Talk:Louise Mountbatten/Archive 1

Untitled
Shouldn't this be at Louise Mountbatten? john k 20:02, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Septentrionalis 03:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is designated by birth title, ie of Battenberg.

No, this should be at Louise Mountbatten. Naming conventions (names and titles) states that deceased queen consorts should be known by their pre-maritial names, not birth names. Which means that although she was born Princess Louise of Battenberg, she gave up that title in 1917 when King George V asked his relatives who are British subjects to renounced their German titles, and therefore she became Lady Louise Mountbatten just before her marriage to King Gustav VI Adolf of Sweden. DivineLady 10:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Duchess of Scania
Is it really neccessary to say that she was Duchess of Scania before even saying that she was Queen of Sweden? Which title was more important? By which title is she more known?


 * Louise Mountbatten became Duchess of Scania and Queen of Sweden as the second wife of King Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden. This sentence gives undue weight to a minor title, so that one could wonder whether her husband (or she herself) reigned in a Duchy of Scania.

Therefore, I propose:


 * Louise Mountbatten was Queen of Sweden as the second wife of King Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden.

The fact that she used the title of Duchess of Scania can be mentioned in the next sentence, somewhere else in the lead section or in the text of the article. There is no reason to describe her as Duchess of Scania before describing her as Queen of Sweden. Surtsicna (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * She was Duchess of Scania for over 20 years before she was Queen of Sweden. She was also neither as Louise Mountbatten but became Duchess of Scania and Queen of Sweden - no longer named Mountbatten - when she married the Crown Prince and Duke who became king 20 years later. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Does it really matter? Alexandra of Denmark was Princess of Wales for almost 40 years prior to becoming Queen of the United Kingdom and Empress of India. Yet the article about her (a featured one) doesn't mention that in the lead sentence. Can we not mention her as Queen of Sweden first and then point out to the incredibly important fact that she was also titled Duchess of Scania? Regarding the verb, became makes it look as if she never ceased to be Queen of Sweden. If we are going to be nitpicks, we can't say "Louise Mountbatten became Duchess of Scania, Crown Princess and subsequently Queen of Sweden as the second wife of King Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden." Why? Because Louise was certainly not Crown Princess as the wife of King Gustaf VI Adolf ; she was Crown Princess as the wife of Crown Prince Gustaf Adolf. Was she Duchess of Scania as the wife of King Gustaf VI Adolf (I recall reading that Swedish royal dukes keep their dukedoms after accession, but I'm not sure that's correct)? Surtsicna (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Surtsicna! I am now giving you one final warning to stop being sarcastic and rude. This type of comment "the incredibly important fact that she was also titled Duchess of Scania" only serves to make any debate or discussion with you very unpleasant. It does nothing to further your ideas or POV and certainly is only destructive to any efforts anyone might try to make to communicate with you in a neutral, civil tone. I have really tried lately. Will you please stop using this kind of belligerent and antagonistic language?
 * Whatever is or is not in the lede of another article is irrelevant here. This sentence "Louise Mountbatten became Duchess of Scania, Crown Princess and subsequently Queen of Sweden as the second wife of King Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden" is perfectly correct, makes no difference which other titles she had before being Queen, nor whom she was married to then nor what titles he had. I have tried to explain cordially and civilly why the word became should be used in this lede. My first language, as you know is English (no offense intended) but I honestly do not know what you mean by this sentence above : Regarding the verb, "became" makes it look as if she never ceased to be Queen of Sweden. She never did once she became Queen. Died as such. There is nothing wrong with the lede as it now is worded. Can we please move on?
 * I will continue to reply to you when you are being constructive, but if you continue to be sarcastic and nasty I will have to try to get someone else to deal with that. It is not allowed. Sarcasm and nastiness are like pollution to WP work and make it hardly worth the time and effort spent. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I shouldn't have used sarcasm. The fact that she was titled Duchess of Scania is incredibly unimportant when compared to the fact that she was Queen of Sweden. It is not POV, it's a fact. I doubt that any serious encyclopaedia would describe her as Duchess of Scania before mentioning her as Queen of Sweden.
 * SergeWoodzing, you insist that she was not Louise Mountbatten when she became Queen of Sweden. That is technically correct but it's such a minor detail. Would ever say that it is incorrect to say that Louise Mountbatten was Queen of Sweden just because she did not hold that surname as queen?
 * I also can't understand why you refuse to agree upon any kind of compromise. I have a problem with the current lead sentence. Isn't there any option that would leaves us both satisfied? Would you be happy with Louise Mountbatten became Queen of Sweden in 1950 and served as such until 1965. Prior to her husband's accession, Louise was styled as Crown Princess of Sweden and Duchess of Scania or anything similar? Same thing would be said but in another way. Surtsicna (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine. Go for it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for cooperation. Once again, I'm sorry if my sarcasm offended you. It wasn't my intention. Surtsicna (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Lots of new text in Swenglish
Lots of new text was added today by a Swedish user who insists on continuing to write "English" that, in several places, nobody who doesn't know Swedish can understand. I have tried to get the user to be more careful, but I'm sorry to say that there seems to be no interest in improvement whatsoever, not even as far as using easily accessible spelling and grammar programs which would preclude the problems, or at least give the user an idea as to the extent of them. This user expects the rest of us to be a clean-up crew, but I'm not going to do it again this time. So this article will very likely have to continue to suffer from all the damage done today by a user who contributes good content but does not wish to contribute accepable English. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried a note to the editor, but I may not be following this. Please don't hesitate to drop me a note at my talk page if the problems continue (I hope you will meet the editor part way if the spelling errors are corrected, and an occasional wrong word slips in.)-- SPhilbrick  T  00:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I am always willing to meet anyone half way as long as h/s is reasonable and willing to cooperate. I am not of the opion that this user is, I'm sorry to say, though I would love to be wrong. While adding valid content, more damage of a similar kind was done to the language of several other artilces today by the same user, and look at the way we are expected to clean up the huge reference mess here (next section). SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In Swedish they say: man vet inte om man ska skratta eller gråta (approx. should we laugh or weep?). In any case I thought maybe WP shouldn't claim that Queen Louise attended a dinner about a nobel price - I don't think she celebrated such things as a good buy priced elegantly. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to change reference to the English language version
Many of the references cite the 1965 version of the book, which does not have an ISBN, and appears to be hard to locate outside Sweden or Germany. In contrast, the 1968 English edition is more widely available, and would make more sense to use in an English Encyclopedia. Would anyone object if I replaced the reference?-- SPhilbrick  T  01:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition, with 34 references, but to only five different books, the references would be much cleaner in WP:LDR format. Any objections to changing, which would make it easier to address the multiple references to one book, while cleaning up the editing window substantially?-- SPhilbrick  T  01:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you aren't familiar with LDR, you can see what it would look like at User:Sphilbrick/Louise Mountbatten test LDR-- SPhilbrick  T  01:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Change made. (Support received from one of main editors elsewhere.) I'll add both versions of the book to the list of books-- SPhilbrick  T  02:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully support this excellent improvement. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm removing the sandbox, as it is no longer needed.-- SPhilbrick  T  19:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

