I found the article on Isabel de Bolebec, countess of Oxford, suddenly changed by your hand to Isabel de Vere, countess of Oxford, with the explanation that "naming practices" mandate "married names" for women and peeresses. I'm not sure what "naming practices" are being cited, but if you mean the naming practices of the 12th and 13th centuries, you're far off. Surnames weren't that universal in England then for either sex, nor was there a standard practice for wives to take their husband's surname if he had one. If a woman was an heiress (as Isabel was) or if she was of higher status than her husband (which is debatable in the case of her second marriage, but marrying the third son of an earl whose elder brothers were alive and who was younger than she was might be considered a step down), she often did not "take" her husband's surname. Contemporary documents call her Countess Isabel or Isabel de Bolebec, countess of Oxford, never Isabel de Vere, and I suspect that was her preference. She outlived him by over twenty years.
So the naming practice to which you refer must be modern/Wikipedian. Some modern westerners might expect to find her under the de Veres, perhaps, but they seldom would. I've researched her and the Veres for over 25 years, and I've rarely found her indexed with that surname. The few times I have seen that, the index refers the reader to the Bolebecs or countess of Oxford.
That naming practice to which you refer ignores the reality of multiple naming practices in medieval England and what names women themselves may have chosen. And what does one do with women who married several peers? It also ignores the multiplicity of modern naming practices. Are we now going to change the title of Barbara Streisand's Wikipedia page to Barbara Brolin? I vote no--and suggest that you change Isabel de Vere back to Isabel de Bolebec as I suspect she would have wanted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dearagon (talk • contribs) 06:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
On the subject of naming practices, I noticed the discussion in which you took part on Srnec's talk page. I have added a comment to it: I am mentioning it in case you would care to read it. Perhaps you are watching the page, but I see no harm in letting you know. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for that. You're not a very nice person are you? Chloe2kaii7 (talk) Well frankly, it's only an article on the Internet you don't need to get so worked up about it we have much greater problems than this. It is your opinion my edits aren't constructive. You can't just tell me something that is opinion and make me share that opinion. I believe my edits are constructive I've added pictures, sections and lots of information. If you have never been so insulted in your life at me saying I do not think it is very nice people going behind my back and saying "Oh no this editor hasn't made very good edits in my opinion to an article and now they have started editing another article so their edits in my opinion will not be very good on this article!", then obviously you don't have a proper understanding of what the word insulting means. Frankly, I think you are also being rude. But I don't really care because you are just a person on the Internet and I don't know you. I do not need to justify my edits to you. You may say I do but, anyone can edit this it is a matter of opinion whether edits are good or bad ones. I have not ignored you I am simply saying that I disagree and think you are making the edit less informative and more dull and boring if you remove extra information. Call all the people you want to help you. At the end of the day it's an article on the Internet. None of them are very spectacular in my opinion I was simply trying to make on better and more informative. If it isn't insulting in English but it is in another language then it probably isn't a very good translation service. All I was saying was that I didn't think an editor was being very nice, the fact that you have said I am "rude" "destructive" " not constructive" that I don’t understand the meaning of the word encyclopaedia, is much more insulting and rude than what I said. I apologise for daring to edit an article and trying to make it better. Chloe2kaii7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC).
A Request for comment/User conduct has been initated here regarding User:Roux (formerly User:PrinceOfCanada). As someone wish past interactions with this user, you are invited to comment. --G2bambino (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
As you are aware we seem to have a difference of opinion about the title of Empress Matilda/Matilda of England. I have started a discussion on the articles talk page and thought you may wish to contribute! Regards. The Quill (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Infobox Royalty redirects to the UK one I doubt anyone is really concerned that as a result it uses the same colour. All the templates are practically identical the only difference being the colour used for the name parameter. If you want to use the Infobox Royalty redirect to create yet another identical template with a different bit of colour go ahead seems utterly pointless to me though. - dwc lr (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Would you please stop changing Matilda of England's infobox to German Royalty. Infobox German Royalty is used for monarchs who hold German nationality (or are German at least, nationailty perhaps not the correct term). Infobox British Royalty is used for people who are Royalty and English and British. Whether or not we can ever agree on whether she was a monarch or not (altohugh it would be nice for you to actually reply to my comments on the talk page) she still needs to have British Royalty. The Quill (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I have started a discussion here. Kauffner (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Surtsicna, you seem to be making a lot of page moves, but I am not sure that there is consensus that the moves are appropriate. Could you please follow the procedures at Wikipedia:Requested moves? You don't need to file a formal request for each one, but you need at least to bring up a move at the talkpage of an article, and give other editors a chance to respond. If no one objects after a few days, then you can proceed with the move. If there is an objection, that engage in discussion, per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, to try and find a compromise/consensus on how the article should be handled. Thanks, --Elonka 19:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Done, however begrudgingly. :) DBD 22:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the "royal house" parameter will need to be changed to "house" as otherwise it doesn't show up on the infobox. - dwc lr (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I’ll have a go at fixing the house parameter when I have the time. - dwc lr (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any consensus for the infobox redirects and page edits you're doing? It's a pretty wide-ranging change, and it potentially affects a lot of things - it should at least have some discussion. Orpheus (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Surtsicna, when you start filling in edit summaries you can perhaps legitimately complain about unexplained reverts to your unexplained edits. But unexplained changes to stable templates strikes me as even worse. Main issue of contention is your changes to the spellings of the names, which only stabilized after negotiation, and your insertion of spurious dynasty links. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Surtsicna,
What is being done to modify the "royal house" component to "house" in the thousands of royal infobox templates? --Caponer (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've just joined Wikipedia,and I was looking at the Catherine of Aragon article and saw it was in a bit of a need of a tidy up, there is also some info. I think could be added, so I will be doing this throughout the next few days. I was looking through the Edit History seen as you've edited the article quite a lot, I thought I'd send you this message just to tell you. Hope you don't mind, forgive me if you though this message was a bit pointless :-) GranadasPomegranate (talk)
Yes, I don't like too many images either, but there is a couple of images of stained glass windows of her that i am very tempted to put in, they are both relly beautiful, at least on of them is quite inportant and put there for a specific reason so I will most likely add the other in, the other one isnt really importrant but it is a lovely image of catherine - and it shows her as a young woman which is quite rare, most of her poirtraits are of her as an older woman, but I will be deleting and replacing a couple of images, so we shall just see. Good Day!GranadasPomegranate (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC).
Oh, no problem, thanks for telling me I wasn't awar of that, won't happen in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GranadasPomegranate (talk • contribs) 14:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Surtsicna, FYI reverted your move for Pavel Ignatiev before seeing your other article moves concerning Russian nobility. Regarding these moves, can you please cite what part of naming convention you're using to support the new titles?
I am not aware of any past example of using an aristocratic title which precedes the personal name in the article's title, e.g. "Duke So-and-so", "Earl Such-and-such", "Count Somebody".
