Talk:Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen

message: Some small information about Adelaide's name at:  Avochelm 13:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed her name to the proper Germanic spelling. In my opinion this is more correct than "Anglosizing" her name. SauliH 21:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Created from edit comments
She was never a English or British princess -- Wehwalt 20:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She was a British princess, by marriage to the Duke of Clarence -- DBD 10:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarence's title as Royal Duke was superior to that of prince. Princess formed no part of Adelaide's title as his wife -- Wehwalt 12:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, the Duke of Clarence was still a Prince of the United Kingdom, therefore his wife, upon marriage, became a Princess of the United Kingdom, although her style was HRH The Duchess of Clarence. Princess formed no part of Adelaide's style as his wife, but she still as one -- DBD 20:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess.  It doesn't seem to be worth arguing about.  Throw it back in.  If Adelaide complains, we will reconsider.  Though by that logic, the Duchess of Windsor was a princess too (I haven't looked)--Wehwalt 20:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur - this is, of course, just a minor detail, but it should still be correct. You're correct that by taht logic, the Duchess of Windsor would have been a Princess, but George VI denied her that title. -- DBD 21:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what George denied her was the title "Her Royal Highness".  Not QUITE the same as being a princess.  I don't think the two are contiguous.  Technically, Camilla is a princess, though she chooses not to use the title.--Wehwalt 02:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The implication of the denial was that the Duchess of Windsor was not a Princess.  As to Camilla, she chooses not to use the title "Princess of Wales."  The "Princess of the UK" title, which she certainly has as much as any other spouse of a prince, she no more "chooses not to use" than the Duchess of Gloucester or the Duchess of Kent does. john k 19:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Princess of the United Kingdom 

message: I think the Consort Box should include Prince Albert, just as it includes George of Denmark (see Caroline of Ansbach, with the title in the box changing accordingly - this also occurs with Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Also, we ought to decide on whether to use "Consort to the Monarch of X" "Consorts to British monarchs" "Queen Consort of X"/"Prince Consort of X" - I would think the latter... -- DBD 15:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If Philip and George are included, so should be Albert. john k 19:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good.  I am glad this discussion has started.  What about "Spouses of Reigning British Monarchs"?  Keep in mind, Philip is NOT Prince Consort, let alone Queen Consort.  Albert was given the title by Letters Patent, uniquely.  But it should not remain Queen Consort--Albert was not a Queen Consort.--Wehwalt 13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consort Box 

message: This article says that Adelaide was pregnant when William IV died, but it's not mentioned here. If she was pregnant, then how did Victoria become Queen (unless the child is stillborn)? Is this true? 87.250.116.18 (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You misread it, I think.  What it means is that the Oaths that were taken on Victoria's accession meant "We swear loyalty to Victoria, but IF Adelaide is pregnant and gives birth, then that child is Queen/King."  In the event, of course, Adelaide was not pregnant.  This language, if I recall correctly, was prescribed by the Regency Act of 1831, and Adelaide was only 38 then.  The next time the situation came up, with Elizabeth II, they didn't bother with the language, but Elizabeth could have been dispossessed by a posthumous son.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  William's posthumous child? 

message: It's not possible for Adelaide to have had a stillborn child (if carried to term) in September 1819, if Princess Charlotte was born and died (as the page suggests) in March of the same year. Possibly the dates are right but clarification is needed if so.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kytamb (talk • contribs) 15:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that just means the baby wasn't carried to term. DrKay (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various dead children 

message: If she died in 1849, then it's possible a photograph of her might exist. Victoria and Albert were photographed before then.
:V&A were into all the new technology that was coming out just then, for example the use of ether in childbirth.  Adelaide was rather reactionary, and she was ill in her final years, so I'm not holding my breath waiting for a photo.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any Photos? 

message: The parents of Anton Ulrich are shown to be Bernhard I and Marie Hedwig (see persons 8 and 9).  However, other Wikipedia pages and other sources (thepeerage.com, among others) show Anton to be the child of Bernhard I and Elisabeth Eleonore.  
Laogro (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Beats me.  For better or worse, a couple of people have been inclined to add long series of ancestors to this and other royalty articles, and I just hope they are accurate.  If you see an error, and are sure of what you are doing, then by all means correct it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancestry 

message: Was she the first female person of Britain(according to order of precedence)between 1821 and 1837? If not who was first between death of queen Caroline to accesion of King William IV?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.157.149.97 (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that the Duchess of Clarence was indeed the highest ranking woman in the kingdom already from 1821, the Duchess of York having predeceased the Queen. Surtsicna (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position 

message: Queen Adelaide was dangerously ill in April 1837, at around the same time that she was present at her sister's deathbed in Meiningen, but she recovered- how is this possible if her only sister Princess Ida of Saxe-Meiningen died in 1852?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like confusion with her mother. DrKay (talk) 09:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sister  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050310075634/http://www.meiningermuseen.de:80/adelheid.html to http://www.meiningermuseen.de/adelheid.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am unable to find any sources that give her the style "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Clarence and St Andrews". DrKay (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: There is a street named Lungo Lago Regina Adelaide at the town of Garda on Lake Garda. Is it named after her?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.209.230.13 (talk) 09:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garda, Italy