![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This section seems to have some very loaded words involved. "The Whigs used the Prince's death to their own advantage, heartlessly using her weakness to disregard the Queen's wishes and form a predominantly Whig government, led by Lord Godolphin." (emphasis added) That seems a bit much. The rest of the section reads similarly, if not quite as biased. 69.111.57.75 ( talk) 18:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Anne is not generally referred to as 'Anne I', given that there has yet to be an 'Anne II'. Wiki policy and general usage as a result requires that she simply be called 'Anne' not 'Anne I', as we don't use the 'I' for other monarchs worldwide who were there was never, or has yet to be, a 'II'. And as I mentioned, she is only ever referred to generally as 'Queen Anne' . JTD 21:02 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)
Isn't this worth a mention or a link? 1702-1713 Queen Anne’s War, the second of the French and Indian wars, was fought mainly in New England. Never Mind, I put it in Sparky 12:50, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I don't know why Anne didn't become Queen on the death of Mary in 1694. Perhaps someone could add an explanatory note, please.
Because her Mary and her husband were co-monarchs. When Mary II died, William III continue to reign until his own death. 87.250.113.209 22:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
When Mary and William became co monarchs there was an agreement saying that if Mary died before William that William could rule on his own even though Anne was the next in line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.127.106 ( talk) 14:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
After drafting several attempts to make the "Early life" section clear, I conclude that it is very difficult to make the "succession problem" clear to the reader if elements of the "succession problem" are scattered throughout the recital of Anne's life.
Accordingly, in the following suggestion, I have pulled some essential elements of the "succession problem" into one paragraph. In framing the following suggestion, I did not intend to change any of the substantive details, though I may have inadvertently. I see that my editor dropped many of the links, which I did not intend.
Anne was the second daughter of James, Duke of York (afterwards James II) and his first wife, the Lady Anne Hyde (daughter of Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon, an important politician). As an infant, Anne suffered from an eye infection; for treatment, she was sent to France. She lived with her grandmother, Queen Henrietta Maria, and afterwards with her aunt, Henrietta Anne, Duchesse d'Orléans. When Anne was eight in about 1673, Anne made the acquaintance of Sarah Jennings, who would become her close friend and one of her most influential advisors. Jennings later married John Churchill (the future Duke of Marlborough), who would later become one of Anne's most important generals.
In 1683, Anne married the Protestant Prince George of Denmark, brother of the Danish King Christian V. And her older sister Mary married one of the foremost Protestant Princes in Europe, William of Orange.
Anne took an unusual route to the throne of England. When Anne was born, her uncle Charles II was king. When Anne was three, her father converted from Protestantism to Catholicism. In response, her uncle the king ordered that she and her older sister Mary would not be brought up under her father's religion but would be brought up to worship as Protestants; nevertheless, her uncle converted to Catholicism on his death bed. Furthermore, her uncle died without an heir, so her Catholic father James II became king.
James, desirous of a Roman Catholic successor, suggested to the Princess Anne that he would try to make her his heir if she converted to Catholicism. The Princess Anne, however, declared her firm adherence to Anglicanism; James II continued to send her Catholic books and essays, but made no serious attempt to effect a conversion.
James's attempt to grant religious toleration to Roman Catholics was not well-received by the English people. Public alarm increased when James's second wife, Mary of Modena, gave birth to a son (James Francis Edward) in 1688, for a Roman Catholic dynasty became apparent. The Princess Anne's sister and brother-in-law, Mary and William, subsequently invaded England to dethrone the unpopular and despotic James II. The Princess Anne did not endeavour to support her father; instead, she quickly defected to the invader's side. James attempted to flee the realm on 11 December 1688, succeeding twelve days later. In 1689, a Convention Parliament assembled and declared that James had abdicated the realm when he attempted to flee, and that the Throne was therefore vacant. The Crown was offered to, and accepted by, William and Mary, who ruled as joint monarchs. The Bill of Rights 1689 settled succession to the Throne; the Princess Anne and her descendants were to be in the line of succession after William and Mary. They were to be followed by any descendants of William by a future marriage.
It seems to me that in the second paragraph the phrase "various coercive tactics (such as crippling the Scottish economy by restricting trade) " is eniterly subjective and unnecessary. It should be dealt with elsewhere conforming to proper NPOV standards, which this does not. 195.10.45.201 12:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the use of the phrase "the Princess Anne" (as well as "the Prince George") archaically stilted in modern English? I was under the impression that such address was used more for formal introductions, like announcing "The Princess Anne and her consort, the Prince George", at a ball, not for encyclopedic prose. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would add that such styles were very likely not known in Queen Anne's own time. It is an affectation of the late 19th century, I would say. john k 01:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why change the words when surely the intelligent viewers of this website should be able to work it out them selves without somebody else editing for them. ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charlybrown12 ( talk • contribs) 19:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
I can't believe this article doesn't mention the 1705 Statute of Anne, one of the most significant laws ever passed. I may try to add something about it. Lawrence Lessig's book Free Culture has some history about it as does Eben Moglen's amicus brief for the plaintiff in Eldred v. Ashcroft. I think the Statute of Anne was 1809. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.192.4 ( talk) 17:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC) It might be noted that the 1709 Statute of Anne was the first instance of copyright protections for authors. It is a very (one page) short piece of legislation but so very important. It was passed at the requests oof booksellers so they could pay authors. It offered protection and a means of redress before courts. The world followed suit. The law is much sited to this day, owing to pirated intellectual properties such as DVDs, computer games, all manner of designs, works of art, and so forth. 204.128.192.3 ( talk) 18:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Dennis Purcell 10 June 2010 d_purcell@hotmail.com.
I'm just curious why she hadn't surname? Thanks. 195.150.224.238 00:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Considering the large number of allegations of Anne being a lesbian mentioned in the article shouldn't her article be counted in the LGBT category of the wiki? Or at least a list of men and women who were suspected LGBT? The Fading Light 11:09 ,20 March 2006
More on the subject here: http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/anne_queen.html
How can we call her "Anne of Great Britain" (a title I have never heard used) when the article on Great Britain describes the use of the term for the sovereign state as in error? -- BozMo talk 09:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
There was no ambiguity about the revelation of James' Catholicism. It became public knowledge in 1673, when he resigned as Lord High Admiral, unable to take the oath prescribed by the new Test Act. Rcpaterson 01:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Have we any evidence for the suggestion that the Scottish Parliament's seeking of a union with England were "opposed by an overwhelming majority of the Scottish People"? Now, I'm not trying to suggest that we don't leave this in if it's true, but if there is no evidence to corroborate, it would be biased to do so. If it is true the use of "overwhelming" is certainly somewhat loaded. Dan 22:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I am considering adding an ancestors' infobox containing Anne's parents, grandparents and great-grandparents. Maybe we could merge this infobox in a section with the issue infobox called 'Ancestry and Descent'. Any thoughts?-- Cosmos666 20:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Good article - well done folks 193.51.149.216 15:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
This article has about six citations. How is it a FA? -- Daysleeper47 20:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
. . .soon, due to Marlborough's influence, almost all the Tories were removed from the ministry. Lord Godolphin, although a Tory, allied himself with Marlborough to ensure his continuance in office. Although Lord Godolphin was the nominal head of the ministry, actual power was held by the Duke of Marlborough and by the two Secretaries of State (Charles Spencer, 3rd Earl of Sunderland and Robert Harley). One may observe that Lord Godolphin's son married the Duke of Marlborough's daughter, and that Lord Sunderland was the Duke of Marlborough's son-in-law. Several others benefited from Marlborough's nepotism.
