Talk:Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom

Naming dispute

I disagree with the changing of this page's name. Princess Beatrice was never known as 'Princess Beatrice, Princess Henry of Battenburg', she was known as either 'Princess Henry of Battenburg' or simply 'Princess Beatrice'. In fact the name of this page is just wrong. The other Princess Beatrice is never known as Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom, but 'of York', and I don't think a change was necessary. I can't work out how to change the name back, can someone do it for me please if they agree. Thanks --Berks105 19:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If she was styled "Princess Beatrice" or "Princess Henry of Battenburg", why put in this of the United Kingdom business? Was that an official title? I guess if it was, the page should go back there with a disambig link at the top, but otherwise try to think of a better location. — SteveRwanda 09:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

As she was born as the daughter of a reigning monarch, she was titled as HRH The Princess Beatrice; this means she was Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom. Upon her marriage, she assumed the name of her husband (as do almost all married women), and became Princess Henry of Battenberg, and she retained that title until 1917, when George V dropped all Germanic titles from the British royal family. She voluntarily relinquished her titles as Pss Henry of B, and returned to her pre-marital title of HRH The Princess Beatrice as she was still the daughter of a reigning monarch. Prsgoddess187 11:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, I understand that, but it still seems a little contrived to use "of the United Kingdom" as the means of differentiating her from Princess Beatrice of York. For example, I'm Stephen Holt of the United Kingdom but in the unlikely event of my having a Wikpedia article, you wouldn't title it Stephen Holt of the United Kingdom, just to disambiguate me from the other Stephen Holt (of Australia)... According to WP:DAB the article should be Princess Beatrice (some description). — SteveRwanda 11:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You're not Stephen Holt of the United Kingdom, though (unless you've made a rather odd name change by Deed Poll), whereas Beatrice was Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom, because she was a Princess of the United Kingdom. Proteus (Talk) 13:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That may not be my official name, but it's an accurate description. So my question remains - is this Beatrice somehow officially titled as a Princess of the United Kingdom while Princess Beatrice of York is not? If so, I'm perfectly happy for the article to go back to where it was and I apologise for the error, but if they're both Princesses of the United Kingdom then surely a disambig is needed. — SteveRwanda 13:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

They're both Princesses of the United Kingdom, but Princess Beatrice of York is not styled as such because she has an "of York" to use. "of the United Kingdom" is the default, used when there's nothing else available. (And an "accurate description" would be "Stephen Holt from the United Kingdom", since "of" implies some kind of official position or representation, but this is all rather beside the point.) Proteus (Talk) 14:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Royal Princesses should be at their pre-marital name. It's not quite a universal standard yet in Wikipedia though. Astrotrain 15:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with the above comments by Proteus. This current title does not make any sense, and should be changed back to what it was before. There is no need for a disambiguation, but perhaps a note at the top could be used. I suggest this is changed asap. --Berks105 14:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The previous title made no sense either, so it's best you/we come up with a new one, which is to the point and unambiguous. By the argument above (that they're both princesses of the UK but one is of York so she can use that title while the other uses the generic of the UK title), you could just as well place the article at Princess Beatrice, but I assume you're not considering that because it's against WP:DAB. I'm simply arguing that Princes Beatrice of the United Kingdom is similarly flawed. As a reader of the article I was confused by this, and I imagine other people will also be. — SteveRwanda 17:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup, totally confused by the fact that she looks about sixty in the image and that she was born in the nineteenth century!? I agree with the move back to the Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom. 18:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the easiest way to solve this problem is to put a DAB sentence at the top of both articles. The one for this article could read This is the article about the daughter of Queen Victoria. For the daughter of Prince Andrew, Duke of York, see Princess Beatrice of York. That way is anyone else gets confused, they can be directed to the correct page. Prsgoddess187 19:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I concede defeat! I've got an admin to move the article back to Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom and added the dablink at the top. I don't think one is neeeded on Princess Beatrice of York, though, because that really is an unambiguous title. Sorry to have bothered y'all . — SteveRwanda 13:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom" you've got to be kidding me. This is just another astonishing example of Wikipedia perpetuating horribly incorrect information. She was never ever known offically or unoffically as Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom. Not a single reputable example can be sourced for EVER styling her as Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom. She was certainly a Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland but this was never used as part of her offical title.

