![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 26, 2021. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I added a reference to Saint-Simon's account of poisoning, and deleted "An autopsy was performed, however, and it was reporteded that Henrietta-Anne had died of peritonitis caused by a perforated ulcer" as I can find no other source for this and every account I've read says she was poisoned. The claim needs to be supported. Rogermexico 23:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
It looks like that
Henrietta Anne Stuart was at one point moved by cut and paste to
Henrietta Anne of England, Duchess of Orleans, and from there with a proper move to
Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orléans. Because of the cut and paste move the history of this page was corrupted, and had to be repaired.
There was also an old vandalism issues: the page was first vandalized, then moved by cut and paste taking the vandalism along in the process, and moved again. Because the history was corrupted that old vandalism was no longer evident from the history.
The old vandalism has now been reverted, and the history has been repaired. I also moved the page back to its original name,
Henrietta Anne Stuart. Reason for that is that according to Wikipedia
naming conventions
common names should be used, and a quick google search revealed that
Henrietta Anne Stuart is far more common than
Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orléans.
Because the vandal had removed information on marriage and children, and
Adam sk put in the mean time a table with information about her children some of that information is now duplicated. But since the original information was more complete than
Adam sk's table I left it at that, and I am going leave it to someone else to take out any redundancy.
JdH
15:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
btw: This naming business is really complicated; according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) "Where they have no substantive title, use the form "{title} {name} of {country}," e.g., Princess Irene of Greece. Use only the highest prefix title the person ever held. Deceased royal consorts should not have a title mentioned, e.g., Anne of Denmark. Using royal titles for more junior royals will enable users to distinguish between royal consorts and others. A prefix title can be used only when it was held and used by the person. This means that roughly before the 17th century, prince/ss would not be prefixed automatically.". On the basis of that it actually appears that the preferred title would be Henrietta Anne of England. JdH 19:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree as well- Henrietta Anne of England would be the proper usage here. I vonH 02:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Henrietta Anne Stuart would be a sensible title. I think in situations like this, where we are before the time when Princess Henrietta Anne of England would have been used, this makes the most sense. john k
I agree. Reveals the family name at first glance, doesn't graft title we are not sure where ever used "Princess" and avoids giving her a marrital title. I think its the ideal title. User:Dimadick
I think this is a complex question: the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which I take to be the most scholarly source on this type of topic, lists her as "Henriette Anne [formerly Henrietta], Princess, duchess of Orléans" and then labels the portrait of her as "Princess Henriette Anne" and refers to her as "Henriette Anne" throughout the course of the article. I don't know how this fits in with the Wikipedia guidelines, but, slavishly copying the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, I would call the main article "Princess Henriette Anne" and have the first line read "Henriette Anne [formerly Henrietta], Princess, duchess of Orléans". Adam_sk 04:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe the image alleged to be Henrietta Anne as an infant is improperly identified. I have seen images of the original painting, for which (or from which) the image in this article appears to be a sketch. The portrait is titled "Children of Charles I" and is dated approximately 1635, which puts the children at about the right ages depicted. The portrait depicts Charles, Prince of Wales, Mary, the future Princess of Orange, and the baby is actually James, Duke of York. Therefore I think it proper to remove that particular image, and perhaps even place it in the entry for James II of England.
MDiPaolo ( talk) 04:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)MDiPaolo, 01/24/08
In reply to the message you just left on my talk page: Much of the added material is redundant, excessive, or trivial. I've already recorded repeated objections to
Recently the file File:Mignard, possibly after - Henrietta of England - National Portrait Gallery.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 09:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Large sections of this article are plagiarized without credit word for word from Madame: a life of Henrietta, daughter of Charles I and Duchess of Orleans by Julia Mary Cartwright Ady. I will try to make repairs. Rednikki ( talk) 00:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I've tracked down the plagiarism to an expansion made on the 29th of July. This expansion also destroyed the neutrality of the article, stating outright that Henrietta was poisoned (which was never proven and is still under much debate). This article requires attention. Rednikki ( talk) 00:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
reading the previous info about her moving to Henriette Anne, Duchess of Orléans seemed silly in the first place; she was the Duchess by marriage and therefore did not "own" the title; anyway my issue is that she was never known as H.A.Stuart; she was known as Henrietta Anne of England and therefore in France, Henriette [Anne] d'Angleterre; so why is she still called Stuart?! even her siblings for some reason are all named Stuart; i dont understand..
if there are no resistance i will move it to either Princess Henrietta Anne of England [which in my view is the correct title] or Henriette Anne of England.
Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles ( talk) 15:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page not moved casting vote (this discussion has rhubarbed on for 56 days = 8 weeks.) Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 11:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Princess Henrietta of England → Henrietta of England — This page has been moved many times, often without much discussion at all. Those moves has included two cut-and-paste moves, resulting in disruption of the page history. This discussion is an attempt to settle the naming issue once and for all, to avoid further disruptive moves in the future JdH ( talk) 15:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
With all this confusion about naming I decided to conduct a little experiment, i.e. do a google book search for the various alternatives:
This is actually pretty conclusive: We don't need the "Princess", and we don't need the "Anne"; the most common name, by far, is "Henrietta of England". I did a "book" search rather than a "web" search, because the web is heavily influenced by what is already here, and cannot be considered a "scholarly" source.
What is also clear that moving this article around as has happened in the past creates a chaos of biblical proportions; moves should henceforth only be made if there is broad concensus about it. What should no more happen, ever, is that people keep moving it pretty much on their own; with all the conflicting opinions about it that is bound to lead to chaos.
JdH (
talk)
08:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
According to current precedent and conventions, this article should be at Princess Henrietta of England. If you wish to challenge the precedent and conventions (as I believe someone should, since it's extremely dubious whether there were any "Princesses of England" before the Hanoverians imported the custom), then you should do so before moving this article. Take a broad view across the range of effected articles, not a narrow view of this one. D B D 16:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I think we should apply Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). If someone wants to go argue for an exception, that person should go try to amend Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) before any changes are made. The Naming conventions begin with the principle that
“ | It is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English ("common name" in the case of royalty and nobility may also include a person's title), but there are other things which should be considered: ease of use, precision, concision, and consistency among article titles; and a system constraint: we cannot use the same title for two different articles, and therefore tend to avoid ambiguous titles. | ” |
My vote is to keep the Princess part and add Anne back if it wouldn't be to hard. I would like it to be Henrietta Anne Stuart, but I don't think anybody would be in agreement with that.-- Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy ( talk) 03:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
BTW, although I'd prefer a version with Orleans, and am uncertain about Anne, I support the move, because I don't believe she was ever called a princess. john k ( talk) 07:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Our " rules" are abstracted from the bottom up, not applied from the top down. Everything is decided on a case-by-case basis, and if individual cases contradict the general rule that someone wrote down, then the general rule should be re-written to reflect reality. (Policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive.) Otherwise, it's way too easy to fall into the idea that we're rule-bound and bureaucratic.
If this article should be titled Henrietta of England, then that's true on the merits of this particular case, and not because of some abstract rule. The abstract rule follows specific decisions, and while it can inform them, it doesn't lead them. It certainly doesn't compel them.
I'm here from Wikipedia:Requested moves to close this request, if possible, but I'm going to make the call based on specific arguments about this article, and not based on what someone wrote down when they didn't have this article in mind. - GTBacchus( talk) 04:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Once again the history of this article has been corrupted by a cut-and paste move, see
Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves and
Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen why cut-and-paste moves are undesirable. This last cut-and-paste seems to have been at 16:00, 20 November 2009 by
User:LouisPhilippeCharles, cutting-and-pasting from
Henrietta Anne Stuart to
Henrietta Anne of England. The edit entry "22:10, 14 July 2010 LouisPhilippeCharles m (15,494 bytes) (moved Henrietta Anne of England to Princess Henrietta of England" describes a move by the proper method, not a cut-and-paste.
The damage has now been repaired, by an Admin history merge. Also, this Talk page, which was left behind at the original location, has been rejoined to the article. What is particularly annoying about this occurrence is that the problems caused by an earlier cut-and-past move is discussed in detail on this very Talk page,
Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orléans.
