Talk:Victoria of the United Kingdom/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

1

Discussions formerly appearing here relating to Queen Victoria's Surname and its usage within the Article have been moved to a separate talk page.

Just a short note: In the paragraph begining: In 1872, Victoria endured her sixth encounter involving a gun. As she was dismounting a carriage, a seventeen-year old Irishman, Arthur O'Connor... should it not be As she was alighting from a carriage...?

I am curious as to general policy/copyright issues regarding coats of arms of monarchs. According to the article, the arms of Victoria are the same as those of the current Queen, Elisabeth II. So it would be trivial to obtain a picture of them. The question is, would that be legal, and if so, is there any reason not to include them along with heraldic description. Of course the same question applies to other British monarchs. --Ornil 22:15, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

An indirect cause of Albert's death was the irresponsible behaviour of their eldest son, Bertie, the Prince of Wales.

The same vague statement is made on Bertie's page. However, on Albert's page it is said that Albert died from typhoid fever. How did Bertie contribute to this? AxelBoldt 13:49 Aug 29, 2002 (PDT)

Okay it's an old question but nobody answered it so... 1. Albert is not feeling well. 2. Bertie is at college 3. Bertie has woman trouble which makes its way into the scandal sheets. 4. This reflects badly on the Royals, so Albert heads for Cambridge to tell him off. 5. The weather is awful on the way back and Albert is soaked. 6. Albert takes to his bed. 7. Within a couple of weeks Albert dies.

The details may be wrong so I'm not putting that in the article but the overall story is near enough what happened. -- Derek Ross 22:16, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I thought that it was due to the shocking state of the castle drains as a breeding place for all sorts of infections. If merely getting soaked was enough to kill a person, then the entire population of England, let alone Scotland and Ireland, would have died out long ago. Pete 05:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Anyone have an opinion about the recent book questioning whether Victoria was legitimate? - user:Montrealais

The funny thing is, if it is true, both Albert and Victoria were not the descendants of royalty at all but the two groups most discriminated against in nineteenth century Europe: he the son of his mother's jewish lover, she the daughter of an Irish soldier and Private Secretary to her mother, Sir John Conroy.

One problem exists however with the thesis. A key but of evidence is that no descendant of Queen Victoria suffered from the illness experienced by George III (I'm too tired to remember how to type it now). The author of the book of QV goes through all the evidence and cannot find it. The trouble is, one royal did have it. Princess Margaret revealed some time ago that the late Prince Richard of Gloucester, her first cousin, had though not its madness, one key symptom, painful skin discolouration. If he had it, and it did not appear in his mother, grandmother or great-grandmother's family, it can only have come through the male heirs of Queen Victoria, which means she has to have been the daughter of the Duke of Kent, as Conroy had no such illness anywhere in his family. Similarly, new ilnesses that Victoria had and which supposedly proved she was Conroy's daughter, did not exist in Conroy's family either and the likes of hæmophilia is passed on the female line, not the male, so it would have come from her mother irrespective of who was Victoria's father. So all in all it is an interesting theory but just doesn't hold enough water to be convincing. The revelation that Princess Margaret years before had confirmed that Prince Richard of Gloucester had George III's illness pretty much holed the claims below the water-line. ÉÍREman

New analysis shows that while haemophilia is passed on through the female line, it is more likely to originate in the damaged sperm of elderly men. This too indicates that Kent was more likely to have been Victoria's father than Conroy. -- Derek Ross 22:21, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Indirect footnote

Why does footnote 2 redirect the reader to footnote 3? "Please see footnote 3" --Menchi 19:01 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Victorian

This article says nothing about the Victorian era. This article needs to discuss the era, and Victoria's influence or non-infuence on the Victorian mores and standards. Kingturtle 22:05, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Victoria as a city in Hong Kong

Contrary to what listed in most world maps in print, no one in Hong Kong refers the urban area in the North Part of Hong Kong Island as 'Victoria'. For decades, it has been merely called as the 'Hong Kong Island' or simply the 'Island'. The name 'Victoria' is not used in any government publication for decades as well.

On the other hand, there are two major places in Hong Kong that are named after Victoria and these names are still in common uses. The first on is the Victoria Park, which is the Hyde Park of Hong Kong. The second one is the Victoria Harbor, which is one of the busiest harbor in the world.

I propose the line 'a Hong Kong city' to be changed as 'the Hong Kong harbor'.

Reformat

I refreshed this page by giving a more clear opening paragraph, with Victoria's regal title at death as the first line. She never used the surname Wettin, and it is not quoted in any offical source, so it remains in the footnotes. Her father and mother added to opening paragraph, as is her birth and death and cornoation dates. I also set out her children in a table to make it more readable. Astrotrain.