You simply can't give a person any old title you want because another person has a similar name. I'm rather certain that anyone literate enough to use Wikipedia will figure out within seconds of reaching this article that is not about Princess Beatrice of York. It's rather obvious that The Princess Beatrice is the long deceased daughter of Queen Victoria. We can't make excuses for knowingly including erros.

We shouldn't use incorrect information to make things easier. This is supposed to be a factual article. The British Royal Family didn't use "of the United Kingdom" as a title even during the days of Queen Victoria. In fact, it's never ever been used.

I'm of the opinion that if you don't know what the offical title was of a person that you shouldn't be contributing to the part of the article that concern the title.

I also disagree with the notion that a women should be listed by her birth name. Would an article about HM The Queen Elizabeth II be correct if it was listed as HRH Princess Elizabeth of York? Certainly not!

A decision should be made to list the article under The Princess Beatrice or as Princess Henry of Battenberg. "Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom" shouldn't even be an option, because it was this was never her title and is inaccurate. 76.105.150.19 09:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Queen Brandissima

It is convention for an unmarried daughter of a sovereign of this country to take the style of the United Kingdom. Beatrice was married, but after the disposal of German names, styles and titles during the First World War, her style reverted back to her birth style, as if she had never been married at all. Therefore, it is perfectly appropriate to have this article at Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom, following the example of Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom, the unmarried daughter of Edward VII and Queen Alexandra. PeterSymonds | talk 16:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"The Princess Beatrice" is totally anglocentric, and as such, cannot be used. In Germany, I'd imagine that the Kaiser's daughter was "The Princess Victoria Louise" in documents written in English, but we have to indicate what country they were princess of. john k (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The in front of a style is a definate article, implying that the bearer was the son/daughter of a Sovereign of the United Kingdom. The definate article is a standard form in British royalty titles and styles, promoting the holder to a higher than status than other princes/ses (before style reforms in 1917, basically all members of the extended British Royal Family were entitled to a princely style, and the definate article raised the bearer to a higher status among the many princes/ses that existed). I'm not sure about the conventions in other countries, but it is a standard and allowable term for British royalty articles.

The article at the beginning of the article is fine, because the article title already gives the country in which she was a princess. PeterSymonds | talk 18:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought the argument was over the article title. john k (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see, sorry. I didn't realise you were talking about the proposal to move the page to "The Princess Beatrice". My mistake :) PeterSymonds | talk 12:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

(and obviously I completely agree with you PeterSymonds | talk 12:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

GA Review

Sorry you have had to wait so long for a review by someone. I have checked this article against the good article criteria. There is a list of minor problems that needs to be fixed, mostly concerning references. I have placed the article on hold for seven days for these things to be done. On the whole however I found the article interesting and a joy to read. Well done.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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.:

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:

• I found a few things in the lead. Firstly please reference this directly as it is a major assertion on her life: Beatrice, who was brought up always to stay with her mother, soon resigned herself to her fate. Secondly should the following not be daughter: Victoria was set against her youngest Baby marrying, and refused to discuss the possibility. I know later in the article we find out that Victoria refered to her as her Baby, but when first reading the lead this is not known. Thirdly after just ten years of marriage, Prince Henry (called Liko by the royal family) died of malaria while fighting at war. - which war, was it Asante, perhaps wikilink?

Addressed. PeterSymonds | talk 19:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please reference birth location and date: Beatrice was born on 14 April 1857 at Buckingham Palace.

