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

Discussions formerly appearing here relating to Queen Victoria's Surname and its usage within the Article have been moved to a separate talk page.

---

Just a short note: In the paragraph begining: In 1872, Victoria endured her sixth encounter involving a gun. As she was dismounting a carriage, a seventeen-year old Irishman, Arthur O'Connor... should it not be As she was alighting from a carriage...?

---

I am curious as to general policy/copyright issues regarding coats of arms of monarchs. According to the article, the arms of Victoria are the same as those of the current Queen, Elisabeth II. So it would be trivial to obtain a picture of them. The question is, would that be legal, and if so, is there any reason not to include them along with heraldic description. Of course the same question applies to other British monarchs. -- Ornil 22:15, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

An indirect cause of Albert's death was the irresponsible behaviour of their eldest son, Bertie, the Prince of Wales.

The same vague statement is made on Bertie's page. However, on Albert's page it is said that Albert died from typhoid fever. How did Bertie contribute to this? AxelBoldt 13:49 Aug 29, 2002 (PDT)

Okay it's an old question but nobody answered it so... 1. Albert is not feeling well. 2. Bertie is at college 3. Bertie has woman trouble which makes its way into the scandal sheets. 4. This reflects badly on the Royals, so Albert heads for Cambridge to tell him off. 5. The weather is awful on the way back and Albert is soaked. 6. Albert takes to his bed. 7. Within a couple of weeks Albert dies.

The details may be wrong so I'm not putting that in the article but the overall story is near enough what happened. -- Derek Ross 22:16, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I thought that it was due to the shocking state of the castle drains as a breeding place for all sorts of infections. If merely getting soaked was enough to kill a person, then the entire population of England, let alone Scotland and Ireland, would have died out long ago. Pete 05:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Anyone have an opinion about the recent book questioning whether Victoria was legitimate? - user:Montrealais

The funny thing is, if it is true, both Albert and Victoria were not the descendants of royalty at all but the two groups most discriminated against in nineteenth century Europe: he the son of his mother's jewish lover, she the daughter of an Irish soldier and Private Secretary to her mother, Sir John Conroy.

One problem exists however with the thesis. A key but of evidence is that no descendant of Queen Victoria suffered from the illness experienced by George III (I'm too tired to remember how to type it now). The author of the book of QV goes through all the evidence and cannot find it. The trouble is, one royal did have it. Princess Margaret revealed some time ago that the late Prince Richard of Gloucester, her first cousin, had though not its madness, one key symptom, painful skin discolouration. If he had it, and it did not appear in his mother, grandmother or great-grandmother's family, it can only have come through the male heirs of Queen Victoria, which means she has to have been the daughter of the Duke of Kent, as Conroy had no such illness anywhere in his family. Similarly, new ilnesses that Victoria had and which supposedly proved she was Conroy's daughter, did not exist in Conroy's family either and the likes of hæmophilia is passed on the female line, not the male, so it would have come from her mother irrespective of who was Victoria's father. So all in all it is an interesting theory but just doesn't hold enough water to be convincing. The revelation that Princess Margaret years before had confirmed that Prince Richard of Gloucester had George III's illness pretty much holed the claims below the water-line. ÉÍREman

New analysis shows that while haemophilia is passed on through the female line, it is more likely to originate in the damaged sperm of elderly men. This too indicates that Kent was more likely to have been Victoria's father than Conroy. -- Derek Ross 22:21, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why does footnote 2 redirect the reader to footnote 3? "Please see footnote 3" -- Menchi 19:01 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This article says nothing about the Victorian era. This article needs to discuss the era, and Victoria's influence or non-infuence on the Victorian mores and standards. Kingturtle 22:05, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Contrary to what listed in most world maps in print, no one in Hong Kong refers the urban area in the North Part of Hong Kong Island as 'Victoria'. For decades, it has been merely called as the 'Hong Kong Island' or simply the 'Island'. The name 'Victoria' is not used in any government publication for decades as well.

On the other hand, there are two major places in Hong Kong that are named after Victoria and these names are still in common uses. The first on is the Victoria Park, which is the Hyde Park of Hong Kong. The second one is the Victoria Harbor, which is one of the busiest harbor in the world.

I propose the line 'a Hong Kong city' to be changed as 'the Hong Kong harbor'.

I refreshed this page by giving a more clear opening paragraph, with Victoria's regal title at death as the first line. She never used the surname Wettin, and it is not quoted in any offical source, so it remains in the footnotes. Her father and mother added to opening paragraph, as is her birth and death and cornoation dates. I also set out her children in a table to make it more readable. Astrotrain.

I reverted the change. There is a standard agreed structure applied to all royalty on wikipedia. The changes made completely abandoned the agreed structure for a unique one. As to Wettin, it is quoted in the Royal Archives as being the surname she would have if she was a commoner: she had asked her advisers as to what her surname was. It clearly wasn't Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, which was a Royal House name, not a surname. As there was a long standing demand of some on wikipedia that that surnames of royalty be included and that was agreed to, her surname goes at the top with the article beginning with personal name, surname and life-dates followed by regal details. That is the agreed format used throughout wikipedia and has to be followed here also. FearÉIREANN 20:03, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There is no agreed format in wikipedia for anything, that is why you can edit it at will. I don't know why you think the current revision is appropiate given that it is full of gossip, speculation and matter of facts. British monarchs don't have surnames, only a royal style as my article change highlighted. Wettin has never ever been officaly or unofficaly used by the British Royal Family. Victoria could never have gained this name as she married as a Queen and thus had her name and style decided by law. This article is a waste of space and should be reverted. Even my change to make the information on her children more readable has been changed back (I didn't even change the data, just put it in a table!). My revision was superior!!! Astrotrain

You might not have noticed but wikipedia is not an amateur scribble box but a credible source. You obviously don't know it (or think it does not apply uniquely to you) but there are a set of agreed structures on wikipedia, covering everything from the recording of biographical details (name, surname birthdate, deathdate) to the form of language (American English or British English) used here, from the usage of pictures (their layout and issues to do with copyright) to the recording of footnotes, the format for dates, spelling and capitalisation, etc etc. A large scale debate took place on wikipedia on the whole issue of royal pages, involving large numbers of contributors from around the world. A format for articles was agreed by overwhelming consensus. It is immaterial how good, bad or indifferent your preferred structure is. It broke all the agreed conventions on wikipedia for these pages and ignored all the work of hundreds of others on royal pages throughout wikipedia. The rules apply to everyone, even you and were simply reverted to follow the standard layout that is applied to hundreds of royal pages throughout this encyclopaedia, pages which large numbers of people spent many weeks redesigning to follow the agreed consensus structure.

You are factually incorrect regarding Wettin, about royal nomenclature and much else. Royalty do actually have surnames. According to Buckingham Palace and Clarence House, for example (who confirmed this to wikipedia when the debate on how to cover royal nomenclature was going on), the Prince of Wales' surname is Mountbatten-Windsor. The fact that that was his surname was shown in the banns published at the time of his marriage to Diana. The Princess Royal, the Duke of York and the Earl of Wessex all also used that surname in their banns. Queen Victoria asked her Private Secretary to clarify for her what her marital surname was. Given she would not normally use it she didn't know but was curious. The Private Secretary, after exhaustive research and consulting with members of Prince Albert's family and court, reported that Albert's surname, and hence her marital surname, was Wettin, with Saxe Coburg Gotha the Royal House name. It is that simple. FearÉIREANN 19:00, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think if you look at the various pages for all the different royality on wikipedia, I think you will find that the structuring on titles, styles etc varies considerably. Wikipedia is supposed to give factual information, and not your opinion on what Victoria's surname is or was, based on material which is not in the public domian. Anyway, my change was not to remove the surname ascertion, but to make the opening paragraph of this article more co-herent and clear with more factual information than the rabble which currently inhabits it. At the end of the day this article is badly written. It gives far to much weight to conspiracy theories and gossip and tells little of Victoria's life and background. I guess tittle tattle on whether she is illegitimate or was having sexual relations with John Brown is more important than factual, non-biased and reliable information. Astrotrain

I've removed this

Were it ever proven that Victoria was not fathered by the Duke, then Ernst August, the eldest son of Ernst August of Hanover, the current head of the House of Hanover, would become ruler of Great Britian. (As Ernst August is married to the Catholic Princess Caroline of Monaco, he is removed from the line of succession, as per the Act of Settlement 1701).

, because it's wrong. There's no mechanism for changing the occupant of the throne based on biological parentage of a long-dead successor. Further, the notion confuses "legitimacy" with "biological parentage": proving that Victoria had a different biological father would do nothing to affect the fact that, under law, the Duke was her father. - Nunh-huh 00:31, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This "footnote" has been contributed by User:66.248.20.70 whose other contributions you'll soon notice center on Wayne Gretsky and Caroline of Monaco. The Duke of Wellington never saw any such thing. An irresponsible joke by an Anon. Wetman 00:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In this case, at least, it's a frequent piece of misinformation, usually peddled by hack writers so they can get a good headline about who "really" is the "King of England". (An Australian dock worker "if" Edward IV were a bastard, the son of an oafish public urinater "if" Victoria were a bastard, etc.) They trade on the ignorant supposition that it is biology rather than law and contingent history that dictates the occupant of the throne. - Nunh-huh 01:04, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Photos of Victoria & Edward ,Duke of Kent (1767-1820), seemed to show alot of physical resemblance, (not that it determines Parentage), Victoria has Edward's looks, that good enough for me to believe they're father-daugther. Mightberight/wrong 18:51, 27 October 2005

Aside from her dachsunds, perhaps a list of the Prime Ministers who actually ruled Britain during Victoria's reign might be thought necessary in this entry. I hesitate to enter one and see it reverted by some amateur genealogist however. Wetman 00:43, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If I wanted to know what British prime ministers there were during Victoria's reign I would go to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom page, not to a personal biograph page of Queen Victoria. In any case, prime minsiters do no rule Britain, the Crown, Parliament and the Legal system do, with Parliament, the ultimate sovereign. Astrotrain

I am not keen on the introduction of this article. It is far too long, and waffles a bit. I already tried to shorten it, but Lord Emsworth reverted citing the cut as "improper", which is of course untrue, as it was a valid edit that enhanced the article Astrotrain 18:43, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is only two paragraphs - while they are long, I struggle a little to see what you could cut out without losing something important (the double reference to Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, possibly?). Which bits do you think are waffle? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:55, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The paragraphs may be somewhat long, but I do not think that they are too extensive. The removal was indeed improper, as the justification offered was that the table of contents could not be seen, which is untrue, at least on my monitor. -- Emsworth 19:03, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I believe that Astrotrain took a radical solution, but to a REAL problem. It IS too long, and far obscures the T.O.C. on my machines. The parenthetical comments and the cute but goofy stuff about the stamp and the railway don't belong in the "lead paragraph" of an encyclopedia article. I wish they had been but relocated ... instead of bumped. Sfahey 19:35, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think that the introduction only needs to say:1st para she was Queen of UK, last British monarch of House of Hanover; longest reigning; first to use Empress of India title. 2nd: say her reign was period of British Emprire expansion and Industrial Revolution. There is no need to say the comments about Prince ALbert, and assumptions on which PM she liked. Sorry if I deleted items people thought should have been moved, but I thought the political waffle was refered to elsewhere. Stamp and railway comments could be moved to Legacy Astrotrain 21:16, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Would also suggest that assisination attempts be merged into the one section, to make better reading. Astrotrain 21:16, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I disagree on this latter proposal (but agree on your first suggestion); the whole information of her life, I believe, is best presented in chronological order. The effects of the attempts on her general life may be thus observed. -- Emsworth 22:12, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

mmmm, it is reasonable to observe events in chronological order, however the marriage section of the article is dominated by an assisination attempt paragraph. I'll try and trim intro again, to see if it suits this time Astrotrain 14:35, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This change is fine; I have made only one change: I have put the information on her royal House into its own sentence. -- Emsworth 14:59, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Certainly the British import words and locutions from France faster than we LeftPondians do, but have they actually now ceased to regard writing "20 June" instead of "June 20" to constitute writing in something approaching French? Would they therefore consider it inappropriate for me to change "20 June" to "June 20" on the grounds that this is the English-language Wikipedia rather than the French one? Michael Hardy 01:04, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

20 June 1837 (no comma) is probably now the most common form in the UK. 22:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to make changes on this whilst the article is featured so want to check this bit:

Lord Beaconsfield's administration fell in 1880, and the Liberals returned to power. Attempting to keep Gladstone from returning to office, the Queen offered leadership of the ministry to Spencer Cavendish, Marquess of Hartington. Lord Hartington declined the opportunity, and Victoria could do little but appoint Gladstone Prime Minister.