I reverted the change. There is a standard agreed structure applied to all royalty on wikipedia. The changes made completely abandoned the agreed structure for a unique one. As to Wettin, it is quoted in the Royal Archives as being the surname she would have if she was a commoner: she had asked her advisers as to what her surname was. It clearly wasn't Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, which was a Royal House name, not a surname. As there was a long standing demand of some on wikipedia that that surnames of royalty be included and that was agreed to, her surname goes at the top with the article beginning with personal name, surname and life-dates followed by regal details. That is the agreed format used throughout wikipedia and has to be followed here also. FearÉIREANN 20:03, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There is no agreed format in wikipedia for anything, that is why you can edit it at will. I don't know why you think the current revision is appropiate given that it is full of gossip, speculation and matter of facts. British monarchs don't have surnames, only a royal style as my article change highlighted. Wettin has never ever been officaly or unofficaly used by the British Royal Family. Victoria could never have gained this name as she married as a Queen and thus had her name and style decided by law. This article is a waste of space and should be reverted. Even my change to make the information on her children more readable has been changed back (I didn't even change the data, just put it in a table!). My revision was superior!!! Astrotrain

You might not have noticed but wikipedia is not an amateur scribble box but a credible source. You obviously don't know it (or think it does not apply uniquely to you) but there are a set of agreed structures on wikipedia, covering everything from the recording of biographical details (name, surname birthdate, deathdate) to the form of language (American English or British English) used here, from the usage of pictures (their layout and issues to do with copyright) to the recording of footnotes, the format for dates, spelling and capitalisation, etc etc. A large scale debate took place on wikipedia on the whole issue of royal pages, involving large numbers of contributors from around the world. A format for articles was agreed by overwhelming consensus. It is immaterial how good, bad or indifferent your preferred structure is. It broke all the agreed conventions on wikipedia for these pages and ignored all the work of hundreds of others on royal pages throughout wikipedia. The rules apply to everyone, even you and were simply reverted to follow the standard layout that is applied to hundreds of royal pages throughout this encyclopaedia, pages which large numbers of people spent many weeks redesigning to follow the agreed consensus structure.

You are factually incorrect regarding Wettin, about royal nomenclature and much else. Royalty do actually have surnames. According to Buckingham Palace and Clarence House, for example (who confirmed this to wikipedia when the debate on how to cover royal nomenclature was going on), the Prince of Wales' surname is Mountbatten-Windsor. The fact that that was his surname was shown in the banns published at the time of his marriage to Diana. The Princess Royal, the Duke of York and the Earl of Wessex all also used that surname in their banns. Queen Victoria asked her Private Secretary to clarify for her what her marital surname was. Given she would not normally use it she didn't know but was curious. The Private Secretary, after exhaustive research and consulting with members of Prince Albert's family and court, reported that Albert's surname, and hence her marital surname, was Wettin, with Saxe Coburg Gotha the Royal House name. It is that simple. FearÉIREANN 19:00, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think if you look at the various pages for all the different royality on wikipedia, I think you will find that the structuring on titles, styles etc varies considerably. Wikipedia is supposed to give factual information, and not your opinion on what Victoria's surname is or was, based on material which is not in the public domian. Anyway, my change was not to remove the surname ascertion, but to make the opening paragraph of this article more co-herent and clear with more factual information than the rabble which currently inhabits it. At the end of the day this article is badly written. It gives far to much weight to conspiracy theories and gossip and tells little of Victoria's life and background. I guess tittle tattle on whether she is illegitimate or was having sexual relations with John Brown is more important than factual, non-biased and reliable information. Astrotrain

Bastardy and biological parentage.

I've removed this

Were it ever proven that Victoria was not fathered by the Duke, then Ernst August, the eldest son of Ernst August of Hanover, the current head of the House of Hanover, would become ruler of Great Britian. (As Ernst August is married to the Catholic Princess Caroline of Monaco, he is removed from the line of succession, as per the Act of Settlement 1701).

, because it's wrong. There's no mechanism for changing the occupant of the throne based on biological parentage of a long-dead successor. Further, the notion confuses "legitimacy" with "biological parentage": proving that Victoria had a different biological father would do nothing to affect the fact that, under law, the Duke was her father. - Nunh-huh 00:31, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This "footnote" has been contributed by User:66.248.20.70 whose other contributions you'll soon notice center on Wayne Gretsky and Caroline of Monaco. The Duke of Wellington never saw any such thing. An irresponsible joke by an Anon. Wetman 00:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In this case, at least, it's a frequent piece of misinformation, usually peddled by hack writers so they can get a good headline about who "really" is the "King of England". (An Australian dock worker "if" Edward IV were a bastard, the son of an oafish public urinater "if" Victoria were a bastard, etc.) They trade on the ignorant supposition that it is biology rather than law and contingent history that dictates the occupant of the throne. - Nunh-huh 01:04, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Photos of Victoria & Edward ,Duke of Kent (1767-1820), seemed to show alot of physical resemblance, (not that it determines Parentage), Victoria has Edward's looks, that good enough for me to believe they're father-daugther. Mightberight/wrong 18:51, 27 October 2005

Victoria's Prime Ministers

Aside from her dachsunds, perhaps a list of the Prime Ministers who actually ruled Britain during Victoria's reign might be thought necessary in this entry. I hesitate to enter one and see it reverted by some amateur genealogist however. Wetman 00:43, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If I wanted to know what British prime ministers there were during Victoria's reign I would go to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom page, not to a personal biograph page of Queen Victoria. In any case, prime minsiters do no rule Britain, the Crown, Parliament and the Legal system do, with Parliament, the ultimate sovereign. Astrotrain

