Talk:Queen Victoria/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Queen Victoria took the title of 'Empress of India on 1st January 1977, not 1st May 1876. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.161.20 (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The Durbar was on 1 January 1877, but the title was proclaimed and used before then.

talk

) 16:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Does it strike anyone else as odd that this article doesn't contain even a single mention of her brother

) 16:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Added by john k. 22:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I can only assume that it's because nobody but professional historians or genealogists have ever heard of these people, to know to mention them in the first place. I certainly never have. They were never anywhere near the Line of Succession, so they played no role in that respect. They were, by the way, half-siblings of QV. I can't see that they added anything to her notability. But it is kind of curious that they've been written out of all but the most detailed histories of her. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't something be said about the plans to change her name through an Act of Parliament or some form of rechristening during her confirmation? Apparently, King George IV picked the name, though her parents preferred Georgiana or Augusta. However, King William IV did not find the name Victoria English enough and suggested changing it to Elizabeth once it became clear she would succeed him. The Duchess agreed, but then changed her mind. It seems notable, as it was rather unusual and highly covered by newspapers of the time. Surtsicna (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I've read eight of the books listed in the bibliography. I don't recall any of them mentioning it.

talk

) 07:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Edit line: "The following day, she participated in a procession that, in the words of Mark Twain, "stretched to the limit of sight in both directions" and attended a thanksgiving service in Westminster Abbey.[169]" to remove 'in the words of Mark Twain, "stretched to the limit of sight in both directions"'.

Twain did not attend the Golden Jubilee, he was in Hartford, CONN at the time. Ref:http://www.marktwainproject.org/xtf/search?category=letters;style=mtp;facet-direction=outgoing;facet-written=1880::1887;identifier=UCCL02662;rmode=details for a letter written by him that day from Hartford.

The cited Twain reference is a direct quote from Twain’s “Queen Victoria’s Jubilee”, which describes the 1897 Diamond Jubilee. The line can be found in The Complete Essays Of Mark Twain by Charles Neider , page 197.

This is one of those "global cannonical errors" propagated around the web without checking. Have contacted the Roya Family's web editor about the error on http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/TheQueenandspecialanniversaries/HistoryofJubilees/QueenVictoria.aspx and awaiting reply, but the facts are clear on this: they've mis-applied the quote and it's been copied everywhere.

Offlogic (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed.

talk

) 18:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't edit the article but HM Queen Victoria also bore additional titles as the Male line Grand Daughter of the King of Hanover. Her titles didn't dissapear upon her accession nor the seperation of the crowns. Can someone please add to her titles

As the male-line granddaughter of a King of Hanover, Queen Victoria also bore the titles of Princess of Hanover and Duchess of Brunswick and Lunenburg from birth until death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlfraley (talk • contribs) 07:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this is of sufficient relevance. She doesn't seem to have ever used those titles, and they don't seem to be mentioned in biographies of her.

talk

) 08:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

So you just cherry pick what you want in their? The titles where hers as well as her cousins of Cambridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlfraley (talk • contribs) 11:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

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

As a male line grandchild, Queen Victoria held from birth until her death the titles as Princess of Hanover, Duchess of Brunswick and Lüneberg Carlfraley (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)carlfraley Carlfraley (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is one source to back it up ^ a b c d Greg Taylor, Nicholas Economou (2006). The Constitution of Victoria. Federation Press. pp. 72–74.

. OCLC 81948853. Carlfraley (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The book says nothing of the sort: [2].

talk

) 11:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I copied the wrong link, however I'm awaiting a response from the Garter King of Arms office so hopefully that will suffice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlfraley (talk • contribs) 11:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

This is merely a suggestion, and not an imposition. I've noticed that the article doesn't give a good description of how she looked. At the very end it says that she "was physically unprepossessing—she was stout, dowdy and no more than five feet tall". Was she brown-haired? Blonde? What about her eyes? I wonder if the physical description shouldn't be somewhere around her early adulthood? It could say something like "Victoria was blonde and had blue eyes, was five feet tall and was regarded as beautiful" (I'm guessing here). And the above mentioned piece could be easily changed to "was physically unprepossessing but she succeeded in projecting a grand image". Just a thought. --Lecen (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The world was in black and white back then  :) It did not turn color until about the 1960's, and for awhile, it was extremely grainy.John Paul Parks (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

A Danish singer participating in the Eurovision Song Contest, Emmelie de Forest (whose original family name is Engtröm), alleges that she is the great-grandchild of Queen Victoria (even branding herself as the "barefoot royal" on her website and using "Victoria's great-grandchild" as her main PR strategy[3]) a claim that was also uncritically reported by the Danish tabloid press a few months ago[4]. The claim is based on

1. the unverified claim by her and/or her father that her father, Swede Ingvar Engström (1938-2010), who a couple of years before his death in 2010, adopted the surname "de Forest", was an out-of-wedlock son of one
   Maurice Arnold de Forest
   , the Jewish son of an American circus artist who converted to Catholicism
2. who in turn is alleged by Emmeline to be the son of King
   Habsburg
   princess(!).

The story is dismissed as a pure fabrication by Marlene A. Eilers Koenig, author of Queen Victoria's Descendants, who should be familiar to those who work on the subject of Victoria's relatives. According to Eilers Koenig, nobody except the Engström family has made this claim of descent from Victoria, not even Maurice de Forest's verifiable and legitimate descendants, and according to her, "it is entirely possible that Ingvar [Engström] concocted the story as an embellishment to his own birth."

