Talk:Anne, Queen of Great Britain/Archive 2

Pedantry! (PedAnnetry??!!)
'the passive form can be read in the wrong way'

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

Princess Anne of Denmark and Norway
This seems like a ridiculous title to me. It is even more ridiculous than calling her husband Prince Consort George of England. Anne's notability stems entirely from her status as a royal family heir and eventual sovereignship in Britain. She was not Danish (obviously), did not reside in Denmark,  and was not expected to be a consort in Denmark. She did not go to Denmark to live with her husband ; he came to England to live with her. Compare to "Princess Maud of Wales". After that, she was "Queen of Norway".Eregli bob (talk) 05:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Errr, Maud was definitely called a princess of Denmark from her marriage to her husband's accession. Anne was also referred to as a princess of Denmark; see the reference. She was never called a princess of England/Britain/Scotland/Ireland though. I am not sure what your point is. Referring to George as "Prince Consort of England" is indeed ridiculous, but I do not see that anachronism anywhere. Surtsicna (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to take this up at Selected anniversaries/March 8. What happens at another page is not really something we can control from here. DrKiernan (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous title still coming up again.`14:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lathamibird (talk • contribs)

Name
It looks like now unhelpfully uses this page as one of its suggestions, lending the mistaken vote above greater authority. All the same, eventually people will realize that Put me down for a return to Queen Anne (better) or Anne of Great Britain and Ireland (still better than the current namespace) when the discussion comes back around. — Llywelyn II   04:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * the  name of this monarch is Queen Anne by at least two orders of magnitude (and probably more than that);
 * the of "Queen Anne" is this monarch and not any other;
 * Queen Anne already redirects here and the present name is a completely needless violation of ;
 * the present name is mistaken and if we're needlessly giving her titles to standardize our house style, she was Anne, Queen of Great Britain and Ireland.

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

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

Short citations and date
The short citation need to include year. This will future proof it against cases where there are two citations where the author has the same name or two different editions of the same book are used. For there are two long cations with the name Ward (looks like the same person): but as the year is not included in the short citations, it is impossible to tell if "Ward, p. 460" is referring to which volume unless one goes and looks -- luckily as they are bot on line this is possible, but in most cases this is not so.
 * Ward, Adolphus W. (ed.) (1908). The Cambridge Modern History. Volume V. The Age Of Louis XIV. Cambridge: University Press.

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

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

Requested move 20 August 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved as per consensus. — usernamekiran (talk)  19:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Anne, Queen of Great Britain → Queen Anne – "Queen Anne" already redirects here. It's the common name by an overwhelming stretch, about 1,540,000 results versus 9,300 results for "Anne Queen of Great Britain". That is a gargantuan 99% per cent decrease. redirects to Queen Victoria, so there is precedent. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 15:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There are other Queen Annes and the disambiguating clause is more precise. The primary use argument is weakened by considering that the Tudor Queen Anne is more popular in page views|Anne_Boleyn. DrKay (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I should point out that the gbook numbers given above are bogus. Google's computer is nowhere near fast enough to count 1.5 million results in 0.50 seconds. I get 66 pages of hits for "Queen Anne" versus 14 pages for the current title. (That's five to one compared to the nominator's 166 to one.) Whiff of greatness (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * On the basis of that final page of the 66 pages, I am switching my weak oppose to oppose because none of the hits I get on that page are related to the article's subject. It shows that "Queen Anne" is an ambiguous term. DrKay (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's an odd reason to think she isn't primary, but I won't argue. If she's not primary, we can put her at "Queen Anne (Britain)." The present title has an outsized significance because it is cited in the guideline. Yet it is hardly an example of fine titling, especially when you consider that the "Q" is given respect capitalization. Whiff of greatness (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's obviously not just the 66th page of hits that isn't about her: only 1 of the hits on the 56th page is about her, none of the hits on the 46th page are about her, only one of the hits on the 36th page is about her, etc., etc. You've got 66 pages of hits for "Queen Anne" but you haven't realised that most of the hits are for other people. DrKay (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My original point was not about the primary topic issue, but only to show that "Queen Anne" is more common in the RS than the current title. As far as primary topic goes, when I googled I noticed two major topics on the first page of results. I compared them |Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain here. Whiff of greatness (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)  Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner In ictu oculi (talk) 07:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I have crossed out that part of the rationale.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 20:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per evidence given by Dr Kay. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I thought it was agreed at WP:ROY years ago, that monarchs with 'no' regnal number would be shown as "Name, King/Queen of X". GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is Queen Victoria an exception?--Nev&eacute;–selbert 12:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Strike claim, I was presumptuous and I apologise. Thing is, when many refer to "Queen Anne" they usually mean either:
 * Queen Anne style architecture
 * Queen Anne style furniture
 * There is a Queen Anne style architecture in the United States article too, all named after this Anne. Here are a few other articles whose subject was named in her honour.
 * Queen Anne's War
 * Queen Anne, Maryland
 * Queen Anne, Prince George's County, Maryland
 * Queen Anne, Prince George's County, Maryland
 * All the other Queen Annes at the dab are queens consort. I am confident that this queen regnant qualifies primary topic status.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 20:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose, and move Queen Anne (disambiguation) to Queen Anne. Even ignoring significant things named for her, this Queen Anne does not receive more pageviews than even the top 9 other topics - in fact she receives fewer page views than Queen Anne Boleyn - and has no greater claim to being the most historically significant of all other queens and topics of the same name. There's an institutional bias on the English Wikipedia toward figures from the English-speaking world.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Article titles on the English Wikipedia are based on common usage in English, so of course there is an institutional bias towards figures from the English-speaking world. An unqualified reference to "Queen Anne" in English sources means the subject of this article. I don't think it matters that Anne Boleyn gets more page views, as she is always known by her surname. Opera hat (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Cúchullain.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