Why does it say Lord Godolphin, although a Tory, allied himself with Marlborough? Marlborough was a Tory! Godolphin wasn't just the 'nominal' (ie: existing in name only), head of the ministry - he was the Lord Treasurer and the Queen's chief minister. The appointment of Sunderland was nothing to do with Marlborough - it was a demand by the Whig Junto which Godolphin and Marlborough were forced to support in order to keep the Whigs 'on-side' with regards to the war effort. Far from nepotism. Raymond Palmer 16:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I've dropped the unsourced paragraph. I don't think it adds all that much to the discussion of the 1701 Act of Settlement, and have been unable to find sourcing for it. If someone knows where there might be a source to back it up, then by all means rvert. Mocko13 14:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
"Anne suffered from bouts of "gout" It may also have been thalassemia. Especially beeta-thalassemia would fit into the symptoms an the pregnancy history. Anna 21:53, 16 June 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.161.177 ( talk)
Pursuant to the Act of Settlement 1701, it is alleged, but never proven that about fifty Roman Catholics with genealogically senior claims were disregarded.
During a fierce bout of insomnia, I managed to get Wikipedic confirmation of 46 people with superior claims in addition to the Old Pretender. Nine were descended from
Henrietta Anne (Charles I's youngest daughter), nine from
Charles I Louis, Elector Palatine and 28 from
Edward, Count Palatine of Simmern (these two were sons of the Winter Queen). Hence, I advocate the removal of the words "it is alleged, but never proven that", once these have been confirmed by another user.
Adamgarrigus
03:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Since Anne and George I share the same great grandfather in James I they are second cousins not first cousins once removed. George I’s mother Sophia and Anne’s father James II were first cousins since they share the same grandfather in James I. That would make Sophia and Anne first cousins once removed. I have changed the article accordingly. Dwp13 16:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
"In 1708, Anne became the last British Sovereign to withhold the Royal Assent from a bill (in this case, a Scots militia bill)."
perhaps this should read, "... in this case, the Scots militia bill)."?
Bayle Shanks 08:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
A dispute at List of English monarchs relates to this. When did Anne become Queen of Great Britain and Ireland? Was it 1702 or 1707?. GoodDay 23:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:QuAn Arms.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 23:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Though I agree it's Anne, it may contradict the proposed changes for List of English monarchs, I need clarification - which is more authoritive - the Union of crown in 1603 OR the Act of Union in 1707? GoodDay 01:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this has been debated before, but is the title of this article a bit strange - especially for readers familiar with the subject? Britain has only had one sovereign Anne hence the emphasis on Queen Anne in references. Had she been Anne XIV, Queen would have been redundant in normal references. If we Google every reference - except WP - is to Queen Anne. Why should WP usage be different from every other publication?
No doubt there are other Queen Annes - Queen Anne of Bohemia for a start - so specifying Great Britain is reasonable, however surely Queen Anne of Great Britain would be clearer than Anne of Great Britain? It sounds like a soap opera or a film or something. Thank you for reading this. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 07:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Some might even consider that she wasn't heir presumptive because William and Mary were co-heirs of each other. But that's another story. DrKiernan ( talk) 12:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
As I understand the conventions, she was heir presumptive (i.e. could be displaced by a later birth than hers) until Mary died in 1694. As the Revolution Settlement withheld the right to create heirs from William, no child of his by another wife could possibly displace Anne, at which point she became heir apparent. Anarchie76 ( talk) 11:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC) She was heir apparent to the thrones of Englan and scotland between death of Queen Mary II to her accesion. William III s issue from a wife other than Mary would have placed after Anne. According to my knowladge she is the only heiress apparent to the throne is British and British history up todate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.223.179.36 ( talk) 15:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
The succession box title British royalty should be changed to English, Scottish and Irish royalty. Anne was never 'heir-presumptive' to the British throne. GoodDay ( talk) 22:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Where are the refereces to the exact dates of birth and death of the children ? I have no ressources of my own, so I ask here. -- AndreaMimi ( talk) 18:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The article presently says she was styled "HRH Princess George of Denmark and Norway" 1683-1689 and "HRH The Duchess of Cumberland" 1689-1702. Though this is how she would be styled these days, what contemporary evidence is there that she was so called at the time? Everything I've read refers to her as "Princess Anne of Denmark" before her accession. Opera hat ( talk) 16:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand the importance of knowing how to adress Queen Anne. I am under the impression that she is dead. Johncmullen1960 ( talk) 06:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the sentence in the lead ("the only such case in British history") is correct. The joint reign of Mary I and Philip II of Spain may not have been exactly equivalent to that of William III and Mary II, but it did happen - the William III article describes it as a "precedent for a joint monarchy". IMO, the factual accuracy of this article would be improved if the words were deleted. Tevildo ( talk) 09:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I've changed this picture several times, and I don't want to get involved in an edit war, but I just want to give my opinion as to the lead picture of Anne.
In my opinion, Anne is most notable for being Queen of Great Britain, and therefore, I think that her lead picture should be from the time when she was Queen of Great Britain (1702-1714).
A couple of times now, I have tried switching the lead picture to a picture of Anne while she was queen, first to John Closterman's coronation portrait (1702):
and then to Michael Dahl's portrait from 1705:
Nevertheless, people keep reverting to images of Anne from the 1680s, two decades before she became queen. I agree that Anne was better looking in the 1680s than when she was queen, but I think that a picture of her AS QUEEN, which is her main claim to fame, provides a better lead picture. I'm not wedded to the two pics I suggested - if there's a better picture of Anne as queen, I would support that. I just think it's silly to lead with a pic from 15-20 years before she became queen.
