Talk:Prince Louis of Battenberg

Illegitimate Daughter?

As for his illegitimate daughter, the alleged reliability of that statement differs much between this article and Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma. --Jao 16:34, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Re-write

Rewrote article to correct errors and incorporate additional info. But much should go in articles on his parents, sibs and the Battenberg/Mountbatten family.Lethiere 14:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Titles

   * His Illustrious Highness Count Louis of Battenberg
   * His Serene Highness Prince Louis of Battenberg
   * Louis Mountbatten
   * (2nd) Marquess of Milford Haven

Afaik there was no previous marquisate of Milford Haven so it's not the second creation and he was the first holder of the title. Either way (2nd) makes no sense.Alci12 17:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this was wrong. I'm wondering if the page should really be here. For most of his life he was Prince Louis of Battenberg, and he achieved his greatest significance - as First Sea Lord - under this name. john k 17:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's one of those cases where neither option is satisfactory. While the 'historians' think 'Louis of Battenberg' it means nothing to anyone else. Considering that he 'renounced' his foreign titles perhaps this is the right place though I'm perfectly happy to put this to talk_peerage etc to find a consensus. I had left the Louis Mountbatten in, as I assume someone thought they were being very correct as there was a 72hr gap between his renouncing the titles and getting his peerage. I'm not sure it really matters tbh but someone may object.Alci12 18:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That's sort of the way I feel — it would make me feel slightly awkward putting it under a title he specifically renounced. (As for the 72 hour gap, during those 72 hours he was known as the slightly more impressive-sounding "Admiral The Rt Hon. Sir Louis Mountbatten, GCB, GCVO, KCMG".) Proteus (Talk) 07:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

True though his PC was 1921 iirc so surely no Rt Hon.Alci12 10:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

He was appointed in November 1914, presumably as compensation for being forced to resign as First Sea Lord. You're probably thinking of his promotion to Admiral of the Fleet, which was indeed in 1921, just before his death. Proteus (Talk) 11:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No doubt as I wasn't amending the article I didn't check the details. If you have his final post noms they aren't in the article atm.Alci12 09:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No move (although I don't see "Prince Louis of Battenberg" really discussed as a plausible alternative; the point of contention was apparently von). Duja► 10:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

---

For most of his life he was Prince Louis of Battenberg, and he achieved his greatest significance - as First Sea Lord - under this name. --Toddy1 04:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Don't you mean Prince Louis of Battenberg? Charles 04:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It is perfectly normal for members of the German aristocracy to have either von or zu' at start of their family name. His real family name was von Battenberg.--Toddy1 17:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You're speaking to someone with "von" in his family name. Charles 19:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We us English not German on the English wikipedia. Hence his wife is Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine not Prinzessin Viktoria von Hessen und bei Rhein. DrKiernan 17:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, it's also a mixture as in German he would be Ludwig von Battenberg. DrKiernan 17:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Two key points:

(1) Louis von Battenberg was a victim of racism. He lost his job as First Sea Lord because he was German. Obscuring the point that he had a blatantly German name is inappropriate.

(2) People in England are familiar with German names like von Moltke, von Hindenburg, and von Trapp. These names are never written of Moltke, etc. The convention in English with surnames beginning with von is that the correct form is to include the von and that omitting the von altogether is a convenient shorthand.--Toddy1 18:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Some key points:

(1) Battenberg is a place and a title was created for it. For Hindenburg and Trapp, there were no titles and nothing to be "of".

(2) The use of the title Prince(ss) of Battenberg is not obscuring a blatantly German name. Obviously Battenberg is blatantly German if it has to be anglicized to Mountbatten.

