Talk:Queen Victoria/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  1 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Victorian 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reformat 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Victoria's Prime Ministers 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Would also suggest that assisination attempts be merged into the one section, to make better reading. Astrotrain 21:16, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Introduction 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Post 1880 election 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cannabis Tea 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jubilee plot 

message: Bueller?
Garrick92 13:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Harrumph 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Alexandrina 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Victoria in the Ontario Legislature 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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!!! FearÉIREANN\(caint) 04:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style Wars 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Succession Box 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Authority? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Who if not her? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  1842 assassination attempts? 

message: 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  (talk • 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mass murderer 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Census info 

message: The huge table  (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)
thread_title:  Problem with huge table hiding other info 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Interminable statues 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Defeatured 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Extra 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Place of birth 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "We are not amused" 

message: This article states "as a monarch Queen 200th. proposed to Albert. I found this very interesting. Why does it not link to another article? Surely this interesting fact deserves an article of its own. Does anyone have any info on this? Does this rule still exist today? (Did QE II propose to the Duke of E.?). Thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.56.132.168 (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monarchs must propose 

message: "John Francis (most likely seeking to gain notoriety) fired a pistol at the Queen (then in a carriage), but was immediately seized by Police Constable William Trounce. Francis was convicted of high treason, but his death sentence was commuted to transportation for life. (It is not known whether he was later elected Prime Minister of Australia, but this seems unlikely)."
Is this comment about Australia genuine and appropriate? Mr. Francis doesn't seem to have a bio on Wikipedia. If there is real debate about whether an attempted assassin became PM of Australia, wouldn't he be notable enough to deserve one? 
Canuckle 20:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, that comment is just a bit of mischief (now removed). Cheers, Ian Rose 02:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Francis? 

message: A lot of this stuff seems pretty trivial for a biographical article. Surely we don't need all this detail? How important is it that we include a park or a street or a building named after her? Every city in the Empire had something like that. And she features as a character in thousands of books and movies. --Pete 07:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture 

message: Whoever is doing this needs to take a good look at this.--Rmky87 18:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is using ''ibid''? 

message: Though Victoria became monarch at a time when the United Kingdom had become an established constitutional monarchy in which the King or Queen held few political powers
As far as I know GB - for lack of any constitution - is not a constitutional but a parliamentary monarchy. The German Kaiserreich was a constitutionl monarchy for instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.141.215.216 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 23 December 2007
:First of all, hi and welcome to the 'pædia! Secondly, you can sign your posts (which lets people when you posted), by typing ~~~~ — you can do so without logging in, but, if you're planning on sticking around, you might want to get an account. To address your point, I think you ought to read the definition of the term constitutional monarchy, as given at the term's article. Enjoy! DBD 23:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Constitutional monarchy]]? 

message: I have suggested that William Hamilton (criminal) be merged to this article, because he is notable for only one event per WP:BIO1E. So far as I can see, the article on Queen Victoria covers him in as much detail as his own article, so his own article is redundant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me, lets do it. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, though the article says nothing not here already so all I have done is the redirect. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[William Hamilton (criminal)]] 

message: Sorry for my english. Hi all, this page of wikipedia apparence in a fotogram of film National Treasure: Book of Secrets in a Laptop. The fotogram is in a 00:34:14 "film time". Bye :-)--Conte0 (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film apparence of this page 

message: This article looks like complete and utter crap. I have edited several times the layout of images only to have users with no taste shove any image into the mix with no regard for layout.
--Mrlopez2681 (talk) 05:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This artice looks TERRIBLE 

message: There appears to be no mention of Victoria's friendship with Benjamin Disraeli, which I've heard was very important to her after Albert's death. If there's mention of John Brown, surely Disraeli should be a part of the article as well? Someone with greater knowledge in this area could possibly integrate him.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.238.32 (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benjamin Disraeli? 

