Jump to content

Talk:Anne, Queen of Great Britain/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Death of her husband

This section seems to have some very loaded words involved. "The Whigs used the Prince's death to their own advantage, heartlessly using her weakness to disregard the Queen's wishes and form a predominantly Whig government, led by Lord Godolphin." (emphasis added) That seems a bit much. The rest of the section reads similarly, if not quite as biased. 69.111.57.75 (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I

Anne is not generally referred to as 'Anne I', given that there has yet to be an 'Anne II'. Wiki policy and general usage as a result requires that she simply be called 'Anne' not 'Anne I', as we don't use the 'I' for other monarchs worldwide who were there was never, or has yet to be, a 'II'. And as I mentioned, she is only ever referred to generally as 'Queen Anne' . JTD 21:02 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

Isn't this worth a mention or a link? 1702-1713 Queen Anne’s War, the second of the French and Indian wars, was fought mainly in New England. Never Mind, I put it in Sparky 12:50, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't know why Anne didn't become Queen on the death of Mary in 1694. Perhaps someone could add an explanatory note, please.

Because her Mary and her husband were co-monarchs. When Mary II died, William III continue to reign until his own death. 87.250.113.209 22:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

When Mary and William became co monarchs there was an agreement saying that if Mary died before William that William could rule on his own even though Anne was the next in line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.127.106 (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem of making the "Early life" section clear to the reader

Statement of the problem

After drafting several attempts to make the "Early life" section clear, I conclude that it is very difficult to make the "succession problem" clear to the reader if elements of the "succession problem" are scattered throughout the recital of Anne's life.

Accordingly, in the following suggestion, I have pulled some essential elements of the "succession problem" into one paragraph. In framing the following suggestion, I did not intend to change any of the substantive details, though I may have inadvertently. I see that my editor dropped many of the links, which I did not intend.

The problem of succession pervaded throughout Anne's reign. Consequently, it cannot be, I believe, put into a single section. -- Emsworth 02:13, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

One suggestion for simplying the "Early life" section

Early life.

Anne was the second daughter of James, Duke of York (afterwards James II) and his first wife, the Lady Anne Hyde (daughter of Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon, an important politician). As an infant, Anne suffered from an eye infection; for treatment, she was sent to France. She lived with her grandmother, Queen Henrietta Maria, and afterwards with her aunt, Henrietta Anne, Duchesse d'Orléans. When Anne was eight in about 1673, Anne made the acquaintance of Sarah Jennings, who would become her close friend and one of her most influential advisors. Jennings later married John Churchill (the future Duke of Marlborough), who would later become one of Anne's most important generals.

In 1683, Anne married the Protestant Prince George of Denmark, brother of the Danish King Christian V. And her older sister Mary married one of the foremost Protestant Princes in Europe, William of Orange.

Anne took an unusual route to the throne of England. When Anne was born, her uncle Charles II was king. When Anne was three, her father converted from Protestantism to Catholicism. In response, her uncle the king ordered that she and her older sister Mary would not be brought up under her father's religion but would be brought up to worship as Protestants; nevertheless, her uncle converted to Catholicism on his death bed. Furthermore, her uncle died without an heir, so her Catholic father James II became king.

James, desirous of a Roman Catholic successor, suggested to the Princess Anne that he would try to make her his heir if she converted to Catholicism. The Princess Anne, however, declared her firm adherence to Anglicanism; James II continued to send her Catholic books and essays, but made no serious attempt to effect a conversion.

James's attempt to grant religious toleration to Roman Catholics was not well-received by the English people. Public alarm increased when James's second wife, Mary of Modena, gave birth to a son (James Francis Edward) in 1688, for a Roman Catholic dynasty became apparent. The Princess Anne's sister and brother-in-law, Mary and William, subsequently invaded England to dethrone the unpopular and despotic James II. The Princess Anne did not endeavour to support her father; instead, she quickly defected to the invader's side. James attempted to flee the realm on 11 December 1688, succeeding twelve days later. In 1689, a Convention Parliament assembled and declared that James had abdicated the realm when he attempted to flee, and that the Throne was therefore vacant. The Crown was offered to, and accepted by, William and Mary, who ruled as joint monarchs. The Bill of Rights 1689 settled succession to the Throne; the Princess Anne and her descendants were to be in the line of succession after William and Mary. They were to be followed by any descendants of William by a future marriage.

For some reason some of the dates had been messed about with, with James converting in 1773, the Convention deposing him being in 1089 and the Bill or Rights moving to 2089. Silly. All fixed now. Darkmind1970 15:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Problem

It seems to me that in the second paragraph the phrase "various coercive tactics (such as crippling the Scottish economy by restricting trade) " is eniterly subjective and unnecessary. It should be dealt with elsewhere conforming to proper NPOV standards, which this does not. 195.10.45.201 12:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The Princess Anne

Isn't the use of the phrase "the Princess Anne" (as well as "the Prince George") archaically stilted in modern English? I was under the impression that such address was used more for formal introductions, like announcing "The Princess Anne and her consort, the Prince George", at a ball, not for encyclopedic prose. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would add that such styles were very likely not known in Queen Anne's own time. It is an affectation of the late 19th century, I would say. john k 01:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've removed all the "the"s from "the Princess Anne" and "the Prince George". The text could still use some trimming; as long as "Anne" by itself is unambiguous and acceptable in an encyclopedic article, it should probably be used more often, especially when the phrase "Princess Anne" occurs more than once in a sentence. But at least it's a little less stilted now. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Arguement

Why change the words when surely the intelligent viewers of this website should be able to work it out them selves without somebody else editing for them. ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charlybrown12 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

The Statute of Anne

I can't believe this article doesn't mention the 1705 Statute of Anne, one of the most significant laws ever passed. I may try to add something about it. Lawrence Lessig's book Free Culture has some history about it as does Eben Moglen's amicus brief for the plaintiff in Eldred v. Ashcroft. I think the Statute of Anne was 1809. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.192.4 (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC) It might be noted that the 1709 Statute of Anne was the first instance of copyright protections for authors. It is a very (one page) short piece of legislation but so very important. It was passed at the requests oof booksellers so they could pay authors. It offered protection and a means of redress before courts. The world followed suit. The law is much sited to this day, owing to pirated intellectual properties such as DVDs, computer games, all manner of designs, works of art, and so forth. 204.128.192.3 (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Dennis Purcell 10 June 2010 d_purcell@hotmail.com.

Surname

I'm just curious why she hadn't surname? Thanks. 195.150.224.238 00:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

As a daughter of James VII/II she was a member of the House of Stuart, with Stuart being their surname. Usually royal/noble woman do not become members of their husbands houses, so it would not have changed with her marriage. Of course, if I am mistaken, please feel free to correct me :) Prsgoddess187 00:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC) PS, I always thought it was funny that it never mentions a middle name for her...
She didn't have a middle name - few people did in the 17th century. The prevalence of middle names among the upper classes in Britain really doesn't show up until the 19th century. john k 04:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Because—unlike other cultures like modern China—it's an English (and English-language) convention not to give the surnames of monarchs. It would have been Anne Stuart if she were a commoner—compare J.F.E. Stuart—but she wasn't. She was Anne of the House of Stuart or Anne, member of the Stuart dynasty. — LlywelynII 04:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Allegations of Lesbianism

Considering the large number of allegations of Anne being a lesbian mentioned in the article shouldn't her article be counted in the LGBT category of the wiki? Or at least a list of men and women who were suspected LGBT? The Fading Light 11:09 ,20 March 2006

The latter would be appropriate, I think. But not the former, given that there's no clear evidence. john k 18:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Let us please avoid such unpleasant straw-graspings... IP Address 08:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Straw-grasping perhaps, but nothing unpleasant about it. From QUEERS IN HISTORY, copyright 1992 by Keith Stern: "Anne's confidante, Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough, presumably stood by to hold the Queen's hand during her times of tragedy. Correspondence between the Duchess and the Queen reveal the two women enjoyed a royally passionate romance. They called each other pet names, Sarah being "Mrs Freeman" and Anne "Mrs Morley." When Anne came to the throne in 1702, she named Sarah "lady of the bedchamber." Anne and Sarah were virtually inseparable: no king's mistress had ever wielded the power granted to the duchess, but Sarah became too confident in her position. She developed an arrogant attitude toward Anne, and insulted the Queen in public. A cousin of Sarah's, Abigail Hill, had caught the Queen's eye during Sarah's frequent absences from Court, and Sarah was never again to be the Queen's closest confidant." Used with permission. By all means verify or dispute.

