Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Princess Charlotte of Wales/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 14:47, 15 September 2010.

Princess Charlotte of Wales

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. Princess Charlotte. One of the tragic episodes of British history. Second in line to the throne and almost certainly Queen of England had she lived. After a rather dramatic adolescence in which her father, the Prince Regent (later George IV) tried to force her into a marriage with a Dutch prince, she married for love, to the impoverished Prince Leopold of Saxe-Gotha-Saalfeld. After a year and a half of happy marriage, she did not live happily ever after, but died after giving birth to a stillborn son, setting off a wave of mourning in Britain comparable only to the death of Princess Diana. Not only that, her death left King George III with no legitimate grandchildren, and set off a mad rush to the altar by her bachelor uncles, which eventually resulted in the birth and succession of Queen Victoria. In lieu of PR, I asked Dr.Kiernan, one of our best when it comes to British Royalty, to review it. It's a rather unusual story, do enjoy it.Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. There is a redirect that points back, but I probably fixed it. Ucucha 22:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I couldn't figure out where that was.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I did fix it, it seems. Always those navboxes. Ucucha 22:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—2c good. Plowden, p. 187 "and the P.R. should have been an authority on the subject" ought to incorporate the quote in the main body, or indicate that this is an extension of the quote.  1c: can you assure us you've exhausted the most appropriate literature?  (Preliminary searching reveals you're exhausted scholarly works, but Museum of London appears to have done a curated catalogue of her dress?) Fifelfoo (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think so. I poked around looking for good angles on what is very much a twice-told tale, didn't come up with anything earthshattering.  This is a purely historical article, there is no question of her leaving any sort of a legacy.  Very little requiring interpretation.  All the book sources told the story very similarly.  I don't think her dress should be in a survey article :)--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm ashamed to say I didn't know who she was when I read the article title.
 * "selected the Brunswick Princess sight unseen" Rephrase?
 * I'm uncertain as to whether your objection is to "Brunswick Princess" or "sight unseen". On the first point, I am trying to disambiguate between two German princesses, and also trying to avoid using Caroline's name twice in one sentence.  I'd like to keep "Brunswick Princess".  I care less about "sight unseen", although it is a quick and shorthand method of making it clear that the two had not met.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was "sight unseen" I wasn't sure about. J Milburn (talk) 11:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "to fetch her from Brunswick to Britain" Can you fetch to somewhere?
 * "had sex only three times, and that the Princess had commented on how large his penis was" If ever I'd read some evidence that celebrities were the new royalty...
 * Georgian England was rather bawdy by the standards of Victorian England.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Forty years later, Keppel, by then Earl of Albemarle would" Comma after "Albemarle"?
 * "George's parents's" Now, that's not right :P
 * Rephrased to avoid the awkwardness and ambiguity.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Whig leader, the Earl Grey." Spell out full name?
 * "she was to sit in back of the box" Rephrase?
 * In the William of Orange picture's caption, could we perhaps have a link?
 * "and abused both her and Gloucester" What I read here isn't what you meant, let's put it that way.
 * Who's the other woman on the picture of the meeting? Who's the little gnome poking his head around the door?
 * "interested in Prince Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia, and" Not at all keen on links to the German Wikipedia. If we don't have an article, have a redlink. Redlinks are not a bad thing.
 * I'm not sure I agree. At least we are directing the reader to some information.  There are a lot of Prince Friedriches from this era.  In fact, this one was often referred to as "Prince August", no doubt to disambiguate him from the others.  I think it is a handy way of pinning down who we are talking about, and google translate does wonders.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with J Milburn; a red link would be better than a link to other Wikipedia. We shouldn't assume that a reader understands German; Polish Wikipedia and Russian Wikipedia have articles that are only insignificantly shorter than German Wikipedia's. There is surely a great number of readers who would prefer Polish or Russian to German. Anyway, I'll attempt to translate the article from those Wikipedias and will also try to find English language sources. I'd be honoured to do anything that would somehow improve this fabulous article. Surtsicna (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks on both counts, yes if you could start at least a stub, I'll link there in preference and the reader can look for more information on the other languages list if he desires. Just let me know the title and I'll switch over to the link, or do it yourself if you like.  Thanks for the praise, but it isn't me, it is Charlotte, her personality just shines through from the quotes.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done - Prince Frederick William of Prussia. Surtsicna (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "a condition sure to be unacceptable to the Prince Regent" The Prince Regent being her father? Presumably, Orange opposed because he did not want to offend Charlotte's father? Just trying to follow the article.
