Talk:Anne of Denmark

message: Hot Nordic Blonde?  Typical.  IP Address 13:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: older entries

message: Her traditional name in English is Anne, but the article repeatedly refers to her as Anna (which, I assume, was her birth name). Is it appropriate to refer to her with both names, or should we stick to Anne at all times? Funnyhat 06:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense.  I went ahead and fixed the spellings. Funnyhat 23:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anne or Anna? 

message: ________________________________________________
LEGAL NOTICE
HEY, ANNE OF DENMARK TENURE IS 1702 TO 1714 REFF FRANCE ARCHIVE ANNE IN CONFLICT WITH RICHELIEU..AND ANNE WITH SEVEN YEARS OF WAR OF ROSES. ANNE ROYAL HOUSE IS YORK-NOT STUART OR WHATEVER.
SIGNED
Queen Margrethe II Valdemarsdatter of Denmark Russia & France
FOR FREE WEBSITES ACCOUNT LEGAL COPYRIGHT SPECIFICATIONS
Creative Common Order of Statutory International Crown Copyright
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
United States of America – European Union – OSI
2.5 Generic Related Right of Margrethe II Valdemarsdatter 
________________________________________________  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.246.228 (talk) 11:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found out now that the catafalque placed over Anne's tomb was destroyed during the civil war. If we really are talking about the coffin, fair enough: but if we are talking about something dated after the civil war or Commonwealth, maybe the dates above are unreliable for that reason too. Apparently, no memorial was built to Anne after her death. qp10qp 23:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I note the comment above that "this is not one of those infuriating Old Style discrepancies".  Which leads me to a query.  Is the death date 2 March 1619 given in Old or New Style?  If Old, this would mean that according to the NS calendar she would have died on 12 March 1619.  (The birth date is ok as it happened prior to 15 October 1582).  --  JackofOz 04:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should engage in original research on this. I've just checked (again) Williams' biography of Anne, Willson's biography of James, and Stewart's more recent biography of James, and since all three give March 2, I would say that our job is done, which is to make dates verifiable to secondary sources. In my view, it doesn't pay to poke the accepted dates for this period too hard, as they do tend to disintegrate, I admit. It's better to just play along with the secondary sources. qp10qp 16:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, indeed.  I know all about the disintegration factor.  However, I'm not sure this qualifies as OR.  Do any of the source biogs explain which calendar is used throughout the book?  Most books dealing with these time periods have a Reader's Note about the dating system they use.  Where the subject of the biog had significant associations with other countries that were using a different calendar, it's important for the reader to know which calendar is being used for any given date.  For example, biogs of 19th century Russians who travelled to the West will typically use OS dates for events in Russia, but NS dates for events in Germany, France, Italy, USA and Britain - or, they'll render all dates in NS.  Both approaches are valid; but whichever approach they take, they'll explain it in the Reader's Note.  I would be wary of believing any dates in a biog that didn't have such a Reader's Note.  So, if these 3 books do contain such a Reader's Note, there's nothing wrong with extrapolating OS dates to the relevant NS dates.  We do that for Shakespeare, for example.  Most books, dictionaries etc say his death occurred on 23 April 1616 and leave it at that, but we go the extra mile to say that this was the same day as 3 May 1616 in those European countries that were using the NS calendar by then.  I have to acknowledge here that I have a private reason for being particularly interested in the calendric basis of historical dates, but that doesn't alter my argument above.  --  JackofOz 00:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should simply follow the dates that are good enough for the secondary sources and not take it upon ourselves to convert them for the honour of Wikipedia. Where books give both dates, as they often do for Russian subjects, we should do the same. Wikipedia policy is monkey see, monkey do, surely. qp10qp 00:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The coronation took place in May 1590, and perhaps Barroll, who is a cultural historian and doesn't provide a strong backbone of fact in his book, is getting muddled up. I note that Barroll, however, gives Anne's birth accurately, as 12 December 1574. I've just checked Williams, Willson, and Stewart and they give the dates of the marriage ceremonies as does the article. The proxy marriage is documented as having taken place on August 20 1589, when Anne was fourteen, and she was still fourteen (just) when she was married in person on 23 November. qp10qp (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates of birth and death