JdH (
talk)
13:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 26, 2021. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I added a reference to Saint-Simon's account of poisoning, and deleted "An autopsy was performed, however, and it was reporteded that Henrietta-Anne had died of peritonitis caused by a perforated ulcer" as I can find no other source for this and every account I've read says she was poisoned. The claim needs to be supported. Rogermexico 23:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
It looks like that
Henrietta Anne Stuart was at one point moved by cut and paste to
Henrietta Anne of England, Duchess of Orleans, and from there with a proper move to
Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orléans. Because of the cut and paste move the history of this page was corrupted, and had to be repaired.
There was also an old vandalism issues: the page was first vandalized, then moved by cut and paste taking the vandalism along in the process, and moved again. Because the history was corrupted that old vandalism was no longer evident from the history.
The old vandalism has now been reverted, and the history has been repaired. I also moved the page back to its original name,
Henrietta Anne Stuart. Reason for that is that according to Wikipedia
naming conventions
common names should be used, and a quick google search revealed that
Henrietta Anne Stuart is far more common than
Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orléans.
Because the vandal had removed information on marriage and children, and
Adam sk put in the mean time a table with information about her children some of that information is now duplicated. But since the original information was more complete than
Adam sk's table I left it at that, and I am going leave it to someone else to take out any redundancy.
JdH
15:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
btw: This naming business is really complicated; according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) "Where they have no substantive title, use the form "{title} {name} of {country}," e.g., Princess Irene of Greece. Use only the highest prefix title the person ever held. Deceased royal consorts should not have a title mentioned, e.g., Anne of Denmark. Using royal titles for more junior royals will enable users to distinguish between royal consorts and others. A prefix title can be used only when it was held and used by the person. This means that roughly before the 17th century, prince/ss would not be prefixed automatically.". On the basis of that it actually appears that the preferred title would be Henrietta Anne of England. JdH 19:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree as well- Henrietta Anne of England would be the proper usage here. I vonH 02:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Henrietta Anne Stuart would be a sensible title. I think in situations like this, where we are before the time when Princess Henrietta Anne of England would have been used, this makes the most sense. john k
I agree. Reveals the family name at first glance, doesn't graft title we are not sure where ever used "Princess" and avoids giving her a marrital title. I think its the ideal title. User:Dimadick
I think this is a complex question: the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which I take to be the most scholarly source on this type of topic, lists her as "Henriette Anne [formerly Henrietta], Princess, duchess of Orléans" and then labels the portrait of her as "Princess Henriette Anne" and refers to her as "Henriette Anne" throughout the course of the article. I don't know how this fits in with the Wikipedia guidelines, but, slavishly copying the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, I would call the main article "Princess Henriette Anne" and have the first line read "Henriette Anne [formerly Henrietta], Princess, duchess of Orléans". Adam_sk 04:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe the image alleged to be Henrietta Anne as an infant is improperly identified. I have seen images of the original painting, for which (or from which) the image in this article appears to be a sketch. The portrait is titled "Children of Charles I" and is dated approximately 1635, which puts the children at about the right ages depicted. The portrait depicts Charles, Prince of Wales, Mary, the future Princess of Orange, and the baby is actually James, Duke of York. Therefore I think it proper to remove that particular image, and perhaps even place it in the entry for James II of England.
MDiPaolo ( talk) 04:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)MDiPaolo, 01/24/08
In reply to the message you just left on my talk page: Much of the added material is redundant, excessive, or trivial. I've already recorded repeated objections to
Recently the file File:Mignard, possibly after - Henrietta of England - National Portrait Gallery.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 09:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Large sections of this article are plagiarized without credit word for word from Madame: a life of Henrietta, daughter of Charles I and Duchess of Orleans by Julia Mary Cartwright Ady. I will try to make repairs. Rednikki ( talk) 00:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I've tracked down the plagiarism to an expansion made on the 29th of July. This expansion also destroyed the neutrality of the article, stating outright that Henrietta was poisoned (which was never proven and is still under much debate). This article requires attention. Rednikki ( talk) 00:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
reading the previous info about her moving to Henriette Anne, Duchess of Orléans seemed silly in the first place; she was the Duchess by marriage and therefore did not "own" the title; anyway my issue is that she was never known as H.A.Stuart; she was known as Henrietta Anne of England and therefore in France, Henriette [Anne] d'Angleterre; so why is she still called Stuart?! even her siblings for some reason are all named Stuart; i dont understand..
if there are no resistance i will move it to either Princess Henrietta Anne of England [which in my view is the correct title] or Henriette Anne of England.
Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles ( talk) 15:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page not moved casting vote (this discussion has rhubarbed on for 56 days = 8 weeks.) Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 11:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Princess Henrietta of England → Henrietta of England — This page has been moved many times, often without much discussion at all. Those moves has included two cut-and-paste moves, resulting in disruption of the page history. This discussion is an attempt to settle the naming issue once and for all, to avoid further disruptive moves in the future JdH ( talk) 15:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
With all this confusion about naming I decided to conduct a little experiment, i.e. do a google book search for the various alternatives:
This is actually pretty conclusive: We don't need the "Princess", and we don't need the "Anne"; the most common name, by far, is "Henrietta of England". I did a "book" search rather than a "web" search, because the web is heavily influenced by what is already here, and cannot be considered a "scholarly" source.
What is also clear that moving this article around as has happened in the past creates a chaos of biblical proportions; moves should henceforth only be made if there is broad concensus about it. What should no more happen, ever, is that people keep moving it pretty much on their own; with all the conflicting opinions about it that is bound to lead to chaos.
JdH (
talk)
08:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
According to current precedent and conventions, this article should be at Princess Henrietta of England. If you wish to challenge the precedent and conventions (as I believe someone should, since it's extremely dubious whether there were any "Princesses of England" before the Hanoverians imported the custom), then you should do so before moving this article. Take a broad view across the range of effected articles, not a narrow view of this one. D B D 16:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I think we should apply Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). If someone wants to go argue for an exception, that person should go try to amend Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) before any changes are made. The Naming conventions begin with the principle that
“ | It is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English ("common name" in the case of royalty and nobility may also include a person's title), but there are other things which should be considered: ease of use, precision, concision, and consistency among article titles; and a system constraint: we cannot use the same title for two different articles, and therefore tend to avoid ambiguous titles. | ” |
My vote is to keep the Princess part and add Anne back if it wouldn't be to hard. I would like it to be Henrietta Anne Stuart, but I don't think anybody would be in agreement with that.-- Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy ( talk) 03:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
BTW, although I'd prefer a version with Orleans, and am uncertain about Anne, I support the move, because I don't believe she was ever called a princess. john k ( talk) 07:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Our " rules" are abstracted from the bottom up, not applied from the top down. Everything is decided on a case-by-case basis, and if individual cases contradict the general rule that someone wrote down, then the general rule should be re-written to reflect reality. (Policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive.) Otherwise, it's way too easy to fall into the idea that we're rule-bound and bureaucratic.
If this article should be titled Henrietta of England, then that's true on the merits of this particular case, and not because of some abstract rule. The abstract rule follows specific decisions, and while it can inform them, it doesn't lead them. It certainly doesn't compel them.
I'm here from Wikipedia:Requested moves to close this request, if possible, but I'm going to make the call based on specific arguments about this article, and not based on what someone wrote down when they didn't have this article in mind. - GTBacchus( talk) 04:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Once again the history of this article has been corrupted by a cut-and paste move, see
Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves and
Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen why cut-and-paste moves are undesirable. This last cut-and-paste seems to have been at 16:00, 20 November 2009 by
User:LouisPhilippeCharles, cutting-and-pasting from
Henrietta Anne Stuart to
Henrietta Anne of England. The edit entry "22:10, 14 July 2010 LouisPhilippeCharles m (15,494 bytes) (moved Henrietta Anne of England to Princess Henrietta of England" describes a move by the proper method, not a cut-and-paste.
The damage has now been repaired, by an Admin history merge. Also, this Talk page, which was left behind at the original location, has been rejoined to the article. What is particularly annoying about this occurrence is that the problems caused by an earlier cut-and-past move is discussed in detail on this very Talk page,
Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orléans.
JdH (
talk)
13:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)