Talk:Princess Frederica Amalia of Denmark

message: Could the image really be of her? She died in 1704, and she wears the fashion of the 1780s? --85.226.45.227 (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Succession boxes are not trivial consorts even queen consorts and first ladies are rarely termed to specifically to succeed each other yet we still allow succession boxes on those articles. Holstein-Gottorp was a sovereign duchy. I can condone  the removal from non-sovereign titles like Princess of Wales and even titles of presence that the spouses of pretenders may claim but not this. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: But how far down the hierarchy of titles are you willing to go? How about a margravine consort box? A countess consort box? A lady consort box? Frankly, the thought of such constructions makes me shiver. That gets particularly absurd when we reach the point of describing someone like Maria Theresa as "Grand Duchess consort of Tuscany", a title that nobody has ever used and especially not to refer to a woman who actually ruled a great part of Europe. Surtsicna (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: My lines is at lady. What chills me is your actions on Wikipedia the wholesale removal of succession boxes on Wikipedia by the simple word "trivial". I can find sources of Maria Theresa being called Maria Theresa as "Grand Duchess of Tuscany"  .--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing sums it up better than the word "trivial". Succession boxes themselves are far from indispensable content. They serve to illustrate successions that are actually said to be successions. Succession boxes in the article about Maria Theresa, for example, illustrate the effects of the War of the Austrian Succession and the changes to the Habsburg Empire; a "Grand Duchess consort of Tuscany" box (or a "Duchess consort of Lorraine" box, for that matter) would add no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Only 2 of the 10 first page results refer to the Maria Theresa, and the first of them actually confirms my point: "Half Europe rose against Maria Theresa, whom her rivals affected to style only Grand-Duchess of Tuscany." Adding a succession box to the article about the wife of the ruler of any quasi-sovereign statelet, regardless of his (let alone hers) rank, power, importance, etc, is what I find chilling. What's beneath "lady consort" anyway? Surtsicna (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Read second link for Maria Theresa....Again trivial is solely base on your opinion. If we have title with tenure dates for that position already within the article I seem no wrong in keeping the succession boxes. An equally trivial and less official title First Lady of the United States allows succession boxes on many early figures who were never referred to it as such. Even one for the Second Lady of the United States.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "They've got it so we should too" is not a valid argument. Having a succession box for Second Lady of the United States is incredibly asburd too, but that is out of my area of interest. As for comparing the First Lady of the United States with a countess consort or a duchess consort of anything, I can only say that you must be joking; one is married to arguably the most powerful man in the world and therefore can actually be considered influential, while the other is the wife of a vassal ruler of a tiny statelet (tautology intended). Wikipedia articles are supposed to be of interest to an average reader, meaning that royalty articles are not supposed to contain information interesting only to the most zealous royalty fans - and let's be honest, only such users could care who preceded or succeeded Duchess Marie Elisabeth of Saxony as "Duchess consort of Holstein-Gottorp". Surtsicna (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: My argument is that they are accepted on Wikipedia, period. And I said the earlier minor First Ladies not every First Ladies were comparable to this example...I've argued this you (and only you) hundreds of times now. Any further discussion between us will just be a waste of space on this and other talk pages. You know better than I, that neither of us are going to bend on this issue. If you want to shut me up, you might as well make it big, maybe at Wikipedia incident or something, delete these trivial consort pages, and create a regulation on this.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You must be aware that your point is not a valid point. It boils down to the assertion that they should stay because they are already there, which is entirely illogical. They are accepted only because nobody has challenged their purpose, but you are well aware that I am not the only one who would rather dispose of them. I do not want to shut you up or make an incident out of this. Do you really think that disputes are settled that way? Surtsicna (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

text: I fully support succession-boxes for consorts, but so does Surtsicna, according to the statement at the beginning of this discussion, so the argument need not be so heated. You are only concerned as to where we should draw the line. Personally, my opinion it his: I do not really consider it significant that merely the bearer of a title as such should have a box: the bearer of a noble title in England, for example, seem irrelevant for a box. Although it doesn't matter much for me to let them stay too, as they hurt no one and are practical, the succession-boxes for such articles can gladly be removed as far as I am concerned. The main thing, I think, is to keep the succession for consorts in independent states, where the bearer have the position as the first lady of a court. Whether this state is referred to as a duchy or a kingdom is not as important, that is only a title, and to focus so much on the title as such or how big the state is is perhaps not the wisest way to go. The important definition is: The position of first lady of the court in a state, which is significantly the same as the wife of a president. The succession-boxes for such a thing as Grand Duchess of Finland or Duchess of Nemours can be removed for this reason, because that was really just pure titles, but Holstein-Gottorp, whether called duchy or kingdom, was a self governed state, with its own court, where the first lady of the court filled a position equal to that of a presidents' wife or a queen. I am sure everyone can see the reason in this, so really, no need to be so heated in the discussion. Of course, one has to have the knowledge as to how sort out the titles relevant for these boxes, but that should not be hard, and I think everyone involved already have the information necessary to make this distinction. I find this sensible, does it sound sensible to you? Do not let the title as such decide. As to whether succession-boxes should be used for holders of titles who does not fill this distinction, however, I will not interfere in which decision you choose to make: for me, boxes are not necessary in those cases, but I will not protest if they are kept, nor will I protest if they are removed. As long as they boxes are kept for consorts with the position first lady of the court in a self-governed state, which is equal to that of a president's wife. If we removed those, then there is no need to keep boxes for the wives of presidents or queens. Of that much, at least, I am sure we can all agree. --Aciram (talk) 09:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consort succession boxes