Queen Victoria is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics 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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article states "as a monarch Queen 200th. proposed to Albert. I found this very interesting. Why does it not link to another article? Surely this interesting fact deserves an article of its own. Does anyone have any info on this? Does this rule still exist today? (Did QE II propose to the Duke of E.?). Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.56.132.168 (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"John Francis (most likely seeking to gain notoriety) fired a pistol at the Queen (then in a carriage), but was immediately seized by Police Constable William Trounce. Francis was convicted of high treason, but his death sentence was commuted to transportation for life. (It is not known whether he was later elected Prime Minister of Australia, but this seems unlikely)."
Is this comment about Australia genuine and appropriate? Mr. Francis doesn't seem to have a bio on Wikipedia. If there is real debate about whether an attempted assassin became PM of Australia, wouldn't he be notable enough to deserve one?
Canuckle20:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of this stuff seems pretty trivial for a biographical article. Surely we don't need all this detail? How important is it that we include a park or a street or a building named after her? Every city in the Empire had something like that. And she features as a character in thousands of books and movies. --Pete07:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This line is well-associated with Queen Victoria, to the point of being known by foreigners who wouldn't connect her lifetime with the term "Victorian era." It's mentioned twice in the popcult references section, but not covered elsewhere. Its origins should be added to the article. What say you? --Kizor 18:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I very much agree. It also redirects here. It is really so well known it's poor that it is not covered, and then referenced in the general wikipedian vapid pop culture section. All I know is that it's source is from around 1920 and the actual context it was allegedly said in is obscure.--86.130.143.5818:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it no longer redirects here, it redirects to Cultural_depictions_of_Victoria_of_the_United_Kingdom, which does not explain it, or even mention it. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the name of the article as "Victoria of the United Kingdom" should be changed. Wikipedia should use the correct written from of a person's name or title. Anything less is simply perpetuating inaccurate information. Brandy Kelley09:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the correct written form? What is inaccurate about this title? Was she not named Victoria and was she not of the United Kingdom? Charles11:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not use the "correct written form of a person's name or title" - since different people can have different opinions on what that correct form is. Wikipedia follows published scholarship. It summarizes the consensus form of that scholarship, and notes any significant minority opinions. Noel S McFerran14:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See the two sections immediately below about the debate to move the article back in 2007. You are welcome to start a new debate if you feel a new move is appropriate. I would suggest though that you start the new discussion at the bottom of the page rather than add to the 2007 one; that will help to maintain a clear chronology of discussion and reduce confusion for future editors. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Requested move (old)
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.
I formally propose the move from this (rather unlikely) title to Queen Victoria. Say "Queen Victoria" to 10,000 people and nearly all of them will know who you mean. Somebody even suggested to me that an appreciable proportion of them will actually have a statue of that queen in their home town. I think he was on crack, but the point stands: there have been one or two other Victorias, but this is the one. This is a classic case, if ever there was one, for disambiguation by primary topic. That's where we take the reader to the most obvious place and then (in a hatnote) invite him to chose from other subjects if he's come to the wrong place. But really: Queen Victoria! --Tony Sidaway22:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We do not put royal titles in the mainspace title, with the exception of popes. Also, to do so would throw off the "X of the United Kingdom" naming convention. --Hemlock Martinis23:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Hemlock Martinis. Craigy (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2007
The example showing this form against a less correct doesn't mean the naming conventions for royals prescribe that this article must have this title. Charles09:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move. IMHO this a case of common sense versus blind bureaucracy. Say "Queen Victoria" to 10,000 people and nearly all of them will know who you mean. 10,000 ppl? Try rather a 1,000,000 or more. Flamarande20:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please don't compare Queen Victoria with Kaiser Wilhem (1st - that name is in German and this the English Wiki, 2nd - which one of the two?). Its like comparing the single sun with a common star out of many - this comment is not about the worth of these persons, but only about their fame. Marie Antoinette, Maria Theresa of Austria there are a couple historical persons which are so widely known that other persons with the same name are widely ignored. Therefore the title of article should use "the name in question" and be about the person (almost) everybody expects it to be. (I hope you can follow my argument - English isn't my mothertongue). "Either we stick to standards, or we open this can of worms and discuss each name." No, we stick to standarts but at the same time we keep a couple of reasonable exceptions - like every law and rule of this world. Flamarande00:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't compare Victoria to her oldest grandson Wilhelm, who as "Kaiser Wilhelm" is known in English, too. Only one of the Kaiser Wilhelms were involved in a World War (and lived into the second), making him "so widely known that other persons with the same name are widely ignored" and "one of the most hated men of the 20th century". Quickly: how many German Emperors were there? Chances are high you pick the wrong number without looking it up first. All hits [1] outnumber "William II, German emperor" anyway. I'm not going to discuss more names - as said before, either standards, or a wide open can of "a couple of reasonable exceptions". -- Mattheaddiscuß! O 02:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think though that those people fall under disambiguation. Remember, there are primary and secondary uses of titles and Queen Victoria primarily and overwhelmingly refers to Alexandrina Victoria of Hanover. Charles01:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeWikipedia:Naming conventions (names_and_titles)#Monarchical titles clearly states that the naming format for monarchs, "X of Y", is an exception to the "most common name used in English" rule. Therefore this kind of proposed alternative was anticipated and covered when we developed the convention. If we are going to change that convention, let's do it there first, not piecemeal by re-naming articles. What next -- will Diana, Princess of Wales be moved to "Princess Diana" because the latter is more popular? Lethiere01:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with tackling the general subject at WP:NCNT. The standard that it promotes of pre-emptively disambiguating royal titles steps outside of normal naming conventions for no particular reason.--Father Goose06:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think it's a shame that common English names for Mary Queen of Scots, Henry VIII, Ivan the Terrible, Frederick the Great and the like are being ignored in the name of a spurious consistency by adhering to an internal rule. But there does seem to be considerable support, in this discussion, for that internal rule. I'm saddened that there is so much opposition to waiving this rule even in a case where there is overwhelming identification, probably even in non-English languages, of the subject of the article, as "Queen Victoria", not any Queen Victoria, but the Queen Victoria. --Tony Sidaway20:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please use common sense. Ask yourself who the vast majority of people think Queen Victoria refers to. Its evident in the internal linking as well, most of them are talking about this queen. This is similar to moving George W. Bush to George W. Bush of the United States of America. If there are others with a similar name (his dad) they should go to a disambiguation page. —— Eagle101Need help?21:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If people think of the present President George Bush and not of his father, that may be an ephemeral thing, since the present one is a Current Event. Michael Hardy21:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what we should do. The idea of "pre-emptive disambiguation" for royals is unnecesary in most cases and contrary to the basic naming convention, which is based on common sense and works far better -- even for royals.--Father Goose04:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I see the point the 'movers' are making but ultimately agree with Reginmund. Also, as long as "Queen Victoria" redirects here without going via a dab page, I don't consider that there's a big problem. Cheers, Ian Rose02:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support "Victoria of the United Kingdom"?! It's fine to have a name policy to avoid confusion, but by sticking to it as rigidly as a frozen Prussian with rigor mortis, you're creating a whole lot more...--victor falk13:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know who started this and why it was decided that "...of <nation>" should be used at all times for all monarchs without discretion and contrarily to WP:COMMON SENSE and COMMON NAME, but I think that it's crazy. The least. I also don't know if Queen Vic is the right example here, but Ivan the Terrible above really shocked me. I find the rule anti-democratic, and ...pro-ultramonarchist (to the point of linguistic dictatorship). I stand amazed we are even discussing it. BTW, go ahead and rename the monarch Alexander the Great to Alexander III of Macedon. I dare you. I just saw the exception there for older monarchs (et al), which makes the whole construct there even more ridiculous. NikoSilver20:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was originally created to disambiguate, such as with Charles II. But it is now so universal across the encyclopedia that it seems silly to change it for just one person and thus break the continuity. --Hemlock Martinis21:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I count more than one. Mary Queen of Scots at Mary I of Scotland? Ivan the Terrible at Ivan IV of Russia? Uh? – Steel21:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move obviously. Stands to reason: nobody calls her that. There have been far, far more British Victorias than Queen Victorias. Victoria of Britain is absurd in a way that the FID DEF, IND IMP, etc that you see on the edges of old British coins weren’t. —Ian Spackman01:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the policy is a sound one for ordinary cases (Henry IV, Philip II, etc). However, a select few (but we would have to go case by case) ought to be moved per WP:IAR. (Others I'd say are Ivan the Terrible, Mary Queen of Scots, Napoleon I of France (!)). And this too is one of those cases: let it be moved. Biruitorul03:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. No one has given any good reason to change the article's title other than aesthetics. I see the aesthetic point, but it is far outweighed by the practicalities. No confusion exists, as Queen Victoria redirects here. Per WP:NCP, article titles should focus on the subject's personal name ("Victoria"), not the title of her office ("Queen"). As monarchs do not commonly use surnames, "of <nation>" is the most precise way to identify her, and is a format generally applicable to all monarchs. --BlueMoonlet07:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support move She is known as Queen Victoria; "Victoria of the United Kingdom" is a nonsense title, one that she is only known by on Wikipedia. This might go against the current naming style guide, but it goes with the overall Wikipedia article naming guidelines which state: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." (my emphasis). If you must allow disambiguation of monarchs, then at least use her proper title (which, since hereditary, serves the same purpose as the surnames of commoners). You could have "Queen Victoria (United Kingdom)" or, if you have to, "Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom". Since this clashes with WP:NCNT, then I move that the guideline is discussed and brought in line with commonsense, general Wikipedia guidelines. See discussion at NCNT talk and the village pump. Gwinva21:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move - we need to have standards and keep to them. I don't oppose the making of exceptions where the "most common name" is something very different from the standard, eg. "Bonnie Prince Charlie" - but this isn't. "Common sense" means something different to every individual. Deb22:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a second -- you're saying the most common name for this person is not Queen Victoria? I agree that we should keep to standards; the problem here is that WP:NCNT unnecssarily abandons the standards laid out in its parent policy, WP:NC.