Talk:Henrietta of England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Cause of death?[edit]

I added a reference to Saint-Simon's account of poisoning, and deleted "An autopsy was performed, however, and it was reporteded that Henrietta-Anne had died of peritonitis caused by a perforated ulcer" as I can find no other source for this and every account I've read says she was poisoned. The claim needs to be supported. Rogermexico 23:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe I first read about her autopsy in The King My Brother by Cyril Hughes Hartmann although I don't have the page number. I did a Google Book Search, and found that the autopsy is mentioned on page 239 of The History of Gastroenterology. Therefore, I am restoring the omitted sentence.--*Kat* 07:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Huh. Didn't know that. Thanks, in any case, for leaving it as "it was reported". It seems pretty much everyone at the time was convinced she was poisoned, including certainly our good duchess herself. I'd never heard of the autopsy before (and I wonder if that was the actual finding or something to offset the rumors). Interesing. Rogermexico 03:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
No arguements about that. But think about it: Henrietta had been feeling horrible, just horrible for weaks prior to her death. Yes, she traveled to England and back, but I don't think she would have gone had anybody other than her brother been waiting for her there. She had horrible stomach pains all the way there. Furthermore, one of her daughters died of the same thing that killed Henrietta. Poisoning doesn't really make sense. --*Kat* 23:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orléans[edit]

It looks like that Henrietta Anne Stuart was at one point moved by cut and paste to Henrietta Anne of England, Duchess of Orleans, and from there with a proper move to Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orléans. Because of the cut and paste move the history of this page was corrupted, and had to be repaired.
There was also an old vandalism issues: the page was first vandalized, then moved by cut and paste taking the vandalism along in the process, and moved again. Because the history was corrupted that old vandalism was no longer evident from the history.
The old vandalism has now been reverted, and the history has been repaired. I also moved the page back to its original name, Henrietta Anne Stuart. Reason for that is that according to Wikipedia naming conventions common names should be used, and a quick google search revealed that Henrietta Anne Stuart is far more common than Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orléans.
Because the vandal had removed information on marriage and children, and Adam sk put in the mean time a table with information about her children some of that information is now duplicated. But since the original information was more complete than Adam sk's table I left it at that, and I am going leave it to someone else to take out any redundancy. JdH 15:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming this article[edit]