message: The article says she was a native German speaker. Surely this is misleading if not outright false. Her (main) native language was English. Peter jackson (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native language 

message: I just thought I'd point out an excellent source now that The Times has opened up its archive for free (I think for a limited time only, and it requires registration for some articles), but Victoria's coronation is described here. I haven't got the time to go through it myself, as I'm off on holiday tomorrow and have to pack, but hopefully someone can put it to good use. 
As an aside, I would like to take this time to mention an excellent paragraph from the report on the coronation:
One ludicrous circumstance occurred which may be worth mentioning. For some time a bird of large dimensions had been observed flying backwards and forwards, and then to hover over the Palace so frequently, as to call for the peculiar notice of a coterie of elderly ladies, who chanced to have esconced themselves in our own particular neighbourhodd, one of whom, after much examination and apparent inward consultation, pronounced it to be a goose. To describe the instant expression of horror which rushed upon the faces of those ladies would be to attempt a task on which failure must attend. "What !" exclaimed they in one voice–" what ! a goose; lor, you don't say so." "But I do," continued the first named, " and I am quite confident of it ; it is a goose, poor dear soul." "Ay, ay, well may you say poor dear soul. Well, there's no saying anything for a certainty beforehand, is there? Who'd have thought it, that a nasty, ugly, long-necked (and here the lady somewhat stretched out her own neck, which could neither boast of plumpness nor of shortness) goose should have been fated to mar the happy events of this day! There will surely be some accident, or the poor dear soul, God bless her, will not long survive the ceremony." To this prediction the friends one and all assented with open mouths, one of them adding, that probably so lamentable a result might be averted, if any man would only shoot the wretch.
Apologies for the length, I just found it amusing. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 14:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coronation 

message: Is there a reason for using 'advise' rather than 'advice' in the second paragraph of the introduction? AJSG (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like a simple spelling error. I have fixed it now, but feel free to correct any others you find. Road Wizard (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: this doesn't say when they were engaged. how long was the time between their engagement and wedding? 69.139.230.251 (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engagement? 

message: Just wondered if the editors of this article wanted to make use of this work? --Mais oui! (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  1863 photograph at Balmoral 

message: It is very dubious whether there was ever such a thing (in Britain) as the "House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha". While Albert certainly was a scion of that dynasty, Victoria was the head of the household in Britain by virtue of her status as monarch (witness her proposal of marriage to Albert), and to that extent the dynasty was transmitted through her, not Albert, and the House of Hanover lived on in Edward VII, and lives on today. albeit under a different name. Escoville (talk) 10:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No scholar finds the fact that Victoria was the last member of the House of Hanover to reign in the UK dubious. The dynasty name was traditionally transmitted through men and that was undisputably the case with Albert and Victoria: she passed the crown, he passed the house name. Furthermore, King Edward VII recognized House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha as his royal house and so did George V when he changed the name of the house to House of Windsor. Surtsicna (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saxe-Coburg-Gotha 

message: Victoria succeeded to the throne on the death of her uncle, William IV.  But he had several living younger brothers at the time.  One of them went on to become King of Hanover, another had been the viceroy in Hanover during William's reign.  Why were they passed over as Kings of the UK?  - Wolfram.Tungsten (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Edward Augustus, Duke of Kent (Victoria's father) was the eldest to have issue. Succession is via the brother, then his children.  Hence, if Edward had had no children, the crown would have passed to the next youngest brother (and his children). fishhead64 (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Victoria's father was older than William IV's surviving brothers. Victoria was her father's heir general, being his only child. According to the rules of primogeniture, Victoria was William IV's heiress - being the only child of his eldest younger brother. All her uncles came after her in the line of succession because they were younger than Victoria's father and Victoria "represented" her dead father. Surtsicna (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succession 

message: Who are the children, grand-children and great-grand children, that Victoria overlived ? What are there reasons for there early death ? --AndreaMimi (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Grandchildren of Victoria and Albert for details and dates. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children and grand-children and great-grand children, she overlived 

message: From the archive:
: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)
replies: text: it no longer redirects here, it redirects to Cultural_depictions_of_Victoria_of_the_United_Kingdom, which does not explain it, or even mention it. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it should be covered. Knopffabrik (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a picture with a long caption in the legacy section. DrKiernan (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  We Are Not Amused 

message: Although christened Alexandrina Victoria - and from birth formally styled Her Royal Highness Princess Victoria of Kent - Victoria was called Drina within the family.
'Her name, though finally agreed upon as Victoria Carolina, was disputed over by her mother and uncles.
Alexandrina or Caroline?  87.250.113.209 16:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That Carolina was left over from some vandalism DBD 18:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of curiosity, I googled "Queen Victoria's last name" (slow night) and got the familiar information that her married surname was "Wettin," but also the claim that her maiden name was "Guelph." Does anyone know if it's so, and should it appear in the article? (Victoria Wettin" redirects here). DavidOaks (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Victoria never had a surname. She was born a royal and became a queen — neither is the sort of person to have a surname. DBD 19:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victoria's name? 