--Father Goose22:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's saying that QV is not very different from VOUK and that is a reason why we should keep the standards. I ask why are the standards not kept if necessary through a VOUK redirect to QV. I ask why "the standards" are more important than "common name" when both can be kept, but only one has the "honor" of being the article's title. NikoSilver22:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Move For all the reasons given so far. Also, although consistency is often a good thing, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." I consider to not move the article would be using a consistency argument foolishly in this case. DDStretch (talk)22:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Has it been considered/debated that Victoria wasn't necessarily Queen of everyone? Wasn't that the reason why the titles are discouraged in the first place? -- Jza84· (talk)23:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ship is named after the person; she should be the main article; those that only know the ship would discover the real person on the way to finding the ship. Gwinva01:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of the names I just mentioned are ships named after the person. Each name links to a disambiguation page. One seaching for the vessel Queen Victoria would not find it if the page were moved (unless you want to add a template linking to other uses on top of the page). (And who would ever search for MS Queen Victoria?) There are benefits to consistency. There is a practice have DAB pages for names of monarchs whose names are used by other persons or things. There is a convention on the naming of English/British monarchs. No one would suggest changing King Stephen to be the article on the English king. Let's have one rule for all. Kablammo02:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that someone searching for the ship is more likely to search for its name without the MS prefix. How many people really know the difference between MS, MV, SS, or (for that matter) RMS? As for the relative weight to be given to the two policies mentioned, the specific should prevail over the general. Kablammo08:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is searching for the ship, he can very well click the {{otheruses}} link and find it instantly. The fact that there's a ship, an era, etc, named after Queen Elizabeth only demonstrates how undoubtedly common that name is to describe her. NikoSilver10:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the issue here is not when MS Queen Victoria enters service, but the fact that we already have an article on this ship. A disambiguation page has been required ever since the MS Queen Victoria article was created on 15 January 2006. -- JackofOz01:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There have been many Queen Elizabeths, Queen Marys, King George Vs, and Black Princes, which is why they go to disambiguation pages by default. But Queen Victoria gets the lion's share of attention associated with her name, which is why her article gets the default landing spot, with a disambig to the other QVs a the top. I don't think the arrival of the latest cruise liner bearing her name will change this situation.--Father Goose10:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't necessarily, but I think WP:NC(NT) is a sound convention that should be upheld. Victoria was not Queen of America or Germany or a whole host of places for example, and thus assuming she would be entered with her title on Wikipedia, that could be a strong point of contention for those peoples who do not regard her as a monarch. There are also lesser issues of republican sentiments towards the divine rights of the British monarchy. I think that breaking convention here could set a precident in which other articles are renamed according to local titles, in which debate will point to this article. I understand the thinking behind the proposal, but still vote to maintain the current position. -- Jza84· (talk)12:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. However, may I note that those in America, or those in Germany, or even those with republican sentiments, all acknowledge she was a Queen, and all refer to her as (THE) "Queen Victoria". Regarding your concern about precedent, I am all for solving this issue by applying the simple name only to those for which there is no ambiguity whatsoever. Victoria is one of those cases in my view (so is Ivan the Terrible etc). I understand your concern, but I'm sure we can deal with it in most cases. NikoSilver13:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Move per nom. 'Victoria of the United Kingdom' sounds like Mrs Beckham. The old lady would surely have preferred 'Victoria of the British Empire'. Also succinct, short titles are in line with WP policy WP:NC(CN). -- Kleinzach01:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The parent policy, Wikipedia:Naming conventions, is an official policy and states, "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." Most readers will look for Queen Victoria. Also, "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." The title Queen Victoria is reasonably unambiguous in that it overwhelmingly refers to Alexandrina Victoria of Hanover in her position as Queen of the United Kingdom. It is also the most recognizable name. Charles10:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support move per WP:NCGenerally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. The current name makes linking to this article harder than it should be. Following rules for the sake of following rules is pointless, we should do whatever makes Wikipedia easier to read and edit. Lurker (said·done) 11:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move. When I google for Victoria of the United Kingdom -wiki (=just imagine wikipedia did not exist and do as people would normally do: use no quotation marks) the first lady google gives me, is Victoria Wood. Basically, we must give priority to the real world out there, and forget the rules (nice to know that they contradict each other, by the way).--Pan Gerwazy11:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to abandon common sense completely the correct title would actually be Victoria of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland - the UK entity was not the same then as today. -- Kleinzach00:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last point by Kleinzach is an extremely good and important point: The article as it stands is simply incorrect. It should be moved. The only question seems to me to be what it should be moved to. Keeping it as it is is not accurate and should not be an option. DDStretch (talk)10:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a sort of logic there. On coinage, Victoria and her successors carried the title Ind. Imp. (Emperor or Empress of India) until after the Second World War. I'm not citing coinage as an arbiter here (if so we'd have to include "Defender of the Faith", a title granted to Henry VIII by Pope Leo in 1521, and still proudly displayed on the coins of our protestant country). However it's a reminder that Victoria was queen of a lot more than just a few soggy, windy islands. The title "Victoria of the United Kingdom" is perhaps a little misleading. --Tony Sidaway11:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The borders and the name of the Polish state when Boleslaw I of Poland was on the throne are not same as that of Poland when John II Casimir of Poland was the monarch. I don't suspect that anyone would claim that this is misleading. In this case United Kingdom was used informally for the state both before and after Irish partition. Jooler16:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Poland is a proper noun, the United Kingdom is not. In any case we are not just talking about shifting borders. -- Kleinzach01:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Of course 'United Kingdom' is a proper noun. That's why it's in caps! The same with 'Queen Victoria' for that matter. Shifted borders and shifted political structure and shifted name. Jooler14:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. WP:NC is a policy and while more detailed conventions even if only guidelines often take precedence over its general principles, this is a case of a very commonly understood term and the underlying principle should prevail. Andrewa16:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: There is a redirect, and it works perfectly fine for all those people looking for "Queen Victoria". As always, this is a matter of internal content organisation, and I strongly support the current naming conventions; I have even learnt them well enough (not a hard thing to do) to be looking for all monarchs' articles by writing these titles in the search box (unless in a hurry). In addition, there has been another queen called Victoria, and "ignoring" her in this fashion would not be good, not good at all, I say. Waltham, The Duke of12:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' Wikipedia isn't about what is "fair" to dead queens. There are exceptions to every rule and also the other Victoria is titled Victoria of Baden here on Wikipedia. Charles13:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Post-poll comments
Whenever in the past, Wikipedia conventions have been ignored and it has been decided to move monarchs to the "most common" name or the "correct" name, it has led to confusion. This has happened with the Japanese emperors and with the Polish monarchs. In both cases the results were worse than using the WP convention; in the case of the Japanese emperors, even the proponents of the moves eventually admitted so. I am glad that commonsense has prevailed in this case -- Derek Ross | Talk18:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we would have: Victoria would have remained an ambigous page. The British monarch Victoria has 'no right' to the name, over others. We would've had two monarch articles correctly titled - Victoria of the United Kingdom and Victoria of Sweden. GoodDay15:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correctly titled? According to...? Last time I checked, we had guidelines and conventions which were conflicting. The British Victoria is most known as Queen Victoria. Until Victoria of Sweden ascends the throne and then becomes known better by that name (she probably will not be as I don't see an Swedish empire or era being named for her), the name "belongs" to Victoria (of the UK). Wikipedia is not an arbiter of what is fair between monarchs who are dead and crown princesses who are not monarchs. Charles15:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Howabout this, let's wait until Carl XVI Gustaf dies (which due to his family's history of longevity, may be another 30+ years) or abdicates & his daughter succeeds the Swedish throne (assuming she uses Victoria as her regnal name). Then, we'll see how things turn out, OK? GoodDay18:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's technically incorrect though as there was no Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom. There was an Elizabeth I of England and Ireland, but the union with Scotland happened with her successor James and the union of Ireland into the United Kingdom happened in 1801 so to say there is no controversy over Elizabeth II's name is not true.198.240.128.75 (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must take issue with Derek Ross's claim that Wikipedia conventions have been ignored and it has been decided to move monarchs to the "most common" name or the "correct" name. Placing articles at the most common name is the Wikipedia convention. Nevertheless this discussion is over and I accept that there is no consensus for what turned out to be a disconcertingly controversial, if obvious, move. --Tony Sidaway12:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although christened Alexandrina Victoria - and from birth formally styled Her Royal Highness Princess Victoria of Kent - Victoria was called Drina within the family.