Addressed. PeterSymonds | talk 19:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• This sentance including a quotation could be made more clear; Although Victoria was famous for disliking babies, she liked attractive ones, and this gave Beatrice—who was, according to Victoria, “a pretty, plump and flourishing child...with fine large blue eyes, [a] pretty little mouth and very fine skin”[7]—an advantage over her elder siblings. For example shouldnt it be she was famous for disliking unattractive babies or most babies, surely not all of them.. Perhaps its best to finish the prose and then have the at the end of the sentance. So as example Although Victoria was famous for disliking most babies, she liked Beatrice, whom Victoria considered attractive. This was to provide Beatrice with an advantage over her elder siblings. Victoria once remarked that Beatrice was “a pretty, plump and flourishing child...with fine large blue eyes, [a] pretty little mouth and very fine skin”[7].

Addressed. PeterSymonds | talk 19:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please reference Despite sharing the rigorous education programme designed by Prince Albert and his close adviser Baron Stockmar, Beatrice had a more relaxed infancy than the rest of her siblings as a result for her relationship with her parents.

Addressed. PeterSymonds | talk 19:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Could you please reference the following: As her mother's secretary, she performed duties such as writing on the queen's behalf and helping with political correspondence.

Addressed. PeterSymonds | talk 19:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please reference: Beatrice, who wore her mother's wedding veil of Honiton lace, which none of her other siblings had been permitted to wear

Addressed. PeterSymonds | talk 19:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please reference: The beauty of Beatrice's daughter, Ena, was well known throughout Europe, and, despite her low rank, she was a desirable bride.

Addressed. PeterSymonds | talk 19:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please reference death day - It was there that Beatrice died on the 26 October 1944, aged eighty-seven. Also is it known what she died of? Heart attack, lung failure?

Addressed. She died in her sleep, though I don't think the reason was recorded, as it's not mentioned in any of my references. PeterSymonds | talk 19:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please reference: Beatrice was the shyest of all Victoria's children. However, due to the fact that she accompanied Victoria almost wherever she went, she became the most well known. Despite her shyness, she was an able actor and dancer, and was a keen artist and photographer.

Addressed. PeterSymonds | talk 19:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please reference: the demands made on Beatrice were high. Despite suffering from rheumatism, Beatrice was forced to share in her mother's love of cold weather.

Addressed. PeterSymonds | talk 19:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• The following is pov and should be removed: Much of Beatrice's world remains as she left it. This sentance is open to a lot of intepretation...

Addressed. Changed the sentence to buildings. PeterSymonds | talk 19:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that she At her death she was the last surviving child of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert is repeated twice, in the last years section and in the assessment section. Does it need to be repeated twice?

Addressed. PeterSymonds | talk 19:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Aside from these few comments and need for references, the article is a very detailed and well written biography. The photographs greatly add to the article. Let me know when you have addressed these points and I will promote to GA. Any questions then please ask. Thank you, LordHarris 18:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work and thank you for responding so quickly to my comments. The article IMO now rates as a good article and I have passed it as search. I think the article would do well if you were to take it FA: the references, the information contained are all featured quality. I do have a few points to help you continue to develop the article. Firstly I would expand, if possible the role that Beatrice might have had on the British Empire: in particular through any influence or emotion she may have had on her mother? Are there any historical works that cite this role in greater depth? These might be of use to expand the assessment section. I would also recommend that some of the image captions, while of suitable length could be expanded to incorporate a little more information. One example being Princess Beatrice in her late childhood, 1868 Perhaps you could eloborate more on the image itself, her shoes and clothes seem very plain for a princess (even though it is Victorian period). Thirdly, are you able to expand more on her relationship with her husband, are there any historical accounts that cite in more detail, any conflict between her, her husband and Victoria? Finally from an aesthetic perspective, the Royal Information boxes on the right hand section seem out of place? I am not sure however about the correct MOS relating to them. Aside from these few points, I feel the article would pass if you were to nominate for an FAC. If you do require further opinions before that stage than I recommend a Wikipedia:Peer Review. If I can be of any further help to you in reviewing the article or providing a second opinion then please leave a message. Best of luck and good work. LordHarris 16:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Mount Victoria (Canada)