(3) There are people like me who speak English and are not from nor live in England. Also, Battenberg is not a surname, it is a titular designation. Also, omitting the "von" is not a convenient shorthand. One never properly speaks of "von Hindenburg" or "von Trapp", but of "Hindenburg", etc. Charles 19:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Charles Are you Austrian? An Austrian I used to work with told me that they had abolished all the vons and zus in Austria. In Germany they have not. So aristocratic German military officers retain their correct names (even those in the British Army). To suggest that such a person was not a 'von' was recognised as insulting.--Toddy1 21:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My family is German but that does not matter or factor into this discussion. Also, Prince Louis dropped the use of the princely title before Austria abolished all titles of nobility and prepositions, so I don't know how that equates into the argument of being insulting. Indeed, it would be insulting to be told one is not of sufficient rank or status to translate their preposition, that it is only a name and nothing more, which is essentially what you are saying about Prince Louis. Charles 22:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't like the "von" bit. DrKiernan 06:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose As above, and per my comment copied over from WP:RM. Charles 16:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose In the English-language literature, he is not known as "Prince Louis von Battenberg". Noel S McFerran 14:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Comment about the discussion and to the closer: I think it was originally requested as "von", but the request was later changed to "of", and several debaters seem to have missed this, continuing to debate on the "von" vs "of" issue. As agreeing I am about "von" being the wrong place, I wouldn't have anything against an immediate re-request for "Prince Louis of Battenberg". -- Jao 10:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Like I tried to say in the closing statement, yes, it was closed without prejudice for a re-run. Apparently, the previous debate side-tracked. Duja► 09:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Re-requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was uncontested move. DrKiernan 10:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Re-requesting move to Prince Louis of Battenberg:

• The previous discussion sidetracked and was closed without prejudice.
• He achieved his greatest significance under this name, as First Sea Lord, and he is probably most noted for having had to resign as First Sea Lord because of this Germanic name.
• His more famous son also changed his name from Prince Louis of Battenberg to Louis Mountbatten, also became First Sea Lord, and also became Admiral of the Fleet. The name Louis of Battenberg typically refers to the father and Louis Mountbatten to the son, as the names under which each achieved his greatest fame.

Morinao 18:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Introduction

the introduction seems to me to need some work. If you believe it, then the most important thing he did was be royal, become first sea lord because of it and then be dismissed because of it. This may well be why he was controversial, but it would seem he was also an outstanding officer, who just as arguably became first sea lord despite royal connections rather than because of them. Either way, the intro says very little about him except his royal connections. Sandpiper (talk) 10:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've made the suggested change. FactStraight (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I see there has been some disagreement about this. My view of the current three para intro is that it still has way too much about royal gossip and nothing about his career. I think the first and last paras are OK. I think I would mention queen victoia alongside Edward as his benefactors in the opening para and then do away with most of the second para which goes on about gossip over whether the queen did or did not help his career unfairly. Instead this paragraph should mention some things he did do for himself: top in lietenants exam, invented Battenburg course indicator strike my eye on a quick read, but it needs to have something on the professional highlights of his career. A mention of using his royal contacts for gathering intelligence might be more usefull, though I am wary of too much of this name dropping. This would however counterbalance the point about his dismissal for being German, which does need to stay. Selbourne described him as 'cleverest sailor I ever met'? On a slightly different tack, getting hold of some of his published drawings might be useful as an illustration in the article of a different aspect of his abilities.Sandpiper (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. The entire paragraph is about his life and career, and is sourced to impeccable references. The lead should represent the balance of published material on him, which in my opinion it does. DrKiernan (talk) 07:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Properly, the lead of a wiki article should be a summary of the main article. By this basis, if an article wholly misrepresents something, so should the lead. However, after reading the article I do not agree the lead represents the piece. Although the article heavily talks about royal connections, it does not do so to the extent that the lead does, which virtualy tells us nothing about Battenberg as an individual. Sandpiper (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see where you're coming from. You seem to be reading a completely different lead to me:

As your problem is only with the middle paragraph, let's break it down into the 5 sentences:

1. The Queen and Edward occasionally intervened in his career ..>

covers "Early life": "the Prince and Princess of Wales cruised the Mediterranean and Black Seas, and the Prince of Wales requested that Louis be appointed to the vessel, before his training was complete."