Or alternatively Victoria invited the leader of the Liberals in the Commons - at this point there was no undisputed "Leader of the Liberal Party" as none of the official leaders in the Commons and Lords were current or former PMs so Victoria could ask either of them. Gladstone was just a former PM who was still campaigning in nominal retirement. To have automatically invited him just because he was more popular in the country and had been very prominent in the election would have been the equivalent of Elizabeth II inviting Enoch Powell to become PM in 1970.

Also can I suggest we retitle the section to either "Gladstone and Disraeli" (the most common form by which the pair are linked together) and incorporate all of their overlap or change it to something more appropriate for the politics of 1876-1886. Timrollpickering 03:19, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Seems like the second to last paragraph of "Early Life" and the first paragraph of "Early Reign" are somewhat redundant:

On June 20, 1837, King William IV died of liver failure. The Archbishop of Canterbury and the head of the royal househould (the Lord Chamberlain) advised the 18-year old, four foot eleven inch Victoria that she was now Queen of England. The Privy Council confirmed her accession immediately with several members noting that her accession would forever separate the crowns of Britan and Hanover since the Hanover kingdom's Salic law would not allow a woman to reign.

This contains much of the same information as

William IV died of liver disease at the age of 67 on 20 June 1837, leaving the Throne to Victoria. As the young Queen had just turned eighteen years old, no Regency was necessary. By Salic law, no woman could rule Hanover, a realm which had shared a monarch with Britain since 1714. Thus, Hanover went not to Victoria, but to her uncle, Ernest Augustus. As the young Queen was as yet unmarried and childless, Ernest Augustus was also the heir-presumptive to the British Throne.

I have cut out some of the section concerning the Irish Potato famine due to lack of citation and the fact that the information provided is unreliable at best as I have done some research into the Irish Potato Famine for a class I took.

A couple of stylistic corrections. Throne is not capitalised except when referring to the Speech from the Throne. Queen similarly is not capitalised except in the context where it is being used with a name or title. So Queen of the United Kingdom, but The queen observed that . . . ". Personally I think both these rules suck, but they are now the standard capitalisation forms used internationally (I've just had to deal with two editors, one American and one British, both of whom insisted on changing all by upper cases to modern publication styles that lowercased things). Professional editors would savage this article for its chronic overcasing of things.

Also wikipedia policy is not to include titles within a link. So it is Sir Robert Peel, not Sir Robert Peel.

Wikipedia also decided long ago not to use styles in articles. So people should not be referred to as HM/HRH/HSH/HIM etc.

Also can we please cut out the archaic language like 'beget' etc. It is one thing to use varying forms of english (gaol is still used widely, particularly in British english, hiberno-english and in other commonwealth locations) but 'beget' isn't.

Also - given the size of the article it is ridiculous to keep talking about King so and so. It is adding more size to an oversized article. Publications don't do that. They call someone King 'x' once, then simply say 'x' (often not even including an ordinal) the rest of the time.

This is a very good article. But it needs professional editing and wikifying badly. FearÉIREANN 10:05, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can accept most of your points, but the first two are just plain wrong. "Queen" (along with all such titles) is capitalised in British English style when it refers to a specific queen (thus "the Queen announced that she wanted a new palace" but "queens regularly live in palaces"; "the Duke put on his coronet and robes" but "dukes often wear coronets to dinner"; "the Prime Minister lives in 10 Downing Street" but "constitutional monarchies often have prime ministers"). And it is current longstanding practice to put "Sir" inside links - the reason it's so often absent is that it's easier to type Sir [[John Smith]] than [[John Smith|Sir John Smith]]. Just look at the succession tables at the bottom of most British politicians' articles - "Sir" is always inside the link (plus it looks ugly outside it). (As to the styles, they're out of place in running text not due to Wikipedia policy (which doesn't comment on the matter) but because it's stylistically inappropriate to have full styles there - for the same reason that it's better to write " Lord Longford" than " Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford", it's better to write "the Duke of Kent" than " HRH The Prince George, Duke of Kent". Proteus (Talk) 11:27, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wish I was wrong but unfortunately I am not. I much prefer doing as you you but it is simply wrong. Modern international english doesn't capitalise that way. For example, I wrote about Prince Harry's latest bit of lunacy for a British broadsheet last week. Every Prince (except in Prince Harry or Prince of Wales/Prince Charles) was typeset as prince. Queen in all housestyles is now queen unless referring to a monarch's name. So it is Queen Elizabeth but the British queen. For example -

Queen Elizabeth is briefed by her prime minister once a week.

The queen is briefed by her prime minister once a week.

Stuff I write about politics (whether in the media or academically) follow house styles which in turn follow the leading style guides. Editors invariably use US president George Bush, Irish president Mary McAleese etc. The only time president is capitalised is when the full title is used. So it is US president George Bush but President Bush or President of the United States. Similarly it is the President of Ireland but Irish president. And prime minister is capitalised only when written with the definite article and the office-holder's name. So in newspaper housestyles

According to information, the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, swims naked in the Thames every Tuesday morning.

According to information prime minister Tony Blair swims naked in the Thames every Tuesday morning.

As to including titles in the link, I did put honorifics inside the link when I started but there was an overwhelming consensus when the naming conventions were being designed (I was one of the group of people doing it) that they should always be put outside and all links that were inside were then systematically removed by a team of people over a couple of weeks. If they are being put inside then that is contrary to the consensus agreement and I guess they'll have to be removed again.

As to styles, they are simply should not be used ever. The reason is simple. Many people (ludicrously) claimed that they were POV. In other words that saying His Holiness for the pope or the dalai lama was expressing an opinion on their holiness, that Her Majesty was suggesting that a particular queen was majestic, that calling the Prince of Wales His Royal Highness was accepting that he was high and mighty, etc. Or that calling the Prince of Monaco His Serene Highness was reaching a judgment on whether he was serene or not. Personally I think the argument a heap of garbage, but there were endless rows. In addition some Europeans came on who downed out articles in over-the-top use of styles, along the lines of His Majesty the King of Outer Walrus met Her Royal Highness the Princess of the Rock, at a party given by Her Serene Highness the Princess of Lyon and her husband, His Royal Highness the Prince of Lyons. They had three children: His Royal and Imperial Highness, the Archduke . . . "

All attempts to explain (principally it must be said to Americans) that using a style is not expressing a judgment or a POV but simply using a traditional form of language, have failed and have produced ridiculous edit wars. So to avoid this and irritating readers also who would make such a nonsensical interpretation, styles simply do not feature in text. Also, if you use styles for monarchs, why not for all heads of state - eg, His Excellency President Jacques Chirac. Call clergymen Most Reverend and Right Reverend, call the PM of Canada the Honourable, call aristocrats His Grace the . . . etc. It is impossible and unworkable and not worth the hassle it creates. Styles are as a result not used in text and should only feature in a paragraph in the article which states that 'the formal style used for 'x' is such and such'. FearÉIREANN 15:50, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the debates over style, but there is certainly no policy saying what you say (in fact, everyone claiming this recently has been ridiculed). As for "consensus" over the other issues, it's safe to say that consensus has changed since the first debates took place, and de facto policy is now to include "Sir" in links. And as for "house styles", The Times certainly capitalises "Prince" (for example, from their style guide, "Prince William at first mention, thereafter simply William (or for variation the Prince, if not ambiguous); similarly, Prince Harry at first mention, thereafter simply Harry (or for variation the Prince, if not ambiguous)"), and as for other titles: "capitalisation: in general, the proper names of people and places, formal titles or titles of important offices, and the names of well-known and substantial institutions, all require capitals. As a rule of thumb, cap specifics (eg, the French Foreign Minister), but l/c non-specifics (eg, EU foreign ministers)", "Prime Minister: cap for every country, but only in reference to a specific person, eg, "Tony Blair said that ? the Prime Minister said that ? "; "Margaret Thatcher was the Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990".", "President (of any country, also President of the European Commission), cap at first and all subsequent mentions when used as a variation for a specific person, eg, "George W. Bush said that ? the President said that ? "; "Richard Nixon was the President until 1974".". Proteus (Talk) 17:31, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've been doing some research. Some examples from other British newspapers:

Still with Harry, let's be grateful for the perspective provided by the mother of one of his brainiac friends. Vanda Pelly is incredulous that her son Guy's decision to dress as the Queen for the same critically misunderstood "colonials and natives" party has invoked tutting in some corners."It certainly wasn't disrespectful to dress as the Queen," she told yesterday's Daily Mail in exasperation. "No more disrespectful than for a white man to dress as a black man." Mother Pelly, you've been very kind. ( The Guardian, today)

His tastes are obviously shared by another member of the Highgrove set - or Club H as they call themselves, after the cellar at Highgrove where Prince Charles allowed them to meet: Guy Pelly went to last week's party dressed as none other than the Queen. ( The Independent, Sunday)

Seventy years of seafaring have been linked as, amid fanfares and fireworks, the Queen officially named the Queen Mary 2. ( The Daily Mail, 10 days ago)

Hardy Amies, the once-grand couture house that dressed the Queen, is moving from Ofex to Aim this week in the latest step... ( The Financial Times, 8 days ago)

And I still haven't seen one example of "the queen". Proteus (Talk) 23:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

None of my business, but I've only ever seen the British monarch (Elizabeth II) referred to as the "Queen", not the "queen". Doesn't tradition sometimes outweigh grammar rules?

This is correct and belongs in Trivia. See here. "Under the name cannabis 19th century medical practitioners helped to introduce the herb's drug potential (usually as a tincture) to modern English-speaking consciousness. It was famously used to treat Queen Victoria's menstrual pains, and was available from shops in the US. By the end of the 19th century its medicinal use began to fall as other drugs such as aspirin took over." Greengrass 07:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not a fan of trivia sections, but that's a separate issue. However, I followed your link, and the marijuana#Recent history section doesn't say that now. Instead it now says "It was rumoured to have been used to treat Queen Victoria's menstrual pains as her personal physician, Sir John Russell Reynolds, was a staunch supporter of the benefits of cannabis.[19]" (Here's the change). The "[19]" link is to a BMJ article about him. I can't read the whole article because I don't have an account there, but in the abstract's list of conditions for which he recommended cannabis, period pain is not one. Even if there should be a trivia section in this article, I'm sceptical that it should say, as it currently does, "Cannabis tea was prescribed to treat Victoria's menstrual cramps" until there is a definite reference. Similarly, if she publically praised Mariani wine, shouldn't it be possible to find a quote? Telsa (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of a source, or even a reaction, I have removed the comment about cannabis tea completely. So, any offers on the Mariani wine and the public praising of it? This shouldn't be hard to find a reference for... Telsa (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Still no cite for this public praise? I never did find any. So shold this mention be here at all? Telsa (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Not quite true. The style “His/Her Late Majesty” is perfectly correct, but only in respect of the most recently passed on – e.g. “Babies all look like Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.” Conversely, “In Her Late Majesty Queen Victoria’s day,” etc., though technically correct (she is “Her Late Majesty”) would be not quite right because she’s not the immediately late queen (or king as the case may be). Instead one would correctly say, “In Queen Victoria’s day.” Otherwise, I am reminded of the old joke about two courtiers walking in the corridor, one saying to the other: “Have you heard? ‘Your Tallness’ isn’t good enough any more! Now, it’s ‘Your HIGHness’”

Queen Victoria is dead. The title "Her Majesty" is reserved for the living monarch. Greengrass 07:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