 * Yes, if I just call him "George" all the time, a reviewer will object, so I mix it up with his title, and it has been mentioned that George is now Prince Regent.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "including the Duke of York" Who's this precisely? I assume it's already been mentioned, but there are so many people.
 * "Tory Prime Minister, Lord Liverpool, in" Again, full name?
 * "She had asked to go to fashionable Brighton, but the Prince Regent refused, sending her instead to Weymouth." That's an absolutely brilliant line.
 * "a friend" Who? A servant?
 * "a Russian princess" Again, name?
 * I figured naming her would slow down the flow of text, thus the pipe. I will put the name in, but personally I find that six-barrel names slow down text, especially when people are known by shorter names (i.e., Earl Grey or Lord Liverpool).  However, I will put them in and get your views as to which way is better.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The engraving of the wedding doesn't really fit where you placed it. Perhaps a nice portrait of Leopold? Alternatively, perhaps shuft it down and to the left?
 * "and (an authority in such things) told" What does that mean? It comes across as a little sarcastic...
 * As both you and Fifelfoo comment on this, plainly this is a problem and I'll delete it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "husband, "Doucement"." Lose the comma?
 * "According to Plowden," Sorry, who's he?
 * Plowden and her book are mentioned earlier. I added "in her book" to remind the reader that she is a Charlotte biographer.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "bleeding and breathing with difficulty" Bleeding with difficulty, or just plain bleeding?
 * "of ribbons and other fancy goods petitioned the government to shorten the period of mourning, fearing they would otherwise go bankrupt." Howso?
 * "Although the Duke did not live to see it" The Duke being Victoria's father?
 * Sorry- on the family tree, what does "(=16)" and such mean?
 * I did not add that, and they are common to many royalty articles, including FAs, see Ernest Augustus I of Hanover. The numbers, I believe, are so that when 2 or more are the same in these inbred families, it can simply say Martin, Prince of Uggs-on-Rhein (same as 22).--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A stunning read, a fascinating (and highly important) topic and well researched. Once these few minor points are resolved, I'd be happy to support. J Milburn (talk) 10:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The reflist should probably be placed into two/three columns.
 * Many thinks for the praise and the review. If I didn't address it above, it means I just implemented it.  Let me know what you think, and feel free to reply to my comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. J Milburn (talk) 11:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support after comments below resolved ok. Johnbod (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Comments by Johnbod. Generally looks good, but:
 * Pantalettes needs a link, but I've lost the place now - someone disapproved of her wearing them (visibly). Ok, found & done.
 * I don't know about these full links for aristocrats - I don't think this is normally done when they are rerasonably well known.
 * "the faith" link should go to Church of England not Anglicanism.
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't read through fully, but there seem to be links missing: Carlton House, London, possibly Hackney carriage (though that's not much use).
 * Already linked both in infobox and first line of "Girlhood". Since there is no material in Hackney carriage which deals with the horse drawn sort, I see no point to a link.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Various journalese dropped "the"s, for example in the caption to "the Sir Thomas Lawrence painting ...".
 * I have restored an article to that caption; I will look for others.

More later. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Caption:Funeral "of", not "for", I think, or just use possessive.
 * Where not commented on, changes made. Thanks for your comments, always good to hear from you.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (More Johnbod) "Prince George left most of Charlotte's care to governesses and servants, but only allowed her limited contact with Princess Caroline,.." - why "but"? More an "and".
 * "Charlotte soon broke off the match" sounds unidiomatic - it is engagements that are normally broken off.
 * "The attempted marriage had been ruled invalid as no attempt had been made to obtain consent from the King, George III, the Prince's father, in violation of the Royal Marriages Act 1772. " Too many commas, & GIII linked in previous section. At least one out of "the King, George III, the Prince's father" should go, maybe two.
 * "Before the wedding on 8 April 1795, George sent his brother William, Duke of Clarence (later William IV), to tell Mrs. Fitzherbert that she was the only woman he would ever love, then appeared for the ceremony, drunk." "appeared for" and ", drunk" are awkward: maybe: "Before the wedding on 8 April 1795, George sent his brother William, Duke of Clarence (later William IV), to tell Mrs. Fitzherbert that she was the only woman he would ever love, and was drunk at the ceremony."
 * I think the sharp ending of ", drunk" is a very effective means of ending that paragraph, which shows things off well. I'm happy to change "appeared for" though, or to discuss other phrasings.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "the decisions made for Charlotte's care." "about" or "over" better than "for", I think.
 * "The King, who was fond of Caroline, had refused to see her during the investigation; with the negative result, he again received her" - jerky, maybe: "The King, who was fond of Caroline, had refused to see her during the investigation, but began to receive again after the negative result."
