Jump to content

Talk:Queen Victoria

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.231.164.27 (talk) at 06:56, 19 February 2009 (→Saxe-Coburg-Gotha). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured articleQueen Victoria is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleQueen Victoria has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 12, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 16, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
September 6, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
September 3, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
September 26, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Former featured article, current good article
Archive
Archives
  1. 25th August 2004 - 19th May 2007

Monarchs must propose

This article states "as a monarch Queen 200th. proposed to Albert. I found this very interesting. Why does it not link to another article? Surely this interesting fact deserves an article of its own. Does anyone have any info on this? Does this rule still exist today? (Did QE II propose to the Duke of E.?). Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.56.132.168 (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that proposing to the monarch might offend him/her. Queen Elizabeth II was not a monarch when she got engaged to the Duke of Edinburgh. 87.250.113.213 (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.245.85.205 (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Francis?

"John Francis (most likely seeking to gain notoriety) fired a pistol at the Queen (then in a carriage), but was immediately seized by Police Constable William Trounce. Francis was convicted of high treason, but his death sentence was commuted to transportation for life. (It is not known whether he was later elected Prime Minister of Australia, but this seems unlikely)." Is this comment about Australia genuine and appropriate? Mr. Francis doesn't seem to have a bio on Wikipedia. If there is real debate about whether an attempted assassin became PM of Australia, wouldn't he be notable enough to deserve one? Canuckle 20:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, that comment is just a bit of mischief (now removed). Cheers, Ian Rose 02:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of this stuff seems pretty trivial for a biographical article. Surely we don't need all this detail? How important is it that we include a park or a street or a building named after her? Every city in the Empire had something like that. And she features as a character in thousands of books and movies. --Pete 07:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is using ibid?

Whoever is doing this needs to take a good look at this.--Rmky87 18:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Not Amused

From the archive:

This line is well-associated with Queen Victoria, to the point of being known by foreigners who wouldn't connect her lifetime with the term "Victorian era." It's mentioned twice in the popcult references section, but not covered elsewhere. Its origins should be added to the article. What say you? --Kizor 18:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I very much agree. It also redirects here. It is really so well known it's poor that it is not covered, and then referenced in the general wikipedian vapid pop culture section. All I know is that it's source is from around 1920 and the actual context it was allegedly said in is obscure.--86.130.143.58 18:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

