Jump to content

Talk:Anne of Romania

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. The fact that it is a 2 to 1 vote and that there is conflict in naming conventions (consort naming rule vs. most common name that might be ambiguous) makes me reluctant to move the article. If you want to reopen the debate (remove the closed notices) or make a new move request, it is fine with me. If you do either one of those, I suggest that you publicize the discussion in a neutral manner. The wording and the place that it is posted should both be neutral. -- Kjkolb 05:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been moved following further discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard. -- Kjkolb 22:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parma → Queen Anne of Romania – The wives of kings are queens unless there is some exception to the rule. Deposition or exile are not exceptions to this rule because practice has shown women becoming princesses, duchesses, etc (or at least styled as such) upon marriage to deposed/exiled princes, dukes, etc. Anne is never referred to by her premarital style. She is always known as Queen Anne of Romania and is styled Majesty. Indeed, Anne was invited to the funeral of the Queen Mother as HM Queen Anne of Romania, not as Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parma, a title which is just as legally defunct itself. All of Anne's daughters are styled as princesses as the daughters of a king and Anne should be styled as a queen as she is in everyday life. Charles 00:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
WP Naming Conventions section #9 doesn't actually say anything about "Past Royal Consorts". It talks about "Deceased Royal Consorts". Anne is not deceased. The convention says nothing specific about a person who married a sovereign after he had ceased to rule. In that case the "most general rule overall" applies: "use the most common form of the name used in English". That is definitely "Queen Anne of Romania". Whether she SHOULD be called that in English is a matter of opinion; that she is called that most frequently is a matter of fact. Noel S McFerran 03:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I pasted the reference to Section #9 here from our previous vote, below, on moving this article. Since then, on May 17th, Section #9 was unilaterally changed in the WP Naming Conventions from referring to "Past Royal Consorts" to "Deceased Royal Consorts" by Shilkanni as one of several unilateral changes that were never proposed or discussed on the talk page although, paradoxically, Shilkanni was explicit (under the "Anne of Bourbon" sub-head on that page, as well as on this one) at that time that it was not intended to suggest or accept that Anne was entitled to a page named "Queen Anne of Romania". I am changing the Naming Convention wording back. I also concur with your assessment of this move that it is apt to be taken as inflammatory -- at least if enacted without open, prior discussion with some of the Romanian and republican posters who have previously made known their objections. We're supposed to be building consensus here, yet this feels like waving a red flag in a bull ring. Lethiere 14:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We may build consensus, but the explicit fact is that the name by which Anne is known is Queen Anne of Romania. Now that title is just as "defunct" as Parma and Hohenzollern titles, but that is what is used. Indeed, the Romanian article for Anne is at Regina Ana, which literally means Queen Anne. Any objections are likely to be personal objections, not objections based on actual usage. Charles 16:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

In English, Anne is most commonly referred to as Queen Anne of Romania. This is only fitting, because she is the wife of a man known by courtesy as King of Romania. The practice in royalty is to take the "name" (title) of the husband. We have a Greek Crown Princess, an Italian hereditary princess and countless other women known by titles who married into royal families after the loss of the thrones. Reigning and crown princely titles are not inherited by subsequent generations after the fall of a monarchy, but they are extended to the wifes of such male royals. Even still though, common English reference to Anne is as Queen Anne of Romania... Certainly not as Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parma. Charles 00:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally always refer to this lady as "Queen Anne of Romania" (or some variant thereof). That is almost universal in royalist circles. In the list of those who attended the funeral in Westminster Abbey on April 9, 2002, this is the way she is listed, [1]
BUT it is also true that when she married her husband in 1948, he was no longer the de facto sovereign of Romania (having been forced to abdicate six months previously). Thus, she was never queen consort in the way that that phrase is usually interpreted.
This is a very controversial issue among certain members of the Romanian community. I am not convinced that it is the most important thing to rename the article. Unfortunately it will just antagonize the anti-monarchist wiki-editors. Noel S McFerran 00:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am certain that it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to provide "censored" material for the purpose of keeping what is essentially a minority group (when it comes to English speakers, that is) happy. Charles 01:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering, would it be possible to have the article title be Anne, Queen of Romania? I do not believe that having her at her pre-marital title is correct, as she is still living, and although Princess Anne of Hohenzollern is better, it is still not completely correct. Any thoughts? Prsgoddess187 11:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hohenzollern

[edit]

Shouldn't this be at Princess Anne of Hohenzollern?

I also have a couple of questions about the succession. Michael's nearest male heir would seem to be the descendants of either William, the older brother of Ferdinand I, or the descendants of Charles Anthony, the younger brother of Ferdinand. Would William's refusal to take the throne eliminate his heirs? I know he had two sons, Frederick and Franz Joseph, and that they had children, but I don't know if those children were male or female. Charles Anthony had a son, Albert, who also had children, gender unknown. Zoe 02:15, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Gryffindor 22:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move completed and double redirects fixed - take care! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 06:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

placement

[edit]

I have decided the question of location. She is the wife of a pretender, and has been - she never was queen during the reign. I am hesitant to introduce a heading to WP to endorse any monarchical pretension, thus I will not place her under Queen Anne of Romania. The article itself states that she is known as princess of Hohenzollern in the everyday life. That, imo, is closest to the WP criterion "known as". After her death, it will be a separate discusion should she revert to Anne of Bourbon-Parma or something like, or remain under her consort name. The solution now however is Anne, Princess of Hohenzollern Arrigo 21:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my...