Adam_sk ( talk) 05:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Are "nicer" pictures what an encyclopedia is about ? Johncmullen1960 ( talk) 06:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
There ought to be an explanation of the Julian/Gregorian dates for Anne's birth and death (at least). Since I'm not sure whether the dates given are Julian or Gregorian (I'd assume Julian), I can't do it myself, but this ought to be addressed - it is for both George I and William III, for instance. john k ( talk) 13:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Even among users of the Julian calendar, including England, Scotland, and their various colonies until 1752, there was a question of when each new year began, with the traditional or "old style" years beginning on March 25, in contrast to the "new style" where each new year began on January 1 (as with the Gregorian calendar). Consequently, all dates from January 1 to March 24 of each year (until 1752) are ambiguous (bad) unless (a) explicitly marked as old style (OS) or new style (NS), or (preferably) reported as "double dates", such as "2 Feb 1702/3".
This sort of error is repeated in many Wikipedia pages, and badly needs to be corrected in all such entries.
Note that this is not a Gregorian calendar versus Julian calendar issue. This is a matter of old-style Julian versus new-style Julian dates.
Since English-speaking people have become accustomed to the convention that each new year begins on January 1, this issue can be very confusing to those who are not aware of the time that New Year's Day in England and its colonies occurred on March 25 instead of January 1. [[[User:DoctorBlue2|DoctorBlue2]] ( talk) 04:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Of the 8 sources used in this article, most are more than 100 years old. There are few "modern" sources (post 1970), but there is quite a bit on her, and perhaps some interested party could bring this up to date. There is a good basis here, it needs citations and updating. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 23:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move to Queen Anne (and Queen Anne → Queen Anne (disambiguation)). Clear consensus among those participating to move. Some concerns about there being "too many" Queen Annes or it being ambiguous, but there are only three reigning monarchs listed on the Queen Anne (disambiguation) dab page, one is actually named Anna, and the third is an obscure Native American leader. By page view counts, this page got 58k hits last month, while no other Anne on the dab page got over 13,000. Adding to this results thoughtfully compiled by User:Dohn joe, clearly this queen is the primary topic for Queen Anne and there is no question that Queen Anne is the more common name. Tough call, but in the end the consensus of the community at large as reflected in policy, guidelines and conventions must be considered as well as consensus of those participating... so move per participatory consensus and to Queen Anne per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME. Born2cycle ( talk) 04:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Anne of Great Britain →
Anne, Queen of Great Britain — Or ->
Queen Anne (with
Queen Anne ->
Queen Anne (disambiguation)). As with other monarchs that don't carry a numeral (e.g. John, Stephen, Victoria) the old "(Name) of (Country)" convention led to a very uncommon name that fails to identify the subject recognizably or inform readers correctly about what she's called. It needs changing - the simplest thing to do would be simply to add "Queen", as was done with kings John and Stephen, but even better (in my view) would be to call her by her common name of "Queen Anne" (as with Queen Victoria) - of course she's not the only queen to have been called Anne, but I'm pretty sure she's the primary topic for the phrase "Queen Anne".
Kotniski (
talk)
08:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was that it was shut down. Given the comment by User:Scott MacDonald I have move the page. Approaches should have been made to Scott MacDonald to reconsider the move. There should not have been a re-posting of it (relisting within six months, no matter how good the intentions should not be done without the agreement of the closing administrator, othewise we would never put controversial moves to bed). Sort out among yourselves on this page if the redirect of Queen Ann should be to here or to the dab page -- PBS ( talk) 01:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Queen Anne → Anne, Queen of Great Britain — In the previous move discussion, Of those that supported moving the article I count 10 in support for Anne, Queen of Great Britain (9 writing "Support Anne, Queen of Great Britain) and 5 in support of Queen Anne. Six noted that they specifically opposed Queen Anne even though they supported a move. I could be off somewhat numerically but it seems pretty clear in reading the discussion Anne, Queen of Great Britain was the consensus not Queen Anne. So I am revisiting.-- Labattblueboy ( talk) 21:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Very well, I have now begun a discussion at Talk:Queen Anne. PatGallacher ( talk) 08:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
First of all, such succession boxes shuold be deleted. Secondly, Sophia was heiress presumptive to the Scottish throne, aswell as the English & Irish thrones, until 1707. GoodDay ( talk) 02:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Here there are eighteen pregnancies: Anne, Queen of Great Britain#Issue. Here there are seventeen pregnancies: Prince George of Denmark#Issue. What is correct? Calle Widmann ( talk) 20:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Whether the claim by Anne to be Queen of France should (A) be in the lead and (B) use the Titles in Pretence template. My view is that there is evidence that the claim was made by Anne, that it was in her style and coronation oath. This evidence is verifiable. We know nothing about the mind or intend of the Queen. We don't know whether or not she truly believed that she was Queen of France. That not the point thought. The point is that she officially made a verifiable claim, a claim made by all the Plantagenets and 3 further successors of Anne. Whether her claim had any more substance than that of the Old Pretender to his own throne is neither here nor there. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 20:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Getting back on topic. The claim is true, sourced and verifiable. There is no evidence that she it is untrue. There is no source that says she recanted, reneged, disavowed or otherwise gave up the claim. What she believed in her heart about the claim is unknowable. It suffices that she made the claim for the template to be validly included. Unless proof to the contrary can be provided, I propose to insert the template and to keep re-inserting it until DrK's bizarre POV reversions desist. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 18:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
The sources used in the article do not support the tagged opinion, and one (Curtis) directly contradicts it: "William had not invaded as a rival claimant but to protect 'the Protestant religion and the liberties of the subject'...few expected him to become King. If James had remained in England and had agreed to a programme of concessions he could well have kept his Crown, but his sudden and unexpected flight to France brought the country to the verge of chaos...It was apparent that the vacuum had to be filled, and in January 1689 a Convention Parliament addressed itself to the question." (p. 66) DrKiernan ( talk) 19:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tim riley ( talk · contribs · count) 07:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Beginning read-through today. Will report back soonest. Tim riley ( talk) 07:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Nothing borderline about this GAN. Impressively referenced, easy to read, no discernible POV, well-illustrated, and neither too long nor too short. A few minor points before I complete the formalities:
Tim riley ( talk) 10:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I should be sorry not to see this excellent article at FAC at some point. It will get my vote. A most enjoyable and impressive piece of work. — Tim riley ( talk) 15:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't the "Issue" section be as detailed as the one in the article about her husband (including the stilbirths and miscarriages)? It seems natural that it should be, at least because all those losses affected her health. Surtsicna ( talk) 13:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Doc K. Have included ref for separate arms in Scotland from Act of Union. The ref. supporting the Semper Eadem motto is from a book entitled "Royal Heraldry of England"! The crucial element here being England, and the fact that in 1702 the Acts of Union were still some ways off. Check the Nemo me impune lacessit and In My Defens God Me Defend articles and you'll find adequate refs there. The motto on the arms in Scotland, unlike in England, did not alter with each successive monarch. The blazon of the arms is correct. I've found some interesting stuff which I'll come back to. Scools out in 10 so must get kids. Endrick Shellycoat 14:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Have found a ref. showing a Scottish version of arms of Anne post-Union in a book entitled "The Heraldry of the Stewarts; with Notes on All the Males of the Family, Descriptions of the Arms, Plates and Pedigrees" by G Harvey Johnstone.