It would be helpful if editors knowledgeable about the genealogy of the British Royal Family and Queen Victoria in particular would pay attention to the article Emmelie de Forest and allegations of descent from Queen Victoria that may be inserted into it by uncritical fans. Many Wikipedia articles in other languages reported outright as an undisputed fact that she was Victoria's great-grandchild, and such false pretenses are likely to appear in newspapers during the contest. Vinson wese (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

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

i want to add link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(servant) to the word used for "john brown" 117.197.18.197 (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Already done - The first instance of "John Brown" in this article is already wikilinked as you request. This occurs in the third paragraph of the Widowhood section. Typically only the first mention within an article is linked. Is there another particularly important spot in the article you feel should be linked up? --ElHef (Meep?) 00:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Immediately after the sentence stating that Victoria became Queen upon the death of her uncle, William IV, I inserted the following,

"There was concern, however, that Queen Adelaide, the widow of King William IV, might be pregnant. Therefore, Victoria was proclaimed Queen only conditionally, 'saving the rights of any issue of his late Majesty King William the Fourth which may be borne of his late Majesty's Consort.'"

I included a source for my insertion, http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/19509/pages/1581, which is the Proclamation of Accession, as published in the London Gazette on June 20, 1837.

I think it is fascinating to contemplate that, if Queen Adelaide had been pregnant, her child, if born alive, male or female, would have displaced Victoria from the throne, and I imagined it would be helpful and informative to include that in the article.

Yet, later in the same day, someone reverted it, with the cryptic comment, "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself." So, mein Fuhrers of the Wikipedia Gestapo, I have a question for you. How does someone write an article without analyzing, synthesizing, interpreting, or evaluating material from the sources that are consulted? Is the "new style" of Wikipedia writing to be simply a list of sources, without any comment at all?

Lately, I have noticed that the roving Wikipedia editors seem to have a narrow minded view of what is "correct" and do not tolerate any sort of new information, particularly on certain subjects. Why is this so? And what was wrong with adding the sentence I attempted to add. I quoted a historical source in support of it.

John Paul Parks (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is with stuff like "there was concern, however" since there's not evidence presented that anyone was "concerned." It might also just be standard practice to use language like that when a monarch dies with no son and a wife of still of childbearing age. It's also unclear what "only conditionally" would mean since that's not how the source put it. Perhaps "do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself" is putting it a little strongly, but the point is not to draw conclusions that aren't backed up by evidence. See

WP:OR.Flyte35 (talk

) 12:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

As can be seen the error on the part of the complaining editor had been rectified 14.25 + 15.28 13 July.[5]. The complaint and manner of it were groundless. Qexigator (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Mentions she had 9 children and then lists 8 not nine in error. Between Helena and Author was and should be inserted:

Louise Caroline Alberta: b.1848, d.1939 English2013 (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

talk

) 22:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a very good image, but not of a particularly notable event in her reign. I've not finished restoring it yet, but, once it is, would this be a useful addition to the article? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Should we not mention her monogram "VR" (Victoria Regina) somewhere? For example under "Titles, styles, and arms". 79.228.229.104 (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

BBC Radio 4 recently broadcast a short piece on the investigation of a recording made in 1888 of Queen Victoria’s voice. It's probably too trivial and circumstantial to include in this article, and I could not find it mentioned in History of sound recording, Phonautograph, Graphophone, Phonograph nor in this talk page's archive. However, I'll leave a few links here in case someone else might find it interesting: In Search of Queen Victoria’s Voice; A Regal Recording?; and Getting back into the groove. -84user (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Elizabeth II is now the longest-reigning monarch in the United Kingdom, yet it says Victoria still the longest-reigning monarch. It should be changed to make more sense. Thanks!

Z10 435 (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It does make clear that the event was in 1896, and the past tense is used. Please propose a change to that sentence that addresses your concern. DrKay (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done another editor has changed it to say "which was longer than that of any previous British monarch" which is correct - Arjayay (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Since Elizabeth II's page puts her reign in context to Victoria's, shouldn't the same be true here? Shouldn't it say "which is longer than that of any previous British monarch and is second only to Elizabeth II"? Surely in years to come it can be updated if some future monarch's reign is longer than Elizabeth II's, but that'll surely be a long time from now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.23.197.150 (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I have attempted a compromise wording (see [6]); hopefully this will be an end to the silly edit war which has been going on. --RFBailey (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

RFBailey I am happy with your wording. If we are going to mention how long her reign has been in relation to others then I believe we need a sentence that will avoid potential confusion and misunderstanding, mentioning her length of reign is only surpassed by Elizabeth would help inform readers better. Doomsday28 (talk) 10:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

"Her reign of 63 years and seven months, which is longer than that of any other British monarch and the longest of any female monarch in history..."

Recently surpassed by Elizabeth II, no?

2601:643:8001:4635:2001:166:8A0C:571C (talk) 10:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

No. It will happen in a day or so. But not yet. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Will happen on Wednesday at around 5.30pm .86.3.238.222 (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)Random86.3.238.222 (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

According to the Elizabeth II article, she (Queen Elizabeth) will break the record at 5:30 PM London local time on September 9, 2015 at which time both articles should be updated accordingly with reliable sources to reflect the changes, however neither article should be updated prematurely.--TommyBoy (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

It's been updated, but currently says "...until being surpassed by that of Elizabeth II in November 2015." This should be September, obviously, but I can't edit it due to the semi-protection status of the article. 96.255.96.137 (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

It can just be cut now. The lead is for summarizing the main points of Victoria's life as found in published biographies. If the event is not mentioned by any biography, then it is unlikely to be notableimportant enough for the article. Events that occurred more than 100 years after her death are certainly not sufficiently relevant for the lead. DrKay (talk) 11:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree it need not be in the lead, but otherwise this argument is wrong. Note that

WP:NOTABILITY is not about the content of articles, & it is confusing to invoke the word for that. Johnbod (talk

