Talk:Victoria of the United Kingdom
|
|
| Missing image Cscr-featured.png Featured article star | Victoria of the United Kingdom is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute. |
Just a short note: In the paragraph begining: In 1872, Victoria endured her sixth encounter involving a gun. As she was dismounting a carriage, a seventeen-year old Irishman, Arthur O'Connor... should it not be As she was alighting from a carriage...?
I am curious as to general policy/copyright issues regarding coats of arms of monarchs. According to the article, the arms of Victoria are the same as those of the current Queen, Elisabeth II. So it would be trivial to obtain a picture of them. The question is, would that be legal, and if so, is there any reason not to include them along with heraldic description. Of course the same question applies to other British monarchs. --Ornil 22:15, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
An event mentioned in this article is a June 20 selected anniversary.
- An indirect cause of Albert's death was the irresponsible behaviour of their eldest son, Bertie, the Prince of Wales.
The same vague statement is made on Bertie's page. However, on Albert's page it is said that Albert died from typhoid fever. How did Bertie contribute to this? AxelBoldt 13:49 Aug 29, 2002 (PDT)
Okay it's an old question but nobody answered it so... 1. Albert is not feeling well. 2. Bertie is at college 3. Bertie has woman trouble which makes its way into the scandal sheets. 4. This reflects badly on the Royals, so Albert heads for Cambridge to tell him off. 5. The weather is awful on the way back and Albert is soaked. 6. Albert takes to his bed. 7. Within a couple of weeks Albert dies.
The details may be wrong so I'm not putting that in the article but the overall story is near enough what happened. -- Derek Ross 22:16, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Anyone have an opinion about the recent book questioning whether Victoria was legitimate? - user:Montrealais
The funny thing is, if it is true, both Albert and Victoria were not the descendants of royalty at all but the two groups most discriminated against in nineteenth century Europe: he the son of his mother's jewish lover, she the daughter of an Irish soldier and Private Secretary to her mother, Sir John Conroy.
One problem exists however with the thesis. A key but of evidence is that no descendant of Queen Victoria suffered from the illness experienced by George III (I'm too tired to remember how to type it now). The author of the book of QV goes through all the evidence and cannot find it. The trouble is, one royal did have it. Princess Margaret revealed some time ago that the late Prince Richard of Gloucester, her first cousin, had though not its madness, one key symptom, painful skin discolouration. If he had it, and it did not appear in his mother, grandmother or great-grandmother's family, it can only have come through the male heirs of Queen Victoria, which means she has to have been the daughter of the Duke of Kent, as Conroy had no such illness anywhere in his family. Similarly, new ilnesses that Victoria had and which supposedly proved she was Conroy's daughter, did not exist in Conroy's family either and the likes of hæmophilia is passed on the female line, not the male, so it would have come from her mother irrespective of who was Victoria's father. So all in all it is an interesting theory but just doesn't hold enough water to be convincing. The revelation that Princess Margaret years before had confirmed that Prince Richard of Gloucester had George III's illness pretty much holed the claims below the water-line. ÉÍREman
- New analysis shows that while haemophilia is passed on through the female line, it is more likely to originate in the damaged sperm of elderly men. This too indicates that Kent was more likely to have been Victoria's father than Conroy. -- Derek Ross 22:21, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I don't think it's universally agreed that she had a surname. It's certainly clear she didn't use one, and I would argue giving it in the first sentence as if she did is not a good idea. -- Someone else 04:08 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
It may not be universally agreed that she had a surname, but in fact she did, and it was Wettin. When some months ago I was checking what the current Prince of Wales' surname is, I spoke to some historians and people in the palace. During the conversations I was told about how when Princess Anne was getting married and the Palace had to post the Banns outside the BP gates, they had to do some researching to find out what the surname was. (It turned out to be Mountbatten-Windsor since an Order-in-Council issued in 1960!). I was then told "it was a bit like the time that Queen Victoria became curious and had her aides check out her surname. She was none too pleased when they reported that according to the research, Prince Albert's surname, and hence her own, was an awful word Wettin. Needless to say, Her Majesty was none too pleased and tried to bury then information in the Royal Archives. But her staff talked and so she never could completely bury it. Someone Mrs. Wettin, or even Vicky Wettin, doesn't sound very regal, does it. Makes her sound like a nightnurse in an old folks home". (At that point my source and I both went into fits of hysterics and I stopped taking notes!)