'Her name, though finally agreed upon as Victoria Carolina, was disputed over by her mother and uncles.
Out of curiosity, I googled "Queen Victoria's last name" (slow night) and got the familiar information that her married surname was "Wettin," but also the claim that her maiden name was "Guelph." Does anyone know if it's so, and should it appear in the article? (Victoria Wettin" redirects here). DavidOaks (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Victoria never had a surname. She was born a royal and became a queen — neither is the sort of person to have a surname. ✝DBD19:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Though Victoria became monarch at a time when the United Kingdom had become an established constitutional monarchy in which the King or Queen held few political powers
As far as I know GB - for lack of any constitution - is not a constitutional but a parliamentary monarchy. The German Kaiserreich was a constitutionl monarchy for instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.141.215.216 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 23 December 2007
First of all, hi and welcome to the 'pædia! Secondly, you can sign your posts (which lets people when you posted), by typing ~~~~ — you can do so without logging in, but, if you're planning on sticking around, you might want to get an account. To address your point, I think you ought to read the definition of the term constitutional monarchy, as given at the term's article. Enjoy! †DBD23:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article looks like complete and utter crap. I have edited several times the layout of images only to have users with no taste shove any image into the mix with no regard for layout.
I think that the articles name be changed to Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland which correct form of address. Just saying United Kingdom is confusing as there were United Kingdoms of different countries at that time although Great Britain and Ireland was the most notable. Ruairidhbevan (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has been talked to death with respect to other articles on UK monarchs post-1707. There is only one United Kingdom by that name, and the long established practice is not to put "King" "Queen" "Prince" etc. in front of any royal's name. If you want to dispute it, take it to Wikipedia:Naming conventionsfishhead64 (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland
This section is quite confusing. At first we're told Victoria "fell in love with Ireland", then the rest of the section describes her indifference to the people and the place. Perhaps I'm missing something? -MichiganCharms (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Article makes it clear that she liked at first but her relationship with Ireland soured in the 1870's and 80's. By royal residence the article means a personal residence equivilent to Balmoral and Osbourne not a property attached to the Crown. When she holidayed in County Kerry she stayed in Muckross House ,a property neither attached to the Crown nor a personal property. Ruairidhbevan (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it is important that this article simplifies the inextricable interconnectedness between the Corn Laws and the Irish Potato famine. Without the Corn Laws, the poor farmers of Ireland would have had more opportunities to grow better crops without the interference of oppressive English Landlords, whose rights to subjugate the Irish were guaranteed under the Corn Laws. I am going to write a brief transition at the beginning of the Ireland section regarding this issue. Feel free to remove it if you do not find it helpful. ~zscrappydoo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zscrappydoo (talk • contribs) 06:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ottoman Aid
The source seems dodgy to me - it seems to be one wikipedia article quoting another wikipedia article quoting one person quoting another person quoting another. Not really solid evidence - This turkish magazine quoting someone called Thomas O'Neill quoting someone else. I personally would delete it unless anyone can find something other than internet hearsay. Alternatively make it clear that there is not much evidence to support it. That is not to say that I rule out the generosity of the then sultan. He was probably wealthy enough to make a gesture like that. The personal attribution to Queen Victoria of the refusal sounds unlikely though. If the story is true and the money was refused, it was probably an over-zealous diplomat rather than a personal response from QV. Muchado (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update... after some research, I find the following source from a book scanned by Google:
"During the year of famine in Ireland, the Sultan heard of the distress existing in that unhappy country; he immediately conveyed to the British ambassador his desire to aid in its relief, and tendered for that purpose a large sum of money. It was intimated to him that it was thought right to limit the sum subscribed by the Queen, and a larger amount could not therefore be received from his highness. He at once acquiesced in the propriety of this resolution, and with many expressions of benevolent sympathy, sent the greatest admissible subscription." pages 20-21, "The Sultan of Turkey, Abdul Medjid Khan: A Brief Memoir of his Life and Reign, with Notices of the country, its Army, Navy & present Prospects", Rev. Henry Christmas, published by John Farquhar Shaw, London, 1854
While this does assign responsibility to British officials, it is not clear that this command came from the Queen herself, so I would suggest that we leave links to the main article on the famine (where this information is available) rather than to include this reference in the article on Queen Victoria (unless a direct attribution can be found).
Incidentally, Great Britain was at that time an ally of Turkey (against Russia), so the warm relations are not that surprising. Muchado (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Benjamin Disraeli?
There appears to be no mention of Victoria's friendship with Benjamin Disraeli, which I've heard was very important to her after Albert's death. If there's mention of John Brown, surely Disraeli should be a part of the article as well? Someone with greater knowledge in this area could possibly integrate him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.238.32 (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Native language
The article says she was a native German speaker. Surely this is misleading if not outright false. Her (main) native language was English. Peter jackson (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coronation
I just thought I'd point out an excellent source now that The Times has opened up its archive for free (I think for a limited time only, and it requires registration for some articles), but Victoria's coronation is described here. I haven't got the time to go through it myself, as I'm off on holiday tomorrow and have to pack, but hopefully someone can put it to good use.
As an aside, I would like to take this time to mention an excellent paragraph from the report on the coronation:
One ludicrous circumstance occurred which may be worth mentioning. For some time a bird of large dimensions had been observed flying backwards and forwards, and then to hover over the Palace so frequently, as to call for the peculiar notice of a coterie of elderly ladies, who chanced to have esconced themselves in our own particular neighbourhodd, one of whom, after much examination and apparent inward consultation, pronounced it to be a goose. To describe the instant expression of horror which rushed upon the faces of those ladies would be to attempt a task on which failure must attend. "What !" exclaimed they in one voice–" what ! a goose; lor, you don't say so." "But I do," continued the first named, " and I am quite confident of it ; it is a goose, poor dear soul." "Ay, ay, well may you say poor dear soul. Well, there's no saying anything for a certainty beforehand, is there? Who'd have thought it, that a nasty, ugly, long-necked (and here the lady somewhat stretched out her own neck, which could neither boast of plumpness nor of shortness) goose should have been fated to mar the happy events of this day! There will surely be some accident, or the poor dear soul, God bless her, will not long survive the ceremony." To this prediction the friends one and all assented with open mouths, one of them adding, that probably so lamentable a result might be averted, if any man would only shoot the wretch.
