User talk:Surtsicna/Archive2

Naming practices

I found the article on Isabel de Bolebec, countess of Oxford, suddenly changed by your hand to Isabel de Vere, countess of Oxford, with the explanation that "naming practices" mandate "married names" for women and peeresses. I'm not sure what "naming practices" are being cited, but if you mean the naming practices of the 12th and 13th centuries, you're far off. Surnames weren't that universal in England then for either sex, nor was there a standard practice for wives to take their husband's surname if he had one. If a woman was an heiress (as Isabel was) or if she was of higher status than her husband (which is debatable in the case of her second marriage, but marrying the third son of an earl whose elder brothers were alive and who was younger than she was might be considered a step down), she often did not "take" her husband's surname. Contemporary documents call her Countess Isabel or Isabel de Bolebec, countess of Oxford, never Isabel de Vere, and I suspect that was her preference. She outlived him by over twenty years.

So the naming practice to which you refer must be modern/Wikipedian. Some modern westerners might expect to find her under the de Veres, perhaps, but they seldom would. I've researched her and the Veres for over 25 years, and I've rarely found her indexed with that surname. The few times I have seen that, the index refers the reader to the Bolebecs or countess of Oxford.

That naming practice to which you refer ignores the reality of multiple naming practices in medieval England and what names women themselves may have chosen. And what does one do with women who married several peers? It also ignores the multiplicity of modern naming practices. Are we now going to change the title of Barbara Streisand's Wikipedia page to Barbara Brolin? I vote no--and suggest that you change Isabel de Vere back to Isabel de Bolebec as I suspect she would have wanted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dearagon (talk • contribs) 06:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of naming practices, I noticed the discussion in which you took part on Srnec's talk page. I have added a comment to it: I am mentioning it in case you would care to read it. Perhaps you are watching the page, but I see no harm in letting you know. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

First Catherine of Aragon, now Anne Boleyn

Surtsicna, I'm afraid User:Chloe is now making edits to the Anne Boleyn article. The Catherine of Aragon article is a disaster zone with a huge section on the Coronation which is unwieldy, badly-written, and reads like a novel. Yesterday, I added sources to some of the text and replaced much of her comments with referenced facts. Alas, she keeps reverting it. I don't know how the Anne Boleyn article will fare now as a result of her prosy insertions.--jeanne (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that. You're not a very nice person are you? Chloe2kaii7 (talk) Well frankly, it's only an article on the Internet you don't need to get so worked up about it we have much greater problems than this. It is your opinion my edits aren't constructive. You can't just tell me something that is opinion and make me share that opinion. I believe my edits are constructive I've added pictures, sections and lots of information. If you have never been so insulted in your life at me saying I do not think it is very nice people going behind my back and saying "Oh no this editor hasn't made very good edits in my opinion to an article and now they have started editing another article so their edits in my opinion will not be very good on this article!", then obviously you don't have a proper understanding of what the word insulting means. Frankly, I think you are also being rude. But I don't really care because you are just a person on the Internet and I don't know you. I do not need to justify my edits to you. You may say I do but, anyone can edit this it is a matter of opinion whether edits are good or bad ones. I have not ignored you I am simply saying that I disagree and think you are making the edit less informative and more dull and boring if you remove extra information. Call all the people you want to help you. At the end of the day it's an article on the Internet. None of them are very spectacular in my opinion I was simply trying to make on better and more informative. If it isn't insulting in English but it is in another language then it probably isn't a very good translation service. All I was saying was that I didn't think an editor was being very nice, the fact that you have said I am "rude" "destructive" " not constructive" that I don’t understand the meaning of the word encyclopaedia, is much more insulting and rude than what I said. I apologise for daring to edit an article and trying to make it better. Chloe2kaii7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC).

RfC/U request

A Request for comment/User conduct has been initated here regarding User:Roux (formerly User:PrinceOfCanada). As someone wish past interactions with this user, you are invited to comment. --G2bambino (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Anne Boleyn article

Look at the Anne Boleyn article. I woke up to find the entire article changed. The info box had an awful portrait of Anne which I have reverted. I cannot undo all the other edits as others have added to the page, making the ruinous edits difficult to revert. I have seen the Catherine of Aragon article. Here we go again.--jeanne (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Matilda of England

As you are aware we seem to have a difference of opinion about the title of Empress Matilda/Matilda of England. I have started a discussion on the articles talk page and thought you may wish to contribute! Regards. The Quill (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Re Infoboxes

Infobox Royalty redirects to the UK one I doubt anyone is really concerned that as a result it uses the same colour. All the templates are practically identical the only difference being the colour used for the name parameter. If you want to use the Infobox Royalty redirect to create yet another identical template with a different bit of colour go ahead seems utterly pointless to me though. - dwc lr (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes thank you I have read what you posted. There is nothing wrong the Infobox Royalty template if you think people will get "confused" and think that they must be British royals cause it uses the same colour use the redirect seeing as you want everything redirected to it anyway (I agree) and create yet another template otherwise leave it I genuinely don't see what the problem is. - dwc lr (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Matilda of England Infobox

Would you please stop changing Matilda of England's infobox to German Royalty. Infobox German Royalty is used for monarchs who hold German nationality (or are German at least, nationailty perhaps not the correct term). Infobox British Royalty is used for people who are Royalty and English and British. Whether or not we can ever agree on whether she was a monarch or not (altohugh it would be nice for you to actually reply to my comments on the talk page) she still needs to have British Royalty. The Quill (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Style in naming Thai royals

I have started a discussion here. Kauffner (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Page moves

Surtsicna, you seem to be making a lot of page moves, but I am not sure that there is consensus that the moves are appropriate. Could you please follow the procedures at Wikipedia:Requested moves? You don't need to file a formal request for each one, but you need at least to bring up a move at the talkpage of an article, and give other editors a chance to respond. If no one objects after a few days, then you can proceed with the move. If there is an objection, that engage in discussion, per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, to try and find a compromise/consensus on how the article should be handled. Thanks, --Elonka 19:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.  :) I think if you take a closer look though, you'll see that the page that you're talking about is a guideline, not a policy. When it comes to each article's title, this is still ruled by consensus on that particular article's talkpage. So the best way to proceed here, is still to suggest a move on that talkpage, and then if no one disagrees in a few days, you can go ahead.  :) Right now a lot of people are offline for Christmas though, so I'd recommend proceeding slowly. There's no need to move the pages urgently, right? --Elonka 08:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, that's where I noticed the moves, was when you started working through the Bohemond articles.  :) The area has had many disputes in the past, and there's even an active Arb case about the time period, along with many articles undergoing cleanup, which is why I think it's best to go cautiously. I don't think it's necessary to undo any of the current article moves, but let's adopt a "wait and see" approach. Personally I prefer the "Bohemond VI of Antioch" title rather than the new one, simply because that's how he tends to be referred to in sources. However, if no one else objects, then I can live with the new title.  :) If we get into the first week of January when people are back from holiday, and no complaints have been raised, then you're probably okay. If anyone does object though, then it'll be easy enough to move any affected articles back to their old titles and then proceed from there. Thanks for understanding, --Elonka 08:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

User:DBD/TIR2

Done, however begrudgingly. :) DBD 22:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox royalty

Looks like the "royal house" parameter will need to be changed to "house" as otherwise it doesn't show up on the infobox. - dwc lr (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I’ll have a go at fixing the house parameter when I have the time. - dwc lr (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Do you have any consensus for the infobox redirects and page edits you're doing? It's a pretty wide-ranging change, and it potentially affects a lot of things - it should at least have some discussion. Orpheus (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have: Template talk:Infobox British Royalty. Surtsicna (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - DBD pointed me there as well. I've left a comment there you may want to check out. Orpheus (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Surtsicna, when you start filling in edit summaries you can perhaps legitimately complain about unexplained reverts to your unexplained edits. But unexplained changes to stable templates strikes me as even worse. Main issue of contention is your changes to the spellings of the names, which only stabilized after negotiation, and your insertion of spurious dynasty links. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry then. It's just that reverting because a previous reversion to yourself is "unexplained", when you yourself offer no explanation, doesn't tend to endear too much. If you like, check out WP:Edit summary. Anyways, if that's all you're doing then I guess it's as you were :). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Royal infoboxes

Surtsicna,

What is being done to modify the "royal house" component to "house" in the thousands of royal infobox templates? --Caponer (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• haha I've been changing them where I see them too, but that isn't very efficient given the large number of infobox templates in articles. These conversion issues should have probably been resolved before so many templates were moved to the new one. I'll ask around to see if there are any solutions. Thanks! --Caponer (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi, I've just joined Wikipedia,and I was looking at the Catherine of Aragon article and saw it was in a bit of a need of a tidy up, there is also some info. I think could be added, so I will be doing this throughout the next few days. I was looking through the Edit History seen as you've edited the article quite a lot, I thought I'd send you this message just to tell you. Hope you don't mind, forgive me if you though this message was a bit pointless :-) GranadasPomegranate (talk)

Yes, I don't like too many images either, but there is a couple of images of stained glass windows of her that i am very tempted to put in, they are both relly beautiful, at least on of them is quite inportant and put there for a specific reason so I will most likely add the other in, the other one isnt really importrant but it is a lovely image of catherine - and it shows her as a young woman which is quite rare, most of her poirtraits are of her as an older woman, but I will be deleting and replacing a couple of images, so we shall just see. Good Day!GranadasPomegranate (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC).

Oh, no problem, thanks for telling me I wasn't awar of that, won't happen in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GranadasPomegranate (talk • contribs) 14:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Count Pavel Ignatiev

Hi Surtsicna, FYI reverted your move for Pavel Ignatiev before seeing your other article moves concerning Russian nobility. Regarding these moves, can you please cite what part of naming convention you're using to support the new titles?

I am not aware of any past example of using an aristocratic title which precedes the personal name in the article's title, e.g. "Duke So-and-so", "Earl Such-and-such", "Count Somebody".

