Jump to content

Talk:Victoria, Princess Royal: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Artist: new section
Line 104: Line 104:


She may be an accomplished amateur, that does not mean she is notable as an artist. Such does not belong in such categories. They are non-defining. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 20:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
She may be an accomplished amateur, that does not mean she is notable as an artist. Such does not belong in such categories. They are non-defining. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 20:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

:She is a notable German artist. She received classes from two notable painters. She devoted much of her later life to painting. Her paintings if sold would be worth a great deal of money. This is more than enough. Most artists are amateurs; that has never been part of the definition of artist on wikipedia. Being paid or not is not a factor. She must be part of the category 19th-century German women artists. [[User:Helpfulwikieditoryay|Helpfulwikieditoryay]] ([[User talk:Helpfulwikieditoryay|talk]]) 21:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:02, 1 July 2022

Title

Shouldn't the title of the article read: "Victoria, German Empress"? HansNZL (talk) 08:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2012

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Future discussions of what the title need to involve how the subject is referred to in the reliable sources. Cúchullain t/c 16:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria, Princess Royal → Victoria, German Empress – Comparatively recent discussions on the talk page seem to be heading in this direction. We are moving in the direction of referring to queens by their married not maiden title, see the discussion at Marie of Romania. She is more important for her role in Germany, where she spent most of her life, than in Britain. The current title is not very satisfactory since the title of Princess Royal is slightly obscure, only used in formal contexts, even in Britain most people think of the present holder as Princess Anne, and it is also biased since Portugal also had a Princess Royal for a time. Consulting Wikipedias in other languages is not much help since they use a wide range of titles but I have not found any which uses the exact equivalent of the current title. Relisted. BDD (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC) PatGallacher (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose If we're not going to apply the maiden name precedent in favor of what she's most known by, she was never called "Victoria, German Empress" or "Empress Victoria" at all: she is best known to history as "Empress Frederick". FactStraight (talk) 11:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a tenable case for "Empress Frederick" but on balance I would be against it. Although this was her formal title during her widowhood I would be cautious about assuming that this was what everybody called her even then. As far as I can judge, histories of the period tend to call her "Vicky" to distinguish her from her mother. The German Wikipedia calls her "Victoria of Great Britain and Ireland (1840-1901)", other Wikipedias have a range of titles, but they are all some variant of Victoria, none call her Frederick. It now sounds awkward to refer to a woman by her husband's name in this way, even if it is her formal title, we should reserve this for cases where this really is how she is generally known e.g. Princess Michael of Kent. Also it would help to say where she was Empress of. PatGallacher (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is precisely the muddle we wade into by abandoning the time-honoured maiden name principle: the names of articles on royal women become unstable because no other rule is as prevalent. So we end up choosing what we like and rationalising it based on some obscure, never-to-be-applied-again premise. To wit, since nobody's suggesting putting this article at "The Princess Royal" there is no prospect of confusion with the current "Anne, Princess Royal" or any other holder of that title. Why is it relevant how common or rare "Princess Royal" is outside of English usage? Nor does anyone contend that Empress Frederick "was what everybody called her" since, as an encyclopedia, we shouldn't be trying to call her what "everybody" called her: NCROY leans toward maiden name, Wikipedia's general rule calls for the name best known to English-speakers. (Personally, I advocate for the most correct name & title used in English -- since "correctness" is what I think people turn to encyclopaedia to discover and where they expect articles to be located -- otherwise we are eventually defenceless against "Princess Di"). Alleging that it's awkward to call her "Empress Frederick" is simply a version of I just don't like it -- and that animus, directed against hereditary titles as well as sexism, seems to be gradually driving article titles toward "modernising" historical rulers to look like commoners because it is becoming "awkward" to allow class differences of yore to go un-retroactively corrected. If the rationale for changing this article's title is that Victoria, Princess Royal is not "what everybody called her" then the only move which makes sense is to one by which she was prevalently called by the handfull of relatives entitled to refer to her by a name at all: "Vicky". But the name "Victoria, German Empress" is completely fabricated and has neither the virtue of being prevalent nor accurate (and some would say that her mother has a better right to it, being an empress regnant who held the title far longer). FactStraight (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, is it entirely fabricated. Was she not known, nationally and internationally, as the German Empress, during the year or so that she was? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, she was properly known as the German Empress Victoria -- for less than 100 days in 1888. From then until her death in 1901 she was known (in English) as Empress Frederick, and that is how she is most commonly called and remembered in history except when being referred to in the context of specific earlier periods of her life when she was exclusively Princess Royal (1841-1858), Princess Frederick (of Prussia) (1858-1861), Crown Princess (1861-1888) or Empress Victoria (March-June, 1888). Of course, bear in mind that only diplomats, academics and journalists actually called her "German Crown Princess" or "German Empress" at all: most people, in German and other languages, referred to her as the Crown Princess/Empress "of" Germany -- although this was incorrect, being a form of title explicitly rejected for political reasons when Germany formally became an empire in 1871. But if this encyclopedia insists on using what was common rather than what was correct, why should one more awkward "fact" be ignored -- merely because it was erroneous? FactStraight (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To one who has been born and bred in England and her history, the question is: How does that tally with Hansard mentioned below, where the Prime Minister in 1901 speaks of "When the then Princess Royal, afterwards German Empress, left these shores in 1857..."? Qexigator (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Historians invent titles all of the time, much of the numbering of monarchs is retrospective, several important people are known by names they were never called in their lifetime e.g. Julius Caesar, William the Conqueror, Kenneth MacAlpin, or it is doubtful if they were e.g. Matilda of Scotland, Mary Tudor, Queen of France. There is no longer a presumption in favour of maiden titles at NCROY. It was recognised that this could produce absurditites e.g. Marie Antionette would have to be "Maria Antonia of Austria", and it is doubtful if she was ever officially called "Marie Antionette", she would have been successively "la Dauphine", "la Reine", "Citoyenne Capet" and "Veuve Capet". As it happens Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh was awarded this title on the morning of the day he married the Queen, but would it really have mattered for Wikipedia naming purposes if the king had waited only a few hours? Another glaring case is Diana, Princess of Wales, the maiden title rule would mean calling her "Lady Diana Spencer". What about Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge? Is this title formally correct, and what if she becomes queen, as she may well do? Does she revert to "Kate Middleton" at some point, even if only on death? There are similar issue with Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. PatGallacher (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Can we talk more about the COMMONNAME here? Does that mean, what was she usually called, overall, or at some specifici point. Or what she was called just after her death (I’ve not found a death notice, or the description from her tomb, can anyone else?). Do our sources suffer from our bias to use sources written in English? Looking at a few source, I see her called:
  • Princess Victoria of Great Britain [1]
  • Victoria Adelaide Mary Louisa Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Princess Royal of the United Kingdom or