Google books. On
this page can be seen a plate with the arms thus:
.
These arms also appear in the 2008 edition of Edinburgh Castle:Official Souvenir Guide by C Tabraham, published by
Historic Scotland. (
Google books).
Endrick
Shellycoat
11:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm aware of that - the only thing I've come across to date is the Johnstone ref. showing the shield with Scottish elements superior. How about a version of this for Anne pre-Union...
Endrick
Shellycoat
16:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Endrick
Shellycoat
16:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Currently sat in the Mitchell Library with the book beside me. The pages not available online reveal nothing remarkable. The section on Scotland commences on pg 532 and the only thing of interest is a full achievement of Charles I on pg 534, of which I've taken a photo. Interesting only in as much as it shows the full achievement:shield (Scottish quarterings) surrounded by the garter, with helm and mantling, the crest is the lion sejant afronte, motto above "In defence" and a compartment showing rose and crown, with "Dieu et mon droit" and "God save the King" beneath. Pages 539 and 540 show the arms of James II in the English style.
What I did note however was the section title: "The Royal Arms as on Printed Proclamations". There follows a "Note" which commences "The first form in which the Royal Arms appear on printed proclamations is that..." going on to conclude with "After the Revolution the Lion of Nassau is borne in pretence on the Scottish arms until the year 1708, when the Union arms were officially adopted, all particular Scottish differences being abolished". It struck me that this document only concerns itself with printed proclamations until 1714.
The Royal press(es) may not have bothered to print separate documents for Scotland, given a single Parliament now existed under a single Monarch, but it does not follow therefore that other representations of arms, for example on the Great Seal for Scotland, (which has existed post-Union to this day), did not show Scotland/England impaled with Scotland taking precedence; as per the Johnstone image. Thoughts? Endrick Shellycoat 13:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I propose merging Mary and Anne of Denmark with this article as the subjects appear to have no independent significance that couldn't be handled with a section within this article. Claret Ash 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it should be merged, I think it should be deleted. Thoughts are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary and Anne of Denmark. Opera hat ( talk) 15:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Update: I've marked the original Mary and Anne Oldenburg article for deletion as it and it's talk page currently link to two separate articles and, in turn, no articles link to it. Claret Ash 23:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
This is the first time I have engaged in a Wikipedia article discussion and so may not be familiar with the etiquette or the protocols. If I have caused upset with my previous (well-intentioned) though perhaps premature edits to this page, then I offer an apology.
I would like to make mention of Wales in this article, since at the time that Anne became the first queen of Great Britain, the reference to England (meaning England and Wales) was not legally clear and needed special legislation, enacted in 1746, to clarify it. In any case, Wales, though now recognised as a distinct member country of Great Britain, has an identity and an antiquity that predates that of England's and so I feel some words of reference or explanation are appropriate.
One way of doing this, I felt, was to include a paragraph explaining the legal subsumption of Wales with England in 1746 under the "Wales and Berwick" act (a paragraph in an existing Wikipedia article on "England and Wales" 1). I would however be happy to discuss other ways of including a mention of Wales in this article.
(Sincerely) Duckinatree ( talk) 16:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Opera hat : Wales has never been nor is ever likely to be part of England. Wales was invaded by Edward I and annexed (a unilateral act where territory is seized and held by one state and legitimized via general recognition by other international bodies) by Henry VIII with the "Laws in Wales Acts" 1535-1542 which sought to create a single legal jurisdiction. The Acts have been known as the "Acts of Union", but they were not popularly referred to as such until 1901, when historian Owen M. Edwards assigned them that name — a name some historians such as S. B. Chrimes regard as misleading, as the Acts were concerned with harmonising laws, not political union. ( Laws in Wales Acts 1535-1542 Wikipedia). Duckinatree ( talk) 16:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Coemgenus : The comparison of Wales with the Isle of Man, Orkney, and the Bombay Presidency is a trivial one, since Wales was an area of much greater size, economic and strategic importance not to mention former independence. Duckinatree ( talk) 16:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Martinevans123 : Ceisiwch godi'r safon y tro nesaf! Duckinatree ( talk) 16:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
It has become apparent that there is too much resistance to the inclusion of any mention of Wales in this article about the first Queen of Great Britain. This is particularly ironic since the Welsh were the original Britons and continued to call themselves Brythoniaid (Brythons or Britons) well into the Middle Ages. ( Wales Wikipedia) Duckinatree ( talk) 16:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Yr wyf wedi dweud fy nweud a ni ddywedaf fwy na hynny. Gwellhad buan i chi. (I've said my piece and can't say more than that. I wish you well). Duckinatree ( talk) 16:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the burials at Windsor Castle from the issue table, because the website at the College of St George (which says an infant was buried in 1696) contradicts Weir (who says an infant was buried in 1698). Weir does not mention a burial in 1696, and the College does not mention one in 1698; so, I presume that one or other has the year wrong and they are actually a single burial. There are other sources that indicate Anne was at St James's in 1698 since her doctors disagreed on whether she should travel to Windsor (Luttrell, vol IV), and so the 1696 date is more plausible. However, I don't see how we can distinguish between February (daughter) and September (son) 1696 when the College's website does not indicate the gender or month of the buried infant.
Edmund Fellowes' 1957 transcription of the burial registers is available in very selective libraries, but I do not have access to a copy, at least not easily. If anyone does have access, then I'd be inclined to follow whatever he says rather than the website or Weir. DrKiernan ( talk) 11:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
As DrKernan & I are now at two reversions each, etiquette demands that we take it to the talk page. So, what's your beef with the wikilink to Pretender? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 19:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
She should not be called "Anne Stuart" in the infobox because that is not a common name and because that was not her regnal name. I also doubt the infobox is the right place to introduce an alternative name. She reigned as "Anne" (Anna), not as "Anne Stuart", and is normally (if not always) listed simply as "Anne" among British monarchs. Does it even need to be mentioned that the surname is not included in infoboxes in articles about her Stuart predecessors (save for Mary I, who is actually commonly referred to as "Mary Stuart")? Surtsicna ( talk) 21:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
"James" was deposed in the Glorious Revolution?