Examples demonstrating a lack of aristocratic title include Victoria of the United Kingdom, Isaac Newton, and Pierre-Simon Laplace. I also can't find any examples of the title preceding the name amongst Russian nobility that were not recently created by you. Thanks, --Saforrest (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. I see you justified previous moves with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), which I can certainly accept when it comes to monarchs and other royals. But it seems to be going beyond the specifications to apply it to nobility in general, such as counts. Regards, --Saforrest (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Royalty and nobility

I see you been removing the Royalty infobox from some articles saying there nobility not royalty ok fair enough the Albert Windsor etc is not royal but some of the Landgraves, Margraves, Electors, Dukes of Messien, Thurgia, Saxony they are royalty. -dwc lr (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You are saying sovereign monarchs are not royalty because that's what those Dukes etc are. - dwc lr (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

They belong to royal houses in the case of the Saxon monarchs the House of Wettin. Royal family "A royal family is the extended family of a monarch." - dwc lr (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying the Grand Dukes of Mecklenburg, Hesse, Dukes of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Anhalt are not royalty. I'm sorry but I don't think many people will take that view. - dwc lr (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It differs from country in the UK the Duke are generally not royalty. In Germany they are more likely to be royalty they have royal titles and styles be it Duke of Mecklenburg, Prince of Lippe it is quite clear who is royalty and who isn't. So Charles Michael, Duke of Mecklenburg is royalty because he has the style HRH while his cousins who have the style HH are merely nobility I don't think so. - dwc lr (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Albert II, Prince of Monaco, royalty or nobility. - dwc lr (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I had already seen this discussion before it was mentioned on my talk-page. I did not enter into the fray since I was not certain as to what to say. Clearly the word "royalty" is used (rightly or wrongly) for numerous princes who come from a house without a king as head. Whether or not certain princes are royalty, is there anything wrong with the Nobility Infobox for them? It seems to have the necessary fields. Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking too. If Infobox Nobility suits them, why use Infobox Royalty when there will always be users (like me) who won't agree that margraves are royal? Surtsicna (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Then why have two different infoboxes? Noel S McFerran (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

How could we merge them into one infobox when royalty is not the same as nobility? Surtsicna (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Royalty is a subset of nobility, isn't it? All royals are noble, but not all nobles are royal. Orpheus (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Princess Marie-Therèse of France

Apologies, the vandalism must have been an edit near yours! Shamrox (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Marie Antoinette image by David

Surtsicna: Please go to Marie Antoinette's discussion page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marie_Antoinette) where I left a msg to your attention. Frania W. (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. When you have time, go to MA's discussion page where I put links to pictures of her & others for you to check. Frania W. (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning

Please avoid edit warring, in particular at Lady Gabriella Windsor William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Louis Elisabeth of Orléans vs Louise Élisabeth d'Orléans (!)

Hi! I noticed your edit at Louise Elisabeth of Orléans: d'Orléans is a surname and should not be translated to *of Orléans* as it is after title Duke of Orléans. The statement is very confusing and a bit contradictory, as you claim that "of Orléans" is wrong because it is derived from the title of "Duke of Orléans". Furthermore, we always translate the surname de France to of France. Is there something different between of France and of Orléans? Thank you :) Surtsicna (talk) 10:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Surtsicna: Ah! I knew someone would react to that one!!! And that someone is you...

I agree that my sentence was not very clear (t'was late at night! & there is not enough space for comments at 'Briefly describe the changes you have made'. Here is what I meant to say: "d'Orléans is a surname and should not be translated to *of Orléans* in the fashion it is translated after the title Duke of Orléans".

Ex: *de France*, *de Bourbon*, *d'Orléans* are surnames. For instance, Louis is king of France, so Louis de France becomes king of France, Marie de Bourbon is Duchess of Bourbon, Philippe d'Orléans is Duke of Orléans.

Wikipedia has certain rules & regulations that are difficult for me to follow because I consider them to be incorrect & inconsistent.

For instance, do you translate General Charles de Gaulle to Charles of Gaulle? Surnamely speaking there is no more logic to address Philippe de Bourbon as Philippe of Bourbon as there would be addressing Charles de Gaulle as Charles of Gaulle.

Even General de La Fayette or de Lafayette (Eng. spelling) keeps his *de* and does not become General of Lafayette in English linguo.

I could find thousands of examples in English wiki and others where the French *de* attached to noble surnames is not translated by *of*.

Only after the title in English (Count, Duke...) should the *de* become *of*, ex: duc d'Orléans (French)→Duke of Orléans (English).

What I am saying is that, in surnames, either all *de* should be translated with *of* (and why not *from* ???) or none at all.

Best to you, Frania W. (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I entirely agree. FactStraight (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

But isn't of Orléans regarded as territorial designation used by children of the Duke of Orléans, just like of York is regarded as territorial designation used by children of the Duke of York? According to English point of view, royals do not have surnames - instead, they have territorial designations and belong to a certain royal house. That's why Henrietta Maria of France is not wrong - it doesn't that mean her surname is of France, it means that she was a princess of France. That's also why we have Infanta Leonor of Spain - de Borbón Ortiz is considered to be her surname (by the Spanish) and of Spain as her territorial designation (by the English). Since Charles de Gaulle was not royal, de Gaulle cannot be considered his territorial designation. Surtsicna (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Généalogie de la Maison de Bourbon de 1256 à 1671,

par L. Dussieux, Librairie Jacques Lecoffre, Paris, 1872

http://books.google.com/books?id=8DwWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=nom+de+famille+de+Henri+IV&source=bl&ots=XAwZndy0TT&sig=o0qmNPasB-UyVF5Ygs3BIt_PkUY&hl=en&ei=zOyESazPCoG4twfr_rjRCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PPP9,M1

Deuxième partie: La Maison de Bourbon depuis Antoine de Bourbon, La Famille royale

p. 79: begin at Antoine de Bourbon (father of Henri IV)

p. 81: Henri IV + footnote 7 on the nom de famille de France, which I am putting below:

Prince de Navarre jusqu'à la mort de sa mère (1572); roi de Navarre en 1572, sous le nom de Henri III; roi de France après la mort de Henri III le 2 août 1589 à Saint-Cloud. — Il fut appelé successivement: le comte de Vianne, en naissant; le prince de Navarre et le prince de Béarn, le roi de Navarre et le roi de France et de Navarre. —Ajoutons que, devenu roi, Henri de Bourbon s'appela Henri de France, car le roi a pour nom de famille le nom même de sa couronne. (Voy. Recueils de Mémoires et de Dissertations qui établissent que c'est par erreur et par un mauvais usage que l'on nomme l'auguste maison qui règne en France la Maison de Bourbon, que son nom est de France, et qu'entre toutes les maisons impériales et royales régnantes, elle est la seule qui ait pour nom de famille le nom même de sa couronne, etc. — Amsterdam et Paris, 1769, in-12. — Biblioth. de Versailles, I d. 291. ...

Louis XIII was thus de France and so was his younger brother Gaston (p. 121) who became Duke of Orléans.

Louis XIV was de France, as was his younger brother Philippe. However, his nephew, the son of Philippe did not receive the surname of de France but that of d'Orléans. In the following generations on the Orléans side of the family, the first-born son of the Duke of Orléans was named, let's say, Philippe d'Orléans, duc de Chartres (at birth) then duc d'Orléans upon the death of his father, which gives, translated in English: Philippe d'Orléans, Duke of Chartres, then Duke of Orléans upon the death of his father.

For curiosity, please go on reading the chapter La Famille royale and note that all the members of the royal family are given the surname de France, while the illegitimates are given that of de Bourbon.

The d'Orléans branch begins at page 121.

I rest my case. Frania W. (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, I agree with Frania. And I disagree with the recent, plus royal que les royaux notion that members of the UK's dynasty lack surnames: At most they may have had only a "house name" between 1688 and 1917, since Britain's German dynasties acquired ruling status before surnames had become common in Germany (even so, in 1917 George V was not told by the Garter King that he lacked a surname, but that Garter was not sure whether it was Wettin or Wipper). No one questioned that Elizabeth I's surname was Tudor or that James I's surname was Stuart, and no law or patent ever said that a dynast loses his/her surname upon acceding to the throne. The British Royal Family's official website says that "The Royal Family name of Windsor was confirmed by The Queen after her accession in 1952. However, in 1960, The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh decided that they would like their own direct descendants to be distinguished from the rest of the Royal Family (without changing the name of the Royal House), as Windsor is the surname used by all the male and unmarried female descendants of George V...For the most part, members of the Royal Family who are entitled to the style and dignity of HRH Prince or Princess do not need a surname, but if at any time any of them do need a surname (such as upon marriage), that surname is Mountbatten-Windsor."

Therefore, it is a false analogy to claim that French dynasts have no surnames because British dynasts have none: both had and have surnames. It is not that "Henrietta of France" is wrong, but that it is misleading shorthand: in "Wikipedese", it implies that she was a queen or empress who was, by birth, also daughter of a French king or dauphin. In historical usage, it is the shortened version of "Henriette de France, daughter of France (fille de France): French royalty did not legally possess the title of prince or princess until 1790, since fils/fille de France connoted a higher rank.

The same principle applies to the Spanish: you write that "we have Infanta Leonor of Spain - de Borbón Ortiz is considered to be her surname (by the Spanish) and of Spain as her territorial designation (by the English)". But that's not correct. Legally, she is "(Doña) Leonor de Borbón y Ortiz, Infanta of Spain", whether in Spain or the UK (although her title is translated when writing in English). In Spain, either of two less formal versions is acceptable: "Infanta Leonor of Spain (de España)" or "Infanta Leonor de Borbón". But in English we say "Infanta (or, less correctly, Princess) Leonor of Spain". In English, her surname is not used -- but that does not mean that when she crosses the Channel she loses it. The "de" should not be translated because it helps readers distinguish between name and title, thus clarifying proper usage -- something an encyclopaedia exists to do. (I suggest this discussion be moved to the talk page of Prince du sang. FactStraight (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all: this is not a discussion. You obviously know much more about this issue, so I'm just asking because I want to understand this clearly :) I am not claiming that French and Spanish royalty don't have surname (and I've never claimed so). I do realise that Louise Elisabeth's surname was d'Orléans, but I also realise that whoever named the article Louise Elisabeth of Orléans regarded of Orléans as territorial designation. "Louise Elisabeth of Orléans" doesn't imply that her surname was of Orléans. Again, it's just like Princess Beatrice of York using her father's territorial designation - it doesn't mean that her surname is of York. Am I right? Surtsicna (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

In point of fact, Louise Elisabeth's surname was Bourbon, just as Beatrice of York's surname is Mountbatten. Technically Queen Eizabeth II is Mrs. Mountbatten, but she isn't the Queen of Mountbatten!--jeanne (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No, Louise Elisabeth's legal surname was d'Orléans, Orléans being a branch of the House of Bourbon in this case (there were princes whose surname was d'Orléans but who had belonged to the Orléans branch of the House of Valois). Therefore, it is acceptable to say that she is a member of the House of Orleans or of the House of Bourbon or of the House of Capet or that she is a Robertian -- and all are correct, since "house name" is a socio-historical rather than a legal concept; it's purpose is to distinguish members of one dynasty or branch of a dynasty from another, so which term you use depends upon what period of history you're writing about, not law.