Examples demonstrating a lack of aristocratic title include Victoria of the United Kingdom, Isaac Newton, and Pierre-Simon Laplace. I also can't find any examples of the title preceding the name amongst Russian nobility that were not recently created by you. Thanks, --Saforrest (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I see you been removing the Royalty infobox from some articles saying there nobility not royalty ok fair enough the Albert Windsor etc is not royal but some of the Landgraves, Margraves, Electors, Dukes of Messien, Thurgia, Saxony they are royalty. -dwc lr (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
You are saying sovereign monarchs are not royalty because that's what those Dukes etc are. - dwc lr (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
They belong to royal houses in the case of the Saxon monarchs the House of Wettin. Royal family "A royal family is the extended family of a monarch." - dwc lr (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
So you are saying the Grand Dukes of Mecklenburg, Hesse, Dukes of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Anhalt are not royalty. I'm sorry but I don't think many people will take that view. - dwc lr (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
It differs from country in the UK the Duke are generally not royalty. In Germany they are more likely to be royalty they have royal titles and styles be it Duke of Mecklenburg, Prince of Lippe it is quite clear who is royalty and who isn't. So Charles Michael, Duke of Mecklenburg is royalty because he has the style HRH while his cousins who have the style HH are merely nobility I don't think so. - dwc lr (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Albert II, Prince of Monaco, royalty or nobility. - dwc lr (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I had already seen this discussion before it was mentioned on my talk-page. I did not enter into the fray since I was not certain as to what to say. Clearly the word "royalty" is used (rightly or wrongly) for numerous princes who come from a house without a king as head. Whether or not certain princes are royalty, is there anything wrong with the Nobility Infobox for them? It seems to have the necessary fields. Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Apologies, the vandalism must have been an edit near yours! Shamrox (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Surtsicna: Please go to Marie Antoinette's discussion page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marie_Antoinette) where I left a msg to your attention. Frania W. (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
P.S. When you have time, go to MA's discussion page where I put links to pictures of her & others for you to check. Frania W. (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Please avoid edit warring, in particular at Lady Gabriella Windsor William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed your edit at Louise Elisabeth of Orléans: d'Orléans is a surname and should not be translated to *of Orléans* as it is after title Duke of Orléans. The statement is very confusing and a bit contradictory, as you claim that "of Orléans" is wrong because it is derived from the title of "Duke of Orléans". Furthermore, we always translate the surname de France to of France. Is there something different between of France and of Orléans? Thank you :) Surtsicna (talk) 10:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
First of all: this is not a discussion. You obviously know much more about this issue, so I'm just asking because I want to understand this clearly :) I am not claiming that French and Spanish royalty don't have surname (and I've never claimed so). I do realise that Louise Elisabeth's surname was d'Orléans, but I also realise that whoever named the article Louise Elisabeth of Orléans regarded of Orléans as territorial designation. "Louise Elisabeth of Orléans" doesn't imply that her surname was of Orléans. Again, it's just like Princess Beatrice of York using her father's territorial designation - it doesn't mean that her surname is of York. Am I right? Surtsicna (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
In his comment of 2 February, FactStraight directed us to lawsuit and I am wondering if anyone taking part in this discussion read it. It really holds the key to the argument. Although it is going to put extra length to the discussion, I am adding the Attendu of the French court. No explanation could do it be better. Please note that in this case d'X stands for d'Orléans and d'Y for de Bourbon. Last Attendu highlighted by me, as it cannot be made any clearer that it is since Gaston, Louis XIII's second son, that d'Orléans has become the surname for himself & the Orléans branch of the French royal family.
Sur le moyen unique, pris en ses deux branches :
Attendu que, M. Henri d'X... reproche à l'arrêt confirmatif attaqué (Paris, 1er février 2001) d'avoir rejeté sa requête en rectification d'état civil à fin de rétablir son nom d'origine de Y... et se nommer à l'avenir Henri de Y..., alors, selon le moyen :
1 / qu'en lui déniant le droit de se faire enregistrer sous le nom "de Y...", aux motifs que ses ascendants n'auraient pas fait usage de ce nom, et auraient porté pendant trois siècles et demi le nom "d'X...", tiré d'un titre ducal, ce qui ne permettait pas de caractériser leur renonciation à se prévaloir de leur rattachement aux Y..., et à posséder ainsi, en sus du nom "d'X...", le nom dynastique "de Y...", la cour d'appel a privé sa décision de base légale au regard des articles 99 du Code civil et 1er de la loi du 6 fructidor an II ; 2 / qu'en affirmant que sa demande tendant à recouvrer le nom ancestral "de Y..." n'aurait présenté aucun intérêt légitime, au prétexte qu'il se serait agi d'une "querelle dynastique" dont l'issue "ne peut trouver une solution de nature judiciaire", la cour d'appel a méconnu l'étendue de ses pouvoirs et violé les articles 99 du Code civil et 1er de la loi du 6 fructidor an II ;
Mais attendu que si la possession loyale et prolongée d'un nom ne fait pas obstacle en principe à ce que celui qui le porte, renonçant à s'en prévaloir, revendique le nom de ses ancêtres, il appartient alors au juge, en considération, notamment, de la durée respective et de l'ancienneté des possessions invoquées, ainsi que des circonstances dans lesquelles elles se sont succédé, d'apprécier s'il y a lieu d'accueillir cette revendication ;
Attendu qu'en l'espèce, par motifs adoptés, la cour d'appel a souverainement estimé que c'était volontairement que le nom d'X... avait été substitué à celui de Y... par le fils cadet de Louis XIII et tous ses descendants qui avaient ainsi abandonné le nom de Y... et que cette volonté de porter le nom d'X... avait été confirmée par le roi Louis-Philippe lors de son accession au trône ; que, par des seuls motifs, elle a légalement justifié sa décision ;
In my eyes, it is extraordinary that the legal system of the French Republic (which has gone thru several revolutions!) takes into consideration, in the 21st century, decisions taken by Louis XIII's second son (or more likely by Louis XIV as every decision had to go thru him) in the 17th century, and confirmed by France's last king, Louis-Philippe, in the first half of the 19th century. This makes it difficult to understand arguments brought forward by en:Wikipedians who should be willing to cross the English Channel or the Atlantic Ocean into France in order to understand the French system. Frania W. (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Certain changes you made in the article of Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia should first be discussed in the talk page. Pevernagie (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree reign is not a good term what do you think we could use? - dwc lr (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Pretending to be head of a royal house. If you are talking about a throne then that could be used. - dwc lr (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I have a question, you seem intelligant so I hope you can help me answer it. Would Catherine of Aragon held the title of Infanta of Castile and Aragon in her own right? I think so, but I would like to know for definate, thanks!GranadasPomegranate (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