More on the subject here: http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/anne_queen.html

Utterly ridiculous, and not supported by accredited historians.
By Accredited of course, you're referring to those who are largely heterosexual and male. This is the problem with such matters - institutions are biased and refuse to accept as such. If Queen Anne wasn't queer - who WAS? There are people who claim Sappho of Lesbos was heterosexual. There is a very strong and malicious, if not consciously so, effort to erase all queerness from history and this needs to be taken into consideration. When you refer to these authorities as infallibility you are denying the very blatant bias that exists. Little Miss Desu (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

PROBLEM with title

How can we call her "Anne of Great Britain" (a title I have never heard used) when the article on Great Britain describes the use of the term for the sovereign state as in error? --BozMo talk 09:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Great Britain is incorrect for the sovereign state that exists now, which is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. However that state has only existed in that name since 1927, it's predessor (UK of GB and Ireland) only existed from 1801-1927. Anne was Queen of the Kingdom of Great Britain from it's creation in 1707. She was also (independently) Queen of Ireland and, prior to the creation of the new Kingdom, had been Queen of England and Queen of Scotland. Anne of Great Britain, refering to her largest and most important kingdom, is the correct title. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 11:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Should it not be 'Anne of Great Britain and Ireland'? 78.86.226.253 (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Yes, it should. — LlywelynII 04:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
If the naming guideline was changed, it could be Anne. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
If the naming guideline was changed, it could be "Purple" but that doesn't make it an improvement. — LlywelynII 04:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

James the Catholic

There was no ambiguity about the revelation of James' Catholicism. It became public knowledge in 1673, when he resigned as Lord High Admiral, unable to take the oath prescribed by the new Test Act. Rcpaterson 01:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation Needed?

Have we any evidence for the suggestion that the Scottish Parliament's seeking of a union with England were "opposed by an overwhelming majority of the Scottish People"? Now, I'm not trying to suggest that we don't leave this in if it's true, but if there is no evidence to corroborate, it would be biased to do so. If it is true the use of "overwhelming" is certainly somewhat loaded. Dan 22:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ancestor's infobox

I am considering adding an ancestors' infobox containing Anne's parents, grandparents and great-grandparents. Maybe we could merge this infobox in a section with the issue infobox called 'Ancestry and Descent'. Any thoughts?--Cosmos666 20:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I like the idea of 3-generation infoboxes for all royals and nobles. Such folks are noted mainly because of the privileges they inherited. Adamgarrigus 03:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
We should mention somewhere that through Diana, Princess of Wales, Prince William upon succeeding to the throne will be the first monarch since Queen Anne, to be descended from Charles I and the House of Stewart. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.77.191.197 (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

good article

Good article - well done folks 193.51.149.216 15:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

References/Citations

This article has about six citations. How is it a FA? --Daysleeper47 20:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The lack of inline citations is the lone comment regarding the rating. --Adavidb 06:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I have a couple of books at home about her, so I'll try to add some cites tonight or maybe this weekend. Does anyone else have access to reference materials? The article is otherwise excellent, and we shouldn't let it lose FA status if we can avoid it. Coemgenus 14:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Dubious passage

. . .soon, due to Marlborough's influence, almost all the Tories were removed from the ministry. Lord Godolphin, although a Tory, allied himself with Marlborough to ensure his continuance in office. Although Lord Godolphin was the nominal head of the ministry, actual power was held by the Duke of Marlborough and by the two Secretaries of State (Charles Spencer, 3rd Earl of Sunderland and Robert Harley). One may observe that Lord Godolphin's son married the Duke of Marlborough's daughter, and that Lord Sunderland was the Duke of Marlborough's son-in-law. Several others benefited from Marlborough's nepotism.

Why does it say Lord Godolphin, although a Tory, allied himself with Marlborough? Marlborough was a Tory! Godolphin wasn't just the 'nominal' (ie: existing in name only), head of the ministry - he was the Lord Treasurer and the Queen's chief minister. The appointment of Sunderland was nothing to do with Marlborough - it was a demand by the Whig Junto which Godolphin and Marlborough were forced to support in order to keep the Whigs 'on-side' with regards to the war effort. Far from nepotism. Raymond Palmer 16:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Response to the Act of Settlement

I've dropped the unsourced paragraph. I don't think it adds all that much to the discussion of the 1701 Act of Settlement, and have been unable to find sourcing for it. If someone knows where there might be a source to back it up, then by all means rvert. Mocko13 14:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


Response to the Act of Settlement

"Anne suffered from bouts of "gout" It may also have been thalassemia. Especially beeta-thalassemia would fit into the symptoms an the pregnancy history. Anna 21:53, 16 June 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.161.177 (talk)

Death and succession

Pursuant to the Act of Settlement 1701, it is alleged, but never proven that about fifty Roman Catholics with genealogically senior claims were disregarded.
During a fierce bout of insomnia, I managed to get Wikipedic confirmation of 46 people with superior claims in addition to the Old Pretender. Nine were descended from Henrietta Anne (Charles I's youngest daughter), nine from Charles I Louis, Elector Palatine and 28 from Edward, Count Palatine of Simmern (these two were sons of the Winter Queen). Hence, I advocate the removal of the words "it is alleged, but never proven that", once these have been confirmed by another user. Adamgarrigus 03:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. There was never any doubt at the time that there were Catholics with superior claims -- otherwise, there would have been no need to exclude them. You should definitel=y removed that "alleged" line. Coemgenus 16:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I reworded that sentence before I saw this. The number of possible claimants is speculation since the various decisions of English and Scottish Parliaments after the Glorious Revolution make it impossible to say who would be a "rightful" claimant, so I think just mentioning that any Catholic claimants were ignored is enough here. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise though. Yomanganitalk 01:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think the Bill of Rights of 1689 and the Act of Settlement delineated the succession quite clearly, so thereafter those Catholics were not really "rightful" claimants. But any time that the succession is perceived as having been subverted, it becomes susceptible to force of arms. I enjoyed reading that there were so many skipped over, but perhaps that factlet belongs in the "Act of Settlement" article. Adamgarrigus 20:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Anne & George I were 2nd cousins, not 1st cousins once removed.

Since Anne and George I share the same great grandfather in James I they are second cousins not first cousins once removed. George I’s mother Sophia and Anne’s father James II were first cousins since they share the same grandfather in James I. That would make Sophia and Anne first cousins once removed. I have changed the article accordingly. Dwp13 16:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

a -> the?

"In 1708, Anne became the last British Sovereign to withhold the Royal Assent from a bill (in this case, a Scots militia bill)."

perhaps this should read, "... in this case, the Scots militia bill)."?

Bayle Shanks 08:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

When did Anne become Queen of Great Britain?

A dispute at List of English monarchs relates to this. When did Anne become Queen of Great Britain and Ireland? Was it 1702 or 1707?. GoodDay 23:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

1707, with the 1707 Act of Union. Before that, she was Queen separately of England, Scotland and Ireland. After, she was Queen of Great Britain (created from the merger of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland.) and Ireland, separately; in a personal union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk • contribs) 13:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:QuAn Arms.png

Image:QuAn Arms.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added a fair use rationale for this article's usage to the image's description page. Others are welcome to improve upon it. —Adavidb 13:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

First British monarch Anne OR James I

Though I agree it's Anne, it may contradict the proposed changes for List of English monarchs, I need clarification - which is more authoritive - the Union of crown in 1603 OR the Act of Union in 1707? GoodDay 01:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The latter. — LlywelynII 04:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Anne of Green Gables - uh Great Britain

Perhaps this has been debated before, but is the title of this article a bit strange - especially for readers familiar with the subject? Britain has only had one sovereign Anne hence the emphasis on Queen Anne in references. Had she been Anne XIV, Queen would have been redundant in normal references. If we Google every reference - except WP - is to Queen Anne. Why should WP usage be different from every other publication?