This mountain is said to be named for her along with others nearby surrounding Princess Louisa Inlet for members of her immediate family. Is that worth mentioning in the article? --KenWalker | Talk 04:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

marriage

she was 28 wen she wed, why did she marry so late for her time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.26.49 (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Her mother was dead-set against her marrying at all, because she had plans to keep Beatrice by her side permanently. A new husband would've changed that cosy situation. Until she met Prince Henry, Beatrice wasn't too fussed about marriage herself, and claimed that she much preferred to stay by her mother's side. When she broke the news that she wished to marry Henry, Beatrice and her mother fell out for the best part of a year. She married so late because, unlike her other sisters, Victoria did not look for potential husbands; she had a vision of Beatrice at her side for life. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

With regard to Gladstone's non-attendance at the wedding. The Court Circular in the Times for 24 July (Issue 31507; p. 5) says: "A considerable concourse assembled on the jetty to witness their arrival, and much disappointment was experienced at the non-appearance of Mr. Gladstone, who was not able to proceed to Osborne, though specially invited by Her Majesty." The Times had reported earlier that he was to go to the wedding on a special train with other guests.

In his diary, Gladstone writes that he saw his doctor on 16 July, and that "immediate 'treatment' of the throat decided on". Each succeeding day, he notes a visit to or from his doctors, and on most days there is a treatment. On 23 July he notes, "7th treatment" and on 24 July "8th treatment" (his emphasis). From this, I infer that he did not attend the wedding because he was ill. DrKiernan (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for additional paragraph

Not sure which section this fits in, either the end of "Retirement from public life" (awkward, because it covers at least two public appearances she did make) or the beginning of "Last years" (really, it fits in both because it covers her involvement as patron of a society from 1920, presumably until her death in 1944):

Following the war, Beatrice was one of several members of the royal family who became patrons of The Ypres League, a society founded for veterans of the Ypres Salient. Her son, Prince Maurice of Battenberg, had been killed in action during the First Battle of Ypres. Beatrice laid wreaths at the Cenotaph in 1930 and 1935 to mark the 10th and 15th anniversaries of the founding of the League.

I'll wait a bit for a response here, and then add this to the article if no-one objects. It sounds a bit awkward at the moment, because it sounds like she only laid the wreaths twice. I suspect she laid wreaths every year, but maybe someone with access to better sources can go into that level of detail. Also, someone will need to tidy up the formatting of my references. Carcharoth (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No objection from me. :-) I'll consult my biographies when I have some more free time. I've forgotten the significance of her wreath-laying in the Getty images, but I'm sure there was one. Whether it was just the only one at which she was photographed, I'm not not entirely sure, but I'll do some digging to check on that. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If you could check the edit I made to add that material, that would be wonderful. Carcharoth (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Media suggestions

Two suggestions for media, both non-free, but possibilities for mentioning them in the external links section:

• (1) The Getty Images photo of Beatrice in 1935 laying a wreath at the Cenotaph - see here. More images here.
• (2) The Pathe News Archive have at least two clips of her:
  • Laying a wreath at the Cenotaph on 4 November 1929 (note the traffic in the background)
  • Viewing the wreaths for King George V on 3 February 1936 (briefly appears in a wheelchair)

The second of those clips appears to be the one referenced in the article. Currently reference number 81: "Princess Beatrice pushed in a chair. (1936-1-23). Viewing the Wreaths. [News broadcast]. London: Pathe News." Though the dates don't quite match up (the one in the reference in the article makes more sense, if you think a day is long enough for all those wreaths to arrive). Anyway, thought those clips would be of interest. Carcharoth (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Footnote problem

Hi! There is a problem with footnote 46. It says "Hibbert, p. 94" but there is no Hibbert's book in the bibliography. Is it possible to correct this point ? Thank you. 31.39.53.205 (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed with a Google Books search -- John of Reading (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

ANOTHER FOOTNOTE PROBLEM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.208.6 (talk) 08:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Substantial edit

