Talk:Alexandra of Denmark

	Alexandra of Denmark is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 12, 2011.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 11, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted
	Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 9, 2013, August 9, 2015, August 9, 2018, and August 9, 2022.

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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

Denmark Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Mid‑importance

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

	Deaf Low‑importance
This article is part of WikiProject Deaf, the WikiProject which seeks to improve articles relating to all aspects of deaf-related and Deaf culture. For the Project guidelines, see the project page or talk page.DeafWikipedia:WikiProject DeafTemplate:WikiProject Deafdeaf articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Disability
Alexandra of Denmark is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

The oldest son of Alix and Bertie was called 'Albert Victor', not 'Albert Edward', which was Bertie's name. (I don't know how he got the nickname 'Eddy' I don't know. Maybe Edward was a subsequent name, but history records him as Albert Victor.
Source: Harold Nicolson, King George V - family tree at the back.

Alix's suicide attempt, and the fashion craze started by the high 'choker' collars, was reported in newspaper coverage on royal suicide attempts that followed claims about Diana, Princess of Wales's supposed suicide attempt. It featured in a number of Irish, British and continental papers, as well as in magazines. JTD 01:11 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)

Would the British Royal Family settle for a piddling two names? I think not ;). Edward was indeed a subsequent name: Albert Victor Christian Edward, Duke of Clarence. I had never heard the choker bit, very interesting...and rather an unusual suicide method. -- Someone else 01:15 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)

Thanx. I didn't have his full name. I presumed Eddy was in there somewhere but he was formally known simply as Albert Victor just as the Duke of Windsor was known as 'Prince Edward' even though his family called him David.

Apparently Alix tried to cut her own throat. When it was a genuine suicide attempt, or something akin to one of Diana's melodramatic 'suicide' attempts (one of which apparently used a knife that was so blunt (and which she knew was so blunt) that it wouldn't cut melted butter!) Alix does come across as a very nice, genuine woman. But people who knew of the scar found it bizarre that millions of women in Britain, Ireland and even America began wearing Choker Collars (often made of lace), having absolutely no idea that Alix wasn't making a fashion choice but was trying to conceal a major scar. Indeed, quite apart from the suicide link, she and Diana were quite alike; strikingly beautiful women in marriages that were none too solid, with difficult relationships with courtiers, married to husbands who if they inherited the throne at all, would only inherit it in old age. This fairy tale is a load of rubbish, she wore chokers to hide a small scar on her neck from a operation she had as a child she was vain about it thats all.

Absolutely, the rumour was that Alexandra had tried to commit suicide because of her husband's unfaithfulness. In her wedding photos and portraits of her before her marriage her neck is bare and if she was so concerned about a scar she would have covered it then. The high collars and chokers came later. I was told this rumor in the 1960s by older family members that the high collars and chokers were to cover the scar from a suicide attempt. (JTAC)

One can only hope that Prince William isn't a modern equivalent of poor Prince Eddy, who was mentally deficient (to put it mildly); others called him at the time mentally retarded'. And the poor lad did have a habit of stumbling quite innocently into 'scandals'; from supposedly being 'Jack the Ripper' (a bit difficult given that for one of the murders, he was up in Balmoral, in full view of Queen Victoria, the German Kaiser, the Prime Minister and senior ministers at dinner. (Even in the days of Concorde, he'd have difficulty getting down to London, murder a prostitute, and then get back to Balmoral in time for dessert! )The of course, there was the rumour that he was caught up in the Cleveland St. gay brothel scandal. I think Britain's monarchy had a lucky escape when he died and the throne went to his younger brother, who as George V was one of Britain's finest ever monarchs. JTD 03:12 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)

Since we all seem to agree that it was either a suicide attempt or at the very least very widely rumored to be from a suicide attempt, would the person who keeps deleting the mention of suicide please stop? This is the third time I have added it and someone keeps deleting is. If they continue maybe we can do a temporary block of the user. RockStarSheister (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that (1) the editor concerned included their rationale in the edit summaries; (2) the editor concerned acted in good faith; (3) the editor concerned has done a great deal to improve this article by inserting additional information and references; (4) no infraction covered by the blocking policy occurred; and (5) the editor is me. No, I don't think blocking would be appropriate. DrKay (talk) 09:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historic article and very knowledgable Angel Prince Isong (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not put birth and death locations in the opening paragraph between the birth and death dates. The style is simply to use <style><name> (<birth>-<death>). Other information goes later in the article. I have removed mention of where someone was born and where someone died to elsewhere. FearÉIREANN 22:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The respected source,

This means, in my opinion, that Alexandra's proper pre-marital name is Alexandra of Glucksburg. Denmark could only be some common parlance version. 217.140.193.123 29 June 2005 14:59 (UTC)

She is always called Alexandra of Denmark.

