Talk:Henrietta Anne Stuart

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

	England Portal This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

I added a reference to Saint-Simon's account of poisoning, and deleted "An autopsy was performed, however, and it was reporteded that Henrietta-Anne had died of peritonitis caused by a perforated ulcer" as I can find no other source for this and every account I've read says she was poisoned. The claim needs to be supported. Rogermexico 23:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe I first read about her autopsy in The King My Brother by Cyril Hughes Hartmann although I don't have the page number. I did a Google Book Search, and found that the autopsy is mentioned on page 239 of The History of Gastroenterology. Therefore, I am restoring the omitted sentence.--*Kat* 07:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh. Didn't know that. Thanks, in any case, for leaving it as "it was reported". It seems pretty much everyone at the time was convinced she was poisoned, including certainly our good duchess herself. I'd never heard of the autopsy before (and I wonder if that was the actual finding or something to offset the rumors). Interesing. Rogermexico 03:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No arguements about that. But think about it: Henrietta had been feeling horrible, just horrible for weaks prior to her death. Yes, she traveled to England and back, but I don't think she would have gone had anybody other than her brother been waiting for her there. She had horrible stomach pains all the way there. Furthermore, one of her daughters died of the same thing that killed Henrietta. Poisoning doesn't really make sense. --*Kat* 23:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orléans

It looks like that Henrietta Anne Stuart was at one point moved by cut and paste to Henrietta Anne of England, Duchess of Orleans, and from there with a proper move to Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orléans. Because of the cut and paste move the history of this page was corrupted, and had to be repaired.
There was also an old vandalism issues: the page was first vandalized, then moved by cut and paste taking the vandalism along in the process, and moved again. Because the history was corrupted that old vandalism was no longer evident from the history.
The old vandalism has now been reverted, and the history has been repaired. I also moved the page back to its original name, Henrietta Anne Stuart. Reason for that is that according to Wikipedia naming conventions common names should be used, and a quick google search revealed that Henrietta Anne Stuart is far more common than Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orléans.
Because the vandal had removed information on marriage and children, and Adam sk put in the mean time a table with information about her children some of that information is now duplicated. But since the original information was more complete than Adam sk's table I left it at that, and I am going leave it to someone else to take out any redundancy. JdH 15:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naming this article

btw: This naming business is really complicated; according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) "Where they have no substantive title, use the form "{title} {name} of {country}," e.g., Princess Irene of Greece. Use only the highest prefix title the person ever held. Deceased royal consorts should not have a title mentioned, e.g., Anne of Denmark. Using royal titles for more junior royals will enable users to distinguish between royal consorts and others. A prefix title can be used only when it was held and used by the person. This means that roughly before the 17th century, prince/ss would not be prefixed automatically.". On the basis of that it actually appears that the preferred title would be Henrietta Anne of England. JdH 19:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with that. By naming her Henrietta Anne Stuart, it makes her look as if she was queen-consort. She was Duchess of Orléans by marriage, I think the name "Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orléans" is quite proper and in compliance with our rules on naming nobility. She is not that well known IMO that she can go under another name. Gryffindor 09:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) and substantive title. Eventhough the naming conventions are mostly gobbledigook it is unequivocal in this case: it states the following:

substantive title (or substantive peerage) is a title of nobility or royalty held by someone (normally by one person alone), which they gained through either grant or inheritance, as opposed to one given or loaned to them either as a courtesy title, or gained through marriage.

So "Prince of Wales", or "Princess Royal" would be a substantive title. However, the title "Duchess of Orléans" was acquired through marriage, and is therefore not a substantive title. Therefore, in this case the maiden name should be used, i.e.: Henrietta Anne of England. JdH 14:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree as well- Henrietta Anne of England would be the proper usage here. I vonH 02:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of issues at hand here. First, I am unsure it it was common for the Stuart princes and princesses to be styled "of England" on a general basis. If that were the case, she would be Princess Henrietta Anne of England. Now, for the fact that non-consort princesses are sometimes put at their full premarital title, that could be the case with Henrietta Anne Stuart if it is found that she was generally not styled as a Princess of England. Remember, titles were not laid down until the Hanoverian monarchs came to Britain. It has been Wikipedia practice to accord marital titles to some women (for whichever reasons). Due to this and many unanswered questions, I felt that Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orléans, while maybe not prescribed by the guidelines, was not incorrect as a title. Charles 20:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right: naming royals in Wikipedia is complete anarchy, everybody seems to follow his/her own rule. I think we have to follow Wikipedia rules as close as we can, to avoid inconsistencies from getting even worse than they already are. The way I understand Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) is that there are 2 rules that may apply here.
The first is: "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem.". As I explained above, this rule leads to Henrietta Anne Stuart.
The other rule is under Other royals: "Where they have no substantive title, use the form "{title} {name} of {country}," e.g., Princess Irene of Greece [....] A prefix title can be used only when it was held and used by the person. This means that roughly before the 17th century, prince/ss would not be prefixed automatically". Applying this rule leads to Henrietta Anne of England; we don't need the Princess because that "17th century" applies here. There are many instances that follow the same rule, such as Princess Anne of England ("Princess" is necessary here to avoid confusion with Queen Anne), Catherine of Aragon, Henrietta Maria of France, Maria Luisa of Orléans, Anne Marie of Orléans, Maria Beatrice of Savoy, Marie Elisabeth of Saxony etc etc, so I don't see a valid reason why an exception should be made in this case.
Personally I would prefer Henrietta Anne Stuart, because it is most commonly used, but it is best to stick to the rules. JdH 23:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, the seventeenth century encompassed the 1600s. Just like the year 2007 is a part of the 21st century. Furthermore, she was referred to as the Princess Henrietta in both the English and Venetian the calendars of the time. ---*Kat* 01:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what "roughly before the 17th century" exactly means, but the question really is: Was she at the time addressed as "Princess" or not? If you have evidence that she was then she should be called Princess Henrietta Anne of England JdH 04:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Henrietta Anne Stuart would be a sensible title. I think in situations like this, where we are before the time when Princess Henrietta Anne of England would have been used, this makes the most sense. john k

I agree. Reveals the family name at first glance, doesn't graft title we are not sure where ever used "Princess" and avoids giving her a marrital title. I think its the ideal title. User:Dimadick

I think this is a complex question: the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which I take to be the most scholarly source on this type of topic, lists her as "Henriette Anne [formerly Henrietta], Princess, duchess of Orléans" and then labels the portrait of her as "Princess Henriette Anne" and refers to her as "Henriette Anne" throughout the course of the article. I don't know how this fits in with the Wikipedia guidelines, but, slavishly copying the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, I would call the main article "Princess Henriette Anne" and have the first line read "Henriette Anne [formerly Henrietta], Princess, duchess of Orléans". Adam_sk 04:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica has Henrietta Anne Of England, so I am not sure what conclusion to draw from the most scholarly source argument. JdH 13:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Van Dyck Portrait Misidentitifed?

I believe the image alleged to be Henrietta Anne as an infant is improperly identified. I have seen images of the original painting, for which (or from which) the image in this article appears to be a sketch. The portrait is titled "Children of Charles I" and is dated approximately 1635, which puts the children at about the right ages depicted. The portrait depicts Charles, Prince of Wales, Mary, the future Princess of Orange, and the baby is actually James, Duke of York. Therefore I think it proper to remove that particular image, and perhaps even place it in the entry for James II of England.

MDiPaolo (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)MDiPaolo, 01/24/08

More to the point, Van Dyck died (1641) before she was born (1644). The image also seems to me to be a C19th sketch after a painting. It should go anyway. Johnbod (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)