This edit removes substantial material and makes some other changes, mostly minor. As a non-expert it is not clear to me the reasons for these changes, and the lack of edit summary does not help. Others are invited to review it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090212143916/http://search.abaa.org/dbp2/book332018512.html to http://search.abaa.org/dbp2/book332018512.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 5 October 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom → ? – Is "of the United Kingdom" a royal title? If not, it seems confusing to use this as a way to distinguish between this member of the British royal family and Princess Beatrice (the daughter of the Duke of York, also "from the United Kingdom"). It seems that this was discussed all the way back in 2006, but unsure if naming conventions have changed or if there are better arguments for this current title. Natg 19 (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: "Of the United Kingdom" indicates that the Princess was the daughter of a monarch. The current Princess Beatrice isn't. Peter Ormond 💬 07:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yes, it is, as stated above. I do think the article on the current Princess Beatrice is poorly named, but this article is correct. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: I don't feel well enough today to do more than a cursory search for references, but having "kept up" with the royal family for many years, I am fairly certain that what I am about to say is correct.

1. Per Letters Patent issued by King George V in November 1917, children born to a reigning Sovereign are Prince or Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (to use the full form) from birth; this subject has already been covered very thoroughly at the wikiarticles British prince and British princess.

2. They retain that title until, in the usual course of things, either a male child grows up and marries and is created a Royal Duke of Someplace; or a female child grows up and marries and is thereafter known as Princess Somebody, Mrs. John Doe, or whatever rank of nobility her husband happens to be.

3. The children of a Royal Duke, who are grandchildren in the male line of a Sovereign, take their father's territorial designation (he of course being already made Duke of Someplace) - thus, if you look back to pre-1936 sources, you will see that the current Queen and her sister were referred to as Princess Elizabeth of York and Princess Margaret Rose of York, their father being the then-Duke of York.

4. When their daddy became King in 1936, they dropped the of York and were thereafter simply princesses of the United Kingdom, I believe.

5. This same principle holds true for other grandchildren of a Sovereign - for example, see Prince Michael of Kent, second son of the Duke of Kent, son of King George V. Michael's older brother inherited the Dukedom upon their father's death in 1942, so he is titled Duke, whereas Michael is titled Prince - he has no dukedom.

6. The article on the current Princess Beatrice (born 1988) should be, IMO, retitled as Princess Beatrice, Mrs Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi, in line with the Court Circular, which is about as official as it gets, unless you want a handwritten note from the Queen - for a link to the CC, see the Titles subsection of the current article, Princess_Beatrice#Titles,_styles,_and_arms.

7. For a similar naming situation, see the wikiarticle Princess_Margaret,_Countess_of_Snowdon#Titles_and_styles

8. See also Prince_William,_Duke_of_Cambridge#Titles_and_styles and Prince_Harry,_Duke_of_Sussex#Titles_and_styles - both boys were styled of Wales until they were made Royal Dukes upon their marriages.

9. Finally, the old Princess Beatrice (born 1857) was "Princess Henry of Battenberg" after her marriage, but then King George V did away with all German titles in 1917, so I suppose the widowed Beatrice reverted at that time to her birth style - of the United Kingdom - though I can't be certain of that without further research, which I'm not up to doing today. It may be, though, that the style should be of Great Britain and Ireland, per Queen Victoria's Letters Patent of 1864: see the first paragraph under British_princess#Princesses_of_the_blood_royal_and_princesses_by_marriage.

I hope this helps. I need a gin and tonic now. Textorus (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. The current title is by way of natural disambiguation. The common name would simply be Princess Beatrice. Indeed, the article indicates that her title and style at death was Her Royal Highness The Princess Beatrice. Based on the above comments and my own understanding, the current title does accurately disamgiuate the article subject from Princess Beatrice, but the problem is most readers will not be sufficiently familiar with British royal titles to understand this. On the other hand, this may not matter: a reader who types "Princess Beatrice" into the search bar will usually be looking for the article they find and if not they can follow the hat-note. Havelock Jones (talk) 09:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this was my initial concern. Does "of the United Kingdom" mean anything to the typical reader to know that they are the daughter of a monarch (instead of another royal)? But you are correct that a hatnote or dab page is sufficient for most purposes. Natg 19 (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)67.173.23.66 (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Photo of family

Nowhere in the article is a group photo of PB and her family, or any picture that isn't stiffly posed studio portrait. -- GreenC 05:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)