Elsewhere, John wrote: "The NYT marriage stuff doesn't really help - it certainly doesn't call her "Princess Alexandra of Schleswig-Holstein" or anything like that. What would be neeted would be a Court Circular or London Gazette entry, I think.

k 14:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)"[reply

]

Since it is you who desires those, could you kindly check them from Court Circular and from London Gazette. In my opinion, NYT (which is one of those that are easily available from even so early years) reflects how many English-speakers knew her at the time, which is of course a criterion. 217.140.193.123 07:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT does not call her Princess Alexandra of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. So that is not terribly useful, is it?

k 17:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

You might do worse than look at the latest book on the subject -- Princesses of Wales by Deborah Fisher (University of Wales Press, 2005). That could surely be quoted as an authority. Deb 17:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have got the understanding that the said book has been authored by someone not scholarly highly qualified. Of course there are plenty of books about royals, written by a motley gang of persons, for whatever reasons - that topic seems to attract dilettantes - in libraries, there are gossip books, photo collection books, etc. about royals. Also we do not put very much authoritativeness e.g regarding geographical research to travel guide books. In this question, we have above been trying to find authoritative sources drom the period in question (such as London Gazette and Court Circular, if such existed), so a book written in recent years does not somehow reflect that contemporary usage. 217.140.193.123 19:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a query on alt.talk.royalty, which is usually good for ironing out issues like this. I wonder, though, why you are denigrating a source published by a university press? That suggests, at least, that it should be assumed to be a reputable source unless proven otherwise.

Okay then, let's be serious for a moment. There are probably a couple of reasons why she was called Alexandra of Denmark by the British. One is that the Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg was too much for us to get our tongues around. Another is that that particular dynasty seems to have had several princesses called Alexandra. Either way, what we are doing is selecting the most common name used by UK sources to refer to her now, not at the time she was married. Deb 21:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep :))) The seriousness somehow got lost when Deborah Fisher began to advertise Deborah Fisher's writings as authority.

I somehow sensed that you didn't understand the joke. Ah well, never mind, it's British humour, you see. Deb 22:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the "authority" part is a joke. I agree.

I think that Queen Alexandra was titled "HRH Princess Alexandra of Denmark" at the time of her marriage. First of all, do you really think that the children of the heir to the Danish throne would not be given any Danish titles? Also, on [1] it says that her titles were HH Princess Alexandra of Denmark before 1858 and HRH Princess after. Though the site does look very small-time and possibly inaccurate, I have found it to be very reliable for things like this. --Matjlav 21:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you remember that before 1863, her father was not THE heir of Denmark, he was only at maximum the second in line after hereditary prince Frederik Ferdinand. Depends on traditions, but such position put him as father to the same category as "princess of Kent" in UK. Being also Princess of the United Kingdom, but known with the name Kent. (Of course, if we were to change the stupid headings such as Adelaide of Cambridge, Margaret of Connaught, Alice of Albany, Marie of Edinburgh, Maud of Wales, then...) - And, I would like to stress that maidenists who have tried to use "Alix of Hesse and by Rhine" should be consistent in their endeavors and not illogically repel the form "Alexandra of Glucksburg". Some "university presses" are commercial enterprises, I would be more forthcoming were the publication for example an academically scrutinized dissertation. Then, some universities tend to be nationalistic strongholds, which has impact to certain things. Do you have any counter-argument to usage by the Oxford Dictionary of National Biographies? 217.140.193.123 21:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Henri van Oene's site is an excellent resource. He actually verifies his facts. It states that she was born Her Serene Highness Princess Alexandra of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg and that she became Her Highness Princess Alexandra of Denmark on July 31, 1853 and that on December 21, 1858 she was elevated to the style of Royal Highness while her title remained unchanged.