name of article

I think that the name of the article as "Victoria of the United Kingdom" should be changed. Wikipedia should use the correct written from of a person's name or title. Anything less is simply perpetuating inaccurate information. Brandy Kelley 09:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the correct written form? What is inaccurate about this title? Was she not named Victoria and was she not of the United Kingdom? Charles 11:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not use the "correct written form of a person's name or title" - since different people can have different opinions on what that correct form is. Wikipedia follows published scholarship. It summarizes the consensus form of that scholarship, and notes any significant minority opinions. Noel S McFerran 14:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus to move.--Húsönd 17:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I formally propose the move from this (rather unlikely) title to Queen Victoria. Say "Queen Victoria" to 10,000 people and nearly all of them will know who you mean. Somebody even suggested to me that an appreciable proportion of them will actually have a statue of that queen in their home town. I think he was on crack, but the point stands: there have been one or two other Victorias, but this is the one. This is a classic case, if ever there was one, for disambiguation by primary topic. That's where we take the reader to the most obvious place and then (in a hatnote) invite him to chose from other subjects if he's come to the wrong place. But really: Queen Victoria! --Tony Sidaway 22:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Comment. Please don't compare Queen Victoria with Kaiser Wilhem (1st - that name is in German and this the English Wiki, 2nd - which one of the two?). Its like comparing the single sun with a common star out of many - this comment is not about the worth of these persons, but only about their fame. Marie Antoinette, Maria Theresa of Austria there are a couple historical persons which are so widely known that other persons with the same name are widely ignored. Therefore the title of article should use "the name in question" and be about the person (almost) everybody expects it to be. (I hope you can follow my argument - English isn't my mothertongue). "Either we stick to standards, or we open this can of worms and discuss each name." No, we stick to standarts but at the same time we keep a couple of reasonable exceptions - like every law and rule of this world. Flamarande 00:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't compare Victoria to her oldest grandson Wilhelm, who as "Kaiser Wilhelm" is known in English, too. Only one of the Kaiser Wilhelms were involved in a World War (and lived into the second), making him "so widely known that other persons with the same name are widely ignored" and "one of the most hated men of the 20th century". Quickly: how many German Emperors were there? Chances are high you pick the wrong number without looking it up first. All hits [1] outnumber "William II, German emperor" anyway. I'm not going to discuss more names - as said before, either standards, or a wide open can of "a couple of reasonable exceptions". -- Matthead discuß!     O       02:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should stick to standards; those specified at Wikipedia:Naming conventions. The "pre-emptive disambiguation" outlined at WP:NCNT breaks them.--Father Goose 21:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think though that those people fall under disambiguation. Remember, there are primary and secondary uses of titles and Queen Victoria primarily and overwhelmingly refers to Alexandrina Victoria of Hanover. Charles 01:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what we should do. The idea of "pre-emptive disambiguation" for royals is unnecesary in most cases and contrary to the basic naming convention, which is based on common sense and works far better -- even for royals.--Father Goose 04:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. No one has given any good reason to change the article's title other than aesthetics. I see the aesthetic point, but it is far outweighed by the practicalities. No confusion exists, as Queen Victoria redirects here. Per WP:NCP, article titles should focus on the subject's personal name ("Victoria"), not the title of her office ("Queen"). As monarchs do not commonly use surnames, "of <nation>" is the most precise way to identify her, and is a format generally applicable to all monarchs. --BlueMoonlet 07:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move She is known as Queen Victoria; "Victoria of the United Kingdom" is a nonsense title, one that she is only known by on Wikipedia. This might go against the current naming style guide, but it goes with the overall Wikipedia article naming guidelines which state: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." (my emphasis). If you must allow disambiguation of monarchs, then at least use her proper title (which, since hereditary, serves the same purpose as the surnames of commoners). You could have "Queen Victoria (United Kingdom)" or, if you have to, "Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom". Since this clashes with WP:NCNT, then I move that the guideline is discussed and brought in line with commonsense, general Wikipedia guidelines. See discussion at NCNT talk and the village pump. Gwinva 21:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move - we need to have standards and keep to them. I don't oppose the making of exceptions where the "most common name" is something very different from the standard, eg. "Bonnie Prince Charlie" - but this isn't. "Common sense" means something different to every individual. Deb 22:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a second -- you're saying the most common name for this person is not Queen Victoria? I agree that we should keep to standards; the problem here is that WP:NCNT unnecssarily abandons the standards laid out in its parent policy, WP:NC.--Father Goose 22:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's saying that QV is not very different from VOUK and that is a reason why we should keep the standards. I ask why are the standards not kept if necessary through a VOUK redirect to QV. I ask why "the standards" are more important than "common name" when both can be kept, but only one has the "honor" of being the article's title. NikoSilver 22:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the titles are generally unnecessary. Ivan IV is thus better than both Tsar Ivan IV or Ivan IV of Russia. But in the case of Victoria, just "Victoria" is highly ambiguous, which is why everyone in the real world generally calls her Queen Victoria -- and we should too.--Father Goose 23:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ship is named after the person; she should be the main article; those that only know the ship would discover the real person on the way to finding the ship. Gwinva 01:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of the names I just mentioned are ships named after the person. Each name links to a disambiguation page. One seaching for the vessel Queen Victoria would not find it if the page were moved (unless you want to add a template linking to other uses on top of the page). (And who would ever search for MS Queen Victoria?) There are benefits to consistency. There is a practice have DAB pages for names of monarchs whose names are used by other persons or things. There is a convention on the naming of English/British monarchs. No one would suggest changing King Stephen to be the article on the English king. Let's have one rule for all. Kablammo 02:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Re: And who would ever search for MS Queen Victoria? Someone actually interested in it would... Also, WP:NC(CN) holds more weight than WP:NC(NT). Charles 05:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that someone searching for the ship is more likely to search for its name without the MS prefix. How many people really know the difference between MS, MV, SS, or (for that matter) RMS? As for the relative weight to be given to the two policies mentioned, the specific should prevail over the general. Kablammo 08:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is searching for the ship, he can very well click the {{otheruses}} link and find it instantly. The fact that there's a ship, an era, etc, named after Queen Elizabeth only demonstrates how undoubtedly common that name is to describe her. NikoSilver 10:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the issue here is not when MS Queen Victoria enters service, but the fact that we already have an article on this ship. A disambiguation page has been required ever since the MS Queen Victoria article was created on 15 January 2006. -- JackofOz 01:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There have been many Queen Elizabeths, Queen Marys, King George Vs, and Black Princes, which is why they go to disambiguation pages by default. But Queen Victoria gets the lion's share of attention associated with her name, which is why her article gets the default landing spot, with a disambig to the other QVs a the top. I don't think the arrival of the latest cruise liner bearing her name will change this situation.--Father Goose 10:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't necessarily, but I think WP:NC(NT) is a sound convention that should be upheld. Victoria was not Queen of America or Germany or a whole host of places for example, and thus assuming she would be entered with her title on Wikipedia, that could be a strong point of contention for those peoples who do not regard her as a monarch. There are also lesser issues of republican sentiments towards the divine rights of the British monarchy. I think that breaking convention here could set a precident in which other articles are renamed according to local titles, in which debate will point to this article. I understand the thinking behind the proposal, but still vote to maintain the current position. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point taken. However, may I note that those in America, or those in Germany, or even those with republican sentiments, all acknowledge she was a Queen, and all refer to her as (THE) "Queen Victoria". Regarding your concern about precedent, I am all for solving this issue by applying the simple name only to those for which there is no ambiguity whatsoever. Victoria is one of those cases in my view (so is Ivan the Terrible etc). I understand your concern, but I'm sure we can deal with it in most cases. NikoSilver 13:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's a very bold statement. How so? Charles 05:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a policy/guideline conflict if you haven't noticed: parent policy WP:NC and guidelines WP:NC(CN) and WP:NCP against their child guideline WP:NC(NT). NikoSilver 09:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parent policy, Wikipedia:Naming conventions, is an official policy and states, "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." Most readers will look for Queen Victoria. Also, "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." The title Queen Victoria is reasonably unambiguous in that it overwhelmingly refers to Alexandrina Victoria of Hanover in her position as Queen of the United Kingdom. It is also the most recognizable name. Charles 10:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move per WP:NC Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. The current name makes linking to this article harder than it should be. Following rules for the sake of following rules is pointless, we should do whatever makes Wikipedia easier to read and edit. Lurker (said · done) 11:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move. When I google for Victoria of the United Kingdom -wiki (=just imagine wikipedia did not exist and do as people would normally do: use no quotation marks) the first lady google gives me, is Victoria Wood. Basically, we must give priority to the real world out there, and forget the rules (nice to know that they contradict each other, by the way).--Pan Gerwazy 11:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, nor we should not move Maria Theresa of Austria to Maria Theresa, even though the Empress is the most famous of that name. As for the rules, a lot of discussion and work must have gone into Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) which I would like to respect. Both sides have good points but the existing convention should not be abrogated without compelling reasons to do so. Kablammo 15:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feel the breeze of change! There were relevant discussions over at WT:NC(NT) and WP:VPP, both centralized here. NikoSilver 15:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to abandon common sense completely the correct title would actually be Victoria of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland - the UK entity was not the same then as today. -- Kleinzach 00:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last point by Kleinzach is an extremely good and important point: The article as it stands is simply incorrect. It should be moved. The only question seems to me to be what it should be moved to. Keeping it as it is is not accurate and should not be an option.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a sort of logic there. On coinage, Victoria and her successors carried the title Ind. Imp. (Emperor or Empress of India) until after the Second World War. I'm not citing coinage as an arbiter here (if so we'd have to include "Defender of the Faith", a title granted to Henry VIII by Pope Leo in 1521, and still proudly displayed on the coins of our protestant country). However it's a reminder that Victoria was queen of a lot more than just a few soggy, windy islands. The title "Victoria of the United Kingdom" is perhaps a little misleading. --Tony Sidaway 11:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The borders and the name of the Polish state when Boleslaw I of Poland was on the throne are not same as that of Poland when John II Casimir of Poland was the monarch. I don't suspect that anyone would claim that this is misleading. In this case United Kingdom was used informally for the state both before and after Irish partition. Jooler 16:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Poland is a proper noun, the United Kingdom is not. In any case we are not just talking about shifting borders. -- Kleinzach 01:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Of course 'United Kingdom' is a proper noun. That's why it's in caps! The same with 'Queen Victoria' for that matter. Shifted borders and shifted political structure and shifted name. Jooler 14:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. WP:NC is a policy and while more detailed conventions even if only guidelines often take precedence over its general principles, this is a case of a very commonly understood term and the underlying principle should prevail. Andrewa 16:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: There is a redirect, and it works perfectly fine for all those people looking for "Queen Victoria". As always, this is a matter of internal content organisation, and I strongly support the current naming conventions; I have even learnt them well enough (not a hard thing to do) to be looking for all monarchs' articles by writing these titles in the search box (unless in a hurry). In addition, there has been another queen called Victoria, and "ignoring" her in this fashion would not be good, not good at all, I say. Waltham, The Duke of 12:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' Wikipedia isn't about what is "fair" to dead queens. There are exceptions to every rule and also the other Victoria is titled Victoria of Baden here on Wikipedia. Charles 13:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-poll comments

