Talk:Maria Clementina Sobieska

Untitled
Re: the spelling. Google disagrees with you. No hits for "Maria Klementina Sobieski" but some for "Maria Clementina Sobieski". Evercat 17:40 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

When I was in my Jacobite phase some 20 years ago, most of the references to her that I remember reading used the spelling "Clementina Sobieska". ("Maria" sometimes, but not always, preceded the name "Clementina".) The feminine form of a Polish surname in English-language references is also used for Maria Klementyna Sobieska's contemporary, Maria Leszczynska. (Sorry, Polish characters don't appear on my computer.) — Diamantina 03:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Maria's anorexia?
I think it quite wrong to say that Maria suffered from anorexia. I dare say some of the symptoms of this condition have existed through time, but as a clinical definition it belongs to the modern age. Rcpaterson 00:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Date of death
Here, Maria Klementyna is said to have died on January 18, whereas the Jakub Ludwik Sobieski article says she died on January 24. Which one should it be? Anders Fröjmark 14:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

move to Clementina Sobieski. This one was a bit difficult to close. However, I have to discount Molobo's oppose for not giving a reason. This was compounded because there was even less consensus on whether to preface the name "Maria" or not (so this may be something to reconsider in the future). However, the use of English usage over Polish was more clear (and supported by the MoS).-Andrew c [talk] 16:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
Maria Klementyna Sobieska → Clementina Sobieski — Use the standard form of her name as used in English works, as opposed to the Polish form of her name. —Noel S McFerran 02:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comparative numbers from Google Books:
 * "Clementina Sobieski" (but not "Maria Clementina Sobieski") 401 hits


 * "Maria Clementina Sobieski" 284 hits


 * "Clementina Sobieska" (but not "Maria Clementina Sobieska") 225 hits


 * "Maria Clementina Sobieska" 106 hits


 * "Klementyna Sobieska" (but not "Maria Klementyna Sobieska") 31 hits


 * "Maria Klementyna Sobieska" 15 hits

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support as nominator. Noel S McFerran 02:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Per Noel's sound reasoning, which I agree with wholly. Charles 00:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose It does not make any sense to use a cod-anglicisation of this unfortunate lady's Polish name. The argument about Google hits is meaningless - she is so obscure that most English people have no idea whether a spelling of her name was correct of not.--20.133.0.14 11:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This lady is not obscure at all; there are three books written about her in English. She was the wife of the Jacobite claimant to the English throne and was regarded as Queen of Great Britain even by the pope. Noel S McFerran 13:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Object. I think Maria Clementina Sobieski would be best.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Why? I find Noel's reasoning to be sound, after all, I imagine he knows quite a bit about this topic. Charles 17:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally usually refer to this lady as "Maria Clementina" (but then I also think that she was Queen of Great Britain). But I distinguish between my personal preference and what can be established from the scholarly publication record. "Clementina" beats "Maria Clementina" by 401 to 284 (or if we include the Sobieska hits by 626 to 390).  That is not an overwhelming majority, and perhaps a case could be made that "Maria Clementina" is "more correct"; I hesitate to do this since claiming to be "more correct" is a terribly slippiery slope which allows anyone to be his own pope. Having said all that, I would have no objection to "Maria Clementina Sobieski". Noel S McFerran 01:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Use common naming conventions over official ones, see (Augustus, Blackbeard, Sting) but we should mention the official name in the first sentence of the article. (Looks like we need to do a universal replace in the article!) Mike Young 21:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Object. The current title is ok.--Molobo 22:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment How so? What is wrong with the proposed title? Charles 22:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Support per google book hits. - dwc lr 23:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Clementina Sobieski or Maria Clementina Sobieski as per English usage. Olessi 20:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a textbook case of how ridiculous it is to apply national naming practices to pre-nation-state era personages.  Here is someone born in Silesia of parents born in Paris and (probably) somewhere in the Holy Roman Empire.  She lived all over Europe eventually marrying an English/Scottish pretender and settling down in Rome.  Can there really be any serious argument that this person somehow belongs to the contemporary Republic of Poland or the modern Polish nation and must have her name spelt according to its conventions in an English encyclopedia? —   AjaxSmack   10:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
Keep present name. It seems to me that there are two arguably correct forms of her name:


 * Maria Clementina Stuart - that was after all her married name. Since she married a Scot, it would seem appropriate to use an English spelling of her name.


 * Maria Klementyna Sobieska - this was her name before she was married. Since she was a Polish princess, the use of a Polish spelling is appropriate.

