Talk:Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
	An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on November 17, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 30, 2007 Good article nominee Listed January 22, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

	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.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

[edit] Naming dispute

I disagree with the changing of this page's name. Princess Beatrice was never known as 'Princess Beatrice, Princess Henry of Battenburg', she was known as either 'Princess Henry of Battenburg' or simply 'Princess Beatrice'. In fact the name of this page is just wrong. The other Princess Beatrice is never known as Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom, but 'of York', and I don't think a change was necessary. I can't work out how to change the name back, can someone do it for me please if they agree. Thanks --Berks105 19:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If she was styled "Princess Beatrice" or "Princess Henry of Battenburg", why put in this of the United Kingdom business? Was that an official title? I guess if it was, the page should go back there with a disambig link at the top, but otherwise try to think of a better location. — SteveRwanda 09:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

As she was born as the daughter of a reigning monarch, she was titled as HRH The Princess Beatrice; this means she was Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom. Upon her marriage, she assumed the name of her husband (as do almost all married women), and became Princess Henry of Battenberg, and she retained that title until 1917, when George V dropped all Germanic titles from the British royal family. She voluntarily relinquished her titles as Pss Henry of B, and returned to her pre-marital title of HRH The Princess Beatrice as she was still the daughter of a reigning monarch. Prsgoddess187 11:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, I understand that, but it still seems a little contrived to use "of the United Kingdom" as the means of differentiating her from Princess Beatrice of York. For example, I'm Stephen Holt of the United Kingdom but in the unlikely event of my having a Wikpedia article, you wouldn't title it Stephen Holt of the United Kingdom, just to disambiguate me from the other Stephen Holt (of Australia)... According to WP:DAB the article should be Princess Beatrice (some description). — SteveRwanda 11:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You're not Stephen Holt of the United Kingdom, though (unless you've made a rather odd name change by Deed Poll), whereas Beatrice was Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom, because she was a Princess of the United Kingdom. Proteus (Talk) 13:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That may not be my official name, but it's an accurate description. So my question remains - is this Beatrice somehow officially titled as a Princess of the United Kingdom while Princess Beatrice of York is not? If so, I'm perfectly happy for the article to go back to where it was and I apologise for the error, but if they're both Princesses of the United Kingdom then surely a disambig is needed. — SteveRwanda 13:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

They're both Princesses of the United Kingdom, but Princess Beatrice of York is not styled as such because she has an "of York" to use. "of the United Kingdom" is the default, used when there's nothing else available. (And an "accurate description" would be "Stephen Holt from the United Kingdom", since "of" implies some kind of official position or representation, but this is all rather beside the point.) Proteus (Talk) 14:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Royal Princesses should be at their pre-marital name. It's not quite a universal standard yet in Wikipedia though. Astrotrain 15:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with the above comments by Proteus. This current title does not make any sense, and should be changed back to what it was before. There is no need for a disambiguation, but perhaps a note at the top could be used. I suggest this is changed asap. --Berks105 14:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The previous title made no sense either, so it's best you/we come up with a new one, which is to the point and unambiguous. By the argument above (that they're both princesses of the UK but one is of York so she can use that title while the other uses the generic of the UK title), you could just as well place the article at Princess Beatrice, but I assume you're not considering that because it's against WP:DAB. I'm simply arguing that Princes Beatrice of the United Kingdom is similarly flawed. As a reader of the article I was confused by this, and I imagine other people will also be. — SteveRwanda 17:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup, totally confused by the fact that she looks about sixty in the image and that she was born in the nineteenth century!? I agree with the move back to the Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom. 18:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the easiest way to solve this problem is to put a DAB sentence at the top of both articles. The one for this article could read This is the article about the daughter of Queen Victoria. For the daughter of Prince Andrew, Duke of York, see Princess Beatrice of York. That way is anyone else gets confused, they can be directed to the correct page. Prsgoddess187 19:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I concede defeat! I've got an admin to move the article back to Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom and added the dablink at the top. I don't think one is neeeded on Princess Beatrice of York, though, because that really is an unambiguous title. Sorry to have bothered y'all . — SteveRwanda 13:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom" you've got to be kidding me. This is just another astonishing example of Wikipedia perpetuating horribly incorrect information. She was never ever known offically or unoffically as Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom. Not a single reputable example can be sourced for EVER styling her as Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom. She was certainly a Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland but this was never used as part of her offical title.