message: The article mentions 2000 sterling QV gave to Irish people, but fails to mention that she refused Ottoman's aid of 10000 stg and allowed only 1000. IMAO quite important, see Irish Potato Famine --79.97.214.191 (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, feel free to add it + source if you think it's important :) –  Toon(talk) 14:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'll try and find a source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.33.133 (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Famine

message: Just to make it easier to find, could the Queen's stated religious beliefs be added to the info box at the top of the page? Invmog (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: I should have been appended this to "Was queen Victoria a bastard?", above, if at all.  I will search for supporting academic article which appeared in the 1990s.  There was contemporary discussion of this posit when identifying remains of the last czar and his family; whether P. Philip's DNA should be used (it was). ˜˜˜˜.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1201SLD (talk • contribs) 15:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, sorry to interupt this jolly nonsense with some actual science, but Haemophilia (the correct spelling, by the way) can be inherited from either parent, not just from a father. Female carriers of the disorder are usually asymptomatic (ie have no symptoms of the disorder themselves, but carry the faulty gene, and can pass it on to their offspring), so the disorder could well have come from her mother.  (In much the same way that the disorder was passed on by some of Victoria's asymptomatic daughters).  The fact that Victoria's father did not have the disorder proves absolutlely nothing.  Indisciplined (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh, this fun again.  I don't understand how Victoria's paternity comes into whether Philip's DNA should have been used.  Philip's mother's mother's mother was Princess Alice, the tsarina's mother.  If Victoria was a bastard, that does not change the fact that Philip and Alexandra ought to have shared mitochondrial DNA.  Beyond that, since there are no male carriers of hemophilia who do not actually suffer from the disease, the only way for Victoria to have inherited the gene for hemophilia from her father is if he was an actual hemophiliac.  For those who continue to press this, who was this supposed hemophiliac lover of the Duchess of Kent?  The most likely possibility here is that Victoria or her mother was a mutant.  This is, as I understand it, normally how hemophilia arises, because until very recently hemophiliac gene lines tended to become extinct.  At any rate, I don't see how this can be taken at all seriously until the Duchess of Kent's hemophiliac lover can be identified and his connection to the Duchess demonstrated.  Most of the accounts I've seen seem to want to use the hemophilia angle to suggest that Sir John Conroy, who did not suffer from hemophilia, was Victoria's father.  That hardly works. john k (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paternity of Queen Victoria 

message: Shouldn't the article mention that Victoria died from a cerebral haemorrhage? (92.10.25.106 (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: She did? GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause of death 

message: You state, quite categorically, that "myths were generated towards the end of the 19th century that she had donated a maximum of £5 in aid to the Irish, and on the same day also gave £5 pounds to Battersea Dog Shelter. This was false, as she in fact contributed £2,000" Yet the reference (28) reads "insert footnote text here"... What is the source for this please?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatqwerty (talk • contribs) 19:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 

message: The article's "Accession" section states as follows: 
Intentionally or not, this gives the impression that she was proclaimed Queen Alexandrina Victoria. In fact, as published in the Gazette, she was proclaimed as Victoria. While the proclamation certainly refers to "Princess Alexandrina Victoria", it just as certainly refers to "our Liege Lady Victoria, by the Grace of God Queen of..." and "Royal Princess Victoria with long and happy years to reign over us." By way of comparison, George VI was "Albert Frederick Arthur George" in the parts where Victoria was "Alexandrina Victoria" and "our Liege Lord George VI" and "the Royal Prince George VI" in the other places.
I don't have access to the book used as a source for the passage I quoted above. As a result, I can't verify whether it is supposed to refer to drafts. Whatever the case, the passage seems to suggest that the proclamation and oaths "went live" with "Alexandra Victoria", and the name was only changed later. As I have shown, that is not true, at the very least, in the case of the proclamation. I would like to be able to make the changes to eliminate the misleading implication, but I lack the facts to do so without potentially creating a new one, or even an out-and-out falsehood. So, I do therefore beseech thee, the noble and loyal Editors of Quality to bring your aid to this unhappy Circumstance. (Sorry, I've been reading accession proclamations for an hour or so.) -Rrius (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accession proclamation 

message: The final paragraph of this section may be inaccurate. Currently it reads: 
Victoria was taught only German until she was three years old. . . . Her mother spoke German with her.
I do not have the source to back it up, but it seems that she actually denied this herself. Someone on IMDb has quoted her as responding to a proposed biography, as follows: 
It seems at least one proposed biography that was done soon after her marriage had claimed that she lisped Teutonic phrases to please her mother's ear to get her way as a young child but Victoria wrote back 'Not true. Never spoke German until 1839[when she and Albert became engaged]. Not allowed to.' 
Ed8r (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heiress to the Throne, final paragraph (about languages) 

