This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Czech Republic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Silesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Silesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Acceptable. Her husband is located at #Elector Palatine", a sub-monarch. This follows NC for such, pre-marital name and title. Her father is located as "of England". Arrigo 10:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I am willing to approve also this alternative. Arrigo 10:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Arrigo, why do you support this version of Elizabeth's married name as the article title, but not the more commonly used Elizabeth of Bohemia? johnk 05:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Because we do not yet have any convention to forbid consort name for sub-king consorts. "of Bohemia" is a king's title, thus against NC, whereas Palatinate is sub-king. Her husband actually is under of Palatinate. Funny: why are certain anglocentrists making here the wife as "of Bohemia" and husband as "of Palatinate". in addition, of Bohemia is POV as endorsing a royal pretension. The point that the said pretension was favored by the English, is not sufficient reason for Wikipedia to endorse it. My vocabulary "willing to approve" is a weak support, i.e acceptable but not preferred. Arrigo 20:00, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Both methods of counting the votes lead to the same indication: no impediment for the Move operation to be completed, except, when following Deb's remark, this move would be seen as a threat to the wikipedia:naming conventions (names and titles) guideline. However, this thought seems not to have influenced the voting behaviour of those who voted for the move to "Elizabeth of Bohemia" ("exception" to the guideline)
(Vote count report provided by --Francis Schonken 07:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)) (Extending vote count report --Francis Schonken 12:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC))
This article was moved to "Elisabeth of England". This would appear to be a controversial choice of title, and I have therefore reverted it pending discussion of suitable alternative titles in order to attempt to achieve consensus. Deb 21:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
According to naming conventions, she should be at her pre-marital name, as she is a deceased monarchical consort. Is that "of England" or "of Scotland", is relatively easy: England was the bigger, and her father has heading as king of England. So, Elisabeth of England (s instead of z as she was important in Germany) is the starting-point, where she should be unless any consensus settles her elsewhere. "of Bohemia" is (1) POV, and (2) against naming conventions. NC does not leave them in their marital titles. And it is POV as it endorses a pretension to a throne the couple held disputedly over a winter. No need to battle old Religious Wars again here in Wikipedia. NC directs her a totally another place to be. Arrigo 21:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Don't forget to put this request for a move on Wikipedia:Requested moves if you intend to go through with it. That will give others the opportunity to note the request and comment on it. Deb 21:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Not necessary when making a move to placement accorded by NC. Arrigo 22:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
It wouldn't be necessary if you were proposing to move the article to a name "accorded", as you quaintly put it, to Naming Conventions. But to use the German spelling of the forename along with "of England" would not be in clear accordance with conventions. Deb 22:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Ridiculous quibbling, Deb. Elisabeth as spelling is used also in British usage sometimes. Please do not try to cover your wrongdoing by any distraction. Arrigo 22:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Please keep to standard practice in future, Arrigo. If you want to move this page to a title you know to be controversial (and if you didn't know, you do now), then use the Wikipedia:Requested moves facility. Otherwise, please leave the page alone. I would also advise that you familiarise yourself with the "redirect" function, your misuse of which has caused some confusion recently. Deb 22:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Elizabeth Stuart (that of Bohemia fame) receives odd treatment: The location "of Bohemia" strikes as a less encyclopedic place and as a not neutral name for her to be. I presume instead some pre-marital name to be a NPOV place. It seems to me that persons keeping her at the consort name are same people who elsewhere are more or less forcefully enforcing the pre-marital heading rule. Afaik there has never been a discussion nor consensus that she could even be at the consort location. This incident has weakened my trust in any "rightfulness" of the rule that requires monarchical consorts to be at pre-marital namings. Also weakens any trust in persons who require this at one place and totally another principle elsewhere. When I checked google, Elizabeth Stuart seems to be perhaps the most used naming or the person in question. I found no other significant royal with the same name (no one who clearly deserves an article in encyclopedia). (Other Elizabeth Stuart whatevers, commoners, are plentifully present.) Googling showed that Elisabeth of Bohemia is quite crowded, by various individuals, AND no one is overwhelmingly pre-eminent - thus it cannot properly be anything else than a disambiguation page. Googling also aroused much suspicion whether the so-called Historical Name of consorts is at all true in works of reference, in history and encyclopedias.