Victoria succeeded to the throne on the death of her uncle, William IV. But he had several living younger brothers at the time. One of them went on to become King of Hanover, another had been the viceroy in Hanover during William's reign. Why were they passed over as Kings of the UK? - Wolfram.Tungsten (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because Edward Augustus, Duke of Kent (Victoria's father) was the eldest to have issue. Succession is via the brother, then his children. Hence, if Edward had had no children, the crown would have passed to the next youngest brother (and his children). fishhead64 (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Victoria's father was older than William IV's surviving brothers. Victoria was her father's heir general, being his only child. According to the rules of primogeniture, Victoria was William IV's heiress - being the only child of his eldest younger brother. All her uncles came after her in the line of succession because they were younger than Victoria's father and Victoria "represented" her dead father. Surtsicna (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Children and grand-children and great-grand children, she overlived
"She outlived 3 of her 9 children, and came within seven months of outliving a fourth (her eldest daughter, Vicky, who died of spinal cancer in August 1901 aged 60. She outlived 11 of her 42 grandchildren (two stillborn, six as children, and three as adults), and 3 of her 88 great-grandchildren." (quote from the article)
It can be possible, that a woman - Queen or not ;) - outlived one of her children. But whats about the grand - and great-grandchildren ? Why did the died so early ? --AndreaMimi (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Victoria never outlived one of her great-grand children. Some of the them were born and died in childhood or in early years, but after the time when her great-grand mother lived.
That's up to whoever decides to review this next. I haven't gone through all of the text but it's probably wise to do so at least once before resubmitting. GaryKing (talk)04:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"However, the Melbourne ministry would not stay in power for long;..."
"Albert became not only the Queen's companion, but also an important political advisor, replacing Lord Melbourne as the dominant figure in the first half of her life."
"The shooting had no effect on the Queen's health nor on her pregnancy and the first of the royal couple's nine children, named Victoria, was born on 21 November 1840."
"The story of their relationship was the subject of the 1997 movie Mrs. Brown."
For reference "Giles St. Aubyn (1992). Queen Victoria. Hodder & Stoughton, p. 14-199. ISBN 978-0340571095." please specify the individual pages rather than using a page range that spans more than a hundred pages; the reason is so that people don't have to flip through all those pages to find the one that the citation uses
remove self referential comments such as "See also Victoria (disambiguation).[2]"
Referenced the above, I've made the refs more specific too... I'm pretty sure that they are correct, but are from my notes, as I no longer have the books, so tiny possibility that they aren't perfect. Taken out the self referential bits. All that's left on that list is the organisation of the Further Reading bit... I'll do that tomorrow, unless someone else fancies it. – Toon(talk)01:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the non-existent category "Empresses of India"
"# Her bridesmaids were the Ladies Adelaide Paget, Sarah Child Villiers, Frances Cowper, Elizabeth West, Mary Grimston, Eleanora Paget, Caroline Gordon-Lennox, Elizabeth Howard, Ida Hay, Catherine Stanhope, Jane Pleydell-Bouverie and Mary Howard" is mostly red links; consider unlinking most of those
"Biographical details" can surely be converted to prose. It's mostly bulleted points right now.
The navbox in " Ancestry" should be moved to the bottom with the others
Remove period from image captions that are not full sentences, such as "Queen Victoria and Prince Albert in a photograph taken in 1854 before an evening Court."
I've addressed all of the above, with the exception of the "Ancestry" bit. I think it's more encyclopaedic than a standard navbox, and it seems to be the standard to have it in the main body; if you look at the FAs William III of England, George I of the United Kingdom, William IV of the United Kingdom and even Edward III of England - it seems to be the convention in modern monarchs whose liniage is known. I hope that's OK with you :) Oh, and I'm probably going to be without internet access for the next few days at least, so won't be able to address other concerns - but I'm sure Nergaal will. Best, – Toon(talk)22:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should also say that I integrated most of the "biographical" info a few days ago, but my browser went wonky so I couldn't remove the remaining section. It was just a trivia section dressed as lamb. – Toon(talk)22:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering where did that go. And you are right; what is not already in the article now was simply trivia. Ah, and one more thing: I really like how the article is starting to look. Nergaal (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the following reference is dead: "A Royal Icon - The Machin Stamp"
numbers from 0–9 should be spelt out, such as in "Victoria outlived 3 of her 9 children, and came within seven months of outliving a fourth (her eldest daughter, Vicky, who died of spinal cancer in August 1901 aged 60. She outlived 11 of her 42 grandchildren (two stillborn, six as children, and three as adults), and 3 of her 88 great-grandchildren."
Formatting is used strangely in the article. For example, why is "Regency Act 1830" italicized?
I am not sure to what are you referring, but I solved this specific example
"; from" → ", from"
typo
copyedit the article please. examples:
"The younger sons of George III did not expect to figure in the line of succession to the throne of Britain, and as such showed little interest in marriage, but when Princess Charlotte Augusta of Wales, the future George IV's only legitimate child and George III's only legitimate grandchild, died from post-natal complications in 1817 after delivering a stillborn son, although George III had twelve surviving children, there were no grandchild-heirs remaining." really long sentence
"Her godparents were The Prince Regent (her paternal uncle); the Russian Tsar (Alexander I, her fourth cousin (in whose honor she received her first name); The Princess Royal (her paternal aunt); and The Dowager Duchess of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld (her maternal grandmother). " → the semicolons can be converted to commas as there aren't any other uses for commas in that sentence
"the Throne" → "the throne" – "throne" seems to be capitalized throughout the article, but I think it should be lowercased?
Does "(The fourth child of George III, Charlotte, Princess Royal, though not in line for the throne before her brothers, had died in 1828.)[8]" really need to be in parenthesis?
"Although William IV was the father of ten illegitimate children by his mistress, the actress Dorothy Jordan, he had no surviving legitimate children." – "although" probably not the best word to link the two clauses, since just because he had illegitimate children doesn't mean he would or would not have legitimate children
Could somebody please make more sense out of this sentence: Victoria, who was entirely of German descent, was the granddaughter of George III, the niece of her predecessor William IV, and a descendant of most major European royal houses. Thanks. --BenT/C08:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if you could explain which part of the sentence doesn't make sense - is it the "descendant of most major European royal houses" bit? Would "was related by blood to most reigning European royal families" make more sense? I'm note sure, however, whether that's gramatically correct... – Toon(talk)00:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for leaving the message on my talk page. I'll tell you what seemed confusing to me. The statement is not necessarily self-contradicting, maybe I am just missing out on it, I admit I am fairly naive on European royal houses. First it says Victoria was entirely of German descent, then it says she was niece of an earlier English king, then that she descended from most major (whatever that means) European royal houses. So, my confusion is, is she entirely of German descent or of more international? Was king William IV also of German descent? Are all major (whatever) European houses German? Are the German royal houses where she descended from 100 percent German? Is it possible to say one royal family is German or aren't they all completely mixed up? To sum up, maybe there's just too much in one sentence. The major and the entirely German part look too general to me. BenT/C02:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, entirely German is incorrect, she's got some woman ancester who isn't I do believe... not entirely sure who though. The thing about the British Royal Family is that they are... well... not that British. Royal families and Monarchies are ridiculously complex. See, Victoria was part of the House of Hanover, (the last British Monarch of that house, actually), which came to power in Britain with George I of Great Britain, because (as that excellent article explains), he was the deceased Queen Anne's closest living Protestant relative (we took a disliking to the Catholics during the 1600s and banned them from coming to power in the Act of Settlement 1701). As you may or may not be aware, there's a lot of inbreeding which takes place across Royal families - they tend not to marry ordinary folk, so there comes a point where, after hundreds of years of only marrying Royalty, everyone's related to everyone - in fact, Victoria's husband Albert was her cousin, and also a German - but I digress.
If you look at this handy "Ancestry" section, you'll see that George II, her German great-great-grandfather married a German, and so-on down to Victoria's parents. Actually that chart pretty much covers it.