 * "Her father was proud of her riding skill" - "horsemanship" is I think gender-neutral.
 * "The diplomats had no desire to see the two thrones united,2 - "politicians" - one might mention William and Mary.
 * That was probably in their minds, but the sources don't say so, so there's not much I can do about that one.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "while Charlotte summoned Whig officials" - "officials" sounds odd. Politicians, ministers, courtiers even.
 * Politicians is best, the Whigs were not in power and had no "officials", now that I think about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "the wedding participants had great difficulties in travel." "in travel" awkward.
 * "the couple was married." - certainly should be "were", imo. There may be an engvar difference here.
 * "when her medical team began care in August 1817" - "began care" may be the clinical term, but sounds odd.
 * One might mention that the uncle-dukes had not been allowed to marry before, not even to their mistresses.
 * They were perfectly allowed to marry, as long as the brides were "suitable", i.e. Protestant princesses. The Duke of York was married by then, and the Duke of Cumberland married in 1815.  However, the mistresses were not suitable.  I think that this is a bit much to put in Charlotte's article and if it is OK, I'd rather skip it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know that this was the Leopold who later became King of the Belgians, in which guise he is far better known, should be a last line plot twist. Stockmar's continuing, slightly sinister, role as advisor to Leopold and Victoria & Albert probably rates a short phrase at the end.
 * I have inserted a parenthetical about Stockmar's later role when I first mention him. I think the article ends well on the mention of Albert, who of course becomes a surrogate Leopold to Victoria's Charlotte.  It's a nice note to end on.  Despite the darkness after Charlotte's death, the world has renewed itself.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Generally a very nice read, & interesting story, completely new to me like, I expect, most people. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made various changes myself, as you may have seen. But please raise any you don't like.
 * I'm familiar with the story, but I've worked before in the late Hanoverian period. Some of the details were suprising to me when I got into the story.  Anyhoo, I've done all that stuff, except where I have commented otherwise.  Thanks for the thorough review.  I've written articles in American, Canadian, English, and Australian English, but sometimes the fine points trip me up.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support The article meets the criteria. My earlier comments were all addressed. On a minor point the Pakula reference looks a little out of place compared to the others; I'd just remove it, or keep it as a hidden comment. DrKiernan (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. I am indifferent as to whether it and the parenthetical stay or go.  But it was asked for by another reviewer, and it is not unreasonable.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Media review: all images are appropriately labelled and public domain. DrKiernan (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank Dr.Kiernan for not only supporting, but clearing up a little problem we were having about "which Prince Frederick" Charlotte was mooning over, apparently in Regency England, you couldn't throw a stone without hitting a Prince Frederick of Prussia, they were that thick on the ground.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Support: Previously, all I knew about Princess Charlotte I'd learned from Lytton Strachey's Queen Victoria, an excellent, racy book but perhaps not quite scholarly enough to be used as a source here. The article fills the story out nicely, and I can't offhand see any areas in need of improvement. Well done indeed. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strachey can only be used as an historiographical source; it was written before the publication of Victoria's diaries and letters and so is very out-of-date. Similarly, anything written about Charlotte before 1949 (the publication of her letters) must be considered from an historiographical perspective. The modern biographies are much better informed than anything written before the war, because since then a whole range of source material (both in British and Continental archives) has become available. DrKiernan (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I used nothing older than 1949; I did check old bios of Charlotte that are now PD to confirm a couple of quotes and search for some of the images which grace this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * Has this or which discuss her cause of death. Also this or this or this?
 * this is by sutton, which is usually a pretty decent publisher on history subjects. And has this been consulted on her relationship with her father? Actually have any biographies of her father been consulted? Likewise any biographies of her husband?
 * I'm not saying these necessarily WILL have anything, but several of the abstracts of the journal articles imply that there is some question about what exactly caused her death (beyond just "childbirth") so that may need to be covered a bit. I would also expect a bit of information from both her father and her husband's biographies to round out the biographies of the subject herself.
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Charlotte's postmortem was inconclusive, as was mentioned in the article. Since then, people have been merrily theorizing that anything from the flu to porphyria may have contributed to her death.  I did not feel it necessary to go into that depth.  Regarding the Van der Kiste book, no, I did not read that, but I read his book, George III's Children and did not choose to draw from it (I have found him to be sloppy on details).  I will review the other books and see if there is anything that can be usefully added.  Charlotte's life is a twice-told tale, and the four bios I read do not vary a great deal on how they tell the story.  Thank you for the comments, I will either comment back or add stuff to the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple of bits from Smith. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll leave these out for other reviewers to see and consider (although I'm satisfied). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.