No doubt there are other Queen Annes - Queen Anne of Bohemia for a start - so specifying Great Britain is reasonable, however surely Queen Anne of Great Britain would be clearer than Anne of Great Britain? It sounds like a soap opera or a film or something. Thank you for reading this. -- Kleinzach (talk) 07:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a house style for disambiguating monarchs. — LlywelynII 04:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Heir presumptive/apparent

Some might even consider that she wasn't heir presumptive because William and Mary were co-heirs of each other. But that's another story. DrKiernan (talk) 12:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As I understand the conventions, she was heir presumptive (i.e. could be displaced by a later birth than hers) until Mary died in 1694. As the Revolution Settlement withheld the right to create heirs from William, no child of his by another wife could possibly displace Anne, at which point she became heir apparent. Anarchie76 (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC) She was heir apparent to the thrones of Englan and scotland between death of Queen Mary II to her accesion. William III s issue from a wife other than Mary would have placed after Anne. According to my knowladge she is the only heiress apparent to the throne is British and British history up todate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.223.179.36 (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Your understanding of the situation is unlikely to be disputed. Surtsicna (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Succession Boxes

The succession box title British royalty should be changed to English, Scottish and Irish royalty. Anne was never 'heir-presumptive' to the British throne. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And Sophia was never heiress-presumptive to the Scottish throne; see Act of Security 1704 Opera hat (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Issue and misscariges

Where are the refereces to the exact dates of birth and death of the children ? I have no ressources of my own, so I ask here. --AndreaMimi (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This is quite a good source I have found, Directory of Royal Genealogical Data. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Style 1683-1702

The article presently says she was styled "HRH Princess George of Denmark and Norway" 1683-1689 and "HRH The Duchess of Cumberland" 1689-1702. Though this is how she would be styled these days, what contemporary evidence is there that she was so called at the time? Everything I've read refers to her as "Princess Anne of Denmark" before her accession. Opera hat (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the importance of knowing how to adress Queen Anne. I am under the impression that she is dead. Johncmullen1960 (talk) 06:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

William & Mary

I don't think the sentence in the lead ("the only such case in British history") is correct. The joint reign of Mary I and Philip II of Spain may not have been exactly equivalent to that of William III and Mary II, but it did happen - the William III article describes it as a "precedent for a joint monarchy". IMO, the factual accuracy of this article would be improved if the words were deleted. Tevildo (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to the sentence, since Philip II of Spain is not considered English monarch and he is never included in the lists of English monarchs. Had he been followed by a hypotethical Philip II of England, he would be considered a jure uxoris monarch of England. Surtsicna (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead Picture

Alright, I've changed this picture several times, and I don't want to get involved in an edit war, but I just want to give my opinion as to the lead picture of Anne.

In my opinion, Anne is most notable for being Queen of Great Britain, and therefore, I think that her lead picture should be from the time when she was Queen of Great Britain (1702-1714).

A couple of times now, I have tried switching the lead picture to a picture of Anne while she was queen, first to John Closterman's coronation portrait (1702):

and then to Michael Dahl's portrait from 1705:

Nevertheless, people keep reverting to images of Anne from the 1680s, two decades before she became queen. I agree that Anne was better looking in the 1680s than when she was queen, but I think that a picture of her AS QUEEN, which is her main claim to fame, provides a better lead picture. I'm not wedded to the two pics I suggested - if there's a better picture of Anne as queen, I would support that. I just think it's silly to lead with a pic from 15-20 years before she became queen.

Adam_sk (talk) 05:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the lead image should be from her time as monarch. The earlier images should be in the appropriate sections. DrKiernan (talk) 10:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree too. If you ask me, the second portrait (by Michael Dahl) should be used, unless the first portrait is thought to be more realistic. Surtsicna (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
There are some nicer portraits of her as queen availible from commons:

In terms of likeness, Surtsicna, Mary II remarked that the 1687 Wissing portrait of Anne "is most like". -- Jack1755 (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Are "nicer" pictures what an encyclopedia is about ? Johncmullen1960 (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Dates

There ought to be an explanation of the Julian/Gregorian dates for Anne's birth and death (at least). Since I'm not sure whether the dates given are Julian or Gregorian (I'd assume Julian), I can't do it myself, but this ought to be addressed - it is for both George I and William III, for instance. john k (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Even among users of the Julian calendar, including England, Scotland, and their various colonies until 1752, there was a question of when each new year began, with the traditional or "old style" years beginning on March 25, in contrast to the "new style" where each new year began on January 1 (as with the Gregorian calendar). Consequently, all dates from January 1 to March 24 of each year (until 1752) are ambiguous (bad) unless (a) explicitly marked as old style (OS) or new style (NS), or (preferably) reported as "double dates", such as "2 Feb 1702/3".

This sort of error is repeated in many Wikipedia pages, and badly needs to be corrected in all such entries.

Note that this is not a Gregorian calendar versus Julian calendar issue. This is a matter of old-style Julian versus new-style Julian dates.

Since English-speaking people have become accustomed to the convention that each new year begins on January 1, this issue can be very confusing to those who are not aware of the time that New Year's Day in England and its colonies occurred on March 25 instead of January 1. [[[User:DoctorBlue2|DoctorBlue2]] (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)]

Sources

Of the 8 sources used in this article, most are more than 100 years old. There are few "modern" sources (post 1970), but there is quite a bit on her, and perhaps some interested party could bring this up to date. There is a good basis here, it needs citations and updating. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

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: Move to Queen Anne (and Queen Anne → Queen Anne (disambiguation)). Clear consensus among those participating to move. Some concerns about there being "too many" Queen Annes or it being ambiguous, but there are only three reigning monarchs listed on the Queen Anne (disambiguation) dab page, one is actually named Anna, and the third is an obscure Native American leader. By page view counts, this page got 58k hits last month, while no other Anne on the dab page got over 13,000. Adding to this results thoughtfully compiled by User:Dohn joe, clearly this queen is the primary topic for Queen Anne and there is no question that Queen Anne is the more common name. Tough call, but in the end the consensus of the community at large as reflected in policy, guidelines and conventions must be considered as well as consensus of those participating... so move per participatory consensus and to Queen Anne per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME. Born2cycle (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Since this is a non-admin close, and has been disputed, I have reviewed it and independently endorse it.--Scott Mac 16:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Striking on review. There's a consensus to move alright. However, it does seem to be for "Anne, Queen of Great Britain". I'm almost persuaded by the closer's rational that the objection to the more common "Queen Anne" being ambiguous does seem ill-founded. Sure there are several queen Anne's. But then there are several "Anne, Queen of Great Britain"'s too (consorts). But this Queen regnant stands in fame head and shoulders above the rest. However, unless that's a point some participants hadn't considered (and that's a hard one to show) consensus doesn't seem to have bought that argument. Suggest moving to Anne, Queen of Great Britain - without prejudice to the issue being reconsidered at a later date.--Scott Mac 21:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


Anne of Great Britain → Anne, Queen of Great Britain — Or -> Queen Anne (with Queen Anne -> Queen Anne (disambiguation)). As with other monarchs that don't carry a numeral (e.g. John, Stephen, Victoria) the old "(Name) of (Country)" convention led to a very uncommon name that fails to identify the subject recognizably or inform readers correctly about what she's called. It needs changing - the simplest thing to do would be simply to add "Queen", as was done with kings John and Stephen, but even better (in my view) would be to call her by her common name of "Queen Anne" (as with Queen Victoria) - of course she's not the only queen to have been called Anne, but I'm pretty sure she's the primary topic for the phrase "Queen Anne".Kotniski (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

