Talk:Anne of Great Britain.html
 
| ca | de | en | es | fr | it | nl | no | pl | pt | ru | ro | fi | sv | tr | vo |


 

Featured article star Anne of Great Britain is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 21, 2005.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.

Contents

Death of her husband

This section seems to have some very loaded words involved. "The Whigs used the Prince's death to their own advantage, heartlessly using her weakness to disregard the Queen's wishes and form a predominantly Whig government, led by Lord Godolphin." (emphasis added) That seems a bit much. The rest of the section reads similarly, if not quite as biased. 69.111.57.75 (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I

Anne is not generally referred to as 'Anne I', given that there has yet to be an 'Anne II'. Wiki policy and general usage as a result requires that she simply be called 'Anne' not 'Anne I', as we don't use the 'I' for other monarchs worldwide who were there was never, or has yet to be, a 'II'. And as I mentioned, she is only ever referred to generally as 'Queen Anne' . JTD 21:02 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

Isn't this worth a mention or a link? 1702-1713 Queen Anne’s War, the second of the French and Indian wars, was fought mainly in New England. Never Mind, I put it in Sparky 12:50, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't know why Anne didn't become Queen on the death of Mary in 1694. Perhaps someone could add an explanatory note, please.

Because her Mary and her husband were co-monarchs. When Mary II died, William III continue to reign until his own death. 87.250.113.209 22:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem of making the "Early life" section clear to the reader

Statement of the problem

After drafting several attempts to make the "Early life" section clear, I conclude that it is very difficult to make the "succession problem" clear to the reader if elements of the "succession problem" are scattered throughout the recital of Anne's life.

Accordingly, in the following suggestion, I have pulled some essential elements of the "succession problem" into one paragraph. In framing the following suggestion, I did not intend to change any of the substantive details, though I may have inadvertently. I see that my editor dropped many of the links, which I did not intend.

The problem of succession pervaded throughout Anne's reign. Consequently, it cannot be, I believe, put into a single section. -- Emsworth 02:13, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

One suggestion for simplying the "Early life" section

Early life.

Anne was the second daughter of James, Duke of York (afterwards James II) and his first wife, the Lady Anne Hyde (daughter of Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon, an important politician). As an infant, Anne suffered from an eye infection; for treatment, she was sent to France. She lived with her grandmother, Queen Henrietta Maria, and afterwards with her aunt, Henrietta Anne, Duchesse d'Orléans. When Anne was eight in about 1673, Anne made the acquaintance of Sarah Jennings, who would become her close friend and one of her most influential advisors. Jennings later married John Churchill (the future Duke of Marlborough), who would later become one of Anne's most important generals.

In 1683, Anne married the Protestant Prince George of Denmark, brother of the Danish King Christian V. And her older sister Mary married one of the foremost Protestant Princes in Europe, William of Orange.

Anne took an unusual route to the throne of England. When Anne was born, her uncle Charles II was king. When Anne was three, her father converted from Protestantism to Catholicism. In response, her uncle the king ordered that she and her older sister Mary would not be brought up under her father's religion but would be brought up to worship as Protestants; nevertheless, her uncle converted to Catholicism on his death bed. Furthermore, her uncle died without an heir, so her Catholic father James II became king.

James, desirous of a Roman Catholic successor, suggested to the Princess Anne that he would try to make her his heir if she converted to Catholicism. The Princess Anne, however, declared her firm adherence to Anglicanism; James II continued to send her Catholic books and essays, but made no serious attempt to effect a conversion.

James's attempt to grant religious toleration to Roman Catholics was not well-received by the English people. Public alarm increased when James's second wife, Mary of Modena, gave birth to a son (James Francis Edward) in 1688, for a Roman Catholic dynasty became apparent. The Princess Anne's sister and brother-in-law, Mary and William, subsequently invaded England to dethrone the unpopular and despotic James II. The Princess Anne did not endeavour to support her father; instead, she quickly defected to the invader's side. James attempted to flee the realm on 11 December 1688, succeeding twelve days later. In 1689, a Convention Parliament assembled and declared that James had abdicated the realm when he attempted to flee, and that the Throne was therefore vacant. The Crown was offered to, and accepted by, William and Mary, who ruled as joint monarchs. The Bill of Rights 1689 settled succession to the Throne; the Princess Anne and her descendants were to be in the line of succession after William and Mary. They were to be followed by any descendants of William by a future marriage.