Introduction

I am not keen on the introduction of this article. It is far too long, and waffles a bit. I already tried to shorten it, but Lord Emsworth reverted citing the cut as "improper", which is of course untrue, as it was a valid edit that enhanced the article Astrotrain 18:43, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is only two paragraphs - while they are long, I struggle a little to see what you could cut out without losing something important (the double reference to Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, possibly?). Which bits do you think are waffle? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:55, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The paragraphs may be somewhat long, but I do not think that they are too extensive. The removal was indeed improper, as the justification offered was that the table of contents could not be seen, which is untrue, at least on my monitor. -- Emsworth 19:03, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I believe that Astrotrain took a radical solution, but to a REAL problem. It IS too long, and far obscures the T.O.C. on my machines. The parenthetical comments and the cute but goofy stuff about the stamp and the railway don't belong in the "lead paragraph" of an encyclopedia article. I wish they had been but relocated ... instead of bumped.Sfahey 19:35, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think that the introduction only needs to say:1st para she was Queen of UK, last British monarch of House of Hanover; longest reigning; first to use Empress of India title. 2nd: say her reign was period of British Emprire expansion and Industrial Revolution. There is no need to say the comments about Prince ALbert, and assumptions on which PM she liked. Sorry if I deleted items people thought should have been moved, but I thought the political waffle was refered to elsewhere. Stamp and railway comments could be moved to Legacy Astrotrain 21:16, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Would also suggest that assisination attempts be merged into the one section, to make better reading. Astrotrain 21:16, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I disagree on this latter proposal (but agree on your first suggestion); the whole information of her life, I believe, is best presented in chronological order. The effects of the attempts on her general life may be thus observed. -- Emsworth 22:12, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
mmmm, it is reasonable to observe events in chronological order, however the marriage section of the article is dominated by an assisination attempt paragraph. I'll try and trim intro again, to see if it suits this time Astrotrain 14:35, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This change is fine; I have made only one change: I have put the information on her royal House into its own sentence. -- Emsworth 14:59, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"20 June, 1837"?

Certainly the British import words and locutions from France faster than we LeftPondians do, but have they actually now ceased to regard writing "20 June" instead of "June 20" to constitute writing in something approaching French? Would they therefore consider it inappropriate for me to change "20 June" to "June 20" on the grounds that this is the English-language Wikipedia rather than the French one? Michael Hardy 01:04, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

20 June 1837 (no comma) is probably now the most common form in the UK. 22:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Post 1880 election

I'm reluctant to make changes on this whilst the article is featured so want to check this bit:

Lord Beaconsfield's administration fell in 1880, and the Liberals returned to power. Attempting to keep Gladstone from returning to office, the Queen offered leadership of the ministry to Spencer Cavendish, Marquess of Hartington. Lord Hartington declined the opportunity, and Victoria could do little but appoint Gladstone Prime Minister.

Or alternatively Victoria invited the leader of the Liberals in the Commons - at this point there was no undisputed "Leader of the Liberal Party" as none of the official leaders in the Commons and Lords were current or former PMs so Victoria could ask either of them. Gladstone was just a former PM who was still campaigning in nominal retirement. To have automatically invited him just because he was more popular in the country and had been very prominent in the election would have been the equivalent of Elizabeth II inviting Enoch Powell to become PM in 1970.

Also can I suggest we retitle the section to either "Gladstone and Disraeli" (the most common form by which the pair are linked together) and incorporate all of their overlap or change it to something more appropriate for the politics of 1876-1886. Timrollpickering 03:19, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Redundancy

Seems like the second to last paragraph of "Early Life" and the first paragraph of "Early Reign" are somewhat redundant:

On June 20, 1837, King William IV died of liver failure. The Archbishop of Canterbury and the head of the royal househould (the Lord Chamberlain) advised the 18-year old, four foot eleven inch Victoria that she was now Queen of England. The Privy Council confirmed her accession immediately with several members noting that her accession would forever separate the crowns of Britan and Hanover since the Hanover kingdom's Salic law would not allow a woman to reign.

This contains much of the same information as

William IV died of liver disease at the age of 67 on 20 June 1837, leaving the Throne to Victoria. As the young Queen had just turned eighteen years old, no Regency was necessary. By Salic law, no woman could rule Hanover, a realm which had shared a monarch with Britain since 1714. Thus, Hanover went not to Victoria, but to her uncle, Ernest Augustus. As the young Queen was as yet unmarried and childless, Ernest Augustus was also the heir-presumptive to the British Throne.

corrections

I have cut out some of the section concerning the Irish Potato famine due to lack of citation and the fact that the information provided is unreliable at best as I have done some research into the Irish Potato Famine for a class I took.

A couple of stylistic corrections. Throne is not capitalised except when referring to the Speech from the Throne. Queen similarly is not capitalised except in the context where it is being used with a name or title. So Queen of the United Kingdom, but The queen observed that . . . ". Personally I think both these rules suck, but they are now the standard capitalisation forms used internationally (I've just had to deal with two editors, one American and one British, both of whom insisted on changing all by upper cases to modern publication styles that lowercased things). Professional editors would savage this article for its chronic overcasing of things.

Also wikipedia policy is not to include titles within a link. So it is Sir Robert Peel, not Sir Robert Peel.