Also, I found that the Royal Warrant issued for consent to her marriage to The Prince of Wales. She is listed as Her Royal Highness The Princess Alexandra (additional names), daughter of Prince Christian of Denmark. This is viewable in the London Gazette issue 22667 published on Novemeber 4, 1862. I tried to link the issue but it breaks the link. Just search the archive for the date I listed and enter "princess alexandra" into the search bar, it's on the first page. The London Gazette is the place to find offical statements, Royal Warrants, Letters Patent, anything in privy council, ect... everything is always published in the Gazette. You can search the archive at London Gazette Searchable Archive 76.105.150.19 03:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Queen Brandissima[reply]

Brandissima, don't bold your entire post, it is terribly annoying and may be seen as rude. I have unbolded it. To the anon user 217.140.193.123, the "maidenists" use a consort's highest title which she holds in her own right, not by virtue of marriage nor a title given to her in anticipation of her marriage (for instance, Nicholas II married a Grand Duchess because Alix of Hesse had been created so prior to her marriage). Charles 03:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Traditions for Denmark and the UK are different - I don't see how we can make an analogy. BTW here is an alt.talk.royalty thread dealing with this issue - everyone seems to agree that they were made princes/ses of Denmark along with their father in 1853. And that's a forum where somebody would be sure to have corrected it if it was wrong. Linked there is the actual ordinance making Christian heir after Frederick VII and his uncle. It very clearly states that Christian and his wife were being made Prince and Princess of Denmark by this act (not Hereditary Prince, as you have claimed - this title belonged to the King's uncle), although it doesn't specifically mention their children.

That's absolutely right. When Christian became a "Prince of Denmark", his children became princes and princesses x, y and z "of Denmark". I knew it must be written down somewhere (apart from that excellent new book published by the University of Wales Press...) Deb 22:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Alexandra herself was never known to have taken a lover. Those within the monarchy commonly did do so (women monarchs included), however for someone of her social stature, it would not have been socially accepted if common knowledge." I'm surprised by the assertion that women monarchs commonly took lovers, especially if the reference is to British Queens. Queen Caroline (Princess Caroline of Brunswick, consort of

Why is there no mention of all of her children? On the bio for Mary of Teck there is a chart listing all of her children, yet this article seems to only mention Prince Albert Victor? --Mdieke 07:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've added a chart listing her children --Mdieke 08:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused as to why an article about Queen Alexandra is listed as Alexandra of Denmark. I believe it has already been established in the talk paages that she couldn't have been "princess of Denmark" until after she was already married. We must be concerned with accuracy not what is common in newspapers.

I believe it would be more accurate to refer to her by her most distinguished title. We should place particular importance on the fact that this is a women who was crowned as Queen during the coronation of her husband, King Edward VII. She even wore the oil that she was anointed with all day following the coronation. That to me takes precedence over her birth title. She was crowned as Queen during her husband's coronation and she was buried as Queen Alexandra.

I should also note that the reference to her as "Queen Mother" is wholly inaccurate. The phrase and title "Queen Mother" didn't come into existance until the late Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. Prior to her creation and use of the title it was never used. Queen Alexandra like Queen Mary was a Dowager Queen, but she was never offically styled as such. She remained HM Queen Alexandra until her own death.

This is not true: see section below. Myopic Bookworm 09:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any other encyclopedia in the world would list this women as Queen Alexandra with notes on her premarital and pre-coronation status. 76.105.150.19 10:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra certainly was, or became, a princess of Denmark at some point in her life. The article currently states that Alexandra became a princess of Denmark ten years before she married and became Princess of Wales. The convention here on Wikipedia is to name a consort by her highest pre-marital title. Her highest premarital title is that of a royal princess of Denmark, rather than a princess of the ducal house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sønderburg-Glücksburg. The only reason she was ever crowed queen is because she was a consort. Again, the Wikipedia naming conventions for consorts state what I have already said in this post. You may have a point on the use of "Queen Mother", but I believe it is implied as a position as it is understood today: a queen dowager who is the mother of the sovereign. Charles 04:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She became a Princess of Denmark in 1853. I am aware that she was crowned because her husband was King. I'm certain I stated that in my original comment. However, that does not change the fact that she was crowned and anointed as Queen Constort. Why would wikipedia list a women who was crowned and buried as a Queen by a title that she only held for 10 years of her 81 year life? I understand the maidenist view but I don't understand why this very unecylopedic system is even being used. It seems logically specious.

