User talk:The Emperor's New Spy/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Princes and Princesses of Saxony

Hey Queen, I see no objections to that whatsoever. I apologize for leaving them off to begin with. Thanks for all you do for nobility and royalty articles. Your work is appreciated by everyone but most especially by me. --Caponer (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Proofreading necessary? New section Frederick III, German Emperor # Unmarried, a Son is Born

I think, someboby with historic background should proofread this section. It's totally different to the German article, have no (zero) references, and many, many typo mistakes, but my English is not good enough for proofreading. I hope, you can help? Thanks alot and regards --Pitlane02 (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You're asking the wrong person. I have no historic background of the German Empire. Sorry.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Consorts of Hispania

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of Consorts of Hispania. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Consorts of Hispania. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Josephine of Leuchtenberg

Hello! I appreciate very much all the good work you do all over. But I do not understand your wanting to place Josephine in the House of Bernadotte. Traditionally and genealogically, a woman belongs to the dynasty she was born in, not to the one into which she marries. I go by authorities like Burke's and Debrett's and have never seen this kind of categorization before. Didn't want to reverse this again without writing to you first. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well almost all articles on Wikipedia categorized them under both house by birth and house by marriage.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, (though there are a few such articles) that is not my experience. Can we go by Burke's and Debrett's and the royal courts themselves, please, and categorize these people only in the families to which they genealogically belong? It is my finding that our culture does not (yet?) ever have women add additional genealogy to their life stories when they marry, essentially that no one, man or woman, can belong to more than one dynasty, genealogically calculated as they are in our culture by paternity only. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

PS I'm not saying that's a fair or ethical thing, but it is what's done, I find. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you are targeting me. For your information, I didn't create that article nor did I place Category:House of Bernadotte there, I just reverted your edit that removed her birth house. I don't really know much about what your talking about but if you will probably have a lot of work removing all those House by marriage off every one of those other articles. Good luck. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not targeting you, but what you actually reverted was my removal of Bernadotte, not Beuharnais. That's why I wrote to you, to try to avoid a dispute. I would never remove her birth house. Thanks for wishing me good luck, but I will not make a big project out of this, believe me. Wherever I see the wrong dynasty under categories (there really aren't that many) I will try to do my best to fix it, just like you do with so many other things. None of the other Swedish queens belong to their husband's dynasties though marriage, as far as I can see. I wish you continued good luck, too, and thank you again for all your good work. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha

Hi. I undid your move of this article. If you have a look at the talk page, you'll see how much controversy the naming of this article has already caused. If you still want to move it, please flag it at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Deb (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Re Lithuanian consorts

This edit. The only info about these two wives comes from unreliable Bychowiec Chronicle and is very much discarded by modern historians as fiction. See House of Gediminas#Wives for more info. Renata (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I made a new edit to the list and included them as a possible/mythical consort similiar to List of Hungarian consorts and List of Polish consorts.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

the Alberts, Dukes of Saxe-Wittenberg

Yes, they are two different persons: The one, to whom you dedicated the new entry Albert III of Saxe-Wittenberg, Duke of Lüneburg had already the earlier entry Albert, Duke of Saxe-Wittenberg. He is not counted as duke of Saxe-Wittenberg, because he never ruled there, but according to German inheritance rules he bore the full Saxon title (officially: Duke of Saxony, Angria and Westphalia, Wittenberg branch). For Lunenburg he is not to be numbered because there was no other ruler of his name ruling in the Principality of Lüneburg. The other Albert, the last Ascanian Saxon elector is numbered III in Saxon tradition, because he was the third - at least for the Wittenberg branch.

In the entry Albert, Duke of Saxe-Wittenberg is also explained how the Saxon Duke-Elector Wenceslaus, the Lunenburgian Albert's uncle, gained a share in ruling the Principality of Lunenburg, namely by mere force, when he helped his nephew Albert to keep his reign, because the Guelphic Brunswick-Lunenburgian line of Wolfenbüttel denied Albert's ascension.

Since the Lunenburgian Albert had been chosen by his maternal grandfather William to succeed him, he was then the son of the Saxon second degree heir. When Rudolph died and opened the succession of Wenceslaus Albert was already reserved for Lunenburgian succession. I would not number the Lunenburgian Albert as III, because for German monarchs this is only done if she/he ruled in the country whose name follows the number. It also contradicts the numbering in German wiki.

Best wishes Ulf Heinsohn (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I merged the two into Albert of Saxe-Wittenberg, Duke of Lüneburg and reverted Albert IV to Albert III, Duke of Saxe-Wittenberg. I still not sure though because actually German wiki is as confused as we are see de:Magnus II. (Braunschweig-Lüneburg) and de:Sachsen-Wittenberg.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Dukes of Brunswick-Lüneburg

Hi QEII. Thanks for your work on the above. I have also been translating de.wiki articles on this House, not least because I live in the area. However, following on from the discussion above, I have also found the naming quite confusing. I have generally followed the German Wiki approach except for article titles, where I've followed the English Wiki line ("Fred, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg") etc, which is different. Although all the various rulers of bits of this dukedom carried the overall Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg title, it leads to confusion, not least over the numbering (as you have encountered above). So Fred III of XXXberg might have been Fred II of Brunswick-Lüneburg in theory. In addition, some of the state names on English Wiki are at odds with the original. I am investigating this with the help of on- and off-line sources to try and tidy this up in a logical way. Keep up the good work. Regards, --Bermicourt (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

German Wiki confusion on de:Albrecht (Sachsen-Wittenberg) (Lunenburg) and de:Albrecht III. (Sachsen-Wittenberg) (elector)

After you gave me the hint I looked it up and one could call the German usage a big confusuion. Even though the page of Lunenburg Albrecht existed most of the links referring to him led to Albrecht III., most confusing Wenceslaus German entry, where Albrecht III. was mentionaed in the same time as his nephew and his son, linking to the same page. Even the German wiki disambiguation page skipped the Lunenburgian Albrecht, but mentioned Albrecht III. describing him as elector and prince of Lunenburg. In some lists of rulers Albrecht III. is given as Albrecht IV. without listing any other Albrecht numbered III. Good hint, thanks, I hope it is now fixed on German wiki.