But "Anne, Queen of Great Britain" would definitely not be obscure, right? (I don't know if you oppose all these moves just out of habit, but surely you don't think that "Anne of Great Britain" properly identifies the article subject to the vast mass of our readership? I mean, it could mean anyone called Anne from Great Britain.)--Kotniski (talk) 12:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support The existing title is an odd convention, not common in the authoritative sources I have seen. I agree that "Queen Anne" is also very common and may well qualify as a primary topic, in the English language sources, at least. --Bermicourt (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Anne, Queen of Great Britain The current title is imperfect because "Anne of Great Britain" can also refer to Anne, Princess Royal, e.g. [1] [2][3]. I don't like Queen Anne for the same reason: it can refer to other women. One might argue that Anne of Denmark can be called "Anne, Queen of Great Britain", but I am unable to find any examples. So, "Anne, Queen of Great Britain", appears to fulfil most of the requirements of WP:AT: it is recognizable, precise, natural, and concise (only one word more than now). I would not claim that it is consistent, but this argument of consistency is very weak anyway: her predecessor was ruler of the Netherlands but he is at "of England", and her successor was ruler of Hanover, and he is at "of Great Britain". The British monarchs of this period just aren't consistent, and we shouldn't bend history to fit our pattern: we should follow the pattern laid out by history. DrKiernan (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Anne, Queen of Great Britain I opposed the move on on Victoria of the United Kingdom but this one seems most appropriate to remove any possible confusion with the Princess Royal. Oppose Queen Anne as there are a good number of them. --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I'd rather it moved to Anne (Great Britain). -- GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Are you serious? That would be even more ambiguous (simply meaningless, in fact).--Kotniski (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I've never been more serious in my life. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The naming convention was twisting English usage to an absurd consistency. Do you have anything to say in defence of the current page title?--Kotniski (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes. That it accurately depicts who she was: Anne of Great Britain. Any encyclopedia has some sort of style guide. I am not a fan of Wikipedia being a fractured mixture and mish mash of things. Seven Letters 16:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
What of Great Britain? Ruler is hardly obvious since it isn't the answer in the cases of Gerald of Wales, Bridget of Sweden, Henry of Scotland, Anne of Denmark, Catherine of Aragon, Anne of Cleves, Henrietta Maria of France, and so on. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
As I said earlier, the title does not dictate the subject. Her name will always be read in the context of something and when it comes to the very article itself, aren't people supposed to read it? What of all of the actors, presidents, ministers, activists, and so on, do we need to clarify in the title what they are? Seven Letters 17:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
No, but the title indicates what they are usually called (and if that is sufficiently ambiguous, then of course we do clarify what they are). "Anne of Great Britain" is something she's virtually never called (and if it's intended to be the name "Anne" plus the disambiguator "of Great Britain", then it's (a) a very poor disambiguator and (b) a very misleading way of attaching it). --Kotniski (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support for Anne, Queen of Great Britain. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support for "Anne, Queen of Great Britain". Clear, straightforward and sensible suggestion. The Celestial City (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. DrKiernan covers the main points. As regards the "naming convention", repeated discussion there has shown that this has no broad support. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Anne, Queen of Great Britain. As I recall, this format was approved for monarchs without numerals at NCROY, so the change is following the NC consensus. Either way, it is more rational. -Rrius (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Anne, Queen of Great Britain. Her regnal title definitely needs to be in the article's name.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Anne, Queen of Great Britain, for reasons I have repeatedly expressed elsewhere, and that have already been expressed in the discussion here. Oppose Queen Anne, which is too ambiguous. john k (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Anne, Queen of Great Britain. Both the current title and Queen Anne are ambiguous, Anne, Queen of Great Britain is not. MTC (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: "Anne, Queen of Great Britain" is too clumsy. I believe the current name should remain.--Britannicus (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: for now. Comment: It may be that the new name is the common name in reliable sources, but to date no evidence has been presented that it is the common name. I am concerned to see that nearly all the comments here, are based on opinions about naming conventions not on opinions on sources. Without sources to justify the name change, this new name is an arbitrary one, and it fails the Article titles policy on precision. I am willing to change my opinion on the move if it can be shown that this proposed name is based on reliable sources, but please start do the job properly and present a survey of reliable sources, and discuss the proposal based on such surveys, so that there can be an informed decision. For example:
    the ODNB has [1] Anne [Anne of Bohemia] (1366–1394), queen of England, first consort of Richard II [2] Anne [Anna, Anne of Denmark] (1574–1619), queen of England, Scotland, and Ireland, consort of James VI and I Click here to see image [3] Anne (1665–1714), queen of Great Britain and Ireland
    Britannica has: [1] Anne (queen of Great Britain and Ireland) [2] Anne of Austria (queen of France) [3] Anne Boleyn (queen of England) [4]Anne Of Cleves (queen of England) [5] Anne Of Brittany (queen consort of France) [6] Anne of Denmark (queen consort of Great Britain and Ireland) [7] Anne Of France (regent of France)
    -- PBS (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't really follow. You say the proposed target fails the policy on precision, but I disagree: she is the only woman known as "Anne, Queen of Great Britain", and there is at least one other woman known as "Anne of Great Britain". You imply the proposed target may not be common among sources, and then provide two clearly reliable examples where it is used (with the addition of "and Ireland", admittedly—but titles only need to be as precise as necessary for disambiguation and we don't need these additional two words for our purposes). There appear to be about 442 books that use "Anne, Queen of Great Britain" [4] and 183 google scholar results [5]. I think this does indicate that the target name is in common use. DrKiernan (talk) 09:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Philip, you presumably know that the common name for this woman is "Queen Anne" or possibly "Anne"? If we go with the first, then we either decide she's the primary topic and name the article Queen Anne, or decide we need to disambiguate and go with something like Queen Anne (Great Britain) or Queen Anne of Great Britain. If we go with the second, we have to disambiguate this Anne from all the other Annes, which we do by saying she was a queen (so back to Queen Anne) or if that's not sufficient, by saying that she was a queen and what she was a queen of (Anne, Queen of Great Britain or some variant thereof). No way in the world do we ever get to the present title of the article, and the sources you quote don't provide any support for it either. So I really don't understand why you (or others) prefix your comments with oppose when you say nothing that would justify the present title.--Kotniski (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Kotniski, I know that most references to this woman will be used in context, and because they are used in context the author has little need to disambiguate the name. As for your statement that "No way in the world do we ever get to the present title of the article", I think you need to do is look at the sources! For example a Google search on "Ann-of-Great-Britain" since 1980 returns about 335 results, so there are many sources that do use that name. A similar search on "Ann=Queen-of-Great-Britain" returns about 865 results (BTW the ratio is closer to half if the search is done since 1990). As has been made clear in recent discussions Google searches have their problems so they have to be augmented with additional checks (which no one seems to have done). For example a comparative survey of the results of those two searches would be useful to see if from the point of view an article title in Wikipedia the quality of the sources, and if indeed the names returned by the first search ever refer to another woman known as "Anne of Great Britain", or if we can dismiss that under primary topic. The conversation also has to discuss, consistency (Kotniski you know my opinions on that) but you resit my changing the wording of the policy to fit cases like this and force on policy wording that means we need to consider it in opposition to common usage. Also it should be discussed that having a comma in the name allows the pipe trick to be used (many people do not know that and only know of parentheses) which comes under "Naturalness", so linking is more natural with a comma in the name as that after the comma can be seen as a disambiguation. I'm not sure what other editors think of constancy and naturalness are important, but they are part of the policy and specific guideline, and should be weighed when discussing a name change. It may be that other editors do not consider them important, but whoever closes this requested move ought to be considering them and they should be discussed here if they are to be agreed upon or discounted to give guidance to the person who closes the requested move. -- PBS (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I still don't follow. I've already shown that "Anne of Great Britain" is used to refer to Princess Anne. The proposed target is perfectly natural; there's nothing wrong with using a comma, as you yourself point out. DrKiernan (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
The question about precision and the use of Queen comes down to is the usage of "Anne of Great Britain" enough to warrant further disambiguation or does main topic apply. The point about the comma is that no one had mentioned it in this WP:RM. -- PBS (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I also don't follow - you haven't said anything that (as far as I can tell) would support the present title of the article (it certainly isn't a common or natural way of referring to this person), yet you still haven't withdrawn your "oppose". Why is it that you fight so hard at the article titles policy to promote the common name principle above all else, but now when we have the chance to get rid of one of the most (relatively) uncommon names that anyone's ever thought of for an article title, you make out that you object?--Kotniski (talk) 10:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
It is a natural way of expressing a title -- Since Norman times, "of somewhere" implies possession. In the case of monarchs it is not unusual to drop the title as all other ranks are stated, if no rank is given taken to be the monarch. My point is that it does not matter if it is natural or not, what matters is that the discussion should be based on sources and considerations such as precision, and apart from this thread there has been little of that, in this requested move.-- PBS (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
So Anne of Austria ruled Austria? "of Somewhere" can indicate possession, but it can also indicate origin. Beyond that, what sources and considerations such as precision militate in favor of the current title? It is less precise and is not particularly used by sources. john k (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Anne of Cleaves, (although if we are not going to use common names, would like that one at article under the Flanders Mare which shows Henry had a sense of humour :-) ) I'm not disagreeing with any of what has been said, its just that I think these move discussions should be based on presentation and discussion of what is used in reliable third party sources, with consideration for precision etc. The trouble is that in my opinion until this thread, with one notable exception, the discussion was not sourced based and was not much more developed that 'use so and so because I like it'. -- PBS (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I think talking about sources in this case kind of gets to be beside the point. We are basically arguing about different forms of the same name, and the arguments are mostly about utility. Most reliable sources are going to call her "Anne." We have to disambiguate some way, and I don't see why what sources say should have tyrannical sway over us when we have a variety of plausible names. john k (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Based on the Google search above I do not oppose the move, but if the search had returned the reverse (about twice as many for Ann of GB rather than Ann, Queen of GB) then unless that could be shown to be an aberration I would oppose the move. To do otherwise is either to construct a set of rules and ignore common usage (in many areas (but not necessarily this one) that leads to problems between article name and references used for content), or we go for whatever a limited group of editors thinks is a good idea this month. By and large if we accept common usage (with adjustments for disambiguation and precision) we have a soured based system, which has its limitations (chiefly to do with a failure of consistency -- which is important for joining up red links) but should give article titles that are in most cases stable. -- PBS (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
It shouldn't be a question of how many (there are many Michael Jacksons, but we still identify one as primary), but of what proportion of people seeking "Queen Anne" are expecting to find this one.--Kotniski (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Kotniski. Is there any way that Wikipedia can tell us what proportion of people searching for "Queen Anne" wind up at this article versus others? I know there are various statistics sites, but I don't know how to use them for this purpose. Dohn joe (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
We'd probably have to set up a specialized redirect from the dab page, and see how many people followed it, compared with the total number of people who came to the dab page. That sort of experiment has been done for some names. (But for now, here, it looks like consensus is firmly for the longer name - which is at least a great improvement over the current one.)--Kotniski (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
However this is also open to accusations of systemic bias, See the old old debate of William of Orange. -- PBS (talk) 11:54, 20 October 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.