message: You are right about miserie, so I removed that. I count ten other links in quotes, and am listing them here for review (by others, even if you are OK with them):
*"I shall defend the true religion and worship of God, and advance the same, and shall withstand and despise all papistical superstitions, and whatsoever ceremonies and rites contrary to the word of God."
*"froward womanly apprehensions"
*"The King himself was a very chaste man, and there was little in the Queen to make him uxorious; yet they did love as well as man and wife could do, not conversing together"
*"A dress of peach and parrot coloured damasque with fishboned skirts lined with wreaths of pillows round the hips was especially admired."
*"Praying God, my heart, to preserve you and all the bairns, and to send me a blithe meeting with you and a couple of them"
*And he swore "upon the peril of my salvation and damnation, that neither the Earl of Mar nor any flesh living ever informed me that ye was upon any papist or Spanish course."
*"as they say, troubled with the gout"
*"Catholic foreign ambassadors—who would surely have welcomed such a situation—were certain that the Queen was beyond their reach. 'She is a Lutheran,' concluded the Venetian envoy Nicolo Molin in 1606." Stewart, 182
*"In 1602 a report appeared, claiming that Anne...had converted to the Catholic faith some years before. The author of this report, the Scottish Jesuit Robert Abercromby, testified that James had received his wife's desertion with equanimity, commenting, 'Well, wife, if you cannot live without this sort of thing, do your best to keep things as quiet as possible'. Anne would, indeed, keep her religious beliefs as quiet as possible: for the remainder of her life—even after her death—they remained obfuscated." Hogge, 303–4.
*"It was verily thought that the disease was no other than the ordinary ague that had reigned and raged all over England"
*"Latter day experts have suggested enteric fever, typhoid fever, or porphyria, but at the time poison was the most popular explanation." Stewart, 248
Most of these are wiktionary links, though some aren't. Some are links in Jacobean quotes, some are links in quotes from modern historians. Do any cross that line between explaining, interpreting, and misrepresenting? Carcharoth 23:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links in quotes 

message: Having a major side interest in etymology, I couldn't resist, after looking up the etymology of some of those words, speculating on whether some of these quotes from James are among the earliest recorded uses of the words:
*ass - the quote from James, declaring in 1589 that he is not an: "irresolute ass who could do nothing of himself" - now this etymological entry says: "To make an ass of oneself is from 1590" (a year later than James's quote here). Related is asinine (from c.1610). Of course, the donkey (ass) had been used to typify "clumsiness and stupidity" since the time of the Ancient Greeks, but still, this particular dating of a particular phrase ("To make an ass of oneself") to 1590 is interesting, as is the reference to an attestation of asshead to 1550. I wonder what the 1590 quote in question is, and what the OED has to say? Also, will modern American readers see past the slang meaning of the word 'ass'?
:My dictionary has "to act the ass", 1592. But dictionaries don't usually have the earliest usage, often by a long way, though they try. Jonson wrote a play called "The Devil is an Ass", 1622, though what that title means I don't know. I don't think it matters if the Americans muddle this with the other ass because I suspect the meanings were probably already combining in James's day. Chaucer uses the term "ers", though not this way. qp10qp 00:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uxorious is Latin, really. It's interesting that "bairn" is used today in areas which once had Norse influence, but not used at all in the other areas of Britain. qp10qp 01:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Given that James was learned, do you think he may have been referring to Buridan's ass? Seems an irresolute enough ass to fit the bill. qp10qp 01:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant! Now, let's see if we can find a bale of hay here and another one here... Carcharoth 01:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jacobean language 