So yes, according to this very well informed source in a place to know, she was Wettin, just as Charles is Mountbatten-Windsor and where we know a royal surname, naming conventions say to put it in. ÉÍREman 04:37 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
- Again, I don't doubt your story, but having a surname and not knowing what it is (Victoria thought it might have been "Guelf") until a committee determines it for you in adulthood seems remarkably like not having a surname. A discussion of the issue of having a surname belongs in the article, but "Wettin" should not appear in the first line. -- Someone else 04:41 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
Well, seems Wettin does sound awful to english ears - let me assure you, there is nothing of that to my german ears, just a normal name. To be exact, the name of the [german] dynasty reigning Saxony.
It sounds pretty normal to English ears too. Perhaps that was the problem: Victoria thought that it was a bit too normal, common even <grin>. -- Derek Ross
| Contents |
Indirect footnote
Why does footnote 2 redirect the reader to footnote 3? "Please see footnote 3" --Menchi 19:01 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Victorian
This article says nothing about the Victorian era. This article needs to discuss the era, and Victoria's influence or non-infuence on the Victorian mores and standards. Kingturtle 22:05, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Victoria as a city in Hong Kong
Contrary to what listed in most world maps in print, no one in Hong Kong refers the urban area in the North Part of Hong Kong Island as 'Victoria'. For decades, it has been merely called as the 'Hong Kong Island' or simply the 'Island'. The name 'Victoria' is not used in any government publication for decades as well.
On the other hand, there are two major places in Hong Kong that are named after Victoria and these names are still in common uses. The first on is the Victoria Park, which is the Hyde Park of Hong Kong. The second one is the Victoria Harbor, which is one of the busiest harbor in the world.
I propose the line 'a Hong Kong city' to be changed as 'the Hong Kong harbor'.
Reformat
I refreshed this page by giving a more clear opening paragraph, with Victoria's regal title at death as the first line. She never used the surname Wettin, and it is not quoted in any offical source, so it remains in the footnotes. Her father and mother added to opening paragraph, as is her birth and death and cornoation dates. I also set out her children in a table to make it more readable. Astrotrain.
I reverted the change. There is a standard agreed structure applied to all royalty on wikipedia. The changes made completely abandoned the agreed structure for a unique one. As to Wettin, it is quoted in the Royal Archives as being the surname she would have if she was a commoner: she had asked her advisers as to what her surname was. It clearly wasn't Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, which was a Royal House name, not a surname. As there was a long standing demand of some on wikipedia that that surnames of royalty be included and that was agreed to, her surname goes at the top with the article beginning with personal name, surname and life-dates followed by regal details. That is the agreed format used throughout wikipedia and has to be followed here also. FearÉIREANN 20:03, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
There is no agreed format in wikipedia for anything, that is why you can edit it at will. I don't know why you think the current revision is appropiate given that it is full of gossip, speculation and matter of facts. British monarchs don't have surnames, only a royal style as my article change highlighted. Wettin has never ever been officaly or unofficaly used by the British Royal Family. Victoria could never have gained this name as she married as a Queen and thus had her name and style decided by law. This article is a waste of space and should be reverted. Even my change to make the information on her children more readable has been changed back (I didn't even change the data, just put it in a table!). My revision was superior!!! Astrotrain
You might not have noticed but wikipedia is not an amateur scribble box but a credible source. You obviously don't know it (or think it does not apply uniquely to you) but there are a set of agreed structures on wikipedia, covering everything from the recording of biographical details (name, surname birthdate, deathdate) to the form of language (American English or British English) used here, from the usage of pictures (their layout and issues to do with copyright) to the recording of footnotes, the format for dates, spelling and capitalisation, etc etc. A large scale debate took place on wikipedia on the whole issue of royal pages, involving large numbers of contributors from around the world. A format for articles was agreed by overwhelming consensus. It is immaterial how good, bad or indifferent your preferred structure is. It broke all the agreed conventions on wikipedia for these pages and ignored all the work of hundreds of others on royal pages throughout wikipedia. The rules apply to everyone, even you and were simply reverted to follow the standard layout that is applied to hundreds of royal pages throughout this encyclopaedia, pages which large numbers of people spent many weeks redesigning to follow the agreed consensus structure.