No, you shouldn't blush! You are intelligant, I value your view. I recently got a new book of the six wives, and there is some very interesting information in it, also it will help me add in some citation for the article, as I feel it is lacking it in some things and in other it would just make sense to put some in. Thank you for you help, yes I had my doubts that it was in her own right as she got the title as the daughter of monarchs, but as it wasn't gotten by her being a consort I wasn't sure, anyway, thank you very much for getting back to me so quickly! Also how are you?GranadasPomegranate (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Alison Weir, she goes in to amazing deatil of events, a lot of the book is about Catherine, also she is the only biography of the wives I have seen to include a full copy of Catherine's speech at the Legatine Court, ah it's snowing here GranadasPomegranate (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think Fraser and Weir give fair accounts of her life, and don't try and romantize it, Weir herself states that there was no passion between between them just deep love and affection, I think she just gives a detailed account of her life, and lots of interesting info.(for instance did you know Catheirne of Aragon introcued slad into England, although unlike today it was served ot) Also she gives excellent referances and sources in the biblography telling the reader each referance from every chapter. Yeah it's been good, it doesn't snow much here either because I live on the coast, in fact it doesn't snow much in Britain at all.GranadasPomegranate (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
While you may not perceive a POV in listing Elizabeth II as "of the United Kingdom" in the articles where you've changed the long-standing pipe, I do. As "queen of the UK" is not how she's most widely known, and how she is commonly known does not accurately reflect the facts, that argument is a non-starter. Issues with the title of the article Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom have been raised at the talk page there time and time again, and it has been roundly admitted that there does exist an inherent, though apparently necessary, POV in the "of the United Kingdom" elaboration. I don't see why that POV needs to be spread farther than necessary throughout Wikipedia, nor why it is necessary to allow it in the infoboxes you've altered. --Miesianiacal (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
PS- I've checked through your edit history and can't see where you discussed changes to the Prince Philip and Prince Charles infoboxes. Could you point me to where this discussion took place? --Miesianiacal (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Why did you undid my edit?The number of the form of Ancestors of Augustus III of Poland in this page is two(see in Augustus III of Poland#Ancestors of Augustus III of Poland).But this page only needs one.So I deleted one.——TBG (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I didn't mind that you took off Sigismund of Luxembourg since the period between his marriage to Queen Mary I and the time he was crowned King of Hungary was very short. But why did you take Francis, the husband of Maria Theresa, off? She ruled over all the Habsburg land in her own right with the exception of the Holy Roman Empire where she was the Empress consort. And Francis was never King of Hungary, he was merely the Maria Theresa's consort. The Queens of Bohemia article includes Francis as a consort. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
User:GranadasPomegranate (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=)
Smile at others by adding ((subst:Smile)) to their talk page with a friendly message.
What is the difference? Does legitimacy come into it? Kittybrewster ☎ 13:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello Surtsicna, I've seen that you have removed the monarchical ordinals from the names of the spanish monarchs Louis I and Amadeo I. The fact that there aren't never been a Louis II and an Amedeo II don't is important. In Spain (as in Belgium) all the kings have a monarchical ordinal, the actual king is in fact named Juan Carlos I. Please move Louis I and Amadeo I on their real names. Thanks for your attention and sorry for my intermediate level of English. Felipe--83.103.40.172 (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion about Template:User Republika Srpska at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Template:User_Republika_Srpska. The notice wouldn't be seen on your user page so I wanted to notify you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent query. I have responded on my talk page. FactStraight (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Surtsicna. I replied on my talk page, but forgot to drop you a note here saying so. So here I am :) Parsecboy (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour/Bonsoir Surtsicna! My reason for putting Marie Antoinette's father before her mother is because generally that is what's done with people: father's name then mother's name. In other words, it is not a matter of preference on my part. Her mother may have been more notable at time of her education, but at time of Marie Antoinette's conception & birth, her father had as much an important role as her mother; it's with that spirit that I put him before Marie-Theresa in the first sentence. Besides, her mother's influence is described in the article. All this being said, I shall not fight you on this, as I see that the change I brought can be interpreted to reflect my personal opinion. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't really understand this addition to Elizabeth I and Anne Boleyn. Could you have another look and make it clear what is meant? Also, the expression "some scholars suggest/believe" is one we tried to avoid on Elizabeth I, and it might be better either to name Alice Hunt in the text or just to cite several scholars for the point. qp10qp (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Surtsicna. In article Dorothy Garai you wrote: She was the daughter of powerful Hungarian nobleman, János Garai, who governed Croatia as ban, and a descendant of a notable Hungarian noble family of Garai....., and in article about Jelena Nelipčić I wrote: Jelena was the sister of Prince Ivan III Nelipac from powerful Croatian noble family....You undo me with reason: ("Croatian Duchess of Split" is redundant, as Split is and was in Croatia; "wife of Croatian noble Prince" should not be in the article according to Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words; other edits are OK). Why? What are my weasel words? Regards.--Kebeta (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll take a look at it later today or tomorrow. Kirill [talk] [pf] 15:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you have an IBSN, or any other way to identify your sources ? The article merely states their names. Kind Regards, (Jack1755 (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC))
Hi Surtsicna, I have been looking at alot of your work and I am impressed. I while back I created an article on Beatrice of Bourbon, second wife of John of Bohemia. I think it should be expanded, I was wondering if you knew anything about her. Thanks--Daaviiid (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't understand why the two Elisabeths weren't the proper monarch. Was there a law like in France, to stop a women from inheriting the crown? You may also be interesed to known that there is an earlier consort, Świętosława I of Bohemia who had the title of a monarch and she wasn't even a daughter of a Bohemian, though she was married to a King of Bohemia, I can't remember his name! Thanks again!--Daaviiid (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 8#Template:British monarchs.
Jumpers, it's gonna take me awhile to fix up that template. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd accept seperate English, Scottish & Pictish monarch Templates. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Mate, if you've done with your cleansing of fields, would you mind terribly updating the documentation? Cheers DBD 21:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
You're right, but people more easily find articles, when their titles have names of this people, not their husbands.
Lea Wolman is easier to find than Princess Alexander. Johnello (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Johnello (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I will no longer be editing the Coronation article, due to User:Miesianiacal slowly becoming involved. He causes me far too much stress. I wish you the best of luck in getting it to A or FA status. → ROUX ₪ 04:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Surtsicna, a few days ago, I create a page on Agnes of Palatinate. She did inherit soe titles in her time. I discussed it with Jeanne but we bother cannot understand it and Jeanne suggested I ask you. Agnes became Countess of Palatinate on the death of her elder sister. Her sister did marry and have children, her eldest few children were sons who lived to adulthood. But on her sister's death, Agnes inherited Palatinate instead of her nephews.