Should this be amended to read:
"James II" was deposed in the Glorious Revolution? 82.31.133.165 ( talk) 09:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This section seems to have some very loaded words involved. "The Whigs used the Prince's death to their own advantage, heartlessly using her weakness to disregard the Queen's wishes and form a predominantly Whig government, led by Lord Godolphin." (emphasis added) That seems a bit much. The rest of the section reads similarly, if not quite as biased. 69.111.57.75 ( talk) 18:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Anne is not generally referred to as 'Anne I', given that there has yet to be an 'Anne II'. Wiki policy and general usage as a result requires that she simply be called 'Anne' not 'Anne I', as we don't use the 'I' for other monarchs worldwide who were there was never, or has yet to be, a 'II'. And as I mentioned, she is only ever referred to generally as 'Queen Anne' . JTD 21:02 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)
Isn't this worth a mention or a link? 1702-1713 Queen Anne’s War, the second of the French and Indian wars, was fought mainly in New England. Never Mind, I put it in Sparky 12:50, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I don't know why Anne didn't become Queen on the death of Mary in 1694. Perhaps someone could add an explanatory note, please.
Because her Mary and her husband were co-monarchs. When Mary II died, William III continue to reign until his own death. 87.250.113.209 22:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
When Mary and William became co monarchs there was an agreement saying that if Mary died before William that William could rule on his own even though Anne was the next in line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.127.106 ( talk) 14:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
After drafting several attempts to make the "Early life" section clear, I conclude that it is very difficult to make the "succession problem" clear to the reader if elements of the "succession problem" are scattered throughout the recital of Anne's life.
Accordingly, in the following suggestion, I have pulled some essential elements of the "succession problem" into one paragraph. In framing the following suggestion, I did not intend to change any of the substantive details, though I may have inadvertently. I see that my editor dropped many of the links, which I did not intend.
Anne was the second daughter of James, Duke of York (afterwards James II) and his first wife, the Lady Anne Hyde (daughter of Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon, an important politician). As an infant, Anne suffered from an eye infection; for treatment, she was sent to France. She lived with her grandmother, Queen Henrietta Maria, and afterwards with her aunt, Henrietta Anne, Duchesse d'Orléans. When Anne was eight in about 1673, Anne made the acquaintance of Sarah Jennings, who would become her close friend and one of her most influential advisors. Jennings later married John Churchill (the future Duke of Marlborough), who would later become one of Anne's most important generals.
In 1683, Anne married the Protestant Prince George of Denmark, brother of the Danish King Christian V. And her older sister Mary married one of the foremost Protestant Princes in Europe, William of Orange.
Anne took an unusual route to the throne of England. When Anne was born, her uncle Charles II was king. When Anne was three, her father converted from Protestantism to Catholicism. In response, her uncle the king ordered that she and her older sister Mary would not be brought up under her father's religion but would be brought up to worship as Protestants; nevertheless, her uncle converted to Catholicism on his death bed. Furthermore, her uncle died without an heir, so her Catholic father James II became king.
James, desirous of a Roman Catholic successor, suggested to the Princess Anne that he would try to make her his heir if she converted to Catholicism. The Princess Anne, however, declared her firm adherence to Anglicanism; James II continued to send her Catholic books and essays, but made no serious attempt to effect a conversion.
James's attempt to grant religious toleration to Roman Catholics was not well-received by the English people. Public alarm increased when James's second wife, Mary of Modena, gave birth to a son (James Francis Edward) in 1688, for a Roman Catholic dynasty became apparent. The Princess Anne's sister and brother-in-law, Mary and William, subsequently invaded England to dethrone the unpopular and despotic James II. The Princess Anne did not endeavour to support her father; instead, she quickly defected to the invader's side. James attempted to flee the realm on 11 December 1688, succeeding twelve days later. In 1689, a Convention Parliament assembled and declared that James had abdicated the realm when he attempted to flee, and that the Throne was therefore vacant. The Crown was offered to, and accepted by, William and Mary, who ruled as joint monarchs. The Bill of Rights 1689 settled succession to the Throne; the Princess Anne and her descendants were to be in the line of succession after William and Mary. They were to be followed by any descendants of William by a future marriage.
It seems to me that in the second paragraph the phrase "various coercive tactics (such as crippling the Scottish economy by restricting trade) " is eniterly subjective and unnecessary. It should be dealt with elsewhere conforming to proper NPOV standards, which this does not. 195.10.45.201 12:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the use of the phrase "the Princess Anne" (as well as "the Prince George") archaically stilted in modern English? I was under the impression that such address was used more for formal introductions, like announcing "The Princess Anne and her consort, the Prince George", at a ball, not for encyclopedic prose. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would add that such styles were very likely not known in Queen Anne's own time. It is an affectation of the late 19th century, I would say. john k 01:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why change the words when surely the intelligent viewers of this website should be able to work it out them selves without somebody else editing for them. ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charlybrown12 ( talk • contribs) 19:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
I can't believe this article doesn't mention the 1705 Statute of Anne, one of the most significant laws ever passed. I may try to add something about it. Lawrence Lessig's book Free Culture has some history about it as does Eben Moglen's amicus brief for the plaintiff in Eldred v. Ashcroft. I think the Statute of Anne was 1809. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.192.4 ( talk) 17:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC) It might be noted that the 1709 Statute of Anne was the first instance of copyright protections for authors. It is a very (one page) short piece of legislation but so very important. It was passed at the requests oof booksellers so they could pay authors. It offered protection and a means of redress before courts. The world followed suit. The law is much sited to this day, owing to pirated intellectual properties such as DVDs, computer games, all manner of designs, works of art, and so forth. 204.128.192.3 ( talk) 18:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Dennis Purcell 10 June 2010 d_purcell@hotmail.com.
I'm just curious why she hadn't surname? Thanks. 195.150.224.238 00:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Considering the large number of allegations of Anne being a lesbian mentioned in the article shouldn't her article be counted in the LGBT category of the wiki? Or at least a list of men and women who were suspected LGBT? The Fading Light 11:09 ,20 March 2006
More on the subject here: http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/anne_queen.html
How can we call her "Anne of Great Britain" (a title I have never heard used) when the article on Great Britain describes the use of the term for the sovereign state as in error? -- BozMo talk 09:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
There was no ambiguity about the revelation of James' Catholicism. It became public knowledge in 1673, when he resigned as Lord High Admiral, unable to take the oath prescribed by the new Test Act. Rcpaterson 01:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Have we any evidence for the suggestion that the Scottish Parliament's seeking of a union with England were "opposed by an overwhelming majority of the Scottish People"? Now, I'm not trying to suggest that we don't leave this in if it's true, but if there is no evidence to corroborate, it would be biased to do so. If it is true the use of "overwhelming" is certainly somewhat loaded. Dan 22:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I am considering adding an ancestors' infobox containing Anne's parents, grandparents and great-grandparents. Maybe we could merge this infobox in a section with the issue infobox called 'Ancestry and Descent'. Any thoughts?-- Cosmos666 20:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Good article - well done folks 193.51.149.216 15:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
This article has about six citations. How is it a FA? -- Daysleeper47 20:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
. . .soon, due to Marlborough's influence, almost all the Tories were removed from the ministry. Lord Godolphin, although a Tory, allied himself with Marlborough to ensure his continuance in office. Although Lord Godolphin was the nominal head of the ministry, actual power was held by the Duke of Marlborough and by the two Secretaries of State (Charles Spencer, 3rd Earl of Sunderland and Robert Harley). One may observe that Lord Godolphin's son married the Duke of Marlborough's daughter, and that Lord Sunderland was the Duke of Marlborough's son-in-law. Several others benefited from Marlborough's nepotism.
