Jump to content

Talk:Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon

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

Countess of Snowdon

[edit]

After reading articles doubting the right of Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York to hold their respective titles after their divorce, I believe it would be fitting here to write a small paragraph outlining that Princess Margaret seized to be legally the Countess of Snowdon as that is a title reserved for the wife of the Earl of Snowdon. Does anyone agree with this?

It's not a question of legality but practice. The wife of an Earl is not, for that reason alone, a peeress in her own right. It's just a courtesy title. When a peer and his wife divorce, it's common practice for her to retain his surname and her courtesy title, unless she remarries another peer and thereby gains a different courtesy title. Princess Margaret never remarried, so she remained the Countess of Snowdon until her death. -- JackofOz 04:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, in ordinary circumstances a divorced countess ceases to be "the Right Honourable The Countess of X" and instead becomes "[First name], Countess of X" (losing the typical style of a countess and the "The"). As Princess Margaret's style during marriage was "Her Royal Highness The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon", neither change would have any effect for her. Andrei Iosifovich (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon or the HRH The Duchess of York

[edit]

At the time of her birth, her mother was HRH The Duchess of York and not Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. Therefore, I have changed the reference to Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon being her mother a birth.

Kidnap?

[edit]

Where shall we place details of the kidnap attempt in 1974? ant_ie 21:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

[edit]

I'm amazed there is no photo...when she played such a large role in British Royal life the entire time she was alive 88.110.32.255 20:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you know of one in the public domain, then post it.Mowens35 21:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be a modern photo of her. --24.249.108.133 17:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Her face in the current photo is rather small. Perhaps it could be cropped so we see her more clearly, and less of the other people.86.145.1.32 11:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should use a photo of her when she was younger, which is how most people would like to be remembered and when she was at the height of her fame and beauty. --Duphin (talk) 05:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Father?

[edit]

In the "Early Life" section it states that her father was Prince Albert, shouldn't it be King George 6? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SDSpivey (talk • contribs) 01:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Nope, because, at the time of her birth, he was HRH The Prince Albert, Duke of York – DBD 10:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "Later Life" section--how can her operation in 1985 draw parallels with that of her father 30 years previously, when 30 years previously he had been dead for 3 years? 205.209.93.152 (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religion?

[edit]

Im sure i heard somewhere that she became a Roman Catholic in her later years?

I'm not sure where you heard that, but I don't think it's true - it would've been quite big news, because she'd've been struck from the line of succession and Council of State... DBD 12:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was she crematedd? Iman S1995 14:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because she was deadd.
It is believed she requested to be cremated so that her ashes could be placed in the tomb of her father in St George's Chapel, Windsor in which a few months later her mothers' coffin was placed in as well Penrithguy 19:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more logical reason is that "the tomb of her father" reputedly only has space for another four people to be interred: Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Philip and the future monarch and his second wife? If the late Princess Margaret had not been cremated, logically she would have had to be buried in the Royal Burial Ground at Frogmore, near Windsor. Her choice of cremation is therefore understandable as it enabled her mortal remains to go into St.George's Chapel, with her parents, to be followed by her sister, brother-in-law and her nephew and his second wife.

anon 91.108.16.49 (talk)

Cremated royals have been buried in the Frogmore burial ground; Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll was the first (and I believe the last, so far). Kings and queens are not interred at Frogmore (barring Edward VIII as a former sovereign), and therefore Margaret's wish to be buried at St George's is perfectly logical. Her parents, by precedent, were not to be interred anywhere else; Edward VII and Alexandra, followed by George V and Queen Mary, are all buried at St George's. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Innuendo

[edit]

"Unproven allegations also claim she had been romantically involved with musician Mick Jagger, actor Peter Sellers, and the Australian cricketer, Keith Miller [1] although the true extent of her relationships with these men has never been clear." -- I'm striking all after "Keith Miller" as unencyclopedic innuendo. If we have any citable facts, let's say so and cite them. If not, let's avoid the tabloidism. Please discuss here as necessary. -- 201.51.250.178 23:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not a little spurious to state "It was a well known fact amongst her group of friends that her appetite for whiskey fuelled all-night parties followed by lesbian romps was huge" so boldly? The rumours about the late Princess margaret are rampant, and it should be clear that this is just one of the rumours. Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.191.209 (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illegitimate son?