[edit]

Why is this at Princess Anne of Hohenzollern? It is a title that she never, ever uses. If she can be titled this as the wife of a prince of Hohenzollern, why can she not be titled as the wife of a king? Before anyone goes "well blah, blah, blah, Romania is a republic", remember, someone accorded her a title from a place that is now a republic in lieu of another. Charles 07:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All results for Princess Anne of Hohenzollern are from Wikipedia. Queen Anne of Romania was used in a documentary on the descendants of the Danish Royal Family in which Anne herself was interview and in which surely she was properly credited with the identity she uses. Charles 07:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was just checking out some of the links for Queen Anne-Marie of Greece and this one caught my eye Guests at the funeral of Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother. Under members of foreign royal houses they list Anne as "Queen Anne of Romania". Just thought it was interesting. Prsgoddess187 13:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who had the idea of putting this at Princess Anne of Hohenzollern. I mean, if she is such as the wife of a prince of Hohenzollern, she is also a queen as the wife of a queen. Marie-Chantal Miller married Crown Prince Paul of Creece and she is titled crown princess, as it is the female form of her husband's title. The same is true for the wives of deposed kings - they may take the feminine form of their husband's title. Charles 04:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anne is not Queen, since marrying an ex-King does not make one Queen. The nobility titles are awarded by ruling monarchs. A ruling King or Queen - the fountain of honors -, even when they ennoble somebody, can never grant anybody a title of king or queen, only one of, at most, prince or princess. Moreover, only a Nation through its legitimate representatives (aristocracy in medieval times or parliaments in modern ones), can crown and grant a title of King or Queen to its monarchs. Since no Romanian authorities (Parliament, Government) ever granted Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parme a queen title, she cannot use it formally. Informally, sure, it can be used (such as in the Danish or UK examples above mentioned) as it is simply a matter of courtesy employed within monarchist circles exclusively. At large, within the Romanian nation, beyond the small monarchist circles, Anne is not considered Queen. Stefanp 03:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be "granted" to her. She is such as the wife of a king, the same way the wife of a man who would have historically been a prince may style herself as a princess. Also, make not of the Queen Anne-Marie of Greece article... It is established that it doesn't matter whether a country is a republic or not. Former royal families retain the use of titles and titles may come into use after the fall of a monarchy. Charles 05:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"She is such as the wife of a king". Well, Michael was no longer king when he married Anne, so she could not be queen either. Michael self-styled himself "Prince of Hohenzollern" after his abdication, implicitly giving up his title of king, according to press reports of that time: "This week, as a special train carried the newly styled "Prince of Hohenzollern" (on his way to Switzerland) across the River Enns into the U.S. zone of Austria, a member of Michael's entourage fell into the same sanguine idiom." (Time, January 12, 1948) Stefanp 08:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He is most commonly referred to as King of Romania in English. Therefore his wife is referred to as queen. Charles 18:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only by a handful of Romanian and foreign monarchists. Stefanp 01:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And what do all the others call him? Oh wait, hardly anyone knows who he is. Charles 21:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My answer above pertained to the topic of the debate - "Queen" Anne. Princess Anne of Hohenzollern is referred to as "Queen" Anne only by a handful of Romanian and foreign monarchists. Stefanp 01:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who refers to Her Majesty as "Princess Anne of Hohenzollern"? Charles 02:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His Majesty King Michael's last name is "of Hohenzollern" and, therefore, his wife's as well. The King changed his last name during his exile to that "of Romania." This new surname, however, has never been registered with the proper judicial authorities in Romania since his return home. Therefore, legally in Romania the last name of Their Royal Highnesses King Michael and Princess Anne continues to be "of Hohenzollern." Some monarchists ignore the Romanian laws and bestow upon Her Royal Highness Princess Anne titles or names not held legally. Stefanp 03:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you take it upon yourself to bestow the defunct title of "Princess of Hohenzollern". How can she be the wife of a King of Romania and the mother of Princess of Romania but only be "of Hohenzollern"? Charles 22:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be under the impression that WP Naming Conventions is for article names to be the same as the subject's legal name in their country of origin. That is not the case. WP Naming Conventions rule #9 directs that "Past Royal Consorts are referred to by their pre-marital name or pre-marital title, not by their consort name". If, as you insist, Anne is not a "past royal consort" of Romania, then WP Naming Conventions provides an unambiguous alternative rule that is applicable here: "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem". That appears to be "Queen Anne of Romania". What evidence is there that "Princess Anne of Hohenzollern" is "more common" in English? Lethiere 22:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wife of Simeon ii of Bulgaria has the following entry in Wikipedia :"Tsaritsa Margarita (Doña Margarita Gomez-Acebo y Cejuela) is the queen consort of Tsar Simeon II of Bulgaria, the last Tsar of Bulgaria. …..On January 21, 1962, she married Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, the tsar of Bulgaria. …She is styled by courtesy as Her Majesty Tsaritsa Margarita of Bulgaria.' Why should Queen Anne be treated any differently? And she definitely has never ever used the title of Princess of Hohenzollern, as King Michael has this title only "ad personam" as was explained by another editor. The article's title should be "Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parme" and in the body of the article it should be "She is styled by courtesy as Her Majesty Queen Anne of Romania." Also, as stefanp has written, the name of King Michael in his Romanian passport has no surname, so it cannot be claimed that his last name is "of Hohenzollern." He is known everywhere else as Michael of Romania, Michel de Roumanie etc.Prince of Hohenzollern is a courtesy title, not his name.

MarinaC, Tues.4 April 2006

Anne-Marie is treated differently than Margarita because Anne-Marie wed Constantine II while he was reigning King of the Hellenes, whereas Margarita wed Simeon after the fall of the Bulgarian monarchy. Michael's style "Prince of Hohenzollern" is not ad personam, but is a title (and, in Germany, a surname) borne by tradition by dynastic agnates of that formerly sovereign family. Although I initially thought that Anne-Marie's WP listing should be the model for Anne's, I can see how it is a reasonable compromise for her to be listed as is Margarita, i.e. under her birth title. I will request that move.Lethiere 22:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anne's Birth Title

[edit]

Anne's style was never "Anne of Bourbon, Princess of Parma", nor was she ever known as such.