btw: This naming business is really complicated; according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) "Where they have no substantive title, use the form "{title} {name} of {country}," e.g., Princess Irene of Greece. Use only the highest prefix title the person ever held. Deceased royal consorts should not have a title mentioned, e.g., Anne of Denmark. Using royal titles for more junior royals will enable users to distinguish between royal consorts and others. A prefix title can be used only when it was held and used by the person. This means that roughly before the 17th century, prince/ss would not be prefixed automatically.". On the basis of that it actually appears that the preferred title would be Henrietta Anne of England. JdH 19:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with that. By naming her Henrietta Anne Stuart, it makes her look as if she was queen-consort. She was Duchess of Orléans by marriage, I think the name "Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orléans" is quite proper and in compliance with our rules on naming nobility. She is not that well known IMO that she can go under another name. Gryffindor 09:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) and substantive title. Eventhough the naming conventions are mostly gobbledigook it is unequivocal in this case: it states the following:
substantive title (or substantive peerage) is a title of nobility or royalty held by someone (normally by one person alone), which they gained through either grant or inheritance, as opposed to one given or loaned to them either as a courtesy title, or gained through marriage.
So "Prince of Wales", or "Princess Royal" would be a substantive title. However, the title "Duchess of Orléans" was acquired through marriage, and is therefore not a substantive title. Therefore, in this case the maiden name should be used, i.e.: Henrietta Anne of England. JdH 14:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree as well- Henrietta Anne of England would be the proper usage here. I vonH 02:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of issues at hand here. First, I am unsure it it was common for the Stuart princes and princesses to be styled "of England" on a general basis. If that were the case, she would be Princess Henrietta Anne of England. Now, for the fact that non-consort princesses are sometimes put at their full premarital title, that could be the case with Henrietta Anne Stuart if it is found that she was generally not styled as a Princess of England. Remember, titles were not laid down until the Hanoverian monarchs came to Britain. It has been Wikipedia practice to accord marital titles to some women (for whichever reasons). Due to this and many unanswered questions, I felt that Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orléans, while maybe not prescribed by the guidelines, was not incorrect as a title. Charles 20:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
You are right: naming royals in Wikipedia is complete anarchy, everybody seems to follow his/her own rule. I think we have to follow Wikipedia rules as close as we can, to avoid inconsistencies from getting even worse than they already are. The way I understand Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) is that there are 2 rules that may apply here.
The first is: "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem.". As I explained above, this rule leads to Henrietta Anne Stuart.
The other rule is under Other royals: "Where they have no substantive title, use the form "{title} {name} of {country}," e.g., Princess Irene of Greece [....] A prefix title can be used only when it was held and used by the person. This means that roughly before the 17th century, prince/ss would not be prefixed automatically". Applying this rule leads to Henrietta Anne of England; we don't need the Princess because that "17th century" applies here. There are many instances that follow the same rule, such as Princess Anne of England ("Princess" is necessary here to avoid confusion with Queen Anne), Catherine of Aragon, Henrietta Maria of France, Maria Luisa of Orléans, Anne Marie of Orléans, Maria Beatrice of Savoy, Marie Elisabeth of Saxony etc etc, so I don't see a valid reason why an exception should be made in this case.
Personally I would prefer Henrietta Anne Stuart, because it is most commonly used, but it is best to stick to the rules. JdH 23:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Ummm, the seventeenth century encompassed the 1600s. Just like the year 2007 is a part of the 21st century. Furthermore, she was referred to as the Princess Henrietta in both the English and Venetian the calendars of the time. ---*Kat* 01:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what "roughly before the 17th century" exactly means, but the question really is: Was she at the time addressed as "Princess" or not? If you have evidence that she was then she should be called Princess Henrietta Anne of England JdH 04:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Henrietta Anne Stuart would be a sensible title. I think in situations like this, where we are before the time when Princess Henrietta Anne of England would have been used, this makes the most sense. john k

I agree. Reveals the family name at first glance, doesn't graft title we are not sure where ever used "Princess" and avoids giving her a marrital title. I think its the ideal title. User:Dimadick

I think this is a complex question: the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which I take to be the most scholarly source on this type of topic, lists her as "Henriette Anne [formerly Henrietta], Princess, duchess of Orléans" and then labels the portrait of her as "Princess Henriette Anne" and refers to her as "Henriette Anne" throughout the course of the article. I don't know how this fits in with the Wikipedia guidelines, but, slavishly copying the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, I would call the main article "Princess Henriette Anne" and have the first line read "Henriette Anne [formerly Henrietta], Princess, duchess of Orléans". Adam_sk 04:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica has Henrietta Anne Of England, so I am not sure what conclusion to draw from the most scholarly source argument. JdH 13:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Van Dyck Portrait Misidentitifed?[edit]

I believe the image alleged to be Henrietta Anne as an infant is improperly identified. I have seen images of the original painting, for which (or from which) the image in this article appears to be a sketch. The portrait is titled "Children of Charles I" and is dated approximately 1635, which puts the children at about the right ages depicted. The portrait depicts Charles, Prince of Wales, Mary, the future Princess of Orange, and the baby is actually James, Duke of York. Therefore I think it proper to remove that particular image, and perhaps even place it in the entry for James II of England.

