Talk:Mary of Modena
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Mary of Modena has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.|
Burke’s Peerage says she was born at Modena on 25 September 1658. This is the Julian calendar's equivalent of 5 October 1658 in the Gregorian calendar. Italy had been using the Gregorian calendar since its inception in 1582, so either:
- (a) Burke's converted 5 October 1658 to the relevant Julian date for the sake of consistency, given that they were describing a queen of England and England was still Julian at that point, or
- (b) they just got it wrong, or
- (c) she really was born on 25 September in the Gregorian calendar, and everyone else who says she was born 5 October has got it wrong. If this scenario is correct, the appropriate Julian date would be 15 September.
Burke's also says she died on 8 May 1718, whereas we prefer 7 May.
- Mary of Modena was born 5 October 1658 in Italy, which is the correct date as this is also the Gregorian Calendar date. The English used the outdated Julian calendar, thus subtracted ten days from Mary's DOB. Her correct DOB should read 5 October 1658. The English did the same thing with Henrietta Maria and the French did the opposite with her daughter Henriette Anne when she went to France to live.--jeanne (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It is amazing how this article was changed since the last time I read it. Congratulations to User:Jack1755 - this is surely going to be another Good Article.
I propose referring to James Francis Edward as James Francis Edward. That's NPOV (as we do not imply that he was King James III/VIII) and much less confusing. Of course, it should be noted that he was recognized as James III/VIII by the Jacobites and some European rulers.
Precedents were sought for the Queen because a full-length joint coronation had not occured since the days of King Henry VIII. Weren't James I and Anne of Denmark crowned jointly? Surtsicna (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hey Surt'! Yes, they were, but Oman relates that the coronation "had been hurried through, almost privately, because of an outbreak of plague". As for JFE, I completely agree. -- Jack1755 (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Are you referring to the coronation of James I and Anne of Denmark? If so, I propose explaining the situation. How do you feel about replacing:
- Precedents were sought for the Queen because a full-length joint coronation had not occured since the days of King Henry VIII.[5
- Precedents were sought for Mary's coronation because a splendid joint coronation had not occured since the ceremony performed for Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon. If I understand correctly, the coronation of James I and Anne was simple compared to a normal English coronation. Surtsicna (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The Queen, melancholy from the King's affair with Catherine Sedley, Countess of Dorchester, who had recently returned to England, moved into new Christopher Wren-designed £13,000 apartments in Whitehall, home to a Catholic chapel since December 1686, in February 1787.
No matter how much I tried, I couldn't understand this sentence. I tried to reword it, but whenever I finished one part, the next one wouldn't fit in. Could you please reword it, perhaps by dividing the sentence into three or at least two plain sentences? Is it supposed to say that Mary was melancholical because of James's affair? Who moved into Whitehall apartments (Mary or Catherine)? Did she move in in February 1787 or what? Non-native speakers like me can't make heads or tails of this sentence :) Surtsicna (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Mary of Modena/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
- File:RinaldoIIId'Este.jpg has no date, no source, no author. The PD-art license is invalid without a license.
- File:Laura Martinozzi.jpg has the date 28/08/07, which is the date of uploading, not the date of creation. I can't read the description, please point out the language asked. An English description would be bettter. Also add date of creation in the date field to support PD-art license. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Since I didn't upload either of those images to commons, I know absolutely nothing about them. Nor can I translate the description. -- Jack1755 (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have since translated the original Italian descriptions on both pages into English. I would say both portraits were created in the 17th century. As regards the sources for the images, the original uploader needs to be consulted. I hope this helps!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- GA review (see here for criteria)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- "... as the second wife of King James II and VII." James ii and vii is confusing. Can you put a note or replace it by James II of England.
- "Contemporarily recongised as "tall and admirably shaped", Mary was sought after by Lord Peterborough as a spouse for his master Charles II of England's brother and heir, James, Duke of York." Explicitly say James, Duke of York = James II and VII to avoid confusion, something like heir, James, Duke of York - the future James II and VII".
- "therefore the reputation of his House of Stuart safe" missing verb?
- " Accompanied by the Lady Anne and her not yet three-year-old daughter Isabella" her - meaning whose? Anne's or Mary's? "her not yet three-year-old" can be replaced by "her two-year-old" or "almost three-year-old".
- "Anne would later prove instrumental in falsely discrediting..." This sentence is misplaced in the chronology and leads to confusion. It reads like a novel where future events clad their shadows ahead. I suggest a strict chronology be followed. Same applies to the reference to widowhood in the household.
- "Having been given £20,000 worth of jewellery upon her Modenese marriage, the Duchess of York received £5,000 per annum..." I see two ideas here: the money got and the money spent. Split the sentences to separate the ideas. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- ", the Duchess of York had been, since the birth of James's bastard by his new mistress Catherine Sedley last spring, "melancholy" " The meaning is unclear
- "... Her spirits were briefly revived by a visit from her mother, who, dispossed by her son Francesco, was living in Rome." One "her" is for Mary, other "her" for mother. It's confusing
- The word "melancholy" and its variants appears too often.
- Another problem is that at different stages: the same person is referred by different titles like Lady Mary and Mary II. This becomes confusing and should be explained by notes or an explicit identification at first instance of use of the new title.
- While tracing long sentences like: "Relations with the rest of the royal family, too, were not helped by the birth of Mary's daughter Louise Mary, who became the premier princess at court, ranking immediately after the only French princess at the time, the Dauphine herself, which made Louis XIV's countless illegitimate daughters upset." One loses track of the beginning. Split them.
- Is "Queen over the water" used as an official title?
- Nope! It was just an affectionate title Jacobites gave her. English parliament referred to her as 'the late Queen'. -- Jack1755 (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- "After James II's death, James Francis Edward advised the Queen to sue the Duke for her inheritance, to no avail.": Chronology not maintained. James II's death suddenly springs.
- On hold
- Final comments
- Copyediting needed in view of foll. points:
- Split long sentences where ideas change in between: e.g "It was largely ignored in England; in Scotland, however, the confederate Lords sent Lord Belhaven to Saint-Germain, to convince the Queen to surrender to them custody of James Francis Edward and accede to his conversion to Protestantism, in order to facilitate his accession to the English throne upon William III's death." TO: It was largely ignored in England. In Scotland, however, the confederate Lords sent Lord Belhaven to Saint-Germain, to convince the Queen to surrender to them custody of James Francis Edward and accede to his conversion to Protestantism, in order to facilitate his accession to the English throne upon William III's death. (Anyone with a better suggestion?)
- Fixed. I broke up several long sentences in which the idea changes in between. -- Jack1755 (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Chronology be maintained
- Explicit identifications when changing titles
- Image removal or replacement from commons (would like to see more imgs of Mary). --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Fixed. Added two new images of Mary and removed the aforementioned portraits of Martinozzi and Rinaldo III. -- Jack1755 (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for all the constructive criticism Redtigerxyz! I believe I have addressed all of you concerns. -- Jack1755 (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
The section abut her after 1688 is named "Queen ower the water", but did she not become queen dowager in 1701, even in the eyes of the jakobites? Perhaps its better to remove the years of the section-title. --Aciram (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)