The French legal rule is simple, but differs from the British: until 1830, a French king (e.g. Henri de Bourbon, King of Navarre, duc de Vendôme) lost his previous surname upon his accession to the throne, as did those of his (legitimate) children and the children of the Dauphin (whereas in the UK a person's surname, and that of his/her descendants, remains legally unchanged upon becoming sovereign, except that a queen regnant retains her maiden name for dynastic purposes -- but her issue take their father's surname, unless the sovereign decrees otherwise). Each of the French king's younger sons was given a peerage in appanage (e.g. Philippe, fils de France, duc d'Orléans) which henceforth became the legal surname of his male-line descendants, as well as the name of his "house" (i.e., branch of the Capetians). This was confirmed as recently as 2003 in the failed lawsuit of the Orleanist pretender Henri d'Orléans, comte de Paris, who tried to claim the surname de Bourbon by right. In the UK, each younger son is also given a peerage (but an allowance, rather than an appanage of land), and his children are "Prince/ss Firstname of Dukedom", but this is a courtesy style, not a legal title or surname. FactStraight (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The (small) problem with Louise Elisabeth of Orléans as an article title is that because of lack of consistency in article naming, the reader does not know whether it refers to her surname, dynasty, or branch. For instance, if Louise Henriette de Bourbon-Conti were treated similarly, her article could be titled as it is, or as "Louise Henriette of Bourbon", or "Louise Henriette of Conti". She was surnamed de Bourbon as a male-line descendant of Henri IV, but she belonged to the branch of the Princes de Conti. Her proper maiden title was the too-lengthy "Louise Henriette de Bourbon, mademoiselle de Conti" and her correct married title was "Louise Henriette de Bourbon, duchesse d'Orléans". I favor "Louise Henriette of Bourbon-Conti" because here the "of" distinguishes her as a princess (rather than a noblewoman), and the hyphenated suffix indicates both the dynasty and the branch to which she belonged. FactStraight (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but "Louise Henriette of Bourbon-Conti" would not be correct either, because this would imply that she was "queen of Bourbon-Conti" :-)). It is "Princess Louise Henriette of Bourbon-Conti" (given name + title, i.e. Prince(ss) of Bourbon-Conti) or "Louise Henriette de Bourbon-Conti" (given name + surname, i.e. de Bourbon-Conti). Demophon (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that nobody claims that of Orléans is a surname. It is considered territorial designation. Take for example Catherine of Aragon - nobody claims that of Aragon was her surname, just like nobody claims that of Norway is surname of Harald V of Norway! If it ever comes to move request (Louise Elisabeth of Orléans→Louise Elisabeth d'Orléans), I would be neutral, because both would be correct (one being territorial designation, the other one being surname). Surtsicna (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In his comment of 2 February, FactStraight directed us to lawsuit and I am wondering if anyone taking part in this discussion read it. It really holds the key to the argument. Although it is going to put extra length to the discussion, I am adding the Attendu of the French court. No explanation could do it be better. Please note that in this case d'X stands for d'Orléans and d'Y for de Bourbon. Last Attendu highlighted by me, as it cannot be made any clearer that it is since Gaston, Louis XIII's second son, that d'Orléans has become the surname for himself & the Orléans branch of the French royal family.

Sur le moyen unique, pris en ses deux branches :

Attendu que, M. Henri d'X... reproche à l'arrêt confirmatif attaqué (Paris, 1er février 2001) d'avoir rejeté sa requête en rectification d'état civil à fin de rétablir son nom d'origine de Y... et se nommer à l'avenir Henri de Y..., alors, selon le moyen :

1 / qu'en lui déniant le droit de se faire enregistrer sous le nom "de Y...", aux motifs que ses ascendants n'auraient pas fait usage de ce nom, et auraient porté pendant trois siècles et demi le nom "d'X...", tiré d'un titre ducal, ce qui ne permettait pas de caractériser leur renonciation à se prévaloir de leur rattachement aux Y..., et à posséder ainsi, en sus du nom "d'X...", le nom dynastique "de Y...", la cour d'appel a privé sa décision de base légale au regard des articles 99 du Code civil et 1er de la loi du 6 fructidor an II ; 2 / qu'en affirmant que sa demande tendant à recouvrer le nom ancestral "de Y..." n'aurait présenté aucun intérêt légitime, au prétexte qu'il se serait agi d'une "querelle dynastique" dont l'issue "ne peut trouver une solution de nature judiciaire", la cour d'appel a méconnu l'étendue de ses pouvoirs et violé les articles 99 du Code civil et 1er de la loi du 6 fructidor an II ;

Mais attendu que si la possession loyale et prolongée d'un nom ne fait pas obstacle en principe à ce que celui qui le porte, renonçant à s'en prévaloir, revendique le nom de ses ancêtres, il appartient alors au juge, en considération, notamment, de la durée respective et de l'ancienneté des possessions invoquées, ainsi que des circonstances dans lesquelles elles se sont succédé, d'apprécier s'il y a lieu d'accueillir cette revendication ;

Attendu qu'en l'espèce, par motifs adoptés, la cour d'appel a souverainement estimé que c'était volontairement que le nom d'X... avait été substitué à celui de Y... par le fils cadet de Louis XIII et tous ses descendants qui avaient ainsi abandonné le nom de Y... et que cette volonté de porter le nom d'X... avait été confirmée par le roi Louis-Philippe lors de son accession au trône ; que, par des seuls motifs, elle a légalement justifié sa décision ;

In my eyes, it is extraordinary that the legal system of the French Republic (which has gone thru several revolutions!) takes into consideration, in the 21st century, decisions taken by Louis XIII's second son (or more likely by Louis XIV as every decision had to go thru him) in the 17th century, and confirmed by France's last king, Louis-Philippe, in the first half of the 19th century. This makes it difficult to understand arguments brought forward by en:Wikipedians who should be willing to cross the English Channel or the Atlantic Ocean into France in order to understand the French system. Frania W. (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Maria Vladimirovna of Russia

Certain changes you made in the article of Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia should first be discussed in the talk page. Pevernagie (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right in stating that I pressed the wrong button when reverting, a force of habit when you check a lot of anon changes :-). Pevernagie (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Reign type

I agree reign is not a good term what do you think we could use? - dwc lr (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Pretending to be head of a royal house. If you are talking about a throne then that could be used. - dwc lr (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A Question

Hi, I have a question, you seem intelligant so I hope you can help me answer it. Would Catherine of Aragon held the title of Infanta of Castile and Aragon in her own right? I think so, but I would like to know for definate, thanks!GranadasPomegranate (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't blush! You are intelligant, I value your view. I recently got a new book of the six wives, and there is some very interesting information in it, also it will help me add in some citation for the article, as I feel it is lacking it in some things and in other it would just make sense to put some in. Thank you for you help, yes I had my doubts that it was in her own right as she got the title as the daughter of monarchs, but as it wasn't gotten by her being a consort I wasn't sure, anyway, thank you very much for getting back to me so quickly! Also how are you?GranadasPomegranate (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Alison Weir, she goes in to amazing deatil of events, a lot of the book is about Catherine, also she is the only biography of the wives I have seen to include a full copy of Catherine's speech at the Legatine Court, ah it's snowing here GranadasPomegranate (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think Fraser and Weir give fair accounts of her life, and don't try and romantize it, Weir herself states that there was no passion between between them just deep love and affection, I think she just gives a detailed account of her life, and lots of interesting info.(for instance did you know Catheirne of Aragon introcued slad into England, although unlike today it was served ot) Also she gives excellent referances and sources in the biblography telling the reader each referance from every chapter. Yeah it's been good, it doesn't snow much here either because I live on the coast, in fact it doesn't snow much in Britain at all.GranadasPomegranate (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

...of the United Kingdom

While you may not perceive a POV in listing Elizabeth II as "of the United Kingdom" in the articles where you've changed the long-standing pipe, I do. As "queen of the UK" is not how she's most widely known, and how she is commonly known does not accurately reflect the facts, that argument is a non-starter. Issues with the title of the article Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom have been raised at the talk page there time and time again, and it has been roundly admitted that there does exist an inherent, though apparently necessary, POV in the "of the United Kingdom" elaboration. I don't see why that POV needs to be spread farther than necessary throughout Wikipedia, nor why it is necessary to allow it in the infoboxes you've altered. --Miesianiacal (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
PS- I've checked through your edit history and can't see where you discussed changes to the Prince Philip and Prince Charles infoboxes. Could you point me to where this discussion took place? --Miesianiacal (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

About Augustus III of Poland

Why did you undid my edit?The number of the form of Ancestors of Augustus III of Poland in this page is two(see in Augustus III of Poland#Ancestors of Augustus III of Poland).But this page only needs one.So I deleted one.——TBG (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is required

Hello Surtsicna, Jeanne here. There is a dispute over on the Talk:Charles VII of France page. Your help is required. Thank you.--jeanne (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for listing those books. Hopefully that'll end the matter once and for all.--jeanne (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Thank you for asking me to help! :) Surtsicna (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello.In the Charles VII article I forget that there is such thing as de facto soveriegnty as well as de jure soveriegnty.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed article

Hello, Surtsicna. You have new messages at Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hungarian male consorts

Ok, I didn't mind that you took off Sigismund of Luxembourg since the period between his marriage to Queen Mary I and the time he was crowned King of Hungary was very short. But why did you take Francis, the husband of Maria Theresa, off? She ruled over all the Habsburg land in her own right with the exception of the Holy Roman Empire where she was the Empress consort. And Francis was never King of Hungary, he was merely the Maria Theresa's consort. The Queens of Bohemia article includes Francis as a consort. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigismund definitely wasn't a consort. He was a monarch and therefore we couldn't include him in the List of Hungarian consorts. I am not sure about Francis of Lorraine, though. I thought that he should be removed because his status was not clear enough, but you can add him back if you think that he should be included. Surtsicna (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I just have a questiion. What was Sigismund of Luxembourg's status from his marriage to the Queen regnant Mary of Hungary in 1385 till his own coronation as king of Hungary?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

He was considered King of Hungary as Mary's co-monarch from the moment of their marriage. Surtsicna (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

:)

User:GranadasPomegranate (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Cognatic/ agnatic

What is the difference? Does legitimacy come into it? Kittybrewster ☎ 13:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Monarchical ordinals in Spanish Monarchy

Hello Surtsicna, I've seen that you have removed the monarchical ordinals from the names of the spanish monarchs Louis I and Amadeo I. The fact that there aren't never been a Louis II and an Amedeo II don't is important. In Spain (as in Belgium) all the kings have a monarchical ordinal, the actual king is in fact named Juan Carlos I. Please move Louis I and Amadeo I on their real names. Thanks for your attention and sorry for my intermediate level of English. Felipe--83.103.40.172 (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I know that the usage is very important in Wikipedia'naming conventions, but here there is write:

«Where there has only been one holder of a specific monarchical name in a state, the ordinal is used only when the ordinal was in official use. For example, Victoria of the United Kingdom, not Victoria I of the United Kingdom; Juan Carlos I of Spain, not Juan Carlos of Spain.»