[edit]

Given the BBC is reporting Robert Brown's attempts to find evidence he may be Princess Margaret's illegitimate son, I'd have thought there would be some mention of it here. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6272868.stm (Why can't he just look at the appointments of the royal court from the broadsheets of the day to see if she disappeared from public life during the supposed pregnancy?) -- Ralph Corderoy 11:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely unlikely. She never "retired" from the public arena for the length of time needed to conceal a pregnancy. Neither is a pregnancy mentioned by her closest friends in even their most revealing memoirs. Such a story is almost certainly false, and cannot be added without very reliable references. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the assistance of corsetry and the then fashionable 'A' line, it would most definitely have been possible to conceal a pregancy up to the 5th, or even 6th month. One would of course be more likely to see some form of evidence - in the form of the now facile DNA tests one can easily arrange nowadays - that the woman named on his birth certificate was not his 'birth mother'.

One also adds that in today's Daily Mail article (02/04/2011), mention is made to the fact Mrs. Snowdon was reported as unwell on the day of his birth.

Given the 'type' of person she associated with at this time, I am surprised that no-one has previously come forward offering to name Mr. Brown's real Father.However, I would take more interest if he were able to show at least, that his 'mother' was not his birth mother to begin with: quite why any Judge even entertained the case in the absence of these simple tests on mitochondrial DNA, I cannot understand.79.70.230.209 (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)Rohan Bagshawe79.70.230.209 (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Pigs

[edit]

Surely it should be mentioned the fact that she called all Irish people "Pigs"

From BBC Website:

"In 1979, the year Lord Mountbatten was assassinated by the IRA, she caused a stir when the Mayor of Chicago alleged that she had described the Irish as "pigs"."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/278463.stm

Very notable

Niall123 (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worth mentioning in the private life section. I'll see what I can do. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added.[2] DrKay (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Margaret Rose

[edit]

Wasn't she generally called "Princess Margaret Rose" as a child? I don't know when she dropped the Rose, does anyone else? Opera hat (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was during the year 1947. Her biographer, Tim Heald, wrote: "Throughout 1947 she signed herself plain 'Margaret' and was referred to as such. In earlier years she had always been known by the two names with which she was christened: Margaret Rose. However she always hated the name 'Rose' and in 1947 she became, of her own volition, plain 'Margaret'. 'I dropped the Rose when I was seventeen', she used to say later, with quiet satisfaction." (Heald, Tim, Princess Margaret: A Life Unravelled, p. 44). Hope that helps. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since 1600

[edit]

The article says she was the first "senior" royal to be born in Scotland since 1600. While I can just about accept that the Queen of Spain is not a "senior" royal, Charles I's younger brother, Robert Stuart, Duke of Kintyre, was born in Dunfermline Palace in 1602. DrKay (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen of Spain was not really what you would call a senior royal. She was the last child of Queen Victoria's last child and pretty far down the ranks of seniority in the Royal family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.127.106 (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of Robert's birth his father was not yet King of England, and while it seemed certain he would inherit Elizabeth I had not named James VI nor anyone else as her heir. Robert was also the 5th child and 3rd son, as Prince Henry was still alive. These combined with his death at 4 months are the likely reasons he is overlooked. History Lunatic (talk) 06:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)History Lunatic[reply]

Accuracy

[edit]

There are many ridiculous innuendos in this story and inaccuracies. For one, she never had a courtship with John Turner of Canada; they danced once at a party. The Peter Sellers store may be valid, but others have been discounted. These include Mick Jagger, and Sharman Douglas. To put every man that has been linked with HRH by some British tabloid should not be included. This article is far too gossipy, than truth focused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.180.154 (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Turner. Sellers and Jagger are sourced and it does explicitly say "unproven". It just says she socialised with Sharman Douglas. I wouldn't countenance anything further than that, but that seems OK in itself. DrKay (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so pleased you have not included her liaison with an East End criminal who used to hang several beer mugs 'awf his cockney - or of her encounters with colonial waiters -lowered the tone of the article, if not the entire mystique of this wonderful, radiant, gracious and charitable lady. 79.70.230.209 (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)Rohan Bagshawe79.70.230.209 (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs Antony