message: The following sentence opens the second paragraph of the first section, titled "Heiress to the Throne"
The young Princess Victoria was the only legitimate child of the fourth son of George III, the Duke of Kent, who died in 1820. 
Both men died in the same year. I believe it would be a good idea to disambiguate the sentence by noting that both died in 1820.
The young Princess Victoria was the only legitimate child of the fourth son of George III, the Duke of Kent, both of whom died in 1820. 
I cannot edit it because the article is semi-protected. Thanks to whoever does.
:I'm sorry, but, who are these two people who died in 1820? George III was the Duke of Kent - she only had one father. Or am I misunderstanding something? Could you please clarify, and then reinstate this request.
:Also, When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured here..
:Thanks,   Chzz  ►  12:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The fourth son of George III was Edward the Duke of Kent.  Both George III and the Duke of Kent died in January 1820.  I haven't done the edit because I'm not sure of the relevancy for George III's date of passing vis a vis Victoria's heir apparent status since she wasn't George III's heir.  The sentence might be improved if we removed the reference to George III altogether. Syrthiss (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworked it so it is clear whose death in 1820 we're talking about. -Rrius (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request - Disambiguation of death dates 

message: Could somebody write about Queen Victoria's passion for the dogs? Google "Queen Victoria dogs".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.17.197.178 (talk) 08:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enthusiast Dog Owner 

message: I found it by chance, when searching for sources about Victoria. Among the notes there is a reference to book "Greg Taylor, Nicholas Economou (2006). The Constitution of Victoria. Federation Press." which is definitely not the book about Queen Victoria, but about the Australian state of the same name. For example note 67 references to this book - it should be a source for the information about Victorias royal styles and titles, but there is practicaly nothing relevant about it on given pages (or anywhere else in the book). You can find the book via google books and look for yourselves.
188.175.126.66 (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest looking up the reference in an older version of this article, say the end of 2009. I recall that the reference then, although not one most people would first think of checking, did give and support the bare facts about Victoria's style and arms. What I think may have happened is that either a 'bot or an unversed human editor may have helpfully updated the reference to a more recent and available edition, which unfortunately doesn't have the information needed. (Similar things happen in semi-mechanically-translated articles such as History of the Jews of Thessaloniki; see Talk:History of the Jews of Thessaloniki.) However, this is just a guess; I may be completely mistaken. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid reference 

message: Excerpt : "In Sydney, the capital city of New South Wales, there is one statue (re-sited from the forecourt of the Irish Parliament building in Dublin) dominating the southern entrance to the Queen Victoria Building that was named in her honour in 1898. Another Sydney statue of Queen Victoria stands in the forecourt of the Federal Court of Australia building on Macquarie Street, looking across the road to a statue of her husband, inscribed "Albert the Good"." 
The official city statue of Queen Victoria is not in the forecourt of the Federal Court of Australia building in Macquarie Street, nor does she look at her husband. She is located in Queen's Square, Macquarie Street, Sydney and looks towards the Supreme Court of New South Wales building. The statue of her husband "Abert the Good" looks across Macquarie Street towards the Queen. 202.0.106.130 (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Fact on Sydney, New South Wales 

message: Surely Great Britain was already the foremost world power after the end of the Napoleonic Wars? (92.4.142.228 (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps... why? Jmlk17 00:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global power 

message: This sentence seems self-contradictory: "Victoria's first official visit to Ireland, in 1849, was specifically arranged ... to try to both draw attention from the famine and alert British politicians ... to the seriousness of the crisis in Ireland." Could someone who has access to the source clarify it? Colonies Chris (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Irish visit 

message: I have recategorised Queen Victoria as a Knight Grand Cordon of the Order of the White Elephant as that would be the customary grade for a monarch to be appointed to - she certainly would not have been appointed as a 'Member' of the order ie to the 5th Class. The original categorisation was based on their being only one category in use for the Order, that has now been expanded to reflect the different grades of the order in accordance with WP:ODM preferred practice, please note that at this stage the category also incorporates Dames Grand Cordon. If a reliable reference can be found for her appointment to a different grade, please amend the categorisation. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of the White Elephant 