message: I've linked atheist in the article, but am now wondering if the Jacobeans had a different idea to us when they talked about someone being atheist? I've looked at Atheist#Early Modern Period, but that doesn't help too much. As atheist is a featured article, I'm going to leave the link anyway. Carcharoth 00:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this was the ranting of Kirk presbyterians. But atheism was very much talked about at the time. I remember reading a book about Christopher Marlowe which showed it to be an issue of the day, surprisingly. I've just had a look at our article on Kit, and it has a section on atheism which suggests that Catholicism was associated with atheism by Protestants, though the accusations in Marlowe's case are consistent with modern atheism, as I recall, insofar as they meant disbelief in God. I think as far as David Black (moaning git) was concerned (now there's a juicy red link), anyone who stayed up late dancing ("balling", as he called it) was a surefire atheist. No wonder Anne leaned towards Catholicism: at least you could wear fancy clobber and have a random knees-up, activities close to her heart.  qp10qp 02:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More religious obfuscation 

message: Article's getting a bit bloated now, I admit, but I'm deliberately chucking the kitchen sink in, for the time being; will trim and offload later. qp10qp 02:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bloat

message: I have removed the element in the caption which says that Anne is "probably" in mourning for Prince Henry (more "probablies"!). This is actually what it says at the National Portrait Gallery, but that isn't necessarily a reliable source because it will play up its art (in fact they haven't even been attributing this portrait to Gheeraerts till relatively recently). I don't think omitting information really counts as original research, but here follows the dose of that disreputable commodity by which I concluded that the bit about mourning Prince Henry is questionable: 
Prince Henry died on 12 November 1612, and since the picture is dated to 1612, are we to believe that Anne sat for a picture between 12 November and the end of the year, especially when her son had just died? She was too ill with the gout to attend his funeral on 7 December, we know that. She was also reported to have sat for days speaking to no-one and weeping uncontrollably. Of course, it is still possible that the caption was accurate, because the painter may have already largely finished the painting and added the mourning colours on instruction—but we don't know that, and I think it's best to be on the safe side and stick with information which won't raise the eyebrow of an attentive reader (lowers eyebrow). qp10qp 00:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She could have sat for the portrait in 1613, and the 'date' of the picture might have been retrospectively constructed (either then, or later) to be 1612 based on the mourning clothes in the portrait. Maybe fudge the issue and just say "in mourning for her son Henry, who died in November 1612". ie. the caption won't specifically give a date, but will still explain why she is wearing black, and will give a rough idea of the date, which is probably good enough for most purposes. It would be interesting to find out the provenance of that "1612" date, since, as you say, the artist information only appeared relatively recently. Makes you wonder what problems future historians will have dating and identifying the stuff our age is producing. Information overload, I suspect. I remember reading somewhere that personal diaries and letters from our age will be lost to future ages because (at the moment) when someone dies most of that stuff dies with them inside a computer somewhere (and people throw paper stuff away because "it's all on the computer"). You personally know, from the books you read (such as the Chamberlain one), how important letters and memoirs are to historians, so that is one way that things might be different for historians in the computer age. Not quite sure how I got onto that topic from the provenance of artworks, but there you go! :-) Carcharoth 01:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me we have to choose between two pieces of info offered by the National Portrait Gallery: one, that the work was painted in 1612, and the other, that she was probably in mourning for Henry. Well, I think she is definitely in mourning (that little thing on her head is the clue rather than the colour), and it is also probable that she is in mourning for Henry. But if we choose to represent that in the caption, the 1612 date then comes into question, in my opinion. Knowing the way they go about these things, as you say, the experts may actually have dated the painting according to the mourning, not looking closely at how late in the year Henry died or how upset and ill Anne was. So you could be right—maybe this was painted in 1613, when she'd recovered somewhat: but we can't unilaterally redate the painting on the basis of our well-honed Sherlockian nasal sensitivities. Despite my doubts, I prefer to reference the date than the "probably" (a bit of a giveaway that, of good old art-conoisseurs' blag). qp10qp 03:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Top portrait of Anne

message: See :Image:Cannoniere 1652 03.jpg for a delightful account (about a century later) of how to safely fire a cannon. Carcharoth 10:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I love reading things like that. qp10qp 23:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The cannon accident 

message: Alright, why do I see the "b" word on the "Birth and Upbringing" section? Who put it there and why?
:Vandal.  It's gone, now. Mdotley 22:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Swear Word

