That is true.

And maybe it's more correct to say: "astronomically speaking." even thought astrology is a science that studies celestial objects and phenomena . Therefore not entirely wrong to say scientifically; but it's a nice way to be a tiny more specific.

Moreover Princess Luna isn't really a "Princess of the stars" because stars are a self-luminous gaseous spheroidal celestial bodies of great mass which produces energy by means of nuclear fusion reactions, and that title would be probably more fitting to Celestia (like you said). I believe a title more fitting for Luna should be: "Moon Princess"; "Night Princess" or even "Satellite Princess" (Because the moon is a natural satellite). The misconception is that not everyone think that the stars that we see at night are actually far away suns. But then again, I said to call her "Princess of the night", and in the nighttime we see stars so "star princess" is fitting right? Well, we could also see star at daytime [if we exclude the fact that the Sun itself is a star] if there wasn't the strong light of the Sun that blocked or vision, we would see stars, because stars are there; they do not disappear because of the sunlight; matter of fact that's why there are telescopes in orbit: to actually look at the stars without being force to look only at night. But I'm pretty sure that there's someone who actually use the telescope from the Earth's ground to look at the stars in complete daylight at high altitudes.



In the fucking end before this comment became too long or too scientifically boring a good compromise would be "Nighttime Princess" "Star Princess of the Night." "Princess of the stars that can be only seen during nighttime because in the daylight there's Celestia and this username has been already taken."