message: Most of the article on "Victoria of the United Kingdom" is excellently written and informative. It's only because I've been looking ridiculously closely in my research that I noticed something wrong. Since the article is semi-protected indefinitely, I'm posting the error I discovered here in the hopes that someone who has the authority to do so will fix it.
There is an image embedded in the article: "Portrait of Queen Victoria's family in 1846 by Franz Xaver Winterhalter," in the "Children" section near the bottom of the article. The caption at the bottom of the picture is the element of the article with which I take issue. The caption is as follows: "(from left to right:) Princes Alfred and Albert Edward; The Queen and the Prince Consort; Princesses Louise, Helena and Victoria."
The inconsistency here is that the caption on this portrait (which was, I restate, painted in 1846) lists the Princesses pictured as Louise, Helena, and Victoria, and in fact portrays Louise as older than Helena. Louise was born 18 March 1848, two years after the portrait was painted, and two years after Helena was born. The Princess who should be listed, the one who is actually pictured, is Alice, who was born 25 April 1843 (as stated in the list of Victoria's children posted below the image in question). She was Queen Victoria's second daughter, older than both Helena and Louise, and is completely excluded from the caption of the painting. So, unless the painter was psychic (and didn't like Princess Alice), this image is captioned in error.
Will someone who has the authority to override the semi-protected state of this article please correct this error?
Arreyn Grey (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, it's been fixed, and, as the person who wrote the original caption, I probably made the original goof. (Now that you're registered with Wikipedia you should be able to make your own edits of semi-protected pages like this one within a few days; semi-protection is just to guard vulnerable pages against vandalism and spam from the outside.) —— Shakescene (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in the article 

message: There is not a line about the actions of Imperial Britain under Victoria, and the suffering it caused to millions Asians, Africans and Native Americans and Ireland.   The epitome of British civilisation under Victoria was the shooting of captives in cold blood, the most infamous example being the Mughal princes in Delhi. Dickens though he as a child suffered as much as a black soul in the colonies, has in The Perils of Certain English Prisoners used his characters to voice his opinion on what British retribution against the natives who try to reclaim their lost land should be. The British in Australia, America, Africa and Asia despoiled the natives of their property, burnt their homes, barbarously murdered them and their little children, wives and daughters.
Their fate is to be exterminated from the face of the earth, that is Dickensian justice. The following is the exchange between Captain Carton and Commissioner Pordage.
A swift and painless death, extermination from the face of the earth, are we talking about the Holocaust, the Jews and the gas chambers, no we are talking about Asians, Native Americans and Australians and Africans if the British had the means we would have had a white world. Victoria is one of the world's worst war criminals, did Hitler ever pull a switch in the gas chambers?   
Dickens himself wrote to a Mrs. Counts on 4 October 1857, "I wish I were the Commander in Chief in India. ... I should do my utmost to exterminate the Race ... to blot it out of mankind and raze it off the face of the earth".
Anonymous editor please do not vandalise, rather face the Queens genocidal ways.  Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your POV pushing post. Glad to see it hasn't been taken seriously.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victoria, British imperialism, Christianity and disaster for the colonies 

message: It mentions nothing of the countless misery she and her government bought upon many of her subjects abroad. She was universally hated in India and Ireland!--85.211.124.18 (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Universally hated" is a pretty strong statement - you can't just badly assert something like that.  Certainly the many Unionists in Ireland did not hate her.  I'd add that Ireland, as part of the UK, would certainly not be part of Victoria's "international legacy." john k (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And her visit to Ireland  at the end of her life - after a long series of reform measures - went very well; so did the Coronation Durbar. Whether she is disliked now is another question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  International legacy section is a joke. 

message: Many sites talks about the possibility of this queen be a bastard.Some examples: [Newsweek] and [] talks about this subject.Agre22 (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What terrible nonsense.  So the Duke of Kent was not vigorous enough...so instead Victoria's mother slept with a "more vigorous" man who suffered from hemophilia?  Who is this hemophiliac lover of the Duchess of Kent supposed to have been?  We know a great deal about the lives of the Duke and Duchess of Kent around the time of the conception.  Is there any historical evidence that such a thing might have occurred?  Hemophiliacs in the 18th and 19th century rarely lived long enough to reproduce - of Victoria's hemophiliac descendants, I believe that only the Duke of Albany had children.  As such, it seems most unlikely that Victoria's biological father was a hemophiliac.   At any rate, no historical sources talk about such a thing, and it should be ignored in this article. john k (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