message: Although some of the smaller changes to the infobox are fine, I feel that others have reduced the quality of the article. 
*The infobox is now bigger and, on my browser at least, has taken over from the opening of the article in prominence. Instead of the opening of the article being wider than the infobox, the infobox is now wider than the opening of the article, which seems to me inappropriate. 
*Despite this widening, the information above the portrait has now been changed from "Queen consort of Scotland, England and Ireland" to a seemingly inconclusive "Queen-consort of Scots, England, and Ireland (more...)", which does not meet the first principles of design. 
*If one clicks (more...), one gets a big table of information; one should not be given links to information tables on the headings at the top of infoboxes, which should be unlinked entirely, there being plenty of space to link information below; at the very least, one should not have a parenthesis in a heading.
*Queen consort does not have a hyphen as a rule and should conform to our article title and to the usage in dictionaries and history books in that respect. 
*The change from "Queen consort of Scotland, England and Ireland" to "Queen consort of Scots, England and Ireland" has unmatched the parts of the sentence, resulting in bad English; for that to work we would have to say "of the Scots, English and Irish".
*Good English apart, since the form used on titles of Scottish monarchs on Wikipedia is that of "James III of Scotland", and "Mary I of Scotland", etc., we should use that in this case: James VI of Scotland.
*The insertion of flags into the infobox is not to my taste, but I won't oppose it on those grounds: what is problematic, in my opinion, is that the flags have replaced the names of the countries: readers now need to know the flags of England and Scotland to understand what is being indicated: in my view, we should use words to impart information and flags only for decoration, if at all.
*Finally, the caption to Anne's portrait "Anne of Denmark, c.1612. Attributed to Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger." has been replaced by "Queen Anne in mourning for Prince Henry", which is less informative and less accurate. The source gallery says that Anne is "probably" in mourning for Prince Henry, but galleries aren't the most reliable of sources because they often play up their paintings (in this case, the "probably" is quite telling"). Since Henry died in late November 1612, it is hard to believe that Anne sat for the painting between then and the end of the year: but the truth is that we don't know whether she was in mourning for Henry or not in this painting, so it is wrong to pretend otherwise to the the reader. Lets stick to the convention of subject, date, artist, rather than venturing into questionable art criticism in the caption.
I propose to change these aspects back, unless otherwised convinced; but I invite discussion here. I will contact the user who made the changes. qp10qp 15:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have my vote, as you've summed up what I hadn't yet been able to get up the energy to write after seeing the change earlier. Some of the points are simply down to the choices made in filling the infobox details, but I don't see that the new infobox is an improvement over the old one (the (more...) link is particularly ugly and useless.) Yomanganitalk 15:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I've long given up challenging infoboxes or flags in themselves; but I draw the line at their actually taking over. The way things are going, articles will soon be one huge infobox, with a little piece of article cowering in one corner, the size of a lonely hearts message.  qp10qp 15:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Few things to say. I don't really think the infobox is that much bigger, and it adds to the opening does not distract from it. With regard to "of Scots"; this is correct. The title of Scottish monarchs is/was "of Scots" not "of Scotland", so it should read as it now does. Also, I personally prefer the flags, but I won't try and argue against WikiPolicy. I would advise qp10qp to change back the caption, remove the hyphen and replace the flags with text. Otherwise, I think it should be left as it as. --UpDown 13:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as "of Scots" is concerned, it's not a matter of whether it is correct or not, in my opinion, but of whether it matches the titling system on Wikipedia (Mary I of Scotland etc.) and of whether it matches grammatically. All my books on James call him "James I of England and VI of Scotland", and I think the reason is surely grammatical: the need to match parts with "England". qp10qp 17:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm sorry it is, "of Scots" is the correct title, and therefore should be used in the infobox. --UpDown 17:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a