Article: Holly Brewer; Slavery, Sovereignty, and “Inheritable Blood”: Reconsidering John Locke and the Origins of American Slavery, The American Historical Review, Volume 122, Issue 4, 1 October 2017, Pages 1038–1078, https://doi.org/10.1093/ahr/122.4.1038 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.7.85.244 (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a part of the War of the Spanish Succession, which is linked from here. The war is a vast subject and to show that this one aspect should be covered in this article in more detail I think you need to show it's been covered in more places than a single citation. Celia Homeford (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * the brief statement on her role in the slave trade is not controversial--it is fully sourced in three independent scholarly RS. Slavery is a "hot" issue in 2017 among scholars and the general public (and in USA in politics as well). Anne had a major role in taking control of huge spanish slave trade which make Britain the world's leader slave trade factor.  Ricks (2013) says "this contract allotted Queen Anne of England 22.5% (and King Philip V, of Spain 28%) of all profits collected for her personal fortune." It came about because of victory in the war indeed-- but to dismiss it as unimportant is not supported by any RS.  it was a long-term major result.  Rjensen (talk) 12:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing any of that. You're not addressing the point I made. There are works on slavery and the war that cover this aspect. Not so much in works on Anne herself. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do not erase fully sourced material on a major topic regarding her reign as ruler of England and its colonies and its trade. Multiple scholars cover the issue including the biographies of Queen Anne. She fought the wars in part for economic advantage and we have an editor who wants to suppress ALL mention of slavery--perhaps it is distressing subject for some people but not for historians we rely upon -- these historians are cited for the slavery section:
 * Holly Brewer, Slavery, Sovereignty, and 'Inheritable Blood': Reconsidering John Locke and the Origins of American Slavery, American Historical Review, Volume 122, Issue 4, 1 October 2017, Pages 1038–1078, https://doi.org/10.1093/ahr/122.4.1038
 * Gregg, pp. 341, 361.
 * Hugh Thomas (1997). The Slave Trade: The Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade: 1440 - 1870. Simon and Schuster. p. 236.
 * David A.G. Waddel, "Queen Anne's Government and the Slave Trade." Caribbean Quarterly 6.1 (1960): 7-10. -- this is devoted entirely to her royal role
 * Vinita Moch Ricks. Through the Lens of the Transatlantic Slave Trade. p. 77. ISBN 978-1-4835-1364-5.
 * Richard B. Sheridan (1974). Sugar and Slavery: An Economic History of the British West Indies, 1623-1775. Canoe Press. pp. 406–10. Rjensen (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * we can add Gregg in his DNB essay which states: The secret preliminaries again provided for Louis's eventual recognition of the queen and the established succession, as well as exclusive British acquisition of the Spanish American slave trade (the asiento) for thirty years, the same commercial privileges in Spain as France enjoyed, and British recognition of Philip V as king of Spain. Rjensen (talk) 12:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit wars are unpleasant--made doubly worse by one editor who claims control of the article though she rejects all the reliable sources and no editor supports her views. Gregg shows in DNB that expansion of the slave trade was a main result of the treaty ending the war. Rjensen (talk) 12:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't lie about me please. Your personal attack is a straw man, just like your initial post here. You are saying things about me that are untrue. By all means put in a clause or two, but 10% of the article? It's disproportionate when the coverage in works about her is so slight. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Are these lies about you? You have repeatedly deleted ALL information on slavery and you lack any support from any editor or any reliable source. London's National Portrait Gallery stresses Anne's role: Queen Anne continued the tradition of royal support for the British slave trade. In 1712 she announced that she had secured an exclusive contract for the British nation to provide enslaved Africans for the Spanish West Indies for thirty years. The Government sold the contract to the newly founded South Sea Company for £7.5 million. Queen Anne also secured over 20% of the stock for herself.  https://www.npg.org.uk/learning/digital/history/abolition-of-slavery/queen-anne   as far as falsehoods go, let's look at the false claim about 10% of the article. It runs 82,575 bytes with 2,295) bytes on slavery which is under 3%. Rjensen (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Lie 1: "we have an editor who wants to suppress ALL mention of slavery"
 * she actually DID suppress ALL mention of slavery--there is zero mention right now
 * Lie 2: "one editor who claims control of the article"
 * She claims there has to be a "consensus" for change and until then she erases all mentions of slavery
 * Lie 3: "she rejects all the reliable sources"
 * she in fact erased every RS on slavery and added none of her own.
 * I never said I wanted to suppress all mention. I don't claim control. I haven't rejected any source. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What percentage is 2 clauses out of a 483 page book? Less than one twentieth of one percent. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * the lie was her 10% claim. Rjensen (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't want to suppress all mention of slavery. I don't claim control of the article. I haven't rejected any source. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You actually DID suppress all mention of slavery in the article whether you "wanted to" or not. You claimed control by erasing other editors work repeatedly on the excuse that you personally thought the topic was of too little importance. You erased major reliable sources over and over--and added zero of your own. Rjensen (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Cultural depictions of Anne, Queen of Great Britain