So to sum up: All of the British Monarchs from George I were pure German and married pure Germans, but did speak English and rule Britain. Also, the German Royalty got around, so in one way or another everyone's related. Although I believe that "major" families is probably a little subjective on the part of Aubyn, the author we are citing, so I may just remove that bit. It's a little trivial anyway. Hope that clears it up somewhat, although I must admit that I'm not even 100% sure I understand everything. – Toon(talk)03:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your explanation. Yeah, I didn't check the dedicated section in the article. I think what you say, simplifying the statement, would be a great improvement. Let me add, instead of German descent, House of Hanover would be more clear, also. BenT/C19:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21 was not old but it was fairly late, princess married when they were in their teenage years from about 15-20 was seen as the proper age for a young lady to marry. Victoria herself probably married late at 21 because she enjoyed her independence during her early youth (18-21). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.88.158 (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you seriously believe that 15-20 was seen as the proper age for a lady to marry? Please stop saying non-sense, someone could believe you. British princesses never married as teenagers and Victoria did not marry late. As I said, she was considered quite young when she married. Surtsicna (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If anybody is talking nonsense it is you. Most British princesses married as teenagers and 21 was considered fairly late. Victoria's own daughters; Victoria married at 16, Alice at 19, Helena at 19. Alexandra of Denmark was 18 and Victoria's grandchildren married as a teenagers. (Marie of Edinburgh was 17, Alexandra of Edinburgh was 19, Charlotte of Prussia was 17, Victoria Eugenie, Queen of Spain, was 19) --Melaniegreyton (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Vicky married at 17, not 16, and Helena was 20, not 19. Victoria's other daughters were considerably older - Louise was 23 and Beatrice was 28. The Duchess of Edinburgh and the Duchess of Albany were both 21, although the Duchess of Connaught was 19. Mary of Teck was 26, Princess Louise her sister in law was was 22, Princess Maud was 27. The Duchess of Fife was 22, Princess Margaret of Connaught was 23 and Princess Patricia was 33. Princess Alice of Albany was almost 21, and her sister-in-law was 19. Going back to the generation before Victoria, Charlotte married at 31, Elizabeth at 48, Mary at 40. Queen Caroline was 26, Princess Charlotte was 20, the Duchess of York was 24, Queen Adelaide was 26, the Duchess of Cambridge was 20 (I don't count the Duchesses of Kent or Cumberland, who were widows). Queen Charlotte was 17. George III's sisters married at ages 27 and 15. George III's mother was 16, and George II's daughters married at 25, 17, and 19. When you actually look at all the available evidence, rather than cherry picking examples, you can see that while there certainly are a pretty substantial numbers of examples of princesses marrying in their teens, there are also plenty who married in their twenties. Victoria was not at all abnormally late, but pretty close to the median age for marriages of ladies in the British royal family in the 18th and 19th centuries. To be sure as not to annoy road wizards - I think this suggests that no discussion of Queen Victoria being an unusual age for a marriage should be included in the article. john k (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can all of you involved in this discussion please remember that article talk pages are meant to discuss changes and improvements to the articles. Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion about the subjects of the articles. If you want to compare how many of the British Princesses married before and after the age of 21, I would suggest you check the links found in the {{British princesses}} template.
If you want to continue this discussion please do so on your user talk pages or even discuss this outside of Wikipedia entirely. If you still need help in finding an answer to your questions, please consult the Reference Desk. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I also think that it is important to include the dynamics of Victoria and Albert's developing relationship. Though she failed to give him any formal responsibilities at the beginning of their marriage, he does evolve into a highly influential statesman himself. Of course, this may be discussed in detail in a Wikipedia Article on Prince Albert; however, it is important to feature the developing concept of their relationship together in this article because it had a great influence on Victoria, the United Kingdom, and the world. I am going to add a brief section on this to the article. Feel free to remove it if you do not find it helpful ~zscrappydoo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zscrappydoo (talk • contribs) 06:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is very dubious whether there was ever such a thing (in Britain) as the "House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha". While Albert certainly was a scion of that dynasty, Victoria was the head of the household in Britain by virtue of her status as monarch (witness her proposal of marriage to Albert), and to that extent the dynasty was transmitted through her, not Albert, and the House of Hanover lived on in Edward VII, and lives on today. albeit under a different name. Escoville (talk) 10:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No scholar finds the fact that Victoria was the last member of the House of Hanover to reign in the UK dubious. The dynasty name was traditionally transmitted through men and that was undisputably the case with Albert and Victoria: she passed the crown, he passed the house name. Furthermore, King Edward VII recognized House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha as his royal house and so did George V when he changed the name of the house to House of Windsor. Surtsicna (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What terrible nonsense. So the Duke of Kent was not vigorous enough...so instead Victoria's mother slept with a "more vigorous" man who suffered from hemophilia? Who is this hemophiliac lover of the Duchess of Kent supposed to have been? We know a great deal about the lives of the Duke and Duchess of Kent around the time of the conception. Is there any historical evidence that such a thing might have occurred? Hemophiliacs in the 18th and 19th century rarely lived long enough to reproduce - of Victoria's hemophiliac descendants, I believe that only the Duke of Albany had children. As such, it seems most unlikely that Victoria's biological father was a hemophiliac. At any rate, no historical sources talk about such a thing, and it should be ignored in this article. john k (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense? No historical sources? Are you kidding me? Of course she was a bastard. Or at least, it is more likely than not. There is only one way she could have passed hemophilia on to so many of her children and grandchildren--which clearly she did--if she was legitimate. The chances of a spontaneous mutation are 1 in about 50,000. They didn't have to HAVE hemophilia to do it. For example, Victoria, a carrier, passed it to her daughter Alice, who passed it to her own daughter Alexandra, who later became Alexandra Romanova and passed the gene on...well, likely to all of her children, the most notable being to Alexei Nicholaevich, the equivalent to the crown prince of Russia, who undoubtedly HAD hemophilia. I can't give you any sources off the top of my head, but plenty of reliable, historical sources say this. Heck, I learned about it in my world history class in the tenth grade, which was taught by a teacher who has his doctorate in history. Frankly, I am offended the article makes no mention of the subject. She single-handedly polluted almost all the bloodlines of the European royal families. Seems a tad bit important, doesn't it?147.9.231.203 (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have any idea what you're talking about. A woman can pass on the gene for hemophilia to her daughter without either of them displaying symptoms. A man cannot do so. The gene for hemophilia is on the X chromosome. Men have only one X chromosome. That means that he has the hemophilia gene on his single X chromosome, if he has one - there's no such thing as a male carrier of hemophilia. If a man does not have hemophilia, he cannot possibly transmit hemophilia to his children. If he does have hemophilia, then he will transmit the gene for hemophilia to all his daughters, but to none of his sons. The only way for Queen Victoria to have inherited hemophilia from her father is if he was a hemophiliac. So it behooves anyone who would claim that Queen Victoria was a bastard to explain who the hemophiliac is that cuckolded the Duke of Kent. It's also worth noting that it's perfectly possible that it was Victoria's mother who had the mutation for hemophilia - Victoria's half-siblings did not get the hemophilia gene, apparently, but there'd be a 50% chance that they wouldn't. At any rate, whatever problem there is explaining where the hemophilia came from, proposing that Victoria was not the daughter of the Duke of Kent does nothing to solve it. There are three possibilities here: 1) Victoria inherited the hemophilia gene from her mother, the Duchess of Kent; 2) Victoria inherited the hemophilia gene from her father, a historically unknown hemophiliac who committed adultery with the Duchess of Kent; or 3) Victoria's hemophilia gene was the result of a random mutation. 2 is by far the least likely explanation here. john k (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and I don't know where the '1 in about 50,000' figure comes from, but medically, about one third of Haemophiliacs have no family history of the disease. Depending on what type of haemophilia we are talking about, the chance of spontanueous mutation is about 30%, so actually fairly common. Indisciplined (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Pune incident.