covers "Early naval career": "at the invitation of the Prince of Wales, he joined HMS Serapis...The Prince asked Louis to stay with him at Marlborough House for the summer of 1876...two years he served..on the Royal Yacht, HMY Osborne...Louis was posted to HMS Inconstant, the flag-ship of the Flying Squadron, which included HMS Bacchante on which Princes Albert Victor and George were serving."

covers "Marriage and family": "In September 1883, Queen Victoria appointed him to her yacht, HMY Victoria and Albert"

covers "Later naval career": "On 31 December 1891 Prince Louis..became an aide-de-camp to the Queen, a post he would retain under both King Edward VII"

2. Louis welcomed battle assignments ..>

covers "Early naval career": "wishing to gain further experience at sea, Louis instead accepted an offer...he refused further service on the Royal Yacht, saying it was damaging his professional career, and requested half-pay until he could be given an active duty."

3. Posts on royal yachts and tours actually impeded his progress ..>

covers "Early naval career": "his tour of duty served to make up for the training he had missed..."

covers "later naval career": "Irish nationalist Member of Parliament Willie Redmond questioned the appointment...

to some extent, covers "but elements of the British press were against his appointment"

4. he rose through the command ranks on his own merit ..>

covers "Early naval career": "passed the Sub-Lieutenant's examinations—gaining the best marks ever"

covers "Later naval career": "your tact and sound judgement...invented the Battenberg Course Indicator... careful study of both naval and military defence...the cleverest sailor I have met yet...the American press commented favourably"

5. He took steps to ready the British fleet ..>

covers "Later naval career": "As Second Sea Lord, Louis pushed through improvements...he was responsible to the First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill for the readiness of the fleet and the preparation of naval strategy...anti-German sentiment..drove..Louis to resign"

So, to my reading, the lead does summarise the article. DrKiernan (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My problem is not 'only' with the middle paragraph. My problem is that the first and third paragraph are entirely about his royal connections, and the middle is largely so. It is not possible to consider the middle para in isolation, but it must redeem the whole from its total bias just talking about royal connections.

The entire lot from your point 1) to 4) is an extended explanation that although he received royal patronage, he worked at a navy career. It says nothing about the details of what he did. A decent summary of his early career might be something like :'from 1870 to 1885 he served on eight ships, seeing action in the Egyptian intervention'. Not precisely sure number of ships, but as an example. A sentence summarising a section about his career needs to in fact mention what he was doing in his career. we might mention, 'best ever marks in sub-lieutenants exam (?midshipman exam?)...In 1885 promoted commander, 1891 captain, spectacular success in naval exercises demonstarted tactical ability, rear admiral 1904, selborne describes him as cleverest sailor I ever met and director of naval intelligence, c in c atlantic 1909, battenberg course indicator, ' and so on. Stuff actually about his career. The intro comits precisely the sin of his contemprorary critics, who accused him of being nothing more than a German prince who obtained his place by patronage. Sandpiper (talk) 11:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

On the last point, no, it doesn't. It states explicitly, "he rose through the command ranks on his own merit". On the first point, the lead isn't the place for minor details: the details are in the article. The lead should encompass the main thrust and arguments of the article. In particular, I feel strongly that details of ranks held and dates of promotion should not be repeated. He isn't famous for being promoted a captain in 1891, or for playing a very minor part in the Egyptian intervention, or because he handled a ship well during maneouvres. He's famous for being a German prince with royal connections who rose to be First Sea Lord and was sacked at the start of the war. DrKiernan (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, he is famous because he rose to first sea lord. Very many people have received preferrment by royal connection yet are totally forgotten. The justification for having an article about him is not that he was a royal favourite, but that he was first sea lord at a time of national crisis. Wiki articles need to do rather more than explain why someone is remembered, they need to fill in the details. It's called balance. Wiki is not the equivalent of a tabloid making scare stories about celebrities, and should not be spreading them. If you must go into the issue of his being dismissed for being german, then it is also necessary to explain that this was unjustified (or, of course, not). The matter is, of course, more complicated than that and had also to do with naval failures. He was not dismissed simply for being german or royal. He was attacked on these grounds as part of in-fighting within the admiralty. To go into the issue of this fight in this way in the introduction is to infer that this is the most important thing about him, which obviously it was not.

