Talk:Victoria, Princess Royal/Archive 1

message: *Oppose. This article itself should not have been moved to a hybrid Victoria, Princess Royal and Empress Frederick (which is sadly not in accordance with any Naming Convention, and is a ridiculous bunching of two titularies) without move request. (I expect such move request would have been defeated.) The user who made the said move has in my opinion shown her ineptitude also by leaving this talkpage behind. Arrigo 08:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but on the plus side, maybe no one will be able to find it to read your comments. Deb 17:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  requested move 

message: I added back in the links to Victoria's children: Sigismund, Waldemar and Sophie. Prsgoddess187 15:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage section 

message: As a result of talks below a (preliminary) short list of choices was developed, now proposed for the vote. This set of most likely choices will be added to the vote proposal at WP:RM.
This is an Approval vote as suggested by WP:RM (i.e. striving for at least 60% consensus on an option before a "move" to that option is operated). See Wikipedia:How_to_hold_a_consensus_vote#Third_choice:_Approval_voting for further guidance if not accustomed.
Here are the options. Vote for as many as you want. The option with the most votes is the consensus.
*Don't move (= keep "Victoria, Princess Royal and Empress Frederick")
*# Actually, acceptable although I think it rather too long (sorry, forgot to add this option before) --Francis Schonken 20:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *? No, I do not want "Empress-consort Victoria", or what do you mean with your comment? Gryffindor 19:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: **If one begins with Empress Victoria and tries to alter it to avoid all possible confusions, one will wind up with Empress-consort Victoria of Germany, or possibly Victoria, German Empress-consort. Gryffindor atarts down this road, in his first comment above. I think either of the destinations is a reductio ad absurdum; I'm glad he agrees they are absurd. Septentrionalis 22:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote

message: In total 4 persons voted (Arrigo, Gryffindor, Francis, Septentrionalis). The option with the highest number of votes (2 votes, Gryffindor and Septentrionalis) supported a move to Empress Victoria of Germany, summary:
* 2 votes out of 4 supporting a move to "Empress Victoria of Germany" = 50% < 60%, not enough for a move.
As it seems unlikely that this discussion will result in a clear consensus anywhere in the foreseeable future, keeping it this listed on WP:RM for prolonged voting seems not advised, so I implement the present NO MOVE vote result, and remove the listing of the request from WP:RM, helping out with the backlog there. --Francis Schonken 08:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote count result, 9 days after start of vote

message: Comments for the voting
"Empress Frederick" and "Empress Frederick of Germany" are untenable choices, as they do not even include her own name. To me, it is unthinkable to put a biographical article about a female under the heading that says only her husband's name. Arrigo 16:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a long row to hoe; starting with Princess Michael of Kent. Septentrionalis 17:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Princess Michael of Kent" is not yet deceased, thus she could be an exception, as for living, here is some tolerance to formulations they  themselves use in formal protocol. However, I oppose also her naming. As she is living, and besides is not a consort of any monarch, she is a false example for naming Vicky, who is supposed to conform with NC for deceased monarchical consorts. Arrigo 17:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to those who are keeping all formalities (such as the style by husband's name and other paraphernalia in accordance with male privileges) I would suggest one technically very correct form: Victoria of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. See, she was her father's daughter, and as such her mother's realm should have no effect to how male-stylists regard her. Arrigo 20:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, I include, and will accept it, only in deference to the people who insisted that we must have Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden and not Gustavus Adolphus. It's wrong, but better than the present title. Septentrionalis 17:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As my little research of yesterday pointed out, the second given name is never mentioned without also adding the third. The sequence of the three first given names occurs not so often as the sequence of all four given names, but, at least it exists. So, if following the Alexandra example, in this case it would involve three names. So I added that more obvious choice too in the list above, but would not vote for it (for reasons given below): just pointing out it is more likely than exclusively the first two given names + "of the United Kingdom". --Francis Schonken 20:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: The chief problem, as always, lies of course in the fact that there have been at least four individuals with some stake to the simple and nice name Victoria of the United Kingdom. Some disambiguation is thus needed. The three worthy persons were Queen Victoria, who is now located at Victoria of the United Kingdom, her eldest daughter Vicky, the German empress, who could be at Victoria Adelaide of the United Kingdom and the second granddaughter of the first-mentioned queen, Princess Toria, who currently is located at Princess Victoria Alexandra of the United Kingdom. Additionally, another granddaughter could also have a stake, but fortunately she can be located at Princess Victoria of Edinburgh (and I am certainly not suggesting her move at this time). This mess has made me think again and again that we possibly should not have a prohibition against using the ordinal ("I") of monarchs who were the only so-named in their monarchies, as the first Victoria could then be at Victoria I of the United Kingdom which at least hints that she was not only a princess or a consort.... Arrigo 09:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This paragraph would be much easier to follow if the four choices were divided by semicolons or bullets. Arrigo, please consider either doing this or else consenting to it's being done. Septentrionalis 16:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whut? they are not choices (at least for heading of this biography), at least the paragraph of 17.9.2005 09:17. There is just listing basically of other persons who have also a stake to same or similar headings. Septentrionalis, is your question an error, or what do you mean? Arrigo 21:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I would prefer not to see Victoria I of the United Kingdom because it will not be used either as a search or in running text. Her present location is at least possible. Septentrionalis 16:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  requested move 