) 12:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I was using the word in its non-wikipedia sense. Amended. DrKay (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The lead on the Elizabeth II article puts her length of reign in context to Victoria's and I wonder why the lead in Victoria's article doesn't put her length of reign in context with the monarch she passed in length of reign. E.g., "Victoria had the second-longest reign in British history, surpassing __________ on ________(date) until Elizabeth II surpassed Victoria's reign on September 10, 2015." Or just change the Elizabeth II article lead and take out any reference to Victoria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.1.123.120 (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Because, as I said already, it isn't a major point. The lead is for the most important points only. DrKay (talk) 06:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, being first is lead-worthy; being 2nd may not be, still less being 3rd. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I do CC (classical conversations) and this is not any help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C032:B520:6948:53AF:20B0:D72E (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you were trying to address here - she didn't "rule" over India, the British Raj was controlled via the British government, in which the queen is merely a historical figure-head without political power by this time in British history. 98.67.190.136 (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I was reading today's Guardian article on Victoria, which mentions "Bertie". Was he Edward VII? I couldn't remember. I knew he was George VI, but he was probably Edward as well. I thought Wikipedia would tell me, in this article. It didn't, so, having checked it at Edward VII, I put it in, and her deathbed seemed the best place. Victoria's nickname for her son and heir should be in there somewhere, especially as it's another descendant king's nickname as well. Rothorpe (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The article is about Victoria not her son. Parenthetical comments about other people are insufficiently relevant to this article for inclusion. DrKay (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

A bit mawkish there, perhaps. Well, there's always answers.com. Rothorpe (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Both Edward VII and George VI were called "Bertie", because both of them had Albert as their first Christian name. They also both chose to rule under another one of their names. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Did she die from a stroke? (217.35.237.72 (talk) 10:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC))

There's no indication of that. 31.54.202.183 (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

perhaps under the section of her early life, it would be good to add that she could speak Hindi, Urdu and Punjabi? This would give the reader a better context with her relationship with her Munshi and her empire. She was taught this in preparation to become the Empress of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.82.18.76 (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

We would need a source to do that. She didn't become Empress of India until 1876, and she didn't meet the Munshi till her Golden Jubilee (1887). 31.54.202.183 (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The Munshi's lessons in Hindi-Urdu are covered already in the Golden Jubilee section, where they belong chronologically. DrKay (talk) 06:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Would it be possible to add a new page on the English Heritage Osborne page to the links at the foot of the page: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/osborne/queen-victoria/

31.222.211.51 (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Spam: The building is only tangential to the queen's life, and link would attract links to every place Victoria visited.IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Twaddle. Osborne was one of her official residences – much more than just a "place Victoria visited". --Epipelagic (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Can I request that under the section 'Heir Presumptive', the potentially offensive term 'bastard' is replaced by the more neutral 'illegitimate' in the fourth line ('King William's bastard children'). (I'm waiting for a password reset as I haven't logged in for a while.) 202.4.70.206 (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

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

I need to edit some minor errors BobbyFisher (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

This page should be edited to add the category Category:Queens regnant of England to the page, should it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.151.56.105 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

She's in the super-category Category:Queens regnant in the British Isles, because although she is arguably in both sub-categories of that category it can also be argued that she is in neither (being a Queen of the United Kingdom rather than a Queen of the Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland). DrKay (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Her reigning years near the title are wrong . She didn't reign from 1901 till 1956 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springsky (talk • contribs) 22:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

can find no refence to 1956 in article. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I came here to report this too. Right under her name at the very top it says "British monarch who reigned 1956–1901". If I'm still unclear about this error, it's the short blurb that shows up under the autocomplete result when you type in "Queen Victoria". Hasbin (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I've fixed this. It was vandalism at wikidata[7].

Celia Homeford (talk

) 08:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Also Queen of the British Empire

This should be added to first paragraph From her accession to the throne, she also became queen of the British Empire (later British Commonwealth), containing colonies and dominions around the world. This is in line with Monarchy of Canada information on-line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.198.190 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

As a former resident of the village of Sadberge, I note that there is a large boulder on the village green bearing a plaque, upon which Queen Victoria is also identified as the Countess of Sadberge. I am wondering as to the origin of this title and, if legitimate, whether it bears including in Victoria's titles and styles or elsewhere. Morogth (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

That one doesn't appear to be so legitimate, no. As this article explains, the title appears to be a sort of pub joke. Flyte35 (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Queen Victoria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130406031633/http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Private_Responses_to_the_Famine3344361812 to http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Private_Responses_to_the_Famine3344361812
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130111200927/http://en.chateauversailles.fr/history/the-significant-dates/most-important-dates/1855-visit-of-queen-victoria to http://en.chateauversailles.fr/history/the-significant-dates/most-important-dates/1855-visit-of-queen-victoria

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The article does not, I believe, reflect the real extent of the controversy over her reaction to the Irish famine. In particular, this article refers to her being the largest individual donor. However other articles contextualize this - thus, the Irish Famine article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)) adds: "According to legend,[88][89] Sultan Abdülmecid I of the Ottoman Empire originally offered to send £10,000 but was asked either by British diplomats or his own ministers to reduce it to £1,000 to avoid donating more than the Queen.[90]", the implication being that Victoria set a rather low bar with her donation that others (her subjects or otherwise) did not dare to exceed.

The Legacy of the Irish Famine article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_of_the_Great_Irish_Famine) also has: "On instruction of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland Victoria made what was largely seen as a propaganda visit in 1849. However, this visit was conducted under stringent security measures and was not free from protests or controversy. The amount of money lavished on her visit by the Dublin Castle administration far exceeded her own personal contributions to famine relief (one banquet, for instance, cost over £5,000) and the official celebrations surrounding her visit were compared to the act of "illuminating a graveyard" in a newspaper editorial at the time.[6]"

Basically as-is there is a rather misleading sleight of hand in including the (factual) statement about her being the largest single donor without including the rather severe qualifications to that that are found in other articles. The article has substantial sections on rather minor events such as her jubilees, so I believe that including additional information on her reaction to a major disaster in her dominions (historians still debate whether or not it constituted genocide) can be expanded a bit to provide the requisite context to the existing remarks.