grammatical issue. Type "King of Scots, England and Ireland" into Google and you get one hit. Guess what that is? qp10qp 20:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bollocks do I! "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,370,000 for King of Scots, England and Ireland. (0.39 seconds)" DBD 21:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Search the exact phrase. qp10qp 21:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I know, I was being facetious... Deliberately, in order to highlight the fact that you can hardly use a Google search as evidence here. DBD 21:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe so. I've got my books laid out in front of me here, but I can't show them to you to illustrate that no-one says "King of Scots, England and Ireland" (let alone "Queen consort of Scots, England and Ireland"). There's nothing wrong with the term "King of Scots" in itself, of course, though "King of Scotland" is correct too and was used at the time (in fact, I suspect James started to use that form in combination with the new titles when he ascended the English throne for the same grammatical reasons that I have pointed out: the error would have stuck out even more in Latin). So, the only real issue is grammatical. If you want to use "King of Scots", you have to do it this way: "King of Scots, King of England and King of Ireland", which creates a series of matching parts. The trouble here is that the equivalent for Anne of Denmark is cumbersome: "Queen consort of Scots, Queen consort of England, Queen consort of Ireland". Which is why the usual form "Queen consort of Scotland, England and Ireland" is the best solution. (I notice you have used "Queen consort of England, Scotland and Ireland" for the Henrietta Maria infobox, which seems to me the correct choice. qp10qp 21:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We abbreviate from "King of England, King of Scotland, and King of Ireland" to "King of England, Scotland and Ireland", by dropping the repetitions of "King of", so why not the same when Scotland is rendered Scots and listed first? But, if we got with "of Scotland", would you be happy with "Queen consort of Scotland, England and Ireland"? Scotland being first because she was Queen of Scots first. DBD 22:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On your first point, because "Scots" and "England" are not like parts: a series of Latin teachers flogged that principle into me and I'm not going to start letting the old boys down now. On the second point, of course I would be happy with that. :) qp10qp 22:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are like parts – whilst "Scots" is a people, and "Scotland" a land, they are both nouns. See King of Scots#Style – the Latin were Scottorum and Scotiae respectively - both, although separate declensions, are in the genitive case, so, for instance "King of Scots and England" would be rendered rex Scottorumque Angliae, and "King of Scotland and England" rex Scotiaeque Angliae – there's no problem with either in the Latin. :P Thanks for the Latin workout though! DBD 01:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I've removed the hyphen, and reverted the flags, but have retained the caption per WP:CAP. However, whilst I freely admit I may have been wrong in using the hyphen, I only added the flags to stop the dates wrapping, which I feel is undesirable. DBD 15:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Descriptive captions on images are fine in principle, but Jacobean portraits are a special case because we know so little about them: not only did the artists rarely sign them but they were employed by the monarchy to produce many duplicates of their own work and of each other's, even of deceased artists, leading to such stylistic confusion that we can attribute few pictures with certainty to John de Critz, Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger, Paul van Somer I, etc. So it is a real stretch to date a painting, let alone to say with certainty what it is about. I can only guess that DBD changed the caption because he went by the filename; but the filenames on Commons are often very inaccurate (they aren't editable), and this one was based on a "probably mourning Prince Henry" note at the art gallery. When you look into the date of Prince Henry's death, it becomes clear that either that speculation is wrong or the date is wrong. Yes, she is probably in mourning for Henry, but the painting may be a fiction, created in a workshop with no sitting, as was often the case. The truth is that no one knows or can know whether Anne is in mourning for Henry in this picture or not, and we should not pretend otherwise for the sake of an interesting caption. The rest of the article is nailed down with references, and I would not like this to be the exception. qp10qp 17:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes to the infobox