For some reason some of the dates had been messed about with, with James converting in 1773, the Convention deposing him being in 1089 and the Bill or Rights moving to 2089. Silly. All fixed now. Darkmind1970 15:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

===NPOV Problem===========

It seems to me that in the second paragraph the phrase "various coercive tactics (such as crippling the Scottish economy by restricting trade) " is eniterly subjective and unnecessary. It should be dealt with elsewhere conforming to proper NPOV standards, which this does not. 195.10.45.201 12:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The Princess Anne

Isn't the use of the phrase "the Princess Anne" (as well as "the Prince George") archaically stilted in modern English? I was under the impression that such address was used more for formal introductions, like announcing "The Princess Anne and her consort, the Prince George", at a ball, not for encyclopedic prose. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would add that such styles were very likely not known in Queen Anne's own time. It is an affectation of the late 19th century, I would say. john k 01:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've removed all the "the"s from "the Princess Anne" and "the Prince George". The text could still use some trimming; as long as "Anne" by itself is unambiguous and acceptable in an encyclopedic article, it should probably be used more often, especially when the phrase "Princess Anne" occurs more than once in a sentence. But at least it's a little less stilted now. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


The Arguement

Why change the words when surely the intelligent viewers of this website should be able to work it out them selves without somebody else editing for them. Is this website for the intelligent or for the fools of man kind? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charlybrown12 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

The Statute of Anne

I can't believe this article doesn't mention the 1705 Statute of Anne, one of the most significant laws ever passed. I may try to add something about it. Lawrence Lessig's book Free Culture has some history about it as does Eben Moglen's amicus brief for the plaintiff in Eldred v. Ashcroft.

Surname

I'm just curious why she hadn't surname? Thanks. 195.150.224.238 00:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

  • As a daughter of James VII/II she was a member of the House of Stuart, with Stuart being their surname. Usually royal/noble woman do not become members of their husbands houses, so it would not have changed with her marriage. Of course, if I am mistaken, please feel free to correct me :) Prsgoddess187 00:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC) PS, I always thought it was funny that it never mentions a middle name for her...
She didn't have a middle name - few people did in the 17th century. The prevalence of middle names among the upper classes in Britain really doesn't show up until the 19th century. john k 04:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of Lesbianism

Considering the large number of allegations of Anne being a lesbian mentioned in the article shouldn't her article be counted in the LGBT category of the wiki? Or at least a list of men and women who were suspected LGBT? The Fading Light 11:09 ,20 March 2006

The latter would be appropriate, I think. But not the former, given that there's no clear evidence. john k 18:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Let us please avoid such unpleasant straw-graspings... IP Address 08:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Straw-grasping perhaps, but nothing unpleasant about it. From QUEERS IN HISTORY, copyright 1992 by Keith Stern: "Anne's confidante, Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough, presumably stood by to hold the Queen's hand during her times of tragedy. Correspondence between the Duchess and the Queen reveal the two women enjoyed a royally passionate romance. They called each other pet names, Sarah being "Mrs Freeman" and Anne "Mrs Morley." When Anne came to the throne in 1702, she named Sarah "lady of the bedchamber." Anne and Sarah were virtually inseparable: no king's mistress had ever wielded the power granted to the duchess, but Sarah became too confident in her position. She developed an arrogant attitude toward Anne, and insulted the Queen in public. A cousin of Sarah's, Abigail Hill, had caught the Queen's eye during Sarah's frequent absences from Court, and Sarah was never again to be the Queen's closest confidant." Used with permission. By all means verify or dispute.