The article Cultural depictions of Anne, Queen of Great Britain is merely a stub, and so there is little reason for separating it from  Anne, Queen of Great Britain. It would form a small section of the latter, and provide completeness on the subject. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. See "In popular culture" content and Manual of Style/Trivia sections. there's nothing of value to merge from the Cultural depictions article, it's just a list of appearances and one sentence about how she's depicted 'as a fat, senile woman, dominated by Sarah Churchill', which is pretty much already covered in the Legacy section here: 'traditional assessments of Anne as fat, constantly pregnant, under the influence of favourites, and lacking political astuteness or interest ...'. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "In popular culture" content: "Per Wikipedia's summary style guidelines, when "In popular culture" sections grow excessively long they are split into subarticles." Since it isn't excessively long, it shouldn't be split out. The legacy section says nothing of her depiction in popular culture. In fact, it doesn't even link to the cultural article. Essentially, this is a disservice to the reader. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Doesn't link? It's the first sentence. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose: only three sentences from the depictions article are sourced, and they all merely detail appearances, without any historiographical commentary. So, we'd just be left with an incomplete list of 3 unrelated depictions, which is almost the definition of trivia: isolated, indiscriminate information. Such a section does not meet the featured article criteria, and as implied by "In popular culture" content, such sections are best split off from featured articles, so that the main article continues to meet criterion 4: staying at a reasonable length and focusing on the most essential aspects of its subject. DrKay (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- the urge to merge is often a mistake, and a disservice to our readers. It should not be our role to determine how our readers traverse the our representation of human knowledge.  But that is precisely what happens when mergists succeed in shoehorning multiple distinct topics into one big article.  The Queen, and cultural depictions of her, should be regarded as separate topics, because we are likely to have readers who are interested in one, and not the other.  We are likely to have contributors who are interested in working on one, and not the other.  How many articles do we have on UK sovereigns, and their close relations?  Hundreds.  Imagine if we merged every article related to the various dynasties of UK sovereigns into a single article...  Could that article contain all the information in those hundreds of articles?  Well, yes (...and no, see below).  But it would be much more difficult to read.  In particular, it would be much, much more difficult for readers to jump around, to selectively read just the information they wanted.  In general, it is much easier for a reader to go to information  they might be interested in reading by clicking on a wikilink.  Once they arrive there, if they read a few sentences, or a few paragraphs, and decide they would prefer to go back, all they have to do is click their back button.  But, when mergists succeed in shoehorning multiple topics into one article, then going to the other information requires scrolling, or using the search function.  They can't return to where they were with a simple press of the back button.  News flash, many experienced people already have something they are searching for, using the search function.  Browsers only remember one search term at a time.  Personally I resent having to abandon my current search term when mergists have succeeded in their shoehorning.  Two further advantages of not merging?  (1) With two separate articles readers and contributors can choose to add only the topic they are actually interested in to their watchlist.  However, when mergists succeed in their shoehorning, the watchlist hits you with a lot of false positives -- changes to the omnibus article that concern the topic you aren't interested in.  (2) Unnecessary merging erodes the value of the "what links here" feature.  When the wikipedia's articles are small, and focuessed around one clearly defined topic, when we are searching for information, and haven't found it, we can click on the "what links here" button, examine the list of linked articles, and take a glimpse at the ones that might contain what we need.  This is no longer possible when mergists succeed.  Yes, merging has a place -- but only when two articles are actually about the same topic, not merely because they are related.  Consider two readers, one of whom is a student doing an essay on the relatively few UK sovereigns who were women, and the other doing an essay on the subset of members of the UK Royal families who have been depicted in popular culture.  Retaining the status quo of multiple articles is far better for them.  The consideration of merging should be done while keeping in mind that we are supposed to honour both the spirit and letter of WP:Verify, WP:NPOV and WP:RS.  It should not be the personal opinions of us wikipedia contributors as to which topics are important we should rely on, it is the opinions of RS.  RS decided to depict Anne and her friends in movies, books, etc.  Let's honour our policies, and not arbitrarily decide to ignore the opinions of those RS.  Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)  P.S. Yes, I know some advocates of wikilinks to subsection headings might say my concern over the advantages of linking would claim that massive article to UK ruling dynasties could contain a massive number internal wikilinks, of the form UK ruling dynasties, UK ruling dynasties, UK ruling dynasties, UK ruling dynasties.  We make heavy use of wikilinks to subsections in the Wikipedia: namespace.  So far we make very light use of this technique in article space.  Most contributors don't know how to use such wikilinks, don't know the weaknesses of such wikilinks, don't know how to document that an internal subsection is the target of a wikilink.  When a subsection heading is copy-edited, even merely to correct spelling, punctuation, or capitalization, it breaks.  It breaks invisibly.  Since "what links here" doesn't work for wikilinks to subsection headings, even a contributor who understands them, can't easily figure out how to fix one.  And their use defeats any third party sites that use those links -- which is not true of regular wikilinks.  Finally, watchlists can't understand wikilinks to subsection headings.  Geo Swan (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Requested move 29 December 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure)  C Thomas3   (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