MDiPaolo (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)MDiPaolo, 01/24/08

More to the point, Van Dyck died (1641) before she was born (1644). The image also seems to me to be a C19th sketch after a painting. It should go anyway. Johnbod (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Redundant & trivial content[edit]

In reply to the message you just left on my talk page: Much of the added material is redundant, excessive, or trivial. I've already recorded repeated objections to

  1. unsourced allegations (e.g. that seem unprecedented, unlikely, or undocumentable) are apt to be deleted unless precisely sourced
  2. redundancies (if it's in a box on the page, it's apt to be deleted from the text):
  3. excess (details which belong in another person's article [e.g. parent, spouse, child], or which describe hard-to-verify details [e.g. "She felt envious": unless it's an attributed quote from a diary or correspondence -- how is it possible to know what someone who died hundreds of years ago "felt" or "thought"? Let's stick to what they verifiably said or did]),
  4. gallicization (names and titles when combined, OK [but members of dynasties that ruled outside France -- Lorraine, Savoy, Modena, Bouillon, Monaco, etc -- shouldn't be gallicized, except for cadets born into a branch naturalised in France]; but just for the sake of a more "French" sound or "feel" to the article -- not usually, and subject to deletion). Please don't use sockpuppets. I look forward to better mutual cooperation -- and better Wiki articles. Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

New file File:Princess Henrietta Anne of England, Duchess of Orléans by Pierre Mignard.jpg[edit]

Princess Henrietta Anne of England, Duchess of Orléans by Pierre Mignard.jpg

Recently the file File:Princess Henrietta Anne of England, Duchess of Orléans by Pierre Mignard.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 09:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


Large sections of this article are plagiarized without credit word for word from Madame: a life of Henrietta, daughter of Charles I and Duchess of Orleans by Julia Mary Cartwright Ady. I will try to make repairs. Rednikki (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've tracked down the plagiarism to an expansion made on the 29th of July. This expansion also destroyed the neutrality of the article, stating outright that Henrietta was poisoned (which was never proven and is still under much debate). This article requires attention.Rednikki (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


reading the previous info about her moving to Henriette Anne, Duchess of Orléans seemed silly in the first place; she was the Duchess by marriage and therefore did not "own" the title; anyway my issue is that she was never known as H.A.Stuart; she was known as Henrietta Anne of England and therefore in France, Henriette [Anne] d'Angleterre; so why is she still called Stuart?! even her siblings for some reason are all named Stuart; i dont understand..

if there are no resistance i will move it to either Princess Henrietta Anne of England [which in my view is the correct title] or Henriette Anne of England.

Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Monsieur le Duc,
I tend to agree with you. None of the articles on other Duchesses of Orléans have Duchess of Orléans in their title: Françoise-Marie de Bourbon, Margravine Auguste Marie Johanna of Baden-Baden, Louise Henriette de Bourbon, Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon. All Duchesses of Orléans were married to a Duke of Orléans, not born as such.
Whether Henrietta Anne of England or Henrietta Anne Stuart, I would do without the Princess.
Frania W. (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Who cares if someone "owns" a title? The important thing is what they are best known by. That said, why "Henrietta" and not "Henrietta Anne"? john k (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

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.

The result of the move request was: page not moved casting vote (this discussion has rhubarbed on for 56 days = 8 weeks.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Princess Henrietta of EnglandHenrietta of England — This page has been moved many times, often without much discussion at all. Those moves has included two cut-and-paste moves, resulting in disruption of the page history. This discussion is an attempt to settle the naming issue once and for all, to avoid further disruptive moves in the future JdH (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

With all this confusion about naming I decided to conduct a little experiment, i.e. do a google book search for the various alternatives:

Henrietta Anne Stuart 86 hits
Henrietta Anne of England 494 hits
Henrietta of England 8,500 hits
Princess Henrietta Anne of England 62 hits
Princess Henrietta of England 620 hits
Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orleans 602 hits
Henrietta, Duchess of Orleans 4,150 hits