The case of Louis I and Amadeo I is the same of Juan Carlos I. Hi!--83.103.40.172 (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:User Republika Srpska

There is a discussion about Template:User Republika Srpska at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Template:User_Republika_Srpska. The notice wouldn't be seen on your user page so I wanted to notify you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Salic law and agnatic primogeniture

Thanks for your recent query. I have responded on my talk page. FactStraight (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Margaret of Anjou

I have added to her article saying that she was a pretender to the title of queen consort of France, but could you please add the source with page numbers;also fix the infobox. Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course! ;) Surtsicna (talk) 08:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:question

Hi, Surtsicna. I replied on my talk page, but forgot to drop you a note here saying so. So here I am :) Parsecboy (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Father before mother?

Bonjour/Bonsoir Surtsicna! My reason for putting Marie Antoinette's father before her mother is because generally that is what's done with people: father's name then mother's name. In other words, it is not a matter of preference on my part. Her mother may have been more notable at time of her education, but at time of Marie Antoinette's conception & birth, her father had as much an important role as her mother; it's with that spirit that I put him before Marie-Theresa in the first sentence. Besides, her mother's influence is described in the article. All this being said, I shall not fight you on this, as I see that the change I brought can be interpreted to reflect my personal opinion. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour Surtsicna, Thank you for your habit of leaving comments when you do a revision, it is so much better to know the reason of changes & it leaves the door open for discussion. Please feel free to change to previous if better for Anglo reading.

In this article, there are many words used improperly & poorly written sentences/paragraphs. Yesterday, I inserted a hidden comment next to the word "laxity" at the Austrian court, but did not have the time to stay with the article & find something better; I also corrected something at the birth of MA's first child where A. Fraser had been misquoted. There are more coquilles but it takes time to correct them all & I can work only on one paragraph at one session... because I am busy in real life as I am sure you are.

Bonne journée! Frania W. (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

St Edward's Crown

I don't really understand this addition to Elizabeth I and Anne Boleyn. Could you have another look and make it clear what is meant? Also, the expression "some scholars suggest/believe" is one we tried to avoid on Elizabeth I, and it might be better either to name Alice Hunt in the text or just to cite several scholars for the point. qp10qp (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

wife of Croatian noble

Hi, Surtsicna. In article Dorothy Garai you wrote: She was the daughter of powerful Hungarian nobleman, János Garai, who governed Croatia as ban, and a descendant of a notable Hungarian noble family of Garai....., and in article about Jelena Nelipčić I wrote: Jelena was the sister of Prince Ivan III Nelipac from powerful Croatian noble family....You undo me with reason: ("Croatian Duchess of Split" is redundant, as Split is and was in Croatia; "wife of Croatian noble Prince" should not be in the article according to Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words; other edits are OK). Why? What are my weasel words? Regards.--Kebeta (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

And in article Tvrtko II of Bosnia: King Tvrtko II was married to Dorothy Garai, a Hungarian noblewoman. They had no children.--Kebeta (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If noble is a weasel word in Jelena Nelipčić article why didnt you deleted only noble, instead 'Croatian' noble, and in the same article you deleted Croatian Duchess and Croatian noble family? Why is Hungarian o.k., and Croatian is not o.k.? Regards. --Kebeta (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What John Van Antwerp Fine mentions about Nelipac (Nelipić) family? Because in same article you deleted Croatian from this sentence: Jelena was the sister of Prince Ivan III Nelipac from powerful Croatian noble family. Nelipac were not powerful, Croatian, noble or family?. --Kebeta (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Than I guess weasel word isn't noble but Croatian? --Kebeta (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining me a weasel word, sorry if I took some of your time while you work on real issues. Regards. --Kebeta (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Infobox Royalty

I'll take a look at it later today or tomorrow. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 15:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this what you had in mind? Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please try it out now. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Maria II Theresa

Do you have an IBSN, or any other way to identify your sources ? The article merely states their names. Kind Regards, (Jack1755 (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC))

No, the article states names of the sources, names of the authors, names of the publishers and years of publishing. I can give you pages, but I don't know their IBSN. You can check the sources through Google Book Search though. Surtsicna (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Beatrice of Bourbon (1320–1383)

Hi Surtsicna, I have been looking at alot of your work and I am impressed. I while back I created an article on Beatrice of Bourbon, second wife of John of Bohemia. I think it should be expanded, I was wondering if you knew anything about her. Thanks--Daaviiid (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't understand why the two Elisabeths weren't the proper monarch. Was there a law like in France, to stop a women from inheriting the crown? You may also be interesed to known that there is an earlier consort, Świętosława I of Bohemia who had the title of a monarch and she wasn't even a daughter of a Bohemian, though she was married to a King of Bohemia, I can't remember his name! Thanks again!--Daaviiid (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: If you are bored... :D

Hello, Surtsicna. You have new messages at Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 8#Template:British monarchs.

Template: English and British monarchs

Jumpers, it's gonna take me awhile to fix up that template. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd accept seperate English, Scottish & Pictish monarch Templates. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

T:IR

Mate, if you've done with your cleansing of fields, would you mind terribly updating the documentation? Cheers DBD 21:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Princess Aleksander

You're right, but people more easily find articles, when their titles have names of this people, not their husbands.

Lea Wolman is easier to find than Princess Alexander. Johnello (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Johnello (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I will no longer be editing the Coronation article, due to User:Miesianiacal slowly becoming involved. He causes me far too much stress. I wish you the best of luck in getting it to A or FA status. → ROUX ₪ 04:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Agnes of Palatinate

Hello Surtsicna, a few days ago, I create a page on Agnes of Palatinate. She did inherit soe titles in her time. I discussed it with Jeanne but we bother cannot understand it and Jeanne suggested I ask you. Agnes became Countess of Palatinate on the death of her elder sister. Her sister did marry and have children, her eldest few children were sons who lived to adulthood. But on her sister's death, Agnes inherited Palatinate instead of her nephews.

This isn't the only riddle of Agnes. One category on her father's page is "heirs to the british and english throne". Agnes' great-grandparents were Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine, through their daughter Matilda. Agnes was the youngest of the three children, her brother died in her late teens. I was wondering if Agnes could have become queen of England if the plantagents died out. If Agnes had become queen: England, Palatinate and Bavaria (her husband's duchy) could have been ruled under one monarch and it still could have been that way today. I was wondering if you could shed some light on these mysteries. Cheers--David (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Duchessess of Bavaria

Hello, I was wondering if you would help me out creating articles for some of the some of the Duchessess of Bavaria? When I created the list with Elizabeth II's little spy, there was many red links so i thought you could help ouy. I've asked Jeanne as well. Thank You--David (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. I will have to keep all the names though otherwise the list will be wrong--David (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry--David (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Anna II

Thank you for your help on Anna II, Abbess of Quedlinburg. I'm glad you added her birth and death dates.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The article looks great! Nice work.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Peter Phillips

Hi Surtsicna, with regard to your reversion of the Royal Family infobox, I was just wondering what criteria is being used to determine royal status. I notice that Zara Phillips does have an infobox and I thought it would make sense for them to be consistent. I'm not sure if undertaking royal duties (which he does not do) is a solid definition for the status. Prince Michael of Kent generally doesn't undertake royal duties either, but he has the infobox. I am aware of the Letters patent issued in 1917 re: titles, but is that document sufficient to determine membership in the royal family? Peter is the Queen's grandson. Admittedly, this is through a female line, but that cannot really be justification for exclusion from the royal family. It doesn't appear to be in Zara's case. (This raises questions for the Viscount Linley article as well.) I agree that he is more accurately part of the "extended" royal family, but surely if the Duke of Gloucester (who is 8 places behind him in the order of succession) is a member, Peter is too. Should Zara's infobox be removed? (Doing so might send a confusing signal with regard to the section on the royal duties she undertakes.) Anyway, I was just curious as it does appear to be inconsistent. Cheers. A1 Aardvark (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the quick response! I'm still not sure I follow, please excuse my incomprehension as I'm new here. I read the section you pointed me to and all that really applied was:

I agree with Charles. This template cannot be called "Template:British Royal Family" if it's going to include people who are not members of the Royal Family. Surtsicna (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"Any explanation as to why you believe certain people should not be considered members of the royal family would have been more helpful. A closer reading of the discussion would show that the question of who is in the family and who is not is the root of the disagreement here. A more detailed explanation would not be that helpful, of course, as the discussion ended more than four months ago with no action. -Rrius (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

In the UKGBNI there is no legal definition of the term "the Royal Family". There is practice - but it varies. The sidebar on the page "Members of the Royal Family" on the official website doesn't even list William and Harry, let alone their cousins. I'm not suggesting that they be removed. ;) Noel S McFerran (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)"

I can't find the explanation that was requested. I'm certainly not arguing that the Phillips are entitled to any title. I'm just not sure I see the link between title (or lack thereof) and status as a member of the royal family. Is there a source which states that only titled individuals are members of the royal family? I am happy to remove Zara's info box if you want, I just think there should be consistency between brother and sister. Cheers A1 Aardvark (talk) 06:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, here's part of the source of the confusion! I misunderstood what the infobox royalty was. (New here!) Yes Zara uses an infobox person. My whole line of inquiry was triggered when you removed the {British Royal Family} tag that I had inserted into Peter's page to match the one on his sister's. That tag is what I thought the infobox royal was called... so clearly that was my mistake. I never meant to suggest ussing the (real) infobox royal during our discussions. On that subject I would completely agree, he has no title, and if thats the criteria, no worries. However, I don't see why he can't have the {British Royal Family} tag (which is what you objected to in the first place) since that doesn't strictly relate to titles. Surely the only reason Peter and Zara are noteworthy enough to have wikipedia entries is because they are indeed members of the royal family... even if they are untitled. Or we could just remove it from Zara's, but I think that would be unfortunate. A1 Aardvark (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about allt he confusion. I do think its a good idea to have that {British Royal Family} template. It does link to their mother and helps provide a bit of context for who they are and why they have their own entries. So I may but the box back? Many thanks! A1 Aardvark (talk) 10:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

marie caroline.

alot of archduchesses to change then =\ Tbharding (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Abbesses of Quedlinburg

Hi Surtsicna, well done with your pages on the abbessess, they are looking great! They didn't really live too much of a quiet life as you'd expect, did they?--David (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Coronation - Charles VII photo

Hey; I was uploading Coronation to check out your latest changes when I noticed that our new lead photo of Charles VII's coronation wasn't uploading (all of the other pictures did, so I knew it wasn't a problem with the pictures in general, as sometimes happens on Wikipedia!). I had seen it earlier today on the article, so I was wondering: is it my computer, or is there a problem with the photo? I tried refreshing, even closing the window and opening a new one. No change. Just thought I'd check. Have a good one! - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor

I don't think that data had a single source -- as best as I can recall, it may have derived from a variety of Britannica articles and possibly some Catholic Encyclopedia articles as well. The dates may not be 100% reliable (I've often noticed varying dates, sometimes by one or two days, sometimes by as much as two weeks, from different sources for this period).