As an example, I quote the short description of Battenberg in 'From the dreadnought to Scapa flow (vol 2)' by Arthur Marder. I am told this is quite a good book on WW1 naval issues. In a section sketching out the principle people in the navy he says of Battenberg 'The first sea lord was the brilliant Admiral Prince Louis of Battenberg. He entered the war with a reputation second to no admiral on the active list, having won fame as a handler of a squadron and then of a fleet.' I havn't got volume 1, this is from vol 2 and has a note to see vol 1 where presumably there is a longer description. But this is Marder's summary of the man, equivalent to our introduction. It gives rather a different impression of him than the intro here. I rather think it needs to be born in mind that very many people in victorian england held positions because of nepotism of one sort or another, it was not extraordinary. Even Fisher, who may be the person Marder was thinking Battenberg second to (being retired and not on the active list), and who was a social nobody, entered the navy because his godmother knew an admiral. Marder is distinctly scathing about some other admirals. Sandpiper (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I entirely concur with these observations, and share the objection to the article's lead focusing on the man's royal relatives rather than on the fact that he was Britain's First Sea Lord when World War I began and mobilised its naval fleet in anticipation of hostilities, but was nonetheless sacked because of his German origin (and here I agree that his being a prince in Germany aggravated the public prejudice which led to his ouster), thus obliging a sudden change in the UK's military leadership during the early months of the war when the adversaries began jockying for relative advantage. The lead should reflect what makes Battenberg notable to history, and the rest of the article should be in accord with that emphasis, not vice versa. FactStraight (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. Both the lead and the article reflect what makes Battenberg notable to history, and the rest of the article is in accord with that emphasis. DrKiernan (talk) 08:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is mainly sourced from the two best available biographies of Battenberg: one written by Mark Kerr (Royal Navy officer) and the other by Richard Hough. The article, as it is currently, accurately reflects the published work on Battenberg, the judgement of history and the opinion of his biographers. It is appropriately balanced, neutral, non-bias and verifiable. It is thorough, comprehensive, focused and well-written. DrKiernan (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well that certainly does not 'damn with faint praise'. What would be appropriate to go into at great length in an entire book dedicated to this subject would not be appropriate in a short article such as this. My objection was not to the balance of the article, but to the balance of the introduction. I have insufficient information to take a view on the article's balance as compared to all known facts about the man. The article as a whole interweaves the effects of his royal connections as it goes along. The introduction picks out some of those royal complications to mention, but manages to largely overlook mentioning his actual career achievements.Sandpiper (talk) 08:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Alternative proposals

How about something like this:

Admiral of the Fleet Louis Alexander Mountbatten, 1st Marquess of Milford Haven, GCB, GCVO, KCMG, PC (24 May 1854 – 11 September 1921), formerly Prince Louis Alexander of Battenberg, was a minor German prince who served as First Sea Lord of the United Kingdom's Royal Navy from 1912 to 1914. As the professional head of the Royal Navy at the outbreak of World War I, he took steps to ready the British fleet for combat, but was forced to retire shortly after hostilities commenced because of his German origin.

Although widely regarded as a brilliant naval officer, he constantly battled the perception that he owed his career to his connections with the British royal family, having married a granddaughter of Queen Victoria and become a protégé of his future king, Edward VII. The Queen and Edward, when Prince of Wales, occasionally intervened in his career—the Queen thought that there was "a belief that the Admiralty are afraid of promoting Officers who are Princes on account of the radical attacks of low papers and scurrilous ones". However, Louis welcomed battle assignments that provided opportunities for him to acquire the skills of war and to demonstrate to his superiors that he was serious about his naval career. Posts on royal yachts and tours actually impeded his progress, as his promotions were perceived as royal favours rather than deserved. However, he rose through the command ranks on his own merit and eventually served as First Sea Lord, the senior uniformed officer in the Royal Navy, from 1912 until 1914, when his background as a German prince impelled First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill to ask him to resign due to rising anti-German sentiment among the British press and public.