This is actually pretty conclusive: We don't need the "Princess", and we don't need the "Anne"; the most common name, by far, is "Henrietta of England". I did a "book" search rather than a "web" search, because the web is heavily influenced by what is already here, and cannot be considered a "scholarly" source.
What is also clear that moving this article around as has happened in the past creates a chaos of biblical proportions; moves should henceforth only be made if there is broad concensus about it. What should no more happen, ever, is that people keep moving it pretty much on their own; with all the conflicting opinions about it that is bound to lead to chaos. JdH (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Let's drop the Princess and have the article's title as Henrietta of England.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Henrietta of England: definitely drop Princess, debating about including Anne or not.[1]
--Frania W. (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe Princess should be used, as many Princesses from many different countries who have articles on Wikipedia do not mention them being a Princess in the page name, they state the country they a from and possibly their marital title, so either Henrietta Anne of England or Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orleans. I believe Anne should be in the article name as her mother was Henrietta Maria and there is no dispute against that..or as I believe--David (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes but Maria was part of Henrietta's birth name, whereas Anne was added to her daughter's name later in honour of Anne of Austria.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The article Frania W. quoted actually shows that the French are pretty unequivocal about Henriette d'Angleterre. But we need to know what the most common name is in English, even though the fact that she lived most of her adult life in France does have significant impact. About padding it with Duchess of Orléans/Duchess of Orleans, see the previous discussion we had about that: Talk:Princess Henrietta of England#Naming this article. JdH (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I certainly would not drop Princess to "pad her up" with Duchess of Orléans, because if we do so, then it will be unavoidable to begin debating whether all the wives of all the Dukes of Orléans should have that title added in title of article, beginning with Gaston d'Orléans' two wives Marie de Bourbon, Duchess of Montpensier & Marguerite of Lorraine, and Philippe's second wife, Elizabeth Charlotte of the Palatinate, including Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon, the wife of Philippe Égalité, und so weiter...
Wisdom tells me that this article should be Henrietta of England, and let's discuss if we should add Anne in order to differentiate her from her mother, but no Princess, no Duchess.
--Frania W. (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Since her mother is called Henrietta Maria of France there should be no problem with confusing her with her mother, as long as we keep the "of England" suffix JdH (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