This isn't the only riddle of Agnes. One category on her father's page is "heirs to the british and english throne". Agnes' great-grandparents were Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine, through their daughter Matilda. Agnes was the youngest of the three children, her brother died in her late teens. I was wondering if Agnes could have become queen of England if the plantagents died out. If Agnes had become queen: England, Palatinate and Bavaria (her husband's duchy) could have been ruled under one monarch and it still could have been that way today. I was wondering if you could shed some light on these mysteries. Cheers--David (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if you would help me out creating articles for some of the some of the Duchessess of Bavaria? When I created the list with Elizabeth II's little spy, there was many red links so i thought you could help ouy. I've asked Jeanne as well. Thank You--David (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry. I will have to keep all the names though otherwise the list will be wrong--David (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh sorry--David (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your help on Anna II, Abbess of Quedlinburg. I'm glad you added her birth and death dates.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Surtsicna, with regard to your reversion of the Royal Family infobox, I was just wondering what criteria is being used to determine royal status. I notice that Zara Phillips does have an infobox and I thought it would make sense for them to be consistent. I'm not sure if undertaking royal duties (which he does not do) is a solid definition for the status. Prince Michael of Kent generally doesn't undertake royal duties either, but he has the infobox. I am aware of the Letters patent issued in 1917 re: titles, but is that document sufficient to determine membership in the royal family? Peter is the Queen's grandson. Admittedly, this is through a female line, but that cannot really be justification for exclusion from the royal family. It doesn't appear to be in Zara's case. (This raises questions for the Viscount Linley article as well.) I agree that he is more accurately part of the "extended" royal family, but surely if the Duke of Gloucester (who is 8 places behind him in the order of succession) is a member, Peter is too. Should Zara's infobox be removed? (Doing so might send a confusing signal with regard to the section on the royal duties she undertakes.) Anyway, I was just curious as it does appear to be inconsistent. Cheers. A1 Aardvark (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
alot of archduchesses to change then =\ Tbharding (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Surtsicna, well done with your pages on the abbessess, they are looking great! They didn't really live too much of a quiet life as you'd expect, did they?--David (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey; I was uploading Coronation to check out your latest changes when I noticed that our new lead photo of Charles VII's coronation wasn't uploading (all of the other pictures did, so I knew it wasn't a problem with the pictures in general, as sometimes happens on Wikipedia!). I had seen it earlier today on the article, so I was wondering: is it my computer, or is there a problem with the photo? I tried refreshing, even closing the window and opening a new one. No change. Just thought I'd check. Have a good one! - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that data had a single source -- as best as I can recall, it may have derived from a variety of Britannica articles and possibly some Catholic Encyclopedia articles as well. The dates may not be 100% reliable (I've often noticed varying dates, sometimes by one or two days, sometimes by as much as two weeks, from different sources for this period).
Good luck with the Empresses! I looked long and hard for information about Empresses' coronations for the article List_of_Holy_Roman_Empresses_and_German_queens and didn't find anything. Due to the nature of the office, coronations of Empresses may have been atypical. RandomCritic (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I made a few changes to your Coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor article: a new opening sentence, subheaders for the main section, and a few stylistic changes. As I wrote in the discussion section of that article, please feel free to revert any or all of them if you wish; I have no wish to "hijack" your article!
I also reduced the length of the "Holy Roman Empire" section in the Coronation article as you requested; I wanted to leave enough info in that portion to cover the subject, while not simply making it a "repeat" of the main article. I also inserted a link to that article, and removed the picture of Charlemagne's coronation. That last part might meet with some opposition on your part; if so, no problem, just reinsert it. I only removed it so that the reduced article wouldn't be left with a big "empty space" that just plain looks bad in articles (at least to me!). The length fits the perameters of the Henry VII coronation picture, but like I said, if you want Charlemagne back too, just reinsert him if you like. - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I noticed that you removed titles from several infoboxos, [1], [2] which is OK, but unfortunately you have also damaged the references. I fixed them, (I hope all of them) but please, be more careful next time. Thank you. Cheers,--B@xter9 14:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Surtsicna! I was wondering if you were interested in creating a page on Elizabeth of Kujavia, mother of Elizabeth of Bosnia. I've asked you because I see you have edited Elizabeth of Bosnia alot. I would create it myself, but there is no articles about her on other wikipedia's, like polish or german to translate from. Thank You--David (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh well, thank you. It's not as if she raised Elizabeth of Bosnia because Elisabeth of Poland claimed custardy of her. Though Elizabeth may have looked after her daughter before Elisabeth of Poland got her. Was Katharina of Bosnia a daughter of Elizabeth? She was an ancestor of Barbara of Celje. Cheers--David (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I am english, although I am from Liverpool, North West England. We don't speak proper formal english there, we like to twist the words a bit. Sorry if it's annoying I do try my best to use formal english. I juggle it with learning french and spanish. I would love to go to the czech republic, and to Prague Castle. Cheers--David (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll create a basic page for Elizabeth, we could add to it as we go along and I'll tell Jeanne. If you don't mind me asking, do you live in England?--David (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
That problem can be solved, I could check the medieval lands website and another one I know of.--David (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Here, [[3]] Elisabeth's date of birth is unknown by this website but her year of death is. This website doesn't always give the correct number of children so we cannot completely rule Katharina out of being and daughter of Elisabeth. I'll check medieval lands--David (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Medieval lands says these are her dates of birth and death ([1315/20]-after 22 Aug 1345). She would have been thirty- twenty five when she died. Elisabeth of Poland, Kunigunde of Poland and Casimir III the Great were her second cousins, so she was linked to known polish royals.then. A while back I created an article of their mother, Jadwiga of Greater Poland, she would have been a distant cousin of Elizabeth. Jadwiga lived a very notable life and the polish wikipedia has a lot of information about her. I was wondering if you knew much else of Jadwiga. Cheers--David (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I've always wondered why people like her never have articles. I've started the expansion of Elisabeth of Poland using a long translation from Polish wikipedia. I'll be doing that for the next few days.--David (talk) 12:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