The purpose of this article is to describe Victoria as a historical personage in the context of her life and times, not to provide a celebratory puff piece for the comfort of modern day British nationalists and other royalist romantics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.55.235.240 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

But the article is supposed to describe Victoria not events and it's just as easy to state that the implication of a large donation was to set a high bar to which others were expected to aspire and that the article is not supposed to provide a critical character assassination for the comfort of Irish nationalists and other republican romantics. I agree with the comments at

Celia Homeford (talk

) 13:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

There's a paragraph devoted to the famine, which is more than any of the Crimean, Afghan, Mahdist, Zulu or Boer Wars get and about the same as the Indian Mutiny. Ireland gets a paragraph plus three other sentences elsewhere whereas Scotland gets a few scattered sentences based on Balmoral and John Brown and Wales gets a single mention in the Heir presumptive section, so the current coverage does not discriminate against Ireland. I think it's proportionate. Furthermore, the article already covers one famine myth about her and I don't think adding an additional myth (and why it might be wrong) will be of benefit to the article. DrKay (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

That's a red herring. It's not primarily a question of insufficient coverage of Ireland or the famine - it's a question of imbalanced coverage - in particular, the description of the amount she gave as the highest amount given by an individual. This is a description of contemporaneous events rather than Victoria's life - i.e. of a limit above other people's contributions, and so by your own argument above, refers to events that strictly speaking fall outside the immediate scope of the article and is hence unneccesary. To include it and not to contextualize the amount further is, quite frankly, misleading. Finally, you imply that criticism of Victoria is (especially? solely?) associated with Irish nationalists and republican romantics - and, as I make out, present this as symmetrical to my percetion of dampening of criticism as being motivated by English or British nationalism. This is clearly a false comparison, since it does not require an excess of nationalism to recognize genocide, whereas it generally requires precisely that to deny it took place, or, indeed, to commit it. Please remove the contextualizing reference, vis a vis others' contributions, and just leave the sum in pounds, thank you. Should you wish to provide a reference point to give an idea of how much the contribution was in those day's terms then I would suggest it should be compared to a higher value rather than lower ones (such as other people's contributions) - a candidate value might be the amount of money spent on the lavish receptions for her at Dublin castle! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.179.167.106 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It was the highest amount given by an individual. The majority of scholars, regardless of nationality, agree that the famine was not a genocide. The cost of the reception is not sourced. DrKay (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It isn't a false comparison. The statements are logically equivalent. I do not recognise the famine as a genocide, and I don't agree that denying it was genocide makes me a nationalist. Indeed from my perspective only a nationalist would adopt such an extreme view. I don't really see what this has to do with Victoria.

Celia Homeford (talk

) 09:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2017

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

148.253.182.247 (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Please specify the changes you want to make.

Celia Homeford (talk

) 14:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Marriage section

Would someone look at the third and fourth (last) sentence in the first paragraph. "When Victoria complained to Melbourne that her mother's close proximity promised "torment for many years", Melbourne sympathised but said it could be avoided by marriage, which Victoria called a "schocking [sic] alternative". She showed interest in Albert's education for the future role he would have to play as her husband, but she resisted attempts to rush her into wedlock.".

The wording of the last sentence begins with "She, obviously meaning Victoria, or The Queen, from the previous sentence, especially coupled with "her husband". Errors, would be an over-abundance of pronouns, The wording "...but "she" resisted attempts to rush "her" into wedlock", as written, is confusing. "She", being a pronoun of a female already identified in a sentence (but referring to "she"), is suggestive of referring to the last noun used in the previous sentence. "Her", apparently should be "herself" (reflexive pronoun) and the beginning pronoun replaced with a noun, or the sentence restructured.

• Suggestion: "Victoria (or The Queen) showed interest in Albert's education, for the future role he would have to play as her husband, but resisted rushing into wedlock.". I left out "resisted attempts" because I have no idea what attempts the wording is referencing, or by whom if not Victoria, and have no access to the source, Hibbert, pp. 103–104; Marshall, pp. 60–66; Weintraub, p. 62, for clarity. Thank you, -- Otr500 (talk) 07:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The paragraph was amended without comment so thanks. The content "resisted attempts to rush her into wedlock" was left. From the view as a "reader" would someone like to explain why I feel lost when I read this, look around and even to the previous section, and feel there is something missing. That is the reason I commented on inclusion. Although grammatical issues were solved there is an urge to proclaim: "Resisted [

which?] attempts", and I refrain from placing tags on good articles without justification. Otr500 (talk

) 08:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Victorian Era

I took out a phrase naming her reign the Victorian Era from one sentence, and made it into a separate sentence. I also added the clause about her reign ranking in length behind Elizabeth II.Princetoniac (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Elizabeth II was removed per discussion at Talk:Queen Victoria/Archive 2#Longest-reigning monarch. DrKay (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The citation used by Euanjamie https://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/ukcompare/result.php?year_source=1845&amount=2000&year_result=2018 says the relative value is between £182,000 and £6.85 million, which is not very different from the figures used by DrKay and the other citation (£177,700 and £6.5 million). The difference is caused by using a different start year: 1845 for Euanjamie and 1846 for DrKay. The donation was made in January 1847, so of the two options, a start year of 1846 is better.

) 11:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Princess Alexandrina Victoria of Kent and Strathearn?

Was she ever referred to as such? Her father was not Duke of Kent but Duke of Kent and Strathearn. Surtsicna (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I imagine not. These Strathearns were only for use in Scotland, just as the King or Queen tends to become Earl/Countess of Chester only when in Cheshire, likewise K/Q of Canada etc. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

You mean Prince and Princess of Wales instead of King and Queen, right? The difference, however, is that Victoria's father did not hold two dukedoms ("Dukedom of Kent" and "Dukedom of Strathearn") but only one ("Dukedom of Kent and Strathearn"). I wonder why the Scottish part was thought wise to include in his title, only to exclude it from hers. Surtsicna (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The second parts of these double dukedoms generally appear to count for nothing. Notice also that it was Princess Sophia of Gloucester not Princess Sophia of Gloucester and Edinburgh. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, Princess Margaret, Prince Arthur, and Princess Patricia of Connaught not Princess Margaret, Prince Arthur and Princess Patricia of Connaught and Strathearn. Poor Strathearn just gets ignored in all cases, it seems. Piratesswoop (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

In the section about her death it refers to Queen Elizabeth II as her 'great-great-granddaughter'. That is wrong; It should be one great not 2. Queen Elizabeth's father George V was Queen Victoria's Grandson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:4800:BBAC:A8B6:C35F:55DD:438F (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

George V was Elizabeth II's grandfather. DrKay (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth's father was George VI, not George V. Hence the lineage is

• Father: George VI. Grandfather: George V. Great-grandfather: Edward VII. Great-great-grandmother: Victoria. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

A Puff piece is an idiom for a journalistic form of puffery: an article or story of exaggerating praise that often ignores or downplays opposing viewpoints or evidence to the contrary.

