Talk:Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | |
Some small information about Adelaide's name at: [1] Avochelm 13:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I changed her name to the proper Germanic spelling. In my opinion this is more correct than "Anglosizing" her name. SauliH 21:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Cleaned up a few minor typos and reworded the "marriage" section.--Marysunshine 02:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Added some links -- please note much of the wording prior to my edit is similar to this site, right down to a typo in "Victoria of Saxe-Cobourg-Saalfeld." I don't know where the source of that material is (possibly Wikipedia?), but the TOS doesn't make this clear.--Marysunshine 02:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Why is her name not given in its German form of Adelheid anywhere in the article? See <http://www.meiningermuseen.de/adelheid.html> Adelaide is the anglicised (or rather frenchified) form by which she was known as Queen Consort of England, but her name back home was Adelheid.Peter Bell (talk) 09:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
There has been no comment on this in over two months, so I have added the German form of her name. It was in the article originally, but disappeared in an edit in February 2007. Peter Bell (talk) 08:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Princess of the United Kingdom
Created from edit comments
She was never a English or British princess -- Wehwalt 20:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- She was a British princess, by marriage to the Duke of Clarence -- DBD 10:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Clarence's title as Royal Duke was superior to that of prince. Princess formed no part of Adelaide's title as his wife -- Wehwalt 12:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- However, the Duke of Clarence was still a Prince of the United Kingdom, therefore his wife, upon marriage, became a Princess of the United Kingdom, although her style was HRH The Duchess of Clarence. Princess formed no part of Adelaide's style as his wife, but she still as one -- DBD 20:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- I guess. It doesn't seem to be worth arguing about. Throw it back in. If Adelaide complains, we will reconsider. Though by that logic, the Duchess of Windsor was a princess too (I haven't looked)--Wehwalt 20:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- I concur - this is, of course, just a minor detail, but it should still be correct. You're correct that by taht logic, the Duchess of Windsor would have been a Princess, but George VI denied her that title. -- DBD 21:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, what George denied her was the title "Her Royal Highness". Not QUITE the same as being a princess. I don't think the two are contiguous. Technically, Camilla is a princess, though she chooses not to use the title.--Wehwalt 02:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- The implication of the denial was that the Duchess of Windsor was not a Princess. As to Camilla, she chooses not to use the title "Princess of Wales." The "Princess of the UK" title, which she certainly has as much as any other spouse of a prince, she no more "chooses not to use" than the Duchess of Gloucester or the Duchess of Kent does. john k 19:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, what George denied her was the title "Her Royal Highness". Not QUITE the same as being a princess. I don't think the two are contiguous. Technically, Camilla is a princess, though she chooses not to use the title.--Wehwalt 02:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- I concur - this is, of course, just a minor detail, but it should still be correct. You're correct that by taht logic, the Duchess of Windsor would have been a Princess, but George VI denied her that title. -- DBD 21:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- I guess. It doesn't seem to be worth arguing about. Throw it back in. If Adelaide complains, we will reconsider. Though by that logic, the Duchess of Windsor was a princess too (I haven't looked)--Wehwalt 20:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- However, the Duke of Clarence was still a Prince of the United Kingdom, therefore his wife, upon marriage, became a Princess of the United Kingdom, although her style was HRH The Duchess of Clarence. Princess formed no part of Adelaide's style as his wife, but she still as one -- DBD 20:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Clarence's title as Royal Duke was superior to that of prince. Princess formed no part of Adelaide's title as his wife -- Wehwalt 12:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Consort Box
I think the Consort Box should include Prince Albert, just as it includes George of Denmark (see Caroline of Ansbach, with the title in the box changing accordingly - this also occurs with Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Also, we ought to decide on whether to use "Consort to the Monarch of X" "Consorts to British monarchs" "Queen Consort of X"/"Prince Consort of X" - I would think the latter... -- DBD 15:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- If Philip and George are included, so should be Albert. john k 19:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Good. I am glad this discussion has started. What about "Spouses of Reigning British Monarchs"? Keep in mind, Philip is NOT Prince Consort, let alone Queen Consort. Albert was given the title by Letters Patent, uniquely. But it should not remain Queen Consort--Albert was not a Queen Consort.--Wehwalt 13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] William's posthumous child?
This article says that Adelaide was pregnant when William IV died, but it's not mentioned here. If she was pregnant, then how did Victoria become Queen (unless the child is stillborn)? Is this true? 87.250.116.18 (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- You misread it, I think. What it means is that the Oaths that were taken on Victoria's accession meant "We swear loyalty to Victoria, but IF Adelaide is pregnant and gives birth, then that child is Queen/King." In the event, of course, Adelaide was not pregnant. This language, if I recall correctly, was prescribed by the Regency Act of 1831, and Adelaide was only 38 then. The next time the situation came up, with Elizabeth II, they didn't bother with the language, but Elizabeth could have been dispossessed by a posthumous son.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