A quick note on List-Defined References
If you've been editing this article, and now see that the references look different, you might be momentarily confused.

You can read more at WP:LDR but I'll mention the basics here.

The main point is that the bulk of the reference text goes in the reference section (what a novel idea!). You still need something in the main text but it can now be just effectively a link to the reference. It typically looks like this: < ref name="Somename"/> In the reference section, you create a reference as you normally would, except that you have to name the reference.

The two key things to keep in mind:
 * 1) The reference name in the main text has to match an identical name in the reference section.
 * 2) Note that the reference stub in the main text has a slash at the end. I often forget this, but it is easy to fix.

The article will look exactly the same. However, when you edit, you won't have as much reference text cluttering up the edit box. PLus, it is slightly cleaner to have more than one reference to the same citation.-- SPhilbrick  T  02:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Relevance of step-grandchildren
I do not understand why this has been added to Queen Louise's bio again: This type of who's-who-in-whose-life info, a form of name-dropping, is neither notable nor particularly relevant to a biography, in my opinion. I find it only distracting here, and am removing it again. Louise never had any mentionable inter-action with those people, other than basic boring family stuff. Besides, only Ex-Queen Anne-Marie has ever worn a crown and that was only for a few seconds during her Greek wedding. SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Three of her husband's grandchildren, whom Louise knew as children, would wear royal crowns: Margrethe II of Denmark, Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden and Anne-Marie of the Hellenes.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Louise Mountbatten. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305094733/http://lrk.lsh.se/livrustkammaren/Redaktionellt/Global/Bilder/Basbilder/Vardag1900/BritaH026_010.jpg to http://lrk.lsh.se/livrustkammaren/Redaktionellt/Global/Bilder/Basbilder/Vardag1900/BritaH026_010.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Mountbatten was not Queen of Sweden
I believe it is unneccessarily confusing in the lead of this article to assert what amounts to "Louise Mountbatten" as being Queen of Sweden. The use of surnames & maiden names for all women of royalty is beginning to be carried too far on Wikipedia, and into sentences where it makes little or no sense. It's not supposed to confuse, but give a genealogical bit of info - then only where appropriate, such as re: marriages. In this case I tried to make it clear, in the lead, that she was not a queen under the name of Mountbatten but that was reverted with an edit summary that contains personal critique and irrelevant info about her husband's birth. President Kennedy's wife was not first lady of the U.S. as Jacqueline Bouvier. Same same. Some women choose to keep their former names when they marry. Louise was not one of them. Ergo, it still needs to be fixed, and I'll try again unless anyone fixes it before I can get to it again. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your views on the use of maiden names for royal women are well known and noted, but contrary to common historiographic and encyclopedic practice. There was no personal critique in the edit summary. There was a critique of the edit. Everyone can see that. If you honestly think otherwise, sue me. The argument about Gustaf VI Adolf's birth is not irrelevant. He was not "Gustaf VI Adolf" when he was born, but to argue that it is incorrect to state that Gustaf VI Adolf was born in 1882 would be unnecessary pedantry. So is claiming that Louise Mountbatten was not Queen of Sweden. I understand that you would have us prohibited from describing Anne Boleyn as the second wife of Henry VIII because she might not have been a Boleyn while married to him, but that is unconstructive pedantry. Your edit did not even make sense by your own arguments. If Louise Mountbatten did not keep her name after marriage, then it was not "Louise Mountbatten" who became Queen of Sweden. She did not marry a king but a prince, and had not been a Mountbatten for over two decades before becoming queen. Also, the sentence sounded simply ridiculous. Surtsicna (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I use an article talk page to discuss the content of that article, not other users. Anne Boleyn had no legal name (there were none in those days). Louise Mountbatten is one of the many women who did not keep her own legal surname when she got married. To avoid unneccessary confusion, we should try to clarify, whenever & wherever possible, that her name was no longer Mountbatten after she got married. Birth years are irrlevant to that. And my personal opinions are also irrelevant.  --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Reverted again, with no comment here & with personalized edit summary again. Seems impossible to discuss constructively w/o personalization. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you honestly think that there was a "personalized edit summary", go to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and report me. If you will not, I will take it that you keep making those accusations for the attention. Surtsicna (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