Requested move 2

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 that it was shut down. Given the comment by User:Scott MacDonald I have move the page. Approaches should have been made to Scott MacDonald to reconsider the move. There should not have been a re-posting of it (relisting within six months, no matter how good the intentions should not be done without the agreement of the closing administrator, othewise we would never put controversial moves to bed). Sort out among yourselves on this page if the redirect of Queen Ann should be to here or to the dab page -- PBS (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Queen Anne → Anne, Queen of Great Britain — In the previous move discussion, Of those that supported moving the article I count 10 in support for Anne, Queen of Great Britain (9 writing "Support Anne, Queen of Great Britain) and 5 in support of Queen Anne. Six noted that they specifically opposed Queen Anne even though they supported a move. I could be off somewhat numerically but it seems pretty clear in reading the discussion Anne, Queen of Great Britain was the consensus not Queen Anne. So I am revisiting.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Support I am afraid that I believe that the admin acted in a cavalier fashion in the way he closed the last move discussion. The proposal was not to treat her as the primary meaning of Queen Anne. Page hits are not everything in deciding primary meaning, that can be a complex issue sometimes, we should beware of systemic bias, see WP:BIAS. PatGallacher (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2010 (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.

Very well, I have now begun a discussion at Talk:Queen Anne. PatGallacher (talk) 08:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Heir/Heiress apparent/presumptive succession boxes

First of all, such succession boxes shuold be deleted. Secondly, Sophia was heiress presumptive to the Scottish throne, aswell as the English & Irish thrones, until 1707. GoodDay (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, she wasn't. That's why it's listed separately. DrKiernan (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Who was heir/heiress presumptive during Anne Scottish reign (1702-07)? GoodDay (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
There was no named heir. The Act of Security 1704 specifically excluded Catholics, anyone not descended from a Scottish king, and the heir to the English throne. The Scottish heir was to be selected by the Estates on Anne's death. The English heir could only be recognised as Scots king if there was a customs union between England and Scotland (which at that time there wasn't). DrKiernan (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, the next-in-line is called heir-apparent or heir-presumptive. The heir is the monarch him/herself. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
My views on that [6] have not changed, and are unlikely ever to do so. In common speech "heir" is perfectly acceptable, regardless of the strict legal definition. DrKiernan (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
As long as ya know I didn't make that up, no probs. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Number of pregnancies

Here there are eighteen pregnancies: Anne, Queen of Great Britain#Issue. Here there are seventeen pregnancies: Prince George of Denmark#Issue. What is correct? Calle Widmann (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a dubious pregnancy from late 1688 which is not listed at Prince George. However, I think the discrepancy arises not from this but from one of the pregnancies being twins. DrKiernan (talk) 10:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Titles in Pretence.

Whether the claim by Anne to be Queen of France should (A) be in the lead and (B) use the Titles in Pretence template. My view is that there is evidence that the claim was made by Anne, that it was in her style and coronation oath. This evidence is verifiable. We know nothing about the mind or intend of the Queen. We don't know whether or not she truly believed that she was Queen of France. That not the point thought. The point is that she officially made a verifiable claim, a claim made by all the Plantagenets and 3 further successors of Anne. Whether her claim had any more substance than that of the Old Pretender to his own throne is neither here nor there. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Her status as Supreme Governor of the Church of England deserves a succession box much more than her status as "Queen of France" because she actually was and acted as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. We could put it under Religious titles or offices. Of course, putting either "Supreme Governor of the Church of England" or "Queen of France" would be redundant to the title "Queen of England" and completely unneccessary. Surtsicna (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it's misleading to include "Queen of France" because it implies she made a "real" claim to the throne of France, but it was just a nominal part of her royal style. It should, and is, covered as part of the royal style, but anything more gives it undue prominence. Her biographers only discuss it as part of the style, or to explain the fleur-de-lys on the arms, and we should follow the same practice as the sources. DrKiernan (talk) 09:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Since when is a style not a claim? It's how she was addressed by her ministers and foreign ambassadors. If she thought that they were in error, no doubt she would have corrected them. She did not do so. From this, we know that she consented to the use of the style and agreed with the claim. Whether that claim was actively or passively pursued we do not know and is in any case irrelevant. It's in her coronation oath and was not repudiated by her: it's a claim, a title in pretence. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Isn't my opinion a second opinion, Laurel Lodged? I see that you have completely ignored me in this discussion. Surtsicna (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
So you're feeling left out Surtsicna? Well we can't have that. For what it's worth, if you want to add a "Supreme Governor of the Church of England" succession box, go ahead. Slightly redundant, but relatively harmless. Whether or not Anne acted as "Queen of France" in her private boudoir I don't know. But it's not relevant to the discussion. A title in pretence is one that is claimed, whatever the practicalities of achieving the object. The claims operate on a spectrum: at one end we have the Old Pretender who stood a decent chance of gaining the throne, on the other end we have Giorgio Carbone, pretended head of the Principality of Seborga. In between, we have Anne. It is sufficient that she claimed it: the template makes no comment on how delusional or otherwise her state of mind was when she made the claim. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Please explain how "Supreme Governor of the Church of England" is redundant and "Queen of France" is not. Surtsicna (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Because every monarch since Henry VIII has claimed the title of SGCE whereas not every monarch since Henry VIII has claimed to be monarch of France. It's like saying you need a template for monarchs that wear crowns - kind of goes with the territory. But if you want it, I won't oppose it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense to me. No monarch before Henry VIII was SGCE, just as no monarch after George III claimed the style of France. I don't see how this argument is relevant. DrKiernan (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Getting back on topic. The claim is true, sourced and verifiable. There is no evidence that she it is untrue. There is no source that says she recanted, reneged, disavowed or otherwise gave up the claim. What she believed in her heart about the claim is unknowable. It suffices that she made the claim for the template to be validly included. Unless proof to the contrary can be provided, I propose to insert the template and to keep re-inserting it until DrK's bizarre POV reversions desist. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I still don't think you understand the objection. I was the one who cited the material[7]. The use of the title is not in dispute. The objection is to the succession box not the material itself. Articles should not be cluttered unnecessarily with duplications of non-essential or relatively trivial material. DrKiernan (talk) 08:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Summary of the position. That Anne claimed the title is not in dispute. That it was a silly claim is not in dispute. That the "Titles in Pretence" template is a legitimate template is not in dispute. That articles should not be cluttered unnecessarily with duplications is not in dispute.Arguments in favour of retaining the template: 1. it supplies additional wikilinks not in the main body of the article (e.g. Capetian) 2. it is no more an item of clutter than any of the other templates and hidden info boxes - why pick on that one in particular 3. the duplication is minimal 4. the duplication is inherent to all succession boxes. All mention the facts in in the main body of the article. That's not the point of them - they're cute, neat and easily navigable 5. if the TIP template is non-essential then all other succession boxes are guilty of the same offence and ought to be deleted 6. it's not trivial - the crown of France is a serious, noteworthy title. TIP boxes are used for far less notable titles 7. it is the nature of TIP that many will be silly or embarrassing to the modern eye. Just because they have been applied to English/British monarchs is not a reason to exclude them. Are they any more deserving of being saved from embarrassing issues than other monarchs 8. a decision to delete in this case automatically invalidates the entire TIP template. I'll let others write the "Arguments in favour of deleting the template" case. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
"silly" and "embarassing"? What are you on about? We don't include or exclude material on this basis. It's already covered with due weight. DrKiernan (talk) 07:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Is "due weight" meant to rebut one of points 1 - 7 above or is this this now the full extent of your "Arguments in favour of deleting the template" case? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
See also Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia. A direct quote from the Prince: "I have as head of the House of Hohenzollern no political role — and neither do I aim at such.". So here we see an explicit renunciation of the title "German Emperor". This however, is not an impediment to the inclusion of the title in pretence template. Anne on the other hand, makes a claim to the title "Queen of France", yet Dr.K is unwilling to admit the title in pretence template. Why is this? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