There is, as far as I can tell, ONE person and one alone, who reverts any deletion of the honorific, both for dead British monarchs and for popes, although only for some unfathomable reason as far back as the mid-19c. Many people have tried to fight this, one by one, and are always told it is Wikipedia policy, decided somewhere, to keep these idiosyncratic honorifics. It must surely have started because some people, unaware of the universal practice of encyclopedias, thought it is dissing these historical figures to remove the honorific; but it's now a one-man crusade.... Good luck.... Bill 09:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, as of a few minutes ago we've found 2. Still, it is not "standard" to give to dead monarchs the styles of the living: a check of any print encyclopedia will confirm that. On the other hand if it is decided to do this, you may as well start with Victoria's immediate predecessor and start adding them on: you'll have lots of work ahead of you. Then after that, you can add "His Holiness" to the 200+ popes not so marked, to say nothing of Eminences and Excellencies and Honorables and Worships to every cardinal and ambassador and senator and mayor in Wikipedia.... It's clear, in sum, that in the narrow cases of British monarchs after William IV and of popes after Gregory XVI, we're dealing with the notion that some people have that we might be dissing the subjects by not tossing in the style. Bill 12:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

In terms of kings, the first English king to use "His Majesty" was Henry VIII. Beyond that, I'd suggest that styles only became rigidly formalized in the 18th century at earliest (and perhaps in the early 19th century), and that any usage beyond that would be at least somewhat anachronistic. As to print encyclopedias, it is not my understanding that they use styles for living monarchs, either. Beyond this, I'm not sure I understand the living/dead distinction. Victoria was known as "Her Majesty" while she was alive. On what basis do you contend that it is incorrect to refer to someone who is dead by the style by which they were known in life? john k 14:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Styles are a matter of social custom. "Incorrect", well, no, just as it is not "incorrect" to refer to President Van Buren as "Mr. Van Buren", to Marconi as "Sig. Marconi", etc. — it's just exceedingly odd, and the standard practice of nobody at all. Socially, English and many other languages make the (fearful, reverential) transition from the living, to whom we customarily accord a style, to the dead, to whom we do not, by expressions like "the late (Mrs. X)", "His late Majesty Y". But after a time that too lapses: no one says "the late William the Conqueror" or even "the late Virginia Woolf".

   For monarchs, this may be formalized somewhere (there must surely be manuals of style in the world's protocol offices, which in turn comply with the official usage of the monarchs in question), but the general theory is "Le Roi est mort, Vive le Roi": the majesty is inherent not in the person but in the office as filled by that person; and once dead, it's not there.

   An approximation to finding the official style for deceased British monarchs can be got from the official site of the British monarchy, where on any number of pages (for example this one) Queen Victoria is referred to as "Queen Victoria". Making it crystal clear, the official main page for George VI, the current monarch's father, and thus well within living memory.

   Wikipedia is free, of course, to do anything we want, but in matters like this, where there is such overwhelming consensus, the hypercorrection (always an error of the ignorant, whether in grammar or anything else) does not make us look good. Bill 15:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

As a royal genealogist for almost a decade now [1], I have read countless texts, biographies and histories - both offline and online. I am a very recent member of the Wikipedia comunity. Given my background, I immediately found myself reviewing the royalty and nobility entries. On the topic of inclusion/exclusion of forms of address (HRH, etc), I side strongly in favor of omitting these. But this should not even be a debate. A debate would suggestion that there is some merit in favour of adding HM etc -- Richhil 00:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow, the argument from assertion. You are entitled to your opinion that they should be omitted. You are certainly not entitled to claim that there is no merit whatsoever to the other side without presenting an argument at all. john k 18:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I have been part of the styles debate before, and looks like I got dragged in once again. If the British Monarchy website is not using the styles for their dead monarchs, then, I personally think, we should follow suit. If, in the cases of the Popes, a pope has became Blessed or Saint, we should use that instead of His Holiness, which (I think) is reserved for the Pope. More later, sleep calls me now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Ok, more confusion time folks: the memorial websites of the UK Royalty still use the official styles: http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page863.asp. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Gee, thanks, Z.... So they're not too sure about things, either. Since the ultimate authority (at least for the British monarchs) is inconsistent, the question is moot, and Wikipedia might as well be inconsistent too. The only remaining question then is just when — how far back — does "Their Majesty" begin to sound ridiculous: George III? Henry VII? William the Conqueror?? (Hammurabi????) Bill 10:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Though I personally have no clue on how far it should go back, I do not think we should tag every single British monarch with HM. Maybe we should have a vote here and find out what we want to use. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Henry VIII was the first British monarch to be known as "His Majesty." To refer to any monarch before him by this style would be incorrect. I believe his contemporary Francis I of France was also the first French monarch to take that style. Holy Roman Emperors seem to have been majesties for rather longer, although I'm not sure when it began. That said, styles were pretty haphazard up until the 18th century. In Britain, for instance, clear styles for members of the royal family only emerge with the Hanoverians. I would suggest that if we are to use styles, George I and his contemporaries should probably be the first ones where style is noted. It might even be later - say George III or so. For non-European monarchs, I don't think western styles should be used unless we have clear evidence that they were used in diplomatic contexts - before the mid to late 19th century, I would guess, putting western styles in would be utterly anachronistic. john k 18:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, "Her Majesty" can be axed from the first line of the article, as the styling issue is fully explained under subtitle "Style and Arms" (and can be furher expanded there, if someone has further infopieces about those). Thus, any style is redundant in the beginning. (We do not want to sound like sycophants, do we? - and, as encyclopedia, we explain such things, we do not use them.... it is not our task to express whether Victoria was majestic, John Paul holy, George Bushes excellent, Tony Blair honourable or right, nor Charles PoW high.) Arrigo 19:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)]

Thank you everyone who all have put a good dose of energy and work into determining Her Majesty and its use regarding Queen Victoria. A useful reference is now at Wikipedia:Non-main_namespace_pages_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars_ever Arrigo 14:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I added a short section about the Jubilee Plot, and its relation to Charles Parnell, with specific reference to the claims made by Christy Campbell in Fenian Fire. This has been deleted, and I do not understand why since other assassination attempts are discussed in this article. Any chance of clarification, or at least a nudge in the right direction if the entry belongs elsewhere?

Garrick92 16:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Bueller?

Garrick92 13:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Very well, then. I've added two sentences referring to the Jubilee Plot into the section 'Later Life', so that 'Jubilee Plot' becomes a separate article. Young people today, no bleedin' manners, grumble, whitter, etc.

Garrick92 09:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Ran across this in Henry Alford's The Queen's English today:

I remember, during the first weeks of our present Queen's reign, hearing a clergyman pray for "Alexandrina, our most gracious Queen and governess."

(He was talking about the occasional use of feminine forms of words like "governor" and how they can seem somewhat out of place...) The appearance of "Alexandrina" is a little odd; I didn't realise she was referred to by anything other than Victoria after childhood. Was this an isolated clergyman not sure what the official style was and trying to sound correct, or an example of a briefly common use? Idly curious... Shimgray 13:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Would it be worth putting into this article that there is a carving of Queen Victoria in the walls of the chamber of the Ontario Legislative Assembly. This carving makes a mockery of her, it is believed the people that made the carving were either republicans or anti-Queen Victoria. Canadian Mike 02:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

If there is an image of it, it might be an interesting addition. FearÉIREANN \ ^(caint) 22:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Re the removing of use of Majesty and HRH. I agree. There are a lot of people here who keep adding on the superfluous use of "His Majesty" or "she married HRH Prince Whoever". HRH and Majesty are forms of ADDRESS and as far as I know one can't address a dead person. In all professional encylopedias, any books written about royals, the Royal website itself (apart from the memorial sites - which is because those people died fairly recently and arent historical figures) - only here, and on selected articles at that, have I seen this constant use. It's not used for the pages of the Tudors etc. It's like saying the page for any untitled person should constantly be referred to as "Mr", so a page about Benjamin Franklin would become "Mr. Benmjamin Franklin" and referring to him as the son of "Mr & Mrs Franklin". I think we should remove them on all royal pages except living royals and make wikipedia look a bit more professional.

Agree with the anonymous posting above.-- StanZegel 16:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I Disagree. I think that it's helpful to have the styles at least at the beginning of the article, since it's useful to know what the appropriate styles were during somebody's life. It's kind of silly in the body of the article, though, so I agree with you there. RMG 22:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

So how about a compromise - their style be mentioned once in the article (which would be helpful, maybe not necessarily at beginning as other encyclopedias dont have this but then it mite be helpful for referencing if it is there) but to abolish other over-the-top styles?

I've proposed a solution to the ongoing style wars, namely the use of an infobox. Given that this page is locked and so there is no battle over styles here right now I've put an example of how a box might look in the text here so people can see for themselves. No text was changed or anything. The proposed infoboxes aren't live yet but it seemed logical to cut and paste one of the draft boxes and show people how the idea could work. Please leave feedback as to whether you think the infobox option would be a workable solution to the style wars. You can leave it here or on my talk page (in as caint on my sig). I'll set up a page where we can debate the issue in detail tomorrow. I'm too knackered after all the infoboxing to do anything more and I am in work in 6 hours time!!! FearÉIREANN \ ^(caint) 04:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• This solution has my whole-hearted support. It is simple yet elegant, in complete accord to the style of the article(s). Pete 05:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Until there is a consensus to change the convention on dates within a succession box from year-only to day month and year, and after discussion with others, I have reset her reignal dates to be consistant with the rest of Wiki. -- StanZegel 17:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

What authority did Victoria have to prohibit the use of her name or Albert's in the future by a sovereign? The present sovereign could reverse it surely. George VI have been King Albert - why wasn't he?

She had no such authority — she merely expected all future Sovereigns to do as she wished rather than as they wished (a rather unrealistic expectation, but (as with a lot of her rather selfish behaviour) she seems to have thought it completely reasonable). It's generally thought that Prince Albert, Duke of York, chose to be King George VI to link back to the stability of his father's reign, in an attempt to demonstrate that the abdication crisis was only a blip and that things would now be back to normal. He obviously could have chosen to be King Albert, if he had so wished. Proteus (Talk) 15:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know who the next in line to the throne would have been had the scramble to produce legitimate heirs after the death of George IV's daughter not been successful? If Victoria and the Duke of Clarence's son hadn't been born, who was the next nearest relative? Were there any descendants of the Electress Sophia left? -- Jfruh 05:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If Alexandrina Victoria had not been born, her uncle Ernest Augustus would have become King of the United Kingdom. He would have reigned from 1837 until 1851. EgbertW 03:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

If he had become come King his life (and history) would have turned out differently so you can't say "He would have reigned from 1837 until 1851.". Arniep 05:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The detail seems excessive, especially the paragraph describing the purpose, history, function, location, and appearance of first statue of Her Late Majesty in Sydney. I've seen nice statues of her throughout Canada, including in my hometwon which is named for her - should those be included as well? How do others feel about this? Should they be edited out? Moved to a new article on monuments, buildings, thoroughfares, and facilities of, or named for, Queen Victoria? - Fishhead64 21:55, 05 February 2006

The paragraph beginning "Three attempts to assassinate the Queen occurred in 1842" lists only two attempts (Francis and Bean). What was the third? -- Steve Summit ( talk) 03:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not absolutely certain, but I believe those who attempted to assassinate the Queen first were not apprehended and they tried a second time... a recurring role. In depth details on Queen Victoria's close calls featured in Monarch: the Life and Reign of Elizabeth II by Robert Lacey.... (excerpts). AJ24 00:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The regime of queen victoria is responsible for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, deaths around the globe. somehow, that is not included in the first paragraph. Perhaps, we should clean article about Hitler, removing all things about him being evil and all.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

The queen was more a figurehead than leader of the "regime" or prophetess of genocide. Estimate of lives lost versus lives saved as a result of Pax Britannica would be interesting though still OT in this article. Pavel Vozenilek 00:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Victoria never killed anyone or had anyone killed. By the time of her reign all policies were the responsibility of ministers or parliament. Blaming her for things she had no say in, other than as is required from a constitutional monarch, sign whatever the government tells her to sign, is a bit like blaming a typist for typing a controversial letter as though he or she was responsible for the decision and contents in the letter. The deaths issue belongs on the relevant places, like history of the UK, or the articles on politicians who took those decisions. FearÉIREANN \ ^(caint) 00:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Another analogy would be making Queen Elizabeth personally responsible for the deaths caused by Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe before it left the Commonwealth in 2003. Monarchs reign but do not rule. JackofOz 00:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

As interesting as this is, I think its level of detail is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Would it be prudent to move it to Wikisource? Johnleemk | Talk 14:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The huge table {{ancestors}} (in Family) hides large part of See also section. Adding HTML paragraph or break doesn't work. Perhaps someone knows a better trick. Pavel Vozenilek 00:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

There is not a podunk city around in the former British Empire that does not have a statue or bust of Queen Victoria. As I mentioned in Feb. (see above), having a lengthy description of the non-notable ones (that is to say, 99% of them) is uneccessary filler to an already lengthy article. If one wishes to create an article on this or that piece of Victorian civic clutter, I think that would be more appropriate. I have taken the liberty of removing the reference to various Australian likenesses and shortening the account of the statue in Dublin (interesting, perhaps, only as an example of changing attitudes in the post-colonial world). Fishhead64 16:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Where are there details of de-featuring? Rich Farmbrough, 12:58 12 September 2006 (GMT).