You are factually incorrect regarding Wettin, about royal nomenclature and much else. Royalty do actually have surnames. According to Buckingham Palace and Clarence House, for example (who confirmed this to wikipedia when the debate on how to cover royal nomenclature was going on), the Prince of Wales' surname is Mountbatten-Windsor. The fact that that was his surname was shown in the banns published at the time of his marriage to Diana. The Princess Royal, the Duke of York and the Earl of Wessex all also used that surname in their banns. Queen Victoria asked her Private Secretary to clarify for her what her marital surname was. Given she would not normally use it she didn't know but was curious. The Private Secretary, after exhaustive research and consulting with members of Prince Albert's family and court, reported that Albert's surname, and hence her marital surname, was Wettin, with Saxe Coburg Gotha the Royal House name. It is that simple. FearÉIREANN 19:00, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think if you look at the various pages for all the different royality on wikipedia, I think you will find that the structuring on titles, styles etc varies considerably. Wikipedia is supposed to give factual information, and not your opinion on what Victoria's surname is or was, based on material which is not in the public domian. Anyway, my change was not to remove the surname ascertion, but to make the opening paragraph of this article more co-herent and clear with more factual information than the rabble which currently inhabits it. At the end of the day this article is badly written. It gives far to much weight to conspiracy theories and gossip and tells little of Victoria's life and background. I guess tittle tattle on whether she is illegitimate or was having sexual relations with John Brown is more important than factual, non-biased and reliable information. Astrotrain
Bastardy and biological parentage.
I've removed thisWere it ever proven that Victoria was not fathered by the Duke, then Ernst August, the eldest son of Ernst August of Hanover, the current head of the House of Hanover, would become ruler of Great Britian. (As Ernst August is married to the Catholic Princess Caroline of Monaco, he is removed from the line of succession, as per the Act of Settlement 1701)., because it's wrong. There's no mechanism for changing the occupant of the throne based on biological parentage of a long-dead successor. Further, the notion confuses "legitimacy" with "biological parentage": proving that Victoria had a different biological father would do nothing to affect the fact that, under law, the Duke was her father. - Nunh-huh 00:31, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This "footnote" has been contributed by User:66.248.20.70 whose other contributions you'll soon notice center on Wayne Gretsky and Caroline of Monaco. The Duke of Wellington never saw any such thing. An irresponsible joke by an Anon. Wetman 00:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- In this case, at least, it's a frequent piece of misinformation, usually peddled by hack writers so they can get a good headline about who "really" is the "King of England". (An Australian dock worker "if" Edward IV were a bastard, the son of an oafish public urinater "if" Victoria were a bastard, etc.) They trade on the ignorant supposition that it is biology rather than law and contingent history that dictates the occupant of the throne. - Nunh-huh 01:04, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Victoria's Prime Ministers
Aside from her dachsunds, perhaps a list of the Prime Ministers who actually ruled Britain during Victoria's reign might be thought necessary in this entry. I hesitate to enter one and see it reverted by some amateur genealogist however. Wetman 00:43, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If I wanted to know what British prime ministers there were during Victoria's reign I would go to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom page, not to a personal biograph page of Queen Victoria. In any case, prime minsiters do no rule Britain, the Crown, Parliament and the Legal system do, with Parliament, the ultimate sovereign. Astrotrain
Surname
I know we don't have a surname in British monarchs' articles any more, but I thought here would be the most appropriate place to bring this up: on the subject of "Wettin", Cokayne's Complete Peerage (generally regarded as one of the most authoritative works on these sorts of things, but out of print for decades) gives the surname of Victoria's sons as "von Wettin", which certainly make sense, given that it was a noble German name, and they generally have a "von". (Incidentally, it also gives the surnames of the Hanoverian Royals as "d'Este", as opposed to the usual "Guelph", on the grounds that "Guelph" is in that case the equivalent of "Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" here - the name of the House but not the actual surname.) I wondered what people thought of this, since as far as I'm aware we do put surnames on the minor Royals' articles. Proteus (Talk) 16:22, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Introduction