Wikipedia also decided long ago not to use styles in articles. So people should not be referred to as HM/HRH/HSH/HIM etc.

Also can we please cut out the archaic language like 'beget' etc. It is one thing to use varying forms of english (gaol is still used widely, particularly in British english, hiberno-english and in other commonwealth locations) but 'beget' isn't.

Also - given the size of the article it is ridiculous to keep talking about King so and so. It is adding more size to an oversized article. Publications don't do that. They call someone King 'x' once, then simply say 'x' (often not even including an ordinal) the rest of the time.


This is a very good article. But it needs professional editing and wikifying badly. FearÉIREANN 10:05, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can accept most of your points, but the first two are just plain wrong. "Queen" (along with all such titles) is capitalised in British English style when it refers to a specific queen (thus "the Queen announced that she wanted a new palace" but "queens regularly live in palaces"; "the Duke put on his coronet and robes" but "dukes often wear coronets to dinner"; "the Prime Minister lives in 10 Downing Street" but "constitutional monarchies often have prime ministers"). And it is current longstanding practice to put "Sir" inside links - the reason it's so often absent is that it's easier to type Sir [[John Smith]] than [[John Smith|Sir John Smith]]. Just look at the succession tables at the bottom of most British politicians' articles - "Sir" is always inside the link (plus it looks ugly outside it). (As to the styles, they're out of place in running text not due to Wikipedia policy (which doesn't comment on the matter) but because it's stylistically inappropriate to have full styles there - for the same reason that it's better to write "Lord Longford" than "Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford", it's better to write "the Duke of Kent" than "HRH The Prince George, Duke of Kent". Proteus (Talk) 11:27, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wish I was wrong but unfortunately I am not. I much prefer doing as you you but it is simply wrong. Modern international english doesn't capitalise that way. For example, I wrote about Prince Harry's latest bit of lunacy for a British broadsheet last week. Every Prince (except in Prince Harry or Prince of Wales/Prince Charles) was typeset as prince. Queen in all housestyles is now queen unless referring to a monarch's name. So it is Queen Elizabeth but the British queen. For example -

Queen Elizabeth is briefed by her prime minister once a week.

The queen is briefed by her prime minister once a week.

Stuff I write about politics (whether in the media or academically) follow house styles which in turn follow the leading style guides. Editors invariably use US president George Bush, Irish president Mary McAleese etc. The only time president is capitalised is when the full title is used. So it is US president George Bush but President Bush or President of the United States. Similarly it is the President of Ireland but Irish president. And prime minister is capitalised only when written with the definite article and the office-holder's name. So in newspaper housestyles

According to information, the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, swims naked in the Thames every Tuesday morning.

According to information prime minister Tony Blair swims naked in the Thames every Tuesday morning.

As to including titles in the link, I did put honorifics inside the link when I started but there was an overwhelming consensus when the naming conventions were being designed (I was one of the group of people doing it) that they should always be put outside and all links that were inside were then systematically removed by a team of people over a couple of weeks. If they are being put inside then that is contrary to the consensus agreement and I guess they'll have to be removed again.

As to styles, they are simply should not be used ever. The reason is simple. Many people (ludicrously) claimed that they were POV. In other words that saying His Holiness for the pope or the dalai lama was expressing an opinion on their holiness, that Her Majesty was suggesting that a particular queen was majestic, that calling the Prince of Wales His Royal Highness was accepting that he was high and mighty, etc. Or that calling the Prince of Monaco His Serene Highness was reaching a judgment on whether he was serene or not. Personally I think the argument a heap of garbage, but there were endless rows. In addition some Europeans came on who downed out articles in over-the-top use of styles, along the lines of His Majesty the King of Outer Walrus met Her Royal Highness the Princess of the Rock, at a party given by Her Serene Highness the Princess of Lyon and her husband, His Royal Highness the Prince of Lyons. They had three children: His Royal and Imperial Highness, the Archduke . . . "