The sources used in the article do not support the tagged opinion, and one (Curtis) directly contradicts it: "William had not invaded as a rival claimant but to protect 'the Protestant religion and the liberties of the subject'...few expected him to become King. If James had remained in England and had agreed to a programme of concessions he could well have kept his Crown, but his sudden and unexpected flight to France brought the country to the verge of chaos...It was apparent that the vacuum had to be filled, and in January 1689 a Convention Parliament addressed itself to the question." (p. 66) DrKiernan (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

But that's not what you have written. You have written "Protestant ruler" not "Protestant religion". With an extant ruler, one cannot establish a ruler of a different religion without either converting the extant ruler to your religion or taking his throne. Is there evidence that William hoped to convert James? If not, then the second option is the only logical conclusion. If you want to keep the Curtis citation elsewhere in the article then do so, but don't twist it to say what it does not say. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I did not write ruler. You did[8]. I wrote rule. William's stated intention was to support the assembly of Parliament to force the King to uphold the law of the land, which forbade the holding of public office by non-Anglicans. DrKiernan (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry - "rule" not "ruler". Does that change the substance of my argument above? I think not. He who rules is a ruler. Only a ruler can change how a monarchy is ruled. In Stuart England, Parliament did not rule; the king reigned and ruled. It is sophistry to claim that an intention to change the rule (with a foreign army) differs from an intention to change the ruler. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
You've missed, or misunderstood, the point. The retention of the King in a constitutional monarchy under the rule of law and Parliament is not the same as rule under absolute monarchy. In the former the King reigns but does not rule, in the latter he is a ruler. You said the intention was to remove James from the throne,[9] but one can re-establish the rule of law and Parliament without changing the monarch. You said the intention was to re-establish a Protestant ruler, but there was no declared intention to convert or depose James in favour of a different monarch. The intent, at least as described by William and the Seven, was to re-establish the rule of law and Parliament. The supposed implication was that James would remain the monarch, but as a figurehead instead of as a ruler. DrKiernan (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
What is "Catholic rule"? Is it (a) rule by a Catholic majority parliament with the consent of a Catholic monarch, (b) rule by a Protestant majority parliament with the consent of a Catholic monarch, (c) rule by a Catholic monarch with the consent of a Catholic majority parliament, (d) rule by a Catholic monarch with the consent of a Protestant majority parliament, (e) rule by a Catholic monarch with or without the consent of parliament, (f) rule by parliament with or without the consent of the monarch? Which of the above types of rule was there in England prior to William's invasion? Was "Catholic rule" in place prior to the invasion? Or was it about to take place / possibly could have taken place? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Other options:
In what became known as the "Glorious Revolution", on 5 November 1688 Anne's brother-in-law, William of Orange, invaded England.
Or:
In what became known as the "Glorious Revolution", on 5 November 1688 Anne's brother-in-law, William of Orange, invaded England to, he claimed, protect the Protestant religion, uphold the law and call a free parliament to investigate the legitimacy of the Prince of Wales.
Or:
In what became known as the "Glorious Revolution", on 5 November 1688 Anne's brother-in-law, William of Orange, invaded England in an action that ultimately deposed the King.
DrKiernan (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
The third option gets my vote. It dispenses with unproveable suppositions about the state of William's mind. The devil himself knows not the intent of a man. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Anne, Queen of Great Britain/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs · count) 07:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Beginning read-through today. Will report back soonest. Tim riley (talk) 07:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing borderline about this GAN. Impressively referenced, easy to read, no discernible POV, well-illustrated, and neither too long nor too short. A few minor points before I complete the formalities:

  • General
    • Spelling – you use a mixture of ize/ization and ise/isation endings. In an English article I'd go for the latter if I were you (though I do know what Fowler said on the subject!)
    • Piping of "Sir" in knights' titles – inconsistent. I think Sir John Vanbrugh is much easier on the reader's eye than Sir Robert Walpole, which breaks the flow rather jarringly, but one way or the other you should be consistent.
  • Lead
    • the title Queen of France – might cause the casual reader a moment's pause: perhaps "the nominal title"?
  • Glorious revolution
    • Sarah has become "Lady Churchill" without explanation. It might be less confusing for the reader (and just as correct) if you called her Sarah Churchill at this mention.
  • William and Mary
    • "According to James…." Bit of a tease, here. Did he say whether he gave her his leave?
  • Reign
    • "Disassociated"? Strange word! Why not just "dissociated"?
  • Two party politics
    • "Unloyal"? The word is, I find, in the OED, but this is the first time I have ever met it. Wouldn't the familiar "disloyal" do?
  • War of the Spanish Succession
    • " By signing the Treaty of Utrecht…" – It isn't clear to me how the two parts of this sentence relate to each other.
  • Legacy
    • "… indicate that she chose ministers and exercised her prerogatives wisely" – I think you ought to say within your text whose judgment this is. For such a very broad claim a second source to back up Waller would be good, too.
    • "Chauvinist" – you mean "male-chauvinist". Ordinary chauvinism is excessive nationalism.