What about Katherine of Bosnia? Should we create a page for her, due to her marriage and descendants, I'm sure she could have an article. Her husband had one doesn't he?--David (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is the link to medieval lands [4] her name is list right at the top. Thank You--David (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is one for Katherine [5]--David (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Just so you know, there is a page on Katherine in the Bosnian Wikipedia [6]--David (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I have finished the expansion on Elisabeth of Poland, there was alot of information about her, I was surprised there was only ever a stub about her. Thanks --David (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The information on Elisabeth of Poland keeps coming! I am surprised--David (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I've finished Elisabeth of Poland now! You should create a page for Katherine, she does sound like an interesting person. It would be good if she was Elizabeth of Bosnia's sister but I've come out with one more piece of evidence against this. When Elizabeth was taken to the hungarian court, at that stage, Elisabeth of Poland and Stephen, Ban of Bosnia had no intention of marry their children off together, Elisabeth just wanted to foster Elizabeth. So why wasn't Katherine fostered by Elisabeth of Poland? Elisabeth would have probably wanted to make a good marriage for Katherine as well, like to a Duke of Bavaria or a son of the Holy Roman Emperor, rather than the Count of Celje. Another mystery I have is with Elisabeth of Poland. Her husband, Charles I of Hungary married three times, his first wife was Maria of Bytom, second was Beatrix of Luxembourg and thirdly was Elisabeth of Poland. Charles had one of two daughters, Katherine of Hungary and Elisabeth of Hungary. The mother of the girls is unknown, they were legitimate I think but it's unknown which of the three wives they belonged to. They couldn't be children of Beatrix of Luxmebourg because she was only married to Charles for a year and had one pregnancy from which she died along with her baby. This leaves Maria and Elisabeth. A date of birth hasn't been found for the girls but a date of death has. If Katherine was daughter of Elisabeth, she would have had to have been born withn the first four years of the marriage, otherwise she would have died rather young, noting she did have a daughter and did raise and educate her. Elisabeth of Hungary's life is more or less unknown, she did marry but it is unknown if she had issue. Please do you know anything? There are references to this case of Maria of Bytom's and Elisabeth of Poland's articles. Thank You and Gook Luck! ;)--David (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Any progress yet? Sorry for being so impatient but this mystery has been driving me mad over the last few weeks--David (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I will ask Jeanne, HENRY V (if he is about) and Aldebaron69 (he's really good with Polish history) if they know anything about Katherine and Elisabeth. Have you checked out Elisabeth of Poland yet? You could talk to Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy about the family tree, they seem to be good with these complicated codes. I can only make a family tree that follows the directs blood line (without siblings, aunts, uncles and cousins of any generation). I will keep you posted on the mystery of Elisabeth and Katherine. Thank You--David (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Surtsicna, bringing to your attention the fact that in the MA article, the same portrait Marie Antoinette à la rose is being used twice: once in the infobox, the second time in the section Declining popularity used to contrast the muslim dress portrait. Since you worked so hard at choosing portraits for the article, you are (by me & myself alone) the designated expert to fix this double use. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The Royalty and Nobility Barnstar | ||
This is heartily deserved for all of your hard work on Coronation and related articles. You've improved the Wikipedia's presentation on these subjects immensely. Well done, sir! Ecjmartin t | c 03:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC) |
I'm not much good at making barnstars, but I thought I might take one of mine and send it your way with my compliments for your hard ongoing work on the Coronation series of articles. You've definitely taken them to a new level, and I for one deeply appreciate your efforts. Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if you're monitoring my talk page for a response to your recent message, or if you want me to reply here, so I've replied on both pages. I've created the article you wrote to me about: see Coronation of the Japanese Emperor, and tell me what you think! I've placed a link into the main Coronation article, and have redacted the Japanese section of that article accordingly. I accidentally created the Japanese article as "Coronation" rather than "Enthronement"; this was accidental on my part, but I've made it clear in the article intro that it's more of an enthronement than a traditional coronation. I also found a couple of cool images which, while not showing the actual enthronement, does show an emperor (Hirohito) and an empress in official enthronement robes at the time of their ascession ceremonies. Tell me what you think! - Ecjmartin (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Surtsicna, today I created an article on Johanna of Pfirt. She was wife of Albert II, Duke of Austria and mother of four dukes. She has many descendents around today. What do you think? Cheers--David (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Surtsicna. I'll leave you to create the page – the family tree below should just paste into it. Feel free to edit it. The current version is extremely simplified! I have left Jadwiga in for now - I think that she is probably an important enough figure to merit inclusion, but I would be happy to remove her in due course (along with the whole Charles IV loop, which I thought tied things together a bit, but is basically irrelevant). By the way, do you prefer Celje or Cilli? This is easy to fix. BartBassist (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
KEY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marriage; legitimate children | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
liason; illegitimate children | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Prijezda I 1211-1287 Ban 1250-87 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Prijezda II c.1233-1290 Ban 1287-90 | Stephen I Kotroman c.1242-1314 Ban 1287-1314 | Jelisaveta of Serbia c.1270-1331 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen II c.1292-1353 Ban (1314-)1322-53 | Elzbieta of Kujavia 1302-1343 | Vladislav c.1295-1354 | Jelena Šubić c.1306-c.1378 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(({#))} | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
? Katerina ? c.1336-1396 m. Hermann I of Cilli | Dabiša d.1395 King 1391-95 | Jelena Gruba d.aft.1299 Queen 1395-98 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Elizabeth 1340-1387 m. Louis I of Hungary | Hermann II of Cilli c.1365-1435 | Tvrtko I 1338-1391 Ban 1353-77 King 1377-91 | Dorothea of Bulgaria d.c.1390 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mary c.1371-1395 | Sigismund 1368-(r.1387-)1437 HRE 1433-37 | Barbara of Cilli 1392-1451 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kujava Radinović d.1434 | Ostoja c.1378-1418 King 1398-1404, 1409-18 | Tvrtko II 1381-1443 King 1404-09, 1421-43 | Dorottya Garai d.1438 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ostojić d.1421 King 1418-21 | Radivoj c.1410-1463 King 1433-35 | Vojača | Tomaš c.1412-1461 King 1443-61 | Katarina Kosača 1424-1478 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jelena Branković
1447-1498 | Tomašević 1438-1463 King 1461-63 | Sigismund (Ishak-beg Kraljević) 1449-c.1490 | Katerina 1459-c.1470 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Surtsicna,
I sincerely hope to resolve our personal differences. While mutual disagreement on wikipedia may persist, hopefully our differences will cease and not impede making wikipedia more informative and interesting. And so, please interpret this in the intended amicable manner.
I shall start from the beginning, giving the facts as I honestly perceived them.
First, I suggested "Of Austria" instead of "of Austria", which was a genuine mistake as I had copied it from Frania's post citing Britannica. On hindsight, I should have been more careful so that others would not have misunderstood me.
You subsequently pointed out the error when you wrote on the inconsistencies of capitalisation. Your repeated mention, which I thought excessive given the minor mistake, led me to think that you were just latching onto what was in fact a mistake on my part for suggesting it.
Nonetheless, I apologised for it and joked about reasonable people and their guesses. I then thought that was put to rest and we could return to discussing "of Austria/of Spain", but your response frustrated me. It returned to the capitalisation topic again when I thought I had clearly admitted to the mistake and got past it. It was like salt to the wound and greatly irritating.
And so, I may have lashed out. But I honestly believed you were "harping on (my) genuine mistake after (having received) an apology". While admittedly my response was not as noble as I'd have liked, you must surely be able to understand my thoughts then. The rest is really all about the misperception of what I wrote as I explained on the "Maria Theresa" page.