Online Britannica has put her to "Elizabeth Stuart".
In naming, English Wikipedia should not reflect any Anglo-American focus. It is contrary to the neutral point of view. Especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective, such as naming of a royal who mostly lived in Germany, besides being a daughter of a British monarch, and whose "career" was a knot point between protestants and catholics. The presence of articles written from a United States or British perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and British citizens working on the project, which in turn is a reflection of the fact that so many of them are online. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration from people from other countries. But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them. In this naming, there is a clear need of Wikipedia:NPOV application, rather than of a cultural bias of a certain country. The pre-marital naming is the recipe presumed NPOV in this case too. I ask those who want to keep her at something "of Bohemia" to first go and try to change the NC policy regarding monarchical consorts. Arrigo 14:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Hilaire Belloc can be argued to have been anglocentric. Arrigo
Belloc, who served in the French army?? If he is anglocentric, what native speaker of English is not? Septentrionalis 19:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. She is always called Elizabeth of Bohemia in English usage. Literally always. Any other name would be absurd, and there's no other Elizabeth of Bohemia's which she might be confused with. The justification for the current naming policy with regards to royal consorts is that they are normally referred in English by their maiden names. I have my doubts that this is true in some cases (I have never seen Sisi referred to as "Elisabeth of Bavaria"), but I know that this is not true in this case. She is universally "Elizabeth of Bohemia." johnk 15:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I just _was_ confused! I was looking for the wife of John of Luxembourg, mother of Charles VI and ended up by default on the page of a queen I had never heard of, so yes, it is possible to be misdirected. I knew there were many woman by the name Elisabeth/Elizabeth of Bohemia; I put in the most common US spelling of this name since I do not speak Czech. I expected it to automatically go to a disambiguation page; instead it defaulted to an individual whose selection seemed arbitrary to me. Oddly, the Stuart princess was not mentioned at all on the disambiguation page, so I added her. My point is, not everyone knows or cares about 17th century Stuart royalty, so please have the search for "Elizabeth of Bohemia" default to the "Disambiguation Page".
A huge number of Americans have ancestry from the European continent and are interested in researching the history of the lands their ancestors came from. Because so many have lost their ancestral languages, English Wikipedia is, by necessity, the starting point. I feel references in Wikipedia should be treated equally, regardless of one's own personal interest, attachment or ethnic background. Perhaps you aren't interested in the medieval time period or continental European history; however, that doesn't seem to be a valid reason to dismiss those who are by implying that no one else by the name Elizabeth of Bohemia rates a mention. That can be inferred as either biased or uniformed, which is counter to what I would expect in an Encyclopedia. The Scottish princess matters to you, the Bohemian princess to me. Please let's respect them both equally. Thanks.Krumhorns 08:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Then why does e.g Britannica use "Elizabeth Stuart" of her? Arrigo 15:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't know. But that would raise issues with her like-named niece, and isn't how she's normally called. Given that there is no native Bohemian royal family with which she might be confused, and no other Elizabeth of Bohemias of note, I don't see why we shouldn't make an exception to the normal rules in this instance. johnk 15:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
There are other Elisabeths of Bohemia, including two queens: Elisabeth of Bohemia (disambiguation). The letter z (instead of s) probably is not sufficient distinction here. And check google: Even googling "Elizabeth of Bohemia" produces sites which mention one of the other of these women. Arrigo 16:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, yes. I will say that she remains the best known person of that name, though. johnk 16:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps only in anglo-amerocentric view. English Wikipedia should however treat also foreign notables properly. Arrigo 16:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually, there have been native Bohemian royal families floating around in mists of history, including a bunch of Elisabeths - firstly such as shown at  and then nextly the following native Bohemian royal family which produced such native Bohemian royal princesses as Anne, Queen of England (Anne of Bohemia) who are prevalently called as "of Bohemia". Arrigo 17:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Import from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)
I noticed that the eldest daughter of James I of England happened to be located at Elizabeth of Bohemia, which strikes as a less encyclopedic place and as a not neutral name for her to be. I accordingly moved her to pre-marital place, which is presumed to be NPOV, but within minutes, she was again moved to an arguably POV and marital location. It seems to me that persons keeping her at the consort name are same people who elsewhere are more or less forcefully enforcing the pre-marital heading rule. Afaik there has never been a discussion nor consensus that she could even be at the consort location.