Why does it say Lord Godolphin, although a Tory, allied himself with Marlborough? Marlborough was a Tory! Godolphin wasn't just the 'nominal' (ie: existing in name only), head of the ministry - he was the Lord Treasurer and the Queen's chief minister. The appointment of Sunderland was nothing to do with Marlborough - it was a demand by the Whig Junto which Godolphin and Marlborough were forced to support in order to keep the Whigs 'on-side' with regards to the war effort. Far from nepotism. Raymond Palmer 16:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I've dropped the unsourced paragraph. I don't think it adds all that much to the discussion of the 1701 Act of Settlement, and have been unable to find sourcing for it. If someone knows where there might be a source to back it up, then by all means rvert. Mocko13 14:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
"Anne suffered from bouts of "gout" It may also have been thalassemia. Especially beeta-thalassemia would fit into the symptoms an the pregnancy history. Anna 21:53, 16 June 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.161.177 ( talk)
Pursuant to the Act of Settlement 1701, it is alleged, but never proven that about fifty Roman Catholics with genealogically senior claims were disregarded.
During a fierce bout of insomnia, I managed to get Wikipedic confirmation of 46 people with superior claims in addition to the Old Pretender. Nine were descended from
Henrietta Anne (Charles I's youngest daughter), nine from
Charles I Louis, Elector Palatine and 28 from
Edward, Count Palatine of Simmern (these two were sons of the Winter Queen). Hence, I advocate the removal of the words "it is alleged, but never proven that", once these have been confirmed by another user.
Adamgarrigus
03:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Since Anne and George I share the same great grandfather in James I they are second cousins not first cousins once removed. George I’s mother Sophia and Anne’s father James II were first cousins since they share the same grandfather in James I. That would make Sophia and Anne first cousins once removed. I have changed the article accordingly. Dwp13 16:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
"In 1708, Anne became the last British Sovereign to withhold the Royal Assent from a bill (in this case, a Scots militia bill)."
perhaps this should read, "... in this case, the Scots militia bill)."?
Bayle Shanks 08:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
A dispute at List of English monarchs relates to this. When did Anne become Queen of Great Britain and Ireland? Was it 1702 or 1707?. GoodDay 23:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:QuAn Arms.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 23:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Though I agree it's Anne, it may contradict the proposed changes for List of English monarchs, I need clarification - which is more authoritive - the Union of crown in 1603 OR the Act of Union in 1707? GoodDay 01:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this has been debated before, but is the title of this article a bit strange - especially for readers familiar with the subject? Britain has only had one sovereign Anne hence the emphasis on Queen Anne in references. Had she been Anne XIV, Queen would have been redundant in normal references. If we Google every reference - except WP - is to Queen Anne. Why should WP usage be different from every other publication?
No doubt there are other Queen Annes - Queen Anne of Bohemia for a start - so specifying Great Britain is reasonable, however surely Queen Anne of Great Britain would be clearer than Anne of Great Britain? It sounds like a soap opera or a film or something. Thank you for reading this. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 07:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Some might even consider that she wasn't heir presumptive because William and Mary were co-heirs of each other. But that's another story. DrKiernan ( talk) 12:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
As I understand the conventions, she was heir presumptive (i.e. could be displaced by a later birth than hers) until Mary died in 1694. As the Revolution Settlement withheld the right to create heirs from William, no child of his by another wife could possibly displace Anne, at which point she became heir apparent. Anarchie76 ( talk) 11:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC) She was heir apparent to the thrones of Englan and scotland between death of Queen Mary II to her accesion. William III s issue from a wife other than Mary would have placed after Anne. According to my knowladge she is the only heiress apparent to the throne is British and British history up todate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.223.179.36 ( talk) 15:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
The succession box title British royalty should be changed to English, Scottish and Irish royalty. Anne was never 'heir-presumptive' to the British throne. GoodDay ( talk) 22:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Where are the refereces to the exact dates of birth and death of the children ? I have no ressources of my own, so I ask here. -- AndreaMimi ( talk) 18:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The article presently says she was styled "HRH Princess George of Denmark and Norway" 1683-1689 and "HRH The Duchess of Cumberland" 1689-1702. Though this is how she would be styled these days, what contemporary evidence is there that she was so called at the time? Everything I've read refers to her as "Princess Anne of Denmark" before her accession. Opera hat ( talk) 16:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand the importance of knowing how to adress Queen Anne. I am under the impression that she is dead. Johncmullen1960 ( talk) 06:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the sentence in the lead ("the only such case in British history") is correct. The joint reign of Mary I and Philip II of Spain may not have been exactly equivalent to that of William III and Mary II, but it did happen - the William III article describes it as a "precedent for a joint monarchy". IMO, the factual accuracy of this article would be improved if the words were deleted. Tevildo ( talk) 09:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I've changed this picture several times, and I don't want to get involved in an edit war, but I just want to give my opinion as to the lead picture of Anne.
In my opinion, Anne is most notable for being Queen of Great Britain, and therefore, I think that her lead picture should be from the time when she was Queen of Great Britain (1702-1714).
A couple of times now, I have tried switching the lead picture to a picture of Anne while she was queen, first to John Closterman's coronation portrait (1702):
and then to Michael Dahl's portrait from 1705:
Nevertheless, people keep reverting to images of Anne from the 1680s, two decades before she became queen. I agree that Anne was better looking in the 1680s than when she was queen, but I think that a picture of her AS QUEEN, which is her main claim to fame, provides a better lead picture. I'm not wedded to the two pics I suggested - if there's a better picture of Anne as queen, I would support that. I just think it's silly to lead with a pic from 15-20 years before she became queen.