" Why it was removed" up there is a link. TransUtopian 16:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This section begins ... "first modern monarch." Rich Farmbrough, 12:58 12 September 2006 (GMT).

	Albert was her first cousin.
	Her coronation was on the 28th June 1838.
	The coronation was a year and eight days after her reign.
	She was baptized on the 24th June 1819 Kensington Palace, London.
	She was buried on the 2nd February 1901 Frogmore Windsor.
	Of the current line of succession to the British throne, the first 510 people listed are descended from Victoria.
	Her reign lasted more than sixty-three years, longer than that of any other British monarch

Preceded / Succeeded by seems to be missing.

Eire1130 18:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia says she was born on a ship under English flag on the river Neckar and that Kensington palace as place of birth is just "official history". This is the passage:

"Beide Eltern wohnten bis 1819 in einem Palais, dem Thalheim'schen Haus, in Eberbach am Neckar. Eberbacher Familien berichteten, dass kurz vor der Niederkunft der Herzogin diese hastig ihr gesamtes Mobiliar verkauft habe, um dafür ein Schiff zu erwerben. Bis heute befinden sich in traditionsreichen Eberbacher Familien Einzelstücke aus dem verkauften Mobiliar. Das Schiff wurde nach englischem Recht kurzerhand zu englischem Hoheitsgebiet erklärt und nach Augenzeugenberichten soll die spätere Königin Victoria von Großbritannien und Irland unweit von Eberbach am Neckar auf diesem Schiff zur Welt gekommen sein, als ihre Eltern eilig auf dem Weg nach London waren."

80.141.255.139 23:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This line is well-associated with Queen Victoria, to the point of being known by foreigners who wouldn't connect her lifetime with the term "Victorian era." It's mentioned twice in the popcult references section, but not covered elsewhere. Its origins should be added to the article. What say you? -- Kizor 18:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There are gooffy names for Victoria's ancestry at the beginning of the "early life" section. I tried to correct them, but they do not appear in the "modify" text box. Can anyone correct that ?

This article states "as a monarch Queen 200th. proposed to Albert. I found this very interesting. Why does it not link to another article? Surely this interesting fact deserves an article of its own. Does anyone have any info on this? Does this rule still exist today? (Did QE II propose to the Duke of E.?). Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.56.132.168 ( talk) 16:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that proposing to the monarch might offend him/her. Queen Elizabeth II was not a monarch when she got engaged to the Duke of Edinburgh. 87.250.113.213 ( talk) 20:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.245.85.205 ( talk) 14:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"John Francis (most likely seeking to gain notoriety) fired a pistol at the Queen (then in a carriage), but was immediately seized by Police Constable William Trounce. Francis was convicted of high treason, but his death sentence was commuted to transportation for life. (It is not known whether he was later elected Prime Minister of Australia, but this seems unlikely)." Is this comment about Australia genuine and appropriate? Mr. Francis doesn't seem to have a bio on Wikipedia. If there is real debate about whether an attempted assassin became PM of Australia, wouldn't he be notable enough to deserve one? Canuckle 20:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, that comment is just a bit of mischief (now removed). Cheers, Ian Rose 02:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

A lot of this stuff seems pretty trivial for a biographical article. Surely we don't need all this detail? How important is it that we include a park or a street or a building named after her? Every city in the Empire had something like that. And she features as a character in thousands of books and movies. -- Pete 07:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoever is doing this needs to take a good look at this.-- Rmky87 18:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Though Victoria became monarch at a time when the United Kingdom had become an established constitutional monarchy in which the King or Queen held few political powers

As far as I know GB - for lack of any constitution - is not a constitutional but a parliamentary monarchy. The German Kaiserreich was a constitutionl monarchy for instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.141.215.216 ( talk • contribs) 19:56, 23 December 2007

First of all, hi and welcome to the 'pædia! Secondly, you can sign your posts (which lets people when you posted), by typing ~~~~ — you can do so without logging in, but, if you're planning on sticking around, you might want to get an account. To address your point, I think you ought to read the definition of the term constitutional monarchy, as given at the term's article. Enjoy! D B D 23:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have suggested that William Hamilton (criminal) be merged to this article, because he is notable for only one event per WP:BIO1E. So far as I can see, the article on Queen Victoria covers him in as much detail as his own article, so his own article is redundant. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me, lets do it. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, though the article says nothing not here already so all I have done is the redirect. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my english. Hi all, this page of wikipedia apparence in a fotogram of film National Treasure: Book of Secrets in a Laptop. The fotogram is in a 00:34:14 "film time". Bye :-)-- Conte0 ( talk) 22:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This article looks like complete and utter crap. I have edited several times the layout of images only to have users with no taste shove any image into the mix with no regard for layout.

-- Mrlopez2681 ( talk) 05:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be no mention of Victoria's friendship with Benjamin Disraeli, which I've heard was very important to her after Albert's death. If there's mention of John Brown, surely Disraeli should be a part of the article as well? Someone with greater knowledge in this area could possibly integrate him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.238.32 ( talk) 05:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The article says she was a native German speaker. Surely this is misleading if not outright false. Her (main) native language was English. Peter jackson ( talk) 16:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I just thought I'd point out an excellent source now that The Times has opened up its archive for free (I think for a limited time only, and it requires registration for some articles), but Victoria's coronation is described here. I haven't got the time to go through it myself, as I'm off on holiday tomorrow and have to pack, but hopefully someone can put it to good use.

As an aside, I would like to take this time to mention an excellent paragraph from the report on the coronation:

One ludicrous circumstance occurred which may be worth mentioning. For some time a bird of large dimensions had been observed flying backwards and forwards, and then to hover over the Palace so frequently, as to call for the peculiar notice of a coterie of elderly ladies, who chanced to have esconced themselves in our own particular neighbourhodd, one of whom, after much examination and apparent inward consultation, pronounced it to be a goose. To describe the instant expression of horror which rushed upon the faces of those ladies would be to attempt a task on which failure must attend. "What !" exclaimed they in one voice–" what ! a goose; lor, you don't say so." "But I do," continued the first named, " and I am quite confident of it ; it is a goose, poor dear soul." "Ay, ay, well may you say poor dear soul. Well, there's no saying anything for a certainty beforehand, is there? Who'd have thought it, that a nasty, ugly, long-necked (and here the lady somewhat stretched out her own neck, which could neither boast of plumpness nor of shortness) goose should have been fated to mar the happy events of this day! There will surely be some accident, or the poor dear soul, God bless her, will not long survive the ceremony." To this prediction the friends one and all assented with open mouths, one of them adding, that probably so lamentable a result might be averted, if any man would only shoot the wretch.

Apologies for the length, I just found it amusing. El Pollo Diablo ( Talk) 14:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody please make more sense out of this sentence: Victoria, who was entirely of German descent, was the granddaughter of George III, the niece of her predecessor William IV, and a descendant of most major European royal houses. Thanks. -- Ben ^T/ _C 08:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could explain which part of the sentence doesn't make sense - is it the "descendant of most major European royal houses" bit? Would "was related by blood to most reigning European royal families" make more sense? I'm note sure, however, whether that's gramatically correct... – Toon ^(talk) 00:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving the message on my talk page. I'll tell you what seemed confusing to me. The statement is not necessarily self-contradicting, maybe I am just missing out on it, I admit I am fairly naive on European royal houses. First it says Victoria was entirely of German descent, then it says she was niece of an earlier English king, then that she descended from most major (whatever that means) European royal houses. So, my confusion is, is she entirely of German descent or of more international? Was king William IV also of German descent? Are all major (whatever) European houses German? Are the German royal houses where she descended from 100 percent German? Is it possible to say one royal family is German or aren't they all completely mixed up? To sum up, maybe there's just too much in one sentence. The major and the entirely German part look too general to me. Ben ^T/ _C 02:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, entirely German is incorrect, she's got some woman ancester who isn't I do believe... not entirely sure who though. The thing about the British Royal Family is that they are... well... not that British. Royal families and Monarchies are ridiculously complex. See, Victoria was part of the House of Hanover, (the last British Monarch of that house, actually), which came to power in Britain with George I of Great Britain, because (as that excellent article explains), he was the deceased Queen Anne's closest living Protestant relative (we took a disliking to the Catholics during the 1600s and banned them from coming to power in the Act of Settlement 1701). As you may or may not be aware, there's a lot of inbreeding which takes place across Royal families - they tend not to marry ordinary folk, so there comes a point where, after hundreds of years of only marrying Royalty, everyone's related to everyone - in fact, Victoria's husband Albert was her cousin, and also a German - but I digress.

If you look at this handy "Ancestry" section, you'll see that George II, her German great-great-grandfather married a German, and so-on down to Victoria's parents. Actually that chart pretty much covers it.

So to sum up: All of the British Monarchs from George I were pure German and married pure Germans, but did speak English and rule Britain. Also, the German Royalty got around, so in one way or another everyone's related. Although I believe that "major" families is probably a little subjective on the part of Aubyn, the author we are citing, so I may just remove that bit. It's a little trivial anyway. Hope that clears it up somewhat, although I must admit that I'm not even 100% sure I understand everything. – Toon ^(talk) 03:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. Yeah, I didn't check the dedicated section in the article. I think what you say, simplifying the statement, would be a great improvement. Let me add, instead of German descent, House of Hanover would be more clear, also. Ben ^T/ _C 19:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, she's not almost entirely of the House of Hanover - while all of her relatives are German, they aren't all of the HoH. :) – Toon ^(talk) 20:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol -- Ben ^T/ _C 07:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason for using 'advise' rather than 'advice' in the second paragraph of the introduction? AJSG ( talk) 07:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a simple spelling error. I have fixed it now, but feel free to correct any others you find. Road Wizard ( talk) 19:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

this doesn't say when they were engaged. how long was the time between their engagement and wedding? 69.139.230.251 ( talk) 19:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Just wondered if the editors of this article wanted to make use of this work? -- Mais oui! ( talk) 12:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It is very dubious whether there was ever such a thing (in Britain) as the "House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha". While Albert certainly was a scion of that dynasty, Victoria was the head of the household in Britain by virtue of her status as monarch (witness her proposal of marriage to Albert), and to that extent the dynasty was transmitted through her, not Albert, and the House of Hanover lived on in Edward VII, and lives on today. albeit under a different name. Escoville ( talk) 10:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No scholar finds the fact that Victoria was the last member of the House of Hanover to reign in the UK dubious. The dynasty name was traditionally transmitted through men and that was undisputably the case with Albert and Victoria: she passed the crown, he passed the house name. Furthermore, King Edward VII recognized House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha as his royal house and so did George V when he changed the name of the house to House of Windsor. Surtsicna ( talk) 11:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Victoria succeeded to the throne on the death of her uncle, William IV. But he had several living younger brothers at the time. One of them went on to become King of Hanover, another had been the viceroy in Hanover during William's reign. Why were they passed over as Kings of the UK? - Wolfram.Tungsten ( talk) 20:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Because Edward Augustus, Duke of Kent (Victoria's father) was the eldest to have issue. Succession is via the brother, then his children. Hence, if Edward had had no children, the crown would have passed to the next youngest brother (and his children). fishhead64 ( talk) 20:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Victoria's father was older than William IV's surviving brothers. Victoria was her father's heir general, being his only child. According to the rules of primogeniture, Victoria was William IV's heiress - being the only child of his eldest younger brother. All her uncles came after her in the line of succession because they were younger than Victoria's father and Victoria "represented" her dead father. Surtsicna ( talk) 23:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Who are the children, grand-children and great-grand children, that Victoria overlived ? What are there reasons for there early death ? -- AndreaMimi ( talk) 15:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"She outlived 3 of her 9 children, and came within seven months of outliving a fourth (her eldest daughter, Vicky, who died of spinal cancer in August 1901 aged 60. She outlived 11 of her 42 grandchildren (two stillborn, six as children, and three as adults), and 3 of her 88 great-grandchildren." (quote from the article)

It can be possible, that a woman - Queen or not ;) - outlived one of her children. But whats about the grand - and great-grandchildren ? Why did the died so early ? -- AndreaMimi ( talk) 16:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Victoria never outlived one of her great-grand children. Some of the them were born and died in childhood or in early years, but after the time when her great-grand mother lived.