Tim riley (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No edit wars.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: Pass

I should be sorry not to see this excellent article at FAC at some point. It will get my vote. A most enjoyable and impressive piece of work. — Tim riley (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

And I should have added congratulations! Tim riley (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Once again, thank you for the review. DrKiernan (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Issue

Shouldn't the "Issue" section be as detailed as the one in the article about her husband (including the stilbirths and miscarriages)? It seems natural that it should be, at least because all those losses affected her health. Surtsicna (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, but I don't like the format much. I think the Prince George version and the previous Anne versions looked OK: both were clean and neat. The expansion I've just done looks ugly to me. DrKiernan (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
You are being too harsh on yourself. The table currently used in the article about George looks fine if you ask me. Surtsicna (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Arms

Doc K. Have included ref for separate arms in Scotland from Act of Union. The ref. supporting the Semper Eadem motto is from a book entitled "Royal Heraldry of England"! The crucial element here being England, and the fact that in 1702 the Acts of Union were still some ways off. Check the Nemo me impune lacessit and In My Defens God Me Defend articles and you'll find adequate refs there. The motto on the arms in Scotland, unlike in England, did not alter with each successive monarch. The blazon of the arms is correct. I've found some interesting stuff which I'll come back to. Scools out in 10 so must get kids.Endrick Shellycoat 14:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Stuart arms were changed after the deposition of James II. The blazon of Anne's Scotch arms (if they existed) is unclear. None of the sources you've provided describes or shows her arms. This source [11] says that William's arms were used in Scotland up to 1708 (i.e. with the Nassau inescutcheon) until they were abandoned for the Union arms, which had no distinction between English and Scottish versions. There are pictures of the two versions of Anne's Scottish arms on this page: [12]. DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Back to it... Terrific source that. Pity the entire book isn't part of the review. "all particular Scottish differences being abolished" is interesting given the articles of union do mention the continued use of a separate seal in Scotland and a copy, (not sure of accuracy mind you), dated 1710 can be purchased here which clearly, in terms of position of supporters at least, (the shield being indistinct), shows the Scottish difference. This site also shows seals dating from George III which have the Scottish differences. I'll have to read up more...Endrick Shellycoat 09:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
That "1710" seal has an inescutcheon. So, it's either an earlier William III seal or a later Hanoverian one (frankly, it looks Hanoverian). DrKiernan (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Either your monitor or eyesight, or both, are much superior to mine as I can't make it out. Pity the 1710 couldn't be verified. Don't suppose you have a source which would identify under whose reign the Scottish differences in the arms made a return to use?Endrick Shellycoat 17:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
No, sorry. I'm reliant on online sources for Scots heraldry, and they seem very slim. DrKiernan (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, so slim they're near non existent, thanks anyway. Endrick Shellycoat 00:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Have found a ref. showing a Scottish version of arms of Anne post-Union in a book entitled "The Heraldry of the Stewarts; with Notes on All the Males of the Family, Descriptions of the Arms, Plates and Pedigrees" by G Harvey Johnstone. Google books. On this page can be seen a plate with the arms thus:

.

These arms also appear in the 2008 edition of Edinburgh Castle:Official Souvenir Guide by C Tabraham, published by Historic Scotland. (Google books). Endrick Shellycoat 11:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't see inside the guidebook. When you say "arms" do you mean the shield or the full achievement? Johnstone seems to confirm the other source with regard to the supporters, etc. as he says they were the same for Anne as for Charles II, i.e. the mottoe below the shield was "Dieu et Mon Droit" in Scotland not "Nemo me impune lacessit" as it was for James VI or "Semper Eadem". See pages 18-19. The other differences between Johnstone's version and File:Coat of Arms of Great Britain in Scotland (1707-1714).svg is that he says both Garter and Thistle encircle the shield, and he doesn't mention a compartment. My only remaining concern is whether to try to reconcile Johnstone's version with the statement in Tudor and Stuart Proclamations that these Scottish arms were not in use. DrKiernan (talk) 12:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The "arms" in the Edinburgh Castle book comprise the escutcheon surmounted by a crown - these are used throughout a section of the book entitled "A Royal castle" to illustrate periods concerning the various monarchs. The Garter and Thistle encircling the shield probably refers to an achievement with blazon similar to that used by James VI, post-1603, in Edinburgh Castle - see here. (Another couple of interesting examples from the castle here and here) Having hunted around I'm coming to the conclusion that there were no hard and fast rules where regal heraldry was concerned; no doubt despite the best efforts of the Lord Lyon in Scotland certainly. It appears that whatever the master craftsman could produce in either wood, stone or plaster, was either considered to be acceptable or was promptly destroyed and replaced. More examples leading me to that conclusion...1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Endrick Shellycoat 14:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
But they all have common features. After 1603 and before the nineteenth-century, the Garter is a common feature and the motto "Nemo me impune lacessit" is not. So, in our example, I think we should show the Garter and not that motto (although "Dieu et mon droit" could be used since that was commonly used). DrKiernan (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. However there is a source which states that Charles II restored Nemo Me... to his arms; I('ll see if I can dig it out. Another example of Thistle collar and Garter appearing is here, on the Great Seal of Scotland for Charles I.Endrick Shellycoat 15:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
(ec) If you're referring to the 1672 Lyon register entry, I've seen it reproduced in Fox-Davies. But the motto "Nemo.." mentioned there is for the Arms of Scotland, without any quartering. The same 1672 register entry for the arms of the King (with Scotland in the first quarter) is quoted by Johnstone, and he gives the motto as "Dieu..." DrKiernan (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The other point is that this gives us information about the earlier Stuart kings, not Anne post-Union. DrKiernan (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of that - the only thing I've come across to date is the Johnstone ref. showing the shield with Scottish elements superior. How about a version of this for Anne pre-Union...

Endrick Shellycoat 16:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks good! DrKiernan (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
This from the reference you gave...


Endrick Shellycoat 16:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was in use from 1695 but I'd rather not use that here because she shouldn't actually be using the Nassau inescutcheon. DrKiernan (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok. I'll see what I can do.Endrick Shellycoat 17:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I've done another couple of versions of these arms which I'll upload later. I'm off to the library in Glasgow tomorrow to look at the Tudor and Stuart Proclamations as I want to see pages 531 to 534 which are not part of the online review, but which might contain a few more interesting renditions. Given the book was published over a century ago I should be able to photocopy the pages as copyright shouldn't be an issue. Endrick Shellycoat 21:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Currently sat in the Mitchell Library with the book beside me. The pages not available online reveal nothing remarkable. The section on Scotland commences on pg 532 and the only thing of interest is a full achievement of Charles I on pg 534, of which I've taken a photo. Interesting only in as much as it shows the full achievement:shield (Scottish quarterings) surrounded by the garter, with helm and mantling, the crest is the lion sejant afronte, motto above "In defence" and a compartment showing rose and crown, with "Dieu et mon droit" and "God save the King" beneath. Pages 539 and 540 show the arms of James II in the English style.

What I did note however was the section title: "The Royal Arms as on Printed Proclamations". There follows a "Note" which commences "The first form in which the Royal Arms appear on printed proclamations is that..." going on to conclude with "After the Revolution the Lion of Nassau is borne in pretence on the Scottish arms until the year 1708, when the Union arms were officially adopted, all particular Scottish differences being abolished". It struck me that this document only concerns itself with printed proclamations until 1714.

The Royal press(es) may not have bothered to print separate documents for Scotland, given a single Parliament now existed under a single Monarch, but it does not follow therefore that other representations of arms, for example on the Great Seal for Scotland, (which has existed post-Union to this day), did not show Scotland/England impaled with Scotland taking precedence; as per the Johnstone image. Thoughts? Endrick Shellycoat 13:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the reference is only good for what was used on proclamations, and am happy to consider other representations that existed at the time. What concerns me is that we should be showing the arms as they were used, not the arms as we think they ought to be. So, any version that is backed by a reliable source could be used, and if there are several from any particular time period then I would prefer to use the commonest, or most official, or fullest, or some other contemporary version providing there was a strong rationale for choosing it over an alternate version that existed at the time. What I don't want to use is a version using modern elements or elements unused at the time applied retrospectively. DrKiernan (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Doesn't appear to be much evidence of the contemporary Scottish versions produced by Sodacan in the document in question. Charles (both I and II) used a version of arms shown on my first effort above; whereas William II and Anne used my second effort. (Mary II and James VII the same as William II, but without the inescutcheon of Nassau - I'd also need to fix the crowns of course). Just need to decide how to rename the arms I've done so as not to confuse the issue any further.
The (replica) 1710 Great Seal for Scotland I linked to earlier, which you said had an inescutcheon, could well be that of William's; given the date in the book for Anne using the printed version is 1702-1710. Perhaps the mint or whoever simply changed the obverse of the Seal to save time and costs; the reverse showing the arms remaining unchanged.
From what I've seen here the Scottish version was certainly back in use during the reign of George III, showing a very hybridised version of Scottish and English elements. (Pre union seals can be seen here). Endrick Shellycoat 14:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Merger

I propose merging Mary and Anne of Denmark with this article as the subjects appear to have no independent significance that couldn't be handled with a section within this article. ClaretAsh 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Like having something like this: ==Issue==<br>===Mary and Anne Sophia===? --Alexcoldcasefan (talk) 11:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
That works, espcecially if there were also a section for their brother, William. The difference, though, is that where William warrants a {{main}} article for further info, his sisters apparently don't. ClaretAsh 12:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I think they have just enough notability to keep their own article, and having them separate keeps this article from getting too cluttered. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I've just merged in all the extra content from the daughters' article to the "issue" section and it doesn't look cluttered to me. Opera hat (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
In that case, I agree with the merger as it also escapes the problem of what to call them. DrKiernan (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Works for me. Nice job. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it should be merged, I think it should be deleted. Thoughts are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary and Anne of Denmark. Opera hat (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with merge. Their current article will almost certainly never expand past stub but the information should certainly be kept. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 12:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: I've marked the original Mary and Anne Oldenburg article for deletion as it and it's talk page currently link to two separate articles and, in turn, no articles link to it. ClaretAsh 23:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wales as part of Great Britain

This is the first time I have engaged in a Wikipedia article discussion and so may not be familiar with the etiquette or the protocols. If I have caused upset with my previous (well-intentioned) though perhaps premature edits to this page, then I offer an apology.