Adam_sk ( talk) 05:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Are "nicer" pictures what an encyclopedia is about ? Johncmullen1960 ( talk) 06:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
There ought to be an explanation of the Julian/Gregorian dates for Anne's birth and death (at least). Since I'm not sure whether the dates given are Julian or Gregorian (I'd assume Julian), I can't do it myself, but this ought to be addressed - it is for both George I and William III, for instance. john k ( talk) 13:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Even among users of the Julian calendar, including England, Scotland, and their various colonies until 1752, there was a question of when each new year began, with the traditional or "old style" years beginning on March 25, in contrast to the "new style" where each new year began on January 1 (as with the Gregorian calendar). Consequently, all dates from January 1 to March 24 of each year (until 1752) are ambiguous (bad) unless (a) explicitly marked as old style (OS) or new style (NS), or (preferably) reported as "double dates", such as "2 Feb 1702/3".
This sort of error is repeated in many Wikipedia pages, and badly needs to be corrected in all such entries.
Note that this is not a Gregorian calendar versus Julian calendar issue. This is a matter of old-style Julian versus new-style Julian dates.
Since English-speaking people have become accustomed to the convention that each new year begins on January 1, this issue can be very confusing to those who are not aware of the time that New Year's Day in England and its colonies occurred on March 25 instead of January 1. [[[User:DoctorBlue2|DoctorBlue2]] ( talk) 04:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Of the 8 sources used in this article, most are more than 100 years old. There are few "modern" sources (post 1970), but there is quite a bit on her, and perhaps some interested party could bring this up to date. There is a good basis here, it needs citations and updating. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 23:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move to Queen Anne (and Queen Anne → Queen Anne (disambiguation)). Clear consensus among those participating to move. Some concerns about there being "too many" Queen Annes or it being ambiguous, but there are only three reigning monarchs listed on the Queen Anne (disambiguation) dab page, one is actually named Anna, and the third is an obscure Native American leader. By page view counts, this page got 58k hits last month, while no other Anne on the dab page got over 13,000. Adding to this results thoughtfully compiled by User:Dohn joe, clearly this queen is the primary topic for Queen Anne and there is no question that Queen Anne is the more common name. Tough call, but in the end the consensus of the community at large as reflected in policy, guidelines and conventions must be considered as well as consensus of those participating... so move per participatory consensus and to Queen Anne per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME. Born2cycle ( talk) 04:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Anne of Great Britain →
Anne, Queen of Great Britain — Or ->
Queen Anne (with
Queen Anne ->
Queen Anne (disambiguation)). As with other monarchs that don't carry a numeral (e.g. John, Stephen, Victoria) the old "(Name) of (Country)" convention led to a very uncommon name that fails to identify the subject recognizably or inform readers correctly about what she's called. It needs changing - the simplest thing to do would be simply to add "Queen", as was done with kings John and Stephen, but even better (in my view) would be to call her by her common name of "Queen Anne" (as with Queen Victoria) - of course she's not the only queen to have been called Anne, but I'm pretty sure she's the primary topic for the phrase "Queen Anne".
Kotniski (
talk)
08:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was that it was shut down. Given the comment by User:Scott MacDonald I have move the page. Approaches should have been made to Scott MacDonald to reconsider the move. There should not have been a re-posting of it (relisting within six months, no matter how good the intentions should not be done without the agreement of the closing administrator, othewise we would never put controversial moves to bed). Sort out among yourselves on this page if the redirect of Queen Ann should be to here or to the dab page -- PBS ( talk) 01:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Queen Anne → Anne, Queen of Great Britain — In the previous move discussion, Of those that supported moving the article I count 10 in support for Anne, Queen of Great Britain (9 writing "Support Anne, Queen of Great Britain) and 5 in support of Queen Anne. Six noted that they specifically opposed Queen Anne even though they supported a move. I could be off somewhat numerically but it seems pretty clear in reading the discussion Anne, Queen of Great Britain was the consensus not Queen Anne. So I am revisiting.-- Labattblueboy ( talk) 21:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Very well, I have now begun a discussion at Talk:Queen Anne. PatGallacher ( talk) 08:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
First of all, such succession boxes shuold be deleted. Secondly, Sophia was heiress presumptive to the Scottish throne, aswell as the English & Irish thrones, until 1707. GoodDay ( talk) 02:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Here there are eighteen pregnancies: Anne, Queen of Great Britain#Issue. Here there are seventeen pregnancies: Prince George of Denmark#Issue. What is correct? Calle Widmann ( talk) 20:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Whether the claim by Anne to be Queen of France should (A) be in the lead and (B) use the Titles in Pretence template. My view is that there is evidence that the claim was made by Anne, that it was in her style and coronation oath. This evidence is verifiable. We know nothing about the mind or intend of the Queen. We don't know whether or not she truly believed that she was Queen of France. That not the point thought. The point is that she officially made a verifiable claim, a claim made by all the Plantagenets and 3 further successors of Anne. Whether her claim had any more substance than that of the Old Pretender to his own throne is neither here nor there. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 20:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Getting back on topic. The claim is true, sourced and verifiable. There is no evidence that she it is untrue. There is no source that says she recanted, reneged, disavowed or otherwise gave up the claim. What she believed in her heart about the claim is unknowable. It suffices that she made the claim for the template to be validly included. Unless proof to the contrary can be provided, I propose to insert the template and to keep re-inserting it until DrK's bizarre POV reversions desist. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 18:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
The sources used in the article do not support the tagged opinion, and one (Curtis) directly contradicts it: "William had not invaded as a rival claimant but to protect 'the Protestant religion and the liberties of the subject'...few expected him to become King. If James had remained in England and had agreed to a programme of concessions he could well have kept his Crown, but his sudden and unexpected flight to France brought the country to the verge of chaos...It was apparent that the vacuum had to be filled, and in January 1689 a Convention Parliament addressed itself to the question." (p. 66) DrKiernan ( talk) 19:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tim riley ( talk · contribs · count) 07:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Beginning read-through today. Will report back soonest. Tim riley ( talk) 07:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Nothing borderline about this GAN. Impressively referenced, easy to read, no discernible POV, well-illustrated, and neither too long nor too short. A few minor points before I complete the formalities:
Tim riley ( talk) 10:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I should be sorry not to see this excellent article at FAC at some point. It will get my vote. A most enjoyable and impressive piece of work. — Tim riley ( talk) 15:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't the "Issue" section be as detailed as the one in the article about her husband (including the stilbirths and miscarriages)? It seems natural that it should be, at least because all those losses affected her health. Surtsicna ( talk) 13:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Doc K. Have included ref for separate arms in Scotland from Act of Union. The ref. supporting the Semper Eadem motto is from a book entitled "Royal Heraldry of England"! The crucial element here being England, and the fact that in 1702 the Acts of Union were still some ways off. Check the Nemo me impune lacessit and In My Defens God Me Defend articles and you'll find adequate refs there. The motto on the arms in Scotland, unlike in England, did not alter with each successive monarch. The blazon of the arms is correct. I've found some interesting stuff which I'll come back to. Scools out in 10 so must get kids. Endrick Shellycoat 14:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Have found a ref. showing a Scottish version of arms of Anne post-Union in a book entitled "The Heraldry of the Stewarts; with Notes on All the Males of the Family, Descriptions of the Arms, Plates and Pedigrees" by G Harvey Johnstone.