There is even dispute that a women who has been crowned during the coronation even as a consort could ever be styled as anything else if she were to divorce without an act of Parliment.

I think it is also specious to use "Queen Mother" as a position or title for women who did not hold the title and who weren't referred to as such during their lifetime. We are are having a discussion over in "British Queen Mothers" as to the historical usage and existance of such a distinction. I'm not sure that we should be applying the term to women who didn't use it irreguardless of the modern understanding of it. We certainly shouldn't be putting it in articles of non-British women. Queen Mother is a wholly British invention.

Wikipedia is not using "Queen Mother" consistantly for women who are only a queen dowager who is the other of a sovereign. Moreover, the term dowager isn't used for women who themselves held the title in their own right (e.g. Juliana of the Netherlands) it is used for a widow who's husband held the title. And, according to Debrett's, Black's and Burke's a women can only ever be a dowager if the current heir is a decendant of her late husband. [2]

The usage isn't consistant and it hasn't been referenced in numerous articles. 76.105.150.19 06:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Queen Brandissima[reply]

Regardless of whether there is a dispute on anointing or not, it is not Wikipedia's place to inject itself into that dispute. The definition of queen mother is the mother of a sovereign who is a queen dowager. That is exactly what Alexandra was. Queen mother, not Queen Mother. Debrett's, Burke's et al cannot account for ever case of when there is or is not a queen mother. Surely Juliana is a different case, but we cannot determine that on Wikipedia. See

WP:OR. The article British Queen Mothers or whatever it is named should be called British queen mothers, as Queen Mother as a proper noun was only ever given to one queen dowager. Charles 07:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

76.105.150.19 07:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Queen Brandissima[reply]

I agree that it appears slightly weird to list Queen Alexandra as "Alexandra of Denmark", but that is only because she happens to be a recent consort, so most popular reference to her is to Queen Alexandra. It is at least arguably logical to treat her like Queen Katherine (better known as "Katherine of Aragon") or Queen Eleanor (better known as "Eleanor of Aquitaine"). The key thing, though, is the better known as.As I understood it, it is usual Wikipedia policy to list people by their best-known name, and it is surely the case that Alexandra is better known as "Queen Alexandra". Myopic Bookworm

This is not a general term in idiomatic English: one does not usually speak of "a Queen mother", but only of, at a particular time, the bearer of the title "the Queen Mother". Although Alexandra (like some others) did not like the title of Queen Mother, it was one of her official titles, and it was used as such, most prominently in the Prayer for the Royal Family in the Book of Common Prayer, which will have been said widely and frequently in Anglican churches while she lived. Myopic Bookworm 09:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not one of her offical titles. It has only ever been an offical title of one women that being Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother. Being used in a prayer does not make it offical any more than it made "princess Diana" offical. 76.105.150.19 10:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. The title Queen Mother has been existence at least as far back as Elizabeth Woodville. QE the QM chose to resurrect the actual usage of the title; Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary had both chose to go by the style HM Queen X, but were technically Queen Mothers.

Henry VII's mother insisted on being known as Queen Mother, even though she was not a queen herself. She often signed "Margaret R[eg]". PeterSymonds | talk 21:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.

Please go to

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline

is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

talk) 18:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Excess legacy

Can I help it if she was a popular princess in these parts? -

The original

Vancouver, and the Alexandra Ladies Club (Alexandra House) in Victoria

.