All attempts to explain (principally it must be said to Americans) that using a style is not expressing a judgment or a POV but simply using a traditional form of language, have failed and have produced ridiculous edit wars. So to avoid this and irritating readers also who would make such a nonsensical interpretation, styles simply do not feature in text. Also, if you use styles for monarchs, why not for all heads of state - eg, His Excellency President Jacques Chirac. Call clergymen Most Reverend and Right Reverend, call the PM of Canada the Honourable, call aristocrats His Grace the . . . etc. It is impossible and unworkable and not worth the hassle it creates. Styles are as a result not used in text and should only feature in a paragraph in the article which states that 'the formal style used for 'x' is such and such'. FearÉIREANN 15:50, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the debates over style, but there is certainly no policy saying what you say (in fact, everyone claiming this recently has been ridiculed). As for "consensus" over the other issues, it's safe to say that consensus has changed since the first debates took place, and de facto policy is now to include "Sir" in links. And as for "house styles", The Times certainly capitalises "Prince" (for example, from their style guide, "Prince William at first mention, thereafter simply William (or for variation the Prince, if not ambiguous); similarly, Prince Harry at first mention, thereafter simply Harry (or for variation the Prince, if not ambiguous)"), and as for other titles: "capitalisation: in general, the proper names of people and places, formal titles or titles of important offices, and the names of well-known and substantial institutions, all require capitals. As a rule of thumb, cap specifics (eg, the French Foreign Minister), but l/c non-specifics (eg, EU foreign ministers)", "Prime Minister: cap for every country, but only in reference to a specific person, eg, "Tony Blair said that ? the Prime Minister said that ? "; "Margaret Thatcher was the Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990".", "President (of any country, also President of the European Commission), cap at first and all subsequent mentions when used as a variation for a specific person, eg, "George W. Bush said that ? the President said that ? "; "Richard Nixon was the President until 1974".". Proteus (Talk) 17:31, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've been doing some research. Some examples from other British newspapers:
Still with Harry, let's be grateful for the perspective provided by the mother of one of his brainiac friends. Vanda Pelly is incredulous that her son Guy's decision to dress as the Queen for the same critically misunderstood "colonials and natives" party has invoked tutting in some corners."It certainly wasn't disrespectful to dress as the Queen," she told yesterday's Daily Mail in exasperation. "No more disrespectful than for a white man to dress as a black man." Mother Pelly, you've been very kind. (The Guardian, today)
His tastes are obviously shared by another member of the Highgrove set - or Club H as they call themselves, after the cellar at Highgrove where Prince Charles allowed them to meet: Guy Pelly went to last week's party dressed as none other than the Queen. (The Independent, Sunday)
Seventy years of seafaring have been linked as, amid fanfares and fireworks, the Queen officially named the Queen Mary 2. (The Daily Mail, 10 days ago)
Hardy Amies, the once-grand couture house that dressed the Queen, is moving from Ofex to Aim this week in the latest step... (The Financial Times, 8 days ago)
And I still haven't seen one example of "the queen". Proteus (Talk) 23:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
None of my business, but I've only ever seen the British monarch (Elizabeth II) referred to as the "Queen", not the "queen". Doesn't tradition sometimes outweigh grammar rules?

Cannabis Tea

This is correct and belongs in Trivia. See here. "Under the name cannabis 19th century medical practitioners helped to introduce the herb's drug potential (usually as a tincture) to modern English-speaking consciousness. It was famously used to treat Queen Victoria's menstrual pains, and was available from shops in the US. By the end of the 19th century its medicinal use began to fall as other drugs such as aspirin took over." Greengrass 07:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not a fan of trivia sections, but that's a separate issue. However, I followed your link, and the marijuana#Recent history section doesn't say that now. Instead it now says "It was rumoured to have been used to treat Queen Victoria's menstrual pains as her personal physician, Sir John Russell Reynolds, was a staunch supporter of the benefits of cannabis.[19]" (Here's the change). The "[19]" link is to a BMJ article about him. I can't read the whole article because I don't have an account there, but in the abstract's list of conditions for which he recommended cannabis, period pain is not one. Even if there should be a trivia section in this article, I'm sceptical that it should say, as it currently does, "Cannabis tea was prescribed to treat Victoria's menstrual cramps" until there is a definite reference. Similarly, if she publically praised Mariani wine, shouldn't it be possible to find a quote? Telsa (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
In the absence of a source, or even a reaction, I have removed the comment about cannabis tea completely. So, any offers on the Mariani wine and the public praising of it? This shouldn't be hard to find a reference for... Telsa (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Still no cite for this public praise? I never did find any. So shold this mention be here at all?Telsa (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"Her Majesty"

Not quite true. The style “His/Her Late Majesty” is perfectly correct, but only in respect of the most recently passed on – e.g. “Babies all look like Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.” Conversely, “In Her Late Majesty Queen Victoria’s day,” etc., though technically correct (she is “Her Late Majesty”) would be not quite right because she’s not the immediately late queen (or king as the case may be). Instead one would correctly say, “In Queen Victoria’s day.” Otherwise, I am reminded of the old joke about two courtiers walking in the corridor, one saying to the other: “Have you heard? ‘Your Tallness’ isn’t good enough any more! Now, it’s ‘Your HIGHness’”