[edit]

From their marriage until Lord Snowdon was ennobled the following year (1960–1961), was Margaret's correct style "Her Royal Highness The Princess Margaret, Mrs. Antony Armstrong-Jones"? I'm basing this conjecture on the similar styles of The Princess Anne and Princess Alexandra of Kent from their marriages (until becoming Princess Royal and her husband's knighting, respectively). Andrei Iosifovich (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Snowdon was created an Earl the day of their marriage, but was only introduced to the House of Lords in 1962. Thus, she held "Countess of Snowdon" from the date of their marriage. 71.184.82.123 (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Christopher Warwick's book as a source

[edit]

Large sections of the middle part of this article are based soley on a 2002 book by Christopher Warwick. The factual basis of this has to be questioned. Amongst glaring inaccuracies are a statement that the British Government would not give permission to a marriage of Princess Margaret and Townsend. In fact, under the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, it is not the British Government who approves Royal Marraiges, it is the Monarch. A member of the Royal Family (as long as they are over the age of 25) may appeal the Monarch's decision by appealing to the Privy Council (NOT the Government). Historical papers released after Margaret's death appear to show that rather thn opposing the match, the Government did not offer an opinion. Yet this is being reported as fact. All sorts of people write all sorts of books about Royals. It doesn't mean that they are accurate. Indisciplined (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same material is covered by Bradford, who quotes documents in the National Archives as one of her sources. The monarch doesn't make the decision about the marriage. S/he receives advice from the prime minister and cabinet, and follows their advice. DrKay (talk) 08:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Countess of Snowdon

[edit]

Question, do anyone know why when Lord Snowdon divorced Princess Margaret and remarried Lucy Lindsay-Hoggs, that Lucy was not named Countess of Snowdon. Shouldn't she have been Lucy Armstrong-Jones, Countess of Snowdon?

She was. DrKay (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the above style - she would be known simply as Lucy, Countess of Snowdon the Title belongs to the Letters Patentee namely Anthony Armstrong-Jones not to Princess Margaret who held the title by courtesy only as his wife. Johnkennedy58 (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royal By Birth vs. Royal By Marriage?

[edit]

I seriously doubt that Princess Margaret looked down on Queen Mary on account of the latter's birth. First of all, Queen Mary was a testy old lady, and if she had a hint of that, she would have rapped the whippersnapper on the head with her parasol (see A. Michie, God Save The Queen, for a good analysis of Queen Mary's personality). Seriously, though, Queen Mary was royal. She was a direct descendant of King George III, through the Cambridge line of the family.John Paul Parks (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's what Heald says. Mary wasn't a royal highness until she married, so by that measure she wasn't royal. DrKay (talk) 07:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was Prince George her godfather?

[edit]

Early in the article is the statement: 

    Her godparents were: the Prince of Wales (her paternal uncle, for whom his brother the Prince George stood proxy) . . .

Later, (with reference - Dempster, p.8 - which seems to be removed), the statement is: 

    When Margaret was twelve in 1942 her uncle and godfather, Prince George, was killed in an air crash.