This is my side of the story. You'd probably understand that it isn't easy to approach another with an olive branch in hand, so I hope you would seriously consider my sincere offer of peace. I certainly would not like to see further collaboration hampered by petty differences that could be easily resolved. Brian junhui sim (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Well do with the family tree, it looks great! I'll have to recommend some stuff to BartBassist. I'm rather bored at the moment, pages I would like to create are pointless because there isn't much info on the people. Please can I create one on Catherine of Bosnia, you can change it around if you don't like it. Thanks--David (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I've started the article in User:Daaviiid/Sandbox, I've not released it yet because it could be deleted. Please could you add more to the article? Do you think I could add the piece of evidence we found about Katherine not being fostered by Elisabeth of Poland, when Elizabeth was. If Katherine and Elizabeth were siblings then it's most likely they were fostered together. Do you know of any references that show Katherine was daughter of Stephen II and Elisaberh of Kujavia. Thank You--David (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
That's the problem with royals! They like to keep it in the family. Is there anyone else we could talk to about Catherine. I've asked many people about Katherine and Elisabeth, nobody seems to know as much as me and you. I found her dates on that geneolagy website that you have as a reference on her Bosnian page. Did they never have birth or death certificates back then! The one for Katherine would have been found I'm sure. The one for Katherine and Elisabeth of Hungary may have been lost during WW2. As User:Skäpperöd said to me, lets hope some Abbot some were finds a mysterious book one day and has all these missing things in them, Katherine and Elisabeth's mother and Catherine of Bosnia's parentage. Thank You, I'm off on holiday on Saturday and won't be back until then following week. Feel free to take Catherine's page out of my sandbox and finish it! Thank You--David (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought they only needed a dispensation if the bried and groom shared a common ancestor, like they shared the same great-grandparents. Maybe Catherine of Bosnia will always be a mystery, that's always the problem with history, some of the facts get lost along the way. Haven't you got Catherine's dates on the family tree on your talk page, are those real?--David (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I've started the article on her, Katherine of Bosnia, Countess of Cilli. I'm off on my holiday now, feel free to add more information about her. Is there an image of this coin with her on?--David (talk) 10:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I'm back off holiday now! It's a shame you cannot find a picture of the coin. Maybe we should leave Catherine now, inform me if you find anything else. Is there any point in our article on her, it was mainly created through geneology: her parentage, the possability she was a sister to Elisabeth and grandmother of Barbara of Cilli. Can we find out if Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor needed a dispensation to marry Barbara? This could prove that Mary of Hungary and Barbara were cousins, couldn't it?--David (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Well done with all the work on Elisabeth of Bosnia! I like the new image of her with Mary, were did you find it? I see you've been working on the wives of Casimir III of Poland. I've been thinking of creating a page about his forth wife Jadwiga, because she did remarry and have other children and there was the fact of her marriage to Casimir being bigamy. I'd also like to create a page on Catherine of Hungary, great-grandmother of Elizabeth of Bosina. Do you know much about Elisabeth of Serbia?--David (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I know about Elisabeth of Slovania, I created a page on her great-grandmother, Klementia of Habsburg. I found Elisabeth when I was looking for a legitimate line descendants from Klementia. The only surviving descendants are illegitimate. I read your article on Catherine, daughter of Elisabeth and Louis I and it looks good. I thought she was ten when she died though. Elisabeth of Serbia's article is goodfor a start, did she ever have a political infuence over any of her children? Could you help me find more evidence for Catherine, Queen of Serbia's article by doing research for Elisabeth? I'll have a little hunt about and I'll keep you informed. Thanks--David (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I cannot find a language with a descent amount of information. I found one (I cannot remember the language) but all it had was the name of her parents, the name of her husband and a list of her children. She must not have played much of a role in history.--David (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I've created a page on Catherine of Poděbrady and I will start one on Jadwiga--David (talk) 09:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC) I've completed Jadwiga of Żagań! It's one of the best articles I have created.--David (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, have you checked the page on Jadwiga of Zagan yet? Well done with all your work on Elizabeth of Bosnia. How is the article on Elisabeth of Serbia going? I cannot find much on her mother, Catherine of Hungary.--David (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
That's a real shame about Elisabeth of Serbia. I wondered, was her mother Catherine of Hungary alive when her brother became King of Serbia? Catherine could have then become regent or had political influence over her son. There isn't really much on Catherine, she may as well have run off with her Cuman family because I cannot find information. It's an even biiger shame that there is no info on Elisabeth of Kuyavia. Do you have any idea who her mother was? Also, while you were editing Elizabeth of Bosina did you delete the name of their eldest daughter, Mary? I thought they had another daughter named Mary who died before Mary of Hungary was born, did she exist?--David (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I want to nominate Elisabeth of Bosina for the Did You Konw section on the main page. When I go to nominate, it just gives me a list of instructions about nomimating and not were you can nominate. Can you help me? Sorry I don't think you can nominate it because you expanded it. You can add to did you know if they're been recently created or expanded.--David (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I've been doing a bit of routing. I kno of a geneolagy website which sometimes offers certain people who could be a parent if the parent is unknown. I checked for Elizabeth of Bosnia in hope of finding a possible maternal grandmother (mother of Elisabeth of Kuyavia) and look what happened [7].--David (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I found Catherine of Bosnia's entry [8], it suggests that Stephen II and Elisabeth of Kuyavia were parents of Catherine.--David (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
It is true I guess, when I've created articles on some spanish nobles the sources on that page never work out. It claims Isabelle of Burgundy never married Rudolph I of Germany.--David (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I have also expanded Jadwiga of Poland's family tree on her maternal side. I've also created a page on Kunigunde of Bohemia--David (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour Surtsicna: Thank you for the nice note you left on my talk page. I immediately looked up the beautiful word you used & which has its own article in Wikipedia. My God, exactly what my... ex-husband & everyone else's husband tell me!!!
It is good that you & Brian have worked things out & I am sure the two of you will come to the right name to give María Teresa=Maria Theresia=Maria Theresa=Mary Theresa=Мария Терезия=Marie-Thérèse of Austria of Spain of France... I am leaving it up to the two of you.
Most of the books I have on Marie Antoinette are in French, which may not be too good for en:wikipedia, although I use many books in French as source in other articles. Some are translated in English, most of them not. Will bring titles & authors later. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour Surtsicna, After reading user 69.251.180.224's revision in article, please go to our dear queen of France's talk page to Copyright violation at Death & Court life sections & read comments I just left there. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I was unable to find more than a dozen references to support either variant (which means none of them is more "common" than another), so I moved the article to the variant most close to WP:RUS. That said, feel free to file a move request to move it back, if you wish. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:51, August 13, 2009 (UTC)
Surtsicna , an article I recently created, Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, has been nominated for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. Please take the time to weigh in and stop its deletion. Thanks again for all your wonderful contributions to Wikipedia! --Caponer (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Your recent infobox edit at Akihito is an excellent mistake -- not because your judgment was uninformed, but because of something a bit off in the rationale your edit summary suggested. It helped me to understand that something in the article about the Emperor of Japan needs further work. Your terse edit caused me to realize that a sentence or two needs to be added which explains why the list you reverted is inapt in an Imperial context. I simply hadn't appreciated this minor point.
If memory serves, in the popular movie The Queen, the British monarch famously observed that ten Prime Minister had sought her permission to form a government. For me and many others, the mention of Winston Churchill's name had an unanticipated resonance in that context because the arc of Queen Elizabeth's reign is easily overlooked or forgotten. I can't imagine the Japanese emperor expressing a similar thought; and this begs the question, "why not?" The answer to this "why not" would provide a better justification for your edit.