  1. The change made in the article's reference to the consort of King Michael of Romania as "Princess of Parma" instead of "Princess of Bourbon-Parma" is inaccurate for reasons that have been documented elsewhere, but here goes:
    1. The evidence shows that "Prince X of Bourbon-Parma" and "Princess Y of Bourbon-Sicily", or variations thereof (always including "Bourbon" and usually "name-of-realm") is how members of these branches of the Bourbon dynasty are overwhelmingly referred to (rather than as "Prince X of Parma" or "Princess Y of the Two Sicilies") in even the most precise venues, but also in general reference, the latter being what is most relevant to WP usage.
    2. As indicated on the Bourbon-Parma website and the Bourbon-Sicily website, this is how they refer to themselves, and how they instruct others about their titulature.
    3. It is how they are referred to legally:
      1. One of them filed a lawsuit in France: "Cour d'appel de Paris (1re Ch. sect. A) 22 novembre 1989 Présidence de Mme Ezratty Premier Président Prince Henri d'Orléans, comte de Clermont et Prince Sixte Henri de Bourbon Parme c. Carmen Rossi". (emphasis mine).
      2. Similar title in the Netherlands: "Bij Koninglijk Besluit van 15 mei 1996 nr 96.000163, zijn de vier kinderen van HKH prinses Irene, te weten Carlos Javier Bernardo; Margarita Maria Betriz; Jaime Bernardo en Maria-Carolina de Bourbon de Parme ingelijfd in de Nederlandes Adel met de title van prins en prinses en het preikaat Koninklijke Hoogheid" (emphasis mine).
      3. And in Luxembourg: On 28 July 1986 Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg issued a decree dropping use of the title Prince de Bourbon de Parme for himself and his descendants (but not his siblings). But on 18 December 2000, Grand Duke Henri decreed that among the titles his son and heir, Guillaume (born 11 Nov. 1981), would henceforth bear would be that of Prince de Bourbon de Parme.
    4. The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica's article on the principality of Bulgaria states: "In the spring of 1893 Prince Ferdinand married Princess Marie-Louise of Bourbon-Parma..." (emphasis mine). Note that in English, the second "de/of" in the name had already morphed into a hyphen by 1911.
    5. Until it ceased publication in 1944, the Almanach de Gotha was regarded as the premier source and authority on proper use of dynastic titles, relied upon by courts and diplomats. Since it began publication in 1951 the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels is now regarded as the most authoritative genealogical work on royalty. Both publications did and do submit entries to the Head of House of each dynasty for prior review.
      1. The 1878 Almanach de Gotha included its entry on the Dukes of Parma, who had been in exile since 1859, under "Bourbon". But it did not define the official titles of Parmesan dynasts, nor did it report titular suffixes for females. But I found one relevant example: in the Portugal entry the marriage was recorded of the Infanta Adelgonde in 1872 to a younger son of Duke Charles III of Parma, who is listed as Prince Henri de Bourbon, Comte de Bardi (emphasis mine).
      2. But the 1912 Almanach entry does define the official title of Parmesan dynasts: "Les cadets portent les titre et nom de prince ou princesse de Bourbon de Parme, Alt. Roy." (emphasis mine).
      3. The 1991 Handbuch does likewise on p.13: "Die Nachgeborenen führen den Titel und Namen Prinz bzw. Prinzessin v. Bourbon v. Parma und das Prädikat Kgl. Hoheit." (e-mphasis theirs).
    6. No decree has been adduced that ever legally granted the title of "Prince/ss of Parma" to cadets of the Bourbon dynasty. So far as we know, that style was borne by Farnese cadets in the 18th century as a matter of courtesy, and was then assumed by Bourbon cadets on the basis of tradition (Parma was a papal fief. But it was allocated by the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748 to Infante Felipe, youngest of the Spanish Bourbons -- without the papal investiture that would normally specify the titular details that treaties omit). Sometime after the loss of the throne of Parma in 1859, cadets of this family came to be known by a combined form of their dynastic surname and their forfeited territory. Throughout the 20th century, and seemingly earlier, "HRH Prince X de Bourbon de Parme" became prevalent enough to replace the earlier tradition of "Prince of Parma" to such an extent that members of the family now use the latter almost exclusively instead of the former.
    7. The House of Bourbon reigned in Parma (with interregnums) 1748-1859. So it would be reasonable to use "Prince/ss of Parma" for members of the family born prior to 1860. But the dynasty has now been in exile from their realm longer than they held its throne, and Michael's consort Anne was born 60+ years after exile. Lethiere 22:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus, move per NC. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 13:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

Princess Anne of Hohenzollern → Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parma – Rationale: WP Naming Conventions rule #9 directs that "Past Royal Consorts are referred to by their pre-marital name or pre-marital title, not by their consort name". Lethiere 23:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