Whenever in the past, Wikipedia conventions have been ignored and it has been decided to move monarchs to the "most common" name or the "correct" name, it has led to confusion. This has happened with the Japanese emperors and with the Polish monarchs. In both cases the results were worse than using the WP convention; in the case of the Japanese emperors, even the proponents of the moves eventually admitted so. I am glad that commonsense has prevailed in this case -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy this proposal failed. Had King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden died and his daughter ascended their throne as Queen Victoria of Sweden? We'd had to put this article back to Victoria of the United Kingdom. GoodDay 23:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, we would not have had to. There is primary usage to take into account. Crown Princess Victoria would be at Victoria of Sweden. Charles 01:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we would have: Victoria would have remained an ambigous page. The British monarch Victoria has 'no right' to the name, over others. We would've had two monarch articles correctly titled - Victoria of the United Kingdom and Victoria of Sweden. GoodDay 15:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correctly titled? According to...? Last time I checked, we had guidelines and conventions which were conflicting. The British Victoria is most known as Queen Victoria. Until Victoria of Sweden ascends the throne and then becomes known better by that name (she probably will not be as I don't see an Swedish empire or era being named for her), the name "belongs" to Victoria (of the UK). Wikipedia is not an arbiter of what is fair between monarchs who are dead and crown princesses who are not monarchs. Charles 15:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Howabout this, let's wait until Carl XVI Gustaf dies (which due to his family's history of longevity, may be another 30+ years) or abdicates & his daughter succeeds the Swedish throne (assuming she uses Victoria as her regnal name). Then, we'll see how things turn out, OK? GoodDay 18:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a ridiculous response. Where else has that been done on Wikipedia? Unreasonable at the least. Charles 19:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we won't wait -- See Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom for an example. She's alot more known then Elisabeth II of Bohemia (yes a slight different spelling). Yet, her article isn't Elizabeth II. GoodDay 21:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But there's no reason why it couldn't be: Elizabeth II redirects to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom without any controversy.--Father Goose 08:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must take issue with Derek Ross's claim that Wikipedia conventions have been ignored and it has been decided to move monarchs to the "most common" name or the "correct" name. Placing articles at the most common name is the Wikipedia convention. Nevertheless this discussion is over and I accept that there is no consensus for what turned out to be a disconcertingly controversial, if obvious, move. --Tony Sidaway 12:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've only just come across this nonsense and can't believe my eyes. Reading the discussion above, my impression is that the consensus is for Queen Victoria. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria's name?

