anne, Queen Of Great Britain/Archive 2

How? Anyway, not worth quibbling. Katiehawks (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This seems like a ridiculous title to me. It is even more ridiculous than calling her husband Prince Consort George of England. Anne's notability stems entirely from her status as a royal family heir and eventual sovereignship in Britain. She was not Danish (obviously), did not reside in Denmark, and was not expected to be a consort in Denmark. She did not go to Denmark to live with her husband ; he came to England to live with her. Compare to "Princess Maud of Wales". After that, she was "Queen of Norway".Eregli bob (talk) 05:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Errr, Maud was definitely called a princess of Denmark from her marriage to her husband's accession. Anne was also referred to as a princess of Denmark; see the reference. She was never called a princess of England/Britain/Scotland/Ireland though. I am not sure what your point is. Referring to George as "Prince Consort of England" is indeed ridiculous, but I do not see that anachronism anywhere. Surtsicna (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
You need to take this up at Wiki: Selected anniversaries/March 8. What happens at another page is not really something we can control from here. DrKiernan (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Ridiculous title still coming up again.`14:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lathamibird (talk • contribs)

It looks like WP:NCROY now unhelpfully uses this page as one of its suggestions, lending the mistaken vote above greater authority. All the same, eventually people will realize that

• the WP:COMMON WP:ENGLISH name of this monarch is Queen Anne by at least two orders of magnitude (and probably more than that);
• the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of "Queen Anne" is this monarch and not any other;
• Queen Anne already redirects here and the present name is a completely needless violation of WP:TERSE;
• the present name is mistaken and if we're needlessly giving her titles to standardize our house style, she was Anne, Queen of Great Britain and Ireland.

Put me down for a return to Queen Anne (better) or Anne of Great Britain and Ireland (still better than the current namespace) when the discussion comes back around. — LlywelynII 04:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The Act of Settlement spells her name as "Ann", rather than "Anne". Was this an error or was that the usual spelling at that time, or was it variable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PalaceGuard008 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

A family tree like the one is this article does not need a citation on every node depicting the relationship with everyone to whom they are connected. As a parent can have many children, it is often simpler just to include a verification of parents in the child node as biographies of a person usually include parents even if they do not include all the children. -- PBS (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The short citation need to include year. This will future proof it against cases where there are two citations where the author has the same name or two different editions of the same book are used. For there are two long cations with the name Ward (looks like the same person):

• Ward, Adolphus W. (ed.) (1908). The Cambridge Modern History. Volume V. The Age Of Louis XIV. Cambridge: University Press.
• Ward, Adolphus William (1885). "Anne (1665–1714)" . In Stephen, Leslie (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 1. London: Smith, Elder & Co. pp. 441–474.

but as the year is not included in the short citations, it is impossible to tell if "Ward, p. 460" is referring to which volume unless one goes and looks -- luckily as they are bot on line this is possible, but in most cases this is not so.

The minimum that is needed is the addition of years to short citations, but I suggest that {{sfn}} is used where it can.

-- PBS (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Holly Brewer's new article in AHR suggests that Queen Anne had a staring role in developing slavery as it was practised in America. This doesn't appear anywhere in this article. Given the huge importance of slavery in the history of the world in the last 400 years, shouldn't a far larger chunk of this article be dedicated to her role in creating slavery?