(Sadly, those moves also lead to deleting an old page, a dispute at Admin noticeboard/incidents, etc)
This incident has weakened my trust in any "rightfulness" of the rule that requires monarchical consorts to be at pre-marital namings. Also weakens any trust in persons who require this at one place and totally another principle elsewhere.
When I checked google, Elizabeth Stuart seems to be perhaps the most used naming or the person in question. I found no other significant royal with the same name (no one who clearly deserves an article in encyclopedia). (Other Elizabeth Stuart whatevers are plentifully present.) Googling showed that Elizabeth of Bohemia is quite crowded, by various individuals, thus it cannot properly be anything else than a disambiguation page.
Googling also aroused much suspicion whether the so-called Historical Name of consorts is at all true in works of reference, in history and encyclopedias.
But, online Britannica has put her to "Elizabeth Stuart".
According to the current naming convention, she should be at her pre-marital name, as she is a deceased monarchical consort. Whether that is "of England" or "of Scotland", seems relatively easy: England was the bigger, and her father has heading as king of England. "of Bohemia" is (1) POV, and (2) against naming conventions. NC does not leave them in their marital titles. And it is POV as it endorses a pretension to a throne that monarchical couple held disputedly over one winter. No need to battle old Religious Wars again here in Wikipedia.
In naming, English Wikipedia should not reflect any Anglo-American focus. It is contrary to the neutral point of view. Especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective, such as naming of a royal who mostly lived in Germany, besides being a daughter of a British monarch, and whose "career" was a knot point between protestants and catholics. The presence of articles written from a United States or British perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and British citizens working on the project, which in turn is a reflection of the fact that so many of them are online. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration from people from other countries. But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them. In this naming, there is a clear need of Wikipedia:NPOV application, rather than of a cultural bias of a certain country.
Should we change the consort naming in NC, or is its recipe presumed to be NPOV in this case too? Arrigo 13:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Arrigo has correctly iodentified a weakness with present policy, which works well for the consorts of England (and France), but in the case of Elizabeth of Bohemia, Catherine the Great and others imposes a name flat contrary to uniform and consensus English usage. In fact, the traditional treatment of the Queens of England, which distinguishes Anne of Bohemia from Anne of Cleves by premarital nationality, is a form of disambiguation: by foreign assoication.
I find the claim that Elizabeth of Bohemia is PoV very odd. It is used even by Catholic apologists; and it need not imply that she had a right to the Crown of Bohemia; merely that she claimed it, which is neutral history. Septentrionalis 15:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Do you mean that the whole rule of "pre-marital naming" is just an anglocentric POV?? Arrigo 16:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I expanded Elizabeth Stuart (disambiguation) a bit. TechnicallyElizabeth Stuart which is now a redirect to that disambig page, could also be made a redirect to the "Elis/zabeth of Bohemia" page. Whether that would be wise is something else. I'm a bit surprised the winter queen is at "Elisabeth of Bohemia" (which is the version of the name shared with some bohemian princesses, see Elisabeth of Bohemia (disambiguation)) and not at Elizabeth of Bohemia, now a redirect page? The z variant being the content page would appear more compatible with her English pedigree, and the "of Bohemia" part of the title being in English too...
There are still double redirects on the z variant floating around, indicating there were already previous uncautious page moves.
Would anyone have a problem with switching content of the s and the z variant, which is probably the easiest way to solve these double redirects?