More on the subject here: http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/anne_queen.html

PROBLEM with title

How can we call her "Anne of Great Britain" (a title I have never heard used) when the article on Great Britain describes the use of the term for the sovereign state as in error? --BozMo talk 09:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Great Britain is incorrect for the sovereign state that exists now, which is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. However that state has only existed in that name since 1927, it's predessor (UK of GB and Ireland) only existed from 1801-1927. Anne was Queen of the Kingdom of Great Britain from it's creation in 1707. She was also (independently) Queen of Ireland and, prior to the creation of the new Kingdom, had been Queen of England and Queen of Scotland. Anne of Great Britain, refering to her largest and most important kingdom, is the correct title. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 11:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

James the Catholic

There was no ambiguity about the revelation of James' Catholicism. It became public knowledge in 1673, when he resigned as Lord High Admiral, unable to take the oath prescribed by the new Test Act. Rcpaterson 01:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation Needed?

Have we any evidence for the suggestion that the Scottish Parliament's seeking of a union with England were "opposed by an overwhelming majority of the Scottish People"? Now, I'm not trying to suggest that we don't leave this in if it's true, but if there is no evidence to corroborate, it would be biased to do so. If it is true the use of "overwhelming" is certainly somewhat loaded. Dan 22:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ancestor's infobox

I am considering adding an ancestors' infobox containing Anne's parents, grandparents and great-grandparents. Maybe we could merge this infobox in a section with the issue infobox called 'Ancestry and Descent'. Any thoughts?--Cosmos666 20:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I like the idea of 3-generation infoboxes for all royals and nobles. Such folks are noted mainly because of the privileges they inherited. Adamgarrigus 03:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
We should mention somewhere that through Diana, Princess of Wales, Prince William upon succeeding to the throne will be the first monarch since Queen Anne, to be descended from Charles I and the House of Stewart. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.77.191.197 (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

good article

Good article - well done folks 193.51.149.216 15:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

References/Citations

This article has about six citations. How is it a FA? --Daysleeper47 20:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The lack of inline citations is the lone comment regarding the rating. --Adavidb 06:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I have a couple of books at home about her, so I'll try to add some cites tonight or maybe this weekend. Does anyone else have access to reference materials? The article is otherwise excellent, and we shouldn't let it lose FA status if we can avoid it. Coemgenus 14:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Dubious passage

. . .soon, due to Marlborough's influence, almost all the Tories were removed from the ministry. Lord Godolphin, although a Tory, allied himself with Marlborough to ensure his continuance in office. Although Lord Godolphin was the nominal head of the ministry, actual power was held by the Duke of Marlborough and by the two Secretaries of State (Charles Spencer, 3rd Earl of Sunderland and Robert Harley). One may observe that Lord Godolphin's son married the Duke of Marlborough's daughter, and that Lord Sunderland was the Duke of Marlborough's son-in-law. Several others benefited from Marlborough's nepotism.

Why does it say Lord Godolphin, although a Tory, allied himself with Marlborough? Marlborough was a Tory! Godolphin wasn't just the 'nominal' (ie: existing in name only), head of the ministry - he was the Lord Treasurer and the Queen's chief minister. The appointment of Sunderland was nothing to do with Marlborough - it was a demand by the Whig Junto which Godolphin and Marlborough were forced to support in order to keep the Whigs 'on-side' with regards to the war effort. Far from nepotism. Raymond Palmer 16:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Response to the Act of Settlement

I've dropped the unsourced paragraph. I don't think it adds all that much to the discussion of the 1701 Act of Settlement, and have been unable to find sourcing for it. If someone knows where there might be a source to back it up, then by all means rvert. Mocko13 14:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Death and succession