Queen Victoria is dead. The title "Her Majesty" is reserved for the living monarch. Greengrass 07:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
There is, as far as I can tell, ONE person and one alone, who reverts any deletion of the honorific, both for dead British monarchs and for popes, although only for some unfathomable reason as far back as the mid-19c. Many people have tried to fight this, one by one, and are always told it is Wikipedia policy, decided somewhere, to keep these idiosyncratic honorifics. It must surely have started because some people, unaware of the universal practice of encyclopedias, thought it is dissing these historical figures to remove the honorific; but it's now a one-man crusade.... Good luck.... Bill 09:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, as of a few minutes ago we've found 2. Still, it is not "standard" to give to dead monarchs the styles of the living: a check of any print encyclopedia will confirm that. On the other hand if it is decided to do this, you may as well start with Victoria's immediate predecessor and start adding them on: you'll have lots of work ahead of you. Then after that, you can add "His Holiness" to the 200+ popes not so marked, to say nothing of Eminences and Excellencies and Honorables and Worships to every cardinal and ambassador and senator and mayor in Wikipedia.... It's clear, in sum, that in the narrow cases of British monarchs after William IV and of popes after Gregory XVI, we're dealing with the notion that some people have that we might be dissing the subjects by not tossing in the style. Bill 12:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
In terms of kings, the first English king to use "His Majesty" was Henry VIII. Beyond that, I'd suggest that styles only became rigidly formalized in the 18th century at earliest (and perhaps in the early 19th century), and that any usage beyond that would be at least somewhat anachronistic. As to print encyclopedias, it is not my understanding that they use styles for living monarchs, either. Beyond this, I'm not sure I understand the living/dead distinction. Victoria was known as "Her Majesty" while she was alive. On what basis do you contend that it is incorrect to refer to someone who is dead by the style by which they were known in life? john k 14:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Styles are a matter of social custom. "Incorrect", well, no, just as it is not "incorrect" to refer to President Van Buren as "Mr. Van Buren", to Marconi as "Sig. Marconi", etc. — it's just exceedingly odd, and the standard practice of nobody at all. Socially, English and many other languages make the (fearful, reverential) transition from the living, to whom we customarily accord a style, to the dead, to whom we do not, by expressions like "the late (Mrs. X)", "His late Majesty Y". But after a time that too lapses: no one says "the late William the Conqueror" or even "the late Virginia Woolf".
   For monarchs, this may be formalized somewhere (there must surely be manuals of style in the world's protocol offices, which in turn comply with the official usage of the monarchs in question), but the general theory is "Le Roi est mort, Vive le Roi": the majesty is inherent not in the person but in the office as filled by that person; and once dead, it's not there.
   An approximation to finding the official style for deceased British monarchs can be got from the official site of the British monarchy, where on any number of pages (for example this one) Queen Victoria is referred to as "Queen Victoria". Making it crystal clear, the official main page for George VI, the current monarch's father, and thus well within living memory.
   Wikipedia is free, of course, to do anything we want, but in matters like this, where there is such overwhelming consensus, the hypercorrection (always an error of the ignorant, whether in grammar or anything else) does not make us look good. Bill 15:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
As a royal genealogist for almost a decade now [1], I have read countless texts, biographies and histories - both offline and online. I am a very recent member of the Wikipedia comunity. Given my background, I immediately found myself reviewing the royalty and nobility entries. On the topic of inclusion/exclusion of forms of address (HRH, etc), I side strongly in favor of omitting these. But this should not even be a debate. A debate would suggestion that there is some merit in favour of adding HM etc --Richhil 00:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Wow, the argument from assertion. You are entitled to your opinion that they should be omitted. You are certainly not entitled to claim that there is no merit whatsoever to the other side without presenting an argument at all. john k 18:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I have been part of the styles debate before, and looks like I got dragged in once again. If the British Monarchy website is not using the styles for their dead monarchs, then, I personally think, we should follow suit. If, in the cases of the Popes, a pope has became Blessed or Saint, we should use that instead of His Holiness, which (I think) is reserved for the Pope. More later, sleep calls me now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Gee, thanks, Z.... So they're not too sure about things, either. Since the ultimate authority (at least for the British monarchs) is inconsistent, the question is moot, and Wikipedia might as well be inconsistent too. The only remaining question then is just when — how far back — does "Their Majesty" begin to sound ridiculous: George III? Henry VII? William the Conqueror?? (Hammurabi????) Bill 10:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Though I personally have no clue on how far it should go back, I do not think we should tag every single British monarch with HM. Maybe we should have a vote here and find out what we want to use. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Henry VIII was the first British monarch to be known as "His Majesty." To refer to any monarch before him by this style would be incorrect. I believe his contemporary Francis I of France was also the first French monarch to take that style. Holy Roman Emperors seem to have been majesties for rather longer, although I'm not sure when it began. That said, styles were pretty haphazard up until the 18th century. In Britain, for instance, clear styles for members of the royal family only emerge with the Hanoverians. I would suggest that if we are to use styles, George I and his contemporaries should probably be the first ones where style is noted. It might even be later - say George III or so. For non-European monarchs, I don't think western styles should be used unless we have clear evidence that they were used in diplomatic contexts - before the mid to late 19th century, I would guess, putting western styles in would be utterly anachronistic. john k 18:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion, "Her Majesty" can be axed from the first line of the article, as the styling issue is fully explained under subtitle "Style and Arms" (and can be furher expanded there, if someone has further infopieces about those). Thus, any style is redundant in the beginning. (We do not want to sound like sycophants, do we? - and, as encyclopedia, we explain such things, we do not use them.... it is not our task to express whether Victoria was majestic, John Paul holy, George Bushes excellent, Tony Blair honourable or right, nor Charles PoW high.) Arrigo 19:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)]
Thank you everyone who all have put a good dose of energy and work into determining Her Majesty and its use regarding Queen Victoria. A useful reference is now at Wikipedia:Non-main_namespace_pages_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars_ever Arrigo 14:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Jubilee plot

I added a short section about the Jubilee Plot, and its relation to Charles Parnell, with specific reference to the claims made by Christy Campbell in Fenian Fire. This has been deleted, and I do not understand why since other assassination attempts are discussed in this article. Any chance of clarification, or at least a nudge in the right direction if the entry belongs elsewhere?

Garrick92 16:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Anyone?

Bueller?

