Talk:Caroline of Ansbach

message: Added some material to this page -- please note the genealogical sources are contradictory, some assigning Caroline an extra pregnancy. They tend to list William Augustus twice, once with only a death date. I have corrected this in the article.--Marysunshine 05:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: HSH Hereditary Princess Caroline of Hanover, Duchess of Brunswick and Lunenburg would be my guess, however, titles of that era are iffy at best. Charles 06:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or would it be HSH Caroline, Hereditary Princess of Hanover, Duchess of Brunswick and Luneburg? That would be more in keeping with her husband's title at the time. TysK 05:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I'm looking more into it, and it seems Hanover wasn't an official title --- I could be wrong though. Another guess would be HSH Caroline, Hereditary Princess of Brunswick-Lunenburg, which was the name of the entire territory called Hanover. Charles 05:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Just heard on BBC Radio 4 that Queen Caroline died due to medical maltreatment of an umbilical hernia. She'd developed the hernia after childbirth, and it had gone untreated until a loop of bowel protruded through the hernia (but still under the skin, no doubt). Today a doctor would push the bowel in and patch the hernia, but her physicians *cut* the protruding bowel. And repeated the procedure each day until she died (about 10 days).
Hence the verse from Alexander Pope:
Here lies, wrapt up in forty thousand towels,
The only proof that Caroline had bowels.
- Alexander Pope, Epitaph on Queen Caroline.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.91.210 (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed, I recently watched an episode of "The Georgians", a historical tv series, presented by Dr Lucy Worsley which discussed Caroline's death. It has set me wondering about the accuracy of the account presented here, as according to Worsley she died as a result of the snipping through of the strangulated section of bowel. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 

message: You know, I've never liked those instances where a male consort is indicated as the last person to hold the title of Queen consort! I don't think we should say "untitled" either, as he did have some titles, though not related to his position as consort.
I'd prefer using one of the below (or similar). DrKay (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also suggest removing the "Electress consort of Hanover" box. What purpose does it serve? She is notable for having been queen, not an electress. Surtsicna (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succession box 

message: By May of the following year, Caroline thought herself pregnant....
Had to smile when I read this. "Thinking oneself pregnant" sounds like mind over matter, or a miracle. Anyhow, the rest of the sentence shows that indeed she was pregnant. Nowadays I think most people would say "Caroline discovered she was pregnant."  Sca (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right but I don't think she could have discovered it. There was no way pregnancy could be proven in its early stage back then. Mary I of England thought herself pregnant too yet it turned out to be a deadly tumor. How about "Caroline realised she might be pregnant"? That part is not really neccessary anyway, since, as you say, she was indeed pregnant and eventually gave birth. Surtsicna (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your fomulation would be fine, but maybe the whole sentence is irrelevant?  Sca (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Immaculate conception?

message: Why is this article titled "Caroline of Ansbach" when the first sentence of the article tells us that she is "Caroline of Brandenburg-Ansbach"? —Lowellian (reply) 19:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it's because an overwhelming majority of sources refer to her as Caroline of Ansbach, while "Caroline of Brandenburg-Ansbach" is technically more correct. Surtsicna (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the article intro should explain that; otherwise, the article looks misnamed. I've gone ahead and added a small note. —Lowellian (reply) 05:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: oops, sorry about ec. for me uncited sources are still sources, but change it back if you prefer, i also used the cite ODNB rather than citation. 198.24.31.112 (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: sources

message: She is the first Princess of Wales to go directly to being Queen Consort. Should this be mentioned somewhere? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not without a source. Not because it's wrong, but because we don't include every fact about her. We only include the pertinent facts that any summary biography of her would contain. DrKay (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Princess of Wales 

message: Just looking at the several recent edits, mainly to the second para in this article. There is clearly some confusion about the status of her father and that of the principality where she was born. In fact, Ansbach (or Brandenburg-Ansbach to give it its full name) was part of the Holy Roman Empire - not Prussia. Her father was John Frederick, the Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach. He died when Caroline was three. The Elector Frederick III of Brandenburg became Caroline's guardian and gave her a temporary home in Berlin. When Caroline was 11, her mother married Elector John George IV of Hanover, who became Caroline step-father.
Also, I don't think it's correct to refer to Caroline as a Margravine. Her mother was a Margravine before her first husband's death, and became an Electress after her second marriage. Caroline eventually became Electress of Hanover, but as a result of her marriage to George Augustus.
I hope the above might help with the aforementioned edits. My main source for this is Matthew Dennison's The First Iron Lady (Harper Collins).
-- Mike Marchmont (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Place of birth; father

message: This article states that she was the first crowned queen consort since Anne of Denmark, but the article about Mary of Modena says that the latter was crowned too. Surtsicna (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that looks wrong. Mary was crowned twice it seems: once in Catholic rites on 22 April at Whitehall and then again with Anglican rites the following day in Westminster Abbey. DrKay (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction - first crowned consort since Anne of Denmark?