Further, the s variant page is linked from "Lamest edit wars ever" page. So, maybe Arrigo tell us somewhat more about the pre-history? --Francis Schonken 17:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
You'll find the relevant discussion at User talk:Arrigo under "User:Deb abused admin powers, by deleting a page without AfD" and that should explain how the problem occurred. Deb 17:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Naming conventions are not hard-and-fast rules, they are set for guidance, and are particularly useful when there are several possible alternatives for an article title, as in this case. The guidance is that we should use the maiden name, and I agree with that -- though it might be argued that, given Elizabeth's exceedingly short tenure of the title, she should be treated differently. Personally I would favour Elizabeth Stuart, as it is a name by which she is known and which would require less disambiguation than Elizabeth of Bohemia. We need to look at all aspects of the question, and take the guidelines into account, before taking a decision on the best title. What we should not do is to try to ride a coach and horses through the conventions just because they may not be easy to apply in one or two cases, eg. Alix of Hesse. Deb 17:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I was trying to avoid mentioning that absurdity. Septentrionalis 19:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
A few points: 1) both Elizabeth Stuart and Elizabeth of Bohemia require disambiguation. However, in both cases this Elizabeth is the most famous to be known by that name, so a disambiguation notice at the top should be sufficient. 2) Although she was only the de facto Queen of Bohemia for a brief period of time, she is generally known in English literature as "Elizabeth of Bohemia" for the remainder of her fairly long life. I think that "Elizabeth of Bohemia" with no context, would generally be taken to refer to this Elizabeth (although of course not necessarily - Elizabeth's likenamed daughter is often called Elizabeth of Bohemia, as are the previous queens of that name, and probably some others). "Elizabeth Stuart" is a much more ambiguous name. If I saw that, I would probably think of this Elizabeth, but not necessarily. I'd like to add that Catherine the Great is not the same situation at all. She was a reigning monarch, and a reigning monarch who was also a consort gets named like any other reigning monarch. johnk 19:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I added book references to Elisabeth of Bohemia. Of the four books I could find: all 4 mention "winter queen" in title; 1 mentions "Elizabeth Stuart" in title; 1 mentions "Elizabeth of Bohemia" in title.
My impression while looking for these books is that "Elizabeth of Bohemia" is slightly more used nowadays than "Elizabeth Stuart" - s variants (nearly) not used.
I created and inserted a new template which shows the House of Stuart's connection to the House of Hanover. It ain't the prettiest template in the world, but then it is the first one I have ever created.--*Kat* 19:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Not bad at all. Good job :) Prsgoddess187 20:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Where was she born. Can we source any details of her early life? Ta. --Mais oui! 15:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The article states that she was born at Falkland Palace, Fife. john k 21:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
According to the historian David Harris Willson, she was born at Dunfermline (presumably Dunfermline Palace), so the article should be changed. See D.H. Willson, King James VI and I, published by Jonathan Cape, London, 1956, p.120. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was revert the move and return the page to Elizabeth of Bohemia, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 04:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose We should use 1) the most comon name 2) the maiden name with queen-consorts. "Elisabeth of Bohemia" is not established and misleading. She is after all from the House of Stuart, not princess of Bohemia. Gryffindor 17:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
This is correct on principle, and wrong about the facts.
That Elizabeth of Bohemia is the most common name in English for this princess may be seen from the bibliography.
The history of this talkpage shows that it has always been at Elizabeth/Elisabeth of Bohemia; Dragonflight moved it between the spellings as a result of the discussion in September 2005.
Gryffindor moved it unilaterally on 17 May, this year, without discussion, deleting the redirect, and abusing his admin powers. I recommend that his !vote be struck. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 20:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Support One can't even recognize "Elizabeth Stuart" as a page about a royal. Beorhtric 13:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I don't think it's a big deal, since the redirects will get the readers to her easily enough, and both names are equally common, though "Elizabeth of Bohemia" seems to me slightly unencyclopedic because it doesn't fit readily into lists, categories, etc. Here are some comparable cases:
Victoria, Princess Royal: no mention of family name, country of origin, or the fact she was married to the German emperor.
I think we have to use common sense, rather than any notion of what is "right" (perhaps the most "right" for Elizabeth would be "Elizabeth of England", which of course would be the most unhelpful). qp10qp 15:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
English usage is inconsistent; Wikipedia's "maiden name convention" is even less consistent. But here English usage, as evidenced above and by the books in the article bibliography, is fairly clear. (What I'm jumping up and down about is that it was done unilaterally, by an admin who has done other partisan moves, on the grounds that our customs require Elizabeth Stuart, which they clearly don't.) SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 15:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that unilateral moves in cases like this are very disruptive. They cause a rippling effect round many articles, because most of us, when editing articles (I have recently worked on the articles for both Elizabeth's parents) try to use the forms found in article names, whether we agree with them or not; and sudden name moves screw up the wikilinks (even if the redirect kicks in, the reader might feel that the name in the article must have been inaccurate). qp10qp 15:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
When I was compiling the list of varied styles above, I was unable (though I came very close) to find an article title precisely equivalent to "Elizabeth of Bohemia". But, wehey, I have now: Marguerite de Navarre. Marguerite was from the house of Angouleme and her brother was Valois king of France. She was queen consort of Navarre, just as Elizabeth was queen consort of Bohemia. qp10qp 16:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Recently the files below were uploaded and they appear to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think they would be a useful addition, please feel free to include any of them.
Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia by Gerrit van Honthorst
Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia by Michiel Jansz. van Miereveldt
"Elizabeth was born at Falkland Palace, Fife. At the time of her birth, her father was still the King of Scots."
Did he not remain King of the Scots throughout his lifetime, the two crowns not being unified until a century later? Could this be modified to "still only the King of Scots" or something similar? --Jfruh (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I think you're right. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Since an IP user has placed a statement in the article refuting the entire section on Elizabeth's correspondence with Descartes, can someone please get a reference for the truth of the matter? If the silly user had just deleted the bit (assuming he was sure of his facts) I wouldn't have minded, but as it is it looks stoopid! Derekbd (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Dur looking at the other Elisabeth of Bohemia's wiki page I see that must be the truth. Deleting the entire section from this article. Derekbd (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Moved to Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of BohemiaMike Cline (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Her birth and death dates are given to disambiguate, not establish notability, and I prefer that we disambiuate in that fashion than to further flout the long prevalent usage of leaving queens consort under their maiden styles. FactStraight (talk) 10:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but it is a very inconvenient way to disambiguate. When linking to the article, a user must copy-paste the title each time because it would be impossible to memorise the birth and death dates of every consort who has a related namesake. The birth and death dates are not used to disambiguate if there is a better alternative. See, for example, the titles of the articles about the following men named William Smith:
We have evolved a distinct naming convention for royal styles because they address different issues than are operative for non-royalty and we've long recognized the advantages of not being obliged to treat the cases similarly. "William Smith" is not in that form to distinguish those William Smiths who are consorts of monarchs from those who are not, so I don't agree that the analogy quite fits. I believe that "Mary Stuart" remains listed under her maiden name (without title) because in our naming discussions no other type of disambiguation emerged as historically common enough (relative to, e.g., Eleanor of Aquitaine, Isabeau of Bavaria, Elizabeth Woodville, Mary of Guise, Catherine of Aragon, Ann Boleyn, Catherine de' Medici, Anne of Cleves, Mary of Modena, etc.) to forge a consensus to break the pattern -- most articles continue to adhere to it. While I agree that birth/death dates are not quite as easy for editors to recall off hand as a marital title, that seems to me "mildly" rather than "very" inconvenient, worth enduring for the sake of keeping our queens and empresses named in a way that is familiar both to most of our editors and to history. For me a greater degree of conflict would need to exist to mandate such a change in usage, and I'm just not convinced of the need yet, here or elsewhere. FactStraight (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Support FactStraight appears not to have read WP:NCROY properly, if he did he will see that it clearly states that there is no general convention that we put queens consort at their maiden titles. I think this was dealt with about a year ago with a slightly heated discussion at Talk:Marie of Romania, which I thought settled it that there is no such general convention. (Following this discussion, her daughter was moved away from her maiden title to Maria of Yugoslavia shortly after.) There is also a generally understood convention that dates are a last resort for disambiguation, any other sensible approach which can be found is better. The proposed new title already redirects here. PatGallacher (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Pat Gallacher appears not to have read my statement above properly, if he did he will see that it clearly states nothing about NCROY establishing a general convention that we put queens consort at their maiden titles. What NCROY reflects is that articles on royalty have been, both historically and in Wikipedia, named on somewhat different principles than those which apply to non-royalty, so that analogies to their naming practices are not strong precedents. I went on to point out that most articles on queens and empresses remain under maiden names, not because we have established a convention to do so but because we have consistently failed to sustain a consensus to do anything else, despite many back-and-forth moves and heated debates over the years. NCROY, like other Wikipedia guidelines, derives fundamentally from description rather than prescription: we observe what is prevalent and try, to the extent we can given other relevant factors, to be consistent therewith. Although I happened to miss the discussion to which you linked from mid-2010, there is a long record on NCROY of unilateral efforts to revert and resist conventionalizing this practice even absent a consensus for any alternative, especially by Septentrionalis (now indefinitely banned