I am not keen on the introduction of this article. It is far too long, and waffles a bit. I already tried to shorten it, but Lord Emsworth reverted citing the cut as "improper", which is of course untrue, as it was a valid edit that enhanced the article Astrotrain 18:43, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- It is only two paragraphs - while they are long, I struggle a little to see what you could cut out without losing something important (the double reference to Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, possibly?). Which bits do you think are waffle? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:55, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- The paragraphs may be somewhat long, but I do not think that they are too extensive. The removal was indeed improper, as the justification offered was that the table of contents could not be seen, which is untrue, at least on my monitor. -- Emsworth 19:03, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I believe that Astrotrain took a radical solution, but to a REAL problem. It IS too long, and far obscures the T.O.C. on my machines. The parenthetical comments and the cute but goofy stuff about the stamp and the railway don't belong in the "lead paragraph" of an encyclopedia article. I wish they had been but relocated ... instead of bumped.Sfahey 19:35, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I think that the introduction only needs to say:1st para she was Queen of UK, last British monarch of House of Hanover; longest reigning; first to use Empress of India title. 2nd: say her reign was period of British Emprire expansion and Industrial Revolution. There is no need to say the comments about Prince ALbert, and assumptions on which PM she liked. Sorry if I deleted items people thought should have been moved, but I thought the political waffle was refered to elsewhere. Stamp and railway comments could be moved to Legacy Astrotrain 21:16, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Would also suggest that assisination attempts be merged into the one section, to make better reading. Astrotrain 21:16, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I disagree on this latter proposal (but agree on your first suggestion); the whole information of her life, I believe, is best presented in chronological order. The effects of the attempts on her general life may be thus observed. -- Emsworth 22:12, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- mmmm, it is reasonable to observe events in chronological order, however the marriage section of the article is dominated by an assisination attempt paragraph. I'll try and trim intro again, to see if it suits this time Astrotrain 14:35, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- This change is fine; I have made only one change: I have put the information on her royal House into its own sentence. -- Emsworth 14:59, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"20 June, 1837"?
Certainly the British import words and locutions from France faster than we LeftPondians do, but have they actually now ceased to regard writing "20 June" instead of "June 20" to constitute writing in something approaching French? Would they therefore consider it inappropriate for me to change "20 June" to "June 20" on the grounds that this is the English-language Wikipedia rather than the French one? Michael Hardy 01:04, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- 20 June 1837 (no comma) is probably now the most common form in the UK. 22:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Post 1880 election
I'm reluctant to make changes on this whilst the article is featured so want to check this bit:
Lord Beaconsfield's administration fell in 1880, and the Liberals returned to power. Attempting to keep Gladstone from returning to office, the Queen offered leadership of the ministry to Spencer Cavendish, Marquess of Hartington. Lord Hartington declined the opportunity, and Victoria could do little but appoint Gladstone Prime Minister.
Or alternatively Victoria invited the leader of the Liberals in the Commons - at this point there was no undisputed "Leader of the Liberal Party" as none of the official leaders in the Commons and Lords were current or former PMs so Victoria could ask either of them. Gladstone was just a former PM who was still campaigning in nominal retirement. To have automatically invited him just because he was more popular in the country and had been very prominent in the election would have been the equivalent of Elizabeth II inviting Enoch Powell to become PM in 1970.
Also can I suggest we retitle the section to either "Gladstone and Disraeli" (the most common form by which the pair are linked together) and incorporate all of their overlap or change it to something more appropriate for the politics of 1876-1886. Timrollpickering 03:19, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Redundancy
Seems like the second to last paragraph of "Early Life" and the first paragraph of "Early Reign" are somewhat redundant:
On June 20, 1837, King William IV died of liver failure. The Archbishop of Canterbury and the head of the royal househould (the Lord Chamberlain) advised the 18-year old, four foot eleven inch Victoria that she was now Queen of England. The Privy Council confirmed her accession immediately with several members noting that her accession would forever separate the crowns of Britan and Hanover since the Hanover kingdom's Salic law would not allow a woman to reign.