Article: Holly Brewer; Slavery, Sovereignty, and “Inheritable Blood”: Reconsidering John Locke and the Origins of American Slavery, The American Historical Review, Volume 122, Issue 4, 1 October 2017, Pages 1038–1078, https://doi.org/10.1093/ahr/122.4.1038 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.7.85.244 (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It's a part of the War of the Spanish Succession, which is linked from here. The war is a vast subject and to show that this one aspect should be covered in this article in more detail I think you need to show it's been covered in more places than a single citation. Celia Homeford (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
the brief statement on her role in the slave trade is not controversial--it is fully sourced in three independent scholarly RS. Slavery is a "hot" issue in 2017 among scholars and the general public (and in USA in politics as well). Anne had a major role in taking control of huge spanish slave trade which make Britain the world's leader slave trade factor. Ricks (2013) says "this contract allotted Queen Anne of England 22.5% (and King Philip V, of Spain 28%) of all profits collected for her personal fortune." It came about because of victory in the war indeed-- but to dismiss it as unimportant is not supported by any RS. it was a long-term major result. Rjensen (talk) 12:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not disputing any of that. You're not addressing the point I made. There are works on slavery and the war that cover this aspect. Not so much in works on Anne herself. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Please do not erase fully sourced material on a major topic regarding her reign as ruler of England and its colonies and its trade. Multiple scholars cover the issue including the biographies of Queen Anne. She fought the wars in part for economic advantage and we have an editor who wants to suppress ALL mention of slavery--perhaps it is distressing subject for some people but not for historians we rely upon -- these historians are cited for the slavery section:
Holly Brewer, Slavery, Sovereignty, and 'Inheritable Blood': Reconsidering John Locke and the Origins of American Slavery, American Historical Review, Volume 122, Issue 4, 1 October 2017, Pages 1038–1078, https://doi.org/10.1093/ahr/122.4.1038
Gregg, pp. 341, 361.
Hugh Thomas (1997). The Slave Trade: The Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade: 1440 - 1870. Simon and Schuster. p. 236.
David A.G. Waddel, "Queen Anne's Government and the Slave Trade." Caribbean Quarterly 6.1 (1960): 7-10. -- this is devoted entirely to her royal role
Vinita Moch Ricks. Through the Lens of the Transatlantic Slave Trade. p. 77. ISBN 978-1-4835-1364-5.
Richard B. Sheridan (1974). Sugar and Slavery: An Economic History of the British West Indies, 1623-1775. Canoe Press. pp. 406–10. Rjensen (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
we can add Gregg in his DNB essay which states: The secret preliminaries again provided for Louis's eventual recognition of the queen and the established succession, as well as exclusive British acquisition of the Spanish American slave trade (the asiento) for thirty years, the same commercial privileges in Spain as France enjoyed, and British recognition of Philip V as king of Spain. Rjensen (talk) 12:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Edit wars are unpleasant--made doubly worse by one editor who claims control of the article though she rejects all the reliable sources and no editor supports her views. Gregg shows in DNB that expansion of the slave trade was a main result of the treaty ending the war. Rjensen (talk) 12:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Don't lie about me please. Your personal attack is a straw man, just like your initial post here. You are saying things about me that are untrue. By all means put in a clause or two, but 10% of the article? It's disproportionate when the coverage in works about her is so slight. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Are these lies about you? You have repeatedly deleted ALL information on slavery and you lack any support from any editor or any reliable source. London's National Portrait Gallery stresses Anne's role: Queen Anne continued the tradition of royal support for the British slave trade. In 1712 she announced that she had secured an exclusive contract for the British nation to provide enslaved Africans for the Spanish West Indies for thirty years. The Government sold the contract to the newly founded South Sea Company for £7.5 million. Queen Anne also secured over 20% of the stock for herself. https://www.npg.org.uk/learning/digital/history/abolition-of-slavery/queen-anne as far as falsehoods go, let's look at the false claim about 10% of the article. It runs 82,575 bytes with 2,295) bytes on slavery which is under 3%. Rjensen (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Lie 1: "we have an editor who wants to suppress ALL mention of slavery"
she actually DID suppress ALL mention of slavery--there is zero mention right now
Lie 2: "one editor who claims control of the article"
She claims there has to be a "consensus" for change and until then she erases all mentions of slavery
Lie 3: "she rejects all the reliable sources"
she in fact erased every RS on slavery and added none of her own.
I never said I wanted to suppress all mention. I don't claim control. I haven't rejected any source. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
What percentage is 2 clauses out of a 483 page book?[2] Less than one twentieth of one percent. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
the lie was her 10% claim. Rjensen (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to suppress all mention of slavery. I don't claim control of the article. I haven't rejected any source. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
You actually DID suppress all mention of slavery in the article whether you "wanted to" or not. You claimed control by erasing other editors work repeatedly on the excuse that you personally thought the topic was of too little importance. You erased major reliable sources over and over--and added zero of your own. Rjensen (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The article Cultural depictions of Anne, Queen of Great Britain is merely a stub, and so there is little reason for separating it from Anne, Queen of Great Britain. It would form a small section of the latter, and provide completeness on the subject. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. See Wiki: "In popular culture" content and Wiki: Manual of Style/Trivia sections#"In popular culture" and "Cultural references" material. there's nothing of value to merge from the Cultural depictions article, it's just a list of appearances and one sentence about how she's depicted 'as a fat, senile woman, dominated by Sarah Churchill', which is pretty much already covered in the Legacy section here: 'traditional assessments of Anne as fat, constantly pregnant, under the influence of favourites, and lacking political astuteness or interest ...'. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Wiki: "In popular culture" content: "Per Wikipedia's summary style guidelines, when "In popular culture" sections grow excessively long they are split into subarticles." Since it isn't excessively long, it shouldn't be split out. The legacy section says nothing of her depiction in popular culture. In fact, it doesn't even link to the cultural article. Essentially, this is a disservice to the reader. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't link? It's the first sentence. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: only three sentences from the depictions article are sourced, and they all merely detail appearances, without any historiographical commentary. So, we'd just be left with an incomplete list of 3 unrelated depictions, which is almost the definition of trivia: isolated, indiscriminate information. Such a section does not meet the featured article criteria, and as implied by Wiki: "In popular culture" content#Creating "In popular culture" articles, such sections are best split off from featured articles, so that the main article continues to meet criterion 4: staying at a reasonable length and focusing on the most essential aspects of its subject. DrKay (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose -- the urge to merge is often a mistake, and a disservice to our readers. It should not be our role to determine how our readers traverse the our representation of human knowledge. But that is precisely what happens when mergists succeed in shoehorning multiple distinct topics into one big article.