from participating in discussions or moving articles that involve article titles), as well as by Kotniski (who has also stopped editing Wikipedia over article title disputes). Having likewise felt chastened and now being more willing to compromise if others are, I here ask to revive that discussion in what I hope is a more collaborative environment. Consensus can change, so I am also hoping that this case will further no trend to re-name the royal ladies' whose articles are now in compliance with the long-standing tradition that most renowned women who have worn royal crowns continue to be known to history by their maiden names. I do believe that exceptions should exist, and am open to arguments that Elizabeth Stuart may qualify as such. But given the list I named, I continue to believe, and to seek to convince others to believe, that Wikipedia should not lead an encyclopedic charge to re-christen the likes of Anne of Austria as Queen Anne of France nor Mary of Guise as Mary, Queen of Scots 1515-1560. We're here to faithfully reflect, not unravel, the workings of history. FactStraight (talk) 03:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
FactStraight, did I suggest moving this article to Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia (1596–1662)? No. I am in favour of keeping the maiden names but supplemented with the title if maiden name alone is ambigious. That would not break the maiden name tradition. Besides, leaving the article with a confusing, inconvenient title just to avoid using marital titles at all costs would not make sense, would it? I still fail to see how Elizabeth Stuart's case is different than William Smith's. Being royal or not does not change the fact that both are easier to recognise as Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia and William Smith (geologist) than as Elizabeth Stuart (1596–1662) and William Smith (1769-1839). I see no reason to treat articles about consorts differently from articles about other human beings by sticking awkward year ranges to the titles instead of a more sensible disambiguation. Surtsicna (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Support for similar reasons. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment The plot thickens! It appears that this page was at Elizabeth of Bohemia until about a day ago, until user Str1977 moved it without discussion (and misused the minor flag). Previous move discussions had decided on this old title, and NCROY explicitly mentions Elizabeth of Bohemia as an example of a consort whose title is the name of their new country. I suggest that it is moved back to the old title, but if not I support the proposed new title as second best. PatGallacher (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Elizabeth is not notable for being Queen of Bohemia but for being Queen of Bohemia for a winter (and disputed at that). The connection of that person to Bohemia is minute! That is why I moved the article. (Tagging it minor was not intentional but an accident that I became aware of only now.)
PS. And I don't like the disambiguation by lifespan either. But I don't see an alternative (except "daughter of James I", but that will introduce the whole "VI and I of Scotland and England") - linking her to a country she barely has any link with, is not the way to go. Especially not since there are over half a dozen Elizabeths of Bohemia and she certainly is not the most famous one, as the previous title implied. Str1977(talk) 17:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, her whole title to being Queen of Bohemia is more than questionable. And a year is not a long time. She might of course be called Elizabeth of Bohemia by some historians but then, there are half a dozens others of that name. The point is: even then, this woman is not "the" Elizabeth of Bohemia. Str1977(talk) 10:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying but it's not our job to question whether or not she should be known as queen of Bohemia. The fact is that she is best known as queen of Bohemia. For example, Empress Matilda's right to the imperial title is disputed, for she was only crowned queen of the Romans (never as empress) and used only the title regina Romanorum in official imperial documents. She only started using the imperial title in England, while claiming the English throne, but English historiography has always referred to her Empress Matilda. Likewise, some might argue that Lady Jane Grey was a legitimate sovereign for nine or thirteen days but she is nevertheless not known as Queen Jane. Could you honestly say that Elizabeth Stuart (1596–1662) would be easier to recognise as James VI's daughter and Frederick's wife than Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia? All that aside, wouldn't Elizabeth Stuart, Electress Palatine be better than Elizabeth Stuart (1596–1662)? Surtsicna (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
"it's not our job to question whether or not she should be known as queen of Bohemia" - exactly. Hence, it is best to avoid calling her that in the article title. The article itself can be worded in a nuanced, balanced manner, but the title cannot.
The case of Empress Matilda is not comparabe as a) Matilda was married to the undisputed Emperor, not some disputed claimant that held on to the throne for a year, and b) confusion between the related titles of Roman-German king and Roman Emperor is quite common.