As it is widely known that a "public relations"/propaganda firm is employed by this family to ensure glowing articles and control on all information the world gets exposed to, even to the extent of them engaging in TV propaganda film, of late. That means this article is well and truly within the

. Don't you think? Gonne's article was suppressed by British authorities back when it was written, as surely as it was then, I have no doubt the same will occur here again, or is there any surprise why it's not even in the article now? ...puff piece?

https://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/queen-victoria-irish-famine

Similarly, the same PR example of 'get the monarch to feign empathy policy' occurred over India, while in the boardroom, the Council of India the very opposite was decided upon but how could they do that the Government of India Act 1858 - This act provided that India was to be governed directly and in the name of the Crown? So how much was done in their name? How many died exactly? Like a mafia, you have a public condemnation, feign sympathy then behind the scenes you actually let your heavies do the wet work, on your behalf. Are you shocked with the parallels? Outraged with cognitive dissonance?

Although Victoria in her message to the Imperial Assemblage had reassured Indians that their "happiness, prosperity and welfare" were the "present aims and objects of Our Empire," Temple's brief from the Council of India left no ambiguity about the government's true priorities: "The task of saving life irrespective of cost, is one which it is beyond our power to undertake. The embarrassment of debt and weight of taxation consequent on the expense thereby involved would soon become more fatal than the famine itself." Likewise, the viceroy insisted that Temple everywhere in Madras "tighten the reins." The famine campaign in Lytton's conception was a semi-military demonstration of Britain's necessary guardianship over a people unable to help themselves, not an opportunity for Indian initiative or self-organization. If, as a modern authority on famine emphasizes, "emergency relief, like development aid, is only truly effective if the recipients have the power to determine what it is and how it is used," Temple's perverse task was to make relief as repugnant and ineffective as possible. In zealously following his instructions to the letter, he became to Indian history what Charles Edward Trevelyan — permanent secretary to the Treasury during the Great Hunger (and, later, governor of Madras) — had become to Irish history: the personification of free market economics as a mask for colonial genocide.

http://movies2.nytimes.com/books/first/d/davis-victorian.html

So it clearly is plain to see that this article is perverse as is the character of people engaged in this, obviously slick oiled mill of disappearing criticism and general PR work.

WP:advert does clearly state - Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about people, organizations, issues, and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery.

Free of puffery, now I wonder, do you think if there ever was a need to give an example of strategicpuffery on wikipedia, would this article and all those that are 'in the family' be it?

By the way, to the PR team responsible for the recent propaganda TV show, there is no evidence that your Victoria darling acted in any way like as depicted. Though then again, the truth, isn't what you really want people knowing about is it?

What next, Hitler's extended family going to fund a TV special where he visits Auschwitz, looking shocked and appalled? As you may likewise know he never signed anything that explicitly ordered the conditions, or have historians found anything surviving in his name, in bold capitals that he wanted those millions starved and gassed to death. Now does that likewise mean he didn't know about them? Or the frequent one wheeled out from the Windsor family, that his/her advisors kept them in the dark? Either way it's a 'nice' bit of distancing there, that the comparable neo-nazis sure get a lot of mileage out of. Though the failure to write it in block capitals and general attitude of leave it up to my good men representing me, all that, he learned the 'art' of that particular distancing/plausible deniability deception from who? Who was he a fan of? - Can you guess? Monarchy, and what do you know, a particularly unique fondness for the British one. Boundarylayer (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

If you have the sources for it, why don't you work in the article? You are an editor with years of experience. You already know Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. is a guideline.: "If you notice an unambiguous error or problem that any reasonable person would recommend fixing, the best course of action may be to be bold and fix it yourself rather than bringing it to someone's attention in the form of a comment or complaint. In the time it takes to write about the problem, you could instead improve the encyclopedia." Dimadick (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

When you've reached the limit of Godwin's law, it's time to stop. It was reached in the opening comment. DrKay (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

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

In Early Reign, 3rd paragraph, the quote of Charles Greville, "he" should be "she":

Charles Greville supposed that the widowed and childless Melbourne was "passionately fond of her as she might be of his daughter if he had one",

I doubt that was a mistake of Charles Greville. 70.93.213.142 (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Not done. It's correct as written. DrKay (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Change 'bedchamber crisis' to 'Bedchamber Crisis' to bypass Redirect. AntiquesGeek (talk) 06:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong with redirects, per
  WP:DONOTFIXIT. DrKay (talk
  ) 07:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2019

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

Change "Napoleon III, since the Crimean War Britain's closest ally,[98] visited London in April 1855,..."

to

"Napoleon III, who had been Britain's closest ally ever since the Crimean War,[98] visited London in April 1855..."