Good luck with the Empresses! I looked long and hard for information about Empresses' coronations for the article List_of_Holy_Roman_Empresses_and_German_queens and didn't find anything. Due to the nature of the office, coronations of Empresses may have been atypical. RandomCritic (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Surtsicna, I want to ask you a question about your article Coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor. Shouldn't the coronations dates with the Iron Crown of Lombardy as King of Italy, and the coronation King of Arles and King of the Romans be included in the table? I think no Emperor would have been complete without accomplishing all this. And wasn't the original place of coronation with the Iron Crown of Lombardy at the old Lombard capital of Pavia. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Changes to Coronation and Coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor

I made a few changes to your Coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor article: a new opening sentence, subheaders for the main section, and a few stylistic changes. As I wrote in the discussion section of that article, please feel free to revert any or all of them if you wish; I have no wish to "hijack" your article!

I also reduced the length of the "Holy Roman Empire" section in the Coronation article as you requested; I wanted to leave enough info in that portion to cover the subject, while not simply making it a "repeat" of the main article. I also inserted a link to that article, and removed the picture of Charlemagne's coronation. That last part might meet with some opposition on your part; if so, no problem, just reinsert it. I only removed it so that the reduced article wouldn't be left with a big "empty space" that just plain looks bad in articles (at least to me!). The length fits the perameters of the Henry VII coronation picture, but like I said, if you want Charlemagne back too, just reinsert him if you like. - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Hello! I noticed that you removed titles from several infoboxos, [1], [2] which is OK, but unfortunately you have also damaged the references. I fixed them, (I hope all of them) but please, be more careful next time. Thank you. Cheers,--B@xter⁹ 14:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth of Kujavia

Hello Surtsicna! I was wondering if you were interested in creating a page on Elizabeth of Kujavia, mother of Elizabeth of Bosnia. I've asked you because I see you have edited Elizabeth of Bosnia alot. I would create it myself, but there is no articles about her on other wikipedia's, like polish or german to translate from. Thank You--David (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, thank you. It's not as if she raised Elizabeth of Bosnia because Elisabeth of Poland claimed custardy of her. Though Elizabeth may have looked after her daughter before Elisabeth of Poland got her. Was Katharina of Bosnia a daughter of Elizabeth? She was an ancestor of Barbara of Celje. Cheers--David (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I am english, although I am from Liverpool, North West England. We don't speak proper formal english there, we like to twist the words a bit. Sorry if it's annoying I do try my best to use formal english. I juggle it with learning french and spanish. I would love to go to the czech republic, and to Prague Castle. Cheers--David (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll create a basic page for Elizabeth, we could add to it as we go along and I'll tell Jeanne. If you don't mind me asking, do you live in England?--David (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That problem can be solved, I could check the medieval lands website and another one I know of.--David (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Here, [[3]] Elisabeth's date of birth is unknown by this website but her year of death is. This website doesn't always give the correct number of children so we cannot completely rule Katharina out of being and daughter of Elisabeth. I'll check medieval lands--David (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Medieval lands says these are her dates of birth and death ([1315/20]-after 22 Aug 1345). She would have been thirty- twenty five when she died. Elisabeth of Poland, Kunigunde of Poland and Casimir III the Great were her second cousins, so she was linked to known polish royals.then. A while back I created an article of their mother, Jadwiga of Greater Poland, she would have been a distant cousin of Elizabeth. Jadwiga lived a very notable life and the polish wikipedia has a lot of information about her. I was wondering if you knew much else of Jadwiga. Cheers--David (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I've always wondered why people like her never have articles. I've started the expansion of Elisabeth of Poland using a long translation from Polish wikipedia. I'll be doing that for the next few days.--David (talk) 12:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

What about Katherine of Bosnia? Should we create a page for her, due to her marriage and descendants, I'm sure she could have an article. Her husband had one doesn't he?--David (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is the link to medieval lands [4] her name is list right at the top. Thank You--David (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is one for Katherine [5]--David (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, there is a page on Katherine in the Bosnian Wikipedia [6]--David (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have finished the expansion on Elisabeth of Poland, there was alot of information about her, I was surprised there was only ever a stub about her. Thanks --David (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The information on Elisabeth of Poland keeps coming! I am surprised--David (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've finished Elisabeth of Poland now! You should create a page for Katherine, she does sound like an interesting person. It would be good if she was Elizabeth of Bosnia's sister but I've come out with one more piece of evidence against this. When Elizabeth was taken to the hungarian court, at that stage, Elisabeth of Poland and Stephen, Ban of Bosnia had no intention of marry their children off together, Elisabeth just wanted to foster Elizabeth. So why wasn't Katherine fostered by Elisabeth of Poland? Elisabeth would have probably wanted to make a good marriage for Katherine as well, like to a Duke of Bavaria or a son of the Holy Roman Emperor, rather than the Count of Celje. Another mystery I have is with Elisabeth of Poland. Her husband, Charles I of Hungary married three times, his first wife was Maria of Bytom, second was Beatrix of Luxembourg and thirdly was Elisabeth of Poland. Charles had one of two daughters, Katherine of Hungary and Elisabeth of Hungary. The mother of the girls is unknown, they were legitimate I think but it's unknown which of the three wives they belonged to. They couldn't be children of Beatrix of Luxmebourg because she was only married to Charles for a year and had one pregnancy from which she died along with her baby. This leaves Maria and Elisabeth. A date of birth hasn't been found for the girls but a date of death has. If Katherine was daughter of Elisabeth, she would have had to have been born withn the first four years of the marriage, otherwise she would have died rather young, noting she did have a daughter and did raise and educate her. Elisabeth of Hungary's life is more or less unknown, she did marry but it is unknown if she had issue. Please do you know anything? There are references to this case of Maria of Bytom's and Elisabeth of Poland's articles. Thank You and Gook Luck! ;)--David (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Any progress yet? Sorry for being so impatient but this mystery has been driving me mad over the last few weeks--David (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I will ask Jeanne, HENRY V (if he is about) and Aldebaron69 (he's really good with Polish history) if they know anything about Katherine and Elisabeth. Have you checked out Elisabeth of Poland yet? You could talk to Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy about the family tree, they seem to be good with these complicated codes. I can only make a family tree that follows the directs blood line (without siblings, aunts, uncles and cousins of any generation). I will keep you posted on the mystery of Elisabeth and Katherine. Thank You--David (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Marie Antoinette

Surtsicna, bringing to your attention the fact that in the MA article, the same portrait Marie Antoinette à la rose is being used twice: once in the infobox, the second time in the section Declining popularity used to contrast the muslim dress portrait. Since you worked so hard at choosing portraits for the article, you are (by me & myself alone) the designated expert to fix this double use. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Merci, mon cher! Frania W. (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing to thank me for, actually :) Surtsicna (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks just the same! Frania W. (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar award

		The Royalty and Nobility Barnstar
		This is heartily deserved for all of your hard work on Coronation and related articles. You've improved the Wikipedia's presentation on these subjects immensely. Well done, sir! Ecjmartin t | c 03:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not much good at making barnstars, but I thought I might take one of mine and send it your way with my compliments for your hard ongoing work on the Coronation series of articles. You've definitely taken them to a new level, and I for one deeply appreciate your efforts. Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Coronation of the Japanese Emperor

Not sure if you're monitoring my talk page for a response to your recent message, or if you want me to reply here, so I've replied on both pages. I've created the article you wrote to me about: see Coronation of the Japanese Emperor, and tell me what you think! I've placed a link into the main Coronation article, and have redacted the Japanese section of that article accordingly. I accidentally created the Japanese article as "Coronation" rather than "Enthronement"; this was accidental on my part, but I've made it clear in the article intro that it's more of an enthronement than a traditional coronation. I also found a couple of cool images which, while not showing the actual enthronement, does show an emperor (Hirohito) and an empress in official enthronement robes at the time of their ascession ceremonies. Tell me what you think! - Ecjmartin (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Johanna of Pfirt

Hello Surtsicna, today I created an article on Johanna of Pfirt. She was wife of Albert II, Duke of Austria and mother of four dukes. She has many descendents around today. What do you think? Cheers--David (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Kotromanić Family Tree

Hi Surtsicna. I'll leave you to create the page – the family tree below should just paste into it. Feel free to edit it. The current version is extremely simplified! I have left Jadwiga in for now - I think that she is probably an important enough figure to merit inclusion, but I would be happy to remove her in due course (along with the whole Charles IV loop, which I thought tied things together a bit, but is basically irrelevant). By the way, do you prefer Celje or Cilli? This is easy to fix. BartBassist (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of my dates are from here or here; others are simply from other wiki pages. The parentage of Katerina wife of Hermann I is uncertain, so I have put both options. The three marriages of Stephen Ostoja are, to say the least, problematic :s BartBassist (talk) 11:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad you like it. But why have you used that old version of the family tree on the House of Kotromanić page? BartBassist (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

My mistake - I looked at it before it was revised! BartBassist (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're probably right about the dates. I wasn't entirely sure about them either, which is why I was as comprehensive as possible with the circa indications. Is there any reason why you've removed the marriage to Hermann I of Cilli, but kept the marriage to Louis I of Hungary? BartBassist (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

KEY

marriage; legitimate children

liason; illegitimate children

Prijezda I 1211-1287 Ban 1250-87

Prijezda II c.1233-1290 Ban 1287-90

Stephen I Kotroman c.1242-1314 Ban 1287-1314

Jelisaveta of Serbia c.1270-1331

Stephen II c.1292-1353 Ban (1314-)1322-53

Elzbieta of Kujavia 1302-1343

Vladislav c.1295-1354

Jelena Šubić c.1306-c.1378

{{{#}}}

? Katerina  ? c.1336-1396 m. Hermann I of Cilli

Dabiša d.1395 King 1391-95

Jelena Gruba d.aft.1299 Queen 1395-98

Elizabeth 1340-1387 m. Louis I of Hungary

Hermann II of Cilli c.1365-1435

Tvrtko I 1338-1391 Ban 1353-77 King 1377-91

Dorothea of Bulgaria d.c.1390

Mary c.1371-1395

Sigismund 1368-(r.1387-)1437 HRE 1433-37

Barbara of Cilli 1392-1451

Kujava Radinović d.1434

Ostoja c.1378-1418 King 1398-1404, 1409-18

Tvrtko II 1381-1443 King 1404-09, 1421-43

Dorottya Garai d.1438

Ostojić d.1421 King 1418-21

Radivoj c.1410-1463 King 1433-35

Vojača

Tomaš c.1412-1461 King 1443-61

Katarina Kosača 1424-1478

Jelena Branković 1447-1498

Tomašević 1438-1463 King 1461-63

Sigismund (Ishak-beg Kraljević) 1449-c.1490

Katerina 1459-c.1470

Burying the hatchet

Surtsicna,

I sincerely hope to resolve our personal differences. While mutual disagreement on wikipedia may persist, hopefully our differences will cease and not impede making wikipedia more informative and interesting. And so, please interpret this in the intended amicable manner.

