCES as she does not currently hold that territorial suffix, by parental virtue or otherwise; there is no sense in which it is her proper name and its 60-year absence from e.g. the London Gazette show that it would be wrong by UK royal protocols. It's not commonly used in English so it doesn't qualify as the first of the three options at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming the specific topic articles. Comma-separated disambiguation being unavailable too (and rightly not proposed), only parenthetical disambiguation remains. We usually manage to avoid disambiguating people by date but sometimes we have to, e.g. Jack Taylor (footballer, born 1872), Jack Taylor (footballer, born 1914), Jack Taylor (footballer, born 1924), and Jack Taylor (footballer, born 1998), as well as Jack Taylor (1890s pitcher) and Jack Taylor (1900s pitcher), and a couple of rugby union Jack Taylors too. In short, the current article title's in accord with Wikipedia PAGs and practice but the proposed title wouldn't be. NebY (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose: This is not her current style and has not been for a long time. Unfortunately there isn't a good solution for Alexandra right now. We stopped using Princess Alexandra, the Honourable Lady Ogilvy because Sir Angus died in 2004 and the Palace quietly dropped at an uncertain point many years back (and because it was ridiculously unwieldy anyway), but we can't used Princess Alexandra on its own because obviously she's not the only one. I'm afraid we have to stick with Princess Alexandra (born 1936) for the time being, though I would support a return to Princess Alexandra of Kent after she dies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin S. Taylor (talk • contribs) 12:43, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Support - per the rationale I have previously explained. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nomination, per Necrothesp, Surtsicna, S1r Gawa1n 2004, MORNHOLT and AndrewPeterT as well as per WP:NATURALDAB. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

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.