Although christened Alexandrina Victoria - and from birth formally styled Her Royal Highness Princess Victoria of Kent - Victoria was called Drina within the family.

'Her name, though finally agreed upon as Victoria Carolina, was disputed over by her mother and uncles.

Alexandrina or Caroline? 87.250.113.209 16:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That Carolina was left over from some vandalism † DBD 18:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional monarchy?

Though Victoria became monarch at a time when the United Kingdom had become an established constitutional monarchy in which the King or Queen held few political powers

As far as I know GB - for lack of any constitution - is not a constitutional but a parliamentary monarchy. The German Kaiserreich was a constitutionl monarchy for instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.141.215.216 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 23 December 2007

First of all, hi and welcome to the 'pædia! Secondly, you can sign your posts (which lets people when you posted), by typing ~~~~ — you can do so without logging in, but, if you're planning on sticking around, you might want to get an account. To address your point, I think you ought to read the definition of the term constitutional monarchy, as given at the term's article. Enjoy! † DBD 23:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from William Hamilton (criminal)

I have suggested that William Hamilton (criminal) be merged to this article, because he is notable for only one event per WP:BIO1E. So far as I can see, the article on Queen Victoria covers him in as much detail as his own article, so his own article is redundant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, lets do it. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, though the article says nothing not here already so all I have done is the redirect. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Film apparence of this page

Sorry for my english. Hi all, this page of wikipedia apparence in a fotogram of film National Treasure: Book of Secrets in a Laptop. The fotogram is in a 00:34:14 "film time". Bye :-)--Conte0 (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This artice looks TERRIBLE

This article looks like complete and utter crap. I have edited several times the layout of images only to have users with no taste shove any image into the mix with no regard for layout.