I looked at the articles and find the truth out. -- AndreaMimi ( talk) 16:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

See Grandchildren of Victoria and Albert for details and dates. —— Shakescene ( talk) 02:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

From the archive:

This line is well-associated with Queen Victoria, to the point of being known by foreigners who wouldn't connect her lifetime with the term "Victorian era." It's mentioned twice in the popcult references section, but not covered elsewhere. Its origins should be added to the article. What say you? --Kizor 18:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I very much agree. It also redirects here. It is really so well known it's poor that it is not covered, and then referenced in the general wikipedian vapid pop culture section. All I know is that it's source is from around 1920 and the actual context it was allegedly said in is obscure.-- 86.130.143.58 18:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

it no longer redirects here, it redirects to Cultural_depictions_of_Victoria_of_the_United_Kingdom, which does not explain it, or even mention it. 67.176.160.47 ( talk) 06:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree it should be covered. Knopffabrik ( talk) 15:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Added a picture with a long caption in the legacy section. DrKiernan ( talk) 16:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Although christened Alexandrina Victoria - and from birth formally styled Her Royal Highness Princess Victoria of Kent - Victoria was called Drina within the family.

'Her name, though finally agreed upon as Victoria Carolina, was disputed over by her mother and uncles.

Alexandrina or Caroline? 87.250.113.209 16:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That Carolina was left over from some vandalism D B D 18:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I googled "Queen Victoria's last name" (slow night) and got the familiar information that her married surname was "Wettin," but also the claim that her maiden name was "Guelph." Does anyone know if it's so, and should it appear in the article? (Victoria Wettin" redirects here). DavidOaks ( talk) 03:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Victoria never had a surname. She was born a royal and became a queen — neither is the sort of person to have a surname. D B D 19:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

This section is quite confusing. At first we're told Victoria "fell in love with Ireland", then the rest of the section describes her indifference to the people and the place. Perhaps I'm missing something? - MichiganCharms ( talk) 17:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly inconsistant - I'm not sure which of her feelings is accurate. GoodDay ( talk) 20:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It also claims that she spent her holidays County Kerry but then goes on to make multiple staements about her refusal to visit or establish a residence there (which might conflict with the status of Hillsborough Castle as a royal residence) - MichiganCharms ( talk) 22:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

These events are beyond my knowledge; Cameron may be better suited for straightening these things out. GoodDay ( talk) 22:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The Article makes it clear that she liked at first but her relationship with Ireland soured in the 1870's and 80's. By royal residence the article means a personal residence equivilent to Balmoral and Osbourne not a property attached to the Crown. When she holidayed in County Kerry she stayed in Muckross House ,a property neither attached to the Crown nor a personal property. Ruairidhbevan ( talk) 23:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Great Famine

The article mentions 2000 sterling QV gave to Irish people, but fails to mention that she refused Ottoman's aid of 10000 stg and allowed only 1000. IMAO quite important, see Irish Potato Famine -- 79.97.214.191 ( talk) 10:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, feel free to add it + source if you think it's important :) – Toon ^(talk) 14:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I'll try and find a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.33.133 ( talk) 02:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I also think it is important that this article simplifies the inextricable interconnectedness between the Corn Laws and the Irish Potato famine. Without the Corn Laws, the poor farmers of Ireland would have had more opportunities to grow better crops without the interference of oppressive English Landlords, whose rights to subjugate the Irish were guaranteed under the Corn Laws. I am going to write a brief transition at the beginning of the Ireland section regarding this issue. Feel free to remove it if you do not find it helpful. ~zscrappydoo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zscrappydoo ( talk • contribs) 06:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ottoman Aid

The source seems dodgy to me - it seems to be one wikipedia article quoting another wikipedia article quoting one person quoting another person quoting another. Not really solid evidence - This turkish magazine quoting someone called Thomas O'Neill quoting someone else. I personally would delete it unless anyone can find something other than internet hearsay. Alternatively make it clear that there is not much evidence to support it. That is not to say that I rule out the generosity of the then sultan. He was probably wealthy enough to make a gesture like that. The personal attribution to Queen Victoria of the refusal sounds unlikely though. If the story is true and the money was refused, it was probably an over-zealous diplomat rather than a personal response from QV. Muchado ( talk) 16:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Update... after some research, I find the following source from a book scanned by Google:

"During the year of famine in Ireland, the Sultan heard of the distress existing in that unhappy country; he immediately conveyed to the British ambassador his desire to aid in its relief, and tendered for that purpose a large sum of money. It was intimated to him that it was thought right to limit the sum subscribed by the Queen, and a larger amount could not therefore be received from his highness. He at once acquiesced in the propriety of this resolution, and with many expressions of benevolent sympathy, sent the greatest admissible subscription." pages 20-21, "The Sultan of Turkey, Abdul Medjid Khan: A Brief Memoir of his Life and Reign, with Notices of the country, its Army, Navy & present Prospects", Rev. Henry Christmas, published by John Farquhar Shaw, London, 1854

While this does assign responsibility to British officials, it is not clear that this command came from the Queen herself, so I would suggest that we leave links to the main article on the famine (where this information is available) rather than to include this reference in the article on Queen Victoria (unless a direct attribution can be found).

Incidentally, Great Britain was at that time an ally of Turkey (against Russia), so the warm relations are not that surprising. Muchado ( talk) 17:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

wasent marrying at 21 in those days considered quiet late? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.88.158 ( talk) 19:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it was even considered quite early. Most royal women married in their early twenties. Her first cousin, Princess Augusta of Cambridge, also married at the age of 21. Her other first cousin, Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge, married at the age of 33. Surtsicna ( talk) 23:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

21 was not old but it was fairly late, princess married when they were in their teenage years from about 15-20 was seen as the proper age for a young lady to marry. Victoria herself probably married late at 21 because she enjoyed her independence during her early youth (18-21). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.88.158 ( talk) 17:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you seriously believe that 15-20 was seen as the proper age for a lady to marry? Please stop saying non-sense, someone could believe you. British princesses never married as teenagers and Victoria did not marry late. As I said, she was considered quite young when she married. Surtsicna ( talk) 12:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If anybody is talking nonsense it is you. Most British princesses married as teenagers and 21 was considered fairly late. Victoria's own daughters; Victoria married at 16, Alice at 19, Helena at 19. Alexandra of Denmark was 18 and Victoria's grandchildren married as a teenagers. (Marie of Edinburgh was 17, Alexandra of Edinburgh was 19, Charlotte of Prussia was 17, Victoria Eugenie, Queen of Spain, was 19) -- Melaniegreyton ( talk) 21:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Vicky married at 17, not 16, and Helena was 20, not 19. Victoria's other daughters were considerably older - Louise was 23 and Beatrice was 28. The Duchess of Edinburgh and the Duchess of Albany were both 21, although the Duchess of Connaught was 19. Mary of Teck was 26, Princess Louise her sister in law was was 22, Princess Maud was 27. The Duchess of Fife was 22, Princess Margaret of Connaught was 23 and Princess Patricia was 33. Princess Alice of Albany was almost 21, and her sister-in-law was 19. Going back to the generation before Victoria, Charlotte married at 31, Elizabeth at 48, Mary at 40. Queen Caroline was 26, Princess Charlotte was 20, the Duchess of York was 24, Queen Adelaide was 26, the Duchess of Cambridge was 20 (I don't count the Duchesses of Kent or Cumberland, who were widows). Queen Charlotte was 17. George III's sisters married at ages 27 and 15. George III's mother was 16, and George II's daughters married at 25, 17, and 19. When you actually look at all the available evidence, rather than cherry picking examples, you can see that while there certainly are a pretty substantial numbers of examples of princesses marrying in their teens, there are also plenty who married in their twenties. Victoria was not at all abnormally late, but pretty close to the median age for marriages of ladies in the British royal family in the 18th and 19th centuries. To be sure as not to annoy road wizards - I think this suggests that no discussion of Queen Victoria being an unusual age for a marriage should be included in the article. john k ( talk) 16:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Can all of you involved in this discussion please remember that article talk pages are meant to discuss changes and improvements to the articles. Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion about the subjects of the articles. If you want to compare how many of the British Princesses married before and after the age of 21, I would suggest you check the links found in the {{ British princesses}} template.

If you want to continue this discussion please do so on your user talk pages or even discuss this outside of Wikipedia entirely. If you still need help in finding an answer to your questions, please consult the Reference Desk. Regards. Road Wizard ( talk) 22:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I also think that it is important to include the dynamics of Victoria and Albert's developing relationship. Though she failed to give him any formal responsibilities at the beginning of their marriage, he does evolve into a highly influential statesman himself. Of course, this may be discussed in detail in a Wikipedia Article on Prince Albert; however, it is important to feature the developing concept of their relationship together in this article because it had a great influence on Victoria, the United Kingdom, and the world. I am going to add a brief section on this to the article. Feel free to remove it if you do not find it helpful ~zscrappydoo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zscrappydoo ( talk • contribs) 06:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Added The Pune incident. The perpetrators were said to be the first modern Indian revolutionaries to be hanged. Check the references in the movie article. The assassination was timed to coincide with the Diamond Jubilee Celebrations. Said to have sparked armed resistance to the British rule. A landmark event needs to be cited here. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 05:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The incident needs to be mentioned to indicate that her Empress of India title did not go down well with everyone. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 05:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This incident may have been timed to the jubilee but does not really have all that much to do with the queen. This is just another example of irrelevent information being written into articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.164.48 ( talk) 17:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Please check the article Chapekar brothers. The British rule over India was a bloody period. Victoria's UK and all other colonial powers have been black spots in the history of humanity. The shooting of British officers was timed to coincide with Victoria's Jubilee celebrations, it was considered as the worst political violence related to the plague in the world. It was Pune's coronation gift to her empress. 1897 was a time of death and despair in India, struck by the pestilence of British rule and plague and the cruelty of famine, but as India suffered the colonisers celebrated. The perpetrator of the shooting Damodar Chapekar writes in his biography that Victoria failed in her responsibility towards her subjects, indulging in celebrations as her citizens suffered and his act was an act of retribution against her rule. Tilak was charged with abetting the shooting for his writings punished with a jail term, making him a living martyr to the cause of India's independence movement. I am bringing it back. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 05:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There were other incidents in India and elsewhere in the empire which could be seen as protests to British rule. Unless everything is recorded, this one incident should not be singled out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.182.200 ( talk) 21:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This was a significant incident, for more than one reason. Also it was timed to coincide with the jubilee celebrations. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 16:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Of all the biographies I have seen on Queen Victoria, this incident has never been mentioned. This is an article on the Queen, not the British Empire. Minor protests to British rule do not belong in the article on the Queen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.162.181 ( talk) 19:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The British rule over India was a bloody period. Victoria's UK and all other colonial powers have been black spots in the history of humanity - oh I don't know - they stopped your compatriots from forcing widows to sit on their late husbands funeral pyres. I bet that saved more people than the British ever killed in India. And during the Second World War the British Indian Army, a service consisting entirely of volunteers, was approximately 2,000,000 strong - so some Indians and the various other peoples that made up India must have been fairly well-disposed to Britain. In contrast to Chandra Bose's lot who collaborated with the Japanese and which was made up of separatist and discontents, which was minuscule in comparison. Perhaps the editor of the quoted passage would have preferred rule by the Japanese, then there would have been public beheadings a-plenty, something that the 'evil British' gave up doing several hundred years ago.