text: You don't have any idea what you're talking about.  A woman can pass on the gene for hemophilia to her daughter without either of them displaying symptoms.  A man cannot do so.  The gene for hemophilia is on the X chromosome.  Men have only one X chromosome.  That means that he has the hemophilia gene on his single X chromosome, if he has one - there's no such thing as a male carrier of hemophilia.  If a man does not have hemophilia, he cannot possibly transmit hemophilia to his children.  If he does have hemophilia, then he will transmit the gene for hemophilia to all his daughters, but to none of his sons.  The only way for Queen Victoria to have inherited hemophilia from her father is if he was a hemophiliac.  So it behooves anyone who would claim that Queen Victoria was a bastard to explain who the hemophiliac is that cuckolded the Duke of Kent.  It's also worth noting that it's perfectly possible that it was Victoria's mother who had the mutation for hemophilia - Victoria's half-siblings did not get the hemophilia gene, apparently, but there'd be a 50% chance that they wouldn't.  At any rate, whatever problem there is explaining where the hemophilia came from, proposing that Victoria was not the daughter of the Duke of Kent does nothing to solve it.  There are three possibilities here: 1) Victoria inherited the hemophilia gene from her mother, the Duchess of Kent; 2) Victoria inherited the hemophilia gene from her father, a historically unknown hemophiliac who committed adultery with the Duchess of Kent; or 3) Victoria's hemophilia gene was the result of a random mutation. 2 is by far the least likely explanation here. john k (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: and I don't know where the '1 in about 50,000' figure comes from, but medically, about one third of Haemophiliacs have no family history of the disease.  Depending on what type of haemophilia we are talking about, the chance of spontanueous mutation is about 30%, so actually fairly common.  Indisciplined (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear hear. Reliable sources, please. The above is Men in Black stuff. Andrewa (talk) 08:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

text: It should also be considered that the Duke was in his fifties when Victoria was conceived. The older the man, the more likely that the sperm has defects which could lead to mutations. 129.49.236.10 (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was queen Victoria a bastard? 

message: from the Haemophilia wiki article:
Haemophilia has featured prominently in European royalty and thus is sometimes known as "the royal disease". Queen Victoria passed the mutation to her son Leopold and, through some of her daughters, to various royals across the continent, including the royal families of Spain, Germany, and Russia. In Russia, Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich, son of Nicholas II, was a descendant of Queen Victoria through his mother Empress Alexandra and suffered from haemophilia.
In Spain, Queen Victoria's youngest daughter, Princess Beatrice, had a daughter Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg, who later became Queen of Spain.  Two of her sons were haemophiliacs and both died from minor car accidents: Her eldest son, Prince Alfonso of Spain, Prince of Asturias, died at the age of 31 from internal bleeding after his car hit a telephone booth.  Her youngest son, Infante Gonzalo, died at age 19 from abdominal bleeding following a minor car accident where he and his sister hit a wall while avoiding a cyclist.  Neither appeared injured or sought immediate medical care and Gonzalo died two days later from internal bleeding."--70.162.171.210 (talk) 09:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: she would liteally have spent her entire life in fear of this disease including a massive fear of childbirth and yet little to nothing is mentioned in the article and i propose it notes a whole subsection--70.162.171.210 (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: She didn't have it. DrKiernan (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

text: It is in the article. DrKiernan (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Queen Victoria]] nothing on [[Haemophilia]] in her webpage is ridiculous 

message: Which did she use - if you read the article there is no mention of her using German (which was her mother tongue) she also spoke English, probably french and it is claimed wrote in Urdu and Hindi. Any more? Is that accurate?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.96.60 (talk) 07:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Her mother tongue was English. She took German lessons from a private tutor as a child, but was forbidden to speak it outside of the lessons because her mother wanted to ensure that she was seen as English and English only and not as a foreigner (e.g. Longford, p. 31). Victoria noted that Abdul Karim was teaching her Urdu after 1887. She used it to "greet Maharanees in their native tongue" (Longford, p. 509). DrKiernan (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages 

message: Can we cut the dates and just keep the years? Only the years are used for sorting. I don't think we need to know the dates here, and the bracketed, reversed dates look odd. DrKiernan (talk) 09:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children's marriages 