Your edit was not incorrect, not wrong; and indeed, your edit summary is easily defensible. I will have to ponder a bit more in order to begin to speculate about what sparked this meaningful pause. --Tenmei (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I still believe yours is the more valid point-of-view; and I was tempted to revert the link to Japanese Prime Ministers as you did. My current plan is to wait for others to express an opinion or perhaps to do nothing at all while waiting to see what comes as a result of the election of a non-LDP government? --Tenmei (talk) 07:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I've made a page in my sandbox out of interest to see how long it could by and the diffrent type of sections she could have. [9], this is were I am keeping it, but I need to finish her ancestors. Can I ask you a big favour? Do you think you or someone you know of translate and create a couple of articles on her ancestors, like her father, grandfather and great-grandfather. Cheers--David (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I need some on the Kuyavian's. When I get translations of the pages, some words don't make sense so I find it hard to create an article. I translate the polish articles because they have the most about them and poland was their homeland. I'd like some on Casimir II of Kuyavia, his father (whose name is hard to remember for me) and Casimir I of Kuyavia. If that isn't too much trouble, thank you.--David (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Or pleasedo you know of anyone who can speak polish who can help? I know of Aldebaron69 but he hasn't replied for a couple of weeks now so I don't think he is bothered--David (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I've created the page Elizabeth of Kuyavia, sorry I changed your disam page into it. I've looked hard for some references. I don't think it will be deleted, if it is deleted I could give them a long list of other articles that should be deleted. What do you think?--David (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I've been looking a bit more, give me a bit more time and I'm sure I'll find something on a google book search. I've been thinking, looking at the marriages of other family members of Elizbeth's family, it is most likely her mother could have been a noblewomen from Sileisa or Pomerania or maybe even a polish princess. I know the chances are slim and that there will be no sources to back it up, but I'm going to go back and find Dukes that could have been a grandfather by age, I'll check his daughters and see what happened to them. Some daughters maybe unnamed or the history books may have lost them at the end of childhood. Some of these women maybe possible mothers of Elisabeth and may give Elizabeth of Bosnia and her daughters the missing bloodline. I'll give you a list of some possible candidactes.--David (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
There are hardly any. Are we even sue that Casimir was even married? This mystery women may have been a mistress with whom he had two children: Władysław the White and Elisabeth of Kuyavia. There are many of these daughters of dukes that became nuns, the chances are one of them may have married before or after their time in a nunnery and the evidence only records have been lost, tell me if you find anything.--David (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to take a moment to let you know that I am going to undo a few of the changes you have made to the Polish nobles articles. I see that you are someone who takes pride in the topics you are proficient in. However, the Polish nobles and royalty, particularly those during the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, have a complex nature to them, that requires a more than passing knowledge of this subject. I am taken some time and great care to properly think about how these individuals should be laid out, including the setting out of their infoboxes. As those, in particular, are in a state of some non-cohesion. So, I felt that you deserved a rationale for this, more than just a the line that is provided in the edit summary. I won't waste your time here, giving you a brief history lesson, on Poland or the union with Lithuania, or the changing method of how these monarchs were put in place, as you can easily find that for yourself. I did want you to know, that I chose to use the infobox royalty, due to the flexible nature for which it would suit the purpose of these articles. I thought you deserved this, as I see you also, had a part in the formation of that template. MJSplant (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I thought the sister were of Greater Poland because their father was and because their father was they would be. I thought it would refer to Jadwiga even more because she was married to another Polish noble with links to Greater Poland. Thanks by the way I created an article on Jadwiga's mother-in-law, Euphrosyne of Opole. Cheers--David (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
There was a surviving line of Euphrosyne through her daughter Euphemia. check it out, it lasts up to Elizabeth II and the royal family [10]--David (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Hedwig is known as Jadwiga in polish though and medieval lands states her as Jadwiga of Poland. Other Hedwigs have been moved to Jadwiga anyway.--David (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay but why is Elisabeth of Bosnia's daughter konwn as Jadwiga of Poland because it was moved from Hedwig a while back--David (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It makes sense but that's the problem with names, like Elizabeth and Elisabeth, Anne and Anna and Isabella and Isabel or Isabelle--David (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Fine but someone had moved the step-daughter of Queen of Bona to Jadwiga Jagiellon (1513–1573).--David (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour Surtsicna: On several of your edits, you mention that places of birth & death should not be in the lead. Since I always put them there (!!!) I would like for you to let me know where I can find this wikirule in order not to make the mistake anymore & correct it whenever I fall upon it. Thank you in advance. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 03:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the Jesus page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 22:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I have modified the Template to say "Honored, not venerated" for Protestantism and Islam. I also added the Umm name under "names" in the Template. Don't know how long it will last. I also added the Umm name under "names" in the Template. If I have made an error in her Arabic name, please correct it. I took it from the article itself.
I totally agree with your points about the saint template, but don't have time right now to take that one on. Afaprof01 (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The sibling of the Holy Roman Emperor to have a daughter at the time was Margaret of Bohemia (1373–1410), her daughter was Elisabeth of Nurembourg, she married Eberhard III, Count of Württemberg and had a daughter named Elizabeth. But Elisabeth's life is more or less unknown, she may have had other marriages. Was it a full niece of Sigismund or a half-neice. I wonder if Wenceslaus, King of the Romans had illegitimate offspring, it would make sense because he had no children from Joanna or Sofia--David (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Can we not finish Elisabeth of Serbia, I cannot find a thing about her. My translator isn't good with this website you and Jeanne have found so see if you can find anything out about Elisabeth of Serbia--David (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello Surtsicna, my birthday was on the 11th, a sad day for many people but a happy day for me, it's sorta strange. Thank You--David (talk) 10:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and your cat is beautiful! I'll adopt a kitten, I have six or seven cats living in my street, three of them live nextdoor to me, they are lovely, the ones further up the road, terrorise the place! They killed two baby blackbirds in my garden, but the three cats nextdoor have never done such a thing--David (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Spain doesn't exist in these years. Spain doesn't exist until 1715. What exist was some kingdoms, Portugal, Castilia, Navarra and Aragon with the same king. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.229.146.17 (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
You know that Spain really doesn't exist. But many people who read these doesn't know it and could think that kingdoms in these era are like actual countries. Also it seams a way to make desappear Aragon and Castilian kingdoms from history. And Philip II of Spain it is not correct. From Aragon and portuguess kingdom it is Philip I not Philip II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.229.146.17 (talk) 07:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Re: Template:Infobox royalty -- Thank you for the education!