The present name is the latter, and should be stuck with.--Toddy1 20:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually her married name was Maria Clementina, Queen of Great Britain, France, and Ireland - but that would be Jacobite POV pushing and therefore inappropriate. It is equally inappropriate to push a Polish POV.  It is not reasonable for Wikipedia to use a name with 15 Google Books hits instead of one with 401 Google Books hits. Noel S McFerran 21:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Support: The name Maria Clementina Sobieska is that which is used by most if not quite all historians especially those most interested in Jacobite matters. Frank McLynn, that most respected of Jacobite historains uses the name and that is good enough fo me. As I understand it the male version of the last name is Sobieski and the female Sobieska. After a first introduction the lady is usually referred to as simply Clementina Sobieska. De jure Queen Clementina is important to British history in that she was married to de jure King James III (& VIII) who was son of James II (& VII)(deposed in the so called "Glorious Revolution" of 1688). She was also the mother of Prince Charles Edward Stuart (Bonnie Prince Charlie) who made an attempt in 1745/46 to restore his father to the throne of Britain. The attempt culminated in the battle of Culloden and the attempt failed.

It seems reasonable that the name should be anclicised when writing of Clementina in the context of British history. Indeed the matter is decided (except here!!) I own abuout 100 books on Jacobite history and I have never seen Clementina's name spelled in the Polish manner.

When a historian writes of the importance of this woman to Polish history (especially when that history is written in Polish) then the spelling Klementyna may well be appropriate.StevelordStevelordStevelord —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevelord (talk • contribs) 14:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

As long as there are proper links inserted, so that any reasonable form of the name that is typed into the search engine automatically links to this article, which then in its opening sentence gives alternative forms of her name, then the problem is minimal. I believe that as far as possible (and as far as it can be determined) the heading of the article should be rendered in the form in which the lady herself would have written it. 86.136.248.31 07:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Conundrum
Polish British is on my watchlist. Today, I learned that Saint Margaret of Scotland has been added to the list of "British Poles". That's news to me. Which led to the question of Bonnie Prince Charlie being on that list too, which led me here to this talk page. Here on English Wikipedia, Maria Clementina Sobieski, is called a Polish noblewoman. Even though her father was half Polish and half French, her mother, German on both sides. So how does that make her a Polish noblewoman? But following this thread further on Polish Wikipedia we are told there that she was born in Macerata, Italy. On English Wikipedia we are told she was born in Poland. Somebody's got to know where she was born. All the other Wikipedia language encyclopedia articles seem to be following suit with Ohlau, today Poland (since 1945), but not Poland in 1701. Btw, Polish WP gives her date of birth as July 17, 1701. English WP, July 18, 1702. But what's a day or a year anyway? It's only an encyclopedia. Could all the other articles be using Ohlau because they are simply copying off of the English article? Hope not. So then here's the conundrum. Is Maria Klementyna Sobieska aka Clementina Sobieski a Polish noblewoman? Was she born in Poland or Italy, or neither? Was she born in 1701 or 1702? On July 17th or July 18th? Are we putting together a factual and objective encyclopedia? Does it matter? Dr. Dan (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * She was a Polish noblewoman if she belonged to the Polish nobility, just like Arthur Wellesley is a Spanish and Dutch nobleman even though he is neither Spanish nor Dutch (but British, of course). I can't say anything about the dates. Surtsicna (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. My main concern is not a desire to disconnect her from her connections to Poland. It's to eliminate undue weight to the claim. Her connection to other nobility is not mentioned. This issue concerning the dates does have some importance, but the issue of her place of birth is glaring by comparison. If she was some medieval figure obscured by mythology or lack of information, I'd understand the conundrum, but she isn't and the article needs greater accuracy. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Having had a quick glance at the results of Google Book Search, I've found another option: 17 July 1702. It's none of the dates you've mentioned but the source is 150 years old. What would be the most reliable source? Surtsicna (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure if that work is the best option, ..."Thus, on a cold and dark night, which, if it served to secure her safe retreat, was rendered sufficiently miserable by a violent storm of snow and hail, the young and delicate Princess resigned herself into the hands of strangers"... Both that and "Innspruck" (sic) would certainly get a request for citation on Wikipedia. But it's pleasant reading. This place of birth issue really does bug me though. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Marriage
I have added three citatations under "Marriage". I have also removed the "This article does not cite any sources" template, but am not sure if it was appropriate to do this. One of the citations was to a Wordpress page, which I know can be a problem; another was to an audio recording of a lecture. Also, although my citations covered most of the relevant section, they did not include the middle paragraph. For these reasons, I would be grateful if a someone - more experienced in these matters than I am - would review these edits. Thanks in advance. -- Mike Marchmont (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)