I shall start from the beginning, giving the facts as I honestly perceived them.

First, I suggested "Of Austria" instead of "of Austria", which was a genuine mistake as I had copied it from Frania's post citing Britannica. On hindsight, I should have been more careful so that others would not have misunderstood me.

You subsequently pointed out the error when you wrote on the inconsistencies of capitalisation. Your repeated mention, which I thought excessive given the minor mistake, led me to think that you were just latching onto what was in fact a mistake on my part for suggesting it.

Nonetheless, I apologised for it and joked about reasonable people and their guesses. I then thought that was put to rest and we could return to discussing "of Austria/of Spain", but your response frustrated me. It returned to the capitalisation topic again when I thought I had clearly admitted to the mistake and got past it. It was like salt to the wound and greatly irritating.

And so, I may have lashed out. But I honestly believed you were "harping on (my) genuine mistake after (having received) an apology". While admittedly my response was not as noble as I'd have liked, you must surely be able to understand my thoughts then. The rest is really all about the misperception of what I wrote as I explained on the "Maria Theresa" page.

This is my side of the story. You'd probably understand that it isn't easy to approach another with an olive branch in hand, so I hope you would seriously consider my sincere offer of peace. I certainly would not like to see further collaboration hampered by petty differences that could be easily resolved. Brian junhui sim (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Catherine of Bosina

Well do with the family tree, it looks great! I'll have to recommend some stuff to BartBassist. I'm rather bored at the moment, pages I would like to create are pointless because there isn't much info on the people. Please can I create one on Catherine of Bosnia, you can change it around if you don't like it. Thanks--David (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello! BartBassist is indeed great with family trees! Have you seen the latest version of the Kotromanić family tree? Regarding Catherine, you do not need anyone's permission to create an article, so go ahead! Just be sure that you have enough reliable sources and enough information - we don't want it to be speedily deleted! I'll help you with references and information. Surtsicna (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've started the article in User:Daaviiid/Sandbox, I've not released it yet because it could be deleted. Please could you add more to the article? Do you think I could add the piece of evidence we found about Katherine not being fostered by Elisabeth of Poland, when Elizabeth was. If Katherine and Elizabeth were siblings then it's most likely they were fostered together. Do you know of any references that show Katherine was daughter of Stephen II and Elisaberh of Kujavia. Thank You--David (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course I can add some information (not a lot though). I have some sources in Bosnian, but it will be hard to find reliable English-language sources. We shouldn't add our theories to the article, as that would be original reserach. Anyway, where did you get the dates of her birth? 21 March 1385 is the date of her husband's death; according to International Numismatic Comission (and other non-English sources), Catherine lived to see the 15th century. Surtsicna (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC) March

Oh, I just had an idea: ot is more likely that Catherine was daughter of Vladislav because, according to Can. 109, affinity arises from a valid marriage. In other words, if Catherine was daughter of Stephen and sister of Elizabeth, then her granddaughter Barbara would've been Mary of Hungary's first cousin once removed and thus Sigismund of Luxembourg's first cousin once removed-in-law! I know, so complicated! Surtsicna (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem with royals! They like to keep it in the family. Is there anyone else we could talk to about Catherine. I've asked many people about Katherine and Elisabeth, nobody seems to know as much as me and you. I found her dates on that geneolagy website that you have as a reference on her Bosnian page. Did they never have birth or death certificates back then! The one for Katherine would have been found I'm sure. The one for Katherine and Elisabeth of Hungary may have been lost during WW2. As User:Skäpperöd said to me, lets hope some Abbot some were finds a mysterious book one day and has all these missing things in them, Katherine and Elisabeth's mother and Catherine of Bosnia's parentage. Thank You, I'm off on holiday on Saturday and won't be back until then following week. Feel free to take Catherine's page out of my sandbox and finish it! Thank You--David (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought they only needed a dispensation if the bried and groom shared a common ancestor, like they shared the same great-grandparents. Maybe Catherine of Bosnia will always be a mystery, that's always the problem with history, some of the facts get lost along the way. Haven't you got Catherine's dates on the family tree on your talk page, are those real?--David (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've started the article on her, Katherine of Bosnia, Countess of Cilli. I'm off on my holiday now, feel free to add more information about her. Is there an image of this coin with her on?--David (talk) 10:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I'm back off holiday now! It's a shame you cannot find a picture of the coin. Maybe we should leave Catherine now, inform me if you find anything else. Is there any point in our article on her, it was mainly created through geneology: her parentage, the possability she was a sister to Elisabeth and grandmother of Barbara of Cilli. Can we find out if Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor needed a dispensation to marry Barbara? This could prove that Mary of Hungary and Barbara were cousins, couldn't it?--David (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well done with all the work on Elisabeth of Bosnia! I like the new image of her with Mary, were did you find it? I see you've been working on the wives of Casimir III of Poland. I've been thinking of creating a page about his forth wife Jadwiga, because she did remarry and have other children and there was the fact of her marriage to Casimir being bigamy. I'd also like to create a page on Catherine of Hungary, great-grandmother of Elizabeth of Bosina. Do you know much about Elisabeth of Serbia?--David (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I know about Elisabeth of Slovania, I created a page on her great-grandmother, Klementia of Habsburg. I found Elisabeth when I was looking for a legitimate line descendants from Klementia. The only surviving descendants are illegitimate. I read your article on Catherine, daughter of Elisabeth and Louis I and it looks good. I thought she was ten when she died though. Elisabeth of Serbia's article is goodfor a start, did she ever have a political infuence over any of her children? Could you help me find more evidence for Catherine, Queen of Serbia's article by doing research for Elisabeth? I'll have a little hunt about and I'll keep you informed. Thanks--David (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I cannot find a language with a descent amount of information. I found one (I cannot remember the language) but all it had was the name of her parents, the name of her husband and a list of her children. She must not have played much of a role in history.--David (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I've created a page on Catherine of Poděbrady and I will start one on Jadwiga--David (talk) 09:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC) I've completed Jadwiga of Żagań! It's one of the best articles I have created.--David (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, have you checked the page on Jadwiga of Zagan yet? Well done with all your work on Elizabeth of Bosnia. How is the article on Elisabeth of Serbia going? I cannot find much on her mother, Catherine of Hungary.--David (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a real shame about Elisabeth of Serbia. I wondered, was her mother Catherine of Hungary alive when her brother became King of Serbia? Catherine could have then become regent or had political influence over her son. There isn't really much on Catherine, she may as well have run off with her Cuman family because I cannot find information. It's an even biiger shame that there is no info on Elisabeth of Kuyavia. Do you have any idea who her mother was? Also, while you were editing Elizabeth of Bosina did you delete the name of their eldest daughter, Mary? I thought they had another daughter named Mary who died before Mary of Hungary was born, did she exist?--David (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to nominate Elisabeth of Bosina for the Did You Konw section on the main page. When I go to nominate, it just gives me a list of instructions about nomimating and not were you can nominate. Can you help me? Sorry I don't think you can nominate it because you expanded it. You can add to did you know if they're been recently created or expanded.--David (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I've been doing a bit of routing. I kno of a geneolagy website which sometimes offers certain people who could be a parent if the parent is unknown. I checked for Elizabeth of Bosnia in hope of finding a possible maternal grandmother (mother of Elisabeth of Kuyavia) and look what happened [7].--David (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I found Catherine of Bosnia's entry [8], it suggests that Stephen II and Elisabeth of Kuyavia were parents of Catherine.--David (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It is true I guess, when I've created articles on some spanish nobles the sources on that page never work out. It claims Isabelle of Burgundy never married Rudolph I of Germany.--David (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have also expanded Jadwiga of Poland's family tree on her maternal side. I've also created a page on Kunigunde of Bohemia--David (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Maria Theresa & Marie Antoinette

Bonjour Surtsicna: Thank you for the nice note you left on my talk page. I immediately looked up the beautiful word you used & which has its own article in Wikipedia. My God, exactly what my... ex-husband & everyone else's husband tell me!!!

It is good that you & Brian have worked things out & I am sure the two of you will come to the right name to give María Teresa=Maria Theresia=Maria Theresa=Mary Theresa=Мария Терезия=Marie-Thérèse of Austria of Spain of France... I am leaving it up to the two of you.

Most of the books I have on Marie Antoinette are in French, which may not be too good for en:wikipedia, although I use many books in French as source in other articles. Some are translated in English, most of them not. Will bring titles & authors later. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation on Maria Theresa

Bonjour Surtsicna, After reading user 69.251.180.224's revision in article, please go to our dear queen of France's talk page to Copyright violation at Death & Court life sections & read comments I just left there. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The whole article will have to be reviewed. Please go to MT talk page for more violation discoveries. Frania W. (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Streshnyova

I was unable to find more than a dozen references to support either variant (which means none of them is more "common" than another), so I moved the article to the variant most close to WP:RUS. That said, feel free to file a move request to move it back, if you wish. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:51, August 13, 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Consider, however, the fact that Slavonic and East European review refers to her as "Yevdokiya" (so no original research here). As a specialized academic peer-reviewed publication, it carries more weight than Britannica.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:57, August 13, 2009 (UTC)

Well, we both have a right to disagree on this. I logged my formal "oppose" vote on the RM, but will, of course, abide by the outcome of the discussion. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:12, August 13, 2009 (UTC)

Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen

Surtsicna , an article I recently created, Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, has been nominated for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. Please take the time to weigh in and stop its deletion. Thanks again for all your wonderful contributions to Wikipedia! --Caponer (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Emperor of Japan

Your recent infobox edit at Akihito is an excellent mistake -- not because your judgment was uninformed, but because of something a bit off in the rationale your edit summary suggested. It helped me to understand that something in the article about the Emperor of Japan needs further work. Your terse edit caused me to realize that a sentence or two needs to be added which explains why the list you reverted is inapt in an Imperial context. I simply hadn't appreciated this minor point.

