Talk:Princess Isabella of Denmark

Notability, primary sourced....
hey, she can't be too notable - the only source listed is a press release.... Garrie 04:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC) flame me!


 * She's royal, royalty is always notable. Manxruler 12:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Princess Non-Notable of Denmark". The consensus seems to be that royalty is indeed always notable. There have been AFDs on other royal infants, which resulted in a keep.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 10:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * See this AfD: Articles for deletion/Infanta Sofía of Spain.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 10:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And this one: Articles for deletion/HRH Princess of the Netherlands, also by the same nominator.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 10:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Title
Dunno what to do with the title in the infobox. One editor had corrected her title to "Princess to Denmark" which is actually the literal translation of the Danish title. Members of the Danish royal family are divided into two groups, one which uses the title "Prince(ss) to Denmark" meaning that they stand directly in line to potentially inherit the throne. Members not included in the line of succession are styled "Prince(ss) of Denmark". So Frederik, Christian, the baby princess, Joachim and his sons, Princess Benedikte and Princess Elisabeth are all prince/princess "to Denmark". Crown Princess Mary, the Greek relatives are "of Denmark". I can't remember which style is used for the children of Princess Benedikte. On the other hand, the Palace seems to use the "of Denmark" style for everybody when it comes to the English version of the official webpage www.kongehuset.dk Valentinian T / C 10:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We use their titles in English, since this is the English language Wikpedia. So "of Denmark" will do. It doesn't matter that they are not literal translations. - Nunh-huh 23:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

sucession box
Can someone with knowledge of how please update the succession-line box on this and all other pages? I see absolutely no reason why the British line of succession should be on there - there's just no rationale for it! Unfortunately, though I've attempted, I can't figure out how to do this myself. Lilac Soul 22:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you disputing that the princess is in the succession to the British throne, or that her position in tht sucession is worth mentioning? Doops | talk 22:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, I didn't know she was actually 216 in line of succession to the British throne, so fair enough. So leaving it on there may be fair enough. I withdraw my suggestion. Lilac Soul 05:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In reply to your earlier question, no one in the Danish Royal Family is in line for the Swedish or Norweigan thrones, even if they are family. When Princess Ingrid of Sweden married King Frederik, I believe Sweden was still under salic primogeniture, and so her children couldn't inherit the throne, so Queen Margrethe and her sisters were never in line for the Swedish throne. As for Norway, the Norweigan RF is descended from the Danish one, but both of the lines of succession are restricted exclusively to members of those families. The British line of succession is a very loooooooooooong list that includes descendants from of all ten current reigning royal families (though five of those families are Catholic) and has never made any restriction on who is included, except for Catholics and illegitimate children, so it just keeps going and going and will probably continue to get longer until or unless it is restricted in the future. Until then, this little princess is still in line.Morhange 06:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I discovered that I was wrong all along. Sorry about that, but at least I learned something :-) Lilac Soul 07:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for the name Isabella
The article stated that the name Isabella was thought of two weeks before the christening, and was aimed at Isabella of Austria. If this is true, it definitely needs a reference before it is re-introduced into the article. Lilac Soul 20:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Mary and Frederik talked about it in an interview: here. Does this count? Morhange 23:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's pay-per-view, so I'm not going to check it, but if the crown prince couple have stated the reasons for Isabella to be was previously in the article, of course it counts. Go right ahead and reinsert the text (it is still inside the article, just go to edit it and you'll find it commented out using the tags. Be sure to reference the interview, though. And, incidentally, if anyone can find a reliable and free source, that might be added as well. Lilac Soul 05:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What, exactly (verbatim), do they say in that clip? I'd love to know, because the reference to the Queen of Habsburg is not mentioned in any other media that I can find, which seems odd. Lilac Soul 14:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Isabella of Habsburg was not the "Queen of Hapsburg", she was a Hapsburg princess who became Queen of Denmark and Norway. (Hapsburg is the surname of a long-distinguished European royal family.) I did read somewhere yesterday that the Crown Prince and Princess found the name on a Danish royal family tree, so I have to assume that it was Isabella of Hapsburg they were seeing. Isabella or variants thereof has been the name of many European royals.68.72.105.83 16:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