The vessels and the hospital and so on were unlinked as those articles don't exist yet, but all shall; the vessels in particular were high-profile bits of loyalist ardour in this, the most royalist of all colonies. The orphanage is now, I think, Queen Alexandra School but I haven't checked that yet; I'm not sure of the dates of the royal visits, I don't think she was on hand for the opening of the solarium or orphanage, but she may have been there for the sod-turning. The Ladies Club, well, OK, it may yet have an article and in fact she may have had tea there, an actual physical connection....I don't think she was in any of the royal parties who toured the colony/early province e.g. Lord Dufferin, but I'll check The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York's visit to Vancouver in 1901-02, I think were the dates, was one of the most photographed events in the city's early history - I'm sure there were some formal dedications and commemorations during the visit to BC, maybe as noted the endowments fo the solarium and the orphanage. If such legacies are common elsewhere in the Empire, e.g. Australia, maybe a list page would be suitable? Talk about obscure - List of places and things named for Alexandra of Denmark, but....or at least once those are linkable they could be reinstated?Skookum1 (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's also an obscure island in Howe Sound, and a coal mine at Nanaimo....the ladies club is one of three, the others being in the UK and Australia, but I think Alexandra House is still a heritage establishment/building in Victoria. The women's equivalent of the Empire Club, which is the rich guy's club/building/ in other words it's going to have an article anyway. There's also the much-less-important Alexanra Hotel in Natal, British Columbia, basically a ber with rooms upstairs (or was). Maybe a catch-all List of names honouring royalty in British Columbia, then? She's not alone, y'seee...Skookum1 (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can't list everything that was named after her and every place she may have drank a cup of tea. It would swamp this article, which should be a biography not a list. I think it's too much for you to list relatively minor things when entire towns are excluded. There is a vast number of schools, streets, buildings, etc. named after her. In Britain alone, there are 30 Alexandra Avenues today, not including those that have been demolished. There are many, many other Alexandra Roads and Alexandra Streets, not to mention Alexandra Closes, Alexandra Courts, Alexandra Drives, and so on and so on. We are talking hundreds upon hundreds of things named after her. If I had my way the entire "named after her" section would be removed. A compromise is to list one or two of the most notable things only, and anything else can go in its own article. DrKay (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah....well, the bridge certainly, the vessels I'd say also (once there's articles), unless there were a shot of ships named for her....the ladies club,sc hool and hopital, no (unless she opened them?). NB AFAIK the Lady Alexandra was named before she was elevated to Princess of Wales...Skookum1 (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I almost kept in the ship so if it was put back I probably wouldn't squeal. DrKay (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duchess of Cornwall and York?

This is how she is named in old pics/chronicles of their visit to Vancouver; it's not in the titles/styles section....is this an error? Or just forgotten/obscure, except in the colonies?Skookum1 (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've confused her with Mary of Teck. DrKay (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guess, so then; probably because I'm confusing the numbers on the Edwards?? The pic of Queen Mary on that page looks remarkably like QEII, no? Hmmm I'm going to have to read Alix's bio a bit closer to see if she ever came to BC; maybe; the orphanage/school appears to have been deedicated in 1909, around the time of the Duke of Clarence's visit....(who became a king, but which one??)Skookum1 (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her limp

"All of Alexandra's children were born prematurely; during the birth of her third child in 1867 complications threatened her life and she was left with a permanent limp."

Excuse me, what hase a giving birth to a child with a limp to do ? I can't imagine this. --AndreaMimi (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible pelvic damage. Victorian medicine was barbaric by modern standards. RedTomato (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New file File:Alexandra of Denmark by Sir (Samuel) Luke Fildes.jpg

Recently the file File:Alexandra of Denmark by Sir (Samuel) Luke Fildes.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 03:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article title: another view

I suggest "Queen Alexandra, consort of Edward VII, King of Great Britain." Torontonian1 (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too long, and the guardians of

WP:NCNT would never allow it. DrKay (talk) 08:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Arms and Standard

I strongly belive that both Her arms and Her standard should be shown, as they are seperate symbols, and are used differently as well. However, User:DrKay doesn't seem to understand that, constantly removing one or the other, claiming they're the same thing(saying "her arms are already shown once"), when they are not. Cone someone else please explain that to him? I've tried on his page, but he's very stubborn on the matter. Fry1989 (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand perfectly. You should be discussing content not attacking other editors. DrKay (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am discussing the content, and you refusing to allow both symbols, which are infact independant of each other despite being similar, is part of that discussion. Nobody has this problem with allowing both to be shown except you, and your reasoning is rediculous. Fry1989 (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please withdraw your personal attack. You should not call other editors ridiculous. Discuss the content not the contributor. DrKay (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying your reasoning was rediculous is not a personal attack. You said "her arms are shown already", which suggests that her arms and her standard are the same thing, and that is rediculous. Fry1989 (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning is ridiculous.

Do you see how unhelpful and silly such a statement is now that you're on the receiving end? It doesn't address any points or provide a counter-argument. This is at best a contradiction, but is more like an ad hominem attack. In disputes you should adhere to policy. This is on top of your previous breach of policy by name-calling: "you're so thickheaded".