If memory serves, in the popular movie The Queen, the British monarch famously observed that ten Prime Minister had sought her permission to form a government. For me and many others, the mention of Winston Churchill's name had an unanticipated resonance in that context because the arc of Queen Elizabeth's reign is easily overlooked or forgotten. I can't imagine the Japanese emperor expressing a similar thought; and this begs the question, "why not?" The answer to this "why not" would provide a better justification for your edit.

Your edit was not incorrect, not wrong; and indeed, your edit summary is easily defensible. I will have to ponder a bit more in order to begin to speculate about what sparked this meaningful pause. --Tenmei (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I've returned to this article several times since posting the above, and the edit history shows that I haven't changed anything, nor has anyone else with substantial contributions to articles about Japanese subjects. This can be construed as a kind of evidence that my response to a trivial edit may have been unduly sensitive. Maybe I was a bit old-fashioned in a world which is evolving? We'll see how this plays out, now that your edit has now been reverted by a British editor who is likely doing no more than applying a familiar paradigm in an unfamiliar context.

I still believe yours is the more valid point-of-view; and I was tempted to revert the link to Japanese Prime Ministers as you did. My current plan is to wait for others to express an opinion or perhaps to do nothing at all while waiting to see what comes as a result of the election of a non-LDP government? --Tenmei (talk) 07:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Elisabeth of Kuyavia

I've made a page in my sandbox out of interest to see how long it could by and the diffrent type of sections she could have. [9], this is were I am keeping it, but I need to finish her ancestors. Can I ask you a big favour? Do you think you or someone you know of translate and create a couple of articles on her ancestors, like her father, grandfather and great-grandfather. Cheers--David (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I need some on the Kuyavian's. When I get translations of the pages, some words don't make sense so I find it hard to create an article. I translate the polish articles because they have the most about them and poland was their homeland. I'd like some on Casimir II of Kuyavia, his father (whose name is hard to remember for me) and Casimir I of Kuyavia. If that isn't too much trouble, thank you.--David (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Or pleasedo you know of anyone who can speak polish who can help? I know of Aldebaron69 but he hasn't replied for a couple of weeks now so I don't think he is bothered--David (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I've created the page Elizabeth of Kuyavia, sorry I changed your disam page into it. I've looked hard for some references. I don't think it will be deleted, if it is deleted I could give them a long list of other articles that should be deleted. What do you think?--David (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello! I've been looking a bit more, give me a bit more time and I'm sure I'll find something on a google book search. I've been thinking, looking at the marriages of other family members of Elizbeth's family, it is most likely her mother could have been a noblewomen from Sileisa or Pomerania or maybe even a polish princess. I know the chances are slim and that there will be no sources to back it up, but I'm going to go back and find Dukes that could have been a grandfather by age, I'll check his daughters and see what happened to them. Some daughters maybe unnamed or the history books may have lost them at the end of childhood. Some of these women maybe possible mothers of Elisabeth and may give Elizabeth of Bosnia and her daughters the missing bloodline. I'll give you a list of some possible candidactes.--David (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There are hardly any. Are we even sue that Casimir was even married? This mystery women may have been a mistress with whom he had two children: Władysław the White and Elisabeth of Kuyavia. There are many of these daughters of dukes that became nuns, the chances are one of them may have married before or after their time in a nunnery and the evidence only records have been lost, tell me if you find anything.--David (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Polish Nobilty

I wanted to take a moment to let you know that I am going to undo a few of the changes you have made to the Polish nobles articles. I see that you are someone who takes pride in the topics you are proficient in. However, the Polish nobles and royalty, particularly those during the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, have a complex nature to them, that requires a more than passing knowledge of this subject. I am taken some time and great care to properly think about how these individuals should be laid out, including the setting out of their infoboxes. As those, in particular, are in a state of some non-cohesion. So, I felt that you deserved a rationale for this, more than just a the line that is provided in the edit summary. I won't waste your time here, giving you a brief history lesson, on Poland or the union with Lithuania, or the changing method of how these monarchs were put in place, as you can easily find that for yourself. I did want you to know, that I chose to use the infobox royalty, due to the flexible nature for which it would suit the purpose of these articles. I thought you deserved this, as I see you also, had a part in the formation of that template. MJSplant (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Elisabeth and Jadwiga of Greater Poland

Hello. I thought the sister were of Greater Poland because their father was and because their father was they would be. I thought it would refer to Jadwiga even more because she was married to another Polish noble with links to Greater Poland. Thanks by the way I created an article on Jadwiga's mother-in-law, Euphrosyne of Opole. Cheers--David (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There was a surviving line of Euphrosyne through her daughter Euphemia. check it out, it lasts up to Elizabeth II and the royal family [10]--David (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hedwig is known as Jadwiga in polish though and medieval lands states her as Jadwiga of Poland. Other Hedwigs have been moved to Jadwiga anyway.--David (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay but why is Elisabeth of Bosnia's daughter konwn as Jadwiga of Poland because it was moved from Hedwig a while back--David (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense but that's the problem with names, like Elizabeth and Elisabeth, Anne and Anna and Isabella and Isabel or Isabelle--David (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine but someone had moved the step-daughter of Queen of Bona to Jadwiga Jagiellon (1513–1573).--David (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Place of birth/Place of death

Bonjour Surtsicna: On several of your edits, you mention that places of birth & death should not be in the lead. Since I always put them there (!!!) I would like for you to let me know where I can find this wikirule in order not to make the mistake anymore & correct it whenever I fall upon it. Thank you in advance. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 03:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup Surtsicna. It is funny because I also was following the examples of thousands of other Wiki biographies, then I read your comments on a couple of them & decided to ask you what the rule was. On another subject, I have not had time to give you a list of other reading for Marie Antoinette, too busy on other projects. Bonne semaine! Frania W. (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Jesus

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the Jesus page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 22:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, your message to me is nonsense. Surtsicna (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Mary, Mother of Jesus

I have modified the Template to say "Honored, not venerated" for Protestantism and Islam. I also added the Umm name under "names" in the Template. Don't know how long it will last. I also added the Umm name under "names" in the Template. If I have made an error in her Arabic name, please correct it. I took it from the article itself.

I totally agree with your points about the saint template, but don't have time right now to take that one on. Afaprof01 (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Bosnia

The sibling of the Holy Roman Emperor to have a daughter at the time was Margaret of Bohemia (1373–1410), her daughter was Elisabeth of Nurembourg, she married Eberhard III, Count of Württemberg and had a daughter named Elizabeth. But Elisabeth's life is more or less unknown, she may have had other marriages. Was it a full niece of Sigismund or a half-neice. I wonder if Wenceslaus, King of the Romans had illegitimate offspring, it would make sense because he had no children from Joanna or Sofia--David (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we not finish Elisabeth of Serbia, I cannot find a thing about her. My translator isn't good with this website you and Jeanne have found so see if you can find anything out about Elisabeth of Serbia--David (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Surtsicna, my birthday was on the 11th, a sad day for many people but a happy day for me, it's sorta strange. Thank You--David (talk) 10:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and your cat is beautiful! I'll adopt a kitten, I have six or seven cats living in my street, three of them live nextdoor to me, they are lovely, the ones further up the road, terrorise the place! They killed two baby blackbirds in my garden, but the three cats nextdoor have never done such a thing--David (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Philip II

Spain doesn't exist in these years. Spain doesn't exist until 1715. What exist was some kingdoms, Portugal, Castilia, Navarra and Aragon with the same king. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.229.146.17 (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You know that Spain really doesn't exist. But many people who read these doesn't know it and could think that kingdoms in these era are like actual countries. Also it seams a way to make desappear Aragon and Castilian kingdoms from history. And Philip II of Spain it is not correct. From Aragon and portuguess kingdom it is Philip I not Philip II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.229.146.17 (talk) 07:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Re: Template:Infobox royalty -- Thank you for the education!
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  08:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Maria Theresa

Thanks Surtsicna! I think we can work in harmony, no problem! Let's get her to good article status. What do you think? -- Jack1755 (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, but I established that those dignities aren't in the regnal titles box, just Italian and French nobility. You can change it if you wish. I don't mind. :) -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Surtsicna & Jack, Empress Marie Theresa was definitely a "scolding" mother toward her youngest daughter Madame Antoine! From the correspondence I have seen, she was over-bearing & very critical of Marie Antoinette behaviour. In fact, I personally blame her for the tragedy that befell Marie Antoinette who was nothing but a diplomatic "object" in her mother's hands & I believe that Marie Antoinette showed a lot of courage not always "obeying" her mother's orders which, in my opinion, were tantamount to asking her daughter to be an Austrian spy at the time when she was the queen of France & the mother of the future king of France.

As for the GA status, I think the article has a long way to go. I just read one on the Unification of Germany, and it has made me feel a bit humble in my participation to en:wiki.

Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC) (semi-retired but checking things)

English name forms of Swedish royals

Hello again! Though they are not all generally known (no more so than the Swedísh originals), there are a number of phonetically palpable and etymologically correct English name forms for several members of early Swedish royalty. Examples are Sweartgar för Sverker or Reginald for Ragnvald or Richeza for Rikissa or Ingigarth for Ingegerd. I feel these name forms are much easier on readers of English, especially in reading aloud, and that they should be mentioned in the lead sections of the articles about those people. All of the names (I think) are to be found in a varying amount of Google hits, so they are certainly legitimate.

The only comprehensive source I know of for those names of royalty is Throne of a Thousand Years by Jacob Truedson Demitz (ISBN 9163050307), where the introduction actually mentions reading aloud, and which in turn lists these sources as bibliography for these names in the book's compilation, texts, fact pages and name lists: Nordische Personnamen in England (Nordic Personal Names in England), Erik Björkman; Halle, 1910; Continental Germanic Personal Names in Old and Middle English Times, Thorvald Forssner; Upsala, 1916; Norsk Isländska Dopnamn och Fingerade Namn från Medeltiden (Norwegian-Icelandic Baptismal Names and Assumed Names from the Middle Ages), E H Lind; Oslo/Upsala/Copenhagen, 1931; The Pre Conquest Personal Names of Doomesday Book, 0 van Feilitzen; Upsala, 1937; Nordisk Kultur (VII); Personnamn (Nordic Culture; Personal names), Assar Janzén; Stockholm/Oslo/Copenhagen,1947; Det medeltida Västergötland (Medieval Westrogothland), Ivar Lundahl; Upsala/Copenhagen, 1961; Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire & Yorkshire, G Fellows Jensen; Copenhagen, 1968; Svenska förnamn (Swedish Given Names), Roland Otterbjörk; Stockholm, 1970; Oxford Dictionary of English Christian Names, E G Withycombe; Oxford, 1977; Svensk etymologisk ordbok (Swedish Etymological Dictionary), E Hellquist; Lund, 1948.