--Mrlopez2681 (talk) 05:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Article

I think that the articles name be changed to Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland which correct form of address. Just saying United Kingdom is confusing as there were United Kingdoms of different countries at that time although Great Britain and Ireland was the most notable. Ruairidhbevan (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been talked to death with respect to other articles on UK monarchs post-1707. There is only one United Kingdom by that name, and the long established practice is not to put "King" "Queen" "Prince" etc. in front of any royal's name. If you want to dispute it, take it to Wikipedia:Naming conventions fishhead64 (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland

This section is quite confusing. At first we're told Victoria "fell in love with Ireland", then the rest of the section describes her indifference to the people and the place. Perhaps I'm missing something? -MichiganCharms (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly inconsistant - I'm not sure which of her feelings is accurate. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It also claims that she spent her holidays County Kerry but then goes on to make multiple staements about her refusal to visit or establish a residence there (which might conflict with the status of Hillsborough Castle as a royal residence) -MichiganCharms (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These events are beyond my knowledge; Cameron may be better suited for straightening these things out. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Article makes it clear that she liked at first but her relationship with Ireland soured in the 1870's and 80's. By royal residence the article means a personal residence equivilent to Balmoral and Osbourne not a property attached to the Crown. When she holidayed in County Kerry she stayed in Muckross House ,a property neither attached to the Crown nor a personal property. Ruairidhbevan (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Famine

The article mentions 2000 sterling QV gave to Irish people, but fails to mention that she refused Ottoman's aid of 10000 stg and allowed only 1000. IMAO quite important, see Irish Potato Famine --79.97.214.191 (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, feel free to add it + source if you think it's important :) – Toon(talk) 14:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Disraeli?

There appears to be no mention of Victoria's friendship with Benjamin Disraeli, which I've heard was very important to her after Albert's death. If there's mention of John Brown, surely Disraeli should be a part of the article as well? Someone with greater knowledge in this area could possibly integrate him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.238.32 (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Native language

The article says she was a native German speaker. Surely this is misleading if not outright false. Her (main) native language was English. Peter jackson (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation

I just thought I'd point out an excellent source now that The Times has opened up its archive for free (I think for a limited time only, and it requires registration for some articles), but Victoria's coronation is described here. I haven't got the time to go through it myself, as I'm off on holiday tomorrow and have to pack, but hopefully someone can put it to good use.

As an aside, I would like to take this time to mention an excellent paragraph from the report on the coronation:

One ludicrous circumstance occurred which may be worth mentioning. For some time a bird of large dimensions had been observed flying backwards and forwards, and then to hover over the Palace so frequently, as to call for the peculiar notice of a coterie of elderly ladies, who chanced to have esconced themselves in our own particular neighbourhodd, one of whom, after much examination and apparent inward consultation, pronounced it to be a goose. To describe the instant expression of horror which rushed upon the faces of those ladies would be to attempt a task on which failure must attend. "What !" exclaimed they in one voice–" what ! a goose; lor, you don't say so." "But I do," continued the first named, " and I am quite confident of it ; it is a goose, poor dear soul." "Ay, ay, well may you say poor dear soul. Well, there's no saying anything for a certainty beforehand, is there? Who'd have thought it, that a nasty, ugly, long-necked (and here the lady somewhat stretched out her own neck, which could neither boast of plumpness nor of shortness) goose should have been fated to mar the happy events of this day! There will surely be some accident, or the poor dear soul, God bless her, will not long survive the ceremony." To this prediction the friends one and all assented with open mouths, one of them adding, that probably so lamentable a result might be averted, if any man would only shoot the wretch.