message: In the titles and styles section, it gives her dowager title and style as Her Imperial Majesty The German Empress Frederick. Does anyone know for certain if she adopted the style of the German Empress Frederick or just the Empress Frederick? The latter seems to me the most logical style, although if the other was what she had adopted, then that is fine. I want to change it to The Empress Frederick, but I will wait for discussion. Charles 01:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard her referred to as "The German Empress Frederick." john k 04:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "German Empress Frederick" OR "German Empress Friedrich" gives 305 Google results, while "Empress Frederick" OR "Empress Friedrich" gives 22 500... I think it's safe for me to change it then. Charles 04:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: When her husband was alive she was called "The German Empress", but when her husband died she was called "The Empress Frederick/Friedrich".  The "rule" is, I think, proved by the small (1.5%) number of exceptions cited by Charles. Noel S McFerran 14:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never heard of "German Empress Frederick" as a title per se. I just checked the German version, it says she was "Ihre Majestät Kaiserin Victoria des Deutschen Reichs". Which means she was not "German Empress" but "Her Majesty Empress Victoria of the German Empire". I cannot find a reliable source saying that her title was indeed "German Empress Victoria" or "German Empress Frederick". This whole "Empress Frederick" business is a bit of a mess I think, the article should be renamed anyways. Gryffindor 15:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think would be a good name? Without reading the extensive mess above, I would root for Victoria, Princess Royal. Are there other Princesses Royal who became consorts? I think the problem with the initial move request was that too many hybrid choices were presented. Charles 18:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked and Queen Charlotte of Württemberg is at Charlotte, Princess Royal. Charles 18:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This naming game is a complete nitemare sometimes. I think it should probably revert to the first name before it was moved under "Princess Victoria, Princess Royal". The "Charlotte, Princess Royal" is an interesting case, because wouldn't this be in violation of the Naming conventions? hm, because in that case this shouldn't this be something like "Victoria Adelaide of the United Kingdom", no? Gryffindor 20:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we still have Frederick, Prince of Wales, Henry Fredrick, Prince of Wales and Arthur, Prince of Wales though... Each case is a substantive title that each held by grant of a sovereign (although it was a specific title akin to crown prince... hmm). Indeed, it would be Victoria's pre-marital title. I am against Victoria Adelaide of the United Kingdom... I don't think she ever used Adelaide. She was also the Princess Royal for almost her entire life and certainly before her marriage. Charles 21:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Princess Royal isn't "just" another title though. It is a substantive title. Charles 17:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, remove all Princess titles, and what do we get? Victoria of the United Kingdom. just grand. That's why I was proposing to add her second name in order to avoid confusion (I would like to avoid any of that when-she-lived-in-brackets format (1840–1901), that really is messy looking. Or go with "Victoria, Princess Royal"... or something like that. Gryffindor 18:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm for Victoria, Princess Royal. It's short, concise and matches up with Queen Charlotte of Württemberg, another Princess Royal who became a consort. Charles 18:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked the other Princesses Royal. I could agree with that as well. Gryffindor 21:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will post it up on Requested Moves. Charles 19:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I suppose some will worry that someone will imagine that she belonged to that empty class, German empresses-regnant? Please answer one question: who exactly will fall into this error, and why shouldn't we disambuse them in the first paragraph? Septentrionalis 20:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Empress Frederick 

message: Just wondering, did Victoria (and by extension, her siblings) receive any titles from their father? This passage from her mother's page says that the Queen would have been a Princess of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Duchess in Saxony as Prince Albert's wife, but of course the title of Queen would outrank those. Prsgoddess187 13:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Victoria, as the daughter of a Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, was a Princess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Duchess in Saxony, in addition to any other titles held by the Wettins of that line. Charles 14:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Charles, that's what I thought, but wasn't sure.   Prsgoddess187 14:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles from Prince Albert 

message: Although hardly a stub, it is still a bit bare bones and other pertinent info could be added. Vicky was a controversial figure in Germany as well as being involved in many contemporary events, from her patronage of the arts and sciences (eg Virchow) to her political clashes with Bismarck and later, her son Wilhelm. I'LL add what I can source adequately but this could use some expert attention too Plutonium27 (talk) 10:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion of article 

message: The source of the naming of this inlet in British Columbia is uncertain as described in the article howver neither of those who are thought to be the ones it was named for have "Louisa" as part of their names, but rather "Louise".  I mention it here in case anyone comes across a source that would indicate who this inlet was named for.  --KenWalker | Talk 05:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Princess Louisa Inlet]]

message: Recent discussions at naming conventions mean that we have moved away from normally referring to queens and the like by their maiden name.  However, actually referring to a woman by her husband's name sound artificial nowadays.  I therefore propose "Victoria, Empress of Germany" as the best title.  Another possibility is "Victoria, German Empress". PatGallacher (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Victoria, Empress of Germany" would be incorrect; there is a significant difference between the titles German Empress and Empress of Germany. Anyway, I don't think that we should ignore the most common name because some people find it artificial. We certainly don't do it in cases such as Princess Michael of Kent. The most common name appears to be Empress Frederick. Victoria, Princess Royal is, according to the 2005 move request, the second most common name, while Victoria, Empress Frederick is a compromise wich includes both her name and the title by which she is best known. All three options are fine by me. Surtsicna (talk) 16:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC
I agree with PatGallacher. I also agree with the point raised by Francis Schonken that "Princess Royal" is UK-centered POV. Victoria, Princess Royal is actually a horrible and very misleading article title. If we were to use her pre-marital "name", it would be the house name (Victoria of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha). "Princess Royal" is just one of several titles she held, and not widely understood outside the UK. I think her being the German Empress and Queen of Prussia is a lot more significant than the Princess Royal title in the UK. I like the idea above of simply Empress Victoria of Germany, analogous with Queen Sofía of Spain. I feel Empress Frederick is too old-fashioned and not in line with other similar article titles, also, this expression was only used when she was the Empress Dowager. Jolanak (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name revisited 

message: Shouldn't the title of the article read: "Victoria, German Empress"? HansNZL (talk) 08:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title