– This was discussed over 2 and a half years ago with no change. I believe it is clear that it should be replaced as the clear majority searching Queen Anne are looking for this page. It was suggested that people could be looking for Anne Boleyn, however as pointed out she is almost universally known by her last name. I just think it makes more sense to change it as she is by far the most relevant Queen Anne, earlier this year Henry VII's page was similarly changed, and 'Queen Anne' already directs here. Jasp7676 (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. — Nnadigoodluck  █ █ █ 22:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Anne, Queen of Great Britain → Queen Anne
 * Queen Anne → Queen Anne (disambiguation)
 * Note: Queen Anne titles a dab page with significant content and so is ineligible to be moved to unless it is also proposed to be be renamed. This request has been altered to reflect that fact.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 03:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There are other Queen Annes and the disambiguating clause is more precise. The primary use argument is weakened by considering that the Tudor Queen Anne is more popular in page views|Anne_Boleyn. DrKay (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please note Requested moves. The move of the disambiguation page also needs to be listed here. DrKay (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, and Happy New Year to all!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 03:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * but surely you can agree that Anne Boleyn is very rarely referred to as Queen Anne and her surname is usually used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasp7676 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You either refer to her as Anne Boleyn or Queen Anne, not 'Queen Anne Boleyn'. That term is technically incorrect. Thus, it is safe to assume that Queen Anne can refer to both Anne Stuart and Anne Boleyn and the argument that DrKay made is valid. Not to mention that there dozens of other queens who were also named Anne. Keivan.f  Talk 00:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand that no one says Queen Anne Boleyn but it is also true that very few people say Queen Anne when referring to Anne Boleyn, they simply say Anne Boleyn. I think this is necessary since Queen Anne is the most famous Anne by far and the page directs to her anyway. Jasp7676 (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose first, neutral on second (i.e., a primary redirect). Srnec (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as she is clearly the primary topic for this title on the English Wikipedia; per WP:COMMONNAME, as she is most commonly known in English as "Queen Anne"; and per WP:CONSISTENT, for consistency with the Queen Victoria article title and with all the other British monarchs articles that have been moved to their common name without disambiguation. Even if the main article ultimately isn't moved, the disambig page should be moved and "Queen Anne" should redirect here per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are other Queen Annes. Dimadick (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are other Queen Annes. This goes against the guidelines in WP:SOVEREIGN.  Walrasiad (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Coat of Arms of England (1702-1707).svg
 * Coat of Arms of Great Britain (1707-1714).svg