Google books. On
this page can be seen a plate with the arms thus:
.
These arms also appear in the 2008 edition of Edinburgh Castle:Official Souvenir Guide by C Tabraham, published by
Historic Scotland. (
Google books).
Endrick
Shellycoat
11:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm aware of that - the only thing I've come across to date is the Johnstone ref. showing the shield with Scottish elements superior. How about a version of this for Anne pre-Union...
Endrick
Shellycoat
16:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Endrick
Shellycoat
16:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Currently sat in the Mitchell Library with the book beside me. The pages not available online reveal nothing remarkable. The section on Scotland commences on pg 532 and the only thing of interest is a full achievement of Charles I on pg 534, of which I've taken a photo. Interesting only in as much as it shows the full achievement:shield (Scottish quarterings) surrounded by the garter, with helm and mantling, the crest is the lion sejant afronte, motto above "In defence" and a compartment showing rose and crown, with "Dieu et mon droit" and "God save the King" beneath. Pages 539 and 540 show the arms of James II in the English style.
What I did note however was the section title: "The Royal Arms as on Printed Proclamations". There follows a "Note" which commences "The first form in which the Royal Arms appear on printed proclamations is that..." going on to conclude with "After the Revolution the Lion of Nassau is borne in pretence on the Scottish arms until the year 1708, when the Union arms were officially adopted, all particular Scottish differences being abolished". It struck me that this document only concerns itself with printed proclamations until 1714.
The Royal press(es) may not have bothered to print separate documents for Scotland, given a single Parliament now existed under a single Monarch, but it does not follow therefore that other representations of arms, for example on the Great Seal for Scotland, (which has existed post-Union to this day), did not show Scotland/England impaled with Scotland taking precedence; as per the Johnstone image. Thoughts? Endrick Shellycoat 13:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I propose merging Mary and Anne of Denmark with this article as the subjects appear to have no independent significance that couldn't be handled with a section within this article. Claret Ash 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it should be merged, I think it should be deleted. Thoughts are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary and Anne of Denmark. Opera hat ( talk) 15:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Update: I've marked the original Mary and Anne Oldenburg article for deletion as it and it's talk page currently link to two separate articles and, in turn, no articles link to it. Claret Ash 23:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
This is the first time I have engaged in a Wikipedia article discussion and so may not be familiar with the etiquette or the protocols. If I have caused upset with my previous (well-intentioned) though perhaps premature edits to this page, then I offer an apology.
I would like to make mention of Wales in this article, since at the time that Anne became the first queen of Great Britain, the reference to England (meaning England and Wales) was not legally clear and needed special legislation, enacted in 1746, to clarify it. In any case, Wales, though now recognised as a distinct member country of Great Britain, has an identity and an antiquity that predates that of England's and so I feel some words of reference or explanation are appropriate.
One way of doing this, I felt, was to include a paragraph explaining the legal subsumption of Wales with England in 1746 under the "Wales and Berwick" act (a paragraph in an existing Wikipedia article on "England and Wales" 1). I would however be happy to discuss other ways of including a mention of Wales in this article.
(Sincerely) Duckinatree ( talk) 16:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Opera hat : Wales has never been nor is ever likely to be part of England. Wales was invaded by Edward I and annexed (a unilateral act where territory is seized and held by one state and legitimized via general recognition by other international bodies) by Henry VIII with the "Laws in Wales Acts" 1535-1542 which sought to create a single legal jurisdiction. The Acts have been known as the "Acts of Union", but they were not popularly referred to as such until 1901, when historian Owen M. Edwards assigned them that name — a name some historians such as S. B. Chrimes regard as misleading, as the Acts were concerned with harmonising laws, not political union. ( Laws in Wales Acts 1535-1542 Wikipedia). Duckinatree ( talk) 16:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Coemgenus : The comparison of Wales with the Isle of Man, Orkney, and the Bombay Presidency is a trivial one, since Wales was an area of much greater size, economic and strategic importance not to mention former independence. Duckinatree ( talk) 16:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Martinevans123 : Ceisiwch godi'r safon y tro nesaf! Duckinatree ( talk) 16:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
It has become apparent that there is too much resistance to the inclusion of any mention of Wales in this article about the first Queen of Great Britain. This is particularly ironic since the Welsh were the original Britons and continued to call themselves Brythoniaid (Brythons or Britons) well into the Middle Ages. ( Wales Wikipedia) Duckinatree ( talk) 16:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Yr wyf wedi dweud fy nweud a ni ddywedaf fwy na hynny. Gwellhad buan i chi. (I've said my piece and can't say more than that. I wish you well). Duckinatree ( talk) 16:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the burials at Windsor Castle from the issue table, because the website at the College of St George (which says an infant was buried in 1696) contradicts Weir (who says an infant was buried in 1698). Weir does not mention a burial in 1696, and the College does not mention one in 1698; so, I presume that one or other has the year wrong and they are actually a single burial. There are other sources that indicate Anne was at St James's in 1698 since her doctors disagreed on whether she should travel to Windsor (Luttrell, vol IV), and so the 1696 date is more plausible. However, I don't see how we can distinguish between February (daughter) and September (son) 1696 when the College's website does not indicate the gender or month of the buried infant.
Edmund Fellowes' 1957 transcription of the burial registers is available in very selective libraries, but I do not have access to a copy, at least not easily. If anyone does have access, then I'd be inclined to follow whatever he says rather than the website or Weir. DrKiernan ( talk) 11:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
As DrKernan & I are now at two reversions each, etiquette demands that we take it to the talk page. So, what's your beef with the wikilink to Pretender? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 19:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
She should not be called "Anne Stuart" in the infobox because that is not a common name and because that was not her regnal name. I also doubt the infobox is the right place to introduce an alternative name. She reigned as "Anne" (Anna), not as "Anne Stuart", and is normally (if not always) listed simply as "Anne" among British monarchs. Does it even need to be mentioned that the surname is not included in infoboxes in articles about her Stuart predecessors (save for Mary I, who is actually commonly referred to as "Mary Stuart")? Surtsicna ( talk) 21:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
"James" was deposed in the Glorious Revolution?
Should this be amended to read:
"James II" was deposed in the Glorious Revolution? 82.31.133.165 ( talk) 09:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)