According to current precedent and conventions, this article should be at Princess Henrietta of England. If you wish to challenge the precedent and conventions (as I believe someone should, since it's extremely dubious whether there were any "Princesses of England" before the Hanoverians imported the custom), then you should do so before moving this article. Take a broad view across the range of effected articles, not a narrow view of this one. DBD 16:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:NCROY#Other royals sub 2:
2. Where they have no substantive title, use the form "{title} {name} of {country}", e.g. Princess Irene of Greece. Use only the highest prefix title the person ever held and used (roughly before the 17th century, prince/ss would not be prefixed automatically).
That roughly before the 17th century does apply here, in particular as you point out that the Hanoverians imported the custom, which was after Henrietta. JdH (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so we need to work at establishing what the convention and precedent are for those individuals and write it into NCROY DBD 17:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I had a quick look at precedent; we only need to look at what was used in England and Scotland before the Hanoverians; what is happening elsewhere in Europe is of no concern here. What we have is Elizabeth of Bohemia; my take on the convention is that she should actually be called Elizabeth of Scotland, but that redirects to List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II; what a mess!
And then we have Princess Elizabeth of England, and Princess Anne of England. In those cases the prefix Princess is actually needed to avoid confusion with the Queens of the same name. JdH (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Look at her sister's article: Mary of Orange?! Princess is mentioned twice in the article's name! What was wrong with the succint Mary of Orange?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
"Princess Royal" is a substantive title, and according to convention those should indeed be used, see e.g. Anne, Princess Royal; also previous discussion Talk:Princess Henrietta of England#Naming this article.
The Princess of Orange bit is probably needed for disambiguation, see Mary, Princess Royal, but there may be better ways to do that, e.g. Mary, Princess Royal of England. JdH (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
That works for me. Henrietta doesn't need the title of Princess added to her article's name, however.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think "Mary of England, Princess Royal" adequately distinguishes her from the other Mary who was princess royal - I know it's technically incorrect to call the royal family "of England" after 1707, but we shouldn't assume people will know that. Mary, Princess of Orange could, of course, apply also to Mary II of England, who, like her aunt, was Princess of Orange. I have never heard the Princess Royal referred to as "Mary of Orange." Indeed, she generally wasn't even referred to as "The Princess of Orange," a style which was, during her lifetime, normally reserved for her mother-in-law. More broadly, I don't think the naming guidelines give us much guidance here, and we ought to use common sense and common usage to determine titles, not rules that have never been elaborated in a consistent way about this topic. john k (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I am not going to argue for a name change of Mary, Princess Royal and Princess of Orange, even though a quick google search seems to indicates that Mary, Princess Royal of England always refers to the spouse of William II of Orange. btw, in Holland she is always referred to as "Mary Stuart I" JdH (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
In terms of this article, in particular, I tend to think what makes the most sense is probably Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orléans, or some such. There is a maiden name rule for queens, but even this is occasionally violated. There is no such rule at all for consorts below that rank, and I'm not convinced there should be any such rule. Some queens are referred to usually by their maiden name; others are not. There's no good reason to impose a one size fits all rule, and it works even less well for other consorts, where there are often conflicting positions. A Duchess of Devonshire is referred to by her married name. Why should not be a duchess of Orléans? Using that form makes it immediately clear who she was, and does not use an anachronistic term which probably wasn't ever used for her ("Princess" - as far as I'm aware, before 1714, "Princess" was used for Princesses of Wales, for Henrietta's sister the Princess Royal, and for Princess Anne, who was married to a prince of Denmark. I don't think it was typically used for the king's unmarried daughters. john k (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The "Using that form makes it immediately clear who she was" argument actually leads to Henrietta of England with 8,500 hits; Henrietta of England, Duchess of Orleans has only 486 hits JdH (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
That is an incredibly artificial way to get to a result. "Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orleans" gives me 10,800 results. Henrietta, Duchess of Orleans does even better, with 42,500 results. Given that nobody has suggested "Henrietta of England, Duchess of Orleans," why would you search for that? john k (talk) 06:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd add that "Form which gives us the most google results" is not even slightly the same thing as "form that makes it immediately clear who she was." john k (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I did a google book search, not a web search, for reasons I explained at my first entry in this discussion. Doing the same for your suggestions I get the following: Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orleans 545 hits, and Henrietta, Duchess of Orleans 4,130 hits JdH (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
How about Henrietta (princess of England) — we then know who she was (daughter of a king of England) without implying she was called "Princess Henrietta". I prefer to avoid giving royals surnames because they may not have used them or even legally held them. A House name is quite separate (although often the same). DBD 10:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I think we need to follow conventions as closely as possible. The rule that applies in this situation is the following: Wikipedia:NCROY#Other royals sub 2:
2. Where they have no substantive title, use the form "{title} {name} of {country}", e.g. Princess Irene of Greece. Use only the highest prefix title the person ever held and used (roughly before the 17th century, prince/ss would not be prefixed automatically).
As explained a few paragraphs before, we don't need the Princess here, because Henrietta came before the Hanoverians introduced that title.
This rule also excludes marital title such as "Duchess of Orléans", since that is not a substantive title. Since Henrietta of England is the most commonly used name there is no reason to deviate from this rule. Furthermore, the name is unique, so there is no reason to add a marital title for reasons of disambiguation. JdH (talk) 13:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Henrietta of England would be fine. But I really don't think there's anything in the policy which clearly forbids using marital titles, and if there is, it's a statement not supported by consensus. john k (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we should apply Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). If someone wants to go argue for an exception, that person should go try to amend Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) before any changes are made. The Naming conventions begin with the principle that