Prince George appears to be a favoured uncle not Princess Margaret's godfather.--User:Brenont (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Prince of Wales at the time of her birth was the future Edward VIII. Prince George was his younger brother The Duke of Kent (father of Prince Michael of Kent, Princess Alexandra, & the current Duke of Kent, Edward), who was killed in WWII. Margaret's father was Prince Albert, The Duke of York; he chose George VI as his regnal name in honour of his father George V, for whom the late Duke of Kent was named. That fact sometimes confuses people not familiar with royal geneaology. To stand proxy means the actual godparent couldn't make it to the baptismal ceremony & someone stood in for them. I would've thought the familial obligation to ask the future king to be a royal child's godfather would've been satisfied when Princess Elizabeth was born because she was the elder of the York sisters (have no idea who her godparents were, either, but it makes sense), so perhaps George was Margaret's godfather & not just a proxy. I suppose the monarchy's official site doesn't deal in such trivial minutae? ScarletRibbons (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piping

[edit]

Could User:Glenmeister please explain why it's so absolutely necessary (to the point of revert warring with two editors) to here ignore WP:NOPIPE? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Start

[edit]

Why is the lead so crammed full of stuff? The beginning of an article isn't supposed to summarize the subject's entire life from cradle to grave, it's supposed to briefly say why the subject is notable - right? All of that stuff is just repeated further down the page and I don't think there's a need for it to be in there twice. The whole article just reads like a random copy-and-paste job. ScarletRibbons (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should summarize the entire article. DrKay (talk) 07:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I've been looking at a lot of WP bios that don't have such long leads with extraneous details (like, does this one really need a sentence that says Margaret hung out with her family until Dad became king?). Sometimes they're a sentence or 2 similar to the first sentence in this one, saying SoandSo (dates in birth/death in parentheses), the daughter/wife/mother of BlahBlah, was Queen of That Place in such years, done. I've left those as is when tidying/revamping a bio. I find going over the same ground to be a bit silly, but it's not the first WP rule I've found silly. Thanks for your swift response. ScarletRibbons (talk) 08:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Burial Date

[edit]

I'm new on Wikipedia so don't want to start editing pages, but I notice the burial date of 9 April 2002 for Princess Margaret is not correct. I believe it should be 15 February 2002. Someone may have mixed it up with the Queen Mother's burial date. Andy O (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source clearly states that her ashes were interred at the same time as her mother. DrKay (talk) 20:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: List of places named after Margaret

[edit]

The consensus is to remove the list from the body of the article itself. Creating a template for the subject of the page was considered as an alternative option. Keivan.fTalk 02:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Is it really appropriate, relevant or necessary to include a long list of places that have been named after her in the section "legacy"? Any outstanding memorial has to be mentioned of course, but could the users determine which ones we need to keep and which ones we possibly need to remove? Keivan.fTalk 16:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the sentiment but so far I think the list is of manageable proportions and need not be stripped down. sirlanz 01:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know--looking it over, if it is not already excessive, it's at least close enough that I would not want to see it grow longer, and (more to the point) there are items on there which seem to defy WP:WEIGHT, so establishing consensus on what should remain (and in what format) now could save trouble down the line. Remember that our style guidelines advise against exhaustive list sections in any event; if something is not significant enough in the sources to support a brief mention in a couple of prose paragraphs (which is really what ought to be here), it probably doesn't need to be mentioned in any event. Additional items are essentially WP:TRIVIA, even taking into account the stature of the subject's lifelong position in British society. Snow let's rap 04:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think they can all be removed. Other encyclopedias wouldn't list such detail, and I think we should follow the same practice. DrKay (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the list is already excessive. If you were a royal princess who DIDN'T get streets/hospitals etc named after you, it would be notable. If she were particularly involved with any of these, it would be valid to record the involvement but at present this is random info that has little bearing on either her, or her 'legacy'.Pincrete (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Circular. sirlanz 23:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes as phrased no as meant. To "appropriate, relevant or necessary" -- note "or" -- then yes because it is 'relevant'. But I would not say it is necessary or entirely appropriate. No WP policy comes to mind, but I'm thinking the lists are not her personal involvement and are not terribly prominent so listing them as "legacy" in detail is a bit of a stretch, particularly since the precedent seems to be just a short summary with pointer elsewhere or just major items identified (e.g. Queen Victoria, Anne, Queen of Great Britain. One might more readily do it in narrative summation by saying 'Numerous hospitals, schools, and roads are named after her, and she two rose varieties.' Markbassett (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the term "legacy" does not really apply to having things named after a person but it's all over WP. Sometimes we see an "Awards and honours" section or just "Honours" which is what this list is really all about. So how about a change of section title or new section to house them? There's no reason why the information should be suppressed. I note a misconception creeping in in the comments here that there is a test of "notability" for information in a WP article. There isn't and obviously cannot be. What we want is relevance, non-trivia, tell the story of the subject. She was a princess and got things named after her; why suppress it? It's one characteristic of being born into a super-prominent family. sirlanz 06:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirlanz: Yes, you are right. Many royals including her sister, parents, and others like Charles, Diana, Kate, Camilla, etc, have buildings and objects named after them and have been portrayed by many actors/actresses in numerous movies and TV series, but merely listing the objects at the end of the article makes the whole page look unbalanced. What I suggest is creating a "template" for Margaret, similar to the ones that have been created for some of her family members, and then add the names of the buildings, movies and plants in appropriate subsections of that template. That way we haven't deleted them and the article itself will contain its natural flow. Keivan.fTalk 17:30, 29 March 2018 (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.