How to phrase a sentence
Rather than going into an edit war, I'm taking this to the talk page. Tosindmin insists on one wording, but I think it doesn't make any sense. It could be just me, of course, so let's gather a bit of consensus. Tosindmin prefers this wording: Isabella is the Italian form of the Latinate name which has a biblical etymology, with many variants in different languages. I think it should be Isabella is the Italian form of the Latinate Elisheva name which has a biblical etymology, with many variants in different languages. In my opinion, it makes no sense to use Tosindmin's sentence, because the name Elisheva never shows on screen. But what does everybody else think? User: (talk • contribs • count) 07:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In my version of the sentence, it would probably be best to switch Elisheva and name, so instead it should read: Isabella is the Italian form of the Latinate name Elisheva which has a biblical etymology, with many variants in different languages. User: (talk • contribs • count) 07:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lilac Soul, thanks for the message. After the ongoing disaster of Mary's page, I absolutely agree discussion and understanding is the way to go. I suppose I have been influenced by the editing on that page and admit I am no wiki expert, so I am more than happy to accept other ways to do things, especially from people who understand wiki editing better than I. In this instance I am just thinking it should be kept simpler and avoid over referencing. Including the Elisheva reference is fine, but I have read some philological articles in journals on JSTOR that the name is Arabic and far older than the Hebrew, not surprising since Hebrew and Arabic co-existed and the Hebrew became the written version so therefore recorded. In philological terms it is privileging Hebrew over Arabic, something which should be avoided in my opinion, since there are records of the name in Arabic long before the Bible. Since this could be a very involved point of philology, my thinking was to keep the reference in that area simpler rather than feed it by including more info, which in the end, isn't so relevant to Frederik's and Mary's choice of the name. For this reason I have thought a simple link to the Elisheva reference (which is not a very deep reference on either wikipedia or the net) without mentioning the name was a better option. I accept the sentence could read much better, but I am sorry, I think actually including the Elisheva name makes it clunky to read and draws away from a simple explanation of it being the Italian version of the name in our time. At the time of the christening there was so much commentary about the name being Spanish it drove me nuts, so that is why I put in the Italian bit. Since there seems to be widespread ignorance about what is Spanish and what is not, I think there is some legitimacy for that to stay there as an immediate point of clarification. Ok, this is still not including the name Elisheva (my preference), but what about this? "Isabella is the Italian/Latinate form of the name which has both biblical etymology and many variants in different languages." I haven't done this before because the forward slash is a bit clunky, and talking Mediterranean and getting into all the history, the variants etc. takes us down a long and winding road. As I see it the object in this sentence is to just put the name Isabella into context. The reason we have this problem at all is because we have to put Isabella first after the dot point - it should be "The name Isabella..." And, as I said, my concern is to keep it snappy, but not to either a) be wrong, or b) upset other editors. Do you have another suggestion? tosindmin 05:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You're certainly not upsetting me :-) I just thought I'd take it here, because we obviously differed in opinion. My main concern with the variants you're proposing is that none of them actually mentions the original form of the name, which is what the sentence is supposed to be about. I personally dislike that. Of course, one could also argue that the original form of the name is completely irrelevant to this article. Let's see if anybody else decides to comment on this discussion... User: (talk • contribs • count) 08:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

