Bob Maxwell wrote (in part):

 

"[snip] -- Unless I’ve missed an instruction or policy statement somewhere, I think “Frederica Charlotte Ulrica Catherina, $c Princess of Prussia, $d 1767-1820” is the correct RDA form and the 100 should have been changed to that form when the cataloger followed the 667 instruction to evaluate the heading. But I freely admit that I could have gone wrong somewhere and would be interested in seeing what others have to say."

 

As one of the persons who wrote to Jessica to say that the existing form of the heading


Frederica Charlotte Ulrica Catherina, $c Princess, Duchess of York, $d 1767-1820


could be justified under RDA, I'll go ahead and and chime in here 😊


My thought was that Frederica was no longer a princess of Prussia once she married a member of the British royal family, i.e. that British royals do not hold titles that pertain to a country other than Great Britain. I believe the convention is that women who marry British princes adopt the title of their husband, though I can't point to a written statement to that effect just at this moment. She did continue to be a princess, both because she was married to a British prince and because she was the daughter of a king. The consequence would be that we can apply the second instruction under 9.4.1.4.3 by adding "Princess" after her given name, then adding another title associated with her name, i.e. "Duchess of York."


My other thought is that the reasons for formulating her preferred name in a different way are not so compelling as to require us to change the existing heading, thus creating BFM.


I did think it was appropriate to add a variant name to the NAR, namely


Frederica, Princess of Prussia


as she is definitely referred to in this way in reference sources.


It also seems a little odd, even perhaps misleading,  to make Frederica, Princess of Prussia the preferred form of name for a woman who spent her entire adult life in England.


There is also the point that as princess of Prussia, her name was not Frederica Charlotte Ulrica Catherina but rather Friederike Charlotte Ulrike Katharina, which just muddies the waters further, to no good purpose that I can see -- though again one could certainly add this to her record as a variant form of name.


Richard Moore of the British Library indicated that he was comfortable with the heading as it stands, so my inclination  would be to let sleeping dogs lie in this case and not create BFM.


best,

Charles Croissant

Saint Louis University