Apologies for the length, I just found it amusing. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 14:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Succession

Victoria succeeded to the throne on the death of her uncle, William IV. But he had several living younger brothers at the time. One of them went on to become King of Hanover, another had been the viceroy in Hanover during William's reign. Why were they passed over as Kings of the UK? - Wolfram.Tungsten (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because Edward Augustus, Duke of Kent (Victoria's father) was the eldest to have issue. Succession is via the brother, then his children. Hence, if Edward had had no children, the crown would have passed to the next youngest brother (and his children). fishhead64 (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Children and grand-children and great-grand children, she overlived

Who are the children, grand-children and great-grand children, that Victoria overlived ? What are there reasons for there early death ? --AndreaMimi (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"She outlived 3 of her 9 children, and came within seven months of outliving a fourth (her eldest daughter, Vicky, who died of spinal cancer in August 1901 aged 60. She outlived 11 of her 42 grandchildren (two stillborn, six as children, and three as adults), and 3 of her 88 great-grandchildren." (quote from the article)

It can be possible, that a woman - Queen or not ;) - outlived one of her children. But whats about the grand - and great-grandchildren ? Why did the died so early ? --AndreaMimi (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria never outlived one of her great-grand children. Some of the them were born and died in childhood or in early years, but after the time when her great-grand mother lived.

I looked at the articles and find the truth out. --AndreaMimi (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Victoria of the United Kingdom/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Gary King (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the article again. Besides the 5 [citation needed] tags I have left, is there anything major that would prevent a GAN? Nergaal (talk) 04:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's up to whoever decides to review this next. I haven't gone through all of the text but it's probably wise to do so at least once before resubmitting. Gary King (talk) 04:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues have not been addressed so this article has failed its nomination Gary King (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Victoria of the United Kingdom/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
  • References needed:
    • "However, the Melbourne ministry would not stay in power for long;..."
    • "Albert became not only the Queen's companion, but also an important political advisor, replacing Lord Melbourne as the dominant figure in the first half of her life."
    • "The shooting had no effect on the Queen's health nor on her pregnancy and the first of the royal couple's nine children, named Victoria, was born on 21 November 1840."
    • "The story of their relationship was the subject of the 1997 movie Mrs. Brown."
  • For reference "Giles St. Aubyn (1992). Queen Victoria. Hodder & Stoughton, p. 14-199. ISBN 978-0340571095." please specify the individual pages rather than using a page range that spans more than a hundred pages; the reason is so that people don't have to flip through all those pages to find the one that the citation uses
  • remove self referential comments such as "See also Victoria (disambiguation).[2]"
  • "Further reading" last name ascending order

Gary King (talk) 06:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Referenced the above, I've made the refs more specific too... I'm pretty sure that they are correct, but are from my notes, as I no longer have the books, so tiny possibility that they aren't perfect. Taken out the self referential bits. All that's left on that list is the organisation of the Further Reading bit... I'll do that tomorrow, unless someone else fancies it. – Toon(talk) 01:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That part should be done now. Nergaal (talk) 02:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
En dashes for page ranges. Gary King (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Nergaal's taken care of it. – Toon(talk) 12:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the non-existent category "Empresses of India"
  • "# Her bridesmaids were the Ladies Adelaide Paget, Sarah Child Villiers, Frances Cowper, Elizabeth West, Mary Grimston, Eleanora Paget, Caroline Gordon-Lennox, Elizabeth Howard, Ida Hay, Catherine Stanhope, Jane Pleydell-Bouverie and Mary Howard" is mostly red links; consider unlinking most of those
  • "Biographical details" can surely be converted to prose. It's mostly bulleted points right now.
  • The navbox in " Ancestry" should be moved to the bottom with the others
  • Remove period from image captions that are not full sentences, such as "Queen Victoria and Prince Albert in a photograph taken in 1854 before an evening Court."