Previous iteration did not make sense grammatically. Ala132 (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Þjarkur (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't this section be "Heiress presumptive"? 173.90.65.191 (talk) 07:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Why? Surtsicna (talk) 09:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is simple. Heiress is the feminine form of heir. Is there any well-documented source indicating that such would not be applied in this specific case?2A02:2454:9847:8200:6CCE:4CB1:35DC:6585 (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Why do the Info and succession boxes treat Empress of India as a separate position from Queen of the United Kingdom. Having read the Royal Titles Act of 1876 and subsequent proclamation Empress of India was a new title attached to the throne of the UK, not a new throne. In this regard it is similar to other titles such as Defender of the Faith. As a result there should only be one entry in the info and succession boxes. Given the title's significance perhaps it could be put under the main title of Queen of the United Kingdom as follows: "(Empress of India since...)". Emperor001 (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Elizabeth II has now been queen longer that Victoria was. Article should no longer say she reigned longer than monarch who followed her. 73.185.182.4 (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't say that. DrKay (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

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

In the "Legacy" section, in the caption for the picture of the Queen laughing, can someone link "We" to Royal we. 192.35.35.35 (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Done. DrKay (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Does anybody have access to Queen Victoria's Journal: http://qvj.chadwyck.com/marketing.do ? Trying to mention to "Pritchard", "Pomare", "Otaheite" or "Tahiti". KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Under the Legacy heading, change "Despite this destruction, much of the diaries still exist." to "Despite this destruction, many of the diaries still exist."

Reason: In the english language "much" should be used when the quantity described is uncountable, and "many" should be used when it is countable. Since the above line refers to a quantity of diaries, this is countable and should therefore use "many" instead.

For more information on this grammar rule, see: https://grammarist.com/usage/many-much/ Fehrtyler5 (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

That would then say that "many of the diaries still exist", but they don't -- they were all destroyed. Some of the contents were transcribed, so much of the diaries' contents is still known. DrKay (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

 Note: Marking this closed as  Not done. "Diaries" can also be used to refer to the body of writing in them, which is uncountable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

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

her reign of 63 years and seven months was longer than that of any of her predecessors. 2605:6000:1526:5728:B55E:B04A:EB5A:BDEA (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

her reign of 63 years and seven months was longer than most of her predecessors.

•  Not done. Nothing is wrong with the existing statement. Victoria certainly reigned for longer than the kings and queens who came before her. Binksternet (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

On Lady Flora-Hastings' page, it is mentioned and referenced that the Queen felt deep regrets for her role in the scandal and was tormented with nightmares and guilty memories for years afterwards.

I think this should be mentioned on this page as well. It adds depth to the Queen and I would have never known if I hadn't visited Lady Flora's page as well. This information should be added to this page so people reading about the Queen can know her feelings. 2601:150:8200:A2C0:E43E:E3F2:D2AE:3B5D (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

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

In the opening sentence, change "...until her death. On 1 May 1876, she adopted the additional title of Empress of India." to "...until her death. She adopted the additional title of Empress of India on 1 May 1876." or "...until her death. Additionally She adopted the title of Empress of India on 1 May 1876."

It is very easy to conflate the 2 sentences as "...until her death on 1 May 1876...". I think moving the date of the second sentence to the end could prevent this misreading. Bdnchr (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done the first version. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I am often dismayed at the mistakes in kinship and genealogy that appear on Wikipedia, but I also believe in giving credit where credit is due. The section on Victoria’s evolving place in the line of succession is exactly right in all particulars, including her eventual designation as heir presumptive. This acknowledges the British belief that a Monarch without an heir, no matter what their age or health, is assumed to be able to produce an heir so long as they are alive, and thus Victoria’s place could be supplanted, and she could never be an heir apparent.

It is interesting to note that under the old system a female could be an heir apparent if her dead father, were he alive, would have been the heir apparent. It sounds simple enough but I believe it's never happened. At any rate, the information given is especially relevant since the daughter of a Monarch's fourth son would have been considered a long shot for the throne. Bravo! 71.162.113.226 (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Several women have been heirs apparent to peerage titles (e.g. Elizabeth Compton, Countess of Northampton). You are, of course, always welcome to correct any mistakes that you encounter. Surtsicna (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Note of course, under the male preference system, a daughter of a dead father could only replace him as heir apparent 'if' she had no brothers. See Princess Charlotte of Wales situation, if she had outlived her father during her grandfather's reign? she would've been George III's heir-apparent. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, if the heir apparent died with no male children, his oldest female child would be heir apparent, since the only thing that could supersede her, a brother, was now impossible. I'm still surprised it's never happened since it's not that outlandish a situation. And there was actually a female heir apparent, but it was a special case.

That was Anne, younger sister of Mary II who was co-monarch with her husband William III. The way Parliament worked that out, (1) When one of the co-monarchs died, the other would continue to rule and (2) the line of succession would be: first, children of Mary by William or anyone else, second, Anne and her descendants, and third, William's descendants by anyone other than Mary. This was putting William's descendants in his hereditary place as Mary's first cousin. Once Mary died childless, William had no power to beget an heir, thus Anne was heir apparent. 71.162.113.226 (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article about cuisine! Celia Homeford reverted my brief addition because it was "plopped into the middle of a section dealing with more important issues". Thank you Celia for the attention to this.

It's true, but I thought the article should have some discussion of cuisine and culture during Victoria's reign. The lede says her reign "was a period of industrial, cultural, political, scientific, and military change within the United Kingdom, and was marked by a great expansion of the British Empire." But, I can't find any discussion of cultural changes in the article, so I had to settle for a see also link. Spudlace (talk) 08:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a biography of Victoria not a general history of the Victorian era. The article should stay on topic and not drift into other subjects that should be treated elsewhere. DrKay (talk) 08:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

If we could look at the "Empress of India" section it contains a longwinded explanation of how she acquired the title:

In the 1874 general election, Disraeli was returned to power. He passed the Public Worship Regulation Act 1874, which removed Catholic rituals from the Anglican liturgy and which Victoria strongly supported. She preferred short, simple services, and personally considered herself more aligned with the presbyterian Church of Scotland than the episcopal Church of England. Disraeli also pushed the Royal Titles Act 1876 through Parliament, so that Victoria took the title "Empress of India" from 1 May 1876. The new title was proclaimed at the Delhi Durbar of 1 January 1877.

There is very little in the section about India. The next paragraph is about her daughter and the birth of her great grand daughter, followed by another longwinded discussion of Disraeli's trite foreign policy "If we are to maintain our position as a first-rate Power", she wrote, "we must ... be Prepared for attacks and wars, somewhere or other, CONTINUALLY." - but why is the Anglo Zulu War discussed in the section about India? Although my own ignorance is surely to blame, shouldn't this be clear, even to the average reader?