Best wishes Ulf Heinsohn (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Alice of Antioch

Well, she wasn't really "born" either way, she was born simply "Alice". "Alice, Princess of Antioch" would work, I suppose, but there's only one Alice so it shouldn't be a problem. "Constance of France, Princess of Antioch" looks odd to me too, but I don't know what else to do with that because there was another Constance. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much any medieval person only has one name, that's not unusual, even now. What's Queen Elizabeth II's name? It's just Elizabeth (okay, she has three names, but still, no last name). They were given nicknames and toponyms and numbers, sometimes in the middle ages, sometimes not. And some things are completely made up by modern genealogists and don't make much sense, like the idea of a "Rethel dynasty". Adam Bishop (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Lorraine and Bouillon

Hey, saw you did the Duchess of Bouillon page! You beat me to it; in all honesty you have done a better job then I would have!! Ha!! I was wondering, with regards to the Lorraines, will be be publishing at any point as it is still on your private user page if that makes sense! Hope your ok anyway! Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Lorraine is going to be finished for a while. I started it a long time ago and kind of stop for a while. But I'll get to it soon!--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Oky doke! Thanks for letting me know, hope you are ok Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

House of Iturbide

Is it possible that the move was a bit rash, especially without debate? Itúrbide happens to be the Spanish spelling but the move overall with such names is towards the standard Basque spellings these days (which would be Iturbide). Akerbeltz (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Your question was an inspiration

Thanks to your question about the possible wife of George VII, I ended up creating an article on Anna of Trebizond, Queen of Georgia! There are very few articles on the Georgian queens consort.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome. Happy to help.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Your additions to the article are also appreciated. Thank you for including her Greek name!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Happy to help. I made another edit on the part about Tamerlane because it seems you left it hanging as if Anna and Bagrat converted to Islam which only they lied about. I also notce your question on the talk page. The commons doesn't have one but I compiled the image they have on the List of Georgian consorts and the gallery on Category:Georgian queens consort because there are so few images. You might want to try creating an article on of those.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The article looks much better with your additions. Thanks again for your help!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I have wikilinked her sister, Eudokia. Later I'll do an article on her when I find more information about her life, and marriages.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Consorts of Holstein and of Schleswig

Hi, in this list you mention houses of Holstein-Rendsburg, etc. The name of the House ruling the different branch counties in Holstein until 1460 (and in Holstein-Pinneberg until 1640) was House of Schaumburg, in a less contracted alternative name variant also written Schauenburg. So while Schaumburg/Schauenburg was and is the name of the house, Count of Holstein-… was only their functional title, with the County/counties of Holstein being subfiefs of Saxe-Lauenburg until 1474 (elevation of County of Holstein-Rendsburg to Duchy of Holstein of imperial immediacy; while the elevation of the House of Schaumburg to prince of imperial immediacy in 1619 remained disputed for their function as Counts of Holstein-Pinneberg by the militarily superior Dukes of Holstein). I suggest to title the headlines House of Schaumburg, Rendsburg (or other etc.) branch

Best wishes Ulf Heinsohn (talk) 07:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that was one of my earlier list, you can see House of Schauenburg in one of the Mechtild of Holstein. I've changed it.

Eudokia is up

Well, today I did an article on Anna's sister: Eudokia of Trebizond. Could you please take a look at it and see if you can add anything. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No not really but are you sure it is Despoina of Sinop instead of Despoina in Sinop.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are right. Thanks for pointing that out!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

A list of Bosnian consorts

Hello! You know that there was a list of Bosnian queens consort in the list of Bosnian rulers. Well, somebody (probably a blocked vandal I had problems with) removed it and I am not able to reinsert it due to problems with the list. Could you please help me with reinserting the list into the said article or creating another article for it? You can find the crippled list at User:Surtsicna/Elizabeth of Serbia. Thanks, Surtsicna (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I decided to make a seperate list to stop further disputes. But it look a little barren, so I am going to look a further into something later. But I have a question for you, did the Habsburgs ever use the title of King of Bosnia?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the Habsburgs never used the title of King of Bosnia and they never controlled a part of Bosnia. The King of Hungary was the feudal lord of the Banate of Bosnia and of the Kingdom of Bosnia but no Habsburg ever claimed the throne of Bosnia. Surtsicna (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure you'll be interested in this text: [1]. It reminded me that the Kings of Hungary held the title of King of Rama, a title related to the Rama river which flows into the Neretva river (few kilometres away from me). Apparently, the title of King of Rama was actually related to Bosnia, as the Hungarian kings adopted it after conquering Bosnia. Surtsicna (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you want me to do with that? Do you want me to add the list of Queens of Rama on there or what? It seems they would overshadow the actual Bosnian consorts.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing, it's just that you've asked whether the Habsburgs used the title of King of Bosnia. They did not, but they did use the title of King of Rama, which actually refers to Bosnia. Surtsicna (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)