Added The Pune incident. The perpetrators were said to be the first modern Indian revolutionaries to be hanged. Check the references in the movie article. The assassination was timed to coincide with the Diamond Jubilee Celebrations. Said to have sparked armed resistance to the British rule. A landmark event needs to be cited here. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This incident may have been timed to the jubilee but does not really have all that much to do with the queen. This is just another example of irrelevent information being written into articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.164.48 (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the article Chapekar brothers. The British rule over India was a bloody period. Victoria's UK and all other colonial powers have been black spots in the history of humanity. The shooting of British officers was timed to coincide with Victoria's Jubilee celebrations, it was considered as the worst political violence related to the plague in the world. It was Pune's coronation gift to her empress. 1897 was a time of death and despair in India, struck by the pestilence of British rule and plague and the cruelty of famine, but as India suffered the colonisers celebrated. The perpetrator of the shooting Damodar Chapekar writes in his biography that Victoria failed in her responsibility towards her subjects, indulging in celebrations as her citizens suffered and his act was an act of retribution against her rule. Tilak was charged with abetting the shooting for his writings punished with a jail term, making him a living martyr to the cause of India's independence movement. I am bringing it back. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There were other incidents in India and elsewhere in the empire which could be seen as protests to British rule. Unless everything is recorded, this one incident should not be singled out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.182.200 (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the biographies I have seen on Queen Victoria, this incident has never been mentioned. This is an article on the Queen, not the British Empire. Minor protests to British rule do not belong in the article on the Queen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.162.181 (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The British rule over India was a bloody period. Victoria's UK and all other colonial powers have been black spots in the history of humanity - oh I don't know - they stopped your compatriots from forcing widows to sit on their late husbands funeral pyres. I bet that saved more people than the British ever killed in India. And during the Second World War the British Indian Army, a service consisting entirely of volunteers, was approximately 2,000,000 strong - so some Indians and the various other peoples that made up India must have been fairly well-disposed to Britain. In contrast to Chandra Bose's lot who collaborated with the Japanese and which was made up of separatist and discontents, which was minuscule in comparison. Perhaps the editor of the quoted passage would have preferred rule by the Japanese, then there would have been public beheadings a-plenty, something that the 'evil British' gave up doing several hundred years ago.
Oh, and I bet the numerous massacres that occurred immediately after Indian Independence also killed more people than the British ever did. As soon as they got what they wanted the separatists and nationalists then commenced murdering everyone they didn't like. Perhaps that was 'normal' behaviour for India before the British arrived.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.80.21 (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Religion
Just to make it easier to find, could the Queen's stated religious beliefs be added to the info box at the top of the page? Invmog (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.30.150.2 (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Victoria, British imperialism, Christianity and disaster for the colonies
There is not a line about the actions of Imperial Britain under Victoria, and the suffering it caused to millions Asians, Africans and Native Americans and Ireland.
“
Under Victoria Britain would be attendant in the worst humanitarian crisis to hit the nation, when years of failed agricultural policy and potato blight brought famine to Ireland . It was a tragedy beyond compare. Ireland, part of Great Britain since the Act Of Union 1801, saw her population starve when blight destroyed the country’s potato crop in successive years. Irish society since the Union had endured incredible poverty amongst the Catholic majority. Between 1846 and 1851, one million people died of starvation and disease. While people died in their thousands in Ireland, Queen Victoria’s husband, Prince Albert , was commissioning the Great Exhibition at the Crystal Palace in London’s Hyde Park . If ever there was a metaphor for the Victorian paradox between rich and poor, it was the Great Exhibition celebrating industrialism and new-found wealth, during a context of intolerable suffering in Ireland. Queen Victoria’s reign would be pockmarked by famine in British colonies. Towards the end of the century, famine in India claimed between six and ten million lives; for all Britain’s economic might, it was not capable or willing to react to humanitarian disaster.[1]
”
The epitome of British civilisation under Victoria was the shooting of captives in cold blood, the most infamous example being the Mughal princes in Delhi. Dickens though he as a child suffered as much as a black soul in the colonies, has in The Perils of Certain English Prisoners[2] used his characters to voice his opinion on what British retribution against the natives who try to reclaim their lost land should be. The British in Australia, America, Africa and Asia despoiled the natives of their property, burnt their homes, barbarously murdered them and their little children, wives and daughters.
Their fate is to be exterminated from the face of the earth, that is Dickensian justice. The following is the exchange between Captain Carton and Commissioner Pordage.
“
Sir," says Captain Carton, "I am an English officer, commanding English Men, and I hope I am not likely to disappoint the Government's just expectations. But, I presume you know that these villains under their black flag have despoiled our countrymen of their property, burnt their homes, barbarously murdered them and their little children, and worse than murdered their wives and daughters?"
"... It matters very little, Mr. Pordage, whether or not, believing that I hold my commission by the allowance of God, and not that I have received it direct from the Devil, I shall certainly use it, with all avoidance of unnecessary suffering and with all merciful swiftness of execution, to exterminate these people from the face of the earth. Let me recommend you to go home, sir, and to keep out of the night-air.
”
A swift and painless death, extermination from the face of the earth, are we talking about the Holocaust, the Jews and the gas chambers, no we are talking about Asians, Native Americans and Australians and Africans if the British had the means we would have had a white world. Victoria is one of the world's worst war criminals, did Hitler ever pull a switch in the gas chambers?
Dickens himself wrote to a Mrs. Counts on 4 October 1857, "I wish I were the Commander in Chief in India. ... I should do my utmost to exterminate the Race ... to blot it out of mankind and raze it off the face of the earth".[3]
Anonymous editor please do not vandalise, rather face the Queens genocidal ways.
I should have been appended this to "Was queen Victoria a bastard?", above, if at all. I will search for supporting academic article which appeared in the 1990s. There was contemporary discussion of this posit when identifying remains of the last czar and his family; whether P. Philip's DNA should be used (it was). ˜˜˜˜. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1201SLD (talk • contribs) 15:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Need appropriate mention of QV's unknown natural father. QV carried hemophilia. The hereditary nature and genetic mechanics of hemophilia, together with the fact that it does not appear in earlier generations of the Wettin families (Hanover, Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha), press the question of true paternity. ˜˜˜˜. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1201SLD (talk • contribs) 15:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, sorry to interupt this jolly nonsense with some actual science, but Haemophilia (the correct spelling, by the way) can be inherited from either parent, not just from a father. Female carriers of the disorder are usually asymptomatic (ie have no symptoms of the disorder themselves, but carry the faulty gene, and can pass it on to their offspring), so the disorder could well have come from her mother. (In much the same way that the disorder was passed on by some of Victoria's asymptomatic daughters). The fact that Victoria's father did not have the disorder proves absolutlely nothing. Indisciplined (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, this fun again. I don't understand how Victoria's paternity comes into whether Philip's DNA should have been used. Philip's mother's mother's mother was Princess Alice, the tsarina's mother. If Victoria was a bastard, that does not change the fact that Philip and Alexandra ought to have shared mitochondrial DNA. Beyond that, since there are no male carriers of hemophilia who do not actually suffer from the disease, the only way for Victoria to have inherited the gene for hemophilia from her father is if he was an actual hemophiliac. For those who continue to press this, who was this supposed hemophiliac lover of the Duchess of Kent? The most likely possibility here is that Victoria or her mother was a mutant. This is, as I understand it, normally how hemophilia arises, because until very recently hemophiliac gene lines tended to become extinct. At any rate, I don't see how this can be taken at all seriously until the Duchess of Kent's hemophiliac lover can be identified and his connection to the Duchess demonstrated. Most of the accounts I've seen seem to want to use the hemophilia angle to suggest that Sir John Conroy, who did not suffer from hemophilia, was Victoria's father. That hardly works. john k (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You state, quite categorically, that "myths were generated towards the end of the 19th century that she had donated a maximum of £5 in aid to the Irish, and on the same day also gave £5 pounds to Battersea Dog Shelter. This was false, as she in fact contributed £2,000" Yet the reference (28) reads "insert footnote text here"... What is the source for this please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatqwerty (talk • contribs) 19:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accession proclamation
The article's "Accession" section states as follows:
“
All the official documents (proclamation, oaths of allegiance, etc) prepared on the first day of her reign described her as Queen Alexandrina Victoria but at her first Privy Council meeting she signed the register as Victoria; thus, although she was supposed to reign as Alexandrina Victoria, the first name was withdrawn at her own wish.
