Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Queen Victoria/archive1

Comments by Johnbod

Initial comment Looks pretty good, but I think an FA should adress the tricky issue of how much political power she actually had - rather a moving target, but the subject of many misapprehensions & a general lack of understanding. Also there's no real section on her personality or habits - her evidently filthy temper deserves a mention, regular French holidays etc. Her published writings, posthumous & not, should maybe be listed. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow. These points are in the article. DrKiernan (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the politics, there are a number of passing references to things she supported or objected to, but it is hard to grasp how much this mattered. The bedchamber crisis is somewhat complex to untangle, but what was the reaction when she much later appointed a new PM without consulting the old one? There is a couple of sentences in the "legacy" section.

Political impact is covered by sentences like "her threats had no material impact on the events or their conclusion" and others; these are not collected in a single section but see below. The bedchamber crisis is covered by the daughter article. There was no reaction that I know of.

There is no list of works. Have her letters not been published, at least in part? Were there not other books she authored? I suppose the French holidays are covered.

Covered by "Part of Victoria's extensive correspondence has been published in volumes edited by A. C. Benson, Hector Bolitho, George Earle Buckle, Lord Esher, Roger Fulford, and Richard Hough among others." I don't know of any other books that are not mentioned in the article.

There are a few scattered comments on her personality; it would be better to have an expanded section. Her habits, tastes and way of life is little covered, and there is too little on her relationships with her children. Some of her violent political views and prejudices are mentioned, but really these would also be better collected into an overall analysis.
In general I think the almost entirely chronological layout does not help bring out the subject; there should be some overall analysis.

I see no relevant omissions. More on her children added. I prefer a chronological order with analysis in the legacy section, and with pertinent beliefs placed at pertinent places in the text.

A section on her taste in music, art, building and collecting would be nice; there is too little on this (nothing except passing mention of Osborne House and Balmoral).

Osborne and Balmoral have their own articles, so I don't wish to expand on them in a general article. I don't think there's much to say on her musical or artistic taste. For example, art and music get a single line in her ODNB article: "Her official life brought her into contact with politicians, diplomatists, soldiers, churchmen, foreign royalties, visiting dignitaries, artists, writers, musicians, actors, scientists—anybody with any pretensions to importance in Victorian Britain crossed her path at some time or other".

I have read that Victoria, especially as a teenager, was quite in awe of the musical figures of the day and once she became Queen, invited them to perform, and was quite interested in talking with them. However, none of that is worth including in a top-level summary style article on such an important figure.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is an awful lot of detail on the many assassination attempts. It seems to me these might be better moved out to Attempted assassinations of Queen Victoria and covered more briefly here. On the other hand, Kensington system probably should be merged back here, but perhaps not now.

I've chopped it back a little by moving material to Treason Act 1842.

She was, by repute, able to build up a very considerable fortune, far more than her recent predecessors. Something should be said about her finances.

Added.

More specific points:

There are fairly close repeats of links (eg lead & next section), and I had to add several obvious links; there are probably others.
"When Louis Philippe made a reciprocal trip in 1844, he became the first French king to visit a British sovereign." as opposed to English, but the distinction is perhaps not clearly enough made.

Yes, I thought of mentioning John II but I'd prefer just to remove the claim if an explanation is thought necessary.

"She agreed to visit the gardens of the Royal Horticultural Society..." was this Chiswick or the new ones at Kensington? Best to specify, as neither now exist, and to most Londoners it will sound as if she went all the way to the RHS Garden, Wisley next to the M25, established some years later.

"Kensington" added.

"Victoria was physically unprepossessing—she was stout, dowdy and no more than five feet tall" - a tad POV to cover a whole lifetime. She was seen as attractive in her younger days, though the early photos do rather contrast with the paintings. If she was only 5ft tall then, then Albert was fairly short too.

This could be added if sources were found. Albert looks to be a head taller, so maybe 5 ft 6 in.