Gary King (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed all of the above, with the exception of the "Ancestry" bit. I think it's more encyclopaedic than a standard navbox, and it seems to be the standard to have it in the main body; if you look at the FAs William III of England, George I of the United Kingdom, William IV of the United Kingdom and even Edward III of England - it seems to be the convention in modern monarchs whose liniage is known. I hope that's OK with you  :) Oh, and I'm probably going to be without internet access for the next few days at least, so won't be able to address other concerns - but I'm sure Nergaal will. Best, – Toon(talk) 22:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should also say that I integrated most of the "biographical" info a few days ago, but my browser went wonky so I couldn't remove the remaining section. It was just a trivia section dressed as lamb. – Toon(talk) 22:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering where did that go. And you are right; what is not already in the article now was simply trivia. Ah, and one more thing: I really like how the article is starting to look. Nergaal (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • the following reference is dead: "A Royal Icon - The Machin Stamp"
the HTML version still seems to be working, I've changed the link. – Toon(talk) 09:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nope Nergaal (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do the single square brackets represent...? Gary King (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • be consistent with multiple page numbers please; "p. 161–165" should be "pp. 161–165" like the others
  • "24 May 1819–20 June 1837" → "24 May 1819 – 20 June 1837"
  • the em dashes in the article are spaced when they should not be; either use spaced en dashes or unspaced em dashes

Gary King (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside the dead ref and the images I believe I've solved everything. I am not sure how to solve the ref though. Nergaal (talk) 05:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the grandmother of Europe." → "the grandmother of Europe". per WP:PUNC (move the period outside the quotes; happens several times in the article)

Gary King (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok Nergaal (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting is used strangely in the article. For example, why is "Regency Act 1830" italicized?
I am not sure to what are you referring, but I solved this specific example
  • "; from" → ", from"
typo
  • copyedit the article please. examples:
    • "The younger sons of George III did not expect to figure in the line of succession to the throne of Britain, and as such showed little interest in marriage, but when Princess Charlotte Augusta of Wales, the future George IV's only legitimate child and George III's only legitimate grandchild, died from post-natal complications in 1817 after delivering a stillborn son, although George III had twelve surviving children, there were no grandchild-heirs remaining." really long sentence
    • "Her godparents were The Prince Regent (her paternal uncle); the Russian Tsar (Alexander I, her fourth cousin (in whose honor she received her first name); The Princess Royal (her paternal aunt); and The Dowager Duchess of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld (her maternal grandmother). " → the semicolons can be converted to commas as there aren't any other uses for commas in that sentence
Used ; because it is a really long sentence. Nergaal (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the Throne" → "the throne" – "throne" seems to be capitalized throughout the article, but I think it should be lowercased?
    • Does "(The fourth child of George III, Charlotte, Princess Royal, though not in line for the throne before her brothers, had died in 1828.)[8]" really need to be in parenthesis?
    • "Although William IV was the father of ten illegitimate children by his mistress, the actress Dorothy Jordan, he had no surviving legitimate children." – "although" probably not the best word to link the two clauses, since just because he had illegitimate children doesn't mean he would or would not have legitimate children

Gary King (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do the changed versions read? Nergaal (talk) 07:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bump Nergaal (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bumpiest bump! Nergaal (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passing Gary King (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Descent

Could somebody please make more sense out of this sentence: Victoria, who was entirely of German descent, was the granddaughter of George III, the niece of her predecessor William IV, and a descendant of most major European royal houses. Thanks. --Ben T/C 08:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you could explain which part of the sentence doesn't make sense - is it the "descendant of most major European royal houses" bit? Would "was related by blood to most reigning European royal families" make more sense? I'm note sure, however, whether that's gramatically correct... – Toon(talk) 00:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for leaving the message on my talk page. I'll tell you what seemed confusing to me. The statement is not necessarily self-contradicting, maybe I am just missing out on it, I admit I am fairly naive on European royal houses. First it says Victoria was entirely of German descent, then it says she was niece of an earlier English king, then that she descended from most major (whatever that means) European royal houses. So, my confusion is, is she entirely of German descent or of more international? Was king William IV also of German descent? Are all major (whatever) European houses German? Are the German royal houses where she descended from 100 percent German? Is it possible to say one royal family is German or aren't they all completely mixed up? To sum up, maybe there's just too much in one sentence. The major and the entirely German part look too general to me. Ben T/C 02:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, entirely German is incorrect, she's got some woman ancester who isn't I do believe... not entirely sure who though. The thing about the British Royal Family is that they are... well... not that British. Royal families and Monarchies are ridiculously complex. See, Victoria was part of the House of Hanover, (the last British Monarch of that house, actually), which came to power in Britain with George I of Great Britain, because (as that excellent article explains), he was the deceased Queen Anne's closest living Protestant relative (we took a disliking to the Catholics during the 1600s and banned them from coming to power in the Act of Settlement 1701). As you may or may not be aware, there's a lot of inbreeding which takes place across Royal families - they tend not to marry ordinary folk, so there comes a point where, after hundreds of years of only marrying Royalty, everyone's related to everyone - in fact, Victoria's husband Albert was her cousin, and also a German - but I digress.
If you look at this handy "Ancestry" section, you'll see that George II, her German great-great-grandfather married a German, and so-on down to Victoria's parents. Actually that chart pretty much covers it.
So to sum up: All of the British Monarchs from George I were pure German and married pure Germans, but did speak English and rule Britain. Also, the German Royalty got around, so in one way or another everyone's related. Although I believe that "major" families is probably a little subjective on the part of Aubyn, the author we are citing, so I may just remove that bit. It's a little trivial anyway. Hope that clears it up somewhat, although I must admit that I'm not even 100% sure I understand everything. – Toon(talk) 03:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your explanation. Yeah, I didn't check the dedicated section in the article. I think what you say, simplifying the statement, would be a great improvement. Let me add, instead of German descent, House of Hanover would be more clear, also. Ben T/C 19:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, she's not almost entirely of the House of Hanover - while all of her relatives are German, they aren't all of the HoH. :) – Toon(talk) 20:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol --Ben T/C 07:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