Filler

[edit]

It is unnecessary to include something in a summary biography that applies to everyone. Other encyclopedias do not fill out their entries with broad statements that could be said about everyone. We don't begin a biography with statements like 'She was born with two legs and a nose', unless there is something exceptional about her legs and nose or later in life didn't have them. Similarly, we don't end a biography with a statement like 'People said nice things about her after her death', because that happens after almost everyone's death. It is only ever mentioned in a summary biography if the statements are somehow exceptional or unusual. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think it is totally redundant. The article already reads as a very one sided "puff piece" with hardly any mention of the disdain she was help in by a large section of the population, I remember the contemporary "gin soaked parasite" epithet Unibond (talk) 09:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not, and it doesn't happen at every other person's death. Do political figures issue statements when an actor or singer dies? Maybe, but not always, whereas death of figures like Pope does bring out statements from numerous political figures, and so did the death of Margaret. Comparing it to a bizarre sentence like 'She was born with two legs and a nose' doesn't even make sense, since that's a general statement that applies to every human being on Earth, while ordinary people do not get condolences from senior political and religious figures when they die. Keivan.fTalk 15:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Someone well known dies, someone else well known says something nice about them. Is that really of note, is it anything other than a customary gesture ? Unibond (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just following the precedent set by Wikipedia for this type of events. Take a look at Prince and Barbara Bush for example. I could give you numerous other examples if you wish. Keivan.fTalk 20:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a precedent. There are far more articles which don't say this than do. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For example? Keivan.fTalk 03:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just click on 'random article'. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first names that popped into my head were John Lennon and George Harrison Unibond (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of the Church's involvement with Princess Margaret re: plans to wed Peter Townsend

[edit]

Yes, the Church, specifically Archbishop Fisher, was criticized after Princess Margaret decided not to marry Peter Townsend.

Just fyi, this is content from the Divorce section of History of the Church of England, as of 2 January 2018; the editor who wrote it used the same source that I used (in the edit I did about Randolph Churchill and Fisher in this Fisher article): 

   When Princess Margaret wanted in 1952 to marry Peter Townsend, a commoner who had been divorced, the Church did not directly intervene but the government warned she had to renounce her claim to the throne and could not be married in church.  Historian Ann Holmes says, "The image that endured was that of a beautiful young princess kept from the man she loved by an inflexible Church.  It was an image and a story that evoked much criticism both of Archbishop Fisher and of the Church' policies regarding remarriage after divorce." Holmes. The Church of England and Divorce in the Twentieth Century. pp. 43–48, 74–80., quotes pp 44, 45 79.  

    However when she actually did divorce, in 1978, the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Donald Coggan, did not attack her, and instead offered support.  >Ben Pimlott, The Queen: A Biography of Elizabeth II. (1998), p 443.

Peter K Burian (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


/* retitle Marriage section?

