Talk:Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld

message: *Support As nominator. Charles 22:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: Is "Viktoria" Wikipedia style? --Henrygb 09:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I've never seen it spelled that way in reference to this person. I'll check up on it.--Marysunshine 23:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscellany 

message: Is it really proper to list her death as having taken place at "Frogmore house" rather than "Windsor" or an actual incorporated place?--Dmz5 05:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Windsor" implies that she died at Windsor Castle. I've tweaked the prose to show that the house was near Windsor. PeterSymonds | talk 10:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  death 

message: In this section, mention is made on the royal family having a history of poryphira.   In that article it is clear that the connection is speculative at best.  Also, the possibility of paternal transmission of haemophilia is grossly overstated.  Is there any reason for me not to modify it?
spiderwing (talk) 11:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, given that two RS are cited, the two books, I'd be careful to avoid censorship.  It is speculative, but much about the past is, and two books have been written, at least in part, accepting the theory.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is speculative, yes. But it is not original research; that's different. It is academic, historical speculation that is suggested in many biographies of Queen Victoria, and books about porphyria etc. There's no reason to modify it, because it cites reliable sources. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, there are serious problems with the citations used on this article.  The citations that has been added for 'Queen Victoria's Gene' does not actually go to anything related to the this book.  Instead, it goes to an unsourced artilcle unconnected to the book or authors in question.  Similarly John Pohl's 'The Purple Secret' has also been given a citation that leads to an unconnected, unsourced article with no connection with that book or author.  Why on earth has no-one checked this?  I'm adding citation requests.  It should be the responsibility of all users to actually check that citations are actually what they claim to be.  This is just sloppy.  Indisciplined (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, located a citation we can use for John Rohl's book, which I have now added.  If someone can produce something for 'Queen Victoria's Gene', we're back on track.  Indisciplined (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on the rumors of affairs section 

message: Was this princess ever referred to as Louisa? There is a lovely inlet
on the BC coast called Princess Louisa Inlet that may have been
named after this lady or her granddaughter. Many adjoining geographic features
are named for children of her daughter, Queen Victoria. --KenWalker | Talk 01:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Princess Louisa Inlet]] 

message: Was her name Victoire or Victoria? I thought her name was Victoire and her and her husband (Prince Edward)  made up the name Victoria for Eventual queen Victoria to create a British sounding version of the mothers French name.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.20.206 (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, her real name was Victoire, pronounced in French, Victoria is the version for the British (see German Wikipedia)--Chiemseehering (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victoire/Victoria 

message: The article mention in passing, that she served as regent in Germany after the death of her first spouse, but this is not given one sentence except for being mentioned in passing in connection to her potential regency in Britain. Should this not be mentioned at all? If she was regent of a state, being a minor German principality, does it not deserve a description? --Aciram (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a little myself.--Aciram (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  First regency in Germany? 

message: What were they? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the arms of her sisters-in-law (except the queens Caroline and Adelaide) are not available either. But if you have a source which shows their arms, you can submit a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop, so that other users may draw them. Keivan.fTalk 04:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a Google search and it turns out that the Duke and Duchess of Kent's joint achievement is rather impressively displayed above the entrance to no. 51 The Pantiles, Tunbridge Wells, TN2 5TE: until lately an Indian restaurant but now to let. Nos. 51-55 are called Royal Victoria House which has this plaque on it. Google street view shows that these arms are the same as those of her paternal grandfather as given on p. 34 of Louda and Maclagan's Lines of Succession. The same arms were borne by Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha, whose article has an illustration already, so all you'd need to do would be to impale them with the Duke of Kent's arms instead of the Prince of Wales's. Opera hat (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Arms?

message: One assumes that, during the reign of George III, Victoria would have the precedence of the wife of a son of the sovereign (behind the Queen (Charlotte), the Princess of Wales (Caroline), the Duchess of York & Albany (Frederica) and the Duchess of Clarence (Adelaide)). During the reigns of George IV and William IV she would have been the wife of a brother of the sovereign (theoretically a lesser rank, but actually higher since neither king had children and three of the senior women had died).
Upon Queen Victoria's accession, what rank would the dowager duchess have had? She was not a queen dowager - The Prince Edward never having been king - and there is no place for the mother of the monarch otherwise. Even the lowest royal rank of the wife of a former sovereign's grandson does not work as Edward's grandfather Frederick, Prince of Wales was never a monarch either. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: She was still the mother of the British sovereign, and should have necessarily enjoyed a high rank in the court, but where her place in the order of precedence was is not clear to me. She would probably be placed after the sovereign herself and above her granddaughters. That's what the rank of Diana, Princess of Wales, would have been had she stayed alive to see her son's reign. Keivan.fTalk 04:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think officially she'd rank as the wife of a royal duke, which is above all other ranks of the nobility but below all the other royals and great officers of state. Though in practice, I suspect she was given precedence with the Queen's uncles and aunts. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: From the description of the coronation in the London Gazette of 4 July 1838, it appears that she ranked after the Duchess of Gloucester (daughter of George III; the Queen's aunt) and before the Duchess of Cambridge (wife of the Queen's uncle). Opera hat (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precedence 

message: Should there be a position section within the infobox in regard to the Duchess’s regency in Leiningen? 2600:1700:2740:1B20:3168:6436:A65D:2258 (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I Agree with you Versailleslover123 (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Regents are normally not given such a thing. Their position as regents were temporary. They had no clear successor or predecessor. It does not look good to place them as if they preceeded the monarch they ruled as regent for, since they did not preceed the monarch as monarch. It is only confusing and bluring to cindlude their regent position in infoboxes. That is not done in wikipedia and that should not start either. It will only cause confusion and in the end may cause the infoboxes to be deleted altogether because they only cause confusion. So please to not do that.--Aciram (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regency