How do you think I should go about adding these names, for example like this (where English: Sweartgar, is all I would add)?

Sverker I Kolson, English: Sweartgar, (Old Icelandic: Sörkvir Kolsson, Old Swedish: Swærkir konongær gambli) or Sverker the Elder (murdered December 25 1156) was a king of Sweden c. 1130–1156. -

Your opinion for smooth, non-controversial work on this would be appreciated before I start doing them all. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Here and here we have a Dutch physicist living in Sweden who knows neither English nor Swedish very well but for some reason wants to control history about people like this, even on en.WP. He follows me and a few other people around at times and does this kind of damage. Borderline stalking (evidence on request), needs to be blocked in my opinion. Problem known by arbiter John Vandenberg and his countryperson Abigor and many others. Hardly ever anything constructive. His destructive input usually equals disruption and is almost always personally sarcastic and uncivil (my theory is that these forums are mainly for him to exercize this behavior, not actually to contribute). Uncontrolled, he is going to make our good idea impossible. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Have replied on the Birger talk and will also try to make my (our) good intentions clear on Anund. Take a look! Typically Kuiper, as I am all too used to seeing him, to twist things that way on Birger and try to attack you on grammar which of course had nothing to do with it. That's what irks me so much about having to deal with him over and over and over and over again. The problems we have with him and probably (very sadly) are going to continue to have incessantly are threefold: (1) he picks fights for the sake of fighting, based on his personal likes and dislikes and watchlists, and pursues them in the most unethical ways (ingratiating one minute, uncivil the next, very time-consuming, insistant, uninformed, irrelevant, twisted arguments, etc.); (2) one of his admitted and vehement dislikes is royalty and any/everyone he suspects might be a fanatic about it; (3) he does not and probably never will recognize his own serious shortcomings in the English language, but acts as if he is some sort of an expert on anything he decides to pick fights about, including English and history. I could translate page after page of his diatribes from sv.WP. (Two examples: "You know nothing about history" to me recently when I was trying to discuss sourced facts; "Amazing how involved some people can get about long-dead royals" to another user trying to contribute sourced facts.) Ugh! SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see what you can do on this one! I give up for now. Reinforcements are needed to explain to these non-English users what is best for English readers. The latest talk comments are uninformed bordering on ignorant. But very authoritative anyway. I think we are in agreement that we can't let en.WP be run by English illiterates with complaints about Tolkien. This person apparently is an expert in Icelandic. The lead is a disaster - and all those ancient names? Talk about confusing! It's like a commercial for somebody's irrelevant knowledge. They have got to go, at least further down in the article as I tried to do. Best to you for now SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

PS re: Tolkien who did not make names up - he was knowledgeable enough to use existing names that were no longer very well known when he gave them to some of his characters. SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello again! If you have not decided to bow out on trying to get sensible royal name versions going in English, I would very much appreciate if you would comment 100% candidly here. Not necessarily agree with me, but comment. Thx. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this person who obviously is very limited in any knowledge of the English language, going to be allowed to continue to be this unreasonable? If you like those ancient Nordic names in there, totally unknown to any normal reader, that this perrson insists on putting back bolded in the lead - w/o the article name even mentioned - over and over, just to grandstand some totally irrelevant personal Icelandic knowledge, then leave it the way it has been changed back again now! I give up. Truly, SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Good work on Richeza! I am trying to support you on that talk page against know-it-all (incl. English) Swedes who are way out of bounds. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You have my full support on the royal Swedish Richeza's. This one also needs to be changed to Richeza of Denmark, Queen of Sweden (there has only been one), to be consistent. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

When will I have the pleasure of seeing her as Richeza of Sweden, Queen of Norway? Birger, Duke of Sweden, her father was de facto a prince consort to Princess Ingiburga (Sw: Ingeborg) his wife and all their children are considered royalty of Sweden. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You may or may not be interested in looking at this. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Austrian rulers

Hello, Surtsicna. You have new messages at Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Elisabeth of Serbia

Hello Surtsicna, I've been thinking, is there no chance of an article on Elisabeth. As you said, she must have played a role in the history of Bosnia besides have children. Was she regent at some point? Have you found anymore sources? Cheers--David (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've done a google book search and a normal search, nothing. Didn't you say a while back that you found a book or something that had alot of information in it about her, but you couldn't access it?--David (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there no way you could get access to the book? Sorry for being a pest but I need a new project--David (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand, well maybe Elisabeth of Serbia will always be a mystery, we shouldn't have to pay to find out about these people, they have as much to do with us than them, like those websites were you have to pay to find out your ancestors. Is there anyone I could create a new article on around that area besides Catherine of Hungary who may as well have run off with the Cumans because I can'tfind information on her! Did these men just lock their wives away and the only events of their lives were having kids?--David (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

After long last I've made the article on Elizabeth of Serbia, I used your information, you don't mind do you? It's not an amazing article in fact it's shorter than Elizabeth of Kuyavia, but you can have alot of credit for it--David (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've done an article on Catherine of Hungary, Queen of Serbia I found a website with lots of info on her!--David (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Nomination - MT

Hey Surt', great work on Maria Theresa! Did you nominate it for good article status? -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a quick glance over it. You having a good day? -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Aww, really? Hope you feel better soon! I have an Irish test tomorrow and I'm too lazy to study too. :p -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The names for the articles of queens

Hi! I was asked to post my oppinion by SergeWoodsing on the matter about the names for the articles of queens. My opinion is that they should be called by their original names, and I understand this is also the policy of Wikipedia. Both you and SergeWoodsing have posted your opinions of this on my talk page, and I have now posted my answer to SergeWoodsing. However, I rarely participate in discussions on Wikipedia, so; just to be absolutely sure that I have got it all right, I wondered if you could read my answer to SergeWoodsing and tell me if my opinion is in completely in line with the policy of Wikipedia? Just to make sure. You don't have to of course, but I would be grateful. If you have the time, just post the answer on the same entry as you and SergeWoodsing made on my talk page and tell me if I've got it right! --Aciram (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Elisabeth Teresa

LOL! thanks chuck..clearlyy was not paying attention! ciaooo Tbharding (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Frederik,_Crown_Prince_of_Denmark#Dynasty

The "discussion" continues, if you are interested. The user Law Lord is inserting further questionable "sources" and basically saying shut up if you don't like it and that it doesn't warrant further discussion. 142.68.80.29 (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Email?

Should you e-mail me about certain section removals so I know what you are up to or will the explanation be obvious anyway very soon? SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

King consorts of Naples

Hi Surtsicna. I don't agree with your edits to List of consorts of Naples. The four husbands of Joan I of Naples and the one husband of Joan II of Naples, during their reign, were kings consort not jure uxoris kings. They are not counted as Kings of Naples (Sicily at the time). --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

German Empresses

What happen to the German Empresses on the List of German queens? Why did you even seperated it? The list is still rather confusing.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

When I say German Empresses, I mean the German Empresses of the German Empire who were also Queens of Prussia. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't they? They have as much right to be there as William I, German Emperor, Frederick III, German Emperor, and William II, German Emperor have in the List of German monarchs. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

They are memtioned in this edit.

Simple. 1. Change the title of List of German queens to List of German consorts. It wouldn't indicated a Holy Roman Empress because ones German the other is Holy Roman. 2. Create a different article just for those 3 empresses. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

GV descendants AFD

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/George_V_(descendant_list)

This may interest you, whatever your opinion may be. You seem to have a good grasp of what is and is not WP:OR, etc. 142.68.80.29 (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply

It would be good to create articles on them, but there is a lack of information, the french article on Elizabeth mainly just says who she married and the fact that her aunt was Eleanor of Aquitaine, there really isn't anything on her. I'll have a look around for the other one. Have you seen my latest article on Constance of Poland? Also would it be possible for you to have a route around for the earlier Serbian consorts, I saw you message on Elizabeth II's Little Spy's talk page. Many of my latest articles have been the ancestors of Elizabeth of Bosnia and her mother. Do you mind if I expand Elizabeth of Bosnia's family tree? thank you--David (talk) 09:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

MT

Woo hoo! Crack open the bubbly, Surtsicna! Maria Theresa is officially a good article. -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This user helped promote Maria Theresa of Austria to good article status.

Joseph II: in the Shadow of Maria Theresa @ Google Books. I have some books detailing Joseph too. -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Serbian consorts

I started a little on it. But what is the female equivalent of a Knez? Also do you think I should include the Grand Duchess of Raška be included?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It is "Knjeginja", female equivalent. Why did you moved all of the Serbian kings and emperors to the Stephen??

Stefan is title, not name!! Stefan_(title) That is big mistake, you should revert it. Be good, 89.216.196.197 (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Because Stephen is English for Stefan. It's a title, just like king and emperor are titles; we don't say Kralj of Serbia, so why should we say Stefan Vladislav II of Serbia? Besides, English speaking historians translate the title Stefan (or Stjepan, for that matter) into Stephen. Surtsicna (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Dispute on Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden

I noticed you were involved in a dispute on Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden. Have you tried addressing the issue with the other party? Shadowjams (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Victoria

No problem. I noticed the back and forth, and wanted to send the warning out there, particularly since neither of you were new. I realize these kinds of things are often pretty clear on observation, so I'm sorry if I bothered you out of place. Thanks for replying. If the argument goes on I'd be willing to help try and get outside help, or weigh in if the issue is minor (I stumbled upon it, I have no clue about the underlying content). Shadowjams (talk) 09:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Elisabeth of Valois

Here you make a number of minor changes, in particular:

1. You take the accent from the name - whether or not this is justified the accented version should be included unless it is wrong per WP:UEIA.
2. In the infobox you set the end of the reign to "3 October 3 1568" - I corrected this and only bring it to your attention because I have seen quite a few dates like this in the last few days.
3. In the phrase "queen Mary I of Scotland" we should have a capital "Queen Mary I of Scotland" - we don't capitalise most titles separate from names, or indeed positions (Finance Director finance director Jim Mulvey) although that seems a grey area with presidents and prime ministers.

Incidentally I created a redirect at Élisabeth of Valois, should you have a list of accented names I could systematically create the required redirects. Rich Farmbrough, 13:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC).

1. I didn't say in the infobox.
2. and 3. Guess I havn;t pressed "save" on that tab yet. Regards. Rich Farmbrough, 18:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC).

Hedwig of Holstein

Commented; support, of course! -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)