Garrick92 13:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Harrumph

Very well, then. I've added two sentences referring to the Jubilee Plot into the section 'Later Life', so that 'Jubilee Plot' becomes a separate article. Young people today, no bleedin' manners, grumble, whitter, etc.

Garrick92 09:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Alexandrina

Ran across this in Henry Alford's The Queen's English today:

I remember, during the first weeks of our present Queen's reign, hearing a clergyman pray for "Alexandrina, our most gracious Queen and governess."

(He was talking about the occasional use of feminine forms of words like "governor" and how they can seem somewhat out of place...) The appearance of "Alexandrina" is a little odd; I didn't realise she was referred to by anything other than Victoria after childhood. Was this an isolated clergyman not sure what the official style was and trying to sound correct, or an example of a briefly common use? Idly curious... Shimgray 13:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Victoria in the Ontario Legislature

Would it be worth putting into this article that there is a carving of Queen Victoria in the walls of the chamber of the Ontario Legislative Assembly. This carving makes a mockery of her, it is believed the people that made the carving were either republicans or anti-Queen Victoria. Canadian Mike 02:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

If there is an image of it, it might be an interesting addition. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\(caint) 22:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Style Wars

Re the removing of use of Majesty and HRH. I agree. There are a lot of people here who keep adding on the superfluous use of "His Majesty" or "she married HRH Prince Whoever". HRH and Majesty are forms of ADDRESS and as far as I know one can't address a dead person. In all professional encylopedias, any books written about royals, the Royal website itself (apart from the memorial sites - which is because those people died fairly recently and arent historical figures) - only here, and on selected articles at that, have I seen this constant use. It's not used for the pages of the Tudors etc. It's like saying the page for any untitled person should constantly be referred to as "Mr", so a page about Benjamin Franklin would become "Mr. Benmjamin Franklin" and referring to him as the son of "Mr & Mrs Franklin". I think we should remove them on all royal pages except living royals and make wikipedia look a bit more professional.

Agree with the anonymous posting above.--StanZegel 16:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I Disagree. I think that it's helpful to have the styles at least at the beginning of the article, since it's useful to know what the appropriate styles were during somebody's life. It's kind of silly in the body of the article, though, so I agree with you there. RMG 22:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
So how about a compromise - their style be mentioned once in the article (which would be helpful, maybe not necessarily at beginning as other encyclopedias dont have this but then it mite be helpful for referencing if it is there) but to abolish other over-the-top styles?


I've proposed a solution to the ongoing style wars, namely the use of an infobox. Given that this page is locked and so there is no battle over styles here right now I've put an example of how a box might look in the text here so people can see for themselves. No text was changed or anything. The proposed infoboxes aren't live yet but it seemed logical to cut and paste one of the draft boxes and show people how the idea could work. Please leave feedback as to whether you think the infobox option would be a workable solution to the style wars. You can leave it here or on my talk page (in as caint on my sig). I'll set up a page where we can debate the issue in detail tomorrow. I'm too knackered after all the infoboxing to do anything more and I am in work in 6 hours time!!! FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\(caint) 04:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

  • This solution has my whole-hearted support. It is simple yet elegant, in complete accord to the style of the article(s). Pete 05:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Succession Box

Until there is a consensus to change the convention on dates within a succession box from year-only to day month and year, and after discussion with others, I have reset her reignal dates to be consistant with the rest of Wiki. --StanZegel 17:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Authority?

What authority did Victoria have to prohibit the use of her name or Albert's in the future by a sovereign? The present sovereign could reverse it surely. George VI have been King Albert - why wasn't he?

She had no such authority — she merely expected all future Sovereigns to do as she wished rather than as they wished (a rather unrealistic expectation, but (as with a lot of her rather selfish behaviour) she seems to have thought it completely reasonable). It's generally thought that Prince Albert, Duke of York, chose to be King George VI to link back to the stability of his father's reign, in an attempt to demonstrate that the abdication crisis was only a blip and that things would now be back to normal. He obviously could have chosen to be King Albert, if he had so wished. Proteus (Talk) 15:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Who if not her?

Does anyone know who the next in line to the throne would have been had the scramble to produce legitimate heirs after the death of George IV's daughter not been successful? If Victoria and the Duke of Clarence's son hadn't been born, who was the next nearest relative? Were there any descendants of the Electress Sophia left? --Jfruh 05:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If Alexandrina Victoria had not been born, her uncle Ernest Augustus would have become King of the United Kingdom. He would have reigned from 1837 until 1851. EgbertW 03:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
If he had become come King his life (and history) would have turned out differently so you can't say "He would have reigned from 1837 until 1851.". Arniep 05:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


Statues of Queen Victoria

The detail seems excessive, especially the paragraph describing the purpose, history, function, location, and appearance of first statue of Her Late Majesty in Sydney. I've seen nice statues of her throughout Canada, including in my hometwon which is named for her - should those be included as well? How do others feel about this? Should they be edited out? Moved to a new article on monuments, buildings, thoroughfares, and facilities of, or named for, Queen Victoria? - Fishhead64 21:55, 05 February 2006

1842 assassination attempts?