He was the father of Queen Louise of Sweden, and was the maternal grandfather of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, consort of Queen Elizabeth II. His son, Admiral of the Fleet Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma, also rose to the top of the naval profession as First Sea Lord from 1955 to 1959 and Chief of the Defence Staff from 1959 to 1965.

-Morinao (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in favour because the last sentence of the first paragraph is repeated in the last sentence of the second paragraph, and there is too much information on Earl Mountbatten. This does not address the reason for my original revert repeats information in the next paragraph (NOTE: The revert has been undone and the information I removed was replaced: [1]). Nor does it address Sandpiper's point of "too much about his family".

For the final paragraph, I suggest: He was the father of Queen Louise of Sweden, and was the maternal grandfather of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, consort of Queen Elizabeth II. His son, Admiral of the Fleet Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma, also served as First Sea Lord from 1954 to 1959. DrKiernan (talk) 07:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see I shall have to draft my own proposal too. However, I think morinao is right that reference to 'protege of Edward VII' should come out of the first para. It implies his success was due to royal preferrment. This is particularly so since the comment is tacked onto the sentence about his naval career, thus conflating the two separate points. If that issue is to be addressed in the intro, it should all be in one para. Marrying queen victoria's granddaughter and a simple 'distinguished career' are also fine as these are both strightforward facts. There is no doubt his royal connections mattered. The first para acts as a summary of the intro.

Then I think I would have another para going into the royal connections issues, but either some more sentences about his career achievements, or a separate para about them. The significant problem which the above version does not address is to add to the intro something about things he did in his own right. Sandpiper (talk) 07:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The recent changes are not acceptableunwise because they remove completely one of the main reasons this man is notable. He is notable for two reasons: (1) he married Queen Victoria's grand-daughter and (2) he served in a high position in the navy. The lead must cover both these points. The problem is that those trying to change the article still haven't grasped that a large number of people are only interested in him because of the royal connection. There are two sets of editors whose interests need to be balanced: one interested in royalty and one interested in the military. The previous lead I have written currently balances these two aspects. DrKiernan (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of not "grasping" your point, but of having considered it and disagreeing with it. I bought Alden Hatch's book, "The Mountbattens" 40+ years ago entirely because of an already developed interest in royalty. Since then I've learned that lots of others share that interest, while most don't. I've also learned that what is personally "interesting" and what is historically "noteworthy" may be related, but need not be the same thing. Different people will have different concepts of what constitutes notability, and of what is notable in a given instance. What is "acceptable" or not in this article is not unilaterally decided -- that would be OWNERSHIP, and Wikipedia doesn't tolerate it. FactStraight (talk) 08:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've already compromised by moving what you want into the top paragraph, and removing details of his family from the lead. I am the only one making concessions. You've made none. It's time for you to make one. DrKiernan (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That might be true if I were the only person who disagreed with your preferred emphasis. This page documents 3 other editors making it clear that the lead needs to identify Battenberg's role in World War I, the reasons for removal from that role, as well as his princely rank. The version that I inserted was not my original version, but that drafted by Morinao after reading input from the other 3 of us. I don't prefer his version to my own, but find it acceptable, and it has been subscribed to by two other editors. That's enough to make the change. FactStraight (talk) 08:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You're not making any sense. You say the lead "needs to identify Battenberg's role in World War I, the reasons for removal from that role, as well as his princely rank." I absolutely agree. The current lead does exactly that: eventually rising to First Sea Lord in 1912. He took steps to ready the British fleet for combat as World War I began, but his background as a German prince forced his retirement at the start of the war when anti-German feeling was running high. DrKiernan (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You're attempting to claim & enforce ownership of this article in violation of Wikipedia's policy of collegial editorship and to the exclusion of 3 others who've sought to contribute. Insulting the perspectives of those that disagree with you simply adds insult to injury. FactStraight (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't insulted anybody, and I have made edits to the article incorporatagreeing with suggestions made by the 3 editors to whom you refer.YouMorinaoMorinao and SandpiperYou and Morinao DrKiernan (talk) 09:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(Slick retro-editing of your comments to obscure the imperious language and tone to which I've been subjected in this exchange still won't cover up the violations of WP:OWN, which remain evident when glancing at the difs here and here, and which show what my words in the paragraphs below were really a response to. Nor do they change the fact that you have unilaterally refused to accept substantive input by 3 other editors who, after extensive discussion over 3 weeks, agreed that the emphasis of this article's opening needs to change.) FactStraight (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The point is the notion that we are offering "suggestions" while you are "incorporating" that which you alone deem "acceptable". The proof is in the pudding: Before Sandpiper's suggestion was first edited into the lead, the article began, Admiral of the Fleet Louis Alexander Mountbatten, 1st Marquess of Milford Haven, GCB, GCVO, KCMG, PC (24 May 1854 – 11 September 1921), formerly Prince Louis Alexander of Battenberg, was a minor German prince who married a granddaughter of Britain's Queen Victoria and pursued a distinguished career in the United Kingdom's Royal Navy, becoming a protégé of his future king, Edward VII. After lengthy discusssion on this talk page about needed edits to the lead, including suggested drafts, and my attempts to edit the consensus into the article, the article now begins, Admiral of the Fleet Louis Alexander Mountbatten, 1st Marquess of Milford Haven, GCB, GCVO, KCMG, PC (24 May 1854 – 11 September 1921), formerly Prince Louis Alexander of Battenberg, was a minor German prince related to the British Royal Family who served as First Sea Lord, the senior uniformed officer in the United Kingdom's Royal Navy. The difference is negligible, and omits the fundamental shift in the article's opening emphasis that Sandpiper, Morinao and I concurred was needed, despite your dissent. That's ownership, pure and simple. No amount of tinkering around the edges or making much of offering splinters while petrifying the forest can make it look as though compromise and consensus have been been implemented here. I can't stop it alone, but hopefully others will weigh in to prevent this ongoing violation of Wikipedia collegiality and principles. FactStraight (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I can hardly believe your uncivil personal attack which assumes bad faith, which came immediately after my agreement with you, my attempt to address your criticisms of my behaviour by striking out words which you find offensive and my making the edit which you are trying to impose.

