Talk:Prince Louis of Battenberg

message: As for his illegitimate daughter, the alleged reliability of that statement differs much between this article and Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma. --Jao 16:34, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegitimate Daughter? 

message: Rewrote article to correct errors and incorporate additional info. But much should go in articles on his parents, sibs and the Battenberg/Mountbatten family.Lethiere 14:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-write 

message: * His Illustrious Highness Count Louis of Battenberg
    * His Serene Highness Prince Louis of Battenberg
    * Louis Mountbatten
    * (2nd) Marquess of Milford Haven
Afaik there was no previous marquisate of Milford Haven so it's not the second creation and he was the first holder of the title. Either way (2nd) makes no sense.Alci12 17:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's one of those cases where neither option is satisfactory. While the 'historians' think 'Louis of Battenberg' it means nothing to anyone else. Considering that he 'renounced' his foreign titles perhaps this is the right place though I'm perfectly happy to put this to talk_peerage etc to find a consensus. I had left the Louis Mountbatten in, as I assume someone thought they were being very correct as there was a 72hr gap between his renouncing the titles and getting his peerage. I'm not sure it really matters tbh but someone may object.Alci12 18:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's sort of the way I feel — it would make me feel slightly awkward putting it under a title he specifically renounced. (As for the 72 hour gap, during those 72 hours he was known as the slightly more impressive-sounding "Admiral The Rt Hon. Sir Louis Mountbatten, GCB, GCVO, KCMG".) Proteus (Talk) 07:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: True though his PC was 1921 iirc so surely no Rt Hon.Alci12 10:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was appointed in November 1914, presumably as compensation for being forced to resign as First Sea Lord. You're probably thinking of his promotion to Admiral of the Fleet, which was indeed in 1921, just before his death. Proteus (Talk) 11:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles 

message: This edit converted 1st Class, Order of the Rising Sun with Paulownia Blossoms, Grand Cordon in the text to CGRS in the info box.  
The result is elegant, but I wonder if I should understand that this is a mere wiki-convention or whether this acronym is more broadly recognized?  Googling "GCRS" was unhelpful. --Tenmei (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate that GCRS may not be an official abbreviation, but it was the only way I could think of incorporating the honour into the list of other honours in the infobox. We should either abbreviate them all, as now, or expand them all (perhaps in a different section, say "Honours" between "Titles" and "Ancestors"). DrKiernan (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Acronyms and postnominal letters

message: I thought we might revisit the issue of the title, since there was no discussion.  There seems to be good reason to have the article at this title, but there's also some strong reasons in favor of Louis Mountbatten, 1st Marquess of Milford Haven.  For one thing, there's another person who was known as Prince Louis of Battenberg.  For another, as some people noted before, he specifically renounced the title of "Prince of Battenberg" and took a new name.  It seems to me this warrants some discussion, rather than an unopposed move. john k (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: He was known as Prince Louis of Battenberg for almost his entire life, including his entire career as a public person in the United Kingdom, notably as First Sea Lord. He was only known as Mountbatten from 1917 to 1921, for less than four years, and after his retirement. The reason he formally changed his name (I doubt if this had any effect on his name as a private person) as an old man was racism/Germanophobia in Britain at the time, only done at the request of the king and not on his own initiative. I don't think there are any reasons to move the article to a name he hardly used as a public person. Jatoblouw (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue rears its head from time to time. If you look above, here and here, you will see that the suggestion never passes. Even the comment to which you responded is 7½-months-old. Your reasoning is sound. And, should this come up again as a proposed move, you should present the same position in support of not moving. — SpikeToronto 04:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I can't determine the reason for the blank line between the "Commanders-in-Chief and First Sea Lords of the Royal Navy" template and the Authority Control bar. If someone else can, feel free to remove. Congrats on the Main Page appearance! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. It was coded into the template. DrKiernan (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blank line 

message: The Director of Naval Intelligence succession box was removed on the basis that the Directors of Naval Intelligence template already provided the same information.  I would suggest that the Director of Naval Intelligence succession box should be reinstated and the Directors of Naval Intelligence template be removed.  This would provide information about Prince Louis in a more consistent way.  More generally I am against appointment templates (even if I may have tweaked them in the past) as they generate information on biographical articles which are not relevent to the subject of the biography.  For example Reginald Custance is relevent as he handed over to Prince Louis but Patrick Graham is not as he was probably not even born when Louis was Director of Naval Intelligence. Greenshed (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I marginally prefer the template for personal aesthetic reasons, but as your argument is content-based I guess the swap wins over retention of the template. DrKiernan (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succession boxes 

message: Can we get something more neutral on the decision not to disperse the fleet during the July Crisis?  I don't doubt that the cite there is valid, but it's certainly not a universal verdict of history.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.198.170 (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  July Crisis 

message: I'm assuming the citation from note 5 has been taken from a book, but which book?  Otherwise I'd have thought it would be violating WP:OR (even though I'm sure no one actually dug that out of the Royal Archives) and also the Royal Archives' permission policy. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 16:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's from Hough, but I don't which page. DrKiernan (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you fix this reference (now Note 1)? It's been two years now. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 12:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Archives citation 

message: Whats the story with the secondary title "Earl of Medina".    What Medina is that ?Eregli bob (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always presumed it's connected to the Isle of Wight, where they lived. DrKiernan (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earl of Medina 

message: The reasons for being strict about sourcing in a featured article is understood: I apologise for my temerity. However, I would have been more inclined to have left them in with "" bracketing; this would have allowed subsequent checking and possible inclusion in the visible script. A related point is whether all of the decorations in the infobox are sourced - it appears that only some are. I'd also argue that a collection of post-nomial letters is inadequate in a featured article and that full decoration names, grades and other details should be in the article (which might make citation more obvious). All IMHO, of course. Folks at 137 (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Decorations and awards