The paragraph beginning "Three attempts to assassinate the Queen occurred in 1842" lists only two attempts (Francis and Bean). What was the third? --Steve Summit (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not absolutely certain, but I believe those who attempted to assassinate the Queen first were not apprehended and they tried a second time... a recurring role. In depth details on Queen Victoria's close calls featured in Monarch: the Life and Reign of Elizabeth II by Robert Lacey.... (excerpts). AJ24 00:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Mass murderer

The regime of queen victoria is responsible for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, deaths around the globe. somehow, that is not included in the first paragraph. Perhaps, we should clean article about Hitler, removing all things about him being evil and all.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

The queen was more a figurehead than leader of the "regime" or prophetess of genocide. Estimate of lives lost versus lives saved as a result of Pax Britannica would be interesting though still OT in this article. Pavel Vozenilek 00:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Correct. Victoria never killed anyone or had anyone killed. By the time of her reign all policies were the responsibility of ministers or parliament. Blaming her for things she had no say in, other than as is required from a constitutional monarch, sign whatever the government tells her to sign, is a bit like blaming a typist for typing a controversial letter as though he or she was responsible for the decision and contents in the letter. The deaths issue belongs on the relevant places, like history of the UK, or the articles on politicians who took those decisions. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Another analogy would be making Queen Elizabeth personally responsible for the deaths caused by Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe before it left the Commonwealth in 2003. Monarchs reign but do not rule. JackofOz 00:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Census info

As interesting as this is, I think its level of detail is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Would it be prudent to move it to Wikisource? Johnleemk | Talk 14:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Problem with huge table hiding other info

The huge table {{ancestors}} (in Family) hides large part of See also section. Adding HTML paragraph or break doesn't work. Perhaps someone knows a better trick. Pavel Vozenilek 00:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Interminable statues

There is not a podunk city around in the former British Empire that does not have a statue or bust of Queen Victoria. As I mentioned in Feb. (see above), having a lengthy description of the non-notable ones (that is to say, 99% of them) is uneccessary filler to an already lengthy article. If one wishes to create an article on this or that piece of Victorian civic clutter, I think that would be more appropriate. I have taken the liberty of removing the reference to various Australian likenesses and shortening the account of the statue in Dublin (interesting, perhaps, only as an example of changing attitudes in the post-colonial world). Fishhead64 16:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Defeatured

Where are there details of de-featuring? Rich Farmbrough, 12:58 12 September 2006 (GMT).

"Why it was removed" up there is a link. TransUtopian 16:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ancestors - lost words

This section begins ... "first modern monarch." Rich Farmbrough, 12:58 12 September 2006 (GMT).

Extra

   Albert was her first cousin.
        Her coronation was on the 28th June 1838.
        The coronation was a year and eight days after her reign.
        She was baptized on the 24th June 1819 Kensington Palace, London.
        She was buried on the 2nd February 1901 Frogmore Windsor.
        Of the current line of succession to the British throne, the first 510 people listed are descended from Victoria.
        Her reign lasted more than sixty-three years, longer than that of any other British monarch

Preceded / Succeeded by seems to be missing.

Eire1130 18:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Place of birth

The German Wikipedia says she was born on a ship under English flag on the river Neckar and that Kensington palace as place of birth is just "official history". This is the passage:

"Beide Eltern wohnten bis 1819 in einem Palais, dem Thalheim'schen Haus, in Eberbach am Neckar. Eberbacher Familien berichteten, dass kurz vor der Niederkunft der Herzogin diese hastig ihr gesamtes Mobiliar verkauft habe, um dafür ein Schiff zu erwerben. Bis heute befinden sich in traditionsreichen Eberbacher Familien Einzelstücke aus dem verkauften Mobiliar. Das Schiff wurde nach englischem Recht kurzerhand zu englischem Hoheitsgebiet erklärt und nach Augenzeugenberichten soll die spätere Königin Victoria von Großbritannien und Irland unweit von Eberbach am Neckar auf diesem Schiff zur Welt gekommen sein, als ihre Eltern eilig auf dem Weg nach London waren."

80.141.255.139 23:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"We are not amused"

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)

Article title

Rather than having "Queen Victoria" redirect here, is there any good reason why this article isn't itself named "Queen Victoria"? Using the name that everyone calls her by seems more sensible than the rather obscure "Victoria of the United Kingdom". If the latter has some technical correctness to recommend it then that would be better explained in the article. Matt 00:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

I don't know if there's a "good reason" but a small war appears to have been fought over the style of her naming. I say let sleeping dogs lie... Canuckle 20:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there's some discussion about that, but, though I admit I haven't read every word, I can't immediately see anything specifically about the actual article title. Wikipedia:Naming conventions says "Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize", which in this case is clearly "Queen Victoria", as it seems to me. The potential quibble is that there are other people and things called "Queen Victoria", but, as I mentioned, "Queen Victoria" already redirects here, not to the disambig page (presumably reflecting the fact that the majority of people typing "Queen Victoria" do actually want this page). So effectively nothing changes in respect of disambiguation if this article is retitled "Queen Victoria" with the same link to the disambiguation page as at present. Matt 14:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC).

Stupid names. How to correct them ?

There are gooffy names for Victoria's ancestry at the beginning of the "early life" section. I tried to correct them, but they do not appear in the "modify" text box. Can anyone correct that ?