To further what we are thinking while we wait for other comments - to me the sentence is to clarify that Isabella is the Italian form of the name Isabel(spanish)/Isabelle(french) and also the form used in Danish (I have been told by Danes). We can also say Isabella is Romanian etc. but that is where I think it is getting away from the point of explaining that it is the Italian version of the name we know here and now, these days, in many forms in many languages. Elizabeth is a side issue, which we deal with further along by saying that wasn't a consideration according to Mary and Frederik's statement. Why is the original form of the name so important? Just to stick to this family, we don't have those explanations for the names Christian, Mary, Frederik, Margrethe, etc. and these sort of references are not standard on wikipedia generally. If Elisheva is so important except as a deep link with "biblical", then why don't we have the etymology for Henrietta, Ingrid and Margrethe? We don't need those because there is no confusion about where they come from in relation to the baby herself. The name Elisheva is irrelevant and we wouldn't even be discussing it except that so many newspapers, magazines, royalty watchers and so on, thought that the name Isabella was Spanish! That continues to be a point of confusion (probably mostly for English speakers) which the wiki entry should clarify. In short, she wasn't named for Elisheva and we need to clarify a likely ongoing ignorance about which language Isabella comes from. That seems to be the issue for me. Well, we can see if there are other ideas, meanwhile we can have our thinking caps on to find a better way to express it. Maybe an overhaul of the whole Isabella section is the way to go? We can have the Isabella of Hapsburg reference first perhaps and then deal with the language variant of the name later...? Just a thought. :D tosindmin 18:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Titles...take two
I was wondering what the difference is between Princess Isabella's title of Komtesse af Montpezat and her brother Christian's title of Greve af Monpezat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prsgoddess187 (talk • contribs)


 * Nothing, one means "Count" and the other "Countess". Komtesse, as far as I know, is a style used for younger countesses. It doesn't have to be grevinde as much as an Earl's wife isn't an Earless ;) Charles 16:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Could it maybe also be due to the fact that Isabella is a countess in her own right, while a grevinde is just the wife of a count? I don't know much about Danish titles, but I seem to remember something like this in another Scandinavian language...Morhange (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's it: A countess is married to a count while a Komtesse is a daughter of a Count and countess. Morhange (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * True. Upon marriage, a "komtesse" (daughter of a count) loses this title and instead adopts her husband's. She may then become a "grevinde" (countess) only if her husband is a "greve" (count). One recent exception to this rule is the case of Countess Alexandra, a commoner by birth who became princess of Denmark upon her 1995 wedding to Prince Joachim of Denmark. After divorcing the prince in 2005, Alexandra was granted the previously non-existent personal honorary title of "Countess of Frederiksborg" - a title she retains after remarrying, and one that her children will not inherit.

Thanks for the information. Prsgodd e ss187 11:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

When had Isabella and her brother Christian get the titles "Countess" and "Count" of Montpezat and why ? --AndreaMimi (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * They are titles inherited from their paternal grandfather Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark, a French count by birth. Their father, the Danish crown prince, also holds the title of "Count of Monpezat", and both he and the children, although they are prominent members of the Danish royal family, thus technically belong to the House of Laborde de Monpezat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.115.152 (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Cousin of QEII
"The infant Princess' birth coincided with the 60th anniversary of the ascension to the Danish throne of her great-grandfather, Frederick IX and she shares the same birthday as her cousin, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom."

Queen Elizabeth and Queen Margrethe are (by count of generations of their wikipedia articles' ancestry charts) third cousins, both descendants of Christian IX, Margrethe by Frederick VIII and Elizabeth by Princess Alexandra. That would make Princess Isabella a third cousin, twice removed of Queen Elizabeth. While I don't want to split hairs over the sentence quoted above, I just wonder how many who read this article will take this sentence at face value. I'll be a wee bit bold, and change this sentence to 'She shares her birthday with distant cousin, Queen Elizabeth'. Comes.amanuensis (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Great-aunt ..
.. not grand-aunt. ;)

--62.47.188.124 (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Grandaunt is a perfectly valid word and actually makes more sense than great-aunt because we say grandmother instead of great-mother ;) Surtsicna (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

But you also say great-aunt, not grand-aunt - now the article is correct. Great-aunt means the aunt of your father/your mother, grandmother means the mother of your father/your mother. --62.47.185.239 (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

New Photo
I found a newer photo of her but I'm unsure how to upload it. The Flickr upload form isn't working for me. Here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/56380734@N05/7237267686/in/photostream/

There are also pictures of Princess Athena (who doesn't have a picture yet)Now that I mention it- I think nearly all of them need updating. Many of the princes and prncesses have grown up and look different than in their current pictures.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You should not bother uploading it. It is neither free nor fair use, so it would be deleted instantly. Surtsicna (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

House
What Royal house does she belong to and what religion is she 173.75.38.90 (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)