”
Intentionally or not, this gives the impression that she was proclaimed Queen Alexandrina Victoria. In fact, as published in the Gazette, she was proclaimed as Victoria. While the proclamation certainly refers to "Princess Alexandrina Victoria", it just as certainly refers to "our Liege Lady Victoria, by the Grace of God Queen of..." and "Royal Princess Victoria with long and happy years to reign over us." By way of comparison, George VI was "Albert Frederick Arthur George" in the parts where Victoria was "Alexandrina Victoria" and "our Liege Lord George VI" and "the Royal Prince George VI" in the other places.
I don't have access to the book used as a source for the passage I quoted above. As a result, I can't verify whether it is supposed to refer to drafts. Whatever the case, the passage seems to suggest that the proclamation and oaths "went live" with "Alexandra Victoria", and the name was only changed later. As I have shown, that is not true, at the very least, in the case of the proclamation. I would like to be able to make the changes to eliminate the misleading implication, but I lack the facts to do so without potentially creating a new one, or even an out-and-out falsehood. So, I do therefore beseech thee, the noble and loyal Editors of Quality to bring your aid to this unhappy Circumstance. (Sorry, I've been reading accession proclamations for an hour or so.) -Rrius (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heiress to the Throne, final paragraph (about languages)
The final paragraph of this section may be inaccurate. Currently it reads:
Victoria was taught only German until she was three years old. . . . Her mother spoke German with her.
I do not have the source to back it up, but it seems that she actually denied this herself. Someone on IMDb has quoted her as responding to a proposed biography, as follows:
It seems at least one proposed biography that was done soon after her marriage had claimed that she lisped Teutonic phrases to please her mother's ear to get her way as a young child but Victoria wrote back 'Not true. Never spoke German until 1839[when she and Albert became engaged]. Not allowed to.'
{{editsemiprotected}}
The following sentence opens the second paragraph of the first section, titled "Heiress to the Throne"
The young Princess Victoria was the only legitimate child of the fourth son of George III, the Duke of Kent, who died in 1820.
Both men died in the same year. I believe it would be a good idea to disambiguate the sentence by noting that both died in 1820.
The young Princess Victoria was the only legitimate child of the fourth son of George III, the Duke of Kent, both of whom died in 1820.
I cannot edit it because the article is semi-protected. Thanks to whoever does.
I'm sorry, but, who are these two people who died in 1820? George III was the Duke of Kent - she only had one father. Or am I misunderstanding something? Could you please clarify, and then reinstate this request.
Also, When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured here..
The fourth son of George III was Edward the Duke of Kent. Both George III and the Duke of Kent died in January 1820. I haven't done the edit because I'm not sure of the relevancy for George III's date of passing vis a vis Victoria's heir apparent status since she wasn't George III's heir. The sentence might be improved if we removed the reference to George III altogether. Syrthiss (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found it by chance, when searching for sources about Victoria. Among the notes there is a reference to book "Greg Taylor, Nicholas Economou (2006). The Constitution of Victoria. Federation Press." which is definitely not the book about Queen Victoria, but about the Australian state of the same name. For example note 67 references to this book - it should be a source for the information about Victorias royal styles and titles, but there is practicaly nothing relevant about it on given pages (or anywhere else in the book). You can find the book via google books and look for yourselves.
188.175.126.66 (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest looking up the reference in an older version of this article, say the end of 2009. I recall that the reference then, although not one most people would first think of checking, did give and support the bare facts about Victoria's style and arms. What I think may have happened is that either a 'bot or an unversed human editor may have helpfully updated the reference to a more recent and available edition, which unfortunately doesn't have the information needed. (Similar things happen in semi-mechanically-translated articles such as History of the Jews of Thessaloniki; see Talk:History of the Jews of Thessaloniki.) However, this is just a guess; I may be completely mistaken. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect Fact on Sydney, New South Wales
Excerpt : "In Sydney, the capital city of New South Wales, there is one statue (re-sited from the forecourt of the Irish Parliament building in Dublin) dominating the southern entrance to the Queen Victoria Building that was named in her honour in 1898. Another Sydney statue of Queen Victoria stands in the forecourt of the Federal Court of Australia building on Macquarie Street, looking across the road to a statue of her husband, inscribed "Albert the Good"."
The official city statue of Queen Victoria is not in the forecourt of the Federal Court of Australia building in Macquarie Street, nor does she look at her husband. She is located in Queen's Square, Macquarie Street, Sydney and looks towards the Supreme Court of New South Wales building. The statue of her husband "Abert the Good" looks across Macquarie Street towards the Queen. 202.0.106.130 (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Robert Woodley, 21 July 2010[reply]
This sentence seems self-contradictory: "Victoria's first official visit to Ireland, in 1849, was specifically arranged ... to try to both draw attention from the famine and alert British politicians ... to the seriousness of the crisis in Ireland." Could someone who has access to the source clarify it? Colonies Chris (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Order of the White Elephant
I have recategorised Queen Victoria as a Knight Grand Cordon of the Order of the White Elephant as that would be the customary grade for a monarch to be appointed to - she certainly would not have been appointed as a 'Member' of the order ie to the 5th Class. The original categorisation was based on their being only one category in use for the Order, that has now been expanded to reflect the different grades of the order in accordance with WP:ODM preferred practice, please note that at this stage the category also incorporates Dames Grand Cordon. If a reliable reference can be found for her appointment to a different grade, please amend the categorisation. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confusing titles in Information Box
Currently, the Queen's children (why "Issue", which layfolk unschooled in law or genealogy don't understand?) read as follows in the Information Box:
Issue
Victoria, German Empress
Edward VII of the United Kingdom
Alice, Grand Duchess of Hesse
Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
Princess Helena, Princess Christian of Schleswig-Holstein
Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll
Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn
Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany
Princess Beatrice, Princess Henry of Battenberg
Especially when the lines run over and wrap to the next line, it's unclear how many children Queen Victoria had (yes, I know, because I spent a month working on Grandchildren of Victoria and Albert). Even someone like me who does know can read this at first glance as if Princess Helena, Princess Christian of Schleswig-Holstein, Princess Beatrice and Princess Henry of Battenberg are four separate children.
Since the information box is designed to provide quick information at a glance (often to casual visitors who are uninterested in too much extra detail, or to users referred here from another article), is there some way of simplifying the titles without too much distortion, and then adding phrasing along the lines of "For full titles, see Grandchildren of Victoria and Albert"? Many visitors, perhaps most, don't know the odd formal conventions such as "The Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Phillips"; and it's not the place of a general article like this one to presume that they ought to. Especially this article, which will be one of the first about British royalty that a child or general-interest reader will look up, perhaps after seeing Victoria Regina or The Young Victoria, or when collecting British coins or postage stamps.
Would putting the later titles in parentheses (brackets), for example, be too great an offence against historical accuracy? E.g. "Princess Beatrice (Princess Henry of Battenberg)" or "Princess Helena, [later Princess Christian of Schleswig-Holstein]"? P.S., after an editor, with a righteously-toned edit summary, recently added "Princess" to a couple of names, why are Alice and Alfred still unprefixed?. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the first "Princess" is removed, so that they read "Helena, Princess Christian of Schleswig-Holstein" and "Beatrice, Princess Henry of Battenberg" then on my screen they fall on one line only. It also seems unnecessary to use the same word twice, particularly in an infobox, which is supposed to be as succinct as possible. Would this help? DrKiernan (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Prince and Princess are necessary prefixes for any of them. I don't like "Edward VII of the United Kingdom", in that every other person's full title is listed except his. As far as the adding of Princess, I think the idea is that Alfred's and Alice's titles as sovereign duke of Saxe-Coburg and sovereign grand duchess of Hesse outranked their princely titles. john k (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I probably should have thought and studied more, but my stab at compromising the different considerations (and squeezing each person into a single line) is now on the Information Box as:
Okay, but why do you think we should deprive Victoria's eldest daughter of her highest and most important title? In my humble opinion, the most simple solution would be:
Victoria, German Empress
Edward VII
Alice, Grand Duchess of Hesse
Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha
Princess Helena
Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll
Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught
Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany
Princess Beatrice
There is obviously no reason to attach "Prince(ss)" to the names of sovereigns or consorts of sovereigns. I also don't see any particular need to attach trivial titles to Helena and Beatrice, unless they are actually commonly known as Princess Christian and Princess Henry. Are they? Surtsicna (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This seems good to me - worth noting that in 1917, both Helena and Beatrice stopped using their husbands' names as part of their standard style, so as to sound less German. john k (talk) 04:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
¶ (edit conflict) For the Princess Royal, I started writing "German Empress" all over Grandchildren of Victoria and Albert until someone pointed out that she was Empress (and Queen Consort of Prussia) for only a few months (March to June 1888). On the other hand, she was known as the Princess Royal for many years beginning at age 1 (far earlier in her life than Princess Anne). Her Wikipedia article is in fact entitled Victoria, Princess Royal—which is indicative without being decisive in a context where we don't always use article titles. But of course I'd be glad to see more information and discussion. I suppose the alternative is to call her "Victoria, Crown Princess of Prussia", which she was for twenty years beginning in 1861. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She was empress for a few months, but dowager empress for 13 years. Most of her life she was not known as "Princess Royal" but as "Crown Princess of Prussia". Her case is certainly no different from Alice's, who was only grand duchess of Hesse for a bit longer than Victoria was German empress, and who was never a dowager. john k (talk) 04:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that we shouldn't refer to Victoria as "German Empress" because she held that title for a few months would be like saying that we shouldn't refer to Edward VII as King because he was Prince of Wales six times longer. Surtsicna (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Error in the article
Most of the article on "Victoria of the United Kingdom" is excellently written and informative. It's only because I've been looking ridiculously closely in my research that I noticed something wrong. Since the article is semi-protected indefinitely, I'm posting the error I discovered here in the hopes that someone who has the authority to do so will fix it.
