Talk:Louise of Lorraine

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

This is an odd title. Shouldn't it be either Louise de Lorraine or Louise de Lorraine-Mercoeur, to identify the actual sub-branch of the Lorraine family she came from? No other late 16th century members of the House of Lorraine are referred to by a form including the obsolete sub-branch name "Vaudémont," which they all belonged to. john k 22:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, however, most articles on Wikipedia that are from a different language (ex. Deutsch) have used the name “Louise de Lorraine-Vaudémont.” When you look up the name Louise de Lorraine-Vaudémont on Google, you get more accurate/valid searches rather than the other names — I do believe, though, that both names “Louise de Lorraine” and “Louise de Lorraine-Mercoeur” would be good to use also. If you ever feel the need to change this article’s name, you can! I’ve only ever believed the name to be good for this article as it includes more of a widespread usage, and contains accurate Google searches. Dialuanny0 (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of Poland[edit]

Apparently, she married Henry during his reign as King of Poland. Wasn't she then queen of Poland? Was it neccessary to crown the Polish monarch's consort in order to call her queen? The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 10:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He had left Poland by then, but that title was not formally removed from him until May. If she was queen of Poland it was merely as a technicality and she may not even have been aware of it herself. --Aciram (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John III and John IV of Egmont[edit]

For some reason, these were listed in the Ancestors as Jan I and Jan II (but the links went to the right articles...). I've changed these to the English names (as in the Wikipedia articles) and what appears to be the correct regnal numbers III and IV. I and II were two quite different and far earlier people. My attention was drawn to this while having a transatlantic (and transcontinental) conversation with a distant (in two ways) cousin for whom I have done research on some obscure subjects. Unlike my cousin, I'm no specialist in this subject. I am prepared to listen to arguments if anyone can produce a good reason for the original figures. Peridon (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking further into it, I've corrected William II as well. The original regnal figures appear to be in the first posting of the tree, which was later corrected by another to give the right target, but leaving the incorrect entry showing. I'll check the rest against the chart I've received. Peridon (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two more: Frederick I should have been VI, and Louis I is now III. Unfortunately, this makes them red links. The tree now looks OK to me, but don't take my word for it. I definitely couldn't create a tree at all, and have great admiration for those who can. Peridon (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of Poland and Grand Duchess of Lithuania[edit]

Hello everyone. In the article and infobox, it says that Louise was Queen of Poland and Grand Duchess of Lithuania by marriage, but she is not included on the list of Polish or Lithuanian consorts. Is there a reason for this?

She was never actually Queen of Poland and Grand Duchess of Lithuania. Her spouse had left his position as ruler of Poland and Lithuania before they married in february, but he was not formally deposed from them until May, thus she had the same titles as a pure technicality, but likely never actually used them, and never functioned as such, never stepping foot in Poland. No point having her in those lists. --Aciram (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]