It is very clear to me now that your opposition is based solely on personal animosity against me, and has no basis in the betterment of the article whatsoever. DrKiernan (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Did I miss something? The current lead looks quite good. And the emphasis has clearly flipped from his royal connections to his naval career, at least to my eye. - Morinao (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that's much better, amazing what shuffling things round a little can do. Promoting mention of his career to ist para gives it much more weight, rather than having it tacked on to the para discussing controversy over whether he rose by merit or favour, where it became a questionable achievement. This does seem to have been quite a fight for a modest change. Sandpiper (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

References

Acronyms and postnominal letters

This edit converted 1st Class, Order of the Rising Sun with Paulownia Blossoms, Grand Cordon in the text to CGRS in the info box.

The result is elegant, but I wonder if I should understand that this is a mere wiki-convention or whether this acronym is more broadly recognized? Googling "GCRS" was unhelpful. --Tenmei (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that GCRS may not be an official abbreviation, but it was the only way I could think of incorporating the honour into the list of other honours in the infobox. We should either abbreviate them all, as now, or expand them all (perhaps in a different section, say "Honours" between "Titles" and "Ancestors"). DrKiernan (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Title

I thought we might revisit the issue of the title, since there was no discussion. There seems to be good reason to have the article at this title, but there's also some strong reasons in favor of Louis Mountbatten, 1st Marquess of Milford Haven. For one thing, there's another person who was known as Prince Louis of Battenberg. For another, as some people noted before, he specifically renounced the title of "Prince of Battenberg" and took a new name. It seems to me this warrants some discussion, rather than an unopposed move. john k (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