Oh, and I bet the numerous massacres that occurred immediately after Indian Independence also killed more people than the British ever did. As soon as they got what they wanted the separatists and nationalists then commenced murdering everyone they didn't like. Perhaps that was 'normal' behaviour for India before the British arrived.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.80.21 ( talk) 09:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to make it easier to find, could the Queen's stated religious beliefs be added to the info box at the top of the page? Invmog ( talk) 03:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.30.150.2 ( talk) 17:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I should have been appended this to "Was queen Victoria a bastard?", above, if at all. I will search for supporting academic article which appeared in the 1990s. There was contemporary discussion of this posit when identifying remains of the last czar and his family; whether P. Philip's DNA should be used (it was). ˜˜˜˜. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1201SLD ( talk • contribs) 15:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Need appropriate mention of QV's unknown natural father. QV carried hemophilia. The hereditary nature and genetic mechanics of hemophilia, together with the fact that it does not appear in earlier generations of the Wettin families (Hanover, Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha), press the question of true paternity. ˜˜˜˜. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1201SLD ( talk • contribs) 15:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again, sorry to interupt this jolly nonsense with some actual science, but Haemophilia (the correct spelling, by the way) can be inherited from either parent, not just from a father. Female carriers of the disorder are usually asymptomatic (ie have no symptoms of the disorder themselves, but carry the faulty gene, and can pass it on to their offspring), so the disorder could well have come from her mother. (In much the same way that the disorder was passed on by some of Victoria's asymptomatic daughters). The fact that Victoria's father did not have the disorder proves absolutlely nothing. Indisciplined ( talk) 10:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, this fun again. I don't understand how Victoria's paternity comes into whether Philip's DNA should have been used. Philip's mother's mother's mother was Princess Alice, the tsarina's mother. If Victoria was a bastard, that does not change the fact that Philip and Alexandra ought to have shared mitochondrial DNA. Beyond that, since there are no male carriers of hemophilia who do not actually suffer from the disease, the only way for Victoria to have inherited the gene for hemophilia from her father is if he was an actual hemophiliac. For those who continue to press this, who was this supposed hemophiliac lover of the Duchess of Kent? The most likely possibility here is that Victoria or her mother was a mutant. This is, as I understand it, normally how hemophilia arises, because until very recently hemophiliac gene lines tended to become extinct. At any rate, I don't see how this can be taken at all seriously until the Duchess of Kent's hemophiliac lover can be identified and his connection to the Duchess demonstrated. Most of the accounts I've seen seem to want to use the hemophilia angle to suggest that Sir John Conroy, who did not suffer from hemophilia, was Victoria's father. That hardly works. john k ( talk) 15:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article mention that Victoria died from a cerebral haemorrhage? ( 92.10.25.106 ( talk) 19:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

She did? GoodDay ( talk) 22:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You state, quite categorically, that "myths were generated towards the end of the 19th century that she had donated a maximum of £5 in aid to the Irish, and on the same day also gave £5 pounds to Battersea Dog Shelter. This was false, as she in fact contributed £2,000" Yet the reference (28) reads "insert footnote text here"... What is the source for this please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatqwerty ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The article's "Accession" section states as follows:

“

All the official documents (proclamation, oaths of allegiance, etc) prepared on the first day of her reign described her as Queen Alexandrina Victoria but at her first Privy Council meeting she signed the register as Victoria; thus, although she was supposed to reign as Alexandrina Victoria, the first name was withdrawn at her own wish.

”

Intentionally or not, this gives the impression that she was proclaimed Queen Alexandrina Victoria. In fact, as published in the Gazette, she was proclaimed as Victoria. While the proclamation certainly refers to "Princess Alexandrina Victoria", it just as certainly refers to "our Liege Lady Victoria, by the Grace of God Queen of..." and "Royal Princess Victoria with long and happy years to reign over us." By way of comparison, George VI was "Albert Frederick Arthur George" in the parts where Victoria was "Alexandrina Victoria" and "our Liege Lord George VI" and "the Royal Prince George VI" in the other places.

I don't have access to the book used as a source for the passage I quoted above. As a result, I can't verify whether it is supposed to refer to drafts. Whatever the case, the passage seems to suggest that the proclamation and oaths "went live" with "Alexandra Victoria", and the name was only changed later. As I have shown, that is not true, at the very least, in the case of the proclamation. I would like to be able to make the changes to eliminate the misleading implication, but I lack the facts to do so without potentially creating a new one, or even an out-and-out falsehood. So, I do therefore beseech thee, the noble and loyal Editors of Quality to bring your aid to this unhappy Circumstance. (Sorry, I've been reading accession proclamations for an hour or so.) - Rrius ( talk) 21:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The final paragraph of this section may be inaccurate. Currently it reads:

Victoria was taught only German until she was three years old. . . . Her mother spoke German with her.

I do not have the source to back it up, but it seems that she actually denied this herself. Someone on IMDb has quoted her as responding to a proposed biography, as follows:

It seems at least one proposed biography that was done soon after her marriage had claimed that she lisped Teutonic phrases to please her mother's ear to get her way as a young child but Victoria wrote back 'Not true. Never spoke German until 1839[when she and Albert became engaged]. Not allowed to.'

Ed8r ( talk) 20:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} The following sentence opens the second paragraph of the first section, titled "Heiress to the Throne" The young Princess Victoria was the only legitimate child of the fourth son of George III, the Duke of Kent, who died in 1820. Both men died in the same year. I believe it would be a good idea to disambiguate the sentence by noting that both died in 1820. The young Princess Victoria was the only legitimate child of the fourth son of George III, the Duke of Kent, both of whom died in 1820. I cannot edit it because the article is semi-protected. Thanks to whoever does.

I'm sorry, but, who are these two people who died in 1820? George III was the Duke of Kent - she only had one father. Or am I misunderstanding something? Could you please clarify, and then reinstate this request.

Also,

When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured here..

Thanks,  Chzz   ►  12:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The fourth son of George III was Edward the Duke of Kent. Both George III and the Duke of Kent died in January 1820. I haven't done the edit because I'm not sure of the relevancy for George III's date of passing vis a vis Victoria's heir apparent status since she wasn't George III's heir. The sentence might be improved if we removed the reference to George III altogether. Syrthiss ( talk) 12:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I've reworked it so it is clear whose death in 1820 we're talking about. - Rrius ( talk) 11:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody write about Queen Victoria's passion for the dogs? Google "Queen Victoria dogs". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.17.197.178 ( talk) 08:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I found it by chance, when searching for sources about Victoria. Among the notes there is a reference to book "Greg Taylor, Nicholas Economou (2006). The Constitution of Victoria. Federation Press." which is definitely not the book about Queen Victoria, but about the Australian state of the same name. For example note 67 references to this book - it should be a source for the information about Victorias royal styles and titles, but there is practicaly nothing relevant about it on given pages (or anywhere else in the book). You can find the book via google books and look for yourselves. 188.175.126.66 ( talk) 18:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest looking up the reference in an older version of this article, say the end of 2009. I recall that the reference then, although not one most people would first think of checking, did give and support the bare facts about Victoria's style and arms. What I think may have happened is that either a 'bot or an unversed human editor may have helpfully updated the reference to a more recent and available edition, which unfortunately doesn't have the information needed. (Similar things happen in semi-mechanically-translated articles such as History of the Jews of Thessaloniki; see Talk:History of the Jews of Thessaloniki.) However, this is just a guess; I may be completely mistaken. —— Shakescene ( talk) 06:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Excerpt : "In Sydney, the capital city of New South Wales, there is one statue (re-sited from the forecourt of the Irish Parliament building in Dublin) dominating the southern entrance to the Queen Victoria Building that was named in her honour in 1898. Another Sydney statue of Queen Victoria stands in the forecourt of the Federal Court of Australia building on Macquarie Street, looking across the road to a statue of her husband, inscribed "Albert the Good"."

The official city statue of Queen Victoria is not in the forecourt of the Federal Court of Australia building in Macquarie Street, nor does she look at her husband. She is located in Queen's Square, Macquarie Street, Sydney and looks towards the Supreme Court of New South Wales building. The statue of her husband "Abert the Good" looks across Macquarie Street towards the Queen. 202.0.106.130 ( talk) 02:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Robert Woodley, 21 July 2010

Surely Great Britain was already the foremost world power after the end of the Napoleonic Wars? ( 92.4.142.228 ( talk) 17:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC))

Perhaps... why? Jmlk 1 7 00:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This sentence seems self-contradictory: "Victoria's first official visit to Ireland, in 1849, was specifically arranged ... to try to both draw attention from the famine and alert British politicians ... to the seriousness of the crisis in Ireland." Could someone who has access to the source clarify it? Colonies Chris ( talk) 22:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I have recategorised Queen Victoria as a Knight Grand Cordon of the Order of the White Elephant as that would be the customary grade for a monarch to be appointed to - she certainly would not have been appointed as a 'Member' of the order ie to the 5th Class. The original categorisation was based on their being only one category in use for the Order, that has now been expanded to reflect the different grades of the order in accordance with WP:ODM preferred practice, please note that at this stage the category also incorporates Dames Grand Cordon. If a reliable reference can be found for her appointment to a different grade, please amend the categorisation. Cheers, AusTerrapin ( talk) 16:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Currently, the Queen's children (why "Issue", which layfolk unschooled in law or genealogy don't understand?) read as follows in the Information Box:

Issue

Victoria, German Empress

Edward VII of the United Kingdom

Alice, Grand Duchess of Hesse

Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

Princess Helena, Princess Christian of Schleswig-Holstein

Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll

Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn

Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany

Princess Beatrice, Princess Henry of Battenberg

Especially when the lines run over and wrap to the next line, it's unclear how many children Queen Victoria had (yes, I know, because I spent a month working on Grandchildren of Victoria and Albert). Even someone like me who does know can read this at first glance as if Princess Helena, Princess Christian of Schleswig-Holstein, Princess Beatrice and Princess Henry of Battenberg are four separate children.

Since the information box is designed to provide quick information at a glance (often to casual visitors who are uninterested in too much extra detail, or to users referred here from another article), is there some way of simplifying the titles without too much distortion, and then adding phrasing along the lines of "For full titles, see Grandchildren of Victoria and Albert"? Many visitors, perhaps most, don't know the odd formal conventions such as " The Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Phillips"; and it's not the place of a general article like this one to presume that they ought to. Especially this article, which will be one of the first about British royalty that a child or general-interest reader will look up, perhaps after seeing Victoria Regina or The Young Victoria, or when collecting British coins or postage stamps.