[edit]

This ain't no Marriage section. For a marriage section have a look at this. What we got here is a Wedding section, mainly (complete with xref to an article on a wedding dress, gossake!) Retitle as Engagement and wedding? – SquisherDa (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The section goes on to discuss her children, etc. If it were only discussing her wedding then the change in the section title would be appropriate. Similarly, this discusses George V's marriage, with link to a separate article about his actual wedding. History Lunatic (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)History Lunatic[reply]
Yes, the George V article distinguishes between wedding and marriage. I don't we can quite go the same way, though, with the wedding in a separate linked article. What we have for Princess Margaret's would make a very short article!
In the existing "Marriage" section you're right tht there's a paragraph mentioning the children: with another also tagged on at the end about the effect on her social circle. As a whole - in four paragraphs - the section's about the wedding and honeymoon, and there's almost nothing about their marriage - which was sadly unsuccessful, and both spectacularly and controversially so.
A section on the marriage might be worth writing - if anyone's brave enough!?
The Private life section has more about the marriage than the two tag-ons. Best to move them there.
- SquisherDa (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External image?

[edit]

Does anyone have a external image about Princess Margaret's 21st birthday at Balmoral, which would appropriate while using {{External image}}. Unfortunately, but I can't upload this image then it also followed Wikipedia's fair use policy, see WP:F7. --ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 08:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Scalds to her feet in a bathroom accident"

[edit]

This statement is utterly ridiculous. It is akin to saying a man was sentenced to death for donating the proceeds of his house to an orphanage. Can we amplify this? She was presumably legless (pardon pun), so why mince around the matter? Is there a source as to why she climbed into a scalding bath? Most maids don't run boiling water for their employees. On the balance of probabilities, she ran the bath herself. Hanoi Road (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of lesbianism

[edit]

According to Noel Botham, Margaret had lesbian lovers in her youth. See [3] and the book Margaret, The Last Real Princess. If editors think it's worthwhile to add mention of this to this article, it should also be added to LGBT nobility and royalty. -- Beland (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Romance with Peter Townsend

[edit]

This has probably been raised on the talk page before, but does anyone feel like the section about Margaret's [with Peter Townsend] is given entirely too much weight?--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had added the undue weight tag recently, but it was removed, saying that it should be discussed. It is given too much weight. Is it necessary to mention all the headlines run by the tabloids during that time? Peter Ormond 💬 23:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bettydaisies: @Peter Ormond: I just came across this discussion. I think the parts that may be irrelevant or sentences that serve no purpose in detailing the main events can be removed, especially in the "Press coverage" section. I guess we can start by going over each paragraph and see which parts can actually be omitted. It would be better to get a general consensus for removing huge chunks of information though. Keivan.fTalk 04:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Profile picture change

[edit]

I have seen many hurtful comments towards this profile picture of princess queen Margaret on Twitter as it is not a flattering phot of her . They have many hateful comments and bullied this photograph by making fun of her appearance. There are many picture of her in the 1950s that are more beautiful as she was a beautiful woman when she was young . Thankyou 2A02:C7F:570D:F400:34E1:B253:A2F5:854 (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try and get this right.... it's (a) the picture that's being bullied, or (b) Princess Margaret that's being bullied? I'm sure she would have been flattered by the very odd title you have given her. But I didn't realise she had her own Twitter account.... Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update lead section

[edit]

I suggest we update the lead section, since it is outdated since the passing of the Queen. Here is the lead section as it is on the 12th of October, 2022:

Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, CI, GCVO, CD (Margaret Rose; 21 August 1930 – 9 February 2002) was the younger daughter of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother and the only sibling of Queen Elizabeth II.

I suggest we remove the word "Queen" from Elizabeth II, to update this section. If anyone says otherwise, please reply to this post.