He was known as Prince Louis of Battenberg for almost his entire life, including his entire career as a public person in the United Kingdom, notably as First Sea Lord. He was only known as Mountbatten from 1917 to 1921, for less than four years, and after his retirement. The reason he formally changed his name (I doubt if this had any effect on his name as a private person) as an old man was racism/Germanophobia in Britain at the time, only done at the request of the king and not on his own initiative. I don't think there are any reasons to move the article to a name he hardly used as a public person. Jatoblouw (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This issue rears its head from time to time. If you look above, here and here, you will see that the suggestion never passes. Even the comment to which you responded is 7½-months-old. Your reasoning is sound. And, should this come up again as a proposed move, you should present the same position in support of not moving. — SpikeToronto 04:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Blank line

I can't determine the reason for the blank line between the "Commanders-in-Chief and First Sea Lords of the Royal Navy" template and the Authority Control bar. If someone else can, feel free to remove. Congrats on the Main Page appearance! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed.[2] It was coded into the template. DrKiernan (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Succession boxes

The Director of Naval Intelligence succession box was removed on the basis that the Directors of Naval Intelligence template already provided the same information. I would suggest that the Director of Naval Intelligence succession box should be reinstated and the Directors of Naval Intelligence template be removed. This would provide information about Prince Louis in a more consistent way. More generally I am against appointment templates (even if I may have tweaked them in the past) as they generate information on biographical articles which are not relevent to the subject of the biography. For example Reginald Custance is relevent as he handed over to Prince Louis but Patrick Graham is not as he was probably not even born when Louis was Director of Naval Intelligence. Greenshed (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I marginally prefer the template for personal aesthetic reasons, but as your argument is content-based I guess the swap wins over retention of the template. DrKiernan (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

July Crisis

Can we get something more neutral on the decision not to disperse the fleet during the July Crisis? I don't doubt that the cite there is valid, but it's certainly not a universal verdict of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.198.170 (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Royal Archives citation

I'm assuming the citation from note 5 has been taken from a book, but which book? Otherwise I'd have thought it would be violating WP:OR (even though I'm sure no one actually dug that out of the Royal Archives) and also the Royal Archives' permission policy. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 16:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's from Hough, but I don't which page. DrKiernan (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you fix this reference (now Note 1)? It's been two years now. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 12:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Earl of Medina

Whats the story with the secondary title "Earl of Medina". What Medina is that ?Eregli bob (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I've always presumed it's connected to the Isle of Wight, where they lived. DrKiernan (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Decorations and awards

The reasons for being strict about sourcing in a featured article is understood: I apologise for my temerity. However, I would have been more inclined to have left them in with "<!-- -->" bracketing; this would have allowed subsequent checking and possible inclusion in the visible script. A related point is whether all of the decorations in the infobox are sourced - it appears that only some are. I'd also argue that a collection of post-nomial letters is inadequate in a featured article and that full decoration names, grades and other details should be in the article (which might make citation more obvious). All IMHO, of course. Folks at 137 (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Resignation as First Sea lord

In the article on Mountbatten of Burma the following is stated "In 1914, because of the growing anti-German sentiments that swept across Europe during the first few months of World War I, Prince Louis of Battenberg was removed from his position as First Sea Lord and publicly humiliated by King George V and First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill. Though both men professed 'sadness' at having to do this, private conversations and letters show them both perfectly happy to sacrifice their "blue-eyed German".[Von Tunzelman, p. 44-45]". Surely if this is true it properly belongs in this article in the relevant section, not in one about his son? PhilomenaO'M (talk) 11:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Ms von Tunzelmann is wrong, if indeed the passage quoted accurately represents her views (which of course may not be the case). George V had little to do with Battenberg's resignation, the main figures being Battenberg himself (rapidly nearing the end of his tether), Churchill, and Asquith. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 09:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Issue with Issue

In the top Right-hand info box apparently this guy gave issue to "Princess Andrew" hover over it and Andrew is meant to be called alice. Needs fixing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.89.230 (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Andrew is her married name. DrKiernan (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Portrayed in The Thirty-Nine Steps?