Would putting the later titles in parentheses (brackets), for example, be too great an offence against historical accuracy? E.g. "Princess Beatrice (Princess Henry of Battenberg)" or "Princess Helena, [later Princess Christian of Schleswig-Holstein]"? P.S., after an editor, with a righteously-toned edit summary, recently added "Princess" to a couple of names, why are Alice and Alfred still unprefixed?. —— Shakescene ( talk) 07:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If the first "Princess" is removed, so that they read "Helena, Princess Christian of Schleswig-Holstein" and "Beatrice, Princess Henry of Battenberg" then on my screen they fall on one line only. It also seems unnecessary to use the same word twice, particularly in an infobox, which is supposed to be as succinct as possible. Would this help? DrKiernan ( talk) 18:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Prince and Princess are necessary prefixes for any of them. I don't like "Edward VII of the United Kingdom", in that every other person's full title is listed except his. As far as the adding of Princess, I think the idea is that Alfred's and Alice's titles as sovereign duke of Saxe-Coburg and sovereign grand duchess of Hesse outranked their princely titles. john k ( talk) 20:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I probably should have thought and studied more, but my stab at compromising the different considerations (and squeezing each person into a single line) is now on the Information Box as:

Issue

Victoria, the Princess Royal

King Edward VII

Princess Alice, Grand Duchess of Hesse

Prince Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha

Helena, Princess Christian of Schleswig-Holstein

Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll

Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught

Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany

Beatrice, Princess Henry of Battenberg

• [for fuller titles, see Children below]

—— Shakescene ( talk) 21:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but why do you think we should deprive Victoria's eldest daughter of her highest and most important title? In my humble opinion, the most simple solution would be:

Victoria, German Empress

Edward VII

Alice, Grand Duchess of Hesse

Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha

Princess Helena

Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll

Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught

Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany

Princess Beatrice

There is obviously no reason to attach "Prince(ss)" to the names of sovereigns or consorts of sovereigns. I also don't see any particular need to attach trivial titles to Helena and Beatrice, unless they are actually commonly known as Princess Christian and Princess Henry. Are they? Surtsicna ( talk) 22:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This seems good to me - worth noting that in 1917, both Helena and Beatrice stopped using their husbands' names as part of their standard style, so as to sound less German. john k ( talk) 04:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

¶ (edit conflict) For the Princess Royal, I started writing "German Empress" all over Grandchildren of Victoria and Albert until someone pointed out that she was Empress (and Queen Consort of Prussia) for only a few months (March to June 1888). On the other hand, she was known as the Princess Royal for many years beginning at age 1 (far earlier in her life than Princess Anne). Her Wikipedia article is in fact entitled Victoria, Princess Royal—which is indicative without being decisive in a context where we don't always use article titles. But of course I'd be glad to see more information and discussion. I suppose the alternative is to call her "Victoria, Crown Princess of Prussia", which she was for twenty years beginning in 1861. —— Shakescene ( talk) 04:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• She was empress for a few months, but dowager empress for 13 years. Most of her life she was not known as "Princess Royal" but as "Crown Princess of Prussia". Her case is certainly no different from Alice's, who was only grand duchess of Hesse for a bit longer than Victoria was German empress, and who was never a dowager. john k ( talk) 04:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Saying that we shouldn't refer to Victoria as "German Empress" because she held that title for a few months would be like saying that we shouldn't refer to Edward VII as King because he was Prince of Wales six times longer. Surtsicna ( talk) 19:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of the article on "Victoria of the United Kingdom" is excellently written and informative. It's only because I've been looking ridiculously closely in my research that I noticed something wrong. Since the article is semi-protected indefinitely, I'm posting the error I discovered here in the hopes that someone who has the authority to do so will fix it.

There is an image embedded in the article: "Portrait of Queen Victoria's family in 1846 by Franz Xaver Winterhalter," in the "Children" section near the bottom of the article. The caption at the bottom of the picture is the element of the article with which I take issue. The caption is as follows: "(from left to right:) Princes Alfred and Albert Edward; The Queen and the Prince Consort; Princesses Louise, Helena and Victoria."

The inconsistency here is that the caption on this portrait (which was, I restate, painted in 1846) lists the Princesses pictured as Louise, Helena, and Victoria, and in fact portrays Louise as older than Helena. Louise was born 18 March 1848, two years after the portrait was painted, and two years after Helena was born. The Princess who should be listed, the one who is actually pictured, is Alice, who was born 25 April 1843 (as stated in the list of Victoria's children posted below the image in question). She was Queen Victoria's second daughter, older than both Helena and Louise, and is completely excluded from the caption of the painting. So, unless the painter was psychic (and didn't like Princess Alice), this image is captioned in error.

Will someone who has the authority to override the semi-protected state of this article please correct this error?

Arreyn Grey ( talk) 18:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Arreyn Grey

Thanks, it's been fixed, and, as the person who wrote the original caption, I probably made the original goof. (Now that you're registered with Wikipedia you should be able to make your own edits of semi-protected pages like this one within a few days; semi-protection is just to guard vulnerable pages against vandalism and spam from the outside.) —— Shakescene ( talk) 19:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There is not a line about the actions of Imperial Britain under Victoria, and the suffering it caused to millions Asians, Africans and Native Americans and Ireland.

“

Under Victoria Britain would be attendant in the worst humanitarian crisis to hit the nation, when years of failed agricultural policy and potato blight brought famine to Ireland . It was a tragedy beyond compare. Ireland, part of Great Britain since the Act Of Union 1801, saw her population starve when blight destroyed the country’s potato crop in successive years. Irish society since the Union had endured incredible poverty amongst the Catholic majority. Between 1846 and 1851, one million people died of starvation and disease. While people died in their thousands in Ireland, Queen Victoria’s husband, Prince Albert , was commissioning the Great Exhibition at the Crystal Palace in London’s Hyde Park . If ever there was a metaphor for the Victorian paradox between rich and poor, it was the Great Exhibition celebrating industrialism and new-found wealth, during a context of intolerable suffering in Ireland. Queen Victoria’s reign would be pockmarked by famine in British colonies. Towards the end of the century, famine in India claimed between six and ten million lives; for all Britain’s economic might, it was not capable or willing to react to humanitarian disaster. [1]

”

The epitome of British civilisation under Victoria was the shooting of captives in cold blood, the most infamous example being the Mughal princes in Delhi. Dickens though he as a child suffered as much as a black soul in the colonies, has in The Perils of Certain English Prisoners ^[2] used his characters to voice his opinion on what British retribution against the natives who try to reclaim their lost land should be. The British in Australia, America, Africa and Asia despoiled the natives of their property, burnt their homes, barbarously murdered them and their little children, wives and daughters.

Their fate is to be exterminated from the face of the earth, that is Dickensian justice. The following is the exchange between Captain Carton and Commissioner Pordage.

“

Sir," says Captain Carton, "I am an English officer, commanding English Men, and I hope I am not likely to disappoint the Government's just expectations. But, I presume you know that these villains under their black flag have despoiled our countrymen of their property, burnt their homes, barbarously murdered them and their little children, and worse than murdered their wives and daughters?" "... It matters very little, Mr. Pordage, whether or not, believing that I hold my commission by the allowance of God, and not that I have received it direct from the Devil, I shall certainly use it, with all avoidance of unnecessary suffering and with all merciful swiftness of execution, to exterminate these people from the face of the earth. Let me recommend you to go home, sir, and to keep out of the night-air.

”

A swift and painless death, extermination from the face of the earth, are we talking about the Holocaust, the Jews and the gas chambers, no we are talking about Asians, Native Americans and Australians and Africans if the British had the means we would have had a white world. Victoria is one of the world's worst war criminals, did Hitler ever pull a switch in the gas chambers? Dickens himself wrote to a Mrs. Counts on 4 October 1857, "I wish I were the Commander in Chief in India. ... I should do my utmost to exterminate the Race ... to blot it out of mankind and raze it off the face of the earth". ^[3]

Anonymous editor please do not vandalise, rather face the Queens genocidal ways.

Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 05:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your POV pushing post. Glad to see it hasn't been taken seriously.-- Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ ( talk) 11:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Whats with all this anti-colonialism? It's not like the countries of the British Empire were egalitarian utopias that were despoiled by the uncivilized British. Colonials committed more atrocities against their own kind before the British showed up. If the British were such ass holes, why not get rid of your centralised governments and revert back to arbitrary despotic principalities and tribes like you had before? Get rid of your hospitals and stop using roads built by the British —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.214.202 ( talk) 00:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It mentions nothing of the countless misery she and her government bought upon many of her subjects abroad. She was universally hated in India and Ireland!-- 85.211.124.18 ( talk) 14:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Universally hated" is a pretty strong statement - you can't just badly assert something like that. Certainly the many Unionists in Ireland did not hate her. I'd add that Ireland, as part of the UK, would certainly not be part of Victoria's "international legacy." john k ( talk) 21:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

And her visit to Ireland at the end of her life - after a long series of reform measures - went very well; so did the Coronation Durbar. Whether she is disliked now is another question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Many sites talks about the possibility of this queen be a bastard.Some examples: [ Newsweek] and [ [2]] talks about this subject. Agre22 ( talk) 01:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)agre22

What terrible nonsense. So the Duke of Kent was not vigorous enough...so instead Victoria's mother slept with a "more vigorous" man who suffered from hemophilia? Who is this hemophiliac lover of the Duchess of Kent supposed to have been? We know a great deal about the lives of the Duke and Duchess of Kent around the time of the conception. Is there any historical evidence that such a thing might have occurred? Hemophiliacs in the 18th and 19th century rarely lived long enough to reproduce - of Victoria's hemophiliac descendants, I believe that only the Duke of Albany had children. As such, it seems most unlikely that Victoria's biological father was a hemophiliac. At any rate, no historical sources talk about such a thing, and it should be ignored in this article. john k ( talk) 18:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense? No historical sources? Are you kidding me? Of course she was a bastard. Or at least, it is more likely than not. There is only one way she could have passed hemophilia on to so many of her children and grandchildren--which clearly she did--if she was legitimate. The chances of a spontaneous mutation are 1 in about 50,000. They didn't have to HAVE hemophilia to do it. For example, Victoria, a carrier, passed it to her daughter Alice, who passed it to her own daughter Alexandra, who later became Alexandra Romanova and passed the gene on...well, likely to all of her children, the most notable being to Alexei Nicholaevich, the equivalent to the crown prince of Russia, who undoubtedly HAD hemophilia. I can't give you any sources off the top of my head, but plenty of reliable, historical sources say this. Heck, I learned about it in my world history class in the tenth grade, which was taught by a teacher who has his doctorate in history. Frankly, I am offended the article makes no mention of the subject. She single-handedly polluted almost all the bloodlines of the European royal families. Seems a tad bit important, doesn't it? 147.9.231.203 ( talk) 16:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't have any idea what you're talking about. A woman can pass on the gene for hemophilia to her daughter without either of them displaying symptoms. A man cannot do so. The gene for hemophilia is on the X chromosome. Men have only one X chromosome. That means that he has the hemophilia gene on his single X chromosome, if he has one - there's no such thing as a male carrier of hemophilia. If a man does not have hemophilia, he cannot possibly transmit hemophilia to his children. If he does have hemophilia, then he will transmit the gene for hemophilia to all his daughters, but to none of his sons. The only way for Queen Victoria to have inherited hemophilia from her father is if he was a hemophiliac. So it behooves anyone who would claim that Queen Victoria was a bastard to explain who the hemophiliac is that cuckolded the Duke of Kent. It's also worth noting that it's perfectly possible that it was Victoria's mother who had the mutation for hemophilia - Victoria's half-siblings did not get the hemophilia gene, apparently, but there'd be a 50% chance that they wouldn't. At any rate, whatever problem there is explaining where the hemophilia came from, proposing that Victoria was not the daughter of the Duke of Kent does nothing to solve it. There are three possibilities here: 1) Victoria inherited the hemophilia gene from her mother, the Duchess of Kent; 2) Victoria inherited the hemophilia gene from her father, a historically unknown hemophiliac who committed adultery with the Duchess of Kent; or 3) Victoria's hemophilia gene was the result of a random mutation. 2 is by far the least likely explanation here. john k ( talk) 18:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

and I don't know where the '1 in about 50,000' figure comes from, but medically, about one third of Haemophiliacs have no family history of the disease. Depending on what type of haemophilia we are talking about, the chance of spontanueous mutation is about 30%, so actually fairly common. Indisciplined ( talk) 10:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hear hear. Reliable sources, please. The above is Men in Black stuff. Andrewa ( talk) 08:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It should also be considered that the Duke was in his fifties when Victoria was conceived. The older the man, the more likely that the sperm has defects which could lead to mutations. 129.49.236.10 ( talk) 13:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

from the Haemophilia wiki article:

Haemophilia has featured prominently in European royalty and thus is sometimes known as "the royal disease". Queen Victoria passed the mutation to her son Leopold and, through some of her daughters, to various royals across the continent, including the royal families of Spain, Germany, and Russia. In Russia, Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich, son of Nicholas II, was a descendant of Queen Victoria through his mother Empress Alexandra and suffered from haemophilia.

