Talk:Helen of Greece and Denmark

Untitled

Is it altogether clear that she became Queen of Romania? Afaik she was divorced in 1928, before her husband ever became the king. Of course she was the mother of king Michael. I would say that in order to her having been queen, we would need some evidence of a distinct elevation, be it elevation to the title of queen mother, or some sort of "remaining technically the wife of king despite of divorce". 217.140.193.123 08:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

She was never Queen, but she was given the title "Queen Mother". More importantly, she's always "Helen" in English, never "Helena"

To the artistic users

And just who is "the majority", Charles? Where is the resolution and consensus on this, and where was it ever established, out in the open, that such artistic creations are "needed"? Dahn 16:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahnentafel (ancestry tables) and other genealogical charts are very common in books about royalty and nobility. Ancestry tables are present in hundreds of Wikipedia articles. I have edited Wiki-articles on royalty for several years; this is the first time I have heard criticism of these ancestry tables. I much prefer the use of the ancestry table at the bottom of the article to the alternative used by a few wiki-editors of presenting this information in narrative format in one of the first paragraphs (e.g. in the article on Colin Campbell, 6th Earl of Argyll). Noel S McFerran 03:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no compelling reason why pages should be cluttered with family trees for several generations, nor why the charts we have in articles of their own (like these) should not suffice. Remember, what may be present in specialty works on royalty may not necessarily be encyclopedic. Biruitorul 06:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Charles, do familiarise yourself with WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:HARMLESS (and by the way, it's neither useful (who cares who her great-grandparents were) not harmless (given how hideous and unprofessional it looks and is)). Moreover:
a. paper encyclopedias, believe it or not, are a good gauge of what we should be doing here. Not the ultimate measure, but an approximate one nonetheless.
b. I never held up the French as the arbiters of all that is good and proper for Wikipedia. However, the two wikis that consistently match or outpace en.wiki are de.wiki and fr.wiki, so it's a great idea to check in on them every so often. For an even more dramatic example, shall we compare Frederick V, Elector Palatine with Friedrich V. (Pfalz)? The former, at 7500 kb, is rubbish: no references yet bloated, and of course providing us with the crucial information of who all his great-grandparents were. The latter, at ten times the size — well, as we say in Romanian, jos pălăria ("hats off"). Even if you don't know German (of which I have but the faintest inkling), you can, I trust, tell which is the better article. (And by the way: no charts! no templates!) So, yes, I will point to the French and the Germans for helping us understand what an encyclopedia is and how it should work. Contrast that with some en.wikipedians, who insist on polluting articles with their conception of useful information while utterly neglecting the text - text, my man, text! - and you see we still have years to go before reaching their level. Biruitorul 06:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

One, who cares? Maybe not you, but others do. See: WP:NPOV. Two, again, your opinion. I am not disputing "a", but it doesn't exclude the use of ancestry. Again, not the ultimate measure but seemingly how you apply it. As for "b", it is not a case for removing ancestry, it is a case for expanding the text of the article to the exclusion of repeated POV vandalism. Instead of removing this most minor "pollution" (your term, which I do not agree with) how about you stop neglecting the text and do something to expand it? It is of interest and of encyclopedic value, particular for royals, to see who their ancestors within memory were and to readily link to them if possible. Charles 06:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia is not meant to cater to parochial special interests like genealogy buffs; they can promote their hobby offsite.

2. No, not just my opinion. Pick up, say, the DNB or the Britannica or any number of other similar works and do show me similar charts in them if you can.

3. No, it's not minor. The charts are hideous and unnecessary, and anything beyond parents is silly, given the existence of actual genealogical trees on this site. And yes, articles that have passed through FAC on de.wiki (think how strict that must be!) ought to be a yardstick for us, still stuck in the decorative-arts rut. Biruitorul 12:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Title between Crown Princess (1928) and Queen Mother (1940)

Does anyone know what Helen's title between her divorce from Crown Prince Carol and when Michael granted her the title of Queen Mother? Prsgoddess187 07:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It would have been HRH Princess Helen of Greece and Denmark given that she lost her marital title upon her divorce from Charles II. Charles 08:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Charles means by "it would have been". I know of nothing in Romanian divorce law which changes a woman's name (anymore than in English divorce law, cf. Cowley vs Cowley). There are several articles in The Times in 1932 where this lady is referred to as "Princess Helen of Rumania". Noel S McFerran 11:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Helen was no longer styled "Crown Princess" and there was no decree or announcement of her being titled "Princess Helen on Romania". The NYT gives various styles and titles, including ex-queen which she never was, and also notes, "Princess Helen left Bucharest today after several weeks, receiving honors usual to the departure of a foreign Princess" from 1932. Charles 12:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have cited several sources which attest to the use of the style "Princess Helen of Rumania". So far you have not cited a single source which calls her "Princess Helen of Greece and Denmark". The onus probandi is upon you to show that this is the standard way she was styled during the period in question. Noel S McFerran 17:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

An examination of various sources proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Helen was "Princess Helen of Rumania" even after her divorce. The claim that she was "Princess Helen of Greece and Denmark" is based on no sources whatsoever. Please don't revert this again without looking at some sources. Noel S McFerran 00:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

In 1910 Helen went into exile with her parents and siblings as a result of a military plot to put her father on the Greek throne in place of her grandfather King George I of Greece.

they may have been abroad but it was not exile. there has been the goudi coup in greece but certainly not to replace her grandfather! Fralence (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC).

Marriage in an Orthodox church?

I thought that in Eastern Orthodoxy, 2nd cousins were forbidden to marry. Confused C'est la vie 08:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

First cousins aren't allowed to marry in the Orthodox church, not second cousins. 76.202.192.102 (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

queen mother section

"Aware of his shortcomings, the queen mother appealed to historians of the right to train her son in his role as sovereign." Just what "shortcomings" is this referring to? It seems rather rude, at the least, to make this claim and then not tell what shortcomings he supposedly had. 76.202.192.102 (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)