Talk:Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Mid-importance).

British Royalty Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move[edit]

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

The result of the debate was move. —Nightst a llion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 10:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld → Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld = Rationale: WP standards for the naming of royals dictate that "Name of Place" is used for consorts and sovereigns. Victoria was neither. Charles 22:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Support As nominator. Charles 22:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support it is true. Gryffindor 13:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

This move will bring the name of the article into compliance with existing standards for royals. Charles 22:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Miscellany[edit]

Is "Viktoria" Wikipedia style? --Henrygb 09:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I've never seen it spelled that way in reference to this person. I'll check up on it.--Marysunshine 23:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just checked the page history, and it was created as "Viktoria" and then moved to "Victoria" in 2005, but the spellings remained the same. I've also done a cursory search of various genealogical sources, and they unanimously refer to her as "Victoria." The biographies I've read of Queen Victoria do the same, so I've taken the liberty of changing it. Marysunshine 23:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

death[edit]

Is it really proper to list her death as having taken place at "Frogmore house" rather than "Windsor" or an actual incorporated place?--Dmz5 05:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Windsor" implies that she died at Windsor Castle. I've tweaked the prose to show that the house was near Windsor. PeterSymonds | talk 10:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the rumors of affairs section[edit]

In this section, mention is made on the royal family having a history of poryphira. In that article it is clear that the connection is speculative at best. Also, the possibility of paternal transmission of haemophilia is grossly overstated. Is there any reason for me not to modify it?

spiderwing (talk) 11:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given that two RS are cited, the two books, I'd be careful to avoid censorship. It is speculative, but much about the past is, and two books have been written, at least in part, accepting the theory.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is speculative, yes. But it is not original research; that's different. It is academic, historical speculation that is suggested in many biographies of Queen Victoria, and books about porphyria etc. There's no reason to modify it, because it cites reliable sources. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are serious problems with the citations used on this article. The citations that has been added for 'Queen Victoria's Gene' does not actually go to anything related to the this book. Instead, it goes to an unsourced artilcle unconnected to the book or authors in question. Similarly John Pohl's 'The Purple Secret' has also been given a citation that leads to an unconnected, unsourced article with no connection with that book or author. Why on earth has no-one checked this? I'm adding citation requests. It should be the responsibility of all users to actually check that citations are actually what they claim to be. This is just sloppy. Indisciplined (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, located a citation we can use for John Rohl's book, which I have now added. If someone can produce something for 'Queen Victoria's Gene', we're back on track. Indisciplined (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Louisa Inlet[edit]

Was this princess ever referred to as Louisa? There is a lovely inlet on the BC coast called Princess Louisa Inlet that may have been named after this lady or her granddaughter. Many adjoining geographic features are named for children of her daughter, Queen Victoria. --KenWalker | Talk 01:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victoire/Victoria[edit]

Was her name Victoire or Victoria? I thought her name was Victoire and her and her husband (Prince Edward) made up the name Victoria for Eventual queen Victoria to create a British sounding version of the mothers French name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.20.206 (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, her real name was Victoire, pronounced in French, Victoria is the version for the British (see German Wikipedia)--Chiemseehering (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First regency in Germany?[edit]

The article mention in passing, that she served as regent in Germany after the death of her first spouse, but this is not given one sentence except for being mentioned in passing in connection to her potential regency in Britain. Should this not be mentioned at all? If she was regent of a state, being a minor German principality, does it not deserve a description? --Aciram (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added a little myself.--Aciram (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arms?[edit]

What were they? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the arms of her sisters-in-law (except the queens Caroline and Adelaide) are not available either. But if you have a source which shows their arms, you can submit a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop, so that other users may draw them. Keivan.f^Talk 04:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google search and it turns out that the Duke and Duchess of Kent's joint achievement is rather impressively displayed above the entrance to no. 51 The Pantiles, Tunbridge Wells, TN2 5TE: until lately an Indian restaurant but now to let. Nos. 51-55 are called Royal Victoria House which has this plaque on it. Google street view shows that these arms are the same as those of her paternal grandfather as given on p. 34 of Louda and Maclagan's Lines of Succession. The same arms were borne by Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha, whose article has an illustration already, so all you'd need to do would be to impale them with the Duke of Kent's arms instead of the Prince of Wales's. Opera hat (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precedence[edit]

One assumes that, during the reign of George III, Victoria would have the precedence of the wife of a son of the sovereign (behind the Queen (Charlotte), the Princess of Wales (Caroline), the Duchess of York & Albany (Frederica) and the Duchess of Clarence (Adelaide)). During the reigns of George IV and William IV she would have been the wife of a brother of the sovereign (theoretically a lesser rank, but actually higher since neither king had children and three of the senior women had died).

Upon Queen Victoria's accession, what rank would the dowager duchess have had? She was not a queen dowager - The Prince Edward never having been king - and there is no place for the mother of the monarch otherwise. Even the lowest royal rank of the wife of a former sovereign's grandson does not work as Edward's grandfather Frederick, Prince of Wales was never a monarch either. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She was still the mother of the British sovereign, and should have necessarily enjoyed a high rank in the court, but where her place in the order of precedence was is not clear to me. She would probably be placed after the sovereign herself and above her granddaughters. That's what the rank of Diana, Princess of Wales, would have been had she stayed alive to see her son's reign. Keivan.f^Talk 04:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think officially she'd rank as the wife of a royal duke, which is above all other ranks of the nobility but below all the other royals and great officers of state. Though in practice, I suspect she was given precedence with the Queen's uncles and aunts. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the description of the coronation in the London Gazette of 4 July 1838, it appears that she ranked after the Duchess of Gloucester (daughter of George III; the Queen's aunt) and before the Duchess of Cambridge (wife of the Queen's uncle). Opera hat (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regency[edit]

Should there be a position section within the infobox in regard to the Duchess’s regency in Leiningen? 2600:1700:2740:1B20:3168:6436:A65D:2258 (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree with you Versailleslover123 (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regents are normally not given such a thing. Their position as regents were temporary. They had no clear successor or predecessor. It does not look good to place them as if they preceeded the monarch they ruled as regent for, since they did not preceed the monarch as monarch. It is only confusing and bluring to cindlude their regent position in infoboxes. That is not done in wikipedia and that should not start either. It will only cause confusion and in the end may cause the infoboxes to be deleted altogether because they only cause confusion. So please to not do that.--Aciram (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]