As for Lady Jane Grey - that's exactly the point: we don't list her under Jane of England either!
No, I don't think that Elis/zabeth Stuart is acurately described as Queen of Bohemia. Philip II of Spain is not listed as Philip, King of England either, though his being King consort of England is undisputed.
No problem with "Electres Palatinate" as she definitely was the only Stuart in that teritory. Str1977(talk) 19:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Reply She is the primary meaning of "Elizabeth of Bohemia" because the other possible contenders are all Elisabeth of Bohemia (note spelling). If we have to disambiguate her "Stuart" is the best, straightforward, avoids arguments about James I/VI etc.. "Electress Palatine" would seem an odd title to many people who have heard of queens and Bohemia, but even that is better than the last resort of dates. I would support in order of preference: 1. Elizabeth of Bohemia, 2. Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia, 3. Elizabeth Stuart, Electress Palatine. PatGallacher (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but the mere typographical difference of "z" and "s" cannot be a distinguishing factor since both name forms exist in English and this is an English encyclopedia covering non-English subjects. I agree that Electress Palatine seems obscure but that doesn't change the fact that "Queen of Bohemia" is contentious and overstresses a minute relationship. Str1977(talk) 19:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
She shouldn't be but it takes time to untie the threads. Str1977(talk) 19:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Support Absolutely agree -Ilhador- (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Who are you absolutely agreeing with? Would you prefer Elizabeth of Bohemia or Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia? PatGallacher (talk) 11:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Support tentatively. Joyous, another one! Love all this wikipedian revisionism. She is referred to as "Elizabeth of Bohemia" in any literature, in English, that one could care to look at. Brendandh (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Support - disambiguation must be by something easily understood, usually a person's principal occupation. Disambiguating by dates alone is just plain silly, and ought to be employed in only exceptional cases, and only as an additional disambiguator, not the principal one (eg. Hector McGregor (Scottish footballer born 1897) to disambiguate him from some other Scottish footballer of the same name.)--Mais oui! (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Support per above, we usually disambiguate by job, not lifespan. Who calls her Elizabeth Stuart (1596-1662)? No one. Hot Stop 02:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Thanks for the feedback. I am currently writing the proposed changes. I hope to have the re-write complete over the weekend and make the article live early next week :) This is my first contribution to Wikipedia so just getting to grips with all the formatting. Fingers crossed the revision is well received. Danielle MI9to5 (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Danielle, your outline looks impressive and I encourage you to improve the article with (cited) information. But you wrote "To add a section titled 'Electress Palatine' with information regarding the situation in the Palatine upon Elizabeth's arrival" <emphasis added>. I hope this was a typo and that your edits will reflect the fact that "Palatine" is an adjective used in lieu of a territorial description (e.g., "Elector Palatine", "Palatine rights", "Prince Palatine Rupert"), whereas "Palatinate" is a proper noun which refers to a region (Pfalz), e.g. "the Palatinate, Germany", "Rhenish Palatinate", "Electoral Palatinate", etc. FactStraight (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm looking forward to reading it! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I have finished writing the proposed changes and have edited the live article. This is my first edit on Wikipedia, so it was quite an ambitious one. I hope the changes are well received and I welcome feedback both positive and negative, as I hope to edit more articles over the coming months. Thanks MI9to5 (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations and thank you for expanding the article on behalf of everyone who will come here seeking information about the Winter Queen! I'll do some copy-editing, but I must point out that close paraphrasing should be avoided (something I too find hard to accomplish). Also, there is no need to quote phrases such as: "several mementoes of her early love of books exist". Surtsicna (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I intend to give the article a fresh read through in a week or so, so there may be a few more changes on the way. I made a significant effort not to paraphrase but as you mention it can be hard to accomplish. I have tried to put what I have read into my own words and use quotations to highlight points and I'm sure that a good 75% of the article is my own words but hopefully when I take a fresh look I may be able to bring in more of my own words. I will also take a closer look at some of the quoted phrases that I have used and see if there is a need for the direct quotation. MI9to5 (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Once again, excellent job, but much, much less than 25% of the article may be closely paraphrased or quoted. Anyway, I am sure you will fix this. Good luck! Surtsicna (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)