Talk:Charlotte of Belgium

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 08:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Charlotte, Princess of Belgium → Charlotte of Belgium – {Changing the name of the page to Charlotte of Belgium conforms to Wikipedia's policy on the article titles for royal, imperial and noble consorts. The current name would be okay if Charlotte remained only a princess throughout her life, but she didn't.} — Charles 22:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Voting

• Support The name change would reflect the Wikipedia standard for the consorts of sovereigns. Charles 22:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Correct in terms of historical consort naming. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - as above. Craigy (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - per above. Prsgoddess187 14:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Previous Topics

• There seems to be consensus in the talk page to rename this, therefore proposing "Empress Carlota of Mexico" name. Gryffindor 17:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

This probably should be under Carlota of Belgium, the normal way that royal consorts are referred to, ie by a pre-consort name. STÓD/ÉÍRE 02:47 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

Think she's better known as of Mexico, though if Carlota of Belgium or Charlotte of Belgium is considered the proper form that's fine by me, as long as people can find the article with redirects. ... I'm just surprised that describing the French troops as "occupying" Mexico was POV. Wondering simply, Infrogmation

It is just that using the word "occuping" can be taken as a loaded term, even if the accurate one. If possible, it is a word that should be avoided. The information should be conveyed in a different word, one which brings less emotional 'baggage' with it. (eg, Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Britain occuping Northern Ireland, etc. People read a meaning into the word, so it is one to avoid if an alternative can be found. Personally I don't have any problem with Carlotta of Mexico as there was only one. But it also does sound as if she was a reigning monarch, not a consort. Matybe Carlotta, Empress of Mexico might sound better. STÓD/ÉÍRE 03:16 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

Princess Charlotte, daughter of George IV, was not "of Wales" (the wife of a Prince of Wales), so I've deleted the phrase. She might have been styled Princess Royal-- except that there already was a Princess Royal, the daughter of George III. Just 'Princess Charlotte' User:Wetman

The wife of the Prince of Wales is "Princess of Wales", not "Princess Firstname of Wales". In fact, Princess Charlotte of Wales was so styled, in a fashion analogous to Prince William of Wales: her father was The Prince of Wales. She married and died before he became king. -- Someone else 06:07, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm not a pro in this. But isn't "Prince William of Wales" a contemporary journalistic solecism? Burke's will have the correct styling. If "Princess Charlotte of Wales" is correct, restore it, by all means. User:Wetman

It's a popular, rather than a formal, "style". Where people go wrong is to assert it's a "title": his titular dignity is properly "Prince of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". I don't know that I've ever seen "Princess Charlotte of Wales" referred to as anything else (before her marriage), but I'll double-check before changing anything. It's certainly not wrong, though. -- Someone else 06:27, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Checked it, she's definitely Princess Charlotte of Wales (there's a Royal Berkshire Regiment named for her, and it's the way she's routinely referenced in print. I think you must have been thinking of the brouhaha surrounding "Princess Diana of Wales" which actually is a contemporary journalistic solecism! -- Someone else 01:12, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Right you are. The Royal Berkshire Regiment! User:Wetman

Because Charlotte, William and Harry are the grandchildren of a reigning Monarch they would be styled Prince or Princess First name of Wales. When William marries however I believe his wife will be styled first name, Princess of Wales

Carlota, Empress-Consort of Mexico

I find it absurd that an Empress-consort, even a deposed one, should be listed under her maiden name. You might as well do Empress Zita as Zita, Princess of Bourbon-Parma, or the Queen Mum under Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. There is finally a redirect from [Carlota]] here, but come on already.

em . . . we do. It is standard in historical biography to place names of deceased consorts under maiden name, because

1. unlike reigning monarchs they do not have an ordinal to distinguish between them. There have been numerous English and British consorts called Queen Elizabeth, for example. So historians and biographers use Mary of Modena and Mary of Teck, Catherine of Aragon and Catherine Parr, not Queen Mary and Queen Mary, Queen Catherine and Queen Catherine!
2. Using maiden names allows the reader to know the origins of a consort in the way a consort title does not.

It is perfectly normal and standard and Wikipedia simply follows normal rules regarding it. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who requested the move to Charlotte of Belgium. Consorts are almost universally referred to, many decades after their day, by their maiden name, eg. Alexandra of Denmark, Anne of Austria, Anne Boleyn. Wikipedia convention states this. Btw, Zita wasn't a Princess of Bourbon-Parma. She was just a princess of Parma. Bourbon was the family she belonged to. Charles 05:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Predecessor

Does anybody know anything about her predecessor as Empress consort of Mexico, Ana María Josefa Ramona de Huarte y Muñiz? I know she and Augustine had many children and that she was exiled to the U.S. after the end of the 1st empire. But thats about all.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Weygand

I was a bit surprised to see no mention of her supposed illegitimate child, Maxime Weygand. I know it is rumor, but it is a common enough rumor that it is mentioned on Weygand's page, but not here. Of course, the supporting evidence is pretty much nil, but the rumor itself is an historical fact, so it seems it deserves some mention, if only as an unconfirmed rumor common in her final years and beyond. 68.55.132.231 (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, it does occur, under the "Family" heading. That will teach me to assume chronological ordering. I had imagined it would appear in the section about her life after Mexico. Well, ignore what I wrote, I see someone already took care of it. 68.55.132.231 (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Coronation

The article on Maximilian says he and Carlota were never crowned due to the instability of the regime. This article (on Carlota) says they were crowned in 1864. Which is right? Tom129.93.10.111 (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

They both were crowned in the Metropolitan Cathedral of Mexico and changed their names in Spanish (Carlota of Mexico and Maximilian of Mexico).--189.182.171.89 (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Iturbide's grandson

Any notion why Maximilian chose the grandson of the discredited Iturbide as his heir, and not (say) a descendant of Montezuma? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.10.111 (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

United States Blockade

"The situation was exacerbated by a United States blockade that prevented French reinforcements from landing." There are many reasons to doubt that this statement is true. The United States was busy with their Civil War and the aftermath. As a Mexican, I have read many times this story in many sources, and this is the first time I see a reference to this.