This is not a question of naming conventions but of how to word her lead name with the least possible risk of confusion, in this particular case. There are no standard solutuions that fit every context. She did not choose to use her maiden name when married and queen. That should be obviously worded, not worded so as to confuse the reader. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Every wording you've suggested so far has only increased the risk of confusion. The article does not say that she used her last name as queen. It merely introduces her using her common and unambiguous name and defines her as Queen of Sweden, which is what she was. The biography by Margit Fjellman, cited in this article, is titled "Louise Mountbatten, Queen of Sweden". So much about that. Surtsicna (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

3O Response: I think 's logic is sound that when you use a name you're referring to the person across the whole of their life, rather than just when they had that name. You could add a footnote explaining the change? ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 21:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Would you like to suggest a wording for the footnote? My wordings for the lead have twice been called pedantic by an editor who, sadly, always personalizes every discussion. Very effectively makes me lose focus & interest (see WP:TPYES). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And ridiculous whining makes me lose control over my eye muscles. I suppose we all have afflictions to bear. I would like to note that no such footnote exists in the article about any queen consort in history. The case of Louise Mountbatten does not significantly differ from others. Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, for one, has reached FA status without much ado about the evolution of her legal or common names. My point is that this article has a long list of higher priorities. Surtsicna (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Could this be covered by the "Titles, styles, honours and arms" section perhaps? I don't know, but otherwise I think a footnote saying something like "Officially Louise of Sweden when Queen, with no surname." after her name or "After which she became Louise of Sweden, with no surname." after the bit which talks about her becoming Queen would be fairly innocuous (if I've got that right). I didn't personally know that's how it worked so it's not wholly redundant, but it also seems pretty straightforward to infer that they're the same person. That is to say, this doesn't mean we can add a footnote to every page like this – the place to debate that would probably be Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 15:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Very constructive. And I appreciate your insight that all cases are not the same, that some may need more clarification than others. I will add such a footnote unless there is multiple resistance here in the next few days. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * How about "...was Queen consort of Sweden..."?   GoodDay (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: Keep in mind, the next monarch will be Queen of Sweden & I've noticed we've got inconsistency on these articles, as well as with Queen regnants bios. Best we make up our minds, as to which gets to have Queen of Sweden shown in the pros. Will it be the regnants or the consorts? GoodDay (talk) 13:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, I do not think we need either qualifier when the sentence itself makes it clear. For example, in this case, it is said that Louise was queen from her husband's accession until her death. That makes it clear that she was a consort. In the case of Mary of Teck, we say that she was queen "as the wife of King George VI." For queens regnant we usually say that they reigned or ascended, which makes it clear they were not consorts. But I do not think that is the issue here (if there is any issue at all). Surtsicna (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would prefer consistency for all pros of Queen regnants & Queen consorts. I haven't checked out the King consorts bios. Would be something for WP:ROY to handle, but hardly anyone goes there anymore. GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding women of this and the last century, this concerns the fact that many of them kept their maiden names after marriage, and that it is important for us to be as clear as possible about that: who did, who did not? I've tried tro make that point above, but perhaps I've been unclear myself? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2018 (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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Queen Louise of Sweden.png