Talk:Descendants of Queen Victoria

Marriage template
Here's a blank table for anyone who wants to make a box for the marriage of any of Victoria's children. The top half can be taken from the table at Grandchildren of Victoria and Albert.

The result for a female subject and her husband looks like this before it's filled:

For a male subject and his wife, it looks like this:

—— Shakescene (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Ancestry Boxes
I removed the ancestry boxes because someone must have messed with the template on the ancestry boxes to make them non-collapsible. The list was way too long and hard to read. --Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: ancestry boxes restored once they again became collapsible. —— Shakescene (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Grandchildren's marriages during Victoria's lifetime?
Would it be of interest to casual readers (after seeing Elizabeth II at her grandson's wedding) to know not only about the great-grandchildren born during Victoria's lifetime, but also the number of her grandchildren who wed during her reign? [Of course one often led to the other.] All the first marriages of the Princess Royal's children seem to have occurred during her mother's reign, and many of the marriages of Edward VII's children (most notably of George V to Queen Mary).

It doesn't seem unusual for Queen Mothers (or dowagers) such as Queen Alexandra, Queen Mary, or Queen Elizabeth (Bowes-Lyon) to have seen their grandchildren married in their widowhood, but perhaps less usual for kings or queens regnant. But that's an impression, not a carefully-considered calculation. For example, King George VI saw none of his grandchildren's marriages: Princess Elizabeth married Prince Philip in 1947 (11 years after her grandfather King George V had died) and succeeded to the throne in 1952, when Prince Charles was 4 and Princess Anne even younger. Is this too trivial; does it deserve a separate list? —— Shakescene (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

91 g.granchildren?
Sorry but, there is 91 great-grandchildren of Queen Victoria, not only 85 as the text says.

Proof: 23 grandchildren of Princess Royal Victoria 10 grandchildren of Edward VII 16 grandchildren of Alice 18 grandchildren of Alfred 1 grandchildren of Helena 7 grandchildren of Arthur 8 grandchildren of Leopold 8 grandchildren of Beatrice

23+10+16+18+1+7+8+8=91, not 85.

Am I wrong in anything?


 * I had counted and revised this quite carefully, but was never absolutely 100% certain of the answer. Remember that two pairs of Victoria's and Albert's grandchildren married each other, which could lead to double counting of their own children. But it's certainly worth double-checking. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The correct answer appears to be 87 — 56 legitimate great-grandsons, 30 legitimate granddaughters and one natural [illegitimate] granddaughter. Alfred had 10 grandsons and 9 (not 8) granddaughters, but three of Alice's grandsons (through her daughter Princess Irene of Hesse) were also grandsons of Alice's sister Victoria the Princess Royal (through Victoria's son and Irene's husband, Prince Henry of Prussia) and two of Alice's grandchildren (a granddaughter and a stillborn grandson) through her son Ernst Ludwig's first marriage were also grandchildren of Alice's brother Prince Alfred (through Alfred's daughter and Ernst Ludwig's first wife, Princess Victoria Melita). So taking them away from Alice's grandchildren we get:


 * Full list upon request, or just check the tables. —— Shakescene (talk) 11:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Unless these are routine calculations (i.e., "there is consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources"), counting them constitutes original research and the number should be verified by a reliable source. —sroc (talk) 08:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Victoria's relationship with her children
I'm very doubtful about the following paragraph, which does add some welcome colour and detail to the bare listing, but is out of tune with the rest of this article's simple purpose and doggedly objective neutral tone: "Queen Victoria, at times, had contentious relations with her children. She had trouble relating to her children when they were young, some of this possibly owing to her own isolated childhood.[4] She also, occasionally, resented that they interfered with time that she would prefer to spend with Albert.[5] Both Victoria and Albert weren't above playing favorites with their children, and unfortunately did little to hide their favoritism.[5] Both Vicky and Alfred were the favorites of Albert, and Arthur enjoyed the favoritism of both his parents.[5] Victoria initially was jealous of the time that Albert had been spent with Vicky, but in her widowhood Victoria made Vicky something of her confidante,[6] and for her part, Vicky had accrued hundreds of letters from her mother, to the point that shortly before her death, she had them smuggled out of Germany by her brother's secretary, Sir Frederick Ponsonby.[7] Of her sons, Victoria had the most trouble with her eldest, the Prince of Wales, and her youngest, Leopold.[6] Amongst her daughters, Victoria clashed often with Louise.[6] She also had an awkward relationship with her second eldest daughter, Alice, who the queen, despite praising her thoughtfulness, also criticized her as being too melancholy and self-absorbed.[6] In her widowhood, Victoria expected Beatrice, who was only four when her father died, to remain at home with her, and only permitted to marry on the condition that she and her husband remain in England.[8]"

The footnotes refer to half a dozen pages from only two popular sources, although they might well just be citations to support much deeper knowledge by the editor who added this. Needless to say, I appreciate the hard work that went into compiling and composing this; it's obviously well-intended to improve and expand the article, but I regret that this effort might be misplaced.