This contains much of the same information as
William IV died of liver disease at the age of 67 on 20 June 1837, leaving the Throne to Victoria. As the young Queen had just turned eighteen years old, no Regency was necessary. By Salic law, no woman could rule Hanover, a realm which had shared a monarch with Britain since 1714. Thus, Hanover went not to Victoria, but to her uncle, Ernest Augustus. As the young Queen was as yet unmarried and childless, Ernest Augustus was also the heir-presumptive to the British Throne.
corrections
A couple of stylistic corrections. Throne is not capitalised except when referring to the Speech from the Throne. Queen similarly is not capitalised except in the context where it is being used with a name or title. So Queen of the United Kingdom, but The queen observed that . . . ". Personally I think both these rules suck, but they are now the standard capitalisation forms used internationally (I've just had to deal with two editors, one American and one British, both of whom insisted on changing all by upper cases to modern publication styles that lowercased things). Professional editors would savage this article for its chronic overcasing of things.
Also wikipedia policy is not to include titles within a link. So it is Sir Robert Peel, not Sir Robert Peel.
Wikipedia also decided long ago not to use styles in articles. So people should not be referred to as HM/HRH/HSH/HIM etc.
Also can we please cut out the archaic language like 'beget' etc. It is one thing to use varying forms of english (gaol is still used widely, particularly in British english, hiberno-english and in other commonwealth locations) but 'beget' isn't.
Also - given the size of the article it is ridiculous to keep talking about King so and so. It is adding more size to an oversized article. Publications don't do that. They call someone King 'x' once, then simply say 'x' (often not even including an ordinal) the rest of the time.
This is a very good article. But it needs professional editing and wikifying badly. FearÉIREANN 10:05, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I can accept most of your points, but the first two are just plain wrong. "Queen" (along with all such titles) is capitalised in British English style when it refers to a specific queen (thus "the Queen announced that she wanted a new palace" but "queens regularly live in palaces"; "the Duke put on his coronet and robes" but "dukes often wear coronets to dinner"; "the Prime Minister lives in 10 Downing Street" but "constitutional monarchies often have prime ministers"). And it is current longstanding practice to put "Sir" inside links - the reason it's so often absent is that it's easier to type Sir [[John Smith]] than [[John Smith|Sir John Smith]]. Just look at the succession tables at the bottom of most British politicians' articles - "Sir" is always inside the link (plus it looks ugly outside it). (As to the styles, they're out of place in running text not due to Wikipedia policy (which doesn't comment on the matter) but because it's stylistically inappropriate to have full styles there - for the same reason that it's better to write "Lord Longford" than "Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford", it's better to write "the Duke of Kent" than "HRH The Prince George, Duke of Kent". Proteus (Talk) 11:27, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I wish I was wrong but unfortunately I am not. I much prefer doing as you you but it is simply wrong. Modern international english doesn't capitalise that way. For example, I wrote about Prince Harry's latest bit of lunacy for a British broadsheet last week. Every Prince (except in Prince Harry or Prince of Wales/Prince Charles) was typeset as prince. Queen in all housestyles is now queen unless referring to a monarch's name. So it is Queen Elizabeth but the British queen. For example -
Queen Elizabeth is briefed by her prime minister once a week.
The queen is briefed by her prime minister once a week.
Stuff I write about politics (whether in the media or academically) follow house styles which in turn follow the leading style guides. Editors invariably use US president George Bush, Irish president Mary McAleese etc. The only time president is capitalised is when the full title is used. So it is US president George Bush but President Bush or President of the United States. Similarly it is the President of Ireland but Irish president. And prime minister is capitalised only when written with the definite article and the office-holder's name. So in newspaper housestyles
According to information, the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, swims naked in the Thames every Tuesday morning.
According to information prime minister Tony Blair swims naked in the Thames every Tuesday morning.