message: I had added the following:
"Often thought of as a model of prudery, Victoria described her wedding night in her diary, "When day dawned (for we did not sleep much) and I beheld that beautiful angelic face by my side, it was more than I can express." A biographer notes, "It was actually Albert who was the prude."(ref)(end ref)
Another editor found this less than compelling and removed it. There is most likely going to be no revelation from her lost diaries that "I like sex" or "I hate sex" or "Albert gets on my nerves. He is such a prude!" This, folks, is probably it. The biographer is reliable, though apparently nn. His interpretation credible IMO. Student7 (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a rather tame passage compared to other parts of her diary describing her wedding day: "I NEVER, NEVER spent such an evening!!! MY DEAREST DEAREST DEAR Albert ... his excessive love & affection gave me feelings of heavenly love & happiness I never could have hoped to have felt before! He clasped me in his arms, & we kissed each other again & again! His beauty, his sweetness & gentleness – really how can I ever be thankful enough to have such a Husband! ... to be called by names of tenderness, I have never yet heard used to me before – was bliss beyond belief! Oh! This was the happiest day of my life!" (Hibbert, p. 123; Longford, p. 143; Woodham-Smith, p. 205 [emphasis as used by Longford]). All this despite having spent, as she admits in her diary, the entire evening lying down with a headache unable to do anything. The lady had a headache. The gentleman rose early. Greville told Lady Palmerston, "not the way to provide us with a Prince of Wales" (Woodham-Smith, p. 205). They clearly had an active sex life: they had 9 children, but if you're going to insert something along these lines it should be sourced to the reliable biographies written by notable and well-respected authorities not a non-historian popular author like Farquhar quoted in Florida Today. DrKiernan (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I don't know if there is any truth to the story that when advised by her doctor not to have any more children she responded with disappointment that that would mean no more sex.  Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The academic biographies think the quote too out of character to be true. DrKiernan (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a prude? 

message: I have not read the article throughout but a search using Ctrl-F reveals nothing about the Royal Albert Hall and I conclude therefore there is nothing about the architecture of Britain during the reign of this Queen. In fact it did change completely in a number of ways in particular as a result of industrialization. I do not here intend to be understood as referring simply to the creation of Victorian new towns but to the fact that for the first time a majority of the population lived in urban areas and within the countryside there was a change in both England and Scotland so far as what previously had been common or shared land was concerned. 
I suggest architecture and the use of land (which latter continues at least in theory to be entirely the ultimate property of the monarch in accordance with the feudal system) was something with which Queen Victoria and Prince Albert were directly concerned, and the demonstration of this is I suggest the form given by them to Buckingham Palace and later presumably by the Queen herself to the Royal Albert Hall, the two being in fact related. The Royal Albert Hall clearly in turn related directly to industrialization in the particular form of the World's Fair. The significance of this in terms of policy and relationship to the two extraordinarily violent world wars which followed immediately after her reign (that of Queen Victoria) should not perhaps be underrated given the wording of the frieze on the Royal Albert Hall (Uncle Jonathan, Walks in and Around London, 1895 (3 ed.)
PS I have now, just a little bit too late but that sort of thing happens as far as I am concerned, discovered the existence of the article on  Victorian Architecture. This text is now therefore provided there as being perhaps more immediately relevant than it can perhaps be considered to be to Queen Victoria herself. If it is thought that it is not relevant to this site at all then it can of course be removed. It does I hope also have a general interest in both personal (so far as the Queen is concerned) and historical terms. Architecture can be personal! Let us, the British, hope that our famous Queen-Empress herself will rest in peace, as her burial, together with her Prince Consort buried there before her, seems to provide in the form of a message as a result of the inclusion of a reference to Our Lord Jesus Christ (not alas I think referred to here) ...   Shall we ever, I myself wonder, before the arrival of eternity, ourselves ever truly understand? I leave the answere to what I am not, our national clerical experts! 
Peter Judge.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.164.15 (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of the reign of Victoria to the history of British architecture 

message: There is a new book on AMAZON: BRITISH TERRORISM AGAINST BOER CIVILIANS.  How Britian destroyed the two Boer republics by starving civilians in concentration camps.
This was done so that Queen Victoria could get hold of the diamonds. 
The cover of the book shows a collage of a starving child in one of those camps, together with Queen Victoria, Edward VII, and Lord Kitchener.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eventerross (talk • contribs) 05:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen Victoria's Anglo Boer War concnetration camps 

message: Why there isnt sufficiently information about Mr. Brown?! Everyone konws he is the passionate love of the queen Victoria!--78.175.215.79 (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: He's mentioned 17 times. DrKiernan (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  MR.BROWN ??? 

message: In the list of sections, under the Marriage Section, I see a small link of a phone number in my country and when I put my mouse over it it says "Call [this number] in [my country]."
Is this done by an official Wikipedia bot? Or is this a clever hack by an international dating business? QCat 20:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  An advertisement in the list of sections? 