  The Queen, and cultural depictions of her, should be regarded as separate topics, because we are likely to have readers who are interested in one, and not the other. We are likely to have contributors who are interested in working on one, and not the other.

  How many articles do we have on UK sovereigns, and their close relations? Hundreds. Imagine if we merged every article related to the various dynasties of UK sovereigns into a single article... Could that article contain all the information in those hundreds of articles? Well, yes (...and no, see below). But it would be much more difficult to read. In particular, it would be much, much more difficult for readers to jump around, to selectively read just the information they wanted.

  In general, it is much easier for a reader to go to information they might be interested in reading by clicking on a wikilink. Once they arrive there, if they read a few sentences, or a few paragraphs, and decide they would prefer to go back, all they have to do is click their back button. But, when mergists succeed in shoehorning multiple topics into one article, then going to the other information requires scrolling, or using the search function. They can't return to where they were with a simple press of the back button. News flash, many experienced people already have something they are searching for, using the search function. Browsers only remember one search term at a time. Personally I resent having to abandon my current search term when mergists have succeeded in their shoehorning.

  Two further advantages of not merging? (1) With two separate articles readers and contributors can choose to add only the topic they are actually interested in to their watchlist. However, when mergists succeed in their shoehorning, the watchlist hits you with a lot of false positives -- changes to the omnibus article that concern the topic you aren't interested in. (2) Unnecessary merging erodes the value of the "what links here" feature. When the wikipedia's articles are small, and focuessed around one clearly defined topic, when we are searching for information, and haven't found it, we can click on the "what links here" button, examine the list of linked articles, and take a glimpse at the ones that might contain what we need. This is no longer possible when mergists succeed.

  Yes, merging has a place -- but only when two articles are actually about the same topic, not merely because they are related. Consider two readers, one of whom is a student doing an essay on the relatively few UK sovereigns who were women, and the other doing an essay on the subset of members of the UK Royal families who have been depicted in popular culture. Retaining the status quo of multiple articles is far better for them.

  The consideration of merging should be done while keeping in mind that we are supposed to honour both the spirit and letter of WP:Verify, WP:NPOV and WP:RS. It should not be the personal opinions of us wikipedia contributors as to which topics are important we should rely on, it is the opinions of RS. RS decided to depict Anne and her friends in movies, books, etc. Let's honour our policies, and not arbitrarily decide to ignore the opinions of those RS.

  Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

  P.S. Yes, I know some advocates of wikilinks to subsection headings might say my concern over the advantages of linking would claim that massive article to UK ruling dynasties could contain a massive number internal wikilinks, of the form UK ruling dynasties#depictions of Queen Anne in popular culture, UK ruling dynasties#depictions of Queen Victoria in popular culture, UK ruling dynasties#depictions of Queen Elizabeth I in popular culture, UK ruling dynasties#depictions of Queen Elizabeth II in popular culture. We make heavy use of wikilinks to subsections in the Wikipedia: namespace. So far we make very light use of this technique in article space. Most contributors don't know how to use such wikilinks, don't know the weaknesses of such wikilinks, don't know how to document that an internal subsection is the target of a wikilink. When a subsection heading is copy-edited, even merely to correct spelling, punctuation, or capitalization, it breaks. It breaks invisibly. Since "what links here" doesn't work for wikilinks to subsection headings, even a contributor who understands them, can't easily figure out how to fix one. And their use defeats any third party sites that use those links -- which is not true of regular wikilinks. Finally, watchlists can't understand wikilinks to subsection headings. Geo Swan (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

A pleasure to read and review this article for classroom use, in anticipation of the interest that The Favourite will engender. Very nicely done in most all aspects, many thanks to the regular contributing editors. Moreover, it seems significantly trustworthy, given the apparent thorough sourcing. (No checking done, hence the apparent.)

Would ask for the continued updating of the article, as much of the historical work cited is 15 years old, or older. And—should one wish a thankless WP task—perhaps, for sake of scholarship, one might ask that the article provide inline citations for all information drawn from the old Britannica article that appears in the bibliography. [Understood, this is an extraordinary request, as almost all cases where this public domain content is used in WP, it is used without inline citations, contrary to academic standards with regard to the lifting/plagiarism of content. But this article is on its way toward being extraordinary (better than a GA), so why not "pull out the stops"?] But again, brava, bravo, regular editors. 2601:246:CA80:3CB5:1DFE:9D32:88DD:352 (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

As a queen Anne had two female lovers. First Sarah Churchill, second Abigail Masham, born Hill. These women where called the queen her 'favorites' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.141.230 (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The following Wiki Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Coat of Arms of England (1702-1707).svg
• Coat of Arms of Great Britain (1707-1714).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)