There is a long article on the Legitimacy of Queen Victoria, which I think is not linked? Should it be?

It is linked in the hemophilia paragraph of the legacy section.

I think that's it, Johnbod (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, responses interspersed. DrKiernan (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

Comment just gave it a full read, much better than it was when I read it a year ago, the hand of my nominator to adminship is ever sure. I expect to support once a few quibbles, which I will write out and post here hopefully later today are addressed. .--Wehwalt (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wehwalt

This is a long article and I have only short bits of time to devote to its review, so this will be piecemeal, I'm afraid. It looks quite good, most of these are quibbles from my own writing about the Royal Family.

Lede

No comments

Birth and family

I don't think it's a fair statement to say that William had no surviving legitimate issue when Victoria was born. The man had barely had a chance by then, he was still picking rice out his hair from the nuptials. It really hadn't happened yet.
The name. Is it worth mentioning that the Prince Regent refused the name Georgina for her? Have you considered mentioning that the Duke of Kent predicted she would someday be queen, something which was very much in doubt at the time, which the article fails to make clear. It really wasn't until the Duke was dead and it was clear Adelaide was having problems giving birth to healthy children that people realized Victoria was likely to be Queen.
Regent. Perhaps lower case?

Heiress

"avoided any hint" Perhaps better, "avoid any appearance".
"Victoria disliked the trips," Sentence in need of splitting. I would also say "never enough time" for her to rest, obviously there was some time, if only at night.
"jealousy" Of whom?

Early reigh

"drafts" Not just drafts, see here.
Lord Melbourne: I think his relationship with her went beyond mere political advice. She was fascinated by him, and probably saw him as a father figure. Surely there's something in your refs?
"his political allies" and their spouses.

Marriage

A biographer noted. I would say who.

More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciate the comments. So far, I've addressed all the above except the Duke of Kent's ambition and William's jealousy.[1] On the jealousy, Longford writes "The Duchess replied with a little note: The King is merely jealous" (p47); Woodham-Smith quotes the Duchess "as his jealousy is too well known" (p101); Hibbert is the most explanatory: "her mother wrote to remonstrate with her: the King was merely jealous of the reception accorded her" (p39). Should I clarify "jealousy" by adding "over her reception" afterwards? DrKiernan (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My fault, I misread that as jealousy by Victoria. Never mind. All looks good so far. Sorry to do this piecemeal. By the way, I'm mildly perturbed at the statement that was the bastards that caused the Royal Dukes to be held in public contempt. After all, it was really William who had a near-monopoly on bastards, depending on how much credence you give to various claims. I suspect their expensive lifestyles had more to do with it than anything else.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's specifically William's children that are mentioned in the sources. The Duchess apparently avoided the court because they were there. DrKiernan (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'd limit it to William. This isn't the article for it, but the Duchess was not innocent in this dispute (taking rooms in Kensington Palace that the King had put aside for himself, dissing the Queen by not showing up at her birthday party). Also, mildly surprised to see no mention of Stockmar in the article. Do you think you could spare a sentence as well to mention Leopold's connection to the British royal family through Charlotte? It may be too far afield, though. Whatever you decide.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More from Wehwalt

Assassination attempts

I'd mention years when these occurred.
I consider Lehzen a rather wild character, but she didn't try to kill Victoria. Perhaps move the story to the marriage section? By the way, at some point could mention be made of the fact that Victoria paid off her father's debts after becoming Queen? While I am on the subject of the Duke, and way out of order, you might want to mention in the Death and Funeral section that Victoria ordered a military funeral for herself as a soldier's daughter.
The Queen drove the same route again to provoke him into shooting?! What were they thinking? With Victoria dead, you'd have two infants in an era of disastrous infant mortality between the King of Hanover and the throne! Jeez. (recovering self) Perhaps mention who advised her to do this crazy thing.