message: As the male-line granddaughter of a King of Hanover, Queen Victoria also bore the titles of Princess of Hanover and Duchess of Brunswick and Lunenburg
Carlfraley (talk) 07:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess she did, but I've never seen it written as such. DrKiernan (talk) 08:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 19:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Carlfraley, 20 September 2011 

message: Queen Elizabeth II's reign has not exceeded Queen Victoria's as stated in this article. Queen Elizabeth II has only reigned 58 years so far.  Gaia0808 (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: THe article says "Victoria reigned for a total of 63 years, seven months and two days making her the longest-reigning British monarch, and was the longest-lived until surpassed by Elizabeth II". that is that Elizabeth is now older than Victoria was when she died, not that she has reigned longer. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Not to nitpick excessively or anything, but at the time of your request, hadn't Elizabeth II's reign been 59 years, not 58? (That would explain why her Diamond Jubilee is this year.) 198.151.130.35 (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from , 11 October 2011 

message: Indian Rebellion of 1857 should be replaced with Indian revolution of 1857
59.185.103.70 (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed extensively at Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857. DrKiernan (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 6 February 2012 

message: Shouldn't this line "She inherited the throne at the age of 18 after her father's three elder brothers died without surviving legitimate issue. " have a comma? "She inherited the throne at the age of 18 after her father's three elder brothers died without surviving, legitimate issue. "
: No, "Surviving legitimate issue" translates as "living descendants" (at time of accession) comma brakes up the flow (compare say - "big red bus", not "big, red bus" for a bus that is both big and red) IdreamofJeanie (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I too think it easier to read without the comma, otherwise it can be read at first as "her father's three elder brothers died without surviving"! DrKiernan (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  I survived legitimate issue. 

message: Although the Dominion of Canada achieved responsible government during Queen Victoria's reign, there is nothing in this article that mentions the fact, so I've removed the category "Heads of State of Canada" and the template "Monarchs of Canada" as unsourced. Opera hat (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a bit of a leap. Queen Victoria certainly falls into both categories, and this fact really doesn't need sourcing (Upper and Lower Canada having been British since 1763 and modern Canada arriving under Confederation on 1 July 1867, halfway through Victoria's reign). The article itself may not provide specifically Canadian information to those seeking it, but on the other hand, many of those consulting the category or using the template would want a complete list. (And this isn't like a category or template with an indefinite number of members, like British authors or modern architects, but one with a small, discrete set of items.) —— Shakescene (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Queen of Canada" 

message: DrKiernan has been asked to reinstate Qexigator's Revision as of 11:41, 12 June 2012 (link to Royal Collection) or give reason/s  sufficient to explain its removal: "Latest revision as of 06:36, 13 June 2012 to Queen Victoria." Qexigator (talk) 08:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The material should be placed in Cultural depictions of Queen Victoria#Statues not as an external link. DrKiernan (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qn Victoria & Pr. Albert_link 

message: I believe this article under the Aid she provided to the Irish should include the following info and its attributed sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_famine#Ottoman_aid
Doggum (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not something covered by Victoria's biographers, or by any academic sources. An announcement of a movie, and an internet magazine are not sufficient coverage to merit inclusion here. DrKiernan (talk) 07:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was Gladstone and his government that helped the Irish out more... --Τασουλα (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 11 June 2012 

message: This post concerns the 7 individuals who attacked Queen Victoria who are listed in this article. A new book has been published on this subject containing much new information.
I am the author of the book and would like to expand and correct the information available on wikipedia concerning these people. I am new to editing wikipedia and despite reading the guide, I am struggling a bit. I would like advice on how to proceed.
Currently 3 of the attackers have their own page: Edward Oxford, Robert Pate and Roderick Maclean.  My suggested strategy would be to add pages for the other 4 and to link these from where they are referenced in the Queen Victoria page. I would also expand and correct the other 3 pages.  The Queen Victoria page is largely free of inaccuracies, although there are a few minor corrections I would like to make to what is said about some of the attackers.
Is this the right strategy?  As a start I have corrected and expanded the page which contained the most inaccuracies, that of Robert Pate.  Could somebody please check if I have done this correctly?
A final question.  There is more information on my website, www.bjc.me.uk.  Would adding this to the 'External links' section be a 'conflict of interest'?
Thanks.
Bcharles4 (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I answered on your talk page, since the question concerns several articles and advice for you as an editor, rather than specifics on improving this particular article. Nczempin (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your changes at Robert Pate look great to me. I'm not sure on the link here. I think a less contentious option would be to add your book to the "Further Reading" section. DrKiernan (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The people who attacked Victoria