    Victoria Deutscher Kaiserin [2]

  • Victoria, Princess Royal, Empress of Germany (1840-1901) [3]
  • HRH Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom, The Princess Royal, German Empress & Queen of Prussia[4]
I think I'd be strongly influenced by whatever is written on her tomb, or at the top of her death notice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Her status as a British princess / Princess Royal appears in all the sources you have listed. The title of empress being subjectively "more important" in the eyes of individual Wikipedia editors is not enough to trump WP:COMMONNAME as it is used by historians. (And yes, we should and do focus on English language sources as this is the English Wikipedia.) --Jiang (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be her death plaque. Will try to translate later. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Transcription:

Dieses haus erbaute

In den jahren 1889 bis 1893
Victoria
Deutsche kaiserin und konigin von Preussen
Princess royal von grossbritannien und Irland
Geboren zu london am 21 november 1840

Gestorben hier am 5 august 1901]]

Translation:

This house was built

In the years 1889 to 1893
Victoria
German Empress and Queen of Prussia
Princess Royal of Great Britain and Ireland
Born London on 21 november 1840

Died here on 5 august 1901

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a close call, but I see "Victoria, German Empress" and the strongest claim for the page title. "Empress Frederick" is a nickname, and should be a redirect. "Victoria, Princess Royal" seems excessively English/English royal family POV; she has very little ongoing historical significance as Princess Royal, but a lot as German Empress. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest Victoria, German Empress consort to satisfy concern about non-regnancy, except I haven't seen it used once in a source. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We should stick with the maiden name when an alternative is not obvious. I don't see how "Victoria, German Empress" is obvious, given that she was only known as this for about 90 days, and that's not standard for consorts, anyway. "Empress Frederick," by the way, was not a nickname. It was her formal style after her husband's death. john k (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Qexigator raises a voice in favour of SmokeyJoe's observation "...a close call, but I see Victoria, German Empress... the strongest claim for the page title... little ongoing historical significance as Princess Royal, but a lot as German Empress."Qexigator (talk) 09:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Her primary significance was as a German crown princess, and distinctly not as empress (which she only was for 90 days). john k (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is looking like a confused multi-candidate race. You oppose Victoria, German Empress because she was more significant as Victoria, Crown Princess of Prussia, and therefore support Victoria, Princess Royal? Could you please clarify? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The title German Empress implies her prior status as Crown Princess, just as Frederick, German Emperor suffices without Crown Prince (though a redirect would be helpful). Her survival of her husband Frederick, with the continuing title of Empress, was of continuing historic significance as mother of the reigning Emperor William, Frederick's successor.Qexigator (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC).(Revised by adding support. Qexigator (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]
---Further: In the section "German Empress and Empress Frederick", footnote [2] cites Hansard which records the Prime Minister in 1901, proposing in the House of Lords an address to the King on the death of his sister, saying "When the then Princess Royal, afterwards German Empress, left these shores in 1857...". The full and formal title is also mentioned later, in the same paragraph as "William, German Emperor" (her son).Qexigator (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron, is there anything in your extensive research (listed on your User page) which points to what you have here proposed, and would outweigh the PM's usage mentioned above (06:55, 2 September 2012)? Not all aspects can be covered in the article's title. It is unlikely that anyone would take it that she were Regnant rather than Consort, but it would be good to see something in the opening paragraph explicitly removing any ambiguity. Qexigator (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The proposed title is not the most common name, which, in my opinion, would be the only valid reason to move the article. The proposed title, in fact, doesn't seem to be any improvement. The present title is unambigious, factually correct and consistent with titles of relevant articles. If nothing else, Victoria, German Empress might also refer to her own daughter-in-law, Augusta Victoria. Even having the article titled Empress Frederick would make more sense. Surtsicna (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Victoria, Princess Royal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Artist

She may be an accomplished amateur, that does not mean she is notable as an artist. Such does not belong in such categories. They are non-defining. DrKay (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She is a notable German artist. She received classes from two notable painters. She devoted much of her later life to painting. Her paintings if sold would be worth a great deal of money. This is more than enough. Most artists are amateurs; that has never been part of the definition of artist on wikipedia. Being paid or not is not a factor. She must be part of the category 19th-century German women artists. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Victoria,_Princess_Royal&oldid=1096029697"