I'd love to be able to say "It was the Duke of Cumberland's idea", but no. Hibbert, Longford and St Aubyn don't place the blame on any one person, but I infer that it was Victoria and Albert. The Marquis of Lorne quotes Albert's own statement that "we were determined do so [drive out as normal]" because it was better to flush the culprit at a time of their choosing (when Victoria was surrounded by plain-clothes policemen) rather than risk danger at some more unguarded moment. The Annual Register of 1843 says it was the Queen who "would not remain a prisoner in her own palace"! A letter Victoria wrote to Leopold in May appears to corroborate Albert's statement and the newspaper reports, but again no direct responsibility is placed or taken for what Longford calls "the reckless decision".

Despite all the calumny against Ernest, I have never seen any reputable evidence that he lifted a finger to try to become King of the UK. And given Victoria's dislike of her eldest surviving paternal uncle, she would not have listened to any advice from him about riding out. Although I have the impression she respected him to some extent.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"maximum sentence" For what? The last crime you've mentioned is high treason.

Early politics

The Maynooth Grant is one of my favourites and I've often thought of expanding it. To the point, I would explain that Protestants objected to tax money going to a Catholic institution (never mind what the Catholics had to bear) and that Victoria very pointedly stood up for the Catholics, even visiting the seminary at Maynooth. I think it says something about her character, which was not at all the grim dour person she is often portrayed as.
" she donated a maximum of" if I get what you are saying here, perhaps "donated only" would be better.
I would mention that Peel supported the repeal of the Corn Laws. It is kinda implied by context here, but many might miss it.
Wouldn't it be better to put the stuff about Victoria and childbirth into the marriage section? A statement with a good quote testifying to the very satisfying sex life she and Albert had would not be amiss.
While I understand you want to do things in chronological order, it makes for surprising contents of sections. I suggest putting marriage-related items in the marriage section makes it easier for the reader, who may not be interested in all of Victoria's life, to find stuff.
"since the advent of the Crimean war " I didn't do a correction here because it could arguably be either way, but I'd capitalise "war".--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"An ensuing diplomatic crisis" I might begin with "The" rather than "An" but this may be an idiom.

Widowhood

Surely you are not going to omit that almost anyone reputable considers the likelihood of a secret romance/marriage between Victoria and Brown to be nil?
That's one imposed-upon looking horse!

More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made[2][3]. DrKiernan (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More from Wehwalt

Generally

Somewhere in the discussions of Disraeli, I'd mention his "we authors, ma'am" comment and perhaps mention after the 1880 election, her grief at his death the following year.
The Munshi. The Munshi's lie was not really about himself, it was about his father, saying he was an Indian Army doctor rather than native pharmacist to the jail at Agra. I'm uncertain he actually got a pension, Victoria realising that Edward strongly disliked the Munshi, went to some pains to obtain a land grant for him, presumably the income from this is the pension mentioned. I would doublecheck sources.

Hibbert says all the Indians got pensions; Karim's Times obituary also says "liberally pensioned". George V actually met Karim (and four other ex-servants of the Queen) in India in 1905, and reported back on his comfortable life.

I perhaps would mention that the Brown momentos were placed in her coffin without the new King's knowledge.
Perhaps in the assessment section, I would mention that Victoria hoped that her descendants marrying into foreign royal families would, as it were, civilize them. Certainly she hoped so with Germany. It might be worth mentioning as well that she was reluctant to allow Louise and Beatrice to marry, wishing them to remain as her ~~slaves~~assistants.
I would certainly mention her great reluctance to allow Edward any royal responsiblities. She did not believe in succession planning, apparently.

That's all I got. Excellent article. My concern, like I think Tim's and others, is that there was too much about what she did and too little about who she was, but I think that's being remedied.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made with regard to all except Edward's responsibilities, which I'm pondering.[4] Edward was sent summaries by the Queen's secretary, and had access to information through back channels, which is considerably more than she got when she was heir. She got nothing. DrKiernan (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]