You simply can't give a person any old title you want because another person has a similar name. I'm rather certain that anyone literate enough to use Wikipedia will figure out within seconds of reaching this article that is not about Princess Beatrice of York. It's rather obvious that The Princess Beatrice is the long deceased daughter of Queen Victoria. We can't make excuses for knowingly including erros.

We shouldn't use incorrect information to make things easier. This is supposed to be a factual article. The British Royal Family didn't use "of the United Kingdom" as a title even during the days of Queen Victoria. In fact, it's never ever been used.

I'm of the opinion that if you don't know what the offical title was of a person that you shouldn't be contributing to the part of the article that concern the title.

I also disagree with the notion that a women should be listed by her birth name. Would an article about HM The Queen Elizabeth II be correct if it was listed as HRH Princess Elizabeth of York? Certainly not!

A decision should be made to list the article under The Princess Beatrice or as Princess Henry of Battenberg. "Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom" shouldn't even be an option, because it was this was never her title and is inaccurate. 76.105.150.19 09:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Queen Brandissima

It is convention for an unmarried daughter of a sovereign of this country to take the style of the United Kingdom. Beatrice was married, but after the disposal of German names, styles and titles during the First World War, her style reverted back to her birth style, as if she had never been married at all. Therefore, it is perfectly appropriate to have this article at Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom, following the example of Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom, the unmarried daughter of Edward VII and Queen Alexandra. PeterSymonds | talk 16:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"The Princess Beatrice" is totally anglocentric, and as such, cannot be used. In Germany, I'd imagine that the Kaiser's daughter was "The Princess Victoria Louise" in documents written in English, but we have to indicate what country they were princess of. john k (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The in front of a style is a definate article, implying that the bearer was the son/daughter of a Sovereign of the United Kingdom. The definate article is a standard form in British royalty titles and styles, promoting the holder to a higher than status than other princes/ses (before style reforms in 1917, basically all members of the extended British Royal Family were entitled to a princely style, and the definate article raised the bearer to a higher status among the many princes/ses that existed). I'm not sure about the conventions in other countries, but it is a standard and allowable term for British royalty articles.

The article at the beginning of the article is fine, because the article title already gives the country in which she was a princess. PeterSymonds | talk 18:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought the argument was over the article title. john k (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see, sorry. I didn't realise you were talking about the proposal to move the page to "The Princess Beatrice". My mistake :) PeterSymonds | talk 12:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

(and obviously I completely agree with you PeterSymonds | talk 12:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] GA Review

Sorry you have had to wait so long for a review by someone. I have checked this article against the good article criteria. There is a list of minor problems that needs to be fixed, mostly concerning references. I have placed the article on hold for seven days for these things to be done. On the whole however I found the article interesting and a joy to read. Well done.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• I found a few things in the lead. Firstly please reference this directly as it is a major assertion on her life: Beatrice, who was brought up always to stay with her mother, soon resigned herself to her fate. Secondly should the following not be daughter: Victoria was set against her youngest Baby marrying, and refused to discuss the possibility. I know later in the article we find out that Victoria refered to her as her Baby, but when first reading the lead this is not known. Thirdly after just ten years of marriage, Prince Henry (called Liko by the royal family) died of malaria while fighting at war. - which war, was it Asante, perhaps wikilink?

Addressed. PeterSymonds | talk 19:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please reference birth location and date: Beatrice was born on 14 April 1857 at Buckingham Palace.