Discussion

[edit]
  • Some here seem to be under the impression that WP Naming Conventions is for article names to be the same as the subject's legal name in their country of origin, or in the case of consorts of ex-kings, in that of the former monarch. That is not the case. WP Naming Conventions rule #9 directs that "Past Royal Consorts are referred to by their pre-marital name or pre-marital title, not by their consort name". If, as some contend, Anne is not a "past royal consort" of Romania because she married Michael after he was deposed by the Communists, then WP Naming Conventions provides an unambiguous alternative rule that is applicable here: "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem". That appears to be "Queen Anne of Romania". However, since I believe that her case is best covered under rule #9, I believe she should be moved to her maiden title.
  • Anne's style was never "Anne of Bourbon, Princess of Parma", nor was she ever known as such.
  1. The change made in the article's reference to the consort of King Michael of Romania as "Princess of Parma" instead of "Princess of Bourbon-Parma" is inaccurate for reasons that have been documented elsewhere, but here goes:
    1. The evidence shows that "Prince X of Bourbon-Parma" and "Princess Y of Bourbon-Sicily", or variations thereof (always including "Bourbon" and usually "name-of-realm") is how members of these branches of the Bourbon dynasty are overwhelmingly referred to (rather than as "Prince X of Parma" or "Princess Y of the Two Sicilies") in even the most precise venues, but also in general reference, the latter being what is most relevant to WP usage.
    2. As indicated on the Bourbon-Parma website and the Bourbon-Sicily website, this is how they refer to themselves, and how they instruct others about their titulature.
    3. It is how they are referred to legally:
      1. One of them filed a lawsuit in France: "Cour d'appel de Paris (1re Ch. sect. A) 22 novembre 1989 Présidence de Mme Ezratty Premier Président Prince Henri d'Orléans, comte de Clermont et Prince Sixte Henri de Bourbon Parme c. Carmen Rossi". (emphasis mine).
      2. Similar title in the Netherlands: "Bij Koninglijk Besluit van 15 mei 1996 nr 96.000163, zijn de vier kinderen van HKH prinses Irene, te weten Carlos Javier Bernardo; Margarita Maria Betriz; Jaime Bernardo en Maria-Carolina de Bourbon de Parme ingelijfd in de Nederlandes Adel met de title van prins en prinses en het preikaat Koninklijke Hoogheid" (emphasis mine).
      3. And in Luxembourg: On 28 July 1986 Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg issued a decree dropping use of the title Prince de Bourbon de Parme for himself and his descendants (but not his siblings). But on 18 December 2000, Grand Duke Henri decreed that among the titles his son and heir, Guillaume (born 11 Nov. 1981), would henceforth bear would be that of Prince de Bourbon de Parme.
    4. The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica's article on the principality of Bulgaria states: "In the spring of 1893 Prince Ferdinand married Princess Marie-Louise of Bourbon-Parma..." (emphasis mine). Note that in English, the second "de/of" in the name had already morphed into a hyphen by 1911.
    5. Until it ceased publication in 1944, the Almanach de Gotha was regarded as the premier source and authority on proper use of dynastic titles, relied upon by courts and diplomats. Since it began publication in 1951 the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels is now regarded as the most authoritative genealogical work on royalty. Both publications did and do submit entries to the Head of House of each dynasty for prior review.
      1. The 1878 Almanach de Gotha included its entry on the Dukes of Parma, who had been in exile since 1859, under "Bourbon". But it did not define the official titles of Parmesan dynasts, nor did it report titular suffixes for females. But I found one relevant example: in the Portugal entry the marriage was recorded of the Infanta Adelgonde in 1872 to a younger son of Duke Charles III of Parma, who is listed as Prince Henri de Bourbon, Comte de Bardi (emphasis mine).
      2. But the 1912 Almanach entry does define the official title of Parmesan dynasts: "Les cadets portent les titre et nom de prince ou princesse de Bourbon de Parme, Alt. Roy." (emphasis mine).
      3. The 1991 Handbuch does likewise on p.13: "Die Nachgeborenen führen den Titel und Namen Prinz bzw. Prinzessin v. Bourbon v. Parma und das Prädikat Kgl. Hoheit." (e-mphasis theirs).
    6. No decree has been adduced that ever legally granted the title of "Prince/ss of Parma" to cadets of the Bourbon dynasty. So far as we know, that style was borne by Farnese cadets in the 18th century as a matter of courtesy, and was then assumed by Bourbon cadets on the basis of tradition (Parma was a papal fief. But it was allocated by the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748 to Infante Felipe, youngest of the Spanish Bourbons -- without the papal investiture that would normally specify the titular details that treaties omit). Sometime after the loss of the throne of Parma in 1859, cadets of this family came to be known by a combined form of their dynastic surname and their forfeited territory. Throughout the 20th century, and seemingly earlier, "HRH Prince X de Bourbon de Parme" became prevalent enough to replace the earlier tradition of "Prince of Parma" to such an extent that members of the family now use the latter almost exclusively instead of the former.
    7. The House of Bourbon reigned in Parma (with interregnums) 1748-1859. So it would be reasonable to use "Prince/ss of Parma" for members of the family born prior to 1860. But the dynasty has now been in exile from their realm longer than they held its throne, and Michael's consort Anne was born 60+ years after exile. Lethiere 23:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parma is surely wrong

[edit]

Oh my, at least it is altogether clear that the naming convention does NOT bestow the name "Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parma" to her. This is truly funny case of seeing how wrong someones could read the NC. Firstly, as married woman, her pre-marital TITLE ("princess") is certainly not used. Werte she dead, she COULD be Anne of Bourbon-Parma, but she is certainly not dead yet. Shilkanni 13:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, anything about her name except just "Anne" is somehow disputed: As she is: "Anne (born September 18, 1923 as Princess Anne Antoinette Françoise Charlotte of Bourbon-Parma), is the wife of the former King Michael I of Romania, however married after his loss of the throne. As such, she is by courtesy also sometimes styled Queen Anne of Romania and treated sometimes as if being a queen consort. As wife of a nobleman who undisputedly is a Prince of Hohenzollern, she is sometimes referred as Princess Anne of Hohenzollern. Their family has reportedly some decade ago taken the surname "of Romania", whereby she would be known also as Anne of Romania, the title of the book in English that her son-in-law published about her life."
all queen-titles are disputed, but all titles under the level queen are unacceptable to her supporters, implying their fear that she is not recognozed as queen if called by any lower title. Would it ever be possible even to agree to call her "Anne of Romania"?? Shilkanni 17:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from NC talkpage

[edit]

(copied from ...: The NC does not yet make it sufficiently clear, as there exist some editors who somehow believe that a married woman could be Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parma. Shilkanni 16:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC) )[reply]

Anne is the wife of a king. For the same reason that Princess Caroline of Monaco is the Princess of Hanover, Anne is Queen Anne of Romania. Charles 16:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anne's title is not to be decided by Wikipedia. However, I would point out that Caroline is not titled here as Queen of Hanover. There are ample reasons why we should not title Anne as Queen either. Shilkanni 16:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Caroline is not titled Queen of Hanover because her husband is not titled King of Hanover. Anne's husband, Michael, however, is titled King of Romania. Anne is titled Queen Anne of Romania by various royal courts. Wikipedia can't decide titles, but apparently it can deny the title used by Anne and others to refer to her? What are these ample reasons? Charles 16:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shilkanni, apparently you are upset about the naming of Anne's article using her pre-marital surname, since you have expressed dissatisfaction about it here, under Ernest Augustus V, Prince of Hanover and at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) within the last 24 hours. A careful reading of this talk page will reveal that "Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parma" is a compromise. It was used to get her out of "Princess Anne of Hohenzollern", a title by which she has been known to very few people during her lifetime. But it was clear from the article's history (see mid-August 2005 edit history), and the recent talk page, that opposition not only to Queen but to of Romania rendered it too controversial to move her to anything with "Anne of Romania" in it, because to some Romanians and republicans, that would suggest that she had a dynastic relationship with Romania rather than a merely personal relationship with its ex-monarch. "Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parma", being her maiden style, in a form sanctioned by official use in the Netherlands and Luxembourg where Anne's relatives live, is far more recognizable to most readers than "Princess Anne of Hohenzollern", and therefore is in closer compliance (but not full compliance -- everyone fully realizes that) with WP naming rules.
I am sorry that this upset you: I agree that the Naming Conventions themselves need to be discussed and revised to reflect a more comprehensive consensus on these issues. Meanwhile, (as is obvious from the number of page moves you have made recently) people continue to edit these types of articles based on their own interpretations. "Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parma" was not chosen out of ignorance of her marital status, of her backround, of NPOV, or of the disagreement about how a post-reign consort should be styled consistent with Naming Conventions. All of those factors were considered. The outcome is a compromise: I doubt anyone is really happy with it -- but agreement on a better alternative has been elusive. Again, if you would like to propose an improved, alternative process (to address the page name), please tell us how you think we should proceed. We've heard your complaint. Your solution? Lethiere 01:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about testing waters: to make a move request to move the article to "Anne of Romania", to suggest it as exemplary solution to later make a NC out of it. The poll will show how much support and opposition such a solution garners. (If it fails, I have another (a bit worse) idea in my sleeve, but I keep it under wraps before "territorial designation of consort without any title" for living consorts of deposed monarchs married only after loss of throne - is first seen through.) Shilkanni 04:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I edited her opening paragraph and arrived at the following - it reflects my views what is the task of Wikipedia, which certainly is not to endorse any monarchical pretension. Shilkanni 16:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anne (Princess Anne Antoinette Françoise Charlotte of Bourbon-Parma, born September 18, 1923), is the wife of the former King Michael I of Romania, however married after his loss of the throne. As such, she is by courtesy also sometimes styled Queen Anne of Romania and treated sometimes as if being a queen consort. As wife of a nobleman who undisputedly is a Prince of Hohenzollern, she is sometimes referred as Princess Anne of Hohenzollern. Their family has reportedly some decade ago taken the surname "of Romania", whereby she would be known also as Anne of Romania, the title of the book in English that her son-in-law published about her life.

I have seen little to no evidence of Anne being referred to as Princess Anne of Hohenzollern. All of her daughters are titled as princesses of Romania and her husband is, by courtesy, the king of Romania. As such, Anne is the queen of Romania. Sources from basic article up to the British Royal Family use this title. For instance, here. Type CTRL+F on this page and type Queen Anne of Romania. If the basis of naming her is that her husband is undisputedly a prince of Hohenzollern, shouldn't he be at Prince Michael of Hohenzollern? After mentioning Anne's marriage, her son-in-law (the auther of that book) refers to her as queen.Charles 17:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To me, that "a little" evidence of her referred as "Princess Anne of Hohenzollern" is sufficient to mention it in the text of the article. Whereas I am not sure it should be the title of the article. However, I am against her article to be titled as "queen..." as it would be endorsement of royal pretension and not an undispited fact. Her queenship is a thing only to be mentioned in the text of the article, as are also other views of referring to her. You cannot make titles by what are titles of her relatives - that is at its worst, pure invention. How her son-in-law refers to her is immaterial as to titling, but a title of a published book is a (possibly small) sign how she is known. Her husbands article's location is directed by the scholarly usage to refer to deposed monarchs, and I accept it. That however says nothing to NPOV title to her, as she was not deposed but only maried afterwards, and was not an actual queen ever. If we want a specific NC for consorts married with deposed monarchs after loss of throne (such as Magda Lupescu), we shouold open a separate thread in this talkpage. I would possibly support something like "Margarita of Bulgaria", without any title, for living persons (as much as it may give an impression of being a reigning queen), and Jutta of Mecklenburg for deceased ones, as is conventional with decased consorts anyway. Shilkanni 17:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of this aside, the fact of the matter is that Anne is overwhelmingly referred to as Queen Anne of Romania against all other forms of a name. The name also conforms to naming rules for consorts (which she is, the consort of a king, whether reigning or not) and conventions for the use of the most common name. I cannot understand your opinion why endorsing Parma-based and Hohenzollern titles is fine, but using the title wby which she is most known is not. If she is a Princess of Hohenzollern by virtue of marriage to a Prince of Hohenzollern, then she is a Queen of Romania by virtue of marriage to King of Romania. If she were otherwise called Princess Anne of Parma/Hohenzollern/whatever, that would be fine. However, she is called Queen Anne of Romania. Charles 18:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place to jadda-jadda about her precise naming, if you do not propose a change to naming convention. Could you kindly keep to issues at hand here, and not distract. And, I am of the opinion that the naming convention does not mean that she would be titled queen. That has never been the intention of the convention written in the NC page. As to "common name", she is so little known outside certain royalist circles that no conclusion should be drawn from what they like to call her - such would be the recipe to get incredible titles for quite little notable things, and the stupider the less known it is (Anne would be queen but Simeon II a Mr Sakskoburggotski, if I read the google results enough - and we would possibly end up with an Empress Concepcion and a King Rosario, or something like that). I was weakly hinting that "Anne of Romania" would be somehow possibly acceptable to me, without queenly titulary. Then, lastly, where have you got an idea that I push any sort of Parma-based title to her - I would be more happy if you were to refrain from misrepresentation. Shilkanni 19:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean things personally for the most part, but it can only come out sounding like this. First and foremost, this is the place to talk about it since you took the time to create a subheading and continue the discussion. Secondly, when you have little else to say, do not accuse me of distracting. It is not very courteous and it is slightly hypocritical to state that I am distracting and then continue on afterward. You are only speaking of what is acceptable to you. I have had to back down when I was wrong before simply because my opinions aren't the be all that end all. The same holds true for yours. If Anne is so little known, she should not have an article on Wikipedia under a name which she is further little known by. On what basis are you allowed to draw such a conclusion as to give her the name given to a deceased consort or a monarch? By keeping Anne at the name after she dies, it would acknowledge that she was a consort in the first place. Oh, and I wrote Parma on the basis of one of my other opinions. I thought the "whatever" at the end was fairly inclusive of other territorial designations. Charles 20:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Queen Anne of Romania. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY 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) 20:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 August 2016

[edit]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. OP and supporters argue that the title is a misnomer because the subject was never legally a queen. Dissenters argue that she was nevertheless called Queen for 60+ years of her life while married to the former king, therefore making this her WP:COMMONNAME. Most of the recent RS covering her death still call her Queen Anne. Our titling policy explicitly assigns stronger weight to dominant names in usage, rather than official names. Wikipedia is also not the place to Right Great Wrongs. The policy debate started by this case, while ongoing, is trending towards supporting the common name rationale. Finally, the policy-supported title happens to be the same as the longstanding article title, so this adds some extra weight to keeping things stable. If the longstanding title were contrary to general policy, things would be more difficult to adjudicate (see the recent discussion about New York). Note that this closure is neutral about the best way to write the subject's names in the lead and to explain her queenship or lack thereof. — JFG talk 05:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Anne of Romania → Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parma – Princess married a former King after the latter's deposition. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility), the title should reflect the highest prefix actually held, which is Princess. Anonimu (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Consorts and widows of monarchs and former monarchs usually retain, on English Wikipedia and in compliance with our guideline NCRAN, the title or style used until death for a period of years thereafter (see the entries for Ingrid of Sweden and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon to preserve ease of access to the person's bio. Potential readers may not yet know of the person's demise or may not know under what maiden name to look since, as in this case, "Bourbon-Parma" has been unused as Anne's personal name for more than half a century. The argument that Anne should be posthumously demoted in title now because she did not deserve to be called a queen since she married after her husband was forcibly deposed by a post-World War II Communist coup is novel, controversial (I certainly dispute it), and not supported by the many reliable sources which refer to her as "Queen Anne" since her marriage in 1947. FactStraight (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Despite your name, you really fail to get your facts straight: Princess Anne married former King Michael in 1948, so she never held the title of Queen. Consequently, it is not a case of demotion, but of enforcing MOS against pretence; furthermore, her case is not comparable to the articles you linked, since they refer to consorts to actually reigning monarchs. This is not the venue to discuss the motives of his husband's decision to step down as King BEFORE marrying her, though there are serious indications that the former King received significant pecuniary compensation in order to renounce the throne. Your POV is highlighted in your insistence of calling his abdication a "coup", a description virtually unknown outside royalist circles.Anonimu (talk) 07:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • "...Becoming the focus of opposition against the Antonescu regime, [King Michael] arrested the dictator on Aug. 23, 1944, signalling the overthrow of the military government. From the end of World War II in 1945, he strenuously opposed the communists’ accession to power in Romania but was ultimately forced to abdicate on Dec. 30, 1947, and go into exile." Michael (king of Romania), Encyclopædia Britannica, 2016. As for the custom of attributing to the consorts of former rulers the feminine equivalent of their husbands' monarchical title, it is difficult to find a case where this has not been the practice (e.g. Portugal: Queen Augusta, Germany: Empress Hermine, Bulgaria: Queen Margarita). In the few historical examples where an ex-king's wife has not been titled queen, it is because she would not have been eligible to be her husband's dynastic consort if he had remained on the throne, e.g. Anna Canalis di Cumiana and Henrietta d'Oultremont. Obviously, Anne of Bourbon, was a princess before she wed King Michael. FactStraight (talk) 09:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see the relevance of your quote, since it neither supports your view of the abdication as a coup, nor contradicts the fact that the former King was generously compensated for acceding to the request of the government. Please note that, except for Bulgaria, none of the articles you linked actually title the article "Queen X"; moreover, they all use the inherited title, not the one of her husband (Augusta Victoria "of Hohenzollern" instead of "of Portugal" or "of Braganza", respectively Hermine "Reuss of Greiz" instead of "of Prussia"). Even if media may use such "courtesy" titles, using them in a work that purports to be scientific, such as an encyclopedia, is POV if not correctly attributed (and certainly not in the article title). Bulgaria is an anomaly and I'm going to propose bringing it in line with the MOS.Anonimu (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, never held the title of Queen. She married to an ex-King in 1948. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The legality of Romania's transition away from monarchy is totally irrelevant, the point is that it happened and hasn't been restored. Ergo she was only a Queen in pretense. Nothing to do with posthumous demotions, she should never have been given this article title to begin with. There *might* be some sort of WP:COMMONNAME argument a la Emperor Norton if it can be shown that this was the overwhelming, overwhelming WP:COMMONNAME, but I'd want to see evidence of that first. SnowFire (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It will be a retroactive demotion because Wikipedia did not give Anne the title of queen, but accepted its wide usage over the last half-century -- rather than having Wikipedians make up a name some of us think she ought to have been known by. And the criterion for usage here is not that "Queen Anne" be "the overwhelming, overwhelming COMMONNAME", but that she be "referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources". I know of no other term for her that is as common as "Queen Anne". Moreover, eventually I would expect (and support) that her article will be moved to her simplified maiden name, "Anne of Bourbon-Parma", as is often seen pursuant to the traditional English usage of maiden names for long-deceased queens consort (e.g. Catherine of Aragon, Augusta of Hohenzollern, Mary of Teck, Ingrid of Sweden, etc. FactStraight (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It needs to be an overwhelming COMMONNAME because it's misleading. She wasn't Queen of Romania. Sorry. It's the same problem as referring to people who weren't knighted as "Sir" or someone who wasn't President as "President." An article title like Emperor Napoleon VI of France suggests that it is an article about an emperor of France, not about a pretender, and further that France is an Empire, which it's not. Romania's monarchy was abolished. There isn't a Queen of Romania anymore.
I would have no objection to "Anne of Bourbon-Parma", for the record. SnowFire (talk) 05:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may be an argument for what she should have been called in life, not for summarily stripping her of the title widely accorded to her for nearly 60 years -- until her death yesterday. FactStraight (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What title Romania accords her doesn't matter: this is the English Wikipedia and the title should be based on most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English. Opera hat (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not summarily stripping anyone of anything, this article has just slipped under the radar, as it seems the only claim to notability of the subject of this article is being the spouse of a former king. Anyways, GBooks shows that "Queen Anne of Romania" is mostly used by printed collections of Wikipedia articles, books by pretenders (Romanian or not) and vanity press. Before 1990, the title is used only 3 times, as opposed to 9 reference to "Anne of Bourbon Parma".Anonimu (talk) 06:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:AT is policy, and as such supersedes WP:NCNOB, which is a guideline. Thus, a case that "Queen Anne of Romania" is the common name used in reliable sources would be sufficient to demonstrate that the article should remain at Queen Anne of Romania, I think. This seems to be what FactStraight is getting at in some of their comments. As for the argument that the title was not one legally granted and therefore it should have to meet some standards above those usual for WP:COMMONNAME, which some appear to be making, I'm utterly unconvinced. Snoop Dogg isn't that artists birth or (afaict) legal name, and it certainly isn't the only one he has used or been called by, and yet it is still the common name and the article is still there. Either something is the subject's common name, or it isn't; we don't afaik have different standards of whether something is accepted as the common name based on whether it is a birth name, a legally conferred title, or a self-adopted name or title. [in this comment, I take no position on whether or not "Queen Anne of Romania" is in fact the subject's common name; it just seems to me that that is the relevant policy here and it's barely being addressed.] Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, and quite dismayed to see these uninformed "supports". The article should be moved to Anne of Bourbon-Parma, without the title of Princess prefixed to it, in accordance with her status as the consort of a king, regardless of the fact that he is deposed or not. He did reign and she was his wife, and even if those periods did not overlap, her courtesy title and style was derived from his title of King and she was referred to as queen, therefore the consort conventions apply. Seven Letters 12:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was just about to close this; thanks for the notice, I'll hold it until then. — JFG talk 15:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. On the 13th, expect a flurry of coverage, which should be reviewed. The popular media may well refer to her as Queen Anne for this one last day, but it is the formal naming written in stone, literally and so to speak, which is important to look at. If something other and "Anne of Bourbon-Parma" appears, it will then be important to look at whether it is repeated by newspapers around the world. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Although I see the problem. I would say there is a case for keeping the article title in this case per WP:COMMONNAME. It is also true that it is common usage that wives take the titles of their husbands by courtesy, even if the husbands only still have them by courtesy. That would go for Queen Anne. There are however other problems about articles on Romanian royalty, like the titles conferred on people who don't bear them by courtesy derived from the pre 1947 constitution, but that were conferred after the fall of the monarchy to people who would not have been considered under the 'old' rules. Which is a problematic situation. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Comment - I agree with the analysis by FactStraight. Anonimu is wrong about the Wikipedia policy involved imho. Women married to titled persons take the titles of their husbands by common usage and courtesy. WP:NCROY states that "Former or deposed monarchs should be referred to by their previous monarchical title... Consequently that goes for their wives as well per the same guideline, whenever they were married. Unless of course the monarch in question has reverted to another title by courtesy. Perhaps it's better to have an RfC on WP:NCROY on this matter instead of talking about this on talkpages of individual articles. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This matter is now also discussed on the relevant Wikipedia policy project page. This discussion also involves the related move request on the article about Queen Margarita of Bulgaria. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia should be describing what she was actually called, not prescribing what some Wikipedia editors think she should have been called. She is called "Queen Anne of Romania" by the Times, the Daily Telegraph, the New York Times, the Guardian, Reuters and the BBC. The proposal is especially silly because it claims that "the title should reflect the highest prefix actually held, which is Princess". Her husband really was King of Romania until 1947; Parma hasn't had a reigning Duke since 1860. If King Michael isn't a King, then Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parma certainly wasn't a Princess. Anne of Romania would be a better alternative. Opera hat (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which comment should remind us how titles held by courtesy in former reigning families actually work. If she can't be Queen Anne of Romania, because her husbands name and title aren't valid for the purpose, how could she be a Princess of Bourbon-Parma? Consistency please where courtesy titles for (former) royalty, used on Wikipedia are concerned! Preferably per policy on WP:NCROY! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the point altogether. Princess Anne WAS NEVER QUEEN OF ROMANIA, as Michael was not a king anymore when he married here. Compare to the spouses taken by his father Carol II of Romania, while he was not a king: Zizi Lambrino and Magda Lupescu. Calling her Queen of Romania would be supporting a pretense, far beyond a courtesy. As one of our pillars, WP:NPOV trumps WP:COMMONNAME. Anonimu (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary seems to indicate that this is a political position. I suggest that that is mostly in your mind. It is general practice on Wikipedia a) to name deposed monarchs by their monarchical titles, and b) to extend that to their spouses. We know that she was never Queen-consort during the existence of the monarchy, but a female person who is married to a king (deposed or otherwise) is, al things being equal, a titular Queen. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the point altogether, the Emperor Norton was never emperor of anywhere, but because he was called that more than anything else, Wikipedia calls him that. Wikipedia does not invent new standards for how subjects are characterized, but follows established usage. It is usual for women who marry former monarchs to be referred to thenceforth by their husbands' monarchical titles in reputable English sources, rather than by any other name or title, and so it is usual for Wikipedia to do so -- and difficult to find examples when they are not so referred except when their pre-marital name is used to indicate their origin. But nobody calls or addresses such women by their pre-marital title during their married lives or widowhood, and Queen Anne was almost never referred to as such, including by the Republic of Romania. The reason her title in life is only changed "eventually" rather than immediately after death is to aid readers, who are more likely to look her up in an encyclopedia after her recent death yet are less likely to know her maiden name than her monarchical title. Almost every major news publication in English has covered the death of Anne, not to mention all of those in Romanian, and nearly every one refers to her as "Queen Anne", in addition to the fact that the Presidents of the Republics of Romania and Moldova have publicly acknowledged her importance as "Queen Anne", and those republics also declared days of national mourning in her honor. The notion that Wikipedia shouldn't call a dead woman queen who has been called that by nearly every reputable publication in English that ever referred to her (despite the fact that she lived in exile from Romania during most of her life) because that "would be supporting a pretense", i.e., promoting restoration of the monarchy in Romania, is not plausible and, being contrary to prevailing usage, would itself be in violation of NPOV. It is premature and contrary to established usage to move this woman's article to a name she hadn't used for nearly 60 years. No action should be taken on this article's name now. FactStraight (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2016 (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.

Removing 'Queen'

[edit]
Further discussion moved to WT:NCROY#Article names for reigning queens vs queen consorts.

The following discussion 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.

As per other monarchs and their consorts, the title 'Queen' should not be in the article title. Is it agreed the article be retitled? (No unsolvable shitfight please about whether she was a queen or not: this is just about standard practice.) Engleham (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Standard practice is mostly that a married woman can use her husbands title by courtesy, and that it can also be used in the name of the article about her, if she is actually known by it. Queen-Consorts are mentioned in article titles with the title Queen, while alive and also for some time after that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps after she has been dead for a while. We've just had a RfC. Also there is no such thing as a standard practice for Balkan Queens. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The woman who became a queen by marrying a deposed king is known here as Queen Anne of Romania. The king she married, the person whose title was recognized by Romanian constitution and who actually reigned, is called simply Michael I of Romania. It's not King Michael I of Romania and Queen Anne of Romania, nor is it Michael I of Romania and Anne of Romania. It's Queen Anne of Romania and Michael I of Romania. There is nothing sensible about that. Anybody unfamiliar with this absurd Wiki practice will be confused and possibly even misled. Surtsicna (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it's also Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands and Queen Maxima of the Netherlands. Yes I agree that's peculiar. Queen seems to be exclusively for Queen consorts. Living ones or recently deceased ones that is. And for Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the practice was meant to express the dichotomy between reigning queens and queens-consort? The first of them being treated like their male counterparts? Not sure... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Express it to whom? And why in such illogical manner? Can we really expect an average reader (who can barely distinguish between a queen consort and a queen regnant) to understand whatever it is we are trying to say with this practice?
Now we have Anne, dead, a woman who was a queen consort and never really even that, as Queen Anne of Romania. Then we have Michael, living, a man who was once a reigning king, as Michael I of Romania. One simply cannot justify that. Surtsicna (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Basically you are right. We'll have to change a lot of articles to correct this however. And perhaps find a way to dichotimise reigning Queens from living Queen consorts.... If that is necessary. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you see it. For years I took this practice for granted, but now I just cannot fathom how the titles Queen Sofia of Spain and Beatrix of the Netherlands indicate a consort and a monarch respectively. If anything, it suggests that Sofia is a monarch and Beatrix a consort. A Wikipedia user with experience in this area is used to the practice, but outsiders are left dumbfounded. And of course, we write articles for those who want to learn and not for those who already know. Surtsicna (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The practice certainly sounds confusing. May i suggest moving this discussion to WT:NCROY where it belongs? — JFG talk 22:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That, JFG, is probably a good idea. I will certainly be interested in the discussion. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Discussion moved, please continue there. — JFG talk 01:06, 14 September 2016 (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.

Titles section

[edit]

There is only one source anywhere that gives her the style "Her Majesty Anne, Queen of Romania and Princess of Bourbon-Parma", and that source is a primary source. I doubt whether something that is not found in secondary sources is sufficiently relevant for inclusion, and I doubt that given the paucity of sources this exact style was actually used much. "Her Majesty Queen Anne of Romania" is more common. DrKay (talk) 08:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Queen Anne of Romania. 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:

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

checkY 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) 19:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Queen Anne of Romania. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 22:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 August 2021

[edit]
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: no consensus; not moved (non-admin closure) Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 15:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Anne of Romania → Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parma – As she is now deceased, she should be referred to by her birth name per WP:CONSORTS. Векочел (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 19:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, per nonimation.Anonimu (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – WP:CONSORTS states: Deceased consorts are referred to by a name by which they are commonly known. As abundantly documented in sources over decades, the subject was not commonly known by her Bourbon-Parma birth name, but rather as "Queen Anne". In line with the common practice of removing royal titles from articles about deceased persons, as happened with her husband Michael I of Romania, I would support a move to just "Anne of Romania". — JFG talk 08:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – She is still known as Queen Anne of Romania, has been so for the majority of her life from marriage until death and still so when written about/of; ‘Anne of Romania’ gives no indication as to whether she is a monarch or a consort (albeit titular consort). Queen Fabiola, former Queen Consort of Belgium is currently also listed as Queen Fabiola of Belgium, not ‘Fabiola of Belgium’ which would imply she was also a Belgian monarch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.186.76 (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as she was never queen-consort of Romania. She married Michael after the Romanian monarchy was abolished. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and in spite of this situation she was referred to as "Queen", so that "Queen Anne of Romania" has more standing than "Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parma" as the subject's WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia upholds verifiability, not truth, and we are not here to right great wrongs in quirks of history. — JFG talk 15:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. “Queen Anne of Romania” was and is her COMMONNAME. She was referred to by this name in her lifetime, and continues to be in reliable sources since. Repudiate WP:CONSORTS as an exception to COMMONNAME. WP:CONSORTS is a good systematic convention for consorts without coverage in secondary sources, I.e. cases not worthy of articles, just of lists or tables. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and suggest a more careful reading of WP:CONSORTS, which says in part Deceased consorts are referred to by a name by which they are commonly known or (if recently deceased) are expected to become known and concludes There is no agreed-upon general convention for deceased consorts; there was a proposal that Wikipedia always use the maiden name, or house of origin, for such people; but that rule produces unrecognisable titles too often to be generally applied. This is a very interesting case as her husband had actually abdicated (only when forced to, admittedly) before their marriage. So in that sense she was never really Queen, but supporters of the monarchy still call her that and the name has stuck. Andrewa (talk) 03:53, 22 August 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.

Requested move 27 October 2022

[edit]
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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Anne of Romania → Anne of Romania – Per consensus at Talk:Marie_of_Romania#Requested_move_19_October_2022, this should be moved to Anne of Romania. It is a more concise name. Usually for deceased consorts, we avoid using the title Queen. Interstellarity (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anne_of_Romania&oldid=1204879681"