While superficial connections to the Queen are made, it does seem within scope to discuss her impact and views on the cultural changes of her reign if it's teased in the lede. Spudlace (talk) 08:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

In the "Early reign" section, there's an image titled "Victoria receives the news of her accession from Lord Conyngham (left) and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Engraving after painting by Henry Tanworth Wells, 1887."

This appears to be the original painting rather than an engraving, assuming I'm interpreting this correctly. Ormewood (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

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

From the Widowhood section: "Slanderous rumours of a romantic connection and even a secret marriage appeared in print, and the Queen was referred to as "Mrs. Brown". The story of their relationship was the subject of the 1997 movie Mrs. Brown."

Since the rumours were never found to be slander in the legal sense, shouldn't this read "salacious"? Alternatively, the word could be removed entirely. Given that the Queen was also referred to by her name, there should be some qualifier for saying she "was referred to as "Mrs. Brown".". I suggest "some referred to the Queen as "Mrs. Brown".". Separately, as it is not a source and does not add to the facts of her life, I believe the mention of the film Mrs. Brown should be removed.

As a result of these changes, the sentence: "Slanderous rumours of a romantic connection and even a secret marriage appeared in print, and the Queen was referred to as "Mrs. Brown". The story of their relationship was the subject of the 1997 movie Mrs. Brown.", would become "Rumours of a romantic connection and even a secret marriage appeared in print, and some referred to the Queen as "Mrs. Brown"." 188.30.127.142 (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

All set. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Could someone please exchange the current video: "File:Queen Victoria In Dublin (Rare archive footage from 1900).webm|thumb|upright|Queen Victoria in Dublin, 1900" for this one without sound: Queen Victoria In Dublin (1900)? Why someone would place Chopin's Funeral March over celebration footage of the Queen is beyond me. It is not her funeral procession. Maineartists (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested at Commons workshop[8]. DrKay (talk) 08:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Please can you make this fact recorded on the page? 2A00:23C4:29B9:6D01:5D09:81F2:38B1:5639 (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

During the Great Famine in Ireland of the 1840s, Ottoman Sultan Abdülmecid of Turkey donated £1,000 to famine relief. He had originally offered £10,000 but this was reduced at Victoria's request as she did not wish to have someone giving a larger amount than her.

 Not done Unsourced and previously discussed at Talk:Queen Victoria/Archive 2#Irish Famine and Talk:Queen Victoria/Archive 1#Ireland. DrKay (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Change the caption under Queen_Victoria_by_Julia_Abercromby.jpg. While the statement about Victoria admiring Heinrich von Angeli's 1875 portrait is true, this is actually the first "National Portrait" of Queen Victoria, a watercolor by Julia Abercromby; Abercromby based her work on that of von Angeli's, so there is a distinct similarity. My proposal for the caption:

The first "National Portrait" of Queen Victoria, a watercolor by Julia Abercromby that is based on von Angeli's 1875 portrait of her. Victoria admired Heinrich von Angeli's portrait for its "honesty, total want of flattery, and appreciation of character."

The second sentence might be considered debatable, for inclusion, as it makes the caption a bit long.

(See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Abercromby,_Baroness_Abercromby)

Thanks. I'm not "established" yet, so can't edit this article. Jmc73 (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I've replaced it with the original. DrKay (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

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

mother of Edward the second she was the predasesor 47.138.36.205 (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DrKay (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

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

2A00:23C4:840C:DD00:CDF5:3FCF:BD91:9A1B (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe it worth mentioning Ulysses S. Grant dining with Queen Victoria June 26, 1877. The U.S. was an emerging world power at the time. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Grant was U. S. President from 1869 to 1877. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: "On July 26, 1877 visiting former President Ulysses S. Grant dined with Queen Victory at Winsor Castle, strengthening U.S. - British diplomatic ties." Cmguy777 (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Correction: "June 26, 1877" Cmguy777 (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

It's misspelled and unsourced. DrKay (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

QVs journal entry for the event can be found online at:

http://www.queenvictoriasjournals.org/search/displayItem.do?ItemNumber=583&FormatType=fulltextimgsrc&QueryType=articles&ResultsID=3247310748909&filterSequence=0&PageNumber=2&ItemID=qvj16212&volumeType=PSBEA

However, the text hardly suggests that it did much to affect diplomatic ties

) 07:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Sbishop

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

Elizabeth II
Elizabeth in 2015
Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms Nigeria 1960–1963 Sierra Leone 1961–1971 Tanganyika 1961–1962 Trinidad and Tobago 1962–1976 Uganda 1962–1963 Kenya 1963–1964 Malawi 1964–1966 Malta 1964–1974 The Gambia 1965–1970 Guyana 1966–1970 Mauritius 1968–1992 Fiji 1970–1987
Reign	6 February 1952 – present
Charles, Prince of Wales
Prime ministers	See list

Victoria
Queen of the United Kingdom (more ...)
Reign	20 June 1837 – 22 January 1901
Coronation	28 June 1838
Predecessor	William IV
Successor	Edward VII
Prime ministers	See list

Like in the article of Elizabeth II, can a list of Victoria's prime ministers be included under Queen of the United Kingdom in the infobox? 81.147.76.243 (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Personally I believe the link to a list to be out of place in the Infobox in the Elizabeth II article, and that in both cases it would be more appropriate to have a link at the bottom of the monarch article to the relevant list of Prime Ministers. But I agree that there is no reason for inconsistency of treatment, with both monarchs having reigns of 60+ years and many Prime Ministers serving them.