As one who has re-read Buchan's 1915 novel The Thirty-Nine Steps, I am struck by the resemblance in portraits of Louis as an admiral to the description of "Lord Alloa", who is named as the First Sea Lord at the time the novel was set (early summer 1914): Richard Hannay's narrative describes: You couldn't open a newspaper or magazine without seeing that face - the grey beard cut like a spade, the firm fighting mouth, the blunt square nose, and the blue eyes. I recognised the First Sea Lord, the man, they say, that made the New British Navy. (Hannay sees an imposter posing as Alloa, having recognised him as a recent pursuer and spy but the "real" Lord Alloa transpires to have been elsewhere at the time.) At moment I have found no evidence Buchan drew the character on him and he could have been a composite but I wonder if it would be germane to this article to mention the character as a cultural reference?Cloptonson (talk) 10:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Verifiability. DrKiernan (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. In the light of lacking evidence of Lord Alloa being drawn on any actual First Sea Lord, I have decided to append mention of the fictional character to the page on the First Sea Lord, only noting Battenberg as the real FSL at the time the story was set and being coincidentally bearded as his photo in the same page bears out.Cloptonson (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prince Louis of Battenberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090215182305/http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheRoyalFamilyname/Overview.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheRoyalFamilyname/Overview.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Blind Faith in Hough

@DrKay, I think you need to reconsider your edits. Look at p. 245 of Louis and Victoria:

On the day Churchill took office, Fisher wrote a long letter packed with strongly worded advice. The most important appointment Fisher told Churchill to make was Louis as First Sea Lord in place of Wilson '. . . Private, Wilson is no good ashore! . . . He [Battenberg] is the most capable administrator in the Admiral's list by a long way . . . I think also this should please the Liberal party – they will say what better proof we could give of our confidence to Germany than selecting a man as First Sea Lord with German proclivities. In reality he is more English than the English . . .¹⁰

Let's check note 10 on p. 397:

10. JAF to WSC 25 Oct 1911. Cited Fear God ii 397.

Let's go to Marder's Fear God and Dread Nought, II, p. 397. Only one letter and its enclosure are featured. At the top is written:

327. TO J. A. SPENDER

Dated 25 October from Lucerne. There is no letter to Churchill on that page, and technically the Battenberg as administrator quote is on p. 398. It is therefore abundantly clear that Hough was in error in claiming that the letter was addressed to Churchill, and that's according to his own reference. If you consult the original text it is clear that Fisher wanted Churchill to eventually read it, but that's no substitute for the fact that it is addressed to Spender. And no, there are no actual letters to Churchill near p. 397.

For you to revert and state, "I don't see why he can't have just written more than one letter" and "I see no evidence that he did not write two letters" is not only clearly wrong but the first statement is WP:OR. If I had found a letter from Fisher to Churchill on 25 October 1911 after going through all the relevant Churchill and Fisher papers at Churchill Archives Centre, rest assured I would have included it in my peer-reviewed article on the pair's correspondence regarding appointments in 1911 and 1912. A little less blind faith in Hough may be in order. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 08:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

My edit summaries are correct. I saw no evidence that there were not two letters; I didn't see any reason why Fisher was incapable of writing more than one letter. You have now provided evidence and reason. Perhaps next time, a little less snarky arrogance may be in order. DrKay (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Citizenship

Was this relevant then? Presumably, he had sworn an oath of allegiance to the King as a Royal Naval officer, but there is no mention in the article of this. A little background info on this subject would help to understand how it worked then. 2A00:23C7:E287:1901:EDA7:E55D:63F:7653 (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

According to his naval service record he was naturalised on 30 September 1868 under the provisions of the Aliens Act 1844, whereby a "Memorial" would have been sent to the Home Secretary, who would then grant a "Certificate", and upon swearing the oath he would become a naturalised subject. Under the act he was specifically barred from becoming a Privy Councillor, which he became in 1914, so I don't know if later acts changed that! According to his memoirs "On October 14, Dr Burney took me to a Notary Public at Gosport where I took the oath of allegiance to the Queen and was made to kiss a very dirty Bible; I then signed a paper making me a British subject." —Simon Harley (Talk). 08:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I gather the 1844 Act was wholly repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1870, so the Privy Council bar wouldn't apply. —Simon Harley (Talk). 08:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)