As to including titles in the link, I did put honorifics inside the link when I started but there was an overwhelming consensus when the naming conventions were being designed (I was one of the group of people doing it) that they should always be put outside and all links that were inside were then systematically removed by a team of people over a couple of weeks. If they are being put inside then that is contrary to the consensus agreement and I guess they'll have to be removed again.
As to styles, they are simply should not be used ever. The reason is simple. Many people (ludicrously) claimed that they were POV. In other words that saying His Holiness for the pope or the dalai lama was expressing an opinion on their holiness, that Her Majesty was suggesting that a particular queen was majestic, that calling the Prince of Wales His Royal Highness was accepting that he was high and mighty, etc. Or that calling the Prince of Monaco His Serene Highness was reaching a judgment on whether he was serene or not. Personally I think the argument a heap of garbage, but there were endless rows. In addition some Europeans came on who downed out articles in over-the-top use of styles, along the lines of His Majesty the King of Outer Walrus met Her Royal Highness the Princess of the Rock, at a party given by Her Serene Highness the Princess of Lyon and her husband, His Royal Highness the Prince of Lyons. They had three children: His Royal and Imperial Highness, the Archduke . . . "
All attempts to explain (principally it must be said to Americans) that using a style is not expressing a judgment or a POV but simply using a traditional form of language, have failed and have produced ridiculous edit wars. So to avoid this and irritating readers also who would make such a nonsensical interpretation, styles simply do not feature in text. Also, if you use styles for monarchs, why not for all heads of state - eg, His Excellency President Jacques Chirac. Call clergymen Most Reverend and Right Reverend, call the PM of Canada the Honourable, call aristocrats His Grace the . . . etc. It is impossible and unworkable and not worth the hassle it creates. Styles are as a result not used in text and should only feature in a paragraph in the article which states that 'the formal style used for 'x' is such and such'. FearÉIREANN 15:50, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'm well aware of the debates over style, but there is certainly no policy saying what you say (in fact, everyone claiming this recently has been ridiculed). As for "consensus" over the other issues, it's safe to say that consensus has changed since the first debates took place, and de facto policy is now to include "Sir" in links. And as for "house styles", The Times certainly capitalises "Prince" (for example, from their style guide, "Prince William at first mention, thereafter simply William (or for variation the Prince, if not ambiguous); similarly, Prince Harry at first mention, thereafter simply Harry (or for variation the Prince, if not ambiguous)"), and as for other titles: "capitalisation: in general, the proper names of people and places, formal titles or titles of important offices, and the names of well-known and substantial institutions, all require capitals. As a rule of thumb, cap specifics (eg, the French Foreign Minister), but l/c non-specifics (eg, EU foreign ministers)", "Prime Minister: cap for every country, but only in reference to a specific person, eg, "Tony Blair said that ? the Prime Minister said that ? "; "Margaret Thatcher was the Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990".", "President (of any country, also President of the European Commission), cap at first and all subsequent mentions when used as a variation for a specific person, eg, "George W. Bush said that ? the President said that ? "; "Richard Nixon was the President until 1974".". Proteus (Talk) 17:31, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I've been doing some research. Some examples from other British newspapers:
- Still with Harry, let's be grateful for the perspective provided by the mother of one of his brainiac friends. Vanda Pelly is incredulous that her son Guy's decision to dress as the Queen for the same critically misunderstood "colonials and natives" party has invoked tutting in some corners."It certainly wasn't disrespectful to dress as the Queen," she told yesterday's Daily Mail in exasperation. "No more disrespectful than for a white man to dress as a black man." Mother Pelly, you've been very kind. (The Guardian, today)
- His tastes are obviously shared by another member of the Highgrove set - or Club H as they call themselves, after the cellar at Highgrove where Prince Charles allowed them to meet: Guy Pelly went to last week's party dressed as none other than the Queen. (The Independent, Sunday)
- Seventy years of seafaring have been linked as, amid fanfares and fireworks, the Queen officially named the Queen Mary 2. (The Daily Mail, 10 days ago)
- Hardy Amies, the once-grand couture house that dressed the Queen, is moving from Ofex to Aim this week in the latest step... (The Financial Times, 8 days ago)
- And I still haven't seen one example of "the queen". Proteus (Talk) 23:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)