marriage

wasent marrying at 21 in those days considered quiet late? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.88.158 (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was even considered quite early. Most royal women married in their early twenties. Her first cousin, Princess Augusta of Cambridge, also married at the age of 21. Her other first cousin, Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge, married at the age of 33. Surtsicna (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

21 was not old but it was fairly late, princess married when they were in their teenage years from about 15-20 was seen as the proper age for a young lady to marry. Victoria herself probably married late at 21 because she enjoyed her independence during her early youth (18-21). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.88.158 (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you seriously believe that 15-20 was seen as the proper age for a lady to marry? Please stop saying non-sense, someone could believe you. British princesses never married as teenagers and Victoria did not marry late. As I said, she was considered quite young when she married. Surtsicna (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


If anybody is talking nonsense it is you. Most British princesses married as teenagers and 21 was considered fairly late. Victoria's own daughters; Victoria married at 16, Alice at 19, Helena at 19. Alexandra of Denmark was 18 and Victoria's grandchildren married as a teenagers. (Marie of Edinburgh was 17, Alexandra of Edinburgh was 19, Charlotte of Prussia was 17, Victoria Eugenie, Queen of Spain, was 19) --Melaniegreyton (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can all of you involved in this discussion please remember that article talk pages are meant to discuss changes and improvements to the articles. Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion about the subjects of the articles. If you want to compare how many of the British Princesses married before and after the age of 21, I would suggest you check the links found in the {{British princesses}} template.
If you want to continue this discussion please do so on your user talk pages or even discuss this outside of Wikipedia entirely. If you still need help in finding an answer to your questions, please consult the Reference Desk. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

Is there a reason for using 'advise' rather than 'advice' in the second paragraph of the introduction? AJSG (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a simple spelling error. I have fixed it now, but feel free to correct any others you find. Road Wizard (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Engagement?

this doesn't say when they were engaged. how long was the time between their engagement and wedding? 69.139.230.251 (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1863 photograph at Balmoral

Just wondered if the editors of this article wanted to make use of this work? --Mais oui! (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:PGP R 884.jpg
Queen Victoria on 'Fyvie' with John Brown at Balmoral, by George Washington Wilson, 1863; medium: carte de visite, size: 9.20 x 6.10 cm; from the collection of the National Galleries of Scotland

Saxe-Coburg-Gotha

It is very dubious whether there was ever such a thing (in Britain) as the "House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha". While Albert certainly was a scion of that dynasty, Victoria was the head of the household in Britain by virtue of her status as monarch (witness her proposal of marriage to Albert), and to that extent the dynasty was transmitted through her, not Albert, and the House of Hanover lived on in Edward VII, and lives on today. albeit under a different name. Escoville (talk) 10:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No scholar finds the fact that Victoria was the last member of the House of Hanover to reign in the UK dubious. The dynasty name was traditionally transmitted through men and that was undisputably the case with Albert and Victoria: she passed the crown, he passed the house name. Furthermore, King Edward VII recognized House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha as his royal house and so did George V when he changed the name of the house to House of Windsor. Surtsicna (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duchess of Saxony, yes or no? This should be a title for the pre-Windsors, right?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Queen_Victoria&oldid=271768276"