Sincerely, Thenewright22 (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it's outdated, and it'll look odd if we remove queen from her but not king and queen from the parents. DrKay (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I say we just add the word "former" before Queen Elizabeth II, or, as you suggested, I'll leave it alone, @DrKay.
Sincerely, Thenewright22 (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think it makes any sense. George VI and the Queen Mother are no longer the king and queen but we don't call them former king and queen. We just don't say 'former' unless it's someone like Constantine II of Greece. DrKay (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Come on! Well, I'll just leave this article alone, since you're not interested in my proposed edits.
Sincerely, Thenewright22 (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 April 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) MaterialWorks (contribs) 11:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon → Princess Margaret – Per WP:COMMONNAME as "Princess Margaret" without using this style "Countess of Snowdon" can be seen on The Royal Family website, The Guardian, Daily Express, Daily Mail, and other British sources as well as internationally. Surveyor Mount 08:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Interesting proposal and I'm not sure how to vote for now. The title of Countess of Snowdon is used on memorial inscriptions but is clearly not used often in common parlance. The relevant guideline offers limited help. Of the 5 guidelines here, only 1, 2 and 5 could be considered in this case. Countess of Snowdon was not a substantive title but a courtesy title for a consort, she divorced and the Earl remarried. Her territorial suffix before marriage would have been 'of the United Kingdom' but in practice this isn't used very often either, it's usually The Princess Margaret or even the more simple Princess Margaret. Wikipedia treats her as the most recognizable Princess Margaret. --Killuminator (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also including Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie without using styles in lead title as well? Surveyor Mount 13:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Princess [First Name], Mrs [Husband's name]" was ruled out by consensus for being archaic or sexist. Check the talk page for the article on Princess Eugenie. That is not the case here. Keivan.fTalk 16:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The second daughter of George VI and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon is the WP:PTOPIC for "Princess Margaret". As the prior comment said, she was divorced from the Earl of Snowdon but retained the title by courtesy. I don't find anything particularly strong in NCROY to guide this title (I proposed an RfC on the titling of deceased princesses of the blood some time ago, haven't heard much of it since). My only concern ever with shortening titles like this is WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, but Margaret had enough notability where that shouldn't be an issue. Estar8806 (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me for spilling one discussion into another, but arguing that "Princess Margaret" is recognizable and at the same time that "Juan Carlos I" is not is a sure sign of Anglocentric bias. Bias itself is normal and nobody is free of it, but we should recognize it. Surtsicna (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're certainly right on both, one discussion should not be spilled into another and there is appearance of anglocentric bias. I sadly believe. most people are more likely to have heard of Margaret than Juan Carlos. A sad notion it may be considering the latter's role in Spain's transition to democracy, but most likely true nonetheless. However, your comment and Tim O'Doherty's are certainly making me reconsider my support here, which was already weak as is. Estar8806 (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to oppose. Per Tim O'Doherty.--Estar8806 (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Princess Margaret (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

[edit]

The lead image was recently changed to this one (with no explanation) and then rapidly changed back to this one with the edit summary "More natural expression". Is that a more natural expression? Is it a better photograph? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation

[edit]

A Royal Family Encyclopedia stated her occupation as philanthropist https://www.royal.uk/encyclopedia/princess-margaret Asphonixm (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When did she quit smoking?

[edit]

Contradictory info

"In 1991, she gave up smoking, though she continued to drink heavily. Margaret was reported to have stopped smoking in January 1993..."

Which is it? 2601:643:8D80:9D10:759C:196F:6722:8BDF (talk) 04:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or nor, sometimes people "quit" twice... or more. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC) p.s. Chesterfield (cigarette) tells us: "In the Netflix series The Crown, Princess Margaret's favorite cigarettes are Chesterfields. In real life, the Princess was known to smoke up to sixty cigarettes per day.[1] Not sure if either point is notable here.[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kapusta, Michelle (October 9, 2020). "Princess Margaret's Unhealthy Party Habits Included Smoking 60 Cigarettes a Day and That's Not All". Showbiz Cheat Sheet.

'remained close friends' with Lord Snowdon

[edit]

Seems odd that she 'remained' close friends with a man who had told her that she looked like a Jewish manicurist and he hated her. Did he later assure her that she didn't look like a Jewish manicurist and he in fact quite liked her? 144.173.255.250 (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Princess_Margaret,_Countess_of_Snowdon&oldid=1254513021"