Addressed. PeterSymonds | talk 19:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• This sentance including a quotation could be made more clear; Although Victoria was famous for disliking babies, she liked attractive ones, and this gave Beatrice—who was, according to Victoria, “a pretty, plump and flourishing child...with fine large blue eyes, [a] pretty little mouth and very fine skin”[7]—an advantage over her elder siblings. For example shouldnt it be she was famous for disliking unattractive babies or most babies, surely not all of them.. Perhaps its best to finish the prose and then have the at the end of the sentance. So as example Although Victoria was famous for disliking most babies, she liked Beatrice, whom Victoria considered attractive. This was to provide Beatrice with an advantage over her elder siblings. Victoria once remarked that Beatrice was “a pretty, plump and flourishing child...with fine large blue eyes, [a] pretty little mouth and very fine skin”[7].

Addressed. PeterSymonds | talk 19:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please reference Despite sharing the rigorous education programme designed by Prince Albert and his close adviser Baron Stockmar, Beatrice had a more relaxed infancy than the rest of her siblings as a result for her relationship with her parents.

Addressed. PeterSymonds | talk 19:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Could you please reference the following: As her mother's secretary, she performed duties such as writing on the queen's behalf and helping with political correspondence.

Addressed. PeterSymonds | talk 19:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please reference: Beatrice, who wore her mother's wedding veil of Honiton lace, which none of her other siblings had been permitted to wear

Addressed. PeterSymonds | talk 19:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please reference: The beauty of Beatrice's daughter, Ena, was well known throughout Europe, and, despite her low rank, she was a desirable bride.

Addressed. PeterSymonds | talk 19:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please reference death day - It was there that Beatrice died on the 26 October 1944, aged eighty-seven. Also is it known what she died of? Heart attack, lung failure?

Addressed. She died in her sleep, though I don't think the reason was recorded, as it's not mentioned in any of my references. PeterSymonds | talk 19:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please reference: Beatrice was the shyest of all Victoria's children. However, due to the fact that she accompanied Victoria almost wherever she went, she became the most well known. Despite her shyness, she was an able actor and dancer, and was a keen artist and photographer.

Addressed. PeterSymonds | talk 19:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please reference: the demands made on Beatrice were high. Despite suffering from rheumatism, Beatrice was forced to share in her mother's love of cold weather.

Addressed. PeterSymonds | talk 19:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• The following is pov and should be removed: Much of Beatrice's world remains as she left it. This sentance is open to a lot of intepretation...

Addressed. Changed the sentence to buildings. PeterSymonds | talk 19:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that she At her death she was the last surviving child of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert is repeated twice, in the last years section and in the assessment section. Does it need to be repeated twice?

Addressed. PeterSymonds | talk 19:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Aside from these few comments and need for references, the article is a very detailed and well written biography. The photographs greatly add to the article. Let me know when you have addressed these points and I will promote to GA. Any questions then please ask. Thank you, LordHarris 18:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work and thank you for responding so quickly to my comments. The article IMO now rates as a good article and I have passed it as search. I think the article would do well if you were to take it FA: the references, the information contained are all featured quality. I do have a few points to help you continue to develop the article. Firstly I would expand, if possible the role that Beatrice might have had on the British Empire: in particular through any influence or emotion she may have had on her mother? Are there any historical works that cite this role in greater depth? These might be of use to expand the assessment section. I would also recommend that some of the image captions, while of suitable length could be expanded to incorporate a little more information. One example being Princess Beatrice in her late childhood, 1868 Perhaps you could eloborate more on the image itself, her shoes and clothes seem very plain for a princess (even though it is Victorian period). Thirdly, are you able to expand more on her relationship with her husband, are there any historical accounts that cite in more detail, any conflict between her, her husband and Victoria? Finally from an aesthetic perspective, the Royal Information boxes on the right hand section seem out of place? I am not sure however about the correct MOS relating to them. Aside from these few points, I feel the article would pass if you were to nominate for an FAC. If you do require further opinions before that stage than I recommend a Wikipedia:Peer Review. If I can be of any further help to you in reviewing the article or providing a second opinion then please leave a message. Best of luck and good work. LordHarris 16:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

This article, or a prior version of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors on 12:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC). The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping. Copyedited by Finetooth (talk) – 06:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Proofread by talkGiler – 12:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)