The standard is a banner of arms. By definition, the banner of arms shows the arms. DrKay (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have time to discuss until now. While a Standard is a banner of arms, they are two seperate symbols and are used very differently. To remove one or the other because of their similarity is wrong because of that difference in use. I got angry, and said something I shouldn't have, but that doesn't change why I've insisted upon both her Arms and Standard being shown. Fry1989 (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity

The lead of the article, and therefore tomorrow's main page, carry the claim "As Princess of Wales ... she won the hearts of the British people and became immensely popular". This goes far beyond the only related claim in the body of the article ("Alexandra was highly popular with the British public"), and places this "accomplishment" within one particular phase of her life, which the article does not do. "Winning the heart of" is clichéd language that is far more journalistic than encyclopaedic, attributes a unanimity of affections to the entire British population which is unverifiable, and comprises an unsupported opinion. Is there any real grounds for retaining this? Kevin McE (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Straw Cat (talk) 10:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You say there's only one related claim but it is sourced to multiple pages in three different biographies (Priestley, p. 17; Battiscombe, pp. 66–68, 85, 120, and 215; Duff, pp. 113, 163, 192, and 215), and I've just looked at Purdue and that says the same. The claim is verifiable. DrKay (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She was popular, but "won hearts" is not the way to word it. We don't have to write like Tony Blair ...

IMHO this is an excellent, informative article about an eminent Victorian, let down by patches of sentimental and unnecessary euphemism which even in Alix's time was going out of fashion. Case in point, the coy and evasive and rather sexist "Edward continued to keep company with other women". The Prince kept company with lots of male pals too, as the article states. If we mean that he was regularly going to bed with certain women not his wife, we should say so in less confusing (to younger readers) and cloying terms. Neither should it be implied without good sources that Alix tolerated this. It may well have caused her great pain, but she clearly had not much choice in the matter.Straw Cat (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really objecting to a change in the language; I was more concerned about the potential removal of content. I would say "won the hearts" and "became immensely popular" is a virtual repetition anyway, so dumping one of them does not alter the article substantially.

The problem with saying "mistresses" is that the biographies disagree on its appropriateness. They all agree he kept company with other women, but they disagree on the extent of the friendships or employ language that leaves it to the reader to decide. DrKay (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the peacock terms, simplifying it to "she became generally popular", and de-linked the popularity from any particular phase of her life. Shame it didn't happen in time to remove such unencyclopaedic language from the Main Page. Kevin McE (talk) 07:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just my 2c worth, WRT her popularity: there were, and still are, a great many pubs named 'The Rose of Denmark' in the UK.Bluedawe 01:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why "of Denmark"?

Why is she 'of Denmark' considering her highest status was in the UK? — Preceding

talk • contribs) 19:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, if you want to submit a move request nobody is stopping you. PatGallacher (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because she was born Princess Alexandra of Denmark, and like her predecessors and successors, her origin needs to be incorporated into her article’s title. See Mary of Teck, Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen, Caroline of Brunswick, Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Caroline of Ansbach, Mary of Modena, Catherine of Braganza, Anne of Denmark, etc. Keivan.f^Talk 03:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Queens consort typically are known by their maiden names (names of origin) as a means of distinguishing or ancestry purposes. It’s just her conventional name. AKTC3 (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"great powers" link in lede

In the lede, a wikilinked mention is made of great powers, which links to an article Great power which discusses modern and historic great powers. Its not a good match at all.

It appears to me "great powers" is referring to (a subset of) the crown heads of Europe ... but the article for that phrase is a stub. There is an article

International relations of the Great Powers (1814–1919)

, but this discusses the sovereign AND elected governments of what were considered great powers of the relevant time period.

Perhaps someone more familiar with the subject matter, in the specific context of the lede, ie exactly who, or which powers consented to Frederick VII's ascension to the throne of Denmark, and change the wikilink accordingly?