) 15:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Sbishop

 Not done The infobox is already very long and there's a list of prime ministers already in the article. DrKay (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, the section 1842–1860 should have a word/phrase heading, like other sections. I think it doesn't look good. Peter Ormond 💬 06:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

"Married reign"? DrKay (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, something like that. What about Constiutional/Political struggle/challenges? Peter Ormond 💬 22:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the scope of the section is broader than that. DrKay (talk) 07:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Then something else should be considered. What about "Years with Albert and political challenges" or just simply "Middle reign"? Peter Ormond 💬 07:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps, something like "[The] Years with the Prince Consort" ? —— Shakescene (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

But Albert was created Prince Consort in 1857. Peter Ormond 💬 04:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Archived to Talk:Queen_Victoria/Article_title#Requested_move_9_July_2021. —В²C ☎ 21:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I think we should change the image to the one on the right since I think it is better to show the full portrait. We could always touch up the image so it is higher resolution. I'm not good with editing images, but if someone with the expertise could, that would be great. Interstellarity (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Not appealing - very lo-res image, only about 5% of the area of which is the face. Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Opposed - irrespective of the apparent resolution, it seems better to focus on the face - and therefore character - than have most of the space taken up with swathes of costume.

talk

) 06:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Please be advised than on several devices, especially mobile phones, the page shows the Nazi Germany flag in full screen superimposed on top of the page. I do not know how to edit this out, but this should be dealt with as soon as possible. Edit: it seems this incongruent ‘feature’ has been immediately removed 85.31.132.219 (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@

) 05:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2021

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

Change Queen Victoria from being described as the longest lasting monarch to second longest lasting; she was surpassed by the current Queen in 2015. 74.70.162.10 (talk) 08:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The article already says so in the "Death and succession" section. Favonian (talk) 09:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Please change the link of "coup" in "

.

31.208.122.10 (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done DrKay (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, I would love to propose some additions to the article:

In 1900, Queen Victoria came to Dublin in Dun Laoghaire. In the Little Museum of Dublin, the original photograph of this event is exhibited and the museum tells the story of the British Empire's hold on Ireland ^[1].

What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Léa Di Francesco (talk • contribs) 11:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Object This is spam by an editor with a Conflict of Interest. The Banner talk 14:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The trip is already mentioned and the exhibition of one photograph in a minor museum is irrelevant.

Celia Homeford (talk

) 16:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Fix this date in order for short description to "Queen of the United Kingdom from 1837 to 1901". 2001:4452:490:6900:45C4:57CC:A78F:453D (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

No. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

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

delete "," in the "United Kingdom, and " Alliance (talk) 12:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the sentence is easer to parse with a comma. DrKay (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Kindly link this article to విక్టోరియా మహారాణి ---Muralikrishna m (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Done. DrKay (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

She is no longer the longest reigning monarch in the uk Countess12 (talk) 10:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that she is.

talk

) 11:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Under Legacy -> Descendants and haemophilia, Elizabeth II is listed as a living descendant. Following her passing, this should be removed. 149.61.247.209 (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done DrKay (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Please handle the incoming redirect Victoria Regina. Please link to the disambiguation page Victoria Regina (disambiguation).

Please add the hatnote {{redirect|Victoria Regina|other uses|Victoria Regina (disambiguation)}}

-- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The article states that "Victoria Day is a Canadian statutory holiday" but the hyperlink to Victoria Day already confirms that this is not true, it is in parts of Canada, but not everywhere in Canada. This should be changed slightly to reflect reality, that "Victoria Day is a Canadian holiday in most parts of Canada", or something along those lines. Thank you, 172.102.24.249 (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done The linked article says its a federal statutory holiday.

Celia Homeford (talk

) 16:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Middle reign

I don't the heading Middle reign is accurate because it is not in the middle of her reign. I did the calculations and the middle of her reign is around 1869. I'm not sure which title of the heading is best, but something to consider. Interstellarity (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think having years for a section is right for this article when other sections don’t have years. I’m struggling to come up with a good title for this section that is good quality. Britannica has a good system for titles and if we could do something similar, but not exactly the same, that would be great. Interstellarity (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I suggested "Married reign": Talk:Queen Victoria/Archive 2#1842–1860. DrKay (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Her reign was from 1838 not 1876 92.184.117.239 (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The 1876 date refers only to her position as Empress of India, and is differentiated from her position as Queen in both the text and infobox. So it is not clear what problem you see.

talk

) 11:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Should we mention that she was briefly the godmother to

) 03:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

In the section re Victoria's issue, the table does not sort the 1800 v 1900 dates correctly if you click the date of death column. 24.131.177.146 (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I removed sortability from this table (the original on which it is based is also unsortable). Those who might like to make the dates properly sorted might find this helpful: Help:Sorting#Date sorting problems —— Shakescene (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

¶ I restored sortability (in proper order) by changing the date format to Year/month-day, which also puts the most important part of the date first. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The first section speaks of a growing empire. It should be correctly labeled as colonialism. The current text is too positive. 2A00:6020:B08F:3F00:5D4F:5406:E53E:281D (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The current lead actually refers to her reign seeing 'a great expansion of the British Empire', which is certainly factually correct. How is it either positive or negative in tone?

talk

) 19:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The current formulation is factual, objective and, above all, neutral. Sira Aspera (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Looking for suggestions about how to clarify that "family" in #Birth and family refers to Victoria's parents and ancestry, while #Family refers to her offspring and descendants. A general passing reader might be confused, I speculate, about where to seek the particular information that interests her or him. Should we add some distinguishing word to #Famly ? Should we replace "family" in both headings with something else (what) ? —— Shakescene (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

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

An edit is needed to the comment that Victoria was the longest reigning monarch. She was the second longest reigning monarch. Queen Elizabeth II reigned for 70 years and 217 days. Platy49 (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done I see nowhere in the article where this claim is made. DrKay (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

N.B. I think the proposer was reading the second sentence of lede:

Her reign of 63 years and 216 days was longer than that of any previous British monarch and is known as the Victorian era.

which on a hasty reading can easily plant the understanding that her reign was the longest in English history. A couple of extra words wouldn't hurt (although I can't think of the best ones now).—— Shakescene (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Please add the following template to the bottom of the article: