Jump to content

Talk:Princess Sophia of the United Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articlePrincess Sophia of the United Kingdom has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 28, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 3, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Princess Sophia (pictured), the fifth daughter of King George III, once remarked her life was so "deadly dull" that she wished she were a kangaroo?
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 3, 2018.

Date

[edit]

Birthdate differs from Find-A-Grave. Lincher 12:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage?

[edit]

The section headed "marriage" contains no reference to any marriage she may have made, only to rumors of incestuous relations with her brother. Was she ever married? --Jfruh (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She was never married. Everything else is baseless rumor: she was rumored to be the mother of an illegitimate son, Thomas Garth, either by her brother, Ernest, Duke of Cumberland, or by Maj-Gen. Thomas Garth. There's no credible evidence she was actually a mother. - Nunh-huh 20:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then I changed the heading. Feel free to change it to something more interesting. --Jfruh (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It was most likely Whig slander at the time, though some writers have read very much between the lines to build a case for a child born of the Duke and Princess.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But sometimes rumours do have a basis. I don't know whether Sophia had a child by her brother but strongly suspect that she had an illegitimate child. My great-great-great-grandfather (a lawyer) emigrated from Winchester, England, to New York and then, as a consequence of serving with the British against the Americans, emigrated to Nova Scotia at the end of the American Revolutionary War. He was known to have some social interaction with at least two of the sons of George III, namely, William IV when visiting Halifax, Nova Scotia, before his succession to the throne and the Edward, Duke of Kent (Queen Victoria's father) who served as Governor of Nova Scotia. My ancestor (my great-great-great-grandfather) raised a foster child of whom two present-day descendants I have met claim (according to their family story) was an illegitimate child of the royal family though neither of them are claiming descent from Ernest Augustus and/or Sophia. Family stories are often fiction rather than truth. Further, the British royal family didn't normally hide their illegitimate children. They often gave them titles. However, the facts are interesting in this case. The well-dressed child was delivered to my ancestor at his island home in Pictou County, Nova Scotia, by a British ship. My ancestor was paid to look after the child by person unknown. One of the descendants has a letter written to my ancestor by a friend in London who made inquiries to ascertain the source of the funds but was unable to determine their source. If Sophia had an illegitimate child, the royal family might well have wished to hide the fact whether or not her brother was the father, unlike the case of an illegitimate child of one of her brothers -- the old double standard. My ancestor was well known to at least some members of the royal family (and he came from a well-established English family -- his grandfather had been a mayor of Winchester; his cousin was a British general; etcetera). My ancestor was living in the colonies, well away from the royal court. Anyway, seems plausible to me. A little DNA testing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hebbgd (talk • contribs) 22:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Sophia had a child by her brother. Royal1918

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Princess Sophia of the United Kingdom/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally looking good.

Lead
  • I'm not keen on opening with the one line paragraph.
Early life
  • "Prince August of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg" If he's a prince, he's surely worth a redlink?
  • You mention the number of brothers and sisters in the lead, but don't in the early life section
  • "Princess Sophia's first appearance in public was at a commemoration for George Frideric Handel at Westminster Abbey.[10]" Date?
  • "A.W. Purdue" Who is this? A historian?
  • The painting implies she had a strong relationship with her sisters? Any sources for this?
  • "Princess Sophia's first appearance in public was at a commemoration for George Frideric Handel at Westminster Abbey.[10]" Do we have a date for this?
Adulthood
  • "According to Christopher Hibbert, Sophia in her youth was believed to be a "delightful though moody girl, pretty, delicate and passionate."" By "youth", do you mean childhood, or young adulthood? Also, the sentence is a little clunky
  • "The question of matrimony was rarely raised, as Queen Charlotte feared the subject, something which had always discomforted the King despite his promise, would push him back into insanity." Odd sentence- I'm not sure it makes sense
  • "For entertainment, the queen read sermons to them[1] while the princesses did embroidery.[2]" At the same time?
  • Haven't found anything directly saying they did this at the same time, so I tweaked sentence a little. Although I'm sure they did (the queen read to them frequently, and I'm sure the girls didn't just sit there) Ruby2010 comment! 21:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The princesses were not without suitors, but other than the Princess Royal, most of the various men's efforts were stopped by Queen Charlotte." At the moment, this sentence says that the Princess Royal was the only man whose efforts were not stopped.
  • "at these attempts to become less dependent" Rephrase?
Illegitimate child
  • You link equerry for the first time after the term has already been used several times
  • "as 'the purple light of love'" Why inverted commas, rather than speech marks?
  • "by Garth or her brother the Duke" Garth or Garth's brother?
  • "Historians further write that the child, baptised Thomas Garth like his father, was raised by his father in Weymouth[3] where his mother would visit him occasionally.[4] In 1828, the son would try to blackmail the royal family with certain incriminating documents from his father about his supposed parents' relationship, though this ended in failure.[5]" How certain are these details? It feels like we move from "Sophia may have had a child" to "This is who the child was, and what happened". Is the general consensus that there was a child?
  • The subject is odd. Most historians I've found believe there was a child, but among others there is still some opposition to this theory. I didn't want to take a side (although it seems to me that there was a child). Do you think I should just go all the way and write there indeed was a child? Ruby2010 comment! 22:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "reference" you use to discuss "the age and physical appearance of Thomas Garth" could be reformatted as: {{#tag:ref|The age and physical appearance of Thomas Garth, as well as the fact he was never dismissed from service, are indicators to Shaw that the Duke of Cumberland was the real father. <ref>(Shaw, p. 214)</ref>|group=note}} You would also need to add a notes section using {{reflist|group=note}}. This would let you format your references consistently and keep your details out from your references- something to consider. For an example, see how I used it in Fomitiporia ellipsoidea.
  • "Sophia was a favourite of her niece, Princess Charlotte of Wales, as the young princess liked her gentle character and had a certain fascination for the gossip surrounding Sophia's past. Charlotte detested her other aunts, and once wrote, "I can hardly believe [Sophia] belongs to them- so wholly different is she in thoughts, opinions, matters. Her nobleness and rectitude of mind renders her no favourite here. The constant scenes of intrigue, of tracasseries, she can but ill support."[33]" Would this perhaps not belong in the later life section? It's not clear what it's got to do with the son
Later life
  • You don't mention that Princess Victoria is the young Queen Victoria, or who Conroy is, despite the fact you do in the lead. These are helpful details for those who may not know the period
  • "The Duchess of Kent despised Sophia, who often dined with the household." Kent often died, or Sophia did?
  • "Princess Victoria was aware her aunt was a spy, effectively alienating the two." So she wasn't a spy the entire time she lived with Victoria?
Death
  • "After her death, it was discovered that Conroy had squandered most of her money, and that the princess had virtually no estate to leave.[42] After her death" repetition
Other considerations
  • File:Princess Sophia portrait.jpg is problematic; it appears to have been copied from findagrave, and while the painting is almost certainly PD, I see no reason to believe that the photo is. I think it's going to need to be deleted.
  • It's only just occurred to me that this image could be salvaged- I've made a request (also, I've cropped down the new image so that only the painting itself is shown; photographs of the context, including the frame, would be copyrightable, and so would have to be treated as non-free, unless the photographer explicitly released them. Annoying, I know.) J Milburn (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you perhaps capitalise the book titles? Some are in sentence case
  • The sources seem appropriately scholarly

It's generally looking great, not much work is be needed before it is ready for promotion. J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, so it's clear, I did a little light copyediting. J Milburn (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the speedy review. I wrote the article on a bit of a whim, so I apologize for the prose issues. Ruby2010 comment! 22:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and if you can't tell, I'm American. I tried to write the article using British English, but if there are any places I missed, could you correct them? I'm a tad unfamiliar with some of the spellings. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 22:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought I'd let you know that in pursuit of a DYK (5x), I've made some significant edits to the article. Some of them stemmed directly from your great suggestions (like expanding the lead's first paragraph). Ruby2010 comment! 06:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second look through

[edit]
  • "rumours spread that Sophia became pregnant by Thomas Garth, an equerry of her father's, and gave birth to an illegitimate son in the summer of 1800. Other gossip declared the child was the product of rape by her elder brother the Duke of Cumberland," In the prose, you imply that this is not gossip, but the opinion of later historians
  • "As with her elder sisters, Lady Charlotte Finch served as Sophia's governess." This is not the best phrase (and I realise I touched it myself- sorry)
  • "Unlike the strict education and discipline received by her brothers, the well-loved Lady Finch taught the princesses lessons in English, French, music, art, and geography, and allowed them to play sports and games with their brothers." Again, sorry, the structure of this sentence isn't great
  • "Queen Charlotte feared the subject, something which had always discomforted the King, would push him back into insanity." This still doesn't make sense
  • "On one occasion Sophia wrote their days were so "deadly dull... I wished myself a kangaroo."[17]" That's an absolutely wonderful little factoid!
  • "A grateful Sophia once jokingly wrote her brother, "I wonder you do not vote for putting us in a sack and drowning us in the Thames."[22]" Not sure that makes sense. How about "A grateful Sophia once jokingly wrote to her brother, saying "I wonder you do not vote for putting us in a sack and drowning us in the Thames."[22]"
  • Are we certain that the person Thomas Garth existed? At the moment, it's not clear whether he existed and it was just not certain whether he was Sophia's daughter, or whether he himself may have just been a rumour
  • I haven't read anything that said he didn't exist. However, it remains divided whether he was Sophia's child, or who his father actually was. I tried to indicate this by adding in words like apparently and supposed Ruby2010 comment! 16:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In his book Royal Babylon: the Alarming History of European Royalty, author Karl Shaw writes of the possibility the Duke raped his sister, citing evidence from Charles Greville's diaries as well as other factors." This will need a reference in addition to the note- the reference in the note is not enough.
  • In the lead, you imply that Conroy bullied Sophia, but in the body, this is only one possible explanation for their relationship
  • "After having been blind for over ten years,[48] At her residence at Vicarage Place, Kensington, Princess Sophia became ill on the morning of 27 May 1848, and was visited by her sister Mary, sister-in-law Queen Adelaide, and nephew-in-law Albert, Prince Consort." This needs some copyediting
  • Check the capitalisation on ref 54

This is looking great. J Milburn (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. Thank you very much for giving it another thorough look over. It's much appreciated! Ruby2010 comment! 16:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy now to promote the article. The research, writing and referencing are all very good, and this will make a great GA. This is an article which could potentially fare well at FAC. This is a shorter biography, but as an unmarried fifth daughter, that's perhaps not surprising. However, it makes it all the more important that all of the sources have been checked; the book in the "further reading" section would be worth trying to get hold of, and a quick Googling threw up this. I don't know who Michael A. Beatty is, but the book does include a few details not in the article (for example, the fact that Garth claimed to be the father of the child). The second thing you'd need to do after delving deep into the sources is get yourself a copyeditor- the prose perhaps still isn't perfect in places, and I can't pretend to be an expert on stellar prose anyway. This is a topic which may interest Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs)- if you ask him nicely, he may be able to give you a hand. Peer review can also be a useful tool, and I'm always available on my talk page, in case I can be of any further help. In any case, I am happy to promote at this time. Good work! J Milburn (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. You are correct about the further reading book. Until I can get my paws on it, I'll abstain from expanding the article further. I think Flora Fraser is generally considered the authority on the princesses, so I'd like to read what she has to say before (if) this goes to FAC. Thanks again, Ruby2010 comment! 17:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Nomination

[edit]

Thank you!

[edit]

It is not very often that a DYK on the front page makes me laugh. I wonder why she chose a kangaroo. Amandajm (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I also am curious, and I'm the one who expanded the article! Soon in the mail I will be receiving Flora Fraser's book on Sophia and her siblings, so I'll see what she has to say about the subject. :) Ruby comment! 03:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was a Royal menagerie which I think was located at Hampton Court. It is most unlikely that Sophia ever saw a kangaroo going at full tilt, about 30 miles an hour in huge bounds. She probably only saw them quietly pottering around, hip-hopping, nibbling, scratching and very gently putting their noses up to sniff and be tickled behind the ears. They were probably the most boring animals she could think of. I have never known of one to be described as having personality, which is less than can be said for a rabbit. However, randy males can be terrifying. Amandajm (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Princess Sophia of the United Kingdom. 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) 13:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Princess Sophia of the United Kingdom. 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) 15:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Black, p. 156.
  2. ^ Williams, p. 60.
  3. ^ Purdue; Williams, p. 35.
  4. ^ Beatty, p. 229.
  5. ^ Beatty, p. 229; Panton, p. 429; Purdue.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Princess_Sophia_of_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1209534145"