I would like to make mention of Wales in this article, since at the time that Anne became the first queen of Great Britain, the reference to England (meaning England and Wales) was not legally clear and needed special legislation, enacted in 1746, to clarify it. In any case, Wales, though now recognised as a distinct member country of Great Britain, has an identity and an antiquity that predates that of England's and so I feel some words of reference or explanation are appropriate.

One way of doing this, I felt, was to include a paragraph explaining the legal subsumption of Wales with England in 1746 under the "Wales and Berwick" act (a paragraph in an existing Wikipedia article on "England and Wales" 1). I would however be happy to discuss other ways of including a mention of Wales in this article.

(Sincerely) Duckinatree (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The law you're talking about was passed decades after Anne's death. She never called herself Queen of Wales, and none of the article's sources mention any such title. Indeed, it's not clear from my reading that she ever even visited the place. In the Edward Gregg biography, for example, Wales is never mentioned except when referring to her brother, the Prince of Wales. So, while your essay may be appropriate for the England and Wales article, it really doesn't have anything to do with Queen Anne. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
My concern is that the history of Wales has been marginalised and revised to such an extent that many people do not know that Wales once existed separately as a kingdom with her own sovereign, laws and language and believe instead that Wales has always been a part of England. As you know, Wales was invaded and forcefully annexed to England by Edward I in 1282 and although, as you point out, Anne may never have called herself Queen of Wales she was, in effect, the queen of both England and Wales. Great Britain figures significantly in the title of this piece and to talk about Great Britain in its inception, as this article does, without mentioning Wales, continues a disservice to the Welsh and misses an opportunity to correct some of the false impressions that people have been given about the history of this nation. Duckinatree (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Goodness me, ".. she never even visited the place". That must prove that it didn't really exist (wherever it is)? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Wales was legally part of England since the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542. Should the article also say that Anne was Queen of Cornwall? Of course not. Opera hat (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Which is all he's asking for. Mention as a parenthetical that "England" at the time included Wales. It is needful, since presently Wales is considered a separate country of the United Kingdom. — LlywelynII 04:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Martinevans123: obviously it existed and still exists. The question is what Wales and its status within the UK had to do with a biography of Queen Anne. Duckinatree: I have no problem with you wanting "to correct some of the false impressions that people have been given about the history of this nation", but that doesn't mean that every article about a British monarch should have an essay on Wales and its history. An article about Owain Glyndŵr definitely should discuss Wales, but none of the sources about Anne's life discuss it, so we can't either. She also ruled the Isle of Man, Orkney, and the Bombay Presidency: should they be discussed here, or is that better left for their own articles? --Coemgenus (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
An essay is completely out of the question, but "England" being bigger by an area of land roughly the size of Wales is worth noting in at least one sentence on the page. — LlywelynII 04:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Opera hat : Wales has never been nor is ever likely to be part of England. Wales was invaded by Edward I and annexed (a unilateral act where territory is seized and held by one state and legitimized via general recognition by other international bodies) by Henry VIII with the "Laws in Wales Acts" 1535-1542 which sought to create a single legal jurisdiction. The Acts have been known as the "Acts of Union", but they were not popularly referred to as such until 1901, when historian Owen M. Edwards assigned them that name — a name some historians such as S. B. Chrimes regard as misleading, as the Acts were concerned with harmonising laws, not political union. (Laws in Wales Acts 1535-1542 Wikipedia). Duckinatree (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Coemgenus : The comparison of Wales with the Isle of Man, Orkney, and the Bombay Presidency is a trivial one, since Wales was an area of much greater size, economic and strategic importance not to mention former independence. Duckinatree (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Martinevans123 : Ceisiwch godi'r safon y tro nesaf! Duckinatree (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It has become apparent that there is too much resistance to the inclusion of any mention of Wales in this article about the first Queen of Great Britain. This is particularly ironic since the Welsh were the original Britons and continued to call themselves Brythoniaid (Brythons or Britons) well into the Middle Ages. (Wales Wikipedia) Duckinatree (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yr wyf wedi dweud fy nweud a ni ddywedaf fwy na hynny. Gwellhad buan i chi. (I've said my piece and can't say more than that. I wish you well). Duckinatree (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The Principality of Wales was legally, administratively, popularly, &c. &c. &c. part of the Kingdom of England and utterly unquestionably part of the Kingdom of Great Britain. It's worth mentioning that made "England" bigger than it is now (by an area the size of Wales!), you're right. We should mention that, you're right. You're quite mistaken, however, if you think it's not WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE that every single mention of "England" during this period needs an essay on "unilateral" English imperialism and de jure Welsh "independence". — LlywelynII 04:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Foetal burials

I've removed the burials at Windsor Castle from the issue table, because the website at the College of St George (which says an infant was buried in 1696) contradicts Weir (who says an infant was buried in 1698). Weir does not mention a burial in 1696, and the College does not mention one in 1698; so, I presume that one or other has the year wrong and they are actually a single burial. There are other sources that indicate Anne was at St James's in 1698 since her doctors disagreed on whether she should travel to Windsor (Luttrell, vol IV), and so the 1696 date is more plausible. However, I don't see how we can distinguish between February (daughter) and September (son) 1696 when the College's website does not indicate the gender or month of the buried infant.

Edmund Fellowes' 1957 transcription of the burial registers is available in very selective libraries, but I do not have access to a copy, at least not easily. If anyone does have access, then I'd be inclined to follow whatever he says rather than the website or Weir. DrKiernan (talk) 11:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Pretender

As DrKernan & I are now at two reversions each, etiquette demands that we take it to the talk page. So, what's your beef with the wikilink to Pretender? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The material is given undue weight and is unsourced. If no biography of Anne connects her with a claim made by Edward III 300 years before, or calls her a pretender, then neither should we. By way of example, Elizabeth II was proclaimed "Queen of Ireland" in 1952, and what you're trying to insert here is tantamount to saying "Elizabeth II is a pretender to the Irish throne". The situations are obviously parallel: "Elizabeth, Queen of Great Britain and Ireland" is logically equivalent to "Anne, Queen of Great Britain and France". Neither woman reigns in the latter country. So, just as saying "Elizabeth made a claim to the Irish throne" is false, so it is with Anne and France.
This is also under discussion at Talk:William III of England/Archive 1#Pretender. DrKiernan (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
"If...then..." Sounds like WP:Synthesis to me. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
...as proclaimed in Canada and S.Africa, per Proclamation of accession of Elizabeth II - concur with DrKiernan. Qexigator (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Anne Stuart

She should not be called "Anne Stuart" in the infobox because that is not a common name and because that was not her regnal name. I also doubt the infobox is the right place to introduce an alternative name. She reigned as "Anne" (Anna), not as "Anne Stuart", and is normally (if not always) listed simply as "Anne" among British monarchs. Does it even need to be mentioned that the surname is not included in infoboxes in articles about her Stuart predecessors (save for Mary I, who is actually commonly referred to as "Mary Stuart")? Surtsicna (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it's inaccurate. Also, no other monarchs use their last names in infoboxes. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

James was deposed in the "Glorious Revolution".

"James" was deposed in the Glorious Revolution?

Should this be amended to read:

"James II" was deposed in the Glorious Revolution? 82.31.133.165 (talk) 09:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain/Archive_1&oldid=1168090190"