My inclination is to remove this paragraph, which might fit better in the principal (non-list) article, Queen Victoria. What do others think? —— Shakescene (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Under Princess Alice, the third daughter, Irene, is missed entirely. This is the info I found and added on my page.
The third daughter, Princess Irene, married her first cousin in 1888, Prince Henry (1862–1929), son of her aunt Victoria, the British Princess Royal & German Empress and had issue (3 sons):�Prince Waldemar of Prussia (1889–1945), Prince Sigismund of Prussia (1896–1978) and Prince Heinrich of Prussia. Ellemmae (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Princess Toria of Wales.jpg

When and how did the article title change?
This used to have the title Grandchildren of Victoria and Albert (which now redirects here) but I can't find any discussion of the title move. Although I think "Victoria & Albert" is a sufficient identification for most people, it might not be so for every reader outside Britain, Ireland and Canada. So, I'd be perfectly happy to make it more specific and formal by changing the title to Grandchildren of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. In that context, it's entirely obvious that Prince Albert refers to the British Prince Consort and not, for example, to some member of Belgian royalty with the same name. However, I think "Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" is an ugly and unnecessary mouthful, in the same way that a broad consensus (against a smaller but sturdier resistance) replaced the former Victoria of the United Kingdom with the commonly-used and easily-recognized Queen Victoria. In fact, I think that the hypothetical Ordinary Reader for whose convenience Wikipedia article titles should be written is more likely to recognize (and type in) "Prince Albert" than "Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha". —— Shakescene (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It also looks like Albert and Victoria were prince and queen of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha respectively. Surtsicna (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ¶ So the current title may give the false impressions
 * that V&A were (separately and distinctly) Queen & Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Queen & Prince of Gotha;
 * that Victoria was Queen of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha;
 * that (consequently) this article lists the offspring of someone other than the commonly-recognized Queen Victoria (of the UK): and/or,
 * (more indirectly) that Prince Albert was not (separately and distinctly) both the Prince Consort of the United Kingdom and a member (though not the head) of the ducal house of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha —— Shakescene (talk) 06:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we should trim off the end too. It's unnecessarily long. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 25 May 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: Moved to "Descendants of Queen Victoria"  buidhe 14:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Grandchildren of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha → Grandchildren of Queen Victoria – This article's title was changed several years ago without notice or discussion. The change was discussed after the fact on this Talk Page in 2018, with three people agreeing that a change was necessary. Three reasons for changing it back to its original name are that (1) the present title is ugly and unwieldy, (2) that the current title introduces doubt about which spouse ruled which realm, but most importantly (3) that this is not a title that an average reader would naturally enter without the need to look it up. In addition, "of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" is not only confusing but unnecessary since Albert was also a Prince (Consort) of the United Kingdom. There is legitimate room, however, to debate between Grandchildren of Queen Victoria, Grandchildren of Victoria and Albert and Grandchildren of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. "Victoria and Albert" is instantly recognisable to almost everyone in Britain, Ireland and much of the Commonwealth, but may be less so elsewhere. Grandchildren of Queen Victoria was this article's original title and is probably the one most likely to be typed in first. All of Queen Victoria's grandchildren were also grandchildren of Prince Albert. —— Shakescene (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, but consider Descendants of Queen Victoria and Descent from Queen Victoria. I do not think this article should be fashioned as a list or limited in scope to her grandchildren. The content of the article has least to do with the grandchildren as it is. The present content of the article is unencyclopedic, being primarily genealogical and thus against WP:NOTGENEALOGY. It can be argued that descent from Queen Victoria is notable, however, because of the familial links between the monarchs who ruled during the First World War and because of the haemophiliac implications. Surtsicna (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support but also would not be opposed to Grandchildren of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert either. Piratesswoop (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. The current title is too long. But I also agree with the two above comments that an alternative article title and scope might be better. Follow-up discussions are recommended. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Move to Descendants of Queen Victoria, since the current title fails WP:CONCISE, and does not describe the scope of the article ("It also lists Victoria and Albert's 9 children and 87 great-grandchildren, as well as the spouses of those children and grandchildren who married."); it just needs to be updated with great-great-grandchildren, etc. At any rate, the exact scope "grandchildren of" was weirdly arbitrary and not encyclopedic (it's a "trivial intersection" and not a "defining characteristic" of the subjects).  Albert need not be in the title, as also trivial (being a descendant of him doesn't confer anything, even in theory, since the British royal family have renounced Continental claims; meanwhile, being a descendant of Victoria put/puts one somewhere in the line to the British throne, even if far down that list, and most such descendants have/had some British title or other, even if a minor one; some may also have non-British titles but they are through marriages elsewhere and doesn't relate to the question). I don't have a strong opinion either way on presentation; I think it works okay as a table-formatted list, as each of these people have their own more in-depth article.  That said, I can't see that doing it as a more narrative article wouldn't be better. And it's a false dichotomy anyway: we can have a narrative article that is also augmented by more summarized lists.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:59, 30 May 2020 (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.

Logical/semantic error
As a 1st time noob, I didn't dare try and edit the text, but the formulation in section 3.2 [Edward VII], second paragraph is very misleading. "As the only children of King George VI and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (the Queen Mother, 1900–2002), Elizabeth and Margaret were therefore great-granddaughters of Edward VII and great-great-granddaughters of Queen Victoria". Elizabeth and Margaret became great-granddaughters of Edward VII at the instant(s) of their respective births, and no number of subsequent siblings would have changed this status. I suggest removing the first clause: "As the only children of King George VI and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (the Queen Mother, 1900–2002),". I hope some more experienced editor will make an appropriate change. --Delynch2 (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Queen Mary of Romania 2.jpg