Pursuant to the Act of Settlement 1701, it is alleged, but never proven that about fifty Roman Catholics with genealogically senior claims were disregarded.
During a fierce bout of insomnia, I managed to get Wikipedic confirmation of 46 people with superior claims in addition to the Old Pretender. Nine were descended from Henrietta Anne (Charles I's youngest daughter), nine from Charles I Louis, Elector Palatine and 28 from Edward, Count Palatine of Simmern (these two were sons of the Winter Queen). Hence, I advocate the removal of the words "it is alleged, but never proven that", once these have been confirmed by another user. Adamgarrigus 03:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. There was never any doubt at the time that there were Catholics with superior claims -- otherwise, there would have been no need to exclude them. You should definitel=y removed that "alleged" line. Coemgenus 16:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I reworded that sentence before I saw this. The number of possible claimants is speculation since the various decisions of English and Scottish Parliaments after the Glorious Revolution make it impossible to say who would be a "rightful" claimant, so I think just mentioning that any Catholic claimants were ignored is enough here. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise though. Yomanganitalk 01:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think the Bill of Rights of 1689 and the Act of Settlement delineated the succession quite clearly, so thereafter those Catholics were not really "rightful" claimants. But any time that the succession is perceived as having been subverted, it becomes susceptible to force of arms. I enjoyed reading that there were so many skipped over, but perhaps that factlet belongs in the "Act of Settlement" article. Adamgarrigus 20:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Anne & George I were 2nd cousins, not 1st cousins once removed.

Since Anne and George I share the same great grandfather in James I they are second cousins not first cousins once removed. George I’s mother Sophia and Anne’s father James II were first cousins since they share the same grandfather in James I. That would make Sophia and Anne first cousins once removed. I have changed the article accordingly. Dwp13 16:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

a -> the?

"In 1708, Anne became the last British Sovereign to withhold the Royal Assent from a bill (in this case, a Scots militia bill)."

perhaps this should read, "... in this case, the Scots militia bill)."?

Bayle Shanks 08:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

When did Anne become Queen of Great Britain?

A dispute at List of English monarchs relates to this. When did Anne become Queen of Great Britain and Ireland? Was it 1702 or 1707?. GoodDay 23:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:QuAn Arms.png

Image:QuAn Arms.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added a fair use rationale for this article's usage to the image's description page. Others are welcome to improve upon it. —Adavidb 13:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

First British monarch Anne OR James I

Though I agree it's Anne, it may contradict the proposed changes for List of English monarchs, I need clarification - which is more authoritive - the Union of crown in 1603 OR the Act of Union in 1707? GoodDay 01:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Anne of Green Gables - uh Great Britain

Perhaps this has been debated before, but is the title of this article a bit strange - especially for readers familiar with the subject? Britain has only had one sovereign Anne hence the emphasis on Queen Anne in references. Had she been Anne XIV, Queen would have been redundant in normal references. If we Google every reference - except WP - is to Queen Anne. Why should WP usage be different from every other publication?

No doubt there are other Queen Annes - Queen Anne of Bohemia for a start - so specifying Great Britain is reasonable, however surely Queen Anne of Great Britain would be clearer than Anne of Great Britain? It sounds like a soap opera or a film or something. Thank you for reading this. -- Kleinzach (talk) 07:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Heir presumptive/apparent

Some might even consider that she wasn't heir presumptive because William and Mary were co-heirs of each other. But that's another story. DrKiernan (talk) 12:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Successoin Boxes

The succession box title British royalty should be changed to English, Scottish and Irish royalty. Anne was never 'heir-presumptive' to the British throne. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And Sophia was never heiress-presumptive to the Scottish throne; see Act of Security 1704 Opera hat (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Issue and misscariges

Where are the refereces to the exact dates of birth and death of the children ? I have no ressources of my own, so I ask here. --AndreaMimi (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This is quite a good source I have found, Directory of Royal Genealogical Data. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Style 1683-1702

The article presently says she was styled "HRH Princess George of Denmark and Norway" 1683-1689 and "HRH The Duchess of Cumberland" 1689-1702. Though this is how she would be styled these days, what contemporary evidence is there that she was so called at the time? Everything I've read refers to her as "Princess Anne of Denmark" before her accession. Opera hat (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

William & Mary

I don't think the sentence in the lead ("the only such case in British history") is correct. The joint reign of Mary I and Philip II of Spain may not have been exactly equivalent to that of William III and Mary II, but it did happen - the William III article describes it as a "precedent for a joint monarchy". IMO, the factual accuracy of this article would be improved if the words were deleted. Tevildo (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
All Right Reserved © 2007, Designed by Stylish Blog.