In Spain, Queen Victoria's youngest daughter, Princess Beatrice, had a daughter Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg, who later became Queen of Spain. Two of her sons were haemophiliacs and both died from minor car accidents: Her eldest son, Prince Alfonso of Spain, Prince of Asturias, died at the age of 31 from internal bleeding after his car hit a telephone booth. Her youngest son, Infante Gonzalo, died at age 19 from abdominal bleeding following a minor car accident where he and his sister hit a wall while avoiding a cyclist. Neither appeared injured or sought immediate medical care and Gonzalo died two days later from internal bleeding."-- 70.162.171.210 ( talk) 09:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

she would liteally have spent her entire life in fear of this disease including a massive fear of childbirth and yet little to nothing is mentioned in the article and i propose it notes a whole subsection-- 70.162.171.210 ( talk) 09:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

She didn't have it. DrKiernan ( talk) 09:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It is in the article. DrKiernan ( talk) 09:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Which did she use - if you read the article there is no mention of her using German (which was her mother tongue) she also spoke English, probably french and it is claimed wrote in Urdu and Hindi. Any more? Is that accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.96.60 ( talk) 07:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Her mother tongue was English. She took German lessons from a private tutor as a child, but was forbidden to speak it outside of the lessons because her mother wanted to ensure that she was seen as English and English only and not as a foreigner (e.g. Longford, p. 31). Victoria noted that Abdul Karim was teaching her Urdu after 1887. She used it to "greet Maharanees in their native tongue" (Longford, p. 509). DrKiernan ( talk) 08:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we cut the dates and just keep the years? Only the years are used for sorting. I don't think we need to know the dates here, and the bracketed, reversed dates look odd. DrKiernan ( talk) 09:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I had added the following:

"Often thought of as a model of prudery, Victoria described her wedding night in her diary, "When day dawned (for we did not sleep much) and I beheld that beautiful angelic face by my side, it was more than I can express." A biographer notes, "It was actually Albert who was the prude."(ref)Hartman, Carl (6 March 2011). "Royal woes behind 'Palace Doors'". Florida Today. Melbourne, Florida. pp. 5D.(end ref)

Another editor found this less than compelling and removed it. There is most likely going to be no revelation from her lost diaries that "I like sex" or "I hate sex" or "Albert gets on my nerves. He is such a prude!" This, folks, is probably it. The biographer is reliable, though apparently nn. His interpretation credible IMO. Student7 ( talk) 12:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a rather tame passage compared to other parts of her diary describing her wedding day: "I NEVER, NEVER spent such an evening!!! MY DEAREST DEAREST DEAR Albert ... his excessive love & affection gave me feelings of heavenly love & happiness I never could have hoped to have felt before! He clasped me in his arms, & we kissed each other again & again! His beauty, his sweetness & gentleness – really how can I ever be thankful enough to have such a Husband! ... to be called by names of tenderness, I have never yet heard used to me before – was bliss beyond belief! Oh! This was the happiest day of my life!" ( Hibbert, p. 123; Longford, p. 143; Woodham-Smith, p. 205 [emphasis as used by Longford]). All this despite having spent, as she admits in her diary, the entire evening lying down with a headache unable to do anything. The lady had a headache. The gentleman rose early. Greville told Lady Palmerston, "not the way to provide us with a Prince of Wales" (Woodham-Smith, p. 205). They clearly had an active sex life: they had 9 children, but if you're going to insert something along these lines it should be sourced to the reliable biographies written by notable and well-respected authorities not a non-historian popular author like Farquhar quoted in Florida Today. DrKiernan ( talk) 16:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't know if there is any truth to the story that when advised by her doctor not to have any more children she responded with disappointment that that would mean no more sex. Johnbod ( talk) 16:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The academic biographies think the quote too out of character to be true. DrKiernan ( talk) 17:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I have not read the article throughout but a search using Ctrl-F reveals nothing about the Royal Albert Hall and I conclude therefore there is nothing about the architecture of Britain during the reign of this Queen. In fact it did change completely in a number of ways in particular as a result of industrialization. I do not here intend to be understood as referring simply to the creation of Victorian new towns but to the fact that for the first time a majority of the population lived in urban areas and within the countryside there was a change in both England and Scotland so far as what previously had been common or shared land was concerned.

I suggest architecture and the use of land (which latter continues at least in theory to be entirely the ultimate property of the monarch in accordance with the feudal system) was something with which Queen Victoria and Prince Albert were directly concerned, and the demonstration of this is I suggest the form given by them to Buckingham Palace and later presumably by the Queen herself to the Royal Albert Hall, the two being in fact related. The Royal Albert Hall clearly in turn related directly to industrialization in the particular form of the World's Fair. The significance of this in terms of policy and relationship to the two extraordinarily violent world wars which followed immediately after her reign (that of Queen Victoria) should not perhaps be underrated given the wording of the frieze on the Royal Albert Hall (Uncle Jonathan, Walks in and Around London, 1895 (3 ed.)

PS I have now, just a little bit too late but that sort of thing happens as far as I am concerned, discovered the existence of the article on Victorian Architecture. This text is now therefore provided there as being perhaps more immediately relevant than it can perhaps be considered to be to Queen Victoria herself. If it is thought that it is not relevant to this site at all then it can of course be removed. It does I hope also have a general interest in both personal (so far as the Queen is concerned) and historical terms. Architecture can be personal! Let us, the British, hope that our famous Queen-Empress herself will rest in peace, as her burial, together with her Prince Consort buried there before her, seems to provide in the form of a message as a result of the inclusion of a reference to Our Lord Jesus Christ (not alas I think referred to here) ... Shall we ever, I myself wonder, before the arrival of eternity, ourselves ever truly understand? I leave the answere to what I am not, our national clerical experts!

Peter Judge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.164.15 ( talk) 17:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a new book on AMAZON: BRITISH TERRORISM AGAINST BOER CIVILIANS. How Britian destroyed the two Boer republics by starving civilians in concentration camps.

This was done so that Queen Victoria could get hold of the diamonds.

The cover of the book shows a collage of a starving child in one of those camps, together with Queen Victoria, Edward VII, and Lord Kitchener. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eventerross ( talk • contribs) 05:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a load of rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.22.133 ( talk) 13:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Why there isnt sufficiently information about Mr. Brown?! Everyone konws he is the passionate love of the queen Victoria!-- 78.175.215.79 ( talk) 16:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

He's mentioned 17 times. DrKiernan ( talk) 16:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

In the list of sections, under the Marriage Section, I see a small link of a phone number in my country and when I put my mouse over it it says "Call [this number] in [my country]." Is this done by an official Wikipedia bot? Or is this a clever hack by an international dating business? QCat 20:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yhgpark ( talk • contribs)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

As the male-line granddaughter of a King of Hanover, Queen Victoria also bore the titles of Princess of Hanover and Duchess of Brunswick and Lunenburg

Carlfraley ( talk) 07:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess she did, but I've never seen it written as such. DrKiernan ( talk) 08:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Dynamic| cimanyD contact me ⁞  my edits 19:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Queen Elizabeth II's reign has not exceeded Queen Victoria's as stated in this article. Queen Elizabeth II has only reigned 58 years so far. Gaia0808 ( talk) 21:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Gaia0808 ( talk) 21:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

THe article says "Victoria reigned for a total of 63 years, seven months and two days making her the longest-reigning British monarch, and was the longest-lived until surpassed by Elizabeth II". that is that Elizabeth is now older than Victoria was when she died, not that she has reigned longer. IdreamofJeanie ( talk) 22:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Not to nitpick excessively or anything, but at the time of your request, hadn't Elizabeth II's reign been 59 years, not 58? (That would explain why her Diamond Jubilee is this year.) 198.151.130.35 ( talk) 22:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Does that really need to be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fryb42 ( talk • contribs) 00:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

In the marriage section on the fourth line, in her quote the word "shocking" is spelled incorrectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obeybooks ( talk • contribs) 00:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The misspelling is in the original, as indicated by the [sic] notation, and thus ought not to be changed. Alkari (?), 8 November 2011, 02:54 UTC

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Indian Rebellion of 1857 should be replaced with Indian revolution of 1857

59.185.103.70 ( talk) 21:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively at Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857. DrKiernan ( talk) 22:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't this line "She inherited the throne at the age of 18 after her father's three elder brothers died without surviving legitimate issue. " have a comma? "She inherited the throne at the age of 18 after her father's three elder brothers died without surviving, legitimate issue. "

No, "Surviving legitimate issue" translates as "living descendants" (at time of accession) comma brakes up the flow (compare say - "big red bus", not "big, red bus" for a bus that is both big and red) IdreamofJeanie ( talk) 12:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I too think it easier to read without the comma, otherwise it can be read at first as "her father's three elder brothers died without surviving"! DrKiernan ( talk) 12:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Although the Dominion of Canada achieved responsible government during Queen Victoria's reign, there is nothing in this article that mentions the fact, so I've removed the category "Heads of State of Canada" and the template "Monarchs of Canada" as unsourced. Opera hat ( talk) 00:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a bit of a leap. Queen Victoria certainly falls into both categories, and this fact really doesn't need sourcing (Upper and Lower Canada having been British since 1763 and modern Canada arriving under Confederation on 1 July 1867, halfway through Victoria's reign). The article itself may not provide specifically Canadian information to those seeking it, but on the other hand, many of those consulting the category or using the template would want a complete list. (And this isn't like a category or template with an indefinite number of members, like British authors or modern architects, but one with a small, discrete set of items.) —— Shakescene ( talk) 10:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

In the section on her being a haemophilia carrier, it says "her father was old at the time of her conception". I calculate that he was 51, perhaps this figure should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.73.8 ( talk) 12:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Altered to "over 50". DrKiernan ( talk) 12:48, 5 June 2012‎ (UTC)

DrKiernan has been asked to reinstate Qexigator's Revision as of 11:41, 12 June 2012 (link to Royal Collection) or give reason/s sufficient to explain its removal: "Latest revision as of 06:36, 13 June 2012 to Queen Victoria." Qexigator ( talk) 08:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The material should be placed in Cultural depictions of Queen Victoria#Statues not as an external link. DrKiernan ( talk) 08:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

DrKiernan's statement above does not give sufficient reason: it is in the form of a ruling but cites no authoritative source. The link which Qexigator added to this article is appropriate whether or not DrKiernan (or Qexigator or any other contributor) decides to add the information (suitably adapted) to another article such as that proposed by DrKiernan. Qexigator ( talk) 09:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

On further consideration: This particular double statue, of which the Queen's photographer made prints which went into public circulation, is part of the narrative of the period of the Queen's widowhood, and the article would benefit from an image and aptly worded caption, to accompany a sentence in the text. But the text is composed of material sourced mainly to published biographies, and so far none has been traced making specific reference to this. More's the pity. Qexigator ( talk) 19:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC) PS... other than Martin Greenwood's biographical DNB article cited at William Theed. Qexigator ( talk) 20:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I believe this article under the Aid she provided to the Irish should include the following info and its attributed sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_famine#Ottoman_aid

Doggum ( talk) 23:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Not something covered by Victoria's biographers, or by any academic sources. An announcement of a movie, and an internet magazine are not sufficient coverage to merit inclusion here. DrKiernan ( talk) 07:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it was Gladstone and his government that helped the Irish out more... -- Τασουλα ( talk) 10:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This post concerns the 7 individuals who attacked Queen Victoria who are listed in this article. A new book has been published on this subject containing much new information.

I am the author of the book and would like to expand and correct the information available on wikipedia concerning these people. I am new to editing wikipedia and despite reading the guide, I am struggling a bit. I would like advice on how to proceed.

Currently 3 of the attackers have their own page: Edward Oxford, Robert Pate and Roderick Maclean. My suggested strategy would be to add pages for the other 4 and to link these from where they are referenced in the Queen Victoria page. I would also expand and correct the other 3 pages. The Queen Victoria page is largely free of inaccuracies, although there are a few minor corrections I would like to make to what is said about some of the attackers.

Is this the right strategy? As a start I have corrected and expanded the page which contained the most inaccuracies, that of Robert Pate. Could somebody please check if I have done this correctly?

A final question. There is more information on my website, www.bjc.me.uk. Would adding this to the 'External links' section be a 'conflict of interest'?

Thanks. Bcharles4 ( talk) 11:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I answered on your talk page, since the question concerns several articles and advice for you as an editor, rather than specifics on improving this particular article. Nczempin ( talk) 11:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Your changes at Robert Pate look great to me. I'm not sure on the link here. I think a less contentious option would be to add your book to the "Further Reading" section. DrKiernan ( talk) 11:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)