There is an image embedded in the article: "Portrait of Queen Victoria's family in 1846 by Franz Xaver Winterhalter," in the "Children" section near the bottom of the article. The caption at the bottom of the picture is the element of the article with which I take issue. The caption is as follows: "(from left to right:) Princes Alfred and Albert Edward; The Queen and the Prince Consort; Princesses Louise, Helena and Victoria."
The inconsistency here is that the caption on this portrait (which was, I restate, painted in 1846) lists the Princesses pictured as Louise, Helena, and Victoria, and in fact portrays Louise as older than Helena. Louise was born 18 March 1848, two years after the portrait was painted, and two years after Helena was born. The Princess who should be listed, the one who is actually pictured, is Alice, who was born 25 April 1843 (as stated in the list of Victoria's children posted below the image in question). She was Queen Victoria's second daughter, older than both Helena and Louise, and is completely excluded from the caption of the painting. So, unless the painter was psychic (and didn't like Princess Alice), this image is captioned in error.
Will someone who has the authority to override the semi-protected state of this article please correct this error?
Thanks, it's been fixed, and, as the person who wrote the original caption, I probably made the original goof. (Now that you're registered with Wikipedia you should be able to make your own edits of semi-protected pages like this one within a few days; semi-protection is just to guard vulnerable pages against vandalism and spam from the outside.) —— Shakescene (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Victoria of the United Kingdom → Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom — Or even better, Queen Victoria. Certainly the present title must be changed (she is almost never called that, and it doesn't even identify her in a way that would be recognisable to everyone, even though everyone knows her). We could do what was recently done with John and go for Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom; however, I would commend the common-sense alternative of Queen Victoria, since (a) she's undoubtedly the primary topic for that name and will continue to be so even if a Victoria succeeds to the throne of Sweden of whatever; (b) it's far and away the commonest name for her (except perhaps "Victoria" alone, for which she would not necessarily be the primary topic); (c) it avoids specifying one of her titles (not such a problem with her as for Elizabeth II, but still, she was queen of much of the world, and Empress of India). Kotniski (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the same qualifications. "King John" is ambiguous out of context (e.g. King John of Portugal) so that article title benefits from specification. But "Queen Victoria" is how 98% of the English-speaking world [which of course excludes Wikipedia ;-) ] recognises her and calls her. I'd prefer "Victoria, Queen of Great Britain" or "Queen Victoria of Great Britain" to "Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom" not because I wish to disparage Ireland but because the former two are more likely to be used and recognised than the latter. However, Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom is still to be preferred to the present Victoria of the United Kingdom, used by no non-specialist outside Wikipedia. Victoria was Queen Victoria for over 60 years and Princess Alexandrina (Victoria) of the United Kingdom for less than twenty, so Queen Victoria is indeed who she was and how she has been known as for over 170 years. The "Francis of Ruritania" or "Alice II of Utopia" form applies better to cases like Henry IV where there's ambiguity or to ones where a title-holder's reign is much shorter than his or her life. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I prefer the current standard. Besides can't change one without changing them all. Not to mention that as a general rule we don't include titles at the start of names.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no current standard for this type of royalty. There was a standard which has been rightly discarded as untenable, precisely because it produces titles like this one, which is entirely inappropriate for the reasons already given. Since no-one can defend the present title, the discussion should focus on which is preferable: "Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom" or "Queen Victoria".--Kotniski (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NCROY is alive and well, but the part that used to recommend titles like this article's has indeed been discarded - and rightly so, since (as this discussion has shown) no-one can defend titles like this one (it must be among the stupidest titles ever thought up in good faith for a Wikipedia article).--Kotniski (talk) 06:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For a start, it would help if we had a clear proposal here. "Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom" is a bit of a mouthful. "Queen Victoria" is her common name but we have the problem of consistency with other UK monarchs and how we deal with the clash when the current heir to the Swedish throne becomes queen. (For what it's worth, her father is now 64.) PatGallacher (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, the Swedish question is resolved by the primary topic princple. I'm not sure why this was prefixed with "Oppose" - you don't seem to be defending the present title (can you?) (can anyone? - except by saying that it conforms to a convention that has recently been rejected precisely because it leads to ridiculous titles like this one). --Kotniski (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support either move. The convention that causes the article to be at its current title is flawed, for precisely the reason given in the nomination (she is almost never called that, and it doesn’t even identify her in a way that would be recognizable to everyone, even though everyone knows her). Either Queen Victoria or Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom would be better, even though the former would become a bad idea once it becomes ambiguous. MTC (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The current title is ambiguous with Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom, and is the least used of the three alternative names. [Google results: "Queen Victoria" (3 million ghits, 1.2 million gbooks, 72 thousand gscholar) "Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom" (107 thousand ghits, 2.2 thousand gbooks, 99 gscholar) "Victoria of the United Kingdom" (20 thousand ghits, 1.2 thousand gbooks, 48 gscholar)] "Queen Victoria" redirects here, which indicates that it is primary usage currently, even though there are other Queen Victorias. So, "Queen Victoria" meets three of the five WP:AT criteria: recognizability, naturalness, conciseness. If "Queen Victoria" is or becomes ambiguous, then "Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom" is still more common than "Victoria of the United Kingdom" and meets two of the five WP:AT criteria: recognizability, preciseness. "Victoria of the United Kingdom" is the least common name and meets one of the WP:AT criteria: consistency. My choices are "Queen Victoria" first (most common name, meets 3 WP:AT criteria), "Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom" second (second most common name, meets 2 WP:AT criteria), and "Victoria of the United Kingdom" third (least common name, meets 1 WP:AT criterium). DrKiernan (talk) 08:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin should discount this and all such votes. The chicken and egg situation ... can't change guidelines because of pages, and can't change pages because of guidelines ... would be malfunction in the system if allowed. A discussion has already taken place on the guideline page, with a majority in favour of this new format. This is now being implemented through subjecting key pages to WP:RM (for instance John, King of England). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportVictoria, Queen of the United Kingdom. The "Name of Place" format works badly for monarchs without ordinals, and this form is much more clear. Mildly OpposeQueen Victoria, because the "Title Name" format is one that is pretty much never used for reigning monarchs in wikipedia. This would be the best case for an exception, though. john k (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oh, this is just getting ridiculous. The convention has pretty much always been "Name ordinal of country". All these page moves over the past couple months is just plain fucking stupid. This bullshit needs to be stopped and fixed.
-74.132.163.46 (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious
The article says that Victoria traveled at 20 mph by train in 1842, and that this was considered fast. However, other sources (e.g. Hibbert, p. 170, royal website, and Paddington partnership (page 6)) say the journey took 25 minutes, and the distance between Slough and Paddington is 17 miles. That gives an average speed of just over 44 mph. DrKiernan (talk) 11:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
.JPG)
Done – Toon(talk) 22:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC))
.jpg)
