# Talk:Anne Hyde

I feel sure this is the wrong title for this article.  Anne Hyde married the Duke of York in 1659.  Her father did not become an Earl until 1661. So when was she called "Lady"? 
I propose to move this article back to "Anne Hyde" unless someone can tell me different.  Deb 18:37, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, it seems that the title is indeed wrong, and that my move was incorrect. I think that "Anne Hyde, Duchess of York" would be the appropriate title. -- Emsworth 21:43, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Don't take offence, but I've moved it back here so that any redirects can start from the appropriate place.  Personally, I favour leaving it at "Anne Hyde", because that's how she's normally referred to in history books, but if you feel it conflicts with the guidelines on titles, I don't object to the Duchess of York thing. Deb 18:59, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
After Anne Hyde, no other Englishwoman would marry an heir presumptive or heir apparent to the British throne until the marriage of Lady Diana Spencer to Charles, Prince of Wales? I dispute this. Queen Mary (Mary of Teck), although her titles were German, she was in fact British having been born in Kensignton Palace and brought up in England. I would like to point out that Anne Hyde was the last commoner to legally marry an heir presumptive or heir apparent to the throne until the marriage of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother (Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons).

It still says no other English woman would marry... until Lady Diana Spencer to Charles, Prince of Wales. I would tend to agree with the statement about the next 'commoner' after Anne Hyde to legally marry an heir presumptive or heir apparent to the throne was Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon's marriage to the Prince. Technically you could argue this both ways I suppose as George VI was not supposed to be King and he did not become heir to the throne until his brother succeeded in 1936 after he had already married. Correct me if I'm wrong but with Mary of Teck, usually women inherited their father's titles, ie, the children of Victoria, the Princess' children were not formally titled Princess of the United Kingdom, the children of the Prince's kept this title. Thus Mary of Teck may have been a descendant of George III, but she took on her father's name. She was born Her Serene Highness Princess Mary of Teck -- therefore she was not a commoner, she was a Princess was she not? -- Lady Meg (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Recently the file File:James II and Anne Hyde by Sir Peter Lely.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 20:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

For her birth date, we give both OS and NS dates, to make it absolutely clear when she was born.  But for her death date, all we say is "31 March 1671".  Would it be reasonable to presume this was an OS date, and that the corresponding NS date would be 10 April 1671?  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  22:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are absolutely correct to presume that and the article has since been changed to show this. If the lead gives her NS birthdate we must follow suit and give her NS death date which was indeed 10 April 1671. I have added her 15 April burial date too (5 April OS). Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy, Jack.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Exellent.  Thanks, Jeanne.  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  11:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome, Jack; but you really deserve the thanks for pointing out the error. It did look odd to give the 22 March 1638 rectified date for her birth in the lead but keep the Old Style 31 March death date. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The date of birth is rather odd under the heading "Early Years".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.254.83 (talk) 09:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anne Hyde. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150905083659/http://www.historicalportraits.com/Gallery.asp?Page=Item&ItemID=1082&Desc=Duchess-of-York-%7C-Sir-Peter-Lely to http://www.historicalportraits.com/Gallery.asp?Page=Item&ItemID=1082&Desc=Duchess-of-York-%7C-Sir-Peter-Lely
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

"...who bore James Francis Edward, James's only son to survive to adulthood". Should this read "legitimate son"? We are told that he had many illegitimate children, so it seems likely that some of those became sons surviving to adulthood. Jmchutchinson (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Adakiko keeps reverting my edit removing this caption from under her portrait: "Anne's teasing playing of her hair is deliberately suggestive of a royal consort's prime role—breeding—but also a reminder of her great wit." 
Firstly, this caption is offensive, biased and discredits Anne, this is especially an issue as it is is one of the first things people read.
Secondly, it is not commonplace to have such a long and irrelevant caption under a portrait for an article like this, it already specifies who painted the portrait, there shouldn't be an opinion sentence after it. The statement would be more appropriate on a dedicated page for the portrait, not for her biography.
Thirdly, the opinion is from a page to sell the portrait and is not a good source at all. Tetragrammaton9 (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)