Thanks. Prime Lemur (talk) 10:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to 'major European powers' and introduced a link to

Celia Homeford (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you very much @

Celia Homeford

:, that was exactly what I was looking for! I'd just never heard of the London Protocol. So quick too. 🍎

Prime Lemur (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

Alexandra of Denmark → Queen Alexandra – Alexandra's highest rank is Queen of the United Kingdom, and she is most notable for being a Queen Consort of the United Kingdom (as the consort to King George V of the United Kingdom) rather than being a Princess of Denmark so why is the article titled "Alexandra of Denmark"? "Queen Alexandra" even redirects to this page. In fact her title ceased to be Alexandra of Denmark in 1863 when she married her husband

Alexandra - Titles and styles:

1 December 1844 – 31 July 1853: Her Highness Princess Alexandra of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg

31 July 1853 – 21 December 1858: Her Highness Princess Alexandra of Denmark

21 December 1858 – 10 March 1863: Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra of Denmark

10 March 1863 – 22 January 1901: Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales

22 January 1901 – 6 May 1910: Her Majesty The Queen

6 May 1910 – 20 November 1925: Her Majesty Queen Alexandra

Yeungkahchun (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose. I don't find the rationale persuasive. She's Princess of Wales for longer than anything else but we don't title the article
  Celia Homeford (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Then in my opinion, the article Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother should be renamed, per that reason. Peter Ormond (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree that it should. BTW she was consort of Edward VII, not George V. PatGallacher (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Ormond: Well, there have been calls to have the article about The Queen Mother moved back to its original title, “Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon”, which would make it consistent with the articles about other consorts. I think two users raised the issue on the article’s talk page but no formal “requests” for renaming the page has been submitted. Any such request should have a strong base within our naming policies and show that the maiden name is the most suitable and common name for that page. Keivan.f^Talk 03:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I only preferred to choose "Alexandra of Denmark", instead of "Queen Alexandra". --Frontman830 (talk) 02:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unconvincing argument. Dimadick (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Celia Homeford. Interstellarity (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The sources seem to support the proposed title, and the current title using "of Denmark" just isn't very good when she was Queen of the UK. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per
  WP:CONSORTS "Many consorts are known in English as "{Name} of {Place}" [...] where {Place} is the country or House of origin." --Richiepip (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose also per
  WP:CONSORTS – the guidance is clear. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose per
  WP:CONSORTS. Additionally, she hasn’t been the only queen in history to be named Alexandra, and there’s no proof that she’s the most notable one or the primary target with this name; only in that case Queen Alexandra could be used as the title of this article. Keivan.f^Talk 03:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1913 portrait substituted and reverted

The 1913 portrait appears to be a reversed version of that to be found in the NPG collection at https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw263506/Queen-Alexandra?LinkID=mp00072&search=sas&sText=queen+alexandra&wPage=19&role=sit&rNo=390. It has also been artificially faded at the sides. I don't see what it would have added to the page.

talk) 16:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Sbishop[reply

]

Titles & Styles

Why was this section removed? I feel it is a poor decision. JasonKurth (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I came here looking to see if this was mentioned because I was sure I'd seen it on her article in the past. None of her siblings have this section either. 2600:1700:BC01:9B0:99C1:3A3F:A00A:39A3 (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been trying to find London Gazettes to cite her titles but it’s been difficult for her early titles. However, I think this was the issue – they were never properly cited. AKTC3 (talk) 04:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the edit summary said: [3]. Most of it was uncited and the one citation that was given didn't support the content.

Celia Homeford (talk) 08:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Legacy

For a while there was information in the legacy section regarding the Queen Alexandra Bridge in Sunderland, UK. I updated that section slightly and then shortly afterwards it was removed as deemed too trivial (along with street names). I re-added the bridge section with a little more detail plus another reference. This was then removed almost straight away, again with reason (trivial, excessive detail) by user DrKay. I still think the bridge is very relevant to the article. It was dedicated to the Queen and the Earl of Durham officially opened it on her behalf, it wasn't a trivial matter, she was loved in the area as she was in most of the UK, maybe more so in England. The text that was removed:

"The Queen Alexandra Bridge, a road traffic, pedestrian and former railway bridge in Sunderland, was officially opened by The Earl of Durham, on behalf of Queen Alexandra on the 10th of June, 1909."

Am I alone in my thoughts here, is this local landmark that was dedicated and named after a beloved Queen, really irrelevant to the legacy section of her article? Norms360 (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is all abit trivial and is noticeably cited to books and websites about the things themselves. The citations are not actually about Alexandra. This article should be about Alexandra not English street or bridge names.

Celia Homeford (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

My view hasn't changed since 2008: #Excess legacy. DrKay (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]