Talk:Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine

Untitled

The name of the article seems to be the only one (I can find) in the pre-1917 format. Should this not be at Victoria Mountbatten, Marchioness of Milford Haven by now? Craigy (talk) 11:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• As your suggestion is uncontested after 6 months, I have performed the move. DrKiernan 08:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I've only just noticed that this page has been moved back (for an invalid reason). Anyone have any comments on what the page should be called? I can't say I particularly care one way or the other. DrKiernan 10:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The Naming Conventions call for the current title. Charles 16:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result of the proposal was no move. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine → Victoria Mountbatten, Marchioness of Milford Haven — As above and...the Battenburgs, the junior Gleichens (albeit pages I created), the Schleswig-Holsteins and the Tecks are all "mainspaced" as post-1917 titles (including Victoria's husband) and I believe this article should follow suit. —Craigy (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support - as nominator. Craigy (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Naming conventions for other royals. Charles 20:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose She is correctly named, per Royal Naming Conventions. The most notable events of her active life pre-date her 1916 demotion in title to Marchioness: becoming Hessian first lady at her mother's death; her published correspondence with "Grandmama England"; her announcement of her father's secret re-marriage on her own wedding day; participation in the Queen's Golden & Diamond Jubilees; daughter Alice's royalty-saturated 1903 wedding; convincing Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna of Russia not to break off her Swedish engagement; her husband's promotion to and demotion from British First Sea Lord; and her flight from Russia to England when World War I broke out. Lethiere 00:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Naming conventions aside, that's a fair point. But then the same can also be said of Louis Battenburg, who was a marquess for four years, yet a distinguished sailor beginning almost sixty years previous as Prince Louis, and Adolphus Teck, a marquess for ten years, yet a distinguished soldier beginning almost thirty years previous as Prince Adolphus. Craigy (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if you'd like to submit a Requested Move for them back to their princely titles, I'd be inclined to support it. Lethiere 23:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

The problem is that the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) do not support a move to "Victoria Mountbatten, Marchioness of Milford Haven" - which doesn't mean it can't be done; it would just be an exception to the conventions. But some justification for the exception must be produced. I personally think that the conventions which favour "maiden" name for princesses are ill-advised and should be changed (but that's a discussion for another page). This lady just isn't generally known as "Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine". Noel S McFerran 02:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a related discussion here: Talk:Louis Mountbatten, 1st Marquess of Milford Haven#Requested move. DrKiernan 10:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Sorry, but I think there is an mistake in the article saying the Grand Duchy of Hesse-Darmstadt was absorped by prussia in 1866. The state of Hesse-Kassel was absorped by prussia in 1866, not Hesse Darmstadt. Thats what the (correct) Wiki-Article about Hesse Darmstadt says: „The Grand Duchy changed its name to the Grand Duchy of Hesse and by Rhine (German: Großherzogtum Hessen und bei Rhein) in 1816.

In 1867, the northern half of the Grand Duchy (Upper Hesse) became a part of the North German Confederation, while the half of the Grand Duchy south of the Main (Starkenburg and Rhenish Hesse) remained outside. In 1871, it became a constituent state of the German Empire. The last Grand Duke, Ernst Ludwig (a grandson of Queen Victoria and brother to Empress Alexandra of Russia), was forced from his throne at the end of World War I, and the state was renamed the Volksstaat Hessen (People's State of Hesse).

The majority of the state combined with Frankfurt am Main, the Waldeck area (Rhine-Province) and the former Prussian province of Hesse-Nassau to form the new state of Hesse following the Second World War.“ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.144.80.92 (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Most Hon.

1. I don't see why "Most Hon." should be expanded when "HGDH" remains unexpanded. I would have thought that "HGDH" is far less readily understandable than "Most Hon."
2. This article uses British-English spelling rather than American-English spelling, so it should be spelt Honourable rather than Honorable.
3. The infobox should be used for quick and easy reference, the details should be in the article text not in the infobox.
4. It is unnecessary to repeat information given in the article text (#Titles and Styles) in the infobox.
5. If you click on the "Details" link in the infobox beside the list of titles, it takes you straight down to the appropriate section where the titles, their use and dates of use are explained in detail. Hence, it is not necessary to overburden the infobox with unnecessary details when they are easily accessible by a single click.
6. Placing the full title in the infobox puts undue weight on a minor issue and expands the infobox, when the object should be to reduce the infobox to the essentials only. (Indeed, some would like to see it removed totally.) DrKiernan (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

File:VictoriaMilfordHaven.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:VictoriaMilfordHaven.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Primary Photo Date

The primary photo, identified as taken by Alexander Bassano c. 1878, cannot have been taken then, for the following reasons: 1. The photograph depicts a fully-grown woman, while Princess Victoria would have only been 15 in 1878. 2. The photograph itself captions its subject as "Princess Louis of Battenberg," which was not Princess Victoria's name until after her marriage in 1884.

In looking at the alternate version of this image on the British National Portrait Gallery page, I recognize that it is marked as circa 1878. However, looking at the dating of other photographic portraits on that page, one finds a portrait of Princess Victoria and Prince Louis with their two eldest daughters (the second born in 1889), as dating "circa 1866," which is when Princess Victoria was 3 years old. Thus, the dating on any photos from that source cannot be taken as even approaching authoritative.

Therefore, labeling the Bassano photograph as either "date unknown" or removing any date reference entirely is preferable to the obvious misinformation currently present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattratt9 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the date is correct, judging from her appearance. The postcard could be a reprint of an earlier photograph re-labelled and re-published after her marriage. The photograph cited as "circa 1866" at the National Portrait Gallery appears to show Victoria as a toddler with her baby sister Elizabeth. I think the adults in that photograph are not Princess Victoria and Prince Louis of Battenberg but Victoria's parents, Princess Alice and Prince Louis of Hesse. DrKiernan (talk) 07:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)