message: In the article on Mountbatten of Burma the following is stated "In 1914, because of the growing anti-German sentiments that swept across Europe during the first few months of World War I, Prince Louis of Battenberg was removed from his position as First Sea Lord and publicly humiliated by King George V and First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill. Though both men professed 'sadness' at having to do this, private conversations and letters show them both perfectly happy to sacrifice their "blue-eyed German".[Von Tunzelman, p. 44-45]". Surely if this is true it properly belongs in this article in the relevant section, not in one about his son? PhilomenaO'M (talk) 11:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ms von Tunzelmann is wrong, if indeed the passage quoted accurately represents her views (which of course may not be the case).  George V had little to do with Battenberg's resignation, the main figures being Battenberg himself (rapidly nearing the end of his tether), Churchill, and Asquith. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 09:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resignation as First Sea lord 

message: In the top Right-hand info box apparently this guy gave issue to "Princess Andrew" hover over it and Andrew is meant to be called alice. Needs fixing!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.89.230 (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrew is her married name. DrKiernan (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue with Issue 

message: As one who has re-read Buchan's 1915 novel The Thirty-Nine Steps, I am struck by the resemblance in portraits of Louis as an admiral to the description of "Lord Alloa", who is named as the First Sea Lord at the time the novel was set (early summer 1914):  Richard Hannay's narrative describes: You couldn't open a newspaper or magazine without seeing that face - the grey beard cut like a spade, the firm fighting mouth, the blunt square nose, and the blue eyes.  I recognised the First Sea Lord, the man, they say, that made the New British Navy. (Hannay sees an imposter posing as Alloa, having recognised him as a recent pursuer and spy but the "real" Lord Alloa transpires to have been elsewhere at the time.) At moment I have found no evidence Buchan drew the character on him and he could have been a composite but I wonder if it would be germane to this article to mention the character as a cultural reference?Cloptonson (talk) 10:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Verifiability. DrKiernan (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. In the light of lacking evidence of Lord Alloa being drawn on any actual First Sea Lord, I have decided to append mention of the fictional character to the page on the First Sea Lord, only noting Battenberg as the real FSL at the time the story was set and being coincidentally bearded as his photo in the same page bears out.Cloptonson (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portrayed in ''The Thirty-Nine Steps''? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Prince Louis of Battenberg. 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/20090215182305/http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheRoyalFamilyname/Overview.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheRoyalFamilyname/Overview.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: @DrKay, I think you need to reconsider your edits. Look at p. 245 of Louis and Victoria:
On the day Churchill took office, Fisher wrote a long letter packed with strongly worded advice. The most important appointment Fisher told Churchill to make was Louis as First Sea Lord in place of Wilson '. . . Private, Wilson is no good ashore! . . . He [Battenberg] is the most capable administrator in the Admiral's list by a long way . . . I think also this should please the Liberal party – they will say what better proof we could give of our confidence to Germany than selecting a man as First Sea Lord with German proclivities. In reality he is more English than the English . . .10
Let's check note 10 on p. 397:
:10. JAF to WSC 25 Oct 1911. Cited Fear God ii 397.
Let's go to Marder's Fear God and Dread Nought, II, p. 397. Only one letter and its enclosure are featured. At the top is written:
:327. TO J. A. SPENDER
Dated 25 October from Lucerne. There is no letter to Churchill on that page, and technically the Battenberg as administrator quote is on p. 398. It is therefore abundantly clear that Hough was in error in claiming that the letter was addressed to Churchill, and that's according to his own reference. If you consult the original text it is clear that Fisher wanted Churchill to eventually read it, but that's no substitute for the fact that it is addressed to Spender. And no, there are no actual letters to Churchill near p. 397.
For you to revert and state, "I don't see why he can't have just written more than one letter" and "I see no evidence that he did not write two letters" is not only clearly wrong but the first statement is WP:OR. If I had found a letter from Fisher to Churchill on 25 October 1911 after going through all the relevant Churchill and Fisher papers at Churchill Archives Centre, rest assured I would have included it in my peer-reviewed article on the pair's correspondence regarding appointments in 1911 and 1912. A little less blind faith in Hough may be in order. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 08:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: My edit summaries are correct. I saw no evidence that there were not two letters; I didn't see any reason why Fisher was incapable of writing more than one letter. You have now provided evidence and reason. Perhaps next time, a little less snarky arrogance may be in order. DrKay (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blind Faith in Hough 

message: Was this relevant then? Presumably, he had sworn an oath of allegiance to the King as a Royal Naval officer, but there is no mention in the article of this. A little background info on this subject would help to understand how it worked then. 2A00:23C7:E287:1901:EDA7:E55D:63F:7653 (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: According to his naval service record he was naturalised on 30 September 1868 under the provisions of the Aliens Act 1844, whereby a "Memorial" would have been sent to the Home Secretary, who would then grant a "Certificate", and upon swearing the oath he would become a naturalised subject. Under the act he was specifically barred from becoming a Privy Councillor, which he became in 1914, so I don't know if later acts changed that! According to his memoirs "On October 14, Dr Burney took me to a Notary Public at Gosport where I took the oath of allegiance to the Queen and was made to kiss a very dirty Bible; I then signed a paper making me a British subject." —Simon Harley (Talk). 08:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I gather the 1844 Act was wholly repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1870, so the Privy Council bar wouldn't apply. —Simon Harley (Talk). 08:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Citizenship