I take that standard to mean that if someone is overwhelmingly known one way - like Edward, the Black Prince - then you go with the most common name. But for all other royals and nobles, the fact that they changed what they were called so much that there is no one name by which they are most commonly known, and therefore we should just apply the rules set out further down in the naming convention. I don't think anyone has established that she is known overwhelmingly by one name in English. I'm not sure that a Google book search is really useful at determining "the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English". Google Books are so slanted towards 19th century books, that they give you a sense of what people called her in the 19th century, whereas a 20th or 21st century historian is more likely to go for historical accuracy. So, I don't think we have a "most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English" so we should just apply the rules. So in declining order, we have rules for (1) sovereigns, (2) consorts to sovereigns, (3) royals with a substantive title, and (4) other royals. Was she a sovereign? No. Was she a consort to a sovereign? No, "Duke of Orléans" was not a sovereign title. So, was she a "royal with a substantive title"? A substantive title is "a title of nobility or royalty held by someone (normally by one person alone), which they gained through either grant or inheritance, as opposed to one given or loaned to them either as a courtesy title, or gained through marriage." She gained the title of "Duchess of Orléans" by marrying Philippe I, Duke of Orléans. Therefore she did not have a substantive title. Is she an "other royal"? Yes: her father was a king so she is a royal. That brings us to "Use "Prince(ss) {first name} of ..." where a prince/ss has a territorial suffix by virtue of their parent's title." That gives us Princess Henrietta of England. It's not perfect, but it's what we've got. I vote to keep the article name as is. Adam sk (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

My vote is to keep the Princess part and add Anne back if it wouldn't be to hard. I would like it to be Henrietta Anne Stuart, but I don't think anybody would be in agreement with that.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

She was known as Henrietta (she was baptised with just that name) not Henriette/a Anne. Anne was given to her at the time she moved to France by the time she was some 3/4 years old. Princess is appropriate as she was not a queen consort, just the wife of a Duke. Overall, I do not think Anne is a must have. At any rate some sources call her Madame Henriette not "Madame Henriette Anne" Louis Philippe Charles (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, although I'd prefer a version with Orleans, and am uncertain about Anne, I support the move, because I don't believe she was ever called a princess. john k (talk) 07:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — the proposed name "Henrietta of England" just doesn't tell us what we need to know. Although it's a bit inaccurate, I favour the current location for clarity. DBD 17:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe she was ever called a princess - according to this annotation to Pepys' diary, in his memoirs, Sir John Reresby referred to Henrietta as "the Princess". Adam sk (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose for clarity, and others in Category:English princesses. As is the case in many categories around Europe, princesses who have no other distinguishing name (by marriage, place of birth for medieval ones etc) should be called "Princess Foo of Fooland". Plain "Foo of Fooland" should be reserved for monarchs and consorts. Johnbod (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Put me down as a support for "Henrietta of England", since that seems to be her most common name - and if she wasn't really titled Princess, then someone ought to update the Titles and Syles section of the article, which states that she was. --Kotniski (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I notice some comments above suggesting that, if we want to go against WP:NCROY, then we should change the guideline first, and then apply the changed rule here. I must disagree with that in the strongest possible terms. That has never been how Wikipedia works, and on my watch, it never will be.

    Our "rules" are abstracted from the bottom up, not applied from the top down. Everything is decided on a case-by-case basis, and if individual cases contradict the general rule that someone wrote down, then the general rule should be re-written to reflect reality. (Policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive.) Otherwise, it's way too easy to fall into the idea that we're rule-bound and bureaucratic.

    If this article should be titled Henrietta of England, then that's true on the merits of this particular case, and not because of some abstract rule. The abstract rule follows specific decisions, and while it can inform them, it doesn't lead them. It certainly doesn't compel them.

    I'm here from Wikipedia:Requested moves to close this request, if possible, but I'm going to make the call based on specific arguments about this article, and not based on what someone wrote down when they didn't have this article in mind. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Once again[edit]

Once again the history of this article has been corrupted by a cut-and paste move, see Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves and Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen why cut-and-paste moves are undesirable. This last cut-and-paste seems to have been at 16:00, 20 November 2009 by User:LouisPhilippeCharles, cutting-and-pasting from Henrietta Anne Stuart to Henrietta Anne of England. The edit entry "22:10, 14 July 2010 LouisPhilippeCharles m (15,494 bytes) (moved Henrietta Anne of England to Princess Henrietta of England" describes a move by the proper method, not a cut-and-paste.
The damage has now been repaired, by an Admin history merge. Also, this Talk page, which was left behind at the original location, has been rejoined to the article. What is particularly annoying about this occurrence is that the problems caused by an earlier cut-and-past move is discussed in detail on this very Talk page, Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orléans. JdH (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)