— .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`. 08:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Surtsicna! I think we can work in harmony, no problem! Let's get her to good article status. What do you think? -- Jack1755 (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello again! Though they are not all generally known (no more so than the Swedísh originals), there are a number of phonetically palpable and etymologically correct English name forms for several members of early Swedish royalty. Examples are Sweartgar för Sverker or Reginald for Ragnvald or Richeza for Rikissa or Ingigarth for Ingegerd. I feel these name forms are much easier on readers of English, especially in reading aloud, and that they should be mentioned in the lead sections of the articles about those people. All of the names (I think) are to be found in a varying amount of Google hits, so they are certainly legitimate.
The only comprehensive source I know of for those names of royalty is Throne of a Thousand Years by Jacob Truedson Demitz (ISBN 9163050307), where the introduction actually mentions reading aloud, and which in turn lists these sources as bibliography for these names in the book's compilation, texts, fact pages and name lists: Nordische Personnamen in England (Nordic Personal Names in England), Erik Björkman; Halle, 1910; Continental Germanic Personal Names in Old and Middle English Times, Thorvald Forssner; Upsala, 1916; Norsk Isländska Dopnamn och Fingerade Namn från Medeltiden (Norwegian-Icelandic Baptismal Names and Assumed Names from the Middle Ages), E H Lind; Oslo/Upsala/Copenhagen, 1931; The Pre Conquest Personal Names of Doomesday Book, 0 van Feilitzen; Upsala, 1937; Nordisk Kultur (VII); Personnamn (Nordic Culture; Personal names), Assar Janzén; Stockholm/Oslo/Copenhagen,1947; Det medeltida Västergötland (Medieval Westrogothland), Ivar Lundahl; Upsala/Copenhagen, 1961; Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire & Yorkshire, G Fellows Jensen; Copenhagen, 1968; Svenska förnamn (Swedish Given Names), Roland Otterbjörk; Stockholm, 1970; Oxford Dictionary of English Christian Names, E G Withycombe; Oxford, 1977; Svensk etymologisk ordbok (Swedish Etymological Dictionary), E Hellquist; Lund, 1948.
How do you think I should go about adding these names, for example like this (where English: Sweartgar, is all I would add)?
Sverker I Kolson, English: Sweartgar, (Old Icelandic: Sörkvir Kolsson, Old Swedish: Swærkir konongær gambli) or Sverker the Elder (murdered December 25 1156) was a king of Sweden c. 1130–1156. -
Your opinion for smooth, non-controversial work on this would be appreciated before I start doing them all. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
When will I have the pleasure of seeing her as Richeza of Sweden, Queen of Norway? Birger, Duke of Sweden, her father was de facto a prince consort to Princess Ingiburga (Sw: Ingeborg) his wife and all their children are considered royalty of Sweden. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello Surtsicna, I've been thinking, is there no chance of an article on Elisabeth. As you said, she must have played a role in the history of Bosnia besides have children. Was she regent at some point? Have you found anymore sources? Cheers--David (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I've done a google book search and a normal search, nothing. Didn't you say a while back that you found a book or something that had alot of information in it about her, but you couldn't access it?--David (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Is there no way you could get access to the book? Sorry for being a pest but I need a new project--David (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I understand, well maybe Elisabeth of Serbia will always be a mystery, we shouldn't have to pay to find out about these people, they have as much to do with us than them, like those websites were you have to pay to find out your ancestors. Is there anyone I could create a new article on around that area besides Catherine of Hungary who may as well have run off with the Cumans because I can'tfind information on her! Did these men just lock their wives away and the only events of their lives were having kids?--David (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
After long last I've made the article on Elizabeth of Serbia, I used your information, you don't mind do you? It's not an amazing article in fact it's shorter than Elizabeth of Kuyavia, but you can have alot of credit for it--David (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I've done an article on Catherine of Hungary, Queen of Serbia I found a website with lots of info on her!--David (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey Surt', great work on Maria Theresa! Did you nominate it for good article status? -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I was asked to post my oppinion by SergeWoodsing on the matter about the names for the articles of queens. My opinion is that they should be called by their original names, and I understand this is also the policy of Wikipedia. Both you and SergeWoodsing have posted your opinions of this on my talk page, and I have now posted my answer to SergeWoodsing. However, I rarely participate in discussions on Wikipedia, so; just to be absolutely sure that I have got it all right, I wondered if you could read my answer to SergeWoodsing and tell me if my opinion is in completely in line with the policy of Wikipedia? Just to make sure. You don't have to of course, but I would be grateful. If you have the time, just post the answer on the same entry as you and SergeWoodsing made on my talk page and tell me if I've got it right! --Aciram (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
LOL! thanks chuck..clearlyy was not paying attention! ciaooo Tbharding (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The "discussion" continues, if you are interested. The user Law Lord is inserting further questionable "sources" and basically saying shut up if you don't like it and that it doesn't warrant further discussion. 142.68.80.29 (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Should you e-mail me about certain section removals so I know what you are up to or will the explanation be obvious anyway very soon? SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Surtsicna. I don't agree with your edits to List of consorts of Naples. The four husbands of Joan I of Naples and the one husband of Joan II of Naples, during their reign, were kings consort not jure uxoris kings. They are not counted as Kings of Naples (Sicily at the time). --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
What happen to the German Empresses on the List of German queens? Why did you even seperated it? The list is still rather confusing.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/George_V_(descendant_list)
This may interest you, whatever your opinion may be. You seem to have a good grasp of what is and is not WP:OR, etc. 142.68.80.29 (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
It would be good to create articles on them, but there is a lack of information, the french article on Elizabeth mainly just says who she married and the fact that her aunt was Eleanor of Aquitaine, there really isn't anything on her. I'll have a look around for the other one. Have you seen my latest article on Constance of Poland? Also would it be possible for you to have a route around for the earlier Serbian consorts, I saw you message on Elizabeth II's Little Spy's talk page. Many of my latest articles have been the ancestors of Elizabeth of Bosnia and her mother. Do you mind if I expand Elizabeth of Bosnia's family tree? thank you--David (talk) 09:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Woo hoo! Crack open the bubbly, Surtsicna! Maria Theresa is officially a good article. -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
This user helped promote Maria Theresa of Austria to good article status. |
I started a little on it. But what is the female equivalent of a Knez? Also do you think I should include the Grand Duchess of Raška be included?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Stefan is title, not name!! Stefan_(title) That is big mistake, you should revert it. Be good, 89.216.196.197 (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you were involved in a dispute on Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden. Have you tried addressing the issue with the other party? Shadowjams (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I noticed the back and forth, and wanted to send the warning out there, particularly since neither of you were new. I realize these kinds of things are often pretty clear on observation, so I'm sorry if I bothered you out of place. Thanks for replying. If the argument goes on I'd be willing to help try and get outside help, or weigh in if the issue is minor (I stumbled upon it, I have no clue about the underlying content). Shadowjams (talk) 09:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Here you make a number of minor changes, in particular:
Incidentally I created a redirect at Élisabeth of Valois, should you have a list of accented names I could systematically create the required redirects. Rich Farmbrough, 13:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC).
Commented; support, of course! -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)