message: Every so often, someone changes the date of birth, without giving any reasons. That Anne's date of birth was 12 December 1574 is verifiable by a glance at the following sources (for full book details see the references section):
"...born at Skanderborg Castle in Jutland on 12 December 1574...". Williams, Anne of Denmark, page 1.
"Anna, born 12 December 1574..." Barroll, Anna of Denmark, 16.
"Born Dec. 12, 1574..." Encyclopaedia Britannica online, Anne of Denmark .
These references can be backed up by others. I am now going to change the date of birth back to 12 December. 
If there are any arguments for a different date, such as old style/new style discrepancies, let them be advocated here. But I think we do well to run with the pack. qp10qp (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of birth

message: I have removed this new section that was added:
Legacy: Cape Ann in the U.S. state of Massachusetts was named in honor of Anne. The explorer John Smith had given it the name "Cape Tragbigzanda" after a lover of his. When Smith presented his map to Charles I he suggested that the Charles should feel free to change any of the "barbarous names" (meaning the many Native American ones) for "English" names. Charles made many such changes, but only four survive today, one of which is Cape Ann.
My reason for removing the paragraph is that, in my opinion, the material is too specialised and tangential for a general biography of Anne (her biographers don't mention it). The information is not significant enough to be worth a place in the article, it seems to me, let alone to have a section of its own. I suggest the information be added to an article about the geographical area in question. I have placed the paragraph here, so that others may assess its worthiness for inclusion. qp10qp (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did add it to the Cape Ann page. Since many bio pages have a legacy section mentioning things like this I thought I'd add it here. But it doesn't matter to me so no big deal. Pfly (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's worth a line, or a see also. Is that all that was named after her? She did notably badly if so! Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed recently added section

message: Recently the file :File:Anne of Denmark by Paul Van Somer.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 23:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New file [[:File:Anne of Denmark by Paul Van Somer.jpg]] 

message: The unreferenced statement that "mutual respect and a degree of affection survived" is opinion and does not necessarily reflect the reality.  For example, look at Pauline Gregg's biography of Charles I from 1981: "...she did not attend the official christening of Charles but remained at Dunfermline, nursing her resentment and planning, some said, to punish those who had poisoned the King's mind against her.  Beatrix Ruthven was not allowed back into her service . . . correspondents in England were writing that the death of Gowrie would be revenged."  Gregg gives a strong impression that the relationship between James and Anne was nothing but contentious.
:I think it was contentious, but it survived. James respected Anne and allowed her her own court and a diplomatic role. He was upset when she died and, as Goodman said, "The King himself was a very chaste man, and there was little in the Queen to make him uxorious; yet they did love as well as man and wife could do, not conversing together". Although James would not restore Beatrice Ruthven to Anne's service, Anne eventually won a pension for her from James. Contrast this with the way Henry VIII treated most of his wives. Do you wish me to add the references to the lead? qp10qp (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "To the lead" - - Do you mean to the actual article?  SURE, why not, can't hurt anything.  :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.200.152 (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Added refs to Stewart. These pages include the above quote from Bishop Goodman and Molin's "many hold that the king is most devoted to her", as well as an account of James's response to Anne's death. qp10qp (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The "True Situation" Between James and Anne

message: This article devotes considerable space to the fight for custody of Prince Henry, but omits all but the barest mention of James and Anne's other children, including Charles I.  This seems a lopsided treatment.  It may be justified, but there should at least be some explanation for the situation. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forgotten children 

message: Was she the last queen consort in Britian to be crowned separately from her husband in her coronation as queen of Scotland?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consort coronation  

message: "When former intelligencer Sir Anthony Standen was discovered bringing Anne a rosary from Pope Clement VIII in 1603, James imprisoned him in the Tower for ten months.[92] Anne protested her annoyance at the gift, but eventually secured Standen's release.[79]"
Would not logic call for an "and" rather than the "but" here?  --Terminally uncool (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: She claimed to be annoyed by the gift but secured his release anyway, despite her claims. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "but"? 

message: In this article, Nicolo Molin wrote a description of Anne in 1606, addressing her influence, or lack thereof, in court. There's no mention of her physical self. A beautiful waistcoat, that might be Anne's, is held by the Burrell Collection, Scotland, and is quite tiny. Was Anne that small in her adult life? If so, was labor and delivery problematic for her? I know that she married the king when she was 14 years old. If this is her garment, perhaps the dating of the waistcoat is off and does not come from her adulthood, but from her teen-aged years. If she was so tiny an adult, I would think that somebody would have mentioned it when writing about her. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7Zl2nnkbt8
Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical description? 

message: Hi, it looks like the links and the texts in the "issue" section on the right are wrong.
Roberteli22 (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue links